Orion/FG/E8 platform could run until 2016?

Road_Warrior · 28-06-2010, 04:03 PM

Latest (last Thursday) comments attributed to Burela about Falcon's future.

http://www.carsguide.com.au/site/new...future_debated

Quote:

THE debate over which wheels will drive the next-generation Falcon is heating up.

As the company celebrates the Falcon's 50th year, Ford Australia president and CEO, Marin Burela, says the existing rear-drive sedan architecture could run until 2016 if necessary.

"The update I can give you is that we're working full steam on the replacement program for the Falcon in terms of defining the vehicle's attributes, the powertrains we need to have, the fuel economy and the content," he says."There is a lot of work taking place right now about this. I'm happy with the progress we're making but like all things, it takes time and it needs to take time to ensure we get the right solution for Australian motorists."

If Ford chooses to push the big six out to 2016, the car's silky 4.0-litre engine would need work to meet Euro 5 emissions standards expected to come into force from 2014. But Burela says the company is in a good position not to be forced into a premature decision about the car or its powertrains.

"We can study that space," he says. "Right now the jury is very much out but there is no question that there are alternatives out there that can satisfy the motoring enthusiast as well as the general car buyer."

One of those alternatives is a locally produced version of the North American Ford Taurus, which has a sophisticated 3.5-litre V6 powering both front and all-wheel drive models.

Like Holden, which spent $1 billion developing the VE Commodore and Statesman, Ford could also go it alone with its own locally designed and engineered car but Burela is coy about any preferences. "We're in such a nice position," he says. "We don't have to have a new Falcon, until we get to about 2016.

"Quite frankly we're ahead of the game in terms of all of the study work we're doing for a replacement.

"We're much further down the track in terms of the study, focus group work and looking at how the Australian automotive landscape is evolving than we have ever been in our history and that's a good place to be."

Burela is confident the next-generation Falcon will remain an intrinsically Australian car. "The real exciting thing for us is that we have one of the few core engineering centres in the Ford word right here," he says.

"We have one of the very few highly integrated and technically capable proving grounds and testing facilities in the world. "Ford has come out publicly and said that Australia will be a major engineering, development and testing centre for new vehicle programs."

Burela says Ford would not have invested invested $230 million on the EcoBoost turbocharged four, the diesel for Territory and the LPI gas engine for Falcon and the ute if it was not confident in the future.

The cost efficiencies and fuel efficiency achieved by the in-line 4.0-litre six remain strong too, he says. "I think we're going to be a formidable competitor as we move forward."

Interesting comments. He's not giving the game away, or even a small part of it, although its interesting to read that they're working flat out on the next-gen platform.

Is there any truth to the rumour that a modular floorpan design has been worked on that would bring the Falcon and Mustang together in one program? That would be the coolest if it was, because that would make a RWD future more certain

RedHotGT · 28-06-2010, 04:10 PM

Its not that big of a stretch to thing that the FG platform will be around till 2016...

Given that the recent platforms have lasted for such a long time...
EA-EL = 10 years
AU-BF = 10 years
FG - ? = Started 2008...

Obviously they would have to make some concessions for the Euro 5 and whatever comes in the future... but surely that will be cheaper than a whole new platform???

Jason[98.EL] · 28-06-2010, 04:30 PM

I like the sound of this coment

Quote:

Burela says Ford would not have invested invested $230 million on the EcoBoost turbocharged four, the diesel for Territory and the LPI gas engine for Falcon and the ute if it was not confident in the future.

I dont think he would say anything like that if he didn't think the falcon would be around for much longer IE after a few more years

Jason

Nikked · 28-06-2010, 04:33 PM

No real surprise...

irlewy86 · 28-06-2010, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loftie

Its not that big of a stretch to thing that the FG platform will be around till 2016...

Given that the recent platforms have lasted for such a long time...
EA-EL = 10 years
AU-BF = 10 years
FG - ? = Started 2008...

Obviously they would have to make some concessions for the Euro 5 and whatever comes in the future... but surely that will be cheaper than a whole new platform???

Mulally demanded that platforms only run for 6 years when he came on as CEO. How that tied into the Orion planning and costing (I believe that Mulally came on in 2006) I dunno. But 8 years seems like a logical half way point to making the E8 pay for its self and bring FoA in line with "One Ford"

Brazen · 28-06-2010, 05:36 PM

I know that the government's Green Car funds are dependent on how much you spend, but how the heck did fitting two existing engines and piggy-backing off Orbital's LPG work cost a quarter of a billion bucks?

Not having a go, but I thought you could almost develop an engine for that much.

vztrt · 28-06-2010, 05:37 PM

Well Marin is saying that local production of Falcon should continue post 2016 and Orion will be complete at 2016.

Australian Falcon production ‘safe’

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...257750001FBFCD

Quote:

Ford boss promises Falcon will continue in local production beyond 2016
28 June 2010
By IAN PORTER
FORD Australia president and CEO Marin Burela says he is confident the company’s Falcon range will continue to be made in Australia after the current seventh-generation car is retired in 2016.

Speaking at celebrations marking Ford Australia’s 85th anniversary and Falcon’s 50th, Mr Burela said Ford had no plans to change the company’s current operating structure and that head office in Detroit was delighted with the company’s current performance.

“We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in our Australian facilities at Geelong and Broadmeadows, and our view on that is that those facilities are there, we have invested in them, they are state of the art, we’ve got a great workforce building wonderful cars with great quality. “We will continue to do so.”

As GoAuto has reported, Ford’s ‘One Ford’ global model strategy dictates that the current Falcon will be the last to be designed and engineered exclusively in and for Australia, which means the next all-new Falcon is likely to be based on either Ford’s next-generation (rear-drive) Mustang or (front/all-wheel-drive) Taurus.

Federal industry minister Senator Kim Carr said today he was optimistic about the future for the Broadmeadows assembly plant.

“I believe there will be a Falcon made here after 2016,” he said. “The substantive issue will be how much of it is made locally, and that is what we are talking through.”

Senator Carr also indicated that Ford might be reconsidering its no-export policy (excepting New Zealand).

“We are working with all three companies to ensue that we have growth in the industry’s volumes, and the way to do that is to grow domestic demand and international demand through exports,” he said.

“We want all three companies to grow their export capacity, and the component manufacturers, too.”

Mr Burela said the Broadmeadows operations were working overtime to meet the rising demand for the Falcon sedan.

“The great news is the Falcon in the last few months has been travelling in uncharted waters,” he said.

“It is taking 41 per cent of the large sedan market. Only 18 months ago it was taking a 25 or 26 per cent share.

“We are regularly working overtime since June/July last year to meet demand. We are very happy with where we are and where we are going.”

Mr Burela confirmed that Ford would freshen the FG Falcon, but said that no final decision had been made about the eighth-generation Falcon due for 2016.

“2016 is the natural break point of this (model) cycle," he said.

"The work we are doing and the plan we are on says we don’t have to make a decision on all the aspects of the new Falcon until we get to the early part of 2012. So, we are in a good position.”

He dismissed a suggestion that Detroit wanted to close Broadmeadows and supply Australia with imported large cars.

“No. Head office is absolutely delighted for us and what we have achieved over many years,” he said.

“They were particularly delighted when we brought Ford Australia back to profit in 2009, and they know we are performing well in 2010.”

Back in May, Ford reported its first positive result since 2005, a breakeven profit of $13 million earned on revenues of $3.14 billion.

Asked if he saw a long-term future for Broadmeadows, Senator Carr said Ford in Detroit placed great value on its local operations.

“I was in Detroit in May, and Alan Mulally made it very clear the value to Ford company leadership places on Australia. Ford values Australia as much as Australia values Ford.”

He said both parties recognised the industry was going through a transition and this would involve the whole Australian automotive sector, assemblers and parts-makers.

“We are driving change in partnership with the companies, and I am absolutely confident Ford has a strong future in this country, as has the Australian automotive industry.”

Senator Carr said the fuel economy of large cars made here had improved 20 per cent in the past two and a half years.

“What we are seeing is the transformation of the Australian automotive industry,” he said.

These changes included new fuel systems, turbo-charging or, at Toyota, the introduction of Australian-made hybrid technology.

“We are in the business of making sure the Australian industry adapts to the new circumstances the industry finds itself in.”

Senator Carr said he believed Ford Australia would become more closely linked into the Ford group’s overseas production and supply network.

“All motor companies today make global platforms. The question is how much will be locally made and that is what we are talking through.”

Senator Carr dismissed a suggestion that the opening of a new Ford group plant in Thailand – on the same day Ford Australia was celebrating half a century of Falcon production – represented a threat to future Falcon production in Australia.

“We have rear- and all-wheel drive capability that few countries in the world can replicate. There is a particular part of the market for that product.

“Big cars are popular in Australia for a reason: people want them.

“The biggest seller for the last 12 years has been a large car. Ford has a very important role to play in that sector.”

Brazen · 28-06-2010, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vztrt

Well Marin is saying that local production of Falcon should continue post 2016 and Orion will be complete at 2016.

Australian Falcon production ‘safe’

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...257750001FBFCD

Fantastic article. For me the ongoing local production and engineering is the most important. Truth be told, I am positive that a Taurus based Falcon would be a fantastic vehicle especially with the advantages of AWD.

Mustang or Taurus-based I am very confident Ford Australia can continue making one of the best family cars for the money in the world.

Paxton · 28-06-2010, 05:49 PM

I think the other thing we need to remember here is that whilst E8 is safe, so is the I6. When it was made Euro IV, Ford scrapped the V6 for many reasons, and whilst Marin is at the helm, his engine will continue to be made. The secret squirrel work on Euro V has not been wasted.

Dr Smith · 28-06-2010, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brazen

I know that the government's Green Car funds are dependent on how much you spend, but how the heck did fitting two existing engines and piggy-backing off Orbital's LPG work cost a quarter of a billion bucks?

Not having a go, but I thought you could almost develop an engine for that much.

In the case of the ecoboost I4 no-one has done a rear wheel drive installation so that is all-new work and apart from the engine itself has no piggy-backing at all. Unlike aftermarket companies and privateers Ford have to meet internal compliance requirements as well as legislative requirements so it's not as simple as crating over an engine and having someone supply modified engine mounts and away you go. Say for example the 2.7V6Tdi in the Terry has created new and unrealised NVH issues which make it unacceptable. The engineering to fix this is not cheap or quick. I'd imagine you would have to crash test the newly engined vehicles as well. I would imagine some of the money mentioned also goes into plant and equipment changes like production line engineering. Even something as basic as the setup in receiveing shipping containers and introducing the components into the line would have involved some form of outlay.

irlewy86 · 28-06-2010, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brazen

I know that the government's Green Car funds are dependent on how much you spend, but how the heck did fitting two existing engines and piggy-backing off Orbital's LPG work cost a quarter of a billion bucks?

Not having a go, but I thought you could almost develop an engine for that much.

Re-tooling is expensive, plus the two imported engines probably have to under-go crash testing.

FPV GTHO · 28-06-2010, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irlewy86

Mulally demanded that platforms only run for 6 years when he came on as CEO. How that tied into the Orion planning and costing (I believe that Mulally came on in 2006) I dunno. But 8 years seems like a logical half way point to making the E8 pay for its self and bring FoA in line with "One Ford"

I think you mean the top hats. Platforms will still need to last alot longer than 6 years.

Falc'man · 28-06-2010, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Is there any truth to the rumour that a modular floorpan design has been worked on that would bring the Falcon and Mustang together in one program? That would be the coolest if it was, because that would make a RWD future more certain

From wescoent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wescoent

Falcon and Mustang cannot share a platform, but they will be sharing many components to bring costs down.

Fields, Kuzak, and Mulally all like the Falcon a lot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wescoent

Mustang has special needs. The floorpan behind the driver's seat needs to be sunken in order to accommodate the rear seats, which need to be low enough to let the fastback exist. This wouldn't be usable on a sedan.

Notice how in the Camaro, the rear seats aren't sunken, so there's no rear headroom?

It also wouldn't be easy to just have a common front end either. The Mustang has a long hood, and a long axle-to-dash ratio, which would make a roomy Falcon absolutely huge, where the Mustang's stubby cabin and trunk work with the long hood.

Ultimately, in order to not screw up either car, they'd need two different platforms anyway. There are lots of things they can share, though.

There was a reason I posted his first quote in the Lincoln thread; Ford will push Lincoln as it's premium luxury brand, head-butting the Euros, Infinity, Lexus etc... A large RWD is required.
Heck, even Hyundai is cashing in on RWD.

jpd80 · 28-06-2010, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falc'man

There was a reason I posted his first quote in the Lincoln thread; Ford will push Lincoln as it's premium luxury brand, head-butting the Euros, Infinity, Lexus etc... A large RWD is required.
Heck, even Hyundai is cashing in on RWD.

One of Wesconet's other quotes was that Lincoln was to have a version of the D2C Mustang
but the Mustang was way too popular when released and strong sales meant that there
was no room at Flat rock to build the Lincoln but now that Mazda has moved out......

I would still prefer to see a Falcon used as the basis for Thunderbird in sedan
and Coupe as well as Lincoln MKR, E8 is much more versatile and up market...

Road_Warrior · 28-06-2010, 09:51 PM

I've seen Wescoent's comments about that before.

His comments about the floorpan differences between Falcon and Mustang are spot on; this is one of the concerns about the Zeta-derived Camaro (which is still an awesome car btw) however they way I see it, Ford Australia has been using a modular design, stamping and construction technique for decades, moreso the past 10-12 years, where two entirely different vehicles are made from the one platform - Falcon sedan and Falcon half-chassis ute. To my mind, this is simply a case of changing the dies in the stamping machine to make the chassis for the cars; the rest can be done on the production line. One platform, 2 different cars. To a degree.

What this demonstrates is flexibility of the architecture and the design and engineering know-how of FoA to make these sorts of cars come to fruition. The same could be said for a shared Mustang/Falcon platform - the architecture could be largely the same, with modular floor and rear pressings hot-swappable by the manufacturing plants to accommodate the model-specific packaging requirements that neither a rigid car or sedan platform can accomplish. So in a nutshell, much of the hard work has already been done.

Does this make sense? If not, please feel free to pelt me with assorted goods.

Joe5619 · 28-06-2010, 10:43 PM

call me dumb... And I must admit I know jack all about building cars, but didn't Holden make a Sedan & a couple a few years back?? The answer to that is YES!! IF Holden can do it, why the F can't Ford?? It can't be that hard!!

jpd80 · 28-06-2010, 10:44 PM

The one big problem was the position/shape of the Falcon IRS, The Mustang group actually worked
with FoA engineers to find a common IRS rear end to work in both. The main stumbling block was
that Territory was at lock in stage and the IRS couldn't be changed in one and not the other.
Time ran out and the Mustang team proceeded with the 3 link SRA, something Phil Martens instigated
as a cost reduction measure, you have to wonder at a bloke tearing up the original CB IRS for a
3-link and then wanting a common IRS in double quick time....

jpd80 · 28-06-2010, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe5619

call me dumb... And I must admit I know jack all about building cars, but didn't Holden make a Sedan & a couple a few years back?? The answer to that is YES!! IF Holden can do it, why the F can't Ford?? It can't be that hard!!

Because invariably one version gets compromised. There is no way that
US fans want their Mustang turning into a heavy coupe like Camaro.
A coupe and a sedan are completely different body shells and share
few if any floor pan dimensions.

Real savings are made at supplier level, not made on the production floor.
It's better to keep Falcon and Mustang as loosely related derivatives
and have them share power train, electrical and suspensions where possible...

Road_Warrior · 28-06-2010, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe5619

call me dumb... And I must admit I know jack all about building cars, but didn't Holden make a Sedan & a couple a few years back?? The answer to that is YES!! IF Holden can do it, why the F can't Ford?? It can't be that hard!!

The Commodore sedan and the Monaro, aside from rear quarters, bootlid, lower roofline and doors, were the same car. I love the Monaro, but it was a 2 door Commodore, not a 2 door pony car, if you get my drift. It had the same inherent design and platform restrictions as the sedan - so no fastback rear window. Mustang buyers won't tolerate that sort of deal - they want their fastback or Ford might as well not bother. So that means the rear floor pressing and suspension design needs to be fastback-centric.

Obviously a future Mustang and Falcon won't be sharing any exterior panels, pillars or glass at all - the top hats will be completely different. No reason why they can't share common architecture forward of the firewall though. The rear suspension is going to be a tricky one...

Falc'man · 28-06-2010, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

The one big problem was the position/shape of the Falcon IRS, The Mustang group actually worked
with FoA engineers to find a common IRS rear end to work in both. The main stumbling block was
that Territory was at lock in stage and the IRS couldn't be changed in one and not the other.
Time ran out and the Mustang team proceeded with the 3 link SRA, something Phil Martens instigated
as a cost reduction measure, you have to wonder at a bloke tearing up the original CB IRS for a
3-link and then wanting a common IRS in double quick time....

The below is an article about what happened within Ford re IRS in Falcon and Mustang.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angus MacKenzie

http://blogs.motortrend.com/6523204/...ugh/page3.html

The S197 was in fact originally planned to share a lighter, simpler, less expensive independent rear suspension with the Australian-designed BA-series Falcon sedan, which launched in 2002. In fact, the rear half of the S197 platform was to be common between the two cars, with the Falcon eventually picking up the Mustang's front structure when Ford Australia could afford to replace the Falcon's ancient 4.0-liter straight six with the 3.5-liter Duratec V-6.

The programs diverged because of the Falcon's need for three passenger rear seating, and the Mustang team's insistence on a subframe-mounted rear suspension, which improved isolation but compromised the rear passenger package. With the Falcon due to hit the market two years ahead of the Mustang, the Ford Australia engineers cut to the chase and developed their own independent rear end without a subframe. The Mustang team eventually gave up on a subframe, mainly for cost reasons, and developed a similar, light and low cost independent rear end of their own.

Late in the S197 program, however, product development executive Phil Martens reportedly managed to convince Bill Ford Jr. he could save Ford $100 a car if the Mustang was switched to a live rear axle. The S197 platform was hurriedly torn up and reworked to accommodate the old-tech suspension. Martens was named Ford's group vice-president, product creation, North America, in October, 2003.

Mustang chief engineer Hau Thai-Tang did a great job with the hand he'd been dealt, and the detail tweaks to the chassis for the 2010 model give the Mustang remarkable poise... for a live rear axle car. And there's the rub: Good as it is, the 2010 Mustang could have been better.

There are a lot of good reasons why the rest of the world's automakers stopped using the Mustang's rear suspension layout decades ago. No matter how well set up, a live rear axle will never deliver the refinement, ride quality, and all-round traction of a well set up independent rear end. Yeah, yeah, I know drag racers like live rear axles, but let's be honest, how many S197s actually spend their weekends pounding quarter miles? I'd be astonished if it's more than a tiny fraction of the total number of Mustangs sold.

Now here's the punchline: My well-placed sources say that once the noise, vibration and harshness, and driveline angle issues were solved, the S197's live rear axle actually ended up costing Ford $98 per unit MORE than the low cost independent rear end originally developed for the car.

Go figure.

To a point I agree with A.M., as in the end - if he's right about the $98 loss - that is a major blunder, and probably would have contributed to Mustang having an SRA for the weight of an IRS that was actually designed for it.

On the other hand, the culture there is about less weight (for the strip), and and a solid rear (also for the strip). The Mustang's heritage is about that; a cheap, fun, powerful, "light" pony car. Take some of these elements away and you're stuck with a Camaro SS (and GM working to get it onto the lighter Alpha platform - another broken Zeta promise).

And, to keep things in line with Road Warrior's question about sharing a platform, consider this: The Mustang will spearhead weight loss at Ford... which could mean some down-sizing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProudPony

The next Mustang (and this Boss car is the guinea pig for the work) WILL be lighter. We are already prototyping/making parts for the Mustang (and other Fords) that are weight-specific. Imagine your machine operators putting each part on a digital scale at the QC station to get a red or green light on the weight of each part. Yes, every single part. We have max/min part weights we have to hit now - scale gives a green light if in spec, red light if too heavy or too light. There is other work I can't speak of on this board too, but suffice to say that weight is now a big issue at Ford (all models, but Mustang in particular).

Also, I don't think Mustang needs to share a platform, nor does it need to fall in line with Ford's "One Ford" policy in that it can remain as a stand alone product. It is it's own brand (notice how it doesn't have a Ford badge?). It is by far one of the most recognisable marques in the automotive world, thus deserving that stand alone treatment.

The Falcon, however, needs to be part of the Ford plan. From the above articles you can see the good position Ford Au is in, but also note the emphasis on their design and engineering muscle. If I was a betting man I would say Falcon will fit into being part of One Ford by being the basis of grwd.

XR Martin · 29-06-2010, 12:16 AM

Id like to see the Mustang and Falcon overlayed to see the main differences.
Mustang is 200mm shorter, half that is in the wheelbase, the other 100mm or so looks to be less front overhang.
Falcon has always had the long bonnet style also, so as to fit in the I6.

If you look at the cars BMW build on a shared platform (5 series, 6 series, X5, X6 for example) and all have their own distinctive look and features, theres no reason why Ford cant do the same.

Swordsman88 · 29-06-2010, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falc'man

The below is an article about what happened within Ford re IRS in Falcon and Mustang.

To a point I agree with A.M., as in the end - if he's right about the $98 loss - that is a major blunder, and probably would have contributed to Mustang having an SRA for the weight of an IRS that was actually designed for it.

On the other hand, the culture there is about less weight (for the strip), and and a solid rear (also for the strip). The Mustang's heritage is about that; a cheap, fun, powerful, "light" pony car. Take some of these elements away and you're stuck with a Camaro SS (and GM working to get it onto the lighter Alpha platform - another broken Zeta promise).

And, to keep things in line with Road Warrior's question about sharing a platform, consider this: The Mustang will spearhead weight loss at Ford... which could mean some down-sizing.

Also, I don't think Mustang needs to share a platform, nor does it need to fall in line with Ford's "One Ford" policy in that it can remain as a stand alone product. It is it's own brand (notice how it doesn't have a Ford badge?). It is by far one of the most recognisable marques in the automotive world, thus deserving that stand alone treatment.

The Falcon, however, needs to be part of the Ford plan. From the above articles you can see the good position Ford Au is in, but also note the emphasis on their design and engineering muscle. If I was a betting man I would say Falcon will fit into being part of One Ford by being the basis of grwd.

A well thought out post. Its the last line that is interesting to most on here. The assumption has become (and its been heading this way for some time) that Falcon will either become:

A: Imported product, most likley FWD/AWD with local manufacturing gone.
B: Locally built, but at best a modified FWD/AWD overseas model, probably USA, probably taurus.
C: GRWD gets the go ahead, based largely off the Falcon with heavy involvement or lead by FoA engineering. This then gets a 'top hat' as the locally built Falcon.

Option A looks increasingly unlikely. This is not just because of comments by Burela, but also the importance of FoA R&D (if you don't have local build capacity then its hard to keep this going) and increased profitability of the local operations.

Option B could happen, but i think the lack of familiarity of the local market and plant in FWD/AWD will mean it will only happen as a last resort if Option C DOESN'T occur.

Now the interesting bit. Many people, be it media or public, have (incorrectly in my view) assumed that Option C means MUSTANG. Hmm....not really. Musting/Falcon will obviously need to share stuff in the future, come a month or so they already will (5.0 V8). Both are RWD cars with performance credentials, so concievably everything form suspension, to gearboxes to engines will be common. When the 4.0I6 finally goes (could be some time from now) the V6 replacing it will also be mustang related.

BUT, for me, for the reasons described earlier, Mustang and Falcon can't fit on the same platform per se. At least not without major alterations. Its Lincoln that is the key here (and to a lesser extent, future Ford RWD cars like the thurderbird if/when that happens). Mullaly wants Lincoln to go after lexus/merc/bmw/jag etc. Fact is with jag/aston sold there is no true luxury brand from Ford. The problem? Those competitors are all very big on driving purity as well as luxury/quality, and they all diferentiate themselves from their lesser cousins by using a diff end to power the car. Yep, RWD.

If FoA is the primary global centre for RWD design, if Lincoln needs RWD cars (including sedans of the same size/class/power), then it aint hard to see where this is going. FoA has plenty of time. In fact its Dearborn that need to make the call on the Lincoln situation. If they decide to go RWD, then we're home. If not...... For now, its a waiting game. For me i'm over it, what's the hurry with the speculation? Falcon is 50 yrs old FFS....its made a half century and will be around for a good 5-6 years in its current form at least. Why everyone is so preoccupied with second guessing its death at this juncture instead of celebrating i have no idea....

vztrt · 29-06-2010, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Why everyone is so preoccupied with second guessing its death at this juncture instead of celebrating i have no idea....

If you read the wheels mag on the Falcon 50th I noticed many times about how the Falcon was gonna die. But they always found a way to keep it going (probably because the US doesn't have anything close to substitute a Falcon). But I know Flappist has said regularly that the Falcon has been getting canned for a long time. But it is still the 2nd oldest model in the world.

jpd80 · 29-06-2010, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falc'man

The below is an article about what happened within Ford re IRS in Falcon and Mustang.

That article was factually wrong because BA Falcon's CB IRS was already developed by 2000 and was drafted into Territory at kick off. Mustang team looked at FoA's IRS after BA Falcon lock in and they looked at DEW as well but decided to do their own IRS for the reasons stated. To the annoyance of the a senior engineer, Martens instructed him to tear up the rear end and do a 3-Link SRA to save money. The senior engineer complained bitterly going over Martens head to his superior but to no avail. It was during this time that FoA offered to try modifying the design to fit Mustang, Falcon and Territory. They could change Falcon and Mustang all right but Territory was at Lock in in late 2002 and the IRS couldn't be changed. Time ran out and the US team were stuck with the 3-Link. FoA continued to work on the problem, the limitations are well known to them and would have been a priority before the GRWD kick off meeting in late 2007.

Joe5619 · 29-06-2010, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vztrt

If you read the wheels mag on the Falcon 50th I noticed many times about how the Falcon was gonna die. But they always found a way to keep it going (probably because the US doesn't have anything close to substitute a Falcon). But I know Flappist has said regularly that the Falcon has been getting canned for a long time. But it is still the 2nd oldest model in the world.

Why off topic... Sorry.. But what is the 1st??

Road_Warrior · 29-06-2010, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe5619

Why off topic... Sorry.. But what is the 1st??

The Corvette I think.

Also, If its a given that Lincoln is going to be reinvigorated with RWD models to go chasing Euros and Lexus, will this open the door for C and CD sized RWD platforms?