The new NSX's Sport Hybird powertrain is front-engined front wheel ICE drive, rear wheel electric drive. If I could change that I would make it rear-mid-engined rear wheel ICE drive, with electric motors at the front. Because better weight distribution, better efficiency* and better regen/KERS efficiency. *note: In a rapid acceleration the weight is transferred to the rear, to get a better handling, the rear wheels should apply more torque than the front wheels. In the new NSX it has to use strong regen in the front motor to decrease torque to the front wheel and use that electricity to power the rear wheel, and motor-generator transmission is less efficient than a gearbox. In the "I would make" NSX, the rear regen motor apply a lower regen and the front motor work less. Most power is transferred form the engine to the rear wheel via a gearbox. For braking more front brake torque because of weight transfer, the "I would make" NSX will regen braking more efficiently because of the two front electric motors
Umm, the coupe was already facelifted in 2016 (CT) though. And adding to that, the new Accord is a brand new generation, so they would have to design a whole new body (and shorten the chassis a bit, since it is a coupe and I do believe the last Accord Coupe was like this). Just felt like pointing that out.
I would mandate that pickup trucks must always be available in at least four bodystyles: Regular Cab & Short Bed Extended or Crew Cab & Short Bed Regular Cab & Long Bed Extended or Crew Cab & Long Bed And ensure that beds & cabs of a certain length are interchangeable no matter which frame they originally came on, in order to allow for better end-of-life parts reusability. So, for example, a long bed could be taken off of #3 and put on #4, or a regular cab could be taken off of #3 and put on #1. Of course, that may not help with unibody trucks, but I'd at least mandate that the unibody only encompass the passenger compartment, with the bed being a separate component.
I never understood the point of unibody pickups. I'm not too knowledgable about trucks, but something tells me that unibody trucks ruin the maneuverability of them. And aesthetics. Apologies to any Australians, but this is exactly why I think UTEs don't always work in the design department.
first off, they're called utes, short for "utility", nos eome weird acronym. secondly, the falcon utes have a half-ladder frame in the back:
Ok this is good to know, but I know you had to see that my comment specifically said I didn't know much about the subject, so no need to do the "first off, second off"
I would definitely try to salvage Lancia's presence by building another car to "buddy-up" with the now-lonely Ypsilion, with something like a SUV or a MPV to rival the Ford Galaxy and its counter-rivals to keep its head in touch with a good margin of markets that they either completely avoided or dropped eventually due to low sales.
Lancia's problem is that it is too close to Alfa Romeo in terms of positioning, and the market for premium Italian cars is barely big enough for AR itself. In the end, FCA chose to keep Alfa around, with its sporty image. Lancia couldn't shake its "old guys and hairdressers" image.
I also felt they really began rushing production cars in the late 2000s by rebadging Chrysler models to try appeasing more markets (Flavia, Voyager) and trying to revive the Delta nameplate alongside those 2 new cars. When all of those failed and went out of production for Lancia, they've pretty much put their main focus on trying to make a quick buck on the only successful (and actual) car they have in their line-up - The Ypsilion. Speaking of the Ypsilion, the most major thing that actually happened to that car was a 2016 facelift (which didn't really make the design any more interesting) and as of now they've really just put like "special edition" variants as for anything with some impact. Sad when the best thing you can do for your dying brand is make a few measly limited variations of your only car with mostly just "new" paintjobs and rims.
Well, the time to act was in the 70s, maybe 80s. Since then, the niche for "technologically advanced, middle-of-the-road European luxury cars" has been taken by Audi. The only reason the Ypsilon exists is because it plays below Audi's territory.
And the only reason that Ypsilion still manages to exist (somehow) is that it is a low-cost supermini (even though Lancia likes to advertise it as some sort of premium hatchback). I don't get why they never even dared to dabble with SUVs, not even a mere concept (as far as I know) even though eventually even Alfa Romeo followed suit not too long ago.
Because there isn't much room when Fiat has the 500X, and Alfa Romeo is planning to get into both subcompact and compact crossovers. That's the small premium Italian crossover niche filled.
Good point. But they did have a chance to create a SUV, back in the 2000s when the closest to a SUV dominating Italy were just Pandas, and when Lancia really had a flurry of designs pouring out. If they might've been able to create a competitor to German premium SUVs such as the BMW Xs and the Audi Qs of that time, they might've been better off and managed to start gaining better ground as a result. That way, they would've not been as much in the shambles as they were post-2015 and maybe even be able to prevent the "1 market, 1 car" status Lancia has crashed down into. Kinda surprised I haven't even brought up the 2010 Stratos concept, since that was the last car that really got the car community stirring from Lancia before they fell from grace... (I'll bring that up in the next post so I can explain what they should've done with the new Stratos concept and how that might've helped Lancia as well)
The Stratos concept was from a small boutique-type outfit, not from Lancia. And Fiat's lack of crossover investment was not that surprising, because crossovers weren't really seen as a force to be reckoned with in Europe until the early 10s or so. Before that, they were only a playground for brands with lots of R&D cash, which Fiat was not among.
The Stratos concept was definitely a missed opportunity, especially with it releasing very close to the Chrysler rebadges that I still lack to ignore because of how it really devolved Lancia eventually to a former shadow of itself. I believe if it was designed by Lancia themselves and unveiled more akeen to the early 2000s, it might have gotten a better chance of making it into proper production. Although if I had it my way, I would completely devoid of reviving the Stratos, as Lancia wasn't really trying to relive their rally glory days and I personally would've sticked with that notion if I were to take major control of the Lancia brand. That I see your point as well, and I can agree with it. However, Lancia back then was branching to various premium markets of what was gaining traction in Europe, so I believe trying to one-up their lineup more with a competitor to the Germans (because back then they were the country that blown up the market the most in Europe, and had various amounts of vehicles available akeen to each sort of premium car buyer) could've given Lancia some sales boosting that would be a better intervention from heading down the drain. Even if it might've not been a big success, there is still a possibility a SUV would've had a impact that would've helped Lancia start returning into the spotlight they used to have all the way back in the 70s and 80s. Usually I'm not one who's avid to see a sports/premium brand like Lancia try making a SUV or crossover, but in this case that might have given them the higher ground. It might not be the most intuitive situation considering they didn't have the prestige at the time like the Germans did, but it's a interesting thought that has some plausibility to it.
The Lancia crossover would have been a great idea. The problem is that both Sergio Marchionne and his predecessor Umberto Agnelli treated crossovers as something unimportant, and waited until the last minute to make some (or, if they did, left them as they were - e.g. Dodge Journey). Now FCA is fighting an uphill battle in gaining crossover buyer trust. Another problem with Marchionne was that he didn't treat ordinary cars well enough, letting things like Fiat's passenger cars wither away while blasting cash on moon shot attempts to challenge the Germans in the conservative luxury sedan segment. At least he gave Ferrari the kick it needed and made Dodge the modern muscle poster boy.
This. Had FCA tried jumping earlier to the crossover trend for brands that especially needed a crossover in their line-ups (which includes the brand we've been discussing about for the last few hours, Lancia), they would definitely have more prominence in the crossover market and show that they can be something worth investing in. Along with the ignorance of ordinary cars that you brought up, there also seems to be a lack of diversification, whether that would be lack of hybrid/electric vehicles or crossovers (which as of now are greatly growing at rapid paces). So, if we were to have a FCA (or Fiat S.p.A if we wanna talk 2000s-wise) that was very willing to dip their toes into the crossover market way earlier than they actually did and experimented with more diversification of growing markets, that would've helped Lancia grow back their line-up and also take some more evolutionary turns such as introducing a hybrid sports car or an electric hatchback/MPV to their line-up. That way, they would finally find a new foot in the evolving car industry and establish more of a cult following similar to their high peaks in the 70s and 80s. As for the PSA-FCA merger, I hope that this merger will be able to bloom Lancia's line-up from 1 measly car to a variety of a few. If they plan to keep Lancia alive as a brand, I should expect that they try to get them back on their feet or else it will eventually die soon or later for real. Essentially all I really want for Lancia is just to get out of their circlejerk before it's too late and all of that history would gone out in possibly the most saddest and disappointing way.
The need for more electric cars in the lineup is why they now merged with PSA. The French company has done a great deal of research on building a normal, everyday-usable electric car (208, Corsa, DS3 Crossback), and Mike Manley is planning to fix his predecessor's electric ignorance by making the upcoming subcompact and compact AR crossovers (another thing Marchionne wasn't focused on) have electric and PHEV versions. However, Lancia has even less place in FCA-PSA than it did in FCA alone, because it's now occupying Peugeot 208 territory. At least Fiat might have some sort of a future as the manufacturer of 500 derivatives, and maybe a Dacia/Skoda-fighter with a new Punto.
Prioritize performance and efficiency over luxury and technology. More muscle-hybrid station wagons, fewer bland, CO2-spewing Karenwagen SUV's. My ideal car would be a low-profile station wagon with a supercharged five-cylinder hybrid powertrain producing something like 300 HP and 600 lbs-ft combined. All-wheel drive, of course. In terms of interior features, it would actually be pretty basic - analog gauges (engine tach, electric motor tach, boost, motor current, fuel consumption in milliliters per second), minimal screens, lots of buttons. Only basic connectivity (aux, bluetooth audio) and blind spot monitors - no preemptive braking or anything like that. Its most advanced feature would be an "Eco Mode," enabled by the push of a small green button, in which the engine is disconnected from the wheels and used when needed to recharge the battery. It would be about the size of the Volvo V70R, which I will probably end up getting as my daily driver someday.
