Modern day badge engineering
Discussion
Austin/Morris/BL etc. were well known for their badge engineering in the 1960s and 70s – “my Wolseley 1100 is much better than your Austin 1100” etc. etc.. At least you could work out the engine sizes though.
Is the latest form of badge engineering the way that some manufacturers are ‘badging’ their cars now; an old Merc 280, for example, was 2.8litres, whereas nowadays they have C200cdi, C220cdi and C250cdi, all with basically the same 2143cc engine. So, should that be C210?
I suppose they will say that, whereas the old cars gained extra power by means of larger engines, the new ones gain extra power by an extra tweak to the mapping (does that really justify the extra cost charged??, an extra turbo etc.. A C250 Blue Efficiency is now just a tweaked C180.
BMW are just as bad, ie 316d, 318d and 320d all have basically the same engine (1997cc), and a petrol 328 is now (or will be) a 4 cylinder 2.0 litre (1997cc), the same as the 320.
As an idea, why don’t they just use different letters to differentiate between the more lesser/more powerful versions, how about, for example, X, L, XLR, GT etc. Or has someone already used them
As for an Aston Cygnet, well at least it is probably a bit better than a VandenPlas 1100; or is it
Am I the only one who gets confused these days, or should I get a newer anorak.
Is the latest form of badge engineering the way that some manufacturers are ‘badging’ their cars now; an old Merc 280, for example, was 2.8litres, whereas nowadays they have C200cdi, C220cdi and C250cdi, all with basically the same 2143cc engine. So, should that be C210?
I suppose they will say that, whereas the old cars gained extra power by means of larger engines, the new ones gain extra power by an extra tweak to the mapping (does that really justify the extra cost charged??, an extra turbo etc.. A C250 Blue Efficiency is now just a tweaked C180.
BMW are just as bad, ie 316d, 318d and 320d all have basically the same engine (1997cc), and a petrol 328 is now (or will be) a 4 cylinder 2.0 litre (1997cc), the same as the 320.
As an idea, why don’t they just use different letters to differentiate between the more lesser/more powerful versions, how about, for example, X, L, XLR, GT etc. Or has someone already used them
As for an Aston Cygnet, well at least it is probably a bit better than a VandenPlas 1100; or is it
Am I the only one who gets confused these days, or should I get a newer anorak.
twazzock said:
Well the alternative is to stick the full spec on the back, eg BMW 3-series 1997cc 180bhp @5000rpm, 150lb ft @2250rpm 48mpg SE, or whatever.
Or just make it dead simple and put the list price on the back, that's what most people are interested in when they look for a badge...
You ought to patent that idea before some BM PR guru reads this Or just make it dead simple and put the list price on the back, that's what most people are interested in when they look for a badge...
They should ALL be named after chocolate bars, wife has a Ford "Galaxy", I have a Saab "Aero" (it is remapped so it runs extra "Boost"), am looking for something RWD though which will be my "Drifter", we have a Fiat 500 which isn't confectionery related in any way but is a bit "Flakey".
Caulkhead said:
It's not a new game to MB you know.
Or BMW, the E23 745i was a 3.2 turbo. It reflects position in the range by relative power output, rather than an absolute definitive indicator of what's under the bonnet. Some are chosen for the way they are said as much as anything. Seven-five-four-eye is clumsier than simply seven-fifty-eye, Likewise the 4.4 litre "x40is". An amusing example is found in the E34 Five Series - the 535i had a 3,430cc engine (but 534i sounds silly) and the M5 "3.6" has 3,535cc, so is a 3.5.
Currently, despite being a 3.0 diesel, that can be either a x25d, x30d, x35d or x40d. In the Five Series the engine that is a 535d becomes a 640d and 740d.
Simplest method is to tick the "delete engine designation badge" NCO
A better way would be to classify them based on that particular version's power output to the nearest 10 hp.
Mercedes number their commercial vehicles this way (except the "class" is denoted by it's weight instead) which makes much more sense.
Eg for merc: C150, C180, C200, C230, C290, C120 CDI, C170 CDI, C220 CDI, C480 AMG etc. etc.
Same would work for BMW: 320 (204 hp), 325 (245 hp) , 330 (306 hp) etc etc.
Much more sensible as these days it's the power output that differentiates the models rather than the displacement which leads to totally meaningless numbering.
Mercedes number their commercial vehicles this way (except the "class" is denoted by it's weight instead) which makes much more sense.
Eg for merc: C150, C180, C200, C230, C290, C120 CDI, C170 CDI, C220 CDI, C480 AMG etc. etc.
Same would work for BMW: 320 (204 hp), 325 (245 hp) , 330 (306 hp) etc etc.
Much more sensible as these days it's the power output that differentiates the models rather than the displacement which leads to totally meaningless numbering.
dvs_dave said:
A better way would be to classify them based on that particular version's power output to the nearest 10 hp.
Mercedes number their commercial vehicles this way (except the "class" is denoted by it's weight instead) which makes much more sense.
Eg for merc: C150, C180, C200, C230, C290, C120 CDI, C170 CDI, C220 CDI, C480 AMG etc. etc.
Same would work for BMW: 320 (204 hp), 325 (245 hp) , 330 (306 hp) etc etc.
Much more sensible as these days it's the power output that differentiates the models rather than the displacement which leads to totally meaningless numbering.
That's a bit vague, I think my idea is better Mercedes number their commercial vehicles this way (except the "class" is denoted by it's weight instead) which makes much more sense.
Eg for merc: C150, C180, C200, C230, C290, C120 CDI, C170 CDI, C220 CDI, C480 AMG etc. etc.
Same would work for BMW: 320 (204 hp), 325 (245 hp) , 330 (306 hp) etc etc.
Much more sensible as these days it's the power output that differentiates the models rather than the displacement which leads to totally meaningless numbering.
twazzock said:
Well the alternative is to stick the full spec on the back, eg BMW 3-series 1997cc 180bhp @5000rpm, 150lb ft @2250rpm 48mpg SE, or whatever.
Or just make it dead simple and put the list price on the back, that's what most people are interested in when they look for a badge...
Or just make it dead simple and put the list price on the back, that's what most people are interested in when they look for a badge...
I thought this was going to be about Chyslers and Lancias and Toyotas and Subarus.
Far duller in reality...
It's not "badge engineering" where you usually got something a little different for your money it's "Marketing bulls
t" where they try and convince you to pay more for less!
BMW numbers always USED to mean something, not sure exactly when they started conning people, probably when the majority of people buying their cars stopped caring about what they were buying.
M.
Far duller in reality...
It's not "badge engineering" where you usually got something a little different for your money it's "Marketing bulls
t" where they try and convince you to pay more for less! BMW numbers always USED to mean something, not sure exactly when they started conning people, probably when the majority of people buying their cars stopped caring about what they were buying.
M.
marcosgt said:
BMW numbers always USED to mean something, not sure exactly when they started conning people, probably when the majority of people buying their cars stopped caring about what they were buying.
M.
The 1971 E3 3.3Li had a 3.2 litre engine (3,188cc). The 1979 E21 316 had a 1.8 litre carbureted engine as differentiated from the 318i which had fuel injection. So for quite some time now. M.
Edited by Zwoelf on Friday 4th November 17:08
marcosgt said:
BMW numbers always USED to mean something, not sure exactly when they started conning people, probably when the majority of people buying their cars stopped caring about what they were buying.
So, if you want to think of it that way, BMW started conning people over 30 yeasr ago. There is 0of course, no con. They try to make the numbers reflect what would be the displacement of an equivalent na engine. I have a 50i car. It has a 4.4 litre twin-turbo V8, so they say it's the equivalent of a 5 litre engine. That's quite conservative, I'd say.Zwoelf said:
marcosgt said:
BMW numbers always USED to mean something, not sure exactly when they started conning people, probably when the majority of people buying their cars stopped caring about what they were buying.
M.
The 1971 E3 3.3Li had a 3.2 litre engine (3,188cc). The 1979 E21 316 had a 1.8 litre carbureted engine as differentiated from the 318i which had fuel injection. So for quite some time now. M.
I remember the 316 with a 1.8 litre engine, but at least you were getting extra for your money The idea that it represents a typical n/a engine makes marketing 'sense', but not any technical sense; a 545 Turbo should be quicker than a 5.0 litre car, surely?
Why not just call them 325 Turbo, 325 Twin Turbo or 545 Turbo or if the whole range is turbocharged, 325, 325+/s/tii or whatever and 545!
I suppose the truth is to provide some consistency from E number to E number.
I can remember a 323i being a quick 3 series and then, a couple of version later, the 325i was a mid range one! this way people think of the 330 as quite fast and the 335 as the quick one (M3 excepted) from version to version.
M
marcosgt said:
The idea that it represents a typical n/a engine makes marketing 'sense', but not any technical sense; a 545 Turbo should be quicker than a 5.0 litre car, surely?
The 4.8 litre NA V8 (also badged 550i) that the 4.4 bi turbo superseded had an output of 367bhp, the twin turbo V8 has 402 so there is some sense in them both being badged 550i.Although it could equally have been badged 540ti/545ti I guess. Except those are clumsier to say out loud in most languages and linguistic neatness/ease of pronunciation in world markets is a consideration.
I still vastly prefer alpha numeric model designations than names that are usually daft.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff