Media | Articles
Our Two Cents: Why Automakers Kill Their Performance Brands
Performance brands create products we love to own, mostly because they are designed to outperform their competition. Who doesn’t want a piece of that winning formula?
Some folks do not, and they pull at the purse strings of the companies behind these products. Chevrolet had the Super Sport (SS) for a long time, but applying it to vehicles like the Chevrolet Malibu MAXX might not have been the smartest long-term move. Ford wavers in a similar manner, but to a worse extent: witness the life and death of Total Performance, Special Vehicle Operations, the Special Vehicle Team, and the seemingly torrid relationship they have with Shelby American, Inc.
But why does this happen? We asked the team here at Hagerty Media that very question, and our answers are quite telling.
Here’s A Meme For That
(You’re welcome.)—Matt Tuccillo
“Oh, dang.”—Sajeev Mehta
Marketplace
Buy and sell classics with confidence
“Exactly as above, though I’ll add some detail based on years of experience covering the industry: A new VP of product kicks down the door, desperate to prove he’s a gunslinger. He revives a performance nameplate to verify the brand’s bonafides, which have long been rendered dormant by sleepy products that sell well to retirees, real estate agents, and other people without a pulse.
Then they introduce ‘performance’ iterations that are the best they can do given a limited budget and mediocre base hardware, generate some buzz, and move on to next assignment. Then a successor comes with a mandate from the board to cut costs by slashing runaway product proliferation … especially the models that were supposed to be break-evens at unit 1000 and never even reached that.”—Aaron Robinson
They Are Afterthoughts
“I’m pretty ignorant on the inner workings of car brands and development, but to me it seems many performance sub-brands come as afterthoughts. They end up saddled with problems that wouldn’t exist if the performance aspect was taken into consideration from the outset of design, rather than the ‘just make it sportier later‘ school of thought.”—Kyle Smith
The Superhero Analogy
“Sub-brands launch for the same reason that superhero franchises peak and valley—you’ve got potentially valuable name equity and heritage that is worthless if left forever on the shelf. Investors are much more likely to take a shot in the dark with, say, The Flash, instead of trying to come up with a new concept that is almost guaranteed to fail. If it’s a success, then comes the ruthless milking of it until the quality goes down, the creative udders run dry, and everyone’s taste for the original thing has soured.
We’re on the cusp of this with Hyundai’s N brand, which was a brainchild of engineer/exec Albert Biermann, and was a rare case of something invented from whole cloth. But now that Biermann has departed the brand, the essence of the N brand (fun-to-drive, relatively affordable, durable for track use) is already being diluted as dealers stock more and more N-line styling packages for Hyundais.
Sub-brands need a constant, consistent feeding to keep them fresh and relevant. What not to do is what Cadillac did with V: Associate your racing team with a full-on BMW M competitor, only to turn the thing into a sub-brand with zero marketing support and introduce the Blackwing brand as a halo. Huh?”—Eric Weiner
They Are Just Props
“If you’re Chevrolet and Ford, you use (or use up) sub-brands to prop up your electric vehicles—like the Ford Mustang Mach-E, and the Chevrolet Blazer EV SS. Even Porsche has done it, with the Taycan Turbo S. Is anyone out there fooled? Anyone?”—Steven Cole Smith
The Legacy Outlives the Reality?
“I think I first heard the idea from a Volkswagen executive talking about the Golf GTI: Enthusiasts are the single best marketing apparatus a brand can have—and one the brand can never own.
Hearing from your friend that a certain badge on the hood is better than another is more convincing than any amount of marketing material on TV and the internet.
And how do you get enthusiasts to evangelize for your brand? Give them something to get excited about. Enter performance sub-brands. Usually laden with history written at a time when regulations and market forces were softer and more accepting of fringe ideas, these brands—SS, M, AMG, and the like—are full of genuinely remarkable machines that whipped us car nerds into frenzies way back when.
But when they reemerge, frankly, it just isn’t the same economy that they’re trying to sell into. Passionate fans don’t have buying power anymore, and the business case for a fringe idea usually blows up in the first board meeting. But, not one to pass up a good branding opportunity, the badges still get slapped on compromised machines of all sorts with the hopes that maybe we just won’t notice.”—Nathan Petroelje
Reincarnation Is a Good Thing?
“Too much of the auto industry lives in a cycle of reincarnation. Why invent when you can re-invent, or worse, reimagine? No one needed retro styled cars like the Ford GT, the 2002 Thunderbird, New Beetle, Mini, et al., with what amounts to a finite pool of buyers.
Some of those sold like hot cakes, sure, but that’s because consumers, like carmakers, which is to say ‘people,’ lack imagination. We would have done just fine if all the time and resources invested in re-hashed nostalgia were instead put into new concepts. But maybe that would have been too hard.”—Stefan Lombard
It’s YOUR Own Fault!
“I can say this as a Lincoln-Mercury enthusiast, as I have basically zero skin in this game. Also, you guys took all the good ones. So let’s do this thing:
The people who own performance-branded cars are usually the worst stewards of their respective brands. They won’t/can’t buy these vehicles when they are new, and generally go out of their way to avoid supporting the OEM behind the brand. Then they bag on the people who do splash the cash on the showroom floor, because said owners don’t treat the cars the way they’d expect. Finally, enough owners get caught on social media trashing the brand’s integrity to the point it remains a niche product with little hope of profitability once the platform is redesigned/replaced.
In order to sustain a brand, enthusiasts must spend their money with the manufacturer. Even if it’s just a performance branded logo on a T-shirt from an officially licensed vendor, because if enough people contribute to the cause, no amount of bad vibes can ruin the performance brand.
Case in point: premium brands like BMW M, any Ferrari, or anything with a Porsche emblem. Somehow those brands have found enough buyers and enough true believers to keep their performance intentions afloat through thick and thin.”—Sajeev Mehta
Find more values
Search for prices of other cars, trucks, vans and motorcycles
The real problem here is you can’t fake performance with emblems and decals.
Case in point GM did the Forgettable SS Malibu Max. It had emblems and some bigger tires but not much else. This kind of product is much more affordable but it damages the brand equity of the SS badge all for the sale of some more money.
On the other hand right after this car GM established the GM Performance Division. It was a group of racers at GM that their mantra was to earnt he badge it much GO, Stop and Turn at high levels of performance.
These are the folks that elevated the V series modes. They gave us the Trailblazer SS and a number of other performance cars that are prized today.
One of the best examples is one I owned. The HHR SS. I really hated FWD and Turbo 4 cylinders till a dealer tossed me the keys.
I took it out and hammered the car. It was a blast to drive. It handled great but no harsh suspension in the German like tune. It had 300 HP out of a 2.0 engine. It made an HHR that let me run door to door with the Mustang of the time. One guy I ran stopped and said what did you do to that thing. I told him Stock!
The Cobalt SS also was one that earned the badge. GM failed to really market the Performance Division as should have been and in time it was dissolved much like the SVT group.
Badges make money and add little cost. Adding real hardware to real performance cars as a lot of money and not always much profit.
Trucks like the Raptors are cool but they are damn expensive. The profits are slim and they make little money for a company. When stock prices are in the tank and income is not what it should be it is hard to sell cool cars.
Like they say C students run the world. Well boring cars make the money and profits.
I am against the Corvette name being spread out over other models like a truck, SUV or any other non two seat sports car. You have over 70 years of equality in the name and you risk it for a quick buck.
One success of name and badge is the Denali line. These models are up scale with simple option editions and trim. People will pay more for them and it is one of the most profitable lines around. It prints money for GM.
The name Equity of the Denali name it over the top as people don’t just say you have a GMC but you have a Denali.
I stumbled on this when I bought my Truck. It had not sold so they made me a great deal on it. After I got it I got the Denali treatment by many. It was odd. Based on resale today I’m glad I went with the model I bought. Also the vented seats are really cool. literally.
I still cringe thinking about early 70’s when Ford had a commercial saying that the Maverick Grabber was entering the realm of performance vehicles. Fake hood scoops, tape stripes and upgraded wheels = performance to compete with the muscle cars of the day.
What, you don’t think that my in-laws 1972 Grabber, with a 170 and 3-on-the-tree, was a performance vehicle?
I couldn’t have said it better.
Branding has to match what is being sold.
Fender guitars are a good study. The Telecaster remains very similar from its early 50s roots, sure there are sub models like the Thinline, and gimmicks like the signature series and paisley ones –but all of these are premium upgrades from the base Tele. A base option American made Tele remains a real guitar players guitar.
Where it got murky is when they did the “Squire” subbrand and tossed the Telecaster (stratocaster, etc.) names on them. Squires don’t have a great rep on the internet… their production has moved around a bit to get cheaper labor costs. Ironically, some of the better Squires in some years/models/specs (maybe a management type approved a “sports car”?) can be okay guitars, but that brand is really a “beginner and casual hobbyist” guitar. The high school kid thrashing on a Squire likely intends to get “better brand” asap. [Epiphone to Gibson is a parallel story].
There are also the times that through a miracle of tone that a guitar made with the cheap wood and components still manages to sound great (See Jack White, guy can play a coat hanger stretched across a laundry basket and it sounds good, well if you like feedback and such).
In cars… the original Beetle followed the Fender model of incremental changes if any, minor evolutions. The Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger/Challenger are a more recent example. F150 and Outback are more evolutionary, but kind of fit the same idea.
GM likes to sink their brands to cash them out… making the Bel Air move down the model line as car generations pass kill the equity. Rinse and repeat with multiple examples. Meanwhile Toyota, VW, Honda and Subaru don’t really seem to do that all that much (yeah VW wavered and downgraded the Jetta, and flip-flopped the Golf/Rabbit name, but in general they are better brand stewards).
1 problem with the last Thunderbird was it was appreciated by a small audience in a narrow age demographic and much of that audience couldn’t afford it. A retro 80s Supercoupe Tbird might have done much better.
I think a big part of the problem is the average American car buyer is a pretty boring lot who don’t get too far out of the box. If this year’s theme is roundy CUVs, and this year’s color is medium gray, that is what is going to go out the door like hotcakes. Just having an ‘odd’ colored car is more than a lot of folks can handle
Dealer fear is a part of that equation. They sell more colours in Europe where there is a more-direct sales model in place. Even green gets picked over there.
Here, the dealer brings in 3 colourful Fiestas (old example, pick any make) and complains that they have a hard time selling them compared to the grey Escapes. Paint all the Fiesta grey and they would sell the same.
Paint some of the Escapes interesting maybe you actually sell more. But no one tries it.
Where I live, I will give Dodge credit as they sent quite a few colourful cars to the rental car fleets. Smart advertising as those cars popped out among the highway crowd.
But also in many areas of Europe, from what I have read, the people wear colorful, attractive clothes, instead of faded (and often raggedy) blue jeans and T-shirts. So, that could also explain why their cars are more colorful.
As a former V and multiple SHO owner, the circle of product death is indeed accurate. The 2005 V sat at the dealer for almost a year and was a hell of a deal….that was the only one they ever sold. Don’t ask me about the service experience. Looking and buying are two different things! I was interested in the SSR at the time-until I saw one in the metal. Have a neighbor with a babied 2002 Bird he ordered new he’s trying to sell. He can’t give it away. Same kind of car as SSR. Thought it was cool until I saw one. Perhaps these special divisions tried too hard to spread out the fairy dust rather than making one good car???
Performance models vs filtering some of the tidbits to lessers and more mundane trims.
Way back when V8 Colorados were in development, my buddy who worked at the MESA GMDPG took me for a spin in a reg cab, short bed, ZQ8 suspension Colorado with the all aluminum 5.3 HO. That 5.3 was no monster of power, but the truck was light and it was a great little package. The catch? He specifically said – too close to the Camaro and Corvette straight line performance wise. So it never got the green light. We had V8 S10s before and the Colorado was all the good, with none of the bad.
Ford allows the V8 in reg can F150s, making a cheap decent performance vehicle. Ram had the old 1500 classic reg cab with the 5.7 Hemi.
GM requires top trim for the 6.2.
Another example – in my hometown there was a dealer who was connected and a police department that liked nondescript vehicles. The PD somehow got a wood paneled wagon with 9C1 suspension and a 350 in place of the 305 (before the 307 Olds switch). That wagon was an incredible vehicle. Later, I picked up a used 89 9c1 TBI detective sedan. So much better than my 84 305 Caprice.
Sometimes small parts from the performance bin can make the mundane a little more enjoyable.
Special cars in the past were based on cheap RWD models. Even with the additions they were easy and cheap to build and buy.
Today there are no cheap cars and to make them fast often entails great expense. Today most people are struggling to just afford a vehicle that will cover all their needs.
This is why the CUV is king now. They can be affordable, they are safe, they get good MPG and they can haul about anything most average people need.
I had a small sedan and I had to unbox many things at the store as the box would not fit in the trunk opening. My truck or SUV you just toss it in.
” What’s in a name?” – How many ‘ Sport ‘ models have you seen that only had different rims, a rear spoiler and some decals? How many ‘ Off Road ‘ pickup models with larger rims and a plastic skid plate that will fall off at the first hit? We’ve all seen this to many times before -“Let the buyer beware”. For example ( from what little I know) a ‘GT’ used to mean Grand Touring way back when. More performance to compensate for increased comfort, not just more performance. A stylish car for those who liked to drive and drive quickly and often, without giving up ride quality, amenities etc. Some exotic superleggera models cost ridiculous amounts of money in comparison to standard models for a few pounds in weight savings. One thing on the track, another just stored in the garage.Skip an occasional lunch, lay off a bucket of the ‘colonels finest ‘ and save that money. So the over the years alphabet soup manufactures use and have used doesn’t affect me much anymore. All in the game. But I absolutely refuse to buy an overpriced T-shirt to advertise someones product. If you want to hand out those fliers or put them on windshields, knock yourself out.
Honestly? Performance doesn’t sell anymore unless its a well established legacy brand( i.e. M, AMG). Lower cost manufacturers are out of the game, and when they were in, too much of it was lackluster. These days its utility, tech, and mileage that sell…and its boring.
AMG is “watered down”as well after Mercedes bought AMG. They stick an AMG badge on a car with a set of rims, so the buyer thinks they own an AMG………Not worth the Money.
I owned an SL55AMG…..as a collector. After 10 years and 11K miles the local Mercedes dealership did not even want it on their lot as trade. Try trading in a 911…..Porsche will love it at any age!
Back in the “Golden age of Muscle” cars came in enough flavors to allow a performance model shine. Look at the Chevrolet Nova or the Ford Mustang of the 60’s and 70’s those could be had with an anemic 4, an alright 6, a respectable V8, or a terrifying V8 and there was enough of a difference between those two V8 options that you could feel it. Today the difference between a grocery getter and a performance version of most cars is an appearance package, suspension upgrades, brake upgrades if your lucky, and a “magical” key that unlocks a different power curve in the computer. That is all stuff that someone could do in a weekend. Also lets face it, the days of a body that fits 4 different engines, or an auto maker willing to even allow 3 engine options are gone, move it down the line as similar as possible, and make it different with software and stickers is the name of the game today.
For better or worse emissions standards actually made cars more powerful at the base level so there is no longer a lot of wiggle room between grocery getter and track monster. Safety standards and crumple zones didn’t help either.
Having worked on performance cars at an OE for 2/3 of my career, enthusiasts are as rare working at an OE as out in the wild. Most execs that claim to be enthusiasts are posers, or at least unwilling to stick their neck out politically and do what they are told. Performance models come and go as true enthusiasts are in power. The posers then like to dilute the content and must be fought 24/7. Lay on top of this the approximately 10 year economic cycle of profitability at OEs, and the performance brands/models often die when times get tough as the hackers and slashers get in power. They focus on “core business” or as of late, wasting tens of billions of dollars on EVs that often aren’t ready for prime time.
In North America, performance has almost always meant more cubic inches and therefore gas guzzling. Ordinary people can’t afford gas guzzlers. That’s why European and Japanese performance cars formerly were turbocharged, or used higher-compression versions of the same engines, and were almost as fuel-efficient as their regular models. The performance bump was there, but not wild. Once V8s started to be installed in German and Japanese performance cars (and luxury sedans), that changed somewhat, but those cars are for the rich anyway.
Back in the day, I owned three turbo Saabs, a 1984 and two 2002s. They used more gas than a Camry but not that much more, and they had sparkling performance and handling. Sure, I bought them used and depreciated. The one time I tried an old Camry, I spat it out within weeks. Ugh. The same thing applies to Saab as to the performance sub-brands mentioned here (which it also was at the end). GM had no idea what to do with it.
Automakers can’t sell enough of any performance car they build to make a profitable return on their investment. They are caught in that in between area of having to keep the price low enough so the average person can afford one and making a profitable return where they would have to charge Corvette prices to make money. Plus more Americans than ever for decades now play follow the leader and are like lemmings thinking I have to buy a crossover, suv, or truck. It astounds me the people that drive monstrous pickups that probably cost $70,000 or more as daily drivers, never hauling anything in them including people.
I believe one other factor in the minds of many – especially those who see vehicles as transportation appliances – is the perception of safety. Obtaining a license to drive is way too easy in America and it requires way too little proper training. IMHO, the result is too many under qualified and frightened people operating vehicles that they have no business operating.
From Wikipedia on obtaining a driver’s in Germany – “The cost of obtaining a license for driving a car is on average 3,000€ (US$3,300 in January 2024) but varies widely according to an individual’s skill, city and region”. it’s worth reading this Wiki page as it points out a number of other requirements and stipulations. Good luck implementing this type of process in America because a significant number of people that are licensed today would at best struggle to meet German driving and licensing standards. I’ll leave it to the readers to fill in the blanks as to why this would be nearly impossible politically. I believe one other factor in the minds of many – especially those who see vehicles as transportation appliances – is the perception of safety. Obtaining a license to drive is way too easy in America, and it requires way too little proper training. IMHO, the result is too many under qualified and frightened people operating vehicles that they have no business operating.
From Wikipedia on obtaining a driver’s license in Germany – “The cost of obtaining a license for driving a car is on average €3,000 (US$3,300 in January 2024) but varies widely according to an individual’s skill, city, and region”. It’s worth reading this Wiki page as it points out a number of other requirements and stipulations. Good luck implementing this type of process in America because a significant number of people that are licensed today would at best struggle to meet German driving and licensing standards. I’ll leave it to the readers to fill in the blanks as to why this would be nearly impossible politically.
Part of the problem is lack of understanding and enthusiasm by the dealer and sales team. My dad was the sales manager of a Ford dealership when the original 260/289 Cobra came out. They had one sitting on the showroom floor with a rope around it and nobody who really understood what it was. They eventually wound up selling the Cobra franchise to another dealer (just prior to the introduction of the Shelby GT350🙄). Fast forward to 1969/70 and every Ford dealership has to take a Torino Talladaga to homologate them for NASCAR and, again, nobody at the dealership has a clue what it is. It winds up getting sold (at considerable discount) to a middle aged woman to replace her totaled Fairlane. She complains “everyone keeps wanting to race!
A large part of the corporate mentality has to do with meeting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and the associated GHG emissions standards both federally and in California. Shelby and Roush either had to pay hefty fines or beg Ford to bury the cars in their CAFE reporting. (I know, I was the one who did the reporting). As time went by, the standards got increasingly difficult to meet to the point where virtually every manufacturer was paying hefty fines. And don’t get me started on the “credits” electric vehicles get. Just to give you an example, the average Tesla earns over $40,000 in CAFE credits they can sell to other manufacturers.
Sales expectations seem to be low in many cases. Back when the Cadillac CTS-V wagon came out with a 6-speed manual, the engineers were quoted in print (Motor Trend) saying they only expected to sell 5-6 of them.