Dodge News: Next Dodge Challenger and Charger To Solider On With Current Platform

[G. David Felt]

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.

[smk4565]

5 hours 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, but the C-class, GLC, E-class/CLS all ride on the MRA platform, all 4 of them lost weight compared to their previous version.  So they managed to make all sorts of vehicles from one architecture or platform or whatever you want to call it, it is the same foundation.  FCA should be able to do the same thing.

I thought the S-class was on MRA because of the added aluminum and reduced weight, it has the same construction theme of MRA, but I just read the S-class is not on MRA, it is on an updated version of the W221 S-class chassis.  The next S-class will be on MRA though, so FCA could make a Quattroporte size car on the Guilia platform I think if they wanted to.  The GLE and GLS will ride on the new MHA platform, and electric cars will get their own platform.

4 minutes ago, dfelt said:

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.

I don't know, the VW Atlas full size SUV is on a Golf platform.

But here is a nice picture of Sergio in his sweater thinking up new Alfa products.

[balthazar]

Back in 2014, mercedes claimed an unspecified but "dramatic" weight loss for the upcoming MRA platform.
In June of 2015, the E-class was supposed to lose about 330 lbs. By October that estimate was reduced to 220 lbs.

But Google is stating that a 2015 e-class starts at 3825 lbs and the 2018 e-class starts at 3792 lbs.

Looks like "German engineering" took a "dramatic weight reduction" and dialed it back to a 33 lb savings.

[G. David Felt]

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I don't know, the VW Atlas full size SUV is on a Golf platform.

Atlas is 6 inches shorter than the Tahoe, 4inches lower in height, 2 inches narrower. Only available with a V6 that is 80hp less, 120lbs ft of torque less, interior dimensions are way smaller and gets the same gas mileage as Chevy V8. Not sure I would consider it a Full size as much as a tweener and I think it is struggling to be a true full size on the golf platform. Yet with that said, VW made their module platform to be stretchable as they wanted to use it for compact to full size in the US market.

https://www.edmunds.com/car-comparisons/?veh1=401732710&veh2=401709867 

Sergio the Idiot did not do that with the Alfa platform. It will never be a full size car or SUV platform without some major re-engineering.

[smk4565]

2 hours ago, balthazar said:

Back in 2014, mercedes claimed an unspecified but "dramatic" weight loss for the upcoming MRA platform.
In June of 2015, the E-class was supposed to lose about 330 lbs. By October that estimate was reduced to 220 lbs.

But Google is stating that a 2015 e-class starts at 3825 lbs and the 2018 e-class starts at 3792 lbs.

Looks like "German engineering" took a "dramatic weight reduction" and dialed it back to a 33 lb savings.

But the E-class got larger and probably more equipment put on, so even if you take 220 lbs out of the chassis, you add it back on.  And I don't think they should have increased size any, the E-class is 2-3 inches longer than it needs to be.

[Drew Dowdell]

FCA has been doing this kind of platform re-arranging, but they are less flexible platforms.  Some of that comes from the history of the company. I think it was 2016, but Jeep for one year had vehicles on platforms from at least 4 different companies (Patriot/Compass = Mitsubishi co-developed with DCA, Renegade and Cherokee = Fiat, Grand Cherokee = DCA developed with MB, Wrangler = origins from AMC and original Chrysler).  That's a lot of legacy to just wipe away and start fresh.... especially when some of those are selling really really well. 

The 200's failure was one of positioning.  It NEVER should have been an entry level mid-size. It should have been lined up right alongside the Regal in pricing and sold as such.  Drop all the base model small screens, cloth seats, and lame base engine. That would have given Dart some breathing room as well.  Chrysler should have been emulating Buick and Lexus for most models (except the LS/LX).  The Pacifica should have been built with a crossover variant right from the start.  Call it Aspen and match the pricing to the Enclave.  Cherokee needed to be made into a Chrysler as well.  Make it a lux version instead of an off-roader. Call it Voyager and price it up against Envision. Dodge could get the "nascar" version of a Cherokee to replace the Journey. New Compass could also go to Dodge as a "nascar" version. Call it a Nitro. Go ahead and try to tell me that my ideas wouldn't instantly double or triple Dodge and Chrysler sales.....

So I've just filled out Dodge and Chrysler's crossover lineup using off the shelf FCA parts and it would likely have very minimal cost.... particularly compared to the billions they are sinking into trying to breath life back into Alfa Romeo and Maserati... while keeping Fiat on life support. 

Edit: And the entire Chrylser lineup could be sent to Europe or China as well.  If it's a matter of national pride for Italy, badge them as Lancias.

[ccap41]

16 hours ago, dfelt said:

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.

Doesn't VW use the same platform for a very wide range of vehicle sizes? 

[ccap41]

13 hours ago, dfelt said:

Atlas is 6 inches shorter than the Tahoe, 4inches lower in height, 2 inches narrower. Only available with a V6 that is 80hp less, 120lbs ft of torque less, interior dimensions are way smaller and gets the same gas mileage as Chevy V8. Not sure I would consider it a Full size as much as a tweener and I think it is struggling to be a true full size on the golf platform

Regardless of all of that, that still covers the JGC-sized vehicle and down to Golfs. 

[Drew Dowdell]

15 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Doesn't VW use the same platform for a very wide range of vehicle sizes? 

VW's MQB was designed from the start to be modular.  It takes an enormous amount of money to develop a platform with that level of modularity.   However, if a platform isn't designed from the start to be that modular, it is pretty close to impossible to have that level of flexibility. You've gotta have the cash and about a decade worth of time to do the huge initial investment.

VW has 3 platforms - MQB which is for FWD vehicles, MLB which is for front wheel drive vehicles with longitudinally mounted engines, and New Small Platform for the city cars.  R8 is its own beast.

Mercedes is moving to 4 platforms.

GM has blurred the lines between platforms using common architectures.... that's why the new Equinox, Traverse, Lacrosse, XT4, and Regal are all technically different platforms, but they have so much shared that things get really confusing as to what is related to what.  The XT4 is more related to Regal than it is to Equinox for example. 

[ccap41]

7 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

VW's MQB was designed from the start to be modular.  It takes an enormous amount of money to develop a platform with that level of modularity.   However, if a platform isn't designed from the start to be that modular, it is pretty close to impossible to have that level of flexibility. You've gotta have the cash and about a decade worth of time to do the huge initial investment

It seems stupid for every company NOT to be investing like this. Most every new platform should have this level of engineering because it has to pay off being that flexible. 

I guess I just assumed with a new Gorgio platform that it would have been similarly flexible.

9 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The XT4 is more related to Regal than it is to Equinox for example. 

That's interesting to know... 

[Drew Dowdell]

Just now, ccap41 said:

It seems stupid for every company NOT to be investing like this. Most every new platform should have this level of engineering because it has to pay off being that flexible. 

I guess I just assumed with a new Gorgio platform that it would have been similarly flexible.

We're talking many many billions of dollars. MQB and MLB are probably the most expensive platforms out there but they pay off in their wide range of uses.  There are some limitations to doing it this way as well, so it's not all roses. There are certain dimensions on MQB for example that must remain constant. Firewall to front wheel measurements is the same on all MQBs for example and that can limits styling and packaging.

[trinacriabob]

The talk of architecture and platforms is something a person has to digest for a while.  It can get confusing.

But, as for the car itself, I wonder how much the sheet metal will change.  I like the latest rendition of it but know it is in need of a refresh.  I see many on the road.  I've also read that, for being RWD, it handles reasonably well in bad weather.

That's it, basically.  I'm wondering what the next Charger/300 will look like, why the 300* doesn't sell as well as it once did, and just how quickly are consumers tiring of big sedans like this.  That Charger would ever switch over to being just a sedan from having been just a coupe is something that would not have been envisioned several decades ago.

* I noticed that it might get the axe, which saddens me ... I really think the Charger and 300 anchor two fairly different niches and consumer profiles, but I could be wrong.