Camoed SZ Territory in USA mistaken for compact Lincoln CUV

[FPV GTHO]

A few years ago, I read that Falcon/Territory wouldn't cut it stateside on NVH standards. Something about having the suspension au frames directly mounted to the frame as opposed to further bushing.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Dr Smith

Lol, fair enough although when a "Boss asks" it could be more then "could you please add it to your model range". In fact iirc he made it a requirement of all international divisions. Sadly, 4 a day is linked to demand or is there more to it?

Valencia and Bridgend are carrying the USA until their Ecoboost plants get up and rolling.
Not sure if that's a factor in Ecoboost supply but maybe buyers still love the gutsy big six..

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

A few years ago, I read that Falcon/Territory wouldn't cut it stateside on NVH standards. Something about having the suspension au frames directly mounted to the frame as opposed to further bushing.

That might have been the case with body-on-frame tanks like the Crown Victoria, but all of the passenger cars in Ford and Lincoln's line up are now unitary body construction with the suspension and driveline modules attached directly to the body. Like most modern cars...

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

A few years ago, I read that Falcon/Territory wouldn't cut it stateside on NVH standards. Something about having the suspension au frames directly mounted to the frame as opposed to further bushing.

I thought it had something to do with the position of the fuel tank, with relation to the axle?? Or something like that?

[Rockape]

Yeah must be infront of the rear wheels i think.

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

I thought it had something to do with the position of the fuel tank, with relation to the axle?? Or something like that?

Been infront of the rear wheels for a decade now though. But it historically was an issue too. I heard this maybe 2008.

[Road_Warrior]

FYI, the fuel tank issue comes from an internal Ford design policy, not US legislation. Although the issue Ford had with a few high profile cases of Crown Victoria Police Interceptors becoming death traps after a hard rear impact rupturing the fuel tank and catching fire (which was under the boot floor) was no doubt a driving force behind this change. A good change that was probably long overdue.

[FPV GTHO]

So what was the deal with the Monaro having its tank relocated?

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

So what was the deal with the Monaro having its tank relocated?

No idea, I don't follow GM's design requirements.

But the Monaro also came well after Ford's hard learned lesson with the CVPI so there may have been industry-wide changes put into effect as a result. FYI, the NHTSA reference to the legislation at the time of the CVPI issue is thus:

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 301, Fuel System Integrity:

FMVSS 301 is intended to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires that result in fuel spillage during and after a motor vehicle crash.� With regard to rear-impact crashes, FMVSS 301 requires that a stationary vehicle withstand an impact with a flat, 1,814 kg barrier moving at 48 km/h (30 mph) and not leak fuel in excess of 28g from impact until motion of the vehicle has ceased. Additionally, the vehicle shall not leak fuel in excess of 142g in the 5-minute period following cessation of motion.

Ford has established Safety Design Guidelines under which the company designs its vehicles not only to meet or exceed all applicable laws and regulations, but also to advance the state-of-the-art where practicable (see Ford Letter dated 2-1-84).� Ford conducts fuel system integrity testing of its pre-production models at greater energy levels and under more severe conditions than that required by FMVSS 301.� For example, Ford conducts rear impact testing with a moving barrier of similar mass and geometry as specified in FMVSS 301; however, Ford increases the impact speed to 56.4km/h (35 mph) representing a 16.6% speed increase or, more importantly, a 36.1% increase in energy at impact.� Ford also conducts vehicle-to-vehicle rear impact testing at 80.6 km/h (50 mph) where the bullet vehicle (typically a Taurus) strikes the target vehicle at what Ford believes is the most severe point of impact (i.e., 50% offset towards the fuel filler side of the vehicle).�

Ford indicated in its response to ODI that the subject vehicles not only meet but exceed the requirements of FMVSS 301.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/s...Vic/Index.html

[Buntz]

Originally Posted by jpd80

There's something that the Territory does extremely well, space utilization - the same length as Edge
but with the internal space of an Explorer while the weight is somewhere in between the two.
That's why Territory is the perfect fit for Australia, it almost covers two Ford US vehicles.

Which is why FoA has been given all the fruit for it's design department. Our local egg heads are damn clever.

Originally Posted by aquahead2001

The only problem with a Territory going stateside in its current life is just that. It's a vehicle that was developed 10 years ago, has had the absolute minimum spent on it over the past 10 years and has about 4 years of life left.

Don't get me wrong though, the Territory is one of the best handling (if not the best) SUV's on the planet. When it was developed Ford benchmarked the then current BMW X5 and as result, developed the "Virtual Pivot" front end. BMW was so impressed in the Territory, they benchmarked it for the next generation of X5 and ended up using a version of the Virtual Pivot front end as well.

Seeing the Territory is in a completely different price bracket and was developed on a shoe string, that's some achievement.

Maybe Ford are using it as benchmaking exercise themselves?

I didn't know BMW did that. That's very interesting. Do you have a link?