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

[RichardJensen]

Yes. Ford should imitate VW's poor imitation of C2.

[fuzzymoomoo]

Did you read my entire post?

 

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

that doesn't necessarily mean there is tons wrong with it, it just limits what you can do with it.

That being said, I see no reason why they can't take the existing mustang platform and make it worthy of a luxury vehicle for Lincoln.

[RichardJensen]

Also,

 

For those arguing in favor of GRWD:

 

Note that only about 30% of the Camaro is shared with the CTS and/or ATS.

 

You're not going to have a lot of platform sharing between a car with a very particular set of parameters like the Mustang and a car with a very different set like a midsize RWD seday.

[SoonerLS]

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

Can't be tons wrong with the platform--the Mustang only weighs like 3800lbs.

 

[jpd80]

Also,

 

For those arguing in favor of GRWD:

 

Note that only about 30% of the Camaro is shared with the CTS and/or ATS.

 

You're not going to have a lot of platform sharing between a car with a very particular set of parameters like the Mustang and a car with a very different set like a midsize RWD seday.

As always, sharing costs at the supplier level is where main benefits are, from there, power trains and electrical systems,

maybe generics on front and rear suspensions.

Usually, frame , trim and glass go with the derivative as necessary variations regardless of platform sharing.

 

And we should never hold up examples of GM RWD platforms of correct product envelope execution,

something tells me that Camaro was a late inclusion after design parameter lock in because how do

you go from ATS & CTS both having sedans and coupes, yet Camaro is so different as to warrant

such major tear up and re do... that wreaks of piss poor enveloping of product right at the start.

 

Not saying Ford would require any less differentiation across RWD coupe, sedan and Utility but,

I have the feeling that consultation with all stake holders at the start of the project and that proper

scoping of product envelopes would allow a lot of those variations to be factored in right at the start

when it's much easier to evolve the designs in the right direction before the derivatives deviate.

Edited May 30, 2015 by jpd80

[Biker16]

Yes. Ford should imitate VW's poor imitation of C2.

Ha! Do You have any basis for this comment?

[Biker16]

Also,

 

For those arguing in favor of GRWD:

 

Note that only about 30% of the Camaro is shared with the CTS and/or ATS.

 

You're not going to have a lot of platform sharing between a car with a very particular set of parameters like the Mustang and a car with a very different set like a midsize RWD seday.

Do you have a link to that 30%?

 

Is that 30% by value or 30% by parts number.

[RichardJensen]

Not saying Ford would require any less differentiation across RWD coupe, sedan and Utility

 

GM has been trying to come up with a successful GRWD architecture for going on 20 years now. I don't think their repeated failures are evidence merely of engineering incompetence.

[RichardJensen]

Do you have a link to that 30%?

 

Is that 30% by value or 30% by parts number.

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/19/chevy-camaro-teaser-70-percent-unique-parts/

 

70 percent of architectural components unique

 

[Edstock]

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.

 

"it only locates the windshield, and wipers. but has little to do with the integrity of the vehicle" — yeah, right. The cowl along with the "A" pillars are an integral part of overall vehicle rigidity, feeding load into the roof. As you know, that's why convertibles need extra reinforcement.

[RichardJensen]

Ha! Do You have any basis for this comment?

 

Yes.

 

CD4 and C2 share a number of systems, correct? I mean that was the whole argument FoE put to WHQ in favor of EUCD over CD3, right?

 

Okay. Now the relationship between the engine and the front axle is basically fixed, right? Engine's bolted to the transmission a certain way, transmission output shafts will have at least one axis in common with the hubs, right?

 

So when you go to a powerpack design, you're effectively dictating the relationship between the engine, transmission and wheels, right?

 

Now, if you ignore the stereotypically Teutonic business of demanding a rigidly fixed distance between the firewall and the axle centerlines, what is the difference between CD4/C2 and MQB? What is the great achievement of MQB over two differently sized vehicles that are engineered to accommodate the exact same powerpack?

Edited May 30, 2015 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

 

GM has been trying to come up with a successful GRWD architecture for going on 20 years now. I don't think their repeated failures are evidence merely of engineering incompetence.

No but it's probably strong evidence of lack of product envelope scope at the start of the project. In every example of those 20 years, the vehicles

have been for a specific regional or exclusive application and not coordinated to encompass all possible RWD products, evidenced by late inclusions.

 

Edit...........I'll save everyone a long winded reply by summarizing below........ close edit

 

In closing, all I will say is that GM's contorted and illogical pattern of RWD development over two decades should not be taken as simply engineering complexity

in every case there was a failure to properly understand RWD customer needs and properly scope all vehicles required at the start of a platform's development.

probably aggravated in recent years due to funds shortages and focusing on image based products as priority, not the first time GM took it eyes off profit earners.

 

It is my continuing assertion that Ford is more sensitive to internal customer needs than GM, recent global platform developments show how Ford is much more

inclusive of products needed under a platform at get go, not just add ons after the fact ( CD4 Edge & Taurus as well as RHD Mustang).

That is why I believe Ford would do a much better version of global RWD than GM, having only one main Ford brand + Lincoln helps too.

Edited May 30, 2015 by jpd80

[jpd80]

Now, if you ignore the stereotypically Teutonic business of demanding a rigidly fixed distance between the firewall and the axle centerlines, what is the difference between CD4/C2 and MQB? What is the great achievement of MQB over two differently sized vehicles that are engineered to accommodate the exact same powerpack?

The lessons learned with Zeta Modular design was that moving the front axle forward required even more strengthening of the frame to prevent torsional issues

and that including this across all models probably adds more weight than required with a FWD short firewall distance set up.

[Fgts]

 

GM has been trying to come up with a successful GRWD architecture for going on 20 years now. I don't think their repeated failures are evidence merely of engineering incompetence.

It was more ego-tripping (especially from Cadillac) then actual engineering that caused that. Sigma should had been used in many divisions as originally planned. Holden on a shoe string budget develop Zeta and largely shot-down again because of board-room silliness and mismanagement. GM have thankfully shared Alpha outside Caddy.

[fuzzymoomoo]

GM have thankfully shared Alpha outside Caddy.

Only because CTS and ATS have been widely disappointing in the sales department.

[Biker16]

GM has been trying to come up with a successful GRWD architecture for going on 20 years now. I don't think their repeated failures are evidence merely of engineering incompetence.

Yet Toyota and other automakers have been able to do it. It is sad that the standard by which ford decisions are judged is GM.

 

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/19/chevy-camaro-teaser-70-percent-unique-parts/

That is the point, part count isn't good indicstor of commonality, simply put it a part Could be a piece of trim, or a transmission both are counted as one part, but the value of each part is completely different.

 

Thus commonality should be judge by the value of the parts in common not by the number of parts in common.

 

"it only locates the windshield, and wipers. but has little to do with the integrity of the vehicle" yeah, right. The cowl along with the "A" pillars are an integral part of overall vehicle rigidity, feeding load into the roof. As you know, that's why convertibles need extra reinforcement.

 

The A pillars are not located by the cowl, which is where the bottom of the windshield stops.

 

This image from the focus shows this

in order to be able to change the angle of the pillar or raise or lower the beltline the cowl mustn't be integral to the crash structure. What is structural is located deeper beneath the skin. This eases the design and entering of future models.

 

The 2006 mustang

notice how the cowl and the upper frame rails from a ring around the engine compartment, this was why the front end never moved far away from the original 2005 design everything was structural.

 

2015 mustang

 

Biggest change was the addition of a composite radiator header. Like is used on the focus, escape, fusion etc...

notice the location of the cowl is the same, and remains structural, it is as Ford did the minimum to the frontl structure to comply with global crash standards, but it didn't use the lessons leased from their more advanced products. while possible to overcome the issues for s premium sedan it will not be cheap or easy to do.

[Biker16]

Yes.

 

CD4 and C2 share a number of systems, correct? I mean that was the whole argument FoE put to WHQ in favor of EUCD over CD3, right?

the point is c2 isn't CD4.

 

Okay. Now the relationship between the engine and the front axle is basically fixed, right? Engine's bolted to the transmission a certain way, transmission output shafts will have at least one axis in common with the hubs, right?

this is true but the location of the engine isn't the same for C2 and EUCD. In fact the axle line for my focus isn't square with the transmission in fact its about 3 inches forward of the axle.

 

The difference with MQB and Ford C3 and CD4 is you cannot Siamese CD4 structures on to C2 to make a product, they are not structurally compatible. The frame rails on the focus will not line up with the frame rails on the Fusion. This means that ford has to develop C2 to span up to 5300lbs GVWR and couldn't right size components to better optimize weight.

 

Using the focus and the transit connect as an example. Same front structure as dictated by its base architecture adding weight and size. With MQB you could more easily design a front structure that meets the needs of both products the focus would use a down gauged and shorter crash box while the Connect would use the crash box shared with a larger product like the fusion or Taurus designed for higher GVWR. Because the commented are modular and compatible with each other you have more flexibility in designing and introducing new products.

With CD4 you have a Engine compartment designed to hold a V6, yet the fusion doesn't need a v6. Why flex a shorter and lighter front end module for it, and let the V6 models use a different module?

 

So when you go to a powerpack design, you're effectively dictating the relationship between the engine, transmission and wheels, right?

It is more complex it says all our transverse engined cars will use the same basic nugget that represents 60%of the value of the product. They will all be flexible everywhere except there. ford like is said ford isn't mounting the commonality cross architecture.

 

Now, if you ignore the stereotypically Teutonic business of demanding a rigidly fixed distance between the firewall and the axle centerlines, what is the difference between CD4/C2 and MQB? What is the great achievement of MQB over two differently sized vehicles that are engineered to accommodate the exact same powerpack?

The revolution is this is modular, complex structures can be developed and used interchangeably. Ford's C and CD cars don't share engine mounts because they don't share axle to firewall dimensions. modular floorpans, chasis and crash structures that can be used interchangeably around a fixed firewall structure.

[Edstock]

The cowl must be integral to the crash structure, or the vehicle loses torsional rigidity.

[Biker16]

The cowl must be integral to the crash structure, or the vehicle loses torsional rigidity.

Which isn't correct. The cowl on the focus escape and cmax are not structural and add little to structural rigidity of the vehicle.

[RichardJensen]

Yet Toyota and other automakers have been able to do it. It is sad that the standard by which ford decisions are judged is GM

 

Ford is not BMW. Ford cannot get away with selling a RWD CUV with space utilization as gawdawful as the BMW X3 & X5 (quick quiz: What weighs more? The 5 passenger X5 or the 7 passenger Explorer?)

 

And as far as Toyota is concerned, please compare the sales of their flagship RWD offerings today with the sales of their flagship RWD offerings 15 years ago before calling them a success.

Edited May 31, 2015 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

The revolution is this is modular,

 

I'm so glad you mentioned the Transit Connect.

 

Because the Caddy is not built on MQB.

 

Rather than adopting Volkswagen’s ubiquitous MQB platform, the fourth-gen Caddy is based on a revised version of the previous model’s PQ35 underpinnings, which it shares with the likes of the Beetle, Jetta, Scirocco and Tiguan.

 

http://www.caradvice.com.au/334199/2016-volkswagen-caddy-revealed/#BR3t6bmkARsdVkPo.99

 

So, if MQB is so much superior to C2+CD4, then why can Ford build the Transit Connect on a heavily modified C2 while VW can't build their Caddy on MQB?

 

---

 

I cannot believe that someone who spends so much time discounting Ford PR gobbles up VW PR hook, line and sinker. VW's financials are, frankly, scary. All you have to do is look at their bloated 'non-current asset' entry. A company that claims >$13B in income, but which ends the year with less cash than they started, and has a huge bump in "non-current assets" (which are assets that do not need to be and often cannot be marked to market).... I'm sorry, but there's a real credibility problem there that extends to everything else that VW says about what they do.

[jpd80]

Only because CTS and ATS have been widely disappointing in the sales department.

How's this sound,

GM knew that Zeta was ending and had planned to use Alpha to get a new Camaro past the accountants

and to assist with balancing the books at Lansing with a guaranteed volume product regardless of ATS and CTS sales..

[jpd80]

I cannot believe that someone who spends so much time discounting Ford PR gobbles up VW PR hook, line and sinker. VW's financials are, frankly, scary. All you have to do is look at their bloated 'non-current asset' entry. A company that claims >$13B in income, but which ends the year with less cash than they started, and has a huge bump in "non-current assets" (which are assets that do not need to be and often cannot be marked to market).... I'm sorry, but there's a real credibility problem there that extends to everything else that VW says about what they do.

 

 

[fuzzymoomoo]

How's this sound,

GM knew that Zeta was ending and had planned to use Alpha to get a new Camaro past the accountants

and to assist with balancing the books at Lansing with a guaranteed volume product regardless of ATS and CTS sales..

Sounds reasonable, I can buy that even though Camaro sales alone should be able to justify a new one without the funny sales pitches to management.

[Biker16]

Ford is not BMW. Ford cannot get away with selling a RWD CUV with space utilization as gawdawful as the BMW X3 & X5 (quick quiz: What weighs more? The 5 passenger X5 or the 7 passenger Explorer?)

 

And as far as Toyota is concerned, please compare the sales of their flagship RWD offerings today with the sales of their flagship RWD offerings 15 years ago before calling them a success.

The IS and the LS are on the Same architecture

 

What does volume have to do with the viability of this concept unless you are infering the concept results less volume for the flagship product, which I don't believe is the point you are trying to make.

 

Toyota, Hyundai, Nissan, BMW, jaguar, Audi and Mercedes-Benz have GRWD like architectures, why can't Ford.

 

I'm so glad you mentioned the Transit Connect.

 

Because the Caddy is not built on MQB.

 

 

http://www.caradvice.com.au/334199/2016-volkswagen-caddy-revealed/#BR3t6bmkARsdVkPo.99

 

So, if MQB is so much superior to C2+CD4, then why can Ford build the Transit Connect on a heavily modified C2 while VW can't build their Caddy on MQB?

Why wasn't the 2005 focus built on C1? Why wasn't 2006 fusion built on EUCD? Why did it take so long to replace the E series with the transit? In these circumstances does it mean that C1, EUCD or the transit were not capable but that There may have been other factors that determined the platform chosen for each vehicle.

 

Maybe?

Edited May 31, 2015 by Biker16