Continental Confirmed CD4, Built at Flat Rock, Gets LWB Edition in China

[RichardJensen]

it makes good business sense for Ford to do that

 

It manifestly does not make good 'business sense' for Ford to either engineer a whole other transmission family and AWD system for over 600k units of volume, or buy 600k transmissions annually from ZF in order to put longitudinal engines in Fusions in order to enable RWD Fusions and Edges for a "Ford Performance" unit.

 

And that's not even covering the expense of developing a longitudinal hybrid powerpack and a longitudinal hybrid transmission in order to continue offering hybrid Fusions and MKZs.

 

 

---

 

As to the question of why Ford would make a purpose-built large utility platform, I have one answer:

 

weight.

 

CD4 is already a heavy platform for its size. It seems extremely unlikely that it could be expanded to Explorer size (several inches wider and longer) without becoming still heavier than its peers.

[akirby]

Fusion and edge would remain fwd. explorer and Lincolns would be rwd.

 

If cd6 was only for large utilities it would be D6, not CD6.

 

two different cd platforms doesn't make sense.

[2b2]

...

I think Ford was going to use CD4 for Taurus and Conti and that started 3-4 years ago. I think CD6 was a new platform that wasn't greenlighted until 1-2 years ago. China couldn't wait and neither could Lincoln in NA, so they went ahead with Conti but cancelled the U.S. CD4 Taurus...

 

...I think CD6 was conceived as a way to replace both D3 and CD4 and provide performance vehicles for Ford Performance and Lincoln - all in one platform. That matches the media article on CD6 being FWD and RWD with AWD capability, and it makes good business sense for Ford to do that. Surely you can't argue with that logic?

fwiw

you're not alone, akirby

 

I lean more towards:

"Ford was going to use CD4 for CHINA and that started 3-4 years ago" - and other than the Interceptor that would be better staying on D3/4 as long as possible,

decided the U.S had practically no call for the Taurus anyway

(Tbird rant postponed...)

&

"CD6 was conceived as a way to replace both D3 and CD4" tho leaving the A.M.P program for smaller vehicles (than Z or Aviator) to handle most of the Ford Brand

[2b2]

...

I think Ford was going to use CD4 for Taurus and Conti and that started 3-4 years ago. I think CD6 was a new platform that wasn't greenlighted until 1-2 years ago. China couldn't wait and neither could Lincoln in NA, so they went ahead with Conti but cancelled the U.S. CD4 Taurus...

 

...I think CD6 was conceived as a way to replace both D3 and CD4 and provide performance vehicles for Ford Performance and Lincoln - all in one platform. That matches the media article on CD6 being FWD and RWD with AWD capability, and it makes good business sense for Ford to do that. Surely you can't argue with that logic?

fwiw

you're not alone, akirby

 

I lean more towards:

"Ford was going to use CD4 for CHINA and that started 3-4 years ago" - and other than the Interceptor that would be better staying on D3/4 as long as possible,

decided the U.S had practically no call for the Taurus anyway

(Tbird rant postponed...)

&

"CD6 was conceived as a way to replace both D3 and CD4" tho leaving the A.M.P program for smaller vehicles (than Z or Aviator) to handle most of the Ford Brand

[sullynd]

We have seen the new platform referred to as D6 and CD6 and assumed they were/are one in the same. Any chance we really should be talking about platforms? (D3/4-D6, CD4-CD6)

[Justdatdude]

So what is cd6? Why is china Taurus platform a different name from cd4 if it is the streched version? It doesn't make "business sense" for them to do a new GT after they lost money on the last on, but here we are.

 

If Ford is about making Lincoln world class lux at some point they're going to have to spend more money to do it and to me and (akirby) its making sense to start now when its a smaller risk. To me this sounds like some kinda mod architecture that would use cd4 as a basis. Ford alree has proven to be able to do FWD/FWD from a single platform.

 

Another thing, it doesn't make sense to spend money on a AWD one off hot hatch when the rest of the line can't benefit from it. So that's OK but spending more on a brand that's in a segment that was still posting gains through a recession??

[RichardJensen]

Fusion and edge would remain fwd. explorer and Lincolns would be rwd.

 

If cd6 was only for large utilities it would be D6, not CD6.

 

two different cd platforms doesn't make sense.

 

You're not going to have a common platform with transverse & longitudinal engines up front. Because you have to redo the firewall, you essentially can't carryover the doghouse and the front floorpan, and the whole front structure has to be engineered specifically for each powertrain layout.

 

It's either all longitudinal or it's all transverse.

[RichardJensen]

And here's why you have to redo the firewall:

 

Crash mitigation has to account for the shape of the powerpack.

 

Crash mitigation affects the frame rails and the firewall

 

The firewall affects the front floorpan, unless you figure out a way to mate a common floorpan to the bottom of two different firewalls.

[sullynd]

It doesn't make "business sense" for them to do a new GT after they lost money on the last on, but here we are.

Lost money?

 

While far from a big seller, the GT has been profitable for Ford, spokesman John Harmon said. The company sold about 1,300 GTs last year.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/02/03/gt_over/

[2b2]

So what is cd6?...

...If Ford is about making Lincoln world class lux at some point they're going to have to spend more money to do it and to me and (akirby) its making sense to start now when its a smaller risk. To me this sounds like some kinda mod architecture that would use cd4 as a basis. Ford alree has proven to be able to do FWD/FWD from a single platform...

...

agree

tho we need more(/some) info to do more than speculate

 

We have seen the new platform referred to as D6 and CD6 and assumed they were/are one in the same. Any chance we really should be talking about platforms? (D3/4-D6, CD4-CD6)

also agree

I've been thinking it's mostly more accurate to be saying "architecture" than 'platform' at this point

ie D6 and CD6 could be 2** platforms (separate factories?) based on the same unifying architecture

** maybe even 3 platforms with a related A.M.P

Edited August 8, 2015 by 2b2

[RichardJensen]

Why is china Taurus platform a different name from cd4

If Ford is about making Lincoln world class lux

 

The only source for that "ABB" is an article of dubious provenance and questionable translation.

 

And Ford isn't about making Lincoln "world class lux". They're about making money. Lincoln is not some loss-leading image brand. It pays its way.

 

-- If Ford wanted to continue to lose money on some high-prestige brand led by people with an entitlement complex, they would've never sold JLR to Tata.

[akirby]

 

You're not going to have a common platform with transverse & longitudinal engines up front. Because you have to redo the firewall, you essentially can't carryover the doghouse and the front floorpan, and the whole front structure has to be engineered specifically for each powertrain layout.

 

It's either all longitudinal or it's all transverse.

 

If Audi can do all longitudinal, why can't Ford do it with a brand new platform engineered that way from the ground up?

 

You're also missing the new focus on performance. Fiesta, Focus and Fusion ST (within a few months). Focus RS. GT350 and (presumably) GT500. Raptor. GT.

 

That's only 8 vehicles. Ford Performance has promised at least 12.

 

Just because they're not mortgaging the company to fund frenzied development at Lincoln doesn't mean they're not going to make world class vehicles.

[akirby]

We have seen the new platform referred to as D6 and CD6 and assumed they were/are one in the same. Any chance we really should be talking about platforms? (D3/4-D6, CD4-CD6)

 

When the D6 article came out an insider confirmed it was really CD6, and while they didn't confirm any of the info in the article they also did not deny any of it.

[RichardJensen]

 

If Audi can do all longitudinal, why can't Ford do it with a brand new platform engineered that way from the ground up?

 

I'll quote my earlier post:

 

It manifestly does not make good 'business sense' for Ford to either engineer a whole other transmission family and AWD system for over 600k units of volume, or buy 600k transmissions annually from ZF in order to put longitudinal engines in Fusions

...

And that's not even covering the expense of developing a longitudinal hybrid powerpack and a longitudinal hybrid transmission in order to continue offering hybrid Fusions and MKZs.

 

Right now Ford is developing a transmission that they can install in everything from the Focus to the Edge. That's roughly a million units of volume in the US alone.

It makes no sense for them to split that volume in half in order to fund longitudinal engines in the Fusion.

And that doesn't even touch on the absurdity of using a longitudinal setup a vehicle like the S-Max where maximizing passenger space is the biggest priority.

You're also missing the new focus on performance.

 

 

Ford is not going to put longitudinal engines in the Fusion in order to make a high performance RWD/AWD Fusion. You can take that to the bank. They have never, and unless they have a serious attack of stupidity, they will never add incremental costs to well over a million units of global volume in order to justify a performance product that can be nearly approximated by using the performance AWD system that they apparently have spent considerable time developing.

Edited August 8, 2015 by RichardJensen

[silvrsvt]

So where does Focus RS fall in then?

 

 

depending on how they do it, maybe some Escape stampings are used? they arent too far away from one another

[jpd80]

Just thinking here, when Focus vacates MAP, it could be reconfigured for next CD6 Explorer and whatever other models.

CAP could then in turn be reconfigured for yet another new group of vehicles. That way Ford maintains continuity of production.

Edited August 10, 2015 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

Just thinking here, when Focus vacates MAP, it could be reconfigured for next CD6 Explorer and whatever other models.

CAP could then in turn be reconfigured for yet another new group of vehicles. That way Ford maintains continuity of production.

 

The current Explorer might not be replaced till CY 2018 or later, considering that Explorer just got a refresh. Isn't the Focus production moving in the next year or so?

[akirby]

Focus is moving around the same time - 2018.

[2b2]

Just thinking here, when Focus vacates MAP, it could be reconfigured for next CD6 Explorer and whatever other models.

CAP could then in turn be reconfigured for yet another new group of vehicles. That way Ford maintains continuity of production.

dunno about which / where / when

but had a similar idea of 'musical factories'

basically for ALL(/U.S) cars & Cuvs, since it sounds to me like the platforms are being reduced to just the 2 new ones

within a few years

[bzcat]

I think the business case for D6 rests on having only utilities. If a large car can use the platform, it is probably going to be considered a bonus. Ford wouldn't invest in D6 if Explorer can't pay the bills by itself because Explorer is the only existing volume products that we know that can take advantage of the (little know but widely assumed) parameters of this D6 platform. We are assuming Aviator will happen... and it probably will... but for now, it is also just imaginary.

 

The problem with thinking that Ford will replace CD4 with "CD6" (the C is purely speculative in my opinion) is this - "C" mean C-segment. CD4 is basically LWB version of C1. Ford's vehicle architectural family is fairly well established by now. We know that going forward, C# and CD# family will continue to share almost everything because the economy of scale. Think of C# and CD# as one family like VW's MQB or Toyota's TGNA - Ripping Fusion, Edge, S-Max away from the C family doesn't make any economic sense.

Edited August 10, 2015 by bzcat

[RichardJensen]

By any measure, this promises to be a platform with much higher ATPs than CD4. I would expect ATPs at or above $50k for CD6. That may enable Ford to start doing volume carbon fiber in a limited application on this vehicle (remember their announcement from April? https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2015/04/17/ford--dowaksa-to-jointly-develop-carbon-fiber-for-high-volume-au.html )

Edited August 10, 2015 by RichardJensen

[2b2]

I think the business case for D6 rests on having only utilities. If a large car can use the platform, it is probably going to be considered a bonus. Ford wouldn't invest in D6 if Explorer can't pay the bills by itself because Explorer is the only existing volume products that we know that can take advantage of the (little know but widely assumed) parameters of this D6 platform. We are assuming Aviator will happen... and it probably will... but for now, it is also just imaginary...

Agree about Explorer paying the bills! but

I wonder how the profitability picture (+ the investment aspects) might change if

-- the Aviator was primarily considered the top-end Explorer, ie given *FORD* importance, like an über-PlatTanium

-- & thus including Aviator engineering (& other) goals from the start

?

 

...The problem with thinking that Ford will replace CD4 with "CD6" (the C is purely speculative in my opinion) is this - "C" mean C-segment. CD4 is basically LWB version of C1. Ford's vehicle architectural family is fairly well established by now. We know that going forward, C# and CD# family will continue to share almost everything because the economy of scale. Think of C# and CD# as one family like VW's MQB or Toyota's TGNA - Ripping Fusion, Edge, S-Max away from the C family doesn't make any economic sense.

this^ confuses me, bzcat

Why would a CD# EdgFuSmax with a "6" in its name RipAway from the smaller C's anymore than the CD4 has(n't)?

OR are you thinking of the Rwd aspects? (which imhO don't necessarily have anything to do with EdgFuSmax's)

((I'm thinking of the '3' new 'platforms', D6-CD6-A.M.P, as all being the same basic architecture with different emphases/interpretations))

[Biker16]

Ford isn't good at making Profitable medium Volume platforms, this matters becuase the luxury segment >$50k is built upon Medium volume platforms, and very few luxury makers makers >600,000 unit platforms. only Mercedes and BMW and Audi meet That Metric.

 

They meet that metric of platform Volume >600,000 by making more and more models and variants of of those platforms.

 

Ford Seems more comfortable with volume over differentiation.

 

fragmenting luxury Segment

 

 

 

In their quest to boost sales and achieve double-digit profit margins, Germany's premium carmakers are dividing segments into ever-thinner slices. In the process, they are stretching their brands figuratively -- and their cars literally -- in ways previously unimaginable.

"We take into consideration what the investment is that we have to make, what's our gross sales potential, what's the net sales potential after cannibalization effects and what's the margin we make on the car," explained Ola Kaellenius, Mercedes board member for sales and marketing. "Then we run that through the machine, and if we get a net present value that meets our targets, we go for it."

In the coming five years, Audi says it will add seven new vehicles, including at least two SUVs, increasing its range to 60 models. Mercedes plans to add 10 models in new segments by 2020.

Carmakers often recombine the DNA of other vehicles as they try to create the next breakthrough concept that drivers didn't know they wanted. "Coupe-ifying" sedans and SUVs is the latest trend, including the new Mercedes GLE Coupe that costs nearly $17,000 more than its M-class sibling.

That said, Ford needs to consolidate it's B, C and CD platforms to compete with other automakers who are driving down costs through platform consolidation.

So as many have said before. the issue of weight of current products and architectures is an issue that isn't reasonable to be solved with Changes in materials.

My sugestion would be to stop viewing platforms as if they are in series, with CD6 above CD4 or Cd4 above C3, but to view architectures as if they are in paralell.

With CD4 and CD6 existing within the same size envelope and footprint but with major changes to make each architecture meet the needs of the vehicles based upon it.

With a (TFEA) Transverse Front engine architecture and a (LFEA)Longitudinal Front engine architecture.

TFEA- would be optimized for low cost and spanning from A-E segments.

• It would be primarily Steel, highly modular and Scalable, it would potentially decouple crash structures from the base Architecture to minimize weight. (Mainstream models).

LFEA- Would be optimized for higher content, and span from the C-E Segments.

• It would be primarily aluminum, highly modular, Scale-able and premium in NVH, performance and Quality, focus on premium vehicles and mainstream large CUVs. To keep development costs down crash structures are tied to based Architectures, use of exotic materials would minimize weight gained between variants.

There is a divergences between premium architectures and volume Architectures.

Volume Architectures like C2 the development costs are being driven by the need to produce a lot of vehicles in a lot of places all around the globe. this Creates huge burden to control costs of production, IE this cost of parts, tooling, and labor. think about it you will be spending ~160-600 million to retool each plant. Ford has 17 plants that make volume Transverse engine vehicles.

While the development costs of volume platform is Fixed the Costs in establishing global supplier networks and Establishing Assembly sites is well in excess of designing and engineering an architecture, and good deal of time is spent on making that vehicle producible.

If I were to guess Ford would spend 1.5 billion just designing and engineering a new volume TFEA architecture, and another 6-8 billion tooling the 17 plants to make them.

With additional Top hats costing 130-180 million each plus 70-100 million for each additional plant

In contrast with premium medium volume architectures your costs are the same for basic engineering and design, but less focus is on productiblity and more on lowered cost per unit of production, which on medium volume products is Driven not by labor, parts or tooling but by the initial investments in tooling and development. You would see more use of supplier provided modules, that cost more per part but are less costly to develop. Exmaple the Liftgate on the MKC

 

Autonews August 4, 2014

Ford declined to say whether the wraparound liftgate is more expensive to make than a conventionally stamped unit.

Said Maki: "In terms of upfront investment, it's probably lower cost than conventional stamping, but when you talk about part cost, it's a little more because your line speed is slower."

For a premium architecture Ford would spend 1.5 billion just designing and engineering a new premium LFEA architecture, and another 800 million tooling the 3 plants to make them. You prioritize reduction in development costs over reductions in cost of Assembly.

With new top hats costing 160-200 million each.

IMHO This is what ford should be doing but it requires thinking differently about products and production.

[bzcat]

Agree about Explorer paying the bills! but

I wonder how the profitability picture (+ the investment aspects) might change if

-- the Aviator was primarily considered the top-end Explorer, ie given *FORD* importance, like an über-PlatTanium

-- & thus including Aviator engineering (& other) goals from the start

?

 

this^ confuses me, bzcat

Why would a CD# EdgFuSmax with a "6" in its name RipAway from the smaller C's anymore than the CD4 has(n't)?

OR are you thinking of the Rwd aspects? (which imhO don't necessarily have anything to do with EdgFuSmax's)

((I'm thinking of the '3' new 'platforms', D6-CD6-A.M.P, as all being the same basic architecture with different emphases/interpretations))

 

Let me un-confuse you

 

The speculation is CD6 D6 has RWD capability, which means the engine has to be mounted longitudinally (up and down in the engine bay, not side ways). This is not trivial because it means the CD6 D6 vehicles will have not much in common with the C# vehicles - different transmissions, different sub-systems, different crash protection protocols, different hybrid/EV modules etc.

 

If you accept this premise, then the so called "CD6" cannot possibly be the CD4 replacement because it is a situation that is best describe as the tail wagging the dog... CD4 is married to the hip (actually, head, body, and hip) to C1 so without Edge, S-Max, Fusion volumes, you put the economics of Focus, Escape, C-Max, Transit Connect into delicate balance.

 

Or put it another way... Fusion, S-Max, and Edge trio will follow the form of Focus, C-Max, and Escape trio because that's the only sensible way to do it. Every major volume manufacturer on earth has adopted similar strategy - Toyota TGNA, VW MQB, Renault-Nissan CFM, PSA EMP etc. The future of CD4 is an evolution of the current C# family. And D6 not (CD6) is the future of Ford's large passenger vehicles, particularly SUVs.

 

~~~~

 

Alternatively,

 

If CD6 really does exists as a CD4 successor (as opposed to D6), it means it will have transverse engines and is really a version of C#. But that means no RWD capability.

 

So that's the point of the debate... whether you believe D6 (RWD longitude engine) or CD6 (FWD transverse engine) is a the real thing. They can't both exist... at least not in this universe.

Edited August 11, 2015 by bzcat

[akirby]

You can unquote CD6 - that name was confirmed by 2 different inside sources.

 

C1 and CD4 may be cousins but they're completely different. I have a focus, escape and fusion and they share very little, which is frustrating.

 

If CD6 is only utilities and CD4 remains for sedans, then why was the CD4 Taurus cancelled for the U.S. ?

 

I don't think Lincoln is content with CD4 for Lincoln sedans given where they're taking Ford performance wise. There will be 12 Ford Performance vehicles soon - that's at least 8 more than we've ever seen in NA.

 

I still don't buy that you can't make bot sedans and utilities from CD6 since they've done it successfully with CD4 already.

 

Maybe CD6 is just a RWD version of cd4 so cd4 stays for fusion, edge, etc and CD6 is RWD for large utilities and Lincolns.