New RWD platform

[suv_guy_19]

They still sit on 100 kph!!

A lot of the road trains up the centre of Australia have stopped due to Adelaide to Darwin Inland Railway line.

Most roads permit smaller versions called B Doubles (30"+40") and some A-Doubles (2x40") further west.

Oncoming cattle trucks are scarry on dirt roads, you just get completely off!

 

 

Yes, they do allow 2 40' s here, and they recently began allowing 2 40' + 15' durning off peak hours on some busy roads heading North. 4 full size is a few too many for my liking lol.

[jpd80]

Yes, they do allow 2 40' s here, and they recently began allowing 2 40' + 15' durning off peak hours on some busy roads heading North. 4 full size is a few too many for my liking lol.

When the roads are pretty quiet it's ok but you could never do it

somewhere like the US where there's much more traffic.

 

Back on toipc,

Is there any chance of seeing something new from Ford at NAIAS this year?

I keep hoping to see a "Falcon" up there, better chance of winning the lottery me thinks.

 

John

[LincolnFan]

Is there any chance of seeing something new from Ford at NAIAS this year?

I keep hoping to see a "Falcon" up there, better chance of winning the lottery me thinks.

 

John

 

They had the Interceptor and MKR last year, I don't think they will make any RWD concepts until the Huntsman is online.

[matthewq4b]

Yes, they do allow 2 40' s here, and they recently began allowing 2 40' + 15' durning off peak hours on some busy roads heading North. 4 full size is a few too many for my liking lol.

 

 

B and C trains are allowed here 2x 63' or 3 x 40' Max

 

But in Both Alberta and Sask you can put a ball hitch trailer behind your Fifth wheel trailer. Then you can have your very own B train

 

 

matthew

[matthewq4b]

I don't think ford or Mazda would like to continue the production process at AAI.

 

having 2 separate body shops and shared assembly lines building 2 different vehicle architectures, is not the preferred way to build cars.

 

I can see one full plant (3 crew ~325,000) for the mustang, explorer, and sedans. with Chicago being the over flow hedging against the GRWD vehicles cannibalizing the Taurus..es.

 

 

This makes sence.

 

 

If the Stang and the Full Size Autos are consolodated on to one platform then it will more then likly go in to one plant that makes the most sence.

 

The logical choice is STAP. The plant is currently way under utilized and is able to support capacity's over 500K and was doing so when the Escort was being made there along with the Panthers in the 80's.

 

Also Ford can hit up the Ont Gov't for Cash to help fund the upgrades. Ont is usually pretty willing to give some oney to the manufactueres for that sort of stuff if it means keeping a plant open and people employed. Oakville was a case in point for that.

 

Also over head is lower in Canada. No massive health plans to carry here thanks to universal healthcare.

 

If I had to bet money I would say that STAP is most likly place the New RWD's would go.

 

It will also Free up AAI for Mazda to increase production with minimal cost.

 

 

 

 

Matthew

[matthewq4b]

What the heck does temperature have to do with the platform? It's not like the steel is going to melt at a lower temperature in Australia than it will in the US. That's all drivetrain stuff...and all of that stuff can easily be made to be market-specific. So that criteria right there can be 100% eliminated from the equation. I don't see the weight issue to be a problem either. And we all know the size is rather comparable...and could, again, be adapted to be market-specific -- especially if there is going to be a separate dedicated Huntsman plant in NA. Now that I think about it, there's not a single argument around for keeping the Panther over Huntsman.

 

 

Temp has a lot to do with it. It is not issue of the steel melting but the issue of it getting brittle. In extremly cold temps steel gets harder and more brittle. Lots of earth moving equipment have cold weather crawler tracks avalible to help with the problem of shedding tracks in extremly cold weather.

it is also why you tend to only see rubber tired units in the artic that see a lot of movemnt.

 

Cold weather testing is very important. it was one of the biggest killers of the English stuff that came here in the 50's and 60's. For the most part it worked great but as soon temps dropped the probelms were ramapent and not all were mechanical. Most all of the brit stuff was unit construction they suffed body fractures in really cold temps.

 

Even the TEE train set Ontario Northland Railway brought over from Europe in the 70's for the Northlander was suffering from fractured trucks due to the combination of the cold and track work rougher than in Europe. The trucks were speced to handle the roughness of the track but the cold temps the cold temps they were going to be exposed was over looked. The rougher track combined with the cold temps lead to cracking problems on the trucks. The ONR shops did a lot of welding on the trucks and added a pile steel to keep them from falling apart.

 

 

So do not under estimate the nessity of extreme weather testing in any peice of equipment.

 

 

Matthew

[suv_guy_19]

B and C trains are allowed here 2x 63' or 3 x 40' Max

 

But in Both Alberta and Sask you can put a ball hitch trailer behind your Fifth wheel trailer. Then you can have your very own B train

matthew

 

 

You can do that here too, but I don't think the tractors can get as long as there, at least I've never seen it.

[suv_guy_19]

B and C trains are allowed here 2x 63' or 3 x 40' Max

 

But in Both Alberta and Sask you can put a ball hitch trailer behind your Fifth wheel trailer. Then you can have your very own B train

matthew

 

 

You can do that here too (5th wheel), but I don't think the tractors can get as long as there, at least I've never seen it.

[jpd80]

They had the Interceptor and MKR last year, I don't think they will make any RWD concepts until the Huntsman is online.

I see where you're all going with this, looks like the next RWDs we see at NAIAS will be production ready cars.

 

The Orion Falcon only gets released March/April 2008 down here so even though colaboration is underway, it takes time

to deliver meaningful results. There are already V6 Falcon mules being tested - these are for the first update due in

mid 2010 when Ford must comply to Euro 4 at the latest.

 

The deletion of the long Inline 6 and adoption of V6 and V8 engines means FoA have an excess of engine bay space

forward of the wheels. The logical deduction is the Falcon's nose will be shortened about 4" like the Zeta Commodore/G8s.

With those changes, the Falcon shrinks to the Fusion's length (190") but retains cabin space eclipsing the Crown Victoria

and reorganising the trunk will enable Taurus like capacity.

 

common plaform. I make it sound one way development but this is meerly one view of Huntsman evolution from the Aussie view.

The reality is that both Austalia and North America are evolving their cars towards a common platform and as the parts begin

to mix from both directions the lines will start blurring after the 2009 Mustang.

 

Following a similar modular frame construction model to GM's Zeta, the Huntsman's front, cabin and tail sections can be adjusted.

Unlike zeta, the new platform will be able to produce cars from a theoretical 186" right to over 200" long.

 

The future looks bright but there's alot of hurdles to overcome, a lot of design inclusions needed

and massive input to make a common platform work.

[LincolnFan]

Nice, a midsize Falcon is just what the doctor described!

[matthewq4b]

You can do that here too (5th wheel), but I don't think the tractors can get as long as there, at least I've never seen it.

 

 

I was not ware that that was legal in MB as well. learn some thing new every day. I know it is not legal in B.C but with some of the roads there it should not be under any circumstances. I think it is just us priaire provnces that allow it. Since we have an abundance of flat staght roads. Especially in Sask. You know the old saying ... In Sask you can watch your dog run away from home... for 2 days lol.

 

 

 

Matthew

[NickF1011]

Temp has a lot to do with it. It is not issue of the steel melting but the issue of it getting brittle. In extremly cold temps steel gets harder and more brittle. Lots of earth moving equipment have cold weather crawler tracks avalible to help with the problem of shedding tracks in extremly cold weather.

it is also why you tend to only see rubber tired units in the artic that see a lot of movemnt.

 

Cold weather testing is very important. it was one of the biggest killers of the English stuff that came here in the 50's and 60's. For the most part it worked great but as soon temps dropped the probelms were ramapent and not all were mechanical. Most all of the brit stuff was unit construction they suffed body fractures in really cold temps.

 

Even the TEE train set Ontario Northland Railway brought over from Europe in the 70's for the Northlander was suffering from fractured trucks due to the combination of the cold and track work rougher than in Europe. The trucks were speced to handle the roughness of the track but the cold temps the cold temps they were going to be exposed was over looked. The rougher track combined with the cold temps lead to cracking problems on the trucks. The ONR shops did a lot of welding on the trucks and added a pile steel to keep them from falling apart.

 

 

So do not under estimate the nessity of extreme weather testing in any peice of equipment.

 

 

Matthew

 

 

English cars decades ago had trouble here. It's not the 1960's anymore. I'm sure the Falcon chassis has been put through its paces in cold weather testing already, and would surely be subjected to more before being delivered in a North American product. Something tells me Ford won't have any trouble getting it to pass their tests.

[SysEng]

English cars decades ago had trouble here. It's not the 1960's anymore. I'm sure the Falcon chassis has been put through its paces in cold weather testing already, and would surely be subjected to more before being delivered in a North American product. Something tells me Ford won't have any trouble getting it to pass their tests.

 

Your welcome to test that theory... with your own money.

[jpd80]

English cars decades ago had trouble here. It's not the 1960's anymore. I'm sure the Falcon chassis has been put through its paces in cold weather testing already, and would surely be subjected to more before being delivered in a North American product. Something tells me Ford won't have any trouble getting it to pass their tests.

 

Your welcome to test that theory... with your own money.

Don't be under the illusion that FoA operates as a separate company, they have company specifications to follow as well.

Derrick Kuzack has gone on record saying the Orion Falcon is available to NA product planners if they want it.

That should tell you something about cold weather testing.

 

Although FoA does testing in NA, it has its own test program set up for the supply needs of the region.

I don't know whether FoA's plan encompasses all weather testing or not - maybe all Fords have to pass minimum standards

regardless of climate. That would make sense if there was any chance the project would be imported to North America.

[silvrsvt]

Your welcome to test that theory... with your own money.

 

 

So keeping a nearly 30 old platform is the answer?

[matthewq4b]

So keeping a nearly 30 old platform is the answer?

 

 

Nearly ? Hell it is 30 Years old now. They were running the Panther mules around, about this time of year in 77. I remember seeing the spy shots in the cars mags of the era.

 

It has lasted this long with an updated here and there, and they sill have not adressed the biggest weakness since it was designed. The rear suspension. If they gave it a rework on the scale they did in 91 and fixed the rear suspension. The old girls would be good for anouther 10 years.

 

That should give Ford enough time to actually get something credible to replace it.

So far they have been shooting blanks.

 

Hopefully the Aussies can pull off a miracle.

 

Matthew

[jpd80]

Matthew,

It really concerns me that Ford would put out a product with an obvious problem year after year.

FoA never had a problem with Falcon's Watts Link (1983 - 1998) and I feel an awful lot could be done if money was spent in the right areas.

[armadamaster]

Nearly ? Hell it is 30 Years old now. They were running the Panther mules around, about this time of year in 77. I remember seeing the spy shots in the cars mags of the era.

 

Anybody want to start putting money down as to whether or not we'll see a special 30th anniversary Panther next year? My money is on no.

[jpd80]

Anybody want to start putting money down as to whether or not we'll see a special 30th anniversary Panther next year? My money is on no.

what about the one with the fancy grille?

Could be a perfect time for a last hurragh with the retail market, new engine, trans:

 

[LincolnFan]

 

Do you guys know how long that LS has been sitting there? 2 YEARS.

[SysEng]

Nearly ? Hell it is 30 Years old now.

 

Matthew

 

:huh: ??? You know better than that. Todays chassis bears no resemblance to 10 years ago let alone 30. And the Watts rear end was intro'd in '98 and updated in '03... and it may be slightly different in '06/07 from what I can see.

[matthewq4b]

Matthew,

It really concerns me that Ford would put out a product with an obvious problem year after year.

FoA never had a problem with Falcon's Watts Link (1983 - 1998) and I feel an awful lot could be done if money was spent in the right areas.

 

 

The Panthers have had Watts since 98. But that still does not change the fact that it is still a piss poor rear suspension design. They stepped back wards in the Panthers abandoning the 3 Link with Panhard rod in the previous gen of full size cars and adopting the 4 link set up that GMC was using in it's vehicles. The Mustang went back to a 3 link with Panhard rod design in the latest gen.

 

That part of the panther cars car is also the weakest structurally. With the hump in the frame to clear the rear Axel and the vertically mounted Fuel tank it is the frames weakest spot . In the last gen (79-to early 91) The only real longitudinal support from a crush is the Rear quarters panel and their internal bracing.

 

Any one that knows these cars, knows there is a shit load of steel in the Rear body work.

 

When the panthers are hit from behind (especially the last gen) lots of times the frame folds right at the axle hump before any serious damage occurs to rear sheet metal. I have seen numerous Panthers with buckled rear quarters from a decent hit from behind. With no other damage to the ass end of the car other than a bruised rear bumper. But usually these hits have to be above 10 MPH to cause the frame to buckle. And yes these cars can absorb hits of 10mph or better with little or no damage. I have first hand experience in this.

 

For the 92's this area of the frame and body was strengthened then when they added hydro forming of the frames it pretty much ended the issue.

The sheet metal ont he 92 and later cars is more lateral and has less drop along the trunk to the rear bumper. But still even with the new ones if they are hit just right you can see rear quarter buckling with little or no damage to the ass end of the car.

 

The post 92 GM body style is more resistant to this phenomenon than the 92-97 CV's just due to the C pillar design . This is part pf the reason the CV body style was dropped for 98.

 

The 92 and later cars have some extra bracing in the frame and body in this area area to help prevent frame folding at the hump in low to mid speed impacts. Now the frames tend to buckle inward where it flares back out after clearing the axle and not at the axle hump.

 

This is also part of the reason the fuel tank tends to rupture in older units In rear impacts.

When the frame folds at the hump the tank is forced down and forward in to the rear diff housing. And the bolts retaining the Upper links on the rear diff housing tended to puncture the tank. PI units as far back as the early 80's were fitted with plastic covers over the nuts and backs of the upper arms too lessen the chance of fuel tank rupture in a rear impact.

 

All of this could have been avoided if Ford had just retained the old 3 link suspension in the Panthers.

 

If the Panthers were now retrofitted with the 3 link the cross brace in at the axle hump could be extended and boxed plus the body could have a pile of steel removed out of it in this area to off set the extra weight in the frame as the frame would now actually be doing the bulk of the load bearing from a crush impact. Hydro forming helped strengthen this area immensely and was one the reasons for going to it. But getting rid of the 4 link and going to the 3 link would allow the cars to be structurally stronger and give them better handling to boot.

 

The rear part of the panther frame and it's suspension is it's single biggest handicap. But a rear suspension change would allow all the current short comings of the chassis to be fixed.

 

I believe if Ford had realized that they would still be building the damn cars in 2008 they would have properly addressed this issue in the 92 redesign.

 

Even at that the Panthers still manage to score 5 stars in rear collisions. But the chassis has the potential do much better with a new rear suspension set up.

 

Matthew