An overview of Panther's demise

[RichardJensen]

3. There is almost always a misunderstanding that from a structure standpoint there is something positive about a body-on-frame vehicle. That somehow you've got this strong frame, and you just simply plunk a bunch of metal on top of it. But in reality, there is not much good to be said about bof in today's world for a car -- that's why nobody else uses it. In actuality, it takes as much engineering effort to complete the body for a Panther as it does a unibody vehicle. And managing the action of the frame and the body in a crash situation is more difficult and unpredictable than a unibody.

 

I would think (just taking a guess here) that side impact engineering is a real problem with BOF vehicles because it's hard to engineer a 'safety cage' for them without doing one of the following:

 

1) figuring out some complicated way of tying in the 'body' part of the safety cage (A-C pillars, roof bracing beams, firewall, and floorpan) to the frame effectively

 

2) Adding significant weight to the vehicle by ignoring the frame rails as crash mitigating structures and engineering an entire safety cage in the body itself.

[jpd80]

Thank you for the informative insight and i really see why Ford did this but If the case was that bad agaist the Panther why didn't Ford just came out with just new RWD sedans to replace them? .People are crying over the Panther not because it's great, it's Ford don't have a replacement for these cars that would appeal the retail and fleets with a profit hell i bet GM guys would still and had cried about the last B-body if the Zeta had'nt came along (which is still made world-wide as the Holden Commadore and returning to the U.S. as a Caprice with a possable Caddy/Buick) or Chry guys about the 70s muscle / police cars if the LX's had'nt showed up. There's no real excuse that it's 2010 and Ford have no new modren, rwd sedan ready to go after 100 years of making them.

 

Ummm, they have a good RWD platform but Ford NA chose D3 Taurus over E8 Falcon/Fairlane/Territory.

FoA put up no less than three business cases to Ford NA but to no avail. Every time the

figures didn't add up because FNA were prepared to ride the panther into the ground.

 

Get this,

A LHD Falcon for NA would cost approx $200 M to develop and Federalize

you'd struggle to upgrade the panthers with new engines/trans for that price..

Edited July 5, 2010 by jpd80

[630land]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

By bye, and time to move forward. Ford needs products for profit and nw car buyers. One plant on one shift negates the tooling costs. Also, corporate welfare jobs are not a way to run a business.

 

The effin G-D platform is dead, and Ford will not need to 'recover' from anything, they aren't owned by taxpayers!

 

And btw, the cheapskates buying used P71's will not spend the $37K that is on the Hyundai Genesis.

 

And isn't the Aussie Falcon considered "Bogan" down under?

Edited July 5, 2010 by 630land

[jpd80]

Why Tom I was nearly insulted until I realized that you haven't a clue about anything you just said.

Ford would hardly put the Ecoboost 2.0 in a dead platform would they now?

That's right, they wouldn't and so that's why it's going into the Falcon early next year.

 

FG or more correctly, E8 Falcon will be with us down here until 2016 and possibly longer than that...

Word is that something big is being planned but not for North America, the emphasis is on Asia and

in particular China where large sedans have a good niche.Our regular info sources have all clammed up

for now. we're told to expect an announcement in the near future and will keep all of you posted on that.

Edited July 5, 2010 by jpd80

[rkisler]

I would think (just taking a guess here) that side impact engineering is a real problem with BOF vehicles because it's hard to engineer a 'safety cage' for them without doing one of the following:

 

1) figuring out some complicated way of tying in the 'body' part of the safety cage (A-C pillars, roof bracing beams, firewall, and floorpan) to the frame effectively

 

2) Adding significant weight to the vehicle by ignoring the frame rails as crash mitigating structures and engineering an entire safety cage in the body itself.

 

I'm not an expert, but you're right on the money. Basically, when you have a bof, the frame and the body are not totally tied together -- they never can be because they're bolted, not welded. When you have a unibody structure, you can model the behavior for different crash scenarios, and channel the forces through the body structure in a controlled manner without collapsing areas that are vital to protecting the occupants or fuel.

[jpd80]

I'm not an expert, but you're right on the money. Basically, when you have a bof, the frame and the body are not totally tied together -- they never can be because they're bolted, not welded. When you have a unibody structure, you can model the behavior for different crash scenarios, and channel the forces through the body structure in a controlled manner without collapsing areas that are vital to protecting the occupants or fuel.

 

The other point is that you have multiple paths to vector the crash energy along in

unitary frames but with BOF the crash energy tends to seek out the mounting bolts

and is less inclined to transfer to the underlying frame, the shell is not as rigid

I suspect because of bolt arrangement..

Edited July 5, 2010 by jpd80

[F250]

3. There is almost always a misunderstanding that from a structure standpoint there is something positive about a body-on-frame vehicle. That somehow you've got this strong frame, and you just simply plunk a bunch of metal on top of it. But in reality, there is not much good to be said about bof in today's world for a car -- that's why nobody else uses it. In actuality, it takes as much engineering effort to complete the body for a Panther as it does a unibody vehicle. And managing the action of the frame and the body in a crash situation is more difficult and unpredictable than a unibody.

 

Exactly, that's why the next generation Super Duty and F-150 will be unibody because it's just as strong as a full frame.

 

5. Some of you are confusing your want for an RWD sedan with keeping the Panther alive. The Panther is never, and would never be considered a serious RWD sedan. Too big, too ancient, too sedate, bof. Those who want the attributes of a RWD sedan would never even look at the Panther, even if it were redone.

 

They have a choice and still a great number of police departments, taxi companies and others who want the strongest, most durable sedan available choose the Panther.

 

I am kidding of course but I think Ford could use a modern full size V8 RWD platform replacement for the Panther. A seriously tough unibody would be fine if done right. It will be interresting to see if the flagship image of the new Taurus will remain when fleets of Police Taurus are running around.

[papilgee4evaeva]

Exactly, that's why the next generation Super Duty and F-150 will be unibody because it's just as strong as a full frame.

 

Different vehicles, different purposes. In the case of the trucks, the purpose is to haul and tow, which is why the full frame is superior for them but pretty useless for cars, which was one of the points Austin was making.

 

I know you were just being snarky though. :shades:

[AGR]

Through six months this year, Chrysler has sold 20,877 300s and 45,785 Chargers. (Challengers are not sedans.) That's, of course, more than the 36,367 Tauruses and 7,649 MKSes that Ford sold, but I wouldn't call the volume sufficiently great that I would think Chrysler's making more money on its 300/Charger sales than Ford is on the Taurus/MKS sales. Not to mention that, once the Crown Victorias (18,439), Grand Marquises (15,702), and Town Cars (6,491) are discontinued, I doubt that all of those sales would be going to Chrysler and Hyundai. I suppose we'll have to wait and see. If Chrysler/Hyundai sales jump after the Panther sales are discontinued, I suppose you'd have been proven right, but I really don't think that would happen.

This may be hard to quantify, but how many extra sales do the 300 and Charger get because the Sebring and Avenger suck so bad?

[nelsonlu]

They have a choice and still a great number of police departments, taxi companies and others who want the strongest, most durable sedan available choose the Panther.

 

Or because they don't want to retrain. The county that I work in still uses an antiquated dumb-terminal-based system for criminal justice department information. That doesn't mean that dumb-terminal systems are superior.

[tjl]

I would think (just taking a guess here) that side impact engineering is a real problem with BOF vehicles because it's hard to engineer a 'safety cage' for them without doing one of the following:

 

1) figuring out some complicated way of tying in the 'body' part of the safety cage (A-C pillars, roof bracing beams, firewall, and floorpan) to the frame effectively

 

Seems like the Crown Victoria's body is not really that tightly fixed to its frame in this IIHS side crash test:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=708 (see the second picture showing the car after the crash test -- notice that the body is pulled off the frame and smashed in, while the frame is still straight)

 

Note that in the technical measurements:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/datatables.aspx?class=20&type=s

 

the Crown Victoria's B-pillar was smashed in much further than other cars' B-pillars. Indeed, it is hard to find anything in any vehicle category whose B-pillar was smashed in more than the Crown Victoria's B-pillar.

[F250]

Seems like the Crown Victoria's body is not really that tightly fixed to its frame in this IIHS side crash test:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=708 (see the second picture showing the car after the crash test -- notice that the body is pulled off the frame and smashed in, while the frame is still straight)

 

Note that in the technical measurements:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/datatables.aspx?class=20&type=s

 

the Crown Victoria's B-pillar was smashed in much further than other cars' B-pillars. Indeed, it is hard to find anything in any vehicle category whose B-pillar was smashed in more than the Crown Victoria's B-pillar.

 

And how many of those other vehicle designs date back to 1991? The old Panther does damn good for a 20 year old.

Edited July 6, 2010 by F250

[rkisler]

Exactly, that's why the next generation Super Duty and F-150 will be unibody because it's just as strong as a full frame.

 

I am kidding of course but I think Ford could use a modern full size V8 RWD platform replacement for the Panther. A seriously tough unibody would be fine if done right. It will be interresting to see if the flagship image of the new Taurus will remain when fleets of Police Taurus are running around.

 

Hmmmm. Unibody F250. Maybe we could make it look like the awesome Ridgeline?

 

I don't have any knowledge, but I have a feeling that there is a chance the Taurus Police could be "left behind" when a new Taurus comes off of CD4 in the future (3-5 years?). Keep it as is with minimal change; let it ride; put all the D3's in Chicago. But of course that can't last forever.

 

If Ford were to do a RWD sedan, I don't think it would necessarily be for police use, and I wouldn't use the definition "tough". I also don't think the terms some use such as "large" and "flagship" are where Ford should be heading. What I really want to drive is a Lincoln G37. But I'm not holding my breath as I don't think any new RWD plattform is in the cards at this point. Ford has way too many higher priorities, all of which have a nasty habit of absorbing capital.

[RichardJensen]

all of which have a nasty habit of absorbing capital.

 

And the unfortunate likelihood of a higher ROI than RWD sedans.

[rkisler]

And the unfortunate likelihood of a higher ROI than RWD sedans.

 

Yes.

 

All during the GRWD euphoria, I kept posting "I've seen this movie a couple of times before and the business case likely is the same or potentially even worse. So what's changed to make people think this is viable, other than 'it sounds good'". Answer: nothing.

 

In some cases, capital might be put into projects that on their own have a lower ROI, but are vital to the existence of the company -- mainly electrics.

 

Sorta like at home. I'm lusting for a BMW S1000RR as a nice complement to my other bike, but my wife doesn't say "You can't have it. You'll kill yourself." She merely negotiates other more vital expenses (like food, clothing, and taxes) and projects above it to the point where it keeps falling below the line.

[papilgee4evaeva]

Yes.

 

All during the GRWD euphoria, I kept posting "I've seen this movie a couple of times before and the business case likely is the same or potentially even worse. So what's changed to make people think this is viable, other than 'it sounds good'". Answer: nothing.

 

In some cases, capital might be put into projects that on their own have a lower ROI, but are vital to the existence of the company -- mainly electrics.

 

Sorta like at home. I'm lusting for a BMW S1000RR as a nice complement to my other bike, but my wife doesn't say "You can't have it. You'll kill yourself." She merely negotiates other more vital expenses (like food, clothing, and taxes) and projects above it to the point where it keeps falling below the line.

 

Yeah, wives do make it seem like they're sucking the fun out of our lives, but deep down we know they're absolutely right.

 

Sorta like Ford has been. They realize that right now what the overall company needs is much more important than what a small contingent of customers wants.

[OHV 16V]

...They realize that right now what the overall company needs is much more important than what a small contingent of customers wants.

That pretty much sums up the whole Mercury issue as well, does it not?

[papilgee4evaeva]

That pretty much sums up the whole Mercury issue as well, does it not?

 

Shh! They'll hear you! :ninja:

[akirby]

I'll be glad when Mercury and the Panthers are finally gone so we don't have to listen to all the whining any more......

[NickF1011]

I'll be glad when Mercury and the Panthers are finally gone so we don't have to listen to all the whining any more......

 

There will always be something to whine about. I'm sure people complained when automakers cancelled 8-track players too.

[akirby]

There will always be something to whine about. I'm sure people complained when automakers cancelled 8-track players too.

 

I know, but at least the whining will be about something different..........

[Mark B. Morrow]

There will always be something to whine about. I'm sure people complained when automakers cancelled 8-track players too.

 

 

akirby underestimates the tenacity of whiners. Lemon is still whining about repairs to a car he leased 13 years ago.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Mark B. Morrow

[akirby]

akirby underestimates the tenacity of whiners. Lemon is still whining about repairs to a car he leased 13 years ago.

 

True, but at least he's not doing it here anymore.

[F250]

akirby underestimates the tenacity of whiners.

 

The blindness of you chearleaders.

 

Introducing the new Ford Motor Company: Designed in Europe, built in Mexico and sold to unemployed Americans. Henry would roll over.

[RichardJensen]

Again.

 

You're an idiot.

 

CD4 is being designed in NA.

 

Ford's trucks are being designed in NA.

 

ALL of Ford's gas engines are designed in NA.

 

Suggesting that Ford design ALL its vehicles in NA is idiotic. Suggesting that Ford build ALL its cars in the US is idiotic.

 

Suggesting that Ford is largely responsible for the historically average unemployment rate is idiotic.

 

You're an idiot.

Edited July 8, 2010 by RichardJensen