Changing Five Hundred to Taurus shows Mulally gets Ford
Thread Starter
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: June 18, 2004
Posts: 3,990
Likes: 34
From: Conroe, TX
Changing Five Hundred to Taurus shows Mulally gets Ford
This article is an interesting take on renaming of the 500 to Taurus. It's more about Mulally and I find this particular passage quite interesing:
Yeah, I think he gets it. 
I really believe that Mulally can save Ford if (and it's a BIG IF) there's enough time and money.
Mulally's already asking his executives to tell him why the company doesn't make some other corrections, including:
• Why don't we try to build the hotshot concept cars people love at our auto show displays? GM and Chrysler listen to their customers. Shoppers loved the Pontiac Solstice concept, and it was on the road in less than three years. People loved our Ford Synus, Interceptor, Mercury Messenger and Lincoln MKR concepts, but we hauled them off to a warehouse instead of cashing in on them.
• Why does Jaguar chase low-profit, low-image cars like the X-type instead of building what its customers want: fast, beautiful and gloriously luxurious cars it can sell at a profit?
• Why do we think our American customers should be satisfied with a Focus compact that's based on a geriatric platform that's not good enough for Mazda to use for its hot-selling 3 compact car?
• Why do we admire the design and dynamics of European Fords like the S-Max and the new Mondeo but sit on our hands instead of using them to spice up Mercury's meager lineup?
• Why don't we act like this is our last chance to save the company, and we can't afford to waste a single asset -- not a valuable name like the Taurus, not a great platform like the Mazda 3, not a head-turning design like the Mondeo station wagon?
• Why don't we try to build the hotshot concept cars people love at our auto show displays? GM and Chrysler listen to their customers. Shoppers loved the Pontiac Solstice concept, and it was on the road in less than three years. People loved our Ford Synus, Interceptor, Mercury Messenger and Lincoln MKR concepts, but we hauled them off to a warehouse instead of cashing in on them.
• Why does Jaguar chase low-profit, low-image cars like the X-type instead of building what its customers want: fast, beautiful and gloriously luxurious cars it can sell at a profit?
• Why do we think our American customers should be satisfied with a Focus compact that's based on a geriatric platform that's not good enough for Mazda to use for its hot-selling 3 compact car?
• Why do we admire the design and dynamics of European Fords like the S-Max and the new Mondeo but sit on our hands instead of using them to spice up Mercury's meager lineup?
• Why don't we act like this is our last chance to save the company, and we can't afford to waste a single asset -- not a valuable name like the Taurus, not a great platform like the Mazda 3, not a head-turning design like the Mondeo station wagon?
I really believe that Mulally can save Ford if (and it's a BIG IF) there's enough time and money.
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Joined: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Money they have. One thing Ford did well in the past was horde cash. Between that and the massive loans they took out, they have the money they need. Time, however, is more scarce. Those loans have a time limit, and what little confidence wall street has shown will evaporate at the same time.
wait....I think I need to sue him for plagerizing MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY!!!!! Way to go!
Cobra Member
Joined: May 16, 2006
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
From: NV
What Mullaly's asking are good questions. What's wrong with Ford and most huge organizations is that there are so many levels of bureacracy (who don't cooperate) to satisfy when trying to get something done.It takes years. Ideas also get lost in the bureacracy along the way.
Ford can do what GM did with the Solstice by bringing a concept to production quickly; they did it with the Ford GT. However it seems that when they need to get something built quickly they have to farm it out to contractors like GT was farmed out to Saleen. They have an overcapacity problem yet they have to farm out projects to get them produced?
Mullaly seems to be shaking things up. Hopefully he can do what Lou Gerstner ,another "outsider" ceo, did for IBM.
Ford can do what GM did with the Solstice by bringing a concept to production quickly; they did it with the Ford GT. However it seems that when they need to get something built quickly they have to farm it out to contractors like GT was farmed out to Saleen. They have an overcapacity problem yet they have to farm out projects to get them produced?
Mullaly seems to be shaking things up. Hopefully he can do what Lou Gerstner ,another "outsider" ceo, did for IBM.
Bullitt Member
Joined: October 5, 2006
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
my dad said he would buy the interceptor in a heartbeat, that car is gorgeous, ford would be so far ahead in the luxury performance line with that car,that the competition would be left with spinning heads and to many 300c's on the lot, mullaly needs to push these things, the one track mind at ford needs to become a thing of the past, and i think he's doing that, step by step
Team Mustang Source
Joined: July 4, 2006
Posts: 2,872
Likes: 1
From: St. Louis Area
No joke, I would buy the Interceptor tomorrow if it were available, and my Dad would buy one too I know it. He grew up with the old school muscle sedans and would LOVE to have one like that.
Team Mustang Source
Joined: June 19, 2004
Posts: 6,840
Likes: 2
From: Phoenixville, PA
The only thing I disagree with Alan, is that you cannot bring over European Fords (S-Max, Mondeo, Fiesta, etc) and give them solely to Mercury. If you want to help Ford, you have to give these to Ford dealers, since there are ALOT more Ford dealers than there are Mercury dealers. Personally, they should just retilre the Mercury brand (too many cross competing cars in-house) and make Lincoln into a true competitor for Cadillac. Don't kill me for my idea, its JMHO.
Cobra Member
Joined: August 28, 2006
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 1
From: Dallas, TX
The only thing I disagree with Alan, is that you cannot bring over European Fords (S-Max, Mondeo, Fiesta, etc) and give them solely to Mercury. If you want to help Ford, you have to give these to Ford dealers, since there are ALOT more Ford dealers than there are Mercury dealers. Personally, they should just retilre the Mercury brand (too many cross competing cars in-house) and make Lincoln into a true competitor for Cadillac. Don't kill me for my idea, its JMHO.
-danny
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: March 11, 2004
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 1
A long time Ford engineer (>20 years) told me that Mulally understands all the key problems that have hurt Ford for so many years. As long as he can permanently fix the problems, Ford will recover.
Team Mustang Source
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
I understand the fear here, but there will easily still be enough variety accross the global empire to warrant two brand in the US assuming that Ford intends to sell most of their cars in the US market. Put more simply there will almost always be too much variety to offer everything under the Ford badge. It seems like that is why Mulally wants to keep Mercury around
Bullitt Member
Joined: October 15, 2004
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
The only thing I disagree with Alan, is that you cannot bring over European Fords (S-Max, Mondeo, Fiesta, etc) and give them solely to Mercury. If you want to help Ford, you have to give these to Ford dealers, since there are ALOT more Ford dealers than there are Mercury dealers. Personally, they should just retilre the Mercury brand (too many cross competing cars in-house) and make Lincoln into a true competitor for Cadillac. Don't kill me for my idea, its JMHO.
I couldnt agree with this more. They also need to kill off the "corporate grille" it is killing the auto industry in general. Very few companies can pull it off right, and right now Ford is NOT one of them. They need to stop producing rental cars for the masses. I recently saw the new focus at the car show in Dallas, It is one of the ugliest cars I have ever seen.