Thus the Lambda trio is platform sharing while the Chevrolet and GMC trucks are badge engineered.

Fusion/Milan/MKZ … badge.

Fusion/Mazda6 …. platform.

Jag S-type/Lincoln LS …. platform.

Mazda Tribute/Ford Escape …. badge.

It’s really quite simple.

“By that logic, what was wrong with the Cadillac Cimarron?”

Easy, the Cimarron was a crap car which didn’t live up to the Cadillac brand. GM didn’t invest the development and manufacturing effort into it that would have been required to make a first class Cadillac small car. It didn’t help that the starting point Chevy was a piece of crap as well, but the problem with the Cimarron wasn’t it’s parentage as much as it was the final product.

The modern Mini is a great small car. It wouldn’t matter if BMW had started with a go-kart, the issue is the goodness of the result. The Cimarron is derided because it didn’t come close to living up to it’s promise of being the “Cadillac of small cars”.

I like that … But it’s not the same thing. As far as I know, nobody buys a car at gun point. They have the time to research and drive the car before buying it. If one is stupid it deserves the treatment and the product it ends up with.

The natural selection on one hand and the free market on the other takes care of both the customer and the manufacturer.

One more thing. I don’t think anybody would complain about a badge engineered product that is great. In the very end the quality of the product will tell the story no matter if it’s badge engineered, platform shared or flat out a totally new product.

If you can sell both without one cannibalizing the other you can reasonbly call it platform sharing. e.g. Toyota/Lexus, VW/Audi

Sales will then tell you very quickly if it was badge engineering or platform sharing.

Car buyers may not have the “knowledge and wisdom” of the TTAC crowd but they are not stupid sheep – whatever Bob Lutz may think!

Platform sharing is quite different. Platform shares is when a company makes use of an existing BASE platform or chassis and designs a totally different vehicle.
The best and most successful use of platform sharing has been done by Nissan. Nissan’s FM Platform has been a homerun success for them.
So far we have seen a total of 6 very successful products come from this one platform; 350z, G Coupe, G sedan, M sedan, FX CUV, and EX CUV. Outside of folks that are really knowledgeable about automobiles people do NOT know that all of these vehicles orginate off of the same platform.
Outside of the 350z being somewhat heavy none of these vehicles have any serious drawbacks from sharing a platform.

The Camry/ ES350 and Accord/ TL are also excellent jobs, with the Honda platform share being a little better. The only real similarity between the Camry and ES is that they are very similar dimensionally. Honda has been more successful in hiding that trait. Outside of some minor details like door handles and outside mirror these cars share ZERO exterior or interior panels, doors, lights, grill, or trim. Only the platform and engine are common.

A not so successful platform share is the Corvette XLR. If you look at the XLR for more than a few minutes it is clear where the design is compromised by the use of a true sportcar chassis to build a luxury Caddy convertible. It is clear that the Caddy designers had a hard time fitting the Cadillac “Art & Science” styling ques onto a chassis that was clearly designed for something else, far to low, with a front end that is dragging on the ground. That is way the XLR, depending on the viewing angle looks like a giant either sat on it (from the front) or it looks like the box the Corvette came in (from the back).

Now there is more to this story, with very expensive premium vehicles even platform sharing is a bad thing. It seem that even if people are unaware of the real origin of a high-end car, if it is NOT pure they figure it out in short order. IMO this why I see those Bentley Continential things on the local “ghetto fabulous” used car lots around NYC.

Let me hypothesize that Badge Engineering is accomplished by the Marketing Department

while Platform Engineering is done in the Design and Engineering department. In my mind that seems to explain everything being discussed here..

While Alfred Sloan certainly can be considered the father of successful brand differentiation in the automobile industry, during his time each of the auto brands had their own separate division to include engineers and marketing department. Mostly what was shared during his tenure were body panels and frames. Each division had their own engines, transmissions and assembly lines. It wasn’t until the 1970 when engines started being shared among the brands and then it wasn’t long before the divisions were eliminated.

One more point, remember the Rolls Royce and Bentleys that were the same with the exception of their radiator shell. They even advertised the cars as being the same with the radiator shell difference. I think you could save $300 by purchasing the Bentley versus the Rolls Royce.
I suppose that is the ultimate in reverse snobbery, to have great wealth and then purchase the Bentley model versus the Rolls Royce model just to be different.

You nailed it.

The 1982 Chevrolet Cavalier was a pile of… shaving cream, be nice and clean, shave every day and you’ll always look keen….

Open sells the same vans too. Opel Vivaro/Movano anyone?

And now, ALL of the Daewoos cars are sold as Chevrolets in Europe. Imagine the Daewoo Matiz sharing floor-room space with the Corvette and Tahoe.

Well, that actually isn’t a problem, because the Corvette isn’t a Chevrolet anymore in Europe. It’s a “Corvette Corvette”. It isn’t sold at Chevrolet (ex-Daewoo) dealers, but at Cadillac dealers, operated by Kroymans.
Not that I’ve ever seen a Cadillac dealer in Europe. Or… a Cadillac.

@Pch101
It’s a bit like claiming that fried chicken, coq au vin, chicken cassarole and chicken pot pie are all the same dish because they all start with the same base.

Brilliant.

Now, whether that is bad or not is up to the market. The border seems to be when taking a car upmarket the Camry/ES Fusion/MKZ, Golf/A3, etc. However, this is acceptible if the market will allow it. What is stupid is badge engineering to the same market (Fusion/Milan,cobalt/G5) and it seems to be pointless anyway.

Two points, Brownie.

i.e. Opel/Vauxhall/Holden

Is this even badge engineering? or just rebranding a car for a different market?

No, there is a difference. It’s a bit like claiming that fried chicken, coq au vin, chicken cassarole and chicken pot pie are all the same dish because they all start with the same base.

Parts sharing makes sense. There is no reason to have unique parts for every car, when a lot of stuff is interchangeable.

We’re back to Brownie’s mom (we’ve added her to the payroll.) If the vehicles look and feel different, the products are effectively different from the customer’s standpoint, and the different badging provides benefit to the customer because it alerts them to the difference.

Badge engineering insults the customer’s intelligence. It tries to fool them into buying something that they otherwise wouldn’t have wanted, or to pay more for something that they would have paid less for otherwise. It’s insulting to the customer, and really tells you a lot about what the company thinks about its customers.

Argentla: You should try to look up Alfred P Sloan the next time you happen to stumble across an encyklopedia.

Yeah, but don’t try to pretend that you sell four DIFFERENT cars, when it’s the same car in different trims, at different dealers. People don’t like to be taken for fools. And what’s the difference Between a Buick Enclave and a Chevrolet Traverse? Compare that difference to the differenve between an Audi TT and a Volkswagen Touran. Same Car? Not likely.

The difference between badge engineering and platform-sharing lays in how much money you are willing to risk to differentiate cars sharing the same parts. Volkswagens parts-bin is shared gladly between makes as disparate as Skoda and Bentley. Who gives a crap about all the little tid-bits you never see? Electronics, suspensions, interior plastics, knobs and levers? As long as it doesn’t look the same, no one will tell the difference. Is the Bentley Continental a lesser car because it shares many parts with the Volkswagen Phaeton, costing half as much? In my mind, yes. To many people gladly willing of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars, obviously not. Is the Audi TT a lesser car because is shares a third of its parts and all the body hard points with Skoda and Seat? Not in my mind. In my mind, it is only really smart sharing as much as possible while making cars in roughly the same size, but designing them for different people, different purposes, different tastes, and different purses. You can’t substite an Audi TT for a people hauler like the Volkswagen Touran. But you can substite an Enclave for the Traverse. Obviously, as they are nearly identical.

Platform-sharing: Different cars – Same parts

Badge-engineering: Same cars – different badges

I usually think of badge engineering as separate models that are identical in sheet metal as well as body structure, differing mostly in trim. How identical is identical comes down to the Brownie’s Mom test; it’s amazing to me how many people don’t see the similarity between, say, a Lexus ES and a Camry.

Was that badge-engineering? =)

What about the PT/neon relationship?

Sebring and Avenger haven’t been discussed yet. What’s consensus on that one?

Who the heck cares? They sell you a car.. you like it you buy it, you don’t like go try a different one.
Why does everything has to fit your preconception?
If it’s not republican it’s got to be democrat, if it’s not platform sharing it’s the other one…