# brand erosion



## swchang (Oct 5, 2003)

I didn't find this posted already. It's a little old (few weeks?), and I'm not sure where it's from, but it's interesting...

---

_Brand Erosion Hell: How To Tell If Your Favorite Car Company Has Started To Lose Its Way. _

_Birmingham, MI_ - Following-up last week's column about the importance of brand image in today's cutthroat automobile market, I thought it would be a good idea to provide a handy guide for automakers and auto enthusiasts alike - so that they can tell when their favorite brand has started to lose its way.

Last week, we sent several Honda and BMW zealots into apoplectic fits because we had the temerity to criticize their favorite car companies in our "On the Table" column. We stand by our criticisms of those two "sacred cow" brands, however, because this business of protecting brands is such a fragile endeavor that even the smallest of missteps can end up derailing a so-called "bullet-proof" brand down the road - even if their current lineup of cars seems to be stellar. I will say that I lumped the BMW 1 Series in with other recent BMW atrocities, and that wasn't accurate or fair. If anything, the 1 Series is shaping up to be the first authentic BMW in years - that is if Helmut Panke and Chris Bangle and Co. can restrain themselves from screwing it up.

So, how can you tell if your favorite automaker has started to lose its way? Well, sometimes it's obvious - whether it's major product gaffes or playing in segments that the automaker doesn't really belong in or fire-sale prices, the big things are easy to see. But other times it's the "little things" that are harder to see and that pile up over time until, all of a sudden, the attitude of "good enough" has replaced the old way of going the extra mile to make things right - and then slowly but surely, little bits and pieces of brand character end up falling by the wayside.

Here are a few examples...

*1. If car company executives seem to be spending and inordinate amount of time justifying their actions, that's your first clue that something's wrong.* We've seen it countless times since we started this publication (and long before that in the ad biz - ed.), but usually, the more car companies blather to the media and to everyone else about "getting their story out" and the more defensive they get about certain aspects of their new products - it's because there has been an inexorable shift in the wrong direction. For instance, the moment Chris Bangle unleashed his "vision" for BMW's future design direction, BMW executives were put on the defensive at every auto show and at every media event they attended. All of a sudden, the traditional traits that made BMWs so attractive - the inherent goodness of the handling, the sweet motors, etc., became an afterthought. All because BMW had departed from a logical, evolutionary design sequence - in favor of a jarring exercise in visual excess and unabashed

*2. If an established luxury brand all of a sudden feels compelled to become more "approachable" - watch out.* At certain times during a luxury automaker's life, there always seems to be a point where a really bad combination of doubt and greed sets in - and heretofore well-meaning executives get it in their heads that if they extend their brand downmarket just a little bit, huge profits await. The problems begin when they actually start talking themselves into believing that these forays into new, lower price point segments can't possibly have an adverse effect on their brand images. And they would be dead wrong for believing that, too. You only have to look at two brands that have embarked into territories where they don't belong - Jaguar and Mercedes-Benz - to see what I'm talking about.

The X-Type has been a disaster from the get-go for Jaguar - no matter what they say to the contrary. The official Ford/Jaguar company line is that the X-Type has accomplished what they set out to do - which was to bring younger buyers into Jaguar brand consideration. The reality is that since the X-Type's very survival in the U.S. market is solely dependent on heavily-supported factory leases, the car has taken the Jaguar brand off of its pedestal and plunged it into payment hell - cheapening the brand in the U.S. market immeasurably. And it's really too bad, because the new XJ8, on the other hand, is a superb car. But when Jaguar is having to shove X-Types out the door with tainted, distress-sale lease prices, while at the same time telling customers that the new XJ8 is worth every penny - a giant disconnect occurs. And what message does that send to the customer, exactly? That some Jaguars are better than others? Probably. Or worse - that some Jaguars aren't "real" Jaguars at all - and those are the on

As for Mercedes-Benz, some M-B purists will argue that the last great Mercedes was the previous S-Class, that everything since has been cheapened or corrupted by technical and electronic overkill, reduced build quality and poor reliability. And I'd be hard-pressed to argue that point (except for the AMG cars, which are still worth owning). But for me, the moment M-B really lost its bearings was the decision to introduce the now infamous C-Class Coupe - a car that featured a retail price of around $26,000. Overnight, M-B dealers found themselves having to sell these cars against loaded VWs - and any shred of "specialness" attached to the Mercedes-Benz brand literally went right out the showroom window.

Seasoned German auto executives will tell you that Mercedes has always played in a wide range of segments back home and that it shouldn't be such a big deal for M-B to play in a wide range of segments in the U.S. But that logic falls apart when you take into account the image that had been pounded into the American car buyer about Mercedes up until about ten years ago - and that was that Mercedes-Benz cars were "engineered like no other car in the world." Not only did people really believe that about Mercedes - the cars seemed to live up to that reputation, even if they were a bit stodgy.

But when Mercedes-Benz shifted their brand image strategy from one of "technical superiority" to one that revolved around the concept of being "more approachable" in the marketplace, they began a downward spiral that they've yet to pull out of. It didn't help, of course, that the cars seemed less solid, featuring cheaper-looking interior materials for the first time, while suffering from the same German predilection for electronic overkill that plagues BMW.

Despite the current sales numbers and an attitude emanating from their U.S. and German executives that everything is just peachy with Mercedes-Benz, this brand remains as the most classic example of brand erosion in the market today. And I've yet to see any evidence that they a.) get it, or b.) are taking steps to do something about it.

*3. Yes, as a matter of fact, in the car business, it is about the "little things."* Several years ago, Honda redesigned the front suspension of the Civic, replacing a classically elegant "wishbone" design derived from traditional racing car practice with a cheaper, lowest common denominator McPherson strut design - typically used in more mundane econo-cars. Honda executives breathlessly described (see point #1 above) how these struts wouldn't compromise the Civic's sporty character and said that basically people would not only get used to it, they wouldn't give it another thought after they drove it. But Honda purists went ballistic - and justifiably so. Here was Honda, which built its reputation on building brilliantly innovative racing motorcycles and eventually with creating equally brilliant championship-winning Formula 1 engines - not to mention an impressive array of creative street machines - "copping out" by opting for a cheaper, less creative suspension design to save money. It was

But it remains a significant development, because it seemed to be the "tipping point" from which the Honda brand began a gradual walk away from its previous reputation. No, it did not mean that Honda started churning out inferior products overnight (the S2000, and Acura TL and RSX remain some of our favorites), but it did alarm the Honda purists for all of the right reasons. Where else was Honda cutting corners? What other pieces would Honda determine to be "good enough" - when its previous stance would have never allowed such calculated mediocrity? In short, what else was Honda not doing that they used to do on a regular basis - the things that made Honda, well, Honda.

The Honda Motor Company that was on display at the media conference at the Detroit Auto Show earlier this month was simply not the same car company that once was. Instead, we saw a car company wallowing in "me-too" SUTs, while using a gimmicky robot to represent Honda's creative research into mobility. The previous Honda - that innovative car company that once wowed the rest of the industry on a regular basis, was nowhere to be found.

Now, Honda finds itself being attacked on all fronts by innovative car companies that haven't yet yielded to "good enough" thinking - ones who still believe that the "little things" are absolutely crucial when it comes to brand integrity. Something Honda has either forgotten or at least misplaced, apparently.

Creating a brand image in the car business is an exceedingly difficult endeavor - even when a car company has all of the ingredients in place. It can take literally years to get it right. And yet, maintaining the right brand image "formula" is like juggling a volatile and unstable mixture - and it becomes an endless, day-in, day-out struggle to protect the integrity of the brand, especially with the kind of sheer inertia that these car companies operate under.

That's why when BMW got off track with its Bangle-ized design language and its obsession with electronics - to the detriment of the brand - it's folly to suggest that these missteps won't matter. Yet, when you listen to BMW executives like CEO Helmut Panke, you can tell that they're scoffing at any suggestion that they have somehow lost their mojo and insisting that absolutely nothing can derail them from keeping their title as one of the most sought-after brands. But I argue that it has already begun for BMW, that the slow but sure erosion of BMW's brand image is well under way. BMW will have to stop being obsessed with sales numbers and start worrying about the authenticity of their cars before I believe that they understand what's happening - and what needs to be done to stop it.

BMW's big problem is that they've forgotten who they are. They've gone from being the thinking-person's sport sedan to becoming almost a caricature of themselves in the marketplace. Bloated, terminally electronically-assisted "luxury" cars have nothing to do with BMW's brand image. We'll have to wait for the 1 Series to see if they can get back on the right track.

Half the battle for a car company in creating a brand image is knowing who they are and what their brand stands for - or at least what they'd like it to stand for.

Honda's problem is that they've forgotten who they are. Or maybe it's that they don't want to be who they once were anymore - they're more comfortable with aiming a little lower. After all, mediocrity is bliss for a lot of car companies. It's a lot easier to be a "me-too" car company than to live up to a past reputation.

In Jaguar's case, it seems to be intent on trying to be something it's not - which is a manufacturer of "near-luxury" automobiles. That's not brand erosion - that's brand delusion. People want beautiful, elegant and even fast Jaguars. They don't want Jaguar poseurs running around, "faux" Jaguars with similar design cues but with none of the substance of a proper Jaguar. Why is that so obvious to everyone but the Jaguar brain trust?

And Mercedes-Benz actually believes they can do whatever they want in the market and it will work out. They remind me of the "old" GM - a company that acted like the world still revolved around them a good 15 years after that ceased being the case. There's a whiff of arrogance hanging from every communication and statement emanating from Mercedes-Benz, and it's still obvious they believe that they can enter any segment without impunity - and with no brand erosion to speak of.

But they're flat-out kidding themselves.

There's a time lag at work here - in that a car company's bone-headed moves have a cumulative, negative effect. Mercedes-Benz has now been mired in poor quality ratings for three years running. They have unleashed a series of very "un-Mercedes-like" cars that have neither the presence nor the street "cred" of their previous cars. In the midst of straining for more sales volume, Mercedes has eroded its brand equity by building more vehicles that seem to play to the lowest common denominator. And now, the biggest sign of real brand erosion for Mercedes? Their resale numbers are spiraling downward.

In other words, Mercedes-Benz has forgotten who they are and what got them to this point to begin with. It's not brand erosion in their case - it's more like brand implosion.

This industry is littered with car companies that have been doomed to Brand Erosion Hell - to the names mentioned above you can add names like Buick, Chevrolet, Ford, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn, Porsche and a few more. At one time or another, they either lost it, found it or couldn't find it if you laid out a trail of bread crumbs to help them find it again.

And all of these auto manufacturers that have found themselves in Brand Erosion Hell share the same basic things:

Either they forgot who they are, don't remember who they are, or can't, for the life of them, figure out who they want to be.


----------



## OBS3SSION (Oct 1, 2002)

Very interesting read. I tend to agree with most of what was said. It's sad... for all the brands involved.


----------



## 01Byte (Jun 22, 2003)

Excellent article :thumbup:


----------



## stubotmd (Jan 26, 2004)

I agree with some of it, however my attention starts to drift when people go on apocalyptic sounding tirades. 
Must say I haven't warmed up to the new Bangle BMW designs, but I think for me it always takes a while to warm up to new car designs when I liked the previous ones a lot. 
So I guess we'll see.... :dunno:


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

Excellent article.

WRT getting to warm to new car designs, that has not been teh case with BMW. I have been a fan since the days of the 3.0Cs and 2002. When those were replaced, we got the ^e and the E21 320i. Both great looking cars. Then we got the E30 3er, which still looks good. Then the 8 to replace the 6, great looking car, even if it started to have the problems with bloat and electronic gimmickry.

Then on to the E36 3er, still an evolution and still good looking from day 1. The the E46, same again. The 5ers are the same, every model from the old Bavaria to the E39 has been an evolutionary step that looked as good or better than the last model.

Now we have the "Bangle-ized" designs. But remember Chris Bangle is responsible for the E46 aslo, so it isn't only him. But either way, the designs have been going away from what BMW has meant.  Classy looking, understated, AWESOME driving machines.

Now they are WOW looking, fat and over electronic, and still not ba driving machines. But the first part is starting to overshadow the last.

The Z4 started strong and has withered away. I suspect the new 5er may do the same. With these, IMO, you say a flurry of buying for those who have to have the latest model, no matter what it is, looks like, cots, etc. They HAVE to have the new model. Then things start to slide in sales. 

Only time will tell if BMW can get its act together. Typcially though, as the article states, tehy don't figure it out for long after it has happened, then they have to struggle to get back anywhere close to where they were.

The good news for us, is the way back is paved with some wonderful vehicles.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

I agree with most of this excellent article... 

I'm not sure if MB and BMW can do anything about the brand erosion. In today's automotive market all the big players have to adopt the something for everybody approach to car making. If you don't build SUVs, cheaper entry level cars, and bloated luxury models, you will be bought out and rolled into a world car company and eventually lose any character the brand once had, like today's Jaguar.


----------



## ARCHER (Dec 26, 2001)

Artslinger said:


> I agree with most of this excellent article...
> 
> I'm not sure if MB and BMW can do anything about the brand erosion. In today's automotive market all the big players have to adopt the something for everybody approach to car making. If you don't build SUVs, cheaper entry level cars, and bloated luxury models, you will be bought out and rolled into a world car company and eventually lose any character the brand once had, like today's Jaguar.


I agree with a good deal of the article myself.

The sad thing about your observation other than it being true, is that car companies made this bed for themselves - driven by the car-buying public at large, which has grown to accept mediocrity on all fronts. We all know market demand has to be the genesis of change, even if the manufacturers don't meaningfully respond to it until 15 years later.

What scares me is that people have become so apathetic as to be happy with the vast majority of crap being put on the roads today. The demand for change simply isn't there until one gets into the enthusiast segment. The sheep flock to the dealerships in search of whatever new gimmick or gizmo the marketing dept. is pushing that week. And hey, if they can eek out lease payments on a "prestigious" badge, all the better. Who cares if the moniker on their hood is but a shadow of what it once was... right?


----------



## LmtdSlip (May 28, 2003)

Id agree with most of the comments but I think the author is try to extrapolate single points of refrence to support his entire argument.

He sees the C230 Coupe as some sort of tipping point for MB and predicts dire consequences for the company because of a single model....Thats BS. Read the book Trading Up and you will see why this argument makes no sense. The C230K is not responsible for the slip in quality of the new S class or any class. Any slip in quality is a management decesion.

Same with the Honda Wishbone argument. Yes, Honda did not take the elegant approach with the design change. But honestly, do you think the majority of Civic buyers will notice the difference in the driving characteristics between a Civic with or without a wishbone suspension....I think no. Honda is competing against a huge influx of low cost competitors (Kia, Suzuki, Hyundai...not to mention its traditional competitiors). So Honda is under great pressure to keep its retail prices in line while still maintaining margins. 
Sure Honda could face long term "image issues" if their overall quality suffers...but no one is not going to buy a Civic because it dosen't have a front wishbone suspension.

I think there is more relevance to the BMW argument and he seems to have more points to back up his line of reasoning. Overall though drivability is still the strongest point of the new 5.


----------



## Jayhox (Jan 16, 2002)

Pinecone said:


> The Z4 started strong and has withered away.


How so? Are you referring to the annual drop in raodster (any raodster) sales during winter? :dunno:


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

The driving experience and image is not what buyers look for when buiyng a vehicle anymore. It's the chrome badge, added fluff and do dads the consumers want now, and the more the better. The recent increase in engineering and technology has given us cross-over vehicles, electronic/computer controlled this and that, sunroofs, high end navigation systems, DVD players etc. 

In 10 years 75% of the vehicles will be crossover vehicles loaded with cheap technology that further isolates the driver from the driving expereance.


----------



## OBS3SSION (Oct 1, 2002)

So would it be safe to say that a "have your cake and eat it too" approach would be for brands to offer all the gimmickry to the mass market, but still offer _driving cars _to those who want them. This way you're not eroding the brand by going mainstream and abandoning the purists. You'd serve both... keep market share, yet not tarnish the brand to those who care. Even if it's just a "delete" option for the fluff options on the same models.


----------



## elbert (Mar 28, 2002)

Where did this article come from?


----------



## Xiled1 (Jan 24, 2004)

{...but no one is not going to buy a Civic because it dosen't have a front wishbone suspension. }

I can name about 100 people who said exactly that. For the Honda 'faithful', this was a huge deal. Even if the only reason was to say that you had a double wishbone. Probably the biggest aspect to that suspension is the fact that you can lower the hell out of your car and still retain livable ride quality. This is very important to the younger customizing crowd and everyone knows that brand loyalty starts when you are young. 

On a more universal note, I agree 100% with the article. MB's quality is in the crapper, used to be the bench mark. Drove a new 5 series and feels like you float over the road and the active steering is about as intuitive as an arcade game. Toyota is trying to make 'cool' cars for the young people - and they give use SCION?? Come on! 

Car makers are always trying to expand their market, in the process the rest of the brand always gets wattered down. None of them seem to be able to leave their good stuff alone while expanding other lines. 

Seems the only companies on the upswing from this are the Big 3. They've been in the crapper so long that they have finally learned their lesson. (Not insinuating that they make good cars, just better than previous).

For BMW, the new 3/4 will really be the indicator. If its got active steering, active suspension, and any softening of the current dynamics, then you can expect that to be a direction for the future.


----------



## cenotaph (Dec 19, 2001)

elbert said:


> Where did this article come from?


It appears to be a late Jan. column from http://www.autoextremist.com/.



> So would it be safe to say that a "have your cake and eat it too" approach would be for brands to offer all the gimmickry to the mass market, but still offer driving cars to those who want them. This way you're not eroding the brand by going mainstream and abandoning the purists. You'd serve both... keep market share, yet not tarnish the brand to those who care. Even if it's just a "delete" option for the fluff options on the same models.


While this would be nice, I don't see it happening because it would cost too much, both R&D costs and US certification. They likely wouldn't make enough off of the "enthusiast" models to make it worth while unless they were heavily based off of other models (see the WRX, etc.). Doing it this way will always bring compromises and these usually don't sit well with the enthusiasts.


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

swchang said:


> *3. Yes, as a matter of fact, in the car business, it is about the "little things."* Several years ago, Honda redesigned the front suspension of the Civic, replacing a classically elegant "wishbone" design derived from traditional racing car practice with a cheaper, lowest common denominator McPherson strut design - typically used in more mundane econo-cars.


Whereas BMW started out with a strut/rear semi-trailing arm, and BMW suspensions have only gotten better.


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

Not to give BMW too many props, though... the Miata started with double A-arms and has been going with the same basic, small, driver-oriented car for 14 years and shows no sign of stopping. Mazda knew what it had there and stuck with it.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

Jayhox said:


> How so? Are you referring to the annual drop in raodster (any raodster) sales during winter? :dunno:


Nope, Z4 sales slipped last spring/summer.

Over Labor Day some 800 Z4 workers (temps) were released. This from someone that I talked to at Homecoming (BMW employee).

Also that sales were disappointing. That BMW figured most Z3 owners would trade in for a Z43, and that is not happening.


----------



## OBS3SSION (Oct 1, 2002)

cenotaph said:


> While this would be nice, I don't see it happening because it would cost too much, both R&D costs and US certification. They likely wouldn't make enough off of the "enthusiast" models to make it worth while unless they were heavily based off of other models (see the WRX, etc.). Doing it this way will always bring compromises and these usually don't sit well with the enthusiasts.


That's why I said it would be nice to have a delete option. Take that 5er for example. I'd want it without the iDrive. But at the moment, it's not possible. I'm not saying make an entirely new model, just allow people to option the existing models to their liking. Be it mass market crap, or enthusiast driving machines.


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

We've had two people in our not-large Z3 SIG trade in their Z3s for Z4s, and now the group is about half Z4s. I see 'em all over the place in the PacNW.

They let go of temp workers? That's common. That's why they're called temps.


----------



## LmtdSlip (May 28, 2003)

Xiled1 said:


> {...but no one is not going to buy a Civic because it dosen't have a front wishbone suspension. }
> 
> I can name about 100 people who said exactly that. For the Honda 'faithful', this was a huge deal. Even if the only reason was to say that you had a double wishbone. Probably the biggest aspect to that suspension is the fact that you can lower the hell out of your car and still retain livable ride quality.


Wow! 100 out of the 500,000 they sell per year. 99.9% of the Civics on the road are bone stock and will remain that way. Honda dosent care if some kid can't slam his car and retain good driveability...They build high quality economical cars for the mass market.



> This is very important to the younger customizing crowd and everyone knows that brand loyalty starts when you are young.


Brand loyalty can start anytime for a miriad of reasons. Are you still loyal to Pampers just because you wore them when you were young?


----------



## zhangqj (Apr 6, 2003)

ARCHER said:


> What scares me is that people have become so apathetic as to be happy with the vast majority of crap being put on the roads today. The demand for change simply isn't there until one gets into the enthusiast segment. The sheep flock to the dealerships in search of whatever new gimmick or gizmo the marketing dept. is pushing that week. And hey, if they can eek out lease payments on a "prestigious" badge, all the better. Who cares if the moniker on their hood is but a shadow of what it once was... right?


According to the statistics (from Keith Bradsheir of the NYT), with increasing wealth gap, practically the break is 20-80 wrt new car buyers vs used car buyers. In another word, new car designs are dictated by 20% population.

That's why there are so many luxury SUVs, cars with gizmos the owners don't know how to use, etc..


----------



## Jayhox (Jan 16, 2002)

zhangqj said:


> According to the statistics (from Keith Bradsheir of the NYT), *with increasing wealth gap*. . . .


I would be interested in seeing what he defines as an "increasing wealth gap".  Usually, people who use such a term will throw people like Bill Gates into the "wealthy category which skews the numbers and doesn't really reflect real world situations.

One explanation for higher used car sales is that cars are much higher quality now than 20 years ago and can be sold as viable used cars (with extended warranties). Heck, if I found a good used E46 M3 with 50k miles and a certified warranty for $40,000 I would probably buy that rather than a new 330Ci.


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

Pretty much agree w/ the article. I also think that GM seems to be one of the few companies that seems to actually be improving on all fronts-- making more desirable cars, higher quality, etc. Curious-- why does no one ever give BMW a hard time about its Mac-strut suspensions? Its funny-- I swear i've seen auto reviews in the same magazine that will praise BMW's mac-strut setup and then condemn Honda for going to the very same setup. What is BMW's defense (if they've ever bothered to defend sticking w/ it? BEtter straigh-line stability?


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

robg said:


> Pretty much agree w/ the article. I also think that GM seems to be one of the few companies that seems to actually be improving on all fronts-- making more desirable cars, higher quality, etc.


Are you referring to Cadillac? Because if you want to talk about a brand that's lost its identity, that's certainly the poster child. Please elaborate.

And does anyone on this thread have an example of a car company that is living up to it's heritage and improving across the board?

Or are we all just pining for the days when prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders?


----------



## LmtdSlip (May 28, 2003)

philippek said:


> And does anyone on this thread have an example of a car company that is living up to it's heritage and improving across the board?


Ferrari & Bently & for the most part MB.

BMW is rapidly drifitng away...ohh and probably Rolls Royce


----------



## Jayhox (Jan 16, 2002)

LmtdSlip said:


> Ferrari & Bently & for the most part MB.
> 
> BMW is rapidly drifitng away...ohh and probably Rolls Royce


Has anyone ever considered BMW in the same realm with Ferrari, Bently and Rolls Royce???? And I would argue that Mercedes tried to "BMW" their cars for most of the 90's, and now is slipping because they are losing their identity (Luxury? Performance? Both?). Unless it is AMG, don't talk to me about Mercedes. (My Dad has a C32 that kicks ass on the track --- but on the other hand I still give him crap because it requires a bolt on supercharger and you cannot get a manual transmission. The C55 will fix half of that).


----------



## swchang (Oct 5, 2003)

Jayhox said:


> Has anyone ever considered BMW in the same realm with Ferrari, Bently and Rolls Royce???? And I would argue that Mercedes tried to "BMW" their cars for most of the 90's, and now is slipping because they are losing their identity (Luxury? Performance? Both?). Unless it is AMG, don't talk to me about Mercedes. (My Dad has a C32 that kicks ass on the track --- but on the other hand I still give him crap because it requires a bolt on supercharger and you cannot get a manual transmission. The C55 will fix half of that).


You look down on supercharged engines? Why's that?

I'm actually reading an article now about how the MB EVO 190E Cosworth was an awesome little car...

I don't know if I agree with the MB living up to its legacy thing. I think they built their name on safety, reliability, and luxury. Safety I don't know about, but reliability has gone downhill with all the technology they tried to pack in combined with all the QA they skimped on. Luxury is still decent, but other car marques have caught up to and surpassed them. Plus, there's a whole lot of plastic in the interiors now. :thumbdwn:

I personally hope for a turnaround in Stuttgart, but I don't know if pushing out new cross-overs at a breakneck pace will put them back on track...


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

philippek said:


> And does anyone on this thread have an example of a car company that is living up to it's heritage and improving across the board?


Mazda? At least, they're turning around the regular car lineup.


----------



## woody underwood (Feb 9, 2004)

*Improvement*

My first BMW was a 72 2002tii...every one since has been faster, better built (Excluding the 633) and more technologically advanced. The 318ti I drive now is right back to the basics of the first one but twice as much fun to drive and 10 times easier to maintain. What more could one ask of a manufacturer? I still have 2 GM products in the garage...an old one and a new one and they haven't really changed much since my first 53 Chevy: Rust, bad engines, bad ergonomics, bad build quality, just bad period. As for the 330ci w/PP (And I do have one on order for ED in June)... they are a bargain for what comes with the package. Our original choice with Sport Package, Premium Package, big wheels etc. came in over $4000 more than the one we are buying. So instead I get something unique looking, best looking wheels around, at least 10 more HP (Looking forward to dyno testing it to find out for sure) and could care less about leather, it's a pain in the butt winter and summer and anyone who doesn't admit that is lying to themselves. BMW has stayed right in line with what the so called "average" consumer wants but has never denied "us" the enthusiasts a car we couldn't be very happy with.


----------



## Jayhox (Jan 16, 2002)

swchang said:


> You look down on supercharged engines? Why's that?


I think it is the whole "Can't get there normally aspirated???" thing. It is a father/son thing also.  It really gets his dander up when I mention that a supercharged M3 would make his C32 look like a tricycle off of the line. 
:stickpoke :neener: :spank: :slap:


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

philippek said:


> Are you referring to Cadillac? Because if you want to talk about a brand that's lost its identity, that's certainly the poster child. Please elaborate.
> 
> And does anyone on this thread have an example of a car company that is living up to it's heritage and improving across the board?
> 
> Or are we all just pining for the days when prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders?


Lotus.


----------



## Technic (Jun 24, 2002)

FenPhen said:


> Mazda? At least, they're turning around the regular car lineup.


My first three cars were Mazdas ('84 GLC, '87 323, '90 Prótegé)... and its seems that the 2005 RX8 is going to put me back in one of them after the 330i. I was extremely happy with them, and when I got my first BMW, a '93 318i, it was not a day and night change for me from my Prótegé...

After getting lost in the 90's they are back like in the late 80's with impressive, well built and equipped models. The 6 and the 3 are great, the Miata still strong and the RX8 winning comparo after comparo... the only ones lacking are the Tribute and the MPV, and I think that the first is because it is an Escape rehash and the second is because is too small. Still all their lineup are fun to drive, something that few manufacturers cannot say...

If there is any front wheel drive car that get very close to the driving dynamics of a rear wheel drive is a Mazda FWD, in my opinion. :thumbup:


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

philippek said:


> And does anyone on this thread have an example of a car company that is living up to it's heritage and improving across the board?


Nissan seems to be pretty focused of late....

Alex


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

Pinecone said:


> All I know is the line was very slow when we were there, and they had told 800 temp workers to not bother coming back the next week.
> 
> The bigger question, is how many they were producing prior to the release of the tmep workers, and how many is the line capable of producing.
> 
> BTW BMW people are saying Bangle has been "demoted upwards".


From article in the Financial Post:

"Car buyers have apparently taken out their anger at dealerships, as revamped and problem plagued 7-Series, with prices between $96,800 and $169,000, has seen sales drop by 41% during 2004. Sales of BMW's Z4 have also slumped, dropping by 52% this year."


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

swchang said:


> You look down on supercharged engines? Why's that?


Given two identical output engines, one's supercharged and one's naturally aspirated, I'll take the NA engine every day and twice on Sundays.


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

Pinecone said:


> From article in the Financial Post:
> 
> "Car buyers have apparently taken out their anger at dealerships, as revamped and problem plagued 7-Series, with prices between $96,800 and $169,000, has seen sales drop by 41% during 2004. Sales of BMW's Z4 have also slumped, dropping by 52% this year."


That's questionable reporting, at best. Prices between $96.8 and 169K? Are they talking about the 785LixT?


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

philippek said:


> That's questionable reporting, at best. Prices between $96.8 and 169K? Are they talking about the 785LixT?


It's in Canadian dollars - those figures are Canadian sales.


----------



## Motown328 (Jun 4, 2003)

swchang said:


> Agreed. Isn't that why BMW is putting out the 1er in the first place? To get 'em while they're young, and hook 'em for life? Same with MB and the C-class coupes.


The C-Coupe obvious isn't hooking anyone...except into the maintenance bays...hahaha...

ANd I think the 1er will be brilliant enough to get people driving 3ers and 5ers to also take the plunge, whereas anyone driving an E-Class would probably not take a C-Coupe...


----------



## swchang (Oct 5, 2003)

Motown328 said:


> The C-Coupe obvious isn't hooking anyone...except into the maintenance bays...hahaha...
> 
> ANd I think the 1er will be brilliant enough to get people driving 3ers and 5ers to also take the plunge, whereas anyone driving an E-Class would probably not take a C-Coupe...


There's a guy on mbworld.org who got a C230K (dunno if it was coupe or sedan). He liked it so much, he bought himself a CL500.

I don't think everyone who gets a C-Coupe does that, but boy, that's quite a difference in price.


----------



## e46shift (Oct 12, 2002)

Automotive News. 3/8/04
"U.S. light-vehicle sales by nameplate, February and 2 months 2004"



code:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Mos 2 Mos
2/03 2/04 2003 2004

S2000 502 591 980 1,073
Z4 1,247 815 2,542 1,148
Corvette 1,724 2,382 3,192 5,368
RSX 1,668 1,431 3,457 2,885
NSX 16 15 34 34
Miata 552 742 1,050 1,345
RX-8 0 1,865 0 3,654
350Z 2,724 2,406 6,296 4,837
Boxster 478 257 1,060 517
MR2 213 239 417 438--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------

