IRS on the S80.

[Biker16]

I have proof that The S80. uses a variant of the Control Blade IRS used on the focus and Mondeo.

 

 

I have been under the Car, It does have a AWD version Of the CB-IRS, mounting points are the same The Floorpan is different than the Mondeo and SMax/galaxy. I just ant to clear the Air, The IRs is msimlar to the CBS used on the Fusion, but with vertical dampers, nopt the angled damper on the fusion.

[battyr]

I have proof that The S80. uses a variant of the Control Blade IRS used on the focus and Mondeo.

 

 

I have been under the Car, It does have a AWD version Of the CB-IRS, mounting points are the same The Floorpan is different than the Mondeo and SMax/galaxy. I just ant to clear the Air, The IRs is msimlar to the CBS used on the Fusion, but with vertical dampers, nopt the angled damper on the fusion.

 

The suspension on the old S-80 (Taurus) and the Mazda 6 (Fusion) is very similar to the Control Blade suspension. The biggest differnces is moving the shock mounting position to make them more space efficient. I consider them all as Control Blade, but they were all designed independantly.

[rkisler]

I have proof that The S80. uses a variant of the Control Blade IRS used on the focus and Mondeo.

 

 

I have been under the Car, It does have a AWD version Of the CB-IRS, mounting points are the same The Floorpan is different than the Mondeo and SMax/galaxy. I just ant to clear the Air, The IRs is msimlar to the CBS used on the Fusion, but with vertical dampers, nopt the angled damper on the fusion.

 

Thanks for the post. It's hard to get the specifics of suspension components and underbody unless you crawl underneath, but what you are saying sounds correct.

 

I won't pretend to be an expert, but the CB-IRS that Ford uses was "inspired" by the 3-series BMW IIRC. FoE originally used it in FWD applications. It was also the original design for IRS on the S197 Mustang before it was canceled and I think it was pretty much a direct lift from the C170. There is really no problem using it for RWD or AWD -- I think the changes from FWD to AWD/RWD are pretty much limited to a change in the knuckles. The most difficult issue that was tackled in the Mustang was the forward mount due to the unique "muscle car" dimensions (i.e., close coupling of the rear passengers), but that was eventually overcome.

 

And you have noted the change in the underbody architecture.

 

Which gets back to what I have been guessing about the upcoming Fusion/Mondeo (which I heard is now being engineered in the US).

 

I would guess that this new car will pick up the best of the litter, and try to reduce cost at the same time.

 

Body Structure

• The body structure likely will be unique, but will borrow heavily from both existing platforms.
  
• It has to meet US safety requirements (including IIHS) and European safety requirements.
  
• It has to package a hybrid system, and with the new California requirements, might have to go PHEV which might means even more package space for batteries unless Ford goes lithium.
  
• It has to package the 3.5l V6, and the US engine mounting strategy
  
• It has to package the I5 (unless FoE goes all I4/EBI4 which is a possibility)
  
• It has to package AWD
  
• Ford will have to consider weight reduction opportunities to reduce fuel consumption
  
• It has to be compatible with the S-Max and Galaxy derivatives
  
• It has to avoid a major plant tearup in Hermosillo and Genk
  
• It should try to keep the suspension mount points of the chosen carryover suspension and let the sheetmetal float around those points if necessary (like you noticed on the Volvo -- BMW does this all the time).
  
• If possible with the constraints above, it should try to re-utilize as many stampings as possible, particularly underbody and structural, but my guess is there will be a lot of "all new".
  

 

Suspension

• The front suspension likely will be a lift from the Mondeo. Struts don't have as much potential as SLA, but they are cheaper, FoE makes them work, and they are consistent with Ford's competitive set.
  
• The rear suspension likely will be a CB lift from Mondeo. It's cheaper than the Mazda rear and it works.
  

 

I don't have any direct knowledge on the above, just guessing, but this will be fun to watch.

[battyr]

 

Good evaluation/prediction.

Here are some notes.

 

It has to package the I5 (unless FoE goes all I4/EBI4 which is a possibility)

 

Ford of Europe is using the I5 as a cheap subsitute for a V-6. You can't substitute a I4 for a V-6. No matter how much power it has.

 

It has to package a hybrid system, and with the new California requirements, might have to go PHEV which might means even more package space for batteries unless Ford goes lithium.

 

Lithium avantage is more weight than space. This can change with new advancements.

 

Ford will have to consider weight reduction opportunities to reduce fuel consumption

 

This is very important, but also the hardest part of the job. It is very hard to keep a car solid and cut weight without adding a lot of cost. Even harder for the US enginieers.

 

It has to be compatible with the S-Max and Galaxy derivatives

 

More important is compatibility with a future Edge and US minivan.

 

The front suspension likely will be a lift from the Mondeo. Struts don't have as much potential as SLA, but they are cheaper, FoE makes them work, and they are consistent with Ford's competitive set.

 

IMHO Revoknuckle makes Struts with Revoknuckle as standard or an option a no brainer.

 

I don't have any direct knowledge on the above, just guessing, but this will be fun to watch.

 

Sounds like a damn good guess to me.

[Biker16]

I agree. My gut tells me we will see more Mondeo than Fusion because of the commonality with C2, and the economies of scale that goes with a Semi shared C-C/D architecture.

 

We are building 3 new assembly lines to build C and B architectures,these should be more like EU plants than US plants simply because of the volume of production being sourced from this new plants. Hermosillo should be the plant more affected by the Changeover to CD4 than Ghent.

 

I don't forsee Herisillo being gutted, I just don't know how different the build sequences are between EUCD and CD3.

 

I think the Edge will be shrunken to S-max size and weight, and the possible minivan,could be the first version of a larger CD4 architecture to replace the D2 based cars and trucks. I don't think the too small galaxy would have chance in the US, too small and no sliding doors. I see a Flex sized Tall wagon with sliding doors as the minivan.

 

the future is bright for Ford and CD4.

[RichardJensen]

I have proof that The S80. uses a variant of the Control Blade IRS used on the focus and Mondeo.

 

 

I have been under the Car, It does have a AWD version Of the CB-IRS, mounting points are the same The Floorpan is different than the Mondeo and SMax/galaxy. I just ant to clear the Air, The IRs is msimlar to the CBS used on the Fusion, but with vertical dampers, nopt the angled damper on the fusion.

I don't think the current Fusion uses a control blade setup in the rear. I think it still uses Mac struts. Do you mean the Falcon?

[battyr]

I don't think the current Fusion uses a control blade setup in the rear. I think it still uses Mac struts. Do you mean the Falcon?

 

 

 

 

Here is the Fusion Rear Suspension. No Mac Struts.

 

Ford does not call it a Control Blade. The Ford Control Blade Patent likely does not apply. They call it a multilink that behaves like a SLA.

 

Like a Control Blade it has a trailing arm. But shorter. 1 or more lower control arms and a shorter upper control arm.

[RichardJensen]

Weird. Live and learn, I guess.

[rkisler]

I agree. My gut tells me we will see more Mondeo than Fusion because of the commonality with C2, and the economies of scale that goes with a Semi shared C-C/D architecture.

 

We are building 3 new assembly lines to build C and B architectures,these should be more like EU plants than US plants simply because of the volume of production being sourced from this new plants. Hermosillo should be the plant more affected by the Changeover to CD4 than Ghent.

 

I don't forsee Herisillo being gutted, I just don't know how different the build sequences are between EUCD and CD3.

 

I think the Edge will be shrunken to S-max size and weight, and the possible minivan,could be the first version of a larger CD4 architecture to replace the D2 based cars and trucks. I don't think the too small galaxy would have chance in the US, too small and no sliding doors. I see a Flex sized Tall wagon with sliding doors as the minivan.

 

the future is bright for Ford and CD4.

 

The build sequence is probably not a big deal at all. Ford expended a lot of effort to pull together FoE, FNA, FoA, Mazda, Volvo, LR, and Jag into a common order of assembly.

 

The issue at Hermosillo will be in the body shop and the ability to accommodate whatever new platform Ford comes up with; body shop expenditures are the largest single expenditure in most product programs. Paint, chassis, trim, and final should be OK if they continue to make just sedans. If Ford considers other, larger derivatives, then it could be a problem. But I assume that Louisville will be capable of building both C and C/D products, and it will be fully capable in paint of building a bigger box vehicle due to its SUV heritage.

 

You might be interested to know that the original plan for the Ford CD3 included some crossover vehicles in a second plant. But this was scrubbed and ultimately replaced by Edge which is not a CD3, but is based off the Mazda MPV. So of course there is a possibility that a future Edge or people carrier could come off of CD4. When I look at the Taurus X, the Toyota Venza, or even to some extent the Outback, I think that the "just the right height" type of "station wagon" crossover can work if it is executed in a manner that resonates with the customer.

 

Ford's offerings are going to have to get smaller and lighter. And I am pleased that Ford had enough clairvoyance to start on a plan to convert plants to small cars. I see the California CO2 mandate turning into national requirements (national vs. state-by-state and the phase-in plan are the only two points of negotiation the industry has left), and Ford is going to need excellent, desirable smaller cars to sell to be able to balance the large ones and the SUV's and Trucks. These small cars are going to have to have a distinct personality both in appearance and in driving attributes to encourage reluctant buyers to try Ford again.

 

Let's hope for the best.

[rkisler]

Weird. Live and learn, I guess.

 

Richard, IIRC the rear of the so-called CD3s (Edge/MKX) is a strut. As I've mentioned before, this platform is not really related to CD3 at all but was sired by the Mazda MPV which is not sold in the US. I think the strut is useful to gain package space when you need a big open box like a minivan or CUV.

[RichardJensen]

Richard, IIRC the rear of the so-called CD3s (Edge/MKX) is a strut. As I've mentioned before, this platform is not really related to CD3 at all but was sired by the Mazda MPV which is not sold in the US. I think the strut is useful to gain package space when you need a big open box like a minivan or CUV.

What I had stuck in my head was the notion that D3s were strut at the front, multi-link at the rear, and that the CD3s were the opposite: multilink (SLA) at the front and strut at the rear, with the Edge/MKX being struts at all four corners.

[rkisler]

What I had stuck in my head was the notion that D3s were strut at the front, multi-link at the rear, and that the CD3s were the opposite: multilink (SLA) at the front and strut at the rear, with the Edge/MKX being struts at all four corners.

 

Well, almost right.

 

But one thing is certain. Just like in powertrains and body architectures, Ford has a lot of suspensions hanging around and the handwriting is on the wall that we will have a few less in a few years. They are expensive and engineering-intensive to create, and require engineering maintenance. And if you can manufacture them in high quantity you can get a price break (but not as big as some people think as they don't ship all that well, so they are usually tooled up in the country where the vehicle is assembled).

 

BMW over the years has done a good job of maintaining their basic suspension geometry and mount points, and then letting the sheet metal flow where it needs to. That makes sense because they are known for their handling. But it also makes sense as it takes a lot of engineering effort to sort out the "black art" part of suspensions and brakes, and you want to pass your learning across to the next vehicle.

 

In terms of the front suspension, the overall objective should be to keep the suspension mount points, powertrain mounting, and engine compartment layout as common as possible across derivatives. The Japanese, in particular, have adopted this practice and Ford has caught on. This type of effort can reduce engineering, and results in efficiencies in components including engines and transmissions.

[RichardJensen]

BTW: The record should properly reflect that I said the new S80 rear suspension ===resembled=== the Falcon ControlBlade, but differed in having a much less beefy trailing arm and (IIRC) a single transverse control arm instead of two transverse links.

[2b2]

...I think the Edge will be shrunken to S-max size and weight...

 

pretty sure you know, Biker, but maybe for others;

the S-max is only about 2" longer than the Edge, tho an inch-&-a-half narrower and 2" lower

the Galaxy is about another 2" longer and a bit taller (sources differ)

 

&

Agree - a lot of good thought shown in this thread

[battyr]

BTW: The record should properly reflect that I said the new S80 rear suspension ===resembled=== the Falcon ControlBlade, but differed in having a much less beefy trailing arm and (IIRC) a single transverse control arm instead of two transverse links.

 

So does anyone know whether the S80 rear suspension is based on the old S80/Taurus suspension, or the Mondeo/Focus (true control blade) suspension?

[RichardJensen]

The Mondeo & S-Max/Focus Control Blade setup has, basically, a coil right where the halfshaft goes, so no, the S80 IRS isn't based on the FWD only CB setup.

 

http://www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible.html

 

See Variaton 1 under the CB setup on this page.

Edited January 29, 2009 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

The Mondeo & S-Max/Focus Control Blade setup has, basically, a coil right where the halfshaft goes, so no, the S80 IRS isn't based on the FWD only CB setup.

 

http://www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible.html

 

See Variaton 1 under the CB setup on this page.

 

By Definition the only thing that make an IRS control blade is the flat Flexible trailing link.

 

 

all CBS have that and:

 

Front lower control arm

Rear lower control arm

Single upper control arm.

 

The coil spring is located on the rear lower control arm.

 

 

pic of S80 Rear lower control arm

pic S80 trailing link

 

 

Ford Edge IRS

 

Focus C170 IRs

 

Focus C1 IRS

 

falcon

 

Fusion

 

I belive That D3 has moved to CBs, too.

[RichardJensen]

The D3.5 has 'outboard' shocks now, instead of inboard, don't know if that makes it CB per your definition or not. All the CD3s appear to have CB style rear suspensions, as does the S80--although they are variations of the Falcon CB, not the C1 CB.

 

BTW, I think you have your terminology somewhat askew. If the suspension unit pivots at both attachment points, it's a link. If it only pivots at one attachment point it's an arm.

 

Thus, the control blade requires a trailing arm, not a trailing link. Similarly, it requires transverse links, not upper and lower control arms.

Edited January 29, 2009 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

The D3.5 has 'outboard' shocks now, instead of inboard, don't know if that makes it CB per your definition or not. All the CD3s appear to have CB style rear suspensions, as does the S80--although they are variations of the Falcon CB, not the C1 CB.

 

BTW, I think you have your terminology somewhat askew. If the suspension unit pivots at both attachment points, it's a link. If it only pivots at one attachment point it's an arm.

 

Thus, the control blade requires a trailing arm, not a trailing link. Similarly, it requires transverse links, not upper and lower control arms.

 

thanks for the info.

 

the trailing arm on the Flex is a flat stamping.

[battyr]

The D3.5 has 'outboard' shocks now, instead of inboard, don't know if that makes it CB per your definition or not. All the CD3s appear to have CB style rear suspensions, as does the S80--although they are variations of the Falcon CB, not the C1 CB.

 

BTW, I think you have your terminology somewhat askew. If the suspension unit pivots at both attachment points, it's a link. If it only pivots at one attachment point it's an arm.

 

Thus, the control blade requires a trailing arm, not a trailing link. Similarly, it requires transverse links, not upper and lower control arms.

 

I looks like they all have a trailing arm. Also a long lower rear transverse link, a short lower front transverse link and a short top transverse link. I don't see where the mounting location of the shock really matters.

 

Ford will have some definition of CB in their patent. It sounds like to me that if it was designed first by Ford, they put the Control Blade name on it. If it was designed by Mazda or Volvo, then it does not have the CB name on it.

[RichardJensen]

The previous D3 iterations used a different design. The D3.5 was advertised as 'moving the rear shock outboard', however no D3.5 suspension pieces are shown in the illustrations above, so D3.5 IRS = CB-type setup isn't known.

 

---

 

It's also possible that branding the IRS is considered a bit of a waste in the US. Ford used 'quadra link' rear suspensions here for years and nobody paid the slightest attention.

 

It is funny, though, that having standardized on 'Quadra link' rear suspensions, Ford has now apparently standardized on the CB design.

 

Quadra link was probably the best strut based rear suspension out there. Two transverse links, one trailing link, and the strut. Simple, space efficient, and--with the twin transverse links and true trailing link, very responsive.

[lfeg]

OK, how about another variety. The rear suspension used in the 86 up Taurus wagon. No struts, variable pitch springs. Provided good handling with decent travel, and was rather robust, while not taking up much room.

[battyr]

I thought SLA was the best. CB beats it because it is cheaper, lighter, and give a better ride quality.

 

Quadra links value is that it is simple, cheap and is still independant. It likely adds more of oversteer in the rear suspension compared to SLA.

 

I remember that the old Taurus wagon did have a suspension that was a little different, but I would have to see a diagram to know how it works. I assume that it is just a more compact version of the quadra link.

 

Actually I see CB as a marriage of SLA and Quadra Link.

[battyr]

The D3.5 (D3.2?) is call the SR1? for shock ratio 1. I understand that it is a minor change to to D3.0 suspension to add wheel travel and improve ride. I have not been able to find out anything other information about it.

[RichardJensen]

I thought SLA was the best. CB beats it because it is cheaper, lighter, and give a better ride quality.

 

Quadra links value is that it is simple, cheap and is still independant. It likely adds more of oversteer in the rear suspension compared to SLA.

 

I remember that the old Taurus wagon did have a suspension that was a little different, but I would have to see a diagram to know how it works. I assume that it is just a more compact version of the quadra link.

 

Actually I see CB as a marriage of SLA and Quadra Link.

1: In passenger vehicle applications, SLA is invariably compromised to the point where it loses many of its advantages.

 

2: The quadra-link on the Contour was tuned to provide passive rear steering.

 

3: The geometry of CB is pure Quadra-link on the bottom of the hub. You have one true trailing and two true transverse members.

 

Quadra-link typically ran the transverse links all the way back almost to the centerline of the car. CB's lower transverse links aren't as long.

 

Also the quadra-link's trailing member was a link, not an arm.

 

Above the hub is where Quadra-link and the CB setup diverge.

 

CB gives you one more transverse locating member (for a total of 3 transverse locating members), while the upper transverse link also provides the vertical location.

 

Essentially, that upper transverse link on CB replaces the strut in the quadra-link.

 

Now that the strut has been replaced, you can separate the shock and spring (provides better NVH) so you no longer need a coil-over setup.

 

There is very little SLA in CB. None of the CB links or arms have two inboard and one outboard mounting point, which is a hallmark of the SLA setup.