Find Reviews by Make:
In 2009, the world’s top 20 platforms accounted for 29 percent of global production, underpinning 18 million vehicles. This number is about to double to 35 million units in 2015, when the top 20 platforms will cover 38 percent of global output
Herbert Demel maps out the future of platform-sharing for Automotive News Europe [sub]. This Quote Of The Weekend has been brought to you by the word “differentiation”…
15 Comments on “Quote Of The Weekend: The Platform-Sharing Future Edition...”
Read all comments
Out of curiosity; what constitutes a platform? Are there certain invariables that needs to be preserved, or is it largely up to the automakers whether they choose to call a modification a new platform or not? It seems car makers are extending, widening, strengthening, and otherwise modifying pretty much every aspect of a car, yet it is still considered to be built on the same platform.
You hit the nail on the head: this industry talks incessantly about platforms and never defines them. Some say it is shared “underpinnings” of the car, some say shared hardpoints, some say shared components count. All left vague. Thus as an analyst I am left adrift. Take two hypothetical examples. OEM A says it has two platforms, from each of which are derived 5 models. OEM B says it has four platforms, from each of which are derived 2 models. Assume both OEMs produce same total number of cars. OEM has more efficient platforming strategy, right? Well, what if for each of B’s platforms the 2 models share 80% of components, whereas across each of A’s two platforms, the 5 models share only 30% of components? Which is a “better” platforming strategy? Then add in that A’s PLATFORMS share 30% of common components across PLATFORMS, but B’s PLATFORMS share 0%. Who is better now? My brain is starting to hurt. Without any detail or definitions we can’t really say anything. Athlete A ran 10 marathons last year, B only 5… but B’s time was 30 minutes faster. But A is 15 years older. Argh….
good question, stuki. I assume there is no definition. I would say all components that are not visible but are not engine/transmission.
I assume the goal is to use the largest possible number of the very same component and also assemblies (as the picture shows, the whole front part of AC, steering, motor etc. to be in the same dimension… it is in German) to reduce development and production cost.
Since safety depends on the body, which obviously looks different for each model (except for GM and Chrysler where the badge is the only difference… but i digress); they likely need to redo safety engineering over and over, but sue similar components. i.e. the Gold airbag system fits in the Skoda etc.
I’m not a friend of VW due to their high repair cost despite the misleading “people’s car” name which should be “Top1%wagen” since average Joe can’t dish out $ 1000 for a yellow dash light… . But they did a great job of building the very same car but make it look completely different to the owner when he buys a Seat, Skoda , Audi or VW. This saves development, and allows them to build all their cars in most of their factories depending on demand. also important besides saving cost, is saving time. If you want to conquer or create a niche market, you can develop something quickly at low cost for a potential low volume model.
Herbert Demel: Is that the same guy that once got axed from VW`s Piech because of his great capabilities first at Audi and then at VW do Brasil, respectively the same guy that later got axed by Fiat`s Marchionne as he demanded Fiat`s corporate language should become English as he refused to learn Italian? And is this the same guy that stopped the Fiat 500 development because he thought it would never sell?
You could have at least 15 different types of cars on the Model T chassis. So, this is something new? I’m guessing that ‘platform’ is just a newer name on something that has always existed in some form of another, but the meaning I have heard most often is that it has to do with shared mounting points, and not with the actual parts. When the car is planned they try to lay out all the screws and spotwelds in such a way that the robots think they are building the same car they have been programmed to build. But I could be wrong. All VAG cars seem to bw buit from the exact same pile of parts, with an interchanegability between models that will make it really cool to be a hotrodder in Europe some years from now.
Many VAG parts have all 4 mainstream brand logos on them: Audi, VW, Skoda, SEAT. They really are interchangeable and come from the same parts bin. Phaeton parts probably have also Bentley logos…
You could have at least 15 different types of cars on the Model T chassis. So, this is something new?
If the Model T had been developed using today’s market paradigms, then the various body styles would have been given different names, and various cosmetic tweaks would have been made to each of them so that they all seemed different from each other. So there wouldn’t have been a Model T, but about a dozen distinct nameplates, all with their own different positioning and separate marketing.
touche ;)
I don’t know complete specifics, but Volkswagen’s new MQB and existing Audi MLP architectures are essentially “modules” more than platforms. They define things like engines, front axles and suspension geometries that can then be placed on wheelbases that are of varying lengths and widths.
The net result is that you can get more differentiation in design while (in theory) retaining the same, if not better cost structure as before. IIRC, MQB specifically will define the distance between the front axle and the pedals for all transverse mounted product. The first iteration of this will be the upcoming A3 due to be announced this fall in Europe.
Audi’s use of the MLP on the A4, A5, A6, A7, A8 and Q5 has been very successful. I’ve spoken with a few more knowledgeable than I who have told me that it has been extremely successful at keeping cost structures in line and significantly reducing development times.
A final point, and I cannot vouch for authenticity for this one, is a comment I heard about three months ago that Audi in particular has been able to put about 25% more toward “component reliability” in the past 12 months due to savings on the new platform. Barring the problems with water pumps in their V6 lineup that have affected the A4, S4 and Q5, the new MLP based vehicles have seen substantial reductions in warranty claims compared to previous Audis. Let’s hope that trend continues.
Aren’t pedals purely electric with new cars? At least that that is what my understand is from the whole Toyota affair. So pedal distance shouldn’t matter anymore.
And they used to make fun of Chrysler for building so many vehicles from K-car components. Now that the Euro’s are going to do it the critics will say that their freaking geniuses.
This is gunna be entertaining German badge engineering lets see if they cando better than the rest BL Rootes and GM are the current contenders lets see how many ways a golf can be wrapped
let’s see.
The new Golf platform according to Wikipedia :
Audi A3 Mk2 (8P)
Volkswagen Touran (1T)
Volkswagen Caddy (2K)
SEAT Altea (5P)
Volkswagen Golf Mk5 / GTI / R32 / Rabbit Mk5 (1K)
Škoda Octavia Mk2 (1Z)
Volkswagen Golf Plus (5M)
SEAT Toledo Mk3 (5P)
Volkswagen Jetta Mk5 (1K)
SEAT León Mk2 (1P)
Audi TT Mk2 (8J)
Volkswagen Eos (1F)
Volkswagen Tiguan (5N)
Volkswagen Scirocco (13)
Volkswagen Golf Mk6 (5K)
Škoda Yeti (5J)
Škoda Superb (3T)
Audi Q3
Volkswagen Jetta Mk6 (NCS)
Volkswagen Beetle (2011-)
Thats 20 cars…
And the MQB will cover the Polo and Passat classes as well, making it well over 30 models from one architecture (not really a platform any more).
The amazing thing is that most of those 30 cars will look, feel and drive differently in spite of the share architecture and components — this is not the traditional GM badge engineering.
@ th009 –
And that’s the amazing thing. Volkswagen has done a significantly better job of component/module/platform development than GM could have ever hoped for. You get cars that share similar characteristics, but are very different cars both in look and feel (think A8 and Phaeton); Even though they may share the same powertrain, HVAC and suspension components.
To their credit, VW learned a harsh lesson circa 2001: people in Europe had caught on to the fact that you could get a Skoda with Volkswagen feel and class for significantly less. This was one of the big reasons for the move to MLP/MQB – to provide the designers and the engineers more flexibility to differentiate the vehicles.