Ford Australias industrial and in line six demise

Ford Australia were screwed in 1976 with the 8 years of 85 % local content laws, and again by 1988, as by then, the Ford OHV Six had 16 years between being fielded as a 4.08" bore spacing engine with Bendix carb, Bosch ignition, and a block, crank and head which was now interchangeable with the Holden Red/Blue/Black engines. Honda making the head for Falcons from 1980 to 1992 added some extra fun into the mix. Transmissions and diffs were BW/BTR, interchangble between varous Chrysler Valiants and Leylands. I've discussed this abilty to cross over Ford, Holden and Mopar parts before. For instance, the current GM 4200 runs a 4.05" bore centre twin cam head, so you can make a Chevy headed, Holden cranked custom Ford Falcon block with either junkyard or recast parts. And even the smartest patent attorney's won't stop that. The Aussies through Kevin Sainty, Merv Waggot and Foster and Phil Irving and Duggan proved that you can remake anything with a design link to a standard production part. Blocks, heads, cranks, cams. Nissan proved that you could swap bore centers between engine families to avouid patent issues, which is why the four cylinder L14/L16/L18/20/L22 have a Ford Cortina/Escort Kent bore spacing, yet the six cylinder L 20/L24/L28's run an almost Slant Six bore spacings. They were not made with the same bore spacings, despite the high percentage of common parts. That's because Nissan was already trying to copy the Cosworth based multivalve Kent engines as high performance sixes.

Hence Holden's twin cam grey, red and blue/black motor heads are able to be slapped on Vauxhall or Ford blocks, and the F1 winning Repco Brabham was a just a Phil Irving headed 215 Buick engine with Daimler SP 250 rods, made by a Ford production engineer using Repco production facilities.

I've worked for big multi-national business for 16 as of 2009. With two movements, I had some very important design and database information that was effectively non transferable unless it was to be formed elsewhere 60% different. Patent lawyers are the best people in the world, like cross between Einstein and Alfred Ely Beach. So if well monied John Jacob Astor's of this world are kept in there place when they attempt to prevent progress, you just need a good one. A good lawyer helps you out.

There are differences between parts of the world, but generally when engineers are transferring from one company to another, there is an IP agreement which places a 5 year moratorium on non disclosure of trade secrets and designs. Although some historical 'behind closed doors' internal discussions avoided other auto makers taking new suppliers to court, there are many copies without official license. This is only tolerated when there is an internal arrangement. Examples

1. Rolls Royce stealing the Packard 352 and 376 engines, and remaking it in alloy as the 6250 and 6750 alloy engines 2 year later,as the engineer employed was ex Packard,

2. The Nissan Motor company never got taken to court for the A series knock off of the BMC A series engine because they made as many changes as possible to avoid it, but it was as much as a copy as you could get of, but they did get censored over the Bantam/Austin Seven being made illegally as the Datson.

3. The current MG 6 ( re heat of the competent Rover 75) had to be purchased from a bankrupt Austins Rover, and its Tarta company via Geely, and then a time of non production before it could be released to avoid patent, design mark and copyright infringements. There were a whole range of stipulations even a bankrupt company invoked after the 2004 collapse of Austin Rover. The car is a full copy, with more than 60% parts commonality.

4. The Holden Red motor being made on 4.08" Ford Bore spacings, with Ford suppliers components such as 1 and 2-bbl Bendix-Stromberg Technico carbs, Bosch non electronic and electronic ignition and Dodge ignition rotors.

5. The Cizeta v16t having Ferrari V8 cylinder heads

6. Ford copying the historic Jeep and Salisbury Gear HU6 and Dana 44 differential used in Jaguars, Vauxhall Cresta/Bedford CA/CF/J series, Chev Corvettes, AC Cobras and De Tomaso and Maserati rear drive cars and selling it as the 8.8 inch Ford in every bigger/higher powered Ford from 1985 to date. Internal parts between the are interchangeable between eight automakers differential housings, with some minor bolt and carrier hub changes.

7. The copy of the Austin Gypsy and Chev L6 engines on some early Japanese market Nissan and Toyota trucks. Of course, they changed more than 60% of the components to sort that out.

8. The 4 -speed gearbox in the 300G Mopar Hemi four speeds was a knocked of all syncro Ford side-valve V8 gearbox via the French Ponta Musson company, and the 153 tooth Chevy flex-plate was a Ford V8 rip off, and remains so today. But no one cared then, and don't now.

9. Lastly, the Detroit Gear/BW automatic Ford made as the multiple versions of the FMX and Cruise-O-Matic...but Ford had a gentleman arrangement, like they did with using GM Rochester 4-BBL carbs. But they didn't have BW patents to contend with when the AOD came out, despite a huge percentage of BW parts in that gearbox, because of age and the percentage of design changes.

I have worked through the legalities of making a Ford in line six myself, and Ford Australia have some major problems stemming from
1. the time since each last revision (16 years of more, free slather)
2. who the the producer of the part was(primary, secondary, tertiary supplier status, and if the part is shared with other engines)
3. and the Design mark/patent and 60% of design issues.

There's nothing to stop me getting some steel and welding together a 4.08" block in my basement, Sanity 392 Hemi style, or using three of my local grey iron casting places in Dunedin to knock off a Holden/Ford block with a detachable bell-housing adaptor and facilty for a T head cam arrangement so you can fit a Holden or Ford cam on either side of the block, and bolt a Yella Tera head or Ford log. CI , X-FLOW, AU-FG Twin cam or GM 4200 head on that block. If I lopped of 1 or two cylinders, I could make a twin cam 4 or 5 cylinder engine. All in my basement.

That's why Ford Australia shouldn't opt out of engine production, because it would soon end up unprotected, and in the wrong hands.
 
Would you like me to put you in touch with Ford Australia's Legal Department ?

I am aware Ford have taken action against many companies and a US firm had 24 hours to take the name Ford out of a business name.

More to the point of Manufacturing stopping I read today of a company making and developing seats that would be easier to use and lighter for a car and with many advantages including safety features. Now for this company to continue development they may have to relocate overseas to follow the market or continually travel to make and improve what they are doing. This is being done in conjunction with a University so this yet shows another area affected but all these changes.

Ford purchased Jaguar - Land Rover some time ago and got the Diesel design so they could use it in the Territory. They then sold off Jaguar - Land Rover to TATA Motors in India.
With the demise of the Territory the V8 Diesel is now to be used in another vehicle in the USA.
 
The cost /price issue is where its at. And Ford Australia failing to sell 140 000 cars a year like in 1982.

This is not an anti Chinese sentiment, G_d knows my European and English relatives screwed over the Chin's by continually under representing them with poll taxes and treating them as sub standard citizens. Well, they aren't, but Dearborn has to understand that as the Japanese reached supremacy with the 1969 to date invasion into the Australian car production via the 85% local content and quota restriction and trade tariffs. In a similar way, so too will the Chinese own the dregs of Australia's Ford and Holden supply lines, despite any attempt to protect it by the rule of law. Where is Repco heading, and VDO Australia now, and what is PBR going to do without a customer. Investors have to get there money back, so they will become more Chinese focused.


Over the past 11 years here, I have had very odd conversations with Ford Australia people, they call and test my knowledge and then go away and set there plans before Dearborn. Ultimately, nothing will save the intellectual property loss that giving up production in Australia will result in. Well before this point, Ford Australia was putting out tentacles to look at other opportunities, like they did when T drive and Cab forward and Tickford purchase. This resulted in Ford Australia supplying a fully working T drive train to the US, including the 2003 24 valve head which was picked up via Pro-drives Aston Martin and AJ6 development.

The issue is that you Aussies understand the market, and Ford US understands how to build a car down to a price. The two juxtapositions mean you have to have very threatening conversations...a Bunkie Knudsen verses Henry Ford II or Wangers and De Loren verses the Board heart to heat each time. The matter is making budget within confines of share holder and engineering forecasts. As we've seen, Ford Dearborn will burn 250 million dollars from 1958 to 1961 keeping the known failure of the Edsel on the production line for three years, but then chop the Mustang I and Cardinal after five years of carfull research from 1957 to 1962. Its called a balanced budget. I understand that to make money, you can't put to many radical eggs in one basket. Successful US percentage shots were certainly the 86 Taurus and Sable, but the Aussies even in 1984 with Bill Dix knew that such cars were destined to fail in Australia. The Magna and Charger, Monaro were just flashes in the pan, they don't sell in volume. So to appease Dearborn, who just loved the way the steep hood golden EA26 with LTD wheels rated in the clinic back in 85, the Aussies had to give a burn notice on every V8 Cleveland tool, and go for broke on just one I6 platform; and the result was the EA to EL success. The tooling for those kind of cars is up for grabs, and the Chinese can make Falcons and Commodores tomorrow, its already making Sigma chassis Buicks right now. Its just like Great Wall being reheated Nissan knockoffs. The Chinese are more like Koreans and Aussies in there car preferences than Americans.

If the better, more economic 96 Taurus and the latest Mondeo was actually something Aussies loved, there wouldn't be an issue with Aussie Ford production, but Asia Pacific is actually very conservative, and Dearborn has to learn to compromise. The ability to mix and match platforms like the ill fated but now Chinese made Rover 75 knock off, the MG 6, and now the Subarau Imprezia based Toyota GT86 is now the preserve for the Asians. Platform sharing in the European Cardinal/Consul/Cortina/Granada and US x shell Ford days was the whole reason Ford aced the development budgets in the 60's. They did it again in the late 70's with the Fox.

There is other stuff Ford Australia has been doing, the leading edge CNG and propane work, the Aston Martin DB9 style ZF 6 speed and Car of the Future style drive train. It didn't come from Mark Skaife. The landmark 1966 ZF GT40 gearbox design has always been a 17 grand prospect, Ford Australia could have made it a 2500 dollar prospect, with Nissan Skyline/Porsche 968 4 x 4 style drive train, but its all forlorn. But the Chinese will make it happen, and a transaxled rear drive sedan with 4WD capaility will happen with Great wall from Nissan bits.

The patent attorneys fight to censure the knocked off Ford and Holden branded parts, but Australian content laws and the button plan have made it impossible to protect everything.

The Nissan inspired EA 26 CFI, the Ion and BTR auto, the BTR/Dana diff, the X shell chassis stampings, the braking systems, even the Bordeux auto trans parts will be made elsewhere, but it will be just like it is with the Rover 75 owner...suddenly the cars are junk, and you couldn't get parts, then 7 to 10 years latter the car gets resold by being stamped with Chinese machines.
 
News today that Tariff changes will come into place soon and this will allow export of Australian made gearboxes with out the hassle it had before. By doing this the manufacture has a better chance to sell more than they did before. Other wise this company would have also been forced to close as they could not compete with the global market and what would be the point of having a company in Australia building gearboxes for a local market that will no longer exist !
 
Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews said it was a "desperately sad day" but attacked the Premier and his government for failing to save the manufacturing sector in Victoria.

"No government ought sit by as a spectator, as bystander and watch industries leave our state and see thousands of workers put out of their livelihoods, this is not leadership at all, we used to lead the way," Mr Andrews said.

"So many others across Geelong will feel this pain.

"We used to lead this nation; we were well and truly ahead of the pack. We're slipping. Our state and its workers desperately need a jobs plan."


This where Ford and GM in Michigan were in 1980's, and again today. The Americans understand it, why aren't the Australians offering an alternative plan back to Dearborn and Flint need to look at who bails them out in terms of design and access to the East and Far East. The flow on effect isn't what you think, its worse.

In a very special interview of Edsel Ford II in 1981 on his departure from Ford Australia back to the US to University studies, he said that Ford US cannot just sack its production line workers because the US would rather buy Japanese cars with doodads, one that take less labor to make than US ones. He said it was a big jigsaw puzzle, but that Ford employed the smartest minds to see the way forward. Well, its still true, but Australia needs help too, and its sad that Ford USA isn't looking at how Ford Australia can make 140000 cars a year again with good margin. If it was, Ford Oz would be doing it. Instead, its about towing the party line. There are a few critical months before Ford USA makes another stupid blunder again. Not everyone wants front drive based platforms and gasoline V8 engine's. The cars that are selling are more conservative than ever, and more like Hiluxes and mini F150's.Ford Australia has gotten its trucking housing in order, and its time for proper volume sales on cars that Aussies want, not reheated wall to wall front drive fails. A co-oped BMW 3 series and SUV's based on it would sell. The old hat brigade is strong, and they buy old grey market Toyota Atessa's and Nissan V6 powered frumps down here, with the rear drive Toyota's the winner on repeat sales. Toyota understands the some what backward looking nature of new car buyers, and the GT86 fits the bill at very little cost to it.


Is anyone in Dearborn listening?
 
If you want to make this topic Political then I think the forum admin should close the topic.
Daniel Andrews suffers from not turning on his brain before he opens his mouth. With the recent fires here he commented on the lack of support by the government for the fire fighters and the fire fighters turned that round and said labor had been pushed to much by the Greens tieing hands not to be able to do enough pre-season fire prevention work.

What you may also fail to see is the past labor governments left the present liberal governments with debts so they can not support the industries that need a financial break.

With the dollar as it is in value many places are looking for support. Even Aust Post looks like it may have to be privatised because no one writes letters any more.
 
Point noted and responded to in agreement.

I never expected Australians to respond to the free market policies like a bunch of Kiwis....

In the past, though no-one understood it, we discussed GM's response to a potential Chapter 11 in a similar manner without getting in p_litics, and can do here again. I cited back then exactly what GM H did in 1983 when confronted with her failure to win market share in 1982 like it almost did in 1973. That showed a smart, articulate and reasoned response to market share attrition because of model mix, and the instant response from Holden was to semi outsource its cars from other GM posts who could make market share. They did it, and did it well, although Toyota made permanent incursions on the truck market and small car market, which resulted from the failure to build the Opel Kaddet in Australia. and Isuzu's perpetual desire to do its own thing on body and engines for its J car and Rodeo Bighorn, and walk away from car production and a proper T car Gemini replacement. Holden realized this at its peril in 1982, after tooling up for a J car which would have been better replacement by a short nosed Rekord V car with a 2 liter Family II engine.


Ford needs to see itself as a producer of 140 000 cars a year in Australia again, and the F shell Falcon , T6 and a smaller fwd/rwd/4wd platform with parts commonality to each with common Word Car Ford components, but with similar export aspirations to the T6. A help up, not a shut up, is needed. One member of the Ford board, EFII, understands that the paid for by Ford infrastructure is likely to get subsumed by the non payers to Health, Safety and the Environment. In terms of those vital ingredients of a purchase, Ford Dearborns lack of support is a sellout since Ford Australia was following a US inspired game plan. Time for another one, and a regroup with a measurable requirement to retake the market again with more suitable goods at a higher price, with export aspirations revamped. ,

What's right for the US is not right for Australia. Does GM remember the HD, the Roberts HQ which took years to catch on compared to the XA and XB, and too small across the back seat V car, which Holden 'de-imaged' again with a mighty 1900 Sunbird engine. All had moments of brilliance, then died because they weren't engineered to suit Australians. Same applies today. If Ford really understood what customers wanted, they'd be out selling Toyota. with car platforms built down to a price. The 1/4 of a cost Asian Ford really isn't a match for an exported Falcon with a price premium.

Holden should be doing the same thing. There is enough pie for everyone.
 
You are now talking about what should have been. Hindsight is a great thing but that has not happened. Sadly will not happen now.

The German Opel designed Torana (Vauxhall in the UK) is a good example as the Aussies took that design and ran with it. The Holden six in the Torana even competed and won against the bigger Ford GT V8's. Still now we can only look back on that as history.

With the three companies now changing plans what future does the car industry have in this country ? What future will the component manufactures have ?
 
Cool23":tnoijufl said:
You are now talking about what should have been. Hindsight is a great thing but that has not happened. Sadly will not happen now.

The German Opel designed Torana (Vauxhall in the UK) is a good example as the Aussies took that design and ran with it. The Holden six in the Torana even competed and won against the bigger Ford GT V8's. Still now we can only look back on that as history.
With the three companies now changing plans what future does the car industry have in this country ? What future will the component manufactures have ?

Simon, I hope you get this, its tone is in total respect to being able to talk issues and matters surrounding the Ford Australian operation. I'm not trying to transfer issues.

100 years of Automotive Hindsight makes automotive foresight. Australia is indeed the most important and competitive market, aside from perhaps California. It has been an easy nut for Japan to crack, it was there first market, and its critically important to them. In this instance, Ford Dearborn has been outsmarted and out maneuvered by the Japanese Toyota and the Chinese and Koreans will plug away at the market when Ford Oz goes.Its tantamount to sacking Tabatha Coffey when she tells granny how to suck eggs in Tabatha Takes Over. Really, its the same thing,



Mark my words. Rear drive capable and non front drive only combinations are the next step forward, and its not a 100% Aussie dollar rise that makes Aussie uneconomic. Its the price/cost equation, amortized over the units of sale. Really basic economic stuff. Stuff that Dearborn prevents Broadmeadows getting right. The price per pound equation gets a wide base when you do a BMW, and give model variance for proven sales. The

I know how mechanical engineers in Aussie and New Zealand do business, they've worked with low margins before, just like the English and Germans have. The United States is different, because Detroit in 2014 does what it did in 1903....it creates margin by making equity out of investors money. A dollar made, verses 1 million dollars, as long as its money made, all good. As it was in the McNamara era, its the general ledger in each market share that's important.I can't see how Ford Australia can make money when its next step forward has to be a car base custom made to make Australian sales. The Mondeo is not it, but the T6 is blQQdy close...Mazda showed that a B2000 can take a whole 323/GLC/Laser dash and bring car like refinement into the light truck range. The same yachting approach Ford Australia used with the Territories alternate model upgrades to the Falcon's allowed the IRS, long wheel base BA body and double jointed IFS to be "costed" off...the same thing happens when you get more revenue from a closely related SUV's based on the sedan. Its cost plus margin stuff, like it was with the LTD and Fairlane over the Falcon, so to was the Territory over the Falcon. This is where Ford Australia really shines...its ability to make very different cars from the same engineering base. I suspect its the De Tomaso type engineering concept of making a four door or two door rear drive sedan the primary model base that ticks off Dearborn, and Dearborn is turning its back on the proposition that Australia is very conservative, but highly Japanese in terms of working the cutting edge of a basic concept, in a way foreign to Dearborn.

Ford Australia is the tale of two project mangers. One makes a 25% margin, the other looses 25% margin, so you keep the manger who makes money as the wining formula. The Ranger Rover was just a Ford Bronco with substandard British engineering and alloy panels, yet Ford Dearborn paid money for the privilege to have it in its Premium Automotive group when it could have done the same thing by marking it in Australia. Ford paid for Volvo's substandard Mitsubishi based front drivers because it had ancient sandwich construction I5's and 6's, which Ford still uses. They paid for the privilege to capitalize off the Volvo durability image. The Jag XJ 12 series was just a cheap De Tomaso, the concept that made the Deuville and Longchamp. Again, Ford Dearborn paid a handsome price for others to produce what it could have done.

The The Cricket mentality is that a whole team wins when you give the spinners a go. It upsets the existing order. Stonewalling is what Dearborn has forced Ford Australia to do. There is no chance of prospective growth in the Australian market with a bunch of random, confused image Fords that are starting to look like recent Mitsubishi's or 1979 to 1985 Alfa Romeos, where there wasn't the money to re-engineer the parts base to change the character of the cars. Ford is in danger of mainstreaming its component base to Thailand and China, and that puts car development in a straight jacket.

As it was with the GM letter cars, people know when they are being conned, and the Mazda/Ford shared bases are not diverse enough to give the customer what they need. They were with the first Mazda 6 and Mondeo. Fords Mondeo suffers from a total lack of continuity in Australian sales, as its too close to the Falcon in size, but too inept in chassis to be respected...its almost a Camry in that regard.

I'm adamant that these decisions are not etched in stone as much as people think.
 
Interesting that you refer to the rear wheel drive and how that has become a mainstay of the design in Australia. On another forum I belong to reference was made about a Falcon or Commodore and how it was towing a car trailer. Tow capacity came into the topic and reference made how a similar vehicle possibly in the US could not tow like this.

The US market has better sales of Pickups and bigger vehicles suitable to tow. Australia has been on its own with design and rear wheel drive towing has been very different in many ways to the rest of the world. Even the Buggy spring was kept in the Falcon Wagon until Ford stopped making the Stationwagon. This gave the wagon a bigger towing capacity than that of the sedan.
The F series was built here but stopped and even more recently imported from Brazil yet Ford did not have a good market for that vehicle so they again stopped. very different to the Pickup sales in the US.

Global design has headed toward front wheel drive smaller cars so the Aussie market for towing Caravans, car trailers and boats is now directed towards that of the 4WD as the vehicle with towing capacity.

I fail to see how the rear wheel drive will be the next big thing when most see them as a dinosaur in design. Still the rear wheel drive is a very popular platform and for many reasons I have mentioned above so I am not disagreeing with you.

You covered more about Ford and how they have taken over to add technology. I am sure I covered before how Ford wanted the Diesel to use in the Territory and after doing this how they then sold of to TATA. How about the GT40, Ford tried hard to buy out the opposition and then went on to build the GT40 to compete with the competition. I can add I have heard many find the Diesel Territory a great vehicle to drive.

As for being etched in stone. I can not see the iconic Mustang going away from being rear wheel drive and I am sure many of the Falcon design features are now included in that vehicle and that may even include the independent rear suspension that was designed right here in Australia that has been used in the Falcon sedan.

One thing I can not see happening in Australia is a Mustang here in the future being purchased to replace a Falcon as a tow vehicle for the boat or caravan.

With the loss of Ford, GM (Holden) and Toyota it will be very interesting to see how the Global market converts or adapts to what they produce for the Aussie market given we are so different. The Falcon and the Commodore have both been built for the roads here all very different to say the Autobahns in Germany and the Concrete Highways of the USA.
 
I think your getting it. The Indians are more rear drive focused, despite the Nano, the Tata four wheel drives are loved. The Chinese can just swing to rear drive platforms in between the front drive sedans and the hardcore light pickups, but they haven't...yet. The MG 6 is a front and rear drive capable car like the old Rover 75 based MG ZT was when it got the Ford 4.6 Modular V8.

Don't forget, that technology is now Chinese, and they know what will sell. That's why the pick-up of forlorn Austin Rover junk was such a coup for China.

The Aussie Ford and Holden focus point should be on short departure and approach cars like the Toyota Altezza/MG ZT/BMW 3 size rear drivers, cars essentially Record/Omega/Commodore and Sierra/Scorpio sized. There is funding for cars like that, and a market. Its AMC Concorde like in their ability to become cheep SUV's with very good price per cost ratios. You can vary their visuals, but keep the basic sizes, and win sales. The substitution of Aussie engines and transmissions and deletion of cylinders to make Aussie content. The ideal was shown with the formerly front drive focus platform when it was shown in the V8 engined Focus conversion back in the Noughties.


It's that simple. It could be that Dearborn are purposely trying to avoid making small rear drivers agin, and its playing a waiting game. But right now, all my mates want rear drive Skylines, Altezzas, BMW 3's and rear drive Benzes....they hate front drive with a passion, and I might be a luddite, but my friends aren't.

The pendulum swing is on Front Wheel Drive Sucks T shirts and drift car racers and a generation of existing car buyers are going ae86. Toyotas GT86 is the new swinger, and Ford need to revise there plans, and start in Australia, not axe production. The Japs have gotten the message, but Ford Dearborn hasn't. Dummies for that.

14306002a4392671079b12579768l.jpg




I'd say payed for Prodrive technology is now in the hands of the Chinese. Nanjing Automobile made the Rover 75 the MG 7 from after 2005, and since the MG ZT 260 design is now wholly owned by SAIC Motor. from the Rover 75 based Roewe 550. Slapping a hatch on the 75 platform to make it an MG 6 just fooled people...its reheated 75 tech, and a few rear or four wheel drive changes, and it would blitzkrieg der wereld if it were aggressively marketed.
 
Cool23":366s6lxu said:
Interesting that you refer to the rear wheel drive and how that has become a mainstay of the design in Australia. On another forum I belong to reference was made about a Falcon or Commodore and how it was towing a car trailer. Tow capacity came into the topic and reference made how a similar vehicle possibly in the US could not tow like this.
.........
I fail to see how the rear wheel drive will be the next big thing when most see them as a dinosaur in design. Still the rear wheel drive is a very popular platform and for many reasons I have mentioned above so I am not disagreeing with you. .
Here in the states in the 80's Chrysler went full throttle into FWDs and if you watched their ads they said anything else was a dinosaur. Then in 98 Daimler-Benz got them and they came up with the "Newer" LH cars which were mostly old E class mercades mechanicals complete with IRS and Mercades engine except for the New Hemi engines. No more mention at all of how much better FWD was after 1998 that i can remember.

Cool23":366s6lxu said:
........
As for being etched in stone. I can not see the iconic Mustang going away from being rear wheel drive and I am sure many of the Falcon design features are now included in that vehicle and that may even include the independent rear suspension that was designed right here in Australia that has been used in the Falcon sedan.
..........
Back in 88 Ford came out with the Probe (a rounded FWD Mazda 626) And there was rumor that it was the Mustangs replacement. I have heard there was a revolt among Mustang purist that incuded many letters to FoMoCo explaining that a NO front wheel drive car would be considered a mustang by the masses as well.

xctasy":366s6lxu said:
......
It's that simple. It could be that Dearborn are purposely trying to avoid making small rear drivers agin, and its playing a waiting game. But right now, all my mates want rear drive Skylines, Altezzas, BMW 3's and rear drive Benzes....they hate front drive with a passion, and I might be a luddite, but my friends aren't.
..........
I think they certainly are avoiding RWD due to the fact FWD cars cost less labor to bolt together. That and the fact that 70% of the publice uses vehicle to just get from point A to point B and only care about that a how they look.
 
This is a faithful reprove. It feels like India trying to biff the British out in 1947. I know who's name is on the roof...FORD's, and in an era where big bucks are at stake, you need smart people to yield smart money. They provide the insight, then the divisions worldwide shell into the corporate funds.


Dearborn has in the past been anti Diesel, anti canted valve Cleveland ohv v8, anti IRS rear end, anti rear drive, anti unibody rear drive big car. And of course, now after 2016, anti I6. That's why Ford no longer sell 140000 cars per year here. Its not tougher competition, its its typical "lets just upsize the Mustang package" ethos which resulted in the race back to the Mustang II and Fox in 1974 to 1978. Its like the French Vadette V8, back then no one in Ford could get past the cost price matters for retooling metric small cars...bigger is better, bigger makes more money, so why not a bigger front drive or a 60 degree V6 with two more cylinders to make a v8, or a front drive with four wheel drive to make and Explorer. Yadda yadda yadda. Or add 50 hundredweight to a F100 and not have to emissions certify it as a car. Bingo, an F150. That's the way Ford US does it business. i aint judging the hardworking Ford Execs, but those US edicts don't work here. And Dearborn prunes back Ford Oz all the time because they just don't get the Strine market.

Meanwhile, Toyota in Australia has picked up all the excess and mopped the floor with Ford Dearborn's "nyet" corporate edicts to Ford Australia. So you find Diesel Tojo's everywhere, V8 Toyota's as grey import Lexuses with four wheel wishbone suspension and 240 hp for 800 dollars in my street being used as towcars, rear drive 170 and 200 hp IS 200/ Atlezzas being raced of Friday nights, and every one using there 2.8 or 3.0 liter 4 runner or SR5 to pull boats, and I6 Supras being loved an cosseted by young bloods. Ford is walking away from its Sierra/Escort FF 4wd platform, and a smaller, punchier Falcon is nowhere, just fat Mondeo's with a glorious Aston Martin nose but a confused underpinning making a very confused image. What happens when you decide not to sell a big car for three years in Aussie...it dies! What's happened in Aussie will happen everwhere if Ford doesn't give Australia a free hand to make those sales.

Ford Australia need to tell the more ignorant Ford Dearborn engineers that they need to get there heads outta there a$$es and do some proper research that even Toyota and Mitsubishi doesn't do. Nissan does, possibly because of the Datsun Stanza, Bluebird and Skyline work the former late Ford then Nissan the Ford again engineer Howard Marsden did with the Japs, the depth of understanding Nissan and now Renault have allow them to work on trans-axle four wheel drive specially cars.

In Australia, total supremacy of the Avalon, Camry and the Galant based Magna, Diamante and ill-fated 380 was thwarted by not being able to pull a boat out of a even a cement waterway, let alone a chip seal or gravel or stone stream access. Without 4wd, they don't have a chance. Any wide bodied Camry after 1992 to date won't even get up my street from the highway to my house. Shove an anti icing agent on a New Zealand chip seal, and a Camry or Taurus will have trouble hooking up on the flat towing a trailer. And that my friends is the damning reason why front drive always sucks on bigger cars here in Australasia. Past Fords C class, front drive is unable to put power to the ground on our sealed surface low polished stone value (PSV)roads. (At present, PSV [Polished Stone Value] is the only parameter relating to the microtexture properties of an aggregate which can be measured in a standardized manner and which has been related to traffic and site conditions. It remains an appropriate property to use in specifications, provided that its limitations are recognized.)



See http://www.highwaysmaintenance.com/skidtext.htm

http://www.highwaysmaintenance.com/JPEG ... ndset1.jpg

In the US, you don't have to deal with low PSV roads, you use more hot mix asphalt, and base materials are clinker and slag and calcined bauxite to aid traction. Your skid pan results on US cars are through the roof, but in Australia and New Zealand, those same cars understeer like pigs because our roads have low PSV. We often use precoated chip, which reduces skid resistance. Then the percentage of unsealed roads is high, and all bigger front drive cars with a couple of exceptions under-steer and all bigger front drive cars loose traction when towing. There are exceptions...if you want your car to looking like an BMC 1800/Freeway or Austin Tasmin or Kimberly, you can still make a front driver work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Kimberley

The latest Explorer is pretty much an 1970 Kimberly anyway, wide enough for its power plants, and designed first as a fwd car, then four wheel drive after that . You can cross the dessert in a Kimberly or 1800, but you can't tow a trailer unless you give it 4 WD...

JourneyswithJack1a.jpg


In 1979, Ford Australia found 53% of every Falcon was equipped with a trailer hitch. Those stats haven't ever changed. Aussies and Kiwis love boating, shooting, footy and cricket, in a way foreign to most in America. The 1800, 2000 and 2200 cc overhead valve SUV Toyota SR5 and then the 4runner 2.4 and 2.8 diesels became the vehicle. Ford Australasia had an anti Peugeot Diesel philosophy...Ford used the Peugeot - Inadore Diesel from the Aussie Pug 504 and 505 on its European cars, where as Ford of Europe and Opel sold Granada's and Rekords with 2.3 diesels in them in huge numbers. The Aussies just loved rear drive Pugs with diesels.

The worst was that you couldn't combine four wheel drive with a diesel in any Aussie Ford for another 25 years after Toyota did it in its Landcruiser and Hiluxes. Dopey move on Fords part, especially when the F100 and Bronco were universally loved, but constantly under pushed for sale when the no Aussie v8 edict from Henry Ford ii was handed down in 1979.

Nowhere else are people as tough on unibody cars as the Aussies. Accounts of early Falcons losing wheels, ball joints and falling apart at the strut towers, TC Cortina station wagons loosing there rear end during towing, Opel Commodore B's breaking in half at the transmission tunnel are totally true. Rear drive cars are often hard to engineer, but they are also more adept in hard going washouts common in flood ridden non suburb Aussie roads


The smaller the rear drive car, the less modification you need to do. Rear drive Escorts and even the Front drive Toyo Kogyo Erika based Lasers and larger Telstars coped without modification because they were rated down for towing, and roads by 1980 were a lot better, but are still rough and high load roads by international standards. The Jap stuff was very harsh, and needed lots of suspenion work, but the Japs did that. Rear drive Skylines and Pintara's were very rigid cars. The problem is that Aussie peoples "occasional use" could involve just about anything, and there is no just take a Dodge Ram, F150 or Suburban, because they just don't sell unless your running a drilling company
 
MustangSix":7noddobm said:
And farewell Holden. This leaves only Toyota as a manufacturer in Oz.

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/12/11/gm-m ... -official/

I imagine that GM will continue to sell cars in Australia, but they'll be built in China (and badged as Opel's).

Holden Dealers will be re-badged or re-branded as Chevrolet and what they sell will be the same except no Aussie built content.

Toyota has also pulled the pin and will stop manufacturing about the same time as Holden.
 
80broncoman":2tg6expx said:
Back in 88 Ford came out with the Probe (a rounded FWD Mazda 626) And there was rumor that it was the Mustangs replacement. I have heard there was a revolt among Mustang purist that incuded many letters to FoMoCo explaining that a NO front wheel drive car would be considered a mustang by the masses as well.

I do recall that. About the same time the Aussie built Ford Capri was sold in the US as a Mercury Convertible. Based on the Mazda design but built by Ford as rear wheel drive.
 
xctasy":3esa9yyi said:
In 1979, Ford Australia found 53% of every Falcon was equipped with a trailer hitch. Those stats haven't ever changed. Aussies and Kiwis love boating, shooting, footy and cricket, in a way foreign to most in America. The 1800, 2000 and 2200 cc overhead valve SUV Toyota SR5 and then the 4runner 2.4 and 2.8 diesels became the vehicle. Ford Australasia had an anti Peugeot Diesel philosophy...Ford used the Peugeot - Inadore Diesel from the Aussie Pug 504 and 505 on its European cars, where as Ford of Europe and Opel sold Granada's and Rekords with 2.3 diesels in them in huge numbers. The Aussies just loved rear drive Pugs with diesels.

The worst was that you couldn't combine four wheel drive with a diesel in any Aussie Ford for another 25 years after Toyota did it in its Landcruiser and Hiluxes. Dopey move on Fords part, especially when the F100 and Bronco were universally loved, but constantly under pushed for sale when the no Aussie v8 edict from Henry Ford ii was handed down in 1979.

Nowhere else are people as tough on unibody cars as the Aussies. Accounts of early Falcons losing wheels, ball joints and falling apart at the strut towers, TC Cortina station wagons loosing there rear end during towing, Opel Commodore B's breaking in half at the transmission tunnel are totally true. Rear drive cars are often hard to engineer, but they are also more adept in hard going washouts common in flood ridden non suburb Aussie roads


The smaller the rear drive car, the less modification you need to do. Rear drive Escorts and even the Front drive Toyo Kogyo Erika based Lasers and larger Telstars coped without modification because they were rated down for towing, and roads by 1980 were a lot better, but are still rough and high load roads by international standards. The Jap stuff was very harsh, and needed lots of suspenion work, but the Japs did that. Rear drive Skylines and Pintara's were very rigid cars. The problem is that Aussie peoples "occasional use" could involve just about anything, and there is no just take a Dodge Ram, F150 or Suburban, because they just don't sell unless your running a drilling company

The roads here played a big design in cars as the first Falcons just could not handle the conditions. Interesting fact on the Tow bars and for that matter the Diesel and Toyota who pushed hard when the Snowy river scheme was built and Toyota got the Diesel 4wd on the market.

As for the Ford Escort. That is a great car and was rallied well here just as it was in many parts of the world. My Grand Mother had an Escort from new from my Uncle as a Ford Dealer. Dealership has long gone as has my Gran but that Escort is still used daily and in very good order. On it second trip round on the speedo.

The Toyota Landcruiser would be the market leader here for towing as the US style pickup is just not popular like the Aussie Ute. What will replace the ute here ? We just have to wait and see. I doubt we will see any US pickups here as they can not build enough of them for the US market.

As for Chinese Cars well we see a few but when you see something like the Chery you wonder if the Chinese have learnt what a safe car is. Foton look like they may sell well but they have chosen to use the well known Cummins Engine so they have the name and reputation behind them and I expect Cummins would have a close check on what is built under license.

What ever happens next only time will tell as the market is in for a big change.

Spoke to a mate this week who works for a company making floor carpets for Toyota and he expects to be out of work well before Toyota shut and cease production here so what does that tell you ?
 
Back
Top