Too many damn cars??

Necx0

Necx0

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
2,242
Location
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Car(s)
R31 Skyline, Charade rally car
Hello all,
The R8 Spider thread prompted me to start this thread. Are there just too many damn cars around today? It seems that every manafacturer is trying to capture every segment of every market and its got to come to a head at some point surely?? There are all the Top Gear jokes about the 911 range but as Mercedes Benz spring to mind as the worst offenders I will use them as an example.

For instance about a decade or so ago we had the C-class, the E Class, the S Class and the G Class. Simple, small medium and large and 4x4 with a few different engine variants for each. So maybe 15 different models.

A decade on look at the range!!!!

A Class
B Class
C Class (now two different variants!!)
E Class
CLS range
CLK range
CL range
SLK range
SL range
S Class
ML Class
GL Class
G Class
R Class

Engines I can think of
1.6 4
1.8 4
2.0 turbo
2.0 diesel
3.5 V6
2.8 V6
5.4 V8 supercharged
6.2 V8
5.5 V8
6.0 V12
6.0 V12 twin turbo
3.2 diesel

and probably many more!!! Other manafacturers are just as guilty!

Discuss......!!!
 
especially since people only have 3 different sorts of tastes and needs and only 3 different amounts of money to spend.
 
mercedes has certainly gone a bit far, especially with the a and b class, whats the difference between those two?


however, what i find a lot weirder is the american obsession with selling one and the same car under three or four different brands.:rolleyes:
 
C Class (now two different variants!!)
CLS range
CLK range
CL range
SLK range
SL range
S Class
Click to expand...

Brilliant naming system. Very clear and non-confusing.
 
however, what i find a lot weirder is the american obsession with selling one and the same car under three or four different brands.
Click to expand...

its a way to make more money by playing on our ignorance. i've had people call me a retard when i said the cavalier and the sunfire were the same car, like the hummer and the tahoe.
 
The R-class and the GL-Class fill niches that no one is asking for.
 
Actually i've seen many R-Classes, and i can see the appeal for a merc van. i mean yea its stupid i even saw an AMG version(or one w/ an AMG badge)
 
wooflepoof said:
Actually i've seen many R-Classes, and i can see the appeal for a merc van. i mean yea its stupid i even saw an AMG version(or one w/ an AMG badge)
Click to expand...

I wasn't implying that people wouldn't buy them, because let's face it, people will buy anything. But the fact that MB made a minivan that they call an SUV for about the same price as an ML is just odd. MB sells ML's by saying that it's more practical and spacious than a higher end C or lower end E. But then they reveal the R-class which makes the ML completely redundant because it doesn't have the space or the 7 seats of the R-class. So why buy an ML at all?
 
Well I guess this is the right thread for this...

There are in fact to god damn many cars. I swear every time Ford announces a new car it's in a different class than anything else because it's 1/2 inch shorter than the Taurus, but a 1/2" longer than the Escort, or some BS like that. It has the front end of a Mazda 626, the rear end of a Ford Mondeo, and the doors from a Lincoln Continental.

There are classes of cars that make no sense...

Micro, mini, super mini, compact, sub-compact, city /kei car, Van, Minivan, full size, mid size, CUV (just a raised mini-van IMO), SUV, hatchback, wagon/estate, etc...

And of course if 1 company has a car in that segment, every company that is losing their ass has to jump into that segment to not leave a gap in the market... even though it's not really different from any other products they currently have.

I used to like the BMW system, 3 size cars, and it pretty much did the job. Of course they had to bring about the Mini, which is fine, as it's significantly smaller and hits a good market, but why the 1 series by that point?

Of course then there is the G class, the M class. Cadillac had the 4 cars throughout the 90's that I swore were all the same car, just different number of doors. All had v8's and front wheel drive, 4 speed automatics, floated like boats and broke down a lot.

Much of GM is a huge target, stepping all over themselves everywhere. Ditto for Chrysler ( possibly the worst offender due to cost cutting measures), and of course Ford.

Porsche is pretty bad with both the 911 range and the boxster/caymen range. Other than the engine placement is there really anything significantly different about these cars other than price and "a different slot in the market"?
 
Yay!! Its not just me! My next thread will stir the pot even more haha but this is a good discussion.

There are ones I forgot as well......just a nightmare. Presumably big companies are doing their market research and there is actually a business case for these cars.

BMW is another case but not so bad I don't think.

I am also a huge Porsche fan so I don't think there is any confusion :p each model has a clear place.....except for the Cayman.....should have gone in a different direction there I think. Maybe fans of other marques feel the same.....maybe to a Mercedes fan each model in the range has a unique place??
 
I like to see variety and competing designs, but you have a point.

I think what's happened is that every auto manufacturer tries to become a "one stop shop". And because cars have exploded into so many niches that didn't exist 10 or 20 years ago, manufacturers have to have more variety to get customers in the door.

But I don't like it. Porsche, Mercedes, and BMW have no business making SUVs. Jeep shouldn't be making soft-roaders. Everybody has a minivan/crossover.

It really irritates me, because I'd like to see manufacturers do one thing really well like the "good old days" when BMW made sporty sedans, Porsche made sports cars, and Jeep made off road vehicles. Now everybody makes everything.
 
Necx0 said:
Yay!! Its not just me! My next thread will stir the pot even more haha but this is a good discussion.

There are ones I forgot as well......just a nightmare. Presumably big companies are doing their market research and there is actually a business case for these cars.

BMW is another case but not so bad I don't think.

I am also a huge Porsche fan so I don't think there is any confusion :p each model has a clear place.....except for the Cayman.....should have gone in a different direction there I think. Maybe fans of other marques feel the same.....maybe to a Mercedes fan each model in the range has a unique place??
Click to expand...

I doubt it, the R Class is totally pointless and expensive. id like to see anyone putting that kind of money down for an R Class
 
thedguy said:
Porsche is pretty bad with both the 911 range and the boxster/caymen range. Other than the engine placement is there really anything significantly different about these cars other than price and "a different slot in the market"?
Click to expand...

Other than engine placement? What do you want, diagonal-wheel-drive? Side wheel steering? A joystick? Three wheels?

The 911 is the iconic cash cow that they make insane profit with (check the MBA with the tiptronic C4 Cabriolet). It's been going luxury for years in danger of becoming a GT, and it technically does have 4 seats.

The Boxster was the cheaper, back-to-basics pure sports car, and the Cayman spawned from there.

Besides, Porsche is still pretty much a niche manufacturer (despite the SUV and coming 4 door). You would expect a finer difference between their offerrings.
 
Last edited:
ryosuke said:
however, what i find a lot weirder is the american obsession with selling one and the same car under three or four different brands.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It seems goofy now, but there is a reason for it. Back in the glory days, there was a defined order between the brands (e.g. for GM, a customer was expected to progress from a young man in a Chevrolet -> Pontiac -> Oldsmobile -> Buick -> old man in a Cadillac). Also back then, the brands had distinct personalities, and sheetmetal, appointments, and even engines and running gear were different. During the muscle car days, for example, even if they shared platforms the divisions would do their own motors.

Then came the 70's and cost cutting. Cars became cookie cutters of each other with different grilles and taillights to save money. The engines became shared corporate-wide. With all the cars becoming so timid, the brands lost their identity.

So now we end up with today's situation, where every Mercury is a Ford with a different grille. I think the management types still cling to the myth of brand identity while also making sure there is none (because that's expensive). Also, I think it has to do with keeping supply to the dealer networks (i.e. closing down Mercury, what would happen to the dealer franchises? Would they become Ford and saturate certain markets with too many Fords? Would they shut down?).

I never liked the cookie cutter division garbage. But the Japanese do it to. (E.G. is the Lexus ES350 is the Toyota Camry, Acura RSX is Honda Civic, etc.).

There's some merit to it. My boss (who is Serbian) wanted an SUV and I suggested the Toureg. He was violently against the idea, saying he'd never, ever own a Volkswagen. It's too low rent. Now, put an Audi badge on there, and ...
 
Last edited:
the japanese make a lot more sense though because they needed those new brands to get into the western luxury market and do better in the US market. with their own brands image of cheap and reliable cars they could have never achieved this that quickly. the us manufacturers pitch their own cars against themselves and that surely costs them a lot.
i suppose that no manufacturer wants to be the first one to stop this stupidity because they fear that there customers, unaware what they're really driving would go for a different manufacturer then...
 
^ It's... it's... um... uh.... hm.

It's shorter! There, different!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top