New Car Buyers

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by MobilOne

what we have today are Chevy's, Buicks, and Caddy's with the same bodies, engines, and transmissions. The only real difference being exterior and interior trim.

That's how I want it. I don't want half a dozen choices of poor designs to choose from; instead I want a highly engineered and optimized design with the choice of minor options.

It makes sense to reduce R&D by simplifying platforms.

[Xist]

[Modified from http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post466729 Thanks Ecky!]

Based on this, I do not criticize GM owners.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Xist

Based on this, I do not criticize GM owners.

But if you go back to the site where that image originally appeared (Long-Term Quality Index ), you see that it's based on models "going all the way back to 1996!". That makes it pretty much irrelevant to auto manufacturing during the 1950s to 1970s.

It also leaves out my '88 Toyota pickup, still running strong after 28 years.

[wdb]

Originally Posted by Xist

So, when will Elio go this route?

Coke is so yesterday. Heroin is where the action is now.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by MobilOne

And what we have today are Chevy's, Buicks, and Caddy's with the same bodies, engines, and transmissions. The only real difference being exterior and interior trim.

While this may have been true formerly, GM (and other manufacturers) don't really work this way anymore. Sure, you have cars like the first-generation Volt and Opel Ampera that are exactly the same aside from different fascia (but only because one was sold in America and the other in Europe), but that Volt is also the "same car" as the Cadillac ELR, which differs significantly in dimensions and design. The 2016 Camaro, CTS, and ATS all share components and are built on the same Alpha platform, but also differ significantly in design and dimensions, interior volume, track and wheelbase, price, and don't share any body panels or glass. The 2016 Chevrolet Cruze and Buick Verano share a platform (D2XX) and compete at either end of the compact segment, but are very different cars in design. The 2016 Chevrolet Malibu and Buick LaCrosse are the "same car," yet the LaCrosse has a wheelbase 3" longer, sits .2" lower and wider, and offers one engine to the Malibu's 3. Oh, and both these cars share a significant number of components with the Impala and Cadillac XTS, which are again different in every way despite the crossover. In fact, I can't think of any current cars from GM that are simply rebadged products from other divisions with different exterior and interior trim, where I can think of plenty from the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. All the current shared models have different bodies, different interiors, and in many cases different engine choices.

If anything, I would argue that automakers in the 2010s have succeeded in diversifying the products of sister divisions while cutting costs by sharing components without that affecting the uniqueness of each model, certainly much more so than in the past.

[MobilOne]

Hi Vman455,

The GM cars may all be different. But they don't seem that way to me.

[johnnywheels]

Originally Posted by Vman455

While this may have been true formerly, GM (and other manufacturers) don't really work this way anymore. Sure, you have cars like the first-generation Volt and Opel Ampera that are exactly the same aside from different fascia (but only because one was sold in America and the other in Europe), but that Volt is also the "same car" as the Cadillac ELR, which differs significantly in dimensions and design. The 2016 Camaro, CTS, and ATS all share components and are built on the same Alpha platform, but also differ significantly in design and dimensions, interior volume, track and wheelbase, price, and don't share any body panels or glass. The 2016 Chevrolet Cruze and Buick Verano share a platform (D2XX) and compete at either end of the compact segment, but are very different cars in design. The 2016 Chevrolet Malibu and Buick LaCrosse are the "same car," yet the LaCrosse has a wheelbase 3" longer, sits .2" lower and wider, and offers one engine to the Malibu's 3. Oh, and both these cars share a significant number of components with the Impala and Cadillac XTS, which are again different in every way despite the crossover. In fact, I can't think of any current cars from GM that are simply rebadged products from other divisions with different exterior and interior trim, where I can think of plenty from the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. All the current shared models have different bodies, different interiors, and in many cases different engine choices.

If anything, I would argue that automakers in the 2010s have succeeded in diversifying the products of sister divisions while cutting costs by sharing components without that affecting the uniqueness of each model, certainly much more so than in the past.

These are all some good points. There are definitely trends that follow in the automobile market, and companies have to remain competitive by creating similar attributes, but there are most certainly unique differences or "signatures" that companies leave to make theirs different than the competition.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by MobilOne

Hi Vman455,

The GM cars may all be different. But they don't seem that way to me.

Well, my point was that no matter what they seem, the statement that Chevrolets, Buicks, and Cadillacs today have the same bodies, engines, and transmissions is demonstrably false. Looking at the Alpha platform again, we have cars in three different sizes (compact ATS, mid-size coupe Camaro, and full-size CTS) with completely different bodies (strike one), with at least one unique engine option in each (strike two) and at least two unique transmission options (strike three). This is a far cry from the old days, when GM produced clones like the second-generation Chevrolet Cavalier and Pontiac Sunbird, which were exactly the same car with a different grill and wheels, or even than Chrysler's vans today, which do the same thing (to be fair, Chrysler is moving away from that too, e.g. the smaller Dart and larger 200, unique models on the same platform).

We're talking this:



...versus this:



Sure, they aren't completely different cars, but they're differentiated enough that there probably isn't a lot of demographic overlap in potential buyers, if at all.

So, my thesis is: platform sharing today results in cars that are well differentiated in looks, size, feel, and performance, unlike GM's strategy of rebranding the same exact model between brands as recently as a couple decades ago (but still today with their trucks, I'll give you that), and if I'm going to buy an argument that this is not the case, I need to see some convincing evidence to support it.

[Fat Charlie]

A good example is what Dodge has been doing. Their LX body, when it came out, was the Charger, Magnum and 300. Different sheetmetal, different configurations, same car. They dropped the Magnum because of sales and eventually chopped a few inches off to make the Challenger- but introduction was delayed because the 300 was selling so well they didn't want to divert production away from it, as the Challenger was going to be made in a 300 factory... because call it what you will, it's the same car.

But selling the same car multiple times is looked down on, so the Challenger was called the LC body and eventually the Charger was called the LD.

Sometimes they thought ahead. When they rebadged the Liberty (KJ) to sell as a Nitro, they called it the KA body. When they rebadged the Caliber (PM) to sell it as a Jeep, the Compass and Patriot were the MK body. Why they thought two designations for three "models" was better than one or three designations, I don't know. When they slapped a Cherokee label on the Dart (PF), they called it a KL. When the current Grand Cherokee and Durango came out, the Jeep got called a WK (carrying the designation over from the 05-10 body) and the Durango was the WD. Near the top is the Aspen (HG), which didn't even pretend to be different from the HB Durango that it really was. But my favorite is when they took the first generation WK Grand Cherokee, made it look a little boxier and called it the Commander- the XK body.

Basing things on the same platform works really well. Slight changes for branding preferences are okay and can be done successfully, but it'd be nice if they didn't pretend to themselves that every damn flavor were something unique and special. Because if it were, then the bigwigs and the engineers wouldn't be doing their jobs properly.

[MobilOne]

I stand corrected. But they still seem the same to me.