GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 21,591
- GTPHQ
This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:
This article was published by Kyle Patrick (@SlipZtrEm) on February 18th, 2019 in the Automotive News category.
McLaren Won't Succumb to the Luxury Crossover Trend Says Design Boss
- Thread starter GTPNewsWire
- 19 comments
- 1,728 views
- 303
- Hannover
- TheNaketWookie
Good! I can't stand this pensioner-cruisers.
95% of people drivin' an SUV (SPORTS-UTILITY-Vehicle) neither do sports or have ever been driving off-Road.
Like the Lamborghini Urus... what a failure...
95% of people drivin' an SUV (SPORTS-UTILITY-Vehicle) neither do sports or have ever been driving off-Road.
Like the Lamborghini Urus... what a failure...
- 230
- United Kingdom
I dont mind it if it provides the funds for future projects.
I think a lot of people forget how instrumental the Cayenne was for Porsche.
More than the Boxter/Cayman, more even than the 911, the brand is being propped up by the SUV crowd. Take that away and you risk going back to the times where interesting projects, regular model updates, etc aren't possible.
If it makes you feel better though, it's like the Lottery, a tax on the stupid.
For Bugatti, the Veyron and Chiron stand as pillars, basically carved from marble to be the peak automobile of their decade. The Galibier 4-door concept, while basically perfectly executed, just wasn't at that level*. And for them to release something that isn't "the absolute best" seems weird. Sorta like if you've released 2 popes, releasing a cardinal seems a bit of a step down. Maybe something like the Maybach Excellero as a 4-door, something a bit bolder could work, as long as it became even more powerful than the Chiron, even if it was only for a year until the next BIG THING came out.
Koeniggsegg and Pagani, I'm not sure if they'd have the money. They seem one-project manufacturers, with 999 variations on one base. Probably can't afford to dilute the brand if they have a 100% supercar record.
*Disclaimer: I loved the Galibier concept.
More than the Boxter/Cayman, more even than the 911, the brand is being propped up by the SUV crowd. Take that away and you risk going back to the times where interesting projects, regular model updates, etc aren't possible.
If it makes you feel better though, it's like the Lottery, a tax on the stupid.
For Bugatti, the Veyron and Chiron stand as pillars, basically carved from marble to be the peak automobile of their decade. The Galibier 4-door concept, while basically perfectly executed, just wasn't at that level*. And for them to release something that isn't "the absolute best" seems weird. Sorta like if you've released 2 popes, releasing a cardinal seems a bit of a step down. Maybe something like the Maybach Excellero as a 4-door, something a bit bolder could work, as long as it became even more powerful than the Chiron, even if it was only for a year until the next BIG THING came out.
Koeniggsegg and Pagani, I'm not sure if they'd have the money. They seem one-project manufacturers, with 999 variations on one base. Probably can't afford to dilute the brand if they have a 100% supercar record.
*Disclaimer: I loved the Galibier concept.
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
I'm not sure how I feel about it. I really don't like the trend of SUVs in general, but at the same time I like that these cars are providing money to fuel other more interesting projects. As @TBR 427 points out, the Cayenne basically saved Porsche, and was one of the key turning points which make them not just profitable, but so profitable that they bought a large interest in the VWAG. I've heard and share concerns that McLaren isn't looking after its customers as well as it should be. One element of that is the relatively high production of both regular and limited edition cars, which seems to be taking its toll in depreciation. Buying a new Ferrari will cost a lot less in the long run than a new McLaren, since they hold their value much better, from what I've seen. I've also heard that their customer service simply isn't as good as it should be for a brand at its price point, which is something of a byproduct of it being a relative newcomer to the automotive business. All this makes me think that McLaren is listening to journalists more than it is its own customers. They've made some spectacular driver's cars and some very interesting stuff, but at the end of the day for that to continue they have to turn a profit and they have to look after their customers.
- 303
- Hannover
- TheNaketWookie
Don't you think this is a littlebit short sighted? do we really need more oversized (in size and motor/fuel consumption) Cars at a time where there is basically NO parking space in bigger cities?
You wouldn't say "Sure lets build a Coal-Power-Plant! It raises funds for future projects!"
I am not trying to piss you off, i just think "providing the funds for future projects" can be done on many ways.
And yeah the Cayenne saved Porsche, maybe...
There was a whole lot more going on between the "Porsche's & Piech's" in that! Porsche tried to take over VW, wich backfired horribly for them.
- 2,227
- Bács-Kiskun
Aaaand I haven't lost faith in McLaren.
- 23,917
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
'We'll never build an SUV' seems to be a line spoken by many manufacturers right up until the point that they announce that they actually will. So i wouldn't read too much into this particular announcement.
- 3,802
The truth is they don't have the platform and thus funds as of yet to go down that road. But in reality they'd probably love to do it.
Last edited:
- 29,714
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
We want (and by that I mean the sort of want that directly leads to actual acquisition) a great deal more than we need. We could spend very little and consume the bare minimum that provides us with nutrients essential for survival, but you know what's really good? A $65 dry aged ribeye.
These vehicles exist because consumers desire them; providing them is just smart business. That Lamborghini Urus--the one that you condemned earlier and referred to as a failure--represents a significant investment that is presently paying off. The company's sales are up considerably, and while they're up even if you disregard the Urus, sales of that particular product are supposedly exceeding the company's expectations.
So you don't like it, that's fine...actually, it's great; the world would be a boring place if everyone had the same tastes. Why can't you just say you don't like it? There are many here who actually consider the positions of others.
I mean, if you're so interested in condemnation, why stop at SUVs and crossovers? Why not condemn the entire industry that provides vehicles that still have to be operated manually when there are people out there who do so while their abilities are compromised by inebriation or whatever they have on their phones/tablets?
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
By what measure is the Urus a failure?
Do we really need 700hp, two-seat sports cars either? I say that as someone who loves said vehicles: the 720S might be my absolute favourite modern supercar on the road right now.
These high-performance and/or ultra-lux crossovers are just as "pointless" as sports cars: they address peoples' wants, not necessarily their needs. Alex Innes said as much about the Cullinan at the same talk. "Nobody needs a Rolls-Royce" were his exact words.
As others have already said, there's certainly advantages to having a crossover in the portfolio: look at the Cayenne, which helped turn Porsche's fortunes around. It undoubtedly was a better business decision than the LMP project that was canned for it — hell, they even ended up back at Le Mans a decade later anyway.
Roberts' comments make sense to me: more so than any of the other marques that have built crossovers so far, I personally can't reconcile the brand's identity with that type of car. Lamborghini actually works: they're aggressive, and they've got the all-paw DNA. The Cullinan and Bentayga, as ungainly as the latter is, almost make too much sense for their brands. Aston? Its customers want luxury just as much as sportiness, though I'm wondering if the DBX will be targeting the Urus more than its fellow Brits.
The only ones that just don't make sense in my head are Ferrari and Lotus. Both are entirely based on the perceived values of the founders though, and I'm not sure how much that really matters in modern times, and crucially, to potential customers. If a common platform between Volvo, Lynk & Co, and Lotus is what keeps the money flowing into Hethel for more "pure" sports cars, I am more than okay with it.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,990
- Mile High City
Unlike people driving sports cars, who are constantly using their cars to the fullest, and have all been to a race track.
I tend to agree, the brands are not entirely compatible with the concept of an SUV, but maybe they're looking to broaden their brand. I guess McLaren isn't, and that's fine. McLaren may in part be responding to moves by others. When Porsche did it, they were moving into a less tapped market. McLaren would be moving into a market that is well explored at this point, and would be removing something that the other brands have actually handed them in the process... a more hardcore appearance. If I were McLaren, I might also be inclined to just say thank you to the rest of them.
- 48
- United States
It's far easier to not succumb to the luxury crossover trend when a) the luxury segment you steer to is a niche one with Porsche and others already consuming market share, and b) you're a private company and don't have shareholders breathing down your neck and earnings to publicly report.
Last edited:
McLaren
Premium
- 45,412
- Texas
If we eliminate these luxury SUVs, we eliminate the funding they generate for higher end trims manufacturers push out.
If the goal is to reduce not only more oversized cars, but cars in general, then sure, it's a good idea kill off the luxury SUV.
I think this really is the true answer.
The brand is doing very well with the 570S reaching a bigger market, but at the end of the day, it's clear it & the rest of the lineup share development with changes here & there to give each car a more unique feel. They're not drastically different like a SUV would be.
A McLaren SUV LT that's just a long-wheelbase version would be incredibly fitting, though.
- 318
- Hungary
I could not care less. If they don't want to do a luxury suv, then they probably calculated that financially it isn't worth it. So why would I be more respectful to them just because of one decision?
- 21
- Adelaide
- jbs0311
The thing that has always bugged me about these types of SUVs is just the premise as to why... Like, I understand the cheaper SUV that might be made by a more traditional manufacturer (Nissan, Toyota etc.), however I cannot understand for the life of me why people buy these cars. Now, I'll admit that Porsche has done exceedingly well with the Cayenne and Macan - to the point where I will likely see one the next time I go out for a drive. However, I feel that the pricing of these cars as compared to the Urus, for example, is a much more gentle (if still pricey) figure.
Lets take, for example, the Cayenne, Urus and Bentayga. Below are the prices for each of these models, in Australia as new on carsales.com:
Cayenne: $132,000 AU - $263,000 AU
Urus: $442,000 AU - $446,000 AU
Bentayga: $295,000 AU - $540,000 AU (this final figure seems over-inflated, but I kept it because why not?)
Like, what I'm trying to get at here is who buys these (particularly the Lamoborghini)? I mean, if you have half a million dollars burning a hole in your pocket and want to buy a car, is this it? If so why? I've wondered this since Lamborghini announced the Urus, so I guess this is a call to anyone who has one, or who knows someone who does... why? What was it that made you choose the half a million dollar SUV over the considerably cheaper, yet still well equipped premium Porsche offerings? Was it the prestige of the badge? The increased performance? The rarity? It certainly confuses me. There are people here saying that the SUV programs are providing these companies a bit more funding for their more exotic sportscars, but I feel like I'm more likely to spot a 488 or Huracan or whatnot over their beastly SUV brethren. Does this mean I just live in an outlier of a location where these cars aren't selling? Maybe. Or is it just that customers of Lamborghini and Co aren't interested in their crossovers? I don't know, would love if someone would provide me some clarity, though.
Also, I'm not trying to hate on anything in particular, I'm just trying to figure out this market and the motives behind it.
Lets take, for example, the Cayenne, Urus and Bentayga. Below are the prices for each of these models, in Australia as new on carsales.com:
Cayenne: $132,000 AU - $263,000 AU
Urus: $442,000 AU - $446,000 AU
Bentayga: $295,000 AU - $540,000 AU (this final figure seems over-inflated, but I kept it because why not?)
Like, what I'm trying to get at here is who buys these (particularly the Lamoborghini)? I mean, if you have half a million dollars burning a hole in your pocket and want to buy a car, is this it? If so why? I've wondered this since Lamborghini announced the Urus, so I guess this is a call to anyone who has one, or who knows someone who does... why? What was it that made you choose the half a million dollar SUV over the considerably cheaper, yet still well equipped premium Porsche offerings? Was it the prestige of the badge? The increased performance? The rarity? It certainly confuses me. There are people here saying that the SUV programs are providing these companies a bit more funding for their more exotic sportscars, but I feel like I'm more likely to spot a 488 or Huracan or whatnot over their beastly SUV brethren. Does this mean I just live in an outlier of a location where these cars aren't selling? Maybe. Or is it just that customers of Lamborghini and Co aren't interested in their crossovers? I don't know, would love if someone would provide me some clarity, though.
Also, I'm not trying to hate on anything in particular, I'm just trying to figure out this market and the motives behind it.
- 11,201
- Sweden
- eran0004
Probably because the SUV is a better car than the supercar. A supercar isn’t really good at anything other than letting you show that you have money. An exotic SUV can do that too, but with the additional benefit of being a much more useful and comfortable car. So the question is why anyone would buy a Lamborghini supercar when they can buy a Lamborghini SUV.
- 21
- Adelaide
- jbs0311
