Ford Motor Company is different from its U.S. domestic rivals if for no other reason that it isn’t largely owned by the U.S. government. While some automotive analysts have attributed much of the difference between the Blue Oval and the other two companies to the fact that its financial people went to the financial markets when money was still available (even though the company even had to put up the logo for collateral), arguably a better reason for Ford’s success is the fact that it has been producing new products that are defying gravity in the market, everything from the venerable F-150 truck to the Fusion sedan, which is gaining in the market on the likes of the Accord and Camry.

What’s more, Ford has a product plan that is putting new cars and trucks on the road with a seemingly relentless cadence. For model year 2010 (as in right now), Ford has more fresh products than ever in the company’s history*, and in calendar years 2009 to 2010, it will be bringing to market 30 new powertrains (i.e., engines and transmissions) globally (22 in North America) and, according to Barb Samardzich, Ford vice president of Global Powertrain Engineering, there will be 30 more by 2013.

While that might seem impressive, Derrick M. Kuzak, group vice president, Ford Global Product Development, reveals that between 2005 and 2008, Ford reduced typical new vehicle engineering costs by 60%.

That’s right: reducing vehicle engineering costs by 60%. And they’re not stopping there.

Which leads us to wonder, well, how?

Kuzak says that there are several key elements to making this happen, including:
-  Simplification and focus
-  Global Product Development System
-  Global Vehicle Programs
-  Global Product Development Organization
-  Global Ford Vehicle DNA

“It starts with simplification,” he says, then goes on to explain that they are reducing the number of vehicle platforms. Between 2007 and 2012, the number will be reduced from 27 to 16. Importantly, while the percent of vehicle volume on core platforms was 29% in 2007, it will soar to 78% in 2012. Kuzak says that when the majority of the volume is on eight platforms, engineering can be more efficient.

Then there are the global aspects to what they are doing. “Think about a product development that allows you to be faster in time to market, depending on the complexity of the vehicle, by 25% to 40%,” Kuzak says. “Think about one group doing the engineering on a system for every vehicle globally.” He explains that in the past, there was an exhaust engineer on every program. Not anymore. “Engineers being what we are like”—Kuzak holds both B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering and a Ph.D. in systems engineering—“every one wanted to do their own design.” For exhausts and every other system or component in a vehicle.

Engineering is being done on a global basis at Ford for vehicle segments, as well.

Then there is the “Vehicle DNA.” While that genetic reference is often nothing more than marketing-speak, Kuzak says that there are some measurable attributes for it at Ford. He explains, for example, that when you sit in a Ford vehicle and grip the steering wheel, it feels the same, it isn’t different from car to car to car. “We don’t have every designer and every steering wheel engineering doing their own steering wheels,” he says. And this sort of thinking runs through all aspects of the vehicle. “There is only one sound signature for every Ford I-4 engine globally. That saves a lot on NVH [noise, vibration, harshness] engineers.”

On a functional level, they have been going to school on the product development system of Mazda, of which Ford owns approximately 13%. Kuzak calls the Mazda system “the best in the industry.”

What’s more, “Part of the improvement year over year is using more CAE. We have an actual measurement of the percentage of our tests at the vehicle level and system level being done with CAE. We have objectives over time where more and more of our tests, or validations, are being done by analytical means as opposed to physical vehicle or system testing.”

When discussing non-automotive companies that they are benchmarking and learning from, Kuzak cites Boeing—and quickly notes that the automaker and aircraft company had a relationship even before Alan Mulally left Seattle for Dearborn in 2006, becoming Ford CEO after having been executive vp of The Boeing Company and president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. Still speaking of CAE, he notes of Boeing, from which they are learning about the efficiencies of applying digital engineering, “Clearly, they don’t do a lot of full airplane testing.”

He says that they’re learning from Microsoft, with which it has a partnership on telematics technology (Ford SYNC): “Their product cadence is even faster than ours.”

Kuzak says that there is a reason why Ford can do what it is doing, a reason that also applies to other companies like Toyota, Honda and BMW. “You can only do this if you have one brand. That one brand means the same thing in terms of its values to every customer globally,” he says. While there may be local differences, the focus and the commonality of a global team of engineers and best practices are making all the difference.

*2010 Ford new vehicle introductions: Ford Fusion and Fusion Hybrid; Ford Taurus and Taurus SHO; Ford Mustang and Shelby GT500; Ford Flex with EcoBoost; Ford F-150 SVT Raptor; Ford Transit Connect; Lincoln MKT and MKT with EcoBoost; Lincoln MKZ and MKZ with EcoBoost; Mercury Milan and Milan Hybrid.