In a message dated 8/12/02 2:42:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
Wouldn't it be easier to produce cheap cars if all models were similar
to each other? Ie, you wouldn't need to retool for every model - just
make some cosmetic changes and keep the cost low? I think that was the
idea behind the Ford Escort first, then other cars like the Hyndais
and Kia. These were all small, boxy cars designed to be cheap and amenable
to cosmetic changes.
Another note: isn't square and boxy a simple way to maximize space
inside the car?
Fabio >>
It might be cheaper if Ford and Lincoln/Mercury both made small boxy cars
with identical frames since Ford owns both lines and makes them on the same
assembly lines, thus getting some cost reduction through economies of scale.
But why it would be cheaper for Hyundai to make small boxy cars just because
Ford is making them?
It seems more likely that what we think of as "compact cars" all seem small
and boxy because they're designed for the low end of the market, so they
don't get much spent on their physical beauty. People looking for "compact
cars" generally can less afford to spend less on the physical attractiveness
of a car, and the car companies can offer such cars at lower prices by
avoiding the expense of pricey Italian designers.
Of course not all compact cars are boxy. There's a type--two really--of
compact car that's usually the sleekest, sportiest vehicle on the road: the
sports car--and the muscle car. Look at a Mustang, a Camero, a Firebird
(which shares everything but the front and rear moldings with the Camero) or
an Eclipse. These cars are small, generally about the same size as a
"compact" car. The car companies spend millions of dollars paying designers
to make these cars pretty. And you can buy muscled-down versions of them
all; base models start out with anywhere from 80-120 fewer horsepower, and
you're left with a very pretty compact car. Of course the Mustang, Camero
and Firebird all have decades of mystique pushing up their prices; less so
the Eclipse, which, after Mitsubishi's conversion from V-4 turbocharger
technology to the V-6 really doesn't compete with the other three any longer,
but for which they are nonetheless attempting through a vigorous ad campaign
("Are You In?") to create substantial cachet (if not mystique).
It's been five years since the summer I sold Pontiacs, but at the time
Pontiac had a sporty combat, the Grand Am, and an even sportier subcompact,
the Sunbird (or maybe it was the Sunfire, I forget). The Sunbird was
identical in most ways to the Chevy Cavalier, but the differences--primarily
the front and rear moldings again--almost completely changed the target
market. People bought the Cavalier as a cheap subcompact, but they bought
the Sunfire as a cheap sports (or at least sporty) car.
Incidentally, GM did not start to use common frames and interiors for its
different division in order to obtain economies of scale. During the 1960s,
the Kennedy and then Johnson administrations threatened antitrust proceedings
against GM because it "controlled" more than 50% of the US auto market. (In
other words, more than half of American buyers preferred buying GM products
for a period of years.) To forestall a break up, GM started integrating its
divisions so that any breakup would be costly and messy, destroying jobs and
so forth, thus building an anti-antitrust coalition.
Sincerely,
David Levenstam
