Various Topics on Ford

.. .. ..i..

2005 Mustang Lincoln LS
Wheelbase 107.1 in 114.5
Track, front 62.6 60.6
Track, rear 62.8 60.8
Length 187.6 193.9
Width 72.1 73.2
Height 54.5 56.1

Suspension

2005 Mustang
Front ind, strut located by a control arm, coil springs,
anti-roll bar
Rear rigid axle located by 3 trailing links and a Panhard
rod, coil springs, anti-roll bar

Lincoln LS
Front ind, unequal-length control arms, coil springs,
anti-roll bar
Rear ind, unequal-length control arms, coil springs,
anti-roll bar

STEERING

2005 Mustang
Type rack-and-pinion with hydraulic power ***ist

Lincoln LS
Type - Speed-sensitive variable power-***isted
rack-and-pinion

BRAKES

2005 Mustang
Type hydraulic with vacuum power ***ist and anti-lock
control
Front 12.4 in vented disc (GT)
Rear 11.8 in vented disc

Lincoln LS
Front 11.8 in vented disc
Rear 11.3 in vented disc

http://www.seriouswheels.com/2005-Fo...-1600x1200.htm

Take a close look at the picture of the bare "ch***is" and
then go look at your Lincoln LS - The engine compartment and
front suspension mounting locations aren't even remotely the
same. Your statement about using the "same hard points" is
simply false. I have no idea where you are getting this
misinformation.

http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=17110
(be sure to notice the "new from the ground up" quote in
this Ford article) -

"A Ch***is Born to Run

"The purpose-built, muscle-car ch***is is , with a
state-of-the-art front suspension and precise, three-link
rear axle with Panhard rod. Combined with direct, accurate
steering and powerful disc brakes, Mustang now has what it
takes to catapult the American muscle-car driving experience
to the next level."


http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html (these
quotes are based on Ford press releases)

"The starting point is an all-new, purpose-built, muscle-car
platform with exceptional body stiffness and a very high
strength-to-weight ratio. With this ultra-rigid structure,
Mustang engineers could tune spring, damping and bushing
rates to a finer degree than ever possible."

....

"Mustang engineers settled on using a coil-over MacPherson
strut front suspension with reverse "L" lower control arms
made of lightweight I-section steel. MacPherson struts –
originally developed in the 1940s by Earl S. MacPherson, a
Ford engineer – are widely renowned for their ability to
deliver both comfort and control with reduced weight."

http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=18412
(notice again - "all-new")

"Based on an all-new, fully modern body structure and
ch***is system featuring advanced MacPherson struts and a
three-link live axle with Panhard rod, Mustang boasts an
overall ride sophistication unmatched by any of its
ancestors. Its braking and handling are nothing short of
world cl***."


Regards,

Ed White

..keHun.. ..ilcity.c..

You sure go to a lot of trouble to convince yourself you are
right. You must have a lot of free time or you log in on your
bosses time. Like I said you are free to believe what you wish
and I'm not going to debate the un debatable, I would just ask
you a few questions. Why did you not publish the comparison
between those two and the T-Bird and Jag? Would you not find
similar differences? Surely you are not going to suggest they
use a different platform? Where the Contour and Mystique not
built an 'all new' platforms as well? Did they not use the same
platform as the European Mondeo? Did the Probe and Mazda not use
the same platform, yet appear to be completely different
vehicles? Did the FWD Continental not have Speed sensitive
variable power ***isted rack-and-pinion steering and use a Taurus
platform that did not? Does the LS not have different engine
mounts for the V8 and the V6?

'Mustang engineers settled on using a coil-over MacPherson
strut front suspension with reverse "L" lower control arms
made of lightweight I-section steel,' don't you agree that simply
means we use a much less expensive set up on this 20K vehicle
than the expensive cast aluminum setup we use on our 35K vehicle?

The last paragraph says it all. Did it not occur to you that ALL
NEW simply means all new to Mustang, not to FMC?


mike hunt



"C. E. White" wrote:
>
> 2005 Mustang Lincoln LS
> Wheelbase 107.1 in 114.5
> Track, front 62.6 60.6
> Track, rear 62.8 60.8
> Length 187.6 193.9
> Width 72.1 73.2
> Height 54.5 56.1
>
> Suspension
>
> 2005 Mustang
> Front ind, strut located by a control arm, coil springs,
> anti-roll bar
> Rear rigid axle located by 3 trailing links and a Panhard
> rod, coil springs, anti-roll bar
>
> Lincoln LS
> Front ind, unequal-length control arms, coil springs,
> anti-roll bar
> Rear ind, unequal-length control arms, coil springs,
> anti-roll bar
>
> STEERING
>
> 2005 Mustang
> Type rack-and-pinion with hydraulic power ***ist
>
> Lincoln LS
> Type - Speed-sensitive variable power-***isted
> rack-and-pinion
>
> BRAKES
>
> 2005 Mustang
> Type hydraulic with vacuum power ***ist and anti-lock
> control
> Front 12.4 in vented disc (GT)
> Rear 11.8 in vented disc
>
> Lincoln LS
> Front 11.8 in vented disc
> Rear 11.3 in vented disc
>
> http://www.seriouswheels.com/2005-Fo...-1600x1200.htm
>
> Take a close look at the picture of the bare "ch***is" and
> then go look at your Lincoln LS - The engine compartment and
> front suspension mounting locations aren't even remotely the
> same. Your statement about using the "same hard points" is
> simply false. I have no idea where you are getting this
> misinformation.
>
> http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=17110
> (be sure to notice the "new from the ground up" quote in
> this Ford article) -
>
> "A Ch***is Born to Run
>
> "The purpose-built, muscle-car ch***is is , with a
> state-of-the-art front suspension and precise, three-link
> rear axle with Panhard rod. Combined with direct, accurate
> steering and powerful disc brakes, Mustang now has what it
> takes to catapult the American muscle-car driving experience
> to the next level."
>
> http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html (these
> quotes are based on Ford press releases)
>
> "The starting point is an all-new, purpose-built, muscle-car
> platform with exceptional body stiffness and a very high
> strength-to-weight ratio. With this ultra-rigid structure,
> Mustang engineers could tune spring, damping and bushing
> rates to a finer degree than ever possible."
>
> ...
>
> "Mustang engineers settled on using a coil-over MacPherson
> strut front suspension with reverse "L" lower control arms
> made of lightweight I-section steel. MacPherson struts –
> originally developed in the 1940s by Earl S. MacPherson, a
> Ford engineer – are widely renowned for their ability to
> deliver both comfort and control with reduced weight."
>
> http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=18412
> (notice again - "all-new")
>
> "Based on an all-new, fully modern body structure and
> ch***is system featuring advanced MacPherson struts and a
> three-link live axle with Panhard rod, Mustang boasts an
> overall ride sophistication unmatched by any of its
> ancestors. Its braking and handling are nothing short of
> world cl***."
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White

..keHun.. ..ilcity.c..

You sure go to a lot of trouble to convince yourself you are
right. You must have a lot of free time or you log in on your
bosses time. Like I said you are free to believe what you wish
and I'm not going to debate the un debatable, I would just ask
you a few questions. Why did you not publish the comparison
between those two and the T-Bird and Jag? Would you not find
similar differences? Surely you are not going to suggest they
use a different platform? Where the Contour and Mystique not
built an 'all new' platforms as well? Did they not use the same
platform as the European Mondeo? Did the Probe and Mazda not use
the same platform, yet appear to be completely different
vehicles? Did the FWD Continental not have Speed sensitive
variable power ***isted rack-and-pinion steering and use a Taurus
platform that did not? Does the LS not have different engine
mounts for the V8 and the V6?

'Mustang engineers settled on using a coil-over MacPherson
strut front suspension with reverse "L" lower control arms
made of lightweight I-section steel,' don't you agree that simply
means we use a much less expensive set up on this 20K vehicle
than the expensive cast aluminum setup we use on our 35K vehicle?

The last paragraph says it all. Did it not occur to you that ALL
NEW simply means all new to Mustang, not to FMC?


mike hunt



"C. E. White" wrote:
>
> 2005 Mustang Lincoln LS
> Wheelbase 107.1 in 114.5
> Track, front 62.6 60.6
> Track, rear 62.8 60.8
> Length 187.6 193.9
> Width 72.1 73.2
> Height 54.5 56.1
>
> Suspension
>
> 2005 Mustang
> Front ind, strut located by a control arm, coil springs,
> anti-roll bar
> Rear rigid axle located by 3 trailing links and a Panhard
> rod, coil springs, anti-roll bar
>
> Lincoln LS
> Front ind, unequal-length control arms, coil springs,
> anti-roll bar
> Rear ind, unequal-length control arms, coil springs,
> anti-roll bar
>
> STEERING
>
> 2005 Mustang
> Type rack-and-pinion with hydraulic power ***ist
>
> Lincoln LS
> Type - Speed-sensitive variable power-***isted
> rack-and-pinion
>
> BRAKES
>
> 2005 Mustang
> Type hydraulic with vacuum power ***ist and anti-lock
> control
> Front 12.4 in vented disc (GT)
> Rear 11.8 in vented disc
>
> Lincoln LS
> Front 11.8 in vented disc
> Rear 11.3 in vented disc
>
> http://www.seriouswheels.com/2005-Fo...-1600x1200.htm
>
> Take a close look at the picture of the bare "ch***is" and
> then go look at your Lincoln LS - The engine compartment and
> front suspension mounting locations aren't even remotely the
> same. Your statement about using the "same hard points" is
> simply false. I have no idea where you are getting this
> misinformation.
>
> http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=17110
> (be sure to notice the "new from the ground up" quote in
> this Ford article) -
>
> "A Ch***is Born to Run
>
> "The purpose-built, muscle-car ch***is is , with a
> state-of-the-art front suspension and precise, three-link
> rear axle with Panhard rod. Combined with direct, accurate
> steering and powerful disc brakes, Mustang now has what it
> takes to catapult the American muscle-car driving experience
> to the next level."
>
> http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html (these
> quotes are based on Ford press releases)
>
> "The starting point is an all-new, purpose-built, muscle-car
> platform with exceptional body stiffness and a very high
> strength-to-weight ratio. With this ultra-rigid structure,
> Mustang engineers could tune spring, damping and bushing
> rates to a finer degree than ever possible."
>
> ...
>
> "Mustang engineers settled on using a coil-over MacPherson
> strut front suspension with reverse "L" lower control arms
> made of lightweight I-section steel. MacPherson struts –
> originally developed in the 1940s by Earl S. MacPherson, a
> Ford engineer – are widely renowned for their ability to
> deliver both comfort and control with reduced weight."
>
> http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=18412
> (notice again - "all-new")
>
> "Based on an all-new, fully modern body structure and
> ch***is system featuring advanced MacPherson struts and a
> three-link live axle with Panhard rod, Mustang boasts an
> overall ride sophistication unmatched by any of its
> ancestors. Its braking and handling are nothing short of
> world cl***."
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White

..baBi..

From: DustyRhoades

> The new 500, the new Montego use a new ch***is
> developed by Ford and first used on the Volvo S40, as well.

Previous threads have stated the 500 is based on the S60 or S80. The S40
platform is shared with the Mazda 3 and Ford Focus (European Focus?).

--
Charles

..baBi..

From: DustyRhoades

> The new 500, the new Montego use a new ch***is
> developed by Ford and first used on the Volvo S40, as well.

Previous threads have stated the 500 is based on the S60 or S80. The S40
platform is shared with the Mazda 3 and Ford Focus (European Focus?).

--
Charles

.. .. ..i..

Geez, Could you post one shred of evidnece that the 2005
Mustang is based on the LS. Just saying it over and over
doesn't make it true.

As for the Jag and Thunderbird - They use the same basic
suspension as the LS (although the T-bird ch***is is
shortened), the Mustang doesn't. They use the same engine
family as the LS, the Mustang doesn't. In fact, the 4.6L Mod
engine won't fit in any of the LS paltform cars.

Here are the raw numbers:

2005 Mustang Lincoln LS Jag S Type T-Bird
Wheelbase 107.1 in 114.5 114.5 107.2
Track, front 62.6 60.6 60.4 60.5
Track, rear 62.8 60.8 60.7 60.2
Length 187.6 193.9 192.0 186.3
Width 72.1 73.2 71.6 72.0
Height 54.5 56.1 56.0 52.1

Ed

MikeHunt2@mailcity.com wrote:
>
> You sure go to a lot of trouble to convince yourself you are
> right. You must have a lot of free time or you log in on your
> bosses time. Like I said you are free to believe what you wish
> and I'm not going to debate the un debatable, I would just ask
> you a few questions. Why did you not publish the comparison
> between those two and the T-Bird and Jag? Would you not find
> similar differences? Surely you are not going to suggest they
> use a different platform? Where the Contour and Mystique not
> built an 'all new' platforms as well? Did they not use the same
> platform as the European Mondeo? Did the Probe and Mazda not use
> the same platform, yet appear to be completely different
> vehicles? Did the FWD Continental not have Speed sensitive
> variable power ***isted rack-and-pinion steering and use a Taurus
> platform that did not? Does the LS not have different engine
> mounts for the V8 and the V6?
>
> 'Mustang engineers settled on using a coil-over MacPherson
> strut front suspension with reverse "L" lower control arms
> made of lightweight I-section steel,' don't you agree that simply
> means we use a much less expensive set up on this 20K vehicle
> than the expensive cast aluminum setup we use on our 35K vehicle?
>
> The last paragraph says it all. Did it not occur to you that ALL
> NEW simply means all new to Mustang, not to FMC?
>
> mike hunt
>
> "C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> > 2005 Mustang Lincoln LS
> > Wheelbase 107.1 in 114.5
> > Track, front 62.6 60.6
> > Track, rear 62.8 60.8
> > Length 187.6 193.9
> > Width 72.1 73.2
> > Height 54.5 56.1
> >
> > Suspension
> >
> > 2005 Mustang
> > Front ind, strut located by a control arm, coil springs,
> > anti-roll bar
> > Rear rigid axle located by 3 trailing links and a Panhard
> > rod, coil springs, anti-roll bar
> >
> > Lincoln LS
> > Front ind, unequal-length control arms, coil springs,
> > anti-roll bar
> > Rear ind, unequal-length control arms, coil springs,
> > anti-roll bar
> >
> > STEERING
> >
> > 2005 Mustang
> > Type rack-and-pinion with hydraulic power ***ist
> >
> > Lincoln LS
> > Type - Speed-sensitive variable power-***isted
> > rack-and-pinion
> >
> > BRAKES
> >
> > 2005 Mustang
> > Type hydraulic with vacuum power ***ist and anti-lock
> > control
> > Front 12.4 in vented disc (GT)
> > Rear 11.8 in vented disc
> >
> > Lincoln LS
> > Front 11.8 in vented disc
> > Rear 11.3 in vented disc
> >
> > http://www.seriouswheels.com/2005-Fo...-1600x1200.htm
> >
> > Take a close look at the picture of the bare "ch***is" and
> > then go look at your Lincoln LS - The engine compartment and
> > front suspension mounting locations aren't even remotely the
> > same. Your statement about using the "same hard points" is
> > simply false. I have no idea where you are getting this
> > misinformation.
> >
> > http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=17110
> > (be sure to notice the "new from the ground up" quote in
> > this Ford article) -
> >
> > "A Ch***is Born to Run
> >
> > "The purpose-built, muscle-car ch***is is , with a
> > state-of-the-art front suspension and precise, three-link
> > rear axle with Panhard rod. Combined with direct, accurate
> > steering and powerful disc brakes, Mustang now has what it
> > takes to catapult the American muscle-car driving experience
> > to the next level."
> >
> > http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html (these
> > quotes are based on Ford press releases)
> >
> > "The starting point is an all-new, purpose-built, muscle-car
> > platform with exceptional body stiffness and a very high
> > strength-to-weight ratio. With this ultra-rigid structure,
> > Mustang engineers could tune spring, damping and bushing
> > rates to a finer degree than ever possible."
> >
> > ...
> >
> > "Mustang engineers settled on using a coil-over MacPherson
> > strut front suspension with reverse "L" lower control arms
> > made of lightweight I-section steel. MacPherson struts –
> > originally developed in the 1940s by Earl S. MacPherson, a
> > Ford engineer – are widely renowned for their ability to
> > deliver both comfort and control with reduced weight."
> >
> > http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=18412
> > (notice again - "all-new")
> >
> > "Based on an all-new, fully modern body structure and
> > ch***is system featuring advanced MacPherson struts and a
> > three-link live axle with Panhard rod, Mustang boasts an
> > overall ride sophistication unmatched by any of its
> > ancestors. Its braking and handling are nothing short of
> > world cl***."
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ed White

.. .. ..i..

Geez, Could you post one shred of evidnece that the 2005
Mustang is based on the LS. Just saying it over and over
doesn't make it true.

As for the Jag and Thunderbird - They use the same basic
suspension as the LS (although the T-bird ch***is is
shortened), the Mustang doesn't. They use the same engine
family as the LS, the Mustang doesn't. In fact, the 4.6L Mod
engine won't fit in any of the LS paltform cars.

Here are the raw numbers:

2005 Mustang Lincoln LS Jag S Type T-Bird
Wheelbase 107.1 in 114.5 114.5 107.2
Track, front 62.6 60.6 60.4 60.5
Track, rear 62.8 60.8 60.7 60.2
Length 187.6 193.9 192.0 186.3
Width 72.1 73.2 71.6 72.0
Height 54.5 56.1 56.0 52.1

Ed

MikeHunt2@mailcity.com wrote:
>
> You sure go to a lot of trouble to convince yourself you are
> right. You must have a lot of free time or you log in on your
> bosses time. Like I said you are free to believe what you wish
> and I'm not going to debate the un debatable, I would just ask
> you a few questions. Why did you not publish the comparison
> between those two and the T-Bird and Jag? Would you not find
> similar differences? Surely you are not going to suggest they
> use a different platform? Where the Contour and Mystique not
> built an 'all new' platforms as well? Did they not use the same
> platform as the European Mondeo? Did the Probe and Mazda not use
> the same platform, yet appear to be completely different
> vehicles? Did the FWD Continental not have Speed sensitive
> variable power ***isted rack-and-pinion steering and use a Taurus
> platform that did not? Does the LS not have different engine
> mounts for the V8 and the V6?
>
> 'Mustang engineers settled on using a coil-over MacPherson
> strut front suspension with reverse "L" lower control arms
> made of lightweight I-section steel,' don't you agree that simply
> means we use a much less expensive set up on this 20K vehicle
> than the expensive cast aluminum setup we use on our 35K vehicle?
>
> The last paragraph says it all. Did it not occur to you that ALL
> NEW simply means all new to Mustang, not to FMC?
>
> mike hunt
>
> "C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> > 2005 Mustang Lincoln LS
> > Wheelbase 107.1 in 114.5
> > Track, front 62.6 60.6
> > Track, rear 62.8 60.8
> > Length 187.6 193.9
> > Width 72.1 73.2
> > Height 54.5 56.1
> >
> > Suspension
> >
> > 2005 Mustang
> > Front ind, strut located by a control arm, coil springs,
> > anti-roll bar
> > Rear rigid axle located by 3 trailing links and a Panhard
> > rod, coil springs, anti-roll bar
> >
> > Lincoln LS
> > Front ind, unequal-length control arms, coil springs,
> > anti-roll bar
> > Rear ind, unequal-length control arms, coil springs,
> > anti-roll bar
> >
> > STEERING
> >
> > 2005 Mustang
> > Type rack-and-pinion with hydraulic power ***ist
> >
> > Lincoln LS
> > Type - Speed-sensitive variable power-***isted
> > rack-and-pinion
> >
> > BRAKES
> >
> > 2005 Mustang
> > Type hydraulic with vacuum power ***ist and anti-lock
> > control
> > Front 12.4 in vented disc (GT)
> > Rear 11.8 in vented disc
> >
> > Lincoln LS
> > Front 11.8 in vented disc
> > Rear 11.3 in vented disc
> >
> > http://www.seriouswheels.com/2005-Fo...-1600x1200.htm
> >
> > Take a close look at the picture of the bare "ch***is" and
> > then go look at your Lincoln LS - The engine compartment and
> > front suspension mounting locations aren't even remotely the
> > same. Your statement about using the "same hard points" is
> > simply false. I have no idea where you are getting this
> > misinformation.
> >
> > http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=17110
> > (be sure to notice the "new from the ground up" quote in
> > this Ford article) -
> >
> > "A Ch***is Born to Run
> >
> > "The purpose-built, muscle-car ch***is is , with a
> > state-of-the-art front suspension and precise, three-link
> > rear axle with Panhard rod. Combined with direct, accurate
> > steering and powerful disc brakes, Mustang now has what it
> > takes to catapult the American muscle-car driving experience
> > to the next level."
> >
> > http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html (these
> > quotes are based on Ford press releases)
> >
> > "The starting point is an all-new, purpose-built, muscle-car
> > platform with exceptional body stiffness and a very high
> > strength-to-weight ratio. With this ultra-rigid structure,
> > Mustang engineers could tune spring, damping and bushing
> > rates to a finer degree than ever possible."
> >
> > ...
> >
> > "Mustang engineers settled on using a coil-over MacPherson
> > strut front suspension with reverse "L" lower control arms
> > made of lightweight I-section steel. MacPherson struts –
> > originally developed in the 1940s by Earl S. MacPherson, a
> > Ford engineer – are widely renowned for their ability to
> > deliver both comfort and control with reduced weight."
> >
> > http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=18412
> > (notice again - "all-new")
> >
> > "Based on an all-new, fully modern body structure and
> > ch***is system featuring advanced MacPherson struts and a
> > three-link live axle with Panhard rod, Mustang boasts an
> > overall ride sophistication unmatched by any of its
> > ancestors. Its braking and handling are nothing short of
> > world cl***."
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ed White