3 ms·
I hate the initial comparison. Look, everybody knows that SUVs are the easiest type of car to sell, and compacts are the most viciously difficult. So starting y
by fhood 8y ago
I hate the initial comparison. Look, everybody knows that SUVs are the easiest type of car to sell, and compacts are the most viciously difficult. So starting your article with a comparison that is so obviously flawed hardly lends credibility to the point you are trying to make.
Edit: I still can't believe that they chose to compare it to Chrysler's complete inability to make a compact car that would sell in the early 2000s. As if putting price first would have fixed the Dodge Neon.
- anoncoward111 8y agoYou are definitely correct, but there are some people whose price point is so far below the median market offering that theyll basically buy whatever barely functional 1991 honda they can find with 200k miles and rotted paint. But this is a losing proposition in terms of profit, you know, trying to serve customers with this price point.
- pkulak 8y agoSure they are now, but in the mid 90s? Porsche legitimately took a risk with the Cayenne when they started development. The Rav4 was the first CUV (unibody SUV) and it only came out in '94. The fact that a sports car maker was right there with Toyota is kinda amazing.
- fhood 8y agoSure but SUVs in general sold like crazy, they had a few years to watch the rav4 sell extremely well, BMW came out with the M3 at the same time, and Mercedes was already making a ton of money selling luxury SUVs. I just don't see how this is a good example of price before product, or how much of a risk it was given what was happening in the market.
- realslimjd 8y agoThe Jeep Grand Cherokee has always been a unibody SUV and it came out in '92. You could make an argument that it was the first crossover, but it certainly wasn't the first unibody SUV.