Scenario: You're hired as director of Ford's Global RWD Program

[wescoent]

So as we all know, Ford is in the nascent stages of developing a flexible global RWD architecture to underpin all kinds of passenger vehicles. This is a fairly broad assignment, but I think there are enough of us who are familiar with Ford's global product portfolio to develop a comprehensive plan. The question is, what would you do, how would you do it, and what's the business case for it?

 

Key assumptions include retaining Jaguar and Land Rover, and the Boss/Hurricane, turbo-Mods, and Twin-Force are all fair game for powerplants.

 

I'll start.

 

Architectures:

 

This platform will have three primary forms. The first is the normal version, which can be stretched and widened, and meant for high volume passenger cars. The second is a heavy-duty version, also able to be stretched and widened. Finally, a luxury version includes aluminum parts and other premium features.

 

Plants:

 

Australian models will be built in Australia. North American models will be built at Wixom, which will be re-tooled.

 

Product Portfolio:

 

Cars

 

Ford Falcon

Midsized RWD car, built in Australia. Short wheelbase, normal platform. 3.5L V6 and 4.0L Turbo V8. Available for export in LHD.

 

Ford Mustang

You know it, you love it. Built in Wixom.

 

Ford Thunderbird

Built on a stretch-wheelbase version of the regular platform, and sharing many parts with its platform-mates for lower cost. 4-seater coupe or convertible, and generally built in very low volumes, and takes advantage of economies of scale. 3.7L Lincoln V6 will be a mainstay engine, with the top engine changing every few years from V8 to TT V6. Competes with cars like the Volkswagen Eos and Volvo C70 in price and purpose.

 

Mercury Cougar

Twin to the Ford Thunderbird, except when the Thunderbird has a V8, the Cougar has a V6, and so on.

 

Ford Interceptor

Mechanically identical to the Thunderbird, except with 3.5L V6 and 4.0L Turbo Modular engines. Designed as a competitor to the Dodge Charger and RWD Chevrolet Impala, slotting slightly above the Taurus. Styling similar to the concept, but a little more real-world.

 

Mercury Grand Marquis

Twin to the Ford Interceptor, designed to compete with the Buick Park Avenue.

 

All of the above models share a great deal of parts, and the differences come in sheetmetal, interiors, length of wheelbase, and in some cases, engines.

 

Trucks

 

Ford Explorer/Mercury Mountaineer/Ford Territory/Ford Falcon Ute

 

Built on the heavy-duty platform, but still more of a crossover than SUV. Heavy-duty 4WD available, with 3.7L Ford V6s, and turbo 5.0 modulars.

 

Ford Crown Victoria/Lincoln Town Car Executive

 

These two models are heavy-duty versions of their Ford and Lincoln twins, with durability in mind, and meant for fleet use. They share sheetmetal and some interior elements with their civilian twins, but otherwise, are very much their own model.

 

Ford F-50

 

A bit of a fun model. Based on the same mechanics as the Ford Falcon Ute, this is a retro-styled recreation truck, with either a 3.5L V6 or 4.0L Turbo Modular, regular cab only. Styling is blatantly retro, based on the '56 F-Series (as suggested by someone on this board). I too believe there is a market for a truck like this, if Ford would only give it a chance. Since it shares almost all of its parts, there is a business case for it.

 

Luxury Vehicles

 

I need some more time to contemplate how I want to mold the Lincoln and possibly Jaguar brand to this vision.

[Ford-150]

well keep everything the same but make a Corvette Killer, and a FAST sports sedan

[silvrsvt]

Change the Grand Marquee to Marauder and we'll have something Plus it would be cool having a product named Interceptor and Marauder and totally shed the sotdy image that the Panthers had..

 

The biggest problem with the plan is I think with the way the product cycles...we wouldn't see any of this come to being till 2012..which is a ways off..And the Explorer seriously needs a redo/rethinking by 2009 or so the way sales are...

[g48150]

I'd go for the pump and dump...

 

Since I KNOW that NO product planners will EVER be on the same page with each other, I'd create a hot concept, get everyone and their mother to write personally to Mulally to build it, get all the supply chain ready and rarin' to go, get the factory all tooled and prepped, get the dealers all "pre-sold", and at the last minute, say its got to meet European standards OR ELSE!

 

When the stock hit $20 on all the buzz, I'd sell my ass to devil and get the out of "dodge" so to speak...

[jpd80]

The one thing I'd make sure of is that all RWD platforms have front rails that can be extended, making them FWD capable as well

or, the other way around - FWD platforms with adjustable front rails to make them RWD capable. Either way this reduces engineering.

I can't believe manufacturers don't make their platforms multi-capable already, this could save GM's bacon if Zeta was adaptable.

 

Another would be the new T6 would use a lightened F150 frame to make a new F100 and Explorer.

Edited June 17, 2007 by jpd80

[Ford-150]

well keep everything the same but make a Corvette Killer, and a FAST sports sedan

oh yeah i forgot to add that i would like the Interceptor to be made

 

and i would want some RWD model cars to have an optional AWD capability

[jpd80]

T6 is unit body.

 

No it's not!!!!

Current Asian Ranger and Everest/Endeavour are BOF and one of the mission parameters

for the project was that it continue as BOF.

Ford Australia are designing the replacements for these ETA approx YM 2010.

Edited June 18, 2007 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

I'd go for the pump and dump...

 

Since I KNOW that NO product planners will EVER be on the same page with each other, I'd create a hot concept, get everyone and their mother to write personally to Mulally to build it, get all the supply chain ready and rarin' to go, get the factory all tooled and prepped, get the dealers all "pre-sold", and at the last minute, say its got to meet European standards OR ELSE!

 

When the stock hit $20 on all the buzz, I'd sell my ass to devil and get the out of "dodge" so to speak...

 

 

Who shit in your cheerios lately?

[jpd80]

Who shit in your cheerios lately?

 

Nah, That's just g48150, he's like that all the time.

Good old counterpoint.

[silvrsvt]

Nah, That's just g48150, he's like that all the time.

Good old counterpoint.

 

I know but as of late hes been a serious downer...hell I can see if Ford downsized him but if I understand correctly he left under his own terms...

[rkisler]

The one thing I'd make sure of is that all RWD platforms have front rails that can be extended, making them FWD capable as well

or, the other way around - FWD platforms with adjustable front rails to make them RWD capable. Either way this reduces engineering.

I can't believe manufacturers don't make their platforms multi-capable already, this could save GM's bacon if Zeta was adaptable.

 

Another would be the new T6 would use a lightened F150 frame to make a new F100 and Explorer.

 

JPD80,

 

I have knowledge of at least 3 relatively detailed studies with the objective to provide FWD and RWD capability on the same platform or to create a new platform from an existing platform with a different drive configuration. In each case, by the time you make the switch one way or the other, there is virtually nothing that can be saved.

 

Of course you can have a FWD that has AWD capability, and you can have a RWD with AWD capability, but the switch from a latitudinal FWD to longitudinal RWD or vise versa is a no go. Maybe you might have some chance with a longitudinal RWD to longitudinal FWD but even that is very, very difficult and probably not worth the effort.

 

The only vehicle that I can think of that goes both ways is the Transit which IIRC has FWD and RWD in the same platform. But...I think there is a lot of empty space to accomodate this flexibility that couldn't be tolerated in a car.

[jpd80]

JPD80,

 

I have knowledge of at least 3 relatively detailed studies with the objective to provide FWD and RWD capability on the same platform or to create a new platform from an existing platform with a different drive configuration. In each case, by the time you make the switch one way or the other, there is virtually nothing that can be saved.

 

Of course you can have a FWD that has AWD capability, and you can have a RWD with AWD capability, but the switch from a latitudinal FWD to longitudinal RWD or vise versa is a no go. Maybe you might have some chance with a longitudinal RWD to longitudinal FWD but even that is very, very difficult and probably not worth the effort.

 

The only vehicle that I can think of that goes both ways is the Transit which IIRC has FWD and RWD in the same platform. But...I think there is a lot of empty space to accomodate this flexibility that couldn't be tolerated in a car.

 

Thanks for the insight Austin,

I guess the rumors abut the D3 came about because of the temptingly large transmission tunnel. As you say the switch from overhanging transversely mounted to North South with Gearbox is extreme and obviously more than all I thought it would be, a firewall cut. The simple

reason why the RWD D3 will probably not happen? cheaper to start with a clean sheet. I wonder how many engineers suffered burnout

trying to find a way to make that work.

Are you able to tell us if the studies were FOMOCO or others?

 

There was one other a few years ago, Holden looking at a hybrid set up had a RWD Monaro set up with the FWD/Hybrid gear sourced from a Vectra front end and had Super Caps under the passenger seats, was late 1990s IIRC. Will search the net for her and see what I can find.

Holden are cluey/tricky buggers!!

 

Edit,

Here you go Austin, the Holden E Commodore in 2000 - LINK

http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_0516/article.html

Edited June 18, 2007 by jpd80

[Biker16]

So as we all know, Ford is in the nascent stages of developing a flexible global RWD architecture to underpin all kinds of passenger vehicles. This is a fairly broad assignment, but I think there are enough of us who are familiar with Ford's global product portfolio to develop a comprehensive plan. The question is, what would you do, how would you do it, and what's the business case for it?

 

Key assumptions include retaining Jaguar and Land Rover, and the Boss/Hurricane, turbo-Mods, and Twin-Force are all fair game for powerplants.

 

I'll start.

 

Architectures:

 

This platform will have three primary forms. The first is the normal version, which can be stretched and widened, and meant for high volume passenger cars. The second is a heavy-duty version, also able to be stretched and widened. Finally, a luxury version includes aluminum parts and other premium features.

 

Plants:

 

Australian models will be built in Australia. North American models will be built at Wixom, which will be re-tooled.

 

Product Portfolio:

 

Cars

 

Ford Falcon

Midsized RWD car, built in Australia. Short wheelbase, normal platform. 3.5L V6 and 4.0L Turbo V8. Available for export in LHD.

 

Ford Mustang

You know it, you love it. Built in Wixom.

 

Ford Thunderbird

Built on a stretch-wheelbase version of the regular platform, and sharing many parts with its platform-mates for lower cost. 4-seater coupe or convertible, and generally built in very low volumes, and takes advantage of economies of scale. 3.7L Lincoln V6 will be a mainstay engine, with the top engine changing every few years from V8 to TT V6. Competes with cars like the Volkswagen Eos and Volvo C70 in price and purpose.

 

Mercury Cougar

Twin to the Ford Thunderbird, except when the Thunderbird has a V8, the Cougar has a V6, and so on.

 

Ford Interceptor

Mechanically identical to the Thunderbird, except with 3.5L V6 and 4.0L Turbo Modular engines. Designed as a competitor to the Dodge Charger and RWD Chevrolet Impala, slotting slightly above the Taurus. Styling similar to the concept, but a little more real-world.

 

Mercury Grand Marquis

Twin to the Ford Interceptor, designed to compete with the Buick Park Avenue.

 

All of the above models share a great deal of parts, and the differences come in sheetmetal, interiors, length of wheelbase, and in some cases, engines.

 

Trucks

 

Ford Explorer/Mercury Mountaineer/Ford Territory/Ford Falcon Ute

 

Built on the heavy-duty platform, but still more of a crossover than SUV. Heavy-duty 4WD available, with 3.7L Ford V6s, and turbo 5.0 modulars.

 

Ford Crown Victoria/Lincoln Town Car Executive

 

These two models are heavy-duty versions of their Ford and Lincoln twins, with durability in mind, and meant for fleet use. They share sheetmetal and some interior elements with their civilian twins, but otherwise, are very much their own model.

 

Ford F-50

 

A bit of a fun model. Based on the same mechanics as the Ford Falcon Ute, this is a retro-styled recreation truck, with either a 3.5L V6 or 4.0L Turbo Modular, regular cab only. Styling is blatantly retro, based on the '56 F-Series (as suggested by someone on this board). I too believe there is a market for a truck like this, if Ford would only give it a chance. Since it shares almost all of its parts, there is a business case for it.

 

Luxury Vehicles

 

I need some more time to contemplate how I want to mold the Lincoln and possibly Jaguar brand to this vision.

you know you stole my idea.

 

great minds think alike.

[armadamaster]

Scenario: You're hired as director of Ford's Global RWD Program, What's the plan?

 

Panthers for everybody forever! :happy feet: :happy feet: :happy feet:

[calypsocoral]

Well, wes, you certainly have some intriguing ideas. Some are quite practical. Some not so much.

 

Since GM is putting their Zeta program (or, at least, most of it) on hold, I think it would be a safe assumption that Ford, burdened with the asinine (so stupid only the government can come up with it) new CAFE standards, may need to do the same...

 

... but, as I love RWD, I'll play!

 

 

Program #1...

 

The first will be a standardized, mainstream architecture in the vein of GM's Zeta and Chrysler's LX. Front engine mount, variable lengths of wheelbases and overhangs. I'm thinking short-long-arm front and 3-link rear suspensions, the former replacable with MacPhersons, when needed.

 

Cars that can be derived from this platform:

 

1) Ford Thunderbird

-- Not a useless, 2-door land barge, but a SHORT-wheelbase, SHORT-overhang 2-seat roadster starring the 2.3L Turbo 4-banger, with a 2.5L NA version as a base engine. Width should be in line with GM's Kappa cars, but a few choice bits of aluminum in the bodywork should be utilized to help keep the weight down to little more than a Miata. Let's try to get some useful trunk space, too!

 

2) Ford Mustang

-- Retaining the classic, 2+2 Ponycar formula, the Mustang would ride on a MEDIUM-wheelbase, SHORT-overhang version of the platform. Standardize the 3.5L V6, and then let the buyer step up to a 5.0L V8 (this should carry the "BOSS" name), with the 6.2L V8 as the range-topper (this should be the "Mach 1"). For those looking for something more exotic, the 3.5L TwinForce could probably carry the GT-350 name...

 

3) Ford Ranchero

-- This could be used as a "ute", using the MEDIUM-wheelbase, LONG-overhang version of the platform. It would probably be a 2-seater, but it could be possible to shoe-horn a semi-useful second row in there, if you use suicide doors...

 

4) Ford Galaxie

-- This car would likely utilize the LONG-wheelbase (excess of 120 in), LONG-overhang, flagship variant of the platform. Basically, keep the exterior design of the Interceptor concept, except for the front fascia, as something a little less truck-like is certainly in order. It also needs to look striking in "Oval Blue." Base engine should be the 3.7L V6, with a 5.0L V8, a 6.2L V8, and a 4.4L CDI diesel V8 as options.

 

5) IF Ford wants to score a little more profit with the muscle-car crowd, they can do a 4-door Gran Torino, using the LONG-wheelbase, SHORT-overhang version of the platform.

 

6) Ford Fairlane

This would be sort of like the concept, but using the LONG-wheelbase, LONG-overhang version of this RWD platform. It could be done as a people-mover, much like the Flex (dumb name) scheduled for production next year. AWD would most certainly be an option. This vehicle should be able to seat 7 passengers comfortably.

 

Ford of Australia would likely use this platform extensively for their Falcon and LTD cars.

 

 

Program #2

 

This would build on the first, but more rugged. A ladder-style frame would be integrated into the unit-body, much like that of the Honda Ridgeline. This is what I would envision the next-generation Explorer and Sport-Trac being built upon. Truck-like capability, car-like ride. Thanks to the integrated ladder frame, this vehicle would likely be able to two AT LEAST 5000 lbs. A live axle and locking differential could be used Jeep-style for a "trail-rated" version of these vehicles.

 

1) Explorer

Already discussed. Independent suspension. MOD V8 and a 3.2L (hypothetical displacement) CDi Diesel V6. 7-passenger. Electronic AWD.

 

2) Explorer Sport-Trac

Already discussed. Independent suspension. MOD V8, diesel V6. 5-passenger, plus truck bed.

 

3) Bronco

Shorter wheelbase. Dimensions similar to FJ Cruiser, sans annoying blind spots. Suicide doors. Diesel V6. 5-passenger. A live axle with locking center differential should be strongly-considered. Make Jeep and Hummer wish they'd never been born!

 

 

That's what I have for now. I need to think a little more about Mercury (if it will still exist), Lincoln, and PAG.

 

Btw, it looks like the firm that bought Chrysler is now taking a good look at Jaguar and Land Rover...

[jpd80]

My there are plenty of people with good ideas out there.

 

Well here's my plans;

 

1. BOF panthers remain with upgraded bodies to serve niche markets

All products continue to be supplied from STAP as follows:

- Crown Victoria continues as a 117" wheelbase shorter overhang "Interceptor" police car

- Civilian Ford Grand Marquis with similar body to C/V offered to retail customers.

- Town Car follows 121 long wheelbase, body style similar to Lincoln MKS but much bigger.

 

2. Falcon and Mustang groups combine resources and work with Jaguar and Land Rover

- Sedans 108" Mid size and 113" wheelbase

- Coupe 108" and 113" wheelbase

- CUV 113" AWD

- 1 Tonne Half-Chassis pick up.

Along with supplying sedans and Coupes for Australia and North America, derivatives are developed for Jaguar and a new Rover products line developed for Europe.

 

3. Thai Ranger, NA Ranger, Explorer, Everest/Endeavour are united on the new T6 platform

being developed by Ford Australia as a modification of the F150 chassis. The new products

are to be released worldwide as F100 and Explorer.

[Biker16]

Well, wes, you certainly have some intriguing ideas. Some are quite practical. Some not so much.

 

Since GM is putting their Zeta program (or, at least, most of it) on hold, I think it would be a safe assumption that Ford, burdened with the asinine (so stupid only the government can come up with it) new CAFE standards, may need to do the same...

 

... but, as I love RWD, I'll play!

Program #1...

 

The first will be a standardized, mainstream architecture in the vein of GM's Zeta and Chrysler's LX. Front engine mount, variable lengths of wheelbases and overhangs. I'm thinking short-long-arm front and 3-link rear suspensions, the former replacable with MacPhersons, when needed.

 

Cars that can be derived from this platform:

 

1) Ford Thunderbird

-- Not a useless, 2-door land barge, but a SHORT-wheelbase, SHORT-overhang 2-seat roadster starring the 2.3L Turbo 4-banger, with a 2.5L NA version as a base engine. Width should be in line with GM's Kappa cars, but a few choice bits of aluminum in the bodywork should be utilized to help keep the weight down to little more than a Miata. Let's try to get some useful trunk space, too!

 

2) Ford Mustang

-- Retaining the classic, 2+2 Ponycar formula, the Mustang would ride on a MEDIUM-wheelbase, SHORT-overhang version of the platform. Standardize the 3.5L V6, and then let the buyer step up to a 5.0L V8 (this should carry the "BOSS" name), with the 6.2L V8 as the range-topper (this should be the "Mach 1"). For those looking for something more exotic, the 3.5L TwinForce could probably carry the GT-350 name...

 

3) Ford Ranchero

-- This could be used as a "ute", using the MEDIUM-wheelbase, LONG-overhang version of the platform. It would probably be a 2-seater, but it could be possible to shoe-horn a semi-useful second row in there, if you use suicide doors...

 

4) Ford Galaxie

-- This car would likely utilize the LONG-wheelbase (excess of 120 in), LONG-overhang, flagship variant of the platform. Basically, keep the exterior design of the Interceptor concept, except for the front fascia, as something a little less truck-like is certainly in order. It also needs to look striking in "Oval Blue." Base engine should be the 3.7L V6, with a 5.0L V8, a 6.2L V8, and a 4.4L CDI diesel V8 as options.

 

5) IF Ford wants to score a little more profit with the muscle-car crowd, they can do a 4-door Gran Torino, using the LONG-wheelbase, SHORT-overhang version of the platform.

 

6) Ford Fairlane

This would be sort of like the concept, but using the LONG-wheelbase, LONG-overhang version of this RWD platform. It could be done as a people-mover, much like the Flex (dumb name) scheduled for production next year. AWD would most certainly be an option. This vehicle should be able to seat 7 passengers comfortably.

 

Ford of Australia would likely use this platform extensively for their Falcon and LTD cars.

Program #2

 

This would build on the first, but more rugged. A ladder-style frame would be integrated into the unit-body, much like that of the Honda Ridgeline. This is what I would envision the next-generation Explorer and Sport-Trac being built upon. Truck-like capability, car-like ride. Thanks to the integrated ladder frame, this vehicle would likely be able to two AT LEAST 5000 lbs. A live axle and locking differential could be used Jeep-style for a "trail-rated" version of these vehicles.

 

1) Explorer

Already discussed. Independent suspension. MOD V8 and a 3.2L (hypothetical displacement) CDi Diesel V6. 7-passenger. Electronic AWD.

 

2) Explorer Sport-Trac

Already discussed. Independent suspension. MOD V8, diesel V6. 5-passenger, plus truck bed.

 

3) Bronco

Shorter wheelbase. Dimensions similar to FJ Cruiser, sans annoying blind spots. Suicide doors. Diesel V6. 5-passenger. A live axle with locking center differential should be strongly-considered. Make Jeep and Hummer wish they'd never been born!

That's what I have for now. I need to think a little more about Mercury (if it will still exist), Lincoln, and PAG.

 

Btw, it looks like the firm that bought Chrysler is now taking a good look at Jaguar and Land Rover...

 

A) overhangs are meaningless adding to the front messes with crashworhiness.

B) you can tow 5000 lbs without a ladder frame, doing so you hurt the achtechture commonality. adding cost and mass for nothing.

c) live Axle? you must be joking,

 

KISS.

 

Common frontal structure.

Common driveline archtechtures.

Common electical archtechtures.

Common design philsophy.

if C1 can maintain a 75% part comonality by parts value, we ought to be able to at least get to 65% with this archtechture which more complex and more profitable.

[Biker16]

To restate CAFE will kill this program, higher gas taxes will not, people will buy cars they want, if they are being made.

[ebritt]

Mercury Cougar

Twin to the Ford Thunderbird, except when the Thunderbird has a V8, the Cougar has a V6, and so on.

 

STOP!!!

The Cougar needs to be more nimble....base it on the Mustang! Keep it all simple , live axle rear diff, no IRS crap. Make the Cougar a "classy" Stang and leave it at that.

Trucks

 

Ford F-50

 

A bit of a fun model. Based on the same mechanics as the Ford Falcon Ute, this is a retro-styled recreation truck, with either a 3.5L V6 or 4.0L Turbo Modular, regular cab only. Styling is blatantly retro, based on the '56 F-Series (as suggested by someone on this board). I too believe there is a market for a truck like this, if Ford would only give it a chance. Since it shares almost all of its parts, there is a business case for it.

 

Nope.....no "F-50".

Shrink the Ranger down to "fun size" but keep the bed usable for your average joe for mulch and such. NO V-8!!! Peppy V-6 only. Make a step side option and work with afternarket groups to bring upgrades to the kids who will definately want to hot rod them.

Again keep it simple....it's a small truck , not a Volvo CX 90. Sporty bucket seats and floor shift with console. Needs a kickin stereo too......with mp3 and USB stuff.

 

If you want an F-50 make a unibody "truck" based on a Focus or someting small, FWD and AWD as an option.

[Traveler]

I won't pretend to have intimate knowledge of the global RWD Ford platforms. The Aussie Falcon is something that I have only been reading about for a short time.

 

I will say this, however. Ford needs a common unibody platform adaptable for the market it is to be sold in. The replacement for the Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis and Town Car must walk a line. It must retain the appreciable strongpoints of the current Panther cars, but possess enough significant advancement to be appealing to a new generation.

 

In my opinion, the Crown Vic must share some similiar nostalgic feel as the Mustang possesses. When I consider Ford vehicles like the F-150, Crown Victoria and Mustang, I recall that its these types of vehicles that adhere Ford's heritage to its future and gives it a unique aspect in the automotive market. Ford has long been associated with high customer satisfaction with its RWD vehicles, while they have stumbled at times with their FWD vehicles. For this reason, I feel that Ford needs the RWD sedan in the lineup for a choice. Either that, or take a vehicle like the Interceptor and sell the civilian version strictly as a Mercury and the Ford for fleet only with a higher end and a definite uniqueness about the Lincoln Town Car replacement. Perhaps a Mercury Cyclone.

 

Since the Mustang has grown in size anyway, the Panther replacement should share engineering with the Mustang. In my opinion, the refinement of the car is not paramount in the scheme of designing the car. It is certainly important, but the most critical aspect of the car is the balance between a higher degree of refinement over the current models while retaining the affordability of the Ford/Mercury model(s).

[calypsocoral]

A) overhangs are meaningless adding to the front messes with crashworhiness.

 

I never implied anything had to be added to the front. I was simply trying to illustrate wheelbase vs. overall length. For example, the hypothetical Ranchero I postulated would have a longer overall length than the Mustang, despite sharing the same (or at least, very close) wheelbase. This is the philosophy for GM's Zeta. The Camaro and the Pontiac G8 (aka Holden Commodore) share a wheelbase, yet the G8 will be a longer car.

 

B) you can tow 5000 lbs without a ladder frame, doing so you hurt the achtechture commonality. adding cost and mass for nothing.

I'm not a truck guy. I didn't know that.

 

c) live Axle? you must be joking...

 

Why not? It's cheap to produce, and has a longer travel than any independent suspension, hence why serious off-roaders still demand it, and why Jeep's Wrangler, the last true off-roader, still uses it, and only recently switched to an independent FRONT!

 

Common frontal structure.

Common driveline archtechtures.

Common electical archtechtures.

Common design philsophy.

if C1 can maintain a 75% part comonality by parts value, we ought to be able to at least get to 65% with this archtechture which more complex and more profitable.

 

You and I are in definite agreement here, though I'm curious to know what you mean by "common design philosophy"?

[mkaresh]

Provide at least some variants that aren't ginormous.

[Biker16]

Why not? It's cheap to produce, and has a longer travel than any independent suspension, hence why serious off-roaders still demand it, and why Jeep's Wrangler, the last true off-roader, still uses it, and only recently switched to an independent FRONT!

 

We are not building an off-roader.

 

Thge Fact the the mustang now uses a live-axle makes it unsuitable for use in more civilized vehicles.

 

you will have 2 yes two different floorpans and rear front structures, tosupport this " It's cheap to produce" yes like the 05' the money you would save would be spent on developing a separate rear structure and its coresponding parts. it also adds complexity to what is already a complex program.

 

complexity = cost.

[jpd80]

Thought you technical buffs might be interested in Control blade IRS.

When you see what it is, you gotta ask why did it take so long.

Cheap, light and well designed - Thanks, Ford Australia.

http://www.themustangnews.com/tech/st-0706_ozirs.htm

Edited June 20, 2007 by jpd80

[Captainp4]

c170 uses control blade IRS..