Jump to content

Farley: Fixing quality is my No. 1 priority


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, akirby said:


 

 

Sometimes the bean counting impacts schedules.  They tried to do the Explorer changeover too fast.  Why?  Because they didn’t want to lose sales and that comes down to cost.  Had they taken an extra 60 days the launch would have been much smoother.  Same happened with the 2013 Fusion/MKZ launch.  You have to be willing to lose some sales to get a quality product sometimes.  I bet the Explorer warranty claims cost far more than 2 months profit.

 

 

I can agree with Explorer launch. So many stories, but not at liberty to discuss. Compressed schedule compared to previous CAP major launches. Less experience on both salary and hourly side. And vendors only "help" so much.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, akirby said:


But Cafe penalties still comes back to a cost decision and going forward without disclosing the known problems is exactly the kind of behavior that Farley needs to change,

 

Sometimes the bean counting impacts schedules.  They tried to do the Explorer changeover too fast.  Why?  Because they didn’t want to lose sales and that comes down to cost.  Had they taken an extra 60 days the launch would have been much smoother.  Same happened with the 2013 Fusion/MKZ launch.  You have to be willing to lose some sales to get a quality product sometimes.  I bet the Explorer warranty claims cost far more than 2 months profit.

 

Bronco hardtop was another example of trusting a supplier and hoping for a best case scenario that backfired.  They only tested the prototype builds not the high volume factory builds.  They should have delayed until the high volume builds could be tested.  Yes it would have pissed off customers and cost some sales but again in the overall scheme would have been a better outcome.

 

Again not rocket science if you simply make quality more important than meeting a deadline or a cost target and hold people accountable financially.  And fire anyone who acts in their own best interest and not Ford’s.

 

The Focus problems were known internally, and that should have never gone forward, no doubt.  

 

With the other items, those problems were not known at the time.  Could one guess that these rushed things would lead to more problems later?  Sure, and that is definitely something that Ford needs to address.  This kind of thing has been an issue for a long time and I agree with you here, but the Focus tranny issues are a completely different animal.  (Proceeding with a known issue versus rushing things forward without known issues at the time.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, paintguy said:

I can agree with Explorer launch. So many stories, but not at liberty to discuss. Compressed schedule compared to previous CAP major launches. Less experience on both salary and hourly side. And vendors only "help" so much.

 

Ford's launches have been horrible for years.....yes this may have been worse than most for Ford, but that isn't saying much.

 

Again, discipline in their PD process is needed if they truly want to improve initial quality.  (And accepting the cost consequences that may happen if you delay a launch or postpone a part change to the next opportunity.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2022 at 10:59 PM, rperez817 said:

 

Ford's quality initiatives including Six Sigma go back well beyond that. It introduced 8D methodology and APQP in the 1980s. But realizing quality and reliability for new vehicles consistently and broadly has proved elusive for Ford to this day, though for a few years in the late 2000s Ford did reasonably well in vehicle quality and reliability studies like Consumer Reports and J.D. Power IQS & VDS.

 

As I mentioned in the "Ford Quality Czar Says Issues Should Subside in 2023" thread, this is because quality initiatives at Ford have always been like newfangled diets.  At no point has quality been "the fabric of the organization" rather than just "part of the fabric" as quality guru Philip Crosby put it.

 

The issues that fuzzymoomoo mentioned earlier in this thread are indicative of this.

My 2009 Mariner has been my most trouble free vehicle ever, out of 25 vehicles owned.  I have 133,000 miles on it and it has truly been a gas, oil and normal wear items car. My '21 Ranger is too new to tell so the jury is still out, but I did have the not too uncommon warped HVAC plenum; replaced under warranty. If I understand correctly, the heater core is supplied constantly, even with the A/C on, and masked off by a blend door that warps, along with the plenum under the high heat it is subjected to. IMO a poor design, but probably cheaper than an inline valve & stepper motor, but more costly than cheapening out in the long run. First rate assembly of a poor design.

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

1 hour ago, iamweasel said:

 

With the other items, those problems were not known at the time.  Could one guess that these rushed things would lead to more problems later?  Sure, and that is definitely something that Ford needs to address.  


 My experience is with software but it’s the exact same principles.  If you plan a software release that under the best circumstance will take 40 hours and you only ask for a 48 hr maintenance window you’ve already failed.  You should always plan for the worst case scenario and hope you get lucky.  
 

Same for a product launch.  If you set the schedule optimistically and publish those dates then there is enormous pressure to meet the dates and that will cause you to take shortcuts.  Remember the MFT launch on the Edge back in 2010?  No backup plan.  It had to be MFT or nothing and MFT had over 1500 bugs, but they bet (unsuccessfully) that they could fix them quickly after launch.  The alternative was to delay the 2011 Edge.  Took about 16 months just to get it somewhat stable.  I think they learned that lesson though.

 

Point is quality affects all decisions including planning for unforeseen circumstances.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Remember the MFT launch on the Edge back in 2010?  No backup plan.  It had to be MFT or nothing and MFT had over 1500 bugs, but they bet (unsuccessfully) that they could fix them quickly after launch.  The alternative was to delay the 2011 Edge.  Took about 16 months just to get it somewhat stable.  I think they learned that lesson though.

 

That fiasco is something everyone at Ford would probably rather forget. ;) 

 

Anyway, one of the biggest lessons from the MyFordTouch disaster is to dump Microsoft and use some variant of Linux or QNX operating system for infotainment functions. Ford successfully did just that starting with SYNC 3. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akirby said:


 My experience is with software but it’s the exact same principles.  If you plan a software release that under the best circumstance will take 40 hours and you only ask for a 48 hr maintenance window you’ve already failed.  You should always plan for the worst case scenario and hope you get lucky.  
 

Same for a product launch.  If you set the schedule optimistically and publish those dates then there is enormous pressure to meet the dates and that will cause you to take shortcuts.  Remember the MFT launch on the Edge back in 2010?  No backup plan.  It had to be MFT or nothing and MFT had over 1500 bugs, but they bet (unsuccessfully) that they could fix them quickly after launch.  The alternative was to delay the 2011 Edge.  Took about 16 months just to get it somewhat stable.  I think they learned that lesson though.

 

Point is quality affects all decisions including planning for unforeseen circumstances.

 

Agree 100%.  The only time I heard or saw Ford literally put the brakes on a program was when I was on the 2009-14 F-150 and they stopped us cold for 3 months, and delayed the Job #1 date by 6 months.  That was absolutely the right decision back then and the only reason it got done is because the PD Chief at the time, Derrick Kuzak, would not take no for an answer.   They need to do this more often when things aren't on-schedule.

 

Part of the reason they did it on the F-150 is since obviously that's the flagship program and means so much, but also due to the fact we just changed PD Chief's at the time.  Kuzak just took over PD from Phil Martens at the time (the worst PD Chief I ever seen) and saw how we were basically spending $1.5 Billion on a new program with carry over engines and a exterior design that didn't look any different than the outgoing model.  It was a joke.....   

 

That first meeting with Kuzak is still vivid in my brain.  We had an initial meeting with the new boss (Kuzak) in the design studio to review the program status, etc.  He was just a few minutes late, so he rushed to the table and apologized and told us to start going through the presentation.  As I'm going through it, he says "I'm sorry to interrupt, but I thought there would be a model of the new truck here for me to look at, where is it?"  The Chief Engineer sheepishly says "Derrick, it's right over there" pointing to a painted clay truck 20 feet away from us.  He didn't notice it because it looked just like the current model.  LOL.....Derrick says "That's what I'm getting for $1.5B!  You've got to be kidding me!"  Then the Chief Engineer (in as nice of a way as he could) told him how Phil Martens is the reason for that and if it was up to him we'd do this a lot differently.   Derrick said enough with the presentation - he doesn't need to see any more.  Lets come back in 7 days and you tell me what you want to do and how much it will cost.  We came back a week later and told him we wanted $1.8B and need to delay Job #1 by 6 months, showed him what we wanted to do different, and then he approved it.   Was one of the craziest weeks of my life as we scrambled to get everything together.  

 

But the point is, he had the stones to stop things cold when off track.  He did not care about the backlash from his bosses or the board, he knew it was the right thing to do.  Ford needs more people who will do something like that and not worry about the politics.

 

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, iamweasel said:

But the point is, he had the stones to stop things cold when off track.  He did not care about the backlash from his bosses or the board, he knew it was the right thing to do.  Ford needs more people who will do something like that and not worry about the politics.


That’s a smart man and exactly the kind of executive Ford needs to fix these quality issues.

 

They’ve done it on the design side with the Mach-E reboot - we’ll see what happens on the engineering side.

 

Not launching new ICE platforms or powertrains and the lower complexity of BEVs should help a lot.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, akirby said:


But the 2.3L is just a tweak of the existing engine not a brand new design.  And I’ll be shocked if we see any new ICEs.

 



The Mustang EcoBoost coupe and convertible feature a new engine from the ground up that incorporates Ford’s new Modular Power Cylinder (MPC) engine architecture, driving prowess in design and function – and is targeted to have improved EPA-estimated fuel economy over the outgoing model year***. It uses a new Bore to Stroke ratio, Port Fuel injection coupled with direct injection, variable cam timing, integrated Exhaust Gas Recirculation and Twin Scroll turbocharging technologies to deliver the performance Mustang drivers expect.  

 

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/12/15/ho-ho-ho-horsepower--all-new-mustang-dark-horse-delivers-500-hor.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

"All new" in marketing double-speak just often means there are no direct carry-over parts, this doesn't necessarily mean it was a clean-sheet redesign (brand new architecture) -- and I think a clean sheet redesign is what most people think is implied when the term "all new" is used.  

 

I would be surprised if the "all new" 2.3 doesn't share architectural hard points with the old 2.3 -- i.e.  bore spacing, cylinder head bolt pattern, main journal diameter, etc.   

If the new 2.3 shares the same basic architecture with the old 2.3 then it isn't all new in my book.  

Edited by ESP08
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 92merc said:

Someone had posted the specs on the new 2.3 in the Mustang.  I could have sworn they showed the bore and stroke changed.

 

NVM, I think I read that post wrong.  Don't think they meant bore/stroke changed...

From the article linked above:

 

     It uses a new Bore to Stroke ratio


So, the bore and stroke changed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/21/2022 at 1:13 PM, iamweasel said:

 

Agree 100%.  The only time I heard or saw Ford literally put the brakes on a program was when I was on the 2009-14 F-150 and they stopped us cold for 3 months, and delayed the Job #1 date by 6 months.  That was absolutely the right decision back then and the only reason it got done is because the PD Chief at the time, Derrick Kuzak, would not take no for an answer.   They need to do this more often when things aren't on-schedule.

 

Part of the reason they did it on the F-150 is since obviously that's the flagship program and means so much, but also due to the fact we just changed PD Chief's at the time.  Kuzak just took over PD from Phil Martens at the time (the worst PD Chief I ever seen) and saw how we were basically spending $1.5 Billion on a new program with carry over engines and a exterior design that didn't look any different than the outgoing model.  It was a joke.....   

 

That first meeting with Kuzak is still vivid in my brain.  We had an initial meeting with the new boss (Kuzak) in the design studio to review the program status, etc.  He was just a few minutes late, so he rushed to the table and apologized and told us to start going through the presentation.  As I'm going through it, he says "I'm sorry to interrupt, but I thought there would be a model of the new truck here for me to look at, where is it?"  The Chief Engineer sheepishly says "Derrick, it's right over there" pointing to a painted clay truck 20 feet away from us.  He didn't notice it because it looked just like the current model.  LOL.....Derrick says "That's what I'm getting for $1.5B!  You've got to be kidding me!"  Then the Chief Engineer (in as nice of a way as he could) told him how Phil Martens is the reason for that and if it was up to him we'd do this a lot differently.   Derrick said enough with the presentation - he doesn't need to see any more.  Lets come back in 7 days and you tell me what you want to do and how much it will cost.  We came back a week later and told him we wanted $1.8B and need to delay Job #1 by 6 months, showed him what we wanted to do different, and then he approved it.   Was one of the craziest weeks of my life as we scrambled to get everything together.  

 

But the point is, he had the stones to stop things cold when off track.  He did not care about the backlash from his bosses or the board, he knew it was the right thing to do.  Ford needs more people who will do something like that and not worry about the politics.

 

 

Awesome story! Sometimes a project needs a fresh set of eyes like that to recalibrate things (for the better). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2022 at 4:43 PM, akirby said:


Bet it’s the same as the 1.5 I3.

 

On 12/23/2022 at 7:48 PM, rperez817 said:

 

That's correct, both that engine and the updated 2.3L I4 in 2024 Mustang use a bore of 84 mm. Stroke is 90 mm for the 1.5L engine, 102 mm for the 2.3L.


That makes the most sense-though I don’t think the nano V6s share this exactly and why there might be a I5 and I6 down the road to replace them-there is no need for a shorter V6 due to the lack for FWD demand for it-products are either RWD or going EV. 
 

The I5 and I6 would work great as Explorer, Ranger ,bronco, and F-150 power packs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 


That makes the most sense-though I don’t think the nano V6s share this exactly and why there might be a I5 and I6 down the road to replace them-there is no need for a shorter V6 due to the lack for FWD demand for it-products are either RWD or going EV. 
 

The I5 and I6 would work great as Explorer, Ranger ,bronco, and F-150 power packs 

That sounds a bit like the J/LR ingenium I-4/I-6 gasoline/diesel engine platform.  A sensible strategy with regards to

the reduction of total engine plants but as you said, at a future time. Ford obviously has set in product cycles fixed,

but when transition to EVs takes greater effect, more consolidation of manufacturing will definitely be required.

 

One thing, Ford suggesting that next Gen F150 will have a much shorter hood which may rule out I-6. 
 

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...