papilgee4evaeva Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 So by your logic, all vehicles that share a platform but are sized differently are still the same vehicle, even if they use entirely different sheet metal, interiors, and powertrains? Just making sure I follow you here. By that logic, a LWB Town Car is the exact same car as a SWB CV... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 By that logic, a LWB Town Car is the exact same car as a SWB CV... The Escalade EXT is just a Silverado 1500 too. :yup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang_sallad Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 A LWB Town Car is guess what....still a Town Car. A LWB Crown Vic is still guess what....a Crown Vic. So a LWB Fusion is still gonna be guess what....A FUSION! Yes, and the Edge is also guess what.... A FUSION. Just cause they're saying it'll move to a stretched version of the Fusion's platform doesn't mean it'll share any sheetmetal or drivetrains or interior, all of which your above examples do share extensively. The CD3 platform didn't even need to be stretched for the Edge, which is a VERy different vehicle from the Fusion. Offering distinctly different products that share a platform is just smart engineering, and definitely doesn't mean its necessarily a badge engineering hack job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 The Escalade EXT is just a Silverado 1500 too. :yup: Well, if you want to get technical, it's a 1500 Suburban...without the top on the back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 So by your logic, all vehicles that share a platform but are sized differently are still the same vehicle, even if they use entirely different sheet metal, interiors, and powertrains? Just making sure I follow you here. Oh, no Nick, it makes perfect sense! I could see Ford developing a CUV variant of CD4 for the NA & EU CUVs. However, I wouldn't go so far as to call the Venza a target for the next Edge--it's not much of an improvement in any direction-including fuel economy. Next gen (fully redesigned) Edge, could serve that purpose, no? And I agree about Venza not being the target for Edge, or at least I certainly hope not. Well, if you want to get technical, it's a 1500 Suburban...without the top on the back. Which itself is on the GMT900 platform that underpins the Silverado... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Which itself is on the GMT900 platform that underpins the Silverado... OK, you got me. It is closer to the Sub than the Silvy though. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 OK, you got me. It is closer to the Sub than the Silvy though. :P I agree with you, as it's based on the Avalanche, whose design is based of the Tahoe/Suburuban (the same front end), whereas the Silvy has a completely different front end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 I agree with you, as it's based on the Avalanche, whose design is based of the Tahoe/Suburuban (the same front end), whereas the Silvy has a completely different front end. And the rear suspension is lifted out of the SUV, which is different than the pickup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 And the rear suspension is lifted out of the SUV, which is different than the pickup. Well there you go then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang_sallad Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 I believe the whole point of these comparisons was to show that two vehicles can "share a platform" while not having the same name. A Taurus based on a stretched CD3 is NOT just a Fusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Getting back on topic, whats so hard about developing say a platforms like this: CD4 Light: FWD/AWD Midsized cars CD4 Long AWD/FWD Large sedans CD4 Heavy Edge and other midsized CUV/SUV's CD4 Heavy/Long Flex/Explorer etc The CD4 Light and Long would be able to share 85-90% of parts The CD4 Heavy and Long would share 85-90% between each other and share at least 75% of itself with the CD4 light platform Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 (edited) Getting back on topic, whats so hard about developing say a platforms like this: CD4 Light: FWD/AWD Midsized cars CD4 Long AWD/FWD Large sedans CD4 Heavy Edge and other midsized CUV/SUV's CD4 Heavy/Long Flex/Explorer etc The CD4 Light and Long would be able to share 85-90% of parts The CD4 Heavy and Long would share 85-90% between each other and share at least 75% of itself with the CD4 light platform The one thing I would say is the range in weight from a D-Sized I-4 to a Large AWD CUV/SUV. Somewhere along the path, there has to be different body framing size to achieve the attributes of both ends of the spectrum. I'm not saying it isn't possible, it's just hard to keep the D- Car's weight under control without losing strength and towing attributes needed for the bigger vehicles. It may be more efficient to keep framing separate and and make power train/electrical common. Edited July 15, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 The one thing I would say is the range in weight from a D-Sized I-4 to a Large AWD CUV/SUV.Somewhere along the path, there has to be different body framing size to achieve the attributes of both ends of the spectrum. I'm not saying it isn't possible, it's just hard to keep the D- Car's weight under control without losing strength and towing attributes needed for the bigger vehicles. It may be more efficient to keep framing separate and and make power train/electrical common. J, you may have posted before...but IS the Taurus bigger than the Falcon?????memory serves me right I always thought the Falcon was bigger...and after seeing the 2010 Taurus in the flesh, it DID NOT come off as HUGE as some are making it out to be... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 The one thing I would say is the range in weight from a D-Sized I-4 to a Large AWD CUV/SUV.Somewhere along the path, there has to be different body framing size to achieve the attributes of both ends of the spectrum. I'm not saying it isn't possible, it's just hard to keep the D- Car's weight under control without losing strength and towing attributes needed for the bigger vehicles. It may be more efficient to keep framing separate and and make power train/electrical common. I thought I read something that said they may keep D3 for the CUV (Flex, MKT, Explorer)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 everyone is talking about stretching can't the CD also be widened? a number of car makers are doing that exact thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) J, you may have posted before...but IS the Taurus bigger than the Falcon?????memory serves me right I always thought the Falcon was bigger...and after seeing the 2010 Taurus in the flesh, it DID NOT come off as HUGE as some are making it out to be... Please see my post on page1 with dimensions. Then imagine a stretched CD about the size of the Avelon. Then imagine the Falcon on your showroom floor. You have more background in these issues than most of us, but how exactly would you distinguish the Falcon from the rest of the lineup? How would you explain the vehicles to the customers? Would they all get equal billing, or would one or the other wither? Assume they all have Taurus/Falcon type kinetic stylining, so it's hard to tell one from another at first glance. I have an MKS. This car is big by itself, but is REALLY big when it's in a parking lot next to another sedan, even a Mercedes or Cadillac or whatever. These are really car-bodied crossovers and it's things like the cowl height that really add size. Edited July 16, 2009 by Austin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I have an MKS. This car is big by itself, but is REALLY big when it's in a parking lot next to another sedan, even a Mercedes or Cadillac or whatever. These are really car-bodied crossovers and it's things like the cowl height that really add size. But isn't that how the styling trends have been for the past 5-10 years? The LX cars have high cowls on them also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 But isn't that how the styling trends have been for the past 5-10 years? The LX cars have high cowls on them also. Yes, but....The D3 sedans are set up really high. It stared with the h point, but pushes up into the roof, and then the rest of the car is set up around these points. And the push for commonality with the Freestyle also contributed to the tall stance. I still view them as really massive compared with anything else on the road. The MKS is about the same length as the S class Merc, but much taller. And not just the roof, but the cowl and the hood. The best way to compare the car is in a mall parking lot and then you really see the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Yes, but....The D3 sedans are set up really high. It stared with the h point, but pushes up into the roof, and then the rest of the car is set up around these points. And the push for commonality with the Freestyle also contributed to the tall stance. I still view them as really massive compared with anything else on the road. The MKS is about the same length as the S class Merc, but much taller. And not just the roof, but the cowl and the hood. The best way to compare the car is in a mall parking lot and then you really see the difference. I've seen a couple MKS and your right about that, they do sit up higher then most everything else out there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I've seen a couple MKS and your right about that, they do sit up higher then most everything else out there... Yeah, they look like monster trucks next to our LS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) J, you may have posted before...but IS the Taurus bigger than the Falcon?????memory serves me right I always thought the Falcon was bigger...and after seeing the 2010 Taurus in the flesh, it DID NOT come off as HUGE as some are making it out to be... what sets the Falcon apart is the extra shoulder and hip room. Imagine having the room of a Crown Victoria in a car barely 4" longer than a Fusion. A 2" x 2" expansion of the C1 Focus would make a great car, cheap to build and lots of internal room. I wonder if Europe and rest of the world would consider that as a cheaper alternative to the Mondeo? Edited July 16, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 I've seen a couple MKS and your right about that, they do sit up higher then most everything else out there... I forgot to mention..... I know that the recessed rocker serves a function -- you can more easily get into the car without getting your pants dirty. But, the doors cover the rocker on the outside. That means they are massive top to bottom. And since the car is tall, that makes them even bigger. Visually that adds to be bulk of the car, and they are also large to open/close. Don't get me wrong, the MKS has some redeeming qualities. I have almost 20k on it, yesterday I got 27 mpg on a 700 mile all-interestate road trip at 70-80 mph in luxury. Not bad for a car this large. But it doesn't make my heart go pitter-patter like my LS's did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Don't get me wrong, the MKS has some redeeming qualities. I have almost 20k on it, yesterday I got 27 mpg on a 700 mile all-interestate road trip at 70-80 mph in luxury. Not bad for a car this large. damn I thought I drove alot! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Please see my post on page1 with dimensions. Then imagine a stretched CD about the size of the Avelon. Then imagine the Falcon on your showroom floor. You have more background in these issues than most of us, but how exactly would you distinguish the Falcon from the rest of the lineup? How would you explain the vehicles to the customers? Would they all get equal billing, or would one or the other wither? Assume they all have Taurus/Falcon type kinetic stylining, so it's hard to tell one from another at first glance. I have an MKS. This car is big by itself, but is REALLY big when it's in a parking lot next to another sedan, even a Mercedes or Cadillac or whatever. These are really car-bodied crossovers and it's things like the cowl height that really add size. interesting...sure blows the theory most have that a FWD drive has better utilization of interior space doesn't it. truth be told Austin, a MAJORITY don't give a rats about FWD RWD at all, it comes down to desirability, and the new Taurus is raisning eyebrows...pretty car....me, I prefer RWD just from a dynamics standpoint, but lets face it, in the hands of a MAJORITY of drivers most dont drive like idiotic magazine number crunchers and wouldn't be able to discern the difference. So, from a beancounter standpoint #1 is styling and desirability #2) affordability and bang for buck. And personally marketing BOTH would be a questionable practice, I would prefer one that was just REALLY well developed with the best of both worlds.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 interesting...sure blows the theory most have that a FWD drive has better utilization of interior space doesn't it. truth be told Austin, a MAJORITY don't give a rats about FWD RWD at all, it comes down to desirability, and the new Taurus is raisning eyebrows...pretty car....me, I prefer RWD just from a dynamics standpoint, but lets face it, in the hands of a MAJORITY of drivers most dont drive like idiotic magazine number crunchers and wouldn't be able to discern the difference. So, from a beancounter standpoint #1 is styling and desirability #2) affordability and bang for buck. And personally marketing BOTH would be a questionable practice, I would prefer one that was just REALLY well developed with the best of both worlds.... That's what I thought you would say. And it's one of the reasons that, for at least the last 15 years or so, Falcon can't provide enough of an incremental business case in the U.S. for Ford to make the plunge. So, I come back to some points I have made more than a few times: GRWD could be considered as a replacement for D3 and D2c, but If the Taurus is going to be developed from a stretch/widened CD4, the business case will be very difficult if not impossible. Lincoln is the only thing that could swing the balance, but that isn't likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.