No help or wrong help for Detroit?

"Ed Pirrero" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> SoCalMike wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > So, the exercise is this: what if car makers tried a similar thing
>> > today? A relatively stripped model where you could add as an option
>> > the Performance Group, in which you get engine, suspension, brake and
>> > some sporty interior stuff but were able to give the heave-ho to crap
>> > you may not want. Like power, leather seats, power windows, A/C, heck,
>> > even radio/sound system. Wouldn't the younger buyers go fo that kind
>> > of deal? Seems like Subaru is going that way with their WRX line, sort
>> > of.
>>
>> saturn redline, dodge neon R/T, ford focus SVT, chevy cobalt SS?
>>
>> you meen *those* kinda cars?
>
> No, I do not. Those lines might be "entry level" for those particular
> divisions/makers, but those *models* have the most standard features of
> the line. The most decked out.
>
> I'm talking about *base* level cars of any particular line, with a line
> item option called "performance group", where the car gets the hot
> engine, the manual tranny, better suspension and the better brakes, on
> the bottom-of-the-line car, such that the price comes out lower to mid
> range of the line.
>
> E.P.
>

The problem with "performance group" packages with deleted content is that
the market for them is very small. Although enthusiast magazines and
performance enthusiasts speak very highly of such setups, not enough people
purchase them to make them commercially viable, especially for a model where
demand for "normal packages" is equal to or greater than the automaker's
production capacity for that model or the manufacturer's profit is greater
for a "normal" package.

I believe Porsche offered a package like Ed Pirrero is describing, and it
sounds like the Police Interceptor packages on the Ford Crown Victoria and
the police version of the Chevy Impala seem to fit Ed's description.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> SoCalMike wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>> So, the exercise is this: what if car makers tried a similar thing
>>> today? A relatively stripped model where you could add as an option
>>> the Performance Group, in which you get engine, suspension, brake and
>>> some sporty interior stuff but were able to give the heave-ho to crap
>>> you may not want. Like power, leather seats, power windows, A/C, heck,
>>> even radio/sound system. Wouldn't the younger buyers go fo that kind
>>> of deal? Seems like Subaru is going that way with their WRX line, sort
>>> of.
>> saturn redline, dodge neon R/T, ford focus SVT, chevy cobalt SS?
>>
>> you meen *those* kinda cars?
>
> No, I do not. Those lines might be "entry level" for those particular
> divisions/makers, but those *models* have the most standard features of
> the line. The most decked out.

like the WRX, basically. its ALL riced out.
>
> I'm talking about *base* level cars of any particular line, with a line
> item option called "performance group", where the car gets the hot
> engine, the manual tranny, better suspension and the better brakes, on
> the bottom-of-the-line car, such that the price comes out lower to mid
> range of the line.

that would involve a trip to the dealer, and seeing if you can just
order the "hot engine" as its own option.

automakers are under the impression that if you want a cheap, stripped
car (honda CX hatch, anyone?) you arent going to want to pay extra for a
top of the line engine.
>
> E.P.
>

In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:

> I know exactly what he's thinking of; say a modern equivalent of a Chevy
> II, Falcon, Valiant, Lark, etc. with a big V-8, 4-speed, heavy duty
> springs and shocks, and sway bars - and nothing else. Pretty much
> everyone offered same back in the day, why don't they now?

The last such car was probably the 1993 Ford Mustang LX 5.0L. Especially
in the notchback body style. Ford made a sort of effort at a similiar car
in '94 and/or '95. A few were made and it wasn't well known that it was
available.

Marketeers don't want to offer such cars, dealers generally don't stock
such cars. They are often 'found' by careful study of options sheets and
the like. The way options are now packaged instead of line-item is a huge
part of them not being around. Oh, you want the V8, well that comes with
heated leather seats...

On 6 Mar 2006 15:50:31 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" >
wrote:


>I'm talking about *base* level cars of any particular line, with a line
>item option called "performance group", where the car gets the hot
>engine, the manual tranny, better suspension and the better brakes, on
>the bottom-of-the-line car, such that the price comes out lower to mid
>range of the line.


The much maligned (in this thread) Chrysler already invented the Road
Runner, a great success, but its not 1968 anymore. (Thinking also
here that my youngest kid's first car has tilt, cruise, locks,
windows, left seat, and she's not likely to settle for less than these
"necessities" in her next car.)

edward ohare wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2006 15:50:31 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >I'm talking about *base* level cars of any particular line, with a line
> >item option called "performance group", where the car gets the hot
> >engine, the manual tranny, better suspension and the better brakes, on
> >the bottom-of-the-line car, such that the price comes out lower to mid
> >range of the line.
>
>
> The much maligned (in this thread) Chrysler already invented the Road
> Runner, a great success, but its not 1968 anymore.

No, but those were the days of yore for the domestics. I see a lot of
retro styling these days, but a little bit of retro equipment options
might stimulate interest in the domestics. After all, the imports
don't do this kind of thing at all, really.

E.P.

On 7 Mar 2006 15:01:29 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" >
wrote:


>No, but those were the days of yore for the domestics. I see a lot of
>retro styling these days, but a little bit of retro equipment options


Like.... crank windows and an 8 track? <G>


>might stimulate interest in the domestics. After all, the imports
>don't do this kind of thing at all, really.


Increasing fragmentation is already killing Detroit. What's needed
isn't another one off model that's a "great success" selling 30,000
units. What's needed is the equivalent of the 84 Caravan/Voyager that
will sell a million units a year for several years with minimal
changes.

In article >, edward ohare wrote:

> Increasing fragmentation is already killing Detroit. What's needed
> isn't another one off model that's a "great success" selling 30,000
> units. What's needed is the equivalent of the 84 Caravan/Voyager that
> will sell a million units a year for several years with minimal
> changes.

Too bad CAFE law all but prohibits it. (makes it costly) And yes, it is
retro, in respect of going back to the traditional product that made the
big three.

http://www.ford.com.au/range/falcon/models/
http://www.ford.com.au/range/fairlane/models/
http://www.ford.com.au/range/falconute/models/
http://www.holden.com.au/ (large, sport, luxury under new cars)

Ford and GM need to make something that is different that competitors
don't have, and that's traditional american cars as they should be for
the present day.

Yes the Monaro failed as the GTO. But it failed because they called it
the GTO, the lack of proper marketing, and the union issues. People today
expect 'The Judge' (
http://www.motorimania.it/manifestaz....Gto.Judge.jpg )
when they hear GTO rather than this: http://www.gtoaa.org/shows/rshow16.jpg
The Monaro fit the 1964 image of the GTO and thusly people didn't react
well to it. A failure of marketing not to know what image people had of
the GTO.

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:10:47 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:


>Ford and GM need to make something that is different that competitors
>don't have, and that's traditional american cars as they should be for
>the present day.


Yea, I noticed the Crown Victoria is setting sales records. <sarcasm>

In article >, edward ohare wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:10:47 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>>Ford and GM need to make something that is different that competitors
>>don't have, and that's traditional american cars as they should be for
>>the present day.
>
>
> Yea, I noticed the Crown Victoria is setting sales records. <sarcasm>

The crown vic does fit that profile. The crown vic is a continually
warmed over 1970s design.

Todays CV has nothing in common with older models except the name. The
state of the art engine is all new, the transmission is all new, the body is
all new and the chassis is all new. The only thing that has not changed is
it the best buy in the country bar none, it last forever, it seems. 500K
to 750K is common

mike hunt



"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, edward ohare
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:10:47 -0600,
>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ford and GM need to make something that is different that competitors
>>>don't have, and that's traditional american cars as they should be for
>>>the present day.
>>
>>
>> Yea, I noticed the Crown Victoria is setting sales records. <sarcasm>
>
> The crown vic does fit that profile. The crown vic is a continually
> warmed over 1970s design.
>
>