I'm trying to figure out why having Australia develop the Mustang would be a preferable option to simply doing it here and I keep coming up blank. No offense to our friends down under, but the only reason to develop the next Mustang's platform there is to give the Australian arm of Ford something to do in an effort to keep it viable. I don't get it.

Frankly, reasons not to do this are far more plentiful than are the reasons to do it. For example, the Falcon isn't really a strong seller in Australia anymore with that nation falling under the influence of fwd just as our own did long ago. The Falcon has become something of a fleet queen because of this producing fleet sales numbers that easily rival those of the Taurus back in the early part of this century. I can understand the logic in wanting to spread the market for such a vehicle out to keep it viable. But then it is debatable wether or not it makes sense to allow a division of Ford which might sell 100k units based on this platform combined in an average year to develop said platform completely unassisted.

Also worth noting is the teething problems GM experienced with their new rwd 'global' platform which was, as we all know, designed primarily in Australia. To be blunt the sucker ended up being a bit (okay, a lot) more expensive than expected and GM has arguably spent as much time trying to figure out how to make the Camaro competitive in terms of pricing as they did developing the chassis itself. This obviously surprised them although I have no idea why. I say this because the Commodore isn't now and long hasn't been a car which lent itself easily to the Camaro's expected price range. In fact, it seems likely that cost overages had something to do with GM's decision to trim back the model offering here in North America despite what they claim. Basing the next Mustang on a more expensive model's platform, effectively hoping to remove enough content to make costs practical is flirting with disaster to be kind and precisely what we can expect if Australia gets the job,. And if that indeed is what happens it will only serve to demonstrate that somebody at Ford didn't learn the lesson the DEW98 platform should have taught them.

Finally, it isn't as though Ford North America didn't do a good job on the existing car. Yes, the current model could be improved in many ways with the Falcon being superior in areas like the interior and rear suspension but the Mustang is quite well done in it's own right. Of course the Falcon is also a far more expensive car than the Mustang, which explains a lot of those goodies, and is less profitable too. We know this primarily because it is no secret thatFalcon has been a money loser for Ford Australia for some time now while Ford North America brags that the newest Mustang is seriously inexpensive to produce, costing less per unit in fact than the model it replaced. Put more succinctly the Mustang is an undisputed success story for Ford North America at the moment while Ford Australia is left trying to find a platform mate for the Falcon ion an effort to keep the model economically viable.

Many on the internet are lauding the expected plan to develop the next pony's platform in Australia. But there is nothing to indicate that this is preferable to doing it here and much to suggest the opposite. I think it's most likely going to be a disaster if it actually happens. Sometimes it seems that these guys never learn. You've essentially tried this before guys and failed miserably, moving the site of the experiment to sunny Australia won't improve the odds of success.

 

3.5tt 309kw= 423hp.

 

I got 414 hp and 399 ftlb

 

If Ford would just make the Mustang more aerodynamic (Italian Mustang Front End), remove 300 lbs, add a T-56 w/.50 OD, insert 400 hp and add a control blade IRS I would buy one!!

 

It doesn't make any sense. I think they are confused. The S197 will see at least one more generation, most likely with the IRS it was designed for originally installed and the engine that is 5 years overdue already.

 

The S-197 will continue on, until at least the first complete redesign, which more than likely won't take place, until 2012-2015 anyhow

 

me too.... but we're splitting hairs.

I'm ok with a 3.5tt V6.... but nothing sounds like a V8... and it doesn't get meaner with more cylinders either... a v10 or v12 are too smooth....

I hope there's always a V8 as long as we're running gas engines in Mustangs.

 

I used a converter online...but i tried another and it gave 414hp too.


i dunno what was with the other one.

 

i might be a bit late to this thread, but motortrend did a great article a couple of months ago on ford's path forward for global rwd architecture, and how the mustang fits into that.... this is what toyota has been doing for years, and its the way GM is going. with mulally at the helm now, there's no reason why ford won't do the right thing and make an affordable, global rwd platform

http://www.motortrend.com/features/c...l_architecture

 

Rebuttal for jsaylor, reasons I think the Mullaly plan as I understand it will be a good idea:

1. The assignment of RWD developement to Oz isn't so much the ding to Ford NA that people are making it out to be, and more a reflection of the redistributed resources in Global Ford. Witness the the FWD platforms from Volvo, Ford Europe, and Mazda. This has progressed to the point where these divisions, while certainly capable of producing other platforms, instead develope to their strengths and spread those platforms across the whole company. This specialization focuses the resources of each division on creating fewer but better platforms, and letting other divisions fill out the lineup. Ford NA could continue to develope its own RWD platforms, but by handing off to Oz they gain the ability to focus on their platform strength: Trucks.

2. While I certainly belive that Ford NA (or any Ford division, really) can produce RWD car platforms, if you want to go on recent record then I'm sorry but Australia wins. Jaguar (and Aston's old) RWD platforms are too expensive for mass market use, DEW98 was never anywhere near as cost-effective or competetive as it was supposed to be (objectively, you could probably label all the DEW98 cars as near-failures), and then there's D2C. Sure, D2C has done well in the Mustang, but honestly, how well would the MacPherson/SRA platform have faired in anything other than the Mustang, and how much of it's savings would be negated by updating to a modern, competetive Chassis. The EA 169 Falcon, on the other hand, has unquestionly been a success and whats more the latest in a long chain of successful Falcons. It's spawned successful derivatives, and won many awards. Orion looks to continue this legacy, and perhaps even enhance it with Export sales.

3. GM's troubles with Zeta are something to be aware of and learn from, but I don't think the realistically reflect Ford's situation. Before Zeta, GM-Aus did not develope their platforms in-house, instead they adopted their Commodores from Opel platforms. GM gave Zeta developement to Aus when in reality Opel would have been better from a technical and experience standpoint. Ford's Oz division, on the other hand, has been cranking out their own platforms for decades, these platforms have been both solid and adaptable, and with Orion they're showing the ability to go multi-market without breaking the bank.

4, In regards to the Mustang specifically, the first problem is that the D2C can't last as it is forever. Setting aside Camaro, the market simply won't tolerate a SRA Mustang forever,be it competition with IRS or just consumer standards. Then there's Export possibility, which is pretty much Zero with the big beam out back. So right away, you have to toss out the savings attributed to D2C's lack of IRS. Next, there's future platform developement to consider. D2C won't stay static forever, which means NA will have to put time and money into it instead of P2 or T1, plus Oz will be putting time and resources into their platform. I don't care how cost-effective D2C is today, every time you're putting money into it AND the new platform you're losing.

The cost issues with a more advanced platform I readily grant you, but I think an intelligently-run developement can keep the car affordable on the new base. D2C gets alot of savings, for example, not just from SRA but from cross-platform sharing (like using the same struts as C1). And lets face it, less profitable Mustang that 's king of its class is preferable to a more profitable Mustang that loses every comparo.

 

I understand this argument and the logic behind it, but frankly I think it's wrong, at least for Ford. First, with respect to Mr. Mulally, this isn't Boeing with the primary difference being that identity matters. For example, so long as the 777 they are riding in does what it is supposed to do with an appropriate level of comfort very few people are likely to know or care wether the wings are made by Boeing here domestically or by a Japanese supplier. Cars are much more personal. People try to act as though joe Consumer doesn't really care, but real world circumstances point squarely to the fact that he does.

Also the global platform concept, while beneficial in many respects, is still the victim of too much hype. Benefits aren't nearly as sweeping as advocates like to claim, particularly when assembly is to take place in two divergent locations, with serious cost savings largely being confined to a reduction in engineering costs. And unfortunately engineering costs represent a surprisingly small component of a vehicles costs.

Don't get me wrong as I am not against going global, I am against the way in which Mulally wants to do so. I would go into this further but this post will be long anough as it is.

As for Australia winning the rwd debate I completely disagree. The Falcon is not a success and hasn't been in some time. Despite Oz's best efforts to cast the Falcon in as bright a light as possible it has become something of a fleet queen in recent years and doesn't sell nearly as well as it once did. Even worse, it's an expensive fleet queen with Ford losing money on every one that they build.

Also, there is every reason to believe that Ford Australia would do exactly what GM Australia did with Zeta, and for the same reasons. Neither has designed a low cost, rwd platform in so long that one could seriously question wether either still knows how. Certainly GM's Oz division has proven that they don't, and Ford Australia has much more in common with Holden than they do with Ford NA.

As for you argument regarding DEW98, again that platform just shows the inherent shortcomings in taking the global platform concept too far. Arguably the Jaguar component wasn't the problem here with the real lesson being that you cannot take an expensive platform and readily adapt it to less expensive cars. And again, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Ford Australia understands how to keep costs low.

I am not against a D2C replacement, I just see no evidence that Ford Australia is any better equipped to engineer it than Ford NA. D2C's only serious, long range shortcoming is the beam axle you cite above. But an IRS was developed for the car and would have, according to most rumours, upped the cost of the car about 500 bucks a piece. If you take into consideration the price increases levied on the Mustang throughout it's first year of production, and Ford's subtle admission that they are making money hand over fist on the car, what we have is a situation where Ford could easily have sold a D2C Mustang with IRS for the same money they are asking now and still have made a very nice chunk of change. They didn't because they didn't fell as though they had to, but they could have. Ford Australia hasn't built anything with rwd and an IRS that sold for under 30k US with a V8 between the fenders in so long it's questionable wether half the folks at Ford Oz now were alive when they still did.

I always appreciate your insight Moosetang. But, I see no evidence that Ford OZ could or would do a better job on a rwd platform than Ford NA all things being equal. In fact, all that I think Ford Oz can really say is that they can build a superior car if cost isn't a major consideration. With D2C at least some of the engineers at FNA proved that they can build a platform, and a car, that is desirable, profitable, and better than the sum of it's parts for a surprisingly small amount of money.

Give me the pick of two groups like the above and I'll take the latter every time.

 

I think Ford NA could do the job just fine. On the other hand I totally see the global concept as being the thing of the future. In the long run, it will help with Ford's cost. Only thing I'm disapointed in it the continued use of strut suspensions. I hate em. I truly wish for a double wishbone front suspension.
Any way Ford Aussie is slated for chassis development of the rwd chassis, more and more people like. I think its good for the Mustang and other rwd cars. Besides its not like the body will be designed in Oz unlike the last GTO.
I feel its an idea whose time has come.

 

And again, we've been through all of this before and ended up with little more than a lot of empty promises. To be blunt the recent plans we've seen for Ford sound like little more than Nasser 2.0. since they are arguably little more than what he pushed through with a twist. The current concept of globalization at it stands is a lot of things, but it isn't the way forward, pun intended.

 

Lol, I'm completely opposite, since I bought my first mustang in 1994, I have never been to the alignment shop, the entire time I owned my 02 GT I had zero problems with it. Hopefully the 07 shapes up to be the same.

Hopefully when Ford caves in and makes the SLA/IRS Uberstang, they'll also have an entry level car equipped with a V8 with struts/sra.

 

I'm with you, except I hope that Ford does the wise thing and keeps the Mustang's IFS design squarely in the strut camp. My reasons are simple. The design is simple, light, cost and space effective, and when tuned correctly provides phenomenal steering feel (anyone ever wonder why BMW loves it so?) and very good handling. However, i would like to see an IRS next go 'round.