Engineer-Driven Automakers

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Z-man

Wonderful! Then technically, by extention, Mercedes-Benz and BMW are also engineer-driven automaker. How so? Well, considering that one of the most important components (engine and drivetrain) of these cars (McLaren, Keingsegg, Pagani) are made (ie engineered) by Mercedes and BMW, well, one can only conclude...

-Z-man.

Z, by that reasoning GM would also be defined as engineering driven because they design and build engines for their own products and others. You and I both know that the reason these small boutique makers don't build complete engines is because they don't have the resources to do so. As for the drivetrain, very few automakers actually build their own anymore, Mercedes included. Even the SLS uses a Getrag box.

[intakexhaust]

Originally Posted by legion

I've always kept an informal list of what I believed to be engineer-driven automakers. What is an engineer-driven automaker? It's one where the engineers designed the best vehicle they could, then a price tag got put on it. Some had luxury as their goal, some performance, and some safety. Either way, the bean counters didn't enter in the equation. They never engineered to a price or to a volume.

In the early 90's the list looked something like this:

Porsche
BMW
Mercedes-Benz
Ferrari
Lotus
Saab
The truck divisions at the big 3 (they got ignored by the bean-counters and left to their own devices to build what they wanted)

With all of the acquisitions and such, sudden attention from parent companies, and quest for market share, I feel like the list looks like this today:

Lotus (on the endangered species list)
McLaren
Koenigsegg

I'm sure others will disagree, but it should be a good discussion.

Neat thought and is for good discussion but would have to disagree with almost the entire top list. I would keep Ferrari and then add boutique car makers, like the bottom list. Add some others like Bugatti, Pagini, Saleen. Ferrari today seems to be the one who could get away with any price and sell in any economy. The others, (including parent owned Bugatti) are still price sensitive.

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Z, by that reasoning GM would also be defined as engineering driven because they design and build engines for their own products and others. You and I both know that the reason these small boutique makers don't build complete engines is because they don't have the resources to do so. As for the drivetrain, very few automakers actually build their own anymore, Mercedes included. Even the SLS uses a Getrag box.

Not exactly - McClaren, Koenegeiggiesgeredsgge, and Pagani all use MB & BMW motors for a reason -- they are well engineered.

Originally Posted by t951

I think the Nissan GT-R is a purely engineering driven car.

Every curve on it, which are not good looking, are purposeful. I think it represents what Porsche used to be.

I don't think the GT-R represents what Porsche used to be unless you are referring to the cars of the 80's and 90's that were more "Grand Touring" than "racing" (The 928 comes to mind). The GT-R is an engineering, technological marvel. But it is also a heavy beast. They don't call it Godzilla because it is light and nimble. Porsche engineered cars to be light and nimble with small, well engineered powerplants that made their cars the underdogs in the early years. Of course, by the time they developed the 1000 hp 917's, that light and small concept kinda went away, although their horsepower per liter of displacement always seemed to be higher than the competition...

As for Lexus - I can't see them as an engineering-oriented car company, sans the LF-A. That company essentially took apart another manufacturer's car (A Benz), analyzed the engineering of that car, and copied the car pretty much lock, stock and smoking barrel. (True story about the original Lexus LS, by the way). That is NOT engineering -- that's like saying my digital snapshot of the Mona Lisa and saying it is just as good as the original. Toyota, on the other hand, I will say is engineering oriented, given the fact that they have figured out how to engineer a fantastically reliable car. (Boring, but reliable).

For me, there has to be an aspect of originality in the creation of the entire car for me to call a carmaker engineering oriented.

Just my $0.42,
-Z-man.

[epbrown]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

A good example would be the Lexus LF-A. Lexus has stated that they will lose money on every car they sell, even though it is astronomically expensive at $375k. But it is an exercise in what can be done, an example of what is possible when there are no limits. Obviously Toyota/Lexus can afford to lose money on them, and they have a positive value as a halo car for the company.

Can't the same be said of the Bugatti Veyron? Even at $1.2m per car VW is supposedly losing money on them, and it was essentially a money-no-object vanity project for Ferdinand Piech to show off their engineering prowess.