Because.

 

well obviously, it is the auto manufacturers main job/goal to shaft the customer. Thats why we don't get the new Focus, thats why we don't get a myriad of other B segments from all over the world here in the US.

 

Because.

Wow, there is just so much in this simple word, which would take ages to decipher. All in all, I concur with such answer. :lol:

 

hehe, if they did that, it would make sense, ford has a long heritage it has to follow.

 

Because even cheaper than doing that, is doing nothing. Just keep the platforms you already developed and just do minor modifications that don’t require retooling your plants.

The “super platform” would probably make sense in the long run, but it would be VERY expensive to develop that one platform and most makers companies think in terms of per quarter costs, let alone multi-year plans. It looks better quarter to quarter to just develop dumber platforms that can only be used for one size of car.

 

It could probably be done, but it would most likely be an engineering nightmare, to maintain the integrity of the platform. I'm not an engineer, so I couldn't say that for a fact, but it seems like the bracing would have to be totally re-engineered if you wanted to keep the same length, but widen it. Or vice versa...

Its also hard saying whether its cheaper to develop new suspension/driveline components for each individual iteration of the platform, or just design a new platform with current components in mind.

 

Dodge tried a superplatform (a.k.a. Every car from the 80's). I guess it did ok for them.

 

What you want is not a superplatform but a set of common components, construction techniques, and design methodology. You don't want to but the D car on the same platform as the B car, but rather develop the D and B car to share as much basic technology as possible so you can quickly design one based on the other.

 

Dodge tried a superplatform (a.k.a. Every car from the 80's). I guess it did ok for them.

Not really...they just got back into the RWD game with the LX cars a couple years ago. Not to mention that Chrysler nearly went under again before the LH cars came up in the mid-1990's

The problem with developing a "superplatform" is that it would be the jack of all trades, and the master of none, which wouldn't be a good thing. Not to mention the costs and engineering headaches it would case.

The closest you could come to a super platform would be 5 different platforms in the shape of:

• 
  B/C segment car (B-sized car/Focus)
  FWD C/D segment car (Fusion on the low end and 500 on the top end)
  RWD Platform (Mustang/mid-sized Sedan/Large Sedan?)
  BOF Truck/SUV Platform (I bet you could fit anything from a Mid-sized truck (AKA F-100) up to a Expedition XL on the same frame, much like Ford is trying to do with the T1 Platform currently (new Explorer shares it frame with the current F-150)
  Heavy Duty BOF platform (F-250 and Up trucks)

 

Why cannot Ford develop a Superplatform. A platform able to stretch from B-segment to full D-segment; capable of idependeng growth length and width wise; Capable of all 5 driveline setups (FWD, F-AWD, RWD, R-AWD, true AWD); and maybe even capable of being flipped around to support a midengine sports car?

Can anyone else do that? Why would you really want to?

 

igor, you make me mad sometimes.

 

Because.

Being that's it's FORD, I think I agree with his answer. Not saying that whatever igor2 is saying is a good or bad idea. I'm not really sure. Just saying that when it comes to FORD, you just wonder why they don't do certain things which in the end leaves me agreeing with the answer, "because"

As for you igor2......reading all of your previous post from the past......have you ever thought about being a company analyst for your career? :lol:

 

^^^I did, but I get aggrevated in corpo-world.. so instead I work for nonprofits..

thanks or the replies.

Igor