RichardJensen Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Dearborn is doing much more than just 'making C1 US legal'. That engineering unit is leading development of the C2 architecture. What is done in Dearborn will underpin the next Escape/Kuga, C-Max, Transit Connect, and global Focus range. BTW, a 275hp 2.0L Ecoboost turbo might eliminate the need for a V6 in the Escape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 Dearborn is doing much more than just 'making C1 US legal'. That engineering unit is leading development of the C2 architecture. What is done in Dearborn will underpin the next Escape/Kuga, C-Max, Transit Connect, and global Focus range. BTW, a 275hp 2.0L Ecoboost turbo might eliminate the need for a V6 in the Escape. I agree with all of the above. I understand that dearborn will use as many C1 internal parts as posible. Whether a 4 cylinder EB will do is not a technical issue, but a marketing one. The standard 2.5 L 4 should do just fine. Some people want a 6, but can't give a logical reason why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 There is very little in the way of gas powertrain engineering done in Europe. As a result, Dearborn ends up being home to powertrain development in the future. As well as design. But this whole FoE vs. FNA vs. FoA is just a little retrograde, these days, as engineers and designers in all corners of the globe all report to Derrick Kuzak, not the head of the local P&L. you were not saying that last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 I don't remember what RJ was pontificating about a year ago, but at that time, Ford made a couple of announcements about its new engineering design computer web that tied US and EU, and IIRC, Ford Oz. This kind of link-up has only been possible in the last 2-3 years. Kuzak has the ability to keep track in a way that has never been possible, before. Not only with a 2-D displays, but with 3-D 'rapid prototyping'. The point is, the tools are there for distributing product design throughout the company around the world efficiently. Whether that happens or not, is up tp management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 (edited) you were not saying that last year. Prove it. I do not like the idea of STYLING being centralized. Engineering can be done wherever. PROVIDED that input from all concerned parties is taken into account. I have never been opposed to global engineering, nor have I been opposed to engineering many platforms in Europe. Don't twist my objection to your "Kinetic styling iz teh bomb" and "Transit iz teh new E-Series" into some unreasonable objection to global platforms. Edited April 5, 2008 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 (edited) The "them and us" attitude is all with fans who don't understand what "One Ford" means. It's is not just Mulally's idea but embraced by everyone in Ford who understands what it means. Modern computer networks mean that the three main Ford Centres FoE, FNA and FoA can work on projects 24/7. You couldn't do that as well with less coordinated regional Ford divisions. Edited April 5, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_the_limey Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 (edited) There is very little in the way of gas powertrain engineering done in Europe. As a result, Dearborn ends up being home to powertrain development in the future. As well as design. No there is a large amount of gas powertrain development being done in FoE (or more accurately Ford Dunton/Dagenham in Essex). One of the things Kuzak oversaw was the steady transfer of Merkenich's (Cologne) gas engine work transfer over to Dunton, whilst the B-Car work steadily transferred from England to Germany at the same time. The work split is now Powertrains & Commercial Vehicles in Dunton and Vehicles in Merkenich. Powertrain workload has rocketed especially with the advent of GDI turbocharging as well as the global take up of diesels Something I don't think been mentioned so far is that EUCD was very much Volvo led. EUCD is somewhat an enlarged C1 (for a while it was called C1+) and it made some sense with Volvo's involvement & volume to engineer a new vehicle with carryover sub-systems from C1, rather than tool-up and reproduce a dissimilar vehicle from Mazda. Especially when Volvo had sunk a lot of money into it's new SI6 engines which would have struggled to fit in the CD3 engine bay with front double-wishbone suspension. If Volvo was not involved I doubt FoE would have developed EUCD and it would have either taken the CD3 or upgraded the CDW27 platform. Edited April 5, 2008 by jon_the_limey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 Prove it. I do not like the idea of STYLING being centralized. Engineering can be done wherever. PROVIDED that input from all concerned parties is taken into account. I have never been opposed to global engineering, nor have I been opposed to engineering many platforms in Europe. Don't twist my objection to your "Kinetic styling iz teh bomb" and "Transit iz teh new E-Series" into some unreasonable objection to global platforms. maybe 2 years ago. I don't want fight it was a cheap shot on my part. I think it is only logical that Ford is decentralizing PD it should have been done years ago. Ford will do Well. I do think I am right on both the transit and Kinetic styling iz teh bomb. the Fiesta will proof that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkaresh Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 Anyone who doesn't like this reorganization, just wait 18 months. If history is any guide, there will be another, and another... I just hope that somewhere in all this is a vision for what Fords should be. I personally so no coherence in recent years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 I just hope that somewhere in all this is a vision for what Fords should be. I personally so no coherence in recent years. It's not really a problem for the Ford brand to have no identity. It is a volume manufacturer for the masses. Which volume manufacturer has a vision or an image? They can't really focus on one particular aspect of their image since they offer so many different types of vehicles. The place where the image and vision seems a bit lost lately is with Lincoln and Mercury. If you define those, Ford by default becomes the "everything that Mercury and Lincoln aren't" brand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 No there is a large amount of gas powertrain development being done in FoE (or more accurately Ford Dunton/Dagenham in Essex). Dearborn is still where the lion's share of gas powertrain work is done (4s, 6s, V8s). Due to the differences between the two markets, Dearborn has a lot more powertrain work and engineers. Oh, and Biker, I like how the Verve looks. Unlike the Mondeo, it's actually got some character. 3-door especially. 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.