North American Automotive Production Forecast till 2025

[2b2]

^ however the "highest volume Lux segment" cars are smaller than the MKZ

ie the 3er/4er/& friends ...even tho the wlbs are longer than the Mustang's

Edited March 19, 2016 by 2b2

[Fgts]

^ however the "highest volume Lux segment" cars are smaller than the MKZ

ie the 3er/4er/& friends ...even tho the wlbs are longer than the Mustang's

True, but I'd bet Ford weighed their options and ROI for a 3 Series competitor. Which would be more profitable?, a Lincoln on a platform that replaces Mustang, Taurus, Falcon, Ute and possibly Explorer offshoots or just a 3 Series competitor?. The ATS works because of Camaro and CTS.

[akirby]

You also have to factor in plant capacity. A high volume 3 series competitor might require a new plant. I think Lincoln needs to get back on its feet before they commit to that.

[Biker16]

A proposal would be using Ford's ten-speed transmission as a base.

 

That gets you, for starters, all the F-150 volume, etc.

 

Almost all of the modifications for FWD would be used in every FWD and AWD equipped vehicle built on this platform.

 

What would be distinctive between AWD and FWD would be the termination of the transmission. AWD would have a combination PTU/transfer case and FWD would feature a set of gears that would redirect power back up to the front axle.

 

AWD vehicles on this platform would require a new rear axle, as accounted for in Ford's product planning.

 

Again, all of this has been done before.

 

 

Do similar mods to the 10-speed Ford transmission, and Bob's your uncle.

 

Richard is that transaxle simpler than this?

 

transverse AWD

 

Or this?

 

Longitudinal optional AWD

 

Transverse FWD with optional AWD is simpler and cheaper to deploy with much better packaging and much greater Economies of Scale.

 

 

Is there any benefit to using 10 speed Transmission?

This is a 9 speed transverse FWD transmission

 

that ZF transmission weighs up to 132Kg or 300lbs without AWD, vs 86kg for the similar capacity 9HP

 

Transverse FWD = ATX 190lbs DCT150lbs

 

Long FWD= 190lbs + 30-40lbs for the Prop-shaft and differential. +220-230lbs.

 

In lighter vehicles there is less payback with adding more gears, you can see that with the EB10 in the fiesta and Focus. The same would True with the 10 speed when compared to the 9 speed, even there were any gains they would be taken by the fiction added by the prop-shaft.

 

I don't think the 10 speed would be enough to make a longitudinal FWD vehicle, worth building.

 

Packaging

Then there is the packaging issue, instead of the axle being inline or forward of the engine, the firewall on your Long FWD must be further aft of the engine, pushing the engine further forward in relation to the passenger compartment.

 

You have the overhang of a FWD car without being able to move the foot-wells forward to improve the packaging. .

 

The mythical oil pan issue.

 

the argument that developing an AWD transaxle is a better option than altering an Oilpan ignores the fact that it common to send a driveshaft through an oilpan, and every ford engine that is used in FWD and RWD applications has different oil pans for each application,

BMW AWD oil pan, it really isn't that complicated

 

In most cases the AWD oil pan becomes the standard oil pan for both RWD and AWD models.

 

 

In closing

 

I think a Longitudinally FWD/RWD/AWD CD6 has been canceled because of the reasons above, and the Global Mustang has replaced the Explorer as the volume model for this new platform.

 

Thanks!

[RichardJensen]

 

Richard is that transaxle simpler than this?

 

 

 

 

Global Mustang has replaced the Explorer as the volume model for this new platform.

 

 

The ZF method AWD system is indeed simpler than the setup I've left above. You are dealing with, probably, a trivial reduction in parts using the ZF method, and I would venture to guess a non-trivial savings in labor using the ZF method.

 

Further, that setup is a de facto FWD transaxle, which offers a likely non-trivial savings over RWD in terms of parts count and assembly labor.

 

Essentially the FWD configuration is "free", and offers savings over RWD for products that have to hit a lower price point (theoretically: Edge, Explorer), while offering a broader platform amortization base that will support RWD/AWD Lincolns (theoretically the MKX, Aviator).

 

I do not believe that CD6 was ever intended to underpin the Mustang.

[silvrsvt]

I do not believe that CD6 was ever intended to underpin the Mustang.

 

If Ford took a look at the FM Platform, it is possible for it to be used as a CUV and Sports car...I took look at the variants of the FX and the wheel base goes from 100 inches on the 370ZX to 112 inches on the Infiniti FX. The width is also about 3 inches different between the two.

 

Not saying Ford will do that, but they could do a SWB/Narrow CD6 RWD that could underpin the Mustang and RWD Lincoln sedan that would slot between the MKZ and Conti and have a LWB/Wide CD6 RWD for larger utilities. I'd assume they'd get at least 60-75% parts commonality between the two.

[akirby]

 

If Ford took a look at the FM Platform, it is possible for it to be used as a CUV and Sports car...I took look at the variants of the FX and the wheel base goes from 100 inches on the 370ZX to 112 inches on the Infiniti FX. The width is also about 3 inches different between the two.

 

Not saying Ford will do that, but they could do a SWB/Narrow CD6 RWD that could underpin the Mustang and RWD Lincoln sedan that would slot between the MKZ and Conti and have a LWB/Wide CD6 RWD for larger utilities. I'd assume they'd get at least 60-75% parts commonality between the two.

 

Exactly. I don't see why you can't have long/short and narrow/wide versions of the same basic platform if you plan it from the beginning.

[RichardJensen]

 

100 inches on the 370ZX

 

The Z is not a very good car and it doesn't sell well. In fact, none of the FM cars sells especially well.

 

I'm not saying that 'global' RWD is impossible.

 

I'm saying it's not a very good idea.

[Biker16]

 

If Ford took a look at the FM Platform, it is possible for it to be used as a CUV and Sports car...I took look at the variants of the FX and the wheel base goes from 100 inches on the 370ZX to 112 inches on the Infiniti FX. The width is also about 3 inches different between the two.

 

Not saying Ford will do that, but they could do a SWB/Narrow CD6 RWD that could underpin the Mustang and RWD Lincoln sedan that would slot between the MKZ and Conti and have a LWB/Wide CD6 RWD for larger utilities. I'd assume they'd get at least 60-75% parts commonality between the two.

 

 

 

Exactly. I don't see why you can't have long/short and narrow/wide versions of the same basic platform if you plan it from the beginning.

 

Exactly

 

 

The Z is not a very good car and it doesn't sell well. In fact, none of the FM cars sells especially well.

 

I'm not saying that 'global' RWD is impossible.

 

I'm saying it's not a very good idea.

 

Define selling well?

 

Is the platform and it's products profitable?

 

everything else is pure opinion.

[silvrsvt]

 

The Z is not a very good car and it doesn't sell well. In fact, none of the FM cars sells especially well.

 

I'm not saying that 'global' RWD is impossible.

 

I'm saying it's not a very good idea.

 

 

Ugh Infiniti doesn't break out world wide numbers, but got this nugget:

 

Q50/Q50L 78,800 (FM platform)

 

Here are FM based products in the US sales, which they do have charts for:

 

Q50 43,874

Q40 (old G35 sedan, phased out in for the Q50) 8,605

Q70 8,449

QX50 5,468

QX70 5,737

Q60 3,949

 

Total: 76082

 

Nissan

 

370Z 7,391

GT-R 1,105

 

Total 8496

 

Yes, not the best numbers, but at the same time not bad for products that start at 30k+ either.

[bzcat]

 

The Z is not a very good car and it doesn't sell well. In fact, none of the FM cars sells especially well.

 

I'm not saying that 'global' RWD is impossible.

 

I'm saying it's not a very good idea.

 

I agree with this. It's possible but you are adding a lot of unnecessary weight to something that may not need AWD, and a lot of costs to something that doesn't need RWD.

 

A longitude FWD/AWD flexible setup addresses all of Ford's large sedan/CUV needs. It's the most logical engineering solution to address the needs at Ford.

[bzcat]

 

 

Ugh Infiniti doesn't break out world wide numbers, but got this nugget:

 

Q50/Q50L 78,800 (FM platform)

 

Here are FM based products in the US sales, which they do have charts for:

 

Q50 43,874

Q40 (old G35 sedan, phased out in for the Q50) 8,605

Q70 8,449

QX50 5,468

QX70 5,737

Q60 3,949

 

Total: 76082

 

Nissan

 

370Z 7,391

GT-R 1,105

 

Total 8496

 

Yes, not the best numbers, but at the same time not bad for products that start at 30k+ either.

 

Let's call it 100k annual volume. It's decent volume but note that Nissan is not building a big CUV on this platform. QX50 and QX70 are niche models. The volume model QX60 and Pathfinder are FWD based.

 

So FM platform is fundamentally not a good model for Ford because we are talking about some really different applications here. I think if you want Ford to use CD6 for both Explorer and Mustang, one of them is going to be very compromised.

Edited March 21, 2016 by bzcat

[akirby]

It may make more sense to keep Fusion/Edge on a FWD only CD4 platform and leave CD6 to the larger utilities and Lincolns.

 

But I guess I still don't quite understand exactly what you have to compromise between a mustang and an aviator on the same platform. Changing width or length should be easy - is it the weight difference?

Suspension differences? Proportions? Just trying to understand where the compromises occur.

[Biker16]

 

Let's call it 100k annual volume. It's decent volume but note that Nissan is not building a big CUV on this platform. QX50 and QX70 are niche models. The volume model QX60 and Pathfinder are FWD based.

 

So FM platform is fundamentally not a good model for Ford because we are talking about some really different applications here. I think if you want Ford to use CD6 for both Explorer and Mustang, one of them is going to be very compromised.

 

Then use Hyundai's RWD/AWD genesis platform or GM's RWD/AWD platforms.

 

I think finding the proper product mix is the key, and sourcing all production from one or two plants makes this doable.

 

A couple of things:

 

The base price of the Mustang is $24k with the Est ASP of $35k.

GM bases the Camaro on a luxury RWD/AWD architecture, and GM is profitable.

 

list of automakers with a Flexible RWD/AWD architectures.

GM

Hyundai

BMW

FCA

Mercedes

Toyota

VW/porsche

Jaguar

Nissan

 

Manufacturers with Longitudinal FWD/AWD platform

Toyota/Subaru

VW/Audi

 

Manufacturers without Flexible RWD or Longitudinal FWD/AWD platform

Ford

Honda

PSA

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with this. It's possible but you are adding a lot of unnecessary weight to something that may not need AWD, and a lot of costs to something that doesn't need RWD.

 

A longitude FWD/AWD flexible setup addresses all of Ford's large sedan/CUV needs. It's the most logical engineering solution to address the needs at Ford.

 

If you need FWD/AWD why invest in a longitudinal configuration and not the transverse configuration you are already using and have been successful with.

 

If you don't need RWD why make something more complex than you are already making successfully?

[bzcat]

It may make more sense to keep Fusion/Edge on a FWD only CD4 platform and leave CD6 to the larger utilities and Lincolns.

 

But I guess I still don't quite understand exactly what you have to compromise between a mustang and an aviator on the same platform. Changing width or length should be easy - is it the weight difference?

Suspension differences? Proportions? Just trying to understand where the compromises occur.

 

The dead weight. If you design a platform for use on Explorer, it needs to be able to tow 7,000 lbs with class 2 hitch (or whatever Ford deems necessary), be able to support a 5,000+ lbs vehicle, and have the suspension travel required for such vehicle to go offroad. It's not as simple as just changing the dimension now to use on Mustang. And it is true in the reverse... if you design something to use on Mustang, you can't just enlarge it now for Explorer. Nissan didn't even attempt to make a large 7 seat SUV on the FM platform for this reason.

 

With future regulatory requirements in mind, you must deal with the weight problem. Hence, going forward, shared "platform" will not be that shared.

 

VW's MQB or Toyota TGNA are not "platofrms". But just common geometric hardpoints (e.g. firewall placement) and common component sets (e.g drivetrain packages) that enable flexible manufacturing. They are true flexible designs that can accommodate various sizes but they are both transverse FWD. Ford is headed the same way with the next generation of C platform, which I believe will spawn B and D segment size cars and CUVs (everything from Fiesta to Edge).

 

We are talking about Explorers (and potentially luxury sedans). So you need to look at what VW and Toyota are doing there. VW has MLB (Audi) design that spans A4 to Q7 but no sports cars. Toyota has a common RWD architecture that handles mid and large sedans (no sports car or SUVs).

 

BMW is another example here. It used to do sports car (Z4), sedans (3 and 5 series) and SUVs (X3 and X5) on the same basic platform. But they have reached the same conclusion about weight and are now going to use 3 separate platforms for sports car (Z4 replacement co-development with Toyota), sedans, and SUVs.

Edited March 21, 2016 by bzcat

[silvrsvt]

 

GM bases the Camaro on a luxury RWD/AWD architecture, and GM is profitable.

 

 

 

[bzcat]

 

If you need FWD/AWD why invest in a longitudinal configuration and not the transverse configuration you are already using and have been successful with.

 

If you don't need RWD why make something more complex than you are already making successfully?

 

It seems pretty clear to everyone that Ford does have a transverse FWD/AWD configuration needs and they are going to continue investing in it.

 

As for RWD, I don't think Ford needs it and it wasn't part of my argument. I said longtitute AWD was something Ford needs but it can also be used for large FWD sedan if necessary. Mustang can continue on its own unique RWD platform and it will be just fine.

 

The question is what is best for Explorer? And keep in mind that with Lincoln companion, the business case in baked in with even higher MSRP. Why would Ford want to impose the Explorer program requirements on Focus development just so they can use the same " platform"? Remember, common platform is for the benefit of manufacturing cost containment... not really a customer benefit. What kind of manufacturing savings are you hoping to realize by forcing Explorer to use the next generation C platform?

 

Let's review what everyone has in the plans for their volume products cars and SUVs (ignoring trucks and vans for now):

 

GM: at least 3 transverse platforms and 1 longitude platform

Toyota: 1 TGNA transverse, 1 longitude

Hyundai: at least 2 transverse and 1 longitude platform

FCA: LOLz (but seriously... 1 transverse, 1 longitude with a lot of uncertainty)

Renualt/Nissan: 1 transverse CFM, 1 longitude FM

PSA: 1 transverse platform

Honda: at least 2 transverse platforms

BMW: 1 transverse platform, at least 2 longitude platforms

Mercedes: 1 transverse platform, 2 longitude platforms

VW: 1 transverse MQB, 1 longitude MLB (there is another longitude platform for Bentley/Panamera but I'm limiting the discussion to volume products)

 

Now Ford... 1 maybe 2 transverse, depending on if you believe C3 and the next iteration of CD4 (CD5?) is the same family, 1 longitude platform (speculatively CD6)

 

Jeebus, Ford is such an outlier!

Edited March 21, 2016 by bzcat

[silvrsvt]

 

 

 

As for RWD, I don't think Ford needs it and it wasn't part of my argument. I said longtitute AWD was something Ford needs because it can also be used for large FWD sedan if necessary. Mustang can continue on its own unique RWD platform and it will be just fine.

 

 

The problem is that the next gen Mustang redesign is getting moved up two years...why do this on a niche program, unless something major is happening that will allow you to save money or make more money? That is the only thing that makes sense here.

 

I can see a CD class RWD sedan product based on the Mustang being the reason for this. As for sharing it with the Explorer I don't think so, but I'd assume there would be commonality with the much rumored CD6 platform, whatever that entails or whatever that is.

 

We've been arguing over a RWD sedan coming from Ford for over 10 years now...I think we'll still be arguing over it for another 10

[akirby]

Ok I can see that. I guess I was thinking more architecture than pure platform.

[bzcat]

 

The problem is that the next gen Mustang redesign is getting moved up two years...why do this on a niche program, unless something major is happening that will allow you to save money or make more money? That is the only thing that makes sense here.

 

I can see a CD class RWD sedan product based on the Mustang being the reason for this. As for sharing it with the Explorer I don't think so, but I'd assume there would be commonality with the much rumored CD6 platform, whatever that entails or whatever that is.

 

We've been arguing over a RWD sedan coming from Ford for over 10 years now...I think we'll still be arguing over it for another 10

 

That I can buy.

 

CD size RWD sedan + Mustang. Although we don't have a lot of firm info on the RWD sedan.

 

Explorer + Mustang will not work very well.

[RichardJensen]

 

The problem is that the next gen Mustang redesign is getting moved up two years...why do this on a niche program

 

Possibly because unexpectedly high overseas volume enables Ford to pull ahead updates while keeping the same profit margin.

 

If you look at it from the perspective that Ford can either keep the timeline the same and soak up the extra dollars or they can move forward the timeline and steal a march on GM (forcing them to either spend money sooner on less overall revenue, or adhere to their old timeline and fall behind Ford), it doesn't necessarily imply a platform merger.

[Biker16]

 

 

Lets get this straight

 

GM is more profitable than Ford,

GM is More Agile Than Ford bringing car to market.

GM has much much better Quality than Ford

GM sells alot more vehicles than Ford in more markets than Ford.

GM is a lower cost producer than Ford.

 

They do all this while having a sometimes confusing product Strategy.

[RichardJensen]

 

GM is more profitable than Ford

 

No. No they're not.

 

Not on a per unit basis, not on a gross basis.

 

GAAP is your friend.

[silvrsvt]

 

No. No they're not.

 

Not on a per unit basis, not on a gross basis.

 

GAAP is your friend.

 

What are your thoughts on IFRS? I just happened to see it (trying to find GM and Ford's GAAP numbers) and well I have next to no clue as to how accounting works...I can figure out my budget for the year, but beyond that

[RichardJensen]

 

What are your thoughts on IFRS? I just happened to see it (trying to find GM and Ford's GAAP numbers) and well I have next to no clue as to how accounting works...I can figure out my budget for the year, but beyond that

 

For a company like Ford, there might be an upside to using IFRS, because that standard allows for more R&D expenses to be capitalized than does GAAP.

 

However, my beef with IFRS is that it would cost a fortune for the US to switch in order to be part of an international standard which, however, may be interpreted and regulated very differently from one country to the next.

 

IFRS isn't like adopting the metric system where a meter's a meter. It's more like you've got an allegedly universal standard but one in which results can't really be compared because the interpretations differ from country to country.