PREMiERdrum Posted October 7, 2014 Author Share Posted October 7, 2014 Yes. I know. But that's irrelevant. The problem is that once you've set up the suspension and subframes for a CUV, you can't build a decent sedan. Please provide an example of a sedan based on a CUV platform that doesn't look like the Honda Crosstour or the Ford Taurus or the BMW X6. And before you mention the Edge, bear in mind that the Edge and Fusion were not built on the same platform. Ford just called both CD3, in a bit of obfuscation similar to what VW has been doing for years. I don't have a dog in the fight, just passing along what I've been told: They're coming, they're RWD, and there may be a sedan in the program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Maybe Ford is addressing a lot of the above problems on a CD platform? There is nothing stating that the Lincoln couldn't have a different transfer case than what we are seeing in the current Explorer. It would just be a RWD biased setup instead of FWD. That way they can still share a platform with the CD4's to save cost, only have the required changes needed for RWD bias. Still use a longitude engine install like Explorer. There really isn't a traditional transfer case. It's a PTU in line with the engine and transmission and it would have to be beefed up considerably. The drive shaft and rear differential would also have to be totally redesigned and/or beefed up to handle continuous torque. That's why popular mechanics killed an explorer in the sand. And you're still stuck with limited power options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) I don't have a dog in the fight, just passing along what I've been told: They're coming, they're RWD, and there may be a sedan in the program. I don't believe that you'll see a CUV-style RWD/AWD Explorer any time soon. You don't add cost to a vehicle without adding value. And RWD adds significant cost to a CUV without adding--in this segment--any value whatsoever. And doing anything like this strictly for Lincoln seems incredibly foolish. Edited October 7, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Yeah. For this: A "car" so crappy that not even the BMW badge can save it. I was referring to X3 and X5 which are based on the 3 and 5 series sedan platforms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 How is that gonna happen if they are RWD? Thats a completely different floorpan and engine bay Well first you take CD4, then you change the floor pan, front clip, front and rear suspension, rear axles and pretty much everything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I don't believe that you'll see a CUV-style RWD/AWD Explorer any time soon. And doing anything like this strictly for Lincoln seems incredibly foolish. Why do I have a feeling that quote will end up in somebody's signature? 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Yes. I know. But that's irrelevant. The problem is that once you've set up the suspension and subframes for a CUV, you can't build a decent sedan. Nothing says you can't produce two separate setups for one platform, though. How different are the setups for the Focus, Escape, and Transit Connect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I was referring to X3 and X5 which are based on the 3 and 5 series sedan platforms. Well, if you think Lincoln can get away with selling a CUV that is as objectively inferior as the X3 and X5 are..... X5 cargo volume: 21.9 cu. ft Edge cargo volume: 32.2 cu. ft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Nothing says you can't produce two separate setups for one platform, though. How different are the setups for the Focus, Escape, and Transit Connect? Different setups = unique amortization costs = extra cost per variant. Not a problem w/the Focus, Escape, Transit Connect etc. More of a problem if you're trying to justify minimal volume luxury variants in iffy sectors (large sedan/3 row CUV) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Why do I have a feeling that quote will end up in somebody's signature? Yeah, well, I remember hearing that GRWD was 'on' back in 2011. And where is it, exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) Yes. I know. But that's irrelevant. The problem is that once you've set up the suspension and subframes for a CUV, you can't build a decent sedan. Please provide an example of a sedan based on a CUV platform that doesn't look like the Honda Crosstour or the Ford Taurus or the BMW X6. And before you mention the Edge, bear in mind that the Edge and Fusion were not built on the same platform. Ford just called both CD3, in a bit of obfuscation similar to what VW has been doing for years. CUV platforms don't exist any more. There are only platforms and the Sub-frames that determine if it is a high ground clearance CUV, or a low-riding Sedan/MPV you are proposing false choice. exmaples of this are the Ecosport -> B-max/fiesta Escape -> C-max Edge -> S-max Floor-pan is common but the sub-frames are different. Why wouldn't this be the same for this Vehicle? Do you think that the freestyle and D3 was the best Ford could do? Edited October 7, 2014 by Biker16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Why do I have a feeling that quote will end up in somebody's signature? wow. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted October 7, 2014 Author Share Posted October 7, 2014 Yeah, well, I remember hearing that GRWD was 'on' back in 2011. And where is it, exactly? I don't believe it was ever back "on", but it was reviewed again around that timeframe... Wasn't the final cancellation of this what put the last nail in the Falcon's coffin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) Yeah, well, I remember hearing that GRWD was 'on' back in 2011. And where is it, exactly? Maybe the 2015 mustang is a bridge product, where the most expensive to develop components (engine, brakes, IRS and IFS modules etc, ) were developed and mounted to a mildly upgraded body, that used the 2014 mustang's hard point to minimize tooling costs assigned to that product. and the Lincoln CUV and explorer would would finish the job by developing the other half of the platform. How is that gonna happen if they are RWD? Thats a completely different floorpan and engine bay look at it this way, the cost of developing new products isn't in the dies or the tooling, you always assume that new products will need new dies and new tooling. but the costs in in the systems for that product or platform.that means Electrical networks, suspensions, crash kinematics, etc. if you assume that the Lincoln CUV and the Explorer will not be made of steel but made of aluminum, you already had to tear up CD4 and use different stamping and tooling to make it work. even if you stayed with steel, the lesson learn from C2 is not to stretch a platform too far or you will incur a penalty in weight on the lightest vehicle on the platform to handle the heaviest vehicle on the platform. so with a potential increasing in mass over the Mondeo of 1500lbs they may have had to revise the crash structures to handle to new variants. if you have to rework the crash structure of the platform it makes sense to look at RWD as an option. So potential triggers Aluminum body Excessive weight for CD4 Premium price for RWD vehicles Mustang's New RWD chassis Limited options for large FWD vehicles to grow Lincoln. RWD doens't mean you cannot share a ton of complex systems, brakes, electric architectures, wheels brakes, etc. but it has more upside that a extra large and heavy FWD platform. Edited October 7, 2014 by Biker16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 There are only platforms and the Sub-frames that determine if it is a high ground clearance CUV, or a low-riding Sedan/MPV you are proposing false choice. exmaples of this are the Ecosport -> B-max/fiesta Escape -> C-max Edge -> S-max Floor-pan is common but the sub-frames are different. Why wouldn't this be the same for this Vehicle? Do you think that the freestyle and D3 was the best Ford could do? Here are two scenarios proposed: Explorer + unnamed Lincoln 3-row RWD CUV - this has a deeply flawed business case as you are effectively adding significant cost to the Explorer without adding corresponding value. Unnamed Lincoln 3-row RWD CUV + unnamed Lincoln RWD sedan on the same platform. - this cannot be done without (as I've already pointed out) requiring different subframes, which in turn adds cost, which, in turn must be amortized over Lincoln's likely small share of two very small market segments (3-row luxury CUVs and large luxury sedans). Neither business case is particularly appealing. Also, you might want to review your conclusions re: subframes. The Accord/Odyssey/Pilot--which is right now probably the most successful shared sedan/MPV/CUV platform, has unique subframes for all three products, however, the Odyssey/Pilot subframes are almost identical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I was referring to X3 and X5 which are based on the 3 and 5 series sedan platforms. Think about it this way BMW nissan, jaguar and Hyundai only have one RWD/AWD platform that they stretch and shrink to cover their entire lineup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Maybe the 2015 mustang is a bridge product, where the most expensive to develop components (engine, brakes, IRS and IFS modules etc, ) There are at least three problems with this logic: 1-RWD powertrain development will be largely paid for by the F150 for the foreseeable future. Only the RWD configuration of the 2.3L EB need be amortized by Mustang volume alone. 2-Brakes? I'm pretty sure that several architecture-specific aspects of crash mitigation are far more expensive to develop than brakes. Aspects which were avoided by the Mustang using a lightly revised version of the previous safety cage. 3-the subframes are, as you've already noted, designed for Mustang mounting points, which means that this wonderful GRWD that has been talked about for six years at least, will hit the ground with either 1) subframes & suspensions optimized for another vehicle or 2) a new suspension/subframes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Think about it this way BMW nissan, jaguar and Hyundai only have one RWD/AWD platform that they stretch and shrink to cover their entire lineup. Here's a question: Ford said that both the Edge and the Fusion were built on CD3. Were they built on one platform? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I don't believe it was ever back "on", but it was reviewed again around that timeframe... Wasn't the final cancellation of this what put the last nail in the Falcon's coffin? Ford "insiders" that had provided occasionally correct info said that it was "on". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 With Explorer ATPs at or above $50K and Aviator at $60K or higher it makes the business case more plausible even at relatively low volumes when you also consider global sales. You also have to balance the cost of that platform with the cost of developing a CD4 version and whether you could get $60K from a CD4 based Aviator with engine/drivetrain limitations. You could get by with it for Explorer like it does now but probably not Aviator. The fact that there is no new Taurus on CD4 (according to some sources) would lend credence to using the same platform for sedans (globally as well). And I don't think the added cost or compromises of using a single platform for both is as bad as you think it is when you develop the platform with that in mind. You also get some sharing with Mustang. It all makes sense IF Ford has decided to take Lincoln upmarket. Without that it probably wouldn't make sense and we'd have CD4 based vehicles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Yeah, well, I remember hearing that GRWD was 'on' back in 2011. And where is it, exactly? If that was true then it should start showing up next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Here are two scenarios proposed: Explorer + unnamed Lincoln 3-row RWD CUV - this has a deeply flawed business case as you are effectively adding significant cost to the Explorer without adding corresponding value. Unnamed Lincoln 3-row RWD CUV + unnamed Lincoln RWD sedan on the same platform. - this cannot be done without (as I've already pointed out) requiring different subframes, which in turn adds cost, which, in turn must be amortized over Lincoln's likely small share of two very small market segments (3-row luxury CUVs and large luxury sedans). Neither business case is particularly appealing. Also, you might want to review your conclusions re: subframes. The Accord/Odyssey/Pilot--which is right now probably the most successful shared sedan/MPV/CUV platform, has unique subframes for all three products, however, the Odyssey/Pilot subframes are almost identical. you have no imagination How can Ford afford to develop a new sub-frame (which isn't really new but an adaptation of an existing sub-frame with high purchased parts commonality and common mounting points.) on the $20,000 escape/Kuga but not on This Lincoln would sell for $50,000? The sedan is easy because the Mustang's chassis is already developed and is proven you may want to tweak the mounting to improve NVH, but the geometry and components are there. It can work and it can work well Look at Nissan Look at Hyundai examples Focus ST IRS module http://www.fordparts.com/Commerce/RenderIllustration.ashx?id=293550892&f=3&n=BV6Z3020B FRS module http://www.fordparts.com/Commerce/RenderIllustration.ashx?id=292354445&f=3&n=BV6Z3078E C-Max IRS http://www.fordparts.com/Commerce/RenderIllustration.ashx?id=292146805&f=3&n=CV6Z5486A IFS http://www.fordparts.com/Commerce/RenderIllustration.ashx?id=292436995&f=3&n=3M5Z5493A Escape http://www.fordparts.com/Commerce/RenderIllustration.ashx?id=293808088&f=3&n=CV6Z5K978A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 If that was true then it should start showing up next year. It doesn't take Ford five years to launch a new platform anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 you have no imagination How can Ford afford to develop a new sub-frame (which isn't really new but an adaptation of an existing sub-frame with high purchased parts commonality and common mounting points.) on the $20,000 escape/Kuga but not on This Lincoln would sell for $50,000? Volume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Well, if you think Lincoln can get away with selling a CUV that is as objectively inferior as the X3 and X5 are..... X5 cargo volume: 21.9 cu. ft Edge cargo volume: 32.2 cu. ft. If people are willing to pay $50K for a FWD based Explorer then I don't see a problem with an Aviator pulling $60K-$70K. You don't buy Luxury CUVs for cargo space. 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.