rkisler

There are a bunch of reasons why I don't see a complete live axle vehicle coming from FRAP, but some of my info could be dated: 1. The most challenging area of the Mustang package is beneath the rear passengers' butts. Very confined and pushed-down rear seating with minimal cushion strike-through, split fuel tank with a crossover, rear suspension, and allowance for sewer pipe exhausts to snake through. Designing the underbody in this area is tough enough, but allowing for two suspensions using the same stampings, fuel tank, and other bits is even worse. And, if you were to do that, you would compromise some of the attributes one gets from an IRS -- fuel capacity and rear seat package to name a couple -- and even though the live axle volume would be low, these compromises would be felt throughout the whole vehicle line. 2. I realize that, at one point, the base Mustang had a live axle and the Cobra had IRS with a common underbody. But the IRS that was jammed into that space, had compromised kinematics according to the experts I talked with at the time. In addition, assembly was an issue. There was a small volume shunt line at Flat Rock; i.e., both combinations couldn't be built on the main chassis line (because we looked at offering IRS in higher volume). So the whole decision cost in the neighborhood of $850-900 per unit just for the unique Cobra IRS. Ouch. 3. The S197 was programmed for IRS from the get-go. It was only a late action by Phil Martens that reversed program direction (and the Chief Program Engineer got shunted for arguing against the decision). That action caused a huge tearup to the rear and probably didn't save any money in the long run. However, the original IRS design for the S197 (a control blade) is not the same as what I'm seeing for the S550. 4. There is going to be almost no free demand for a live axle Mustang. Yes, drag racers complain a lot, but how big a market is it anyway? Enough to have a stand-alone option that one can order? 5. I'm not saying Ford won't try to do something to accommodate as you rightfully mention. The S550 might be "all new" because virtually all of the panels including the underbody are new, but as others have mentioned, it is a direct descendant of the D2c platform. So as JPD mentions, maybe there does exist the potential to build a body in white using carryover S197 rear bits that maybe could even be painted and pulled off line (although messing with the doors off assembly wouldn't be easy). Maybe even partially trimmed? But if so, it's going to be very expensive as you mention. 6. Or maybe I could be completely wrong and very surprised to find out that the engineers actually were able to package both suspensions?

The base series MKC is only there as a price leader. It's scheduled for an 8% mix, and the only options you can order are AWD, a cargo mat, and 3 optional paint colors. No NAV or other goodies. To me it seems hardly worth the effort. I also have trashed the Germans for their "leatherette" interiors, but I haven't checked lately as to what option restrictions they might have on those base interiors. I should mention that at one time Lincoln was going to be genuine leather and genuine wood. But from reading forums, it's evident that a lot of people always assumed that Lincoln used plastic wood even if they didn't. So much for good intentions.

I think this is a good guess. Once you have torn up the underbody to go to IRS, and optimized the fuel tank, rear seat, and luggage capacity, there is no way you're going to jam in a live axle in the same space that was taken up by the IRS. For one thing, you've got the pig flopping around and it would start banging into sheet metal. So, this could be a unique underbody for the boy racers, but it's not a car that's going to be available from the plant. And I'm guessing it could only be done affordably if, as you mention, it used the carryover floor pan from the outgoing model.

2,3l EB requires AWD based on the order guide I'm looking at.

Yes, they are all alloys. In fact, the Jaguar XJ which is unibody uses two different alloys. The underbody alloy is a bit softer for energy absorption; the outer panels are stiffer to allow precise forms and to prevent dents and dings. Interestingly, if my understanding is correct, steel can be pretty much randomly tossed in a kettle and remelted and remixed with other additives for reuse. The aluminum alloys need to be kept separate. I have no idea what alloy(s) Ford is using from Alcoa.

Lucky me. I get to go to the Mustang reveal in Dearborn on Thursday. Not the one with the press, but right after at 10:30 at the same venue. So I get to touch, see, and feel if I can wedge my way in which is usually a big problem in these events. Lots of people crowding the vehicle(s), and then they have a time limit so you can't even wait out the crowd to get a better look. I'll be sharpening my elbows over the next couple of days.

Thanks a lot for the clarification. Going for flexibility in the body shop is a good thing.

You're right; trim and final was shared (but I still can't remember Mark/'bird which I think had a separate line?). The trim and final line can be very flexible; it has more labor and less automation, and driveline configuration and body construction isn't really relevant at that point. You just need to make sure that the parts are stacked up in sequence to the build. That's why Fusion and Mustang can share a trim and final at FRAP even thought they are quite different animals. You can, however, have "trapped labor" in situations where the vehicles coming down line have different levels of content and it's more difficult to keep the workload balanced from station to station.

Well, they were built in the same plant, but not on the same line. From my memory which could be very faulty: 1. The one common point for those models (plus the Mark/T'bird) is the paint shop -- they all went through common e-coat dip and paint. 2. The LS line was completely separate -- separate body shop separate, chassis, separate trim and final IIRC (but this might have been combined?). 3. The Mark/T'bird line was completely separate 4. The Continental body shop might have been separate? Town Car had unique assembly due to body on frame. I think they had a combined chassis line, and I think they had a combined trim and final. This plant was a mess; it had one car piled on top of another and was a total cut and paste -- which is the reason is was a mess financially also and would have financially killed any new product you attempted to put in it. In other words, it didn't have the kind of platform and assembly plant planning and flexibility that is much more common at Ford today.

My information is dated, so I'm not sure what the plant looks like now, but assuming it's just modified, then 1. There are two body shops 2. There are two chassis lines 3. There is one shared paint facility 4. There is shared trim and final I'm finding it a bit hard to believe a prior poster who indicated the Mustang line was to be torn out. We are right on top of the new Mustang intro, and it's clearly at FRAP; moving it would not make any sense whatever at this point nor would it make any sense in cycle. It would only make sense if it were part of a new RWD platform offering which isn't likely to happen any time soon if ever. So, my assumption is the new Fusion body shop can handle flex for the a larger Taurus/MKS if necessary. Chassis shouldn't be a problem, even with additional wheels and tires. Not sure about paint. Each paint shop has limitations, including on the number of colors. Going from sporty colors on Mustang to a bunch of tri-coats on Lincoln could put a strain on the paint shop. And I suppose the trim and final line could be tough with content ranging from Mustang convertible to a high-content Lincoln. All of this has, however, been planned for in the production system if, in fact, Taurus/MKS are going to FRAP. There is a certain rhythm to assembly plants; I'm not sure how much Ford could "overspeed" the FWD side of the plant; i.e., I'm not sure what the min/max are for each side of the plant, but it's not infinitely adjustable.

The comment on Fusion is only as reference. As the poster said, they were evidently sending a trial unit down line and had some clearance issues. No matter how the analytical tools have improved over the years with things like virtual assembly, sometimes there are thinks that aren't accounted for, hence the physical test. I would read this to say that the new Mustang is wider than the present Mustang which we've already seen/heard. I also read it to say that the issues were relatively minor in nature and have been sorted out.

Regen braking is only recovering some of the energy that was originally produced by burning fuel. Unless it's a PHEV or EREV, then there is no other external source of power other than the fuel the ICE is burning.

Generally agree with one exception. All battery power in a hybrid comes from the burning of fuel. Given this, my understanding of the EPA testing protocol is that the state of charge of the battery is very carefully monitored, and you have to stay within (IIRC) 5% of the original state of charge at the end of the test. In other words, you can't use a full battery and run it down to generate higher fuel economy numbers.

First things first. I have a different opinion about HTT; don't really care to discuss. It's ancient history, but I need to clean up your narrative a bit on S197. 1. You are right that the SVT IRS did work well. It was actually very, very similar to the IRS in the Falcon (same design engineers), but there were no parts in common. Due to the lack of volume and required obustness, the IRS was frightfully expensive -- in the neighborhood of $900 over the live axle. You certainly know a lot more than I do on the technical details, but there were some compromises on function because both the Falcon and Mustang had to package within the confines of an underbody meant for a live axle. 2. I don't doubt your conversations on S197, but the chronology doesn't quite square up with my recollection of timing. Here's what happened: a. The SN95 was a relatively low-investment rescue effort to revise the existing Fox platform enough to keep Mustang in production. There was no DEW at the time, and to the best of my knowledge, no analytical effort was undertaken at that point. b. The company was asleep at the switch; if no actions were taken on SN95, it would have had to go out of production due in part due to regulatory actions, so c. A team was formed to sort out Mustang program direction. Although another iteration of SN95 was considered, it was pretty far down on the list. The team pulled together every RWD Ford had available -- SN95, MN12 T'bird, Falcon, and an analytical DEW (there were no DEW prototypes at that point -- just a couple of cobbled T'birds, and a prototype body-in-white buck). The team conducted a thorough product and a less thorough business analysis over a period of a couple of days with VP attendance. (This was during the Ford 2000 Vehicle Center days). At the end of this discussion, SN95 was pretty much taken off the table although it came back from time to time as new players kept asking already-answered questions.. As was MN12 for a whole host of reasons (even though further studies continued to make sure). Falcon also was taken off the table. That left only DEW98 as a build-from. Creating a new platform (also a want of Jaguar for a proper 3-series fighter) was deemed not acceptable -- Ford was still stinging from criticism for the $6 billion they had spent on Mondeo and was looking to reduce platforms, not create platforms. d. The detailed analysis of the DEW-based Mustang was undertaken -- literally part by part. It morphed from DEW primarily for affordability, but also for function, but the intent was to throw parts overboard only if necessary. So macpherson in front, but using DEW mount points; IRS in rear, but less expensive. Front battery mount vs. rear. Etc, etc. The financials of this program got close, but really only made sense if it could be built in the same facility as the LS (which was a problem since the LS was crammed into a corner of expensive Wixom). e. As the program progressed, it walked further and further from DEW, until there was literally no commonality. Cost was one reason; proportions was another; as was engine package. The fact that Mustang was moving to a facility where it wouldn't be sharing with another RWD vehicle also allowed for uniqueness as the production tooling was going to have to be all new regardless of what went in the plant. I should mention that there were several intensive side studies along the way including a another full-court press trying to commonize with Falcon, and also sharing with various Ford and Lincoln 4-door derivatives. f. IRS was in the S197 program from the get-go. Not as a "want", but as a "given" and that involved a lot of heated arguments with the existing program team. g. The program was initially programmed for 2002, but slipped. There continued to be extreme pressures on the financials. h. The uniqueness of the D2c, and the need to keep investment down on this unique platform to keep Mustang affordable while still being profitable is a huge reason why we should expect an improved D2c. Without other models to share tooling costs, Mustang can't afford "all new." unless there is some magic that has happened.

I was very heavily involved in S197 from the very beginning -- even before we pulled a program number. I agree with all of your comments. On the IRS, it is true that Hau Thai-Tang started with the C170 control blade, but there were issues, including the packaging of the front of the blade due to the short-coupled nature of the Mustang (it intruded into the door opening), and other issues with robustness. So that's not where the programmed IRS ended up. I'm assuming the IRS designed for S197 was pretty much reborn and brushed up for this S550. Phil Martens cancelling the IRS late in the game was sheer idiocy. He's doing fine for himself as CEO of Novelis, but he left a trail of good people pushed off to the side in his wake.. Even finding 200 pounds is a big deal. There are opportunities, but weight costs $$ and the Mustang has always stood for affordable performance which means the task is very difficult.

We've been discussing the advertising benefit of the higher mpg label, but of course there is another motivation that is more internal. CAFE. With the increasingly stringent fuel economy rules, every mpg is worth $$$. Any reduction in label has buried within it a negative CAFE effect. And if you aren't achieving the target on C-Max, then that has to be offset elsewhere. So, for instance, some other carline has to pick up, say, an aluminum bit or two and "eat it" in their bottom line (or more likely the CPE is told to find cost offsets). I'm wondering, however, if Ford were able to negotiate with the EPA to keep C-Max at the previous CAFE contribution (which is within the rules) but voluntarily reduce the label. Hmmm.

This is a D2c derivative, so the basics are already pretty much there. There should be some improvement in rear seat package with the IRS, but the rear of the Mustang is the most difficult part of the car to develop. There is so much going on: suspension, rear seat passengers, huge sewer pipe exhausts, convertible package, and all combined with a sloping roof that pushes the rear seat passengers down. It's a nightmare and even with sophisticated design tools, it takes hours and hours to move stuff around to make the best compromise. If the Mustang didn't have the iconic design, but looked more like a sedan (like the 3-series), then it wouldn't be such an issue.

Richard, I don't have too much to add to this debate. I'm still stunned. Just because you are allowed to do something doesn't mean you should do something. If you can't explain it easily to customers (and you can't in this instance), you have to assume they think you were cheating. This is truly bordering on unethical, even if it was within the rules. I guarantee you that the Chief Program Engineer knew how the label was being developed. I can pretty much guarantee you that the Vehicle Line Director (has a number of CPE's reporting to him/her) knew about it. And I think it's very likely that the VP of Product Development know about it. Much of the reporting in Ford is "question based." Sometimes you feel like management is playing a game of "stump the band" by asking questions with more and more depth. Sometimes, it's in an earnest attempt to understand the program, and sometimes it's a coverup by those asking the questions because they don't fully understand the issues and asking questions is a good defense mechanism. In this case, I just can't believe that someone in management would not have asked the question "Why is it that the Fusion and the C-Max have the same fuel economy label?" Others would have known that if the C-Max were tested, the numbers might be lower. I'm just embarrassed. And angry. This shows a lack of fortitude, or it shows that Phil Martens-style VP intimidation is back again so people can't really say what they know because they are afraid of receiving a severe beating. (It's not fun "staring at your shoelaces" while receiving a tongue lashing in a big meeting. Make you feel like a little kid who is being blamed for doing something wrong.)

Well, I'm not so familiar with Alcoa's potential, but I saw today that they were the most shorted stock in the market. Their debt has been downgraded below investment. They have been on a steady decline from around $30 per share in 2008 to $8 per share today. Unlike the general market, their share price has fallen almost in half from 2011. Yikes. Maybe Ford got a really, really good deal on some open capacity? When you go walking into Alcoa or Alcan with F150 volume, you would tend to get some attention, particularly if you are willing to discuss long-term supply contracts.

You are correct. Ford (and other manufacturers) are pretty good at using mixed aluminum/steel these days without problems. The article that started this discussion isn't really a source article. However, I think we can look forward to a completely aluminum cab over steel frame, not just aluminum closures. I was told a couple of weeks ago by someone on the inside who wouldn't reveal everything to look at aluminum industry actions if I wanted to get an indication of what the F150 was going to be doing. One of the comments to the article from a poster in Davenport, Iowa, indicated that his plant capacity (Alcoa) was going up to support the F150, and there have been other articles that have indicated aluminum plant expansions elsewhere in the U.S. and also that automotive aluminum was expected to exceed cans as early as next year. I haven't read anything yet about the actual cab construction including details like welding, riveting, bonding. These changes could require pretty large modifications to the body shop and is another good reason why Ford is going with a staggered launch. I can guarantee there will be some teething issues on something this different. Yes, there will be a cost to aluminum. I'm not sure where things stand today, but in the original analysis of the Jag X350 (Jag XJ), aluminum cost in the neighborhood of $1,000 and saved around 500 pounds. That cost, however, has to be compared to alternative actions you would have to take to achieve the same fuel economy results. A lot of good things can happen when you get the weight out. Now, on the cost side, if we could only keep f****** J P Morgan from schlepping aluminum from one warehouse to another to pump the price, we'd be further ahead. A reference on expansion: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/05/alcoa-20130503.html

I was unable to do the last update using a thumb drive on my '13 Escape because of navigation. They sent me a new card, but I still had to go through the 40 minute, engine-on update. I don't know if this time will be the same or not as the letter I just got wasn't specific. MFT keeps getting better incrementally, but there are certain facets of the system that still make me scream. For instance, when you're in an unfamiliar area and you're asking for a POI where there might be multiple locations (say a Panera Bread or Walmart) and -- assuming the rare case when MFT understands what you are requesting -- the results are given in list view with partial info and unfamiliar streets, and the system immediately barks at you to pick one. Borders on useless even if you have a copilot. Needs to be in map view with the capability to increase or decrease magnification to sort out which one to go to and the system should just shut up until you choose. Also, the definition of a POI "on the route" leaves a lot to be desired; the logic on my now ancient TomTom works much better and I used to carry it in the console as a backup for this kind of chore. Now, if I have the opportunity, I fire up my phone which gives better results -- but I don't do that unless I have a copilot or can pull over. I shouldn't have to do any of that if the system were up to snuff. Voice recognition still sucks, but in fairness, I haven't gone through the enhanced recognition drill.

This is a BS message MFT gives rather than saying "My poor, tiny brain hurts because I can't handle all of this information, so I'm going to go to sleep for a while. I might wake up later."

There is really no surprise to the conclusion of this study for a number of reasons: 1. Toyota and Ford compete fiercely as full line producers. That's different than, say, cooperating with MB on fuel cell technology where Lincoln isn't even a nuisance to MB. 2. Both Toyota and Ford have independent capability to develop hybrid systems. 3. This would be an all-new system (not HSD or present Ford hybrid technology). Most likely, given the experience with the super-expensive GM/BMW hybrid box, I would imagine this system would be a clutched ISG (similar to Porsche). 4. Ford is strong in pickups; Toyota would like to be, but lags way behind expectations. Ford, therefore, should be the driver in this equation from engineering, product specification, and manufacturing standpoints. I've dealt with Toyota before (or tried to) on a proposed joint F/T project. They are f****** arrogant, and this would never work for them. In addition, any cooperation on the part of Ford could ultimately hurt Ford's market share if Toyota becomes more competitive. Nobody outside the company knows exactly what was shared between the parties. The initial conversations in this type of cooperation go very slowly, as both parties have likely been doing their own research and are very reluctant to tell a key competitor their plans. So you give up stuff to get stuff -- very carefully -- and hope you get as good as you give. I can imagine that conversations went very slowly the whole time. I should also mention that quantifying financial benefits can be very difficult. Having conversations with a key competitor on components costs is very, very delicate. And then sorting out key potential common components and determining the effect of the combined volume also can be very difficult. At the end of a failed foray, you have to destroy all of the material related to the discussions. I can say that at Ford we always followed the rules totally. Not sure I trust the other parties we dealt with to do the same....

FYI, I have a 2014 Fusion company vehicle on order which I originally thought would be pre-<J1> fill for FRAP, but turns out the order went to Hermosillo. It was originally scheduled for last week, but was actually built about a month ago mixed in with the 2013's. It has not been released from the plant at this point (and won't be until OKTS for the post <J1> units).