The Ford Interceptor

[ml]

Overall....I like the concept. It could do with a couple of tweeks here and there, but (to me) its design DNA clearly says "Ford sedan" which is long overdue! IMHO that is critically important right now...something that is recognizable and sustainable in the longer term. Now, lets make sure the driving dynamics work. Ford has several more engine choices than it had a couple of years ago and lets not ignore fuel efficiency. If Ford is going to stem the market share slide, it has to build a version that is competitive with Toyota and Honda in the long run, not DCL. In upcoming years the market will likely continue to shift away from light trucks due to fuel efficiency concerns and consumers need fuel efficient North American options. It is going to take a lot more than just styling cues to regain the publics confidence in Fomoco. Its going to take quality engineering and tons of consumer input. The market is getting tougher and more competitive each year. Ford needs to get ahead of the curve, not just catch up.

[ehaase]

Now, let's have some discussion on powertrain. That 5.0 Cammer will not be under the hood of a production version. So........

 

6.2 Hurricane

 

3.5 V-6

 

4.0 Aussie I-6 turbo

 

If built, I think it will have the same base V6 as the Mustang (4.0L SOHC V6, unless the 3.5L V6 is the base engine in the Mustang by then) and the same base V8 used by the Mustang GT (probably the 4.6 3 valve), maybe detuned slightly. If the Mustang gets the Hurricane, then this car may get it also. I certainly don't see it getting the Shelby engine.

[Ovaltine]

Overall, I like the design. I'm in agreement that some front-end cleanup will be necessary.

 

My biggest beef however is the d-mn front fender "nostrils". Puh-lease!

 

This look is already overdone and cliched by it being used on countless other vehicles, primarily trucks and SUVs!

 

Cadillac

 

Rover

 

Dodge

 

Aston:

 

Ford:

 

Oh.... forgive me. That's a '78 T-Bird! I guess maybe Ford was AHEAD of its time on this one! B)

 

 

Any I've missed?

 

 

-Ovaltine

Edited January 2, 2007 by Ovaltine

[FStephenMasek]

What a nice surprise that they continued where they left off with the 427 concept. Of course, it must have a higher roof and an independent rear suspension to be a production model. However, the key word is concept. Unless Ford starts building cars like this very, very soon, they will probably run out of money and be gone forever. How soon? What do all of you think? Given thier dire financial situation, it seems to me that they had better have this and other substantial and stunning (nothing less will do) new products on dealer lots within 18 months.

 

Of course, GM is coming out with a whole new line of rear wheel drive cars. If Ford thinks they can wait until they see the GMs selling well, I wonder where they think they will borrow even more money?

 

My biggest beef however is the d-mn front fender "nostrils".

I am almost sure that the revised Five Hundred will have fender vents, and they do seem to be in style. Edited January 2, 2007 by FStephenMasek

[falconman13]

Since it has been brought up, heres what it would look like with just a 2 bar grill, I personally feel the 3 bar thing has been over played

 

Agree it should have a little rake to the front end, maybe a more pronounced bumper, (slightly) And the rear quarter needs some work, But overall, a very good profile. IMO

Mike

[cass]

Butt ugly slab sided short windowed 300c copy with a straight rear axle and a small block racing engine. Excuse me while while I wipe the snot off my face from laughing so hard.

 

Why not just cut the fenders off and mount tractor tires and call it big foot 2k7?

 

Its really bad when your concept already has less HP and less features than your competitions Production vehicle.

 

I doubt very seriously if your are going to see a Manual tranny in the beast, because I doubt ford (or anyone) has one that will stand the Weight/power involved, and fit a car.

[JETSOLVER]

Any I've missed?

I don't have a big hang-up with the gills, but you did miss the super duty....

[Watchdevil]

Overall, I like the design. I'm in agreement that some front-end cleanup will be necessary.

 

My biggest beef however is the d-mn front fender "nostrils". Puh-lease!

 

This look is already overdone and cliched by it being used on countless other vehicles, primarily trucks and SUVs!

 

 

 

Oh.... forgive me. That's a '78 T-Bird! I guess maybe Ford was AHEAD of its time on this one! B)

Any I've missed?

-Ovaltine

 

Well, Holden has been big on featuring the fender vents on it's top of the line models.

 

The original Thunderbird had a great fender vent design and it was reinterpeted nicely on the last model. Don't forget Buick's portholes. Let's see what else.... The Camaro Z28 and Firebird Trans Am's used them... Corvettes always had them... Oh yeah and virtually every car built before 1940 had them for functional purposes to vent the engine compartment.

[Watchdevil]

Since it has been brought up, heres what it would look like with just a 2 bar grill, I personally feel the 3 bar thing has been over played

 

Agree it should have a little rake to the front end, maybe a more pronounced bumper, (slightly) And the rear quarter needs some work, But overall, a very good profile. IMO

Mike

 

Okay now that is reality. It also gives it a practical place for a bumper shelf. Makes it look less like a truck. Ford doesn't have to do three bars on everything, but using this modified look, they can contain the three bars more narrowly and horizontal which is more attractive on the Fusion than being skewed vertically and high.

[68fastback]

Says here that Volvo and Ford will be getting their own twin-clutch DSG in two years; cheaper to produce and service and plays well with enthusiasts...

 

http://tsikot.yehey.com/?cat=38

 

That would be very cool!

 

<edit: it's the third article down in the above link>

.

Edited January 2, 2007 by 68fastback

[Hemiman]

Agree it should have a little rake to the front end, maybe a more pronounced bumper, (slightly) And the rear quarter needs some work, But overall, a very good profile. IMO

Mike

 

 

What about reverse rake like on the Mustang? This would provide the bumber step. Maybe too retro for most folks, but could look good. Howabout a photoshop?

[Jason Kerluck]

Well at least if there's anything to say about this concept it's that it's got people talking. It's also been all over the news on CNN and other outlets. Positive interest in Ford is rarely a bad thing.

Edited January 2, 2007 by Jason Kerluck

[Moby Vic]

I agree with the grille haters, but not the live-axle haters, especially if this car becomes a Crown Vic replacement. Ruggedness and simplicity at low cost are virtues, not detractors.

 

It looks like it should have a roomier trunk than a 300, which is also a good thing.

 

Still, I liked the 427 better, except that it also had an ugly grille (which of course was the only part of the car to make it to production).

[akirby]

I agree with the grille haters, but not the live-axle haters, especially if this car becomes a Crown Vic replacement. Ruggedness and simplicity at low cost are virtues, not detractors.

 

It looks like it should have a roomier trunk than a 300, which is also a good thing.

 

Still, I liked the 427 better, except that it also had an ugly grille (which of course was the only part of the car to make it to production).

 

Just because the concept has a solid rear axle doesn't mean the production car will. There is also no guarantee the production version will use the mustang platform. Let's face it - this is the only platform available as a RWD V8 right now so that's what they had to use for the concept. I bet we'll see a new RWD platform with IRS, probably shared with the Aussies.

[68fastback]

Just because the concept has a solid rear axle doesn't mean the production car will. There is also no guarantee the production version will use the mustang platform. Let's face it - this is the only platform available as a RWD V8 right now so that's what they had to use for the concept. I bet we'll see a new RWD platform with IRS, probably shared with the Aussies.

 

Not to change the subject, but it would be so wrong if this car gets IRS and Mustang doesn't. I'd be ok with this one going either way -- though I agree for police and livery work cost and toughness is key. I sure hope the refreshed Mustang gets IRS. In this millenium a Boss Mustang w/o IRS is unthinkable, IMO.

 

.

[Kokomo M/W]

Reality Check,

 

The best concept in the world won't help me sell the boring crap on my showroom floor

 

I'm taking about the refreshed Escape which comes to market with the least competitive powertrain in its class.

 

The 08 Ford Focus which merely brings Focus up to the where it should have been in 05.

 

With both vehicles I want to know where the 5 speed and 6 speed auto trannies are?

 

Ford can advertise bold moves all it wants but it to me bold means TO LEAD not to follow which is all Ford is doing right now.

 

The Edge, the Mustang, the Fusion, they seem to be the exceptions to the Rule of Mediocrity at Ford. Come on Mark Fields lets kick some BUTT!

 

Mark. It's hard to kick ass when your head is up there

[pcsario]

Not to change the subject, but it would be so wrong if this car gets IRS and Mustang doesn't. I'd be ok with this one going either way -- though I agree for police and livery work cost and toughness is key. I sure hope the refreshed Mustang gets IRS. In this millenium a Boss Mustang w/o IRS is unthinkable, IMO.

Just have live axle as the standard, IRS as an option.

 

Really, never understood why they just didn't do that in the first place.

 

The IRS was always ready; Ford will be forced once again into doing what they should've done from the start.

[Blueblood]

So is this going to be built? Or is this just going to be another tease from Ford?

 

I would think if Ford did build it or a version of it they'd use the new Aussie Falcon chassis considering what Mullaly has said about platform sharing. Probably be easier and cheaper than stretching the Mustang chassis.

Edited January 2, 2007 by Blueblood

[wescoent]

This car NEEDS IRS, and I'll almost guarantee it will get it in production trim.

 

I have no idea where Ford expects this car to fit into its lineup, since the Five Hundred currently occupies the spot between the Fusion and Crown Victoria. This car cannot replace the Crown Victoria in police and taxi duty... not durable enough. I think this car could co-exist with the FIve Hundred... since they attract completely different buyers. There should be a 3.5L V6 version, a 4.6L V8 version, priced all the way up to $38,000. Since the Lincoln version (MKR) will start at $45,000 at BEST, I don't see much problems with overlap.

[Blueblood]

This car NEEDS IRS, and I'll almost guarantee it will get it in production trim.

 

I have no idea where Ford expects this car to fit into its lineup, since the Five Hundred currently occupies the spot between the Fusion and Crown Victoria. This car cannot replace the Crown Victoria in police and taxi duty... not durable enough. I think this car could co-exist with the FIve Hundred... since they attract completely different buyers. There should be a 3.5L V6 version, a 4.6L V8 version, priced all the way up to $38,000. Since the Lincoln version (MKR) will start at $45,000 at BEST, I don't see much problems with overlap.

 

 

Nobody looking at old Volkswagons... er I mean the 500 will be in the market for the Interceptor. It would need a lot more than the sluggish 4.6 to power it, by the time this thing is ready for production, 2046 or something, the Hurricane engines will be ready to go under the hood. A 5.8 at about 400 horsepower would get the job done.

[akirby]

This car NEEDS IRS, and I'll almost guarantee it will get it in production trim.

 

I have no idea where Ford expects this car to fit into its lineup, since the Five Hundred currently occupies the spot between the Fusion and Crown Victoria. This car cannot replace the Crown Victoria in police and taxi duty... not durable enough. I think this car could co-exist with the FIve Hundred... since they attract completely different buyers. There should be a 3.5L V6 version, a 4.6L V8 version, priced all the way up to $38,000. Since the Lincoln version (MKR) will start at $45,000 at BEST, I don't see much problems with overlap.

 

Remember the Mustang concepts had IRS and were built on the DEW98 platform which is NOT what ended up in production.

 

How can you say that it's not durable enough for fleet duty? Just because it's unibody?

[jpd80]

So is this going to be built? Or is this just going to be another tease from Ford?

 

I would think if Ford did build it or a version of it they'd use the new Aussie Falcon chassis considering what Mullaly has said about platform sharing. Probably be easier and cheaper than stretching the Mustang chassis.

 

A lot of you guys don't know that during the 1990s the Aussie falcon, Jaguar/Lincoln , Mustang and Crown Victoria/Town car platforms were overseen in the Ford 2000 program department in Dearborn . The early idea was to combine as many of the platforms as possible but was soon changed to continued support of separatation because each of the engineering groups knew well what their own platforms needed. So each of the main unibody platforms were commenced in parallel and diversified from there. So it's not correct to consider the Falcon's platform in isolation, particularly with the upcoming 2008 E8 Platform having major changes to the cabin frame and doors. While the latest concepts draw from existing NA platforms it's not to beleive the concept could be swapped to what ever platform is selected - D2C, Lincoln/Jaguar, DEW, DEW Lite, Falcon. Remember, as Zeta has shown the skin is not the archetecture.

Edited January 2, 2007 by jpd80

[ANTAUS]

I dont' see any issues of offering 2 different vehicles in the same segment. The marketplace is fragmenting, and the days of 400K+ sales are coming end for most (except possibly Accord/F150, etc). If financially feasable, I dont see why 100K sales of a 500, and 80K unit sales of an Interceptor wouldn't work. It's more than what Ford has now... Same with the Edge/Escape/Freestyle/Fairlane offerings...

[FStephenMasek]

I agree with the grille haters, but not the live-axle haters, especially if this car becomes a Crown Vic replacement. Ruggedness and simplicity at low cost are virtues, not detractors.

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. Edited January 3, 2007 by FStephenMasek

[68fastback]

Just have live axle as the standard, IRS as an option.

 

Really, never understood why they just didn't do that in the first place.

 

The IRS was always ready; Ford will be forced once again into doing what they should've done from the start.

 

I think the problem is that the stress points on a unibody design are critical and are fundamentally different for live/IRS, so you wind up having to use a carrier/subframe for the IRS and/or a compromise design which also makes it heavier (or weaker or even more expensive -- or all three). That's how the 99-04 Cobras were done. I think, more and more, for optimized milage-weight/handling/cost, the platform itself will need to be IRS or live-axle specific to be excellent (either way). And with the plethora of brands out there, competing on all-around excellence becomes even more important, IMO.

 

I have no problem with two distinct variations of the same basic platform, one optimized for IRS and the other optimized for live, but the exact same platform fitted for both is a compromise that's becoming more and more difficult to compete with for the above reasons. The market trending toward smaller production runs per model (with some exceptions noted in another post) plays to chassis tailoring and specialization if it can then play across multiple models.

 

And two separately-optimized variations of essentially the same chassis, can probably go down the same line if the IRS assembly can be fitted in about the same time as the live-axle -- typically a problem, but potentially doable, I think, if it's part of the overall [manufacturing] design from the outset ...but that's not my forté, so I'll defer to those in the know on that.

 

.