SoonerLS Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) SN197 FYI, SN197 is the outgoing Mustang, so there won't be anything of it left to use. The '15 is S550. Edited April 25, 2014 by SoonerLS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Take a look at Mustang sales... As for how much sharing take a look at how much could be shared with a cuv; Firewall Motors Trans Rear-end diff Suspension Steering Ecm and electrical Some interior componets What would be the cost would be the obvious; Top-hat Ecm programing Some interior NVH Suspension-tune Some Lincoln-only features. Awd would be debatable depending on what the upcoming Mustang based vehicles would offer. How on earth can you share suspension between a sports car and a cuv that weighs 1500 lbs more? Ditto steering and rearend diff. Firewall? Doubtful. You have to build a crash structure to support the extra weight. If it was this easy, trust us, Ford would already be doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 2013 sales: Nissan 370Z - 6561 All Nissan Group FM platform models - 78256 Ford Mustang - 77186 There are the numbers. Carry on with your debate, gentlemen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) Firewall No. Different cowl heights. Motors Yes Trans Yes Rear-end diff Maybe Suspension No. Different ride heights, different weights. Steering Only the rack. Ecm and electrical There is no cost savings here. Some interior componets There is no cost savings here. ECM, electrical, and interior components will be shared with all vehicles, regardless of donor platform, thus there are no *savings*. Now, let's discuss the additional cost items: Top-hat- Consisting of --- 100% new front subframe --- 80-100% Firewall --- 90-100% new floorpan --- 100% B pillar --- 100% A pillar --- 100% C pillar --- 100% added D pillar --- 100% new doors --- 100% new rear subframe --- 100% new sheetmetal --- 100% new roof --- 100% new hood Ecm programing Irrelevant Some interior Irrelevant NVH Irrelevant Suspension-tune Irrelevant Some Lincoln-only features. Irrelevant Items are marked irrelevant because they are costs incurred with any Lincoln, regardless of donor platform. Thus they do not represent an additional cost for a Mustang based Lincoln. The problem with saying "Oh it needs a new tophat" is that there is almost nothing that can be shared between the Mustang and a CUV. If you would like to have a bloated, heavy, overbuilt, oversized Mustang, you could share big chunks of the suspension, subframe and even the floorpan with a CUV. But none of us want a Mustang like that, right? There is a small possibility that you could share the firewall stampings and some small section of the floorpan stampings, basically the area around the doghouse and the driveshaft tunnel in the front seat. And that's about it. Possibly the wheelwells and engine & strut mounts, unless you have to tear up the whole front structure for crash mitigation purposes (you'll be dealing with a significantly heavier vehicle). Edited April 25, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 And here's the TL;DR for you. The Camaro & Challenger are not bloated pigs because GM and Chrysler don't know how to share platforms. They are like that because GM & Chrysler *do* know how to share platforms, and those are the compromises you have to make to share platforms between sedans and coupes. What Nissan has done is they've chopped off what? About a foot and a half? of the FM platform in the middle in order to produce a 2 seat coupe. If you think that's the direction Ford should go with the Mustang, then why didn't you buy a T-Bird twelve years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgts Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 ECM, electrical, and interior components will be shared with all vehicles, regardless of donor platform, thus there are no *savings*. Now, let's discuss the additional cost items: Items are marked irrelevant because they are costs incurred with any Lincoln, regardless of donor platform. Thus they do not represent an additional cost for a Mustang based Lincoln. The problem with saying "Oh it needs a new tophat" is that there is almost nothing that can be shared between the Mustang and a CUV. If you would like to have a bloated, heavy, overbuilt, oversized Mustang, you could share big chunks of the suspension, subframe and even the floorpan with a CUV. But none of us want a Mustang like that, right? There is a small possibility that you could share the firewall stampings and some small section of the floorpan stampings, basically the area around the doghouse and the driveshaft tunnel in the front seat. And that's about it. Probably the wheelwells and engine & strut mounts, but that won't happen if you have to tear up the whole front structure for crash mitigation purposes (you'll be dealing with a significantly heavier vehicle). Ok I see but im sure the MKX / Fusion had the same issues that this would have from a 3200lb base Fusion to a 4300lb MKX. Same thing from Foucs to MKC why a RWD Xover would be beyond Fords engineering staff?. The Fox platform (though no cuvs were on that) shows how Ford can pull off a feat and still be profitable with RWD, from a 2900 lb V8Mustang to a 4000lb Continental. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Ok I see but im sure the MKX / Fusion had the same issues that this would have from a 3200lb base Fusion to a 4300lb MKX. Same thing from Foucs to MKC why a RWD Xover would be beyond Fords engineering staff?. The Fox platform (though no cuvs were on that) shows how Ford can pull off a feat and still be profitable with RWD, from a 2900 lb V8Mustang to a 4000lb Continental. - First, the MKX shares major componentry with the Edge, and will also share significant componentry with the Explorer and the 7 passenger Lincoln CUV. That's probably in the neighborhood of 250k-300k in additional annual volume. Not to mention engineering efficiencies between these vehicles and the Galaxy & S-Max. - Second, the Fox platform sedans were terrible. The Lincoln Continental sedan was a disaster. And in any event, NVH expectations and crash test standards mean that platforms are much less flexible than they were in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) Falcon, Territory and Mustang could have been the foundation for a RWD program but look at the differences between the three of them, Falcon and Territory at best share 50% of their parts, any less and the derivative elements would become less and more like Taurus-Explorer. You can bet the farm that Ford looked at the whole RWD prospect and possibilities with product envelope in North America. The reason Mulally chose FWD/AWD was that plants and product cycles were already in play and it was less disruptive and less expensive to keep going with evolution of the existing plan, there was simply no proof that RWD products would improve ROI. If Taurus is becoming less important these days, then there may be a case for a RWD sedan and Ute using Falcon, territory & Mustang mechanicals but the cost of doing so would probably far outweigh any substantive benefits brought by those more unique models, sure Lincoln may have ended up with X3/X5 competitor and the equivalent of Jaguar XK, XF and XJ copycats but none of that guarantees that Lincoln would gain more sales and profit over the course Ford is choosing to take. If Ford wanted RWD luxury marques, it would have kept J/LR Edited April 25, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 And here's the TL;DR for you. The Camaro & Challenger are not bloated pigs because GM and Chrysler don't know how to share platforms. They are like that because GM & Chrysler *do* know how to share platforms, and those are the compromises you have to make to share platforms between sedans and coupes. What Nissan has done is they've chopped off what? About a foot and a half? of the FM platform in the middle in order to produce a 2 seat coupe. If you think that's the direction Ford should go with the Mustang, then why didn't you buy a T-Bird twelve years ago? Incidentally, the Zeta and LX/LY platforms never spawned CUVs, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Right. There's also the question of competent execution. The Nissan platform was pretty widely touted when it was released, but I don't think that sales have met expectations, and I think they're having trouble justifying a major upgrade based on current volumes. If Ford were to go a similar route and end up with a suite of vehicles that were RWD, but in other areas were so lacking that they did not appeal to customers, due to the high amortization costs of the RWD platform, the results would not be good, even if the products got a lot of ink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 (edited) So winding back around to Lincoln, the Utility side of the equation appears to be coming together nicely, MKC and MKX now look the goods, I hope that spurs Ford on to go all out on a new MKT/Aviator and next Gen Navigator. On the car side, MKZ will continue to get better, MKS will be a fine addition, I hope Ford does the Mustang based Lincoln Coupe, that will give Lincoln some teeth and an ATS-V / CTS-V coupe competitor at a fraction of GM's Alpha development cost........... I see Lincoln springing from virtual obscurity to main stage in a very short time, China now looms large. Edited April 26, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NNRT Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 thanks for getting back to the MKX - some times people get a little overboard with facts and figures - that are meaningless to most people ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrewfanGRB Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Well you go put your money where your mouth is, where's your 2015 sport Xover?.. Make sure it fwd based too. As for Ford operations I doubt you're Bill Ford Jr, my original point is the domestics in general need to stop leaving themselfs exposed in moderate US markets while all the imports not only make money but factories here. A RWD sport Xover can be done at profit. Huh? Sorry, we're done here. I stopped reading at "themselfs". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgts Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Huh? Sorry, we're done here. I stopped reading at "themselfs". Ok, you got it Mr. online english doctorate..... Still don't change the fact (imho) that a rwd lux sport x-over is needed. LX and Zeta are big-car platforms, that won't work. My argument just one mid-size rear-drive x-over is needed from a lux domestic nameplate and it can come from a small to mid-size rear-drive car platform(ex: Mustang platform from Ford, Alpha platform from GM, even the upcoming mid-size RWD platform from Chrysler). My bad to all for jacking the thread a bit but I didnt think it will get this crazy. Back to the MKX!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Still don't change the fact (imho) that a rwd lux sport x-over is needed. If it's your opinion, it's not much of a fact, is it? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Let's hope that Ford puts the 2.7 EB and AWD into the MKX, that would make a very nippy performer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Let's hope that Ford puts the 2.7 EB and AWD into the MKX, that would make a very nippy performer.I heard UNofficialy but in no uncertain terms thatthe MKZ will definitely get a Nano v6EB as a sport model (didn't say if 2.7 or 2.9 but would be *near* 400hp) so imho an MKX with the same or similar drivetrain can be expected as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) I heard UNofficialy but in no uncertain terms that the MKZ will definitely get a Nano v6EB as a sport model (didn't say if 2.7 or 2.9 but would be *near* 400hp) so imho an MKX with the same or similar drivetrain can be expected as well Well if that's true then........... :happy feet: Edited April 29, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Wonder how much they would have to beef up the suspension, brakes and platform to handle all that. Specially the brakes which has been a weak point lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Wonder how much they would have to beef up the suspension, brakes and platform to handle all that. Specially the brakes which has been a weak point lately. Brakes are easy enough to upgrade. They just need to have the motivation to actually do it. Don't really see where suspension would be an issue, and it has typically been one of Ford's stronger suits anyway. 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.