The Ford Interceptor

[Biker16]

The hump is for the driveshaft and tranny - has nothing to do with IRS or SRA.

the clearance for the rear axle. crates a large hump that eats rear legroom and headroom. and completley inappropriate for ant type of CUV or MPV based upon it. imposible for a 3rd row.

[FStephenMasek]

IRS and SRA both have shortcommings.

 

IRS in most cases will provide a compliant and better ride.

 

If the Interceptor does go IRS it HAS to be the Falcons Swing Arm (Control Blade) IRS. The CB IRS is so sucsessfull due to it's abilty to provide a measurable amount of of Anti-sqaut. Unike most IRS systems.

Good and helpful post. Yes, the IRS will generally provide a better ride, and ride is a key selling point. It seems that all of us agree that if it has an IRS, it needs to be a modern control blade system. Has anyone also thought about the fact that it will also have stability control, no matter what the rear suspension? Edited January 6, 2007 by FStephenMasek

[JETSOLVER]

Good and helpful post. Yes, the IRS will generally provide a better ride, and ride is a key selling point. It seems that all of us agree that if it has an IRS, it needs to be a modern control blade system. Has anyone also thought about the fact that it will also have stability control, no matter what the rear suspension?

 

 

Wither Visteon? Nope, never gave it a thought.

 

Thanks to Biker for making that simple. I would have been much more involved. Any large sedan looks more production ready for 6 psngr. seating than perhaps four does it not ?

 

Crap here come the floor stampings thing again....5.4.3....

[matthewq4b]

Matthew, outstanding post -- thanks for your insights.

 

I agree that if the Inteceptor is to replace the panthers, especially in police service, SRA-watts is the ticket as you say. I've always felt that it should be possible for a single chassis architecture should be able to be designed such that it can be successfully fitted to accept SRA or IRS. Do you see this as feasible? Is the differences in unibody stresses significantly different such that the overall chassis must be designed for one to the exclusion of the other (i.e. two sep chassis)? Appreciate your thoughts.

 

 

The current stang chassis already has a IRS system on the shelf but it is not a trailing arm (control blade) IRS set up. Adapting the control blade to the Interceptor should not require a new rear unit chassis frame. The control blade IRS subframe takes up about space as the soild application. The mounitng locations for the trailing arms on the IRS should be able to be the same as the lower links on the SRA application. The arms on the CB are quite long . Utilizing those mounitng points for the SRA will result in a SRA design that will achive over 100% anti squat.

 

Contrary to popular belife the RWD CB system uses about as much space as the Stangs current SRA set up. The CB system has it's own subframe that houses the rear springs and are set much further in board compared to a SRA set up. The only space gain over the SRA is directly above the Diff not enough to allow for 3rd row seating in a CUV application.

 

It is completly feasable to have the Interceptor in Both SRA and CB IRS. The CB IRS should weigh about the same as the SRA application. In relaity there is about as much steel in the CB sub frame and control blades as there is in the 8.8 axel housing.

 

TO get the Interceptor to market ASAP a SRA will have to be used. There will be at least a years worth of engineering and testing befor the control blade could be fitted.

 

Many will complain about the lack of IRS just as they did on the newest Stang. But even the most Anti Ford auto rags were surpised with the SRA and had to admit for the most part that the current SRA set up is as good as most of the IRS set ups on equivelent cars.

 

We could very could very well see 2 chassis a Gen 1 and Gen 2 the Gen 1 SRA only just to get the car to market ASAP (some thing Ford needs badly ) and the GEN 2 cabable of both. There is always the possibilty that Ford can do the engineering on the fly but there is also an increased chance of over sights happening with this.

 

As it sits the lengthened Stang chassis is proboly not far off production ready.

 

As for basing a CUV MPV off it , Ford has other platforms better suited to those applications . Ford already has enough CUV, MPV, SUV's in the camp. No point in comprimising the current excellent CB IRS set up to do that duty.

 

Active suspension control will be a must with a high HP application with IRS. This is not a small car and weight transfer will be a big issue in the IRS application. The Charger has an active suspention to prevent that ass end sink it does a fair job of it but you still do not get the full benifits of anti squat.

 

Ford MUST make a Limited Slip Diff mandatory. yes traction control can and does the same job. But TC will hamper accelration perfomance.

 

The rention of the SRA for the imediate future is a must for severe service applications.

Until such time that the extremly conservative market for severe service cars can be covinced of the durabilty reliabilty and mait cost equivelancy's of the CB IRS system. Some thing that currently is an unknown in NA severe service use.

 

Matthew

[Kotzenjunge]

I've warmed up to this car a smidge. The C-pillar is just different enough to make this a unique car and not the 300C with Super Chief design slapped on.

[Biker16]

Contrary to popular belife the RWD CB system uses about as much space as the Stangs current SRA set up. The CB system has it's own subframe that houses the rear springs and are set much further in board compared to a SRA set up. The only space gain over the SRA is directly above the Diff not enough to allow for 3rd row seating in a CUV application.

 

this was after the SRA forced a redesign of the Floorpan.

 

As for basing a CUV MPV off it , Ford has other platforms better suited to those applications . Ford already has enough CUV, MPV, SUV's in the camp. No point in comprimising the current excellent CB IRS set up to do that duty.

.

 

For explorer that can tow and handle decent V8 we do not have an exceptable platform for it.

 

The rention of the SRA for the imediate future is a must for severe service applications

Until such time that the extremly conservative market for severe service cars can be covinced of the durabilty reliabilty and mait cost equivelancy's of the CB IRS system. Some thing that currently is an unknown in NA severe service use.

 

Matthew

 

Severe service duty does not pay the bills. the future and bread an butter of our coumpany is cars for people that pay retail .

[NightHawk150]

Doesn't the Explorer or Expedition use the Control Blade set up?

[matthewq4b]

this was after the SRA forced a redesign of the Floorpan.

 

 

Uh No the current Control Blade set up in the exsisting Falcon has it's own subframe assy that bolts on the chassis carrying the diff axels spindles and srings. The current CB cars in OZ coem standard with ESB to help over come some of the inherent lack of Anti Squat in IRS

 

 

For explorer that can tow and handle decent V8 we do not have an exceptable platform for it.

Severe service duty does not pay the bills. the future and bread an butter of our coumpany is cars for people that pay retail .

 

 

The Control Blade system can not be modified to allow for an open floor pan above the whole cross section of the rear suspenstion. This is one of the penalties of this IRS design.

 

And it's the 100K plus a year of fleet sales of the Panthers that have helped keep it in production and turning profits for over 25 years. Also Fords in abilty to update the cars has played a huge part in this. Weather you like it or not RWD sedans will always have high fleet sales. These are the cars of choice for PD's and many govt agency's. The trick is to make sure the fleet sales of these vehicals do not drastically impact the resale value of civi units. This can be accomplished by diferentiating the Fleet and Non Fleet units.

 

Sales are sales if the cars are sold at a profit.

Ford has commited to continue producing cars for Severe Service applications. Whether you agree with it or not that is the way it is. The trick is to try to diferentiante the Fleet units and the Civi units so Fleet units do not drastically impact the resale value of the Civi units.

 

Ford did this orginally with the launch of the Panthers in 79 giving the Fleet units a unique front header panel. But soon abadoned it when it appeard that it was not making a differance.

 

Accept the fact that if these units replace the Panthers there are 100K sales already waiting in the wings. Add the retail sales to this platform and you easily looking at 200k+ units year. Yes the platform may see as much 40% Fleet sales. But fleet sales have never been bad thing. These are not what has sunk previous Ford vehicals but Fords inability to keep product up to date.

 

Fleet sales are not all bad as a lot of the People that use these vehicals at work also tend to drive the same manufactures vehicals as personal units. The certainly is the case here with the EPS as about 2/3's of the vehicals sitting the empolyee parking lot are Ford's.

 

I know a few EPS officers and every single one owns at least one Ford.

Do not get so down on fleet sales. The cars are sold at a profit. It becomes an issue when your relying solely on fleet sales for the profits. As the current Panthers have been for the last 5 years and the Taurus was but that was more due to the fact the vehiclas had-have not recived a serious update in years and decades. Fleet does not care what a vehical looks like (unlike the populous at large) for them it is a dollars & cents bottom line.

 

The Ford has now a decade of being the only pratical PD car supplier. They have had ups and downs but have earned a loyalty in the segement not seen since the Unit Body SS Dodges.

 

Ford would not only be ill advised to ingore this market but down right stupid. And they have reconized this.

 

The Interceptor has the ability to be sold off shore in much larger capacity than the CV ever was. Ford's reputation in the SS segment is known and respected globally. Not just with the Panthers but the E seires and the F seires. Both of which see high Fleet sales.

 

Fords future is not in being the largest Fleet supplier, but they have to realize this is still valuble source of income. It just can not be the only source. Common sence and planning will allow them to full fill the needs of Fleet and not let it impact to drastically the image of Civi units. Also it helps when you do not let product stagnate for years on end.

 

 

Matthew

Edited January 7, 2007 by matthewq4b

[matthewq4b]

Doesn't the Explorer or Expedition use the Control Blade set up?

 

 

No they use a more convetinal A arm set up.

 

In the control Blade the Wheel hub is mounted directly in to a trailing arm.

 

tThe RWD and the FWD CB IRS set up are completly different. the both use a trailing arm but that is where the similarities end. FWD CB IRS has a wide open space between the wheel hubs allwoing for a extremly low floor above the suspension.

 

The RWD CB is not so fortunet and actually has very narrow space between the springs (Not quite twice the width of the diff ) that is lower than the current SRA in use.

 

The one advatage of the CB IRS is a much higher ground clearance than the current IRS used in the Expy and the Explorer. But you do not have as low a load floor avalible to you.

 

 

Matthew

Edited January 7, 2007 by matthewq4b

[kalu]

Here it is!

 

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ARTICLE.

 

 

Again Ford is last in line. Need to move faster to get vehicles like this to public, The MKR, and what about the Ford Iosis from 2005 concept, c'mon Ford take a chance. Ford Employee.....

[68fastback]

No they use a more convetinal A arm set up.

 

In the control Blade the Wheel hub is mounted directly in to a trailing arm.

 

tThe RWD and the FWD CB IRS set up are completly different. the both use a trailing arm but that is where the similarities end. FWD CB IRS has a wide open space between the wheel hubs allwoing for a extremly low floor above the suspension.

 

The RWD CB is not so fortunet and actually has very narrow space between the springs (Not quite twice the width of the diff ) that is lower than the current SRA in use.

 

The one advatage of the CB IRS is a much higher ground clearance than the current IRS used in the Expy and the Explorer. But you do not have as low a load floor avalible to you.

Matthew

 

Assuming SRA/watts for severe service duty, do you think a unibody architecture will be able to contain maintenance costs on par (or better) than the panthers? You see all the time in police videos CV's that get pounded over drainage ditches and off-road chasing PUs and SUVs and they often see continued service after repairs with the CV body-on-frame architecture. Can unibody be as rugged or at least as cost effective in your opinion?

 

I ask this because I think maintenance costs for police service is key, and while only part of that is due to chassis damage I would think more unibody units would incur severe damage than b-o-f (just a hunch, but I don't kow that).

 

I imagine that if overall ownership costs (purchase/maintenance/repair/replacement) are comparable, unibody will be accepted, but, all other things being equal, I'm wondering if/how that could be. If unibody is disadvantaged in this regard, maybe Ford needs to have a single b-o-f platform OR a unibody SUV that might be able to hit the same overall operating costs.

 

I know that sounds crazy, but Ford could just be opening the door to more competition in the severe duty segment by virtue of removing the entry barrier that the competition presently has -- namely the cost-effective and ruged rwd b-o-f. Any thoughts on this whether Interceptor or other?

[matthewq4b]

Assuming SRA/watts for severe service duty, do you think a unibody architecture will be able to contain maintenance costs on par (or better) than the panthers? You see all the time in police videos CV's that get pounded over drainage ditches and off-road chasing PUs and SUVs and they often see continued service after repairs with the CV body-on-frame architecture. Can unibody be as rugged or at least as cost effective in your opinion?

 

I ask this because I think maintenance costs for police service is key, and while only part of that is due to chassis damage I would think more unibody units would incur severe damage than b-o-f (just a hunch, but I don't kow that).

 

I imagine that if overall ownership costs (purchase/maintenance/repair/replacement) are comparable, unibody will be accepted, but, all other things being equal, I'm wondering if/how that could be. If unibody is disadvantaged in this regard, maybe Ford needs to have a single b-o-f platform OR a unibody SUV that might be able to hit the same overall operating costs.

 

I know that sounds crazy, but Ford could just be opening the door to more competition in the severe duty segment by virtue of removing the entry barrier that the competition presently has -- namely the cost-effective and ruged rwd b-o-f. Any thoughts on this whether Interceptor or other?

 

Now that is the big question. Todays PI unts see more severe service than in the past. Are expected to last longer with less Service.

 

I Doubt that a unit car can hndle the same abuse with out shortening it over all life expectancy. This proboly will not affect the first users but more than likly will affect the end users (read cab companies) length of serviceability. This may have a an affect on resale values of Used PI units. Something the agnecy's will have have to take in to account.

 

We might as well face the fact that the next Panther replacment what ever maybe will have intigrated front body stucture even if it is BOF (ala F 150) this will increase reapair cost for minor fender benders. As with the current units every thing above the frame and ahead of the fire wall is a bolt on affair.

 

The Interceptor could go to a separate front frame section like the old Camaro that just bolted on. Along with a bolt on front clip support structure. This would ease service abilty.

 

BOF is definetly more durable no question. But can Ford make the Interceptor chassis nearly as durable in SS aplications. The biggest down fall of unit construction is repeated pounding (ie curb jumping) ans the structure weakens and starts to flex. The frame on a BOF car flexs and will absorb some of this pounding sparing the body structure. Part of the reason that Panthers can go hundereds of thousands of miles and still be as tight as the day it was built.

 

The big test will be with the LX cars and see how well the stucture holds up in SS aplications.

 

The Unit cars will not be able to handle frontal impacts nearly as well as the current BOF. As with most Unit structures when impacted hard the structure begins to collapse at numerous locations and not just at the point of impact and progresing out from there like BOF tends to. We have all seen Unit cars hit and the structure starts folds up quite aways from the point of impact will little or no damage to the stucture in between.

 

There is no question repair costs will rise for the unit cars. That is a given.

 

The question is who will be the lowest.

 

Personally I would like to see the BOF remain in production. But not sure how pratical that would be from a cost stand point. If Ford can figure away to utilize the suspntion componants between the Unit RWD and a BOF RWD and figure away to mount the Units basic sheet metal minus the chassis suport structure on a seperate chassis then it might be cost fesabale. And this has been done in the past with other vehicals so it is not that far out there.

 

Matthew

[Tony Alonso]

Assuming SRA/watts for severe service duty, do you think a unibody architecture will be able to contain maintenance costs on par (or better) than the panthers? You see all the time in police videos CV's that get pounded over drainage ditches and off-road chasing PUs and SUVs and they often see continued service after repairs with the CV body-on-frame architecture. Can unibody be as rugged or at least as cost effective in your opinion?

 

Excellent question and response that follows! This type of coversation hopefully continues and increases more frequently as Ford looks over its global portfolio. I suspect that a particular application like this for a certain market must drive product planners crazy because it becomes hard to justify a major investment if the profits are used to subsidize other vehicle lines. I wonder if this is the case.

 

Also, I would be curious to see how the Dodge Charger police cars would do in this regard, since they are derived from a unibody Mercedes Benz platform.

[ebritt]

This thing is bad ass. I really like it. The questions are: 1) Will they build it 2) How long before they build it and 3) How close would a production version be to the concept?

1.No

2: Never

3: The testicles would be removed.

[ebritt]

How much more, percentage-wise, could an IRS cost? Isn't a far better ride over uneven surfaces and better handling worth a meaningful amount, especially when almost no other cars still have solid axles? GM will have an IRS on their new full-sized cars and it would be very easy for the GM salespeople to demonstrate the superiority of an independent rear suspension to prospective customers.

Apparently it costs a lot more. That is what is going to handicap GM and Dodge on the Camaro and Challenger. The Canaro may end up being a $50K low production car as will the Challenger. The Mustang will continue to whip their asses.

[DonRobbie]

I guarantee it gets built. Horbury said last year that Ford was done building concepts that never made it to production like the 427 and Continental and Navicross. And there's a new sheriff in town who now holds the purse strings, not the bean counters. It will happen - only question is when and on what platform.

 

Um, I'm pretty sure the Airstream concept isn't going into production. So I wouldn't be so quick to believe they are for certain building this.

[jpd80]

When Ford NA is really serious, they can contact the men from Broadmeadows. There's nothing there I see as really production ready.

[Moby Vic]

Nobody ever seems to complain about GM and DaimlerChrysler sticking with pushrod engines.

 

Antiquated ideas:

Live axles

Rear-wheel drive

V8 engines

Pony cars.

 

Ford was last to switch to independent front suspensions, too.

 

SRA vs. IRS comes down to personal preference. I prefer a live axle, and no amount of insults will change that preference. Ford should probably make IRS standard simply because there's a perception that it's superior, but it doesn't appeal to me. Heck, I like window cranks....

 

Also, for all its highly touted handling virtues, IRS is typically geared toward providing a smoother ride than it is for 2G turns.

[jpd80]

Nobody ever seems to complain about GM and DaimlerChrysler sticking with pushrod engines.

 

Antiquated ideas:

Live axles

Rear-wheel drive

V8 engines

Pony cars.

 

Ford was last to switch to independent front suspensions, too.

 

SRA vs. IRS comes down to personal preference. I prefer a live axle, and no amount of insults will change that preference. Ford should probably make IRS standard simply because there's a perception that it's superior, but it doesn't appeal to me. Heck, I like window cranks....

 

Also, for all its highly touted handling virtues, IRS is typically geared toward providing a smoother ride than it is for 2G turns.

 

Moby Vic, I am pleased to see IRS wasn't rammed down the throats of the Mustang lovers by Ford but, their opinion may change with time. Ford obviously thought there was no real need for IRS in the current Mustang, otherwise they would have made it an option. When the Zeta based Camaro arrives with its state of the art IRS (as opposed to the early GM tyre scrubber IRS I've experienced) that may change Ford's view.

 

The experience of Ford's Aussie Falcon proves that a good well sorted IRS can do wonders to both ride and handling, They refused to Follow GM and use an inferioe IRS, instead waiting for the much better Control blade IRS.Mid corner bumps that would unsettle the 4-Link Watts rear end are a thing of the past. Contrary to popular misconception, cornering speeds are much higher now compared to SRA. As to the added cost, I beleive Ford AUS absorbed the cost so there's no reason IRS should really cost any more.

 

If Ford AUS chose to wait for a properly developed IRS then who are we to rush the Mustang people for wanting to stay on solid ground (lol)?

After all they're the ones that buy them and if they feel it's needed then they'll tell Ford. When it comes to a concept, everythings up for grabs but, who's to say the Interceptor will ever make it to production. All of these Concepts were in the works before Mr. Mulally came on board. All of these concepts are feel good experiences for the converted. Is there a sound business case at the bottom of any of them? Mulally says "The Data will set you free" .............

[Blueblood]

The Interceptor hasan IRS it turns out...

 

http://blogs.edmunds.com/Straightline/2084

[old_fairmont_wagon]

One thing about unitized body structure and durability. Many people don't know that the Jeep Grand Cherokee has bee unitized and not Body on Frame for over 15 years. No one complains about their durability and I know of several PDs in the area that have a few of them for particular duties. I have no doubts that a unit body can be made to be as strong or stronger than a BOF setup of similar proportions and also just as durable while also being overall stiffer in every dimension, allowing for even better suspension tuning.

 

One of the problems that the Panther's have that degrades the performance of their rear suspension is the fact that there is twist in the structure. It means that, for all the tuning that can be done to the suspension, it can be defeated by the twist and bend inherent in the structure. One of the reasons that the SRA works so much better in the new stang as compared to the old one, aside from their choice for a better SRA setup, is the fact that the unibody that it connects to is worlds stiffer than the previous stang's unibody. This means that their suspension tuning is more effective and the suspension's response is as well.

 

My feeling is that Ford should spend the money to design the interceptor derived product with two rear suspension setups. An SRA for severe service applications and an IRS for retail sales. I guarantee that the SRA on that product will perform better than the Panther's, even if it sticks with the same exact design (and we all know that it will be improved in design as well) due to the improved stiffness of the new unit body.

 

As for survivability, there are other ways of providing for the same level of repairability with unit body vehicles. The main approach is to end the Unit Body some distance before the front and rear end of the vehicle and instead use a replaceable front and rear endcap that is independently deformable and disipates the shock before it gets to the unibody. Kind of like a much larger scale take on the 5 mph bumper. You make the 20 mph end cap. Since the majority of severe service damage is of the bumping and banging kind, this makes sense; and in cases where the vehicle sustains major damage, most are discarded as too expensive to repair. Remember, severe service vehicles don't neccessarily need to look like their retail counterparts, so, even if they look a little odd when compared to their retail brothers, its the functionality that the buyers will want.

 

(edited to correct grammer)

Edited January 10, 2007 by old_fairmont_wagon

[68fastback]

Old_Fairmoint, I think that kind of fresh strategy is interesting, viable and essential because it embraces multiple realities of the marketplace simutaneously:

 

- The need to [continue to] win in the severe-service market where SRA and functinal styling is the mandate.

- The need for a muscle-capable RWD 4dr civilian platform with IRS [or SRA as appropriate to target segment(s)]

- The business and technical/dynamics benefits of modern unibody platform

 

I only hope Ford, already overue for redress/entry in these segments, moves quickly to commercialize an 'Interceptor-like' platform.

[bolita]

One thing about unitized body structure and durability. Many people don't know that the Jeep Grand Cherokee has bee unitized and not Body on Frame for over 15 years. No one complains about their durability and I know of several PDs in the area that have a few of them for particular duties. I have no doubts that a unit body can be made to be as strong or stronger than a BOF setup of similar proportions and also just as durable while also being overall stiffer in every dimension, allowing for even better suspension tuning.

 

 

(edited to correct grammer)

 

I'd like to comment that IMHO the Grand Cherokee is known to age worse than the Explorer due to BOF vs. Unibody. For example, the Grand Cherokee is much more likely to squeak and rattle, especially the rear hatch vs the Explorer in my experience.

[jlsaylor]

When Ford NA is really serious, they can contact the men from Broadmeadows. There's nothing there I see as really production ready.

 

I see no need for Ford NA to contact Broadmeadows for anything, especially not when you consider the fact that D2C is easily a superior design to the Falcon platform whatever generation you may choose. Frankly, FOA should have been begging Ford for the funds to employ the D2C chassis with IRS under the upcoming Falcon given that it is easily the superior chassis in every way. Instead they are going to rehash the tired old Falcon platform one more time just so they can avoid using a NA designed platform......superior or not. The latter portion of that statement is truly ironic considering the current Falcon platform's ancestry.

Edited January 10, 2007 by jlsaylor

[68fastback]

Nobody ever seems to complain about GM and DaimlerChrysler sticking with pushrod engines.

 

Well, I don't complain about GM/DCX choosing to milk the pushrod cash-cow because I kinda like that they're still herding dinosaurs

 

However, GM understands the far reaching benefits of OHC(s). In the LS1 and LS2 2-valve works fine -- but the LS7 is getting taped-out in NA form for a production motor with its longer stroke and more severe rod angles. On a 'vette's price points they can afford to throw titanium rods, valves, etc. at the pushrod problem so it can rev higher and extend the HP range, but on a Camaro budget it wil eat into their margins or price the car that much higher. Without the 'vette bearing virtually all the R&D writeoff on the LS7, the Camaro could never afford it, IMO. Yet GM must do just that (as well as an LS7 Lightning rip-off).

 

That said, I think you'll see GM move to OHC for emissions/HP/NVH/efficiency reasons and I've heard rumors of a 5-valve 'vette in the next several yeas. You can do well with a 2-valve pushrod engine in HP at the expense of some other parameters, but the combination of federal legislation and customer expectation is rapidly cuting off the viability to excell on all parameters with pushrods, imo.

 

I think Ford bit the OHC bullet back when they did not just for those reasons, but because they felt ther'd be no need for large V8s int he future and never envisioned a new round of HP wars mandating NA displacements larger than the mods 3.55" effective max bore. At that bore, 2-valves just won't permit adequate breathing/efficiencies with long strokes by the very geometric constraints of a realtively narrow/long [stroke] cylinder and the maximum possible valve-area to cylinder-displacement ratios possible. With bore constrained, stroke and DOHC was the only sensible way to extend the usefull displacement of the mods. I suspect that, along the way, the real beauty of OHC(s) became apparent.

 

I expect an H/Boss of 4.25" or so max bore with today's state of the art VVT/direct injection, etc would do just fine with 2-valve SOHC design in the trucks and 3-valve SOHC for hi-po/'stang/police interceptor (real interceptor <lol>), though I'd like to see DOHC in the mustang/muscle segment. A DOHC alloy H/Boss in a revived Boss 3xx/4xx is what would make my life complete -- just hope that sort of roll-out is shorter than my remaining driving life-span!

 

Outside of the NA muscle-car segment and trucks, I would think there would be little need for the DOHC modular given designs like the 3.5 V6 and the feasibility of fast-response small-diameter twin-tubos like on the MKR concept, though I would prefer to see an NA modular V8 available in the Interceptor besides a V6. As nice as the Inteceptor is, if it's not an NA OHC V8, I would not buy one because the joy of even a muscle 4-door are the deep breathing and exhaust music only an NA V8 can deliver, though many will be satisfied with a V6.

 

That may just be me, but I don't think so.

 

.