I really think this whole debacle is just a case of really bad timing with everything. Looking back 2 years ago, EVs seemed like they would continue their parabolic growth, but interest rates, inflation and the economy got in the way of that. I'm guessing that it is cheaper to delay and not make product for a few years to come out with something that will (hopefully) be profitable 12 months after launch, going by Ford's plan.
They went for low initial cost and ease of implementation rather than biting the bullet and doing it right once.
It’s the same way GM makes product decisions.
You can look at multiple platforms or in GM’s case multiple models like Canyorado and easily make an individual business case for each one on its own.
So let’s say keeping platforms 1 and 2 separate nets $1B each over their lifespan. Positive ROI so the individual projects get approved.
But if somebody at a higher level looked at it they see if we spend a little more up front and consolidate to one platform it will delay the 2 projects by a year but in the long run it will net the company $4B. Then it takes a decree from higher up to make that happen.
Mulally was limited on time and money so he did the best he could to consolidate existing platforms so I don’t really blame him. It never should have gotten to that point.
Understood. You've made this point before, and it is a good reminder. Your final comment is also well made, which underscores the series of bonehead decisions that is going to leave their huge Oakville assembly complex idle for up to 3 years.
I recently transitioned to on-screen controls for climate (from a 2019 Nautilus to a 2024 Nautilus), and while the relocation doesn't totally suck they are frankly a pain to use when driving (for adjusting when stopped they are fine). While driving, as I keep having to glance down and keep poking at that barely-visible tiny carrot icon I think of them like of low-flow toilets, which in practice are often better named two-flush toilets.
Those other platforms made sense when Ford had Mazda and Volvo, they were economical use of existing platforms and provided Ford with low cost options. After the rework required on C170 Focus and CDW 27 Mondeo/Contour, Ford wasn’t keen on switching to C1 and EUCD (C1 plus) but those were probably much better choices missed by North America
The T6 Ranger development made sense because at the time Ford was breaking up with Mazda and getting Ford Australia team to do development was a major coup. You’re right because at the kickoff meeting, it became apparent that North America really wanted what amounted to a smaller lighter more fuel efficient Ranger pickup (something like Maverick off C1 Transit Connect). Such a shame they couldn’t convince Mulally to do Maverick years early but he was bent on getting rid of Ranger. Even Bronco was a bad word and everything was all about reusing existing vehicles to get rid of “outdated BOF vehicles” like Ranger, Panther and BOF Explorer.
When Mulally vetoed Ford Australia 2008 proposal for Falcon/Territory/Mustang to coalesce and become Global RWD, that didn’t sit well with Fields who green lit CD6 as soon as Mulally left Ford. He could see the benefit of sharing modules but by the mid twenty teens, it was getting too late to justify the huge expense of a massive all new platform.
Sorry for the big reply but it just shows how Ford’s rather blinkered view of the world and focus on cost savings, walled of some sound, logical vehicles that would have played well for increasing sales and profits. Ford constantly made everything an either or decision to justify the result it wanted, a lot of that worked in delivering recurring savings but I have to wonder if the 2008 cuts were too deep due to an overly pessimistic view of the future. Ford not realising that in a few short years, FSesries sales would be back on top and profits rolling in.
Which is why Ford would be foolish to not offer at least some car form factors with this affordable EV platform. Not only would they sell ok, but because the platform is cheap to build, in theory, they would also turn a profit unlike other Ford sedans of the past.
Not lucid, but with rivian, Ford was gonna use some of their platforms for some sporty models. The Continental EV, which was apparently a large crossover and not a sedan, looked fantastic according to people who saw it. The fact that they canned that is insane.
Ford just hates the idea of doing neat things with Lincoln. The Lincoln three row was apparently also a great product, very futuristic and attractive looking apparently. But they killed it, yet they're keeping the fugly Ford three row. These decisions blow my mind.
I personally don’t have a problem with this strategy, as long as the base platform is sound. In respect to Toyota, whenever they had a new model, the changes were sufficient enough to look like a model. Most people could care less about the frame of the vehicle. If Ford could have stuck with one platform for all their sedans maybe they could’ve realize more cost savings over time and there would still be a Ford sedan. As you say, C2 is more than sufficient to last a long time and underpin multiple models.