Next Dodge Challenger and Charger To Solider On With Current Platform

Georgio is too small and light for the Challenger and Charger.  

Not surprised. 

15 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Georgio is too small and light for the Challenger and Charger.  

Exactly, Italians always build small lite platforms more focused on Fashion trend style than on performance. No way a Hellcat or Demon engine could work with the Georgio platform.

For Dodge to work, they would have to make a new Hemi 4 banger and Hemi V6 with turbo's and even then be limited to how much power to produce.

Again, further proof of incompetence by Sergio as he stole the profits from Chrysler to bring back from the grave stupid Alfa crap and prop up the garbage Fiat.

Georgio is fine for a compact sports sedan, but the Charger and Challenger need to be at least 4000lbs and have V8 versions.  Different market niches.

6 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Georgio is fine for a compact sports sedan, but the Charger and Challenger need to be at least 4000lbs and have V8 versions.  Different market niches.

True a European focused platform. Still they should have rolled back in the profits into Dodge & Chrysler and built up those portfolios before wasting the billions on resurrecting Alfa which contributes NOTHING to FCA.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current platform aside from needing better material fit and finish. 

They are full size and should remain so... not squished down to Euro standards. 

3 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Georgio is fine for a compact sports sedan, but the Charger and Challenger need to be at least 4000lbs and have V8 versions.  Different market niches.

Why does it have to weigh over 4,000 lbs?  Just because it has a V8 doesn't mean it has to be extra heavy, anytime you can cut weight it is a good thing.

As far as Sergio hinting the 300 may not return, I would give a 5% chance at a next generation Chrysler 300 happening and a 50/50 chance of a new Dodge Charger.

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current platform aside from needing better material fit and finish. 

They are full size and should remain so... not squished down to Euro standards. 

In their current form though the 300/Charger only sell in the American market, they are useless as a global product.   That might not be a problem if the full size sedan market in America wasn't tanking fast.  The 30 is down 11% YTD and the Charger is down 5% YTD.  Which isn't terrible, but how many of those sales are rental cars.   The worst selling Jeep outsells every Dodge except the Caravan, and I imagine a solid 50-60% of those Caravan sales are fleet sales

43 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Why does it have to weigh over 4,000 lbs?  Just because it has a V8 doesn't mean it has to be extra heavy, anytime you can cut weight it is a good thing. 

The heft is part of their appeal, IMO.    Like with Mercedes, the V8 E-Class models aren't lightweights...

Weight is just like platforms; consumers have no idea if a car weighs 3700 lbs or 4200.
With all the plastics, aluminum & thinned materials in modern cars, you'd think a -say- '18 Challenger should weight 3200 lbs.

Weight has gotten out of control, but at least there have been some very recent efforts slimming vehicles down.

4 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Weight is just like platforms; consumers have no idea if a car weighs 3700 lbs or 4200.
With all the plastics, aluminum & thinned materials in modern cars, you'd think a -say- '18 Challenger should weight 3200 lbs.

Weight has gotten out of control, but at least there have been some very recent efforts slimming vehicles down.

In an era of 5000-6000 lb SUVs and trucks, 4000 lb cars seem reasonable to me..

1 hour ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

The heft is part of their appeal, IMO.    Like with Mercedes, the V8 E-Class models aren't lightweights...

They aren't, but if Mercedes could make the E63 4,000 lbs vs 4,500 lbs that would be a big win.  The cost would be ridiculous, but less weight is good.   And yes, with 5,000 lb SUVs, a 4,000 lb car seems light.  And suspensions and brake systems are better and better and can compensate for it, but weight hurts performance and fuel economy, 

Why do they have to be heavy? Because they are full size consumer grade cars, not high end stuff like multi-material Cadillac CT6s

2 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

In an era of 5000-6000 lb SUVs and trucks, 4000 lb cars seem reasonable to me..

Only if those weights are reasonable. Are they? (I know they are commonplace but that wasn't my question)

Ask yourself what happened in the industry. Over time, cars in general shrunk, had 1000-some lbs of cast iron & steel replaced with aluminum and plastic, got body panels switched over to aluminum or even carbon fiber, all rims are AL, what sheetmetal left is thinner & thinner, glass is thinner, even carpeting is thinner. All these advances... and cars are heavier than ever in the grand scheme of things.

1980 Turbo Trans Am, iron block/heads V8, all-steel body (other than front fascia/rear bumper), 198-in overall length, curb weight: 3673. How does a smaller, 35-year newer Camaro range from 3700-4350 lbs with all its aluminum & plastic (& carbon fiber?) and still be called 'progress'?

I mean, I don't expect the opposite; that a '15 Camaro should weigh 3000 or less, but at least offset all the wiring/sensors/ etc with the construction lightening... but no. Just imagine a '15 Camaro with an all-steel body & an Iron block/heads; it'd weigh 5000+.

4 hours ago, smk4565 said:

In their current form though the 300/Charger only sell in the American market, they are useless as a global product.   That might not be a problem if the full size sedan market in America wasn't tanking fast.  The 30 is down 11% YTD and the Charger is down 5% YTD.  Which isn't terrible, but how many of those sales are rental cars.   The worst selling Jeep outsells every Dodge except the Caravan, and I imagine a solid 50-60% of those Caravan sales are fleet sales

This is untrue. The 300 is used for police duty in Australia now that both Ford and GM have ceded that market. 

The 300 was also sold as a Lancia in Europe, and with a properly stocked Chrysler brand, the entire brand should have been branded as Lancia or just kept as Chrysler and sold in Europe.  The Europeans had an unusual love for the Town and Country and the GM vans.  The new Pacifica would have done well there. 

The 300 with a 2.0T should absolutely be sold in China. The Chinese just lowered their import tariff from 25% to 15% effective July 1. They could still be built in Brampton and shipped over.  Stick the Pacifica hybrid on the same boat and price it like the Enclave. 

The failure of Chrysler and Dodge rests entirely on Sergio's nationalism and inability to effectively use the brands he got in the acquisition. He is an absolute failure of a CEO. 

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

They aren't, but if Mercedes could make the E63 4,000 lbs vs 4,500 lbs that would be a big win.  The cost would be ridiculous, but less weight is good.   And yes, with 5,000 lb SUVs, a 4,000 lb car seems light.  And suspensions and brake systems are better and better and can compensate for it, but weight hurts performance and fuel economy, 

A 6-cylinder 5-series is 4,019

A 6-cylinder E-class is 4,043

A 6-cylinder A6 is 4,135

Tell me more about how the 300C Limited V8 being 4,029 is vastly uncompetitive. 

23 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Ask yourself what happened in the industry. Over time, cars in general shrunk, had 1000-some lbs of cast iron & steel replaced with aluminum and plastic, got body panels switched over to aluminum or even carbon fiber, all rims are AL, what sheetmetal left is thinner & thinner, glass is thinner, even carpeting is thinner. All these advances... and cars are heavier than ever in the grand scheme of things.

1980 Turbo Trans Am, iron block/heads V8, all-steel body (other than front fascia/rear bumper), 198-in overall length, curb weight: 3673. How does a smaller, 35-year newer Camaro range from 3700-4350 lbs with all its aluminum & plastic (& carbon fiber?) and still be called 'progress'?

I mean, I don't expect the opposite; that a '15 Camaro should weigh 3000 or less, but at least offset all the wiring/sensors/ etc with the construction lightening... but no. Just imagine a '15 Camaro with an all-steel body & an Iron block/heads; it'd weigh 5000+.

There are models of 3-series that weigh more than my big old body-on-frame boat of an '81 Toronado with a 307 cubic inch iron block under the aircraft carrier sized steel hood. 

A 4-cylinder 330xi weighs more than a V6 '81 Toronado

A 6-cylinder 340xi weighs more than a V8 '81 Toronado.

And for all the tech and weight savings they put into the M5 carbon fiber and all.... it still weighs 500lbs more than my iron beast. 

Now, I'm not comparing performance at all of course.... but these are generally considered among the lightest cars in their class and they they all tip the scales more than some "old tech" Oldsmobile. 

For an extreme size vs weight example, I wonder how much the lightest 60s full size 4dr sedan weighed..like a 6cyl Biscayne. Under 4000lbs maybe? 

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

Only if those weights are reasonable. Are they? 

I don't know about reasonable, it's  what they are.  Seems like over the last 40 years cars have been downsized (though small cars have gotten larger) while trucks have gotten larger and heavier.   

Meeting crash standards and adding content has increased weight, even though a lot a lightening has gone on.  There are no stripped down cars for the most part today, and stripped trucks only exist for fleets. 

It seems the average 4cyl compact is better equipped than a typical Detroit luxury car 40 years ago, and more powerful.  

So cars today on average are more efficient, more powerful, safer, and better equipped than 40 years ago.  And heavier...interesting times we live in. 

52 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

This is untrue. The 300 is used for police duty in Australia now that both Ford and GM have ceded that market. 

The 300 was also sold as a Lancia in Europe, and with a properly stocked Chrysler brand, the entire brand should have been branded as Lancia or just kept as Chrysler and sold in Europe.  The Europeans had an unusual love for the Town and Country and the GM vans.  The new Pacifica would have done well there. 

The 300 with a 2.0T should absolutely be sold in China. The Chinese just lowered their import tariff from 25% to 15% effective July 1. They could still be built in Brampton and shipped over.  Stick the Pacifica hybrid on the same boat and price it like the Enclave. 

The failure of Chrysler and Dodge rests entirely on Sergio's nationalism and inability to effectively use the brands he got in the acquisition. He is an absolute failure of a CEO. 

The Australian police car market has to be in the 100s of cars per year, and the 300 was sold in Europe.  It isn't now.

Dodge/Chrysler failed in the 80s, failed under Daimler, failed under Cerberus, and so why would Sergio be expected to make them prosperous?  I don't think Sergio is a great CEO but his job as CEO is to satisfy the shareholders, not to save Chrysler.  As long as he makes the Agnelli family money he is doing his job, and the way to make them the most money is probably to split up FCA into pieces to sell off. 

52 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

A 6-cylinder 5-series is 4,019

A 6-cylinder E-class is 4,043

A 6-cylinder A6 is 4,135

Tell me more about how the 300C Limited V8 being 4,029 is vastly uncompetitive. 

I never said it was overweight, but Cubical said the 300 has to be at least 4,000 lbs as if weight was good, and if they put it on a lighter platform it would be bad.  That is like saying a CT6 must add weight to be more "American."   People want to praise the Cadillac chassis for cutting weight with aluminum and structural adhesive and mixed materials, then crap on the  Giorgio platform which is the same thing.

And the next-gen Jeep Grand Cherokee will be built on the Giorgio platform, and I bet it is lighter, faster, more fuel efficient, better braking and better handling than what they have now.  The GLE and Grand Cherokee are obese because they still have too much of that  2006-2010 era chassis in them.  And all the Mopar fans will say how great it is, not that the platform is from an Alfa Romeo Guilia.  

37 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

I don't know about reasonable, it's  what they are.  Seems like over the last 40 years cars have been downsized (though small cars have gotten larger) while trucks have gotten larger and heavier.   

Meeting crash standards and adding content has increased weight, even though a lot a lightening has gone on.  There are no stripped down cars for the most part today, and stripped trucks only exist for fleets. 

It seems the average 4cyl compact is better equipped than a typical Detroit luxury car 40 years ago, and more powerful.  

So cars today on average are more efficient, more powerful, safer, and better equipped than 40 years ago.  And heavier...interesting times we live in. 

Agreed, cars from 50 years ago were death traps.  The amount of structural reinforcement in cars today in incredible.  Then you look at how much sound deadening material, speakers, power heated seats, Nav systems and computers, glass roofs, which requires more bracing, etc get added.  A 90s Cadillac had power, heated, leather seats, 8 speakers, and a sunroof and that made it a luxury car because the average Chevy had manual crank windows and a 4 speaker am/fm radio practically.   Now a Kia Forte or Focus has a heated steering wheel, self parking, radar cruise control, etc, they have equipment you got on year 2000 S-class now on compact cars, just with a plastic dash rather than wood and leather.  All that crap adds weight.

It's all good if it happens....

But I'm still not convinced that it is going to.......

3 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

For an extreme size vs weight example, I wonder how much the lightest 60s full size 4dr sedan weighed..like a 6cyl Biscayne. Under 4000lbs maybe? 

The shipping weight on my '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, with a cast iron 389 V8 & a full perimeter frame, was 3770. That car was 80-in wide and 213" overall, with less than 15 lbs of plastics. The 'lightest' were likely the early '60s MoPars; a '63 Plymouth Savoy (Unibody, OL length: 205") with a Slant Six came in at 2980. A '62 Biscayne 6 2-dr came in at 3405. All the lower priced '60s cars came in WELL under 4000.

The commonly available numbers from then are 'shipping weights'. I can tell you my B-59 gains exactly 120 lbs going to curb weight (4274 / 4394), so I figure 100 for lighter/cheaper models.  So a early '60s Ply-Dodge is likely 3100 curb weight.

For a nearly all plastic/aluminum Camaro to be 4300 is rather amazing.

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

...my big old body-on-frame boat of an '81 Toronado with a 307 cubic inch iron block under the aircraft carrier sized steel hood.

Whoa. Back the Hyperbole Express up; you missed the platform.
E-bodies of that generation aren't even full-size cars. ?

Weight Bloat, thanks to all the Gov Required Nanny devices and safety improvements such as the side door I beam requirements and the roll over crush minimization requirements. etc. etc. etc.

10 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I never said it was overweight, but Cubical said the 300 has to be at least 4,000 lbs as if weight was good, and if they put it on a lighter platform it would be bad.  That is like saying a CT6 must add weight to be more "American."   People want to praise the Cadillac chassis for cutting weight with aluminum and structural adhesive and mixed materials, then crap on the  Giorgio platform which is the same thing.

And the next-gen Jeep Grand Cherokee will be built on the Giorgio platform, and I bet it is lighter, faster, more fuel efficient, better braking and better handling than what they have now.  The GLE and Grand Cherokee are obese because they still have too much of that  2006-2010 era chassis in them.  And all the Mopar fans will say how great it is, not that the platform is from an Alfa Romeo Guilia.  

No, shrinking the Charger down to Guilia size car would be the mistake. If they expanded the Alfas to be the size of their American counterparts... They'll be the weight of them as well. 

It would be really interesting to see a weight breakdown of a given car: how much is glass, plastic, steel, aluminum, etc.

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

shrinking the Charger down to Guilia size car would be the mistake.

Is it really that much smaller of a car? I didn't realize how small the Guilia was. 

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Is it really that much smaller of a car? I didn't realize how small the Guilia was. 

It's a compact..similar size to the 3-series, C-class, ATS, etc...

11 hours ago, smk4565 said:

The Australian police car market has to be in the 100s of cars per year, and the 300 was sold in Europe.  It isn't now.

Dodge/Chrysler failed in the 80s, failed under Daimler, failed under Cerberus, and so why would Sergio be expected to make them prosperous?  I don't think Sergio is a great CEO but his job as CEO is to satisfy the shareholders, not to save Chrysler.  As long as he makes the Agnelli family money he is doing his job, and the way to make them the most money is probably to split up FCA into pieces to sell off. 

Sergio sacrificed Chrysler and Dodge in order to necromance Alfa and Maserati and try to keep Fiat (brand) alive.

Fiat took over Chrysler Group in late 2009.  At that point, Alfa had only 4 mainstream models and only one of those survived beyond 2011 (the MiTo... an Alfa-Romeo branded Fiat 500 competitor). By 2014, when the first of Sergio's 5-year plans was out, Alfa had only the MiTo and Giulietta (a Mazda 3 look-alike with Alfa styling).  What was IT.  A micro-car and a compact, neither of which were any more premium than their Fiat counterparts.

Maserati had the Quattroporte and Grand Turismio ... and that was it for Maser... They sold 4,489 vehicles in 2009. 

These were two brands that were practically dead. 

Sergio starved Chrysler and Dodge of new and updated product in order to bring his dead Italian brands back and in the process killed the American brands.  He even tried to revive Lancia at the expense of Chrysler. 

This latest 5 year plan highlights how much of a failure Sergio is as a CEO. He is willing to sacrifice entire brands from the US just to prop up his failed Italian brands. 

21 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Is it really that much smaller of a car? I didn't realize how small the Guilia was. 

Yes, the Charger and 300 are both full size cars. It's like XTS (300) verse ATS (Guilia)

In SUVs, the Stelvio the size of the Compass.  They're not going to make a Grand Cherokee out of that.

Okay, yeah that's quite a big difference in size then. Thanks! 

It sucks the Guilia platform can't be stretched like Alpha can over at GM for ATS to CTS. CTS seems like a pretty large car that would be great size-wise for a Charger. 

5 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Okay, yeah that's quite a big difference in size then. Thanks! 

It sucks the Guilia platform can't be stretched like Alpha can over at GM for ATS to CTS. CTS seems like a pretty large car that would be great size-wise for a Charger. 

I didn't say it couldn't be stretched, but CTS would likely be the upper limit.  Charger/300 are larger than that.  The 300 is 3 inches longer and 3 inches wider.  Moving to a CTS sized car would be a big move down for 300.  If Dodge or Chrysler did get a car on the Giorgio platform (and they should) it should be more of a mid-sizer below the Charger/300.

If I were Sergio.  I would use make take the Charger / Challenger / 300 / and Ghibli and put them on a new platform above Giorgio. Alfa could get in on that one as well.  That way everyone gets a piece of the action and there is very little overlap. You have family car (charger), Pony car (challenger), American soft luxury (300), European luxury (Ghibli), and European Sport (Alfa-whatever).

In spite of FCA's protests to the contrary, I still insist that the Ghibli is a heavily re-worked LX car. There are far too many hardpoints on the two cars that are identical, too much shared hardware, that they are not at least partially related. 

41 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

 

In SUVs, the Stelvio the size of the Compass.  They're not going to make a Grand Cherokee out of that.

Maybe the GC will get a variant of the Levante platform?   Which is also used for the Ghibli and Quattroporte...

5 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Maybe the GC will get a variant of the Levante platform?   Which is also used for the Ghibli and Quattroporte...

That would possibly make sense, but then that would mean Sergio wouldn't do it. 

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That would possibly make sense, but then that would mean Sergio wouldn't do it. 

Yes...when the Levante came out, I wondered if it would be a platform for a future Jeep..it's the right size, but more of a soft-roader. 

57 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I didn't say it couldn't be stretched, but CTS would likely be the upper limit.

I know you didn't but I think that was in the press release that it was too small for a Charger/300 sized vehicle. 

4 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

No, shrinking the Charger down to Guilia size car would be the mistake. If they expanded the Alfas to be the size of their American counterparts... They'll be the weight of them as well. 

What if they used the Ghibli/Quattroporte platform?  The Quattroporte is the biggest Sedan FCA makes and I don’t know if it is going to the Giorgio platform or not but if it does then Giorgio can underpin anything.  

I think no move to a new platform mean Charger and 300 are on death row.

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

What if they used the Ghibli/Quattroporte platform?  The Quattroporte is the biggest Sedan FCA makes and I don’t know if it is going to the Giorgio platform or not but if it does then Giorgio can underpin anything.  

I think no move to a new platform mean Charger and 300 are on death row.

That's what I think they should do.  Big car platform and smaller car platform.  Just like most other manufacturers do.

I think Charger not going to Giorgio means that Giorgio can't be expanded to Charger/Challenger/300 sized cars.  But that ALSO means it can't be expanded to Ghibli, which is 2 inches shorter than 300 and 2 inches longer than Challenger, nor can it be expanded to Quattroporte. 

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That's what I think they should do.  Big car platform and smaller car platform.  Just like most other manufacturers do.

I think Charger not going to Giorgio means that Giorgio can't be expanded to Charger/Challenger/300 sized cars.  But that ALSO means it can't be expanded to Ghibli, which is 2 inches shorter than 300 and 2 inches longer than Challenger, nor can it be expanded to Quattroporte. 

FCA probably has some BS cost excuse that the GLQ platform is too expensive for Dodge and Chrysler...

1 hour ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Maybe the GC will get a variant of the Levante platform?   Which is also used for the Ghibli and Quattroporte...

Sergio has already said that the 2 and 3 row Grand Cherokee will be built on the Alfa Romeo Stelvio platform.  That is a done deal.  If they can put a 3 row Grand Cherokee on it, I don’t see why they couldn’t put a Charger on it, unless they plan to kill the Charger and don’t want to spend the money.

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

Sergio has already said that the 2 and 3 row Grand Cherokee will be built on the Alfa Romeo Stelvio platform.  That is a done deal.  If they can put a 3 row Grand Cherokee on it, I don’t see why they couldn’t put a Charger on it, unless they plan to kill the Charger and don’t want to spend the money.

Stelvio is Cherokee sized, too small for GC...can't really believe much of what Sergio says.

5 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That's what I think they should do.  Big car platform and smaller car platform.  Just like most other manufacturers do.

I think Charger not going to Giorgio means that Giorgio can't be expanded to Charger/Challenger/300 sized cars.  But that ALSO means it can't be expanded to Ghibli, which is 2 inches shorter than 300 and 2 inches longer than Challenger, nor can it be expanded to Quattroporte. 

I wonder about that because Mercedes uses the same architecture for the 184 inch long C-class as they do for the 212 inch long Maybach S-class.  Yes it is scalable platform and they change things, But how did they do it, and FCA can’t figure it out? 

I think Sergio’s end goal he is build Alfa/Maserati into a semi full line luxury brand and sell it for $9 billion to the Chinese.  That puts money in the Agnelli coffers and it gives him a big bonus check for retirement.  

4 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I wonder about that because Mercedes uses the same architecture for the 184 inch long C-class as they do for the 212 inch long Maybach S-class.  Yes it is scalable platform and they change things, But how did they do it, and FCA can’t figure it out? 

 

FCA doesn't have M-B's development budget...and though they are Italian, platforms aren't pasta..

2 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I wonder about that because Mercedes uses the same architecture for the 184 inch long C-class as they do for the 212 inch long Maybach S-class.  Yes it is scalable platform and they change things, But how did they do it, and FCA can’t figure it out? 

I think Sergio’s end goal he is build Alfa/Maserati into a semi full line luxury brand and sell it for $9 billion to the Chinese.  That puts money in the Agnelli coffers and it gives him a big bonus check for retirement.  

You're getting your terms mixed up, (not entirely your fault, the automotive media is mostly to blame).  Architecture and platform are two different things.  Two very different vehicles can share architecture but be on different platforms.  Architecture is where the dirty bits are built in a way that they fit everything that shares the architecture.   Think power window motors, HVAC controls (which are all computerized now), dashboards, even power steering pumps, or suspension components.

Platform is the skeleton that underpins the car. You can switch out sections of the skeleton to make different parts of the car larger or smaller, but you can't do that too much without running into either poor crash test ratings on the large size cars or heavy weight on the lower sized cars. 

Some examples of shared architecture but different platforms would be the Equinox, Malibu, and Traverse.  

4 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

You're getting your terms mixed up, (not entirely your fault, the automotive media is mostly to blame).  Architecture and platform are two different things.  Two very different vehicles can share architecture but be on different platforms.  Architecture is where the dirty bits are built in a way that they fit everything that shares the architecture.   Think power window motors, HVAC controls (which are all computerized now), dashboards, even power steering pumps, or suspension components.

Platform is the skeleton that underpins the car. You can switch out sections of the skeleton to make different parts of the car larger or smaller, but you can't do that too much without running into either poor crash test ratings on the large size cars or heavy weight on the lower sized cars. 

Some examples of shared architecture but different platforms would be the Equinox, Malibu, and Traverse.  

Right...I think of platform as the firewall, floorpan and 'subframe'-like structures that is part of a unibody where the front and rear suspension mounts, where the engine and transmission or transaxle mount..the hard points.   The floorpan can be lengthened, some parts can be widened.   

6 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Right...I think of platform as the firewall, floorpan and 'subframe'-like structures that is part of a unibody where the front and rear suspension mounts, where the engine and transmission or transaxle mount..the hard points.   The floorpan can be lengthened, some parts can be widened.   

The most flexible platform I can think of is VW's MQB.  It can go as small as Audi TT all the way up to VW Atlas (or Passat if you're looking just at length).

Now, the current C-Class is on a new highly modular platform that Mercedes is calling MRA, but the S-Class isn't on that yet.    I would have thought the E-Class which was recently re-done would have been on MRA, but I cannot find any evidence of that.  One would think if it were on a new wunder-platform, they'd advertise it.  So far, the only car on MRA is the C-Class.

5 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Stelvio is Cherokee sized, too small for GC...can't really believe much of what Sergio says.

Well that is the platform according to Motor Aurhority...

"At the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles investor conference in Italy last Friday, Motor Authority asked company CEO Sergio Marchionne for clarification on what will underpin the next Grand Cherokee, and he confirmed it will be the platform used for the Alfa Romeo Stelvio SUV, as well as the Giulia sedan.

"It started originally off the Alfa architecture, which has now been modified and extended to reach both a two-row and a three-row Grand Cherokee," Marchionne said, noting that the platform has been adapted to reflect the requirements of Jeep."

So not only will it replace the current GC, but a 3 row version which you figure has to be at least 6-8 inches longer than the current vehicle.

9 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Well that is the platform according to Motor Aurhority...

"At the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles investor conference in Italy last Friday, Motor Authority asked company CEO Sergio Marchionne for clarification on what will underpin the next Grand Cherokee, and he confirmed it will be the platform used for the Alfa Romeo Stelvio SUV, as well as the Giulia sedan.

"It started originally off the Alfa architecture, which has now been modified and extended to reach both a two-row and a three-row Grand Cherokee," Marchionne said, noting that the platform has been adapted to reflect the requirements of Jeep."

So not only will it replace the current GC, but a 3 row version which you figure has to be at least 6-8 inches longer than the current vehicle.

I have to doubt this as much of what Idiot Sergio has stated in the pass has not happened and you cannot take a platform designed from the beginning for small to medium auto's and just magically make it fit full size or bigger. You can only stretch engineering so far before you break something due to it not originally being designed that way.