Fields vs. Hackett - CD6, Fusion, etc.

[JX1]

On 3/13/2021 at 5:08 PM, silvrsvt said:

 

Approving an existing platform (Ranger) to be built in the US isn't anything special and was a reaction to GM doing well with its mid sized pickups...not to mention the pricing of full sized pickups skyrocketing allowed room for it. Gas prices where $4 a gallon back in 2013/14 time frame and no was expecting them to drop as low as they did for the past 5 years or so. They also had no place to build it til they freed up MAP after getting rid of the Focus. 
 

The only reason the Bronco is coming back is because Ford decided bring in the Ranger and invest heavily into the next gen to make more appealing to US customers. 

I see a hole in that argument, as the decision was still made for the Ranger and effort as taken as well. The Bronco return didn't come out of thin air, as he made it come to fruition.

 

Why is it that back in 2016 under his leadership, Bronco was already earmarked for MY 2021, Job 1 in early summer of 2020, with a launch date of late summer 2020?

 

Design work began under him with mostly the same targets, which were fully realized in the end. He didn't stop any aspect of Bronco, yet what one reads here at times acts as if Hackett came in on his white horse and changed it from a bland Everest convertible into what it is now.

 

Hackett kept things moving along--great--and reenvisioned the C727 into the Mach E, but I don't buy a lot of what I am reading, when a lot of what actually transpired contradicts it.

On 3/13/2021 at 6:11 PM, akirby said:

Cancelling CD6 and letting Fusion rot on the vine (before the market started to tank) is what most people remember about Fields.

I'm not certain I believe that at all, as the greater modularity of CD6 was canceled most certainly in mid-2017 upon Hackett taking charge.

 

S650 took its current form in May 2017 and abandoned a CD6 basis in favor of reuse.

 

Saying something like that, when a lot of evidence might point to the contrary is questionable. The Fusion didn't rot on the vine either, because by early 2017, it was 4.5 years old and at that point next to none of you here, made any mention of such a thing.

 

The real story was, a lot of cuts to boost the stock price were made under the new leadership of Jim Hackett. That included canceling the Fusion, which might have not been his choice alone. Plus Focus.

 

I do blame Fields for trying to move the Focus to Mexico and belatedly caving into Trump's politicking by changing it to China so last minute. Ultimately anything sedan related for USDM, died under Hackett.

 

By comparison, Fields was trying to buy time and pushed back a new Fusion into CY 2020. I honestly would like proof of the cancellation of CD6, when Ford was testing these vehicles during the said period in and around Dearborn, as well as Colorado.

 

Hackett did a lot of good things, but it all didn't originate under him nor did all the blunders magically happen before his tenure. A whole Bronco program just doesn't happen in less than 3.5 years.

 

The final design for the Bronco was defined in July 2018, some 14 months after Fields left, meaning a lot of planning started in and overlapped with his tenure.

 

So much here has turned into possible opinionated hearsay and gossip, that it comes across as slanted and rather unfair. I couldn't give a damn about the man personally, but I like to see things be a bit more balanced.

 

On 3/13/2021 at 8:56 PM, slemke said:

Fields seemed to be an all or nothing ceo.  There were some great niche products (GT). And many forgettable also rans (500/Montego, focus, fusion,crown Vic,escape, explorer, expedition).  Without the specialty performance models, the lineup was forgettable and relied on the dealers to push the product.  Technology followed what others cashed in on.  Ford exclusive features were dropped (keyless entry keypad) thinking it didn’t matter to customers.  Warranty claims were up.

 

Big Al changed that.  Vehicles needed to be desirable, lead in technology and have best in class attributes.  That thinking brought us the 3.5L EB, 5.0 coyote, 2010 fusion hybrid, aluminum F150, etc.

 

when Fields got back to the corner office it was more of the same from 2001-2005.  Rely on past success to hide the cost cutting on a bunch of mediocre products.  As long as it wasn’t dead last, it was considered good enough.

 

Hacket went back to the formula of creating desirable products.  Unfortunately it was a rushed effort with many bumps along the way.  Explorer launch among the worst.  Hopefully Farley will build upon the success and smooth out the bumps.  Ford isn’t a low cost producer.  They need to deliver top notch products to maintain a volume premium status to remain profitable.

Huh? Very well written, but a lot those cars involved Jacques Nasser, Bill Ford, and Mulally at the helm, plus some of them Nasser's predecessor LOL.

 

Fields was Bill Ford's sidekick during the early-mid 2000s after he left Mazda, but I can only imagine he had only so much say-so. Ford was really suffering during those post-Firestone days and Bill did what he could until Mulally came along in late 2006.

 

I cannot give Hackett full credit for everything coming out today, because a lot of these programs already existed in 2014-2016. I can praise some of them for great final execution (Mach E), but it's obvious a few were dialed in well before May 2017 and yet he keeps getting high marks for them.

 

Just like I cannot give Fields credit for initiating any Ford programs in progress in 2012/13, yet didn't surface for a few years. The 2018 Expedition and Navigator were something Mulally had to commit to under his leadership, because they were almost getting the axe under him and being left to die, until around 2011ish, when the '15MY updates quietly entered planning and then the aluminum T3 U55x SUVs entered development in 2012.

 

A key final decision maker was Fields in 2014-15 on U55x and they were generally well lauded, even if too late to the party.

 

The investment in Lincoln brand is something that was championed by Fields above all, yet you would think he was AWOL during development of the current Navigator and all products launched post-2016 model year going off of the comments I have read here the past year, against Fields.

 

The Continental rename from D544 MKS was his own doing, even if the final design itself was mostly done before that.

 

On 3/14/2021 at 12:22 AM, rmc523 said:

 

Fields also paused several programs in anticipation of a downturn that never happened, leaving several critical products withering on the vine.  Explorer was lucky to not have declined with how long it was on the market.

 

I can agree with the bold, but it would be nice to have specifics and see if each model program matches that claim independently. The Fusion cancellation had nothing to do with him, yet I have that so many times in the past year, when the whole narrative was different 3-4 years earlier. Why is it so convenient to smear someone's legacy well after they are gone, just because a lot of nice products are now coming to surface?

 

I understand that many live and breathe Ford not only personally, but professionally. However I see so many contradictions here, it defies logic and reality of what I have observed carefully.

 

Fields was NOT responsible for the decision under Al, to drag out the U502's MCA to MY 2016. That was a whole 4.5 to 5 years after market launch in December 2010. Those MCA changes were set in 2013, according to the team responsible and went on sale in 2H 2015.

 

That wasn't Field's fault, because an early 2019 Job 1 for the U625 was already February 4, 2019 as of September 2016. We started seeing CD6 mules for it in October 2016.

 

They kept testing into the same week that Fields was "talked to" in May 2017 and then resigned mysteriously. In my observation, he never canceled the CD6 Explorer and if he did, he certainly got it moving again before he left Ford.

 

Or are you all telling me, that Ford will randomly test mechanical mules wearing pre-MCA pieces in deep camouflage and sheathing for the heck of it?

 

None of these claims existed back in 2017-18, yet now show up in retrospect 3-4 years later. I call that revisionist history, forgetful memories, or something not being communicated clearly.

 

I am not even certain development of that new Explorer ever stopped. In fact, the belated MCA for 2016 and the sheer amount of big changes meant, it warranted at least a 3 year run through late 2018/early 2019. Job 1 was May 6, 2019, because Hackett made it happen over the last 23.5 months as CEO.

 

Unless Fields on the day he resigned in May 2017 magically canceled the CD6 Explorer as a parting gift (and Hackett restarted it a week later), I am not believing any of that. Maybe for other CD6 vehicles, but even so that still leans very Hackett with the timeline.

 

I am all about timelines telling the truth and not hearsay from years past.

 

On 3/14/2021 at 5:23 AM, jpd80 said:

And Fields had CD6 sedan on hold, choosing  to do Explorer first. 2016 was Field's final year, the wheels fell off

Ford's future product plans and Ford began questioning the business cases of many vehicles especially cars.

It was heartbreaking to see such a modest makeover for Fusion in 2015, it deserved one nice big final push 

with a change of sheet metal to keep it strong and fresh against Camry and Accord, those final five years 

could have been really something 

 

I greatly respect you jpd80, but I have to say for a long time you've been claiming the Fusion was updated in 2015 and it most definitely wasn't. It was updated for 2017 and entered production on April 4, 2016, launching around May or June 2016. Mondeo came even much later, due to the late CD391 launch in 2014 via Spain.

 

I really didn't like the Fusion MCA changes at all and hated the 2019MY even more, as the original car was beautiful and graceful looking, with some added punch. Field's final full year was 2016, but he was there through May 19, 2017. A full 4.5 months.

 

From CD622 (Zephyr?) to CD714, he made a lot of plans for CD6, especially for Lincoln. Mustang included. No one heard anything about a RWD Lincoln utility taking Explorer out of its D4 misery, until several months after he took the helm.

 

A lot of people here in retrospect, dismissed TTAC's tidbit as "farfetched" in 2014. In the end, they were right ironically enough and low and behold CD6 SUVs.

 

Alan for all of his great leadership, seemed ever so content to continue a reliance on D3/D4 or throw everything unibody on CD4, plus scrapped a new USDM Taurus on CD4 in April 2013. That wasn't really Fields' doing was it?

 

With all due respect, I keep seeing conflicting statements. Did Fields shutter and attempt to ruin CD6 utilities or did he hamper the car component, in favor of the utilities.

 

As far as I knew, he came up with too many plans which had questionable business cases, didn't motivate Wall Street, was indecisive and tried to stretch out a few products. As well as tried to come after Hinrichs vindictively over some issues, that he was shown the door.

 

All cancelations, such as the Fusion and Focus were rightfully blamed on Hackett. Taurus indirectly, as he didn't cancel its replacement, Mulally did.

On 3/14/2021 at 6:35 AM, fuzzymoomoo said:

Ah but it was also Fields that delayed CD6 Explorer (and CD6 in general really) by years until Hackett came in and pulled that program back and accelerated it (albeit a little too aggressively it turned out). 

Are we really sure he even did that, when that vehicle was in steady testing from 2016 to 2018? There are photos to prove it, but they don't really tell the whole story. What they do say is, something was in development both before, during, and after his resignation on the Explorer front.

 

Much of designs for these U6xx SUVs were completed in 2016 weren't they, so I don't see how these theories that he slowed it all down make sense? They were not seen in final spec until June 2018.

 

Here's a timeline:

 

October 2016 photos of CD6 Mule:

 

March 2017 Test Mule

 

April 2017 Test Mule

 

May 2017 Test Mules

 

 

August 22, 2017 Spy Shots

 

 

As you can see it was in consistent testing throughout 2017 (and there's even more into 2018), so where does this theory even come from that he halted anything Explorer? It was always end of 2018/early 2019 SOP since the days of Mulally, that even in 2016-17 it was still moving along. An explanation would help clear up why these were out and about, yet "no development" was happening. It's a waste of resources to be even doing that isn't it?

 

Between Fusion, Explorer, and Aviator I can't say I am convinced of what Fields did wrong there, outside of his temperament, corporate culture, and indecisiveness. The Fusion MCA was blander, even if the end product was good.

 

The product was coming (Bronco, Ranger, Aviator, Corsair), but everything needs time to be executed. Too much revisionist history or vague accusations, which becomes too much of a circle jerk and no longer open discussion.

Edited March 15, 2021 by JX1

[FR739]

15 minutes ago, JX1 said:

So much here has turned into possible opinionated hearsay and gossip, that it comes across as slanted and rather unfair. I couldn't give a damn about the man personally, but I like to see things be a bit more balanced.

Do you think Fields was just a fall guy for a lot of Mulallys mistakes?

[JX1]

18 minutes ago, FR739 said:

Do you think Fields was just a fall guy for a lot of Mulallys mistakes?

Yes, I do. Mulally's okaying of the decision to keep the Explorer unchanged for almost 5 years, bears the brunt of why it was so long in production against One Ford desires.

 

Not to mention moving it to D4 in the first place, but that is understandable in terms of how all of that came together in late 2007/early 2008.

Edited March 15, 2021 by JX1

[akirby]

The 2017 Fusion MCE wasn't even a MCE.   There were no obvious visual changes except for the rotary gear selector.  And everyone here panned them for it.  It should have gotten a lot more changes to stay competitive.   I think that was squarely on Fields.

 

You sound like you have inside info on CD6 Explorer so I'll respect that.  But we also had inside info that Fields put the kabash on CD6 and planned to extend D3 Explorer beyond 2021.  He was hoarding cash for a downturn that never came and products suffered.   Why else was he let go?

[fuzzymoomoo]

5 minutes ago, akirby said:

Why else was he let go?

His hair was a little too perfect? 

[92merc]

5 minutes ago, akirby said:

The 2017 Fusion MCE wasn't even a MCE.   There were no obvious visual changes except for the rotary gear selector. 

 

Umm, didn't they add that chrome strip across the rear lights at the same time?  That's how I can tell MCE vs. pre MCE.

[fuzzymoomoo]

33 minutes ago, JX1 said:

Are we really sure he even did that, when that vehicle was in steady testing from 2016 to 2018?

Had to be him, there's no way Hackett would have had the time to approve that very minor "refresh" for MY2019. 

[jpd80]

All I know is that in 2015 and again in 2016 there were several rounds of product reviews, all of that re-evaluating 

which vehicles that Ford was confident with and which were coming under question. So yeah, Fusion refresh was done

and  ready to go in late  2015 but delayed by review at that time until 2016. The wheels fell off for Ford and fields, lots of 

plans changed and changed with the announcement and cancellation of San Louis Potosi. 

 

And no, Fields didn't cancel or delay CD6 Explorer or Edge, Jim Hackett killed CD6 Edge, the poor sales of Continental and

waning Taurus sales sealed their fate, there was very little justification for CD6 cars in any form.

 

CD4 Taurus for North America was looked at but ultimately, North America chose to go long on D3 because of proposed CD6 

but then they reneged when car sales began fading. Kinda setting the stage for an outcome that Ford wanted, more utilities.

 

[fuzzymoomoo]

2 minutes ago, 92merc said:

 

Umm, didn't they add that chrome strip across the rear lights at the same time?  That's how I can tell MCE vs. pre MCE.

There's also a little cutout looking thing in the headlights and the grille changed shape slightly and went from being inset in the bumper cover to flush. I prefer the look myself.

 

MY2019/20 on the other hand the only thing that changed is the shape of the fog lights and the chrome bar changed to this: 

[JX1]

8 minutes ago, akirby said:

The 2017 Fusion MCE wasn't even a MCE.   There were no obvious visual changes except for the rotary gear selector.  And everyone here panned them for it.  It should have gotten a lot more changes to stay competitive.   I think that was squarely on Fields.

 

You sound like you have inside info on CD6 Explorer so I'll respect that.  But we also had inside info that Fields put the kabash on CD6 and planned to extend D3 Explorer beyond 2021.  He was hoarding cash for a downturn that never came and products suffered.   Why else was he let go?

LOL, it was that unnoticeable? I hated the ruination of the chiseled headlamps and the new tacky taillight treatment for the MCA. Only saving grace was Fusion Sport.

 

It was so cheesy and definitely among the first designs approved under both Moray Callum and Mark Fields being in charge. Under One Ford, both Alan Mulally and J Mays oversaw a nice Ford brand renaissance, which ended in 2016 with this ugly MCE and cartoony P558 Super Duty. Ugly 2018 F150 and Mustang followed. Luckily the '17 Raptor was unaffected.

 

 

[JX1]

29 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Had to be him, there's no way Hackett would have had the time to approve that very minor "refresh" for MY2019. 

For the Fusion, that was a very quick fix and felt very last minute. A running change like that can take 12-15 months to launch from final sign-off without major retooling (IIRC). Minor sheetmetal changes, feel like a 1 1/2 to 2 year affair from sign-off to Flat Rock/Wayne/Hermosillo?

 

I attributed that to Hackett, wanting to reduce complexity of CD391 since it was now a zombie car.

 

As for the 2018MY Explorer bumper refresh? Definitely Fields and not Hackett. It was mysterious to say the least, as CD6 mules were everywhere from fall 2016 to spring 2018. June 2018 debuted the real deal in camo, since launch was 1 year away and it was "safe" to show it off.

 

 

Ford has just never been able to wisely justify a sound business case for a company wide unibody RWD architecture since Fox in the 70s/80s.

 

The minute they set out to create the FWD DN5 in 1979 (for Taurus), it was just never the same and always seems to fail or get neutered so much, it isn't viable. MN12 didn't make the cut, nor did DEW98, and for the early-mid 2000s Global Rear Wheel Drive Architecture(?), and now CD6.

 

GE1 is about the only thing a little similar, but no sedans (yet).

[jpd80]

All the bucks spent reinventing the wheel, Ford NA could have just picked up Falcon/Territory and just americanised them or used them as a brownfield starting point. 
 

I bet Mulally wasn’t five seconds out the door in 2014 and Fields was changing everything around but then got scared in 2016 when everything changed and orange man started criticising Ford moving production to Mexico....

 

it’s like Fields got the yips and never recovered.

Edited March 15, 2021 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, JX1 said:

I see a hole in that argument, as the decision was still made for the Ranger and effort as taken as well. The Bronco return didn't come out of thin air, as he made it come to fruition.

 

Why is it that back in 2016 under his leadership, Bronco was already earmarked for MY 2021, Job 1 in early summer of 2020, with a launch date of late summer 2020?

 

Design work began under him with mostly the same targets, which were fully realized in the end. He didn't stop any aspect of Bronco, yet what one reads here at times acts as if Hackett came in on his white horse and changed it from a bland Everest convertible into what it is now.

 

Not really the case with the Bronco:

Ford also confirmed that both models will be built at its Michigan Assembly Plant in Wayne, Michigan. The Ranger will arrive for 2019, with the Bronco following in 2020. The two models are expected to be built on a shared body-on-frame platform, creating a midsize SUV and a midsize pickup. The Ranger is currently sold in other markets; we're likely to get the next-generation model when it arrives in the US.

 

https://www.autoblog.com/2017/01/09/ford-bronco-and-ranger-confirmed/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIvJ7RwyeLDntKLIZ6LGXaE4gDqtXEkIqpPhnWv5RY4MdegV4s93V2ooBCf8n9jgKly8f-bnPtJlZlrp9If0ffsoUjZ5MXeBn5UrW-4LZb9VOG68yCehZImyWL6Npm2A1xR6FBj11TjiUBc_BsUnd7QgRr1OWoqpgLGNFs4Cdy_Y

 

That was the 2017 Detroit Auto show.

 

According to the Bring Back Bronco Podcast, the Bronco wasn't officially greenlit til 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ANTAUS]

So one extreme it seems Ford makes some great platform, then left to rot thereafter.  Then Camry uses the same platform for what....? almost 2 decades or such, and some tweaks "here and there" and now they call it an all new platform.  And now the Chrysler 300 is like the "Panther", of the current times.  Stemming from the 95 E-Class....

[FR739]

2 hours ago, JX1 said:

Yes, I do. Mulally's okaying of the decision to keep the Explorer unchanged for almost 5 years, bears the brunt of why it was so long in production against One Ford desires.

 

Not to mention moving it to D4 in the first place, but that is understandable in terms of how all of that came together in late 2007/early 2008.

That’s always what I’ve thought.  I’m sure there were other things as well but Fields was barely there long enough to make substantial changes.  And his gut feeling of a downturn panned out wonderfully with the Covid hysteria.  He certainly was better suited for the job than the furniture salesman. 

 

2 hours ago, JX1 said:

LOL, it was that unnoticeable? I hated the ruination of the chiseled headlamps and the new tacky taillight treatment for the MCA. Only saving grace was Fusion Sport.

 

 

 

An entirely new front end, trunk lid, and interior changes.  I think that’s the literal definition of a MCE. 
 

But the Fusion sport was horribly done.  Probably one of Fords worst efforts because there wasn’t any effort.  Just a big engine with a garbage transmission (or transmission programming) behind it.  Visually it was awful too with very little differentiation from a normal Fusion. And it was overpriced.  
 

But I really like the way the MCE pulled the design together.  The Fusion alway look fine but the MCE gave it a level of sophistication that was missing prior.  

[ausrutherford]

The morals of this story:

 

1) Not every decision of a bad CEO is bad; and

 

2) Not every decision of a good CEO is good

 

They can't be 100% right 100% of the time. No human is. 

[silvrsvt]

2 hours ago, FR739 said:

That’s always what I’ve thought.  I’m sure there were other things as well but Fields was barely there long enough to make substantial changes.  And his gut feeling of a downturn panned out wonderfully with the Covid hysteria.  He certainly was better suited for the job than the furniture salesman. 

 

The problem was he was planning on it 4 years sooner then it happened and he was affecting things that should have been out sooner before that. 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, FR739 said:

An entirely new front end, trunk lid, and interior changes.  I think that’s the literal definition of a MCE.  
 

But I really like the way the MCE pulled the design together.  The Fusion alway look fine but the MCE gave it a level of sophistication that was missing prior.  

Show those Fusions to 100 people and 99 will say they’re the same.  
 

Somebody turning in a 2014 lease would be less likely to lease what appears to be the same vehicle.

 

Thats where Camry excels.  Keep the same basic platform and power trains but change the appearance every 3 years .

[rperez817]

4 hours ago, ANTAUS said:

Then Camry uses the same platform for what....? almost 2 decades or such, and some tweaks "here and there" and now they call it an all new platform.  And now the Chrysler 300 is like the "Panther", of the current times.  Stemming from the 95 E-Class....

 

Current generation Toyota Camry uses the TNGA GA-K platform, which was completely new for 2017. Prior to that, Camry used Toyota's K platform, which was introduced in 2001 and updated in 2006 and again in 2011. 

 

Current generation Chrysler 300 uses the LD platform, introduced in 2011. The previous generation 300 used the LX platform, introduced in 2004. Neither platform was based on 1995 Mercedes-Benz E-Class (either the W124 or W210 versions), or any other Mercedes-Benz vehicle.

[rmc523]

7 hours ago, JX1 said:

I see a hole in that argument, as the decision was still made for the Ranger and effort as taken as well. The Bronco return didn't come out of thin air, as he made it come to fruition.

 

Why is it that back in 2016 under his leadership, Bronco was already earmarked for MY 2021, Job 1 in early summer of 2020, with a launch date of late summer 2020?

 

Design work began under him with mostly the same targets, which were fully realized in the end. He didn't stop any aspect of Bronco, yet what one reads here at times acts as if Hackett came in on his white horse and changed it from a bland Everest convertible into what it is now.

 

I don't think anyone has complained about Fields bringing back Bronco or said that he didn't initiate it.  The complaint with Bronco has been the excessively early announcement that was literally just a powerpoint slide because they decided to debut the '18 F-150 the day before rather than at the show and needed something for the show.

 

Quote

Hackett kept things moving along--great--and reenvisioned the C727 into the Mach E, but I don't buy a lot of what I am reading, when a lot of what actually transpired contradicts it.

I'm not certain I believe that at all, as the greater modularity of CD6 was canceled most certainly in mid-2017 upon Hackett taking charge.

 

S650 took its current form in May 2017 and abandoned a CD6 basis in favor of reuse.

 

Saying something like that, when a lot of evidence might point to the contrary is questionable. The Fusion didn't rot on the vine either, because by early 2017, it was 4.5 years old and at that point next to none of you here, made any mention of such a thing.

 

The real story was, a lot of cuts to boost the stock price were made under the new leadership of Jim Hackett. That included canceling the Fusion, which might have not been his choice alone. Plus Focus.

 

I do blame Fields for trying to move the Focus to Mexico and belatedly caving into Trump's politicking by changing it to China so last minute. Ultimately anything sedan related for USDM, died under Hackett.

 

By comparison, Fields was trying to buy time and pushed back a new Fusion into CY 2020. I honestly would like proof of the cancellation of CD6, when Ford was testing these vehicles during the said period in and around Dearborn, as well as Colorado.

 

Hackett did a lot of good things, but it all didn't originate under him nor did all the blunders magically happen before his tenure. A whole Bronco program just doesn't happen in less than 3.5 years.

 

The final design for the Bronco was defined in July 2018, some 14 months after Fields left, meaning a lot of planning started in and overlapped with his tenure.

 

So much here has turned into possible opinionated hearsay and gossip, that it comes across as slanted and rather unfair. I couldn't give a damn about the man personally, but I like to see things be a bit more balanced.

 

I'm happy to give credit where credit is due, but you can't pretend he didn't screw things up, otherwise he wouldn't have been shown the door.

 

While it may be true that Hackett was the one to ultimately cut down the modularity of CD6, that does/can stem from it not being ready earlier/the products it was set to underpin languishing on the market.

 

I'd also refute your comment that none of us mentioning Fusion being old - in fact I think most of us said at the time it looked nice but didn't go nearly far enough to entice buyers to re-up leases or switch over.

 

Here's the thread for the '17 Fusion:

 

Here was one of my first comments on the thread:

I think it's better than the Focus refresh, but yeah, they probably could've done more to keep it new looking. Not that the current model looks bad, but people like it looking different as more of a reason to get a new one.

 

I think that's part of the Focus' problem - the refresh barely changed anything and it looks largely the same as the pre-refresh model.

 

Another poster said this:

I drive a '13 Titanium in this same color as these pics. If I got a '17 my coworkers would probably not even notice I had a new car when I pulled in the lot at work. VERY minor refresh on the exterior styling. If you are not a car guy or a Ford fan boy you would never know unless they parked side by side.

 

Our old friend Pioneer said this:

My wife is either getting a 2017 Fusion or Escape. Showed her these pictures. She can't even tell it was updated.

 

You bring up Bronco again, and I think think anyone's refuted that Fields started it or that Hackett finished it - as I said above, Bronco's criticism was more the Camaro-esque 3+ year in advance announcement.

 

Quote

 

Huh? Very well written, but a lot those cars involved Jacques Nasser, Bill Ford, and Mulally at the helm, plus some of them Nasser's predecessor LOL.

 

Fields was Bill Ford's sidekick during the early-mid 2000s after he left Mazda, but I can only imagine he had only so much say-so. Ford was really suffering during those post-Firestone days and Bill did what he could until Mulally came along in late 2006.

 

I cannot give Hackett full credit for everything coming out today, because a lot of these programs already existed in 2014-2016. I can praise some of them for great final execution (Mach E), but it's obvious a few were dialed in well before May 2017 and yet he keeps getting high marks for them.

 

Just like I cannot give Fields credit for initiating any Ford programs in progress in 2012/13, yet didn't surface for a few years. The 2018 Expedition and Navigator were something Mulally had to commit to under his leadership, because they were almost getting the axe under him and being left to die, until around 2011ish, when the '15MY updates quietly entered planning and then the aluminum T3 U55x SUVs entered development in 2012.

 

A key final decision maker was Fields in 2014-15 on U55x and they were generally well lauded, even if too late to the party.

 

I recall it being mentioned that the '15 refreshes for Expy and Navigator were actually intended to debut a year or two earlier, but themselves had been paused while Mulally reviewed them.  Fields took over in 2014......early work on the '18s might have started under Mulally, but much of the program would've been completed under Fields.

 

Quote

 

The investment in Lincoln brand is something that was championed by Fields above all, yet you would think he was AWOL during development of the current Navigator and all products launched post-2016 model year going off of the comments I have read here the past year, against Fields.

 

The Continental rename from D544 MKS was his own doing, even if the final design itself was mostly done before that.

 

I can agree with the bold, but it would be nice to have specifics and see if each model program matches that claim independently. The Fusion cancellation had nothing to do with him, yet I have that so many times in the past year, when the whole narrative was different 3-4 years earlier. Why is it so convenient to smear someone's legacy well after they are gone, just because a lot of nice products are now coming to surface?

 

I understand that many live and breathe Ford not only personally, but professionally. However I see so many contradictions here, it defies logic and reality of what I have observed carefully.

 

Fields was NOT responsible for the decision under Al, to drag out the U502's MCA to MY 2016. That was a whole 4.5 to 5 years after market launch in December 2010. Those MCA changes were set in 2013, according to the team responsible and went on sale in 2H 2015.

 

That wasn't Field's fault, because an early 2019 Job 1 for the U625 was already February 4, 2019 as of September 2016. We started seeing CD6 mules for it in October 2016.

 

They kept testing into the same week that Fields was "talked to" in May 2017 and then resigned mysteriously. In my observation, he never canceled the CD6 Explorer and if he did, he certainly got it moving again before he left Ford.

 

Or are you all telling me, that Ford will randomly test mechanical mules wearing pre-MCA pieces in deep camouflage and sheathing for the heck of it?

 

None of these claims existed back in 2017-18, yet now show up in retrospect 3-4 years later. I call that revisionist history, forgetful memories, or something not being communicated clearly.

 

I am not even certain development of that new Explorer ever stopped. In fact, the belated MCA for 2016 and the sheer amount of big changes meant, it warranted at least a 3 year run through late 2018/early 2019. Job 1 was May 6, 2019, because Hackett made it happen over the last 23.5 months as CEO.

 

Unless Fields on the day he resigned in May 2017 magically canceled the CD6 Explorer as a parting gift (and Hackett restarted it a week later), I am not believing any of that. Maybe for other CD6 vehicles, but even so that still leans very Hackett with the timeline.

 

I am all about timelines telling the truth and not hearsay from years past.

 

I greatly respect you jpd80, but I have to say for a long time you've been claiming the Fusion was updated in 2015 and it most definitely wasn't. It was updated for 2017 and entered production on April 4, 2016, launching around May or June 2016. Mondeo came even much later, due to the late CD391 launch in 2014 via Spain.

 

I really didn't like the Fusion MCA changes at all and hated the 2019MY even more, as the original car was beautiful and graceful looking, with some added punch. Field's final full year was 2016, but he was there through May 19, 2017. A full 4.5 months.

 

From CD622 (Zephyr?) to CD714, he made a lot of plans for CD6, especially for Lincoln. Mustang included. No one heard anything about a RWD Lincoln utility taking Explorer out of its D4 misery, until several months after he took the helm.

 

A lot of people here in retrospect, dismissed TTAC's tidbit as "farfetched" in 2014. In the end, they were right ironically enough and low and behold CD6 SUVs.

 

Alan for all of his great leadership, seemed ever so content to continue a reliance on D3/D4 or throw everything unibody on CD4, plus scrapped a new USDM Taurus on CD4 in April 2013. That wasn't really Fields' doing was it?

 

With all due respect, I keep seeing conflicting statements. Did Fields shutter and attempt to ruin CD6 utilities or did he hamper the car component, in favor of the utilities.

 

As far as I knew, he came up with too many plans which had questionable business cases, didn't motivate Wall Street, was indecisive and tried to stretch out a few products. As well as tried to come after Hinrichs vindictively over some issues, that he was shown the door.

 

All cancelations, such as the Fusion and Focus were rightfully blamed on Hackett. Taurus indirectly, as he didn't cancel its replacement, Mulally did.

Are we really sure he even did that, when that vehicle was in steady testing from 2016 to 2018? There are photos to prove it, but they don't really tell the whole story. What they do say is, something was in development both before, during, and after his resignation on the Explorer front.

 

Much of designs for these U6xx SUVs were completed in 2016 weren't they, so I don't see how these theories that he slowed it all down make sense? They were not seen in final spec until June 2018.

 

Here's a timeline:

 

October 2016 photos of CD6 Mule:

 

March 2017 Test Mule

 

April 2017 Test Mule

 

May 2017 Test Mules

 

August 22, 2017 Spy Shots

 

As you can see it was in consistent testing throughout 2017 (and there's even more into 2018), so where does this theory even come from that he halted anything Explorer? It was always end of 2018/early 2019 SOP since the days of Mulally, that even in 2016-17 it was still moving along. An explanation would help clear up why these were out and about, yet "no development" was happening. It's a waste of resources to be even doing that isn't it?

 

Between Fusion, Explorer, and Aviator I can't say I am convinced of what Fields did wrong there, outside of his temperament, corporate culture, and indecisiveness. The Fusion MCA was blander, even if the end product was good.

 

The product was coming (Bronco, Ranger, Aviator, Corsair), but everything needs time to be executed. Too much revisionist history or vague accusations, which becomes too much of a circle jerk and no longer open discussion.

 

I think you're getting caught in the weeds of who started what when.

 

I think everyone here knows the general timeline of vehicle development, and that products start years in advance to us seeing them.  I also think everyone is smart enough to know that a lot of the products we have now were begun during Fields' tenure.  I don't think that's in question - the question I think is two fold - 1) what products should have been worked on/had replacements sooner, and 2) what programs did he pause/stretch out further which then gets back to #1.  Those issues, and I'd assume the vision going forward (or lack thereof) are what got him canned.  For all we know, he had future products delayed as well.

 

6 hours ago, akirby said:

The 2017 Fusion MCE wasn't even a MCE.   There were no obvious visual changes except for the rotary gear selector.  And everyone here panned them for it.  It should have gotten a lot more changes to stay competitive.   I think that was squarely on Fields.

 

You sound like you have inside info on CD6 Explorer so I'll respect that.  But we also had inside info that Fields put the kabash on CD6 and planned to extend D3 Explorer beyond 2021.  He was hoarding cash for a downturn that never came and products suffered.   Why else was he let go?

 

I think that's being a bit harsh - if you look at it, things were obviously changed - the whole front was different, but the back and interior changed mildly.  BUT it not going far enough is also true.

 

6 hours ago, JX1 said:

LOL, it was that unnoticeable? I hated the ruination of the chiseled headlamps and the new tacky taillight treatment for the MCA. Only saving grace was Fusion Sport.

 

It was so cheesy and definitely among the first designs approved under both Moray Callum and Mark Fields being in charge. Under One Ford, both Alan Mulally and J Mays oversaw a nice Ford brand renaissance, which ended in 2016 with this ugly MCE and cartoony P558 Super Duty. Ugly 2018 F150 and Mustang followed. Luckily the '17 Raptor was unaffected.

 

 

 

I actually disagree with all of your design preferences.  I think the '17 Fusion MCE made it look better (but didn't change enough visually for the market), I think the 2020 cleaned up what was wrong with the '17 Super Duty.   The 2018 F-150 to me looked far better than the '15.  Mustang, I'll give you that - even though I have an '18, I do prefer the front end of the '15-17.

 

4 hours ago, FR739 said:

That’s always what I’ve thought.  I’m sure there were other things as well but Fields was barely there long enough to make substantial changes.  And his gut feeling of a downturn panned out wonderfully with the Covid hysteria.  He certainly was better suited for the job than the furniture salesman. 

 

An entirely new front end, trunk lid, and interior changes.  I think that’s the literal definition of a MCE. 
 

But the Fusion sport was horribly done.  Probably one of Fords worst efforts because there wasn’t any effort.  Just a big engine with a garbage transmission (or transmission programming) behind it.  Visually it was awful too with very little differentiation from a normal Fusion. And it was overpriced.  
 

But I really like the way the MCE pulled the design together.  The Fusion alway look fine but the MCE gave it a level of sophistication that was missing prior.  

 

Yes, but it wasn't changed enough.  I agree it looks better than pre-refresh, but it still looked way too similar, especially out back.

Edited March 16, 2021 by rmc523

[rperez817]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Thats where Camry excels.  Keep the same basic platform and power trains but change the appearance every 3 years .

 

Summary of Toyota Camry (U.S. market) update cadence since 5th generation, by model year.

• 2002 - model changeover with new platform, new powertrains
• 2005 - midcycle refresh
• 2007 - model changeover with update to existing platform, new powertrains
• 2010 - midcycle refresh, new powertrains
• 2012 - model changeover with update to existing platform, new powertrain (hybrid only)
• 2015 - midcycle refresh
• 2018 - model changeover with new platform, new powertrains
• 2021 - midcycle refresh

[akirby]

Just now, rperez817 said:

 

Summary of Toyota Camry (U.S. market) update cadence since 5th generation, by model year.

• 2002 - model changeover with new platform, new powertrains
• 2005 - midcycle refresh
• 2007 - model changeover with update to existing platform, new powertrains
• 2010 - midcycle refresh, new powertrains
• 2012 - model changeover with update to existing platform, new powertrain (hybrid only)
• 2015 - midcycle refresh
• 2018 - model changeover with new platform, new powertrains
• 2021 - midcycle refresh

Changing the code name doesn’t count.  

[rperez817]

10 minutes ago, akirby said:

Changing the code name doesn’t count.  

 

The Camry updates summarized previously aren't about "changing the code name", so I don't know what you're getting at.

[rmc523]

22 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Summary of Toyota Camry (U.S. market) update cadence since 5th generation, by model year.

• 2002 - model changeover with new platform, new powertrains
• 2005 - midcycle refresh
• 2007 - model changeover with update to existing platform, new powertrains
• 2010 - midcycle refresh, new powertrains
• 2012 - model changeover with update to existing platform, new powertrain (hybrid only)
• 2015 - midcycle refresh
• 2018 - model changeover with new platform, new powertrains
• 2021 - midcycle refresh

 

'05 and '10 refresh is being generous.  They changed the headlight and taillight graphics.

 

What'd they change on the '21?  I'm finding it hard to see a difference.

 

 

---

 

Regardless, part of Camry's success is that it's had consistent updates on a strict 5-6 year cycle (depending on how intensive the refresh was - lighter ones got 5 year cycles, the latest previous generation to the current had a 6 year cycle).

 

And Ford has been lagging in that department with too many products.

[slemke]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

Current generation Toyota Camry uses the TNGA GA-K platform, which was completely new for 2017. Prior to that, Camry used Toyota's K platform, which was introduced in 2001 and updated in 2006 and again in 2011. 

 

Current generation Chrysler 300 uses the LD platform, introduced in 2011. The previous generation 300 used the LX platform, introduced in 2004. Neither platform was based on 1995 Mercedes-Benz E-Class (either the W124 or W210 versions), or any other Mercedes-Benz vehicle.

Haaaaahaaaa....Toyota made a K car.  I’m skeptical about it being all new.  Mainly because of all the all new claims that are questionable.  But haven’t read any actual breakdowns of the product to know.

 

I thought it borrowed some suspension components for a previous generation E class.  Maybe some of the platform sharing with an E class was just marketing.  Similar to the all new claims.