rkisler

Matthew, you are completely wrong on this one. The vette is body on frame, period. I have recently been to the assembly plant. The frame is fabricated first (in steel or aluminum depending on which version you get). The body panels are bolted to the frame and are not stressed members as you seem to indicate. True, it's not like the Panthers with the fully formed body dropping on the frame, but it definitely has a frame that you could drive around without a body on it. They just happen to use a frame that looks more like a Panther frame than, say, a space frame of a Lotus.

Not going to happen, jpd80. It's not worth the investment to perfume the pig with limited life span. The aging customers wouldn't know the difference and it wouldn't represent a volume opportunity.

You and silvrst are on the right wavelength. These same conversations have been going on for quite some time and the conclusions repeatedly are the ones you mentioned. The cost of "fixing" the Panther probably would be within 20-40% or so of a new platform, and you would still be left with a BOF architecture with dated proportions. Ford has already signaled what is going to happen. It's not so much where the car is today, but what is required in the future and the low benefit for any investment in this ancient product. For instance, I understand there was an opportunity to install the 3v and 6 speed when the TC moved to St. Thomas. It wasn't going to be cheap as there is quite a lot of tearup; the financial benefit didn't justify it. The Panther has some avid fans (most on this board I think). But to a lot of customers, it poisons the showroom. It tells them American autos are old, large, and fuel inefficient. And it will be difficult to move away from this image as long as these products remain. As I mentioned previously, time to hold a respectful memorial service and put them to sleep.

I've been thinking about this for a bit. How's this for a Ford logic flow?: 1. LHD Falcon would require additional investment 2. There is no intention to send Orion to NA; LHD would be for Middle East only 3. Since the Panther is being sold in ME now, Falcon would just substitute for volume that Ford is already selling 4. The volume in ME is not significant (less than 10k?? -- not sure) 5. A decision will have to be made by 2012 when Panther goes down and Mustang and Falcon are due for a redo. One of 2 things will happen 5a. There will be a new GRWD platform. If this platform is developed, RHD/LHD will be included in the base platform enineering, or 5b. If GRWD falls apart, LHD could be added to Orion redo to take the place of Panther in ME 6. In the meantime, to better utilize Broadmeadows, local assembly of C2/EUCD? would provide a better opportunity, particularly as the level of governmental support stays the same. Sound right?

Some comments: Falcon or GWRD can never be a 3 series. There is a very good reason why manufacturers dedicate a separate platform for this type of car. You can't just shrink a larger car as you end up carrying too much weight. Narrowing and shortening the structure is so difficult that you're better off starting from scratch. Ford doesn't have the platform to make a 3-series. GM, on the other hand, is initating work on one. SysEng, can I assume your post was in jest? There is no way the Panther is going to Australia. And your ideas don't help unfortunately. There is no common 4v 4.6 in Ford. There is no 6 speed that fits into Panther without a significant tearup. There is no common IRS that would work with a BOF and unibody. Panther is on its last legs, and should be given a respectful memorial service and burial.

jpd80, Well, we've been down this road a couple of times before, and the result has unfortunately always the same. If NA is not in the product plan, then it's hard to justify the investment for left hand drive. And the Panther keeps getting in the way in the Middle East. I'm disapponted that the LHD program wasn't done anyway in prep for next gen. Just as I was disappointed when Geelong didn't get an increment of 3.5l capacity. But I do think that Tom Gorman is probably doing the best he can under the circumstances. Next gen Huntsman won't be a piece of cake. First, volumes in Australia for RWD cars and their derivatives have been declining. Second the product lineup in NA is questionable. From Tom Gorman's comments, it looks like Ford keeps changing their mind over what, if any, need NA has for a RWD platform. I have the same problem. Mustang is certainly a candidate, but the need for a RWD sedan isn't clear, even when the Panthers get put to sleep. The demand for traditional large American cars is sinking, and I can imagine that investing in a CV sized replacement might not be justified. So if Taurus is about as large as you want to get with a car, then the RWD would have to be able to "kill" the D3 from a financial and customer standpoint -- not easy as the Taurus is already in place in an existing assembly plant. Of course, Territory-like vehicles could be considered which could change the equation. But it sounds like there is still lots of churning on alternatives. There isn't much time left. Ford needs to settle on a firm plan (including derivatives) around 4 years before Job 1 to ensure proper program execution. Third, there seems to be a misconception by some about the benefits of economies of scale for common components. It is true that you can save a significant amount of engineering effort by holding common components across a number of vehicles as FoA has certainly demonstrated. But achieving economies of scale between a plant in Australia and one in NA is difficult. Australia's volumes are not so high, shipping costs are quite high and many major components (such as a rear suspension assembly) are assembled in modules by suppliers and would be prohibitively expensive to ship. Don't forget that any plant in the US could be a thousand miles or more inland from a port. So having a common RWD product produced in Oz and NA is a good thing, but not as good as some might think. And given the higher population and potential volume in NA, many of the parts might be going from the US to Australia which could put pressure on Australia suppliers.

Excellent post with accurate historical comments. A couple of other comments. Mazda is responsible for a disproportionate amount of Ford's engineering given their size. They are responsible for the B and NA CD entries (base platform development, not specific Ford applications). Ford NA is simply not up to the task on these cars and personally I feel Mazda do a better job for NA market than FoE ever has or ever will due in large part to the fact that they participate in NA market. And, although I wish their 4-cylinder engines were a bit more refined, they have been a major engineering source for powertrains also. In the past, they provided C-car lead engineering. Maybe more importantly is the way customers buy product. Often the first decision a customer makes is "foreign or domestic". Not defined by country of assembly but by brand. The last time I looked, around 50% of the customers are looking at foreign only (obviously this has been going up year by year). These customers will buy Korean before they would even consider a Ford. Even though Mazda is under the Ford umbrella, they are still considered a foreign brand by the customers (as is Volvo). That's a good thing as it at least provides some brand in the Ford family a chance of capturing buyers who are presently not going to consider a Ford. IIRC, Ford traded land in Yokohama that was originally a Model T KD plant for the initial equity in Mazda. Excellent trade in my opinion.

Yes. The total police market is around 50k annually. I think the livery market (for Town Car and stretch sedans) is around 2k, and the taxi market is around 3-5k (but this will be under pressure if NY demands hybrids). Police have specific requirements for their vehicles, both patrol and interceptors. But the price is relatively low. When there is one player in the market (like CV used to be when Chevy bailed), you can make a lot of money. But when there are 2 players (like today's CV and Dodge), the profit goes down. If you derive these vehicles from a platform that is shared with retail customers, then the development cost is shared among a higher number of users. Developing an all-new platform with the kind of attributes that are listed on this site is a non-starter in my opinion. If they were to get, say, 40% of the cop car business (wishfull thinking), then that's only 20k annually. And the investment in the kind of dream facility they show on their web site would be around $1 billion. The variable cost of the vehicle's structure they are suggesting also would be prohibitively expensive. If this product were a retail car, I agree with a previous poster that a reasonable price to expect would be in the $60-70k range or even higher to make a profitable program. And service is a big issue. Most police departments service their own cars and they like to keep their cars standardized for speed/cost of repairs. Of course, wasn't the state of Georgia ready to give Kia almost $1 million per job in incentives for their plant there? Maybe that's what Bill Li and his troup are looking for. If Georgia does give them money, they should have their heads examined. The key question you have to ask yourself is, "would I invest money in this venture?" Not me.

Biker, I think you need to think of the upcoming BMW 1 Series coupe which I think is going to be about 172 inches OAL. We'll get to see the couple version in the US early next year I think with a cabrio to follow. It's a car I quite like, particularly with the twin turbo six which should go like a scalded cat. And it looks great and offers better utility than the Z4. I have no idea what the rear seat package is. But....even though I think it's nice car.....it's not a Mustang in my opinion. And, unfortunately, Ford does not have a small RWD platform to build a product like this. If any attempt were made to try to start from a larger platform and "shrink" it the results would be unacceptable.

These are all ex Ford guys. Bill Li is a good guy, but he's picked up all the Silicone Valley gibberish and slick web sites in terms of overselling new product concepts in the hunt for investment capital Now think about it, guys. Do you really think there is a business equation for an all new platform in an all new facility with an all new R&D facility to be sold at a price against Ford and Dodge products derived from a shared high volume platforms? Ha, ha, ha

If Ford could keep one shift operating at full capacity (with overtime), then I assume STAP would be profitable, although that is of course not the optimal operating pattern. The problems with Panther are not necessarily where it is now, but where it has to be in the future. There is going to be continuing erosion of the cop car business from Dodge as their retail volume drops on the 300/Charger family and they are looking for business. It would cost a lot to do anything to the Panther to make it resemble a modern automobile; whether this type of action would be justified by additional volume is highly suspect. As I said previously, people are not moving into these large American sedans like they were in the past. IMHO that's not likely to change. I'm not trying to dis those who enjoy Panthers, but they are becoming a rarer breed. All of which says that this Panther single shift situation might be OK for the next couple of years but not beyond.

You must be thinking of a different person. Richard is not perfect, but I would in no way characterize him in this manner. In fact, I could argue that he sometimes pushed things too far in the "it has to be changed to make it right" direction -- particularly in vehicle dynamics. An example was an all new front suspension for the Lincoln Aviator because he was unhappy with the compliance and feel of the base Explorer suspension. So a lot of money was spent for something the customers failed to appreciate. Moot point anyway, as he's moving on.

I assume so. And people. And platform strategies.

You won't find many in the auto industry that have as firm a grasp on total vehicle technology as Richard Parry-Jones. His knowledge goes both wide and deep, and he is known for pressing engineers to do their best by knowing more than they do and asking questions that probed the depth of their knowledge. He was a good mentor and supporter of those who demonstrated technical prowess. He is an expert at pushing cars to just the right balance, and ensuring that cars have a "personality". And he is a champion of utilizing common platforms. He certainly had an influence in EUCD (Richard also was the platform exec on the original CDW27 Mondeo). Nevertheless, his job was essentially redundant as Kuzak had a similar title. And Ford was paying him as Exec VP, so his retirement makes sense.

This is quite an interesting thread. You might think that Mustang would be one of the easiest cars for Ford to plan as it seems well defined. But, as the comments on this thread indicate, opinions on Mustang are wider ranging than you might think, and there is often a lot of strong opinions and shouting. Let's start at the beginning. Let's assume that there is an opportunity to hop on to a new global RWD platform around 2012 -- or not. The first basic question that needs to be answered is "what do we want the Mustang to be?" Not as easy as it seems. Questions could include things like: Do we keep the Mustang as a traditional pony car? Or make it more like, say, a 3-series which provides great performance with smaller engines? What is the relevance (and sales) of pony cars going to be over the 2012-2020 time period for the platform with increased demands for fuel economy and perhaps a shift in thinking among the population in their attitudes toward big V8's? Is there room for a 4-door "coupe" model? And on, and on, and on. Let's assume Ford decides to continue with a traditional V8 powered pony car with traditional Mustang cues. The vehicle architecture of the Mustang is actually quite unique. In most cars, a lot of the engineering effort takes place in the front of the car as you have to worry about engine package, front suspension, and crash performance. But in the Mustang, the rear is also critical and takes a lot of time to sort out. The Mustang has a distinctive sloped rear that drives the rear passengers down to ensure enough head room. But the rear passengers are sitting on top of the fuel tank, and there has to be clearance for the suspension and hopefully for the lowest restriction exhaust possible. So you can think of the critical area of the Mustang as being around the butts of the rear passengers. Every time you try to move things around in the rear of the Mustang, they tend to snap back into place based on other concerns. Biker, you are correct that an IRS would certainly help. But maybe not as much as you think. You can eliminate the area where the axle and driveshaft is hopping up and down, but you still need room for the drive shaft, differential (which is stationary), the halfshafts, and the more complicated geometry. S197 was originally designed with a blade-type IRS similar to C170. The Mustang team and FoA worked for over a year to try to pull together a common design but failed, so simply adopting Orion's IRS might not work. jpd80 mentioned having a live axle with IRS optional. This was done with both the Fox Cobra and the Falcon. But it's a compromise as you can't gain back the space you gave up for the live axle, you compromise the geometry of the IRS, and you pay big bucks on a unit basis for the limited volume. Hopefully any new Mustang would have IRS standard, but you'll still hear whining from the drag racing crowd. Let's assume there is a Huntsman platform that starts with a 4-door sedan (i.e., next gen Falcon). The first question will be "what bits can I adopt from the prior platform to save cost?" Maybe the new front suspension, maybe the rear? Who knows, but it would be examined in detail. Making a Mustang from a new 4-door platform is not a piece of cake. You can't just make it into a coupe, and you can't just shorten the wheelbase. jpd80, you might be aware that FoA took a crack at a Falcon based Mustang, but it looked more like a Commodore coupe than it did a Mustang. To make a Mustang requires a totally new rear end including floor pan and structure. And, as I mentioned, the suspension is problematic -- even with a blade suspension, the forward mount is not easy to package due to the relatively short distance between the rear suspension and the door opening. And the rear package for people, fuel, exhaust, suspension, and luggage will have to be sorted out. But even this isn't enough -- when you put it all together, the exterior has to say "Mustang" a couple of blocks away. Biker, I think this is where you might run into problems with your ideas -- proportions are key to Mustang styling, and taller, shorter might not work out well. I think it might be kind of frumpy. More to come I'm sure including whether or not Ford believes there is a need for a new GRWD platform in North America.

ute, You are of course correct that St. Thomas produced both the Escort and BOF Panthers and some of the flexible tooling remains. My comments were primarily on the difficulty/expense of bringing another Panther into the plant (Town Car). And of course the inevitable decline/death of the Panther platform which I would think is in 4 years or so. On the bright side, it lasted about 20 years longer than Ford thought it would! If Ford decides to initiate a global RWD platform, I would think that St. Thomas would certainly be in the hunt to capture it. But if Ford does go that direction and it goes to St. Thomas, I'm sure the plant would be set up in a much more flexible manner to potentially accomodate a variety of bodystyles (sedan/mustang/SUV?) and maybe brands (Ford/Lincoln?). Paint could probably be preserved, and maybe some chassis?, but the body shop(s) would have to be all new I would think. With Ford's strapped resources, conversion of a plant or a greenfield plant is a rare event. So if there is a global RWD platform produced in North America, there is going to be a lot of competitive bidding -- both in terms of incentives from governments and flexible work agreements.

I think your assessment is correct. The demand for these large sedans is going down dragging volume, pricing, and profitability with it. If St. Thomas can produce around 120-140k units annually on a single shift, then around 40% of the volume is represented by police business. Even moving the TC to St. Thomas was controversial. I'm guessing that it cost over $100 million and didn't even include a freshening. All it does it to help fill a single shift in a relatively inflexible plant. The biggest problem with the Panther now is that any additional investment won't do much to increase sales -- certainly not enough to add a second shift again. I think the average age of the buyers is almost 70. In the past, buyers would "grow into" a large American sedan, but that is no longer the trend. St. Thomas is Kalamazoo. (For those of you not familiar, that was the Checker plant in Michigan). It has a single product that is riding off into the sunset. This plant would need to be totally gutted to convert to another platform; it's solid hard tooled for Panther right now. So I guess we'll have to wait and see if it either goes down or if there is backfill product in the 2011-12 time period. The Panther has been a faithful platform for a long time for Ford and over its life has generated large profits. But it's on life support, and it's time to pull the cord.

I got confused, and deleted my previous post..... Lincoln version of Flex will have unique sheet metal.

Sorry. S197 is the present Mustang. D2c is the platform it rides on which is used only on the Mustang.

Lincoln Edge will have unique sheetmetal from the Ford version.

I think someone didn't carefully proofread the release as the V6 continues with the 6-speed. Jonathan Richards, the marketing manager, is probably a bit red in the face right now.

Atlanta was a high quality plant with a good workforce. So it was considered for all variety of post-Taurus programs including D3 products, Edge, plus some stray Lincolns that never happened. Doesn't matter at this point as the plant is down.

Well, this was a point in time and is not so relevant to today. The people hauler is the Taurus X. The multiple Lincoln vehicles in Atlanta along with a new AJ V8 in Lima went down in flames when Lincoln imploded.

These plans were never put into place; no facility investment was ever spent to put the D3 in Atlanta. So I don't think the planning was "piss poor". But the expectations were high for the D3. Very briefly, a few of the planning assumptions went something like this: Fuel prices are going to be going up; customers will be moving from body-on-frame utilities to unibody crossovers. That means that BOF utilities will move to a single plant which will constrain availability which in turn will be filled with unibody crossovers. When those customers move from SUV's, they are going to expect to get the same attributes they had -- AWD, good view of the road, safety, ability to carry lots of things, etc. Some of the customers might move from SUV's to sedans. In that case, they also are going to expect to hang on to those things they enjoyed in SUV's. So the sedan also has to incorporate good seating position and maximum space for passengers and luggage. Now, consider when these assumptions were made -- around 2000-2001. Most everyone would say "spot on" given what's happened with gas prices and the market recently. There are multiple factors in the lack of success of the 500/Freestyle. Lackluster J Mays design -- not offensive, but not exciting for either product. No 3.5 at launch. Continued presence of familiar and cheap Taurus and CV in the showroom. Success of the Chrysler 300. And I'm sure you could come up with a few more, including the fact that car buyers are not always rational and might choose a Hemi (even with fuel over $3.00 a gallon) as emotion drives a lot of vehicle purchases. It's a shame. The product is actually quite good. Even the New York Times on Sunday gave it a good review (after spending way too much time talking about the 500 history and the name change).

Atlanta (and Georgia) was in play for a lot of programs post Taurus. You're not going to believe this, but the reference quoted was most probably during the time period that Ford was considering 2 plants of D3. Ford believed that the crossover market was going to take off and the Freestyle was going to be a runaway success. After the D3 condensed to one plant, Atlanta also was considered for Edge/MKX. The Atlanta workforce and quality was excellent. The plant, however, had some plusses and minuses. On the minus side, growth was limited due to its location near Hartsville International Airport; any expansion would have required an expensive body shop on the opposite side of an eight lane expressway. On the plus side (but minus for the workers unfortunately), the land is valuable as it is close to the airport. Ford even examined a greenfield site in Georgia before making the decision to put Edge/MKX and the F/L Flex in Oakville. The union concession was one reason that the Fusion could not have been called Taurus -- from the UAW's perspective, it would have seen it as outsourcing a nameplate. And the 500 couldn't have been called Taurus since the old model was still in production in Atlanta as a filler and sacrificial fleet vehicle. I'm sure that the union was informed all the way, and didn't like the results. As for Wixom, I personally don't think this plant will ever be reopened. It is a total mess. Due to its inefficient operation and high fixed costs, it is unlikely that any car or truck program could be installed in this plant and make money. The body shops are a mess and they crisscross each other -- the plant is a patchwork quilt. All of the vehicle that were produced in this plant are either extinct, or have been moved elsewhere in the case of the Town Car. The only plus is a decent paint shop. So the plant would have to be completely gutted to make use of it. I just don't see it.