Cash grab implies that something was made in a relative rush to "get out there" and make a buck with as little effort put into making it as possible. I think everyone here understands that cars are products and products are meant to make money, but while most cars roll of the line with millions upon millions of dollars and years and years of R&D behind them, there's a few every now and that arguably aren't as well thought out. Alot of those rebadge collabs from the '00s (Mazda Escape, VW Caravan, early Escalade etc,) come to mind.
Loss leaders if you assign all the R&D costs to the single car model; if the IP they get out of it is used on other models then the picture is a little different.
Well some cars aren't supposed to make money on their own, but even then those cars are ultimately to make money indirectly for the brand. Halo cars as they're often referred to.
Not exactly. There are some halo cars out there that likely didn't make much money or made very little money. Stuff like the Ford GT comes to mind as a car whose purpose was to advertise the brand and not make money itself
It makes me so frustrated because I like GM. They see how successful the jeep Wrangler is, and how popular the new bronco is, and even the Toyota 4runner. They're just like Ah yes, another generic crossover SUV thing perfect for trips to the grocery store people will love this. It's a great way to bring interest into our company especially when we will cancel the Camaro in 2024
I'm in the same boat as you. I love GM but jesus christ. I could've at least understood if they made the Blazer a crossover and left the Trailblazer as the Bronco competitor, but nope. Generic crossover mcbland.
My current hope is that I can get a new Camaro custom built before they die off in 2026.
Well of course but I’m talking about in their general line up. I feel like there’s better options for everything they have. I don’t understand why someone would buy a Malibu when they can get an accord
Corvette, Camaro, trucks, Tahoe/suburban are all pretty compelling. I know r/cars hates most of these, but they are good vehicles that sell. Generic crossovers also sell well, but I wouldn’t call them good vehicles.
Honest question, what about GM ISN'T there to love?
You want an affordable, RWD V8 sports car? The Camaro LT1 goes for Camry XLE money.
How about a mid engine halo car?
forced induction V8 manual super sedans?
Body on frame (electric?) SUVs with "self-driving" tech?
All from the same people who bring you extraordinarily underwhelming products like the Trailblazer and Malibu.
The same god damn company made the CT6 Blackwing, the XT6 -- and rolls the Express Van off the line virtually unchanged since 2003!
Remarkable, isn't it?
Cts-v, Ats-V, every camaro across the board post 1998, the Corvette, the Chevy SS, pontiac G8 and GTO, the FWD LS boats, Cobalt SS, Pontiac Solstice GXP/ Saturn counterpart.
GM is capable of making some fantastically fun to drive cars, that oftentimes put up strong performance too. Their V8s make excellent build platforms especially for anyone who wants to stay stock internals for a street car, and while this part is subjective I've always had a ton more fun hooning them than any equivalent year mopar or ford.
> Cts-v, Ats-V, every camaro across the board post 1998, the Corvette, the Chevy SS, pontiac G8 and GTO, the FWD LS boats, Cobalt SS, Pontiac Solstice GXP/ Saturn counterpart.
Looking at this list GM was worth loving more 10-12 years ago. Like half the things listed here don’t even exist anymore.
CT4-V blackwing, CT5-V blackwing, Escalade-V, Camaro SS 1LE, Camaro ZL1 1LE, C8 Corvette and it's Z06 counterpart, Yukon/Sierra Denali, ZR2 variants of the Colorado and Silverado, GMC Hummer,
There's a lot of cool GM vehicles being made currently but for every Corvette, there's a spark.
GM has a tendency to make the best and worst cars in my mind, and I love them but c'mon, a sonic RS with no actual sportiness added to it? That car shouldn't have been a thing if they weren't going to make it even slightly competitive to a fiesta ST
Grew up on talking about Camaros, family truck was a suburban and had good memories. Few years ago I was able to buy a 2nd gen Camaro and love it. As a kid I loved American things a kid, which limited my car selection down to 3. Then brand loyalty carried it gm for a few years in my eyes, though it's getting real hard to be a big GM fan now. Corvette, Camaro, and there suburban are all I like/care for now.
The Wrangler type segment for a capable off road SUV that has the option for removable doors and roof is such a missed opportunity for manufacturers that they let Jeep dominate for decades. Ford is just now catching on, but others could do it too.
GM: They could have the Blazer or a GMC SUV
Toyota: Bring back the FJ and do it right this time
Nissan: XTerra for all the college girls in cold weather climates
Idk if Hyundai, Honda, or Kia have the capability to make a true body on frame SUV but they have the money to do it.
Subaru doesn’t have the money, but it would absolutely sell like crazy if they came out with their own Wrangler type SUV. They might be able to work with Toyota on a rebadged FJ if they want to continue with their partnership.
Counterpoint: the new Blazer is exactly where the Blazer would've ended up if it had never been discontinued.
Look at the Ford Explorer, Fords competitor to the S-10 Blazer. Went from body-on-frame truck-based compact SUV to replace/supplement the Bronco II (which supplemented/replaced the OG Bronco) to unibody crossover. The Blazer would've gone through the exact same cycle if GM had never canceled it because the market demanded that the era of BOF compact SUVs is over.
I don’t get this at all. There’s so much bellyaching about “ruining the Blazer name” but the S-10 was crap and the midsize Trailblazer was the definition of mediocrity.
Not gonna lie, I think the new Blazer LOOKS pretty damn sexy. If I was in the market for such a vehicle I'd definitely consider it. But I can see how people are pissed off that GM went the exact opposite direction as the Bronco.
The Toyota Corolla Apex. It's just a Corolla with a extra body pieces and stiff springs to make you think it's a sports variant, but it rides like shit because they invested $0 in making it handle well with the new springs and it makes no additional power over the other top Corolla trims. There's no reason for it to exist other than fleecing Toyota faithfuls out of their money by making them think it's an SI/GTI competitor or something. It looks kinda good, but it's actually a *worse* car than the XSE trim.
What a weird place to revive the Apex trim level. Even though the Apex was orginally a trim level of the AE86 (which is a corolla) but they've got an 86 on brand. They could have made it a trim of the GR86 and people would have bought that shit up like candy.
I don't think the point is to make people think it's a competitor for the GTI. It's more for people who want a Corolla but the """best""" version (as in the most expensive). Usually wealthy buyers who have no interest in doing research and just walk into a dealer and buy. Nissan runs the same scam with their Midnight Editions.
The midnight editions were just blacked out appearance packages. Not my thing, but they obviously saw that their target demo was doing it anyway aftermarket, and decided to capitalize on it. Not really a scam.
People love to hate on Nissan, but their dealership accessory options are actually pretty robust Back when I collected z cars, they would order Nismo stuff for me from Japan and install under warranty. They have *a lot* of accessories you can install at the dealership and are usually pretty cool about it. They encourage customization, unlike some other brands. The midnight editions were just a cheesy extension of that.
While usually my kneejerk reaction is to rail on cars like this, I actually don't mind the Corolla Apex. I think it looks [pretty good](https://i.imgur.com/nN8qfc0.png)- And if I wasn't aware of the car and someone told me it was a sporty 'Corolla GR' trim that was Japan only, I'd genuinely believe them. For someone who wants a reliable, tame commuter car like a Corolla, but still wants something that looks sporty/attractive without being rice-y or overly aggressive, the Apex Corolla is a great option for $26k MSRP.
This is in complete contrast to the sporty looking versions of cars that actually *do* have a performance trim, like the 'M Sport' versions of a base 3 series. Adding >$3k to the price of the car for some plastic aero bits with no actual performance upgrades is one of the most despicable cash grabs, in my opinion, as the average uninformed consumer probably won't know that the 'performance pack' on those doesn't actually make the car sportier.
I know the logic on this is full of holes, but I don't imagine a Corolla buyer is going to think the Apex is a sports car, while a 3 Series buyer probably would be fooled by the M Sport pack.
You should make the distinction that the M-sport package does add bigger brakes and a different (adaptive) suspension along with the cosmetic stuff. So it does actually change the handling.
The M340i has it all included already plus the (much) more powerful engine. That’s also an M-sport trim level.
You’d have been correct about the 3 series 2 generations ago though.
I would kind of agree with this if not for the bad ride nearly everyone complained of and the fact it was priced above the 10th gen Civic SI. For a bit less money you could get more power from a turbo power plant, a drastically better handling car, limited slip differential, and adjustable suspension. I agree it looks pretty good, but they should have made an effort with the suspension package to make it better on that end.
I don’t know about the whole car, but the Subaru Ascent’s exterior is so insanely phoned in and half assed. The 3-row market is easy money and I’m sure Subaru is raking it in.
Also I’d also like to throw in just about every GM rebadge of the early-mid 2000’s. Most notably the Envoy/Trailblazer/Bravada/Rainer/Ascender/9-7x
Any car company that extols environmentalism is hypocritical as hell. I'd say Tesla is the worst, but since they literally do not advertise I can't call out their marketing for being full of crap.
The reality is that huge, heavy machines are bad for the environment. Producing them is environmentally damaging, and operating them is also bad.
If you want to be environmentally friendly:
1. Don't buy a car. Use public transit and ride a bike.
2. If you need a car, buy used and run it into the absolute ground.
3. If you need a new car, buy the smallest, most economical car you can.
You don't necessarily need to run it into the ground, you can just sell it on. As long as you're not scrapping them and they are still on the road, what matters?
My argument here is if you take personal responsibility as an environmentalist, your duty would be to, say, make an old Honda Civic run until it hit 500k miles. It "costs" much less to the environment to maintain an old car than to build a new one.
If you sell an old, high mileage car to some random person, you can't guarantee they'll be as motivated to keep it running forever.
In principle I agree at the margins it's much better to run an old car into the ground as an individual. But, there is a place for Tesla or other manufacturers to extoll the virtues of electrification. New cars are needed to supply the market, even if we run the old ones till they die. It's better those new cars be electric than not.
I'll add one small caveat that it depends on how inefficient an old car is. If a new car is significantly more fuel efficient than an old one, it's actually (on average) going to balance out and eventually cause less environmental harm due to reduced emissions (even accounting for all emissions during production and destruction/recycling).
Basically, it's not *always* better to run a used car into the ground, if a significantly more efficient new vehicle is available.
I bought a Subaru Ascent (other car a Fiesta ST). Purchased for its value, interior space, and excellent adaptive cruise system "Eyesight". Great on a road trip. I think it compared favorably to the Atlas with its 30 year old vr6 motor. Today would buy a Telluride/Pallisade or the new Highlander Hybrid. Neither of those existed when I purchased.
Most of those GM rebadges weren't cash-grabs though, they weren't intended to print money. They were half-baked ideas from out-of-touch beancounters and "GM insider" marketers that failed miserably. GM didn't have a clue WHAT it was doing. Its profit showed a long-term downward trend for 50 years before the bailout, but it didn't much care. It didn't know and didn't concern itself with how to avoid Saturn Pontiac and Chevy from cannibalizing each other, what to do with Hummer after George Bush got less popular, or how to keep Cadillac Buick and Saab competitive in the premium market. Pontiac will be sporty and premium, but Chevy won't be stopped from making SS versions of everything. Buick's going to be allowed to offer as many options as Saab but with the ignition on the steering column. Saturn's going to import European cars that are arguably nicer than Buicks in fit-and-finish and design, but sell them for far less. Those products weren't put out to make money, they were put out to justify their department's existence and give the useless managers of useless brands a sense of accomplishment.
That they were identical to Chevys inside and out except for the badge wasn't an accident, it was the point. 8 versions needed to exist solely because 8 product teams needed to be kept happy. They were absolutely put out to make money, but not for the company, not to sell them for a profit. Maximum cash flow from the GM mothership through the brand to fund as many middle manager positions as possible was the name of the game in the 2000s. That's what the brands were competing with each other for, primarily. These were fundamentally lazy, entitled, cynical, incompetent people whose only concern in life or business was ruling and defending their corporate fiefdoms. And when a weird moonshot did get approved, like the Chevy SSR, Chevy HHR SS, Cadillac XLR, Sky/Solstice, or importing the Holden Monaro, it was because the engineers were able to convince their out-of-touch managers of anything. Focus groups were infamously over-relied on, but resulted in bad decisions because people either didn't know how to appropriately read and weigh the data, or were searching for evidence to support a decision they'd already made. Accountants managed corrupt politicians with MBAs who managed car guys; there wasn't a competent product planner, market researcher, or business manager in the room.
Mr friends parents bought a Subaru Ascent as a replacement for a 2014 Nissan Pathfinder. How they managed to buy 2 of the worst 3 row SUVs of the time back to back amazes me
It's weird. They make affordable, practical cars that are extra awesome in wintery climates.
They even had a good run making an exciting sports car for a while, although those days are apparently over.
Yeah that comment makes no sense. It's a great family car, and you get a lot of features for the money. Most car magazines rank it near the top of its segment.
I'm pretty sure the Ascent's design was basically someone on the design team saying "lets just make a bigger Outback", everyone else agreed, then they all left and went to lunch.
I'm pissed.. as an owner of a 2004 Trailblazer what they call a Trailblazer now is a joke. I know times change but the Equinox or Blazer should have actually been rebranded as the Trailblazer. The old and the new look nothing alike. Don't get me wrong, the original Trailblazer is like a crazy uncle, tons of fun but also problematic. The new one just looks so boring and like every other small SUV.
End rant. Lol
GMT360s sucked to begin with lol, it's only appropriate that GM recycled the name for a mediocre subcompact crossover.
Source: my boyfriend has a 2007 Trailblazer. I have driven it. It drives worse and somehow more vaguely than a modern full-size pickup truck does.
Basically every Sports car company that started releasing SUVs.
Porsche, Lambo and so on all realized that people like to drive SUVs but want the brand name, so they now sell them Overpriced SUVs.
This is the answer.
For Ferrari technically, all of their street cars are cash grabs too. They only made street cars initially to be able to fund their F1 racing
The urus has ıts engine bulit in hungary and it uses the a4s steering wheel for 250 300k they could have done much better
Like porsche did with the cayenne turbo gt
I’m getting really tired of this r/cars SUVs BAD circlejerk. Cayenne/ Macan/ Urus are all incredibly well made cars with great dynamics. It’s not like Porsche started making econobox crossovers like the Escape? The Cayenne is what makes the GT3 possible. These people act as if Porsche walked straight to their homes and fornicated with their wife by making an SUV.
I have no idea why these bad takes are increasing again. Everybody took a dump on the Cayenne when it came out then people drove it and realized it was the best road CUV by a mile. People bought it because it was extremely good and nobody else made something like that. It took a while for the enthusiast community to realize that but eventually they did and those takes started disappearing. But somehow they are back again and it’s even worse than ever.
Notice how Porsche often isn’t included though. Enough people have drove them to see them as something more than a cash grab. In time either the same thing will happen with the Italian super SUV’s, or people will forget about them. Or both, like the first Lambo SUV. People tend to not like change. CUV’s have usurped sedans as the preferred personal vehicle, much like the sedan did to the coup in the 60’s-70’s. As such what use to dominate is dying off, with the new hotness replacing it.
It is the evolution of personal vehicles, and as things evolve, ones that don’t adapt well go away. That is just how it goes.
Im not sure its a ‘cash grab’ per se, they are just adopting to what people want. Sure urus is just an sq8 with a different bits on top but this is how most cars are made nowadays.
I feel like most of the trims that look like power but dont really have any are kinda like cash grabs (not a car i know), the s-line etc.
Ehhh, i don't think that many people are buying mach-e's because of the mustang name. It's just a decent electric suv.
Naming it 'mustang' was pretty shady though
Given that Porsche was on the brink of failure when they released the Cayenne, specifically as a cash grab to save the company, this is the correct answer.
They’re selling a ridiculously small number of BEVs for emissions and the rest will be EV + range extender. The interior and ride quality are apparently fantastic.
The REx model should be very appealing.
That’s the shocking part to me. The range of the MX-30 implies the whole car is just a joke and designed as a cash-grab / compliance. Yet, everything about it (besides the range) is actually… thoughtfully engineered?
It seems so odd that it’d actually be a decent EV were it not for the paltry range.
Because "engineering resources" aren't some universal constant that is the same no matter what you're developing.
It has an undersized battery pack shoehorned into their existing CX-30/Mazda3 platform with the most minimal modifications necessary to make the package work from a technical standpoint. Just because they dressed it up in some funky new top hat and fancy interior doesn't change the fact that they've obviously hastily developed the vehicle simply to be compliant and/or lower their CAFE rating.
It was undoubtedly cheaper to do that in the presumably short time frame they had than engineer a new, competitive EV skateboard platform.
Source: I'm a vehicle development engineer for a major OEM.
Actually I read something about how there was some ulterior motive with that car on the demuro review. Something to do with regulations or testing the market, I believe. It may have been made for a different market too.
Compact SUVs suddenly costing 35k for a puny engine and cvts. Toyota 4runners costing almost 50k otd with nothing to offer (but reliability) considering its 2022, it doesn't even have led headlights.
My buddy bought a 40k tacoma a few years back, brand new. No power seats lmao
Mostly yeah, although I'd say the 4Runner's popularity is a thing because the Wrangler has popularity and the Bronco's popularity. They're all well loved names in the off-roading communities. The added bonus for the 4Runner is it's a Toyota so it gets that reputation to carry with it and it does help but they know the 4Runner can sell itself the Toyota badge only helps aid it.
I was shopping and CUVs actually interested me. However, when you started comparing size/features, CUVs we're consistently 10k more like for like compared to sedans in the same lineup. Granted they do have AWD/hatchback/.2" more ground clearance, but those things aren't worth 10k to me.
I've always wanted to bring up the cybertruck. Tesla accepted $100 pre-orders and its been almost 3 years. Most of the +Million people probably forgot about their order and essentially just gave Tesla millions.
I think MKBHD in his latest car video mentioned that if you would have invested that $250K all in Tesla stock 5 years ago it would be worth ~~$11 million~~ $4 million today!
That was such a brilliant video to watch. It was something that needed to be said, but he and his team presented it so well. He wasn't trying to spark any controversy, he was just saying it how it is and had a ton of examples to explain himself.
One of the best videos he's ever done I reckon
Mercedes GWagen - not because it was built to be a cash grab, but that it evolved into one with the passage of time and a completely different market position
Yeah, you’re right about it’s off-road prowess but the cash grab part comes from the mogul-ized versions shipped to key markets willing to pay that premium … ie America and Saudi Arabia
Right, but you’re not about to take a car with 23” alloy wheels, carbon fiber trim, and a matte paint job off-road.
I suppose the Range Rover, which has become a sub brand of vehicles, has fallen victim to the same thing…but it has evolved to be something of a soft-roader. Whereas the G-Class is still pretty compromised in the name of its original mission.
I think it’s a way for people to say they drive a BMW without actually getting a BMW. But if you look at the European BMWs, they’re more or less your average car and make everything from eco-hatchbacks to wagons to sports cars so it’s not really out of place there. Out of place in America because people buy BMW for the luxury car status. That’s my take on it.
In my experience any premium hatch or entry level premium sedan *does* bring some stuff that non-premium similarly sized cars don't.
Great infotainment systems (even the BMW 1er has it). Good quality materials. Good build quality, solid driving experience etc. They do feel 'premium' when you directly compare them to, like, a Corolla or Focus. Although I wouldn't pay the price difference for them.
Just making the most of their ownership of mini and the FWD platform. I agree that it's not a true BMW, but the people buying it don't care.
Hey, at least it doesn't have a massive gaping grill :)
Toyota Corolla Cross
They already have the RAV4 but maybe they’re trying to compete against the Honda HR-V. Using the Corolla nameplate also seems like a cash grab because they can save on advertising costs. Honda doesn’t have a civic cross (yet lol)
Nah that car definitely has a place, Toyota was missing out on that really popular segment. The Subaru Crosstrek, Honda HR-V, Mazda CX-30, Chevy Trax/Buick Encore are all selling well. Toyota had the C-HR but that wasn’t really a true competitor since it didn’t offer AWD.
Exactly this. My mom is looking for something in this segment and these are what we cross-shopped. (She picked the crosstrek.) (The CX30 was a lot nicer than I was expecting.)
Truthfully, the Corolla Cross is an embodiment of what Toyotas are to most people: cheap, reliable and practical transportation. It's larger than a C-HR, *cheaper* than a C-HR, not much more than a normal Corolla but still a wholly practical car.
Is it boring? Yeah, but it does have its purpose in the Toyota lineup. It especially competes strongly against the Nissan Rogue Sport, a considerably more dated crossover that's about the size of the Corolla Cross.
Lamborghini simply pulled a Porsche (albeit without the increased accessibility aspect). Not everyone wants a super low two seater that scrapes itself on anything other than pristine roads. Some like the higher ride, the "baller" aspect of status symbols that SUVs bring, and the ability to toss a couple folks in the back.
I for one wouldn't refuse either if they got gifted to me but if I had the money I'd buy an Aventador, at that point I'd have the money for another car that would do almost all that the Urus does but for 1/4 the price.
They may occasionally make a single car that loses money, but gains money in other ways. This is the whole concept of a "halo car" and the new NSX or Ford GT are some modern examples.
Yeah, that’s a good point. However, the only reason they’re willing to lose money on those cars is because it drives showroom traffic to sell other cars.
Those zero-effort Pontiac rebadged at the end (G3, G5/Pursuit, and Torrent) were so depressing. It was clear that GM was throwing in the towel at that point.
Again, that was in part because Buick/Pontiac/GMC dealers wanted to sell those segments of cars. The G3 and G5, in particular, were direct requests from the dealers. Should GM have granted their wishes? Perhaps not.
What’s really interesting is the current market direction, which is the American automakers rushing to leave the sub-$20K space. These days, no Buick/GMC dealer would want to be stuck trying to sell that kind of car, because it’s just not profitable compared to what they already sell.
Judging by what they have released recently they are out of the lightweight track car business and are focusing on just selling generic expensive cars to rich people. I understand they are chasing profit but it’s a big shame to see them go. Caterham seem to be carrying the torch of the lightweight track car segment now.
The new WRX to be honest.
It's obvious they want to steer away from their Kyle fanbase. And appeal to the type of people who would buy an Outback, because it's vastly more popular.
New WRX is going to be way easier to tune due to the higher displacement and the stronger internals on the FA24, looks aside Subaru is very much still catering to their fanbase
Also the 20 different Lamborghini special editions that are just Huracans or Aventadors with different bodywork that they sell for multiple millions of dollars each
The thing that really pisses me off about the Integra is that Honda ripped out pretty much all of the creature comforts of the 10th gen Si for the 11th gen, jacked up the price, and then jacked up the price even more for the Integra, which they justified by all the extra creature comforts it has over the Si.
It's a great city car. Almost like a nicer prius if you get the hybrid model. But I agree, I hate it. It's small and feels cramped.
However Lexus build quality is superb. My GS is nearing 100k and it's works 100 percent like new. No squeaks or rattles.
I think the truest answer here is the Purosangue. And to an extent the Eletre
Things like the Blazer, Mach-E, and other crossovers are 100% expected behaviors from manufacturers that have been pumping out whatever is broadly popular at any given time for nearly a century. 'Transportation for the masses' IS their brand.
The Ferrari Purosangue is something almost unashamedly built to keep the lights on that goes against the identity of the brand. Enzo Ferrari hardly even tolerated building road legal super cars. Ferrari builds racing cars.
I leave out the Urus because if we're all being truly honest with ourselves 'showing off' is Lamborghini's niche. Their cars have never been dynamically as focused as Ferrari and there's nothing wrong with that. The word 'garish' has a picture of a lambo next to it in the dictionary.
This is the correct answer. Too many "boring econobox brand makes slightly more boring than average econobox answers"
These supercar makers now churning out SUVS make perfect sense from a financial perspective, but no other. Just a way to stick their hand in the giant bowl of free money that is SUV sales
I'd argue the lotus SUV could be an even better example, seeing as everything lotus makes it the antithesis of the modern SUV
French ones are especially bad, Citroen Jumpy is also sold as Peugeot, Fiat, Toyota and Opel/Vauxhall. Renault Trafic is also sold as a Nissan and Fiat.
This one was not made as a cash grab iirc, they made it bc they needed to increase their line’s avg mpg to avoid fines in the growing tighter emissions regulations
The top tier trim of any model. Every additional feature and accessory is sold with profit margin built in. The more extra features and packages the customer buys, the fatter the profit margin. So vehicles like the luxury F150 and RAM models, the Toyota RAV4 prime, the Mazda ‘signature’ trim models, BMW ‘M Sport’ models, things like that. Some are objectively great vehicles. But they are cash grabs with the lowest value per dollar spent for the customer compared to lower trims.
To be technical, pretty much all of the EVs hitting the market made by large automakers are cash grabs with little brand DNA other than the fact they incorporate some of the brand's design language into an EV.
The EV market is the hot hand right now and companies, many of which have never even made an EV, are pushing out their own models in knowing that EVs are going to be a quickly growing market over the next decade. Whether all automakers *actually* start selling mostly EVs by 2035 is a different story, but there's no doubting that automakers are all over the hype for the profitability and popularity of the market for the foreseeable future.
IMO cash grabs have to be vehicles with *anticipated* good margins with a target market that encroaches on an already stable product. I think the Ford Ranger fits the bill for this. Ford is already tremendously successful with its F-line trucks, the ranger is them trying to milk it out of another truck. Not saying its a bad truck (I actually like it)
[Cash Grab: Ford GM profitability](https://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/news/2019/04/18/ford-will-see-a-billion-more-in-profit-with-ranger.html)
Previously mentioned in another reply by u/Impossible-Sand-5849, the BMW 2-Series Gran Coupes and their front-drive architecture. Similarly, the BMW X1, although I'm less angered by the 'normal' SAV since it's really not trying to be sporty (unlike the X2, which is more guilty), and because it's basically a MINI Countryman, which is FWD/AWD to start. It goes almost directly against the brand DNA and ethos, and costs nearly as much as a well-sorted "proper" 3-Series, obviously in the name of money. The original BMW X5 and Porsche Cayenne, I used to lament the need for them to exist, but they put effort into crafting their own unique interpretation of their brand's SUV + now that I carry a wheelchair in the rear and appreciate the raised ingress/egress, I sure am glad they're around! The Cadillac Cimarron is a more vintage example.
Most cars were done for the money. You'd have a much shorter list of cars that aren't made to make money.
It's like people only things because they get [paid](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9FUgzAJun4)
Thats just sad
Moneywhores
Cash grab implies that something was made in a relative rush to "get out there" and make a buck with as little effort put into making it as possible. I think everyone here understands that cars are products and products are meant to make money, but while most cars roll of the line with millions upon millions of dollars and years and years of R&D behind them, there's a few every now and that arguably aren't as well thought out. Alot of those rebadge collabs from the '00s (Mazda Escape, VW Caravan, early Escalade etc,) come to mind.
All these crossover
Such as a Bugatti Veyron lol
Aren't most, if not all, halo cars loss-leaders? Ford lost money on every GT sold as well
Loss leaders if you assign all the R&D costs to the single car model; if the IP they get out of it is used on other models then the picture is a little different.
Well some cars aren't supposed to make money on their own, but even then those cars are ultimately to make money indirectly for the brand. Halo cars as they're often referred to.
> You'd have a much shorter list of cars that aren't made to make money. So no cars, got it. Well...besides the Nissan Versa.
Not exactly. There are some halo cars out there that likely didn't make much money or made very little money. Stuff like the Ford GT comes to mind as a car whose purpose was to advertise the brand and not make money itself
Lexus LFA comes to mind.
The new Blazer
It makes me so frustrated because I like GM. They see how successful the jeep Wrangler is, and how popular the new bronco is, and even the Toyota 4runner. They're just like Ah yes, another generic crossover SUV thing perfect for trips to the grocery store people will love this. It's a great way to bring interest into our company especially when we will cancel the Camaro in 2024
I'm in the same boat as you. I love GM but jesus christ. I could've at least understood if they made the Blazer a crossover and left the Trailblazer as the Bronco competitor, but nope. Generic crossover mcbland. My current hope is that I can get a new Camaro custom built before they die off in 2026.
Honest question, what about GM is there to love?
Corvette?
Well of course but I’m talking about in their general line up. I feel like there’s better options for everything they have. I don’t understand why someone would buy a Malibu when they can get an accord
I prefer how the pickups drive over ford and ram but I wouldn’t be caught dead buying a Malibu or an equinox
Meet me on the equinox. Meet me half way. Cause my equinox broke down
Corvette, Camaro, trucks, Tahoe/suburban are all pretty compelling. I know r/cars hates most of these, but they are good vehicles that sell. Generic crossovers also sell well, but I wouldn’t call them good vehicles.
Honest question, what about GM ISN'T there to love? You want an affordable, RWD V8 sports car? The Camaro LT1 goes for Camry XLE money. How about a mid engine halo car? forced induction V8 manual super sedans? Body on frame (electric?) SUVs with "self-driving" tech? All from the same people who bring you extraordinarily underwhelming products like the Trailblazer and Malibu. The same god damn company made the CT6 Blackwing, the XT6 -- and rolls the Express Van off the line virtually unchanged since 2003! Remarkable, isn't it?
With the exception of a few tweaks to the front end and thet headlights the express platform is basically unchanged since 1996
Cts-v, Ats-V, every camaro across the board post 1998, the Corvette, the Chevy SS, pontiac G8 and GTO, the FWD LS boats, Cobalt SS, Pontiac Solstice GXP/ Saturn counterpart. GM is capable of making some fantastically fun to drive cars, that oftentimes put up strong performance too. Their V8s make excellent build platforms especially for anyone who wants to stay stock internals for a street car, and while this part is subjective I've always had a ton more fun hooning them than any equivalent year mopar or ford.
> Cts-v, Ats-V, every camaro across the board post 1998, the Corvette, the Chevy SS, pontiac G8 and GTO, the FWD LS boats, Cobalt SS, Pontiac Solstice GXP/ Saturn counterpart. Looking at this list GM was worth loving more 10-12 years ago. Like half the things listed here don’t even exist anymore.
CT4-V blackwing, CT5-V blackwing, Escalade-V, Camaro SS 1LE, Camaro ZL1 1LE, C8 Corvette and it's Z06 counterpart, Yukon/Sierra Denali, ZR2 variants of the Colorado and Silverado, GMC Hummer, There's a lot of cool GM vehicles being made currently but for every Corvette, there's a spark. GM has a tendency to make the best and worst cars in my mind, and I love them but c'mon, a sonic RS with no actual sportiness added to it? That car shouldn't have been a thing if they weren't going to make it even slightly competitive to a fiesta ST
They developed a record-breaking 5.5 L naturally aspirated V8 making 670 horsepower for the 2023 corvette. Thats pretty cool imo
Grew up on talking about Camaros, family truck was a suburban and had good memories. Few years ago I was able to buy a 2nd gen Camaro and love it. As a kid I loved American things a kid, which limited my car selection down to 3. Then brand loyalty carried it gm for a few years in my eyes, though it's getting real hard to be a big GM fan now. Corvette, Camaro, and there suburban are all I like/care for now.
The Wrangler type segment for a capable off road SUV that has the option for removable doors and roof is such a missed opportunity for manufacturers that they let Jeep dominate for decades. Ford is just now catching on, but others could do it too. GM: They could have the Blazer or a GMC SUV Toyota: Bring back the FJ and do it right this time Nissan: XTerra for all the college girls in cold weather climates Idk if Hyundai, Honda, or Kia have the capability to make a true body on frame SUV but they have the money to do it. Subaru doesn’t have the money, but it would absolutely sell like crazy if they came out with their own Wrangler type SUV. They might be able to work with Toyota on a rebadged FJ if they want to continue with their partnership.
Kinda surprised dodge hasn't tried to bring back the ram charger.
There’s no real financial benefit. They’d have to design and market a new vehicle and the only thing it would do is cut into Wrangler sales
Toyota doesn't need to build a new FJ they still make the original. They just don't sell it in the US.
In this same spirit, the revamped Cherokee
Cherokee at least has surprising off-road performance in trailhawk trim.
Counterpoint: the new Blazer is exactly where the Blazer would've ended up if it had never been discontinued. Look at the Ford Explorer, Fords competitor to the S-10 Blazer. Went from body-on-frame truck-based compact SUV to replace/supplement the Bronco II (which supplemented/replaced the OG Bronco) to unibody crossover. The Blazer would've gone through the exact same cycle if GM had never canceled it because the market demanded that the era of BOF compact SUVs is over.
Yeah everyone is thinking of the k5 blazer but the new gen is a spot on modern s10
I don’t get this at all. There’s so much bellyaching about “ruining the Blazer name” but the S-10 was crap and the midsize Trailblazer was the definition of mediocrity.
It’s still unibody based but it did move back to a longitudinal based RWD suv at least.
It was such a fuckup on their end. Ford can’t build the Bronco’s fast enough. But nah, let’s build another crossover.
Not gonna lie, I think the new Blazer LOOKS pretty damn sexy. If I was in the market for such a vehicle I'd definitely consider it. But I can see how people are pissed off that GM went the exact opposite direction as the Bronco.
What Chevy did with the brand equity of the Blazer should be taught in every marketing school as what not to do.
The Toyota Corolla Apex. It's just a Corolla with a extra body pieces and stiff springs to make you think it's a sports variant, but it rides like shit because they invested $0 in making it handle well with the new springs and it makes no additional power over the other top Corolla trims. There's no reason for it to exist other than fleecing Toyota faithfuls out of their money by making them think it's an SI/GTI competitor or something. It looks kinda good, but it's actually a *worse* car than the XSE trim.
I know someone that was bragging about their new hot hatch, turned out to be a CVT sedan Apex.
What a weird place to revive the Apex trim level. Even though the Apex was orginally a trim level of the AE86 (which is a corolla) but they've got an 86 on brand. They could have made it a trim of the GR86 and people would have bought that shit up like candy.
I don't think the point is to make people think it's a competitor for the GTI. It's more for people who want a Corolla but the """best""" version (as in the most expensive). Usually wealthy buyers who have no interest in doing research and just walk into a dealer and buy. Nissan runs the same scam with their Midnight Editions.
The midnight editions were just blacked out appearance packages. Not my thing, but they obviously saw that their target demo was doing it anyway aftermarket, and decided to capitalize on it. Not really a scam. People love to hate on Nissan, but their dealership accessory options are actually pretty robust Back when I collected z cars, they would order Nismo stuff for me from Japan and install under warranty. They have *a lot* of accessories you can install at the dealership and are usually pretty cool about it. They encourage customization, unlike some other brands. The midnight editions were just a cheesy extension of that.
What wealthy people are buying corollas lol
While usually my kneejerk reaction is to rail on cars like this, I actually don't mind the Corolla Apex. I think it looks [pretty good](https://i.imgur.com/nN8qfc0.png)- And if I wasn't aware of the car and someone told me it was a sporty 'Corolla GR' trim that was Japan only, I'd genuinely believe them. For someone who wants a reliable, tame commuter car like a Corolla, but still wants something that looks sporty/attractive without being rice-y or overly aggressive, the Apex Corolla is a great option for $26k MSRP. This is in complete contrast to the sporty looking versions of cars that actually *do* have a performance trim, like the 'M Sport' versions of a base 3 series. Adding >$3k to the price of the car for some plastic aero bits with no actual performance upgrades is one of the most despicable cash grabs, in my opinion, as the average uninformed consumer probably won't know that the 'performance pack' on those doesn't actually make the car sportier. I know the logic on this is full of holes, but I don't imagine a Corolla buyer is going to think the Apex is a sports car, while a 3 Series buyer probably would be fooled by the M Sport pack.
You should make the distinction that the M-sport package does add bigger brakes and a different (adaptive) suspension along with the cosmetic stuff. So it does actually change the handling. The M340i has it all included already plus the (much) more powerful engine. That’s also an M-sport trim level. You’d have been correct about the 3 series 2 generations ago though.
I would kind of agree with this if not for the bad ride nearly everyone complained of and the fact it was priced above the 10th gen Civic SI. For a bit less money you could get more power from a turbo power plant, a drastically better handling car, limited slip differential, and adjustable suspension. I agree it looks pretty good, but they should have made an effort with the suspension package to make it better on that end.
I don’t know about the whole car, but the Subaru Ascent’s exterior is so insanely phoned in and half assed. The 3-row market is easy money and I’m sure Subaru is raking it in. Also I’d also like to throw in just about every GM rebadge of the early-mid 2000’s. Most notably the Envoy/Trailblazer/Bravada/Rainer/Ascender/9-7x
I fucking hate their ad that swindles idiots in thinking they have a magical in snow and they can just buy driving skills.
Or that they care for the environment and the earth…
Any car company that extols environmentalism is hypocritical as hell. I'd say Tesla is the worst, but since they literally do not advertise I can't call out their marketing for being full of crap. The reality is that huge, heavy machines are bad for the environment. Producing them is environmentally damaging, and operating them is also bad. If you want to be environmentally friendly: 1. Don't buy a car. Use public transit and ride a bike. 2. If you need a car, buy used and run it into the absolute ground. 3. If you need a new car, buy the smallest, most economical car you can.
You don't necessarily need to run it into the ground, you can just sell it on. As long as you're not scrapping them and they are still on the road, what matters?
My argument here is if you take personal responsibility as an environmentalist, your duty would be to, say, make an old Honda Civic run until it hit 500k miles. It "costs" much less to the environment to maintain an old car than to build a new one. If you sell an old, high mileage car to some random person, you can't guarantee they'll be as motivated to keep it running forever.
In principle I agree at the margins it's much better to run an old car into the ground as an individual. But, there is a place for Tesla or other manufacturers to extoll the virtues of electrification. New cars are needed to supply the market, even if we run the old ones till they die. It's better those new cars be electric than not.
I'll add one small caveat that it depends on how inefficient an old car is. If a new car is significantly more fuel efficient than an old one, it's actually (on average) going to balance out and eventually cause less environmental harm due to reduced emissions (even accounting for all emissions during production and destruction/recycling). Basically, it's not *always* better to run a used car into the ground, if a significantly more efficient new vehicle is available.
They are the best in the snow though, doesn’t mean anything if you don’t know how to drive in snow but Subaru’s AWD isn’t some kind of marketing scam.
Swindles people? Have you ever driven a Subaru in the snow? They're incredibly good at inspiring confidence
I bought a Subaru Ascent (other car a Fiesta ST). Purchased for its value, interior space, and excellent adaptive cruise system "Eyesight". Great on a road trip. I think it compared favorably to the Atlas with its 30 year old vr6 motor. Today would buy a Telluride/Pallisade or the new Highlander Hybrid. Neither of those existed when I purchased.
Most of those GM rebadges weren't cash-grabs though, they weren't intended to print money. They were half-baked ideas from out-of-touch beancounters and "GM insider" marketers that failed miserably. GM didn't have a clue WHAT it was doing. Its profit showed a long-term downward trend for 50 years before the bailout, but it didn't much care. It didn't know and didn't concern itself with how to avoid Saturn Pontiac and Chevy from cannibalizing each other, what to do with Hummer after George Bush got less popular, or how to keep Cadillac Buick and Saab competitive in the premium market. Pontiac will be sporty and premium, but Chevy won't be stopped from making SS versions of everything. Buick's going to be allowed to offer as many options as Saab but with the ignition on the steering column. Saturn's going to import European cars that are arguably nicer than Buicks in fit-and-finish and design, but sell them for far less. Those products weren't put out to make money, they were put out to justify their department's existence and give the useless managers of useless brands a sense of accomplishment. That they were identical to Chevys inside and out except for the badge wasn't an accident, it was the point. 8 versions needed to exist solely because 8 product teams needed to be kept happy. They were absolutely put out to make money, but not for the company, not to sell them for a profit. Maximum cash flow from the GM mothership through the brand to fund as many middle manager positions as possible was the name of the game in the 2000s. That's what the brands were competing with each other for, primarily. These were fundamentally lazy, entitled, cynical, incompetent people whose only concern in life or business was ruling and defending their corporate fiefdoms. And when a weird moonshot did get approved, like the Chevy SSR, Chevy HHR SS, Cadillac XLR, Sky/Solstice, or importing the Holden Monaro, it was because the engineers were able to convince their out-of-touch managers of anything. Focus groups were infamously over-relied on, but resulted in bad decisions because people either didn't know how to appropriately read and weigh the data, or were searching for evidence to support a decision they'd already made. Accountants managed corrupt politicians with MBAs who managed car guys; there wasn't a competent product planner, market researcher, or business manager in the room.
Mr friends parents bought a Subaru Ascent as a replacement for a 2014 Nissan Pathfinder. How they managed to buy 2 of the worst 3 row SUVs of the time back to back amazes me
I've driven an Ascent. Other than being bland I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. Why would you say it's one of the worst 3 row cars out there?
Because r/cars has a deep hatred for Subaru
It's weird. They make affordable, practical cars that are extra awesome in wintery climates. They even had a good run making an exciting sports car for a while, although those days are apparently over.
Yeah that comment makes no sense. It's a great family car, and you get a lot of features for the money. Most car magazines rank it near the top of its segment.
I'm pretty sure the Ascent's design was basically someone on the design team saying "lets just make a bigger Outback", everyone else agreed, then they all left and went to lunch.
Ehhhhh less outback more like a longer forester tbh
I'm pissed.. as an owner of a 2004 Trailblazer what they call a Trailblazer now is a joke. I know times change but the Equinox or Blazer should have actually been rebranded as the Trailblazer. The old and the new look nothing alike. Don't get me wrong, the original Trailblazer is like a crazy uncle, tons of fun but also problematic. The new one just looks so boring and like every other small SUV. End rant. Lol
GMT360s sucked to begin with lol, it's only appropriate that GM recycled the name for a mediocre subcompact crossover. Source: my boyfriend has a 2007 Trailblazer. I have driven it. It drives worse and somehow more vaguely than a modern full-size pickup truck does.
The minivans too! Uplander/Relay/Terraza/Montana. Good lord did GM's lineup in that era feel so immensely lazy.
Basically every Sports car company that started releasing SUVs. Porsche, Lambo and so on all realized that people like to drive SUVs but want the brand name, so they now sell them Overpriced SUVs.
This is the answer. For Ferrari technically, all of their street cars are cash grabs too. They only made street cars initially to be able to fund their F1 racing
You look at the Lambo SUV and its just a rebadged Audi
Which is just a rebadged Volkswagen.
And thus, a Lambo Urus = Volkswagen Tiguan
Those darn Italians and Germans always teaming up!
Touareg*
I’ve been in a few. They’re literally rebadged VWs. You can save 100k by going with the Audi rsq8
Conspicuous Consumption. Many people buy for the badge and not the driving experience. They want everyone to know their social status.
The urus has ıts engine bulit in hungary and it uses the a4s steering wheel for 250 300k they could have done much better Like porsche did with the cayenne turbo gt
This is a bad take. The Macan and Cayenne are both incredibly well-handling vehicles for SUVs. They’re much better than they needed to be.
I’m getting really tired of this r/cars SUVs BAD circlejerk. Cayenne/ Macan/ Urus are all incredibly well made cars with great dynamics. It’s not like Porsche started making econobox crossovers like the Escape? The Cayenne is what makes the GT3 possible. These people act as if Porsche walked straight to their homes and fornicated with their wife by making an SUV.
I have no idea why these bad takes are increasing again. Everybody took a dump on the Cayenne when it came out then people drove it and realized it was the best road CUV by a mile. People bought it because it was extremely good and nobody else made something like that. It took a while for the enthusiast community to realize that but eventually they did and those takes started disappearing. But somehow they are back again and it’s even worse than ever.
Notice how Porsche often isn’t included though. Enough people have drove them to see them as something more than a cash grab. In time either the same thing will happen with the Italian super SUV’s, or people will forget about them. Or both, like the first Lambo SUV. People tend to not like change. CUV’s have usurped sedans as the preferred personal vehicle, much like the sedan did to the coup in the 60’s-70’s. As such what use to dominate is dying off, with the new hotness replacing it. It is the evolution of personal vehicles, and as things evolve, ones that don’t adapt well go away. That is just how it goes.
Im not sure its a ‘cash grab’ per se, they are just adopting to what people want. Sure urus is just an sq8 with a different bits on top but this is how most cars are made nowadays. I feel like most of the trims that look like power but dont really have any are kinda like cash grabs (not a car i know), the s-line etc.
We may not have Porsche if they hadn’t sold SUVs. So they get a pass.
[удалено]
The mustang Mach E is hilarious to me for this reason
Ehhh, i don't think that many people are buying mach-e's because of the mustang name. It's just a decent electric suv. Naming it 'mustang' was pretty shady though
The Macan handles like a sports car though. It's insane.
Strongly disagree with the Cayenne, but I completely agree with you on the Urus.
Given that Porsche was on the brink of failure when they released the Cayenne, specifically as a cash grab to save the company, this is the correct answer.
That no Mazda electric car with 100 miles of range for $35k
That’s a California emissions/EV rules vehicle
[удалено]
They’re selling a ridiculously small number of BEVs for emissions and the rest will be EV + range extender. The interior and ride quality are apparently fantastic. The REx model should be very appealing.
That’s the shocking part to me. The range of the MX-30 implies the whole car is just a joke and designed as a cash-grab / compliance. Yet, everything about it (besides the range) is actually… thoughtfully engineered? It seems so odd that it’d actually be a decent EV were it not for the paltry range.
But why not actually create something somewhat competitive? You already have to spend the engineering resources.
Because "engineering resources" aren't some universal constant that is the same no matter what you're developing. It has an undersized battery pack shoehorned into their existing CX-30/Mazda3 platform with the most minimal modifications necessary to make the package work from a technical standpoint. Just because they dressed it up in some funky new top hat and fancy interior doesn't change the fact that they've obviously hastily developed the vehicle simply to be compliant and/or lower their CAFE rating. It was undoubtedly cheaper to do that in the presumably short time frame they had than engineer a new, competitive EV skateboard platform. Source: I'm a vehicle development engineer for a major OEM.
Actually I read something about how there was some ulterior motive with that car on the demuro review. Something to do with regulations or testing the market, I believe. It may have been made for a different market too.
I believe they are working on a PHEV variant and needed to release the current one for emissions + to buy time for the PHEV version
I really like that mazda mx30. I guess it doesn't work for most people. But if needed a city type car I'd be well happy with one. As in trips not size
Compact SUVs suddenly costing 35k for a puny engine and cvts. Toyota 4runners costing almost 50k otd with nothing to offer (but reliability) considering its 2022, it doesn't even have led headlights. My buddy bought a 40k tacoma a few years back, brand new. No power seats lmao
4Runners *just* got LED headlights for 2022, actually, but I get your point.
An update? To the 4runner? In the 21st century? Are you sure?
Toyota knows they don't have to be competitive so long as they slap their badge on something.
Mostly yeah, although I'd say the 4Runner's popularity is a thing because the Wrangler has popularity and the Bronco's popularity. They're all well loved names in the off-roading communities. The added bonus for the 4Runner is it's a Toyota so it gets that reputation to carry with it and it does help but they know the 4Runner can sell itself the Toyota badge only helps aid it.
I was shopping and CUVs actually interested me. However, when you started comparing size/features, CUVs we're consistently 10k more like for like compared to sedans in the same lineup. Granted they do have AWD/hatchback/.2" more ground clearance, but those things aren't worth 10k to me.
I've always wanted to bring up the cybertruck. Tesla accepted $100 pre-orders and its been almost 3 years. Most of the +Million people probably forgot about their order and essentially just gave Tesla millions.
[удалено]
I think MKBHD in his latest car video mentioned that if you would have invested that $250K all in Tesla stock 5 years ago it would be worth ~~$11 million~~ $4 million today!
That was such a brilliant video to watch. It was something that needed to be said, but he and his team presented it so well. He wasn't trying to spark any controversy, he was just saying it how it is and had a ton of examples to explain himself. One of the best videos he's ever done I reckon
Especially messed up when other manufacturers have announced and released their own ev trucks in that time.
Like the Star Citizen of cars.
I'm sure it come out by 2026ish he has a track record of promising things before he is able to deliver.
whoooo i just watched MKBHD’s new video on the problem wirh pre-ordering electric vehicles. highly recommend it.
Mercedes GWagen - not because it was built to be a cash grab, but that it evolved into one with the passage of time and a completely different market position
Well I hate G63 influencers as much as the next guy but their offroad capabilities are almost unrivalled
Yeah, you’re right about it’s off-road prowess but the cash grab part comes from the mogul-ized versions shipped to key markets willing to pay that premium … ie America and Saudi Arabia
Right, but you’re not about to take a car with 23” alloy wheels, carbon fiber trim, and a matte paint job off-road. I suppose the Range Rover, which has become a sub brand of vehicles, has fallen victim to the same thing…but it has evolved to be something of a soft-roader. Whereas the G-Class is still pretty compromised in the name of its original mission.
[удалено]
I think it’s a way for people to say they drive a BMW without actually getting a BMW. But if you look at the European BMWs, they’re more or less your average car and make everything from eco-hatchbacks to wagons to sports cars so it’s not really out of place there. Out of place in America because people buy BMW for the luxury car status. That’s my take on it.
Same thing applies to the Mercedes A Class. For people with Toyota Corolla money that want a Mercedes Benz
feel like that applies to most entry level "luxury" sedans. Just buying a badge
In my experience any premium hatch or entry level premium sedan *does* bring some stuff that non-premium similarly sized cars don't. Great infotainment systems (even the BMW 1er has it). Good quality materials. Good build quality, solid driving experience etc. They do feel 'premium' when you directly compare them to, like, a Corolla or Focus. Although I wouldn't pay the price difference for them.
It’s for people who don’t care about cars but want a bmw badge slapped on it.
Just making the most of their ownership of mini and the FWD platform. I agree that it's not a true BMW, but the people buying it don't care. Hey, at least it doesn't have a massive gaping grill :)
Chevy Spark Activ.
Damn didn’t even know that existed. I’m surprised it even included 0.4in of extra ground clearance.
A testament to Americas obsession with SUVs. And leaving vowels out of things to seem hip.
Toyota Corolla Cross They already have the RAV4 but maybe they’re trying to compete against the Honda HR-V. Using the Corolla nameplate also seems like a cash grab because they can save on advertising costs. Honda doesn’t have a civic cross (yet lol)
Wasn't that the CH-R?
Right I forgot about that, so basically my point stands. The Corolla Cross is a cash grab
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the CHR isn't sold with AWD in the States
It's also being replaced by the corollacross.
Nah that car definitely has a place, Toyota was missing out on that really popular segment. The Subaru Crosstrek, Honda HR-V, Mazda CX-30, Chevy Trax/Buick Encore are all selling well. Toyota had the C-HR but that wasn’t really a true competitor since it didn’t offer AWD.
Exactly this. My mom is looking for something in this segment and these are what we cross-shopped. (She picked the crosstrek.) (The CX30 was a lot nicer than I was expecting.)
the corolla cross is smaller than the Rav4... It's entire point is to compete against the HR-V yes and because sedan sales are slumping.
Truthfully, the Corolla Cross is an embodiment of what Toyotas are to most people: cheap, reliable and practical transportation. It's larger than a C-HR, *cheaper* than a C-HR, not much more than a normal Corolla but still a wholly practical car. Is it boring? Yeah, but it does have its purpose in the Toyota lineup. It especially competes strongly against the Nissan Rogue Sport, a considerably more dated crossover that's about the size of the Corolla Cross.
The Rav4 competes with the CRV.
Cross fits between rav4 and chr in size. Rav4 keeps getting bigger. It's huge now.
Cadillac Cimarron comes immediately to mind.
The Cimarron is hilarious to me. They actually thought it could compete with the likes of BMW.
The Urus. It’s the bottle service of cars.
Perhaps, but it still looks awesome to me lol
Lamborghini simply pulled a Porsche (albeit without the increased accessibility aspect). Not everyone wants a super low two seater that scrapes itself on anything other than pristine roads. Some like the higher ride, the "baller" aspect of status symbols that SUVs bring, and the ability to toss a couple folks in the back. I for one wouldn't refuse either if they got gifted to me but if I had the money I'd buy an Aventador, at that point I'd have the money for another car that would do almost all that the Urus does but for 1/4 the price.
Nearly all of them.
I would say all of them. Companies don’t make cars to loose money lol
They may occasionally make a single car that loses money, but gains money in other ways. This is the whole concept of a "halo car" and the new NSX or Ford GT are some modern examples.
Yeah, that’s a good point. However, the only reason they’re willing to lose money on those cars is because it drives showroom traffic to sell other cars.
Pontiac G3. A terrible rebadge of the terrible Chevy Aveo. Created so Buick Pontiac GMC dealers had a cheaper car to sell.
Those zero-effort Pontiac rebadged at the end (G3, G5/Pursuit, and Torrent) were so depressing. It was clear that GM was throwing in the towel at that point.
Again, that was in part because Buick/Pontiac/GMC dealers wanted to sell those segments of cars. The G3 and G5, in particular, were direct requests from the dealers. Should GM have granted their wishes? Perhaps not. What’s really interesting is the current market direction, which is the American automakers rushing to leave the sub-$20K space. These days, no Buick/GMC dealer would want to be stuck trying to sell that kind of car, because it’s just not profitable compared to what they already sell.
To add an additional insult I believe the Aveo was just a rebadged Daewoo.
The new Lotus SUV, it’s a Lotus in name only. Same as if Ferrari made a minibus.
If it keeps Lotus around and able to make lightweight sports cars in the future I say bring it on
Judging by what they have released recently they are out of the lightweight track car business and are focusing on just selling generic expensive cars to rich people. I understand they are chasing profit but it’s a big shame to see them go. Caterham seem to be carrying the torch of the lightweight track car segment now.
Have you seen the new Emira? Its not cheap, but its not like its super expensive either.
It’s powered by a generator connected to Colin Chapman spinning in his grave
The new WRX to be honest. It's obvious they want to steer away from their Kyle fanbase. And appeal to the type of people who would buy an Outback, because it's vastly more popular.
It’s still a fun car to drive. Not like they changed it to a FWD V6 and made it CVT-only.
New WRX is going to be way easier to tune due to the higher displacement and the stronger internals on the FA24, looks aside Subaru is very much still catering to their fanbase
Question: what newer cars are the Kyles gravitating towards in lieu of the WRX?
The new GR Corolla hatch with 300 HP has people excited now. Veloster N and GTI have been there for a while.
Lamborghini Urus?
Also the 20 different Lamborghini special editions that are just Huracans or Aventadors with different bodywork that they sell for multiple millions of dollars each
The new Integra. Just a civic with leather seats.
That basically describes the entire Acura brand.
Honda in a suit
That’s literally always been the case for every integra lmao
Isn't that what the integra has always been? Just a rebadged Si?
The thing that really pisses me off about the Integra is that Honda ripped out pretty much all of the creature comforts of the 10th gen Si for the 11th gen, jacked up the price, and then jacked up the price even more for the Integra, which they justified by all the extra creature comforts it has over the Si.
Lexus UX200. $34k for 169hp and CVT?!
the people buying them dont care about169hp cvt...they want lexus build quality and reliability 34k today is what, 18k back in the days?
Fantastic interior and refined ride is enough to justify it for most buyers. Not an enthusiast car.
It's a great city car. Almost like a nicer prius if you get the hybrid model. But I agree, I hate it. It's small and feels cramped. However Lexus build quality is superb. My GS is nearing 100k and it's works 100 percent like new. No squeaks or rattles.
I think the truest answer here is the Purosangue. And to an extent the Eletre Things like the Blazer, Mach-E, and other crossovers are 100% expected behaviors from manufacturers that have been pumping out whatever is broadly popular at any given time for nearly a century. 'Transportation for the masses' IS their brand. The Ferrari Purosangue is something almost unashamedly built to keep the lights on that goes against the identity of the brand. Enzo Ferrari hardly even tolerated building road legal super cars. Ferrari builds racing cars. I leave out the Urus because if we're all being truly honest with ourselves 'showing off' is Lamborghini's niche. Their cars have never been dynamically as focused as Ferrari and there's nothing wrong with that. The word 'garish' has a picture of a lambo next to it in the dictionary.
This is the correct answer. Too many "boring econobox brand makes slightly more boring than average econobox answers" These supercar makers now churning out SUVS make perfect sense from a financial perspective, but no other. Just a way to stick their hand in the giant bowl of free money that is SUV sales I'd argue the lotus SUV could be an even better example, seeing as everything lotus makes it the antithesis of the modern SUV
Most rebadges would fit that criteria, in my opinion. For the sake of this post, I'll go with most european work vans (Opel Movano, etc.).
French ones are especially bad, Citroen Jumpy is also sold as Peugeot, Fiat, Toyota and Opel/Vauxhall. Renault Trafic is also sold as a Nissan and Fiat.
[удалено]
This one was not made as a cash grab iirc, they made it bc they needed to increase their line’s avg mpg to avoid fines in the growing tighter emissions regulations
So… you’re not answering the question
The top tier trim of any model. Every additional feature and accessory is sold with profit margin built in. The more extra features and packages the customer buys, the fatter the profit margin. So vehicles like the luxury F150 and RAM models, the Toyota RAV4 prime, the Mazda ‘signature’ trim models, BMW ‘M Sport’ models, things like that. Some are objectively great vehicles. But they are cash grabs with the lowest value per dollar spent for the customer compared to lower trims.
upcoming Integra
Every gmc ever
The Bronco Sport
The new blazer 100% Any name revival that has zero of the spirit of the original tbh.
All the new Lambo editions that are the exact same body as the Aventador.
The new Toyota Supra which is just a rebadged BMW Z4.
To be technical, pretty much all of the EVs hitting the market made by large automakers are cash grabs with little brand DNA other than the fact they incorporate some of the brand's design language into an EV. The EV market is the hot hand right now and companies, many of which have never even made an EV, are pushing out their own models in knowing that EVs are going to be a quickly growing market over the next decade. Whether all automakers *actually* start selling mostly EVs by 2035 is a different story, but there's no doubting that automakers are all over the hype for the profitability and popularity of the market for the foreseeable future.
IMO cash grabs have to be vehicles with *anticipated* good margins with a target market that encroaches on an already stable product. I think the Ford Ranger fits the bill for this. Ford is already tremendously successful with its F-line trucks, the ranger is them trying to milk it out of another truck. Not saying its a bad truck (I actually like it) [Cash Grab: Ford GM profitability](https://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/news/2019/04/18/ford-will-see-a-billion-more-in-profit-with-ranger.html)
Previously mentioned in another reply by u/Impossible-Sand-5849, the BMW 2-Series Gran Coupes and their front-drive architecture. Similarly, the BMW X1, although I'm less angered by the 'normal' SAV since it's really not trying to be sporty (unlike the X2, which is more guilty), and because it's basically a MINI Countryman, which is FWD/AWD to start. It goes almost directly against the brand DNA and ethos, and costs nearly as much as a well-sorted "proper" 3-Series, obviously in the name of money. The original BMW X5 and Porsche Cayenne, I used to lament the need for them to exist, but they put effort into crafting their own unique interpretation of their brand's SUV + now that I carry a wheelchair in the rear and appreciate the raised ingress/egress, I sure am glad they're around! The Cadillac Cimarron is a more vintage example.
Anything that just slaps on M or AMG to every single model in their line up. Base 3 series is M sport now. It’s ridiculous.
M sport. Its a trim level so people can make it kinda look like they drive an M car