akirby Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 34 minutes ago, Biker16 said: I have been around a long time. I owned a 2000 Focus and currently own a 2012 Focus and 2014 Transit Connect I love(d) these vehicles. There is a pattern with Ford, where recalls and quality issues spike and Management promises changes, only to see another spike in a few years with more commitments to changes. I don't remember a time when Ford was #1 in initial quality. Quality improves after the spikes but never to be the best in world. Systemic issues with Ford seem to stem from the need for short term cost reductions, short term thinking, and volatile product cadences. I hope this is fixed with Farley, but I will believe it when I see it. Agreed. The pieces that seem different to me now is the change in compensation for management and all the outsiders on the model E side including the skunkworks team. This should lead to new design, engineering and manufacturing processes for model E with higher quality baked in from the start. I think they’ll stick with it as long as costs continue to go down and profits stay up. The question is what happens if profits and/or sales start to fall - will they revert to their old ways? I hope not. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 56 minutes ago, akirby said: Agreed. The pieces that seem different to me now is the change in compensation for management and all the outsiders on the model E side including the skunkworks team. This should lead to new design, engineering and manufacturing processes for model E with higher quality baked in from the start. I think they’ll stick with it as long as costs continue to go down and profits stay up. The question is what happens if profits and/or sales start to fall - will they revert to their old ways? I hope not. Exactly! Strategic discipline has been an issue with Ford management for decades. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 What’s the driving factor in Ford changing it processes to avoid recalls? A. Public embarrassment…………Bssst B. Fear that customers may never return………..Bsst C. A $2 billion enema every quarter that destroys profit………….Ding Ding Ding. Seems like Ford only changes when the pain of financial loss is so incredibly overwhelming. That applies to Warranty costs, bad product investments and failed projects/business ventures. All we can hope for is that Ford gets on top of the root cause of those losses and stems the bleeding. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 13 hours ago, jpd80 said: Seems like Ford only changes when the pain of financial loss is so incredibly overwhelming. That applies to Warranty costs, bad product investments and failed projects/business ventures. All we can hope for is that Ford gets on top of the root cause of those losses and stems the bleeding. Not yet mentioned is Ford has an insidious Finance function that enforces its authority through every admin that passes through Ford leadership. It pushes for cost reductions through its prism of finance, with no understanding or concern for the engineering (quality) viability of the reductions it's pushing. Finance only wants to produce bottom line results for the next quarter's figures. Finance doesn't listen to Engineering (because it doesn't have to) and so decisions and choices are made that are next quarter friendly, but detrimental to product goodness and quality. This behavior is a backdrop to everything described previously in the comments, I just haven't seen it called out - but it's there in the background (always has been, unfortunately probably always will be). I would never argue against financial discipline, but this function's affect on Ford's product is detrimental and almost always ignored. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExplorerDude Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 (edited) 3 hours ago, Harley Lover said: Not yet mentioned is Ford has an insidious Finance function that enforces its authority through every admin that passes through Ford leadership. It pushes for cost reductions through its prism of finance, with no understanding or concern for the engineering (quality) viability of the reductions it's pushing. Finance only wants to produce bottom line results for the next quarter's figures. Finance doesn't listen to Engineering (because it doesn't have to) and so decisions and choices are made that are next quarter friendly, but detrimental to product goodness and quality. This behavior is a backdrop to everything described previously in the comments, I just haven't seen it called out - but it's there in the background (always has been, unfortunately probably always will be). I would never argue against financial discipline, but this function's affect on Ford's product is detrimental and almost always ignored. Spot on!! Right now internally the only thing being pushed is revenue, revenue, revenue. And when revenue isn’t enough it’s cut, cut, cut. What’s most concerning is how Bill Ford, who has seen all of the ups and downs as well as what works and what doesn’t work over the years but has not yet made any meaningful changes to prevent the Finance Dept from making so many short sighted moves. For example, they will change suppliers on a part just to save 5 cents on any given part. Doesn’t mean that new part is the same or better. It’s about cost, not quality and that’s where the problems happen. Farley’s days are numbered and I believe we may see Kumar promoted to CEO in less than 12 months. Kumar is an engineer at heart (like Mulally) and just has a better approach to things. Farley, while brilliant sometimes just is too much visionary and not enough of the nuts and bolts to get it done. Edited July 27 by ExplorerDude 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 Okay, time for some facts. The second quarter was bad for most automakers: Tesla's profits dropped 45% Stellantis was down 40% Renault dropped 9% Nissan dropped 99% Mercedes down 19% GM and Hyundai were both up. I don't dismiss Ford's poor performance, but it did make a profit (yes, profit) of 1.8 billion dollars and should make a yearly profit of about 8 billion dollars. This ain't chump change folks. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, mackinaw said: Okay, time for some facts. The second quarter was bad for most automakers: Tesla's profits dropped 45% Stellantis was down 40% Renault dropped 9% Nissan dropped 99% Mercedes down 19% GM and Hyundai were both up. I don't dismiss Ford's poor performance, but it did make a profit (yes, profit) of 1.8 billion dollars and should make a yearly profit of about 8 billion dollars. This ain't chump change folks. Yes, automakers are license to print money, even when they perform poorly And if Ford hadn’t incurred a $2 billion warranty cost last quarter, that $1,8 billion profit would have been doubled. Makes you think doesn’t it…… Edited July 27 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 2 hours ago, jpd80 said: And if Ford hadn’t incurred a $2 billion warranty cost last quarter, that $1,8 billion profit would have been doubled. Makes you think doesn’t it…… Thank you for that fact... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 (edited) 5 hours ago, ExplorerDude said: Spot on!! Right now internally the only thing being pushed is revenue, revenue, revenue. And when revenue isn’t enough it’s cut, cut, cut. I mentioned a while ago that when Jim Hackett took over from Mark Fields, quality was never mentioned in releases but I was assured by people that it was a given…. Then when Farley took over he too never mentioned a focus on quality, it was all about getting ready for a big push into electric vehicles. Seriously, the more things change, the more they stay the same… 5 hours ago, ExplorerDude said: What’s most concerning is how Bill Ford, who has seen all of the ups and downs as well as what works and what doesn’t work over the years but has not yet made any meaningful changes to prevent the Finance Dept from making so many short sighted moves. For example, they will change suppliers on a part just to save 5 cents on any given part. Doesn’t mean that new part is the same or better. It’s about cost, not quality and that’s where the problems happen. The bureaucracy at Ford is a huge issue, they live in silos and focus on their company rules, anyone who tries to step outside of financing guide lines or is seen to be too generous with suppliers is put under pressure to cut costs and lock into long term supply contracts to get it. Financing has such a grip on Ford that none of the brass in the last 30 years has been able to shift their control. If their penny pinching is the root cause of the near $3 billion warranty costs this year, then now is the best time to do something about that decision making control. Also, I suspect that this is the reason Farley split the company into Pro, Blue and Model E, an attempt to try to isolate and insulate the Electric vehicle group away from conventional financing approval and have most thing green lit by Bill Ford and the board. Interesting to note that Farley ripped something like $11 billion out of ICE budgets and programs to help fund all those future BEV products and infrastructure. I think he cut way too deep and that really hurt the very vehicles expected to carry he growing costs… 5 hours ago, ExplorerDude said: Farley’s days are numbered and I believe we may see Kumar promoted to CEO in less than 12 months. Kumar is an engineer at heart (like Mulally) and just has a better approach to things. Farley, while brilliant sometimes just is too much visionary and not enough of the nuts and bolts to get it done. I dunno, Jim Farley is the golden child basking in Bill Ford’s glow, he basically did everything that Bill Ford said, all the things that Mark Fields resisted because it made no sense. So Ford is hardly going to fire him but a CEO like Farley in his early sixties would be expecting a golden handshake, so a switch to Kumar will be in the works. Edited July 27 by jpd80 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 That’s unfortunate if Farley can’t fix that. You’d think they could understand billions in warranty costs. I think Farley did say quality was #1 KPI for everybody including the bean counters but it’s hard to get those people to ignore short term gains and focus on long term. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 (edited) 30 minutes ago, akirby said: That’s unfortunate if Farley can’t fix that. You’d think they could understand billions in warranty costs. I think Farley did say quality was #1 KPI for everybody including the bean counters but it’s hard to get those people to ignore short term gains and focus on long term. And this is the maddening thing, the financing team do not need to go away, just temper their exuberance to cut costs beyond the bone. Just take on board that their actions had consequences that added up to billions in losses. It wouldn’t take much for say, an engineering opinion on costings to assist in a fair price and then add proper surveillance to ensure that parts suppliers stick to agreed quality KPIs. Its not rocket science…. Edited July 27 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 7 hours ago, ExplorerDude said: Spot on!! Right now internally the only thing being pushed is revenue, revenue, revenue. And when revenue isn’t enough it’s cut, cut, cut...... What you describe is what has been done at every corporation since the beginning of time. Of course they emphasize revenue. Would you expect anything less? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 56 minutes ago, jpd80 said: And this is the maddening thing, the financing team do not need to go away, just temper their exuberance to cut costs beyond the bone. Just take on board that their actions had consequences that added up to billions in losses. It wouldn’t take much for say, an engineering opinion on costings to assist in a fair price and then add proper surveillance to ensure that parts suppliers stick to agreed quality KPIs. Its not rocket science…. I was about to say that engineering should have major input on product and vendor selections. In our company finance provides the budget but the individual engineering teams select the products and vendors. Supply chain interfaces with the vendors and writes contracts and they may make suggestions but final choice is not left to bean counters or supply chain except in rare circumstances where the 2 companies have some higher level contractual relationship. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExplorerDude Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 (edited) 32 minutes ago, mackinaw said: What you describe is what has been done at every corporation since the beginning of time. Of course they emphasize revenue. Would you expect anything less? I don’t think you understand the culture context of how things have shifted in the last 24 months within Ford. Yes, the company like any other has always emphasized revenue. But in the last 24 months, the desire for revenue has gone from normal business to turbocharged desperation. If we don’t get enough we are going out of business. Ford internally is in “survival mode” again. Edited July 28 by ExplorerDude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 1 minute ago, ExplorerDude said: Yes, the company like any other has always emphasized revenue. But in the last 24 months, the desire for revenue has gone from normal business to turbocharged if we don’t get enough we are going out of business. Ford internally is in “survival mode” again. Again, you describe every auto manufacturer on the face of the earth. Look what's happening at Stellantis right now. Executives being fired, or retiring early. The NA market which was their breadwinner, is now a disaster. Jeep sales worldwide down by 250,000 units (one entire factory). The CEO openly criticizing Sterling Heights assembly for producing poor quality trucks, etc., etc. And how about Nissan whose profits for the second quarter fell 99%? And let's not forget Tesla, whose profits fell 44%. Everybody is in survival mode right now., not just Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 1 hour ago, akirby said: I was about to say that engineering should have major input on product and vendor selections. In our company finance provides the budget but the individual engineering teams select the products and vendors. Supply chain interfaces with the vendors and writes contracts and they may make suggestions but final choice is not left to bean counters or supply chain except in rare circumstances where the 2 companies have some higher level contractual relationship. Exactly and thank you, I was hoping that you would respond as you did with industry best practice 37 minutes ago, mackinaw said: Again, you describe every auto manufacturer on the face of the earth. Look what's happening at Stellantis right now. Executives being fired, or retiring early. The NA market which was their breadwinner, is now a disaster. Jeep sales worldwide down by 250,000 units (one entire factory). The CEO openly criticizing Sterling Heights assembly for producing poor quality trucks, etc., etc. And how about Nissan whose profits for the second quarter fell 99%? And let's not forget Tesla, whose profits fell 44%. Everybody is in survival mode right now., not just Ford. Correct but some like Stellantis are doing it much tougher than Ford and GM. Had Ford not crippled itself with huge warranty costs, it would be $3 billion better off. thats a couple of ED programs or pay down of BEV costs that can’t happen… 48 minutes ago, ExplorerDude said: I don’t think you understand the culture context of how things have shifted in the last 24 months within Ford. Yes, the company like any other has always emphasized revenue. But in the last 24 months, the desire for revenue has gone from normal business to turbocharged desperation. If we don’t get enough we are going out of business. Ford internally is in “survival mode” again. A lot of that survival mode has come about because of Farley’s heavy spending on BEVs and eyes off Ford Blue needs. The 3 billion loss on warranty is a good smack in the chops to wake up and concentrate on the right areas. Just thinking now, sales slowing up will force Ford to start throwing some incentives on the hood, heck they’ve been jacking up prices enough, so time to give some back to long suffering buyers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 Autoblog.com - Automakers Hit Significant Storm Survival mode.... I just read this some days ago, a good read of a possible storm brewing... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 15 hours ago, akirby said: I was about to say that engineering should have major input on product and vendor selections. In our company finance provides the budget but the individual engineering teams select the products and vendors. Supply chain interfaces with the vendors and writes contracts and they may make suggestions but final choice is not left to bean counters or supply chain except in rare circumstances where the 2 companies have some higher level contractual relationship. Basically how it was done at Boeing when my grandfather was an engineer there. The bean counters had some input, but the final say and decisions was almost always left up to the engineers. That's why, at least during his career from the 50s to the 80s, Boeing was often seen as kinda the standard of engineering excellence. Because engineers essentially ran the company. They flipped the script in recent decades and look how it's turned out for them. More often than not, bean counters try to get a job done cheaply, engineers try to get it done right. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 38 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said: They flipped the script in recent decades and look how it's turned out for them. I saw an interesting mini-doc about that. That all started when Boeing merged with McDonnell-Douglas. The two cultures clashed completely and because the executives at McDonnell ended up with more control over the board their corporate culture ended up weeding out the Boeing culture. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 (edited) 2 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said: I saw an interesting mini-doc about that. That all started when Boeing merged with McDonnell-Douglas. The two cultures clashed completely and because the executives at McDonnell ended up with more control over the board their corporate culture ended up weeding out the Boeing culture. Exactly, now it's all about cost, and doing it quickly. One of the main projects my grandfather worked on was developing the engines for the original 747 back in the 60s. That project was insanely expensive and ambitious for it's time. A lot of people thought it couldn't be done. If Boeing today attempted to engineer something radical and game changing, they'd fall on their face as much as it pains me to say. I don't want to get too off topic, so I'll tie this back in with Ford by saying this is where the saving money above all else mentality gets you. You do well at first, but it comes around to bite you in the ass. It happened to Boeing, and it happened to Ford. I'm willing to bet if Ford had just spent more time and money to engineer their vehicles right the first time, they would have come out ahead as a result of having to issue fewer recalls. Edited July 28 by DeluxeStang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morgan20 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 On 7/27/2024 at 1:22 PM, mackinaw said: GM and Hyundai were both up. Toyota will report its latest earnings on August 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 7 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said: I saw an interesting mini-doc about that. That all started when Boeing merged with McDonnell-Douglas. The two cultures clashed completely and because the executives at McDonnell ended up with more control over the board their corporate culture ended up weeding out the Boeing culture. It’s worse than that. MD executives did way more than simple cost cutting - they also did massive stock buy backs including one right after one of the huge incidents. It was almost a pump and dump - do whatever it takes to pump up the stock then take the money and run and damn the consequences. I believe charges are pending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 I could imagine that was part of the reason why Mulally left Boeing, passed over a couple of times says to me that Boeing’s culture was already changing for the worse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.