jsaylor

Advance Warning: Yes, it is novel...but I think there exists a compelling argument for the same. And given the recent rash of rwd Ford concepts I wonder if somebody within Ford might not be thinking that rwd is worth another look. On to my argument.

This discussion has been held previously, and the leading argument against a move such as this is that fwd offers better poor weather drivability and that consumers in areas where snow and ice are issues prefer this driveline setup for those reasons.

In general I have been in agreement with the argument that fwd was the way to go for high volume, mainstream vehicles meant to sell in the same segment as vehicles like the Camry and Accord, and the Focus and Civic, for these reasons. But I now find myself wondering if many people, including myself, continue to subscribe to this theory primarily because it has become the conventional wisdom of our day and not because there currently exists substantial merit in the argument itself.

The first compelling argument that a return to rwd might be worth considering is the rather substantial change in vehicle dynamics over the last several years. Traction control has become rather common within the industry and, according to Ford, will soon be standard on every vehicle Ford builds. Combined with the marked improvement in all season tires over the last couple of decades this serves to make modern, rwd vehicles much more composed in foul weather, obviously increasing the appeal of these vehicles everywhere, but particularly in areas where snow and ice do occur but not frequently enough to warrant ruling out rwd vehicles as practical daily transport. Traction control does not make these vehicles the equal of a fwd vehicle in these conditions, but it does serve to increase their appeal.

AWD, however, provides traction perfectly suited to poor weather driving, and answers the problem of how to market these vehicles in areas where rwd isn't always practical. Naysayers may complain that AWD adds weight, cost, and complexity, but substantial demand for the same in vehicles like the Ford 500 and Cadillac STS serves to indicate consumers are increasingly willing to pay for the advantages this layout offers. Also worth considering is that the cost and weight of such systems seem to have become much more reasonable in recent years, making them more attractive. Ford certainly seems to think so, as they have recently indicated that they intend to increase production of awd vehicles.

The other compelling argument is that, with a return to rwd accross the board, Ford's offerings would be unique within the market. Pontiac is mulling a large scale return to rwd, but relative to Ford that brand undoubtedly has limited appeal and a limited ability to develop and market as compelling a range of vehicles, and Pontiac has not yet commited to this idea. Chrysler and Dodge have the 300, Charger, upcoming Challenger, etc...but this is a relatively limited range of vehicles, all of which are relatively large in size, marketed by brands which have never produced or sold vehicles in the same numbers that Ford, GM, or Toyota have.

However, those comments are not intended to down-play the 300's success. On the contrary, it makes the same all the more remarkable, and should be teaching those calling the shots at other American auto makers a lesson regarding American tastes and preferences. If DCX can move so many 300's despite a lackluster base V-6 engine, a V-8 with a reputation as a terrible gas guzzler, and a relatively small market presence, what does that say about America's appetite for well executed product that possesses a more traditional American feel and make-up? What level of success could a well-executed, rwd vehicle in the same class as the Altima, Accord, and Camry be expected to reach in the U.S. market? Given the fact that this would not simply be one more, appliance-like fwd offering in an ever increasing sea of mid-sized vehicles that fit that description my guess would be that it would do very well indeed.

Also worth considering is that Ford NA has arguably never been particularly good with fwd. Several past fwd models met with success, some wildly so like the original series Taurus and the initial NA Escort, but that success has never been particularly long lasting with these vehicles never really becoming the enduring icons vehicles like the Mustang, F-150, Accord, and Camry have. There are many reasons for this, but Ford's ability to meet the world market head on with rwd product seems a better proven path than their ability to accomplish the same with fwd-based product.

A return to rwd would also allow Ford to streamline worldwide production, and possibly to do so quicker than it might be able to otherwise. Let me explain. Were Ford America to return to rwd across the lineup the number of platforms employed worldwide could arguably be lessened, partially due to exisitng platforms and partially due to an ability to base more models, more appropriately, on one platform. A rwd 'U.S.' Ford lineup could easily resemble something similar to this.....

Small rwd 'B' platform
Cortina: 98-100' wb intended to compete with Fit, Yaris, Aveo etc. 2dr sedan, 4 dr sedan, 2dr pickup, and 4dr wagon version could all be built creating a small, economical car with the same kind of appeal as the Mini, but for far less money.
Small suv: 98-100' wb small suv that could allow the Escape to move a bit upmarket creating a more rounded lineup of suv's.

Medium rwd 'C/D' platform (D2C or replacement)
Focus Replacement: Similar in size to the 3-Series with a 108-109' wheelbase intended to compete against Jetta, Golf, Civic, etc.. Four door sedan and wagon version seem logical here, offering a driving experience similar to BMW's 3-Series for far less dough.
Falcon: Fusion replacement with a 113-114' wheelbase intended to compete against Camry, Accord, and Altima. IMO this car is an obvious candidate for U.S.-Australia co-developemnt, on a Ford U.S. designed platform. Four door sedan and wagon versions seem logical here as well. A 2-door convertible might work well too. (Fairlane anyone?)
Mustang: This one is obvious. The widespread implementation of this platform would seem to make upgrades like IRS less expensive and more likely for this car.
Thunderbird: Perfect excuse for a retractable hardtop, 102-103'wb take on the Mustang with higher feature content and a long hood short deck theme reminscent of the original as well as newer cars like the Aston Martin V8 and Mercedes SL. The T-Bird could also share interior appointments and materials with high end Mustangs like the GT500 improving both.
Ranchero/Falcon Ute: Another excuse for US/Australia co-development, 2-dr and 4-dr versions seem logical with wheelbases potentially ranging from 110' to 120'. A revived car/truck like the Ranchero could also take the place a mid-sized pickup would normally fill while posing less of a threat to the sales dominance of the F-150.
Territory: This one is obvious as well, and the same would seem an ideal rwd-based replacement for the Edge crossover. A good candidate to be a full on Aussie carry over IMO, the Terriotory name sounds great for the US market as well. At least I like it
Escape & Explorer: The rumour mill is buzzing with the idea that the next Explorer will be car based, which makes these being revised into a design similar to BMW's X5 a good idea. They are combined here because it seems logical to turn the Escape into a shorter version of the Explorer (108-109' wb for the Escape/114-116' wb for the Explorer) with similar styling.

Large rwd platform
Galaxie: This name has been dormant too long. A perfect name and concept to compete with the 300....a 118-122' wb 2dr fb, 2dr cvt, and 4dr sd versions seem most likely. A seperate large car platform could also allow for proper, large Lincolns to be built again, competing head to head with the LS460 and S-Class.

....The above is a quick rundown which took longer to type than it did to come up with, IMO providing a testament to how much better rwd fits Ford NA than fwd does. The number of platforms is minimal in the extreme considering the breadth of the lineup, and the above lineup could easily serve both Ford America and Ford Australia, as well as others. And while the involvement of both would be obvious and wise, I would prefer to see a dominantly American component in many, if not most, of these vehicles employing Australian expertise where it makes the most sense in vehicles like the Territory crossover and Falcon sedan.

The above also makes the idea that Mercury could, or should, become a purveyor of Ford Europe product more logical (throwing BC a bone here) since they would then stand alone as the sole U.S. distributor of fwd Ford product giving that brand long-sought distinction. This would also provide the perfect excuse for Ford to introduce the Mercury brand to Australia, etc moving European Ford product under the Mercury badge in these locales as well. In a final twist, while utilizing some of the above mentioned rwd products to supplement the existing European lineup seems logical, especially with vehicles like the Cortina where European involvement is virtually certain, the idea that many of these rwd Ford products could be badged as Mercury's for sale in Europe seems like a good idea. This kind of mirror image marketing would be interesting and obviously beneficial.

Finally, the above platform layout would make it far easier for Lincoln to return to it's rightful place as the prime purveyor of stylish America luxury cars. Once a nay-sayer of a large scale return to rwd myself, I now think it would be a true coup for Ford, and the boldest move Ford could make.

hi5.0

Ford should return to RWD vehicles for the more "upscale" and performance-oriented models - along w/AWD for vehicles like a hoped-for SVT Fusion or RS-type Focus. As much as I dislike FWD from a "performance" POV, it still has its place since it offers better interior space or packaging vs. a similar-sized RWD vehicle, so it should be kept for the non-performance/premium family vehicle lines such as the ("base") Focus, whatever small "B' platform or a similar fuel-economy champ, and even minivans. The shortcomings of Ford's U.S. FWD vehicles seem more a result of beancounting/neglect than anything else.
Lincoln and Mercury should definitely be RWD-only.

Moosetang

1. I don't agree with small RWD platforms at all. Cost, weight, and packaging all favor front wheel drive, and compact/subcompact enthusiasts are solidly in the FWD/AWD camp. There's no market for compact and subcompact RWD as a "novelty".

2. Aspiring to be Pontiac isn't something Ford should be shooting for. Mercury maybe, but not all of FMC. Personally I'd rather dedicate the resources to making AWD a more widely available option and having a strong RWD portfolio in the large sedan and sporty segments where it IS in demand.

jsaylor

Actually, I tried to make it pretty clear that I don't think the above is especially similar to what Pontiac might institute even if they do make a large scale move toward rwd, a move which I doubt they will make anyway. That said, at one point not so long ago I would have agreed with you regarding fwd and compact cars, but after careful consideration I can't say that I do any longer. Here's why....

First, the argument that cost favors fwd to the extent that it is a far more practical alternative is not one to which I can subscribe any longer. For example, a base Mustang V-6 stickers for roughly 20,000 U.S., as best as I can tell a price that nobody else can seem to match in a similarly sized coupe, fwd or otherwise, outside of the Koreans.

Even if you account for the Mustang's older V-6 design and lack of IRS, adding 2500-3000 U.S. to the msrp in an effort account for the implementation of each which seems far more than reasonable, you still end up within 500 dollars or so of the base price of a comparably equipped V-6 powered Accord or Camry sedan. If there existed a basis for an argument that Ford were low-balling the Mustang's msrp in order to move prorduct we could discount the above, but the oppsoite is more likely true which leaves us with the question...what do we make of this? While this isn't scientific, it is as close as we are likely to get to anything definative and certainly doesn't support the argument that rwd necessarily brings exorbitant costs relative to fwd.

For that matter the B segment cars showing up on our shores are hardly dropping any jaws from a price perspective anyway. Take a look at the major Japanese offerings and you'll find that the Yaris is the cheapest by far asking ~11k in 3 door hatch trim and ~12k in 4 door sedan guise. Those prices don't seem too bad, until you realize creating a list of what the car comes with in base trim would take far less time than accounting for content it does not contain.

Standard yaris features don't include ABS, a radio, power windows, power locks, power mirrors, a rear window defroster, but do include such goodies as rear drum brakes, 14 inch steel wheels, beam rear axle, 1.5L 4cylinder, ancient 5-spd manual......you get the idea. Some of this would be excusable as everything is a compromise, and the beam rear axle and lack of standard ABS exists even on the V-6 Mustang, but find something here to make that 12k price tag seem even remotely like a deal and I'll relent. There is nothing here, which makes 12k suddenly seem like a lot more dough.

Honda's Fit is better executed and equipped, but still possesses a beam rear axle and a tiny 4 cylinder mill as might be expected. Of course Honda raises the base price to 14k for your trouble which hardly seems a deal either, power windows and radio or otherwise. Nissan's Versa is so expensive I might not believe it myself were it not in writing. And while some might try to argue that these represent what people looking for this kind of vehicle want, I'd argue that nothing significantly different from these has been offered in this segment for decades which makes that impossible to determine. And frankly, I find it difficult to believe that people with less than 16k to spend are universally, or even primarily, satisfied with appliance transportation.

As for the packaging argument, I'm not sure that currently holds true to the extreme you indicate either, although only recently I would have agreed here as well. Largely, small engine architecture favors fwd packaging requirments at this point, a fact which cannot be ignored if this argument is to be seriously considered. Take the theoretical B segment Cortina mentioned above for example, an inline-4 simply wont package as nicely in a rwd car like the above as it will in a fwd vehicle, but the implementation of a SOHC, 90 degree V-4 based on the upcoming Boss architecture would serve to change that greatly for obvious reasons and would still be inexpensive to produce. You would still have to package the driveshaft and transmission as well, but realistically this is minor with the above engine packaging having proven far more problematic over time. Not to mention a small rwd employing a V-4 would posses weight distribution and balance a fwd alternative couldn't hope to match.

Ford tried something like this in the past, and on a Cortina no less, but it was a half hearted effort at best ending in an ill-advised, V-6 based 60-degree V-4 destined to be a paint shaker of the first order. Utilizing Boss V-8 architecture above would still allow for a reasonably small V-4 of 2.4-2.5L, far larger than what the Japanese offer to be sure, but the same could and should be employed as an advantage since a car so powered would easily best these in terms of performance while still offering mileage that would no doubt be superb if not the equal of the Fit or Yaris.

As for the idea that sport compact enthusiasts are hardcore, fwd devotees..... There is certainly a case here, but to dismiss the idea that there exists a market which desires a more dynamic experience from a small car doesn't seem like a good idea either. And it seems highly unlikely that everyone who would be attracted to economical, inexpensive, sport compacts wears baggy pants and thinks DMX should be the next President. Virtually all of the truly ground breaking cars which I can think of were built using concepts throngs of people were convinced nobody would want...until those cars actually arrived and cleaned house. The idea that everyone who wants an inexpensive, small car is so hooked on fwd that they couldn't be swayed just doesn't make sense to me after serious consideration...and I only recently believed the same myself.

I can't imagine anything but praise and accolade for this car in the auto press, among enthusiasts, and among those who actually like to drive in general to be honest.....if even remotely well executed. Employ the same kind of halo-model marketing the Mustang has used, building B segment equivelants of Cobra's and Mach-1's, and you could end up with a super-efficient, inexpensive car with a performance reputation fwd based cars couldn't hope to match without the use of awd. Hardly a novelty, success would more likely be found in the fact that the Ford would be offering a B segment vehicle which is truly a car again instead of just one more four wheeled penalty box in a sea of the same.

Ford could set production expectations pretty high, well above what any other B segment car currently enjoys in this market, and still not build nearly enough IMO. If I learned one thing during my tenure selling cars it is that virtually everybody likes to go faster and look better if they can. At the moment however nobody seems to want to offer them the opportunity unless they want to spend 17k or more and buy a larger car.

vistablue mustang

+1, I am strong believer in making more RWD American cars but the only thing that worries me is the safety in the rain/snow that many drivers have to go through. RWD is not easy to handle in bad weather, heck all of my cars have been RWD and I considered my self prepared for bad weather and I still made a mistake and totaled my car. Now this is just my idividual story, but others on here have made the saem mistake, though I think this may have to do with the Mustangs "kick" when accelerating. Basically I favor RWD but think that you will need more refinded traction control, and driver assistance for bad weather.

EDIT to many typos, I can't type today

Cheese302

all i have to say is bring in a rwd car to compete with say the 300 or soemthing like that. make sure it is availible manual. but rwd isnt necassary across the board. i actually like driving fwd cars in the winter anyway

jsaylor

Also worth mentioning is the fact that, in my scenario, Ford Europe/Mazda would still be producing fwd-based B cars like the Fiesta for their markets, and the same would be sold here as a Mercury. That said I have little doubt the kind of rwd-based B-segment car I mention above would easily eclipse that car in sales even considering how compelling Fiesta's typically are for reasons mentioned in my earlier posts.

jsaylor

Your missing my point. with the gaining popularity of awd people unhappy with a rwd setup could simply opt for awd. The same has become attractive enough from a price perspective that a rwd-based awd offering executed correctly could offer little, or no, price penalty relative to many of the accepted offerings on the market. A quick look at the prices cars are currently commanding proves this to be true.

To look at this accurately what you have to ask yourself is, were I looking for a new car in the 14k price range would I rather have a SRA, rwd car with 170 or so hp or a similarly sized fwd car with 105hp and a SRA? Assuming foul weather is an issue, and that awd would command a decnt premium, would you rather have a mid-range fwd Nissan Versa or a slightly decontended rwd-based, awd 3-box sedan with better balance and more power for 15-16k? Take a gander at the number of people happily willing to pay more than that for a tiny, spartantly powered Mini because it is stylish.

Things like this require that you drop assumptions about how things are done to truly debate their value, and until I did that I wasn't convinced either. I don't expect most people to agree with me, never did, but I'm convinced this would go over fantastically well. Especially in the class of vehicles like the Focus and Fusion, but also within the B segment.

Cheese302

no i see your point, although i think your wrong in the idea that the awd system is no more expensive to build then either the rwd or base fwd counterpart.

the cars are cheaper to build when only two wheels are driven. my family owns a subaru legacy, and its great. but then again it has a 2.5l engine and gets about the same fuel mileage as my mustang gt.

two wheel drive is still a neccassary drive system. and for winter driving as well as begginers and packaging points, fwd is still viable. yeah rwd is more fun and awd is great in weather, but the cost and weight penaly mean that for putting a car in 5th and cruising down the highway getting almost 40 to the gallon like i do in my current second car (96 cavalier) and did in my previous daily driver (99 jetta wolfsburg with .75 5th gear raio swap) the awd isnt going to work, as well as not needed in said situation.

and basically in fords current financial maners, they need to be focused on saving money and building whats easy. like a fwd sedan. fusion. and in the end most american car buyers are not driving enthusiasts like your or i, so they dont see the need for rwd, awd. so then why should ford bother. also i belive most of the money saved in the manufacture of fwd compared to others is probably in assembly costs. there are fewer steps since the car can have the entire drivetrain installed as one piece.

jsaylor

[quote=Cheese302;811808]......although i think your wrong in the idea that the awd system is no more expensive to build then either the rwd or base fwd counterpart.[quote]

I'm not insinuating that awd wouldn't add money to the price tag of the rwd car it is added too. Rather I'm arguing that Ford could probably build an awd equipped car based on a rwd chassis in most of these segments for no more than the segment leaders are asking for basic, fwd cars. Frankly, thing like Civics, Camrys, Accords, Imprezas and Jettas are hardly what one would call cheap at this point so this isn't too difficult to swallow.

As for a potential gas mileage penalty. Even in a part time awd setup there will be something of a penalty, but I think it is far smaller than you speculate as demonstated by cars like the Subaru Legacy which manages to knock down 30mpg in 2.5L 4cylinder guise despite standard awd and only four forward gears. It is also significant that, at 175hp, the Legacy employs a more powerful four cylinder unit than offered by most players in the segement.

Without awd and with two extra forward gears the Fusion only bests that number by one mpg despire a slightly smaller engine making fifteen fewer hp. Likweise, the Camry only bests that number by three mpg, once again despite the advantage of another gear relative to the Subaru and a slightly smaller engine with seventeen fewer hp. This isn't apples to oranges, but the Camry and Fusion have several diffferent items in their favor and still barely best the Subaru which makes it difficult to argue that awd seriously diminishes fuel mileage in a car.

And while I would expect the typical B segement car to give up more than this given their tiny engines, the B segment car I theorize that Ford would logically employ a larger, more powerful mill than these do, and would seem likely to give up no more than the Subaru does. Would I expect it to be a 40mpg car? No, but then few cars are with vehicles like Nissans Versa only managing ~35mpg on the highway without the aid of cvt and Honda's Fit only managing 37-38mpg. These both give up some mileage due to their rather tall bodies, but even the class sales leader, the 2006 Aveo, was only good for about 35mpg hwy.

The car I mention might give up some mileage due to it's slightly larger engine relative to other cars in it's class, (I'm not convinced since larger, C segment cars with larger mills don't typically do much worse than many B segment cars) and would give up a little more in awd guise, but frankly matching the numbers of cars like the Nissan Versa and Chevy Aveo hardly seems unattainable since the numbers just aren't that impressive. Even the far larger and heavier Ford Focus manages 32mpg when equipped with a much more powerful 2.3L mill. And frankly, for those dead set on killer mpg, a turbo-diesel V-4 option makes far more sense than trying to wring every last drop out of a wheezing gas mill. The same offers fanastic power by way of torque and efficiency that those gas mills cannot hope to offer.

As for your comment that most drivers aren't enthusiasts like us so Ford shouldn't bother....obviously you are correct, most aren't enthusiasts. But as I mentioned earlier, during my stint selling cars I was surprised to find that, if you offer people a more stylish, faster alternative for about the same money they'll take it more often than not barring a huge penalty elsewhere. And enthusiasts do largely drive the market determining to some extenet what is fashionable. The ongoing success of the Mustang, and the success of the Chrysler 300 for that matter, say exactly that in volumes since each sell in numbers enthusiasts alone couldn't possibly sustain.

I appreciate your thoughts and the good debate.

Cheese302

[quote=jsaylor;811964][quote=Cheese302;811808]......although i think your wrong in the idea that the awd system is no more expensive to build then either the rwd or base fwd counterpart.man you sound like GM manipulating specs to sell your car.... lol i know your just showing your point.

thank you for the last line, its good to know that we are just showing our points of view. however i still must show some more facts that i can show as just slapping awd in a car is more defficient than you think

i spent 3 months driving a 5 speed manual subaru legacy wagon. and the best mpg i could attain throughout my mainly highway driving (up and down the garden state parkway to and from college) and could only get 23mpg. i am now getting around 21mpg in my mustang gt in a ledd freeway type driving situation. that said I LOVE SUBARUS, and would reccomend one to anyone, the mileage is not as low anymore, and besides i would buy one with a turbo and have some other fun with it, not to be a highway cruiser.

i am very willing ot bet after driving a fusion for a short time, and having a good friends family who owns a 4cyl camty i can say that there is a better chance of attaing 27-28 mpg in a very city type drive. its just the truth the extra weight of the awd system reduces mileage.

The other thing i would think is the increased maintenance costs from the awd system. you kow have two more halfshafts, and extra drive shaft possible, as well as another diff, and the brake wear from the extra weight as well as powered wheels.

i did just realize this though: adding awd to a rear drive package does require adding fewer parts.

to me, i have the stang, its a great car its rear drive. i am thinking about trying to find a 89-91 318is for a second car. BUT i am also trying to find an older jetta to start driving as a second car. i do like rear drive, but i am also a major fan of front drive as well. so: well played. I dont think it will ever happen, and because of that i would like to show the facts on why its not neccessary to change to all rwd platforms. i can see your point about the larger more powerful car being a sales leader, but thats why the accord and camry have v6 options. and that is also why while being fwd they are flying out of showrooms faster than any rwd american car that is sold today. or more than any rwd car sold. so its a tad of a moot point. my aunt just purchased a v6 fusion and loves it.

a v-4 isnt going to happen, they can make inline fours small enough to fit anywhere, dont forget you can BOLT a v8 into a focus.

so agree to disagree. that new interceptor is cool. we'll see. but i have to say i kind of like fwd and i dont see the world ever going away from it