Chrysler to End Badge Engineering

[NOS2006]

Auto industry watchers were surprised by Chrysler's swift move to kill-off five models late last year, but there are more product eliminations and dealer reorganization on the way, said Chrysler co-President Jim Press. Called "Project Genesis," a new strategy at Chrysler calls for the aelimination of so-called "badge-engineered" vehicles, plus the consolidation of many Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep dealerships into single stores.

Press said Chrysler's new owner, Cerberus Capital Management, realizes the automaker has too many duplicate products, and several may have to be eliminated, according to Automotive News. He didn't say what vehicles those might be, but some obvious names come to mind. The Jeep Compass, for example, has experienced slow sales compared to the Dodge Caliber on which it is based. The Dodge Avenger and Chrysler Sebring are also very similar, as are the Jeep Liberty and Dodge Nitro. It's not known if any of those products are on the chopping block.

To deal with an excessive number of unprofitable dealerships, Cerberus plans to merge several Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep outlets into "one-roof" stores. The plan will eventually affect nearly all dealers, though Cerberus is not currently planning to put a large amount pressure on dealers to consolidate. Rather, Cerberus hopes to guide them toward mergers that would ultimately increase profitability for everyone.

In late 2007, Cerberus famously axed the Dodge Magnum, Chrysler PT Cruiser Convertible, Chrysler Pacifica, and Chrysler Crossfire. However, discontinuing cars isn't the only component to the company's product strategy, Mr. Press said. The automaker will also focus on creating new vehicles for segments in which it currently does not compete.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/chrysler-to-en...ealerships.html

[Dragon]

The Jeep Compass, for example, has experienced slow sales compared to the Dodge Caliber on which it is based. The Dodge Avenger and Chrysler Sebring are also very similar, as are the Jeep Liberty and Dodge Nitro. It's not known if any of those products are on the chopping block.

while they are similar, I wouldn't exactly say they are badge engineered. The average buyer wouldn't know they are the same vehicle, unlike the Torrent/Equinoix

[Robert Hall]

while they are similar, I wouldn't exactly say they are badge engineered. The average buyer wouldn't know they are the same vehicle, unlike the Torrent/Equinoix

True...I would say Chrysler has no badge-engineered models currently (except for the Sprinter, though the MB it's BE-ed from isn't sold here, and maybe the minivans). It's not like the '90s when there was a Dodge and Plymouth Neon and the midsize models (Cirrus/Stratus/Breeze) had identical metal, with only different grilles/taillights...

The Aspen/Durango are about as differentiated as the Tahoe/Yukon...just enough to not be truly badge-engineered.

Edited February 8, 2008 by moltar

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

It seems everyone in Detroit is having to do a lot of navel gazing these days. Still, there is hope: if the once mighty Plymouth can be gone, then perhaps one day we can wish for Toyopet being vanquished from these shores, too.

[Robert Hall]

It seems everyone in Detroit is having to do a lot of navel gazing these days. Still, there is hope: if the once mighty Plymouth can be gone, then perhaps one day we can wish for Toyopet being vanquished from these shores, too.

Not likely...Plymouth was in a state of decline for at least 25 years before they were axed..

[NOS2006]

The Aspen/Durango are about as differentiated as the Tahoe/Yukon...just enough to not be truly badge-engineered.

Pretty damn close.. I'd still call it a badge job.

[Intrepidation]

Pretty damn close.. I'd still call it a badge job.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Dodgefan

[caddycruiser]

I really don't think "badge" engineering is a huge problem of theirs (the Durango/Aspen and Caravan/Town&Country are the only ones), the big problem is just too many vehicles that aren't even close to being competitive or are, somewhat, and just have terrible styling, refinement, materials, etc.

It's time to cut off dead weight like the Compass (why that one never was before...who knows, as it certainly doesn't sell at ALL), get rid of the Aspen, etc.

Even though it too didn't sell well lately, it's a shame the "last" of the eye pleasing, high quality (generally), refined, feature packed, etc. Pacifica had to die, because, in theory, if the rest of their vehicles had the combination of looks, interior quality, refinement, etc. it did, they'd be MUCH better off.

They just need a massive clean house operation...basically. They could do a GM style turn around, but are so far below even bare minimums right now, and need so much to get it right...it's not a bright outlook.

[Croc]

What's your point? The front ends are completely different. The Dodge and Chrysler have everything in the same place and similar shapes. Yukon's headlights are nothing like the Tahoe's. Grilles and bumpers are different too...not really the case with the ChryCo models since the grilles are the same shape and the bumpers are the same.

Going around to the rear, there really isn't much you can do to differentiate the rear of a truck/wagon/SUV, but even here GM does a pretty good job. Badge location is different and consistent with brand marketing (the smaller GMC in the corner looks more upscale than the large bowtie across the center), the GMC has a blacked out D-pillar, and the taillamps have a different light order, as well as the Yukon's being a brighter red than the Tahoe's, which look smoked to me.

Roof rails are also different.

Basically, Tahoe/Yukon have a very different presence to them, while the Chrysler and Dodge do not.

-------------------

As for Chrysler having too many similar models, therefore they need to be cancelled...I think this is just stupid. Chrysler is going to be bankrupt if they keep designing completely unique vehicles that have no commonality whatsoever.

Utilizing the same platform across different brands is SMART...the problem is Chrysler's execution. Dodge and Chrysler compete for the sae buyers. The Charger costs more than the 300 at comparable equipment levels. The Avenger/Sebring are the exact same vehicle.

What Chrysler needs to do is figure out what POSITION they want each brand to take to attack the market. Right now it's like watching a soccer team where everyone thinks they're goalie. Pick a mission for Dodge, pick a Mission for Chrysler, and pick a mission for Jeep. Develop product line accordingly. Avenger/Sebring should both stick around, but one should be decidedly uplevel from the other. My pick would be the Chrysler. That means it needs a nicer interior. Make the Dodge a little sportier, too. Give it a harder-tuned suspension. Add content to the Chrysler without taking content away from the Dodge in the process, and suddenly you'll have two vehicles that target completely different markets.

[NOS2006]

The Yukon and Tahoe are about the same as the Aura and G6. They're not designed differently enough from each other, but I wouldn't call them as close to each other as the Durango and Aspen.

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

You guys are splitting hairs: the Aspen/Durango is an obvious rebadge, as is the Tahoe/Yukon. It takes more than a new set of headlights and a grill to fool the public - that is something Detroit hasn't learned yet. The G6/Aura look nothing alike, I would agree; however, the Aura/Malibu's origins are showing. GM even contemptuously called the Suburban the same for GMC and Chevy for a while - gimme a break!

A lot of Detroit's woes can be traced back to their perennial contempt for the intelligence of the American public. Detroit has to get out of its ivory tower and wake up. Why can Ford build a great car in Europe (the Focus), yet deliver a near POS in America?

The entire reason Plymouth died was its irrelevance in the market place, only accelerated by the K-car fiasco. With the badge and grille swapping that ChryCo did in the '70s (Imperial/NewYorker/Newport/St. Regis debacle anyone?), it is a wonder that company is still in business.

[NOS2006]

It takes more than a new set of headlights and a grill to fool the public - that is something Detroit hasn't learned yet.

It's not just Detroit...

Why can Ford build a great car in Europe (the Focus), yet deliver a near POS in America?

That's a damn good question.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

The new "badge engineering" spiel is just a ploy by the media to eliminate domestic divisions.

There are few, if any badge engineered detroit products now. And if there is; then we need to start talking about Toyota/Lexus models and Honda/Acura.

[CMG]

ALL automakers badge engineer so much it isn't worth keeping track of anymore...

Too many duplicate vehicles in a market that can't absorb them HAS to be addressed, by EVERY automaker. small and midsize SUVs are packed on lots everywhere....

[ocnblu]

Durango/Aspen appears to have different bumpers, lights, fenders, hoods, rear doors, wheels, interiors and rear quarter panels. The only shared exterior sheetmetal appears to be the front doors, hatchgate and roof. Tahoe/Yukon share much more sheetmetal and nearly the entire interiors. I prefer the looks of the GMT900s of course, but I'm just saying...

[BigPontiac]

Appears they may be killing the Viper too. Link

[Robert Hall]

The Yukon and Tahoe are about the same as the Aura and G6. They're not designed differently enough from each other, but I wouldn't call them as close to each other as the Durango and Aspen.

Not quite..the Aura and G6 share no sheetmetal or interiors; the differences between the Yukon and Tahoe are quite trivial.

[Blake Noble]

The Tahoe and Yukon have the following parts totally different from one another:

• Front fascia assembly.
• Headlights.
• Hood.
• Front quarter panels (I can't believe you guys don't notice this).
• Rub strips.
• Taillights.

The Durango and Aspen have the following parts totally different from one another:

• Front fascia assembly.
• Headlights.
• Hood.
• Front quarter panels.
• Rub strips.
• Rear-quarter panels.
• Taillights.
• Rear bumper fascia assembly.

So, yes, more was changed on the Durango/Aspen than on the 900s. However, you would think that with all of the money that Chrysler Corp. spent in trying to differentiate the Durango (MCE) from the Aspen, and vice versa, they would have made the changes more significant and apparent. The styling is so similar overall, you'd never really notice the differences until you looked really, really close. The 900s actually have lesser changes made to them, and yet you can't really say they look like blatant re-badges and also can't say they look totally different from each other. Edited February 9, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Robert Hall]

The Tahoe and Yukon have the following parts totally different from one another:

• Front fascia assembly.
• Headlights.
• Hood.
• Front quarter panels (I can't believe you guys don't notice this).

You mean the front fenders? Yes, they are different.

Rub strips.

Taillights.

The Durango and Aspen have the following parts totally different from one another:

• Front fascia assembly.
• Headlights.
• Hood.
• Front quarter panels.
• Rub strips.
• Taillights.
• Rear bumper fascia assembly.

The Durango and Aspen also have different rear quarter panels..

[Blake Noble]

You mean the front fenders? Yes, they are different.

No one really seems to notice that there's a Colorado/Canyon-esque character line running a few inches down from the top of the headlight and stopping a few inches away from the door, though (the Escalade also has it, as well, but it stops at the fender vent). You ask someone to name all of the differences, and they over look it.

The Durango and Aspen also have different rear quarter panels..

Thought I typed this. Oh, well. Error fixed.

Edited February 9, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Robert Hall]

No one really seems to notice that there's a character line running a few inches down from the top of the headlight, though. You ask them to name all of the differences, and they omit it.

Yeah, but that's a trivial thing...the greenhouse and doors and the same, as are the rear quarters and hatch...that's where the GMC and Chevy look much the same..

[Blake Noble]

Yeah, but that's a trivial thing...the greenhouse and doors and the same, as are the rear quarters and hatch...that's where the GMC and Chevy look much the same..

The doors, greenhouse, and hatch are also the same on the Durango/Aspen and that's also the main area where they look the same, as well, just like the 900s. The rear quarter panels are the only thing that's actually been significantly changed on the Aspen, compared with the 900s, which have no changes in this area.

The changes done to differentiate the Durango/Aspen are just as trivial as the ones on the 900s, when you look at the big picture. They don't add up to much.

Edited February 9, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Cory Wolfe]

Not that it makes much more of a difference, but shouldnt we be comparing the Escalade and the Tahoe instead of the Yukon? The Aspen doesn't really compete with the Yukon...

[Robert Hall]

Not that it makes much more of a difference, but shouldnt we be comparing the Escalade and the Tahoe instead of the Yukon? The Aspen doesn't really compete with the Yukon...

Sure it does..it doesn't compete with the Escalade. The Escalade really only has one competitor--the Navigator.

Edited February 9, 2008 by moltar

[Cory Wolfe]

The doors, greenhouse, and hatch are also the same on the Durango/Aspen and that's also the main area where they look the same, as well, just like the 900s. The rear quarter panels are the only thing that's actually been significantly changed on the Aspen, compared with the 900s, which have no changes in this area.

The changes done to differentiate the Durango/Aspen are just as trivial as the ones on the 900s, when you look at the big picture. They don't add up to much.

Technically, the rear doors on the Aspen are different. The flares are smoothed on the Aspen versus creased on the Durango.

[Blake Noble]

Technically, the rear doors on the Aspen are different. The flares are smoothed on the Aspen versus creased on the Durango.

Hmmm ... good catch. Guess it's like the Yukon's character line.

Like I said earlier, you'd think that with the money automakers use to make insignificant changes like this would be used towards making each vehicle quite different from one another.

[Robert Hall]

Hmmm ... good catch. Guess it's like the Yukon's character line.

Like I said earlier, you'd think that with the money automakers use to make insignificant changes like this would be used towards making each vehicle quite different from one another.

Agreed... though changing a front clip is much cheaper than changing a greenhouse..anything that affects door and window openings is very expensive, I think.

Historically GM has never put too much effort in distinguishing Chevy and GMC truck and SUV styling... look at the Canyon and Colorado for recent examples, or the previous generation pickups and full-size SUVs. Though with the Trailblazer and Envoy they did a bit more than usual. With cars and crossovers, I think GM has done a great job with differentiating all the Epsilons and Lambdas, though..

[Blake Noble]

Agreed... though changing a front clip is much cheaper than changing a greenhouse..anything that affects door and window openings is very expensive, I think.

I'm not saying change it all, you can design two totally different looking vehicles and still have them share the same roof panel, internal structure for the doors, etc. and not have the total cost be waayyyy up there.

Historically GM has never put too much effort in distinguishing Chevy and GMC truck and SUV styling... look at the Canyon and Colorado for recent examples, or the previous generation pickups and full-size SUVs. Though with the Trailblazer and Envoy they did a bit more than usual.

I'll say this: the Canyon and Colorado are actually downgrades from their predecessors. I test drove a manual, five-cylinder Canyon back when I was looking to replace my S-10, and the only thing I can say I really liked about it was the power and the clutch take up, but that's aside from the styling, which with the last-generation S-Series trucks, you'll find that they have had different hoods, front fascia assemblies, and headlamps throughout the whole second generation. And I know from every last bit of research I did on converting the front fascia on my old S-10 to a Sonoma one that the swap isn't exactly as easy as you may think.

The last-generation full-sized trucks got better differentiated after their MCE, as did the SUVs, but that was only south of the border I believe.

And the TrailBlazer and Envoy were pretty different from each other, yes.

With cars and crossovers, I think GM has done a great job with differentiating all the Epsilons and Lambdas, though..

I'll have to agree with this.

Edited February 9, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Croc]

So, yes, more was changed on the Durango/Aspen than on the 900s. However, you would think that with all of the money that Chrysler Corp. spent in trying to differentiate the Durango (MCE) from the Aspen, and vice versa, they would have made the changes more significant and apparent. The styling is so similar overall, you'd never really notice the differences until you looked really, really close. The 900s actually have lesser changes made to them, and yet you can't really say they look like blatant re-badges and also can't say they look totally different from each other.

Exactly. The 900s have a different presence to them, whereas the Aspen/Durango really look the same to me. After reading your list, I could see all the changes, but I tried to note everything in my original post and obviously blew it.

The nice thing about the GMC and Chevrolet differentiations are that the few subtle changes made do a lot to effect the vehicles' presence. The Yukon is marketed as more upscale, slightly more feminine (adhering to GMC's demographics), and the softer headlamps, grille shape, and soft, subtle character lines make it a less-aggressive design than the Tahoe. Chevrolet stuck a big, prominant bowtie on the rear liftgate, while the GMC has a small, subtle GMC logo tucked into the lower right corner. The blacked-out D-pillar on the Yukon also de-emphasizes the sheer girth and blockiness of the T-900, making it seem more subdued than the Tahoe and its clearly defined dimensions.

Also, while the Yukon and Tahoe share the same basic interior design, the Yukon's two-tone scheme on the door panels, coupled with trim, makes it feel like it is more uplevel than the Chevrolet, though the interiors are nearly identical in actual design.

Edited February 9, 2008 by Croc

[maxximus1]

the only thing i care about in chryslers lineup is the jeep grand cherokee and the jeep commander. they may share the same platform but are as different as night and day, two very different styles inside and out. i love em both.

Edited February 9, 2008 by maxximus1

[Intrepidation]

I'm not sure what all of this talk of "presence" is about. To me, the Yukon looks like what it is: a Tahoe with a GMC fascia.

As some other have pointed out, Chrysler actually di a lot of little changes to the Durango/Aspen. They have different goods, grills, bumpers, headlights, and taillights. The rear quarter stampings are different too (as opposed to being the same on the Yukon/Tahoe). They also made an effort to change the interiors a bit. Granted the interiors in the GM SUVs are way better anyway, so it's kinda moot, but still. The Aspen should have gone further or not exist. Anyway, the Yukon is very close to the Tahoe, closer than the Aspen, it's not until you get to the Escalade do you get more meaningful differentiation (door shapes, completely different interior, and so on).

The Escalade certainly has a different presence than the other two.

Edited February 9, 2008 by Dodgefan

[enzl]

Yukon=Tahoe.

Durango=Aspen.

Period.

Details aside, when the least astute observers note the similarities, your product is basically badge engineered. Quibble all you want, these are twins. Anyone who knows cars knows they are basically interchangeable, with little but equipment and trim levels that vary.

[ehaase]

I wouldn't be surprised if the idea from several months ago of Jeep being the SUV brand, Chrysler being the car, crossover, and minivan brand, and Dodge primarily being the pickup truck brand with a few high performance cars becomes reality.

[Robert Hall]

the only thing i care about in chryslers lineup is the jeep grand cherokee and the jeep commander. they may share the same platform but are as different as night and day, two very different styles inside and out. i love em both.

Same here...as a GC owner, it's probably the only Chrysler product I'd seriously consider buying now...though I'm looking forward to seeing the Challenger..it's definitely a car I wouldn't mind having down the road. I like aspects of the 300 and Charger, but I don't think I'd buy either one.

[Croc]

Yukon=Tahoe.

Durango=Aspen.

Period.

Details aside, when the least astute observers note the similarities, your product is basically badge engineered. Quibble all you want, these are twins. Anyone who knows cars knows they are basically interchangeable, with little but equipment and trim levels that vary.

Mechanically, yes. But the general public does not know cars like we do, and even though the Chevrolets and GMCs are essentially identical, they serve two distinctly different groups of buyers.

I know you are calling this "quibbling," but I'd be making the same argument for the Aspen and Durango had Chrysler used the differences between them to make the Aspen a little softer, curvier, more feminine than the Durango. As it is, both are very masculine designs. The Aspen is more squared-off-looking than the Durango, which IMO was a mistake. Chrysler should have designed the Durango like the facelifted iteration from the start, let Jeep carry off the boxy theme, and made the Aspen softer-looking than the Durango.

EDIT: Since Chrysler has unique fascias for both the Durango and Aspen, here's what they could have done to make them look more differentiated and appeal to less similar buyers:

Aspen: Have the headlights and grille look more like the 300. The 300 headlamps look "designed," as opposed to manufactured. A 300-style grille would look classier, too. As for the rear, the flat, square taillights are very cheap and uninspiring for me. Again, something jeweled or more "designed" looking would have been better. Hell, a virtual copy of the 300C's would have been great.

As it is, the Aspen is such a mish-mash of design cues. It has the Ford Explorer headlamps that are mated to a curvaceous body. It then has a flat, depth-less rear treatment that looks like it was designed circa 1995. If the design were more compelling, it would be a better seller. And yes, I'm sure that although none of the changes I've outlined would affect more body panels than are currently unique to the Aspen, the changes would probably cost a little bit more to implement. My theory, though, is that Chrysler would actually have greater profitability because while the cost per vehicle would be slightly higher, cheaping out isn't doing them any good when the vehicles are sitting on lots. A more expensive-looking, compelling design would command a greater transaction price IMO.

Edited February 9, 2008 by Croc

[Satty]

Chrysler just needs to end the practice of building cars, it will make the world a better place.

[enzl]

Mechanically, yes. But the general public does not know cars like we do, and even though the Chevrolets and GMCs are essentially identical, they serve two distinctly different groups of buyers.

I know you are calling this "quibbling," but I'd be making the same argument for the Aspen and Durango had Chrysler used the differences between them to make the Aspen a little softer, curvier, more feminine than the Durango. As it is, both are very masculine designs. The Aspen is more squared-off-looking than the Durango, which IMO was a mistake. Chrysler should have designed the Durango like the facelifted iteration from the start, let Jeep carry off the boxy theme, and made the Aspen softer-looking than the Durango.

EDIT: Since Chrysler has unique fascias for both the Durango and Aspen, here's what they could have done to make them look more differentiated and appeal to less similar buyers:

Aspen: Have the headlights and grille look more like the 300. The 300 headlamps look "designed," as opposed to manufactured. A 300-style grille would look classier, too. As for the rear, the flat, square taillights are very cheap and uninspiring for me. Again, something jeweled or more "designed" looking would have been better. Hell, a virtual copy of the 300C's would have been great.

As it is, the Aspen is such a mish-mash of design cues. It has the Ford Explorer headlamps that are mated to a curvaceous body. It then has a flat, depth-less rear treatment that looks like it was designed circa 1995. If the design were more compelling, it would be a better seller. And yes, I'm sure that although none of the changes I've outlined would affect more body panels than are currently unique to the Aspen, the changes would probably cost a little bit more to implement. My theory, though, is that Chrysler would actually have greater profitability because while the cost per vehicle would be slightly higher, cheaping out isn't doing them any good when the vehicles are sitting on lots. A more expensive-looking, compelling design would command a greater transaction price IMO.

I can't argue the micro marketing...you are right, they serve somewhat separate audiences...but that's a perception issue, not a mechanical or practical issue.

[Cory Wolfe]

I'm not sure what all of this talk of "presence" is about. To me, the Yukon looks like what it is: a Tahoe with a GMC fascia.

As some other have pointed out, Chrysler actually di a lot of little changes to the Durango/Aspen. They have different goods, grills, bumpers, headlights, and taillights. The rear quarter stampings are different too (as opposed to being the same on the Yukon/Tahoe). They also made an effort to change the interiors a bit. Granted the interiors in the GM SUVs are way better anyway, so it's kinda moot, but still. The Aspen should have gone further or not exist. Anyway, the Yukon is very close to the Tahoe, closer than the Aspen, it's not until you get to the Escalade do you get more meaningful differentiation (door shapes, completely different interior, and so on).

The Escalade certainly has a different presence than the other two.

While I recognize that the Chrysler twins have more changes, they don't really equate to much. The headlight shape is nearly identical, the grill shape is identical, the bumpers are barely different, as are the hoods. The rear panels are the biggest difference because of the Durango's bulging circular taillights.

[Intrepidation]

Yukon=Tahoe.

Durango=Aspen.

Period.

Details aside, when the least astute observers note the similarities, your product is basically badge engineered. Quibble all you want, these are twins. Anyone who knows cars knows they are basically interchangeable, with little but equipment and trim levels that vary.

I agree.

While I recognize that the Chrysler twins have more changes, they don't really equate to much. The headlight shape is nearly identical, the grill shape is identical, the bumpers are barely different, as are the hoods. The rear panels are the biggest difference because of the Durango's bulging circular taillights.

Yeah, I never said that the changes they made to the Aspen made it look vastly different. Compared to the pre-MCEd Durango it does, but not the post MCE Durango. They don't equate to much and neither does the Tahoe/Yukon.

The Yukon's only excuse is that GMC dealers tend not to be grouped with Chevy dealers, so you wouldn't normally see them together, but then if you have an Escalade next to a Tukon (especially Denali) you'll see similarities.

I think the Aspen was created to give Chrysler dealers something to sell for those who wanted a Chrysler SUV and didn't have to look elsewhere. Since the dealers are being consolidated that makes the Aspen pretty pointless...that and $3 gasoline.

[CMG]

Chrysler just needs to end the practice of building cars, it will make the world a better place.

Intelligent, as usual.

LOL!

[turbo200]

Character ["presence"] is historically what seperates design phases of different car companies. You can use the eyes, the mouth, the nose otherwise known collectively as the front fascia to emote different character. There is a subconscious human reaction, explainable through the understanding of human behavior, or anthropology, that dictates what our emotions are drawn to. Over the course of the century, there are pivotal vehicles that elicit extreme reactions, that ultimately lead to huge sales, that are testament to this. The original Mustang wasn't just a pretty body, but it had interesting character, a good quality, it was a handsome face, a look of discipline. A strong stout-hearted man. This was a car whose face many people of all different walks of life, no matter how developed, or undeveloped, could be attracted to. In that sense, we amplify our characteristics on cars.

Today, so many automakers are going for the aggressive "look" it's getting tiring. Not because that look is unattractive, but because there is so much depth to the human soul that we can express on cars that can lead to great designs. Just look back at the '60's for inspiration and direction. It's this soul of the car that builds attraction, and is something that has escaped many car companies. It escaped the Lumina of the '90's, which was like an aunt that you didn't want to see necessarily, but she was always just too nice. The Silverado/Sub/Tahoe have always had great character, a sense of dignity, pride about them....that made them work. They looked stern and ready for action.

Anywho. just thought i'd comment. There really is a different presence in between the Tahoe and the Yukon, and though it may be splitting hairs, it certainly causes some of us to be attracted to one and others of us to be attracted to the other.

[CMG]

Yukon=Tahoe.

Durango=Aspen.

Period.

Details aside, when the least astute observers note the similarities, your product is basically badge engineered. Quibble all you want, these are twins. Anyone who knows cars knows they are basically interchangeable, with little but equipment and trim levels that vary.

I agree too.

The "well, these two are a little less badge engineered" doesn't really hold water too well, alot of new stuff nowadays is badge engineered, between import/domestics as well.

My buddy used to toss Escalade front ends on Chevy pickups. It's a straightforward swap.

*shrugs*

[Croc]

I can't argue the micro marketing...you are right, they serve somewhat separate audiences...but that's a perception issue, not a mechanical or practical issue.

Well, one of the first things they teach you in business school (Marketing 101) is that "Perception = Reality." Without going through the archives, I seem to remember you making that point in relation to GM and how the consumer market views (viewed) GM products as crap--despite Vehicle X being pretty darn good, and Vehicle Y not being too shabby either--as a result of perceptions stemming from the 1970s and 1980s.

Since GM has, whether through subtle styling differentiators or marketing voodoo, created the consumer perception (supported by sales data) that the GMC is more refined and upscale in comparison to the nearly identical Chevrolet model, it might as well be reality.

Chrysler, on the other hand, hasn't with regards to the Durango and Aspen.

[Robert Hall]

Character ["presence"] is historically what seperates design phases of different car companies. You can use the eyes, the mouth, the nose otherwise known collectively as the front fascia to emote different character. There is a subconscious human reaction, explainable through the understanding of human behavior, or anthropology, that dictates what our emotions are drawn to. Over the course of the century, there are pivotal vehicles that elicit extreme reactions, that ultimately lead to huge sales, that are testament to this. The original Mustang wasn't just a pretty body, but it had interesting character, a good quality, it was a handsome face, a look of discipline. A strong stout-hearted man. This was a car whose face many people of all different walks of life, no matter how developed, or undeveloped, could be attracted to. In that sense, we amplify our characteristics on cars.

Today, so many automakers are going for the aggressive "look" it's getting tiring. Not because that look is unattractive, but because there is so much depth to the human soul that we can express on cars that can lead to great designs. Just look back at the '60's for inspiration and direction. It's this soul of the car that builds attraction, and is something that has escaped many car companies. It escaped the Lumina of the '90's, which was like an aunt that you didn't want to see necessarily, but she was always just too nice. The Silverado/Sub/Tahoe have always had great character, a sense of dignity, pride about them....that made them work. They looked stern and ready for action.

Anywho. just thought i'd comment. There really is a different presence in between the Tahoe and the Yukon, and though it may be splitting hairs, it certainly causes some of us to be attracted to one and others of us to be attracted to the other.

You in marketing?

[Croc]

The "well, these two are a little less badge engineered" doesn't really hold water too well, alot of new stuff nowadays is badge engineered, between import/domestics as well.

I think we're really arguing on semantics here. You and a few others are using "badge engineered" as "two vehicles that are for all practical purposes the same, but have different badges."

When I use "badge engineered," my usage is a little more specific: "two vehicles that appear to be nearly identical." The difference is subtle; the best example I can think of are the 1996 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable. Here are two vehicles that were targeted to THE EXACT SAME BUYER, used two variations of THE EXACT SAME DESIGN THEME, and were (rightfully, IMO) accused as "badge-engineered" even though when you look at them side-by-side, they share almost no exterior sheetmetal. Ford went to great lengths to differentiate the two from a "shared parts" standpoint; the Taurus had an ovoid rear windshield that reportedly consumed buco bucks in engineering work. Completely different front and rear ends. Differing greenhouses. I think the front doors were the same, and the hoods were.

BUT COULD ANYONE REALLY TELL? NO!!

When you design two vehicles as two variations of the same design theme (in this example, "Jellybean" and "Extreme, No-Edges-Allowed Jellybean") that are targeted to the exact same buyer (parent who likes rounded corners vs. parent who is OBSESSED with roundness), you will be accused of "badge-engineering" even when virtually none of the sheetmetal (if any) is shared.

The GMT-800 trucks and most of their predecessors WERE badge-engineered in the truest sense: the only real difference between them was that the Chevrolet got Chevrolet badging and a bar across the grille, while the GMC did not. But with the GMT-900s, a consumer can take one look at the front and see it's a different vehicle. Take a quick look at the back and it's 50/50 if they realize the main difference (blacked out D-pillar on Yukon, but that gives the illusion of a more panoramic greenhouse), but though they can't quite put their finger on it, they'll say the Yukon looks "cleaner" or "neater" (no giant logo on the center of the liftgate).

And because I feel like it, here are some pictures for any of you who get hot looking at ovals and rounded corners:

Proof that it's the QUALITY of changes made, not necessarily the QUANTITY of them.

Edited February 9, 2008 by Croc

[Intrepidation]

Defend to the death if you will, the Tahoe and Yukon are badge engineering. Although I do agree that it's the quality of the changes not the quantity. Sure the Tahoe and Yukon have good quality changes, but the design was good to begin with. Taken from the side or back they are very similar, you can tell they are related, only upfront do they look noticeably different. So we can say that the Tahoe / Yukon are badge engineered, but well done.

For the record, I think Ford di a better job when they refreshed them:

[CARBIZ]

Character ["presence"] is historically what seperates design phases of different car companies. You can use the eyes, the mouth, the nose otherwise known collectively as the front fascia to emote different character. There is a subconscious human reaction, explainable through the understanding of human behavior, or anthropology, that dictates what our emotions are drawn to. Over the course of the century, there are pivotal vehicles that elicit extreme reactions, that ultimately lead to huge sales, that are testament to this. The original Mustang wasn't just a pretty body, but it had interesting character, a good quality, it was a handsome face, a look of discipline. A strong stout-hearted man. This was a car whose face many people of all different walks of life, no matter how developed, or undeveloped, could be attracted to. In that sense, we amplify our characteristics on cars.

Today, so many automakers are going for the aggressive "look" it's getting tiring. Not because that look is unattractive, but because there is so much depth to the human soul that we can express on cars that can lead to great designs. Just look back at the '60's for inspiration and direction. It's this soul of the car that builds attraction, and is something that has escaped many car companies. It escaped the Lumina of the '90's, which was like an aunt that you didn't want to see necessarily, but she was always just too nice. The Silverado/Sub/Tahoe have always had great character, a sense of dignity, pride about them....that made them work. They looked stern and ready for action.

Anywho. just thought i'd comment. There really is a different presence in between the Tahoe and the Yukon, and though it may be splitting hairs, it certainly causes some of us to be attracted to one and others of us to be attracted to the other.

Good points. Detroit was at its best when it took risks. Wallstreet has too much power these days, however, for that to happen again. Just look how different any mid-60s Detroit iron looked from each other: there was no mistaking an Impala from a Catalina or a Polara from a Belvedere. The '50s and '60s were about whimsy and design: spoilers, fins, push button trannies, square steering wheels - it was all fun. Then again, they didn't have crash tests or committees and other crap to get by. Still, I can't help but think that sometimes Detroit just thinks we are all STUPID. Perhaps Chrysler needed a break with the original K-cars because they simply didn't have the money, and they had a bonafide hit on their hands anyway, but this constant cloning/rehashing of the same vehicle, whether it is Ford, GM or Toyota, is silly.

You can fool some of the people most of the time.....................

[Croc]

Defend to the death if you will, the Tahoe and Yukon are badge engineering. Although I do agree that it's the quality of the changes not the quantity. Sure the Tahoe and Yukon have good quality changes, but the design was good to begin with. Taken from the side or back they are very similar, you can tell they are related, only upfront do they look noticeably different. So we can say that the Tahoe / Yukon are badge engineered, but well done.

Agree to disagree. To me, though, "badge-engineered" and "brand-engineered" are significantly different.

For the record, I think Ford di a better job when they refreshed them:

Yes, but the damage was done, and the tepid refresh came when a full redesign should have; Sable and Taurus were completely irrelevant. Had Ford taken the same expense in not sharing sheetmetal but drew on two distinctly different design themes, the less-radical design of the two would have sold much better and Ford would probably be in a much better cash flow situation today.

[Robert Hall]

Agree to disagree. To me, though, "badge-engineered" and "brand-engineered" are significantly different.

Agreed...'badge-engineered' to me are where the cars have very minor superficial (non-metal) cosmetic differences--examples of badge-engineering incl. Dodge & Plymouth Neon, late '90s Malibu & Cutlass, the GM U-vans, the Cobalt and Pursuit/G4/G5, Colorado and Canyon, the '90s Chrysler Cirrus/Dodge Stratus/Plymouth Breeze,'80s Ford Escort/Mercury Lynx etc...

[Blake Noble]

Anyway, I thought the name "Project Genesis" rang a bell when I first read the article. Considering how the previous "Project Genesis" turned out, I think I would be looking for a new name at some point ...