You are free to believe whatever you chose. A Chassis is a chassis, whether
it be monolithic or on a frame. Names changes occur and bodies, engines,
trannys and suspensions can, and do, often vary on the same basic chassis.
To call it the same chassis is a stretch. The assemble lines are so
different that similar cars are built it different plants. , For instance,
the Hapeville plant near Atlanta, before it closed, had to be modified from
building just the Taurus and to start building Sables as well, when Ford
closed the Sable plant
The FOX of today is not the old FOX of the eighties, no matter what some
will tell you. How often de we hear the CV, GM and T-Car are built on the
same chassis? The fact is you can NOT mount the CV or the GM on the T-Car
chassis. Although the engines and tranny are the same the chassis 'hard
points' are different on the T-Car because there are so many changes, like
being wider in beam, to that basic chassis. When Ford closed the Lincoln
plant at Wixom and moved T-Car to the Canadian plant that assembles the
CV/GM, they had to modify the line to build the T-Car for just two years.
The point was when I was working as an engineer at Ford, designing crumple
zones, we continued to design, re-engineer and build large bodies RWD cars
until after I retired in 1986. At the time we were working the only new RWD
chassis in the industry, for the Lincoln LS. That chassis, was used on the
Jaguar, the last T-Bird and still today on the Mustang.. Over that same
period GM and Chrysler went entirely to FWD for all new vehicles. DerMopar
returned the 300 to the better handling RWD chassis, however.
2008 or 09 will likely be the end of large RWD cars from Ford when the MKS,
AWD full-size 2009 Lincoln, is introduced in mid 08. AWD CV/GM will follow
At least my beliefs are based on fact. You seem to just make stuff up and
when confronted with actual facts go off on some tangent.
I never said Falcon and Fairlanes used the "same" chassis. I said the
Fairlane was a derivative of the Falcon chassis. Some parts were shared,
many were not. The basic layouts and suspension designs were the same.
Do you spend all day making up BS? There never was a separate "Sable" plant.
The Taurus and Sable were always made at the same plants (Chicago and
There are no Fox body cars of "today." The prior version Mustang was
developed from the original Fairmont chassis, but by 1999 model nothing much
was carried over except the basic layout and suspension designs.
Not surprising since they have different wheelbases. And actually there is
not jsut one Town Car chassis - don't forget the "L" version (see
. How about the special long wheel base Crown Victoria (6 inches longer)?
If you don't know what I am talking about go to
You are wrong about the Town Car having a wider "beam." Excluding mirrors, a
TC and a CV are the same width. The GM, CV, and TC are all derivatives of
the original Panther chassis design (with significant refinements over the
years). There are a number of different chassis with wheel bases of 114.7",
117.7", 120.7", and 123.7".
Quit posting this BS about the current Mustang being on the same chassis as
the LS or Thunderbird. According to Ford the only thing shared was a single
stamping. They have completely different front and rear suspension. If you
want to say the engineers (clearly you were not involved) that worked on the
LS also worked on the Mustang, I can buy that, but claiming anything beyond
a remote relationship is total hyperbole. It is not reasonable to claim cars
share a chassis if they use completely different suspensions, drivetrains,
etc. Thunderbird and LS - SLA independent suspension front and rear -
Mustang - Strut type suspension in the front, solid rear axle in the rear.
You were hitting on me for claiming Falcons and Fairlanes were related, yet
they at least used the same suspension design (front SLA with springs over
the upper A arm, and leaf spring hung solid rear axles).
And your source of information is? Everything I read says Ford may keep the
CV going as a fleet only vehicle for a few more years (primarily for the
Police and Taxi markets).
Your are free to believe what ever you chose. The wider beam refers to the
distance between frame rails not the overall body width of the vehicle.
The last T-Bird and the 05 Mustang are indeed based on the same chassis used
on the LS and the Jaguar, wheel base, suspensions parts do not need be the
same. Does the Jaguar have the same suspension, engine and tranny as the
LS? Front modules and wheel bases
can be changed but the chassis hard points remain. The LWB T-Car is the
same chassis, albeit several inches longer. Do a search and you will
discover not all Mustangs, running around today have solid rear axles for
instance. Independent rears can be simply bolted on and axles upgraded to
take the torque
Who said current model must go away when the newer cars come to market?
Escort and Taurus were built for several year after the new chassis cars
come to market, as well.
Both plants originally built both cars but when Taurus sales grew, the later
versions were only made in Hapeville. When Taurus sales slackened Ford
closed the second plant and move Sable to Hapeville and that is what I said.
As to the accuracy of what I posted about new models, that will become self
evident when the AWD cars actually come to market over the next few years.
I'm wasting time trying to enlighten you are the subject of chassis, you
just like to nit pick out parts of a post with which to argue, it appears
PURE CRAP. You should be ashamed to keep repeating this when anyone
that bothers to look knows it is not true.
I never made any comments about the LS vs Jaguar XJ. The current
Mustang does not use the same hard points as the discontinued LS and
Thunderbuird. You keep spouting this crap. You claim to have owned
both an LS and a late model Mustang - go look! I had a Thunderbird and
have a Mustang. I looked under both, there are no common points . You
are repeating some old BS dished out a few years ago when Ford was
evaluating using the DEW platform for the new Mustang. Ford started
with using the DEW paltform for the Mustang as a target, but by the
time they were through there is nothing significant left. If you are
too stubborn to recognize this, then there is not much more that I can
say. Maybe you would believe the Wikkipedia explantion? See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_DEW_platform . From that reference:
"DEW (or DEW98) is Ford Motor Company's midsize rear wheel drive
automobile platform. The D/E nomenclature was meant to express an
intermediate size between D and E class vehicles, while the W denoted
a worldwide platform. The platform was developed by both Ford and
Jaguar engineers, and debuted in the Lincoln LS sedan.
"A less-expensive variant known as DEW Lite was originally to be used
for the 2005 Ford Mustang, but the platform was significantly
redesigned to become the Ford D2C platform instead."
And from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_D2C_platform :
"The D2C (for "D-class 2-door coupe" and also known as DC2 and S197)
is Ford's newest global rear-wheel drive automobile platform. The
platform basics are a MacPherson strut suspension in front and 3-link
solid axle in the rear with a Panhard rod. The 2007 high performance
Special Vehicle Team (SVT) Mustang variation, called the Shelby GT500,
will not include an SVT-designed independent rear suspension, but will
also have the solid rear axle. Engines include a 4.0 L V6, Ford's
Modular 4.6 L V8, and a supercharged 5.4 L Modular V8 in the GT500.
"Considered a new platform by Ford Motor Company D2C is loosely based
on the Ford DEW platform which served as the basis for the Lincoln LS,
Ford Thunderbird, and Jaguar S-Type. The 2005 S197 Mustang was
originally designed to use a "Lite" version of the DEW98 platform, but
while that plan was eventually scrapped as too expensive, most D2C
platform development completed prior to that decision was retained.
This led to the carryover of several DEW98 chassis components. These
components include the floor pans, portions of the transmission
tunnel, the front frame rails, and basic fuel tank design.
"Differences between D2C and DEW98 are most noticeable in the
suspension: The DEW98-based Lincoln LS uses a 4-wheel independent
double wishbone suspension. The D2C platform's MacPherson strut front
suspension and solid axle rear suspension are less expensive to
produce than DEW's more complicated setup. D2C also shares components
with other Ford platforms. These include Ford's global C1 platform,
with which D2C shares front strut and rear trailing arm components."
Or how about this article from Ward;s Auto World? From
Ward's Auto World, March 1, 2004 by Alisa Priddle
Byline: Alisa Priddle
"Inner debates? How about fights, laughs Phil Martens as he describes
the reaction in Ford Motor Co.'s inner sanctums when the decision was
made early in the design of the '05 Mustang to abandon the DEW
platform for an all-new architecture.
"Engineers were not far into the program when it became evident the
expensive DEW98 platform (Lincoln LS, Ford Thunderbird, Jaguar S-Type)
would not provide Mustang with the range and cost-effectiveness
needed, says Martens, Ford group vice president-North America product
"This was, after all, the first all-new Mustang Ford was attempting
since 1979, in a segment reduced to a couple players when Chevrolet
Camaro/Pontiac Firebird ceased production in August 2002.
"Controversial as the decision was internally, Martens has no regrets
"The new architecture developed for the Mustang represents a savings
of 30%-35% (for the V-8) compared with what it would have cost to
build the newest pony car off the DEW architecture, he tells Ward's.
"And the entry-level V-6, with a solid rear axle and desired
pricepoint under $20,000, was close to impossible from a platform with
an expensive double-wishbone front suspension and independent rear
"The LS (DEW) platform was built with a different cost structure and a
different performance level and didn't have the accommodation that a
traditional Mustang product has," says Martens of the complicated
family with about nine variants planned, from the base coupe to a
high-end $60,000 Cobra R."
Surely that article should set you straight. The mis-information about
the Mustang and DEW paltform needs to stop.
You can't buy a current Mustang with IRS. The previous style (pre
2004) Mustang Cobra models included IRS. But that IRS was designed
specifically to bolt in place of the solid rear axle. The same thing
could be done for the current Mustangs, but it has not been done yet.
And I am certain that you can't bolt the IRS from a Thunderbird or
Lincoln LS under a 2005+ Mustang without doing a lot of hacking and
READ what you posted, it is exactly what I have been trying to tell you, but
of course you are free to believe what ever you chose.
"Considered a new platform by Ford Motor Company D2C (the chassis on which
'05 to '07 Mustangs are assembled) (CE) is loosely based on the Ford DEW
platform which served as the BASIS (CE) for the Lincoln LS, Ford
Thunderbird, and Jaguar S-Type.
Quit trying to weasel out of your clearly stated position.
"The last T-Bird and the 05 Mustang are indeed based on the same chassis
used on the LS and the Jaguar, wheel base, suspensions parts do not need be
the same. Does the Jaguar have the same suspension, engine and tranny as
the LS? Front modules and wheel bases can be changed but the chassis hard
points remain. The LWB T-Car is the same chassis, albeit several inches
longer. Do a search and you will discover not all Mustangs, running around
today have solid rear axles for instance. Independent rears can be simply
bolted on and axles upgraded to take the torque"
Clearly you were trying to claim that the chassis were closely related (as
in "same chassis"). And just as clearly they are not. Read again the quote
from the Ward's article - "How about fights, laughs Phil Martens as he
describes the reaction in Ford Motor Co.'s inner sanctums when the decision
was made early in the design of the '05 Mustang to abandon the DEW platform
for an all-new architecture." Notice the words - "all new architecture." Go
back and review your many erroneous claims on this subject and tell me you
weren't flat wrong. Here are a few:
10/25/2007 - "The last T-Bird and the 05 Mustang are indeed based on the
same chassis used on the LS and the Jaguar"
10/24/2007 - "That chassis, was used on the Jaguar, the last T-Bird and
still today on the Mustang"
10/25/2006 - "built on the same basic chassis the Jaguar 'S,' T-Bird and the
12/28/2005 - " own a 2005 Mustang GT convertible that is build on version of
the Jag/T-Bird/Lincoln LS chassis."
Your previous statement make it clear you were claiming that the current
Mustang was built on a chassis closely related to the LS and Thunderbird.
Phil Marten's quote makes it clear it is not.
Thanks for goving me premission to believe the truth. You don't have my
permission to keep spouting BS.
What is clear is YOUR BS. You have been saying all along the 05 Mustang was
not based on the LS chassis, but rather an unrelated new chassis because the
suspension is different.
What you posted herein proves my point that "The last T-Bird and the 05
Mustang are indeed based on the same chassis used on the LS and the Jaguar"
The reason manufacturer use previously NHTSA approved chassis is the high
cost of certifying all new chassis
Thanks for giving me permission to speak the truth. You do have my
permission to keep spouting you BS personal opinion if you chose ;)
Mike you are incorrect. Read again what the Ford project manager said.
It is more than just the suspension that is different. Why don't you list
what is the same - errrrr one stamping maybe?
Go back and read what I actually said instead of trying to twist the fact to
cover up your false assertions, I have been trying to correct your
misinformation on this subject for almost 3 years. despite overwhelming
evidence to the contrary you keep saying things like " The Lincoln LS,
T-Bird and a Jag are all built on the same chassis as is the 2005 Mustang."
Here is part of my June 19, 2004 reply to some of your incorrect claims:
"I can only assume you are basing this whole argument on the early press
articles that said the new Mustang would be based on the DEW platform. This
never happened. I am sure Ford used a lot of the same development techniques
and construction techniques and maybe even "morphed" parts of the DEW
platform to create the new Mustang, but the cars don't share any major
structural or suspension components. It is simply wrong to try to claim the
Mustang is a version of the DEW platform. If you want to say it was
"developed from" or "distantly related to", then I cannot argue with
you. But saying "The Lincoln LS, T-Bird and a Jag are all built on the same
chassis as is the 2005 Mustang" is just an incredibly imprecise statement."
In January of 2004 when you claimed "The 2005 Mustang is in fact built on
the Jag/LS/T-Bird chassis." I responded with multiple credible references
that refuted this claim:
From http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/113_0402_must/index2.html -
"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
"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
From http://www.stangnet.com/2005fordmustang/2005fordmustangdynamics.html -
"A new-from-the-ground-up chassis and careful attention to vehicle dynamics
give the all-new Mustang world-class ride and handling......
"Engineers carefully examined the BMW M3, a car believed by many to deliver
just such qualities, before they laid out the Mustang's suspension. They
used lessons learned from the M3 and the Lincoln LS to create the new
Mustang's chassis design."
From an April 2005 reply to more of your incorrect claims:
".... I don't understand why you continue to ignore the copious references
that refute your claim. At some point did Ford consider using the DEW
platform for the new Mustang? - yes! Does the new Mustang share some basic
dimension with the LS? - no (neither wheelbase nor track, although the
wheelbase is almost the same as a Thunderbird). Are some parts shared? - yes
(but that is true of most Ford products). Are the "hard points" shared - no
(the Mustang has different rear suspension mounting points and a completely
different front structure). Is the suspension design shared (even the basic
design) - No. Using your logic, we might as well claim the new Mustang is a
variation of the Model A- after all, both have four wheel on the ground.
"I don't doubt that when the initial layouts were done the LS chassis was a
starting point. However, by the time the Mustang became a reality almost
nothing of the LS design is left. From the articles available, it appears
the Mustang shares one piece of the floor pan with the LS, although I
suspect even this is a variation made off of the tooling and not the same
physical part. "
I particularly hate the way you keep trying to weasel out of admitting that
you are flat wrong by trying to broaden the definition of a chassis. For the
LS and the Mustang to share a chassis, they need to share something more
than one stamping. They don't share basic dimensions, or subframes, or
mounting points, or types of suspension, or even engine choices. I would
have thought that Phil Martens quote (".... the decision was made early in
the design of the '05 Mustang to abandon the DEW platform for an all-new
architecture.") would have finally made you see the light. I guess I was
wrong. Apparently you are willing to go to any lengths to try and claim you
are right, even if it is painfully obvious you don't have a clue about the
You keep going around in circles. You problem continues to be that you do
not know what a chassis is, fasteners door hinges, and environmental
controls, are NOT part of the chassis any more than are the engine trannys
or suspension parts.
The DEW indeed was the "part that was morphed," as you call it to create the
new Mustang just as it was "morphed" to create the Jag and the T-Bird. I
agreed the FOUR different cars do share all of the suspension components.
Nor do they share the same engines or trannys as I have stated, as well. It
is simply wrong to try to claim the current Mustang is NOT a version of the
DEW platform and that is what you continue to want to do, yet contend the
LS, and the "morphed" Jag and the T-Bird are exactly the same chassis, that
is a ridiculous opinion..
I am going to break my response to your flood of misinformation in to two
separate replies - one for the Mustang chassis and one for the Town Car
The Town Car Chassis issue is easily settled. Go to
http://home.earthlink.net/~cew3nc/ and down load the two PDFs - one for the
Lincoln Town Car Chassis and one for the Ford Crown Victoria Chassis. Every
single width dimension listed for the two chassis are the same. So to
review - the overall body widths are the same and the chassis widths are the
same. And you claim is?
This little paragraph bothered me since I first read it. This was especially
true since I owned a 1986 Sable that was built at the Atlanta plant. I
reviewed the documents available on Ford's Atlanta plant and once again it
seems you are making stuff up.
Read the following references:
From: Automotive News, 02-MAY-05
by Domby, Debi
"The final Mercury Sable rolled off the assembly line on Friday, April 29,
at Ford Motor Co.'s Atlanta assembly plant. Sable production began in
October 1985. The car also was built at Ford's Chicago assembly plant until
last summer. In nearly 20 years, 2,118,000 Sables have..."
From http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?releaseD82 :
"A total of 243,842 cars were produced at AAP in 1999. Employees built
188,966 Ford Taurus cars, 2,247 Ford Taurus SHO cars and 52,629 Mercury
Sable cars. Production of the Taurus SHO was discontinued in June 1999."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Assembly :
"The Atlanta Assembly plant was opened on December 1, 1947. .
- 1983-1985 Ford LTD
- 1983-1985 Mercury Marquis
- 1986-2007 Ford Taurus
- 1986-2005 Mercury Sable
From http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0504/19/C01-154989.htm :
"End of Ford Taurus closes era
"The end of Taurus production robs Ford's Atlanta assembly plant of its last
product. Production of the Mercury Sable, a Taurus twin, ends this month --
and no new product has been earmarked for the plant, which opened in 1947
and employs nearly 2,000 hourly workers."
"Mercury to drop Sable next spring.
"By: Wilson, Amy. Automotive News, 12/6/2004, Vol. 79 Issue 6124, p8-8
"The article reports that Mercury will discontinue its long-suffering Sable
sedan after the 2005 model year. Production of the Sable at Ford Motor Co.'s
Atlanta assembly plant is expected to end in April, according to an internal
Go look at
this is a 1992 Sable. The VIN number is 1mecm5346na600440 . Notice the "a"
in position 11. This indicates the car was built in Atlanta.
Now explain your claim that "the Hapeville plant near Atlanta.......had to
be modified from building just the Taurus and to start building Sables as
well, when Ford closed the Sable plant."
Where is the "Sable plant." How did I buy a Sable in early 1986 built in
Atlanta? Why do you keep making stuff up?
Geeze, I know Reagan had Alzheimer's, but he was still President until
1989. While Clinton was elected in 1988, he didn't take office until
1989. Just like Bush's successor won't take office until 2009.
When did Ford abandon rear-wheel drive cars? Oops, they didn't.
Can GM makes some crossovers with RWD, like the Caddy SRX. And they
still make a RWD Caprice, but in Australia.
He will! Our friend Jeff OK but has a tendency to comment on every post,
even on subjects of which he has little knowledge, because he likes to be
heard. But like all of us on occasion he does not have all his ducks lined
up correctly on subjects on which he does have sufficient knowledge, because
he like to be heard on most every subject. However if others have a brain
freeze he will call you nasty manes ;)
Of course you are right - I guess Imust have Alzheimers. However, the
point is valid. GM made large RWD cars well before and well after
Regean was President. Mike made it sound like Regan somehow made it
possible for manufacturers to build large RWD vehicles when that
clearly was not the case.
I didn't say they did. I was just pointing out to Mike that GM didn't
either until after Regean was long out of office.
But they aren't the same as the US Caprice. They look like some sort
of weird cross between a Oldsmobile Cutlass and a Buick Century.
According to your reference they are stretched Holden Commodores,
which are based on the Opel Omega. Ford still make Falcons in
Australia too - but they are nothing like the old US Falcons.
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.