Fire up your spy cams. :evilgrin:

 

ford has been talking up its small car plans for at least 3 years now, with no product in sight. a few years ago ford was considering introducing a b-car for 2008. why the extra 2 years? why the heck is it taking this long?

 

um, a few years ago ford was considering introducing a b-car for 2008. why the extra 2 years?

Because when Mark Fields took over they scrapped that project. It's been discussed here several times.

The car was said to be too bland. They went back to the drawing board to come up with something bolder. Pun intended.

From the few people that have seen it, the reviews are fairly positive.

 

Ford had pretty much cut all spending on SUV's when I left 3 months ago. In fact, since I worked on RWD cars and trucks, I was quickly running out of programs to work on. They were putting most of their efforts on fwd (or fwd/awd) platforms.

 

Ford Motor Co. said it will shift gears and de-emphasize big sport-utility vehicles over the next four years

THANK YOU.

They were putting most of their efforts on fwd (or fwd/awd) platforms.

You'll never beat the space efficiency of a front driver, but if they are considering AWD, then why the hell not RWD? RWD has close to FWD cost, weight, and efficiency (meaning more power to the ground and better fuel economy) with improved weight distribution, more suspension room up front, and w/ modern stability control systems is just as "safe" as AWD (afterall, the AWD only means all wheel power). Actually, hell, just make a little mini-hybrid with direct-drive electric motors on the front wheels for low-speed traction (disengaged w/ a clutch at speed), which by their very nature will work as generators for regenerative braking (re-engaged when applying brakes). That'll fix the RWD concerns above the snow-belt.

I swear its friggen marketing... stupid scoobaru has everyone convinced RWD cars are more spin-prone to their "safety AWD". :rant:

 

Ford won't use imports to fill the gap between now and 2010.

Though we really wouldn't mind if you did that to hold us over so that we don't give up on you

I'm really hoping this one doesn't get screwed up :dunno:

-Brian

 

stupid scoobaru has everyone convinced RWD cars are more spin-prone to their "safety AWD".

In the hands of an IJAC, they are.

 

Though we really wouldn't mind if you did that to hold us over so that we don't give up on you

-Brian

It's not financially prudent. To federalize a car (emissions and crash) it costs MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars. They won't do it for a short product cycle.

 

I know that Ron, that's just my wishful/lustful thinking of wanting a Fiesta in my driveway talking Ever since I drove one in England I've decided that someway, somehow I will own one someday :hump:

-Brian

 

In the hands of an IJAC, they are.

Not with a good stability/traction program though, thats what I'm saying. I've got 460hp in the driveway (and corresponding torque), yet I can still completely plant my foot on it in the rain and its not gunna spin me around.

Electronic throttles are being put on cars now anyways, and the electronics for yaw control systems are getting cheaper and better every year. Sometimes annoying, for sure, but w/ a simple push-button option to disable it, I don't think anyone would complain.

If this were 1990, sure, I'd completely agree that AWD is safer than RWD, but not in 2010.

 

If I am not mistaken the B2E is set to preserve the AWD capability of the current Fiesta platform ..

so AWD will be possible option (If available remains a question) ..

and yes RWD is incredibly space inefficient on tiny cars .. just ask BMW1 series owners (and that is a C-car not a B-car).

Igor

 

Explain to me how RWD is less space efficient than AWD.... :screwy:

 

A rwd based awd system will be less space efficient than a fwd based awd system.

A primary rwd car would have a more beefy driveline going to the back since it has to carry 100% of the torque 100% of the time if it is to be offered without the awd. Also a rwd car would most likely have the engine mounted front to rear instead of side to side making the front end longer. With the primary front driver the driveshaft and rear axle are tiny since the front wheels take a majority of the work load.

Also, an awd or 4wd car that is based off of a rwd platform usually has a tcase and separate driveshaft going to the front of the vehicle as well. The front driveshaft is very difficult to package inbetween the engine and frame. With a fwd platform there is only a transaxle and no need for the driveshaft or bulky t-case.

 

What happened to the Bronco and the Mazda designed B segment that was supposedly shown at the way forward preview???

 

i'm still hoping against hope that they build that Bronco, and not change it much from the show version

 

A primary rwd car would have a more beefy driveline going to the back since it has to carry 100% of the torque 100% of the time if it is to be offered without the awd.

True and false. It is true it will be 50% more power to the rear wheels than in a perfect 50/50 split AWD system. It would only MATTER if the "extra beefiness" actually increased the physical size of the rear differential or driveshaft significantly, and let us not forget that there is no center differential to worry about. Any 50/50 AWD system needs to be able to handle more than 50% of its traction going to the rear wheels, such as on a hard launch where the acc. is going to squat the rear of the car unless your suspension is ungodly stiff. So instead of building in an extra 50% capability, its really only say 25% extra max capacity. Furthermore, we are talking about new B-segment cars here, the power is not likely to be massive, which again makes the weight, cost, and extra losses for an AWD transmission silly when a pair of rear wheels would work fantastic. The engine also doesn't even have to be in the front of the vehicle (flat inline/boxer four could power the rear wheels), but even up front if you absolutely insisted on a short stubby nose you could go for a V4 (only two cylinders long) or even a small six like a 1.8 liter Honda Goldwing engine.

I admit that FWD is the most effective packaging wise, and offers the highest efficiency w/ the lowest weight and cost, but RWD can be made the same or very close, and in any case more efficient, lighter, and cheaper than AWD. AWD has its place, but in street driven low-power (sub)compacts its a waste, and yet it gets ten times the fan-club compared to RWD, which IMO is based on old misconceptions about rear drive that don't apply on modern cars.

 

PS: When I build my Miata size M-coupe like hatchback, none of y'all can have one.

 

True and false. It is true it will be 50% more power to the rear wheels than in a perfect 50/50 split AWD system. It would only MATTER if the "extra beefiness" actually increased the physical size of the rear differential or driveshaft significantly, and let us not forget that there is no center differential to worry about. Any 50/50 AWD system needs to be able to handle more than 50% of its traction going to the rear wheels, such as on a hard launch where the acc. is going to squat the rear of the car unless your suspension is ungodly stiff. So instead of building in an extra 50% capability, its really only say 25% extra max capacity.

Wouldn't it really be 100% more capacity?

If a car makes 100 units of power and can do 50/50 split, 50 units can go to rear. If the same car has only RWD, 100 of the units of power go to the rear, not 75%.

But can most cheap-o AWD systems even put 50% to the rear? I'm not up to knowlege on the haldex type systems.

 

To elaborate on the math.... Whats that 100 units compared to 50 units?

Thats a 50% difference compared to AWD. The discussion was about how much extra power (and therefore massive size) a RWD powertrain would have to deal with compared to the AWD one. And if in a hard launch 75 units are going to the rear wheels (AWD systems deliver power to where the traction is, unless they suck), thats 100 compared to 75 which is a 25% difference.

Little difference, no center differential, and a low torque B-segment engine doesn't make for some massively sized RWD powertrain by comparison. I think peeps are looking at backbone style RWD chassis, and thinking that much room is needed for some driveshaft the size of my torso.

 

When asked why the company hasn't moved faster to import one of its Asian or European subcompacts, Fields said the company avoided the "easy" badge-engineering solution to make sure it has the right car for the U.S. market.

Yeah, why badge engineer something to get it here in a timely fashion?

500/Montego
Edge/MKX
Crown Vic/Grand Marquis
Freestar/Monterey
Fusion/Milan/MKZ
F-150/Mark LT
Expedition/Navigator
Explorer/Mountaineer
Escape/Mariner

Yeah, let's just wait until the 2010 model year. Ford would never want to resort to badge engineering. In the meantime, we'll just sit back and continue to watch the Fit, Yaris, Versa, and Scion eat our lunch.

 

Well stated, racerx.

Ford will be "a bit" late to the game on this one. Not a big surprise, though.

 

Ford = #1 at being last out of the gate

Bold move Ford, very bold... yawn...

 

doesnt it say subcompact, which means a or c, something like that, i don't care enough to know-segment? if so, even way later than a new focus, ford.

 

And Ford wonders why it loses billions..........

 

i'm still hoping against hope that they build that Bronco, and not change it much from the show version

I agree 100%.