Minggu, 24 April 2011

Automobile Design Houses

1. Pininfarina:  Carozzeria Pininfarina or Pininfarina as it is popularly known is the worlds most reknowned car design studio. Based in Italy, the design studio is mostly famous for their Ferrari, Maserati and Alfa Romeo designs.




2. Zagato: Founded by Ugo Zagato, Zagato Designs is a company based in Italy. Zagato is famous for its dsigns for Spyker, Aston Martin and Fiat cars. Zagato unlike other designers is known to lend their name to cars.


3. Guigiaro Italdesign:Founded by Giorgetto Giugiaro, Giugiaro Designs/ Italdesign is another of the marvels from Italy. The design house is famous for the designs of reknowned Delorean, Ford Mustang and Lotus Esprit S1 and Fiat cars.


4. Bertone: One of the oldest Design houses in Italy, Carozzeria Bertone is also famous for the Lambretta scooter designs. Some of the notable designs are Lamborghini Miura, NSU Sport Prinz, Alfa Romeo GTA, Lamborghini Countach, Lamborghini Diablo and Chevrolet Niva.



5.  Ghia: One of the lesser known design houses, Ghia is more famous for its American Designs. Carozzeria Ghia is closely linked to Ford but also famous for its designs for Volkswagen, De Tomaso, Chrysler and Renault.



6. DC Designs : DC designs is an Indian design company founded by Dilip Chhabria. His studio is wellknown for the Aston Martin Vanquish and HM (Hindustan Motors) Ambassador based Ambierod.



7.Scaglietti: Scaglietti is one of the ferrari centric Italian car design studios. Today the design house is owned by Ferrari and famous for the Testarossa and 250 GTO models.




And here are some independant car designers well known for their designs.

Chris Bangle:

Manvendra Singh Gohil:


Richard Teague


Chip Foose:

Minggu, 17 April 2011

Mitsubishi Motors- How to sell good products badly.

Mitsubishi Motors is the sixth largest Japanese car manufacturer worldwide mostly known for its Lancer and Pajero cars. But since the dawn of the 21st century Mitsubishi has struggled worldwide to get acceptance in the market and sales have been minimal. Mitsubishi which has a more than 90 years of successful car building history starting from the Fiat Tipo based Model A has more than tradition and history going in its favour.

That doesn't deter the fact that Mitsubishi's new car releases are still waited for with abated breath. Their racing and rally heritage is unchallenged and their engines and build are still one of the best. This is definitely a rare feat considering the huge cover-up scandal Mitsubishi was engulfed in 2002.


Most car companies falter when their think tanks cannot come up with a universal plan. Ford Motor Company before and Ford Motor Company today is the best example to name. Mitsubishi has the right models in its portfolio but they chose the wrong markets, advertising strategy, partners and shelf space.

To begin with, Mitsubishi Motors in India has had a downfall in the 13 years of its operations. What started as a paramount success run turned to fizzle after a couple of years. Even new models could not help jump start the once burgeoning business. A politically sick Partner in HM, A relic model portfolio and indifferent dealership attitude are to blame.


Mitsubishi Motors in North America again had a sound start with Chrysler rebadging their cars for sale. The 2002 Scandal was a life threatening scare but new competitive models did help to an extent. Wrong Market reading and poor marketing and awareness are giving Mitsubishi Motors North America Sleepless nights. Mitsubishi UK fares slightly better with the FQ series and the i mini. But the results are not very cheerful in Europe either.


So what exactly went awry? Mitsubishi has been selling the Galant/380 name tag since 1969. The Galant gave Mitsubishi the much needed big car then. Unlike the Camrys, Accords and Maximas, the Galant had more of the American Muscle look. But while the ninth generation car had everything to be a success, it bombed. Even in the Australian Market the 380 was dropped. Mitsubishi did introduce the car to Taiwan and China but missed the opportunity to launch it in India and Malaysia. The Galant is not present in Germany, Korea, Brazil or India where big cars bring equity and awareness to the company. The PS platform which forms the basis for the Galant does not support Rear wheel drive but the 4g69 and 6g75 pack enough grunt to keep the car up against competition.



Coming to the lancer, Mitsubishi through its subsidiaries is currently selling three different versions of the Mitsubishi Lancer worldwide. This leads to inefficient use of resources and reduction of profitability due to economies of scale. Honda has introduced a mini Civic for the Asian market named the 'City. Nissan has a mini Altima named the 'Sentra' and Toyota has the recently introduced the Vios/ Etios. Mitsubishi has a lost opportunity in using the Eighth generation lancer as the Mirage or Cedia to fight at the lower end of the market while the Lancer gets a freehold at the higher end against the likes of Corolla, Civic and Altima. At the same time the seventh generation lancer needs to be stopped from production as it only leads to corrosion of the brand image.


 Considering Mitsubishi Motors globally has only made losses in the last decades, funds are definitely tight. This hampers new platform designing and conceptualization. Here the company has overlooked a very important platform share design. The Lancer coupe/ Convertible can be added to the sedan and sportback cars. Many might argue that a lancer coupe/convertible will eat into the Eclipse sales. The Mitsubishi Eclipse is based on the larger PS platform on which the Galant/380 is also based. For a company known for fun to drive cars, such a model will only cement its success further. Platform sharing will help keep manufacturing costs down helping improve profitability. Mitsubishi did have a coupe based on the seventh generation lancer.





The Lancer Sportback on the other hand needs more visualization globally as many are not aware of the cars existence even in the markets it is sold. Such platform sharing  designs are already present at VW, Suzuki, Toyota, GM and Chrysler so Mitsubishi has a tried and tested plan at hand.




Mitsubishi needs to bring in the Mitsubishi I mini car to North America ASAP as the time is right. Fiat has just launched the 500 and Ford is selling the Fiesta hatch. Bringing in the 'i' will bring customers to the showroom. Stating the fact that Mitsubishi i is the most awarded Mitsubishi in sometime will only strengthen matters. The Americans have learned that big egos and big cars are bound to fail and hence the time is right to strike the iron while its hot. The 'I' MIEV will also complement the petrol version.

In fact, so strong is the 'I's need for Mitsubishi that the company needs to launch the car worldwide as a special edition car. Such as move will work as a brand marketing exercise for the company yearning to build its reputation.

Killing the Ralliart made sense at Mitsubishi amid mounting losses and the pressure of economies hit by recession. But the equity of the brand Ralliart is strong enough to not let it die. AMG for Mercedes, Nismo for Nissan, Mugen for Honda and SRT for Dodge are some of the famous examples. Mitsubishi has also failed to encompass its other models under the Ralliart name successfully apart from the Lancer.

The same also applies to the Evolution portfolio. The portfolio ends with the Lancer and Pajero. I am sure those who swear by the Lancer EVO FQ-400 would love to get their hands on a performance Eclipse Evolution FQ-500 or a Colt Evolution by Ralliart smoking dirt at much powerful sports cars.


Peugeot Citroen is the sixth largest Car maker in the world and the second largest European car maker. Many of their models are re badged Mitsubishi cars including the successful Outlander. Also Mitsubishi and Peugeot Citroen are collaborating on their next generation electric car. With such strong ties the company should look at platform sharing for their newer sedans saving R&D and production costs. Under the circumstances where Mitsubishi is considering cancelling the PS platform Mitsubishi can look to share the Peugeot RCZ  platform sharing for its Eclipse and mid-size sedan models.


Coming lastly to the model that Mitsubishi can bank for volumes is the Colt. Japanese are not known for their diesel engines unlike the European counterparts. The Colt needs a diesel and introduction to a diverse market as small cars are a rage today. As of today the Colt is not present in China, America, Korea, Brazil, India, Mexico, Canada and various other major car volume countries.

Looking at the number of Car companies in production, Mitsubishi needs to take some corrective step soon or fear getting lost into the oblivion which would also mean existing only in the books of history.

Minggu, 10 April 2011

North American Cars we miss today

The Number of car makers hailing from North America over the years surpass the total car makers worldwide. Here are some that made a notable impact.

1.Duesenberg:  Born in Auburn, Indiana. Duesenbergs weere best known for their quality and luxury.




2. Delorean: Very rarely does an extremely shotlived company make a car that gets a place in the books of history. Delorean is it. It is remembered for the one model it produced — the distinctive  Stainless steel Delorean DMC-12  sports car featuring gull-wing doors — and for its brief and turbulent history, ending in receivership and bankruptcy in 1982.



3.AMC- The Chrysler as you know today is built on the foundation of the excellent technology and design inherted after merging AMC (American Motors Corporation) including Jeep which is the backbone of Chrysler today. American Motors Corporation (AMC) was an American automobile company formed by the 1954 merger of Nash-Kelvinator Corporation and Hudson Motor Car Company. At the time, it was the largest corporate merger in U.S. history.



4.  Auburn Automobile Company- Another company that had modest success unless World War took its toll with materials shortage.


5. Brewster cars: One of the most disctintively designed cars ever. literally.


6. Pierce-Arrow: One of the founder companies of Detroit.


7. Packard - The second of the first generation three from Detroit.


8. Peerless- The third of the primary Detroit three.


9. Bricklin: Canada is not exactly known for automobiles even though a major chunk of cars running in United States come from Canada. Bricklin was a true Canadian Sports car. Here is the SV-1.


10. Desoto: A Star of Chrysler corporation at one time, Desoto was a known name.


11. Oldsmobile - One of the oldest running car brands under GM. This brand has been voted as the most powerful discontinued brand in USA.


12. Hummer: The latest casualty at GM. Half the world still lives under ignorance of the extinction of this car.


13. Pontiac: The most loved car brand that GM destroyed by its own hands.


Minggu, 03 April 2011

Nissan Renault story

Running a business is an art too. To do it pretty well one needs to be a connoisseur of the art while having Gujju/Jewish/ Marwari genes at the same time. Carlos Ghosn is one such man. His talent makes up the history of the survival of Nissan and how Nissan fought back in record time alongwith Renault.





How do two culturally different auto makers come together under the umbrella of a shared vision? Renault and Nissan are building a powerful alliance that optimizes both companies’ strengths and resources. Innovation and technology are critical to their global business transformation.


In 1999, Nissan was suffering under a decade of decline and unprofitability, in fact the company was on the verge of bankruptcy, with continuous loses for the past eight years resulting in debts of approx. $22 billion ($32 billion as per some reports). Renault then purchased a 44.3 percent stake in Nissan. While maintaining his roles at Renault, Ghosn joined Nissan as its chief operating officer in June 1999, became its president in June 2000 and was named chief executive officer in June 2001. When he joined the company, it had debt of $22 billion ($32 billion as per some reports) and only three of its 48 models were generating a profit -- and reversing the company's sinking fortunes was considered "mission impossible."


Internal factors: Emphasis on short-term market share growth instead of a long term success strategy; Advanced engineering and technology, plant productivity, quality management. However, less attention was given to design and innovation, on the assumption that consumers were looking for quality and safety. This implies a lack of knowledge of the market, consumer's changing tastes, and showed that Nissan management did not pay too much attention to what competition was doing.
External factors: The devaluation of yen from 100 to 90 yen for a US dollar; Moody's and Standard & Poors's rating agencies announced in 1999 that Nissan would be lowered from investment grade to junk unless it could notget any financial support.


Both Nissan and Renault S.A. of France were eagerly looking for a partner in order to compete in the 21st century. Nissan was rebuffed by both DaimlerChrysler and Ford and Renault was turned away by other Japanese automakers, before the two companies reached an agreement on a global alliance in March 1999. The combination of Nissan and Renault made strategic sense in that the companies' main sales territories and production locales were complementary. In vehicle sales, Nissan was strongest in Japan and other parts of Asia, the United States, Mexico, the Middle East, and South Africa, while Renault concentrated on Europe, Turkey, and South America. The production side followed a similar pattern. On a global basis, the two companies held just more than a nine percent market share, which would position the combination number four in the worldwide auto industry.


As part of the agreement, Renault pumped $5.4 billion into cash-hungry Nissan in exchange for a 37 percent stake in Nissan Motor and a 22.5 percent stake (later raised to 26 percent) in Nissan Diesel Motor Co., a heavy truck unit. Although it did not secure complete control of Nissan, Renault gained veto power over capital expenditures and installed Carlos Ghosn (rhymes with "bone") as Nissan's chief operating officer (he became president as well in 2000). The Brazilian-born Ghosn was an executive vice-president at Renault and had engineered a rapid turnaround there after joining the company in 1996. French newspapers tagged him with the nickname "le cost killer" because of his tenacious approach to cost cutting--his Renault restructuring slashed $3.5 billion in costs over a three-year period.

The capital injection from Renault quickly reduced Nissan's debt load to Y1.4 trillion ($13 billion). Ghosn rapidly began implementing a massive restructuring of Nissan. Non-automotive operations began to be divested, including mobile and car telephone operations and the aerospace division. Nissan's forklift unit was likely to be sold and Nissan Diesel was a candidate for sale as well, given that Nissan Motor had declared that making cars and light trucks was its core business. In early 2000 Nissan sold a stake it held in Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. As for the automotive operations, Ghosn in October 1999 laid out a tough cost-containment program slated to be completed by 2002.


The program included: a 14 percent workforce reduction--representing 21,000 jobs, primarily in Japan--through attrition, early retirement, and noncore business spinoffs; the closure of five production plants in Japan in 2001 and 2002; the slashing of Y1 trillion ($9.5 billion) in annual costs, including a 20 percent reduction in purchasing costs and a 20 percent cut in overhead, the latter to include the elimination of one-fifth of Japanese Nissan dealers; and a 50 percent reduction in debt, to Y700 billion ($6.5 billion). Ghosn also began tackling the crucial need for a revitalization of Nissan's bland line of vehicles by substantially increasing capital spending, toward a goal of speeding new products to market four times faster than before. Although such a restructuring was by this time routine in the United States and becoming more commonplace in Europe, Ghosn's plan ran counter to many established business practices in Japan. The biggest question was whether Ghosn could implement the plan without resorting to large-scale layoffs in Japan, which would likely face fierce opposition from workers and labor unions and even from leaders of other Japanese firms. Perhaps to underscore the seriousness of his mission and his determination to turn Nissan around, Ghosn also announced that he would resign if Nissan was not profitable by March 2001.


Ghosn's restructuring had Nissan back in the black by the end of its 2000 fiscal year. The successful turnaround also led the two companies to deepen their relationship, as Renault boosted its stake in Nissan past 44 percent, while Nissan took a 15 percent stake in its French partner. Nissan launched a challenge for itself--to expand its vehicles sales by more than one million by the end of 2004. Again, Nissan met its goal, boosting its vehicle sales to 3.6 million by 2005. The company now became one of the world's fastest-growing carmakers, posting a surge in revenues from $50 million at the beginning of the decade to more than $87 million by 2006. Nissan's growth was all the more remarkable given the declining sales in the overall auto market into the mid-decade. The rescue of Nissan--and its more than 186,000 jobs--transformed Ghosn into an icon in Japan, and even inspired a comic book based on his success in saving the automaker.


A key component to Nissan's success, and the success of the Nissan-Renault alliance had been the companies' decision to develop their models based on common engine, transmission, and vehicle platforms. The decision represented significant cost-savings, while also enabled both companies to move ahead of competitors in vehicle design and technology. As part of the shared platform program, the two companies also began developing a network of shared production facilities, starting with a factory in Brazil opened in 2001.


Ghosn promised to resign if the company did not reach profitability by the end of the year, and claimed that Nissan would have no net debt by 2005. He defied Japanese business etiquette, cut 21,000 Nissan jobs (or 14 percent of total workforce), shut the first of five domestic plants, and auctioned off prized assets such asNissan's aerospace unit. His radical would make him a “target of public outrage,” according to the Wall Street Journal. However, in one year, Nissan's net profit climbed to $2.7 billion from a loss of $6.1 billion in the previous year. Nissan's operating profit (EBIT, or earnings before interest and taxes) margin has increased from 1.38% in FY 2000 to 9.25% in FY 2006.


Ghosn—the first non-Japanese person to lead a Japanese automaker- spearheaded major structural changes at Nissan, dramatically altering the corporate culture. Most notably, he ended Nissan's reliance on an interwoven web of parts suppliers with cross-holdings in Nissan—a Japanese operating model called "keiretsu." The dismantling of keiretsu earned Ghosn the nickname "keiretsu killer." He changed the official company language from Japanese to English and included executives from Europe and North America in key global strategy sessions for the first time. For the forcefulness of his initiatives to change the culture at Nissan, Ghosn has been compared with Admiral Matthew Perry (the US Navy commodore who compelled the opening of Japan to the West in 1854) and General Douglas MacArthur (the chief of staff of the US Army who radically changed Japan's political and economic structure during the post-World War II occupation).


In May 2005, Ghosn was named president and chief executive officer of Renault. When he assumed the CEO roles at both Renault and Nissan, Ghosn became the world's first person to run two companies on the Fortune Global 500 simultaneously. The relationship between Nissan and Renault appeared strengthened in 2005, when Louis Schweitzer announced his decision to retire as head of Renault. Schweitzer wanted Ghosn to return to France to take over Renault's top spot. Nonetheless, as Ghosn told Forbes: "It was too early. I told him the only way it would work is if I was CEO of both companies." Renault, which by then had been struggling with its own declining sales agreed, and in April 2005, Ghosn took over as that company's CEO as well. By the end of 2007, Ghosn appeared to be working his restructuring magic at Renault. With combined vehicle sales expected to top 6.4 million by the end of that year, the company launched an effort to open its alliance to a third partner, approaching General Motors (in danger of losing its long-held global leadership position to Toyota) with an offer to join the alliance. While those talks fell through, Nissan-Renault remained interested in bringing a North America partner into the alliance. With Ghosn in command, Nissan had been transformed from a failing midsized Japanese automaker to an industry pacesetter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Ghosn
http://www.answers.com/topic/nissan-motor-company-ltd