On Bill Ford's plan for Ford
02-25-2005, 10:13 PM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Bill Ford's plan for Ford
Seems like a lot of carmakers are turning toward HP/performance and fun factor/excitement and marketing that in a straightforward manner. Chevrolet is doing it with a bunch of new cars that not only have the HP/performance and/or fun factor but also look pretty radical and exciting. The Hummer H2 and H3, bunch of Cadillacs, Pontiac GTO, new corvette, and Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstice. Chrysler seems to have used a similar formula with the Crossfire, SRT-4 and all the other SRT's, and the various forms of the 300. Of course the bread and butter is the 300, which is a unique cross between staid and radical looking, and is uniquedly positioned to take on Accord/Camry and everything in the high $25,000 to $32,000 range (since the Cirrus category was removed). As far as the Japanese carmakers, Honda/Acura and Nissan/Infiniti most remind me of GM's and Chrysler's strategy. More excitement. More performance. More risks with styling.
At first glance, Ford appears to also be doing the same. But I believe it's a two-pronged strategy and not a truer commitment to excitement. I believe Bill Ford is conscious of the Toyota model of success (as Honda is also) and has consciously decided to strike a unique plan that is part Toyota (conservative) and part HP/performance and excitement. I believe Ford's conscious plan is to create a perception of radical change and excitement but scale back for real production. You can say that all carmakers are doing this but I feel Bill Ford's execution is distinctly different in that it is more systematic and more sweeping within the entire company. I might be wrong, sure.
The GT is put out there to whet appetites. Then a Mustang that is greatly hyped up (understandably) but is not really that radical or exciting but really in great part not much different than the conception of the last Mustang and what Toyota does with their cars (minus the performance-excitement marketing buzz). Then get the media buzzing with the Shelby Cobra roadster concept, a clinical exercise on symmetry and avant-garde contemporary styling not too different from the new Miata. All of a sudden, the media and mags talk about how Bill Ford wanted more emotion and excitement so scrapped the roadster in favor of a more "radical" design that came to be the Shelby GR-1 concept. I don't buy it for one minute because I think Bill Ford planned the fork in the road on purpose from the very beginning. The Cobra concept looks awesome to me but is so clinical in its execution that it will divide, as Bill Ford knew from the beginning. Phase 1 worked exactly as Ford expected. Phase 2 was ready to go a long time ago, not really a starting from scratch as Bill Ford has said in magazine interviews, because the Shelby GR-1 is definitely not a new design. It is yet another rehash of that same damn looking car that Aston Martin keeps laboriously churning out, that Jaguar has put out in their concepts and then put out yet again in that lame concept that is in light blue paint in the mags. Now, Bill Ford instructs designers to put that damn same basic shape out yet again but with a little bit of touching up on the front and rear a la Lamborghini Miura. The GR-1 concept is not a new design. Knowing what I know of Bill Ford, I will bet it does not make it to production. It is part of the larger systematic plan to whet the public's appetite and then go back to Toyota conservative. It is a plan that is a bit different from what's going on with Chrysler and GM in that Ford's intermediate size and model spread almost requires it (in other words, Chrysler is much smaller and can go all out with a few models by maximizing their variations and GM has so many divisions and models within each division that they can make a few cars quite radical because a bunch of other conservative cars will remain).
Smart and good call on Bill Ford's part. But it did not fool me. I'm not criticizing Bill Ford. The other point I wanted to make is the Shelby GR-1 concept is in fact a tremendously rehashed basic shape, which I find disappointing.
At first glance, Ford appears to also be doing the same. But I believe it's a two-pronged strategy and not a truer commitment to excitement. I believe Bill Ford is conscious of the Toyota model of success (as Honda is also) and has consciously decided to strike a unique plan that is part Toyota (conservative) and part HP/performance and excitement. I believe Ford's conscious plan is to create a perception of radical change and excitement but scale back for real production. You can say that all carmakers are doing this but I feel Bill Ford's execution is distinctly different in that it is more systematic and more sweeping within the entire company. I might be wrong, sure.
The GT is put out there to whet appetites. Then a Mustang that is greatly hyped up (understandably) but is not really that radical or exciting but really in great part not much different than the conception of the last Mustang and what Toyota does with their cars (minus the performance-excitement marketing buzz). Then get the media buzzing with the Shelby Cobra roadster concept, a clinical exercise on symmetry and avant-garde contemporary styling not too different from the new Miata. All of a sudden, the media and mags talk about how Bill Ford wanted more emotion and excitement so scrapped the roadster in favor of a more "radical" design that came to be the Shelby GR-1 concept. I don't buy it for one minute because I think Bill Ford planned the fork in the road on purpose from the very beginning. The Cobra concept looks awesome to me but is so clinical in its execution that it will divide, as Bill Ford knew from the beginning. Phase 1 worked exactly as Ford expected. Phase 2 was ready to go a long time ago, not really a starting from scratch as Bill Ford has said in magazine interviews, because the Shelby GR-1 is definitely not a new design. It is yet another rehash of that same damn looking car that Aston Martin keeps laboriously churning out, that Jaguar has put out in their concepts and then put out yet again in that lame concept that is in light blue paint in the mags. Now, Bill Ford instructs designers to put that damn same basic shape out yet again but with a little bit of touching up on the front and rear a la Lamborghini Miura. The GR-1 concept is not a new design. Knowing what I know of Bill Ford, I will bet it does not make it to production. It is part of the larger systematic plan to whet the public's appetite and then go back to Toyota conservative. It is a plan that is a bit different from what's going on with Chrysler and GM in that Ford's intermediate size and model spread almost requires it (in other words, Chrysler is much smaller and can go all out with a few models by maximizing their variations and GM has so many divisions and models within each division that they can make a few cars quite radical because a bunch of other conservative cars will remain).
Smart and good call on Bill Ford's part. But it did not fool me. I'm not criticizing Bill Ford. The other point I wanted to make is the Shelby GR-1 concept is in fact a tremendously rehashed basic shape, which I find disappointing.
Last edited by Reactionary; 02-25-2005 at 11:32 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Learners_Permit
Series I Interior, Audio, and Electronics
8
09-27-2015 07:38 PM