RE: Cupra Ateca: Driven

[Sheepshanks]

Lemming Train said:

OpulentBob said:

"It's not a SEAT, its a Cupra"

Cringe.

Yep. It's like the people that say "it's not a Rover, it's an MG". Nope. It's a Rover 25 with some extra plastic bits bolted on.

I know someone seems to genuinely think their diesel C Class is an AMG.

[Shiv_P]

OpulentBob said:

"It's not a SEAT, its a Cupra"

Cringe.

It's like someone saying an Alpina is a BMW. It's not, it's an alpina

[PhilboSE]

Jader1973 said:

Just one question about this:

What is the fking point?

It's not really that hard is it?

Someone wants to buy a mid size family car.
They decide they want the crossover style for whatever reason.
They then decide they want the version that's got a bit more go.
And their budget doesn't stretch, or they prefer this car, to a Porsche Macan or Alfa Stelvio.

[Jader1973]

PhilboSE said:

Jader1973 said:

Just one question about this:

What is the fking point?

It's not really that hard is it?

Someone wants to buy a mid size family car.
They decide they want the crossover style for whatever reason.
They then decide they want the version that's got a bit more go.
And their budget doesn't stretch, or they prefer this car, to a Porsche Macan or Alfa Stelvio.

I understand the point of a sporty crossover thing. What is the point of creating a sub-brand of the ginger stepchild sub-brand of VAG which already has multiple brands all of which make sporty SUVs?

What's next? "VW have announced that from now on all models that were badged as an R will simply be branded R. So the VW Golf R is now the R Golf"?

It is quite simply fking stupid.

And there is no way anyone in their right mind would prefer this nonsensical fkwittery over a Porsche or an Alfa. They'd need to be completely fking loopy. You'd need to be mental to buy a SEAT in the first place - they have absolutely fk all brand value, and this idiocy isn't going to help.

[Sford]

Hairymonster said:

Nik Gnashers said:

So, to sum up then,
It's a brick with a hot engine, for disabled people with kids and stuff to carry to the tip.
I think it's shyte, but each to their own.

Pretty much sums it up!

Same.

[Kenny Powers]

Jader1973 said:

I understand the point of a sporty crossover thing. What is the point of creating a sub-brand of the ginger stepchild sub-brand of VAG which already has multiple brands all of which make sporty SUVs?

What's next? "VW have announced that from now on all models that were badged as an R will simply be branded R. So the VW Golf R is now the R Golf"?

It is quite simply fking stupid.

And there is no way anyone in their right mind would prefer this nonsensical fkwittery over a Porsche or an Alfa. They'd need to be completely fking loopy. You'd need to be mental to buy a SEAT in the first place - they have absolutely fk all brand value, and this idiocy isn't going to help.

Had your blood pressure checked recently?

[Sheepshanks]

Jader1973 said:

I understand the point of a sporty crossover thing. What is the point of creating a sub-brand of the ginger stepchild sub-brand of VAG which already has multiple brands all of which make sporty SUVs?

What's next? "VW have announced that from now on all models that were badged as an R will simply be branded R. So the VW Golf R is now the R Golf"?

It is quite simply fking stupid.

And there is no way anyone in their right mind would prefer this nonsensical fkwittery over a Porsche or an Alfa. They'd need to be completely fking loopy. You'd need to be mental to buy a SEAT in the first place - they have absolutely fk all brand value, and this idiocy isn't going to help.

The thing that occurs to me is that for this to make business sense there must be a lot more money in making cars than we keep being told.

They must have looked at the business case and decided it was worthwhile.

Same with sub-brands others have mentioned, like DS. Ford's Vignale also springs to mind. They must sell in tiny numbers, yet the firms thought it was worth doing.

Having a 'flagship' model makes sense from a marketing perspective, but spinning it off into something else doesn't even achieve that objective - it might even work against it.

[Quickben]

Man who thinks he's a bit of a petrol head walks into generic VAG stealership:

- Hello, I'd like to buy an EA888 please.

- Certainly sir (saw you coming, sniggers..), what would you like it wrapped in ?

- Not sure, I'm clueless, what would recommend ?

- It's irrelevant really. They're all the same.

- That's not helpful

- No it's not. Oh ok, if you must. Ahem, you can have it in Sh!tting Expensive (Audi), Bloody Expensive (Volkswagen), Kind of Expensive (Seeaahht) or Expensive (Skoda). Now, what sodding colour do you want ?

- Can I have it wrapped in Sh!tting Expensive White please ?

- Ah sir, that'll be an extra £1400.

- Why, is it a special kind of white ?

- Nope.

- ......

- Ok then. I'll take it.

- Job jobbed.

[PhilboSE]

Jader1973 said:

I understand the point of a sporty crossover thing. What is the point of creating a sub-brand of the ginger stepchild sub-brand of VAG which already has multiple brands all of which make sporty SUVs?

Fair enough. I'm pretty much with you on that, but it's just marketing, nothing to get too worked up about.

Jader1973 said:

And there is no way anyone in their right mind would prefer this nonsensical fkwittery over a Porsche or an Alfa. They'd need to be completely fking loopy.

There's about 20,000 reasons in the shape of pound coins why you would buy this over a Macan. The base Macan is £10,000 more and comes with almost nothing. The SEAT is absolutely dripping with extras - to get a Macan to a similar level you'd be paying £55,000 minimum.

Jader1973 said:

You'd need to be mental to buy a SEAT in the first place - they have absolutely fk all brand value, and this idiocy isn't going to help.

You'd buy a SEAT if you want access to the VAG engineering in a slightly edgier, slightly more sporting, but significantly cheaper price. And I simply don't understand what you mean by "brand value"; the SEAT brand is well known and most people understand where it sits in the market. It's not a prestige brand, but it's not priced to be that way. However resale values are good on SEATs so the brand has some sort of value.

So you don't object to the car itself as a market segment, you object to the Cupra brand and, seemingly, everything that SEAT itself stands for. That's fine, you're entitled to an opinion. Porsche will happily take £20,000 extra off you so you can feel good about the badge on the car. That's why the market is segmented, so there's something for everyone. But you don't need to make up reasons to dislike this particular car - just say you prefer something else.

I have a SEAT. I could try to educate you the exact reasons why I bought it, but that would be pointless, as I'm obviously "mental".

[Sheepshanks]

Quickben said:

EA288.... you can have it in Sh!tting Expensive (Audi), Bloody Expensive (Volkswagen), Kind of Expensive (Seeaahht) or Expensive (Skoda). Now, what sodding colour do you want ?

You also need to position Porsche in that mix, which is easy.

More tricky, and relevant to this thread, is where the heck does Cupra go?

[JMF894]

Jader1973 said:

I understand the point of a sporty crossover thing. What is the point of creating a sub-brand of the ginger stepchild sub-brand of VAG which already has multiple brands all of which make sporty SUVs?

What's next? "VW have announced that from now on all models that were badged as an R will simply be branded R. So the VW Golf R is now the R Golf"?

It is quite simply fking stupid.

And there is no way anyone in their right mind would prefer this nonsensical fkwittery over a Porsche or an Alfa. They'd need to be completely fking loopy. You'd need to be mental to buy a SEAT in the first place - they have absolutely fk all brand value, and this idiocy isn't going to help.

The only f*ckwittery is your seemingly blind prejudice against SEAT. Sorry, Cupra. I always fail to see how people are unable to take a car in isolation, look at what it offers, then decide if they like it or not. Instead they tarnish it (in this case) with the VAG brush and call it generic rubbish.

We should be thankful of the choices we have whilst remebering that they are just that. Choices. No-ones getting their arm twisted into buying anything.

And breathe everyone.........................

[JMF894]

PhilboSE said:

Jader1973 said:

I understand the point of a sporty crossover thing. What is the point of creating a sub-brand of the ginger stepchild sub-brand of VAG which already has multiple brands all of which make sporty SUVs?

Fair enough. I'm pretty much with you on that, but it's just marketing, nothing to get too worked up about.

Jader1973 said:

And there is no way anyone in their right mind would prefer this nonsensical fkwittery over a Porsche or an Alfa. They'd need to be completely fking loopy.

There's about 20,000 reasons in the shape of pound coins why you would buy this over a Macan. The base Macan is £10,000 more and comes with almost nothing. The SEAT is absolutely dripping with extras - to get a Macan to a similar level you'd be paying £55,000 minimum.

Jader1973 said:

You'd need to be mental to buy a SEAT in the first place - they have absolutely fk all brand value, and this idiocy isn't going to help.

You'd buy a SEAT if you want access to the VAG engineering in a slightly edgier, slightly more sporting, but significantly cheaper price. And I simply don't understand what you mean by "brand value"; the SEAT brand is well known and most people understand where it sits in the market. It's not a prestige brand, but it's not priced to be that way. However resale values are good on SEATs so the brand has some sort of value.

So you don't object to the car itself as a market segment, you object to the Cupra brand and, seemingly, everything that SEAT itself stands for. That's fine, you're entitled to an opinion. Porsche will happily take £20,000 extra off you so you can feel good about the badge on the car. That's why the market is segmented, so there's something for everyone. But you don't need to make up reasons to dislike this particular car - just say you prefer something else.

I have a SEAT. I could try to educate you the exact reasons why I bought it, but that would be pointless, as I'm obviously "mental".

[Onehp]

JMF894 said:

And another

[Onehp]

As for the brand of Cupra, as I mentioned before mine is debadged and dirty, smaller wheels and runs well below the radar amongst normal folks that think nothing special of it. An old class mate who knows me well but not so much about cars asked me why I chose a SEAT instead of my previous 'sports car'. Because he knew there had too be a catch. Long story short, next time he visits he wants an extended passenger ride on some good roads... I think with his demographic this CUPRA thing will most certainly work.

As for us petroheads, we already know what it is from afar, for good and for worse, no coloured badge and whatever it says on the boot doesn't change much really... Just as we tend to see trough any other marketing... Exceptions apply of course.

[Chestrockwell]

How is this the same weight as an M2 Competition?

[donkmeister]

I don't know where SEAT (I checked following the earlier pedantry, that's how SEAT writes it) sit in the VAG family now. Maybe not overseas but in the UK it used to be:
- Skoda were cheap for the thrifty/tight gits
- SEAT were cheap but a bit sportier than Skoda for people who wanted an Audi but couldn't afford it
- VW were conservative cars for vets, teachers, accountants
- Audi were the premium brand.

Now Skoda seems to be muscling in on SEATs market with the sporty styling even on the slower models, and of course they've done the VRS models for ages but these are up at similar performance levels as the SEAT-badged models.

This new sub-brand may well be intended to put SEAT back as the cheap sporty brand, but where is the main SEAT brand going?

[Onehp]

Chestrockwell said:

How is this the same weight as an M2 Competition?

So you mean... The CUPRA is light and the M2 Comp is heavy? Both cars are bigger than one thinks for being a 'small' SUV and the smallest M car...

[MrAverage]

I think the whole Cupra vs SEAT brand thing is a bit silly but I do like the end product.

It's gonna be a hit!

My OH loves SUV's and I like fast cars, put the 2 together and its a potent mix for the next 'family' car. despite not having kids we often have siblings and grandparents with us, having something that can take a boot full of st and help the elderly on board is a great mix adding 300hp into that mix makes it better.

To raise some blood pressure: we'd be very interested in this car if there is a sensible lease deal to be had. I haven't got £35k laying about.

[M1C]

Lets remember, these Atecas aren't that big. In fact, i'd say they were a pretty smallish car. Aren't they a kinda...Tiguan size, if not a touch smaller?

[underphil]

donkmeister said:

I don't know where SEAT (I checked following the earlier pedantry, that's how SEAT writes it) sit in the VAG family now. Maybe not overseas but in the UK it used to be:
- Skoda were cheap for the thrifty/tight gits
- SEAT were cheap but a bit sportier than Skoda for people who wanted an Audi but couldn't afford it
- VW were conservative cars for vets, teachers, accountants
- Audi were the premium brand.

Now Skoda seems to be muscling in on SEATs market with the sporty styling even on the slower models, and of course they've done the VRS models for ages but these are up at similar performance levels as the SEAT-badged models.

This new sub-brand may well be intended to put SEAT back as the cheap sporty brand, but where is the main SEAT brand going?

Skoda is for old people, SEAT is for young people?