Sponsored

Platform images

S550Boss

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Threads
15
Messages
563
Reaction score
72
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT350; 2018 Focus RS
The CD4 rumors were further fueled by the statement of another person that the CD4 suspension and the S550 suspension were one and the same: identical parts. That may have started this entire chain of CD4 ridiculousness, along with the coincidence of the CD4 being built on some parts of the multiple assembly and sub-assembly lines in the same building. Remember that the last generation Mazda6 and the S197 were built in the same building... and that doesn't make them riding on the same platform.

While the general suspension design might be related (there aren't enough hard images to verify this yet one way or the other), there is one image available that disproves the claim that the parts are identical (never mind the absurdity of putting several lb-fts thru Fusion bits!).

Here is a CD4 (Fusion) lower right control arm:


Here is the S550 lower right control arm:

Clearly not the same identical parts, the S550 varies in several significant areas. without an S550 prototype to measure, it's still very obvious visually. The casting is different in several major points. The spring and shock are in similar locations. The sway bar mounts are slightly different. The Mustang doesn't have the mounting locations for the MKZ's suspension sensors. Any kind of upper arm can't be identified from the available pictures. And the mounts for the sub frame itself are entirely different. So while it might be the same general suspension design family, it's not - as claimed - "a Fusion suspension".

So the engine compartment is different, the hard point locations are different (FWD vs. RWD), and the rear suspension is not identical (but may be of the same general layout - or may not be). Heck, the wiring looms might be similar... but the S550 is not a CD4. Lets put that to rest and figure out what the S550 is.

What counts here is cold hard data... and we have the S550 mules and prototypes to measure. That's exactly what I've done, so the conclusion based on about 30 points of data is that the S550 is simply an evolved S197. This is based on measured facts, it's not a put-down and shouldn't be an affront to anybody. Some people could say this is a bad point (is this the best the Ford engineers can do? Is this all they can do in ten years?), some would say it's a good point (spending money on what counts - the IRS and the improved engines coming later).

But the net-net of it remains to be seen. The introductory magazine articles next spring will all blather on endlessly on how terriffic it is, but only the longer-term road tests and comparisons will discover the truth (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...opar-community-regarding-our-cherokee-review/). I don't go for those types of introductory articles myself, The Truth About Cars exposed that type of reporting very well. So readers here can either fall into that trap (as Ford marketing wants you to do), or - like TTAC - report the truth and call it as it is.

And, for gods sake, stop making a fool out of this forum in front of Ford's engineeers, and stop telling the Camaro folks they are going to be competing against a Fusion!
Sponsored

 

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 sounds like you're saying the S550 will be more like the DEW98 since the D2C basically carried over most of its components except the double wishbone independent suspension, firewall, roof structure and rear frame rail.

Despite being built for RWD, isn't it true however that the DEW98 shared some components with Ford's FWD/AWD C1 platform so it's not all that hard to believe that some sharing could be done with the S550 and CD4.
No, the DEW98 shared zero with the C1 platform. Not even remotely. There is the same total lack of relationship there as there is between the S550 and CD4.

The S197 is a severely devolved DEW98. The expensive front and rear suspensions were dropped, both independent short-long arm suspension up front and a double-A-arm rear and both were highly aluminum. The basic elements were kept: hard points, floorpan (albeit shorter), gas tank (which in it's first year suffered the same issues as the LS did and triggered a recall). Some other more exotic elements such as aluminum crossmembers and the trunk mounted battery were all dropped for cost considerations. All very unfortunate... but this is what it took in the minds of some product planners back then to get to the 20k base Mustang they wanted (and later they learned that few people actually bought them that way).

I have a DEW98 out in the garage; it's interesting to compare that against my S197. I keep thinking I ought to take up welding and fabrication one of these days and "Frankencize" the best of the both of them ;-/

A shame that Ford took this path (and it wasn't without some degree of study, I corresponded with the VP in charge of that study for two years), because this killed platform sharing. Thanks to big brothers Lincoln (which had planned to use the same platform on a range of cars), Thunderbird, and Jag S-Type (where the elements of DEW98 lived on), the Mustang would have benefited from state-of-the-art design and components. And from the much higher volume of the Mustang, they would have benefited from far lower tooling costs. Look at the Nissan FM platform for the best example here: the (low-cost) 370Z and most of the (high-cost) Infinitis share the same platform and the same four engines (not always offered in all, but the platform was engineered for the 3.5 [w/ or w/o hybrid], 3.7, 5.0, and 5.6). Even the front 2/3rd of the GT-R shares the same platform (and same engine family). There are differences here and there (rear versus longitudinal-based AWD), and the basic platform evolves (the new Q50 just made an increment in the rear suspension design), but the cost savings and the benefits are there for all users of the platform.

The DEW98 platform wasn't perfect... I equate it more to the first-gen FM platform of the original G35 and 350Z than to their more recent evolutions. All that was needed was a second gen, and that was wiped off the drawing board when Billy Ford tried to run the company and started by eliminating everything the Nasser-led product plans had started (which had a range of RWD vehicles). That almost blew away the company, which is still in recovery. But the DEW98 was engineered extremely well for it's time. Ford and Jaguar even used their F1 engineers to get the geometry optimum. And it had a 50/50 weight balance too.

So forget about all this CD4/DC2/C1 idea... there is no relationship. And the DEW98 is long gone (as is the MN12, Ford's prior attempt to build a state-of-the-art platform for the Mustang - another lost opportunity).

The far more important question other than the dead CD4 question is what Ford will do with the S550 outside of the Mustang - if anything. And if there is to be a Lincoln (which has zero basis in measurable data so far), can the S550 compete against the Alpha-based Cadillacs? We'll see the first part of that answer when the Alpha-based Camaros show up a year after the S550. Per prior discussions, the Alpha is in a whole different league than the S550. And that is platform-sharing, from clean-sheet design to the optimum max.
 

Sponsored

StangFX

Guest
As I said before.....S550 or whatever you want to call it is just a modified S197 chassis.
Modified how?

Clearly it won't be the S197 or they would keep the name and call it a refresh. No matter what it is modified from (and I think it could be that there is more than one answer here if the S550 borrows a combination of components from multiple platforms) Ford obviously decided enough changes have been made to call it all-new. Afterall iisn't that how D2C came about in the first place, it's not a clean sheet design either.
 

Sponsored

crysalis_01

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Threads
0
Messages
134
Reaction score
4
Location
Wyoming
Vehicle(s)
2003 Terminator Cobra
I am disappointed (but not surprised) that the new Mustang isn't a hatchback... hatches add weight, complexity, reduce structural integrity, and require a body designed from the ground up around the hatch. Therefore, this evolved S197 can't be a hatch.
I carried a full set of race tires, tools, and camping gear inside numerous Fox Mustangs to racetrack over the years. That can't be done in the current car. The utility of a hatchback is far above that of a trunk. But at least the current (and new) Mustang doesn't have the tiny slot that the current Camaro has for a trunk opening.
If the new Mustang does well in sales, and especially if it does well worldwide to built serious volume at last, perhaps Ford will invest in a brand new from-the-ground up chassis for this car some day - engineered from the start for a hatch.
So, are we actually for SURE that S550 isn't some far derivative of CD4 and not S197?
 

SStormtrooPer

Dark Side
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Threads
5
Messages
426
Reaction score
54
Location
Lafayette, CO
First Name
Jesse
Vehicle(s)
Single Turbo GenII Coyote Swapped '92 SSP
So, are we actually for SURE that S550 isn't some far derivative of CD4 and not S197?
No one seems sure of anything -- but S550Boss is the only person on this site that thinks S550 is a modified D2C platform. Take it for what it is.
 
 








Top