This is true but don't forget to give credit where it's due, the LS and specifically DEW98 had more issues than this. DEW98 was intended to be the original GRWD platform we are now finally going to get in 2011 or so. The problem was Nasser's crew seemed to adhere to the idea of developing a platform with the most expensive/most premium car as the platform benchmark and then they would try and dumb it down from there to fit other, less expensive applications.

This sounds great on paper but in the real world it doesn't work at all. DEW98 ended up being an expensive chassis which was apparently pricey even for Lincoln LS duty, and that isn't a cheap car, and this problem was apparent right from the start. This made the platform completely unsuitable for anything but luxury/near luxury cars and this is likely why Ford never liked the LS as much as the rest of us did.

Even worse, while this should have at least produced the benefit of making the S Type a phenomenal car the truth was the S Type was just alright dynamically. We truly ended up with the worst of both worlds. We saw the ultimate ramifications of this when Team Mustang decided it would be easier to start nearly from scratch than it would to turn the DEW98 platform into a Mustang...and this decision was made when IRS was still in the production mix.

The better way to design a chassis is with a bend toward the lower end of the spectrum the design is expected to cover. An eye toward the higher end is needed lest important features are forgotten, but the emphasis on improved chassis dynamics in all cars means it is far easier to make a Jag out of a Mustang than it is to make a Mustang out of a Jag.

 

As some automotive experts have written, Ford did abandon the Lincoln LS and Thunderbird programs a bit too early.
I think Ford is regretting that decision now, considering the success of the Chrysler 300. Chrysler also added the Charger, Magnum and Challenger to the platform.

Ford could of easily added a newly designed Crown Vic, Grand Marquis or other to that platform. No need to continue using the Panther.
Had Ford used the "Lite" DEW98 version, the Mustang would most likely have IRS, and any additional cost for IRS and the platform would of been minimized due to successful sales.

How expensive is it going to be now to develop and get everybody on board with this newly scheduled GRWD platform?
The critics are already bashing the current Mustang because it doesn't have IRS. I saw a 4150lb Challenger out handle a Mustang Bullitt.
Now its looking like we have to wait four or five more years for the redesigned Mustang? IMO, they need to speed it up to 2012MY.

 

Then how were the 300/Charger/Challenger/Magnum all developed from essentially a previous-gen Mercedes E class?

It costs the same amount to engineer an expensive chassis vs. an inexpensive one ( actually, the inexpensive one may cost more, as more engineering and development time is spent trying to remove cost. )

The piece cost of IRS is marginal vs. live axle if the rest of the platform hardpoints can be carried over. Otherwise, you'd see live axles in many cars costing less than a Mustang. If you have to create a new platform from scratch, and can make a lesser expensive part work, then there is a cost opportunity available.

Now, how Hyundai is doing that IRS-equipped Genesis coupe $20K, I have no idea ( but remember, they are spreading dev costs with the Genesis sedan $33k )

 

The main reason why Ford isn't going to speed up the redesigned Mustang to 2012MY is: They're going to wait until the 50th anniversary edition debuts in 2014, as a 2015MY. In which is just another 2 years.

And until Ford, or my source confirms otherwise. I'll continue to follow my source's advice !

 

I don't think Ford would be married to the 2015 for 50th. I think it just means they can squeeze another 5 years out of the next design if they can satisfy with another classic design with some hips and other features to keep us happy and baby boomers and gen-xers wanting one. A Boss would certainly keep me happy. I'm afraid the 2015 will be something more futuristic with more of a V6TT at most and a departure from anything resembling a good sized V8. But thats what the future holds for a car that needs high production numbers to survive year in and year out.

On another note, I am sick and tired of Fart cans on 4 cylinders. Do any of these ricers know how bad this **** sounds.

 

If the 2015, does end up becoming more futuristic, and a complete departure from it's retro design styling.

Then I'll be keeping either my current 05 GT, or 2010+ permanently. You can count on it.

 

I'm completely with you! But I am very, very worried that a bottom line will mean more than any owner loyalty or vehicular blood lines. But we can pray I'm wrong.

 

If in the event, you are not wrong. I won't regret remaining loyal to my current 05GT, and if I really like the 2010+ re-fresh. Then I'll be keeping that car indefinitely.

Which is more than fine with me, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Very true. I hope to keep my '07 for as long as possible especially going FI in the future. And then hopefully, wife willing, add to it with a nice 2011 or 2012 Boss 5.0 and hold on to that forever. And I will be happy with that forever.

 

I couldn't agree more Gary

 

Different story. The LX chassis cars were not developed from the E Class, they are a separate platform which borrows components and engineering from the E Class which is 180 degrees different from the DEW98/Lincoln LS example given above. It is, however, a good deal like what happened with D2C which began on DEW98, and which still owes much of it's design to the same, but which was radically altered because DEW98 was far too expensive to underpin a Mustang.

With respect, I'll disagree. Your statement would be accurate if applied to the method mentioned earlier of trying to render an inexpensive platform from an expensive one but it doesn't apply to the scenario you describe. One particular issue that stands out is the issue of 'removing costs'. Inexpensive platforms are typically designed from the outset to be low cost meaning that there simply doesn't exist as much need to 'eliminate costs'...for the most part they were never factored into the equation in the first place.

Well, yes. The decision to use a live axle in the Mustang was made for obvious reasons. Ford decided, and likely accurately, that they would sell just as many S197 Mustangs with a live axle under the rear as they would if they threw an IRS under there, and that they could do so for the exact same price...for the sake of argument factor in a theoretical savings to Ford of $150 per car for the live axle and you have a situation where Ford can make another 22 million and change from the Mustang in the first year....the solid axle just won.

More than likely I would guess that there method of assembly is far more efficient....and of course there is the other issue which is that IRS really doesn't cost that much. For all the money they spend the reality is that Ford and the other American automakers have been hamstrung by the UAW in this respect for years. The typical UAW take is that they want to build cars the same way their daddy did or at least as close to that as they can get. Unfortunately that obviously doesn't work very well from a business perspective and it goes a long way toward explaining how a Mexican facility producing Fusions became the most efficient and reliable Ford facility in North America.

 

I'm confident that Ford will not (in 2015) do away with classic Mustang styling queues, but I can see Ford progressing with the current bodystyle and slowly evolving it into, yes, a more futuristic bodystyle. I, for one, welcome our new futuristic overlords. (As long as we skip the 80's retro look)

 

Not sure I understand. In unibody, "platform" is not the right word.Its really "relationship" of all the suspension, engine, firewall, cross car support that needs maintained. Its like connect-the-dots. You just need to use the same dots in roughly the same spaces.All the LX dots are from the E class, though assembled w/ cheaper components.


Disagree. The engineering and development costs are basically the same for a $15,000 car and for a $150,000. The difference, as you note below, is the piece cost. My point is the reversal from the original plan of IRS to live axle mid-way in development costs more in additional time to engineer cost out and re-engineer the affected components. The change from IRS to live axle affected everything from underbody to interior and trunk trim to rear bumper, rear sheetmetal and trunk lid. ( My Ford friend tells me the rear end had to be extended two inches to accomodate the same trunk space requirement when they changed to live axle. )



Agree.



Totally agree here.

 

+1, call me old fashoned but I love the retro look--I'll start saving up for an 09 or just upgrade the one I've got.

 

Wolfsburg: Absolutely, totally correct. Trash the faux gas cap, toss the dorky radio aerial, and go to six individual taillights fairly identical to those of the 1967/1968 Mustangs or to those of the 1969/1970 Mustangs! Oh, and put a real C-scoop on each side like the 1965s instead of the "oblique-L hockey stick" they have on the S197s. Dark window tint and matching dark headlight cover tint would be cool if the darker headlight covers don't diminish the candlepower of the headlights. And of course a rear fender kickup like the original or like the 1970 models. And howzabout some decent cast aluminum teardrop sidemirror "nacelles"--or whatever the bullet-shaped sidemirror housings are called? Use the '68 Torino GT sidemirror "nacelles" as the model. These minor corrections might set Ford back one hundred bucks per car--but would that ever be the best one hundred bucks ever spent!