What needs to be done to make a RWD platform viable?

[battyr]

Courtesy of FoE, the FG Falcon uses EUCD slim door technology and one piece side frame pressings.

the tread width is identical to Mondeo and it has a similar but powered control Blade IRS.

There is an opportunity to play mix and match with future Falcon and EUCD parts...........

 

It may be easier to develop" RWD EUCDs" by using Falcon front end/firewall/dash and powered IRS.

 

Australia can't afford to design all their own platform, so they steal technology from the EUCD to cut down on the development job. Australia uses the knowledge developed by Euope and that's it. You might be able to make a RWD version of the EUCD, but it won't be able to replace a Falcon, Mustang, or RWD Explorer.

[jpd80]

Australia can't afford to design all their own platform, so they steal technology from the EUCD to cut down on the development job. Australia uses the knowledge developed by Euope and that's it.

I'd call that leveraging the assets of FoE - something FNA will be forced to do to save money.

We do have over 1,000 engineers of our own working at Geelong Centre of Excellence BTW,

on such things at T6 and other things I cant share............ So there.

 

Edit,

FoA are past masters at saving money, that's the only way they could ever afford such a unique car. theoldwizard worked a lot of overtime gratis to help FoA out and thanks to his and other people's

efforts every few years, an eclectic group of parts comes together to make something very special.

 

It's not known whether FoA will commit another RWD platform but if they do it will be worth waiting for....

Edited January 18, 2009 by jpd80

[ray101988]

I know this is a touchy subject...lol , but is Ford planning on replacing the Crown vic or updating it? I was just curious because I've noticed some Impala, Charger, and have even heard of some Challenger police cruisers. Would suck for Ford to lose police sales.

[98GMLS]

Did anyone ever see this?

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ford-D3-platform

[NickF1011]

Would suck for Ford to lose police sales.

 

Would suck more for them to develop a new RWD sedan that nobody bought retail. The police cruiser market isn't exactly bursting at the seams with profit.

[chiefstang]

Just disconnect the front driveshafts on an AWD Taurus.

 

There.

 

Can we be done now?

[papilgee4evaeva]

Did anyone ever see this?

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ford-D3-platform

 

I first saw that exact content on Wikipedia quite a while ago. It's horribly outdated now, since :o no new 2009 CV/GMQ/TC. :reading:

[NickF1011]

Just disconnect the front driveshafts on an AWD Taurus.

 

There.

 

Can we be done now?

 

No.

 

This topic will never die until 1. Ford cancels the Panthers, 2. Ford announces a new RWD platform, and 3. Blueblood and Armada Master no longer come here.

[papilgee4evaeva]

Just disconnect the front driveshafts on an AWD Taurus.

 

There.

 

Can we be done now?

 

Since even an AWD Taurus is FWD by default, wouldn't that render the car undriveable?

[akirby]

Since even an AWD Taurus is FWD by default, wouldn't that render the car undriveable?

 

quoting Foghorn Leghorn "That was a joke, son, a joke I say........."

[jpd80]

No.

 

This topic will never die until 1. Ford cancels the Panthers, 2. Ford announces a new RWD platform, and 3. Blueblood and Armada Master no longer come here.

A FWD/AWD variant co-developed between FNA and FoA to suit the two markets seems more likely.

That way the costs are amortiszed over quite a lot of vehicles. Using a different top hat would help

to preserve the retail standing of the Taurus and the police cruisers look like a different car.

[NickF1011]

A FWD/AWD variant co-developed between FNA and FoA to suit the two markets seems more likely.

That way the costs are amortiszed over quite a lot of vehicles. Using a different top hat would help

to preserve the retail standing of the Taurus and the police cruisers look like a different car.

 

Sounds like a possibility. I mean it seems obvious that there will eventually be a need for a new large FWD/AWD platform. I'm hoping it's one that is flexible enough to accomodate everything from smaller CD sedans to large crossovers like the Flex/Explorer though. I'm not sure if that's truly possible, but EUCD really doesn't seem too far off that flexibility goal already.

[jpd80]

I'm hoping a new super FWD/AWD platform covers everything above the C2 platform,

there would be great advantage in having CD3/EUCD/D3 all merged - tremendous flexibility there!!!

[NickF1011]

I'm hoping a new super FWD/AWD platform covers everything above the C2 platform,

there would be great advantage in having CD3/EUCD/D3 all merged - tremendous flexibility there!!!

 

I know this would be simply asking too much, but how difficult would it really be to design a platform that is FWD/AWD/RWD capable? It may end up with too many compromises which would lead it to not doing FWD very well or RWD very well, but I can't really think of anything specifically that would make this impossible. Thoughts?

[papilgee4evaeva]

quoting Foghorn Leghorn "That was a joke, son, a joke I say........."

 

"I say I guess I gotta keep on my toes... TOES, that is..."

 

I know this would be simply asking too much, but how difficult would it really be to design a platform that is FWD/AWD/RWD capable? It may end up with too many compromises which would lead it to not doing FWD very well or RWD very well, but I can't really think of anything specifically that would make this impossible. Thoughts?

 

It's probably possible to do it with a front-mid placement of the engine. How complex it would be, I have no idea, but I wouldn't guess it would be very easy.

Edited January 19, 2009 by papilgee4evaeva

[chiefstang]

Since even an AWD Taurus is FWD by default, wouldn't that render the car undriveable?

 

FWD, unless the front wheels don't have traction (which they wouldn't without the half shafts ), or under hard driving, at which time it becomes a rear biased system. So just floor it everywhere, and you don't even have to unhook the halfshafts...

 

Now, now go away boy. You're botherin' me!

[rkisler]

I know this would be simply asking too much, but how difficult would it really be to design a platform that is FWD/AWD/RWD capable? It may end up with too many compromises which would lead it to not doing FWD very well or RWD very well, but I can't really think of anything specifically that would make this impossible. Thoughts?

 

Nick, I have knowledge of about 4-5 of these exercises. And I don't mean from a cursory nature either, but on a very detailed part-by-part basis with full complement of pre-program engineers and business people.

 

At the end of the day, it doesn't work and there is no car platform I can think of that has both FWD and RWD capability, and only one truck platform I can think of (Transit).

 

First, let's think about the building blocks of a platform. There is the underbody structure, and the upper body; when these are combined, they result in a "body-in-white". Then closures get attached -- doors, hood, deck lid/lift gate. The reason that the body shell is such as big deal is the engineering required to design it (including safety), the tooling cost of stamping the metal, and the very expensive body shop required to assembly it. This accounts for the largest piece of the total program investment. The other big ticket items include the front and rear suspension, subframes, and of course powertrain. When you get to the interior, the instrument panel and seats are big ticket. The cost of investment of the other components (like trim or exterior ornamentation) is significant but lower.

 

The largest problem area is the front end where the conflicting demands of FWD-based or RWD-based deters commonality.

 

In all FWD cars, the engine is mounted in front of the front wheels. Of course, manufacturers do their best to try to minimize the overhang, but it's still there. For instance, I believe Audi, who uses a longitudinal engine arrangement, just moved the drive shaft to the front of the transmission to move the front wheels further forward to reduce overhang. But all FWD cars have a very large weight percentage over the front wheels -- a lot of time in the 60-65% range. That's OK for general use, but it does result in understeer at the extreme which is still a pretty safe way to set up a car for most people.

 

In a "proper" RWD car, the engine is longitudinal, the front wheels can move forward, and the weight distribution is much better at around 50/50 if done right. With RWD, you can get a very aggressive look with wheels far forward (like BMW).

 

All you have to do is to take a look at a couple of cars side-by-side to see the difference.

 

When you start crawling through the body structure and suspension, the whole front end has to be unique for FWD vs. RWD-based vehicles. Even the fire wall, front floor pan, and tunnel are different due to engine and transmission lay-out. You can finally start to see some possibilities for commonality when you get to the rear of the car. But by then you are virtually all-new anyway because you find (like dominos) that the changes from the front end affect the rear.

 

Of course powertrains can be similar, and can be turned from longitudinal to latitudinal with some relatively minor changes. Most gear boxes do not go both ways, so they would be unique.

 

There is nothing preventing front and rear suspension from being similar, but the actual parts are likely to be unique. Rear suspension stands the best chance of commonality, but can be affected by the subframe and strength of components depending on how much torque is going to the rear wheels.

 

So, to summarize, you have to make a platform choice of RWD/AWD or FWD/AWD, but they are different animals and the bodies are distinctively different. When it comes to components, you can look within your corporate inventory of parts (like suspensions) to find one that will work which will save engineering and hopefully tooling (for example, the control blade rear suspension which was going to be used on the S197 and is used on the Falcon RWD products came from FWD Europe products but was influenced by BMW). But sharing the basic underbody and body shell is not likely. And of course if the body shell is different, so are the doors, hood, and deck lid.

 

From a manufacturing standpoint, I can't think of anything that would absolutely preclude building RWD and FWD bodies in the same body shop, but the flexibility to do so likely would be costly. The suspension build-up area could be combined with some difficulty (it has been done with the Continental and Town Car). Paint, trim, and final assembly could be combined if it made sense.

 

At any rate, given the heavy engineering workload and plant expenditures the development of an RWD platform for Ford would require, it is certainly not in the priorities right now. So we should be thinking FWD/AWD with the exception of Mustang and Falcon. I would think both will go through further evolution on the existing platforms with opportunities to commonize bits examined on an ad-hoc basis..

Edited January 20, 2009 by Austin

[NickF1011]

Nick, I have knowledge of about 4-5 of these exercises. And I don't mean from a cursory nature either, but on a very detailed part-by-part basis with full complement of pre-program engineers and business people.

 

At the end of the day, it doesn't work and there is no car platform I can think of that has both FWD and RWD capability, and only one truck platform I can think of (Transit).

 

First, let's think about the building blocks of a platform. There is the underbody structure, and the upper body; when these are combined, they result in a "body-in-white". Then closures get attached -- doors, hood, deck lid/lift gate. The reason that the body shell is such as big deal is the engineering required to design it (including safety), the tooling cost of stamping the metal, and the very expensive body shop required to assembly it. This accounts for the largest piece of the total program investment. The other big ticket items include the front and rear suspension, subframes, and of course powertrain. When you get to the interior, the instrument panel and seats are big ticket. The cost of investment of the other components (like trim or exterior ornamentation) is significant but lower.

 

The largest problem area is the front end where the conflicting demands of FWD-based or RWD-based deters commonality.

 

In all FWD cars, the engine is mounted in front of the front wheels. Of course, manufacturers do their best to try to minimize the overhang, but it's still there. For instance, I believe Audi, who uses a latitudinal engine arrangement, just moved the drive shaft to the front of the transmission to move the front wheels further forward to reduce overhang. But all FWD cars have a very large weight percentage over the front wheels -- a lot of time in the 60-65% range. That's OK for general use, but it does result in understeer at the extreme which is still a pretty safe way to set up a car for most people.

 

In a "proper" RWD car, the engine is longitudinal, the front wheels can move forward, and the weight distribution is much better at around 50/50 if done right. With RWD, you can get a very aggressive look with wheels far forward (like BMW).

 

All you have to do is to take a look at a couple of cars side-by-side to see the difference.

 

When you start crawling through the body structure and suspension, the whole front end has to be unique for FWD vs. RWD-based vehicles. Even the fire wall, front floor pan, and tunnel are different due to engine and transmission lay-out. You can finally start to see some possibilities for commonality when you get to the rear of the car. But by then you are virtually all-new anyway because you find (like dominos) that the changes from the front end affect the rear.

 

Of course powertrains can be similar, and can be turned from longitudinal to latitudinal with some relatively minor changes. Most gear boxes do not go both ways, so they would be unique.

 

There is nothing preventing front and rear suspension from being similar, but the actual parts are likely to be unique. Rear suspension stands the best chance of commonality, but can be affected by the subframe and strength of components depending on how much torque is going to the rear wheels.

 

So, to summarize, you have to make a platform choice of RWD/AWD or FWD/AWD, but they are different animals and the bodies are distinctively different. When it comes to components, you can look within your corporate inventory of parts (like suspensions) to find one that will work which will save engineering and hopefully tooling (for example, the control blade rear suspension which was going to be used on the S197 and is used on the Falcon RWD products came from FWD Europe products but was influenced by BMW). But sharing the basic underbody and body shell is not likely. And of course if the body shell is different, so are the doors, hood, and deck lid.

 

From a manufacturing standpoint, I can't think of anything that would absolutely preclude building RWD and FWD bodies in the same body shop, but the flexibility to do so likely would be costly. The suspension build-up area could be combined with some difficulty (it has been done with the Continental and Town Car). Paint, trim, and final assembly could be combined if it made sense.

 

At any rate, given the heavy engineering workload and plant expenditures the development of an RWD platform for Ford would require, it is certainly not in the priorities right now. So we should be thinking FWD/AWD with the exception of Mustang and Falcon. I would think both will go through further evolution on the existing platforms with opportunities to commonize bits examined on an ad-hoc basis..

 

Now I can't really say I was petitioning for all of this to be done in the same body shop by any means. I wouldn't even go so far as to say the body shells would be the same, but there has to be at least some sort of fundamental platform basics that can be used repeatedly -- floorpan maybe? I mean even vehicles that many consider to be "platform-mates" don't share the same body shells. Look at the Taurus and Flex. It's not like their body shells are remotely identical, yet they are both considered D3. :shrug:

 

I guess it comes down to where you draw the line on what is considered a "platform".

[papilgee4evaeva]

Thanks for that, Austin.

 

One thing though... all Audis except for the A3 and TT use a longitudinal arrangement.

[rkisler]

Thanks for that, Austin.

 

One thing though... all Audis except for the A3 and TT use a longitudinal arrangement.

 

Oops. Of course you are correct and I have modified my post.

 

When the trans is lined up behind the engine on a North-South FWD (longitudinal as you correctly point out), the halfshafts normally come out of the end of the transmission which puts a lot of the powertrain length in front of the wheels.

 

IIRC, Audi moved the output shafts to the front of the transmission and moved the wheels forward -- but I can't find the specifics now on how many mm.

[rkisler]

Now I can't really say I was petitioning for all of this to be done in the same body shop by any means. I wouldn't even go so far as to say the body shells would be the same, but there has to be at least some sort of fundamental platform basics that can be used repeatedly -- floorpan maybe? I mean even vehicles that many consider to be "platform-mates" don't share the same body shells. Look at the Taurus and Flex. It's not like their body shells are remotely identical, yet they are both considered D3. :shrug:

 

I guess it comes down to where you draw the line on what is considered a "platform".

 

Nick, what you really want to save is the front end of the platform if at all possible, and also the engine compartment.

 

You want to save engineering effort which is a scarce resource. The front of any platform the subject of intensive engineering activity. Thousands of hours of analytical time and supercomputer time as well as physical testing. The reason is that the front end has to channel crash forces through the vehicle, and the structure is mostly science, but part art. The second highest analytical area is probably the side structure which has to hold up under side impact tests. The rear of the car is not trivial but is a lot less sensitive -- there is generally a fair amount of crush space.

 

You also want to save expensive stamping tooling by reutilizing as many parts as possible. Between FWD and RWD, as I mentioned, there is very little chance to save anything. And the front floorpan is also unique. You might be able to save some of the rear structure, but even that is iffy.

 

As I mentioned, in every study with which I am familiar, the savings were not worth the trip. And those savings could potentially cause compromises in function.

 

I wish I were more familiar with the D3 to comment on commonality. I do know that Ford has done a great job trying to pull together FWD platforms for enhanced commonality. I mentioned before that the engine mounting scheme was changed on the D3 so the D3 mounts the same as the CD3. That reduces complexity in the engine plant.

 

But I don't think we'll see any FWD platform converted into RWD. Every time I see a reference to some new study (like when people were talking about making D3 RWD), I just have a good laugh because the results are always the same.

[battyr]

...

 

In short, you can not make a well balanced RWD car from a FWD platform.

 

I would argue that, if you are replacing the Crown Vic or an Explorer truck, then engine location and weight distribution is less important. If you are designing a platform from scratch for these applications, then you should be able to have a platform shared between FWD and RWD. As for the Mustang, keep it off the current platform, or switch it to the Falcon platform.

[rkisler]

In short, you can not make a well balanced RWD car from a FWD platform.

 

I would argue that, if you are replacing the Crown Vic or an Explorer truck, then engine location and weight distribution is less important. If you are designing a platform from scratch for these applications, then you should be able to have a platform shared between FWD and RWD. As for the Mustang, keep it off the current platform, or switch it to the Falcon platform.

 

Yes, I agree on the Mustang comment, although switch to Falcon doesn't net any benefits considering the investment would be substantial.

 

But I don't agree on the comment that you could just make a FWD into RWD and just forget about the weight distribution. Everything in the front end is different. Particularly, you have to think about the engine going from latitudinal to longitudinal and imagine swinging the engine and transmission in the engine bay and imagine all the metal you would run into. And, in the end, there would be no advantage.

[Blueblood]

No.

 

This topic will never die until 1. Ford cancels the Panthers, 2. Ford announces a new RWD platform, and 3. Blueblood and Armada Master no longer come here.

 

This place would be much nicer without the resident trolls that are unfortunately moderators..

[armadamaster]

No.

 

This topic will never die until 1. Ford cancels the Panthers, 2. Ford announces a new RWD platform, and 3. Blueblood and Armada Master no longer come here.

 

 

The most viable "chatter" I had heard of in recent years was a new RWD BOF platform combining the Panther with the Explorer and a Ranger & producing all three vehicles on the same platform.

 

Of course that is pretty much null & void since Ford is hellbent on getting anybody to buy a D3 so that's where the Explorer will go, oddly enough the Ranger will go away altogether, and the Panther most likely as well with the next next new Taurus that replaces the current Taurus that replaced the Five Hundread that we were told wasn't supposed to replace the Panther.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Armada Master