What things would you like to see in a post 2015 Falcon

[jPod]

Quote: Originally Posted by JPD80

All that money to be spent, maybe a 4.0 V6 Duratec is not so far away in design terms, a slight increase in stroke length on the 3.7 to make a nearly square engine - today's trend. 325 hp @6500 and 300 lb ft all without DI - V8 like power and torque, a simple elegant solution.

Yes, but the duratec is a good engine, but it isn't mind-blowingly good. In 5 years time, it might be quite antiquated. That might be a good time to let a branch of the company that has proven time and time again that it can build a world class engine to have a crack at something really special. Also, I6 is usually smoother than V6.

[JPD80]

Quote: Originally Posted by jPod

Yes, but the duratec is a good engine, but it isn't mind-blowingly good. In 5 years time, it might be quite antiquated. That might be a good time to let a branch of the company that has proven time and time again that it can build a world class engine to have a crack at something really special. Also, I6 is usually smoother than V6.

Ha ha ha ha....... Antiquated with respect to the I-6.........

Grandad's axe can still boogie with the kids.

[FalconIV]

http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/110908.html seems as sophisticated as multi link with less weight. More plastics and composites in the body or frame, by then they should be able to incorporate more. I want a <1500kg car, maybe even a baseline ute with a NA 4 banger. I want to be able to configure my sedan into somewhere to sleep if the need arose... But thats just me...

[2b2]

Quote: Originally Posted by JPD80

...FG's descendant reuses the cabin frame but the nose forward of the front wheels is now 125mm shorter. The boot overhang is cleverly reduced by extending the wheelbase rearwards by 50mm. Overall the car becomes 125mm shorter. This has the effect of keeping the Falcon's interior room and boot capacity unchanged in a vehicle no longer than a Mondeo. The public now see the Falcon as both a Mid Sized car (EB I-4 and V6) and as a Large car (EB V6 and V8 engines). I would love to see someone photo-shop this up as I really feel that this is the direction Ford will take with the Falcon.

well, JPD, sorry I couldn't keep myself from making a "slight" alteration to the greenhouse - - hope you like it:


&
I really hope the inline-6 lives & thrives for a purely selfish reason - - imho Lincoln NEEDS it!!
also
I've got a hunch that the 3.5/3.7v6 could very well shrink its displacement for future mpg & smaller/lighter cars


ps
if anyone would like to vote on what vehicles other than Falcon & Mustang ought to be built off a GRwdP (Global Rwd Platform), I made a POLL at another site (membership NOT required to Vote )

[JPD80]

Quote: Originally Posted by 2b2

well, JPD, sorry I couldn't keep myself from making a "slight" alteration to the greenhouse - - hope you like it: & I really hope the inline-6 lives & thrives for a purely selfish reason - - imho Lincoln NEEDS it!! also I've got a hunch that the 3.5/3.7v6 could very well shrink its displacement for future mpg & smaller/lighter cars ps if anyone would like to vote on what vehicles other than Falcon & Mustang ought to be built off a GRwdP (Global Rwd Platform), I made a POLL at another site (membership NOT required to Vote )

Wow, Thanks for that 2b2, a very interesting take on what I was thinking but never imagined Focus styling - gotta say i like it!!!!

maybe that's what's needed for the big cars, something that's "dangerous" but not in the Oval Taurus/AU Falcon context...

Maybe a more apt term would be cutting edge, something that really jumps out at buyers...

[ELSpeedo]

The front is to small to fit anything big. SIDI's failure means someting must
but able to pull the car not just rev and chomp fuel and do nothing.
A short nose may also compromise the cars handling characteristics....
Atleast GM fixed the poor weight balance in the VE only for it to being heavier.
If its ever headed to the US it must handle as much as GM can.
The cars looks mean nothing unless the fundamentals are right.
If its going after the Thunderbird name it better be a car
that lives up to the name. We can argue about styling but
I don't know what car styles will be apt since thats a while
away. I have some ideas and sketches of my own...

Well my wish list.

1. 2nd generation DI- hopefully the big 6 with Euro V will suck as much as a
cheaply engineered 4 cylinder built on a budget. Should go after all those
in the US with budget BMW, VW, Lexus and Merc labels...The Monaro took
many years to reach the US a G6E variant may take the same?
2. Flex Fuel- Biomass, LPG (and others..) and Petrol option. For the others....(should shut the Prius up)
3. Next Gen transmissions ???
4. Chassis- IRS (Gen ? ) Suspension (?) Brakes (regenerative?)- weight balance and
chassis tech issues with Boron and other exotics? Ford has allot still in R&D.
5. All the computer stability gadgets for people who cannot drive a car without help.
6. Interior- classic with a very conservative inner trim. ?
7. Engines- 4 cylinder turbo (TT?), I6, I6HO, I6(T) (TT?), 5L Coyote - 5.8 S/C GTHO, Bobcat, Hurricane ???

[Noodles]

for the australian cars to be an australian design and not some american pos, im sorry but id like my car to go around a corner if the need arises. also for the I6 to remain, if it can put make sidi crap that holdens flogging off look like a gas guzzuler imagine what it could do with sidi.

[ninespokes]

All the foregoing comments notwithstanding, as Grey Nomads I would hope we are still travelling in 2015, as much as I love the BF11, the IRS could go, the Fairlane is better with stiffer rear coils, less hassle no rear alignment to worry about, self levelling disconnected, I would like to see a good reliable gutsy V8 retained, (not sure if the Boss meets that) as well as the excellent I6, and definitely RWD, and a centre console GPS as standard on all models.

I would also like to see an end to this silly tin spare wheel, that has to be the most stupidest dopiest idea any manufacturer has ever come up with.
Might be OK for those little "throw away" cars that never leave the city, but does nothing for us who travel Oz. I have a matching alloy, at some cost.

PS I would also like to see an end to these idiot bells and whistles that think they know more than I do when I get behind the wheel.

[FPV GTHO]

Quote: Originally Posted by jPod

2. It stays an undersquare inline-6. Undersquare being the best configuration for day to day driving, and inline 6 being simpler, with less moving parts, and a nicer heritage.

That would probably be one of the first things i'd like to see changed actually. The low end torque provided by an underbore design might be great for a daily driver, but i think that can be covered by smaller Ecoboost engines and something the size of the I6 can be utilised as more of a performance oriented engine with an overbore design.

[JPD80]

From someone who was there when the Mustang's IRS was developed and scrubbed,
FoA was working alongside them to develop a common IRS:

Quote: Originally Posted by 'Austin' date='26 January 2010 - 01:51 PM

Well of course the shame of it all is the S197 Mustang had IRS as a "given" from it's inception until very late in the game when Phil Martens pretty much unilaterally ordered live axle to "save costs." Unfortunately, it didn't save much of anything, caused a huge tearup to the program, cost a lot of development time, caused late NVH problems, and on and on. And the Chief Program Engineer moved on at the same time as he had a number of hard discussions with his management (she supported Phil). Now Ford just have to pretty much call up the drawings from that time period and redo the suspension and underbody. I'm not so sure much needs to be done to the front structure or suspension. Except this time, they really should take another run at a common rear suspension with the Falcon. I don't think they can get by Mullaly unless they can assure him that the IRS can be 100% common. It will be a good thing. Potentially a bit more room for rear passengers and/or more fuel capacity. But it probably won't be lighter. If Ford is hoping to get lighter it will have to come in other areas. Like more aluminum or magnesium bits. Or making the 5.0 a very rare beast and having the EB 3.5 as the GT engine.

Quote: Originally Posted by 'jpd80' date='26 January 2010 - 02:21 PM

Hey Austin, I'm trying to work out where the problem is with the Falcon IRS, I know you explained it earlier that the the shape of the IRS prevents the rear seat from mounting in between the rear wheels and Falcon's gas tank is a different shape but still under the seat. Is it more to do with the shape of the IRS cradle/ upper control arms and front pick up points on the control blade links? Would Falcon adopting the Mustang CB IRS module make things any easier?

Quote: Originally Posted by 'Austin' date='26 January 2010 - 03:46 PM

jpd, ummmmmm...., I'm sorry, but I don't remember specifically where the issues were (onset alzheimers???); I would need to see the two drawings side-by-side to refresh my memory. But of course that's not possible. I do remember it got up into the fuel tank also and, for whatever reason, both FoA and FNA couldn't come to an agreement despite best effort and good team relations. And the Mustang proposal couldn't be easily transplanted to the Falcon -- I seem to remember some of the bigger issues might have been with the then upcoming Territory but I'm not sure. This decision went to VP level (Chris Theodore) before the towel was tossed in. The FoA reps still believed it would have been possible, and weren't happy troopers in the end.

I wonder if FOA and FNA have convinced Mulally and Kuzak that a modified Falcon platform will work.....

[TX3DUDE]

Quote: Originally Posted by JPD80

From someone who was there when the Mustang's IRS was developed and scrubbed, FoA was working alongside them to develop a common IRS: I wonder if FOA and FNA have convinced Mulally and Kuzak that a modified Falcon platform will work.....

Theres no fingers crossed smiley that i can find

[docjames]

1. A diesel motor. A 3.0TDCI would be nice.
2. Better resale value (?guaranteed buyback??)
3. Sportswagon.


Well I can dream, cant I?

[JPD80]

Quote: Originally Posted by TX3DUDE

Theres no fingers crossed smiley that i can find

All I'm saying is that contrary to all the urban legends, FoA and FNA worked together on Mustang
and nearly pulled off a common IRS module, that was almost 10 years ago.
So imagine what could be done today if you really wanted to run the two as parallel projects......

[ELSpeedo]

Quote: Originally Posted by docjames

1. A diesel motor. A 3.0TDCI would be nice. 2. Better resale value (?guaranteed buyback??) 3. Sportswagon. Well I can dream, cant I?

As a shareholder in Ford Id prefer Ford to build durable/ better performing cars than to satisfy
a whim on financial return on used cars. Its a dead end and gives little
incentive to produce newer cars? Catch 22. Id prefer them to spend
that money to improve service and support instead...Subaru once
a resale King got swallowed by Toyota- penny wise and pound foolish.

Id stick with property/stock/financial investment as if you want a return
on a mass produced car your kidding yourself. Ford are not Maserati their
business is to sell cars to the general public. Talk to your accountant im
sure you can make any car pay for itself. Unless your collecting
classic cars investment and return on investment can be two
different things. Also when the car yards are overstocked with low
milage cars sans financial crisis don't hold your breath either.

JPD80 Im sure with a new standard chassis they can chop and change
to Mustang-Falcon-Fairlane like the old days. As you said it was 10 years ago...

[mondeoxr5]

Quote: Originally Posted by docjames

1. A diesel motor. A 3.0TDCI would be nice. 2. Better resale value (?guaranteed buyback??)3. Sportswagon. Well I can dream, cant I?

Unfortunately Ford motor company cannot do anything about resale... Resale values are set by the public..
Firstly if you sell a lot of cars to renters, Govco or big fleets, then in 12 months or 2 years you will have a lot of cars on the used car market.... supply will outstrip demand and price will crash... Look at the difference between the retained value of a sedan Vs a Ute... Less Utes out there, higher resale. Dig my card out and have a look at the program cars we have and you will see that the Toyota's retain no better than the Falcons.

Guaranteed buy backs are sure fire way to commit suicide.. Remember Red Carpet Options and Smart Buy??? Both popular with joe Public, but burned money faster thatn the Qld state government..... Anyone who claims that they can tell you what your car will be worth in Two years time is lying. Your Golf will take a nose dive in QLd Police continue to buy them, just like Landcriusers did when they were Camera cars..

[ausrutherford]

Mustang-MkR coupe/convert-Cougar (coupe floorplan)
Falcon, wagon included-MkR,Wagon included-Thunderbird-Territory/Explorer (sedan floorplan)
UTE 2 and 4 door (floorplan with leaf springs)

Flatrock builds LHD, Campbellfield builds RHD

[docjames]

Didnt think #2 was likely to happen (yes, i remember smartbuy). As a consumer, it would be good.