Today we wrote about the Tesla Model S refresh, with Thomas calling the car “a dinosaur.” This led to a discussion among Autopian writers about platforms; how big of a deal is it that a platform is old? Personally, I don’t think it matters much at all, necessarily; here’s why.
Right out front of my house I’ve got a 2021 BMW i3S, an astonishing little city-car that I adore. This particular vehicle, by 2021, had been on the market for eight years, and many criticized it for being dated. But was it?
The platform itself was not even almost dated; in fact, to this day it’s fair to call the carbon fiber-bodied i3’s chassis “futuristic.” The interior? Its styling holds up to this day, and I believe that to be the case with the exterior as well.
But where the i3 is dated is in terms of interior tech/infotainment. It has Apple Carplay, a screen that isn’t the size of a billboard, and physical controls; what’s more, the car doesn’t have cooled seats or an overhead 360 degree camera or a panoramic sunroof. I personally don’t want these things, but many do, so I get why folks saw the i3 as dated. What’s more, even though battery/drivetrain/chassis tech was updated between 2014 and 2021 model-years, the i3’s EV tech wasn’t really state-of-the-art by that last model-year. By 2021, the i3 was a $55,000 EV with half the range of a Tesla.
Image: Author
My point is that I don’t really care about platform age as long as that platform gets updated. In the case of the i3, its platform was awesome, and I’d have loved to see it continue on for 20+ years; it was what was bolted to that platform that was shriveling a bit on the vine.
ADVERTISEMENT
Then there are cars like the Dodge Journey, which stuck around forever, offering weak performance/efficiency, but at a highly competitive price. In that case, I’m totally fine with old bones.
Photo credit: Dodge
Here are a few thoughts about platform age by Thomas:
I reckon that a platform is too old to buy new when age doesn’t necessarily enhance the ownership experience and the driving experience is close to what you can get elsewhere in a newer, better-driving package. The R35 GT-R lost some of its luster at the end of its run, partly due to a mid-cycle suspension update that increased its tendency to corner entry understeer and partly because a super-fast turbocharged automatic car now describes almost every ICE performance car. On the other hand, a final-year Challenger SRT Hellcat with the six-speed manual would’ve been worth it because that’s a rare experience you couldn’t really get elsewhere brand new without modifying another platform.
What does the data tell us? Well, according to Bank of America, “replacement rate” — defined as the “estimated percentage of an OEM’s sales volume to be replaced with all-new or next-generation models” — actually does matter, with the bank writing in its “Car Wars” analysis:
We believe replacement rate drives showroom age, which drives market share, which in turn drives profits, and ultimately stock prices…
[…]
Although other factors such as mix, price, execution, distribution, brand power, and unforeseen disruptions impact market share, we think this data supports our thesis that successful new products drive higher market share and profits.
Bank of America’s Car Wars report goes on to say that new-model launch activity is stagnating, writing:
As shown in Exhibit 3, we expect OEMs to launch 159 new models during our forecast period (MY2026-29), or an average of just 40 per year. This rate is just below the average number of models launched per year between model years 2006 and 2025. This level of new model introductions is concerning as fewer new models may not stimulate consumer interest, which may pressure total volume.
The lower launch count is largely a result of the delay in new EV programs as consumers remain disinterested, the regulatory push for EVs is relaxed, consumer EV incentives are likely to be eliminated, and potential tariffs are roiling production/supply chain management decisions. This appears to be motivating automakers to focus on core ICE (& Hybrid) products, which should generate solid profit/cash flow. In addition, EVs are not being completely ignored, but development appears to be slowing to more closely mimic consumer demand, which is not much.
Image: Bank of America
So it seems that people usually do care about how old a car is, but at the same, I bet the average person has no clue about the bones underneath their vehicle’s sheetmetal. I personally couldn’t care less as long as the vehicle remains competitive/useful, like a 2001 Jeep Cherokee that, when new, had been on the market for 17 years but still offers great styling and off-road performance at a good price.
ADVERTISEMENT
Though I suppose now that I’m a dad, the biggest factor in platform age is: Will it excel in all modern crash tests? Anyway, I welcome your thoughts on this.
I also sometimes wonder if the average person cares about a refresh because they actually know/care about the refresh, or if the marketing is telling them to, and marketing works, so…
Except for the crash test part. Absolutely before my kid was born I was suddenly all about the crash tests, and what years the standards changed, and allllllllll that.
OnceInAMillenia
11 days ago
I really liked the last refresh of the VW Beetle, but every time I got into it, all of its switchgear reminded me that it still used the PQ35 platform used for the MK5 Golf. Even when the interior was updated to match the MK6 Golf, it felt perpetually old sitting alongside its contemporaneous Mk7.
So you can freshen up the car to make it last a long time (like the did with the PQ Passat), but if you’re still using parts recognizable from multiple generations of outdated cars, it somehow feels worse.
Pointy Deity
11 days ago
I was considering buying a new Z until I realized it’s basically a tarted up 350Z, and I already have one of those. Ended up getting a Miata instead so I guess that’s a yes for me.
Myk El
11 days ago
Platform age doesn’t really bother me. It’s when they don’t really keep up the design so that it looks old, that bothers me.
MustangIIMatt
11 days ago
Platform age doesn’t bother me so long as it’s updated from time to time.
The Dodge Journey was junk from day one until it’s demise, but, Chrysler kept updating it and making it better along the way. The 3.6/6spd combo made the little clunker not unpleasant to drive, though it was still a total crapcan. The infotainment and clusters also got better over time.
The 2007-2021 Tundra just got better over time in spite of being a continuous platform. Ram did the same with the 1500/1500 Classic from 2009-2024.
Ford had a damned good run with both the Jellybean F150s (1997-2004) and the SN95/New Edge Mustang (1994-2004). Both of those just got better and better until their replacement.
A well sorted, very improved and refined new car on an old platform is no problem whatsoever to me. If it was good in the first place and they kept improving on it, I’ll take it.
Ron Bitter
11 days ago
I wouldn’t care if most of the car is old. Re release something like the first gen G35 or IS300 with a modern carplay infotainment system and radar cruise control and I’ll sign up. Bring back reliable, fun RWD sports sedans. Or the third gen 4Runner, that would definitely still sell.
Vee
11 days ago
Many older platforms soldiered on for decades because changing anything would’ve been either fundamentally distasteful or would’ve made some part of it inferior. Like the Checker Cab, or the Ford C-series. The Checker Cab was hardier and more disability accessible than every single replacement for it. You could buy a C-series in 1958 and another in 1990 and aside from gauges and a few other bits that had gone electronic over the decades it was the same damn truck. For a ridiculous but still salient example, look at the B-52 Stratofortress — it debuted in 1955 and is still being used regularly to this day because it’s widely needed, yet there’s been little need to replace it. Age since inception doesn’t really matter if the needs haven’t changed since then. Creating replacements is often just a waste of time and resources that could’ve been put towards refining existing examples and continuing their production with those improvements baked in. If you want proof, look at all the people that end up inventing terrible trains because they’re trying not to use trains. In the modern era advancements come so rarely and are so minimal that about the only time it makes sense to create actual full replacements is if you’re working from ashes. Where there’s nothing to really fall back on anymore, and the needs have changed so fundamentally that recreating what existed before would be a detriment to society.
One that never needed to be replaced was the original (compact) Ranger. Ford could have put in the extra airbag and saved it, but they decided to just cut an entire market segment instead. And everything we’ve had to replace it since has been worse. That Ranger had not been meaningfully updated since 1992, twenty years before, and there’s plenty of proof it didn’t need it. People didn’t care that it was basically the same truck as from 1992, it still functioned perfectly well for the intended purpose in 2012. I’m sure if Ford hadn’t gotten lazy that we’d still have the original Ranger sporting the cab from 1992 and a front end aping the needlessly complex headlights of the current F-150.
The Durango’s been around in it’s current incarnation since 2011 and will continue well into the future because who the hell’s going to challenge it? It’s got the interior materials of the Grand Cherokee (finally), the V8 the RAM trucks dumped (and are bringing back next month), is so cheap you can buy two for the price of one Expedition, can tow like hell, and actually has usable rear space unlike many of it’s contemporaries that have gone for a kammback design. You wouldn’t hear anybody who knows anything about it arguing that it needs a replacement. Really the same was true of all Dodge vehicles, including the Challenger and the Charger. They found a place where they could just sit pretty, and nobody asked nor wanted anything more from them. Nobody in charge seems to have understood that however.
There’s been a lot of excuses and legitimate reasons to change things because of either emissions regulations, crash regulations, or manufacturing complications. But whatever the explanation put forth, there’s been a lot of turnover in models for no real benefit for a while now. That’s been true of almost everything since about 2010. It’s not just cars. Radwood became a movement not just because of nostalgia but because the cars represent a massive leap forward after the Malaise Era, and they were part of a wider advancement in society that held actual progress.
So no, I don’t give a shit about feature parity because most modern features are just extraneous and intrusive. And I don’t give a shit about the age of the hardware unless it’s actively harmful compared to alternatives. Despite my enthusiasm for technology my cynicism about how it’s been wielded has pushed me towards embracing the obsolete. Functionality always wins out over appeal in the end, but some people take a while to figure out what the actual limit of the functionality is because they were drawn in by the appeal first.
Preach, the ranger was killed to put people into F150s but instead they went to Toyota(Taco) and Honda(ridgeline) .
Loudsx .
12 days ago
So rather strange based on the lead photo.
But at our autocross thai weekend we had people with 350z 370z and my new Z
And we’re comparing just how much was shared.
And in my books its a good thing
I don’t trust nissan to have enough money and skills to build a whole new sports car is today’s age.
But a parts shop special with known parts hell yeah.
So just sometimes older is better.
Space
12 days ago
I love old platforms, I was able to go to the junkyard and pull some manual seats from a car 10 model years older and they bolt right in.
Especially important because the model year I got only came with power seats and I didn’t want that.
In my opinion overall car platforms peaked somewhere in the early 2000’s. Good efficiency, naturally asperated, OBD2, but not too many electronic gremlins that pop up. I would hate to try to keep a modern ICE car running in 2045.
AceRimmer
12 days ago
If it’s a good platform then it’s good, regardless age. And cars were basically perfected 20 years ago so it’s rare when something new is significantly better.
Eric Moody
13 days ago
I like cars that go a long time without substantial changes. Parts will be easy to find and cheaper.
Urban Runabout
13 days ago
I believe GM, Ford and Chrysler proved decades ago that the platform wasn’t an issue – It was the sheetmetal and the amenities.
Nobody turned up their noses in front of the Ford showrooms in 1977 because the new Thunderbird was on a 6 year old platform – or the Chrysler showrooms in 1975 because the Cordoba was on a platform dating from 1962.
1978fiatspyderfan
13 days ago
I really think The Autopian is moving away from its roots. Why?
1. There is not enough DT and JT content. I get they are now owners and bosses but their content is what made the Autopian a success
2. The site is providing good content but they are slowly converting to the same content that every other automotive sight is posting and I don’t believe that will succeed it is the different content they have that is what works.
3. Posting manufacturers statistics is what every other site does you aren’t going to beat them by being them.
4. You were great content providers under Jalopnik and I and others urged you to move out on your own. Now you are kicking ass and taking names. The last thing you need to do is start duplicating the sites you are already better than. I assume someone approached you who was considered an expert who now is suggesting becoming like the establishment sites instead of remaining the tremendous site you are. Just remember they were giving the sites you are kicking their ass advice that failed to prevent you from kicking their ass.
I suggest a Robert DeNiro movie called the Intern. It is a good look at your situation. Remember you can learn a lot from the right movie
Jason H.
14 days ago
I’m guessing The Autopian isn’t the place to market test what the average new car buyer is looking for in a vehicle. A key figure: 2/3 rds of new car buyers keep their car for 5 year or less.
There is a reason for the industry standard of refreshing a car every 3-4 years and doing a redesign every 6-8 years. It fits into the average lease / loan cycle. The typical new car buyer doesn’t want to spend $$$$ to buy the same car. They want something new and better for the money and they want it to visibly look different on the outside so that people know they got a new car.
As the market data in this article says: “successful new products drive higher market share and profits.”
“They want something new and better for the money and they want it to visibly look different on the outside so that people know they got a new car.”
This is why I think Tesla is going to be hurting soon. Tesla stans always point out how the company makes small changes to the interior or makes changes to the hardware and other stuff the customer doesn’t really see. The reality is their cars never change. There may be slight styling tweaks like we have seen on the S, 3, and Y, but each model has remained the same size/shape and generally looks the same. A lack of true redesign of the 3 is especially going to hurt. The 3 was bought by a lot of regular people. After 5 years or so, they’ll want a new car for whatever reason. When they go to the showroom and see the current 3 is basically the same as their 5-year-old one, are they going to buy another and drive basically the same car for 10 years in a row? No. They want something that looks different so their friends and co-workers know they got a new car. That sounds vain, but people are like that. (Personally, I’ve driven the same car for 18 years and don’t care that my friends and co-workers think that’s crazy.)
Honestly, I question if Tesla is even capable of fully redesigning a car. They’ve never done it. Stuff like the Taurus, Accord, and Civic would change their look and shape. Besides redesigning headlights and taillights, Tesla has proven incapable of making big changes.
Can they redesign a car – sure. They have designed 5 cars so far. Can they build a new generation of cars that have a shared common platform? I really doubt it.
Which is what they need to do if they are going to continue to compete in the future. In a normal company all 5 of their current vehicles would be on a shared flexible platform. Take a company like Honda. The Pilot, Passport, Ridgeline, Odyssey and Acura MDX on a shared platform. The Civic, CRV, HRV, Integra, ADX and RDX share another platform.
Apple used to follow the sturdy seldom revamped approach, and many miss that.
I don’t recall them going broke building reliable stuff.
I don’t think companies understand their market.
Hondaimpbmw 12
14 days ago
The last iteration of the GM B body was done on a chassis that was old enough to vote when the “parade float” design came out. While it was a perimeter frame, the front from the A pillar and the rear after the C pillar were box sections and between was a flimsy stamped c section that barely kept the two ends from wandering off separately before the body was plonked on top.
The rear suspension was 4 angled links that allowed the rear to sashay around if you took a corner a bit hard. The dash had enough acreage of plastic under the windshield to set up a picnic. The seats were more of a trough that centered your butt about an inch off the steering wheel centerline. The back seat legroom was only slightly greater than a MK7 Golf. With that flimsy piece of tin between the front and rear frame sections, it might have cost an extra $2 to lengthen the wheelbase enough to even fit the wheel openings, never mind give if it another 3-4” to make the back seat habitable. Probably the most egregious failing was that damned GM “do everything stick” on the left side of the steering column.
Jatkat
14 days ago
Some of the all time reliability/cult following legends were built on absolutely ancient platforms. Panther, Express, SJ, Taco, XJ, Fox, Econoline, etc. Most get better with slow incremental refinements. I do wish they would get cheaper over time. I’d happily buy anything on my list as a new car if the price was right!
Agreed. I’d personally buy an new BMW e36 tomorrow if I could.
Shooting Brake
14 days ago
I mean yeah it matters in a business sense cause it does help drive sales as people go for the shiny new thing, but I have hated lazy auto journalists trashing cars in reviews just for “being old” when that really shouldn’t matter by itself, the old has to have some sort of disadvantage or it’s not worth mentioning. And today we suddenly find ourselves with most new cars being “over connected” and the old platforms still floating around suddenly feel extra desirable (but as usual with these things, only to a small subset of actual car enthusiasts, the general public still just wants shiny new things).
Ignatius J. Reilly
14 days ago
Neither old nor new is inherently better. New tends to increase performance or add amenities. Older is great if it has the advantage of a mature design where the bugs are worked out, so it is reliable, and the tooling is paid for, so it is cheap.
I am here for this. I generally don’t buy a vehicle from the first year or two of a redesign or launch as I like the car to be flushed out a bit and work the kinks out.
Hugh Crawford
14 days ago
I can’t think of a reason for preferring a new platform for the sake of newness.
New safety or performance features, sure. Otherwise what I don’t want is a problematic or short lived platform.
By the time a car is 10-20 years old, it doesn’t really matter, it’s just old.
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional cookies
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show (non-) personalized ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional cookies
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
I also sometimes wonder if the average person cares about a refresh because they actually know/care about the refresh, or if the marketing is telling them to, and marketing works, so…
Except for the crash test part. Absolutely before my kid was born I was suddenly all about the crash tests, and what years the standards changed, and allllllllll that.
I really liked the last refresh of the VW Beetle, but every time I got into it, all of its switchgear reminded me that it still used the PQ35 platform used for the MK5 Golf. Even when the interior was updated to match the MK6 Golf, it felt perpetually old sitting alongside its contemporaneous Mk7.
So you can freshen up the car to make it last a long time (like the did with the PQ Passat), but if you’re still using parts recognizable from multiple generations of outdated cars, it somehow feels worse.
I was considering buying a new Z until I realized it’s basically a tarted up 350Z, and I already have one of those. Ended up getting a Miata instead so I guess that’s a yes for me.
Platform age doesn’t really bother me. It’s when they don’t really keep up the design so that it looks old, that bothers me.
Platform age doesn’t bother me so long as it’s updated from time to time.
The Dodge Journey was junk from day one until it’s demise, but, Chrysler kept updating it and making it better along the way. The 3.6/6spd combo made the little clunker not unpleasant to drive, though it was still a total crapcan. The infotainment and clusters also got better over time.
The 2007-2021 Tundra just got better over time in spite of being a continuous platform. Ram did the same with the 1500/1500 Classic from 2009-2024.
Ford had a damned good run with both the Jellybean F150s (1997-2004) and the SN95/New Edge Mustang (1994-2004). Both of those just got better and better until their replacement.
A well sorted, very improved and refined new car on an old platform is no problem whatsoever to me. If it was good in the first place and they kept improving on it, I’ll take it.
I wouldn’t care if most of the car is old. Re release something like the first gen G35 or IS300 with a modern carplay infotainment system and radar cruise control and I’ll sign up. Bring back reliable, fun RWD sports sedans. Or the third gen 4Runner, that would definitely still sell.
Many older platforms soldiered on for decades because changing anything would’ve been either fundamentally distasteful or would’ve made some part of it inferior. Like the Checker Cab, or the Ford C-series. The Checker Cab was hardier and more disability accessible than every single replacement for it. You could buy a C-series in 1958 and another in 1990 and aside from gauges and a few other bits that had gone electronic over the decades it was the same damn truck. For a ridiculous but still salient example, look at the B-52 Stratofortress — it debuted in 1955 and is still being used regularly to this day because it’s widely needed, yet there’s been little need to replace it. Age since inception doesn’t really matter if the needs haven’t changed since then. Creating replacements is often just a waste of time and resources that could’ve been put towards refining existing examples and continuing their production with those improvements baked in. If you want proof, look at all the people that end up inventing terrible trains because they’re trying not to use trains. In the modern era advancements come so rarely and are so minimal that about the only time it makes sense to create actual full replacements is if you’re working from ashes. Where there’s nothing to really fall back on anymore, and the needs have changed so fundamentally that recreating what existed before would be a detriment to society.
One that never needed to be replaced was the original (compact) Ranger. Ford could have put in the extra airbag and saved it, but they decided to just cut an entire market segment instead. And everything we’ve had to replace it since has been worse. That Ranger had not been meaningfully updated since 1992, twenty years before, and there’s plenty of proof it didn’t need it. People didn’t care that it was basically the same truck as from 1992, it still functioned perfectly well for the intended purpose in 2012. I’m sure if Ford hadn’t gotten lazy that we’d still have the original Ranger sporting the cab from 1992 and a front end aping the needlessly complex headlights of the current F-150.
The Durango’s been around in it’s current incarnation since 2011 and will continue well into the future because who the hell’s going to challenge it? It’s got the interior materials of the Grand Cherokee (finally), the V8 the RAM trucks dumped (and are bringing back next month), is so cheap you can buy two for the price of one Expedition, can tow like hell, and actually has usable rear space unlike many of it’s contemporaries that have gone for a kammback design. You wouldn’t hear anybody who knows anything about it arguing that it needs a replacement. Really the same was true of all Dodge vehicles, including the Challenger and the Charger. They found a place where they could just sit pretty, and nobody asked nor wanted anything more from them. Nobody in charge seems to have understood that however.
There’s been a lot of excuses and legitimate reasons to change things because of either emissions regulations, crash regulations, or manufacturing complications. But whatever the explanation put forth, there’s been a lot of turnover in models for no real benefit for a while now. That’s been true of almost everything since about 2010. It’s not just cars. Radwood became a movement not just because of nostalgia but because the cars represent a massive leap forward after the Malaise Era, and they were part of a wider advancement in society that held actual progress.
So no, I don’t give a shit about feature parity because most modern features are just extraneous and intrusive. And I don’t give a shit about the age of the hardware unless it’s actively harmful compared to alternatives. Despite my enthusiasm for technology my cynicism about how it’s been wielded has pushed me towards embracing the obsolete. Functionality always wins out over appeal in the end, but some people take a while to figure out what the actual limit of the functionality is because they were drawn in by the appeal first.
Preach, the ranger was killed to put people into F150s but instead they went to Toyota(Taco) and Honda(ridgeline) .
So rather strange based on the lead photo.
But at our autocross thai weekend we had people with 350z 370z and my new Z
And we’re comparing just how much was shared.
And in my books its a good thing
I don’t trust nissan to have enough money and skills to build a whole new sports car is today’s age.
But a parts shop special with known parts hell yeah.
So just sometimes older is better.
I love old platforms, I was able to go to the junkyard and pull some manual seats from a car 10 model years older and they bolt right in.
Especially important because the model year I got only came with power seats and I didn’t want that.
In my opinion overall car platforms peaked somewhere in the early 2000’s. Good efficiency, naturally asperated, OBD2, but not too many electronic gremlins that pop up. I would hate to try to keep a modern ICE car running in 2045.
If it’s a good platform then it’s good, regardless age. And cars were basically perfected 20 years ago so it’s rare when something new is significantly better.
I like cars that go a long time without substantial changes. Parts will be easy to find and cheaper.
I believe GM, Ford and Chrysler proved decades ago that the platform wasn’t an issue – It was the sheetmetal and the amenities.
Nobody turned up their noses in front of the Ford showrooms in 1977 because the new Thunderbird was on a 6 year old platform – or the Chrysler showrooms in 1975 because the Cordoba was on a platform dating from 1962.
I really think The Autopian is moving away from its roots. Why?
1. There is not enough DT and JT content. I get they are now owners and bosses but their content is what made the Autopian a success
2. The site is providing good content but they are slowly converting to the same content that every other automotive sight is posting and I don’t believe that will succeed it is the different content they have that is what works.
3. Posting manufacturers statistics is what every other site does you aren’t going to beat them by being them.
4. You were great content providers under Jalopnik and I and others urged you to move out on your own. Now you are kicking ass and taking names. The last thing you need to do is start duplicating the sites you are already better than. I assume someone approached you who was considered an expert who now is suggesting becoming like the establishment sites instead of remaining the tremendous site you are. Just remember they were giving the sites you are kicking their ass advice that failed to prevent you from kicking their ass.
I suggest a Robert DeNiro movie called the Intern. It is a good look at your situation. Remember you can learn a lot from the right movie
I’m guessing The Autopian isn’t the place to market test what the average new car buyer is looking for in a vehicle. A key figure: 2/3 rds of new car buyers keep their car for 5 year or less.
There is a reason for the industry standard of refreshing a car every 3-4 years and doing a redesign every 6-8 years. It fits into the average lease / loan cycle. The typical new car buyer doesn’t want to spend $$$$ to buy the same car. They want something new and better for the money and they want it to visibly look different on the outside so that people know they got a new car.
As the market data in this article says: “successful new products drive higher market share and profits.”
“They want something new and better for the money and they want it to visibly look different on the outside so that people know they got a new car.”
This is why I think Tesla is going to be hurting soon. Tesla stans always point out how the company makes small changes to the interior or makes changes to the hardware and other stuff the customer doesn’t really see. The reality is their cars never change. There may be slight styling tweaks like we have seen on the S, 3, and Y, but each model has remained the same size/shape and generally looks the same. A lack of true redesign of the 3 is especially going to hurt. The 3 was bought by a lot of regular people. After 5 years or so, they’ll want a new car for whatever reason. When they go to the showroom and see the current 3 is basically the same as their 5-year-old one, are they going to buy another and drive basically the same car for 10 years in a row? No. They want something that looks different so their friends and co-workers know they got a new car. That sounds vain, but people are like that. (Personally, I’ve driven the same car for 18 years and don’t care that my friends and co-workers think that’s crazy.)
Honestly, I question if Tesla is even capable of fully redesigning a car. They’ve never done it. Stuff like the Taurus, Accord, and Civic would change their look and shape. Besides redesigning headlights and taillights, Tesla has proven incapable of making big changes.
Can they redesign a car – sure. They have designed 5 cars so far. Can they build a new generation of cars that have a shared common platform? I really doubt it.
Which is what they need to do if they are going to continue to compete in the future. In a normal company all 5 of their current vehicles would be on a shared flexible platform. Take a company like Honda. The Pilot, Passport, Ridgeline, Odyssey and Acura MDX on a shared platform. The Civic, CRV, HRV, Integra, ADX and RDX share another platform.
Apple used to follow the sturdy seldom revamped approach, and many miss that.
I don’t recall them going broke building reliable stuff.
I don’t think companies understand their market.
The last iteration of the GM B body was done on a chassis that was old enough to vote when the “parade float” design came out. While it was a perimeter frame, the front from the A pillar and the rear after the C pillar were box sections and between was a flimsy stamped c section that barely kept the two ends from wandering off separately before the body was plonked on top.
The rear suspension was 4 angled links that allowed the rear to sashay around if you took a corner a bit hard. The dash had enough acreage of plastic under the windshield to set up a picnic. The seats were more of a trough that centered your butt about an inch off the steering wheel centerline. The back seat legroom was only slightly greater than a MK7 Golf. With that flimsy piece of tin between the front and rear frame sections, it might have cost an extra $2 to lengthen the wheelbase enough to even fit the wheel openings, never mind give if it another 3-4” to make the back seat habitable. Probably the most egregious failing was that damned GM “do everything stick” on the left side of the steering column.
Some of the all time reliability/cult following legends were built on absolutely ancient platforms. Panther, Express, SJ, Taco, XJ, Fox, Econoline, etc. Most get better with slow incremental refinements. I do wish they would get cheaper over time. I’d happily buy anything on my list as a new car if the price was right!
Agreed. I’d personally buy an new BMW e36 tomorrow if I could.
I mean yeah it matters in a business sense cause it does help drive sales as people go for the shiny new thing, but I have hated lazy auto journalists trashing cars in reviews just for “being old” when that really shouldn’t matter by itself, the old has to have some sort of disadvantage or it’s not worth mentioning. And today we suddenly find ourselves with most new cars being “over connected” and the old platforms still floating around suddenly feel extra desirable (but as usual with these things, only to a small subset of actual car enthusiasts, the general public still just wants shiny new things).
Neither old nor new is inherently better. New tends to increase performance or add amenities. Older is great if it has the advantage of a mature design where the bugs are worked out, so it is reliable, and the tooling is paid for, so it is cheap.
I am here for this. I generally don’t buy a vehicle from the first year or two of a redesign or launch as I like the car to be flushed out a bit and work the kinks out.
I can’t think of a reason for preferring a new platform for the sake of newness.
New safety or performance features, sure. Otherwise what I don’t want is a problematic or short lived platform.
By the time a car is 10-20 years old, it doesn’t really matter, it’s just old.
A design being older is often a desirable trait.
Fewer unrepairable useless gimmicks.
Simpler less costly emissions contraptions.