Gojirra99

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 )

Source Here

mmarshall

This ENTIRE article, IMO, can be wrapped up in one sentence...................People in general worry too much about how a car looks and not enough about what is under the skin. or how well it is built.


Poll after poll after poll shows the same results.....car buyers are swayed by looks and "image" more than anything else, often to their disadvantage.

LexFather

Wow, good point. Looks and image do count a lot still. It does to me.
The article, IMO was wonderful. And that is why it confuses me why Lexus wants to go the L-finesse route of all their sedans looking similar. Instead of now. Lexus maybe the only brand to have nothing look alike but they are still recognizable as a Lexus.
I always wondered what the fuss was with the German 1 style, 3 diff size styling. I can name a car 500 yards away and I have named the wrong German car simply on size. Benz does the worst job of making their cars look different. THing is, their cars are now beautiful for the most part.

mmarshall

Yes, but unlike many car buyers who buy by impulse alone, you know what you are getting.....you are knowledgeable enough to know what is under the skin.
I was referring primarily to people who buy cars ONLY because of cosmetic or image reasons rather than value or quality. You ( like much of CL ) are clearly an auto enthisiast and can judge a car on its merits......many other auto shoppers cannot.

And...I consider that part of our jobs here at CL.......to help people who DON'T know much about cars become people who DO.

LexFather

Ahh gotcha. Yes, those that don't know much about cars, the brand badge counts tons. Yes, our job is to open those eyes.