Archive for The Motor Forum "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> Read All About It
Michael

DS3 (it's not a Citroen)

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news...revealed-first-images-and-details

Looks more like a facelift than a new car. More contrived than before and not as attractive. I'm sure it will still be popular with driving schools.
Bob Sacamano

Ah well, it was nice while it lasted. A rather badly-judged facelift  that seems to have lost the pretty styling of the original and moved it towards a Peugeot.
Twelfth Monkey

Looks like a makeover by a rapper...
Andy C

Looks like a 208 , which isn't a good thing
Humphrey The Pug

Oh dear, what a mess; the grille is very current Audi.
Big Blue

Oh dear. The front end looks gak.
BeN

Ugh. They've ruined it.
Grampa

First they ruined the DS5, now this?
Frank Bullitt

It's a (badly executed) stop-gap to get the DS3 into the re-branding exercise before the new one arrives later this year/ early 2017 which will be based on the 208's chassis rather than the current platform.

I like the DS5 re-style and DS4 (along with their Citroen predecessors) but this one is definitely a retrograde step, styling wise.
Roadsterstu

Grampa wrote:
First they ruined the DS5, now this?


I think that front end works well on the DS5 but much less so on the DS3.  I do loike the sound of the Performance model and I'm sure the 1.2 Puretech engines are probably decent.
PG

Roadsterstu wrote:
Grampa wrote:
First they ruined the DS5, now this?


I think that front end works well on the DS5 but much less so on the DS3. I do loike the sound of the Performance model and I'm sure the 1.2 Puretech engines are probably decent.


Why oh why oh why do manufactuers have to graft "the corporate face" onto everything? It may work on one model and then look awful on others.

This is one it looks awful on.
PhilD

PG wrote:
Roadsterstu wrote:
Grampa wrote:
First they ruined the DS5, now this?


I think that front end works well on the DS5 but much less so on the DS3. I do loike the sound of the Performance model and I'm sure the 1.2 Puretech engines are probably decent.


Why oh why oh why do manufactuers have to graft "the corporate face" onto everything? It may work on one model and then look awful on others.



Then it's a poorly designed corporate face and that's where the problem lies, not on grafting it onto to everything. The reason behind a corporate look is pretty obvious.
Frank Bullitt

The corporate face can work when the cars in the range a variation of a theme - look at the mid 90's stuff being pushed out by Mercedes and BMW and they were all 3-box coupe or estate versions of a photocopier exercise in car design, once you branch out elsewhere it starts to go awry. This is why the more 'angular' look Audi are chiselling means that whatever you think of the genre, the Q7 looks shit - much worse than its predecessor; what works on the A4 and A6 simply looks friggin' awful.

The problem for DS is that it's range is quite disparate and lacks a theme at the moment, primary because DS were supposed to be 'avantgarde' versions of more conservative Citroen's, so really it was about being a Citroen that did something different at each level, now it's 'A' DS. In the days before branding took over Citroen were actually very good at this little challenge, how else can the successful 20 year life of the DS be explained against a price list that included the 2CV, van versions of the same and the Ami. There's very little resemblance between any of those cars (even if the Ami and 2CV were mechanically and chassis-wise very similar), but unmistakably Citroen.
Giant

Contender for worst facelift everrr.
Michael

The success of the Ds3 was surely down to good looks and bargain prices. This looses the looks and the pricing policy is going to have to be distinctly unpremium. I can see why they want a premium brand but I can't see them achieving it.
Chris M Wanted a V-10

Michael wrote:
The success of the Ds3 was surely down to good looks and bargain prices. This looses the looks and the pricing policy is going to have to be distinctly unpremium. I can see why they want a premium brand but I can't see them achieving it.

+1
tali

"Not a Citroen".And not a cabrio
PhilD

I think this will look quite tidy in a darker colour. Interior nice too.
Nelson

I'm going to reserve full judgement until I see it in black or grey, which I think like Phil will suit what is a very bold (read ugly and ott) new grille better than in light colours.

I like some subtle chrome highlights, but this in these promotional pics looks awful and initial thoughts are they have totally ruined what I thought was a good looking solidly designed supermini with some real desirability but sadly that's been diminished.
Nelson

Nelson wrote:
I'm going to reserve full judgement until I see it in black or grey, which I think like Phil will suit what is a very bold (read ugly and ott) new grille better than in light colours.


EDIT: just seen pics of it in a dark colour (on KM77 website) and it looks bloody awful. Grille has totally ruined it

Rear looks ok, I do like the rear light graphics, looks smart and the first shots of the interior puts me off even more with the gap in the centre console where the radio unit was looking all sorts of wrong now.

Once considered, now consigned to not even worth looking at
tali

Must be but i think it looks fine - although the update is a bit too cautious.I'm sure existing customers will approve.
I drove a "cabrio" and was impressed at how quiet it was  with no noise or buffeting  from the roof.
PG

Chris M Wanted a V-10 wrote:
Michael wrote:
The success of the Ds3 was surely down to good looks and bargain prices. This looses the looks and the pricing policy is going to have to be distinctly unpremium. I can see why they want a premium brand but I can't see them achieving it.

+1


Bingo!

Is it just that we are more intelligent that 99% of all the marketing idiots in the car world? Or that we are more realistic? They may well be realistic too, but they can't tell the CEO to be realistic. As my experience of CEO's tells me that the one thing far too many of them hate is any form or realism or reality. That's just seen a negative. They've got to grow by 20% per annum to justify themselves and their entourage.
Chris M Wanted a V-10

When I started to look for cars to buy with my own money, way back in the late 1970's after I passed my driving test, I seem to recall that Renault, Citroen and FIAT in particular were priced, and marketed, as "cheaper" cars than the other mainstream brands, with a distinct appeal to private purchasers.
Since then, over the years it appears that they have pushed to become "premium brands" meaning that you have a choice of, say a Renault or a Mercedes or a BMW. No contest, really.

So apart from Dacia, who is left at the "budget" end of the marketplace (with the possible exception of Skoda) ?

...and why has none of the mainstream car manufacturers noticed that there has to be this gap at the lower end of the market, and adjusted their prices accordingly, backed with suitable advertising/marketing activities ?
PG

Chris M Wanted a V-10 wrote:
...and why has none of the mainstream car manufacturers noticed that there has to be this gap at the lower end of the market, and adjusted their prices accordingly, backed with suitable advertising/marketing activities ?


Because the mainstream manufacturers are convinced (or manage to convince themselves) that there is no profit to be made at the lower end of the market.

Because what Renault did to create Dacia was what everyone else seems frightened to do. Use an older floorplan to knock out more base models at knock down price. The chassis plant and design is pretty much fully depreciated, so the fully loaded cost to build the car is a lot less.

It is what VW really ought to have done with Skoda and SEAT. If it is reliable, in budget (price and running costs), reasonably safe and appealing at the level set, most people don't really care if it on the Golf IV, V, VI or VII platform..... Remember the 1 series BMW research - most of them don't even know which set of wheels are being driven.
Michael

My own theory on this is that budget cars need to move away from the conventions of hatchbacks, saloons etc. Citroen successfully sold the Belingo when it was cheap and utility, I think budget brands need to go that way with something that is basically a van with seats and no pretensions of going up market at all.
Bob Sacamano

You might think there's market for bargain basement cars but in reality there's no such thing.Even the most basic cars now require ABS, airbags and a whole host of other safety and emissions kit. New cars are unbelievably cheap for what you get and the margins at the bottom end are very thin. You end up being very busy fools trying to compete solely at that end.
Frank Bullitt

PG wrote:
Chris M Wanted a V-10 wrote:
Michael wrote:
The success of the Ds3 was surely down to good looks and bargain prices. This looses the looks and the pricing policy is going to have to be distinctly unpremium. I can see why they want a premium brand but I can't see them achieving it.

+1


Bingo!

Is it just that we are more intelligent that 99% of all the marketing idiots in the car world? Or that we are more realistic? They may well be realistic too, but they can't tell the CEO to be realistic. As my experience of CEO's tells me that the one thing far too many of them hate is any form or realism or reality. That's just seen a negative. They've got to grow by 20% per annum to justify themselves and their entourage.


Have a look at what PSA's CEO says about DS and the expected pay-back period - he is being realistic in that respect, I don't think it's just a flippant flash in the pan.

As for cheaper products, people may not be keen but you can get a C1 for fuck all, a C3 for fuck all plus a bit, C3 Picasso for fuck all and a little bit more, C4 for a similar amount of fuck all and a C4 Cactus for fuck all with a bit more added in.

Clearly nobody pays list, but for a smidge over 10k you get all the safety kit you'd want, air con, a lovely 3-pot blown Puretech etc on the C4 110 touch.  You would have had to pay the best part of that 20 years ago for a ZX with keep-fit windows.
Michael

I read a lot about ambition and some technology but, as much as I might want them to make it, I remain sceptical. That's not strictly true either, I still don't understand why they didn't make Citroen the aspirational brand instead of DS which is so nondescript that it could be used on one of those insurance adverts where they debrand the cars.
Bob Sacamano

Michael wrote:
I read a lot about ambition and some technology but, as much as I might want them to make it, I remain sceptical. That's not strictly true either, I still don't understand why they didn't make Citroen the aspirational brand instead of DS which is so nondescript that it could be used on one of those insurance adverts where they debrand the cars.


I agree, but having missed the opportunity with Citroen they are doing the right thing with the DS nameplate. Incremental improvements with each subsequent model and holding their nerve with pricing and not chasing volume and I think they can do it. There are no premium French car brands so I just see a massive gap in the market.
BeN

Bob Sacamano wrote:
You might think there's market for bargain basement cars but in reality there's no such thing.Even the most basic cars now require ABS, airbags and a whole host of other safety and emissions kit. New cars are unbelievably cheap for what you get and the margins at the bottom end are very thin. You end up being very busy fools trying to compete solely at that end.


I would say this is probably true. Plus the fact that nobody these days really want their cars to shout 'budget' even though they really are on a budget.

       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> Read All About It
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum