Ford sees 'Significant' plant closings

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9760229/

“For all the progress, we recognize we’re very far from the finish line,” Bill Ford said. “We need a dramatically different business structure and we need innovation to drive everything we do.”

The cut backs by both Ford and GM are only going to be felt by all in the US, not just the automotive industry. Yet somehow surprising American's are buying imports at an increasing alarming rate. We're doing it to ourselves. Sure there's some fat trimming to be done, but the rate of which this is happening is scary to say the least.

Wonder if we'll see more strategic DCX/Ford/GM technology partnerships in the short term? The Ford/GM 6 speed automatics and DCX/GM two stage hybrid systems come to mind. Spreading the development and production costs might help in making the NA companies more competitive.

I doubt it, it'd make better sense to partner with a "prosperous" company then a "hurting" company.

Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai are opening a significant amount of plants here in the US. I don't have any sympathy for Ford and GM, made themselves uncompetitive.. Capitism is a bitch, what can I say?

Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai are opening a significant amount of plants here in the US. I don't have any sympathy for Ford and GM, made themselves uncompetitive.. Capitism is a bitch, what can I say?

^
Reads cover of book... knows everything in book.

:rolleyes:

I'm still sort of irked that Ford is replacing the Lincoln LS with a FWD/AWD Five Hundred based vehicle. To be honest I can't name any other maker that squandered such a potential winning chassis in my life.

With the lone exception of the Mustang, Ford seems to be headed towards the point where it's no more exciting than Toyota. :no:

I'm still sort of irked that Ford is replacing the Lincoln LS with a FWD/AWD Five Hundred based vehicle. To be honest I can't name any other maker that squandered such a potential winning chassis in my life.

With the lone exception of the Mustang, Ford seems to be headed towards the point where it's no more exciting than Toyota. :no:
Would you rather Ford:
A: Make exciting cars that don't make money and file bankruptcy in 2009
or
B: Make cars that are great looking, have potential to be exciting (with the help of SVT), and make a ton of money and make ~$1B in 2009

Ford would have LOVED to make money on the LS, just ask the DEW program manager and the employees at Wixom. Unfortunately they painted themselved into a costly-chassis corner when money got tight and they had to cancel the other programs. It happens everyday in this business...

Would you rather Ford:
A: Make exciting cars that don't make money and file bankruptcy in 2009
or
B: Make cars that are great looking, have potential to be exciting (with the help of SVT), and make a ton of money and make ~$1B in 2009

Ford would have LOVED to make money on the LS, just ask the DEW program manager and the employees at Wixom. Unfortunately they painted themselved into a costly-chassis corner when money got tight and they had to cancel the other programs. It happens everyday in this business...


You know that I agree with you and would like to add that Cadillac faces the same issue with sigma. Many forget that Cadillac only sells about 50k CTSs a year compared to MB selling 200k E-Classes. A lot tougher to make a business case.

Ford would have LOVED to make money on the LS, just ask the DEW program manager and the employees at Wixom. Unfortunately they painted themselved into a costly-chassis corner when money got tight and they had to cancel the other programs. It happens everyday in this business...


Ok, what went wrong? Why didn't DEW's initial business plan pan out? It just seemed that after the LS, S-Type and T-Bird.....Ford just simply walked away from DEW.

Designing DEW98 to only package the Jag derived AJ V8 and not the bread and butter (as it turned out), Mod motors was probably a pretty big failure of imagination/forethought.

Is D2C really that much cheaper than DEW? If Mustang had used more DEW in it's architecture...as was originally envisaged....would that have saved DEW?

Is D2C really that much cheaper than DEW? If Mustang had used more DEW in it's architecture...as was originally envisaged....would that have saved DEW?


Looking at manufacturing costs of X amount of operations vs. X amount of operations. The DEW is definatly more costly then D2C.

You know that I agree with you and would like to add that Cadillac faces the same issue with sigma. Many forget that Cadillac only sells about 50k CTSs a year compared to MB selling 200k E-Classes. A lot tougher to make a business case.
You're right on...hopefully that can be changed with Sigma II and other future RWD vehicles

Looking at manufacturing costs of X amount of operations vs. X amount of operations. The DEW is definatly more costly then D2C.
Yep, DEW is quite a bit more expensive. That is why S197 went back to the drawing board. I think Ford compromised perfectly, except they might end up with some wasted packaging when the IRS goes in...

Ok, what went wrong? Why didn't DEW's initial business plan pan out? It just seemed that after the LS, S-Type and T-Bird.....Ford just simply walked away from DEW.

Designing DEW98 to only package the Jag derived AJ V8 and not the bread and butter (as it turned out), Mod motors was probably a pretty big failure of imagination/forethought.

Is D2C really that much cheaper than DEW? If Mustang had used more DEW in it's architecture...as was originally envisaged....would that have saved DEW?
Well, that is where opinion seperates from fact. I think that it was a combination of LS and T-Bird not living up the already low volume standards set for them, funding disappearing for programs that were going to help spread out costs due to the Firestone debacle, and some sort of monumental f-up regarding powertrain clearances for S197.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9760229/

“For all the progress, we recognize we’re very far from the finish line,” Bill Ford said. “We need a dramatically different business structure and we need innovation to drive everything we do.”
Yet another batch of bad news for the American automakers :(

Well, that is where opinion seperates from fact. I think that it was a combination of LS and T-Bird not living up the already low volume standards set for them, funding disappearing for programs that were going to help spread out costs due to the Firestone debacle, and some sort of monumental f-up regarding powertrain clearances for S197.

Personally, I think that was a monumental f-up. Really inexcuseable.

Yet another batch of bad news for the American automakers :(


Their old business formula no longer works in todays marketplace. They can continue to throw money down the hole and deny the world has changed or they can alter their business model so that they can be profitable again.

Business is a mathematical formula and when one or multiple parts of that equation are off the end result can be a significant loss of money.

When the auto industry had younger workers they required less healthcare but as the average age of their workers have become older all of a sudden pentions, healthcare, and etc have eaten a huge chunk of their profits.

and some sort of monumental f-up regarding powertrain clearances for S197.

Hmmmm....sounds like more of that Nasser idiocy to drive Ford products upmarket by using the jag (AJ?) motor. Why bother making it big enough to fit the mod motors if they are to ho-hum to be considered competitive enough compete in the market that the LS was designed to compete in. Then again we are talking about the company that had..... (drum roll please)....

351 windsor (only engine they needed)
351 cleveland (waste of time and money)
351 modified (another waste of time and money)

all being built at the same time.

351 windsor (only engine they needed)
351 cleveland (waste of time and money)
351 modified (another waste of time and money)

all being built at the same time.

In "stock" form... The 351C was the ONLY engine worth a F.
It is kind of how the Mod motors are of today. 2V for better economy, While the 4V was for the kickin'uranus type of fun.


IF Ford never told the engineers to make the 4.6 fit in the Lincoln Continental it would be a way better engine then it is also.

(Please don't ask where I was trying to go with this.. I just woke up! :o )

In "stock" form... The 351C was the ONLY engine worth a F.
It is kind of how the Mod motors are of today. 2V for better economy, While the 4V was for the kickin'uranus type of fun.

I must respectfully disagree, the block itself wasn't all that great (windsors were more reliable, the only advantage the cleveland had was the size of its mains) and in 4V form, the heads were terrible (however in comparison everything else was pitiful except for the 2v cleveland heads), they were too over the top in valve size and port volume, with a crappy port design to match. Had Ford went with a sane port volume and valve size, the canted valve head would have been pretty good.


IF Ford never told the engineers to make the 4.6 fit in the Lincoln Continental it would be a way better engine then it is also.

They did, I didn't believe it till I saw a 4.6 4v in one, I argued with one of my buddies for a good long time, I told him it was probably the SHO V8 ported over for Lincoln use. The 4.6 mod motor was designed for FWD action, hence the use of siamesed cylinders with a small bore.

[b]I must respectfully disagree, the block itself wasn't all that great (windsors were more reliable, the only advantage the cleveland had was the size of its mains) and in 4V form, the heads were terrible (however in comparison everything else was pitiful except for the 2v cleveland heads), they were too over the top in valve size and port volume, with a crappy port design to match. Had Ford went with a sane port volume and valve size, the canted valve head would have been pretty good.




You do not hear of 351C's splitting in two do you? ;)
Take a windsor and run it at 7500 rpm and see how long it lasts. :eek:

If you think the port size of the 4V head is piss poor,You just don't know enough about clevelands. :D

I will agree the 2V head is the better all around head though. That is til after 73 then they are crap also.

Im using a 71 2V headed C.
(I think I highjacked this enough) :o

Im using a 71 2V headed C.
(I think I highjacked this enough) :o

No you didn't! :D

I must respectfully disagree, the block itself wasn't all that great (windsors were more reliable, the only advantage the cleveland had was the size of its mains) and in 4V form, the heads were terrible (however in comparison everything else was pitiful except for the 2v cleveland heads), they were too over the top in valve size and port volume, with a crappy port design to match. Had Ford went with a sane port volume and valve size, the canted valve head would have been pretty good.
The Title-winning Boss 302 is nothing but a 302 with Cleveland 4V heads fitted onto it. And it is WICKED. Surely you don't think Ford selected that particular head because "it sucked", then went out and won a Trans Am title with it do you? :confused:
Bossco, it's obvious you know something about Fords, but you obviously don't know much about OLD Fords.

Because of port size, 351C-4V heads only begin to perform at about 3500 rpm, and are exceptional to 8000. That's a bit more than most street cars are going to turn back in 1970, and even today it's pretty tall. The 4V heads also have a smaller combustion chamber to help kick up the compression - making them premium-only and prone to detonation on pump gas these days.

351C-2V heads offer more bottom end torque because of the smaller port sizes and perform well from 1000 to about 4000rpm - which is where most street driving occurs. These heads will actually outperform the 4V heads on a stock street car with an automatic tranny - hands down. These heads have a more open combustion chamber, making them more partial to 89 or 87 octane, and less likely to detonate on pump gas.

The optimum head for the 351C is the Aussie head, whic is a majical combination of the closed-chamber 4V and the smaller ported 2V. It offers the best of both. Also noteworthy, is that this head - straight from Ford - typically outperforms even the best of aftermarket units made for the application - hence, the aftermarket simply never developed for 351C heads.

The 351C - while only made in the US from 1969 - 1974, was available in Australia until the late 1980's, giving it a good 10+ year run. (apparently, the Aussies know a good thing... better than we do I think.)

The 351M (which is a denotation for Modified 351 Cleveland by Ford) is actually a torque-happy motor, intended for use in trucks and large cars. It is the same block, but with revamped heads, crank, intake, and cam. It is not a rev-happy motor, but it makes gobs of Tq at 1200 rpm, and is virtually bulletproof in stock trim. It was made from 1974 - 1985 and was only retired when fuel injection became a hit. It was replaced by the 351 (5.8L) windsor block (which is a deck-heightened 302 casting).

The 351M also received a new "stroked" crank offering 400ci in many truck and large car applications, making it the 400M. This made even MORE tq, but was incredibly limited on rpm - redline was well under 5000 in most applications. This engine is found in many F100, F150, F250, F350, F450 trucks, and econoline vans from the mid 70s to mid 80s.

The 351C is actually one of the best engines ever produced by Ford IMO.
I have one (http://www.yadtel.net/~gcreed1/pics/71e.jpg) in a 71 Mach 1 (http://www.yadtel.net/~gcreed1/pics/71b.jpg) that is putting out about 425hp and is VERY streetable. Built it in 1988, and it is still thumping strong. Some of Ford's most legendary streetcars had Cleveland power - like the Boss 351 (http://mustangandfords.com/thehistoryof/173_0402_boss_13_z.jpg) (that was the fastest production Mustang until the 03 Cobra - February '71 "Hot Rod Magazine" article lists a time of 13.58 at 107+ MPH in the quarter mile, and a standing 5.8 for 0-60) and the GTHO Stage III (http://www.cia.com.au/seale/xy.html).

In fact, the legendary 302 would not have the cred it does today if it weren't for the Cleveland development. The 302 was available from late 1967 as a J-code (302-4V) that only marginally outperformed the 289-4V by displacement, yet almost nobody knew (or cared) about it until the 69 Boss 302 made the scene (with the Cleveland heads).

Interestingly enough, I just read an article last week where a reader wrote in to 5.0 magazine asking about fitting a set of Cleveland heads to a 302 like the old boss, and the response was very warm and well received. It seems that this is the "new" racers' way to cheap hp... putting the 4V Cleveland heads on a 408 stroker motor is yeilding some outrageous hp figures in n/a form, and lends itself well to blowers because of the large ports.

Lastly, back in 1970 when they were offering the 351 Windsor and the 351 Cleveland both together at the same time, the 351 Cleveland was the hands-down favorite. As someone else said earlier - try spinning the old original 351W block to 8k repeatedly... from a distance. ;)

Now THAT'S hijacking a thread! ;)
And I appologize for it - but clarifications were necessary.
At the time, Ford was offering variations of a basic shortblock that were application specific - the redundancy by cubic inch was actually planned, and for the cost differences, it made sense at the time. That was in some ways a predecessor to the modern mod-motor platform.

But as it pertains to "plant closings", it is interesting that Ford closed the Cleveland engine plant a few years back, and their main product was the (5.0L)302ci block that was originally a Windsor Engine design. Hmmm... :think:
It goes right along with this modern thought process of cutting costs to stay profitable, instead of making a quality product that people will pay a premium for instead. :confused:

Bossco, it's obvious you know something about Fords, but you obviously don't know much about OLD Fords.

Enough to know that clevlands had issues with thrustwall cracking when bored more than .020 over, Or that they had fuel wash problems in the cylinders. That the 4v heads perform better when you use a little thing called a port plate on both intake and exhaust. It just seems to me that the cleveland engine and especially the 4v heads in particular enjoy some sort of mythic cult status with people thinking that the engine and its heads were and are the do all, end all in Ford performance. I'll admit that the concept is valid (splayed valves are about as close to a hemi as a wedge motor is gonna get), but it was all about bigger must be better in excess.


The optimum head for the 351C is the Aussie head, whic is a majical combination of the closed-chamber 4V and the smaller ported 2V. It offers the best of both. Also noteworthy, is that this head - straight from Ford - typically outperforms even the best of aftermarket units made for the application - hence, the aftermarket simply never developed for 351C heads.

Agreed, the aussie heads were the best of the breed - especially with that closed chamber (nice quench action I would think), However Edelbrock has introduced aftermarket Cleveland heads designed along the same lines IIRC and hopefully with a much better port design.

As for the whole 351 W/C/M thing, I dont see why they didn't just refine the windsor motors instead of developing so many variants. The windsor engine is a solid concept as evidenced by current motorsport activities, even better it enjoys alot of aftermarket support allowing one to build big HP N/A streetable windsors.

----edit below here---

Nice Mach btw.

Can we have our thread back guys? :rolleyes: :mad:

Can we have our thread back guys? :rolleyes: :mad:


No, Not just yet. Hey wait a minute.... Its says FORD in the topic title. It IS on topic! Sure is FORD related.:D :D :D :D :D

No, Not just yet. Hey wait a minute.... Its says FORD in the topic title. It IS on topic! Sure is FORD related.:D :D :D :D :D
You bastard :)

You bastard :)


:eek: :o ;)