Farley says Ford needs new Cop Car

[jpd80]

That's where I think a FWD/AWD replacement for the Panther and Falcon comes in.

The PD car and FoA car could share D3 project costs without impacting on Taurus or its sheet metal.

Make them available with Ecoboost I-4 and V6 as well as AWD V8 and get bang for your bucks.

Edited January 24, 2009 by jpd80

[2b2]

Ford needs to have a dedicated exterior/interior looking PD vehicle with common shared (mass produced) underpins like engine, chassis, suspension, tranny. I can see a new PD based off the ford explorer or Taurus platform but with new sheet metal that is indistinguishable from any ford product. Think of fleet cars like another brand(lower) of Ford. This way ford's overall brand perception is not reduced.

 

Bottom line: perception = retail sales and retail sales = profit.

how about... stick the CV's greenhouse, roof AND glass, on top of whatever body

- maybe even a couple whatevers?

 

will keep the old light bars useable &

really change the look of any retail body (plus heavyduty bumper/grille)

 

possibly a taxi & a limo could be done similarly

(afterall a suv/truck-based limo-sedan just had a big presidential stamp of approval)

[armadamaster]

Gooooooo Matthew! :cheerleader:

 

Seriously, good points that I couldn't have conveyed better myself, with the exception of I still believe minimal investment & minimal thought in Panther updating would lure back some retail sales.

 

Unfortunately though, Ford has chosen to chase that elusive Avalon buyer instead.

 

I trust that the Crown Vic is more durable than the Impala and Taurus. Especially when it comes to the front suspension.

 

However, I am at a loss to understand just why Ford should continue to make a car whose only appeal is to LEOs that pound holy heck out of their vehicles. For every other constituency, there are other, better solutions available.

 

Yeah, durability has never been a good selling point.....F-150.......*cough*....

 

Of course, then the consumers have to be made aware about that quietly legendary durability which involving the 's to-date has always been a no-no.

Edited January 24, 2009 by Armada Master

[joihan777]

Gooooooo Matthew! :cheerleader:

 

Seriously, good points that I couldn't have conveyed better myself, with the exception of I still believe minimal investment & minimal thought in Panther updating would lure back some retail sales.

 

Unfortunately though, Ford has chosen to chase that elusive Avalon buyer instead.

 

Yeah, durability has never been a good selling point.....F-150.......*cough*....

 

Of course, then the consumers have to be made aware about that quietly legendary durability which involving the 's to-date has always been a no-no.

 

I don't know about that. Style, content, mileage and safety are big these days. The Panthers don't shine quite so brightly compared to some of its competitors. Realize a small minivan or crossover might be driven by the type of person who might have purchased a CV back in the 80's.

 

I have NO IDEA how much the panthers are making Ford today (incl. parts sales), but as long as it is not in the red, I hope Ford doesn't kill it. A dollar is a dollar and having the name out there is always good.

 

When Ford is in the black again (2-3 years?) maybe then they can consider a suitable replacement. Maybe one based off a F100 chassis? Or maybe co-engineered with the next Explorer update? Even bringing a global Falcon here?

 

Can you imagine an Explorer & new CV on same platform, sharing most of the mechanicals? A municipality would have a hard time not considering that! [[ Just a thought :shades: ]]

 

BTW- Everybody who wants a Taurus police interceptor... How would police be able to sit with their belt holding the guns/ammo/radio/flashlights/Be-Good-Stick still on in the bucket seats? I think the bench seat is still beneficial here.

Officer Wiggum better be able to fit in there, 'cause not every cop is in shape. Add the radios & computers and it gets

cramped quick. So would a police Taurus be able to have a bench front seat or a shaved off center console?

[RichardJensen]

Can you imagine an Explorer & new CV on same platform, sharing most of the mechanicals? A municipality would have a hard time not considering that! [[ Just a thought :shades: ]]

Been discussed. Our resident panther expert (the one who has owned panthers and is worth listening to) pointed out that the panthers use a perimeter frame while the Explorer (and any truck) use ladder frames. Makes a huge difference when it comes to suspensions and just about everything else, so you couldn't share many components (apart from the powertrain and electronics/controls) between a truck and a panther.

 

If you put a ladder frame under a car, it would probably end up looking something like those old AWD AMCs

[jpd80]

By selling the Panther in the Middle East, Dearborn blocked the business case for a LHD Falcon.

Maybe with it gone, there might be a slot opening up......

Each year, Holden sells about 30,000 SWB and LWB zetas there, so RWD is still liked.

[battyr]

Been discussed. Our resident panther expert (the one who has owned panthers and is worth listening to) pointed out that the panthers use a perimeter frame while the Explorer (and any truck) use ladder frames. Makes a huge difference when it comes to suspensions and just about everything else, so you couldn't share many components (apart from the powertrain and electronics/controls) between a truck and a panther.

 

If you put a ladder frame under a car, it would probably end up looking something like those old AWD AMCs

 

That answers my question on why you can't share parts between the panther and a truck. With out the perimeter frame, the vehicle will not be low enough to be a car. Commonality depends on the mounting points on the frame.

 

Ford will have to eventually have to decide to upgrade the technology in the Panther, or replace it with the D3 and with trucks.

 

If you want to use a ladder frame on a car, you will end up with a much taller vehicle, like a minivan. It can be done but they will have to change the styling.

 

The other alternative would be to develop a new small truck with a perimeter frame. Use it for a new generation of cars and Explorer. The only thing is that the truck would be low to the ground. Very few people would want this. Maybe Ford could develop a hybrid frame. A perimeter frame with a choice of a high an low mounting points for the suspension.

 

A lot of choices.

[battyr]

By selling the Panther in the Middle East, Dearborn blocked the business case for a LHD Falcon.

Maybe with it gone, there might be a slot opening up......

Each year, Holden sells about 30,000 SWB and LWB zetas there, so RWD is still liked.

 

Isn't the middle-East run from Ford Asia-Pacific-Autralia-Africa. They likely are buying Panthers because they want to be Americans and don't care about the cost of oil. If Europe puts pressure on them to cut CO2 emissions, they may start to demand the Falcon.

[Len_A]

Mmmmm hmmmmmm.

 

It amuses me that the panther devotees refuse to admit that any other car could be as well built as the panthers. It also amuses me that RWD devotees will continually assert that FWD cars can't stand up to serious abuse.

 

In fact none of them have pounded heck out of a D3 vehicle, and all of them are ignoring the Escape Hybrid's track record as a cab.

 

But, then again, it's just another day at BON. RWD junkies making up arguments out of whole cloth and distorting comparisons to support a market that they can't stand and don't participate in.

There's one thing the RWD CV junkies/fans are not taking into consideration, and that is that CAFE requirements are going up quite a bit, and whatever gets used for a police car is coming from the regular fleet. Police fleet is profitable, and while it doesn't affect resale values as much as rental fleets, there are segments of the market that won't touch an entire brand that is used as a police car (more than offsets the argument that cops buy what they drive for their own cars - I live in the Detroit area an d that isn't even true here any more ). Any profit coming from police and other fleet sales has to be considered against the fines Uncle Sam levies if you miss your CAFE targets, and as I already posted, those are going up a lot, and they're goign up even more from there.

 

Then you also have to wonder, before Ford ties up a lot of resources in the police car business, if Carbon Motors purpose built police car is going to really take away any market share.

[Len_A]

I would really be interested to see some sort of statistic on how many times police cruisers jump curbs during their average service life also. Based on what I've seen in my area, I doubt many of them leave pavement.....ever.

Around here in the Detroit area, the police departments have to worry more about constantly driving over all the pot holes, than worrying about curb jumping capability.

[Len_A]

I could almost see one of the military subcontractors going into the business of making dedicated police vehicles. After all, they are used to the cut-throat cost-cutting and bidding wars that drive prices into the ground for the government in a lot of cases already, and it's certainly not unprecedented for them to manufacture vehicles. Companies like Oshkosh and AM General have been doing it for some time.

Check out: http://www.carbonmotors.com/

[joihan777]

Ford will have to eventually have to decide to upgrade the technology in the Panther, or replace it with the D3 and with trucks.

 

The other alternative would be to develop a new small truck with a perimeter frame. Use it for a new generation of cars and Explorer. The only thing is that the truck would be low to the ground. Very few people would want this. Maybe Ford could develop a hybrid frame. A perimeter frame with a choice of a high an low mounting points for the suspension.

 

You beat me to it. When Ford has the funds, if and only if there would be a real advantage to an Explorer having a "perimeter frame" then the next panther & Explorer could share a platform?

 

I don't know much about that type of design, but a "low" Explorer tough enough to take on occasional off-roading/trailer towing but still have good hwy manners might do well. Never did see too many Monster-Truckified Explorers anyway.

 

If Ford ever managed to figure out how to co-engineer a small SUV & large sedan on one platform, sharing many parts, they'd sell more than just cruisers to municipalities. Especially with flexible powertrain/drive configurations from the get-go. A lower slung SUV would drive similar to the cruiser, thus cutting down on driver training. Not to mention the Lincoln TC & Merc sales. For fancy cars, its still hard to beat the TC.

[battyr]

Check out: http://www.carbonmotors.com/

 

That is the coolest Cop car I have ever seen. What they don't show in the comparison is the cost.

 

Anything custom built like that is incredibly expensive.

 

Better to use something cheap and solid from detroit. Then you can have twice as many of them. You don't stop bad guys with car chases, but with road blocks.

 

In the future, the biggest military threat will be from China. The reason is because they will be building more weapons at a cheaper cost. The US will have to cut the cost of their military by using consumer vehicles (like the Ford F-150) as weapons.

[Edstock]

Here's an Avanti frame, originally from the Lark convertible.

 

[battyr]

You beat me to it. When Ford has the funds, if and only if there would be a real advantage to an Explorer having a "perimeter frame" then the next panther & Explorer could share a platform?

 

I don't know much about that type of design, but a "low" Explorer tough enough to take on occasional off-roading/trailer towing but still have good hwy manners might do well. Never did see too many Monster-Truckified Explorers anyway.

 

If Ford ever managed to figure out how to co-engineer a small SUV & large sedan on one platform, sharing many parts, they'd sell more than just cruisers to municipalities. Especially with flexible powertrain/drive configurations from the get-go. A lower slung SUV would drive similar to the cruiser, thus cutting down on driver training. Not to mention the Lincoln TC & Merc sales. For fancy cars, its still hard to beat the TC.

 

An Explorer and Panther could share a frame from the B pillar forward and save huge design cost. From the B pillar back does not matter.

[jpd80]

Isn't the middle-East run from Ford Asia-Pacific-Autralia-Africa. They likely are buying Panthers because they want to be Americans and don't care about the cost of oil . If Europe puts pressure on them to cut CO2 emissions, they may start to demand the Falcon.

I'm selfish and centered around export development of Falcon, Fairlane and Territory.

It's probably now another $200 million Ford would rather not spend but could be strategic niche market.

New 5.0 is expected to make V8 Falcon's weight close to that of FWD Taurus (and lighter than G8).

[RichardJensen]

An Explorer and Panther could share a frame from the B pillar forward and save huge design cost. From the B pillar back does not matter.

Likely they could not share a frame going forward from the firewall, and here's why:

 

AWD capability

 

If you adopt a low slung engine design (as in passenger cars), it creates all sorts of expensive issues for the front driveshafts. On Bimmers and Benzes, I believe at least one of the half shafts runs =through= the oil pan. Lowering the engine in an Explorer to passenger car acceptable levels (that is, a shorter cowl height) would require similar maneuverings with the front driveshafts.

 

And while you could (conceivably) get by without AWD on a cop car, you'd need it on the Explorer.

 

--

 

Conversely, with transverse AWD, the front drive shafts are already there, off the transaxle, and don't have to be 'squeezed' in. That's a major reason why AWD is very expensive on the 300, and very cheap on the Fusion ($1500 option on Fusion and IIRC $5000 on the 300).

 

---

 

Going backwards, you'd never see a perimeter frame on a light truck because of payload weight distribution: you want the bed to sit on the frame rails, as opposed to being suspended between them.

 

Also, you can't split a frame at the B pillar. You'll see frames divided at the firewall, but never in the middle of the cabin.

 

Finally, the Explorer is going unibody anyway.

[jpd80]

Ford has heaps of choices of they go with D3, a lot of variation is possible.

Maybe a police cruiser could use the 2008 Taurus top hat with a Crown Vic styled grille.

That way Ford recycles D3 architecture from last year's model and doesn't conflict the '10 Taurus.

[battyr]

Likely they could not share a frame going forward from the firewall, and here's why:

 

AWD capability

 

If you adopt a low slung engine design (as in passenger cars), it creates all sorts of expensive issues for the front driveshafts. On Bimmers and Benzes, I believe at least one of the half shafts runs =through= the oil pan. Lowering the engine in an Explorer to passenger car acceptable levels (that is, a shorter cowl height) would require similar maneuverings with the front driveshafts.

 

And while you could (conceivably) get by without AWD on a cop car, you'd need it on the Explorer.

 

--

 

Conversely, with transverse AWD, the front drive shafts are already there, off the transaxle, and don't have to be 'squeezed' in. That's a major reason why AWD is very expensive on the 300, and very cheap on the Fusion ($1500 option on Fusion and IIRC $5000 on the 300).

 

---

 

Going backwards, you'd never see a perimeter frame on a light truck because of payload weight distribution: you want the bed to sit on the frame rails, as opposed to being suspended between them.

 

Also, you can't split a frame at the B pillar. You'll see frames divided at the firewall, but never in the middle of the cabin.

 

Finally, the Explorer is going unibody anyway.

 

The idea is very unlikely in any case.

 

If Ford was to make a major product investment in a redesigned Panther they would want AWD, just as Chrysler put AWD into the 300.

 

A box frame can be welded together anywhere you want. The idea was to have a perimeter frame on a car that shares the front end mounting points with a truck.

 

True the Explorer is going FWD. They still is a market for a vehicle like the old Explorer.

[matthewq4b]

back everyone of those facts up please...I sell fleet...guess what...I'm calling YOU OUT...back it up BS boy....especially LOCKING in discounts and rebates at the time of a factory order....sorry, THATS not even legal....

 

 

Here Give Cory a Call at Kentwood at Ford a call (780) 476-8600 And if your too cheap to call long distance here is the 1-800 number 1-866-447-2245

Ball is in your court.

And differnt laws apply here we actually have some thing called buyer protection in this nation.

 

Matthew

Edited January 25, 2009 by matthewq4b

[RichardJensen]

A box frame can be welded together anywhere you want.

There is a huge difference in the engineering of a perimeter frame, as opposed to a ladder frame.

The idea was to have a perimeter frame on a car that shares the front end mounting points with a truck.

In front of the firewall, the frames of the Explorer and Panther in plan view look similar, but as you can see in the pic below, the actual 3-dimensional design of a truck frame is very different from a car frame

 

 

The front subframe seen here is quite obviously not adaptable for use on a car.

[matthewq4b]

see matt...thats the beauty of TESTING...please write that down, along with EVALUATE....and add FEEDBACK.....do you ACTUALLY think the CV was where it is today when it was first released?????????????? Guess what, it was TESTED, EVALUATED and FEEDBACK was given to ford in order for it to fit SPECIFIC NEEDS....it was NOT a turn key cop car with its CURRENT capabilities ( 75 mph rear impact for example ) at its initial gestatation.....guess what...develope the Taurus for 30 years than get back to me.....

 

 

 

Deahn when the was the last iem you tore in to set of struts or even held the bearing plate out the ford upper strut mounting?

 

The Current D3 use exactly the same system as the old taurus. I do nt need to evaluate i have diven D3's with less than 40K miles with blown out rattling banging upper strut mounts. There is an inherant desing flaw in how ford builds these things they will not stand up to reapeated conitunous pounding. Just as the last gen taurus's upper sturt mounts did not. This not a part that can beefed up with out redesigning the upper strount mount tower. That tower is an intregal portion of the unit chassis. Changing it menas changing half a dozen other things in the structure as well not to mention the equipment that would need to be redesigned to fit in the now changed space.

 

The issue that will plage the taurus is the same issue that has plagued all Strut based police units including the modfiied Mac stuts under the fox (the strongest mac struc set up used in a porduction car to date) and that is either early strut failure our upper mount failure. The strut design used in mass produced vehicles does NOT lend it's self to severe service. You may THINK you know better. But the fact is I DO KNOW Better. I sure as the hell shoud hope so or my engineering degree and 30 odd years of experinace is not worth the paper the U OF T printed it on. Nor are my 2 red seal trade certifications worth much.

 

Hmm Salesman that thinks he knows what he is talking about or Enginner that knows what he talking about .. You decide.

 

 

Matthew

[joihan777]

Likely they could not share a frame going forward from the firewall, and here's why:

 

AWD capability

 

If you adopt a low slung engine design (as in passenger cars), it creates all sorts of expensive issues for the front driveshafts. On Bimmers and Benzes, I believe at least one of the half shafts runs =through= the oil pan. Lowering the engine in an Explorer to passenger car acceptable levels (that is, a shorter cowl height) would require similar maneuverings with the front driveshafts.

 

And while you could (conceivably) get by without AWD on a cop car, you'd need it on the Explorer.

 

--

 

Conversely, with transverse AWD, the front drive shafts are already there, off the transaxle, and don't have to be 'squeezed' in. That's a major reason why AWD is very expensive on the 300, and very cheap on the Fusion ($1500 option on Fusion and IIRC $5000 on the 300).

 

---

 

Going backwards, you'd never see a perimeter frame on a light truck because of payload weight distribution: you want the bed to sit on the frame rails, as opposed to being suspended between them.

 

Also, you can't split a frame at the B pillar. You'll see frames divided at the firewall, but never in the middle of the cabin.

 

Finally, the Explorer is going unibody anyway.

 

Thanks for the explanation.

 

So there's really no plan B for circumventing a complete AWD/RWD overhaul for the CV/GM/TC?

 

If thats the case, then I see the panther as a back burner issue for Ford. As long as it pays its way,

then it could trudge on until a decent revamp can be done.

 

Edit: As an aside, the new Presidential "Cadillac One" is really a GMC truck outfitted to resemble a DTS.

No way that would work for a new panther given the balance between engineering/tooling costs & sales volume?

Also, I'm not an engineer, but how is the Wrangler done? It has a fairly squat front end.

Edited January 25, 2009 by joihan777

[RichardJensen]

Enginner that knows what he talking about ..

I wouldn't lean too hard on those engineering credentials, as vehicle design is not your current discipline, nor is it the discipline you were trained for.... To be perfectly frank, I'd put more stock in what you said if you cited credentials as a mechanic as opposed to citing credentials as an engineer at a refinery.

 

And could you PLEASE stop reinforcing the stereotype I have of engineers thinking that they know more than everyone else about everything else.

 

You engineers are about as bad as computer programmers who think that they're qualified designers.

 

And before you say "well, you didn't know what points were," I'll remind you that you were (and may continue to be) pretty sketchy on the concept of dual sovereignty, as it relates to lawmaking in the US, as well as the makeup and privileges of the US Senate.

 

But that doesn't keep you from routinely spouting off about what the US government (or what state governments) 'should' do.

Edited January 25, 2009 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

So there's really no plan B for circumventing a complete AWD/RWD overhaul for the CV/GM/TC?

No. You'd have to totally rework the front suspension of the panther too.

 

--

 

As Austin has said about RWD platform sharing----more permutations and combinations than we have cooked up here have been looked at. The problem is that RWD is a specialty market. And specialty markets are........ special. Not one-size-fits-all.