"One Ford" Ford Mustang set for world debut

[timmm55]

Did you know that 1974 Mustang II's built in Mexico for that market came with a factory 302 V8 option? When Ford decided to put the V8 in the US Mustang II for 1975, they had assistance from Ford de Mexico utilizing their existing design accommodations to make the V8 engine clear.

 

No I didn't know that. I knew about the earlier Shelby de Mexico coupes (Mustang and Maverick). Did the Mexican Mustang II have all the smog crap? It could have been a really good performer, but the primitive pollution controls sucked the life out of them.

[Biker16]

I would expect the HVAC, electrical system and other items will be taken for the C2 parts bin where applicable.

[timmm55]

You win when I can buy one at the dealership.

 

That won't happen!

 

It's not that they can't do it. Tuners and individuals have been stuffing V8s into 4 cylinder engine bays for decades: Shelby (AC Cobra), Tigers, 302/351 Pintos, 302/351/4.6 Foci.

 

There isn't a business case for it.

[jpd80]

I was under the impression that the Maverick was a heavily modified Falcon as well.....

Ding ,ding, ding! We have a winner.

 

The Falcon spawned (in chronological order) Comet, Ranchero, Fairlane ('62) Mercury Meteor, 65 Mustang, and 67 Cougar. By the late 60s these cars got bigger and imports became popular, the 1969 1/2 Maverick was a $1995 economy car. It was virtually the Falcon all over again. Same basic platform, I 6's, size, and equally, if not more, simplistic. Only a 2 door sedan, no glove box, etc.

 

Then came the new Comet, (V8s, Grabbers, GTs, LDOs and 4 doors came later) and lastly the Granada and Monarch.

The old Falcon platform would not meet coming crash tests so Ford developed the smaller lighter Maverick that could.

It was a completely new platform and did not have the flexibility to be increased in size like the old Falcon and since the full sized Fords were too big for FoA's needs, they then went and developed their own Falcons....

 

1973 Maverick

 

Edited June 11, 2011 by jpd80

[timmm55]

The old Falcon platform would not meet coming crash tests so Ford developed the smaller lighter Maverick that could.

It was a completely new platform and did not have the flexibility to be increased in size like the old Falcon and since the full sized Fords were too big for FoA's needs, they then went and developed their own Falcons....

 

 

http://www.autoclasico.com.mx/site/?P=456&idioma=ing

The Ford Maverick was a compact car manufactured from April 1969-1977 in the United States, Canada, Mexico and from 1973-1979 in Brazil — employing a rear wheel drive platform dating to the original 1960 Falcon. Originally marketed as a 2-door sedan at an initial price of USD$1,995, the Maverick was designed to be inexpensive to manufacture and maintain.

 

The Falcon, Ford's compact offering since 1960, had seen its sales decimated by the introduction of the Mustang in 1964, and despite a redesign in 1966, was unable to meet forthcoming federal motor vehicle standards that would come into effect on January 1, 1970. Consequently, the Falcon was discontinued midway through the 1970 model year, and the Maverick repositioned as Ford's compact entry.

 

From my understanding it was the Falcon chassis redesigned for a new decade. Same RWD, same leaf springs, same front suspension, same 13" 4 lug wheels even.

 

http://jalopnik.com/400135/1970-ford-maverick

The Maverick was built on the aging Falcon chassis,

 

http://www.falconclub.com/fcastory.html

Mike Davis, in an article in May, 1981 CAR EXCHANGE, first made us aware of the varied Ford products that were really Falcons in disguise. His main criterion for determining a Falcon derivative was the car's chassis. The name, engine, and sheet metal could be changed, but the underbody structure went all the way back to the 1960 Falcon. For example, when the Ford Granada-Mercury Monarch appeared in the mid-seventies, an article pointed out that the, 'underbody pan from the floor under the dash all the way back to the gas tank came from the 1970 Maverick'. The '70 Maverick was very much '60 Falcon.

Edited June 11, 2011 by timmm55

[jpd80]

From my understanding it was the Falcon chassis redesigned for a new decade. Same RWD, same leaf springs, same front suspension, same 13" 4 lug wheels even.

The mechanical package and power train carried over but the frame and interior was completely different

and the sizes offered were unacceptable to FoA, the cars were too small, almost Cortina size.

 

don't forget our view in Austraila was that we had to shift platforms because the Maverick was so different

and couldn be adapted for a next gen Falcon and Fairlane, it was easier to design a whole new frame and

body for our local needs...

 

Pretty sure you will find that Falcons and Mustangs in the second half of the 1960s all had 14" 5-lug wheels...

Edited June 11, 2011 by jpd80

[timmm55]

The mechanical package and power train carried over but the frame and interior was completely different

and the sizes offered were unacceptable to FoA, the cars were too small, almost Cortina size.

 

don't forget our view in Austraila was that we had to shift platforms because the Maverick was so different

and couldn be adapted for a next gen Falcon and Fairlane, it was easier to design a whole new frame and

body for our local needs...

 

Pretty sure you will find that Falcons and Mustangs in the second half of the 1960s all had 14" 5-lug wheels...

 

Yes, the interiors were completely different, as was the sheetmetal.

 

What cars were Cortina size? Look, I've had a 64 Falcon, my sister had a 62 Falcon wagon, another sister had a new 70 Maverick. And my brother had a Cortina. Another brother had a 62 Fairlane.

 

The Cortina was smaller.

 

My 64 Falcon Sprint convertible had 13" wheels, even with a V8. Typically 65/66 they had 13" w/ a 4 bolt pattern for 6 cylinders, and 14" w/ a 5 bolt pattern for V8s as standard, optional packages may have changed that. Base 70 Mavericks had 13" wheels, not sure about the bolt pattern.

 

In a previous post it appears the front structure was changed on the Maverick, the rear platform was carried over, even to later Granada's.

[timmm55]

CORTINA 66-70

Wheelbase 98 in (2,489 mm)[4]

Length 168.25 in (4,274 mm) (saloon)

168.5 in (4,280 mm) (estate)

Width 62.5 in (1,588 mm)

Height 56.5 in (1,435 mm) (saloon)

57.75 in (1,467 mm) (estate)

Curb weight 1,736 lb (787 kg) (De Luxe)

2,072 lb (940 kg) (Estate)

 

MAVERICK 70

Wheelbase 103 in (2,600 mm) (coupe)

109.9 in (2,790 mm) (sedan)

Length 187 in (4,700 mm) (coupe)

193.9 in (4,930 mm) (sedan)

Width 70.5 in (1,790 mm)

Height 53.5 in (1,360 mm) (coupe)

53.4 in (1,360 mm) (sedan)

Curb weight 2,909 lb (1,320 kg) (coupe)

3,011 lb (1,366 kg) (sedan)

 

FALCON COUPE (USA) 1969

 

Length:4681 mm / 184.3 in

Width:1867 mm / 73.5 in

Height:1382 mm / 54.4 in

Wheelbase:2819 mm / 111 in

Front track:1494 mm / 58.8 in

Rear track:1486 mm / 58.5 in

Edited June 12, 2011 by timmm55

[jpd80]

No, I meant the 1971 Cortina and later, FoA kept the US Falcon body updated until 1972 and then switched to home grown version. This is the Cortina I'm talking about...the MK III or TC as it was called in Aust. was 6" wider than the 67-70 version.

 

[jpd80]

Yes, the interiors were completely different, as was the sheetmetal.

 

What cars were Cortina size? Look, I've had a 64 Falcon, my sister had a 62 Falcon wagon, another sister had a new 70 Maverick. And my brother had a Cortina. Another brother had a 62 Fairlane.

 

The Cortina was smaller.

 

My 64 Falcon Sprint convertible had 13" wheels, even with a V8. Typically 65/66 they had 13" w/ a 4 bolt pattern for 6 cylinders, and 14" w/ a 5 bolt pattern for V8s as standard, optional packages may have changed that. Base 70 Mavericks had 13" wheels, not sure about the bolt pattern.

 

In a previous post it appears the front structure was changed on the Maverick, the rear platform was carried over, even to later Granada's.

All right then,

Not meaning to doubt your local knowledge and I accept that the Maverick rose form the ashes of the Falcon and in that respect, yes I can see that a rear floorpan, power train and front spindles does constitute a lot of carry over. It's the size reduction that killed it for FoA, they wanted to build Fairlane and LTD with 111-121" wheelbases, the new Maverick couldn't do that. So consider that FoA took the whole previous Falcon and up scaled and strengthened everything to suit their ends.

 

When FoA were considering their next Falcon in 1968, the Maverick and Torino were offered but neither was the right size for the envisaged envelope, Maverick was considered too close to 67 inch wide MK 3 Cortina which was being delivered in 197, that's a huge 5 inch jump in width form the 67-70 MK 2 Cortina. Torino was flat out too big and couldn't effectively be downsized enough to work.

 

These guys tell the story better:

(We have Bunkie Knudsen to thank for the FoA design center)

 

 

LINK

Sometime early in 1968 the decision had been taken to discontinue production of the US Falcon. In May of that year, Ford Australia's Jack Telnack, Brian Rossi and Allan Jackson flew to the States to begin work on what would turn out to be the XA. There they collaborated with senior Dearborn stylists because the Australian operation at that time was considered too small to have complete autonomy in so important a venture.

 

Ford Australia's Product Engineering centre had yet to make the big move north from Geelong to Campbellfield and, while the studios were fine for the development of a new grille or chrome mouldings, they were not up to the job of conceiving a whole new design. Plus there were insufficient expert clay modellers in Australia to handle the job.

 

Nobody at Geelong, Broadmeadows or Campbellfield felt slighted by the Americans' involvement. Instead this was seen as a great opportunity for Ford Australia to demonstrate its credentials to the parent company.

 

Very early on in this project the Americans suggested that an abbreviated version of the new Fairlane/Torino -- a car of which they were proud -- would do the job. By using the centre section of this vehicle in conjunction with a shorter wheelbase and shorter front and rear overhangs, an attractive new Falcon would emerge, they believed.

 

But the Australians had immediate doubts. They thought the good looks of the Fairlane/Torino derived from its length and flowing overhangs (shown to maximum advantage in Clint Eastwood's Grand Torino).

 

A clay model was built and everyone then agreed that the drastically shortened Fairlane/Torino looked crook. So out came the proverbial clean sheet of paper. The three Australian engineers worked 90 hours a week through the hot American summer to complete the job in October 1968.

 

Bill Bourke, who had masterminded the XP Durability Run was, by then, managing director. He reported directly to Ford President Semon (Bunkie) Knudsen. The latter was so impressed with the XA design that he told Bourke to build a design centre in Australia.

 

Edited June 12, 2011 by jpd80

[blksn8k2]

I haven't been following this thread for a few days. How on earth did it laps into Mavericks and Cortinas? I thought this was about the next gen Camaro...oops I mean Mustang... :shades:

[timmm55]

All right then,

Not meaning to doubt your local knowledge and I accept that the Maverick rose form the ashes of the Falcon and in that respect, yes I can see that a rear floorpan, power train and front spindles does constitute a lot of carry over. It's the size reduction that killed it for FoA, they wanted to build Fairlane and LTD with 111-121" wheelbases, the new Maverick couldn't do that. So consider that FoA took the whole previous Falcon and up scaled and strengthened everything to suit their ends.

 

When FoA were considering their next Falcon in 1968, the Maverick and Torino were offered but neither was the right size for the envisaged envelope, Maverick was considered too close to 67 inch wide MK 3 Cortina which was being delivered in 197, that's a huge 5 inch jump in width form the 67-70 MK 2 Cortina. Torino was flat out too big and couldn't effectively be downsized enough to work.

 

 

OK, I think we are on the same wave-length here. Your new Cortina was enlarged quite a bit! We never got them in the US. At first blush it would appear to be similar in size to the Maverick coupe, which actually shrunk back to 1963 2 door hardtop size. But 4 door to 4 door the Mavi quite a bit bigger. And heavier at 800 lbs.

 

I'm surprised they sold the TC there, it seems lightweight for Australian duty. (Didn't they need to reinforce the original Falcon structure back in 61?) FoA Falcons were becoming their own cars by 1964. And after 1969 it was your car! Your market was different than ours. I couldn't imagine seeing a 72 Torino in Mad Max (too big). As a Falcon fan I always thought it was cool that they continued in sort of a parallel universe. I'd love an XB coupe, red/black with a 351 auto!

Your Falcon was sort of our Mustang/Maverick/Torino/LTD all rolled into one.

 

(BTW if you ever see a Ivy Moon Dust 71 Lincoln Mark III with a white twill roof around, it was mine. I sold it to a guy in Australia several years ago)

 

 

 

71 CORTINA TC

Length:

4267 mm / 168 in

Width:

1702 mm / 67 in

Height:

1321 mm / 52 in

Wheelbase:

2578 mm / 101.5 in

Front track:

1422 mm / 56 in

Rear track:

1422 mm / 56 in

Curb weight (without a driver):

1000 kg / 2205 lbs

 

MAVERICK 70

Wheelbase 103 in (2,600 mm) (coupe)

109.9 in (2,790 mm) (sedan)

Length 187 in (4,700 mm) (coupe)

193.9 in (4,930 mm) (sedan)

Width 70.5 in (1,790 mm)

Height 53.5 in (1,360 mm) (coupe)

53.4 in (1,360 mm) (sedan)

Curb weight 2,909 lb (1,320 kg) (coupe)

3,011 lb (1,366 kg) (sedan)

[Mark B. Morrow]

I haven't been following this thread for a few days. How on earth did it laps into Mavericks and Cortinas? I thought this was about the next gen Camaro...oops I mean Mustang... :shades:

Prisoner: There's a message through the grapevine, Johnny.

Johnny Dangerously: Yeah? What is it?

Prisoner: Johnny and the Mothers are playing "Stompin' at the Savoy" in Vermont tonight.

Johnny Dangerously: Vermin's going to kill my brother at the Savoy theater tonight.

Prisoner: I didn't say that.

Johnny Dangerously: No, but I know this grapevine.

[Mark B. Morrow]

The old Falcon platform would not meet coming crash tests so Ford developed the smaller lighter Maverick that could.

It was a completely new platform and did not have the flexibility to be increased in size like the old Falcon and since the full sized Fords were too big for FoA's needs, they then went and developed their own Falcons....

 

1973 Maverick

 

 

 

That Aussie falcon liiks like it has a lot of '68 Torino DNA. The hood looks like a Torino part with the NACA ducts added and the wheel opening detail shares the Torino's shape.

[jpd80]

That Aussie falcon liiks like it has a lot of '68 Torino DNA. The hood looks like a Torino part with the NACA ducts added and the wheel opening detail shares the Torino's shape.

An no wonder why Mark, that was the original plan......

 

Very early on in this project the Americans suggested that an abbreviated version of the new Fairlane/Torino -- a car of which they were proud -- would do the job. By using the centre section of this vehicle in conjunction with a shorter wheelbase and shorter front and rear overhangs, an attractive new Falcon would emerge, they believed.

 

But the Australians had immediate doubts. They thought the good looks of the Fairlane/Torino derived from its length and flowing overhangs (shown to maximum advantage in Clint Eastwood's Grand Torino).

 

A clay model was built and everyone then agreed that the drastically shortened Fairlane/Torino looked crook. So out came the proverbial clean sheet of paper. The three Australian engineers worked 90 hours a week through the hot American summer to complete the job in October 1968.

Edited June 12, 2011 by jpd80

[jpd80]

I haven't been following this thread for a few days. How on earth did it laps into Mavericks and Cortinas? I thought this was about the next gen Camaro...oops I mean Mustang... :shades:

I think the problem was me......

 

But then again the rumor about the next Mustang being global was already pretty widely known,

Mustang is after all one of Ford's signature cars and would probably sell to hard core fans all over the world.

 

We've been having discussions here in Australia as to what price the Fans could expect Mustang to sell for.

 

Currently our Falcon range RRP is:

XR6 - $40,000

XR6Turbo - $48,000

XR8 - $48,000 (withdrawn last year)

G6ET - $55,000 ( Luxury sports, top of the line Falcon with everything)

 

Ford Performance Vehicles:

GS - $57,000 (S/C 5.0)

GT - $67,000 (high spec, S/C 5.0)

 

With that in Mind, I suspect that Mustang would be priced around $40,000 for the V6 and $48,000 for the GT.

People are now asking how many people would still buy Falcons if Ford moved genuine replacements into

the Aussie market, I believe that Fusion, Mustang and Taurus could possibly replace 80-85% of sales but

FoA could equally come up with a Falcon that uses Mustang's electrical and mechanical package and

almost certainly produce a smaller lighter more efficient Falcon for our market, one that could be a lot

cheaper and have a development akin to the Maverick of the early 1970s....

 

How's that for a return to topic and thread tie in...

Edited June 12, 2011 by jpd80

[Ford Jellymoulds]

The old Falcon platform would not meet coming crash tests so Ford developed the smaller lighter Maverick that could.

It was a completely new platform and did not have the flexibility to be increased in size like the old Falcon and since the full sized Fords were too big for FoA's needs, they then went and developed their own Falcons....

 

1973 Maverick

 

 

Missed our coke bottle styled Cortina & Taunus out JDP, they used love chewing up camshafts pinto. OHC pinto shit, you can't beat a trusty x-flow.

 

Edited June 12, 2011 by Ford Jellymoulds

[timmm55]

I think the problem was me......

 

 

How's that for a return to topic and thread tie in...

 

Certainly not a problem to discuss related DNA!

[jpd80]

Certainly not a problem to discuss related DNA!

I just hope you guys realize the implications of engineering Mustang for LHD and RHD, that opens up doors

not possible before and to give you an example, the Fox mustang was imported by FoA, converted to RHD

but due to low sale numbers and two $500,000 crash tests, the cost of a GT blew out to $85,000...yikes!!!

With Dearborn doing the RHD engineering and parts as well as crash tests, the whole thing can be amortized

and reasonable cost recovery made possible, I believe offering the V6 Mustang for $40,000 and Gt for $48,000

would be a very provocative move, it would also help Ford position other products better and take emphasis off

the Falcon so that it no longer has to be all things to all people, Mustang, Territory/T6 Ranger and Falcon/Mondeo

are probably all we really need to cover mid-large sedan SUV market in Australia...

Edited June 13, 2011 by jpd80

[Mark B. Morrow]

An no wonder why Mark, that was the original plan......

 

I read your later post after responding to the one with the pics. The Falcon was a very attractive car, especially the coupes. I have loved them ever since I saw Mad Max.. There are a few here. I saw a couple at the Carlisle, PA All Ford Show a few years ago. There was very little difference in the US and Australian Falcons in '60-61. Over time, the changes to the US car trickled over but the Australian cars changed less often until the XA by which time the US Falcon was dead.

[RichardJensen]

the whole thing can be amortized

and reasonable cost recovery made possible

RHD engineering & testing will have to be amortized strictly over RHD volume. It's not good accounting to do otherwise.

 

However, it'll probably be significantly cheaper to do it from the get-go.

[jpd80]

RHD engineering & testing will have to be amortized strictly over RHD volume. It's not good accounting to do otherwise.

 

However, it'll probably be significantly cheaper to do it from the get-go.

 

Especially if a future Falocn and Mustang shared more engineering componentry forward of the firewall,

maybe even as far as common RHD/LHD Dashboard/HVAC componentry but definitly different IP set ups....

I'm a strong believer that Falcon and Mustang can share, power trains, electrical systems, , front suspension

and possibly HVAC and dash design but it is equally important that the two remain separate enough to keep

their distinguishing traits so as to maximize efficiency without dilution of all the good features of each vehicle,

 

Paint me as the eternal optimist...

Edited June 13, 2011 by jpd80

[goinbroke2]

Missed our coke bottle styled Cortina & Taunus out JDP, they used love chewing up camshafts pinto. OHC pinto shit, you can't beat a trusty x-flow.

 

 

 

WTF are you talking about? the kent was/is a good engine I'll admit, but the 1.6L/2.0L pinto motor chewing cams? You do realise that eventually morphed into the 2.3L which was in pinto's and mustangs/fairmonts/rangers/etc,etc? It is only the MOST popular 4 cyl in ministock racing? And you can get everything from a oil pan bolt to a complete engine from esslinger..STILL...TODAY???

The kent motor was the basis for formula ford etc and the basic design was great. It also helped that the head wouldn't flow enough to kill itself, (like a vw flat four bug motor) so it was very reliable.

But the pinto motor having cam issues? If it did it certainly wasn't wide spread enough for anyone to remember.

[jpd80]

WTF are you talking about? the kent was/is a good engine I'll admit, but the 1.6L/2.0L pinto motor chewing cams? You do realise that eventually morphed into the 2.3L which was in pinto's and mustangs/fairmonts/rangers/etc,etc? It is only the MOST popular 4 cyl in ministock racing? And you can get everything from a oil pan bolt to a complete engine from esslinger..STILL...TODAY???

The kent motor was the basis for formula ford etc and the basic design was great. It also helped that the head wouldn't flow enough to kill itself, (like a vw flat four bug motor) so it was very reliable.

But the pinto motor having cam issues? If it did it certainly wasn't wide spread enough for anyone to remember.

There was a change in camshafts between the 2.0 and 2.3, an upgrade in the valve train to hydraulic lash adjusters.

I have to say that I've owned several 2.0 liter RWD Escorts and have never, never experienced chewed up camshafts...

 

Kent pushrod engine was a neat little unit, I had a 1968 Cortina with the early 681F engine but eventually upgraded it

to a later 711M Gt version out of a Capri, went like stink.....

[2b2]

Especially if a future Falocn and Mustang shared more engineering componentry forward of the firewall,

maybe even as far as common RHD/LHD Dashboard/HVAC componentry but definitly different IP set ups....

I'm a strong believer that Falcon and Mustang can share, power trains, electrical systems, , front suspension

and possibly HVAC and dash design but it is equally important that the two remain separate enough to keep

their distinguishing traits so as to maximize efficiency without dilution of all the good features of each vehicle,

 

Paint me as the eternal optimist...

me too, Jpd

 

tho everything I've read makes me believe the nextgen Mustang won't share more than the front

imho

a Continental can share a LOT more with a Falcon.

Afaik the Falcon needs to be stronger than NA cars, so a stretch for the Continental will be very easy to do.

And all three can share the engines and basic architecture.