Sexy Lincoln
10-18-2014, 12:13 PM
#51
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.
---
Additionally, each car company can only invest in one or two innovations at a given time.
BMW for example invested heavily in Valvetronic, a continuously variable valve lift that is completely different from Honda's V-Tec variable valve lift (Valvetronic is superior).
GM also invested very heavily in its MRC ("Magnetic Ride Control" or more properly, MagnetoRheological dampening Control).
BMW is now offering Valvetronic in various models and never needed a separate division to do it.
GM has MRC in several models across different divisions and never needed a dedicated division to deploy it from any marketing standpoint. MRC is found in Chevy and Cadillac models (Chevy ZL1, some trims of Chevy Corvette, Cadillac ATS, CTS-V, STS, GMC Denali).
Innovation and car division are mutually exclusive: innovation never requires a separate division to do it.
I already gave the example of Modular engine manufacturing. Ford never needed to dedicate a division to get Modular manufacturing into production, they just did it.
BOOM
---
Last edited by JIM5.0; 10-18-2014 at 12:17 PM.
10-18-2014, 01:39 PM
#52
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.
---
10-18-2014, 07:02 PM
#53
Ford still does not need a new division to be innovative.
Additionally, each car company can only invest in one or two innovations at a given time.
BMW for example invested heavily in Valvetronic, a continuously variable valve lift that is completely different from Honda's V-Tec variable valve lift (Valvetronic is superior).
GM also invested very heavily in its MRC ("Magnetic Ride Control" or more properly, MagnetoRheological dampening Control).
BMW is now offering Valvetronic in various models and never needed a separate division to do it.
GM has MRC in several models across different divisions and never needed a dedicated division to deploy it from any marketing standpoint. MRC is found in Chevy and Cadillac models (Chevy ZL1, some trims of Chevy Corvette, Cadillac ATS, CTS-V, STS, GMC Denali).
Innovation and car division are mutually exclusive: innovation never requires a separate division to do it.
I already gave the example of Modular engine manufacturing. Ford never needed to dedicate a division to get Modular manufacturing into production, they just did it.
BOOM
---
Additionally, each car company can only invest in one or two innovations at a given time.
BMW for example invested heavily in Valvetronic, a continuously variable valve lift that is completely different from Honda's V-Tec variable valve lift (Valvetronic is superior).
GM also invested very heavily in its MRC ("Magnetic Ride Control" or more properly, MagnetoRheological dampening Control).
BMW is now offering Valvetronic in various models and never needed a separate division to do it.
GM has MRC in several models across different divisions and never needed a dedicated division to deploy it from any marketing standpoint. MRC is found in Chevy and Cadillac models (Chevy ZL1, some trims of Chevy Corvette, Cadillac ATS, CTS-V, STS, GMC Denali).
Innovation and car division are mutually exclusive: innovation never requires a separate division to do it.
I already gave the example of Modular engine manufacturing. Ford never needed to dedicate a division to get Modular manufacturing into production, they just did it.
BOOM
---
Innovations can spring from anywhere....For the proof of concept phase.... A separate division would prove effective.
Boom
---
10-18-2014, 11:51 PM
#54
The concept phase is totally independent of the existence of a division.
Proving a concept is also totally independent of the existence of a division.
Likewise, a separate division does not make proving a concept any easier or any better facilitated.
Why do you think a concept phase would require a division to happen?
Examples of how proof of concept didn't need a separate division:
BMW Valvetronic concept didn't need a division to prove its concept.
Ford didn't need a separate division to prove its concept of Modular engine manufacturing.
Henry Ford didn't need a separate division to prove his concept of mass manufacturing in assembly lines and specialized focused tasks in these lines.
Another example: Ford made a Ford sport F150 truck concept vehicle some time back. It was refined and mass produced as the Ford Raptor. Not once did FoMoCo need Mercury or Lincoln to tout or otherwise push the Atlas truck in anyway to later sell it for public consumption as the Ford Raptor.
Last edited by JIM5.0; 10-19-2014 at 12:07 AM.
10-21-2014, 09:26 AM
#55
Actually I don't think it requires a division to happen. I just know it would benefit from a dedicated division to bring those new concepts to Market quicker. You can throw innovations at it from the conceptual stages and move it along faster when there is a division whose sole focus is engineering how to make those innovations happen. Or to determine whether these innovative ideas are a dead end.
You can have thousands of innovations float across a table in front of a think tank.... But, without a division to vetted through everything and then determine what works, how it will work and how best to utilize it then those innovations that could prove a success simply become forgotten. And the projects to improve what is already here are what we see more of... like an F150 or a new Mustang. The other things just get dropped because .... there is no division to carry the ball and prove these concepts that are not simply improvements upon what is already here. Instead there are existing Divisions sitting on existing platforms who are not willing to take the bigger risks, because there is no funding appropriated to do so. So they simply make marginal improvements on what is already here.
The i8 BMW which is not just a modified part took a dedicated division farmed away from their "M" Division. And they had funding to make that completely new idea come to Market. This would have been dragged out and possibly died had it just been a thought without a team. Now this new platform is the vision of the future for all their cars. Just like the Porshe 918 is for the future of the AWD sports cars or the MaClaren One is for the RWD. Simply put ... everything thrown into the sum of all these projects is a valuable lesson for the rest of the company. And the world wants it.
Again... Ford's spin should be to look, learn and make it attainable for the rest of us. They were founded on the principals of mass production and affordability. So....they proved their mettle in history by taking on Ferrari and beating the snot out of them to prove their point. What they did ...they can do again. And perhaps with talks of bringing the Ford GT back again to venture into racing again..... perhaps this is the thinking.
At least I hope so.
A dedicated Division does actually make facilitating a innovation into a concept then to a marketable product faster. It would be like the Shelby team make a Special vehicle but utilizing these innovations to produce lighter and more powerful cars that run on a drop of water. Then finalizing how to reproduce it afford-ably to ultimately farm out all that was proven to all the other Divisions.
In the end the public is happy, Millennials get a greener meaner product that sips instead of gulps to make gobs of power and Ford makes money providing these innovations across the pallette of vehicles they offer for the people who couldn't afford it otherwise....
right now the only stand out from Ford as a potential is the aluminum chassis, which isn't really innovative as it is just about time since other makers already do this and more to lighten their vehicles and ...maybe a tricked out airbag glove-box cover. ???? Really?
BoOm
---
You can have thousands of innovations float across a table in front of a think tank.... But, without a division to vetted through everything and then determine what works, how it will work and how best to utilize it then those innovations that could prove a success simply become forgotten. And the projects to improve what is already here are what we see more of... like an F150 or a new Mustang. The other things just get dropped because .... there is no division to carry the ball and prove these concepts that are not simply improvements upon what is already here. Instead there are existing Divisions sitting on existing platforms who are not willing to take the bigger risks, because there is no funding appropriated to do so. So they simply make marginal improvements on what is already here.
The i8 BMW which is not just a modified part took a dedicated division farmed away from their "M" Division. And they had funding to make that completely new idea come to Market. This would have been dragged out and possibly died had it just been a thought without a team. Now this new platform is the vision of the future for all their cars. Just like the Porshe 918 is for the future of the AWD sports cars or the MaClaren One is for the RWD. Simply put ... everything thrown into the sum of all these projects is a valuable lesson for the rest of the company. And the world wants it.
Again... Ford's spin should be to look, learn and make it attainable for the rest of us. They were founded on the principals of mass production and affordability. So....they proved their mettle in history by taking on Ferrari and beating the snot out of them to prove their point. What they did ...they can do again. And perhaps with talks of bringing the Ford GT back again to venture into racing again..... perhaps this is the thinking.
At least I hope so.
A dedicated Division does actually make facilitating a innovation into a concept then to a marketable product faster. It would be like the Shelby team make a Special vehicle but utilizing these innovations to produce lighter and more powerful cars that run on a drop of water. Then finalizing how to reproduce it afford-ably to ultimately farm out all that was proven to all the other Divisions.
In the end the public is happy, Millennials get a greener meaner product that sips instead of gulps to make gobs of power and Ford makes money providing these innovations across the pallette of vehicles they offer for the people who couldn't afford it otherwise....
right now the only stand out from Ford as a potential is the aluminum chassis, which isn't really innovative as it is just about time since other makers already do this and more to lighten their vehicles and ...maybe a tricked out airbag glove-box cover. ???? Really?
BoOm
---
10-21-2014, 06:17 PM
#56
At least we are moving along. We both can agree that a separate division is not required for innovation to happen. But a separate division makes innovation easier? I'm not so sure about that. By division, since we are talking about Mercury and Lincoln, I assume you mean a division as a whole brand with dedicated sales lots to sell that brand, and all the other functioning equivalent of Lincoln or the now defunct Mercury.
Am I right in my assumption of what you are considering a division?
It's a pretty big claim to say that a whole branded and functioning division will make innovations come easier. And it's a claim that I don't believe. Sure, if you throw funding at that division and direct them to focus on innovation, yes, they can function like you say.
But here is where I disagree: You can have just simple Departments to do that. FoMoCo has a department of engineers whose goals are not just designing cars that will meet regulations, but also to integrate industry standard innovations already on the market and work those into Ford cars, and yes, to even research and develop innovations where possible.
SVO (now SVT) does this sort of thing to take existing car models and put in better performing parts to make sportier trims of those existing models. SVT never needed to be an entire separate brand division to do that.
The FoMoCo engineering departments (engine engineers and the manufacturing engineers) worked together to develop the Modular engine manufacturing concept and to deploy that, which is proven in my eyes because Ford is selling successful car models with Modular engines in them. Ford never needed a separate brand division to do this.
Your third paragraph in which you mentioned the i8 BMW points to what makes innovation work: Funding.
Innovation will happen because of funding and Ford does not need to make a new division to do that. FoMoCo can do it with its flagship body (or primary brand division) under the Blue Oval badge and push for innovation simply under Blue Oval. All the existing marketing is there. No need to create a whole new division with its separate management and personnel (just these people alone are very expensive).
In your second paragraph, you said a separate division can sift (or "vetted") through innovation ideas and function like think tanks, but I disagree. Why do you think a separate brand division needs to do that when existing departments already do same?
Existing FoMoCo departments do just that and they work in unison to determine if it is feasible. The engineers look at the possibilities of designing these things and if it is possible to deploy under in mass production manufacturing and in a cost-effective manner. The finance, accounting, marketing, and other departments that know money also work with the engineers to determine if fielding an innovation is worth the investments.
You gave the examples of FoMoCo bringing mass production, taking on Ferrari, and hopes of bringing back the Ford GT. These were all done without the need of a separate brand division; Ford did it under its flagship division using the Blue Oval brand.
Digressing some, because I love the GT40 and the GT when they were around, I do hope FoMoCo will one day bring it back too. But I am sure that FoMoCo will bring the GT back under the simple Blue Oval and not under the Lincoln cross or the Mercury caduceus or what ever emblem under a different division brand.
In short, I doubt a separate brand division will make it easier to bring about innovation. Ford already brings out what innovations it does under its existing primary division: Good 'ole Blue Oval Ford. The innovations from plain old Ford is then put in Lincoln as it was win Mercury when it was still around.
Now, totally separate from this discussion as this is completely digressing from what we are talking about, cars running on water is a long way off from any company doing it on a mass production and mass consumer consumption scale. With current technology, FoMoCo will spend decades and precious hundreds of millions (maybe billions each year) before water combustion engines are feasible for mass production and mass public consumption.
There are current engine designs that are a half-step towards a water engine; an example is the 6-stroke Crower engine which injects water into the hot cylinder during stroke 5 of the 6-stroke cycle. The result is you get two power strokes out of 6 piston strokes instead of only 1 power stroke out of a 4-stroke cycle.
Just one of the problems I can think of: Water blowing by the piston rings and getting into the crankcase. Blowby always occurs in current reciprocating combustion engines so new methods of sealing the cylinders will have to be developed. R&D-ing solutions to address just this will not be cheap and could result in a bust (i.e. cost more than what they would be worth once to market).
Even if FoMoCo were able to make a Crower 6-stroke engine today and make it functionally reliable, then there is the cost of retooling the engine manufacturing to begin to make the engines.
Bringing my daydreaming of the Crower 6-stroke back to divisions and innovation: Let's say FoMoCo will sooner or later make the Crower 6-stroke engine. FoMoCo does not need a separate brand division to do it. Ford can simply use existing engineers in their engine enginnering department to do this. Ford can dedicate a team of engineers and tell them to focus only on the Crower project. Ford does not need to create a separate brand division to do this. .
Once the engineers figure out and solve all the problems that would prevent the Crower engine from working or functioning reliably, FoMoCo would not need a separate division to deploy, market, and sell this innovation. Ford can use its existing marketers to advertise it and Ford can launch this new engine under its Blue Oval badge. After time, Ford can take the engine and farm it out to Lincoln as well.
Am I right in my assumption of what you are considering a division?
It's a pretty big claim to say that a whole branded and functioning division will make innovations come easier. And it's a claim that I don't believe. Sure, if you throw funding at that division and direct them to focus on innovation, yes, they can function like you say.
But here is where I disagree: You can have just simple Departments to do that. FoMoCo has a department of engineers whose goals are not just designing cars that will meet regulations, but also to integrate industry standard innovations already on the market and work those into Ford cars, and yes, to even research and develop innovations where possible.
SVO (now SVT) does this sort of thing to take existing car models and put in better performing parts to make sportier trims of those existing models. SVT never needed to be an entire separate brand division to do that.
The FoMoCo engineering departments (engine engineers and the manufacturing engineers) worked together to develop the Modular engine manufacturing concept and to deploy that, which is proven in my eyes because Ford is selling successful car models with Modular engines in them. Ford never needed a separate brand division to do this.
Your third paragraph in which you mentioned the i8 BMW points to what makes innovation work: Funding.
Innovation will happen because of funding and Ford does not need to make a new division to do that. FoMoCo can do it with its flagship body (or primary brand division) under the Blue Oval badge and push for innovation simply under Blue Oval. All the existing marketing is there. No need to create a whole new division with its separate management and personnel (just these people alone are very expensive).
In your second paragraph, you said a separate division can sift (or "vetted") through innovation ideas and function like think tanks, but I disagree. Why do you think a separate brand division needs to do that when existing departments already do same?
Existing FoMoCo departments do just that and they work in unison to determine if it is feasible. The engineers look at the possibilities of designing these things and if it is possible to deploy under in mass production manufacturing and in a cost-effective manner. The finance, accounting, marketing, and other departments that know money also work with the engineers to determine if fielding an innovation is worth the investments.
You gave the examples of FoMoCo bringing mass production, taking on Ferrari, and hopes of bringing back the Ford GT. These were all done without the need of a separate brand division; Ford did it under its flagship division using the Blue Oval brand.
Digressing some, because I love the GT40 and the GT when they were around, I do hope FoMoCo will one day bring it back too. But I am sure that FoMoCo will bring the GT back under the simple Blue Oval and not under the Lincoln cross or the Mercury caduceus or what ever emblem under a different division brand.
In short, I doubt a separate brand division will make it easier to bring about innovation. Ford already brings out what innovations it does under its existing primary division: Good 'ole Blue Oval Ford. The innovations from plain old Ford is then put in Lincoln as it was win Mercury when it was still around.
Now, totally separate from this discussion as this is completely digressing from what we are talking about, cars running on water is a long way off from any company doing it on a mass production and mass consumer consumption scale. With current technology, FoMoCo will spend decades and precious hundreds of millions (maybe billions each year) before water combustion engines are feasible for mass production and mass public consumption.
There are current engine designs that are a half-step towards a water engine; an example is the 6-stroke Crower engine which injects water into the hot cylinder during stroke 5 of the 6-stroke cycle. The result is you get two power strokes out of 6 piston strokes instead of only 1 power stroke out of a 4-stroke cycle.
Just one of the problems I can think of: Water blowing by the piston rings and getting into the crankcase. Blowby always occurs in current reciprocating combustion engines so new methods of sealing the cylinders will have to be developed. R&D-ing solutions to address just this will not be cheap and could result in a bust (i.e. cost more than what they would be worth once to market).
Even if FoMoCo were able to make a Crower 6-stroke engine today and make it functionally reliable, then there is the cost of retooling the engine manufacturing to begin to make the engines.
Bringing my daydreaming of the Crower 6-stroke back to divisions and innovation: Let's say FoMoCo will sooner or later make the Crower 6-stroke engine. FoMoCo does not need a separate brand division to do it. Ford can simply use existing engineers in their engine enginnering department to do this. Ford can dedicate a team of engineers and tell them to focus only on the Crower project. Ford does not need to create a separate brand division to do this. .
Once the engineers figure out and solve all the problems that would prevent the Crower engine from working or functioning reliably, FoMoCo would not need a separate division to deploy, market, and sell this innovation. Ford can use its existing marketers to advertise it and Ford can launch this new engine under its Blue Oval badge. After time, Ford can take the engine and farm it out to Lincoln as well.
Last edited by JIM5.0; 10-21-2014 at 06:33 PM.
10-21-2014, 06:54 PM
#57
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,329
Actually I don't think it requires a division to happen. I just know it would benefit from a dedicated division to bring those new concepts to Market quicker. You can throw innovations at it from the conceptual stages and move it along faster when there is a division whose sole focus is engineering how to make those innovations happen. Or to determine whether these innovative ideas are a dead end.
and "fast to market" for core vehicle technologies is a non-starter. You have saintly Toyota and Honda out there with a sterling reputation for reliability, largely because they don't screw with something if it works. anything innovative but critical to vehicle function has to go through the normal 36-60 month validation process before it can be sold on the market. If Ford were to toss some half-baked piece of junk out there under any brand, it would drive customers away into the waiting arms of at least a dozen viable competitors. The automotive industry is not like that ****pile Silicon Valley; you don't get to say "oopsie! well, we'll fix it in an update." In automotive, if you **** your customers off, they go elsewhere and are unlikely to come back.
Last edited by jz78817; 10-21-2014 at 07:00 PM.
10-22-2014, 07:30 AM
#58
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Georgia
Posts: 414
I'm going to mention this again; that car could be cool as a performance hybrid. Something to kind of compete with the BMW i8. Not quite at that level of performance (because of price point), but something fun and performance oriented that is forward looking tech wise on the platform would be killer.
10-22-2014, 08:33 AM
#59
Jim... The Innovations division simply gets a hand off of ideas from any source...including other divisions that are are not geared towards carrying that ball to test and prove the concepts that spring from the innovative ideas. The main focus of an Innovations Division is to focus all efforts on how best to get that idea to be a reality. My example you're looking too far into is more about how BMW recruited the best they had among their divisions and threw them at this project. Technically forming a dedicated team/division to tackle it. And BTW water combustion engines have come farther than your example. When it will be ready for prime time is possibly sooner than later.
And Jz... part of the success of being innovative is the transparency. Its how you garner interest that is a forward momentum from that public. Simply put that Silicon Valley dude you have a chip on your shoulder for...did it right. If executed properly then there will not be an oops, but rather what is referred to in innovations planning as a redirect. And provided you keep the progression transparent along the route through the entire conceptualizing process... there won't be any hater. Unless of course they are naturally pessimistic people... but, that's typically more a result of their upbringing. Yep I said it.
GM F'd up miserably with a certain amount of recalls.. So Did Toyota, and prior to them So Did Ford. And guess what... sure some people left for other brands, but, when they realize that even in big corporations a mistake can happen they COME BACk. if not through them then through their prodigy. And big corporations do learn from the past.
Concepts would need to be proven and tested and the methods would require that transparency so that the public can be aware of what the expectations are. Perhaps if all those mistakes from the past had a Division from which to test and stress test and field test then use public mules... and keep it transparent... not only could the public be more aware, but other companies could chime in and point out flaws or other things to be aware of before it winds up in production and kills someone.
Just Saying
---
BTW Glocker... a discussion of innovation springing from the image of a concept Lincoln vehicle is applicable to this thread. That image is a perfect example of a sexy thought without any transparency, because other than the look... the rest we know about it is... not there. We can speculate all we want, but nothing about it is truly innovative ... its just a picture of a sexy looking car by our standards today. Give it a few years and we might revisit this image and ask ourselves what the hell were we thinking???? And as Jz points out... since its all about that speculation without any transparency as to what is really going on beyond that sexy image..... its easy to conclude if there is anything special going on beyond the look, since its not being shared and therefore not public knowledge, so... when it fails for any reason...people will hate it and hate Ford for making it.
BoOm
---
And Jz... part of the success of being innovative is the transparency. Its how you garner interest that is a forward momentum from that public. Simply put that Silicon Valley dude you have a chip on your shoulder for...did it right. If executed properly then there will not be an oops, but rather what is referred to in innovations planning as a redirect. And provided you keep the progression transparent along the route through the entire conceptualizing process... there won't be any hater. Unless of course they are naturally pessimistic people... but, that's typically more a result of their upbringing. Yep I said it.
GM F'd up miserably with a certain amount of recalls.. So Did Toyota, and prior to them So Did Ford. And guess what... sure some people left for other brands, but, when they realize that even in big corporations a mistake can happen they COME BACk. if not through them then through their prodigy. And big corporations do learn from the past.
Concepts would need to be proven and tested and the methods would require that transparency so that the public can be aware of what the expectations are. Perhaps if all those mistakes from the past had a Division from which to test and stress test and field test then use public mules... and keep it transparent... not only could the public be more aware, but other companies could chime in and point out flaws or other things to be aware of before it winds up in production and kills someone.
Just Saying
---
BTW Glocker... a discussion of innovation springing from the image of a concept Lincoln vehicle is applicable to this thread. That image is a perfect example of a sexy thought without any transparency, because other than the look... the rest we know about it is... not there. We can speculate all we want, but nothing about it is truly innovative ... its just a picture of a sexy looking car by our standards today. Give it a few years and we might revisit this image and ask ourselves what the hell were we thinking???? And as Jz points out... since its all about that speculation without any transparency as to what is really going on beyond that sexy image..... its easy to conclude if there is anything special going on beyond the look, since its not being shared and therefore not public knowledge, so... when it fails for any reason...people will hate it and hate Ford for making it.
BoOm
---
Last edited by Cruzinaround; 10-22-2014 at 09:14 AM.
10-22-2014, 08:46 AM
#60
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,329
And Jz... part of the success of being innovative is the transparency. Its how you garner interest that is a forward momentum from that public. Simply put that Silicon Valley dude you have a chip on your shoulder for...did it right.
GM F'd up miserably with a certain amount of recalls.. So Did Toyota, and prior to them So Did Ford. And guess what... sure some people left for other brands, but, when they realize that even in big corporations a mistake can happen they COME BACk. if not through them then through their prodigy. And big corporations do learn from the past.