Ford’s decision to equip a dry dual clutch transmission on the Ford Fiesta and Focus wasn’t a terribly great decision. Mistreating employees and canceling plans to replace the unit weren’t exactly smart choices either. A recent report from the Detroit Free Press detailed the atmosphere within Ford before, during, and after the development of the “Powershift” dual clutch automatic, which is equipped on some two million Ford vehicles in the United States. Basically, Ford’s engineers knew the transmission would cause problems but became convinced that speaking up would result in severe reprisals, as management didn’t want the problems reaching the top.
This more recent report is far more revealing than the last piece published by the newspaper. That’s because current and former Ford employees reached out to the paper after that article was published. They described how the team almost immediately realized the transmissions would be problematic, and that their concerns were ignored or dismissed during every development phase. The initial test cars behaved exactly like the employees feared it would:
Said a seasoned mechanical expert on whom Ford depended for project direction, “I was driving a Fiesta during the launch, and it wasn’t right.”
“It couldn’t figure out what gear it wanted to be in, then it kept hesitating. That sucker would not go into any gear. The transmission revved all the way up and finally found the gear. I had to pull over and swerve so I wouldn’t get hit. It wouldn’t shift. I think it actually dropped into neutral,” he said.
“Everybody knew they had problems,” the mechanical expert said. “They were rushing into production and things weren’t ready yet.
The crux of the issue was Ford’s decision to utilize a dry clutch setup, which does not lubricate the clutches. That really seems to be the main cause of trouble for the DPS6:
“What in the world are you thinking going with a dry clutch?” one engineer asked. “The friction coefficient is inconsistent and it creates problems. But this was someone’s baby. If a manager came up with an idea, people would be afraid to say no. At first, it was just on paper. Someone should have said something. They should have. The idea should’ve been killed. No one knew how it was even considered — and then implemented — in the Focus and Fiesta.
“But they got to this point in the product development cycle where Ford realized they passed the point of no return. They spent a ton of money and here’s this giant problem,” the engineer said. “How do you solve it? They had implemented the flawed transmission and any fix was going to be super expensive.”
Reading between the lines, it seems like management didn’t want the dual clutch transmission issues to reach the top. Who was the person responsible for that decision? Possibly former CEO Mark Fields, who resigned in disgrace after trying to pin the blame for Ford’s woes on Jim Farley, a longtime Ford executive who is well loved within the company. Fields has been the only executive compelled to testify in the ongoing class action lawsuit. Unfortunately, his testimony was sealed.
I’ll have an update about my Powershift-equipped 2013 Focus in the near future. Stay tuned. And make sure to read the entire article.
Related Reading:
I don’t know which is worse from a corporate standpoint –
A) Cheating on the EPA test to get Diesels sold in the U.S. and thus damaging the environment in contravention of the set standard in this country but giving the consumer a product that they in general really liked, or
B) Actively developing and selling a product that is known to cause serious problems for the actual consumer in a segment of the market that in general isn’t in a position to make a big fuss about it.
Still, it appears to be the same root cause, a culture of fear within the engineering ranks to speak up about a known issue.
I’ll go with “B” every time. While I care for the environment, cheating on EPA tests doesn’t cause distress for countless consumers who have to deal with a balky product they paid big bucks for and rely upon on a daily basis, and whose very lives are put at risk as well.
I would argue that B might be worse for the environment. All of these cars are going to have much shorter lifespans than they would have if they had been equipped with reasonably reliable transmission. So they are going to be scrapped and a replacement purchased far too soon.
Exactly.
If the standard is the effect on the customer, then “B” is the choice.
If the standard is the motivation of the leaders who approved the scheme in the first place, I’d go with “A,” because it seems as though VW leadership deliberately pursued a path that required cheating.
Ford’s sins are certainly egregious, but I don’t believe that Ford leadership deliberately set out to produce a faulty transmission for the Fiesta and Focus.
For every engineer trying to do an excellent and ethical job, there are ten managers intimidating him/her to cut corners, cut costs and shut up about legitimate issues.
A recipe for mediocrity.
VW doesn’t appear to be bothered by it too much outside of the US. Here in Europe they sold a lot more cheating diesels, and after being found out they engineered a solution that appears to be working: scrap your 10-year old diesel and buy a new VW. No need for those fancy hardware updates they’ve been compelled to develop and install for the US market.
Somehow they’re getting away with it financially, politically and in the eye of the general public, who generally aren’t bothered by having been defrauded when they bought their flashy Audis. Instead the environmental organisations and the courts are the bad guys for wanting to have emission standards in force since 2010, you know, laws, actually enforced.
Truly, I say to ye that there is nothing new under the sun.
In the beginning, there was the Plan.
And then came the Assumptions.
And the Assumptions were without form.
And the Plan was without substance.
And darkness was upon the face of the Workers.
And they spoke among themselves, saying, “It is a crock of shit, and it
stinks.”
And the Workers went unto their Supervisors and said, “It is a pail of
dung, and we can’t live with the smell”.
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers, saying, “It is a container of
excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it.”
And the Managers went unto their Directors, saying, “It is a vessel of
fertilizer, and none may abide its strength.”
And the Directors spoke among themselves, Saying to one another, “It
contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong.”
And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents, saying unto them, “It
promotes growth, and it is very powerful.”
And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him, “This new
plan will actively promote the growth and vigor of the company with very
powerful effects.”
And the President looked upon the Plan and saw that it was good.
And the Plan became Policy.
And this is how sh** happens…
I think you win the Internet for today!
Love it!
Years ago I learned in business school the two major things that can kill a business:
1. A good plan poorly executed, or
2..A bad plan perfectly executed.
This can be an example of the second instance.
It’s the culture of relentless cost-cutting, and trying to get “something for nothing”.
Note this happened on (Saint) Mullaly’s watch.
The article is long, but well worth reading, as it sheds light on how Ford in particular, but much of the auto industry in general and corporate America operate.
Ford’s goal was to reduce fuel consumption. Laudable. When the transmission was not up to the task, the article show Ford deliberately chose to not to make any changes that would cost real money.
It’s easy to chide the mid-level engineers who had to make this craptastic transmission work. They did the bidding of their bosses–be a team player, or you’re off the team. Most people need a job.
These types of situations are not uncommon. However, the severity of these cheap choices is usually not as extreme, in that the consequences take longer, or are more gradual (leaky head gasket, for example), or are minor (car leaks or squeaks).
In this case, Ford should have pulled the plug and installed conventional automatics, or spent the money to correct the flaws, despite the cost and EPA penalty. They did not.
I think it is an outrage. IMO, it appears that variation in manufacturing tolerance accounts for the relatively wide range of driver experience, from ‘not bad’ to “jerky” to “I’m afraid to drive” to “I WON’T” drive this.
I commend the Detroit Free Press for publishing this expose in Ford’s hometown. IMO, Ford can’t pay enough in penalties.
And Ford’s lack of ethics and denials taint not only them, but the other “American” car companies (though GM paid and fessed up on the Cobalt key, so this might not rub off on GM as much).
“though GM paid and fessed up on the Cobalt key, so this might not rub off on GM as much”
Writing a check with a gun pointed at your head isn’t all that laudable, and the reorganized GM has worked long and hard to separate themselves from the ignition switch liability, so for me it’s “business as usual.”
Amen. GM’s escape from liability via “the old GM” was atrocious. Their malfeasance cost lives. Sure some of the fatal accidents had huge driver-error aspects, but many did not.
I so want to be a domestic supporter, but in my many years in the market I just see no chance of being assured they make the right choices.
Quite seriously, is it possible that incidents like this and the VW fiasco could be suggesting that we are at the limits of, or slightly beyond the limits of currently feasible fuel economy technology?
When companies are having to cheat perhaps the goals governments are setting for them are unrealistic..,..
So I’m not the only one who believes this possibility, Lokki. Good point.
They’re trying make an efficient silk purse out of the classic ICE+transmission sow’s ear. Can’t be done. You’d think they’d know that.
I’m surprised and disappointed that the world’s automakers haven’t embraced the hybrid drive train to a far greater extent. It’s been 20 years since the first Prius for heavens’ sake, just do it. Sure it costs a little more but surely less than all these scandals and fiascos are costing. Ford in particular has no excuse, they developed a full hybrid in-house that’s been in production for years.
Ultimately hybrid is only a a bridge to the real future, EV, which is here and works today. Costs are coming down. Mainstream by 2030.
Electrics are too expensive and have too many disadvantages. I’ll never own one. I’m not willing to buy a hybrid either for that matter.
They don’t “have” to cheat. Greed and the neoliberal mantra that maximizing short-term profit for shareholders is the sole responsibility of a company induces them to *chose* to cheat.
short-term profit can increase share price. Increased share price can result in higher CEO compensation. There it is.
.
Then again, many people think everything can increase forever. After 2-3 decades of larger vehicles with the same or lower fuel consumption, why can’t it continue forever….
So companies tend to take relatively large risks for incrementally smaller gains. Even Honda!
I put turbos, CVTs, 10-speed autos, and this dreadful DSP in this category.
But that’s progress.
No. VW didn’t need the diesel tech to meet the fuel economy (CAFE) regs, their gas engines are efficient enough. I believe it was done in the name of greater profits and sales.
Ford only needed it due to their preference of selling large vehicles that get comparatively poor mileage, in large quantities. These vehicles need to compensate for that.
Note that Toyota and Nissan also sell light duty half ton trucks, albeit it in limited formats and quantities but with the same/similar size engines that get similar if not worse economy. But they have a culture of developing fairly fuel efficient smaller vehicles that they are able to sell to offset the quantities of larger vehicles.
I’m not suggesting that Toyota and Nissan are better just that it is possible to sell vehicles that get lower fuel economy and also sell more efficient vehicles in quantity to offset that. Ford doesn’t need to “get a pass” to make it work; they just needed to spend more per Focus to give it a reliable transmission such as the same tech but with a wet clutch. Or maybe the world doesn’t really need 350hp F150s. Either you’re a world class manufacturer and able to be one of the big boys or you’re not and depend on a thumb on the scale.
VW’s motivation was meeting – or, more accurately, appearing to meet – the stricter emissions standards for diesel engines that were scheduled to take effect in both North America and Europe.
VW did have a deal to use a system developed by Daimler-Benz. That system relied on the injection of an ammonia-based fluid (urea) into the exhaust. With that system, diesel engines could meet the stricter emissions standards. VW then decided against taking that path, and the rest is history.
The Dieselgate cars *did* use urea injection. VW applied their cheat for the sake of user- and manufacturing-friendliness, so that a reasonably small urea tank that could be squeezed into an existing space would last between major service intervals.
That’s it. People who’ve driven post-recall VW diesels have noted the only difference is higher urea consumption.
The Golf and Jetta did not have the system using urea until the 2015 model year. The Passat and Touareg did feature them before that date.
Ford’s preference? You mean customer preference for large vehicles. All of these abominations are due to people who think they are smarter than markets and want to impose their views onto others. It is horrific that there are so many people who’ve been conditioned to hate freedom, which really means that they hate people.
I don’t hate you Henrik. Freedom doesn’t include the right to trample on your neighbor. Nor does it include any right to roast us all by freely polluting the air we all have to share. Especially when solutions are at hand.
The port-injected ICE cars of the past twenty-five years have been leaving the air cleaner than they found it unless you consider CO2 to be a pollutant. CO2 is the building block of life on this planet, so it isn’t a coincidence that the climate-hoaxers have chosen it to focus on. When you force people into EVs that involve raping the land for lithium and forcing child slaves into cobalt mines, you are indeed trampling on your neighbors. You’re also going to make warlords who you less like to have at your Christmas party than the House of Saud into the richest people on earth.
All the horrors visited on the air by private use of combustion-ignited engines have been perpetrated at the whim of people who used command economy social engineering to push Europeans into them in the name of the environment. EVs will be even worse because of their supply stream. Direct-injected ICE cars have diesel-like particulate emissions that pre-CO2-mandate port-injected ICE cars did not. Climate hoaxers are happy to poison people and the environment, because doing so suits their purpose.
You many not think you are doing harm in your misguided views, but it shouldn’t have to matter to me that you’ve been fooled. Do what you want to, and I will do what I want to. You have no right to dictate my life. That’s why we have this country.
I trust and depend on science because it’s true and it works. Anyone can duplicate the experiments for themselves. Otherwise you’d better turn off the computer, kill the heat and lights, go live in a cave and fear the dark.
What part of the scientific method involves giving over control of human life to people who have been making 100% incorrect apocalyptic predictions for the past 50 years? That’s brainwashing, not science.
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
Did I ask for propaganda? Did I direct you to spend time reading the truth in some naïve hope that you aren’t immune to reason? There was a volcanic eruption that just had more influence on the climate than man ever will. It still won’t be as disastrous as every time progressives have fooled people into forfeiting their freedom.
—
Don’t feed the trolls.
Yes, absolutely Ford’s preference, last I checked they are building them because they can make money at them and not really much else. I don’t begrudge Ford for developing a vehicle that people want to purchase. I do begrudge Ford for either not wanting or not being able to or not caring to produce a vehicle or range of vehicles that pretty much EVERY other (non-domestic) manufacturer is able to design (often in the US), engineer (often in the US), produce (usually in the US), and actually sell at a profit in our market.
Of course selling garbage that hurts your consumer isn’t the way to get people to purchase your economical vehicles, and I imagine those that got burned will think twice about purchasing one of their non-economical vehicles as well as Ford’s new golden child, the electric Mach-E.
Keep this kind of thing going, and sooner or later the problem will take care of itself I suppose. It got mighty close a decade or so ago.
Why can Ford make money on big vehicles? Is it because there are people happy to pay more for them than they cost to produce? Is that because those people want(one might say prefer) those large vehicles? Ford would love to make compacts and subcompacts, but the market doesn’t want to pay them 25% more than production cost to buy them. Preferences again. Why wouldn’t Ford prefer to sell vehicles which use less materials to produce and energy to ship? It’s because the market doesn’t want them enough to pay more than they cost to produce.
I don’t want a Ford parked near my home and I personally drive a compact sedan. It is still no wonder that the vehicles Detroit can make money on are the ones the market has such a strong preference for that they don’t even need to be very good.
Sure, next you’ll be saying that Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Nissan, and everyone else that builds cars that Ford gave up competing with is doing so at a loss on each and every one. What secret sauce is it that would make Ford’s product in general worth even a penny more than the others?
Ford not being able to build compacts and subcompacts at a cost that allows them to make a profit on them is entirely, 100%, due to Ford, its management, and whatever apparently poor deals they made. Maybe, just maybe, Ford should take a step back and think about why people aren’t willing to pay Ford enough money for these vehicles.
I doubt anyone that bought a Focus or Fiesta that croaked before its time is looking to step up into an F150 anytime soon, if they happen to want a pickup they may be trying out the other brands (all four of them). That’s a lot of potential market share given up. Ford’s already figuring out that people getting out of Focus and Fiesta aren’t stepping into an EcoSport as Ford was hoping when they canned those lines. We’ll see who ends up buying the new Escape.
Anybody who actually did buy a Fiesta, Focus, Fusion did in fact NOT want an F150 instead, otherwise they would have purchased one. There doesn’t appear to be any real magic to making a small car that can make money, most manufacturers do it. Just the ones that don’t currently HAVE to (because they are feeding from the large pickup trough), are finding that they are no longer ABLE to.
I remember a decade ago a lot of the domestic maker apologists going on about how nobody else is a “full-line” manufacturer. I haven’t heard anything like that lately as one after another they are dropping half their lines. And notice that the one item missing from most of the import lines is the one item that seems to produce the largest profits of them all (currently). While others may want part of that profit, it doesn’t seem to be putting them out of business, ergo they are clearly making money on everything else. If you’ve checked you’ve also seen that Toyota for example has sold MORE Tacomas since the Ranger was brought back than they did before that. Everyone predicted the Tacoma would be toast as it’s outdated or whatever. But it seems to be holding on just fine and giving Ford a fine run for its money in that segment. Ford should be worried, Toyota is only constrained by capacity and perhaps politics in not upping its large pickup game.
Diesels intrinsically give better fuel economy, but to make their diesels clean enough to sell in the USA, VW were having to pay royalties to Mercedes to use their “bluetech” system, and that hurt their profits and pride – so they looked for another solution….
No. VW didn’t need the diesel tech to meet the fuel economy (CAFE) regs, their gas engines are efficient enough. I believe it was done in the name of greater profits and sales.
Quite correct. VW had established a diesel beachhead with the TDI in the US. They saw its popularity with a similar demographic as the Prius, during the ime when Prius sales were exploding. VW was and had been in a weak position in the US So the “Clean Diesel” was a concerted marketing/sales initiative for the US, and they cheaped out on the technology needed, as Piech demanded they make it work.
VW sales did increase as a result.
Here’s an example: When I got my first Prius in September 2000, a work friend with a long commute really wanted one too, but by then it was a six month wait. So he bought a new diesel Rabbit off the lot. He was very happy with it for many years and reported over 40 mpg. (This was before the degree that uncontrolled diesel exhaust is carcinogenic was fully understood.)
Was it? Diesel exhaust was obviously harmful even as the first round of CAFE and disruptions to the fuel supply were encouraging its adoption in the 1970s. The exact sort of people telling us to follow a deranged teenager off a cliff today told us that the coughing fits near diesels were all in our heads for the common good. Brainwash, rinse, repeat.
I’ve got a book written by a Diesel evangelist circa 1979 on a bookshelf in my parents’ house. I’ll be there soon for Christmas and post some excerpts about the benefits of filling your lungs with visible particulate emissions.
” But they (Toyota and Nissan) have a culture of developing fairly fuel efficient smaller vehicles that they are able to sell to offset the quantities of larger vehicles.”
Not so true for Toyota over the past several years:
https://aceee.org/blog/2019/03/toyota-loses-ground-fuel-economy
It’s not as simple as that. Toyota very much does have highly fuel efficient smaller cars, but yes, their average EPA rating has gone up some directly the result of the market demanding more SUVs and trucks. That’s the reason, not because they don’t have “a culture of developing fairly fuel efficient smaller vehicles”. It’s not like they’re paying penalties to the EPA.
“It’s not like they’re paying penalties to the EPA.”
Unlike FCA. Who presumably made the business decision that it’s cheaper for them to do so.
But they can. One of the interesting things I noted in Japan was that almost every Toyota had a hybrid version and what seemed like the majority of the newer Toyotas I saw on the road actually WERE the hybrid version. And gasoline wasn’t really that much more expensive than in the pricier parts of the States. Way more hybrids than over here largely due to them not offering hybrid in everything here including their vans, large sedans, etc., it didn’t seem like it was trim level dependent or anything like that. So I think if they HAD to get their “score” up over here they could easily do so.
So build a subpar truck and price it so you don’t sell as many, thus negating the need to offset your truck sales with as many more fuel efficient vehicles? Brilliant. I wonder why Ford didn’t think of that.
Actually, that kind of brings up a problem with CAFE. Why not let an automaker focus on their strengths instead of stretching into areas they aren’t as accomplished in? What really matters is the overall average efficiency of every vehicle sold. That might improve if companies could dedicate more resources on their core competencies.
In other words buy and sell CAFE credits? Interesting idea, sounds sensible to me. There is in fact such a system. You can read about it here. It’s complicated of course.
Tesla’s gotten $2 billion selling credits since 2010, to companies that include GM and FCA, according to Bloomberg News last June.
If you’re replying to me I believe you’ve missed the point. Because we’re still penalizing Ford for being the best selling maker of trucks. Why, because they excel at something you find naughty?
I own several Ford trucks, a Toyota, and a Chevy. I find it interesting to compare the engineering from the period spanning 2010 to current. Ford has definitely gone beyond the aforementioned two companies to improve the mileage of their trucks. My Toyota is a 2013 and has a 5 speed, has body panels made of steel, and a fan clutch! My 2012 Ford’s have an extra gear and electric fans. A few model years later we’re into aluminum, smaller displacement turbos, and 8 speed transmissions. Where’s Toyota with the tundra? Still stuck in 2010.
But yeah, let’s make them support another automaker because they happen to be good at trucks. Makes sense.
Ford deserves a lot of credit for their aluminum turbo trucks. I hope they’re getting CAFE benefits as a result. It must pencil out that way for them to have spent for that development.
So you understand where I’m coming from then. They spend the money on the trucks, sell a slew of them, and then by the nature of corporate average fuel economy, have to make their smaller cars more efficient than the competition as a result. It’s a losing proposition. In comparison, Toyota sold the Corolla with a 4 speed until what…the mid teens?
To be fair, I have not read up on the Obama era cafe changes. I believe I did read something about it being based off vehicle footprint? I assume that addressed these concerns and is the reason Ford is trimming their car lines.
IMO, whatever benefits CAFE accomplished could have been done for a lot less money had the government simply taxed fuel.
Ford has ‘invested’ in making it’s trucks more fuel-efficient? Fine, if fuel cost more, their advantage vis-a-vis their competitors would be greater.
It’s not like the government doesn’t need the money. There are thousands of weak bridges. Our roads are crumbling.
CAFE was, and is, a gimmick that makes certain politicians feel good about themselves, and distorts the market.
It’s possible that without CAFE Ford still might have heaved this craptastic transmission onto the public, to better ‘compete’. But I think probably not, because the stakes (small cars) would be higher.
Without CAFE, and with higher fuel costs instead, more people would choose more fuel-efficient vehicles. Perhaps then, fuel-efficient vehicles would be more important and taken more seriously by the Detroit Three. Maybe….
This would also make it more viable for the Detroit Three to export cars to other markets, besides the Saudi Arabia.
It is laughable that the country that is most car-dependent on earth is so non-competitive and invisible in other markets, while companies from Germany, Japan, and Korea flourish here and make a lot of money in the US.
For my entire adult life, with a few exceptions, “American” cars have been perceived as inferior to imports. During my fathers youth, in the 1950s and thru the 1960s, in Europe it was the other way around.
Only when it comes to large vehicles weighing 5,000 pounds or more are “American” cars better. Because outside of the US, there is no market for them. Yet even in this area, the foreign companies have made inroads–even Koreans! (See Telluride and the Hyundai version). It is now 1973 again. The ‘imports’ have a good beachead here just waiting for the next ‘shock’ to take a bigger piece (of what will be a shrinking pie)
The Detroit Three have forfeited the lower-priced part of the market. GM is betting on EV/AV. If/when there is a prolonged recession, or an event that raises the price of fuel, there is a good chance GM will face bankruptcy again, and this time Ford will be in the same boat. Chrysler/Jeep won’t but their operations will just be slashed by their foreign owners.
On the other hand, had the government taxed fuel rather than use CAFE, the American companies might not have had those big juicy profits, and they might have floundered earlier. I don’t think so, but there are many variables here….
In any case, what Ford did is an outrage, and continuing to refuse to acknowledge it is even more outrageous.
Also, while we don’t know to what EXTENT modern pollution impacts climate, intuitively, air pollution and man-made CO2 can’t be good, and it behooves us to try to minimize them, within reason. I’m not looking to eliminate central heat, or even A/C, but when I see all these big pick-ups and SUVs being used to commute 30 miles each way, I wonder… Only in America, but for how long. Maybe EVs are the Trojan Horse that will curb this kind of thing
Trucks and cars have always been different CAFE classes with their own targets. The reason the PT cruiser was a truck was because it was highly fuel efficient in that class and helped balance out the poor performing Ram 1500 and Dakota, while it would have been poor if classified as a car and drug down those numbers.
However there has been a system in place for transferring credits between the two classes for a long time. With Flex Fuel credits Ford’s truck line did not need help from the car line.
Now CAFE doesn’t stand for Corporate Average, instead a car has a target based on its foot print. However fact is the future targets for the smallest classes are excessively high. So small cars are actually a liability instead of an asset when CAFE compliance is calculated.
Okay, my mistake.
So I went and read about it, so Ford has to work harder on the trucks because they added medium duty trucks in 2012?
And in relevance to this conversation, Ford was still producing the panther chassis when this transmission was designed. So they were having a tough time balancing the cafe requirements because they were in segments Toyota wasn’t?
Anyway, the original story is about Ford and their corporate culture. I’d like to pile on at this point and throw in the fact they botched the 6r in the F150. Just last week my wife was driving one of our 2012s down the highway when the transmission went into limp mode and downshifted into first at 60. Nothing to do with CAFE, just incompetence and a terribly designed failure mode.
Seems like every 20 years or so, Ford messes up big time.
Exploding Pintos. Rollover-prone 1st/2nd-gen Explorers…now this.
Kudos to Freep for doing the heavy lifting and holding FoMoCo accountable. It’s just a crying shame, these Focuses were finally supposed to be the equal of the Euro versions. From what I understand, they were…with this one HUGE asterisk.
They were supposed to but then Ford, as is common, screwed the pooch with tampering…
Apparently the lessons of the Pinto debacle were forgotten.
Two thoughts: Every now and then I wonder why I am hesitant to spend money on a new American vehicle but instead go with either the good long-term reputation (Honda) or the great warranty (Kia). Then something like this comes along.
Second – CAFE. Yes, Ford (and VW) came up with the worst possible combination of compromises and cheats to hit the numbers they needed to hit, but the problem is just as much in design of the system. VW at least provided decent driving cars (until they got caught). It is 1981 all over again.
I don’t believe VW needed the diesels to meet CAFE. Their engines are fairly efficient and there hasn’t been a V8 in the mix for a decade or so. And the V6s didn’t have a large take rate to begin with. Toyota has far more V6 and V8 vehicles to need to offset and there hasn’t been a diesel for decades.
Good luck with the Honda. They aren’t exactly immune from problems stemming from stretching to meet CAFE targets either. While we had zero issues with the CVT in our 2014 accord, we did have a terrible time keeping it topped up with oil; it burned a significant amount. A combination of thin, low tension rings and 0w20 oil. I finally had enough and switched to 5w30. That seemed to help.
If Ford wanted highly efficient Focus cars why didnt they go the diesel route, the cars actually exist and get great mileage, dont use the dodgy German powertrains that got caught cheating and dont have a rep for bad transmissions, on top of that they go quite well too.
A) Americans generally do not embrace the diesel, and…
B) Diesels don’t meet our emissions standards without cheating in some way.
Plus, even European nations are now moving away from diesel-powered passenger cars, due to concerns over emissions.
After reading the new report, I’m very happy I walked away from a new Fiesta in September. They were flogging new base Fiestas for $14,000
When shopping for my Civic back in 2016, the Focus was my next stop, but I decided on the Civic. Phew.
Although I have the potential gas mixing with oil issue of Honda’s turbocharged & direct injected 1.5 L. That’ll end up being Honda’s scandal (along with a quality issue with the AC evaporators). At least Honda stepped up and extended the warranty out to like 6 years and unlimited mileage for each of those issues, thus owning it, rather than trying to cover it up.
Question: Would a good long drive of a couple of hours make the engine hot enough that the gasoline in the sump either gets consumed as it slips by the oil control piston ring into the combustion chamber or evaporates thru the PCV system as it boils off when the oil reaches its hot operating temperature?
The Honda oil-gas issue has only reared its head in vehicles driven for a short distance in cold weather, from what I understand.
I had a recall for my 2017 Civic earlier in the year for this issue. It involved a software update.
I’ve heard about that update for our cars, but so far, my dealer has elected to leave it alone as I do not have the problem apparently.
My wife suggested that I get a new car for my commute and give her the Civic, but the fact her commute is only 1.2 miles, this idea gives me pause in light of this potential problem.
Like Geeber said, it seems to only be an issue with short drives. While I’m known to start this one to simply move it out of my driveway to get my Mustang out on the weekends, my Civic gets driven daily 34 miles one way (and then back home again) every time it’s started. I’ve been keeping a close eye on it, but insofar, I’ve had no issues.
If your wife has a commute that short, has she considered a used Nissan Leaf? You can charge those from an external outlet.
The management mind at work, something I saw up close for years in the private sector. Honchos seem to prefer to surround themselves with yes-men that spend the day telling the honcho how brilliant and wonderful he is. Anyone that suggests something could be better is deemed “not a team player” and pushed out the door.
I spent several years with Radio Shack. Every year, at the annual meeting, someone would get up and try to tell management that the competitive environment had changed and RS was no longer competitive. The President of RS would reply “I’ve been in this business 40 years and I know everything”, and the underling’s comments were summarily dismissed. RS went bankrupt in 2015.
The public sector isn’t any better – trust me. In some ways, it’s worse, as private sector companies at least face the possibility of extinction at the hands of more nimble and responsive competitors.
I have come to the conclusion that every large organization is messed up, which makes me very impressed that anything at all ever gets done properly.
I agree with you regarding large companies. I’ve experienced it first hand. What a cluster f.
Ugh, Radio Shack. I legitimately miss having such a convenient source for resistors, switches, potentiometers and blank breadboards for my random hobby projects. RS couldn’t seem to figure out who exactly they were supposed to be competitive against, Best Buy or Hobbytown USA(who absorbed that aforementioned inventory incidentally)?
In the stores I was familiar with, they were literally split in half, with a comparatively small and limited selection of typical consumer electronics like phones and cameras in the front, right with the checkout desk/employees, and the hobby inventory(electronics, home stereo equipment, RC cars etc.) stuffed way in the back, that employees seemed to never have any training in to even be able to assist a customer as to where something is! They seemed to attempt to commit a the phone store model towards the very bitter end with “The Shack” but to everyone it looked like a brick and mortar version of a mall phone case kiosk, inconveniently located in a dieing strip mall, and shook off the entirety of the remaining small group of hobbiest/specialty customers that had no place else to go but online.
The bankruptcy was inevitable and probably overdue but man it was rough to watch happen.
Did you ever have a RS battery card? What’s more, did you ever actually use it? I miss the Shack too.
In the fifties and sixties Radio Shack stores actually had competition from similar stores like Lafayette. That’s back when radios and TVs broke down constantly and you had to bring all the tubes in to get them tested.
As the segment shrank RS was the last man standing. CB radio in the 70s and home computers in the 80s gave them growth spurts, but it was the cellphone and the internet that finally meant the end.
Did you ever have a RS battery card? What’s more, did you ever actually use it? I miss the Shack too.
In the fifties and sixties Radio Shack stores actually had competition from similar stores like Lafayette. That’s back when radios and TVs broke down constantly and you had to bring all the tubes in to get them tested.
As the segment shrank RS was the last man standing. CB radio in the 70s and home computers in the 80s gave them growth spurts, but it was the cellphone and the internet that finally meant the end. Maybe the RS president knew everything, but then everything changed. You and me buying ten-cent resistors for our projects were not enough.
I had my card, as did a couple of my friends and we would be in the store at least once per month because of it.
Maybe the RS president knew everything, but then everything changed. You and me buying ten-cent resistors for our projects were not enough.
RS was something like the Big Three now, seeking sky-high gross margins. While the fair trade laws were in effect, RS competed with mom and pop TV and stereo stores, which had high costs. RS could price to compete with them, and blow the mom and pops out of the water with sale prices that were still very profitable for RS.
The fair trade laws were repealed in the 70s, which opened the door to big box discounters. RS never changed it’s business model to lower it’s costs to match that of the discounters. Because the costs of RS’ business model were so high, I had to make at least 40% gross margin on a sale to break even. Best Buy makes a profit on half that GM.
So, what happened? People would come into my store to pump my people for information about a product: explain all the features and how everything worked. Then the person would go to a discounter, where a comparable product was $50 or more cheaper.
Bernie ignored the situation. When one of the long time members of the Board of Directors started complaining about top management, he was simply not nominated for reelection to the Board.
In Bernie’s obit a few years ago, his successor recalled how Bernie took him aside when he joined the company as CEO and converted him to demanding 55 points of gross margin. As different product categories became unable to deliver the sky-high gross margin, they were dropped: computers, audio, video, burglar alarms, PA equipment. This all sounds like the Big Three now, abandoning one market segment after another as they seek ever higher GM.
Eventually, RS was down to cell phones and cell phone accessories. Thing is, AT&T and Verizon have their own cell phone stores, and T and VZ don’t care if the stores make a fat profit, as they make their money on the service. RS was squeezed out of it’s last refuge.
Is the same thing going to happen to the big three? FCA, in it’s Q3 report openly said they are seeking higher margins, even at the expense of volume. Trends at Ford and GM are clearly along the same lines. Will they cull their line down to nothing but huge “luxury” pickups and equally huge “luxury” SUVs, seeking to maximize transaction price and gross margin, and suddenly discover that they are laffably overpriced, because Toyota can build the same vehicles, and maintain a presence in other segments to help pay their overhead?
And nobody in management stops to think what this does to the company’s reputation? Your company’s name is only as good as the product that comes out the door.
In my mind it’s even worse as Bill Ford is actively involved with the business and it’s HIS family’s actual name, one would think that would add a slight extra layer of responsibility or potential for shame. I don’t condone but I can perhaps understand how someone who is compensated partially based on the stock price and who likely has himself covered in his employment contract that if he or she is let go is still set for life might not care as much. It’s not like in Japan where if there is a major issue, the CEO tends to either A) apologize, resign and accept disgrace, or B) actually kill himself. Or both. While I think B is a little extreme, I can certainly respect the culture.
VW’s management is no better in that regard, since I did bring them up earlier.
“Potential for shame.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Ha!
“Reputation is irrelevant. Integrity is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. You, too, will now service…The Board.”
Ford buyers…had enough yet?
Before you answer, let us show you the new… SHINY THING!
With new features that go “Beep” and “Boop”!
“We at Ford are taking this matter…..——Squirrel!!!”
As the owner of several Fords, this is of course disappointing.
Certainly not news, the depth of this story deepens, but started in the press several years ago. I got to live it personally when my daughter’s college roommate’s Focus, a low mileage 2-3 year old car was in the shop almost monthly, and then couldn’t make it the 55 minutes back to school. Her dad sold it, and now she has a Hyundai sedan.
Just as her roommate was selling, my daughter needed her first set of wheels. The Focus was a logical choice short of the transmission, and there were great deals to be had. Reading reviews about how Ford was treating even the Certified Pre Owned warranty holders, I was appalled. We test drove one, and the tranny felt wonky. I looked at multiple car faxes, and every damn one showed multiple transmission service issues.
We bought a Dodge Dart this time. Entertaining little car with better interior quality than the Focus. Agricultural 2.4l engine is spunky, if rough.
Would I leave Ford over this? No, I’m not harmed, and as a house fleet manger with five Fords, there is a lot of convenience dealing with two local Ford dealers that I bounce between as it suits me. Going multi-brand would increase my workload.
Would I leave Ford over the long term? I had GM and Mopar eras, so, yeah, possibly. Do enough to turn me off, and I’ll move on.
This turns me off. The Mulally era reputation is officially tarnished; if he didn’t know, his company culture fostered it. And Bill Ford just never seems to know what is going on, or makes poor decisions if he does.
It’s a shame.
Funny, Dave. I had a fully loaded 2013 Dart Limited that turned me away from FCA for a long, long time. My brother traded his Nitro for an identical Dart in a different color. Both were toast at 50k miles, and we both now drive Hyundais. My parents had an AWD Taurus Limited that was pretty much done for at 5 years 80k miles they traded for an AWD Challenger which has been rock solid in the 2 years they’ve had it. We don’t abuse cars, either. There’s also a pristine 99 TransAm, and an immaculate 94 Corvette at moms and I’ve got an 06 Saab convertible with almost 90k in perfect shape. Dodge and Ford were a bust for us.
Sorry to hear it went so badly. We picked up a 2015 Dart SXT with 39K on it, I’ve purchased gas, oil, replaced the battery when it hit four years because that is what I do, and serviced the tranny at the severe service level. And, a set of Michelin wiper blades and a set of Michelin Defenders from Costco for good measure. 70K and it performs like a champ. A semi-linear replacement for the 2002 Durango I bought new and my daughter was driving. Four Mopars in all with no real complaints.
Its actually a worry if you like Fords to talk to someone with connections to it, I had a chat with my BIL for the first time in years, he spent too long in the parts section at this countries leading Ford agency which was the largest vehicle dealership in the south pacific Ford have several vehicles causing them issues in terms of customer feedback and complaints, the unpopular Falcon is not exempt and the popular Territory is a main offender Ford AU slightly underbaked the front suspension design its weak not very durable and very expensive to repair and buyers arent happy plus Ford AU is gone so where do you get parts in the future for a purely Australian vehicle, PSA for diesel engine parts no problem trans is Ford parts bin no problem, fragile lower control arms are modified Falcon big problem.
It seems that it was perfectly well-known that there was not only a (quite low) upper torque limit for dry-clutch DSG’s but also that the weight of the car itself had to be considered (hence Ford using dry-clutch for the 1.0 in Fiesta and 6-speed torque-converter for the same engine in Focus in Europe). My questions aren’t about the hopeless cover-up, but the begininngs: did Getrag warn Ford about this? Did some high-up person/committee override that to save a few bucks per unit? Or perhaps some high-up engineer “knew better” and couldn’t be overridden (not unknown for really clever engineers to, er, throw up the fault code of hubris)?
Incredible to look in those reports and see 47 cases of smoke pouring out of the engine bay – that’s a seriously over-heated clutch!
A friend has one of the AMT (automated manual trans) in a diesel Mondeo there are lots of them about and they seem reliable yet the PSA/Ford TDI thumps out torque the puny gas engine can only dream about, what went wrong? The Mondeo/Fusion is a much heavier car than the Focus, bigger than a Falcon.
My experience over 100k with a PowerShift-equipped Focus was that if driven moderately it worked just fine. It got a couple of firmware updates that did improve shift feel. One of the two shift actuators (one per shaft) failed one time, which caused it to skip gears but didn’t leave me stranded. Everything was covered under warranty, and I traded it in before the warranty expired. It got about 37mpg overall, which is excellent but falls short of what was advertised.
For me, the disappointing part of the PS was that it did not turn out to be a cheaper version of a VW DSG. For a non-car person expecting an automatic transmission like they’re used to, it would certainly have felt like it was broken all the time. Installing them in mass-market cars was indeed a mistake, even without considering mechanical reliability.
“Whenever a problem was raised that meant a delay on the Pinto, Lee [Iacocca] would chomp on his cigar, look out the window and say ‘Read the product objectives and get back to work.'”
The more things change, the more it’s the same ol’.
And remember, kids: ♬♩Qualiteee izzzzzz…JobOne!♩♬ (buyers of job 2 and subsequent cars are outta luck)
Not Ford’s first rodeo with defective transmissions:
“The Ford “park-to-reverse” story was long and complex, but it came down to a design defect in automatic transmissions used in 23 million 1966-1980 Ford products; the detent in the shifter mechanism that separated the Park and Reverse positions tended to get rounded off and the shifter would slip into reverse. Much legal wrangling ensued, and the upshot was that Ford— which likely would have suffered financial obliteration via a 23-million-vehicle recall to replace major mechanical components, this taking place during the darkest days of the Malaise Era— was allowed to mail out warning labels instructing drivers to shove the shifter into Park real good and then mash that parking-brake pedal before shutting down the engine.”
https://autoweek.com/article/wait-theres-more/little-warning-label-saved-ford-23-million-vehicle-recall