I was talking to a car friend about this idea and he asked why I didn't consider a Patrol revival. Damn, I forgot about that. So let's add that to the list. A two door, four cylinder, four wheel drive sport utility offered with real solid axles and a real low range. Small like the original Ford Bronco but not as small as the Suzuki Samurai. Soft top with an optional hard top. Basically build an inexpensive, stripped down Jeep now the Chrysler has taken theirs too far upmarket.
pete240z wrote: The guys running car companies are not always "car guys".
Carlos Tavares is the head of Nissan USA. He is also a racer. I'd be surprised if someone around here didn't have his email.
JoeyM wrote:pete240z wrote: The guys running car companies are not always "car guys".Carlos Tavares is the head of Nissan USA. He is also a racer. I'd be surprised if he wasn't a subscriber and reading this post.
Fixorred
JoeyM - I agree with you that "some" of the top guys are car guys. The guy who built this car told me he worked for Nissan and you can see how nice his car is.
You're right...it is wonderful.
Your original point is also correct.....even if the car guys at the top WANT to bring back datsun as described in this thread, they won't do it unless there's a fiscally sound way to do it. They may have just decided that there are not enough fanboys to have a sustainable market.
pete240z wrote: JoeyM - I agree with you that "some" of the top guys are car guys. The guy who built this car told me he worked for Nissan and you can see how nice his car is.
Yup, he still works for Nissan. That car has been a labor of love and he's been working on it for a decade. It is spectacular. He's also a big Ford fan and has a mint Cobra R.
JoeyM wrote: You're right...it is wonderful. Your original point is also correct.....even if the car guys at the top WANT to bring back datsun as described in this thread, they won't do it unless there's a fiscally sound way to do it. They may have just decided that there are not enough fanboys to have a sustainable market.
Question one: Will it make money?
Questions such as: Will it be awesome? are for small businesses to ask, and large companies to buy, if they are successful.
Bring a good product to market, with a good design, at the right price, and people will buy it - Scion, Focus, MINI, Neon, all good sellers right out of the box. Look at Hyundai right now (and for the last few years). And as far as the “youth brand” goes, I remember a story or blurb by one of the car magazines lamenting that a lot of older people (outside of the 18-30 market) were buying Scions and tarnishing the “youth” image of the car. Older folks like me would love a new 510.
Retro sells: MINI, Mustang, Miata (in the day), Camaro and Challenger all strongly follow the originals because the designs were good. Goofy looking is as niche a market as anything else, and I wonder how that cube (or whatever funky thing it is Nissan makes) is really selling.
Nissan hasn’t had a good design since the mid 90’s Sentras – clean design, good performance, right price, and they sold. They weren’t designed for the enthusiast crowd initially, but some car guy got the SE-R going. From our business school lessons, the extra sales from the enthusiast crowd who wouldn’t normally buy a Sentra all go to marginal profit (especially if they came in for an SE-R but left with a base model).
Nissan are idiots. They don’t want to bring back the Datsun brand and “dilute” their efforts at building the Nissan/Infinity brands because they suck at those too. Honestly, still building the Nissan brand? It’s been 25 frickin years. All of us older folks know they’ve been around in force as Datsun or Nissan since the 70’s. It’s been 40 years for the company. They need to fire their management, marketing, and design staffs. Their cars are ugly. Just for fun, I looked up rankings, and per the list linked below, Nissan only had one car (read not SUV/Crossover) in the top 20 sellers, Altima (and I must say, a decent looking car). Ford has three (Escape, Focus, Fusion), Chevy has three (Cruze, Malibu, Impala!), Toyota has two (Camry/Solara, Corolla/Matrix), Honda has three (Accord, Civic, CR-V), Hyundai has two (Elantra, Sonata).
When a tired design like the Impala makes the list (fleet? Police?), even with help, and your family sedan isn’t on the list (Maxima) you know your company is in trouble. Hell, Hyundai is younger (in the US) than Nissan, with a crappy history initially, and they’ve beaten Nissan at getting cars in the top 20.
Nissan, get a clue.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
I thought about it the other day and honestly can't see myself buying a newish nissan at all. MAYBE an altima 3.5 coupe, MAYBE a 370z, MAYBE a gtr if I had the money.
The 370z is in there because, in my mind, it is a comparison for any sports car on the market now. (IE why buy a new civic si when you can buy a 370z for just a little more? and "the gtr is an amazing car, without a doubt, but the base gtr cost's two 370z's!)
but I still would buy one of the awd turbo 4 cars (subie or evo) over a 370z without a second guess.
but all that is moot because if I had 35k to buy a car I would buy either a first gen viper and put 10-15k into it (or save the rest of that money) or I would buy a b5 a4 quattro with the 30v 2.8 and turn it into an rs4. or buy a supra. LOL
corytate wrote: but all that is moot because if I had 35k to buy a car I would buy either a first gen viper and put 10-15k into it (or save the rest of that money) or I would buy a b5 a4 quattro with the 30v 2.8 and turn it into an rs4. or buy a supra. LOL
And that, folks, is why those marketing plans will never fly, as much as I'd LOVE to see what JB is proposing. And there's nothing wrong with this either. Marketing to the inexpensive AND sport markets can be tricky, especially when a lot of new tooling is required to make it go. We are much more likely to wait for someone else to take the initial hit on value and pick up used cars so we can modify the bejeezus out of them to do things that the corporate guys could never sanction in the first place. In the current world economy, those companies can't take the financial risk on themselves to create a bitchin aftermarket playground 5 years from now.
No offense meant, cory, I feel the same way!
ultraclyde wrote:corytate wrote: but all that is moot because if I had 35k to buy a car I would buy either a first gen viper and put 10-15k into it (or save the rest of that money) or I would buy a b5 a4 quattro with the 30v 2.8 and turn it into an rs4. or buy a supra. LOLAnd that, folks, is why those marketing plans will never fly, as much as I'd LOVE to see what JB is proposing. And there's nothing wrong with this either. Marketing to the inexpensive AND sport markets can be tricky, especially when a lot of new tooling is required to make it go. We are much more likely to wait for someone else to take the initial hit on value and pick up used cars so we can modify the bejeezus out of them to do things that the corporate guys could never sanction in the first place. In the current world economy, those companies can't take the financial risk on themselves to create a bitchin aftermarket playground 5 years from now. No offense meant, cory, I feel the same way!
I'm glad other people feel the same way as I do; people look at me like I'm crazy sometimes LOL
When I bought my kia I was originally going to buy an e36 m3, (not something that rhymes with kit, though) and I bought the kia instead, so I would have a brand new car that handled halfway decently. I still wish I would have went the bmw instead, and not just because it was about 5k cheaper. Just seems that you can buy a LOT nicer used sports car than you can buy even a 4 or 5 year old one. And on the luxury side, aren't phaeton's only like 15k now? that is an outrageously nice car. Something close to that nice, german, and new would cost 50k+. New car's just aren't worth it unless you are going to leave it stock and DD it, and take advantage of the warranty. (in which case nissan is out again because their warranty is crap compared to their competitors, for the most part)
corytate wrote:ultraclyde wrote:I'm glad other people feel the same way as I do; people look at me like I'm crazy sometimes LOL When I bought my kia I was originally going to buy an e36 m3, (not something that rhymes with kit, though) and I bought the kia instead, so I would have a brand new car that handled halfway decently. I still wish I would have went the bmw instead, and not just because it was about 5k cheaper. Just seems that you can buy a LOT nicer used sports car than you can buy even a 4 or 5 year old one. And on the luxury side, aren't phaeton's only like 15k now? that is an outrageously nice car. Something close to that nice, german, and new would cost 50k+. New car's just aren't worth it unless you are going to leave it stock and DD it, and take advantage of the warranty. (in which case nissan is out again because their warranty is crap compared to their competitors, for the most part)corytate wrote: but all that is moot because if I had 35k to buy a car I would buy either a first gen viper and put 10-15k into it (or save the rest of that money) or I would buy a b5 a4 quattro with the 30v 2.8 and turn it into an rs4. or buy a supra. LOLAnd that, folks, is why those marketing plans will never fly, as much as I'd LOVE to see what JB is proposing. And there's nothing wrong with this either. Marketing to the inexpensive AND sport markets can be tricky, especially when a lot of new tooling is required to make it go. We are much more likely to wait for someone else to take the initial hit on value and pick up used cars so we can modify the bejeezus out of them to do things that the corporate guys could never sanction in the first place. In the current world economy, those companies can't take the financial risk on themselves to create a bitchin aftermarket playground 5 years from now. No offense meant, cory, I feel the same way!
All well and good, but that's not to say that inexpensive fun and sporty cars can't be made profitably (small car, small marins). Think of how much money has gone in to development costs on the FT86 (or whatever the Suby/Toyota deal was). That process is not cheap either. Who knows if that car will make it to market or not, but just reading the stories on it all gives the impression that the equipment and the marketing were/are the problem there. To hit a target market you try to be in the market range, but scope creep in development projects is always a problem, thus all the hulabaloo on whether or not it will be an inexpensive performer or an upmarket car.
If it couldn't be done, Toyota wouldn't have done it with Scion. They've kept the discipline in the process. Fiat is bringing the 500 over. Cheap is a relative term, and no product is going to be under $16 to $17K for "sporty". Cheap they can make for $12 to $15K, and it's not that hard to change an ECU, spring/damper combo, and exhaust for a sport version. And, add factory performance parts ala Ford/GM that could improve performance further without invalidating factory warranty (simple upgrades can be evaluated for reliability during the design process, and really, how hard is it to put a "factory lowering/competition suspension" on or change out air intake).
The Mini was a cult car before the MINI, and look how sales took off when that car was introduced. Are you telling me a 2500lb 510 redux with a 140-150hp motor couldn't be marketed to catch the imagination? Or that a 200hp turbo in a 510 Fairlady/BRE version wouldn't do well against a Cooper S? The stupid Juke is $20K, has goofy styling, and ties to nothing in Nissan (Datsun) history. There's your 510 Fairlady/BRE right there.
It has to be done right, but Nissan hasn't done anything right in a decade or more.
I miss my (orignal body) Z-cars....
"Nissan hasn't done anything right in a decade or more."
Hyperbole much? Last I knew Renault/Nissan was a profitable car company. Which is the whole point of having a company, I'm not sure how that's been lost on so many participants in this little discussion...
I like Nissans big trucks, the 370Z, the GTR and that really is all. The rest of the product line seem VERY fragile or not well engineered.
Jimbob basically just described my hopes and dreams for the Datsun brand.
I personally believe that this is on their plate as we speak. CEO has recently announced that they are going to attempt to take 8% of the automotive market. Somehow this equates to a new model every 3 weeks or something insane like that?
They are just waiting until the best time to drop the Datsun bomb. (Was that too soon?)
pete240z wrote: 2. I also hope this is not Nissan's idea of retro ever again.
So THAT'S what Sarah Jane Smith drives!!!
Back to the point. Awesome idea. I lament that the Scion tC is closer to a sporty looking economy car that a true Celica replacement. But it wasn't designed to be a Celica. The Datsun roadster should be the modern equivalent of an NA Miata - more basic than the current MX-5. The 510 would be awesome with SR20 power, and is easily turboed in the top end version. Hmm, mess with the purists and call that the 510 SE-R? 
That should give the BMW 1M a run for its money, and at a lower weight and price tag.
The truck's an interesting idea, but is anyone really interested in a less than full size truck anymore? Ford's even dropping the Ranger.
pres589 wrote: "Nissan hasn't done anything right in a decade or more." Hyperbole much? Last I knew Renault/Nissan was a profitable car company. Which is the whole point of having a company, I'm not sure how that's been lost on so many participants in this little discussion...
Okay, a little overstated in terms of "profitability", but not in terms of market share in the long term.
In 1980, Nissan had roughly equivalent market share as compared to Toyota, and bigger than Honda throughout most of that time. By the 90's, Toyota had twice what Nissan had, and Honda was equal or lager, with Nissan actually losing market share in the late 90s and early 2000's (when the Renault-Nissan Alliance was formed). They were a company in trouble.
Note the timing there - their market share was stable through the mid 90's, which was my assertion above. At some point losing market share with a big infrastructure will cause problems with profitability.
How did Nissan go from a strong #2 to distant 3rd place among Japan's biggest and best? The "other" market (i.e Mitsu, Hyundai, Kia, Subaru, VW, etc) has even out performed Nissan from the mid 90s on.
Chrysler, in the 90s, improved their market share, when they were coming out with a lot of good designs. Then the CEO sold out to the Germans, and they killed it (prophetically speaking, I called that when I was in school - everybody else told me the Germans would make them better and I was dumb. A few years later the Germans sold because they killed Chrysler's resurgence...).
My whole point is that good products sell, and for a company like Nissan to stay around they need to grow market share, and while their current line up seems to be doing okay, I just think they could do better. A Datsun brand, done right, could eat into the "smaller" manufacturerers share and grow Nissan's.
Yes to Datsun if Nissan can get it right (i.e. the Jimbob MBA thesis). I think they need to play on their early strengths and remind people of some of the great cars they've produced (and 510 SE-R and even Roadster SE-R would be bitchin').
A "niche" market of low dollar, good performing, exciting to drive cars (qualifiying "excitement" given the price/performance...) could "re-invent" the segment - VW did it with the GTI, and while the tC is more of a sporty economy car than an economical sporty car, I don't think the transformation would be that hard.
And, here in the Old Pueblo, I see more modified tC's than any other car we admire on this board (actually they're usually nicely done too, not ricer).
http://wehrintheworld.blogspot.com/2009/06/automaker-market-share-over-time.html
OldGray320i wrote:pres589 wrote: "Nissan hasn't done anything right in a decade or more." Hyperbole much? Last I knew Renault/Nissan was a profitable car company. Which is the whole point of having a company, I'm not sure how that's been lost on so many participants in this little discussion...Okay, a little overstated in terms of "profitability", but not in terms of market share in the long term. In 1980, Nissan had roughly equivalent market share as compared to Toyota, and bigger than Honda throughout most of that time. By the 90's, Toyota had twice what Nissan had, and Honda was equal or lager, with Nissan actually losing market share in the late 90s and early 2000's (when the Renault-Nissan Alliance was formed). They were a company in trouble. Note the timing there - their market share was stable through the mid 90's, which was my assertion above. At some point losing market share with a big infrastructure will cause problems with profitability. How did Nissan go from a strong #2 to distant 3rd place among Japan's biggest and best? The "other" market (i.e Mitsu, Hyundai, Kia, Subaru, VW, etc) has even out performed Nissan from the mid 90s on. Chrysler, in the 90s, improved their market share, when they were coming out with a lot of good designs. Then the CEO sold out to the Germans, and they killed it (prophetically speaking, I called that when I was in school - everybody else told me the Germans would make them better and I was dumb. A few years later the Germans sold because they killed Chrysler's resurgence...). My whole point is that good products sell, and for a company like Nissan to stay around they need to grow market share, and while their current line up seems to be doing okay, I just think they could do better. A Datsun brand, done right, could eat into the "smaller" manufacturerers share and grow Nissan's. Yes to Datsun if Nissan can get it right (i.e. the Jimbob MBA thesis). I think they need to play on their early strengths and remind people of some of the great cars they've produced (and 510 SE-R and even Roadster SE-R would be bitchin'). A "niche" market of low dollar, good performing, exciting to drive cars (qualifiying "excitement" given the price/performance...) could "re-invent" the segment - VW did it with the GTI, and while the tC is more of a sporty economy car than an economical sporty car, I don't think the transformation would be that hard. And, here in the Old Pueblo, I see more modified tC's than any other car we admire on this board (actually they're usually nicely done too, not ricer). http://wehrintheworld.blogspot.com/2009/06/automaker-market-share-over-time.html
I think nissan's fallout through the 90s was due more to the rise of honda than to any shortcomings on nissan's part. And toyota was steadily proving itself to build nearly indestructible cars. If you think about it, toyo had a LOT of amazing things going on in the late 80s and early 90s, and even carrying into the early 2000s. Honda started catching on with the enthusiast crowd. And nissan had one (maybe two) cars that were worth buying the z32 and the se-r (as said above)
that said, if nissan could bring the 510 back the right way (kind of the way Ford has finally brought the Mustang back to where it used to be in it's nice, and a little beyond) then that would probably be a hell of a seller. Or if they could bring a turbo 4 or a turbo straight six line over here (we need s chassis cars and REAL r chassis cars) because the new gtr is NOT a skyline in my mind.
While simple sports cars are probably not a money maker (the Miata being the sole exception), I do think there is a market for modular white bread models that do multiple things well.
Ie, cheap, functional sedans you can make fast/fun with options. If I had a clean corporate sheet of paper, I would base all of my small and midsized sedan/coupes/sportscars on a rear engined platform with a modular, large displacement flat four (like 3 liters). Make it a two or three valve engine with lots of quench, few cylinders to get pumping losses, and a relatively low RPM range and you will get good mpg, make it modular and ubiquitous and you will make it cheap to manufacture, make it flat and you can put it under the trunk (and free up the front for passenger impact standards), make it large displacement and you can get good hp without the expensive forged parts needed for an 8k redline.
This car could get 35 mpg, make 180 hp, and go out the door for 15k easily.
Make a midlevel option with direct injection and a flappy paddle gearbox and that becomes 40 mpg, 210 hp and 19k.
Make a turbo and awd option and suddenly that becomes 25 mpg, 300 hp and 25k with a ton of margin.
Any of them would make a good tuning platform as well, and look how much mileage brands like Scion (with the TC and their factory supercharger/TRD connections) and Hyundai/Kia (with their Veloster/Koup/Genesis Coupe) are getting out of aftermarket friendliness.
Mitsubishi couldn't make enough Evo 8s or Evo 9s because those cars were cheap, fast and versatile. Then they decided to make the Evo fat, pretend luxurious and expensive and watched as the sales numbers fell.
You'll need to log in to post.
