Archives




View Full Version : Three American Domestic Auto CEO’s meet with President George W. Bush.


xcel
11-14-2006, 05:16 PM
Our three companies are the source, directly or indirectly, of over seven million U.S. jobs and we have invested over $38 billion in the U.S. over the last four years. (http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=24793&make_id=trust)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Automakers_and_President_meet.jpg Ford Motor Company - Nov. 14, 2006

Joint statement attributable to Chrysler Group president and CEO Tom LaSorda, Ford Motor Company president and CEO Alan Mulally, and General Motors chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner regarding the meeting between President George W. Bush and the CEOs of America’s domestic auto industry:

We appreciate the President meeting with us today on issues that we believe are not only critical to the domestic auto industry, but also affect overall American manufacturing competitiveness.
We had a candid and productive discussion on such specific issues as energy security, the affordability and quality of health care, the trade imbalance caused by an artificially weak yen, and the rising costs of vehicle production materials.

Energy Security

We told the President we support his and Congress’ call for the continued development and use of renewable fuels as part of lessening America’s dependence on imported oil. We said that we are willing to do our part to increase the use of renewable fuels and that we stand ready to make half of our annual vehicle production E85 flexible fuel vehicles or capable of running on bio-diesel by 2012. We discussed with the President that as part of an overall national strategy to fully tap the potential of renewable fuels to displace petroleum, any vehicle production increase must be accompanied by continuing incentives that encourage the manufacture, distribution, and availability of renewable fuels and the production of flexible fuel vehicles.

Working together to increase the production of flexible fuel vehicles and the availability of renewable fuels affirms our continued support of the “25 by ‘25” initiative-an effort led by the Energy Future Coalition and supported by agriculture and forestry groups to get 25 percent of the nation’s energy from renewable fuels by 2025. In June, we also agreed collectively to double annual production of vehicles capable of running on renewable fuels to two million cars and trucks by 2010.

Manufacturing Competitiveness

During our meeting we briefed the President on the tough decisions we are taking to make our businesses more competitive. We also discussed specific issues related to U.S. manufacturing competitiveness that cut across nearly all manufacturing sectors, not just autos. We explained why a healthy domestic auto industry is vital to our nation’s economy. Our three companies are the source, directly or indirectly, of over seven million U.S. jobs and we have invested over $38 billion in the U.S. over the last four years. Additionally, the more than $21 billion we spend each year on research and development exceeds any other sector and we purchase 80 percent of all U.S.-produced auto parts and components, equaling $171 billion. However, the economic benefits and the well-paying jobs our industry and nearly all manufacturing provide are declining in part because the competitive playing field is not level. Some of our principal foreign competitors benefit immensely from national control and subsidization of health care costs in their home countries, and from fiscal and trade policies which keep local currencies weak and make import of U.S. products difficult.

Health Care

We outlined the serious competitive disadvantage that upwardly spiraling health care costs are placing on our industry and America’s manufacturing base. We told the President we believe that government can play a leading role to improve health care and make it affordable and available for all. We expressed support for, and an interest in greater involvement in, several Administration proposals such as advancing information technology usage and the recent initiative to increase price and outcome transparency. With support from the private sector, our government can exercise its power both as the largest purchaser of health care and as a policy maker to stabilize costs, reduce errors, and provide consumers the cost and performance information they need to make informed health care decisions. Also, we asked specifically for a greater focus on improving the quality of care for those with serious illnesses or chronic diseases-the one percent of the population that makes up 30 percent of the nation’s overall health care bill.

Currency

Another area of competitive concern we discussed with the President is the massive automotive trade imbalance with Japan and the artificially weak value of the yen. The nation’s widening trade imbalance with Japan is costing the U.S. thousands of manufacturing jobs and intensifying downward pressure on wages and benefits of America’s working families. This year Japanese vehicle imports into the U.S. will reach 2.3 million, which is further exploited by the artificial weakness of the yen-trading at the lowest level in 20 years. The artificially weak yen provides Japanese automakers a $3,000 to $9,000 per vehicle cost subsidy for Japanese auto exports and the numerous Japanese-made parts that go into vehicles made by Japanese companies in the U.S. We told the President that we are very willing to make difficult decisions to transform our businesses to compete successfully, but we are not in a position to counter the effects of an excessively weak yen. We asked the President to take action to address the weak yen.

Material Costs

Finally, we discussed the rising cost of production materials such as domestic steel. We told the President that as a result of massive consolidation, robust global demand, sharply lower costs, and import protection, the domestic steel industry has completely restructured, recovered and is very profitable. Unfortunately, the continued protection of domestic steelmakers from competition is placing a heavy cost burden on U.S. manufacturing. As a result, our companies face higher costs for steel and supply disruptions. We are asking the Administration to recognize that the continued protection of steel from competition is severely harming U.S. manufacturing and is no longer needed.

Overall, we were pleased with the exchange we had with the President and came away with a clear impression that he understands how vital these issues are to the American economy and our ability to compete successfully in the global marketplace. We welcome the opportunity to work with him, his Administration, and the Congress in a bipartisan manner and to move forward on solutions to these issues while continuing to do our part to ensure America’s long-standing leadership in manufacturing and innovation.

Chuck
11-14-2006, 09:15 PM
It was noted that the GM and Ford CEO came in one of their company's hybirds. Sorry, but I'm cynical about the gesture.

noflash
11-15-2006, 08:11 AM
I'm sure the Ford CEO didn't mention they could come up with their own hybrid and had to buy Toyota's.

Do you think they whined about how Japan's products were too good to compete with as well?

Pravus Prime
11-15-2006, 08:16 AM
I'm sure the Ford CEO didn't mention they could come up with their own hybrid and had to buy Toyota's.




Huh? :confused:

rhwinger
11-15-2006, 08:53 AM
Looks like they will continue to build E85 vehicles, using that nifty little loop hole, and use that as a main point to say they are "doing their part" to increase energy security.

They don't seem to be saying anything about increasing vehicle fuel efficiency, let alone doing anything different about it.

Chuck
11-15-2006, 09:20 AM
Looks like they will continue to build E85 vehicles, using that nifty little loop hole, and use that as a main point to say they are "doing their part" to increase energy security.

They don't seem to be saying anything about increasing vehicle fuel efficiency, let alone doing anything different about it.

The way they are going about building E85 vehicles does look supicious. Invariably it's 5-liter vehicles that are E85, and this upgrade lessens the CAFE hit.

E85 could help out, executed by people that really want it to work.

It looks like an exercise to pretend to be doing something. :(

noflash
11-16-2006, 11:37 AM
Huh? :confused:

Your FEH has the patented Toyota hybrid system. For every FEH they sell they have to pay Toyota royalties. I think I've even read that they lose money on every one they sell and do so strickly for green PR.

Chuck
11-16-2006, 11:42 AM
I thought the story was Volvo did a lot of the hybrid R&D independently, Ford used it after they were aquired, and an agreement was made with Toyota to make legal peace.

noflash
11-16-2006, 04:31 PM
I have not heard the Volvo story.

What I have read in the Automotive press it that the FEH and the Altima's hybrids are both sourced from Toyota technology. This may be overly simplistic, but accurate. Here's part of an article from a quick google search:

Toyota 'Kick-Started' Ford Hybrid
Ward's Auto World, April 1, 2004

Ford Motor Co. acknowledges it has licensed the rights to about 20 Toyota Motor Corp. hybrid system patents in order to help the American auto maker develop its first-ever gasoline-electric hybrid vehicle.

A hybrid version of the Ford Escape - which is the first hybrid SUV for the North American market and the first carrying a U.S. nameplate - bows this fall, employing variations of the technology Ford received through a partnership struck with Toyota 18 months ago, Phil Martens, Ford Motor Co. group vice president-North America product creation, tells Ward's.

noflash
11-16-2006, 04:35 PM
From wikipedia:

Development

Engine compartment of a 2006 Mercury Mariner HybridThe Escape Hybrid uses technology similar to that used in Toyota's Prius, which led Ford to license a number of Toyota patents to avoid any legal disputes.

Both Ford and Toyota state that Ford received no Toyota technical assistance in developing the hybrid powertrain. Aisin AW, a Japanese automatic transmission manufacturer (belonging to the Toyota group), supplies the hybrid transaxle used in the Escape Hybrid. Sanyo of Japan builds the battery pack. The frequently stated story that Ford simply bought the Hybrid technology from Toyota may be left at each one's criteria.

It may have been reverse engineered.

xcel
11-16-2006, 05:44 PM
Hi NoFlash:

___IIRC, Ford gave Toyota rights to Diesel Emissions Controls patents for use of the PSD programming.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Pravus Prime
11-17-2006, 08:42 AM
I can assure you, the FEH and every system in it was built from scratch, not based off Toyota technology. For some reason that myth keeps perpetuating to give bad press. I've met the engineers who designed the systems. I've talked at length with the engineers who designed those systems. They did not reverse engineer it, they did not lease it, they designed every single aspect on their own. It's just a case of similar systems and avoiding lawsuits. It happens all the time, in fact, Toyota has several with Ford that go the other way, particularly with seatbelts.

Which was my point. Perpetuating that myth is like going around telling everyone that the HV batteries are toxic. That story ran in the press and automotive circles for a while. So did that CNW report that hybrids are too costly that every major magazine touted.

Chuck
11-17-2006, 08:54 AM
Pravus,

The sad thing is misinformation like this can go on for years. :(

Yesterday, I saw the CNW "Hummer life cycle greener than Prius" nonsense - AGAIN. {sigh}

noflash
11-17-2006, 09:16 AM
Sorry to cause any controversy.

I guarantee that any time a significant new vehicle comes out major automakers purchase that car new of the lot, take it home and disect it. You think Ford didn't do that with the Prius?

I'm glad you have your FEH. I wish more people did. My thoughts are that if Ford wasn't paying Totyota royalities on every one they sold and it was profitable, we'd see some non-SUV Fords.

Why do you think hasn't Ford done this yet?

P.S. I am aware that there are other Ford hybrids on the horizon, but it's been years.

Chuck
11-17-2006, 09:29 AM
I think all is well. :)

A hybrid Mustang, I'd think could be a big hit and totally blow up some hybrid untruths on performance. It's not what I'd pick first, but it could help Ford a lot.

noflash
11-17-2006, 09:57 AM
I'd consider a Hybrid S-Max. That'd be a great car.

Pravus Prime
11-17-2006, 10:01 AM
Sorry to cause any controversy.

I guarantee that any time a significant new vehicle comes out major automakers purchase that car new of the lot, take it home and disect it. You think Ford didn't do that with the Prius?


Of course they do. Nearly every model on the market has been dissected by the competition. GM (for some ludicris reason) seemed very proud of the fact that the Green Line has less parts then the Prius.


I'm glad you have your FEH. I wish more people did. My thoughts are that if Ford wasn't paying Totyota royalities on every one they sold and it was profitable, we'd see some non-SUV Fords.

Why do you think hasn't Ford done this yet?


LOL, Ford isn't paying Toyota for their hybrid technology. I can assure you of that. If patent sharing worked like that, it would be a really tangled web.

1. The technology, built from scratch, not with Toyota reverse engineered blueprints, is costly to put into a vehicle, the parts, engineering tech, programming, etc. cost far more than the $4000 they're passing on to the consumer. The same was said about every hybrid on the market, that they cost more then they're charged for, resulting in a loss until they're sold in high enough volume. (As I recall, a story ran not that long ago about the Prius finally being profitable.)

2. Ford management is extremely dubious about hybrid technology. Despite their one time committement to them, difficulty in getting parts, related costs, and fear that consumers won't embrace the technology have slowed their development teams.

3. Ford is paranoid about releasing a bad hybrid model. (Something GM doesn't seem to be. :D ), which means every model goes through an insane amount of testing, which combined with hesitation and development time creates a long turn around cycle. Ford went with the Escape because the SUV market wasn't dominated yet, and the Escape had the luggage compartment which was perfect to be hybridized for the HV battery. They're still waiting to see if it's a success or failure before committing to a fleet change to hybrids. So far, they seem to think it's worked well, with the FEH, MMH, and the upccoming Tribute hybrid, but since that's all based on the same model, that's no big deal. Creating a hybrid from scratch, or using one that's not a "natural" conversion still causes them to have cold feet. The FFH (Ford Fusion Hybrid) isn't just pluck a "hybrid set" off the FEH, and pluck it in and they're ready to roll. There's a lot of development time there, that mostly had a red light until the FEH entered the market and didn't sink.

4. Just like GM, there are still decision makers at Ford that don't like hybrids, so they don't make it any easier, and can sometimes slow things down. Part of the problem of being with bloated management is that there's seldom a great consensus. (I suspect this is also what's caused a relative lack of advertising about the FEH.)

I suppose that may be considered insider information, but I went to college with people who are now Ford engineers, my family has Ford Engineers in it, and my parents have friends who are senior Ford engineers; I know a lot of stuff that most people don't.



P.S. I am aware that there are other Ford hybrids on the horizon, but it's been years.

Is it really that surprising? The big three have really become the slow three. And when even Toyota has an entire generation of the Prius go by before hitting the US, that's slow as well, so don't expect the turn around time to embrace hybrids to be very fast.

noflash
11-17-2006, 11:06 AM
Thanks for your input.

It's good to hear the perspective of a Ford insider and fan.

hobbit
11-17-2006, 10:53 PM
"licensed" does not mean "had built for them". I have the
same Volvo/Ford origins story from other places, too. It may
be astoundingly *similar* to Toyota HSD, but it isn't Toyota
HSD. If it was Toyota HSD, it wouldn't have the inverter
built into a side lobe of the transaxle, would it?
.
_H*



Copyright 2006 Clean MPG, LLC. All Rights Reserved.