http://www.motortrend.com/news/lincoln- ... A85746E084
Her titles are numerous. I said titles.
Cadillac, your move.
M/T: Lincoln President Joy Falotico interview
Re: M/T: Lincoln President Joy Falotico interview
Interesting, I recall saying Chevy should do something like this so that all of their cars were not only FWD... Like if the Impala or Malibu could do that...The new platform is important to Lincoln because it can go rear-drive, all-wheel drive, and even front-drive.
Re: M/T: Lincoln President Joy Falotico interview
I saw that part of the article. I don't know of any platform that supports both RWD or FWD. It is either RWD/AWD or FWD/AWD. And the difference is that the FWD based car has a transverse engine and transmission. Totally different engine bay arrangement. So, I'm guessing that the "it supports RWD or even FWD" thing means that they'll release one model with FWD/AWD and maybe a completely different model, based on the same platform, with RWD/AWD (but if you looked under the car you'd probably see major differences). You won't see that all offered on the exact same model. It wouldn't make any sense. I mean, are they talking about doing longitudinal FWD like the Chrysler LH cars or the old 60s FWD GM boats?
They could package a RWD/AWD engine, trans and transfer case, and then not connect the rear driveshaft, diff and axles or whatever, but then you have an absurdly stupidly packaged FWD car. They wouldn't do that, either.
I just don't think you will see an application like an Impala that is either FWD or RWD (from Ford, GM or anyone else). It would just be a different car but on the same basic platform. To the consumer, it is irrelevant that it is on the same platform but there were some economies of scale for the OEM. The purpose, again, is not to be able to sell a FWD and RWD version of the same car. You are not going to see that. It would be like if GM's Alpha 2 platform supported FWD (which would really just mean they engineered a sub-frame for a transverse powertrain), and RWD Alpha 2 was the CT4, and a FWD version was a next gen Malibu. They would be totally different cars for different markets and may as well be on different platforms.
And hey, we did have the Chevy SS..../jokes
They could package a RWD/AWD engine, trans and transfer case, and then not connect the rear driveshaft, diff and axles or whatever, but then you have an absurdly stupidly packaged FWD car. They wouldn't do that, either.
I just don't think you will see an application like an Impala that is either FWD or RWD (from Ford, GM or anyone else). It would just be a different car but on the same basic platform. To the consumer, it is irrelevant that it is on the same platform but there were some economies of scale for the OEM. The purpose, again, is not to be able to sell a FWD and RWD version of the same car. You are not going to see that. It would be like if GM's Alpha 2 platform supported FWD (which would really just mean they engineered a sub-frame for a transverse powertrain), and RWD Alpha 2 was the CT4, and a FWD version was a next gen Malibu. They would be totally different cars for different markets and may as well be on different platforms.
And hey, we did have the Chevy SS..../jokes
Re: M/T: Lincoln President Joy Falotico interview
I think this is all I am really saying. But they could also have a AWD Malibu, RWD Monte Carlo SS, and RWD Camaro on this also. Wouldn't they save money on platform development, and have more variety possibilities?It would be like if GM's Alpha 2 platform supported FWD (which would really just mean they engineered a sub-frame for a transverse powertrain), and RWD Alpha 2 was the CT4, and a FWD version was a next gen Malibu.