ford to cut global platforms to 8

[atomcat68]

Seems to me that they need to amortize that Mustang platform and come out with a Lincoln retractable hardtop!

I would go with the "4 door coupe" style which seems popular now.

[jpd80]

I would go with the "4 door coupe" style which seems popular now.

Kinda like Ford's version of the Buick Avenir but without the contorted delivery process...

 

[2b2]

Seems to me that they need to amortize that Mustang platform and come out with a Lincoln retractable hardtop!

I would go with the "4 door coupe" style which seems popular now.

I doubt that 500 people per year would buy a Lincoln retractable hardtop.

& all just-imho,

a lightly stretched (4"?) MusStang coupe-cabrio would take very little work = ROI with relatively low volume,

(4-d-coupes work better on somewhat longer models >> D6);

a closer-to-3er sportsedan, while requiring more work, will sell in higher numbers

[Fgts]

Right. The TTAC level of specificity was partially confirmed and partially denied by better sourced reporting out of Reuters:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/24/us-fordmotor-lincoln-idUSKCN0ID2FU20141024

 

 

The thinking is that the Ford based vehicles will remain FWD/AWD for cost saving purposes, while the Lincoln variants will be RWD/AWD.

 

In this scenario, much of the FWD transaxle will be shared with the AWD equipped vehicles, while the RWD vehicles will share a transmission with other RWD vehicles in the Ford lineup. In fact, significant parts of the FWD transaxle could also be shared with the RWD transmission (not the housing, however).

Heard Ford been working on that since 09. The rumblings a a Mustang/Fusion based offshoot hopefully have teeth by 2020 and dare I say the rumored Falcon/Ute replacements will be on sale in the US? .

[RichardJensen]

1 - This has not been in the works since 2009.

 

2 - The Mustang and Fusion are not being combined

 

3 - The Falcon is history

 

4 - The "Ute" is likely to be derived from the Transit Connect.

 

D6/CD6 is a premium large vehicle platform that will underpin 7 passenger CUVs and full size cars.

 

Your leap into the realm of fantasy is instructive of your inability to perceive the countless problem with GM's fanciful plans.

[RichardJensen]

The way Indians glommed onto the Ghost Dance religion in the late 1880s reminds me of GM fans' enthusiastic embrace of any rumor that suggests that long-departed vehicle types are coming back (RWD mainstream vehicles, 'personal' trucks, personal luxury coupes, etc.)

 

It is this unspoken belief that the good times will come back if GM builds the same kinds of cars that they built back in the good times.

[jpd80]

Heard Ford been working on that since 09. The rumblings a a Mustang/Fusion based offshoot hopefully have teeth by 2020 and dare I say the rumored Falcon/Ute replacements will be on sale in the US? .

No, what was attempted was a business plan to allow Falcon to survive by using more of Mustang's part list.

Everything was reviewed including moving all RWD manufacturing to Australia but this simply did not work

on so many levels apart form the logistical nightmare of distance from main markets. That plan died in 2010.

 

What you then had was a situation where Mustang evolved and used the new integral link suspension design

first seem in CD4 Mustang as well as newer electrical systems, over all of this, the build process was standardized

so that all vehicles now get built in the same construction order, enabling plants to be standardized, modern "flexing".

 

 

No longitudinal AWD were considered until recent elevation of Lincoln revival plan. A plan that began with adding

more independent styling and new top hats, not just sheet metal change. The evolution of designs in Lincoln's new

design studio gave rise to inspiration of where the brand should head, Audi became a strong yardstick for focus

and it's clear that a lot of those vehicles haave been used as benchmarks .

Edited January 19, 2015 by jpd80

[Fgts]

The way Indians glommed onto the Ghost Dance religion in the late 1880s reminds me of GM fans' enthusiastic embrace of any rumor that suggests that long-departed vehicle types are coming back (RWD mainstream vehicles, 'personal' trucks, personal luxury coupes, etc.)

 

It is this unspoken belief that the good times will come back if GM builds the same kinds of cars that they built back in the good times.

Well forgive me me Chief Prick if I don't find boring ass cars exciting. Ford shouldn't build the GT, or any other performance variant of any vehicle Ford makes as they don't make enough "profit" for Ford anyways, sheesh.....

[Fgts]

No, what was attempted was a business plan to allow Falcon to survive by using more of Mustang's part list.

Everything was reviewed including moving all RWD manufacturing to Australia but this simply did not work

on so many levels apart form the logistical nightmare of distance from main markets. That plan died in 2010.

 

What you then had was a situation where Mustang evolved and used the new integral link suspension design

first seem in CD4 Mustang as well as newer electrical systems, over all of this, the build process was standardized

so that all vehicles now get built in the same construction order, enabling plants to be standardized, modern "flexing".

 

 

No longitudinal AWD were considered until recent elevation of Lincoln revival plan. A plan that began with adding

more independent styling and new top hats, not just sheet metal change. The evolution of designs in Lincoln's new

design studio gave rise to inspiration of where the brand should head, Audi became a strong yardstick for focus

and it's clear that a lot of those vehicles haave been used as benchmarks .

At this point will Ford go with a longitude awd system Lincolnsedan without a Ford variant?. Can't see spending that much on Lincoln.

[RichardJensen]

Well forgive me me Chief Prick if I don't find boring ass cars exciting

 

And yet you want Ford to reintroduce the Ranchero.

 

BTW: Watch it with the latent racism. One more Native American themed insult and you're taking a two week vacation. You've been warned.

[RichardJensen]

At this point will Ford go with a longitude awd system Lincolnsedan without a Ford variant?. Can't see spending that much on Lincoln.

 

Read the rest of the thread.

 

The thinking is that a FWD/AWD/RWD capable chassis would feature a longitudinal engine that would be mated to a FWD transaxle not unlike Audi. Lincolns would be RWD standard. The AWD system would be common between FWD and RWD vehicles and would use the FWD transaxle in a setup, again, similar to that used by Audi's Quattro system.

[Biker16]

Well forgive me me Chief Prick if I don't find boring ass cars exciting. Ford shouldn't build the GT, or any other performance variant of any vehicle Ford makes as they don't make enough "profit" for Ford anyways, sheesh.....

:happy feet:

[Biker16]

 

Read the rest of the thread.

 

The thinking is that a FWD/AWD/RWD capable chassis would feature a longitudinal engine that would be mated to a FWD transaxle not unlike Audi. Lincolns would be RWD standard. The AWD system would be common between FWD and RWD vehicles and would use the FWD transaxle in a setup, again, similar to that used by Audi's Quattro system.

 

why? The volume on the longitudinal tranaxle would be small. why not go RWD?

[RichardJensen]

Every AWD and FWD unit would use that transaxle, which would include >200k Explorers and all the AWD Lincoln volume, and potentially the gearsets could be borrowed from the JV 10 speed for even greater amortization of certain engineered components across all the F150 & CD6 volume.

 

Not only that, if CD6 uses a conventional RWD transmission, you're looking at very expensive AWD integration.

Edited January 22, 2015 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

Every AWD and FWD unit would use that transaxle, which would include >200k Explorers and all the AWD Lincoln volume, and potentially the gearsets could be borrowed from the JV 10 speed for even greater amortization of certain engineered components across all the F150 & CD6 volume.

 

No, its is just a million times easier to use the Transverse FWD/AWD system. Volume of CD6 is much greater the the F-series.

 

why develop an all new tranasaxle for one product? FOrd has never done a longitudinal FWD car before. why start. it would be much easier to go transverse or RWD.

[RichardJensen]

CD6 is not the successor to CD4. The Fusion, Edge, MKZ, Mondeo and MKX are not being built on CD6. Probably the S-Max and Galaxy are not going to be built on CD6 either.

 

Reports are it will be RWD capable, which means longitudinal engine layout.

 

And if you're going longitudinal layout, you have to engineer a custom AWD solution, because no Ford product uses through-the-sump AWD, but CUVs would need to implement this.

 

Now what makes more sense? To engineer a custom AWD solution that would be installed in, say, 40% of CD6 vehicles (assuming a 40% take rate on AWD) or to engineer a transaxle that shares components with the JV 10 speed, and which will be installed in around 80% of CD6 vehicles (assuming 100% of Explorer volume, with Explorer at 70% of CD6 volume and 40% of the Lincoln product carrying AWD?

Edited January 22, 2015 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

CD6 is not the successor to CD4. The Fusion, Edge, MKZ, Mondeo and MKX are not being built on CD6. Probably the S-Max and Galaxy are not going to be built on CD6 either.

 

Reports are it will be RWD capable, which means longitudinal engine layout.

 

And if you're going longitudinal layout, you have to engineer a custom AWD solution, because no Ford product uses through-the-sump AWD, but CUVs would need to implement this.

 

Now what makes more sense? To engineer a custom AWD solution that would be installed in, say, 40% of CD6 vehicles (assuming a 40% take rate on AWD) or to engineer a transaxle that shares components with the JV 10 speed, and which will be installed in around 80% of CD6 vehicles (assuming 100% of Explorer volume, with Explorer at 70% of CD6 volume and 40% of the Lincoln product carrying AWD?

 

Why not make it RWD? why add complexity just to say it is FWD when its already 90% RWD?

 

Again you are doing thing the opposite of how a traditional platform would be developed.

 

the first Step is to go Longitudinal because you want RWD, which ford Already makes.

 

then you want to go Longitudinal AWD which ford doesn't make for car yet.

 

so your solution to this problem is to develop and FWD transaxle that can be used for AWD too?

 

what does a LONG FWD tranaxle do to the Fron axle line? it places the Front axle behind the engine, the opposite of Modern RWD/AWD layout where the Front axleline is further forward giving the short front overhang that RWD cars are known for. placing the engine further forward on a RWD vehicle puts more weight over the Front wheels, which is bad for RWD vehicles.

 

how does making a 10 speed Transaxle save money over using the already designed 10 speed RWD transmission?

 

how does compromising a platform so completely to fit a irrational goal help ford make money?

 

why can't the explorer be RWD?

Edited January 22, 2015 by Biker16

[RichardJensen]

 

Why not make it RWD? why add complexity just to say it is FWD when its already 90% RWD?

 

Again you are doing thing the opposite of how a traditional platform would be developed.

 

the first Step is to go Longitudinal because you want RWD, which ford Already makes.

 

then you want to go Longitudinal AWD which ford doesn't make for car yet.

 

so your solution to this problem is to develop and FWD transaxle that can be used for AWD too?

 

what does a LONG FWD tranaxle do to the Fron axle line? it places the Front axle behind the engine, the opposite of Modern RWD/AWD layout where the Front axleline is further forward giving the short front overhang that RWD cars are known for. placing the engine further forward on a RWD vehicle puts more weight over the Front wheels, which is bad for RWD vehicles.

 

how does making a 10 speed Transaxle save money over using the already designed 10 speed RWD transmission?

 

how does compromising a platform so completely to fit a irrational goal help ford make money?

 

why can't the explorer be RWD?

 

First of all, Audi has been placing the front axle behind the engine for over 20 years now. I don't think it's hurting them.

 

Secondly, a FWD/AWD transaxle is likely to be *less* complex to engineer and less expensive to manufacture than an AWD system that features a separate prop shaft that feeds into a separately cast and machined combination oil sump and front differential, and its first unit (amortization) costs will be spread among far more vehicles than a strictly AWD system.

[RichardJensen]

I should add that in the scenario above you are indeed reducing the pool of amortization volume for the 10-speed JV transaxle, but I don't think the amount of the reduction is meaningful, especially if the gearsets & torque converter are shared between the FWD/AWD transaxle and the RWD transmission. At that point, you're talking about reducing amortization volume for the housing alone, which seems trivial.

[Biker16]

 

First of all, Audi has been placing the front axle behind the engine for over 20 years now. I don't think it's hurting them.

 

Secondly, a FWD/AWD transaxle is likely to be *less* complex to engineer and less expensive to manufacture than an AWD system that features a separate prop shaft that feeds into a separately cast and machined combination oil sump and front differential, and its first unit (amortization) costs will be spread among far more vehicles than a strictly AWD system.

 

Less complex to engineer? says who?

 

Amortization cost are lower says who? how can it be lower than a RWD and AWD vehicle?

 

The extra Step in the case is adding FWD because RWD and AWD are the default.

 

this looks like a pretty big change for Ford

 

None of this makes sense to do, they don't make RWD versions of the A8 only AWD.

 

You are going to develop a RWD Flagship vehicle with 60/40 F/R weight distribution on purpose, when other makes are close to 50/50.

 

 

 

 

I should add that in the scenario above you are indeed reducing the pool of amortization volume for the 10-speed JV transaxle, but I don't think the amount of the reduction is meaningful, especially if the gearsets & torque converter are shared between the FWD/AWD transaxle and the RWD transmission. At that point, you're talking about reducing amortization volume for the housing alone, which seems trivial.

 

It not trivial it cost more to do than making it RWD/AWD and Compromises the RWD products on the platform.

 

Here is the killer, the Audi A8 which would be the model for this architecture even with its all aluminum construction weighs up to 500 lbs more than a comparable Steel BMW 7 series or Jaguar Xj Sedan. This arrangement adds unnecessary weight cost and complexity over transverse FWD and RWD/AWD architecture.

[RichardJensen]

 

Less complex to engineer? says who?

 

The same guy who told you that a separate prop shaft and an integrated differential/oil sump will be less complex to engineer than a longitudinal FWD transaxle.

 

I think he's also related to the guy who told you that the A8 weighs more than the Jaguar XJ because of its transmission.

Edited January 23, 2015 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

See below.

 

ZF turned a profit building closely related FWD, AWD and RWD transmissions. I really don't think doing something similar with the JV10 is out of the question.

Edited January 23, 2015 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

This is the 5HP family. It consists of FWD, AWD and RWD transmissions.

 

 

 

(note: That's a 5HP24FLA, different gears--you can't find good cross-section pics of the 5HP19FLA)

 

Pretty crazy, huh?

Edited January 23, 2015 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

This is the 5HP family. It consists of FWD, AWD and RWD transmissions.

 

 

 

(note: That's a 5HP24FLA, different gears--you can't find good cross-section pics of the 5HP19FLA)

 

Pretty crazy, huh?

But why fwd?

 

There isn't a benefit to it, its more complex, expensive and heavier than all alternatives.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Biker16

[bzcat]

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