Re: Why Compact Cars Identical?
My own guess is that the economy cars look alike because of technology. I moved to Ireland in 1992, before the economy boomed, and there was (to me anyway) a startling homogeneity among the mostly small, cheap cars. All small and boxy. In the last decade, the Irish economy has boomed, hugely, and there are many more bigger, more expensive cars on the market, and there are bigger differences among them. They are all, however, less boxy, even the traditionally boxy Mercedes and Volvos. Bill Sjostrom
Re: Why Compact Cars Identical?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My own guess is that the economy cars look alike because of technology. I asked a former GM engineer with 40 years at the company if there was any engineering reason why all compact cars look the same, even between manufacturers. He couldn't think of any. Granted he built cars rather than designed them, but that is some evidence to suspect non-technology reasons. Maybe they look the same because we don't pay much attention to them. Kind of like if you grew up in Northern Michigan you'll probably have trouble telling a person of Chinese vs. Thaiwanese vs. Japanese descent, while you can separate English from French from Italian, let's say. It's not that some people all look the same, rather it's one's lack of exposure to that group. (Almost) similarly, we don't pay much attention to compact cars--on the road all we really look at are brake lights and blinkers; however, 'nicer' cars do get our attention and so we are more attuned to thier differnces. Evidence for this might be the gentleman who posted that he does see very distinct differences between compact cars. Perhaps he just pays closer attention to them. Hopefully helpful, jsh = ...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation to another merely because that other has done him no wrong. -Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16. __ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com
Re: Why Compact Cars Identical?
Fabio wrote: 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. That makes sense for the cars all made by the same company, or which share subcontractors. But Toyota, Honda, Subaru, and Ford all make cars with virtually the same shape and layout. Another note: isn't square and boxy a simple way to maximize space inside the car? OK, but wouldn't this have always been true? Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Why Compact Cars Identical?
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, fabio guillermo rojas wrote: 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. That doesn't explain homogeneity ACROSS makes of cars though. Chevys don't look all that different from Fords these days; in the 50s, they were quite different.
Re: Why Compact Cars Identical?
When I read this I thought that it must be wrong, since it is well known that a sphere maximizes volume/area. However, if cars traveled through tubes, this would be relevant. Cars, though, travel on planar roads so that a square cross section does maximize interior space. Longitudinal curviness, though, will give more space, which may be one reason, besides aerodynamic considerations, that windshields and rear windows aren't usually boxy. All in all, I think boxiness has more to do with inexpensive manufacturing techniques (extrusions) than anything else. To the original point of compact cars being alike, my only thoughts are that there is less money in the budget for style and less incentive to take a risk on unproven stylistic features. Another note: isn't square and boxy a simple way to maximize space inside the car? Fabio -- John A. Viator, Ph.D. Beckman Laser Institute 1002 Health Sciences Road East University of California Irvine, CA 92612 (949)824-3754 (949)824-6969 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why Compact Cars Identical?
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
Re: Why Compact Cars Identical?
That makes sense for the cars all made by the same company, or which share subcontractors. But Toyota, Honda, Subaru, and Ford all make cars with virtually the same shape and layout. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Among management theory/organizational sociology types it's commonly believed that firms just copy each other once someone has innovated a solution to a problem (making cheap cars for the masses). It has to do with management fads. Why bother to come up with a totally different approach to small cheap cars when you can copy the competition and compete on labor costs and marketing, which are easier than coming up with new ideas? Or to rephrase in economic terms, risk averse managers prefer copying a proven strategy (low risk/low payoff) than engaging in RD (high payoff/high risk). Fabio
Re: Why Compact Cars Identical?
In a message dated 8/12/02 4:18:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Or to rephrase in economic terms, risk averse managers prefer copying a proven strategy (low risk/low payoff) than engaging in RD (high payoff/high risk). Fabio That certainly looked true toward the end of the 1980s, when all the car companies were making cars with aero styling, which originated in Europe. The use of aero styling could also have something to do with a desire to reduce drag coefficients to increase fuel economy. The summer I sold cars (1997 at a Pontiac-Mazda-Jeep-Eagle dealer) one of the young salesman pointed out that Mazda still used the aero styling, while everyone else had abandoned it, giving the Mazadas a bit of an out-of-date look. David
Re: Why Compact Cars Identical?
Having just bought a new car, I disagree that compact cars look identical. The Honda Civic I settled on clearly looks like a Honda Civic, and the Ford Focus and Hyundai Elantra I didn't buy each had its own unmistakeable look. Even the new Toyota Corollas and Mazda Proteges I've seen on the road have looks distinctive enough that I can pick them out. - Joel
Re: Why Compact Cars Identical?
Or to rephrase in economic terms, risk averse managers prefer copying a proven strategy (low risk/low payoff) than engaging in RD (high payoff/high risk). reduce drag coefficients to increase fuel economy. The summer I sold cars (1997 at a Pontiac-Mazda-Jeep-Eagle dealer) one of the young salesman pointed out that Mazda still used the aero styling, while everyone else had abandoned it, giving the Mazadas a bit of an out-of-date look. David Let me add that some have speculated that industries are chasing moving targets. Fads get set in motion, and firms play catch up until the next fad comes along. Easier than being original and persuading customers about your product. Fabio
