Latest Round of Manpower Cuts

[Bob Rosadini]

So any opinions on the latest round of manpower cuts?  It has been publicized that Ford has far more engineers than the competition.  Yet Ford has the worst recall history I do believe of anyone.  Is that a function of poor engineering?  Poor outsourcing decisions?   If so no doubt that the functional guys making the big bucks should be held accountable for  that.

Then I keep reading about the need for the ICE side of the business -which IS profitable -to continue to fund the EV side?  How is the ICE side expected to continue funding the EV side if investment is not made to keep it profitable?? Is GM/Stellantis sitting on their hands in terms of ICE improvements???

 

In yesterday's WSJ, Farley is quoted as saying last month that....."the cost of making an EV might not be equal to that of internal combustion vehicles until after 2030".  Now I recognize parity in costs is not the same as profitability, but that says the buying public will have to be willing to pay the premium for a comparable vehicle.

 

Then again with Ford about to sit down with the UAW nothing like sowing a little fear.

 

To repeat my favorite thought-- EVs yes, but in due time when all the factors make the numbers work.  And who knows, in a year and a half,  perhaps everything we do-and Europe for that matter, will not be driven by the climate change panic.  Perhaps even China and India will clean up their act in terms of their disproportionate contributions to the climate  problem

 

Thoughts??

[silvrsvt]

Couple points-

As for ICE Investment-There are no new engine or major updates that we are aware of that are coming down the pike. There are rumors of an I6 maybe, but I doubt that is coming. Keep in mind that an new engine wouldn't see the light of day if it was started to day till the end of the decade with all the testing needed to be done on it. Ford's current engine lineup can carry it till ICEs twilight with just some minor updates that wouldn't require the same amount of engineering effort that has taken place in the past. 

 

Current products will be built till 2030 or later with BEV products being added as time goes on. They will be updated and then when their platform shelf life runs out, replaced by a BEV product...which is at least post 2030. 

 

The thing that EVERYONE forgets about is the auto industry is a long lead time-just look at the Bronco-it was announced in 2017 and didn't get into customers hands till Summer of 2021! What Ford is working on in the summer of 2023 won't be hitting the road till 2027 at the earliest. 

 

As for the political end of things- the last administration wanted to roll back CAFE and auto makers said no-they already had started spending or spent money on making the products meet the requirements and it wouldn't make any sense to change it. The EU and China already increasing ICE Bans as time goes on. The US will be there by 2035 with California and other states requiring BEV only new car sales then. 

[akirby]

In addition to the point of not needing new powertrains or much of anything new on the ICE side other than top hats and refreshes….

 

I think Ford essentially had two separate staffs between US and Europe with all of the product duplication and separate powertrains.    Add to that the Asia Pacific Australia work and all the new ecoboost engines and it’s not hard to imagine.

[rperez817]

3 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

So any opinions on the latest round of manpower cuts? 

 

They are absolutely necessary. There will be more manpower cuts to come in the next few years as Ford transitions from the "old world" of the automotive industry to the new world. As Jim Farley said last year, Ford faces the following.

• "too many people in certain places"
• "skills that don’t work anymore"
• "jobs that need to change"
• "lots of new work statements that we’ve never had before"
• "our costs are not competitive for it"

[jasonj80]

19 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

So any opinions on the latest round of manpower cuts?  It has been publicized that Ford has far more engineers than the competition.  Yet Ford has the worst recall history I do believe of anyone.  Is that a function of poor engineering?  Poor outsourcing decisions?   If so no doubt that the functional guys making the big bucks should be held accountable for  that.

Then I keep reading about the need for the ICE side of the business -which IS profitable -to continue to fund the EV side?  How is the ICE side expected to continue funding the EV side if investment is not made to keep it profitable?? Is GM/Stellantis sitting on their hands in terms of ICE improvements???

 

In yesterday's WSJ, Farley is quoted as saying last month that....."the cost of making an EV might not be equal to that of internal combustion vehicles until after 2030".  Now I recognize parity in costs is not the same as profitability, but that says the buying public will have to be willing to pay the premium for a comparable vehicle.

 

Then again with Ford about to sit down with the UAW nothing like sowing a little fear.

 

To repeat my favorite thought-- EVs yes, but in due time when all the factors make the numbers work.  And who knows, in a year and a half,  perhaps everything we do-and Europe for that matter, will not be driven by the climate change panic.  Perhaps even China and India will clean up their act in terms of their disproportionate contributions to the climate  problem

 

Thoughts??

Way to many cooks in the kitchen; persons demand changes and complexity for the sake of job security. If you have to engineer 9, 12, or 100 completely different parts to do the same thing you keep way more people around than you need to. The amount of needless complexity on Ford vehicles is astounding, both in part design and build complexity. The fact they eliminated 2400 parts for a MCE on the F150 should tell you how overly complex it is. The reason why other OEM's are more profitable is because they engineer out complexity, they don't add to it the way Ford does. 

.. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

19 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

As for the political end of things- the last administration wanted to roll back CAFE and auto makers said no-they already had started spending or spent money on making the products meet the requirements and it wouldn't make any sense to change it.

I never bought into that argument. Ok fine they started spending to meet the new requirements, nobody was telling them to suddenly stop. The regulations are just a bare minimum, if anything it would have been a great PR move to say hey we’re still going to meet the stricter requirements when they no longer had to, plus the added bonus of being ready for when those stricter requirements were inevitably added back when a new administration took over. 

[akirby]

12 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I never bought into that argument. Ok fine they started spending to meet the new requirements, nobody was telling them to suddenly stop. The regulations are just a bare minimum, if anything it would have been a great PR move to say hey we’re still going to meet the stricter requirements when they no longer had to, plus the added bonus of being ready for when those stricter requirements were inevitably added back when a new administration took over. 

They didn’t want totally different regulations for US and the rest of world.  

[fuzzymoomoo]

5 minutes ago, akirby said:

They didn’t want totally different regulations for US and the rest of world.  

And? Build to the strictest ones then and used that one across the entire company. I think they made a way bigger deal about it than it was. 

[Rick73]

20 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

To repeat my favorite thought-- EVs yes, but in due time when all the factors make the numbers work.  And who knows, in a year and a half,  perhaps everything we do-and Europe for that matter, will not be driven by the climate change panic.  Perhaps even China and India will clean up their act in terms of their disproportionate contributions to the climate  problem

 

Thoughts??

I don’t know in what context you mean China and India having “disproportionate contributions” to climate change, but if viewed on a per capita basis, we in USA contribute more, at least through 2016 data I could find.  China and India have had much faster growth in last 50 years or so, but they each have nearly 4 times the population.  Data for 2016 shows China produced about half the CO2 per person than USA, and India was far behind both China and USA.

 

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
 

Looking at a graph over time (below), if we go back to around 1950, it appears USA and Europe dominated CO2 emissions by far.  Since 1950 the combined Europe and USA has roughly doubled, with emissions declining slightly over recent years.  During this same period since 1950, emissions from China, India, and rest of Asia has increased tremendously, now representing over 50% of total.  Per person, however, they are not the worst.

 

It appears wealth is a primary driver.  If you arrange data in spreadsheet linked above by per capita emissions, with very few exceptions, the poorest countries like those in Africa produce very little CO2 and the richest produce the most. To be honest, I have no idea how this issue can be managed fairly since those who pollute the least, the very poorest, have no place to go but higher if or when their economies improve.

 

[Chrisgb]

37 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

I don’t know in what context you mean China and India having “disproportionate contributions” to climate change, but if viewed on a per capita basis, we in USA contribute more, at least through 2016 data I could find.  China and India have had much faster growth in last 50 years or so, but they each have nearly 4 times the population.  Data for 2016 shows China produced about half the CO2 per person than USA, and India was far behind both China and USA.

 

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
 

Looking at a graph over time (below), if we go back to around 1950, it appears USA and Europe dominated CO2 emissions by far.  Since 1950 the combined Europe and USA has roughly doubled, with emissions declining slightly over recent years.  During this same period since 1950, emissions from China, India, and rest of Asia has increased tremendously, now representing over 50% of total.  Per person, however, they are not the worst.

 

It appears wealth is a primary driver.  If you arrange data in spreadsheet linked above by per capita emissions, with very few exceptions, the poorest countries like those in Africa produce very little CO2 and the richest produce the most. To be honest, I have no idea how this issue can be managed fairly since those who pollute the least, the very poorest, have no place to go but higher if or when their economies improve.

 

Developing countries can avoid building coal fired boilers and oil heat. In agriculture, no-till or reduced tillage, and cover cropping reduce soil erosion as do hedgerows and river bank buffers. Combined with better breeding, animal feed, confinement practices and other farm management procedures have reduced dairy's carbon footprint by 63% over the last 40 years the US. Producing a gallon of milk in the US has 19% less greenhouse gas emissions than did in 2007. Some of the methods and technologies are beyond what the least developed nations can ramp up, but they don't have to be stuck in the 20th century.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Chrisgb

[rperez817]

2 hours ago, jasonj80 said:

The reason why other OEM's are more profitable is because they engineer out complexity, they don't add to it the way Ford does. 

 

Thank you jasonj80, that makes perfect sense. Jim Farley spoke about this in the context of Ford Blue division last year.

 

We have lots of cool ideas, but we’re not satisfied with that because we cannot just continue to build this complexity in our business. So, as we add those derivatives, we’re going to have to, you know, we are planning much less complexity in our Blue business, and that is a theme that will run through Blue for years to come.

[akirby]

2 hours ago, jasonj80 said:

The fact they eliminated 2400 parts for a MCE on the F150 should tell you how overly complex it is.

.. 

I can hear my old VP now.

 

We reduced 2400 parts on the new F150!  Yay us!

 

Please explain why there were 2400 unnecessary parts to begin with……

[jasonj80]

5 minutes ago, akirby said:

I can hear my old VP now.

 

We reduced 2400 parts on the new F150!  Yay us!

 

Please explain why there were 2400 unnecessary parts to begin with……

That question would never be asked at Ford. The person asking it wouldn't like the answer. 

[Bob Rosadini]

Well guys, thx very much for all the responses.  I was kind of surprised this important topic had not come up sooner.

 

Some quick thoughts....

-Ric 73  Your view on India/China is the best support for the old saying..." Statistics 101-How to lie with numbers"?.  Kind of like death by a thousand slices.

 

- Two more sayings I always subscribed to-  "work expands with time allocated", and "if you leave an office -cube vacant, someone will think of a way to occupy  it.

 

-And for sure on the engineering manpower, and in support of Al M's "One Ford", it looks like that has  been  followed with the new Ranger development but for sure it seems a lot of dollars are spent world wide working on other projects in which more effort could probably be made if rule  no. 1 could be "make it work world wide. At least it looks like the guys at Ford Otosan who I  read were allegedly in charge of worldwide heavy truck engineering-  has worked to some degree as the instrument panels , Steering wheel/controls In the heavy F-Max look like they  came off of a 150.

 

Keep the thoughts coming as I'm as usual getting an education.

 

 

[Rick73]

21 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

There are rumors of an I6 maybe, but I doubt that is coming.

You may be correct on probability of it not coming, but I hope it does because it makes sense as long as it fits in current vehicles.  Besides, how much engineering does it actually take to take the new Mustang 2.3L 4-cylinder and add two more to create a 3.4L for larger SUVs and pickups?  Isn’t that basically what other manufacturers have done by using modular design?  My understanding is that BMW, Mercedes, Stellantis, Mazda, etc. share technology and design between I-4 and I-6.

 

A NA I-6 with Atkinson cycle could power larger hybrid SUVs and light pickups, just like 2.5L engine powers Maverick.  In my opinion there is still room for fuel-efficiency improvements while transitioning to BEVs.

[akirby]

49 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

You may be correct on probability of it not coming, but I hope it does because it makes sense as long as it fits in current vehicles.  Besides, how much engineering does it actually take to take the new Mustang 2.3L 4-cylinder and add two more to create a 3.4L for larger SUVs and pickups?  Isn’t that basically what other manufacturers have done by using modular design?  My understanding is that BMW, Mercedes, Stellantis, Mazda, etc. share technology and design between I-4 and I-6.

 

A NA I-6 with Atkinson cycle could power larger hybrid SUVs and light pickups, just like 2.5L engine powers Maverick.  In my opinion there is still room for fuel-efficiency improvements while transitioning to BEVs.

What is the benefit to the average buyer above and beyond the existing V6s and I4 ecoboosts?

[akirby]

29 minutes ago, akirby said:

What is the benefit to the average buyer above and beyond the existing V6s and I4 ecoboosts?

And don’t say smoothness.  The current ones are plenty smooth enough for 99.99% of buyers.

Edited June 30, 2023 by akirby

[rperez817]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

What is the benefit to the average buyer above and beyond the existing V6s and I4 ecoboosts?

 

51 minutes ago, akirby said:

And don’t say smoothness.  The current ones are plenty smooth enough for 99.99% of buyers.

 

At this point, there are no benefits to the average buyer that would justify capital expenditures by Ford to introduce any new ICE powertrains. Regarding the smoothness issue, electric motors are much smoother than any ICE engine, inline 6 or otherwise. Ford should focus its engineering efforts into ramping up production of existing BEV models and bringing new BEV models to market ASAP.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

And don’t say smoothness.  The current ones are plenty smooth enough for 99.99% of buyers.

Mostly fuel economy, and lower initial cost.

 

A 3.4L naturally-aspirated Atkinson I-6 would be roughly equivalent in a 5,000-pound SUV or pickup as the 2.5L in 3,700-pound Maverick Hybrid.  Extrapolating fuel economy based on mass alone without any further efficiency improvements should return around 31 MPG in EPA city.  That would be pretty good for a 5,000-pound vehicle.  My 4,500-pound minivan only gets me 20~22 MPG in city driving.

 

As far as initial cost, an I-6 should cost less to manufacture than  equivalent V6.  And yes, I know V6 are smooth enough.  Having said that, an I-6 could influence my next purchase.  I’ve owned I-4s, V-6s, V-8s, and V-10s, but never owned a straight six.  I have driven plenty and really liked them, but never had chance to own one.  Would love that to change before ICE are abandoned.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Mostly fuel economy, and lower initial cost.

 

A 3.4L naturally-aspirated Atkinson I-6 would be roughly equivalent in a 5,000-pound SUV or pickup as the 2.5L in 3,700-pound Maverick Hybrid.  Extrapolating fuel economy based on mass alone without any further efficiency improvements should return around 31 MPG in EPA city.  That would be pretty good for a 5,000-pound vehicle.  My 4,500-pound minivan only gets me 20~22 MPG in city driving.

 

As far as initial cost, an I-6 should cost less to manufacture than  equivalent V6.  And yes, I know V6 are smooth enough.  Having said that, an I-6 could influence my next purchase.  I’ve owned I-4s, V-6s, V-8s, and V-10s, but never owned a straight six.  I have driven plenty and really liked them, but never had chance to own one.  Would love that to change before ICE are abandoned.

Why couldn’t they do an Atkinson version of the current 3.3L?  I don’t see why the I6 would be that much more fuel efficient.

 

And nothing is cheaper to manufacture than an engine that’s already in production.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Why couldn’t they do an Atkinson version of the current 3.3L?  I don’t see why the I6 would be that much more fuel efficient.

 

And nothing is cheaper to manufacture than an engine that’s already in production.

Agree on it being cheaper to keep whatever design is existing, though that approach may have adverse long-term consequences if the product falls behind competition.  Not suggesting older Cyclone V6 has, but at some point everything needs some upgrading or replacement.  Trend from various manufacturers has been replacement of V6 with I-6 when I-4 wasn’t enough displacement.

 

Anyway, I think the new Mustang I-4 geometry would lend itself well to Atkinson cycle because of the very long stroke-to-bore ratio which exceeds 1.2.  By comparison, the 3.3L is close to square, so if pushing compression ratio up to 13:1 or even higher in the name of lower fuel consumption (BSFC), then a Mustang-engine-based I-6 should have an advantage.

 

Also, an inline-6 only has two cams instead of the V6’s 4, so camshaft drive should be simpler, lower-cost, and may have less inherent friction.

 

 

I doubt it will happen, but if Ford have excess engineering, they should get rid of poor performers and assign some top talent to design a dual-clutch hybrid transmission for RWD heavier SUV and pickups.  I know there were issues with dual-clutch transmissions in the past, but a transmission dedicated solely for hybrid applications could succeed if done right.  Hyundai seems to be achieving great fuel economy with hybrid DCT.  Overall I’m just saying it’s too early to give up completely on non-BEV engineering.

[Bob Rosadini]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Agree on it being cheaper to keep whatever design is existing, though that approach may have adverse long-term consequences if the product falls behind competition.  Not suggesting older Cyclone V6 has, but at some point everything needs some upgrading or replacement.  Trend from various manufacturers has been replacement of V6 with I-6 when I-4 wasn’t enough displacement.

 

Anyway, I think the new Mustang I-4 geometry would lend itself well to Atkinson cycle because of the very long stroke-to-bore ratio which exceeds 1.2.  By comparison, the 3.3L is close to square, so if pushing compression ratio up to 13:1 or even higher in the name of lower fuel consumption (BSFC), then a Mustang-engine-based I-6 should have an advantage.

 

Also, an inline-6 only has two cams instead of the V6’s 4, so camshaft drive should be simpler, lower-cost, and may have less inherent friction.

 

 

I doubt it will happen, but if Ford have excess engineering, they should get rid of poor performers and assign some top talent to design a dual-clutch hybrid transmission for RWD heavier SUV and pickups.  I know there were issues with dual-clutch transmissions in the past, but a transmission dedicated solely for hybrid applications could succeed if done right.  Hyundai seems to be achieving great fuel economy with hybrid DCT.  Overall I’m just saying it’s too early to give up completely on non-BEV engineering.

For sure..that is my fear.

[slemke]

An I-6 is perceived to be superior to a v-6 ( the old 90 degree v-6s are partially responsible for this as they aren’t inherently balanced like a 60 degree v-6) while costing less to produce.  Mercedes replaced their v6 with an I-6 to align with 4 cyl manufacturing.  Mercedes also eliminated many mechanically driven accessories and replaced them with electric versions.

 

I could see Ford introducing an I-6 based on the new Mustang 2.3 when it comes time to upgrade the 3.3 and 3.5l cyclones for tighter emissions standards.  No sense engineering multiple solutions if it can be avoided.  In the end, I think it will be Coyote, Godzilla, and 2.3L ecoboost derivatives for gas engines.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, slemke said:

An I-6 is perceived to be superior to a v-6 ( the old 90 degree v-6s are partially responsible for this as they aren’t inherently balanced like a 60 degree v-6) while costing less to produce.  Mercedes replaced their v6 with an I-6 to align with 4 cyl manufacturing.  Mercedes also eliminated many mechanically driven accessories and replaced them with electric versions.

 

I could see Ford introducing an I-6 based on the new Mustang 2.3 when it comes time to upgrade the 3.3 and 3.5l cyclones for tighter emissions standards.  No sense engineering multiple solutions if it can be avoided.  In the end, I think it will be Coyote, Godzilla, and 2.3L ecoboost derivatives for gas engines.

I understand the advantages if you’re starting from scratch except emissions.  Why would an I6 be better?

[Chrisgb]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

I understand the advantages if you’re starting from scratch except emissions.  Why would an I6 be better?

Inherent smoothness (no rocking couple), less block material, easier to produce; one head, one exhaust manifold, one intake manifold, only need two cams instead of four for DOHC. I get that there are parts that are twice as long than those in a V6, but overall simpler to produce.

Sound better than a V6 or especially an inline four!