|
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
08-02-2014, 10:54 PM | #23 | |||
Pity the fool
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wait Awhile
Posts: 8,997
|
Quote:
Passenger cars don't need this, because they're not lugging a tonne of bricks around in the tray or whatever, so monocoque is the way to go. Not only is a monocoque chassis lighter and cheaper to make, it can be designed to be just as flexible and almost as tough as a BOF platform. Not only do they not need the weight and toughness factor, they also have to comply with rigid safety standards that commercial vehicles do not. Look at the Falcon for example. Here is a RWD, front engine platform that supports 4 different engine types, plus an AWD SUV. Holden's Zeta platform is another. Supports 2 engines, a LWB, SWB and sort of supports a coupe. A monocoque platform can be scaled just as you describe with the BOF system, but the product doesnt have to pay a weight penalty or need extra plant at the manufacturing end to build it (read: more dudes on the line or more expensive automation). You can continually evolve the expensive bits like suspension units and engines and leave the rest pretty much static, or whack on a new top hat if you want fresh sheetmetal - sort of what Ford did from BF to FG, just with a lot more work in some areas and less where they should have.
__________________
Fords I own or have owned: 1970 XW Falcon GT replica | 1970 XW Falcon | 1971 XY Fairmont | 1973 ZG Fairlane | 1986 XF Falcon panel van | 1987 XFII Falcon S-Pack | 1988 XF Falcon GLS ute | 1993 EBII Fairmont V8 | 1996 XG Falcon ute | 2000 AU Falcon wagon | 2004 BA Falcon XT | 2012 SZ Territory Titanium AWD Proud to buy Australian and support Ford Australia through thick and thin |
|||
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|