Does Ford/Lincoln deserve its own Jaguar XF - Mustang based 4-door coupe T'Bird/ MKR?

[jpd80]

OK simple plan discussed elsewhere on many threads, should Ford develop a 4-door RWD coupe?

 

As I see it, the cars could be developed off a combination of Mustang and CD4 Taurus engineering modules and sold as both

a premium and luxury niche RWDs in North America and the rest of the world, especially if Ford tapped into its European

2.2 I-4 diesel engine currently supplied to Jaguar and Land Rover. Imagine a full line of engines similar to the Jag XF...

 

Developing a vehicle this way as opposed to GM's clean sheet approach like Zeta and Alpha would save Ford a fortune whilst

giving similar levels of refinement and better scales of economy........

 

 

Tell me your thoughts....

Edited May 29, 2015 by jpd80

[4d4evr-1]

I would not buy it

[Biker16]

the Mustang platform would require a complete Redesign to be competitive, the base is there but there are long overdue changes needed to make it a vialble lincoln product.

[Harley Lover]

the Mustang platform would require a complete Redesign to be competitive, the base is there but there are long overdue changes needed to make it a vialble lincoln product.

 

What are the changes you have in mind?

[silvrsvt]

the Mustang platform would require a complete Redesign to be competitive, the base is there but there are long overdue changes needed to make it a vialble lincoln product.

 

But yet making a 35K+ Luxury car off a 20K CD sized car doesn't need it? Hmmmm

 

I see no problem with a 4 door Mustang platform playing in the 40-60K midsized sporty sedan market.

[akirby]

They could call it CD6 and also use it for the new Explorer/Aviator..........

[silvrsvt]

They could call it CD6 and also use it for the new Explorer/Aviator..........

 

But I do wonder how much it would truly share with a CUV vehicle. As long as its not 30% like the ATS and Camaro, it might be worth-wise. I wonder how much the Edge and Fusion actually share.

[jpd80]

When you think about it, how much can a Utility and a car really share?

Once you accept that each needs a different floor pan, seating position and cabin shape, then the reality

steps in that to be truly differentiated,things like frame, sheet metal , trim and glass all need to be different.

The only areas of comonality would be power train, electrical systems and suspension design (still different)

[akirby]

Edge track is a couple inches wider, but the wheelbase is identical at 112.2" as is the suspension design although the Edge may have beefier components. I think it's fair to say they share a lot more than 30%. The dash, steering wheel and console are either identical or very very similar.

[akirby]

When you think about it, how much can a Utility and a car really share?

Once you accept that each needs a different floor pan, seating position and cabin shape, then the reality

steps in that to be truly differentiated,things like frame, sheet metal , trim and glass all need to be different.

The only areas of comonality would be power train, electrical systems and suspension design (still different)

 

Why would it need a different floor pan? Fusion also comes with AWD.

[jpd80]

 

Why would it need a different floor pan? Fusion also comes with AWD.

otherwise you end up with an SUV floor pan on a sedan like D3 Taurus,

[sullynd]

 

What are the changes you have in mind?

A RWD only Lincoln Sedan is a non-starter, so at a minimum it would need to be AWD Capable.

 

At that point I'd rather see an RS based Lincoln (or an MkZ with RS tweaks).

[akirby]

otherwise you end up with an SUV floor pan on a sedan like D3 Taurus,

 

I still don't understand why the floor pan would have to be different if you're using pretty much the same drivetrains and same configurations. The added ride height and ground clearance would come from the suspension. Maybe you put in some extra supports for mild offroading. Am I missing something obvious?

[Biker16]

What are the changes you have in mind?

mechanically , from the chassis fronted and rear subframes, adequate, but would need to be fully isolated to minimize roadhouse and harshness.

 

the front structure meets crash standards by being bulked up over the pervious generation, i.e. instead of moving the structure inward from the skin, they moved the skin outward. On C1, CD4 and modern platforms, the crash structures are shrunk to provide more felxblity in the design of the products based upon it.

 

The structural cowl is fixed and immovable like D4, meaning that the products would have to share the same cowl height and location.which has a direct affect on the windshield angle.

 

the Rear floor pan is new but had to maintain the existing hard points of the previous model which could limit flexibility of the architecture.

 

Overall its doable, but the answer lies in a clean sheet design that can use the mustang's Powerpacks possibly adding the sumo system needed for AWD.

 

But yet making a 35K+ Luxury car off a 20K CD sized car doesn't need it? Hmmmm

 

I see no problem with a 4 door Mustang platform playing in the 40-60K midsized sporty sedan market.

CD platform are modern and design to serve many purposes, which is very different from the Ming which uses the same hard points as the model from 2006, and carries over an abundance of compromises from the previous model.

 

while CD4 and its precursor EUCD already underpins luxury models like the S80.

[Biker16]

When you think about it, how much can a Utility and a car really share?

Once you accept that each needs a different floor pan, seating position and cabin shape, then the reality

steps in that to be truly differentiated,things like frame, sheet metal , trim and glass all need to be different.

The only areas of comonality would be power train, electrical systems and suspension design (still different)

The cost savings are not in the sheet metal but in the hinges, electrical architectures, PowerPacks, airbags, latches, interior bits and pieces, and crash structures. These parts are often the cause off recalls and have to be designed to higher standard of durability, function and safety, the type of work that is expensive and time consuming to replicate.

 

We fixate of the cost of stampings and dies when in the grater scheme of things the cost of these has decreased as a share of product development while electronics, emissions and other safety features have increased. Thus the movement towards a single archectecture doesn't mean sharing sheet metal but sharing those costly components which has the greatest impact of reducing cost.

[silvrsvt]

 

CD platform are modern and design to serve many purposes, which is very different from the Ming which uses the same hard points as the model from 2006, and carries over an abundance of compromises from the previous model.

 

while CD4 and its precursor EUCD already underpins luxury models like the S80.

 

What compromises? It lost its rear axle this year. in the NVH dept they have a to pipe in engine noise so it sounds like a Mustang.

 

your other excuse is BS....CD cars are designed at a price point (like the Mustang) and there is nothing inherently wrong with the Mustang platform that wouldn't be taken care of while adding two more doors if they wanted or just coming out with a coupe Lincoln.

[silvrsvt]

otherwise you end up with an SUV floor pan on a sedan like D3 Taurus,

 

The floor pan issue is from Volvo design...its a strengthening in the stamping located in a bad area if your tall and have the seat all the way back in the Taurus.

 

IIRC I don't remember it in the Explorer I sat in. The footwells could use a bit more room, but they are better then the original Taurus/Sable on the D3

[2b2]

-but

imho

LincStang = XE** , not XF

 

 

** and the 6er coupe for the 2-door version

Edited May 30, 2015 by 2b2

[akirby]

More likely XK/F-type.

[98GMLS]

Doesn't Ford have a working relationship with Jaguar/Land Rover.

Why not buy chassis from them and put their bodies and that could be a quick fix for Lincoln.

All RWD and AWD line up. From XJ, XF, XE.

The new Continental on a XJ platform would be a killer with a 3.0 EB and a 5.0 and a performance version with a 5.8 s/c or the next high output 3.5 EB. With new 10 speed transmission.

For the SUV's, use Land Rover platforms.

As a Ford guy its painful to see Dodge getting all the attention with the Charger/Hellcat and ever Chevy has an SS.

If Dodge can have a Charger and Challenger and Chevy a SS and a Camaro, which is Ford so afraid that a 4 door performance car will take away Mustang sales.

[jpd80]

 

The floor pan issue is from Volvo design...its a strengthening in the stamping located in a bad area if your tall and have the seat all the way back in the Taurus.

 

IIRC I don't remember it in the Explorer I sat in. The footwells could use a bit more room, but they are better then the original Taurus/Sable on the D3

The floor pan in a Utility has a higher H point than in a sedan, the two look similar but are different none the less.

Territory and Falcon were considered blood brothers but has some significant differences, the floor pan is different

as a Ute is not just a jacked up station-wagon, those changes to get the higher hip point means lots of changes.

Edited May 29, 2015 by jpd80

[SoonerLS]

Doesn't Ford have a working relationship with Jaguar/Land Rover.

AFAIK, their only relationship now is as an engine/powertrain supplier.

[Biker16]

 

What compromises? It lost its rear axle this year. in the NVH dept they have a to pipe in engine noise so it sounds like a Mustang.

 

your other excuse is BS....CD cars are designed at a price point (like the Mustang) and there is nothing inherently wrong with the Mustang platform that wouldn't be taken care of while adding two more doors if they wanted or just coming out with a coupe Lincoln.

Did you read my entire post?

 

There are tons currently wrong with the mustang platform. it is very specialized.

[rmc523]

Doesn't Ford have a working relationship with Jaguar/Land Rover.

Why not buy chassis from them and put their bodies and that could be a quick fix for Lincoln.

All RWD and AWD line up. From XJ, XF, XE.

The new Continental on a XJ platform would be a killer with a 3.0 EB and a 5.0 and a performance version with a 5.8 s/c or the next high output 3.5 EB. With new 10 speed transmission.

For the SUV's, use Land Rover platforms.

As a Ford guy its painful to see Dodge getting all the attention with the Charger/Hellcat and ever Chevy has an SS.

If Dodge can have a Charger and Challenger and Chevy a SS and a Camaro, which is Ford so afraid that a 4 door performance car will take away Mustang sales.

You mean that SS that sells maybe a couple hundred units a month, if that?

[Biker16]

The floor pan in a Utility has a higher H point than in a sedan, the two look similar but are different none the less.

Territory and Falcon were considered blood brothers but has some significant differences, the floor pan is different

as a Ute is not just a jacked up station-wagon, those changes to get the higher hip point means lots of changes.

 

you can get a higher H-point by raising the Seat Rails, or raising the seat in relation to the seat rails.

 

D3 because of the 500 had a high belt line. his belt line was basically fixed by the Location of the Structural Cowl. on the C2 and CD4 the cowl isn't Structural it only locates the windshield, and wipers. but has little to do with the integrity of the vehicle.

 

the situation with D3/D4 is repsenative of the issue with the mustang. Ford makes descion based on what is cost Effectvie for a product, that turns out to be costly to adapt to another product. thus with modern Architectures you have more content made of modules that attach to the base architectures.