[The following is another contribution from our anonymous ChryCo contact] I worked for Chrysler for many years in Product Development as a Design Engineer though I no longer do. I saw comments on a recent post by another employee asking why, when Chrysler merged with Daimler, did they still share platforms with Mitsubishi?
There was always such hope in the platform sharing at the start of every project (JS – Sebring (Mitsubishi), PM – Caliber (Mitsubishi), WK – Grand Cherokee / WD – Durango (Daimler). By sharing the same platform we were supposed to achieve economies of scale, reducing the overall initial investment and engineering effort. Ultimately, those savings vanished during the development of the platform.
In truth, inter-company platform sharing—whether with Mistubishi or Daimler—created a power struggle, as the platform’s respective “owners” struggled to adapt their respective vehicle’s suitability to their local market. The inevitable end result: compromised design AND marginal cost savings.
The Caliber / Sebring are too narrow for the U.S. market (Japanese market cars are more narrow), the Caliber’s suspension system has too much drive shaft angle due to Mitsubishi inherited design optimized for their engines (allowing torque steer). I didn’t work on that platform. But I believe that Mitsubishi dropped out of co-development early after the decision was made to share, resulting in less savings. But I know for a fact that the cost savings initially planned were not fully realized.
I did, however, work on the new Grand Cherokee.
This product was co-developed with Mercedes alongside their next generation ML and GL vehicles. From Chrysler’s perspective this platform made a lot of sense. New crash regulations meant the current Jeep platform would have needed substantial upgrades to be viable. The new Mercedes platform also addressed other issues with the current Grand Cherokee platform: small rear door openings, uncomfortable rear seats, limited wheel size, larger engine box for future emissions/crash.
Mercedes wanted to spread their development costs over Chrysler’s volume to lower piece prices. Internally, we knew that Mercedes gained more than Chrysler from this co-development deal. Our costs were higher than if we had clean sheeted it from the beginning.
What initially started off with many common areas (brakes, suspension etc), eventually resulted in a few common parts and only some savings. The future Grand Cherokee has a small glovebox due to the straight crosscar beam Mercedes engineers use to enhance their vehicle’s crash/stiffness. The cross car beam was eventually cast in magnesium by Chrysler vs steel by Mercedes due to divergence of design goals. Steel is good for strength for side crash or anti-vibration stiffness for improved steering column shake, while cast magnesium normally results in great packaging (big glovebox), costs more, and is lighter. Because the airbag had already been packaged and it couldn’t be moved (its location affects crash performance), the glove box size for the Jeep was already compromised by the initial design.
Mercedes’ focus was their uncompromising design objectives. Chrysler’s was usually cost or off road performance. Mercedes would rarely yield to Chrysler desires for cost savings, and the two teams would go their separate ways. Mercedes wanted a saddle design fuel tank (one tank shaped like a saddle with two fuel pumps at the lowest points) for a large fuel capacity, and for packaging for dual exhaust on the six cylinder. Chrysler wanted a single fuel tank for cost savings, but with a smaller capacity and only one pump. Divergence.
Mercedes is willing to package a mini-spare on their vehicle. Chrysler requires a full size spare as optional for SUV’s. Result: divergence in the rear end of the vehicle. A common floorpan stamping suffered a similar fate. The stampings were supposed to be the same part number (i.e. identical). But differences in small holes or studs in the body for mounting things (e.g. electrical components) quickly separated these parts.
The overarching problem: there was never alignment between the philosophies of the teams developing the vehicle. Mirror that on the Daimler acquisition of Chrysler. Technology transfer could only occur from Mercedes to Chrysler. They could donate their high cost platform to Chrysler with impunity but if they jointly developed a program, they risked their lineage. Who wants a Mercedes designed by Chrysler?
Chrysler on the other hand had to significantly redesign / retool a Mercedes platform to lower cost. On the surface the merger made sense but in reality, the two weren’t reconcilable. Ipso facto.
63 Comments on “Editorial: The Truth About DaimlerChrysler Product Development...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
This is an interesting editorial.
The new 2011 Grand Cherokee looks great inside and out, but what’s with the cheap-as-hell interiors during the DCX years?
Did someone from Daimler REALLY sit in these things and give the go-ahead? I could sit in my cooler and be more comfortable than in an Avenger or Caliber.
This global platform sharing concept never works between large companies. Aside from the engineering intricacies detailed in this great (too short) story, it’s just a diversion for incompetent management to keep their job another five years, to avoid addressing the real problem (them), and to delay/deflect blame for its ultimate failure.
Nothing will beat a small, local, core team of experts who know what to do, who are empowered to make decisions, and who are working with local suppliers. Of course, the existence of such a ‘team’ has been shattered all to hell, dispersed, gone, thanks to said, incompetent management.
Mergers rarely work. Those doing the merger and those benefiting financially from the merger never acknowledge the obvious fact: the cultures from the two companies being smashed together never mesh. I have worked at companies that still played the “we and they” game ten years after the merger was done.
Sad, really. In the end a few people get rich and everyone else gets screwed.
***They could donate their high cost platform to Chrysler with impunity but if they jointly developed a program, they risked their lineage. Who wants a Mercedes designed by Chrysler?***
Would the merger have worked if Chrysler just badge-engineered old Merc. platforms across its entire line (ex. the minivans)?
I wouldn’t mind driving a prior-gen. C-class repackaged as a Sebring….as long as the exterior wasn’t Crossfire-ified.
Twenty five or thirty years ago Chrysler built a central technical center that was supposed to bring together for the first time all the vehicle designers. The supposed benefits of this scrolled off the page. The cost of the facility was absolutely staggering.
Anyone know what the place was called and whatever happened to it?
Thanks.
This isn’t just a problem of mergers. This is a systemic Detroit problem. My experience in Detroit showed the exact same issues sharing platforms between two vehicles under the same brand. I believe the problem is a total lack of change management, which stems from an out of control product development process. The targets initially set were not realistic or not clear and there wasn’t a concerted management effort to do the upfront design and proveout needed or to force compromises on both vehicles to maintain commonality.
Twenty five or thirty years ago Chrysler built a central technical center that was supposed to bring together for the first time all the vehicle designers. The supposed benefits of this scrolled off the page. The cost of the facility was absolutely staggering.
Anyone know what the place was called and whatever happened to it?
Thanks.
Would that be CTC in Auburn Hills? (Chrysler Tech Centre)
It did until Dumbler came along.
I don’t think the cost of the facility was all that staggering given what is there. I might be wrong but I never heard anything like that before.
I would like to read more parts of this article.
Also, being a fan of the Neon, I would like him to explain why in the hell they replaced that car with the craptastic Caliber. They could have engineered and improved and keep working on an already established model.
Did the second gen Neon use a Chrysler platform or it was also shared with Mitsubishi?
Why the cab forward design was discarded? The concept wasn’t bad… it’s so good in fact, that Honda ripped it with the current Civic.
Why they choose to make such awful interiors?
And… it would be nice a further explanation on this:
Mercedes’ focus was their uncompromising design objectives.
The only platform sharing that seems to be working pretty well is the Fusion/Mazda6 (CD3 and all it’s derivatives).
The Malibu/Saab 9-3 (Epsilon) also suffer from a width disadvantage in the US.
Supposedly the 300 and the E-Class shared platforms. I had a 300, it rode nothing like an E-Class. I wouldn’t expect the new GC to be an ML either.
@ essen
Shared platform is not the same as shared calibration.
The suspension/steering calibration can make one car feel very different from another.
Same goes for the engine.
Excellent piece, I’d love to read more as well.
Detroit-X is spot on. Everyone keeps focusing on the top of these organizations. What really matters, though, is what is happening at the level of the product team.
Senior executives should not even be making the decisions that affect specific products beyond the need to coordinate between teams. And even most of this coordination could hopefully be done between the teams themselves.
The link I always post when the topic of teams comes up…
http://www.truedelta.com/exec_sum.php
What would be interesting to know is, what exactly does Chrysler have in pipeline right now, at this moment? I mean, bailout times and all? My notion is that they have exactly nothing, nothing at all. And if so, considering their viability plan, what are they counting on that is supposed to bring home the bacon, tomorrow?
Wow.. after 25 years in IT, I see the same problems in my industry. Feature creep, incompatible apps, one party trying to cram new buggy systems down the throat of the other, even though the old system worked perfectly and was highly evolved to the needs of the bank.
Then the managers realize the new software doesn’t do what the old software did, and they cluge it making it worse than ever.
I own a Chrysler 300.
I love the car for numerous reasons. Chrysler did one thing right: they made a huge interior in all their cars and then threw in a huge amount of power.
That was enough to sell me.
I sometimes hate the cheap look of the 300’s interior but on the opposite end of the spectrum, I have an S550 and its interior is ridiculously upscale. Thing i, the stuff in the 300 like the Navigation system and the electronic features are easier to use and the car is also more liked by women I meet than the Benz is.
Chicks LOVE my 300.
Its ironic.
“Chicks LOVE my 300.”
Not to put you down, but… Has ANY chick EVER really cared about what car a guy has? Didn’t that custom die out with the second generation Camaro? I mean, really? “Oh, that guy is so awesome! Look at those wheels! He must be a really great catch! What a guy!”
Global platform sharing HAS worked in one general partnership: Ford + Mazda.
Euro Focus/Mazda3
Fusion/Mazda6
Crossovers
Why is Mazda/Ford such a success but everyone else a failure?
It seems like RF is in contact with everyone that was on that WK program.
IMO the author left out the best parts of the “sharing.” The most comical divergence was that common-axle program with Daimler opting to get cheaper/better axles from Untertürkheim/Mettingen. The HVAC debacle was entertaining as well.
Everyone keeps focusing on the top of these organizations. What really matters, though, is what is happening at the level of the product team.
The top is still the problem, because command-and-control management methods ensure that these things will fail.
The current method is for the bigwigs at the senior level to cut the deal from their bubbles, then toss it to the little people to make it work. Management does this without establishing whether the idea made sense in the first place, without an idea of how to execute the idea, and without fixing the cultural barriers that might prevent it from working.
What should be done is that before these things are finalized, the design and engineering teams from each company should be put together to jointly create an overall program, with mutual objectives. Senior management should provide this team with a list of the company’s big picture goals, then leave it to the team to determine whether it’s a good idea, and if so, how they could make it happen. If that team concludes that the idea is workable and devises a way to make it work, that’s when the top-level deal should be inked and inplemented.
When you see conflicts like this, it’s because there’s no buy-in from the middle management and their work teams. The effort turns into a tug of war, when it is supposed to be a cooperative effort, because nobody really likes it. They don’t see a purpose for working together, so they don’t.
People need to take ownership of their work. When everything is imposed from above, with no leadership or shared vision, these things are inevitable. Good senior managers would understand that buy in matters, and make sure that they can get it from their people. If they can’t, then they aren’t really managing, and it’s possible that some of those ideas just aren’t any good.
Nicholas Weaver — excellent question. No doubt there have been issues in the Ford/Mazda relationship as well, but it has clearly worked better than the others. Even then, it’s not clear how much was saved by basing the Fusion and Edge on Mazda platforms.
Error on the link I posted earlier. Ought to have tested it. Correct link:
http://www.truedelta.com/execsum.php
It’s great to hear from someone who actually knows engineering. It’s not great to know that these bright folks were consistently over ruled by MBAs and others capable of creating nothing. Sad.
And, to make things even more frightening, as incompetent as the auto execs were, they were Rhodes scholars compared to the loons in our government.
slateslate wrote, “They could donate their high cost platform to Chrysler with impunity but if they jointly developed a program, they risked their lineage. Who wants a Mercedes designed by Chrysler?” The Chrysler 300 and its Dodge clone are cheapened, Americanized versions of a discontinued Mercedes E-class sedan. The Mercedes sedan had aluminum suspension parts; the Chrysler and Dodge sedans used steel parts. The all-wheel-drive system is an old Mercedes design.
The Sebring is 71.2″ wide, minimally narrower in the back seat than the current Toyota Camry, and an inch taller to boot. Not so sure you can blame the platform width-wise, but then again I’m not an engineer.
Contrary to popular belief (more like myth) the Chrysler 300 and old Mercedes E-Class do not share their platform and are nothing alike underneath.
Chrysler’s LX platform was already well underway in development prior to the merger with Daimler. Like someone else already pointed out in this thread, the two cars drive nothing and are really nothing alike. There’s no mistaking the big Chryslers for anything but American behind the wheel.
Chrysler did untilize Mercede’s five speed automatic transmission and AWD system, and that’s about it.
Twenty five or thirty years ago Chrysler built a central technical center that was supposed to bring together for the first time all the vehicle designers.
Would that be CTC in Auburn Hills? (Chrysler Tech Centre)
Thanks, that’s a start.
In a few weeks when Chrysler is liquidated, is it worth anything other than the real estate or did Daimler gut it of talent?
Having worked in telecom now for 16+ years now, I have been through a few mergers/acquisitions. The successful ones are where management declares firmly what the end goals are and what products they want to have in their business model. The unsuccessful ones are where management struggles to find one vision for the new company. Then you have power struggles and differeing priorities.
Same thing with any of these products. If the company cannot decide priorities before going into product developement, it will never work out the way it could have. Instead you get a mongrel that pleases no one.
TriShield:
The LX development couldn’t have been too far along at the time of the merger. The cars appeared, what, six years later? Development cycles are long, but they’re not that long.
My understanding is that the suspension designs of both the LX and the Pacifica were “inspired” by the E-Class suspension. Just marketing hype? Perhaps.
CTC in Auburn Hills:
It has executive, marketing, engineering, design – all under one roof. It includes I believe a wind tunnel, a small pilot factory for testing out assembly techniques. Even a room with a lighting system to simulate sunlight so they can view concepts under “natural” lighting without risking them being spied on.
Stingray:
“Also, being a fan of the Neon, I would like him to explain why in the hell they replaced that car with the craptastic Caliber.”
Some explanation is provided here in Bob Sheaves excellant article:
http://www.allpar.com/neon/engineering.html
“Did the second gen Neon use a Chrysler platform or it was also shared with Mitsubishi?”
It was all Chrysler.
“Why the cab forward design was discarded? ”
Tom Gale left Chrysler after the Daimler takeover. He was the “father” of Cab Forward at Chrysler.
“it’s so good in fact, that Honda ripped it with the current Civic.”
That’s exactly what I thought the first time I saw the new Civic. Although Cab Forward was not invented by Chrysler, I remember the Ford Ghia Via concept in the 80’s had it, but Chrylser was the first to give it a catchy name and to implement it across their car lines.
essen:
“Supposedly the 300 and the E-Class shared platforms. I had a 300, it rode nothing like an E-Class. I wouldn’t expect the new GC to be an ML either.”
That’s because your 300 and the E-class didn’t share platforms. They shared suspension pieces (that were modified), steering column, transmission, software, and not much else.
Ingvar:
“My notion is that they have exactly nothing, nothing at all.”
http://www.allpar.com/model/upcoming.html
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/phoenix-engines.html details of the new Pentastar (nee Phoenix) engines that have just been introduced.
Ingvar :
April 14th, 2009 at 9:44 am
…Has ANY chick EVER really cared about what car a guy has? Didn’t that custom die out with the second generation Camaro? I mean, really? “Oh, that guy is so awesome! Look at those wheels! He must be a really great catch! What a guy!”
Quoted for truth! LOL
Anyway, thanks to the writer for this editorial. Very educational.
Michael Karesh:
“The LX development couldn’t have been too far along at the time of the merger.”
According to the interview in C&D with Tom Gale, the 300 was quite far along, at least at the time Daimler started to meddle with it. Remember they were “merged” at the end of 98. Daimler didn’t start mucking up the works until at least 12 to 18 months later, especially after Bob Eaton retired. The original rwd 300 (to be called the 300N) was to be introduced in 2004. So a lot stuff is in play by 2000. When Daimler insisted on parts sharing, it pushed the program back and they didn’t intoduce the car till 2005.
@Michael Karesh
Even then, it’s not clear how much was saved by basing the Fusion and Edge on Mazda platforms
I think this is innacurate. Fusion/6 share platform with the euro Mondeo AFAIK.
The question should be the other way around…
The big winner there is obviously Mazda, and Volvo who also uses Ford platforms.
Mergers of US aerospace companies work better because each product line remains separate. I have been through a couple of them. Cost savings do come from getting rid of duplicate payroll systems, etc., but not messing with the core products and pissing off customers. Dont get me wrong, there are power struggles at the top and culture clashes. They just to a much better job at leaving marketing and engineering at a local level.
I’m sorry, I’m still stuck on our friend who allegedly owns both a 300 and and an E class, and cruises for chicks in the 300. Where to start..
***Ingvar :
April 14th, 2009 at 9:44 am
…Has ANY chick EVER really cared about what car a guy has? Didn’t that custom die out with the second generation Camaro? I mean, really? “Oh, that guy is so awesome! Look at those wheels! He must be a really great catch! What a guy!”
Quoted for truth! LOL***
this thread is off-topic…..
IMHO except for the shallowest of ladies with the flashiest of cars….women already like you (or not) before seeing the car. And your car only reinforces whatever judgment that they already had. (eg. if you’re deemed as a d****bag, then you’re another BMW-driving a@*hole, but if you’re deemed a successful gentleman then that same BMW is icing on the cake. naturally the same can go with a 10-year Civic….you’re either labeled money-saavy or cheap.)
lol, human behavior. YMMV.
In case anyone is interested in looking at the Ghia Via concept and Fords version of cab forward:
http://www.carbodydesign.com/gallery/2009/04/12-moray-callum-ford-americas-design/2/
Great insight… thanks to whoever you are for the read!
It’s all about culture, ain’t it. Mergers rarely work because stated goals like ’synergy’ or ‘cost sharing’ really aren’t the goals. The goals are make more money for execs, increase stock price and get bigger… oh, and increase stock price some more.
@Ingvar, when I met my wife, her initial impression was that I was a poser and an a-hole for driving a ‘94 530i. It was a 6 year old car when we met. Women DO notice what you drive, and trust me, they’re more picky than we are. They just won’t volunteer the info.
One of my wife’s friends was dating a guy driving an Evo VIII. No, it’s not an age appropriate car for a 30 year old guy, but he liked it. She hated it. I think it was the wing.
Stingray:
My understanding is that the Mazda6/Fusion/Edge share virtually nothing with European Fords. The Mazda6 is the core product.
windswords:
Yeah, that makes sense. The cars came out in spring 2004 as it was. Long enough after the merger for Daimler to have had a major impact, but not so long after the merger that the program couldn’t have been going on for a year or two before Daimler had delaying input.
@windswords
I check allpar regularly (and to think I was seeing first valiant.org)… and checked that same link about a week ago.
Still, doesn’t explain why it was decided to dump one modestly successful car for that utter POS.
Haven’t went into the forums to search one neat topic about what is mentioned in your link.
Really, they went back with that thing.
Edit: that Ford is freakin awesome… the 2nd gen Intrepid looks like a straight ripoff.
“Why the cab forward design was discarded? The concept wasn’t bad”
I loved the looks of the LH and other cab forward cars of the time, but my God, the style has NOT aged well. Especially the second generation LH cars. Time has not been kind to them.
These ‘insider’ articles are always interesting. I’d definitely love to see more
To comment on the tangent that’s been going on, a lot of girls definitely care about your car. Just ask the 3 Boston University girls I met in front of a bus stop while I was waiting for a red light to turn green. After I rolled the window down to ask one of them for their number, she commented that she wanted a ride in “my Porsche” (I don’t even drive a Porsche) and was willing to put her friend in the trunk to ride with me in the Vette. This is not the first time something like this has happened either
@Ingvar, when I met my wife, her initial impression was that I was a poser and an a-hole for driving a ‘94 530i. It was a 6 year old car when we met. Women DO notice what you drive, and trust me, they’re more picky than we are. They just won’t volunteer the info.
One of my wife’s friends was dating a guy driving an Evo VIII. No, it’s not an age appropriate car for a 30 year old guy, but he liked it. She hated it. I think it was the wing.…
Interesting sub topic here. Judging a new date by what they drive sounds shallow, and it is, but when you are very early into dating somebody, you are on the lookout for information on who you are with. Since the “keepers” are not usually the ones inviting you back to their place on the first date, you look at things like clothes, car, job, etc. I always checked out my date’s car. Not for what it is, but for what condition it is in. Is it dirty? Smelly? If the car is filthy, it is likely the house is the same way. A quick scan through the radio presets is a good way to check musical taste. Full of dents? Bad sign. Is she always with 1/4 tank of gas or less? That typically indicates “hand to mouth” spending habits. How people take care of their things says a lot about them.
Not to put you down, but… Has ANY chick EVER really cared about what car a guy has?
Are you kidding me? You are obviously not familiar with the in ‘concubine in all but name’ Canadian women. Wave enough bling under their noses in the form of cash, a big home, a suitable title, or an expensive car and they won’t even notice your age or appearance.
Anyway, the 300 does NOT share an old MB platform. It has a few suspension bits, that’s it.
If ever there was an organization that shouldn’t have been platform sharing, it was Dumbler and Chrysler. Very different objectives and markets and a huge cultural mismatch.
Chrysler and Mitsubishi had worked in the past though, hadn’t it? Was it Dumbler’s involvement that screwed it up?
@picard234:
I worked at C and DCX for many years (94-03) and yes, Dieter Zetsche and Wolfgang Bernhard both made it a habit to sit in the mock-ups at the design dome in Auburn Hills and “bless” the product. Problem was, very often the dreaded MCM (material cost management, or squeeze some more cost out) process happened after that, and things got dramatically more plastic-y and cheap feeling right before production, exasperating the designers, product platform heads and engineers alike. Pacifica was great example. The ‘design-intent’ mockup had a high quality interior, great material from the carpets to the headliner, and great surfaces everywhere – even thicker glass for a quieter ride. Then someone started a drive to get a 2-seat version out for under $29K or $30K, and it was cheap plastic time, unfinished carpet edges, etc.
@lxbuilder, carperson: Remember that the Chrysler Tech Center in Auburn Hills was originally designed to be an indoor shopping mall in case C was unable to keep operating back in the 90s. Not that another mall would be the answer for the Michigan economy today.
Double post.
An excellent insight into car design. More! More! (Please!) — Aaron
@Stingray: Also, being a fan of the Neon, I would like him to explain why in the hell they replaced that car with the craptastic Caliber. They could have engineered and improved and keep working on an already established model.
I don’t think the Neon was a great car, but neither was the original Camry; each was a start. Stingray’s point that refinement of the Neon would have brought Chrysler a winner is on the money. This is the only reason that the modern-day Accord is considered a decent ride; it is refined with each succeeding model.
It’s clearly a management issue.
Renault/Nissan shares platforms and has produced class leading vehicles.
Ford/Mazda/Volvo all share platforms and again, produce class leading vehicles.
So my guess is, Chrysler was told to “play along” with two other companies, neither of whom really wanted to play with Chrysler. It should offer a good deal of insight as to how Mercedes likes to engineer cars, and why I’d never buy one.
Also, the Neon was never a good car.
@ NickR:
Works the same way down here in the States.
Heck, my colleagues and I were walking back from lunch today and we spotted a trophy wife in her H2 with her purse dog. We immediately began speculating on the per annum cost to keep her under one’s roof.
Thank you. A very interesting article.
I’ve never seen a woman in an H2, trophy wife or not. Lexus or MB is prevalent here.
Is the Sebring itself the thing that is too narrow or is it just the seats? The seats are ridiculously narrow for modern(fat) Americans.
“Also, the Neon was never a good car.”
It was good enough, plus it sold well.
The real story of this article is that these auto companies do best when working for themselves and their customers and that car customers from different parts of the world are just too different to design one car for.