2015 Platform
12/16/12, 04:08 AM
#41
V6 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2011
Location: Kaiserslauthern, Germany
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ford was caught testing the next generation Control Blade IRS in an S197. If Ford is indeed testing the CBIRS for a future Mustang, I can only imagine that the D2C will be the basis for the new DEW lite. The suspension geometry would have to remain identical to the outgoing model.
If I remember correctly, the D2C was based on the DEW Lite. It was determined that the DEW Lites material cost alone could not justify it going into production. The expensive materials were replaced which was everything but the knuckle and strut towers. It is probably a combination of the two. Research and Development cost could already been paid up, or at least a big portion is already paid for. Great way to keep MSRP down...
If I remember correctly, the D2C was based on the DEW Lite. It was determined that the DEW Lites material cost alone could not justify it going into production. The expensive materials were replaced which was everything but the knuckle and strut towers. It is probably a combination of the two. Research and Development cost could already been paid up, or at least a big portion is already paid for. Great way to keep MSRP down...
12/16/12, 09:26 AM
#42
Cobra R Member
Ford was caught testing the next generation Control Blade IRS in an S197. If Ford is indeed testing the CBIRS for a future Mustang, I can only imagine that the D2C will be the basis for the new DEW lite. The suspension geometry would have to remain identical to the outgoing model.
If I remember correctly, the D2C was based on the DEW Lite. It was determined that the DEW Lites material cost alone could not justify it going into production. The expensive materials were replaced which was everything but the knuckle and strut towers. It is probably a combination of the two. Research and Development cost could already been paid up, or at least a big portion is already paid for. Great way to keep MSRP down...
If I remember correctly, the D2C was based on the DEW Lite. It was determined that the DEW Lites material cost alone could not justify it going into production. The expensive materials were replaced which was everything but the knuckle and strut towers. It is probably a combination of the two. Research and Development cost could already been paid up, or at least a big portion is already paid for. Great way to keep MSRP down...
Wait, wait, I got the last one, "Control Blade Independent Rear Suspension"?
12/16/12, 01:18 PM
#43
V6 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2011
Location: Kaiserslauthern, Germany
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I don't even think Koln worked on anything but the EVOS. It perticipated in the 2015 Mustang just as every design team had an opportunity to.
With Mr. Cullam on the design team, it will resemble his other EVOS sketch which will be very DB9ish. With Martin Smith out of the picture, the EVOS is forever stuck in prototype status.
Edit: I take that back, nobody really knows what's being worked on in Koln. That was the super secret '13 GT500 hideout...
With Mr. Cullam on the design team, it will resemble his other EVOS sketch which will be very DB9ish. With Martin Smith out of the picture, the EVOS is forever stuck in prototype status.
Edit: I take that back, nobody really knows what's being worked on in Koln. That was the super secret '13 GT500 hideout...
Last edited by thePill; 12/16/12 at 01:27 PM.
12/16/12, 01:24 PM
#44
GTR Member
Do you mean Ian Callum?
I love almost everything he's designed, but wasn't aware he'll have anything to do with the Mustang as he's now Jaguar's Design Director.......and Jaguar are no longer part of Ford or PAG.
12/16/12, 01:30 PM
#45
No, I don't even think Koln worked on anything but the EVOS. It perticipated in the 2015 Mustang just as every design team had an opportunity to.
With Mr. Cullam on the design team, it will resemble his other EVOS sketch which will be very DB9ish. With Martin Smith out of the picture, the EVOS is forever stuck in prototype status.
Edit: I take that back, nobody really knows what's being worked on in Koln. That was the super secret '13 GT500 hideout...
With Mr. Cullam on the design team, it will resemble his other EVOS sketch which will be very DB9ish. With Martin Smith out of the picture, the EVOS is forever stuck in prototype status.
Edit: I take that back, nobody really knows what's being worked on in Koln. That was the super secret '13 GT500 hideout...
12/16/12, 03:16 PM
#46
V6 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2011
Location: Kaiserslauthern, Germany
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe you should enlighten me... Or perhaps you just didn't know this.
The Ford DEW platform (or DEW98) is Ford Motor Company's midsize rear wheel drive automobile platform. The D/E nomenclature was meant to express an intermediate size between D and E class vehicles, while the W denoted a worldwide platform. The platform was developed by both Ford and Jaguar engineers, and debuted in the Lincoln LS sedan.
Ford's use of the platform ended in 2006, however Jaguar continues to use DEW98 even after Jaguar was sold to Tata Motors in 2008.
A less-expensive variant known as DEW Lite was originally to be used for the 2005 Ford Mustang, but the platform was significantly redesigned to become the Ford D2C platform instead.
Ford's use of the platform ended in 2006, however Jaguar continues to use DEW98 even after Jaguar was sold to Tata Motors in 2008.
A less-expensive variant known as DEW Lite was originally to be used for the 2005 Ford Mustang, but the platform was significantly redesigned to become the Ford D2C platform instead.
Give this a read,
http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/?p=11329
So........ Where did I go wrong? Have you ever seen a car company test new suspension on a chassis that was NOT going to host it? I don't think a Motorsports Chassis Engineer and Chassis Fab Tech would agree with your assumptions...
No, Ian's brother Moray is responsible for the 2015 Mustang design and the EVOS concept.
Last edited by thePill; 12/16/12 at 03:41 PM.
12/16/12, 03:42 PM
#47
I Have No Life
If you are going to name drop...at least spell the guys name correctly.
And are you talking about the new car or the old one?
Anyone can google the old info.
The new stuff...show me where you have any correct info on the platform. I'm kinda curious.
And are you talking about the new car or the old one?
Anyone can google the old info.
The new stuff...show me where you have any correct info on the platform. I'm kinda curious.
Last edited by Boomer; 12/16/12 at 03:43 PM.
12/16/12, 04:41 PM
#49
V6 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2011
Location: Kaiserslauthern, Germany
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is interesting...
Fits*neatly in the existing space. Unlike the S197*prototype (or the*99-04 SVT*Cobra, which used very lightweight but strong*hydro-formed steel tubing)*this time a series of steel stampings are used for the structural subframe*member. It appears to be a bolt-in. It’s going to be inexpensive to build, quick to install from the assembly line perspective, and unless the frame is changed further would also allow a solid axle to be used in some cases. Apparently*we can’t relegate the caveman to the fringes of society.
Production cost has been addressed: instead of a multitude of expensive castings and forgings found in the S197 IRS prototype of 2005, this one is built mostly of welded steel stampings.
A*new differential carrier, unrelated to any earlier carrier (such as the Explorer 8.8 used in the prior design). And, we would suspect from the shape that this is no longer the familiar*8.8″ – perhaps Ford farmed it out to ZF?*Cooling fins on the rear cover (good, but too few), along with provisions for drain and fill that could be used for a cooler for track usage. In the rear it is mounted*to the upper*structural beam of the subframe with*two large rubber/composite bushings.
Prototype exhaust, hacked together, and not in final form (look at the individual sections, some with mandrel bends – as well as the odd bends coming out of the resonator). As far as we can tell, it is a one-piece exhaust from the cats all the way back. This is unlikely for production; the rear section will probably be*replaceable.
Production cost has been addressed: instead of a multitude of expensive castings and forgings found in the S197 IRS prototype of 2005, this one is built mostly of welded steel stampings.
A*new differential carrier, unrelated to any earlier carrier (such as the Explorer 8.8 used in the prior design). And, we would suspect from the shape that this is no longer the familiar*8.8″ – perhaps Ford farmed it out to ZF?*Cooling fins on the rear cover (good, but too few), along with provisions for drain and fill that could be used for a cooler for track usage. In the rear it is mounted*to the upper*structural beam of the subframe with*two large rubber/composite bushings.
Prototype exhaust, hacked together, and not in final form (look at the individual sections, some with mandrel bends – as well as the odd bends coming out of the resonator). As far as we can tell, it is a one-piece exhaust from the cats all the way back. This is unlikely for production; the rear section will probably be*replaceable.
I apologize for misspelling Moray's name, I used the "edit" button to update it.
Edit: The new IRS looks like a cross between the '05 unit and a Control Blade setup. It uses a subframe. I cannot tell if it uses a coilover, compact shock, traditional or a new compact coilover... I guess anything is possible. If there is no use of a full length shock, then it is possible that the D2C's rear towers are redesigned... This would make it impossible to retrofit a solid axle.
Edit 2: The CBIRS used in the mule uses a traditional spring/shock setup (cost). This doesn't eliminate the future possibility of them switching to the compact shock or compact coilover (edit my edit: I honestly cant tell if the shock is full length or not. It could be compact. If the S550 is using a traditional system, retrofitting the S197's live axle is possible, as is a future coilover application. Even though a coilover may interfere with the Control Blades ability to tune the ride and handling components independently. That is the whole purpose of Control Blade, to eliminate the need for heavy, expensive shock absorbing systems. The ride quality can be tuned for soft translation inside the cockpit. While handling components can be tuned hard, all the time. No fancy magnetic shocks or electronic governing. Basic and both aspects are tuned to their maximum potential.
The compact coilover, in my mind, is the future of suspension. It also moves the coilover a bit closer to center. 1/8th the size, 1/8th the cost. Here's the advantages, just as light as the outgoing solid axle, less unsprung weight than a Double wishbone or
Short-Long Arm IRS, the unit is modular and built entirely by Dana (Cost) and, before the new generation CB, Ford had 16 different Control Blade IRS systems. This '15 won't cost Ford as much as people think.
Last edited by thePill; 12/16/12 at 08:43 PM.
12/16/12, 05:29 PM
#50
V6 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2011
Location: Kaiserslauthern, Germany
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D2C: The S197's chassis name. It was based on the DEW Lite which was based on the DEW98.
12/16/12, 10:29 PM
#51
Exhaust discussion:
https://themustangsource.com/f806/lo...-shots-512251/
IRS for reference:
Also, you mention S197 will evolve. Not true. This has been discussed ad nauseaum in other threads in this section as well, as the car was spotted with the hood up and noticed a significantly different underhood design then the current chassis. It makes perfect sense that the cobble the current body onto a similarly sized new chassis and hide it in plain sight. The devil is in the details:
Hmm, that gas door looks awfully out of place. Still in primer, maybe they did some body work to make it look like the current, but then again, you'd probably know that:
The only confusing part of it all is the use of 2013 Fusion wheels in every mule shot. The new Fusion rides on the CD4 platform, which is one of the first in the new "One Ford" direction. S197 and the D2C chassis are going away, so is there a new bespoke platform we haven't heard about yet, or are they going to adapt something (like CD4) to make it work for the S550 program. Time will tell...
Moved all of the subsequent posts to the platform discussion, not the photoshop thread where they don't belong.
12/17/12, 09:54 AM
#53
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect one possibility is that the s550 is a "heavily" evolved version of the S197 given that the S550 mules can use the existing S197 structure so readily. So perhaps the front (and rear) sections might be essentially all new to accommodate the new design while the more core structure, firewall and floor plan are closer to the current version. The front frame rails are clearly different than the current model, being more tapered in towards the prow, but tellingly, they seem to be readily bolted/wleded up to the current plaform/firewall. The gas cap protuberance is probably more reflective of different sheet metal of the final design that's a bit more filled out in the haunches than the current styling.
The latter, in concert with thePill's discussions might be interesting for the resident "knuckle draggers" (lovingly said) who so bemoan the passing of their Conestoga axle in that the chassis might well be able to readily accommodate a lively axle for those who want to indulge some yesteryear tech. Control blade IRS’s are a well-developed, well-understood, effective and economical IRS design for Ford, so seeing some variant of that appear on the NextStang would be less than surprising. I do recall some posting activity a year or two ago about Ford boosting their North American CB production facilities for, well, what…? There aren’t a whole lot of RWD platforms in Ford’s future pipeline beyond the Mustang (or possible spinoffs, ahem, Lincoln…). As noted though, the spy pics indicate a design that might be, at most, a hybrid between a CB design and a more multi-link one – time will tell.
As for the significant of the mule running around on Fusion wheels? I would say little as the fact Fusion wheels could be bolted to most Ford sporting 5-lug hubs, regardless of whatever platform those hubs are eventually bolted to.
The latter, in concert with thePill's discussions might be interesting for the resident "knuckle draggers" (lovingly said) who so bemoan the passing of their Conestoga axle in that the chassis might well be able to readily accommodate a lively axle for those who want to indulge some yesteryear tech. Control blade IRS’s are a well-developed, well-understood, effective and economical IRS design for Ford, so seeing some variant of that appear on the NextStang would be less than surprising. I do recall some posting activity a year or two ago about Ford boosting their North American CB production facilities for, well, what…? There aren’t a whole lot of RWD platforms in Ford’s future pipeline beyond the Mustang (or possible spinoffs, ahem, Lincoln…). As noted though, the spy pics indicate a design that might be, at most, a hybrid between a CB design and a more multi-link one – time will tell.
As for the significant of the mule running around on Fusion wheels? I would say little as the fact Fusion wheels could be bolted to most Ford sporting 5-lug hubs, regardless of whatever platform those hubs are eventually bolted to.
Last edited by rhumb; 12/17/12 at 09:56 AM.
12/17/12, 04:14 PM
#54
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12/17/12, 05:22 PM
#55
Team Mustang Source
I actually agree with rhumb. I believe it is a heavily modified s197 chassis. A bit of history for those who don't remeber the SN95 used the Fox4 chassis, which was a heavily modified Fox chassis. Only a few stamping from the Floor were not changed. the S197 was the same way only a few floor stampings remained from the original DEW98 chassis. While I would like to see a whole new chassis, I don't believe we will see it in this generation and do we really need one? This chassis even with the, as it has been called, Conestoga axle, still handles as good as some of the premier German cars. A exceletly exicuted IRS can only improve the handeling even more.
12/17/12, 06:07 PM
#56
A Man Just Needs Some....
I actually agree with rhumb. I believe it is a heavily modified s197 chassis. A bit of history for those who don't remeber the SN95 used the Fox4 chassis, which was a heavily modified Fox chassis. Only a few stamping from the Floor were not changed. the S197 was the same way only a few floor stampings remained from the original DEW98 chassis. While I would like to see a whole new chassis, I don't believe we will see it in this generation and do we really need one? This chassis even with the, as it has been called, Conestoga axle, still handles as good as some of the premier German cars. A exceletly exicuted IRS can only improve the handeling even more.
12/17/12, 06:39 PM
#57
Cobra R Member
I suspect one possibility is that the s550 is a "heavily" evolved version of the S197 given that the S550 mules can use the existing S197 structure so readily. So perhaps the front (and rear) sections might be essentially all new to accommodate the new design while the more core structure, firewall and floor plan are closer to the current version. The front frame rails are clearly different than the current model, being more tapered in towards the prow, but tellingly, they seem to be readily bolted/wleded up to the current plaform/firewall. The gas cap protuberance is probably more reflective of different sheet metal of the final design that's a bit more filled out in the haunches than the current styling.
The latter, in concert with thePill's discussions might be interesting for the resident "knuckle draggers" (lovingly said) who so bemoan the passing of their Conestoga axle in that the chassis might well be able to readily accommodate a lively axle for those who want to indulge some yesteryear tech. Control blade IRS's are a well-developed, well-understood, effective and economical IRS design for Ford, so seeing some variant of that appear on the NextStang would be less than surprising. I do recall some posting activity a year or two ago about Ford boosting their North American CB production facilities for, well, what...? There aren't a whole lot of RWD platforms in Ford's future pipeline beyond the Mustang (or possible spinoffs, ahem, Lincoln...). As noted though, the spy pics indicate a design that might be, at most, a hybrid between a CB design and a more multi-link one - time will tell.
As for the significant of the mule running around on Fusion wheels? I would say little as the fact Fusion wheels could be bolted to most Ford sporting 5-lug hubs, regardless of whatever platform those hubs are eventually bolted to.
The latter, in concert with thePill's discussions might be interesting for the resident "knuckle draggers" (lovingly said) who so bemoan the passing of their Conestoga axle in that the chassis might well be able to readily accommodate a lively axle for those who want to indulge some yesteryear tech. Control blade IRS's are a well-developed, well-understood, effective and economical IRS design for Ford, so seeing some variant of that appear on the NextStang would be less than surprising. I do recall some posting activity a year or two ago about Ford boosting their North American CB production facilities for, well, what...? There aren't a whole lot of RWD platforms in Ford's future pipeline beyond the Mustang (or possible spinoffs, ahem, Lincoln...). As noted though, the spy pics indicate a design that might be, at most, a hybrid between a CB design and a more multi-link one - time will tell.
As for the significant of the mule running around on Fusion wheels? I would say little as the fact Fusion wheels could be bolted to most Ford sporting 5-lug hubs, regardless of whatever platform those hubs are eventually bolted to.
12/17/12, 07:44 PM
#58
Legacy TMS Member
If the next gen car is a much modified version of the current chassis, I have no problem with it if it meets safety goals and gets excellent crash ratings and while anything is possible, I'd rather see a bespoke rear suspension rather than a one size fits all.
We know Ford is going with IRS, I'd rather it be the best **** IRS they can shove under there rather than hobble it so that they can fit an IRS or SRA.
That said, if Ford could make a best **** IRS or SRA plug in that would be cool but I dont think the added complexity is worth the effort, better to go in one direction and optimize for that.
We know Ford is going with IRS, I'd rather it be the best **** IRS they can shove under there rather than hobble it so that they can fit an IRS or SRA.
That said, if Ford could make a best **** IRS or SRA plug in that would be cool but I dont think the added complexity is worth the effort, better to go in one direction and optimize for that.
12/17/12, 08:44 PM
#59
I Have No Life
Anyone can bring the Fox platform into the argument, however myself and others would agree...that was SO LONG in the tooth, while it DID serve its purpose, it should never have gone on that long.
While I agree the current platform is pretty **** awesome, by the time the new car is shown, it'll have been at least 10 years old. You really want to bring that into the next 10 years? Its not like it will be a platform change within that timeframe. You'll get looks, but the underpinnings will be around for at least the next model and possible the one after that.
The car can't just be 'good enough'.
You KNOW the next Camaro is going to address any platform issues it had with its current platform. It was a placeholder until a more appropriate platform was available.
Just sayin'
While I agree the current platform is pretty **** awesome, by the time the new car is shown, it'll have been at least 10 years old. You really want to bring that into the next 10 years? Its not like it will be a platform change within that timeframe. You'll get looks, but the underpinnings will be around for at least the next model and possible the one after that.
The car can't just be 'good enough'.
You KNOW the next Camaro is going to address any platform issues it had with its current platform. It was a placeholder until a more appropriate platform was available.
Just sayin'
12/18/12, 11:03 AM
#60
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My concern with using some Nth degree modified version of the current chassis is that it will likely lock in the 2015 to being roughly the same size as the current version -- I'd prefer a bit of a trim in overall size, even if the current Stang ain't the Super Sized Big Gulp that, say, the Challenger is -- and perhaps only a modest weight reduction. Also, if they keep the current firewall/cowl, you're also then commited to a rather high beltline and by extension, overall height -- I wouldn't mind an inch or two trimmed from here too, though again, the current car isn't nearly the rolling gun bunker that the Camaro is -- I just like low belt and hoodlines for the expansive views of the road they allow.
However, a LOT of conjecture here as we really don't know how much of the current platform might be retained -- 75%, 50%, 25% -- if even at all -- it can be pretty amazing how thay can drape an existing body over even a totally new chassis. That said though, it still does seem to imply a 2015 of roughly similar scale to the current one.
As for its implications for the IRS, the S197 was originally designed for an IRS, quite in contrast to the Fox-based SN95, but went buggy axle only at the last hour, so to speak, because of some ill-conceived cost cutting decree by some beancounting suit from corporate. Interesting, this rash "cost cutting" decree ended up adding something like $100/car over the existing IRS due to all the engineering, testing, certification and production difficulties involved with this last minute conversion. Putting in an IRS should be a much easier with a S197-derived platform than was the Herculean but ultimately cobbled effort required for the SN95 Cobra and the end result should be far superior.
However, a LOT of conjecture here as we really don't know how much of the current platform might be retained -- 75%, 50%, 25% -- if even at all -- it can be pretty amazing how thay can drape an existing body over even a totally new chassis. That said though, it still does seem to imply a 2015 of roughly similar scale to the current one.
As for its implications for the IRS, the S197 was originally designed for an IRS, quite in contrast to the Fox-based SN95, but went buggy axle only at the last hour, so to speak, because of some ill-conceived cost cutting decree by some beancounting suit from corporate. Interesting, this rash "cost cutting" decree ended up adding something like $100/car over the existing IRS due to all the engineering, testing, certification and production difficulties involved with this last minute conversion. Putting in an IRS should be a much easier with a S197-derived platform than was the Herculean but ultimately cobbled effort required for the SN95 Cobra and the end result should be far superior.