Traditionally, a number of Astons (not all) have also shared platforms with XK Jaguars.

 

The Jaguar AJ-V8 (which won Ward's 10 best engines in 2000) ranged from displacements 3.2L to 5.0L as well as a supercharged version. Ford used the small 3.9 V8 in the Lincoln LS and the last Thunderbird. LR used the 4.2L SC and 4.4L, and the Vantages V8's (4.3/4.7) are also derivative of the AJ-V8 and in the 4.3's case named AJ37.

 

Well thanks fella's for clearing that up for me. Now lets see if i learned anything:

A platform(for example) is consist of a frame(latter) thats formed to a certain length, width, height, strength and will accomidate a certain power and drivetrain(FWD). Electrical, suspension and steering components are set up to bolted on a certain way. ECMs,PCMs, are standard issue. Now put all these parts together and you have a platform. No Body parts included. Now if i wanted to make it a AWD vehicle, i can just simply change out the drive train and a few minor bits and wham! I have a SUV based on my preexisting platform. If i want to stretch this car to make it full size all i would have to do is, well stretch it. Of course there will be a few additional modifications but none that will make too much of a change to the platform. Do i have this right?

 

Those were the pre Gaydon (their new factory) astons. Starting from the db9 / vantage ala 2005 I dont think any aston share platforms with jag anymore (that is also when ford sold off aston and jag separately)

 

they could share even less parts than that, way less... For instance Rav4, MR2 and Corolla had same platform 10 years ago... yet completely different interior/exterior/suspensions/everything but powertrains, which are shared among different platforms anyway.

And all of them got full model development...

So at it basics, it is basically frame + how everything connects to each other, and even that is configurable.

New platforms like what everyone is doing will have much more sharing than today.... Basically mid-frame section will always be the same (i guess length and width will be changeable) and then they add different fronts and backs.

 

Did you mean "ladder" frame? If so, the traditional ladder-frame, which is 2 lengthwise frame-rails with several cross members front to back,) today is used only on pickup trucks and some older, more traditional SUVs. With this type of construction, the separate body is bolted to the chassis (or sometimes attached by other means). Most other vehicle types (including the Honda Ridgeline pickup) use what is called a unibody construction, where the frame/chassis is formed and combined (usually by welding) into one single, strong unit. A few vehicles use what is called a space-frame, which is formed by a skeleton network, and the exterior body panels are attached by clips or bolts.

Yes, this part of it, you (mostly) have right. The main exception is that you aren't necessarily required to have an SUV if you convert your basic platform from either FWD or RWD into AWD. A number of regular passenger-cars (Ford Fusion, Lincoln MKZ, Buick Regal, Mercedes C/E-Class, BMW 3-series, to name a few) come in both 2WD and AWD versions, in response to increasing customer demand. Some hybrid models (Lexus hybrids are probably the best examples) turn FWD into AWD by having a transverse (sideways-mounted) gas/electric motor combo up front and a separate electric motor on each rear wheel.

 

Yes Ladder. Sorry for the typo. Now in terms of pickups, i would guess the F150 and the rest of it's stablemates(250,350) share the same platform?

 

The 250/350's ladder-frame is somewhat more robust, as they are rated for significantly higher payloads and towing than the 150....especially with the diesels and the dual-rear-wheel versions (same with the Silverado and Ram 2500/3500). Given that these frames are sturdier, whether the 2500/3500s actually use the same basic platform as the base 1500/F-150 versions, I can't say...I'm not sure.

 

Maybe they could shared the same PF but the biggers trucks could also incorparate extra welds and thicker materials that help with beefing the frame up. Although im sure Ford wouldn't have a problem with developing a whole different PF just for the 250/350 trucks, but why not just beef up the existing, tried and true 150 PF and save development cost. Thats my guess.

 

I think that if you asked the manufacturers, they would say that light-duty (e.g. F-150) and heavy-duty (e.g. F-250, F-350, etc.) pickup trucks use different platforms (although "platform" is not a term that is often heard when describing body-on-frame trucks). The light-duty and heavy-duty pickup trucks use different frames; I believe that the frame cross-section is deeper -- higher overall -- on heavy-duty pickups than light-duty pickups.

As to saving develop cost, I do not think that the manufacturers would consider merely using a "beefed up" light-duty frame for a heavy-duty pickup saving costs -- they would likely consider it a big no-no, in this ultra-competitive heavy-duty pickup truck market. Just watch those commercials that try to compare Ford's heavy-duties with Chevy's heavy-duties and how they are always saying that the competitor's heavy-duty truck frame is weak. Be big and strong or go home!

 

I did some reading on the new VW MQB (a German acronym standing for "modular transverse toolkit") platform. It will be used on quite a range of cars ("superminis to large family cars") that use a transverse, FWD-based engine and transmission layout -- Audi A3 and VW Golf up to VW Tiguan and VW CrossBlue (perhaps).

It defines and fixes hard a few things but leaves the other attributes variable.

1. It is designed to handle gasoline, diesel and hybrid engines, all on fixed, common engine mounts.
2. The front axle to the firewall distance is fixed and will be the same for all sizes of cars running on the MQB platform; that way, they can all use the same pedal box.
3. The suspension mounting points are fixed and common for all cars. I assume that the type of rear suspension (independent or semi-independent torsion bar) is variable, depending on the car, as long as they have common mounting points.
4. The "platform" or "frame" (remembering that these are unibody cars and crossover utility vehicles) seems to extend to the tub that forms the foundation for any of the car bodies.
5. I read somewhere that even the angle of the front windshield is fixed and common on all MQB cars. This would be for the strength and crashworthiness of the platform.
6. The electrical system will be common, as will the range of infotainment systems.
7. The front and rear overhangs will be variable, allowing for larger or smaller cars.
8. The wheelbase will be variable, again allowing for larger or smaller cars.
9. The rear (I assume 2-row) seat hip-point to rear axle distance will be variable, allowing, I assume for a 3rd-row of seats.

The fixed, common hard points and range of common sub-assemblies allow for lower development costs of all MQB cars, and allows all MQB vehicles to be assembled on the same assembly line. I assume that it will allow for cheaper torsion bar rear suspension on smaller, cheaper models, up to fully independent rear suspensions on larger models, like the Passat and CrossBlue.

The variable attributes allow for the wide range of sizes, from VW Golf (compact) and smaller with gasoline and diesel engines up to the large 3-row CrossBlue crossover with hybrid drivetrain.

Do a Google search for "VW MQB platform" to find more information. Some websites seem to indicate that they have all the information but actually have very little, so you will have to do some searching.

I assume that Volvo's new Scalable Product Architecture that debuted with the new XC90, and is said to be the foundation for all new Volvo products, is similar in concept to the VW MQB platform.

 

I also happen to think that a purely RWD car and a purely FWD car will never be able to share platforms.

 

That's generally the case. I can't remember the last time that actually happened....at least from vehicles of American, Western European/Australian, or Japanese/Korean design.

The only (possible) exception might be from 1980-81, when the first subcompact FWD Toyota Tercels appeared. They might (?) have used the same platform (or close to it) as the small RWD Toyota Starlet and Corolla....though I think the Starlet was a little smaller in actual size, and the Corolla slightly larger.