GM Inside News Forum banner

All-New Mercedes-Benz Vito with FWD, RWD and AWD Versions

10K views 48 replies 25 participants last post by  ghgmi 
#1 ·
All-New Mercedes-Benz Vito with FWD, RWD and AWD Versions
Carscoops
By Dan Mihalascu
Monday, July 28, 2014

The new Vito is the first vehicle in its segment to offer a choice of rear-wheel, all-wheel, and front-wheel drive systems. The new front-wheel drive Vito is the lightest, cheapest model in the range, while rear-wheel drive is the solution for jobs involving heavy loads or trailers, and situations where very dynamic handling is required. Finally, the all-wheel drive system is the choice for tough driving conditions and on unpaved roads.

Following in the footsteps of the larger Sprinter, the Vito will become the second global model for Mercedes-Benz Vans, with the automaker planning to conquer new markets including North and Latin America.

*Full Article w/Pictures at Link
 
#20 ·
And the reason why GM can't do a similar worldwide platform is........................?
For either passenger or light duty trucks/vans
Why can't Toyota?

Why can't Ford?

Why can't Nissan?

Why can't Fiat?

Why can't Hyundai?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stéphane Dumas
#5 ·
Smart Aas, you need to read like three grafs in. They explain the rwd is superior for heavy loads.

The new Vito is the first vehicle in its segment to offer a choice of rear-wheel, all-wheel, and front-wheel drive systems. The new front-wheel drive Vito is the lightest, cheapest model in the range, while rear-wheel drive is the solution for jobs involving heavy loads or trailers, and situations where very dynamic handling is required. Finally, the all-wheel drive system is the choice for tough driving conditions and on unpaved roads.
 
#4 · (Edited)
Way to go Merc! Sorry to say, GM has lost it's innovative mojo. The Volt is the only thing that has come out recently that is truly a technological marvel. But the market has spoken about that. Trucks are an also ran. Mid sized cars are just good enough. Compacts and sub-compacts are too expensive in comparison to the competition with no performace models in sight. Luxury cars are losing out even with a damn fine product. Gotta be marketing. Maybe the only thing they can get right is performance cars. They should set up a new brand based on performance cars to showcase what they do best. May I suggest they call it Pontiac?
 
#15 ·
Yes, Mary Barra, upon assuming the CEO office, should have said, "No more crappy MARKETING," instead of, "No more crappy cars."

Of course they get expensive performance cars right. They are catering to a higher caliber of customers. They keep the performance cars under the Chevrolet banner, so that the plebians will come into the showrooms, drool all over them, and then be steered towards the "good enough" mainstream vehicles.

And if they die because of a defective ignition switch, so be it...
 
#10 ·
Note that they based the AWD version off the RWD driveline and not the transversely mounted engine. Because that would've been dumb and lazy and pointless. This reasoning should be used across all automakers.

+100 internet points for MB. Use the drive layout that makes the most sense for the application. Now just offer an EV version of each and you have the complete platform.

EDIT: couldn't they have run the FWD version off the longitudinal engine like in an old Audi or Dodge Intrepid?
 
#12 · (Edited)
Well, they certainly know where to get good help..... and things related...... I'll give them that.

Damn shame about the 9G is it not ?

I digress.....


And what exactly did Renault contribute ?


******************************

'Looks' to be....... quite clever.
 
#16 ·
Hello ghgmi, welcome to GMI. :)



*********


As to Audi and Intrepid pt / interior space intrusion ...... can you show or explain what this is referring to ?
 
#32 ·
Hello ghgmi, welcome to GMI. :)
Thanks!

As to Audi and Intrepid pt / interior space intrusion ...... can you show or explain what this is referring to ?
Not referring to Audi and Intrepid in particular (not familiar with them), but to FWD in general. You avoid the extra large bulge in the forward part of the hump (because the transmission isn't there), and can generally push the firewall forward in a (normal, transverse-mounted engine) FWD layout. I don't know whether or not Mercedes takes advantage of that here.
 
#34 ·
Say what? I'm a big G-klasse fan and am quite certain they don't have such a feature. They have the locking differentials but that's way different
 
#37 · (Edited)
Then -

RWD







and


FWD

 
  • Like
Reactions: SierraGS
#48 ·
ghgmi, these links - are your friends.

FWD



RWD



AWD

Thanks for the links

Now GM needs to have GMC create four Van lineups with similar configurations all with more than one WB and Roof Height with "Box Van" for some all with FWD/RWD/AWD options, Gas/Diesel/CNG/LPG/Hybrid and Electric versions in RHD/LHD.

You can see why it is important to have "One" brand create these models that will be sold as Chevrolet, GMC (U.S, Canada), Holden (Oz/NZ) and just GMC (other Global) alongside Buick, Opel or Vauxhall products at the same dealer.

Chevy models would use other names in Compact, Minivan and Mid-Size; all Full size would be Express although GM might consider continuing with Vivaro and Movano names.

"Compact" van "Combo" line be current Combo size with transverse engine that could use a drive line similar to the old Dodge Colt Vista for the FWD/RWD/AWD

"Minivan" size "Astro" line would be close to current minivans in size and use Longitudinal Engine

The "Mid-Size" "Savana" line would be same size class as the Vito

"Full Size" "Express" line would be "Sprinter" size

All Vans would offer both Passenger, Cargo and "Convertible" versions with all out luxury Denali trims for "Mobile Office" and Luxury Car Pool Vans for comfortable/productive commutes. Also a market for families with teenagers that need room and electronic interfaces.
 
#38 ·
Products like this are why GM have to make GMC it's Global SUV, Truck and Van brand (with P & L responsibility), since it is the only brand that can be seamlessly integrated with any or all of GM's other brands and today's global markets provide the volume for a singular brand approach yet requires the total undivided attention from one management.
 
#39 ·
I have never been a fan of vans. I am still not a fan of vans. I had no idea that there was a demand for such a contraption. I might be alone in this, but I don't find it attractive. And it looks like it starts at $24k. Can someone tell me what this really offers that other vans don't? Is Mercedes chasing volume? I don't understand what a product like this is doing on a luxury line?

Van fans, fill me in.
 
#40 · (Edited)
You may only know Mercedes as a car maker, but by units sold they are only the thirteenth largest car maker in the world, even though they invented the car in the 1800's.

However, they are the second largest truck maker in the world, and after manufacturing the very first bus ever in the world, they are also a giant bus manufacturer. Plus military and heavy duty vehicles and they make arguably the worlds most capable and popular do anything vehicle - the Unimog.

As quarter owner of Airbus they manufacture jet airliners and other civil and military aircraft, as well as communications systems, missiles, space rockets, satellites and a range of helicopters.

They also manufacture vehicles under other brands such as Smart Automobile, Freightliner, Western Star, Thomas Built Buses, Setra, BharatBenz, Mitsubishi Fuso, as well as having shares in Denza, KAMAZ, Beijing Automotive Group, Tesla Motors, and Renault-Nissan Alliance. They also make their own branded engines as well as others such as their wholly owned subsidiary Detroit Diesel.


So to answer your question; no they are not chasing volume, their volume IS commercial vehicles - the luxury cars are a side deal...




;)
 
#42 ·
America123, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Look at the pictures you posted, they illlustrate the point I was making. Compare FWD with either AWD/RWD and look from the front axles back. See how far back the transmission sits in the RWD version? See the drive shaft in the RWD version? You have to allow for these in the design of the interior. You can take advantage of their absence with FWD.
 
#45 · (Edited)
They are I believe, (the two) different wheel bases.

That is also why they whited out some sections.


I 'guess' the point is, the differences you are talking about as possible and negative ones at that, do not add up to much within this specific vehicle program - when you look at what they are actually offering and most importantly, how they are actually built.

You seem to be assuming some things, including that the intent here is to offer FWD, RWD, and AWD fully interchangeably - up and down the entire product line.

As MB makes quite clear - that's not the goal - nor should it be.

That is also somewhat obvious given the the various / available dimensioning, payload / gvw groups and for all the roses, the PTs offered.

Plus..... MB's presentation text and press materials.

I don't have a position with all this - seems like a clever or clever enough vehicle program that will allow them to cover a lot of ground 'with less' compared to some others efforts - who would perhaps require a more diversified, complex and costly effort - up to and including two separate vehicle programs rather than say one and a quarter.


You also keep postulating other things that MB also addressed both in terms of the vehicle itself and the information released as of yesterday.


Like a lot of theorizing while ignoring the actual product and information provided so far.

As an example,

According to MB's written press release for this introduction, floor height - is the same on all variants or all cargo / commercial variants if that's wrong.


If anything, they all appear too low but that's a matter of preference and so forth.

Nothing personal, but you also seem to be over estimating the vertical changes as well as their impacts - as well as their locations relative to the front seats and so forth.

Pretty much along the lines of what you did with regard to Audi and the Intrepid.

Now take a good look at that RWD driveshaft . Notice one, the 'direct' attachment to the AT, two, the dirt simple u - joint and simpler yet flex joint - going to the relatively puny third member - and that this is all they need to use.

Nope, none of all that is bouncing around much in the vertical is it.


Just because some others might be challenged more severely to accomplish all this is no reason to tar and feather this one.

You know, in so so many ways that matter....... this is not an E350 versus or crossed with a Transit.

If MB wants to segment things a little differently than some other OEMs - whose to say that's wrong - or a lousy approach ????????


I was going to let this one slide until we have much more detailed info - because of the effects of wheel bases ( 2) oal lengths and heights ( 3 x ? ), wheels, tires - etc etc etc ( big varied program ) but even from the little out there, it does not appear to be anything but fully useful in all PT builds - your criticisms and assumptions going in as well as out appear to be unfounded.


A little bump underneath the center third seat in the 'cab' ..... is no big thing. And that's not a given just yet - haven't seen it in the pics so far.


All - as built come under under the 2 Metre height limit.
 
#47 ·
Thanks MonaroSS. :)

Based on their info from yesterday - which I need to check again for better accuracy.... one can gather an impression that these differences or some useable parts of them - are covered by basic vehicle height - if you follow.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top