Inner debates? How about fights, laughs Phil Martens as he describes the reaction in Ford Motor Co.'s inner sanctums when the decision was made early in the design of the '05 Mustang to abandon the DEW platform for an all-new architecture.
Engineers were not far into the program when it became evident the expensive DEW98 platform (Lincoln LS, Ford Thunderbird, Jaguar S-Type) would not provide Mustang with the range and cost-effectiveness needed, says Martens, Ford group vice president-North America product creation.
This was, after all, the first all-new Mustang Ford was attempting since 1979, in a segment reduced to a couple players when Chevrolet Camaro/Pontiac Firebird ceased production in August 2002.
Controversial as the decision was internally, Martens has no regrets today.
The new architecture developed for the Mustang represents a savings of 30%-35% (for the V-8) compared with what it would have cost to build the newest pony car off the DEW architecture, he tells Ward's.
And the entry-level V-6, with a solid rear axle and desired pricepoint under $20,000, was close to impossible from a platform with an expensive double-wishbone front suspension and independent rear suspension.
“The LS (DEW) platform was built with a different cost structure and a different performance level and didn't have the accommodation that a traditional Mustang product has,” says Martens of the complicated family with about nine variants planned, from the base coupe to a high-end $60,000 Cobra R.
The decision was not made without angst.
Work on the Mustang started prior to Martens' return to Ford from a stint at Mazda Motor Corp. two years ago. It began with the working premise DEW would do the job, a cost-effective use of an existing platform that played well at a time when the auto maker was hemorrhaging cash and needed stringent cost-cutting.
Except it didn't work.
The business case was not there and the desired product range could not be achieved. The 4.6L V-8 engine didn't even fit — it would have required a redesign of the control arms.
“When I came back from Japan (two years ago), I took a look at it and just cut right to the bone,” says Martens.
“The LS architecture is not a low-cost architecture, and it was never designed to be a low-cost architecture,” Martens says. “If you start out at the high-cost range, you can't bring it down to the low-cost range,” he explains.
Conversely, “the Mustang architecture is what I would call an affordable architecture with range,” meaning it has “the capability to take that same basic architecture into high cost (vehicles).”
The new platform will be profitable, he asserts. Annual sales are projected at about 170,000 units, and Martens expects Mustang to sell out for the first three or four years. The architecture should pay for itself after the first couple of years, during which time the capital costs will be amortized, he says.
In terms of range, “you want to have an architecture that can go from handling low-cost applications for high volume, all the way to specialty ramifications, such as the Cobra R and a convertible,” explains Martens.
“That stand requires you to think differently about the total concept of an architecture capability set.
“So if you look at that type of bandwidth, the capability, it didn't make sense, over time, as we looked at it, to just pick the LS or the DEW98 architecture.”
From a clean sheet of paper, engineers derived a layout that, “by itself, will have an incredible capacity,” says Martens.
At the bottom is a basic Mustang with a 4L V-6, new MacPherson strut front suspension and 3-link solid rear axle that acts like it's independent with better damping and spring rates, placement of shocks, including a Panhard rod to help with torsional stability and overall attention to geometric alignment for a low-cost, well-balanced vehicle.
“In reality, the V-6 automatic person doesn't effectively care or want to know what the rear or front suspensions are,” says Martens. “But they want to know that this is a Mustang — it looks great, sounds great and drives great.”
Progressing up to the GT and beyond, horsepower increases and the rear suspension is tweaked. The GT incorporates a solid stabilizer bar. When the Cobra debuts, it will have an independent rear suspension, Martens assures.
There are some cost-savings in the fact the engines are shared with other product programs, says Martens.
And the mix may prove richer. Traditionally, Mustang sales have been about 65% V-6 and the rest V-8. Martens would not be surprised to see a 50-50 split out of the box. In May or June, the auto maker will do its first set of production forecasts.
From the new platform will come a slow and steady stream of Mustang derivatives. The Cobra will bow about 18 months after the coupe goes into production later this year.
The auto maker feels an onus to continue offering all the variants and features that have marked the Mustang over its 40-year history. The result is a complicated program: V-6, V-8, manual and automatic, coupe, convertible, feature cars such as the Mach, Bullitt, Cobra, Cobra convertible and potentially a Cobra R.
The cadence likely will be modeled after BMW AG, which tends to launch an M Series variant about two years after a new vehicle is launched, allowing it to use the new product to develop the performance vehicle. “We're doing the same thing. So it's somewhere between 18 and 24 months (from coupe to Cobra),” Martens says.
The new architecture may not have borrowed from the LS, but that doesn't mean a future Lincoln or Mercury can't come off the Mustang platform.
It is doable, and when the Mustang lineup is complete, thought can be given to a high-performance Lincoln, Martens says.
“Once we're done with the Cobra, we really have to look at (whether) it makes sense to have very exciting products in our Lincoln and Mercury brand.”
He says Lincoln-Mercury President Darryl Hazel's strategy is to meet the basic needs of the brands, with the sedans and SUVs being introduced now, and then add the sizzle.
As for DEW, Martens will not say if, or when, it goes away.
