The Ford-Mazda Fandango

by Edward Niedermeyer

Published: January 21st, 2009

Since Ford said sayonara to its stake in Mazda, the erstwhile allies have been been having a lot of those “relationship talks,” reports The Detroit News. And true to the cliches, it’s a case of “can’t live with you, can’t live without you.” Crack a beer if you’ve been there before. Anyway, therap, I mean, analyst Jim Hall of 2953 Analytics sat down with the two to get a feel for the situation. “They’ve had a very symbiotic relationship,” he tells DetN. “The risk for Ford is they lose Mazda’s small car expertise. They think they can make it up with Europe, but Mazda can do it cheaper. The biggest risk to Mazda is their ability to get components on a global basis is reduced because their volumes are so low.” Ford goes around insisting that their “close, collaborative relationship will not change.” Meanwhile Mazda tells the Japanese papers that the partnership will be “fundamentally altered.” But despite its tough talk, Mazda might need Ford’s help to expand in China, where it’s looking at a 30 percent sales bump in 08. “The thing that Ford gives Mazda, historically, is capital — and that keeps the Japanese banks off its back,” empathizes Hall. “Now, the banks are a major shareholder.” Ford and Mazda still hold monthly meetings, and US executives say Mazda’s need for engines, successful JV plants, and mutual respect will keep them together. But will Mazda’s start-stop technology be shared with Ford? And for that matter will Mazda’s “own” DSG box be a dry-clutch like the forthcoming Ford Powershift? If two cannibals share a lifeboat, which one survives? So many questions. And based on how things usually go in relationships like these, the crazy kids probably don’t know yet themselves.

Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 23 comments

No_slushbox on Jan 22, 2009
Redshift: Yes, yes, I know all that. Nobody disputes that the Wankel has marginal advantages, the issue is that they aren't worth the fuel economy, and especially the reliability issues. That's why no other automobile or motorcycle manufacturer wastes their time with the engine even though many of them have experimented with it. I wasn't aware of the 8 year engine warranty, I'll have to look into that. That might convince me to buy an RX-8. Although it is a lot nicer to know that the engine won't blow up than that the dealer might replace it if they aren't an ass about the warranty. Putting an 8 year warranty on the engine just to try to get people to buy the car will likely convince Mazda to look into more conventional future powerplants.

Like Reply
Redshift on Jan 22, 2009

no_slushbox: I appreciate that the Wankel is a niche offering, and you either like it or you don't. Hopefully I don't come off as a raving fan-boy, but I try to at least give the technology a fair case. While I admit the fuel economy is not a strong-point of the rotary, this thread was enough to make me curious. According to the 2008 EPA numbers (take that for what it's worth): RX-8 Combined cycle is 20MPG MazdaSpeed3 on Combined cycle is 22MPG RX8 is a RWD driveline (usually a little less efficient) but the Speed3 does have 20-30 more HP and a lot more torque. So, while the Turbo 2.3 would be an improvement, I hardly think it would be a swap-justifying improvement. As for the reliability, unfortunately the early experiments, and then the later Turbo 3rd Gens have greatly hurt the reputation. There are scores of 1st and 2nd Gen non-turbo RX7s running around with hundreds of thousands of miles on them. Non-turbo rotaries have actually proven very reliable. Yes, the early RX8s do have a problem, thus the recall and extended warranty. It's not unique in the industry, it's a known issue that has been addressed, and only impacted a minority of cars. Kind of like E46 M3 rod bearing failures before the re-design. It doesn't seem as bad as Porsche IMS failures, Toyota oil sludge, Dodge oil sludge etc. For those that care (others can look away now), the operating theory on the issue is very TTAC-esque. Early engine failures were highest in North America. Ford/Mazda specify 5W20 oil in North America, but 5W30 (or heavier) everywhere else in the world. Why? The lighter oil has a fractional improvement on CAFE. Combine that with an ECU tune that favored emissions (not injecting enough oil, and runs the car rich in order to keep the Catalytic converters cool) and you have a recipe for dry apex seals, and oil-starved bearings. Reflash to the newer ECU tune that injects more oil (and as many do, move to a heavier weight oil) and your engine should last for a long time, especially if you take it to redline at least once a day. (And who wouldn't want to?) The majority of failures seem to be in US south, amongst automatic cars (A lot more autos sold in the US than anywhere else). The heat down south put extra stress on the light weight oil. The ECU injected oil based on RPM, and injects very little at low RPM. The automatics have a lower redline, and tend to spend more time at lower RPMs. These issues have now largely been discovered, addressed, and fixed. Thus the reason Mazda has extended the warranty. I believe this site has been a big supporter of, "If you want us to believe it's better, back it with a warranty." Well, Mazda has. As a rule, rotaries live longer the more often they are revved (assuming proper maintenance, of course.) Unless I'm mistaken, TrueDelta has actually shown pretty decent reliability for the RX8. Wow... I kind of did end up sounding like a racing rotary fan-boy... sorry about that. Must be getting the itch.. just 4 more months until I get my bridge-ported 2nd Gen back on the track again...

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Jkross22 When I think about products that I buy that are of the highest quality or are of great value, I have no idea if they are made as a whole or in parts by unionized employees. As a customer, that's really all I care about. When I think about services I receive from unionized and non-unionized employees, it varies from C- to F levels of service. Will unionizing make the cars better or worse?
Namesakeone I think it's the age old conundrum: Every company (or industry) wants every other one to pay its workers well; well-paid workers make great customers. But nobody wants to pay their own workers well; that would eat into profits. So instead of what Henry Ford (the first) did over a century ago, we will have a lot of companies copying Nike in the 1980s: third-world employees (with a few highly-paid celebrity athlete endorsers) selling overpriced products to upper-middle-class Americans (with a few urban street youths willing to literally kill for that product), until there are no more upper-middle-class Americans left.
ToolGuy I was challenged by Tim's incisive opinion, but thankfully Jeff's multiple vanilla truisms have set me straight. Or something. 😉
ChristianWimmer The body kit modifications ruined it for me.
ToolGuy "I have my stance -- I won't prejudice the commentariat by sharing it."• Like Tim, I have my opinion and it is perfect and above reproach (as long as I keep it to myself). I would hate to share it with the world and risk having someone critique it. LOL.