Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
And there are print rebuttals, also discussed here.
A quick look at the past will still reveal botched launches, however, the F-150, Mustang, and Five hundred/Montego/Freestyle are the most recent vehicles to implement the 6-sigma program so thoroughly. This being because the program requires so much data.
My personal experience is a small sample of all the Ford vehicles out there, but long-term reliability has been somewhat of a strong point. It has been initial quality botches (Focus,Escape) and recalls that have probably driven many people away from Ford, and it appears that they are finally getting a good handle on this problem. Why so little recognition? I guess if people aren't complaining about one thing, it's another. I for one applaud Ford (as secular fan) for its dedicated work in improving quality. I also see evidence of Ford's initial quality improving in Consumers Reports. Where owners are reporting far fewer problems with recently launched Ford vehicles than those launched in the past.
Hopefully I am not subjecting myself to a bunch of criticism, but if you are a current over of one of these fine vehicles, then know that a lot of work on Ford's and their supplier's part, went into this vehicle to make it right before it reached you. There are going to be a few vehicles that get by, but if my understanding of 6-sigma is correct, MANY fewer than in the past.
If you are someone that is looking at one of these vehicles, but is unsure about Ford quality, know that a lot of work is being done to fix past problems. Probably more so than either of the other domestic automakers with their use 3-sigma and 4-sigma as a quality standard for their parts and vehicles.
Anyway, just an observation I thought I would pass on, nothing more.
Since I don't have many answers to questions concerning 6-sigma other than the basics, I encourage all that want to find out more about it, and Ford's involvement in it, to do a search on "6-sigma" or "Ford 6-sigma" in a search engine.
But- does any manufacturer of anything use 3-sigma? That actually scares me given the defect rate that 3 sigma would allow.
~alpha
"But- does any manufacturer of anything use 3-sigma? That actually scares me given the defect rate that 3 sigma would allow."
To my knowledge, the other two domestic Automakers implement TQM (total quality management). Many of their suppliers do operate in the 4-sigma range (perhaps I miss-spoke in saying 3-sigma? My apologies). A nice benefit of the new industrial park Ford set up to supply the Chicago plant, is helping Supply Chain managers route out problems much faster than in the past.
1-Sigma
690,000 defects per million
2-Sigma
308,537 defects per million
3-Sigma
66,807 defects per million
4-Sigma
6,210 defects per million
5-Sigma
233 defects per million
6-Sigma
3.4 defects per million
~alpha
What scares me about Ford is their abuseive treatment of suppliers. There does not seem to be any sense of teamwork, or trust as there is with the Japanese manufacturers and vendors. I think it would be difficult to provide extraordinary quality with the disfunctional relationship they have.
I know that the biggest differences between US and THEM are that GM and Ford have a very high fixed cost structure (media.gm.com look for rick wagoners speech to shareholders) and that the Japanese do not.
In other words, take this example. Lets say there is a piece of interrior trim right? It costs $50 to purchase (and $40 for the supplier to make). To GM and Ford, they would add say $5 for pension and healthcare costs as they spread the fixed costs as far as possible. So, for GM and Ford, they could only afford it at $45, but to a supplier, this $5 difference means millions and is often the difference between profit and loss.
So, with our automakers, they make $(50 - 5)-40 = $5 per sale.
The Japanese, on the other hand, with the same trim, only need $1 for healthcare and pension costs. So they could buy it for $49. The supplier gets screwed either way, but with the Japanese they can sell at a higher price, and the Japanese automaker could LITERALLY PAY MORE FOR THE SAME PART AND STILL MAKE A BETTER MARGIN OFF OF IT!
With Japanese automakers, they make ($50 - 1) - 40 = $9 per sale.
This has allmost nothing to do with "relationships" its mainly a matter of cost. Yes, i bet if we got the inside scoop there are little differences, but the most important relationship is income and sales.
Is this logical? I just find it amazing given the above that Ford did what they did with the 500. I can see why the air filter and lighted instrumentation, along with nav, are missing.
It is stil a great car. sorry for the long post. I hope this explains the supplier relationship thing.
~alpha
The Japanese, on the other hand, with the same trim, only need $1 for healthcare and pension costs. So they could buy it for $49. The supplier gets screwed either way, but with the Japanese they can sell at a higher price, and the Japanese automaker could LITERALLY PAY MORE FOR THE SAME PART AND STILL MAKE A BETTER MARGIN OFF OF IT!
With Japanese automakers, they make ($50 - 1) - 40 = $9 per sale.
Only one problem - it's not true.
There are plenty of U.S. based vendors supplying parts to the Japanese transplants here. Their cost structure is the same regardless of who their customer is.
There is an immense difference in the relationship between outside vendors for Japanes and American companies. Up to 50% of the engineering in Japanese cars is done by the vendors. The U.S. manufacturers may do up to 85% of the engineering. The Japanese manufacturers have specific cost targets to hit, and if the supplier does it more efficiently, they make more money, allowing them to invest in new capability.
The U.S. vendors tend to hand the design over the wall, then beat the supplier over the head.
You can read about these and other differences in "The Machine that Changed the World," about lean manufacturing techniques. The good news is that US manufacturers are learning these lessons fast, and the best US manufacturer plants are now better than some of the Japanese plants here.
I gave an example of what is happening currently and how our automakers high fixed cost structure is eroding there current buying power, not the cost structure of the suppliers.
In short, I did not mention the variable of manufacturing (that’s a whole different story), just purchase decisions based on the cost structure of each.
Thank you so much johnclineii and alpha01.
Alpha your absolutely correct, most customers do not care why something is the way it is. If they find a what they think is a better deal they will go for it, even if it will bite them back later.
like how some people accosted our clothing industry for poor working conditions until it fled overseas and now they buy clothing from Chinese sweat shops and we have a growing national deficit. Oh yeah, and alot of workers that became unemployed as a result.
or like going to McDonalds instead of Subway. Yeah, maybe its cheaper and more "filling" but your doctors bill will go through the roof in about 10 years when he finds a health problem for every ingested big-mac
http://tinyurl.com/3rb5t
You gave an example but it cannot be documented. The Japanese (and Germans) are moving manufacturing facilities here because it's less expensive than in their native countries. And as follow on research by the MIT professors who wrote the book shows, the American manufacturers have responded to the challenge in many ways. For example, the UAW now works a lot more effectively with the manufacturers than was the case in years past.
1) Its volume inside.
2) Trunk size.
3) Hip height
2) Legroom
Re:exalteddragon1
You are very right about the higher fixed and variable costs (esp. wages paid to workers) that the domestic automakers must pay. The strain on the dollar in the domestic auto industry is very intense due in part to other high variable costs such as health care. You add up all of these costs and you find yourself with very little revenue. In guess one point that I made indirectly in what I posted previously, or perhaps a point that should be considered, is that in Ford's attempts to reduce the number of problems per million in its parts and products, they will be increasing revenue because of the drop in warranty costs (also a variable cost).
Re:garandman
When you don't have to look especially hard to suppliers to cut costs, then they are happier, and also more willing to share new technology with you. While suppliers may look innocent or like victims in all of this, there is more there than meets the eye. When suppliers deliver a sub par product or numerous products with inconsistencies which cause failures, this ultimately can cost the automaker two to three times the parts original cost. Not only will the automaker be paying for the part directly for installation into vehicles during production, but again to replace it if it fails during the warranty period (plus labor). The supplier does not eat those costs, the automaker does. So what does the automaker do? Bite their tongue? Shake their wrist and point their finger scolding the bad little supplier? I know that Ford may not be the best in supplier relations, but it seems that all other things equal, that the plan to reduce the quality problems Ford is/was having is proactive. Working with the supplier, on site, to route out the problem, and get it fixed.
Re:alpha01
I agree that a NAV system should be offered as an option, but do you think that electroluminescent gauges is a personal preference? Stability control might be a good option for the Freestyle, but how many cars in this price range have it standard or as an option? Personally, I don't know. I am willing to guess that in the statistics of costing this vehicle, that Ford figured it would loose few sales if they didn't offer some of your suggestions for improvements. Most people hate stats, and maybe they were wrong in this case. Only time will tell.
On another note, I think it's great that for once, we are all here talking about these petty little things for once and not about how Ford botched up yet another launch. Hopefully this is the beginning of better things to come from Ford. I guess we will all see this fall when Ford's new line of mid-size cars are brought out.
Let's hope the Fusion/Milan/Zephyr launch goes at least as well, if not better! (I still might be interested in an AWD Fusion, but it all depends on whether it is coming out before the bigger engine debuts in the Five Hundred...and on gas prices and the world situation at the time...)
Yes it can. It is currently happenning and if you go to the media.gm.com website you can find mr.Wagoners speech to shareholders where he talks about this. But if he showed this scenario black and white for what it is like the example i gave, it would shake investor confidence, so you have to reason it out.
And it makes sance, why else would they have some of these problems? You think they don't want to spend the money? they do, they just can't afford it many times. And it hurts the business.
Other companies move in here (USA) and for the most part (90%) do not work with the UAW. They have very limited connections because they all saw what is happenning to GM/Ford and do everything so that it does not happen to them.
the UAW is responsible for the astronomical heathcare and pension costs per worker, that it will not let the companies reduce. And so, foreign companies pay there workers less, and have a better plaing field in OUR HOME country than we do.
Over the years, the UAW and their legacy costs have basically amounted to a current $5 billion annual burden for GM alone. This is why they have a high fixed cost structure, and why they play overprice/discount games. Its also why GM does not come out with new technologies faster, like DOHC mainstream engines and hybrids. Its also why Ford has to buy some of its Hybrid tech from toyota.
This is a long-term disaster for our automakers.
I say if the UAW wants its workers to have super health care and pensions, them meybe the UAW should pay for them.
Hope I don't sleep with the fishes tongiht :P
http://www.iht.com/articles/509400.html
http://www.detnews.com/2004/insiders/0407/18/c01-215227.htm
1. Ford invented the type of hybrid technology used in their vehicles (lie)
2. Everyone loves Toyota and all good hybrid engines are built by Toyota even the Fords. (lie)
3. Your words "Ford DID NOT buy any technology from Toyota on Hybrid's they developed their own system". (half lie)
They developed their own system based on technology purchased from Toyota. Technology is not a specific system in this case nor hardware.
I came over to read current informatiio about the Ford 500 not Hybrid junk.
And let me add that two people having a different interpretation of events does not mean one party has posted a "lie". We need to handle disagreements in a civil manner and accusing someone of that isn't the way to converse in our Forums.
Thanks.
I think it's a nice way of tying lose ends
2 - Since HP numbers are rather useless, do you have a torque curve for the engine?
3 - The 500/Montego is statistically under powered as compared to the CrownVic/Grand Marquis.
Grand Marquis is 4137 lbs with 272 lb-ft @ 4000
Montego is 3680 lbs with 207 lb-ft @ 4500
Thus, the 500 should have 242 lb-ft of torque at 4000 rpm to stay even with a Grand Marquis. Given that the 6sp may improve this number 10%, lets say, 220.
This is why when I drove the 500, I knew my Grand Marquis was faster.
The new 3.3L vvt engine from Hyundai is >200 lb-ft from 1500 to 6000. I still can't believe Chevy believers think that OHV is a competitive design.
OHV is cheaper for the automakers to build, and requires less moving parts and is thus more reliable.
Also, lets not forget the new generation of ohv's, the GM 3900 has vvt and DoD making it ultra competetive, especially off the line. The problem is GM is not marketing it well enough, so that unless your into cars, you cannot tell what it has. On the cover they should have make an exiting design and put the terms VVT and DoD on it like toyota or honda do whenever their engines get new technology.
I also understand that timing belts are a problem with DOHC's in honda and toyota's, but i could be wrong. I know that OHV's do not have this problem. I am not a technical guy, so i could be pointing to the wrong feature.
If the Five-Hundred had ohv, i doubt many people would care, as long as it has VVT and DoD, it would satisfy people's tech demands. You know, I would rather have a 250hp OHV five hundred than a 203hp DOHC, but that's just me
Answer - Poo-ha! The only reason Chevy uses OHV is because it is cheap, not better. Torque curve tells everything about an engine's capability off the line. Not OHV or DOHC.
----------- RANT ON ----------------------
What does Cadillac use? Why VVT of course! Why doesn't Chevy use VVT engines, because they cost more.
This "OHV is still good" gibberish is getting mighty old.
I am waiting for a Chevy person to chime in and tell me this fuel injection stuff is just a fad. "Good old 4 barrel is the way to go".
There was a time when FORD used Multi-Port Fuel Injection and Chevy was using Throttle body. Why?, because Throttle Body was cheaper not better.
Why will Ford build the Fusion in Mexico? Because it is cheaper. Not because the Mexican workforce is world renowned quality leaders.
------------- RANT OFF -----------------
Keep in mind the design work for the Duratec 35 began in early 2000. The article is informative
but does not speak to when the design was completed other than production is due in late 2005.
http://www.automfg.com/articles/100307.html
Torque curve is strong off the line thanks to VVT. And a few other modifications that allow it to have a hearty pull from the start.
Now in comparison between the CV/GM 4.6L OHC V8, to the 3.0L DOHC V6 in the Montego, you will naturally feel the V8 pull stronger at first since that V8 produces 80-85% of it's torque under 1500-1800RPM, then tames down as the RPM's climb, where HP comes into play and takes over.
The 3.0L gives a different feel with the CVT. It shoots you high, does it smoothly, which might give some the perception it's not as quick but you would be shocked.
I've already tested both of these vehicles personally, against each other in a closed circuit. I found that off the line, the CV/GM takes you up to speed quickly, while the 500 falls back one car length behind, but come 3500-4000RPM on the 500 it catches up. At this same instance the transmission shifts on the CV/GM and it's that fraction of a second where the 500 pulls ahead and the CV/GM stays 2-3 car lengths back and can't gain it's momentum. At this point the 500 is doing 60-65MPH and continues on to 95MPH which I ended it there.
There's various conclusions you came make off of this.
1) The CV/GM transmission is what caused it to fall back 2-3 car lengths, and it can be tailored to shift quicker sacrificing comfort/softness to make up for it.
2) The CVT shoots you into the heart of the torque band, and keeps you there and brings the vehicle up to speed quickly, and keep you there.
There's a few other's, but I don't want to end up typing a whole report on here. But that's the main highlight of that test, as well as showing the efficiency of the CVT.
Granted, we are comparing a V8 carrying a few hundred pounds more, to a V6 weighing less, and to a certain degree could be considered pointless.
Is this to say that if the CV/GM were upgraded to a 4.6L 3V V8 and new 6 Speed automatic, would it's performance improve? Certainly, you could be looking at under 7 sec. 0-60MPH times. But that brings other questions to mind, which I won't dwell on.
Now onto the OHV and OHC argument. Like everything in life, and the auto industry, there's always a trade off. The OHV's had an advantage at one point since they made the majority of their torque, under 2000RPM's, at least that was the statement GM made many years ago when journalists asked if they would follow Ford and start manufacturing OHC engines for it's Chevy brand.
Ford counter claimed (as did the media) that with it's design, it was able to prove that the m majority of it's torque for the 4.6L was made under 1500RPM. Integrating that engine into trucks, and the Mustang alarmed many purists, but learned to accept it since the technology kept up and improved as the engine was phased into other products.
Currently, Ford's 5.4L OHC V8 sports a stronger torque band down low, and up towards it's peak in comparison to GM's 5.3L OHV V8 in it's trucks.
You also have other "tricks" to make a vehicle feel quicker. The efficiency of the torque converter, the axle ratio, the transmission gearing and it's speed to shift, drive-by-wire technology, how little effort placed upon the pedal translate to how much engine input is placed.
Yes OHV engines are much simpler to build, cost less to build, etc. They, as anything else, have it's pros/cons. But years of having the media/journalist redicules GM for using OHV engine, might have allowed them to gain a negative perception and perceived lack of sophistication in comparison to it's rivals.
How many times have you heard such comments as "Yestur-year technology.... Making old technology tick...an engine that dates back to the Kennedy administration" etc.
And that brings us to another point, GM while having better reliability/dependability scores on a few vehicles, over it's rivals. They also trail domestic manufacturer's in perceived quality. Ironically, the VW rated the highest when we all know, their dependability is one of the worst in the industry.
Obviously VW has it's tricks (good fit and finish, interior materials, attention to details).. A great illusionist overall. Does this mean GM will need to make changes to raise this perception ?
Don't think they aren't aware of it. It's easily demonstration with the Corvette/XLR offerings. Some of the newer Buick's offering the OHC engines, as well as the Cadillac sedans.
Again, it's a give and take.
Thank you for contacting Ford Motor Company on 02/25/05. We appreciate
the time you have taken to write us regarding your interest in the Ford
Five Hundred.
We appreciate your loyalty and interest in Ford. Thank you for your
recent e-mail.
The Five Hundred offers incomparable passenger room, command seating
and the peace of mind of all wheel drive.
We pride ourselves on becoming the world's leading consumer company for
automotive products and services and the satisfaction of our customers
is one of our highest priorities. Feedback such as yours is highly
valued by Ford Motor Company.
We are pleased that you enjoy the Ford Five Hundred. It helps reaffirm
our belief in the importance of exceptional products and services. When
customers like you send us positive stories, you help reinforce our
efforts to build the finest automotive products in the industry.
The Sales Department of your local dealership is in the best position to
advise you of vehicle pricing or availability. Ford and Lincoln-Mercury
dealerships are independently owned and operated and as such, set their
own prices for vehicle sales.
To locate Ford dealerships in your area, please access
www.fordvehicles.com, then select the "Locate Your Dealer" icon from the
"Research" heading. You will then be prompted to enter your zip code to
obtain a list of the five closest dealerships in your area. You may
also search by dealership name.
You may also obtain Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Pricing for the
model and option configuration you are seeking through our Ford Vehicles
web sites. Simply select the site for the model you are interested in
and you will be able to configure and price the vehicle of your choice:
www.fordvehicles.com
www.lincolnvehicles.com
www.mercuryvehicles.com
We regret that we are unable to fully address your inquiry, but are
confident that your local Ford dealership is in the best position to
advise you of your purchase options. Thank you for your interest in
Ford vehicles.
Once again, we appreciate your inquiry and would like you to know, it is
always a pleasure to communicate with enthusiastic and loyal Ford
customers such as yourself.
At Ford Motor Company, we consider the satisfaction of our customers as
one of our most important objectives. If you have any other inquiries
or concerns, please feel free to contact us and we will be happy to
address them.
Thank you for contacting Ford Motor Company.
Sincerely,
Cherr
Ford Motor Company
Customer Relationship Center
Surprisse I got and answer.
Actually they really didn't address the issues I brought up. But they know what they are.
But with the new OHV engines, the 3.5L has better fuel economy that any competitors 3.5L v6's. Yes, it produces less power but that's the point, it does more with less power.
Its amazing that ppl knock ohv's like that while buying up every corvette ever.
Now, Cadillac has to use DOHC because its a prestige brand, and people like yourself see ohv as inferrior so for a high market GM has to use DOHC.
Costs are very important, and I mention cost as one of the reasons GM uses Ohv's. I don't mind, GM saves money, and the customer saves time and money in repair and fuel costs.