[v.b.]

Fiat purposely engineered C-evo to be able to build a 159 replacement on it. So it was designed from the start for a D class car with a v6. I remember at the launch of the Giulietta that they stressed out that it can have different wheelbase lenghts.
That issue was the main problem with D segment (mid-size) failures in the past: Fiat Tempra, Marea, Alfa 155, 156, Lancia Dedra, all had the same wheelbase as the C segment (compact) cars.
Before the alliance with Chrysler they were only shopping for a E segment platform to built the Alfa 169.

v

 

[Dave Z]

Was unaware Cherokee was on a new platform, not entirely surprised. Sergio has proven rather flexible about many things.

 

[MoparNorm]

In the CUSW, the C des not refer to european market segment C, but to Compact, the name of the platform (better to say a midway between platform and architecture in Chrysler terms, well it could be defined as a flexible modular architecture in Chrysler terms)..

So...the D-USW, will stand for Dis Size?

Also curious as to why there would be ANY reference to the European market segment, when the US in the platform code stands for..."US".
The architecture in Chrysler terms is independent from platform size. Architecture is not a size, it's parts.
Most likely the blurring is taking place because they are attempting to do so much...with so little.
Don't know why the C-SUV terminology gets thrown in there, unless a marketing spokesperson, threw that term out there.
The KL is clearly CUSW based, the fact that it is a CUV (not SUV) doesn't impact it's platform size, unless its too tall to be built with the other CUSW cars, Dart and 200. Which, if true, kind of negates the point of using CUSW, for KL, as they could have spent the billions upon a Jeep specific platform and not tried to make the Giulietta architecture work under a Jeep.

Im not discounting your explanation, it was rather good, just discounting the marketing speak from Fiat Chrysler that this entire exercise was necessary.
No doubt they needed something new for 200 and a Dart sized vehicle. A lot of doubt they needed to lump Jeep into this cookie cutter, especially if, as you say, the KL is that different.
This one size fits all, could have a downside, over the long term.

 

[jerseyjoe]

Except the car you described probably can not be sold at the price point that you described.

Got to pay to play.

Mike

Like most entry level MOPARS (Plymouth and Dodge) I have purchased I expected the highest HP entry level motor, Don't think we will ever see that again.

 

[Stratuscaster]

Note that Fiat's small car platform (500L, MiTo, Grand Punto) wasn't named "A-anything" or "B-something" - it's "SCCS" - with the "SC" standing for "small car".

 

[Stratuscaster]

So...the D-USW, will stand for Dis Size?

Who said there would even BE a D-USW?

Also curious as to why there would be ANY reference to the European market segment, when the US in the platform code stands for..."US".
The architecture in Chrysler terms is independent from platform size. Architecture is not a size, it's parts.
Most likely the blurring is taking place because they are attempting to do so much...with so little.
Don't know why the C-SUV terminology gets thrown in there, unless a marketing spokesperson, threw that term out there.
The KL is clearly CUSW based, the fact that it is a CUV (not SUV) doesn't impact it's platform size, unless its too tall to be built with the other CUSW cars, Dart and 200. Which, if true, kind of negates the point of using CUSW, for KL, as they could have spent the billions upon a Jeep specific platform and not tried to make the Giulietta architecture work under a Jeep.

From my understanding, the C-*** platform is modular - so while the basics are there are shared amongst many vehicles, the specific modules for a certain vehicle would provide for the additional size or capability accommodation. And I could be completely wrong on that, but it sounds good.

Fiat's SCCS is modular - the 500L technically is on SCCS, but has a longer wheelbase.

IMHO, developing a Jeep-specific (or, if you will, Jeep-only) platform would have required MORE billions than were spent on KL, and would have needed to justify a higher MSRP as well.

We can debate that back in DoJ.

Im not discounting your explanation, it was rather good, just discounting the marketing speak from Fiat Chrysler that this entire exercise was necessary.
No doubt they needed something new for 200 and a Dart sized vehicle. A lot of doubt they needed to lump Jeep into this cookie cutter, especially if, as you say, the KL is that different.
This one size fits all, could have a downside, over the long term.

I suppose the $65000 question would be "is the KL Cherokee better than the KK Liberty?" Or "will the KL Cherokee prove to be better in the compact SUV marketplace than the KL Liberty was?"

 

[Bodyguard]

Was unaware Cherokee was on a new platform, not entirely surprised. Sergio has proven rather flexible about many things.

Especially the truth.

 

[Erik Latranyi]

I suppose the $65000 question would be "is the KL Cherokee better than the KK Liberty?" Or "will the KL Cherokee prove to be better in the compact SUV marketplace than the KL Liberty was?"

One does not prove the other.

 

[RVC]

Also curious as to why there would be ANY reference to the European market segment, when the US in the platform code stands for..."US".

The US in the CUSW platform code doesn't mean "US-only", rather "Compact-US_Compliant-Wide", meaning it can also be used to build cars that comply with US regulations (safety, etc).

What's throwing some people off is the fact that the CUSW Platform, as FIAT (and MJAB) intend it, is a variant of the main architectural modular components.
The C-SUV moniker* probably identifies a set of components that is different enough to call for a separate internal code. I suspect that in the case of the Cherokee we are talking about everything that comes aft of the firewall, plus the height and some parts that are structurally more robust, and not just reinforced (when compared to Dart or 200). What some might call in more simplistic terms the "floorpan"+structural body.

But, to answer your question, you can still build all three (four if you count the Giulietta) on the same production line, which is what Chrysler would use as a discriminating factor for a platform.

We'll have to wait for the next gen items to have "unified" platform codes. Then most of the confusion will go away.

If I said something wrong, I'm sure Bob will set it straight.

*I must confess that this is the first time I've heard it applied to the KL. The only times I heard C-SUV it was used to identify the successor to the Patriot and its AR sibling.

 

[Stratuscaster]

One does not prove the other.

Hence the "or" and not "and."

 

[Dave Z]

If the KL is a quarter of an inch different in any key dimension from CUSW, it’s not CUSW.

We are not talking parts here. (Many of the) parts are different.

Dart and 200 are on the same platform yet their rear suspensions are totally different — as is Viaggio!

The platforms allow for the use of similar suspension designs but do not require them!

I believe 200 (D sized) is CUSW. Though as pointed out earlier, the C stands for Compact, not C-Class.

It ain’t that confusing. Parts is parts. Platform is certain dimensions.

This is a not difficult to understand article showing that the usage of the terms goes back for decades, and explaining what some of the particular dimensions are: http://www.allpar.com/ed/platforms.html

Some of it was written by Burton Bouwkamp, some by Bob Sheaves, some by others.

 

[90243]

Note that Fiat's small car platform (500L, MiTo, Grand Punto) wasn't named "A-anything" or "B-something" - it's "SCCS" - with the "SC" standing for "small car".

Just a correction about the meaning of SCCS = Small Common Components and Systems platform.

 

[Dave Z]

That sounds right. Now, for an extra point, what did SCSI stand for?

 

[Stratuscaster]

Just a correction about the meaning of SCCS = Small Common Components and Systems platform.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[browens1534]

One big problem that blunts performance has to be the the above average weight. Not much can be done now I guess and it reminds that the Alfa 159/Brera/Spider suffered similarly. I think the Dart needs engines with lots of torque. Cannot Chysler and FPT increase capacity and develop the 1.4T. In Abarth form this engine makes 180Bhp and loads of torque. If capacity is increased they should be able to go well above 200 no? They'll probably have to make it compatible with the 9 speed too. I'm no engineer so would like to know how easy or hard this is.

Check your specs for the 1.4T

The American Fiat 500 Abarth makes 160hp and 184 torque. The Dodge Dart 1.4T has the same output... It's the same tune as the Abarth Esse Esse in Europe.

The Fiat 500T makes 130hp... The same as the European 500 Abarth.

 

[Dave Z]

C-SUV is made up. Has no meaning in the real world. No criticism of any of your statement.

Hmmm. So still CUSW.

Also, confirming brycmtthw’s numbers of 1.4T. It’s 160 hp, 184 lb-ft. I thought that was an interesting balance from a small turbo engine (the weight on the torque). Increasing the power output would likely be too expensive with too little return. The 2.0 and 2.4 may be interesting when they're fully cooked in the next revision. Personally I am still hoping, though I don't believe it is happening, that Chrysler is working on a complete replacement for the pair. It’s a very important engine segment, normally, though apparently right now the V6 line is key.

 

[Int]

Personally I am still hoping, though I don't believe it is happening, that Chrysler is working on a complete replacement for the pair.

Take a hacksaw to a Pentastar. A nice V4 for the Dart.

Or maybe Fiat will come up with something for the N.A. market.

 

[Dave Z]

Well, that's what I was thinking would be a starting point. Supposedly it was designed to be modular — to be converted into a V8 and a four if needed. I think Bob later said it's not that simple, but that they could develop something new with the Pentastar as an inspiration, so to speak.

 

[Int]

...they could develop something new with the Pentastar as an inspiration, so to speak.

Yes. They must have learned a few things since the World Engine days. And Fiat has small engine experience to share.

 

[jerseyjoe]

I think the most fortunate part of the world engine program was the ability to bolt another manufacturers transmission to it without much effort, With all the fuss still no big power gains. Probably cheaper to make because less metal was used.