Ford CEO Farley Regrets Not Tackling Quality Issues Sooner

[Chrisgb]

On 2/19/2024 at 12:00 PM, Bob Rosadini said:

" It’s not just getting rid of people – we’ve got rid of 20,000 people "– 

What does Farley mean by this?  The subject is "quality" isn't it? His statement relates to cost reduction.  If anything might that be part of the problem?  In particular if in that head reduction, senior people are targeted if they are at the higher end of the salary range for a particular job classification.  No doubt,  senior people who are on "cruise control" should go, but I would have to believe head count reduction can have negative consequences when talent leaves the system.

It seems Boeing has the same problem today; a cost culture that demands faster-better-cheaper over all else, broom the senior engineers and let the college kids design it. Lose a door in flight? No prob, they get to sell another door. 

[mustang84isu]

I have noticed that Ford's paint quality has really gone downhill.  My 2001 LS had paint that still looked brand new when I got rid of it at 140K miles.  My 2007 MKZ started having minor rust issues @130K around the wheel wells despite me being pretty meticulous about claying and waxing it, and being garage stored...otherwise, the paint was in pretty decent shape overall when I got rid of it.  However, our Edge and Continental (2017's) have had lots of issues with chipping paint on the bumper and hood, and the Continental even has corrosion bubbling up on a couple spots around the wheel wells despite being garaged 95% of the time and also receiving regular detailing and washes.  I don't know if this is the result of cost cutting, poor QC, or just more eco-friendly paint that doesn't last as long, but I hope they address it.

Edited February 21 by mustang84isu

[akirby]

3 hours ago, paintguy said:

Agree 100%. One of the best plant managers I had used to say of launch: "You find a problem early in the build, it might cost $100 to fix. After Job1, $1 million might not fix it". Agree Farley is moving in a correct direction. Hope the next levels of management get the quality focus hard wired into their DNA.

I was thinking about the DCT trans problem.  Had the original engineers decided the dry clutch version was not suitable (which it clearly wasn’t based on specs) and changed it day 1 (which would have required lowering mpg targets and possibly raising costs) then Ford could have decided to go forward with new targets or scrap it altogether if that killed the business case with very little impact.

 

But by the time the 2nd engineer pointed out the problem it was so far along that it was a much bigger deal to change it in terms of cost and schedule.  This made it easier for middle managers to turn a blind eye.  Finding and fixing problems early is key.

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

I was thinking about the DCT trans problem.  Had the original engineers decided the dry clutch version was not suitable (which it clearly wasn’t based on specs) and changed it day 1 (which would have required lowering mpg targets and possibly raising costs) then Ford could have decided to go forward with new targets or scrap it altogether if that killed the business case with very little impact.

 

But by the time the 2nd engineer pointed out the problem it was so far along that it was a much bigger deal to change it in terms of cost and schedule.  This made it easier for middle managers to turn a blind eye.  Finding and fixing problems early is key.

Ironically, the dry clutch DCT  was pushed through because Europe wasn’t going to use it in their vehicles,

could you imagine the carnage with European sales if they did…….a bullet dodged.

 

 

[grbeck]

19 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I'd recommend an escape hybrid for your wife. Escape hybrids are notoriously reliable, some would say even more reliable than your old focus. 

 

I believe Farley say Ford is aiming to have long term quality that's on par, or superior to Toyota and Honda. He mentioned that in their latest earnings call unless I'm mistaken. But I do agree with you. Short term quality is nice, but I want Ford to be the go to brand when it comes to cars that are considered reliable even when they have 200k miles on them. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the reputation some Ford models in a few decades, the maverick is already seen as the spiritual successor to the 90s rangers, including in the reliability department. So it's not all bad. It sounds things are turning around. Hacket did a lot of damage to the company imo, and that includes quality, but Farley seems determined to right the ship. Good guy, the best leader Ford's had in decades imo. 

The challenge for us is that our teens want more room in the back seat, and my wife wants a vehicle with three rows of seats. The new Escape is nice, but not big enough in that regard.

 

 

[Flying68]

21 minutes ago, grbeck said:

The challenge for us is that our teens want more room in the back seat, and my wife wants a vehicle with three rows of seats. The new Escape is nice, but not big enough in that regard.

 

 

Almost every 3 row SUV (except for full size) will have less room in the 2nd row than almost all 2 row SUV/CUV's.  The only way to get that 3rd row in is to reduce 2nd row leg room while making the 3rd row practically useless.  Getting adults in all 3 rows comfortably is for minivans and full size SUV's.

[grbeck]

16 minutes ago, Flying68 said:

Almost every 3 row SUV (except for full size) will have less room in the 2nd row than almost all 2 row SUV/CUV's.  The only way to get that 3rd row in is to reduce 2nd row leg room while making the 3rd row practically useless.  Getting adults in all 3 rows comfortably is for minivans and full size SUV's.

MY wife wants three rows of seats because we are being asked to transport friends and/or team mates of our kids to various events. She wants the extra seating capacity. 

[Joe771476]

A company in business since 1903 should not have quality issues. That being said, these younger generations can't produce the quality of past generations. The best solution is going back to the Rouge plant: Everything in-house. Bring the raw materials in the back door and spit out the finished product at the front door.  How can you ship all these components from other subcontracting plants and foreign countries without the shipping costs negating the labor savings? I don't think you can justify it anymore. Yeah I know some resources aren't here in the USA. But let's give it a try and do as much as possible to not rely on other entities.

[silvrsvt]

13 minutes ago, Joe771476 said:

A company in business since 1903 should not have quality issues. That being said, these younger generations can't produce the quality of past generations. The best solution is going back to the Rouge plant: Everything in-house. Bring the raw materials in the back door and spit out the finished product at the front door.  How can you ship all these components from other subcontracting plants and foreign countries without the shipping costs negating the labor savings? I don't think you can justify it anymore. Yeah I know some resources aren't here in the USA. But let's give it a try and do as much as possible to not rely on other entities.

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, grbeck said:

The challenge for us is that our teens want more room in the back seat, and my wife wants a vehicle with three rows of seats. The new Escape is nice, but not big enough in that regard.

 

 

Perhaps a maverick then, same basic platform, more rear legroom. Depending on how many people you need to carry, a third row could just be wasted space. We have 6 people in our family, and almost never use the third row on our explorer. 

 

If you're set on a third row, I'd give it a few more years for Ford to improve the quality on the current explorer, and then pick one of those up. 

[Flying68]

4 hours ago, grbeck said:

MY wife wants three rows of seats because we are being asked to transport friends and/or team mates of our kids to various events. She wants the extra seating capacity. 

I know my kids complained about the room in the explorer when they hadn't hit the teen years. Expedition gives plenty of room to haul them and others around.

[paintguy]

5 hours ago, grbeck said:

MY wife wants three rows of seats because we are being asked to transport friends and/or team mates of our kids to various events. She wants the extra seating capacity. 

My brother has 3 kids, all exceptionally tall. Expedition and Navigator has filled his need for family transport. 

[tbone]

5 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Perhaps a maverick then, same basic platform, more rear legroom. Depending on how many people you need to carry, a third row could just be wasted space. We have 6 people in our family, and almost never use the third row on our explorer. 

 

If you're set on a third row, I'd give it a few more years for Ford to improve the quality on the current explorer, and then pick one of those up. 

You have mentioned the quality of the Explorers a few times. For some perspective, we have had a 2020 and a 2022 ST with 45k and 36k miles, respectively.  We still have the 22.  Both of these have been pretty solid, with the exception of the recalls.  CAP certainly has issues, but not all of the product coming out of there is poor quality.
 

We have some Explorers at my work that have been pretty abused and our fleet guy hasn’t had many complaints about them either.  

[jpd80]

In a way, maybe Ford missed an opportunity by not producing a CD6 based Explorer Sport Trac,

I could imagine that ticking a lot of boxes for buyers as an alternative to F150, particularly the 2.3 EB.

[fuzzymoomoo]

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

In a way, maybe Ford missed an opportunity by not producing a CD6 based Explorer Sport Trac,

I could imagine that ticking a lot of boxes for buyers as an alternative to F150, particularly the 2.3 EB.

Why? They had Ranger and at the time knew Maverick was in the works. 

[Captainp4]

9 hours ago, jpd80 said:

In a way, maybe Ford missed an opportunity by not producing a CD6 based Explorer Sport Trac,

I could imagine that ticking a lot of boxes for buyers as an alternative to F150, particularly the 2.3 EB.

 

3 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Why? They had Ranger and at the time knew Maverick was in the works. 

Interesting thought, but seems like a lot of overlap while not being as capable as ranger or as affordable as maverick. Not sure where it would fit in.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Captainp4 said:

 

Interesting thought, but seems like a lot of overlap while not being as capable as ranger or as affordable as maverick. Not sure where it would fit in.

The original sport Trac worked because it offered a full rear seat and a V8 neither of which Ranger offered at the time.  With today’s Ranger crew cab 2.7L it would be redundant.

[HotRunrGuy]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

The original sport Trac worked because it offered a full rear seat and a V8 neither of which Ranger offered at the time.  With today’s Ranger crew cab 2.7L it would be redundant.

 

Plus, it was stupidly expensive if all you wanted was a 4(full)-door Ranger.

 

HRG

[Deanh]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

The original sport Trac worked because it offered a full rear seat and a V8 neither of which Ranger offered at the time.  With today’s Ranger crew cab 2.7L it would be redundant.

personally liked the Sports Trac...but we couldnt give them away for whatever reason ....and they were relatively expensive IIRC

[DeluxeStang]

On 2/21/2024 at 9:01 AM, Joe771476 said:

A company in business since 1903 should not have quality issues. That being said, these younger generations can't produce the quality of past generations. 

Yeah, these damn young people making cars that actually work for decades, shame on them. We need to go back to the 60s when the average lifespan of a car was about 7 years before going to the junkyard. Or the 80s, when my parents fiesta lasted less than a year before catching on fire, and their other 80s Ford, a Tarus, had transmission issues, also within a year.

 

Damn, our modern explorer is such a piece of garbage. It's 8 years old, and I had to replace the factory battery a year ago. While a pile of junk, I bet it's only gonna last another decade or two on the factory motor. We need to go back to motors that blew up at 10k miles like those good ol' classics from the 50s. That's when cars were for real men. 

[akirby]

4 hours ago, Deanh said:

but we couldnt give them away for whatever reason ....and they were relatively expensive IIRC

You just answered your own question

[jpd80]

21 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Why? They had Ranger and at the time knew Maverick was in the works. 

 

17 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

 

Interesting thought, but seems like a lot of overlap while not being as capable as ranger or as affordable as maverick. Not sure where it would fit in.

 

16 hours ago, akirby said:

The original sport Trac worked because it offered a full rear seat and a V8 neither of which Ranger offered at the time.  With today’s Ranger crew cab 2.7L it would be redundant.

Let me explain my thoughts further,

a Sport Trac built off the CD6 Explorer would have been much bigger and wider than the original Sport Track offering  a superior experience by using Explorer’s IRS versus Ranger’s rather cramped second row and leaf suspension. The down side is that  it would have competed with is the F150, an absolute no on in Ford’s opinion.

The  up side would have been that EB 2.3 and EB 3.0 combined with lighter weight than F150 would have made it easier to achieve CAFE numbers. In turn, the F150 could have graduated to ann efficient heavy half ton, perhaps avoiding CAFE completely, but  would the EPA accept that?

Edited February 24 by jpd80

[fuzzymoomoo]

13 hours ago, Deanh said:

but we couldnt give them away for whatever reason

That doesn’t surprise me, you’re in a pretty unique market. 

[Bob Rosadini]

On 2/21/2024 at 11:01 AM, Joe771476 said:

A company in business since 1903 should not have quality issues. That being said, these younger generations can't produce the quality of past generations. The best solution is going back to the Rouge plant: Everything in-house. Bring the raw materials in the back door and spit out the finished product at the front door.  How can you ship all these components from other subcontracting plants and foreign countries without the shipping costs negating the labor savings? I don't think you can justify it anymore. Yeah I know some resources aren't here in the USA. But let's give it a try and do as much as possible to not rely on other entities.

Well I think Joe your post may go a bit too far, but ..Boeing is considering buying back the outfit that they sold to assemble plane bodies as a solution for some of the serious issues they have been having.

 

Good example of outsourcing to "concentrate on our core business"...translation ...go to a lower cost state-maybe union free?