CD4 Chassis School

[mister.peabodyjunior]

We are?

It thought that's the one big point of disagreement here. :headbonk:

The 5.0 would not, could not, and will not fit into a CD4 platform vehicle. This is brutally simple. The 5.0 barely fits into the S197 for that matter, in fact, it was design for S197, then adapted to F150. Even if it looked like the 5.0 could fit into a CD4 engine bay, you have to think about decking an engine in 60 seconds, 60 times an hour. However, this is not the point. The point is, the front structure, or engine bay, is a complex area. The rails create the foundation, the support for the engine. The rails define a crucial variable in crash testing. For the two to be common, CD4 wouldn't be what it is today. What I've said already actually shouldn't reveal anything: I am merely putting the right pieces to the puzzle together.

Sponsored

 

[JohnZiraldo]

We are?

It thought that's the one big point of disagreement here. :headbonk:

Sorry Melino, I should not have been so inclusive by saying 'all', but I do think that there has been some pretty thoughtful arguments here for why S550 is not an offshoot of CD4. I also think that it is not just a warmed over S197.

I think it would be safe to say that we all eagerly want to know more about the underpinnings of S550. With the Alpha Camaro on the horizon, we want to know that our favorite pony will not be taking a back seat in platform or suspension performance to anyone.

 

[mister.peabodyjunior]

The 5.0 would not, could not, and will not fit into a CD4 platform vehicle. This is brutally simple. The 5.0 barely fits into the S197 for that matter, in fact, it was design for S197, then adapted to F150. Even if it looked like the 5.0 could fit into a CD4 engine bay, you have to think about decking an engine in 60 seconds, 60 times an hour. However, this is not the point. The point is, the front structure, or engine bay, is a complex area. The rails create the foundation, the support for the engine. The rails define a crucial variable in crash testing. For the two to be common, CD4 wouldn't be what it is today. What I've said already actually shouldn't reveal anything: I am merely putting the right pieces to the puzzle together.

Sure, there are very very few parts that are shared, but nothing to do with the platform, suspension, or chassis. These are tuned components that go with a platform.

 

[Red]

Thanks for the pic, Pill. Doesn't show much of anything though. Looks to be for marketing and/or preliminary design use.

 

[JGillis]

Sure, there are very very few parts that are shared, but nothing to do with the platform, suspension, or chassis. These are tuned components that go with a platform.

So just to be clear..... it is NOT CD4 based and also NOT S197 based?

I actually was hoping it was something totally new. Hope so!

 

[motoroid65]

The 5.0 would not, could not, and will not fit into a CD4 platform vehicle. This is brutally simple. The 5.0 barely fits into the S197 for that matter, in fact, it was design for S197, then adapted to F150. Even if it looked like the 5.0 could fit into a CD4 engine bay, you have to think about decking an engine in 60 seconds, 60 times an hour. However, this is not the point. The point is, the front structure, or engine bay, is a complex area. The rails create the foundation, the support for the engine. The rails define a crucial variable in crash testing. For the two to be common, CD4 wouldn't be what it is today. What I've said already actually shouldn't reveal anything: I am merely putting the right pieces to the puzzle together.

Sure, there are very very few parts that are shared, but nothing to do with the platform, suspension, or chassis. These are tuned components that go with a platform.

Right on.

Let's not confuse parts sharing with platform sharing. The former happens across a manufacturer's entire line up, from heavy duty trucks to 3-door hatches. Platform sharing is about what makes sense and what saves money for engineering and assembly. The amount of changes and bolstering it would need to do on CD4 achieves none of those goals, it's too costly and doesn't make sense from an engineering and assembly POV.

We won't see platform sharing at FRAP until it begins building Lincolns. Fusion at FRAP was expedited earlier due to demand exceeding production capabilities at Hermosillo. Don't make much of the fact that it builds Mustangs there as well.

 

[JohnZiraldo]

Even if it looked like the 5.0 could fit into a CD4 engine bay, you have to think about decking an engine in 60 seconds, 60 times an hour.

Mr. Peabody,
While we wait patiently for facts about S550 from Ford, could you advance our (my) education about platforms by explaining what you mean by the above? I assume 'decking' refers to the assembly process of installing the motor. Correct?

Could you explain what features about a platform makes decking achievable in the required time? Is it just space to work around the motor?

 

[JohnZiraldo]

So just to be clear..... it is NOT CD4 based .......?

S550 is NOT a CD4 variant.

Well that part seems pretty clear.

 

[mister.peabodyjunior]

Right on.

Let's not confuse parts sharing with platform sharing. The former happens across a manufacturer's entire line up, from heavy duty trucks to 3-door hatches. Platform sharing is about what makes sense and what saves money for engineering and assembly. The amount of changes and bolstering it would need to do on CD4 achieves none of those goals, it's too costly and doesn't make sense from an engineering and assembly POV.

We won't see platform sharing at FRAP until it begins building Lincolns. Fusion at FRAP was expedited earlier due to demand exceeding production capabilities at Hermosillo. Don't make much of the fact that it builds Mustangs there as well.

You are exactly right.

 

[mister.peabodyjunior]

Mr. Peabody,
While we wait patiently for facts about S550 from Ford, could you advance our (my) education about platforms by explaining what you mean by the above? I assume 'decking' refers to the assembly process of installing the motor. Correct?

Could you explain what features about a platform makes decking achievable in the required time? Is it just space to work around the motor?

Decking is the assembly process for installing an engine. Decking an engine is not just about the engine itself, but, depending on the platform and auto company, its also about the cooling module(cooling fan, radiator, condenser), transmission, motor mounts, exhaust/manifolds, and subframe. The way the engine mounts to a vehicle is significantly different between east-west oriented engines and north-south oriented engines. The engine and the rest of the aforementioned components must be supported properly.

An engine must have clearance during decking to account for variation and movement. After all, the engine is decked up as the body is moving overhead, for unibody platforms. Also, an engine must be assembled in a way that allows for repeatability for every car. Think about this, each time the line stops, it costs thousands of dollars. Thats time not spent on building a vehicle, lower efficiency.

Bottom line, you can engineer a smaller engine to fit into a platform that has a larger engine, but you cannot do the reverse generally, unless the platform was designed to be that versatile, which the CD4 was not. It was designed for small I4 engines.

 

[Overboost]

I've never heard it referred to as decking, but rather marrying the chassis and drivetrain together. If you ever get to see it happen, it's pretty impressive.

 

[mister.peabodyjunior]

I've never heard it referred to as decking, but rather marrying the chassis and drivetrain together. If you ever get to see it happen, it's pretty impressive.

Decking is the common term used, but it's the same thing. And engine decking also involves decking front and rear suspension at the same time. Think of it like a big platform where all of these aforementioned assemblies or modules at lifted up into the body and then secured in 1-2 stations.

 

[Overboost]

Decking is the common term used, but it's the same thing. And engine decking also involves decking front and rear suspension at the same time. Think of it like a big platform where all of these aforementioned assemblies or modules at lifted up into the body and then secured in 1-2 stations.

I've seen it done at FRAP numerous times. They load the front corner modules and the engine and all while it's moving at a steady speed. From a manufacturing perspective, it's very impressive IMO.

 

[Thed]

Seriously, how cars come together so well at the assembly plants is nothing but downright awesome.

 

[All-Or-Nothing]

How did anyone come to the conclusion CD4 had anything to do with the new Mustang?

Sponsored