jpd80 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) The CD539 is the S-Max and the u502 is the current explorer....take it for what its worth...can't find anything on D568 D568 is not necessarily Taurus, everyone just assumes that it is.... Just like the Asian press just assumed that U375 was Explorer until it was pointed out to be T6 SUV Edited July 13, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 The CD539 is the S-Max and the u502 is the current explorer....take it for what its worth...can't find anything on D568 There's a Ford employee on LinkedIn that lists his job as "Studio Engineer overseeing the Exterior CD539N (North America Sport Package) and the CD539C (China Sport Package). Coordinating between Exterior Engineering Groups and Studio Design Concepts for Feasibility." If CD359 is S-Max, I would be willing to bet that the next Edge will be a platform mate. FWIW, the Mondeo's code name is CD391 while the Fusion is referred to as CD391N. Interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I remember reading something about that Land Rover - wasn't it supposed to be a 7-seat LR2 (obviously lengthened, etc)? Basically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 the Taurus is still actually bigger then the Explorer by an inch or two in overall length. An inch or two? The Taurus is longer than the FLEX in overall length, even though the Flex has a wheelbase which is nearly 5" longer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) 6. As I said, I don't have any experts to talk with, but I have a suspicion that the CD4 also might not have the width flexibility to accomodate a next-generation Explorer. But I have no idea what a next-generation Explorer would really look like.....Will full-size utilities still exist? Will they also have to go through a downsizing? No idea. S-Max is EUCD, has three row seating and its shoulder width dimension is around the same as Explorer/Territory. I'm not suggesting that S-Max be used in place of those two SUVs but it could form the beginnings of a new CD4 SUV family. There's a Ford employee on LinkedIn that lists his job as "Studio Engineer overseeing the Exterior CD539N (North America Sport Package) and the CD539C (China Sport Package). Coordinating between Exterior Engineering Groups and Studio Design Concepts for Feasibility." If CD359 is S-Max, I would be willing to bet that the next Edge will be a platform mate. FWIW, the Mondeo's code name is CD391 while the Fusion is referred to as CD391N. Interesting... Now that's very interesting information, I wonder what the difference between the two styling packages will be..... Edited July 13, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 There's a Ford employee on LinkedIn that lists his job as "Studio Engineer overseeing the Exterior CD539N (North America Sport Package) and the CD539C (China Sport Package). Coordinating between Exterior Engineering Groups and Studio Design Concepts for Feasibility." If CD359 is S-Max, I would be willing to bet that the next Edge will be a platform mate. FWIW, the Mondeo's code name is CD391 while the Fusion is referred to as CD391N. Interesting... I noticed that yesterday when I was poking around for platform info....first time I've seen the C designator...though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 There's a Ford employee on LinkedIn that lists his job as "Studio Engineer overseeing the Exterior CD539N (North America Sport Package) and the CD539C (China Sport Package). Coordinating between Exterior Engineering Groups and Studio Design Concepts for Feasibility." If CD359 is S-Max, I would be willing to bet that the next Edge will be a platform mate. FWIW, the Mondeo's code name is CD391 while the Fusion is referred to as CD391N. Interesting... Studio Engineer is a job that can be invaluable to help with initial feasibility of designs. They can help keep the designers in check so they don't do something stupid/expensive, and they can help push the envelope on the engineering side for things the designers really want. I'm a little surprised with this rather limited job title for a Studio Engineer -- it looks like this person is just working on a trim package which isn't very tough and wouldn't normally be a full-time job. Usually their jobs are broader than just "Sport Package." They are much, much more important during platform changes, working in conjunction with Advanced Engineering (including Packaging Engineers) at first, and then with the Program Team later when one is formed (usually 36 months or so before Job #1). Edge based on CD4 is a near certain bet. Don't forget that Ford promised CAW a new platform in Oakville during the last set of negotiations which IMO was pretty much a giveaway that CD4 in Oakville was going to happen. My understanding is that there were battles inside Ford over S-Max being a replacement for Edge. I know that Ford NA won that round (S-Max would have been totally dorky and unsat for the U.S.), but I'm not sure what the tophat(s) will look like around the world. One, or more?? The country designations behind the program number are somewhat amusing. Ford used to use country codes, but discontinued the practice until recently it seems. Just shows that "One Ford" works up to a point, but there are local requirements (safety, emissions, features) that dictate some uniqueness by market. You need to keep those in check so they don't blossom out into a lot of uniqueness which can bring cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I noticed that yesterday when I was poking around for platform info....first time I've seen the C designator...though. It's "C" for China, it's nice to see us export something to China, even if it's just a design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Isn't the Edge already being exported to China also? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I'm seeing Flexes all over the place, at least down here in New Mexico. Most are the first-gen, but as I'm not a big fan of the new nose, I don't blame the owners. I hope the model continues on for a good long while. So many people buy SUVs, crossovers, etc. when what they really need is a good ol' wagon. Im with you on the nose, they could have done away with a lot of the detailing which in my opinion is overly fussy. Headlights especially, DITCH ALL THE DAMN CHROME! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 An inch or two? The Taurus is longer than the FLEX in overall length, even though the Flex has a wheelbase which is nearly 5" longer! dont get me started on my pet peeve "over-hangs".... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainp4 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Though what everyone is saying is probably much more likely and feasible, I'd really like to see all of the "D" sized vehicles move to a flexible unit body RWD/awd platform. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 dont get me started on my pet peeve "over-hangs".... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 OMG make it go away . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) The country designations behind the program number are somewhat amusing. Ford used to use country codes, but discontinued the practice until recently it seems. Just shows that "One Ford" works up to a point, but there are local requirements (safety, emissions, features) that dictate some uniqueness by market. You need to keep those in check so they don't blossom out into a lot of uniqueness which can bring cost. I'm hearing the terms "global platforms" and "sustaining platforms" which sounds like even though Ford has gained significant scales of economy with global platforms, they can't cover everything Ford wants to do.. So there will still have to be some sustaining platforms to fill in the gaps.. An interesting one is a vehicle for the BRIC group, apparently their large car needs are similar and justifies a unique project. Edited July 13, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 i CANT EVEN OPEN IT... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKII Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) I read Ford Russia/Sollers JV Elabuga Assembly slated the CD4 Explorer for 2017 SOP. I am assuming here, but would not using the CD4 platform for the current D4 platform vehicles assist in weight reduction goals? Edited July 14, 2012 by MKII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I read Ford Russia/Sollers JV Elabuga Assembly slated the CD4 Explorer for 2017 SOP. I am assuming here, but would not using the CD4 platform for the current D4 platform vehicles assist in weight reduction goals? Maybe, but only folks inside Ford can answer that question. I'm sure Ford is already doing early platform investigations for the next generation Explorer (I'm assuming Flex and MKT will go away at the next major juncture if not before). A final decision doesn't have to be made at this point but the overall platform direction and plant impacts likely would have to be completed by the end of next year (whether the Explorer major is as soon as 2017 I don't know). If you have to make substantial modifications of the CD4 to make it wide enough and robust enough, then it could be a big tearup. On the other hand, creating an all-new platform just for Explorer is not in the cards. We can't judge the weight effect externally and we can't even assume CD4-based would be lighter; it requires a lot of detailed investigation (believe me -- even the weight difference between body-on-frame RWD/AWD last gen Explorer and present D4 unibody FWD/AWD was very heavily debated and defended by both sides inside Ford in pre-program). Of course there is a big driver to reduce weight. And a big driver to use common components. D4 does a pretty good job on the commodity front. It does a good job on safety. But it does have issues with package efficiency and weight and some of these can't be changed by a light touch-up. Light weight actions would be considered. There are other potentially huge factors. Chicago was set up as a modular assembly plant (outside built-up components coming in to a plant just in time with very little floorspace for inventory). I have absolutely no idea what it would take -- or if it is even possible given the floor space limitations -- to take Chicago to Ford's standard assembly practices. But it likely would be expensive. One other thing I would like to mention. There can be a difference between what actually happens and what is transmitted externally. Right now, Ford wants to show externally that they are becoming more responsible and efficient by reducing platforms and moving to "One Ford." If the next-gen Explorer platform does change, Ford likely would use CD4 as a starting point and will call it a CD4 derivative regardless of the amount of change. Ford did something similar with the CD3 (Fusion) and CD3s (Edge) platforms; they are related only by the fact that both were Mazda dervied, but are really separate and distinct platforms. The Ford narative, however, has always implied they are related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 i CANT EVEN OPEN IT... Believe me, you don't want her to open anything to you! 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.