MULALLY’S LEXUS AND A DEBATE ON BILL FORD

Dale Jewett of Automotive News, reporting on the "lighter side" of new Ford Motor Company CEO Alan Mulally's press debut, inadvertently uncovers Mulally’s lack of "car guy" credentials:

"Mulally was asked what car he drives now."‘I drive a Lexus today. I can't wait to own a Ford car,’ he said. Later in the news conference, Mulally said his Lexus was an LS 430 sedan. Bill Ford chimed in: ‘That is being keyed now as we're sitting here.’"

Mulally’s car choice indicates he’s just another bland suit with no particular passion for American automobiles, or even sporting automobiles. You could throw a rock through the clubhouse at the average country club and hit probably a half-dozen clones. But at least if he ever drives a Lincoln, he’ll realize just how uncompetitive FoMoCo really is in the luxury sector.

IS IT REALLY BILL FORD’S FAULT (PART II)

Speedzzter’s analysis of Bill Ford’s failed tenure at the top of FoMoCo (http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2006/09/is-it-william-clay-ford-jr.html) has generated some strong reactions. The most prolific was from "Zanatwork" over on www.blueovalnews.com (Zan seemingly has no "work" other than to opine in hundreds of forum messages on his views of FoMoCo.)

Zan’s justification of Bill Ford’s tenure is illustrative of how mediocrity and defensiveness can creep into corporate systems. It probably explains much of how such a huge corporation could drift when both problems and solutions seem obvious to a number of outsiders.

Issue 1. FoMoCo's market share has declined for NINE STRAIGHT YEARS, dating back to the twin failures of the 1996 Taurus "Fishmobile" and the too-cramped-for-Real-Americans Mondeo/Contour (a/k/a the "Junior Fishmobile").

Zan: "Okay, so thank Trotman and Nasser for essentially blowing off long-term car development. As this critique dates back to 1996, why use it, when acknowledging Bill's tenure started in..."

REBUTTAL: The problems with the Taurus and Contour were obvious as early as 1999. Yet replacements for them failed to occur until FoMoCo’s "Year of the Car" in 2005. Now while Bill Ford didn’t take the top spot until October 2001, he bears some responsibility as an inside board member for putting up with the lack of earlier fixes. Moreover, the results of the 4-6 year gestation period of Ford’s newest sedans (cribbed from existing Mazda and Volvo platforms) are tepid at best.

Issue 2: Bill Jr. has been in a position to influence the direction of FoMoCo since 1999 (and arguably even earlier given his family's extensive holdings) And in the wake of Jac "the Knife" Nasser's failures--epitomized by FoMoCo's failed internet strategy and the Explorer-Firestone fiasco, Bill Jr. has been in the top job since October 2001.

Zan: "So..are we talking about Nasser's failures or Bill's? The author needs some clarity."

REBUTTAL: It ought to be clear that if Bill were a competent car guy, and something more than a tired Glass House bureaucrat he’d have seen the problems in 1999 (or well before–given that the warning signs were obvious years before to someone with an insider’s knowledge of Ford’s strategy) and used his influence with his Dad and other insiders to shake things up. Waiting until October 2001 to dump Nasser and then accomplishing so little in five years arguably proves that Bill hadn’t really though much about what direction to go BEFORE he arrived at the top.

Issue 3: If Bill Jr. had "the answers" wouldn't we have seen them in the nearly FIVE YEARS he's been at the controls? Instead, we've got a huge list of fits, starts, flip-flops and missed opportunities.

Zan: "He had "answers", but played too much defense on certain models, i.e. the Five Hundred. He did a number of things very right, including the Edge, the Mustang, the Fusion, and others. He did NOT have all the answers...I can't name anyone that does."

REBUTTAL: Whether the "Edge" is a hit and how much so remains to be seen. The Mustang was a competent effort, but left a lot of "game" on the table. The Mexican Mazda a/k/a Fusion has been mildly successful, but Ford is still canning 30,000 workers and closing 14 plants in North America, so whatever success it has, it’s not enough to prompt FoMoCo to put the Mexican Mazda in other plants or to save existing jobs. And it has done little to stem the marketshare growth of the Asian transplants (who actually assemble Fusion’s competitors in the U.S.A. Still, pointing to three "successes" doesn’t rebut the larger list of "fits, starts, flip-flops and missed opportunities."

Issue 4: Bill Jr. may eventually recognize, as his uncle Henry II did over fifty years ago, that having one's name on the building doesn't make one an expert in the car business. He's taken some steps in that direction with the elevation of Mark Fields and the creation of a "Management Committee" after finally purging out all those "retirees" Howes blames for FoMoCo's decline. But Bill Jr.'s epiphany won't come soon enough to undo the damage of the wasted 2001-2006 period.

Zan: "If one reads "autoextremist", [www.autoextremist.com] he has a recent article stating that layers of managemnet worked hard to keep Bill essentially uninformed of many hard truths for years. Hard ot make good calls when the information on your desk is inaccurate. [sic]"

REBUTTAL: And that’s part of the POINT! Bill Ford lacked the knowledge, sophistication and skill to know when FoMoCo bureaucrats were blowing smoke. And he did precious little to develop alternative streams of information. Besides, it doesn’t take "layers of management" to figure out a car is, underpowered, uses too much fuel, has weird styling, is uncompetitive on features or price, has reliability issues or just plain mediocre!

Issue 5: The CD3 and D3 sedans "developed" (mostly cribbed from Volvo and Mazda) on Bill Jr.'s watch are underwhelming and arguably uncompetitive. FoMoCo' sedans are down on BOTH horsepower and fuel economy to much of the competition.

Zan: "This earns a "duh", as the CD3 is selling essentially at capacity and both had to launch ahead of the 3.5 motor, which wasn't ready. Stay tuned for a change in that attitude by this time next year."

REBUTTAL: No defense of the D3 (Five Hundred, Freestyle and Montego). The delay in the 3.5 Duratec is inexcusable, considering that FoMoCo undoubtedly knew others would be building similar engines. And now that we know that the 3.5 Duratec is significantly down on power to the better established Nissan VQ. As Speedzzter previously reported, www.edmunds.com did a brief comparison piece of two new 3.5 liter V6s hitting the market: Ford’s long-awaited Duratec 3.5 and Nissan’’s VQ35 HR.

Ford’s lump, slated for the upcoming Ford Edge, Lincoln MKX and MKZ, pumps out a reported 265 horsepower and will only be hooked to a six-speed automatic in its initial installations.

But Edmonds reported Nissan’s 3.5 will rip out 306 horsepower when it shows up in the next Infiniti G35 and Nissan 350Z. It will also be coupled with either a six-speed manual or a paddle-shifted six-speed slushbox. And all of this will come with 10 percent better fuel efficiency than Nissan’’s current V6 in that class.

The Glass House bureaucrats and the FoMoCo Kool-Aide (tm) drinkers (Zan?) undoubtedly say that’s an unfair comparison. But is it? How many committees whacked down the output of the Duratec? How many naysayers and pennypinchers thought that it would be "enough" to run mid-pack among the current Japanese V6s –– failing to anticipate that Nissan and probably others would be moving the target upward? How badly were FoMoCo’s powertrain engineers restricted because some Ivy-League trained business analyst could not "make a business case" for a class-leading engine?

Issue 6: Bill Jr.'s FoMoCo has let profitable niches, such as the police car and livery trade, rot by mostly stopping development of the Panther and this neglect has drastically weakened the retail demand for these unique models (Why buy a new car that looks like a 1998 model and has less power than a new Honda?).

Zan: Anyone that in 1999-2001 saw a huge retail demand for BOF rwd American cars, raise your hand. Anyone? Beuller?

REBUTTAL: This a classic "chicken or egg" fallacy. FoMoCo neglects Panther development and promotion, resulting in an underpowered, less than optimally-fuel efficient, somewhat overpriced sedans with overly conservative and now dated styling. Then it kills all consumer-directed advertising. Then it fails to fight back when both Cadillac and DCX launch a brilliant, fuller lines of exciting RWD large cars. And then to justify its total inaction, its defenders claim there was simply no "huge retail demand for BOF rwd American cars."

It would seem that FoMoCo hasn’t really explored whether there’s a viable retail niche here.

Issue 7: While Bill Jr. did permit a redesigned Mustang for 2005, his bean counters saddled it with weak engine internals, too few variants to adequately cover the market, less than optimal fuel economy and inadequate power in the mass-produced GT model.

Zan: "This statement makes me concerned that the author uses high-powered drugs. Too few variants for a market it controls and dominate? Fuel economy babbling about the pony car segment? Stupid bordering on the delusional...Ford had to add a produciton shift for the 2005 model year, and sales have been very strong for almost 2 full years. [sic]"

REBUTTAL: Ad hominem attacks in lieu of argument usually mean the blows are starting to land.

Ford is still canning 30,000 workers and closing 14 plants in North America, so whatever success it has, it’s not enough to prompt FoMoCo to put the Mustang in other plants or to save existing jobs. And don’t forget that Mustangs (excluding GT500) require heavy promotion and $500+ rebates to sell. So the current Mustang line-up "diversity" isn’t attracting enough buyers. See, FORD MOTOR COMPANY HAS WASTED MUSTANG'S PERIOD OF EXCLUSIVITY, posted August 17, 2006 (http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_speedzzter_archive.html)
More importantly, FoMoCo failed to equip Mustang with sufficient technology to achieve both high performance and high fuel efficiency. Simply using a similar "active fuel management" strategy employed by GM would boost Mustang fuel economy three to five miles per gallon with NO LOSS IN PERFORMANCE! Why wouldn’t Ford do this?

Although Zan leaves the point about weak hypereutectic pistons and spindly powdered-metal cracked cap rods in the 4.6 3V modular engine alone, others have criticized the "weak engine internals" conclusion. Certainly the Mustang GT is the cheapest 300 h.p. car in a game where 300 h.p. is barely the initial ante.

The simple fact is that as many as 25% of Mustang owners modify their cars. The flaws in hypereutectic pistons and Ford’s PM rods have been well known since 1996, when owners began modifying the 305 h.p. 4V SVT Cobra engine, often to explosive results.

And with only 281 cubic inches, supercharging is one of the few cost-effective ways to make a Mustang run with an ordinary Mitsubishi EVO, Subaru WRX or even a five-year-old GM V8. Yet FoMoCo’s cheapness limits bolt on power to about 450 h.p. gross (even though the block will withstand as much as double that).

Thus Saleen, Roush, Vortech, Paxton, Procharger and others are limited to expensive, dodgy low-boost supercharger systems that do not provide as much "bang for the buck" as they could have if FoMoCo would have only anticipated how thousands of its customers wanted to use their cars. And countless potential sales have been lost to other alternatives (imports, older Mustangs, older GM cars, etc.) because the cost to build a 550+ h.p. car is unnecessarily inflated by the expense of an engine rebuild, due to FoMoCo’s failure to make available heavy duty engine options in Mustang GT.

Finally, FoMoCo did absolutely nothing to address this issue -- even over the counter. The Ford Racing Performance Parts catalog has NO SUPERCHARGED ENGINES AND NO SUPERCHARGER READY ENGINES FOR ANY MUSTANG!

Issue 8: While Bill Jr. did permit the GT supercar and the Shelby GT500, he starved SVT and Ford Racing Performance Parts, decimated the number of FoMoCo supported NASCAR teams (reducing Ford's chances to Beat GM, DCX and now Toyota on the track), failed to engineer a return to Indianapolis, squandered the valuable Cosworth legacy, and killed FoMoCo's decades-long tradition in Formula One participation without replacing it with another high-profile international competition alternative.

Zan: "Ford Racing Parts has had near-record years since the new 'Stang. I'd agree that SVT's presence is a tiny fraction of what it was, but it seems they've been given a reprieve.Return to Indy? Why? Open Wheel Racing in this country is on life support, and it did it to itself.Cosworth and the F1 development got criticized as ‘dead wood’ for Ford at the time, and now their absence gets hammered. Must be great to be a critic...."

REBUTTAL: Indy still attracts 300,000 or more fans and is still of enough significance that Honda spends millions to be there. F1 is still important enough that Honda, Toyota, Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari spend hundreds of millions. And Cosworth was a Ford brand with 35+ years and millions in "brand equity" which could have been tied into Ford’s similar DOHC "street" engines.

The simple reality is that under Bill’s watch, Ford significantly retreated from motorsports, did almost nothing of benefit to grassroots racers and failed to adequately leverage its promotional investment in motorsports with its OEM products. If Bill were a car guy and a true racing fan, he would have insisted on a better job and invested the dollars necessary to achieve it.

Issue 9: Bill Jr.'s FoMoCo has failed to recognize and adapt to the resurgence of rear wheel drive in premium, luxury and high performance niches.

Zan "The Mustang and GT make a lie of part of that, but in premium and luxury vehicles...I have no argument."

REBUTTAL: High performance is not limited to a temporary, unobtainable supercar (GT) or a cramped pony car. For example Cadillac and DCX sell several low 14 and 13 second (in the quarter mile) RWD sedans. Other than a couple of expensive imports, FoMoCo builds ZERO. In trucks and SUVs, Ford has no high performance presence. And FoMoCo’s shift to Mazda and Volvo platforms, its failure to develop DEW98 or import the Australian Falcon or to even pump up the power in the Panthers means that FoMoCo will be unable to rapidly respond to the resurgence in RWD anytime soon.

Issue 10: Bill Jr. failed to have a contingency plan for $3.00/gallon fuel prices, which have been foreseeable for a long time.

Zan: "Spare me. Honda and Toyota's truck programs moved ahead, DCX is putting forward bigger RAMs and SUVs like the Commander and Aspen, and Nissan's Titan has SUV spinoffs in the large-SUV category. The WHOLE INDUSTRY blew that call."

REBUTTAL: That would explain all of the Toyota and Honda hybrids, the Honda Fits, the Nissan Versas, the Scions, the Toyota Yarises . . . (Apparently the Japanese can pursue more than one market segment at a time)

Issue 11: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo failed to properly develop the Focus as a viable alternative to Honda and Toyota (and now Scion) in the youth market.

Zan: "I don't have much argument for that, but the Focus isn't dead yet, either."

REBUTTAL: We just get saddled with the obsolete versions, while the rest of the world gets the latest and greatest, sort of like how U.S. car companies used to dump all their obsolete designs down into South America during the 1960s and 1970s.

GM turns backflips and spends millions developing and racing its Ecotec as a viable alternative to Honda and Toyota in "tuner" markets. DCX builds a "world engine" facility and has made headlines with its SRT-4s (Neon-based and Caliber) as well as with its Neon ACRs. But Ford dumps the Zetec and the SVT Focus, refuses to import or build here the RS (which could take sales from WRX and EVO as well as build nameplate image), has never built a "club racing" version of the Focus for the U.S. and can’t even get the bolt-in Mazdaspeed variations of the Duratec into anything wearing a Blue Oval. Seems like mismanagement, doesn’t it.

Issue 12: On Bill Jr.'s watch, the 6.0 PowerStroke fiasco damaged FoMoCo's truck reputation and allowed DCX and GM time to catch up in turbo-diesels.

Zan: "Yes, and as we know, Ford is the only company with wide ranging defects (cough)."

REBUTTAL: The point is that Ford hasn’t reacted fast enough to either the 6.0 problems nor the drastic improvements in Cummins and Duramax. Although FoMoCo still has the lead, it’s smaller and sitting on a lead with the Taurus eventually cost FoMoCo market leadership and a huge chunk of its business. Given that trucks are the current savior of FoMoCo, any problem ought to be aggressively addressed and constant innovation should be the watchword.

Issue 13: On Bill Jr.'s watch, the new F-150 came in too heavy, without high performance options, without manual transmissions, without fuel-saving multivalve engine technology, and without turbo diesel engine options.

Zan "Still on his watch, it remained atop the sales charts, is better in terms of structure and interior than the competition, avoided the downturn in the performance truck market caused by expensive gas, and has a turbo-diesel that will come in not long after the new clean diesel...which somehow the author didn't mention. [expletive deleted]."

REBUTTAL: Justification for sitting on a lead? FoMoCo hardly avoided an overall downturn. It delayed development of a light diesel option, forcing diesel buyers into heavy Superduty trucks (even while Volkswagen brought diesel power back to tiny cars–so don’t say light turbo-diesels were impractical on the old "high sulphur" fuel) Clean diesel will be here in January, but Ford’s F150 diesel won’t.

It failed to develop relatively efficient high performance trucks. It failed to match, much less beat DCX and GM in large gasoline engines. It failed to develop a credible Suburban competitor. It has no models competitive with GM’s "mid-gate" trucks. It slowly responded to Toyota’s bed tie-down system. It has given the market for multivalve DOHC truck engines to the Japanese. It has let GM beat it on both power and mileage. It failed to offer F-150 with manual transmissions. In short, Ford hasn’t done enough to keep pressure on its competitors. Being number one simply isn’t enough (besides if Chevrolet and GMC sales are combined, Ford’s "number one" claim is questionable) .

Issue 14: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo's minivans have lagged the competition in power, economy, innovation and marketshare. Now FoMoCo is giving up on the segment, in favor of "people movers."

Zan: The Freestar is a clean miss, but the upcoming models appear better aimed at shaking up the market. Will he get credit for those if they work?

REBUTTAL: Misses the point. FoMoCo should have seen the minivan problem on the horizon as soon as it was clear the Japanese were entering the market with competitive products (not the goofy forward control vans they originally tried to sell). If "people movers" work, Bill Ford will get his fair share of the credit.

Issue 15: On Bill Jr.'s watch, an unnecesary and divisive "boycott" has damaged FoMoCo's dealer base, especially in the "Bible belt" without yielding any particular benefits to the company otherwise.

Zan: "Is this moron blaming Bill for the actions taken by a bunch of homophobes, offended my companies treating the GLBT society as human? Golly!"

REBUTTAL: The point was that Bill Ford could have looked out for his dealers by choosing a less confrontational path and by living up to the compromise agreement negotiated by Texas dealer Jerry Reynolds. It’s not as if FoMoCo’s controversial stance has pumped up the bottom line.

Issue 16: On Bill Jr.'s watch, Ford's SUVs have continued to decline in marketshare, notwithstanding redesigns, because they lack sufficient power, economy and value to stay competitive (especially in trendy niches such as luxury SUVs).

Zan: The SUV market has shrunk while crossovers are coming on. The Escape, Mariner, upcoming Edge, and Freestyle are in place and/or being positioned to adapt to the market's change.

REBUTTAL: Escape and Mariner haven’t been world-beaters in the cute-ute or crossover market. The Edge hasn’t proven anything yet. Freestyle has been disappointing. Moreover, FoMoCo’s failure to compete harder for a shrinking pie of SUV sales . . . or to innovate to boost the value, economy and practicality of SUVs indicates FoMoCo on Bill’s watch was out of touch and had no contingency plan for an obvious possibility.

Issue 17: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo has failed and refused to adopt new technologies, such as cylinder deactivation, "twin-charging," turbocharging (in North America), electric-clutched superchargers, broad use of variable intake runner technology, broad use of variable valve lift and timing, and even off-the-shelf multivalve heads in some applications.

Zan:" "I'd like someone from powertrain R&D to answer these allegations, as I'm reading several rumors constantly that refute this statement."

REBUTTAL: You can’t buy rumors . . . . But you can buy each of these fuel saving technologies (except twincharging in the US) in other brands NOW! Bill Ford’s FoMoCo was asleep at the switch on engine innovations.

Issue 18: On Bill Jr.s' watch, the 3.5 Duratec, which is touted by some as FoMoCo's "engine of the future" came to market late and down on power to the Japanese competition.

Zan: "This person is a true moron. The engine produces VERY competitve power to like-fueled engines that even have more expensive hardware applied...and this engine is in the very early stages of its development.

Is it late? Yes. Is this on Bill's watch? Yes."

REBUTTAL: Did www.edmonds.com lie? The 3.5 may be the world-beater all the Kool-Aide (tm) drinkers are hoping for, but out of the box–its simply mid-pack. Mid pack isn’t enough when the Japanese are eating Ford’s lunch and then making them do the clean-up, too.

Issue 19: On Bill Jr.'s watch, Lincoln slipped further behind Cadillac and began its ill-advised move downward into the morass of "near luxury."

Zan: I'll admit that Lincoln has been run poorly...but it never was competing with S-Class Mercedes sedans in the first place.

REBUTTAL: Who was talking about Mercedes?

Lincoln can’t even touch Cadillac anymore, much less Mercedes. Lincoln can’t even really touch Chrysler 300C or 300C SRT-8 . . . . And with the moves away from RWD, V8s and American assembly operations, Alan Mulally and his golf course buddies won’t even be able to find an American-built alternative to his Lexus LS430 among Lincoln’s line-up! "Poorly run" is a gross understatement!

Issue 20: On Bill Jr.'s watch, the Japanese took virtually all of the praise and adoration for development of hybrid-electric vehicles, while FoMoCo stalled, delayed and flip-flopped in this image-building (yet otherwise relatively meaningless) segment.

Zan: "Gosh, it isn't like Ford was the first domestic playing in the market, has more hybrids nearing production, or got hosed by Toyota holding back on powertrain items...."

REBUTTAL: Therein lies the problem. 14 shuttered plants and 30,000 pink slips, in part, because FoMoCo hasn’t invested enough to develop (or license) "trendy" technologies ON IT’S OWN! The environmental radicals do have a small point in that if Bill Ford were truly one of them, he’d have invested more in "green technologies."

Issue 21: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo continued its failure to offer any affordable alternative to Chevrolet's Corvette.

Zan: "This is a failure? The market is small and would cost more than it brought in for years...when Ford's in the black, that would be a worthwhile project."

REBUTTAL: Although this point is linked to the Thunderbird debacle, it ought to be clear that Corvette is a huge image booster internationally for GM and Chevrolet. GM has sold plenty of lesser Chevys because of Corvette. GM’s small block engines have ruled the aftermarket because of Corvette development of them and the image derived from Corvette.

And Ford didn’t even develop an affordable Corvette-beater when it was flush with profits! Even a half-hearted attempt, such as using Mustang bits to take on the objective numbers of Corvette would be better than nothing (other than a rare and hyper-expensive and now dead Ford GT).

Issue 22: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo basically killed the storied Thunderbird nameplate with an effete, boulevard poser in the obviously failed mold of Chrysler's Maserati TC, Buick's Reatta, and Cadillac's Allante.

Zan: "This person has very little knowledge of previous T-Birds, obviously. It was the closest to the spirit of the original, which was hardly a hard-edged performance car."

REBUTTAL: So FoMoCo goes down the same failed route again?

While Thunderbird arguably went astray, abandoning any pretense of sporting in 1958 under Robert McNamara’s leadership, and only slightly recovered with the mid-1980s "Aero-birds," the retro revival was a perfect time to turn Thunderbird into a Corvette competitor (albeit one with "heritage-inspired" styling). Ford didn’t step up and now we know the result. If Bill Ford was a real car guy, he might have avoided this missed opportunity.

Issue 23: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo flipflopped on the "Hurricane" truck engine project and failed to leverage its advantages in multivalve overhead cam engines in V8 markets (while the Japanese continued to make inroads with their DOHC Four-Valve V8s and V6s, and DCX and GM dominated the large V8 market).

Zan: "No real argument, though I'd blame it on an overreaction to rising fuel prices. It looks like a chancy time to bet on big V8s."

REBUTTAL: Meanwhile the OEM, aftermarket and marine fields are yielded to GM and DCX. In 1999, it probably looked like a "chancy time to bet" on small diesels, or hybrids or fuel-saving technology, too. Thus this "risk" logic appears overly conservative. Shouldn’t Ford have a contingency for the return of "large V8s." Even a revival of the Windsor, based on widely available aftermarket parts, would be better than doing nothing.

And why not think out of the box with things like emission-compliant "large" crate V8s for the aftermarket?

And why leave awesome engines, such as the DOHC ‘01 and ‘03 SVT Cobra powerplants on the parts shelf, instead of installed OEM or available over-the-counter?

Why not follow GM and DCX’s lead into cylinder deactivation and other efficiency technologies to make big V8s more fuel efficient?

Issue 24: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo failed to take any marketshare away from GM in the opinion-leading aftermarket repower niche. FoMoCo's line of "crate engines" simply aren't competitive on variety, price, features or availability.

Zan: "Not much argument here, but Chevy has always had an advantage in the ‘small block friendly’ performance market."

REBUTTAL: See Corvette rebuttal, above. So FoMoCo should just punt. It should just live with the indignity of Chevy-powered street rods, Chevy-powered ‘56 F-100s, and even Chevy-powered Mustangs?

Why just give Chevrolet a walk-over in the essential grassroots competition and hotrod markets? Where’s the "Bold Move" in that?

Issue 25: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo failed to develop a competitive sub-Focus subcompact for the North American Market.

Zan: "His watch isn't over, and B-cars are in development."

REBUTTAL: Meanwhile, the Japanese have such cars here now. Clear evidence that FoMoCo failed on Bill’s watch.

Issue 26: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo allowed the Taurus to decline into a fleet car sold at commodity prices and failed to develop competitive alternatives to Toyota Camry and Honda Civic.

Zan: "The Taurus was a joke before he took the reigns, as mentioned above. The Fusion is a Camry competitor, and the Focus gets a huge upgrade shortly. Again, his watch isn't over."

REBUTTAL: Taurus was NUMBER ONE until Ford lost its way in the mid-1990s. So the point was that the problems were obvious at least TEN YEARS AGO and Bill’s regime didn’t do much to fix them. But there’s always, "tomorrow, tomorrow" (meanwhile FoMoCo may slide a couple more percentage points in marketshare).

Issue 27: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo failed to make use of Eaton supercharger technology (except in a few expensive niche and import models), notwithstanding that it had mostly funded the development of it. However, DCX, GM and others have greatly benefitted from this "Ford" technology.

Zan: "HAR! Yeah, people are lining up for Crossfires, supercharged W-cars, and what-not. Also, there's not shortage of people on this very board that sneer every time a "blown" Ford is announced...."

REBUTTAL: So the alleged disdain for Eatons will doom the GT500?

None of that refutes the point that FoMoCo didn’t really reap all it could from its investment in turning the Eaton into a fuel-saving high performance strategy (as compared to larger naturally aspirated engines of similar peak output).

"Fuel economy is not compromised . . . when utilizing the bypass system in conjunction with the supercharger. EPA (environmental protection agency) figures support this claim. A typical domestic vehicle equipped with an Eaton supercharger shows no fuel economy penalty for highway driving, and only a one mile per gallon penalty for city driving."

"The Eaton supercharger system incorporates a specially designed bypass valve, which is actuated by a vacuum motor near the throttle body, and recirculates the supercharger air flow when boost is not required. During typical driving conditions, the engine is under boost around 5% of the time, which means the remaining 95% of the time the engine is under vacuum, allowing for better fuel economy and a quieter ride. In addition, the helix angled rotors, along with specially designed inlet and outlet port geometry, also reduce pressure variations resulting in a smooth discharge flow and a lower level of noise during operation."

http://automotive.eaton.com/product/engine_controls/superchargers/whysuperchargers.asp

Issue 28: On Bill Jr.'s watch, Mercury has floundered as a badge-engineered marque with a lack of clear direction and poor sales, despite having an exemplary initial quality.

Zan: "Not much argument...see my sig.[sic]

[Zan wants to be Mercury’s product manager]

Issue 29: Bill Jr. has failed to solve the paralysis-by-analysis problem fostered by FoMoCo's committee system, causing products that do make it through to be too late to market, too conservative, tepid in design and generally uncompetitive.

Zan "See the "autoextremist" reference above, and the speeing-up of development. Stay tuned [sic]"

REBUTTAL: This doesn’t refute that Bill didn’t figure out how to get the job done, notwithstanding his years of development within the Ford organization and his powerful family ties.

Issue 30: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo's sales have continued to shrink, declining 12% in the most recent sales month (August 2006) to 255,112--notwithstanding a blow-out Zero percent financing sale and increased warranty coverage.

Zan: "Yeah, compared with the "employee pricing" fire sale of last year...the 0 for 72 slae is on for weeks vs. months for the other. What a goober. Last year's debacle may never be beaten."

REBUTTAL: Misses the point. Remember FoMoCo’s been shrinking for NINE YEARS! Bill’s regime didn’t significantly abate the slide.

Issue 31: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo hasn't developed a reliable method to locate "stars" in the automotive world, attract them into the FoMoCo's orbit, and to empower them to build legendary motorcars.

Zan "I'll be sure to tell the all-first-rate design staff Ford has right now."

REBUTTAL: You mean the same ones who’ve neglected Panther, punted on minivans, brought us the underwhelming retro Thunderbird and the Five Hundred, let Lincoln LS shrivel and die while Cadillac and DCX actually fought the import invasion . . . .

Issue 32: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo has failed to leverage its associations with Panoz, Roush, Saleen, Steeda, MG, Noble and Morgan by providing them with power-adder ready DOHC 4V engines at reasonable costs, and exploiting the favorable publicity from the "Powered by Ford" niche marques.

Zan: Panoz runs Ford gear, Roush is a development partner, as is Saleen, as is Steeda, noble is a customer, and Morgan's in bed with BMW while MG is essentially dead. This person needs psychiatric help.

REBUTTAL: Totally misses the point. Ford hasn’t achieved the kinds of promotional synergies it could have in using its associations with these specialty marques to promote "Powered by Ford."

PANOZ BEAT PORSCHE AT LEMANS AND FOMOCO CAN'T GET ANY MILEAGE OUT OF IT!

STEEDA AND SALEEN WON MULTIPLE CHAMPIONSHIPS WITH FORD POWER, BUT DOES FOMOCO TAKE ANY PROMOTIONAL ADVANTAGE OF IT?

BTW, although the Morgan Aero 8 is BMW powered, the heritage models sold overseas still use Ford power.

FoMoCo hasn’t made the DOHC head available for Roush, Saleen and Steeda tuner Mustangs. And each of these are limited in power output by the "weak internals" of the production V8s. If FoMoCo were really lending a helping hand, it would sell the tuners the "good stuff."

MG did die on Bill Ford’s watch, but before it did, MG used basically a 2001 Cobra engine in sedans. Ford held out on the "good stuff’ there, too.

MG will be back, under Chinese control, and Ford will have lost the opportunity to associate or leverage powering this brand.

Issue 33: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo failed to develop the Lincoln LS as a viable alternative to Japanese, American and European sports sedans, instead allowing it to atrophy and die before its time.

Zan: "No argument...the LS was/is a failure. I don't see that it had much development life to offer."

REBUTTAL: Translation. GM, DCX, Toyota and Nissan can develop V8-powered RWD luxury performance sedans, but Lincoln can’t.

There was nothing wrong with LS that more power and more refinement couldn’t have fixed. But Ford’s attempt to preserve Jaguar (who builds the similar S-Type ) severely limited Lincoln’s ability to fully develop the DEW98 platform for itself.

Issue 34: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo has failed to appropriately identify and apply the essential "brand DNA" of its various nameplates, leading to such fiascos as pouring millions into Jaguar in the hope that it would be successful selling Mondeo-based compacts and ignoring FoMoCo's legacy as the company which brought low-cost V8 power to the masses (ironically, none of FoMoCo's latest sedans will accept a FoMoCo V8).

Zan: "On his watch, but much of this had NAsser and Wolfgang involved. As far as the V8s are involved...hasn't gas been pricier of late? I don't like it, but it's hardly difficult to see logic involved"

REBUTTAL: Gas is $6.00 in Europe, but the Germans and Italians still develop V8s (and even W12s!) GM offers V8s with 31 M.P.G. Chrysler isn’t far behind.

The point is that cheap V8 power was a hallmark . . . a distinctive of Ford for decades. Ironically, they’re poised to be the first of the Detroit 3 to abandon it (although Chrysler basically did in the Iacocca ‘80s) except in specialty and high-performance sporty cars.

Although V8 power will need to change with the times, the psychological draws and the inherent smoothness advantage of V8s won’t go away soon. Ford started down this path when it bet the farm on the V8-less Taurus twenty years ago. An although it’s spent millions on V8 development, it hasn’t offered its best V8 in a RWD (or even an AWD) sedan in a long time. Nor has it even built very many FWD V8s–and none recently.

Simply put–FoMoCo is squandering its unique V8 heritage in favor of unremarkable six cylinders and outsourced fours.

Issue 35: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo neglected the compact truck segment, allowing Ranger to age ungracefully, while competitors continued to invest in the segment.

Zan: "Ummm...while the Ranger has been sadly ignored, the compact truck segemnt is essentiall: the Ranger. The others are mostly mid-sized. [sic]"

REBUTTAL: This seems to contradict all the hand-wringing over fuel economy. If FoMoCo had a competitive small truck, wouldn’t it stand to benefit from high fuel prices more than it has with the Ranger?

Bill neglected it and its just "another brick in the wall" that traps 30,000 (of workers and 14 plants in a death spiral (who needs plants if you’ve got few products of interest?)

Issue 36: On Bill Jr.'s watch, FoMoCo's stakeholders, such as its salaried workforce, its union workforce, its dealers, its suppliers, the communities which depend on these groups of stakeholders, and ultimately, FoMoCo's loyal customers, have all suffered by virtue of the foregoing FoMoCo failures and others too numerous to mention.

Zan: "Many of the failures mentioned are hardly applicable, and I'd be scared of others this chump would bring up. The spin was already ridiclous.[sic]"

REBUTTAL: And now we can see how myopia and defensiveness block out objective criticism of the Bill Ford regime at FoMoCo. Multiply this several times over and you can see why FoMoCo is failing.

Sad, isn’t it?