Grrrrr - Edmunds has just reviewed the new Ford Escape.

[RichardJensen]

1) One is hard pressed to figure out how switching from discs to drums is due to improper funding of the cycle plan.

 

2) Per Bill Ford's biography http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=93 his assignments post board election (1988) were a) director of business strategy, with a focus on low cost manufacturing development, b ) head of climate control, then c) about a year at the top of commercial truck, before being elected chairman of the board. In 1987 he was named head of Ford Switzerland. For the last 20 years, give or take, Bill has had no positions at Ford that were directly involved with product planning. If it is an exaggeration to say he came up through 'finance', it would be more accurate to say that he came up through 'general business', not 'product'.

 

3) Nasser was, before being named CEO, the head of North American product development. That he knew what was going on is clear if you believe the contents of this article: http://www.lean.org/WhoWeAre/LEINewsStory....ewsArticleId=38

 

This guy may be making up the story out of whole cloth, but given that he is not even remotely connected with Bill Ford, Ford Motor, etc., and that he has no obvious axes to grind, it lends a fair amount of credibility to his account.

 

The rest of your assertions can't be contradicted with publicly available material, therefore they'll have to stand on your say-so (for what that's worth). Calling Bill Ford an idiot doesn't really lend a lot of strength to any of your other assertions, nor does your failure to cite any sources for even the publicly verifiable information.

Edited January 3, 2007 by RichardJensen
edited to tidy punctuation and grammar

[bec5150]

The company I work for has about 50 people on auto allowance plans and they trade vehicles every 3-4 years. The topic of new cars comes up often and most people read about the new models frequently. In other words this is an informed group. There are a few of us that own Ford products. I currently have a 2005 Mariner and a 2005 Mustang GT. I previously had a 2000 F150 and before that a Ford Ranger. So, I can honestly say that I have liked owning some of the recent Ford Products.

 

After chatting with several people at work, I asked them about the new Edge. Only three knew what it was and they said that they had read that it was getting mediocre to bad reviews. As the Ford discussion progressed, common theme started to emerge. The budget minded people were saying that they would "settle" for a Ford if it was heavily discounted and they though they were getting bargain. The non-budget minded people all preferred a foreign brand and never seriously considered a Ford.

 

What I realized in that moment was that most of the people that I know have decided (with the exception of the F150 and Mustang) that Ford products are something that you "settle" for if they can be had at a significant discount. They are no longer vehicles that people actually want. It might not be a fair or accurate perception, but it is wide spread. Reviews like this one are only going to reinforce this negative perception.

 

I thought that summed up Fords current situation. What do you guys think?

I know that the Honda dealership close to my house looks like a "Macy's" while the Ford dealer looks closer to a Big Lots or Walmart, so I think you are right on the money.

[RichardJensen]

He went from hero to zero in about a month when a certain Product Creation VP decided to make some changes to bring in “his” people.

This is the very definition of poor corporate structure.

 

When I refer to the structure being flawed at Ford, that reference is not to the individual product teams, the teams in charge of basic systems, etc. the reference is to the overarching philosophy, stated or no, underpinning the process by which decisions of any sort are made.

 

The ability of a VP to replace personnel at a whim is the antithesis of responsible corporate structure. In a responsible corporation, no employee is bigger than his post. The authority wielded is as close as possible to the authority delegated, and checks exist to prevent abuse of any authority.

 

This includes abusing power to shield supervisors from information they have a right to know, the abuse of power to demand information from subordinates that they do not need to provide, the abuse of power to make decisions without proper review, the abuse of power to influence the decision making process, etc.

 

In a dysfunctional corporation, the corporation itself has become, for many of its employees, largely an afterthought. The obtaining, use, and abuse of power within one's individual sphere of influence has become the primary concern, and abuse of power begets abuse of power in others. People fight fire with fire--feeling the only way to protect oneself from one's higher ups is by leaning on one's subordinates--or pulling 'power plays' by going over the head of a direct supervisor to obtain pressure on him/her, to get pressure on oneself backed off.

 

Before any organizational structure can be put in place, the culture of power must be abolished. This can only come from the top, and it can only come from a commitment to the 'rule of law', that NOBODY, from the CEO on down, is exempt from the basic operating principles of the corporation. This is more important than the CEO eating in the employee dining room, more important than passing up the corporate perks and the high salary. The most important thing is the establishment of the corporation as something other than the vehicle and instrument for the whims of the CEO.

 

As I've said, Bill Ford was a flawed CEO, I believe, in large part because he failed to grasp the extent to which the culture of his corporation--most especially the North American operations--had been damaged not so much by bad decisions but by a culture that made these bad decisions not only possible, but inevitable.

[wescoent]

Honda and Toyota seem to be enjoying considerable success with their CRV and RAV4, both of which are primarily 4-cylinder models. I think Ford came 85% of the way it needed to with this redesign, with my main quibble being the V6 engine, carryover 4-speed automatics, and the chunky exterior styling, as opposed to the sleeker Japanese models in this segment.

 

However, an all-new model needs to be in the works to debut by MY2011 at the latest.

[NLPRacing]

Honda and Toyota seem to be enjoying considerable success with their CRV and RAV4, both of which are primarily 4-cylinder models. I think Ford came 85% of the way it needed to with this redesign, with my main quibble being the V6 engine, carryover 4-speed automatics, and the chunky exterior styling, as opposed to the sleeker Japanese models in this segment.

 

However, an all-new model needs to be in the works to debut by MY2011 at the latest.

 

I think the carryover tranny's are by far the worst mistake. A 6 speed auto would be great, but they should have at least got the CVT or a 5 speed auto. I bet the Duratec23 would do great with a CVT. Hopefully some new powertrain options are coming and hopefully before they lose too many sales.

[FLLMTR]

:reading: Man, I cannot believe I am writing this, but I think everyone here is wrong. The drum brakes and carryover powertrain will not make a hill of difference to most buyers. Why? Well, just look at Toyota and Honda. They have been doing reskins over the same dated platforms and powertrains and have been selling well.

 

Looks count.

 

Looks and reliability count more than the age of the engine and chassis. The visual appeal of the new sheetmetal, interior textures and quietness will have broad appeal that will overcome any of the unseen shortcomings.

 

Seriously, it will sell much better than the current version.

Edited January 3, 2007 by FLLMTR

[Keyser Soze]

:reading: Man, I cannot believe I am writing this, but I think everyone here is wrong. The drum brakes and carryover powertrain will not make a hill of difference to most buyers. Why? Well, just look at Toyota and Honda. They have been doing reskins over the same dated platforms and powertrains and have been selling well.

 

Looks count.

 

Looks and reliability count more than the age of the engine and chassis. The visual appeal of the new sheetmetal, interior textures and quietness will have broad appeal that will overcome any of the unseen shortcomings.

 

Seriously, it will sell much better than the current version.

 

I agree with you on the drums. I'm sure most buyers know if they have ABS, but I doubt that they would pay attention to drum vs. disc. I'm talking about the average buyer (the bread and butter) and not the enthusiast. Even the dated powertrain is probably not that important to the average buyer, although a 5 speed auto would have been a good change.

 

The biggest problem is that the exterior does not look significantly different from the original Escape. Most people would probably need both cars parked right next to each other to pick out the differences. Much more effort should have gone into making this Escape look different and updated from the old one. The interior looks much better, but how many potential buyers will never see it because the exterior does not grab them?

[RichardJensen]

I don't think Escape sales are going to tank, as a result of the questionable decisions on this product.

 

However, these decisions are questionable when Ford is under a microscope, and when reviewers focus more on what has been removed or left unchanged, than on what has been added.

 

If Ford were Honda or Toyota, regressing to drums in the rear would've been acceptable. Heck, Honda dummied up the rear suspension of the Civic and hardly anyone noticed,

 

but right now, the vultures are out for Ford. ANY, and I mean ANY excuse that can be found for declaring Ford dead, and parting out the corpse will be latched onto. Going with drums and keeping a 4 speed transmission can be grasped by people at Edmunds and everywhere else as cause to say, "see, I told you, they're screwed."

 

My own disgust for the schadenfreude that is near the surface of almost every article on Ford these days is not just because I happen to think there's some good things happening at Ford; it's because the smug "I told you so" attitude simmering in these commentaries is a distasteful attitude at any time, directed at anyone or anything, and a disgraceful emotion.

Edited January 3, 2007 by RichardJensen

[atomcat68]

Everyone talks about using a 6 speed auto. I would have used the CVT. It's already in the hybrid. Maybe that combo with the 3.0 6cyl engine would have given the Escape a quicker and smoother ride. If the 3.5 engine 6 speed combo puts the Escape into the Edge's market, then I think the 3.0/cvt combo is an excellent choice.

[EMDEE]

Speaking as somone who's not part of the insider circle here, I have to say that I agree with Embalmer's post.. The article by Mr. Jensen does indeed wander around among a number of subjects without ever really nailing any one of them. What are all the "lies" that people were telling Bill Ford to protect their jobs? And how could Ford be so blind on product issues as to allow some of the incredible but obvious mistakes the company was making? Why would it make to ANYONE for the company to have no new product between 2000 and 2004? How could it make sense to anyone to let cars like the Taurus and the Lincoln LS just sit there year after year without serious updating, at a time when the rest of the industry was in a period of wild advancement? You didn't t need to be able to see through the wiles of lying subordinates to see that these things were wrong. What kind of special skills were required to see that the company needed more than 3 rapidly aging engine lines to be even remotely competitive? None.

 

Either Ford was hiding the facts of some collosal financial disaster or everyone in management was brain dead. That said, it seems like the new team is finding it almost easy to start rectifying the matter. Their solutions, things ike better teamwork and meetings, reduced overhead and more attention to product are the things that almost any critic would recommend. In the long term, this gives me confidence they will get things right.

Edited January 3, 2007 by EMDEE

[old_fairmont_wagon]

The trouble is, they didn't really need to make drastic changes to the powertrain to make a noticeable difference. The D23 4 banger is already tested with a 5AT in the CD3 triplets and the Mazda6. I can't see it being too hard to put that in the escape. The CVT is already used with the D30 in the D3 pair, and its already AWD capable. Heck, use the D30 tune from the D3 pair as well, that's a few morep onies and about more pounds of torque to start with. Just those two changes would have improved the gas mileage and acceleration numbers on the escape triplets. I don't much care about the switch to drums if it was a cost saving measure that resulted in more significant improvements elsewhere. Ford's hurting for funds and that's a change that, if properly done, wouldn't have hurt things.

 

Its just agrevating that there was stuff in the parts bin that could have worked. The CVTs are likely leaving the D3s with the D35 intro, so there would be capacity for them there as well.

[pictor]

The trouble is, they didn't really need to make drastic changes to the powertrain to make a noticeable difference. The D23 4 banger is already tested with a 5AT in the CD3 triplets and the Mazda6. I can't see it being too hard to put that in the escape. The CVT is already used with the D30 in the D3 pair, and its already AWD capable. Heck, use the D30 tune from the D3 pair as well, that's a few morep onies and about more pounds of torque to start with. Just those two changes would have improved the gas mileage and acceleration numbers on the escape triplets. I don't much care about the switch to drums if it was a cost saving measure that resulted in more significant improvements elsewhere. Ford's hurting for funds and that's a change that, if properly done, wouldn't have hurt things.

 

Its just agrevating that there was stuff in the parts bin that could have worked. The CVTs are likely leaving the D3s with the D35 intro, so there would be capacity for them there as well.

 

I am in the market to replace my 2001 Escape in the the Sept. timeframe and with this update Ford lost me. While we have had no major issues with Escape, the gas milage has been disappointing. The retreading of the D30/4AT was a big mistake. I bought the escape at the time because I felt it was the class leader, now it falling behind. A more powerful fuel efficient drive train is what was needed. I guess the Edge is where I am going, or maybe somewhere else.

[sranger]

:reading: Man, I cannot believe I am writing this, but I think everyone here is wrong. The drum brakes and carryover powertrain will not make a hill of difference to most buyers. Why? Well, just look at Toyota and Honda. They have been doing reskins over the same dated platforms and powertrains and have been selling well.

 

Looks count.

 

Looks and reliability count more than the age of the engine and chassis. The visual appeal of the new sheetmetal, interior textures and quietness will have broad appeal that will overcome any of the unseen shortcomings.

 

Seriously, it will sell much better than the current version.

 

 

You make a good point, but there is one hugh difference. When Toyota and Honda do a simply re-skin, there are usually not many if any new models on the market with a better driver train. However, Ford is putting up the same old stuff when just about every other player in the market has more to offer at or near the same price...

 

That is a big difference....

[silvrsvt]

All I have to say is that I hope that the line of thought that went into the Escape didn't follow its way over to the D3 updates. The Focus was so fucked up in 05 that any improvement is welcomed!

[NLPRacing]

Everyone talks about using a 6 speed auto. I would have used the CVT. It's already in the hybrid. Maybe that combo with the 3.0 6cyl engine would have given the Escape a quicker and smoother ride. If the 3.5 engine 6 speed combo puts the Escape into the Edge's market, then I think the 3.0/cvt combo is an excellent choice.

 

I have driven a D30/4AT FWD Escape and D30/CVT FWD Freestyle back-to-back and found the heavier Freestyle to feel much quicker, more powerful and more responsive than the Escape. It's funny what just a difference a tranny can make.

[RichardJensen]

What are all the "lies" that people were telling Bill Ford to protect their jobs? And how could Ford be so blind on product issues as to allow some of the incredible but obvious mistakes the company was making? Why would it make to ANYONE for the company to have no new product between 2000 and 2004?

In short: By his own accounts, when Nasser took his golden parachute, Bill found the company in a total mess. It is unlikely that he would fabricate an account that makes his supervision as Chair look bad, in order to make his early performance as CEO look good. Therefore, Bill was generally misinformed about the state of the company, then, during the restructuring, the issue is not so much that Ford was lied to outright, but that problems were minimized, and solutions that left the existing dysfunctional structure in place were put forward. Seemingly, the entire top floor at WHQ had rose colored glasses on, and I don't view it as coincidental that those rose colored glasses allowed the people in NA ops to continue to consolidate and abuse power.

 

Padilla was, like Ford, by no means perfect, but HE at least cleaned up the mess he was assigned. Manufacturing. Everyone else failed, and (IMO) in no small part because they either refused to acknowledge the change required because it would upset their status quo, or they were flat unqualified to implement, to FORCE change onto their departments. Martens and Boddie leap to mind, as examples of individuals that were in a position to effect positive change, but did not do so.

Edited January 3, 2007 by RichardJensen

[kyle]

Richard, I wish you would recognize that Bluecon is right when he says you miss the target with your analysis. As a former insider at a significant level, I can say with assuredness that you are indeed incorrect with many (but also clearly not all) of your assertions. I will try to show where you misinterpret how Ford operates or the facts are wrong. Let’s look below at just a few examples from your paragraph:

quote: According to at least one Ford insider, the guy who led the Escape program has accepted an early retirement offer.

 

The problem with the Escape would not be the Escape chief engineer (CE). The problem is with the cycle planning process that only allocates limited funds to support product upgrades. Minimize the funding and the options for the CE become likewise minimal. The problem is however that Ford has for the past 4 to 5 years refused to fix the cycle planning process. Their solution has been to push the decision making higher and higher into the organization until the senior team was overwhelmed. Partly this is due to the mistakes of Ford 2000 where planning has been de-emphasized as a career path and instead has become a pass-through rotation for engineers. As such, very little upfront planning accompanies any of the cycle plans. The 80s may have been overkill with the detail in the back-up books, but now there is nothing justifying decisions other than senior management whim.

 

quote: The Five Hundred was the first new car launched by Ford NA in five years (stop and think that one over), and was, if not a screaming success, immediately competitive with fullsize sedans in its purview.

 

quote: Hopefully, with the changes being put in place, and the offering of retirements and buyouts, Ford can clear out the deadwood in NA product development that has prevented Ford from developing a solid and consistent lineup.

 

These two quotes show that you don’t understand what is happening inside Ford. It’s not deadwood being cleared out – it’s the solid folk who provided Ford’s backbone for decades. And your statement is a case in point given that the CE of the Five Hundred was one of the first to go in what was purely a political move. He went from hero to zero in about a month when a certain Product Creation VP decided to make some changes to bring in “his” people. An old manager of mine years ago told me that reorgs aren’t about efficiency, they’re about power. And they’re not about deadwood either.

 

quote: Let’s consider the situation Bill Ford found himself in (seeing that he, in my opinion, receives an unjustified amount of the blame for the state Ford is currently in): Bill Ford came to the CEO’s office having completely avoided the product side of the business. He came up through finance. This is not necessarily bad: Trotman and Nasser were product men.

 

This entire paragraph is completely false. Bill Ford’s career inside Ford was primarily product planning – NOT finance. And Nasser was not a product guy AT ALL. He was a finance guy from the word go. He was the protégé of Wayne Booker (a finance guy) who pushed him through all the key finance positions before he started taking general management positions. Bill Ford had a decade of product experience more than Jac Nasser. An old friend of mine bumped into Nasser a year or so ago and he stated that he was much happier buying and selling companies for a bank – which is precisely what he did at Ford.

 

quote: I don’t think that Bill Ford was prepared to believe, and it certainly seems as though no one under him was prepared to tell him, just how messed up his product teams were.

 

There was nothing wrong with the specific product teams – unless you are referring to the entire “energy room process” – but that wasn’t a multitude of teams but rather a single effort to drive compatibility into the target setting process. But as I stated before – there were no career planners to make the process work.

 

quote: Ford’s successes blinded officers of the corporation to this–or officers of the corporation (e.g. Jac Nasser) knew that there were problems, and REFUSED to fix them, refusing to expend any effort at all on fixing them.

 

Nasser never believed there were problems (at least of the sort you allude to) – how could he refuse to fix something he didn’t believe was there. Sure the management team recognized the need for continually improving the PD process but Nasser was primarily interested in getting the Ford stock to approximate the dot.com multiples of the day – he spent very little time on process. As such he shed assets that never should have been shed. He eliminated engineering capability if they took to many assets. And he drove teams to deliver product with too few resources assuming that process enablers proposed were as good as implemented.

 

quote: Among snippets that have escaped from the last few years, it appears that Bill Ford was increasingly frustrated with the quality of information that he was receiving, and that he believed he was being misled on a regular basis. …… Steven Hamp was appointed chief of staff, apparently to provide some kind of BS detection regarding the information being passed to Bill.

Bill Ford is an idiot because he didn’t depend on the team he put in place – not because the quality of information he received was questionable. Case in point is Greg Smith who in his last year with Ford was made Vice-Chairman to help advise Billy in corporate operational issues. So in one year, How many times do you think Billy availed himself of Greg’s (considerable) expertise…..None. Billy listened more to his UofM business school professor and some green advocate than he did to the management of his own firm. Now it’s not a bad thing that he did consult those people – but the problem was that was all he consulted. And that’s why Greg resigned.

quote: Bill Ford was, in many ways, a flawed CEO, but at the time that he assumed that role, there was no one else at Ford. Nasser had driven the remaining capable executives from the company, and had made himself foremost in the crew of liars and cavilers bent on preserving their jobs by hiding as much of the truth as possible from Bill.

 

Heh heh – much of this IS true.

 

Nice post....appreciate the info. Would be curious to hear if you are still with the company or have moved on.

 

Richard I think that their is some validity to what has been stated and think you should take it for what it is...

 

From my perspective I have to say that as much as Nasser was a failure, Bill Ford was more so. Bill was Jac's boss for what 4 years prior to the change up. All along he as chief executive office and a long term member of the board was well aware of what was going on in the product side.

 

He more than anyone is accountable. I do not believe that he was outright lied to and it is his responsiblity to ensure that he is given accurate information.

 

A friend of mine worked for H&P for nearly 20 years before Carly Fiornia was promoted to the top job. Not to much later he was out during a reorg in the company. Listening to him it is apparent to him that he has an ax to grind-and if I was making $200k a year and was out I would be to-but he always harped back to the original founds management style....anyone?

 

It was MBWA-management by walking around. Obviously bill never worked for Ford but if he had "walked around" he would of seen through many of the problems.

 

The best thing he ever did was hire Mulally. Second best thing was knew he had to hire someone.

 

Everyone at the top of ford's manangement has changed in the past 8 years but one.

[GT40 2]

Can somebody get the escape interior pictures off this site? I cant view them for some reason.

 

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...2/pageId=117326

[jasonj80]

Why do Ford Brakes suck so bad now when you compare them to the competition. Navigator is bad, Edge is bad, Escape is bad. Though one thing is still true with brakes, yours are only as good as the person following you's are.

 

The Engines could have easily remained the same and just have a 5 speed auto with the 4 cylinder, and upgrade the V6 to a six speed. Look at where the competition is going. It is really to bad when Ford continues to do 90% Engineering, to many people our neighbor has taken the Edge off the list for its very poor braking ability -- he test drove it and said it is a wonderful car but the brakes are "mush" and lead you to have 0 confidence in them when you need them. Most people know the difference in Disc and Drum brakes, even my ex who knew nothing about cars, she knew discs make her stop better in the rain. Ask someone out west and they know Disc's are less prone to losing the brakes when going downhill. They need to Switch back as soon as possible, not in '09 but in 5-6 months. Ford used to have innovation, look at the original escape -- it was a great car (though it could have been in development another 6 months to work the bugs out) but it led, the company used to lead.

 

Ford needs to upgrade their brakes, people will live with brake dust if it makes them stop better -- or go with ceramic pads, way less dust better stopping, better heat dissipation. Braking performance can be key to a car buying decision, car sales men use it for the fear factor.

[Edstock]

"The best thing he ever did was hire Mulally. Second best thing was knew he had to hire someone."

 

YES!!!

[RichardJensen]

as much as Nasser was a failure, Bill Ford was more so.

In response to the 'validity' of bb62's remarks: some illustrate my point perfectly, of a deeply dysfunctional organization: others are downright off: Nasser's post before being named CEO was head of NA product development. This flat contradicts the assertion that Nasser had no product background. The assertion that Bill Ford's background was in product development is contradicted by the Ford website, which has his last product centered job in the early 80s. As to Bill being lied to, again, you need look no farther than what happened immediately after Nasser left. Things were far worse than Nasser let on to the public and to Bill. Ford Motor had their most profitable year ever, IIRC, in 1998. Three years later they were in the crapper.

 

As far as Ford being the greater failure, that much is true inasmuch as he was at the helm longer, and inasmuch as he lacked the ability to obtain an honest accounting from his lieutenants.

 

However, if you read that lean.org paper, it becomes crystal clear that Nasser a) knew that NA PD & mfg was screwed up as early as 1997 and b ) did NOTHING about it.

 

Therefore, if you were to focus on a single bit of willful negligence that had far reaching consequences, as opposed to 8 years of lackluster leadership, Nasser becomes the greater villain in that he KNEW there was a problem and DID NOTHING about it. Bill Ford simply didn't have the managerial tools required to do his job. His was Peter-principle incompetence, whereas Nasser made a conscious decision to do the WRONG thing, and that is far worse than incompetence, IMO.

 

Also, you can point to significant accomplishments of Bill Ford's CEO tenure. With Nasser.... all you've got are the acquisition of Volvo and LR. A mixed bag at best.

 

That decision, back in 1997, follows a very straight and very direct line to where we are today.

Edited January 3, 2007 by RichardJensen

[bb62]

In response to the 'validity' of bb62's remarks: some illustrate my point perfectly, of a deeply dysfunctional organization: others are downright off: Nasser's post before being named CEO was head of NA product development. This flat contradicts the assertion that Nasser had no product background. The assertion that Bill Ford's background was in product development is contradicted by the Ford website, which has his last product centered job in the early 80s.

 

I'm just going to address this one quickly. Jac Nasser was NEVER head of NA product development. He was the Executive Vice-President in charge of all North American Operations. This included Product Development, Manufacturing, Marketing, etc. He had entire P&L responsibility for the North American market. One does not go from being a VP of product development (a post two levels below where Jac was in NA) to being CEO.

 

Jac's prior post was as VP of European Operations (this was a group VP level). This also made him responsible for PD, Manuf, Marketing etc. but for Europe. Before that he was head of SA Operations. Do you see the pattern here? He was being groomed for total P&L responsibility at all levels in his rise to CEO not to be a PD chief which was not P&L responsible. Bottom line is that Jac never had product experience. And even if the NA job was a product job, you don't get experience by working from the top, you get it by working in the trenches to understand how the organization works. It is where (and being early in one's career - when) one develops the skills that carry forward in a company like Ford.

 

Like I said, you are either misreading what is published for public consumption or you don't understand it from a "Ford speak" perspective.

Edited January 3, 2007 by bb62

[RichardJensen]

One does not go from being a VP of product development (a post two levels below where Jac was in NA) to being CEO.

I stand corrected, and will edit the article.

 

However, the assertion made by Jim Womack, that Nasser knew there were problems with PD & mfg., stands. Regardless of the position he held, he knew there was a problem, and lacked the willpower to address it head on.

[bb62]

I stand corrected, and will edit the article.

 

However, the assertion made by Jim Womack, that Nasser knew there were problems with PD & mfg., stands. Regardless of the position he held, he knew there was a problem, and lacked the willpower to address it head on.

 

Richard, some of the data in the outside world can be confusing if you have never been on the inside. One director of mine told me years ago that the press typically only gets about 5% right. He worked at the pentagon and was amazed that most of the stuff he was directly responsible for was reported upon completely inacurately. It made him wonder about those other areas of government that he read about in the papers but wasn't responsible for.

 

As for Nasser, his priorities were not with the Auto business per se - he had other people worry about that stuff (and it of course caused problems when they needed Nasser's vote). As I stated earlier, he was more interested P/E multiples and turing Ford into a kind of eBusiness. In my view, Jac was worse than Billy, he just did far more damage - but that's another post.

[BlackHorse]

It never ceases to amaze me how much the media does get wrong in their reporting and it's not just limited to the national or cable news level. Right down to the local level it seems to be a problem. I hate dealing with the media because every time that I do I know they are invariably going to misrepresent some facts of the story. I'm not sure what the problem is, but it's very frustrating at times. The vast majority of the viewing public, completely unaware of the problem, just continue to tune in and believe everything they see and hear from the talking heads.