Biker16 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Why FWD because in some cases, you don't need RWD or AWD. This circular logic is crazy. ZF is probably the best transmissions specialist out there and their main product is designed for FWD, AWD, and RWD applications. The orientation of the engine means you can use the same transmission. Why on earth would you want to use 2 different transmissions if you have a clean sheet design and you can make the transmission work with all kinds of drive configuration? I'm just a guy on the internet but I'd imagine someone at either Ford or GM probably thought of that when they started working on a clean sheet design 10 speed auto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZF_8HP_transmission If you don't need RWD or AWD you use one of the 5 existing FWD platforms and not develop an all new compromised architecture. If you want RWD platform start with the bastard volume platform you already have, mustang. not develop a new compromised platform that your mustang can not use. Because ZF makes transmissions not cars. Profitability of the transmission has nothing to do with the profitability of the vehicles or the platform. In this case the solution to have an optional FWD variant is more costly and hurts fuel over a transverse FWD setup. And even a RWD setup. It isn't the same transmission. ITS A variant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 So the 7 passenger Explorer, in your mind, will be based on the Mustang? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Sure, a stretch here, a tweak there, some smoke and a few mirrors and there you go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Sure, a stretch here, a tweak there, some smoke and a few mirrors and there you go. Sounds like some GM-isms haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) So the 7 passenger Explorer, in your mind, will be based on the Mustang? I'm beginning to think Biker doesn't read his own posts If you don't need RWD or AWD you use one of the 5 existing FWD platforms and not develop an all new compromised architecture. If you want RWD platform start with the bastard volume platform you already have, mustang. not develop a new compromised platform that your mustang can not use. Because ZF makes transmissions not cars. Profitability of the transmission has nothing to do with the profitability of the vehicles or the platform. In this case the solution to have an optional FWD variant is more costly and hurts fuel over a transverse FWD setup. And even a RWD setup. It isn't the same transmission. ITS A variant. 1. Who said anything about compromised architecture? Ford thinks it will need a large car/SUV platform and your solution is to enlarge a smaller car platform. Hemm, which one is the compromise? A clean-sheet design or let's stretch the C platform again? 2. Or so now you want to make a platform that will work for both SUVs and Mustang? Ok... that's not a compromise at all 3. You are the one making spurious comments about transmissions. I merely pointed out that ZF, arguably the most knowledgeable people on the subject completely disagree with your engineering assessment about FWD, AWD, and RWD should not share transmission. 4. How does orientation of engine affects fuel economy on a FWD car? That's by far the most ludicrous comment form you yet. If anything, longitude mounting would improve fuel economy because there one less change in direction to convert the mechanic power and kinetic energy from the engine to the direction of the moving wheels. 5. Fine, a different variant. Still better than your two completely different transmission solution Edited January 23, 2015 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I could not find a good picture of the engine/transmission, but the original 1979 Toyota Tercel, their first FWD car, had an unusual transmission placement that used a longitudinal engine, but the transmission architecture was unique to Tercel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) From another forum by our friend, Wesconet: I mean, if you want to know the truth, I'll lay it out.Ford has been developing a RWD platform for the better part of 12 years. It's an evolution of the MN12/DEW98 architecture, of which S197 and S550 are derivatives of, and has probably close to a dozen half and 75% baked cars built from it. You've seen a lot of them in concept form, but their programs got defunded when times got tight, so they're all just sitting in the back rooms, waiting to be dusted off. There's no capital outlay issue, and every so often, Ford will spend some time on the program, since it will emerge sooner or later.Is it likely we'll see an MKS/Continental on the roads this year with this platform? I doubt it, but it's not entirely impossible. I also didn't think Ford would have the chutzpah to deliver on the GT, but here we are, right?It's really a question of brand management. Ford is watching GM's experience with Cadillac right now, and given the performance of the ATS and CTS in showrooms, you have to wonder if that isn't fueling some skepticism. I heard some true believer posts in my time but this is a little different knowing Wesconet's former connections, I find myself wonder how much of this is true and how much is me wanting to believe it's true.. My recollection was that early beginnings were commenced by Ford Australia or more correctly Ford Asia pacific on the possibility of using Falcon, Territory as the basis of developing a suite of RWD vehicles for Global markets. The work was ceased when Mulally made the call to go with D3 products for large cars and utilities, it was already in place and RWD offered no distinct advantage over it. The only sadness in my mind is that falcona nd territory go to their graves with so much unrealized potential. Edited January 24, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) So the 7 passenger Explorer, in your mind, will be based on the Mustang? It would be more Akin to Hyundai basing the Genesis or any of their large sedans on the Genesis coupe. which BTW weighs less than the new Mustang. Sure, a stretch here, a tweak there, some smoke and a few mirrors and there you go. Why not Nissan does it with their RWD Architecture. Sounds like some GM-isms haha does it? how? 1. Who said anything about compromised architecture? Ford thinks it will need a large car/SUV platform and your solution is to enlarge a smaller car platform. Hemm, which one is the compromise? A clean-sheet design or let's stretch the C platform again? I'm sorry isn't the current Explorer based on a D platform? derived from a CD platform? How in the hell does Toyota and Honda develop a minivan and large CUV from their lowly midsize platforms? and Ford has to go through all this crap to do the same? 2. Or so now you want to make a platform that will work for both SUVs and Mustang? Ok... that's not a compromise at all this is on the same platform as this. BMW To Reduce Number Of Platforms BMW is also in the process of developing a modular rear-wheel-drive platform that will eventually be used for all of the automaker’s rear-wheel-drive models and any all-wheel-drive spinoffs. Currently, BMW uses two separate platforms for these models: one for cars the size of the 3-Series and smaller and another for everything bigger. So yes it is possible to use the a mustang sized vehicle as the base for a Large CUV. 3. You are the one making spurious comments about transmissions. I merely pointed out that ZF, arguably the most knowledgeable people on the subject completely disagree with your engineering assessment about FWD, AWD, and RWD should not share transmission. ZF makes custom transmission for automakers. they are experts on selling stuff manufactures want. 4. How does orientation of engine affects fuel economy on a FWD car? That's by far the most ludicrous comment form you yet. If anything, longitude mounting would improve fuel economy because there one less change in direction to convert the mechanic power and kinetic energy from the engine to the direction of the moving wheels. the native efficiency of transverse FWD is the fact that the engine power is in paralelle with the wheels, I.E. the power doesn't have to turn (via a bevel gear) 90degrees that is has to on RWd vehicles. on this Mythical transaxle the power must be turned 90degrees (via bevel gear to reach the front Wheels, producing more drive train losses than a transverse configuration, and likely more losses than a RWD configuration due to the prop shaft being driven by another gearset. 5. Fine, a different variant. Still better than your two completely different transmission solution does the 4WD F150 use a different Transmission than the 4WD F150? Edited January 24, 2015 by Biker16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 is on the same platform as this. Please provide a list of shared components, e.g. brakes, suspension pieces, various stamped members. Otherwise we're talking about the CD3 Fusion and the CD3 Edge here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 this is on the same platform as this. Umn, no. Wrong Infiniti SUV. The JX (QXWhatever) is based on the FWD Nissan Pathfinder. Infinitis other SUVs share their platform with the Z. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) So yes it is possible to use the a mustang sized vehicle as the base for a Large CUV. That's a great idea. The BMW X5 weighs almost 5,000 pounds and has significantly less interior volume than the Ford Escape (Escape: 98.1 + 34.3 vs. 102 + 23 passenger/cargo volume). I'm sure the world is just raring for a 6,000lb Ford Explorer. Edited January 24, 2015 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) Umn, no. Wrong Infiniti SUV. The JX (QXWhatever) is based on the FWD Nissan Pathfinder. Infinitis other SUVs share their platform with the Z. The fun part is that when you add up all of the RWD Infiniti/Nissan volume, you get 7,471 sales in December. Ford sold 9,511 Mustangs in December. That just goes to show how well this putative "platform" has been received by the market Edited January 24, 2015 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) There was an opportunity for Falcon, Territory and Mustang to coalesce and share some major powretrain, suspension and electrical costs but bear in mind that Territory and Falcon actually shared less than 50% of their parts, do any more of that and you end up with D3 Taurus-Explorer where using more comon parts to drive down costs actually robs the derivatives of their unique qualities. Another point is that a derivative only really makes sense when it's developed in parallel (same time) as the main or originator product, developing a derivative after the fact although incremental costs more because the parts contracts are not negotiated at the same time. Sometimes the uniqueness of a product like Mustang dictates that it be a stand alone instead of ersatz derivative of a Falcon sedan. The changes that Holden needed to do to Zeta to develop the Style of Camaro requested by GMNA meant tearing up just about everything. Edited January 24, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Between Biker's two examples of platform sharing, only BMW has 1) been successful in the market and 2) actually shared a significant number of components. But as I point out above, I do not believe that success is replicable; customers are willing to tolerate faults in packaging and practicality in Bimmers that would torpedo any other car (try selling a 4,990lb Ford with only 125ft3 of usable space) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) Between Biker's two examples of platform sharing, only BMW has 1) been successful in the market and 2) actually shared a significant number of components. But as I point out above, I do not believe that success is replicable; customers are willing to tolerate faults in packaging and practicality in Bimmers that would torpedo any other car (try selling a 4,990lb Ford with only 125ft3 of usable space) Agree, if you put out a Lincoln "Explorer" sports with interior space like a Focus hatchback, it would not be received with the vigor of a BMW X6 It's why I think that no matter how good Lincoln or Cadillac become, they can never overcome the snob value / fashion accessory cache of German brands. (De Nysschen is painting a lot of blue sky, has $12 bilion to spend and is promising the earth... I bet he's gone inside two years and we're still talking about the same issues with Cadillac not winning over luxury buyers.) But this is not a competition thread so I've digressed, sorry guys... With regard to Ford product banding, I think there's enough RWD/AWD power trains built under F150 and Expedition to tip the scales towards RWD/AWD in larger Ute like Explorer and an Aviator... That would mean Edge and Fusion become your cutoff for transverse AWD, is that wise or should the transverse point still include Explorer/Aviator and Taurus/MKS? Or a unique transitional North South FWD/AWD that uses most of the North South power train but unique gearbox case and differential housing? Still nearly 15,000-19,000/mth of potential sales either way with Explorer and companion product depending on scales of economy... Edited January 24, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Don't forget, if the rumors are true and Focus RS is indeed AWD, you can bet that it will likely show up in the next generation Focus across more trim levels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Don't forget, if the rumors are true and Focus RS is indeed AWD, you can bet that it will likely show up in the next generation Focus across more trim levels Do you think so or would that destroy the exclusivity of the Focus RS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Do you think so or would that destroy the exclusivity of the Focus RS? 2 major reasons I think it will happen. Help sales in a segment that's losing some steam (more so now with falling gas prices) There's a lincon variant of the Focus coming, even if AWD is only available in the TI trim, it will help bridge that gap a little bit. I could be way off too, we will find out soon enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajvolpe Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I believe it will happen in the interest of economy and scale. Honda and Toyota have done this and I'm sure that Ford will too soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) Here's the original Tercel transmission layout, which seems to be different from every other FWD: Edited January 24, 2015 by Edstock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) That's a great idea. The BMW X5 weighs almost 5,000 pounds and has significantly less interior volume than the Ford Escape (Escape: 98.1 + 34.3 vs. 102 + 23 passenger/cargo volume). I'm sure the world is just raring for a 6,000lb Ford Explorer. The fun part is that when you add up all of the RWD Infiniti/Nissan volume, you get 7,471 sales in December. IN THE US. And Lincoln only sold 9,690 units in December Between Biker's two examples of platform sharing, only BMW has 1) been successful in the market and 2) actually shared a significant number of components. But as I point out above, I do not believe that success is replicable; customers are willing to tolerate faults in packaging and practicality in Bimmers that would torpedo any other car (try selling a 4,990lb Ford with only 125ft3 of usable space) Then you don't share platforms with Lincoln and Ford. ford has proven it can share conventional FWD large car platforms with large CUVs, by go through all this trouble to Add volume to a Lincoln platform when it will lead to an uncompetitive product? Ford needs to grow a pair and make the investment needed to make Lincoln into a serious luxury brand, not this half ass stuff. A RWD platform with FWD weight distribution Here's the original Tercel transmission layout, which seems to be different from every other FWD: Its not that different, the Gears box is located behind the engine to keep the Power pack as narrow as possible, GM was doing this for decades in their large FWD cars. the difference between this and the Long-FWD stuff is that their was a real reason to develop to vehicle this way. and it did not compromise the performance or wieght. Again if we step back and look and where platforms Are going there isn't any reason Ford cannot develop a platform for all unibody RWD cars for C-E class. VW MQB Toyota Toyota N platform IS,GS and LS, built in the same factory. Ranges length 183.7-203 Width 71.3-73.8 Height 56.3-58.3 Wheelbase 110-121.7 Weight 3400-4400lbs Edited January 26, 2015 by Biker16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 IN THE US. And Lincoln only sold 9,690 units in December From September 2014, Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimhenry/2014/09/29/ford-launches-lincoln-brand-in-china/ "Ford is looking to roughly triple Lincoln’s sales volume worldwide, from about 100,000 units in 2013" So, NON-US sales are around 100,000 per year, with China just starting to develop. Helps with the costs. Just wondering what NON-US sales are for IS,RS and LS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I'm wondering what y'all think a Lexus RS is. I assume you mean RC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) Ford needs to grow a pair and make the investment needed Ford needs to turn a profit. Using sexist rhetoric does not make your point valid. And Audi seems to be doing just fine with its AWD platforms w/FWD weight distribution. In fact, Audi and Lincoln are at least similar to the extent that neither brand's management is in thrall to BMW. You certainly seem to be. Edited January 25, 2015 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 2 major reasons I think it will happen. Help sales in a segment that's losing some steam (more so now with falling gas prices) There's a lincon variant of the Focus coming, even if AWD is only available in the TI trim, it will help bridge that gap a little bit. I could be way off too, we will find out soon enough Or is Ford running slightly dead with Focus to encourage those near 30,000/mth sales of Escape and Fusion? . Seems to me that Ford is using a bit of guile here to encourage buyers into more profitable vehicles. 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.