POLL: Has Ford found the right man for the job?
That's the big question. Alan Mulally has no experience in the automotive industry, but he is considered to be an accomplished turnaround artist after whipping into shape the commercial airplane division of Boeing and returning that business to profitability. But did Bill Ford remove himself from the throne too fast? And what about Carlos Ghosn, is he really that good? Perhaps you're of the mind that Ford's problems can't be fixed by switching CEOs. Let us know. Perform your civic duty and vote!
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Kaveh 10:46PM (9/06/2006)
American car companies have to pay alot to unions, what money is really left testing of new ideas
Reply
what Ford should do 7:58PM (9/06/2006)
Step by Step Guide to get out of the mess:
1. Kill Mercury
2. Kill Lincoln
3. Kill Jaguar
4. Land Rover on Probation.
5. laser like focus on Ford, Volvo, Mazda and Aston Martin.
Fuel economy and design. Better Diesels for F-150.
Problem Solved.
Reply
B 8:08PM (9/06/2006)
Even though I voted that the CEO isn't the problem, I do believe that fixing the problems within Ford rely somewhat on putting a person in charge who will realize this and solidify a solution to eliminating those problems that are not CEO related!
Reply
bernie 9:11PM (9/06/2006)
I find it intersting only 15% said Ghosn would be the best option. Carlos Ghosn would never have seriously considered tackiling the pathetic product lineup, nonexistant brand management and (underline this one) UAW stranglehold that exists at Ford today.
The guy has succeeded by know when a company is fixable... and when it's hopeless. That's why he' talking to GM about an alliance and not Ford. With an alliance you can pick and choose what parts of the business you want to be attached to, and GM has some upside. Ford has virually NO upside to attach to.
Reply
doug 8:15PM (9/06/2006)
Having a CEO that articulates a strong, positive plan will definitely help. But, What Ford needs most is more product! Seriously, what do they have? Fusion/Milan/MKZ=1 car, 500/Montego/Freestyle=1 car, Focus = old, Escape/Mariner=1 car and old, Explorer/Mountaineer=1 car crash and burn, Expedition/Navigator=1 car. Ford has too few platforms and/or too little variation in body styles to compete for different segments of buyers.
Where are the B cars???
Where are cars for Lincoln that are special - not just overpriced Fords??? If the Expedition starts at $29,995, what makes the new Navigator worth starting at over $50,000?! A different bad interior and more chrome? How come a new 2007 Navigator comes in last place in a Car and Driver test, and by over 60 points!!!
Why is the new 3.5l v6 Ford's 1st new engine in 10 years, and why are they still using the same v-8 from 1991?
Why doesn't Ford have a competitive minivan - a REAL one, not some abstract "people mover"?
Where is the new Ranger? With gas at $3.00/gal, wouldn't people who need to haul stuff want something smaller than an F150 that gets better mileage?
Where are the SVT models to draw excitement for the lesser models? There is even a Malibu SS!!!!!!!
Where are the competitive RWD models? Even GM plans several.
Reply
Clarence 8:22PM (9/06/2006)
I would put Jay Leno in there. I'll bet he could do better than any of the three guys in the poll.
I think any and all the car companies need to focus on one car per defined segment. A Fusion and a Mercury near Fusion and a Lincoln near Fusion cost too much to engineer for the small return. It would be okay to have a Fusion with the upscale Mercury and Lincoln trims, but it should be a Ford Fusion.
Mercury should have other cars not conflicting with Ford cars. Mercury was once the flashy hot rod of the Ford lineup. That is the only role that it can maintain.
Lincoln should have other cars not conflicting with Mercury cars or Ford cars. Lincoln should be an upper class car.
Reply
Ryan 8:26PM (9/06/2006)
Essentially the same exact car, save mabye a grill or headlight tweak:
Ford Taurus: 1996-2006, then dropped
Ford Ranger: 1993-PRESENT DAY
Ford Focus: 2000-PRESENT DAY
Ford Escape: 2001-PRESENT DAY
Ford Exploer: I don't know but it's BORING, ie: NOT BOLD
Ford Mustang: 1993-2004/5?
Ford Crown Vic: 1800's-PRESENT DAY :-) Ah, I'll lighten up on her, she is an oldie but a goodie.
C'mon Ford YA STONERS!!!! :-) reserach and development is the problem. Ford has to have the WORSE turnover rate of coming out with fresh new product.
Good Things at Ford:
Mercury Milan, looks fucking amazing
Ford Fusion, now ford that IS a BOLD MOVE looks like a Mercedes Benz in the back and the front is polarizing kind of like the new Acura grills, BUT, if I see the same bodystyle still running in 2015 I take it all back :-)
Ford Edge- Again, looks amazing
Is the fusion bold enough? I think so.
Reply
Ryan 8:34PM (9/06/2006)
"Mercury should have other cars not conflicting with Ford cars. Mercury was once the flashy hot rod of the Ford lineup. That is the only role that it can maintain.
Lincoln should have other cars not conflicting with Mercury cars or Ford cars. Lincoln should be an upper class car."
-Why do you say that though? The MKZ, Fusion and Milan are all bright spots for Ford in terms of sales?
I think I am one of the few that actually LIKES Mercury? When you really think about it all of their current cars really do look good the Mariner puts of a VW vibe on the outside I think.
The thing I like about Mercury is that "brushed nickel" look they have been going for, it looks hot.
Reply
doug 8:46PM (9/06/2006)
The Ranger platform dates back to the 80's. The Explorer is on a new platform dating from 2002.
At least GM - who also rarely creates new platforms - completely restyles them every 5-6 years, and for the most part gives different cars on the same platform unique interiors and exteriors. G6/Malibu/Aura = same platform. Impala/Grand Prix/LaCrosse = same platform. Compare to the Fusion triplets. Granted the Fords have more modern mechanicals than most of the GM cars.
Ford has the fully competitive cars elsewhere in its system - think Europe and Asia - they just need someone with the guts to say "if we built them, they will come". Ford is afraid to spend a buck to built a top notch car, so they cheap out. Problem is, the buying public sees through this and doesn't buy. It is a crime that with gas prices what they are, Ford has to put a $2000 rebate on the 2007 Focus. Even the Cobalt is having sales increases - granted alot go to fleets.
Reply
Eddie 8:50PM (9/06/2006)
Bring the Aussie FPV vehicles here. All of Holdens and Fords aussie vehicles are so much nicer than the US ones. What gives?
Reply
Aki 8:54PM (9/06/2006)
Nothin wrong with Mercury per say, it just doesn't need to exist. There's not enough of a differentiation for Ford to need it. Just take Mercurys and dump them into Lincoln's lineup. Milan's nice, just slap a lincoln badge and call it a day. Mecury's lineup is nothing but slightly upscaled Fords... not exactly an essential part of branding.
Call in any CEO you want, it still boils down to product. Ford's been idiotic for letting Focus languish, Taurus tank, and refusing to bring in appealing Euro RWD cars. Instead, they somehow hoped the public was stupid enough to think the new Focus is different from the 2000 just because of the revised fascia. Or what about Taurus, which is pretty much the same since 2000 as well? They've long since given up and shifted it into Fleet. Pathetic. The continual dumbing down of the product (disc brakes to drums, softer suspension) doomed it to mediocrity.
Cut the "Way Forward" marketing gibberish and get with reality.
Reply
Sean Flanagan 9:05PM (9/06/2006)
I voted for "The CEO isn't the problem", and it seems so have many others. Ford has recently been using the GT500 as an example of what they can accomplish by "cutting through bureaucratic B.S." as part of Bill Ford's "Way Forward". This is perhaps the greatest idea to come from Bill Ford: cutting out much of the corporate bureaucracy to produce exciting products.
Taking a look at those vehicles that were pushed through without (or even in spite of) bureaucratic reign over the past decade or so, we have:
- Shelby GT500
- Ford GT
- Ford Thunderbird
- Lincoln Blackwood
- Aston Martin DB9
- Land Rover LR3/Discovery
- Volvo C30
- Mazda CX-7
I mention these because all of them were developed by either Ford's specialty engineers (SVT) or acclaimed design staff (J Mays in particular). While they do share mixed commercial success, the most emotive of these have had waiting lists. They stand out as examples of what Ford can accomplish when it sets its designers and engineers free.
Reply
whofan 9:11PM (9/06/2006)
In case of Ranger why doesn`t Ford sell a stripped down version cheap?
Ford gone oval syling to edge styling then to whatever.
Now Ford has gone to F names.
Ford needs to stop with gimmicks!
Ford should build value into a name like the once mighty Taurus. Stay with it and keep updating it.
Pretend all vehicles are F150s and stay the course.
I hope Alan works out and Ford gives him the tools and authority to make things happen for them.
I voted for Alan.
I was torn between Alan and CEO not being the problem.
Many vehicles in Ford`s European line up I think could turn Ford around here.
Reply
Chris 9:20PM (9/06/2006)
I like the change with Mullaly because the business model he used at Boeing fits well with the automotive industry. A couple of tweaks and it will work...if allowed to. This change shows Bill Ford (God bless him) was in over his head and lacked the skills to implement a new business model or even create one. Regardless of what some say about this being a "sink or swim move" which I don't beleive they are at yet it is a positive step.
Reply
Greg 3:58PM (9/11/2006)
I worked under Mulally at Boeing. A very respected man in the manufacturing industry. His expertise should translate well into the Blue Oval.
Reply
Mark 9:36PM (9/06/2006)
I voted "CEO not the problem". And I've resisted commenting so far over the past few days - our comments alone won't mean anything if no one is listening and apparently this is sadly the case.
One of the major problems is Ford is not learning from their mistakes or others like GM in the 80's with "badge engineering". And does any consumer/buyer really care if all Ford cars begin with the letter "F" (or "F" sound as in 500) and Mercurys with "M"? Then there are the Lincolns - shadows of their former selves as MK-something or other?!? Just think, someone got paid a lot of money to come up with these ideas.
The point is names really don't mean much if all that is behind the badge is a vehicle that doesn't offer something else besides transportation. A succesful vehicle has to be unique at the same time it is something everyone wants - not necessarily an easy thing to accomplish.
Maybe I should change my vote, but Mr. Ford's name is "on the water tower" so to speak and I'm sure he doesn't want the company to fail.
Reply
Camryfan 9:44PM (9/06/2006)
Hey guys!
I have a Camry!
Aren't you going to tell me how smart I am?
Reply
doug 10:12PM (9/06/2006)
How's that transmission Camryfan? Any trim pieces fall off yet? New engine got sludge yet? Not even Toyota is perfect.....
And yes, since you spent several thousand $$$ more than a Fusion that rates higher, and more even than an Accord, yes you are very smart, for a follower
Reply
Justin 10:16PM (9/06/2006)
Ryan- Same with the Econoline.
...
Does this new guy even know a thing about cars?
I can see it now-
Ford Exec- Uh, Mr. Mulally, what do you want to do with the Shelby Mustang?
Mulally- Shelby's Mustang? Is Shelby my new secretary? Sure, give her a Mustang.
Reply
Jon 10:28PM (9/06/2006)
Seems to me that Bill Ford is stepping back to remove himself from the carnage.MY GUESS ,is that Mulally will be the guy who hires (darth)Ghosn.Who will then be the bad guy to do all the dirty work that needs to be done in a desperate company
Reply