New Ford models cut automaker's lineup age by 2.4 years?
2010 Ford Taurus – Click above for a high-res image gallery
Ford is launching ten new or redesigned vehicles this year, bringing its line-up age down to a scant 2.4 years, according to a Merrill Lynch report. Product Chief Derrick Kuzak told the Free Press that the goal is to keep the product lineup fresh, and the Blue Oval is getting the job done with fewer models and vehicle platforms.
Back in 2004, Ford had 92 vehicles in its product lineup, and that number was dropped to 59 by 2008. Ford also cut platforms from 27 to 16 during that time frame, slicing engineering costs by a whopping 60% as a result.
Ford intends to keep up the accelerated pace of vehicle launches in 2010 with the introduction of the new Fiesta, a global Focus, the Transit Connect electric, a heavily updated Super Duty pickup lineup, and an all-new unibody Explorer. Autoconomy analyst Erich Merkle reportedly told the Free Press that the Blue Oval has "a tidal wave of new product" planned for the next 18 months.
Citibank analyst Itay Michaeli is reportedly questioning whether Ford can keep up this frenetic pace of vehicle launches as the automaker continues to lose money. Analysts were expecting Ford to lose about 53 cents per share in the second quarter, after burning through $3.7 billion in cash in Q1, but the company surprised many by losing only 21 cents per share on continuing operations. Ford CEO Alan Mulally says the company has the money to execute it's plan.
Gallery: First Drive: 2010 Ford Taurus
[Source: Free Press, CNN Money]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Zerk 6:39PM (7/24/2009)
Ford Ranger is how old?
Reply
Jim 6:48PM (7/24/2009)
C-C-C-Combo Breaker!!!
Tony 7:04PM (7/24/2009)
Rats you beat me to it. The existing platform has been around since 1993.
PLEASE Ford bring us the Indonesian Ranger with a 2.5L or 3.0L direct injection diesel with a crew cab option.
Thanks
Jim 7:16PM (7/24/2009)
Seriously, though, the current Ranger basically prints money. The tooling and investment were paid for back during the Clinton administration :p
TKOsoccer03 7:27PM (7/24/2009)
It was updated in '06. And yes .. it is a cash cow. A fully loaded Ranger only costs Ford about $8000 ... why get rid of it??? Because it's an old chassis? Please ... it's reliable, comfortable (for two), and economic. Plus, it's still selling.
Keep it around .. I wouldn't change a thing about the Ranger.
Randy 7:38PM (7/24/2009)
I'd make a new Ranger and keep the old one, like they did with the F150 a while back!
They need to update it! Not just the body!
JayP 8:49PM (7/24/2009)
The Ranger is as close to a Model T as we'll get.
Thing is, it's a shame to buy a new one when old ones are out there for a few thousand.
They last forever if you don't wank them.
dumblikeyou2 8:44PM (7/24/2009)
Yes, keeping things fresh, like the new(ish) Taurus originally based on a Volvo that was already old when the Five Hundred emerged, then re-faced and renamed Taurus, then rehashed once again to be the New NEW bestest Taurus EVER!!!!!!!
Then there is the Fusion, originally based on an aging Mazda 6 that Mazda doesn't even use anymore, but for Americans, it'll do, just give it a new mug and ass, and send on it's way for another four years I'm sure.
The Ranger has already been mentioned here, but let us not forget the really fresh(ish) Escape. Sales of this SUV are hot.................if it were the year 2000 when it was actually new and not the aging platform and design it is today.
LOL, Merrill Lynch report! It's listening to the Farmers Almanac for the weather!! LOL
dwightB 9:35PM (7/24/2009)
@ Jim,
Best comment on Autoblog today! lol
the4thheat 9:37PM (7/24/2009)
Well in Ford's defense by giving us older platforms they've at least managed to improve their reliability quite a lot since all the kinks have long been worked out for most of this technology. The current Taurus/500 is one of the most reliable large cars now. Building cars on tested platforms makes it easier to keep your lineup reliable-whether it's a Crown Vic or a Ranger.
Whereas when they try to actually make brand new platforms sometimes it gets pretty ugly. Like when they first introduced the Focus it was plagued with hilariously bad recalls like when they had to recall 200,000 of them because the rear wheels would fall off.
So I guess when they finally worked out the kinks they didn't really feel like introducing the Euro focus platform here since by now the Focus platform has had all it's bugs fixed...
Which is why we get the "new" Focus based on something designed in the 90's and Europe gets the newest one =(
But I think I might actually prefer to have a reliable Focus available more than having Ford repeat this performance again:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news02/ford_focus.html
I suspect that if Ford started launching cars on brand new platforms you would start seeing mind blowingly bad recalls again, lol.
Aki 11:51PM (7/24/2009)
LOL the first two comments to this post are awesome.
psu48187 1:41AM (7/25/2009)
I love, love, love when folks make it a point to complain about the age of 'x' platform. Which would be fine if the car handles like crap, has craptacular crash test ratings, compromises interior/cargo space and is generally behind the curve. Which is far from the case here (well outside of the CV/Ranger). I guess my point is, who cares? If the car performs above average in the areas I mentioned, it really doesn't mater if it's 10 years old or 1 year old.
Oh and for the record the Mazda 6 rides on the SAME modified CD3 platform as the Fusion/Milan/MKZ.
Brian 6:40PM (7/24/2009)
None of this will stop their epic cash burn, or the fact they have to compete against government-subsidized competition.
Reply
Yaroukh 6:45PM (7/24/2009)
Dude you are dumb that they should ban you from the internet. $300m for 2Q is what people in your hospital call "epic cash-burn"? Could you tell us how much burned Toyota?
Yaroukh 6:48PM (7/24/2009)
And I am doing it again, feeding a troll. :)
Jim 6:48PM (7/24/2009)
why does anyone bother responding to this juvenile troll? Yaroukh, you should know better by now.
jpm100 6:52PM (7/24/2009)
They've been competing against the Japanese for decades.
Oh, you mean that CAFE money GM got. Oh no, that was Ford.
Oh, you mean that government money that Mulally said that GM & Chrysler needed in order to keep their common supplier base afloat.
And that bankruptcy money the others got because, despite peanut gallery claims, bankruptcy requires money to survive. Money that Ford could get, too only at the cost of having their ownership taken away as well.
P.V. 6:55PM (7/24/2009)
That's fine, but they're doing a HECK of a lot better than either of those companies.
Just because the government controls a company doesn't mean its competitors are going to be left in the dust unless the government nationalizes the industry (like the rail industry).
Furthermore, Ford seems to be on track for consistent profits in the future.
What world do you live in?
This is how other (struggling) car companies should do business. Bravo, Ford!
Brian 8:28PM (7/24/2009)
Toyota has plenty of cash in reserve, and has the proven ability to turn a profit. Toyota is merely a victim of the recession, while Ford is mired in the kind of typical Detroit incompetence that has kept it down since the early '70s. Same for GM and Chrysler. They were toast even BEFORE the recession.
Toyota also didn't mortgage the entire company up to and including its logo, unlike Ford!
Farmboy 9:17PM (7/24/2009)
Brian, just stop. Your Hot Pocket your mom made is getting cold.