RichardJensen Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 You keep on repeating this yet it is completely wrong. The Taurus does indeed make money. You have proof of this where? I'm well aware that there are substantial 'first unit' costs with any vehicle. However it does not necessarily follow that, after 'x' years, a company is guaranteed a profit. My argument that the Taurus is losing money is based on the fact that Atlanta is the second plant on the hit list, and is the first plant closing that only makes one product. The Taurus meets Federal regs in place up 'till the 2008 MY, and compliance with 2008 regs is limited (I believe) to a passenger airbag shut-off, which would cost very little to implement, and which WILL be implemented on the panthers. The Vulcan V6 is emissions compliant until, I believe, 2010MY. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to kill the Taurus this early, except that they are losing money on it. If it was generating money, would they not string it out as long as possible, instead of killing it as quickly as possible? This is, after all, allegedly a company run by bean-counters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evok Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 You have proof of this where? Do you have proof it does? Just like a good BS artist you seem to have all the answers. Show me some facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evok Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Tell me Jesnson all about federal regs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Do you have proof it does? Just like a good BS artist you seem to have all the answers. Show me some facts. Ford Mo Co has said in press releases that the profit on fleet cars is slim to none. The "old cars forever" geezers just want to see old car designs flood the fleets. People will claim, "the tooling is paid for so.. :blah: ." Well the UAW doesn't work free and there is no free health care, etc, so no, the DN101 cars are not a 'gold mine'. What is so special about the Vulcan motor and DN101 anyway? :shrug: It's now like those old Soviet Union or East German 'people's cars, with 20+ year old everything. Why can't some let it go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bb62 Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 You have proof of this where? I'm well aware that there are substantial 'first unit' costs with any vehicle. However it does not necessarily follow that, after 'x' years, a company is guaranteed a profit. My argument that the Taurus is losing money is based on the fact that Atlanta is the second plant on the hit list, and is the first plant closing that only makes one product. The Taurus meets Federal regs in place up 'till the 2008 MY, and compliance with 2008 regs is limited (I believe) to a passenger airbag shut-off, which would cost very little to implement, and which WILL be implemented on the panthers. The Vulcan V6 is emissions compliant until, I believe, 2010MY. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to kill the Taurus this early, except that they are losing money on it. If it was generating money, would they not string it out as long as possible, instead of killing it as quickly as possible? This is, after all, allegedly a company run by bean-counters. If you can make the argument you just made, it is very clear to me that you don't have the slightest idea of how the decision making process works at Ford. Secondly if I had "proof" to show to this forum I would be airing internal Ford documents which would be unethical and possibly illegal. Third, I was a part of the decision making process that led to the current state. It was my JOB to understand vehicle line profitability. Once a decision is made to eliminate a platform, it's done - period. The taurus was extended well beyond its usefull life as a platform. The tools are wearing out and the facilities have not gotten the maintenence required for long term viability. Short term quality is thus not affected. Even more importantly, once resources are taken from a platform - it doesn't get them back. Ford's key resource bottleneck is engineering resources. Do you put them on a carline for ONE SINGLE YEAR's worth of profits or do you put them to work designing longer term value for the company. You really have a lot to learn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g48150 Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 If you can make the argument you just made, it is very clear to me that you don't have the slightest idea of how the decision making process works at Ford. Secondly if I had "proof" to show to this forum I would be airing internal Ford documents which would be unethical and possibly illegal. Third, I was a part of the decision making process that led to the current state. It was my JOB to understand vehicle line profitability. Once a decision is made to eliminate a platform, it's done - period. The taurus was extended well beyond its usefull life as a platform. The tools are wearing out and the facilities have not gotten the maintenence required for long term viability. Short term quality is thus not affected. Even more importantly, once resources are taken from a platform - it doesn't get them back. Ford's key resource bottleneck is engineering resources. Do you put them on a carline for ONE SINGLE YEAR's worth of profits or do you put them to work designing longer term value for the company. You really have a lot to learn. Thank you much bb62, I'm glad I have a homie on my side. Although I left, I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. So how much time do you have in? I almost had a year b4 they told me we were 12 heads over manpower estimates. I didn't have a PR yet, and I was the last one in, youngest on my team, two bad facts for a guy in my position. Sorry, off topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 "Even more importantly, once resources are taken from a platform - it doesn't get them back. " Gosh, like cancelling the TC then un-cancelling it? Wixom was taken from the Panther platform, then more of the STAP resources were given to the Panther platform so the TC could continue. Seems like the Panther platform got resources back. An expert like you should know all about this decision process: "it is very clear to me that you don't have the slightest idea of how the decision making process works at Ford" implies depth of knowledge. Please expound — if you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 "Even more importantly, once resources are taken from a platform - it doesn't get them back. " Gosh, like cancelling the TC then un-cancelling it? Wixom was taken from the Panther platform, then more of the STAP resources were given to the Panther platform so the TC could continue. Seems like the Panther platform got resources back. An expert like you should know all about this decision process: "it is very clear to me that you don't have the slightest idea of how the decision making process works at Ford" implies depth of knowledge. Please expound — if you can. the TC was never canceled, it was always going to move to STAP. no Replacement , panther needs the volume and its profitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.