Why so long for new platform rollouts?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Why so long for new platform rollouts?
Why so slow to get these platforms under more than one vehicle?
Perhaps to shake the bugs out of the setup??
Delta: Saturn Ion
Epsilon: Chevrolet Malibu (not yet released)
Sigma: Cadillac CTS
Theta: Saturn VUE
Four of GM's new arcitchures that are praised for being so veritile have come out... but only on one vehicle so far (at leats in North America)... what's taking so long to get these platforms used on other vehicles? Especially if they are so versitile and reconfigurable?
I know Chevrolet Cobalt will be #2 on Delta, Cadillac SRX on Sigma, and Chevrolet Equinox on Theta, but it just seems like 2 model years is a long time, especially for base structures that are meant to reach across General Motors line of products... maybe I am off base here...
Perhaps to shake the bugs out of the setup??
Delta: Saturn Ion
Epsilon: Chevrolet Malibu (not yet released)
Sigma: Cadillac CTS
Theta: Saturn VUE
Four of GM's new arcitchures that are praised for being so veritile have come out... but only on one vehicle so far (at leats in North America)... what's taking so long to get these platforms used on other vehicles? Especially if they are so versitile and reconfigurable?
I know Chevrolet Cobalt will be #2 on Delta, Cadillac SRX on Sigma, and Chevrolet Equinox on Theta, but it just seems like 2 model years is a long time, especially for base structures that are meant to reach across General Motors line of products... maybe I am off base here...
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Delta: Opel has compact coming out on this platform soon..if not already. Also I think Chevy is hesitant to roll out an all new small car it hopes to make money on in an incentive laden market. They sell so many Cavalier's now because they loose thier asses on them. I don't think they wanna do that with the Cavalier replacement.
Epsilon: Opel again already has models out, also the Saab 9-3 is on this platform. The current N-body chassis that holds the Malibu and Grand Am though it hasn't been facelifted much isn't that old. I think GM is more just letting this one run it's course.
Sigma: The SRX is also a Sigma vehicle. From what I understand this platfrom has pretty much been limited to Cadillac so models that can be put on it are somewhat limited. The STS was delayed because Lutz wanted to redo it.
Theda-I don't know...
Epsilon: Opel again already has models out, also the Saab 9-3 is on this platform. The current N-body chassis that holds the Malibu and Grand Am though it hasn't been facelifted much isn't that old. I think GM is more just letting this one run it's course.
Sigma: The SRX is also a Sigma vehicle. From what I understand this platfrom has pretty much been limited to Cadillac so models that can be put on it are somewhat limited. The STS was delayed because Lutz wanted to redo it.
Theda-I don't know...
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
Why so long? Simple - you've got a certain number of parts that are going to differ from model to model on each platform (interior and exterior components, wheels, etc.). Each of those components has a lead time of maybe 6 to 24 months, depending on how much they differ from the first model on a particular platform. Those components aren't all kicked off at the same time, either due to financial reasons or because the need for that component wasn't comprehended at the time that the first model got kicked off.
So, say you decide late in the program that you don't want to share the Ion's steering wheel with the new Cavalier. Well, now you've got to go write a spec for that part, quote it, select a supplier, kick them off, and then go through the design and validation process.
All it takes is one component to delay the launch of a vehicle, but I'm sure in this case you're talking about a significant number of parts.
So, say you decide late in the program that you don't want to share the Ion's steering wheel with the new Cavalier. Well, now you've got to go write a spec for that part, quote it, select a supplier, kick them off, and then go through the design and validation process.
All it takes is one component to delay the launch of a vehicle, but I'm sure in this case you're talking about a significant number of parts.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Originally posted by Eric Bryant
Why so long? Simple - you've got a certain number of parts that are going to differ from model to model on each platform (interior and exterior components, wheels, etc.). Each of those components has a lead time of maybe 6 to 24 months, depending on how much they differ from the first model on a particular platform. Those components aren't all kicked off at the same time, either due to financial reasons or because the need for that component wasn't comprehended at the time that the first model got kicked off.
So, say you decide late in the program that you don't want to share the Ion's steering wheel with the new Cavalier. Well, now you've got to go write a spec for that part, quote it, select a supplier, kick them off, and then go through the design and validation process.
All it takes is one component to delay the launch of a vehicle, but I'm sure in this case you're talking about a significant number of parts.
Why so long? Simple - you've got a certain number of parts that are going to differ from model to model on each platform (interior and exterior components, wheels, etc.). Each of those components has a lead time of maybe 6 to 24 months, depending on how much they differ from the first model on a particular platform. Those components aren't all kicked off at the same time, either due to financial reasons or because the need for that component wasn't comprehended at the time that the first model got kicked off.
So, say you decide late in the program that you don't want to share the Ion's steering wheel with the new Cavalier. Well, now you've got to go write a spec for that part, quote it, select a supplier, kick them off, and then go through the design and validation process.
All it takes is one component to delay the launch of a vehicle, but I'm sure in this case you're talking about a significant number of parts.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
24 months is actually pretty good compared to what it was a short time ago (usually at least 36 months!). Now the time's dropped to 18 months, and GM hopes to lower it to 12 within a couple of years.
These times are NOT the length of time it takes a car to go from idea to production, as may be commonly believed. It's how long it takes a car to get to production AFTER final approval. Final approval happens after a complete case is presented.
The "business case" is when every aspect of a car proposal is brought before the board for approval. This case includes market studies, car specifications, where all the parts are comming from, where the plant will be located, the plan for changing over the plant (if it's currently producing another model... why plants are the best way of finding out new model products before it's announced by the company), or all the details involving the area the new plant is in. Also every part of the car is cost out and questioned (ie: why get part "X" from company "Y" when we make it cheaper, or company "Z" offers it cheaper). Reaction to the car from auto shows & styling clinics are also included, and then there is usually a prototype of the car presented for review as well.
All this work is done "off budget", so just because a vehicle doesn't have a budget, DOES NOT mean it isn't being worked on. It's part of the company's "development" budget. Even at this moment, there's no Solstice "budget", because it's still in development. I wanted to get this out to clear up a misconception some have here that just because a car doesn't have a budget means it isn't under development. All this work has to be done in order for it to get approved, so of course it's going to be under development. Usually a couple of years before it's approved.
Going back to the post approval process, once the board clears that model, it's given a specific budget, and the process of bringing it to prduction starts. This includes making prototypes & running them into the ground, programming on board computers, putting a plan in place to convert (or build) the plant the car is to be made, etc. This is what currently takes 18 months after approval. Alot of time has been cut because problems can be spotted early in computer simulations, but you still need alot of real world testing.
A landmark case in how not to rush a car to production: At Autoweek, they are running the story of the Ford Pinto. That car was rushed to market in 24 months after it was approved, meaning it's tooling & machinery was being produced at the same time the car was being tested. When testing found flaws (especially a fuel tank that tended to separate from the filler nech in rear end collisions) it was too late to do anything about it without spending alot of money to reengineer (designing & cost of replacement was simple: it was redoing the machinery & assembly process that was costly). The same chassis Ford Maverick didn't have this problem under development, so Ford didn't see the need to test Pinto.
Lesson: test the daylights out of everything... even if it's the same chassis, structure, and components as another model that's been tested already. You'll never know what might come up.
Hope this explains the why.
These times are NOT the length of time it takes a car to go from idea to production, as may be commonly believed. It's how long it takes a car to get to production AFTER final approval. Final approval happens after a complete case is presented.
The "business case" is when every aspect of a car proposal is brought before the board for approval. This case includes market studies, car specifications, where all the parts are comming from, where the plant will be located, the plan for changing over the plant (if it's currently producing another model... why plants are the best way of finding out new model products before it's announced by the company), or all the details involving the area the new plant is in. Also every part of the car is cost out and questioned (ie: why get part "X" from company "Y" when we make it cheaper, or company "Z" offers it cheaper). Reaction to the car from auto shows & styling clinics are also included, and then there is usually a prototype of the car presented for review as well.
All this work is done "off budget", so just because a vehicle doesn't have a budget, DOES NOT mean it isn't being worked on. It's part of the company's "development" budget. Even at this moment, there's no Solstice "budget", because it's still in development. I wanted to get this out to clear up a misconception some have here that just because a car doesn't have a budget means it isn't under development. All this work has to be done in order for it to get approved, so of course it's going to be under development. Usually a couple of years before it's approved.
Going back to the post approval process, once the board clears that model, it's given a specific budget, and the process of bringing it to prduction starts. This includes making prototypes & running them into the ground, programming on board computers, putting a plan in place to convert (or build) the plant the car is to be made, etc. This is what currently takes 18 months after approval. Alot of time has been cut because problems can be spotted early in computer simulations, but you still need alot of real world testing.
A landmark case in how not to rush a car to production: At Autoweek, they are running the story of the Ford Pinto. That car was rushed to market in 24 months after it was approved, meaning it's tooling & machinery was being produced at the same time the car was being tested. When testing found flaws (especially a fuel tank that tended to separate from the filler nech in rear end collisions) it was too late to do anything about it without spending alot of money to reengineer (designing & cost of replacement was simple: it was redoing the machinery & assembly process that was costly). The same chassis Ford Maverick didn't have this problem under development, so Ford didn't see the need to test Pinto.
Lesson: test the daylights out of everything... even if it's the same chassis, structure, and components as another model that's been tested already. You'll never know what might come up.
Hope this explains the why.
Last edited by guionM; Jun 20, 2003 at 11:34 AM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Originally posted by guionM
24 months is actually pretty good compared to what it was a short time ago (usually at least 36 months!). Now the time's dropped to 18 months, and GM hopes to lower it to 12 within a couple of years.
These times are NOT the length of time it takes a car to go from idea to production, as may be commonly believed. It's how long it takes a car to get to production AFTER final approval. Final approval happens after a complete case is presented.
The "business case" is when every aspect of a car proposal is brought before the board for approval. This case includes market studies, car specifications, where all the parts are comming from, where the plant will be located, the plan for changing over the plant (if it's currently producing another model... why plants are the best way of finding out new model products before it's announced by the company), or all the details involving the area the new plant is in. Also every part of the car is cost out and questioned (ie: why get part "X" from company "Y" when we make it cheaper, or company "Z" offers it cheaper). Reaction to the car from auto shows & styling clinics are also included, and then there is usually a prototype of the car presented for review as well.
All this work is done "off budget", so just because a vehicle doesn't have a budget, DOES NOT mean it isn't being worked on. It's part of the company's "development" budget. Even at this moment, there's no Solstice "budget", because it's still in development. I wanted to get this out to clear up a misconception some have here that just because a car doesn't have a budget means it isn't under development. All this work has to be done in order for it to get approved, so of course it's going to be under development. Usually a couple of years before it's approved.
Going back to the post approval process, once the board clears that model, it's given a specific budget, and the process of bringing it to prduction starts. This includes making prototypes & running them into the ground, programming on board computers, putting a plan in place to convert (or build) the plant the car is to be made, etc. This is what currently takes 18 months after approval. Alot of time has been cut because problems can be spotted early in computer simulations, but you still need alot of real world testing.
A landmark case in how not to rush a car to production: At Autoweek, they are running the story of the Ford Pinto. That car was rushed to market in 24 months after it was approved, meaning it's tooling & machinery was being produced at the same time the car was being tested. When testing found flaws (especially a fuel tank that tended to separate from the filler nech in rear end collisions) it was too late to do anything about it without spending alot of money to reengineer (designing & cost of replacement was simple: it was redoing the machinery & assembly process that was costly). The same chassis Ford Maverick didn't have this problem under development, so Ford didn't see the need to test Pinto.
Lesson: test the daylights out of everything... even if it's the same chassis, structure, and components as another model that's been tested already. You'll never know what might come up.
Hope this explains the why.
24 months is actually pretty good compared to what it was a short time ago (usually at least 36 months!). Now the time's dropped to 18 months, and GM hopes to lower it to 12 within a couple of years.
These times are NOT the length of time it takes a car to go from idea to production, as may be commonly believed. It's how long it takes a car to get to production AFTER final approval. Final approval happens after a complete case is presented.
The "business case" is when every aspect of a car proposal is brought before the board for approval. This case includes market studies, car specifications, where all the parts are comming from, where the plant will be located, the plan for changing over the plant (if it's currently producing another model... why plants are the best way of finding out new model products before it's announced by the company), or all the details involving the area the new plant is in. Also every part of the car is cost out and questioned (ie: why get part "X" from company "Y" when we make it cheaper, or company "Z" offers it cheaper). Reaction to the car from auto shows & styling clinics are also included, and then there is usually a prototype of the car presented for review as well.
All this work is done "off budget", so just because a vehicle doesn't have a budget, DOES NOT mean it isn't being worked on. It's part of the company's "development" budget. Even at this moment, there's no Solstice "budget", because it's still in development. I wanted to get this out to clear up a misconception some have here that just because a car doesn't have a budget means it isn't under development. All this work has to be done in order for it to get approved, so of course it's going to be under development. Usually a couple of years before it's approved.
Going back to the post approval process, once the board clears that model, it's given a specific budget, and the process of bringing it to prduction starts. This includes making prototypes & running them into the ground, programming on board computers, putting a plan in place to convert (or build) the plant the car is to be made, etc. This is what currently takes 18 months after approval. Alot of time has been cut because problems can be spotted early in computer simulations, but you still need alot of real world testing.
A landmark case in how not to rush a car to production: At Autoweek, they are running the story of the Ford Pinto. That car was rushed to market in 24 months after it was approved, meaning it's tooling & machinery was being produced at the same time the car was being tested. When testing found flaws (especially a fuel tank that tended to separate from the filler nech in rear end collisions) it was too late to do anything about it without spending alot of money to reengineer (designing & cost of replacement was simple: it was redoing the machinery & assembly process that was costly). The same chassis Ford Maverick didn't have this problem under development, so Ford didn't see the need to test Pinto.
Lesson: test the daylights out of everything... even if it's the same chassis, structure, and components as another model that's been tested already. You'll never know what might come up.
Hope this explains the why.
Great overview of the process!
Very informative!!I guess what I am trying to get at is not so much how long it takes any given car to get to market, but why when the first Theta vehicle (VUE) was developed, why the 2nd (Equinox) (and 3rd or 4th for that matter) wasn't developed with it on a parellel timeline... let alone 2 years behind...
Another reason is that these platforms are praised for being multi-functional, and 'easily' reconfigured (lengthened/shortened, wheelbase changed, widened/skinnied (in that a word
) etc... By taking longer to convert to the new platforms, you'd think it would cost more cash to have to contiinue to run parts for the old platforms as well... of course, it would cost a lot to bring all these totally new cars along at one time too... so... I guess there is two sides to every coin, eh?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by Darth Xed
Great overview of the process! Very informative!!
I guess what I am trying to get at is not so much how long it takes any given car to get to market, but why when the first Theta vehicle (VUE) was developed, why the 2nd (Equinox) (and 3rd or 4th for that matter) wasn't developed with it on a parellel timeline... let alone 2 years behind...
Great overview of the process!
Very informative!!I guess what I am trying to get at is not so much how long it takes any given car to get to market, but why when the first Theta vehicle (VUE) was developed, why the 2nd (Equinox) (and 3rd or 4th for that matter) wasn't developed with it on a parellel timeline... let alone 2 years behind...
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Originally posted by guionM
Now THAT is a good question for GM. There actually is no reason why they couldn't have been done at the same time, since GM's RWD cars (both full sized & performance cars) seem like they are going to be introduced all at once, despite being multiple models, and GM has done this in the past.
Now THAT is a good question for GM. There actually is no reason why they couldn't have been done at the same time, since GM's RWD cars (both full sized & performance cars) seem like they are going to be introduced all at once, despite being multiple models, and GM has done this in the past.
Which is why this whole thing popped into my thick head.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
Originally posted by guionM
Now THAT is a good question for GM. There actually is no reason why they couldn't have been done at the same time, since GM's RWD cars (both full sized & performance cars) seem like they are going to be introduced all at once, despite being multiple models, and GM has done this in the past.
Now THAT is a good question for GM. There actually is no reason why they couldn't have been done at the same time, since GM's RWD cars (both full sized & performance cars) seem like they are going to be introduced all at once, despite being multiple models, and GM has done this in the past.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
I believe that the current Saturn Vue is not based on the Theta platform but it based on the Suzuki SUV platform (forgot the name). The Saturn Vue wont use the Theta platfrom until 2007/2008 when the next larger and more upscale Vue comes out. The next-Gen Vue will be built off the Theta platform which is the same as the Chevy Equinox.
2005 - GMT201 (GMT201-platform) "Relay" minivan.
2006 - GMX384 (Epsilon-platform) "Five" (Saturn version of Malibu Maxx)
2007 - GMT966 (Lambda-platform) Sport wagon (no official name yet).
2008 - GMT319 (Theta-platform) "VUE" replacement (same as Chevy Equinox)
2009 - GMT962 (Lambda-platform) "Relay" minivan replacement.
The current Vue will get a facelift in 2005 and the current Ion will get a facelift in 2006.
2005 - GMT201 (GMT201-platform) "Relay" minivan.
2006 - GMX384 (Epsilon-platform) "Five" (Saturn version of Malibu Maxx)
2007 - GMT966 (Lambda-platform) Sport wagon (no official name yet).
2008 - GMT319 (Theta-platform) "VUE" replacement (same as Chevy Equinox)
2009 - GMT962 (Lambda-platform) "Relay" minivan replacement.
The current Vue will get a facelift in 2005 and the current Ion will get a facelift in 2006.
Last edited by johnsocal; Jun 20, 2003 at 04:29 PM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Hmmm... everything I've read on VUE and Theta say that VUE was in fact the first Theta vehicle... Everything I've read on Equinox says it is built on the current VUE platform, and is also a Theta vehicle...
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
The Vue does use the THETA platform.
I really had the Vue platform thing messed up. I believe its the next-gen Suzuki Vitara replacement that might use the THETA platform.
Heres a cool site that list all current and future GM platforms @ http://www.acarplace.com/brands/gm/platforms.html
I really had the Vue platform thing messed up. I believe its the next-gen Suzuki Vitara replacement that might use the THETA platform.
Heres a cool site that list all current and future GM platforms @ http://www.acarplace.com/brands/gm/platforms.html
Last edited by johnsocal; Jun 20, 2003 at 06:05 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dbusch22
Forced Induction
6
Oct 31, 2016 11:09 AM
centric
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
6
Aug 15, 2002 09:04 PM
z28projects4ever
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
133
Jul 26, 2002 01:54 AM
z28projects4ever
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
9
Jul 16, 2002 07:48 PM