Today we wrote about the Tesla Model S refresh, with Thomas calling the car “a dinosaur.” This led to a discussion among Autopian writers about platforms; how big of a deal is it that a platform is old? Personally, I don’t think it matters much at all, necessarily; here’s why.
Right out front of my house I’ve got a 2021 BMW i3S, an astonishing little city-car that I adore. This particular vehicle, by 2021, had been on the market for eight years, and many criticized it for being dated. But was it?
The platform itself was not even almost dated; in fact, to this day it’s fair to call the carbon fiber-bodied i3’s chassis “futuristic.” The interior? Its styling holds up to this day, and I believe that to be the case with the exterior as well.
But where the i3 is dated is in terms of interior tech/infotainment. It has Apple Carplay, a screen that isn’t the size of a billboard, and physical controls; what’s more, the car doesn’t have cooled seats or an overhead 360 degree camera or a panoramic sunroof. I personally don’t want these things, but many do, so I get why folks saw the i3 as dated. What’s more, even though battery/drivetrain/chassis tech was updated between 2014 and 2021 model-years, the i3’s EV tech wasn’t really state-of-the-art by that last model-year. By 2021, the i3 was a $55,000 EV with half the range of a Tesla.
Image: Author
My point is that I don’t really care about platform age as long as that platform gets updated. In the case of the i3, its platform was awesome, and I’d have loved to see it continue on for 20+ years; it was what was bolted to that platform that was shriveling a bit on the vine.
ADVERTISEMENT
Then there are cars like the Dodge Journey, which stuck around forever, offering weak performance/efficiency, but at a highly competitive price. In that case, I’m totally fine with old bones.
Photo credit: Dodge
Here are a few thoughts about platform age by Thomas:
I reckon that a platform is too old to buy new when age doesn’t necessarily enhance the ownership experience and the driving experience is close to what you can get elsewhere in a newer, better-driving package. The R35 GT-R lost some of its luster at the end of its run, partly due to a mid-cycle suspension update that increased its tendency to corner entry understeer and partly because a super-fast turbocharged automatic car now describes almost every ICE performance car. On the other hand, a final-year Challenger SRT Hellcat with the six-speed manual would’ve been worth it because that’s a rare experience you couldn’t really get elsewhere brand new without modifying another platform.
What does the data tell us? Well, according to Bank of America, “replacement rate” — defined as the “estimated percentage of an OEM’s sales volume to be replaced with all-new or next-generation models” — actually does matter, with the bank writing in its “Car Wars” analysis:
We believe replacement rate drives showroom age, which drives market share, which in turn drives profits, and ultimately stock prices…
[…]
Although other factors such as mix, price, execution, distribution, brand power, and unforeseen disruptions impact market share, we think this data supports our thesis that successful new products drive higher market share and profits.
Bank of America’s Car Wars report goes on to say that new-model launch activity is stagnating, writing:
As shown in Exhibit 3, we expect OEMs to launch 159 new models during our forecast period (MY2026-29), or an average of just 40 per year. This rate is just below the average number of models launched per year between model years 2006 and 2025. This level of new model introductions is concerning as fewer new models may not stimulate consumer interest, which may pressure total volume.
The lower launch count is largely a result of the delay in new EV programs as consumers remain disinterested, the regulatory push for EVs is relaxed, consumer EV incentives are likely to be eliminated, and potential tariffs are roiling production/supply chain management decisions. This appears to be motivating automakers to focus on core ICE (& Hybrid) products, which should generate solid profit/cash flow. In addition, EVs are not being completely ignored, but development appears to be slowing to more closely mimic consumer demand, which is not much.
Image: Bank of America
So it seems that people usually do care about how old a car is, but at the same, I bet the average person has no clue about the bones underneath their vehicle’s sheetmetal. I personally couldn’t care less as long as the vehicle remains competitive/useful, like a 2001 Jeep Cherokee that, when new, had been on the market for 17 years but still offers great styling and off-road performance at a good price.
ADVERTISEMENT
Though I suppose now that I’m a dad, the biggest factor in platform age is: Will it excel in all modern crash tests? Anyway, I welcome your thoughts on this.
As a buyer, freshness of the design is not a factor I take into consideration. If anything, I kind of love designs that plateau and need little alteration from year to year. The SJ Wagoneer, the A-body Buick Century, the LX/LD Charger–all these cars were kept in production because they offered a solid value proposition.
Eventually, every design gets tired. But while you’ve got something that people are still buying year after year, why mess with it?
Spikedlemon
1 month ago
When it’s old, and honest, it’s alright. Especially when it’s done for practical reasons that are passed through to the end consumer.
Dodge Journey is an example – it’s done on purpose to keep the pricetag down. Sure, it’s old and crap, but it’s cheap and big – and buyers accept the tradeoff.
When it’s old, but listed as a new model, it’s just lipstick on a pig. You’re lying to me, and that’s not ok.
Nissan’s Frontier & Z are both examples of this. Not ok.
I have mixed feelings on the Z, likely due to the asking price mainly.
Clark B
1 month ago
Doesn’t bother me in the slightest. My 2014 Sportwagen TDI is one of the last vehicles to ride on its platform, originally developed in the mid-2000s and debuting with the MKV Golf, Jetta, and other assorted VAG cars. By 2014 there was a new Golf and the Golf Sportwagen rolled out in 2015.
There are some downsides, namely there’s definitely more NVH in my car compared with later Golfs. The interior is more basic, but that’s a plus for me. And because VW built so many cars on that platform for a decade or more, parts are plentiful. An overwhelming amount of aftermarket, as well as plentiful used parts in junkyards (though that has been more of a recent thing). And it seems mostly free of annoying German car problems, here’s hoping the adage about buying the last model year is true.
Eggsalad
1 month ago
If you think about it, the “standard automobile” hasn’t changed significantly in 15-20 years. Slight redesigns and tech upgrades, sure, but something like a 2010 RAV4 or half-ton pickup isn’t significantly different from what you can buy today.
I drive a 2017 CX-5. First year of the “second generation”, but that only amounted to a slight refresh of the 2013 original. A 2025 version is the same car. And it’s fine. And the average buyer only wants a vehicle that is “fine”.
LTDScott
1 month ago
Nah, and as others said I might even prefer something with older bones because it means they’ve had more time to work out the kinks.
Vic Vinegar
1 month ago
Your average buyer is going to barely notice what is in the “bones”. Does it have the gadgets they want? Does it accelerate well enough to get out of its own way? Does it handle and brake in a way that is “predictable”? And last but not least, can they actually afford the thing??
That is probably good enough for most car buyers looking for a transportation appliance. And as someone already pointed out, some buyers will specifically look for the “tried and true” platform. I’ve seen 1 new 4Runner so far. But I know in my neighborhood alone I saw a few new 4Runners pop up as the old model was nearing the end. Guess they didn’t want a turbo 4 in their 4Runner, no matter how much nicer it may drive on the highway.
Enthusiasts and car journos that cater to them care that the new platform is 30% more rigid and allows for a suspension that improves on the old models slalom time. But who cars when you are buying a Dodge Journey type vehicle?
There is disconnect between the enthusiast journos and the regular buyer. I agree it is becoming more frequent that it is the electrical architecture that obsoletes first. I mean, how much more can we optimize a MacPherson Strut after 50 years? The juice is likely not worth the squeeze on a regular car.
That’s why they largely stopped selling the mechanical chassis tech and moved to safety in a game with a constantly moving goal line and even the electronics are sold mostly on safety rather than convenience or status as they might have been in the old days (because it’s seldom convenient anymore and even less often is it convenient in a meaningful way). Most people are buying vehicles with unimpressive rides and mediocre seats that don’t handle well, but it doesn’t matter because they never approach even those meager limits. What they can sell is fear. Stupidity and fear are the two resources humanity can only run out of if we run out of humans.
The only “major” improvements between my ’14 Camry and my old ’06 are power/efficiency (Hybrid 2.5L vs 2.4L I4) and braking (regen and full disc vs disc/drum). The ’06 was always underbraked when loaded. I think the ’14 has a slightly longer wheelbase but also suffered some major cost cutting on the interior materials.
Last edited 1 month ago by Tbird
MrLM002
1 month ago
I prefer it. It’s part of the reason I went with my 25 Nissan Leaf S. The second gen Leaf uses a good amount of parts from the first generation Leaf as well.
Jason W
1 month ago
Honestly I kind of prefer it. Gives them more time to improve the vehicle over time, assuming they make some updates to the platform over time. And in my mind at least, it makes me think there’s something *right* with the platform if they’ve been using it a long time. As another commenter mentioned, an older platform to me signifies something that’s proven and reliable, vs a wholly brand new design with brand new everything that’s not tested. The XJ is a perfect example.
I’ll take a 4th gen 4Runner over a brand new one any day, because I know that “old” 4Runner is good for 200K+ miles. Or I’d rather have a Hemi Durango on that ancient Benz derived platform than a brand new Grand Cherokee. Even though the new models are objectively better by most metrics on paper.
It also gives the aftermarket more time to develop parts and upgrades.
In my XJ rust was the least of my issues. Mediocre gas mileage, bouncy ride, no split folding rear seat, narrow rear doors, poor build quality, fixed rear glass, death wobble, oil filter housing seals, higher maintainence (all those grease points!), questionable safety, and so, so, so squeaky.
It may have been an amazing off roader but as a daily it left much to be desired vs a modern minivan.
Last edited 1 month ago by Cheap Bastard
Bearddevil
1 month ago
I think there’s a few different axes to break this down on. For a daily-driver/grocery getter, I don’t think it matters much mechanically, but there’s that “unpalatable valley” of model years where the radio is too new to be easily replaced but too old to have phone mirroring. If I can’t use my phone as the media source relatively easily, it kills my interest.
For a fun car, yes, it definitely matters because newer platforms are heavier, number, and more encumbered with electronic “aids” that make them less interesting to drive, by and large.
Parsko
1 month ago
No, not really. I agree on safety being first. Past that, if it’s a daily, my concern is comfort and repairability. Weekend/ spare car has much fewer requirements besides happy.
3WiperB
1 month ago
I guess I don’t really care either, but I’m probably in the minority. I care more about dependability and running/maintenance costs. My 2006 MX-5 feels perfectly modern to me and all I did was upgrade the radio to a double-din touchscreen unit. The only thing that feels antiquated now is that it has manual locks and a key start. Keyless entry was available, but mine doesn’t have it. I also have a 5th Gen Ram 1500, which doesn’t seem all that different from the 4th gen, although I know they changed a lot.
I do agree that the infotainment makes a big difference in how modern a car feels. The 2006 feels more modern than our 2016 Miata in that department, because the infotainment has been replaced. It’s too integrated in the car in the 2016 to be replaced.
We also have a 2008 STS… if you want to see an out of date feeling infotainment system, it’s the 8″ touchscreen with DVD based Nav system in that. It has Bluetooth for phone only, and RCA jacks for analog AV input. But it’s also not replaceable, because stuff like memory seats and car settings are integrated in that screen.
My 2005 MDX is similar. I have a 3.5mm jack running from the cargo area to the dash to run an old Android I use as an MP3 Player. I rely on a modern iPhone and windshield mount for NAV. The full climate control is integrated into the old touchscreen so replace is a no go. The old girl still runs like a top and hauls everything I need without much rust or upkeep, so she stays.
Last edited 1 month ago by Tbird
JDE
1 month ago
Everybody bring up the journey, which was built upon an old GS platform and is still used in the Mitsubishi Delica, Outlander and Eclipse Cross, yet people strangely still happily buy those., well maybe not he Delica as much? Anyway, point is for the price and overall abilities, an AWD 3.6 Journey was a pretty good and surprisingly reliable option. Far less scary than the Hornet. I think with it being a biggish Crossover at the time, they could have perhaps did some cosmetic refreshing, perhaps even doubled down and gone the way of the Amigo and offered an even shorter version for perhaps a bit less coin and stolen some interior tech from a Ram truck to keep that thing going. Nobody who bought a journey cared about 0-60 times or cornering prowess.
Ash78
1 month ago
20 years ago, I would have said “The newer the better!”
But in the time since then, I feel like I’ve seen too many cars updates just for the sake of expectations, and the result is just too incremental to even matter.
And now that we’re in our Screen Era, some of these changes are actually steps backwards in many ways — if not immediately, then through impending obsolescence.
So no, I don’t really care. As long as the vehicle is reasonably safe and comfortable, I couldn’t care less if the R&D was fully amortized a decade ago. Sometimes you nail it and then don’t have to fix it. This industry pressure is a little silly, and it’s not just cars (far from it!).
V10omous
1 month ago
For the types of vehicles I typically buy, older platforms are usually virtues.
I would never say that “cars peaked in 19XX or 20XX” or whatever, but I *personally* prefer large engines, no electrification, and natural aspiration. The vehicles offering these attributes tend to be older ones.
If a bunch of new platforms came out with large V8 engines, I’d change my tune in a heartbeat.
Bruno Ealo
1 month ago
If Mazda still made the Mazda 6 in it’s last version I would go buy one to replace my ‘20 6.I love my car and although it still runs great I would like a new one,maybe a different color but the same platform is perfectly fine for me.
It was easily the best mid-size sedan people didn’t buy enough of. Probably the best period.
Thatmiataguy
1 month ago
I think it depends on the market that the car is in, the kind of people that buy the vehicle, and what there is to gain/lose by updating the platform.
Dodge Challenger – So long as it looked a certain way and had a big Hemi in it, few people cared about the platform.
Toyota Camry/RAV4 – Updating the platform has greatly increased these car’s comfort, road-holding abilities, and fuel economy over the years. None of the owners of the current generation cars miss the older versions of these respective car’s platforms.
Spot on. I think the point of calling out an aged platform in something like the GT-R or Model S is that these are halo cars, and it is a really bad and embarrassing look for the top of the line, best experience you offer as a manufacturer to be some crusty platform that is old enough to be sent off to war.
I suppose with the GT-R it was a bit like the Vmax motorcycles, not enough volume to really justify much change, and for what they are designed to do, they really did not need a lot of real change. Interior tech maybe, but certainly there was nothing broke or no longer competitive about the platform and performance.
Except the current XV80 Camry runs on the same GA-K platform as its predecessor XV70, retaining the underlying body structure, doors, door skins, roofline, glass, door handles….
Dolsh
1 month ago
In some way, older platform is a feature, not a problem. I want something older in my fun car – an established platform that’s been around a while, proven itself, and easy to wrench on. I intentionally bought a “newer” NC Miata when I bought one because a bunch of stuff was sorted, but it had also been around 10 years so parts are easy to come by.
For my daily driver? Give me new stuff. I want lights and sounds that make me go “Weeee!!” on my way to the office because the traffic sure as hell isn’t going to allow it.
Sid Bridge
1 month ago
This brought back all the frustration and yelling at clouds I did when the Crown Vic/Interceptor reached the end of its run in 2011 with every automotive journalist in the world calling it a dinosaur. The Panther was literally the final evolution of the body-on-frame car. It exploited every single advantage body-on-frame had to offer for a sedan to the fullest. To this day, it’s replacements still can’t do the job and take the punishment the way the Panther did. Calling it a dinosaur was (hot take) ignorant and dismissive of how far the idea of a car on a frame had come.
So yeah, I guess I don’t care if a platform is old. Heck, if the Panther was still around, I’ll be that frame would make a great starting point for an electric or hybrid vehicle.
Ford got a lot right with Panther and Fox in the late ’70s. Very adaptable and long lived paltforms each.
Jack Trade
1 month ago
When I got my Mustang in ’02, I liked that it was riding on an ancient (1978!) platform – if the opposite of state of the art, it was proven, reliable, and parts a plenty available.
In fairness, back in those days, Mustangs were different – they were pony cars, not sports cars like the are now, so there wasn’t a ton of expectation beyond some respectable, if rough around the edges, performance.
Buzz
1 month ago
Yeah it matters. Cars are not getting cheaper these days. You mean to tell me that a car on a 15-year-old platform should cost more than what it cost when the tooling was brand new?
If prices dropped as the platform aged, it would be one thing. But that’s never, ever happened.
Whilst I agree with you, the counterpoint to that is car companies will inevitably charge even more for a total redesign on a new platform. You can’t win, eh?
Teslas were getting cheaper as the platform matured, and for some reason people were pissed off. The last year they are pissed off about other stuff, but falling prices really had some people miffed.
That some reason was because those people had convinced themselves their car was an “investment” and everyone knows value of an investment ALWAYS go up.
“You can think of every car we sell or produce that has full autonomy capability as something that in the future may be worth five times what it is today,” he said in the company’s third quarter, 2023, earnings call.
Well he’s not wrong… yet. That future be after the heat death of the universe long after inflation has nullified any increase in “value” though so best not to bet the farm on it.
For American market cars, I actually don’t think it’s all that accurate to compare base prices. Given that such data is available (is it?) it would be far more accurate to calculate a weighted average price, ie multiply the price of a trim level by the number of units sold in that trim for all trims and divide the sum by total number of units sold.
It’s disingenuous to compare the base prices of vehicles when it is nearly impossible to get a base vehicle anymore.
The data required to calculate weighted averages are available if you pay a company like Automotive News $700 a year. I’ve only willing to pay $200 for the base subscription.
It isn’t near impossible to get a base model Honda today but even if you couldn’t get one the 2nd level Sport trim is still cheaper than a LX in 1995. In fact you can get a 200 hp, 49 mpg, Civic Hybrid Sport with moonroof, dual zone HVAC, and heated seats for $300 more than that 105 hp 1995 Civic LX.
The top Civic trim in 1995 was the EX sedan which started at $16,280 MSRP = ($34,340 in 2025 dollars. Even if we throw in the barest bones 1995 DX sedan that didn’t even have cruise control or power windows it was $12,360 = $26,071 in 2025.
There is not way to spin it where a 1995 Civic sedan was cheaper than a 2025 Civic. Base, middle, or top trims – they were all more expensive in 1995.
That is before we talk about my last sentence above – a 2025 Civic is larger than a 1995 Accord ….
SNL-LOL Jr
1 month ago
No, but only if automakers share the savings in engineering and tooling with buyers.
Ahhh – after looking up the stats – I was thinking gross rather than net – as you’re quoting.
Because average gross for manufacturers is 12.45%
Compared to car dealers with average gross on new car sales of 3.9%
Used sales gross profit is much higher – Hence Carvana, etc.
Last edited 1 month ago by Urban Runabout
Maymar
1 month ago
I drive a year-old car that’s been around since 2017, and I wasn’t convinced that its newer competitors were appreciably better, so no, I don’t really care.
Dalton
1 month ago
I went from typing “a bit” to now saying “not at all” after really thinking about it. Shit just does not matter to me.
4jim
1 month ago
I drive a Jeep wrangler and really like that they do not change the platform very often. I am ok with changes every 9-10 years and at this point I want LONGER so we get solid front axles for longer. YJ (1986-1995), TJ (1997-2006), JK (2007-2017), and JL (2018-present)
Yeah I’m just not impressed with the JL – it’s more complexity for minimal benefit. The JK was comfy enough for long trips but simple enough to repair on the trails.
Detroit Lightning
1 month ago
I saw a new Z the other day, and while I know it’s basically the poster car an old platform…it really struck me how great it looked.
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional cookies
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show (non-) personalized ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional cookies
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
As a buyer, freshness of the design is not a factor I take into consideration. If anything, I kind of love designs that plateau and need little alteration from year to year. The SJ Wagoneer, the A-body Buick Century, the LX/LD Charger–all these cars were kept in production because they offered a solid value proposition.
Eventually, every design gets tired. But while you’ve got something that people are still buying year after year, why mess with it?
When it’s old, and honest, it’s alright. Especially when it’s done for practical reasons that are passed through to the end consumer.
Dodge Journey is an example – it’s done on purpose to keep the pricetag down. Sure, it’s old and crap, but it’s cheap and big – and buyers accept the tradeoff.
When it’s old, but listed as a new model, it’s just lipstick on a pig. You’re lying to me, and that’s not ok.
Nissan’s Frontier & Z are both examples of this. Not ok.
I have mixed feelings on the Z, likely due to the asking price mainly.
Doesn’t bother me in the slightest. My 2014 Sportwagen TDI is one of the last vehicles to ride on its platform, originally developed in the mid-2000s and debuting with the MKV Golf, Jetta, and other assorted VAG cars. By 2014 there was a new Golf and the Golf Sportwagen rolled out in 2015.
There are some downsides, namely there’s definitely more NVH in my car compared with later Golfs. The interior is more basic, but that’s a plus for me. And because VW built so many cars on that platform for a decade or more, parts are plentiful. An overwhelming amount of aftermarket, as well as plentiful used parts in junkyards (though that has been more of a recent thing). And it seems mostly free of annoying German car problems, here’s hoping the adage about buying the last model year is true.
If you think about it, the “standard automobile” hasn’t changed significantly in 15-20 years. Slight redesigns and tech upgrades, sure, but something like a 2010 RAV4 or half-ton pickup isn’t significantly different from what you can buy today.
I drive a 2017 CX-5. First year of the “second generation”, but that only amounted to a slight refresh of the 2013 original. A 2025 version is the same car. And it’s fine. And the average buyer only wants a vehicle that is “fine”.
Nah, and as others said I might even prefer something with older bones because it means they’ve had more time to work out the kinks.
Your average buyer is going to barely notice what is in the “bones”. Does it have the gadgets they want? Does it accelerate well enough to get out of its own way? Does it handle and brake in a way that is “predictable”? And last but not least, can they actually afford the thing??
That is probably good enough for most car buyers looking for a transportation appliance. And as someone already pointed out, some buyers will specifically look for the “tried and true” platform. I’ve seen 1 new 4Runner so far. But I know in my neighborhood alone I saw a few new 4Runners pop up as the old model was nearing the end. Guess they didn’t want a turbo 4 in their 4Runner, no matter how much nicer it may drive on the highway.
Enthusiasts and car journos that cater to them care that the new platform is 30% more rigid and allows for a suspension that improves on the old models slalom time. But who cars when you are buying a Dodge Journey type vehicle?
There is disconnect between the enthusiast journos and the regular buyer. I agree it is becoming more frequent that it is the electrical architecture that obsoletes first. I mean, how much more can we optimize a MacPherson Strut after 50 years? The juice is likely not worth the squeeze on a regular car.
That’s why they largely stopped selling the mechanical chassis tech and moved to safety in a game with a constantly moving goal line and even the electronics are sold mostly on safety rather than convenience or status as they might have been in the old days (because it’s seldom convenient anymore and even less often is it convenient in a meaningful way). Most people are buying vehicles with unimpressive rides and mediocre seats that don’t handle well, but it doesn’t matter because they never approach even those meager limits. What they can sell is fear. Stupidity and fear are the two resources humanity can only run out of if we run out of humans.
The only “major” improvements between my ’14 Camry and my old ’06 are power/efficiency (Hybrid 2.5L vs 2.4L I4) and braking (regen and full disc vs disc/drum). The ’06 was always underbraked when loaded. I think the ’14 has a slightly longer wheelbase but also suffered some major cost cutting on the interior materials.
I prefer it. It’s part of the reason I went with my 25 Nissan Leaf S. The second gen Leaf uses a good amount of parts from the first generation Leaf as well.
Honestly I kind of prefer it. Gives them more time to improve the vehicle over time, assuming they make some updates to the platform over time. And in my mind at least, it makes me think there’s something *right* with the platform if they’ve been using it a long time. As another commenter mentioned, an older platform to me signifies something that’s proven and reliable, vs a wholly brand new design with brand new everything that’s not tested. The XJ is a perfect example.
I’ll take a 4th gen 4Runner over a brand new one any day, because I know that “old” 4Runner is good for 200K+ miles. Or I’d rather have a Hemi Durango on that ancient Benz derived platform than a brand new Grand Cherokee. Even though the new models are objectively better by most metrics on paper.
It also gives the aftermarket more time to develop parts and upgrades.
The XJ’s only real Achilles heel was rust. If they had fixed the corrosion protection I’d buy another.
In my XJ rust was the least of my issues. Mediocre gas mileage, bouncy ride, no split folding rear seat, narrow rear doors, poor build quality, fixed rear glass, death wobble, oil filter housing seals, higher maintainence (all those grease points!), questionable safety, and so, so, so squeaky.
It may have been an amazing off roader but as a daily it left much to be desired vs a modern minivan.
I think there’s a few different axes to break this down on. For a daily-driver/grocery getter, I don’t think it matters much mechanically, but there’s that “unpalatable valley” of model years where the radio is too new to be easily replaced but too old to have phone mirroring. If I can’t use my phone as the media source relatively easily, it kills my interest.
For a fun car, yes, it definitely matters because newer platforms are heavier, number, and more encumbered with electronic “aids” that make them less interesting to drive, by and large.
No, not really. I agree on safety being first. Past that, if it’s a daily, my concern is comfort and repairability. Weekend/ spare car has much fewer requirements besides happy.
I guess I don’t really care either, but I’m probably in the minority. I care more about dependability and running/maintenance costs. My 2006 MX-5 feels perfectly modern to me and all I did was upgrade the radio to a double-din touchscreen unit. The only thing that feels antiquated now is that it has manual locks and a key start. Keyless entry was available, but mine doesn’t have it. I also have a 5th Gen Ram 1500, which doesn’t seem all that different from the 4th gen, although I know they changed a lot.
I do agree that the infotainment makes a big difference in how modern a car feels. The 2006 feels more modern than our 2016 Miata in that department, because the infotainment has been replaced. It’s too integrated in the car in the 2016 to be replaced.
We also have a 2008 STS… if you want to see an out of date feeling infotainment system, it’s the 8″ touchscreen with DVD based Nav system in that. It has Bluetooth for phone only, and RCA jacks for analog AV input. But it’s also not replaceable, because stuff like memory seats and car settings are integrated in that screen.
My 2005 MDX is similar. I have a 3.5mm jack running from the cargo area to the dash to run an old Android I use as an MP3 Player. I rely on a modern iPhone and windshield mount for NAV. The full climate control is integrated into the old touchscreen so replace is a no go. The old girl still runs like a top and hauls everything I need without much rust or upkeep, so she stays.
Everybody bring up the journey, which was built upon an old GS platform and is still used in the Mitsubishi Delica, Outlander and Eclipse Cross, yet people strangely still happily buy those., well maybe not he Delica as much? Anyway, point is for the price and overall abilities, an AWD 3.6 Journey was a pretty good and surprisingly reliable option. Far less scary than the Hornet. I think with it being a biggish Crossover at the time, they could have perhaps did some cosmetic refreshing, perhaps even doubled down and gone the way of the Amigo and offered an even shorter version for perhaps a bit less coin and stolen some interior tech from a Ram truck to keep that thing going. Nobody who bought a journey cared about 0-60 times or cornering prowess.
20 years ago, I would have said “The newer the better!”
But in the time since then, I feel like I’ve seen too many cars updates just for the sake of expectations, and the result is just too incremental to even matter.
And now that we’re in our Screen Era, some of these changes are actually steps backwards in many ways — if not immediately, then through impending obsolescence.
So no, I don’t really care. As long as the vehicle is reasonably safe and comfortable, I couldn’t care less if the R&D was fully amortized a decade ago. Sometimes you nail it and then don’t have to fix it. This industry pressure is a little silly, and it’s not just cars (far from it!).
For the types of vehicles I typically buy, older platforms are usually virtues.
I would never say that “cars peaked in 19XX or 20XX” or whatever, but I *personally* prefer large engines, no electrification, and natural aspiration. The vehicles offering these attributes tend to be older ones.
If a bunch of new platforms came out with large V8 engines, I’d change my tune in a heartbeat.
If Mazda still made the Mazda 6 in it’s last version I would go buy one to replace my ‘20 6.I love my car and although it still runs great I would like a new one,maybe a different color but the same platform is perfectly fine for me.
It was easily the best mid-size sedan people didn’t buy enough of. Probably the best period.
I think it depends on the market that the car is in, the kind of people that buy the vehicle, and what there is to gain/lose by updating the platform.
Dodge Challenger – So long as it looked a certain way and had a big Hemi in it, few people cared about the platform.
Toyota Camry/RAV4 – Updating the platform has greatly increased these car’s comfort, road-holding abilities, and fuel economy over the years. None of the owners of the current generation cars miss the older versions of these respective car’s platforms.
Spot on. I think the point of calling out an aged platform in something like the GT-R or Model S is that these are halo cars, and it is a really bad and embarrassing look for the top of the line, best experience you offer as a manufacturer to be some crusty platform that is old enough to be sent off to war.
I suppose with the GT-R it was a bit like the Vmax motorcycles, not enough volume to really justify much change, and for what they are designed to do, they really did not need a lot of real change. Interior tech maybe, but certainly there was nothing broke or no longer competitive about the platform and performance.
Except the current XV80 Camry runs on the same GA-K platform as its predecessor XV70, retaining the underlying body structure, doors, door skins, roofline, glass, door handles….
In some way, older platform is a feature, not a problem. I want something older in my fun car – an established platform that’s been around a while, proven itself, and easy to wrench on. I intentionally bought a “newer” NC Miata when I bought one because a bunch of stuff was sorted, but it had also been around 10 years so parts are easy to come by.
For my daily driver? Give me new stuff. I want lights and sounds that make me go “Weeee!!” on my way to the office because the traffic sure as hell isn’t going to allow it.
This brought back all the frustration and yelling at clouds I did when the Crown Vic/Interceptor reached the end of its run in 2011 with every automotive journalist in the world calling it a dinosaur. The Panther was literally the final evolution of the body-on-frame car. It exploited every single advantage body-on-frame had to offer for a sedan to the fullest. To this day, it’s replacements still can’t do the job and take the punishment the way the Panther did. Calling it a dinosaur was (hot take) ignorant and dismissive of how far the idea of a car on a frame had come.
So yeah, I guess I don’t care if a platform is old. Heck, if the Panther was still around, I’ll be that frame would make a great starting point for an electric or hybrid vehicle.
Oh yeah. See my praise of the Fox platform below – completely agree with you.
Ford got a lot right with Panther and Fox in the late ’70s. Very adaptable and long lived paltforms each.
When I got my Mustang in ’02, I liked that it was riding on an ancient (1978!) platform – if the opposite of state of the art, it was proven, reliable, and parts a plenty available.
In fairness, back in those days, Mustangs were different – they were pony cars, not sports cars like the are now, so there wasn’t a ton of expectation beyond some respectable, if rough around the edges, performance.
Yeah it matters. Cars are not getting cheaper these days. You mean to tell me that a car on a 15-year-old platform should cost more than what it cost when the tooling was brand new?
If prices dropped as the platform aged, it would be one thing. But that’s never, ever happened.
Well said. In support of your argument, older models of computers have gotten cheaper over time for like 45 years.
Whilst I agree with you, the counterpoint to that is car companies will inevitably charge even more for a total redesign on a new platform. You can’t win, eh?
Teslas were getting cheaper as the platform matured, and for some reason people were pissed off. The last year they are pissed off about other stuff, but falling prices really had some people miffed.
That some reason was because those people had convinced themselves their car was an “investment” and everyone knows value of an investment ALWAYS go up.
It’s because they were actually told that by their cult-favorite CEO.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/03/cars/musk-tesla-cars-value-ev-prices
“You can think of every car we sell or produce that has full autonomy capability as something that in the future may be worth five times what it is today,” he said in the company’s third quarter, 2023, earnings call.
Well he’s not wrong… yet. That future be after the heat death of the universe long after inflation has nullified any increase in “value” though so best not to bet the farm on it.
Cars are cheaper today than they were years ago:
1995 Civic LX Sedan: 102 hp / 98 lb-ft / 28 mpg / 0-60 9.3 sec / subcompact car
$13,700 MSRP = $28,989 in 2025 dollars
2025 Civic LX Sedan: 150 hp / 133 lb-ft / 36 mpg / 0-60 8.8 sec / midsize car
$ 24,250 MSRP
That 2025 Civic is also larger than a 1995 Accord.
For American market cars, I actually don’t think it’s all that accurate to compare base prices. Given that such data is available (is it?) it would be far more accurate to calculate a weighted average price, ie multiply the price of a trim level by the number of units sold in that trim for all trims and divide the sum by total number of units sold.
It’s disingenuous to compare the base prices of vehicles when it is nearly impossible to get a base vehicle anymore.
The data required to calculate weighted averages are available if you pay a company like Automotive News $700 a year. I’ve only willing to pay $200 for the base subscription.
It isn’t near impossible to get a base model Honda today but even if you couldn’t get one the 2nd level Sport trim is still cheaper than a LX in 1995. In fact you can get a 200 hp, 49 mpg, Civic Hybrid Sport with moonroof, dual zone HVAC, and heated seats for $300 more than that 105 hp 1995 Civic LX.
Nationwide Civic Sedan search on Car Guru:
. 448 – LX ………………. ( $24,595 MSRP )
2,498 – Sport …………… ( $26,495 MSRP )
3,738 – Hybrid Sport …. ( $29,295 MSRP )
4,511 – Hybrid Touring . ( $32,295 MSRP )
The top Civic trim in 1995 was the EX sedan which started at $16,280 MSRP = ($34,340 in 2025 dollars. Even if we throw in the barest bones 1995 DX sedan that didn’t even have cruise control or power windows it was $12,360 = $26,071 in 2025.
There is not way to spin it where a 1995 Civic sedan was cheaper than a 2025 Civic. Base, middle, or top trims – they were all more expensive in 1995.
That is before we talk about my last sentence above – a 2025 Civic is larger than a 1995 Accord ….
No, but only if automakers share the savings in engineering and tooling with buyers.
Yeah, not gonna happen.
That was key to Ford’s success with the Model T. Initially priced at $850 in 1908, it dropped to $260 by 1925.
The joke about computer pricing was that if cars were priced like computers, cars would cost $10 a piece, get 200 miles per gallon, and go 300 mph.
The drawback would be that they would be around the size of a shoe.
A. Automakers make tiny profits
B. Cars are cheaper today than 30 years ago after adjusting for inflation.
“Automakers make tiny profits”
You might be confusing US auto dealers on sales of new cars and trucks with automakers.
Because automakers make immense profits on high-trim level greyscale trucks and SUV/CUVs
Which is why that’s primarily what they build.
Nope, I’m talking about automakers. Toyota leads the pack at 10.6% net margin for the trailing 12 months. Some others:
7.3% – Mercedes
7.1% – Hyundai
5.3% – Honda
4.7% – BMW
4.2% – GM
3.3% – VW
2.7% – Ford
2.5% – Stellantis
Ahhh – after looking up the stats – I was thinking gross rather than net – as you’re quoting.
Because average gross for manufacturers is 12.45%
Compared to car dealers with average gross on new car sales of 3.9%
Used sales gross profit is much higher – Hence Carvana, etc.
I drive a year-old car that’s been around since 2017, and I wasn’t convinced that its newer competitors were appreciably better, so no, I don’t really care.
I went from typing “a bit” to now saying “not at all” after really thinking about it. Shit just does not matter to me.
I drive a Jeep wrangler and really like that they do not change the platform very often. I am ok with changes every 9-10 years and at this point I want LONGER so we get solid front axles for longer. YJ (1986-1995), TJ (1997-2006), JK (2007-2017), and JL (2018-present)
Honestly, the JK platform could have stuck around were it not for CO2 requirements and changes in IIHS safety tests.
I think they shaved off a little weight but increased overhang, what else was significantly changed that helped with C02?
Yeah I’m just not impressed with the JL – it’s more complexity for minimal benefit. The JK was comfy enough for long trips but simple enough to repair on the trails.
I saw a new Z the other day, and while I know it’s basically the poster car an old platform…it really struck me how great it looked.