"Falcon is dead" drive.com

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by I6DOHC

Has anyone been able to confirm the last throwaway line yet? Of couse they could have been janitors as the nicely place disclaimer "who Drive believes" allows them to yet again get away with not placing facts in the way of a good story.

About three months ago Ford hired contractors for the T6 program (alot to do with setting up the parts and tooling)...the contract was for only 3 months.....

Originally Posted by bathurst77

Question.
Why RWD for Falcon?
Seems RWD is heavier (thus fuel inefficient) and less space efficient thatn FWD.

If I remember correctly the Taurus is 2/300kg heavier then the Falcon, or is that the AWD version?

[US kills Falcon]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

BTW: Wagon sales are basically 99 % fleet as far as the BFIII goes.

That is because the BF MkIII wagon is only available in one spec level - FLEET SPEC. No XR version, no G6 version, no turbo or V8 engine. You can't expect any better.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by US kills Falcon

The Australian Falcon IS dead. If there is a Falcon after the FG, it will bebased on a US platform. Therefore Ford Australia will no longer be in control of the design.

the XA-XC falcon was australian designed, but on a us platform.

Go away.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by vztrt

About three months ago Ford hired contractors for the T6 program (alot to do with setting up the parts and tooling)...the contract was for only 3 months.....

Yeah....quality reporting that. Now the quesiton becomes, is Jez Spinks
A: totally inept and so bereft of any journalistic skill he couldn't work this out....and didn't specify the info was not necessaritly falcon related
B: knew that the info was unrelated but wrote the story due to wanton bias and burnt pride
C: both A and B....and is a muppet, a twit of unimangined proportions with 0 journalistic credibility and even less sense.

Sounds more like option C....

Originally Posted by vztrt

If I remember correctly the Taurus is 2/300kg heavier then the Falcon, or is that the AWD version?

It is. This is one of many reasons why GRWD will exist. Fact is that large and very large sedans don't have the incentive to go FWD due to packaging, and the AWD option (to adequately control the hp needed to move them in the manner to which their owners have become acustomed) is far too heavy. Thus negating any benefit of the common platform.

So if lincoln (prime candidate for large, powrful luxury sedans) needs RWD, and mustang needs RWD, and FG is the best current platform on which to base said cars, then it hardly seems unlikey that both GRWD will happen (in time) and that Falcon will be on it. It would be a small price to pay for Ford NA....you do all the platform work (much cheaper than us) and in return you can make falcon fit on it. The only reason Falcon would not exist is if Ford Aus cant make a business case for it. Given GRWD woud only increase corporate investment (thus keeping Falcon development costs to current levels), and the plant is making money now (and will do so more and more due to I4T, diesel territory, high spec falcon, possible niche exports etc. etc.) what's the problem?

Plus, when I6 goes (likely 2015) then that is another production cost taken out of australia and put with high volume, lower cost mass production.....

As for Taurus....Ford will not sell Taurus, mondeo and falcon in australia. Taurus exists because of the same reason Falcon exists here...it had name recognition and was readilly available to get to market when ford needed it. Ford NA cant kill taurus any more than Ford Aus can kill Falcon..... Its all about business cases.

Alot on here think that Ford US just wants to FORCE the wrong car on the aussie market. They aren't that stupid....there is a reason Falcon has escape the chopping block for 20 years..... How does saving $500-700million in Falcon specific GRWD development costs pay for 5-10 years of $100m annual losses because Ford Aus can't get the replacmeent car (whatever it is) to work? Not to mention, the savings of GRWD will probably be bigger, since the development costs for a Mustang only RWD platform (as some media are spinning) won't be amortised over as many cars, even IF mustang goes global......

Now, if Jez Spinks had even half the decency to THINK ABOUT the issues i just raised we would all have saved a hell of alot of time, effort and angst! Ah, journalists....so much for laywers and politicians being the most hated profession!!!! :

[jpd80]

This post for Austin (former engineer on D2C Mustang project)
I'd expect after the rejection of E8's use on D2C Mustang, FoA probably looked at
where the design had to be changed to allow a more compact IRS which enables
the seats to sit between the wheel wells without compromising the fuel tank....

Originally Posted by Austin

As I've stated before, the Mustang rear floorpan almost certainly has to be unique. But, if you do the job right, the suspension can be common. So you are moving sheetmetal around common suspension mount points.

The S197 was supposed to have IRS until management made a stupid decision late in the game. The IRS was virtually identical to the C170 Control Blade, and very similar to what FoA has now. But FNA and FoA couldn't get it together (the reasons are ....complicated -- but they included fuel tank issues..). There are some who would like to have both IRS and live axle, but that's the worst of both worlds. The IRS is compromised due to package, and if the volume is low, it's very high priced (the Cobra IRS was over $800 penalty). The live axle has package issues -- on jounce you have to clear a lot of space in the fuel tank area to allow clearance. IRS also has issues, including the forward mount point for the CB and weight.

The front structure can be very similar or even common to a sedan as I have mentioned earlier. And you might be able to carry the commonality into the front floorpan (but shortened).

Some of this doesn't matter so much because the metal is stamped in two locations so two sets of tools are required. And the rear of the car requires a lot less development from a safety standpoint so it's less engineering intensive.

But nobody on this board (as far as I am able to determine) can answer any questions on what the Mustang wheelbase should be. To repeat, there is a lot going on in the rear of the Mustang, both above the floorpan and below it. It is by far the most difficult part of the car to engineer, and it is more art than science. The movement of any piece in the rear affects other bits, and you have to keep playing with them until you come up with a solution that works.

What it takes is Ford's Advanced Package guys to sort out a solution and slap some drawings on the wall (yes, yes...it's all done on computer, but there is no substitute for having full size package drawings to demonstrate the proposal).

I'm think we can be very sure Ford already has an excellent grasp of a potential solution set as a result of the GRWD studies.

[05MkIIFutura]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

People who tow (AWD territory)?

The Territory is built off the back of the Falcon's development budget.

If the Falcon goes to a global car (not developed here), there will be no more Aussie developed Territory.

Falcon quadruples the sales of the Terri, if they can't justify the development budget for a large car on 3000 sales per month, theres no way they can justify it for a car that only sells 700 or so

Also, if the Falcon goes, the Commodore will also, the only thing that has kept the two Aussie cars within sight of the Japanese and European makes is the intense rivalry.

[4.0i_SiX]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Pity Ecoboost I-4 Falcon couldn't kill two birds with one stone and be a new wagon too....

I think Ford should take heed in what you say, you could very well be on to a winner with this idea. A 4 cylinder fleet wagon that retains the current load capacity. I dont think fleets would care if the styling was updated or not. Surely the development costs couldnt be too great if theyre already developing the engine to suit the Sedan.

I dont think mondeo will ever be a volume seller in Australia. Yes there is brand recognition with the nameplate, However, its not POSITIVE recognition....Whenever I mention mondeo to people, they cringe in memory of the abortion that was the mid 90's car

[Brazen]

Call me crazy I just dont see the 4 cylinder dramatically increasing sales.

I mean lets think about this:

If your a fleet buyer and want a 4 cylinder why would you get a $40,000 Falcon when a $20,000 Cruze or a $28,000 Camry does the same job?
Also if you really want economy from a Falcon sized car, wouldnt you just get a LPG Falcon instead? especially once the new gen LPG systems come out.
And if you wanted to make a eco statement, wouldnt you just buy a $35,000 Camry Hybrid?

I mean, who will the 4 cylinder target? espcially as it will be a costly option.



I think Ford should focus more on getting export markets and developing unique products like the wagon. I also still claim that Focus should have been built here to build factory volumes whilst the Falcon could become more of a premium product.

[cosmo20btt]

If Focus was built here it would definetly spelled the death of the Falcon.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

If Focus was built here it would definetly spelled the death of the Falcon.

Pumping an extra 40,000 Focus (and maybe its more profitable derivatives like Kuga, electric Focus, etc) a year through Broadmeadows would amortize the fixed costs of the factory and workforce over a greater number of cars making each Falcon more profitable.

If the ute, wagon and Terri go, there is no way a factory could be sustained on 30,000 Falcon sedans a year.

[cosmo20btt]

If Focus sales did go up it would do to Falcon what Cruze does to Commode now which is steal some of its sales, plus a line to build it would have meant that the wagon would be gone now.
While there is a Falcon I believe that there will be a Ute. However that is not to say that they wont do what they did in the past which was run the Ute on a Chassis made in 1978 all the way thru to 1998 (Twenty years without re jig) while the Falcon sedan was a complete remake from 1988

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Pumping an extra 40,000 Focus (and maybe its more profitable derivatives like Kuga, electric Focus, etc) a year through Broadmeadows would amortize the fixed costs of the factory and workforce over a greater number of cars making each Falcon more profitable.

If the ute, wagon and Terri go, there is no way a factory could be sustained on 30,000 Falcon sedans a year.

FoA couldn't make money on Focus.... period. It was a potential huge loss making venture.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

FoA couldn't make money on Focus.... period. It was a potential huge loss making venture.

I dont believe for a second it was going to be a huge loss making venture. The factory is already ready to take the extra volume, as Ford were only going to need an extra 200 people to build the Focus. Only 200 people to make an extra 40,000 cars a year!

If high cost places like Japan, Germany, France and Italy can make micro cars profitable, then Australia can make small cars, especially considering labour costs are only about 8% of a cars costs. Coupled with extra sales from being local plus massive green car funds and Victorian government incentives, I fail to see how it would be a massive failure - especially as the factory wouldnt need too many more people to make the car.

When Burela says the business case didnt stack up, I assume he means that they want to use the factory capacity for extra Falcons, which hoepfully means that they are expecting exports.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Brazen

I dont believe for a second it was going to be a huge loss making venture. The factory is already ready to take the extra volume, as Ford were only going to need an extra 200 people to build the Focus. Only 200 people to make an extra 40,000 cars a year!

If high cost places like Japan, Germany, France and Italy can make micro cars profitable, then Australia can make small cars, especially considering labour costs are only about 8% of a cars costs. Coupled with extra sales from being local plus massive green car funds and Victorian government incentives, I fail to see how it would be a massive failure - especially as the factory wouldnt need too many more people to make the car.

When Burela says the business case didnt stack up, I assume he means that they want to use the factory capacity for extra Falcons, which hoepfully means that they are expecting exports.

Not true....

The local material costs / components could not get the car base price to be competitive. The content level needed to be mostly import, which in turn meant that the grant required were not all forthcoming.

Burela meant that the car could not be priced where it needed to be to make money AND sell at the volumes it needed to. The end result was that the manufacturing plants would have had to carry a huge cost burden (when they already 'screwed over').

It was a huge risk and they could NOT make it work..

Remember the Auto manufacturing infrastructure here is nothing like it is in Europe, Asia or North America. Our component manufacturers and suppliers are not cost competitive. I know of one suppliers' quote for a component whose material cost was more than the 'landed' Asian quote.

I dont care what anyone says but Small cars = small profit at best. If you're competing against Asian imports with a 5% tariff you have no chance here.

As part of my work, my Toyota contacts were amazed that Ford had a small car program that they could justify. They've tried many times to make a business case for a local Corolla. They can't......

Tell me how Ford could have made money on Focus ?

C- Car is the most competetive segment - at last count there were 22 brands competing for a 'slice of the pie'.

[chuckles]

on a different tangent i was on my way to my parents last nite when a wagon shaped vehicle about the same size as a falcon covered in car bras and black cloth passed me. i turned around to follow it and took some pictures. ill post them up on here soon. could be falcon wagon??

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by lorosfalcon

on a different tangent i was on my way to my parents last nite when a wagon shaped vehicle about the same size as a falcon covered in car bras and black cloth passed me. i turned around to follow it and took some pictures. ill post them up on here soon. could be falcon wagon??

Probably a T6 mule or maybe even the 2011 Territory. Doubt it would be an FG wagon, there's no funding for it.

PICS!!!

[chuckles]

pics coming soon when my camera decides to play the game

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by lorosfalcon

on a different tangent i was on my way to my parents last nite when a wagon shaped vehicle about the same size as a falcon covered in car bras and black cloth passed me. i turned around to follow it and took some pictures. ill post them up on here soon. could be falcon wagon??

No chance.......

[Chopped]

I've got a photoshopped pic of a FH "Falcus" >


Actually the Taurus looks better with the XR lights !

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Alot on here think that Ford US just wants to FORCE the wrong car on the aussie market. They aren't that stupid....there is a reason Falcon has escape the chopping block for 20 years.....

They tried doing that back in the 90's you would think they learned their mistake.

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

If Focus was built here it would definitely spelled the death of the Falcon.

Actually it would have spelled the end of Ford manufacturing seeing as they would have made a loss on it, then the Falcon and Terri would have to make up in the higher profitability.

Originally Posted by Brazen

If high cost places like Japan, Germany, France and Italy can make micro cars profitable, then Australia can make small cars, especially considering labour costs are only about 8% of a cars costs.

Japan runs one line per car (sometime they run two line for a high series model and a low series model. Other companies are running cars down lines with cheap labour and lower entitlements. But the one thing all these countries have in common is that they sell high amounts of units thus being aboule to turn a profit.
Broadmedows would have required to re tool the plant so they could run a large and a small car down the line. Then the up-balance is required, then the cost of storing O/S parts as it will come over by ship. Then more shifts in somewhere like paint as it takes longer to get the cars ready for assembly, etc..

You don't just start building cars.
................

Oh chopped that actually looks very nice, RWD with that front and they'll have one sale here.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by lorosfalcon

pics coming soon when my camera decides to play the game

Oooh curious on what it is, its always fun trying to work out whats under the disguise.

[orsm8]

Please post the pics as im interested in a new falcon wagon.

[Luke Plaizier]

Originally Posted by Chopped

I've got a photoshopped pic of a FH "Falcus" >


Actually the Taurus looks better with the XR lights !

Nice job!


Lukeyson

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Lol, Drive are quoting MT, who in turn are quoting Drive, who had no idea in the first place. /goes back to sleep.

Falc'man. You are again spot on. It's a circular reference.

Drive misquotes Mullaly. Starting the loop.

Motor Trend quotes Drive.
Drive quotes Motortrend.
Etc,

[banarcus]

Yeah and endless quotes posted here by numerous people.. Where does this all end??

Ford??

[US kills Falcon]

Originally Posted by Nikked

the XA-XC falcon was australian designed, but on a us platform.

Go away.

Be nice or be banned. :

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Yeah....quality reporting that. Now the quesiton becomes, is Jez Spinks is a muppet, a twit of unimangined proportions with 0 journalistic credibility and even less sense.

Another classic!

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

This is one of many reasons why GRWD will exist. Fact is that large and very large sedans don't have the incentive to go FWD due to packaging, and the AWD option (to adequately control the hp needed to move them in the manner to which their owners have become acustomed) is far too heavy. Thus negating any benefit of the common platform.

Even Hyundai have recognised this with their Genesis range of i4t, v6 & v8 range of sedans & coupes. RWD equals better performance, dynamics AND better image.

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

So if lincoln (prime candidate for large, powerful luxury sedans) needs RWD, and mustang needs RWD, and FG is the best current platform on which to base said cars, then it hardly seems unlikey that both GRWD will happen (in time) and that Falcon will be on it. It would be a small price to pay for Ford NA....you do all the platform work (much cheaper than us) and in return you can make falcon fit on it.

Using the FG as a basis with the essentially 'global' Ecoboost i4t and Coyote V8 as it will have within 12mths is a great start. The drivetrain apart from the v6/i6 is the global design. Surely at the least, using the FG will provide a good $0.5B 'head start'. The platform is very good, the doors are the latest and perhaps best in the Ford world. Add in some of the US/European gimmicks and it is all coming together. At a very reasonable price too.

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

The only reason Falcon would not exist is if Ford Aus cant make a business case for it. Given GRWD woud only increase corporate investment (thus keeping Falcon development costs to current levels), and the plant is making money now (and will do so more and more due to I4T, diesel territory, high spec falcon, possible niche exports etc. etc.) what's the problem?

It's much easier to get approval for a $2B platform housing 3 core derivatives with expected sales of 200,000 vehicles per annum that a $0.5B platform with expected sales of 50,000 with 1 core derivative. Even if the raw numbers look the same. The larger investment would have more stability.

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Plus, when I6 goes (likely 2015) then that is another production cost taken out of australia and put with high volume, lower cost mass production.....

Sad but it will reduce the cost / overheads. We should also be onto later editions of the already good 3.7L V6. Dropping the i6 will also mean better packaging efficiency.

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Alot on here think that Ford US just wants to FORCE the wrong car on the aussie market. They aren't that stupid....there is a reason Falcon has escape the chopping block for 20 years..... How does saving $500-700million in Falcon specific GRWD development costs pay for 5-10 years of $100m annual losses because Ford Aus can't get the replacement car (whatever it is) to work? Not to mention, the savings of GRWD will probably be bigger, since the development costs for a Mustang only RWD platform (as some media are spinning) won't be amortised over as many cars, even IF mustang goes global......

Stop it. You are just making too much sense Mustang absolutely needs a new platform. Lincoln need RWD if they want to continue their move upmarket to rival Cadillac. Falcon will need at the least an update in 2015.

So why spend $1.5B on Lincoln for 50,000 sales, $1.5B on Mustang for 100,000 sales, $0.5B on Falcon for 50,000 when you could have the lot of that for half price?

I think Ford have learnt from the IRS debacle with the Mustang. It ended up costing them more money by going it alone with a solid axle rear than by using the AU IRS. I doubt that mistake will happen again with Mullaly / Kuzak around.

Mullaly is keen to leverage wherever the expertise is for the relevant segment. GRWD makes a solid financial case. Just not as solid as global Fiesta and global Focus. Which is exactly why those cars have been launched first.

[Luke Plaizier]

Originally Posted by phillyc

The platform is very good, the doors are the latest and perhaps best in the Ford world.

Wow, what a claim!

Which is true, of course, except when you close the doors with the windows down.


Lukeyson

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Luke Plaizier

Wow, what a claim!

Which is true, of course, except when you close the doors with the windows down.

Lukeyson

Well, i was thinking about their structural integrity, Volvo technolody and the door sealing etc.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by lorosfalcon

pics coming soon when my camera decides to play the game

How are those pics going?