Wake up Ford...

[Grant 302]

While I do expect this topic to spur discussion, please stay on topic and speak to areas you think Ford can and should improve.

 

[blacksheep-1]

I don't even know why they have engineers on modern production car (GT, GT2,3 and 4) racing, the homologation rules are so explicit, you can't change anything except in very small parameters, you don't need an engineer for that, all the "engineering" on a modern production car has already been done back at the factory.

I know what you're getting at, but this is flat out wrong. The race engineer has so, so much to understand in order to make the right changes to the car to optimize for the driver on a given day/weekend. This is a very ignorant statement.

you know where I first heard that statement? from a race engineer...

 

[blacksheep-1]

Problem is, volume sales make money, and if they're selling in volume, they're giving customers what they want - which they can argue also means they're listening to, and focusing on their customers. They will never be able to appease the performance community because there is rarely a consensus - you try to appease one group and another faction complains. Everyone wants something different. Not to mention the performance segment tends to want what is usually not easy to make a business case for to mass produce. But when you raise the price to cove the cost, people complain about that too.

In the grand scheme of things, we're a small percentage of their customer base, and I fear we're a shrinking part of it at that. The fact that Ford still puts in the effort they do to connect with the enthusiast is commendable in an age where that's drying up more and more. Hopefully they'll keep doing it.

I wonder how different the negative culture a few of you have spoken of inside Ford differs from most companies these days. Seems every company I've worked for has had culture issues in some way. I suspect nearly all do depending on who you talk to. Every business ends up being a microcosm of society as a whole - which would tell you that culture issues should be expected.

I guess being relatively new to the Mustang world, I find quite a bit more to smile about because of how much more is available compared to my past platforms. Ford may deserve some criticism here and there, but they seem to still be doing a pretty good job overall. I still think it's a pretty good time to be a car guy.

I know that about everything these days is done with studies of demographics because no one seems to go off the reservation for fear of being called a fool, but if this was done in the 60s, would there have ever been a Mustang? or a Cobra? or even a Ranchero?..those were innovative cars, with no precedent.

 

[Ludachris]

I know that about everything these days is done with studies of demographics because no one seems to go off the reservation for fear of being called a fool, but if this was done in the 60s, would there have ever been a Mustang? or a Cobra? or even a Ranchero?..those were innovative cars, with no precedent.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't arguing in favor of the practices today, only stating that I understand what drives business decisions. Sales volume will always pay the bills, but specialty products (in this case, vehicles) will always be what makes a company noteworthy. I hope we continue to see cars that are innovative, that don't always make business sense.

 

[Ludachris]

While I do expect this topic to spur discussion, please stay on topic and speak to areas you think Ford can and should improve.

Improve and grow as a business? Or cater more to the performance enthusiast? Those two topics might actually end up conflicting with each other in some regards.

 

[Grant 302]

Improve and grow as a business? Or cater more to the performance enthusiast? Those two topics might actually end up conflicting with each other in some regards.

Either. Both. And yes, Ford should hear it all.

I buy cars as both a performance enthusiast and for just transportation. Sure, a few here only buy Fords for performance oriented Mustangs, but many brand loyalists are here too. All valid opinions IMO.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't arguing in favor of the practices today, only stating that I understand what drives business decisions. Sales volume will always pay the bills, but specialty products (in this case, vehicles) will always be what makes a company noteworthy. I hope we continue to see cars that are innovative, that don't always make business sense.

I think the pendulum has swung a little too far toward academic business theory. Which is not entirely surprising, given that the people in the power positions today would have been indoctrinated through a more theoretical business education program than those in charge 60 years ago would have had. Not just a Ford problem either..


Norm

 

[blacksheep-1]

I think the pendulum has swung a little too far toward academic business theory. Which is not entirely surprising, given that the people in the power positions today would have been indoctrinated through a more theoretical business education program than those in charge 60 years ago would have had. Not just a Ford problem either..


Norm

That's why I made my statement in a general sense, I think there is a curve there, you need to be innovative, but you need to fund it..how do you fund it? That's where critical and innovative thinking comes in. Like the example I stated, the P51 Mustang fighter, the A models were OK, the Merlin engine was OK, match those two together and you ended up with a world beater, sort of the same thing with the Shelby Mustangs, in the 60s you had a secretary's car, add an innovative thinker..and you had a world beater. It's really not rocket science, it's been done before. The key is always the personnel involved and a flexible platform to work with.

 

[Bill Pemberton]

interesting comment Norm and true in so many ways, and one has to wonder if that philosophy came about after all the near bankruptcies and profit issues or the 70s and 80s, including problems again in the last decade. I sometimes think that is why so many of us look at the 60s ( Iaccoca , Shinoda, DeLorean, and others ) as a " Golden Age," because it was not just the birth of the " Muscle Car," but the lack of constant Government and EPA rulings and requirements.

There is definitely a different and theoretical business education ( or marketing ) program out there and it stifles some of the things coming to the market, but we probably also have to ask ourselves how difficult it is today with the rapidly changing atmosphere, rules , safety guidelines ,etc. I wonder how we will view the product mix in future years as I fear it will get even more difficult , yet for some strange reason I do believe the last couple of decades will historically go down as an enlightened age of horsepower, performance and innovation far surpassing the Muscle Car Era.

Fun thing to do for everyone home with Covid Cabin Fever is to start naming Muscle Cars and fun cars of the 60s and 70s , heck even go into the 80s if you wish. Then in column two list the exciting stuff for the last two decades . Done this a couple of times and it may amaze you, Don't be biased , throw in some of the wacky Foreign Stuff too , and it may open your eyes to what a great time it has been of late.

There are some of us that wholeheartedly believe theoretical education, as you phrase it Norm, is the reason we do not have even more exciting stuff out there, as what happens in the trenches is reality, not what myriads of Marketing studies expound on.

This is one reason things like the Mustang Roundup excite me , because things are not perfect, but it is a sign , however small , that some Folks are listening. I know for a fact there are also folks at FCA ( Fiat Chrysler America , soon to be some new name with PSA added , ha) that are out there listening to the huddled performance masses, but like us they are a small passionate group so I find it amazing our small numbers really has a bigger impact than we realize.

We have to ignore the situation you brought up and reach out in areas like this Forum, events , etc. because there are some that do listen , we just have to find them. Throwing out positive ideas , commenting on desires while being appreciative, makes one wonder how much impact the performance buyer really has. There are those at Ford that will tell you discreetly that alot of the focus pushed for the GT 350 came from the resounding response and exploits of those tracking Boss 302s. Tooting your horn about a Mustang being quicker than an M3 is fine on paper , consumers seeing it actually happen because so many owners went out and attacked the tracks is another story.

But Norm is so very correct, we as performance consumers are a small segment , and today we have a society that is indoctrinated into theoretical education instead of doing, learning the part, working in the trenches , that it is up to us to keep pushing the agenda. We may not always like the outcome , it may not be exactly what we would have done, but when the product line keeps showing performance enhancements it makes me optimistic for the future.

Heck , we even see Tesla, Mustang EV realizing there better be upgrades for speed and handling ------- maybe we are having a bigger impact in the last few years than we realize.

 

[Ludachris]

I think the pendulum has swung a little too far toward academic business theory. Which is not entirely surprising, given that the people in the power positions today would have been indoctrinated through a more theoretical business education program than those in charge 60 years ago would have had. Not just a Ford problem either..


Norm

I think the board of directors and shareholders are also starting to swing more that way too - it isn't just management. If you can't prove your innovative idea will contribute to revenue growth, it's not important. Give the masses what they want. And unfortunately for us, we are not the masses.

 

[blacksheep-1]

I think the place where Chevy really did themselves a solid was when they listened to Arkus Duntov when he talked to them about the old Ford flathead V8s in the late 50s (this famous Corvette engineer actually designed on overhead valve conversion for the Ford) but you could take virtually anything Chevy made, from the diminutive (and light) Chevy II to the biggest impala they made from the early 60s to the early 90s and the drivetrains were pretty much interchangeable, how many Chevy IIs ended up with 400 cubic inch small blocks in them? So the point about a flexible platform is supremely valid.
Bill's point of government influence is also valid, (and unfortunately often misguided, not Bill's point but government regulation) as an example, I give you the Clean Air Act of the early 70s, now don't get me wrong, no one wants to live on a dirty earth, but the CAA was created and instituted in about 24 months, this put a massive burden on American car manufacturers at the height of their popularity, in 1970 it was fun to run a car company, in 1973, it sucked. Overnight the CAA forced American manufacturers to drop compression, add things like air pumps, and misc add on junk to get by the standards. this created a situation where not only did cars get bad mileage, but also were far less dependable. About that time, the oil spigot was shut off by OPEC and gas lines were created, no one wanted large American cars that were undependable and got lousy mileage. This kicked the door wide open for small, efficient foreign cars that were dependable, they also met most emission requirements as they were already required to meet them in their home countries (Japan). The US auto industry never really recovered from this. It would've been much more prudent to phase in the CAA over the 4 to 6 years that cars take to design and build instead of instantaneously. It wasn't until the mid 80s that the US auto industry began to even consider bringing some form of performance back to the car market. (Mustang IIs?..really).
To back this up, the early 70s was also when the insurance industry also pushed for the 5 mph bumper standard, a poorly written requirement that all cars must meet head on 5 mph impacts, this was supposedly to save consumers money in low impact crashes, in real life, it was to shield insurance companies from expenses. The fact that it was poorly written, thoroughly documented by facts and statistics of course, didn't take into consideration that most low impact crashes happen at angles during parking, not straight ahead, this actually led to HIGHER damage and bigger insurance payouts. But in the end, the consumer and the auto industry paid for it..as usual.
Now that is MY point of view, but since I actually lived it, I feel my opinion is valid and worth discussing.
This is also the reason each of us need to be involved in organizations like SEMA and keep an eye on our federal government, as bureaucracies are not led by people voted in, and rarely are taken to task for their sometimes insane rules and directives. I'm not going to get any more political here, but it's bureaucrats that create a lot of problem in the automotive industry, led by insurance lobbies and green lobbies, that although in some cases, well intentioned, they don't take into consideration reality. The penalty is a crushing burden on industry, and not just the automotive industry.

 

[Ludachris]

This is also the reason each of us need to be involved in organizations like SEMA and keep an eye on our federal government, as bureaucracies are not led by people voted in, and rarely are taken to task for their sometimes insane rules and directives.

Completely agree - for those who are not signed up with SAN, go here and find out how you can get involved and make a difference:

Home | SEMA ACTION NETWORK

www.semasan.com

 

[ChrisM]

While I do expect this topic to spur discussion, please stay on topic and speak to areas you think Ford can and should improve.

Heard that.

Ford, get off the woke-train and build me a direct competitor to the C8 Corvette. Mid-engine, RWD, and similar price range. I don't care if it's a V8 or Ecoboost (or ideally both as options), just build it.

 

[Ludachris]

Ford, get off the woke-train and build me a direct competitor to the C8 Corvette. Mid-engine, RWD, and similar price range. I don't care if it's a V8 or Ecoboost (or ideally both as options), just build it.

I seriously doubt they'd "downgrade" the Ford GT, though it would make sense for them to turn it into more of a C8 competitor.

 

[Grant 302]

Heard that.

Ford, get off the woke-train and build me a direct competitor to the C8 Corvette. Mid-engine, RWD, and similar price range. I don't care if it's a V8 or Ecoboost (or ideally both as options), just build it.

They've had quite a while to prepare a reaction if they were going to. I saw one of the mid engine ‘Vette prototypes a few years ago and posted it here.

I always imagine that this has been discussed frequently at various levels...but that it always ends as a no-go decision.

 

[302BOB]

Sometimes you just have to go with gut feelings/instincts and disregard all that data that has been collected.Ford needs an energetic Mustang platform to stay competitive with their Chevy rival and all the others that are joining the performance venue......each one has their own flavor........to add to the mix......................

 

[Norm Peterson]

I think the board of directors and shareholders are also starting to swing more that way too - it isn't just management. If you can't prove your innovative idea will contribute to revenue growth, it's not important. Give the masses what they want. And unfortunately for us, we are not the masses.

Fair enough. But keep in mind that most directors are typically the same age as upper management and would be coming in to their directorships with the same mindset that business is best served by business theory and what is actually produced somewhat interchangeable. Why else would we end up with CEOs sourced from companies/corporations in different industries?

I don't know enough about shareholders, or how entities like mutual funds actually think (it may be just a bunch of glorified speculation; that certainly seems to be the case with Tesla with what I read earlier this morning as having a P/E of 270 and is capitalized at more than Toyota).


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

Bill's point of government influence is also valid, (and unfortunately often misguided, not Bill's point but government regulation)

This ^^^

Government, bureaucratic, and other external influences tend to be arbitrary in both their goals and their timelines, being at least as much about wishful thinking as whether what they're asking for is realistically do-able in the timelines proposed. As far as product development is concerned, it amounts to distortion, and potentially bleeds some of the best talent away from other tasks.

Never mind the "unintended consequences" of mandates and schedules, where the Takata airbag issue might well serve as the "horrible example.


Norm

 

[Bill Pemberton]

.......irony is the J.D. Power initial quality automotive results just came out and the vehicle with the most problems is Tesla.
That would make be pause and think about a company with a P/E of 35 to 40. At 270 I am afraid I have to just sit back baffled and question the number. I do think we will see plenty of EV in the future, but I also think the exuberance for Tesla's stock is misplaced at the current levels!

 

[Ludachris]

Fair enough. But keep in mind that most directors are typically the same age as upper management and would be coming in to their directorships with the same mindset that business is best served by business theory and what is actually produced somewhat interchangeable. Why else would we end up with CEOs sourced from companies/corporations in different industries?

I agree. Just goes to show that we have a lot more people in the process influencing decisions that are geared more towards profit and growth, and that doesn't always bode well for products we'd like to see get built.