Sexy Lincoln
10-15-2014, 03:32 PM
#41
Putting innovation in the spotlight sells. And with Millennials... innovation speaks louder as a proven concept.
I think we may have cross posted as my last reply actually answers some of your points. All good from both sides of the fence. In the end... Ford is doing very well. By comparison ... GM is not where it should be or where it needs to be.
I think we may have cross posted as my last reply actually answers some of your points. All good from both sides of the fence. In the end... Ford is doing very well. By comparison ... GM is not where it should be or where it needs to be.
10-15-2014, 03:32 PM
#42
Gentleman's Relish
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 13,090
A new Division within the Parent company whose goal is to test and prove concepts prior to bringing those concepts to market. The internal black ops test mule division for a myriad of projects that without a dedicated budget and team to drive those ideas to market would otherwise fizzle away and be forgotten.
Two ballsy approaches in the F150 and the push into foreign markets with the Mustang required perhaps the 5 years or more to test and prove it to themselves internally. Much of what we're seeing now was not transparent for years prior. Had there been transparency through a dedicated proof of concept with a dedicated innovation driven division it may have come to market quicker since most of the time wasted was on market research. Allow the Market to weight in...and things happen faster. Its how crowd sourced and funded upstarts happen.
A resurrected moniker for a new division is not the same as bringing back a brand. They would effectively be reinventing "Mercury". But for the sake of argument...they can call it whatever they want and the approach would be the same. And the transparency offered would drive the public's demand for improvement over what they currently have. Being able to see for themselves just what is in the pipeline is innovative in and of itself. And it would offer immediate feedback on whether there would be any demand for these concepts and much less time wasted.
Basically.... those innovative concepts can be anything from a new infotainment system to an auto drive system to an EV initiative. ANYTHING that will address the wants and needs of the millennials which are their largest demographic audience at the moment and are the most sustainable earth minded audience the world has ever met.
Elon Musk is the man taking risks right now.... And using a common approach for the funding and the risks. Half of every dime invested is his own. He's willing to take the gamble with his own money and anyone who wants in knows that his risk is an educated one. He's not taking it to lose.
The Tesla S is more than fit and trim.... its a concept that proves the EV can exist in this world and that there is a demand. And the way he targets a direct buy philosophy completely pisses off the State run control that has gone out out control for so long that its corrupted. People don't like the middle man approach anymore. Its dated and not attractive.
The Tesla D is the next evolution of the concept Elon Musk set out to prove with the Model S. And From the initial feedback of it's intro this past week.... the fit and trim issue has been addressed. Along with performance and convenience. Attainability has not been addressed
Innovation from FoMoCo would be to take what is learned from this guy and make it more attainable. Something along the lines of a BMW i8 at the price of a Ford Fusion.
GM hit the nail on the head when they built and delivered on the EV1. It was so far ahead of its time and it was proof in motion and in the real world. What killed it.... The Petroleum Industry and the vice grip they had on the ******* of every auto manufacturer. The EV1 was what the Tesla is now. And had GM had the ***** then to roll with it and tell the Petrol Industry to screw themselves.... Then the Tesla you're complaining about today from a quality perspective would have been addressed decades ago. Literally.
just saying
---
Two ballsy approaches in the F150 and the push into foreign markets with the Mustang required perhaps the 5 years or more to test and prove it to themselves internally. Much of what we're seeing now was not transparent for years prior. Had there been transparency through a dedicated proof of concept with a dedicated innovation driven division it may have come to market quicker since most of the time wasted was on market research. Allow the Market to weight in...and things happen faster. Its how crowd sourced and funded upstarts happen.
A resurrected moniker for a new division is not the same as bringing back a brand. They would effectively be reinventing "Mercury". But for the sake of argument...they can call it whatever they want and the approach would be the same. And the transparency offered would drive the public's demand for improvement over what they currently have. Being able to see for themselves just what is in the pipeline is innovative in and of itself. And it would offer immediate feedback on whether there would be any demand for these concepts and much less time wasted.
Basically.... those innovative concepts can be anything from a new infotainment system to an auto drive system to an EV initiative. ANYTHING that will address the wants and needs of the millennials which are their largest demographic audience at the moment and are the most sustainable earth minded audience the world has ever met.
Elon Musk is the man taking risks right now.... And using a common approach for the funding and the risks. Half of every dime invested is his own. He's willing to take the gamble with his own money and anyone who wants in knows that his risk is an educated one. He's not taking it to lose.
The Tesla S is more than fit and trim.... its a concept that proves the EV can exist in this world and that there is a demand. And the way he targets a direct buy philosophy completely pisses off the State run control that has gone out out control for so long that its corrupted. People don't like the middle man approach anymore. Its dated and not attractive.
The Tesla D is the next evolution of the concept Elon Musk set out to prove with the Model S. And From the initial feedback of it's intro this past week.... the fit and trim issue has been addressed. Along with performance and convenience. Attainability has not been addressed
Innovation from FoMoCo would be to take what is learned from this guy and make it more attainable. Something along the lines of a BMW i8 at the price of a Ford Fusion.
GM hit the nail on the head when they built and delivered on the EV1. It was so far ahead of its time and it was proof in motion and in the real world. What killed it.... The Petroleum Industry and the vice grip they had on the ******* of every auto manufacturer. The EV1 was what the Tesla is now. And had GM had the ***** then to roll with it and tell the Petrol Industry to screw themselves.... Then the Tesla you're complaining about today from a quality perspective would have been addressed decades ago. Literally.
just saying
---
Tesla is the perfect example and you highlighted this yourself. The Tesla D is the evolution of the original concept. The concept itself was innovative but was privately funded. Tesla D is now publicly funded so it has to be an evolution, not an entirely new innovation. The public wouldn't stand for it and Tesla would go bankrupt.
That whole Tesla model took 10 years for fruition. An existing public company does not have 10 years to bring something to market, or even 5 years. Nope, they have to have product ready to sell or product that already has orders ready to be picked up as manufactured.
BTW it wasn't the Petro industry that killed the EV1.
It was poor decision making on CARB which was ironically the EV1 side as well as GM's own profit (there's that darn word again) margin calculations.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/electriccar.htm
You can check out the book at your local library...or e-read it.
10-15-2014, 03:35 PM
#43
Gentleman's Relish
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 13,090
Putting innovation in the spotlight sells. And with Millennials... innovation speaks louder as a proven concept.
I think we may have cross posted as my last reply actually answers some of your points. All good from both sides of the fence. In the end... Ford is doing very well. By comparison ... GM is not where it should be or where it needs to be.
I think we may have cross posted as my last reply actually answers some of your points. All good from both sides of the fence. In the end... Ford is doing very well. By comparison ... GM is not where it should be or where it needs to be.
The problem with most millennials (not all) is that they don't get that a proven concept doesn't necessarily sell. It does for small things but not capital expenses.
Shark Tank has tons of proven concepts that are brought to the show to sell or get backing to Sell, fewer than 10% actually get a deal to move forward.
Like I said, I understand your point about innovation but not about creating a whole new division for it. Maybe it's just my Gen X skepticism.
10-15-2014, 06:37 PM
#44
10-15-2014, 06:50 PM
#45
Fortunately, there are other forces in play that drive innovation. For example, customers will always demand better fuel mileage especially since gas at the pump exceeds $3 (long gone are the days of $1 per gallon). Customers will also always demand reduced maintenance costs (which is why we have the 100K mile tune-ups).
Regulations will always place forces on car makers to meet ever more stringent emissions standards. The same is true for vehicle safety.
Then there are the usual market forces in play: What is the competition doing and what are they offering in their cars?
What additional features do the consumers want? Heated seats? better radios? Hands-free phone and bluetooth? Built-in navigation? etc.
As for Ford and GM, or even adding Chrysler into the comparison, yes, I agree. Ford is much better off. The profit to company costs are much better for Ford even though GM at times brings in more money.
10-16-2014, 09:33 AM
#46
BMW has their "M" division, Mercedes has their "AMG" Division. Volkswagon has "Bugatti" and "Lamborghini". And every dare to challenge the status quo is taken on by these elite divisions. To push the envelope of what is taken for granted today and show that lighter materials not only translate into better fuel economy, but also better performance for tomorrow.
You want to see boosting used not only to provide gobs of power, but also to provide a power band so smoothe that it requires less fuel to get to the sweet spot. And what goes into making those race cars safer for the professional drivers also translates into safety for the daily driver as well. These are the things that sell today.
And these are established branded big companies where the only difference is their headquarters and their business sense for operational needs is not rooted in America.
So for Ford to venture into the foreign market... they're gonna have to learn to capitalize on innovation as something tangible and to dedicate a division or to buy up another company that is focused on nothing but the hypercar envelope would serve them very well. And being that expectations are geared more towards a sustainable planet even in the eyes of public investors. An Innovations division in today's world is a logical step. Its a proven concept and it works.
Big companies employ partnerships now with companies that only focus on innovations. The "IDEO's" and the "FRoggs" and the "Fahrenheit 212's" show companies like FoMoCo what those risks are and the genesis of bringing many ideas to market turning into a hit which translates into profit. And the better Innovations companies will even go half in on bringing to market an idea that they feel strongly will succeed. Therefore shouldering half the risk. With this much at stake the hiring guns like a FoMoCo can be inspired with more confidence that there will be a return on the risk since its now less risk on their part.
Elon Musk is/was his own innovations company. Hiring many brilliant minds to help him bring his idea into market. And by doing so his proof of concept was realized. His gift to others watching the transparency of his ideations was.... he took all the risk for their benefit. But, he did so knowing that the end result would be a windfall. Because the target audience wants what he's selling.
Again what FoMoCo needs to do... is make this more attainable.
Bringing an Innovations Division internal to FoMoCo and allowing it to be transparent so the innovations are not just speculations, but exciting and inspiring for the public to get behind it... will help keep that newer division running on full tilt and producing tangibles that sell.
The sexy Lincoln in this thread.... would likely already be a reality if there was a division for FORD to throw this initiative at. There would be experimental cars already on the road.
Big businesses today are profiting from innovations. Without it they would simply stagnate.
BTW... with regards to CARB... shine more light on it and you'll see the petrol industry behind it. If they want something dead... then they just need to position their playing pieces where it would benefit them to steer a decision. That's how lots of american big corporations operate. Gremlins are everywhere. And the EV1 was a major concern from the big oil companies.... it was a threat. In light of today's public opinion.... the big oil companies are now the threat. Timing definitely a major factor here.
---
Let me add one more thing.... kickstarters don't have to be an independent upstart. They can also be an internal push within a larger company where crowd-sourcing can still be employed to help fund it. This goes beyond what the public shareholders can complain about if they can find any reason to do so. If the crowd funding is any indication of the demand... it will provide the additional shot in the arm as needed to augment whatever internal funding if any is allocated to said initiatives. The response to any crowd funding can be quantified as its also a cross section of the demographics that WANT to see it happen and an indication that the demand is there. Again just another way to minimize the risks if the public opinion weighs in on the decision by actually helping to fund it. Even for a big corporation like FoMoCo. Such strategies themselves would be innovative.
BoOm
---
You want to see boosting used not only to provide gobs of power, but also to provide a power band so smoothe that it requires less fuel to get to the sweet spot. And what goes into making those race cars safer for the professional drivers also translates into safety for the daily driver as well. These are the things that sell today.
And these are established branded big companies where the only difference is their headquarters and their business sense for operational needs is not rooted in America.
So for Ford to venture into the foreign market... they're gonna have to learn to capitalize on innovation as something tangible and to dedicate a division or to buy up another company that is focused on nothing but the hypercar envelope would serve them very well. And being that expectations are geared more towards a sustainable planet even in the eyes of public investors. An Innovations division in today's world is a logical step. Its a proven concept and it works.
Big companies employ partnerships now with companies that only focus on innovations. The "IDEO's" and the "FRoggs" and the "Fahrenheit 212's" show companies like FoMoCo what those risks are and the genesis of bringing many ideas to market turning into a hit which translates into profit. And the better Innovations companies will even go half in on bringing to market an idea that they feel strongly will succeed. Therefore shouldering half the risk. With this much at stake the hiring guns like a FoMoCo can be inspired with more confidence that there will be a return on the risk since its now less risk on their part.
Elon Musk is/was his own innovations company. Hiring many brilliant minds to help him bring his idea into market. And by doing so his proof of concept was realized. His gift to others watching the transparency of his ideations was.... he took all the risk for their benefit. But, he did so knowing that the end result would be a windfall. Because the target audience wants what he's selling.
Again what FoMoCo needs to do... is make this more attainable.
Bringing an Innovations Division internal to FoMoCo and allowing it to be transparent so the innovations are not just speculations, but exciting and inspiring for the public to get behind it... will help keep that newer division running on full tilt and producing tangibles that sell.
The sexy Lincoln in this thread.... would likely already be a reality if there was a division for FORD to throw this initiative at. There would be experimental cars already on the road.
Big businesses today are profiting from innovations. Without it they would simply stagnate.
BTW... with regards to CARB... shine more light on it and you'll see the petrol industry behind it. If they want something dead... then they just need to position their playing pieces where it would benefit them to steer a decision. That's how lots of american big corporations operate. Gremlins are everywhere. And the EV1 was a major concern from the big oil companies.... it was a threat. In light of today's public opinion.... the big oil companies are now the threat. Timing definitely a major factor here.
---
Let me add one more thing.... kickstarters don't have to be an independent upstart. They can also be an internal push within a larger company where crowd-sourcing can still be employed to help fund it. This goes beyond what the public shareholders can complain about if they can find any reason to do so. If the crowd funding is any indication of the demand... it will provide the additional shot in the arm as needed to augment whatever internal funding if any is allocated to said initiatives. The response to any crowd funding can be quantified as its also a cross section of the demographics that WANT to see it happen and an indication that the demand is there. Again just another way to minimize the risks if the public opinion weighs in on the decision by actually helping to fund it. Even for a big corporation like FoMoCo. Such strategies themselves would be innovative.
BoOm
---
Last edited by Cruzinaround; 10-16-2014 at 04:01 PM. Reason: Kickstarting isn't just for upstart new companies anymore.
10-16-2014, 08:00 PM
#47
I seriously doubt that FoMoCo has the money, marketing people, resources, and other personnel to create a new/resurrect Mercury/buy a company and tout that as a new Ford division.
As both Derf00, jz78817, and even I already have said, a new/separate division is NOT needed to push innovation.
Derf00 said that Ford is not known as an innovative company, but that does not mean that Ford isn't innovative.
Don't forget what jz78817 already said: Ford IS being innovative and he gave the specific example of the new F150's all aluminum chassis. In the late 80's and early 90', FoMoCo spend hundreds of millions, maybe billions, in developing the Modular engine concept to make engine manufacturing more efficient, easier, and hopefully more profitable. The Modular engine family is now one of the most successful engines on the market.
Ford HAS taken risks in being innovative and HAS successfully deployed these innovations to turn a profit from them. With or without Mercury, Ford has put these innovations into its everyday processes. Even if Mercury did not exist, Ford would have still come up with these innovations.
Ford is also not being left behind as far as innovations present in other companies. If you think FoMoCo is being stagnant, that is purely incorrect. Specific examples that defy stagnation include:
Ford has adopted direct injection and turbos for its EcoBoost engines.
Ford has had IRS in many of its vehicles for at least a couple of decades now. And the S550 uses an innovative version of that the IRS, the integral link IRS (vs multi-link IRS).
Ford has used OHC valve trains even before its Modular engines.
Ford has integrated cam phasing into its most of engines.
Ford offers hybrid versions of several car models.
The list goes on.
Concerning GM's EV1, the problem right now is that there are no batteries that are suitable for all electric automotive use. A 40-50 mile battery range is okay only for short range daily driving to work/school and back or to get the groceries, but if you have to commute further in which you are driving more the 50miles per day, the all electric vehicle is not for you.
Sure, there is an opportunity for innovation to design better batteries, but the US has literally shoveled the battery industry to China (cheaper labor and manufacturing in China, little or no EPA laws dealing with the toxic materials needed to make batteries, etc.). FoMoCo is not in the position to spend billions to bring battery R&D to America nor is Ford in the position to develop clean methods of battery manufacturing to meet US EPA regs on that kind of manufacturing. Much less so for building facilities to manufacture batteries even without EPA concerns.
Tesla's Model S, is reported to get over 250miles on its batteries (the trim that cost $94K), but how much of its curb weight is dedicated to the Li-ion battery banks to get that kind of range? Its a 4,600 lbf sedan; its not a light car and if the battery banks represent hundreds of pounds of that weight, the car had to be lighten in other areas (not just in its all aluminum body with boron steel elements).
Just how much electricity does it take to charge? The cost of electricity vs the cost of gas in certain cases can give you a surprising.
For example, Tesla claims their Model S saves you nearly $4300 in gas per year, but in Central Texas, I can find gas for as little as $2.75/Gal 87Octane. For a 30K driving range per year at around 22MPG, that is around $3750 per year to buy gas (Tesla estimates $5318 per year for gas) Electricity in some of the Central Texas big cities can run as much as .175 per KWH, which means the Model S would cost you $1528 per year assuming the same 30K mi range per year. That cost saving drops own to only $2222 per year. There are other factors at play that could give you a some more savings, but I doubt you would find a situation where you save nearly $4300 in gas per year where I'm at. And what about the yearly maintenance costs? How much per year do you have to spend to maintain a Model S? Do the batteries have to be replaced? Does the motor have to be rebuilt? Sure, an electric motor is cheaper and easier to rebuild than a gasoline engine, but how many times does the electric motor have to be rebuilt? How many charging cycles can the batteries take before they need to be replaced? What about charging memory (if any)?
There are too many factors that could affect the end user such that they would not want to buy a Tesla (at least until all-electric vehicles are further refined and become more practical and cheap).
Also, the Model S costs $67K after tax incentives for the cheapest trim. But is Tesla selling these at a loss to gain a customer base with the hopes that more customers would off-set that loss and become a profit? Who knows. Toyota Motor Co did that with the Prius when they first sold it. TMC was no making any money on Prius sales, they were selling them for a loss per unit and the loss was subsidized by sales from their other profitable models.
FoMoCo is not looking to do this, at least right now especially with their money and efforts to globalize sales and push into international markets.
Bringing about innovations isn't cheap. Just deploying a new technology that already exists on other companies' cars is expensive enough. As I already said, FoMoCo spent hundreds of millions to deploy its innovative Modular engine manufacturing. For all we know, FoMoCo is probably still paying off the costs of that massive investment.
This sexy S550 Lincoln would not be a cheap endeavor neither. Ford, or any other big car company, would not go into such an effort blindly. They would want reliable cost analyses and ROI estimates before they put a dime towards it. And to do that kind of research costs a fair amount of money and manpower too.
With FoMoCo investing in is One Ford globalization goals, I seriously doubt that Ford would take the time or spend the money to investigate if a sexy S550 Lincoln would be a good investment.
As both Derf00, jz78817, and even I already have said, a new/separate division is NOT needed to push innovation.
Derf00 said that Ford is not known as an innovative company, but that does not mean that Ford isn't innovative.
Don't forget what jz78817 already said: Ford IS being innovative and he gave the specific example of the new F150's all aluminum chassis. In the late 80's and early 90', FoMoCo spend hundreds of millions, maybe billions, in developing the Modular engine concept to make engine manufacturing more efficient, easier, and hopefully more profitable. The Modular engine family is now one of the most successful engines on the market.
Ford HAS taken risks in being innovative and HAS successfully deployed these innovations to turn a profit from them. With or without Mercury, Ford has put these innovations into its everyday processes. Even if Mercury did not exist, Ford would have still come up with these innovations.
Ford is also not being left behind as far as innovations present in other companies. If you think FoMoCo is being stagnant, that is purely incorrect. Specific examples that defy stagnation include:
Ford has adopted direct injection and turbos for its EcoBoost engines.
Ford has had IRS in many of its vehicles for at least a couple of decades now. And the S550 uses an innovative version of that the IRS, the integral link IRS (vs multi-link IRS).
Ford has used OHC valve trains even before its Modular engines.
Ford has integrated cam phasing into its most of engines.
Ford offers hybrid versions of several car models.
The list goes on.
Concerning GM's EV1, the problem right now is that there are no batteries that are suitable for all electric automotive use. A 40-50 mile battery range is okay only for short range daily driving to work/school and back or to get the groceries, but if you have to commute further in which you are driving more the 50miles per day, the all electric vehicle is not for you.
Sure, there is an opportunity for innovation to design better batteries, but the US has literally shoveled the battery industry to China (cheaper labor and manufacturing in China, little or no EPA laws dealing with the toxic materials needed to make batteries, etc.). FoMoCo is not in the position to spend billions to bring battery R&D to America nor is Ford in the position to develop clean methods of battery manufacturing to meet US EPA regs on that kind of manufacturing. Much less so for building facilities to manufacture batteries even without EPA concerns.
Tesla's Model S, is reported to get over 250miles on its batteries (the trim that cost $94K), but how much of its curb weight is dedicated to the Li-ion battery banks to get that kind of range? Its a 4,600 lbf sedan; its not a light car and if the battery banks represent hundreds of pounds of that weight, the car had to be lighten in other areas (not just in its all aluminum body with boron steel elements).
Just how much electricity does it take to charge? The cost of electricity vs the cost of gas in certain cases can give you a surprising.
For example, Tesla claims their Model S saves you nearly $4300 in gas per year, but in Central Texas, I can find gas for as little as $2.75/Gal 87Octane. For a 30K driving range per year at around 22MPG, that is around $3750 per year to buy gas (Tesla estimates $5318 per year for gas) Electricity in some of the Central Texas big cities can run as much as .175 per KWH, which means the Model S would cost you $1528 per year assuming the same 30K mi range per year. That cost saving drops own to only $2222 per year. There are other factors at play that could give you a some more savings, but I doubt you would find a situation where you save nearly $4300 in gas per year where I'm at. And what about the yearly maintenance costs? How much per year do you have to spend to maintain a Model S? Do the batteries have to be replaced? Does the motor have to be rebuilt? Sure, an electric motor is cheaper and easier to rebuild than a gasoline engine, but how many times does the electric motor have to be rebuilt? How many charging cycles can the batteries take before they need to be replaced? What about charging memory (if any)?
There are too many factors that could affect the end user such that they would not want to buy a Tesla (at least until all-electric vehicles are further refined and become more practical and cheap).
Also, the Model S costs $67K after tax incentives for the cheapest trim. But is Tesla selling these at a loss to gain a customer base with the hopes that more customers would off-set that loss and become a profit? Who knows. Toyota Motor Co did that with the Prius when they first sold it. TMC was no making any money on Prius sales, they were selling them for a loss per unit and the loss was subsidized by sales from their other profitable models.
FoMoCo is not looking to do this, at least right now especially with their money and efforts to globalize sales and push into international markets.
Bringing about innovations isn't cheap. Just deploying a new technology that already exists on other companies' cars is expensive enough. As I already said, FoMoCo spent hundreds of millions to deploy its innovative Modular engine manufacturing. For all we know, FoMoCo is probably still paying off the costs of that massive investment.
This sexy S550 Lincoln would not be a cheap endeavor neither. Ford, or any other big car company, would not go into such an effort blindly. They would want reliable cost analyses and ROI estimates before they put a dime towards it. And to do that kind of research costs a fair amount of money and manpower too.
With FoMoCo investing in is One Ford globalization goals, I seriously doubt that Ford would take the time or spend the money to investigate if a sexy S550 Lincoln would be a good investment.
Last edited by JIM5.0; 10-16-2014 at 09:09 PM.
10-17-2014, 08:07 AM
#48
FORD is 11 Billion as a company with an average 18% increase annually ...
Simply put.
They can afford it.
Ford doesn't have to do the Battery R&D... its being handled by a company that is now openly sharing all of its technology advances. That transparency is being offered by Tesla. That's right they are an open book with an agenda of getting everyone on board and sharing key technologies to not only make the effort cheaper long term, but also competitive. That's innovation.
Ford is not stagnant that's not what I wrote...What I did write was ANY company that does not embrace innovation will stagnate. What innovations FORD has provided goes deeper than an aluminum body and a push into the UK. What they need is an outward momentum that actually goes beyond the lateral changes already done on existing platforms. They need to make a statement by applying such weight saving initiatives across the board. And by openly saying that is where they're heading.
Losses don't have to be in an entire vehicle coming to market. It can be components within the vehicle that are absorbed in the bottom line. Instead of taking a loss they simply adjust the targeted margin from a 40% to perhaps a 10% and deploy said advancements while the production of the parts is refined, updated and ultimately more cost effective, which then sees over a 5 year run of the introduction of those advancements the margins increase back to the 40% ... or better.
There is a network of charging stations coming up my friend.... So in the near future, because you know that this planet cannot sustain the burning of fossil fuels indefinitely.... It will not be unheard of to see an AWD variant of the Mustang with powerful electric motors on each independent axle driving across the entire country without having to put a single drop of fuel in the tank, not there will even be a tank. So it doesn't matter if in 40 years there will be no fuel in Texas to buy. So your petrol engine vehicle is now relegated and destined to become a huge lawn ornament while those electric cars are all over the place.
There are Solar/wind electric farming fields in AUSTRAILIA that are fully operational and can provide the electricity to power a city the size of NYC. So the time is now to provide innovations to take advantage of this. And one Truck with a partial Aluminum frame and a Muscle car pushing into the UK is not going to cut it. However if every vehicle in their lineup was destined for the new frame underpinnings and a push into the UK.... then you'll have my attention.
Koenigseg is now working with motors power by water.....That's right WATER. And they have test mules running motors without cams ...NO CAMs... And guess what...this is tech that... like Elon Musk has done... is transparent and openly shared. And people with more educated inclinations are paying attention, companies with more brains are getting aligned with such innovations simply becasue they NEED TO. Because in 40 years time.... if you haven't already prepared, it will be too late.
THIS IS WHAT THE NEW TARGET AUDIENCE WANTS. Those Millenials are buying this. And in order for FORD to maintain that 11 billion worth and continue to grow...THIS IS WHAT THEY NEED TO EMBRACE.
I'll say things are a little bit more interesting now going into the World with the famous Pony Car. But, if it were my company.... it would be a lot more interesting.
Just saying.
BTW...as far as engines....FORD has a lot to pat Jaguar on the back for, since a lot of the leg work on the design innovation for the TiVct implementations in their new engines just like our now glorious 5.0 was due in no small part to a short run partnership with Jaguar. In fact those engines for Jaguar are still manufactured in a FORD plant.
---
Simply put.
They can afford it.
Ford doesn't have to do the Battery R&D... its being handled by a company that is now openly sharing all of its technology advances. That transparency is being offered by Tesla. That's right they are an open book with an agenda of getting everyone on board and sharing key technologies to not only make the effort cheaper long term, but also competitive. That's innovation.
Ford is not stagnant that's not what I wrote...What I did write was ANY company that does not embrace innovation will stagnate. What innovations FORD has provided goes deeper than an aluminum body and a push into the UK. What they need is an outward momentum that actually goes beyond the lateral changes already done on existing platforms. They need to make a statement by applying such weight saving initiatives across the board. And by openly saying that is where they're heading.
Losses don't have to be in an entire vehicle coming to market. It can be components within the vehicle that are absorbed in the bottom line. Instead of taking a loss they simply adjust the targeted margin from a 40% to perhaps a 10% and deploy said advancements while the production of the parts is refined, updated and ultimately more cost effective, which then sees over a 5 year run of the introduction of those advancements the margins increase back to the 40% ... or better.
There is a network of charging stations coming up my friend.... So in the near future, because you know that this planet cannot sustain the burning of fossil fuels indefinitely.... It will not be unheard of to see an AWD variant of the Mustang with powerful electric motors on each independent axle driving across the entire country without having to put a single drop of fuel in the tank, not there will even be a tank. So it doesn't matter if in 40 years there will be no fuel in Texas to buy. So your petrol engine vehicle is now relegated and destined to become a huge lawn ornament while those electric cars are all over the place.
There are Solar/wind electric farming fields in AUSTRAILIA that are fully operational and can provide the electricity to power a city the size of NYC. So the time is now to provide innovations to take advantage of this. And one Truck with a partial Aluminum frame and a Muscle car pushing into the UK is not going to cut it. However if every vehicle in their lineup was destined for the new frame underpinnings and a push into the UK.... then you'll have my attention.
Koenigseg is now working with motors power by water.....That's right WATER. And they have test mules running motors without cams ...NO CAMs... And guess what...this is tech that... like Elon Musk has done... is transparent and openly shared. And people with more educated inclinations are paying attention, companies with more brains are getting aligned with such innovations simply becasue they NEED TO. Because in 40 years time.... if you haven't already prepared, it will be too late.
THIS IS WHAT THE NEW TARGET AUDIENCE WANTS. Those Millenials are buying this. And in order for FORD to maintain that 11 billion worth and continue to grow...THIS IS WHAT THEY NEED TO EMBRACE.
I'll say things are a little bit more interesting now going into the World with the famous Pony Car. But, if it were my company.... it would be a lot more interesting.
Just saying.
BTW...as far as engines....FORD has a lot to pat Jaguar on the back for, since a lot of the leg work on the design innovation for the TiVct implementations in their new engines just like our now glorious 5.0 was due in no small part to a short run partnership with Jaguar. In fact those engines for Jaguar are still manufactured in a FORD plant.
---
Last edited by Cruzinaround; 10-17-2014 at 08:32 AM.
10-17-2014, 08:20 AM
#49
We get it, you love you some Mercury. But lets all admit that the Ford Motor Company knows more about selling cars than any of us. They have been doing it extremely well for over a century. They killed Mercury off for a reason!
10-17-2014, 10:26 AM
#50
Actually they killed Mercury off due to a Market economy that found FORD losing Money. Again...getting with the times businesses often change their structure and workflow to match the economic times.
Right now... they're in money making mode.
And I'm no Mercury fanboy....they can call the new Division "BluebeastSrt" and it would still apply.
And FORD does not have all the answers. Otherwise they would not employ Innovations strategy teams to help them find better answers or enlighten them to the correct answers.
---
Right now... they're in money making mode.
And I'm no Mercury fanboy....they can call the new Division "BluebeastSrt" and it would still apply.
And FORD does not have all the answers. Otherwise they would not employ Innovations strategy teams to help them find better answers or enlighten them to the correct answers.
---