Sedan and Wagon Mustangs? WTF?
12/13/06, 10:22 AM
#22
I won't be buying one...but the Chargers and 300s are selling well. If Ford does it right, they might actually turn a profit on a car!
12/13/06, 10:29 AM
#24
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broadening the use of the Mustang's platform is a great idea.
Spreading development and tooling costs across a much wider production base has the potential to allow higher content at a particular price point, or simply lower the price point. I think this has been a constricting issue with the current, one-car-platform of the current Stang that disallowed even better performance features due to cost cutting pressures. GM and DC, which are basing their pony cars on existing broad-based platforms may thus be better able to offer a higher level of engineering and/or feature content at a particular price point than Ford is able to with the current platform.
When it was a one-car market niche consisting solely of the Mustang, that didn’t matter much and they could brush off the lack of various engineering features with some vacuous marketing propaganda. But GM and DC’s entry into the pony car niche is apparently forcing Ford’s hand and sourcing out the NextStang to the Aussies, who have a great record of developing state-or-the-art RWD platforms, seems to be the strategy. Makes you wonder about the capability of the U.S. managers and engineers to bring a competitive RWD platform on time and on budget, something that apparently bedeviled the development of the S197 Stang.
Not quite so sure about calling all the resultant cars "Mustang" though. Better, I think, to either give those variants to, say, Mercury, which desperately needs some fresh hot blood anyway. At least give the four door variant(s) another name like the Falcon, from which the original Mustang's platform was derived.
Oddly, I'm not so against a 2-door wagon version of the Stang, ala the BMW Z3 Coupe. Kind of a funky idea, and probably way too funky for a great many more conservative Stangers, but done right, has the potential to be a pretty cool ride and breath some fresh life into the Stang franchise. People pooh-pooh’ed a blonde James Bond, but I think the latest 007 flick, Casino Royal, is the best yet, so perhaps best to withhold judgment. I’d be quite happy if the Stang coupe were a hatchback like the FoxStangs so you get 90% of the convenience of a wagon’esque body without sending some of the more hidebound Stangers to their daybeds with a case of the vapors.
Spreading development and tooling costs across a much wider production base has the potential to allow higher content at a particular price point, or simply lower the price point. I think this has been a constricting issue with the current, one-car-platform of the current Stang that disallowed even better performance features due to cost cutting pressures. GM and DC, which are basing their pony cars on existing broad-based platforms may thus be better able to offer a higher level of engineering and/or feature content at a particular price point than Ford is able to with the current platform.
When it was a one-car market niche consisting solely of the Mustang, that didn’t matter much and they could brush off the lack of various engineering features with some vacuous marketing propaganda. But GM and DC’s entry into the pony car niche is apparently forcing Ford’s hand and sourcing out the NextStang to the Aussies, who have a great record of developing state-or-the-art RWD platforms, seems to be the strategy. Makes you wonder about the capability of the U.S. managers and engineers to bring a competitive RWD platform on time and on budget, something that apparently bedeviled the development of the S197 Stang.
Not quite so sure about calling all the resultant cars "Mustang" though. Better, I think, to either give those variants to, say, Mercury, which desperately needs some fresh hot blood anyway. At least give the four door variant(s) another name like the Falcon, from which the original Mustang's platform was derived.
Oddly, I'm not so against a 2-door wagon version of the Stang, ala the BMW Z3 Coupe. Kind of a funky idea, and probably way too funky for a great many more conservative Stangers, but done right, has the potential to be a pretty cool ride and breath some fresh life into the Stang franchise. People pooh-pooh’ed a blonde James Bond, but I think the latest 007 flick, Casino Royal, is the best yet, so perhaps best to withhold judgment. I’d be quite happy if the Stang coupe were a hatchback like the FoxStangs so you get 90% of the convenience of a wagon’esque body without sending some of the more hidebound Stangers to their daybeds with a case of the vapors.
12/13/06, 11:21 AM
#26
I Have No Life
well we knew the platform would be spread across the other brands and segments...
... but the article implies it was a 4 door mustang.
As stated in another thread "hopefully it was one of those 'no wrong answer/brainstorming meetings" and will be shot down.
Again:
Platform good
Name/exact styling bad...VERY BAD
... but the article implies it was a 4 door mustang.
As stated in another thread "hopefully it was one of those 'no wrong answer/brainstorming meetings" and will be shot down.
Again:
Platform good
Name/exact styling bad...VERY BAD
12/13/06, 11:48 AM
#27
I think if they base any 4-door sedan off the the Mustang chassis it will be behind the 'eight ball' before it hits dealer lots. I can accept a straight axle in a Mustang, but not in a sedan. And from a global perspective it makes no sense to have a IRS chassis and a live-axle chassis when trying to cut costs. Use the next generation Falcon RWD/AWD as the basis for a Mustang AND a sedan and scrap the current chassis.
12/13/06, 11:52 AM
#28
Team Mustang Source Legacy Member
I've been obsessed with Mustangs for over 20 years and the '05 is my 5th one, but If they call it a MUSTANG, I'll be selling mine and never buy one again.
A 4-door Mustang and/or a Mustang wagon is just stupid. Plain and simple.
A 4-door Mustang and/or a Mustang wagon is just stupid. Plain and simple.
12/13/06, 12:47 PM
#29
GT Member
Join Date: July 30, 2004
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have long wondered if this sort of thing was in the cards. H.T.T. is a corporate guy, not a car guy. But lets see what he has had to say.
http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/020605.html
FTA
[“I’m a big believer in Kano,†says Thai-Tang, who is probably most well known as being the “father†of the current-generation Mustang (his official title at the time was “chief nameplate engineerâ€;
There are, Thai-Tang explains, the basic needs. The so-called “price of admission.†These things are necessary to be there, but unremarkable. If they aren’t, then there’s a problem. A little further up the scale are the “more is better†attributes, which are things that are comparably superior to whatever it is that the competition has to offer in the same category.The other issue that Thai-Tang is facing is that of helping create more products yet dealing with the cost restrictions that are so characteristic of the industry today.“It’s almost impossible because you have the same overhead and fixed costs allocated.†So, how can this be resolved? “You have to be a lot more flexible in defining architectures and platforms.†Thai-Tang says the way that vehicle programs must be considered is in the context of the family, or the variants, not just singular vehicles. One of the problems that could occur with this proliferation of models off of a single platform is that there could be homogeneity. While Thai-Tang acknowledges that it is a potential outcome, they’re now paying attention to keeping it from happening: “It starts with having a lot of clarity about what the primary brand starts with.†He uses the Mustang as an example of how a clear definition can help not only product development, but also the way that the product is introduced to the market. He says they’re using the concept of a “brand bulls-eye,†with the brand message as the center of the target. The three rings around that are image, product, and value. “Mustang had a very clear brand bulls-eye,†he says. “Fast, fun, affordable.†]
So he is more than open to messing with a core brand, as a matter of fact he takes it as priority.
http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/090503.html
FTA
[ Despite being surrounded by history and creativity, the PDC itself is a depressing place About halfway down the corridor is the office of Hau Thai-Tang, director of Advanced Product Creation and Ford's Special Vehicle Team (SVT). It's a wonder he and his team can be creative at all in such depressing surroundings.
At the end of the day," says Hau Thai-Tang,"we're trying to do more products faster." One of the key enablers for that is kicking off programs that have compatible assumptions. We didn't do a great job of that in the past." Thai-Tang's job as head of Advanced Product Creation is to go beyond the platform capability studies that determine how many derivatives can be built off a single base, beyond the external market data within which new market segments hide, and reconcile the business equation with the hardware assumptions and the design assumptions with the bill of process. Not doing this, he warns, "causes a lot of churn, revisions to the product assumptions, and it results in late changes that increase costs and cause reliability and quality gaps."
The time spent as chief engineer on the Mustang gave Thai-Tang a vision of success for his new position: assumptions that are attainable. This is a far cry from what happens in most new vehicle programs, where the cost and functional objectives are misaligned, the revenue assumptions don't support the variable cost targets, or the volume assumption is incompatible with the available capacity at the plant. "These are traditional incompatibilities that can make it very difficult for the team to execute," says Thai-Tang, "and they are often led by being overly aggressive in our market assumptions. That's what leads to subsidizing sales with incentives of some sort." "We are looking at this from a very holistic perspective," he says, "and that means going beyond adding doors, stretching wheelbases, and putting different body styles on a platform. It means trying to get to that true game changer"The challenge for the team is to discern the untapped consumer needs, and develop a concept that hits that sweet spot," ]
This all makes me wonder, does he understand the core Mustangness that earns Ford bucks year after year, and makes the legions support it?
I believe he held the DNA of mustang in his hands, http://brandautopsy.typepad.com/bran...ustangs_e.html but has forgotten the Ford lesson. You cannot prostitute Mustang and still hope to keep its core attributes of long hood, short deck, quasi fastback and affordable v8 perofrmance intact. They not only define the brand, but the entire segment of the industry, and have for over 40 years. That is some big mojo.
Ford has had to learn and relearn that the basic attributes are too important. Think of the F-150 and the derivitives that muddy the brand such as the Excursion and the Sport Trac. More important for us are the past Mustang debacles such as the MustangII and the Probe FWD version.
Those disasters in the making were narrowly averted by a few perceptive individuals in the corners of the company and the legions of fans.
Here is the thing. Mustang is about credible affordable performance. But can H.T.T. really wear two hats that seem to be not intimate in SVT and Advanced Product?
FTA
[Under John Coletti's control, SVT produced a number of serious go-fast vehicles for costs well below what mainstream engineering could achieve under the corporate rules they must follow.the basis for the 2006 Shelby GT500-sans the production car's live rear axle-came from Coletti's tight-knit engineering team, his ability to bend the system to his will, and to ignore the rulebook altogether when necessary.
Thai-Tang's job is to merge this rag-tag skunk works operation into the mainstream operation without killing its spirit or ability to do what's best for the company-even when that is contrary to the mainstream organization's wishes.
As he bluntly puts it: "The balance that every performance niche brand tries to walk is building halo products and making money." On one side is the low-volume credible performance vehicle that is break-even at best. On the other side are enhanced performance products that require less investment, have pretty good margins, and sell in numbers that make money for the company at the expense of its performance image. They are vehicles that, almost inevitably, devolve into paint-and-spoiler packages at most companies, something Thai-Tang must keep from occurring. Ultimately, this diminution of image can lead to the death of the performance brand. To hear many in the Ford and supplier communities tell it, however, the SVT brand will fade away and be replaced by an "Engineered by SVT" identifier that covers all of the vehicles touched by the group's magic wand. SVT-engineered halo cars like the Ford GT, unfortunately, will be few and far between
To give SVT the greatest possible leeway to produce vehicles that are more than tape stripes and special colors requires Thai-Tang to meld the needs of SVT with those of Advanced Product Creation. "For SVT to be successful," he says, "we must think about, consider, and accommodate a performance derivative when we sit down to design a vehicle. Otherwise it becomes very difficult for SVT to 'bolt on' performance downstream." Each new vehicle coming out of the advanced team, he says, will have a body structure, suspension kinematics, and weight distribution that can support SVT's needs. And this attention to detail ultimately should improve the breed. "I'm in a pretty good position, doing the advanced product stuff, to think about the potential SVT derivatives and accommodate those needs," he says. With any luck, the dull dreariness of the building he works in won't stand in the way of creatively achieving those goals.]
I submit that the facts are that he cannot juggle these attributes and still do both jobs. As proof, this particular interview makes my blood boil as an example of pure bull-sh-t, in that very little is fact, and so much of what he stated as fact is not the reality. That does not bode well for the future.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=105721
Ford, every time you mess with core Brand DNA, you take your corporate life in your hands. And it takes you years or even decades to recover. With the competition comeing to market with credible competitors and even more credible high performance versions, can you afford to rebuild your fading credibility on the most important name(it even outweighs the name on the building) your company holds? Really?
I didn't think so. No more badge and sticker jobs unless you can back it up somewhere else.
http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/020605.html
FTA
[“I’m a big believer in Kano,†says Thai-Tang, who is probably most well known as being the “father†of the current-generation Mustang (his official title at the time was “chief nameplate engineerâ€;
There are, Thai-Tang explains, the basic needs. The so-called “price of admission.†These things are necessary to be there, but unremarkable. If they aren’t, then there’s a problem. A little further up the scale are the “more is better†attributes, which are things that are comparably superior to whatever it is that the competition has to offer in the same category.The other issue that Thai-Tang is facing is that of helping create more products yet dealing with the cost restrictions that are so characteristic of the industry today.“It’s almost impossible because you have the same overhead and fixed costs allocated.†So, how can this be resolved? “You have to be a lot more flexible in defining architectures and platforms.†Thai-Tang says the way that vehicle programs must be considered is in the context of the family, or the variants, not just singular vehicles. One of the problems that could occur with this proliferation of models off of a single platform is that there could be homogeneity. While Thai-Tang acknowledges that it is a potential outcome, they’re now paying attention to keeping it from happening: “It starts with having a lot of clarity about what the primary brand starts with.†He uses the Mustang as an example of how a clear definition can help not only product development, but also the way that the product is introduced to the market. He says they’re using the concept of a “brand bulls-eye,†with the brand message as the center of the target. The three rings around that are image, product, and value. “Mustang had a very clear brand bulls-eye,†he says. “Fast, fun, affordable.†]
So he is more than open to messing with a core brand, as a matter of fact he takes it as priority.
http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/090503.html
FTA
[ Despite being surrounded by history and creativity, the PDC itself is a depressing place About halfway down the corridor is the office of Hau Thai-Tang, director of Advanced Product Creation and Ford's Special Vehicle Team (SVT). It's a wonder he and his team can be creative at all in such depressing surroundings.
At the end of the day," says Hau Thai-Tang,"we're trying to do more products faster." One of the key enablers for that is kicking off programs that have compatible assumptions. We didn't do a great job of that in the past." Thai-Tang's job as head of Advanced Product Creation is to go beyond the platform capability studies that determine how many derivatives can be built off a single base, beyond the external market data within which new market segments hide, and reconcile the business equation with the hardware assumptions and the design assumptions with the bill of process. Not doing this, he warns, "causes a lot of churn, revisions to the product assumptions, and it results in late changes that increase costs and cause reliability and quality gaps."
The time spent as chief engineer on the Mustang gave Thai-Tang a vision of success for his new position: assumptions that are attainable. This is a far cry from what happens in most new vehicle programs, where the cost and functional objectives are misaligned, the revenue assumptions don't support the variable cost targets, or the volume assumption is incompatible with the available capacity at the plant. "These are traditional incompatibilities that can make it very difficult for the team to execute," says Thai-Tang, "and they are often led by being overly aggressive in our market assumptions. That's what leads to subsidizing sales with incentives of some sort." "We are looking at this from a very holistic perspective," he says, "and that means going beyond adding doors, stretching wheelbases, and putting different body styles on a platform. It means trying to get to that true game changer"The challenge for the team is to discern the untapped consumer needs, and develop a concept that hits that sweet spot," ]
This all makes me wonder, does he understand the core Mustangness that earns Ford bucks year after year, and makes the legions support it?
I believe he held the DNA of mustang in his hands, http://brandautopsy.typepad.com/bran...ustangs_e.html but has forgotten the Ford lesson. You cannot prostitute Mustang and still hope to keep its core attributes of long hood, short deck, quasi fastback and affordable v8 perofrmance intact. They not only define the brand, but the entire segment of the industry, and have for over 40 years. That is some big mojo.
Ford has had to learn and relearn that the basic attributes are too important. Think of the F-150 and the derivitives that muddy the brand such as the Excursion and the Sport Trac. More important for us are the past Mustang debacles such as the MustangII and the Probe FWD version.
Those disasters in the making were narrowly averted by a few perceptive individuals in the corners of the company and the legions of fans.
Here is the thing. Mustang is about credible affordable performance. But can H.T.T. really wear two hats that seem to be not intimate in SVT and Advanced Product?
FTA
[Under John Coletti's control, SVT produced a number of serious go-fast vehicles for costs well below what mainstream engineering could achieve under the corporate rules they must follow.the basis for the 2006 Shelby GT500-sans the production car's live rear axle-came from Coletti's tight-knit engineering team, his ability to bend the system to his will, and to ignore the rulebook altogether when necessary.
Thai-Tang's job is to merge this rag-tag skunk works operation into the mainstream operation without killing its spirit or ability to do what's best for the company-even when that is contrary to the mainstream organization's wishes.
As he bluntly puts it: "The balance that every performance niche brand tries to walk is building halo products and making money." On one side is the low-volume credible performance vehicle that is break-even at best. On the other side are enhanced performance products that require less investment, have pretty good margins, and sell in numbers that make money for the company at the expense of its performance image. They are vehicles that, almost inevitably, devolve into paint-and-spoiler packages at most companies, something Thai-Tang must keep from occurring. Ultimately, this diminution of image can lead to the death of the performance brand. To hear many in the Ford and supplier communities tell it, however, the SVT brand will fade away and be replaced by an "Engineered by SVT" identifier that covers all of the vehicles touched by the group's magic wand. SVT-engineered halo cars like the Ford GT, unfortunately, will be few and far between
To give SVT the greatest possible leeway to produce vehicles that are more than tape stripes and special colors requires Thai-Tang to meld the needs of SVT with those of Advanced Product Creation. "For SVT to be successful," he says, "we must think about, consider, and accommodate a performance derivative when we sit down to design a vehicle. Otherwise it becomes very difficult for SVT to 'bolt on' performance downstream." Each new vehicle coming out of the advanced team, he says, will have a body structure, suspension kinematics, and weight distribution that can support SVT's needs. And this attention to detail ultimately should improve the breed. "I'm in a pretty good position, doing the advanced product stuff, to think about the potential SVT derivatives and accommodate those needs," he says. With any luck, the dull dreariness of the building he works in won't stand in the way of creatively achieving those goals.]
I submit that the facts are that he cannot juggle these attributes and still do both jobs. As proof, this particular interview makes my blood boil as an example of pure bull-sh-t, in that very little is fact, and so much of what he stated as fact is not the reality. That does not bode well for the future.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=105721
Ford, every time you mess with core Brand DNA, you take your corporate life in your hands. And it takes you years or even decades to recover. With the competition comeing to market with credible competitors and even more credible high performance versions, can you afford to rebuild your fading credibility on the most important name(it even outweighs the name on the building) your company holds? Really?
I didn't think so. No more badge and sticker jobs unless you can back it up somewhere else.
12/13/06, 01:18 PM
#30
Cobra Member
Join Date: November 10, 2005
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't get my panties in a wad. The key phrase is "Ideas include". Sorta like the Pentagon... they plans to invade every country on earth... doesn't mean that we will ever use any of those plans.
12/13/06, 01:32 PM
#31
Bullitt Member
God people are so childish...
If a RWD sedan (basically the new Falcon) coming here makes you want to sell your Mustang, you're not a "Mustang person"...
Please, sell em now frontrunners, I'm sure you're jumping ship as soon as new Camaro and Chellenger come out anyways...
If a RWD sedan (basically the new Falcon) coming here makes you want to sell your Mustang, you're not a "Mustang person"...
Please, sell em now frontrunners, I'm sure you're jumping ship as soon as new Camaro and Chellenger come out anyways...
12/13/06, 01:40 PM
#32
Team Mustang Source Legacy Member
You would welcome a 4-door Mustang?? I'm not talking about another car built on the Mustang platform, but a MUSTANG with 4 doors??
If so, you sir are not, nor have you ever been a Mustanger.
If you're simply talking about a different named 4-door car on the Mustang platform then disregard my emotional comments and I appologize for my misunderstanding of your post.
BTW, it's the name that everyone's disagreeing with. Not the platform.
If so, you sir are not, nor have you ever been a Mustanger.
If you're simply talking about a different named 4-door car on the Mustang platform then disregard my emotional comments and I appologize for my misunderstanding of your post.
BTW, it's the name that everyone's disagreeing with. Not the platform.
, thats all I can say.
12/13/06, 03:18 PM
#36
After some research, and some kind assistance from a couple of Aussie Ford forum members who are surprisingly in the know, I think that we we have here is a case of automotive journalism gone bad.
First, the 'next Falcon' platform everyone keeps talking about is the upcoming 2008 E8 refresh for those who didn't know. To make this clearer E8 is simply a refresh, if a significant one, of the current Aussie Falcon's arhcitecture employing an updated version of the current Territory's IFS, an updated version of the current Falcon's IRS, and what is effectively an updated version of the platform which under-pinned the first Ford Mustang and is nearing 50 years. (by the time the next gen Mustang debuts it will be over 50 years old for the curious)
I am not at all surprised that there is a Falcon due on an evolution of the existing architecture for the 08my and in fact knew that this was coming some time ago. But when people began discussing the possibility that the future Mustang would be Falcon-based I simply assumed that we must have info on the next Falcon redesign after E8 since the suggestion that the current Falcon platform would be considered for the same, revised or otherwise, seemed ridiculous. Especially not after Ford nearly closed the Australian plant and then considered moving the Falcon onto a lengthened development of D2C. (ironically enough this means that these people are fowarding the idea that D2C will be replaced by a platform it was once slated to replace!) But since, as I now know, the discussion, or even vague rumours for that matter, surrounding any upcoming Falcon platform besides E8 are non-existent I have come to understand that this is indeed the platform all the stir is about.
Before any protests arise in defense of the Falcon I am indeed familiar with the wonders that can be wrought through ingenuity and significant labor. And yes I realize that no portion of the chassis has made it through those fifty years untouched. But I am also familiar with the basic laws of science, and the shortcomings of continually evolving any basic design, and can say without reservation that the Falcon platform must be a relatively cobbled and compromised design by this time whatever wonders the Aussie's might have previously wrought from it. Porsche even gave up on the original 911 platform before it got this old, and that was as adaptable and timeless as you can get.
Yes, they have made a valiant effort with the same, but the value in using this chassis has got to be heavily vested in the fact that Ford Australia's plant, which Ford previously intended to close until an Aussie govt bailout changed things as I indicated above, is already setup to deal with this basic platform. Once you try and establish production of the same anywhere else that advantage is lost and cost rises considerably, a reality which calls into question why Ford would ever seriously consider doing so.
Realistically what those who would argue that the next generation of Mustang will be based on this chassis are truly claiming is that Ford will replace D2C, a platform which has superb rigidity, is inherently flexible despite what some claim, and is inexpensive to manufacture by an evolution of the chassis which under-pinned the original 1965 Mustang. And by the time the next gen Mustang rolls around even E8 will be at least 4 years old, so now we are talking about a fairly old update of an ancient platform! If this sounds absurd that is because it is. An evolution of D2C which includes IRS seems a far more logical, and far more likely, platform to underpin the next Mustang than does E8. Wether or not that is the route Ford goes remains to be seen.
When you take into consideration issues like Ford Australia's President hinting that V-8 usage for the Aussie Falcon is only secure in the near term, a develpment which may be related to rumours that the new Falcon platform might not be wide enough to accomodate the upcoming Boss V-8, the assumption becomes even more absurd. (by US standards the current Falcon couldn't even employ the existing Romeo V-8 due to ridiculously small clearances...so if it can't easily be made quite a bit wider there will be an issue)
IMO rumours that Ford would base an upcoming, rwd Lincoln concept, and if we are lucky possibly a Lincoln product, on the upcoming E8 chassis, along with possible rumours that the Mustang will eventually adopt Control Blade IRS, a system which the Falcon already employs, led to what some journalist saw as the equivelant of putting two and two together. No doubt some here will argue that basing a Lincoln on this chassis would be no different han basing a Mustang on it. But nothing could be further from the truth.
Basing a Lincoln sedan on E8 makes sense and solves several issues including how not to tarnish Lincoln's image further by using too many fwd platforms while still developing near term product. It is also prudent since Holden's new sedan has been a slow seller, a development which no doubt has Ford worried that they have more capacity to build Falcons than they will have demand for Falcons. Developing a Lincoln sedan from E8 makes perfect sense since it solves both issues and since, in the short term, it utlizes a program which was already existing to support another brands product portfolio, and as it utilizes exisiting excess plant capacity. This is a far cry from trying to base a future Mustang built in the US on E8.
I'd also be willing to forward a guess that the ridiculous 4-dr Mustang rumours happened in much the same way. If a Lincoln is going to be based on the upcoming Falcon, which indicates that the chassis has been revised to accomodate LHD applictions and U.S. safety standards, the possibility that the Falcon itself, or the Territory for that matter, might show up would seem pretty good as well. If you are inclined to believe that the Mustang will be Falcon based making the leap of faith required to assume that any incoming Ford sedans would be 'Mustangs' probably wasn't too difficult.
First, the 'next Falcon' platform everyone keeps talking about is the upcoming 2008 E8 refresh for those who didn't know. To make this clearer E8 is simply a refresh, if a significant one, of the current Aussie Falcon's arhcitecture employing an updated version of the current Territory's IFS, an updated version of the current Falcon's IRS, and what is effectively an updated version of the platform which under-pinned the first Ford Mustang and is nearing 50 years. (by the time the next gen Mustang debuts it will be over 50 years old for the curious)
I am not at all surprised that there is a Falcon due on an evolution of the existing architecture for the 08my and in fact knew that this was coming some time ago. But when people began discussing the possibility that the future Mustang would be Falcon-based I simply assumed that we must have info on the next Falcon redesign after E8 since the suggestion that the current Falcon platform would be considered for the same, revised or otherwise, seemed ridiculous. Especially not after Ford nearly closed the Australian plant and then considered moving the Falcon onto a lengthened development of D2C. (ironically enough this means that these people are fowarding the idea that D2C will be replaced by a platform it was once slated to replace!) But since, as I now know, the discussion, or even vague rumours for that matter, surrounding any upcoming Falcon platform besides E8 are non-existent I have come to understand that this is indeed the platform all the stir is about.
Before any protests arise in defense of the Falcon I am indeed familiar with the wonders that can be wrought through ingenuity and significant labor. And yes I realize that no portion of the chassis has made it through those fifty years untouched. But I am also familiar with the basic laws of science, and the shortcomings of continually evolving any basic design, and can say without reservation that the Falcon platform must be a relatively cobbled and compromised design by this time whatever wonders the Aussie's might have previously wrought from it. Porsche even gave up on the original 911 platform before it got this old, and that was as adaptable and timeless as you can get.
Yes, they have made a valiant effort with the same, but the value in using this chassis has got to be heavily vested in the fact that Ford Australia's plant, which Ford previously intended to close until an Aussie govt bailout changed things as I indicated above, is already setup to deal with this basic platform. Once you try and establish production of the same anywhere else that advantage is lost and cost rises considerably, a reality which calls into question why Ford would ever seriously consider doing so.
Realistically what those who would argue that the next generation of Mustang will be based on this chassis are truly claiming is that Ford will replace D2C, a platform which has superb rigidity, is inherently flexible despite what some claim, and is inexpensive to manufacture by an evolution of the chassis which under-pinned the original 1965 Mustang. And by the time the next gen Mustang rolls around even E8 will be at least 4 years old, so now we are talking about a fairly old update of an ancient platform! If this sounds absurd that is because it is. An evolution of D2C which includes IRS seems a far more logical, and far more likely, platform to underpin the next Mustang than does E8. Wether or not that is the route Ford goes remains to be seen.
When you take into consideration issues like Ford Australia's President hinting that V-8 usage for the Aussie Falcon is only secure in the near term, a develpment which may be related to rumours that the new Falcon platform might not be wide enough to accomodate the upcoming Boss V-8, the assumption becomes even more absurd. (by US standards the current Falcon couldn't even employ the existing Romeo V-8 due to ridiculously small clearances...so if it can't easily be made quite a bit wider there will be an issue)
IMO rumours that Ford would base an upcoming, rwd Lincoln concept, and if we are lucky possibly a Lincoln product, on the upcoming E8 chassis, along with possible rumours that the Mustang will eventually adopt Control Blade IRS, a system which the Falcon already employs, led to what some journalist saw as the equivelant of putting two and two together. No doubt some here will argue that basing a Lincoln on this chassis would be no different han basing a Mustang on it. But nothing could be further from the truth.
Basing a Lincoln sedan on E8 makes sense and solves several issues including how not to tarnish Lincoln's image further by using too many fwd platforms while still developing near term product. It is also prudent since Holden's new sedan has been a slow seller, a development which no doubt has Ford worried that they have more capacity to build Falcons than they will have demand for Falcons. Developing a Lincoln sedan from E8 makes perfect sense since it solves both issues and since, in the short term, it utlizes a program which was already existing to support another brands product portfolio, and as it utilizes exisiting excess plant capacity. This is a far cry from trying to base a future Mustang built in the US on E8.
I'd also be willing to forward a guess that the ridiculous 4-dr Mustang rumours happened in much the same way. If a Lincoln is going to be based on the upcoming Falcon, which indicates that the chassis has been revised to accomodate LHD applictions and U.S. safety standards, the possibility that the Falcon itself, or the Territory for that matter, might show up would seem pretty good as well. If you are inclined to believe that the Mustang will be Falcon based making the leap of faith required to assume that any incoming Ford sedans would be 'Mustangs' probably wasn't too difficult.
12/13/06, 03:18 PM
#37
Join Date: August 23, 2004
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 3,599
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
My question to all of you is this. If said car was to be badged as anything other than as a "Mustang" then there would be no remorse, correct? On that note why is it such a bigger deal if it is badged as a Mustang? Look what they did with the Charger and how many there are on the roads. Ford could be raking in cash from everyone other than enthusiasts like us by making a "Mustang" as a sedan or wagon. They know that we don't like the idea of the Mustang being anything other than a pony car, but if they feel that there is more money to be made from the people who want the car for the name, then they could rake in a lot more cash selling to the masses more than just to the (relatively) few of us who it would bother so much as to not buying them again. With said money we could see the golden age re-emerging to the birth of more S/E's. I'm not for having a Mustang sedan or wagon. Quite frankly I'd hate it as much as any of you. I can understand why Ford would choose to design and sell such a product.
Peter Hatch
Peter Hatch
12/13/06, 03:21 PM
#38
Member
Join Date: December 10, 2006
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is clearly some brand-marketing-infected nitwit's idea. Brand leveraging is one of the hot marketing concepts of recent years. Hopefully the car people within Ford will deep-fry the nitwit and we'll hear no more of this...
12/13/06, 04:03 PM
#40
Legacy TMS Member
Join Date: February 22, 2004
Posts: 1,564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with jsaylor.
