AutoBanter - View Single Post

**Brent P[_1_]** · September 12th 06, 04:48 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang

In article .com>, wrote:

> guys'? If so, it represents a serious failing on his behalf. At any
> automaker, the product experts who really understand the fundamentals
> and finesse involved in developing compelling cars and trucks are a
> critical resource.

Many corporations are not about product, but finance and marketing. A
polished turd is preferable to a good product because if they can sell a
polished turd, it's greater margin.

> Giving these people protection and support against
> the sometimes numbing influence of finance, purchasing and marketing
> departments is a key part of the CEO's job.

The CEO is too high to do that. The people defending product are in my
experience are not often higher than 'lead engineer' or 'project
engineer'. The higher one goes, the more it's about politics, spin,
financials, and not product. There are countless layers of management
between the product guys and the CEO. The CEO doesn't even know who the
people that focus on product are. Unless he goes down deep and gets his
hands dirty he's not going to know them.

> The second fundamental question posed by Ford's statement is the
> assertion that his company has 'lots' of car guys. If this claim is
> true, then Ford does an excellent job of isolating them from the
> automotive media.

Engineers that focus on product are not promoted. They cannot be lost to
management else no work would ever get done. They are also isolated from
media for good reason, they tell the truth. They aren't good at lying or
spinning. If something is crap, they'll likely say it.

> My exposure to Ford suggests that there are pockets
> of genuine car enthusiasts dotted throughout the company (and the upper
> echelons of the design department are seeing a welcome infusion of
> talent). But at the higher management levels they seem to be few and
> far between, and in the topmost ranks there has been no-one to truly
> champion the enthusiast cause, whether it's on the engineering front
> or in terms of design.

Yep... that's typical.

> in time, even when Ford has established a lead in a market sector, with
> the original Taurus for example, the company has a disturbing habit of
> squandering that position. The Taurus's dominant position in the
> mid-sized sedan market was gifted to its Japanese rivals and more
> recently,

Remember, the original taurus was a bold departure from typical reality.
In desperate times there are desperate measures and one of those allowed
the taurus to come into being. If ford had not been desperate, you would
have seen something that looked a lot like fairmont or maybe a (nonfox)
LTD...