![Bugatti Bird-gate Followup: Driver identity revealed <b>[*UPDATE:</b> Now with actual crash video!]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/11/bugatti-veyron-swim-1258147199_143x85.jpg)
Sharing is saving: GM to save up to $750 million on Zeta RWD platform
Click image for a gallery of the Camaro Convertible concept
The new buzzword in Detroit is "common" -- as in common components or common architectures. That's the foundation for everything GM is doing right now, and the Zeta RWD platform is the newest poster child.Engineered in Australia for global use, the Holden VE Commodore was the first Zeta vehicle, and the '08 Pontiac G8 (a rebadged Commodore) is next in line. Beginning in 2009 and beyond, we'll see Zeta appear under the new Camaro and the next Impala. The architecture is special because it can be used for anything from a ponycar to a station wagon and everything in between. GM is estimating global units of Zeta at between 500,000 and 750,000 annually. When compared with a different-chassis-for-different-regions approach, the savings generated will be between $500 and $1000 per vehicle. These savings, which can range between $250 million and $750 million annually, result from engineering efficiencies, materials cost savings, plant tooling, and vendor tooling.
Japanese automakers have leveraged common resources for a long time now, which in turn has helped contribute to their cost advantages over the domestics. With a RWD platform that works anywhere on the globe, GM is finally starting to show that they're as serious about 'common' as the competition.
[Source: AutoWeek]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Cheezedog 8:43AM (2/21/2007)
Im ammazed they can do this with a platform... Up till now a platform was a floor plan that allowed you to share the engine, transmission, and floor pan for a badly designed FWD car. These Zeta cars not all that badly designed, and appear not all to be about the same size...
So can this thing share its Camaro Suspention with a G8, and a Zeta Station wagon should they ever make one?
Reply
Big jim 8:51AM (2/21/2007)
finally, GM gets its right
Reply
da.cowboy bob 9:29AM (2/21/2007)
This is a revalation? What do the Exec.s at any of these auto manufacturers smoke to not know this forever. Model "T"s were the same all thru except for the body, be it sedan, tourer, or truck. Duh???? By the way, they were rear wheelers too. Just goes to show you that the men who made vehicles a hundred years ago knew more than the multi-million dollar management company killers of today.
Reply
akintz 9:33AM (2/21/2007)
As long as they don't all look the same. GM has this horrible habit of making any shared platform vehicle look nearly identical to it's counterparts - ex: Chevy, Pontiac, and Buick minivans. Bleh.
Reply
Mike 9:44AM (2/21/2007)
Wow, what a concept. Using homogeneous core architecture across model lines to save money. Congrats GM, you've figured it out. The next step is learning to tie your shoes (I hope everyone is picking up on the sarcasm here, because I'm laying it on pretty thick).
If I was a white collar worker at GM I would be freakin' embarrassed that this story even ran because it announces my company finally figured out a basic manufacturing concept about $5 Billion dollars too late...
Reply
LJN 5:00PM (3/21/2007)
GM makes beautiful autos. I love the clean lines. Have to concur with previous poster in that I really don't want to see one more minivan that looks just like every other minivan on the road.
http://www.pencilthin.com/
Reply
Jeff 9:56AM (2/21/2007)
Maybe this is the shade tree mechanic in me speaking, but I don't understand why companies don't do this more with their parts.
In other words, design a part once, make it small and efficient, and use it on (nearly) all models. Have one alternator design, have one fuel pressure regulator, have one charcoal canister solenoid, etc. etc.
Of course there will always be exceptions, but the engineers could consider designing an adapter piece first in those cases, before designing an entirely new part.
Sometimes it seems like these companies redesign things for the sake of it, and it's not uncommon to see many revisions of the same part over the lifetime of the car.
Reply
Rene Curry 10:18AM (2/21/2007)
The other lesson to learn from the glory days is that the base car should be priced and look like a base car. Then add the goodies to gussie it up so that the upgraded versions are more desirable.
So you pull them in with a low base price and get them to add the extras. These extras are were you mine the margins.
All the 50s & 60's cars from the big 3 were configured in that manner, especially in the cosmetics department.
Example: You could buy an ugly base model full size 1964 Ford on the cheap or buy the Ford Galaxie XL500 with the good looking chrome, trim, wheels, and interior.
Now think about today's cars. Have different tailights, grilles, and other bolt-ons as you progress up the ladder on any given model. Not just a badge and wheels.
Reply
Howard Kerr 10:20AM (2/21/2007)
Ford did something like this with all the cars spun off the FOX platform: Mustang/Capri, Fairmont/Zepher, T-Bird/Cougar, Granada/Cougar (this time a sedan and wagon) LTD(not to be confused with Crown Vic LTD) and Marquis(not to be confused with Grand Marquis). And Chrysler did this with it's infamous K-cars. So they have done this, just not very well.
GM on the other hand, sometimes built similar cars but on different platforms: Chevy Cavalier was a different platform than the similar sized Corsica. Chevy Camaro shared it's platform with only one other car...the Firebird. GM has/had so many platforms for cars I could never keep count. But every time they tried to reduce the platforms...we balked and told them their cars were too much alike. It's happening right now. Cadillac ALWAYS shared at least one platform Buick, usually the top line Buick used a Cadillac platform, and now they don't.
Reply
BGJ 10:54AM (2/21/2007)
The reason GM is just now completely sharing platforms is that they have finally become 1 company. Recall that GM's brands (chevy, pontiac, cadillac, buick, oldsmobile, GMC, saturn) used to be wholly separate companies that were (mis)managed by one corporation. Platform sharing had been going on for quite some time with really bad badge-jobs, but the process of making all brands to be engineered and manufactured as one company only recently started in the late '90's.
The GM of today is a completely different company than just 10 years ago.
Reply
Daniel 11:16AM (2/21/2007)
Jeff, didn't GM used to try this, at least with parts if not platforms. Make everything right the first time, then use it across everything else.
I know many of their older engine accessories are one size fits all, especially across the v-8 and v-6 engine lines.
Reply
sydbot 11:19AM (2/21/2007)
Yeah, it is amazing that now they are sharing a platform...as if they've never done that before. I mean, that whole W-Body deal spanning 4 GM brands is not the same thing.
This story serves 2 purposes:
1. Give the investors something good to look at, show them GM still has their good old cost-saving mentality.
2. Zeta cars are replacing W-body cars; a shared platform replacing a shared platform. Except for Buick.
Reply
Steven T. 11:25AM (2/21/2007)
Platform sharing is great as long as the design isn't too heavily compromised. That's what appears to have happened to the forthcoming Dodge Challenger, which is based off of the full-sized Chrysler 300 platform. Sure the wheelbase has been cut a bit, but the Challenger is still way too big and heavy to be considered a credible pony car, even compared to the bloated Mustang.
I like the size/weight of the Fox-era Mustangs much better than the current one, which shares many dimensions and weight characteristics with the departed T-Bird -- which was based upon the Lincoln LS platform.
(Ford insists the Mustang is on a different platform than the T-Bird, and that may be at least partially true. As a case in point, the T-Bird had independent suspension; to switch to a live axle required reworking the floorpan. However, if the two never shared any commonalities then why didn't Ford take advantage of the opportunity to "right size" the Mustang?)
Let me stick my neck out with a prediction: If GM manages to keep the size and weight of the Camaro comfortably below that of the Mustang and Challenger, the Camaro could eventually steal back the sales crown from Mustang. Why? Gas prices are likely to continue to be volatile, and lots of us fondly remember pony cars as being relatively small and nimble.
Reply
EnviroBob 11:44AM (2/21/2007)
GM has been using shared platforms in the US since the late '50s. They have now finally begun using the same platforms world-wide.
For many years, GM only produced a handful of platforms / chassis, although each division produced it's own engines up to the early 80's. The only vehicles not on shared platforms were the Corvette, which now shares its platform with the XLR, and the F-Bodies, which had actually shared platforms with the X-Bodies (Nova, Apollo, Skylark, Venture, Phoenix, Omega and the first gen Seville) up until the 1982 Camaro / Firebird.
Reply
mikeb 12:01PM (2/21/2007)
Nice. I may have to call my stockborker for another 100 shares.
Reply
EnviroBob 12:06PM (2/21/2007)
Hopefully GM will keep the Camaro similar in size to its '69 predecessor as has Ford. The Challenger concept however, has a 6” longer WB than the 1970 model and is much larger overall than its inspiration.
1969 Mustang 2007 Mustang
WB 108” 107.1”
Length 187.4” 187.6”
Weight 3500 3400
Width 71.8” 74”
Reply
Steve 12:33PM (2/21/2007)
Platform sharing was easy when it was body on frame construction not as easy now but still doable. Other manufactures could do it right from the begining as they were just designing new plants. Ford and GM had dated existing lines and had to be hit over the head to retrofit those lines. They still don't have the flexible assembly lines they need. How many more Sky's and Solstice's could tehy have sold last year if they could have switched some lines over?
I agree that why can't steering columns and other mundane parts all be the same or very similar and used across the line. When not have 3 alternator designs instead of 10? Seems like common sense to me.
Reply
Matt 1:29PM (2/21/2007)
GM, doing something right? I call bullshit!
Reply
Patricia 3:35PM (2/21/2007)
Japanese fanboys: So now that GM is doing all the things that you bashed the company for not doing in the past, you bash the company for not having done it before? And how long will you be able to hang on to that? 1 year? 5 years? Why don't yo just say the truth: You HATE the American companies, and nothing that they do will change that.
Reply
robz4 3:54PM (2/21/2007)
Good for GM !! I am happy to see them in their way to a healthy recovery.Also their products are getting better and better with a great warranty to back them up.
Reply