Ford Ka to the U.S.? Maybe, maybe not
Click above for a high-res gallery of the new Ford Ka
When Ford introduced the world to its latest Ka microcar last year at the Paris Motor Show, we had serious doubts as to whether the diminutive little hatch would ever make it over to the United States. A few months have passed, and we're still left wondering. A few days after the car's first appearance, it was said that Blue Oval CEO Alan Mulally would like to see the Ka make it Stateside, and now news comes that the man at the helm is still championing the car's U.S. arrival. Still, no matter how much Mulally may want to see the Ka in Ford's home country, the final decision reportedly lies with Derrick Kuzak, who is said to disagree with his boss's opinion that it would sell in sufficient quantities in America. What's the problem? Remember that the Ka is built overseas and is an inexpensive machine, so there are serious questions as to whether it could possibly be profitable in the U.S.
Gallery: 2009 Ford Ka
[Source: Business Week]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
the vegas style guy 8:05PM (1/12/2009)
I've wanted this car since I saw it in Quantum of Solace! It will sell, but, Ford needs to build it here!
Reply
mike 10:00PM (1/12/2009)
Yes... god forbid they sell a well though out, well designed, practical, inexpensive car.
Just imagine if it turned out to be constructed with quality too and I never, ever, ever had to go back to see my dealer again until oil change time.
God forbid Ford sell anything like that here in the homeland.
I don't know what these guys could be thinking!
If it's too expensive to build overseas and ship, then here is a thought... put some people to work here building it!!
I hate to be the cynical type, but I would dearly love Ford to prove me wrong in thinking that they couldn't manage their way out of paper bag - and actually bring this car here and sell it.
- mike
Reply
montoym 11:45PM (1/12/2009)
I personally don't think it will make it here. Just doesn't seem to make much sense. It's a very small car which is not what most Americans prefer. Like it or not, we prefer larger cars(even on the small end of the spectrum).
The Focus is currently selling in good numbers right now and I really can't see many people preferring a Ka over a Focus(especially if Ford brought back the 3dr hatchback to the states). The Focus already achieves great mileage figures and is cheap. What would the Ka have to offer? Similar mileage in a smaller package?
I think it will all be even more moot once the next-gen Focus arrives which will have similar styling and build quality as the Ka, just in a more American-type small car size.
BTW, I feel the same way about the Fiesta as well and that's even a bit larger than the Ka but smaller than the Focus(think Yaris 3dr size). I dont see the Fiesta being a huge seller and I would expect the Ka to be even less stellar. Of the two though, I'd think the Fiesta is the smarter choice since it already has competition here in the Fit, Versa and Yaris 3dr HB. The Ka, however, is smaller than any of them which I think would be too small for many people to consider.
Reply
jeffzekas 3:12AM (1/13/2009)
Why should Mr Kuzak SHOULD bring the Ka to America was stated succinctly in a recent Consumer Reports Auto Blog:
The "legacy" of entry level
Considering the state of the economic climate (and the peaks and valleys of gas prices), it's possible we'll see a resurgence of buyers interested in entry level cars. The good news: There are many models available that are reliable, get 25+ overall mpg, have good safety records, and cost less than $20,000. The bad news: Except for the Ford Focus, almost none come from the Detroit Three.
With all the automotive-type news that's dominated my in-box over the several months, the reoccurring theme I kept seeing was "legacy costs." To keep this in its proper context, these costs apply to the challenges the Detroit Three are having fulfilling the promises they made to their retired workers' healthcare and pension obligations. I think it’s a fair argument that these cost have hamstrung Detroit by adding extra costs to their cars.
However, for this blog, I'd like to put a different spin on the term. For me, looking back to the early 1970s to today, Detroit has a woeful track record (or "legacy") of building decent entry level cars. And to rebuild the trust these companies so desperately need in 2009 and going forward, you can argue that they have to start at the bottom: that is, make a really great inexpensive car. This is something the Japanese manufacturers have done very well for a long time. Detroit’s "legacy" in this regard, reads like a who's who of automotive infamy. Google "worst cars" and you'll find these models on just about every auto writer's list: Ford Pinto; Chevrolet Chevette and Vega; Dodge Aspen; AMC Gremlin.
Not that there haven't been stinkers from foreign manufacturers (who can forget the Yugo, the first Hyundais, or the Daihatsu Rocky). Even the first few Toyotas, Datsuns and Hondas were a little dodgy. But here is where the comparisons end, because the aforementioned companies kept making even their cheapest cars better. That's the "legacy" that is now paying dividends.
Consumer Reports data has shown for many years that most Japanese manufacturers made even their entry-level products rock-solid reliable. These cars were usually the most affordable in the product line up, and were sold to people just getting out of college or entering the world of full-time work. But once you convince a buyer that even your cheapest car is well made, it doesn’t take much to sell him/her another model.
Consider, even, that Detroit’s "value leaders" (another term used to market entry level cars) from the late-1980s and 90s were pretty weak: Chevrolet Cavalier; Dodge Omni and Neon; Ford Aspire.
I understand that Detroit has always had a price disadvantage in with these cars in that Japan car companies don’t pay for their workers’ health care costs. Fair point. Plus, Japan can sell its small cars all around the globe with minor changes. This also helps cut costs.
But I think one way Detroit can win back a new generation of buyers is to make its least expensive models great. Look at the low-cost Honda Fit, Hyundai Elantra, Honda Civic, Mazda3 and Subaru Impreza, for examples. To convince a newly-minted college graduate to hop on the GM bandwagon, the company needs to build something better than the Chevrolet Cobalt or Aveo. Perhaps that’s coming with the new Cruze. And the cheapest Chrysler product, the Dodge Caliber, needs a total redo--it’s not close to being competitive.
To get a customer for life--a buyer that every business covets--these inexpensive models need to be designed and built to deliver competitive performance, good fuel economy, high levels of standard safety equipment and reliability that convinces the driver to tell his/her neighbor "Got it right out of college and it's never failed me...I'm sold on this brand." If Detroit can do this, it will rebuild its reputation--one customer at a time.
That’s a legacy they can be proud of.
--Mike Quincy
Reply
DasBoese 8:01AM (1/13/2009)
I think what is really needed is mutual safety and emissions regulations between the EU and the United States. It's one of the biggest barriers for automakers to operate globally in a meaningful manner. And global players they are all.
It's really retarded because the regulations often differ just in minor details, yet the added cost of making them compliant to both EU/US standards often just isn't worth the effort, which is especially true for smaller cars with their reduced profit margins.
When GM/Chrysler/Ford were at congress, they should have told them "We do have the highly efficient, competitive products, unfortunately we can't bring them over here at a profit because of YOUR shortsightedness."
Additionally, they should tell California to fuck off with their constant need to one-up everyone else when it comes to emission regulations.
Reply
mike 4:40AM (1/14/2009)
re: mutual safety and emissions.... right on!!
That is exactly what we need. It would also put a nice (and expensive) bureaucratic and testing framework in place so that less developed countries could use those same standards as a default for their own domestic sales.
It's true that many countries might not be able to afford such niceties as safety.
But, common world standards (as far reaching as possible) will make the cars less expensive for everyone, including developing countries.
The cost savings in design and tooling may allow such features to be sold in such markets more quickly than could otherwise be accomplished.
JDred 9:47AM (1/13/2009)
DasBoese nailed the one reason why we don't see these cars in the US. But the other disturbing reason is in the article itself. Where else in the world are there auto manufacturers that allow a subordinate to be able to veto his own Boss over a product decision?
The big three can build cars equal to or better that the competition. But two things have to change, the UAW and their "gimme!" mindset and execs like Kuzak that are too short sighted to see beyond the here and now.
Reply
DasBoese 10:56AM (1/13/2009)
Now, be fair.
Mulally has never announced a decision to bring forth the Ka, all that was said is that he'd like to do it and the possibility was being reviewed, which is Kuzak's job.
If it simply doesn't work, well that sucks, but you can't fault the man for merely doing his job.
JDred 2:34PM (1/13/2009)
Unfortunately, it also shows Mulally's lack of leadership. This is just another problem that has the Big 3 tripping over their D**** on a regular basis.
Killroy 11:56AM (1/13/2009)
I have seen this car in El Paso because it was from Mexico.
This car is very well designed to maximize space and feel big inside. Its leaps and bounds better than a smart car.
If consumers really want to be green they have to downsize. Downsizing conventional cars can yeild Prius like fuel economy.
As a cyclist, the lower the mass of cars the better.
Reply