Scion to end, MY2017 cars will be Toyotas

[Kchrpm]

http://jalopnik.com/scion-is-dead-all-cars-to-become-toyotas-instead-1756812671


As part of the brand transition, beginning in August 2016, MY17 Scion vehicles will be rebadged as Toyotas. The FR-S sports car, iA sedan and iM 5-door hatchback will become part of the Toyota family. The tC sports coupe will have a final release series edition and end production in August 2016. The C-HR, which recently debuted at the L.A. Auto Show, will be a part of the Toyota line-up.

The service and repair process for Scion customers will be unaffected by this change as customers will continue to visit Toyota dealerships’ service departments.

They should just go ahead and make the FR-S the GT86, right?

[MR2 Fan]

They should just go ahead and make the FR-S the GT86, right?

Let's hope, although my FR-S is already been turned into a GT86 ;)

[Yw-slayer]

They should.

[thesameguy]

Wow, so Buick won...

[Freude am Fahren]

Buick will never die, despite GM's attempts...

[Kchrpm]

Buick is huge in China. It'll be fine.

[Phil_SS]

Looks like it is going to be the Toyota FR-S. Cause stupidity.

[thesameguy]

All the domestic marketing was done under that name. No way they'd up and change it. I'm sure it'll be the Toyota xB, et al too.

[2ndMoparMan]

I still have quite fond memories of the xA. No complaints from me about it being able to handle backroads just fine. :)

[CudaMan]

The only good reason I saw to create a new brand was to try no-haggle pricing. That would have been a huge step for giant Toyota to take. Other than that, I saw no real point to the Scion brand. Build cars youths want, they'll buy them. Brand image isn't what it was in the pre-internet days. These days consumers are more about the product than the brand. And really, it wasn't that long ago that Toyota had a number of cars that appealed to younger buyers. How short Toyota's memory must be.

[MR2 Fan]

The only good reason I saw to create a new brand was to try no-haggle pricing. That would have been a huge step for giant Toyota to take. Other than that, I saw no real point to the Scion brand. Build cars youths want, they'll buy them. Brand image isn't what it was in the pre-internet days. These days consumers are more about the product than the brand. And really, it wasn't that long ago that Toyota had a number of cars that appealed to younger buyers. How short Toyota's memory must be.

Right, they didn't need a youth brand, they needed vehicles that youths want.

[Freude am Fahren]

I think they also did it to try and make a "bespoke" like brand. I remember a big advertising point was on making the car your own through OEM custom parts. That never really panned out though.

[thesameguy]

The only good reason I saw to create a new brand was to try no-haggle pricing. That would have been a huge step for giant Toyota to take. Other than that, I saw no real point to the Scion brand. Build cars youths want, they'll buy them. Brand image isn't what it was in the pre-internet days. These days consumers are more about the product than the brand. And really, it wasn't that long ago that Toyota had a number of cars that appealed to younger buyers. How short Toyota's memory must be.

You're talking rationally, not as an automobile manufacturers. In automobileland brand is everything. The whole goal since the mid '60s is based on the concept that you can build total brand loyalty, and foster a buyer from high school to retirement. That's why Mercury needed a Mustang clone and Cadillac needed an econobox. In the '90s Toyota had excellent brand loyalty but was failing to attract new customers - just like Buick and Cadillac who could not attract young buyers, Toyota was failing in their mission and their customer base was aging out. Scion was the attempt to create hip cars that didn't say Toyota in an attempt to lure in younger buyers. The experiment completely backfired and they ended up with a customer base third to Cadillac and Buick - the third oldest brand in the US, older than Toyota itself. The changes made like 6-8 years ago were supposed to remedy that, with the tC spearheading the charge but it backfired too, attracting primarily 20-something females who aren't typically repeat and aren't typically influential in other peoples' car purchases. The tC refresh and the FR-S were designed expressly to attract young males and was only moderately successful. A brand with only two models sort of hitting the mark wasn't worth keeping around.

I don't think these guys will ever evolve past the "full range" brand mentality even though these sub-brands keep proving pointless. Maybe there is some financial reason why BMW has to be all things to all people, and can't just make Ultimate Driving Machines, but I don't know what it is. I just see nothing wrong with driving a shitbox Toyota in college and graduating to a 3er later on. But these guys definitely don't see it that way. They are convinced they need to sell you your first car and your last and everything in the middle, while somehow not diluting their brand with lesser vehicles. It's a crazy real-life dichotomy.

[Kchrpm]

Ultimate Driving Machines are nice and all, but crossovers are Ultimate Profit Machines. That's what every company needs nowadays, crossovers in every size. Almost everything else is icing on the cake.

[thesameguy]

Probably true, although most everyone seems 100% committed to a 2016 full line - tiny cars, giant cars, three types of trucks, hybrids, EVs, every possible combination of everything. I kinda long for the days when "Cadillac" meant a big expensive car and was never followed up with "Which one?" :lol:

It seems like there are some shifts - I see more "average professionals" driving things like Focii than I ever saw driving Escorts. Cheap cars have gotten nice enough they're defensible choices. So, maybe like Cuda said the brand-image stranglehold on car shoppers is fading. Doesn't really change the Scion story, but maybe our kid's kids won't be inclined at all to shop by brand. :)

[Kchrpm]

The hybrid/EV thing is a requirement of the US government (and to a lesser extent your brand's ability to market itself as technologically relevant).

Cars vs crossovers is like cheap trucks vs expensive trucks. Cheap pickup trucks only exist so that they can sell you the super expensive versions. Cars/cheap trucks make the volume numbers, crossovers/expensive trucks make the profit.

[CudaMan]

You made my point for me Justin. :) Car manufacturers are stuck in this mentality that Brand is king. Brand has been fading from power for a while now. There are lots of reasons why but I won't go into that now.

You're right, car manufacturers are not often rational. How often have we seen a great product take the market by storm, generate huge identity for itself and by extension for the Brand, only to be followed up after 1 or 2 generations by a watered-down, unified-corporate-faced, alpha-numerically named shadow of its former self? The product is destroyed in the name of the Brand, and both suffer in the marketplace.

Sometimes I swear I'm such a cynic I could have been great at marketing. :lol:

[Kchrpm]

But you ARE in marketing, my good man :D

[Dicknose]

Toyota are doing well here without ever using Scion. They have Lexus here.

[thesameguy]

Well, that's why the US got Scion and nobody else did. :)

[MR2 Fan]

You made my point for me Justin. :) Car manufacturers are stuck in this mentality that Brand is king. Brand has been fading from power for a while now. There are lots of reasons why but I won't go into that now.

You're right, car manufacturers are not often rational. How often have we seen a great product take the market by storm, generate huge identity for itself and by extension for the Brand, only to be followed up after 1 or 2 generations by a watered-down, unified-corporate-faced, alpha-numerically named shadow of its former self? The product is destroyed in the name of the Brand, and both suffer in the marketplace.

Sometimes I swear I'm such a cynic I could have been great at marketing. :lol:

the bold part is the most strange and telling thing to me. That speaks volumes about the "brand" idea. I bet 90% of people can't tell the different Lincoln or Acura models apart now and it seems like the auto manufacturers want to keep it that way. Whatever happened to being proud of saying "I drive an Acura Legacy", instead "I drive an Acura letternumberwhocares".

And yes, I know Lexus did this from its inception.

[Kchrpm]

They want you to say that you drive an Acura. I've heard the current head of Cadillac say it so many times, the point of alphanumeric names is to simplify things for the customer. Everyone gets nostalgic for the great iconic names of the past, and ignores all the boring, confusing and stupid ones that were also slapped on random models. And this was when companies just made cars for each size segment and focused almost solely on their home market.

When you have 4 different cars and 4 different SUVs, all on the same lot, you want to make it clear to your customer what each and every one of them is just by the name. Those names are the same around the world, with little to need for translation or cultural studies, and immediately give you an idea of what they are. If you walk into a BMW dealer and think the X3 is too small, but the X5 is too big, they will happily sell you an X4. You can call it stupid if you want, but BMW will call it profitable.

Do I like the trend? No. Do I understand it? Yes.

And it's not like enthusiasts have helped. We proclaimed our love for the WRX, the GT-R, the Z06, the Z28, the GT350, the M3, the 911, the GTO. We may claim to not love alphanumeric names, that they have no emotion or nostalgia, but we sure are emotional and nostalgic for some alphanumeric designations.

[Yw-slayer]

WRX is not alphanumerical. :D

[thesameguy]

They want you to say that you drive an Acura. I've heard the current head of Cadillac say it so many times, the point of alphanumeric names is to simplify things for the customer.

Along with other things he says, I don't buy it. Back in the '80s everyone saw BMWs and Mercedes with designations and people came to associate that with luxury and names with old and busted. "Legend" and "Integra" were simple and easy to remember for all customers, but Lexus showed up with LS4xx and Infiniti with Mxx and Acura scrambled to dump the names. Designations may have originated in Europe with KISS, but in America designations = luxury. Ask any old school FoMoCo or GM employee and they'll tell you the same. Unfortunately, designations end up sucking when you have too many of them and become even more confusing when you have corporate faces making it hard to tell cars apart. Infiniti seems to recognize this with Q and QX - although why Infiniti=Q or why they chose it over their more recognizable G I don't know. Whatever.


And it's not like enthusiasts have helped. We proclaimed our love for the WRX, the GT-R, the Z06, the Z28, the GT350, the M3, the 911, the GTO. We may claim to not love alphanumeric names, that they have no emotion or nostalgia, but we sure are emotional and nostalgic for some alphanumeric designations.

I don't think enthusiasts care one iota about names. We might prefer GTO or Z28, but if the M3 had been called Turdwagen we'd still love it. Nobody shits on Lambo or Pagani because their names are completely incomprehensible. That said, enthusiasts totally get off on lingo, and abbreviations help. V8 means something to my sister, but LS7 means something to me... and it means just as much as Coyote, despite the latter sounding much, much cooler. I wouldn't kick either out of bed. ;)

[thesameguy]

WRX is not alphanumerical. :D

I think you will find that because it is derived from a set of letters and numbers, it is. :)

[CudaMan]

But you ARE in marketing, my good man :D
True, but I was thinking of more of a behind-the-scenes role in advertising or product planning as far as my cynicism is concerned. ;)


And it's not like enthusiasts have helped. We proclaimed our love for the WRX, the GT-R, the Z06, the Z28, the GT350, the M3, the 911, the GTO.
You mean the Impreza, the Skyline, the Corvette, the Camaro, the Mustang, and, well, the others on your list are valid. ;) Trim levels are one thing where alphanumeric characters may make more sense.

Model names, yeah they can make sense with the alphanumeric method. The key is to keep it simple and logical, OR to have it a distinct name unto itself rather than a nonsensical part of a corporate structure (MR2? It does actually mean something...). And it certainly helps if you've been doing the alphanumeric thing from the beginning, or a long enough time so that people don't get confused as much. BMW and Lexus have been pretty good at this (BMW's recent stray from logic notwithstanding). Acura, not so much. Infiniti's naming system now makes no sense whatsoever. It used to.

I'm thinking things like Integra and Miata. Names that had such a following, rolled off the tongue easily, and buoyed their respective brands... scrapped in the name of Corporate Identity. How does RSX or TLX or TSX tell the buyer anything? They have to learn to understand the code. It's just more unnecessary work for the consumer.

[thesameguy]

Yeah, I think whoever is perpetrating "you must use designations" is off their rocker. There are so many that they are meaningless. I have seriously had people tell me they are getting "the new Mercedes 325" or ask "what is the difference between an G37 and GS350 is if they are both the BMW versions." These things made sense in the '70s when a full line meant three cars and five engines, but they have no place today. Even computer manufacturers have struggled to use proper names knowing that "386" never meant anything to consumers. *I* don't care either way because I pay attention, but if these guys think this strategy resonates with their core audience, they're delusional.

[Yw-slayer]

I think you will find that because it is derived from a set of letters and numbers, it is. :)

I'm not sure it is. My understanding was:

World
Rally
Xperimental/X (as a letter representing the mathematical function, sure, but it's still a letter)/X-wheel drive which stands for All-Wheel-Drive

[thesameguy]

Alphanumeric is a combination of letters and numbers derived from the Latin alphabet and the Arabic number set. It doesn't have to contain all, so long as it contains nothing else. An alphanumeric password for example could be "password" or "123456." WRX may not refer to something describable as alphanumeric, but in and of itself, it is. Nyah.

Although in some circles even /X would be considered alphanumeric since it can be typed directly on an English keyboard. Microsoft and Apple would both consider it as such.

[TheBenior]

I'm thinking things like Integra and Miata. Names that had such a following, rolled off the tongue easily, and buoyed their respective brands... scrapped in the name of Corporate Identity. How does RSX or TLX or TSX tell the buyer anything? They have to learn to understand the code. It's just more unnecessary work for the consumer.
In the case of the Miata, it was only ever the Miata in the US, AFIAK. Variations of MX-(x) have been used since 1987, and numeric and alphanumeric designations for export markets go back to the late 60s and early 70s, respectively.

[thesameguy]

...but it was the Eunos Roadster elsewhere....

[TheBenior]

...but it was the Eunos Roadster elsewhere....

Only in Japan, where they dropped the 'Eunos' bit for the NC.

[Yw-slayer]

Alphanumeric is a combination of letters and numbers derived from the Latin alphabet and the Arabic number set. It doesn't have to contain all, so long as it contains nothing else. An alphanumeric password for example could be "password" or "123456." WRX may not refer to something describable as alphanumeric, but in and of itself, it is. Nyah.

Although in some circles even /X would be considered alphanumeric since it can be typed directly on an English keyboard. Microsoft and Apple would both consider it as such.

My Concise OED defines the adjective "alphanumeric" as "consisting of or using BOTH (my emphasis) letters and numbers." So I disagree.

Moreover, if you are right, then EVERY CAR on the market would have an alphanumeric name/designation. Even something like "Corvette" would be alphanumeric!

[IMOA]

...but it was the Eunos Roadster elsewhere....

MX-5 pretty much all over the world

[thesameguy]

My Concise OED defines the adjective "alphanumeric" as "consisting of or using BOTH (my emphasis) letters and numbers." So I disagree.

I understand how it could be defined that way, but it's incorrect. Alphanumeric is the set of characters (letters and numbers), what is derived from them doesn't change the set. While you could call any English word "alphanumeric," that is a) imprecise since no English word includes numbers and b) pointless since by definition all words consist of letters. But, whatever you wanna do is cool with me. :)

[MR2 Fan]

WRX, like mentioned it's a model of the Impreza.

And it's not like all of Subaru's model lineup consists of:

WRX
WRY
WRZ
WRJ
WRU
WRT

etc.

[Kchrpm]

Yes, it's a model of the Impreza, but people just get excited about the WRX part, or the STi part, and simply refer to it as that. People were so excited about the Skyline GT-R, that they just dropped the Skyline part and simply call it the GT-R. Did it lose its name cache? Do enthusiasts no longer care about it? Did the people that want to call it by a name just give it a nickname that they can use to identify themselves as true enthusiasts, without some company's marketing/legal folks having to clear it and make sure it worked internationally?

People say Honda/Acura had great word names that really resonate, but almost every enthusiast's favorites from that brand are the NSX and the S2000.

I'm not saying word names are bad, I'm just saying I think the terribad-ness of alphanumeric names is exaggerated.

Aside: Ferrari just goes crazy with this argument. They're now using alphanumeric model names, with trim levels distinguished by a word, except for one car with a word name that is incredibly silly, and the other that is just pandering to its intended market (I wonder where most owners of the Ferrari California live, or want to live).

[Freude am Fahren]

It's not a model of the Impreza anymore, it is it's own car now.

And an alphanumeric name is at least generally, though maybe not by definition, used for any grouping of letters OR numbers that don't form an actual word. If you say "SEE-OH-ARE-VEE-EE-TEE-TEE-EE", then you can call Corvette an alphanumeric name.

[Kchrpm]

You spelled it wrong.

[21Kid]

:lol: You guys crack me up.

[thesameguy]

All win.

[Godson]

Seriously, we are discussing alphanumerics now?

[thesameguy]

Who is? You?

[Freude am Fahren]

:lol: shutup

[samoht]

In the old days, there were 'marque' brands, and 'model' brands. Saying 'I drive a Cadillac' or 'I drive a Porsche' or 'I drive a Mercedes' was enough - these were 'marque' brands. However, I don't think many Corvette owners say 'I drive a Chevrolet' - in this case the model is the brand.

Since the model wasn't important for the marque brands, it could be simply represented by a non-word; whereas the model brands needed pronouncible names that could be widely recognised.

The trick is, the marque brands only made 'special' cars, whereas the companies behind the 'model' brands made a full range of economy, family, sports and/or luxury cars.

Then two things happened; the 'marque' brands thought 'we could make so much more money selling ordinary cars with the profit margins our badge brings' - hence the Porsche Cayenne, aka VW Touareg. Simultaneously the 'model' brands thought 'if we can get people to just talk about our marque name, then all our models would be as popular as those with long-established and recognised names'; hence they replaced model names with non-word codenames, to try and get people to focus on the marque name.

Both strategies are mistaken, because they overlook that being a 'marque' brand only works because you only make a limited range of cars of similar types, and being a full-range company only works because you nurture individual models with good name recognition. You can't truly do both.

The only difference is that watering down what a marque means works for a while, as the damage takes time to be done, whereas trying to make a 'general purpose' company brand fails immediately.

[Kchrpm]

Yes. All those things. :up:

[Yw-slayer]

I understand how it could be defined that way, but it's incorrect. Alphanumeric is the set of characters (letters and numbers), what is derived from them doesn't change the set. While you could call any English word "alphanumeric," that is a) imprecise since no English word includes numbers and b) pointless since by definition all words consist of letters. But, whatever you wanna do is cool with me. :)

I hope you won't mind if I stick with the OED over your understanding. kthxbai :finger:

[IMOA]

Both strategies are mistaken, because they overlook that being a 'marque' brand only works because you only make a limited range of cars of similar types, and being a full-range company only works because you nurture individual models with good name recognition. You can't truly do both.

The only difference is that watering down what a marque means works for a while, as the damage takes time to be done, whereas trying to make a 'general purpose' company brand fails immediately.

How much profit did Porsche make last year with their mistaken strategy compared to, say, the whole decade of the 80's?

[Kchrpm]

How much profit did Porsche make last year with their mistaken strategy compared to, say, the whole decade of the 80's?

Very good point. Same is true of BMW.

[thesameguy]

Well, if the theory holds then the damage isn't short term, it's long term. Maybe Porsche or BMW are raking it in now. But will they forever? With plebian cars getting better every day and crowding the luxo brands from the bottom, how long is it before someone chooses a Focus over a 3er or a Mustang over a Porsche? Then what? Then BMW and Porsche are competing directly with Ford et al but charging 2x. They aren't a "marque brand" anymore, the secret sauce of a few cars for a few exclusive buyers is gone. Brand dilution *is* a thing and there are hundreds or thousands of examples of it in every corner of every market. It virtually never works out... sometimes, but not frequently. Short term it seems great - greater volume equals more profits - but over time the notion that luxo brand is competing against plebian brand sinks in, and luxo brands don't survive when they are perceived to be competing rather than being so good they don't need to.

It's funny because 30 years ago Mercedes was THE brand, and there was no confusion about it. But Mercedes pushed downmarket and BMW pushed upmarket and now they are direct competitors. It happened again 20 years ago with Audi. The idea that these guys are safe charging high prices for their brand just because while they demonstrate direct competition with Ford et al is insane. Ford is gunning for them, and it's a lot easier to make your product better than it is to trim your product back - the former is an improvement, the latter is cost-cutting. Nobody likes cost cutting.

Porsche may be raking it in now, but every historical example of their strategy in this industry ends with failure and an acquisition.

[IMOA]

mercedes and BMW have always been direct competitors, their models have lined up pretty much forever.

And I don't think people understand Porsches strategy. They sell the Macans and cayennes to generate the cash to build the GT's and the 918's which gives them the marque brand identity to sell the Macans and cayennes. if Porsche was diluting the brand the values of its older cars wouldn't be exploding and there wouldn't be queues of people regularly trying to pay 20% over MSRP to get their latest. Cayenne has been on sale for near 15 years, when does the dilution start?

[thesameguy]

Edit: Nevermind. I'm not going to argue with you about this. You believe whatever you want to believe.

[Dicknose]

Porsche has only done a small dilution. It's not like they are making econoboxes or family sedans.
Even as SUV go they are in a small part of the market, luxury sports SUV. They aren't computer with a RAV4.

It probably has hurt the brands prestige, saying "I drive a porsche" and it's a Macan is not the same as it being a 911 to most car enthusiasts. Importantly they haven't tried to bring the sport car range down to meet cheaper parts of the market. They aren't competing with the mx5 and 86.

Will adding SUVs hurt in the long run, time will tell. But they haven't gone anywhere near being a "full range" lineup.

[MR2 Fan]

Porsche has only done a small dilution. It's not like they are making econoboxes or family sedans.
Even as SUV go they are in a small part of the market, luxury sports SUV. They aren't computer with a RAV4.

I thought the Panamera counted as a family sedan

[samoht]

I admit that it hasn't happened yet with Porsche, so we are both making predictions - which is notoriously difficult, especially about the future ;)

I'm thinking of things like this:

ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/cadillac-seville/

"Cadillac’s all-guns-blazing sales push was bringing record business, but it also represented a sort of liquidation sale of the brand’s former prestige while eroding Cadillac’s traditional quality control."

and also the Maserati Biturbo, where Maserati pretty much had to wait until the last Biturbo had rusted away, blown up or gone through a hedge backwards before they could re-launch the brand.


The Cayenne has been around a while, but I think it's the Macan that really brings Porsche to the mass market - the Cayenne was still a big, heavy, expensive car to buy and run, and never sold in huge volumes. The Macan is much more targeting what seems to count as a normal family car nowadays. So I think that will be the real test.

[Godson]

The macan is the second least expensive vehicle in Porsche's lineup. 'Behind' the Cayman.


At 54,400 entry price, people aren't cross shopping them with an Expedition, Suburban. Even though those vehicles are close in prices when fully optioned, the vehicles are COMPLETELY different. They *might* cross shop them with the new Cadillac XT5, but there is still a 9k $ difference in base price.

Porsche is going after high level sales from MB, BMW, and Audi.

Truth be told. I honestly don't feel they are diluting the brand. In fact, I have continually been eyeing the Cayenne.

I'd be really happy with a Macan if they weren't so damned expensive.

[IMOA]

I guess my point is how does this dilution manifest itself. Porsche have record sales, the biggest margins of any manufacturer, used cars appreciating in value and demand that has people paying well over the retail price for some models. To me all those things suggest no dilution of the brand and they have been selling SUV's for near 15 years.

So, can someone provide a metric or something that we could look for that suggests dilution? Just something so the whole argument is a bit more than 'because I said so'.

[Yw-slayer]

Enthusiast belief, probably which does not necessarily represent the belief of most consumers.

[thesameguy]

So, can someone provide a metric or something that we could look for that suggests dilution? Just something so the whole argument is a bit more than 'because I said so'.

You couldn't look for a better example than Cadillac - a 20 year death spiral beginning with "What if we had a cheaper car to sell" in the late '60s. Some would also say the same about Mercedes and the W201. If they hadn't sucked the cash out of Chrysler, who knows where they'd be today?

[IMOA]

Enthusiast belief, probably which does not necessarily represent the belief of most consumers.

Is that why values of older enthusiast cars have exploded and enthusiasts are paying over the odds for new releases. Can someone tell we what a drop in enthusiast belief looks like because right now it seems to me that it's never been so good.


You couldn't look for a better example than Cadillac - a 20 year death spiral beginning with "What if we had a cheaper car to sell" in the late '60s. Some would also say the same about Mercedes and the W201. If they hadn't sucked the cash out of Chrysler, who knows where they'd be today?

So what similarities are you seeing in Porsche atm? During Cadillacs death spiral were they making record sales with record profitability?

We're 15 years in to selling SUVs, someone give me something which indicates the brand is being diluted. Something more than 'because I said so'.

[thesameguy]

What would you consider to be evidence that the brand diluted? Selling cheaper cars obviously isn't evidence to you. Crap resale value on all but one model over the last thirty years isn't it. Following a path similar to other brands that developed significant financial difficulties isn't it. What would you deem to be an indicator of a diluted brand?

[IMOA]

356, 912, 914, 924, 944, 968 - all cheaper Porsches before the Boxster came along. In fact, there's only really a very small window of time in the mid 90's when Porsche didn't have a cheaper model. The cheaper models also form a very important component of the overall Porsche marketing strategy, their job is to be the bottom rung of the best defined model ladder there is to get people into the brand and moving up that ladder and they have been very very successful at this job.That bottom rung is hardly cheap either, it's about double the bottom rung for brands like BMW and Mercedes. But ultimately the Boxster is starting to get close to 20 years old and Porsche have increased sales and profitability many times over since they started selling it, if that's diluting the brand I'd say there isn't a brand out there who doesn't want that dilution.

Crap resale value compared to what? In the markets I see the resale value on Porsches is about in line with other luxury enthusiast vehicles, I'm looking at stuff like M3's, AMG's etc and better than the run of the mill luxury stuff. Can you give an example of a model which has crap resale value and explain what you're comparing that to.

I think the indicators of a diluted brand would be falling sales and in particular falling profitability on vehicles as the company starts selling based on price rather than value/desirability. I think things like putting the brand name on crappy products in an effort to cash in would be and indicator, I do not see that happening at Porsche, their entire model lineup is very highly regarded atm and even their lifestyle stuff they stick a logo on is frighten awesome (if you want the last umbrella you'll ever buy get a Porsche one, seriously, it's fucking brilliant).

But I'm not the one arguing the point, you are, that's why you need to come up with some reasoning and some evidence. That's how discussions work otherwise they are the equivalent of two 5 year olds with fingers in their ears shouting 'la la la I'm right and you're wrong'. Just saying that Porsche is following the same strategy as Cadillac and that's why they're being diluted without actually explaining what it is about the strategy that is the same is a 5 year old argument. I'm happy to agree to disagree with people but it's nice to agree to disagree about an actual point of view, not just a random unsubstantiated thought.

[Yw-slayer]

Dilution of the product line doesn't mean that the core offerings or older cars are worse or less desirable. Perhaps dilution is the wrong word for Porsche. Expansion might be better. Actually I meant "enthusiasts" somewhat jokingly as everyone probably considers themself an enthusiast to some extent.

[IMOA]

Sure, but can you just explain how the brand is currently being diluted in a way that wasn't occurring when they were selling the 924 and its derivatives.

[thesameguy]

I can't even. Good luck and Godspeed.

[Yw-slayer]

I'm not sure I can (I'm not even sure I'm even taking part in the discussion :lol:), since I never really fully "got" the brand when I was young, don't even remember the 924 etc., and have a rather confused impression of it overall. Yes, they produce some great cars such as the GT3, GT4, Turbo, etc. but everytime I see a Macan, Cayenne, or Panamera (with less than 20" wheels) on the road it's horrible. Ugly, largely badge engineered SUVs don't really speak to me, even though I know why people buy them and how they financially support the "making great sports cars" argument.

I do respect their core engineering expertise and I have had a good experience with some of their lifestyle products if you include Porsche Design (2 of my most expensive watches, 1 of them is my main watch, and I've used PD wallets for several years). PD has been a bit odd recently due to, uh, a different market focus, at least the stuff is far better than that of Ferrari etc. and I suspect the "main" Porsche lifestyle stuff is relatively well-engineered and designed rather than just pure branded tat. I use the PD stuff as it's quite understated, looks good to me, and fits my needs.

Put another way, my impression of it is positive from people like you and other enthusiasts who I know and respect talking about how great it is, how awesome the "core" offerings are, and the fact that they usually win EvoCOTY. Yet my enthusiasm for it is dampened by these relative abominations (good as they are at what they do) the fact that most of my banker friends only know how to talk about the 911 being "the only real Porsche", the relatively large number of automatic 911s in town inexpertly driven around town by bankers and expat housewives (the latter also love 3-series convertibles), and the fact that they usually win EvoCOTY. :lol:

Lower-end Cayenne residuals haven't held up really well over here, or at least not THAT much better than say Touareg residuals. However, I think that's another discussion/game altogether.

[TheBenior]

Now I just remembered that the first gen Cayenne Turbo had the worst depreciation rate of any US vehicle for a while.

Being the most expensive SUV (though not necessarily the quickest, the SRT Jeep Grand Cherokee held that crown for a bit) while only beating the Range Rover reliability probably didn't help that.

I'm not sure if 911 residuals are any worse than something like an M3 or M6, but given how much Porsche charges for options (I read in C&D that the average 911 goes for $53k above the theoretical $83k base price), I wouldn't be surprised if they are worse. In the US market with cars in general, few pricey options (say, AWD in the snow belt) hold value as well as the base price of the vehicle.

[Yw-slayer]

Over here, I think 911 residuals are pretty stable compared to those of the M6 (which save for the first-gen and current-gen models has been rather sub-par, at best). But I think that's because there is always someone who wants to buy a 911 because it's a 911.

[IMOA]

I think argument that SUV's are diluting the brand has a lot better legs than cheaper cars diluting the brand because the cheaper cars have always been there (I was a bit suprised when that was put out there). Thing is 15 years ago I would have agreed with you, in fact I really did think it would, however the brand simply doesn't show any sign be being diluted and we're pretty much 15 years on now.

I think this is down to a few things. The first is that SUV's aren't practical vehicles any more, they're aspirational vehicles. If you talk to the average middle age bloke these days they aspire to drive a kick arse SUV rather than a kick arse sports car so Porsche making some really top end SUV's simply widens the brand appeal, not cheapens it. I don't think that this is dilution as what is important is that it's a high end, ultra well engineered product, being a sports car isn't a pre requisite. If they were to build a cheaper sports car, say 370ish price, I think that would dilute the brand because it's bringing the whole thing down market.

The other side is what it gives them the ability to do and thats make some very very special limited edition/motorsport models. They didn't have the money to invest in the engineering capacity to do these before, now the cash is flowing and their pumping back into their and their standard products (to be honest, they were a bit shit in the 80's/90's), their special products (GT2/3/4/RS/RS4.0 etc) and their racing programme - would they have the money for WEC and winning Le Mans again without the profits these cars make.

Ultimately that stuff is all subjective though and if someone has a much more sports car orientation (like me for instance) the impression that they are diluting can stiuck. The thing that sways me is they've been selling SUV's for 15 years, have record sales and the biggest margins i the industry and these numbers have been improving over the last 15 years. Kind of hard to argue they're diluting the brand when this is happeneing 15 years after the so called dilution began.

Benoir - those numbers are wrong, configure a base 911 and you'll se that. The only way you could get to an average 53k over is if you included the price difference to say an S/GTS/Turbo in the 53k. To give an example for the GT4 where a lot of people spec carbon buckets, ceramic brakes and other expensive options for the US it was 85k and the average price paid was 99k so 14k over. The most expensive GT4 in the US was 126k so only 40k over. There is no way the average base 911 is 53k in options even in the US where they have a low base spec and more options than most countries.

[Kchrpm]

Benoir - those numbers are wrong, configure a base 911 and you'll se that. The only way you could get to an average 53k over is if you included the price difference to say an S/GTS/Turbo in the 53k.
That's my guess as well, they're including every trim level of 911 as an option on the base model.

[TheBenior]

Benoir - those numbers are wrong, configure a base 911 and you'll se that. The only way you could get to an average 53k over is if you included the price difference to say an S/GTS/Turbo in the 53k. To give an example for the GT4 where a lot of people spec carbon buckets, ceramic brakes and other expensive options for the US it was 85k and the average price paid was 99k so 14k over. The most expensive GT4 in the US was 126k so only 40k over. There is no way the average base 911 is 53k in options even in the US where they have a low base spec and more options than most countries.
I never said that it was an average of $53k in options, I said it was $53k over the base 911.

Whether options or higher trim levels, the higher one departs from the base price of a vehicle, the worse residual rates tend to be (see first gen Cayenne Turbo, AMG MBs, etc). This may not be true if there's plausible collector interest and relatively limited production. I wouldn't be surprised to see a $200k GT3 RS hold its value fairly well, but I doubt that that will be true for a Turbo S optioned up to $200k, or a $150k GTS.

[IMOA]

Speaking as someone who works in the industry and in this specific area of the industry your definition of base price and residual value is wrong. Not 'I think', or 'maybe have you considered', you are wrong. The base price for a 911 Carrera and a 911 Carrera S and a 911 Turbo etc are all different and the residual value as calculated off those, you do not calculate residuals off the lowest model. And think about it, if the residual value of a 911 Turbo was calculated off the base price of a 911 Carrera it would Be easily the best performing car on the market with a residual value up around 200%.

[thesameguy]

That is not what he is suggesting. Read what he's actually written.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Anyway, Toyota totally diluted the Scion brand!