[ZX5chica]

OAC_Sparky,Sep 15 2006, 11:37 AM Wrote:

ZX5chica,Sep 15 2006, 12:30 PM Wrote:I attribute the whole SUV thing to P envy... that's it, that's all... [right][snapback]207232[/snapback][/right]

Funny you mention that. I know a lot of women that hate minivans that have SUVs.

If they have penis envy, does that make them lesbians?


:ph34r:
[right][snapback]207237[/snapback][/right]

No... not lesbians... think about the word 'envy'

To envy something is to want something that you don't have.... generally speaking (although I must admit, I am not an expert in things 'lesbian').... P envy means wanting the P that you don't have, or thinking your P doesn't quite hold up (teeheehee... literally and figuratively)....

So... technically, if they are wanting the P that they don't have... they really wouldn't be considered lesbians... they would, in all senses of the word, be nymphos?? lol :)

So....

Women who drive SUV's = nympho...

Men... attack!!! Get it while the getting is good (and before they make SUV's extinct)

[Flofocus]

are we in kindergarden here? Its penis. Jesus, not P. :P

[OAC_Sparky]

ZTWsquared,Sep 15 2006, 01:38 PM Wrote:Not sure what your premise is ... but Ford in Europe is profitable -- making approximately $200 million in the first half of this year ... and that's with a market share of about half what Ford NA has.[right][snapback]207249[/snapback][/right]

My premise is this.

Ford Europe, while very profitable THIS year, only makes less than 1/5 of the BILLIONS of dollars the NA arm made when it was profitable.

When the situation was reversed, FoE was losing money and Ford NA was profitable, Ford STILL made billions in profit. And at the time FoE was in the same shape as Ford NA is now. Overcapacity with not so great products. Do the research, at the time they was talk of suspending FoE, things were that bad.

Bottom line is -- right or wrongly -- Ford sinks or swims by North American sales.

At the time for the longest time the biggest profit for that arm was SUV sales. And while gas was cheap, all was good. I'm not saying this was a good decision or one I would have made. But that was the decision that was made.

[OAC_Sparky]

ZX5chica,Sep 15 2006, 01:48 PM Wrote:Women who drive SUV's = nympho...
[right][snapback]207251[/snapback][/right]

I'm thinking of renting an SUV. Wanna drive?

[NefCanuck]

I really hope that Ford can learn from this experience going forward. As others have rightly pointed out, Ford NA was for a long time coasting on the SUV profits and allowed their product in other categories to languish badly.

The Fusion was a good first step twoards regaining what they frittered away by allowing the Taurus to march on way past its best before date. I don't forsee the '08+ Focus as much more than a placeholder until Ford reunites the NA & Euro platforms, which IMO is needed for Ford to have any shot at gaining small car respectability.

As for their SUV & truck lineup, the first thing I would invest in is some form of cylinder deactivation technology. Right now even if the real world savings of such a system only manages to be say 20%, I think its still worth the investment.

NefCanuck

[ZTWsquared]

OAC_Sparky,Sep 15 2006, 01:56 PM Wrote:My premise is this. Ford Europe, while very profitable THIS year, only makes less than 1/5 of the BILLIONS of dollars the NA arm made when it was profitable.
And while gas was cheap, all was good. I'm not saying this was a good decision or one I would have made. But that was the decision that was made.
[right][snapback]207255[/snapback][/right]

We're not really disagreeing other than you seem to think that Ford had no other course of action -- I happen to know they did.

I know my Ford history – since 1992 I’ve had a unique opportunity to understand the inner workings at Ford at a senior executive level – and not everything is what it seems; in fact, most things aren’t.

Senior management in Detroit has ignored dire warnings from within its own management for literally decades. There have been dozens of Ford execs who years ago foresaw today’s predicament and long ago recommended the changes Ford is only now making. Many of those warnings originated at Ford Europe.

Once Americans from Detroit figured out they didn’t know how to run Ford in Europe, and put Europeans at the helm, that entity made the necessary changes and became profitable … a position they’ve been in since 2000.

The difference now is that Ford Europe is properly managed and Ford U.S. isn’t.

You’re question was, I believe: “If as you said, Ford is a #1 product abroad, why is it not making money...?”

This is like asking “when did you stop beating your wife?” Your implied premise, that Ford couldn’t be #1 because they don’t make money, is fundamentally flawed because they in fact do make money – the fact that at one time they didn't and whether or not they are number one right now are both irrelevant.

Ford in Europe put itself on the path to profitability a long time ago – making changes that Ford NA is just now contemplating … the fact that Ford Europe drew the road map that Ford NA totally ignored, is that much more of a condemnation of Ford management than simply their sad state now.

Bottom line - Ford's predicament today is solely due to bad management - especially on the product side - and in today's circumstance it is a legitimate comparison to look at Ford Europe and say "that's how it should have been done in North America."

[OAC_Sparky]

ZTWsquared,Sep 15 2006, 03:26 PM Wrote:I know my Ford history – since 1992 I’ve had a unique opportunity to understand the inner workings at Ford at a senior executive level – and not everything is what it seems; in fact, most things aren’t. [right][snapback]207270[/snapback][/right]

It's not my intention to get into a "my dick is bigger than yours" argument, but I'm not entirely ignorant of Ford history myself. My Ford ties go back further than '88 when I started here; my father was IN management since 1970. I'm well aware of how Ford got to where it is.

Quote:The difference now is that Ford Europe is properly managed and Ford U.S. isn’t.

I have no argument with you there, but it goes deeper than that.

Ford's mismanagement goes higher than where it splits between FNA and FoE. Look up "Kwik Fit" and "palladium speculation" and "PeoplePC" and on and on, and you'll see what I mean. Jac Nasser's "sea of white faces" speech. And so on.

Quote:You’re question was, I believe: “If as you said, Ford is a #1 product abroad, why is it not making money...?”

This was in response to:

Drivesthebeast,Sep 15 2006, 11:50 AM Wrote:and they build what CUSTOMERS ASK FOR...not what some fat cats in the states want, or wanted over a decade ago...
[right][snapback]207219[/snapback][/right]

Product lines and development is a balance between what people want now, and what they believe people will want tomorrow. It is nearly as bad being premature on product design (Aztec, Quest, etc) as it is not keeping up with market changes.

Ford made decisions in its Ford NA line based on what North America customers wanted in the NOW (ie at the time). And neglected keeping an eye foreward on the future. What I meant by my statement that you are quoting, is that despite how well FoE does, FNA is the breadwinner. So what "fat cats in the states" want is paramount to Ford's bottom line. Ford's massive profits WAS because it had what the "fat cats" wanted at the time; it however spent that money like a drunken sailor on non-core ventures that resulted in the neglect of today's product line.

Quote:Ford in Europe put itself on the path to profitability a long time ago

It wasn't THAT long ago. However, FoE is much smaller, and could right itself quicker.

[ZTWsquared]

OAC_Sparky,Sep 15 2006, 07:21 PM Wrote:It's not my intention to get into a "my dick is bigger than yours" argument, but I'm not entirely ignorant of Ford history myself. My Ford ties go back further than '88 when I started here; my father was IN management since 1970. I'm well aware of how Ford got to where it is.

Ditto about the nature of the argument – I mentioned I knew my Ford history in response to your “do the research” comment.

For me this is about an exchange of knowledge, nothing more. I am interested in your point of view and value it, but I do think you were being overly critical of Drivesthebeast’s comments, and I also think you're mistaken as to the difference between Ford NA and Ford Europe.

BTW - if your dad spent any time with Ken Harrigan, Jim O'Connor, Mark Hutchins, Bobbie Gaunt and/or Alain Batty - then we undoubtedly know each other and perhaps even worked together. If he wasn't on the fifth or sixth floor at COB however, then probably not. And FWIW – my perspective comes from spending time and working directly with all the aforementioned execs.

Yes … Nasser’s “cradle to grave strategy” did detract from Ford’s investments in product development. Even in Canada that strategy resulted in debacles like Young Drivers and Green_____ auto recycling.

But even so, Ford of Europe now has exciting, competitive vehicles in every important segment of their market. Compare that to NA; for the past decade Ford NA has knowingly ignored 50% of the market by seriously short-changing the development of cars.

And they decided to do that, not because of Kwik-Fit or Young Drivers, but because it was more expedient to cover legacy costs, and the cost of inefficiency and over capacity by focusing solely on high profit trucks and SUVs, and glamourous low volume niche vehicles.

Well that strategy didn’t work … they sold lots of trucks and SUVs but they still have to close plants, layoff tens of thousands of salaried, buy off as many hourly as they can … share value has tanked … Ford bonds are deep into junk territory … and they still don’t have a competitive car lineup in NA.

I’ve got a lot more info but it’s getting late and anyone reading this is probably cross-eyed by now …

Bottom line: I think that fundamentally Drivesthebeast is right – Ford Europe is selling a full-range of exciting, competitive vehicles appropriate to their market and that’s in stark contrast to what’s happening here. And it is IMO no coincidence that Ford Europe is profitable and Ford NA isn’t.

We will probably have to agree to disagree … but if you think this is all because Nasser decided to invest in non-core ventures, I think you are seriously mistaken.

And IMO you would also be mistaken if you think things wouldn't be substantially different for Ford NA had they followed the same strategy as Ford Europe.

[CanadaSVT]

:fluffy:

[CanadaSVT]

ZTWsquared,Sep 16 2006, 02:44 AM Wrote:BTW - if your dad spent any time with Ken Harrigan,
[right][snapback]207306[/snapback][/right]

Hey, I used to clean Harrigan's office and shared the elevator with him a few times back when I was 16 in high school. He was one of the few up there that actually talked with me.
Did you know Malcom Wootton. He only worked on the fourth floor, but you couldn't miss his green and white '74 Ford Econoline Funcraft in the parking lot. B)

[meford4u]

Did you know my father when he worked there? Were going back about 15 years ago he retired. Ralph Hogge. Daily Rentals and Leasing.

[ZTWsquared]

CanadaSVT,Sep 16 2006, 11:11 AM Wrote:Did you know Malcom Wootton[right][snapback]207323[/snapback][/right]

meford4u,Sep 16 2006, 11:45 AM Wrote:Did you know Ralph Hogge.  Daily Rentals and Leasing.
[right][snapback]207326[/snapback][/right]

Actually the name Wootton rings a bell – CSO? PM sent.

Hogge not – maybe we missed each due to timing, but also the closest I got to fleet was working for the VP General Marketing which was Udo Kaul when I started there and then John Radford. Bryan – PM sent.

[meford4u]

ZTWsquared,Sep 16 2006, 12:36 PM Wrote:

CanadaSVT,Sep 16 2006, 11:11 AM Wrote:Did you know Malcom Wootton[right][snapback]207323[/snapback][/right]

meford4u,Sep 16 2006, 11:45 AM Wrote:Did you know Ralph Hogge.  Daily Rentals and Leasing.
[right][snapback]207326[/snapback][/right]

Actually the name Wootton rings a bell – CSO? PM sent.

Hogge not – maybe we missed each due to timing, but also the closest I got to fleet was working for the VP General Marketing which was Udo Kaul when I started there and then John Radford. Bryan – PM sent.
[right][snapback]207330[/snapback][/right]

John Radford was my dad's boss.

[OAC_Sparky]

My dad was involved in Powertrain )Windsor Ops( in the 70s to mid-80's, didn't have much to do with COB. He was involved in the launches of Essex Engine, Dearborn Assembly for the Escort/Lynx and at the time reported directly to Detroit.

I would doubt very much that you would have known him.