This subject is the result from yet another interesting article in the latest edition of Car magazine. They have interviewed Takeo Fukui - CEO of a well known car company and his views are that independence suits car companies best and I suppose that when you consider who are the most successful car companies at the moment (financially) they are all indpendent - BMW, Toyota & Honda. Any history these had with mergers etc ended in disaster for them (particularly Honda and BMW with Rover).
He states that too much is made of platform sharing and common componenets and it does not necessarily make cars cheaper, it makes for compromises. He thinks platform sharing is now a very old fashioned engineering way of thinking. So should other companies keep doing it and in fact do we buy compromised cars when we buy a car that shares componenets and platforms with other models and makes ?
(PS- Martin - this is not my VW thing again by the way - it is meant for a meaningful discussion with like minded people).
|
>> He states that too much is made of platform sharing and common componenets and it does not necessarily make cars cheaper, >>
As CEO of Honda you could say that he would wouldn't he though Honda have done their bit such as Integra / Civic and in the past of course Accord / Rover 600 etc.
|
Cheddar,
Rover benefitted from that, I'm not sure what Honda got out of it. With modern low volume, flexible manufacturing techniques it's an interesting point.
JH
|
|
Very interesting point - would it really cost THAT much more to develop a new car without using bits of other cars?
|
|
Incidentally we once had a Rover 213, was a very good car thanks to it really being a Honda Ballade. It's quite curious that there's a huge price difference between old model Civics and Rover 400s, even though they're the same car, and in some cases have the same engines/gearboxes.
|
|
I think it was a risk for Honda, what they wanted was a presence in the UK for what was a low key , niche, brand - they sure got that didn't they.
|
|
Reckon platform sharing is the future, or rather line sharing. As per the Ford S-Max, Galaxy, new Mondeo etc (perhaps Jag) being built on the same line so as demand changes model to model, even brand to brand, the line can adapt.
|
Platform sharing is the single biggest cost saving available to manufacturers. Automotive manufacturing is all about profit. Therefore expect to see even more platform sharing in future.
|
BMW, Honda, Toyota are successful because they build cars that people want to buy, with sufficient profit to cover their costs. Ford, GM etc do not. That has nothing to do with what level of component sharing they employ -- Ford's difficulties go far deeper than the relatively marginal positive effect of sharing platforms.
Platform sharing is a means to increase profit, not create profit out of loss.
But, in a world where saving 5p on a washer is considered a good thing, component sharing is a very effective cost-cutting tool. However, you have to wonder about the integrity of any design where costs have been cut to the bone in basic engineering areas.
|
I'd imagine platform sharing has a bright future where the designs involved differ sufficiently in character or applicaction. E.g. VW Golf / Skoda Octavia / VW Touran etc. Platform sharing is a logical compromise between stand-alone models and pure badge engineering.
|
|
Also, it would make little sense for a large group, with several brands of partially competing models, not to share components including platforms, running gear, engines, gearboxes etc.
|
|
platform sharing at leeds central is a pain the trains go to either hull or manchester depending where you sit (platform 9 i thinka/b) wo betide if you have your headphone thingies on-------------
|
>>Reckon platform sharing is the future, or rather line sharing.<<
I think your right on the button here.
More car companies are designing production lines that can handle a variety of models instead of just one to give them the flexibility they need.
IMO component and platform sharing does not necessarily compromise the car if it is done on the same type of car e.g. Octavia, A3 and Golf (this is not a VAG dig) but I suppose could compromise a car if you share platforms across different model types.
|
Well, Oldman, platform sharing looks like a sensible modern cost-cutting, profit-increasing measure to me. Only problem I can see is when both trains try to share it at the same time.
But don't worry, I guess you'll hear the noise through your headphone thingies...
|
|
"Ding dong - the train arriving at platforms 5, 6, 7 & 8 is coming in sideways"
|
I agree that Cheddar's post sums it up in that both platform and line sharing is in fact the future. If the platform is advanced and flexible enough then there is no reason why it shouldn't feature successfully in different classes of vehicle without any compromise and in fact there is a wealth of evidence that indicates that such sharing works superbly.
The EUCD underpins a disparate range of vehicles from the Galaxy, S-Max, to the new Mondeo, the S80 and the new Freelander and will feature in a host of saloons, estates, SUVs and MPVs from Volvo, Ford, Mazda and Jaguar. I've driven the S-Max which it handles and rides very well and everything I've read suggests that the ride of the Galaxy, the S80 and the new Freelander is also vastly improved.
The Golf V platform has been used to great effect in the Touran, the Octavia and in modified form in the Passat.
Honda has successfully used the last Civic platform in their CRV and Element SUVs. The Odyssey MPV used a floorpan from the 1995 generation Accord before moving over to their global light truck platform which is shared by other Honda and Acura vehicles.
Toyota's Avensis floorpan very successfully underpins the Scion tc, an entry level 2 door hot hatch.
I cannot see anything here to indicate that platform/module sharing leads to performance or handling deficits and I don't detect a move away from such sharing by the major manufacturers.
|
I tend to agree with everything martin says above. The only thing that I would add is when it comes to compromise I think it is a matter of whether a car COULD be better if it had it's own platform.
There is no doubt that there are a lot of good cars that share the same platform and components but for example would the Galaxy drive as well as the S-Max if it had it's own platform designed to accomodate it's higher CoG etc.
I'm sure it would be more expensive.
I also think there is a bit of 'not invented here' in his interview - although as you say they do it to some degree.
|
Including BMC, Austin, Rover in any discussion is a bit pointless as they never used the platforms they already had.
Manufacturers have usually continued platforms from one model to another as a continuous development / cost saving measure - eg Ford Escort Mk1 / 2 were built on the same platform (floorpan, suspension, transmission, engines) and there are many other examples.
BMC never developed / evolved the platforms for any of it's models, a trait followed by Austin-Rover and Rover. They always kept models in production too long and incurred the cost of completely new replacements.
Just think what might have been if the BMC 1100/1300 platform had been evolved (including engine/gearbox).
|
|
