TomServo92

It's an interesting read:

http://wardsauto.com/commentary/ford_ahead_gm/

Knight

interesting read.

I think fords quality has been doing awesome and the only thing that is noticable bad on fords part to a majority of its cars has been its powertrains. And they rolled out the D35 which was huge and now the boss and ecoboost engines coming soon that will match if not better the competition putting them in an awesome place of quality made vehicles with best of industry powertrains.

Yea FORD!

Zastava_101

Ford should do something about their truck's engines since they play a big part in Fords sales.
I know 6.2 and 4.4 diesel are coming, but 2010 or 2011 might be little too late. It's pretty embarrassing that F-150's top engine in 300 hp while GM offers 403 hp, Toyota 381 hp, Dodge 380 hp and even Nissan 317 hp. Heck, you can even order Dakota now with 310 hp.

jsaylor

I called this some time ago, and of course got flamed by more than a few for it.
Ford's plans to turn the company back into a money maker which sets itself apart from the crowd are far more solid and sensible than are GM's. This lead was completely solidified IMO when Ford unveiled their plans for the sweeping Ecoboost lineup. I've long stated that what Ford and GM both need is something which sets their cars both apart from and ahead of the competition, and Ecoboost could and should do exactly that. Even better, like all great ideas the beneficial image, and reality, of Ecoboost is certain to spread outward where it will cast much of that same goodness across the Ford engine lineup as a whole. Couple this with other well-advised strategies...like lighter future platforms and turbo diesels in the truck lineup....and you have a very good strategy for FoMoCo as a whole. And while some rivals are embracing these same ideas, the fact that Ford is first or close to it in nearly all of them is hugely advantageous.

GM is still too mired in the LS series V8 engines, and too stymied by some spanking new platforms which are unfortunately already outdated because they are heavy and expensive, to be able to counter quickly IMHO. The irony here being that more than a few of GM's once lauded strengths are now causing them great pain in more than a few areas. My only worry is that Mulally still seems like a short term solution to Ford's CEO problems to me. When it comes to business organization and streamlining he is brilliant, but many things important for an automotive CEO to understand are lost on him. Short term this is worth the trade, but once Ford is healthy again Ford needs to know when to say when lest some of his ideas do more damage than good.

Moosetang

I figured we were heading this way after GM posted its $31-Billion loss last year and said it probably wouldn't be the only time we see a loss like that. Bob Putz's product drive has created some nice products, but at hugely inflated cost and without real restructuring. The result is that they have little to show other than a handful of nice niche products and a couple nice volume ones.

Hollywood_North GT

Well, to play devil's advocate, three important points from that article you're all downplaying:

1) The fat lady hasn't sung yet; let's see how it all shakes out after both companies have completed their turnarounds.

2) As McElroy himself pointed out: "Personally, I believe GM’s design and products are more attractive than Ford’s. And I believe GM is solidly in front when it comes to product technology." In terms of long-term sales, this will be the more important factor.

3) General Motors Acceptance Corp is a big part of the reason for GM's heavy deficit load - and it's one they knew they were going to have to endure.

But, of course, the good news here is that there is great cause for optimism re Ford. Now if their North American wing could just churn out more appealing/advanced product...

TomServo92

What I read from that article is that while GM has been churning out product, they really haven't addressed the way they do business. Long term, that could be a problem. Ford OTOH, has been quietly re-engineering their product development in the background which is why you see efforts like the new Focus, Escape, and Taurus today. They're not bad but far from outstanding. From a long term perspective, Ford is doing the right thing and I'll think we'll see the benefits of that in the 2010-12 timeframe.

jacostang

Ford’s Turnaround Edging Ahead of GM’s
By John McElroy
WardsAuto.com, Mar 24, 2008 11:09 AM
Commentary

Ever since Bob Lutz landed at General Motors I’ve been watching the auto maker make great progress with the products it sells.
Today GM’s design, engineering and manufacturing operations are humming in coordinated unison like they never have before. Even more impressively, they’re doing it on a global basis.
ADVERTISEMENT

Meanwhile, across town, Ford is trying to do the same. But it got started much later and still hasn’t turned out products that are as impressive as GM’s. This led me to think that GM was at least one design cycle, about three years, ahead of Ford as they both struggle to turn themselves around.
But now I believe that in the last six months or so Ford has edged ahead of GM. Here’s why:
Last year, Ford grew its revenue by a staggering $14 billion. At GM, income actually dropped. In fact, in total revenue, Ford at $174 billion is catching up to GM at $181 billion. And it’s catching up fast. One more repeat of last year, and Ford actually will be bigger than GM on a revenue basis, though admittedly this is partly due to GM selling half of General Motors Acceptance Corp.
Even more impressively, once you get out of North America, Ford is a solidly profitable company. Last year, it earned nearly $1 billion in Europe; made more than $1 billion in South America; turned a profit in Asia/Pacific; put its Premium Automotive Group in the black; and while down, its financial operations still made more than $1 billion in profit.
The icing on the cake is Mazda now is making good money and Ford gets part of those earnings, as well.
All those profits will greatly help Ford fix its North American operations. No small task, but it is making progress every quarter. This is especially true in quality, where both Consumer Reports magazine and J.D. Power are showing a significant surge for the company – far better than GM.
Meanwhile, in addition to watching its revenue fall, GM lost money in Europe. Watch for more cuts to come at that troubled operation. Interestingly, GM made more profit in Brazil last year than it did in China, even though all the company’s propaganda has been touting how well it’s doing in the Middle Kingdom.
On the finance side, GMAC pulled the company deep into the red. What this all shows is that even when GM fixes its North American automotive operations, it still has a lot of other work to do.
Personally, I believe GM’s design and products are more attractive than Ford’s. And I believe GM is solidly in front when it comes to product technology.
But when I stand back and look at how well each auto maker is doing from a business standpoint, there’s no question Ford has edged ahead of GM. Six months ago, I couldn’t say that.
John McElroy is editorial director of Blue Sky Productions and producer of “Autoline Detroit” for WTVS-Channel 56, Detroit, and Speed Channel.

Hollywood_North GT

Personally, I see this less as a competition, and more as evidence that both companies are at least finally serious about turning the corner when it comes to end product for consumers - they're just using different approaches on different timelines. Both GM and Ford need to survive - competition between them is good for both of them - cause I'm not sure Chrysler is going to, frankly.

TomServo92

I don't see it as a competition either. I was pointing out the two different approaches and why I think Ford is doing it the right way. Frankly, I see GMs product push as more of a reflection of the will of Bob Lutz than a fundamental change in the product development process.

Evil_Capri

Jacostang, TomServo beat you to the punch. I am going to merge threads in 'Other Fords' section, but will leave a link for a day . . . .