A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Ford Mustang
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How Many Car Guys Are @ Ford?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 12th 06, 01:37 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 565
Default How Many Car Guys Are @ Ford?

Interesting commentary...

----
John McCormick: Autos Insider

Of all the statements made so far about the surprise leadership change
at Ford, one appears particularly puzzling - and ultimately quite
revealing. The words are Bill Ford's and were made earlier this week as
he handed over the reins to new CEO Alan Mulally.

"We have a lot of car guys here already," Ford said. "What they
need is permission to be bold." This remark by the ex-CEO is
questionable on several levels. Firstly, to address the 'permission
needed" part; is Ford saying that as head of the company he was somehow
unable, unwilling or lacking the confidence to encourage the 'car
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. 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. If the car guys do not
receive the appropriate backing, the result is exactly the sort of
bland and/or misdirected product malaise that is afflicting Ford today.

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. 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.

The historical evidence is there for all to see. With the exception of
the current Mustang and its upcoming sporty derivatives and arguably
the Fusion/Milan/Mk Z sedan family, the product line-up from Dearborn
has been decidedly lackluster for several years. Looking further back
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, the Explorer SUV, which used to be a solid, year-on-year, top
seller for Ford, has fallen off its throne. This happened for a variety
of reasons, only some of which were out of Ford's control.

Now that Ford's ultimate crown jewel, the F-series pick-up, is also
losing its iron grip on the truck market, it seems that Dearborn is
struggling once again to manage its best performers.

The lack of car guy influence on Ford products has been evident not
just in the overall sense but also in detail areas; for example, the
Fusion's lack of a manual shift function on its automatic
transmission (a feature most rivals offer) is a mistake. Similarly, the
marginal engine outputs in models like the Five Hundred and Freestyle,
plus their unsatisfactory CVT transmissions, are sources of annoyance
to any buyer looking for a rewarding driving experience.

So far this discussion has been about the Ford brand, but there is
plenty of blame to go around at some of the company's other marques.
The mismanagement, or perhaps complete lack of management, of the
Lincoln brand over the last decade has been little short of a travesty,
And the missteps made at Jaguar are a real disappointment, considering
the billions of dollars invested by Ford in this storied British
marquee.

In one sense Bill Ford is right; the car guys in Dearborn do need to be
bold. It's too bad they were not given the green light years ago. It
remains to be seen whether aircraft industry expert Mulally, a man with
no experience of the unique and peculiar dynamics of the auto business,
will understand the real importance of the car guy.

John McCormick is a columnist for Autos Insider and can be reached at
.
----

Patrick

Ads
  #2  
Old September 12th 06, 04:48 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Brent P[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,639
Default How Many Car Guys Are @ Ford?

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...

  #3  
Old September 12th 06, 04:48 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Backyard Mechanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 141
Default How Many Car Guys Are @ Ford?

wrote:

> Interesting commentary...
>
> ----
> John McCormick: Autos Insider
>
> Of all the statements made so far about the surprise leadership change
> at Ford, one appears particularly puzzling - and ultimately quite
> revealing. The words are Bill Ford's and were made earlier this week as
> he handed over the reins to new CEO Alan Mulally.
>
> "We have a lot of car guys here already," Ford said. "What they
> need is permission to be bold." This remark by the ex-CEO is
> questionable on several levels. ....


.........
>
> In one sense Bill Ford is right; the car guys in Dearborn do need to be
> bold. It's too bad they were not given the green light years ago. It
> remains to be seen whether aircraft industry expert Mulally, a man with
> no experience of the unique and peculiar dynamics of the auto business,
> will understand the real importance of the car guy.
>
> John McCormick is a columnist for Autos Insider and can be reached at
>
.
> ----
>
> Patrick
>
>


I'll say...
The LAST guy you bring in to give guys the 'permission to be bold" would
be from Boeing!

Airbus has been 'bold'... and they have got themselves into trouble for
it. Recent crashes {most spectacular in Russia, where Autopilot
PARTIALLY , but not completely, disengaged} have been due to shortened
training schedules for pilots.. brought on to match training sched with
deliveries.

Boeing, after the wiring problems and seeing what happened to McD Douglas
has been far from bold.

--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is Ford Running on Empty? Grover C. McCoury III Ford Mustang 122 October 8th 06 01:36 AM
Ford Loses $1.2B As Restructuring Begins Grover C. McCoury III Ford Mustang 1 April 22nd 06 04:26 AM
S&P moves Ford deeper into junk Grover C. McCoury III Ford Mustang 1 January 8th 06 10:27 PM
Ford Posts Profit, Autos Disappoint Again Grover C. McCoury III Ford Mustang 1 January 20th 05 07:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.