Platform Sharing Revisited - Ford Inside News Community
 2Likes
  • 1 Post By HotRod
  • 1 Post By badhac
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 7 (permalink) Old 01-20-2019, 01:54 PM Thread Starter
Focus RS WRC
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 844
Platform Sharing Revisited

https://www.autoblog.com/2019/01/19/...-same-chassis/

Platform sharing: Why car companies build multiple models on the same chassis

There’s no shortage of this practice in the automotive industry


ZAC PALMER

A base Chevrolet Tahoe starts at $49,195. The cheapest Cadillac Escalade you can buy costs $76,490. These cars are built on the same platform, yet there's more than $27,000 between the two base prices. Add enough options to the Escalade and it can get expensive enough that a buyer could pick up two Tahoes for one Escalade. Sure, the Escalade is a luxury (nicer materials, better tech) SUV, but if you examine the material costs to a manufacturer, it doesn't cost so much more to build than the Tahoe to easily explain the difference in cost. What gives here?

It's called platform sharing, and the strategy has been going on for decades. For example, the 1960s saw the Chevrolet Chevelle, Pontiac LeMans, Buick Special and Oldsmobile Cutlass all use the same platform. Fast forward to today, and the practice is still extremely widespread.

Most describe a platform in similar terms, including things like the floor pan, drivetrain, suspension and axles. When you hear someone say that a crossover is "car-based," that means the platform it's built on is used by a sedan or hatchback (as opposed to a truck) in the manufacturer's lineup. An example of this would be the Volkswagen Atlas. VW builds this mid-size SUV on its MQB architecture, which is used for many other vehicles, including the Golf and Jetta. This shows one of the major benefits of these modular platforms: flexibility. In Volkswagen's case, it's able to adapt dimensions like height, width and length to accommodate for larger bodies while still using the same modular platform. This kind of sharing is different from our Escalade and Tahoe example. Those cars are linked with each other to a much greater extent than our Atlas/Golf case because there's no enlarging or shrinking going on.

Platform sharing isn't limited to the same car company. Park the Mercedes GLA subcompact crossover next to an Infiniti QX30 and you'll instantly see the connection. Nor is the practice limited to outward appearances. If you try to apply the logic of design to our Atlas versus Golf case, most consumers wouldn't ever realize the two shared a platform. This shows how tricky it can be to decipher which cars in a carmaker's lineup share platforms.

We chatted with Stephanie Brinley, Principal Automotive Analyst for IHS Markit, to learn more about why manufacturers choose to build cars this way.

If a manufacturer can sell many different models of cars using the same platform, it's going to make a profit easier than it would if every model had different bones underneath. This is especially true when the same platform is shared between pricey luxury models and more mainstream models that must strictly adhere to a specific price point. The manufacturing process becomes more cost-efficient because there are fewer differences between vehicles. Sourcing of parts and purchasing is streamlined for the same reasons as before. It's easily summed up with the age-old phrase, "money talks."

Counter-arguments exist for building high-volume platforms. For one, it can erode the reputation of a luxury car. People might be less likely to pony up for the luxury version of a car if they notice too many similarities between it and the more frugal choice.

A variety of regulations and requirements worldwide makes building a single platform to be used globally more difficult. A car company must design platforms' entire architecture to be compliant with the rules in every market it intends to sell the vehicle. Regulatory nightmares can ensue in these situations, according to Brinley. She points to the example of the new Tesla Model 3. Its massive screen on the dash is compliant with U.S. safety standards, but some European rules say it can't stick up as high as it does. This forces Tesla to retool the interior for it to be sold in certain countries.

The post-sale stakes are raised for platforms meant to underpin millions of cars too. Takata airbags are a great example of part sharing among platforms being problematic.

"If you have the same part in a vehicle you build a variety of vehicles with, if you have a recall of that part, the cost of that part is then much higher. That's a risk," Brinley says.

Regardless of these pitfalls to platform sharing, it's still going to be our future. A wave of electric vehicles coming down the pipeline could lead to even more sharing. Brinley thinks because of the reduced complexity of electric vehicle platforms, we might see manufacturers expand the practice further.

"There's potential for there to be more flexibility in that (electric car platforms) and actually build more cars off of that. If you go to something where the battery is in the frame and down low, and the motor is much easier to place, you've got more flexibility with what you do to everything and above, because you've got a pure electric vehicle that doesn't need as much space for an engine and a transmission in the way we do now. The number of pieces that you need is much smaller," Brinley says.

There are limits to how far we can take the practice of platform sharing. Manufacturers will continue to push those limits, at least until they stop making money.

"They'll take it to the extent that it makes sense. If you try to stretch a platform too much, the cost of modifying it could be more expensive than just creating a different one," Brinley says.

"The drive to reduce platforms is ongoing. It'll continue," Brinley says.
glyphics is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 7 (permalink) Old 01-20-2019, 02:05 PM Thread Starter
Focus RS WRC
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 844
Re: Platform Sharing Revisited

^This article did not make a distinction between platform sharing and badge engineering if there really is one. IMO, the Chevelle/LeMans/Special/Cutlass example is more badge engineering than platform sharing; very little was modified among the various models. Platform sharing, IMO, is more like F-150/Navigator while badge engineering is more like Expedition/Navigator. Thankfully, Lincoln models have been differentiated sufficiently from Ford models to put the badge engineering baby to bed, Expedition/Navigator being a primary example.

As the article suggests, platform sharing is going to be more common among "competing" manufacturers; Mercedes/Infinity, BMW/Toyota, and the upcoming Ford/VW alliance being among the higher profile examples.

Any thoughts?

Last edited by glyphics; 01-20-2019 at 02:08 PM.
glyphics is offline  
post #3 of 7 (permalink) Old 01-20-2019, 04:53 PM
Ford Focus ZX
 
HotRod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Michigan
Posts: 312
Re: Platform Sharing Revisited

It's difficult to distinguish between platform-sharing and badge-engineering. VAG does a lot of the former, GM a LOT of the latter, but there's a vast gray area in between. I'd argue the Tahoe/Escalade example is clear cut badge-engineering, and not too far removed old fashioned rebadging. It doesn't take much imagination at all to see a link. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the Audi A4 and Lamborghini Urus share the same MLB Evo modular "platform", but nobody seeing the two parked side-by-side would ever make the connection.

Modular platforms, which one could argue really aren't platforms in the traditional sense, really confuse the platform-sharing debate. We love to refer to MQB as a "platform", but in VW's words it's a toolkit rather than a specific architecture. MQB models share a front axle, engine mount and electrical system in the interest of cost savings and manufacturing flexibility, but track, wheelbase overall vehicle size are amazingly flexible, allowing them to build both the Golf and the Atlas starting with the same base "toolkit". Ford and Lexus both have modular platforms that can be transverse/FWD or longitudinal/RWD configurations. Theoretically, Ford cold have kept the Explorer FWD even though it shares its bones with the Aviator. It probably would have required more engineering, but it would have allowed Ford to open up the interior a bit. I for one am glad they didn't, but I wouldn't have a problem with a new Flex or similar people mover using a large transverse version of CD6. It will be interesting to see if the Mustang will be compromised in any way when it moves to CD6.

I do believe platform-sharing will continue to grow, particularly with electric vehicles where controlling costs is critical. Ford making use of VAG's MEB EV platform could be huge for the brand long term - especially since VW has made a substantial investment in charging infrastructure for MEB. The big question: Will Ford use MQB down the road for transverse passenger car models, or will they continue with their own ICE platform development? CD6 probably eliminates the need for MLB, although it would open up the potential for lower volume/high profit models. An A7-based Lincoln "coupe" sounds pretty good to me. Is the average Lincoln customer ready for Audi-level ownership costs though?

Rod

2017 MKX 2.7T Black Label
2017 GLC300
2016 GTI
HotRod is offline  
 
post #4 of 7 (permalink) Old 01-21-2019, 06:43 AM
Ford Falcon Ute
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,735
Send a message via MSN to falcon lover
Re: Platform Sharing Revisited

CD6 looks to be limited to two vehicles: Explorer and Aviator. No cars (including the Mustang) will be builded on this architecture. Or, at least, that is the proposition until now. The next Mustang will be builded on the current platform, heavily modified. No Lincoln sedans or coupes on CD6. Of course, this in not the more smart decision from Ford, because with more vehicles, they can make more profits on it. But... Hackett is cutting everything but the F series and SUVs.

I´m curious how Ford will supply the European and Chinese market, that still want sedans... with badge engineering VWs?

_________________________________________________
falcon lover is offline  
post #5 of 7 (permalink) Old 01-22-2019, 08:36 AM
Ford Focus ZX
 
HotRod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Michigan
Posts: 312
Re: Platform Sharing Revisited

Quote:
Originally Posted by falcon lover View Post
CD6 looks to be limited to two vehicles: Explorer and Aviator. No cars (including the Mustang) will be builded on this architecture. Or, at least, that is the proposition until now. The next Mustang will be builded on the current platform, heavily modified. No Lincoln sedans or coupes on CD6.
Keeping the Mustang on the existing platform is news to me. Last I heard it was being developed on CD6. The interwebs were up in arms that their pony car was going to be sharing a platform with the Explorer.
badhac likes this.

Rod

2017 MKX 2.7T Black Label
2017 GLC300
2016 GTI
HotRod is offline  
post #6 of 7 (permalink) Old 01-22-2019, 10:37 AM
Ford Mondeo
 
badhac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Newport News VA
Posts: 1,057
Garage
Re: Platform Sharing Revisited

Quote:
Originally Posted by HotRod View Post
Keeping the Mustang on the existing platform is news to me. Last I heard it was being developed on CD6. The interwebs were up in arms that their pony car was going to be sharing a platform with the Explorer.
I believe that was originally the intention, but I feel like I read somewhere that Hackett took a hatchet to that idea and said the 7th gen will use a version of the current platform in order to save development costs. Which the current Stang is an absolute gem, if a bit portly.
HotRod likes this.
badhac is online now  
post #7 of 7 (permalink) Old 03-30-2019, 09:20 PM
Ford Ka
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 6
Re: Platform Sharing Revisited

Thank you for sharing
Apolish is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Inside News Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome