It still seems like getting rid of the Fusion was a mistake.

[tbone]

On 10/27/2023 at 9:30 AM, rperez817 said:

 

The Ford Five Hundred problem was that the car itself was a turd.

I had the Taurus version of the 500 for around 65k miles for a work car.  Although the looks of the car were very average, the car was bulletproof, very comfortable to drive, and had a ton of room. Had its looks been better, they probably would’ve sold a lot more vehicles. I recognize you are referencing the the 500, which the Taurus was derived from, but it was far from a turd.

[brucelinc]

1 hour ago, tbone said:

I had the Taurus version of the 500 for around 65k miles for a work car.  Although the looks of the car were very average, the car was bulletproof, very comfortable to drive, and had a ton of room. Had its looks been better, they probably would’ve sold a lot more vehicles. I recognize you are referencing the the 500, which the Taurus was derived from, but it was far from a turd.

 

Yeah, we had the Taurus version, too, which had the 3.5.  It was my wife's daily driver.   It was very roomy, surprisingly peppy and quite economical.   It may have looked like a turd but was actually a very good car.   

[ice-capades]

The introduction of the original 1986 Taurus, so often referred to as the "Jellybean" design theme, was a fun time to be in the business. It captivated the industry in the North American market, as well as customers, and demand outstripped demand by a wide margin for quite some time. They sold as quick as they arrived, but our dealership did NOT use ADMs. During the 1987 Model Year stock inventory was able to grow substantially and meet demand at a time when the majority of sales came from stock inventory and not retail customer orders from the factory.

 

This was long before there was online vehicle ordering available. There was a "B16" option code that Dealers could add to orders which authorized Ford to schedule those orders above allocation as a way for Dealers to get extra inventory. One day towards the end of the 1987, I ordered 75 Taurus' with the "B16" code, they all got scheduled that night and were delivered within 4-6 weeks later. Knowing they were coming, the dealership rented the space behind the closed Burger King next door and had fencing with a gate installed. The 75 orders were scheduled with consecutive VIN numbers, and they all arrived at the same time. I wish I had had time to grab a camera at the time to shoot photos of the 9 car carriers across the street all unloading full loads of the Taurus sedans and wagons.

 

At the same time, the Taurus was available in Emerald Green paint which was new. The Emerald Green became so popular that it accounted for 40% of sales. The sales representatives would ask me why I was ordering so many Taurus vehicles in Emerald Green, I'd ask them to look at the vehicles they were selling and delivering to customers and then they'd understand the inventory mix! 

[Trader 10]

On 10/26/2023 at 9:48 PM, CurtisH said:

The Duratec 3.0 was not new.  It was first used in the 1996 Taurus.  I believe it was initially paired with a CVT, which did not help.  The CVT didn’t have a wide enough gear range and the 3.0 didn’t have a lot of torque.  

I know the 3.0 was not new when the 500 was introduced - my 1996 Sable had the 3.0- I was referring to the motor’s deficiencies from its inception. The 500 used the CVT for the base SE and AWD versions.  All other versions used an Aisin 6 speed automatic. That combo wasn’t much better than the CVT. 

[Schpark]

On 10/29/2023 at 11:19 AM, Trader 10 said:

I know the 3.0 was not new when the 500 was introduced - my 1996 Sable had the 3.0- I was referring to the motor’s deficiencies from its inception. The 500 used the CVT for the base SE and AWD versions.  All other versions used an Aisin 6 speed automatic. That combo wasn’t much better than the CVT. 

 

The 96 Taurus came with the AX4N transmission which was not a CVT.  I had a 96 and also a 2003 and they were both standard 4 speed automatics.  The CVT started with the Freestyle and 500 I believe.  (sorry this is referring to Curtis's post).

Edited October 30, 2023 by Schpark

[rmc523]

On 10/29/2023 at 8:39 AM, ExplorerDude said:

The amount of product programs started and then shelved is probably somewhere in the 15 to 20 range. What will really be interesting is to see how many Model E programs are now shelved or paused.

 

It'd be interesting to know what some of those were - I know we never will, but always makes you wonder!

[CurtisH]

2 hours ago, Schpark said:

 

The 96 Taurus came with the AX4N transmission which was not a CVT.  I had a 96 and also a 2003 and they were both standard 4 speed automatics.  The CVT started with the Freestyle and 500 I believe.  (sorry this is referring to Curtis's post).

I should have been more clear.  I was referring to the CVT in the Five Hundred.  My wife had a 96 Taurus with the 4 speed auto.  I thought the engine was competitive at the time.  It was a bit weak below 3500 rpm, but really came to life at 3500 and above. 
 

The Five Hundred was just too big for the 3.0 and the CVT just made things worse. 

[jpd80]

On 10/29/2023 at 10:39 PM, ExplorerDude said:

The amount of product programs started and then shelved is probably somewhere in the 15 to 20 range. What will really be interesting is to see how many Model E programs are now shelved or paused.

Farley transferred something like $11 billion out of ICE programs to help fund BEVs, I’m wondering if he’s 

starting to regret doing that - it was Bill Ford’s desire to make this happen and he’s no business genius either.

I still remember Bill Ford’s prediction in 2001 that by 2006 25% of Ford’s vehicles would be hybrids…..

By 2006, Ford was looking down the tubes at bankruptcy…..sometimes there are bigger issues to fix..

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by jpd80

[rperez817]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Farley transferred something like $11 billion out of ICE programs to help fund BEVs, I’m wondering if he’s starting to regret doing that

 

Jim Farley is a future oriented businessman, so it's not likely he has any regrets with that allocation. Model e and Pro divisions are where nearly all of Ford's growth opportunities lie.

 

If there any regrets on Farley's part, the biggest one is not being more aggressive to make Model e division totally different from the "old Ford" in terms of corporate culture and operations.

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Farley transferred something like $11 billion out of ICE programs to help fund BEVs, I’m wondering if he’s 

starting to regret doing that - it was Bill Ford’s desire to make this happen and he’s no business genius either.

I still remember Bill Ford’s prediction in 2001 that by 2006 25% of Ford’s vehicles would be hybrids…..

By 2006, Ford was looking down the tubes at bankruptcy…..sometimes there are bigger issues to fix..

 

 

 

 

 

To be fair, taking the money out of ICE development isn't a huge issue, considering Ford would almost be better off by just making small tweaks, and developments to it's current ICE offerings, rather than constantly trying to introduce new engine designs and products. That's really hurt Ford in the past, especially when it comes to reliability.

 

It seems like now is a good time to take the Toyota approach, keep most of their existing motors around, make slight improvements over time, lean on hybrids and EVs for people who want the big jumps in terms of performance, tech, and driving dynamics. 

 

In terms of overall vehicle programs, it seems like Ford's strategy is to have a lot of Evs and ICE co-exist. With the exception of the escape, and explorer, most of Ford's ICE products are near the top of their segments in terms of appeal, and shouldn't need too much in the way of near future investment to stay that way over the course of the next 3-5 years. 

Edited October 30, 2023 by DeluxeStang

[ExplorerDude]

33 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

To be fair, taking the money out of ICE development isn't a huge issue, considering Ford would almost be better off by just making small tweaks, and developments to it's current ICE offerings, rather than constantly trying to introduce new engine designs and products. That's really hurt Ford in the past, especially when it comes to reliability.

 

It seems like now is a good time to take the Toyota approach, keep most of their existing motors around, make slight improvements over time, lean on hybrids and EVs for people who want the big jumps in terms of performance, tech, and driving dynamics. 

 

In terms of overall vehicle programs, it seems like Ford's strategy is to have a lot of Evs and ICE co-exist. With the exception of the escape, and explorer, most of Ford's ICE products are near the top of their segments in terms of appeal, and shouldn't need too much in the way of near future investment to stay that way over the course of the next 3-5 years. 

Part of the problem over time has been when programs start and stop, then start and stop again. Especially with different teams of people. While only one example, the CD6 program is the more recent one that comes to mind. It was started and stopped 1 or 2 separate times. Each time a different team picked up the previous teams work. This is why the current Explorer/Aviator have suffered so many quality problems. Programs that get started and then shelved are a major brain drain.

[ice-capades]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

Jim Farley is a future oriented businessman, so it's not likely he has any regrets with that allocation. Model e and Pro divisions are where nearly all of Ford's growth opportunities lie.

 

If there any regrets on Farley's part, the biggest one is not being more aggressive to make Model e division totally different from the "old Ford" in terms of corporate culture and operations.

 

Alan Mulally rewrote the playbook as Ford's CEO, but as soon as he left Mark Fields tossed it to the wind and everything went back to the way it was. The Ford "culture" has been embedded so deeply for so many decades that I just don't know if it's possible to change it. There are so many management layers at Ford and a lot of unnecessary layers that embed to constant priority of protecting one's "job security" instead of making decisions that are best for Ford, the product and the customers. Just look at the product quality issues that have existed for decades with warranty costs now in excess of $2 Billion per year and keeps getting worse.

 

Too many layers of management, too many people making decisions, too many poor decisions being approved, etc. It goes on and on! 

Edited October 30, 2023 by ice-capades
Additional Content

[silvrsvt]

3 hours ago, CurtisH said:

The Five Hundred was just too big for the 3.0 and the CVT just made things worse. 

 

The curb weight difference between the Taurus and 500 wasn't that terrible-it was about a 200-300lb difference depending on which model it was

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, ExplorerDude said:

Part of the problem over time has been when programs start and stop, then start and stop again. Especially with different teams of people. While only one example, the CD6 program is the more recent one that comes to mind. It was started and stopped 1 or 2 separate times. Each time a different team picked up the previous teams work. This is why the current Explorer/Aviator have suffered so many quality problems. Programs that get started and then shelved are a major brain drain.

That's a valid point, every car brand stops and starts development on certain projects, and changes their product plans, but Ford has been especially bad in this regard these last few years. Case in point, the supposed Subaru outback rival they were working on. It seems like they spent years developing that product, and then canceled it very suddenly for no apparent reason. Ford talks about being efficient with it's resources, but dedicating years to developing a product, and then canning it, well that's about as wasteful as it gets. 

 

I'd imagine there are quite a few designers and engineers within Ford who are disillusioned with the company, because these products they're pouring their heart and soul into keep getting canceled or molested by upper management. 

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Jim Farley is a future oriented businessman, so it's not likely he has any regrets with that allocation. Model e and Pro divisions are where nearly all of Ford's growth opportunities lie.

 

If there any regrets on Farley's part, the biggest one is not being more aggressive to make Model e division totally different from the "old Ford" in terms of corporate culture and operations.

The hilarious part is that Ford tried to distance itself from the business that makes the profits that carry Model E. Sorry but it’s back to the drawing board when your BEVs just don’t sell in meaningful quantities.

Edited October 31, 2023 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

13 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

That's a valid point, every car brand stops and starts development on certain projects, and changes their product plans, but Ford has been especially bad in this regard these last few years. Case in point, the supposed Subaru outback rival they were working on. It seems like they spent years developing that product, and then canceled it very suddenly for no apparent reason. Ford talks about being efficient with it's resources, but dedicating years to developing a product, and then canning it, well that's about as wasteful as it gets. 

 

I'd imagine there are quite a few designers and engineers within Ford who are disillusioned with the company, because these products they're pouring their heart and soul into keep getting canceled or molested by upper management. 

I’m thinking that Subaru rival was nothing more than possibly a Chinese designed C2 product with some additional cladding on it and a small lift, not a specialized vehicle. Plus I think the additional 25% tariff on Chinese products didn’t help its cause either. Plus pivoting to EVs didn’t help either. 

[ice-capades]

43 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

I’m thinking that Subaru rival was nothing more than possibly a Chinese designed C2 product with some additional cladding on it and a small lift, not a specialized vehicle. Plus I think the additional 25% tariff on Chinese products didn’t help its cause either. Plus pivoting to EVs didn’t help either. 

 

Unfortunately, Ford missed its opportunity to compete with Subaru decades ago with Subaru firmly embedded as an attractive, lower cost AWD alternative that has seen substantial growth over the years in selected regions such as New England where a lower cost AWD is very attractive. 

[GearheadGrrrl]

VW tried that too with a lifted Golf 7 wagon with AWD, I was tracking a couple hundred 2019 models in 2020-21 that weren't selling despite $7500 rebates, then they suddenly disappeared. Turns out a Colorado VW dealer who understood the Suburu market bought them up and had them sold in short order! GM had similar experience with the Buick (Opel) AWD wagon, despite similar big rebates Buick didn't understand the market. 

[CurtisH]

16 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The curb weight difference between the Taurus and 500 wasn't that terrible-it was about a 200-300lb difference depending on which model it was

The 3.0’s torque was a bit low in the Taurus.  Saddling it with extra weight and a CVT resulted in lackluster performance in the 500.  A proper 6 speed automatic would have helped it wouldn’t have been a complete solution. 

[92merc]

I had a 2007 Mercury Montego FWD with the Aisin 6 speed and 3.0.  I had no complaints of power.  Not as fast as my 2.0EB Escape, but it was faster than my 2003 F150...

[Chrisgb]

2 hours ago, ice-capades said:

 

Unfortunately, Ford missed its opportunity to compete with Subaru decades ago with Subaru firmly embedded as an attractive, lower cost AWD alternative that has seen substantial growth over the years in selected regions such as New England where a lower cost AWD is very attractive. 

Ford phoned it in with the '87-91 Tempo/Topaz AWD. A part time awd, no center diff, and engaged by a rocker switch on the ceiling (?)

Oddly, it never took off...

[silvrsvt]

I don't get the cult behind Subaru-they are mid level products...The styling isn't anything write home about either. 

[DeluxeStang]

10 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

I don't get the cult behind Subaru-they are mid level products...The styling isn't anything write home about either. 

They're a quirky Japanese brand. Their owners are the types of bash the quality of American cars while their outback is burning oil, and the CVT is singing it's final tune. I don't get it either, I'd say Subaru is one the worst brand in terms of reliability issues. Not even being hyperbolic, I'd say probably a third of the people I've encountered having some sort of engine issue, or replacing their engine, drive a Subaru, it's not just the WRX either.

 

But, they're Japanese, and your average consumer is dumb. Subaru is one of those brands where they have a strong perception of making good cars, that perception trumps reality. On the styling front, I agree entirely, even their latest concept car looks pretty terrible all things considered. 

[akirby]

20 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

I don't get the cult behind Subaru-they are mid level products...The styling isn't anything write home about either. 

They cater to the outdoorsy types that need AWD but don’t want a pickup.  They are huge in the Pacific Northwest.

[rmc523]

5 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

I’m thinking that Subaru rival was nothing more than possibly a Chinese designed C2 product with some additional cladding on it and a small lift, not a specialized vehicle. Plus I think the additional 25% tariff on Chinese products didn’t help its cause either. Plus pivoting to EVs didn’t help either. 

 

I still think it was an Evos hatch with some black cladding.

 

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

I don't get the cult behind Subaru-they are mid level products...The styling isn't anything write home about either. 

 

The Subaru stuff used to be boring - now they've started skewing toward ugly lol.