It’s obviously no secret that automakers share platforms and powertrains between their brands. These days pretty much all of them do a good job at differentiating platform mates. Of course that wasn’t always the case. The Big Three subsisted on shameless badge engineering throughout the 90s and 2000s. Divisions with unclear mission statements ultimately forced automakers to split development budgets between several products. As a result, vehicles at the lower end sometimes got the short end of the stick. But I actually think that in most cases, the non-luxury variants ended up being the superior products. Let me explain.
The inspiration for this post came when I read about the refreshed 2021 Chevy Traverse. It’s a pretty standard update. A visual nip/tuck augmented by some tech updates and equipment changes.
Overall, the minor tweaks go a long way at making the Traverse more upscale.
Ditto for the cabin. It just looks more attractive than the current model.
In fact, the upcoming Traverse has improved to the point where the XT6 comes off much less favorably.
GM Authority
Because GM would like to keep costs down as much as they can, none of these vehicles are terribly distinct from one another, at least when it comes to their front and rear fascias. I’m sure there are a lot of interior similarities too. But the C1 platform, which underpins the Chevy Traverse, definitely spawned at least one mainstream offering that in my opinion spoils it for the luxury variant. If I had the money and was in the market for a three row crossover from GM I’d skip the XT6 and head straight for the Traverse. Its interior is more aesthetically pleasing and materials are probably nearly as similar to the Cadillac.
As for other mainstream models that negated their more expensive counterparts, I don’t think the Sable really ever aped the Taurus or justified its existence at any point in its history. Don’t get me wrong: I think it’s cool Ford made them and I liked owning what was essentially a slighter weirder version of the Taurus for nine years. But weirder doesn’t equal better.
For example, let’s look at the interior of the first generation Sable. As I get more acquainted with my Taurus, I can confidently say that the materials used for this Mercury are pretty much the same. Aesthetically, I find the first gen Sable’s interior to lag far behind the Taurus. Only the steering wheel is better. It’s also worth pointing out that this particular Sable has manual windows.
The way I see it, only the third gen Sable really made a case for itself, and it’s an inherently flimsy one at that. Aesthetics don’t necessarily make a car more premium, especially if the design itself is fundamentally far from the mainstream.
And if you think only American mainstream models spoil their upscale counterparts, you’re wrong. The newly redesigned 2020 Highlander is a far more justifiable purchase over the Lexus RX. That may not be a fair fight because the Lexus is at the end of its design cycle, but that’s how it goes when large scale automakers devote resources to multiple brands.
Before I end my rant, I would like to offer a counterpoint. There are definitely times when an upscale model spoils the mainstream variant. Critics continue to pan the 2020 Explorer for its spartan interior. Personally, I think the real problem lies in the aesthetics. Ford introduced a mainstream interior at a time when Hyundai and Kia injected two really upscale looking cabins into the segment. But there’s another problem too. Did Lincoln steal all the interior development money for the CD6 platform? Because critics reacted completely differently to the 2020 Aviator’s interior. It’s most likely best in class in that regard.
Anyway, that’s all I’ve got for now. For the most part, I think mainstream models are more justifiable than their luxury stablemates and oftentimes they actually spoil it for them too. Thoughts?
VW Passat and Audi A4 in their B5 generations (1998-2005 and 1996-2001, respectively).
Not to forget “SEAT Exeo”. It’s the Audi A4 B7 made in Spain.
And then there are those countless Skodas and Seats on VW Platforms. But then again, granted, nobody knows if this is upmarket or downmarket or just “horizontally” badge engineering.
Look at that S Car Go
My understanding is that Skoda and Seat were both positioned slightly downmarket of VW/Audi because they were produced in lower cost markets and could be priced lower. After this national character took effect and Seat’s had a reputation as being sporty but slightly flimsy while Skoda’s Czech solidity resulted in a better VW than Volkswagen’s resulting in the Octavia and Superb stealing Golf and Passat sales.
I also see Hondas stealing Acura sales, since especially in the case of the Acura TL, a well optioned Accord is the same basic car without the polarizing “beak”.
I think that Volkswagen (ruled by Audi, as always), just played the “national card” in markets like Spain and eastern Europe. When they succeeded, they just moved on and took what they could get from any other market.
To be fair, the A4 B7 of which the Exeo was a rebadge had already been replaced when the Exeo arrived. Besides, it was rare enough not to really muddy Audi’s image much. I doubt it discouraged a prospective Audi customer.
As for the rest of VW though, Skoda has been seriously encroaching on VW territory for a long time. Same tech, friendlier price, somehow (statistically) more reliable. However, Kodiaq and Superb aside, most models are bigger cars of one segment below in terms of engines and finishing. They don’t directly compete with VW size-wise.
The hierarchy goes Skoda (value, maybe a year behind), SEAT (with a sprts twist, apparently), VW (innovative, first with the technology, dependable, conservative with a small c, German, durable) and then Audi (Vorsprug durch Technik, quattro, comparable with BMW and Mercedes).
The result is that Skoda is the private buyer choice, unless he can afford a VW, Audi for the badge conscious who can afford it and SEAT for the contrarians. The case for SEAT, until the SUVs was arrived, was weak in many markets.
SEAT is mostly for those who can’t afford an Audi and want sporty, or for Portuguese and Spanish people
10th generation Honda Civic > Acura ILX (still on the 9th gen Civic platform).
For that matter, I’d say Honda Fit > Honda HR-V, even if the market’s saying otherwise.
The first-generation Sable struck me as the last mainstream Mercury they really made an effort to distinguish from its’ Ford Division progenitor.
Maybe the ’89 Cougar with a very different roofline than the T-bird
Differences are not always visible. I directly compared Sable with Taurus in 1987. The Sable was quieter, had better seats and a better ride. Plus better looking. Bought the Sable.
As for the Taurus versus Sable first gen, I positively hate the front of the Taurus whereas I always have liked the front of the Sable. Sorry, do not mean to offend anyone.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the 2020 Chrysler Voyager cannibalized a bunch of sales from the 2020 Chrysler Pacifica.
Probably, but the money winds up in the same pot.
Oh, Pacifica nameplate sales *will* drop (even comparing only the pre-coronavirus months) since its’ lost it’s lower two trim levels to the new Voyager nameplate.
For $7500 less (base MSRP) the GMC Yukon Denali seems to be every bit as good and luxurious as an Escalade. It seems that ordinary people prefer buying trucks from a truck dealer, too – the only Escalades I see any more are in livery service.
GMC Yukon Denali, the new Oldsmobile 98.
I’ve always heard that the average GMC Yukon Denali buyer has a higher income than the average Cadillac Escalade buyer. Similarly, the average Toyota Land-Cruiser buyer is supposedly more well-to-do than the average Lexus LX570 buyer.
The whole concept of upscale or luxury is really bogus at this point. Save for a few truly bespoke cars, the whole idea of luxury has changed from being “luxurious” as extremely comfortable, elegant, or enjoyable, especially in a way that involves great expense, or giving self-indulgent or sensuous pleasure. Luxury has become, for the most part, shorthand for “expensive” and conspicously so.
As we all know, there are no more Studebaker Scotsman type cars. Even emerging market vehicles have what used to be considered luxury appointments, if on an old platform. One buys a luxury brand for the badge, not the product. Put a three pointed star on a turd and someone will willingly buy it. Not knocking any OEM, as pretty much all of them are producing decent product, but the whole point of having a luxury brand model compete against your own mainstream product is ludicrously wasteful, unless you are a marketing person.
That said, the worst of the worst is the Escalade versus the Tahoe or Yukon. Why pay more for the same or less truck, just to have a wreath and crest?
I’m with you, JFrank. For me, although a car from a luxury brand might be objectively nicer than one from a mainstream brand, the experience of driving a “luxury” brand is not worth the premium you pay (and the exponential costs of tax, repairs, etc) over a well-equipped model from a mainstream brand. For instance, any BMW’s or the one M-B I ever drove really only offered extra tech over a standard make, tech that I don’t want, and didn’t really feel much more luxurious than would a well-equipped Ford, Hyundai, or Opel.
I was just wondering the other day about Chevy trucks vs. GMC trucks. There used to be real differences, but now I don’t know – is one upscale? Or is it just an alternative dealer to buy the same product from?
The Chevy vs. GMC debacle has been around for a LONG time in the trucks & vans and continues to exist especially in the Express & Savana. Besides the badging, the two models are almost 100% identical. It was very much the same way for the C/K pickups & SUVs (in addition to the G-series vans) until the introduction of the Yukon Denali & the Escalade in 1999.
Ironically, the Yukon Denali & Escalade were also nearly identical to each other save for the badges. Personally, I’d take either of the originals over the overloaded barges they’ve become now. This was the GMT400 styling at its best.
When new, had one of these in my detail shop section, for new car detail, there were no badges on it, there were two packages of badges in the cargo area, one set Denali, one set Escalade, apparently it was whichever the dealer badged it.
I was actually impressed with the differentiation Ford provided between the Sable and Mercury…Mercury was the ultimate badge engineered marque, more so than GM….Look at the Fairmont/ Zephyr, Contour/ Mystique, Tempo/ Topaz, virtually identcal…The Sable picked up cues from the European Sierra and looked much more upscale and cool than the Taurus…especially the light bar in front.
I highly disagree about the first generation Sable. It followed up the truly badge engineered Fox Marquis and was succeeded by ever more watered down and cheapened followups. The third gen is where the Sable LOST its relevance, shedding all its distinctive traits and becoming a lightly restyled Ford aping Lincoln styling like the bad old days of the 70s. The first gen Sable seemed far more European in places where the Tarurs played it safe.
I’ll nominate the 2000s era Lexus ES series. They do nothing a Camry doesn’t and they appear about as premium to onlookers as a Beetle with a novelty Rolls Royce grille.
I agree with you regarding the Sable; The ES much less so. Back then the dealership experience one revived at a Lexus dealer was a large draw that has narrowed significantly. The current ES I’d be much more inclined to agree with, as the Avalon, like model for like, comes across as an equal (the pricing today also reflects that, however).
I feel like the cracks in the ES’s relevance started then, once it stopped using LS styling cues and looking like a Camry with some chrome bits, the interiors of the 02s were still a step up from Toyota but the image was really weak. I agree it’s worse now though
Funny enough when I bought my Cougar I bought it used at Schaumburg Lexus, and got the full treatment including a silver platter of treats. I still have that car 15 years later so I guess it was a pretty effective tactic 🙂
If anything the original 1986 Sable was better differentiated than its’ Buick-Olds A body contemporaries were from the Chevy Celebrity. Only the wagons were identical from the cowl back, something Fomoco and its’ customers had considered an acceptable compromise going back to the ’40s, and they weren’t alone in that assessment.
Actually even the wagons during the first gen had unique sheetmetal from the cowl back. Note the lack of crease below the beltline. The second gen did away with that.
The first that popped into my head was the 1974-1978 Audi 50. The VW Polo, which actually followed the 50, was essentially identical, and basically killed the Audi off. The Polo still exists to this day. The only caveat I have here is I’m not familiar enough with Audi’s pricing and market position in Europe then to solidly say the Audi was actually in an “upmarket” position as it is today.
Honestly I would have to say that the Ford Tempo really ruined it for the Mercury Topaz. Upon introduction in 1984, the Tempo was more of a superior value compared to the Topaz. The Topaz had a more formal look to it, foregoing the 6 window set up for a more formal 4 window look. Why pay more for a less airy cabin.
When it came to the “sporty” models, again the Tempo really was leading the charge. With few exceptions, no one thinks of “sporty” when they think of Mercury. All the “performance” comes from Ford. Without anything unique to the Topaz, it was a lame duck.
At the time of the refresh, Mercury adopted an even more formal roofline that mimicked the Cougar’s. Sure, you could get some additional wood paneling on the doors of the top line LTS/LS, but even the Tempo LX had some of that same wood detailing.
Mercury continued to be a step behind. Two tone paint on sporty models was big during the mid- to late-80s, which the Tempo had on the GLS models. It made it seem contemporary. Then the trend started moving towards monochromatic look. The Tempo GLS adopted that look in 1992, while the Topaz XR5/LTS took a step backwards and went all two-tone.
Pity that. If there hadn’t been all that R&D money wasted on trying to make a “different” Topaz, who knows how much better the Tempo could have been.
/sarcasm
As the previous owner of a 1993 Topaz 2-door and a 1992 Tempo GLS 4-door, this was all in jest. Those cars were damn near identical. You could probably list off a few dozen parts that were different between the two (on the 4-doors) and less than a dozen on the 2-doors. 😀
My understanding of the current Ford/Lincoln lines is that each division was given the base structures and allowed to finish and equip them to their own specifications. Other manufacturers (I’m looking at you, GM) will build out the base model, then make superficial additions and slap an upscale badge on it.
I am considering buying a Traverse and I am wondering what is the REAL difference between a Traverse High Country and a Cadillac XT6, other than several thousand dollars.
Not sure why you used the GM quartet as your example of badge engineering since these vehicles do not qualify for that term. Badge engineered cars tend to share almost all body panels with only slight variations to grills, lights, and bumpers. The GM SUVs all have unique bodies as far as I can tell and unique interiors. Not badge engineering here.
That’s a fair point. I suppose I could have titled the piece differently. But you’re right, these aren’t really badge engineered, at least to the extent of something comparable from the 90s or 2000s.
GM does a good job of making each brand different, thay may have the same powertrain but the look is different. If you are looking for the most bang for the buck you most always end up with the Chevy, or Ford or toyota.
Thank you for your comment Ted C, you are correct. GM is consistently the whipping boy on this site.
Current pick: the newly introduced DS9, very obviously a dolled-up slightly lengthened Peugeot 508. Of course, while it will be offered in Europe it’s aimed mainly at China, but the longer-wheelbase 508 is available there, too. What’s the point of this thing?
The purpose of DS as a brand is still a mystery to me. However, apparently it’s earning its keep and is (barely) profitable.
When I was a kid I was unaware of any real or perceived difference between the GM brands and the FoMoCo stuff. 80s Chrysler products were all boxes that blew blue smoke and I never paid them much attention anyway. I wondered why they so often made the same car as each other. I just judged a car on its own merits, and never cared about any pretentious stuff. Still don’t. New stuff is mostly still too ugly in and out for me anyway regardless of the name or alphanumeric gobbledegook on the plastic emblems. I wonder if cleaner styling will ever make a return.
I place the Taurus/Sable near the top of the short list here, because of how similar the ’86-’95 models looked despite the lack of shared sheetmetal. Two cars that looked badge-engineered, but weren’t. Would the Sable really have done any worse if it had actually been badge-engineered? Seems to me nobody would’ve been any less or more likely to get a Sable if they’d used the Taurus metal and glass with a different front fascia/headlamps/grille, rear fascia/taillamps, instrument cluster and ornamentation.
The Lebaron vs. Chrysler’s TC by Maserati also comes to mind; by any measure except advertising how much money one spent to buy it (and to repair it…and repair it…and repair it), the Lebaron was a vastly better pick.
I had forgotten that the OG Taurus & Sable had different sheet metal. So much work for such a similar look.
I do remember really liking the ’79 Capri better than the Mustang. (The appearance of) tinted taillights, side body bulges and vertical grille with horizontal slats. Maybe it’s the epitome of tacky, but I can’t help still wanting one. No bubbly hatch though. That killed the tension in the design for me.
(I got off topic there, as I often do.)
Stay healthy and safe, everybody.
Will someone please fish my comment out from the trash? Thanks.
Nobody complained about badge engineering when a Bentley was a discount Rolls Royce with a different grille.???
Oh, I think people did complain, especially after the S-based Continentals went out of production. Mostly it was about how sad the fate of Bentley was. This was usually followed by suggestions that the boys at Crewe, and later Vickers, should put poor, old, slow-selling Bentley out of its misery. I guess we were lucky that didn’t happen.
The current Acura line is a great demonstration of how a “luxury” car is no better than its lower line brother. I don’t recall which car it was I looked at a few years ago; the stupid letter system means nothing to me. The interior was identical to an Accord with clearly tacked on materials. Same dashboard shape, same parts, etc, but a LOT more expensive.
Ford cut the Sable off at the knees when Ford decided that the Taurus being number 1 in sales was worth pursuing. Everything went to pushing the Taurus v. the Sable. The first generation had a very different greenhouse and wasn’t quite as blobby as the Taurus, the light bar, and some other features, plus they were generally better equipped than a Taurus. That died off quickly when the fish faced Taurus appeared. Additionally, Lincoln Mercury dealers had much better sales and service experiences than Ford dealers, who generally evolved from pond scum only slightly and as recently as this morning.
The Chryslers of my 80s youth were all Dodge K cars with lots of buttons and some luxury goop, but you could see right through the bones. Chrysler didn’t charge a whole lot for the luxury goop though.
Daniel, your example of the LeBaron v. TC is excellent and forgotten.
Current VWs and Audis are good examples of how to do it right; the comparable Audi model, even at the same price as a loaded up VW, is MUCH nicer than the VW. Nowadays it doesn’t take much to get a “mainstream” car into the luxury price range.
Below is a Lada from 1977.
Ladas existed in the West only for foreign exchange reasons, and for the buyers, only because of the low price. This body was made until such time as (surely) the Russian molds fell apart in a ridiculous 2012.
This car is indistinguishable from the Fiat 125 released in 1967, and made in Italy till 1972.
The 125 was a modernist-chic box, right at home in a flat-roofed mid-century carport. It had a rorty, wondrous twin-cam engine, 4-wheel disks, a super-slick box, did 100-mph, was (actually) very well-built by Fiat, and understandably runner-up in the 1968 Euro Car of The Year, second only to the NSU Ro 80. It was an Alfa for the family man.
The Lada was not.
It was an ill-made plonker for a cheapskate cardigan aficionado, ones whose wallets smelled of mould.
Sadly, most folk could not distinguish an el-cheapo nasty-pasty Lada from the aristocratic source.
And thus its image lies in forgotten tatters, lost under a pile of old Lada jokes, and mutual rust flakes.
I laughed as I read this because by happenstance I’m researching an article now on Ladas, and specifically efforts to sell Ladas in the US. Lada officials, on various continents, were eager to point out the differences between their cars and Fiat. Namely a strengthened suspension, increased ride height, and thicker steel (supposedly), made on a account of harsh Soviet road conditions.
The best such quote is this one, made by a Lada official in 1980, clearly in the era before political correctness:
“For the American lady who buys color and upholstery [the Lada and Fiat] might seem identical, but technically Lada has many improvements.”
Hmmm. Not so sure about that.
I think the Lada’s biggest distinguishing feature over its equivalent Fiat was price — in all markets were the two were sold concurrently, the Lada was significantly cheaper… a fact that greatly annoyed Fiat.
The Lada had thicker metal in the body panels so didnt rust away around you like the Fiat had a tendency to, the Fiat had that lovely twin cam four the Lada had OHV The Fiat cornered well and handled tail out brilliantly for the time the Lada had four wheels with tyres fitted at no extra cost,
Torino motors the NZ Fiat importer produced a number of specials badged 125T homologated for standard production racing, they did quite well winning their class nobody ever tried to go fast in a Lada.
They were two similar looking but very different cars.
A Lada.
The Jaguar XK and Aston Martin DB7. The Aston really spoiled the XK, especially because it was offered with a V12. Not that I’m unhappy about that or anything, just noting. (Go Aston!).
Chevy Volt > Cadillac ELR
1998 vintage Camry and Avalon, Avalon was a stretched version of the Camry and should have just been cakkked that, nothing premium about that pile of bland junk. Another was the Mercury Milan version of the 2010 Fusion, Fusion was a handsome car, Milan not so much.
I think a stretched version of the Camry was the precise mission of the Avalon. They succeeded with that, no?
IMO the Sable always appeared a step up from the Taurus, like it was designed for an older crowd, which was always Mercury’s mission. The ‘96 redo was hideous across the board for both models….
I can think of a few
Chevy El Camino > GMC Caballero
Ford Mustang GT > Mercury Capri RS Turbo
Dodge Omni GLHS > Dodge Charger Turbo
The Onmi was a 4 door and the Charger a 2 door–they did not share any sheet metal–I would not call them badge engineered.
The laziest badge engineered cars were the Dodge, Plymouth and in Canada, Chrysler Neon.
I can’t believe nobody brought up versailles or cimmaron yet! Too cliche?
The Cimarron V6 sedan was the best J-Car sedan. However, it was still a J-Car.
If two only two sedans available in 1985 were a Cadillac Cimarron and a Chevy Cavalier, I would have taken the Cimarron.
Of course there are exceptions for example the rare Cavalier fastback, coupe, convertible, and wagon were in some trims and packages better than the Cimarron if you were looking for more cargo space or improved exterior design. But this is omitted because the Cimarron was only available as a sedan.
You call them Acura and seem to think they are a sporty car we call them Honda and they hold up trucks due to being driven slowly all the time, just like BMWs and Audis they have very bright brake lights you see them lit for every gentle corner at quite low speeds.
GM gets a lot of grief for shameless badge engineering, but at least Chevy, Pontiac, etc. were at one time semi-autonomous car companies with their own design, engineering and manufacturing.
Ford/Mercury/Lincoln and Plymouth/Dodge/Chrysler were always mere brand names.