What are reasons that Ford should update and continue the Panther?

[zipnzap]

I'm trying to gauge advantages that Ford would have in continuing and modernizing the Panther platform and to continue the Panther program as a whole. What advantages does the Panther have compared to these platforms and vehicles? The things I can think of are that it's a staple of taxi use, staple of police use, staple of limousine use, the components and plant tooling have been paid through, its sturdiness and reliability, its trunk space, its body-on-frame construction and replaceable panels, it's a proven platform, it has very long life-span, is cheap to maintain, etc. In a serious answer, list all the advantages you can think of.

 

1. Early 90's Caprice (include Panther of that time period)

 

2. Modern Caprice

 

3. Holden Statesman/Commodore platform

 

4. Ford Falcon platform

 

5. Zeta platform

 

6. Ford DEW platform (Lincoln LS)

 

7. Sigma platform

 

 

Are there also advantages to just continuing and modernizing it?

[RichardJensen]

Actually, the advantages you cite are generally not unique to the panthers, or they are actually disadvantages:

 

1) staple of fleet use--not necessarily an advantage. Other vehicles would fill in the vacuum left by the panthers, were they discontinued. Due to better fuel economy, some products might dramatically reduce TCO for certain uses (e.g. taxis and hybrids)

 

2) components and tooling paid for--not necessarily an advantage. The panthers use a lot of unique, low volume assemblies (very little shared switchgear, no shared seat frames, no shared suspension components, probably no shared braking system, unique stereo, etc.) This increases the cost per unit of the vehicle.

 

3) sturdiness and reliability--not panther exclusives. D3 is similarly sturdy and similarly reliable--at least for the normal service life of fleet panthers.

 

4) trunk space is awkwardly shaped, smaller than the D3s, and thanks to the fuel tank and SRA, there is no pass-thru available

 

5) BOF construction means that the panther is not a flexible platform. It is also quite heavy for its size and capacities.

 

6) replaceable panels are not necessarily unique to BOF vehicles, apart from the rear quarters. And even there, damage to the rear quarter that would require extensive frame work on a unibody vehicle would likely require extensive frame work on a BOF vehicle as well.

 

7) long lifespan not necessarily unique to BOF. Equally 'over-engineered' vehicles like the D3s should have similarly long lifespans, and regardless of extended lifespan, the service life of the original owner is the only thing of concern to Ford.

 

8) cheap to maintain is, again, not necessarily unique to BOF vehicles. One has a vision of interchangeable parts taken from any of a decade's worth of junked panthers as making the panther easy to maintain, and yet, such actions are not recommended by Ford, and often are undertaken by 2nd owners--not the original owner.

 

Further, keeping the panther 'cheap to maintain' would require making as few changes to it as possible, changes which would hardly be sufficient to make the panther attractive to new retail buyers.

[zipnzap]

Actually, the advantages you cite are generally not unique to the panthers, or they are actually disadvantages:

 

1) staple of fleet use--not necessarily an advantage. Other vehicles would fill in the vacuum left by the panthers, were they discontinued. Due to better fuel economy, some products might dramatically reduce TCO for certain uses (e.g. taxis and hybrids)

 

2) components and tooling paid for--not necessarily an advantage. The panthers use a lot of unique, low volume assemblies (very little shared switchgear, no shared seat frames, no shared suspension components, probably no shared braking system, unique stereo, etc.) This increases the cost per unit of the vehicle.

 

3) sturdiness and reliability--not panther exclusives. D3 is similarly sturdy and similarly reliable--at least for the normal service life of fleet panthers.

 

4) trunk space is awkwardly shaped, smaller than the D3s, and thanks to the fuel tank and SRA, there is no pass-thru available

 

5) BOF construction means that the panther is not a flexible platform. It is also quite heavy for its size and capacities.

 

6) replaceable panels are not necessarily unique to BOF vehicles, apart from the rear quarters. And even there, damage to the rear quarter that would require extensive frame work on a unibody vehicle would likely require extensive frame work on a BOF vehicle as well.

 

7) long lifespan not necessarily unique to BOF. Equally 'over-engineered' vehicles like the D3s should have similarly long lifespans, and regardless of extended lifespan, the service life of the original owner is the only thing of concern to Ford.

 

8) cheap to maintain is, again, not necessarily unique to BOF vehicles. One has a vision of interchangeable parts taken from any of a decade's worth of junked panthers as making the panther easy to maintain, and yet, such actions are not recommended by Ford, and often are undertaken by 2nd owners--not the original owner.

 

Further, keeping the panther 'cheap to maintain' would require making as few changes to it as possible, changes which would hardly be sufficient to make the panther attractive to new retail buyers.

 

Is there any way to still continue the platform and alleviate the problems you mentioned?

[battyr]

Actually, the advantages you cite are generally not unique to the panthers, or they are actually disadvantages:

 

1) staple of fleet use--not necessarily an advantage. Other vehicles would fill in the vacuum left by the panthers, were they discontinued. Due to better fuel economy, some products might dramatically reduce TCO for certain uses (e.g. taxis and hybrids)

 

2) components and tooling paid for--not necessarily an advantage. The panthers use a lot of unique, low volume assemblies (very little shared switchgear, no shared seat frames, no shared suspension components, probably no shared braking system, unique stereo, etc.) This increases the cost per unit of the vehicle.

 

3) sturdiness and reliability--not panther exclusives. D3 is similarly sturdy and similarly reliable--at least for the normal service life of fleet panthers.

 

4) trunk space is awkwardly shaped, smaller than the D3s, and thanks to the fuel tank and SRA, there is no pass-thru available

 

5) BOF construction means that the panther is not a flexible platform. It is also quite heavy for its size and capacities.

 

6) replaceable panels are not necessarily unique to BOF vehicles, apart from the rear quarters. And even there, damage to the rear quarter that would require extensive frame work on a unibody vehicle would likely require extensive frame work on a BOF vehicle as well.

 

7) long lifespan not necessarily unique to BOF. Equally 'over-engineered' vehicles like the D3s should have similarly long lifespans, and regardless of extended lifespan, the service life of the original owner is the only thing of concern to Ford.

 

8) cheap to maintain is, again, not necessarily unique to BOF vehicles. One has a vision of interchangeable parts taken from any of a decade's worth of junked panthers as making the panther easy to maintain, and yet, such actions are not recommended by Ford, and often are undertaken by 2nd owners--not the original owner.

 

Further, keeping the panther 'cheap to maintain' would require making as few changes to it as possible, changes which would hardly be sufficient to make the panther attractive to new retail buyers.

 

 

Some counter points:

 

3) sturdiness and reliability - The D3 are good. But when a Panther breaks something big, there are lots of used parts available for repairs and with RWD it is easy to pull parts off and slip new parts on. If you are going to abuse a car and put on a lot of miles, the Panther has an advantage.

 

5) BOF construction means that the panther is not a flexible platform. BOF means that you can very easly have one wheelbase for the CV, a longer one for taxis, a longer one for towncars, and a longer one for stretched towncars. If any drivetrain part become unavailable, Ford could adapt a part from a truck.

 

7) long lifespan not necessarily unique to BOF. Long lifespan is not from reliability, but serviceability.

 

2) components and tooling paid for--not necessarily an advantage. The panthers use a lot of unique, low volume assemblies (very little shared switchgear, no shared seat frames, no shared suspension components, probably no shared braking system, unique stereo, etc.) This increases the cost per unit of the vehicle.

 

I don't think point 2) increases the cost, but it does make a poorer vehicle. Lots of things out of dates makes the vehicle non-competitive. Time to Kill it, Update it, or replace it with the GWRD.

[RichardJensen]

Point 2 almost certainly increases cost.

 

Ford likely pays far less for components purchased in the hundreds of thousands or even millions than it pays for panther specific components.

[RichardJensen]

Some counter points:

 

3) sturdiness and reliability - The D3 are good. But when a Panther breaks something big, there are lots of used parts available for repairs and with RWD it is easy to pull parts off and slip new parts on. If you are going to abuse a car and put on a lot of miles, the Panther has an advantage.

 

5) BOF construction means that the panther is not a flexible platform. BOF means that you can very easly have one wheelbase for the CV, a longer one for taxis, a longer one for towncars, and a longer one for stretched towncars. If any drivetrain part become unavailable, Ford could adapt a part from a truck.

 

7) long lifespan not necessarily unique to BOF. Long lifespan is not from reliability, but serviceability.

 

2) components and tooling paid for--not necessarily an advantage. The panthers use a lot of unique, low volume assemblies (very little shared switchgear, no shared seat frames, no shared suspension components, probably no shared braking system, unique stereo, etc.) This increases the cost per unit of the vehicle.

 

I don't think point 2) increases the cost, but it does make a poorer vehicle. Lots of things out of dates makes the vehicle non-competitive. Time to Kill it, Update it, or replace it with the GWRD.

Some counter-counter points:

 

3) 'lots of used parts' requires that Ford =never= perform a major upgrade to the panthers. A major upgrade would eliminate the vast store of 'used parts'.

 

5) the ability to stretch a wheelbase is of limited value, when one factors in the increased weight penalty that a separate frame carries. Also, simply stretching a wheelbase is not the same as supporting very different vehicle designs and configurations. Sure, you've got four panther wheelbases in production (CV/GM, TC, CV-taxi, TC stretch), but you've only got sedan/wagon available. You don't have AWD available, you don't have a crossover type vehicle available, and you have a relatively poor capacity/weight ratio.

 

7) 'serviceability' again, must benefit the original owner. Where it offers no benefit to the original owner it offers no benefit to Ford.

 

Ultimately a major upgrade to the panthers would eliminate many of the ballyhooed advantages the panthers enjoy, you would, instead, be left with a comparatively rigid vehicle architecture that is relatively heavy for its passenger and cargo space.

[Moosetang]

A cool name! "Panther." It just sounds sexy. Other than that and being easier, note I don't say "better," to convert into a limo I got nothing.

[battyr]

Ultimately a major upgrade to the panthers would eliminate many of the ballyhooed advantages the panthers enjoy, you would, instead, be left with a comparatively rigid vehicle architecture that is relatively heavy for its passenger and cargo space.

 

True, Ford need an all new from scratch design. A GRWD.

[mettech]

List of good reasons for RWD...

 

BMW

M-B

Ferrari

Lamborghini

Ford GT

[battyr]

List of good reasons for RWD...

 

BMW

M-B

Ferrari

Lamborghini

Ford GT

 

The only reasons that can be mass marketed is:

 

BMW

M-B

 

Ford tried competing against them once through Jaguar. Lost Billions of Dollars.

[2005Explorer]

By the amount of threads that are either about this car or turn into being about this car you would think that this car is going to be the one that saves Ford. I didn't realize that everyone in the market for a car is lusting over the Panther.

Edited August 5, 2008 by 2005Explorer

[RichardJensen]

Is there any way to still continue the platform and alleviate the problems you mentioned?

No, not really. Biggest handicap is it's just not very flexible.

[RichardJensen]

By the amount of threads that are either about this car or turn into being about this car you would think that this car is going to be the one that saves Ford. I didn't realize that everyone in the market for a car is lusting over the Panther.

Yeah, and if you went by internet chatter, Ford could solve all its problems by importing vehicles from Europe, because what the NA public wants is sport tuned and premium trimmed European products like the VW Jetta and Passat

[taxman100]

Ford is all about globalization of their product to squeeze every last penny out of their cost. The Panther does not fit in the new plan of selling carbon copy products in every market.

 

In short, there will much fewer choices available going forward, unless you like 3 similar CUV's, and assorted little crackerbox cars sold in the United States, Europe, and assorted 3rd world countries with slightly different styling. They will still be pretty much the same thing every other dealer in town is selling, so most will buy based upon price and reputation.

 

As far as the D3 goes, until it has been running for a decade, it has not proven anything regarding durability and reliability. Any car can be reliable for 3 years. I suppose the early buyers of the CVT transmission will be enjoying trying to find parts for that in 10 years.

 

The original 86-95 Taurus didn't prove to be less than reliable until they started hitting 5 years old. I owned one, and just like clockwork, at around 6 years old major components started failing.

[NJSteve3]

7) 'serviceability' again, must benefit the original owner. Where it offers no benefit to the original owner it offers no benefit to Ford.

 

I'm not much interested in arguing the merits of the '79 LTD, but, isn't the reputed durability and reliability of, say, Hondas or Toyotas, part of the reason they hold up in value over time, and as a result, have lower TCO for the first three or five years, or something like that? I'm pretty sure the residuals on the CV do not hold up the same way, but I think an argument could be made that a reputation for long term "servicability" is a positive - especially when offered in combination with an attractive, modern design...see Honda, etc.

[RichardJensen]

isn't the reputed durability and reliability of, say, Hondas or Toyotas, part of the reason they hold up in value over time, and as a result, have lower TCO for the first three or five years, or something like that?

Well, part of the 'serviceability' argument is based on the ability to bolt on spare parts from 15 years worth of junk yard leftovers, and that's not exactly going to improve your resale. The other part involves engine bay clearances. I think. The panther is alleged to be more 'serviceable' than FWD cars.

[2b2]

I'm trying to gauge advantages that Ford would have in continuing and modernizing...

 

I kinda look at it according to Ford's new rules of ContinuousImprovement & 5-year-tophats/10-year-platform-generations

sooooooo

after the 1989-gen2 (skipped),

& then 1999-gen3 (omitted),

...we get the 2009-gen4 Panther aka GlobalRwdPlatform

&

we're back on track and all's right with the world :D

(imho 2010cy-2011cy qualifies as just 'slightly' late)

 

 

also agree with Moosetang,

"A cool name! "Panther." It just sounds sexy..."

&

needs to be used on either a flagship or top-sport-ish model...

...as soon as they come to their senses & GET THE MucK OFF Their Vehicles

re-:D

[RichardJensen]

Someone's still sitting on 'pantera' for cars, which means 'panther' is out.

[jpd80]

Here's a challenge for Ford, make three separate platforms, Falcon (E8), Mustang D2C and Panther

share common engines, transmissions, electrical systems and suspensions.

 

I know most of you would agree with the first three and that would save a bundle at the supplier level

but take a look at this little beauty of a front suspension it's called SLA virtual pivot, courtesy of FoA.

Surely this could be engineered to fit the Mustang and Panther cars:

 

[battyr]

Here's a challenge for Ford, make three separate platforms, Falcon (E8), Mustang D2C and Panther

share common engines, transmissions, electrical systems and suspensions.

 

I know most of you would agree with the first three and that would save a bundle at the supplier level

but take a look at this little beauty of a front suspension it's called SLA virtual pivot, courtesy of FoA.

Surely this could be engineered to fit the Mustang and Panther cars:

 

 

What would be better SLA Virtual Pivot, or RevoKnuckle?

[NickF1011]

In short, there will much fewer choices available going forward,

 

Not really sure how you came to that conclusion. Through globalization efforts and shared engineering, Ford will likely be able to market far MORE vehicles. Ford's North American lineup is certainly getting ready to expand significantly -- I would assume to its largest lineup ever offered here before. I can't think of any other time in its history where so many different vehicles will be offered at once.

[8A4RE]

I don't know if this was brought up or not. I know here in Chicago they use a large amount of retired Police Vic's in most of the Taxi fleets. Many departments have switched over to the Caprice/Impala, what ever. Their won't be as many Vic's to choose from so Taxi companies will either have to buy whats available, or purchase new if they want to stay with the Vic.

Edited August 5, 2008 by 8A4RE

[lfeg]

Really, the only reason that matters is the return on the investment. Does the car line bring in more than it takes to produce and market it.

 

And I do not believe all of the "the tooling is paid off so it makes pure profit" cries. First, old (paid off) tooling can be expensive to maintain and operate. I have seen cases where much was saved just by junking old tooling and replacing it with new, technically up to date tooling - the technology is moving that fast. Another item is that is it cost effective to produce the thing in a dedicated plant? Running only one shift? Would it add to the bottom line to replace the panther cars with another product, or just shutter the plant?

Do police car sales really bring in that much? What cities and county agencies pay is public record, and from what I see, they are paying low prices now.

 

And the argument that the cars are great because there are large quantities of salvage yard parts available does not help Ford. In fact that can be holsing down sales - why should an entity such as a taxi company buy a new CV if they can buy old cop cars cheap and keep them running with salvaged parts?

 

The other thing to keep in mind is that potential customers want something new, if they didn't why would they be potential customers? Not many out there go ot car shopping with the intent of buying the same old same old. And that is the general perception of the CV, GM, and TC. They are the same old thing they have been for a generation. They are perceived as old tech, grandpa's car, or as only suitable for use as cop cars, taxies, and livery cars.

 

I cannot see putting money into a major update, because it will take major money and many years to change perceptions, and by that time the car will be probably seen as great grandma's car

[jpd80]

What would be better SLA Virtual Pivot, or RevoKnuckle?

Maybe Revoknuckle and virtual pivot to keep the camber geometry in check.

In that instance, the only thing you're saving is the upper swing arm which is mounted high next to the strut coil anyway

and most new vehicles employ an upper body rail to mount the coil and for added collision strength/crumple zone.

 

Here's the Fusion front end, in terms of engine bay room I's nearly as compact as a Mac Strut:

 

 

Compare with Falcon's front suspension:

Edited August 5, 2008 by jpd80

[Ford Jellymoulds]

RWD F1 or a RWD Superbike is the fastest way to get round any race track they make AWD look shit, just about every World Supercar is RWD or AWD. FWD is just a cheap and nasty way of dropping one lump in tight space and so saving the car maker a few bucks, soon both BMW and Fiat will be offering 100 MPG RWD cars.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpr...el_busters.html

 

FWD car have nothing going for them the engine bay resembles a sardine tin they are not user friendly if you do all your own maintenance they are a nightmare. FWD/AWD is boring. :boring:

http://www.nextautos.com/a-plea-return-rwd-wrc