Schizophrenic Ford learns how to handle a note October 11, 2009
Posted by richard in : History , 3commentsFORD’S Fiesta was the turning point. Before that, explained Ford’s handling God, Richard Parry-Jones, the blue oval had a schizophrenic approach to good handling.
‘We had good handling RS products, and no more than average handling on our everyday products.’
In his book, that was bad. ‘I felt very strongly that customer satisfaction and the image of the vehicles were very closely tied to the handling experience.’
Praise the Lord, for this protestation by Welshman RP-J, back in 1997. Indeed, as the Fiesta was already so good by 1996, so Parry-Jones wanted to take things a step further.
But not, alas, by recreating the XR2i and making it decent. No, back then, the hot hatch was dead. Murdered by thieves nicking ‘em and making the motors virtually uninsurable. Enter instead a hastily-conceived small coupe, designed entirely on computer in double-quick time. The Ford Puma.
70 percent of the parts were Fiesta. The biggest difference was the launch 1.7-litre Yamaha engine, with 125bhp and a delightfully high rev limit. An engine whose noise RP-J knew before it was even designed. See, he employed a musician, to record the exact sound he wanted for it…
Why? To pass the 50-metre test he invented. ‘It’s what customers notice straight away. They can’t explain it in engineering terms, but they know if a car feels right as soon as they get in it.’
This is why, he said, he corners slowly – probably no more than 25mph. ‘When you’re cornering hard, most cars can communicate a bit, but the most difficult time is at almost no speed.’
Forcing engineers, he says, to get rid of all the noise and vibration, while enhancing what signals ARE there.
What’s crucial here?
• Steering
• Throttle response
• Engine soundtrack
Hence his recruitment of a musician. Schizophrenic, RP-J? Not at all. It’s because of him that Fords no longer are, either. The man deserves a Knighthood.
How Ford put the boot into the Sierra
Ford code read August 9, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 2commentsCOLOUR coding is ace. Take notes. Important? Orange highlighter. For reference? Green highlighter. Something not vital, but good to skim over? Yellow.
This logic is inbred because there’s nothing I find more satisfying than a common design whose purpose is differentiated by colour.
Utility pipes, for example.
• Red for electrical power lines
• Orange for telecoms and optical fibres
• Blue for drinking water
• Yellow for gas
• Green for sewerage and waste
That’s not all.
There’s Penguin books:
• Orange for general fiction
• Green for crime
• Pink for travel
• Red for drama
• Purple for essays
• Grey for world affairs
• Yellow for ‘misc’
Ford adopted this with the 1989 Fiesta MkIII.
How? By altering the pinstriping in the bumper. Utter genius:
• Silver for ‘posh’ Ghia
• Black for ‘cooking’ 1.6S
• Blue for ‘hot’ XR2i
• Green for the ‘scorching’ (and later) RS Turbo
Thus, you could spot the cred of the Fiesta approaching you at 100 paces – the complete antithesis of today’s manufacturer idea of badge-name-less cars.
Today, I still idolise that blue stripe, and would put the green stripe on old Gormley’s Fourth Plinth.
Why, when we know so much more about clear and easy interfaces, are car makers not doing the same today?
Why Ford Econetics break the rules
Volkswagen looks to history for GTD
BMW tells me why its instruments are lit in orange
Fuel economy economical with the truth? March 27, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars, What I learned today , 5commentsFuel economy is all nowadays. Not since the 1980s have manufacturers been so intent on producing efficient cars.
It’s all in the name of being green, you see. That’s why we’re seeing the return of the ‘eco special’.
Back in the day, car makers achieved good returns with long gear ratios, economy meters and stripped-out, lightweight equipment levels. Volkswagen Polo Formel E, anyone? Austin Metro 3+E?
25 years later, things are, of course, much more advanced. We have, err, long gear ratios, trip computers and, well, stripped down equipment levels. Audi TDIe, Ford Econetic, etc and so forth. OK… not much progress there, then. But, if something ‘aint broke and all that…
Why this post, then? Because Ford’s revealed some of the secrets behind the eco game in Automotive Engineer this month. See, nowadays there’s far more to it than simply keeping the revs low.
The fuel test cycle may be oft-criticised, but it still takes in a whole host of parameters. Which can be, for want of a better word, massaged.
Here’s 5 revealing ways the new Fiesta Econetic beats the system.
• Every kg saved benefits real-world economy – but only HUGE mass reductions affect the test cycle figures. That’s because ‘inertial weight classes’ are used, each covering around 100kg. This is basically a rolling road with a resistance against it. But… it’s only by shaving enough to move into a new band that you will improve economy.
• Fitting longer gear ratios is expensive. Volkswagen does this in Bluemotions – 1st and 2nd are standard, 3rd to 5th stretched. Far cheaper, says Ford, to simply fit a longer final drive ratio. It cuts 5g/km from CO2 emissions. But depends on having a torquey enough engine to still pull well in 1st and 2nd…
• It’s not hard to make a more aerodynamic car – but it IS costly to produce and fit the bespoke panels required. Ford reduced CO2 emissions by 2g/km, by easy measures. The maker didn’t want any more bespoke ‘workstations’ on the production line, to fit extra aerodynamic addenda.
• An easy fit, you’d think, would be aerodynamic wheel trims. Yes, says Ford – but the redevelopment work in ensuring the brakes behind them get enough cooling air is another matter. That’s why they’re not here.
• The biggest trick to improving test cycle economy is recalibrating the engine ECU. Measures here include reducing the idle speed, as it takes up a big part of the official test cycle. In the future, Ford also expects eco credits for fitting a standard trip computer.
All of this helps improve the official figures. However, only some of it will affect real world economy. Just goes to show, when judging economy cars, that it’s best to look beyond the figures, and what measures are actually employed to achieve them.
Are they test cycle cheats, or real-world benefits?
Ford gloom hides people carrier revolution? March 17, 2009
Posted by richard in : News clues , 1 comment so farFord says it’s cutting Focus production at its Valencia plant, centralising producing at the Saarlouis plant. That’s in reaction to an overall sales fall of 22 per cent in the first months of 2009.
But, hold on. Dealers report they can’t get enough Fiestas – the new car’s in incredibly short supply. And where’s it built? Valencia, amongst others.
Ford can thus use some of the Focus capacity to bolster Fiesta numbers.
That’s good news.
There are more revelations, too. Ford says it’s going to phase out production of the C-Max at Saarlouis, and shift production of 2010’s new model (drawn from Geneva’s Iosis Max concept) at Valencia. This one is a bit harder to read.
The current C-Max is based on the Focus platform – of which, says Ford, production of all derivatives of the next generation one will be based at Saarlouis.
So, what does this mean for the C-Max?
- It will use a variation of the Fiesta platform? – Unlikely: It’s simply not big enough.
- It will continue to use a revised version of the current platform? – Fair: Volkswagen’s done this with the Golf Mk6.
- It is to be built on an all-new platform, underpinning further as-yet unnamed Fords? – Possible: By separating C-Max construction from the constraints of the Focus, it can grow, incorporate seven seats and greater flexibility for expansion into other sectors.
Time will reveal all. But while Ford’s move may seem a direct reaction to an under-pressure market at the moment, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a bit more to it than that.
Here’s one to throw out there right away. The Iosis Max concept had sliding rear doors, and no central B-pillar, for easier access. Not to mention a fiendishly clever boot. Both something the Focus platform would be unlikely to accommodate. Does this move signify they will be carried through to production..?
