Platform images

[thePill]

Its a budget reality... nothing more.

Yes, the CD4 chassis plan will save 20% in overall cost. That cannot be ignored. While I understand the 90's thinking in terms of chassis's, post 2005 "Global" chassis's were designed to be extremely flexible. Currently, there are only 3 models that use the CD4... Now, the chassis is still limited to FWD and AWD however, if the chassis can support AWD/4WD then, rear wheel drive isn't an issue. The chassis can already support an Ecoboost 6 using AWD so, I can tell you right now that a V8 will be lighter in the front that an Ecoboost V6 alone, not counting the AWD heft. The CD4 is a surprisingly light chassis for a mid-size (just as light as the ATS without holes in the frame).

You will see below that Ford has already started making huge changes to the chassis. Ford uses the CD designation however, they continue to change the chassis. The CD391 and CD553 are different (the CD553 is far more expensive) and as you see, there will be Cargo Vans and SUV's based on the same chassis.

As for the gas tank argument, you are forgetting the new IRS (Integral Link) that provides a lot of extra room. There has never been a chassis within Ford that has been this flexible, so, everything you think you know about chassis's from previous ventures are null and void.

Sorry man, and I know you have put a lot of your credibility into an evolved S197 but... you have been fooled by the wheelbase.

• 2013–present Ford Fusion (CD391)
• 2013–present Lincoln MKZ (CD533)
• 2014–present Ford Mondeo (CD391)

Future Vehicles to use this platform include:

• Ford Edge
• Ford S-Max
• Ford Galaxy
• Ford Explorer
• Ford Taurus
• Ford Flex
• Lincoln MKS
• Lincoln MKX
• Lincoln MKT

Sponsored

 

[thePill]

I would probably have a retraction ready...

 

[Ponywars]

Man S550Boss stop being a baby. If someone disagrees with you explain why you think they are wrong instead of dismissing it completely as nonsense.

I will say one of the big hurdles for me for this not being an evolved S197 is how well put together the mules seemed to be with all the body panels etc fitting perfectly as it appeared, except for the roof which was wider.

If they decided to heavily modify the CD4 would they really make it almost the exact same dimensions, proportions and size of the S197? I would think they could've used this opportunity to shrink down a car that has gotten pretty large over the years. If for no other reason than to help with weight, fuel savings and more palatable to other markets.

 

[thePill]

If they decided to heavily modify the CD4 would they really make it almost the exact same dimensions, proportions and size of the S197? I would think they could've used this opportunity to shrink down a car that has gotten pretty large over the years. If for no other reason than to help with weight, fuel savings and more palatable to other markets.

Wheelbase and track were near optimal for the class it's in. I don't want to go too far below 106 inches in wheelbase. The track looks like it was increase for more handling performance. About 3 inches wider I'd say by the looks of the roof.

The original Bumblebee that was made by Steve Saleen was actually a G8... The panels were put on later.

It's pretty safe to say, after the CD4 is changed to accommodate RWD, it won't be a Fusion chassis anymore. Probably calling it the CD550 chassis (following the upscale CD533 nature)

 

[thePill]

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.

Ug, again, a "front clip" is really just a made up word. It only involves the hood, fenders and front fascia... Nothing to do with the engine cradle. I cringe every time I hear front clip...

Here, this will solve the gas tank over the axle and under the seat debate...

The Fusion/MKZ Hybrid's store all the electric crap under and behind the rear seat/over the rear wheels. This is where the gas tank usually goes. The S197 has a plastic, saddle type gas tank that allows the drive shaft to pass under it. The Energy Fusion uses the trunk area more. This instantly tells me that the CD4 platform is designed with lower/deeper floors then the S197. The seats look like they sit on the ground. It will probably be saddled closer to the rear wheels. Not the trunk area...

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.

Arrrrrgghhhh!!! Your hurting my ears...

Here's the changes made to the 2011 Fiesta required none of what your suggesting... The '11 was carried over (introduced in '08) but, had the structure updated with 50% Boron. This saved 88lbs in the cage alone. Again, no real changes and since Ford can change the gauge of the metal used without retooling (see Hydro-Forming), making panels thinner is pretty simple. Also, the 2012 Focus received the largest Boron change over in Ford history, it was introduced in 2010... weight savings is classified

Here are all the pictures... Remember folks, neither the S197 or the CD4 uses very much Boron and NO Aluminum. Lots to be saved but, I am betting there will be some major performance enhancements to offset that weight loss.

Over 50% of the new 2011 Ford Fiesta’s body structure is constructed out of lightweight, incredibly high-strength Boron steel. The use of Boron Steel is borrowed from Volvo. However, the super steel compound was only used in select key areas, including the Fiesta’s floor structure, front rails and beams, and the integrated “body-side reinforcement.” Essentially an extremely complex roll cage, the primary structural components of the body-side reinforcement include the slim A-pillar, the intrusion-resistant B-pillar, the rocker panels to which the B-pillar is fixed, the stabilizing rocker baffles, side roof arch and the lower A-pillar.

Next year when Ford starts selling the 2012 Focus First Responders will have another vehicle packed with UHSS and Boron steels. The new Focus is 25 percent greater torsional rigidity than the current North American Focus. The different strenghs of steel is broken down high-strength steel for 55% of the body shell with 26% of the structure formed from ultra-high-strength Boron steels. Just an FYI, this is more than any other Ford vehicle.

 

[Overboost]

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.

And your blatant ignorance and "expert" opinion does the same. When the dust settles, one of us knows what's going on, and the other doesn't.

Maybe I should make a blog and start writing...seems anyone can do it these days.

 

[thePill]

The Alpha chassis will also be a Global platform and could eventually spread farther out. It will underpin a sports coupe, mid-size sedan and full size sedan. The Alpha chassis is a 4 cylinder chassis... If you think this engine cradle is capable of holding a V8, you might want to do a little research.

LOOK AT THE TINY SLED RUNNERS (in blue)

And holes throughout the entire safety structure... Wonder if GM is aware this will affect torsion? Those holes are basically made of air... Air is not stronger than steel. It's lighter than steel but even then, Base vs. Base, the large Fusion weighs just as much as the smaller ATS.

 

[SStormtrooPer]

FWIW, the roof is not wider in that mule picture above. There is a black trim piece missing from the slot.

Anyways, this is all interesting stuff. I really don't know what to think(or believe). As far as I knew only VAG was using a true modular platform(MQB) where you have a set of interchangeable parts used to build the foundation for multiple vehicles. Even with that platform, all vehicles have the engine mounting in the same place, and they are all FWD/AWD.

I have a hard time believing Ford would have quietly invented a platform that can not only interchange structural parts that easily, but also change the drivetrain mounting location, orientation, and drive wheels, from FWD/AWD to RWD. They would have to re-engineer the crashability of the entire platform.

Additionally, the load delivered to the chassis by the drive-train is completely different. That would all have to be re-engineered as well -- unless of course they want to cut corners and redneck engineer a bunch of bracing and supports, etc. But then there you are adding more weight than you would if you had a dedicated RWD platform.

I mean, they could do all of that, but would they? Really, I can't think of a scenario where it would make any sense. I would think it would incur huge expense, maybe even more so than having a dedicated RWD platform like GM's Alpha.

Not considering any of the above -- it is really possible that Ford has a platform that is so flexible that they can put mid-size, full-size, CUV, SUVs on it, AND then on top of it start putting rear drive coupes that are safe, reliable, driveable, economical, etc? Oh, and then make it a world class sports coupe on top of it. I would think people would be going crazy over this. That would be a HUGE engineering feat.

There is nothing about a CD4 Mustang that is logical to me... I guess there is nothing logical about a chassis evolved from S197 either. I feel like the only sense made will be from that of a new RWD platform.

It's also possible I don't know enough about chassis, and it is not about logic, and its about the same thing it always is when Ford drops the ball -- being cheapskates.

 

[thePill]

FWIW, the roof is not wider in that mule picture above. There is a black trim piece missing from the slot.

Anyways, this is all interesting stuff. I really don't know what to think(or believe). As far as I knew only VAG was using a true modular platform(MQB) where you have a set of interchangeable parts used to build the foundation for multiple vehicles. Even with that platform, all vehicles have the engine mounting in the same place, and they are all FWD/AWD.

I have a hard time believing Ford would have quietly invented a platform that can not only interchange structural parts that easily, but also change the drivetrain mounting location, orientation, and drive wheels, from FWD/AWD to RWD. They would have to re-engineer the crashability of the entire platform.

Additionally, the load delivered to the chassis by the drive-train is completely different. That would all have to be re-engineered as well -- unless of course they want to cut corners and redneck engineer a bunch of bracing and supports, etc. But then there you are adding more weight than you would if you had a dedicated RWD platform.

I mean, they could do all of that, but would they? Really, I can't think of a scenario where it would make any sense. I would think it would incur huge expense, maybe even more so than having a dedicated RWD platform like GM's Alpha.

Not considering any of the above -- it is really possible that Ford has a platform that is so flexible that they can put mid-size, full-size, CUV, SUVs on it, AND then on top of it start putting rear drive coupes that are safe, reliable, driveable, economical, etc? Oh, and then make it a world class sports coupe on top of it. I would think people would be going crazy over this. That would be a HUGE engineering feat.

There is nothing about a CD4 Mustang that is logical to me... I guess there is nothing logical about a chassis evolved from S197 either. I feel like the only sense made will be from that of a new RWD platform.

It's also possible I don't know enough about chassis, and it is not about logic, and its about the same thing it always is when Ford drops the ball -- being cheapskates.

Another thing worth noting, the MKS is supposedly moving to Flat-Rock. The MKS will be a large RWD vehicle based either on the Fusion or Mustang. The issue with switching from FWD to RWD is the strut towers will need to be separated from the firewall and stand alone in the bay more. Some could argue that the next Mustang will consume the Falcon's role in which, a CD platform is the only thing left. The C platform is Focus size so, I doubt the Mustang will be a C class car...

The Taurus is a D class chassis, as well as the old S197's D2C. The D class is being merged into the C/D class so, there will no longer be a D class platform.

The revised plan now calls for 85 percent of Ford's global sales volume by 2013 to be built on nine platforms, of which five will be global platforms and four regional platforms. The 85 percent target is unchanged.
The five global platforms are:
-- B, used for the Ford Fiesta;
-- C, used for the Focus;
-- C/D, used for the Fusion;
-- light truck, used for the Ranger pickup sold outside the United States; and
-- commercial vehicle, used for the Transit van.
The platform used for the F-series pickkp is an example of one of Ford's four regional platforms.
Ford showed the latest result of its One Ford strategy this week at the Detroit auto show: the 2013 Ford Fusion.
The Fusion will be built on the same platform as the European Mondeo. About 80 percent of the components will be common on all global versions of the car. The platform strategy contrasts with that behind the current North American Fusion, built on a different architecture and design than the European Mondeo.
The One Ford strategy allows Ford's purchasing organization to order greater volumes of common parts from its supply base and to simplify tooling in its factories.

I for one would be happy if the Mustang is shrinking from a full size D class coupe to a C/D class. The D2C S197 will have more in common with the DEW Thunderbird then the S550 will have in common with the Fusion. In fact, a very large percentage of the CD550 platform (if there is one) will not be shared with the CD391. It could literally be just the floor pans.. The engine cradle, transmission knuckle, rear, rockers, roof, firewall and pillars will all be new. I believe the CD550 is the NEW, and rumored delayed, GRWD platform Ford was working on. The MKS will likely be a RWD CD5 class like the MKZ BUT, the MKS will have more in common with the Fusion/Modeo while the MKS shares the Mustang's CD550 platform. There will actually be 3 cars produced in Flat rock, all based on the CD4. Two of those cars will be Ford's missing Global RWD platform (Mustang/MKS) the other with be the Fusion (soon to be more like the EU Mondeo).

Being cheap to build has always been on the Mustang's chassis program. Understand that, just sharing floor pans can be considered "based" on the platform. The S197 used the floor pans from the Thunderbird, it was considered to be based on the DEW platform. The SN95 used the Fox Body's floor pans and was called the Fox-4.

In order for Ford to change from FWD to RWD takes engineering and most of the chassis will be brand new. Any idiot that thinks Ford is just gonna stick a V8 into a Fusion with it's current strut tower location is a fool. Very little will be shared with the CD391 BUT, it will probably still be a CD(insert number) of some kind.

Even if a dozen vehicle share the CD4 platform, each vehicle has tons of crash test restructuring done to the entire chassis. Ford has done a FWD/RWD platform before... It isn't hard to do.

I will ask you this... Which platform supports RHD and LHD? The CD class or the D2C? The cost to modify a D2C to RHD is nonsense...

 

[thePill]

The strut towers in the S197 and S550 are radically different. The S197's towers have a negative camber angle and looks to be about 3-4 inches higher than the S550's. The S550 has a decent negative castor (would suggest a Non-MacP setup). If the engine bay is all new, and ALL new Ford's are built with the S-Brace. The S brace loads the rockers and sled runner during impact and, it also increases the maximum weight allowance in the engine bay area.

Here are the strut towers. The S550's strut towers are far lower than the CAI and cowl.

Here is a 2011, you will see the towers protrude upwards pass the intake, cowl and CAI. Note the angle of the towers, pointed in towards each other.

Here again, the S550. Look at the height of the tower in relation to the intake. Also, the negative caster seen shows the towers pointing back towards the cowl. Also, the towers are lower than the top of the fenders.

The S197's towers are literally higher than the top of the fender. About 3-4 inches lower...

If this is an evolved S197, the entire S197 would have to be redesigned to carry the S brace... Which, wouldn't make it an S197 OR CD4 at all.

In fact, the S brace relies on the Y brace to assist in load bearing. The Y brace replaces the S197's torque box so, that is a HUGE difference between an S197 and S550. That is pretty much an all new chassis, which is based on the CD4. The S197 can't just have the engine cradle and front towers redesigned without the rest of the S197 following... That would be insane, and retarded. It's safe to assume that the S550 is an all-new GRWD chassis, that uses some CD4 platform pieces (as the S197 did with the DEW). With new towers, rear towers, knuckle, rockers, roof, firewall/cowl, engine cradle and pillars, I would say it's as close to new as any other generation. AND NO TORQUE BOX!!! New suspension...

Lets look at the Fusions mighty Sled Runner and compare it to the girly man Alpha platforms just so I can make fun of GM. (Sled runners in blue)

 

[thePill]

Here is the Alpha's super awesome technology... Now I know why the Alpha is so light, GM forgot the sled runners!!!

I WANT A V8!!!

YOU CAN'T HANDLE A V8!!!

The Alpha will need to put on weight there... The CD4 is ready to handle some front end weight.

Runners shown in poo blue

 

[Overboost]

Pill, see my comments in the other thread about chassis naming conventions. There isn't a CD550 per se, but rather a derivative of CD4 designed for a specific application (sedan, SUV, D-segment, etc.) that is known. For instance, CD391 and CD533 (Fusion and MKZ) are both built on CD4.1, but utilize different panels and materials (obviously). Instead of stretching the platform, the body sides and other panels were different between the two, giving the illusion of a larger platform, and not such a blatant "badge engineering" job between the two.

Also, I belive CD4, and the resulting variants would be designed with RHD/LHD in mind from the start, otherwise it completely goes against the "One Ford" direction.

 

[WestRace]

Does anyone have an idea as to the weight distribution of the new chassis? I feel like one of the weakness of the current chassis is that it might have a little too much weight upfront having about 54/46 weight distribution.

 

[bullets]

There is nothing about a CD4 Mustang that is logical to me... I guess there is nothing logical about a chassis evolved from S197 either. I feel like the only sense made will be from that of a new RWD platform.

It's also possible I don't know enough about chassis, and it is not about logic, and its about the same thing it always is when Ford drops the ball -- being cheapskates.

I do believe the CD4 sharing rumors have been blown a bit out of proportion in part because both will be made at the same plant. Part of the nothing logical about a CD4 Mustang is simply that we are taking it too literally......

In fact, a very large percentage of the CD550 platform (if there is one) will not be shared with the CD391. It could literally be just the floor pans.. The engine cradle, transmission knuckle, rear, rockers, roof, firewall and pillars will all be new. I believe the CD550 is the NEW, and rumored delayed, GRWD platform Ford was working on. The MKS will likely be a RWD CD5 class like the MKZ BUT, the MKS will have more in common with the Fusion/Modeo while the MKS shares the Mustang's CD550 platform. There will actually be 3 cars produced in Flat rock, all based on the CD4. Two of those cars will be Ford's missing Global RWD platform (Mustang/MKS) the other with be the Fusion (soon to be more like the EU Mondeo).

Being cheap to build has always been on the Mustang's chassis program. Understand that, just sharing floor pans can be considered "based" on the platform. The S197 used the floor pans from the Thunderbird, it was considered to be based on the DEW platform. The SN95 used the Fox Body's floor pans and was called the Fox-4.

In order for Ford to change from FWD to RWD takes engineering and most of the chassis will be brand new. Any idiot that thinks Ford is just gonna stick a V8 into a Fusion with it's current strut tower location is a fool. Very little will be shared with the CD391 BUT, it will probably still be a CD(insert number) of some kind.

I suspect that this is mostly correct. But I will venture a guess that the S550's platform will not be given the CD4.X naming convention even if parts are shared. I will guess, and agree with Pill, that the sharing could very well minimally just be the floor pans, engine cradle etc. In the end "based off of" CD4 is a very loose term left for interpretation. Ford won't call it a CD4.X (IMO) if for no other reason than they want it to be perceived to be an all new RWD global platform big bang for the Mustang's 50th and future Lincoln resurgence. Ford won't split hairs on this, it's left up to enthusiasts to argue on forums just how "all new" this really turns out to be.

They've already alluded to it. Here is a recent quote from Joe Hinrichs:

"The Flat Rock plant now builds the Fusion and the Mustang sports car, which are based on different vehicle architectures.

"The Mustang and the Fusion are two different platforms, so we'll be introducing two right now, but we certainly have the flexibility for the future to do more," Hinrichs said. "We could do a lot of different things.""


http://www.autonews.com/article/20130829/OEM01/308299944/ford-weighs-more-u.s.-production-after-hiking-fusion-output#ixzz2eJqPnTxP


I highly doubt you will be seeing the Mustang listed on this Wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_CD4_platform even if we enthusiasts understand there is more to the story if they hail it as "all new."

 

[tslim]

I thought it was already known that Ford will NOT have a separate GRWD platform for the Mustang? Ford has already said it's ultimate goal is to have 9 core platforms, 5 of which are global:

B - Fiesta
C - Focus
C/D - Fusion
Light Truck - Ranger pickup
Commercial vehicle - Transit van

Remember this presentation? The one that leaked the 2015 Edge....

http://corporate.ford.com/doc/ir_20130115_Deutsche_Bank_Global_Auto_Industry_Conference.pdf

Missing in this whole presentation is mention of the Mustang platform. They obviously wanna keep that top secret for 2015 but doesn't 5 global platforms tell us there's no room for a global RWD unless you're thinking the Mustang remains on a regional platform (and sell globally) due to expected low volume of global sales.

Sponsored