So we are on the same page then? Anti-bean counters as they always look great short term. But long term success has never came from a bean counter, Toyota's success hasn't come from bean counters. No one seems to think that idea is as good as the lean manufacturing idea is. Probably because it's not a black white easily definable and quantifiable solution (thank you Jack Welsch).

So in summary, give the customers what they want when they want it and it all works

Loose the customers and market/manage by spread sheet and what stock rise sharply then fall like a freakin ROCK.

 

Some of their problems could have been solved if they just would get the 330 hp diesel into the F150 before any other 1/2 ton trucks get their diesel. It is not the cure all but it would help IMO. I just read an article that stated that Ford might be waiting until 2011 to put the diesel into the F150. I guess we all just have to wait.

 

"....when they want it" Bingo. That's was the reason both Toyota and Honda took away the car sales lead from the Big 3.

Arab Oil Embargo's of the 1970's (1974 & 1979). At the beginning of 1974, the Japanese were selling Econoboxes, sales were miniscule. All of a sudden gas went from 35 cents a gallon at the beginning of 1974 to over $1.00 a gallon by the end of 1974, and to $1.25 by 1979. What did the Big 3 have to sell? Pinto's and Vega's, Chrysler had nothing. The Pinto's went through the exploding gas tank fiasco, and the Vega with its Teflon coated cylinder walls burned oil from day one.

Ppl started buying Toyota's and Honda's by the 1000's. Neither company has looked back since.

 

The big 3 couldn't respond due to the lack of leadership and management to "Make the call" on building cars like the K car or the mini van. Not UAW's fault as most if not all management classes would have you believe.

So What does America need today that is much LIKE the 70's? Toyota and Honda are both "behind" if you came out with an electric, hybred, diesel SOMETHING to give big vehicles mileage. A chance to put the water back under the bridge

 

You certainly couldn't blame the UAW, but you could blame the manufacturing companies for making crappy cars. What ppl don't realize is before all the Gov't ordered recalls, many vehicles ills were fixed on the sly. Ppl were sent mailers asking them to bring in their new cars for a free oil change. The REAL reason was to fix some flaw, that the manufacturer didn't want the ppl to know about. Here's a couple:

1967 Mustang steering wheels. The plastic wheels cracked almost immediately, Ford sent every dealer one steering wheel for every car they sold, matching the color. Over the next 30 years, those new wheels kept popping up a swap meets because most of the dealers never installed them.

Ranger/Bronco II 4WD draglinks installed on new vehicles, and original replacements sold over the parts counter. The ball joint actually fell apart after about 10,000 thousand miles. While some were repaired under warranty, some weren't. Ford sent a letter to the dealers telling them to give a newly re-designed draglink away free to anyone who came in to buy one..no questions asked. The word got out within several years, and Ford lost a huge class action lawsuit over those draglinks.

The word gets around, another reason ppl forgot all about being brand loyal.

The Toyota sludging V6 engine fiasco of the late 1990's is a flaw that Toyota tried to hide. Toyota initally blamed the owners, saying they didn't change the oil often enough. That didn't work. The truth had something to do with narrow oil passages in the engines. Ppl found that out and Toyota had to fix 1000's of cars free, some that were long out of warranty.

 

watz, It's not so much that the big three couldn't respond, although the question of leadership can be argued forever. The truth of the matter is that the big three chose not to compete directly with the imports. The reason at the time is that the development of a whole new vehicle platform with new powertrains would take a considerable amount of time and money. (Even though Ford and GM were already making more fuel efficient vehicles in the European and Australian markets). The larger and performance oriented American cars and trucks of the time brought pretty decent margins (especially with options), while the Pinto and Vega actually made very little money for their parent companies. (Chrysler decided to hedge their bet and partnered with Mitsubishi, remember the Colt?).

As fickle as the American auto buyer is, the big three decided to take a "wait and see" approach to see if the desire for smaller cars was sustainable. It's hard to argue that the American consumer wants a vehicle thats bigger, faster, badder, and more powerful than his neighbor. (Gotta have bragging rights . . .) It's always been that way, and looking at just about every post on this forum, it's still that way. (Look at all the posts for chips, programmers, big tires, lift kits, etc.) Since the mid 70s, American cars slowly became more powerful and sacrificed economy for horsepower because thats what American consumers buy. 2007 is like 1974 again, except that there's no fuel shortage . . .yet.

I would speculate that Ford still makes a great deal more profit on Mustangs, F150s, Super Dutys, Expeditions, and Lincolns than it does on Focuses, Fusions, and Milans. Therefore, there's little incentive to slug it out against Toyota and Honda which have a sizable cost advantage per vehicle in small cars.

The big issue for the future is can the big three keep a lead in large cars and full size pickups in North America as Toyota and Honda begin to build larger cars and full sized pickups right here? (Think Lexus, Tundra, and Ridgeline) They've already started to compete in the higher margin vehicles. Although I looked at the Tundra and Ridgeline, I didn't think they came close to the quality and value of the F150, but I have a Ford bias, and I wanted a real truck. A few of my neighbors have Tundras and Ridgelines parked in their driveways, so not all Americans agree with me.

Dale

 

I don't buy yoda and sure don't believe them to be better quality. Out here in the country, people tend to buy american, you go into town or the suburbs and you see a lot of foreign, it'a allmost like it's a yuppie thing. Ranches, farmers and construction worker who really depend on thier vehicles lean american, people that just drive to the office or pick up a bag of grass seed are more likely to buy japanese. Yuppies tend to depend on publications like motor trend and car and driver when researching a vehicle which are biased against american. Out brands get passed down from one generation to another, my dad drove ford and so did his dad, so I drive fords type of thing. Also this area is very dependant on the UAW as we have ford, chrysler and GM all with plants around here. From high school on, people are very brand loyal, it was the old chevy -vs- ford thing with some dodge boys and even a american motors fan or two. It's americana, Norman Rockwell around here for the most part. Like I've said a million times, I've driven fords all my life and have yet to walk or even have a major repair. Lets face it, the only thing that really put ford in the rears is this latest round of sky rocketing gas prices. They had been selling trucks and suv's like hotcakes, then the bottom fell out. It doesn't pay to have all your eggs in one basket. A ford spokesmen said a couple of years ago, "we use to be a car company that sold trucks, now were a truck company that sells cars". They had money to burn, they were buying jag, volvo, LR and even controling interest in mazda to name a few. Now thier collapsing under thier own weight. They now realize that they need to be a leaner, meaner car company to compete and survive, so thats the direction were now headed. They have taken the lead with this new crossover suv thing thats all the rage now. The fusion is a big hit and after now owning one I can understand why, just an awesome vehicle. The retro mustang has rekindled sparks in the young and old a like and they still have thier big bad truck line. Every other vehicle around here is either an F-150 or super duty if not a ranger. Ford is going to be ok, let us hope they have learned something from all of this.

 

I'm in agreement, Wendell. I wish more suburbanite Americans agreed. Unfortunately there's more of them than there are of us in the country and small towns. I worked at Ford when Bill Ford came back from Europe to take the reins in the early 1990s. Petersen, Poling, and Telnack et.al. had made some good decisions and Ford was cash rich in the late 1980s. You are more correct than you know when you say Ford put all their eggs in one basket. Bill was so impressed with high margin European cars because Ford made lots of money on higher price point vehicles. During his reign, Ford sold off the agricultural division (Ford Tractor) to Fiat, and sold the heavy truck unit to Freightliner because the margins although steady, weren't high enough. He also sold Carlite and most of the manufacturing operations (packaged as Visteon) once again, because their "profitability" wasn't high enough on service parts. These minor divisions didn't make a lot of money in the good times, but they helped carry the business when auto and light truck sales were down. Now they're making money for other companies rather than for Ford.

I toured the Rouge F150 plant last Saturday. Rouge used to be a huge Ford owned industrial complex where raw materials went in one end, and automobiles came out the other. All that's left is a stamping plant, paint facility, and a very nice, modern assembly plant. Ford no longer owns the steel mill, rolling mill, casting plant, etc. I'm sure they were spun off for good reasons . . .if you ask the bean counters. My concern is if the prudent thing to do is sell a division if it can't meet profitability targets, eventually there won't be anything left to sell. What happened to taking an ailing business, adding good 'ol American ingenuity, and turning it around?

BTW, I think the Edge and MKX are pretty neat too, although I don't own one yet!

Dale

 

I think some of you may be reading more into this than there is. The problems didn't really start back in the 70's as such. Ford has been happy with the way things are, they gave up on the small car segment for the most part and sold the hell out of trucks and suv's and made lots of money. Trucks and suv's sells tanked and forced them to rethink thier options. If it isn't broke, don't fix it, now that it's broke they have to fix it. Toyota is now starting to struggle a bit with recalls and some quality issue's as they try to break new ground in the large truck market. Honda is doing what they do best, good quality small cars and mid sized as well. Ford has made small cars in the european market for years with great success. Here they caterd to the american public who wanted trucks and suv's with out much concern for anything else. They did have some forsite or luck with the escape as these crossover suv's are the wave of the future. With the escape they got a jump on alot of the competetion. Fords biggest problem is that they were living for the minute and not looking ahead, at least not with urgencey that they should have. They have a host of small cars to choose from as they have the european, asia and austrailian markets in which they build cars. They would just have to be able to pass tough U.S epa and safty standards. If blame most be passed, I would say it was management for not having any foresite and getting caught with thier pants down. They also should have been making better business desicions all along even when times were good. Like Aberdale farm said, they should have kept thier tractor and some of thier other companies instaed of being greddy and buying austin martin, jag and so on.

 

Geeezz you guys, can't you start insulting each other to at least make it interesting!

Just buggin, lots of good opinion and info by everyone.

 

I hear you Smiggs, it is starting to get a little long winded and boreing, any way, have a happy thanks giving buddy!!

 

[QUOTE=ffdemoss]This is just my opinion, but the reason I think the UAW didn't strike Ford is because they understand that Ford absolutely can not afford a strike. Did you notice how GM had the longest strike (2 days), Chrysler had about a half day strike and Ford had no strike. Why? Because GM is the strongest of the Big 3 right now (this is why the UAW picked them to kick off their re-signing of the contracts with the Big 3), so they strike them the longest. Chrysler is in the middle so they strike them for only half a day and Ford being the financialy weakest of the Big 3 they do not strike. Kind of like a pattern.
As far as those damn Jap automakers, I will only DRIVE AMERICAN and particulary Ford. Screw Toyota and Honda!

 

[QUOTE=aortizexcursion]


I agree and very nice post....

 

Can't break the forum rules you know....

 

LOL. Yeah, reliability is not part of the American life style. What is a life style anyway??