Sponsored

Platform images

JohnZiraldo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Threads
30
Messages
926
Reaction score
156
Location
Toronto, ON
Vehicle(s)
86 Mustang GT Conv., 11 Edge Sport
I have always struggled with visualizing and understanding why modern 'platforms' are so fixed and/or limited. I could easily understand the old technology frame chassis, with suspension components etc.

Frame chassis.jpg


but I gather that modern platforms are significantly more engineered and sophisticated than that and cannot easily be modified (ie. stretched, shrunk, widened, narrowed etc.) than what could be done previously with a saw and a welder.
Is this the right image to have in mind about a modern platform?

modern platform.jpg


This to me looks like a platform for a specific model car, not something that is a platform that can be used for multiple models.

Take for example the GM Zeta platform. It is used for several different models including the Camaro. I found the following image while searching for the Zeta platform.

zeta platform.jpg


Is this the right way to think of a modern platform?

Is there enough information and images available to the public for a discussion about the differences in the Fox, SN95, S197, and in the future S550 platforms?
Sponsored

 

Melino

Guest
This is a really great topic. I have been wondering this myself with all the talk about the CD4 modular (CD4+3 or whatever other nickname it has been given) global platform that some people keep mentioning will be modified for RWD/2 door sports coupe usage, specifically for the S550 and a future "Lincolnstang."

I'm certainly not as technically savvy as some here so I hope to learn a thing or two about how it is possible (or not possible) and what kind of heavy re-engineering this would involve.

Judging by those images I would agree with John that these modern platforms seem much more purpose built and unadaptable than you would expect for wide cross-segment use.
 

thePill

Camaro5's Most Wanted
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Threads
37
Messages
6,561
Reaction score
699
Location
Pittsburgh
Vehicle(s)
S550
I have always struggled with visualizing and understanding why modern 'platforms' are so fixed and/or limited. I could easily understand the old technology frame chassis, with suspension components etc.

cover.jpg


but I gather that modern platforms are significantly more engineered and sophisticated than that and cannot easily be modified (ie. stretched, shrunk, widened, narrowed etc.) than what could be done previously with a saw and a welder.
Is this the right image to have in mind about a modern platform?

inside1.jpg


This to me looks like a platform for a specific model car, not something that is a platform that can be used for multiple models.

Take for example the GM Zeta platform. It is used for several different models including the Camaro. I found the following image while searching for the Zeta platform.

inside2.jpg


Is this the right way to think of a modern platform?

Is there enough information and images available to the public for a discussion about the differences in the Fox, SN95, S197, and in the future S550 platforms?
Ahhhhh the almighty chassis and the very core of my education. In short, no, you cannot just cut and weld like you use to. Over time, the Federal government mandated the "Cradle to Grave" rule. The reason so is because specific safety structure's cannot be altered at all. It is illegal to do so... Therefore, every specific chassis has it's own unique structure regardless if it's shared or not. This is mostly because of crash test standards but, auto makers have been using the extra rigidity for other things.

The differences between the Fox body and SN95 (Fox-4) are huge even though the SN95 shared floor pans with the fox, it was considered an evolution to some. Floor pans are a part of the safety structure but things like the torque box, engine bay, pillars, knuckle, rockers and firewall are considered "chassis"... You know, the things you can pull on a frame machine. So, in many cases, the Fox and SN95 are very distant relatives. Now, the S197 and S550 could very well be the same, however, keeping similar dimensions (wheelbase/track) because it is near optimal.

Even the "shared" chassis of today is more sophisticated than they use to be. Ford actually started this chassis sharing process with the first Mustang and, over time, everyone else seen the benefits.

The next obvious leap is from a Uni-Body to a "Space Frame" or Modular chassis (one piece and aluminum). Now that manufactures have discovered how to weld aluminum to steel (German Glue), this "Space Frame" has taken a backseat to the mainstream UHSS/Boron. The S550 will eventually (if not already) have an aluminum engine bay, German glued onto the Boron/UHSS firewall.
 

Overboost

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Threads
1
Messages
348
Reaction score
0
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
S197
This is a really great topic. I have been wondering this myself with all the talk about the CD4 modular (CD4+3 or whatever other nickname it has been given) global platform that some people keep mentioning will be modified for RWD/2 door sports coupe usage, specifically for the S550 and a future "Lincolnstang."

I'm certainly not as technically savvy as some here so I hope to learn a thing or two about how it is possible (or not possible) and what kind of heavy re-engineering this would involve.

Judging by those images I would agree with John that these modern platforms seem much more purpose built and unadaptable than you would expect for wide cross-segment use.
Here's an image of CD4 and some info on the material composition of the car from an SAE paper. Best I can find:

 

MYs197

Guest
Why do I read many people referring to the S550 as an all-new unibody chassis then? Is this just a false assumption.... if what we are hearing is true about a modular/"space frame" platform within the CD4 family.

There's 2 lines running at FRAP now right? It would make sense for them to have shared chassis cores and some shared manufacturing processes. I've read there is room for another line there which I can only assume would also be in the CD4 family.
 

Sponsored

thePill

Camaro5's Most Wanted
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Threads
37
Messages
6,561
Reaction score
699
Location
Pittsburgh
Vehicle(s)
S550
Why do I read many people referring to the S550 as an all-new unibody chassis then? Is this just a false assumption.... if what we are hearing is true about a modular/"space frame" platform within the CD4 family.

There's 2 lines running at FRAP now right? It would make sense for them to have shared chassis cores and some shared manufacturing processes. I've read there is room for another line there which I can only assume would also be in the CD4 family.
Whoa!!! I don't think there is a Space Frame CD4... I would like to know if there is...



Ford saved 4kg's in the B-Pillar alone.... That's almost 9lbs just from changing the type of steel in 8 different B-pillar locations.

Here is the B-Pillar (painted orange)... It was the first Hydro-formed panel Ford used.



 

DJ

Guest
Thats got to be a lot of reengineering needed. Not only the roof structure and B pillar placement (not to mention for RWD application) but it would also need to be reinforced for strength to handle all that extra power. Why not just modify the S197 by punching some holes in it and sparing use of lighter materials throughout?
 

Sponsored

Twin Turbo

Super Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Threads
479
Messages
9,835
Reaction score
7,402
Location
England
First Name
Paul
Vehicle(s)
Mustang '05 GT
Man, Ford really need to start drip-feeding OFFICIAL information............'cos we're just going around in circles here and it's giving me a headache :tsk:
 

S550Boss

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Threads
15
Messages
563
Reaction score
72
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT350; 2018 Focus RS
It would make sense for them to have shared chassis cores and some shared manufacturing processes.
A "chassis core" and assembly processes are two entirely different things. There doesn't have to be anything architecturally "shared" between the CD4 and the S550 for some parts of the line to be shared. There can be common processes, obviously, for the parts of the line that are shared. We may even find that some systems such as hvac share a few major parts. As we saw in the early mules, the base radio system from the Fusion was hacked into the current Mustang, along with the steering wheel (suggesting but not confirming more common components in the harness there).

But any idea that large components are the same, such as the rear suspension or even the entire structure of the car, is just plain wrong.

Also, saying "the line" isn't right either, since there are several "lines", feeders, sub-component assembly, staging area, etc. You can't just simplify by saying the plant has "a line".

FRAP also built the previous-gen Mazda6 at the plant, which had zero in common with the Mustang. There is plenty of video showing them going down a common assembly section together.

So the Fusion and Mustang don't have to have any single part in common at all, and statements that have been made by some in the past that the Mustang is a CD4 are dead wrong.
 

fastback69

Guest
Man, Ford really need to start drip-feeding OFFICIAL information............'cos we're just going around in circles here and it's giving me a headache :tsk:
Agree and it is pretty incredible that one of the main points that people can't seem to agree upon is something that is the most fundamental to the S550. Design can change but chassis development is years in the making and you'd think it would've been known by now whether it is an evolution of S197, an all-new ground up chassis, or a modified (for RWD) platform that shares components with the CD4 family---very different choices but I've still yet to see one shred of proof for any of them.
 

S550Boss

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Threads
15
Messages
563
Reaction score
72
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT350; 2018 Focus RS
So they had ten years to develop this and the best they could come up with was to modify a platform they developed when? in the early 2000's years in advance of the 2005?
The S197 is a devolution of the DEW98, which was co-developed with Jaguar in the mid-nineties and came to market in 1999 as the Lincoln LS and Jaguar S-Type (and later the Thunderbird, and later yet if the plans had gone thru would have been the new Mustang). The previous gen SN95 was a slightly modified FOX platform which was developed starting in the early seventies and came to market in the fall of 1977 as a 1978 Fairmont and lasted all the way into the 2004 model year - wretched as it was by then (so 2004 buyers were driving 30 year old technology that had been repeatedly patched up - one dead end was the gas tank location). And the SN95 wasn't even suppossed to exist... it was originally supposed to be an MN12-based Mustang and that program fell apart. The Panther platform was an even worse example. So there is plenty of precedent here. Each of the steps in the use of those platforms was marketed as "all new", and they may have had major modifications (the Panther went thru multiple suspension upgrades, for example, and those model years were marketed as "all new"), but none were clean sheet.

All the evidence of the early mules and the current prototypes show that the S550 is an evolved S197. It's very plain to see via some easy analysis. Ford Marketing and sales will beg to differ, as car manufacturers always do. That's their business method. But there is something else at play here, a social factor, something about pride, which dictates to some people that the 2015 has to be "all new" and that it is some sort of personal affront if it isn't. "The Emperor's New Clothes" is an old tale, and car manufactures use it to their advantage. If you believe the clothes are indeed new, you are falling prey to their trickery.

The real question is "how new" the S550 is:
- If the strut tower is in the exact same place, has the same dimensions, has a slightly different hat and 3 bolts instead of 4, does that make the car "all new"?
- If the gas filler is slightly relocated and the tank had a wider gap in the middle to clear the new resonator, does that make the car "all new"?
- If the existing front subframe is gone over to save a few ounces or pounds here or there, does that make the car "all new"?
- if the front subframe is modified to carry the (suppossed, since it's not confirmed) new lower control arm/links, does that make the car "all new"? (the existing S197 brace underneath is clearly shown on the prototypes, supporting the "not all new" theorem).
- if the existing firewall is modified to allow both right- and left-hand drive, does that make the car "all new"? Even though the battery and brake boosters are also updated to support this?
- if the front track and wheelbase of the S550 is identical to the S197, does that mean that the S550 "all new"?
The answer is no in these cases, because the engineers started with the existing pieces an dmodified form there.

Taking this further, if the hvac and radio/nav systems are shared with another platform, does that make the car "all new"? Hardly, since radio and nav were standardized years ago, and some shared hvac components - an expensive subsystem - saves dollars.

So the answer is "how new", to what degree, and that will only be known at the time of the press briefings next year. I'm going to look at things like the transmission tunnel size and the height of the trunk floor to see "how new" this car really is: "breathed over" or "thoroughly gone thru to reduce weight and increase structural integrity". It's already perfectly clear that this isn't a clean-sheet design, so it's just a matter of degree over the S197 that is at question.

And keep in mind the reality of a low volume car such as this: "best they could come up with" is dictated by budget, sales (which are currnently very poor, and falling), commonality (3.7 and 5.0 engines are basically paid for by the F-150 program, as they have been for years). It's not dictated by the best the engineers could do with a clean sheet and unlimited funds. However, if there are to be other cars built off this same platform (as with the Nissan FM platform, one of the best examples in the indystry), then the Mustang would benefit enormously from that and have access to advanced designs and technology that it wouldn't otherwise have been able to afford. Again, going to Nissan for an example, the lowly 370Z has a state-of-the-art platform and suspension thanks to the Infiniti G and all the other Infinitis that share those same parts. Even the front half of the GT-R shares the same design family with these cars and SUVs, along with the engine design. This is what Ford could have done if they had continued the evolution of the DEW98 platform, this is the benefit the Mustang could have received. The bigger and more important question than all this moaning about the S550 is whether it will remain as an orphan platform or whether it will go on to other uses. If it stays an orphan (and "One Ford" doesn't dictate that all platforms will be used more than once, it simply says there won't be redundancy) then it's development budget remains in the poor house. If it is shared with something else, then it's budget goes up and we get the benefit of better parts all around.
Sponsored

 
 




Top