Miscellaneous desk
< August 13	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 14[edit]

what is the matter of some companies to create the same cars[edit]

What is the matter of some companies to create the same cars under difference brands? (for example Peugeot and Citroën - chevrolet and GMC. Maybe there are more, but now I don't remember them) 91.199.69.254 (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While Peugeot and Citroën started out as rivals, they are now part of the same company (PSA Peugeot Citroën); they share various components among their models to cut down costs, making for similar-looking cars, but each is slightly different. Both makes still have strong brand loyalty, which is why they still manufacture cars that compete with one another in the same market segments. General Motors used to do the same thing to an even greater degree, with cars that were essentially the same except for a few cosmetic changes being released under different names (e.g. the Chevrolet Vega and Pontiac Astre; one was as awful as the other). --Xuxl (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)One of the more obvious ones in America were Dodge and Plymouth. Over time they became essentially the same car with different labels. The reason for doing that kind of thing is usually to maintain Brand loyalty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about badge engineering and a List of badge-engineered vehicles. Rebadging is a way to appeal to the car buying market attracted to "originality" or "exclusivity" of cars that in reality are little different from year to year or between makers. Unproductive badge engineering is blamed for the demise of the British car industry (video). 84.209.89.214 (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the abysmal build quality of the typical British car produced after about 1965, and the activities of Red Robbo and his ilk, may have been more significant factors... Tevildo (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One reason is that in some jurisdictions, there are laws mandating that the AVERAGE fuel consumption of vehicles sold by some car company has to meet some standard. If that company only makes huge luxury gas-guzzlers - then they sometimes badge-engineer a high fuel efficiency car in order to keep themselves legal. SteveBaker (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which jurisdiction? 84.209.89.214 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

California mandates that 1% of each car-maker's sales must be zero-emission vechicles.[1]WinterWall (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere in the USA, actually: See Corporate Average Fuel Economy. "If the average fuel economy of a manufacturer's annual fleet of vehicle production falls below the defined standard, the manufacturer must pay a penalty,"...and also throughout the European Union.

Case in point: Aston Martin make fantastic sports cars - horrific gas guzzlers. Hence the Aston Martin Cygnet - a thinly disguised Toyota IQ. It cost three times what a standard Toyota-badged version cost!

SteveBaker (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Showing why rules should not be written by idiots. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC).

I don't think that 1% law is a bad one. If you accept the premise that car companies (especially American car companies) have a short-term profit orientation and ignore long term trends that will only hit the bottom line after the current management leaves, then it makes sense to force them to do development on future technologies like this. Of course, it wouldn't work in a smaller state, but California is large enough that car companies can't afford to just ignore that market. StuRat (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could achieve much the same improvements to the environment by requiring them to reduce their average fuel consumption by 1% across the entire range of vehicle. The CAFE standards already drive those kinds of improvements. The idea here is to force all of the car companies to develop zero-emissions vehicles. It doesn't matter whether they mandated 1% or 0.01%. SteveBaker (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]