Why are platforms seemingly so expensive to develop?

Is it any harder, or more costly, to develop a new chassis than a new engine, or a new dash board, or anything else?

 

PacerX is probally the person to go into detail, but my understanding is that this is the most expensive part of a car by far to engineer.

That's why vehicles that don't share a chassis with any other car tends to be extremely expensive, or has a life span older than dirt.

 

Well...you have to make a whole factory. Designing a platform means designing an assembly line to make it. That's expensive. Then you have to either build a factory, or gut an existing one and buy all the tools and robots and whatnot it takes to make the chassis. You can see why this costs millions and millions of dollars.

 

I understand all that, but wouldn't the same be said for many of the unique parts that go on a Monte Carlo vs say a Grand Prix or an Impala?

Also, I thought that the frames (at least for some cars) were actually constructed onsite at the facility (Corvette is I am pretty sure) or brought in by a supplier who would need to bid for the job?

... I really don't know.. it's just that we always hear about 'available playforms' and such... Why not just create one like you do a whole new interior or something? (I assume cost is the factor... but my question is why)

 

Tooling is the major expense. Engineers can take existing technology and modify it to their needs, but the major costs are in tooling, but the molds, hydroforming (if used), materials, labor, long term testing, and tuning of the product also contribute to the major cost of developing a new platform. Really though, if you look back in history, this has gone on for nearly a hundred years. Even the first Mustang was based on another Ford product in the begining.

 

You could say Mustang was based on most of Ford's lineup. It shared it's chassis with the Fairmont, 3 versions of the Thunderbird, the LTD, the Zepher (sp?), the Lincoln Continental, the Lincoln Mark VII, 3 versions of the Cougar, and finally the Capri. During that decade, Ford also made bank off of that one chassis.

The Monte Carlo & Grand Prix coupe, and the Impala, Regal, & Grand Prix sedans are all the same car if you peel the exterior skin off, and gut the interior. The body structure that's left is what's expensive to develop. You can raid the parts bin for drivetrain, suspension, and electrical components, but it's the basic structure that costs a pretty penny.

 

And to add to this all these mid range GM cars are not all the same structure because you can lengthen or shorten platforms as well as widen or thin them up. While they are the same W-Body platform they do vary in size and width of their structures.

And not all platforms are severely expensive. The Corvette platform isn't as much as the W or the full size truck platform.

Part of the reason platform's demand so much cost and engineering is because they have to be very forward thinking and planned. To build a interchangeable platform that can accept multiple bodies for differnt brands and different motors and trans configurations is the expensive part. Because all these must be thought of and tested before the platform can be designed.

The Y-body Corvette platform is pretty straight forward and since it will only be a RWD V8 powered 2 seater with only two body changes coupe or convert. (hardtop based on convert) The cost isn't too high compared to the W car.

I think what the idea of this was to ask why is a platform so expensive that GM won't or can't build the F-body all over again.

The answer is they can. But for some reason they have chosen not too. Yes it would be quite a bit more money than piggybacking the Solstice/Opel/Buick roadster idea but not as much as developing a new W or J car. They apparently feel the cost is too high for the potential sales.

 

This is what I was kind of trying to get at with the whole thread...

I see the downside to a dedicated, unique platform, but there are upsides as well, at least I assume so.

 

I agree completly and hope the new Mustang does well enouigh to show GM that the affordable RWD sports coupes are still viable and a source of income as they have always been.

Although I hear that like their Silverado SS vs Ram SRT, Lightning idea that a car close to the competition in power but more useable is good enough. Look for the GTO to fill in this performance gap!

 

Intresting stuff. I was just going off memory.

Seems Ford has something similar in mind with the Mustang's chassis. Ford already said back in January they were "looking" at the Mustang as a basis for additional cars. Since they said "looking" a year and a half before Mustang hit the streets, I think it's safe to say they left that possiblity open when they were engineering it.

Seems to be the opposite of today's GM (the 1st gen Camaro beat the Nova it was based on to market by a year)