Jump to content

Ford to unveil radical new business plan to improve quality and profitability


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

Thanks for posting your thoughts on future engines and models. The I-6 is intriguing. I’m a bit surprised Ford didn’t drop the 5.0 now that the 6.8 is ready as it has to be cheaper to build and should be able to make big horsepower numbers and better torque than the 5.0.

Still needed for the Mustang until Ford manages to make a high performance version of the 6.8/7.3L.  Might as well amortize development cost across additional volume in the F150.  From what I have read, the Coyote will be around for a while.  We might see more pieces of the puzzle closer to the launch of the updated ‘24 F150.

 

Other than speculation on this board, I haven’t read anything about an I6 off of the new modular power architecture as the new 2.3L is dubbed.  Only that it will spawn an I3.  I concur that an I6 would be a good replacement for the nano and cyclone v6 engines. It would be cheaper to build, have greater appeal, and reduce engineering cost to keep multiple engine architectures emissions compliant in the future..  That would consolidate North American engines somewhat if the turbo 3, 4, and 6 cylinder engines all used the same architecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, akirby said:

Where did all this I6 talk come from?  Is there even room for an I6 in Explorer or Bronco engine bay?  Why reinvent the wheel at this point?

 

Consolidation of engine production...can build a 3,4 and 6 cyc engine with the same tooling. 

 

I was looking at the Jeep GMT2 and GME T6, which are based on each other and the overall length of the T6 is roughly 33-34 inches long, meanwhile the 2.7L is 26 inches. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, akirby said:

Seems cheaper and easier to just keep the v6 which is already developed tested and paid for until volume drops low enough to kill it.  As opposed to doing a totally new engine and all sorts of factory consolidations.

 

It might be, but the Nano and Cyclone engines will be 10 and 15 years old in 2025, so Ford might want to consolidate things for the last 10-15 years they are making ICE or need improvements for CAFE/emissions on the gas engine side of things. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

I think it’s actually 100% of the profit as Ford has stated that It’s BEVs aren’t profitable. 

 

True, but I didn't want to assume that, so I was generous and gave BEVs a few % points lol.

 

16 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Any talk of spinning off FordBlue at this point is down right stupid and dangerous. 

 

Talking of how they'll start pivoting away from it (reducing investments in ICE platforms) is smarter...because it gives you wiggle room to adjust if things go sideways between now and 2030 or so. 

 

 

This.  Keep it together, and discuss how you're going to leverage/simplify the ICE products as you expand the BEV products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, rmc523 said:

Keep it together, and discuss how you're going to leverage/simplify the ICE products as you expand the BEV products.

 

Hopefully Farley and Lawler will announce progress on totally different, BEV optimized engineering and manufacturing for Ford Model e products. The Mustang Mach-E wiring harness example that Farley mentioned during the Q4 2022 investor call (1.6 km longer, 70 lb heavier, and $300 more expensive than it should be) is very worrisome.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2023 at 4:24 PM, rmc523 said:

 

More importantly, you're proposing spinning off the division that makes 96.4% of the profit that would pay for the EVs....

Brilliant huh?  Pass the Kool Aid!  And the EV sales lead the percentage gain?  Well when you start from "0" that is how the math works!  And Ford Pro is going to be a big part of the success?  It should be..but when Ford Pro is led by a guy that I think defines  the business as F-150's and Transits I have my doubts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

when Ford Pro is led by a guy that I think defines  the business as F-150's and Transits I have my doubts.

 

Ted Cannis? His strategy for Ford Pro goes far beyond F-150s and Transits to encompass an entire ecosystem of vehicles, services and software. Cannis' strategy also aligns with Ford Motor Company's overall plans for an all-electric future. That's exactly what Ford needs.

 

Ford-Pro_English.jpg

Edited by rperez817
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2023 at 3:30 PM, rperez817 said:

 

100% of the net sales growth in the chart you posted comes from Model e division. Along with Ford Pro, that's where the future of Ford Motor Company lies. Strengthening those 2 divisions and formulating an appropriate exit strategy for Ford Blue will be critical over the next few years.

 

Guess we'll find out next Wednesday what details Jim Farley and John Lawler reveal about those items during the fireside chat.

 

You're also ignoring the fact that they could have sold more ICE products if they had parts (which would've resulted in additional sales/growth from that side).  To pretend like there's some immediate seismic switch in Ford's sales because ICE/hybrid was flat and BEV had a whole 2,600 unit increase is taking it way too far.

Whether you want to admit it or not, ICE/hybrid products and sales are going to be very relevant and important for at least the next 10 years.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

You're also ignoring the fact that they could have sold more ICE products if they had parts (which would've resulted in additional sales/growth from that side).  To pretend like there's some immediate seismic switch in Ford's sales because ICE/hybrid was flat and BEV had a whole 2,600 unit increase is taking it way too far.

Whether you want to admit it or not, ICE/hybrid products and sales are going to be very relevant and important for at least the next 10 years.

 

I think more like 20 years.  You have to take into account battery supply, charging network, range, time to charge as well as moving doubters/haters into EV.  In addition getting cost in line with ICE never mind the fact that the cost of electric has gone up negating some of that advantage.  Yeah the coasts will start changing over but the middle of the country is going to take a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Hopefully Farley and Lawler will announce progress on totally different, BEV optimized engineering and manufacturing for Ford Model e products. The Mustang Mach-E wiring harness example that Farley mentioned during the Q4 2022 investor call (1.6 km longer, 70 lb heavier, and $300 more expensive than it should be) is very worrisome.

Wonder what they are doing about that? $300/unit and 70 lb weight penalty would be red meat to teams of engineers just a few years ago. Hope to hear that at least that one is "solved". 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, paintguy said:

Wonder what they are doing about that? $300/unit and 70 lb weight penalty would be red meat to teams of engineers just a few years ago. Hope to hear that at least that one is "solved". 

 

I hope so too paintguy! The wiring harness example along with the excess engineering headcount in Ford Blue division are representative of the overall dysfunction within Ford Motor Company. Autoextremist said the following about Ford's engineering and manufacturing operations. It's extreme (befitting Autoextremist), but accurate.

 

Executing is the name of the game, which is why Ford is consistently mired in mediocrity. Its excruciating dysfunction runs rampant throughout the company. There’s a time-honored mantra at Ford that suggests that whenever a good idea emerges from a supplier – remember, Ford wrote the book on “Not Invented Here” – Ford will take that idea and do it better, cheaper and in less time. The reality is something altogether different. After Ford operatives get their hands on an idea, it will cost twice as much, take twice as long and be not even remotely better. The company has demonstrated time and time again that left to its own devices, it will inevitably deliver less than. Every. Single. Time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2023 at 11:42 AM, rperez817 said:

 

Hopefully Farley and Lawler will announce progress on totally different, BEV optimized engineering and manufacturing for Ford Model e products. The Mustang Mach-E wiring harness example that Farley mentioned during the Q4 2022 investor call (1.6 km longer, 70 lb heavier, and $300 more expensive than it should be) is very worrisome.

At least they identified a real problem.  Better than cutting features that people see.  That updated wiring harness will save significant money and improve range.  Or use the weight savings to increase efficiency and use a smaller battery pack.  Efficiency gains really benefit vehicles like the Mach e.  Might not be so much on the lightning as it still needs to haul and tow heavy loads, so the battery pack needs to be large enough for those tasks.  But,  on something like a Maverick efficiency is more important.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The excessive engineers is probably accurate but may not be apples to apples.  E.g has it been normalized to account for the number of different vehicles and different types of vehicles?  Are they comparing F series with fwd sedans?  
 

Look at how many engines ford has created the last 12 years vs Toyota or GM.  That’s not “we have too many engineers”.  It’s “we’re making too many changes”.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mackinaw said:

Interesting tidbit on Autoline Daily a few days back.  GM has 6,000 fewer engineers than Ford but yet they sell more vehicles.  That difference is probably the 25% Farley was talking about.


A big chunk of that would probably be Europe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, akirby said:

Look at how many engines ford has created the last 12 years vs Toyota or GM.  That’s not “we have too many engineers”.  It’s “we’re making too many changes”.

 

Among those 3 automakers, Toyota introduced the most gasoline and diesel engines globally in the last 12 years. GM is next (including engines designed by its former Opel subsidiary). Ford has the fewest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2023 at 8:50 PM, silvrsvt said:

What I can see happening is a freezing of almost all development of ICE products-your quality will improve if you keep building the same thing. If anything new is introduced, its to simplify the lineup, like the rumored I6 engine. 

I thought Ford was going to stop the development of new internal combustion engines? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Among those 3 automakers, Toyota introduced the most gasoline and diesel engines globally in the last 12 years. GM is next (including engines designed by its former Opel subsidiary). Ford has the fewest.

That doesn’t sound right.  Do you have a list for each?  I’d really like to see the list. 

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...