What about the future of Ford Inc??

carlisimo · December 2005

"I will make a bet with you though, I say F-150 will never lose the sales crown to Tundra."

I think that before such a change could occur, either pickups will fall out of favor or either Ford or Toyota will be radically different companies. So much can happen in the 20-30 years that I think is the time it would take for import large pickups to gain widespread acceptance.

In the Bay Area I know of at least one construction company - RGW - that gives Tundras to its engineers. The superintendents - who need heavy duty trucks - still use Fords though. So the F-150 doesn't have it easy. In the long-term, Ford will have to be able to put as much money into truck development as everyone else to stay ahead - or else. That will depend on its financial health.

I hope it's Chevy/GMC that go down first. I like Ford... or at least I'll like them again once they do something about the Focus.

callmedrfill · December 2005

But talk about shooting yourselves in the foot!

Achievas, Fieros, Contours, Tempos, Festivas, Focus, Allante, Cimmoron.....

I felt sorry for the man with no shoes.

Until I met the man with no toes!

DrFill

carlisimo · December 2005

Well, growing up I liked Ford a lot. My parents actually only ever owned one, an old Ford Mercury Capri (I think that was the badging...) that someone left with us. Ugly brown color, but it was a cool car. My dad's from Spain and there Ford has always been important and well regarded, and currently the Focus is to Europe as the Civic/Corolla are to us (in the good ways).

But we were poor and have always acquired 10+ year old MT economy cars, so when I started driving it was in Toyotas (which used to be fun to drive as well as well engineered) and I loved mine. So... I'm sort of a fanboy of two companies which I now find very hard to love.

Never cared for GM. Not just the Ford vs. GM thing, but I have a Napoleon complex and hate the big guys.

In my mind (as opposed to heart) I've recently sworn allegiance to Mazda, because they stick to their motto and it's one I can identify with. I guess Ford gets something out of that, at least.

mschmal · December 2005

Check out the new issue of Car and Driver. If you are generous enough to include Mazda vehicles as FMCo products, Ford takes home 3 out of 10 of the top spots.

Mustang,
Miata (ok MX-5)
and RX-8

Made the list.

I really think that Ford needs to demand from its product engineers and designers that all of the product is as good as the Mustang or the F-150.

If a company can make one great car, there is no excuse for turning out garbage. I think the current Ford lineup is pretty competitive for the moment but things change fast in the auto industry.

Mark

mschmal · December 2005

With a name like Leadfoot6, I don't even know why you bothered driving the 500. Nothwithstanding same, I'm confident that you drove a CVT car and you failed to floor the accelerator which failed to engage the detent switch which cause the CVT to fail to give you the lowest ratio.

Mark

littlez · December 2005

Well, you did say on an earlier post that the Toyota would "leave the Ford behind". I took that as meaning it would outsell it.

You're probably right about the numbers dropping a bit, but people who drive trucks still want trucks. $3 per gallon of gas is not going to make full-size truck buyers trade in their 4x4 or Super Crew for a compact or mid-size truck. And they definitely won't trade it in for a more fuel efficient Focus, Cobalt or Civic.

I believe since Ford has held the crown of best-selling pick up truck for over 20+ years, they will do their best to not give the top spot up to anyone, including GM.

littlez · December 2005

"...or at least I'll like them again once they do something about the Focus."

I like Ford, too. I don't see why don't they just go and buy a bunch of Civics, tear them down and rebuild one using their own parts. That's what Lexus did with Mercedes back when Lexus was born. It seemed to work pretty good.

ehaase · December 2005

I don't see why don't they just go and buy a bunch of Civics, tear them down and rebuild one using their own parts. That's what Lexus did with Mercedes back when Lexus was born. It seemed to work pretty good.

I think I remember reading that Ford tore down Camrys when it developed the 1996 Taurus. Ford realized it couldn't make a profit building the Taurus at such a quality level.

nvbanker · December 2005

"I really think that Ford needs to demand from its product engineers and designers that all of the product is as good as the Mustang or the F-150.

If a company can make one great car, there is no excuse for turning out garbage. I think the current Ford lineup is pretty competitive for the moment but things change fast in the auto industry."

Ahhhh, a kindred spirit here. I have always wondered how it was that one car company could produce the Ford Ranger, and the Escort at the same time. (This was back in the 80's, when the Escort was crap). I had both, and my landscaper still drives my 88 Ranger with 200,000 miles on it and no major issues - I also had an 81 Escort - first year out, saving gas and all, you know. It was a nicely laid out car, but the worst POS I've ever had, and after replacing the engine twice due to the timing belt bending the valves, and the water pump breaking the timing belt and bending the valves, I dumped it. Do you all remember that horrible automatic transmission that gave you a chiropractic adjustment every time it shifted? Noisy, rattly, and just crap. Ford has always seemed to do trucks so well, and large cars well, but small cars, it's better if Mazda does them for them, I think. The last Escorts made in the 90's and 00's, are pretty hardy little guys that don't quit. But Mazda is under there.....

Anyway, I totally agree.

carlisimo · December 2005

I think the Focus was a great car. Rather buggy... but a great car once they worked those out. In the US that happened around 2003, but it had happened earlier in Europe. The only reason I wouldn't buy one now is because of the stupid facelift that gave it angular headlights on a round body - they don't match. I've heard it's more fun to drive than the new Euro Focus. (Except in Europe it was tuned differently, obviously.)

Their Escort was different from ours too. But ours wasn't bad, probably because it was based on the 323/Protege. Other than the Mustang, all the good Ford cars are designed in Europe or Japan.

stockmanjoe · December 2005

No future for Ford.

littlez · December 2005

Do you really think that the company that makes the best-selling pick up truck (over 900,000 units per year), the best-selling sports car, the best-selling compact SUV, the best-selling small SUV and the best-selling full-size van does not have a future? I sure hope you are not a stock broker.

littlez · December 2005

Probably true, but it was the japanese government that paid for the Camry's quality and technology. Ford, GM and Chrysler (except for the 80's bail out) have to do it on their own.

varmint · December 2005

"Actually, most Altimas are sold with the 4 cylinder engine."

But all the press on the Altima was for the V6 model. That amounted to a whole lotta positive press. The V6 got people's mouths watering and led them to the showroom.

Ford's 3.0L Duratec doesn't have that kind of impact. In fact, it's had the reverse effect. Every review pans it for not matching the power of the competition, then several have complained about the NVH of the engine. That kind of talk doesn't generate showroom traffic.

varmint · December 2005

"Probably true, but it was the japanese government that paid for the Camry's quality and technology."

That's not an Ace in your hand, it's more like a Jack. The MITI directs industry. That's true. But it just as often gets in the way as often as it helps. In fact, the MITI actually attempted to stop Soichiro Honda from starting a car company. They tried to force him to become a parts supplier for Toyota.

And it's not like being an American company hasn't been a boon for the big three. Home field... size... resources... ties to congress... the domestics have their face cards. They've simply squandered them. Meanwhile the imports have not.

stockmanjoe · December 2005

Yes I think Ford (and GM) have been losing market share for close to 30 years and with new competition from Korea and China coming they are sure to fail. You hit the nail on the head they are dependent on models that no one will want in the future.

You obviuosly arent a stock broker (or a bad one) Have you seen Ford's stock price lately? I hear they are going to change its stock symbol from "F" to "DOWN" - LOL! Yeah go ahead and buy Ford. (It has gone from 15 to 7 in the last year)

mariner7 · December 2005

I really think that Ford needs to demand from its product engineers and designers that all of the product is as good as the Mustang or the F-150.

In the short term Mustang has been a huge success. But in the long term it's a microcosm of why Ford is in so much trouble.

First, that it was a copy of the first edition tells you Ford had no confidence in its new design direction. GT was the same story. Ford had to borrow the past to sell the future, never a good thing!

Secondly, both the platform and engine are decades old. They underpine the LS, S type and Thunderbird, none of which is known as a stellar performer. That Ford lacks resources to develop new platform/engine is troubling, at a time when Lincoln/Mercury lacks any products that are not derivatives of Ford products.

Thirdly, Ford already announced Mustang will last for 10 years. I give it 3, at most 4, years before it requires heavy incentives. Remember Tbird was even hotter at its debut, Neiman Marcus was fighting to get enough copies to sell. But it was a band aid solution for a company in trouble.

If Ford was a forward looking company, bent on innovation, as Bill Ford advertised, new 'Tang would have a new bold design that fires up the public's imagination, just like the original one did. It would have completely new platform and engine, which would form the basis for the next generation of Lincoln/Jaguar cars. And it would have a cycle of six or seven years to match the imports.

stockmanjoe · December 2005

You make excellent points - good post!

varmint · December 2005

It seems to me that Ford is very good at designing the kinds of vehicles which require excellence in one dimension. You need something to haul stuff? The F-150 is terrific. You want something to go fast in a straight line? The Mustang is a good choice. Wanna go really fast? Buy the GT.

But when it comes to building the kind of cars which must meet several design goals, Ford doesn't do so well. Vehicles which require a compromise between power, fuel economy, handling, ride, quality, comfort, and price don't work out so well for Ford. They never seem to get the balance right.

nvbanker · December 2005

"Yeah go ahead and buy Ford. (It has gone from 15 to 7 in the last year)"

Of course, at that price Bill could buy back all of the preferred stock and go independent, removing the "F" altogether. Now, the question is - would that help Ford survive? Probably not.

nvbanker · December 2005

"But when it comes to building the kind of cars which must meet several design goals, Ford doesn't do so well. Vehicles which require a compromise between power, fuel economy, handling, ride, quality, comfort, and price don't work out so well for Ford. They never seem to get the balance right."

You're pretty much right, Varmint - but it's not for lack of desire or trying. It's economics here in the US. In Europe, Ford either dominates, or holds their own with the competition easily. No UAW issues there. Someone already mentioned it - but the 96 Taurus was intended, and conceived to be better than the Camry. Try as they might for 5 years in development - and I read the book, "CAR", written about that story - there was no way to do what Toyota does for the same price in America. They could have equaled or bested the Camry, but not at the same price point. So it CAN be done - we just can't afford to.

Japan should be very frightened of Korea right now, and Korea should be concerned about China for the same reasons.

Meanwhile, I think it's just a matter of time for GM & Ford. Eventually, they'll have to go the way of Hudson.

stockmanjoe · December 2005

Bill Ford knows better than anyone else to sell F not buy it!!

littlez · December 2005

Most companies have a pot of money to utilize for marketing, incentives, R&D, etc. In the R&D area, if your company only has so much money to allocate to R&D, than some areas don't get enough money to make it worthwhile, or even enough to do anything. When the japanese companies allocated funding towards certain technologies and ran out before they covered them all, they called upon their government to "fill the holes".

Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars the japanese government has provided all of their automobile manufactures? (They also took care of their electronics industry, too.) It's staggering. Keep in mind that this has been going on for 30 to 40 years, or more.

This is one of the reasons Bill Ford went to the White House to ask for some assistance in technologies and alternative fuel development. If our government doesn't offer any assistance, there will never be a level playing field.

littlez · December 2005

"You hit the nail on the head they are dependent on models that no one will want in the future."

So, in your future, there are no pick up trucks, small SUV's or sports cars? What planet will you be living on?

Actually, at $7 per share, Ford stock is an excellent buy, IMHO. Believe me, they will not go under.

savetheland · December 2005

Japan has its own share of problems. Wasting money on inefficient sectors, slow in responding to new trends, years behind of USA in new technologies. They are not flexible enough and now have to watch their back - China and Korea can finish them if they do not become more agile (like USA).

Imagine 10 years of depression. Inefficiency in banking sector and sales distribution, bad loans, inability to adapt to changing environment.

In America free market takes care of adapting country to new realities. Unions are not effective? They will go like it or not, is it painful or not. People will adapt. In America it happens much faster and in much more effective way than anywhere else in the world. Actually I do not consider Japan or Germany as a serious competition for USA they both are in a big trouble. China is a real threat just because of its size and sheer energy of its people who dream big like to establish colony on the moon. When you heard Germans or Japanese with all their money had a national goal such a big?

2zmax · December 2005

I'd be extremely glad if they all move to the moon and stay there. It would be a lot safer world with so much more oxygen and no communist threat.
They can shove those 10k cars they are about to sell here. I don't want a car that will crap out on me in 1 year like everything else they make. Never had a Chinese made anything that lasted for a long time.

rscherb · December 2005

Postings like stockmanjoe and nvbanker are some of the reasons few people have any respect for brokers or people in the investment community. The reason? They have no practical experience in these businesses nor do they compose original insights.
Let me describe why. Number one, I hear many of the same opinions that don't discuss the cost issues of the US auto companies and how the currency manipulations have affected detrementally the auto company base.
But lets talk about what these companies are doing overseas. I lived in Europe and S. America and there GM and Ford have excellent reputations for quality and they consistently beat the asain manufacturers in sales.
Yes, design mistakes have been made but if you look at the quality differential betw. the Amer. and the asains; the difference is now negligable. Can they do better...sure, and they better.
But stupid opinions without looking at the facts are all that I'm seeing so far. Another one? Look at all the cash they have on hand. Ford has almost 25 billion on hand and GM has almost 21 billion. They ain't going out of business soon. However, if you want some easy money, buy the ford motor credit bonds due in march 2007 YTD is 11.36%.

My advice everybody. Stockorkerjoe is probably one of the guys who was touting AOL and other internet stocks during that boom and bust and now he's probably touting real estate in CA.
I'll get you guys better returns and I don't even have a series 7.

varmint · December 2005

I believe Micheline Maynard references the story of the 96 Taurus in her book, The End of Detroit. And I do take your point. There's a big difference between what Ford can design and what they can build.

But I'm not so sure what happened with the '96 Taurus still applies today. Both the Accord and Camry are assembled here in the US. Parts come from all over the world, but nowadays even engines and transmissions are built here on our soil. With Ford having taken over several other companies since '96, they have a much larger parts bin to play in. Economies of scale are more easily met and they can pull parts from around the world just as easily as the imports.

varmint · December 2005

"Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars the japanese government has provided all of their automobile manufactures? "

A lot less than you think.

Most of what I know about the MITI (now known as the METI), stems from materials I read on paper, but you can use the link below to get a better idea of what I'm talking about. It even mentions the situation with the auto industry which I mentioned above.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/JapanandtheMythofMITI.html

Japan does plenty of not-quite-kosher things with their currency and the METI does plan their industry (mostly 50 years ago). However, the METI does not write blank cheques to the auto industry. And it's not like the US lacks crafty moves of their own... import tarrifs, for example.

mschmal · December 2005

One of the things Bill Ford found standing in the way of taking FMC forward was the management culture at Ford. After three years, it seems that the only solution is to slash 4,000 white collar jobs.

One of the things that everyone agrees on about Mazda is how well Mazda STRIKES THE BALANCE. Good drive, good performance, etc. Ford is starting to really adopt Mazda Methods. Wait for the EDGE this January.

One thing about the Mustang. First, the design of the car is not because Ford had to go retro to succeed. The design of the car reflects that it is a Mustang.

Ford sells more Mustangs in a year then Mercedes and about 12 other brands sell all their models combined.

The Mustang sells better than the Chrysler 300.

The platform is new. It was developed off of the LS/Jag S platform but its not like Toyota starts with a clean sheet of paper every time a new Camry comes out.

How Ford cuts costs really scares me.

If you look under the hood of the new Fusion, the first thing you notice is that the Radiator Support is PLASTIC! ARUGH they would never do this on a truck!

Mark

nvbanker · December 2005

"Both the Accord and Camry are assembled here in the US. Parts come from all over the world, but nowadays even engines and transmissions are built here on our soil.'

But IIRC, the Honda plants are not Union, and the Toyota ones weren't either last time I checked. Think that makes a difference?

mirth · December 2005

...the non-union import plants can build cars faster because their workers are more flexible. I remember someone from Ford telling me how it took the union workers a week to remove an A/C unit from a wall: the heating/cooling guy came and disconnected the vents, the plumber came and diconnected the pipes, the maintenance guy came to take it off the wall and do the wall repair, and the moving guy came to cart the unit away. No wonder they're losing money.

However, a note about the import plants. Yeah, they assemble the cars here, but most of the parts come from overseas. For GM/Ford, the "American content" of the cars assembled here is 80%, for the Japanese plants it's 30%, for the Germans it's 5%, and for the Koreans it's 2%. They make everything at home and just ship it here to be assembled. The Japanese are making more and more investments in the US, but let's not kid ourselves with "globalization" talk about who is investing the most in this country.

nippononly · December 2005

"Meanwhile, I think it's just a matter of time for GM & Ford. Eventually, they'll have to go the way of Hudson"

Now that's a strongly pessimistic statement!

One of the two must survive, I think, and Ford is the most deserving. Unfortunately, it is also the smaller of the two, which puts it at a disadvantage.

Perhaps these two should put historical rivalries aside and merge for the sake of survival. The new company should employ a business plan modeled more after Ford's current one than GM's, which is a hopeless "design by committee, die by committee" sort of theme.

They could jettison a lot of excess capacity all at once, strike new deals with the UAW (which seems more open to that sort of thing now that they have agreed to the healthcare reductions for both Ford and GM employees), and be the American behemoth that finally takes on the global competition, rather than staring myopically at the U.S. market, paying share dividends they can't afford, and basically sticking their heads in the sand.

United we stand, divided we fall?

mschmal · December 2005

If there was to be a Ford Merger, I would like to see it with Honda or BMW.

Honda would fit in nicely since they do not do trucks.

BMW would also fit in nicely as the do not do trucks or non-luxury cars.

A few years back, VW was wondering if they should get into the SUV business. They did some market research and found that when VW owners left the brand, they most often purchased either a BMW or a Ford Truck.

Does this make Ford the BMW of trucks?

rscherb · December 2005

Car Mergers just don't work! hasn't anyone been looking around the last twenty years?
Now One of you will point to the Nissan/Renault merger as a success and I must point out that in the short term it seems like one... but just wait. Already this year Nissan has seen a sales slump of about 7-9% on almost all of their models. I didn't invent this number,I saw it in a trade journal and it really suprised me considering I thought they were selling like hotcakes. Whats scary is that these models aren't that old yet which bodes badly.
Anyway, back to the topic. Mergers such as Fiat/GM "bomb"or the Diamler/Mitsubishi/Chrysler merger. Not a success by any measure. Look at the venerable Porsche. Now they want to branch out their line-up like Mercedes did years ago. Good Luck! Even VW has really bombed lately with the Toureg/Cayenne (same car), problems, problems problems. Even the Phaeton after one year is a expensive flop, much like the Ford Freestyle.
My advice to any of them is to stick to what your good at in the auto business. There is so much over capacity out there that moving into other markets just doesn't make much sense right now. The amount of money it takes to launch a new line is unbelievably expensive and unless you stay committed to it, with new upgrades to design and detail, you are most likely destined for failure, ex. Mercedes. They tried to devote all their efforts to Chrysler and they let Mercedes quality and reputation fall to hell. By the way I never thought Mercedes were the "best engineered cars in the world".

nvbanker · December 2005

History bears out your opinion, I'm afraid. Studebaker-Packard, merge & die. AMC & Chrysler, then Chrysler-Mercedes, merge & give a mediocre ROI. I can't imagine anybody wanting to merge with GM really. What are they buying? A ton of overcapacity and redundancy. I think we're going to just have to sit and watch the numbers fall each year until the US is a second rate auto maker. If it's best to stick to what you're good at, Ford should stick to large cars & trucks (they pretty much have, until lately) and GM should stick to, well.......minivans from every division? I don't know exactly what GM is particularly good at these days. Beating the Japanese at being dull?

ehaase · December 2005

I don't know exactly what GM is particularly good at these days.

Full size SUV's and the Corvette. That's about it.

carlisimo · December 2005

"Now One of you will point to the Nissan/Renault merger as a success and I must point out that in the short term it seems like one..."

I will. Nissan would be dead without it... they don't have smooth sailing right now but they're alive and popular.

Renault's been raking in more money than it has in a long time, too.

Mergers work when they don't interfere much with each others' operations.

varmint · December 2005

Mergers work when they don't interfere much with each others' operations.

Bingo. And a merger between Ford and GM would just double the overcapacity and double the number of redundant products.

Nvbanker - True. The imports are not unionized. But there's a big difference between not being able to build a car here in the US and not being able to build a car using union labor. Frankly, Ford and GM have got no one to blame but themselves for the situation they have with the UAW.

nippononly · December 2005

needs to stop trying to out-GM GM and out-Toyota Toyota. Chrysler is the only one of the three with a healthy business this year (and a decent stock price), precisely because it rejected this goal.

Ford will NEVER succeed at beating GM or Toyota at their own games (different games by the way!). It has to take the bold step (deep breath here Ford!) of trying to sell BETTER cars at higher prices. Look at Freestyle, the Euro-Focus, etc. How many times has there been a behind-the-scenes decision at Ford to sell the cheaper shabbier product to Americans, because the premium product would cost more than Americans will pay for a Ford? How do they know? They've never tried.

Mercury confuses this decision even more, because it is the division of "premium" Ford clones. FoMoCo is fooling itself on this count, which is why Mercury needs to go - such an action would clarify future product decisions.

I envision a place for Ford someplace about halfway on the spectrum between Toyota (reliable but plain) and VW (unreliable but gorgeous), with models priced accordingly. Volume might drop from current levels, but per-unit profit would increase significantly. No, this is not a change they can effect overnight, but the advantage Ford has over GM is the ability to make a long-range plan and have some hope of sticking to it.

mschmal · December 2005

Mazda made out big time from this merger. With out ford dough Mazda would never have gotten its new products to market in as a competative form as they are.

Ford made out big time as well with Mazda's small engine expertise.

Interesting to note that if you combine all of Ford's brands you probable have more 24 hour Lemans wins than any other manufacturor.

I would like to see Ford do Max Value cars. The value of what you get should be greater than the price.

Fords should also have cutting edge design and damn the old fogies.

Mark

igor2 · December 2005

"...or at least I'll like them again once they do something about the Focus."

I like Ford, too. I don't see why don't they just go and buy a bunch of Civics, tear them down and rebuild one using their own parts. That's what Lexus did with Mercedes back when Lexus was born. It seemed to work pretty good."
-----------

Actually Civic and new Golf/Jetta Copied the Focus suspension down to the last bolt.
Civics are offered with rear independent Suspension ONLY in the US, they still have Torsion beam in the EU.. this is because there is much more variance in the EU compact market. With the few models in the US a torsion beam is a suicide (look at Cobalt)
.
Focus is suffering a lot right now.. the looks suffered, and while it has (not HAD) the potential to be great car, Ford cannot afford it. It needs to be selling this car, and not having a smaller model, means they have to sell it for 11k - base models. Focus was not built for such low price level.

Right now we (Focus enthusiasts) are hoping Ford will speed up the plans to bring over Fiesta and EcoSport - 2 vehicles built on smaller platforms than Focus. This would allow Focus to move upscale where it belongs : 14-15k at base. .competing with Civics and Mazda3's..
the 2008 edesign will be on the current platform, but that is not going to be a problem if it is done well.. the platform is very well designed, and actually the C1 platform (Mazda3, Volvo S40/V50 and new European Focus) only a updated enlarged copy of the C170.. the driving department didn't change much..

Igor

mariner7 · December 2005

Ford, and GM, need a bunch of simultaneous winners. Solitary winners, like 300, Mustang or Solstice, will not do. One, if you have only one winner, you tend to overproduce it, driving down its resale value and image. I read somewhere 25% of 300 production goes to rental companies! If you have multiple winners, all your factories are humming, and you're not overproducing any one model.

Secondly, multiple winners give a halo to your whole operation. It's a lot like a baseball line-up, one slugger doesn't a team make, you need good hitters up and down to drive each other in.

That was why, a year and a half ago, when GM, Ford and Chrysler were about to unleash their car offensives, (Ford labeled 2005 the year of the car, remember that!) everyone was so optimistic, because it was assumed most of these new cars would be hits. Instead, I counted only two solitary hits (300 & Mustang), and the results were very disappointing.

So even if Fusion/Milan is a hit, it still needs reinforcement from elsewhere in the lineup.

igor2 · December 2005

I actually think Ford has been good in creating a lineup of winners, and now it has only 2 gaping holes in the lineup that are killing its halo: Focus and Ranger....

If you look all of Ford Cars all are selling well/ have great rep..500 (mentioned above), Fusion, Mustang.
On the SUV / Truck side, Explorer is loved, Escape conitues to do well. .and Expedition seems to be just a car that Ford needs but doesn't care too much about it, since there is not point in fighting the GM in this class. F150 is has no bad rep..
the next year should make big progress in this. Not only willFord bring the Edge anbd the Sport Track, it will bring new engine, redesign the 500 and possibly start some teasers on Ranger, Focus and the upcoming small cars. However the truth is .. Ford Really needs a big hit in the compact segment -- a perceived great models - to finally win this war. And it will still be a delicate balance untill 2nd ot even third gen of hte current lineup untill the market will really embrace the new perception...
Also realize that after next year there will be only Focus, Ranger and CrownVic in the lineup that are moe than 3 years old and have any touch or not-so-stellar past..

Linc. / Merc. are not doing that well.. but they are not the core make, so FoMoCo can afford a little slack there. Plus while the progress is slower, every new model from FoMoCo even those for Linc/Merc have been well received...

I believe GM has the problem here. The two makes that did turn around their image is Pontiac and Caddillac, but as important as they are, Chevy is the breadwinner for GM.. and unfortunately, only the new Impala made ripples, and it was cancelled by the failures of HHR and Cobalt... The new full size suv/truck lineup should help, but unfortunately the market right now does not care too much for them...

Igor

carlisimo · December 2005

"Actually Civic and new Golf/Jetta Copied the Focus suspension down to the last bolt."

Golfs had torsion beams a very long time ago. I think they've gone independent now, at least the GTI.

Civics had wishbones front and back until '01, at which point the front went to struts. The European '06 hatchback is the only Civic (ever, or in a long time) to use a torsion beam. It's because it borrows a lot of parts from the Fit.

In Europe everyone's trying to reach the Focus's handling/ride balance, but they're not really copying its suspension.

I agree with everything else you say. It was a great car before the US facelift; now I think it's terrible. And it might not make sense to bring over the new one if it's going to compete with the Mazda3. Just like the Euro Civics, Accords, and Corollas are different, the Focus might have to permanently split. But that doesn't mean that the US Focus shouldn't be updated every 5 years!

varmint · December 2005

"The European '06 hatchback is the only Civic (ever, or in a long time) to use a torsion beam. It's because it borrows a lot of parts from the Fit."

It's because hatchbacks are used like utility vehicles overseas. They try to cram an awful lot of stuff into small cars. The compact torsion beam enables them to package the interior better. For example, the rear seats fold up (like the rear bench on the Ridgeline or Frontier), or fold down like any other hatch.

I have no idea who started using beams first, but the use of the design has nothing to do with how well the suspension performs. It has to do with how well it fits.

carlisimo · December 2005

Yeah, it looks like you're right. But I'll maintain that it was an easier decision for Honda to make due to the Fit parts bin.

So in what way did Honda copy the Focus?

And how did the American Focus become a $9000 special? (Just look at dealer ads in the paper.)

savetheland · December 2005

"Golfs had torsion beams a very long time ago. I think they've gone independent now, at least the GTI. "

Last year is not a long time ago. Previous Golf had a torsion beam. I believe Golf introduced torsion beam when it debuted in 70s and it became standard for all Golf class cars. Problem with Focus is a cheap and plain interior and facelift actually made it look older. In all Ford cars there are some details that make the interior look cheaper than it actually is. In 500 e.g. it is door panels and steering wheel, in Fusion  radio unit and climate controls, in new Focus almost everything. Mercury has a slightly better interior but it is still rebadged Ford. They should differentiate it from Ford with actually higher quality and better-designed interior.

Ford's tradition is not to redesign cars letting them to die in peace over time. But now they wow to change it and redesign cars every three years. We will see.

nvbanker · December 2005

"and it was cancelled by the failures of HHR and Cobalt.."

igor: On what basis is the HHR a failure? I have no idea how it's selling, but it seems to be a nice little guy, and a better execution than the PT Cruiser is. The Cobalt, I agree, is disappointing. They should have called it Cavalier II.

grbeck · December 2005

nippononly: How many times has there been a behind-the-scenes decision at Ford to sell the cheaper shabbier product to Americans, because the premium product would cost more than Americans will pay for a Ford? How do they know? They've never tried.

In a sense, Ford did try this during the 1990s. The Contour was more expensive than the Tempo it replaced, and the 1996 Taurus was more expensive than its predecessor. Neither model was a success, even though both were head-and-shoulders above the cars they replaced in build quality, performance and refinement. The Contour even received good reviews at the time for its ride, handling and overall balance (very European in feel for an American car of the time).

What about the future of Ford Inc??

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles