User Name
Password

Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Car Talk
Page 7 of 68 First Previous 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11  Next Last Thread Tools
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2010-01-11, 13:12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboman View Post
Hence its viral status. Audi can say that it was a rejected ad that was never meant to be seen...wink wink, nudge nudge.
But it was seen, and I don't think it's worth the negative vibe. Some idiot will try it and kill himself in the process regardless of who made it, and it will be associated with the brand. I guess maybe it's possible another car company paid for it!
  quote
Miko
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
 
2010-01-11, 15:10

Seeing how this was not made to earn profits by the creator who is not Audi is one thing, however if this has the potential to lose any sales for Audi or cause damages they have every right to issue a lawsuit, at the very least have the person edit it to take off the Audi four ring logo. and a disclaimer would be nice.

Audi can't stop anyone from using their products in personal projects which this was.
  quote
addison
Formerly “AWM”
 
Join Date: May 2009
 
2010-01-11, 15:32

Unless I'm missing something it looks like Ford won't be doing a three door Focus? Kind of an interesting move in this segment. Let's hope they have better luck with this car than they did with the first Focus that came over from Europe. That car took a detour through the Ford Accounting Department and came out with cheaper quality. Plus, eleven recalls didn't help! Not that I was expecting it but seems like there will be no diesel option either which sucks.
  quote
Xaqtly
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-01-11, 16:02

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboman View Post
In any case, I don't know why we're talking about it instead of the new Focus, which is unquestionably a more important car.
Yeah I'm not much of a Ford fan and not really interested by anything they do, but even I'll admit that looks good. And more importantly, looks like a step in the right direction. The prospect of an SVT "Ecoboost" version seems pretty attractive, maybe to compete with the WRX 5 door.
  quote
BuonRotto
Not sayin', just sayin'
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to BuonRotto Send a message via Yahoo to BuonRotto  
2010-01-11, 16:08

Ford is kicking ass lately. I luurve the 5-door hatch/wagon flavor of the new Focus.
  quote
Miko
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
 
2010-01-11, 16:24

I'm loving this smaller rear wheel drive Audi E-Tron for the Detroit auto show. Smaller form factor means smaller price tag right? I do like the back a lot more than the first red Quattro concept based off the R8.

This looks more like a direct competitor to the Tesla Roadster.

Last edited by Miko : 2010-01-11 at 16:35.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2010-01-11, 18:42

e-tron is going to be Audi's electric brand -- think quattro -- so I'm sure there will be a TT e-tron, an R8 e-tron, &c. Hopefully an A3 e-tron, too. :-)

Speaking of the A3, that's apparently the Delta's chief competition overseas, but I'm really not sure Chrysler has the brand cachet to even compete with that. The Delta can't cost more than the 300. They're going to have to get up into that luxury space -- that's their challenge -- but it's going to be slow going and they might be "pushing it" for a while. Unless they go for a clean-break "now we are luxury!" approach, I guess. But they have to get out of the Mercury-esque "not luxury, but not cheap" worst-of-both-worlds place they are now.

I just hope the US Delta won't be too decontented (to get the price down). I think it would be better for Chrysler to have a really strong luxury compact for $23,999 than a decontented not-really-luxury compact for $19,999. That sort of thing attracts no buyers, in either direction (luxury or bargain).

It's hard to believe that BMW sells a cheaper car than Chrysler (the MINI). Chrysler needs to pick a market and stick with it - no more of this double-life stuff. They have Dodge for "value," so they need to step it up. They need to be the Gap to Dodge's Old Navy, at the very least.

Is it odd that the Chrysler Group's namesake brand is their weakest? Or that I'm still talking about the Delta? (I like comeback stories, I guess.)
  quote
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-01-12, 11:21

Sorry I am late. Was on the auto train back down to FL.

Cadillac XTS Platinum concept. I will say that along with it being on Super Epsilon II, I am disappointed how conservatively they styled the front end. It needed to be more like the Sixteen concept.





http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...concept-87912/

giggity

Last edited by Quagmire : 2010-01-12 at 12:29.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2010-01-12, 15:59

I was waiting for you to post that. I didn't want to be the only one posting in this thread...

I agree, the XTS is disappointing. I keep on hearing that it would be "an okay stopgap," but considering it's not coming for another two years it can't be just a "stopgap." If it was arriving today, and there was a much better flagship two years down the road, that'd be different. Some other choice quotes from Real People around the interwebs:

"It has no reason being called an 'XTS.' It's a DTS. And that's fine. But it's a car meant for the geriatric set. And I'm of the position that Cadillac needs to dump them forever. And if they want a Cadillac, they can get one of the newer Cadillacs."

"I am kind of astonished at how bland it came out, though." (There are tons of quips that basically amounted to this, and I agree. They took Art & Science and took all the edginess out of it. It looks like, well, a DTS.)

I saw two quotes that perplexed me:

"S-Class is the standard of the world when it comes to luxury. XTS doesn't compete with it. And it's not meant to. The problem is XTS is made to cater to geriatrics."

...and...

"An S-Series challenger it is not, but GM told us that a while ago."

There's this sort of idea that the XTS isn't meant to compete with the S-Class or 7 Series. So...GM is knowingly making an uncompetitive car, and that's okay? I mean, if it's not "supposed" to be cross-shopped with the S or 7, what is it "supposed" to compete with? The Hyundai Equus? (Actually, the Equus will likely cost more. )

This is probably my favorite quote: "I'm not thrilled this car exists. It's an underpowered FWD barge which is exactly the car that Cadillac shouldn't be building." So true.

All of those quotes were from a GM fansite (I'm sure you know the one ). Sure, some people were more positive, but a lot of people basically said the same sorts of things; they were surprised at how bland it was, or that they couldn't wait for the "real" S/7 competitor. But it's taken them how long to make the XTS? Ugh.

Hopefully, the ATS will be more competitive, with the 3 Series. But I can see the same people making the same excuses for it, in a few months time. "GM told us it wasn't meant to be competitive. Maybe someday they'll really take on the 3."

Jalopnik repeatedly calls it a "luxo-barge," although they did conclude that, while they hoped to never own one, it was "damn sexy." I'm not sure I'd agree. It bulges, Cadilacs are never supposed to bulge. GM insists it draws inspiration from the Sixteen but the usual response to that is "where?"

I really hope GM takes some of its criticisms to heart and at least makes it look a bit more hard-edged. (Better yet, move it to Zeta! Then they could call it the ZTS, which sounds so much nicer.) The DTS (and its octogenarian audience) has been Cadillac's security blanket for far too long; it's time to let them go. Cadillac can't be a one-model brand; they can't have a "good Cadillac" and a "land-barge Cadillac" trying to coexist.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
ShawnJ
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
 
2010-01-12, 16:29

My brother designed the interior of this last year. Pre-Fiat, he said there was some debate between the more avant-guarde designers like him and the conservative designers. I don't know what the story is now, but it's "safe" to say Chrysler design isn't changing direction. They don't even have a serious concept car at the show this year other than the rebadged Lancia.
  quote
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-01-12, 17:14

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboman View Post
I was waiting for you to post that. I didn't want to be the only one posting in this thread...

I agree, the XTS is disappointing. I keep on hearing that it would be "an okay stopgap," but considering it's not coming for another two years it can't be just a "stopgap." If it was arriving today, and there was a much better flagship two years down the road, that'd be different. Some other choice quotes from Real People around the interwebs:

"It has no reason being called an 'XTS.' It's a DTS. And that's fine. But it's a car meant for the geriatric set. And I'm of the position that Cadillac needs to dump them forever. And if they want a Cadillac, they can get one of the newer Cadillacs."

"I am kind of astonished at how bland it came out, though." (There are tons of quips that basically amounted to this, and I agree. They took Art & Science and took all the edginess out of it. It looks like, well, a DTS.)

I saw two quotes that perplexed me:

"S-Class is the standard of the world when it comes to luxury. XTS doesn't compete with it. And it's not meant to. The problem is XTS is made to cater to geriatrics."

...and...

"An S-Series challenger it is not, but GM told us that a while ago."

There's this sort of idea that the XTS isn't meant to compete with the S-Class or 7 Series. So...GM is knowingly making an uncompetitive car, and that's okay? I mean, if it's not "supposed" to be cross-shopped with the S or 7, what is it "supposed" to compete with? The Hyundai Equus? (Actually, the Equus will likely cost more. )

This is probably my favorite quote: "I'm not thrilled this car exists. It's an underpowered FWD barge which is exactly the car that Cadillac shouldn't be building." So true.

All of those quotes were from a GM fansite (I'm sure you know the one ). Sure, some people were more positive, but a lot of people basically said the same sorts of things; they were surprised at how bland it was, or that they couldn't wait for the "real" S/7 competitor. But it's taken them how long to make the XTS? Ugh.

Hopefully, the ATS will be more competitive, with the 3 Series. But I can see the same people making the same excuses for it, in a few months time. "GM told us it wasn't meant to be competitive. Maybe someday they'll really take on the 3."

Jalopnik repeatedly calls it a "luxo-barge," although they did conclude that, while they hoped to never own one, it was "damn sexy." I'm not sure I'd agree. It bulges, Cadilacs are never supposed to bulge. GM insists it draws inspiration from the Sixteen but the usual response to that is "where?"

I really hope GM takes some of its criticisms to heart and at least makes it look a bit more hard-edged. (Better yet, move it to Zeta! Then they could call it the ZTS, which sounds so much nicer.) The DTS (and its octogenarian audience) has been Cadillac's security blanket for far too long; it's time to let them go. Cadillac can't be a one-model brand; they can't have a "good Cadillac" and a "land-barge Cadillac" trying to coexist.
Everything else is fine, IMHO. back end is nice as is the side profile. And that interior!

I am hearing Lutz is fighting tooth and nail to get the Cadillac Zeta revived. Now with the Anti-Zeta/beancounters off the executive board( Fritz, LaNave, Young) with more product oriented people on it, I assume Lutz wish might got a bit easier to pass. Hell, new GMNA President( ex-Holden guy) has teased us that he wants the Commodore to return. So who knows what will happen.

giggity
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2010-01-12, 17:43

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post
My brother designed the interior of this last year. Pre-Fiat, he said there was some debate between the more avant-guarde designers like him and the conservative designers. I don't know what the story is now, but it's "safe" to say Chrysler design isn't changing direction. They don't even have a serious concept car at the show this year other than the rebadged Lancia.
Chrysler has long had an identity crisis. For years, there's basically been two Chryslers -- "concept" Chrysler and "real" Chrysler. There's a disconnect there for all automakers, true, but it's especially bad with Chrysler. Chrysler concepts use slender, elongated forms -- exactly the opposite of all current production Chryslers. What's more, Chrysler concept interiors have had a recognizable (and, in my opinion, very nice) style for some time -- if you see the right light leather and swoopy chrome arcs, you know that you're in a Chrysler concept even without seeing the logo. I think Chrysler's concepts actually share a more apparent design language than their production cars, which is...worrysome. (But it means your brother did a good job. )

Chrysler Group doesn't have room for two mass-market passenger car brands. Chrysler's going to have to lose their multiple personality disorder and really go upmarket, like their concepts have been for years. (And it wouldn't hurt for Dodge to get a little more affordable, either. I mean, their cheapest car starts at over $17k.) I think Chrysler will be able to do that if they play their cars right. True, they're pretty much off the radar for many car buyers today (especially luxury buyers), but that gives them all the opportunity to reinvent themselves. They don't have a bad image, just an irrelevant one. They just need to tell us who they are.

That takes product. That also takes money. That's why it's a little bit worrisome that Chrysler really didn't have a presentation at NAIAS. They had a presence, but they released some special editions and a concept essentially without comment. What "the new Chrysler" really needed was a coming-out party, with the new 300 and a splashy ad campaign. But that will have to wait, which scares me, because the 300 is supposed to come out this year. (Same with Fiat, which had an equally ghostly presence at the show. If the Fiat 500, which by all signs could be the new MINI, is supposed to be hitting US dealers by year-end, shouldn't they have started building the hype at Detroit? But I digress.)

Chrysler needs to make it clear to buyers that they're serious about luxury, that they're not in some Buick/Mercury/Oldsmobile-esque "sort-of lux" segment. That means, for starters, they have to get out of that segment. No more cars from 1999 and no more cars for $19,999. They don't have to take BMW and Mercedes head-on, but they could at least take on Acura and Lincoln and maybe the lower-end Audis, I mean come on.

With the exception of the lingering, moldy spirit of the DTS (and now XTS), Cadillac seems to have transformed themselves rather nicely. There's no reason Chrysler can't do the same. Granted, not all of Cadillac's metamorphosis was due entirely to GM's efforts -- I don't think anyone at the RenCen planned for the (are you ready?) "hip-hop community" to embrace Cadillac and the Escalade so heartily, which certainly helped Cadillac shed a good bit of their old (in all senses of the word) image. While there's nothing Chrysler can do to start a movement like that (or is there?), Cadillac did a lot of things right, too. Chrysler could do worse than learn from them and:

Establish a bold, unified design language that instantly says "Chrysler." Again, Chrysler's concept cars have had this more than Chrysler's actual cars. There needs to be a Chrysler "look," or better -- an attitude. The Chrysler 300, with a stately square profile and ginormous grille, has a recognizable look and attitude in spades but it's not something that could easily translate into other models (particularly smaller cars). I'd suggest instead adopting the swoopy, elongated forms from Chrysler's concepts of the last decade. After all, cars get rounder, and then they get less round, and then they get rounder again. Cadillac is already doing the squared-off, edgy look, and Acura is following them. I like that look, but it's important for Chrysler to stand out in its segment, not blend in. What Chrysler lacks in edginess they could make up for in elegance -- to be honest, I'd shoot for touches of decadence, even. The chrome look is certainly in, and while it's stupid to chase trends, it's not a bad idea at all to reinvent them within yourself. I could see Chrysler pulling of chrome-trimmed look better than anyone -- not retro, mind, but with just a little bit of American glam.

Trade soiled names for alphanumeric designations. Here's one case where following a trend is a good idea. The only "luxury" brands still using actual names are the struggling half-luxury brands: Mercury and Buick. Chrysler has to make it clear that they're not a Mercury or Buick, and for better or for worse, people expect an alphanumeric designation on a luxury car now. Chrysler should take time now establish a consistent, ownable nomenclature system that gives a sense of progression from low-end to high. (Bonus points if it's not completely arbitrary, either.) They already have that, with the 300C (and 200C concept), but an awkward problem arises when the Fiat 500 is sold in the same dealers. I'd find something new -- maybe they could spell out the numbers? (In any case, they should make sure not to use "TC." )

Get in the movies. Appearances in The Matrix Reloaded surely helped Cadillac's case, more than their rock-and-roll ads, probably. Directors won't say no to a posh, elegant sedan with just the right amount of bling, and buyers won't, either. Chrysler's biggest problem (once they get new products) is going to be exposure.

Give a lot for a little. I'm not saying they should be "the value luxury brand" -- their prices should actually probably go up. But the CTS is essentially a 5 Series-sized car for a 3 Series price, and while it's appropriate for that to change now that the CTS is more recognized, I'm it sure helped Cadillac out in the beginning. The 300 could help Chrysler out like that too.

Elevate the dealer experience. Everybody loves getting a new car but hates shopping for one. Why is that? While I personally think we'd be better off with an Apple-esque corporate-owned model, that's actually not legal in the states. So what is one to do? Get as close to a COR store as possible, by creating a special tier of Chrysler Group dealers -- using the hot Fiat as leverage. Take back the old "Five Star" dealership brand and apply it only to dealers that actually sell all five Chrysler-Fiat brands -- since Fiat is only going to be sold at select dealers, this ensures that these dealers actually are five-star-worthy. (At the very least, this will force unworthy dealers to replace any ancient signage, which is good -- Chrysler, Dodge, and RAM all have new logos, and so all existing signage should be replaced anyway). Only "Five Star" dealers should be allowed to display the Pentastar in signage or advertising.

But how to elevate that dealer experience? Adopt policies that should have been adopted long ago: "No haggling. No commissions. No pressure." Since Chrysler is now going to try making money on cars, and not on financing (what a concept!), that's okay, and Apple Stores have proven that no-pressure environments work. Also, these dealers should have clean, well-kept facilities with a dedicated section (and specialists) for each brand. I don't know if Cadillac still gives you a gold key and a full tank of gas, but Chrysler should really be emulating Lexus here anyway -- free car washes for owners, that sort of thing. The goal would be to get to the point where the dealer experience for any other brand (even other luxury marques) is ruined, where people are actually afraid of buying a car in any other environment. Compare Apple Stores to, say, Best Buy. Now it's like every dealer is a Best Buy. That needs to change -- there's no room for Geek Squads at Chrysler.

The 500 will get people into the dealers, and hopefully the new 300 will keep them there. (See what I mean? Awkward.) But for a turnaround to work, people need to see evidence of a change. People are already impatient, and their desire for new vehicles hasn't been placated by special editions of outgoing models. Chrysler has a huge opportunity, here. Volvo is being sold. Saab is dying. Cadillac has one model, and Lincoln is struggling with everything that's not the Navigator. The luxury space is going to be more open than it's ever been. A lot of people aren't going to want to buy a BMW, in the New Economy, but they might buy a Chrysler. Chrysler just needs to be that brand. They need to tell us who they are, what "the new Chrysler" is all about.

Wow. So, uh, does your brother still work at Chrysler?

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong

Last edited by Robo : 2010-01-13 at 17:34.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2010-01-12, 17:56

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quagmire View Post
Everything else is fine, IMHO. back end is nice as is the side profile. And that interior!

I am hearing Lutz is fighting tooth and nail to get the Cadillac Zeta revived. Now with the Anti-Zeta/beancounters off the executive board( Fritz, LaNave, Young) with more product oriented people on it, I assume Lutz wish might got a bit easier to pass. Hell, new GMNA President( ex-Holden guy) has teased us that he wants the Commodore to return. So who knows what will happen.
I think it's safe to say that the XTS hasn't had the sort of reaction most Cadillac concepts have had, and that the toned-down styling and inherent barge-ness is part of it. I really hope they go back to their drawing boards on this one, and come back with an edgier, more desirable ZTS. In trying to make a luxury car that appeals to everybody (including old farts) I think Cadillac has succeeded in making a concept that isn't going to appeal to anyone. It's going to be too subdued for any "actual" comparison shopper and old farts won't like it because it's not the DTS.

The ATS and XTS are really going to have to prove that Cadillac isn't just a one-hit-wonder, that they can make a whole line of great sedans. There's no room for a mediocre, "weeeelll....it's better than the DTS" sedan in Cadillac's new line.

I do (sort of) like the interior, although it's a bit worrisome that it's the "Platinum" trim. Does that mean that other models will be decontented? And how will those OLED screens handle glare? "I'm sorry officer, I couldn't see how fast I was going...see, I have an OLED speedometer, and the sun was behind me..."

Good thing they're likely a concept-only touch. (And that nobody will ever want to speed in the current XTS.)

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-01-12, 18:21

Cadillac is a 3 hit wonder( Escalade, CTS, and now new SRX).

EDIT: Sigh.....

http://www.leftlanenews.com/cadillac...e-converj.html

Last edited by Quagmire : 2010-01-12 at 18:42.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2010-01-12, 18:47

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quagmire View Post
Cadillac is a 3 hit wonder( Escalade, CTS, and now new SRX).
True, I guess I was thinking passenger-car-wise. The XLR was a flop, the much-hyped STS was a flop, and the DTS is...the DTS. The CTS (and CTS wagon! Yay wagons!) has done okay, but everyone is waiting for the ATS and XTS (and Converj, whatever they call it -- I nominate EVOQ, it has "EV" right in the name!) to see if Cadillac actually means business with their cars. Which, apparently, they don't. MAKE IT A ZTS.

ZTS doesn't look too much like "zits," does it? Dammit, now that's all I can see. But "XTS" sounds so bad. *sigh*

I've resigned myself to the fact that I'm apparently the only person on the face of the Earth who is excited about the Delta. If I was buying a car right now, I think I would buy the Audi A3. (Please spare me the asshole jokes.) But if I could get more stylish competitor that would help a struggling US automaker and also cost less money, I would totally get that. I don't get why more people aren't excited...?

Speaking of the A3, apparently the US market is going to get an A3 sedan, because apparently we Americans don't appreciated the beauty of a properly sculpted hatch. Anyway, the A3 sedan is going to be larger, of course. In fact, it's going to be almost exactly the same size as the original A4 sedan. SO WHY NOT JUST MAKE THAT THE NEW A4 AND LEAVE THE A3 ALONE? I don't get why cars always have to get bigger. Some people, y'know, like...small cars.

Speaking of VW upsizing their cars, apparently the New New Beetle will be based on the Jetta platform. (The outgoing platform? The "new family" one? I don't know.) That's the second time the New Beetle has been upsized...the original concept used the Polo platform, and then the production version used the Golf platform, and now this. They're doing this to make the next Beetle more "masculine." Sorry VW but I think you'd actually be better off just creating a new nameplate rather than trying to get manly men to buy a Bug. I mean, if you take away the rainbow roof and the round headlamps how Beetle-esque will it be, really?

Ironically, VW has a smaller "up" concept (new Lupo, I think?) that is more Beetle-esque than any New Beetle. I think VW should launch a retro flower-power sub-brand, with the new Microbus, the new New Beetle, and the up, all of which would be hybrid-only. They could totally own eco motoring, they could totally steal the crown away from Toyota, they have the perfect brand and models for it. That would also further differentiate the new New Beetle from the Golf, which would probably help sales of both. So, yeah.

EDIT: DAMMIT Cadillac I wish you would quit this Converj nonsense. Just make it.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2010-01-12, 20:52

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuonRotto View Post
Ford is kicking ass lately. I luurve the 5-door hatch/wagon flavor of the new Focus.
Let's hope that they actually sell the hatch and wagon in North America. A lot of manufacturers aren't giving us the option that they give to the rest of the world.

When there's an eel in the lake that's as long as a snake that's a moray.
  quote
alcimedes
I shot the sherrif.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via ICQ to alcimedes  
2010-01-12, 21:32

I don't care if the STS was a sales flop, that was an awesome car to drive.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2010-01-13, 16:28

In a move that should surprise absolutely no one, Alfa Romeo's US relaunch has been "delayed" once again.

I put "delayed" in quotes because I don't think a date was ever set for it. Some people just assumed that now that Fiat was working with Chrysler we would see Alfas in US showrooms by now. The fact that Fiat-Chrysler's "five year plan" (2010-14, MY 2011-15) made absolutely no mention of Alfa Romeo should have been a hint.

Marchionne has long said that they would bring Alfas to the US if and only if doing so would be profitable, and wouldn't hurt Fiat-Chrysler's other US operations. That's a pretty big "if," considering VW's US operations aren't currently profitable.

And I can see the sense in wanting your car business to make money. Don't get me wrong, I want a MiTo this much but I also don't want Alfa to go under trying to bring it here.

I mean, let's say Alfa was coming to the US a year from now. Where would they be sold? Alfa's old problem was a poor dealer network. Now they would have the strength (ahem) of the Chrysler dealer network, but all Chrysler dealers are already going to sell four brands (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram) and some will also sell a fifth (Fiat). Alfa Romeo would have to come to the US without stepping on any of those toes. I think Alfas would end up being sold alongside Fiats in the special Fiat "salons," changing Fiat from a MINI-style one-vehicle brand to a "sporty small Italian cars" brand. But then that could step on the toes of Dodge, who was (last I checked) supposed to be sporty. And if Alfa is trying to go head to head with the German luxury marques, they risk competing with Chrysler, who is going to have to try that same thing.

Fiat-Chrysler can't be like old GM. Even without Alfa they already have more brands than the new GM, although I think theirs are more successfully differentiated (they just have to deal with the Dodge/Chrysler overlap). They can't sell cars that compete with each other, and pitting Alfa against more established (in the US) brands would just spell doom for Alfa. I'm willing to wait until they can do it right.

I think Marchionne is a very smart businessman. I mean, he got up to 35% of Chrysler without paying a cent. But more than that, he found a partner that has everything that Fiat lacks (a US presence, large car platforms and engines) and needs everything that Fiat has (an international presence, small car platforms and engines). Fiat has been growing when everyone else is shrinking ("be hungry when others are fearful," &c.)...they're going to come out of this downturn in a very good position, I think -- certainly as one of Europe's leading auto conglomerates. And I think in a few years Italian cars will be seen at least like British cars in the States, and possibly better. There's no reason the Fiat 500 shouldn't be the new MINI; Marchionne & Co. just need to start building buzz. After all, the few Italian cars currently sold in the US are certainly desirable, and Italy has a very fashionable image. If Fiat leverages those, the 500 will be as big of a success here as it is overseas -- maybe even bigger, because everything European has an exotic air about it on this side of the pond.

And then maybe we could see about that MiTo.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-01-13, 16:49

I have rumors of Alfa's death. Nothing solid, but there is talk....
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2010-01-13, 17:16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quagmire View Post
I have rumors of Alfa's death. Nothing solid, but there is talk....
I've heard that they're going to give Alfa one more push, with the Giulietta and 169, and if they still aren't competitive with their German rivals they're going to wind down the brand. With Lancia also venturing upmarket, where will that leave Alfa? They could try to be the Porsche to Lancia's (eventual) Audi, I guess, but that would mean heading quite a bit upmarket. Right now, Alfa's upmarket cars are doing the worst. It's the MiTo and 147 that are doing okay.

Fiat has grown primarily through acquisitions. Right now, they have a bunch of parts, and they have to figure out a "place" for each brand. (Can you imagine if Fiat had gone through with their purchase of GM Europe? )

I think they'll find a place for Alfa. It might be a much smaller place, though. One thing is for sure: Fiat is going to have to find some brand that can really compete with the BMWs and Mercedes (and Lexuses and Cadillacs) of the world, both in Europe and in North America. They need to find their Audi. I don't care who it is.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
addison
Formerly “AWM”
 
Join Date: May 2009
 
2010-01-13, 17:26

Do we really need Alfa, especially here in the US? The problem with the global auto industry is massive overcapacity. Too many factories, too many brands and not enough customers. You can play the re-badge game but that only works for so long. At some point brands just have to go away. I like Alfa but I doubt they'll ever come back to the US. On a side note, I used to own a '79 Alfa Sprint Veloce, basically a GTV-6 with a four banger. Total pain in the ass car but it had it's moments.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2010-01-13, 17:57

The problem with the global auto industry is that nobody cares about cars any more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jalopnik
According to a study performed by Pew Research in 2008, 23% of people believe their car is "something special — more than just a way to get around." That figure is half of what it was in 1991.
In response to this "demand," car companies have made driving appliances, the equivalent of beige box PCs -- unwittingly ensuring that future generations won't care about cars either. This makes brands like Alfa niches within niches.

According to Leander Kahney, the very first thing Jobs did upon taking control of Apple was ask an early-morning executive boardroom what was wrong with Apple. And then, in true Jobs fashion, he answered the question himself: "It's the products. The products SUCK! There's no sex in them any more."

And that's really all there is to it. Cars represent so many things -- freedom, possibility, conveyance, cocoon -- that I think you'd actually have to try to make them boring or unemotional, but somehow the auto industry has done it. Nobody gets excited about getting a car, unless it's their first. Nobody out there gets giddy at the thought of driving a Malibu.

Even Toyota, in a rare moment of weakness during this downturn, realized it would have to start making more emotional cars -- hence the FT-86 concept. The problem isn't the brands, it's what they're selling. Everything feels the same.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong

Last edited by Robo : 2010-01-13 at 18:31.
  quote
Maciej
M AH - ch ain saw
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-01-13, 18:01

Robo, I think you're onto something, something like the fleeting pulse of the entire auto industry. I hardly ever hear guys talking about cars, they're no longer something people swoon over, cars have become just a conveyance.

User formally known as Sh0eWax
  quote
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2010-01-13, 18:08

Well, maybe people becoming bored with cars is a good thing. We'd end up with fewer cars, maybe. What we need is SJ giving advice to the public transit industry to sex up the buses and trains.

When there's an eel in the lake that's as long as a snake that's a moray.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2010-01-13, 18:28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinney View Post
Well, maybe people becoming bored with cars is a good thing. We'd end up with fewer cars, maybe. What we need is SJ giving advice to the public transit industry to sex up the buses and trains.
Cars aren't bad, though. Pollution is bad. Being dependent on foreign oil is bad. Cars don't require either of those things, or at least they shouldn't.

I think what bothers me about the auto industry is the lack of innovation. The 2000 Audi A2 should not still be the best small car. For decades people have said that we'd all be driving electric vehicles "in the next decade." What bothers me is that the car I really want -- aluminum space frame, in-wheel electric motors -- just doesn't exist. Instead, companies all make cars to "match" other companies' cars, and they're all struggling because they're all trying to sell the same product.

The biggest disappointment for me at NAIAS was the Honda CR-Z. A hybrid remake of a classic sporty hatch with futuristic styling? Count me in, right? Except that it's worse than the original CR-X in every available metric. It even gets worse gas mileage. This is a car I really wanted to like, but even I can't think of any reason to buy it. I mean, really.

I'm sick of cars getting bigger and heavier and bloated. I guess they're just matching their occupants, really.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-01-13, 19:16

I agree. People just don't give a crap about cars anymore. That is why the Camry is now the best selling vehicle in America. I also love hearing people saying the current Malibu is ugly and yet they drive a Camry. Along with Americans love of the car dying, so is American's design taste. The Venza? Why is that thing selling? Unlike the Terrain, it isn't polarizing. It is just plain ugly. If the Aztek was a Toyota, would people have bought it because it was bulletproof reliable despite being uglier then Susan Boyle?

giggity
  quote
ShawnJ
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
 
2010-01-13, 19:39

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboman View Post
Wow. So, uh, does your brother still work at Chrysler?
Yep. This year he did the seat-belt guides on the seats of the electric Fiat 500.

Magic two years in a row.
  quote
joveblue
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
 
2010-01-13, 19:40

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboman View Post
Cars aren't bad, though. Pollution is bad. Being dependent on foreign oil is bad. Cars don't require either of those things, or at least they shouldn't.
Traffic is bad too.

And until we come up with a renewable energy source to provide for all our needs, cars are pollution. A plug-in electric seems like the best answer at the moment. But the energy still comes from somewhere. And at the moment that 'somewhere' seems to be burning coal, for the most part.

Once all our non-transport energy usage is renewable, then we can start thinking about our transport energy usage as potentially being green via plug-in electric vehicles too.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2010-01-13, 20:32

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post
Yep. This year he did the seat-belt guides on the seats of the electric Fiat 500.

Magic two years in a row.
I heart the Fiat 500 and could see myself totally owning one. Pity they probably aren't going to actually make the electric version, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joveblue View Post
And until we come up with a renewable energy source to provide for all our needs, cars are pollution. A plug-in electric seems like the best answer at the moment. But the energy still comes from somewhere. And at the moment that 'somewhere' seems to be burning coal, for the most part.
Solar! Solar solar solar solar solar.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
joveblue
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
 
2010-01-13, 23:34

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboman View Post
Solar! Solar solar solar solar solar.
Once we have enough solar (wind, hydro, geothermal, etc.) power to power our homes and industry with surplus, then we can actually start to call electric cars green. That's a little way off though. In the meantime, there's really no such thing as a green car, electric cars included. Public transport is still, and will remain for quite some time, a greener option (it's also safer and contributes much less to traffic problems!).
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 7 of 68 First Previous 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11  Next Last

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
3G talk time BlueApple Apple Products 4 2009-04-14 15:23
Let's Talk Stimulus ezkcdude AppleOutsider 180 2009-02-16 15:54
Let's talk... hot sauces Wrao AppleOutsider 19 2006-12-03 10:53
OS 7.5.3 not able to talk to OS X.3.7 boris Genius Bar 4 2005-01-27 14:12


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:15.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova