MustangSix wrote:That leaves only the indirect costs to attribute - Overhead, fringe, general & administrative costs, etc. Then add in profit. I doubt that Ford Aus is earning a usury rate on each vehicle, so it really has to come down to the overhead efficiency of the operation.
This really gets too complex to elaborate on in a forum like this, but I truly suspect that it's not the cost of the workforce, but rather all the non-labor costs that drove all the auto manufacturers out of Oz. If that's truly the case, they will find themselves loosing money no matter where the cars are built.
Wow, you've actually hit on the fact that the cost of running the operation doesn't work out unless the whole supply chain cost is reduced. In Australia, Ford and Dana Corp set up drive-line operations in close proximity, in there own pockets. But yet again, there was no third supplier. In the old days, the BTR 4 speed was sent off to Volvo on the 760/850, S50, and the Maserati GT3200, but now, the cost of selling gearboxes is to great, and uncompetitive against the German ZF boxes. Yet Ford makes ZF gearboxes in America for a vastly reduced cost.
When Ford bought engines from Tiawan, and Toyo Kogyo Japan before the mid 90's 51% share take over, Ford Australia started failing to make money from Mazda for its Autorama Fords, the Laser (323/GLC), Telstar (626), Courier (B 1600/1800/200/2200/2600), Econovan/Spectron (Bongo). The Aussie Dollar to Yen parity was the whole equation, not supply chain cost.
I've worked for years with allianceing and lump sum contracts, they really do work if you build things down to a price, where you run teams like a semi autogenous ball mill; getting people together, and playing them off so there talents to make proffit are headlined.Its classic Whiz Kids stuff. But in an American setting, the subcontractors just go broke, and then the whole supply chain the needs to be radically shaken up by setting up alternate bids and contracts. The Ford motor company just outsources to fix things to other states, countries or other continents if the price isn't right, or it innovates a cost effective solution from hardcore Saturday brainstorming sessions. The crtical mass makes the savings, and you American unions workers are smart enough to figure through solutions in the best interests of share holders, even if its hard.
I fail to see how things can be radically shaken up in Australia. Like New Zealand and Japan, actual productivities are about 25% less than in Detriot USA.
You can't cut the price of the supply chain on parts like Ford did with the up to 40% foreign Explorer or Ranger, which had German engines and Belgian transmissions made in formerly Ford owned plants from war reparations. Now that's smart management, a real Deaborn Ace. Same as the outsourced dash on the smaller Fords... there is money to be saved by outsourcing, but also money to be made when the outsourced item is perfected at vasltly reduced cost.
And that is why Dearbon turns its back on Broadmedows...its a pencil sharping exercise, and Ford's organic survival demands it.
Sadly, the knowledge of how to use the basic tools and amortizations of them were around to transfer the Geelong I6 to the smaller fwd and diesel requirements for a generation of Fords, but its the whole cost of the operation that is important. Put simply, the outpost in Australia has poor economies of scale due to geographic location. The cost per dollar to do things goes down the closer you are to your markets, and if you ore is closer to the market, you should reap benefits. In this instance, a simple plan for 100% plant utilization was scuppered by what Ford calls direct costs. https://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 68&start=0