RichardJensen Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 basically gluing a Mustang front module to an AWD Fusion shell that's been slightly enlarged. I don't think you can do that without a lot of expensive tearup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Okay, so VW sells the CC. That means Ford should revisit the Scorpio instead of, oh, say, selling the Taurus in Europe? yes ford should not sell cars that suck in Europe. to use such an awful example of a cars as reasoning why Ford should not offer a car in the same class in europe is flawed logic. just some descriptions of the late 1998 Scoprio Jeremy Clarkson wrote in The Times at the time that this car ended any argument as to which was the ugliest on the road.[citation needed] In Richard Porter's 2004 book Crap Cars the Scorpio Mark II was listed as number 49 (of 50) on looks alone. Quentin Willson said in a 1997 Top Gear episode that the "sad-eyed Scorpio is so heroically ugly, it was obviously designed by Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder Again what you are really trying to say is ford should not market awful cars in europe, I agree with you 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I don't think you can do that without a lot of expensive tearup. anything you do is going to be more expensive than doing nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Ford needs to do two things: 1.) Export this to the USA either; ........a.) intact and sell it here as Falcon as a stable mate to Mustang, or ........b.) with Lincoln styling cues and call it Continental (one or the other, but not both) and 2.) Export it to China. While looks are subjective, This car in its current form is ugly -- It wouldn't sell well at all in the US -- It looks much better in pictures than it does in person. The back resembles the 96-99 taurus, with a little 2000+ sable tossed in. (it sags down) The Front while not ugly is just boring, it makes a Carmy look stylish. I give Ford AU credit though -- they have managed to update the car on a very basic budget, but it needs a full overhaul and that is something it will not get unless a world business case can be made for it. Now if Ford makes GRWD a scalable platform that has both AWD/RWD that could under pin a Lincoln subMKZ car, new Mustang, AU/NA/China Falcon, and Lincoln Flagship and Performance Car. It also needs a plant to go into to be built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 to use such an awful example of a cars as reasoning why Ford should not offer a car in the same class in europe is flawed logic. That whole CLASS died in Europe. Apart from the French cars, there were no entry level branded executive cars sold from the cancellation of the Scorpio to the launch of the CC. Unless you count the Phaeton, and most people of sound mind would not. Any more than you would consider the Lincoln Blackwood or Chevy SSR to be 'trucks'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) anything you do is going to be more expensive than doing nothing. If doing nothing earns you 4% interest, and doing something nets a 6% ROI, doing something is less expensive than doing nothing. And trying to merge the passenger cell of a transverse engined vehicle with the front structure of a longitudinal engined vehicle is not going to be cheap. Edited April 23, 2012 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I guess you could lump Nissan, Toyota, and VW into the group of manufacturers with GM with 2 or more large car architectures. It is not so black and White. If your are offering multiple architectures to cover different market segment but the same size classes, it makes sense to have 2 separate architectures. simply because a car is RWD does not mean it cannot share high-value components with other FWD architectures. HVAC, telematics, safety systems, electrical systems, brakes, power steering systems, etc, can be shared between FWD and RWD. Because of the price premium of luxury models they can afford to vary more from the base Architecture, If maintaining that 60% of the Architecture, Lincoln LWB models can afford to to be LWB because they can charge a premium. GRWD 20-30% part commonality by Cost with EUCD/C2 Mustang 120,000 units (Base) Taurus/Falcon/PI 150,000 units (60% commonality with architectural Base) MKS 30-50,000 units (80-90% commonality with Taurus Falcon.) MK! long wheelbase flagship 30-40,000 units(75% commonality with the MKS) Territory/Navigator 100,000 units 65% commonality with the Taurus/Falcon. Expect high carryover of design elements to future versions of current models. base architecture designed to last decades. These are invented numbers! And just because a car is more expensive because Ford can't sell enough of them to amortize the investment does not mean you get to pass that along to customers and expect them to fund it with their generosity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) If doing nothing earns you 4% interest, and doing something nets a 6% ROI, doing something is less expensive than doing nothing. And trying to merge the passenger cell of a transverse engined vehicle with the front structure of a longitudinal engined vehicle is not going to be cheap. I agree. OK, I have knowledge of 3 different detailed studies trying to merge FWD and RWD platforms. After the first time, upper management issued severe beatings (wanna see the scars?) when you tried to say "we've already studied it, I can tell you the implications." So off to study it again. And again when a new VP refused to listen to previous studies, it was done a third time. These were each for different projects, and with different donor platforms, so it represents a good sample. It doesn't work. The problem is you start making changes from the front bumper beam back, and by time you get to the c-pillar, you've essentially bought an all new vehicle. The proportions of an FWD car are completely different from a RWD car. The crash signature is different. Too complicated to get into everything, and I think I have onset altzheimers since I can't remember all the details, but these studies were done on a part-by-part basis with full support from advanced engineering (including detailed package assessment), and they never made any sense financially. There is only one type of drive arrangement that might work. That's the one used in the Acura Legend IIRC. It was FWD, but the drive arrangement was pretty much the same as the front half of an RWD AWD system -- a PTO from the transmission with a shaft going forward and through the oil pan. But after you go to all that trouble, you have to ask, "why not just make it RWD?" So, in summary, this is pretty much a non-starter. Edited April 23, 2012 by Austin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 That whole CLASS died in Europe. Apart from the French cars, there were no entry level branded executive cars sold from the cancellation of the Scorpio to the launch of the CC. Unless you count the Phaeton, and most people of sound mind would not. Any more than you would consider the Lincoln Blackwood or Chevy SSR to be 'trucks'. for the record this was the scorpio. Richard selling the Mustang there somehow makes more sense, because it has 0 competition left in Europe. how many RWD sedans are sold in Europe that are not from a luxury brand? 0? What is the least expensive 350hp sedan in Europe? How well would A RWD ford sell in russia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 There is only one type of drive arrangement that might work. That's the one used in the Acura Legend IIRC. It was FWD, but the drive arrangement was pretty much the same as the front half of an RWD AWD system -- a PTO from the transmission with a shaft going forward and through the oil pan. But after you go to all that trouble, you have to ask, "why not just make it RWD?" Volkswagen Group MLB Platform? (underpins every Audi from A4 on up) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) Volkswagen Group MLB Platform? (underpins every Audi from A4 on up) Just from memory without doing a lot of checking.... The platform you are referring to is longitudinal FWD/AWD. Latitudinal FWD's (EW) have the vast majority of their engine/transmission weight in front of the front wheels. Of course you can make them AWD with a takeoff from the transmission and a shaft to the rear. This wouldn't be suitable for a RWD only because of the 65% weight over the front wheels. Longitudinal (NS - historical Audi) also had the majority of the engine/transmission weight in front of the front wheels. And they had a further problem with a long nose due to the ns engine mounting (the halfshafts which went to the front wheels came out near the back of the transmission). Audi revised the transmission design, and moved the halfshafts to the front of the transmission which allows the placement of the engine/transmission further rearward and improving weight distribution). Although I haven't checked, I think the engine is still further forward than a good RWD, hence probably still too much weight on front wheels? So this still wouldn't make a good design for RWD only. AWD from a longitudinal powertrain is a piece of cake, and Audi does it well. But their handling is still not as good as a BMW. Edited April 23, 2012 by Austin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainp4 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 What if they moved Explorer and Taurus, MKExplorer and flagship lincoln sedan, along with whatever could be shared with mustang and a lincoln 2 door coupe as much as possible shared on a 'grwd' platform? They could get rid of the fat pig D3/4 (even move flex over if they keep it). Even a possible ranger type truck similar to explorer, but with a bed? Police intercepor and utility would still share suspension pieces as well if they moved them over to grwd as deriviatives of GRWD Taurus and Explorer like they are now. Doubtful with all the promoting they've done of the new PI's, but.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Then you'd just end up with a fat pig of a GRWD platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) Then you'd just end up with a fat pig of a GRWD platform. At the moment, a RWD Territory is approximately 224 lb lighter than the comparable base FWD Explorer, on paper the Territory appears to be barely larger than the Ford Edge yet has similar interior space to Explorer. I keep wondering about this and the perception of external size governing or at least influencing purchasing decisions, even if Ford could convince buyers that Territory or US equivalent has the same internal size/dimensions/capacity as the D3 explorer, would buyers avoid it because of the perception that the vehicle is outwardly much smaller than expected. It's the same argument that was offered a few years ago regarding Std wheelbase Panther versus post 2008 Falcon, internally both offer very similar hip, shoulder and rear leg room but the external difference in size is massive. Now Fast forward to 2013 Fusion and Taurus side by side, the Taurus is huge externally but the interior dimensions are much closer, revealing the new Fusion as a svelte yet cavernous mid sizer which a huge weight advantage. So i have to ask my self, is this as much about buyer perception, generations of marketing propaganda/conditioning more than just building space efficient vehicles, is there an inbuilt expectation by buyers that a vehicle with more generous proportions is going to be more value for money than buying a slim and trim alternative. Edited April 24, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 At the moment, a RWD Territory is approximately 224 lb lighter than the comparable base FWD Explorer, on paper the Territory appears to be barely larger than the Ford Edge yet has similar interior space to Explorer. But does the Territory have all the niceties of the Explorer, the crash protection, the sound deadening, the big a$$ wheels, etc.? All of that adds a lot of weight. (and maybe the Territory does, I don't know, but I'm guessing the crash standards aren't what they are in the US). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Then you'd just end up with a fat pig of a GRWD platform. No imagination, no vision This is not 1999, things change. What if they moved Explorer and Taurus, MKExplorer and flagship lincoln sedan, along with whatever could be shared with mustang and a lincoln 2 door coupe as much as possible shared on a 'grwd' platform? They could get rid of the fat pig D3/4 (even move flex over if they keep it). Even a possible ranger type truck similar to explorer, but with a bed? Police intercepor and utility would still share suspension pieces as well if they moved them over to grwd as deriviatives of GRWD Taurus and Explorer like they are now. Doubtful with all the promoting they've done of the new PI's, but.. you could do that. SUV ground clearance is achived not in the body shop but by using different Front and rear sub frame that allow for greater wheel travel and ride hieght. simply keeping the engine location, frame rails, lower Apillar, and front subframe mounting points common, you have alot of leeway in the veheicle itself but maintain high commonality on the parts of the vehicle that are the most costly to develop and the most costly parts to aquire. that is your 60% commonality. It would appear just by making the mustang global, you have the basic foundation of a GRWD archtecture. what you need is the direction from dearborn to maintain flexbility in the frontal struture, and to make the investments need to make it capable of becoming a lincoln one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 These are invented numbers! And just because a car is more expensive because Ford can't sell enough of them to amortize the investment does not mean you get to pass that along to customers and expect them to fund it with their generosity. borg how does ford make money on the flex? they charge more for it. selling a 60-70,000 flagship there is alot of margin in the product that people are willing to pay for greater diffentiation from lesser models. yes how can lexus afford to market the LS, GS, IS and SC with such small volumes, becuase they can charge more. they also don't reinvent the wheel everytime the product is redesigned, they carryover alot from genration to generation, thier plants are less automated, becuase robots are less flexbile than people and they build them slower than mass market models. the reuslt is lower development and tooling costs, but higher production costs, which makes sense for low volume production. the business case for luxury cars is different from that of mainstrem cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 You didn't answer Borg's assertion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) Falcon, Territory and Mustang already exist. If they were to evolve into one loosely related "platform" then I would be happy and it would also fulfill the requirements of "One Ford" mantra going forward. I could argue that Ford already has a Global RWD strategy but it's not the one that many RWD fans are hoping for and is more scales of economy centric rather than focusing on scales of sales as has been offered above... Having RWD platforms in existence already is completely different to a greenfield proposal and what you can achieve with evolution is far less expensive than starting with a clean sheet. This is why I think FNA and FoA will be working more closely with each other from now on - this may not advantage the US but will ease FoA's burden considerably. Previously, a well connected friend has advised that ,Falcon and Territory share at best 40% of their parts count, if you try to share more than that then the distinguishing derivative attributes begin to suffer as in the SUV begins to become more like a station wagon variant or the sedan becomes a taller, more garish SUV-like sedan. Edited April 24, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) Earlier in this thread, Austin vetoed my idea of a common FWD/RWD/AWD platform saying that it had been studied on no less than three occasions in the past and the chiefs told that it's not feasible. What has changed to day is that we have virtual design and crash test programs that can probe intriguing "what ifs' scenarios and come up with answers. To be more precise in what I'm suggesting, I propose that Ford take EUCD/CD4 crash protection and framing and compare it with E8 Falcon and D2C Mustang, look at where the changes in design are in terms of front rail, firewall-A-pillar -floor pan interconnection that changes in regards to force vectoring in crashes. Tempering my stance from "one Falcon frame design suiting all circumstances" to one of co-development of FWD and RWD designs so that the computer programs can follow the needed changes at the virtual stages and reap much more benefit from doing the design once and then having a frame blueprint / master plan for designers to work with.. Edited April 24, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 This is why I think FoNA and FAU will be working more closely with each other from now on - this may not advantage Australia but will ease FoNA's burden considerably. fixed ^ (sorry, not sure if I'm feeling contrary or having a rationality-attack or a practicality-ache) ...Ford already has a Global RWD strategy but it's not the one that many RWD fans are hoping for... I'm hoping for ANY Global RWD strategy Falcon, Territory and Mustang already exist. If they were to evolve into one loosely related "platform" then I would be happy ...my idea of a common FWD/RWD/AWD platform... ...I'm suggesting, I propose that Ford take EUCD/CD4... ...E8 Falcon and D2C Mustang... ...co-development of FWD and RWD designs... ...doing the design once and then having a frame blueprint / master plan for designers to work with.. heck, I'll be ecstatic if they manage to share a platform between the Falcon & Continental & a related version between the Territory & Aviator/Navigator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 25, 2012 Author Share Posted April 25, 2012 Here's a link to How Falcon's durability is checked: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Earlier in this thread, Austin vetoed my idea of a common FWD/RWD/AWD platform saying that it had been studied on no less than three occasions in the past and the chiefs told that it's not feasible. What has changed to day is that we have virtual design and crash test programs that can probe intriguing "what ifs' scenarios and come up with answers. To be more precise in what I'm suggesting, I propose that Ford take EUCD/CD4 crash protection and framing and compare it with E8 Falcon and D2C Mustang, look at where the changes in design are in terms of front rail, firewall-A-pillar -floor pan interconnection that changes in regards to force vectoring in crashes. Tempering my stance from "one Falcon frame design suiting all circumstances" to one of co-development of FWD and RWD designs so that the computer programs can follow the needed changes at the virtual stages and reap much more benefit from doing the design once and then having a frame blueprint / master plan for designers to work with.. If CD4 was designed from the start with this in mind, then I can see this working. But I think the boat may have sailed on that for this go around. Maybe for CD5? The idea is simple enough... the "platform" now days is really a set of common elements that could enable flex manufacturing and common parts sourcing. Thing like shared powertrain packages and dimensions, similar suspension and subframes mounting points, identical electrical subsystems etc. The unibody of cars are unique anyway so having a rear driveshaft by itself doesn't really preclude whether or not the cars can be on the same "platform". Engine orientation is also not a problem as Ford has demonstrated with Transit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 You didn't answer Borg's assertion. didn't I to put it the simplest terms,. 2 costs product development cost-costs to design and retool for production of a product. production costs. cost per unit to build, purchased costs of parts and labor to build a car. it does not cost 10,000 dollars more to build the BMW 3 series than a Focus. as a matter of fact the costs of assembly of a vehicle over a certain threshold of production is not that different. the cost of the parts may change but the costs to build a fiesta is not much lower than the costs to build a taurus. with lower volume vheicles the PD costs are fixed you spend 1 billion dollars to develop a car. if you only sell 30,000 of them per year your costs are $6,700 per car over 5 years of production 6,700 per vehicle in PD costs you could spend the same amount to develop a higher volume vehicle like the fusion that would sell 450,000 units worldwide. which would mean only $444 per vehicle after 5 years of production in PD costs. this kind of math makes sense for a mainstream car like the Fusion where the actual selling price will be much closer to the overall production costs, you want to spread the devleopment costs over as many vehicles as possible. but ford Flagship lincoln sedan which should price out close to $70,000 the production costs are unlikely to cross $40-50k (simply put there is only so much expensive shit you can add to a car) you can afford to spend 1 billion on a vehicle that sell only 30k per year. especially if that vehicle will be produced on an architecture where the engines, transmissions, electrical systems already exist and the economies of scale of those systems are large. the production costs are minimized because the plant that makes it are already paid for, and the tooling costs are being shared with other vehicles in the plant. if you can sell a $70,000 sedan that is costs you $40,000 to build and $6,700 in PD cost, you can still make a healthy profit on that product. or over 2 billion dollars in profit over 5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 didn't I to put it the simplest terms,. 2 costs product development cost-costs to design and retool for production of a product. production costs. cost per unit to build, purchased costs of parts and labor to build a car. it does not cost 10,000 dollars more to build the BMW 3 series than a Focus. as a matter of fact the costs of assembly of a vehicle over a certain threshold of production is not that different. the cost of the parts may change but the costs to build a fiesta is not much lower than the costs to build a taurus. with lower volume vheicles the PD costs are fixed you spend 1 billion dollars to develop a car. if you only sell 30,000 of them per year your costs are $6,700 per car over 5 years of production 6,700 per vehicle in PD costs you could spend the same amount to develop a higher volume vehicle like the fusion that would sell 450,000 units worldwide. which would mean only $444 per vehicle after 5 years of production in PD costs. this kind of math makes sense for a mainstream car like the Fusion where the actual selling price will be much closer to the overall production costs, you want to spread the devleopment costs over as many vehicles as possible. but ford Flagship lincoln sedan which should price out close to $70,000 the production costs are unlikely to cross $40-50k (simply put there is only so much expensive shit you can add to a car) you can afford to spend 1 billion on a vehicle that sell only 30k per year. especially if that vehicle will be produced on an architecture where the engines, transmissions, electrical systems already exist and the economies of scale of those systems are large. the production costs are minimized because the plant that makes it are already paid for, and the tooling costs are being shared with other vehicles in the plant. if you can sell a $70,000 sedan that is costs you $40,000 to build and $6,700 in PD cost, you can still make a healthy profit on that product. or over 2 billion dollars in profit over 5 years. very interesting perspective, Biker! want to get that in before someone starts... ...you know 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.