jpd80 Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Well, common sense says they aren't. What does it cost to introduce a whole new platform 1 Billion or so? And what was the cost in changes two years after the introduction 1 million? 5 million? 10 million? How much profit has Ford really made on a few hundred-thousand cars? If they are making money on them, great...pump some of that money into advertising it. I, however, think they are still paying for the Five Hundred/Montego's. It wasn't a whole new platform, it was a modified Volvo P2 that was cheapened. The the reason they introduced D3 was because it was as cheap as upgrading the Panther. The biggest change in D3 Taurus was adoption of new corporate engines and transmissions but you're right, the money for this was robbed from the panther because panther has no retail future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 (edited) 111,565 Panthers > 89,299 Five Hundred/Montego/Taurus/Sable And when I was in school, 111,565 was a bigger number than 89,299 Look at the monthly figure for December Ford Taurus - 6,312 4th Mercury Sable - 1,386 Ford Crown Victoria - 4,445 Mercury Grand Marquis - 4,087 Buick Lacrosse - 3,540 Buick Lucerne - 5,822 Chevrolet Impala - 17,800 1st Pontiac Grand Prix - 3,499 Chrysler 300 - 9,950 2nd Dodge Charger - 11,115 3rd Dodge Magnum - 2,278 Toyota Avalon - 5,694 Nissan Maxima - 4,047 Hyundai Azera - 1,597 Edited January 6, 2008 by timmm55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 It looks like Ford finally has their Avalon beater LOL (6th) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Look at the monthly figure for December Ford Taurus - 6,312 4th Mercury Sable - 1,386 Ford Crown Victoria - 4,445 Mercury Grand Marquis - 4,087 Buick Lacrosse - 3,540 Buick Lucerne - 5,822 Chevrolet Impala - 17,800 1st Pontiac Grand Prix - 3,499 Chrysler 300 - 9,950 2nd Dodge Charger - 11,115 3rd Dodge Magnum - 2,278 Toyota Avalon - 5,694 Nissan Maxima - 4,047 Hyundai Azera - 1,597 Yeah...one month, big deal...look at the whole year. And we all know that the GMQ has a much higher retail % than the CV and it is mopping the floor with the Sable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 It wasn't a whole new platform, it was a modified Volvo P2 that was cheapened.The the reason they introduced D3 was because it was as cheap as upgrading the Panther. The biggest change in D3 Taurus was adoption of new corporate engines and transmissions but you're right, the money for this was robbed from the panther because panther has no retail future. Nice negaspin. Please give some kind of detail as to how it was "cheapened". The P2 was the starting point, but considering its width and length are different, with different powertrains, "modified" may be a little casual. Like the P2, the continued use of different alloys in different areas of the D3 chassis indicates that the modifications to the P2 starting-point may not have been cheapening it significantly. Seems to have adequate collision capability. Likewise, the comment "The biggest change in D3 Taurus was adoption of new corporate engines and transmissions" sounds like it was a simple swap-out of a 3.0 & CVT for the 3.5 and 6-speed, like changing a Mustang from a 4.0 to a 4.6 or a 5.4. Sure, the 3.5/6-speed was "adopted", the chassis was completely changed ahead of the firewall, because the 500 carried the engine/transmission and front suspension in a sub-frame. WIth the Taurus, the 3.5/transmission got their own direct mounts to the monococque, with a new front suspension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder2299of7839 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 the panthers drag in what $8-10k per unit? how much would it really cost to swap in a 3-valve? (nothing, since only the panther still has the 2-valve its possibly cheaper) how much to change quarter panel and fender stampings? (not any more than replacing the stampings they by default have to be changing anyway since they would have burned through a few sets since 1992. the body center, suspension and interior could stay virtually unchanged, and only a "freshining" would appease most people (except for car mags that historically hate American car design anyway) keep enough the same to fit existing police equiptment, and you can have your cake and eat it too. and a quick inquiry from my local ford-mercury dealer, all but one GM sold in recent memory was to a working family guy/gal with kids not collecting medicare. I sell CV parts (a few anyway) to 20 somethings. know what they buy? drilled and slotted rotors. so many I stock them in the store. the panthers pay for all the other forgettable ford cars, and the Town Car pays the bills for the MK-letter of the month as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Nice negaspin. Please give some kind of detail as to how it was "cheapened". The P2 was the starting point, but considering its width and length are different, with different powertrains, "modified" may be a little casual. Like the P2, the continued use of different alloys in different areas of the D3 chassis indicates that the modifications to the P2 starting-point may not have been cheapening it significantly. Seems to have adequate collision capability. Likewise, the comment "The biggest change in D3 Taurus was adoption of new corporate engines and transmissions" sounds like it was a simple swap-out of a 3.0 & CVT for the 3.5 and 6-speed, like changing a Mustang from a 4.0 to a 4.6 or a 5.4. Sure, the 3.5/6-speed was "adopted", the chassis was completely changed ahead of the firewall, because the 500 carried the engine/transmission and front suspension in a sub-frame. WIth the Taurus, the 3.5/transmission got their own direct mounts to the monococque, with a new front suspension. D3 features steel suspension arms, rather than aluminum...I have heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Nice negaspin. Please give some kind of detail as to how it was "cheapened". No negaspin intended, the only thing I'm guilty of is short handing the development process. I did that because P71_CrownVic assumed Ford spent $1 billion developing the platform from scratch. Perhaps you should ask P71_CrownVic to prove development of the D3 cost the $1 billion he suggests. The real negaspin is assuming Ford is losing tons of money on D3 with out any proof at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 the panthers drag in what $8-10k per unit? how much would it really cost to swap in a 3-valve? (nothing, since only the panther still has the 2-valve its possibly cheaper) how much to change quarter panel and fender stampings? (not any more than replacing the stampings they by default have to be changing anyway since they would have burned through a few sets since 1992. the body center, suspension and interior could stay virtually unchanged, and only a "freshining" would appease most people (except for car mags that historically hate American car design anyway) keep enough the same to fit existing police equiptment, and you can have your cake and eat it too. and a quick inquiry from my local ford-mercury dealer, all but one GM sold in recent memory was to a working family guy/gal with kids not collecting medicare. I sell CV parts (a few anyway) to 20 somethings. know what they buy? drilled and slotted rotors. so many I stock them in the store.the panthers pay for all the other forgettable ford cars, and the Town Car pays the bills for the MK-letter of the month as well. I have said many times, with the money Ford wasted on the D3s, they could have freshened the Panthers and upgraded power trains, and would have saved money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 (edited) I do know the break even figure for a 5 year $700 million product cycle in a single shift like Ford Australia is 40,000 vehicles per year With that in mind, D3s are far from being the uneconomical platform people assume. Ford have chosen D3 ahead of Panther upgrades for very good reasons, we're only guessing at the true financial figures they have on their own vehicles. Their moves are based in fact, ours in supposition. Edited January 6, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 D3 features steel suspension arms, rather than aluminum...I have heard. True, and this is probably the biggest materials cost reduction. The starting point for the D3 was the XC90 iteration of the P2, BTW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I have said many times, with the money Ford wasted on the D3s, they could have freshened the Panthers and upgraded power trains, and would have saved money. Short term, money would be saved. Long term, money would have been lost. Consider that, for all your kvetching about the MKS, the panthers could not be turned into a credible midprice luxury sedan, nor could the panther frame be used to underpin a CUV. Money spent on the panthers would have been saved short term, but not long term, as the panther frame is simply not as flexible as the D3, and flexibility is the new black. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 (edited) Short term, money would be saved. Long term, money would have been lost. Consider that, for all your kvetching about the MKS, the panthers could not be turned into a credible midprice luxury sedan, nor could the panther frame be used to underpin a CUV. Money spent on the panthers would have been saved short term, but not long term, as the panther frame is simply not as flexible as the D3, and flexibility is the new black. Also whith Ford AUS and F NA sharing engineering on future RWDs, any new vehicles will be much cheaper as derivatives than any greenfield project. Pontiac is getting the G8 for around $300M - that's as cheap as a platform refresh! anyone care to estimate how much the MKS D3 cost to develop? Bet it wasn't as much as people think. Edited January 6, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 (edited) Short term, money would be saved. Long term, money would have been lost. Consider that, for all your kvetching about the MKS, the panthers could not be turned into a credible midprice luxury sedan, nor could the panther frame be used to underpin a CUV. Money spent on the panthers would have been saved short term, but not long term, as the panther frame is simply not as flexible as the D3, True. and flexibility is the new black. So, If I am ever driving a D3, I should run from the police? Edited January 6, 2008 by P71_CrownVic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 So, If I am ever driving a D3, I should run from the police? Can't outrun a radio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 (edited) True.So, If I am ever driving a D3, I should run from the police? Ues all Counter measures, Krispy cremes and thermos of fresh brewed cofee out the window. Edited January 6, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder2299of7839 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Short term, money would be saved. Long term, money would have been lost. Consider that, for all your kvetching about the MKS, the panthers could not be turned into a credible midprice luxury sedan, nor could the panther frame be used to underpin a CUV. Money spent on the panthers would have been saved short term, but not long term, as the panther frame is simply not as flexible as the D3, and flexibility is the new black. if by CUV you mean crossover/station wagon, the previous Panther body style boasted a station wagon that sold very well from 1979-1991 and had a higher towing rating than most recent trucks. most people don't need 4wd, and many supposed crossover/SUVs are optioned without it anyway. I understand the limited appeal of the current panther, but I think its largely because they haven't offered a 2-dr since 1984 or a wagon since 1991. the platform would easily support a ranchero and sedan delivery/2dr wagon as well if someone would try it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 most people don't need 4wd, and many supposed crossover/SUVs are optioned without it anyway. But there are those that do need it so it must at least be an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder2299of7839 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I agree, I have three 4x4s here (all fords, as are all my vehicles), but axing the panther because it cant be easily made 4x4 is stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I agree, I have three 4x4s here (all fords, as are all my vehicles), but axing the panther because it cant be easily made 4x4 is stupid. I believe it makes more sense to replace the panther with a RWD platform that's capable of AWD. Best of both worlds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I believe it makes more sense to replace the panther with a RWD platform that's capable of AWD. Best of both worlds. AWD is unnecessary. You have the D3 triplets that are FWD and AWD for people who don't know how to drive... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 AWD is unnecessary. You have the D3 triplets that are FWD and AWD for people who don't know how to drive... It is if you want a platform to support everything from a RWD sedan to an AWD CUV. You know, economies of scale and all that stuff... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder2299of7839 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 drove for years in the sierras above the snowline in pre-panther full-size fords, crossed the country via I-80 during the winter, and now in the ozarks with rwd cars and trucks, never had a problem. if anything AWD in anything close to a full-size will hamper fords desire to increase CAFE ratings. the more 2wd/rwd vehicles the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder2299of7839 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 besides if you want a front wheel assist option, put windings around the outside of the torque converter and inside the bellhousing, making it a generator, then place pancake motors behind the front disks, you have easy front assist with no front drivetrain. ...if cars start featuring this, you saw it here first... I built a pretty good gas/electric car in shop class in the 80s cost about $800. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I'm just baffled with the opposition to replacing the panther with a modern RWD platform that can be used globally and for a variety of different vehicles. 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.