Building the next generation of vehicles can be a very pricey endeavor – new safety regulations, new emissions constraints, new tech requirements… the list goes on and on. One way to keep prices down is to “reskin” an existing model or platform and outfit it with all the latest and greatest bits and pieces. Indeed, General Motors is certainly no stranger to the reskinning strategy, and in fact, one could say that for ICE-powered GM vehicles, reskinning is the name of the game.
For those readers who may be unaware, reskinning is essentially when an automaker updates a vehicle’s exterior, interior, technology, and possibly the powertrain, all while keeping the underlying structure and hard points intact. Several GM vehicles follow the reskinning strategy, and are indicated as such by a number “2” in their platform code or program code.
One could liken a reskinned vehicle to a 2.0 software release in the tech world – like a second generation.
Some examples of reskinned GM vehicles cover the entirety of The General’s brand portfolio, from Chevy, to Buick, to Cadillac, to GMC:
Midsize and Large Crossovers – C1-2
In addition to all of the models listed above, GM’s next-generation, ICE-based full-size SUVs (assuming there will be such a thing in light of GM’s electrification ambitions) will also ride on the GM T1-2 platform, just like the next-generation 2027 Chevy Silverado and 2027 GMC Sierra listed above.
Interestingly, GM’s all-electric models can follow this strategy as well, with the next-gen Chevy Bolt EV developed essentially as a 2.0-generation of the first-gen Chevy Bolt EUV, plus a new exterior and a new battery.
“This approach enables GM to not reinvent the wheel when it comes to platforms, where the bulk of engineering for a vehicle program usually takes place,” explains GM Authority Executive Editor Alex Luft. “The automaker can simply carry over the general platform, which have been very solid over the past two decades, while making improvements to the exterior, interior, tech and – on occasion – the powertrain.”
Naturally, this approach helps to keep development costs low, all while enabling a quicker time-to-market and iterative improvements to vehicle quality and reliability, given GM doesn’t need to start from square one ever time a new generation is needed, essentially carrying over “quality advances into each new vehicle program,” as Luft explains.
Of course, GM vehicles aren’t the only examples of the reskinning strategy. Japanese automakers Honda and Toyota have also established a reputation for quality and reliability through the reskinning of existing platforms, often times over the course of three generations.
In an era where automakers are constantly balancing innovation with cost-effectiveness, reskinning offers a practical solution for many GM vehicles. By leveraging proven platforms and introducing iterative updates, GM can keep its vehicle portfolio fresh and competitive, all without sinking untold costs into brand-new platforms.
Comments
So the new Equinox and Terrain are considered reskins?
How ’bout a reskinned Malibu? Very bad decision to drop it, GM.
Was reading where the young ppl love the Malibu. This is an important aspect that gm must take into consideration. There is also a large percentage of this same demographic that do not want an EV.
I’m a senior citizen and 80 year olds love the rental car Malibu. Were these young ppl on drugs/
You can add Impala and Camaro to the list.
They better reskin the heck out of their ICE vehicles because they’ll go broke if all they do is build EV’s.
Agreed, this is not necessarily a bad thing, as it is routinely done by foreign brands to their benefit. It has to be easier to produce a newer version of the same platform at higher quality levels than to try to clean-sheet every introduction.
“Keeping the underlying structure and hard points intact”
Meaning the Traverse and Enclave could still have the 3.6?
WHAT were they thinking? Go to the # parts bin and build the vehicle we really want!
The new Traverse and Enclave are getting a 2.5L Turbo
The 2.5L Turbo is better than the 3.6 with the crappy torque curve in every way. The new Traverse is selling great, apparently just a few senior citizens on this site are pining for the dated 3.6, but people actually buying the Traverse with the modern “torque monster” 2.5 turbo seem quite happy.
The 3.6 was heavy, expensive and still did not get the MPG or the Emission the new engine can get. Power is power no matter the cylinders.
The 3.6 never made power till 3000 RPM vs the turbo that will do it below 1800 RPM with a flat torque curve. Don’t knock it till you drive it.
If that’s the case, then there is 0 excuse to not bring a 7th gen Camaro to market on Alpha 2.
If not a Camaro then at least do something with the alpha 2.0 chassis, Chevy or dare I say a Buick.
The Camaro did not make money, The low price point and low sales just never made the money they could with another model.
On the other hand the Cadillac sedans may sell less but they get a much higher price and make money. They could do the same with Camaro but would you pay $95K for a Camaro when you can get a Corvette for less?
Same on the BU and Impala. Sales were not there and the return on the investment was low. These cars sat on the lot for 6 months after the model year selling at massive discounts.
The camaro could have done better if they bothered to do a reskin on it. Best we got was a new front bumper/grill that was ugly.
The mustang has had several “reskins” and sells great and makes money. (And was usually even cheaper than the camaro)
You couldn’t get your hands on a 6th Gen Camaro V8 from 2020-2024. GM didn’t build them.
Reskin Cadillac’s sedans; they need it badly. CT5 and CT4 are DOA. Can’t give em away.
Hmmm , I want to say this isn’t really a secret but judging from the comments it appears new to many. ALL car companies do this without exception. A good/bad example is the Tesla model S. not only has the chassis remained the same but the exterior hasn’t really changed much at all. It is good looking so change isn’t necessarily important but it’s upgraded galore under the skin.
What is important however is the frequency of change ( v1, v2, v3 etc) The Tesla S is now 16 years old. No real idea how many changes but 16 years is long. Typical European cars exist for 12 to 16 years with some lasting 20+ years (heavily refined Porsche) prior to new chassis. Versions (v1,v2,v3) can be every 4 or 6 years. American cars tend to change 8 to 12 years with emphasis on 12 years with 3 versions usually or every 4 years. Japanese cars get 8 to 12 years, with emphasis on 8 and 2 or 3 versions.
This is old data since I haven’t really had to tabulate such things since the 90’s. Do you have newer data? Life cycles have changed a bit since.
So to put it another way GM isn’t improving its products it’s just changing the window dressing to keep the customers funding this idiotic EV industry. The future looks dim for GM don’t expect a government bailout this time
Next time read the article. It even says that Toyota and Honda have been doing it for years and quite successfully.
Yet the Corolla drives like it’s still in the 80’s. It desperately needs a new platform. The Highlander platform also is not designed for what it has become. It’s rough and awkward. There merit to new platforms, and Toyota is suffering from lack of updates.
The current Corolla has been on Toyota’s newer platform TNGA since 2018. But for a couple decades, it sat on the same platform and received regular sheetmetal redesigns and mechanical upgrades and customers kept flocking to the nameplate.
Should be remembered that these platforms came from GM Europe (Opel) and have been repeatedly perfected–weight loss–up to current generation.
If EV fails, if ICE/hybrid powertrains w/new new cylinder technology (Mazda/Toyta) take over, GM will gave a hard time developing new platforms with Opel gone, China failing and a nehlected US engineering infrastructure. I guess updated VFF modular kit and GEM would be an open.
I have never understood, and I understand even less now after reading the article and comments why the age of a chassis matters. If it was proper designed initially for strength, energy absorption in a crash, etc., what is there to change? Obviously I wouldn’t wanna buy a truck built on a 16-year-old chassis, but why would I care if it is built on a new chassis design 16 years ago?.
Spot on. You just described Toyota’s approach to the 2004-2023 Tacoma that enabled rock solid reliability (who cares if they were still using a 4-speed automatic in the 2020s) and an unseatable sales leader.
Age mattered at GM as they reskinned for years and often they delayed it till the platform would not meet crash standards. This is why they killed the Camaro the first time. Sales were down and the old platform would no longer meet standards.
They can change this id the government increased standards for crashes again.
Well it took GM 40 years to relearn what they used to do, and what Toyota has been doing for years. Using tried and true platforms and engineering while continuously improving on them with tested current gen technologies and lightweighting them with lighter stronger materials. Same goes for engines, especially small displacement 4 cylinder engines where GM has been trying over and over for decades to reinvent the proverbial wheel instead of settling on a existing design and significantly improve its reliability durability and smoothness.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. To add, Honda and Toyota introduce “new” platforms every other design cycle. For example, the 2008 Accord platform was new and then the “re-skin” was the 2013-17 design. Today’s Accord generation is underpinned by the platform introduced for the 2018-22 cycle, and so forth. Same with Civic and Camry, and all of the SUVs and minivans they spawn, including Acura and Lexus models. If GM can apply this approach across their major platforms (Equinox,Traverse, Colorado, Tahoe and EVs), think of the massive development savings and elevated reliability and quality.
I think this is great, why redesign an already great platform? Upgrade safety measures like structural requirements but the basic chassis can remain the same. Foreign companies have done this for years. Saves money on development costs, plant refit costs, training costs and improves profit. I always thought it was dumb to totally redesign a car from the ground up every 6 years, and terribly expensive/labor intensive.
Well GM finally got to a place their platforms are up to date and light yet still pass present crash testing.
This will help save costs of new vehicles and help keep prices from going up more. The focus will be on the engines to make them meet the ever increasing emission and MPG standards.
Then reskin the Camaro.
Dash 2 programs are not just ‘reskins’. They are just 1 step below all new. True ‘reskins’ are 3 steps below all new.