Ford CEO Touts New U.S.-Built 'Affordable' ICE-Powered Truck at Trump Factory Visit

[twintornados]

Here is a radical idea that is not really radical if you think about it...

F150 gets a reset to a smaller unit but still bigger than Ranger (with EREV unit)

F250 moves to F150's vacated size slot (with more powerful EREV unit)

F350/450/550/600 remains on current Superduty size slot

F650/750 gets new aluminum Superduty based cab structure

E-Series soldiers on as is but with Transit derived cab structure.

New redesigned Maverick gains 2-3 inches in rear cab

CE1 based truck (Courier, Ranchero, newly named) slots in under Maverick.

Ranger gains Supercab back on an MCE. 

[fordmantpw]

I like that idea, though a concern with be with parts sharing.  Right now the F150 and Super Duty share cabs.  That would be a necessity to keep the profit levels high.

 

I've always wondered what the point of the F250 was.  It's essentially the same truck as the F350, but with a lower GVWR.

[rmc523]

32 minutes ago, twintornados said:

Here is a radical idea that is not really radical if you think about it...

F150 gets a reset to a smaller unit but still bigger than Ranger (with EREV unit)

F250 moves to F150's vacated size slot (with more powerful EREV unit)

F350/450/550/600 remains on current Superduty size slot

F650/750 gets new aluminum Superduty based cab structure

E-Series soldiers on as is but with Transit derived cab structure.

New redesigned Maverick gains 2-3 inches in rear cab

CE1 based truck (Courier, Ranchero, newly named) slots in under Maverick.

Ranger gains Supercab back on an MCE. 

 

But what does this accomplish aside from further overlapping all of the products?

 

You proposed adding more room to Maverick, which makes it overstep Ranger, while adding a body style to Ranger, and making F-150 smaller/closer to Ranger on top of that?

What does making F-150 (or F-250) smaller accomplish?

Edited January 20 by rmc523

[twintornados]

4 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

What does making F-150 (or F-250) smaller accomplish?

 

Same as it did when the F-Series was redesigned from Gen 6 (73-79) to Gen 7 (80-86). it was first time F-Series was downsized (or, rightsized if you will) and the market responded positively to it. 

[rmc523]

32 minutes ago, twintornados said:

 

Same as it did when the F-Series was redesigned from Gen 6 (73-79) to Gen 7 (80-86). it was first time F-Series was downsized (or, rightsized if you will) and the market responded positively to it. 

 

I wasn't alive lol.

 

They're selling 800k+ F-series - does it need to be "right sized" or do they risk handing sales to competitors that stay at the same size?

[twintornados]

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

They're selling 800k+ F-series - does it need to be "right sized" or do they risk handing sales to competitors that stay at the same size?

 

The same concerns were voiced when Gen 10 (97-04) models were debuted...radically styled and did not look like any previous truck....

 

Ford has been down this road before....that is why they lead in trucks. 

 

PS: Since Ford really doesn't break down F-Series sales...how many are F150's for personal use and how many are F250+ models for commercial/industrial/fleet use? 

Edited January 20 by twintornados

[akirby]

4 hours ago, fordmantpw said:

I like that idea, though a concern with be with parts sharing.  Right now the F150 and Super Duty share cabs.  That would be a necessity to keep the profit levels high.

 

I've always wondered what the point of the F250 was.  It's essentially the same truck as the F350, but with a lower GVWR.

I thought there was a big tax/regulation advantage to the lower gvwr.  It also allows them to charge more for 350.

[rmc523]

3 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

The same concerns were voiced when Gen 10 (97-04) models were debuted...radically styled and did not look like any previous truck....

 

Ford has been down this road before....that is why they lead in trucks. 

 

PS: Since Ford really doesn't break down F-Series sales...how many are F150's for personal use and how many are F250+ models for commercial/industrial/fleet use? 

 

That's a styling choice.  From what I can find, dimensionally they were nearly the same (actually the '97s appear to be an inch or two bigger here and there).

 

What was proposed above was a size change, so I just question if that would be a smart move.

[tbone]

This whole exercise seems like splitting hairs to me. The current lineup pretty much covers the range of sizes of trucks with the exception of something smaller than the Maverick, which I’m not sure anybody is asking for. Basically, I can only see a more radically styled EV type truck as something to insert into the mix, which will start introducing people to that type of form factor without necessarily impacting the existing product line. Ford needs to stop playing the game of eliminating models in order to add something new.

[akirby]

34 minutes ago, tbone said:

This whole exercise seems like splitting hairs to me. The current lineup pretty much covers the range of sizes of trucks with the exception of something smaller than the Maverick, which I’m not sure anybody is asking for. Basically, I can only see a more radically styled EV type truck as something to insert into the mix, which will start introducing people to that type of form factor without necessarily impacting the existing product line. Ford needs to stop playing the game of eliminating models in order to add something new.

It's not a game it's called being fiscally responsible.

 

Luckily they have plenty of unused capacity at TTP now so nothing needs to be killed. 

[fordmantpw]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

I thought there was a big tax/regulation advantage to the lower gvwr.  It also allows them to charge more for 350.

 

Yes, registration (in some states) is less expensive for the lower GVWR I believe (maybe insurance purposes too), but you can also spec out an F350 with the lower GVWR.  It's nothing but a piece of paper.

 

Here in MO, what matters is the weight limit on your license plate.  My F350 is licensed for 24k lbs. GCWR, and that's what I pay registration on.

[twintornados]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

That's a styling choice.  From what I can find, dimensionally they were nearly the same (actually the '97s appear to be an inch or two bigger here and there).

 

What was proposed above was a size change, so I just question if that would be a smart move.

 

According to AI it was bigger but the biggest part was the "radical" styling compared to the previous gen....pundits bemoaned that it would drive people to the competition, but it did not. As stated, this isn't Fords first rodeo with F150 styling and execution of directional changes. 

 

 

[DeluxeStang]

A statement from Bill Ford on affordability and reducing engineering costs. This is something that'll benefit all their models, I really hope they take this approach with the next mustang to make it a lot more affordable, but it's also relevant for this affordable truck. 

[morgan20]

3 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

A statement from Bill Ford on affordability and reducing engineering costs. 

 

About time Billy Boy! Engineering costs have been out of control at Ford for a while. Certainly when I worked there in the 1990s and 2000s, probably before too.

 

A combination of not invented here syndrome, inefficient processes, and the usual finger pointing, back stabbing, and an every person for themselves mentality at Ford corporate meant that otherwise talented engineers were handicapped compared to competitors.  

 

Ford's skunkworks has already started to address these issues, and hopefully the lessons learned there can help FoMoCo achieve Billy Boy's goal of engineer vehicles that are fundamentally lower-cost so that you can pass that on to the consumer.

[akirby]

12 minutes ago, morgan20 said:

 

 

Ford's skunkworks has already started to address these issues, and hopefully the lessons learned there can help FoMoCo achieve Billy Boy's goal of engineer vehicles that are fundamentally lower-cost so that you can pass that on to the consumer.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I really think the way they assembled the skunkworks team and let them work in secret for two years really opened Bill and Jim's eyes to what is possible.  
 

The affordable market is a growth opportunity for Ford that wasn't viable under the old processes.  The question is how far will they go to make permanent changes or will the old corporate bad habits creep in?

[jpd80]

7 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

A statement from Bill Ford on affordability and reducing engineering costs. This is something that'll benefit all their models, I really hope they take this approach with the next mustang to make it a lot more affordable, but it's also relevant for this affordable truck. 

Perhaps having a design with up to 200 software controlled modules in a vehicle is off the tracks and down the mountain side with controlling costs.

Especially when it’s all been outsourced to suppliers.

 

Ford giving away so much profit, all in the name of reducing employee count.

[rmc523]

14 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

A statement from Bill Ford on affordability and reducing engineering costs. This is something that'll benefit all their models, I really hope they take this approach with the next mustang to make it a lot more affordable, but it's also relevant for this affordable truck. 

 

We'll see if it works.  Mulally turned things around on small cars before, and here we are........

 

as was said above, we'll see if it sticks this time.

[akirby]

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Especially when it’s all been outsourced to suppliers.

 

Ford giving away so much profit, all in the name of reducing employee count.

I spent half my career working on IT outsourcing which has a lot of similarities.  The idea is a supplier that provides parts for multiple mfrs has economies of scale that a single auto mfr can't match and they have more expertise in a particular product.  It also eliminates capital investment and converts it to an expense stream.  But you end up with a lot of overhead and you lose direct control over the manufacturing process.  
 

What we found out is it paralyzes you.  You can't make changes without paying the supplier and all the overhead that comes with that.  We joked that every change request with a certain supplier was $1M and that wasn't far from the truth.  By the time you add all the overhead you're not saving money.

 

Then we figured out we could hire employees in places like Slovakia where wages and benefits were significantly cheaper and the employees were skilled and very smart.  The bigger benefit is they were employees so no overhead  and they could be redirected or reprioritized with an email.  And they worked while we were sleeping.  
 

For Ford this means simplifying components and doing more in house where they have more control like the electronics.  They can drastically shorten change cycles.  This could solve both their quality issues and terrible supplier relations if done properly.  

[morgan20]

10 hours ago, akirby said:

The question is how far will they go to make permanent changes or will the old corporate bad habits creep in?

 

Yea, that's big question. Without a change in Ford's culture, the possibility of the old corporate bad habits creep in is very real.

 

Reminds me of a magazine article from 20 years ago about Mark Fields when he was the biggest of the big shots in the Americas division of Ford:

 

The team’s headquarters was a windowless conference room next to a long row of engineers’ cubicles. The walls of the conference room are papered with charts, goals and timetables. One of Fields’ favorite slogans on the wall: “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.”

 

“You can have the best plan in the world, and if the culture isn’t going to let it happen, it’s going to die on the vine,” Fields said.

[jpd80]

Thank you both for responding, perhaps Ford’s issue with competing in 

the commodity vehicle market all tracks back to these high internal costs.

 

An executive decision that says let’s try a different design that doesn’t 

come with those huge locked in external supplier costs because our

regular ED team can’t deliver vehicles at prices we need?

 

That’s already done with CE1, now apply that approach to ICE/hybrid

design……..

[Bob Rosadini]

55 minutes ago, morgan20 said:

 

Yea, that's big question. Without a change in Ford's culture, the possibility of the old corporate bad habits creep in is very real.

 

Reminds me of a magazine article from 20 years ago about Mark Fields when he was the biggest of the big shots in the Americas division of Ford:

 

The team’s headquarters was a windowless conference room next to a long row of engineers’ cubicles. The walls of the conference room are papered with charts, goals and timetables. One of Fields’ favorite slogans on the wall: “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.”

 

“You can have the best plan in the world, and if the culture isn’t going to let it happen, it’s going to die on the vine,” Fields said.

Regarding the Culture question, maybe what is needed is a return to Mulally's  weekly sessions in which all the responsible parties were held to an update on on goals/objectives that were discussed in prior week.  Pretty tough to stab someone in back when they are in same room as you🤔

 

This reminds that I believe a Ford lifer had posted that a career assignment

to commercial trucks was the kiss of death from a career perspective.  But now we are in the age of Ford Pro being the new winning entity.

I was in Fast Lane yesterday for an oil change and I stopped into the commercial guys cube.  He said his biggest problem is it still takes 6 mos to get a 650/750 built. 

 

This dealership is one of those rare family businesses with 4 locations that seems like thy want to keep the family working.  I mentioned to him that one of his competitors that is a mega corporate dealership with many multi flag organizations had just completed a large stand alone shop with 14' overhead doors and they are advertising ..."bring your 650/750's in for service". I said what are they going to do when those 14' doors are no longer needed to service a Transit?  Again, no answer.  This guy is good and they stole him from another commercial dealer but I get the feeling he gets no communication from Ford on the status of the future.  

 

[rmc523]

20 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Thank you both for responding, perhaps Ford’s issue with competing in 

the commodity vehicle market all tracks back to these high internal costs.

 

An executive decision that says let’s try a different design that doesn’t 

come with those huge locked in external supplier costs because our

regular ED team can’t deliver vehicles at prices we need?

 

That’s already done with CE1, now apply that approach to ICE/hybrid

design……..

 

This is the key.

 

But then again, we also thought they'd take the rapid development process of Maverick and apply it to other models too...

[Sherminator98]

45 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

But then again, we also thought they'd take the rapid development process of Maverick and apply it to other models too...

The Mavericks development seems strange to me-they seem like they woke up one day and said, hey let’s make a small pickup in 2019 and shit it out in 2022

[rmc523]

59 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

The Mavericks development seems strange to me-they seem like they woke up one day and said, hey let’s make a small pickup in 2019 and shit it out in 2022

 

Yeah, it's definitely a one-off.  Like "let's try this cool streamlined approach to product development", it goes great, and then......nothing lol.

 

Seems like one of the few good things that came out of the Hackett era.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

Yeah, it's definitely a one-off.  Like "let's try this cool streamlined approach to product development", it goes great, and then......nothing lol.

 

Seems like one of the few good things that came out of the Hackett era.

Other than EVs they haven't really developed anything new since Maverick.  And it's not the same thing.  This is an even more streamlined design process but it's also a cheaper simpler platform.