http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_ford_po...ture/index.htm

sorry if its a repost... they want the falcon and stang to possibly share platform, and the styling of the 427 concept

 

It makes sense to put the 100,000+ unit/year Falcon on the 200,000 unit/year Mustang platform. Ford seems more concerned about generating efficiencies of scale, unlike GM, which just seeks the lowest engineering costs.

 

I think they want to do what GM is doing, but are just saying that Ford U.S. will provide the chasis (taking the credit), when we all know the 5.4 V8 Dohc that Ford Aus has released and the new Control blade suspension and chasis are world class, I think like GM they are going to jointly develop the next platforms and share the aussies knowledge, in RWD.

the latest catch word is 'GO GLOBAL'

 

Had no idea the Falcon chassis was that old!

That explains why Ford of Australia isn't intrested in exporting to the US.

Mustang won't be the only car built on this new chassis, and was never planned to. The Fairlane was supposed to follow the Mustang by 1 year.

Ironic thing is, the modest volume Mustang is going to make it to market, while the higher volume Fairlane has at the least been delayed a couple of years (in favor of the Volvo based FWD Ford F500).

 

Yup lowest engineering costs are all GM....wait they don't have any platforms that date to 1959

To put things in perspective MY MOm was born in 1960

 

I think Ford made a smart business move in going ahead with the FWD 500-sedan. They've had a yawning gap in their product range between the Taurus and Crown Victoria for years. Cars like the Buick LeSabre, Toyota Avalon, and - heaven forbid - the Hyundai XG350 have been fill that gap nicely.

I just hope that the new 427 (A.K.A.Fairlane) is sufficiently large and well packaged to fill in for the Crown Victoria.

 

how whould this fill the gap between the taurus & crown vic ?

http://www.autospeed.com.au/cms/A_1670/article.html

 

Speaking of the falcon, do you see the falcons 5.4L going into the next GT?

I've been hearing that is isn't going to be the 4.6L and that it's going to be a varient of one of the truck engines. Sounds like a 5.4L 3v to me.

 

Ford has already said that it is an engine you've seen before, but not in the Mustang, and possibly from their truck line and good for 300hp and with the quote "you will not be disappointed".

The 300hp 3v 5.4, fits this description perfectly.

 

I'm already disappointed. The Mustang GT deserves more than a 3v/cylinder truck engine. Look at the AutoSpeed article. http://www.autospeed.com.au/cms/A_1670/article.html A 3850lb Falcon with this engine will only do 0-62mph (0-100kmh) in "low-to-mid 7s." This honkin' big motor doesn't make the Falcon any quicker than the heavier, smaller displacement Marauder. Sure the Mustang will be somewhat lighter, but the performance results from this engine don't look encouraging, yet.

Ford seems to have taken up the specialty of making the pokiest 300hp cars in the industry. I blame lousy automatic transmissions, but even that doesn't explain the performance gap. With 300-genuine-horsepower a car of the Falcons weight should accelerate to 60 in the low 6-second range.

I still think the Mustang GT needs the 350+hp 32 valve version thats going into the XR8 Falcon. I'm sick of go-slower Mustangs.

 

Considering that one of the complaints about V8 F-bodies from the general public (apparently) was that they had too much power, you won't see a GT have that much any time soon. The GT is positioned now as the entry level V8.

 

Considering the Falcon's weight and the fact it isn't even the performance model, those numbers aren't great, but not that bad either (0-60 would probally be 7 flat). I think you're right about Ford's automatic trannies, I understand that's the reason the last DOHC Cobras didn't have automatics.

Just the same, the Cadillac CTS with a V6 and stick is actually quicker!

 

I couldn't open that page...but suffice to say, I don't think the '05 GT will be slower than the '03 GT, I expecting it to be quite abit faster. As far as a 350hp motor goes....Mach 1 will probably get that.

 

Nosed around on the Falcon's evolution, and the truth is that it's chassis is not a 1959 chassis, at least not in the way projected! If you think of your grandfather's axe that's had the handle replaced twice and the blade once, you get the idea of Falcon's chassis.

Over the years, the Falcon's chassis has been: widened; lengthened; had at least 2 new front ends & front suspension systems (not including the new one); had at least 4 rear ends including leaf springs, coil springs, the watts linkage from the 80s, the Cobra-like IRS, & the new control blade system (and I'm not including every change); changed crossmembers; chassis rails that have been changed over the years; at least 3 revised floorpans, including the newly designed one; revisions for crash survivability (known here as crash standards); NVH revisions; changes to adapt to new improved unibody assembly & related structural changes for varying body styles.

In short, calling the current Falcon a 1959 design is in the end completely false. Each new edition brought structural changes to the point where you simply can't take a new Falcon and bolt or weld any pieces or structural components to one from the 1970s, let alone 1959.

It's an evolutionary car.

It's

 

Word is going round that the CV will be renamed Fairlane in the near furture.And the Mustang not deserving the 3v 5.4 is rediculous.It has VCT it will be a hellofalot faster then the Fairmont.Keep in mind that Team Mustang is keeping track of every ounce that is going into the new car.If weight isnt neded it wont be there.The D.O.H.C Cobras didnt get the A4 because they were never intended to have them.Cobras were designed with roadracing in mind.That is why no Cobra has come with a auto.
They could of put the A4 in the 93 Cobra's the AODE would of handled that power with out a problem.VCT is going to do very well once it is here.Think VCT+S/C and you get my drift