FoE busy on new Mustang?

[NickF1011]

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.

Still, without some kind of specific engineering background, none of us really know the complexity of the task. Let's just agree that it'll need something and it'll cost some money. Nobody really knows how much except Ford.

[Noah Harbinger]

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

 

 

Why on earth would you post a youtube video to make that point? Can't you provide or link to some details supporting your argument?

[Biker16]

Why on earth would you post a youtube video to make that point? Can't you provide or link to some details supporting your argument?

 

becuase If you read the PDF JPD posted earlier it details the changes needed to make mondeo/Fusion meet both standards, and even though the EUCD architecture was already being used in the US, ford still had to heavily revise the crash structures. If you think the mustang will be an easy conversion to meet global crash standards look at how much was done to the Fusion.

 

Videos are sometimes easier for some people to visualize.

 

escially the one that describes the changes made to meet pedestrian crash standards.

 

Still, without some kind of specific engineering background, none of us really know the complexity of the task. Let's just agree that it'll need something and it'll cost some money. Nobody really knows how much except Ford.

 

Fair Enough,

 

We also forgot the costs of making the car RHD.

[jpd80]

I urge people to take a look through this PDF....LINK

 

It shows the specific parts that need to be changed by FoE to Make Fusion into Mondeo and compliant for pedestrian crash protection.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2013 by jpd80

[jpd80]

We also forgot the costs of making the car RHD.

The Fusion is an evolution of the previous Mondeo which was RHD and LHD

and even though there still a cost, it's nothing like greenfield engineering.

Edited March 22, 2013 by jpd80

[Biker16]

I was referring to converting the mustang to RHD not the fusion.

[jpd80]

I was referring to converting the mustang to RHD not the fusion.

(Maxwell Smart) Sorry about that chief......

 

Maybe FoE is doing the RHD conversion and NCAP crash test modifications to the frame design,

similar to what was done with Fusion/Mondeo in the above photos...

I have a hunch that the design was RHD preserved even if no development was ever done...

Edited March 24, 2013 by jpd80

[Biker16]

(Maxwell Smart) Sorry about that chief......

 

Maybe FoE is doing the RHD conversion and NCAP crash test modifications to the frame design,

similar to what was done with Fusion/Mondeo in the above photos...

I have a hunch that the design was RHD preserved even if no development was ever done...

 

 

I think they were on value engineering overdrive with SN97, they cut alot of corners.

[NickF1011]

 

I think they were on value engineering overdrive with SN97, they cut alot of corners.

S197 or SN95?

 

SN95 (94-04) was definitely a value proposition, as it still carried over most traits from the previous Fox platform.

 

S197 (05+) was a relatively expensive proposition, or at least the D2C platform was. I think a lot of the cost cutting was done relatively late in the program as expenses started to spiral upward. Because of that, a lot of the engineering (like RHD preservation) likely made it through to the final product since it was already engineered into it at that point.

[silvrsvt]

S197 (05+) was a relatively expensive proposition, or at least the D2C platform was. I think a lot of the cost cutting was done relatively late in the program as expenses started to spiral upward. Because of that, a lot of the engineering (like RHD preservation) likely made it through to the final product since it was already engineered into it at that point.

 

I can't find the costs at the moment of the development of the S197, but I did find this:

 

"We started with DEW98 as a natural beginning because it was the last major rear-drive platform we did, and we have experience of taking multiple nameplates off of it," says Hau Thai-Tang, the Mustang's chief nameplate engineer. "We learned a lot about making a convertible from it when we did the Thunderbird, and we knew we weren't going to achieve the structural stiffness targets we were aiming for [for the Mustang]. Because the Thunderbird has no rear seat, we were able to add some structure behind the front seats. We didn't have that flexibility with the Mustang, because it must have a back seat." So the platform needed major structural enhancement and materials optimization in many areas, which it got. The result is that so much has changed, in terms of components and dimensions, it's effectively a new chassis. Thai-Tang adds that "at the component level, there's about 35-percent reusability from other Ford products. But in terms of pure DEW98 carryover, there's not a lot; the front chassis rail architecture, floorpans, trans tunnel, saddle-style fuel tanks are similar. The rest is new." Weight distribution improves from the current 57/43 to a better-balanced 52 percent front, 48 rear. Torsional rigidity of the new car versus the old? Double.

 

From what I reading, other parts where taken from the C1 program

 

More info on the engine in 2005, I'd assume the percentages are almost the same these days also

 

The engine shares about 40 percent of its componentry with the 2004 F-150's Triton 5.4-liter, about 30 percent with the old SOHC two-valve engine, and the other 30 percent is new and Mustang-specific. "And wait until you hear it," says Wagner. "Three of the team members on this engine are racers, and many own Mustangs older than they are. This engine had to be right and had to sound and feel like a torquey American V-8." Two transmissions will be offered: a Tremec 3650 five-speed manual and Ford's own 5R55S five-speed automatic, the latter another Mustang first.

 

With that being said, I don't think the S197 cost that much money to develop, considering what was happening to Ford back then. I can't find a dollar amount (I remember Ford saying it spent a couple billion dollars on the Contour in the mid-1990s, but that also included new engines) for how much, but I bet it was less then 2 billion for everything.

[Biker16]

S197 or SN95?

 

SN95 (94-04) was definitely a value proposition, as it still carried over most traits from the previous Fox platform.

 

S197 (05+) was a relatively expensive proposition, or at least the D2C platform was. I think a lot of the cost cutting was done relatively late in the program as expenses started to spiral upward. Because of that, a lot of the engineering (like RHD preservation) likely made it through to the final product since it was already engineered into it at that point.

 

the cost cutting basically was done to reduce production costs as much as possible, it was done with a hatchet not a scalpel, it was the reason the platform was unable to be considered for a sedan. the key to developing a flexible platform is to minimize the alteration to the structural sled, but to minimize production cost and complexity you integrate the structure and the body/ top hat as much as possible. The analogy is having a custom made suit, to save cost on the alteration of an off the rack suit.

 

the fusion CD4 platform. because the structure is deep within the body you have a lot of flexibility in the design of new top hats. it also make the redesign much easier.

 

 

 

 

With that being said, I don't think the S197 cost that much money to develop, considering what was happening to Ford back then. I can't find a dollar amount (I remember Ford saying it spent a couple billion dollars on the Contour in the mid-1990s, but that also included new engines) for how much, but I bet it was less then 2 billion for everything.

 

It was about 2 billion.

 

think about it I don't think ford spent 2 billion on C2, If you include the retooling of MPa and LAP maybe, but the focus out sells the Mustang 12 to 1. I could see ford spending 2 billion on the 2015 IF they are making the investment to make a 2020 mustang redesign cost less than 400 million, and have a option for a Lincoln sedan. The way platform accounting works nowadays the costs of the platform is more or less considered like an investment in factory, the pay back period can be over generations of of products, not just the first generation.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Biker16

[silvrsvt]

It was about 2 billion.

 

think about it I don't think ford spent 2 billion on C2, If you include the retooling of MPa and LAP maybe, but the focus out sells the Mustang 12 to 1. I could see ford spending 2 billion on the 2015 IF they are making the investment to make a 2020 mustang redesign cost less than 400 million, and have a option for a Lincoln sedan. The way platform accounting works nowadays the costs of the platform is more or less considered like an investment in factory, the pay back period can be over generations of of products, not just the first generation.

 

I understand that, but the selling expectations of the 2005 Mustang was around 100K units per year IIRC...and it sold well above that the first couple years. The car saw a considerable upgrade in materials in the 2009 update (along with price)...I'm willing to bet that the 2005-2009 paid for itself or made more money then Ford was expecting.

 

I don't see them spending "a lot" of money on the 2015 redesign, unless you said they are planning on doing a Sedan off the Mustang platform, but IIRC I don't think they are going to go that route now. Maybe in 2020, when they can do both of them and we'll see where the market is going to.

[lfeg]

Going back to the topic at hand, FOE had better be working hard on the Mustang. How to best market it, how to make the best of its impact, and so on are no easy tasks. Mustang will be a niche vehicle in Euroland due to its cost, size, and fuel economy, FOE has a lot of work to do.

[NickF1011]

Going back to the topic at hand, FOE had better be working hard on the Mustang. How to best market it, how to make the best of its impact, and so on are no easy tasks. Mustang will be a niche vehicle in Euroland due to its cost, size, and fuel economy, FOE has a lot of work to do.

 

Well, honestly, I hope they aren't devoting too many resources to it, since it is such a niche product. I really don't think it needs a whole lot of marketing. People just need to know it's available. Those who might want one already know what a Mustang is. Trying to push it on the market likely won't help it much.

[2b2]

...I don't see them spending "a lot" of money on the 2015 redesign, unless you said they are planning on doing a Sedan off the Mustang platform, but IIRC I don't think they are going to go that route now. Maybe in 2020, when they can do both of them and we'll see where the market is going to.

 

I rather hope they've spent a considerable amount on the Design Phase ... in order to make the S550 more economical to BUILD

&

really hope a LincStang sportsedan is a large part of the Designing - imho 2020 is too late - both timewise AND because the design has already been set in stone for the life of S550

[Deanh]

Well, honestly, I hope they aren't devoting too many resources to it, since it is such a niche product. I really don't think it needs a whole lot of marketing. People just need to know it's available. Those who might want one already know what a Mustang is. Trying to push it on the market likely won't help it much.

niche implies the platform wont be utilized for anything else....like Ive said...I think it WILL be used for something else, in which case resources will be spent but overall costs can be amortised...I swear, my gut IS tellin me there will be a RWD large sedan in either/ or a ford or lincoln guise....

[NickF1011]

niche implies the platform wont be utilized for anything else....like Ive said...I think it WILL be used for something else, in which case resources will be spent but overall costs can be amortised...I swear, my gut IS tellin me there will be a RWD large sedan in either/ or a ford or lincoln guise....

 

I meant resources specific to marketing in Europe. I definitely hope the overall resources to the program in general aren't minimized beyond where they should be.

[mackinaw]

niche implies the platform wont be utilized for anything else....like Ive said...I think it WILL be used for something else, in which case resources will be spent but overall costs can be amortised...I swear, my gut IS tellin me there will be a RWD large sedan in either/ or a ford or lincoln guise....

A Lincoln. I was listening to Autoline After Hours a few weeks back and Paul Eisenstein (The Detroit Bureau), in an informal meeting with Alan Mulally, "tricked" him into admitting the the Management Team had approved a RWD Lincoln.

[RichardJensen]

it was done with a hatchet not a scalpel, it was the reason the platform was unable to be considered for a sedan

 

It was about 2 billion.

 

It was never intended to spawn a sedan, and therefore has none of the compromises that the Camaro & Challenger have to accommodate a sedan. It was programmed as a sui generis platform/vehicle. As an example: the fuel tank was shaped to match the rear seat depressions in the floorpan, and the entire package is trimmer and lighter than the sedan-supporting LX & Zeta products from GM & Chrysler.

 

Citation needed.

Edited March 26, 2013 by RichardJensen

[Deanh]

A Lincoln. I was listening to Autoline After Hours a few weeks back and Paul Eisenstein (The Detroit Bureau), in an informal meeting with Alan Mulally, "tricked" him into admitting the the Management Team had approved a RWD Lincoln.

AHA!....gut releived, now all i need is confirmation the underpinnings are related to the 2015 Mustang and Im batting 1000

[jpd80]

Perhaps more to do with adjustments to the frame to comply with Europe's different crash test procedures..

[Biker16]

I understand that, but the selling expectations of the 2005 Mustang was around 100K units per year IIRC...and it sold well above that the first couple years. The car saw a considerable upgrade in materials in the 2009 update (along with price)...I'm willing to bet that the 2005-2009 paid for itself or made more money then Ford was expecting.

 

I don't see them spending "a lot" of money on the 2015 redesign, unless you said they are planning on doing a Sedan off the Mustang platform, but IIRC I don't think they are going to go that route now. Maybe in 2020, when they can do both of them and we'll see where the market is going to.

 

 

I don;t see them having any choice but to spend money to undo the inflexible design of the current car, if not for other variants on the platform but to reduce the cost of the next redesign.

 

It was never intended to spawn a sedan, and therefore has none of the compromises that the Camaro & Challenger have to accommodate a sedan. It was programmed as a sui generis platform/vehicle. As an example: the fuel tank was shaped to match the rear seat depressions in the floorpan, and the entire package is trimmer and lighter than the sedan-supporting LX & Zeta products from GM & Chrysler.

 

Citation needed.

 

 

Richard, the mustang was derived from a Sedan, a midsized sedan they value engineered that platform into a dead end platform.

 

 

L/W/H/WB

 

LS

193/73/56/ 114

3600lbs

 

300c

197/74/58/120

4027lbs

 

As to compromises on design because of Sedan linage look at the Genesis coupe, it turns our to be lighter than the mustang even though it is based on a RWD sedan.

 

GM and DCX were lazy in the design of the Camaro and challenger, they wanted as little to possible to the platform to accommodate the coupes, plus they based both coupe on large sedans.

 

looK at Hyundai

 

Genesis coupe

182/73.4/54/111

3362lbs

 

genesis sedan

196/74.4/58.3/115

3824lbs

 

Equius sedan

203/74.4/58.7/119.9

4486lbs

 

one platform spans mid-sized to full-sized coupes and Sedans. with an 1100 lbs difference in weight. this is what for should be looking to do not simply build another dead end architecture.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Biker16

[ice-capades]

All this speculation about the next generation 2015 Mustang and the additional engineering required in order to sell it on a global basis. Ford has made big mistakes in the past with other models but they've always been very careful with both respecting and understanding the Mustang's iconic history in the industry. For the first time they're going to take the car global and they're not going to mess it up. While the market in Europe is important, that's only part of the new global market for the next generation Mustang. They understand and respect that the next generation has to be true to the Mustang heritage in styling clues and performance but still be attractive on a global basis in order to meet the demands of the global market regarding engineering, safety and fuel economy.

 

With the all-new Mustang due to go into production in less than a year now you can be sure that all but the most minor elements are all locked in now. It's just a matter now of what information chooses to leak to the press until the car is unveiled at a future car show. Any discussion now is just speculation but as much fun as it is... that's all it is. The only prize is the initial reveal of the all-new Mustang when Ford decides to do so!

[RichardJensen]

Richard, the mustang was derived from a Sedan, a midsized sedan they value engineered that platform into a dead end platform.

 

one platform spans mid-sized to full-sized coupes and Sedans. with an 1100 lbs difference in weight. this is what for should be looking to do not simply build another dead end architecture.

 

So, your assertion is that Ford's ability to transform a failed ~$40k sedan into a successful ~$25k coupe is, on balance, an example of poor product planning? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

Further, I would love to see someone break down what is shared between the various Hyundai RWD vehicles. I can't imagine that there's much of any stamped or formed metal shared from the cowl aft. Rear subframe and gas tank, maybe.

Edited March 26, 2013 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

Falcon and Territory are very closely replated but at best share around 50% of their parts,

doing anything more than that would destroy each unique qualities, and become more like a derivative

 

I do believe that Falcon and Mustang could share a lot more development costs between them whilst remaining unique

the point to all of this is to retain the desired qualities of each vehicle and keep costs down, compromising that because

someone wants Mustang bult on a sedan frame is crazy, just mix and merge the applicable existing parts to make all

RWD vehicles better...