No Surprise: Ford halts RWD programs
Click above for a high-res gallery of the Ford Interceptor concept
Ebb and flow. That's the way the petroleum market works, and if history holds true – and it normally does – then fuel prices are set to go up... again... and then some. So it's no surprise that Ford, GM and Chrysler – not to mention its competitors from across the Pacific – all brought out plenty of fuel-sipping models at this year's Detroit Auto Show. Nor is it surprising that J Mays, Ford's design chief, is telling the world that FoMoCo's rear-wheel-drive plans have been nixed.
"We've got other priorities," Mays told Automotive News/Autoweek, referring to both Ford and Lincoln's plans for a RWD sedan. "We're going down a path right now that is all about fuel efficiency."
The original plan – which began a year ago and was already under review in the middle of 2008 when gas prices were peaking – was to work with Ford's Australian arm to develop a new, large RWD platform that would be shared with the U.S. market. The new sedan was due in 2013, but as the landscape changed, Ford decided to eliminate the plan altogether. Mays says he was looking forward to the project, but he seems resolute with the shift to efficiency. We say: now's the time to start working on a small, RWD shooting brake with a 1.4-liter EcoBoost four.
Gallery: Ford Interceptor Concept
[Source: Autoweek]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
216 1:32PM (1/12/2009)
I was thinking that the New Taurus draws alot from the Interceptor...
Reply
Flashpoint 1:54PM (1/12/2009)
The interceptor draws alot from the 300C
If they did build this, it should come with EVERYTHING the MKS has and be a High powered RWDcar for $48,000 (or a few thousand more than MKS).
It would have to be a lincoln model. Unless Ford wanted to make it a fleet car for cops. Then they could go cheap inside.
Farmboy 8:39PM (1/15/2009)
A little off subject, but I think the Interceptor looks a lot better than the 300C. But yeah, the Taurus looks like the Interceptor in the back end a bit.
ItGuy 1:32PM (1/12/2009)
Shame really. You can do fuel efficient RWD. I've got an 04 G35 6MT and can get 27 highway using the cruise @ 70-80 MPH.
And this car will blow the doors off most on the road.
Reply
André 1:59PM (1/12/2009)
Someone also forgot to say to BMW that RWD cars must be gas-guzzlers. Because of this lack of advice, Bimmer made their cars as economical as a lot of the FWD competitors.
maestro_mario 6:22PM (1/12/2009)
That's sad, sad news...
I understand tha for a small light vehicule FWD is a benefit, but I dont think it makes such a difference on a larger (and heavier) car.
That concept would have been a real good base for an real "American luxury" Lincoln. (Modified Mazda6 dont make the cut...)
PJ 7:30PM (1/12/2009)
This post seems a little misleading. The primary conflict between these product plans and fuel-economy concerns was the fact that they were to be large, heavy V8 sedans--not that they were RWD.
It's really quite patronizing when automakers try to rile up enthusiast opinion against environmental regs because they're "killing rear-wheel-drive." Sorry, but that's a piss-poor excuse for failing to anticipate the trend towards lighter, more compact product lines.
Looking solely at the numbers, yes, rear-wheel-drive cars often get poorer fuel economy than like-sized front-drivers. But they're also generally upscale and/or enthusiast-oriented cars that prioritize acceleration over economy. Correlation does not equal causality.
Mirko 4:09AM (1/13/2009)
@André
"Someone also forgot to say to BMW that RWD cars must be gas-guzzlers. Because of this lack of advice, Bimmer made their cars as economical as a lot of the FWD competitors."
Which is a shame, because that lead to my purchase of a BMW 118d with a 52-mpg rating and fun, fun handling.
Don't they know that stuff like that is impossible?
Dude 1:35PM (1/12/2009)
More short-sighted thinking from Ford.
RWD != poor MPG
Reply
Torrent 1:36PM (1/12/2009)
No not really. You can get good MPG while having RWD.
5 words. turbo diesel.
Limaman 3:40PM (1/12/2009)
Didn't the post say they were going to set their sights on a smaller RWD with the ecoboost 4 cylinder?
XLCowBoy 1:42PM (1/12/2009)
^^
!= means "not equal".
Acefighter 6:14PM (1/12/2009)
Limaman, no, that was AB saying that's what they SHOULD do.
happy_penguin 6:04PM (1/12/2009)
"Torrent: 5 words. turbo diesel."
That ain't even five syllables. :D
Westside T.O. 11:40AM (1/13/2009)
@Torrent
That's what he said...RWD does not equal poor performance.
John 1:35PM (1/12/2009)
I had forgotten what this concept looked like. They really put a lot of into the Taurus: the whole rear end, fender vent, roofline and even the maligned crease in the rear fenders.
Reply
nirad 1:54PM (1/12/2009)
I'm now pretty sure that Ford is using the Detroit Autoshow to prove that they can be even stupider that GM & Chrysler.
Reply
Joe 1:43PM (1/12/2009)
I think GM, Ford, Chrysler can share basic platform each other.
GM make a RWD platform specially.
Ford make a FWD platform specially.
Chrysler make a SUV and 4WD platform.
They can share each company's basic plat form.
give a name as a "US auto platform"
it administrative by "car czar".
Save money with each other.
what do you think?
i think it is a good idea.
US auto industry is already crushed by Japan.
Reply
Wheatstraw 1:52PM (1/12/2009)
Socialism...that's the answer!
snp 2:02PM (1/12/2009)
Great, then instead of having whole lots of crappy chrysler SUV's, you get an entire sector full of them. At that point, american autos wouldnt even have a good profit line to run off of.