Hypothetical-would Ford be in better position if it had FG wagon instead of Territory

[R-Design]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

From Detroit's point of view, they are humming along very nicely indeed. Detroit's point of view is the only one of any relevance in the big picture..."

You've probably nailed it there, to remain relevant you've to to be seen as indispensable to an organisation. Falcon or Territory don't fit that mould, I saw a left hand drive Explorer on the road the other day, I guess that's our future locked away right there. I do believe things could have been different with different local management but I guess hindsight is a powerful thing.

[FPV GTHO]

If every LHD seen coming out Ford was an indication of the future we'd have the full lineup here.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by R-Design

I think Ford got it right with the Territory, they've just failed to keep up with spending to keep it fresh relative to the competition. The latest facelift should have been a completely new model but that ships sailed.

As for Falcon, it needed to move with the times. If it'd changed from a sedan to hatch configuration you would have had the best of both worlds, a car with a sporty silhouette and perceived practicality. Look at the Mondeo, do they even sell the sedan here, or was it so unpopular that it was dropped from the range?

I agree with both points you make,

I can see why they dropped the wagon, apart from sales it would have required a additional new chassis design when they moved to the FG.

Now putting a hatch on to the existing FG would be minimal in cost in comparison.

for people wanting more load space by the ute with a cannopy

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

I agree with both points you make,

I can see why they dropped the wagon, apart from sales it would have required a additional new chassis design when they moved to the FG

Nah, it would have required a revised body, that's it.
Pretty sure it’s actually easier to build a wagon than a hatch back? Certainly no harder.

NB: I don’t think anybody is actually supporting the proposition of the OP, we’re saying Ford should have BOTH.
By it’s own admission, Ford got it wrong. They believed that ALL wagon buyers would move to the Terri, that did NOT happen.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

Nah, it would have required a revised body, that's it.
Pretty sure it’s actually easier to build a wagon than a hatch back? Certainly no harder.

NB: I don’t think anybody is actually supporting the proposition of the OP, we’re saying Ford should have BOTH.
By it’s own admission, Ford got it wrong. They believed that ALL wagon buyers would move to the Terri, that did NOT happen.

Didnt Wagon have a longer wheelbase than regular Falcon,
if im wrong the longer overhang would still require a different chassis anyway

[Polyal]

Yes, wagon was LWB/fairlane chassis; hence its demise as the numbers were not big enough to cover future investment.

[FPV GTHO]

I reckon the wagon probably shared more with the ute than it ever did with the Fairlane, at least since XE when the sedans wheat coil sprung and the wagon/ute retained leaf springs. I'm not even convinced the AU wagon was significantly updated over the EL wagon in the rear bodywork, the silhouette is near identical and by that time the ute, wagon and Fairlane almost had as many differences as similarities.

[Polyal]

Cosmetics was a mjor issue as well, a huge cost, hence BF3 being what most people would percieve to be an AU1 wagon with a touch up! Fairlane suffered the same fate really, not enough sales to make it look newer.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

Didnt Wagon have a longer wheelbase than regular Falcon,
if im wrong the longer overhang would still require a different chassis anyway

WHY would they need to build an FG wagon on a different platform or wheel base? The FG is longer anyway.
And who wants a "longer overhang"? We're talking about a wagon variant of the FG.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

WHY would they need to build an FG wagon on a different platform or wheel base? The FG is longer anyway.
And who wants a "longer overhang"? We're talking about a wagon variant of the FG.

All (falcon) wagons have been based on the LWB version of the falcon platform...

This allows for more room, simples.

Hence no FG wagon, because it would have blown the FG development to near (or over) the 1 billion mark. If Ford had of done this, the money would have been a large waste...given that LWB development is shared with the Fairlane as well...another model that was lacking in numbers and was trimmed.

Remember, the wagon wouldn't just add sales, it would draw sales away from both the Territory and Falcon...in the end you would have had 3 models with roughly the same sales as we have now...and that causes money problems...

Notice how there is no Crewmen, Monaro, or 1 tonne commodore? And the sports wagon doesn't meet the space requirements for some fleets...

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

WHY would they need to build an FG wagon on a different platform or wheel base? The FG is longer anyway.
And who wants a "longer overhang"? We're talking about a wagon variant of the FG.

Longer that what?? The Falcon wagon was always built on the LWB variant of the Falcon's platform and used the rear pressings from the ute

[SumoDog68]

Discussion shows there are many niches even within wagon buyers - some want sporty euro sports wagon in the same mould as commodore sports wagon and some would like a load lugger like old Falcon wagon was.
Not sure if local Ford can explore those niches and how much of that is due to parent company restrictions on what can be developed and produced locally.
Holden came up with Monaro ,Sportswagon - it seems to have more flexibility allowed by a parent company.

[SJG351]

I don't see it? as far as i can tell the customer that buys Territory class cars does not consider Station Wagons But honestly the price transition from wagon to terri has become more affordable so, exit the wagon!

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by SJG351

I don't see it? as far as i can tell the customer that buys Territory class cars does not consider Station Wagons But honestly the price transition from wagon to terri has become more affordable so, exit the wagon!

Well we went from a wagon to a Territory, so I can speak from experience of owning both, the Territory makes much more sense as a "whole package". When we were looking at a new car we didn't consider station wagons at all.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

WHY would they need to build an FG wagon on a different platform or wheel base? The FG is longer anyway.
And who wants a "longer overhang"? We're talking about a wagon variant of the FG.

Do you understand now?? or should I explain
if it’s no longer LWB and longer overhand then it’s not the wagon anymore.
Same wheelbase and overhang with a rear door (with pivot point closed to where Falcons existing roofline ends is going to be a hatch.


If you look at the pivot point of Holden’s sports wagon it pretty much behaves as a hatch.
Albeit a big one
This enables the door to be opened in minimal space, which was one of their chief selling points

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Notice how there is no Crewmen, Monaro, or 1 tonne commodore? And the sports wagon doesn't meet the space requirements for some fleets...

I dont know for sure, but im picking sports wagon has same wheelbase and Chassis as Commodore??

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by Nikked

All (falcon) wagons have been based on the LWB version of the falcon platform...

and? Whats’ your point? All previous wagons had leaf sprint suspensions, do you think that means they can’t build one without it?

Originally Posted by Nikked

This allows for more room, simples.

Nope, historically Flacon wagons were built on the longer wheel base to enable the back seat to fold down flat. Now days most cars acahive that by first flipping the squab forward.

Originally Posted by Nikked

Hence no FG wagon, because it would have blown the FG development to near (or over) the 1 billion mark. If Ford had of done this, the money would have been a large waste

Why? Because YOU think they should have built it the same way they did 30 years ago?

Originally Posted by Nikked

Remember, the wagon wouldn't just add sales, it would draw sales away from both the Territory and Falcon...in the end you would have had 3 models with roughly the same sales as we have now...and that causes money problems...

Right, well problem solved then. We just get rid of the Territory, G6, XR6, Mondeos, and Focus; everybody will by XT Falcons and everything will be sweet.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

Do you understand now?? or should I explain
if it’s no longer LWB and longer overhand then it’s not the wagon anymore.

So all those other wagons in the world, they’re not really wagons? Well FMD.
My son is going to be devastated to learn that his Nissan Patrol is really a hatchback.

So if we took an FG Falcon, and put a WAGON back on it, that would be what exactly?

And who the heck said anything about pivoting the back door near the end of the sedan roofline???

Let me briefly explain HOW you make a wagon.
The roof is extended all the way to back, as is the windowline, the sides are filled with glass windows, and a vertical door is fitted at the back. Then tidy it up so it doesn’t look completely butt ugly. In the recent past Ford have gone with a slightly raised roofline, although the current fashion seems to be to drop it ever so slightly towards the rear.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

The roof is extended all the way to back, as is the windowline, the sides are filled with glass windows, and a vertical door is fitted at the back. Then tidy it up so it doesn’t look completely butt ugly. In the recent past Ford have gone with a slightly raised roofline, although the current fashion seems to be to drop it ever so slightly towards the rear.

Obviously, you know more about cars then FoMoCo!

Obviously the market analysts and product research departments, (that have access to pages of sales data, profit margins, projected costs, projected sales, development costs) and engineers (people who take the pretty pictures and build things out of, who work out where internal structures can be redesigned, where new joins are made, test suspension function etc) have got it all wrong!


Can you please tell us how to build a V10 coupe as well?

[JG34JA]

Originally Posted by Nikked

All (falcon) wagons have been based on the LWB version of the falcon platform...

Nope. The XK, XL, XM, XP, XR, XT, XW, XY wagons were built on the sedan wheelbase. It was only with the XA that the Fairlane wheelbase began to be used. Those former wagons, XR-Y on especially, were reviewed as having most usable space among their competitors, too.

This is why it IS totally possible to have a spacious wagon based off the sedan wheelbase... like a new 'top hat' without so much money in development cost. Oh well.

[JG34JA]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Longer that what?? The Falcon wagon was always built on the LWB variant of the Falcon's platform and used the rear pressings from the ute

No, it wasn't. Also pretty sure it had its own rear pressings, especially since AU utes onward and their separate rear 'tub'. I think even the tailgates were unique?

[JG34JA]

While I am at it, a little history with specifications:

XK Falcon sedan, wagon, utility, panelvan: wheelbase 2781mm/109.5 inches.
Ford US also had a 'ute' with a longer rear overhang, based on the Falcon platform. Ford of Australia developed the ute and panelvan variants here with a shorter rear overhang as they felt the US design would scrape its rear in Australian conditions.

XL Falcon sedan, wagon, utility, panelvan: wheelbase 2781mm/109.5 inches

XM Falcon sedan, wagon, utility, panelvan and hardtop: wheelbase 2781mm/109.5 inches

XP Falcon sedan, wagon, utility, panelvan and hardtop: wheelbase 2781mm/109.5 inches

Notice how they are springing multiple variants off one simple wheelbase?

XR Falcon sedan, wagon, utility, panel van: wheelbase 2819mm/111 inches.
XT Falcon sedan, wagon, utility, panel van: wheelbase 2819mm/111 inches.
XW Falcon sedan, wagon, utility, panel van: wheelbase 2819mm/111 inches.
XY Falcon sedan, wagon, utility, panel van: wheelbase 2819mm/111 inches.
Not sure if XY 4x4 ute got a different wheelbase (by a tiny amount) with the different underside setup.

Shortly after the XR, the ZA Fairlane was introduced, with the idea of producing a smaller locally sourced replacement for the Galaxy with as many Falcon parts as possible. This got a 116 inch wheelbase, but the wagon did not. One way to look for this is to compare the rear doors and dog leg of an XR-Y sedan, wagon, and the Fairlane. You will see a much larger dog leg on the Fairlane.

For XA, Ford put the wagon on the Fairlane wheelbase, and it was that way until the demise of both. It was still 116 inches and that's before the 121 inches of the P4 LTD! Brochures reveal the van (and presumably ute) at 116 inches, so this was shared with the wagon/Fairlane.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

So all those other wagons in the world, they’re not really wagons? Well FMD.
My son is going to be devastated to learn that his Nissan Patrol is really a hatchback.

so you call a patrol a wagon but not a territory?

i'm confused.

also, i can fit more in the boot of my FG sedan than a commodore owner could put in the back of his sportwagon without a cargo barrier. even with one, how often do they get filled that high.

with the increase in popularity of suv's, many families went down that path, as its much much easier to load kids in at that level than to bend down and in to do up seat buckles etc.

apart from a short honeymoon period that nearly all new models enjoy, the sportwagon largely cannibalised sedan sales, so much so that ford started claiming victory over the 6cyl sedan large car sales.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Cosmetics was a mjor issue as well, a huge cost, hence BF3 being what most people would percieve to be an AU1 wagon

Try EA. Cosmetically, there wasn't a lot of difference. Add a leaf-sprung rear end, and its no surprise people thought Ford were trying to sell a car that should have been put out to pasture >10yrs earlier.

In comparison, the Commodore sportswagon was a stroke of genius.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by b0son

Try EA. Cosmetically, there wasn't a lot of difference. Add a leaf-sprung rear end, and its no surprise people thought Ford were trying to sell a car that should have been put out to pasture >10yrs earlier.

In comparison, the Commodore sportswagon was a stroke of genius.

And the moment Spotwagon was introduced, it started canabalizing Commodore sedan sales.
Now, that was either due to former Commodore wagon owners buying sedans as an intirem measure
while Holden developed the new Wagon or the new Sportwagon effectively split existing Commodre sales in two..

Just a thought but had Territory been built on a longer wheelbase like the S/W and slightly more
rear over hang too, several things become possible:
- As a three row SUV, the Territory becomes far more usable
- Increased cargo space with 2nd and 3rd seats down becomes very impressive
- It becomes a genuine Stationwagon replacement in every practical way.
- The overall length of a LWB Territory would become no worse than a CX-9 and much more usable.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

So all those other wagons in the world, they’re not really wagons? Well FMD.
My son is going to be devastated to learn that his Nissan Patrol is really a hatchback. .

FMD where did you get all that from?

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

Let me briefly explain HOW you make a wagon.
The roof is extended all the way to back, as is the windowline, the sides are filled with glass windows, and a vertical door is fitted at the back. Then tidy it up so it doesn’t look completely butt ugly. In the recent past Ford have gone with a slightly raised roofline, although the current fashion seems to be to drop it ever so slightly towards the rear.

I think your still missing the point. The tread was talking about building a wagon much like BA this would require additional pressings and most likely a different rear suspension setup. hence has been deemed by Ford to be impractical

Its irrelevant to the post but if you can design one without changing the current subframe I would love to see your drawings.