Would Ford put Taurus Fusion and Mondeo on one Platform?

[jpd80]

GM is planning to use the upgraded FWD/AWD Epsilon II platform to make both mid sized vehicles

like Malibu and larger vehicles like La Crosse and Impala. Providing the width is acceptable, this

should be basically an increase/decrease in wheelbase.

 

If Ford were planning on consolidating platforms, altering or merging EUCD with D3 products would

enable a large number of products to be built under one super FWD/AWD platform.

 

Does anyone see this as likely or will Ford continue with separate platforms?

 

Could they stay separate but share expensive items like powertrains, suspension and electrical systems?

[RichardJensen]

What compromises would have to be made?

 

IMO, the weight difference (c. 800-1,000lbs) between the Edge & Flex, Fusion & Taurus, argue against a shared platform.

[WC-MAN]

Look at Chrysler and how stretching a platform to fit two sizes worked. It didn't. Too many compromises. And the D3 is not a good platform to shorten.

[jpd80]

What compromises would have to be made?

 

IMO, the weight difference (c. 800-1,000lbs) between the Edge & Flex, Fusion & Taurus, argue against a shared platform.

Maybe I'm looking at the the wrong way around,

As you have said before cost savings are made at the supplier level, not the fabrication shop.

 

Perhaps sharing power train and electrical systems is what makes the platforms more efficient .

Maybe the Frames and suspension are part of the uniqueness of derivatives like the CUVs?

[RichardJensen]

Perhaps sharing power train and electrical systems is what makes the platforms more efficient. Maybe the Frames and suspension are part of the uniqueness of derivatives like the CUVs?

I think you need to be careful sharing suspension bits when you're talking about weight differences as big as that between Ford's Ds & CDs.

 

Even among the CDs, the Edge has different suspension components than the Fusion.....

[battyr]

GM is planning to use the upgraded FWD/AWD Epsilon II platform to make both mid sized vehicles

like Malibu and larger vehicles like La Crosse and Impala. Providing the width is acceptable, this

should be basically an increase/decrease in wheelbase.

 

If Ford were planning on consolidating platforms, altering or merging EUCD with D3 products would

enable a large number of products to be built under one super FWD/AWD platform.

 

Does anyone see this as likely or will Ford continue with separate platforms?

 

Could they stay separate but share expensive items like powertrains, suspension and electrical systems?

 

Ford could use the EUCD for a slightly smaller Taurus. The rest of the D3's are too big and would require the EUCD to become too heavy. Ford wants to reduce the weight of their next generation cars by 200 lbs.

 

They could replace the D cars with GRWD and try to use as many EUCD technology and parts as posible. Or they could use a unique FWD body structure in the D3, but use as much EUCD technology and parts as posible.

Edited April 5, 2009 by battyr

[2b2]

GM is planning to use the upgraded FWD/AWD Epsilon II platform to make both mid sized vehicles

like Malibu and larger vehicles like La Crosse and Impala. Providing the width is acceptable, this

should be basically an increase/decrease in wheelbase.

 

If Ford were planning on consolidating platforms, altering or merging EUCD with D3 products would

enable a large number of products to be built under one super FWD/AWD platform.

 

Does anyone see this as likely or will Ford continue with separate platforms?

 

Could they stay separate but share expensive items like powertrains, suspension and electrical systems?

I remembering reading that this is/was exactly what would happen when the Fusion/Mondeo global nextgen came out

but

haven't seen anything about it lately

 

imho the Taurus is too big -- not a lot but some -- and could see it-or-its-successor shrinking a bit

&

leaving the D4 for Cuvs & a bigger-than-MKS Lincoln Only

Edited April 5, 2009 by 2b2

[Versa-Tech]

This argument was lost as soon as it was proposed that Ford should mimic any plan made by GM in the past year. VT > < GM

[joihan777]

Maybe I'm looking at the the wrong way around,

As you have said before cost savings are made at the supplier level, not the fabrication shop.

 

Perhaps sharing power train and electrical systems is what makes the platforms more efficient .

Maybe the Frames and suspension are part of the uniqueness of derivatives like the CUVs?

 

I always wondered if sharing powertrains & 'under the hood' bits also helped Ford with warranty costs.

 

I mean, not only will you get volume using same powertrain/electricals etc. thus improving costs/ quality (I hope)

but if & when something goes wrong the dealership mechanics will be better/ more efficient at getting it repaired.

I see that as a win-win situation. I had a bad experience with dealership mechanics before. Keep it simple!

 

I think the Taurus/ Flex is too different sized from a Fusion/ Edge.

[pcsario]

There's a LWB Mondeo and we all know about Volvo's recent LWB S80, so it's a safe stretch.

 

Yes it could be done, just not this gen.

 

BTW Austin or someone else said the Edge has it's own platform, it's not really CD3.

[RichardJensen]

I always wondered if sharing powertrains & 'under the hood' bits also helped Ford with warranty costs.

Yes it does. One of the major pushes at improving quality was more parts sharing both across lines, but also (where possible) across vehicle generations (this as far back as c. 2002/2003).

 

Shared electronics and electrics, as well as minor hardware (latches and hinges) are opportunities to reduce parts cost, streamline flexible assembly procedures for workers (fewer build defects) and reduce opportunity for design defects.

Edited April 5, 2009 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

There's a LWB Mondeo and we all know about Volvo's recent LWB S80, so it's a safe stretch.

 

Yes it could be done, just not this gen.

 

BTW Austin or someone else said the Edge has it's own platform, it's not really CD3.

It's still classed as a CD3 but has a strut front end, I wouldn't be surprised if they're borrowed from D3.

maybe parts sharing or unification of CUVs is already underway but unseen outside of suppliers.

 

I'm starting to think platforms are governed by assigned power train, electrics and assorted small parts

while derivatives are governed by elements that add uniqueness - frames, suspensions, glass and trim.

Edited April 5, 2009 by jpd80

[waymondospiff]

I'm not really sure if GM's one midsize chassis strategy is really a new plan. The company has always had two midsize chassis and currently those two are W (down to only the Impala) and Epsilon (everything else.) Move Impala to either Zeta (now being called Alpha?) or Epsilon and the conversion is complete.

 

With several vehicles riding on D3/D4, Taurus/MKS/MKT/Flex/Explorer, Ford can probably justify two separate platforms. If not, either the D3/D4 products will need to shrink some or EUCD2 will need to come in basically two related-but-heavily-modified forms: midsize and large. Like RJ said, the gap between a Fusion and a Flex in size and weight is massive. Another factor will be where the Aussies factor in - GRWD? Also, the Mustang is still hanging out on it's lonesome platform, S197/D2C. I'm not sure how these stars align in the future, if they do at all, but with Ford's latest investment into the D3/D4 chassis I would not be surprised to see it live on past EUCD2's introduction.

 

Scott

[ANTAUS]

Ford could keep the D3 for a Lincoln vehicle and maybe the heavier D3 mates such as Flex/MKT/Explorer and place the next Taurus on EUCD. So far I'm seeing the D3 is mainly a NA platform, not sure how that will be affected by OneFord and if it's sustainable.

[jpd80]

Ford could keep the D3 for a Lincoln vehicle and maybe the heavier D3 mates such as Flex/MKT/Explorer and place the next Taurus on EUCD. So far I'm seeing the D3 is mainly a NA platform, not sure how that will be affected by OneFord and if it's sustainable.

Originally, EUCD was an extension of the Focus C1 and shared its power train and electrical systems.

While that suited FoE's needs, we know that FNA wants to use the V6 and possibly EB variants as well.

I can see a lot of cross pollination between EUCD and D3 going on so maybe we end up with two very

similar platforms but with different end uses. If that happened, Ford would effectively have a low/light

and high/heavy series platforms that could share much but still be separate entities.

 

Wonderful to be able to think about such things, I doubt GM would have anywhere near the flexibility

in its FWD/AWD platforms to match Ford's EUCD/D3 combination.

 

On top of that, Falcon, Territory and Mustang could end up sharing much in the future as well.

Maybe Ford can have its cake and eat it too.....

Edited April 5, 2009 by jpd80

[battyr]

Ford could keep the D3 for a Lincoln vehicle and maybe the heavier D3 mates such as Flex/MKT/Explorer and place the next Taurus on EUCD. So far I'm seeing the D3 is mainly a NA platform, not sure how that will be affected by OneFord and if it's sustainable.

 

So what is the benefit of a EUCD Taurus. Maybe they could sell it in Europe? I doubt it. I think a NA only D3 is a temporary thing. Long term you want global platform. That is why I am pushing the GRWD. A RWD D3 could be used around the world. I think a Taurus sized car with RWD would even sell in Europe if equipped with the right engine.

 

I can see the European S-Max and Galaxy van coming to NA, restyled of course. If the EUCD produces the cheaper crossover vehicles, then the larger crossovers like the Flex can be RWD. Just think about it, a Flex and Explorer that could pull a trailer.

[rkisler]

GM is planning to use the upgraded FWD/AWD Epsilon II platform to make both mid sized vehicles

like Malibu and larger vehicles like La Crosse and Impala. Providing the width is acceptable, this

should be basically an increase/decrease in wheelbase.

 

If Ford were planning on consolidating platforms, altering or merging EUCD with D3 products would

enable a large number of products to be built under one super FWD/AWD platform.

 

Does anyone see this as likely or will Ford continue with separate platforms?

 

Could they stay separate but share expensive items like powertrains, suspension and electrical systems?

 

I don't know the answer, but let's go through a few things we know. I don't know if all the platform nomenclature below is consistent with Ford's internal designations, but here goes:

 

Platforms:

CD3 (Fusion/Milan/MKZ) -- Stretch of last generation Mazda 6

EUCD (Mondeo and derivatives) -- Basically a derivative of the FoE C platform

CD4 -- Next gen NA/FoE platform (Fusion/Mondeo, and derivatives)

CD3s (Edge/MKX) -- Derivative of Mazda MPV; not related to CD3

D3/D4 (Taurus/MKS/Flex) -- Started as last generation P3 (Volvo S80) but now owned by NA

 

NA Plants

CD3 -- Hermosillo

CD4 -- Hermosillo and perhaps Louisville?

CD3s -- Oakville

D3/D4 -- Chicago and Oakville

 

Ford Process

Any new platform goes through a "platform scoping" process. The objective is to determine what derivatives need to be considered in the design of the new platform. You can be guaranteed that the CD4 has undergone this process. Including some derivatives can put pressure (and cost) on the whole platform; you can have a few units affecting adversely a much larger volume. For instance, if the weight/size of a particular model causes an upgrade in the suspension, it could drive heavier, more expensive components through the rest of the vehicle lines and could cause those derivatives to carry too much weight and cost too much. The difficult job is finding the break points. It's also made difficult as the set of vehicles that one can derive from a single platform can float -- depending on assumptions, vehicles can be inside or outside of the set. (Am I making any sense??).

 

So, you can be assured that the question has already been asked and answered as to which derivatives the CD4 platform will encompass. We just don't have the answer externally yet.

 

Future of D3/D4

Attributes

1. The D3/D4 is "built like a brick @#$%house" The platform is extremely robust and safe, but relatively heavy and expensive

2. The D3 platform seating position is quite high. This makes entry/egress easier and makes the sedan more common with the crossover. But the sedan versions of this platform are huge, and when you park a MKS next to most any other car, it looks almost cartoonish (to my eyes at least). It's the length of a S-class Mercedes, but much higher. Out of proportion. No matter what the designers do, this can't be totally eliminated.

3. The platform does seem to make a good base for the crossovers, but they also are pretty heavy, particularly the Flex.

 

Manufacturing

1. D3 is installed in Chicago; the plant is limping along at well under one shift. But significant investment is being made for the new Taurus and then the Explorer. The plant will be flexible among these models, but introduction of a new platform might be expensive.

2. D3/D4 is installed at Oakville, and uses a common body shop with the CD3s.

3. There is virtually no possibility that the D3 will be extended beyond those two plants

 

So, as I see it, the D3 is around for quite some time considering the considerable investment in the platform derivatives (MKS, Taurus, Explorer, Flex).

 

You need a compelling reason to change. Cost? Weight? Fuel economy? All good reasons, but they would have to be compelling.

 

That's not to say that a long wheelbase CD4 couldn't be developed to slide between the Fusion and Taurus, but is such a car needed?

 

It seems to me when you look at Ford's platforms, the CD3s (Flex) is the odd man out. The ties to Mazda are diminishing day by day, and the Edge and MKX are the only two products made off of that platform. Seems to me to be ripe for consolidation.

[rmc523]

Maybe I'm looking at the the wrong way around,

As you have said before cost savings are made at the supplier level, not the fabrication shop.

 

Perhaps sharing power train and electrical systems is what makes the platforms more efficient .

Maybe the Frames and suspension are part of the uniqueness of derivatives like the CUVs?

 

Powertrains are already beginning to be shared. The 3.5 and most likely the 4-cyl EB (whatever displacement Ford ends up using) will be shared/are being shared over these two platforms, and I'm sure you'll see more powertrain sharing in the future.

 

This argument was lost as soon as it was proposed that Ford should mimic any plan made by GM in the past year. VT > < GM

[RichardJensen]

It seems to me when you look at Ford's platforms, the CD3s (Flex) is the odd man out. The ties to Mazda are diminishing day by day, and the Edge and MKX are the only two products made off of that platform. Seems to me to be ripe for consolidation.

I would think they would translate to D3/4 pretty easily--a factor: towing. D4 can tow, CD3s can tow, CD3 cannot, The stouter D3/4 frame should be able to underpin a family of CUVs that have class leading towing and payload.

[rkisler]

I would think they would translate to D3/4 pretty easily--a factor: towing. D4 can tow, CD3s can tow, CD3 cannot, The stouter D3/4 frame should be able to underpin a family of CUVs that have class leading towing and payload.

 

Richard, yes, they would, but I'm thinking they need to get lighter and smaller. Particularly as the D4 Explorer will be available to meet those functions.

 

A key question is "How many crossovers and crossover SUV's does Ford need that all get 17/24 mpg?" Particularly in a world where crossovers will have to be binned to the car fleet for CAFE.

 

I think the next generation should come off of the CD4. More Venza-like. Lower to the ground; a lot better handling; sporty wagon that's not a wagon. Lighter. Better fuel economy.

 

Just my opinion and personal preference. I've had 2 Edges; I like them OK, but I was not happy with the dynamic refinement when the roads are anything but straight. Top heavy; rolly polly. I wouldn't want them to get any heavier and for what I need, they could come down a bit in height. But I have no interest in the S-Max which I see as a sawed-off minivan (which is what it is).

[Pioneer]

I've had 2 Edges; I like them OK, but I was not happy with the dynamic refinement when the roads are anything but straight. Top heavy; rolly polly.

 

Did you have the Vista roof on either?

[rkisler]

Did you have the Vista roof on either?

 

Pioneer,

No, neither one had the Vista Roof.

 

I put around 30,000 miles total on the two Edges. It's a decent product. I enjoyed the versatility. Exterior appearance is good; interior OK, but needs further refinement, particularly with touch zones. Good trip car. Fuel economy just OK -- around 24-25 at a constant 75.

 

But I would actually prefer something closer to a sport wagon, but a bit bigger for added versatility. There is really nothing in Ford's stable right now in a crossover that quite fits what I would want. I realize the Venza isn't perfect, but seems to me Ford needs to head in that direction (but executed better). Lighter, more fuel efficient, lower height, lower cg with tighter handling. That's why I thought CD4 might work next generation.