quote:

---

Originally posted by: CaMIRO
"There are a lot of hypotheticals in there... Mitsubishi could have... the 7 series could have... the fact of the matter is that Mitsubishi did not, and the 7 series is.
Mitsubishi, playing catch-up, had not a clue of how to proceed. This does not negate my point - rather, it supports it.

What do you mean "they didn't know how to proceed?" Elliminating any sort of sportiness from their mainstream line wasn't Mitsubishi trying to determine a direction, it was Mitsubishi making the grave misconception that they were competitive as a mainstream brand. Mazda made the same misconception, and was generally unsuccessful except in its sportier products.

As for Volvo, I'm not sure where you're getting a drop in performance; they're selling very well.

But it's costing a lot more to keep them selling.

Moreover, I was at a conference recently where it was suggested (and explained) that Saab in fact built continuously safer cars than Volvo - yet failed to advertise the fact.

Very possible. But what's your point?

As for the Scion thread, I took a brief look. Demands on my time are a little rough these days, and - thankfully - your proposals involve thought. I'd like to give them the time they deserve.
I'm rarely one to avoid a debate, if that's what you're implying...!

I was just afraid that you hadn't noticed it and wanted to make sure you knew it existed.

"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: CaMIRO
"Acting on misconceptions is, in fact, the result of determining a direction! Honda carefully managed the Civic's halo; Mitsubishi killed their own.

My point was that Mitsubishi could have come out on top, despite being late to the game, had they only not made such a foolish mistake.

As for Volvo, where do you get the idea that their work is costing them more money? Design is cheap - as Chris Bangle himself pointed out recently. Advertising, on the other hand, is expensive.

It used to be that Volvo buyers demanded only a roomy interior and good safety ratings, and Volvo could charge whatever they wanted for that. Now consumers are demanding styling, and are cross-shopping Volvos with competiting cars (that incidentally offer the same degree of safety).

Volvo's safety kick was more advertising than fact. They were safe, certainly - but that much safer than other cars? No.

And now that consumers can easily see that Volvos aren't any safer than the competition, Volvo needed something else to advertise.

Moreover, Volvo's platforms are now subsidised by globalization.

That is true now. But until the 05 model year, it was not.

Honda played in the market early enough not only to set the rules, but also to understand the rules of the game.

To what "rules" are you referring?

It is a two-pronged game; Bob Lutz will tell you this, too. VW CEO Bernd Pischetsrieder recently said that "the genius of Lutz is that he understands cars, and he understands customers." - Motor Trend, October 2004

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: CaMIRO
"It could be argued that Mitsubishi's mistake was due to them not understanding the market. Indeed, that's a key part of my argument; Honda was not likely to make such a mistake, having entered and driven that market from the start!

It was a mistake, but I doubt it was because they didn't think the market wanted sporty cars. It is more likely to have been a cost-saving measure.

There are other examples... 3 series, for instance. It's still the target for every vehicle that enters its category, and it has been a moving target as BMW has taken advantage of its heritage to expand the class. Look at simply how many variants of 3 series exist!

That's because it has an excellent ride/handling combination; without that, it is nothing. I've yet to see a source, for example, that still calls the once-benchmark 5-Series best in class anymore, and I've seen many that call it worse than its predecessor.

My point with the Lutz quote is that understanding customers is as important as understanding your brand. In other words, one must know how one's brand fits in the market. Whom does this equation favor? The innovator, or the interloper?

The market will favor the better car, if it is well-marketed. Look how quickly Japanese compact pickups took over the market, I would say it only took them the 1980s. It just so happens that the car to do something first often continues to do it well.

You're wrong about Volvo; the old S40/ V40 were Mitsubishi Carisma-based vehicles, built in Holland and with rather high profit margins. Other Volvos have taken advantage of globalization to decrease their cost; have you heard of the PRV (Peugeot/ Renault/ Volvo) 2.8-liter/ 3.0-liter V6? I'll find some other examples.

You're right. I had forgotten about those.

Incidentally, Volvo still plays on safety - and is still revered for safety. Any public perception survey will tell you that - I'm sure I can find one somewhere. Its emphasis on performance has merely broadened its appeal. You appear to assume that it must ditch one perception to achieve another, and this is not the case.
If anything, Volvo has an advantage - and its sales figures demonstrate it. It is the crown jewel of the PAG at the moment... much at the expense of Lincoln (as several analysts have written).

Volvo still has a reputation, but I doubt that they will in the future offer anything that no one else can. Even if they develop a new safety device and do it first, it will almost immidiately find its home on many Ford products. That will hurt its safety image. I recognize that people (unfortunately) still think of Volvos as the safest cars, but unless they can really improve past the competition, it won't stay that way.

"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: thewizard16
"I would... just like the political debates. (In other words, I'd watch them until I got bored, or disgusted, and changed the channel)"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: CaMIRO
"Mitsubishi may indeed have been saving costs, but the key is to figure out where to spend money in order to earn profit. This, more than anything, is why Lutz has been hired.

So you're suggesting that if Honda were strapped for cash, they definitely wouldn't have made the same mistake? It's not like Honda ruined the 2001 Civic to save money.

Honda was not likely to make Mitsubishi's mistake; it knew the market better.
The 3 series is not "nothing" without the ride/ handling combination - which itself is actually not that great. Rather, opinion leaders have jumped on board to push BMW's ride/ handling interpretation. The 3 series actually has a rather harsh ride; its penetration into the cushy U.S. market (whose landscape has a definite dearth of corners) has been little short of amazing, frankly.

It's ride is harsh??? It's a good thing that you didn't post that on C/D, because I don't think there's anyone (save perhaps PMC or Yo) who would agree with you. I certainly don't. Maybe it is with a sport package of some sort, but not on the regular versions.

Again, the equation which involves understanding customers as much as understanding the brand favors the innovator over the interloper. Japanese compact pickups do not counter this, for they underpinned virtually every of the Big Three's own pickups. GM's S10 at the time was based on an Isuzu (some of this survived until the S10's gradual demise - indeed the Colorado is an Isuzu); Ford's Ranger, on a Mazda (again, this is still the case in some aspects), and Dodge's own, on Mitsubishi's Mighty Max.

The Ranger wasn't built on the Mazda, it was vice versa, and remains so to this day. I don't remember the Dakota and S10 being built on the Mitsu or Isuzu respectively, but you're probably correct.
However, Isuzu didn't design the Colorado because GM owned Isuzu at that time. Perhaps the Isuzu people did it, but it was still in-house.

I disagree about Volvo and safety devices - look at the 2001 (I think?) Volvo Safety Concept Car (SCC). It used translucent glass in its A-, B-, and C-pillars; this improves visibility, all the way around (quite considerably, if I recall correctly). That said, it is expensive, and is not likely to find its way in other Ford products. Consider the strength of glass which must hold up the roof!

That would never work. I doubt it will find its way into any Volvo products either, because a) it's too expensive and b) it reduces the perception of safety.

"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: CaMIRO
"Again, I'll have to come back to this - quick point, though: do you remember the mid-'80s Rangers? 8 plugs in a 4-cylinder engine. Guess whose engine it was?

That's not what you said. You said that the Ranger used a Mazda platform, not that they used a Mazda engine.

Also, people said "that would never work" about aluminum, too. Materials are the key to the next major steps in automotive design.

Making what essentially amount to larger windows don't make a breakthough in use of materials.

Volvo did not show that concept for fun; they wanted to remind people about their vested interest in safety (while they chased performance), as well as demonstrate ideas they have been thinking about.

I doubt that supporting the car with glass instead of metal helps safety; it would be impressive if it could manage to be merely as safe as a standard design.

"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: CaMIRO
"Funny thing - I could have sworn that the Ranger was run off the Mazda B2000. I'll go back and check... as you've noticed, I've been very busy over the past two weeks (out of town for much of it).

You may be right. The current B2000 is based entirely on the Ranger though.

Either way, it's an exception (if you're correct) - see S10/ Luv and Dodge/ Mitsubishi. Compact pickups were a Japanese phenomenon. I think Nissan may have been the first.

I can believe that. But then that would be an example of vehicles taking back a segment after someone else had already established a strong hold on it. I believe the Ranger is the best-selling compact pickup now, and that the Nissan has been passed by Toyota, Chevrolet, and Dodge.

As for Volvo, how do you figure that increasing glass area does not increase safety?

In a collision, what do you think will hold up better: glass or metal?

Have you considered visibility? Materials which can replace the A-pillars with glass and still retain body rigidity are an innovation - a safety innovation, at that!

It helps visibility, and while it may not hurt body rigidity it could very well prove not strong enough to withstand a high-speed collision or prevent roof crumpling in a rollover.

Furthermore, I believe my original point (it's been a while) was more about perception than actual safety. Considering that there are many other cars with the same safety features and crash test scores as Volvos, they require the perception of safety to keep a large portion of their sales. And the current perception seems to be that you are safer with more metal on the sides of the car and smaller windows.

A quick note on the 3 series - I've had 2 E46 3 series, and have logged more miles on various 3 series than I'd want to count.

Forgive my ignorance, but which generation is the E46?

 Car and Driver comments about its ride quality (if your predictions are correct) have little bearing on this discussion. The car does have a harsher ride than Americans expect in a sedan...
... much the same way as the X3 rides harsher than one might expect from an SUV.

The x3 rides poorly only on models equipped with the Sport Package. Otherwise, it's a bit choppier than a standard 3-Series, but not uncomfortable. And I've yet to drive a harsh-riding 3-Series.

The 2002, back in 1968, was perceived similarly. BMW's greatest move was convincing Americans (with the assistance of other manufacturers, notably Volkswagen) that a harsher ride was a premium quality - go back and read some '70s and '80s magazines.

That would be interesting, but unfortunately I don't have access to any car magazines from the 1980's aside from a Consumer Reports Annual Auto Issue from 1985, and they have very few ride quality comments.

"

---