July 8th, 2003
What do the A4 and A8, the C-Class and S-Class, and the Passat and Phaeton
have in common?
Answer: far too much
|
Volvo's S80 has come in for a pounding for bearing an uncanny resemblance to its poorer S60 relative. That the S60 is a more sporting drive - and therefore the darling of the magazines (notably European Car) -
does not help the Swedish flagship's case |
|
There are worse (read: more MSRP-disparate)
offenders, however. One might expect the Audi flagship to bring more to
the brand than an upsized entry-level car, for instance |
|
Passat, Phaeton - they both begin with P, have four wheels... and that's
not "about it." Then again, VW claims that this was the point
|
|
Quick, and without noting
the size difference: which is the S-Class? |
|
No confusion here. That 7 series tail may have been deemed ungainly at
launch, and may still sit wrong in some eyes, but both the 3 and 7 share
BMW overhangs, BMW front fascias, and BMW rooflines - yet look quite
different. The only debate is whether the 7 offers 'more Bimmer'
for the buck - the jury is still out |
|
The new 5 series may put the 7 series in context, but it remains an
entirely different design. CAR used to suggest that the E39 5
series rendered the E38 7 series "strangely superfluous;" we doubt
the same could be said about E60 and E65, now truly two distinct,
distinctive, BMW models |
The days of asking luxury car buyers to be happy with leather seats and
power amenities are effectively over.
Brand is
ever more critical not
simply for resale value, but also as a personal vote of confidence in which to
invest hard-earned cash. Hand-in-hand with this concept is style, which
one should reasonably expect to become more exclusive as the MSRP nears the
stratosphere.
Stylistically speaking, luxury
buyers should have a right, then, to find more of a brand in that brand's
flagship; to avoid confusion with lower-end models, and to receive a little
piece of their chosen brand's dreams - a little imagination, a little je ne
sais quoi, perhaps? After all, to be in a position to afford these cars is a
dream unto itself.
If it all seems like a tall
order, so too is the one placed at your chosen dealership.
Would it surprise you, then, to
hear that Horizontal' Model Affinity is the design philosophy your
luxury car money may be most likely to support?
Let us delve a little further,
dismantling first the current controversy fueled by the similarity between
Volvo's two higher-end sedans.
If
Volvo's S80
does indeed resemble the S60
a little too closely, as has been pointed out by many a punter these past few
months, excuse us for not being particularly critical. Peter Horbury's
S80
design was revolutionary in 1998, and continues to define the turning point for
Volvo style today. If they could just remove the black cladding from the sides
(which hardly befits a $20,000 car, let alone one costing upward of $40,000), we
would be perfectly happy.
Moreover, the base price difference between an
S60
and an S80
is a 'mere' (noting the category we are discussing, here) $11,200 - large enough
for some level of concern, but not nearly on par with far more serious offenses.
Leave aside the
Saab 9-5,
too, as it is under $10,000 more expensive than the somewhat visually similar
9-3. Besides, both are
different enough, and Saab is (still) in a transitional stage.
Infiniti's Q45
is neither a player by sales, nor does it really resemble an Infiniti (what
does?); Acura's bland
and poorly-executed
RL is overdue for
replacement; Lincoln's Town Car
plays to a completely different audience than does the
LS (and it shows, literally),
and Cadillac has yet to release its new
STS
(pushed back last year at the behest of Bob Lutz). As for Jaguar, the
X-Type
seems easier to discuss in the company of Ford products than it does in the
context of the new XJ
(more about that car in a future article).
Finally,
Lexus' LS
bucks the trend, somewhat, in that it seems to find buyers regardless of its
bland styling. The Japanese company's excellent customer service and reliability
(confirmed today by a ninth consecutive 'first' in the J.D. Power
Durability Survey) is apparently its own reward. We wish it well, but bid it
farewell for the remainder of our analysis.
Are we left with the Germans,
then? Good, because here lies the crux of our story. It is a fitting
position in which to be, considering that, the United States (in which Lexus
scores well) somewhat apart, Mercedes and BMW account for the lion's share of
the luxury market - a share which the VW Group is more determined than ever to
bite into.
Audi's A4
of 1994 was a masterpiece, partly responsible for placing Audi - finally - in
consid-eration with Mercedes-Benz and BMW, if only in the small and midsize
categories (Benz bears responsibility for the other part of the equation, by
moving downmarket as Audi strived to go upward).
This wonder of social climbing
apart, is it not disingenuous of Audi to request $40,000 over the base price of
the A4 for the privilege of being seen in a virtual carbon copy of an
entry-level model that put the marque on the board?
By now, everyone knows that
Volkswagen CEO Bernd Pischetsrieder is unlikely to be bothered by slow sales of
the Phaeton.
The point, as he often reminds us, is to sell more
Golfs, Jettas,
and Passats.
Phaeton's
resemblance to a
Passat,
then, is self-explanatory. We will not fault
those who buy the car for its engineering (any car that raises alternate
windshield wipers to a consistently precise degree on every sweep in order to
preserve the blades gets our vote for being true to its German, over-engineered
heritage), but one could hardly call it imaginative.
Volkswagen, still fresh from
accusations of vague positioning and even mundane products in the '80s and '90s
U.S. market, will no doubt benefit from the Phaeton - regardless of its failure
to deliver something new, visually, to the VW brand in the way the
D1
concept might have.
Audi, however, does not seem to be trying to use the
A8
to muscle its way upscale. Indeed, the
A4
did more for the Audi brand than the original
A8
ever could have - but does its relatively complacent (if still adequately
iconic) styling translate in the upper echelon? Worse yet, we consider here a
basis for design whose style has less impact than did the original. Truth be
told, we are disappointed by the second-generation
A4's
eschewing of its predecessors effortless elegance for somewhat forced - if
balanced - geometry.
Slow sales of the
previous-generation A8 may not, then, have simply been a case of
"proof that
the rich don't think," as CAR regularly proclaimed. We would suggest
a dearth of imagination in its styling, which is certainly not up to the level
of the engineering under the skin, as being a second reason. Admittedly, still
more relevant are questions surrounding the Audi brand's ability to stretch into
the luxury price range.
If the purpose of
Volkswagen's
Phaeton is to sell more
Passats,
and if Audi's A8
simply seeks a conservative buyer for whom its inner, alloy and electronically
advanced beauty is sufficient, what is Mercedes' excuse? You read right: we are
unconvinced by the current generation S-Class
and, further, suggest that the C-Class'
visual proximity to it is alarming. This is particularly apparent from a dead-on rear
perspective, where sheer length (and thus the presence imparted by size)
does not come into the picture.
Certainly, the
S-Class' primary
purpose is not to sell more C-Class models; it is an established - perhaps,
the established - luxury model in its own right, which has led sales in this
class more years than not.
$43,000 separates the base
C-Class from the base
S-Class in the U.S. and yet, approaching both side-by-side
on an open highway, you might never know. Mercedes-Benz, defining itself as
"the oldest and most famous automobile brand in the world," suggests in a
press release-based self-analysis of its design history that
"this has always meant
a responsibility towards the tradition of the brand, even though the design of a
new vehicle is of course future-oriented per se."
Are we to assume that Mercedes
has sworn itself off a revolutionary change of the type BMW has embarked upon?
Certainly, this was suggested at the 1980 German Designer Congress exhibition in
Karlsruhe, where Mercedes affirmed its intent that individual models should be
seen as part of a family. They are nothing if not consistent: the
S-Class
is, visually, definitely cut from the same cloth as the
C-Class.
"However," Mercedes noted
at the time, "all vehicles (are) to be continuous further developments of
their predecessors." This, says Stuttgart, is
Vertical Model Affinity. The company defines it as
"the formal evolution
of a model series over several generation with the aim of preventing a model
from immediately appearing dated when its successor is introduced."
In this, Stuttgart has not been
quite as consistent. The slimmed-down current
S-Class
bears little resemblance to its predecessor. Yet not too many minded, at least
originally: we could have counted on one paw the
number of people who regretted the passing of the previous-generation
S-Class
when the current model came around in 2000. That '92 über-sedan was
famously attacked by those who perceived it as 'fat' and excessive
(paradoxically, even as SUVs developed a foothold as family transportation), and
in its last few years it gave the newer 7
series a rare sales lead in
the U.S.
Might we suggest that a good
design remains exactly that, whatever might come after it? The '80s
W126 S-Class
remains a beautiful display of balanced design; in much the same way, the
E65 BMW 7 series
has not diminished the presence of the E38
generation.
Mercedes is the unquestioned
leader in evergreen design, but at what cost? After all, by their own admission,
"the Mercedes-Benz brand has developed further and no longer stands
exclusively for vehicles in the absolute luxury class." Times have changed,
Mercedes' market has expanded into lower realms, and Vertical Model Affinity should
- more than ever - remain separate
from Horizontal Model Affinity.
This brings us back to our 'new'
term: Horizontal Model Affinity. In the negative sense in which we mean it, we
submit to Mercedes (and to the VW Group) a parallel definition: the
encouragement of an all too uncanny resemblance between models across disparate
price ranges.
For everything else Chris Bangle may have been accused of, one can hardly
suggest that the E65 7 series
resembles a 3 series.
Those who have overcome the initial shock of
E65,
however (and we are not
implying that this is easy), have likely noted BMW-esque overhangs, front fascia cues,
rooflines, basic shutlines, and proportions (if somewhat exaggerated).
Does E65 give you more
BMW? Literal implications aside, the debate continues - particularly amongst
those BMW loyalists who were somewhat shaken by its heavier stance. BMW's brand
values incorporate agility, and although the
7 series
drives much as one might expect for a car wearing the Roundel, not all its
angles reveal the visual tautness we have been accustomed to seeing.
In addition, the shadow of the
2002
still remains with BMW, in the sense that the company's
3 series
is often
described as its Heartland, core product (something one could not say of
the
C-Class,
or of the preceding 190E,
in the context of Mercedes). One might suggest that this is why the
S-Class
will continue to sell, and why the
7 series
needed to reinvent itself.
That aside, we do not believe that the E65 7
series could be mistaken for
anything other than a Bavarian Motor Works product. In addition, it offers BMW
luxury buyers a view of 'exaggerated,' futuristic BMW. It also precedes the next
3 series
by three full years, thereby solidifying a visual difference through a
graduated, top-down revitalization of BMW's design language.
In contrast, both VW
Group luxury products were preceded by the more 'plebian' (of course, everything
here is relative) cars that inspired them, and the
S-Class
had little more than a year on the market before its poorer relative came along.
"An imitation strategy which
aims at, adopts, and varies certain market segments occupied by competitors does
not go far," concludes Mercedes, in defense of its strategy.
We agree. However, in the
interests of brand development; of variety on our roads, and - to repeat
ourselves yet again - imagination, we hope that more than just two
extremes exist in Stuttgart's - and, indeed, in the VW Group's - design
vocabulary.
The
A8 has done disappointingly
little to establish itself as capable of standing next to the big guns. In
contrast, if Pischetsrider is right, the
Phaeton has accomplished its mission in
life. As for Benz, the current, elegant,
distinct-amongst-its-peers-yet-traditional
W211 E-Class looks like the best buy
of the its sedans. Finally, although it is true that
Jaguar's XJ runs along
similarly conservative lines, one must also note that it draws upon far less
plebian predecessors (the series of
XJ
models that have come before it,
Series I
and III
in particular) and so is more believable as a luxury design.
There - and we did not mention
Maybach
even once. After all, our preference for the imagination exhibited by the
Cadillac Sixteen
- concept or not - is
well-documented
(see article:
'Cadillac Should Build Sixteen').
|