Go Back   MustangForums.com > Speed Zone > Street/Strip > The Racers Bench
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Search


The Racers Bench Is the track just too much for you? Want to know what will beat what? Talk about it here!!

Welcome to Mustang Forums!
Welcome to Mustang Forums.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!


2011 challenger SRT-8

Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-30-2011, 04:49 PM   #41
67mustang302
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicle: 67 Mustang Coupe
Location: California
Posts: 10,415
Default

You honestly think it's billions?

If it costs several billion to design a vehicle platform, why are we not all driving cars that go 453mph.....and get 978mpg.....and fly........

....in outer space...

????


The space shuttle development program in the 1970's cost ~$6.75 billion. Adjusted for inflation to todays(highly inflated) dollars, it's around $30 billion. If it's a multi billion dollar investment to develop a vehicle platform, then what you're telling me is for the cost of developing 4 or 5 vehicle platforms(which btw doesn't even cover the number of vehicles offered by a single manufacturer at any given time), Ford/GM/Chrysler etc could have developed their own space program?

I think not.

Now, if they're developing a new platform for which no tooling exists, and they have to build all new factories and spend money gearing up for production as part of the development costs, THEN the cost can potentially exceed $1 billion. Perhaps be as much as $2 billion. But then it's not just vehicle development cost, but production development and building factories, which is VERY expensive.

Standard vehicle development costs are usually in the millions. When developing all new vehicle platforms, costs can run into the several hundred million for high end luxury or performance platforms. But it is not several billion to develop a single new vehicle platform.

And just for reference, while no hard figures are known to due secrecy, it was widely accepted that Formula 1 development costs around the 2005-2010 time period where POSSIBLY as high as ~$500 million PER TEAM(in the most extreme cases for teams with the money, Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes etc), to develop a SINGLE vehicle platform, and produce 2 vehicles(plus spares as needed due to crashes etc) that would only be used for a SINGLE race season, at which point the car would get ****canned and an all new platform would be developed for the following year.

These are the most advanced, cutting edge, highly developed, technologically complex and materials development intensive automobiles to ever exist in the history of mankind. Much of the technology they employ is rarely seen outside of military aerospace, and in some cases is used exclusively by Formula 1. And they are effectively experimental prototypes. And even in the most extreme cases of the factory backed teams with the money, they were only believed to be spending half a billion to develop an entirely new vehicle platform EACH YEAR of unparalleled technological sophistication.

And you think it costs several billion to develop a factory production vehicle?

Again, I think not.

And by the way, I used to test drive experimental vehicles for a large manufacturer. Some of which were years away from production. So I was part of the new vehicle research and development process. It does NOT cost several billion to design a single vehicle platform.

Of course at the rate the current administration is spending money we don't have, in the next 5 years several billion will hardly be anything, but that's another issue entirely.
This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
__________________
Who cares how much horsepower it has, all that matters is how fast it goes!

Untested 331, lots of suspension, chewing up corners.
67mustang302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 05:25 PM   #42
LostBoyz
4th Gear Member
 
LostBoyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Vehicle: 2011 V6 mca
Location: MI
Posts: 1,290
Default

Care to share some links on any of the information you listed?

Of course you have to include plant costs to the design of a new vehicle, thats how you build vehicles. They aren't building a space shuttle, or building a handful of carbon fiber f1 cars, you are making a facility and design process that will produce millions of cars over its lifetime. The plant might already be there, but an entire new process needs to be created for a new platform. Then it gets slightly modified for each new revision. As I stated before, I am not talking about a single vehicle design on an existing platform, a brand new platform from the ground up or even for an existing plant will be in the hundreds of millions to billion dollar range depending on how much conversion is required.

If it really is so cheap to make a vehicle specific platform why is ford making a taurus, flex, and explorer on the same platform when specific ones for each vehicle would make them better?

What vehicles did you test?
LostBoyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 05:52 PM   #43
Riptide
6th Gear Member
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Vehicle: 2014 GT
Location: Montaner
Posts: 6,194
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 99GTvert View Post
Mishri never got 32mpg. He actually had about 25.4 mpg but decided to round it up to 32 because it sounds great.
He used the downhill conversion calculator to get his mileage figure since he was traveling from higher altitude down to lower altitude.
__________________
WILL WORK FOR MUSTAKE
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 06:11 PM   #44
67mustang302
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicle: 67 Mustang Coupe
Location: California
Posts: 10,415
Default

But vehicle platform development costs are completely different than the cost to PRODUCE a new vehicle platform. The development cost to PRODUCE the platform includes platform development, production method development, plant engineering and plant construction. The cost to develop the platform is just that, the cost to develop the platform. A manufacturing process and plant is not needed to develop a platform, but it is needed to produce one.

And spending millions to hundreds of millions to develop a platform is hardly cheap. Despite the vast fortunes large companies posses, they don't spend anything with 6 or more 0's behind it without giving it VERY serious consideration. And keep in mind that Ford alone is currently selling numerous models world wide based on no less than 11 different platforms iirc. Nearly all of which were just developed within the last 5-10 years.

That means within not even the last decade(assuming a cost of a few hundred million a pop, likely the average platform development cost these days given the complexity of current vehicles, ranging from economy up to luxury/performance), Ford alone has likely spent $1-2 billion dollars JUST in platform development ALONE(perhaps more). That's NOT including production method development, plant engineering or plant construction(keep in mind, the new S197 Mustangs got 2 new production facilities themselves).

And THAT'S not including maintenance costs, new equipment purchase for existing facilities, upgrade of existing facilities, upgrade of existing platforms etc. All told over the last 10 years alone in terms of platform, production and facility development costs, Ford may well have spent upwards of $10-20 billion. The biggest costs associated with developing new cars, isn't actually in developing the car, but in the facilities and tooling needed to make them. Compared to that meal, platform development is a side dish.

As far as information sources, use Google, it's out there. Though the F1 information is more well known among those who follow the sport and is harder to find. It was actually a topic of discussion by the race commentators quite frequently until the FIA changed the rules just recently to reduce the massive costs associated with F1 and make smaller teams more competitive. It's currently believed(again, there's no solid figures available due to the secrecy involved) that with the cost cutting measures, teams are spending upwards of $200-250 million for development and production for a single season. Some teams may be spending less, perhaps as little as $50-100 million. Like all racing, competitiveness is largely dictated by wallet size.

And I tested Hondas and Acuras.
__________________
Who cares how much horsepower it has, all that matters is how fast it goes!

Untested 331, lots of suspension, chewing up corners.
67mustang302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 06:30 PM   #45
Snakebite64
4th Gear Member
 
Snakebite64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Vehicle: 1978 AMC Pacer
Location: dark side of the moon
Posts: 1,530
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
And yet, if a person's car scores high on a dyno it invariably makes it into their sig. Some people are just looking for something, ANYTHING, to brag about.
So very well put. Two thumbs up
__________________
Good morning Vietnam I am a Jolly green giant in the land of the little people
2009 GT500
#2897 of 3004 hardtops
1 of 842 ebony hardtops
1 of 85 stripe delete hardtops

Your friendly admin for a great little site north of the border
Snakebite64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 07:43 PM   #46
LostBoyz
4th Gear Member
 
LostBoyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Vehicle: 2011 V6 mca
Location: MI
Posts: 1,290
Default

How can you not factor in facility costs? If the question is how much does it cost to develop a platform that you plan on selling you need a facility in order to get it market don't you? The question wasn't how much money does it cost to develop a paper model of a vehicle.
LostBoyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 08:14 PM   #47
67mustang302
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicle: 67 Mustang Coupe
Location: California
Posts: 10,415
Default

I wasn't talking paper model either. Development consists of building prototypes for testing purposes, which are ENTIRE cars as they will be when manufactured. They're just either made by hand or in special facilities or with special runs in factories just to generate the prototypes for testing. Platform development and production facility development are 2 different things entirely. Yes, they are kind of related, yes you obviously need a facility to produce it so you can sell it, and well laid programs take that into account.

But the cost of developing the platform itself does NOT include developing the facility and building it. If you want to talk about the cost associated with PRODUCING newly designed vehicles, then yes, facilities are included. But the platform itself does NOT need a facility in order for it to be developed.

The platform development engineers are given a budget and told to develop the platform. They are NOT the ones who develop the facility or manufacturing techniques used. There's generally some kind of intermediary engineering liaison that works between platform development teams, and manufacturing development teams. Each team is in and of itself mostly independent of the other, but the limitations and requirements of each team to an extent dictates some of the design of the other team. That's what the liaison engineering teams for are, they're a type of development integration team and it would be typically overseen by whoever is heading up the overall project to design AND produce a platform cost effectively.

But it's 2 different things entirely. And sometimes platform development teams come up with an idea, only to be told "we don't have a way to make that," or "we don't have a way to make that in a cost effective manner."
__________________
Who cares how much horsepower it has, all that matters is how fast it goes!

Untested 331, lots of suspension, chewing up corners.
67mustang302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 08:40 PM   #48
LostBoyz
4th Gear Member
 
LostBoyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Vehicle: 2011 V6 mca
Location: MI
Posts: 1,290
Default

When you design a car the end goal is to sell it to a customer. To design a new platform not only requires a new design but a new factory setup in order to deliver. From design review to showroom the total cost has to include factory cost. That is the true cost of investment to bring a completely new vehicle to the market. That was the beginning of this side track in the first place. It is a huge expense to create a completely new platform, especially one that would be optimized for a light(er) weight 2 door rwd coupe.
LostBoyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 11:53 PM   #49
67mustang302
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicle: 67 Mustang Coupe
Location: California
Posts: 10,415
Default

You never talked about the cost to produce a new platform AND facilities to make it(assuming they're even needed). You talked about the cost to design a new platform. And even then the costs to produce facilities is only a concern if the new platform even requires it, and it can't use existing facilities.

Designing a new platform is FAR less expensive than you stated, and can easily be done in such a way as to be producible in existing facilities with little to no retooling. That's done all the time in the modern engineering world. But it simply dos NOT cost billions of dollars to design a new vehicle platform. PERIOD. For some reason people find it necessary to hyperinflate the cost of something in some attempt to make it sound vastly more complicated or important than it really is.

The actual platform development costs are in the dozens to hundreds of millions, and most of the time production utilizes existing facilities.
__________________
Who cares how much horsepower it has, all that matters is how fast it goes!

Untested 331, lots of suspension, chewing up corners.
67mustang302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 04:57 AM   #50
LostBoyz
4th Gear Member
 
LostBoyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Vehicle: 2011 V6 mca
Location: MI
Posts: 1,290
Default

Actually in this case it would be more expensive because since it rides on an LX platform and is built along side the charger and 300 in brampton ontario. To create a new car to ride on new platform it would either have to be made on a modified platform so it could still be built in the same plant, or make an entirely new platform and find somewhere to build it.
LostBoyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 11:17 AM   #51
Mishri
Mish-ogynist
 
Mishri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Vehicle: 2012 5.0 premuim
Location: Great Falls, MT
Posts: 3,703
Default

Lostboyz... afraid to admit he made a mistake. And the new Challenger still sucks for performance.
__________________

Automatic, Steeda CAI, 4.10 gears, Boss Intake, BBR O/R X, Steeda Tune, M&H Drag Radials.
12.6@112mph (DA corrected 11.7@119mph)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImpOnFire View Post
mishri created the universe
Mishri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 11:28 AM   #52
LostBoyz
4th Gear Member
 
LostBoyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Vehicle: 2011 V6 mca
Location: MI
Posts: 1,290
Default

Where was I mistaken again? Should I have said "multi billion"? No. To design a new independant platform for the challenger to ride on and somewhere to build it would be a billion dollar investment. This all spawned from the assumption that there has been no suspension changes from 2010 to 2011. Then there was that the designers must be terrible not to be able to hook up 500hp using a IRS. I think even 67 should know that a SRA is a lot easier to use for a drag setup. I only pointed out that at this point chrysler probably isn't able to afford creating a new platform just for a 2 door sports coupe to ride on. Did I over exagerate the cost of that? Sure. Is it still true that it would be too expensive? Yes. We can sit here and argue semantics all day. The fact is the 2011 challenger is leaps and bounds better than the 2010 in every way. Is it the bang for the buck purchase or even competition for the mustang? no. To say that it 'sucks' is a poor use of hyperbole, but that looks like the kind of things you post elsewhere.

Why did you make this thread if you already had your opinion on the vehicle?

Last edited by LostBoyz; 01-31-2011 at 11:37 AM.
LostBoyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 02:59 PM   #53
Mishri
Mish-ogynist
 
Mishri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Vehicle: 2012 5.0 premuim
Location: Great Falls, MT
Posts: 3,703
Default

If you read my first post I was looking for more info on the car, if anyone has seen one at the track. Nobody seems to know anything more than I knew though. The only thing i've seen on it is motor trends review which has it being pretty crappy in all performance respects. Hopefully in the next several months people will buy some and take them to the dragstrip. aparently so far the fastest stock run in one has been 12.4@110mph.
__________________

Automatic, Steeda CAI, 4.10 gears, Boss Intake, BBR O/R X, Steeda Tune, M&H Drag Radials.
12.6@112mph (DA corrected 11.7@119mph)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImpOnFire View Post
mishri created the universe

Last edited by Mishri; 01-31-2011 at 03:06 PM.
Mishri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 05:34 PM   #54
snaf2u
2nd Gear Member
 
snaf2u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Vehicle: `11 triple black v6 auto w/ pony pkg.
Location: Michigan
Posts: 312
Default

12.4@110? Not bad for a full sized car.
__________________



2011 3.7 powered auto vert Pony pkg. 3.55 gears installed 10-22-10. Magnaflow street AB`s installed 03-08-11. AM-Bama tune 93 octane performance.
Best 1/4 raw run at Lapeer 11/03/12 is 13.751 @ 103.34 in 38 degree air.

2013 Ford SHO Ruby red with performance pack.
Best 1/4 13.42 at 104.08

Last edited by snaf2u; 02-01-2011 at 05:48 PM.
snaf2u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 06:21 PM   #55
Stone629
6th Gear Member
 
Stone629's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Vehicle: 2006 GTO
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,008
Default

Not a bad ET, but thats a pretty low trap for the HP. Looks like it might be hooking well, but struggling to overcome the weight. Either that, or they geared it way high in 3rd, 4th, etc, to increase mileage, but in doing that, knocks it out of its powerband between shifts. I'm simply speculating, so if anyone knows the actual gear ratios, or any other reason for it to trap 110, I'm all ears and would love to know the facts.
__________________
2006 GTO, 6-speed
373 RWHP/373 RWTQ
12.91@111 MPH 2.1 60'

2014 F-150, 5.0
Tuned.
Stone629 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 06:37 PM   #56
bluebeastsrt
6th Gear Member
 
bluebeastsrt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Vehicle: 1995 mustang GT
Location: Jersey
Posts: 10,742
ItsUrFuneral
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snaf2u View Post
12.4@110. Not bad for a full sized car.
Where did you get that from?
__________________
ENGINE363 forged dart engine. 300 shot!TRANNY C4 with trans brake, 3800 stall, 9in. raceconverter, hurst shifter REAR Moser 35 spline kit with spool, FRPP 3.73 gearsSUSPENION UPR Upper & lower control arms, Strange 10 way dampers, coilovers up front, BBK sub frame connectors, UPR Tube K-member & A-arms NEW Mustang TIMES COMING.
2011 Camaro SS 12.34@110.92
bluebeastsrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 06:42 PM   #57
Stone629
6th Gear Member
 
Stone629's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Vehicle: 2006 GTO
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,008
Default

The only one I've seen is 13.0 at 111.


Edit.... car and driver ran 12.9 at 114 with one. It appears that the Chrysler engineers ran that 12.4 at 110.
__________________
2006 GTO, 6-speed
373 RWHP/373 RWTQ
12.91@111 MPH 2.1 60'

2014 F-150, 5.0
Tuned.

Last edited by Stone629; 01-31-2011 at 06:53 PM.
Stone629 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 07:03 PM   #58
3.0Taurass
3rd Gear Member
 
3.0Taurass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Vehicle: 2009 Focus Coupe
Location: MN
Posts: 853
Default

motor trend got 13.0 @ 111.3

atricle also says it has "bilstien dampers, recalibrated suspension geometry, revised negative camber settings and a quicker steering ration"
__________________

Last edited by 3.0Taurass; 01-31-2011 at 07:09 PM.
3.0Taurass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 08:45 PM   #59
Soldier GT
6th Gear Member
 
Soldier GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Vehicle: 2003 Ford Mustang GT
Location: MO/ Born and raised in Louisiana
Posts: 10,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebeastsrt View Post
Where did you get that from?
I really want to know to Blue...
__________________



Vortech V-1 T Trim SC (intercooled)
HP 292 cams
Teksid Forged Short Block 433 RWHP/390 RWTQ 3.33 pulley

New Project: MMR 900 Shortblock/ MHS Stage 1 heads/ CMS Stage 2 Blower Cams
Soldier GT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 10:16 PM   #60
Stone629
6th Gear Member
 
Stone629's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Vehicle: 2006 GTO
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldier GT View Post
I really want to know to Blue...
Its what the Chrysler engineers pulled off with it.

PM me when you get that dyno vid.
__________________
2006 GTO, 6-speed
373 RWHP/373 RWTQ
12.91@111 MPH 2.1 60'

2014 F-150, 5.0
Tuned.
Stone629 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 10:16 PM
MustangForums
Ford Mustang




Paid Advertisement

 
 
 
Reply

Tags
12s, 2011, anderson, challenger, limiter, pipe, power, rev, srt

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Advertising

Featured Sponsors
Vendor Directory
New Sponsors
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:27 PM.

© Internet Brands, Inc.


This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company
Emails Backup