Re: First hand impressions of the '05 Mustang.
 

I can see it being good or bad. Depends on how well built it is. If Ford and GM want to share building a new 6-speed tranny, I'm ok with that. I have reservations about other components though. I'm all for cooperation and working together as long as the lines between the companies stay drawn. JMHO.

Re: First hand impressions of the '05 Mustang.
 

Intimate drivetrains - no.
Styling - no.
Interiors - no.

Rear-ends - why not?
Trannys - why not? (for "appliance" cars and trucks especially, NOT for Corvette, Cobra, etc.)
Engines - why not? (for "appliance" cars and trucks especially, NOT for Corvette, Cobra, etc.)
Suspension parts - why not? (for "appliance" cars and trucks especially, NOT for Corvette, Cobra, etc.)

See my point?

I agree 100%. The companies DEFINITELY shold not jeopardize their identity with generic parts sourcing, but they don't have to IMO. What buyer on a car lot actually climbs under their car to see if it's a GM tranny or a Borg-Warner unit? So who would care? Fact is, lots of this goes on today, and has been for some time. I had an '88 Ranger with a 5-speed - know who made the 5-spd? MITSUBISHI!!!. I about ch1+ my pants over that one.
GM does the same thing. All I'm saying is that I'd like to see the American makers work together more, and move away from reliance on the imports for product R&D.

Re: First hand impressions of the '05 Mustang.
 

Yeah yeah yeah you Mustang guys just want the LS2 in your new Mustang. :eek: :p ;)

I don't know that I like that idea. Certain designs like this transmission can be co-developed but the notion of cookie-cutter drivetrains going in millions of cars across both Ford and GM lines? Not sure I could get used to that.

Re: First hand impressions of the '05 Mustang.
 

OK - you busted me... the gig is up! :D
(I really do think the LSx series engines are the smack-down. I'd swap one for a 4.6 mill in a heartbeat - if I didn't have to do the work!)
But on the other hand, you could enjoy working on your LS2 without going thru the glovebox door if it was in a fox-body, and have all the rear-end you could ever want! ;)

Seriously though, I wrestle with just this sort of thing EVERY DAY. I really bugs me some days, others I just don't care. My company has decided to get so lean in engineering, that we are forced to take our work outside. That means all of our 120 years of experience and proprietary data is going out the door to "XYZ engineering firm", who also does work for our traditional competitors (who are forced to do the same thing by their management too). Almost DAILY, I hear about some peice of equipment or process that a competitor is installing - and I'm sure they hear about my new gizmos too.

The end result is that a few engineering firms now house all of the trade secrets and equipment designs that give a company its competitive advantage. And said firms are very keen at marketing ideas from company "A" (with variations of course) to company "B" to demonstrate their engineering skills and secure future business. Reciprocate ideas from "B" to "A" ad-infinitum, and you have a clearinghouse for engineering technology.

What I alone have started to do, is concentrate my efforts on making our technology sacred in other places, look for an advantage in something other than just a machine or a process that is already "out there" for everyone to see.
For example, say I have a machine that makes widgets at 100/hour. I know a competitor just bought a similar machine from the same global firm that we bought ours from (because I saw it in their shop while I was there doing my pre-shipment inspection, and my competitors name was on the machine!). Well, I know we and they both are making 100 widgets/hour on comparable machines with comparable quality - a reasonable assumption since the machines are so similar and built by the same guy.

I now turn to my next step in the process - QC and packaging. I secure yet another firm that does robotics for me, and I have come up with a new process to do digital vision inspection, SPC tracking, and bar-code scanning, all while the robot is packaging the widgets. I have reasonable certainty that my competitor knows nothing about my automation and SPC system - so I can offer parts with six-sigma control, QC traceability, and at a (hopefully) equal or lower price than my competitor, who is still measuring by hand, packing by hand, and doing spot-checks!

In the end, I am getting my basic widget-machine at a price much lower than I could before, because the firm designing and building them is building them for several comapnies besides mine - amortizing their cost for machining centers and materials over many more units. In other words, I am sharing my machine technology with my competition to facilitate cost savings and I'm getting a better widget machine for the money to boot, just like developing a tranny or a rear-end with your competition. Problem is, my competition has the same advantages now. So I turn to other areas for my independence - in my example, it's "value-adding" to the part. In the auto world, it would be styling, materials, craftsmanship, colors, etc.

I see no reason at all why a Malibu Maxx and a Focus ST couldn't share trannys, and even powerplants. 170hp is 170hp - who cares about the intake, valve configuration, or size of the air filter?
Why couldn't a Taurus and an Impala share their entire driveline? Both FWD, both V6, both similar size and HP, both targeted to similar markets at similar prices... could you imagine the cost reductions possible if GM and Ford (and maybe even DCX too) designed the next gen of those cars to share powertrains and built the engines and trannys in twice the volumes?

I've rambled long enough. I don't think I'm the only one seeing this happen more and more in industry today. It's already happening, it's just not discussed much in public forums. Mark my words - we WILL see more and more mutual development projects in the future. :)

Re: First hand impressions of the '05 Mustang.
 

I have often said that my Cobra would have been damn near perfect if it had come with a solid axle and an LS1 (or now, an LS2). Personally, I think the LSx series is the best all-around performance engines ever made. Bar none.

Re: First hand impressions of the '05 Mustang.
 

Agreed wholeheartedly, and Ford has proven that they didn't need to put a motor like that in the Mustang to sell them and especially outsell the f-body 2 to 1. I love my LS1, but my wife's 02GT is a pretty good daily driver for the $$. I believe Ford has proven that the market wants more balance over the better performer. Just my .02 ;)

Re: First hand impressions of the '05 Mustang.
 

That right there is a point that needed to be pointed out a long time ago. The F-body may have had bragging rights but the market didn't want the fastest or the best handling it wanted bread and butter.

Re: First hand impressions of the '05 Mustang.
 

Proud--sharing engines and drivetrains is an interesting notion and let's say I could get past the idea of my sporty Cobalt sharing the same engine as the other guy's Focus...what about packaging? Using the same engine and transaxle would imply using the same mounts, which can lead to using the same frame rails, which means the same amount of space under the hood which means.....you've got almost the same car with the same dimensions save for a curve in some Chevy body panel where there is no curve in the Ford. :tired:

I'm no injuneer so I don't know if this is valid or not but it seems like it could be a possibility. I wouldn't want the difference between a Chevy and a Ford to eventually mirror the difference between a Grand Prix and a Monte Carlo. Catch my drift?

Re: First hand impressions of the '05 Mustang.
 

Totally catch your drift. I'm with you.

Think of this... the 1963 Galaxie 500 was a huge barge that sold for Ford like ice cream on the 4th of July. That one single car came from the factory with ump-teen engines ranging from an asthmatic 221-V8 to the racing-legendary 427-8V. There were 390-2V truck versions, 390-GT4V versions, old 352 Y-blocks - just about anything Ford made would go into that car. The next year, they dropped the 352 and 221/260 for the 289's. Same went for the trannys - Cruise-o-matics, C4's, 3-spd columns, 4-spd Toploaders, you name it.

They did the same thing with the Mustang. In 1967, there was an outrageous number of engines for the car... 170 I6, 200 I6, 289-2V, 289-4V, 289 HI-PO, 302-4V, 390-4V, 428PI, and the 427. There were about 4 tranny combos too.

So my question is this... if the guys could design a car 40 years ago that was flexible enough to accomodate 4 totally different engine blocks and 4 different trannys in any combo, then why the flock can't we have a little flexibility today? So the unibody has a firm but generic sub-frame assembly out front, and the motor mounts are hybrids - allowing the installer to choose the correct mount for the engine - and they all locate off of common datums (be they dowels, clecos, mandrels, or whatever commonly used system).

Given the space under the hood is a design constant known by all parties (a design envelope if you will), the rest of the body and chassis could be totally unique to the manufacturer. Especially suspension. Struts or IRS? Coil overs? SLA? Modified SLA? All will have unique feel and ride qualities that any driver would feel.

OH! Here's a better example... a 19hp Briggs and Stratton... used to power a lawn mower. What kind of lawn mower did you just envision in your head? Probably not what I did. There are zero-turn units, front-engined riders, rear-engined riders, etc. You may have thought about a front-deck, rear-engined hydrostatic drive mower, where I thought of a front-engined, mid-deck, rwd rider with planetary transmission and a steering wheel. But they ALL use the same powerplant. And most use a common transmission - Peerless if it's planetary of shaft, Wisconsin or Vickers if it's a hydrostat. But lord knows there are as many types of mowers as there are places to mow. They are certainly NOT all identical to the eye, the butt, or to the yard!
But how many mower companies can afford to design and develop their OWN particular engine? Not many, if any at all. So they don't advertise their engine prowess, instead they advertise zero-turning radius, maximum spindle speeds, maximum mowing speeds, and maintainability - things that are MORE important to the user than the name on the engine. Agreed?

People are always swapping SBC's into T-buckets and 34 Ford Coupes. Likewise, people are putting Ford 9" rears under GM and Mopars to go racing. And BOTH Ford and GM make design concessions daily to accomodate engines from Cummins and International, trannys from Borg-Warner and Allison, etc.
So are we really that far away from sharing more common drivelines? :no:

Re: First hand impressions of the '05 Mustang.
 

Easy: cost!

I have to disagree. I bought my YardMan mower because it had a Honda motor and the other models (and competitors) had Briggs & Stratton. The only other requirement I had was rear drive which most other competitors had as well. It's a great mower BTW. That Honda engine starts up first pull without any problems :p Now if I could just get a Honda powered weed whacker :think:

Re: First hand impressions of the '05 Mustang.
 

Till the HEMI.

Re: First hand impressions of the '05 Mustang.
 

Is that so? Let us then compare:

Size
Weight
Packaging
Fuel efficiency
True output

I'm not saying the LSx is better on any particular criterion, but tell me why the Hemi is better and I'll listen.

Re: First hand impressions of the '05 Mustang.
 

Perhaps, but not at this time. The LSx series has proven capabilities. I cannot (yet) say that about the Hemi.

Re: First hand impressions of the '05 Mustang.
 

First I'd suggest reading this article. http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0403phr_hemi/
Dave Vizard is pretty respected in the performance circles.


Here's the highlights:
Much better 2V head design outflows LS6/LS2 easily
Longer rods for better rod to stroke ratio
Raised cam for shorter pushrods thus lighter valvetrain thus higher RPM

Sizewise it's the same as the LSX motors
Weight heavier due to iron block, havn't been able to find the dressed weight of the 5.7 hemi.
Fuel efficiency is hard to compare. Unless you put both motors in the same vehicle with the same tranny and rearend you can't compare motors. It's a guess at this point.
HP output, based on the design advantages listed above, the HEMI is going to smoke the competition when the PCM is cracked or with standalone EFI.

Re: First hand impressions of the '05 Mustang.
 

I wouldn't mind the big three sharing components on their mass production cars. But perormance cars would be a no for me. If they share components on the cars the cars they mass produce ( bread and butter cars) then they will be able to make alot more money per each sale. This would help GM alot cause they have problems not making enough money on each car sale.