Episode 321 – More Trouble for Toyota, Pope Interferes in Fiat’s Affairs, Chinese in Australia
February 4th, 2010 at 12:19pm
Runtime 8:06
Toyota is running into more trouble. Federal investigators are looking into sudden acceleration claims on the Tacoma, plus Prius braking performance is in question. Sergio Marchionne gets scolded by the Pope for closing a plant in Italy. Chinese automakers Geely and Chery will start selling cars in Australia this year. All that and more, plus we take a look at a different way of measuring a vehicle’s performance.
Transcript and Story Links after the jump . . .
Here’s what’s in today’s show. Toyota’s recall problems are getting worse. The Pope scolds Marchionne for closing a plant. And Autoline Daily sets out to show automotive enthusiasts a better way to measure the potential performance of a car.
Up next, we’ll be back with the news behind the headlines.
This is Autoline Daily for Thursday, February 4, 2010, and now, the news.
Uh-oh. Now the Toyota Prius is under NHTSA’s microscope for braking problems (subscription required). The company blames an overly-sensitive ABS system. Adding insult to injury, the other day Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak says he suspects there’s a software problem with the Prius’ cruise control. As the old saying goes, when it rains, it pours. According to the LA Times, congressional investigators are looking into sudden acceleration in the Tacoma pickup. When you add it all up, Reuters reports that Toyota could lose as much as $2 billion from all of its recent callbacks.
Reuters also reports that Honda is concerned that Toyota’s recalls will tarnish Japan’s reputation for quality. But it’s not just the Japanese. Now the Chevy Cobalt is under federal investigation for steering-related safety issues. NHTSA has received more than eleven hundred complaints about a loss of power assist. The Cobalt uses electric power steering. Dun-da-dun-dun-dunnnn. I’ve got a feeling all electronic controls will come under attack now.
Financial results for the last quarter are coming in for Japanese automakers and man, are they turning things around. Toyota, which was losing money last year, managed to turn in a net profit of $1.8 billion for the third quarter, compared to a loss of $1.9 billion a year ago. Honda turned in a net profit of nearly $1.5 billion, despite a drop in revenue of over $3 billion. And Mitsubishi Motors produced its first quarterly profit in 5 quarters. It posted a profit of $118 million, despite a 43 percent drop in revenue. To me, these are very impressive turnarounds, and they show the Japanese automakers have been slashing cost to deal with the global downturn.
Even though Chinese automaker Geely will buy Volvo. Ford’s joint venture partner in China, Chang’an, will continue to build Volvos. According to Gasgoo, Chang’an will keep building the S40 and S80 models.
And Geely and Chery are set to enter the Australian market this year. Chery’s A1 and Tiggo3, as well as Geely’s MK, Emgrand EC7, and Panda models will be offered.
And it’s a good thing some Chinese automakers are starting to export because according to a new report the country’s domestic automakers face overcapacity in just two years. Gasgoo reports that China’s top 14 automakers will have a combined capacity of 23 million units by 2012, when demand is only expected to reach 20 million.
Poor Sergio Marchionne. The CEO of Fiat thought he just had labor unions and leftist politicians to deal with as he tries to close an assembly plant in Italy. But now, the AP reports, even the Pope is weighing in on this one. Of course, he put it very diplomatically. But Pope Benedict XVI said that the company needs to show a great sense of responsibility. I know he’s supposed to be infallible, but I’d remind the pope that it was by ignoring tough decisions like that that ultimately brought the American auto industry to the brink of destruction.
Coming up next, Autoline Daily is out to convince automotive enthusiasts that looking at horsepower and torque is an inaccurate way to determine a car’s potential performance.
Here’s a trick question for you. What performs better in the quarter mile, a Nissan Altima Hybrid or a Hemi-powered Dodge Ram crew cab that has twice the horsepower? Surprisingly, they’re nearly identical. How’s that possible? Well, it all boils down to the power-to-weight ratio. Let’s take a look at some numbers, starting with an American performance machine.
The Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 blows the doors off with 638 horsepower on tap and a curb weight around 3,300 pounds. This gives it a shockingly low power-to-weight ratio of just 5.2 pounds per horsepower.
Now, let’s compare the Chevy to something a little more practical, like a Volkswagen Jetta TDI. It also weighs about 3,300 (3,285) pounds, but it only has 140 ponies. This works out to a much higher 23.5 pounds per horsepower.
Predictably, the performance numbers closely follow the power-to-weight ratios. The Corvette can accelerate from 0 to 60 in less than four seconds (3.8). The Vee-Dub takes almost nine seconds (8.9) to reach the same speed.
Just for fun, we threw in something really old, a Ford Model A. It’s pretty light, weighing right around 2,400 pounds, but it only has 40 horsepower! That gives it a power-to-weight ratio of 60, which is a big part of why its top speed is only about 55 miles an hour!
When we crunched the numbers for other vehicles, we found some common break points. A power-to-weight ratio of less than 10 is supercar territory. Something that rates in the low double digits will be quite a performer. Average vehicles seem to rank in the mid teens, while slower cars fall in the 20s and up. We also correlated power to weight with 0 to 60 time, and came up with a general scale that makes it easy to estimate how a car will perform.
Beyond the raw pounds-per-horsepower figure, there are a lot of other variables that affect performance, like aerodynamics, transmission type, weather conditions and more. In fact, some vehicles with better power-to-weight ratios actually accelerate slower. Back to the Dodge Ram and Nissan Altima. The truck checks in at 15 pounds per horsepower and the car nearly 18, but the Hybrid beats the Hemi from 0 to 60 by three-tenths of a second. The Dodge catches up by the end of the quarter mile, though, probably because it has so much more torque.
Moving forward, we’re going to include power-to-weight figures whenever possible. We believe it’s a more useful way of comparing vehicles and rating performance.
Don’t’ forget to tune in to Autoline After Hours tonight at 7 p.m. Eastern time. Our special guest will be Jamie Allison. That’s tonight at 7 p.m.
And that’s it for today’s top news in the global automotive industry. Thanks for watching, we’ll see you tomorrow.
Thanks to our Partners for embedding Autoline Daily on their websites: Autoblog, The Auto Channel, Car Chat, WardsAuto.com and WWJ Newsradio 950
Share 
Embed
Permalink
Comments (45)
February 4th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Come on, John, you are acting as if you… invented the Power/Weight ratio! This has been around for ever and appears in almost every article in any mainstream car mag. We always take this into consideration, even if the number is not given, it is a simple first grade arithmetic to get it.
But before you made your conclusions, I thought you would mention that the Nissan HYBRID does better than the ram initially because of the huge torque of the ELECTRIC motor available all the way down from ZERO RPM!
February 4th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Sergio: You a bad Italiano, you take laboro de tu compatrioti and give to the filthy Americano, you must confess your sins to the nearest padre, but mamma mia no take no 7 hours to confess, priest has other sinners to listen to. ps. a nice gift to the church will be a nice. sinceramente< Il Papa.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Get it straight though. Either you are talking weight-to-power, or power-to-weight. John’s handy metric of less than 10 is telling you it’s a rocket, and is really a pound to Hp number.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
A very enjoyable show as always, John, but prepare to be set upon by a gaggle of geezers for your low top-speed estimate on the Ford Model A. My dad’s stock ‘29 coupe would easily surpass 60. And that’s not even downhill or with a tailwind! So, what was the zero to 60 time, you might ask? I can answer that question… got a minute?
February 4th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Thanks John: Corolla: a paltry 120horses, that’s why I’m throwing out the spare, the subwoofer, the rear bench seat and the wife. Total weight saved:600lbs. Look out Corvettes!!
February 4th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Nice discussion John, although most of the enthusiasts who watch understand the formula and the process.
The underlying issue remains that just about every vehicle is significantly heavier than those of just 25-30 years ago. Sturdier construction and higher option contents have conspired against holding the line on weight gain, with only limited successes here and there by using higher tech (and higher cost) materials.
I must admit to being part of the problem. I LIKE having all the comforts of my living room, the safety of my mother’s womb as well as having performance car performance…I want it all, and that comes with a weight penalty.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
The term “performance car performance” is a registered trademark of the Department of Redundancy Department, Washington DC.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Tony,
Didn’t you say you had an 04 325iS? These are some of the most fuel efficient vehicles on the road, I bet you routinely get over 30 MPG highway. Its not like you had a thirsty M5 or a 7..who are still OK at 20-25 MPG highway. Now if you had some idiotic fat-ass 8 mpg city Suburban you did not really need (no towing, no off-road etc), then you would be wasteful.
And if everybody else and his mother in law drive 4,500-6,000 lb SUVs, we do not feel safe in a 2,000 lb Civic hatch in the US, but the same exact hatch feels perfectly safe in Europe, where many older cars are as lightweight or even lighter than that.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
600 HP is the new 400 (90s), which is the new 200 (80s)
February 4th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Do people actually give a flying feck what the pope says?
February 4th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
-
JohnMc, What a Great Idea; may I recomend also for autoline to ad some sort of section border to the webpage containing the PxW ration of cars your reviewing or had review/OR even better cars at autoshows with pictures and everything.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Did some simple math, my old 83 84 hp, 2,400 lb Pontiac had W/p=28+!, the Civic hatch 91 at 75 HP and 1875 lbs had a hefty 25, my 1990 2,822 lb accord coupe had 125 Hp and 22+. All were 5 speeds, and I could say the hatch felt the livelier (acceleration, despite its higher W/P than the accord.
and my current german V8 has about 15, and feels powerful every time except perhaps accelerating from zero, when the huge mass hates moving at first, unless one really foots the gas, but at any non-zero speeds it accelerates real strongly and leaves the other cars far behind.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
The analysis of the top speed of the Model A is not correct.
Top speed is primarily determined by horsepower, aero drag and gear ratios. Rolling resistance needs to be considered, but at speeds near top speed its impact is small relative to aero drag. Weight is not a significant factor.
Rear axle ratio and transmission final drive ratio are important. For optimum top speed the chosen gear ratios must cause the engine to operate at the RPM that produces max horsepower.
Power to weight ratio is the key factor for ACCELERATION. Gear ratios are also important. Aero drag and rolling resistance are of some importance.
Weight has little effect on TOP SPEED, assuming the vehicle is on a level road. Increased weight does slightly increase rolling resistance, but rolling resistance is already a very small factor.
This reference covers these concepts in detail: MECHANICS OF VEHICLES
by Jaroslav Taborek Penton Publishing
In this title “MECHANICS” means physics
February 4th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Hey Nick, Germans like their horse power! Great show, very interesting engineering stuff. With all that Chinese over capacity will we start hearing about them “dumping” cars on the US market to kill competition?
February 4th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
“Hey Nick, Germans like their horse power!”
They like their top speeds much more than the acceleration, given they do not have speed limits. But my lowest-HP car (or second lowest), the 83 Pontiac 2000, that was really a “german” Opel Ascona clone, and its 1.8 lt engine wass built in Brazil, I believe. The speedo went only up to 85, and at around 82 the needle was stuck on the odometer button shaft (!). Top speed was probably 95-98 MPH..
February 4th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
I meant above, if one floors, not foots, the gas, obviously, and no speed limit on Autobahns only, I did get a $10 or so ticket in germany for driving at 90 kph in a country road with an 80 kph limit, was caught by a camera and got the ticket in the mail. I paid it right away because of the tiny amount. That was in summer 88, and with a tiny Golf II that could barely do 160 KPH on the autobahn (100 MPH).
February 4th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Let the dangerous mix of engineers and enthusiasts begin:
Remember acceleration is directly a function of torque. (rotational version of F=ma)
The ability to keep it up comes from the power.
The Ram likely starts to gain as drag starts to enter the quarter mile equation and the 350+ ponies can keep up the torque as the wind drag increases with the square of speed.
Power to weight ratio has very little to do with top speed. In fact I’d go so far as to say from first principles, weight has nothing to do with it unless you consider tire deflection/rolling resistance drags. (assuming flat ground)
Ok, I’ll shut up now.
Love the shows.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Re: weight to hp, I look forward to more plastic, less steel,quieter bodies.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Electric controls have their place, but I have always suspected their use in a car. Think about it. Even the most competent and rugged “computer” seems to needs a “reboot” every now and then. When the industry went to fly by wire for the throttle, they eliminated the “fail safe” mode of being able to control the throttle. But that’s not what I am irked about.
The buttons rather than knobs, electronic throttle, and other so called “features” are there not because they are better, but they are cheaper and easier to mass produce. Bolt a peddle to the floor and plug in an electrical connector is tons easier than running a throttle cable, springs, and the like. With fly by wire, we’re talking about a potentiometer for “foot” input, and other various signals for cruise and ABS, and an electronic actuator on the throttle control. With a throttle cable, the inputs are much more expensive to design and install because of the mechanical aspect of the installation. So enough with the BS about it’s improved economy and drivability. Just like having fifty buttons for HVAC and the sound system is easier than four knobs. I ain’t buying it. Cheaper, yes; but not easier to use.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
“Hey everyone, on today’s show we’re introducing this new metric called “Power to Weight,” except it isn’t really a power over weight ratio it is a weight over power ratio but we’re still gonna call it ‘Power to Weight’ because while we think you, our viewers, are smarter than average, we think you’re still too dumb to be able to adjust to two words in a slightly different sequence.”
sigh…..
February 4th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Camera traffic observation and tickets by mail, German efficiency at best. I’ve thinking in 2 years I’d buy an old two door 3 series BMW. I don’t need the space and I put a lot of miles on my cars for the commute to work. I wouldn’t like driving around in a Yaris, the 3 series looks pretty cool (in my opinion of course.)
February 4th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Thanks for the extra data on power to weight ratios, John, as I almost always seek out this info when I read a review on a vehicle, and am typically irritated when magazines (such as Automobile) often feel no need to reveal this data. It appears that the power to weight emphasis really took off with the GTO muscle car era of the mid 60s (when the magical 10:1 ratio was frequently mentioned as a desirable goal to reach/exceed), although this data was sometimes reported in vehicle reviews in the 1950s, such as reported in various magazines available here in the US (Like Car Life, or Motor Trend). Of course there are other factors that impact performance as John mentioned, and these factors include how much torque there is and when it occurs (at what rpm), the number of gears (more are usually better for efficiency/performance) and ratios (gears, axle), or even the breathing efficiency of the engine (impacted by how many valves there are per cylinder, how they are controlled, overlap, etc.) and this is one extra reason why the 2011 Mustang GT manual just might clip the Camaro SS manual (423 hp) in 0-60 or in ET, along with the slightly lighter weight of the Ford. Fun to compare!
February 4th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
I like the 99-05 3 series best, smoother exterior styling and more upscale interior than the current 3. And you can get a ‘99 dirt-cheap today, and as I said before, these are really fuel efficient esp on highway trips. My first cousin who works in Amsterdam full time bought a 3 series wagon of the above model vitnage, he gave me a ride from the airport, it was rather bare-bomes inside, I did not see any polished wood, and perhaps it did not even have leather, but they consider it their “large” car (the other one is a Rover, Honda civic clone with less reliability…)
February 4th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
There was a story about a guy who got one of these tickets in the mail, it had a photo of him speeding, and was asking for 100 Euros. SO the guy just took a pic of a 100 Euro note and put it in the return envelope. The reply contained a picture of a pair of handcuffs.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
The 3 series coupes 99-05 look the best, much better than the sedans. A great, stylish personal vehicle with excellent performance.
February 4th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
I also like the BMW 3 series from 1999 to 2005. The only styling issue I don’t like from those years is that the rear-end tail lights remind me of a Honda Civic.
February 4th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
John is right guys, think about how new these electric gizmos in our cars are, well new…. New=defects, and we have to iron out all kinks. Some automakers like Hyundai/KIA are smart enough to try product like that in less impotant European markets or in developing nations, before they bring it here.
Those countries unlike the US have transporation systems that are either inadequte to do something about any kinks, (Recalls) or they have a Laissez Faire Attitude about reliability and Automotive problems, and really dont care. They dont have the hawkish media we have either.
John, maybe you should talk about that more. The fact that China has 600 million dirt poor people who cant afford a scooter much less a car. Much less the other 100 million people who save for a car, pay it out in cash, and then keep it until it goes kaput, as opposed to our country where people get cars every 5 years on credit and there’s a guaranteed steady cash flow for most Automakers.
In a country with such wealth gaps and Cultural Taboos about Credit, your capacity will always be limited, and until they address that the big growth booms most Automakers salivate over wont materialize as much as they think it will.
Its the same premise as the lack of marketshare for Hybrids in the US market, think about it John.
February 4th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Drew, Hondas and BMWs look a lot alike at times. Im one of the few people that loves Acura, including their current design, but as a business case the justification of keeping Acura around is dying off.
I think Honda should abandon Economy cars entirely and become a Japanese full line Luxury Marque. I know, but thats what I think about it personally.
Honda has near Luxury company prices for many of its products now, yet they still want to appeal to cost concious consumers. Whos going to pay XYZ for the Civic when you can get a Forte just as good or even better for a lower price? Im telling you people are finding out about that Forte more and more and are liking what they are finding.
Hondas are overpriced for what they offer, but its currency that holds them back. When they try to be cost competitive with lower cost makes, the quality is horrible like the Insight.
Honda is going to have to decide should they make 10 year old KIAs to stay competitive, or should they move upmarket. Cost has Killed Honda in Europe, and its starting to kill them here.
February 4th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
“Tony Gray Says:
February 4th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
The underlying issue remains that just about every vehicle is significantly heavier than those of just 25-30 years ago. Sturdier construction and higher option contents have conspired against holding the line on weight gain, with only limited successes here and there by using higher tech (and higher cost) materials.”
Actually not true on the Impala at least:
1977 – 1994 = 4,221 lbs.
2005 = 3,465 lbs.
2009 = 3,764 lbs.
February 4th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
My Legends race car is 1145lbs full of gas and about 140 hp = BAD FAST!!!
February 4th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
T. Bejma Says:
February 4th, 2010 at 4
Tony Gray Says:
February 4th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
“The underlying issue remains that just about every vehicle is significantly heavier than those of just 25-30 years ago.
Actually not true on the Impala at least:
1977 – 1994 = 4,221 lbs.
2005 = 3,465 lbs.
2009 = 3,764 lbs.”
In this case, they are completely different cars, but with “recycled” names. The ‘77 to ‘94 Impalas were rear drive, body-on-frame cars, while the later ones were unibody, front drives, which are invariably lighter.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Chevy needs to decide just what the Impala is going to be or drop it. The Malibu has taken over the mid size family sedan market for Chevy. The Impala should be competition to the Avalon, Taurus and Chrysler 300, but why bother? Is their a huge market for that size car? If yes then bring back the G8 and I’m sure it’s heavier than the current one! It would be a show stoper if they actually did make it a two mode hybrid.
I do like the “99 to 05″ three series BMW two door coupes. I gotta wait two years, maybe I’ll get my chance then.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Hondas are getting expensive. The Accord is nice car, but it is getting expensive to buy. I love mine, but doubt that it will fit my budget the next time around.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Exactly dcars they are going to have to make a decision. Either Make Insights which are pretty much KIAs from 10 years ago, or go upmarket.
If they stay the same they will continue to lose marketshare, and this company can not afford to lose American Market. A company like Hyundai/KIA can afford to lose American Market Share, but a tiny company like Honda, no.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Honda have priced themselves out of many markets, and for what you get you can get te same o better these days for cheaper. Korean, American and German cars provide a better Value.
Like the Honda Fit. What Dumbass is going to pay $16K for a car the size of a shoe, and the thing doesnt even have leatherette much less leather?
At $16K you can get a Crazy Loaded Forte, a Decent Golf, and a Decent Focus.
They listened to the Media like Sheep and didnt look for the true value themselves, so they do kind of deserve to get ripped off.
Wow, Fit I hate that car, its just a rip off.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
John,
As others have already stated…the ratio you kept addressing is weight-to-power not the other way around. Basic math.
Also, as others have stated, your report is presented as though you guys just invented this. I’ve seen this number for years in most all the auto mags. I agree it is a good measure, but come on, you didn’t exactly discover E=MC^2.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:50 pm
http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_dir/2010/02/05/201002050056.asp
Hyundai/KIA said they learned a lesson about quality about quality from Toyota.
By the way, Id love to see producton spec cars in all Motorsport. To me whats the point with phantom engines and trannies you wont be able to put in a car, or modify yourself.
February 5th, 2010 at 8:55 am
1977 – 1994 = 4,221 lbs.
2005 = 3,465 lbs.
2009 = 3,764 lbs.
Kit already mentioned, correctly, that the 1977s and the 2005-2009s are totally different cars.
I am amazed the 1977 was given for comparison, it is REALLY totally different.
At first I thought one was comparing the 2005-2009 Impalas to the also very different and much Bigger Impalas of the 90s, which were as big as the biggest cadillacs and the Buick Roadmaster. No comparison with today’s Impala either!
February 5th, 2010 at 8:58 am
“# dcars Says:
February 4th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Hondas are getting expensive. The Accord is nice car, but it is getting expensive to buy. I love mine, but doubt that it will fit my budget the next time around.”
IS the reason that they bundle the options? And how are used Accord prices, have they gone up too much recently?
I believe that regardless of your budget, you can do much, much better buying used, either certified, or, better, from the owner, esp. if it is somebody you know and you know the history.
I also believe that how the car has been driven and maintained is almost as important, if not more important, than how reliable the brand is!
February 5th, 2010 at 10:39 am
dcars Says:
February 4th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
“Chevy needs to decide just what the Impala is going to be or drop it.”
The current Impala is bigger and roomier than the Malibu, close in size to the new, big Taurus. The Impala, though, is about the most “unexiting” car you can buy and is really showing its age in styling, cabin decor, etc., and the handling is very mediocre. Still, it has good points. The controls are simple and intuitive, and it gets decent gas mileage for its size.
I’ve read that the next Impala will be front drive, and basically an update of the present car, and its intended competition will be Taurus, and maybe Avalon in the case of a “loaded” Impala.
February 5th, 2010 at 10:55 am
Hi Nick,
I hope I’m not jinxing myself, but I have done the maintenance on my Accord and it’s been great. I intend to keep it and let my son use it and buy something else for me. I don’t want to spend allot of money on a new car so I’m thinking about a used car. Thanks for the advice.
February 5th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Hi Kit all the things you say are true but, the Impala just seams a little redundant. The future car really needs to be distinctively different form the Malibu. Thats going to be tough, because the Malibu is a nice car with a great interior, nice ride etc….
February 5th, 2010 at 11:19 am
About the only advantage of the current Impala over the Malibu is a larger trunk, but the Malibu is probably a better car every other way.
February 5th, 2010 at 11:51 am
The Malibu has far better styling than the boring Fusion, whose slab-sided styling seems to have been around for ever, even if they call it the “new” fusion or whatever, but GM has not marketed the really new Malibu much. This month has been an exception in Malibu sales and for GM overall. As a Taxpayer I hope GM’s success continues, so they can repay the billions we loaned them.
dcars: Accords are great cars, drive better than Toyotas (double wishbone suspensions, better handling and feel) and are just as reliable. There is a site for Hona owners that has accords like my old 1990 that have made over 900,000 miles (and in Maine, not in the sunbelt!) on mostly the original parts.
February 6th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I’m with you on using a power to weight ratio, but it would be preferable to have a measure that would doesn’t depend on Imperial measurements. This may be even more important sine we are globalizing platforms.