Quote:
Originally Posted by Q4P
Disagree with almost everything there... Audi needed to make an R8 to prove a point?, Mercedes needed the SLS to prove a point after having tons of awesome AMG models?, Porsche needed to build a Carrera GT to prove a point? The only case where I can see this being true is Lexus which was always branded as a softer more mature car but that company certainly proved itself by creating a super car that ran a 7:14 at the 'ring. The point is; a company that has proper management and a proper philosophy doesn't care and can still make a lot of money to offset the production of a super car, BMW no longer feels they need to do that. I don't think anyone is saying they need to do that but they certainly could and should as almost every single competitor of theirs has.
|
I don't know, whether you do not get it?
Building a supercar - like you propose - proves NOTHING.
Any carmaker today is capable of building a car that can do 7:30 laps at Nordschleife with a skilled driver (which translates to sub 7:20 times for their testdrivers, which push these cars on a daily basis at Nordschleife).
Even Tata, Volvo, Suzuki, whoever can - because the recipe of such a car is technically fairly simple. The BIG challenge is to earn money with such a car. Companies building on a strong brand in this direction (Ferrari, Lambo) are able to make money, because they are able to sell certain quantities - others could build such a car, but lacking the brand name, it is hard to sell enough cars to make it a business case.
Then there are some companies which know that the supercar itself is not profitable but they expect to push regular car selling numbers with a halo car – so overall it might be a business case.
Take Audi for example. The Audi R8 made totally sense for them because of two reasons:
1. It wasn’t that expensive for them because they had access to Lamborghinis technology. R8 is completely based on the Gallardo platform
2. In the direct competition with BMW - Audi needed additional sportier appeal because its (despite the new “modularer Längsbaukasten” concept, it is nose heavy and understeering prone – see disastrous RS3 test results.) regular models lack the RWD BMW sportiness.
Mercedes also obviously has an “overall business case”. The customer base of Mercedes is remarkably older than BMW and Audi! Look at CEO Zetsches last speech, where he emphasized the need to make Mercs customer base younger (by emphasizing on sportier image)…
Nissan is a special case: Although the design of the GT-R is not to my liking – technically the car is superb – but I bet (don’t know the total sales volume), that it is extremely pushed by subvention (just look at the improvements which Nissan invests in the GT-R on a yearly basis)….. but Nissan simply needs a halo car to push the regular product lines…. More than other carmakers.
So – technically speaking – being able to produce a i8 like car (completely new technology) and making a business case out of it (not having to push it with BIG financial subventions) would REALLY PROVE technological leadership.
So – bottom line:
For me – being a big BMW fan – it would be nice to see BMW having a super car – although I can’t afford it. Just for the sake of being able to play “top trumps quartet” with my friends voting for other car companies
Someone saying that BMW has to prove to be able to build one has simply not a clue of automotive industry and obviously totally overestimates what is needed to build one.
Best regards,
Manuel