[ABHI_1512]

Voted- A big NO.

Good competent platforms have the capacity to even outlive the good life of a car. As long as, technological changes and safety aspects are taken care off, it would be foolish to ditch a platform just for vanity. The Duster and the Rapid are the finest example of making good use of an age old platform without spending much and still so relevant.

And talking of the Global Ford Fiesta, it was miles ahead of the previous generation, which by the way was competent enough to run longer. It was sad that Ford couldn’t localise the components much and hence couldn’t price it correctly. The Fiesta was a driver’s delight and was such a wonderful car. Even today, it will turn heads with its striking looks. Pity, that it is not on sale anymore !!

[charanreddy]

Voted No from experience. I currently own the Nexon which is based on a decades old platform. Though I had my concerns, the crash test rating dispelled them all.

New may not always be better and my car based on an old platform does not bother me at all.

[shreevishnu]

Voted Yes.

Reworked platforms typically have better torsional stiffness, giving better ride/handling - nimbleness. Also, packaging improves with time, more car per car.

Safety testing sets the bar, how much better than norms or how light/stiff the car is to be compliant is a good engineering exercise.

As an engineer, I don't subscribe to if it ain't broke why fix it.

[landcruiser123]

Voted no. Doesn't matter as long it is competent and doesn't compromise on safety.

I've driven a 2015 Polo 1.5 D, 2015 Elite i20 1.4 D, 2009 i20 1.4 D, and 2006 Getz 1.3P. This is my rating: Polo > Getz >> Elite i20 >> 2009 i20. The brilliant VW platform is still superior to every generation of Hyundai's hatchbacks. (I haven't driven the latest i20, but I don't expect it to beat the Polo)

However, I condemn the cheap tricks which Renault played while advertising their Kaptur.

[aravind.anand]

Originally Posted by deetjohn

Yes, I agree with the premium on interior space. And I am glad Ford had its priorities sorted this way for the new platform.

But, not a patch on the old car? Can you please explain this to me? I am genuinely curious. Is it the steering, handling, ride, build, stiffness?? From what I have experienced, the new one moved the goal posts further ahead in all these parameters, even compared to the brilliant S. Too bad Ford India couldn't give the global Fiesta a better petrol motor over here.

My bad! When I said no patch, it was on the sales front. I do agree that the 2011 Fiesta was better in handling and ride quality and the sophistication front. The 1.5L petrol motor was the only fly in the dynamics ointment.

Originally Posted by avira_tk

Sorry, you couldn't be more wrong, the 2011 Fiesta is a world apart from the older one. The car is better in every way and the one car program Ford had back then made the car much better. The car has given less problems in 10 years than the old one gave in 5. The steering is leagues ahead and running costs are lower with better fuel efficiency. The 1.6S wasn't mainstream, it has a tweaked suspension, quite rare for any car in our market.

Ford quickly learnt their lesson, cut costs on structural integrity and the ecosport was a raging success. The fiesta was toast as expected.

Yes, for the driver it was. But for the rear seat passengers, it was a world apart - negatively. What makes you think that Ford cut costs on structural integrity to make the EcoSport though?

[vinya_jag]

Voted YES keeping the Polo platform in Mind

Some of these old gen platforms are heavier compared to the new ones. I am sure Polo MQB will get a 5 star rating compared to the earlier one which is a 4 star rated one. Newer ligter platforms would mean better fuel efficiency for the same engines that are already doing their duties in the old platform cars.

The new one is wider, and the current one is very narrow. I am guessing that there will be a slight increase in the seating widh, as well as better cornering abilities. The current one is not a great handler. There is a lot of roll, when we hit a curve, and if the curve has a few bad patches.

Other than that, I don't see other reasons to opt for a newer platform.

Maybe the Polo is one corner case where the new platform is eagerly awaited, as the old one is more than 10 years old. Others who change their platform every 3-4 years, it should matter too much, as suggested by the poll results

[gkveda]

I voted yes. But yes in the opposite sense. I would prefer to have old platform cars rather than new platform ones.

Older platforms were designed with more robust, strong and high gauge steel and hence can be considered to have more structural strength. Newer ones are designed keeping cost savings in mind and hence can easily deduce that it will have weaker structural strength as compared to old ones

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by aravind.anand

Yes, for the driver it was. But for the rear seat passengers, it was a world apart - negatively. What makes you think that Ford cut costs on structural integrity to make the EcoSport though?

The rear seat is alright, the old one was no great shakes either. There's a thread here on the ecosport and how ford cut corners on it, the export version is different. I don't blame them, you make a product for market requirements, safety didn't matter until some legislation forced the OEMs to grudgingly offer airbags and the like.

[akash_v12]

Voted NO!

A big reason is my personal experience while buying the Vento. What I as a passenger had noticed was that the Ciaz, City & Verna were not very stable or solid feeling as the German. And this is not only with the Vento, but also with the Rapid & Polo (I've ridden in both as a passenger). The sense of safety and satisfaction that these cars provide is incomparable.

So, no. The Chassis doesn't matter for me till the car is built well and has a solid feel.

[Vijin]

Going against the tide: Yes.

The topic write-up is a little biased, I feel. If the topic was 'Old but gold european platform' vs ' New but cost-cut Indian platform', I would have voted No.

However, seeing the kind of effort Tatas and Mahindras are putting, I would pick their new platforms anyday.

[sachin_cs]

Voted a big No. I feel like these buzz created by manufacturers with terms like all new platform, modern architecture, hss in platform are nothing but gimmicks, at least by the current market leaders. I would happily choose a decade old platform if it offers strong fundamentals of a car like safety, ride-handling balance. Going against the tide of connected tech, purifiers, microwave oven in the cars these days, I bought myself a Rapid DSG last year and I feel so good about my decision every time I get behind the wheels, the more I drive the more connected I feel to her. If I’m in the market to pick another car, eyes closed it will be either Vento or Rapid. Again!

[shancz]

Voted No.
We so miss the Jetta. IMHO the latest styling ruined the understated elegance I was a fan of.

Not technically sound on the underlying platforms but I felt the composure of the Jetta(2012-2016) to be better than the Octavia(2017). The Octavia for some reason felt as a downgrade in dynamics and quality.

[Iyencar]

Since joining the forum, I know by rote acronyms for car models, sit up at night ranting to myself about feature deletions, have a debate in the mirror about turbo vs NA, know gear box numbers for cars I have never sat in and have flashes of safety ratings while bathing. Why add platform types now to this overburdened mind??? As long as it is crash tested and gives decent efficiency I don’t care if it is an Alfa, Omega, Heartect or Pushpak Viman below my non rattling dashboard. Voted no.

[Deepsp]

Originally Posted by Vijin

Going against the tide: Yes.

The topic write-up is a little biased, I feel. If the topic was 'Old but gold European platform' vs ' New but cost-cut Indian platform', I would have voted No.

However, seeing the kind of effort Tatas and Mahindras are putting, I would pick their new platforms any day.

I would like to differ with your opinion here. Nexon and Hexa are both very good cars even though both are based on decades-old platforms.

[dark.knight]

I think before more and more posts lead this thread astray, we should lay down some pillars so that more logical arguments can be made henceforth.

# Platform sharing with an older model is done to prevent re-tooling or re-engineering, lower R&D costs and is generally understood to go down-top and not top-down, i.e in most cases, lesser priced vehicle platforms will be shared with more expensive vehicles.

# Platform sharing generational architecture is also the same, where they create one generation of platform and make it fit across models and segments.

# Platforms in most cases, do mean floor-pan, chassis, sheet-metal etc, though in a few cases it might just be common components, wiring loom, steering wheel, steering assembly, similar seats etc, platform does NOT always mean the shell.

# Platforms can be suitably modified by changing length/width, specification of steel used (MS, HSS, UHSS) to fit larger, more expensive cars, and it wouldn't be a bad thing either.

# Platform sharing reduces inventory pile-up.

# Platform sharing increase profitability.

# In most cases, one can say that platform itself has nothing to do with safety, it's rather what they choose to add to the platform that can tweak weight/safety/fuel efficiency etc.

Shared platforms are a cost-saving measure, make no mistake about it, but the companies of today have so much pressure to comply with safety, rigidity and fuel efficiency that you can forget about the cars of yesterday and how they were, there will always be compromises and it has to start from the platform.

Also, request to the forum folk not to spread the already wild-fire'esque rumor that one single platform, if found unsafe in one single car, will be unsafe across all models and all nations. That is anything but true, that's like saying structural pillars of homes are unsafe universally just because a pillar made out of sand couldn't manage the load, a pillar made out of concrete and iron can last a century.