A look back: Ford's 1987 Record Profits

[theVengineguy]

Wow, all i got to say is wow, 20 years sure as hell makes one hell of a difference. Gotta love the ending remarks, just unbelievable. Oh yeah might help if i post the link.

 

[BlackHorse]

What was it the woman in the car said "They had a better idea." The problem that faces Ford now in a nutshell.

 

I also just loved how they found the one guy that would be sure to bash Reagan about how much money he's not making. I guess he'd already forgotten how absolutely screwed up the country was under Jimmy Carter only 7 years earlier. By 1987 Reagan had already passed some pretty hefty tax cuts. Even in 1987 the big 3 networks were profoundly anti-conservative, we just didn't know it because there was no alternative.

[Kotzenjunge]

Yes, those liberal local news channels. Wacky things. "Anti-Conservative," like it's a bigoted term.

[Roadrunner]

The pissed-off Ford worker impressed me too.

 

And that tie the anchor is wearing -- straight out of the '80s. Looked polyester too. Hmmm.

[pcsario]

Wow... twenty years later, the UAW is still as delusional, spoiled and ingrateful as ever. :rolleyes:

[theVengineguy]

Probably the true question is, what did Ford offer in 1987 that made it that damn good. Why not try to emulate this period of Ford?

[BlackHorse]

It was the Taurus buddy.

[Hugh]

My Father got a 1986 Tempo LX in Midnight Regatta Blue with the 2.3 HSC I4 and 5-manual. It didn't have A/C, premium sound (6 vs 4 speakers) and a trunk rack (useless and ugly IMO).

 

As we went around the lot, I remember the Mustang GT (big egg and rear wing but what a 5.0!), Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, Bronco II (No guts but I liked the size) of course Taurus. Oh yeah the old school brick of a CV. That was cool for a cop car.

 

We test drove a Jetta GL(86 with a ugly tweed interior) which wasn't bad, a Accord EX(85 with "Cheap plastic" on the dash. Oh the irony) which wasn't bad either. Took a Hyundai Stellar out, not bad but no reputation except the Pony (that was cheap) and it was a gutless wonder. I forgot a Dodge 500(?) with Turbo (stretched K-car is still a POS).

 

Why the Tempo? Had some guts, quiet and handled well. Fuel economy was good and warrenty and price was right. Dislikes: The cloth liner on the doors faded and got dirty quickly and that was unhygenic. The cloth seats faded and unraveled quickly. Last I heard it was retired to the junkyard with 350,000 km(210,000 miles) and no problems.

 

I wish I had my old 1988 MT buyers guide because I can remember that year more then 86 and 87. The Tempo was the first manual I used. Pretty easy car to drive.

 

I think that back then we had lots of choices: Ford, Mercury, Lincoln, Chevrolet, Buick, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouth.

 

You get my drift.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Hugh

[Roadrunner]

It was the Taurus buddy.

 

Bingo.

[Joe771476]

Unfortunately Ford and the other Big 2 were making so much money they figured it would last forever! Hence they caved in to the UAW's "pay us 95 percent of our wages while we're laid off." It's virtually impossibe to maintain that!

[Michael Reynolds]

 

I hope Allan takes a look at that video clip.........

 

Just goes to show you what this company is capable of.

[igor]

 

I hope Allan takes a look at that video clip.........

 

Just goes to show you what this company is capable of.

 

I actually think it should be used as a "bad example" to show what was done before .... billions in profits wasted .... Mulally probably knows this, but the rest of the company needs to looks back and realize how many chances they pissed away.

 

Igor

[SVT_MAN]

As they say, "If you're not growing, you're shrinking." By the mid 1990s, the big three got complacent. If you rest for even a minute, the competition is one step ahead and you have lost your competitive advantage. Ford has few competitive advantages these days, and those its does have, it throws out the window. The Taurus name equity is great, and Ford just threw that out the window when their corporate gurus decided on the "F-only" names for cars. What a dumb idea. If Mullaly manages to resurrect the Taurus, I applaud him. The only thing I ask: Please bring back the innovation that made the Taurus a success in the first place.

 

My family has owned lots of Fords and Mercuries over the years, and here is what I can tell you: To this day, the first generation Taurus and Sable were some of the most solid cars on the road. Our first "Taurus/Sable" type car that we owned was to replace my dad's 1978 Ford Fairmont 2.3L MT4. What a big step up. First of all, it had an automatic transmission. Second of all, even though it was a stripper 1987 Mercury Sable GS, it had a ton of features that other cars on the road did not! It offered real VALUE for the money that other cars could not touch. We loved that car so much that we bought another Sable soon after.

 

The next car we purchased was a 1989 Mercury Sable LS. This car was excellent. We kept it up until about 2 years ago. Although this car had the 3.8L V6, its head gaskets lasted until about 145,000 before they blew on me. To the day that its cylinder head gaskets finally gave way, it drove the same as it did the day we bought it. I know that it sounds bad when I say that the engine died - but really - this car I have BETTER memories of than my current 1995 Mercury Sable LS that I will talk about in a minute. The 1989 Sable was a WONDERFUL, SOLID, WELL BUILT car. It looked substantial, and it was nice to drive. It had a nice, solid - almost Germanic feel. I can't emphasize it enough: SOLID. We also owned a 1987 Ford Taurus LX. Wonderful car. Even with the 3L Vulcan, it had plenty of GO .. it was a torquey little guy (for the time). Drove over 140,000 miles.

 

SOLID, like aforementioned, is what stands out in my mind about the first generation cars. Which is why the second generation was, in a way, disappointing. We bought a 1995 Mercury Sable LS. It was a very luxurious car when we bought it in 1997. Nonetheless, we were lucky we had warranty left on the car when we bought it because it was plagued with problems when we bought it. Broken door locks, burnt out interior lighting - the list goes on. Luckily, these gremlins left the car when we were out of warranty. But I still can't paint a rosy picutre for you on the whole. The car is still a good value because we got it for a steal since the dealer we purchased it from on December 30th was going out of business and on top of that, they wanted to clear out inventory for the end of the year.

 

But no matter how much of a steal - the generation 1 cars were still better built, better designed, and more innovative. The genration 2 cars were lightened up, so they were faster, to better keep pace with GM's big horsepower numbers. They also changd the suspension - a welcome change to help the handling be even better - but once again, they shortcut it instead of offering real advancement.

 

This is the mentality that killed Ford over the next couple of years. Instead of investing in technology that would put them ahead of the competition, they took shortcuts. One instance is their use of aluminum to lighten weight, which isn't terrible on the surface. Aluminum? Fine. But use it properly. When you consider that Ford used aluminum on the cylinder heads of the 3.8L, and it was prone to warping (partially due to metal incompatibilies and poor water jacket design), you can understand why there were cylinder head problems. You can blame engineering for that.

 

But it wasn't just that. Lay down under the back of a generation 2 car next to a generation 1 car sometime. Notice something different? That's right. The control arms are a lot smaller on the generation 2. Everything on the generation 2 is smaller, thinner ... CHEAPER. What made the Taurus/Sable such a great value at its introduction was cheapened and made ordinary again. It's a theme about the whole car beyond the 1st generation. And don't even get me started on the camber problems the IRS punishes the rear tires with. The skinny tires on my Sable tend to wear very prematurely thanks to this camber issue. The worst part about the cheapness is the external hardware that got cheapened, but the interior was affected by this bean-counter mentality too. What was a SOLID, well designed, and innovative (for the time) interior on the generation 1 Taurus and Sable morphed into a cheap, multi-piece, parts-bin conglomeration of dashboard.

 

My point? If Ford can build innovative, well-built, SOLID cars, they can sell them. They need to offer customers value. It doesn't matter if their customer has to pay a little more. Customers are willing to pay more for a car that is better built. Stop with the shortcutting and offer consumers a quality product that offers real value. You don't need inspectors sitting at the end of the line if you build a quality product to begin with. I was born the year Ford made that record profit. I might be 20 years old, but it's sad to me that right around the time I was born that Ford was one of the most profitable car companies out there and it's never fully regained its composure since. SUVs were the most short-sighted trend ever, and Ford and the rest of the big three just ate it up ..

 

Mullaly needs to make this company's profits take flight soon. Change or die.

Edited February 2, 2007 by SVT_MAN

[ANTAUS]

But speaking of profits, here's one who has no worries about profits....

 

LINK-Tcc.com

Edited February 2, 2007 by ANTAUS

[630land]

It was the Taurus buddy.

 

The car that brought in the big cash in the 80's was not the Taurus, but the Panther cars. They made profits as large as some truck based products.

 

Those that were babies then do not remember, but 20 years ago the WW2 Genreration was still able to drive, and were buying many new 'full sized' Ford cars, and stole some GM owners who hated the downsized FWD Caddys/Buicks/Olds. Ford sold 300K+ Panther based cars a year, back then. So, no the Taurus wasn't the ONLY car that 'made money'. Where do you think the "Panther Mafia" got their roots?

 

But then we know the SUV boom of the 90's clouded good judgement

Edited February 2, 2007 by 630land

[FordManBrad]

Back in the "good old days", those with a large family usually went for the full size American car - Impala, LTD, LeSabre, etc. There were no mini vans or SUV's back then. Those with lots of kids usually went for the station wagons, I remember the Country Squire and Caprice Estate, with the wood paneling on the side! Prior to '77 or '78, it was common to open the hood on those wagons and find a big 460 or 454 4 barrel, especially if they pulled a camper or something.

 

If you were a mechanic back then, you undoubtedly had to deal with the Ford Variable Venturi carburetor, which was an absolute nightmare to work on. I believe it was the final carburetor before fuel injection became mainstream.

[SVT_MAN]

Back in the "good old days", those with a large family usually went for the full size American car - Impala, LTD, LeSabre, etc. There were no mini vans or SUV's back then. Those with lots of kids usually went for the station wagons, I remember the Country Squire and Caprice Estate, with the wood paneling on the side! Prior to '77 or '78, it was common to open the hood on those wagons and find a big 460 or 454 4 barrel, especially if they pulled a camper or something.

 

If you were a mechanic back then, you undoubtedly had to deal with the Ford Variable Venturi carburetor, which was an absolute nightmare to work on. I believe it was the final carburetor before fuel injection became mainstream.

 

It's still kind of bizarre to me that many Americans like having to step up to get into a vehicle.

[g48150]

Lee Iaococca Expects a Recession????? :hysterical:

 

Oh wait, 20 years later, who was right?

 

It wasn't the one million things wrong that killed the profits it was the 1,000,001st thing that did...

[PACKN8]

Amazing what 20 years can bring. I was living in Dearborn in 1987 and remember the excitment that Ford was bringing the whole community. The Taurus was a point of pride. Bring the New Mondeo to the US NOW, unaltered, and Ford will have the excitement and the cash it needs. Heck, even use the same tag line from the Taurus launch....it applies more now than ever: "Mondeo....for US! Now there's an American car that has exactly what we've been looking for!"

 

Here it was...

 

[peterstern]

Probably the true question is, what did Ford offer in 1987 that made it that damn good. Why not try to emulate this period of Ford?

 

Some people have replied to this question by saying it was the Taurus.

 

It was more than that.

 

I remember 1987 and the big headline I remember reading in the Toronto Star was that Ford made more money than GM with less market share. And there was talk that Ford might eventually overtake GM on a global basis. Ford Credit was also the most profitable division.

 

So what's different? It was way more than just the Taurus.

 

Ford had a vehicle in every segment that, if it wasn't the best, it was at least competitive.

 

Even the Escort... it had 90HP whereas the Civic and Corolla only had 76HP. And the high end Civic SI had 90HP, but the Escort GT had 110HP.

 

The 1987 Escort was quite competitve (at least on paper) with the 1987 Honda Civic. Can you say the same thing about the 2007 Focus vs the 2007 Civic? I know I can't.

 

Also in 1987, Ford had a vehicle called the Mercury Tracer... which was a rebadged Mazda 323 - which was every bit as good as any Civic or Corolla. This was done to give Mercury an upscale small car to differentiate it with Ford.

 

The only thing Ford didn't have at the time was a 4 door SUV (later fixed with the Explorer) and a FWD minivan (fixed with the very good Mercury Villager) - segments that were much smaller at the time.

 

So what else was different?

-The Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car weren't horribly out of date in 1987, but they are today

-The Ford Ranger wasn't out of date in 1987, but it is today

-In 1987, Ford had the best big truck Diesel engine. The 6.0L powerstroke is anything but the best.

-in 1980s, GM was doing one f--ked up thing after another

-Chrysler was busy buying AMC and didn't even have the resources to make their own V6

-the Japanese cars were still known for RUST

-Volvos were reliable boxy and boring

-Saabs were weird

-Audi was known for "Sudden Accelleration"

-Alfa Romeo, Peugeot and Renault were getting ready to pull out of North America

-Lincolns were better than Cadilacs. BMWs and Mercedes cars were more desireable, but Lincolns from that era were still better from a maintenance and repair point of view.

-There was no Lexus or Infinity. Acura was just starting up.

-The only other Asian competition was from Hyundai (Junk! I know because I drove one and knew people who owned them)

-And the only other competition other than the Asians or Expensive Europeans was from makes like Lada, Yugo, Skoda and Dacia... all junk/joke cars.

-Ford didn't own Jaguar

-Ford didn't own Volvo

-Ford didn't own Land Rover

-Ford didn't own Aston Martin

 

Oh yeah... and the Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe was Motor Trend Car of the Year.

 

And that was just in North America.

 

Ford of Europe was doing really well too. The Ford Sierra (a version of which was imported into North America and called the Merkur XR4TI here) was a top seller in Europe... as was the European Escort and Fiesta. Ford is one of the big reasons why British Leyland kept losing more money and market share.

 

So, simply put, Ford did really well in 1987 because there was less *good* competition and they had a product mix that was competitive or the best in almost every segment.

[g48150]

Ahh, isn't it nice to reminisce about how the auto industry USED to work.

 

Its a whole different game now, the internet has A LOT to do with that.

[matthewq4b]

So, simply put, Ford did really well in 1987 because there was less *good* competition and they had a product mix that was competitive or the best in almost every segment.

 

Was it really "less good competition" or was it that Ford was just that much better?

 

Granted now a lot of the other makes had glaring defiances. That is not the case now, now it is in the details. And this is were Ford has fallen down. They are still basically offered the same formula as they did 20 years go. Vehicles that overall were decent not Stellar but solid decent units. 20 years ago that was a winning formula. Today that does not cut it. Ford has not refined the details enough to keep up with other manufacturers.

 

Ford plodded along while the competition improved and finally surpassed Ford. A big chunk of this is due not Updating or keeping product current. Kinda a Henry Ford mentality , it works why F with it.

That is not enough and never was enough. Even Old Henry had to admit that eventually.

 

Ford left stuff for so long they pretty much forget how to do what made them successful in the first place and that is innovate.

 

In the late 80's and early nineties, they tore every one else's stuff apart

and figured how to do it better and cheaper. Case in point the bumper assy on the Taurus had half as many parts and pieces as the GMC equivalents. The spent the time to find all the short comings in the competitions stuff then did not repeat it there own cars.

 

Now they are copy catting instead of innovating.

 

yes some places they are AWD for one. But you think AWD is going to punt them to first place alone for get it. For a good chunk of Americans it is an unneeded expense.

 

Ford need to put way more thought in there stuff. Instead of slamming shit together that is as good as.

 

 

In the early 80's Ford's rep was as bad (probably worse) as it is now. And was facing Bankruptcy. They did not copy the Yotoa or any one else. They took what worked made it better.

 

They followed up on show cars with pratical production units. They listened to their customers and made adjustments to suite thier needs. The Taurus chassis was widened AFTER it was finalized for production when it was discovered that the single biggest complaint of the car was it was too tight in hip and shoulder room. Also with the price of Oil falling at the time a larger vehicle was more warrented. The damn thing almost had to be redone from ground up and was done in record time. To make sure it was perfect. Ford since has not put that effort in to any thing. The 500 and Fusion are case in point.

 

Both cars had the potential to be so much more.

 

Ford has not put that kind of effort in to but a few cars since. It has to be done now when it is needed most. The Vehicles they have done it to a degree have shown big rewards. The Stang for one almost as much, and the F-series to a point and thats about it. Every thing else has been half ass-ed cobbled together and then decontented in the process. Not exactly a recipe for success.

 

 

Matthew

[96 Pony]

It was the Taurus buddy.

 

It was more than just the Taurus although granted Taurus was the big winner at the time. Almost the entire lineup was creating excitement and bringing in the money:

 

Thunderbird/Cougar/Mark VII

Tempo/Topaz

Escort

Probe

Mustang 5.0 redesign.

 

And now they are all gone except the Mustang.

Edited February 6, 2007 by 96 Pony

[peterstern]

It was more than just the Taurus although granted Taurus was the big winner at the time. Almost the entire lineup was creating excitement and bringing in the money:

 

Thunderbird/Cougar/Mark VII

Tempo/Topaz

Escort

Probe

Mustang 5.0 redesign.

 

And now they are all gone except the Mustang.

 

The Probe didn't come on the scene until 1989. And the Probe was initially intended to be the Mustang replacement. But after howls of protest, they sold both the Probe and Mustang and the rest is history. This just goes to show that Ford management back in the 1980s wasn't any more or less clueless than today. They did some smart things, and they did some dumb things - and *almost* did a majorly dumb thing. It's just that today, you get punished much quicker for doing dumb things in the auto business - info gets around faster and there is more competition.

[96 Pony]

The Probe didn't come on the scene until 1989. And the Probe was initially intended to be the Mustang replacement. But after howls of protest, they sold both the Probe and Mustang and the rest is history. This just goes to show that Ford management back in the 1980s wasn't any more or less clueless than today. They did some smart things, and they did some dumb things - and *almost* did a majorly dumb thing. It's just that today, you get punished much quicker for doing dumb things in the auto business - info gets around faster and there is more competition.

 

I know - *ugh*. I was having a good time back then - the period of the period of '86-'90 sort of runs together for me.

 

However, while the Probe was indeed intended to take Mustangs place (DUMB idea) it did go on to do alright for Ford.