LOL, you have no idea, and anyone who has been an enthusiast for any amount of time knows that the magazines are full of it. They are never right, and I know Ford better than this.


Really now? You don't know anything about me so you might as well quit assuming things dude.

After seeing Ford's display at SEMA last month, there was no indication they've forgotten their Mustang history.



What does a sig have to do with anything? If I was to list all the mods on My Mustang my sig would be huge, but just to let you know, I'd give you 10 cars and still beat your 05 quite easily with my 2600lb. Fox...

 

What kinds of acknowledgment would that be?

The Mustang engineers play a HUGE role in this, along with the designers who style the car.

I am thinking you probably mean "many managers who control large product development budgets and people effort" are not car people. I would agree that some people at some levels of management slow down or are barriers to the innovation processes in the name of "control". However, I think more people than ever probably have the message at this point that they must listen better to what makes a car desirable to their customers. The entire viability of Ford to continue without going into bankruptcy is the motivation to do that.

In the case of the Mustang, I would wager many are well aware of the brand equity they have.

 

And Autoweek's article was "radioactive"...apparently.

 

One would hope so, but I think it remains to be seen...

 

On the other side, be happy to drive the actual Mustang. At least you have one of the GREATEST cars ever build ! Who cares about the car 2500?

 

Watch the Edge over the next 6 months, check back on the "Fairlane" and B-car in 12-18 months...in my opinion, those vehicles will be the indicators in North America.

 

I agree, the magazines are usually full of it. I was only responding to your post where you called people who were disappointed about a rumor regarding a car they love childish frontrunners, and not Mustang people. I inquired about what kind of car you owned, because after reading your post I doubted you even owned a Mustang. I've got no plans on racing. I actually am satisfied with the car as it is and don't have any more motor mods planned. Luckily, Ford has dispelled the rumor - at least for now. I'm glad they aren't currently planning to destroy over 40 years of history.

 

If that happens, Ford will officially be dead to me. I think this'd tank the company. If they actually get serious, I think a petition would be in order. Ford's made some great decisions (like bringing back the GT40 as the Ford GT), but they've also made some really stupid ones (Like trying to make a FWD Stang (i.e. Ford Probe)).

^ ^ Great idea, but I'd say Ford needs at least one new RWD sedan in it's lineup (maybe a new Crown Vic? ).

 

Never owned a Probe, but drove several of them for extended periods as rentals. It was a GREAT car in its day, but it wasn't in any way shape or form a Mustang.

The problem was Ford the Probe was going to be a Mustang and was going to kill the RWD Stang. If not for the letter writing campagain from Mustang fanatics, Ford would have thrown away its biggest brand fanchise.

 

Sweet. I guess I should probably read the entire thread before posting...

 

Sadly, I fear Ford isn't done yet making stupid decisions.

Not talking about the Mustang, necessarily...just in general. Based upon past history - and a continued proclivity for rampant cost-cutting (not easly relinquished) - my faith in their ability to truly compete on the world stage is diminishing.

I hope Mulally can REALLY turn things around with this company permanently, and not just do a temporary bandage job that buys Ford another decade or so before they're back to their old tricks.

 

Such as...?

Cost-cutting in and of itself is not bad. It's how Toyota, for example, eliminates waste in their production processes. It's when the cuts are taken and the customer experiences them in the their interface and use of the vehicle that it matters.

The North American market is probably the toughest in which to compete. Ford has had its successes in Europe and Australia with various vehicles. Toyota is competing with GM and Ford using North American parts and workers in many of its vehicles but with manufacturing practices that have been honed from their global experience. I think that is what Ford must continue to do - use the benefit of their global experience with Volvo, Mazda, Land Rover, Jaguar, and Aston Martin.

I think the new CEO will make a great intervention by helping to change the culture so that it drives out costs and delay times built into design, engineering, and manufacturing practices. If he's really good, he will ride the wave of those things which have been underway that have resulted in some of the more well-received vehicles - Mustang, F150, Fusion. Transforming a multi-national company takes years, but hopefully he will be hitting his stride by the 2008-09 model years, 12-18 months away. If there is success across a larger number of vehicle lines at that time, then the ship has turned. I think many CEOs of large companies would welcome a "temporary time" of 10 years of ongoing success.

 

For the Mustang fans who've been around for a little while, would you have ever dreamed 15 years ago Ford would be saying this:

 

+1 ...I like the way you think, Tony.

The challenge Mulally faces, IMO, is to culturally change Ford into a leadership mentality (too long to go into here) such that the onld Jacques Nasser milking-the-cash-cow mentality is not only displaced, but that everyone knows how to recognize it.

Our bean-counter friends are essential instrumentation on the good ship Ford, but they are not and cannot be permitted to be a substitute for leadership and vision. Ford has the talent, so the core of the challenge, to my mind, comes down to recognizing the exquisitely fine difference betw 'cost-cutting' and 'milking' -- a seemingly simple but a difficult and (on product lifecycle) an excruciatingly difficult line to manage -- in any complex business, not just Ford.

I genuinely believe HTT "gets it" but the fuzzy borderline betw milking-for-(overextended)-profits versus rolling reinvestment toward leadership is seductive at several levels. Nasser fell for all three: prestige -- stockholders -- profits.

To paraphrase Tom Watson Sr.'s (IBM founder) still vital mandates in his "three profits" speech in the 1920s: profit for our customers whose need for our products brings us revenue; profits for our employees for they are the true resources behind our product; profit for our stockholders for they finance our products; take care of the first two and the last will take care of itself. (clearly Nasser had it backwards at best)

If Mulally can firmly root a leadership mentality throughout the team, their skill and talent will be able to shine in the form of exceptional product. While there's admittedly a distinction between 'philosophy' and 'actuality' the core philosophy must prosper to render clarity throughout the myriad process steps between concept and product -- each step an opportunity to drift off course or stay laser-focussed on the objectives. The Japanese are masters at that and at pulling expense out of the process while staying strategically on-point.

I think Ford will make it, but it will take time, as you point out. It's ironic that the redoing of Ford cannon effectively happen until the 'undoing' of business-as-usual is successful. That 's why it seems like Ford is having so many false starts... ironically, it's a common occurrence and actually an unavoidable part of the process.

Just as an aside, Ford producing a killer H/Boss-bassed '09 Bos Mustang will go a long way toward telling me that not only does HTT "get it" but his has the stature in Ford to manage the milking/leadership line in the current corporate structure. We all know Bunky Knudsen did (back in the day) and surely John Coletti did -- I'm thinking HTT does and/or will ...hard to tell, but I'm having faith based on what I've seen.

The good ship Ford depends on it!

-Dan

 

As far as the world stage goes, Ford's oversea cars are far more exciting than the waterdowned crap we get over here....Think European Ford Focus and Falcon.....They need to spread the love to the HOME MARKET!!!!

 

Ford officially says this wont happen
http://www.fordboldmoves.com/communi...ae02&episode=1



Edit: ooops didn't see the thread a couple below already stating this, LOL

 

Here's look of the new Falcon with 5.4 V8

 

Bingo - EVERYONE, including the UAW, knows how to recognize it.

It is indeed difficult because market conditions change so rapidly (now measured in months rather than years). And it does seem simple in theory but the execution is a challenge because it takes a "learning mentality" to be part of company culture.

Agree 100%

I surmise this is why it is so difficult to get traction and "pull ahead". The mindset of continuous improvement frees up cash for doing the stuff we customers want.

I agree - it's much better than "stay the course"

I hope to see that product in the future as well!!

Indeed it does...

 

Such as?

- Such as fixing engineering issues by model year three at the factory, rather than foisting TSBs onto dealerships, and customers.

- Such as getting their dealerships on a short leash when it comes to ADMS, and product knowledge, and a little thing called "customer service" both when purchasing and servicing the car.

- Such as wasting time, resources and money introducing concept vehicles that will never see the light of day, rather than developing worthwhile production prototypes that can be realistic market leaders.

- Such as Mark Fields wasting company resources flying from Florida to Michigan each day while thousands of employees are being laid off.

I could go on and on...

You're right, Ford STILL hasn't figured out interiors yet. Look at all the little things that people notice missing from the Mustang, like decent interior plastics; a passenger grab handle; a remote fuel filler door (anybody want to siphon some free gas?); a fuel tank that doesn't to this day have to continue to be replaced through a TSB at the dealership; a FULLY painted body; NOT deleting the eyelets that feed the rear shoulder-belts in '06, thus preventing the rear decklid carpets from fraying; higher quality carpets and floormats; a front passenger seat with an auto flip forward function so that rear seat passengers don't have to readjust the position of the seat every time they enter and egress; a plastic brake fluid reservoir that DOESN'T leak...again, I could go on and on and on - and that's but one model. I ask you seriously: If they're cutting this many costs on the things we CAN see...how many costs are being cut where we CAN'T see, perhaps on more critical mechanical parts?

I would submit the North American model is broken. Bad planning, planned obsolescence, bean counter engineering and fat, lazy & greedy executives are as much of the problem as resource costs, UAW concessions and import competition.

I hope you're right. But I hear from insiders from time to time that - Mulally or no Mulally - the rot runs deep, and that products planned for the next few years are still fraught with a mentality that sees cost cutting placed above all other concerns, including engineering innovation, and safety.

 

Beautiful, beautiful cars.