i really dislike it when manufacturers share vehicles. The only difference being the badge and a few cosmetics. I actually avoid such vehicles. A good example is the Honda Passport/Isuzu Trooper. When I found out there was a partnership and a platform sharing, I totally avoided the vehicle even though I was in the market for that type of vehicle.

This practice actually is shared among manufactuers other than automobiles. Electronics, food, medicine, clothes to name a few.

I think it all boils down to brand loyalty, status quo, and how much money you have burning a hole in your pocket.

I personaly will only buy a vehicle from a manufactuer if it’s unique to them and not shared.

While the Acadia/Outlook, etc. example is a good one, the Passport/Trooper one isn’t a good apples to apples example.

Honda was surprised at the public’s thirst for larger SUVs and contracted with Isuzu to create the non-loved Passport. They proceeded to spend a ton to get the Pilot to market in time to drop Isuzu and get real Honda quality into a mid-size SUV.

Kinda different than a car conglomerate trying to double (quadruple?) dip from the same design well…

Actually, “badge-engineering” (as the practice of selling essentially the same vehicle under multiple brand names is sometimes called) can be executed to serve a purpose. Furthermore, if one measures whether people are “fooled” based on whether people buy them, badge-engineered cars fool plenty of people (to the tune of hundreds of thousands of Mercury, Pontiac, Buick, GMC, Saab, Saturn, Chrysler, and Jeeps every year).

What branding attempts to do is fill a market niche (a consumer demand). Most people in America do not want to drive a luxurious car with a plebeian nameplate. Thus, while there is little substantive difference between a VW and an Audi or a Ford and a Lincoln, the fact that one has a luxury reputation makes it attractive to a different audience. When done correctly, this kind of branding can be used to deliver cars with different “personalities” and unique features while lower cost.

Of course, ideally the rebranding of vehicles will introduce unique features, appearance, and character; or make available vehicles at lower cost and in shorter time than “clean sheet” designs (i.e., the new Saturn Astra, which is a rebadged Opel—one of GM’s European brands). Unfortunately, sometimes it’s not done very well, and rebranded product ends up too similar and in competition with one another (i.e., the Saturn, GMC, and Chevy versions of the GM crossovers). Even there, there is a benefit to the consumer, though: competition drives the cost down.

On a note of personal curiosity, why is it that people tend to think of GM as an “car conglomerate” and Honda as just a car company? Honda is as much or more of a “conglomerate” (a large corporation formed by the merging of separate and diverse firms) as GM. And why should that be painted in a negative light? While product rebranding is not always ideal, if GM makes a mistake in producing too many products with the same basic content, then internal competition will drive cost down and GM will correct the error in the future, while in the meantime consumers benefit.

I also am totally thrown off by just slapping different badges on the same car and calling them different vehicles. The most pointless of which in my opinion is the Chevy Cobalt/Pontiac G5. Aside from the taillights and the little pontiac badge on the nose, you CAN’T tell the difference driving by it. At least with some of the crossovers they are differentiated “luxury-wise,” but releasing 2 econoboxes that are the SAME is puzzling to me.

I own a rebadge call a Saab 92x aero (rebadged Subaru WRX wagon). The look of it is very different from the front and the interior has an few hundred pounds of sound insulation with softer ride settings. Its a much more pleasant car, not a real Saab but a really fun car to drive.

I like my GM-Saab/Subaru rebadge.

It did not do well but again it worked out that it was purchased at GM employee pricing with a $5000 rebate making it cost less than a somewhat harsher Subaru WRX wagon.

I’m kinda tired of people saying that the people that buy bagde engineered cars are being fooled.  People know what they are getting and there is usually no secret about it at the dealership level.  My mother drives a Mountaineer, and she knows its no more than a pretty explorer.  The explorer is a solid car, but its style doesn’t appeal to her the way that the Mercury does.  And she doesn’t have to go to the Ford dealer for service, which is a big plus.

Broq

The Honda/Isuzu deal was not a Trooper, it was a Rodeo. I too agree that is not a good exmaple as Honda was not doing it for a quick profit, they were doing it because they were caught off guard by the SUV craze. I think the best example would be the entire Mercury lineup. Why exactly is this brand still here?

“You can have any color you want as long as its black”. This was the tagline for the Model T Ford. It provided very basic low cost transportation for the masses. Your argument against “badge engineering” is almost the same as Ford’s theory, that you can make cars less costly if I only make them in one quick drying paint color. Extending your theory about being fooled by badges you must obviously be fooled or confused by seeing the same car in a different color. Aren’t all Ferraris RED, aren’t all Civics SILVER.  Variety is the spice of life, be happy you are being offered a choice, rather than thinking you are being dupped. What a downer life you must lead, wondering if you are being dupped by Burger King offering you different topping types on the same burger.

You are naive….Are confused by the four ‘rebadged’ varieties of Huggies diapers ?...the four + ‘rebadged’ varieties of Tampax tampons (let alone the seemingly thousands of varieties of alternative feminine hygiene products available from the same company)?...
The point is it IS market driven…people want (demand) choice and manufacturers (since they are in business) try to give it to them.  If you were more interested and/or familiar with cars/trucks you wouldn’t be confused, as I’m sure you’re not in other areas you have more depth of knowledge in.

What do you propose car manufacturers do instead of carbon copies?  Design a completely separate vehicle for every single brand?  That’s insane as far as GM goes.  You’re saying you think GM’s engineering staff should design every vehicle in every line-up separately?  Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, GMC, Hummer, Saab, Opel, Vauxhall, GMC, Saturn, and Holden are all GM brands, most with an average of 6 vehicles.

In regards to the GM Crossovers…
I would buy the Acadia, but wouldn’t be caught dead in an Outlook.  The exterior styling DOES make a difference to me that much.

No one is trying to deceive anybody with mutiple models of a given platform. It’s about covering the market.

Styling is a very subjective and personal thing and mutiple styling directions alows the automakers to reach more people.

Also, if you lean towards quiet and luxery there is the Enclave.  If you are all about utility, the Traverse etc.

The more the merrier.

OK….you’re naive.  Go drive all the GM crossovers and you will find each has different ride and handling characteristics to go along with the different styling.

People are not being “fooled” by badge engineering, it simply gives the consumer some choice.  I recently bought a Pontiac Torrent (same as the Equinox).  I just like the Torrent’s styling better.

It seems to me that you
are struggling to understand ‘platform’ engineering by substituting the word copy. The platform is simply a ‘pallet’ if you will of common components/configurations. Not entire vehicle’s like you are suggesting as if they are simply ‘rebadged’. Perhaps, you should think of the word ‘platform’ in the same way ‘genre’ comes to mind.
In the instance of the GM crossover’s yes they are of the same genre, but not the same copies. The Enclave is not a copy of the Acadia, or Outlook. Nor is the Acadia a copy of the Outlook. They look totally different, and serves the tastes of different consumers. This of course serves the consumer, when greater choice is given.

They are all differentiated to fit their brand persona with large quantities of unique parts for each; they each have different interior and exterior styling. Please don’t equate it with the word ‘copy’ as if they are ‘rebadged’.

I’m just curious, have you noticed that the Audi Q7, VW Toureg, AND Porsche Cayenne are also handled the same way?

Honda did use a variation of the Isuzu Trooper under its Acura brand as the SLX. This vehicle was replaced by the MDX. Also, there is big difference between badge and platform engineering. The American car companies have traditionally used badge engineering like Ford Taurus/Mecury Sable, Jeep Patriot/Compass, GMC Yukon/Chevy Tahoe. The imports have gone further to change each vehicle’s characteristics like the Camry/Lexus ES, Honda Pilot/Acura MDX, Audi A8/VW Phaeton.

Since no one else said it yet,,,

Dealers have a LOT to do with badge engineering. Say you own a Buick store, and Pontiac comes out with an excellent CUV that’s getting rave reviews and lots of inquirys by the public. But you sell Buicks. So you call up a few other Buick dealers and then petition GM to get you a version of the same vehicle. Of course by the time it gets designed/market tested/approved/enginnered/marketed/and built, the customer has moved on to the next fad and you’re selling them with rebates.

It’s a sign of the bad old days and it’s a problem. So far the Asians have avoided it, but it’s starting to show up with Audi/VW/Porsche

It seems I am completely off my rocker for thinking that consumers might be able to get what they want (variety)  and the manufacturer could still make some dough (by giving consumers variety) - all without having to sell us on 5 completely different brands in 5 completely different showrooms.
I am sure I am also cuckoo for thinking that some people don’t know about or don’t understand the practice of “badge engineering” - silly me.
Also, thanks for enlightening me on the horrific practice of Tampon re-badging I will look out for that. Feminine hygiene products, now there is an industry with some serious brand loyalty.
Anyway, Thanks for all the lively discussion - obviously the multi-branding thing is working for many of you.

I think it is wrong for you to just call them ‘copies’. Yes, you were off your rocker. You say ” one model with multiple badges”. These are not ‘rebadges’, Badge engineering isn’t even the proper discription, platform engineering is. GM went above and beyond the call of duty with their crossover platform to make each one them unique. Accoss the range they go from luxury to plain vanilla. If you were to tear apart these vehicles you’d find the only thing shared between these vehicles is underneath the skin, or unnessessary to making them look or perform different. Such as drivetrain, floorpans, overhead garnish. Everything else on those cars is unique to each version such as exterior body panels, interior instrument panels, door trims and consoles. More variety means more customer choice, and lower overall price. I think if you spend more time in each one of them rather than glancing around at the autoshow you would understand what I’m saying. Have you? I challenge you!

There is a fine line between “platform sharing” and “rebadging.”

Most, if not all, of the manufacturers use platform sharing. The ‘09 Nissan Murano is based on the “D” platform as the Altima, for example. Toyota uses the same platform across the Camry, Highlander, Lexus ES and Lexus RX.

Sharing platforms allows the manufacturers to leverage their development dollars and ultimately provide more models to choose from at very little additional cost.

I think Emily’s point is valid, though. At some point, the line gets murky when it seems like the only perceivable difference to the average consumer is the brand and maybe a few trim panels.

I think the Buick Enclave is great, and matches up rather well as a premium CUV. The GMC Acadia, I would guess, would skew to families who would’ve purchased a Yukon in the past, but want something more economical.

The Saturn and Chevy variants seem like they would compete against each other for the same middle-class, previously minivan driving audience. It’s the same way the Aura and the Malibu compete in the same overlapping spectrum.

Maybe the real question is whether GM still needs all those brands?

“I don’t understand why there have to be so many copies of one car. What do you think?”

You answered your own question…

“Each of these vehicles are marketed differently, and each has some unique elements when it comes to exterior styling and interior amenities, but they are all very obviously the same vehicle.”

To expand the reach of that platform they are segmenting the vehicle’s appeal so it captures more market. People come in all different flavors, so it’s obvious to expect that people’s tastes will be as diverse.

You are naive.  Branding isn’t meant to fool anyone.  Branding is used to offer consumers choices.  Brand loyalty is huge in the U.S.  Why else would people wear clothes with Nike, Bebe, Nautica, Old Navy, GAP, etc. plastered across their chests and rear ends.  Have you taken a look at the toothpaste aisle lately?  Variety is the spice of life.  And then there are the consumers who won’t even consider generic drugs, insisting that the brand name versions are significantly better.  Brand names play a huge role in every industry.  Have you bought a washer/dryer lately?  You’d be surprised at how many are made by the same manufacturer but disguised by a different control panels and badging.