rkisler

I don't know exactly how much weight Ford get rid of by changing platforms, and exactly how much flexibility the CD4 has to go up to the size of the Explorer. If Ford wants to do a people carrier, CD4 might be OK. But if history is any indication CD4 might not work as a build-from for a true U.S.-type minivan nor necessarily an Explorer (based on W355 minivan project which unsuccessfully tried to use CD3s). If you have to make a lot of changes, you can sometimes negate what you thought were going to be savings in engineering workload and vehicle attributies (like weight).

I agree with you. With all of the other priorities Ford has, I don't see changing the platform for Explorer is the highest. It would be a massive investment in Chicago. I think Ford will leave well enough alone for now. Interceptor becomes a vestigial product much like CV Interceptor was.

As far as D4, as I've been saying for quite some time, I think they will be gone from Oakville, and likely Flex and MKT don't have a future when Oakville turns CD4. With low volumes, I don't think it would make any sense to move them to Chicago. So Chicago becomes the sole D4 plant. The only product I can think of would be a D4 Lincoln SUV. And/or the plant drops back to 2 shifts from 3. I do not believe this plant has the flexibility of producing both D4 and CD4 platforms.

Although A123 was in the running to supply Volt batteries, Compact Power (LG Chem) was the chosen cell supplier. Which of course didn't help A123's revenue projections. The much publicized Volt post-crash fires were with Compact Power cells, not A123. A123 also experienced an explosion, but it was under extremely severe testing at GM for the upcoming Spark EV. They are the confirmed supplier for this project.

I had one of those "bad boys" also. This will relate back to my comment that the size of the tank could be due to weight. I'm embarassed to say the tank on the Escort was a trick. Ford needed to keep the car within an inertia weight class. Weights are based on all options over 33%. So Ford created a "base" lower capacity tank by pushing the filler down further. In the "optional" tank, they left the filler at normal height but they knew the optional tank would have a low installation rate. That way, the weight for EPA testing was based on the weight of the fuel in the smaller capacity tank. So the relatively small tank on C-Max could be due to package or weight.

It's only 13.5 gallons because that's all you need with this fantastic fuel economy to get a very high range. Why carry any extra fuel (and weight) around if you don't need it; that only hurts fuel economy. Of course there could have been some packaging issues and/or some weight issues to keep the car in the Intertial Test Weight Class, but we won't hear about those if they were a factor.

This would have the same inneficiencies as compressed air cars, but even worse due to having to keep the nitrogen at cyrogenic temps (liquid at atmospheric is -196C/-321F). Not gonna happen.

It's true that Panasonic bought Sanyo but it's still being operated as Sanyo and Ford has a long relationship with them on hybrid batteries, so replacements shouldn't be a problem. As I mentioned earlier, the Ford Focus Electric gets its cells from Compact Power (LG Chem's U.S. sub), not Sanyo. They are, I believe, the same as Volt cells but of course the packs are different.

Sorry about your A123 stock; I had some too but sold about 6 months ago (at a loss but not nearly as big as yours!). As I said above, A123 had nothing to do with the Volt; those cells come from Compact Power/LG Chem.

Let me give you a long-winded response that probably won't answer your question: 1. Certainly over the last 4 years, there has been a lot of attention and money involved with green energy. Loans were extended to automakers (Ford, Nissan, Tesla, Fisker) to assist them in converting facilities to make them capable of producing more efficient vehicles including those using batteries either fully or partially. 2. In additon to loans to automakers, there were matching grants given to suppliers for the investment required to produce battery cells and packs in the U.S. 3. Obviously vehicles using batteries have not been a huge success; volumes are very low, but growing moderately. So we are in an overcapacity situation, and not every company is going to make it. Ener1 filed for bankruptcy (but their sub EnerDel is still running I think?), and A123 is the latest to go belly up. There might be others that give up the effort but in some cases they are part of a large company (like Dow-Kokam) so it won't take the company down if it happens. 4. In addition to the general overcapacity, A123 had a number of missteps. They hooked up with Fisker which was late to launch, and they produced a bad batch of batteries that cost them around $55 million to recall. Ouch. I leave it to the experts, but I believe their technology is pretty good. GM will be using A123 in the Electric Spark but volumes will be small. Who knows what will happen to Fisker. 5. To the best of my knowledge, Ford is not doing anything with A123, and I'm not so sure about JCI. a. The battery cells for the Focus Electric come from Compact Power which is the U.S. sub of LG Chem. They are the same cells used in the Volt. They have been imported from Korea, but there is a new plant (funded in part by grants) in Holland, MI. The fact that this plant doesn't seem to be on line yet indicates to me that they don't have enough volume to support a single shift, but just guessing. An outside supplier assembles the packs which are shipped to WAP. b. The battery cells for the Hybrid and Energi models come from Sanyo, so they are Japanese sourced. Those packs are assembled by Ford at Rawsonville. 6. Others might know better, but JCI has seemed to be more concentrated on batteries for start-stop systems. Their lithium battery venture with Saft (a French company) went sour. So perhaps they view the A123 technology as a relatively cheap way to get into the game by purchasing the technology rather than having to negotiate who gets what with a joint venture partner. JCI is a very strong company, so stay tuned. The benefit to Ford and other manufacturers would be a robust supply base with good alternatives and sharp prices. As an aside, Prabhakar Patel, the first Escape Hybrid Chief Program Engineer, is CEO of Compact Power. Mary Ann Wright, the second Escape Hybrid CPE is VP Global Technology and Innovation at Johnson Control's Power Solutions.

Like so many things, it's just an assumption; I'm guessing most people probably leave more than 1.3 gallons in the tank but I have no data (that would be around 60 miles to empty for the C-Max (just a bit befoe all the warning chimes go off at 50) EPA also has other assumptions. For instance, the combined city/highway assumes 45% highway and 55% city. The EPA website (www.fueleconomy.gov) allows you to customize your annual mileage, the percentage of city/highway, and the cost of fuel to get a better estimate for your personal driving.situation. .

The EPA estimate assumes that 10% of the fuel will remain in the tank. So 47*13.5*0.9=571.

I have no doubt about the second part of your post having to do with electric accessories (just posted same on Biker's note on electrically-actuated brakes). As you mention, not only can you potentially run these devices with "wasted" energy, but you have a great packaging advantage as you can move them around. I even see a march to mild hybrids with Integrated Starter-Generators gaining new acceptance. True, mild hybrids, like Honda's IMA and GM's eAssist have gotten a bad rap as not being good enough, but they offer some benefit. And an ISG can offer an opportunity to go to a beltless engine which can modify favorably the powertrain package. Capacitors also are going to come into their own; Mazda's latest start-stop system uses them. In other words, there are going to be a lot of methods for using energy that normally would be wasted without having to go to a full hybrid. I believe Audi is using an eCompressor to offer immediate boost with an exhaust turbo coming on later. eTurbos have an advantage as they do not have to sustain the high temps (with associated expensive materials) that exhaust driven turbos do. So it seems logical that they might be in consideration, although I'm not sure of their capabilities to handle the job by themselves. I don't know what Ford is planning, but I don't doubt they are exploring alternative engine configuratons. I think the boxer might be a bit of a stretch due to big manufacturing implicatons in both the engine plant and the vehicle assembly plant. Not so sure about AWD, but certainly "through-the-road" hybrids would be in the consideration set. Each one of these actions could have knock-on effects for the platform design and ultimately in the assembly plant, so it's not totally clean sheet. Let us know if you hear anything...

And during those long 640 mile trips, here's something sweet you guys might consider buying for your SO: http://www.magic-cone.com/

Thanks for posting. Well, my 11-year old BMW motorcycle with ABS also has an electro-hydraulic system. Works well but the feel is not so great. This is really part of a larger trend of vehicle electrification. Components that have been mechanical for decades are being flipped over to electrical to allow more control and hence more efficiency. With smart charging and more capable batteries (or potentially capacitors), there is a chance to capture more energy even on non-hybrids and use it to power accessories or in this case brakes. The increased use of start-stop, hybrids, and EV's will improve the economies of scale and more components will be flipping. Seems to me the AC compressor would be the next major candidate. I don't know what the economics are now between a traditional belt-driven compressor and electric compressors used on a "beltless" hybrid, but it's going to happen. Powertrains will be beltless on hybrids, and only drive an alternator on ICE applications. There likely will be additional application of a whole range of micro- to mild hybrids as manufacturers reach down their opportunities list to achieve fuel economy targets.

I don't really have any info. The domestic manufacturers reduced their footprint substantially prior to and during the Great Recession. In a way, as bad as it was, the Great Recession allowed the companies to get rid of excess production when a steady-state economy would have just continued a downward spiral in part due to labor commitments. Ford has taken a number of plant actions to reduce capacity over the past few years as market share has shifted to the South with the U.S. manufactured imports. St. Louis down. Norfolk down. Wixom down. St. Thomas down. OTP is one combined plant where there were two. MAP is one plant where there were two. E-series production moved out of Ohio. (did I miss any?) Ford has taken actions to pack the plants that remain by investing in flexible equipment and staffing them with three crews. In the near future, Fusion production will be added to Flat Rock Assembly. If Ford can keep the turnaround coming and the new products are successful, eventually Ford will run out of capacity and have to reach a decision on another production facility. Right now, the one I see as tightest is C-cars (Focus, C-Max), particularly if the C-Max takes off. There might be more volume, but probably not enough to spring for a new plant at this point (A new plant would be in the neighborhood of $1-1.5 billion). I'm not sure the huge state government incentives will be there this time around to help blunt the cost. Also in terms of capital spending, Ford has to balance additional capacity in the U.S. with addditional capacity in Asia and the huge costs in the U.S. to completely revamp the product lines from top to bottom for fuel economy. We'll have to wait and see.

Richard, it wasn't a single decison, but a whole host of them. Although I try to refrain from pointing fingers at the UAW, I will say that the Ford/UAW agreements reached in the 1980's which literally guaranteed employment had a lot to do with it. When you can't get efficiencies in the plant because even if you do you can't reduce staffing, then it affects your decision. When you have a plant you can't get rid of, you try to fill it. Also, you can see why Mulaly's "One Ford" can have such an impact. Of course, the keys were there all along. Japan was developing standard practices and highly related platforms for quite some time, but even though Ford had Mazda and Hermosillo, we didn't learn the lessons. Ford Europe was in trouble, had a consulting firm (A. T. Kearney) benchmark VW (which was using similar practices to the Japanese) and then used that as a pattern to develop a platform strategy. So when it came time to revitalize the company, Mullaly just wanted to point to a single solution which was FoE, and viewed Mazda as a crutch and "noise." When you have vehicles that are related and have common order of assembly and common mount points, then good things happen. And it's imperitive that you maintain flexibility in the plants so you can adjust production to meet demand. That's also a hallmark of "One Ford." Wixom is done for. But I have been very encouraged over Ford's newly refurbished plants, including Cuatitlan, MAP, LAP, and now FRAP (and I assume also KC). I would love to see a Ford greenfield at some point when the time is right.

I want to make a few comments: 1. Wixom will never, never, never be brought on line again as an auto assembly plant. Period. 2. Wixom was a mess. There were three body shops. In one case I seem to remember that the lines actually crossed each other. Yikes. Each product that was put into the plant was not done so in an organized manner because the platforms were all over the map. For instance, the Mark was a derivative of the MN12 T'bird which was buit in Lorain. But it was produced in Wixom, and actually diverged substantially from the bird (that's what happens when you don't hold discipline). But that didn't stop Ford's Body and Assembly operations from buying very, very expensive equipment for the body shop, despite the relatively low volumes. 3. When the LS was introduced, the body shop was crammed into a corner around the RR tracks. They did that because the program was having trouble with affordability and the future derivatives had all been cancelled. 4. When the 2003 bird went into Wixom, it couldn't be put on the LS line because it wasn't flexible -- even though the commonality with the LS was very high. So it used the fallow Mark line, but virtually all of the assembly equipment had to be thrown overboard. 5. The paint shop was OK, but it was very difficult for any new program as the skids (the assembly equipment that carries the bodies) had to be modified and reengineered at great cost for each new program. 6. Given all of that, and the extraordinarily high fixed costs for Wixom, it was essentially a "black hole." You could expect that ANY new vehicle program -- even a luxury vehicle -- that was considered for Wixom would not be profitable. That's a huge part of the reason that Ford (most unfortunately IMO) cancelled the successor to the LS. When that program was active, you could just see the trainwreck coming. 7. So, in terms of value, Wixom is just some land, a building, and some RR tracks, but that's it. It's not a modern assembly plant. 8. I hope that Ford does need additional assembly at some point. I can guarantee you that planning volume vs. capacity and required capacity actions for vehicles and components for the next 10 years or so are already under consideration. Firm for the next 3 years or so and a bit sketchier after that. But of course they can shift depending on a variety of factors.

You need to find a reference for this because it is not consistent with Ford rules. Not saying it didn't happen, but I think the odds are low. Any plant manager will be in a position where he/she is leasing a car or maybe two. If he/she is, then the surviving spouse gets $25,000 toward a new car. The car can be ordered, and if it is, the surviving spouse can keep the lease car until the new car is available.

Oops. Very funny. No, I'm the furthest thing from continental. But my eyesight isn't great; I think my next laptop needs a lighted keyboard!

There are two or three advantages to spot welding aluminum (if you can get it right) vs. self-piercing rivets: 1. Speed; although the rivets are inserted by robots that look very much like those that hold electrodes for welding, there is some difference in speed. Not a big deal on a Jaguar XJ, but could be on a higher volume model. 2. Cost -- IIRC, the self-piercing rivets cost about $0,01 each. So if you look at the rivet count of 2,500-3,000 per car, that's $20-$30. You would sell your grandmother and maybe your firstborn for that in the auto industry. 3. Weight -- I don't know how much the total rivet weight is, but it ain't nothin' There might be some offsets in the energy side as I seem to remember that welding in aluminum is more energy intensive than steel (I stand to be corrected on this one). When Jaguar decided on rivets for the XJ, energy was a concern, particularly if all the weld guns happened to be firing at the same time in the body shop; would have required software/hardware to phase welding process IIRC. Also, adhesives have been mentioned. Lotus used adhesives, and in some cases had a "tear off tab" that could be used for testing as there is no good way to do non-destructive testing on the finished product. But I would think that adhesives have progressed to an extent where you don't have to do testing on fabricated parts? Still adhesives aren't good for everything, and some parts need to be joined by rivets or welds. It was nice to see Pioneer's comments which provide good insight

The rivets used are self-piercing, so no drilling is required.

I fully support akirby's remarks. It is true that not every permutation/combination is tested but results are not extrapolated to the best of my knowledge. The model tested is the one with the most typical option loading -- memory fading, but I believe every option above 33% application has to be included. That's why manufacturers sometimes limit options, particularly on fuel economy leaders. The more options you limit, the more chance you have to be able to slip in the next lower weight class (which affects the dyno load setting). If a manufacturer wants a separate model (like a FE leader), then they have to develop the model and certify separately. There is no way the EPA lab in Ann Arbor (right up the street from me) has the capacity to test every vehicle that is certified. That's why the manufacturers do the tests subject to audit. The EPA lab and manufacturer labs are well calibrated. I would hazard a guess that if you were to test a Ford in a Toyota lab and then retest it at the EPA lab, all of the results would be very close to each other. When the EPA finds a different result, they will meet with the manufacturer to sort through the results. In some cases (like BMW recently), the manufacturer will have to accept the EPA results pending retest. Manufacturers cannot change the calibration between test and production, so there is no way to "game" the test and then change the calibration for better driveability later. There can, however, sometimes be a car that tests exceptionally well (referred to as a "flyer"). If the manufacturer chooses to pick that car for cert, and it is not typical, then they could be in a spot o' trouble if that car is audited. There is only one example of cheating that I can remember (other than HD fiasco); it as a long, long time ago, and it was self-reported. I believe GM engineers had code buried in the calibration that turned off the AC compressor under certain conditions that just so happened to match the EPA test. Oops. GM found out internally and reported to EPA. I do not believe that manufacturers are cheating.

I found this comment by the author to be extremely insightful. "Lexus could do that (develop luxury derivatives) because the underlying Toyota models were fundamentally sound. Most Ford models, in contrast, were made with the proverbial baling twine, built on cheap, outdated fundamental components that were ill-suited as the foundation of true prestige cars." Gosh, you learn something every day. Very eloquently put and backed up with reams of data. I bow to his knowledge.

Ah, yes, you're right. As I said, memory fading.... There are probably still some Merkur Scorpios parked there in the back 40.