Post-2016 Falcon News and Discussion.

[Nikked]

50 years of Falcon, looking Ford

I often think, as not just a Ford site, but a site with a large following of Falcon fans, why there is such a need for creating a new thread every time a "journo" has a brain fart, and has his 2c voiced.

Social media is a big thing these days, I can't imagine it helps having one of the largest sites seeming to relay these type of articles, repeating the shock headlines as topic titles.

So...


Hopefully, with the mods backing, this thread could become a sticky, a place where anything relating to anything to do with speculation about whats happening now, and how it relates to post 2016.

• To try to keep the peace, leave snide remarks out of here (Ie, "I want a ###, so i don't care about the Falcon" etc).
• Try to contribute with thought out ideas,
• No witch hunting (like blaming immigration...lulwut )
• We already know of the "failings" of the advertising etc, so i guess we could think of ways, as a site and members how we can try to spread more positive news around the place etc. But don't get bogged down on bashing Fords PR department
• Also, hopefully Ford's PR department might be able to share there comments here aswell.
• And or course, make this the drop off point for any article of interest.

Ok that's all, lets see how this goes.


I'll refine some concept sketches off a Post-2017 falcon design too when i get a chance Feel free to do the same.

[P6LTD351]

Good idea

[Road_Warrior]

Any way you look at it, the E8 platform will be out of life at the end of 2016 as it will be 8 years old by that time. Longer if you count the age of some systems such as the IRS unit and powertrains. You could refresh it with a new IRS unit from the Mustang, corporate engines and a new series of powertrains, but this could be problematic and pointless for reasons I will detail.

This means that FoA will either need to develop a replacement for it (i.e. a RWD large car) or formulate a strategy to replace it with another product.

The premise is that Dearborn will offer both the Mustang and a sedan spinoff from that car (probably made in the US for global markets), there would be no need or reason for FoA to bear the crippling cost of another $700-$800 Million development budget for an all new RWD sedan, unless it is to be exported in lieu of a car from US plants.

With this in mind, it is possible for FoA to produce a global vehicle after this date, for consumption in the ASEAN region and anywhere else who wants the car. Thai plants are fully engaged producing mass-market cars for global markets and are at near capacity. Ford's plant in China that makes the current Mondeo is also fully committed to production for the Chinese domestic market, and with the exploding Chinese new car market, which will surpass the entire North American new car market in a few years, they will need to hang onto all the capacity they can get.

This global vehicle could be the next generation Ford Mondeo/Fusion, on Ford’s new CD4 platform. This would allow FoA to build a Mondeo (or Fusion) hatch, wagon and an SUV variant (next gen Edge?) for regional consumption. You could even build these alongside a next gen Falcon if you were so inclined...

The engine plant could be reconfigured to do something else (assembling CD4 powertrain modules for instance, and Broady still needs a satellite assembly facility) and making better use of the manufacturing asset and its 120,000 unit capacity would turn a lame duck car making outfit into a muscular regional enterprise. Ford's operations in Europe are about to go through a painful restructuring process, a lot like what Ford Australia has/is going through now, and one of the plants that is rumoured for the axe is Genk (the other is Southampton). Genk has a labor contract to build Mondeo's up until 2014. Nevertheless, if Ford wants the CD4 to fire as a global vehicle in all markets, it needs to distribute manufacturing capacity to alleviate supply problems and ensure consumers get timely access to vehicles.

[Luke Plaizier]

So, what form do we think a new Falcon should take?

(1) Reskin the current RWD for export, import interior technology from Taurus and wire it for local use? It's been reskinned before just to survive. But I don't think that will be enough any more - the public want blinking lights and 'everyting has been re-engineered new even if for no reason' changes.

(2) Reskin a Mondeo - We know that large cars are going out of favour - they are not as frugal as smaller cars, and not as practical as SUV's. So we latch onto a Mondeo and just localise it. Or is this too transparent? We have the Mondeo name now - let's just stick with it?

(3) Engineer 4 Door version of the Mustang - Mustang is going global, and rumours of a 4 door version abound. Why not just become the worldwide source of either the 4 door Mustang or RHD versions of all?

(4) Engineer and rebadge the AWD Taurus to have RWD and V8 variant. You could just take the front driveshafts out and beef up the rear diff/tailshaft, and you'd have a RWD Taurus right? So OK, the V6 will be transverse - but does that matter? But the big question is - would a Miami fit in there? It would certainly have the cowl height (by the looks of it anyway), but width is the big question. But just think - how awesome would a real AWD Miami Taurus/Falcon be? Australia's contribution to Taurus/Falcon could well be V8 or RWD engineering...and RHD global sales.


Lukeyson

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Luke Plaizier

(4) Engineer and rebadge the AWD Taurus to have RWD and V8 variant. You could just take the front driveshafts out and beef up the rear diff/tailshaft, and you'd have a RWD Taurus right? So OK, the V6 will be transverse - but does that matter? But the big question is - would a Miami fit in there? It would certainly have the cowl height (by the looks of it anyway), but width is the big question. But just think - how awesome would a real AWD Miami Taurus/Falcon be? Australia's contribution to Taurus/Falcon could well be V8 or RWD engineering...and RHD global sales.

Lukeyson

Or, you could glue a variation of Falcon engine bay onto a next gen Taurus, use non-powered front struts.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by Luke Plaizier

(3) Engineer 4 Door version of the Mustang - Mustang is going global, and rumours of a 4 door version abound. Why not just become the worldwide source of either the 4 door Mustang or RHD versions of all?

Lukeyson

Hell yeah !

[Grunter]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Hell yeah !

image

That's actually looks pretty good (colour aside). Don't know how I'd go squeezing 3 car seats in the back, but I'd like to try!

[FPV GTHO]

The idea of basically taking a FWD vehicle and either putting in a longitudinal/RWD layout or even running a transverse RWD layout using existing AWD gear is often brought up in the states and is shot down every time.

[Polyal]

Post #6 wins for me.

IMO there is only one long term solution if they want to fix the problem.

Ford gets it act together and recognizes that a GWRD can be used for multiple brands and in particular those that promote a premium feel. You have Mustang, Falcon, Lincoln that all need sorting and can be done in one foul blow. You have China popping up..surely a proper clean sheet Lincoln could sell there (and globally) if priced right. Ford have all the tech..just needs putting together. If BMW and Merc can make the 5 series and E class work then IMO there is NO reason why Ford cant cut their lunch by doing it properly.

Most importantly of all, Ford need to realise that just having a product isnt good enough, it needs to be pushed.

How does that tie in with us? Well I think we should just get a globally designed car and deal with the good and bad that comes with that.

To save manufacturing..then we use the platform, all the tech, but do the body work ourselves. Will we still lose jobs, yeap, but not as much as the alternative.

The major issue IMO with manufacturing is that it makes no sense to retool here when you do so in another plant around the world that is massively cheaper than what we can do. It just doesnt make business sense.

_______________

About the Mustang....can anyone here think of a good reason why there is a BOSS302 in Oz? What system, or parts would they be benchmarking or testing? It makes no sense...they dont do those things for the heck of it.

[ivorya]

It doesn't matter what car they give us, they just need to MARKET the thing.

Also, (i don't mean to be negative and looking into the future), Ford has dissapointed 1 generation already (pulling the v8 out) and look at dissapointing another (No Aussie made vehicle), How do they expect the people of today to want to buy their product (in the future) if they treated them this way?

[BHDOGS]

the aussie population doesnt care about that ivorya they want the cheapest with the most stuff for there money simple brand loyalty is for suckers these days

[IDT]

I like Magpies work. I'd go one of those for $40k.

[Pandemic]

I'd like them to bring more technology to Australia, such as the stuff from the other thread, especially considering we're paying double to what the Americans pay, we deserve the same technology.

[IDT]

If Ford was going to continue to either assemble or build cars in Australia I think they should concentrate on the Commercial and 4WD markets.

Afterall, its what we aussies know best. It would be a great marketing tool for exports.

The toughest utes designed, tested and built on the toughest continent by the toughest people for the toughest client YOU!
BUILT FORD AUSSIE TOUGH!

Imagine the FPV Versions

[FPV GTHO]

Can't see Broady going to any sort of BOF architecture. Would surely require too much investment to be made to the plant and assembly line.

[Luke Plaizier]

This is an extract from the book description for a book called "Ford Motor Company: The Greatest Corporate Turnaround In U.S. History" ISBN10:1460975731

"In 2006, Ford had reached a state it had not experienced since the late 1920s and 1945--declining profits, uncompetitive cost structure, poor product quality, unattractive cars, unhappy dealers, dissatisfied suppliers and Ford’s factories lagged behind competition. Clearly, Mr. Mulally was confronted with “Mission Impossible.” In addition, Ford was boxed in by: $17 billion in Automotive debt, a deep slump in introducing high-volume and exciting new cars, and facing lower-cost aggressive Asian rivals. With this 40-year review of the U.S./Ford history, the stage was set to talk about Mulally- his strategy, philosophy, and action plan, and how he accomplished it. William Clay Ford Jr. and Mr. Mulally bet the farm in December 2006 with a “hey, buddy, can you spare a dime” $23.5 billion home equity loan – an all or nothing gamble. This action literally saved Ford, because it allowed the company to develop its most competitive product line-up history, including the long-neglected small car segment."

So it would seem management is not adverse to pumping money in when the chips are down and they are up against the wall. Other than the debt - Ford Australia doesn't haveany debt as far as I know - it seems erily similar doesn't it.


Lukeyson

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Luke Plaizier

This is an extract from the book description for a book called "Ford Motor Company: The Greatest Corporate Turnaround In U.S. History" ISBN10:1460975731

"In 2006, Ford had reached a state it had not experienced since the late 1920s and 1945--declining profits, uncompetitive cost structure, poor product quality, unattractive cars, unhappy dealers, dissatisfied suppliers and Ford’s factories lagged behind competition. Clearly, Mr. Mulally was confronted with “Mission Impossible.” In addition, Ford was boxed in by: $17 billion in Automotive debt, a deep slump in introducing high-volume and exciting new cars, and facing lower-cost aggressive Asian rivals. With this 40-year review of the U.S./Ford history, the stage was set to talk about Mulally- his strategy, philosophy, and action plan, and how he accomplished it. William Clay Ford Jr. and Mr. Mulally bet the farm in December 2006 with a “hey, buddy, can you spare a dime” $23.5 billion home equity loan – an all or nothing gamble. This action literally saved Ford, because it allowed the company to develop its most competitive product line-up history, including the long-neglected small car segment."

So it would seem management is not adverse to pumping money in when the chips are down and they are up against the wall. Other than the debt - Ford Australia doesn't haveany debt as far as I know - it seems erily similar doesn't it.


Lukeyson

The thing is there that Ford knew it needed to turn around its US operations first and foremost because without it, there would be no Ford. All the regional outposts wouldnt be able to survive without head office.

Now that US is sorted, they can concentrate on reorganising and revitalising its regional operations. Right now, we're enduring the same sort of painful restructuring the US did, albeit on a much smaller scale. Europe will be next and that is going to be very painful.

[Luke Plaizier]

Agreed.

The point being, I'd be inclined to think that they'll give Australia a go at being competitive, rather than just cut and shut.


Lukeyson

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Luke Plaizier

Agreed.

The point being, I'd be inclined to think that they'll give Australia a go at being competitive, rather than just cut and shut.


Lukeyson

Indeed. IMO they've invested too much here to shut and run.

And as I've said elsewhere, FoA's manufacturing facilities are horribly under-utilised, have the capacity to do more, given the right products. Efficient use of an asset you already own makes good sense. They need to change the manufacturing distribution in our region from having multiple plants making the same car, to multiple plants making different cars. I.E. giving one plant the "ownership" of a particular vehicle line.

A similar situation existed in the US, they had plants all over the place making the same or similar cars. They were then forced to rationalise, redistribute manufacturing responsibility to single and satellite plants, and went on a flurry of shuttering those facilities that werent worth upgrading or surplus to requirements after the restructure.

[Brazen]

The problem with a lot of these theories, is that it doesnt really deal with the elephant in the room - the high Australian dollar.

With a high Australian dollar, it is very hard for Ford AU to become a regional manufacturing hub for basically any mainstream vehicle as it will be very expensive to export. Instead they have to build a car focused purely on domestic consumption and high-margin niche exports.

In a way something like the Falcon makes sense to continue building - use a Ecoboost G6E and make it a premium Ford product for the ASEAN region. A couple of thousand sales per country would add significant value to the assets.

Send FPVs or XR8s to Europe as a Falcon ST, these would be a hit, they have to be big, bold and brash to be a viable alternative to the sea of grey provided by the German makes in the saloon market. Provide a few to various motorway patrols as a high-exposure marketing move.

Something like a Mondeo or Fusion built here is a waste of time, as any other country can build these. Instead they really need to focus on what they do best - building some of the best rear-wheel-drive cars in the world.

[jmack]

so by saying the hi aust dollar is a problem ,when a lot of parts are from oseas therefore cheaper to import, which hasnt bought our prices down, but increases export prices.i dont htink it matters where the dollar is we still get fed the same dribble dollars hi exports to dear dollars down higher cost to import.its a game with moving goal posts

[Joe5619]

I know the dollor is high, however it would be very near sighted to think it will stay this high.. God only knows what it will be in 2016.. Also, I know the AUD to high to the USD, but what currency do they mainly use in Asia countries for trade deals & is the AUD high compared to them??

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

I know the dollor is high, however it would be very near sighted to think it will stay this high.. God only knows what it will be in 2016..

Precisely.

[BroadyFord]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

I know the dollor is high, however it would be very near sighted to think it will stay this high.. God only knows what it will be in 2016.. Also, I know the AUD to high to the USD, but what currency do they mainly use in Asia countries for trade deals & is the AUD high compared to them??

Asian trade deals are done mainly in USD (family has an import business).

People are also forgetting the issue of input costs, i.e. electricity which have skyrocketed over the last 2-3 years; some are even suggesting Australia will soon have the highest electricity prices in the world (we're already at number 3 from what I've seen).

I agree that government policy is going to be absolutely crucial for any future investment to occur but with the election next year there is a lot of uncertainty - the Libs have pledged to cut $500 million from the ATS and have not committed to extending co-investment past 2015. Ford would need to strike a deal with the current government for funding post-2016 that would bind any future government into a contract that cannot be undone.

But the worrying thing is that just about everything is working against having a viable and profitable manufacturing operation at this point in time - high AUD, high input costs, unreasonable unions, low productivity, intense competition, low tariffs... the list goes on and on.

Mulally says here (from 20:55) that there needs to be conditions in place that make Ford plants competitive otherwise work "should" go somewhere else, which at the moment does not bode well for FoA.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by BroadyFord

Mulally says here (from 20:55) that there needs to be conditions in place that make Ford plants competitive otherwise work "should" go somewhere else, which at the moment does not bode well for FoA.

Different situation to US plants.
It's not so much about being competitive...
It's about having sufficient demand to justify a production plant.

[BroadyFord]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Different situation to US plants.
It's not so much about being competitive...
It's about having sufficient demand to justify a production plant.

...which at the moment we don't have.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by BroadyFord

...which at the moment we don't have.

Precisely, the problem is now not 2016.

Has anyone worked out yet that 148/month might not be low enough?

No advertising of Ecoboost/EcoLPI, or even XR6 Falcon and people are still waiting for the other shoe to drop..
Anyone wanting to know what I mean only have to re read some of Joe Hindrichs comments from earlier this year.

[Polyal]

So can someone explain why it would be a good idea to have a GWRD program, which surely blind freddy can see would help Ford globally, and manufacturer the car here and as well as in a cheaper country?

Why would you not do the R&D here and manufacture it else where?

Our manufacturing is not under utilized..its just to expensive. Give me a minute ill get a pic that was sent to me earlier in the week, ill try and confirm the source.

edit..here is the graph.



Assuming Asian countries etc are cheaper again.....why would you say build the focus here and not in Thailand?

In addition, where do BMW and Merc build their cars?

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by Polyal

So can someone explain why it would be a good idea to have a GWRD program, which surely blind freddy can see would help Ford globally, and manufacturer the car here and as well as in a cheaper country?

Why would you not do the R&D here and manufacture it else where?

Our manufacturing is not under utilized..its just to expensive. Give me a minute ill get a pic that was sent to me earlier in the week, ill try and confirm the source.

edit..here is the graph.

image

Assuming Asian countries etc are cheaper again.....why would you say build the focus here and not in Thailand?

In addition, where do BMW and Merc build there cars?

Labour is only a small component of high value manufactured goods. Things like political stability, natural disasters, currency fluctuations, input costs, access to capital/financing, access to high-skilled labour, government funding and others are MUCH bigger issues. We just like to focus on labour costs.

Government policy or grants are usually the main reason for location decisions in car making.

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by Polyal

So can someone explain why it would be a good idea to have a GWRD program, which surely blind freddy can see would help Ford globally, and manufacturer the car here and as well as in a cheaper country?

Why would you not do the R&D here and manufacture it else where?

Our manufacturing is not under utilized..its just to expensive. Give me a minute ill get a pic that was sent to me earlier in the week, ill try and confirm the source.

edit..here is the graph.

image

Assuming Asian countries etc are cheaper again.....why would you say build the focus here and not in Thailand?

In addition, where do BMW and Merc build their cars?

Originally Posted by Brazen

Labour is only a small component of high value manufactured goods. Things like political stability, natural disasters, currency fluctuations, input costs, access to capital/financing, access to high-skilled labour, government funding and others are MUCH bigger issues. We just like to focus on labour costs.

Government policy or grants are usually the main reason for location decisions in car making.

Also, note those prices are in USD.. So they could change greatly with currency changes.. And surely there is only one way to go for the AUD & this would change this graph by big amounts..