The Ford Interceptor

[LSFan00]

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.

 

That is fascinating. What in the world do the CV/TC platforms share with the present/past falcon? Looking at the cut-aways, I don't see much similarity, though if I could find some, even a little, that might be a good indicator that these teams collaborated a little.

[Blueblood]

Why is Ford the only company that can effectively put IRS in their BOF SUV's, and it be cheap, rugged, and all that, yet they can't figure out how to put it in a freaking unibody car?

 

 

The control blade IRS is strong, light, cheap, extremely space efficient, and works amazingly well (probably the best IRS design that doesn't cost multiple thousands of dollars like high end double wishbone coil over ste-ups). Why not use it in future Mustangs and the Interceptor?

[LSFan00]

Why is Ford the only company that can effectively put IRS in their BOF SUV's, and it be cheap, rugged, and all that, yet they can't figure out how to put it in a freaking unibody car?

The control blade IRS is strong, light, cheap, extremely space efficient, and works amazingly well (probably the best IRS design that doesn't cost multiple thousands of dollars like high end double wishbone coil over ste-ups). Why not use it in future Mustangs and the Interceptor?

 

 

Careful; that kind of crazy-talk will get you banned from Dearborn.

[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 it's a matter of cost/weight/strength. A unibody chassis really has to be optimized for IRS or Live ...or use a subframe/carrier for the IRS which ads cost and complexity and suboptimizes the design in terms of excellence and strength or both. The 99-04 mustangs did that -- expensive and heavier than necessary and a copmpromise.

 

But I think a single chassis architecture could conceivable have two optimized variations -- one for IRS one for Live -- possibly even going down the same line if the IRS assemply times are not that out of wack with live-axle line times. Then, for example, you could have an IRS Lincoln and Interceptor go down the same line (physically, or another line of common design capable of balancing prouction loads as needed) as a live-axle police/livery/base-full-size Ford. I think the same might be doable with an IRS/live-axle Boss/GT Mustang and a Lincoln/Cougar (or whatever).

 

That is, ideally and take to the extreme: one major chassis archetecture with 2 and 4-door variations and IRS/Live optimizations could support several models across multiple brands -- at least in principle -- with less expense, more use-specific optimization, and the potential for far more sharing ...if you catch my drift.

 

.

[68fastback]

Why is Ford the only company that can effectively put IRS in their BOF SUV's, and it be cheap, rugged, and all that, yet they can't figure out how to put it in a freaking unibody car?

The control blade IRS is strong, light, cheap, extremely space efficient, and works amazingly well (probably the best IRS design that doesn't cost multiple thousands of dollars like high end double wishbone coil over ste-ups). Why not use it in future Mustangs and the Interceptor?

 

+1 ..amen! and the Dana control blade design would seem to be more amenable to the two-optimization notion above...

 

.

[Blue II]

There is an station wagon version of the Interceptor as well. Not sure if it's ready for the show though.

[Ben Beeck]

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.

 

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).

 

Ruggedness? The Australians use the Independant Rear Suspended Falcons as police cars, and Australia has far coarser blacktop and an ever worse schedule of road repair than here.

 

It's just a matter of not stinting on materials.

 

Low cost? As I said before, it is sold down under at a greater margin than the Panther cars, yet still averages in the same price range as a 500.

[Ben Beeck]

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.

 

According to their own bean counters, adding IRS cost all of $300 a car!

[68fastback]

According to their own bean counters, adding IRS cost all of $300 a car!

I agree... if done as a native design (not retro'd to a chassis designed for Live) it is a minimal cost hit -- something the car rags have distorted in their artivles/statements based on the mustang being designed for Live axle and them asking Ford how much it would cost to retrofit IRS -- a lot, ...but not if done natively/properly.

 

Here's another myth -- IRS has to weigh much more than Live ;-)

 

.

[jpd80]

That is fascinating. What in the world do the CV/TC platforms share with the present/past falcon? Looking at the cut-aways, I don't see much similarity, though if I could find some, even a little, that might be a good indicator that these teams collaborated a little.

 

 

So each of the main unibody platforms were commenced in parallel and diversified from there.

 

There was no colaboration between the groups even though the desire by administrators was to minimise platforms.

I included the CV/TC because all major RWD platforms were controlled from the one section in Dearborn even though they all had separate engineering groups.

 

I understand the CV and Town car still use the Watts Link? From 1982 to 1998 the Aussie Falcons used the Watts Link Rear End and then moved on to multi-link IRS before settling with the more advanced and lighter Control Blade IRS. Also during the 1990s, the Falcons used the front sump version of the 5.0 Litre Small Block. Although there isn't communication between Broadmeadows and say St Catherines that doesn't mean they dont access available engineering.

And the Control Blade IRS that was originally part of Dew Lite and is used by Euro Focus (?) isnt like any other IRS I've ever driven, It separates the handling function from ride quality.

 

What's this got to do with the interceptor you say? The Falcon has a very similar track to the Interceptor and has used the Control Blade IRS for the past 4 years in both 6 and 8 cylinder applications. If ever a car could show another platform how to morph into something different, it's the Falcon.

Edited January 3, 2007 by jpd80

[Tony Alonso]

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

 

Nice job! That helps the remove some of the "weightiness" of the front end.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Tony Alonso

[matthewq4b]

I understand the CV and Town car still use the Watts Link? From 1982 to 1998 the Aussie Falcons used the Watts Link Rear End and then moved on to multi-link IRS before settling with the more advanced and lighter Control Blade IRS..

 

The Falcon used a proper watts link system. Prior to this the Falcon was a 3 link suspension with Panard rod. The watts is designed to replace the panard rod. It eliminates the small side to side variations that happen with the Panard Rod. The watts takes place of the Panard Rod in proper installation.

 

The Panther uses (and still does to day ) a 4 link suspension. The watts was added to the 4 link to stabilize the axel to prevent the side to side movement found in this design of 4 link suspension. The contributing factors that allow it are. Links not correctly orientated or positioned to stop lateral movement ,overly soft bushings (due to application) and high vehicle weight.

 

The rear suspensions between the Falcon and the CV GM TC share nothing other than they both had the Watts. The watts was added to the CV GM in 98 (if i recall correctly)

 

The fact that the Watts was added and not some thing else is probably due to it's use in the Falcon as Ford would have had experience with this link set up.

 

Also it was easy to add to the CV GM TC much more so that redesigning the whole rear suspension. The 2 upper links were retained so a light watts system could be added. If the 2 upper links had been removed the whole rear suspension and frame mounting would have to be redesigned and much heaver watts sytem would have been needed . The Watts was a quick fix to flawed rear suspension design.

 

But to imply the earlier Falcon and the CV GM TC share the same rear suspension is not right.

 

The last use of the SRA in Falcon used a 4 link rear suspension very similar to the Panthers.

But the link orentation was much better and it did not suffer from alot of the short commings of the Panther set up . Vehical weight also played a factor in this.

 

Matthew

Edited January 3, 2007 by matthewq4b

[Mark B. Morrow]

Does this bring back memories for anyone else?

[jpd80]

The Falcon used a proper watts link system. Prior to this the Falcon was a 3 link suspension with Panard rod. The watts is designed to replace the panard rod. It eliminates the small side to side variations that happen with the Panard Rod. The watts takes place of the Panard Rod in proper installation.

 

The Panther uses (and still does to day ) a 4 link suspension. The watts was added to the 4 link to stabilize the axel to prevent the side to side movement found in this design of 4 link suspension. The contributing factors that allow it are. Links not correctly orientated or positioned to stop lateral movement ,overly soft bushings (due to application) and high vehicle weight.

 

The rear suspensions between the Falcon and the CV GM TC share nothing other than they both had the Watts. The watts was added to the CV GM in 98 (if i recall correctly)

 

The fact that the Watts was added and not some thing else is probably due to it's use in the Falcon as Ford would have had experience with this link set up.

 

Also it was easy to add to the CV GM TC much more so that redesigning the whole rear suspension. The 2 upper links were retained so a light watts system could be added. If the 2 upper links had been removed the whole rear suspension and frame mounting would have to be redesigned and much heaver watts sytem would have been needed . The Watts was a quick fix to flawed rear suspension design.

 

But to imply the earlier Falcon and the CV GM TC share the same rear suspension is not right.

 

The last use of the SRA in Falcon used a 4 link rear suspension very similar to the Panthers.

But the link orentation was much better and it did not suffer from alot of the short commings of the Panther set up . Vehical weight also played a factor in this.

 

Matthew

Thanks Matthew,

Notice how I carefully avoided calling the 5.0 Small Block a Windsor, LOL.

Our early Falcons never had a 3-Link & Panhard rear end, just leaf springs.

From 1982 to 1998 it went to 4 link rear with Watts Link while the station wagons and utes retaining leaf springs.

At 1800 Kg a V8 BF Falcon is nearly as heavy as a Crowny anyway.

 

Back on topic,

I understand the interceptor is a "long wheelbase Mustang", any idea how much front and rear legroom in the stretched cabin?

Edited January 3, 2007 by jpd80

[Kotzenjunge]

Derivative... er, bold design.

 

I don't want to hear "follow-up on the 427" or any of that crap. It looks like the damn Ford 300C. I'm hoping there are major alterations in the production version of a concept for the first time ever, but I doubt they'll include the copycat proportions. Yes, to the average car buyer who doesn't obsessively follow this stuff like us, it's a copycat.

[matthewq4b]

Thanks Matthew,

Although our Falcon never had a 3-Link & Panhard rear end, we went straight from leaf springs to 4 link rear with Watts Link from 1982 to 1998, The station wagons and utes retaining leaf springs. Notice how I carefully avoided calling the 5.0 Small Block a Windsor, LOL. At 1800 Kg a BF Falcon is nearly as heavy as a Crowny anyway.

 

Back on topic,

I understand the interceptor is a "long wheelbase Mustang", any idea how much front and rear legroom in the stretched cabin?

 

 

Thanks Jpd I was under the imnpression that Falcon went to the standard 3 link with. watts Gonna have to beat on my source i guess lol.

 

Really the 3 link with panard rod is the third best rear suspension for SRA out there.

the Watts 3 link is second and best of all is the Satchell 4 link. the Ford 4 link set up is less than ideal and is the worst live axle suspension they have ever used.

 

If the Interceptor uses the Mustangs 3 link ( Which is really a modified 3 link to control some of the side to side movement with out using watts) the ride should be acceptable and handleing good on all the roughest of surfaces. As it stands the Current rear suspention on the stang is comaprible to the IRS on the LX cars in ride and handleing and that is with it being sport tuned.

 

Yes you do no get IRS bragging rights. But in reality there is no handling diferance between IRS and a properly done SRA on all but the roughest surfaces. And I do not think any will be rally crossing the Interceptor.

 

Matthew

[Moby Vic]

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.

 

With the Mustang, Ford said it would have added about$1000 to the cost.

 

It's not a cost issue--it's that IRS is not necessary for any reason other than perceived superiority. The current Mustang has demonstrated that a live axle can handle and ride well.

 

A live axle is essentially a zero-maintenance part. You never have to do anything with it as long as a you have the car. IRS requires periodic alignment, and has boots and joints that wear.

 

Ford has traditionally been a manufacturer of low-priced cars that offered durability and value for money. I would expect a Lincoln to have standard IRS, but Lincoln is a luxury marque.

 

It all comes down to personal preference, though. I said I didn't agree with the live-axle haters. That's my opinion.

[falcon lover]

Here it is!

 

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ARTICLE.

Ok, Ford...finally you do it...a long awaited and obviusly Mustang-based sedan....but tis is the big derived sedan ( maybe the next Galaxy), but where is the mide-zise 4 door sedan? Where is the next Falcon ( American, not aussie Falcon) ??.

I think that the car will keep the solid rear axle...why not???? Is cheap and is ready for production in the Mustang assembly plant.

Ford, please, you MUST to produce this car , and the wagon ( or you dont have it ready yet ???????), and the small version of this car too..... and you must to do it in the next 18 months....no more...If you dont do it, you will continue in red...and falling.

 

Brave new desing! Congratulations!!!! :happy feet:

[156n3rd]

Ford needs to exercise it's creativeness. This is how the future is molded into reality. This model could be a real positive way to get Ford back in the game and to exceed in it's present state of mind. RWD and derivatives can help all the Ford divisions. The 427 was a cool design. Perhaps it could be an off-shoot of this platform.

[Vaquero28]

It's about time they allowed some designs to make a statement without trying to satisfy everybody.

 

Tried attaching a slightly tweaked photoshop rendition with a taller greenhouse dropped front hood and lowered beltline towards the front. I think it looks a bit more mainstream and mimics the 300 a bit less.

 

First try was jumbled try this time may be better

Edited January 3, 2007 by Vaquero28

[Scot T.]

They need to build this thing, and quick.

[Kokomo M/W]

Derivative... er, bold design.

 

I don't want to hear "follow-up on the 427" or any of that crap. It looks like the damn Ford 300C. I'm hoping there are major alterations in the production version of a concept for the first time ever, but I doubt they'll include the copycat proportions. Yes, to the average car buyer who doesn't obsessively follow this stuff like us, it's a copycat.

Exactly! the Ford 300c, if you cant come up with something new at least copy your own design! THE 49 FORD CONCEPT. It will never be bulit.

[Tony Alonso]

It's about time they allowed some designs to make a statement without trying to satisfy everybody.

 

Tried attaching a slightly tweaked photoshop rendition with a taller greenhouse dropped front hood and lowered beltline towards the front. I think it looks a bit more mainstream and mimics the 300 a bit less.

 

First try was jumbled try this time may be better

 

Great job! I like the changes you made - looks more "production viable".

[jpd80]

It's about time they allowed some designs to make a statement without trying to satisfy everybody.

 

Tried attaching a slightly tweaked photoshop rendition with a taller greenhouse dropped front hood and lowered beltline towards the front. I think it looks a bit more mainstream and mimics the 300 a bit less.

 

First try was jumbled try this time may be better

 

I agree, the roofline could come up a bit more maybe slightly under Fusion.

Not that the front end is bad but, maybe they could Mix Mustang Nose clip with Fusion 3-Bar grille.

The Mustang's reverse rake and the Fusion's chrome grille would look much better and distance the style from Mustang.

[68fastback]

With the Mustang, Ford said it would have added about$1000 to the cost.

 

It's not a cost issue--it's that IRS is not necessary for any reason other than perceived superiority. The current Mustang has demonstrated that a live axle can handle and ride well.

 

A live axle is essentially a zero-maintenance part. You never have to do anything with it as long as a you have the car. IRS requires periodic alignment, and has boots and joints that wear.

 

Ford has traditionally been a manufacturer of low-priced cars that offered durability and value for money. I would expect a Lincoln to have standard IRS, but Lincoln is a luxury marque.

 

It all comes down to personal preference, though. I said I didn't agree with the live-axle haters. That's my opinion.

 

The live axle i n the mustang is good but it just doesn't compare to the IRS Cobras in turns over uneven surfaces. HTT can say what he wants to spin the greatness of the mustang live axle but, truth be told, it's a sad substitute from a handling point of view other than on smooth surfaces.

 

If Ford does a Boss mustang without IRS I will not buy it! It will cut our about half of the curve-carver audience -- a segment that has gone ignored at Ford for way too long.

 

Anyone who has driven both under real world conditions cannot possibly believe the spin-doctoring on this subject that Ford has done. For a Mach of the GT, the live axle is fine. Even for the GT500 it works because it isn't really a twisties car (though it does handle very well).

 

If Ford doesn't wake up on IRS it will hurt badly -- the camaro will be IRS too. Time to can the excuses and rehetoric. The live axle doesn't cut it in the curves ...never has and never will. I'm tired of the excuses. The chance of me replacing my '01 Cobra with a non-IRS mustang is ZERO! ...and there are a lot of us who feel this way. Do a light weight NA 400+HP mustang with IRS and I'll buy it in a heartbeat.

 

.