Jump to content

Ford Quality Czar Says Issues Should Subside in 2023


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, akirby said:


Identifying and fixing the root cause of a defective part and fixing systemic quality issues are two different things.

 

We know Ford lost a lot of engineering talent the last decade and we know they squeeze suppliers to the last penny neither of which are good for quality.  CAP has internal issues and they tend to rush things too much like the Explorer retooling and launch and Bronco hardtops.  

 

On the other hand they’ve launched 9 new ecoboost engines, at least 1 new diesel engine, 5 NA gas engines and a supercharged V8 - all in the last 12 years or so.  Not to mention all the platform changes.   Meanwhile Toyota just tweaked what they already had for the most part.   Change is the enemy of quality.  I think they did too much too fast.  CD4 was an unnecessary step as was cd6 it appears.  1.6eb and 1.5eb I4s were not needed.   One could argue the 2.3, 2.7 and 3.0 ecoboosts could have been covered by high output 2.0 and 3.0 ecoboosts.  Old standard 3.5 could have remained.  The 5.2 FPC was hella cool but short lived and unnecessary.

I agree. I don't know why Ford changes some things that don't need to be changed just because they think it's necessary. For example the spark plug debacle they had with the F150. Th FPC was actually a big problem too. Lots of those engines had to be replaced my friend had a GT350 and the engine broke with only 4000 miles on it. It's a shame really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at how many engine families and different bell housings Ford had from the 50s to early 00's compared to chevy. Ford has a definite history of changing things for no apparent reason. It's probably a good thing for innovation and making things better, but man is it a head ache for the hot rodder. Seems like they finally landed on the mod bell housing after all these years, but I'm sure there will be a half year change at some point for some unknown reason lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Captainp4 said:

Look at how many engine families and different bell housings Ford had from the 50s to early 00's compared to chevy. Ford has a definite history of changing things for no apparent reason. It's probably a good thing for innovation and making things better, but man is it a head ache for the hot rodder. Seems like they finally landed on the mod bell housing after all these years, but I'm sure there will be a half year change at some point for some unknown reason lol


Sometimes it’s driven by cafe or emissions but I think a lot of it is short term/narrow minded planning.  Look at cd3 to cd4.  Why didn’t they consolidate focus, escape, fusion and edge on one platform (c2) even if it took a couple more years?  I’m sure there was a good business case for cd4 at the time but there should have been someone higher up saying why don’t we have one FWD platform instead of two?  I guess some of it like the 6.8 is purely marketing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, akirby said:


  I’m sure there was a good business case for cd4 at the time but there should have been someone higher up saying why don’t we have one FWD platform instead of two? 


Not necessary a business case as kingdoms in Ford and fighting for resources if you're connected in the right group, you have connected people that use that to drive job security, personal projects and things they deem successful. Not that this is bad, a vehicle in Ford MUST has a fighter for it, if it doesn't it will lose resources and be put out to pasture, there is a short/medium/long term plan, however execution can be caught up in politics and constant reviews that make justifying a project a continues fight though development. A project might stop and start a few times as a market and internal review are done. One of the reasons the Mavrick was as successful and fast it that the team didn't have to CONSTANTLY be fighting for everything like other programs do.  Ford platforms are weird as the evolve more than some OEM who just scrap and start from scratch, while other do take Ford's approach and evolve constantly. 

CD4 is more EUCD than CD3, CD3 is more related to Mazda and CDW27 which also started as a Mazda platform.  C1 was an off shoot of sorts of EUCD where it started as P1 and P2 under Volvo. P2 became D4 for US markets which then got folded back to CD4 and EUCD became CD4. C2 is CD4 and C1. Then you get into electrical architecture, and which can be completely different than the actual platform designation.

The idea behind the new division was to start and build and electrical architecture from scratch to eliminate the short comings of the current offerings when it comes to weight and complexity. 

Edited by jasonj80
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, jasonj80 said:

The idea behind the new division was to start and build and electrical architecture from scratch to eliminate the short comings of the current offerings when it comes to weight and complexity. 

 

I guess we will see if this works out. Hope they pay attention to quality better than the ICE division.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, akirby said:


Sometimes it’s driven by cafe or emissions but I think a lot of it is short term/narrow minded planning.  Look at cd3 to cd4.  Why didn’t they consolidate focus, escape, fusion and edge on one platform (c2) even if it took a couple more years?  I’m sure there was a good business case for cd4 at the time but there should have been someone higher up saying why don’t we have one FWD platform instead of two?  I guess some of it like the 6.8 is purely marketing.


That means they would have turned into Nissan…. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jasonj80 said:

Then you get into electrical architecture, and which can be completely different than the actual platform designation.


Is there a reason why there’s multiple electrical architectures? I get SD trucks having their own because of unique power demands of SD customers but why should a Focus and Explorer have a completely different electrical architecture? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


Is there a reason why there’s multiple electrical architectures? I get SD trucks having their own because of unique power demands of SD customers but why should a Focus and Explorer have a completely different electrical architecture? 


Amount of technology the vehicle is going to use, price point of the vehicle and timing of when it will be released and in what market it will be released in. Mavrick for instance uses some things from the last generation Fiesta (one that was sold here) that was done for cost, Mavrick while was designed for the US/Canada market the primary market was for South America and Mexico. It would give Ford an entry level (cough Fleet) vehicle in the US/Canada market but sales were never thought of what they are now. It is also why comfort features like Auto-dimming mirrors, rain sensing wipers, LED Taillights, very limited adaptative cruise, Navigation, were left off, in the volume markets it was designed to be sold in customers will not pay for them.  Ford never thought it would resonate with the US/Canada market the way it did and once they have seen that they and their suppliers are racing to update and make more features available it is very limited by what Ford told their suppliers to plan for, add the pandemic in and it made it even worse. They need that plant for more production as demand is 150K+ more than they can currently produce, While Ford of Australia and Europe opted out of the program both want the electric version and EU is trying to see if the hybrid could go to select countries where there is demand. The flip side is where the new vehicle architecture saves the company billions though is that updates that require a recall and the update can be downloaded to the vehicle. 

Had the Bronco Sport been built with the OTA architecture it would still need to go to the dealership for a portion of the recall, but the software that gave the warning on the dash to stop driving could have been download directly to the vehicle. Saving Ford Tens of thousands of billable dealership hours to also update the software on the vehicle. What is odd though is that Ford won't use WIFI for OTA updates, only through LTE modems.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


That means they would have turned into Nissan…. 

Speaking of Nissan...they also now offer a similar 1.5 Litre 3 Cylinder Turbo as standard on the 2022 Rogue. I'm wondering if they might eventually have similar engine issues!

It might help Ford to review their engine configuration as a comparison since they are very similar? 

Specifications

 

2022 Nissan Rogue Platinum AWD
Vehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon

PRICE
Base/As Tested: $39,725/$42,395
Options: two-tone premium paint, $745; floor mats and cargo area protector, $425; Head-Up Display package, $400; illuminated kick plates, $400; interior accent lighting, $350; external ground lighting, $350

ENGINE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 12-valve variable-compression inline-3, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection
Displacement: 90-91 in3, 1478-1498 cm3
Power: 201 hp @ 5600 rpm
Torque: 225 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm

TRANSMISSION
continuously variable automatic

CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilink
Brakes, F/R: 11.7-in vented disc/11.5-in vented disc
Tires: Dunlop Grantrek PT21
235/55R-19 101V M+S

DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.5 in
Length: 183.0 in
Width: 72.4 in
Height: 66.5 in
Passenger Volume: 101 ft3
Cargo Volume: 37 ft3
Curb Weight: 3715 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.8 sec
1/4-Mile: 15.9 sec @ 88 mph
100 mph: 21.6 sec
Results above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.
Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.5 sec
Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.7 sec
Top Speed (gov ltd): 120 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 169 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.84 g

C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 24 mpg
75-mph Highway Driving: 31 mpg
75-mph Highway Range: 440 mi

EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 31/28/34 mpg

C/D TESTING EXPLAINED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, jasonj80 said:

Had the Bronco Sport been built with the OTA architecture it would still need to go to the dealership for a portion of the recall, but the software that gave the warning on the dash to stop driving could have been download directly to the vehicle. Saving Ford Tens of thousands of billable dealership hours to also update the software on the vehicle. What is odd though is that Ford won't use WIFI for OTA updates, only through LTE modems.

 

Another thing is that allows other dealership (or people who have access to the system) to remotely troubleshoot issues on the vehicle. I've seen this done on the Bronco forums. 

It also makes me crack up at the anti-EV people who claim their vehicle can be controlled by the goverement-when the same thing can happen to a vehicle that has this type of setup.

I'm assuming that the only reason LTE modems are used instead of wifi is security? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Another thing is that allows other dealership (or people who have access to the system) to remotely troubleshoot issues on the vehicle. I've seen this done on the Bronco forums. 

It also makes me crack up at the anti-EV people who claim their vehicle can be controlled by the goverement-when the same thing can happen to a vehicle that has this type of setup.

I'm assuming that the only reason LTE modems are used instead of wifi is security? 

 

https://techspective.net/2021/12/14/debunking-wi-fi-security-myths-cellular-networks-are-more-secure-than-wi-fi-networks/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, coupe3w said:

 

Right, but Ford has zero control over what equipment people are using for Wifi-where as celluar modems and configurations are just a bit more secure since they don't have any user input to work properly.


I'm sure that the vast majority of Wifi APs in homes are still set to the default password and other things like that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, akirby said:


Identifying and fixing the root cause of a defective part and fixing systemic quality issues are two different things.

 

We know Ford lost a lot of engineering talent the last decade and we know they squeeze suppliers to the last penny neither of which are good for quality.  CAP has internal issues and they tend to rush things too much like the Explorer retooling and launch and Bronco hardtops.  

 

On the other hand they’ve launched 9 new ecoboost engines, at least 1 new diesel engine, 5 NA gas engines and a supercharged V8 - all in the last 12 years or so.  Not to mention all the platform changes.   Meanwhile Toyota just tweaked what they already had for the most part.   Change is the enemy of quality.  I think they did too much too fast.  CD4 was an unnecessary step as was cd6 it appears.  1.6eb and 1.5eb I4s were not needed.   One could argue the 2.3, 2.7 and 3.0 ecoboosts could have been covered by high output 2.0 and 3.0 ecoboosts.  Old standard 3.5 could have remained.  The 5.2 FPC was hella cool but short lived and unnecessary.

A lot of truth here.  And as for the new Explorer fiasco, while Joe (?) was the fall guy I remember watching video of the demo of CAP while introducing a completely new vehicle.   I kept thinking, one or the other-complete new assembly process or completely new vehicle design --is a recipe for disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

A lot of truth here.  And as for the new Explorer fiasco, while Joe (?) was the fall guy I remember watching video of the demo of CAP while introducing a completely new vehicle.   I kept thinking, one or the other-complete new assembly process or completely new vehicle design --is a recipe for disaster.

 

They did it with the F-150 plant...Chicago has alot of other issues that compounded the situation. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Right, but Ford has zero control over what equipment people are using for Wifi-where as celluar modems and configurations are just a bit more secure since they don't have any user input to work properly.


I'm sure that the vast majority of Wifi APs in homes are still set to the default password and other things like that. 


Exactly.  Average Joe can easily hack a home wifi router or connect to a public wifi anonymously.  Avg Joe cannot hack a SIM card and every legal 4G/5G device is registered to a known account and person.

 

But the biggest issue is that home wifi is usually only reachable when the vehicle is off at home.  4G is available while driving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, akirby said:


Exactly.  Average Joe can easily hack a home wifi router or connect to a public wifi anonymously.  Avg Joe cannot hack a SIM card and every legal 4G/5G device is registered to a known account and person.

 

But the biggest issue is that home wifi is usually only reachable when the vehicle is off at home.  4G is available while driving.


Size of the files is presenting an issue for LTE; downloading 6GB of data on LTE is having failures and higher packet loss than that of WiFi or 5G in areas like garages where cellular is limited. They could do downloads via Wi-Fi then do random checksums on the package to check integrity of the WIFI download, or do 10% over LTE and match the keys.  I had to have my truck updates done at the dealer after the ProPower update bricked itself from being able to update. It should be fixed when the 5G modems are out but the large packages and LTE downloads are not playing nice. I should add that AT&T S*** network don't help. 

Edited by jasonj80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

They did it with the F-150 plant...Chicago has alot of other issues that compounded the situation. 

I'm aware of that.  All the more reason why the Explorer launch was IMO a recipe for big problems.  I should have said..."either situation runs the risk of problems.  Put them together, and risk much greater".  Perhaps the 150 conversion was a result of good  management at all levels plus a workforce with a good  attitude.

 

Example, and a minor one for sure but I remember I  had a new CV Sport on order to replace my old one. I did a post on the CV thread saying words to  effect..."Hey  guys at St Thomas.  New CV on order.  Build me a good one like last one I had."  Immediately got a response.."Post your vin when you get it".   I did and to  my surprise I got several responses and a note written on inside of trunk lid!

So  when it came time to replace it, I had an SHO ordered so sent a similar message to "people at CAP".....crickets!

On same note, my son had a new Bronco on order-had his hundred bucks in early.  so I did a similar post.  And guess who responded.."Fuzzy MM"!

 

Employee involvement/concern on the line  I'm sure is  a tough thing to build in today's environment but it can be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, coupe3w said:

FYI...Vitesco is the fuel injector supplier for the Ford 1.5 Litre 3 cylinder. They were spun off by Continental AG a year or so ago! Continental was trying to spin them off since 2019, but the pandemic delayed the spin off! I was simply brainstorming,  since as it stands, Ford is still working on why the injectors are cracking! The New Nissan engine is the only other car manufacturer using a 1.5 Litre 3 Cylinder similar to Ford!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bobbyd said:

Speaking of Nissan...they also now offer a similar 1.5 Litre 3 Cylinder Turbo as standard on the 2022 Rogue. I'm wondering if they might eventually have similar engine issues!

It might help Ford to review their engine configuration as a comparison since they are very similar?

No they are not.

The Nissan battery electrical system is less efficient than what Ford and Toyota currently have.

The small capacity Nissan engine supported by a electric motor with a small battery cannot hope

to achieve its fuel economy  figures in the real world……equivalent of automotive “magic beans”.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jpd80 said:

No they are not.

The Nissan battery electrical system is less efficient than what Ford and Toyota currently have.

The small capacity Nissan engine supported by a electric motor with a small battery cannot hope

to achieve its fuel economy  figures in the real world……equivalent of automotive “magic beans”.

Oh, I didn't know the 1.5 Litre 3 Cylinder Rogue had an electric motor. Wouldn't that be considered a hybrid? Please explain! 

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...