How much input did VW have in the projects T1N & NCV3 ?

phaeton

Volkwagen Fanatic
How much input did VW have in the projects T1N & NCV3 ?

I'm interested to hear if anyone knows how much input VW had in the 2 projects :)

FYI VW calls them:

2D LT 1996-2005


2E Crafter 2006-Present
 
Last edited:

Altered Sprinter

Happy Little Vegemite
Ben I hope I'm understanding your question right?
Today there is a very strong synergies of management between Damlier-Benz and VW group of companies where the two corporations share and develop technologies between them to save on development and tooling costs Hence in 1989 Talks were in place between Damlier -Benz and VW to share a common platform for the New Generations of T5s and Sprinters released in 1995 although the sprinters were to vary slightly in its make up of mechanical combinations both VW and Mercedes had market niches,along with a group of Brand name buyers it made perfect sense to unite and share development costings , which meant a higher profit margin for both manufactures.
Also remember both the Mercedes Vito and the VW multi vans share a similar platform along with the same mechanical make up you'd be very surprised to see what is an identical retro fit, but you need the outsourced manufactures interchange PDf manuals to work out what is what with similar parts right down to the same nuts and bolts, as the same gear box in the autos 5 speed, back to 4 speed for 1995 to 2000 no difference except with bell housings and back housings , bearing shafts different but thats it.
same style seats and interior fittings , even the luxury Touareg compare this to the R class Mercedes.
There is a huge comparison in many respects. This started way back in the late sixty's when there was a mini credit squeeze, Manufactures were felling the pinch and monies were tight to spend on developing newer platforms for the next generation of vehicles,a new car today in the Showroom is already five years old when you buy it! and has to last with minor upgrades for a model run, to go ten years before another brand new design hits the show room floors.
European manufactures also saw the warning signs, "with the first oil spike" in 1972, that vehicles would have to be more fuel efficient for tomorrows future, as the European Commission was developing the first of what is now called Euro Standards that have an ISO rating world Standard it was not put in place for just emissions for vehicles, but for all industry and the secondary part of the Commissions mandates was safety factors to be built into vehicles as well, fuel watch which is a Manufactures voluntary agreement has not been effectively managed because of other countries energy requirements, this is why manufactures joined forces to cut costs a perfect example of sharing each others technology for a common goal PROFIT.
If you look at Australia as an example Chrysler Vehicles are distributed via the GMH Franchise agreements this has been a synergy of agreement between manufactures, to trade between countries and share with import export vehicles, it's been in place for ten years and has worked well.no financial losses reported
In the USA Daimler Chrysler has offered to buy into the GMH network in part to recoup 38 billion dollars in loses they would recoup eight billion on the deal, its to do the same as Mercedes and VW to share each others technology and to be able to effectively use US Plants that are already in place D.C is interested in the engine department of GM for exporting to China as a ready made unit but to share the same Engines in principle with GMH and the Chrysler divisions in the US as the market is huge and can be profitable, with the right management in place.
With the Crafter and the Mercedes Sprinter there is a difference that can be seen, VW Made the decision to retain the old engine but to update it to todays standards along with retention of the trusted Sprint shift Quick shift six speed auto manual, that was a smart move by VW as not everyone wants a the four cylinder engine or the V6. VW Crafter have a different market, and the RVs play a part of VW sales, How they are going to get around the DOT in Australia for chassis compliance has me at a loss, but Mercedes Sprinter has also failed in the same areas of chassis weakness
and I am talking at the top end from 4.5 GMV ton range.
VW In Australia have the market lead as you well know almost a complete line up of vehicles they are stronger than Mercedes in many respects
They also are using the Blue-moon concept similar to bluetec but using Honda's principle of it being a lifetime cat, but I have not ever looked at it, to comment further.
I hope I have in part explained your query in brief.
Richard.
 

phaeton

Volkwagen Fanatic
Ben I hope I'm understanding your question right?
Today there is a very strong synergies of management between Damlier-Benz and VW group of companies where the two corporations share and develop technologies between them to save on development and tooling costs Hence in 1989 Talks were in place between Damlier -Benz and VW to share a common platform for the New Generations of T5s and Sprinters released in 1995 although the sprinters were to vary slightly in its make up of mechanical combinations both VW and Mercedes had market niches,along with a group of Brand name buyers it made perfect sense to unite and share development costings , which meant a higher profit margin for both manufactures.
Also remember both the Mercedes Vito and the VW Multivans share a similar platform along with the same mechanical make up you'd be very surprised to see what is an identical retro fit, but you need the outsourced manufactures interchange PDf manuals to work out what is what with similar parts right down to the same nuts and bolts, as the same gear box in the autos 5 speed, back to 4 speed for 1995 to 2000 no difference except with bell housings and back housings , bearing shafts different but thats it.
same style seats and interior fittings , even the luxury Touareg compare this to the R class Mercedes.
There is a huge comparison in many respects. This started way back in the late sixty's when there was a mini credit squeeze, Manufactures were felling the pinch and monies were tight to spend on developing newer platforms for the next generation of vehicles,a new car today in the Showroom is already five years old when you buy it! and has to last with minor upgrades for a model run, to go ten years before another brand new design hits the show room floors.
European manufactures also saw the warning signs, "with the first oil spike" in 1972, that vehicles would have to be more fuel efficient for tomorrows future, as the European Commission was developing the first of what is now called Euro Standards that have an ISO rating world Standard it was not put in place for just emissions for vehicles, but for all industry and the secondary part of the Commissions mandates was safety factors to be built into vehicles as well, fuel watch which is a Manufactures voluntary agreement has not been effectively managed because of other countries energy requirements, this is why manufactures joined forces to cut costs a perfect example of sharing each others technology for a common goal PROFIT.
If you look at Australia as an example Chrysler Vehicles are distributed via the GMH Franchise agreements this has been a synergy of agreement between manufactures, to trade between countries and share with import export vehicles, it's been in place for ten years and has worked well.no financial losses reported
In the USA Daimler Chrysler has offered to buy into the GMH network in part to recoup 38 billion dollars in loses they would recoup eight billion on the deal, its to do the same as Mercedes and VW to share each others technology and to be able to effectively use US Plants that are already in place D.C is interested in the engine department of GM for exporting to China as a ready made unit but to share the same Engines in principle with GMH and the Chrysler divisions in the US as the market is huge and can be profitable, with the right management in place.
With the Crafter and the Mercedes Sprinter there is a difference that can be seen, VW Made the decision to retain the old engine but to update it to todays standards along with retention of the trusted Sprint shift Quick shift six speed auto manual, that was a smart move by VW as not everyone wants a the four cylinder engine or the V6. VW Crafter have a different market, and the RVs play a part of VW sales, How they are going to get around the DOT in Australia for chassis compliance has me at a loss, but Mercedes Sprinter has also failed in the same areas of chassis weakness
and I am talking at the top end from 4.5 GMV ton range.
VW In Australia have the market lead as you well know almost a complete line up of vehicles they are stronger than Mercedes in many respects
They also are using the Blue-moon concept similar to bluetec but using Honda's principle of it being a lifetime cat, but I have not ever looked at it, to comment further.
I hope I have in part explained your query in brief.
Richard.
Red You mean LT don't you ?

Also I thought VW developed the T4 from scratch ??? I don't believe the Transporter T4 and Mk1 Vito share platforms

I do believe that they could have shared parts but until I see evidence that these 2 companies worked together on T4 & Vito (as well as Touareg sharing with ML, R & GL classes) I'm going to be a bit skeptical on this info.

Just a heads up BlueMotion has nothing to do with BlueTec.

BlueMotion - just a minor change to the gears & engine.

BlueTec - uses the urea injection method.

Blue TDI - SCR (selective catalytic reduction) BlueTec Compatible

Clean TDI - NOx converter BlueTec Compatible
 
Last edited:

Altered Sprinter

Happy Little Vegemite
No Problems Ben
The VW numbers for Vehicles I'll clarify latter on as I'm off to town .
So I'll say VW V Crafter Multi-Vans V Vito
There are many shared concepts, after all The Sprinter is a shared platform made by Mercedes for VW Crafters.
I will try to locate a media release that explains in detail more of what the two companies are doing together.
Of course the Vito is differnt to the multi vans But I'll deal with this later for you.
Richard
 

Altered Sprinter

Happy Little Vegemite
Hi been Just came back bit of a blue going on down under with VW and Merc
Ok your original question is too hard to answer in a short brief as it has been so with manufactures since square one.
Take the time to read these Links and Hopefully you will have a better understanding of it at the end of this week, History and Politics go hand in hand with each other.
There are internal memos I have but because of Company policy to permission to send out for general viewing places me in an awkward position in respects to internal documentations.
Funny in a way if you were a few blocks closer to home I could show you how these companies use same mechanics via the outsourced third party supplier
then show you what is called an interchange manual from these companies that link identical parts common in VW and Mercedes including others like Citroen Ford UK and Renault.
Two vehicles in Australia for example 1965 Ford falcon v 1965 Ford Fairmont both different in the mechanical make up the latter shares Ford comet Ford, Ford Fairlane And Ford UK integration for this rare vehicle, Chrysler Australia Valiant Trans uses a Borg Warner system its identical to Ford F100 clutches interchangeable yet the Manufactures don't say this as to pricing of identical parts Rootes UK Used GMs design for both body style and mechanical make ups for its 1954 Humber Supersnipe if the ladder chassis using the two piece tail shaft encased inside the chassis using monkey bearings there would never have been an issue with the 5 speed auto Of the Dodge Sprinter Mercedes fixed it in the end but the trans was for the US only in all body lengths the VW Multi van has the same internal gearing as Mercedes outsourced to another company to produce the parts in volume and at a lower cost for both VW and Mercedes and that trans has issues in Australia too.so you have a five speed trans used in Mercedes Vito's Sprinters Dodge Sprinters and maybe the older four speed Auto not Quick shift in the VW Crafters, again you need an interchange manual to work out where the common denominator falls into place with Manufactures using the same parts.
Any way Ben read these links especially the one from the European commission as this organization is independent similar to ASIC in Australia but with a more powerful influence over manufactures and Governments
The Audi link shows History and out sourcing.
Hope this gives you an insight into what I mean.
Richard
European Commission - Research: Industrial technologies - Strength in collaboration
Audi: Information from Answers.com
 

phaeton

Volkwagen Fanatic
Thanks for links Richard :thumbup:

but where is the link between the Multivan & Vito and R-Class & Touareg ?
 

Altered Sprinter

Happy Little Vegemite
Thanks for links Richard :thumbup:

but where is the link between the Multivan & Vito and R-Class & Touareg ?
Lets see how you research information:smilewink: HINT look for injection systems
thats the tip of the iceberg
Richard.
PS if you can't find it in 48 Hours I'll link you to the information
life's a roller coaster.
 

BMA

New member
:D Everybody is using everybody else's parts. When you get to tractors, John Deere seams to look first for somebody else's part before designing and making it themselves. In all likelyhood the Bosch injector pump is identicle to one found in some truck. The alternators are identicle to AC Delco truck units, but with a wider serpentine belt pulley. The mount is even the same.
 

Altered Sprinter

Happy Little Vegemite
Crikey Jerry you made me jump a mile high, I was in the process is commenting on BMA's post, agreeing that if every one had an interchange manual, there would a revolt as to what parts Miltie fit in different makes, it's not new this has been going on since the-stone wheel was invented by the Flint-stones.
just a brief example a 1955 Chevrolet power steering pump! The design was changed as years went by, so did the price increase too:thumbdown:
It's a non serviceable part! Or is it? the vein and rotor kit is identical up up-till 1985 each part number by GM is different with no cross reference to the interchanging of the part, but follow the original OEM maker and those parts link back to 1955.
Chrysler 318 fireball motor the triple clutch kit which was supposed to be quick shift, and blew out with no warning "Crap' a Ford F100 h/d clutch direct bolt up to flywheel , because the same maker never changed the bolt patten cost savings 55% and it had more pull on low torque takeoff.stub axles were the same with Ford and Chrysler or GM , I have forgotten which, it's a long time ago.
Lucas electrics fitted every single English and European makes including Ford so much for a stamped FoMo CO stamp , it's what lies within the box of tricks. VW and Mercedes share so much in common it's not funny but very few people know about it, dealers deny it but find the interchange manuals and it's funny when you see the same nuts and bolts in different engines and gearboxes
As for Bosch there has to be a common denominator these days as to costs injectors , common rails ! all the same principle , so nothing surprises me any more.
Thinking of JD, well nothing runs like a Deere it specializes in farm machinery so out sourcing common parts makes sense those engines are sold in small numbers compared to automobiles , it makes sense to use a part that will fit with little or no modifications that can be sourced by an out side manufacturer producing parts for the automotive sector.
Old Henry Ford had the right idea , don't change the design as it had proven with sales in excess of a million units add a few, or so.
Richard
Them were the days, but the Dukes are still my choice with Mopar:rad:




 

Top Bottom