I can honestly say I would buy a 911 turbo over a Ford GT even though I know what a Ford GT can do. That is because a 911 offers the owner the experience of owning a Porsche. You assume that just because I would buy 911 turbo, the only thing I look for is speed. A brand promises a unique ownership "experience" and so the price premiums are there for certain makes and models. Why do Porsche owners opt for a 911 when a cheaper, faster, better Z06 is offered in a Corvette. Perhaps speed isn't the defining factor that persuades these enthusiasts to buy.

I would personally buy a $70k Infiniti that has the promise of excellent quality and great customer service over a $70k Nissan that just offers speed. Sure I could get to 0-60 in 0.2 seconds faster in the Nissan than a similarly priced Porsche but I would probably picked the Porsche just for the "experience" of owning that Porsche. My point is that branding does play a significant psychological role on a car buying decision and even though performance plays a certain part in buying a car, so do the other intangibles that come with the brand of the car.

 

Lincoln does not have any sporty cars in it's entire lineup. A Ford GT as a lincoln would be out of place. Especially since most people associate Lincoln with towncar, etc. Also, not every Ford GT ever made was sold. There was one at the portland auto show, that was awaiting an owner, for a low low price of 100k over MSRP.

Viper made sense to be a dodge, because the other sporty cars were also dodges, like the Stealth TT.

As for the prowler, I don't think it would've made a difference to chrysler what brand it was, as they are the worst at brand engineering. There is zero difference between the dodge neon and plymouth neon, other than the hood ornament. Besides, didn't the prowler flop? You have to have an appealing product first, before we discuss what brand it will go under. You can market a piece of crap any way you want, but at the end of the day, it's still a piece of crap.

Corvette always was a chevy. It has huge heritage. Besides, when the vette was introduced in 54' or so, it would've been seriously out of place, had it been a caddy. The current vette only costs more than a CTS. I tried shopping for a CTS earlier, but all the ones on the lot were 44k, so its not more expensive than a CTS by much.

The Supra also has Toyota heritage, and when the last gen came out, Lexus was still in it's infancy, having debuted just a few years earlier.

Besides, you betcha that Lexus got LOTS of flack with the previous gen SC. They did, because Toyota chose not to offer the TT straight 6 with manual tranny in the SC, even though it was offered on that car in Japan. Instead, they gave us a V8 with an automatic.

Skyline, while having Nissan heritage, was not always a Nissan. It used to be a Prince. It became a Nissan later on. So there is already precidence for changing the brand of the car. However, the thing with this, is that Nissan already markets it as an Infiniti here in the states. Why make the higher trim level a nissan? The Vette, Supra, etc, were always marketed in a single brand, for it's entire trim level spectrum. None of them have a few trim levels in one brand, and another trim level in another.

Not everyone may agree with it, but there is a term used to describe the process of undermining your investment in creating a seperate brand/image. It's called dilution.

KFC and Pizza hut are owned by the same company. But you think if they started selling chicken at pizza hut, and pizza at KFC, that it would not affect the image of the two chains? (I know, apples/oranges, but you get the idea, as nobody cared for my LV/DKNY example )

 

Dude.

Dude.



Step AWAY from the purses.

 

The Dodge Stealth is one of the most underrated and hated sports cars ever to be assembled. The following is rather small, all things considered. I'm not saying the TT model sucked, I'm just pointing out facts. It would have made sense from a marketing standpoint to keep the Viper out of the same "bloodline" as the Stealth.

Speaking of marketing, you've all already fallen for it. Nissan tosses out a few press releases and some magazines publish a few concept pics and it creates a buzz. Nobody knows the full story concerning the GT-R, yet they have everybody who's read up on it or heard about it making speculations and talking about it. They've done their job, and they will do so until the release. I said it before and I say it again- Nissan knows what they're doing, whatever their plans for the GT-R are. On top of that, you all are acting like they're trying to match the G35 or 350Z numbers for the GT-R. That's just unrealistic. Those who simply want the GT-R to fly Infiniti's flag rather than Nissan's, and who are therefore claiming a Nissan badge will kill this car, are simply being obtuse.

And people need to drop "Skyline" when discussing the GT-R. Nissan has said that the Skyline badge has been dropped- it's just GT-R for the next model.

 

Sorry mahn your wrong here, in America, its about V-8s in a Luxury car, it must at least be offered. The TT your taking about is a 2.5 liter, it would have never sold here.
The SC 300 got the 2JZ and now you have 600hp SC 300s if you want with no problem. The SC 400 has really no engine mods but fit its market perfectly.

And we cannot blame the failure of the sports cars of the 90s on brand. It was PRICE. THe Yen was at its worst to the dollar. And it made 300ZXs 45k and Supras 48k.

BTW, it needs to be a NISSAN GT-R, that is what the car is. At this rate, the Aston Martin DB-8, the new 997 911 GT2/GT3 and the new Jag XK8 will be out.

 

Personally, if I were looking at buying a car in this price, I'd hope it's an infiniti for one reason and one reason only. Longer warranty. If I were Nissan though, I'd sell it as a Nissan to save on the costs of providing the additional warranty. I'm sure I would have a hard time not playing with the turbos. Getting it out of warranty sooner could save potential future costs from warranty work. I think the car will sell itself regardless of the brand. Those that are buying into the heritage wil know it's still a Nissan. Those who simply like the car will likely still buy the car. Brand image is certainly a factor, but I think it will not be a huge factor. Those that care about image the most will be looking for cars that actually fit that image already. And even at that, there are plenty of image conscious people that will know the price of the car. Brand loyalties will not be easy to break, so I doubt there will be much effort to try and bring in the hardcore brand loyalists to the Nissan/Infiniti Camp.

 

You can't separate out the two. If it was a $48k Ferrari, it may have been a success I still believe that the price was too high for the brand of car. Remember, at the time, those cars were faster than most of the competition (Porsche, Vettes, etc...) so performance wasn't an issue. Of course the beginning of the SUV phase also contributed to the sports car demise in the 90s.

 

I disagree. It was not too high for the brand, its was too high for the car and what it offered.

Supras were NOT faster than most of the competition. They were competitive and comparable, but not better performers in any particular category. Remember, this is before the aftermarket really came alive for the Supra, and looking at it in its stock form, which was only 300hp out of a 3.0L 6 banger.

The Supra's competition included:

Corvette
Mazda RX-7 Turbo
Nissan 300ZX Turbo
Mitsubishi 3000 VR-4 / Dodge Stealth R/T

And to a lesser extent, the Dodge Viper and Corvette ZR-1, which were more expensive, but not that far out of range of a fully loaded MKIV Supra TT.

There were no Porsches competing with the MKIV Supra. The Boxster didn't exist yet, and the 911 was significantly more expensive.

With 300hp and 3,500 lbs., the Supra was among the heaviest and had one of the worst power to weight ratios among its competitors, except for the 3000 VR-4, while also being the most expensive.

By 1996, all Supra TT's came with an automatic only, and cost in the high $40k range, still the most expensive among its competitors. At the same time, Corvette came out with an optional LT-4 engine with 330hp, which of course could still be had with your choice of a manual or auto. The Corvette LT-4 was lighter, faster, and cost much less than a Supra TT. Styling of course is subjective, but more people at the time preferred the styling of the Corvette over the Supra.

The simple fact of the matter is, in the last 3-4 years of its sales in the U.S., the Supra had less to offer, yet cost more than its competition. That is what did it in. Then when the C5 Corvette came out in 1997 with even more performance, and a still lower price than the Supra TT, it was all over, and Toyota pulled the plug on the car in 1998.

True. But in market conditions such as that, only the strongest players survive, and weaker players are immediately flushed out. It's pretty clear where the Supra fell.

 

The Supras did the 60 in 4.6 seconds. This is before the c5 vette and already had a performance reputation at the time. BTW, the Supra was underrated at 300hp. I believe in Japan, it was 280hp due to that silly hp agreement. It was more like 320hp.

The 300zx was easy to modify too and had a large enthusiast following. You are completely right in that it priced itself out of the market. I agree but IMO, the price factor is always related to the make. I personally am very excited to see the new GTR but hope it will come out as an Infiniti. Nissan's reputation in NA is sketchy and I believe will hurt the sales of the supercar. I don't want it competing with the Vette on a purely performance basis as that can be a daunting proposition.

 

You happen to be quoting the fastest 0-60 time EVER recorded for a stock Supra, which was by Car & Driver in 1993 (with a manual tranny). Every other road test done on the car resulted in average 0-60 times in the 4.9 to 5.2 second range, and the automatics were of course on the slower side of the range. So to say the Supra did 0-60 in 4.6 seconds on average consistently, isn't true.

Their 1/4 mile times were consistently in the low to mid 13 second range, at about 109 mph, which was almost identical to the C4 Corvette, with the LT-4's consistently ticking off 4.7 second 0-60 times. The base '97 C5 Corvette wasn't much faster (if at all) than the LT-4 powered C4, but its was a much better handler than the C4 and the Supra.

True, but not significantly. Most stock TT Supras dyno'd at 265 rwhp, which, assuming the typical 15% driveline loss, equates to about 310 hp at the crank. It wasn't the only car that was underrated from the factory though - many are.