Loss of a bit of pork (no don't leave plonky, I meant on the GT :D ) would be great but not at the cost of rigidity of the chassis and frame, the minute we see torsion bars over the motor you can safely assume it will handle like clubbie...no thanks, that is a retrograde step.

One comment you made HSE2 that Gordon Barfield said was incredulous, about them getting it wrong with the release of the LS1......how???? :o These guys have been building cars for 70 years and in direct competition for 50 years, where has all the past experience gone? Pity bean counters weren't taught history as a mandatory subject for their degrees!

I cannot understand what logic allows a company to go ahead with production when there are know issues with the model, standard brake disc shudder for one, excessive drive line shunt another, to take the cavalier attitude that it will just do and we will fix the bad ones (say a 10% margine for crap part matching) is stupid, these 10% of units will create the most noise when it comes to noticing the product, all the good features will get pushed into the background. And if these issues were not picked up during testing then maybe Ford should have a serious look at their testing procedures.

I had the good fortune of having a short conversation with David Bowe while he was 'flogging' my car around Barbagello's (no worse than I was ) about the F6 as John was involved with some of the testing of the car. One question I did not ask was, did John drive this car for a few days in different driving environments? A few laps of the testing ground is not indicative of real conditions especially if the recommendations from him are going to make a big impact on what the company do to the car.

If the car does not improve with each series or model change, then IMHO customer satisfaction is very low on their priorities, to forgo some improvements or to 'beef up' a component for the sake of saving costs is another 'dumb' corporate bottom line decision.

Anyhow the sun is shining........finally, and the 'fox' is filthy from the trip to Wanneroo and back so clean her I must!.........now where's me trench coat?

I don't think you would lose rigidity if we are talking ancillary items of the monococque.

If the hood, trunk, front fenders were aluminum as well as door skins etc I think you would find that the shell is very rigid anyway.

How would those items contribute to chassis rigidity if they were made lighter. I donlt think they would at all.

There is a lot of potential to make the GT a better product. The STi was lightened by way of aluminium hood etc as well as some bad boy cars like the Aston's etc.

Lighter weight benefits the car so much more than more power. !!

Very interesting reading this thread, especially HSE2s thoughts. Please don't turn it into a flame fest guys, we are all essentially on the same side here.

It's hard to know if significant improvements on next model FPVs (whether it be BA2 or next model) are actaually a good thing or not. It's good for the consumer who's in the market for one but bad for people who own current or earlier FPV/Tickford cars due to their plummeting re-sale value. I guess we have to go forward otherwise we would all still be driving 144ci 6cyl three-on-the-tree XK Falcons. I suppose there is actually a double upside to this as people wanting to buy secondhand FPV/Tickford cars get a bargain.

I believe the starter button on the FPV cars was a feature that David Flint orderd to be included that originated from Aston Martin where he used to work. It has copped a fair bit of flack in the media but it's a non-issue really as it really doesn't have any effect on the performance of the car. Though I suppose most people would rather see the money spent in other areas like fixing up driveline shunt or extracting a few more ponies from the motor.

I don't think you would lose rigidity if we are talking ancillary items of the monococque.

If the hood, trunk, front fenders were aluminum as well as door skins etc I think you would find that the shell is very rigid anyway.

How would those items contribute to chassis rigidity if they were made lighter. I donlt think they would at all.

There is a lot of potential to make the GT a better product. The STi was lightened by way of aluminium hood etc as well as some bad boy cars like the Aston's etc.

Lighter weight benefits the car so much more than more power. !!

Spot on plonky.

Chassis rigidity is everything.

Red, the addition of strut braces and the like does not in itself make the ride more rigid but allows for the suspension to do its work better. (Which can actually make for a more compliant but better handling suspension)

Though I'm sure you know this. (Could be the Wannaroo dust in your eyes and throat)....... :lol:

I'm sure I can remember a figure of chassis rigidity for the BA that was some huge increase over the previous model...80%..??

That accounts for the ride in the T to be much more comfortable than the previous Tickford yet provides a greater roadholding level and far more predictable and driver friendly handling.

However....getting all these things right each time is not easy......take a look at the work that the race car teams have to put in at every meeting. Its a tough call.

Unfortunatly, the bulk of the XR's and the FPV's can largely be attrbuted to the body rigidity (Good) and as plonky states, the only other areas are suspension and body components in alloys.

The costs of these will be the big stumbling block.................

Exactly Mac and Plonk, but making the chassis lighter would be the cost effective option. Using aluminium on the panels would be great but to make the chassis lighter with aluminium is not so cheap, you have weld cracking issues etc; the way McLaren and other exotic car manufacturers get around this is by using composites and special bonding agents (BIG bucks!!). So making the steel chassis lighter is the cheaper option, then you loose rigidity.

Ford have got it right for the money, to get the weight down to exotics levels you will be paying exotic prices for these cars.

If Ford can do it and keep the price in line and the current ride characteristics great!

How did Ford get LS1 wrong?

They didn't believe what there sources were telling them. They didn't believe Expensive Daewoo would put that much power into the Commodore. The media told them it was coming and still they didn't believe it. They knew a long time before it was made public what was going to happen, they just didn’t believe it.

When it did happen they weren’t prepared for it. As a fluke I got a phone call from Ford as part of a nationwide survey on Engine power. Not sure how they picked people but it was purely about engine numbers. How much is too much, what power output do you have in mind for your next purchase when will that be, do you realise T series will have 220kws? They forgot to mention it cost nearly double the amount of the Exec with the same number but anyway. It was an incredible phone conversation. When the SVO members were made available for a club tour at Broadie it was without a doubt the most enlightening conversation that gave insight into the thinking of that era. In summation the message was strong to never under estimate what the competition will bring to market again. At the time of the FPV roll out again the underlying though process was about what the competition is doing and the pricing of key models. Ford obviously were hanging on price projections.

Rigidity is a very strong point with Ba but a lighter chassis doesn't necessarily mean this area will suffer. Cost sure as hell with because if you aren't paring steel from the structure you are using exotic material or more importantly exotic techniques and that brings a cost. As an example the XJ space frame monocque has a huge rigidity and weight benefit over the previous model, but we have about 10 plus years to see that sort of bonding used in the Falcon. It’s not what materials are used but how they are used. Bit like bracing in house frame or trusses or the roll cage in a race car.

An area that could be used to save weight is by removing the split fold rear seat. The rear bulkhead has to be strong enough to withstand impact without the aid of the seat acting as a brace. Expensive Daewoo doesn’t offer this feature. This is one key area where Expensive Daewoo saves weight. I would hate to see that happen. Obviously suspension sub frames are the next.

The Falcons is substantially better but unfortunately weighs more. Weight is more a factor in handling. If it isn’t balanced it really hurts. Costs you in fuel consumption tyre wear and so on. It doesn’t stop. The stopping power has to be engineered higher just for everyday situations. Pulling 2000kg up from 100kph is different to pulling 1700kg up.

I have not experienced or read where the GT has been harmed in any way with the weigh burden with regards to areas you would naturally assume would be problems It’s regarded as the sweetest most rewarding chassis in the market. No it’s not as neutral as the turbo but it is bloody good. Saving weight is good there can’t be another answer to it, but I am not convinced it is the biggest enemy of the straight line. I think there might be a couple of factors ahead of it, but I guess we will have to wait and see.

The competition sets the price. Expensive Daewoo and Ford match up nearly straight down the line. The global trend is for model succession to pick up modest price rises offset by features.

Hawk. If you work out how companies can get products into the market with these deficiencies then you let me know. You are 100% correct. It’s like the testing has absolutely no bearing on the real world, or the testers have no sense of values in areas that are important and don’t give the required feedback to the people that make decisions. It’s an area I can’t comment on other then to suggest that the bean counters must play a huge part.

Ross, managing all this so it doesn’t impact on retained value is a huge issue in itself. Agree 100%.

This is a great topic, have fun with it, but my time on it has come to an end. In a few weeks I will look back and see where it ended up. It’s hard when you have friends or at least people I regard as friends that work for the company we are talking about. It hurts them to see some of the negative stuff on forums and the people that are dealing with the issue raised here are the meat in the sandwich to a large degree. They know people have a point and would love to wave the magic wand. I think the end of the year will be special but I tend to be the optimist. The wise heads always maintain that you never buy the first of a model especially if a new drive train is involved. That might sound like a cop out and that it robs one of a great driving and hopefully great ownership experience. I can’t answer why this still applies in today’s world. There really would seem to be no excuse as to why this statement would have any credibility at all, but one could argue that it does. Obvious flaws that take owners five minutes to find seem to be over looked. You are going to need a better person than I to get to the bottom of that. Root cause- Hawk has nailed it fair square on the head.

BFN

The rims gentlemen, the rims. They weigh a bloody ton and times 4, 4 tons (he he), that would be a good place to start. Then again a well set up heavy car feels nice and solid on the road

SEE what you have started KEN!!!!!

... so ... will there be a series II? ...

SEE what you have started KEN!!!!!

... so ... will there be a series II? ...

F ucked if I know???

The rims gentlemen, the rims. They weigh a bloody ton and times 4, 4 tons (he he), that would be a good place to start. Then again a well set up heavy car feels nice and solid on the road

I think you had better start coming to my gym Rick, I personally don't think these rims are too bad.

Maybe they could come up with a light weight steelie for a spare that will fit over the brake discs! :lol: