Bernstein: VW Won't Realize Big Savings From MQB

Derek Kreindler
by Derek Kreindler

Bernstein Research analyst Max Warburton thinks that the cost savings being anticipated by investors regarding VW’s MQB modular architecture will not materialize as planned.

MQB has been touted as a way to cut production costs by 20 percent via standardizing vehicle “hard points” like the pedal box and engine placement, while allowing for significant flexibility in other dimmensions. But Warburton remains a skeptic, telling the Detroit News

“We have long argued that the savings from MQB have been over-hyped and were inevitably set to disappoint. There is absolutely no way a new platform can save 20 per cent of the cost of a vehicle at VW’s level of scale,”

That assessment runs counter to estimates from banks like Morgan Stanley, which forecasts a savings of as much as $4,000 per car and as much as $10 billion in gross savings by 2016, once MQB has been implemented over 4 million cars. But the often touted benefits of scale don’t hold up for Warburton, who believes that returns are less significant beyond 1 million units.

From a product perspective, Warburton also believes that MQB’s extreme flexibility – from A to D segment cars – could be more of a hinderance than a help

“Either VW can engineer a Polo with Passat-level weight, rigidity and specifications, or a Passat with Polo-grade components. Most industry experts think VW will end up with a much too expensive small car platform…there are many reasons why VW may be able to resume profit growth in future years. It has great brands (Porsche now as well as others like Audi, Bentley and Lamborghini), products and technology, a unique position in China and one day the European car market will recover. But its margins are not going to expand magically just because it has a new platform,”

While TTAC has long been bullish on MQB and modular platforms in general, Warburton is a credible authority on the auto industry, and his concerns are not to be dismissed. Savings of 20 percent are indeed unprecedented for the auto industry, but with margins so thin and volume so critical, there is no doubt that MQB will be a significant technological advantage for VW. Nevertheless, TTAC has always been concerned about the possibility of cascading failures of standardized components that could lead to unprecedentedly large recalls. Only time will tell how these scenarios will play out.

Derek Kreindler
Derek Kreindler

More by Derek Kreindler

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 28 comments
  • Adb12 Adb12 on Apr 12, 2013

    The analyst fails to mention Audi's MLB toolbox, which has been around since 2008 and has helped get margins to the 11-12% range. Now, MLB isn't quite as far reaching as MQB, but it seems to hve worked for Audi, right?

    • See 1 previous
    • Athos Nobile Athos Nobile on Apr 12, 2013

      @tresmonos Mi pana, MLB = longitudinal engine MQB = transverse engine Other than that, I don't know much.

  • Mic Mic on Apr 12, 2013

    so if they're saving so much moola let's see a dramatic sticker price reduction! I want to love vw, their cars are great to drive.....when they're operational that is!

  • Buickman I like it!
  • JMII Hyundai Santa Cruz, which doesn't do "truck" things as well as the Maverick does.How so? I see this repeated often with no reference to exactly what it does better.As a Santa Cruz owner the only things the Mav does better is price on lower trims and fuel economy with the hybrid. The Mav's bed is a bit bigger but only when the SC has the roll-top bed cover, without this they are the same size. The Mav has an off road package and a towing package the SC lacks but these are just some parts differences. And even with the tow package the Hyundai is rated to tow 1,000lbs more then the Ford. The SC now has XRT trim that beefs up the looks if your into the off-roader vibe. As both vehicles are soft-roaders neither are rock crawling just because of some extra bits Ford tacked on.I'm still loving my SC (at 9k in mileage). I don't see any advantages to the Ford when you are looking at the medium to top end trims of both vehicles. If you want to save money and gas then the Ford becomes the right choice. You will get a cheaper interior but many are fine with this, especially if don't like the all touch controls on the SC. However this has been changed in the '25 models in which buttons and knobs have returned.
  • Analoggrotto I'd feel proper silly staring at an LCD pretending to be real gauges.
  • Gray gm should hang their wimpy logo on a strip mall next to Saul Goodman's office.
  • 1995 SC No
Next