Hybrid engine??

[Gin@Juice]

Put a damn Hybrid engine in these things and change the outside and inside slightly in looks not the measurements and sell sell sell!!

[Topgun]

Put a damn Hybrid engine in these things and change the outside and inside slightly in looks not the measurements and sell sell sell!!

Don't count on it.

[Topgun]

Put a damn Hybrid engine in these things and change the outside and inside slightly in looks not the measurements and sell sell sell!!

Don't count on it.

[suv_guy_19]

Put a damn Hybrid engine in these things and change the outside and inside slightly in looks not the measurements and sell sell sell!!

 

 

To who? No one outside of current customers and fleets would buy. In fact, the hybrid would turn off many of the current customers.

[StevenCaylor]

To who? No one outside of current customers and fleets would buy. In fact, the hybrid would turn off many of the current customers.

 

You mean current customers like the New York City Taxi companies?

[Moby Vic]

To who? No one outside of current customers and fleets would buy. In fact, the hybrid would turn off many of the current customers.

 

Exactly, what little market there is for these cars has no interest in hybrids. And people who are interested in hybrids will never be interested in Panthers.

 

Why not suggest Ford switch to unibody construction, FWD, and a four-cylinder engine?

Edited May 17, 2008 by Moby Vic

[LM4EVR]

Not necessarily, offer both a V8 and a hybrid with new styling (or at least updated styling) and sales would increase. Hybrids are great for city driving (Taxicabs and chaufered TC) and an increase in retail GM and TC sales due to better posted MPGs would no doubt result. Of course new styling is desparately over due.

[suv_guy_19]

Not necessarily, offer both a V8 and a hybrid with new styling (or at least updated styling) and sales would increase. Hybrids are great for city driving (Taxicabs and chaufered TC) and an increase in retail GM and TC sales due to better posted MPGs would no doubt result. Of course new styling is desparately over due.

 

The car either needs to have a complete makeover involving shortening of overhangs, completely new exterior styling, a new powertrain....a new everything. You'll still be left with a BOF car, something most people don't desire anymore. Its better to start fresh with a whole new unit body RWD platform. This is something that they're supposedly doing right now.

[LM4EVR]

with all due respect:

 

1) most people do not understand the diffrence between unibody and full-frame construction. I've heard many people say how the new SUVs are "built like cars" (meaning unibody). To try to explain that at one time most cars were full-frame and some trucks (Jeep) were unibody is pointless. The people who do understand the difference would want the full-frame car for it's durability. It is also better for commercial duty (taxis, limos, hearses, police cruisers).

 

2) Ford could start off with a clean sheet BOF RWD car. Or they could evolve the current model. It would pointless the throw out 30 years of experience. The styling does need to be all new.

 

3) as for the over-hangs....new cars are too stubby. The Chrysler 300 looks like it got it's tail bobbed...The "tradtionally sized market" full size cars should maintain a certain amount over-hang for the better proportions it brings. Although, one could move the front wheels closer to the front bumper, thus keeping the hood length the same while reducing over-hang. But the rear deck needs to retain its over-hang. Remember, this is a market Ford has to itself...no need to copy anyone else. The car is dying from negelct, not through any fault of the product itself.

[suv_guy_19]

with all due respect:

 

1) most people do not understand the diffrence between unibody and full-frame construction. I've heard many people say how the new SUVs are "built like cars" (meaning unibody). To try to explain that at one time most cars were full-frame and some trucks (Jeep) were unibody is pointless. The people who do understand the difference would want the full-frame car for it's durability. It is also better for commercial duty (taxis, limos, hearses, police cruisers).

 

2) Ford could start off with a clean sheet BOF RWD car. Or they could evolve the current model. It would pointless the throw out 30 years of experience. The styling does need to be all new.

 

3) as for the over-hangs....new cars are too stubby. The Chrysler 300 looks like it got it's tail bobbed...The "tradtionally sized market" full size cars should maintain a certain amount over-hang for the better proportions it brings. Although, one could move the front wheels closer to the front bumper, thus keeping the hood length the same while reducing over-hang. But the rear deck needs to retain its over-hang. Remember, this is a market Ford has to itself...no need to copy anyone else. The car is dying from negelct, not through any fault of the product itself.

 

Ford is probably better off to go with unit body construction. Though it may not be quite as durable, there is a reason that so many companies have switched and its not only because of cost. There are structural and handling benefits to name just a couple.

 

As for the looks of the panther, thats debatable. I would say that the rear overhand that you want to keep is not good looking....but then I own a 300 so that might be why.

[LM4EVR]

you have made my point - different cars for different markets and customers. You like a short trunk, I prefer more classic proportions. That is why Ford shouldn't copy Chrysler or GM or Toyota. A car for you and a car for me. I think the US manufacturers spend too much effort copying Japan and Europe.

 

As for unibody vs. BOF, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. Most cars are unibody today because it is, generally, a lighter way to build a car. However, the weight advantage disappears after a car reaches a certain size. The 1958-1960 Lincolns had to be made much heavier than originally planned because the cars were so large, the extra bracing required added alot of weight. The 1961 Lincoln, though considerably smaller than the 1960 model, was still a 5,000 lbs car to make up for the lack of a frame. BOF is better for custom body work, like limos. It is also better for towing. If the panthers were to retain their unique size a frame would be better. That is why GM kept full frames for the downsized 1977 B,C and D bodies, the 1978 A and A-special and the 1979 E-body.

 

Like most things, there is usually no perfect method of construction for every possible use.

[suv_guy_19]

you have made my point - different cars for different markets and customers. You like a short trunk, I prefer more classic proportions. That is why Ford shouldn't copy Chrysler or GM or Toyota. A car for you and a car for me. I think the US manufacturers spend too much effort copying Japan and Europe.

 

As for unibody vs. BOF, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. Most cars are unibody today because it is, generally, a lighter way to build a car. However, the weight advantage disappears after a car reaches a certain size. The 1958-1960 Lincolns had to be made much heavier than originally planned because the cars were so large, the extra bracing required added alot of weight. The 1961 Lincoln, though considerably smaller than the 1960 model, was still a 5,000 lbs car to make up for the lack of a frame. BOF is better for custom body work, like limos. It is also better for towing. If the panthers were to retain their unique size a frame would be better. That is why GM kept full frames for the downsized 1977 B,C and D bodies, the 1978 A and A-special and the 1979 E-body.

 

Like most things, there is usually no perfect method of construction for every possible use.

 

I agree with most of what you said, but I think that in order to be competitive in the retail market, Ford needs to go unit body on the new car. There is a market for BOF, but its not as big as it once was. As for the rear overhang, maybe a compromise in length would be best.

[LM4EVR]

ah, but the idea is to compete by offering something different. And by not competing directly.

 

As for the overhang....would you actually buy a full-size, in a tradtional sense, car?

[suv_guy_19]

ah, but the idea is to compete by offering something different. And by not competing directly.

 

As for the overhang....would you actually buy a full-size, in a tradtional sense, car?

 

 

I may, but I dislike the overall length of the panther. Its over a foot longer than my car. That just seems like it would be a hassle in the city.

[LM4EVR]

Like anything, you get used to it. I learned to drive in a much bigger car..1968 Wildcat..126" wb....todays cars are pip squeaks! :shades:

[armadamaster]

Assuming Ford were to restyle the Panther, by making it with shorter overhangs, unibody, etc., they rob everything distinctive about the car and make it like everything else on the market, so:

 

Same overall length

Same overhangs

New interior

New exterior

Relocate gas tank to under trunk (allows for fold down backseat as well)

Overhaul of interior dimensions (make similar to that of 1991-1996 B-body or more)

Styling along the lines of the 300/Charger/427 concept/Interceptor concept

 

Argument for keeping Panthers around versus an all new RWD sedan platform:

 

New car CAFE MPG requirements in 2015-2020 elimate anything larger than a compact anyway, period.

Keeping Panther ensures keeping base customers (commercial fleet)

Proven & unrivaled durability

Proven & unrivaled longevity

Proven & unrivaled safety

More cost conductive considering future uncertainty in CAFE and fuel prices

Faster-to-market with existing platform versus starting from scratch

 

A hybrid should be a "duh" with the environazis dictating what cabs can be used in New York and Seattle, what should really be a "duh" is bringing back and pushing for CNG Vics again, since they are more viable, efficient, cost reducing, and enviromentally friendly versus hybrids anyway.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Armada Master

[LM4EVR]

I agree on most points.

 

1) The new fuel economy standards don't preclude a large car, remember those are corporate averages.

 

2) A diesel V8 option would be excellent (better fuel economy and simpler than a hybrid). A hybrid, though, would be an excellent choice also.

 

3) To increase interior space on the current chassis a longer wheel-base would be required - I would suggest using the current 117.7 inch chassis and dropping the 114.7 short-wheel base altogether. The over all length could be altered to keep the current body length on a 3" longer wheel-base.

 

4) Fold down rear seat would be excellent since their is no wagon. Split/fold even better.

 

5) Styling - bad idea to go with the squashed roof styling of the cars you mention. Since this is a car that goes without change for a decade or two classic styling is a better chocie than trendy styling that may be "in" today and "out" tomorrow.

 

The panthers could be saved if Ford wanted to. Remember, it is easier to drop them than to try and redo them. Ford has precious few car choices these days, relieing mostly on trucks. They won't offer the Milan in a full range of body styles (a 2dr and a wagon in what, today, is the most popular car size) to compete with and excced the Camry/Accord/Malibu competition, why redo a unique product?

[Moby Vic]

I may, but I dislike the overall length of the panther. Its over a foot longer than my car. That just seems like it would be a hassle in the city.

 

And yet thousands of them roam the streets of New York City.

[suv_guy_19]

And yet thousands of them roam the streets of New York City.

 

Very true, but its big, there's no denying that.

[Moby Vic]

A hybrid Crown Vic would be the automotive equivalent of a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup made of bacon and tofu—the two ingredients just don't go together and appeal to opposite types of people.

[LM4EVR]

Very true, but its big, there's no denying that.

 

 

By todays standards, yes. But that is part of what makes it unique and part of it's appeal.

[LM4EVR]

A hybrid Crown Vic would be the automotive equivalent of a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup made of bacon and tofu—the two ingredients just don't go together and appeal to opposite types of people.

 

 

Not true. Companies that purchase CVs and TCs for hired car use would no doubt appreciate the increased fuel economy. Especially taxicab drivers who do lots of stop & go driving, the area where hybrids excel.

 

As for retail sales, increased fuel economy would be a big plus for folks like me who prefer a larger car and RWD and are more interested in comfort and safety than going 120 mph. A diesel would be my choice.

 

A V8 would be retained as an alternative for the police and traditionalist.

 

Three Mecury versions would be great: a super plush, high styled version (ala the 1975 to 1991 GMQs), a plainer family sedan (ala 1970s Monterey) and a high performance, super charged Maurader (something a tad more outragious than the previous version.

[Moby Vic]

Dream on.

 

I'm sure you could find at least one person who would like tofu wrapped in bacon, too.

Edited May 23, 2008 by Moby Vic

[Donaldo]

I work for a police dept. and we would snap up at least a few hybrid Panthers. They would be an excellent alternative to the $50K Tahoe hybrids we're already in line to buy. Not all public safety/government vehicles are for pursuits.

Even better would be a CNG powered hybrid that would cost much less to run and out-'green' the competition.

[Moby Vic]

Ford offered CNG Crown Vics for years. They didn't sell well enough for Ford to continue offering them.