TomServo92

Anybody know the source of information that the designator "D2C" is indeed the platform name? One of the Mustang engineers I talked to back in Nashville was unaware of that being used.

Curious minds want to know...
[/b][/quote]

Try this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=ford+d2c

It's amazing what you can find with a Google search!

EDIT: This one has some very interesting info about D2C:

http://www.searchspaniel.com/index.p...d_D2C_platform

Joes66Pony

Actually, here's what MR Thai-Tang had to say regarding putting the IRS in, way back in August when the 05 made it's debut.


As far as the DEW98 chassis....well, it can be said it's a highly modified DEW98 chassis, depending on your POV.

So the argument can be made on both sides whether or not the Mustang is based on the DEW98 or not (I say it is, since it was the jumping off point). But as far as saying the S197 chassis is not IRS based I feel is wrong. It's designed for both the IRS and the live axle.

TomServo92

I posted this link above but I'll post it again:

http://www.searchspaniel.com/index.p...d_D2C_platform

It has some very good info about D2C (and all other Ford platforms). It says the origin of the D2C is the Mazda C1 platform.

Joes66Pony

I posted this link above but I'll post it again:

http://www.searchspaniel.com/index.p...d_D2C_platform

It has some very good info about D2C (and all other Ford platforms). It says the origin of the D2C is the Mazda C1 platform.
[/b][/quote]

So basically...if Ford had any ideas about sticking the IRS in the Mustang, it will again have to be a compromise solution a la 99-03 Cobra...... grrreaaat

TomServo92

So basically...if Ford had any ideas about sticking the IRS in the Mustang, it will again have to be a compromise solution a la 99-03 Cobra...... grrreaaat
[/b][/quote]

Well, the C1 platform has IRS. Even though it's FWD platform, I would think it has the structure in place that would accomodate a RWD IRS (of course I'm no mechanical engineer so I could be all wet). I guess it depends on much it was altered in the process of becoming D2C.

Joes66Pony

Well, the C1 platform has IRS. Even though it's FWD platform, I would think it has the structure in place that would accomodate a RWD IRS (of course I'm no mechanical engineer so I could be all wet). I guess it depends on much it was altered in the process of becoming D2C.
[/b][/quote]

The real question then becomes, if the C1 has the structure in place for IRS, will Ford have added enough structure to the D2C so it can carry a high torque center carrier.

Tony Alonso

Thanks for the Googles. I still can't explain why one of the Ford folks never heard of the term "D2C".

jsaylor

Yes, it does indeed say that. And, it is incorrect. Why would you put any credibility in a vague internet source like the above? The Team Mustang head says that the car started off based on DEW98, but we are supposed to discount what he says and believe some vague internet encyclopedia like this? I simply do not see the logic in it. I have seen that website before, and have seen it discredited just as often.

That said, C1 is nothing but a fairly major update of the old Focus platform as it started with that platform as it's basis. Ironically, this "excellent" website has nothing to say about that either. Also note that the control Blade IRS used by this chassis was designed by Ford and first used on the Australian Falcon. This website neglects to mention this and somehow attributes an update of an existing Ford chassis using a relatively new and exclusively Ford pioneered IRS system to "Mazda technology"? That is just a bit of a stretch there wouldn't you say? It appears now, as it always has, to contain little more than vague, out-dated rumour and dis-information.

This is no reflection on you TomServo simply on the site you gave a link to. But, why would you lend any credibility to this site when there is not one shred of evidence from Ford to support their wider, more ridiculous claims and a mountain of evidence from Ford to dispute them?

There probably are similarities between some aspects of the C1 chassis and D2C, but that simply speaks to a consistent design philosophy within Ford right now and component sharing, not platform sharing. My guess is that somebody saw that C1 uses a Control Blade IRS and D2C is/was supposed to use the same in the next Cobra, and that they share a few common components between the two chassis......after this they were off to the races with wild speculation.

If this is a reliable method of deduction then I will point out yet again that the Australian Falcon platform used Control-Blade IRS long before either of these did. Must that then mean that both C1 and D2C are based on the latest evolution of the original Falcon chassis from 1960? This is no more ridiculous than their claim that D2C is C1 based as I likely used much of the same critieria they did to reach my conclusion. I would even bet that D2C uses a few componenets in common with the new Aussie as well.

And, if this is indeedl a reliable method of deduction I would point out that the Ford GT uses a few suspension components in common with the Aston Martin Vanquish, would anybody make the ludicrous claim that this mid-engined car is based on the same chassis? The Vanquish even borrows one or two of it's more insiginficant components from the old fwd Cougar. However, since it does use components from the Cougar does this mean that both the Aston and GT both simply super-Cougars or super-Contours now? By the standards that site uses they must at least be loosely "Cougar-based"

That website is a waste of space.

TomServo92

Yes, it does indeed say that. And, it is incorrect. Why would you put any credibility BLAH, BLAH, BLAH....[/b][/quote]

Thanks for the informative (but uneccessarily long) reply. If it's wrong, just say so in succinct reply. I'm not putting any credibility in the site. I'm just posting what I found with a Google search. It's nothing more than that.

Oh....almost forgot...my apologies if my post but a bug up your hiney for some reason.

jsaylor

The reason for the length of the post is that, unlike what the folks at that wesbite have done, when I claim or refute something I like to back my point up when I can. Just saying that "they are wrong" gives the people on this site no more reason to believe what I say than I have to believe what that site says.

And, I indicated in my post that my statements had nothing to do with you, merely the site you posted a link to. So, my apologies if this was misunderstood and my post offended you.

TomServo92

BTW, this article quotes Phil Martens as saying the D2C was NOT based on DEW98:

http://waw.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_dew_drop/index.htm

It doesn't mention C1 but it most definitely states that DEW was not the origin of D2C and the reasons why. It seems we have conflicting stories from two top Ford employees. I wonder which is correct? :scratch:

TomServo92

The reason for the length of the post is that, unlike what the folks at that wesbite have done, when I claim or refute something I like to back my point up when I can. Just saying that "they are wrong" gives the people on this site no more reason to believe what I say than I have to believe what that site says.

And, I indicated in my post that my statements had nothing to do with you, merely the site you posted a link to. So, my apologies if this was misunderstood and my post offended you.
[/b][/quote]

It's cool. No offenes taken. By succinct I didn't mean for you to just say "they are wrong" and leave it at that. Just give a brief rundown of why they are wrong and I think everyone will get your point just fine.

jsaylor

Yes, but that article is an argument with meat on it's bones unlike the website we were discussing

There could be a million reasons for the descrepancy. Maybe when the guys working in the trenches were hacking away on their computer they still used some of the basic chassis hard-points of the DEW98 if nothing else, and that is why they say it is DEW98 based...maybe not. Maybe these fella's have differening views on what consititues being even loosely DEW98-based.

I would think that Martens would have been more removed from the actual work going on in the trenches than Team Mustang's head was. But, that does not necessarily mean Martens is wrong either.

Sounds like TMS needs to have another interview with SVT's new Chief and Team Mustang's old boss for a definitive Q and A session. I would love to hear a rock-solid answer to this question.

These are the questions I would like to see answered.

Is the Mustang genuinely partially-based on DEW98 or not?

If so, what elements of DEW98 were retained? (basic hardpoints, etc.)

What other, and how many other, platforms does this platform share components with and what are they. (We already know of two, maybe three)

Tony Alonso

Thanks! That was my understanding of the platform's origins, based on what I heard at the 40th Anniversary celebration in Nashville a year ago. Interestingly enough, there is no reference to the term "D2C" in that article.

TomServo92

Yes, but that article is an argument with meat on it's bones unlike the website we were discussing

There could be a million reasons for the descrepancy. Maybe when the guys working in the trenches were hacking away on their computer they still used some of the basic chassis hard-points of the DEW98 if nothing else, and that is why they say it is DEW98 based...maybe not. Maybe these fella's have differening views on what consititues being even loosely DEW98-based.

I would think that Martens would have been more removed from the actual work going on in the trenches than Team Mustang's head was. But, that does not necessarily mean Martens is wrong either.

Sounds like TMS needs to have another interview with SVT's new Chief and Team Mustang's old boss for a definitive Q and A session. I would love to hear a rock-solid answer to this question.

These are the questions I would like to see answered.

Is the Mustang genuinely partially-based on DEW98 or not?

If so, what elements of DEW98 were retained? (basic hardpoints, etc.)

What other, and how many other, platforms does this platform share components with and what are they. (We already know of two, maybe three)
[/b][/quote]

The article implies that Martens had a hand in the decision.

Also, for all we know there could be a grain of truth in all this. It could have been something like this:

"DEW is too expensive so let's find a way to keep the cost down but still retain the some of the DEW charactistics. Any ideas?"

"Well...if changed this and that and then incorporate these elements from C1, we'll have an affordable platfrom that still meets our peformance and design goals"

"Brilliant!!!!"

Levity aside, a straight answer from Hau is what we need just as you stated.

jsaylor

I agree, and had been considering the same thing during this discussion. Nice Guiness reference btw...lol.

bob

Wow, man. This thread has been exposed to a few cosmic rays.

anywhosit, another interesting observation

3v SRA Cobra, unacceptable
3v IRS Cobra, acceptable
3v SRA Saleen, acceptable (and more expensive)

TomServo92

I'll wager that if they give the Cobra an abundance of HP, great looks, and get the most of the SRA suspensions that they can, the IRS will fade in importance to all but the most die-hard IRS faithful. I'll agree with you that an IRS is desirable but given the financial situation at Ford and what is most likely limited development budgets, I believe they're putting the money in the drivetrain and not the suspension this go round. I firmly believe that if we don't see the IRS this year, it'll show up within the next 2-3 years.

crazyhorse

excellent point.

slavehand

but, I have driven the '05 Saleen and I am very pleased w/ their final product. I think that it could compete with or beat any car w/ comparable numbers that have IRS. The '05 GT's handling is amazing and the Saleen is unbelieveable. My $.02,

I think some people are vrey quick to snub their nose to "live axle". I'm telling y'all, drive one first, then be the judge. I'm not here saying IRS is a joke, I think its great in cars I've driven that has it. Just give it a chance to "be heard" before turning your backs to it.