RWD essentially grounded at Ford?

[ANTAUS]

The 2nd generation LS is called Jag XF...sitting in one felt very identical to what I already had. Sight lines and low cowl made it feel like home...

[jpd80]

thats a damn poor remark!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mulally wanted to get that line of credit and he got that also, I guess thats another example of a bad way to run a company also

Borrowing as much as they could was Don Leclair's idea.

 

Mulally championed it when he arrived at Ford, but I think LeClair asked Mulally

to speak to the bankers, they felt that may get them over the line.

Edited July 20, 2009 by jpd80

[snooter]

ford needs at least 1 rear whell driver vehicle in the lineup...make it a lincoln if you will....personally i like nassar..he did have that green pot leaf placed on the tailgate of every ranger i ever seen...thats as green as green gets

[theoldwizard]

Borrowing as much as they could was Don Leclair's idea.

 

Mulally championed it when he arrived at Ford, but I think LeClair asked Mulally

to speak to the bankers, they felt that may get them over the line.

I concur.

 

I'm emphasizing your point because many people think this was all Mulally's idea, and it was not. The Game Plan was pretty much already set before Alan was hired. He liked it, so he picked up the ball and has been running with it ever since.

 

And doing a damn fine job !

Edited July 20, 2009 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

....personally i like nassar..

Its a miracle there was a Ford Motor Company left when they got rid off him ! Billions were squandered on bad investments.

 

Worse, he changed the corporate culture (every engineer/manager should get a new job every 2-3 years), which has taken many, many years to undo (with job rotation like that, no one is every truly an expert at any job).

Edited July 20, 2009 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

The 2nd generation LS is called Jag XF...

Many people were sad when the LS was canceled. It was a very good car (too bad you could not get the V8 with the stick shift).

 

The Zephyr/MKZ is really a very weak replacement for the LS. Much better profit margin, but not nearly as nice of car, overall.

[Blue II]

The 2nd generation LS is called Jag XF...sitting in one felt very identical to what I already had. Sight lines and low cowl made it feel like home...

 

The XF design was talked about for the GRWD 2012 Taurus. With Premier gone and soon Volvo GRWD has to be looked at differently. The next Taurus will certainly be lower and more sleek.

[NickF1011]

The Zephyr/MKZ is really a very weak replacement for the LS. Much better profit margin, but not nearly as nice of car, overall.

 

Perhaps not as nice from a sporting perspective, but everything else about the MKZ is miles ahead of the LS, especially the interior.

[BORG]

Lets put this argument to bed and remind everybody that Ford builds AWD sedans on chassis that are shared effectively. There is no need for a RWD sedan, especially one that can only be used in a shrinking market segment. The Taurus and MKS are THE BEST Large sedans available, be greatful for that and go buy one, please!

[2b2]

Lets put this argument to bed and remind everybody that Ford builds AWD sedans on chassis that are shared effectively. There is no need for a RWD sedan, especially one that can only be used in a shrinking market segment. The Taurus and MKS are THE BEST Large sedans available, be greatful for that and go buy one, please!

 

HI BORG!!! ( & umm sorry...)

the current situation - the lineup and the Eekonomy - are a good match

BUT

when the POVERTY MENTALITY changes over THEN Fomoco better have something upscale ready to GO.

 

At the mo, imho, Rwd will still be a part of that quotient!

 

(EcoBeast might not be cutting edge enough by then but will be a good basis still - maybe BEV(ala Tesla), maybe hydrogen, maybe solar???

will be just as important as the driven wheels

but that's less known imho)

Edited July 20, 2009 by 2b2

[silvrsvt]

when the POVERTY MENTALITY changes over THEN Fomoco better have something upscale ready to GO.

 

I think you might be overstating things, I don't expect things to go back to the way they where the past 10-15 years...people aren't going to go out and dump 60K+ on a vehicle just to keep up with the Joneses. Esp since the credit markets are going to be as lenient has they where in the past.

[NickF1011]

There is no need for a RWD sedan, especially one that can only be used in a shrinking market segment.

 

If the platform was designed properly, it would serve a heck of a lot more function that just for fullsize sedans.

 

It could effectively underpin:

 

Mustang

Taurus

Falcon

MKZ

MKS

MKR

Explorer

Territory

 

...and whatever other vehicles they wanted to use it under really.

[silvrsvt]

If the platform was designed properly, it would serve a heck of a lot more function that just for fullsize sedans.

 

It could effectively underpin:

 

Mustang

Taurus

Falcon

MKZ

MKS

MKR

Explorer

Territory

 

...and whatever other vehicles they wanted to use it under really.

 

But you run into the same issues that you have with a FWD car...namely a high cowl due to the seating position between them, so would sorta pointless to make a RWD platform with the same handicap as what your FWD platform has, just for sake of chaging which wheels are being driven.

[92merc]

Personally, I think the next platform should be not just a GRWD, but with AWD and possibly a FWD. Make it flexible to handle it all.

[RichardJensen]

If the platform was designed properly, it would serve a heck of a lot more function that just for fullsize sedans.

 

Do that and you'd have a dog's breakfast of a platform, suitable for none of those applications--too heavy for the Mustang, too wimpy for the Explorer, too unrefined for the MKS and too expensive for the Falcon.

 

Powerpack, wiring, and MAYBE the front subframe and steering box would be all you could realistically share. Nothing aft of the firewall could be shared due to the exceptionally specialized nature of all those RWD applicaitons.

 

You could share suspension geometry, but it would be asinine to try and share suspension components among a product range that broad.

 

Face it folks, RWD is a niche (for cars, at least). It should be treated as such. There's no universal solution to be found. Unless you want a bad one (e.g. Zeta/LX)

Edited July 20, 2009 by RichardJensen

[NickF1011]

Powerpack, wiring, and MAYBE the front subframe and steering box would be all you could realistically share. Nothing aft of the firewall could be shared due to the exceptionally specialized nature of all those RWD applicaitons.

 

So let them share that much. After all, that's the most expensive part of the platform to develop in the first place. Let the rear subframes be unique to serve their own needs. It has worked for C1/EUCD.

[RichardJensen]

that's the most expensive part of the platform to develop in the first place.

Actually, if memory serves, the most expensive part is the passenger cell. Powerpack is a cost generally spread across many platforms and units (consider how many units are amortizing the cost of the Durate 35 & the JV 6-speed)

[2b2]

I think you might be overstating things, I don't expect things to go back to the way they where the past 10-15 years...people aren't going to go out and dump 60K+ on a vehicle just to keep up with the Joneses. Esp since the credit markets are going to be as lenient has they where in the past.

 

^maybe

but we need to careful about dollar$ past / now / future

&

just how outlandish the spending was during "Greed Is Good"

 

ie

$60k could well be a mid-range price

which newly affluent would chose to avoid the RichStigma of spending well over $100k

&

while the rich get richer, they'll fear for their lives/property if they flaunt it

 

[broken record] the 'Premium'/"bit nicer than" class will be the growth segment within 5 years time

& there's only so much a single 'Everyman' brand can do... so many segemnts they can target

yet

the "Reach higher" brands are necessary for showing off the mfgs' capabilities

[/starting to go in circles]...that's all for now on that^

 

 

re: trying to do too much with one platform

& therefore not doing any of it well

 

the new GRwdP role is more condensed than ( I ) thought originally

just Mustang thru Continental

engines 3.5 to 5.0

approx 183" ovl to 196"

wheelbases maybe 108 to 115"

with no provision necessary for limo-stretches

 

imho

that's all do-able

Edited July 20, 2009 by 2b2

[NickF1011]

Actually, if memory serves, the most expensive part is the passenger cell. Powerpack is a cost generally spread across many platforms and units (consider how many units are amortizing the cost of the Durate 35 & the JV 6-speed)

 

Whatever the case is. If you can share an entire subframe and wiring and powerpacks, you're looking at considerable cost savings. Sure beats the alternative going forward of vehicles like the Mustang and Falcon continuing to ride on completely unique platforms. Sure, it may be best for the individual vehicle, but my personal thoughts on it? If neither of those vehicles figure out a way to share platforms for ammortize more costs, neither of them will survive a whole lot longer.

[RichardJensen]

Sure, it may be best for the individual vehicle, but my personal thoughts on it? If neither of those vehicles figure out a way to share platforms for ammortize more costs, neither of them will survive a whole lot longer.

I disagree mightily with this assessment.

 

You just need x amount of volume to amortize costs. Can be a lot over a few years in a competitive segment, or a little over a lot of years in a less competitive segment.

 

In the Mustang's case, do you see the Camaro or Challenger (both built on shared platforms) carrying any kind of advantage due to those shared platforms? Or are they--due to their bloated near-lux underpinnings--going to be early casualties of the CAFE crunch?

 

In the Mustang's case, its purpose built architecture serves it better than the shared architectures of its competition.

 

---

 

Then we have the 'grandfather's ax' Falcon, which--although no longer the top seller in Oz--sits on the best selling platform in Australia.

 

IMO these vehicles could share more, but not much more than what they share now. Certainly not so much as to call the sharing 'platform sharing'.

[NickF1011]

I disagree mightily with this assessment.

 

You just need x amount of volume to amortize costs. Can be a lot over a few years in a competitive segment, or a little over a lot of years in a less competitive segment.

 

In the Mustang's case, do you see the Camaro or Challenger (both built on shared platforms) carrying any kind of advantage due to those shared platforms? Or are they--due to their bloated near-lux underpinnings--going to be early casualties of the CAFE crunch?

 

In the Mustang's case, its purpose built architecture serves it better than the shared architectures of its competition.

 

I'm not saying the Challenger or the Camaro are the models to immitate. Look to the Germans. Mercedes and BMW have been widely successful by sharing RWD platforms across multiple sizes of vehicles. And don't say they can afford it because they are a luxury brand. They sell plenty of stripped down crap models in Europe that hardly anyone would classify as "luxury". I said in my first post if it was done RIGHT. Obviously GM and Chrysler didn't do that. Is that any surprise? I wouldn't use them as examples of why it is not possible.

 

Then we have the 'grandfather's ax' Falcon, which--although no longer the top seller in Oz--sits on the best selling platform in Australia.

 

IMO these vehicles could share more, but not much more than what they share now. Certainly not so much as to call the sharing 'platform sharing'.

 

Even "best-selling" in Oz comes to what, 80,000 units a year or less? Unique platforms are only giong to become more expensive as time goes by.

[RichardJensen]

Mercedes and BMW have been widely successful by sharing RWD platforms across multiple sizes of vehicles. And don't say they can afford it because they are a luxury brand.

Of course, those platforms run on 10 year+ life cycles, and they too are kind of 'grandfather's ax' platforms

Even "best-selling" in Oz comes to what, 80,000 units a year or less? Unique platforms are only giong to become more expensive as time goes by.

Well, comparatively more expensive only so far as competitive products get cheaper due to parts sharing.

 

When there are no competitive products benefiting from economies of scale (e.g. your Germans), then there is no cost disadvantage.

 

---

 

True, GRWD platform sharing would work if they got it 'right'--however that, IMO, would require an almost serendipitous and almost certainly non-repeatable aligning of the stars....

[NickF1011]

Well, comparatively more expensive only so far as competitive products get cheaper due to parts sharing.

 

When there are no competitive products benefiting from economies of scale (e.g. your Germans), then there is no cost disadvantage.

 

The problem is, every new vehicle keeps adding more parts. Every time a vehicle becomes more complex, the costs of unique platforms rise.

[RichardJensen]

The problem is, every new vehicle keeps adding more parts. Every time a vehicle becomes more complex, the costs of unique platforms rise.

true, but where there is no 'contrasting background', no comparable product that is developed more efficiently that cost does not stand out.

 

Also, the parts being added are most frequently electronic and while they can in some cases (parking assist/BLIS/adaptive cruise control) include a fair bit of vehicle specific engineering/fitment, by and large the bulk of the cost is in the central unit which can be amortized over a very broad array of products.

[NickF1011]

Also, the parts being added are most frequently electronic and while they can in some cases (parking assist/BLIS/adaptive cruise control) include a fair bit of vehicle specific engineering/fitment, by and large the bulk of the cost is in the central unit which can be amortized over a very broad array of products.

 

Hopefully Ford is looking at that closely. There's no reason that vehicles all over the world can't share many of the same electronics, wiring, and mechanical systems, even if they are vastly different vehicles.

 

I still think the Falcon and Mustang could be made to effectively share a platform though. :P

Edited July 20, 2009 by NickF1011