skip navigation
back to fordmotorcompany.com

Toolbox

Performance Summary

Below is a summary of our key performance data. Please also see the Overview for discussion of data parameters and the Economy, Environment and Society data sections for additional indicators, five-year trends and notes on data assurance.

Economy

  2007 2008 2009
GQRS things gone wrong (TGW) (three months in service), total things gone wrong per 1,000 vehicles1 1,405 1,206 1,107
GQRS customer satisfaction (three months in service), percent satisfied1 76 77 84
Sales satisfaction with dealer/retailer, Ford brand, U.S., net promoter score 82 84 82
Sales satisfaction with dealer/retailer, Ford brand, Europe, net promoter score 80 81 77
Service satisfaction with dealer/retailer, Ford brand, U.S., net promoter score2 72 74 74
Service satisfaction with dealer/retailer, Ford brand, Europe, net promoter score2 68 70 67
Shareholder return, percent -10 -66 337
Net income/loss, $ billion -2.7 -14.7 2.7
Sales and revenue, $ billion 172.5 146.3 118.3

Notes to the Data

  1. The Global Quality Research System (GQRS) is a Ford-sponsored competitive research survey. The GQRS is a good indicator of other quality results.

  2. Prior to 2008, only warranty repair visits were measured. Starting in 2009, customer-paid repair and maintenance visits are also included. These additions have had a small negative impact on the 2009 score. The improvement from 2004 is significant.

Environment

  2007 2008 2009
Ford U.S. fleet fuel economy, combined car and truck, miles per gallon (higher mpg reflects improvement)1 25.3 26.0 27.1
Ford U.S. fleet CO2 emissions, combined car and truck, grams per mile (lower grams per mile reflects improvement)2 352 340 326
Ford Europe CO2 tailpipe emissions per vehicle, grams per kilometer (based on production data for European markets)3      
Ford 149 146 139
Volvo 190 182 173
Worldwide facility energy consumption, trillion BTUs4 65.6 61.0 51.5
Worldwide facility energy consumption per vehicle, million BTUs5 10.8 12.2 11.2
Worldwide facility CO2 emissions, million metric tons4 6.1 5.4 4.9
Worldwide facility CO2 emissions per vehicle, metric tons5 1.01 1.09 1.05
North American Energy Efficiency Index, percent (2000 base = 100 percent) (lower percentage reflects improvement)6 74.4 69.9 65.3

Notes to the Data

  1. For the 2009 model year, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) of our cars and trucks increased by 4.2 percent relative to 2008. Preliminary data for the 2010 model year show a 3.2 percent improvement in CAFE for cars and a slight decline of 2.4 percent in CAFE for trucks as compared to 2009. For more information, please see Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

  2. Improvement is reflected in decreasing grams per mile.

  3. Improvement is reflected in decreasing grams per kilometer. European and U.S. fleet CO2 emissions are not directly comparable because they are calculated in different units and because they are assessed based on different drive cycles. In 2009, we switched from reporting European vehicle CO2 emissions as a percent of a 1995 base to reporting actual fleet average CO2 emissions, to parallel our reporting for other regions.

  4. Data have been adjusted to account for facilities that were closed, sold or new. This data does not include Automotive Components Holdings (ACH) facilities.

  5. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions per vehicle divides energy used or CO2 emitted by the number of vehicles produced. Averaging energy and CO2 emissions by the number of vehicles produced yields a somewhat imperfect indicator of production efficiency. When the number of vehicles produced declines, as it has since 2000, per-vehicle energy use tends to rise because a portion of the resources used by a facility is required for base facility operations, regardless of the number of vehicles produced.

    We believe that the long-term trend of declining per-vehicle energy use and CO2 emissions indicate that more efficient production since 2000 is offsetting the tendency of these indicators to rise during periods of declining production. This interpretation is reinforced by our Energy Efficiency Index, which focuses on production energy efficiency and which has been steadily improving. Our Energy Efficiency Index target also has the effect of driving reductions in CO2 emissions. These data do not include ACH facilities.

  6. The Index, which covers energy use in North America, is "normalized" based on an engineering calculation that adjusts for typical variances in weather and vehicle production. The Index was set at 100 for the year 2000 to simplify tracking against our target of 3 percent improvement in energy efficiency.

Society

  2007 2008 2009
Employee satisfaction, Pulse survey, overall, percent satisfied 64 66 68
Overall dealer attitude, Ford, relative ranking on a scale of 1–100 percent (summer/winter score)1 69/64 68/69 80/71
Overall dealer attitude, Lincoln Mercury, relative ranking on a scale of 1–100 percent (summer/winter score)1 66/64 64/66 71/66
Ford Motor Company Fund contributions, $ million 37 33 20
Corporate contributions, $ million 17 16 9
Volunteer corps, thousand volunteer hours 86 100 100
Lost-time case rate (per 100 employees), Ford Motor Company2 0.9 0.7 0.6
Lost-time case rate by region (per 100 employees), Ford Motor Company      
Americas 1.2 1.0 0.9
Asia Pacific and Africa 0.1 0.1 0.2
Europe 0.7 0.6 0.5
U.S. safety recalls, number per calendar year3 15 10 8
U.S. units recalled, number of million units 5.5 1.6 4.54
IIHS Top Safety Picks, number of vehicles5 6 14 19

Notes to the Data

  1. Overall dealer attitude is measured by the National Automobile Dealer Association (NADA) Dealer Attitude Survey. Scores are for the summer and winter respectively of the year noted.

  2. 2008 are the most recent Bureau of Labor statistics data available.

  3. Recalls are by calendar year rather than model year. A single recall may affect several vehicle lines and/or several model years. The same vehicle may have multiple recalls. (Source: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.)

  4. All but 12,000 of the 4.5 million vehicles recalled in 2009 are older models (1992–2003) that were equipped with faulty Texas Instruments speed control deactivation switches. Although the data shows the majority of the vehicles equipped with these switches do not pose a significant safety risk, we recalled them to reassure customers and eliminate any future concerns.

  5. To earn a Top Safety Pick from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a vehicle must receive a rating of "good" in offset frontal impact, side impact and rear impact evaluations, and offer electronic stability control. Top Safety Picks are the best vehicle choices for safety within size categories. 2005 (2006 Model Year) was the first year the IIHS issued Top Safety Picks. For 2010, vehicles will also be expected to earn a "good" rating in roof strength tests.