Ford will bounce back: Graziano - Page 5

naddis01 · 18-03-2011, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

It does have an Explorer look to it. But it would really have to have that off road stylised look to it.

How are things over on FAF? PaulST still a dick?

44 posts in a touch over 24 hours. Not a bad effort. Going for a record?

jpd80 · 18-03-2011, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paxton

Can't do it in Australia John. There isn't much point when the Ranger is made in Thailand anyway.

Next choice would be to have both on the show room and give Prado some competition.
Toyota have shown that Prado and Kluger combo can work, Ford should follow suit.

phillyc · 18-03-2011, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

Next choice would be to have both on the show room and give Prado some competition. Toyota have shown that Prado and Kluger combo can work, Ford should follow suit.

Yeah, i want both Territory and T6 SUV (Mountaineer?) to be sold alongside each other.

Buntz · 19-03-2011, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naddis01

44 posts in a touch over 24 hours. Not a bad effort. Going for a record?

Nah... just passionate.

Buntz · 19-03-2011, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

Next choice would be to have both on the show room and give Prado some competition.
Toyota have shown that Prado and Kluger combo can work, Ford should follow suit.

We don't need to build it here. But when if it arrives we will be spoilt for choice. The all new Global escape shouldn't be long off. Mullaly just announced it's plan at Louisville, Kentucky.

barra265t · 19-03-2011, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gobes32

The same powers that be that could not develop an IRS for the mustang due to budgeting, etc, yet Ford Oz designed the "Control Blade" with left over change from their lunch orders?

hmm.. left over change from their lunch orders.. is thats why the Control Blade chews up diff bushes and diff mounts

jpd80 · 19-03-2011, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gobes32

The same powers that be that could not develop an IRS for the mustang due to budgeting, etc, yet Ford Oz designed the "Control Blade" with left over change from their lunch orders?

That is incorrect, i know an engineer who was on the S197 project, he tells me that the team looked at Falcon as well as redoing Fox platform but the tear up required to Mustang's unique rear quarter made a new design a far better plan.

The CB IRS was done for the Mustangs but the Project chief Phil martens ordered a tear up and redo of the rear end to save a trifling amount, one senior engineer was so upset he resigned.

A last ditch attempt was made between FNA and FoA to develop a common CB IRS but time ran out for
lock in on both Mustang and the Territory - the main sticking point for FoA. These guys know what's needed
and I'm sure a solution is there now which makes me feel more confident about a Mustang-Falcon Siamese project.

Buntz · 19-03-2011, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

A last ditch attempt was made between FNA and FoA to develop a common CB IRS but time ran out for
lock in on both Mustang and the Territory - the main sticking point for FoA. These guys know what's needed
and I'm sure a solution is there now which makes me feel more confident about a Mustang-Falcon Siamese project.

Mullaly's a clever chap. I'll give him that. Most likely he's pointed out two different RWD platforms on the world map and said: "What's going on with these two? How can we consolidate them?"

jpd80 · 19-03-2011, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

Mullaly's a clever chap. I'll give him that. Most likely he's pointed out two different RWD platforms on the world map and said: "What's going on with these two? How can we consolidate them?"

The different platforms are not the problem, lack of shared high cost parts is.

Power train, electrical systems, suspension modules are the most important
parts while stuff like frames, trim and glass can all be derivative based.

So Falcon and Mustang could remain two separate projects but still share
the expensive stuff and still be far more cost effective than they are today.

Traditionally Falcon and Mustang have always been separate platforms
because of the totally different layout of body/floorpan/cabin set back,
using the same frame like Zeta seriously increases weight in the coupe.
That is why I hope they remain separate but siamesed projects.

Buntz · 19-03-2011, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

The different platforms are not the problem, lack of shared high cost parts is.

Power train, electrical systems, suspension modules are the most important
parts while stuff like frames, trim and glass can all be derivative based.

So Falcon and Mustang could remain two separate projects but still share
the expensive stuff and still be far more cost effective than they are today.

Traditionally Falcon and Mustang have always been separate platforms
because of the totally different layout of body/floorpan/cabin set back,
using the same frame like Zeta seriously increases weight in the coupe.
That is why I hope they remain separate but siamesed projects.

Most of the high costs parts are the platform itself. FoA need to rely on and use local parts... like suspension, and electrical systems parts.

It's not just about parts though. Ford has tonnes of parts and patents. The real thing is the R&D. And if Ford can be bothered to share it with Falcon... or contradict 'One Ford' and make Mustang all on it's lonesome.

The seriously growing IRS talk says to me that the two will share R&D.

**Fordman1** · 19-03-2011, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

FoA need to rely on and use local parts... like suspension, and electrical systems parts.

You mean the import parts ?

Buntz · 20-03-2011, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

You mean the import parts ?

I thought those things were locally sourced

jpd80 · 20-03-2011, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

Most of the high costs parts are the platform itself. FoA need to rely on and use local parts... like suspension, and electrical systems parts.

It's not just about parts though. Ford has tonnes of parts and patents. The real thing is the R&D. And if Ford can be bothered to share it with Falcon... or contradict 'One Ford' and make Mustang all on it's lonesome.

The seriously growing IRS talk says to me that the two will share R&D.

The biggest savings in a platform come at supplier level, not from the production floor.

High back end costs come from Power train, electrical system suspension modules in that order, folding metal and trim are relatively cheap by comparison and remain with the derivative due to the uniqueness of sedan versus Mustang coupe body. Nothing in the two top hats can really be shared and the floor pan has to be different to accommodate the different body set back.

Ford have watched Zeta and seen the total stuff up that is the heavy Camaro and have decided
that Mustang will not suffer the same fate, therefore no platform sharing with Falcon, I suspect the
two will remain distant cousins but will be sharing a lot of parts.

Even though they share around 40% of parts, Territory is on a different platform to Falcon and the
reason for that is to keep the uniqueness of each version, share any more than about 40%
and the individual models start to lose individuality and become more like clones...

Buntz · 20-03-2011, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

High back end costs come from Power train, electrical system suspension modules in that order, folding metal and trim are relatively cheap by comparison and remain with the derivative due to the uniqueness of sedan versus Mustang coupe body. Nothing in the two top hats can really be shared and the floor pan has to be different to accommodate the different body set back.

Ford have watched Zeta and seen the total stuff up that is the heavy Camaro and have decided
that Mustang will not suffer the same fate, therefor no platform sahring with Falcon, I suspect the
two will remain distant cousins sharing a lot of parts.

Well I wouldn't expect them to share a floor pan. But Maybe there is a middle ground in their redesign?

As for Camaro. Well that only proves to me that GM suck. Ford have always outsmarted them.

jpd80 · 20-03-2011, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

Well I wouldn't expect them to share a floor pan. But Maybe there is a middle ground in their redesign?
.

Floor pan is different, top hat is different due to position of A, B C Pillars and
roof line and position of firewall, seats are set between the rear wheel wells
where as Falcon seat sits forward of the rear wheel wells.

The difference go on and on.....

Buntz · 20-03-2011, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

Floor pan is different, top hat is different due to position of A, B C Pillars and
roof line and position of firewall, seats are set between the rear wheel wells
where as Falcon seat sits forward of the rear wheel wells.

The difference go on and on.....

So what could be shared around a shape of a vehicle? Power and some drive train parts? Front and rear suspension? (providing the support shape is the similar)

Mustang was birthed from Falcon. That was a long time ago... but Mustang is getting a redesign, Falcon will be too. Surely they could reach similar compromises to share as much as possible, which could at the least be underpinnings?

jpd80 · 20-03-2011, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

So what could be shared around a shape of a vehicle? Power and some drive train parts? Front and rear suspension? (providing the support shape is the similar)

Basically, that's all.

Quote:

Mustang was birthed from Falcon. That was a long time ago... but Mustang is getting a redesign, Falcon will be too. Surely they could reach similar compromises to share as much as possible, which could at the least be underpinnings?

Actually, the first Mustang had Compact Fairlane suspension that was much
stronger than existing falcon and inspired the US '64 Falcon as Mustang bred.
They did share a few parts but were different platforms.

Buntz · 20-03-2011, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

Actually, the first Mustang had Compact Fairlane suspension that was much
stronger than existing falcon and inspired the US '64 Falcon as Mustang bred.
They did share a few parts but were different platforms.

Of which in it's Fourth generation wasn't dissimilar to the Falcon. Ford were basically making three cars the same parts. Although the yes, the fairlane came with stronger suspension. But both the Falcon and Fairlane were unibody with massive parts sharing.

It's time to go back to the future.

jpd80 · 20-03-2011, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

Of which in it's Fourth generation wasn't dissimilar to the Falcon. Ford were basically making three cars the same parts. Although the yes, the fairlane came with stronger suspension. But both the Falcon and Fairlane were unibody with massive parts sharing.

No they were not, by the time FoA was on 4th gen Falcon / Fairlane,
'74 -'79 Mustang had been on lighter Mavrick/Pinto platform and then
moved to Fox platform and basically shared nothing with FoA.

Buntz · 20-03-2011, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

No they were not, by the time FoA was on 4th gen Falcon / Fairlane,
'74 -'79 Mustang had been on lighter Mavrick/Pinto platform and then
moved to Fox platform and basically shared nothing with FoA.

I'm talking American Fairlane. 4th Gen was from 62 - 65.

jpd80 · 20-03-2011, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

I'm talking American Fairlane. 4th Gen was from 62 - 65.

OK, yes they shared a lot of parts but they were never the same platform.
I remember reading an article where the designers and engineers of one platform were right next to other work being done on other projects, there was a lot of "networking" - I think this is what "One Ford" is really all about, getting bang for engineering bucks.

Buntz · 20-03-2011, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

OK, yes they shared a lot of parts but they were never the same platform.
I remember reading an article where the designers and engineers of one platform were right next to other work being done on other projects, there was a lot of "networking" - I think this is what "One Ford" is really all about, getting bang for engineering bucks.

Yes it is. They're problem with Falcon is "Why the hell do me make a 6 and 8 cyl RWD car there, and make one that's completely different here, when we can consolidate as much as we can and save some cash?"

The more I think about 'One Ford', and what has been said by exec's. The more I think Ford will be bring the two together. BTW FoA has submitted their design inputs for the next Mustang.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20040147-48.html

^^. This is why I tired to ask Paul if I could come back... because this still hasn't been posted up there. I leave it you jpd80.

jpd80 · 20-03-2011, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

Yes it is. They're problem with Falcon is "Why the hell do me make a 6 and 8 cyl RWD car there, and make one that's completely different here, when we can consolidate as much as we can and save some cash?"

The more I think about 'One Ford', and what has been said by exec's. The more I think Ford will be bring the two together. BTW FoA has submitted their design inputs for the next Mustang.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20040147-48.html

^^. This is why I tired to ask Paul if I could come back... because this still hasn't been posted up there. I leave it you jpd80.

Be careful,
1) Global design (styling) is different to global engineering (nuts and bolts).
2) FNA remains responsible for engineering and design but
3) FNA will be receiving "design" input for rest of world markets

It doesn't mean that they will accept an Aussie design or European design at all
but more like working in some global styling cues like kinetic body lines and such.

Does that make sense?

**Elks** · 20-03-2011, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gobes32

The same powers that be that could not develop an IRS for the mustang due to budgeting, etc, yet Ford Oz designed the "Control Blade" with left over change from their lunch orders?

Control blade is an adaptation of the J blade used on Mondeo and X-type Jag.

It was used in place of the superior but existing double wishbone IRS used in the AU, simply because it was cheaper to manufacture.

Yes the accountants beat the engineers again. But the marketers gave it a groovy name.

Go global but strive for excellence, the volumes will bring the cost down.

my 2c

Buntz · 21-03-2011, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

Be careful,
1) Global design (styling) is different to global engineering (nuts and bolts).
2) FNA remains responsible for engineering and design but
3) FNA will be receiving "design" input for rest of world markets

It doesn't mean that they will accept an Aussie design or European design at all
but more like working in some global styling cues like kinetic body lines and such.

Does that make sense?

Yes. I thought it was a bit of both. If only...

Dr Smith · 21-03-2011, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elks

Control blade is an adaptation of the J blade used on Mondeo and X-type Jag.

It was used in place of the superior but existing double wishbone IRS used in the AU, simply because it was cheaper to manufacture.

Yes the accountants beat the engineers again. But the marketers gave it a groovy name.

Go global but strive for excellence, the volumes will bring the cost down.

my 2c

I thought is was an adaptation off the Focus with the clever heads in Campbellfield putting it into a RWD application.

Paxton · 21-03-2011, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Smith

I thought is was an adaptation off the Focus with the clever heads in Campbellfield putting it into a RWD application.

That was my take as well.

That being said, both the Mondeo and X-Type are FWD cars as well, however I didn't think the Mondeo had IRS at that stage. I could be wrong.

Buntz · 21-03-2011, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Smith

I thought is was an adaptation off the Focus with the clever heads in Campbellfield putting it into a RWD application.

AU never got double wishbone IRS.... (did it?)

Bossxr8 · 21-03-2011, 02:52 PM

Yes it did, standard on T Series, XR8, XR6 VCT and Ghia. Optional on all other sedans except XR6 HP, which became the VCT version if you wanted IRS.

Ford also went with Control Blade because it was 20kg lighter than the double wishbone setup of AU, as well as cheaper to make.

Buntz · 21-03-2011, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Yes it did, standard on T Series, XR8, XR6 VCT and Ghia. Optional on all other sedans except XR6 HP, which became the VCT version if you wanted IRS.

Ford also went with Control Blade because it was 20kg lighter than the double wishbone setup of AU, as well as cheaper to make.

Well you have to admire a large four door saloon at 1710Kgs.