Mark B. Morrow Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 (edited) As far as convertibles are concerned, I have owned several both BOF and Unibody. The '67 Pontiac Grand Prix was a traditional BOF car. Although the body panels were interchancable with the hardtop version, the floor pan and rocker panels were different and heavier to add strength. My '63 Lincoln and '66 T-Bird both were unibody cars as is my '64.5 Mustang. The Lincoln and the Bird are both heavier than the GP and feel much more solid. Even with the 4 doors, the lincoln was like a safe. Some of the 5750 lbs of weight was just added for smoothness like the 4 cannonballs suspended from each corner. The T-Bird has a solidness the GP could not match. Oddly enough there was less difference between the T-bird hardtop and Ragtop than there was with the GP. It is not unusual to see T-Bird Hardtops converted to no-top parade cars. The Mustang convertible does use bigger rockers and additional bracing in the floor plus the addition of torque boxes. Ford certainly proved that size was not an issue with unibody construction. See '58-60 Lincolns and T-Birds. The '63-'69 Lincolns were even stretched in to Limos by Lehman-Petersen without any loss of structural integrity. Chyrsler pioneered Large Unibody Cars from '57-'62. Their quality control was poor on the '57-'58 models which suffered from pre-mature rust. The Fords used substantial portions of galvanized steel with better long term results. It does still appear that it would be less expensive to design new body for the Panthers than it would to design a new car from the ground up. If the body were particularly striking (ala Chrysler 300/ Interceptor/427/ modern version of the '61/'64 Continental) I think it would sell. I will concede that this should have been done several years ago when the market for full sized cars was more robust. Ford may have waited too long at this point. I still like the Panthers. My dad has an 02 Merc GM and my friend has a Marauder-w/supercharger. If that makes me "Geriatric" so be it...Now get off my lawn!!! Edited October 27, 2007 by Mark B. Morrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armadamaster Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 You forgot to mention the Vette is a BOF, I wonder why Aramada Master doesn't buy one of 'em Vettes with "proven technology" Because my kids won't fit in the back of a Vette, but they will fit just fine in the back of my 'Vette powered LT1 Roadmaster. Plus the piece of mind that I don't worry about my B-body folding up like an old paper bag in an accident. Since we are comparing apples to oranges...you know, Panthers now to Vettes. For all those "It's 30 years old!" ninnies out there, it still amazes me how fullsized truck platforms and Jeep Wranglers seem to be timeless. Oh...let me guess, "Well that's uh..a high volume/high margin platform." or "Well that's a niche platform.", right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemiman Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Considering torque and shock loads, it's cheaper to build a steel frame and an aluminum body to get significant weight reduction. It probably could be done, but aluminum seems to be better suited to monococque, unitized designs, like the XK and XJ or simple ladder frames in heavy trucks and trailers, rather than a perimeter-type frame that the Panther uses. Pretty much what "real" Land Rovers lave been since the 50s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Boeing 787Dreamliner now uses 50% composite materials for main load bearing primary structures, and has been used for donkeys years secondary and tertiary structures and parts, why is it that composite materials are used next to nowhere on cars. Boeing 787 nose section is one big composite lump. Weight savings from composite materials would give a huge increase fuel economy and performance, not to mention they would allow cars to stay big in size when future CAFÉ limits will dictate you will need smaller sized cars. Future of cars should be lightweight composite rust free body built on to a 60’s type chassis, which could also built from composite materials. First Car Company that gets into composites will find it has huge advantage over the rest, Airbus A350 has totally lost out to the Dreamliner its already a generation behind. Why is it car manufactures shun composite materials? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnFan Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 Why is it car manufactures shun composite materials? How much does a Jaguar XJ cost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 How much does a Jaguar XJ cost? It's T-Stag in disguise, any material Jaguar made the XJ would be expensive Lincoln you know that. Aluminium is not a composite Lincoln, Boeing 787 uses only 20% aluminium. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/programfacts.html Reliant built the Scimiter Lincoln which had a complete lightweight rust free GRP composite body shell and cost no more to buy than the average mass produced sports car, and only few like Lamborghini, Ferrari & AC are using Carbon Fibre at the moment. So the Jaguar XJ could have been lighter with composites. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Middlebridge_Scimitar.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnFan Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 It's T-Stag in disguise, any material Jaguar made the XJ would be expensive Lincoln you know that. Aluminium is not a composite Lincoln, Boeing 787 uses only 20% aluminium.http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/programfacts.html Reliant built the Scimiter Lincoln which had a complete lightweight rust free GRP composite body shell and cost no more to buy than the average mass produced sports car, and only few like Lamborghini, Ferrari & AC are using Carbon Fibre at the moment. So the Jaguar XJ could have been lighter with composites. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Middlebridge_Scimitar.jpg Nevermind, my bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterstern Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 The television dates back to the 40 and 50s, however we're not watching the same television. The Panther, while based on a platform from the 70s, has undergone so many changes and improvements, its really hard to compare it to a '79 LTD. The Panther's current frame (rebuilt in '03) is probably about as strong as some pick up trucks. That in itself allows for a super rigid chassis and better handling than even 10 years ago. Almost everyone who has driven one from 10 years ago and compared it to a new one, usually is completely surprised at how well it handles and responds. Yeah, the '03 redesign resulted in improments... but too bad about the pathetic 1500 to 2000 pound tow rating. The pre-1997 Pathers all had a 5000 pound tow rating standard... although it would be a good idea to add a transmission and engine oil cooler. I find it unfathonable that some years of the Crown Vic have tow ratings as low as 1500 pounds, but something like a Volvo V70 has a 3000 pound tow rating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SysEng Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Yeah, the '03 redesign resulted in improments... but too bad about the pathetic 1500 to 2000 pound tow rating. The pre-1997 Pathers all had a 5000 pound tow rating standard... although it would be a good idea to add a transmission and engine oil cooler. I find it unfathonable that some years of the Crown Vic have tow ratings as low as 1500 pounds, but something like a Volvo V70 has a 3000 pound tow rating. Certain suspension parts are not up to the job. Generally speaking, a class IV hitch ( the kind with extension arms that attach all the way from the rear bumper to practically the axles, HD steel wheels ( possibly from a Ford truck :rolleyes: ) and 5000lb air springs to replace the ( 1500lb ??? ) OEM ones should get you into the 8000# tow rating area... assuming Ford actually wanted that to happen... ( A VERY BIG ASSUMPTION, I might add !!! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Yeah, the '03 redesign resulted in improments... but too bad about the pathetic 1500 to 2000 pound tow rating. The pre-1997 Pathers all had a 5000 pound tow rating standard... although it would be a good idea to add a transmission and engine oil cooler. I find it unfathonable that some years of the Crown Vic have tow ratings as low as 1500 pounds, but something like a Volvo V70 has a 3000 pound tow rating. The *ONLY* reason the CV has a low tow rating is because Ford doesn't want you to tow with it. If you are going to tow, you better be in a SUV or truck...which is a load of garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnFan Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 The *ONLY* reason the CV has a low tow rating is because Ford doesn't want you to tow with it. If you are going to tow, you better be in a SUV or truck...which is a load of garbage. The Vic makes bundles of cash, why would Ford want to drive customers away from it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 There's only two reasons that I can think of for the lowered tow ratings. Either its true that Ford discourages towing with the Vic to boost truck and SUV sales or, mechanically, its the transmission. I'm not that detail-oriented on the transmission, but obviously the engine is up to task. The frame is as strong as a pickup truck, so definitely it should be more than capable. Its supposed to be 400% stiffer than the previous frame. With the right suspension, it should be able to tow like before. So, the weak point (if there truly is one) for towing would have to be the transmission. However, has the tranmission or a variant been used in an Explorer in the past or even the Panther? If so, only someone with technical expertise could elaborate. If there is no mechanical reason, then it becomes glaringly obvious that its the upper management lowering the tow rate for a monetary reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 There's only two reasons that I can think of for the lowered tow ratings. Either its true that Ford discourages towing with the Vic to boost truck and SUV sales or, mechanically, its the transmission. I'm not that detail-oriented on the transmission, but obviously the engine is up to task. The frame is as strong as a pickup truck, so definitely it should be more than capable. Its supposed to be 400% stiffer than the previous frame. With the right suspension, it should be able to tow like before. So, the weak point (if there truly is one) for towing would have to be the transmission. However, has the tranmission or a variant been used in an Explorer in the past or even the Panther? If so, only someone with technical expertise could elaborate. If there is no mechanical reason, then it becomes glaringly obvious that its the upper management lowering the tow rate for a monetary reason. Could it also have been some kid of regulation change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 (edited) There's only two reasons that I can think of for the lowered tow ratings. Either its true that Ford discourages towing with the Vic to boost truck and SUV sales or, mechanically, its the transmission. I'm not that detail-oriented on the transmission, but obviously the engine is up to task. The frame is as strong as a pickup truck, so definitely it should be more than capable. Its supposed to be 400% stiffer than the previous frame. With the right suspension, it should be able to tow like before. So, the weak point (if there truly is one) for towing would have to be the transmission. However, has the tranmission or a variant been used in an Explorer in the past or even the Panther? If so, only someone with technical expertise could elaborate. If there is no mechanical reason, then it becomes glaringly obvious that its the upper management lowering the tow rate for a monetary reason. That is exactly whay it was done. All the related componants, The Frame, Engine, Transmisson , Brakes Are all stronged- bigger than they were when the Current gen was realeased for the 92 Model year. In 92 the tow package was avalible with the OLD AOD all the following trannys used in the panthers are stronger than the old AOD. It was just a cost savings thing. There is not a mechanical reason the Panthers can not tow 5000LBS. The only limitations are on the Air Bag equipped cars as the Air Bag valves are not designed to handle those kind of tounge weights, But there are after market kits to beef up the Valves to handle this. And 5000 LBS is conservative. There are lots of peple that tow 10,000 LB Air Streams behind the CV GM. Those kind of weights are definertly not recomended but it can-has been done. Matthew Edited October 30, 2007 by matthewq4b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SysEng Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 There's only two reasons that I can think of for the lowered tow ratings. Either its true that Ford discourages towing with the Vic to boost truck and SUV sales or, mechanically, its the transmission.... Did I mention the transmission??? :reading: At least with the '07, the tranny is definitely not a limitation. The current models are running the 4R75 tranny. Same as on the F150s. I'm pretty sure its big enough to handle a "dinky" 4.6 and a much lighter "panther". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Did I mention the transmission??? :reading: At least with the '07, the tranny is definitely not a limitation. The current models are running the 4R75 tranny. Same as on the F150s. I'm pretty sure its big enough to handle a "dinky" 4.6 and a much lighter "panther". I think ever since the 4R70, the transmission for the Panthers have relatively been the same. Basically the same internals and the same gear ratios. Isn't the 4R75 just a adaptation of the 4R70 with marginal torque improvement? Also, from what I see there is a different designation for the truck's transmission than the Panther's. One is like a 4R75M and the other is an "E". There must be some sort of difference. Anyone want to enlighten? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SysEng Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 ... there is a different designation for the truck's transmission than the Panther's. One is like a 4R75M and the other is an "E". There must be some sort of difference. Anyone want to enlighten? Nope, the 4R75 models are just a matter of gear ratios. You will notice a decidedly different tunnel in the car to accommodate the bigger tranny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Did I mention the transmission??? :reading: At least with the '07, the tranny is definitely not a limitation. The current models are running the 4R75 tranny. Same as on the F150s. I'm pretty sure its big enough to handle a "dinky" 4.6 and a much lighter "panther". Not to mention that, back in 1998 when the tow rating dropped, the CV had the same powertrain as a V8 Explorer. It's just marketing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Not to mention that, back in 1998 when the tow rating dropped, the CV had the same powertrain as a V8 Explorer. It's just marketing. I'm still wondering if there was no regulatory change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Nope, the 4R75 models are just a matter of gear ratios. You will notice a decidedly different tunnel in the car to accommodate the bigger tranny. I thought both used the same wide ratio gears since they are both 4 speed autos. I was told that the last two numbers have to do with the torque capacity. Both have the same 2.84:1 first gear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I'm still wondering if there was no regulatory change? What do you mean by regulation change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 What do you mean by regulation change? Meaning that cars were no longer allowed to tow that kind of weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Meaning that cars were no longer allowed to tow that kind of weight. Could be...but I doubt it. Do they have that sort of thing in Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Could be...but I doubt it. Do they have that sort of thing in Canada? Its the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman100 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I thought it had something to do with them redesigning the rear suspension and adding the Watt's Linkage to the live rear axle. I could be completely wrong, and it is just a conincidence. What is odd is Ford downplays all the advantages that BOF offers - towing, easy restyles, etc. I confess I have no understanding of the thinking of the management of Ford Motor Company. It is flat out not the company it used to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.