Next C-Segment "Architecture" - Page 17 - Ford Inside News Community
 109Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #161 of 183 (permalink) Old 06-30-2017, 06:24 PM
Ford Falcon
 
rmc523's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 2,597
Re: Next C-Segment "Architecture"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Assimilator View Post
I still have my doubts about Mustang moving to a multi-product platform considering how specialized it is for both performance, weight, and cost. Revising the current Mustang platform is considerably less expensive than developing something that has to accommodate a huge variety of products and prices. And at what point is Mustang compromised in an effort to scale? GM spent a fortune on Alpha and it's debatable if that was money well spent, but that is the fantasy everybody has for Lincoln. But the reality is that platforms like CD4 are much better suited to refined AWD power and cabin utility. I don't have this RWD fantasy and I don't believe it automatically makes a platform more sophisticated and premium. I don't think Lincoln's needs aren't being met by Ford's ever evolving and improving C/D platform portfolio which will never combine with a Mustang.
I think the rumor stems from the desire to have Mustang not on its own platform, because that's an additional platform that will always need updating.

Current Vehicles:
2009 Ford Flex Limited w/ AWD
Light Ice Blue/White Suede Roof | Med. Lt. Stone Interior | Vista Roof
2018 Ford Mustang GT Convertible
Lightning Blue | Black Top | Black Interior
rmc523 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #162 of 183 (permalink) Old 06-30-2017, 07:48 PM Thread Starter
2b2
Mercury C557
 
2b2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: N NW of Atlantis (Reno)
Posts: 22,734
Blog Entries: 6
Re: Next C-Segment "Architecture"

^re: @rmc523 &
Quote:
Originally Posted by Assimilator View Post
I still have my doubts about Mustang moving to a multi-product platform considering how specialized it is for both performance, weight, and cost...
(besides Fomoco saying (don't have quote/source atmo) that they were DOING-AWAY with platforms in favor of more flexible architecture (singular);
imho platforms don't mean ANYthing
- unless they require different engineering & assemblylines
- *IF* basic procedures (or parts OR engineering) are shared across vehicles
note:
ENGINES have been multi-platform for decades, maybe over a century
but
it took Mr. Mulally to apply that philosophy to somethinglike prop-rods for hoods

imho it's long past time to see how extensive sharing withOUT (excess) Detriment can be

Quote:
Originally Posted by Assimilator View Post
...Revising the current Mustang platform is considerably less expensive than developing something that has to accommodate a huge variety of products and prices. And at what point is Mustang compromised in an effort to scale?...
the whole point NOW-imho is to find the proper gradation(shade of gray as opposed to black-or-white) or uniqueness to lowest-common-denominator, jack-of-all flexibility...
...EITHER EXTREME = FAIL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Assimilator View Post
...GM spent a fortune(S) on Alpha and it's debatable if that was money well spent, but that is the fantasy everybody has for Lincoln. But the reality is that platforms like CD4 are much better suited to refined AWD power and cabin utility. I don't have this RWD fantasy and I don't believe it automatically makes a platform more sophisticated and premium. I don't think Lincoln's needs aren't being met by Ford's ever evolving and improving C/D platform portfolio which will never combine with a Mustang.
GM(Cadillac) got addicted to $10billion-a-shot platforms...like POPCORN-on-Crack

so it's impossible for me to glean much relevance from a comparo to them

tho we don't know IF cD6 is still happening, imho
something LIKE IT is required -- esp with electrification NEEDing to be baked into any new architecture

.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
2b2 is offline  
post #163 of 183 (permalink) Old 06-30-2017, 08:21 PM
Ford Kuga
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,812
Re: Next C-Segment "Architecture"

Ford and Lincoln are so averse to spending money, especially right now, if anything is going to get cut or just shelved, a Mustang/Lincoln exclusive architecture would be the first to go.

As for the open architecture, Toyota and VW are pioneering this approach right now but Ford has been openly skeptical about the significance and benefts relative to their current platform strategy since they already develop entire chassis systems. But I just interpret this to mean that they are more interested in talking about what they are doing now and not later.
ehaase likes this.

Last edited by Assimilator; 06-30-2017 at 08:24 PM.
Assimilator is offline  
 
post #164 of 183 (permalink) Old 06-30-2017, 09:44 PM
FIN Staff Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,893
Re: Next C-Segment "Architecture"

BMW 3 and 4 Series share the same architecture with longer and shorter wheelbase and the M3 and M4 have no performance challenges. So I would think moving Mustang off it's stand alone platform, which has to happen, and on a shared architecture with at least 5 performance vehicles, and 3 higher margin luxury Lincoln models, makes sense. Having a global Mustang remain on its own architecture just seems illogical and inefficient going forward.
2b2 likes this.
Bloggin is offline  
post #165 of 183 (permalink) Old 07-01-2017, 04:07 AM
Ford Falcon
 
AM222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,647
Re: Next C-Segment "Architecture"

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2b2 View Post
GM(Cadillac) got addicted to $10billion-a-shot platforms...like POPCORN-on-Crack
Of course now the GM Alpha platform is shared with the new Camaro.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Assimilator
I don't have this RWD fantasy and I don't believe it automatically makes a platform more sophisticated and premium.
Front engine-RWD platforms allow you to move the engine and front wheels independent of each other to improve weight distribution and handling. This allows the car to be less reliant on electronics to make it handle right.

People associate RWD with premium cars because they were the ones that stuck to this layout while most mainstream cars switch to FWD during the "cost-cutting" 80s.
2b2 likes this.

Last edited by AM222; 07-01-2017 at 04:13 AM.
AM222 is online now  
post #166 of 183 (permalink) Old 07-01-2017, 06:18 AM
Ford Kuga
 
MKII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tallinn Estonia
Posts: 1,674
Re: Next C-Segment "Architecture"

Mustang and the current Fusion/Mondeo share quite a lot of rear end under the skin bits and pieces (Mustang uses the same rear axle concept as the Mondeo/Fusion – Integral Link Rear Suspension), according to what Geert Van Noyen from the FoE dynamics team told me.
2b2 and jpd80 like this.

2012 Ford Mondeo Titanium 2.0 SW Moondust Silver 5spd manual
2014 Ford Kuga Titanium 1.6 EcoBoost AWD Panther Black 6spd Auto
MKII is offline  
post #167 of 183 (permalink) Old 07-01-2017, 06:38 AM
Ford Falcon
 
AM222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,647
Re: Next C-Segment "Architecture"

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKII View Post
Mustang and the current Fusion/Mondeo share quite a lot of rear end under the skin bits and pieces (Mustang uses the same rear axle concept as the Mondeo/Fusion – Integral Link Rear Suspension), according to what Geert Van Noyen from the FoE dynamics team told me.
I read that too.
I believe it's the same suspension-type/layout but modified for Mustang application.
2b2 likes this.
AM222 is online now  
post #168 of 183 (permalink) Old 07-03-2017, 03:19 AM
Focus RS WRC
 
jpd80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 511
Re: Next C-Segment "Architecture"

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmc523 View Post
As I pointed out elsewhere, Ford has been capacity constrained with many vehicles the last few years; I can't see them further reducing capacity.
and what some perceive as capacity constrained is actually capacity controlled.

Currently Ford has no capacity constrained vehicles, it actually has surprising amounts of inventory.
June 1 2017 Inventory
C-Max.....................4,800
Fiesta.....................14,200
Focus.....................37,400
Fusion....................55,400
Taurus....................12,100
Mustang.................28,600
E-Series Van............7,500
Edge.......................36,000
Escape....................50,200
Explorer..................17,200
Expedition..............57,100
F Series.................271,000
Flex...........................3,900
Transit.....................33,200
Transit Connect.......13,900

FYI, In May,
LAP produced 32,480 Escapes and 4,687 MKC
KTP produced 30,464 SD, 6,672 Expedition and 1,774 Navigators
CAP produced 28,818 Explorers and 5,281 Taurus.
Dearborn - 35,940 F150,
KCAP (T) - 32,207 F150

I think you'll find that Ford has steadily increased production at most plants that needed it
and reduced production at its car plants in response to slowing sales.

When Ford had the third shift at Flat Rock, it was easily building more than 13,000 Fusions
as well as more than 15,000 Mustangs and while moving Fusion and MKZ there wouldn't work
at present, can we be so sure that in say two years time, those fusion sales don't erode to a point
where consolidation becomes a real consideration....
Logans Run likes this.

Last edited by jpd80; 07-03-2017 at 03:36 AM.
jpd80 is offline  
post #169 of 183 (permalink) Old 07-03-2017, 03:40 AM
Focus RS WRC
 
jpd80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 511
Re: Next C-Segment "Architecture"

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKII View Post
Mustang and the current Fusion/Mondeo share quite a lot of rear end under the skin bits and pieces (Mustang uses the same rear axle concept as the Mondeo/Fusion – Integral Link Rear Suspension), according to what Geert Van Noyen from the FoE dynamics team told me.
Fusion's virtual link IRS is the new corporate IRS shared by CD4 Taurus, Continental and Mustang.
jpd80 is offline  
post #170 of 183 (permalink) Old 07-03-2017, 09:25 AM
Ford Flex
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,270
Re: Next C-Segment "Architecture"

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpd80 View Post
and what some perceive as capacity constrained is actually capacity controlled.

Currently Ford has no capacity constrained vehicles, it actually has surprising amounts of inventory.


June 1 2017 Inventory
Explorer..................17,200



FYI, In May,
CAP produced 28,818 Explorers and 5,281 Taurus.


....
I am surprised the inventory for Explorer is so low. How many do they send to Canada and other countries?

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
Sherlock Holmes
Logans Run is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Inside News Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome