FoE busy on new Mustang?

[2b2]

Or, it could be that since the new Mustang will be sold globally, FoE is working with the design team to ensure that it meets euro specs as well as North America specs so that when it goes on sale, it doesn't need too many modifications to bring it into compliance with those pesky euro specifications....

considering the timing:

- one year and not quite a month to U.S. On Sale

- significantly less than one year to U.S. Job1

,

minor modifications and fine tuning is all that's left to do,

maybe just trying to get euro-timing in synch with us.

[NickF1011]

the way the grille leans forward

 

the powerful kick up in the rear fender.

 

the tail lights look like an evolution of the

 

1965

The place it loses me entirely is the A-pillar back. It's decidedly un-Mustang, and that's one part about the Mustang (even through the Fox years) that remained relatively consistent in the design. The Mustang greenhouse has more or less always "sat on" the body. The integrated look of the Evos goes against that considerably. There are things about it that can work, I just think people are looking in the wrong direction for inspiration. Have there even been any official hints from Ford saying that the Evos will be any kind of inspiration for the design? I don't believe there has been. People just assumed it and ran with it until it became "fact".

[Deanh]

there is alot of mustang in the EVOS I think it would be an excellent

 

 

Being called a knucklehead is name calling, and is inappropriate especially from a moderator.

 

 

I don't think there is a need to rename it, just make the mustang with Global Market in mind.

missed that, seriously though come sell some cars for a while, that'll toughen you up....I wouldnt consider that name calling...as for renaming it Capri, I would say thats a good thing...that way Euros could think it was their baby completely and take any accollades, likewise for the US keeping Mustang....dont know where the angst came from but that would , at least subconciously ( until someone figured it out ) keep both bickering parties happy....lol

[NickF1011]

missed that, seriously though come sell some cars for a while, that'll toughen you up....I wouldnt consider that name calling...as for renaming it Capri, I would say thats a good thing...that way Euros could think it was their baby completely and take any accollades, likewise for the US keeping Mustang....dont know where the angst came from but that would , at least subconciously ( until someone figured it out ) keep both bickering parties happy....lol

I don't know. Part of the ROW appeal would be that it IS a Mustang, a real life perfectly legal Mustang, finally. Plus I don't think Ford will cloud the brand images by using multiple names if they don't have to. Kuga/Escape and Mondeo/Fusion were examples of already successful existing vehicle brands, so changing them all to one or the other could have led to a backlash or loss of appeal in one market. Capri has been gone and buried for some time. There's no reason to bring it back.

[ice-capades]

Far, far too much speculation as to Ford of Europe's involvement for the next generation Mustang. The only thing that matters is the final design and how well it represents Mustang for a global presence.

[Deanh]

Far, far too much speculation as to Ford of Europe's involvement for the next generation Mustang. The only thing that matters is the final design and how well it represents Mustang for a global presence.

absolutely agree....the Mustang is an American icon...going to be facinateing how they embrace the Euros, whilst not alienating the loyalists....stroppy bunch those Stang fans....

[jpvbs]

Ford is probably fine with this kind of speculation. If the Euros think they had significant input into it, that may help sales there. Over here, people will have every reason to believe the Mustang is All-American as it always has been. Everyone wants to talk about their relationship with the Nürburgring, so any speculation about European influence is hardly a death sentence.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Wasn't the original Mustang inspired by the European coupes in the first place?

One of the original contenders for the Mustang's name was Torino.

[RichardJensen]

One of the original contenders for the Mustang's name was Torino.

And what was the name of that similar looking, but much larger personal coupe Buick launched the year before?

[Biker16]

missed that, seriously though come sell some cars for a while, that'll toughen you up....I wouldnt consider that name calling...as for renaming it Capri, I would say thats a good thing...that way Euros could think it was their baby completely and take any accollades, likewise for the US keeping Mustang....dont know where the angst came from but that would , at least subconciously ( until someone figured it out ) keep both bickering parties happy....lol

 

the capri hasn't been sold in the EU for decades, I don't think it has any more meaning to the market than the galaxie or pinto does in the US.

 

 

the mustang brand at this point may be stronger than the Capri in EU.

[Biker16]

Everyone on the planet is guilty of criticism with bias.

 

Further, with you loudly trumpeting *every* FOE success, explain to me why I should devote significant chunks of what I post here to repetition of your points?

 

My failure to mention the assorted accomplishments of FoE does not constitute denial of their existence.

 

You, on the other hand, do not merely trumpet FOE successes, you loudly and often profanely attack any suggestion that their improved products have neither improved their bottom line, nor increased their market share, despite the factual basis for these points. You continually insist that FOE products can 'easily' be adapted for FNA, yet paradoxically call into question Ford's decision to launch so many Transit variants at once. You will defend FOE if it means contradicting yourself, as you did with the Transit launch, and as you did just now by equating "European-born designer" with "European design", while lauding the efforts of FOE under an American lead engineer.

 

You are more guilty than most at offering your opinion as fact.

 

For example what could FOE have done better in your opinion to improve their bottom line in the current Car market in the EU?

 

you can attack them for their mistake but fail to mention exactly what they did wrong.

[RichardJensen]

You are more guilty than most at offering your opinion as fact.

 

For example what could FOE have done better in your opinion to improve their bottom line in the current Car market in the EU?

 

you can attack them for their mistake but fail to mention exactly what they did wrong.

1 - Citation needed.

 

2 - They should have addressed capacity issues more aggressively. Much more aggressively. They have carried excess capacity for going on twenty-five years now; ever since Bob Lutz gambled the rent money on the Scorpio and Sierra, and VW ate their lunch in the 'family' segments--if I may mix my metaphors. Despite undergoing, by my count, at least two instances in which they had to be bailed out by the 'mother ship' since then, and not counting the most recent instance, they refrained from significantly shrinking their footprint. AFAIK, the largest action they've undertaken over the last two decades was transferring Halewood to Jaguar, which wasn't even, at the time, a reduction in their overall assembly footprint.

 

The overhead caused by this excess capacity in a market that appears to be less profitable on a net-per-unit basis than the U.S. for even the best run manufacturers has basically left FoE in a perpetual state of near-crisis. They don't have much margin for error.

 

Further, I have yet to see a reasoned explanation why, for all Ford's effort to outpace the competition, they have made negligible gains in market share, not to mention the concerning reality that Ford's revenue per unit has increased significantly in Europe, but not enough to stave off this latest financial crisis.

 

I would note that Ford has not struggled to either increase market share or increase revenue per unit, or occasionally do both, in the U.S., doing this during years in which Ford's products were according to some (you, to name one), inferior to product sold in Europe.

 

I would also suggest that the benefits of using global platforms has served to bolster Ford's margins in North America, rather than bringing them barely above the waterline as shared platforms seem to have done during the six comparatively (and I mean 'comparatively', when you look at the minuscule net margins in that business unit from 2006 to 2011) solid years FoE enjoyed from 2006 to 2011.

Edited March 20, 2013 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

This is similar to what's going on with Fusion becoming next generation Mondeo, there are quite a few FoE specific parts required to meet

the differences in crash test procedures and requirements for pedestrian safety. and an example of the differences is given in this LINK

Edited March 20, 2013 by jpd80

[probowler]

too bad Europeans hate Amerika so much they won't buy it, right?

 

They really do hate us though......what that means for sales though who knows. :shrug:

[Gnostic]

They really do hate us though......what that means for sales though who knows. :shrug:

I have a coworker from Ireland. He thought Ford was a UK based company. He is a bright fellow but does not follow the auto industry. I would not read too much into Europeans not buying US brands.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Gnostic

[Biker16]

This is similar to what's going on with Fusion becoming next generation Mondeo, there are quite a few FoE specific parts required to meet

the differences in crash test procedures and requirements for pedestrian safety. and an example of the differences is given in this LINK

 

that screams to me that a total redo of the mustang frontal structure. not only to meet EU ped protection laws but to have the flexibility to adapt to regional safety regulations.

[silvrsvt]

that screams to me that a total redo of the mustang frontal structure. not only to meet EU ped protection laws but to have the flexibility to adapt to regional safety regulations.

 

Did you even look at the PDF he posted...the only changes to the Fusion NA vs EU was different hood and the cowling under the windshield was changed to meet regs...not a totally different structure...

[jpd80]

that screams to me that a total redo of the mustang frontal structure. not only to meet EU ped protection laws but to have the flexibility to adapt to regional safety regulations.

No, just the areas identified in modelling that need changes to meet regulations in other areas.

If you looked through the link I provided in the above post, the changes in parts Ford Europe does to make Fusion comply with Euro

Crash testing mostly involve parts in the B Pillar, lower A pillars and double catches in the hood and a few other scattered parts.

Edited March 21, 2013 by jpd80

[Biker16]

 

Did you even look at the PDF he posted...the only changes to the Fusion NA vs EU was different hood and the cowling under the windshield was changed to meet regs...not a totally different structure...

can the current Car meet EU pedestrian regulations? No. It may require a deformable Front cowl, posible enrgey mangement in the front radiator support

 

 

 

2005 Fusion

 

2014 fusion

[silvrsvt]

can the current Car meet EU pedestrian regulations? No.

 

And where is the citation for this? Or you pulling out of your ass?

[NickF1011]

...and even if it doesn't meet EU pedestrian compatibility standards, who's to say to what extent modifications would need to be made to make it so it does?

Edited March 22, 2013 by NickF1011

[Biker16]

And where is the citation for this? Or you pulling out of your ass?

does it meet the pedestrian Standard today? since it not sold there now how can it meet the standard?

 

 

The rigid portions of the Hood support, The non energy absorbing cowl, and the potential lack of space between the hood and the engine to me requires a substantial amount of work, to a desgn that will be over 10 years old.

 

You don't see any difference, between the desgn of the Fusion's frontal structure and the mustang? you don't think that those differences are there for a reason?

 

 

From the Fusion PDF.

Vehicle needed to be designed to meet

both EuroNCAP - Gen II and proposed

Global (GTR) requirements for Head

Impact

 

Proposed styling prevented the use of conventional Cowl designs for meeting HIC requirements during windshield mpacts

 

Patent Pending design allowed for the achievement of the targeted HIC values

 

Flange design allows for the structure to flex under impact loading and increase energy absorption

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pamkq394c0M

[Biker16]

for the record EU tests Can be more severe than American tests.

 

Edited March 22, 2013 by Biker16

[NickF1011]

does it meet the pedestrian Standard today? since it not sold there now how can it meet the standard?

Just because it isn't sold there doesn't mean it won't meet it or doesn't at least already come close. It's likely that it doesn't, but I don't think every car sold in the EU had to be redesigned when they introducted that standard.

[Biker16]

Just because it isn't sold there doesn't mean it won't meet it or doesn't at least already come close. It's likely that it doesn't, but I don't think every car sold in the EU had to be redesigned when they introducted that standard.

The phase in time for the standards was over decade, the thing is those makers had multiple generations of products to evolve those designs to meet the standards, they weren't standing still they have been testing for pedestrian protection since at least 2004.