motor

graywolf624 · 04-09-2004, 01:49 PM

although, i am unsure of the vehicle weight of the CTS-V

About the weight of a cobra or GTO...
Somewhere between 3600-3800 lb.

The ls weighs near the same stock.. but thats before a bigger engine throws off weight distribution and adds weight. Thats also without the chasis stiffening and heftier suspension.

blah · 04-09-2004, 03:49 PM

The CTS V isnt a midsize car, its in the 3 series class. So my bad, all they have to do is rework the suspension, just give SVT the car, and let them work withouth interuption, of course only after they get done with the lightning work, and condor (horrible name)

Tomerville · 04-09-2004, 03:52 PM

Hell, I would take a CTS-V over an M3. Well, over the new 2005 M3s yes, but not the current models.

RC45 · 04-09-2004, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by nthfinity

i could see a number of other cars in fords future competing in the luxo muscle class.... but im not sure ford wants do do that at this time.

That's beacuse they have no idea how to do it...

Remember the Marauder from 2 years ago - what apiece of shit - test drove a couple - the only thing it had was a nice sounding exhaust, and leather seats.

They missed the boat so badly it wasn't funny.

The chance to revive the Marauder name and produce a true Ford Hotrod sedan - wasted.

Don't get me started on how they fucked up the "re-engineered" Thunderbird - what a pile that turned out to be... they forgot to put a fucking engine in it...

I have owned Towncars previously - the Limcoln dealer tried to get me inot an LS - what a piece of crap THAT car turned out to be as well.

Slow, can't turn, and has no redeeming style - do yourself a favour one day - take a long look at a Lincoln LS - then go look for a Mitsubishi Gallant - the cars share profile views from every angle.

Other than that I like American cars...

graywolf624 · 04-09-2004, 04:20 PM

"So my bad, all they have to do is rework the suspension,"

Uhhh... no..

Nothing is ever that easy as nfinity said.
Structural rigidity, suspension, weight distribution, engine... These aren't easy things. And to give you an idea on the cost of such changes. In a discussion with a gm executive I learned that just moving the gto gas tank cost several million dollars in design costs.
It's not a simple change.
I personally think they should do what gm does and build a special chasis for most of their performance cars. Ford has almost never done this though (not for the mustang), and I'd wagger that is alot of why they lose the performance wars. They pay more attention to looks, which does sell more.. So I guess it's a double edged sword.

I had high hopes for the new mustang.. Then I saw they are running struts and a solid rear.. At that point I realized it isn't going to change much from what they have now(albeit maybe quadra bind might be eliminated). I guess who cares about the performance in corporate if it sells?

blah · 04-09-2004, 04:30 PM

fuck the CTS v, give me the M3.

RC45 · 04-09-2004, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by graywolf624

"So my bad, all they have to do is rework the suspension,"

Uhhh... no..

Nothing is ever that easy as nfinity said.
Structural rigidity, suspension, engine... These aren't easy things. And to give you an idea on the cost of such changes. In a discussion with a gm executive I learned that just moving the gto engine cost several million dollars in design costs.

This has resulted from the constant pursuit of "cheaper and cheaper".

If they didn't try engineer the last ounce and save 5c out of everthing, it wouldn't be that hard to change.

Witness the MILLIONS of Hotrods built over the years that have been substantially altered at the cost of mere thousands of dollars - when the cars in question were based off of universally built platforms.

In the past, when cars were built by stylists and engineers first, and accounts last - making a single change, such as a change in fender curvature was just a matter of having the sheet metal stampings changed (or in the case of a Ferrari or Jaguar, having the body shop hand beat a different shaped fender).

There was very little consideration given to the rest of the car, bacause the fender was simply bolted onto the car afterwards, and the structural strenght and rigidity was not impacted by the shape or weight of the fender.

Fast forward 40 years - you have GM showing the SSR concept to the world.

People LOVE the retro fenders, the beautiful curve and shape of the 1930's and 1940's style front fender....

Only problem is - GM has to completely reworks and re-engineer their processes to allow for a compound curved fender - why?

Because the shitty quality of steel used for fenders (that accountants have forced GM to use - because of costs) is unable to maintain it's own shape under it's own weight.

So - what had to be done?

Change brands/type of steel?

No - instead the FENDER was reshaped to be more square/boxy and a myriad of other expensive changes made to the car - costing a lot of money.

The result - a stupid fucking rounded off square fender on a 4000lb+ pickup truck that can't decide if it is retro or not... :roll: :roll:

That my friends is why things are the way they are

"Automotive engineers" like to think THEY are shaping the future of automotiv style and function - nope - Government, lawyers and accountants are taking care of that... engineers are just the labour...

nthfinity · 04-09-2004, 09:12 PM

graywolf624 wrote:

"So my bad, all they have to do is rework the suspension,"

Uhhh... no..

Nothing is ever that easy as nfinity said.
Structural rigidity, suspension, engine... These aren't easy things. And to give you an idea on the cost of such changes. In a discussion with a gm executive I learned that just moving the gto engine cost several million dollars in design costs.

hmm... i didnt intend it to sound as if it were an easy thing at all :roll:

i cant say ive ever been a fan of 40's styled hot rods myself, and i hope ford shy's away from the semi retro gay looking shit of the SSR.

the new mustang chassis is designed as a multi-porpose platform; but thats already been discussed previously

unfortunately, lawyers and accontants do create a void of passion....
at least its being realized again that HP/ torque figures sell

ludwig14 · 04-13-2004, 01:09 PM

well the new mustang does have some changes to the rear but i agree its deffenetly gonna keep max motors and other companies like it in business, i think thats another reason they dont change much- the aftermarket industry for the mustang does soo much busness its unbelievable

nthfinity · 04-24-2004, 01:15 AM

UPDATE

most of what i ve learned tonight i cant talk about except a few tid bits...
one of the biggest goals of SVT is vastly improved reliability, and thus reduction of warrenty work. the largest areas of costomer complaint with the cobra from MY 2003, 2004 are with the powertrain, electrical system, and chassis. 2004 is showing segnificant improvements already. dont expect to see a new Cobra until 2007

there are a lot of changes in the engineering process that are taking place within the group, as well as thougts to implement them on a corperate wide incarnation. i cant say exactly what this is, but hint that this is a 'throwback' in philosophy, while embracing current, and future technolgies...

this 'throwback' would increase vehicle options from the factory, reduce warrenty work, has the likeliness to increase reliability and cause further use of the 'parts bin'

besides the engineering standpoints that could progress, costomer satisfaction would be immence. i personally would worry about costomer service in these areas, however. this looks extreamly exciting from my viewpoint; and could revolutionize (i dont use that word lightly) the auto industry.

this is in the absolute beginning stages, and im sorry for the vagueness, and i am sure you will understand

RC45 · 04-24-2004, 02:01 AM

The bottomline - Ford is losing money like a mofo and needs to "rope" another 2 generations of "blind followers"...

Don't worry, that is how GM and every other large company has to be to survive.

Car building is not a philosophy - it is a business - and these high-flying ideals will only last as long as the corporate blowhards who champion them are in office... and they "appear" profitable

But it made for interesting reading, and will look good in a gartner Report and in the Wall Street Journal...

nthfinity · 04-24-2004, 02:34 PM

The bottomline - Ford is losing money like a mofo and needs to "rope" another 2 generations of "blind followers"...

first quarter profits are in, and ford is at the 2 billion mark, well above initial projections... yes, they are still close to 'broke' but arent in as bad condition as Daimler Chrysler.

i wouldnt call myself a blind follower by far, but there cirtainly are some

Car building is not a philosophy - it is a business - and these high-flying ideals will only last as long as the corporate blowhards who champion them are in office... and they "appear" profitable

well, this 'blowhard' is far from it, and wants to leave an imprint in the auto industry. im sorry i cant give much more info in a public forum about the process he is champion of... and the 'appearence of profit' cirtainly will take further analysis. cirtainly in our capitolist, mixed market economy, profits are very good.

hopefully if this new manufacturing process is fulfilled, i have no doubts that it will look good in the garnter report. i still think it is still quite a ways away.

RC45 · 04-24-2004, 03:43 PM

- all in good spirits..

I wasn't specifically calling you a blowhard...

Nocturn · 04-24-2004, 08:02 PM

So hey are gooing to rename the cobra Condor? I don't see why they would get rid of a name like cobra. Last I herd they wern't doing the Focus anymore, so what other cars could it be?

nthfinity · 04-24-2004, 09:30 PM

SVT focus isnt in focus for the time being. im not sure if they are planning on bringing the RS package to the USA. what i do know is the focus is going through some sizable changes for the 2006 MY.

with heavy production of the Ford GT, there isnt going to be any production SVT models starting with the 2005 MY, and re-starting with the 2007 MY (fall 2006). Ford originally had hoped to get the SVT cars out as 2006.5 cars, but seems to be behind that initial goal.

the condor is to cobra, as Daisy is to Ford GT... pre production names to keep confusion absent.