Platform images

[Overboost]

And if the car is based on CD4, as many rumors have said, would it be "clean sheet" in your eyes?

Sponsored

 

[S550Boss]

And if the car is based on CD4, as many rumors have said, would it be "clean sheet" in your eyes?

It isn't based on a CD4, there aren't any platform structure or major components in common at all. That rumor was only started by people who think that because a car comes out the same door of a factory that it must be built the same underneath and inside.

But for the sake of argument, if it is a CD4, then it is all-new to Mustang fans, but not clean-sheet since it's just a Fusion behind the scenes. And it would also be extremely undesirable.

We know the next Camaro is built on the Alpha chassis, so it's "all-new" to Camaro fanboys, but it's not an all-new car given the use of the Alpha for the ATS and CTS. They'll have the same argument on their forums, bemoaning anybody that says their emperor has no clothes, while chest-thumping and giving the rebel yell. But the difference is there that they are getting what was a clean-sheet platform, designed from the start for this purpose, light weight and efficient, and offering benefits all around in quality and component choice. A big discussion they are having is whether or not the next Camaro should get the twin-turbo V-6... that is up to marketeers. But the Alpha platform makes that possible and easy if that is to happen at all.

 

[JohnZiraldo]

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). 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. ...........

Great info. This thread is becoming very informative.

Question:
Other than being able to use the 'new chassis' label accurately, what are the other factors that could make a clean sheet design far superior to an evolved platform. If for example an evolved platform could use all of the latest materials and weight reduction/while strengthening strategies, is there something else that a clean sheet design can do that an evolved design can't?

 

[Overboost]

It isn't based on a CD4, there aren't any platform structure or major components in common at all. That rumor was only started by people who think that because a car comes out the same door of a factory that it must be built the same underneath and inside.

But for the sake of argument, if it is a CD4, then it is all-new to Mustang fans, but not clean-sheet since it's just a Fusion behind the scenes. And it would also be extremely undesirable.

We know the next Camaro is built on the Alpha chassis, so it's "all-new" to Camaro fanboys, but it's not an all-new car given the use of the Alpha for the ATS and CTS. They'll have the same argument on their forums, bemoaning anybody that says their emperor has no clothes, while chest-thumping and giving the rebel yell. But the difference is there that they are getting what was a clean-sheet platform, designed from the start for this purpose, light weight and efficient, and offering benefits all around in quality and component choice. A big discussion they are having is whether or not the next Camaro should get the twin-turbo V-6... that is up to marketeers. But the Alpha platform makes that possible and easy if that is to happen at all.

For the sake of argument then, if CD4 going to Mustang is undesirable, why isn't Alpha (used on a sedan as well) undesirable for Camaro?

 

[nametoshowothers]

Generally a platform is more than just a chassis, it includes multiple components that get reused.

Volkswagen is very successful today due to there industry leading reusability of core components across many cars/platforms/chassis

So hard to make a lot of comments on this with clear definition of what is really included in the chassis definition and what is included in the platform definition

 

[Melino]

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.

For the uninitiated if you could explain how it is you can tell (apparently just by looking at the pics unless you have actually examined real life physical parts) this is just an evolved S197 by looking at the early mules and current prototypes. I'm not saying it isn't but how can you tell so easily?

Are you basing this off of how the S197 body fits onto the S550 chassis?

 

[S550Boss]

Tons of stuff... Here is a very obvious example. The early-70s design FOX chassis slung the gas tank under the rear trunk area. This was design-as-normal in the seventies (despite the lessons already being learned about the Pinto), but in the longer term would be a huge potential liability problem. BON did a send-up on this in the late nineties that I remember, they came into images showing the amount of gas leaked in mild collisions. It was alarming. Federal standards also moved forward and by 2004 this design was overdue to change.
But to change to a saddle-type tank located under the rear seats, the SN95 platform would have had to change significantly. The entire area under the seats would have to be different, meaning the seats would be in a different place (compare your car to a S197), the exhaust and the fuel routing are different, the frame rails would be strengthened to hold the tank and also to account for side crash protection, etc. And then the back of the car changes to accommodate the mufflers, evap canister, etc. And the trunk is much longer to handle all that. And meanwhile crash standards are changing, especially in the rear. So here you end up with an entirely different back half to the car from an SN95. Conveniently, since Ford already had the DEW98, that provided all these improvements (too bad the state-of-the-art suspension on it had to be canned for cost control).
And this doesn't even look at weight reduction or changing materials. You can't just change the type of metal used... each type has a different characteristics. You have to take a system approach here. Changes to one type of metal would require changes across the system.

 

[S550Boss]

For the sake of argument then, if CD4 going to Mustang is undesirable, why isn't Alpha (used on a sedan as well) undesirable for Camaro?

Because CD4 is a front wheel drive car. Look under the hood - how could you fit an inline engine under there (with all the structural requirements, and crash protection, etc)? Would the frame even be strong enough? Would the suspension parts be strong enough? Would the resulting weight distribution be reasonable? The answer across the board is a resounding "no". The entire idea that this is a CD4 is absurdly ridiculous.

The Alpha is clean-sheet, designed to accommodate everything from an inline 4 to a V-8, and different widths and lengths bodies. And it's rear-wheel drive based, inline engines, with accommodation for an AWD front take-off (and probably a battery pack as well). We haven't yet seen it in any form other than the 4-door ATS and CTS, but we know that 2-doors are in the plan and coming. A 2-door ATS mule has already been seen, and Chevy teased us with a 2-door "135"-type concept. The Alpha shares nothing with any previous design, except obviously the existing engine programs. So, clean sheet, no baggage, no hang-ups, very nearly a state-of-the-art suspension design all around (except for the struts up front). And designed from the start to be shared so that every user of the platform benefits. Need an inline turbo 4? Check the box: it and it's systems are already developed and ready to go. Need magnetoreological shocks? Check the box. Big brakes? Again, check the box, they're already developed for all users. Twin-turbo V-8? Check the box, it's already developed for the CTS-V. All these things aren't much more work than simply plugging them in (of course, things like spring rates are model-specific). The financial advantages here are tremendous.

As I said before, there is already an even better example of this, and it's the FM platform from Nissan. Used on the 370Z and most of the Infinitis. It handles 1 family of V-6 engines and 2 different V-8s. It allows for AWD, and also accommodates a battery pack for the two cars that offer it. And the GT-R is also a user of the platform (although it diverges in the rear transmission and suspension). Every single user of the platform benefits in costs, each benefits in fatter margins, each can use a wider range of engines and transmissions as they are developed.

This is where Ford blew it several times with the Mustang. They were going to share the MN12, and then it was the DEW98. Now they have the opportunity to get this right, and to reap the benefits for all users of the platform. It isn't optimum, because it isn't a clean-sheet platform to begin with, but it could be a start.

 

[Overboost]

Because CD4 is a front wheel drive car. Look under the hood - how could you fit an inline engine under there (with all the structural requirements, and crash protection, etc)? Would the frame even be strong enough? Would the suspension parts be strong enough? Would the resulting weight distribution be reasonable? The answer across the board is a resounding "no". The entire idea that this is a CD4 is absurdly ridiculous.

The Alpha is clean-sheet, designed to accommodate everything from an inline 4 to a V-8, and different widths and lengths bodies. And it's rear-wheel drive based, inline engines, with accommodation for an AWD front take-off (and probably a battery pack as well). We haven't yet seen it in any form other than the 4-door ATS and CTS, but we know that 2-doors are in the plan and coming. A 2-door ATS mule has already been seen, and Chevy teased us with a 2-door "135"-type concept. The Alpha shares nothing with any previous design, except obviously the existing engine programs. So, clean sheet, no baggage, no hang-ups, very nearly a state-of-the-art suspension design all around (except for the struts up front). And designed from the start to be shared so that every user of the platform benefits. Need an inline turbo 4? Check the box: it and it's systems are already developed and ready to go. Need magnetoreological shocks? Check the box. Big brakes? Again, check the box, they're already developed for all users. Twin-turbo V-8? Check the box, it's already developed for the CTS-V. All these things aren't much more work than simply plugging them in (of course, things like spring rates are model-specific). The financial advantages here are tremendous.

As I said before, there is already an even better example of this, and it's the FM platform from Nissan. Used on the 370Z and most of the Infinitis. It handles 1 family of V-6 engines and 2 different V-8s. It allows for AWD, and also accommodates a battery pack for the two cars that offer it. And the GT-R is also a user of the platform (although it diverges in the rear transmission and suspension). Every single user of the platform benefits in costs, each benefits in fatter margins, each can use a wider range of engines and transmissions as they are developed.

This is where Ford blew it several times with the Mustang. They were going to share the MN12, and then it was the DEW98. Now they have the opportunity to get this right, and to reap the benefits for all users of the platform. It isn't optimum, because it isn't a clean-sheet platform to begin with, but it could be a start.

Again, playing devil's advocate, you couldn't tweak CD4 to fit a larger variety of vehicles? You couldn't, say, use a longer front clip to accomodate a RWD vehicle? Or, you couldn't stretch the platform for a big sedan (Taurus/MKS) or heighten it for a crossover (Edge/MKX)? If you can do one, you certainly can do the other. Using an evolution of S197 makes NO sense in the future, because, yet again, it would be used for ONE vehicle. While I'm not a body design engineer, I can't see why one couldn't create modular "parts" of CD4 and plug and play each bit in to create the ideal platform for a variety of vehicles in the lineup. This way, as you mentioned, you can "check the box" and add any feature you like, without having massive expenses for development because of the limited nature of the platform.

You mention Alpha, FM at Nissan, and I'll add MQB for the VAG. CD4 could very well be this for Ford. It makes sense globally, and for a lot of other reasons, and also falls in line well with the rumors of weight gain. I don't expect the same CD4 in a 240hp Fusion holding up to the torque that a Coyote engine can produce, or if the top was removed for a convertible.

 

[S550Boss]

This is so rediculous. The car is an evolution of the s197. Get over it.

And your suggestion that changing a "front clip" to make a front wheel drive car into a rear wheel drive car is laughable. The entire structure of a car is integrated... there is no such thing as a "front clip" anymore.

Now look at the distance between the front wheels and the door... compare that to a fusion or any front wheel drive car. Thats how far back the engine is set. Then look under the hood at a front wheel drive car and note where the steering rack is - its on the firewall. And there is so much more.

Your continued misinformation degrades this forum... The Ford engineers are laughing over it. And it plays right into their hands.

 

[JohnZiraldo]

This is so rediculous. The car is an evolution of the s197. Get over it.

So do you think that is a bad thing, a good thing, or neither?

As per my previous question, other than being able to use the 'new chassis' label accurately, what are the other factors that could make a clean sheet design far superior to an evolved platform. If for example an evolved platform could use all of the latest materials and weight reduction/while strengthening strategies, is there something else that a clean sheet design can do that an evolved design can't?

 

[Tony Alonso]

This is so rediculous. The car is an evolution of the s197. Get over it.

I look forward to seeing whose theorizing proves to be accurate. While I also think this might be true about an S197 evolution, I read what others have posted with interest. Unless you work for Ford, summarily dismissing the CD4 evolution conversation is a bit premature. Besides, this type of conversation, while perhaps maddening for some, is as much entertainment as eye opening until we see what covers the bones. Drop that camouflage, Ford! :-)

I personally would love to a complete replacement, if cost can be managed and keep the next Mustang from jumping up in price significantly.

 

[thePill]

For the sake of argument then, if CD4 going to Mustang is undesirable, why isn't Alpha (used on a sedan as well) undesirable for Camaro?

Leave him be... His entire Driver Enthusiast site argument was based on an "evolved S197". While it seems great the Camaro will use an ATS chassis, at least Ford isn't drilling holes in the safety structure....

 

[S550Boss]

So do you think that is a bad thing, a good thing, or neither?

Its a budget reality... nothing more.

 

[Tony Alonso]

Your continued misinformation degrades this forum... The Ford engineers are laughing over it. And it plays right into their hands.

I think the Ford engineers are probably busy working on the car.

Sponsored