The Ford Interceptor

[NLPRacing]

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.

 

There will always be these crazy "futuristic" concepts showing what Ford thinks the "future" will bring. I believe what Horbury meant, was that they wouldn't build concepts that people may love with no intentions of producing it. The Interceptor & MKR were built to gauge public reaction, and based on what has been very good public reaction, I believe versions of both will make it to production. Like others have said, the questions are when & where will they be built and on what platform?

 

The Interceptor has an IRS it turns out...

 

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

 

[jpd80]

Insiders at Ford Australia have said that we "shouldn't be surprised" if we see the E8 platform under a production version of the Interceptor so personally I think we'll see the Falcon platform in the USA although Ford, as usual, is keeping all of their cards close to their chest.

[Sizzler]

Ever wonder why Australian's like their IRS so much? Longest, straightest, most boring roadways in the world, and they need IRS? Gotta be the comfort factor.

 

GM has stuck with OHV for decades despite the 'perception' the buff-books, blogosphere, and euro-trash have of OHC's: that they're 'superior'. It's all about context. It's all about reality. In the context of everyday street use by soccer moms and commuter dads, OHV works just fine. In reality, in the rpm ranges ordinary people drive in, OHV's get the job done.

Ford fell for the OHC hype, created a monster-sized engine that didn't really work out, nice and all, but too big outside, too little inside, with OHC's...big whoop. GM kept the cam in the block and motored along at least as well as Ford, without the big investments (cash out the door) Ford made.

 

IRS vs SRA is sorta similar. The hype is performance, the reality is smooth ride. The cost is complexity and more parts.

 

Maybe the interceptor gets IRS, at a higher price point than the base chassis might imply. Maybe at some point, for a 33% bump in MSRP, the mustang gets IRS in a 'performance' option package.

 

I've always been of the KISS mindset, and car as transportation.

 

I've seen the other side of KISS, and it's an awful sight.

[inteller]

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.

 

 

if the number of vehicles on the road is the classification of "whip their asses", I'll take the limited production stuff. I dont want to be driving what every other tom dick and harry is driving. New Edge mustangs are a dime a dozen around here, the retro stangs are becoming that way.

[Sizzler]

if the number of vehicles on the road is the classification of "whip their asses", I'll take the limited production stuff. I dont want to be driving what every other tom dick and harry is driving. New Edge mustangs are a dime a dozen around here, the retro stangs are becoming that way.

 

There's a business model Ford can take to its creditors: we want to sell cars to people who don't want to see too many of the same car on the road, so we'll limit production to keep our customers happy. And as we close more and more plants and lay off more and more employees, at some point we'll start making money.

 

That's the plan?

[jpd80]

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.

 

D2C was a cheap platform developed to kick start the all New / Retro Mustang - well done!

How many parts remain common to the Mustang after you finish making your 4-Door. You have no idea of the engineering you're speaking of and the funding needed to make the changes to D2C. If it's below a certain percentage the Engineering and Finance Departments would call it a new platform and bang, there goes your finance for the project. That's how it was until recently. All I can tell you is there is another side to the story you've been told and things aren't what they seem. Back in 2003 Ford AUS approached Jac Nasser (an Aussie) then in charge of Ford North America about basing the next mustang on a BA Falcon. The Americans flatly refused and said "Not with our Mustang" and I guess rightly so, i't not right to fiddle with icons. Ford NA then quickly developed an "economical version" of a current platform to stop any further unwanted incursions.

 

OK, You win

Your whole arguement is a moot point. This is supposed to be a place where we share constructive criticism but I find your tone agressive and adversarial towards Ford Australia and frankly, I cannot be a participant. This is the last post I will make on this subject.

Edited January 11, 2007 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

D2C was a cheap platform developed to kick start the all New / Retro Mustang - well done!

You have no idea of the engineering you're speaking of and the funding needed to make the changes to D2C.

How many parts remain common to the Mustang after you finish making your 4-Door.

If it's below a certain percentage the Engineering and Finance Departments would call it a new platform and bang, there goes your finance for the project. That's how it was until recently.

 

Well you have to look at this way, why would Ford spend so much money on a project that only sells 150K units a year and got its own platform for its first time in 40+ years? The same could be said of the Sedan, but its business case is much more compelling since you can sell sedans that cost even more then a base Mustang, not to mention 30-50K units a year Lincolns that would start well north of 30K USD. Since its not a clean sheet design (IIRC the D2C kept only the fuel tanks from the DEW98 which it was based on) and would share developmental costs with the D2C+ (IRS for example on the Mustang) it makes even more sense. We can take alot of educated guesses, but unless one of us does/did this type of cost analysis for Ford, we can't say for sure what they are going to or not do.

[jpd80]

We can take alot of educated guesses, but unless one of us does/did this type of cost analysis for Ford, we can't say for sure what they are going to or not do.

 

Exactly

[NJSteve3]

There's a business model Ford can take to its creditors: we want to sell cars to people who don't want to see too many of the same car on the road, so we'll limit production to keep our customers happy. And as we close more and more plants and lay off more and more employees, at some point we'll start making money.

 

That's the plan?

 

I think Ford tried this with the T-bird....

[old_fairmont_wagon]

No, with the T-bird, Ford tried to get a living legends car out the door with minimal investment. Had they actually asked anyone at all about what they remembered and would want in a new T-bird, they would have had a different product. The glaring faults with the first gen one were chasis flex and power. Both were adjusted in the mid cycle upgrade, but, not completely fixed. All in all, though, it was always a limited run project. It was just unfortunate that the only competent platform that they had to base it on was the LS platform, which was never designed for a vert, and was way more complex than it had to be for that application.

 

Its other problem was that it competed in house. You could get a mustang Vert with more torque for less money. You could get a cobra vert with way more total performance for a bit more dough. The only compelling reason to get the t-bird was looks and looks alone. The interior wasn't blowing anyone away, so it was just exterior.

[jpd80]

I'm just curious, given the Interceptor is Mustang D2C based, why have they used a double wishboned front end?

Would this be a durability issue or is it more likely pinched from a Crown Victoria with a similar width track to make the concept more easily ?

 

Suspension

Front....................... Double wishbone-independent

Rear.........................3-Link Design with Panhard Rod

 

I'm not being a wise guy, I'm just curious as to how they actually developed such a big car from a compact coupe.

If the roof was raised a bit and a companion intermediate length chassis (114") developed, it might have a real chance outside the USA

Edited January 11, 2007 by jpd80

[akirby]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the platform under the interceptor IS the new FoA platform and they're only calling it a D2C because they're not ready to announce anything?

[jpd80]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the platform under the interceptor IS the new FoA platform and they're only calling it a D2C because they're not ready to announce anything?

 

FoA has already stated they had no input.

Perhaps this is something beyond D2C and Falcon with all the benefits of both and no drawbacks.

With the ability to style to local tastes, there would be no complaints and release smaller markets from a ton of financial burden.

Edited January 12, 2007 by jpd80

[Blueblood]

The Interceptor hasan IRS it turns out...

 

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

 

 

THE INTERCEPTOR HAS IRS!!!!!!

 

Since nobody is paying attention... :beatdeadhorse:

[NickF1011]

THE INTERCEPTOR HAS IRS!!!!!!

 

Since nobody is paying attention... :beatdeadhorse:

 

Any clarification on the front suspension though? Don't see why they would have bothered adapting a double wishbone if the Mac strut/L-arm setup in the Mustang works and can accomodate wide engines.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Maybe the Mac-Struc/L-arm setup from the stang isn't suitable for a vehicle of greater mass like the interceptor likely is. Perhaps there were other front engineering considerations. Perhaps they are using the new mustang platform that the next update will be using for this concept and that platform has a double wishbone up front. There are many possibilites.

 

Maybe they are finally adopting Mazda;s modular design philosophy as used in the CX-7 that uses "modules" from various platforms melded into a better overall product?

[jlsaylor]

D2C was a cheap platform developed to kick start the all New / Retro Mustang - well done!

How many parts remain common to the Mustang after you finish making your 4-Door. You have no idea of the engineering you're speaking of and the funding needed to make the changes to D2C. If it's below a certain percentage the Engineering and Finance Departments would call it a new platform and bang, there goes your finance for the project. That's how it was until recently. All I can tell you is there is another side to the story you've been told and things aren't what they seem. Back in 2003 Ford AUS approached Jac Nasser (an Aussie) then in charge of Ford North America about basing the next mustang on a BA Falcon. The Americans flatly refused and said "Not with our Mustang" and I guess rightly so, i't not right to fiddle with icons. Ford NA then quickly developed an "economical version" of a current platform to stop any further unwanted incursions.

 

OK, You win

Your whole arguement is a moot point. This is supposed to be a place where we share constructive criticism but I find your tone agressive and adversarial towards Ford Australia and frankly, I cannot be a participant. This is the last post I will make on this subject.

 

You obviously have every right not to reply, but I am going to make some points which need to be made either way.

 

First, in sincerity I find your insinuation that I am 'aggressive' and 'adversarial' toward FOA ammusing in light of your comment that Ford should 'contact Broadmeadows' to get a vehicle like the Interceptor right. In fairness that may not be an adversarial, or even an aggressive comment, but it is certainly insulting. And frankly, comments like these are getting tired and are hardly constructive. In contrast I'll offer up an even better idea. How 'bout Ford fixes their core U.S. operation, and FOA for that matter, so that we don't have to worry about the quality of product from either? Realistically they'll go broke if they don't, which makes the suggestion that they go to Broadmeadows pointless even assuming that this would produce a better product.

 

That said, while I actually like the Falcon, and frankly feel that FOA has done a quite commendable job with what they have, I never cease to be amazed at the assertion that it is inherently superior to D2C. Or that FOA is inherently better at this sort of thing than Ford's U.S. is despite what recent product might indicate, an opinion your earlier comments could be reasonably assumed to indicate that you too hold. To turn the tables on you in this instance you cannot know that D2C is not the inherently superior platform. And frankly I would argue that what evidence we do have doesn't generally support your case even if you were making an 'educated guess'.

 

As for your insinuation that I have no understanding of the challenges posed by converting the D2C platform into something which can support a longer, 4-door sedan...I'd disagree. Before leaving the auto industry altogether my last position involved the implementation and ramp up of product....effectively I worked with the techs, tool and die guys, and even engineers to make certain that their designs actually made it to production in a form still retaining a semblance of what was intended. And while that is about as much info regarding that situation as I am willing to divulge on a public forum, I would counter that I have a very good idea of what is involved due largely to that experience, and that the particulars we do know surrounding the D2C platform would seem to make it a good candidate for such an evolution. Can I be certain? No. But then neither could an engineer not directly involved with the program based on simply what we know.

 

And to be bluntly honest....the entire discussion regarding the MKR and Interceptor concepts hinges on educated guesses and informed opinions. Everyone making contributions here is doing exactly that, and I've based mine on no less information and experience than most of the folks in here. In fact doing what I suggest would be no different than the practice you commend FOA for, creating derivatives. Again, could it be done? Seems likely that it could to me, but obviously I could be wrong. It is, however, worth a look, since doing so poses the promise of spreading the wealth of a very good, basic platform and staving off costs. The fact that you have effectively made it clear that you disagree, and appear to have dismissed such a notion off-hand, means that you are insinuating at least as much regarding D2C's lack of suitability as I am regarding it's suitability for such a task.

 

And frankly that is where my problem with discussions like these lies. Nobody thinks twice about slamming any Ford product emerging from this side of the pond, no matter how well executed it might actually be. But criticize FOA and all of a sudden were 'adversarial' and 'aggressive'. Again, it's just getting old. Frankly, if you wanted to argue about who performed a better redesign, FOA with the Falcon or FNA with the Mustang, recently disappointing sales of the Falcon and it's derivatives wouldn't serve to make the best argument relative to the Mustang's continuing strong sales. I didn't bring this up because previously I'm not out to slight the Falcon or FNA, but I'm also not among that portion of FOA's American fan club which has their collective nose so far up FOA's backside that they can taste Kangaroo either.

 

Also worth mentioning IMO is your discussion of how things were or are done at Ford, and the problems caused by this in such a way that I am inclined to believe you once worked for that company. This is where you, and many of those who I know have worked for Ford, lose me altogether. I am wholly disinterested in how things were done, and never gave serious consideration to the same while in the position I describe earlier. To be fair I was fortunate enough to primarily work under men who entertained my crazy ideas about improving the situation of the company. This cannot be said of all of them, but I was perhaps too young or too stupid, and possibly even both, to know what I wasn't supposed to say or when I wasn't supposed to be saying it. I spoke my mind and was completely at a loss to understand the mindset of those who discussed how 'things had always been done' surrounding me. I can sympathize with those subjected to such ridiclous pratices, but I simply wont talk about future product plans within such ridiculous confines and restrictions because to do so is pointless IMO.

[matthewq4b]

Maybe the Mac-Struc/L-arm setup from the stang isn't suitable for a vehicle of greater mass like the interceptor likely is. Perhaps there were other front engineering considerations. Perhaps they are using the new mustang platform that the next update will be using for this concept and that platform has a double wishbone up front. There are many possibilites.

 

Maybe they are finally adopting Mazda;s modular design philosophy as used in the CX-7 that uses "modules" from various platforms melded into a better overall product?

 

 

In the other thread that showed a pic of the Interceptor being built it appears that ahead of the fire wall the car has a conventinal Chassis And not a unit front clip. The reasons for this could be many. The ability to accept the upcomming Boss. And possibly to have the much more durable A arm front suspention. A must if the car is going to see Severe service.

 

 

Matthew

[jpd80]

I can understand the lengthening and widening of the Mustang shell on the interceptor. If that works it will be a huge coup as I think GM's Zeta is locked into wheel base only variations.

 

This Interceptor is a concept and still no where near ready for production. I see it as a whole heap of styling effots meerly as a teaser to see if they get a WOW and inwhich areas. When the Mustang boys have something ready for production I'm sure FOA will be waiting open armed to greet them.( jlsaylor, You took my comment on Broadmeadows the wrong way.)

Using a double wishbone front end and a double wishbone alloy IRS in a D2C base is a welcome but big change don't you think? Perhaps Mustang now has access to different suspension parts or maybe the floorpan and suspension were surplus from another cancelled concept, this would explain the non use of the control blade IRS, a much cheaper and more effective rear end.

 

Perhaps the Mustang team have thrown out a lot of engineering WOW as well to see what comes back from several divisions' engineers saying we can build that. What a perfect thought starter for Ford's engineering groups to turn this idea into one of the most economical and viable production ready models on the runway. We still have some barriers to break down but the walls aren't that high.

 

I'm thinking, Mustang, Falcon, Thunderbird, Galaxie plus a bunch of Lincoln and Mercury variations. That's before we start talking about derivatives like SUVs and half-chassis light commercials.

 

jlsaylor,

No where in my posts in "Mulally Fords Most Important Model" or this forum did I say or insuate that the falcon platform was superior to D2C. Please re read all of our posts and you'll see it 's true. The Mustang was offered many years ago it the 1990s?. It wasn't dismissed out of hand by FOA, seems F NA wanted all the costs of development dropped on FOA and the sums didn't add up.

Btw, Loved the "taste Kangaroo" bit , LOL!

Edited January 13, 2007 by jpd80

[Watchdevil]

I think the important thing to realize is that the Interceptor and MKR are concepts based on a Mustang... They ride on Mustang platforms that have been modified extensively to yeild these concepts ONLY and they in no way represent actual production vehicles.

 

The whole Mustang vs Falcon debate is ridiculous. Both platforms stand on their own merits for the intended markets they are sold in. Perhaps Ford will wise up in the future and stop wasting money developing completely different platforms for like configuration RWD vehicles and share resources and development to build common platforns in the US and Australia much like GM is doing with Zeta.

[Needroomfor5]

The Interceptor - now we are talking my language! Something RWD, with horsepower and hopefully a 6 speed manual. Sad to say, but the last 5 passenger car I had which was actually fun was my 79 Fairmont that I transplanted a stout little 351W 4-V in.

[jpd80]

So an an "uneducated Aussie" which car market is the Interceptor aimed at, the 300C?

Or is it more a toe in the water Crown Victoria replacement?

Or is it something completely different again?

Edited January 14, 2007 by jpd80

[Watchdevil]

So an an "uneducated Aussie" which car market is the Interceptor aimed at, the 300C?

Or is it more a toe in the water Crown Victoria replacement?

Or is it something completely different again?

 

In modern times, this is where different models merge from their predacessors. The Crown Vic represents all the standard, full-sized Fords of the past. They were sold retail and to fleets. There were various models from stripper to luxury and performance.

 

In the 1960's, various sizes of cars emerged and poliferated. What was compact now is full size or mid sized these days.

 

So a car like the Interceptor combines the sedan virtues of the Aussie Falcon, suppliments the Mustang as a four-door companion, replaces the classic and current full-sized Fords for retail and possibly fleets.

 

The idea to me is to provide one vehicle on a single platform that can cover as many customer targets as possible. But also, for customer choices and needs, there can be various body style configurations and trim/package level choices.

[mackinaw]

I made it to the NAIAS yesterday and came away very impressed with both the Interceptor and the Lincoln MKR. Both have a real "presence" that stood out from the other concepts by other manufacturers. Crowd reaction, at least those standing near me, was very positive. Both drew a lot of people to the point it was hard to get up close to see either vehicle. I hope Ford was taking notes.

[jpd80]

I made it to the NAIAS yesterday and came away very impressed with both the Interceptor and the Lincoln MKR. Both have a real "presence" that stood out from the other concepts by other manufacturers. Crowd reaction, at least those standing near me, was very positive. Both drew a lot of people to the point it was hard to get up close to see either vehicle. I hope Ford was taking notes.

 

What's the internal room like, wider than a Crown Vic? More legroom as well?