Yes, V1, its true, Mazda was in major financial trouble in the late 70s, and again in the mid/late 90s, and likely would not have survived without Ford's money.

Interesting historical note, in about 1990, Mazda introduced a 2 door, truckish utility vehicle called the Navajo. It was not a big success. But Ford took the engineering, created a 4 door version, changed some other cosmetics,and theymarketed it as... drumroll .... the Ford Explorer. The most commercially successful SUV ever, the first generation of which was actually Mazda engineered.

 

You"ve got to be making a joke UB...Mazda had little to do with the engineering of the Navajo....and they certainly didn'"t create the Explorer.

The Mazda Navajo was a rebadged 2-door Explorer Sport built in Louisville, Kentucky (I'"m sitting in a hotel about 5 miles from the plant right now.) The Explorer sport (and Mazda Navajo)were an evolution from the Bronco II (also a 2-door) thatwas made from1984-1990 (also made in the same Louisville, Kentucky facility) The Bronco II was another try at making SUV"s smaller like the original generation of Broncos that were built from 1966-1977. (I own a 1974)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_Navajo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer_Sport

 

Winter weather and shorter days havecertainly pushed people into an interesting mood. Sunlight deprivation affecting everyone? Or maybe its the economy and stock market.

A few points:

1) I don't dispute where the Navajo/Explorers were built.

2) I am speaking to the engineering. I posted my understanding of the facts, not making a joke. Ford and Mazda certainly worked in "co-opetition" on many of their products after Ford bought into Mazda,including the Navajo/Explorer iswhat Iunderstand to be the case, with Mazda's engineers leading the way.

3) I am certainly willing to be corrected if I am error, but .... Wikipedia? Wikipedia can be informative, but anyone, anywhere can post/edit anything on Wikipedia. It's effectively an advanced message board. It is not a professionally edited repository of fact.

 

I posted Wikipedia links as they were the most convenient and after reading through the links, they were accurate to the facts. You tend to dis-believe my posts without links, especially anything good about Ford. (apparently with links too, thanks for not disappointing)

I couldn't think of any other links that inform people of who engineered the product (other than internal company documentation which isn't public domain information)

I work for Ford and have for quite some time (you know this) I'd be willing to pitch my Ford historical knowledge against yours any day. There is zero fact in what you posted regarding Mazda as the originator of the Explorer.

I'd have to say the only thing Mazda had as far as input into the Navajo was the styling of the unique grille, taillights, interior fabrics and how the vehicle is marketed. Similar to the current situation with the B-series/Ranger.

Now the Escape is a different story, Mazda was much more involved in that program, both the previous and current model.

The early Ford Courier was also a Mazda product....

Feel free to post links to your facts showing Mazda engineered the Navajo and Ford changed it into the Explorer.

I'm not knocking Mazda in any way...I was very impressed with their engineers while I worked with them on the Mazda6 program and have much respect for their vehicles.....but your "facts" about the Navajo are inaccurate. It is and always was a rebadged Explorer Sport.

Ford SUV's evolved as follows

1966-1977 Bronco (Mid-size 2-door jeep sized vehicle, removable top)
1978-1979 Bronco (Full-size, 2-door, removable top)
1980-1996 Bronco (Full-size, 2-door) (during the 80's and into the 90's, 2-doors went out of style and more people got 4-doors, and the tops became permanent) - Last Full Size 2-door Bronco built 1996
1997-present Expedition (Full-size 4-door suv)

1984-1990 Bronco II (Mid-size 2-door SUV)
1991-2003 Explorer Sport (Mid-size 2-door SUV)
1991-Current Explorer (Mid-size 4-door SUV) - Only 4 doors made after major redesign in 2004.

 

If (IF!) the facts are as you say, sst,help me understand why would Ford just give Mazda the Navajo.

I mean, co-opetition is one thing when your talking about engineering, or perhaps distribution.

But whyallow acompanyin which you own much less than 50%, put out a carbon copy of a newproduct that they had no hand in and didn't invest anything in the development of- certainly the Navajo sales must have cut into the Explorer sales at least a little, especially giventhe Navajofrom what I understand was priced lower.

Also, why would Motor Trend award Navajo the truck of the year award, if as you say the vehicle was completely a Ford with just some cosmetic changes? Seems the people at Motor Trend would know who the real engineers were, and give their company the award.

 

Truck of the year is given to new trucks that entered into the market that year. The Explorer sport launched first in the previous model year and wasn't eligible for the award at the same time as the Navajo. No idea why it got TOTY other than it's a good truck. It used a Ford engine (4.0L V6)and the 5-speed manual trans was from Mazda. I've seen some "interesting" winners of TOTY only because the competition that particular year wasn't that strong.

With Ford owning a % of Mazda, we also have an interest in them staying solvent. They needed SUV's/pick-ups to maintain sales as that was where the market was at the time. A ton easier/cheaper to rebadge a current product than to tool one up. (Tooling money spent by Mazda is basically the same as tooling money spent by Ford.)

Ford/Mazda worked together on many projects, still do. (partial ownership of Mazdacame in 1979) Most of the 4 cylinders in the Ford system are Mazda designed (including the one with your dreaded oil dipstick made in an overseas FoMoCo parts plant....you can thank Mazda for that one.)

I doubt the Navajo had much of an impact on Explorer sales, just as the B-series is a very minor % of total Ranger sales. If anything, it added a little extra vehicle volume to the assembly plant which helps them operate more efficiently. (You want to be at max rate as many hours/day as possible at an assembly plantto maximize the earning potential of your investment in capital equipment.)

 

That makes sense to me!
Besides, if Mazda sales impacted Ford however slightly, and Ford owned the controlling interest in Mazda @ the time, both companies win, yes?