Well Farley placed a big bet on the team. Bill says execution of the plan is only way we can improve share price. Khumar says execution of plan rests on the backs of engineers and buyers.
Of course our Xcross town competitor is tearing it up profits wise. Again our senior team is saying our engineers and buyers need to get their act together.
@2ihe; you sound butt hurt, and have an issue with a LL2.....
@2dvf+14Qz3Dtq there was a 6.2L derivative which reused much of that engine and the line at REP for the marketing goals. The program had x-series engines at the ready. Leadership changed, and this triggered the 7.3L pushrod. The 7.3L is like no other engine, it is 100% new parts and required an all new line at WEP. The 7.3L costs more than 6.2L, because every time purchasing has to source new parts the year over year cost reduction of the old parts is eliminated (you get the latest market prices which have been adjusted for economics, where the 6.2L was priced 12-13 years ago) . So between paying more for the same parts, having to tool for new assembly /machining, having to test/develop all new hardware you are not ahead. Also the volume is low in my books to warrant an all new engine design (only goes in heavy trucks). All because some LL2 wanted a big block pushrod V8 to play with. Sure it's cool, but the best business case was not made, and management really had to stretch to make it look worth it. But when everything came in at program approval, they had cost increases over the original goals and they chose to move forward. You are rehashing the narrative that was the goal, not what actually happened.
@1iin; you make some valid points, but your also wrong with regards to the 7.3L. The requirements to be class leading in that segment with fuel, torque, and HP, and meet the financials - the sc-apping of the 6.2L upgrade to a large displacement push rod engine saved $125 from target vs. being over by $400+. Have an issue with it, talk to Sales & Marketing. In 2023 your going to have the 6.7L diesel, 7.3L gas, and base engine 6.8L (detuned 7.3L). If the prior leadership is doing engine development through an independent business to promote the engine For aftermarket use, that is irrelevant to the original conceptual design during the program cycle.
@1ozz+14Qz3Dtq Hau Thai-Tang. Last of the old Joe Henrichs/ Raj Nair/ Mark Fields club. He seems withdrawn whenever they field questions to him; like empty or knows the writing is on the wall for him. Another lifer at Ford as well. Also the front man for PD/Purchasing and Kumar just tossed his whole oversight under the bus big time in a company wide forum.
Which exec is Farley setting up to take the blame if things go badly?
He always has a patsy. Any guesses?
Share price is on thing. That dividend they were paying is another thing. 6% is a sure sign that a company is not reinvesting in it's products.
You cannot grow unless you invest.
They will surely make it out of this "if" the industry stimulus is sufficient. That being said the next decade is where I believe they will ultimately have to do something really desperate. A bigger Hail Mary than putting up the Blue Oval for collateral as was done back in 08/09.
Much more than we have seen in the past from them.
@1ufe+14Qz3Dtq Exactly. The share price (and dividend) benefits the Ford Family and the Ford Family only. That's their lifeblood.
@1kbf+14Qz3Dtq favorite meme:
My boss arrived at work in a brand-new Lamborghini.
I said, "Wow, that's an amazing car!"
He replied, "If you work hard, put all your hours in, and strive for excellence, I'll get another one next year".
Buyers? Sorry I didn’t get it. What do the buyers execute? What are they doing wrong?
@1oqy+14Qz3Dtq being in powertrain, completely agree that complexity is absurd. But the problem is empire preservation. Take engine. You have a bunch of LL4 managers, 2x LL3 chiefs, and an LL2 director that are in charge of engine programs and components. If we condensed down to say three engines and they all had the same power cylinder (like BMW), you could eliminate half of the organization. One I4, one I6, one V8. Problem is they carry on engine architectures that have zero interchangeability with other ones and justify it as saving money. Sure you save money at that point in time, but in the long run its a loser. You end up with completely unique parts even between engines that are within 0.5L of each other. Even the 7.3L was not needed but they will swear it saves money because it was a prior LL2's pet project. (And he was given priceless prototype engines (yes Ford Motor Company Property) to do his own development in his retirement. For the corporate monitors that frequent this site you might want to look into that. The ahole is so brazen there are YouTube videos that show priceless prototype engines not on a Ford dyno) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wSkBcFyZeks. But that's another problem with the culture of the company. They will preach be honest, do the right thing, and leaders behave like cretans.
Bill and Farley's 4th vacation homes are counting on you guys to get the share price up! Get it together!
No, huddle team of All Stars, I'm not buying this " pass the buck " downstairs. Glass House better look long and hard at itself because that is where the problem lies. Totally constipated management structure before and after SRD. No tangible PD development process or desire to actually understand how good our competitors are, guesstimate cycle plans shifting by the hour, no understanding that all the diversity in the world doesn't create quality by itself, and some how an inability to figure out what any customer wants besides an F-150 buyer. All of this ineffective management and constipated processes produces the bloat and cost in vehicles, not your front-line workers. The performance you are seeing is only a reflection of the leadership you've got, crisis or not.
As someone in PD, there seems to be a couple of glaring factors that diminish our success compared to other companies.
1) Powertrain strategy: Our obsession with eco boost engines and lack of a powertrain strategy. We are pouring money into turbocharged engines while GM (and even Honda, Toyota, and Kia) largely sticks with legacy natural aspirated engines. The material cost is lower and they aren’t spending a ton of engineering resources on them, all while often being favorably received by customers. Our fuel economy is slightly better but the customer doesn’t seem to care to justify our expense. It shows in the products. Imagine how much better our interiors would be if we shifted even just a few hundred from the powertrain to the interior. This doesn’t even get into the fact that we don’t know how to bridge the gap between gas and EVs. We are throwing money at gas engines, Hybrids, plug in hybrids, and EVs all at once. Many other companies are only adding naturally aspirated hybrids at most and then going straight to EVs. As someone else alluded to, powertrain complexity is out of control
2) Management direction: in addition to the powertrain fiasco, as more programs get pinched by the added costs, decisions from management happen more slowly and hold up programs, ultimately delaying them or forcing condensed timing in other. Furthermore, the decision to k–l off certain vehicle lines will point towards a capacity problem. Sure we can get back a lot of it with vehicles like the ranger and bronco, but some of that volume is gone for good and could cause a capacity issue.
/rant
Tale as old as time at Ford. Failing management always passes the blame down to the workers when their incompetence is laid bare. Face it, everything we do at Ford is by management edict. We are forced to follow the demands of the executives regardless how stupid. To not comply is risk your paycheck as retribution is a fact of life. Our independence is only to the extent as to going to the bathroom.
I totally agree it's the PD process that needs revamping, but it's program management and marketing expectations that need to be thrifted, not engineering. Powertrain complexity is OUT OF CONTROL.
We're back to the point where every vehicle program operates like it's a fiefdom. 5 to 10 power packs for 1 future program are not unheard of. We need to take a page out of the Toyota or Honda playbook and only offer a few power packs per vehicle.
Stop being everything to everybody and take complexity out of our vehicles. Vehicle program costs run downhill to engineering and then to our customers. Currently, younger buyers are buying more RAM pick-ups then F-150s because of the price point. That's very worrisome.
https://fordauthority.com/2020/05/ford-f-series-losing-young-buyers-to-ram-report-claims/
Whomever said it above was right. He just dumped on the team for the inefficiencies. Was a matter of fact about it as well.
Getting kinda frosty over there @ WHQ's
You wont find another car/truck OEM who is thought less of by the supply base. Ford Purchasing has done everything they can to alienate the supply base with warranty charge backs and constant pricing pressures. Ford is the last OEM that a supplier wants to develop new technology with (unless its to support your electric charade). How did the great push to buy products from ultra-low cost country's serve Ford? How many of those suppliers are driving F-150's or Super Duty's in China. Wake up Ford, you are where you are for a reason. No crocodile tears from the supply base.
I commented on here many months ago that I would get back into Ford stock when it hit $5. It hit 5, but I didn't do it.
My new target is $2....
Part of the problem is PD process. Take headcount modeling for example. I was involved with the headcount budget for a major new program at Ford. You would be shocked at how many engineers are predicted to be needed to design new products. There is a model that is used, then engineering managers argue/negotiate heads vs. the model, for which the results are then used in program budgets.
I saw program content being thrifted because the inflated engineering budget exceeded program targets!!
It is hard to build brand image this way!
Our Senior Leaders blame Engineering and Purchasing, while we continue to pump in features and content many customers don't want or need. They need to look in the mirror. They are responsible for allowing the crazy amount of money flowing into EVERY one of our NEW Products. They must stop programs going through milestones at ridiculously higher costs. And, don't get me started on the money they are investing in the name of "mobility" and "autonomous". At what level does this all roll up to? They are all denying culpability and dodging responsibility. They keep bragging about our average transaction price going up... well, guess what? Our competitors are eating our lunch with more affordable products.
I'm tired of this dump on engineers and purchasing. Best cost starts the minute a program is conceived (be it in Marketing, EPLM, etc.). These organizations determine the customer wants/needs/delights and assign a revenue that those features generate. Now if they are inflating the revenue to push a program through shame on them. Engineering does their best to meet what Marketing/EPLM cascades, and purchasing follows on by getting the best cost based on what the supply base requires.
Could it be the customer doesn't care about new features and they just want reliable transportation? Are we investing too much in technology that people don't want or care about? I think customers are tapped out when it comes to vehicle cost and they don't feel compelled to take on an 84month payment to buy a Ford. Instead they go look at a Toyota/Honda/Kia/Hyundai which still offer affordable vehicles. We have missed the mark in a huge way; when we msrp most of our vehicles at $30-$50k that freezes out so many people. I can't blame them for going elsewhere. I would never take on a loan for something that is worthless at the end of the loan term. Total shill!!!
MO RONS. Blame the Engineers and Buyers!
One other addition. The company is really lobbying for Government stimulus for the industry.