Here's a story with a number of improbabilities: Ford developing anything new, Ford putting money in rear wheel-drive (RWD) and any manufacturer developing a new car right here in the U.S. But with a weak dollar compared to other sites of engineering and manufacture– Europe or Australia– American R&D and production makes sense. As for the other parts of this story from the Detroit News, it's anybody's guess. Does Ford need a new RWD platform? They are, in fact, bound to make the Mustang for the rest of time, and it has to be RWD. To that end, FoMoCo might as well maximize economies of scale and use the 'Stang platform to underpin some other cars. And we don't know how "new" this new platform will be. It could be a yet-again-revised version of the Mustang's current platform, or it could be a version of Australia's Ford Falcon platform– no spring chicken itself. Using the Australian platform straight-up is out of the question; it's RHD only. As an enthusiast, an announcement like this is exciting. As a bean counter, it's dumber than a box of hair. Ford should put this money into their bread and butter cars, like the next generation Ford Taurus.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I smell a Fox chassis a-Comin’!
If only Ford had spent a billion dollars developing a RWD chassis for the american market, to underpin a Lincoln 5 series competitor, the Mustang, a Jaguar, etc…
The 500/Taurus was such a major blunder. Why build a frontwheel drive Crown Vic when you already had a rear wheel drive Crown Vic?
Ford has always made RWD cars but they’ve been based on the beyond-ancient Panther platform. Ford considered investing in Ford AU to make the Falcon left-hand drive for export but decided against it at the last minute.
As much as I’d love to see Ford import the Falcon range as-is the situation with the US dollar pretty much killed any hoope of that happening.
Still, it’s good news that Ford (and Chrysler) are not abandoning RWD and that the Mustang will recieve a fresh structure when the time comes for a full redesign.
IRS is hardly rocket science. Ford was the first maker of large SUVs to engineer a successful IRS in its mainstream products (Explorer, Expedition and variants.) Too, the previous gen Mustang (Cobra) and 4 passenger TBird also had IRS. While certainly more expensive to build than a traditional “solid” rear axle suspension, IRS’s handling, ride and packaging benefits carried the day. It would certainly give the Panther full-sizers a new lease on life.
The dollar is cheap and the global Ranger is under development in Australia (due on our shores for MY2011 last I heard), which has constrained their resources.
The platform will be based on the recently updated Falcon architecture (that means IRS) but the idea is to have some significant changes for an “almost” ground-up approach. The Mustang’s current platform will be gone. The platform will likely support mid-size and large vehicles – not 3-series sized vehicles. The first vehicles in the U.S. will likely be Lincolns for MY2012 – about 3 years off. These may also find a place in Ford’s EU line-up. That’s what I’ve been able to get, anyhow. It’s mostly speculation, though, so don’t take too much stock.
bluecon:
The 500/Taurus was such a major blunder. Why build a frontwheel drive Crown Vic when you already had a rear wheel drive Crown Vic?
Because Ford says you have to buy that instead, that’s why.
Ford is enamoured these days with rebadging Mazdas and Volvos instead of improving the products that made it great in the first place.
Also, when did RWD have to always equal luxury or sport?
Except for the Mustang wouldn’t that be called DEW98? Anybody remember the Lincoln LS? The Jaguar S-Type is still around, plus the new XF is based on the architecture, I believe.
How hard would it be to dust off the (Lincoln’s) blueprints and redo the tooling? Should be easy and relatively inexpensive, no? Just recompile (as computer geeks would say) for new safety regs and whatever, add water, mix well and serve.
Great, but Ford doesn’t need a RWD niche car when it is so badly in need of R&D on mainstream FWD platforms!!
If I were Ford I’d be panicking at the total lack of compelling fuel efficient cars and dumping all my money into developing profitable small and midsize cars.
Spend $500 million to update the interior and body of the Panther. Drop the new 3 valve 4.6 and 6 speed auto from the 2009 F-150 into the vehicle, and you are good to go.
I’m waiting for that to happen to get my new Grand Marquis. Instead, Ford spends $2 billion to try to get me to buy a 500/Taurus.
Ridiculous.
Why can’t Ford simply make the AU Falcon’s in the US? They own the blueprints.
Knowing Ford, it would be another Scion knockoff.
I don’t trust Ford to design their way out of a paper bag. Someone needs to euthanize them already. They are insistent on selling crap to the US market while selling much, MUCH better products overseas.
As an aside regarding the ancient “technology” used in the Mustang. My wife and I get a magazine called Mustang Monthly. There was an article/ad for an IRS set up that could be used to replace the solid rear axels in 65-70 (I believe) Mustangs as well as the 05-08 Mustangs. A nice example of just how retro the current Mustangs are.
Ever drive a RWD car back to back with a FWD car? The difference in handling is like night and day. Better for tires too.
Ever drive a RWD car back to back with a FWD car? The difference in handling is like night and day. Better for tires too.
Whatever one might say about the efficient packaging of FWD, it’s still cheaper for them to build but costlier for us to repair.
I see no problem in developing a RWD platform if there’s a market for it.
Changing from RHD to LHD should poise no big problem. A platform can be modified to accept this change, so in theory the aussie platform can be used… provided they invest in convert it to LHD.
The argument that the Australian Falcon platform is old was already effectively “destroyed” by some poster here, page 3: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/on-the-beach-is-ford-and-gms-future-in-australia/comment-page-3/#comments
Also, Toyota uses in fact the same platform for at least 2 car generations (Corolla and Camry come to mind), and individual components for more than that… and everybody is happy, I don’t see anybody complaining. This is because improving or revamping an existing platform is WAY less expensive that creating a new one from a clean sheet of paper. Toyota is a leader in the industry and they do it effectively, why can’t the others? Because it’s Ford? Give me a brake. I wouldn’t complain either with Chrysler using old E-Class componentry for the 300C, Challenger, whatever, because in the 2 first cars case, they’re gorgeus, RWD and people bought a lot of the 1st one. In the end, with a tried and much improved platform, you get a better product, even if the platform is one generation old.
Quote of the poster:
“# HPE :
February 20th, 2008 at 3:25 am
Hi all. Long-time listener, first-time caller. Prompted to make an appearance because I think I can add something to this particular debate, having been a long-time observer of the Australian industry and lived amongst it for my entire life. Let me make it plain from the start that I’m no fan of the Big Two. But I do feel compelled to correct a misrepresentation of the situation when I see it, and I saw a few in this piece.
First of all, as others have noted, it is simply not true that the new Falcon’s platform is either old or tired. Ford says that the new Falcon is 90 per cent new. Fundamentally, the FG’s platform is heavily re-engineered BF, including a new-revised double wishbone front end. BA/BF dates back to the AU Falcon of 1998, and if you want to trace the family history you can draw a line all the way back to the 1988 EA. But you’ll be a long time finding any correlations. AU was a big-budget rework, so a line in the sand is effectively drawn there. Then, due to the fact that the AU Falcon bombed, Ford spent a few hundred million on a very substantial mid-life facelift back in 2002, including re-engineering the rear half of the body to accomodate a sophisticated multilink rear. The Jag XF rides on a similarly-aged platform. I haven’t seen much, if any, criticism of it on this basis. (Oh, and the new global RWD platform? It’s not inconceivable that FG could provide the basis – which would make a lot of sense, but obviously that doesn’t come into it.)
To my mind, the importance of this update cannot be overestimated. For a long time, backed by such monstrosities as the Torana six and the Cortina six, Australian cars have been seen as pretty crude devices. To a certain point this view held water; but it held less after the debut of the VT Commodore in 1997, and a lot less after BA. FG has new steering and front suspension (an improved double-wishbone arrangement, borrowed from the Territory), but retains the BA/BF rear end. Why not? With that model change, Falcon finally turned from a pretty crude device (including a live rear axle) into a genuinely sophisticated piece of engineering. Oh, and the brand-new RWD world-class platform? Seems it mightn’t be so new after all. The fact is, unless a platform actually compromises a vehicle’s spaciousness or dynamics, its age (however it’s calculated) is not relevant. In the Falcon’s case, it doesn’t, and it isn’t. Let’s move on.
The engineering integrity of contemporary big Australian cars is deeper than a lot of people think. Upper model Falcons have as standard ZF’s acclaimed six-speed autobox, as found on various prestige German marques – from memory this is optional on all but the lowest models, with a five-speed autobox filling the gaps. Similarly, the basics of the Falcon’s inline six are pretty ancient, but not so as you’d know. The basic bore/stroke ratio has long been pretty much ideal for efficient combustion, and various technological improvements over the years (including refinements like a twin-cam four-valve head, dual continuously variable valve timing and exhaust gas recirculation) have kept it highly competitive – especially the turbo, which produces massive numbers, goes like stink and is a world-class engine by any standard. I for one think it’s a significant loss that Ford has decided to replace it with the Duratec V6 from 2009 onwards. Later on in BA’s run they also introduced ZF’s six-speed automatic, as found on various European prestige cars with names beginning BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Maserati, as standard on high-spec models and optional on all but the most basic models (which with FG get a new five-speed autobox).
Once upon a time, it was true that Australian-made cars were not exactly the last word in sophistication. That started to change in 1997 with the VT Commodore and the 2002 BA Falcon cemented that notion. Australian cars nowadays are not just better in absolute terms than they have ever been, they are far closer to the world’s best than they have ever been – and the gap is closing all the time. That is not only my opinion, that is the outcome of any even remotely objective analysis. Since you ask, in terms of handling and ride, I happen to think that the Falcon would compare favourably with any similarly-sized premium car from around the world, irrespective of price difference. A loaded Falcon here is around 40 grand; a truly basic 5-Series, with a 2.0 diesel, kicks off at neatly double that.”
James2:
The current mustang is based on the DEW98 (Lincoln LS) platform.
Personally I think they’d be better off working on bringing the European Focus and Mazda 2 to the US, stat!
I don’t trust Ford to design their way out of a paper bag. Someone needs to euthanize them already. They are insistent on selling crap to the US market while selling much, MUCH better products overseas.
I have read some Australians’ and Europeans’ comments on this site, and I can honestly say that this is very much debatable.
-The Ford Ranger sold in Europe is heavier than the midsize Nissan Frontier, which is currently the heaviest truck in the midsize market.
-The Euro Focus is better, but also much more expensive than ours.
-We get the Ford Mustang; many other markets don’t.
-We also get the Ford F-series, which is pretty much only a NA phenomenon.
-Our midsize car (Fusion) is based off of a Mazda platform, and gets Toyota-like (red dot) reliability in Consumer Reports.
I think once we get the Aussie Falcon and the European Fiesta, Ford’s NA operations will be in pretty good shape.
I also say put money into the bread and butter vehicles. Updating the Fusion to be better than the rest is a good start. Also the Focus. Perhaps giving the Taurus X better styling. The Edge more dynamics. Also the Escape. Then your done.
FWD for Taurus = roomiest rear seat of any sedan available.
better fuel economy
I’d like somebody to explain properly what’s wrong with the Taurus.
It doesn’t need to be RWD.
The Taurus probably feels like a rolling appliance behind the wheel. It looks like one too. Crown Vic was fun to drive. Although It had a bunch of issues also.
The Taurus probably feels like a rolling appliance behind the wheel.
Yes it does. No big-car feel or presence at all.
Interpret that how you will.
This big-car lover is not impressed.