A Metaphor For The Modern Motor Industry
[Chris Harris on why every car brand is obsessed with building every kind of car](http://jalopnik.com/why-every-car-brand-is-obsessed-with-building-every-kin-1688464984):
>Every CFO on the planet will now laugh at my naiveté, but would it really be impossible for a company like BMW to make 500,000 cars a year, cars it wanted to produce and which squared with the brand image it has carefully cultivated for decades, and still make good money? I can’t see why it would be impossible.
Interesting opinion but we already know the answer; automakers just have to.
<p>Stand alone car companies have to be like Spyker or Zonda (small volume, very, very high price) or very large to make a go of it. The unknown area is can some sub-brands exist as a wart on a larger corporation that allows the delivery of relatively small volume production to be profitable when it’s considered more like an extra model than a full, stand alone brand. The ULK platform is a perfect example of how this can be done.</p>
<p>But history is not kind to the long term prospects of sub brands. If one goes the way of “badge engineering” that consumed the GM of the 80s, brand identity erodes even while one division lives off of sales stolen from other divisions. If one goes “full independant” like Saturn (or Ford with Jag/Land Rover), then the economies of scale aren’t fully realized and it’s hard to make a go of the different cultures and markets.</p>
<p>Really, For BMW, the problem is more about target volumes and brand identity. Let’s face it, BMW will NEVER, EVER, EVER hit the huge sales volume goals with delivering various 2- and 4-door drivier-focused sport sedans. Hence the every version of every model sold in some mix per market, there will always be a BMW for a buyer no matter the local automotive preferences, but this means we’ll have M versions of the X5 and X6, and they will sell and the engineering will make them perform very well, but they are very, very far from the spirit of the 2002.</p>
<p>For MINI, they are even more cursed. With lower selling prices and lower margins, there is less bloat to carry non-performing models (kiss the twins goodbye!), and there is just less volume overall. So if MINI is to make it, they’ll have to share platforms with the small BMWs (ULK here we come, or here we are, I should say…), and design excersizes will have to be buildable in a way that is like the Twins were: Not a new vision like the Superleggara (sorry if I butchered the spelling), but a quick and dirty variation on an existing theme.</p>
<p>This also leaves the MINI CitiCar in somewhat of a tough position: No BMW platform to use, and a bad taste from the lack of control from partnerships (last two engine platforms). We’ll see what all the current collaborative noises come to, if anything.</p>
<p>For MINI to grow, they have to work on variation of the original 3 door (so the hatch, the Clubman and the 5 door) and the Countryman. Anything else gets tough. Based on the 2 series minivan (sorry, 7 passenger 2 series should be an oxymoron BY DEFINITION), I sure hope MINI doesn’t go that way. But that limits the MINI sandbox in ways that make a profitable future a very, very challenging proposition.</p>
<p>I agree with you, except for your reservations about the MINI Van (Traveller). I have always been enthusiastic about the F58 Traveller, which is based upon the BMW 2-series Active Tourer (not the 7-seat Gran Tourer) but the MINI is smaller thanks to its shrink-wrapped bodywork. A lot of development work had been done on F58, before it was shelved by MINI’s new chief. Peter Schwarzenbauer. Reliable sources vow that it is a “Good-looking thing”, and my gut feeling is that it would be another big seller like the Countryman, appealing to yet another new group of buyers who would otherwise never consider a MINI. Recent sources have said that should the Minor fail to make a business case, the Traveller will be revived.</p>