Currently, GM’s largest crossovers are comprised of the Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia, and Buick Enclave. Based on the Lambda architecture, the trio of full-size CUVs is the largest in the industry, and has been quite the sales success for The General. Ironically, the automaker has been marketing the vehicles as midsize crossovers, even though they clearly fit into the full-size space. But that discrepancy might go away with the second generations of each model.
That’s because the current Lambda platform, which is related to the Epsilon architecture, will be folded into the E2XX midsize vehicle program — the direct replacement for the current Epsilon/Epsilon II. The efforts are part of GM’s initiatives to reduce complexity by cutting the amount of platforms and engines used in half by 2018.
| PLATFORM | APPLICATION |
|---|---|
| EPSILON | CURRENT MALIBU, IMPALA, REGAL/INSIGNIA, LACROSSE |
| LAMBDA | CURRENT TRAVERSE, ENCLAVE, ACADIA |
| CHEVY MALIBU |
|---|
| CHEVY IMPALA |
| CHEVY TRAVERSE |
| BUICK ENCLAVE |
| GMC ACADIA |
| POSSIBLE BUICK REGAL AND OPEL INSIGNIA |
| POSSIBLE OPEL FLAGSHIP SEDAN |
To note, E2XX is set to underpin the next-generation Chevrolet Malibu and Impala, Buick LaCrosse, and (possibly) the Opel Insignia/Buick Regal, along with an upcoming Opel flagship. In doing so, E2XX will also serve as the basis for the next-gen Traverse, Acadia, and Enclave. As that happens, however, the vehicles’ dimensions might shrink from their current full-size status. Kind of.
Sources tell us that GM is currently considering making two kinds of crossovers from the midsize E2XX architectures. The first would be a “true” midsize crossover with two rows — along the lines of the Toyota Venza, Ford Edge, and Hyundai Santa-Fe Sport. The second would be a longer variant of the same crossover with three rows — along the lines of the current-generation Traverse, Enclave, and Acadia, as well as the Ford Explorer and Hyundai Santa-Fe. If that strategy seems at similar to that employed by Hyundai with the new (midsize) Santa-Fe Sport and (full-size) Santa-Fe, that’s because it is. The Korean automaker has been enjoying notable market success with such an approach, and has been constrained by production capacity of its vehicles.
We’re told by sources that GM is currently exploring the engineering and marketing feasibility of the midsize and fullsize CUV approach from the E2XX platform, and that a decision has yet to be made. One of the various benefits of the strategy is that the midsize variants will be capable of being sold globally, including in Europe, where full-size utilities have limited appeal. For now, it seems that the E2XX platform will absorb Lambda and spawn a CUV. How many CUVs it will spawn, however, is still up in the air.
The efforts will mirror GM’s replacement of the Theta and Delta architectures with the next-gen D2XX platform, which will serve as the basis for globally-available compact cars and crossovers.
Comments
GM is making a great decision merging these two platforms into one, being able to produce both type’s of cuvs!
GM is doing away with as many platforms as possible and I think this is a great idea and should be spread threw out GM!
Building multiple cars and trucks off one platform regardless of what division is a must in the future!
How many platforms could GM get down to?
How many do they have now?
The GMC Acadia is the best looking big family hauler. I don’t like crossovers, it’s the modern minivan. But the Acadia looks great.
Also, I noticed the Regal was left off the list of E2XX vehicles, because it’s going to Alpha and eventually spawn the GN and GNX variants!
GNX. That sounds like it may be fill the whole in my heart where Pontiac once was.
But if it’s gonna do like how Hyundai did it, then what about the terrain since it’s positioned to be competing against vehicles like the Santa Fe sport and the murano?
Or is the potential Acadia sport gonna replace the terrain?
The Korean automaker has been enjoying notable market success with such an approach…….
******************
I don’t think the consumer cares what platform underpins a vehicle — things like styling, features, value, fuel economy, warranty, customer experience, etc. have made Hyundai successful. One platform or two, it doesn’t matter if it’s ugly or not priced right.
Do you remember the impala was riding around on a platform that dated back to the 90’s and people on this site were complaining about how old the car was!
The point is that that majority of the people don’t know or care how old a platform is!
People that follow the industry like us even know or care!
How many platforms can GM get down to?
I don’t know if I like this idea. What will happen to the Theta’s? Where’d the LaCrosse and XTS go? Here’s what I am thinking:
E2XX – Malibu, Regal, Equinox, and Anthem
Extended E2XX -Impala, LaCrosse, XTS, Traverse, Acadia, Enclave
Colorado/Canyon Platform – Terrain
The Regal should definitely stay on a FWD platform because people would start cross-shopping with the ATS.
The Colorado and Canyon are body on frame, there is no car/crossover to be shared with them. The only chance of another vehicle is something like a Trailblazer or whatever the ‘special’ product GMC is cooking up for a true off-roader.
E2XX will be flexible enough to cover midsize and full size vehicles.
Buick is getting an Alpha based car, whether that’s the Regal or a new nameplate to takeover that midsize field. The Alpha Buick will likely start at $30k and ATS bump up to $35. People can already cross shop the AWD Regal with the ATS, especially the Regal Turbo and GS models. Just like there is lower-end overlap with the Malibu.
Platform sharing, like the E2XX, is the name of the game now. Why pay to develop 5 platforms when you can focus on one and make it great. Look at how many models VW is putting on the MQB. Number of cars sold is all well and good to say how big of a company you are, but profit is where it counts. More profit, more reinvestment into R&D and special products, like the Z/28.
I want the Terrain to be an offroad SUV to compete with Jeep. Unless they move Cadillac even more upmarket, a RWD Buick doesn’t make sense. I am fine with platform sharing, but am concerned of what will happen to the Theta’s and Super Epsilon’s.
So then tell me why so many people get pissed when GM shares platforms with the Cadillac XTS and the lacrosse, Impala?
When you look at these 3 cars you can’t tell from the naked eye they all come from the same platform, most people would never know unless they read it in a article!
people don’t get pissed with platform sharing, they get pissed with badge engineering.
What’s the difference?
Weather you share body panels or platforms it’s still sharing! Call it what you want!
There are people who think divisions should not share engines, GM using the same engines in a Chevy and a Cadillac which is nonsense. If these people had it their way there would be Cadillac, Buick, Chevy, and GMC engines to be used by only those divisions! Add to this each division having their own platforms that stay in house!
These ideas have been proven wrong time and time again, sharing everything is the way things should be!
Building the best cars on the best platforms with the best engines you have at your company is what needs to be done!
The difference is having a Cadillac XTS and Chevy Impala sharing platforms, or a Chevy Cobalt and Pontiac G5 as badge engineering. Or an Audi R8 and Lamborghini Gallardo sharing platforms, or a Ford Escape and Mazda Tribute badge engineering.
There is a big difference, and often times when people get up in arms over platform sharing they are confused and think it’s ‘badge engineering’ when really they don’t know wtf either are, they just know they dont like one of them.
There is nothing wrong with Cadillac and Chevy sharing platforms and engines!
Bud, that’s exactly my point. As I stated originally, it is ‘badge engineering’ that people don’t like. It’s cheap and a complete money grab.
This is a great idea as long as they can make it work to deliver excellent dynamics, great interior space, and light weight.
The realities of the industry is everyone shares platforms in their line ups. Some do it better than other.
Back 10-20 years ago GM shared platforms but never had the funds to properly refine the plarform in some cases. Too often the Caprice and Fleetwood differences came down to the plastic trim and some insulation. Today the differences are much greater.
Also I note GM is introducing new platforms as a Cadillac and letting them foot the bill for better development and refinement and then letting it trickle down to Chevy and Buick. Lets face it the Impala is a better car due to the fact GM improved the platform doing the XTS and the next Camaro and SS will benefit from the investment in refinement of the ATS and CTS.
The future platforms will receive better refinement and flexibility. You will note that nearly all the new platforms will not just under pin new cars but also CUV models if what I hear is correct. At some point the D2XX and the Alpha and Omega may underpin a SUV/CUV model in the GM line up. As you can see here the E2XX will do the same.
These platforms have received much more development and refinement than the old ones ever did. GM for once can afford to do it right the first time. Also sharing these with Cadillac will make he lesser models much better.
You can take a really great top end car and dumb it down and still have a great car but it is difficult to take a based car and make it into a Great top end car like GM tried for years to do. The worst example is the Cavalier and Cimarron.
The matter here is the great chassis tuning we will see and the loss of mass that will pay off in the long run as the less mass these larger cars have the longer we get to keep driving them and get better MPG.
The average buyer may not per say complain about a old platform but he will notice the stiffness and strength of the new refined platform and the better MPG due to less weight. You can lead or follow and right now GM is on a tear losing weight in the cars. This is a lead they need to keep.
Case in point on old vs. new. I just drove back to back an old CTS and new CTS. While the old was a good car you can really feel the better chassis in the new car. It was even a 4 cylinder Turbo with AWD and while not a V sport it was no where a slug and was a very good driving car. I can only imagine the new CTSV with more power, larger size and less weight on a chassis that is button down tight.
These investments in these platforms will pay off for 15 years here. The Epsilon, Lambda, Delta and Zeta all have done their job but it is time they all are replaced as they were never designed to be as flexible as the new platforms. To advance the new platforms will change this and bring us cars of a world class nature no sorry world class leading nature. The CTS is only a hint at the refinement we will see less the Cue. LOL and it is not anything that can not easily be adjusted to meet market demands.
So what is your definition of badge engineering? Is one shared part of but 2 is not ? Where do you draw the line? What is to much what is ok?
Ok so you’re one of the ones who doesn’t know how to discern between the two; platform sharing vs badge engineering.
Sharing a platform (Google: unibody car platform) versus swapping the GMC logo for the Chevy Bowtie on a Sierra-Silverado, sure they share the same platform, AND everything else (new 2014s less so, but still also very much).
Google VW MQB platform and look at how many cars ride on that and how different they all are, or are going to be since some haven’t been released yet. The Alpha platform is a compact sedan, midsize sedan, going to be two very different coupes, will be a CUV, etc… ‘Badge engineering’, is not engineering at all, take for instance Buick and Opel, the Opel grille and badges have been swapped for Buick. Now this isn’t really a big deal because the two products aren’t sold in the same market. Same goes for all the Chrysler-Dodge-Plymouth-Volkswagen minivans.
It’s not that I don’t understand it’s that I don’t care! I think the sharing of platform’s engines and body panels if needed is all good
I think GM is being very hipocritical in this move. They brag that the Terrain, Acadia and their borther models are the only purpose built SUV’s on the market because they don’t share platforms and provide more space and praticality then their suitable competitors. By sharing platforms they are doing just the oppposite.
I won’t be happy with this move unless the new models provide more space and payload
Hey great one why don’t you wait until the new one is here before being negative about it?