Re: European vs Japanese CARS

["Charles E. Love, Jr." <cel14@cornell.edu>]

At 07:19 PM 7/22/96 +0100, you wrote:
>Charles E Love Jr <cel14@cornell.edu> wrote:
>>And Porsche came very close to bankruptcy, knocked down by Japanese cars that 
>>looked and performed as well and cost half as much.   
>
>As a former motoring journalist, I beg to differ. Porsche came perilously close
>to bankruptcy in the mid-late 1970s, because the large expenditure on R&D which
>led to the front-engined 928 model was not matched by sales, especially in the
>post-oil crisis market. Had it stuck to building 911s, it would have continued
>to prosper at that time (a lesson for Leica, perhaps - stick to what you're
good
>at, ie M6, and you prosper, spend a lot of money developing something more
>advanced [CL, rumoured G1 competitor] and you could go under).
>
>Also, I seriously question whether there is *any* Japanese car, at any
period in
>history, which can give the equivalent Porsche anything to worry about.
They are
>pastiches, built to a price not a specification, and not one of them offers the
>driving pleasure or lasting engineering integrity of a Porsche

I don't know whether I should bother to get into all this again (cheers from
the lurkers)--but: The Acura NSX, though a very different car, gives the top
911 a run for its money (as a couple of recent comparison tests show) ,and
has been described by more than one "motoring journalist" as "the best
sports car ever made, at any price."  That car, along with such worthy (and
high-priced) machines as the Toyota Supra, Nissan 300 ZX, and Mazda RX-7,
could not be described by any fair-minded observer in the way you do above.
Love 'em or hate 'em, but each of them has tremendous character, is unique,
reflects extensive racing experience,  and is surely built in part out of
love--just like a 911.  I realize that Porsche--and Leica--are in the eyes
of their fans somehow "purer;" after all, the Japanese car companies named
above also build inexpensive, utilitarian cars, and Canon and Nikon do the
same with cameras.  But Porsche and Leica don't have unblemished
histories--read on.  

The Porsches I was talking about in my post  were conveniently left out of
your reply. Certainly I wasn't talking about the 928 (which of course had no
Japanese competition, since it was a $100,000 Grand Touring car) or the 911
(which in the eyes of its devotees has no competition at all--maybe it is an
M6).  What nearly killed Porsche was the failure of their mass market
mid-priced front-engine water-cooled cars (the 924 and relatives), cars
which you don't mention above, cars whose sales revenues were supposed to
support niche products like the 911 and 928.  The Japanese cars that wrecked
their sales were the RX-7, Datsun/Nissan Z's, and such.   Indeed, by the end
of that line, those cars (924's) were not very competitive at all in the
comparison tests American car magazines love to run, and even when they
brought out a "cheap" one in a last desperate effort to save the line it was
still too expensive for what it was.  Furthermore, if there ever were
"pastiche" cars, the 924 and its relatives and the 914 and its relatives
were. ( Of course every Porsche lover would like to forget about 914-4's,
since among other things they had VW engines.)

I think Porsche's problems today are, as you suggest, somewhat analogous to
Leica's.  The 911 is sure a niche product (a terrible idea brilliantly
executed!), with sales insufficient to support R&D, but Porsche's forays
into a wider market have pretty much failed.  Similarly, the M6 (though not
a terrible idea!) is probably fated to be a niche product, but for it to
remain competitive (up-to-date lenses, etc.) it's going to need the
financial help that good R sales would give it.

Since you are a Porsche fan, you'd better hope for good sales from the
Boxster, their latest effort in the lower-priced market.  (Sorry, but the
Boxster, like the 924 and 914 (and--horrors! like Japanese cars), is
certainly "built to a price" and aimed at a particular market segment.)
Unfortunately for Porsche, we are about to have a surfeit of German cars in
that range, one each from BMW and Mercedes as well as the Porsche.  (BTW,
have you been noticing how many Mercedes are now "built to a price?")

Anyhow, I hate to tell you this, but Leica also has a history of "building
to a price."  That's the reason, for example, that they went to Minolta for
the basis of the R3 and R4--SL2 type quality equipment just couldn't be
built any more at a price anyone would pay (There's an old Tamarkin
newsletter where Stan discusses this).  That's also part of the reason they
went to Minolta and Sigma (of all things) for zooms--they got the price
down.  The CL was made for the same reason--not to mention all the cheap
point-and-shoots they have been putting their name on lately (I exempt the
Minilux from this characterization).   In addition, many on the list
probably saw the recent article where an M6 and M3 were dissected side by
side, and a number of little cost-cuttings on the M6 were exposed.

None of this is terrible--it's what they have to do to stay alive.  What we
have to do is look to our favorite camera or car companies to keep building
the stuff we really love, and if they do some other things to survive, or
even prosper, grin and bear it.

I'd just add--as a result of my experience in this whole discussion--that
it's not necessary for any of us to prove that everything other than our
favorite is terrible in order for us to be happy in the choices we've made.
I just like everything about Leicas--they are such a pleasure to use.  That
doesn't mean that top-line Canon or Nikon has to be called lousy and be
angrily condemned, let alone condemned because it's Japanese!
Charles E. Love, Jr.
517 Warren Place
Ithaca, New York
14850
607-272-7338
CEL14@CORNELL.EDU