Where Is Ford taking the Lincoln Motor Company?

[Deleted User]

Sounds like a plan! They need that compact V8.

akirby

Too bad the jag derived 3.9 was too expensive. At 4.2L in the Jags it's an extremely smooth V8 that puts out close to 300 hp. But it has the same problem as the yamaha v8 - not enough volume.

douglasr

rockylee

Am I the only one that finds the new MKZ and the MKS girls sexy ? The new Lincoln, commercials have me drooling. That MKZ, is looking pretty nice. Wished they would put 40 more hp. in it though. Maybe a hybrid motor would help ? Neways they are nice rides. :shades:

Rocky

rockylee

Continental concept "akirby" posted in the Lincoln MKS forum. She is sexy also. Lemko, have you seen that hot looking girl yet ? (Continental concept) :shades: She looks like Natalie Gulbis, playing golf in a 2-piece bikini

Rocky

douglasr

Sir Anthony Bamford has backed out of buying Jaguar...as Inside Line and the FT report. Jaguar being coupled with Land-Rover, and Ford Motor wanting to sell both or none at all...so that leaves the door open for Mr. Nasser and UBS-Morgan Bank. Truth is, the fate of Jaguar hinges on the new steel bodied Jaguar S...with only the XK increasing in sales 125% and XJ sales having effectively halted---selling only 33 in September in America! (Even Rolls-Royce sold more than twice as many cars in September than the XJ!)

But underneath the gloom is the very real fact that Ford continues to invest heavily in Jaguar manufacturing at Castle Bromwich---having "just" installled a new paint process system by ABB using 4 IRB 4400 automated/robotic spraying machines coupled with 2 IRB 2400 systems. Jaguar builds 43 vehicles per hour, increasing its rate in part because of the removal of the bottlekneck in the paint and sealing process. ABB's Robert Low stated: "The automation of the seam sealing and associated operations is a major investment in the Castle Bromwich plant and a significant step forward in optimising the efficiency of the Jaguar plant sealing process, particularly as the new XK project ramps up to production. The investment has helped establish consistently high levels of quality while almost eliminating what was a labour intensive and very unpleasant job." The ABB system representing the types of machinery required to keep any new Lincoln plant in competition as well---given Wixom's "old" line rate of 33 cars per hour.

Ford Motor has, though few have noticed, made Jaguar, as Astons, a benchmark for the company---perhaps one reason why it is still relunctant to sell off the Big Cat. Ford Motor "proving" that it can build as good or better than its competition. Mr. Mulally now knows, as he drives the latest XK to work, that Ford is within striking distance of Lexus---if not having matched it in some respects at Jaguar.

---"Competitors may try to divide and conquer us...I'm determined we're not going to do that ourselves..." ARM has stated. Clearly the new CEO is gearing up for a good race---holding out for number one. Stating this as Ford Motor admits its market share may well sink to 14% of the U.S. market---its lowest since before WWI!. "The ride back up is definitely more exhilarating." he added.

Thus the Big Cat is not for sale (yet)---and lessons learned at Castle Bromwich can be applied across the board to Lincoln. When a manufacturer averages 21-35 labour hours per car, makes roughly 25-34% of its own parts, must rely upon 75% out-sourced parts, and on a great deal of automation to manufacture a vehicle---using steel presses that often weigh as much as a building, the dies more than the wieght of several trucks, such as those used at The Rouge to stamp out bodyshell parts---the little details as the ABB System begin to matter. The results have to fall within the build parameters every single time...or "we"---the end-user---all scream at the company!

Amidst the gloom we can take heart, that despite the billions spent on what could become the "Cat Box", the lessons learned in the building at Castle Bromwich---the results of that bull-dozer run through Brown's Lane in the words of Alex Troutman---will fall neatly onto the wheels of the next Lincolns.

DouglasR

(Sources: FT, WSJ, American Manufacturing Systems Magazine, September 2006; Edmunds InsideLine; Automtoive News)

jimlockey

Ford is going down.

This country better embrace the deisel engine for now. Clean it up. Then see if we can build a better mouse trap.

The 0 to 60 mentality is for race tracks.

akirby

Ford is going down.

Ford isn't the one with 50,000 2006 models still sitting in the factory parking lots. I'd be more worried about Chrysler right now. At least Ford has admitted it's problems and is working to correct it - and has some great new products coming out.

rockylee

heard dat !

Rocky

grbeck

jimlockey: The 0 to 60 mentality is for race tracks.

Actually, one of the most persistent criticisms leveled against Ford vehicles is that they are underpowered relative to the competition.

rockylee

yes I gotta agree with ya grbeck, sometimes that is the difference between a guy/gal buying a GM over a Ford.

Rocky

scootertrash

If it makes the Chrysler fans feel any better, my local L-M dealer still has several brand-new-2004-produced Lincoln LS's in stock.

rockylee

REALLY ? WOW, I bet they are practiacally giving em' away, right ?

Rocky

akirby

That's nearly impossible. They've almost sold out all of the 2006 models - why would they still have 2004 models? Who is your local dealer?

euphonium

Your uninformed opinion enables investors to pick off Ford stock at a really good price. Thank you.

rockylee

jim,

Sorry Ford, isn't going down anytime soon.

Rocky

scootertrash

Sorry, I was not entirely clear- They are 2005 Models, but were built in '04. I saw 'em on Sunday, when I was looking at '07 Navigators (Which, as I've admitted before, -I like!)

rockylee

scootertrash,

I'm beginning to warm up to the new look. If I could get a good lease deal on one, I'd perhaps even pull the trigger.

Rocky

[Deleted User]

Geez rocky, now I know you are an old guy! :P

[Deleted User]

And another query...why the heck doesn't Ford update all the 2006 ads on this web site??? The Mercurys all all 2006's, they are still pushing the Zephyr and the 2006 Navigator!!

rockylee

Geez rocky, now I know you are an old guy!

gregg, lol can you explain why you called me a old guy ? :P

Rocky

marsha7

right???...only 33 XJ sedans in September???

Also, I do not think that Ford is actually going down, but their stock could fall to dangerous levels, unless you are a contrarian, and see another deal like Chrysler stock in 1982 at $3, selling it a few years later for $33...nice profit, if I was only smart enough to do it...:):):)

[Deleted User]

Cuz you like the Navigator. That is not a vehicle that typically appeals to anyone under 50. It is luxurious, yes, but also lumbering, handles like crap and looks more or less like every other big American truck based SUV.

Kirstie_H

LOL... you obviously haven't visited rocky's CarSpace page

rockylee

Cuz you like the Navigator. That is not a vehicle that typically appeals to anyone under 50. It is luxurious, yes, but also lumbering, handles like crap and looks more or less like every other big American truck based SUV.

What?

The "Gator" is owned by lots of popular youth. It's in music video's, endorsed by Dwayne Wade, and is a selection of choice by lots of celebrity's when they want to make a fashion statement. "You obviously hadn't seen "Wade" shoot his keys to the youth basketball coach commercial"

Rocky

rockylee

Kirstie, whats that suppose to mean ? :P

Oh you must be referring to my prayer of a GM-Ford Merge I'm still praying. :P LOL :shades:

Rocky

nvbanker

Cuz you like the Navigator. That is not a vehicle that typically appeals to anyone under 50. It is luxurious, yes, but also lumbering, handles like crap and looks more or less like every other big American truck based SUV.

Objection, your honor!!! As the former owner of two Navigators, they do NOT handle like crap, nor look like every other large SUV. They are distinctive in their styling, and handle like a dream (truck)..... There is nothing like making a road trip in one......

rockylee

99.9% agree with your post.

There is nothing like making a road trip in one......

Well except maybe the Escalade, but I know what you mean. :shades:

Rocky

rockylee

http://www.lincoln.com/reachhigher/pdf/2007_Lincoln_MKZ_specs.pdf

This is the most powerful DVD-A unit on the market to the best of my knowledge. Has anyone heard it (MKZ Audio) yet ??? If so is it awesome ?

Thanx,

Rocky

[Deleted User]

The competition moves on...I refer you all back again to the October Car and Driver issue. The Navigator embarrassed itself against 4 other rivals. The Navi was good not very long ago, but now plenty of others are better. Some can even handle like cars. The Navi, however, cannot even pull a .70 on the skidpad.

It's sort of like how I liked my Millenia more than some of its better known competition. But now everyone has pretty much passed up what that Mazda could do--even though it is still a sweet car to drive.

scootertrash

Isn't it sad that the demise of the Taurus is all over the news today?

Ford should be completely embarrassed that they could somehow take the best selling car in the US from selling 400,000+ units to it's death in just 10 years?

I completely agree with this quote from Jack Telnack, the chief designer of the original Taurus:

"They put no money into that product for the last several years. They just let it wither on the vine.
It's criminal.
The car had a great reputation and a great name.
I don't understand what they were waiting for."

Sounds like Lincoln, doesn't it?
(or most of Ford's products for that matter...)

nvbanker

99.9% agree with your post.

There is nothing like making a road trip in one......

Well except maybe the Escalade, but I know what you mean.

Rocky

Yes, Rocky, and I know what YOU mean, but I'm gonna take this one on, just because I've done both. I had an 04 Navigator briefly, and traveled a lot to my cabin in Utah in it. It's much smaller inside than the Navigator, the Navigation system is impossible to use and the power, although there for towing, isn't available in the low band, so you don't notice it. You do however notice the gasoline consumption. OTOH, the seats were nicer in the Bruthalade, as was the Air Conditioning system, which was just excellent in adverse circumstances.....

It's kind of what you want. But I found that the Navigator being roomier, and more attractive inside, was a better choice for my needs.

nvbanker

Ford should be completely embarrassed that they could somehow take the best selling car in the US from selling 400,000+ units to it's death in just 10 years?

Amen to that, scooter. Somebody should be shot, and I'll take Bill Jr to task for this one. In exactly 20 years, they revolutionized the industry forever, and then slowly watched grandpa die. The Fusion should be the new Taurus, but somebody in an ad agency convinced Bill that a lot of alliteration sells cars, so they had to find an F-word for the car. And I have an F-word for that. Fairmont. Know what I mean?

I was a huge Taurus fan when it came out. Bought 5 for my business and a Sable for me. But I didn't like the "cutsy" 96 model, although a better Taurus, it seemed like it had ovaries or something. So, I moved away from it to the Chevy Lumina for the business, and I was already in Lincolns by then anyway. The real sin though, is the brand equity was completely lost. Taurus was synonymous with stylish value from Ford.

Is it officially out of production now?

scootertrash

Next Week:Last Taurus

nvbanker

Thanks Scooter - I haven't had much time for reading the web lately.

heyjewel

"The 3.5, 3.7 and TT variants are made totally in house in the U.S. in very large volumes"

First, the tense is wrong isn't it - I mean the 3.7 and TT don't even really exist yet and the 3.5 is just now appearing.

Also, "very large volumes"??? Really? The 3.7 and TT are rumoured to go into the MKS and what else? I would not call the projected sales of the MKS "very large".

I think you know what you're talking about most of the time, Allen, but I just seriously doubt that Ford can build a Twin Turbo version of either of these engines for $2000 less than a V8 from that organ manufacturer in Japan.

heyjewel

The Navigator does not 'lumber' or 'handle like crap'. I suggest you drive one.

heyjewel

"They put no money into that product for the last several years. They just let it wither on the vine.
It's criminal.
The car had a great reputation and a great name.
I don't understand what they were waiting for."

Taurus, Lincoln LS, Mercury Cougar, Town Car, ... could be a lot of Fords

[Deleted User]

I have driven one. Of course I am comparing the Navi to the handling of the average near-luxury or luxury sedan. That aside, as smooth and coddling as the Navi can be, the 2007 does not handle as well as its SUV competition either. Not that I WANT any of the lumbering SUV competition, but I recognize that some people do (everyone has his or her own tastes). If you are going for a luxury SUV and you also care about handling (not just speed or seat comfort), the 07 Navi is not the way to go.

I like a vehicle that can take most corners without slowing down or scrubbing off much speed...with no drama, no tire squealing, no excessive lean. I recognize that lots of people don't care about that. Instead they want to speed on straightaways in a tall thing that allows them to look over some of the traffic. Whatever floats your boat...but the Navi is a real boat.

heyjewel

The original Navi was a boat. This one ain't. The IS for one thing makes it a good driver. When I test drove my 04, I only did it because the Aviator, which is what I planned to buy, proved to be too small for my family. So I said what the heck and tried a Nav. I was blown away at how nimble it was. Now, perhaps in 2007 the Nav is old tech? But for me it represents a great compromise between utility and driving dynamics. If I want to hug a curve, I'll drive my LS. But it can't TOW my boat or RV.

nvbanker

Guess we'll have to disagree on this gregg - as an owner of 2 Navigators in the past, a 99 and an 03, I have to agree with jewel this time. I compared all the competitive product at the time. Of course, in late 98, the only competition the Navigator really had at all was the Range Rover, and it's not large enough. But I drove a Tahoe, and it didn't even come close to handling as well as the Navigator did. In 03, I tried the Escalade, which still drove like a Tahoe, and is a lot smaller. The Navigator handled like a dream. So I don't know where you're coming from. You can't compare it to any sedan, that's invalid. But compared to the competition, the only real competition it has is the QX-56. Drove an 07 Escalade yesterday - the power is awesome, but the drive is still unremarkable. YMMV, and obviously does. But I felt I had to defend it. It's a great truck.

akirby

Yes, George, I was taking license with the tense. I should have said "will be made". The 3.5 is slated to be the volume V6 for Ford - I forget the exact numbers but it's going to be high volume. The 3.7 is just a bored and/or stroked 3.5 so most of the parts are the same, thus it benefits from the high volume.

I don't know why you think a low volume, high tech V8 bought from overseas wouldn't be $2K cheaper than a TT engineered and built in the U.S. using high volume parts. Especially after your recent rant about the "mazda6-clone built in Mexico" - I would have thought you'd be all for an American engineered and built high performance engine over an imported one.

douglasr

"These business results are clearly unacceptable..." A.R.M.

Jaguar consumed yet another $1.6Bn---PAG losses at $3,711 per vehicle sold on 149,000 worldwide sales against $6,490Bn in revenues. North America did not fare any better: $2,788 per vehicle in losses against $15,395Bn in revenues and a direct loss of $1,980Bn---the average selling price: $21,683. Of all Ford Motor, only South American operations posted a $222Mn profit, yeilding $2,190 per vehicle profit on an average selling price of $15,079. PAG averaged $43,557 average selling price per vehicle sold....

Less than a 10% swing in retail delivered price would put Ford Motor in the black worldwide---Ford of Europe having lost $31 per vehicle sold! And/or a 5-7% cut in manufacturing costs would achieve the same results. A blend of both being entirely attainable by MR. Mulally and his team. World wide Ford Motor's average selling price is $24,855, yet they lost $3,838 per vehicle given the write-downs and set-asides for worker buy-outs and plant/equipment write-offs. In strictly operating terms Ford worldwide lost $1,209 per vehicle sold when you remove the special items. The truth is that the dealers and salesmen are often making more money on the cars than Ford Motor. The rebates might be moving the metal, but they are killing the profitability of the company---average rebates more than equalling the average losses.

Every Thursday Mr. Mulally and his team now meet atop the Glass House to resolve the issues: so that in his words: "These results are wholly unacceptable" do not become the epitaph of Ford Motor Company. While the bell has not yet begun to toll, it seems with $5.8Bn losses in Q3 with another $1.6Bn expected in Q4, despite the $23Bn cash-on-hand, that that bell is very near to being struck. As Ford Motor will lose nearly $10Bn in 2006. "We have great global assets and resources that we will leverage to significantly improve our product strategy, our production efficiency and our quality." Mr. Mulally stated announcing the grim results. He added in a separate interview with Amy Wilson at Automotive News: "So we can marry the product plan with the production plan so we can be making more vehicles on larger runs, with more commonality and more flexibility in each of the plants and deliver the variation and uniqueness that customers really want..." While Ford pairs itself down, ARM has hit upon the finite elements of uniqueness, flexibility that are the keys to making money in this industry. Finally there is someone atop the glass house who is talking about making cars exciting again, and not just "efficient", or "appropriate", nor necessarily catering to the whims of the shadings of the marketplace.

His words may yet come back to haunt him, like Secretary of State James A. Baker stating: "Regrettably..." when talks with Saddam Hussein broke down and the first Gulf War inevitably ensued---which we are still fighting today---we must hope that phrase "unacceptable results" does not become the watchword for the demise of Ford Motor Company amongst the many. His bluntness appreciated, necessary, timely, and hopefully not a fixture of the future at Ford. Make no mistake, however, for the participants at the 'Thursday Meetings'---it is make or break for Ford.

Simply put, the losses endured at Jaguar could be offset by trading off the build technology to Lincoln. Despite the arrive of two "S Types"---Jaguar and Lincoln, both key to the future of both brands, Lincoln has more to gain, and Jaguar to lose. Failure of the S at Jaguar means the demise of the brand at Ford. Success of the S at Lincoln means to resurgance of both the brand and the company's fortunes. Success of S type for Jaguar will only mean that it may/may not remain with Ford, and no matter the numbers sold can never offset the billions lost in the 'Cat-Box' at Jaguar. Yet the knowledge gained in rebuilding Jaguar can be shared within the Lincolns of the future. So that they do not become, like Ford's business results: "unacceptable" in the eyes of the public.

DouglasR

(Sources: Ford Motor Company; WSJ, FT; Automotive News, Ford interview with Amy Wilson 10-25-06); Reuters; Edmunds Inside

euphonium

Considering all you've written and the current status of Ford, it is tempting to buy Ford stock up to 5% of my portfolio, now.

What is your opinion on the purchase of Ford stock at this time, all things considered?

Euphonium

scootertrash

Investors buy on bad news and sell on good news.

Most people lose in their investing (both stocks and real estate) because they buy on good news and panic-dump on bad news.

If you bought Merck right after the Vioxx story broke, you'd have doubled your money in a pretty short period of time.

The news for Ford really can't get too much worse.

They only have one way to go from here.-- Sounds like a good investment to me.

douglasr

Ford stock has not reached a premium level for quite a number of years. The high being $9.48. You can make money trading in the short term...making a buck here and there on the quick, but you have to move a fair volume of shares quickly to do it. That is not the real issue. Whether Ford Motor will weather the current crisis is, and what will it do for its investment standing? I liken the situation to where Chrysler was in 1979, when its shares traded at $4.74. There is no "Iacocca" on the horizon at Ford, but Alan Mulally is a fair bet. Plus the fact that William C. Ford Jr. wisely stepped aside to make room for another voice bodes well for the future of the company. While ARM tends to the "store" WCF Jr. jumped on the company plane for Beijing looking to lock up suppliers in the largest market outside America. China is also expanding at a double digit rate and provided the opportunity for Ford Motor to catch up and pass its competition in that market. Plus it may give rise to Ford built exports to America to checkmate similar moves by the competition.

Therein lies the nexus of a grand strategy for success...Sergio Marchionne of Fiat did not shutter factories because, as he said in the WSJ today, "only 6-7% of costs are due to labor so the issues lie elsewhere to find profitability." Even if that figure were double at Ford, lower manufacturing costs by outsourcing parts in the face of stringent competition is a viable path to success. The fact that Ford is willing to admit that it is basing its current plans on a market share a third lower than when Bill Ford took over means that the hand-wringing has been done. "This is very painful for me personally" WCF JR. stated today. So the "team" is focused, both on the enormity of the failings, and the challenge ahead. They can only write a page of success given the high stakes now at hand, which, it seems quite evident, that they finally recognise---albeit 25 years too late.

Auto stocks generally table out around $45 a share, if they hit $60, American firms generally split the shares, $35 being optimum daily trading rates, being that they want to stock to remain fungible, bankable, and considered a "blue-chip" investment. They all have a long way to go towards regaining that stature. At Ford Motor it might be 24 months before its shares see $20. Yet at its current nadir of $7.50, more than a 100% increase is a sure bet. Buy in cheap, hang on for the bumpy ride, but come 2009, those shares will have more than doubled in value---if not tripled. You can pay for the down payment on your next car with the net gain---unless you are Kirk Kerkorian, where-in you can pay for your next jet, mansion, and corporate aquisition, (Chrysler?), with the net difference. Remember: all that Ford Motor has to do is shift its manufacturing and inherent costs about 7% to regain profitability, a not unattainable margin in the auto industry. If it can move the difference by 10-12% then FMC will be making a hefty 4-5% margin in profits. Or if they raise their average selling price to $23,500 while lowering their inherent costs by the same margin from its current $21,800 price, regardless of pension and legacy costs, Ford Motor will make reasonable profits worldwide.

Grim as the news may be, the last card has not been placed on the table...and success, or the chance for it, is within sight.

...if anything (though SEC regulation prevents it) Ford could say: "turn the profits on our stock into your down-payment on the next Ford Motor Company Product..." come 2009.

DouglasR

(Sources: FT, WSJ)

nvbanker

I'm buying some Ford. My broker will be delighted. All the Ford's I've owned in the past, Ford should grant me some shares.....

bumpy

Instead of rebates, maybe Ford could put stock options on their vehicles?

marsha7

everyone thinks Ford stock could be like Chrysler 25 years ago, but are you so sure of a double or more???...Chrysler had Lee Iaccoca (sp?), a man proven to know how to design, make and market cars...plus, there WAS a kind of "Buy American" spirit at the time, Reagan was pres, and the horrors of the union mentality was not generally known, at least not like today, and the imports were just getting their foothold and were not the known quantities that they are today...

Just because Bill Ford stepped down and was replaced, what else is different???...they still depend on SUVs for profit, and if gas starts back to $2.50/gallon again, folks will be gunshy and stop buying SUVs long before we get back to $3.00...just what would make Ford stock worth more, after all the worker buyouts, etc...

They still have to sell product or its over...I just do not see Ford doing to itself what Lee did to Chrysler in the 1980s...

What do you see that I don't???

explorerx4

speaking of chrysler, why wasn't there this big uproar when they cut 25-30k workers starting a few years ago?