Freeman Thomas: Can he save Ford?

[Blue Oval Guide]

You had a hand in the Chrysler 300. Do you feel this car is derived from that a bit?

 

Well, let me say first that the 300 started with me from Ground Zero and the team I put in place to create that car. It's a timeless proportion, just like a Bugatti. I think the Interceptor takes some of the themes of the 300 and goes even further. For one thing, we decided that it would only have to have comfortable seating for four, not five. The front overhang is shorter. The proportions are actually closer to ideal than the 300.That comes from being able to be on the engineering of the platform from the start. This platform is a stretched Mustang rear-drive platform. With the 300, we inherited a lot of hard points.

 

Click here to read the entire article.

[pcsario]

He should be left in charge of Ford NA (Mustangs, Thunderbirds, trucks), and leave L/M to Horbury.

[RichardJensen]

"Can this man save Ford"

 

I hope not.

 

Given that 'design' led revivals at VW and DCX have been short lived, I hope that someone else fixes ALL of Ford NA, instead of just dressing up the designs coming out of a broken PD system.

 

BTW, I hope someone tells David Kiley his articles border on the histrionic.

[pcsario]

No car is timeless, as long as they look good for their intended 5 year cycle and has good quality, then no one should care if they become dated.

 

Horbury's stuff is extremely short lived as well, far from timeless. (Old S80, current S60, etc. look dated as fuck)

 

This quote said it all:

The 300, by some estimates, earned Chrysler around $400 million a year all by itself.

 

VW didn't fail because of design, they failed because the NA division is a mess in every way that couldn't sustain the momentum the design department had given them. (Shitty quality from their regional plants here, industry worst dealer service, etc.) Now, design-wise, it's a different story though, after all the old school guys left (Mays, Thomas, Smith, etc.) Audi/VW went down the shitter in that area as well, save for a few exceptions.

Edited January 19, 2007 by pcsario

[RichardJensen]

VW didn't fail because of design,

ezakly. More's the pity that Kiley feels like investing every new face at the top of the Ford ladder with herculean tasks (the Augean stables spring to mind, for some reason).

[Roadrunner]

Read this:

 

Q: Two of the best-selling cars, the Camry and Honda Accord, have never been accused of being overly designed. Yet they are successful beyond belief. How do you account for that?

 

A: Go back to Raymond Loewy. He said if all other things are equal, the better-looking vehicle will sell better. Toyota and Honda created a better-serviced and built product that appealed to those who wanted worry-free appliances. All things being equalÖif we serviced the cars as well and built them as well, and if people trusted the car and the brand as much, then we can win by being better designers.

 

--

Does this mean this guy is interested in taking Ford away from quality and going back to being "flashy image, questionable reliability"

 

Image matters with sales; reliability matters with repeat sales.

[Roadrunner]

No car is timeless

...

Horbury's stuff is extremely short lived as well, far from timeless. (Old S80, current S60, etc. look dated as fuck)

 

Really? I can think of some timeless autos from the past 35 years (and that is from the early '70s onward... a tough starting point).

 

Think Mercedes 190E, think 2nd-gen Ford Taurus, think last-gen Chevrolet Caprice (if immaculately kept), think 4th-gen VW Jetta, and a few others.

 

I see them as beautiful and timeless. It's my bias, but I think they are great.

[pcsario]

Well yes, you're right. There's such a thing as timeless, classic designs. I also have my own list of favorites.

 

I meant to say that no hot car sells that way forever, but it's still preferable to stuff like the 500.

[jpd80]

But there is recognition at Ford that the one surefire way to make money again as it resizes itself by cutting employees, factories, and health-care costs is to give the company's designers a freer hand to excite and engage buyers. The carmaker might be onto something. Take the Chrysler 300. That car entered the sleepy, moribund category of the "D car," a designation that reflects sedans bigger than a Toyota Camry and Ford Taurus. Think Toyota Avalon, Ford Crown Victoria, Buick Lucerne. Bankers' cars. The 300 sold in excess of 100,000 units a year for about two years without a single incentive other than a small financing deal that cost Chrysler $250 per car. That's unheard of among domestic automakers. The 300, by some estimates, earned Chrysler around $400 million a year all by itself.

 

This is a recipe for a short term gain "mirage". Bold or cutting edge styling polarises the market and while it generates quick sales, two years down the track the market moves onto a new fad car. The subsequent cost of replacing the car is usually higher than the short term profits it generated.

 

If the 300C generated so much profit, why is Chrysler not financially stronger?

Edited January 19, 2007 by jpd80

[Edstock]

"Audi TT was a perfect marriage of design and engineering. I was joined at the hip with those guys when we developed it. Ironically, it was built on the same Golf platform as the New Beetle."

 

The TT and the New Beetle on the same Golf platform.

[J-150]

Well yes, you're right. There's such a thing as timeless, classic designs. I also have my own list of favorites.

 

I meant to say that no hot car sells that way forever, but it's still preferable to stuff like the 500.

 

 

 

thats because Mays thought the Audi look was timeless and classic...

[DCK]

This is a recipe for a short term gain "mirage". Bold or cutting edge styling polarises the market and while it generates quick sales, two years down the track the market moves onto a new fad car. The subsequent cost of replacing the car is usually higher than the short term profits it generated.

 

If the 300C generated so much profit, why is Chrysler not financially stronger?

 

 

Chrysler is suchs a large company, no matter how successfull one vehicle is it won't save a company as big as any of the big 3.................Just look at Ford and the F-150.

[focus05]

Read this:

 

Q: Two of the best-selling cars, the Camry and Honda Accord, have never been accused of being overly designed. Yet they are successful beyond belief. How do you account for that?

 

A: Go back to Raymond Loewy. He said if all other things are equal, the better-looking vehicle will sell better. Toyota and Honda created a better-serviced and built product that appealed to those who wanted worry-free appliances. All things being equalÖif we serviced the cars as well and built them as well, and if people trusted the car and the brand as much, then we can win by being better designers.

 

--

Does this mean this guy is interested in taking Ford away from quality and going back to being "flashy image, questionable reliability"

 

Image matters with sales; reliability matters with repeat sales.

 

I think his greater point is this:

 

Consumers do not trust the Ford brand. Even if JD Power and Consumer Reports came out tomorrow and said Ford made the most reliable and dependable vehicles on the road, people would still not trust Ford. A car like the Fusion, however, is proving that Ford can, in fact, compete in quality. But, if the Fusion were not polarizing or eye-catching, would it have sold 140,000+ units last year. If there was no EMOTIONAL reason to buy the car, would people still buy it? The answer is probably no. If you want a reliable appliance with adequate space, power, dynamics and style, then you buy a Camry or Accord. Why? Because they have proven track records (even if new Camrys are having some larger than normal teething issues).

 

So, you have to get them into showroom a different way: an emotional product. Then, you have to be absolutely sure that that emotional product is bulletproof. The 300 has failed to help Chrysler and now sits, losing sales despite discounts, because Chrysler cannot make a reliable vehicle. Now, if the 300 had been bulletproof, and word had spread, sales would continue to be strong and Chrysler would have a better image. Instead, they are still seen as low quality. The Fusion, on the other hand, offers a little bit of hope that Ford is not completely stupid. The Fusion has been bulletproof thus far. Over 15 months in, and not one recall yet. Owners are not having significant issues, in fact new Camry buyers are suffering far more than Fusion buyers. Even the Accord which has barely changed at all since 2002, has more problems than new Fusions.

 

The result? Word of mouth. "I bought a Ford Fusion, and it was rock solid." Conquest sales. "My Fusion was so good, I traded in my Chevy Equinox for a Ford Edge." And repeat buyers. "Now that I'm trading my Fusion in, I'm getting a new (or maybe moving up a little)."

 

That's how you ULTIMATELY save Ford - build a reputation as a solid car with quality service and support. But, that kind of rapport takes years to build and is often done on a per vehicle basis before it spreads to the brand. Ford does not have years or the ability to save one nameplate at a time. So, what they need, here and now, are interesting products to keep people coming back. Those interesting products will attract people emotionally even if they cannot rationalize that purchase based on the negative perception that exists about Ford, even if the realities would normally make it easy to rationalize. By the way, Fusions run $4k cheaper at the dotted line, so how do you rationalize a Camry when all the facts are out there? That's why perceptions are so dangerous.

 

These new customers, who bought for emotion, will initially be temporary conquest sales, but their experiences (hopefully) will be good, and they will end up rationalizing their next Ford purchase because of their experiences. You won't need as much emotion (although, one can hope Ford will still have it). Concurrently, they will be telling their friends how good their vehicle is so that when their friend trades in her Honda Civic, instead of only considering the Accord or the Pilot, she will consider the Fusion or the Edge, and hopefully their emotional appeals will win her initial business if she cannot rationalize it. And, with any luck, their durability will win her repeat business.

 

Moral of the story. Freedman is exactly right when he draws the line between automobile and appliance. He gave Chrysler a huge opportunity by creating a desireable automobile - not just another appliance - just as he will hopefully be giving Ford a great opportunity in the near future. One can only hope, though, that Ford does not botch that opportunity like Chrysler has done with their's. What it takes is a high quality, durable car and stellar dealer service. But he as the designer can only do his part, the rest is out of his hands.

[pcsario]

thats because Mays thought the Audi look was timeless and classic...

Not that I think it's a hot car, but that was more a problem of execution than anything. Car has the exact same lines and detailing as a Passat or A6, and yet looks worthless in comparison, even the cheap VW still looks more expensive and modern. It was not the paintjob either. Someone really fucked up the surfacing in CAD on that thing; the sheetmetal looks like shit and that just makes the entire car look even more dull. Add the artificial downgrades to justify a Mercury rebadge, the awful engine, and it's no wonder no one even considered buying it.

[ZanatWork]

[quote name='pcsario'

[ZanatWork]

Not that I think it's a hot car, but that was more a problem of execution than anything. Car has the exact same lines and detailing as a Passat or A6, and yet looks worthless in comparison, even the cheap VW still looks more expensive and modern. It was not the paintjob either. Someone really fucked up the surfacing in CAD on that thing; the sheetmetal looks like shit and that just makes the entire car look even more dull. Add the artificial downgrades to justify a Mercury rebadge, the awful engine, and it's no wonder no one even considered buying it.

 

Well...except for something like a hundred thousand people.

 

Which, while short of projections, is miles different than "no one even considering buying it".

 

Sorry, but your statement is wildly incorrct. I don't understand why the D3 hater club has to overstate everything, particularly negatives.

 

Two people close to me really enjoy their Five Hundreds, and as a tall guy, I can tell you that I find 'em extremely comfortable. They also have a ride/handling compromise that's miles better than any Ford sedan save the newer CD3s...something that was stated clearly and often in road tests but gets ignored by people bent on hating what is actually a very good car.

[Blueblood]

I don't know? What has he designed besides the Tomahawk motorcycle??

Edited January 20, 2007 by Blueblood

[jpd80]

Aw heck, no one would begrudge Ford a competitor to 300C would they?

And it might even work...

Edited January 20, 2007 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

Zan, PC. We all know your respective opinions of each other, as well as the D3 cars.

 

Blueblood:

 

Thomas worked with J Mays at VW/Audi, collaborating on such vehicles as the A6, Passat, TT, New Beetle, etc. Thomas is generally given credit for these designs, although he worked under Mays on them. Both left VW/Audi at about the same time.

 

http://blueovalblogs.com/blogs/?p=76

[Blueblood]

Zan, PC. We all know your respective opinions of each other, as well as the D3 cars.

 

Blueblood:

 

Thomas worked with J Mays at VW/Audi, collaborating on such vehicles as the A6, Passat, TT, New Beetle, etc. Thomas is generally given credit for these designs, although he worked under Mays on them. Both left VW/Audi at about the same time.

 

http://blueovalblogs.com/blogs/?p=76

 

 

Oh God no...

 

That's why I hated Mays, now they have another guy that worked on those horrible VW's!

 

Will every new Ford start looking like a recycled 1995 VW?

Edited January 20, 2007 by Blueblood

[RichardJensen]

Oh God no...

 

That's why I hated Mays, now they have another guy that worked on those horrible VW's!

 

Will every new Ford start looking like a recycled 1995 VW?

I dunno. Does the Interceptor look like a '95 VW?

 

Thomas, you'll note in the interview, uses the word 'Gestalt'. Designs he and Mays collaborate on for Ford will have a certain almost subliminal resemblance to their work at VW/Audi. The Interceptor, for instance, would, with certain detail changes, be passable as a LWB A8.

 

However, there should not be anything as overt as the Five Hundred.

[hbalek]

I dunno. Does the Interceptor look like a '95 VW?

 

Thomas, you'll note in the interview, uses the word 'Gestalt'. Designs he and Mays collaborate on for Ford will have a certain almost subliminal resemblance to their work at VW/Audi. The Interceptor, for instance, would, with certain detail changes, be passable as a LWB A8.

 

However, there should not be anything as overt as the Five Hundred.

 

You hit it right on the head about the Interceptor! Ever since I first saw it there was something familiar in a good way that I couldn't quite figure out until I thought of the A8 profile, the cleanness of its sheetmetal and lenght. Great point!

[J-150]

Not that I think it's a hot car, but that was more a problem of execution than anything. Car has the exact same lines and detailing as a Passat or A6, and yet looks worthless in comparison, even the cheap VW still looks more expensive and modern. It was not the paintjob either. Someone really fucked up the surfacing in CAD on that thing; the sheetmetal looks like shit and that just makes the entire car look even more dull. Add the artificial downgrades to justify a Mercury rebadge, the awful engine, and it's no wonder no one even considered buying it.

 

 

which is an absolute shame.

 

On paper. the 500 had the makings of a stellar car. But then as we all know the bean counters cut the corners and ruin it.

[J-150]

Sorry, but your statement is wildly incorrct. I don't understand why the D3 hater club has to overstate everything, particularly negatives.

 

Two people close to me really enjoy their Five Hundreds, and as a tall guy, I can tell you that I find 'em extremely comfortable. They also have a ride/handling compromise that's miles better than any Ford sedan save the newer CD3s...something that was stated clearly and often in road tests but gets ignored by people bent on hating what is actually a very good car.

 

 

 

I don't think its that there are a lot of haters as much as there is a lot of people disappointed in what the 500 could have been. The car has sooo much potential. There are people that absolutely love their 500s and Freestyles (I know a few) but just think how much better it could have been.

 

Maybe unrefined, but imagine if they dropped that super-torquey 4.2 into it. WITH AWD it would have been unstoppable. Yes the haters would have slammed thast option but owners would have had perpetual smiles on their faces. AND that would have led to a possible police package that would blow the Impala out of the water.

[Chris D.]

This is a recipe for a short term gain "mirage". Bold or cutting edge styling polarises the market and while it generates quick sales, two years down the track the market moves onto a new fad car. The subsequent cost of replacing the car is usually higher than the short term profits it generated.

 

If the 300C generated so much profit, why is Chrysler not financially stronger?

 

Chrysler is not financially stronger for the same reason that Ford and GM are not financially stronger: higher fuel prices (sooner than anticipated) hurting predominantly truck/SUV heavy lineups. It's going to take some time for the American automakers to bring more cars to market, while simultaneously geting the cost structure "right" on all fronts to make these cars more profitable for them. A good example is the Mustang, despite being an excellent seller Ford makes very little per car because of the high production costs.