Something I've always wondered. Why automakers do this:
Ford: Mercury Capri and Ford Mustang

GM: Chevy Cobalt and Pontiac G5

Chrysler: Dodge Challenger and Plymouth Barracuda

I could go on and on, but I figure you get the point. The company uses the same model for its own different branches and slaps a different name badge on them with some different body parts. What are they trying to accomplish?

 

That's easy - name recognition.
It's much easier to sell a car with a higher price if it has a Mercury/Buick/Chrysler badge on it than Ford/Chevrolet/Dodge.

Volkswagen has been doing the same thing in Europe for a long time.

 

So you're saying it's about the prestige in the name, not about the car itself?

 

In many cases, yes.

Volkswagen Phaeton being the perfect example.

 

Then why is it that the Challenger and Mustang are still around but The Cuda and Capri are long gone?

 

I'm going with: sales

 

Things used to be different. GM became #1 in the world simply because they offered something for everybody. A buyer could start with a cheap Chevy in his 20s, move to sporty Pontiac in his 30s, quiet Oldsmobile in his 40s, luxury Buick in his 50s and then, at the time of the retirement, get the ultimate car - Cadillac.

That changed in the late 1970s or early 1980s because the competition was stronger than ever before. In the 1990s, it was becoming unacceptable to sell even a "cheap" Chevy without a power windows or a/c. That drove prices higher so the difference between Chevy and Pontiac/Oldsmobile was much smaller than before. And that pretty much lead to discontinuing brands like Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Mercury (Buick would've been discontinued too, but it was a success for GM in China). There was no point of keeping them when you can get the same equipment on the cheaper brands like Chevy and Ford.
And Plymouth was killed because it was less popular than Dodge, which did cost more.

 

ding ding ding

 

It's getting more cars onto the market while keeping costs down. If a customer has to decide between a Cobalt, a G5, and a Focus, then there's a 2/3rds chance that the money will go to GM. Modifying an existing car and selling it under a different nameplate is a lot cheaper than creating a new one.

 

Not necessarily. Cobalt and G5 look exactly the same, so they're not a competition. If a customer decides that they don't like Cobalt for whatever reason - they're not gonna buy a G5 either. It doesn't really matter these days how many different versions of a same looking car there is.

 

You're thinking like a guy. A friend of mine wanted a G5 because she liked her mom's G6. I suggested the Colbalt... "No way, my dad had a Chevy and it broke down."


... Well, it is a Chevy.

 

+2 in alot of cases manufacturers will create a brand specific model to either appease dealers or increase volume.

Occasionally you will really get WTF! cars like the Pontiac G3 which was just a Chevy Aveo badged/styled as a Pontiac because Pontiac dealers felt they needed a small car to boost sales despite a definite lack of "excitement"

Definetely a case where GM shouldn't have placated the dealers which begs the question; Why did Pontiac need to be a full line division? IMO as GM's excitement division thier offerings should have been high end (relative to Chevrolet) performance cars.

 

...and what were the differences between these two?

If there were a Trans Am in production today, it might look like this. Obviously, this is a Camaro's body with Firebird features.

 

Here is another comparison. Both back when they first came out in 67.

 

Actually in the TransAm and Camaro.. the different between them is the TransAm actually looked better. As for the 67 models, well, it was preference. But like Zoran said there were multiple models simply because of trim levels.

 

As a person who was seriously considering one of the TAs, quite a bit, actually, once you get past the main chassis/engine/drivetrain/brakes/wheels. There is about 0 shared between them otherwise. All panels are Firebird/TA only except the T-Tops, and even those I'm not terribly sure isn't Firebird/TA only.

The interior and exterior are highly superior (IMO, I'll grant) to the Camaro of the same vintage, as well as some of the packages for the car at the time. As such, if I had to choose between the two, the Ram Air WS6 package Trans Am would win hands down. Making a Camaro to the same specs would have been a couple thousand more at the time, by the way.

And THAT is why they make the two, if they have the market to do so. I wouldn't otherwise even *glance* at a GM car... except this one.

Only this one.

I still think they're the prettiest car GM made. Especially in Sunset Orange Metallic. Come to think of it, there's not many Trans Ams I've ever thought were ugly...

/I don't get in and out of that model (2000) very easily. I'm not tall. Those sills... that door... goodness.
//But once inside it? Ohhhh yeah.... I could be ok with it very easily.
///It's a toy though. Car is way impractical. Awesome can carry 6 bodies in the trunk and another 2 or 3 in the back. Plus a couple in the front seat if need be.
////Not that I've done that...

 

like it ever really stopped .

Taurus / Sable

Contour / Mystique

Fusion / MKZ

Taurus / MKS

Edge / MKX

so and so on.

platform sharing, it has been going on for ages. once they figured out how costly it was for each car to have its own platform/parts. they upgraded the materials and design for each mark. some win some lose.

 

Actually it wasn't until 1977 that the Camaro and Firebird became the exact same car. Although they have shared platforms before 1977, Firebird had Pontiac's engines (not Chevy; back then each GM's division had their own engines) and had a sportier suspension (John DeLorean's order).

 

Model differentiation while reducing development and production costs.

Platform sharing can be done well (VW) or badly (GM, Ford's extinct Mercury brand). The trick is building in enough real differention without going so far that the platform-sharing cost savings start to whither.

GM was notorious for doing it badly in a number of ways, from awkward stylistic differentiation to sharing too many compononents and elements that some models were nearly indistinguishable. Mercury, too, towards its end decayed into little more than slightly tarted-up Ford models, ostensibly a touch more luxurious in some fluff and glitz manner typical of Detroit, but basically just another Ford models a light scratch below the surface.

I guess its all a matter of who wins the development battle: the bean-counters/marketeers who want little more than enough surface differentiation with which to build some snazzy marketing campaign around while minimizing actual development costs; or the engineers, who do understand that two models do need to be truly different beyond just the surface, even if that means higher development costs.

It's an age-old and ongoing battle, one that is likely to continue as long as you have MBAs and engineering BSs under the same roof.

 

The roof and glass were identical on the 94-02 Camaros and Firebirds but none of the exterior body panels interchanged yet they still look the same. All this similarity was not such a big deal back in the day when large volumes of cars were being sold. However more is expected these days to differentiate cars that share platforms. There is nothing wrong with platform sharing if you have a great chassis to start with and it does not compromise the end products. However blatant rebadging and modest differentiation is a no-no these days. People are smarter these days so you cannot pass off a Ford as a Lincoln when you can get the same car as a Ford for less money without uneeded equipment.