Farley says Ford needs new Cop Car

[armadamaster]

Our resident panther expert (the one who has owned panthers and is worth listening to)

 

LMAO, you got me on that one Richard, I about blew sweet tea all over the monitor.

 

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.

 

The new environazi CAFE legislation is exactly why I say update the Panther and milk until 2020, or get it reclassified as a light truck.

[RichardJensen]

how is the Wrangler done?

See for yourself....

 

Crowded, yes, but the differential and torque tubes fit under the engine. I believe you're looking at the oil pan immediately behind and to the left of the differential.

 

Obviously not a setup that could fit under a car with a conventional cowl height... park a Jeep next to a car sometime and you'll see how much higher the cowl is from the floorpan.

Edited January 25, 2009 by RichardJensen

[92merc]

After seeing the prototype shots of the next gen Explorer, I'm having a hard time understanding why police couldn't go to that vehicle. With FW/AW, it should fit any police need. From the shots, and from Ford's direction with "trucks" in general, they have been lowering the heights on these vehicles so it should be low enough to not cause any problems. With RSC, rollover shouldn't be a risk. The Explorer will likely be built beefy enough to handle police duty. Better than the Taurus anyway. It should have ample room.

 

Proposed EB 2.5 should be more than enough power and get good gas mileage. Could have the 3.5 NA for those that don't want turbo.

 

Ford just needs to design the Explorer with police duty in mind. I see no reason to keep making these unique platforms just for police duty. Shoot, half the police vehicles in my area are Tahoo's anyway. Only highway patrol still stick to "cars".

[battyr]

As cars become more electrified, AWD improves, and Suspension improvement such as Revoknucle become more common, I can see the difference between FWD and RWD to blur.

 

You really only need to use RWD for heavy trucks.

 

The D3 can be built tough enough for a Cop car. The real question, is it tough enough?

 

I would thinks it is best for Ford to put that extra effort to make the FWD/AWD Explorer tough enough to jump curbs and design in the capabilities for a bumper push bar.

[rkisler]

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.

 

 

Richard, I support this post and would like to add a few tid bits.

 

AWD in RWD vehicles

1. How this is laid out depends on the ride height you want to end up with. You are absolutely correct in saying that car-based RWD applications involve a takeoff from the rear of the transmission with a shaft that goes forward and then through the oil pan. In truck/SUV based products, the ride height is higher and you can go underneath the oil pan.

2. If a car is designed from the beginning with AWD, it's a lot easier (and less expensive) to add it as an option. The packaging of the AWD can be a pain. First, you have to bump out the floor for the tranfer case, then you have to find the right place to put the shaft in the front (you need to run it through the oil pan at a main bearing to keep the height low), then you have to get the shaft to the wheels. Often times, there is a big tearup -- body structure, engine mounting, suspension arms, knuckles -- that could increase investment to the point where it's not worth the trip. And sometimes, the physical layout could result in angled shafts that can have undesirable effects.

3. The Panther was studied for AWD on at least two occasions. I can guarantee you it's not worth the trip.

 

Frames

1. You are correct that there is a fundamental difference in frames between a car and SUV. And they are not compatible. It has to do with ride height and flat load floor vs. the ability to be down lower for good entry/egress.

2. There have been some suggestions for a combined BOF car and SUV. It's been studied. Forget it, unless you are considering a Presidential limo.

3. You are correct that you wouldn't have a frame that was "half and half".

4. Of course, as you mentioned, it's a moot point anyway, as the application of BOF for Ford will be limited to trucks and large SUV's.

 

As we have all mentioned numerous times, the Panther is going down for the count. It is apparent that Ford will not put any further investment into this ancient platform which has served the company well. And I think that Ford in hindsight would like to have back the investment it took to move the Town Car to St. Thomas.

 

You can't make a business on cop cars with the present facility at St. Thomas. Cop cars represent 50--60k, but a single shift at St. Thomas is around 120k. With the fading Panther retail volumes, and pressure for higher fuel economy taxis, I don't see any possibility of filling the rest of the shift. I don't think any of us know what investments would be required to keep the Panther current just for environmental and safety regulations. And expending engineering effort on this platform which is not part of Ford's future plans is just a distraction.

 

So it would seem the D3 would serve as a good basis for future cop cars -- both in Taurus and perhaps Explorer guise (although a Flex paddy wagon would be pretty retro and cool and I think -- imagine bars on the windows!). But it would also seem to me that there should be consideration given to the upcoming Ford c and c/d -based people carriers for local duty.

[Noah Harbinger]

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.

 

Engineers are better than regular people, and that includes you.

[matthewq4b]

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.

 

 

First off I do not work at a refinery. I work with a company that designs piping systems, pipeline line monitoring and pumping facilities we also do process integration to existing facility's. We are a company that specializes in this field we have done work for every major oil producer on the planet in pretty near every oil producing nation. We are a member of the ARC and have contributed many protocols that have reduced costs build times and increased productivity. Most of our work is consultation on designs to reduce cost and build times. Or integration of existing systems to be compatible with new technology. My Field is basically cost cutting and stream lining process equipment to be cheaper to build and construct and improve efficiency in operations. In comparison a car is pretty damn simple.

 

Not only am I Red Seal Mechanic (worked with Ford and GMC in the late 80's and early 90's) I have built and scratch designed and assisted in the construction in numerous chassis for Race and of road applications. Including tracked units

Even now some of the older guys still knock on my door for help in tuning & mods.

 

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.

 

 

I has nothing to do reinforcing the stereotype it has to do with first hand knowledge. when was the last time you or any ones else here did this kind of work? Or has the base fundamentals on engineering drafting and design? Very few here have.

 

Or designed and built automotive use components from scratch or modded existing stuff for longer longevity or better durability ? I have consulted with buddies that were Ford engineers on improving suspension designs. The 95 Panther front suspension upgrade has a little of my handi work in it.

That suspension upgrade was a compromise due to funding limitations. A suspension was needed that would bolt to the existing chassis with no changes but had to able to be changed later to a different mounting system with out changing the base suspension parts. The 95 upgrade was a funds limited change that did not have the budget at that time for chassis changes. But the old grease able A Arm pivots on the PI units had to go. Yes the panther upper A rm pivots were not rubber bushings but a steel on steel greaseble pivot prior to 95.

 

I have been messing with cars and light trucks for longer then most on the board have been alive. (over 40 years) I have seen what works what dose not work. Seen some brilliant ideas fail in the execution. I have Designed and raced stock cars my family has been involved the automotive and transportation sector in one way or another for over 100 years. My Great Uncle Jon being the lead race mechanic for Rolls Royce at one time. Every one was in one way or another connected to the sector in one form or another at one time.

 

 

SO ya i like to think I know what I'm talking about.

I have a far far better understanding about the basics of this stuff than most of the armchair enthusiasts on this board. Including yourself. It has nothing to do about perpetuation of a stereotype but applying piratical knowledge and engineering fundamentals.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I do not fully understand concept of dual sovereignty as it applies to the States in the U.S. But that should not limit any one from listening to what has worked elsewhere. And using the information to adapt it to that situation. Apparently things down south are broken in a big way, either a Person can say "we can't do that here" or you can find away to make it work there. Canada hit the spot the U.S is in now in the 80's we were a full 35% behind the U.S in standard of living. Had much lower average wages a higher debt load higher taxes out of control spending and a slower growing and less adaptable economy we could not react to economic changes worth damn. Corruption was rampant and politicians and their Friends were getting rich while the rest of us struggled. Sound familiar ?

 

We turned the corner and got things under control. And moved forward to improve the situation at hand.

We revised the banking laws, (Required a federal mandate to do so) Changed the way elected officials were allowed to conduct business modified the agreements with the provinces. The feds got rid of basically all the crown corporations. That were nothing but money pits under federal control as the nepotism was absolutely rampant.

 

The government of Canada today bears little resemblance to what we had 30 years ago and it is still in a state of change. The base fundamentals are the same but that is about it, and even those are changing. Governments can not stay static as the world changes. Policies and laws agreements and the manner and how in which Government conducts it's self or does business has to change with the times. Even we are not changing or adapting at the pace necessary and are taking an overly cautious approach to it.

 

Until this global economic collapse we were the ONLY first world nation paying down our debt. This year we will run a 34 Billion dollar deficit over 20 billion of which is the stimulus package.

We had one of the fastest growing economies of the first world. And even in the face of the economic collapse we are not going to be hit that hard and are still going to maintain one of if not the lowest unemployment rates.

 

So excuse me for giving you an view on how things can be made to work within the confines of a freely elected government.

 

What was done here can be made to work within the parameters of the laws of the U.S. Not identically of course but the fundamentals CAN be applied.

 

Matthew

[Noah Harbinger]

But it would also seem to me that there should be consideration given to the upcoming Ford c and c/d -based people carriers for local duty.

 

Seriously! In most of the world, cops drive Fiestas. But cops in the US are too worried about looking bad-ass to ever consider driving a small car.

[matthewq4b]

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

 

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.

 

 

Actually Richard there is not that big a difference. From a design and engineering standpoint they are very different. But they both do the same job. They just do it differently and for different reasons.

 

This goes to looking at the history of both and why we have them. And how we ended up where we are now.

 

The ladder frame was the first frame used under vehicles. It's simple and cheap to make mind you modern ladder frames are very complicated and not cheap to make.

 

But a ladder frames present a problem since it is a straight frame front to back, the frame rails run under the floor boards. This imposes severe limits on vehicle design. You are stuck with floor boards and a roof line that sit high off the ground. Like in trucks but of course in trucks this is not an issue. In a car it presents a problem.

 

The first attempt to over come this was the X frame like the Lark frame that was posted minus the side rails .

 

The X frames had a smaller cross section height wise than the conventional Ladder frame thus lowering the floor boards and roof lines. They had a massive central gusset that sat in the driveline tunnel. The problem was these frames had almost NO torsional strength gusset or not and twisted like a limp noodle. Plus there was no side crash protection other than the body's sheet metal, they used the body of the vehicle to give it is torsional strength and for crash protection. Part of the reason early fifties cars were built like tanks. GMC used the X frame more than and longer than any one else. When they dropped it GMC was pushing it's wide track thing. Remember that ? those low slung GM sleds of the 60’s

 

Some manufacturers tried to alleviate the torsional weakness of the X frame by adding side rails. And it gave added crash protection.

 

Either variation of the X frame still did not totally alleviate the issue of lowering the floor boards and was still keeping roof lines higher than desired.

 

Ford Introduced the modern perimeter frame in the 1950's. The side rail of the perimeter frame sit's inboard of the rocker panels thus leaving the floor boards completely unobstructed and allows for much lower floor and lower roofline.

 

Now were the suspension bits are concerned both the ladder and the Perimeter frame are both about the same width over the wheels all suspension designs have been hung from both Ladder and perimeter type frames. (except maybe mac struts) Neither has any advantages over the other in terms of suspension design use. The perimeter is a little more accepting of live rear suspensions. But they can and have been done on Ladder frames.

 

Remember the Sport Trac has a perimeter frame. Ladder frames are not just limited to cars.

 

 

A unit body Police car would be fine as long as the structure is designed for the abuse. Will it have the longevity of a BOF absolutely not, but should be able to be built within reasonable cost for a 100K of worth of severe service. Cabbies will not get 600K out of them with out them feeling and sounding like a rattle trap. A BOF unit would be ideal for the application but it be orphaned.

 

 

A RWD unit chassis capable of AWD and RWD is all that is needed. A unit chassis capable of severe service should also be able to under pin a pile of stuff.

Is it necessary to have it FWD I do not really think so. Once you move that far up the food chain FWD is not a selling point but a hindrance.

 

One of the stumbling blocks is the Oil Pan for the front drive shafts.

Really the best solution is to get rid of the oil pan and dry sump the engine.

This approach is not really as costly as you would think. There is adequate space under hood in basically in every thing for the reservoir. Also dry sumping the engine would allow for a lower installed engine height thus lowering the vehicles CG. Most modern engines have external Oil coolers any way so the swap is not as hard as one would think.

 

The scavenge pump can easily be an electric unit remote from the engine, as it s not a high pressure pump but just needs to move the oil.

 

The Chassis should under pin the CV/Taurus the GM the TC the Explorer and Sport Trac and the Stang the Falcon and the OZ Ute . Leave the CV name in the line up for Police units and Gov’t fleet and the Taurus name for civi units.

 

 

Every thing can share basic Front suspension design. Unequal lengh A arms . The whole front suspension should be mounted on a sub K frame like the current Panther.

That way the front frame rails do not have to modified to accept the AWD RWD or truck applications.

 

 

The Explorer and Sport track and OZ utes can have 2 dedicated K frames with more suspension travel and Higher ride height. One for AWD/4WD and one for RWD.

 

 

The Taurus/CV GM and TC and Falcon use 2 K frames one for RWD one for AWD the CV is not available in AWD the GM is, The CV is Police- Govt only with a unique front clip and tail lights and solid axel the cars are fitted with steel bumpers the like the old mini LTD's . The GM is retail and Fleet for cabbies. Falcon can be left to the Aussies to mess with along with the Ute variant. The TC once again becomes flag ship AWD standard with a delete option for the coach builders this delete for coach builders will Automatically upgrade the cars to a CV spec suspension (higher rate springs larger sway bars solid rear axel etc ).

 

The Stang has it own K frame for lower ride height and better suspnsion geometry for handling it will sacrifice some ride quality in the name of corner carving. The Stang to a degree will still be an orphan as it will proboly have to sit on a narrower version of the chassis.

 

 

The rear suspension is the Control blade. For the Taurus GM/ TC Flacon and Stang. The CV Explorer Sport Track and Ute CV and the drag pack Stang (limited production priced jacked Stang) use the 3 link solid axel.

 

The 3 Link solid axle can be easily mounted on the Control blades hard points. The only thing that would need to change is the sheet metal directly above the pumpkin and this is not a structural zone it would just mean a different panel there. In the trucks it would not need to be changed as you have the extra ride height. The CV would need this area redesigned any way to withstand 75MPH impacts more this can easily be moved on to the TC for livery use as well. The price premium on the Stang would cover the mods needed and those individuals would easily sacrifice some trunk space for their purpose of fast quarter mile times.

 

Yes it would mean pile of engineering and would end up being a very expensive bit of kit to design. But the segments it would sit in would not need a new chassis for a decade or longer. It gives Ford way more than enough time to recover the investment

 

Lets look at the age of the current chassis in the segments. Mustang can trace it roots to the DEW 98 The panthers are 30 years old the Explorer a decade the Taurus the Newest of the bunch is now 4 or 5 years old. Ford would have at least decade to recover the costs.

 

This is the only logical option all the full size car and mid sized SUV's need to be consolidated on to one chassis.

 

Leave the boys in OZ to design the Ute off the chassis then NA can lift the base engineering add the explorer cab and a box for the F 100.

 

The D3 chassis can stay for the crossovers as those are bust suited for that platform.

 

It would be possible to consolidate the CV, Taurus GM. TC, Falcon, Explorer, Sport Trac, Stang, , OZ ute and an F 100 on to one chassis.

 

Matthew

Edited January 25, 2009 by matthewq4b

[ANTAUS]

That was very informative, thank you for taking the time to outline that so well.

[RichardJensen]

Not only am I Red Seal Mechanic (worked with Ford and GMC in the late 80's and early 90's)

There's your credentials. Your comment about 'next to that a car is pretty damn simple' is exactly what bugs me about certain engineers. You all think your particular field is so much tougher than everyone else's.

Or designed and built automotive use components from scratch or modded existing stuff for longer longevity or better durability ? I have consulted with buddies that were Ford engineers on improving suspension designs. The 95 Panther front suspension upgrade has a little of my handi work in it.

Again, I'm going to have to give Austin credit over you, especially when it comes to the discussion of sharing a BOF architecture between cars and trucks, and AWD/RWD.

SO ya i like to think I know what I'm talking about.

Look. Your uncle's job has nothing to do with what you know. Nor does your job as an engineer qualify you to comment on how an engineer in some other specialty does his job.

 

For instance, I'd love to hear your comments about where, exactly, you would draw the line when it comes to scripting languages vs. full scale application development. For instance, do you see benefits in continuing the trend of using the web browser as the basic platform for delivering b2b, crm, and erp applications? Or do you think that the browser adds too much overhead, and that while AJAX is neat, that it isn't nearly robust enough for mission critical applications? Do you think that there's a need for streamlining web delivered apps, or should we all just buy bigger computers? What about server virtualization and reducing power consumption--how can we do that better?

 

I mean, surely software development is much simpler than what you do for a living.

 

Or, perhaps this: Take a blank sheet of paper and sketch out a design for a website that effectively captures the best attributes of the dealership you buy your cars from.

 

Surely that TOO is simpler than what you do for a living, and therefore, you should be able to do it in a snap.

 

 

I do not fully understand concept of dual sovereignty as it applies to the States in the U.S. But that should not limit any one from listening to what has worked elsewhere.

 

Right.

 

The thing is, you seldom concede the weight against any of your arguments.

 

For instance, I don't think you grasp how difficult it would be to actually scale back emissions regulations in order to make diesel engines affordable.

 

I, for one, have no idea how representation works up in Canada, but I do know how it works down here:

 

Take a look at these pages:

 

http://hersethsandlin.house.gov/contact.html

http://thune.senate.gov/public/ (bottom of the page) and this page: http://thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...ntCasework.Home

http://johnson.senate.gov/contact/

 

These are offices staffed 8:00-5:00 with phone numbers and everything, to which any constituent is invited to visit with any issue on their mind. Nine offices for 750,000 people. Other, more populous jurisdictions have a lower ratio of offices to people. California has 118 congressional offices for 33.8 million. Still, that's one office for every 300k people.

 

As a result, it is ----=====EXTREMELY======----- easy for pressure groups to make themselves heard, and to influence legislation.

 

Then there's this:

 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/t...out.html#howcan

 

Again, it is EXTREMELY easy for pressure groups to make themselves heard, and to influence agency regulation.

 

Then there is the gigantic 'reserved powers' clause (in the 10th amendment) that takes huge swaths of authority and delegates it to the states.

 

Take a look, sometime, at the patchwork of tax structures in the US. It will absolutely blow you away, because every single state has virtually unlimited freedom as to how it funds its own operations.

 

----

 

I would advise you to avoid citing the significantly smaller and significantly more homogeneous Canadian pattern as something that can be easily pushed across a country this large, this diverse, and with an extremely long tradition of decentralized power.

 

Because, see the goofy thing about the alleged 'imperial presidency' is that the US President, via the executive branch offices, is probably only now approaching the fringes of the authority exercised by PMs in Westminster style monolithic governments.

 

----

 

Another factor to consider is the relationship between campaign contributions and the first amendment. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that campaign contributions constitute an expression of free speech.

 

-----

 

Basically, it's like this:

 

1) The Supreme Court makes it possible for special interest groups to funnel money by the truck load to politicians

 

2) Industry groups are allowed to draft legislation (this is, for instance, why all 50 states have stringent dealership franchise laws: the dealers' lobbyists provided boilerplate legislation to elected officials in all 50 states). Federal regulations can also be proposed by special interest groups.

 

3) Congressional offices in districts as well as the regulatory comment periods allow pressure groups to orchestrate campaigns to influence policy and legislation

 

Therefore what happens, inevitably, is the loudest complainers and richest contributors get their way.

 

Now if you can figure out some way to convince the Supreme Court that free speech and campaign contributions are not the same thing, while simultaneously figuring out how to prevent district offices and regulatory decision making from becoming prey to those who whine the loudest, you may have something.

Edited January 26, 2009 by RichardJensen

[Len_A]

There's your credentials. Your comment about 'next to that a car is pretty damn simple' is exactly what bugs me about certain engineers. You all think your particular field is so much tougher than everyone else's.

 

Again, I'm going to have to give Austin credit over you, especially when it comes to the discussion of sharing a BOF architecture between cars and trucks, and AWD/RWD.

 

Look. Your uncle's job has nothing to do with what you know. Nor does your job as an engineer qualify you to comment on how an engineer in some other specialty does his job.

 

For instance, I'd love to hear your comments about where, exactly, you would draw the line when it comes to scripting languages vs. full scale application development. For instance, do you see benefits in continuing the trend of using the web browser as the basic platform for delivering b2b, crm, and erp applications? Or do you think that the browser adds too much overhead, and that while AJAX is neat, that it isn't nearly robust enough for mission critical applications? Do you think that there's a need for streamlining web delivered apps, or should we all just buy bigger computers? What about server virtualization and reducing power consumption--how can we do that better?

 

I mean, surely software development is much simpler than what you do for a living.

 

Or, perhaps this: Take a blank sheet of paper and sketch out a design for a website that effectively captures the best attributes of the dealership you buy your cars from.

 

Surely that TOO is simpler than what you do for a living, and therefore, you should be able to do it in a snap.

 

 

 

 

Right.

 

The thing is, you seldom concede the weight against any of your arguments.

 

For instance, I don't think you grasp how difficult it would be to actually scale back emissions regulations in order to make diesel engines affordable.

 

I, for one, have no idea how representation works up in Canada, but I do know how it works down here:

 

Take a look at these pages:

 

http://hersethsandlin.house.gov/contact.html

http://thune.senate.gov/public/ (bottom of the page) and this page: http://thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...ntCasework.Home

http://johnson.senate.gov/contact/

 

These are offices staffed 8:00-5:00 with phone numbers and everything, to which any constituent is invited to visit with any issue on their mind. Nine offices for 750,000 people. Other, more populous jurisdictions have a lower ratio of offices to people. California has 118 congressional offices for 33.8 million. Still, that's one office for every 300k people.

 

As a result, it is ----=====EXTREMELY======----- easy for pressure groups to make themselves heard, and to influence legislation.

 

Then there's this:

 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/t...out.html#howcan

 

Again, it is EXTREMELY easy for pressure groups to make themselves heard, and to influence agency regulation.

 

Then there is the gigantic 'reserved powers' clause (in the 10th amendment) that takes huge swaths of authority and delegates it to the states.

 

Take a look, sometime, at the patchwork of tax structures in the US. It will absolutely blow you away, because every single state has virtually unlimited freedom as to how it funds its own operations.

 

----

 

I would advise you to avoid citing the significantly smaller and significantly more homogeneous Canadian pattern as something that can be easily pushed across a country this large, this diverse, and with an extremely long tradition of decentralized power.

 

Because, see the goofy thing about the alleged 'imperial presidency' is that the US President, via the executive branch offices, is probably only now approaching the fringes of the authority exercised by PMs in Westminster style monolithic governments.

 

----

 

Another factor to consider is the relationship between campaign contributions and the first amendment. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that campaign contributions constitute an expression of free speech.

 

-----

 

Basically, it's like this:

 

1) The Supreme Court makes it possible for special interest groups to funnel money by the truck load to politicians

 

2) Industry groups are allowed to draft legislation (this is, for instance, why all 50 states have stringent dealership franchise laws: the dealers' lobbyists provided boilerplate legislation to elected officials in all 50 states). Federal regulations can also be proposed by special interest groups.

 

3) Congressional offices in districts as well as the regulatory comment periods allow pressure groups to orchestrate campaigns to influence policy and legislation

 

Therefore what happens, inevitably, is the loudest complainers and richest contributors get their way.

 

Now if you can figure out some way to convince the Supreme Court that free speech and campaign contributions are not the same thing, while simultaneously figuring out how to prevent district offices and regulatory decision making from becoming prey to those who whine the loudest, you may have something.

Very true, and very, very well said.

[battyr]

Actually Richard there is not that big a difference. From a design and engineering standpoint they are very different. But they both do the same job. They just do it differently and for different reasons.

 

...

 

It would be possible to consolidate the CV, Taurus GM. TC, Falcon, Explorer, Sport Trac, Stang, , OZ ute and an F 100 on to one chassis.

 

Matthew

 

Thanks Matthew.

 

I have found a couple of your posts, helpful and very informative. You made it clear that you have a thorough understanding of frame technology. Although I have a good understanding of engineering, I do not have the education and more important, the experience.

 

Although I do not share your optimism toward the value of wide scale use of BOF vehicles, I agree on feasibility of sharing frame engineering between sellect cars and trucks.

 

Your engineering credentials have been criticized. This was done by someone who decided to discredit you, because they were unable to formulate an arguement that could beat yours. Many people use the word Engineering in their title, but they are not real engineers. From what I have seen all engineers from all Canadian universities are very competant. In Canada, you can not buy an education. You must earn it. All Canadian engineers get the same basic education before they specialize. I have known many Software Engineers. They learn the hardware first, before they start writing software.

 

You explained that the Sportrack already uses a perimeter frame. This means that the Explorer does too. This means my arguements for a hybrid frame is redundant, since vehicle like the Explorer and Sportrack already has a perimeter frame. Another person, who should have already known this, criticized my idea, rather than confess that it is posible for a car and truck to share frame technology.

 

I couldn't follow where dual sovereignty comes into the discussion. I am sure you and I both have a better understanding of it than the average American does. We have our own version of it. It is called Quebec. I think you had made your point about it. Since you are not a constitutional expert, you made it clear that you are not prepared continue arguing about it, with someone who would cleverly copies links found with google that happen to suports his views. You could waste a lot of time researching dual sovereignty, but it would be over many peoples heads, and the other people would be afraid to publicly support you anyway. Well, I will.

 

Thank God for the freedom of speech. I thinks this board should be about sharing ideas, all appropriate ideas. Not glorifying the intellect of a small number of people. If It comes down to that, the board will end up dying. I often support ideas that are not the best, just because I thinks there is value in the ideas, and things can be learned from honest discussion. The key people on this board are also on other boards. If things don't improve, then people will just move over to the other boards.

[Deanh]

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

if you beleive you LOCK IN incentives at the time of the initial order you are SADLY mistaken Matt, and if someone has portrayed that to you they are flat out lying...guess what would happen...EVERYONE would wait till 0 percent and order their vehicles correct????, dealers would continue paying flooring on vehicles that would not be moving and the dealer base would go under....sorry Matt, you, and whomever told you this is vehemently WRONG.....call a dealer.....

Edited January 27, 2009 by Deanh

[RichardJensen]

Your engineering credentials have been criticized. This was done by someone who decided to discredit you, because they were unable to formulate an arguement that could beat yours.

His engineering credentials were NEVER criticized. His use of them was.

 

IMO, his citation of his status as a 'lowly' mechanic carries a heckuva lot more weight when it comes to identifying potentially problematic designs than his status as an engineer in a completely unrelated field.

 

----

 

There are two things you need to get straight about me, and about life in general:

 

- Bad ideas are just that. Bad ideas. They are neither indicative of the intelligence of the person that proposes them, nor are they indicative of the individual's overall character.

 

If you feel personally threatened by having your ideas criticized here, then you were pretty poorly served by your college education.

 

- Positive assertions require meaningful support.

 

If you think that 'that strut design is not durable, and I should know because I'm an engineer in a completely unrelated but, in my opinion, more complicated field' is a supportable statement, why don't you enroll in a college course and try and use it in a research paper.

 

If you want to say something here, be prepared to back it up. If you can't back it up, be prepared to have it dismissed.

 

Nothing personal. That's just the standard I have for discussions here.

 

If you don't like it, feel free to leave.

Edited January 26, 2009 by RichardJensen

[NickF1011]

The new environazi CAFE legislation is exactly why I say update the Panther and milk until 2020, or get it reclassified as a light truck.

 

I don't really see what CAFE has to do with the Panthers on any substantial level anyway, at least in relation to the police market. They are exempt in those cases. Taxi market is another thing altogether, but the fuel economy of the Panthers works against its long-term health in that case, not for it.

[Cocheese]

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.

 

It took less then 6 months for NYC to reverse it's decision and allow for CV to be used as Taxis again because their replacements weren't working out.

 

Guess they do know how well the Escape held up as a cab.

[jpd80]

QUOTE (RichardJensen @ Jan 19 2009, 10:20 PM)

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.

Please don't lump me in with that assertion, I would love noithing better for a viable alternative to exist for the Falcon. If indeed FoA decides to go D3 for the next product cycle, that means our existing Sedans, half chassis pick up and Territory CUV can be transitioned to international products - meaning exports of variations to other parts of the company.

Edited January 27, 2009 by jpd80

[Deanh]

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

please re-read my earlier post...evaluate, test, feedback....you mention mass produced cars...so the CV wasn't a mass produced car when initially launched?????your perspective is from the engineering standpoint...mine from the sales....however, if you are in fact an Engineer...it has 2 ee's in it, and its PRODUCTION not purduction, STRUT instead of strunt, means instead of menas....I'm sorry, but the holier than thou attitude deserved that response, AND from a CHRONIC bad speller....and believe it or not Matt, design has come a LONG way since the panther days, I know, thats too hard to fathom but get over it, there is no doubt in my mind (in the slightest) that the Taurus could be beefed up substantially if necessary to withstand a true beating for its predicted lifespan if utilized as a police car....they turn them close to 125k here...THEN they become taxis....and Matt, right back at you.....when was the last time you sold a vehicle and realized that it is the PUBLIC that guides future product...not geriatric Panther loyalists, people looking for a "steal" used or guys in uniforms?????...thus my perspective IS from the sales standpoint, your engineering may hold water but we are talking about a vehicle that is soon to be refered to in the past sense....Ford DOESN"T NEED THE CROWN VIC OR ITS FLEET SALES TO STAY AFLOAT, so stop touting its plaudits.....

Edited January 27, 2009 by Deanh

[joihan777]

Did anyone actually figure out if the panthers make any money or not?

 

Also, after reading some of the great posts (and trying to comprehend some of the finer points), I'm left to wonder:

 

Since the Panthers & Mustang are both RWD but have fundamentally different chassis,

could a future RWD unibody Mustang platform be lengthened & strengthened enough to use as

a new Panther platform? Is the main problem simply the suspension strength?

 

Or, as they say, this horse ain't moving no more...

Edited January 27, 2009 by joihan777

[armadamaster]

I don't really see what CAFE has to do with the Panthers on any substantial level anyway, at least in relation to the police market. They are exempt in those cases. Taxi market is another thing altogether, but the fuel economy of the Panthers works against its long-term health in that case, not for it.

 

Well, Chrysler got the Magnum rated as a truck, I figured the Panthers would be an easy argument as such. Plus the way the environazis are pushing to up CAFE now constantly I was just thinking it might buy the Panther a few more years of production before everyone is forced into a Prius as the "large" car.

 

 

Did anyone actually figure out if the panthers make any money or not?

 

Also, after reading some of the great posts (and trying to comprehend some of the finer points), I'm left to wonder:

 

Since the Panthers & Mustang are both RWD but have fundamentally different chassis,

could a future RWD unibody Mustang platform be lengthened & strengthened enough to use as

a new Panther platform? Is the main problem simply the suspension strength?

 

Or, as they say, this horse ain't moving no more...

 

 

I think it would be more logical to place the now nearly 4K pound Mustang on a shortened Panther platform instead. :reading:

Edited January 27, 2009 by Armada Master

[lfeg]

"Farley says Ford needs new Cop Car". That sums it up. The CV and its platform mates are on the way out. No updates, no rework. Ford needs a replacement for something that is going away. Pretty simple.

 

What will it be? No one posting here knows. My hunch is that it will be a version of the Taurus. Ford will also do as GM has and have police duty versions of SUVs available.

 

Ford is not flush with cash, but they are flush with debt. Any of the suggestions made in this topic are very costly. It is not as simple as stitching together pieces and parts - there are federal standards involved (the same as for all passenger vehicles) that chew up engineering time and validation effort. There are emissions standards and CAFE regulations that must be met. (CV bought by state and local entities figure into the CAFE fleet calculations.) Rember, now that Pelosi and Co. are in charge, CO2 will be considered a regulated emission, which will in effect raise CAFE. And there are facility issues - Ford must make more effective use of existing facilities. It makes no sense to operate a plant at less than a one shift production rate just to keep an orphan platform in production from an economics standpoint. Then there is stamping capacity ties up and so on and so on. Ford needs to have plants at a high utilization factor, and converting marginal product to better utilized platforms helps in this effort.

[NickF1011]

Well, Chrysler got the Magnum rated as a truck, I figured the Panthers would be an easy argument as such. Plus the way the environazis are pushing to up CAFE now constantly I was just thinking it might buy the Panther a few more years of production before everyone is forced into a Prius as the "large" car.

 

Chrysler could not get the Charger or 300 classified as a truck though. So unless Ford has plans to make Panther wagons again, I don't see their classification changing anytime soon.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Bring back the 40 MPG 1959 Ford Anglia which will meet the 2020 US EPA fuel consumption requrements, it was a trusty workhorse for the British Police in Goathland.

 

[NickF1011]

Bring back the 40 MPG 1959 Ford Anglia which will meet the 2020 US EPA fuel consumption requrements, it was a trusty workhorse for the British Police in Goathland.

 

 

I won't even begin to list the reasons that is a non-starter.