52 replies to this topic

[Dunc]

I first began watching F1 in the 1990s - long after the DFV era - and Ford were still a force in the sport. In 1993 its engines won six GPs for Senna and Schumacher then the following year Schumi got his first WDC with a Ford engine and I can even remember his appearing on Top Gear with Jeremy Clarkson for a plug on a new Ford.

 

How did a company that was still able to get things so right go into such a steep decline? I now all the later issues that came about with the Jaguar team but the rot must have been set in before then. Has the story of its decline been documented anywhere? I wasn't really interested at the time so am playing catch-up 25 years later.

[Bloggsworth]

They lost interest when the going got tough/expensive...

[Dipster]

But the engines were not really Fords, were they? As I recall Ford financed Cosworth to develop engines and had their name slapped on the cam covers. So Ford, as such, was never really a force in F1, no?  Grateful for a correction if I am wrong.

[Dunc]

But the engines were not really Fords, were they? As I recall Ford financed Cosworth to develop engines and had their name slapped on the cam covers. So Ford, as such, was never really a force in F1, no?  Grateful for a correction if I am wrong.

 

That's correct until the late 1990s when Ford bought Cosworth racing. Before that they were never true blue Ford engines but as Ford financed them, had them branded with their name and, I assume, controlled where they went, I think it's fair to call them such.

[absinthedude]

It seemed to go wrong when Ford took full control. The Ford badged engines in the Stewart were pretty decent, if not as good as the very best from Mercedes and Ferrari. But Ford really didn't know how to run a racing team. 

 

If we look at their success in F1...the DFV was made and developed by Cosworth. As were the moderately successful turbo versions and the DFR. So was the HB, which was a huge step forward in the back of the 1989 Benetton...and the title winning  engine in 1994. 

 

When Stewart entered, they had support from Ford but it was fairly hands-off....JYS and Paul built up a well functioning team, and if their victory in 1999 was lucky the team was still performing very well. But for 2000, Ford took over, replaced the management, rebranded it Jaguar and had already bought the racing operations of Cosworth....and it all went wrong. The people at the top of Ford's corporate structure didn't know what to do with Jaguar Racing....it was widely reported at the time that someone near the very top asked the question, "who's Ed Irvine? And why is he the second highest paid employee of the Ford Motor Company?" Ford installed the wrong people to run the team, and it just didn't work. And they haven't been back since. They sold their interest in Cosworth and haven't looked at F1 since.

 

A sad lesson in how not to go racing, or indeed how not to undertake any highly specialised activity. If they'd let Cosworth continue the engine programme and Stewart run the Jaguar team it might have enjoyed some success. 

 

I expect Ford will be back in some form or other, but likely not for another decade. 

[Red Socks]

 

I expect Ford will be back in some form or other, but likely not for another decade. 

That'll be with an electric racer then ?

Can't wait !

[RobertE]

But do not forget the Ford Indy 32 valve V8 engine, which came before. They knew how to do it before the Cosworth connection.

[10kDA]

But Ford went to Cosworth and not the other way around, did they not?

[Doug Nye]

Much of the original Ford link with Cosbodge was involved, self-evidently, with Lotus for whom both Mike Costin and Keith Duckworth had worked previously. Their link providing initially Ford-derived engines tuned for Formula Junior led to the F2/F1 programme which produced the DFV and that was largely due to the personal enthusiasm and drive of Ford of Dagenham executives Walter Hayes and Harley Copp. Colin was also instrumental of course in having previously massaged Ford Detroit into backing the Lotus Indy programme.  And spooling further back one arrives at Ford's hunger for a major share of the newly-emergent and moneyed so-called youth market eager for exciting 'sports experience' cars in 1961-62.  Lee Iacocca was one driving force behind that sea-change, leading to the Ford GT programme once Old Man Ferrari had told the American corporation to go forth and not bother him further in 1963.

 

Those were different times.  Ford's senior tier included some genuinely enthusiastic car guys.  Once a senior tier in any engineering industry becomes dominated by bean counters - forget it.  Think of Boeing over the past five-to-ten years...   

 

DCN

[Gene]

While I understand the feeling the DFVs weren't "really" Ford motors, but contracting out racing work or just buying a valve cover makes a lot of sense. Even the Mercedes realized it when they originally contracted out their F1 and Indy engine design and development to Ilmor. Companies like Ford and Mercedes are just too big and slow to react in the development speed needed to successfully compete at top level competition. I realize MB has owned Ilmor for a number of years, but I hear Ilmor and the F1 team are kept totally independent from the rest of the company.

[Izzyeviel]

It seemed to go wrong when Ford took full control. The Ford badged engines in the Stewart were pretty decent, if not as good as the very best from Mercedes and Ferrari. But Ford really didn't know how to run a racing team. 

 

If we look at their success in F1...the DFV was made and developed by Cosworth. As were the moderately successful turbo versions and the DFR. So was the HB, which was a huge step forward in the back of the 1989 Benetton...and the title winning  engine in 1994. 

 

When Stewart entered, they had support from Ford but it was fairly hands-off....JYS and Paul built up a well functioning team, and if their victory in 1999 was lucky the team was still performing very well. But for 2000, Ford took over, replaced the management, rebranded it Jaguar and had already bought the racing operations of Cosworth....and it all went wrong. The people at the top of Ford's corporate structure didn't know what to do with Jaguar Racing....it was widely reported at the time that someone near the very top asked the question, "who's Ed Irvine? And why is he the second highest paid employee of the Ford Motor Company?" Ford installed the wrong people to run the team, and it just didn't work. And they haven't been back since. They sold their interest in Cosworth and haven't looked at F1 since.

 

 

 

 

Pretty much a fair assessment. They understood they had to spend a lot to win, they just thought 'if we write the cheques, success is guaranteed'. Never stopped to think why they were spending so much, and how to spend it better. And when that didn't work, they started getting through Team Principals like Real Madrid get through football managers.

 

I hope Ed Irvine gave his agent a bonus for getting him that deal.

[Doug Nye]

I much enjoyed Bill Ford Jr's alleged quote when seeing upon a general remuneration list what the 'Jaguar'-branded Formula 1 driver was being paid - "Who the ph--- is Eddie Urr-Vyne?!!!)

 

DCN

[Bloggsworth]

Much of the original Ford link with Cosbodge was involved, self-evidently, with Lotus for whom both Mike Costin and Keith Duckworth had worked previously. Their link providing initially Ford-derived engines tuned for Formula Junior led to the F2/F1 programme which produced the DFV and that was largely due to the personal enthusiasm and drive of Ford of Dagenham executives Walter Hayes and Harley Copp. Colin was also instrumental of course in having previously massaged Ford Detroit into backing the Lotus Indy programme.  And spooling further back one arrives at Ford's hunger for a major share of the newly-emergent and moneyed so-called youth market eager for exciting 'sports experience' cars in 1961-62.  Lee Iacocca was one driving force behind that sea-change, leading to the Ford GT programme once Old Man Ferrari had told the American corporation to go forth and not bother him further in 1963.

 

Those were different times.  Ford's senior tier included some genuinely enthusiastic car guys.  Once a senior tier in any engineering industry becomes dominated by bean counters - forget it.  Think of Boeing over the past five-to-ten years...   

 

DCN

If a company votes for a bean counter to run it, sell the shares immediately - Look what happened to ICI.

[RonPohl]

Before the Cosworth, was not a destroked ford Indy engine used (unsuccessfully) by McLaren in his first F-1 car?

[Doug Nye]

It was, in 1966. Four-cylinder Ford engines had previously powered some back-of-the-grid hopefuls in Formula 1.

DCN

[john aston]

Ford's relationship with F1 has bene chequered but it has an  unrivalled  record elsewhere (in the context of major manufacturers , so excluding Porsche et al )  , and  its F1 adventures are notable more for their peaks than their troughs . Yes , of course the DFV was a Cosworth design . but it still said Ford on the cam covers  -  and one would be hard pushed to argue that most of the current F 1 grid's  major manufacturers were anything more than nominally involved. The Mercedes and Renault teams are little more than flags of  convenience for teams which have had  a host of  former identities and may do so again. Only Ferrari , of the current crop , can rightfully claim to be exclusively responsible for its successes and failures . As  an example of the absurdity of - retch - 'branding ' we've had a  Red Bull powered by Honda and also badged Aston Martin (whose road cars use Mercedes engines) competing against cars badged , and /or powered by Mercedes engines. 

 

In the wider , more grounded motorsport world , Fomoco has had a formidable reputation throughout my addiction to the sport , which goes back to  being a 15 year old in 1967 . Lotus Cortinas , rally Escorts , GT40  , Sierra and Escort Cosworth ,  RS 2600 Capris , current Ford GT and an almost unrivalled reputation  in affordable road cars , from the Mustang (a car which actually merits the word 'icon') to the current crop of hot hatches . It's  a reputation which most firms couldn't even dream of - if I may use another ghastly word , Ford's brand equity is still formidable  .   

[absinthedude]

It was, in 1966. Four-cylinder Ford engines had previously powered some back-of-the-grid hopefuls in Formula 1.

DCN

I have strong recollections of reading in good detail about this in a book about McLaren Grand Prix, Can-Am and Indycars.....

Not wholly unsuccessful but nor was it the most suitable engine for Formula 1. DId they run the Serenissima at the same time?

[Michael Ferner]

On the subject of "rebadging", didn't Ferrari use rebadged Gilco and Thompson chassis, too? Just sayin'...

 

Oh, and GTO or whatever the name was of John Barnard's company in Blighty.

[Charlieman]

I realize MB has owned Ilmor for a number of years, but I hear Ilmor and the F1 team are kept totally independent from the rest of the company.

The chassis and engine factories are physically quite close although separate. However there is incredible co-operation to ensure that the engine and transmission packaging matches the requirements of the aero team. Just think how difficult it must have been to convince the engine designers of the necessity for a turbocharger with turbine and compressor connected by a long shaft. Or in earlier days, consider John Barnard arguing for the TAG turbo engine to meet his ground effect design.

 

In his Cosworth book, Graham Robson describes how chassis/aero designers demanded more and more engine integration and how difficult this was in what was essentially a customer/supplier relationship. That would have been before and during Ford ownership and the provision of works Ford engines to teams like Benetton.

 

Any inside information, Gene?

[AJB]

I have strong recollections of reading in good detail about this in a book about McLaren Grand Prix, Can-Am and Indycars.....

Not wholly unsuccessful but nor was it the most suitable engine for Formula 1. DId they run the Serenissima at the same time?

They swapped to the Serenissima engine (which was really a sports car unit) for a few races mid-season, then swapped back to the Ford V-8.

They were so good (!) that in 1967 McLaren used a 2-litre BRM V-8 instead.until the BRM 3-litre V-12 (which was also really meant as a sports car engine) became available.

Edited by AJB, 02 February 2021 - 11:34.

[jacko]

Wasn;t the Indy Ford 4 cammer, upped to about 5 litres, used in the back of George Bignotti's Lola T70 for Parnelli Jones/Mario Andretti in the 1967/68 Can Am? I seem to remember Jones charging away at t6he front in a couple of the later 1967 rounds.

[Odseybod]

And also I think was used briefly in the original Ford GT, before it became the GT40?

[absinthedude]

From what I remember reading 30+ years ago, the Ford in that first F1 McLaren was too heavy, on a par with the rest of the weight of the entire car....and not especially powerful. Ford didn't get involved in the project, it was McLaren contracting another company to modify the Indy engine for the new 3 litre F1. 

[10kDA]

From what I remember reading 30+ years ago, the Ford in that first F1 McLaren was too heavy, on a par with the rest of the weight of the entire car....and not especially powerful. Ford didn't get involved in the project, it was McLaren contracting another company to modify the Indy engine for the new 3 litre F1. 

Ford's 4-cam Indy engine was based on their 289 cu in which started out as the 260. Going to 255 cu in as required for Indy cars wasn't too big a deal but taking 1.3 liters out for the 3L F1 limit wthout changing the rest of the package meant it was going to be much larger and heavier than everyone else's purpose-built 3Ls. Repco's block was based on GM's alloy block - and I'm not sure how much GM was actually incorporated in Repco's engine - which started out at 215 cu in so dropping to 3L wasn't nearly as much of a stretch. Maybe I mean "as much of a shrink".

[D-Type]

Across the board, large corporations have only been successful when they set up a well-funded autonimous project team independent of the main corporation.  The corporate management approach just doesn't work in the fast-changing world of racing.  For example, when Renault entered Formula 1 their F1Team had to work "union" hours while their opponents put in 16-hour days and the occasional all-nighter when they had a problem to resolve.  On another tack, Honda consider the atmosphere in a racing team is an excellent breeding ground for their younger engineers - they have to innovate, make decisons themselves and act on them rather than having every decision subjected to a full committee review.  This approach is necessary when managing a manufacturing process where the ramifications of any change have to be fully considered.

[Charlieman]

On another tack, Honda consider the atmosphere in a racing team is an excellent breeding ground for their younger engineers - they have to innovate, make decisons themselves and act on them rather than having every decision subjected to a full committee review.  This approach is necessary when managing a manufacturing process where the ramifications of any change have to be fully considered.

When Honda first entered F1 and F2, the company's management were very committed. Engineers from the racing team became future leaders. Honda in F1 has worked differently in recent years, maybe not to the advantage of the company or its employees.

 

Going back in time, Mercedes-Benz held on to the engineers and managers from racing when they went into sabbatical. Max Sailer, for example, stayed with the firm until shortly before his death in the 1960s. I'm sure we can all think of Porsche employees who moved between manufacturing and racing roles and back again.

 

Renault reportedly treated its racing engine division as a training and experimental space for engineers, and that is probably true today. The chassis/aero side is mostly Team Enstone, of course. One might second guess whether Renault miss out on some F1 opportunities working this way, but they are paying for the experiment. 

[Charlieman]

A sad lesson in how not to go racing, or indeed how not to undertake any highly specialised activity. If they'd let Cosworth continue the engine programme and Stewart run the Jaguar team it might have enjoyed some success. 

I agree, but with the caveat that Ford needed to be more committed to the Cosworth and Stewart/Jaguar programmes. They were expensive but not "Ford expensive". Ford pulled out before the 2000s financial crisis and at the same time as independents like Prost, Jordan and Arrows bailed out. It wasn't about the money; it was recognition that they didn't really know what they were doing.

---

What was Ford's involvement in F1?

* Seed funding for the Cosworth DFV/FVA project.

* Sponsorship of Lotus and Tyrrell.

* Sponsorship, co-ownership and ownership of Cosworth as a post DFV engine supplier.

* Provision of works engines from Cosworth, post DFV, to various teams.

* Seed funding for Stewart Grand Prix, followed by purchase and rebranding as Jaguar.

* Sale of Cosworth.

 

There are lots of breaks in the timeline. Apart from payments to Jackie Stewart and Tyrrell, Ford's direct involvement in F1 stopped for ten years.

[Ian G]

When Honda first entered F1 and F2, the company's management were very committed. Engineers from the racing team became future leaders. Honda in F1 has worked differently in recent years, maybe not to the advantage of the company or its employees.

 

 

Not that it matters but i read back in the early days of the Internet,1995/96 here in Oz.,that several Honda Engineers joined Ferrari when they withdrew from F-1 in 1992(93?),i just did a quick Google and couldn't find a reference.

 

https://forums.autos...-their-engines/

Edited by Ian G, 02 February 2021 - 22:51.

[AJCee]

Osamu Goto did join Ferrari but it wasn’t directly from Honda. Not sure about any others off the top of my head.

[Lee Nicolle]

Ford's 4-cam Indy engine was based on their 289 cu in which started out as the 260. Going to 255 cu in as required for Indy cars wasn't too big a deal but taking 1.3 liters out for the 3L F1 limit wthout changing the rest of the package meant it was going to be much larger and heavier than everyone else's purpose-built 3Ls. Repco's block was based on GM's alloy block - and I'm not sure how much GM was actually incorporated in Repco's engine - which started out at 215 cu in so dropping to 3L wasn't nearly as much of a stretch. Maybe I mean "as much of a shrink".

The Repco Buick based engines were what was originally used. BUT as you do they kept modifying it for more power and as the pics show [there is a thread here somewhere] there was  very little if anything left GM.

As an aside remember Smokey Yunick used a small block Chev with a very short stroke turbocharged at Indy.

[Catalina Park]

The 1966 Repco engine used only one GM part, the engine block.
The engine block was extensively modified, there was more machining work in a GM block than there was a year later with the Repco cast blocks.

 

[doc knutsen]

Ford's advertisement slogan in the early Sixties was "Total Performance".  I still recall their promotion of the big-block Galaxie in the US media...." Girls (underlined in the advert, if memory serves) drive these things down to the supermarket, and never suspect they are half throttle away from escape velocity..."

Lots of goodies for a student of English...never mind politcal correctness...

 

Fords were not just out to win, but to crush the opposition. F3, F2, F1, endurance sports cars, saloon cars, rallying. The one discipline they never did crack, was Can-Am.

[BRG]

 

Fords were not just out to win, but to crush the opposition. F3, F2, F1, endurance sports cars, saloon cars, rallying. The one discipline they never did crack, was Can-Am.

I can't say I remember Ford ever crushing the opposition in any of those categories.  Getting some good success, yes, but never dominating.  I am not counting having a name on the DFV cam cover as being a real Ford effort.  They did well for a couple of years with the GT40 before Porsche got serious.  Rallying?  A big player for many years, but never the dominant force that they could have been if they had really tried.

[doc knutsen]

I can't say I remember Ford ever crushing the opposition in any of those categories.  Getting some good success, yes, but never dominating.  I am not counting having a name on the DFV cam cover as being a real Ford effort.  They did well for a couple of years with the GT40 before Porsche got serious.  Rallying?  A big player for many years, but never the dominant force that they could have been if they had really tried.

Well I did not say that Ford managed to crush the opposition, but their will - and financial commitment -  to participate on a large scale, so as to crush the opposition, was much stronger chez Ford than with their contemporaries, certainly the Detroit ones. Ford appeared to be very focused on the youth market, and on building a strong name in motor sports which must have been seen as a key means of doing that. It was reflected in their contemporary advertising, like the example I quoted in my previous post.

 

Ford-derived engines dominated F3, and the FVA likewise in F2. The DFV and its derivatives to my mind dominated F1 for all those years. Ford paid Cosworth for the privilege of having a new and stardard-setting F1 power unit designed and built. They decided to support Lotus in their US efforts to win at Indianapolis, and that included coming up with the four-cam Indy V8. And Le Mans..."doing well" with the GT40 is, I feel, a bit of an understatement. Ford were out to crush Ferrari, who had turned them down...and left no stone unturned in order to do so. Look at the entry lists for Le Mans in 1966 and 1967!  To my mind, Porsche were serious too, for much of that period, but their day would come with the rule changes that made the big V8s obsolete. Remember, we saw two LM wins for the "obsolete" JW GT 40s, after the Mk IV victory of 1967, and the subsequent pulling out of Ford's factory backing. As for rallying, the successes of the Cortina Lotus and the Escort variants, for so many years, was an outstanding feature of that branch of the sport. And saloon cars...goodness me: Screaming 1000cc Gr 5 Anglias and later Escorts in the smaller categories, Cortina Lotii, Falcon Futura Sprint, Mustangs and Galaxies... even getting fibre glass panels and aluminium bumpers homologated in Ford's efforts to dominate.

 

I was a young feller in the Sixties, gettng my driver's licence in 1966, and  I was hugely impressed by the fact that one giant of the motor industry  was putting such a mighty effort into the sport that I loved. But I should add that I never became a Ford man despite my admiration for  their  efforts. Among all the cars that I have owned since then, only an Elan Sprint and a Sierra Cosworth have a blue oval connection.  Oh, and my self built C2 sports-racer did have a BDT engine...

[Henk Vasmel]

A Ford link is that the FVA engine was basically a development of a Ford Cortina engine. And the DFV (Double Four Valve) was initially two FVA's on a common Crankcase. By the time they were the finished product, it would have been difficult to point out the Ford roots, but they still were there. With the DFV, all traces of Ford should have disappeared, except for interfaces between cylinder heads and blocks. This was of course done at the Cosworth side of things with no, or hardly any, technical involvement from Ford.

[BRG]

Well I did not say that Ford managed to crush the opposition, but their will - and financial commitment -  to participate on a large scale, so as to crush the opposition, was much stronger chez Ford than with their contemporaries, certainly the Detroit ones. 

Granted Ford had more interest in motor sport but most of the instances that you mentioned are more private efforts that happened to use Ford products and cannot really be ascribed directly to them.  Yes, people built F3 and F2 motors around Ford bases but did the factory have any part at all?  Ford bought in Cosworth to develop the BDA & DFV families with no input from them other than financial. Likewise most of those saloon racers and the like were privately developed and raced with any FOrd assistance being somewhat peripheral. 

 

Certainly Ford had proper success with the GT40s (and I agree 'doing well' was a bit of unfairly faint praise!) but Porsche were nipping at their heels despite having only a 2 litre engine.  Does that give away that I am a Porsche man at heart....yes, probably!   Ford Europe had a lot of success in rallying, partly because their cars happened to be good bases for developing into competition vehicles, which they had never been designed to be by Ford.  I regard the Ford Boreham era as being one of missed i opportunities.  Where FIAT and Lancia made the right decisions, Ford often didn't, or at least didn't step up to the plate as they could have. Even through the Gp B and Gp A eras, Ford were underachieving compared to Audi, Peugeot Subaru, Mitsubishi and of course Lancia.

 

One area you didn't mention where Ford did score a huge success was in sponsoring Formula Ford, a series that ran for decades and produced almost all the great drivers of that period.   But even there, it was cash rather than technology that Ford provided.

 

Compared to GM, Ford has been a roaring success.   But there was a string of more or less failures where Ford actually took the lead.  F3L, GT70, RS1700T, RS200.

Edited by BRG, 04 February 2021 - 13:34.

[Arjan de Roos]

....it was widely reported at the time that someone near the very top asked the question, "who's Ed Irvine? And why is he the second highest paid employee of the Ford Motor Company?" ...

 

So that person did know Niki?

[Doug Nye]

From what I remember reading 30+ years ago, the Ford in that first F1 McLaren was ... McLaren contracting another company to modify the Indy engine for the new 3 litre F1. 

 

Not so.  The engine was modified for 3-litre Formula 1 use by specialist Gary Knutson - who had been taken on as a McLaren team member - and who worked on it with Wally Wilmott and, for some of the time, Howden Ganley.

 

DCN

[doc knutsen]

A Ford link is that the FVA engine was basically a development of a Ford Cortina engine. And the DFV (Double Four Valve) was initially two FVA's on a common Crankcase. By the time they were the finished product, it would have been difficult to point out the Ford roots, but they still were there. With the DFV, all traces of Ford should have disappeared, except for interfaces between cylinder heads and blocks. This was of course done at the Cosworth side of things with no, or hardly any, technical involvement from Ford.

True enough, but that initial £100K investment from Ford enabled Cosworth to produce the ultra-successful DF variants, most of them had "Ford" cast on the camshaft covers. Those engines were, of course, not "in house" engines, but then, how much is "Aston Martin" in next season's Formula One car? Like most other big motor companies with involvement in motor sport, Ford left it to the smal specialist producers to come up with the hardware...until some bright spark decided to create a  "green Ferrari"... and doing it the Ford way!

[airbox]

Granted Ford had more interest in motor sport but most of the instances that you mentioned are more private efforts that happened to use Ford products

 

But I think this was a deliberate strategy on the part of Ford. From a PR perspective it didn't matter if the DFV in the back of the latest Grand Prix winner was by Cosworth, or the Sierra's dominating the front of the BTCC were prepared by Rob Gravett, Andy Rouse, Eggenberger etc, or Ari Vatanen was rallying an Escort prepared by David Sutton.

 

The important point is that they were all getting major exposure on national and international media as a Ford. 

[Glengavel]

True enough, but that initial £100K investment from Ford enabled Cosworth to produce the ultra-successful DF variants, most of them had "Ford" cast on the camshaft covers. Those engines were, of course, not "in house" engines, but then, how much is "Aston Martin" in next season's Formula One car? Like most other big motor companies with involvement in motor sport, Ford left it to the smal specialist producers to come up with the hardware...until some bright spark decided to create a  "green Ferrari"... and doing it the Ford way!

 

I recall that the DFX, the 'Indy' variant, had Cosworth cam covers, and that the Williams F1 team, then sponsored by Leyland Trucks, procured some for their DFVs to avoid their sponsor's embarrassment of having 'Ford' engines. 

[doc knutsen]

Granted Ford had more interest in motor sport but most of the instances that you mentioned are more private efforts that happened to use Ford products and cannot really be ascribed directly to them.  Yes, people built F3 and F2 motors around Ford bases but did the factory have any part at all?  Ford bought in Cosworth to develop the BDA & DFV families with no input from them other than financial. Likewise most of those saloon racers and the like were privately developed and raced with any FOrd assistance being somewhat peripheral. 

 

Certainly Ford had proper success with the GT40s (and I agree 'doing well' was a bit of unfairly faint praise!) but Porsche were nipping at their heels despite having only a 2 litre engine.  Does that give away that I am a Porsche man at heart....yes, probably!   Ford Europe had a lot of success in rallying, partly because their cars happened to be good bases for developing into competition vehicles, which they had never been designed to be by Ford.  I regard the Ford Boreham era as being one of missed i opportunities.  Where FIAT and Lancia made the right decisions, Ford often didn't, or at least didn't step up to the plate as they could have. Even through the Gp B and Gp A eras, Ford were underachieving compared to Audi, Peugeot Subaru, Mitsubishi and of course Lancia.

 

One area you didn't mention where Ford did score a huge success was in sponsoring Formula Ford, a series that ran for decades and produced almost all the great drivers of that period.   But even there, it was cash rather than technology that Ford provided.

 

Compared to GM, Ford has been a roaring success.   But there was a string of more or less failures where Ford actually took the lead.  F3L, GT70, RS1700T, RS200.

I really do not think we disagree much at all! Yes, Ford's input was mainly financial, and that is what I had in mind when I said I was so impressed by FoMo Co's commitment to the sport in the Sixties, Some of their later decisions were strange to put it mildly,such as cancelling the Group C programme just when Tony Southgate had gotten on board. And what would have become of the F3L if it had been given aerodynamic development...if looks won motor races, the F3L would have had a lot of titles... As for the RS200, that car was a pretty useful rally tool but its career was cut short after the FIA abandoned Gr B in the wake of the Toivonen tragedy. Hardly Ford's fault. It did do quite well in rallycross, though.

 

Porsche are on a different level to all other major motor companies, with their consistent commitment to motor racing, and not only when circumstance favours them. Incidentally, my latest pet project is a 718 Spyder replica - so there!

Edited by doc knutsen, 04 February 2021 - 19:55.

[aportinga]

I first began watching F1 in the 1990s - long after the DFV era - and Ford were still a force in the sport. In 1993 its engines won six GPs for Senna and Schumacher then the following year Schumi got his first WDC with a Ford engine and I can even remember his appearing on Top Gear with Jeremy Clarkson for a plug on a new Ford.

 

How did a company that was still able to get things so right go into such a steep decline? I now all the later issues that came about with the Jaguar team but the rot must have been set in before then. Has the story of its decline been documented anywhere? I wasn't really interested at the time so am playing catch-up 25 years later.

 

Heard recently....

 

- Chevy is going all electric for 2023.

- Ford is making a 4 door electric Mustang.

- Dodge is putting a Hellcat in a minivan.

 

I think the racing party for Ford splintered out with ChampCar IMO.

[D-Type]

I recall that the DFX, the 'Indy' variant, had Cosworth cam covers, and that the Williams F1 team, then sponsored by Leyland Trucks, procured some for their DFVs to avoid their sponsor's embarrassment of having 'Ford' engines. 

I understood that was to please their other main sponsor - Saudia.  At the time Saudi Arabia had blackballed Ford because they were doing business in Israel.

[john aston]

Pick the morality out of that eh ? 

[RCH]

BRG said:   "Ford Europe had a lot of success in rallying, partly because their cars happened to be good bases for developing into competition vehicles, which they had never been designed to be by Ford.  I regard the Ford Boreham era as being one of missed i opportunities.  Where FIAT and Lancia made the right decisions, Ford often didn't, or at least didn't step up to the plate as they could have. Even through the Gp B and Gp A eras, Ford were underachieving compared to Audi, Peugeot Subaru, Mitsubishi and of course Lancia."

 

Seems a bit of an understatement. Maybe on an international basis Ford were "underachieving" but certainly not in the UK. For decades the Escort dominated UK rallying, mainly because Ford were able to supply the right equipment not just to the right people but to everyone. They were able to supply sporting orientated cars, Twin Cam, Mexico, RS2000 etc to a young audience and totally altered the popular conception of what Ford represented.

[Charlieman]

Seems a bit of an understatement. Maybe on an international basis Ford were "underachieving" but certainly not in the UK. For decades the Escort dominated UK rallying, mainly because Ford were able to supply the right equipment not just to the right people but to everyone. They were able to supply sporting orientated cars, Twin Cam, Mexico, RS2000 etc to a young audience and totally altered the popular conception of what Ford represented.

Many companies copied Ford's approach in professional and amateur motorsport. GM Europe (Opel Manta, Vauxhall Chevette), Rootes (Avenger, Lotus Sunbeam), BL (Triumphs, Marina), Renault, Fiat, Peugeot, Saab, BMW -- they all established a works or works supported outfit, then spread knowledge through specialist suppliers, homologating parts designed by others. Mercedes-Benz officially did not compete for many years but local distributors knew that the factory would tell them what worked. Even Skoda had a go. Good performances and seed money to competent specialists = good stories.

 

Change such as Audi's involvement, Group B or popularisation of BSCC made motor sport more expensive. It was exciting for a time, but awareness of cost and its downsides came too late.

 

When Ford sponsored post-DFV F1 engines at Cosworth, the costs and levels of commitment had increased substantially. Ford bosses simply didn't have the confidence that they were spending money wisely on projects which they did not understand.

 

One has to give credit to Mercedes-Benz management for sticking with their F1 outshoots in the seasons after buying Brawn. After a few seasons without a win, M-B threw everything into the pot to make the dominant chassis and engines of today.

[BRG]

The important point is that they were all getting major exposure on national and international media as a Ford. 

Oh, certainly, and some of it was helped by Ford - the homologation of the Sierra RS500 for instance.  But most Ford successes had little or nothing to do with Ford themselves.

 

Seems a bit of an understatement. Maybe on an international basis Ford were "underachieving" but certainly not in the UK.

I was speaking of the global scene.  Of course in the UK, Ford through Boreham were dominant, but it all tailed off notably once across La Manche.  Ford have managed just four WRC manufacturer's titles (1979, 2006/7 and - as M-Sport in 2017) which is pretty poor considered they were a consistent competitor.

[mariner]

I think some of Ford's later F1 failure was poor team choice not just commitment. The Cosworth turbo V-6 in the Beatrice vs the Cosworth EC V-8 for Benneton and Schumacher for example.

 

Cosworth seemed to be convinced its turbo engine was as good as anybody else' but the Beatrice team and car were pretty hopeless despite a big budget.  In contrast Bennetton and Schumacher were like Lotus and Clark ( well almost) and they won .

 

If you are  the Motorsport division and back the wrong teams your chances of getting more funds form the bean counters understandable diminish fast.

 

It is worth mentioning that the Ford empires electronics side contributed very heavily to Cosworth  through the EECIV proprietary electronics Ford gave Cosworth.

 

BTW as an ex car industry bean counter I would gently suggest you need BOTH engineers and bean counters to succeed. Certainly while Walter Hayes was building Ford's motorsports empire in the '60' Ford was pretty much run by bean counters wihilst it still built  market share.

[Sterzo]

BTW as an ex car industry bean counter I would gently suggest you need BOTH engineers and bean counters to succeed. Certainly while Walter Hayes was building Ford's motorsports empire in the '60' Ford was pretty much run by bean counters wihilst it still built  market share.

Well said. I'm always faintly amused by dismissive comments about companies who've spotted that to survive they must be efficient and make a profit. What's so clever about being incompetent with your money?