Analysis: Three Different Approaches To Maximize Scale

Derek Kreindler
by Derek Kreindler

We’ve discussed the importance of scale countless times on this website. La Tribune takes a brief look at Ford, Volkswagen and PSA and the different ways they are working to achieve economies of scale in one of the toughest markets in the auto industry; the C-Segment.

As you’re all well aware by now, Volkswagen’s MQB platform represents the most radical approach to a modular platform. The distance from the front axle to the pedal box remains the sole fixed dimension. Everything else is modular, capable of being snapped into place like Lego. MQB will underpin everything from the Polo to the Passat (B-D segment) and will be built in North and South America, Europe and even China. Annual volumes are expected to be 3.5 million units by 2018, roughly 35 percent of VW Group’s entire global sales.

Slightly more conservative is the path taken by PSA. Not long ago, we published a side-by-side analysis of MQB and PSA’s new EMP2 modular platform. EMP2 is a bit less ambitious, covering only C and D segment cars, MPVs, light commercial vehicles and crossovers. These segments represent a significant portion of PSA’s sales, but the lack of B segment capability is a question mark, especially given the popularity of this segment in global markets, and Peugeot’s own 208. Instead, PSA will leave B-segment development up to Opel, as part of the GM-PSA alliance. While VW touts MQB as a holistic approach to manufacturing, parts procurement and component sharing, PSA’s message with EMP2 has been focused around weight reduction, cutting CO2 emissions and providing flexibility in terms of vehicle size and packaging. Given PSA’s status as Europe’s leader in low emissions vehicles ( an average of 112.5 grams/km, 0.1 gram better than Toyota), this is somewhat understandable. Unlike MQB, only the rear sections of the car are interchangeable. Vehicles can be had with a short or long wheelbase, a low or high driving position and a solid rear axle or independent suspension (useful for marketing low-cost variants in emerging markets). Volumes are much more modest; 1.8 million units EMP2 based cars are expected to be sold by 2018.

And what about Ford? Despite the Global C platform being confined to one segment, and thus not exactly modular, Ford has apparently acheived volumes of 2 million C-segment cars annually. The global C platform, which underpins cars like the C-Max, Focus and Escape/Kuga and will likely add a couple Lincoln variants as well. They key difference between Ford, VW and PSA is that Ford is the sole automaker to sell their car globally, as part of the “One Ford” strategy. Rather than adapting models, or even the output of whole brands to regional needs as VW does, or simply not compete in some large markets like PSA, Ford’s entire product line has significant global exposure in a way that the aggregate model ranges of VW and PSA don’t. Ford hasn’t hinted about moving towards a more modular framework in the future. Even in the face of declining sales in Europe and declining market share in North America, Global C’s volumes are impressive enough on their own.

Derek Kreindler
Derek Kreindler

More by Derek Kreindler

Comments
Join the conversation
6 of 24 comments
  • Mike978 Mike978 on Feb 22, 2013

    Mazda are doing something similar aren`t they with the new 3, 6 and CX5 all riding on the same platform. Since these three vehicles are their core products (from a volume perspective) they are achieving economies of scale. Albeit on a smaller scale because they are a much smaller company. It also sounds like Mazda are "outsourcing" non core platforms - the new MX5 with FIAT and the new Mazda 2 with Toyota (Yaris).

  • Stuntmonkey Stuntmonkey on Feb 22, 2013

    Sharing components across different platforms: spatial economy of scale Sharing components across different model years: temporal economy of scale. As TTAC has pointed out in the past, the Japanese are good at reusing parts through successive generations, while (mostly) successfully conveying the idea that each new generation is a totally new car (2012 Civic being the big exception) My bet is that if you compare the spare parts department at any automotive supply house, the bins for the Japanese cars are going to be less varied than the ones for the domestics. I think for the most part, platform sharing is like "SkyActiv", it's a term that's applied to the engineering of the car that has been happening all along. We didn't just discover platform sharing, but slap a marketing term onto it and you have a topic of conversation.

    • See 3 previous
    • Krhodes1 Krhodes1 on Feb 23, 2013

      The Germans have been the true masters of this. There are parts on my 2011 BMW that I am pretty sure are the same as on my '86. There were parts on my '90 VW that were the same as on late '60s Beetles. The Europeans even do it across makes - the big OEMs sell the same bits to everyone in the industry. Bosch, Hella, Valeo, etc. I doubt you will find many parts that are the same on a Nissan and a Toyota, but you can find plenty that are the same on a Volvo, Saab, BMW, VW, and Mercedes. Of course, part of it is they all HAD to do it, they were too small individually.

  • Corey Lewis Think how dated this 80s design was by 1995!
  • Tassos Jong-iL Communist America Rises!
  • Merc190 A CB7 Accord with the 5 cylinder
  • MRF 95 T-Bird Daihatsu Copen- A fun Kei sized roadster. Equipped with a 660cc three, a five speed manual and a retractable roof it’s all you need. Subaru Levorg wagon-because not everyone needs a lifted Outback.
  • Merc190 I test drive one of these back in the day with an automatic, just to drive an Alfa, with a Busso no less. Didn't care for the dash design, would be a fun adventure to find some scrapped Lancia Themas or Saab 900's and do some swapping to make car even sweeter. But definitely lose the ground effects.
Next