FWD/RWD D3 speculation

[Biker16]

"the Falcon ended up with a decent and cost-effective independent rear suspension and the Mustang (through Phil Martens management edict) ended up with something resembling a farmer's wagon."

 

BULLSHIT!!

I don't know why, but so many seem to think that the mustang should be a corner carving "sporty car".

I LIKE THE SOLID REAR!!! For drag racing it works! The IFS (or any IFS) is GAY! And yes I mean that in the nonpolitically correct, derogitory way.

The mustang is a pony car, it's always been quick, fairly fast, and handle ok or pretty good. If you want a corner carver mustang you either a) get a specialty car (saleen/rouch/shelby/etc) B) build it.

The mustang should be a base 4 or 6 cyl for volume, and v8 for performance. Option or build it any way you like.

Start adding IFS and all the other "sporty car" crap and you end up with a probe (which almost became the mustang)

 

LONG LIVE THE SOLID REAR!!!

 

Ok, start bashing and whining :stats:

drag racing is soo popular. the probe was FWD and had 160hp there is no comparision

 

We wasted the 1.6 billion dollars to develop a one-trick pony. that cannot happen again.

 

that is why we must do it right, if it take 5 years so be it.

[RichardJensen]

$1.6B was NOT spent on engineering the Mustang. End of story. If you think that much was spent entirely on engineering---

[Biker16]

$1.6B was NOT spent on engineering the Mustang. End of story. If you think that much was spent entirely on engineering---

 

If you knew how much was wasted by Developing an IRS, than Dumping it for a MORE EXPENSIVE SRA, The edict was passed down and cost more moneythan it saved, because it forced a redsin of the floorpan and everything else that touched it .

 

lack of direction and lack of will.

 

Rmemebr the mustang was to be apart of a 2 billion dollar RWD program to revitalize lincoln. that was canceled and forced a redesign and decontenting of the now single car mustang , they eliminated the IRS and streamlined the archtechture to be cheaper to assemble, and very unflexible. believe or not.

[jpd80]

Falcon & Mustang nearly had the IRS right but the American chiefs wouldn't let them finish.

The IRS development wasn't wasted or really that expensive, the FoA guys brought it home and made the multi link IRS work. Its was very similar to the one under the interceptor...

 

Subsequently, the multilink IRS was replaced with the lighter and better Control Blade IRS

in 2002, a full two years before the 2005 Mustang. But for a bit of patience from the NA chiefs, the Mustang could have shared FoA's developments. It was the lost opportunity to share their developments with the group that really annoyed the Aussies.

 

I think the important thing Biker, is that both groups know what they can achieve together and I bet they are sharing or have shared already. I agree with you, it's high time Ford stopped wasting precious resources and manpower in mindless duplication.

Edited May 18, 2007 by jpd80

[rkisler]

$1.6B was NOT spent on engineering the Mustang. End of story. If you think that much was spent entirely on engineering---

 

Richard, I think biker was referring to the total cost of the Mustang program. I don't know if this number is correct -- I would have guessed around $1-1.2 b, but he could be right.

 

I mentioned in a previous post that while engineering is a valued and scarce commodity, in terms of the total program costs it only represents around 15-20% of the total including prototypes.

 

Don't forget that the Mustang was inserted at AAI on the prior Cougar line. So program costs include the tooling for all of the new parts (and they were virtually ALL new unfortunately) including the expensive dies for stampings. In AAI, costs included an all new body shop, all new chassis line (Cougar was FWD), and modified trim and final. In the end, it's the costs in the assembly plant that are enormous and those costs make or break a program. This is where the arguments for commonality, flexibility, and firm plans really hit home.

 

If the Mustang were to adopt the Falcon IRS, it would now be another expensive tearup and best combined with a major platform redo/freshening. The engineering won't be so difficult as there are is a lot of data "on the shelf". But lots of new parts will be required. New suspension (objective would be common with Falcon, but might end up being similar), new rear floor pan, new fuel tank, new rear seats, new rear quarters to tie into the floorpan. And probably a lot of other things I can't think of. This would require expensive body shop modifications at AAI. I'm also concerned that the space alloted in AAI for the chassis line might not easily accomodate IRS, but I don't have specific knowledge.

 

The solid axle in the Mustang is an inhibitor in developing other derivatives from the D2c platform. But the biggest inhibitor is that any RWD sedan in the US (other than import from FoA) will be expensive as there is no plant that is presently facilitized to build it. So what you would get is a bill for another $1 billion or so. I don't think Interceptor, for instance, could pay the bill and make money.

 

There are a lot of other chicks in the nest with their beaks in the air begging for those investment dollars!!

[old_fairmont_wagon]

My thinking: RWD D3s as successors to the fleet business for the Panthers (police interceptors & livery). By flat eliminating all pretense that these vehicles are for retail, they can be quite thoroughly tailored for their true audience. I mean, why should a PI vehicle have a retail counterpart?

 

I figure you're looking at roughly 150k a year in fleet volume for these variants of the RWD D3. These things would never be seen on a showroom floor (just like you're hard pressed to find an E-Series on the front of any retail Ford dealer lot).

 

You need about another 100k units of volume to justify the investment at the plant, and that's where you wonder if you can get 100k retail out of Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury RWD variants.... Or if you can maybe flex in a different product...

 

OTOH, margins may not be sufficient to justify such an effort. This is a quick breakdown of rough facility improvement costs (over a 10 year useful life) and program costs (over a 6 year platform lifespan).

 

Over 10 years, the cost, per unit, of amortizing a $800M unit investment is about $400/unit (if volumes are 200k/year). That doesn't seem unreasonable. Then you have the cost of engineering itself which must be amortized over a shorter period of time (say $200M total over 6 years) which is $167 per vehicle.

 

Key is whether there's enough fleet & retail volume....

 

 

RJ, just remember, the panthers at the moment have only ONE clear advantage over the other entrants for PI duty: They are the established player with over a decade of parts development and economies of scale for support that are unparallelled. If anything changes on the panther/CV to make it a unibody RWD car, then it is all of a sudden on the same footing with the Charger/300, and whatever GM intros to replace the impala PI. It has to be better all around than the Panther. That's not going to be done on a shoestring budget. And, the investment that it takes to make that happen will have to be amortized over a ton of units. You're going to have to have a strong retail presence as a rule for any such vehicle for it to be affordable to any police department or other service company at any break even pricing strategy.

[NickF1011]

RJ, just remember, the panthers at the moment have only ONE clear advantage over the other entrants for PI duty: They are the established player with over a decade of parts development and economies of scale for support that are unparallelled. If anything changes on the panther/CV to make it a unibody RWD car, then it is all of a sudden on the same footing with the Charger/300, and whatever GM intros to replace the impala PI. It has to be better all around than the Panther. That's not going to be done on a shoestring budget. And, the investment that it takes to make that happen will have to be amortized over a ton of units. You're going to have to have a strong retail presence as a rule for any such vehicle for it to be affordable to any police department or other service company at any break even pricing strategy.

 

They may be on the same footing mechanically, but Ford still has the distinct advantage of having existing relationships with 90%+ of the PD's in the country, so it would likely be a much easier sell for Ford than it would be for a new player.

[RichardJensen]

RJ, just remember, the panthers at the moment have only ONE clear advantage over the other entrants for PI duty: They are the established player with over a decade of parts development and economies of scale for support that are unparallelled. If anything changes on the panther/CV to make it a unibody RWD car, then it is all of a sudden on the same footing with the Charger/300, and whatever GM intros to replace the impala PI. It has to be better all around than the Panther. That's not going to be done on a shoestring budget. And, the investment that it takes to make that happen will have to be amortized over a ton of units. You're going to have to have a strong retail presence as a rule for any such vehicle for it to be affordable to any police department or other service company at any break even pricing strategy.

Well, I think there's a couple things overlooked here: as Nick mentioned, Ford has longstanding relationships with a lot of fleet customers--but, more importantly, Ford has a lot of police-friendly add-ons for the CV. Coming up with even more ancillary doo-dads for this new PI would help ease the transition--plus, all Ford would have to do is stage some 75mph rear enders to demonstrate the superior safety of the D3 chassis over the LX & Zeta or W (whichever), and they'd have the business locked up, IMO. Also, they would probably start the groundwork with PI upfitters (light bar companies, for instance) well ahead of time, in order to smooth the transition. Ford is very good at working with volume customers and upfitters.

 

Also, I'd buy a >$1B charge for the total cost to bring the Mustang to market, but there's no way that over $1B was spent on engineering alone. I mean, if you want to count the total amount of money invested in engineering all three DEW variants, plus whatever work was started and stopped on additional DEW variants, then you'd be getting up around $1B, but $1.6B JUST to engineer the Mustang (which is what Biker implied) is .... ridiculous.

[silvrsvt]

Also, I'd buy a >$1B charge for the total cost to bring the Mustang to market, but there's no way that over $1B was spent on engineering alone. I mean, if you want to count the total amount of money invested in engineering all three DEW variants, plus whatever work was started and stopped on additional DEW variants, then you'd be getting up around $1B, but $1.6B JUST to engineer the Mustang (which is what Biker implied) is .... ridiculous.

 

Also keeping in mind if that figure was that high to start with, Ford would have shitcanned the idea. The 05 Mustang is going to be turning a profit per unit (as in having its costs paid off) by the end of 2007, due to better then expected sales in the first 2 years of production.

 

look at the CDW program...it spend 10 BILLION on the Contour/Mondeo/Mystique...that wasn't just for platforms..it included new engines and what not in its price and Ford was compelled to pull the plug on the NA models after only 5 or 7 years...

[Biker16]

Also keeping in mind if that figure was that high to start with, Ford would have shitcanned the idea. The 05 Mustang is going to be turning a profit per unit (as in having its costs paid off) by the end of 2007, due to better then expected sales in the first 2 years of production.

 

look at the CDW program...it spend 10 BILLION on the Contour/Mondeo/Mystique...that wasn't just for platforms..it included new engines and what not in its price and Ford was compelled to pull the plug on the NA models after only 5 or 7 years...

 

it was 6 billion not 10 billion.

[jpd80]

Well, I think there's a couple things overlooked here: as Nick mentioned, Ford has longstanding relationships with a lot of fleet customers--but, more importantly, Ford has a lot of police-friendly add-ons for the CV. Coming up with even more ancillary doo-dads for this new PI would help ease the transition--plus, all Ford would have to do is stage some 75mph rear enders to demonstrate the superior safety of the D3 chassis over the LX & Zeta or W (whichever), and they'd have the business locked up, IMO. Also, they would probably start the groundwork with PI upfitters (light bar companies, for instance) well ahead of time, in order to smooth the transition. Ford is very good at working with volume customers and upfitters.

 

FoA insiders confirm that Orion has Falcon had undergone high speed rear end crash tests in USA. If that's true, either it is for bragging rights against the zetas or the game's afoot in NA.

 

The above info could be used by Ford meerly as evidence proving that other Ford vehicles can be just as capable and dependable as the encumberant panthers.

 

Falcons have long history with Australian police forces and the installation of police equipment, such as light bars, police onboard data computers, ect. Although the needs and eqipment of US police is sure to be different, a solid history is none the less a good leg up. Aussie police don't use PITT manouvres as such but have been known to force cars off the road as a last resort. The availability of front nudge bars and bull bars for both cars no doubt strengthens their appeal regarding PITT.

 

Falcon's internal space being extremely close to the panthers would also reassure police concerns about space and equipment layout.

Edited May 19, 2007 by jpd80

[rkisler]

FoA insiders confirm that Orion has Falcon had undergone high speed rear end crash tests in USA. If that's true, either it is for bragging rights against the zetas or the game's afoot in NA.

 

The above info could be used by Ford meerly as evidence proving that other Ford vehicles can be just as capable and dependable as the encumberant panthers.

 

Falcons have long history with Australian police forces and the installation of police equipment, such as light bars, police onboard data computers, ect. Although the needs and eqipment of US police is sure to be different, a solid history is none the less a good leg up. Aussie police don't use PITT manouvres as such but have been known to force cars off the road as a last resort. The availability of front nudge bars and bull bars for both cars no doubt strengthens their appeal regarding PITT.

 

Falcon's internal space being extremely close to the panthers would also reassure police concerns about space and equipment layout.

 

I think every Falcon iteration went through some crash testing in Dearborn. Part of the testing was to determine the performance of the vehicle and part to ensure that Ford's test facilities were calibrated so results from one facility could be projected to the other.

 

However, this more recent testing would appear to be a prudent move to look ahead for potential RWD replacements to Panther. Some on this board might think that somehow BOF makes the car "stronger" and nothing could beat a Panther. But, for crash, that's not always true. What you want for a crash is a controlled crush of sheetmetal that absorbs energy. A frame will distort in crash, but often times in a manner that doesn't contribute as effectively as a unibody would, and sometimes it can stop the crush or, worse yet, go bending in an undesireable direction. The Panther is very robust in rear crash despite some of the bad press and the fact that in the US Police cars seemingly have a target painted on the trunk for speeding, drunk drivers. But the Falcon has a fuel tank location further toward the middle of the car. I expect the Falcon would perform pretty well.

 

Also, the concentration this time around for Falcon is the front suspension/underbody, and I think the rear suspension/underbody/fuel tank is being pretty much left alone (right jpd80?), so high speed rear crash testing can be conducted with Falcon production units with a very good indication of how the final Orion will act. This is a relatively inexpensive way to find out...

 

I think Ford's police business is going to be in serious trouble. Here's my scenario:

1. It is true as indicated in previous posts that police departments are resistant to change due in part to the fact that they often have a significant amount of training and money tied up in their repair facilities. But once a swing to a new product takes place, it's tough to get the business back.

2. Dodge has been making inroads. They are testing better. They offer more performance on the top end and better fuel economy on the low end.

3. This is a business where profits are not so large when there are two competitors (e.g., Caprice/CV), but there are very nice profits when there is only one player.

4. Ford appears to making only those changes on Panther that are required to fill one shift at St. Thomas. My understanding is that the 4.6l 3v and 6 speed are no-go for instance. So, how good are Ford's assumptions of what it's going to take to maintain the business and keep one shift volume in the plant?

5. I think Chrysler's RWD products will fade on the retail side. Fuel prices increasing. Styling getting older and so unique it's expensive to freshen. Better competition from Ford with Taurus. Orphaning effect from Daimler?

6. When Chrysler's RWD retail declines they will be desparately looking for business to fill their plant. They most certainly will be aggressively pursuing the police business.

7. With a second viable player in the cop car business, the profits will go down which would make it much harder for Ford to justify a replacement RWD product for police business. And...a new Ford product on a new platform would present many of the same issues for the police departments as a switch from CV to Dodge would.

 

Business looks OK for now, but not in 3-5 years in my opinion.

[jpd80]

I think your perception of panthers for police business is correct and out of fear, Ford will play their hand out as long as possible. Paradoxically, the Crown Victorias main assets are about to become its biggest liabilities. As governments turn green and seek lower CO2 emissions, buying 70,000 examples of 4,000 lb BOF dinosaurs while pushing tighter CAFE limits doesn't send a good message to the public.

 

If Dodge eventually becomes more poular with police fleets, Ford will be stuck with no alternatives to the Crown Vic, too afraid to change and offering even more discounts to keep police sales. To me this sounds like the daily rental sales trap.

 

A 6 cylinder "police Falcon" fitted with IRS would be a 500 lb lighter giving better performance with less CO2 emissions and better fuel economy. The Falcon turbo 6 equals the Dodge Hemi V8s performance and kills it on fuel economy. Trying to hold onto at best 50,000 fleet sales is probably scaring away the far more profitable retail sales end of the market.

Edited May 20, 2007 by jpd80

[630land]

Panthers are dying off. I see more Impalas and Chargers as cop cars for the IL State Police. And the City of Chicago has Impalas. Also, most suburbs have SUV's doing 'ticket duty'.

 

With government agencies asking for more MPG from fleets, the dated, "its gotta have BOF" is dying out.

 

And the idea that a cop has to "drive over a curb" is abuse to a car bought by taxpayers.

[theoldwizard]

Attempting to share front subframes between a Mustang and a 4,000 lb luxury cruiser is a mistake.

...

Many years ago, prior to the current generation Mustang, I saw an "unauthorized" (by the Big Boys) prototype. An MN12 (the Big Thunderbird) minus about 2 feet, sectioned from the middle of the vehicle !! Yes, they were thinking of build the'Stang off of The Big 'Bird !!! From the front or rear you could not tell the difference from any 'Bird. Because it was not narrowed, the length to width proportion were all wrong so it looked very strange. And it weighted way to much (as did the 'Bird).

 

Now for those of you who have already forgotten the MN12 (or never saw one up close and personal), it may have been a very sleek looking car but it was a lead sled ! Those front and rear subframes were massive and the IRS weighted a lot more than a live axle. Thousands of pounds over budgeted weight and way over the cost budget, the MN12 was doomed the day it went into production.

 

Upper management had decreed certain specifications and features (front and rear head, hip and leg rumor, IRS, weight, cost, etc) on the MN12. When the mid-level management finally realized that these specs and feature were unattainable, they lied to the Big Boys instead of letting the program get canceled. The MN12 Thunderbird won Motor Trend Car of the Year and ended a few careers once the truth came out.

 

I'm glad the MN12 Mustang never happened !

[theoldwizard]

...

As far as electronics go, Ford should eventually move to a standardized set of control modules, and standardized connectors between the dashboard/firewall and assorted accessories and PCM stuff. They should also be standardizing on switchgear, mechanical bits (door latches, trunk latches, hinges, etc.), and the only difference from one wiring harness to the next should be the length.

Lets extract PCM from that list as a "subject for another time".

 

What you said started happening several years ago ! Look at the interior door latch handle/lock mechanism. It is the same on almost every Ford vehicle from Focus to '08 Taraus, from Fiesta to Jaguar. Same for door hinges. I almost getting sick of seeing the same speedometer/tach/guage package on all of the current NA Ford/Lincoln/Mercury (although I give the interior designers a lot of credit for subtle change that really work !)

 

I don't know if it got resolved yet, but one of the issues with common electrical connectors was un-common wire harness suppliers (at least in the US)! The harness suppliers were allowed to request "deviations" from the original specs (like a different connectors). If it met the design intent, purchasing would always grant the deviation, and now you have different connectors on different cars doing the same job !

 

There is a big push for something called the "smart junction box". It will have 2 (or perhaps 3) different sizes and will become universal (at least in the US). Many (non-powertrain) functions are consolidated into one box (anyone with auto electronic experience will tell you, the more functionality you can cram into one box, the lower the overall cost will be)

 

I'm pretty certain SJB is on the Edge and was definitely scheduled for a lot of other NA vehicles, but I don't know about anything outside of the US.

 

People would be absolutely amazed how expensive and complex wiring is ! And how many different harness and sub harnesses are engineered for on vehicle. Worse (at least a few years ago) all harness were manufactured by hand ! I always thought if some one could build some type of robotic wire harness manufacturing tool, then one unique harness per car could be made at the assembly plant with standardized connectors across all platforms.

 

There is a limited amount "networking" (like the Internet) in the car today, but it is still not cost effective for everything. A breakthough is needed. The technology needs to evolves to the point that the "network interface chip" (whatever that really is) can be integrated into the connector of every sensor and actuator (yes, every individual light bulb/LED !). Once this happens, everything will have 2 connection power/signal and ground !

[theoldwizard]

I wonder if the rumor of a RWD Taurus isn't a corruption of the research into adapting D3 for RWD. Someone hears about RWD D3 and they do a 2 + 2 = 5 thing...

Last year, the Big Boys thought the answer for all future vehicles (except maybe trucks) was AWD !

[theoldwizard]

They may be on the same footing mechanically, but Ford still has the distinct advantage of having existing relationships with 90%+ of the PD's in the country, so it would likely be a much easier sell for Ford than it would be for a new player.

Despite the bashing Ford got about rear 60+ MPH impact fires, the guys driving the cars like the Crown Vic. (First hand from my son-in-law)

 

As for how do you make a car sustain a 60+ MPH rear impact, its not hard. You wind up with about a 10 gallon tank. That amount of fuel would not get most cars through an entire shift. Do you want to pay your police to take another 30 minute break (got to drive back to the pumps) in the middle of their shift ?

 

Also at that speed for rear impact, you need to do some serious redesign of the seat/headrest !

 

Chrysler has been selling a few 300 Hemis as highway pursuit vehicles !

[wescoent]

Many years ago, prior to the current generation Mustang, I saw an "unauthorized" (by the Big Boys) prototype. An MN12 (the Big Thunderbird) minus about 2 feet, sectioned from the middle of the vehicle !! Yes, they were thinking of build the'Stang off of The Big 'Bird !!! From the front or rear you could not tell the difference from any 'Bird. Because it was not narrowed, the length to width proportion were all wrong so it looked very strange. And it weighted way to much (as did the 'Bird).

 

Now for those of you who have already forgotten the MN12 (or never saw one up close and personal), it may have been a very sleek looking car but it was a lead sled ! Those front and rear subframes were massive and the IRS weighted a lot more than a live axle. Thousands of pounds over budgeted weight and way over the cost budget, the MN12 was doomed the day it went into production.

 

Upper management had decreed certain specifications and features (front and rear head, hip and leg rumor, IRS, weight, cost, etc) on the MN12. When the mid-level management finally realized that these specs and feature were unattainable, they lied to the Big Boys instead of letting the program get canceled. The MN12 Thunderbird won Motor Trend Car of the Year and ended a few careers once the truth came out.

 

I'm glad the MN12 Mustang never happened !

 

Very interesting. I've seen this prototype as well, but I didn't know it was a mule for a MN12 Mustang. I love my Thunderbird, but it is a heavy mother, even considering its size.

Edited May 21, 2007 by wescoent

[RichardJensen]

People would be absolutely amazed how expensive and complex wiring is ! And how many different harness and sub harnesses are engineered for on vehicle.

Until they stop and think about how they can unlock all their car doors from a remote fob (requires wiring from central lock switch to whatever the receiver for the remote entry fob is called.

 

Then you need wires from the central lock switch to all four doors. And those door locks mechanisms are, IIRC, solenoids, therefore you need additional wires for the actual motors that unlock the doors. And of course you have the trunk release mechanism which is wired to a switch in the dash, and the receiver for the remote entry unit.

 

And of course, when you hit the unlock button you want the dome light on, so you need wiring to that. Oh, and all the headlights and taillights have to be wired through a timer, so you don't burn out your battery--ditto the dome lights.

 

If you've got one of those cars with seat memory, you've got wires for all that, and even if you've just got power seats, you've got wires for those things. Wires for the speakers, wires to the antenna, wires for the idiot lights, wires for the gauges (Ford's ancillary gauges, and IIRC their tachs, all run electronically--heck the Speedo might even be electronic by now. Wires for the weight sensor in the passenger seat, wires for the weight sensor in the driver's seat. Wires for the seatbelt minder, wires for the fancy electrochromatic mirror.

 

Wires for the now mandatory tire pressure sensors, wires for the ABS sensors, wires for the airbag sensors, wires for the EBD, wires for the seatbelt pretensioners, wires for the perimeter anti-theft system (can't just hook up those switches in the doors to the domelights anymore). One touch up and down windows? Requires more wires. Power mirrors? More wires. More lights? More wires? Brake pedal position sensor for brake lights? Wires wires wires.

 

And because it's electricity, at least two wires for every function. And because it's a car, connectors everywhere.

 

And that's just for the car, excluding the engine.

Edited May 21, 2007 by RichardJensen

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Yeah, in a wild, future world, every electronic do-dad in your car will have three wires running to it. Two of them will be for the serial data cable and the third will be DC-HOT for power. Everything, or course, can be frame grounded in an ideal world. (although, for some stuff on hinges, it may not work so well) Then, you'd have the mother of all serial controllers connected to the central vehicle managment processor. So, even then, you're still going to have miles of wiring in each vehicle. Granted, it will make more sense then. And, diagnostics can be run to verify that everything is behaving itself.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

If fuel economy numbers were becoming a problem for the Panthers in the market, there is low hanging fruit that can be plucked to help address this issue. There are engine/tranny packages available that, with light massaging can fit the vehicle that will give it an immediate improvement in mpg numbers on the order of 15% or better. Heck, if we assume the development numbers for the D37 are even close to contemporary and also in keeping with the efficiency of the D35, it would be a viable replacement for the 4.6L 2V in fleet duty. The torque number will be within 10% and the HP numbers are sure to be better than the 4.6 2V. And, after factoring in the weight reduction of the D37 vs the 4.6L 2v, the performance in the end will be a slightly nimbler car with better highway performance and much improved mpg numbers. And, given that the D37 will share external dimensions with the D35, and that the D35 is as small as the D30, it is quite obvious that there would be absolutely minimal changes needed to use the D37 in the panther.

 

The one problem with all of this is transmissions. We know that the 6R has different mounting requirements from the 4R series. We also know that the 5AT from the mustang and explorer isn't exactly a drop-in fit either. Either way, there would have to be some modification made in the area of tranny mounts to get a new one in there. I can't imagine that the development work there will be cheap.

[Biker16]

Until they stop and think about how they can unlock all their car doors from a remote fob (requires wiring from central lock switch to whatever the receiver for the remote entry fob is called.

 

Then you need wires from the central lock switch to all four doors. And those door locks mechanisms are, IIRC, solenoids, therefore you need additional wires for the actual motors that unlock the doors. And of course you have the trunk release mechanism which is wired to a switch in the dash, and the receiver for the remote entry unit.

 

And of course, when you hit the unlock button you want the dome light on, so you need wiring to that. Oh, and all the headlights and taillights have to be wired through a timer, so you don't burn out your battery--ditto the dome lights.

 

If you've got one of those cars with seat memory, you've got wires for all that, and even if you've just got power seats, you've got wires for those things. Wires for the speakers, wires to the antenna, wires for the idiot lights, wires for the gauges (Ford's ancillary gauges, and IIRC their tachs, all run electronically--heck the Speedo might even be electronic by now. Wires for the weight sensor in the passenger seat, wires for the weight sensor in the driver's seat. Wires for the seatbelt minder, wires for the fancy electrochromatic mirror.

 

Wires for the now mandatory tire pressure sensors, wires for the ABS sensors, wires for the airbag sensors, wires for the EBD, wires for the seatbelt pretensioners, wires for the perimeter anti-theft system (can't just hook up those switches in the doors to the domelights anymore). One touch up and down windows? Requires more wires. Power mirrors? More wires. More lights? More wires? Brake pedal position sensor for brake lights? Wires wires wires.

 

And because it's electricity, at least two wires for every function. And because it's a car, connectors everywhere.

 

And that's just for the car, excluding the engine.

 

 

 

Thats wehre European eclectrical archtechtures differ from US.

 

European cars have to be more flexibile becuase of the variety of fetures that one car can have. the they have up to 60 different microprocessors to control various fuctions, SAt nav, CSM, ECU, ETc, The focus uses differtn ECU for diesels than for gas engines, made by different companies, so other function are deligated depening onf the feature set. making it flexible and build for expansion and contraction

 

US car simpler in feature set and we often try to squeeze all features into 2-3 modules because they do't have the demands of 60 different countries so thay optimize thing for lower cost and simplicity but not flexibilty.

 

back to that door panel,

 

The 2000 Focus has 40 wires going into the drivers door for function like Door locks and windows, mirrors. these ires go directly to the other 3 doors on the car and other places in the dashboard. weight an cost to install this is prohibitive. and if you wanted to change things you add cost in redesigning wiring harnessess.

 

with the CANbus you have one Module in the door connected with 4 wires to another module. this module can be shared with other cars and trucks and to add fuctions or remove functions to be used in different applications. the fiesta and Mondeo has been using the CANbus for years. It saves cost in the long run becuase it simplifies assembly, development and is more flexible.

 

I would like to see Ford Use the same ECU on all cars it makes, and making them plug and go, meaning that the ECU would be preprogrammed to work not just in one car but on all cars made in that plant, and when installed in car A, b, or c woul automatically configure itself for that model an its specs. instead of buying 80,000 of one ECU and 120.000 of another I would buy 500,000 of the same type, simplifing the assembly line, and logistics.

[jpd80]

Despite the bashing Ford got about rear 60+ MPH impact fires, the guys driving the cars like the Crown Vic. (First hand from my son-in-law)

 

As for how do you make a car sustain a 60+ MPH rear impact, its not hard. You wind up with about a 10 gallon tank. That amount of fuel would not get most cars through an entire shift. Do you want to pay your police to take another 30 minute break (got to drive back to the pumps) in the middle of their shift ?

 

Also at that speed for rear impact, you need to do some serious redesign of the seat/headrest !

 

Chrysler has been selling a few 300 Hemis as highway pursuit vehicles !

 

The new Zetas use a saddle fuel tank slightly forward of the rearaxle with around 18 US gallons.

Falcons are similar (17 US Gal) except the fuel tanks are plastic (since 1979), resist rupturing and can be moulded into any shape needed.

In a rear end crash, the location of the spare is important. Unless it is designed to submarine you end up with a projectile for rear seat occupants.

 

 

With regards electrical systems,

Other posters have expanded on the complexity of electrical systems. It's no wonder C1 and EUCD share these components.

In that light, maybe a RWD version of D3 Taurus would save nearly everything rear of the firewall and be an economical solution on several fronts.

Edited May 21, 2007 by jpd80

[ehaase]

Many years ago, prior to the current generation Mustang, I saw an "unauthorized" (by the Big Boys) prototype. An MN12 (the Big Thunderbird) minus about 2 feet, sectioned from the middle of the vehicle !! Yes, they were thinking of build the'Stang off of The Big 'Bird !!! From the front or rear you could not tell the difference from any 'Bird. Because it was not narrowed, the length to width proportion were all wrong so it looked very strange. And it weighted way to much (as did the 'Bird).

 

Now for those of you who have already forgotten the MN12 (or never saw one up close and personal), it may have been a very sleek looking car but it was a lead sled ! Those front and rear subframes were massive and the IRS weighted a lot more than a live axle. Thousands of pounds over budgeted weight and way over the cost budget, the MN12 was doomed the day it went into production.

 

Upper management had decreed certain specifications and features (front and rear head, hip and leg rumor, IRS, weight, cost, etc) on the MN12. When the mid-level management finally realized that these specs and feature were unattainable, they lied to the Big Boys instead of letting the program get canceled. The MN12 Thunderbird won Motor Trend Car of the Year and ended a few careers once the truth came out.

 

I'm glad the MN12 Mustang never happened !

Was there ever any thought, or would it have been possible, to develop a sedan derivative of MN12 to have replaced the Panthers?

 

If mid management had not lied about the weight of MN12 and the program had been cancelled, would we have just seen more Fox based Thunderbirds?