Jump to content

Ford Quality Czar Says Issues Should Subside in 2023


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, akirby said:

Thats why I said Farley has to make quality more important than sales volumes, profit margins and project dates and hold the executives responsible.  That will trickle down and better decisions will be made.  But only if he follows through on it.

 

akirby, I fear that someone has hacked your account,,,,

 

HRG

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I think he's on the right track. Hopefully, giving the EV teams a ton of time and resources will help to ensure ford's future evs are rock solid. Keeping the ICE powertrains for current and upcoming products basically the same, rather than funding new engine development constantly, should also drastically improve reliability and quality moving forward. At least in theory. Really the only reason Toyota makes reliable cars is because they keep the same engines and platforms around for decades, giving engineers time to perfect them. 


Nailed it on all counts.  ICE should be far more stable and I hope the EV focus will be on product development and not as much on profit margins which should make it easier to stick to quality standards.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, akirby said:


Nailed it on all counts.  ICE should be far more stable and I hope the EV focus will be on product development and not as much on profit margins which should make it easier to stick to quality standards.

Are you feeling okay?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Really the only reason Toyota makes reliable cars is because they keep the same engines and platforms around for decades, giving engineers time to perfect them. 

 

It's indeed true, but it's almost like Ford doesn't like to plan for engines or platforms for the long-term, with example like CD6 that is only used in Explorer and Aviator. The platform was also supposed to be used in the MKZ and Continental which never got the next gen for changing consumer tastes, while the MY24 Mustang seems to be more of a heavy refresh of the existing platform instead of moving to CD6.

I get it, but then it makes me wonder how other automakers are getting by these changing market conditions while managers are looking who to blame for the CD6 conundrum.

 

Similar story for engines, Toyota used their 2.5L for both their regular internal combustion and hybrid applications, while Ford developed 1.5L turbo 3-cylinder for internal combustion while using the old 2.5L Duratec for hybrid application which begs the question why not 2.5L for all or migrate everything to 1.5L turbo. I'm sure there are reasons after reasons, but at the end of the day, Ford is splitting investments and cannot focus on a single core powertrain like Toyota does.

Similar story for the V6 developing the Nano series where there's the likes of 2.7L and 3.0L turbo which to me seems too close in HP and a double investment -- the PR reason was 2.7L is for Ford while 3.0L is for Lincoln, except the 3.0L has been utilized by Explorer ST/Platinum, so that's not true either. Then there is the 3.3L Hybrid V6 in parallel which actually comes all the way from the Cyclone engine family.

 

I'm sure Ford has to have engineers for each powertrain and trying to held them liable now for too many headcount sure doesn't seem fair when it shouldn't have created this complexity in the first place, but now I'm starting to sound like a manager myself only complaining and not resolving.

Hopefully the EV powertrain and platform are much more streamlined.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dlghtjr90 said:

 

It's indeed true, but it's almost like Ford doesn't like to plan for engines or platforms for the long-term, with example like CD6 that is only used in Explorer and Aviator. The platform was also supposed to be used in the MKZ and Continental which never got the next gen for changing consumer tastes, while the MY24 Mustang seems to be more of a heavy refresh of the existing platform instead of moving to CD6.

I get it, but then it makes me wonder how other automakers are getting by these changing market conditions while managers are looking who to blame for the CD6 conundrum.

 

Similar story for engines, Toyota used their 2.5L for both their regular internal combustion and hybrid applications, while Ford developed 1.5L turbo 3-cylinder for internal combustion while using the old 2.5L Duratec for hybrid application which begs the question why not 2.5L for all or migrate everything to 1.5L turbo. I'm sure there are reasons after reasons, but at the end of the day, Ford is splitting investments and cannot focus on a single core powertrain like Toyota does.

Similar story for the V6 developing the Nano series where there's the likes of 2.7L and 3.0L turbo which to me seems too close in HP and a double investment -- the PR reason was 2.7L is for Ford while 3.0L is for Lincoln, except the 3.0L has been utilized by Explorer ST/Platinum, so that's not true either. Then there is the 3.3L Hybrid V6 in parallel which actually comes all the way from the Cyclone engine family.

 

I'm sure Ford has to have engineers for each powertrain and trying to held them liable now for too many headcount sure doesn't seem fair when it shouldn't have created this complexity in the first place, but now I'm starting to sound like a manager myself only complaining and not resolving.

Hopefully the EV powertrain and platform are much more streamlined.

Agreed, when ford has actually utilized their platforms on a wide array of vehicles, it's gone well for them. The c2 platform appears to be robust, durable, and every vehicle that uses it has been well received aside from the escape. With that in mind, it really is stunning that ford hasn't made better use of their platforms. Like you mentioned, cd6 was initially planned to be used for the mustang as well as a next gen Lincoln Continental. I'm kinda hoping with this new ev sedan concept, that Lincoln is at least considering doing a new sedan in the new future.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

The c2 platform appears to be robust, durable, and every vehicle that uses it has been well received aside from the escape.

 

There is a funny/maybe not funny story from the previous C1 platform as Focus/C-Max was the first application, and Ford decided to cut corners and make the HVAC system just enough for those two vehicles.

When the Escape launched next year, the HVAC system didn't meet the performance requirement and had to design and engineer again which somewhat defies the point of having a global platform.

 

Even for the current Mach-E, the so-called GE1 platform underneath is a modified C2 platform which doesn't sound ideal as it that didn't seem to have battery vehicles in mind, and it's quickly moving on to the larger GE2 platform for the next line of electric vehicles which puts the GE1 in a similar situation as CD6.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dlghtjr90 said:

Even for the current Mach-E, the so-called GE1 platform underneath is a modified C2 platform which doesn't sound ideal as it that didn't seem to have battery vehicles in mind, and it's quickly moving on to the larger GE2 platform for the next line of electric vehicles which puts the GE1 in a similar situation as CD6.


It has been heavily implied from the start that the Mach-E's platform is a placeholder to get to the future. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/23/2022 at 4:42 AM, dlghtjr90 said:

Similar story for engines, Toyota used their 2.5L for both their regular internal combustion and hybrid applications, while Ford developed 1.5L turbo 3-cylinder for internal combustion while using the old 2.5L Duratec for hybrid application which begs the question why not 2.5L for all or migrate everything to 1.5L turbo. I'm sure there are reasons after reasons, but at the end of the day, Ford is splitting investments and cannot focus on a single core powertrain like Toyota does.

Funny thing is in China the Ford Escape PHEV uses a 1.5 EcoBoost. 
e2c17010af0a6efaadf3ec1676d4a69d
I guess the smaller displacement engine fits the lower tax bracket that will partially offset the higher cost of the Plug-in hybrid system and batteries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2022 at 8:04 AM, AM222 said:

I guess the smaller displacement engine fits the lower tax bracket that will partially offset the higher cost of the Plug-in hybrid system and batteries.

 

Of course it would be too simple to have a single PHEV engine displacement offering. 

Sounds like the lower tax bracket might be just enough to offset the extra R&D cost, so yay?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, dlghtjr90 said:

 

Of course it would be too simple to have a single PHEV engine displacement offering. 

Sounds like the lower tax bracket might be just enough to offset the extra R&D cost, so yay?

 

If Ford just made the 1.5 EcoBoost the default PHEV engine instead of the NA 2.5, this could have been their global powerplant for plug-in hybrid models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, akirby said:

But I assume the 1.5eb can’t run in Atkinson cycle (or does it), so what does that do for fuel economy?

 

And why do hybrids use Atkinson cycle and if it’s more fuel efficient why not use it everywhere?
 

 

I think the Atkinson cycle produces less torque at lower RPM, hence the reason it isn't used everywhere.  The hybrid makes up for the difference and make up for that lack of torque.

 

I would assume the 1.5eb is more $$$ than the 2.5L, so that's why it's not used here where there's no tax break for the smaller engine.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2022 at 9:41 AM, akirby said:

But I assume the 1.5eb can’t run in Atkinson cycle (or does it), so what does that do for fuel economy?

 

And why do hybrids use Atkinson cycle and if it’s more fuel efficient why not use it everywhere?
 

For a boosted engine, it would be a miller cycle.  Mazda offered a super charged miller cycle v6 in the Millennia.  Not sure if Ford did that on any of the ecoboost hybrids.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2022 at 9:41 PM, akirby said:

But I assume the 1.5eb can’t run in Atkinson cycle (or does it), so what does that do for fuel economy?

 

And why do hybrids use Atkinson cycle and if it’s more fuel efficient why not use it everywhere?
 

As slemke pointed out, it's called Miller cycle for turbocharged (& supercharged) engines. I think Ford has no Miller cycle EcoBoost engines except for this unique EcoBoost-branded engine used by JMC-Ford (more on that below).

Atkinson cycle engines are designed for fuel efficiency and tend to make less power than a conventional engine of the same displacement, so it's ideal to pair it with an electric motor (hybrid) or a turbocharger/ supercharger (Miller cycle).  

Toyota explains the difference between Atkinson cycle and the conventional Otto cycle engines in this video: 
Atkinson Cycle Engine - YouTube

The Atkinson & electric motor combination seems to be the popular choice. I think the only vehicle currently in production with a Miller cycle engine is the Chinese-built Ford Territory by JMC-Ford, its EcoBoost-branded Miller cycle 1.5 turbo produces only up to 148hp. The Otto cycle version of the 1.5 turbo used by the Chinese Ford Equator Sport produces 168hp.

*The 4-cylinder 1.5 liter EcoBoost-branded engine of JMC-Ford was developed with AVL (Austrian company), it uses a timing chain and side-mounted direct injection like the larger 2.0 & 2.3 EcoBoost engines and I believe it uses an iron-block instead of an aluminum block.

Edited by AM222
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious? I am embarrassed by the questions I have gotten by friends who have purchased Fords recently and have recalls and a family member who has been waiting for a Bronco since late January. By the time he gets it it looks like it will be " a last model year". I continuously hope that no one asks me about buying a Ford.

I've always encouraged my kids to by Ford and they have. Unfortunately one recently had such a poor experience with quality and dealer treatment with a 2017 Escape that she just bought a Toyota. Up to this point she always bought Fords.

Keep cutting heads Farley! 

Edited by Hard Driver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, coupe3w said:

 

Both cost money and one tarnishes the company name and pisses customers off. It's an easy dissension if you ask me!


Speaking strictly from a business standpoint, one is a certain cost and one is a gamble.  If you don’t have major problems it’s cheaper.  If you do it's more expensive and pisses off owners.  
 

The real problem is the cost savings from not doing it is realized today while the cost of doing it wrong comes years later.  At one time Ford was holding the product team accountable throughout the life of the vehicle but that’s hard to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...