Is Huntsman Dead? Ford Rethinking It's RWD Future

[Robert Ryan]

You Swore.

Worst car for ever sent to us, They were rejected and hated.

The "catfish car" or the "coming or going " car, had everything wrong with it

[EldoFan]

Originally Posted by MN12Fan

Jeez, first GM and now Ford? Talk about the sky falling. Is it really so hard to make a fuel efficient RWD car? My 14 year old, two-ton Thunderbird consistently gets fuel economy in the high twenties on the highway (28MPG was my all-time best) and in the high teens in the city. I've gotten about 23MPG combined on each of my past two fill ups with about 60% highway driving. Am I to believe that the limit of fuel efficiency in RWD cars was reached in the mid-'90s? What a gyp.

Someone at Ford has to be either brain-dead or just lazy.

My 1990 Mark VII, with a 5.0L 302 Windsor, has gotten as high as 23-25MPG on the highway and I got a consistent 17-18MPG out of it in city driving (when I did drive it to work). This is on a platform that dates back to the Ford Administration (no pun intended), using an engine that is an absolute relic.

C'mon Ford......show some backbone here (unlike GM) !!

[wescoent]

Originally Posted by MN12Fan

I think there's a lot of potential in a new Thunderbird, if it's done right. Hopefully Ford's learned from the mistakes with the previous generation, not to disparage it. As a two-seat roadster, the 2002-2005 DEW98 Thunderbird filled a niche that no other Ford did, then or now. I seem to recall that the car received positive reviews (including Motor Trend's Car of the Year) but there were some fundamental problems with the car that prevented it from catching on (it was the poorest selling generation Thunderbird in history as a matter of fact). On the positive end, it was reasonably well built, handled smoothly, and had a nostalgic flair for those interested in that kind of thing. On the bad side, to put it bluntly, it weighed well over 3,800lbs and offered performance that was noticeably inferior to a Mustang GT but with a base price that was at least $10,000 higher.

With a niche car like a two-seat roadster, it has to have one or more key selling points to be successful: bargain price, high performance, great fuel efficiency, or irresistible looks, if nothing else. As I mentioned already, the Thunderbird wasn't cheap and was outperformed by cars in Ford's own stable. On top of this, it had unremarkable fuel economy and required premium gas. Finally, though its retro styling might appeal to old timers, it is was unlikely to appeal to anyone who preferred something more modern. I would certainly stop short of calling it sexy.

With a new Thunderbird, I think Ford has little choice but to challenge established high performance two-seaters like the Corvette. It doesn't have to beat them outright, but it must be competitive, something the last Thunderbird was not. Personally, I would showcase Ford's EcoBoost technology for the Thunderbird and throw in an engine true to the MKR concept: a 400+ horsepower, 400+ lb-ft of torque, twin-turbo direct-injection 3.5L DOHC V6. Keep the car light (at least lighter than the current Mustang GT) and not only will it be fast but reasonably fuel efficienct too. Get the price under $40,000 and Ford could have a bargain alternative to the Corvette. Finally, it needs to be made sure that Ford makes the car look less like this:



And more like this:

You have the right idea.

The last Thunderbird was killed by two factors:

1) It was a cobbled-together architecture, whose structural bracing made it a pig (DEW98 was the only suitable platform at the time), and combined with the detuned Jaguar V8 under the hood, performance was horrible.

2) The Mustang Mafia and Jaguar Mafia within Ford refused to allow it to get the SC Jaguar V8, which would have improved performance and made it worth the price. However, this would have made it faster than the Sacred Cow Mustang GT and Sacred Cow Jaguar S-Type R and XKR.

However, this time around, we have a suitable architecture AND lessons learned from the prior experience.

The point of this new Thunderbird will to have a smaller, lighter sports car in the Ford showrooms more suitable to high performance than the Mustang, while at the same time being able to share parts with the Mustang. I have not seen the new Thunderbird, but I've heard it's closer to Aston Martin than '55 Thunderbird.

The ghist of what I've heard is that the Thunderbird will return once Ford is profitable again. Until then, development money will continue to go towards more neccesary projects (Fiesta, Focus, and such).

[MN12Fan]

Originally Posted by wescoent

2) The Mustang Mafia and Jaguar Mafia within Ford refused to allow it to get the SC Jaguar V8, which would have improved performance and made it worth the price. However, this would have made it faster than the Sacred Cow Mustang GT and Sacred Cow Jaguar S-Type R and XKR.

However, this time around, we have a suitable architecture AND lessons learned from the prior experience.

The point of this new Thunderbird will to have a smaller, lighter sports car in the Ford showrooms more suitable to high performance than the Mustang, while at the same time being able to share parts with the Mustang. I have not seen the new Thunderbird, but I've heard it's closer to Aston Martin than '55 Thunderbird.

Ironically, disregarding its financial situation, Ford's in a better position to make a new Thunderbird than it was when the last generation was around solely because there's no ceiling with Jaguar or even Aston-Martin; not as much of a chance of vehicles competing with each other that are basically from the same company. I can picture Lincoln having some sort of performance coupe, but being positioned as a luxury car with a likely price premium over a future Thunderbird would keep it unique and avoid overlap. The only close competitor within Ford then would be the Mustang. Hopefully a future Thunderbird doesn't catch flak from a "Mustang Mafia." It wasn't called for then and isn't called for now. The Thunderbird, after all, was Ford's original sports car and there's plenty of room above the Mustang for it to coexist. Let's not forget that in spite of high performance models like the GT500, the Mustang's main appeal is still as an inexpensive Pony Car. There should be no problem with the Thunderbird existing in a premium segment above the Mustang, and with performance to match. And as a two-seat roadster it would be one of a kind at Ford.

[BBDOS CV8]

So Huntsman is going to remain Orion with revised engine mounts and no hardpoint changes? That seems particularly strange. That means a V-config engined car is stuck with proportions forced on the chassis by the original Ford 144-170ci six - in the late 50's! Talk about a long platform life!

The one that worries me about Ford Oz, is that economics of large cars is going to catch up with them, regardless of their best efforts. 8-track cartridges were the greatest in terms of sound quality but the instant people decided cassettes were more handily sized - gone.

I had two 8-track cartridges in my LC Torana - took up virtually the whole front seat!

If anyone is keen on owning a RWD, Oz-made Falcon, I would be buying one in the next two years. I just have this sick feeling it isn't going to make another generation. And maybe neither is the Commodore.

There is no reason a RWD car cannot be just as economical as a FWD one. Case in point - BMW cars including the 3 litre six 530 which are rated at overall economy of well over 30mpg.

A transverse engine directly drives the transmission input via a hellical gear and doesn't lose power like a 90 degree diff gear does, but loses a lot of power through drag of the CV joints when they are not in straight ahead position. If you only ever drove in a straight line the FWD might be marginally more efficient. Mostly it would be a wash.

The reason a car like the G8 gets 1-2mpg worse economy than the Malibu with the same engine is down to vehicle mass (plus 5 vs 6-speed trans), which does tend to be higher with RWD as the rear chassis must be more robust to resist twisting forces - it is also a bigger car. It is harder to build it lighter, but not impossible, as BMW shows. Just costs more money.

Honda makes a AWD Legend which dwarfs the G8 GT for weight, even though it is physically smaller V6 and is full of alloy underpinnings, so it swings both ways.

[igor]

did you read my post at all?

Huntsmen is NOT the news - GRWD Platform is ..

Huntsmen is a half-step from 2010 to 2011/12

Igor

[1931Chevy]

So Huntsman is going to remain Orion with revised engine mounts and no hardpoint changes? That seems particularly strange. That means a V-config engined car is stuck with proportions forced on the chassis by the original Ford 144-170ci six - in the late 50's! Talk about a long platform life!

The one that worries me about Ford Oz, is that economics of large cars is going to catch up with them, regardless of their best efforts. 8-track cartridges were the greatest in terms of sound quality but the instant people decided cassettes were more handily sized - gone.

I had two 8-track cartridges in my LC Torana - took up virtually the whole front seat!

If anyone is keen on owning a RWD, Oz-made Falcon, I would be buying one in the next two years. I just have this sick feeling it isn't going to make another generation. And maybe neither is the Commodore.

There is no reason a RWD car cannot be just as economical as a FWD one. Case in point - BMW cars including the 3 litre six 530 which are rated at overall economy of well over 30mpg.

A transverse engine directly drives the transmission input via a hellical gear and doesn't lose power like a 90 degree diff gear does, but loses a lot of power through drag of the CV joints when they are not in straight ahead position. If you only ever drove in a straight line the FWD might be marginally more efficient. Mostly it would be a wash.

The reason a car like the G8 gets 1-2mpg worse economy than the Malibu with the same engine is down to vehicle mass (plus 5 vs 6-speed trans), which does tend to be higher with RWD as the rear chassis must be more robust to resist twisting forces - it is also a bigger car. It is harder to build it lighter, but not impossible, as BMW shows. Just costs more money.

Honda makes a AWD Legend which dwarfs the G8 GT for weight, even though it is physically smaller V6 and is full of alloy underpinnings, so it swings both ways.

Huntsmen= 2010 refresh and replacement of the i6 for the v6
GWRD=2012 global rear platform and new falcon, new mustang

[2b2]

(briefly/curtly cuz I can only connect to GMI via dialup )

^^ wrong Aston *
here's the prototype for you're next Tbird/Ford-Flagship:



which will happen INSTEAD OF any Taurus
cuz Taurus is just too big for blue-collar-oval-customers
& the ^name is Mr.M's biggest(only?) mistake so far

Lincolns & the monSABLEtego/GrandMilan are a diff. category
& the only place for larger-than-Fusion SEDANS

re: Orion/Huntsman/Project-111/GRwdP
IMHO, what ya got is the 3-4 faces of Eve = all the same basic thing
....just talked about differently



* I'm NOT saying they shouldn't/couldn't make a 2seater
(unless of course they want to SELL a significant number)
but there are other names they can stick on those "self-pleasuring" projects / halo cars

[syr74]

Originally Posted by wescoent

You have the right idea.

The last Thunderbird was killed by two factors:

1) It was a cobbled-together architecture, whose structural bracing made it a pig (DEW98 was the only suitable platform at the time), and combined with the detuned Jaguar V8 under the hood, performance was horrible.

2) The Mustang Mafia and Jaguar Mafia within Ford refused to allow it to get the SC Jaguar V8, which would have improved performance and made it worth the price. However, this would have made it faster than the Sacred Cow Mustang GT and Sacred Cow Jaguar S-Type R and XKR.

However, this time around, we have a suitable architecture AND lessons learned from the prior experience.

The point of this new Thunderbird will to have a smaller, lighter sports car in the Ford showrooms more suitable to high performance than the Mustang, while at the same time being able to share parts with the Mustang. I have not seen the new Thunderbird, but I've heard it's closer to Aston Martin than '55 Thunderbird.

The ghist of what I've heard is that the Thunderbird will return once Ford is profitable again. Until then, development money will continue to go towards more neccesary projects (Fiesta, Focus, and such).

Hmmm. What I've seen and heard about this car thus far is similar to what you have posted, but there are a couple of interesting differences.....

1: As you state such a T-Bird would be Mustang based, but I think the info I've seen and heard thus far indicates a car perhaps a bit more closely related to the Mustang than we see above. How I've heard it.....take the Mustang, remove about six inches of real estate from the area between the doors and the rear wheels wells, reskin it in a body that isn't particularly retro but which does have some cues from the past, throw in a 'premium' interior and bevy of luxury features, cover it with a retractable hardtop and there you have it. In the recent past I have heard rumblings about both a retractable hardtop Mustang and a revised Thunderbird, now I am convinced that the point of the Thunderbird, should it actually happen, is to be both.

2: Also,based on what I have hard the car will indeed be a bit smaller than a Mustang, the retractable hardtop will add enough weight to negate any weight advantage that might bring to the table. In fact I have gotten the distinct impression that while this is intended to be a powerful, fast car the goal isn't to be more performance oriented than the Mustang. The idea for the car genuinely seems to be a return to the personal luxury car roots of the original tri-five models. That would indeed make it very similar to the cars now being peddled by Aston Martin so I too can see a connection.

[wescoent]

Originally Posted by syr74

Hmmm. What I've seen and heard about this car thus far is similar to what you have posted, but there are a couple of interesting differences.....

1: As you state such a T-Bird would be Mustang based, but I think the info I've seen and heard thus far indicates a car perhaps a bit more closely related to the Mustang than we see above. How I've heard it.....take the Mustang, remove about six inches of real estate from the area between the doors and the rear wheels wells, reskin it in a body that isn't particularly retro but which does have some cues from the past, throw in a 'premium' interior and bevy of luxury features, cover it with a retractable hardtop and there you have it. In the recent past I have heard rumblings about both a retractable hardtop Mustang and a revised Thunderbird, now I am convinced that the point of the Thunderbird, should it actually happen, is to be both.

2: Also,based on what I have hard the car will indeed be a bit smaller than a Mustang, the retractable hardtop will add enough weight to negate any weight advantage that might bring to the table. In fact I have gotten the distinct impression that while this is intended to be a powerful, fast car the goal isn't to be more performance oriented than the Mustang. The idea for the car genuinely seems to be a return to the personal luxury car roots of the original tri-five models. That would indeed make it very similar to the cars now being peddled by Aston Martin so I too can see a connection.

I'm sure all those ideas are on the table... the problem is, the poor Thunderbird has been in development limbo for awhile now, so at this point, it's anyone's guess what the final product will turn out as.