[jon_the_limey]

theoldwizard, on Aug 24 2007, 08:25 AM, said:

Scratch the D30 DAMB. It is only used by Jag so it is on it's way out. I always wondered how much it had in common (if any thing) with the US D30 RFF.

The Volvo/Ford SI6 is a very interesting engine. Short (for an I6, and narrow, If Volvo stay around (and I'm betting it will), that engine may find its way into other cars, especially since it is manufactured in a Ford plant !

The boy "down under" and BMW know that inline 6s are smooth and can make lots of power

The D30 DAMB has very little in common with the D30 RFF, the narrower included valve angle and higher engine speeds put paid to that.

The Volvo SI6 is a very package constrained engine design that has severely reduced it's ability to make high specific output. I mean it has intake VCT, INA cam-profile switchable bucket tappets, variable length manifold, 10.8 compression ratio etc and still only makes ~73bhp/litre at a relatively heady 6200rpm. The D30 DAMB and D35 make better numbers.

[jpd80]

RichardJensen, on Aug 25 2007, 01:57 PM, said:

Here's the thing:

No company is 'cursed' with unprofitability. Jaguar is not condemned, like some flying dutchman of a car company, to circle the oceans forever in search of a profitable port.

:hysterical: (Ask pcsario?)
Well Q3 is just around the bend, so let's hope PAG keeps plugging away.

This post has been edited by jpd80: 27 August 2007 - 05:38 AM

[jon_the_limey]

jpd80, on Aug 25 2007, 02:10 AM, said:

Now, I don't live on you intellectual plain but I know this:
Ford asked that very question of LR engineers only to be told that the platform is aging and most engineers faced
with new technology and building proceses would want to impliment changes to basic frames and structural members
to keep building costs under control. J/LR engineers basically continue to imply that Ford knows nothing about building
light metal vehicles, J/LR enginering division is adept at telling Ford management how it's going to be and I suspect that's
a sore point with the chiefs.

Yes it was an arrogant comment, but only said because I do have a fair amount of experience in component design but none of you know this and my comments can be construed badly. I apologise for that. Examples of stuff that I have worked on, a few years back I spent several months designing a large high-feature semi-structural oilpan that was aluminium pressure-die-cast and made with 6-way core (and multiple internal slide) tooling. Also prior to that I spent a long time designing a deep draw pressed oilpan made out of laminated steel, which is a bitch to press accurately. Now I designed the little hollow bits in the middle, there were dozens of others working on it doing some very clever analysis and development of the tooling to ensure the finished article in the middle was upto the job that I only have the vaguest clue about.

You do seem to have this idea that JLR engineers are smug and arrogant and operate JLR like a feifdom (do you think Volvo is any different?) My question to you would be "Do you have first hand experience with dealing with them?" I mean there are several hundred engineer's working on several different program, are they ALL like that? Also how do you know what the structural and build problems of the L322 chassis and T5 chassis are, and how do you know what Ford's thoughts are (considering "Ford" itself is made up of several thousand individuals). Also I'm guessing that most Jaguar engineer's working on the aluminium XJ and XK would have been grateful for all the work that Ford Research Labs did to help them put it in production, why would they be implying that Ford knows nothing about building lightweight vehicles? Also how do you know what Ford's chiefs (again there are loads of them!) think of JLR's engineering division.

I briefly saw your post before you edited it, and you appear to have quite a seething attitude to JLR and I don't think it's entirely down to the companies. So what is it?

This post has been edited by jon_the_limey: 27 August 2007 - 06:01 AM

[jon_the_limey]

Austin, on Aug 25 2007, 02:51 AM, said:

Jon, let me help answer this question. But first, I think you have to agree with wescoent's comment that the valuation of Jag/LR has to include the cost of the investment required to keep thse brands competitive in the future.

If LR has to go to aluminum construction to get the weight down and improve fuel economy (a high probability in my opinion), the costs will be substantial. Let's take the Jaguar XJ as a starting point.

To reduce development costs and the probability of success, Jaguar started from the D2 steel platform (S-type/Lincoln LS), replicated those parts in aluminum, and made changes only where necessary. They were able to do this as Ford had good internal correlation data on aluminum vs. steel from modeling and a couple of aluminum CDW test cars.

Aluminum construction has a number of issues vs. steel. The stamping and body shop have to be very clean -- any stray steel can cause "cancer" in the aluminum. Any welding is at a very high voltage and must be carefully controlled in the plant. That's why Jaguar chose to go primarily with bonding and riveting. But that carries a cost -- if I remember correctly, there are over 1000 rivets in the XJ.

Cost of alunimum is higher than steel. Including the rivets, I'm guessing that the XJ body-in-white costs around $1,100-1,500 more than an equivalent steel body.

So, what does this mean for LR?
First, LR could use some of the engineering and manufacturing expertise established at Jaguar. There is some real talent there.
Second, LR probably would not have the same reference platform like Jag did. I don't think LR would duplicate the body-on-frame of the present platform, so that means an all new unibody with high development costs.
To lay on an aluminum body shop would likely be in the range of $300-500 million.
You mention that present components could be carried forward to any new platform. While this might be the starting point, it might not work in all cases.

Nothing's impossible, but there is likely some high investment in LR's future that will be taken into account in the valuation.

And, of course, Jaguar is in a spot of trouble also. The XF has to be the last hurrah for the D2 platform I would think. And I don't know what is going on with the X-type, but whatever it is, it isn't enough.

Nice post! I agree that JLR could have some expensive retooling coming up (certainly to lighten the big Land Rovers) and it would affect the valuation of the companies. The thing I mostly question is that JLR will need several billions in up-front capital to do it.

The XJ aluminium chassis did indeed follow similar construction principles as the DEW platform, and there are some huge difficulties in pressing large aluminium panels as you've pointed out (although pressing large steel panels is hardly a walk in the park!) However in a bid to reduce tooling costs on the XK they used many more cast aluminium nodes and extrusions. I believe that any Land Rover would be able to use these methods (and actually are probably more suitable for it given their brickshit house construction!)

They will have to pay the price in piece cost, not least because aluminum is expensive but also because any machining and extra assembly operations in riveting and bonding. There are some advantages you can gain with casting and that is you can integrate many more features into a machined casting without having to do add extra pressings that require extra welding and other operations to get the same feature content. Also above I mentioned that I have designed two oilpans, one PDC aluminium and the other pressed steel, both roughly the same size and the aluminium one with loads of integrated features. Unassembled piece cost didn't even compare (I think a quarter but then the steel one was quite elementary) the aluminium was much more expensive but the tooling despite the complexity was just under half for the pressed and the pressed needed lots of others bits assembliing (oil pickup pipe being one). Now I know this is quite an arbitrary example but there is some merit in this.

The general jist of what I'm saying is that if done well the capital costs for aluminium construction car can be lower than a pressed steel one, but you'll pay the price in unit cost. However as we are talking about high-value and low-volume vehicles here, they probably lend themselves better to these methods.

Yes the DEW/D2 platform is knocking on a bit, but the biggest issue I see with it is that it is quite heavy. All other aspects seem pretty top-notch, could it not be developed with UHT steels and composite panels? I think that the X-type is walking dead at the moment, I bet when EU5 comes in it will die then.

This post has been edited by jon_the_limey: 27 August 2007 - 07:04 AM

[Blue II]

theoldwizard, on Aug 24 2007, 03:04 AM, said:

The 3.0L is not a cyclone ! Unless of course you a referring to a new 3.0L that is a de-stroked/de-bored 3.5L.

Additionally, I have not heard of a 4.0L cyclone. Seems obvious, but it will mean a taller block and different crank (for more stroke) and/or bigger pistons, Both expensive. Unless the engine tooling was designed to handle a taller deck, I doubt it will happen.

I used to know the TS in charge of the Cyclone engine tooling, but Sam retired also and I have lost track of him.

They've tested a 3.0 and 4.0 Cyclone thats all.

I thought it was quite interesting how the 7.0 Hurricane crank was sourced. The aftermarket Hot Rod industry crafted it out of a 4340 AMS billet.

As you know all sorts of odd creations are tested. Ever see the SOHC 289 from the 1960's? Compact little bugger it was.

[jpd80]

jon_the_limey, on Aug 27 2007, 10:59 AM, said:

I briefly saw your post before you edited it, and you appear to have quite a seething attitude to JLR and I don't think it's entirely down to the companies. So what is it?

The "seething anger" is extreme frustraltion, we have exportable products that would work well in
other parts of the world but our products are shelved, our engine cancelled our platform about to be butchered.
The rumored Global rear Wheel Drive Platform is still news to FoA chiefs........

I edited because it was not written with cohesion of fact.
Sorry to offend, very bitter.

This post has been edited by jpd80: 27 August 2007 - 11:30 PM

[jordan23]

Yes,It's exactly amazing how quick changes can be made .
:reading:

[TStag]

I'm really not worried about Land Rover. British politicians make lots of threats until the likes of JAG and Land Rover threaten to stop making cars in the UK. Then they back off when they realise 50,000 jobs are on the line. Plus Germany is hardly going to be supportive. However the key reasons I don't fear for Land Rover is because they have some smaller products in the pipleine that will sell in higher volumes, whilst Range Rover will just shift further up market. RR has profit margins the rest of Ford can only dream of. As for Jag and shift away from SUV's will benefit them. So if LR/RR cuts back a little I can see a revitalised Jag scoring sales.

I'm much more worried about Lincoln. If Mercury does go then will Lincoln dealers be able to survive? I seem to remember someone at Ford saying Lincoln needed Mercury to support the dealer network. If so then they will have real problems. Plus I think Mullaly just wants to run the Ford brand ultimately... PAG's brands are sellable but would anyone want Mercury/ Lincoln?

[jonas1022]

TStag, on Sep 23 2007, 10:17 AM, said:

I'm really not worried about Land Rover. British politicians make lots of threats until the likes of JAG and Land Rover threaten to stop making cars in the UK. Then they back off when they realise 50,000 jobs are on the line. Plus Germany is hardly going to be supportive. However the key reasons I don't fear for Land Rover is because they have some smaller products in the pipleine that will sell in higher volumes, whilst Range Rover will just shift further up market. RR has profit margins the rest of Ford can only dream of. As for Jag and shift away from SUV's will benefit them. So if LR/RR cuts back a little I can see a revitalised Jag scoring sales.

I'm much more worried about Lincoln. If Mercury does go then will Lincoln dealers be able to survive? I seem to remember someone at Ford saying Lincoln needed Mercury to support the dealer network. If so then they will have real problems. Plus I think Mullaly just wants to run the Ford brand ultimately... PAG's brands are sellable but would anyone want Mercury/ Lincoln?

In todays economic climate I doubt that the PAG mfgs. are marketable for a realistic price. Of course Ford could give them away, but that isn't the issue. The issue is to raise capital. To recover the investments made in those companies and use them to restore order to the realm of FoMoCo NA. I don't think they can get enough investors to buy into, or just buy the PAG or any one part of the proper of PAG. Maybe they need to think in longer terms, and tell Wall Street to Pi** O**! In the long run, the economies of scale will work in their favor if managed with more unity instead of as individual firms. Whether the rest of the world likes it or not.

And let's not forget. While the Ford family has suffered some mighty financial setbacks. They still have the where with all to buy back a large chunk of the company that carries their name and stiff Wall Street at their own game. Henry did it twice. Once to thwart the Dodge Brogthers, who were trying to bugger him out of his own company. And then again before WW II. Once the stock rises again, after our current economic setback they can sell stocks in the corp again. And be one heck of a lot richer for it. I am not sure that would be the best plan for product futures. But it could be done.