You cannot really have a single platform for ALL your vehicles, unless all of them have same dimensions and you diferentiate only on the panels and exterior. You still have to use a couple of different platforms and have them under a single umbrella of a "global" platform. It is still the same of what they did in the past and maybe now they focus to share much more parts which is not always good, because you don't have a big differentiation between vehicles. Subaru was criticised in the past that they could not differentiate much and now can be worse.

And about the 6% accleration increase, it was related to a lightweight flywheel and not a pulley. You are suposed to work for years in the automotive industry and you should know better. The factory flywheel is designed to be heavy for storing kinetic energy and absorb vibrations in low speeds. If your car is not a daily driver and you don't drive much in town, then you can go for a lighter one without any compromises.

Sure you can. Same platform does not necessarily mean exact same chassis.

Why couldn't you have a two door and a four door that had the same rear sub frame, suspension and drive components. Front sub frame, suspension and steering components. Same transmission, same engine?

If the main component attachment points are of similar dimensions, the cars become Lego's. The term "platform" is kind of a broad term.

Yes, but this has been done by Subaru for decades. For example you could swap without issue components between a Forester and a WRX STI and in fact the factory has done this quite often in their limited editions. It is not something really new. If what they realy mean now as a "global" platform is to have for example a single CVT and place it in all the models , when in the past you had a 5-MT, a 6-MT, a 4-AT, a 5-AT and a CVT then I don't really see it as a progress. It is as you said trying to play Lego, but now with fewer pieces and much less diversity.

Swapping some components does not mean the same platform. They have not been using a single platform "for decades" and this is the biggest news to come out of Subaru ever. It will totally change how they can manufacture cars. They will still offer different drive lines in the same platform. As usual you spew the rhetoric without understanding one part of a concept.

So, what does it really differentiate of what they were doing in the past with what they'll do now? Can you be more clear? I am all ears.

There are several thousand articles about the change on the internet. Go read them.

The only real thing I can see is the statement that Subaru’s two plants in Japan and the one plant in the U.S. will be able to build all their vehicles on one assembly line. Anything else is not really related with the "global" platform and it is more relevant with the next generation platform. What I can see by doing this is just giving more resources to the U.S. plant since this is their biggest market currently, but with the expense of less diversity. Before this, I don't believe there was any issue with the two plants in Japan. Don't compare Subaru with other automakers. They were quite small and very localised and they knew already about scale economy.

Can we please get back on topic?

1) This is wonderful news if true.
2) I really hope they stay true to the original mission statement, and the 2nd gen doesn't suffer from bloat and focus group requests (i.e. more room! bigger rear seat! etc etc)
3) If Subaru plans to use the new corporate 2.4 liter maybe there's hope, the 2nd time around, for an NA and turbo option. Would be strange, as for a lot of people I think the extra power of the 2.4 would be enough to satisfy them, thus maybe removing some demand for a turbo model. Then again, that's the kind of backward logic we see all the time from automakers.:bonk:

A large enough boost in power from the factory will involve some serious changes to the car. Most likely would result in the bloat that people do not want to see. I know that this is not a popular opinion but it could also push the business case to use the new global platform. Although some people don't want to believe it they have made it very clear that platform is the future for Subaru and to have one model that does not use it may not fit with their vision. A standalone with the upgrades needed to deal with more power could also bloat the price to a point where the casual driver would not be interested, forcing it into even a tighter niche than it is now.

I feel like 20-30 hp via a larger naturally aspirated engine would not necessitate large changes or weight gain.

50+ hp from a turbocharged engine, and it's obligatory torque, yeah I could see "bloat" happening.

The FA20 currently has a power ratio of 100HP per liter. With any luck, it will also mean the new chosen engine will make 240HP. Most likely no need for a turbo.

Yes this has been the argument for a while now with these so-called "global platforms" being pushed out by auto makers. Not too radically different from what they've been doing for decades really, kinda like the cloud computing BS of car manufacturing.

I think this talk all stemmed from VW's MQB platform, where they hyped up things like how certain dimensions are fixed for example the pedal box, while other dimensions can be adjusted as needed, and with more part sharing than ever before (meaning a defect can literally mean fucking total recall).

Before the BRZ, the modern Subaru (from 1989 onwards) was mainly the Legacy platform (which bankrupted them) and later on the Impreza platform (the Forester is actually based on the Impreza), in which the latter was derived from the former. All the innovations came about on the Legacy first, then trickled down to the Impreza. You can also argue the BRZ is basically another derivative from the Impreza.

I haven't read enough to understand how the Alcyone SVX was developed, probably based on the Legacy.

@nikitopo

Okay I finally found the diagram which I saw many years ago on the web:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-...014/08/mqb.jpg

Well you can call it progress in terms of a supposedly cost savings exercise, but not progress in the traditional sense (I mean come'on let's face it; the dude at Das Auto who actually came up with this got canned soon after it was implemented lmao).

Looks a lot like the 370z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Although it looks more modern, I think the current body captures the flavor of a minimalist sports car better. The 370z does not sell well. Why would they want to copy it? It's mixing metaphors. Now if they want to raise the price by 10 grand, then you are talking about a different buyer -- the 370z buyer....