Will The Ford Falcon & Territory Live On?

[mmciau]

Originally Posted by ford&holden

globalgreenchallenge.com.au/assets/results/eco/20091028.Eco%20Challenge%20Data.pdf

Take a look at the fuel economy results.

Yeah, yeah...the SIDI will do much better in stop start, flat as a tack roads in peak hour traffic...

He means

http://globalgreenchallenge.com.au/a...nge%20Data.pdf

Mike

[syr74]

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

Sorry mate, your hyper-car that's been in continual development since Ford released the SVT in the 90's just got blown away by a tuner car with a tiller for steering on standard suspension and brakes.....

Aftermarket vehicles prove nothing but the abilities of said aftermarket tuner. Put more simply, if the Camaro is such a phenomenal basic platform then why can't GM manage better?

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

You can sugar coat it any way you like. But Ford's clinging to 18th century suspension tech and poor weight distribution is the issue. It might fly in a 300hp car with a light alloy motor. Not with double the HP and the lead-tipped arrow in the nose. End of the day, you can't commute the laws of physics. 0.4 of a second in a straight line, and three seconds around a track, when the two cars pull the same G's, is forever.

Like I said, aftermarket car. When GM does something of note with the handling I'll be interested.

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

The Camaro did beat the Mustang around the track in the Parnell-Jones test - quote: the Mustang can close in slow corners, but not pass. The Camaro runs away and hides on fast stuff. A go-kart around that track would probably turn better times than both of them, and get better notes for handling. But it's still a go-kart.

I never said that the Camaro didn't lap that track faster, I said the Mustang handles better and it does. The huge advantage in hp and torque the Camaro possesses combined with the Brembo brakes that car wears should have left the Mustang GT literally gasping for air if these cars were even in the same league in terms of handling....but that didn't happen. The fact that the difference was merely a few tenths says the Chevy is light years behind in terms of handling.

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

Motor Trend's comparison.

That's doesn't sound like any sort of smackdown to me.

We've discussed this in this forum before, and I predicted than that as time drug on the awe factor for the Camaro would wear off and it has and that is exactly what has happened. Comparisons have become increasingly less friendly to the Camaro as the car ages, with even Motor Trend placing the Camaro at the back of the pack of a test comparing the handling of some of the newest performance cars....GT500 finished fourth in that same test. Mustang has swept the last three major comparisons in a row, with all citing handling as a Mustang advantage.

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

Racing car drivers like cars with snap oversteer and twitchy neg-camber steering - it's how they get into and out of corners, by booting the tail around to turn the car. The average person with average reactions and ability, for the street, does not want or need a car to handle that way. Especially not with 400+hp. Or they'll end up with it wrapped around a pole at the first wet rounabout when it swaps ends on them.

Their complaints with the Camaro obviously went well beyond the need for snap oversteer. 'Handles like a pig' is a pretty brutal summation.

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

Anyone can set the Camaro up that way if they choose - the front suspension on zeta is adjustable for castor and camber. Wait until the car's been out a while and people have had the chance to play with it.

Do I expect Camaro to get better? Yeah. In fact, if I had to guess the rear spring rates are too soft and the staggered rubber was a terrible idea that made a car that was obviously already prone to oversteer even worse. Easy problems to fix, but even if those problems were fixed Camaro is still going to be a lot of fine tuning away from Mustang GT territory.

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

I'd like to see what HSV can do with one. On 19's with sensible tyres, not stupid dubs.

I think Camaro has a lot more potential than GM is exploiting, but I think the weight and 'designed for large car needs' chassis will always be a handicap. GM can actually exploit this in some ways, but I don't think the car will ever be the equal of the current Mustang in outright handling unless ride stiffness is brutal.

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

At the end of the day the Mustang does not stand up to your claims of total dominance and superiority. If you pick your event, it comes close. Even then, lower gears and sticky tyres can't make up for the deficits.

I'm still not seeing the basis for your argument. With 100 extra hp and a much better set of brakes the Camaro barely keeps ahead of the Mustang on a road course with some meaningful straights.....that is amazing. Simply adding the GT500's Brembos to the equation would likely be enough to cook the Chevy's proverbial Goose, when the Mustang sprouts more power this is literally going to be a non-contest unless GM makes major revisions to this cars handling.

[wescoent]

Story time, children.

The efforts within Ford to merge the Falcon and Mustang date back to the late 1990's, and have been continual since. Ford would like one single global rear-drive platform, but has been unable to engineer it due to both engineering restrictions and cost restrictions.

Any GRWD platform, to meet Ford's internal ROI requirements, would need a Mustang, a Falcon, and a Lincoln model in order for it to work out.

Here are their options:

Version 1:
A platform very good for a Falcon and Lincoln, in terms of being robust, heavy duty, and with awesome NVH characteristics... but ending up WAY too heavy for a Mustang.

Version 2:
A platform good for a Falcon and a Mustang, in terms of being lightweight and a great handler... but having crap NVH characteristics and not being suitable for a luxury sedan like a Lincoln.

Furthermore, the Mustang has unique requirements that require a unique structure. The fastback roof design requires the rear scoopie seats to be sunk WAY down in the floorpan, so people don't bang their heads on the rear glass. You can see, even though the Camaro has a formal notchback design, the higher seating position destroys rear seat headroom.

So ultimately, any final design would need design characteristics UNIQUE to each car, to the point where a common platform, ala Zeta, ends up either being too compromised, or having no meaningful cost-savings.

---

So where is Ford right now?

On the Mustang, the car has been silo'd into its own program. The Muzzy is absolutely essential to Ford's image, and too important to compromise. Therefore, the goal moving forward is continual improvement, ala Porsche 911. The Ford Mustang in 30 years will resemble the car being sold today, much the way a 1979 Porsche 911 resembles a 2009 Porsche 911. Engines and technology will improve, but the principles will remain. 2+2 seating, a fastback, a convertible, a performance model (whatever performance means moving forward), a long hood, and lots of customizing options.

The Falcon is a candidate for a program status similar to this, ASSUMING Australian customers want it. Don't look for the current Taurus to replace it, but if it DOES happen, it will be the next-generation, Mondeo/Fusion based Taurus, and by 2013/2014 when that car rolls around, who knows what state of disrepair the world will be in.

[2b2]

^ nicely stated, wescoent
& I agree with a few 'yeahbut's

Originally Posted by wescoent

Version 1b:
A platform very good for a Falcon and Lincoln, in terms of being robust, heavy duty, and with awesome NVH characteristics... but ending up WAY too heavy for a Mustang...

- with a flexible assembly plant
- with different structures from the A-pillars back
- with the imperative need for a Lincoln Rwd
- withOUT the need for the largest Lincoln(s) to use this ARCHITECTURE (MKT-based sedan)
imho (and that's all it is)
it can and will be done

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by wescoent

Story time, children.
The efforts within Ford to merge the Falcon and Mustang date back to the late 1990's, and have been continual since. Ford would like one single global rear-drive platform, but has been unable to engineer it due to both engineering restrictions and cost restrictions.
Any GRWD platform, to meet Ford's internal ROI requirements, would need a Mustang, a Falcon, and a Lincoln model in order for it to work out.
So ultimately, any final design would need design characteristics UNIQUE to each car, to the point where a common platform, ala Zeta, ends up either being too compromised, or having no meaningful cost-savings.
So where is Ford right now?
The Falcon is a candidate for a program status similar to this, ASSUMING Australian customers want it. Don't look for the current Taurus to replace it, but if it DOES happen, it will be the next-generation, Mondeo/Fusion based Taurus, and by 2013/2014 when that car rolls around, who knows what state of disrepair the world will be in.

And this is why RWD Falcon has not beed killed off yet and won't be for atleast the next 5 years.

The falcon/territory will remain the same package as we see it today unless sales volumes drop to the point of being not being viable.
If that happens Holden would want to have a healthy LHD export program for commodore as it will suffer the same volume drop as falcon.

So, how about you guys continue to debate how the falcon is dieing...


Another test...

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...rticleID=66950