GM Cutting Number of Vehicle Platforms and Engines by Half by 2018

[98_Camaro]

SOURCE:

By: Mike Colias, Automotive News on 8/09/2011

General Motors says it will cut the number of vehicle platforms it uses globally by more than half over the next decade, in a bid to reduce complexity and save on product-development costs.

“More of our components will be common, and more of our vehicles will be on global architectures,” GM CEO Dan Akerson told analysts on Tuesday.

His remarks came as GM kicked off a series of presentations online, billed as its 2011 Global Business Conference.

As part of the conference, slides prepared for a presentation by Mary Barra, GM’s senior vice president of global product development, showed that the automaker will reduce the number of vehicle architectures, or the platform of parts and subcomponents that underpin various cars and trucks, from 30 in 2010 to 14 in 2018.

More on ‘core’ platforms

GM also said it will vastly increase the number of cars and trucks that will be assembled on its “core” architectures, which GM defines as global platforms as well as high-volume regional platforms such as the T900 architecture used for its full-sized pickups. Core platforms will account for 90 percent of GM’s volume by 2018, up from 31 percent in 2010.

The company also aims to cut its engine platforms, from nearly 20 in 2009 to fewer than a dozen in 2018 and around 10 eventually.

The consolidation is aimed at eliminating inefficiencies in GM’s product-development system.

With a more efficient product-development process, GM hopes to reduce costly development snags, which GM calls “churn.” The term covers canceled programs, late changes to vehicles nearing production, and reassigning a vehicle program from one of GM’s lead engineering centers around the world to another.

Such churn costs GM up to $1 billion annually, according to slides GM prepared for its presentation to analysts as part of its annual investor conference.

GM has a “huge opportunity” to “bring discipline within the vehicle programs, control churn, control change,” GM CFO Dan Amman said. “That will enable us to work better with the supply base.”

Improve quality

Fewer vehicle architectures should allow GM to get new products to market more quickly and improve quality by standardizing “best practices” across its development facilities, Barra said in her presentation.

It also will drive down engineering and materials costs, GM said, while allowing GM to share the cost of tooling across platforms, which would also cut capital costs.

I never quite understood why GM had so many engines, but I'm glad they're reducing the numbers. It never made much sense to me to run a NA 1.8L I4 and turbocharged 1.4L I4 in the Cruze, considering horsepower figures were nearly identical and the former had less torque than the latter.
It'll be interesting to see how GM can pull of 14 platforms across 5 brands.

[Mr. Wyndham]

This is a distinctively foreign concept up until recently; building more vehicles off of fewer architectures. But it's how the "other guys" have been able to succeed with such low costs and quick turnaround.

The benefit is obviously cost savings...But it could also mean better vehicles since they won't need to juggle so many different parts and techniques. Pick the best and apply them as many places as possible. (For example, a Rear-Drive platform might need to be used by both Caddy and Chevrolet - meaning it gets the value necessary for a Chevy, but also the refinement and advancement expected in a Cadillac).

Cool to hear they're still working to make changes going forward. There was some fear that they'd stall out a few years after the "re-birth". I guess not!

[DGthe3]

Seems like a good move to me. I can see a fair amount of redundancy in just their North American lineup, and I know they haven't consolidated too much around the world.

Originally Posted by 98_Camaro

SOURCE:



I never quite understood why GM had so many engines, but I'm glad they're reducing the numbers. It never made much sense to me to run a NA 1.8L I4 and turbocharged 1.4L I4 in the Cruze, considering horsepower figures were nearly identical and the former had less torque than the latter.
It'll be interesting to see how GM can pull of 14 platforms across 5 brands.

5 brands? I can think of 8:

Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, Daewoo, GMC, Holden, Opel, & Vauxhaul.

[98_Camaro]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Seems like a good move to me. I can see a fair amount of redundancy in just their North American lineup, and I know they haven't consolidated too much around the world.

5 brands? I can think of 8:

Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, Daewoo, GMC, Holden, Opel, & Vauxhaul.

Whoops. Left out GMC (DUH! ), Vauxhaul and Daewoo.

[TOMS1SS]

10 powertrains huh? Guess we can see where this going with CAFE standards. Get ready for Camaros with only I4 and V6 engines.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by TOMS1SS

10 powertrains huh? Guess we can see where this going with CAFE standards. Get ready for Camaros with only I4 and V6 engines.

Why do you say that? Its all about getting rid of redundancy. And pickup trucks & Corvettes will need V8's for the foreseeable future, so removing them from the Camaro lineup would mean absolutely nothing with regard to reducing the number of engine architectures that they use.

What they're trying to do is eliminating things like having a 3.6L V6, a 3.9L V6, and a 4.3L V6 all from different engine families, with a 3.7L I5 tossed in for good measure. All those engines could probably be replaced by the 3.6L.

[FenwickHockey65]

All you have to do is look at GM's current NA engine lineup and you'd all over the place.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

What they're trying to do is eliminating things like having a 3.6L V6, a 3.9L V6, and a 4.3L V6 all from different engine families, with a 3.7L I5 tossed in for good measure. All those engines could probably be replaced by the 3.6L.

Exactly. I never understood the multitude of different engines GM has.

[FenwickHockey65]

The 4.3L in the Silverado is simply embarrassing, as is the 4.8L in the LT model.

[truth411]

The potential problem I see with this, is if this leads to old GM style badge engineering. Which would be a really bad move.

[FenwickHockey65]

What you'll see are more global vehicles. No rebadging.

[truth411]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

What you'll see are more global vehicles. No rebadging.

Ok. Hmmm that would mean the next camaro will be global like the ats???

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by truth411

The potential problem I see with this, is if this leads to old GM style badge engineering. Which would be a really bad move.

They've been consolidating for a while, yet the cars are getting more and more diferentiated. I don't think we'll have a problem. Besides now that GM doesn't have to deal with Hummer, Pontiac, Saturn, Oldsmobile, and Saab anymore, even if they do rebadge cars, there won't be 4 versions of the same car in the same market like they used to have ...

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

They've been consolidating for a while, yet the cars are getting more and more diferentiated. I don't think we'll have a problem. Besides now that GM doesn't have to deal with Hummer, Pontiac, Saturn, Oldsmobile, and Saab anymore, even if they do rebadge cars, there won't be 4 versions of the same car in the same market like they used to have ...

That magazine cover should be on the wall of every GM executive's office, along with a picture of the Cimmaron.

Embarrassments like these should never be forgotten and should never happen again.