Ford posts record profit

[ItsuMitsubishi]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
.... I can think....Maybe.....I dunno.....apparently.....my rationale.....Judging.....should be...


Yeah, this sounds like fact based "digging" beneath the surface...lol



Whichever side of the fence you're on, one should be able to recognize rhetoric that wishes to condition you purely by threat of ridicule.

Perhaps you should read Mark Fields', President Ford Motor Company's own words regarding Ford's dependence on Mazda from an article I only discovered last night (and posted in a separate thread)

Originally Posted By: Mark Fields; President Ford Motor Company

"For a lot of designing and engineering, were going to be focused on Ford," Mark Fields, Ford's president for the Americas and former Mazda chief executive, said last December. Our efforts will be focused on the Ford system, as opposed to relying on others such as Mazda."


Key word, 'relying'. I broke the details down in my most unbiased, journalistic manner possible. But don't let anyone who listens to the president of Ford, tell the fans anything simply because they've used the words quoted......

Look fellas, this was never about bashing. It was never about putting Ford down. I don't understand why this should be so hard to understand. All my original contention is, is that Ford has it's most dependent lineup to date, and is enjoying it's greatest period of profitability to date, since '98. This doesn't speak to the product quality (which is pretty decent) or the market desirability, sales, inventions- none of that. It only speaks to how much Ford saved in development costs towards the current international lineup in relation to how much Ford made in profits. Simple. Context, that's all. Some people were unclear about certain things and challenged my information, which makes for good debate. Whether due to denial or unawareness, regardless it's obvious 'worked' for Ford and any Ford fans out there should probably be happy just the same.

 

[ItsuMitsubishi]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog

Focus: Not a bad car at all. But Ford said, "It's too expensive to bring the updated European model to North America." so it sat on an outdated chassis for a long time trying to compete with the Mazda3 that had...what's that? THE UPDATED EUROPEAN FOCUS CHASSIS!


Exactly. How many people have said they would love to see the Euro Focus over here? The talk of increased cost only to turn around and proclaim record profits is just patently classic. How about settling for regular profits, in exchange for more substance for the customer? What's that? "Value for the customer cuts into profit? We can keep the customer happy with marketing psychology alone? Well then, we'll just keep this here money...."

That might seem a little harsh, seeing as Ford has been in debt and trying to save it's butt. But then again, what about those long-running industry-topping R&D dollars; where the **** are they going?!

Again, that might be too harsh, so we'll keep waiting to see.

 

[LS2JSTS]

I've read his comments, and frankly I'm surprised that you would quote a simple statement to the press as if it proved anything.

Do you suppose that when Mark Fields made this comment he was describing the totality of the relationship with Mazda? As I said, your contention that either the 2 or the 6 are Mazda platforms and Mazdas alone is false, there are tie ins and exchanges of information and engineers between the two companies surrounding almost everything either of them does. At the point where the tie in was the strongest it would be pure foolishness for Ford to develop overlapping platforms, wouldn't it? The cross company platform development between Ford and Mazda has always been a two way street, Mazda doesnt just build what they want and Ford decides to use it....it's a process by which the best use of available resources can mean one unit at Ford may be working on one solution while engineers at Mazda are working on the same platform but a different problem. The line of demarcation is not nearly as clear as you try to portray it.

You could in fact say that for a number of years there, Mazda was doing what they were told, what they were paid to do. Remember, ownership has(had) it's priveledges. Do you suppose when Mark Fields was CEO/President of Mazda that he was taking direction from Dearborn or Hiroshima? There is a reason Ford had "their" man at the top.

As I said previously, your contention that Ford is a "marketing" company is offensive. And I see no proof offered by yourself to support that claim. And I would love to hear from you what car manufacturer couldnt be labeled as a marketing firm in todays "supplier" climate? What vertically integrated auto company exists today, or ever, for that matter?

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
Originally Posted By: Spazdog

Focus: Not a bad car at all. But Ford said, "It's too expensive to bring the updated European model to North America." so it sat on an outdated chassis for a long time trying to compete with the Mazda3 that had...what's that? THE UPDATED EUROPEAN FOCUS CHASSIS!


Exactly. How many people have said they would love to see the Euro Focus over here?


I agree, many did...and I was among them. And what are we about to get?

You mentioned context previously, and the decision to market the "old" Focus vs the EU Focus is clearly a case where the context tells the story.

Go read the Cruze thread and see the complaints about the price. There are many here and elsewhere and at the top at Ford who still maintain that Americans will not pay a high price for a well built, high content small car. Fortunately there are many others, some at the glass house who disagree. But I think America is ready for a high content, solid small car....like they say in the Cruze ads...."it's Civic season". And in 2012, the proof will be in the pudding.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
... As I said, your contention that either the 2 or the 6 are Mazda platforms and Mazdas alone is false, there are tie ins and exchanges of information and engineers between the two companies surrounding almost everything either of them does. At the point where the tie in was the strongest it would be pure foolishness for Ford to develop overlapping platforms, wouldn't it? The cross company platform development between Ford and Mazda has always been a two way street, Mazda doesnt just build what they want and Ford decides to use it....it's a process by which the best use of available resources can mean one unit at Ford may be working on one solution while engineers at Mazda are working on the same platform but a different problem. The line of demarcation is not nearly as clear as you try to portray it.


I have no delusions that the 2 was solely a Mazda project. In fact I am to understand that Mazda lent engineers to Ford to develop it primarily as a Ford Fiesta.

I've always maintained that it was a mutually beneficial relationship. Perhaps using the existing Ford Focus (Rest of the World)chassis in developing the Mazda3 freed up financial resources at Mazda to develop the RX-8. I don't know, I am not privy to their finances. But at the same time, the GG platform Mazda 6 allowed Ford to be competitive against Toyota and Honda in that segment. Something their European chassis fwd midsize never really did.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
So, you can see why I am saying that Mullaly is going back to the well that has poisoned his company in the past. You can say that, "...things are different now....production techniques have changed...blah blah blah..." I don't care. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


I'm just going to throw this out here since I find the talk about a Domestic manufacturer drinking from a poisoned well, and the benchmark for automotive performance in the small car segment being set by a Japanese car somewhat comical in the context of this thread when talked about in conjunction with those who have not learned from history.

History. And all the talks about Mazda. And their headquarters in Hiroshima. One of two Japanese cities that the USA dropped nuclear bombs on to end World War II after the Japanese decimated Pearl Harbour and the US Pacific Fleet with a sneak attack of Mitsubishi airplanes. History indeed.

Perhaps the mention of history repeating should be left out of topics such as these. For if we were to forever be on our guard... The Civic wouldn't be in this market to begin with. Ford would never have had a financial stake in Mazda; providing the much needed funding to prevent them from going bankrupt on two separate occasions. In short, the world would be a very different place.

Hearts are soft and memories lapse with time. Obviously many have forgiven the Japanese or just don't care. They weren't there, why does it matter?

Ford may have indeed reaped poor results from using their European platforms in the past. But the current, very Japanese-friendly car market is a very different market from the one Ford was catering to then. It will be interesting to see where things go from here.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

...

Perhaps the mention of history repeating should be left out of topics such as these. For if we were to forever be on our guard... The Civic wouldn't be in this market to begin with. Ford would never have had a financial stake in Mazda; providing the much needed funding to prevent them from going bankrupt on two separate occasions. In short, the world would be a very different place.

Hearts are soft and memories lapse with time. Obviously many have forgiven the Japanese or just don't care. They weren't there, why does it matter?....



Okay I'm with you. no German cars (WWII)
No French cars either. French and Indian War
No Italian cars, WWII
Great Britain is obviously out
Nothing from Canada (War of 1812) or Mexico either (Texas Revolution and US Mexican War)

Uh-Oh...with Mexico and Canada out, Ford's lineup just took a big hit.
Looks like we'll just have to drive Hyundais and Tatas

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

...

Perhaps the mention of history repeating should be left out of topics such as these. For if we were to forever be on our guard... The Civic wouldn't be in this market to begin with. Ford would never have had a financial stake in Mazda; providing the much needed funding to prevent them from going bankrupt on two separate occasions. In short, the world would be a very different place.

Hearts are soft and memories lapse with time. Obviously many have forgiven the Japanese or just don't care. They weren't there, why does it matter?....



Okay I'm with you. no German cars (WWII)
No French cars either. French and Indian War
No Italian cars, WWII
Great Britain is obviously out
Nothing from Canada (War of 1812) or Mexico either (Texas Revolution and US Mexican War)

Uh-Oh...with Mexico and Canada out, Ford's lineup just took a big hit.
Looks like we'll just have to drive Hyundais and Tatas


Please re-read my post, that wasn't what I was saying at all.

Perhaps those criticizing Ford for "repeating history" should be looking in their own back yard and realize that these snapshots of time that form our collective past do not have to be viewed in a singular light; in only one context.

Obviously, North America as a whole has gotten over the events of World War II and embraced the products of a country who has wronged us in the past. So why the double standard for a company like Ford when they go to give their foreign arm another chance at success here?

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog

Contour: Mondeo of North America. It didn't even rank favorably against the Mazda 626 which was hamstrung with a poor quality Ford transmission. It certainly wasn't as good as a comparable year model Accord or Camry....or even Galant.


Depends on what you wanted in a car.

I replaced my Contour with a Saab 93 2.0T. I like European cars.

 

[javacontour]

Spazdog, define ranked favorably. The Contour got all sorts of awards and the Duratec V6 was on Wards 10 best engines list.

But where it counted, in sales, the Contour was not a winner for Ford.

I liked the idea, but then I've always liked the European Fords. But I also know I'm in the minority. I'd say there are more folks entering the Ford stores at that time looking for Explorers, F150's and Crown Vics than were looking for the Contour.

Not to mention Ford was in an all out sales blitz to move more Taurus units compare to the Camry or Accord, so they tended to move customers away from the Contour and into the Taurus.

 

[Drew2000]

Kind of amazing that some folks seem disappointed that Ford is trying to succeed without handouts in a difficult economy and they can't enjoy their moment of schadenfreude for the demise of another American-based manufacturer.

Ford just cut 900 jobs at the Flat Rock Auto Alliance plant that builds the Mustang and Mazda 6...guess from which line? But hey, how about that .5% Mitsubishi US automotive market-share... impressive, no?

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Spazdog, define ranked favorably. The Contour got all sorts of awards and the Duratec V6 was on Wards 10 best engines list.


In magazine comparos, the Contour usually didn't fare well in comparison to the 626.
The KL-DE was favored over the 2.5 Duratec for it's feel, the Duratec was favored for smoothness. Performance was similar.


Lots of rental fleets bought the Contour.

Look, I don't wish Ford ill. I just question the wisdom of the direction they have chosen.

From my perspective, they have a successful arrangement and they are discarding that to go back to a plan that has not netted them much success in the past.

 

[Drew2000]

If the Fed's future CAFE requirements come anywhere close to what is proposed, (36mpg by 2016 and 60mpg by 2025) Ford will look like a genius for bringing over small Euro-based cars.