Cars that "devalued" the brand...
Discussion
Manufacturers are often "blasted" by the purist/enthusiast community when they bring out a new vehicle that doesn't fit in with the perceived ideology of the brand. Porsche is a classic example with the Cayenne in the early 2000s and to a lesser extent the Panamera and the availability of diesel engines in a Porsche later. More recently, the Urus came under fire for being a betrayal to the Lamborghini brand.
However, in the above two examples, I would have to disagree. A lot of the purists/enthusiasts that object in many cases don't actually have any interest in buying the new models or can't afford to, so it's irrelevant anyway. The people who actually do are usually quite wealthy and will own multiple cars and need a more practical family car/daily driver to sit alongside their Hurracan/Aventador/911/Cayman. In the past, they may have liked to have another Lamborghini/Porsche but there wasn't anything available for them, so they bought an S-Class or a Range Rover instead or whatever. Why would Porsche/Lamborghini want to lose this potentially captive market?
Rather than "devalue" the brand, I would argue that the Cayenne/Urus add value to their respective brands. They still offer the ultimate in performance and handling for that class of vehicle and the Urus looks like a Lambo and is the fastest SUV you can buy? Sure, perhaps there's a bit more Audi in there than one would have liked and an NA V10 or V12 would have been really cool but the Audi-ness probably makes it an easier car to live with and in all fairness a better all-rounder too. As a comparison, consider the E60 M5 and the C6 RS6 with their NA V10s. I still have an irrational "want" for an E60 M5 because of that crazy V10 but I don't think there's any question that it was a flawed car and the V8TT replacements of both vehicles were much better all-rounders and just as quick. Porsche have been in the SUV game a bit longer and when they announced the Macan, it didn't seem to meet with much resistance, as enthusiasts had come around to the idea of a Porsche SUV. Perhaps if other struggling manufacturers with a "pure" ethos, such as Lotus had brought out an SUV, they might be doing a bit better than they are today.
If I'd saved my whole life to buy a Porsche/Lamborghini then I don't think a Cayenne/Urus would quite cut it but then I'm not really the target market and if I had the means to have a fleet of multiple luxury cars, then I'm not going to say that I wouldn't buy one.
However, I think some cars were badly executed and are quite rightly derided for "devaluing" their respective brands, the Edsel and Ford Pinto being classic examples. So what cars do you believe "devalued" and had a negative impact on the image or reputation of their brands?
Here's a few off the top of my head. Some obvious, others not so obvious.
Austin Allegro
Morris Marina
Peugeot 307 - started Peugeot's slide from good-looking, sweet handling and mechanically tough cars to ugly, fragile, badly built, unreliable pieces of crap, although they seemed to sell fairly well at the time. Fortunately, they're going through a bit of a renaissance now with stuff like the 508 and 3008.
Renault Laguna II - similar to the above but even more disastrous, shame because they were quite a comfortable, spacious, nice-looking car, just very badly executed. A friend had 3 of them in a row and they were all unreliable pieces of junk.
Original Mercedes A-Class - the engineering seemed quite clever on paper but in reality it was a rather odd-looking, gutless, thirsty, uncomfortable, unreliable, badly built and harsh-riding piece of crap. I can find redeeming features in most cars but having run one as a company car for a year, this would be the exception. It seems like the A-Class has finally morphed into a pretty decent car but Mercedes really messed up the first time, whereas BMW/Audi did a far better job of distilling their brand values into a smaller package with the 1-Series/A2/A3.
City Rover - OK, Rover were already on the ropes at this point but despite variable build quality and designs much in need of an update, the 25/45/75 were all actually pretty decent cars. However, the OAPs all needed an "upgrade" for their Metros/Rover 100s and this is what Rover gave us. Based on an Indian Tata of some sort, it definitely didn't feel like a Rover and would have been sub-par even in the 80s. Still, despite it's short life it still sold surprising well but all those people should have bought the considerably better and no more expensive 25 instead.
VW Fox - with VW being a "global" company, this was a product of its South American division and whereas it wasn't a bad car per se, it didn't have the quality or showroom appeal that a small European VW should have in comparison to the Lupo that preceded it and the Up! that came after. The nice thing about VWs from this era was that you could get out of a 50k Touareg and into a 10k Polo and feel instantly at home i.e. you had the blue backlighting and all the major controls were in the same place etc. This had none of that and no appeal apart from being quite spacious and freakishly tall.
But I think the Aston Martin Cygnet has to take the cake. Judging by the number that I see, I think that Aston Martin were a little misguided in thinking that this was the 2nd vehicle that their customers wanted but that would have been OK if they had actually put some effort into it and created something themselves. Putting a chrome grille and a leather interior in a Toyota iQ and charging double for the privilege was really taking the piss and a dark day for my favourite car brand.
So what are your automotive "villains". The ones that really damaged/"devalued" the brand in your opinion?
However, in the above two examples, I would have to disagree. A lot of the purists/enthusiasts that object in many cases don't actually have any interest in buying the new models or can't afford to, so it's irrelevant anyway. The people who actually do are usually quite wealthy and will own multiple cars and need a more practical family car/daily driver to sit alongside their Hurracan/Aventador/911/Cayman. In the past, they may have liked to have another Lamborghini/Porsche but there wasn't anything available for them, so they bought an S-Class or a Range Rover instead or whatever. Why would Porsche/Lamborghini want to lose this potentially captive market?
Rather than "devalue" the brand, I would argue that the Cayenne/Urus add value to their respective brands. They still offer the ultimate in performance and handling for that class of vehicle and the Urus looks like a Lambo and is the fastest SUV you can buy? Sure, perhaps there's a bit more Audi in there than one would have liked and an NA V10 or V12 would have been really cool but the Audi-ness probably makes it an easier car to live with and in all fairness a better all-rounder too. As a comparison, consider the E60 M5 and the C6 RS6 with their NA V10s. I still have an irrational "want" for an E60 M5 because of that crazy V10 but I don't think there's any question that it was a flawed car and the V8TT replacements of both vehicles were much better all-rounders and just as quick. Porsche have been in the SUV game a bit longer and when they announced the Macan, it didn't seem to meet with much resistance, as enthusiasts had come around to the idea of a Porsche SUV. Perhaps if other struggling manufacturers with a "pure" ethos, such as Lotus had brought out an SUV, they might be doing a bit better than they are today.
If I'd saved my whole life to buy a Porsche/Lamborghini then I don't think a Cayenne/Urus would quite cut it but then I'm not really the target market and if I had the means to have a fleet of multiple luxury cars, then I'm not going to say that I wouldn't buy one.
However, I think some cars were badly executed and are quite rightly derided for "devaluing" their respective brands, the Edsel and Ford Pinto being classic examples. So what cars do you believe "devalued" and had a negative impact on the image or reputation of their brands?
Here's a few off the top of my head. Some obvious, others not so obvious.
Austin Allegro
Morris Marina
Peugeot 307 - started Peugeot's slide from good-looking, sweet handling and mechanically tough cars to ugly, fragile, badly built, unreliable pieces of crap, although they seemed to sell fairly well at the time. Fortunately, they're going through a bit of a renaissance now with stuff like the 508 and 3008.
Renault Laguna II - similar to the above but even more disastrous, shame because they were quite a comfortable, spacious, nice-looking car, just very badly executed. A friend had 3 of them in a row and they were all unreliable pieces of junk.
Original Mercedes A-Class - the engineering seemed quite clever on paper but in reality it was a rather odd-looking, gutless, thirsty, uncomfortable, unreliable, badly built and harsh-riding piece of crap. I can find redeeming features in most cars but having run one as a company car for a year, this would be the exception. It seems like the A-Class has finally morphed into a pretty decent car but Mercedes really messed up the first time, whereas BMW/Audi did a far better job of distilling their brand values into a smaller package with the 1-Series/A2/A3.
City Rover - OK, Rover were already on the ropes at this point but despite variable build quality and designs much in need of an update, the 25/45/75 were all actually pretty decent cars. However, the OAPs all needed an "upgrade" for their Metros/Rover 100s and this is what Rover gave us. Based on an Indian Tata of some sort, it definitely didn't feel like a Rover and would have been sub-par even in the 80s. Still, despite it's short life it still sold surprising well but all those people should have bought the considerably better and no more expensive 25 instead.
VW Fox - with VW being a "global" company, this was a product of its South American division and whereas it wasn't a bad car per se, it didn't have the quality or showroom appeal that a small European VW should have in comparison to the Lupo that preceded it and the Up! that came after. The nice thing about VWs from this era was that you could get out of a 50k Touareg and into a 10k Polo and feel instantly at home i.e. you had the blue backlighting and all the major controls were in the same place etc. This had none of that and no appeal apart from being quite spacious and freakishly tall.
But I think the Aston Martin Cygnet has to take the cake. Judging by the number that I see, I think that Aston Martin were a little misguided in thinking that this was the 2nd vehicle that their customers wanted but that would have been OK if they had actually put some effort into it and created something themselves. Putting a chrome grille and a leather interior in a Toyota iQ and charging double for the privilege was really taking the piss and a dark day for my favourite car brand.
So what are your automotive "villains". The ones that really damaged/"devalued" the brand in your opinion?
The Cygnet makes perfect sense when you view it as an Accessory product rather than a traditional car.
If you want something stylish to put on the back of your yacht to drive around Monaco, or in one of your underground car park spaces to tootle around Kensington or Chelsea when you are at home then there's nothing quite like it to compare.
If you start looking for What Car? group tests and seeing if you can get one instead of a 320d with your employee car allowance then you are missing the point.
It's easy to understand an Aston Martin owner buying an Aston Martin branded watch or pushbike, for example, even though objectively better watches and pushbikes might be available at a similar price point from mainstream watch and pushbike manufacturers. So it was with the Accessory Town Car.
If you want something stylish to put on the back of your yacht to drive around Monaco, or in one of your underground car park spaces to tootle around Kensington or Chelsea when you are at home then there's nothing quite like it to compare.
If you start looking for What Car? group tests and seeing if you can get one instead of a 320d with your employee car allowance then you are missing the point.
It's easy to understand an Aston Martin owner buying an Aston Martin branded watch or pushbike, for example, even though objectively better watches and pushbikes might be available at a similar price point from mainstream watch and pushbike manufacturers. So it was with the Accessory Town Car.
In many cases, it's the owners who devalue the brands. Prestige stuff from BMW to Bentley used to be driven by the Right Crowd (and no crowding) and even the wrong 'uns wore suits. Now, chances are your average owner is some belligerent tattooed thug. The last Bentayga I saw had a badly spaced chav plate and a tattooed arm out the window. A cloud of vape smoke would have completed the picture.
The availability of cheap credit and reaching down to the realms of Ford price lists hasn't helped. Compare the average Audi driver today such as the aggressive thrusting t
t in a white A6 Avant cutting everyone up along Sheffield's Ridgeway road with that of 30 years ago - in 1989, 80 ownership probably wouldn't have involved anyone with gym membership.
The availability of cheap credit and reaching down to the realms of Ford price lists hasn't helped. Compare the average Audi driver today such as the aggressive thrusting t
t in a white A6 Avant cutting everyone up along Sheffield's Ridgeway road with that of 30 years ago - in 1989, 80 ownership probably wouldn't have involved anyone with gym membership.Hard to think of anything further from the engineering lead, powerplant centric Jaguar of old that a front wheel drive X-Type with a 2 litre 4 pot diesel, and McPherson struts so the X-Type is in with a good shout.
For me personally the newer Civics with their stty beam axles detract heavily from Hondas reputation for taking pride in their engineering, and if Mercedes weren't already so far gone I'd say the same for the A-Class hatchbacks with a similarly crap setup.
These fking things still offend me.
For me personally the newer Civics with their s
tty beam axles detract heavily from Hondas reputation for taking pride in their engineering, and if Mercedes weren't already so far gone I'd say the same for the A-Class hatchbacks with a similarly crap setup.These f
king things still offend me.white_goodman said:
Original Mercedes A-Class - the engineering seemed quite clever on paper but in reality it was a rather odd-looking, gutless, thirsty, uncomfortable, unreliable, badly built and harsh-riding piece of crap. I can find redeeming features in most cars but having run one as a company car for a year, this would be the exception. It seems like the A-Class has finally morphed into a pretty decent car but Mercedes really messed up the first time, whereas BMW/Audi did a far better job of distilling their brand values into a smaller package with the 1-Series/A2/A3.
Oddly I have the opposite view. Agree it's not everyone's cup of tea, but an unusual and interesting design, I wish more car manufacturers would take risks with design.A lot of space in a small footprint. Very clever engine/cabin packaging - it may possibly have avoided fatalities when my father had a heavy frontal impact at high speed. The engine slid under the passenger compartment and the car was a write off but 4 people emerged from the car in one piece. (He wasn't conducting an elk test, in case you were wondering).
Ride is sensitive to wheel size. We've had both big and small wheels, and the former are terrible, but the latter makes it a pleasant enough (if unexciting) steer.
I've been looking at cars from my learner driver daughter and the old A-class seems to be a really sensible first time car: small, lots of visibility, easy to see the corners, safe, has a feeling of solidity other first time learner cars don't have (like her current Peugeot 207). What's not to like?
The current A-class seems inoffensively bland and undifferentiated from the rest of a saturated market.
Not sure about the devaluing of a brand by a new model itself. Nothing wrong with tying something new or different.
I am not keen on the use of old names (like mini, beetle, viva) being used to try and make a new (poor vehicle in itself), instantly popular because of the name.
1st example to me was when escort mk1/2 were rwd, but then the popular name was used for the mk 3 fwd versions onwards. Totally different cars, just using the name to sell a car. But that is the purpose of any motor manufacturer, to sell cars.
I am not keen on the use of old names (like mini, beetle, viva) being used to try and make a new (poor vehicle in itself), instantly popular because of the name.
1st example to me was when escort mk1/2 were rwd, but then the popular name was used for the mk 3 fwd versions onwards. Totally different cars, just using the name to sell a car. But that is the purpose of any motor manufacturer, to sell cars.
300bhp/ton said:
Nothing really wrong with the Allegro as a ‘car’. Sure there where political and industrial things happening around it. But the car was perfectly fine.
Yes the Allagro was a 'car', just the ugliest most unreliable one ever.. The City Rover was not based on a Tata, it WAS a Tata Indica, built in India sent to UK where Rover stuck their badge on and doubled the price.
Even in India the Indica was regarded as a bit of a dog.
Agree with the OP about the A-Class
At around the same time other models were doing even more brand damage by looking like this
Pic credit MontyC from here https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
At around the same time other models were doing even more brand damage by looking like this
Pic credit MontyC from here https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff