Quote:
Originally Posted by ted99
What are the compromises of using an adapted ICE-capable platform over a dedicated platform? A dedicated EV platform generally offers the following:
1) Longer wheelbase for a given overall length giving a better ride over lousy roads.
2) More interior space for a given overall length because of cab-forward design and lack of a center tunnel.
3) "Probably" lower weight.
What are the advantages of using an ICE-capable platform over a dedicated EV platform?
1) Possibly lower cost as the platform can be amortized over a larger production run and no need to tool up a completely different production line.
2) The EV's look more "normal" in their proportions. This could be an advantage in the early days of EV adoption for the general buying public.
Early adopters of electric propulsion technology actually welcomed looking "different". Until the general public realizes the greater space efficiency of the EV-specific platform and it's "cab-forward" look, a more traditional look may be an advantage. Remember how VHS won over technically superior BetaMax for entirely non-technical reasons.
Whether intentional, or the result of having current management make lemon-aid out of lemons left by previous Board decisions, BMW may actually fare well in the transition period with these compromised platforms because it's products look so conventional (grills excepted).
|
cab-forward design is possibly one of the worst trends for automotive design. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't partly responsible for the demise of the sedan. It creates the jellybean look which was so popular in the 1990's and is why I can't stand the look of tesla's. For me it screams cheapness.
It's no coincidence that BMW and Mercedes did so well during this period. They didn't build FWD cars so cab-forward wasn't a thing. .