"Premium" vs "Mainstream"
Discussion
The whole country seems to be of the mind that there is a pecking order in car brands, where Ford is kind of with Vauxhall, Renault and the rest of the mainstream players, ok the mainstream manufacturers dont tend to operate in the Seven Series/S class realm but they all do battle in the lower segments, am interested in what makes "Premium" Premium.
Is for example, an A3 a significantly more able, better built, better designed car than a Focus ? ditto the VW Golf, separate brand perception, image and all that, what are the main differences ? usually when the cars are reviewed in this segment there isnt much in it, all trading punches in the various categories but it seems to make not one iota of difference to what sells and why.
So, discuss, why is a Golf/A3 better than a Focus ?
Is for example, an A3 a significantly more able, better built, better designed car than a Focus ? ditto the VW Golf, separate brand perception, image and all that, what are the main differences ? usually when the cars are reviewed in this segment there isnt much in it, all trading punches in the various categories but it seems to make not one iota of difference to what sells and why.
So, discuss, why is a Golf/A3 better than a Focus ?
Some people care more about other people's perception of what they drive than what it's like to drive, plus a lot of people know nothing about cars so are influenced by odd views.
The old Mazda 121 came off the same production line as the Fiesta but they put a different badge on the grill, yet there are those who bought the 121 purely because they felt Mazdas were more reliable than Fords.
The old Mazda 121 came off the same production line as the Fiesta but they put a different badge on the grill, yet there are those who bought the 121 purely because they felt Mazdas were more reliable than Fords.
bicycleshorts said:
German engineering. That's why they won the war.
This + badge snobbery. Everyone knows that nothing German has ever broken down, hence why so many seem enthralled by the idea of German products, from washing machines to cars. And if the neighbours have one then one must absolutely have one too to avoid the shame that would befall the household by buying anything else. Despite Mercedes having kindly demonstrated at the turn of the millennium that such an idea has little basis in fact, most continue on regardless in their worship of all things Teutonic.
Meanwhile, I've been doing my little bit to fight the good fight and may have finally persuaded the OH to be rid of the Audi (purchased "because it's an Audi") and jump into Alfa ownership instead
bennyboysvuk said:
I despise Audis, however the last A3 I sat in had a beautiful interior, whereas the last Focus I sat in had a bog standard run of the mill interior. There's a huge quality difference there between premium and mainstream.
Last time I sat in an A3 I thought it had an unremittlingly grey interior with stupid things where my leg should have gone and a ride that sent me scattt.So the interior plastics are representative of the whole cars integrity and quality, I think that is the nail and head there, does that mean that the suspension struts are better quality, the body shell stronger or just that the plastics in the front of the cabin are better ?
Having worked on various cars, I cant tell a difference between the oily and/or grimy bits, if anything its the japanese that when rooting about underneath seem to stand up the best, i.e the paint is still on there.
Are the engines and gearboxes better made, they all seem to be much of a muchness, the Audi 2.0 engine does seem to spit its oil pump drive chain off occasionally.
I think the Mainstream manufacturers make as a good a car, apart from the badge and some of the tactile cabin suraces, I cant really see a difference otherwise, nothing rusts these days, they all tend to perform the same, Fords seem to do best for handling.
I wonder how much a Focus costs to produce, spec for spec compared to a Focus or Astra ?
RizzoTheRat said:
Some people care more about other people's perception of what they drive than what it's like to drive, plus a lot of people know nothing about cars so are influenced by odd views.
The old Mazda 121 came off the same production line as the Fiesta but they put a different badge on the grill, yet there are those who bought the 121 purely because they felt Mazdas were more reliable than Fords.
Mentioned this before but my sister in law paid extra to get a lower spec Sharan rather than have a Galaxy at the time, now considering they were the same thing with different badges on, built in the same factory and all came with a pretty poor interior I think we can discount respective engineering and quality issues.The old Mazda 121 came off the same production line as the Fiesta but they put a different badge on the grill, yet there are those who bought the 121 purely because they felt Mazdas were more reliable than Fords.
I think the brands do it to themselves to a degree with their advertising and their target market.
Skodas are sensible cars for sensible people who don't like brands.
VW are good mid range well build cars.
Audi are aspirational and advertised by pretty people in expensive clothes and designer sunglasses.
BMW are corporate no-nonsense cars – except the M class, which are for business directors and the wealthier folks who like to have fun.
Minis are for the young at heart.
Ford and Vauxhall are family cars for family men and women.
Volvo are safe sensible cars, except the quirky one that dared to be different.
Hondas are for people who follow their dreams.
Mistubs are for rugged outdoor types.
We get these perceptions of brands based on how they market themselves.
Skodas are sensible cars for sensible people who don't like brands.
VW are good mid range well build cars.
Audi are aspirational and advertised by pretty people in expensive clothes and designer sunglasses.
BMW are corporate no-nonsense cars – except the M class, which are for business directors and the wealthier folks who like to have fun.
Minis are for the young at heart.
Ford and Vauxhall are family cars for family men and women.
Volvo are safe sensible cars, except the quirky one that dared to be different.
Hondas are for people who follow their dreams.
Mistubs are for rugged outdoor types.
We get these perceptions of brands based on how they market themselves.
J4CKO said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
bicycleshorts said:
J4CKO said:
So, discuss, why is a Golf/A3 better than a Focus ?
German engineering. That's why they won the war.btw Ford Cologne was a big manufacturer of military trucks, while Ford USA was building planes to bomb it
I think it comes down to precision and material (interior largely) quality. If you compare a Focus with a 1 Series/A3 - the BMW/Audi just feel better, more precise mechanical feeling gearchange for instance (less rubbery), switches feel less brittle too. Also if you look at an average 10 year old Focus vs a 10 year old A3 you will generally find the A3 to still appear newer (wear better) all things beig equal.Underneath the car stuff like the wheel arch liners tend to be made from noise deadening materials on premium cars - not cheap hard plastics.
J4CKO said:
Last time I sat in an A3 I thought it had an unremittlingly grey interior with stupid things where my leg should have gone and a ride that sent me scattt.
So the interior plastics are representative of the whole cars integrity and quality, I think that is the nail and head there, does that mean that the suspension struts are better quality, the body shell stronger or just that the plastics in the front of the cabin are better ?
So the interior plastics are representative of the whole cars integrity and quality, I think that is the nail and head there, does that mean that the suspension struts are better quality, the body shell stronger or just that the plastics in the front of the cabin are better ?
It's not representative of the whole car, obviously, but I can see why people might prefer the interior of an A3 to the competition. The one I sat in looked great and not one Focus I've sat in felt as high quality regardless of the rest of the car.
I think the interior of the one I sat in was something like this (but with fancier seats) which looks great, but the driving experience isn't better than the competition so it was snubbed.
Snowboy said:
I think the brands do it to themselves to a degree with their advertising and their target market.
We get these perceptions of brands based on how they market themselves.
This. We get these perceptions of brands based on how they market themselves.
Audi portray the message that they're well engineered, high quality, reliable, etc. This is reinforced by ensuring that the customer can see this, so high quality interiors, doors that "thunk", damped buttons on the dash, soft-touch plastics, etc.
As mentioned above, the stuff we can't see, as a customer, such as the suspension, exhaust, under-bonnet plastic, ECU, etc etc may not - and probably are not - any better than a mainstream manufacturer. But because the bit that customers do see, touch, hold and spend their time is measurably better than a mainstream car, the perception of quality extends throughout the car (and by extension, throughout the brand and throughout the car-buying public).
It's all about understanding the customer's perception of quality and making this a priority.
bennyboysvuk said:
It's not representative of the whole car, obviously, but I can see why people might prefer the interior of an A3 to the competition. The one I sat in looked great and not one Focus I've sat in felt as high quality regardless of the rest of the car.
I think the interior of the one I sat in was something like this (but with fancier seats) which looks great, but the driving experience isn't better than the competition so it was snubbed.
That does look good but its a lot higher spec model than the one I was thinking about which was a nothing special diesel model, that said a chap here has a top spec Sportback and that is quite nice but it cost a lot more.I think the interior of the one I sat in was something like this (but with fancier seats) which looks great, but the driving experience isn't better than the competition so it was snubbed.
I think Ford are missing a trick, Citroen have got the idea with their DS line, even if they are perhaps less than subtle compared to an Audi, difficult place to move from, guess the Japanese did it with Lexus, infinity etc though.
Good topic OP, although I would perhaps suggest 'Prestige' versus 'Mainstream'.
I think it's marketing hokum which people buy into. It applies to clothes or any other consumer good by which some people believe they are judged.
People want to project an image that they feel comes with certain brand associations. It's an illusion which people pay thousands to be part of. Sort of 'keeping up with the Jones's'.
There is some sort of pecking order or ladder people want to climb which they believe will impress people, mostly strangers.
Somewhere along the lines Audi ended up 'above' Ford. Maybe just because they cost more to buy, not necessarily to manufacture as platforms and engines are shared nowadays. This gives economy of scale that should make all these models much the same to manufacture.
The upside for people is that there are others around who buy into this also - which leads to lower depreciation for certain 'prestige' models, e.g. Audi.
Marketing people build the brand, and brand perception of 'quality' is reinforced by minor details such as how a door thunks shut. These details become more important the more money we spend. It is not necessarily expensive for the manufacturer to implement these details, they just need to know their market.
I think it's marketing hokum which people buy into. It applies to clothes or any other consumer good by which some people believe they are judged.
People want to project an image that they feel comes with certain brand associations. It's an illusion which people pay thousands to be part of. Sort of 'keeping up with the Jones's'.
There is some sort of pecking order or ladder people want to climb which they believe will impress people, mostly strangers.
Somewhere along the lines Audi ended up 'above' Ford. Maybe just because they cost more to buy, not necessarily to manufacture as platforms and engines are shared nowadays. This gives economy of scale that should make all these models much the same to manufacture.
The upside for people is that there are others around who buy into this also - which leads to lower depreciation for certain 'prestige' models, e.g. Audi.
Marketing people build the brand, and brand perception of 'quality' is reinforced by minor details such as how a door thunks shut. These details become more important the more money we spend. It is not necessarily expensive for the manufacturer to implement these details, they just need to know their market.
RescueYing said:
I think it's marketing hokum which people buy into. It applies to clothes or any other consumer good by which some people believe they are judged.
It's an illusion which people pay thousands to be part of. Sort of 'keeping up with the Jones's'.
I'm not so sure it's hokum or illusion in all cases.It's an illusion which people pay thousands to be part of. Sort of 'keeping up with the Jones's'.
A Ford Focus 'Special Edition' with stripes, custom limited edition fabric seats and uprated bad-boy speakers is marking nonsense akin to a £2 T-shirt with a Nike logo being sold for £40.
But, comparing an Audi S-Line with a Vauxhall Astra is more like comparing a bespoke Saville row suit with on off the peg M&S one.
Or perhaps it's like a Top End Nike trainer being the BMW M Sport Vs the JJB own brand trainer or a bog standard Focus.
(my analogies may not stand up in the face of close scrutiny. They may also be similes rather than analogies)
I'm sure that there are some people who are paying more for a brand name.
But, there are also those who like the additional features provided by in a more expensive car.
But, the car companies know this, and make profit by filling that niche.
Fords are cheaper than Audis. That's Fords prerogative and business model.
I'm sure Ford could make a better car than the Audi, but they'd have to charge more for it to make a profit.
Nick3point2 said:
Its the general feel of the thing. Sit in an Audi A3 and you feel like you are in a scaled down A8. Sit in a focus and you get nothing of the sort.
Would be a bit strange if it felt like an Audi 
Havign sat in a nearly new A8 taxi a couple of months ago in Aberdeen (posh taxi) it didnt feel much like an A3 to be fair, the A3 is nice but there is no comparison, Ford dont make a high end luxury car to compare to.
I am no Ford Fanboy by the way, its only an example, I just struggle with the perception people have of what is good and what isnt based on just the bits they touch and the badge, its all very contrived, Skoda interiors are ok but dumbed down very cynically to enforce the brand hierachy, doubt it costs much more to put an interior in an Audi versus a Skoda. I read somewhere that it costs Porsche six grand more to make a top end 911 turbo versus a base spec Boxster, cars that retail sixty or so thousand pounds apart in the showroom so I doubt the plastics on a dash and surrounding areas amount to more than a few quid in production costs.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff