Ford, if you are going to build a wagon. Do it on another car, not on a legend

Hey I just realized this is post#200 of theeze thread
Darn its actually 201

 

It was my understanding the Adrenalin needed about 18 months of engineering before it was ready to go. It was sad it got cancelled, but that was an appropriate time to do it before getting much closer and then pulling the plug. It was a concept.

The GT was meant to be a limited run. It was not forgotten. It served its purpose - buzz creation, saleable product that could run in exotic circles and cost less than Ferrari or Lamborghini done in quick timing, celebrate Ford brand heritage.

I would think the Ford family, who holds a great majority of the voting shares, would be very aware of cars. I would attribute the multiple levels of approval, budget management processes, and bureaucratic barriers to the innovation and design processes as the chief reasons why desirable products aren't out there and the returns aren't what they could be.

It is a risky move to do what Ford did to deal with their debt, however, if that succeeds in funding more nimble and flexible product development, then it was a worthwhile risk.

The bottom line is that Mustang is an important car for North America and Ford brand recognition. It won't be "screwed up" or dropped like a hot potato.

 

My fault, I should have interpreted the question more clearly...What I meant by what Ford has already borrowed was ??? the money it borrowed from the feds to cover for their losses and then being required to put up some of their plants as collateral...

 

I knew the T-Bird was rear wheel drive ? I just wasn't sure about the Lincoln LS and Jaguar S type lol. but after looking at the links you posted ? I also learned that D2C was modified from DEW/98 and here I thought that D2C had only borrowed just a couple of suspension (chassis) components from DEW/98 so here's what I don't understand ? if D2C was based and modified from DEW/98 ? then why can't D2C be modified to accomodate a rear wheel drive sedan or wagon ? plus it's already set up for IRS is it not ???

 

And see, the problem is, as more plants are being closed, they have to spend more money to retool other plants or build new ones.

Going , If Ford designers don't catch up to GM, look at the 08 Malibu interior and 07 Tahoe,

 

The Ford designers could also learn a thing or 2 from Daimler/Chrysler as well..look at the 300 Sedan, The Charger although I don't care for the 4 door sedan look and Magnum along with the new Caliber and now the Nitro and of course most all ? The Challenger is back from the dead lol.

 

Ford didn't borrow money from the Feds, it was arranged by JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup and Goldman Sachs Group.

And I'm not clear on how that relates to the Mustang.

 

The point I was trying to make about how this relates to the Mustang was just as I previously stated..which was just in my own opinion, and I still stand by what I posted that if it had not been for the Success that Ford has experienced with the current Mustang ?? they would be facing possible extinction even with the money it borrowed from JP Morgan Chase & Co. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs Group in which I also stand corrected BTW I just wasn't sure who Ford borrowed the money from until you brought it to my attention...and I appreciate that very much, thanks

 

Well, I'll defiinitely agree that the new Mustang is a "halo car" of sorts for Ford...or at least it was in its first model year. Interest seems to be waning a bit now. But the numbers don't bear out it saving Ford from extinction.

In fact, nothing seems to be currently reversing that course. As I mentioned in another thread, when you mortgage your home so you can pay for daily living expenses, you're in very big trouble. I don't think Ford has ever been as close to extinction as it is now. And even if it does improve its products across the line, I'm inclined now to think it won't make a difference if it doesn't MASSIVELY improve the customer service experience across its dealership network, judging from many of the comments I read on this board. Some of the stories I read around here honestly make me rethink whether or not I should even consider buying a new Stang.

 

The D2C can be modified, but remember you need a place build it. Mustang is built in Auto Alliance International, which is essentially the Mazda 6 plant. It builds the 6 sedan, 6 wagon, 6 5 door, all of which have choices of 4 and 6 cyl engines, and Mazdaspeed 6. There is 7 combinations already. On the Mustang line, it builds coupe, convertible, v6 or GT, and then the GT500 coupe and convertible. So there are 6 different Mustangs, not counting 5 speed vs. auto. That is about 13 different cars.

From what I know about plants, they can only handle a certain number of variations. The fact that one plant is doing two such different cars as the FWD Mazda 6 and the rear drive Mustang is incredible from a manufacturing standpoint ( though they do run on two completely separate lines. ) And this isn't about lazy workers unwilling to do different cars- for each variation, you need space to store all the different parts, and then places for them on the assembly line. Its a huge logistical operation I am sure. Then there is capacity- how many can they build. I am not sure what Mazda 6 production is, but from what I read here, Mustang production is about 180000 units.

So to do a rear drive sedan based off D2C/S197, there either has to be extra room and the ability to accomodate an additional completely different car at AAI, or you'd need to retool another plant for a rear-drive platform. I believe all the rest of Ford's cars are front drive, except for the Crown Vic, which is literally a truck ( body-on -frame. )

So I believe Ford when they say no Mustang wagon. Not only is the Mustang held in high reverence, even if the beancounter/non-car people wanted to do it, it would be difficult.

 

I think the Ford designers are doing just fine. Remember the 427 concept from 2003? Rumor has it when Chrysler saw it, they reversed course and decided to make their upcoming 300 sedan more American, thinking Ford would build this off the Lincoln LS platform.

Ford 427, 2003 concept:



2003 Chrysler 300


2005 Chrysler 300


Looks like a 427 to me with a Bentley grille and Chrysler headlamps.

 

Why didn't Ford make the 427?

 

Because of the numb-nuts running the company at the time????



I hope Mulally is more inclined to produce concepts that are near production ready like DCX.

 

Not true.

There is a lot of misinformation on this. The original plan was to build the Mustang off of a cost reduced D/EW-98 called DEW-light, but that plan was killed due to cost. D2C shares very little with D/EW-98 and is a distinct platform.

Here are similarites / shared part D2C - D/EW-98:

Floor pan is based off D/EW-98
Uses "saddle-bag" gas tanks that are below the rear seat and over the rrear axle that are similar to D/EW-98 but not the same.
Uses a similar 2 piece driveshaft with flanges instead of U-bolts
Uses the same 5R55S trannie as later D/EW-98 cars
PCM is a later version of D/EW-98's
D2C uses pretty much the same ETC
VVT on the 3V, 4.6 is more or less the same as the VVT developed for the 3.9L AJ-V8.
There may be some other similarities / shared parts that I've forgotten off the top of my head.

To quote HTT "The starting point for D2C was to get inspiration from Ford's best prior RWD platform, which was the D/EW-98."

 

I agree with you and IMHO ? Ford should build both the 427 sedan and 49 concept coupe into production, both these vehicles would compete very nicely along side the Chrysler 300 and Sebring

 

Yes you're right ? this is very confusing so perhaps you can answer 3 questions ? First off, If these rumors about Ford scraping D2C in favor of basing the 2010 Mustang and thier supposed plans for basing a rear wheel drive sedan and wagon off the Aussie Falcon platform are true ?? why would Ford kill off the D2C platform after the huge success it's been having with the current Stang ? personally speaking this just doesn't make any logical sense to scrap D2C which is still a very fresh and young platform in favor of replacing it with the Aussie Falcon platform which as far as I'm concerned is in reality a 50 year old ancient relic ??? IMO ? Ford would be taking a very huge step backwards if it were to kill off D2C ? On the other hand ? If Ford plans to build a new rear wheel drive platform to replace the Crown Vic (panther) platform which BTW is also a relic ??? then why not just modify D2C so that it can base both a replacement for the panther platform while at the same time continue it's use for the Mustang ?? This way Ford could save tons of money using an exsisting platform that has proven itself to be a huge success instead of losing even more money by scraping D2C in favor of replacing it with yet another relic ???

 

1. I don't think Ford would kill D2C and use a new platform for the 2010 Mustang as that would make it a ground up new design, which is expensive and takes a lot of time. The only logic in this is to eliminate a platform (D2C) is to get better economy of scale with a shared global RWD platform. Long term this could save $$ but up front costs are higher. These days it is difficult to cost justify a unique platform for a modest price vehicle that sells in quantities <200K / year (ie. Mustang). These days a company like Ford want's to get 500,000 vehicles / year off the same platform.

2. My understanding of the rumors is the Aussie Falcon is getting an all new platform, so the existing 40+ year old band-aided Falcon platform is gone.

3. Best I can tell is that D2C has been cost reduced into a very specialized design that does not lend itself well to sharing with other vehicles, especially a large 4 door sedan. The new Aussie Falcon platform sounds like it would be much more suitable for a Panther replacement than D2C. One of the most expensive pieces of tooling a manufacturer has to buy is the stamping dies & press that stamp the floor pan. Obviously the floor plans between the Mustang and an updated Crown Vic are going to be different & require unique dies.

Don't too much weight into what platform concept cars are based on (eg Interceptor). Remember the Mustang Concept was built off of D/EW-98 platform parts, but the production car is not. In addition, the Mustang concept show car was actually built after the S197 Mustang's design had been completed. Concept cars are often built out of whatever parts are lying around that allow something to be thrown together quickly for a car show and often don't represent what the production vehicles will be built out of. Most of the concept cars do not run at all (eg last Continental concept) or are barely driveable (eg 427 concept) There is a big difference between a "concept" vehicle and a "pre-production" show vehicle.

 

Ford really screwed up, the 427 would have been a hit. But Ford's problem was it didn't have a suitable platform to build it on (D/EW-98 was too small and expensive, Panther too out of date ). Same with the 49, it was built off D/EW-98 so it's costs would have been way out of line. Again Ford had no suitable platform to build the 49 on. In the 90s Ford spent most of its engineering budget on trucks & SUVs. The only new vehicle platform, D/EW-98 did not lend itself to a broad array of cars.

If you show most people a photo of the 427 today they'll tell you that Ford copied the 300, when in reality the 427 came first.

 

After reading over your reply ? I hope your right about Ford not killing off D2C but after you mentioned about the Aussie Falcon platform getting a new platform of it's own ? it's seems highly unlikely that Ford would keep D2C around for just the Mustang and maybe even a new Lincoln coupe while the new Falcon platform which would more than likely be considered as the shared global RWD platform that Ford would be depending on towards achieving it's goal of producing 500,000 vehicles per year from the same platform that you mentioned so from an economic standpoint ? this would seem to make perfect sense therefore with that being said ? it appears the only way D2C can be saved is if this supposed Lincoln Coupe that's supposed to be built upon the D2C platform becomes a reality and another huge success as the Mustang..BTW ? is DEW/98 still in exsistence ? or is it completely dead ?

 

They screwed up alright and once again, your right ? the 427 would have been a huge hit and here after Daimler/Chrysler copied Ford's 427 design to build the 300 just look at all the success DC has had because of their screw up..Therefore as a direct result ?? Ford has nobody else to blame but itself and I'm sure they could have built the 427 if somehow was able to build it off a modified version of DEW/98 like when you mentioned earlier about the DEW/98 lite version ??? but on the other hand ? If Ford does decide on the all new Falcon platform ? I'm sure they could still build both the 427 and 49 based upon that platform as well as with the 2010 Mustang