Re: GM: Kill Pontiac

Page 2 of 2  
Well I've apparently accomplished something, at least not all of my time was wasted. You are are FINALLY referring to the chassis and its variations, not the numerous and sundry components that
can be attached to it. My last comment on the subject, do some more research on chassis 'hard points,' at then you may begin to know something about vehicle chassis ;)
"C. E. White" wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com wrote:

They don't share hard points!!!!!
Ed

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Which was a variation of the Fox. In the same manner the 2005 Mustang is a variation of the Lincoln LS, T-Bird, Jag chassis
mike hunt
David Starr wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Mike,
This assertion has been repeatedly refuted by Ford engineers. While itis true that early on in the development of the new Mustang, the Lincoln LS platform was considered, in the end they used almost nothing form this chassis. The Mustang has almost nothing of consequence in common with the Thundrebird or Lincoln LS (the automatic transmission, one chassis piece and some corporate components). Different front and rear suspension (not even similar design suspensions). Different stampings (one exception), different engines. You just chewed me out for suggesting that 1991 and 2005 Crown Visctoria are closely related and then you turn around make the claim that the new Mustang is a version of the DEW platform. While you might say "derived from," you are overstating the relationship when you say it is a "variation of." A 2005 Crown Victoria has a lot more in common with a 1979 full size LTD than a 2005 Mustang has in common with a Lincoln LS. I will admit that the Ford pulic relations department seems to be more than willing to let people link the Mustang with the LS and Thunderbird, but none of the quotes form the actual Ford engineers substantiate this claim.
From http://www.abrn.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id 9304
"When Ford first announced it was retiring Mustang's venerable FOX platform, in place since 1979, speculation immediately began building that the company would turn to its DEW platform, the base of Jaguars and the Lincoln LS. As it turns out, that story had more longevity in the automotive press than in actual design meetings. Early on, Ford executives realized the DEW had a major drawback that would preclude its use in the latest Mustang-price. "The main quality that has made Mustang always stand out is its affordability," Sherwood says. "The DEW was just too expensive."
"What's more, the DEW and any possible derivation of it could never provide a proper platform for the Mustang because the DEW uses an independent rear suspension. Mustang customers have demanded for decades that their beloved street rod maintain a solid rear axle. This setup puts the most wheel to the road for the off-the-line bursts the vehicle has forged its reputation on. Ford agreed and decided the 2005 would retain the solid axle. That decision had some significant implications for the new Mustang's design."
From http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/features/0412mm_drive /
"This is truly an all-new Mustang. Except for the short-block in the 4.6 V-8, 8.8-inch rear, and the five-speed manual gearbox, it shares very little with its predecessors. It is the only Mustang in history to have a unique chassis to call its own. While originally derived from the Lincoln LS/Thunderbird/Jaguar S-Type DEW98 platform, the only thing left from that trio in the Stang is the floorpan. The front suspension, rear suspension, etc. are for this package only. <and since the Thunderbrd and LS have different wheelbases...how can all three share even the floorpan?>
"While the aforementioned FoMoCo luxury models use coilover shocks and a short-long arm suspension up front, the Mustang eschewed this in favor of a traditional MacPherson strut design (as opposed to a modified MacPherson strut setup seen in the Mustang from 1979-2004. While there was a lot of support for a DEW98 front suspension, it was discounted for packaging reasons; the physically large 4.6 3-valve engine wouldn't fit. That left two choices: Change to something else or use the smaller 4-liter V-8 from the Lincoln. The former obviously won out. "The coilover MacPherson-struts rest on a reverse "L" lower control arm, and the manufacturing of these steel arms allows them to be even lighter than some comparable cast aluminum designs. A firm bushing is positioned where the shorter forward leg of the L-arm connects to the chassis to control lateral motion and quicken steering response. The fore-and-aft movements are directed through a softer, compliant bushing at the longer rear L-arm leg that damps road shocks.
"Hydraulic engine mounts and rear control arm bushings on the L-arms reduce impact harshness, while the tubular front sway bar (34mm on the GT, 28.6mm on the V-6) uses what's called outboard mounting to improve roll control and steering response. Steering, by the way, remains rack-and-pinion with a 15.7:1 ratio.
"Move to the rear of the car and you'll find a rear suspension that was as controversial to design as it is unusual in a Mustang. After much internal battling and sleepless nights, Ford decided to retain a solid rear axle, a nod to us, the knuckle dragging, hairy-palmed drag racing types. For much of the development program, the car was slated to get independent rear suspension across the board, from V-6 to Cobra and every Mustang in between. Of course, this didn't go over well with traditional ponycar purchasers, many of whom spend an inordinate amount of time doing high-rpm clutch drops on sticky concrete starting pads with sticky tires. They know the effects this combination of abuse can have on an IRS and made their feelings known."
From http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/0411_ford_mustang /
"The new unibody, which contains no hidden Fairmont metal and only one piece from the Lincoln LS, is 31 percent stiffer in torsion and 50 percent more resistant to bending forces. That's good, because there's a party raging under the hood."
From http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3828/is_200411/ai_n9469404
"The Mustang has an advanced design MacPherson strut front suspension that uses a reverse L-shaped lower control arm. The lightweight steel design weighs about the same as cast aluminum. The reverse L-shape isolates the control bushings. It puts the shorter leg at the front, where a firm bushing is used for lateral stability, and the longer leg at the rear, where a softer (hydraulic) bushing both absorbs road vibration and controls chassis fore & aft movements.
"The three-link rear suspension features a massive center-mounted torque control link attached to the top of the banjo, a design prominent in racing circles. There's a trailing arm at each side and a stiff rod (called a Panhard rod) from one end of the axle to the chassis at the odier end, to maintain lateral location of the axle.""
From http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/113_0402_must/index2.html
"Throughout its history, the Mustang has always been built on an existing platform borrowed directly from another model. First it was the Falcon, then the Pinto, and finally the Fairmont. The new chassis, known internally as S197, borrows elements from across Ford's global brand portfolio but is less derivative of any specific model than previous generations. Overall, about 30 percent of the new platform's content is shared with other Ford vehicles--mostly things like fasteners (shared with the Mazda 6 built at the same Flat Rock, Michigan, assembly plant where the Mustang will be built), door hinges, and environmental controls. While some have suggested it resembles the current Lincoln LS, the base V-6 and GT models will not share that platform's independent rear suspension (IRS). Instead, the initial models in the lineup will debut with a conventional 8.8-inch rear axle suspended by coil springs and two lower control arms, a differential-mounted torque link, and a Panhard bar.
"The new Mustang's front suspension consists of cast-aluminum, rear-facing, L-shaped lower control arms with true coilover MacPherson struts. We're told the chassis has been designed with IRS in mind, and future IRS-equipped models are in the works, most likely in a future SVT-produced Cobra version. One major enhancement of this front suspension is the better location of the front roll center, which on the current platform is about 35mm above the ground at stock ride height and typically goes below ground level when the car is lowered even an inch or two, creating a variety of ill-handling characteristics. The new geometry places the front roll center 55 mm above the ground, and its location is far less subject to change as the suspension cycles than the old design. This is good news for handling fans and will allow the aftermarket far greater leeway in designing suspension components to enhance what already promises to be a far better handling car than the current version."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The operative phrase in your post is "almost nothing," but the Mustang it is indeed a derivative of the LS chassis.
As a retired design engineer who worked for 30 years, developing chassis for GM and Ford, I have tried to explain to you on several occasion, apparently without success, that a basic chassis can have numerous offsprings. The problem you have in understanding why one chassis can be used as a basis for several vehicles that appear completely different, is you have a limited understanding of what comprises one chassis vis a v another.
Developing and certifying a chassis to meet federal safety standards is very expensive to develop and put it into production on an assembly line. It is far less expensive to certify variations of that chassis than to develop and certify a new chassis.
The part that is inserted on the assembly line is called the 'buck.' The buck is the basic chassis and its variations. An assembly plant is designed around the buck. Changing the wheelbase, up or down, is easy. Adding different components to the buck, engines, trannys, axles, suspension and so forth, to the basis mountings called hard points is not difficult. Changing the basic chassis buck, and all of its relative hard points, get expensive in comparison. One can not, for example, build a FWD car on a RWD assembly line but one can build variations that appear different. Honda builds it new Ridge Runner truck off an Accord chassis.
Wait till you see the car that Ford will introduce to replace the Ford GT in a two years, it is built off the GT chassis.
mike hunt
"C. E. White" wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.