Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Auto manufacturer family tree: Who owns what?

whichcar.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 171 posts

Re: Auto manufacturer family tree: Who owns what?

#161

Post by mabbo »

2143 wrote: post #149
mabbo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, TCS (Tata Consultancy Services) which many people on HN would recognize, is a publicly traded company- yet something like 70% of it's shares are owned by Tata Group, and it's a massive part of their income.

> it's a massive part of their income I'm pretty sure the income is massive, but it might not be where the majority of the money comes from. Tata is a huge conglomerate with businesses that apparently have nothing to do with each other. Steel, Salt, coffee/tea, hotel chains, multiple airlines, IT, car companies, watches, financial companies, phone companies (?), jewellery, air conditioners, the list goes on. (Whether…

From wikipedia, Tata Group is worth $300B.

Tata Group owns 70% of TCS, which is worth $200B.

Also this: > more than 70% of Tata Sons' dividends were generated by TCS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Group

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Consultancy_Services

TCS is around half the value of Tata.

Re: Auto manufacturer family tree: Who owns what?

#162

Post by lowbloodsugar »

neogodless wrote: post #125
lowbloodsugar wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch Ford vs Ferrari to get an idea of what Ford is like. Also be aware that you are not their customer. Their dealers are their customers. This is why a Shelby with an MSRP of $60k goes for $90k, while a faster $72k MSRP Camaro goes for <$70k. Ford makes limited runs so dealers can put insane markups, while GM makes cars for people to buy. (Bonus, when GT350s' rear differentials overheated on the track, Ford said "…

I assume you mean the Ford GT costing $300k. What car from GM sells for $190k? Is it a rare special edition of the Corvette? The base car is $60k, and even the Z06 starts around $90k.

The Corvette ZR1 has the same times around a track (e.g. VIR) as the (new) Ford GT. The C7 Z06 is as fast as the older (2005) one.

However, these don't tell the whole story. The GT is pretty highly strung whereas the Corvette's have a lot of room to improve with relatively inexpensive upgrades.

Re: Auto manufacturer family tree: Who owns what?

#163

Post by lowbloodsugar »

tmh88j wrote: post #128
lowbloodsugar wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch Ford vs Ferrari to get an idea of what Ford is like. Also be aware that you are not their customer. Their dealers are their customers. This is why a Shelby with an MSRP of $60k goes for $90k, while a faster $72k MSRP Camaro goes for <$70k. Ford makes limited runs so dealers can put insane markups, while GM makes cars for people to buy. (Bonus, when GT350s' rear differentials overheated on the track, Ford said "…

>Also be aware that you are not their customer. Their dealers are their customers. > Ford makes limited runs so dealers can put insane markups, while GM makes cars for people to buy. Didn't they just announce fixed price direct to consumer sales for EV's?[1] Regardless, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Dealers reap the markups, not Ford, and they're hardly moving any of those trims compared to the F-150 and…

>Dealers reap the markups, not Ford

Because the dealers are Ford's customers, not us. Ford makes the dealers happy.

>Didn't they just announce fixed price direct to consumer sales for EV's?

Because they really have to. EVs will be the end of dealers, as Tesla has demonstrated. Tesla has put Ford in a difficult position. Given how dealer friendly Ford is (see above), it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Might simply be that they simply have separate ICE/EV relationships until ICE goes away.

>Ford has made non-Shelby Mustang Cobras in the past and currently have the Mach 1 to replace the Shelby GT350.

Mach 1 MSRP $56k. My local dealer has one for $79k.

>Having shopped for both I can say with confidence that regular Camaros trims in general tend to be higher marked up than Mustangs because their production volume is much lower, especially with the 1LE package.

LOL. My last mustang was a PP and I had to special order it and wait months to avoid paying an extra $10,000 just for shit I didn't want. Sure, at $35k (2016) it was good value for money. I still got the limp mode on the track because of the rear diff, but at least I didn't pay $90k for that privilege!

Re: Auto manufacturer family tree: Who owns what?

#165

Post by tmh88j »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #163
tmh88j wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also be aware that you are not their customer. Their dealers are their customers. > Ford makes limited runs so dealers can put insane markups, while GM makes cars for people to buy. Didn't they just announce fixed price direct to consumer sales for EV's?[1] Regardless, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Dealers reap the markups, not Ford, and they're hardly moving any of those trims compared to the F-150 and…

>Dealers reap the markups, not Ford Because the dealers are Ford's customers, not us. Ford makes the dealers happy. >Didn't they just announce fixed price direct to consumer sales for EV's? Because they really have to. EVs will be the end of dealers, as Tesla has demonstrated. Tesla has put Ford in a difficult position. Given how dealer friendly Ford is (see above), it will be interesting to see how this plays out. M…

> Because the dealers are Ford's customers, not us. Ford makes the dealers happy.

Repeating the same thing isn't an explanation and that doesn't make any sense. What incentive does Ford have to do that? They arguably lost the Focus RS because of what you're claiming and I provided a link to it. It doesn't help them sell more vehicles and these are only low volume to begin with. Dealers depend on Ford, not the other way around. As the other article I linked pointed out, Ford is moving to direct consumer sales.

> Mach 1 MSRP $56k. My local dealer has one for $79k.

Yes, we know markups exist. Not all dealers do that and it's trivial to find them. https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/2022-mustang-mach-1...

> LOL. My last mustang was a PP and I had to special order it and wait months to avoid paying an extra $10,000 just for shit I didn't want. Sure, at $35k (2016) it was good value for money. I still got the limp mode on the track because of the rear diff, but at least I didn't pay $90k for that privilege!

Are you bragging that you got ripped off? I bought mine new, under MSRP last year. Performance pack Mustangs are easy to come by sitting on dealer lots at MSRP new and even easier used. I wanted an SS 1LE, but I bought a Mustang instead because I was able to get it new for the same price as 3 year old Camaro.

The production volume doesn't even compare. Ford moves significantly more Mustangs annually[1] than Chevy does the Camaro[2], and for the past 3 years it's been 2x as many. Camaros are much harder to come by and hold their value far better used. Unfortunately for me as a buyer it made me favor the Mustang because it made more sense financially. Still a fun car and better for modding, but I would have preferred an SS 1LE over my GT PP

[1] https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/ford-mustang-sales-figures/

[2] https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/chevrolet-camaro-sales-figures...

Re: Auto manufacturer family tree: Who owns what?

#166

Post by neogodless »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #162
neogodless wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you mean the Ford GT costing $300k. What car from GM sells for $190k? Is it a rare special edition of the Corvette? The base car is $60k, and even the Z06 starts around $90k.

The Corvette ZR1 has the same times around a track (e.g. VIR) as the (new) Ford GT. The C7 Z06 is as fast as the older (2005) one. However, these don't tell the whole story. The GT is pretty highly strung whereas the Corvette's have a lot of room to improve with relatively inexpensive upgrades.

Is there a version of the ZR1 that's $190k (...currently available)? I thought it started at around $125k.

Overall the Corvette is the halo car... with a range from $60k up to about $125k. But I haven't actually walked into a dealer and asked them how much they'd want to order me up a ZR1 :)

Re: Auto manufacturer family tree: Who owns what?

#167

Post by Gravityloss »

rurban wrote: post #160
sgt wrote: post #60

Even though Volkswagen (VW) owns cars like Porsche and others, it should be mentioned that Porsche SE controls and owns majority in VW.

Exactly. As it is labelled as owner tree, Porsche (the Porsche and Piesch families) owns VW and all its subsidiaries, esp. Audi. But technically Audi owns the whole group. VW doesn't plan and design the engines, gearboxes and cars, Audi does. VW is more a logistics and SW company now, just with a big brand name, with the cheaper "Audis" labelled as VW.

Porsche designed the beetle (to the sketches of an Austrian painter). VW was founded for making beetles and they did that for decades. VW combined with Audi. Audi people designed the Golf that was the opposite of the beetle. It was a great success.

Re: Auto manufacturer family tree: Who owns what?

#168

Post by gsnedders »

franch wrote: post #47
gsnedders wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.factorywarrantylist.com/car-sales-by-manufacture... places Stellantis with 30% lower production than VW in 2021. But the thing that's super stark is how many marquees Stellantis have; I can't help but think that some consolidation and focusing of resources would be beneficial (and I'm well aware that plenty is shared already).

They keep all the marquees because they sell better in the various European national markets, but many models are now the same platform with some small aesthetic changes. For example the new electric citroen berlingo / fiat doblo / opel combo are the same car: https://www.citroen.it/modelli/berlingo/elettrico.html https://www.fiat.it/e-doblo/e-doblo https://www.opel.it/veicoli/gamma-combo/combo-e-life/panoram...

Heh, I debated putting a second paragraph about this. And yes, while it's not like they're paying the entire cost of developing a car from scratch each time, there's still a lot of duplication of work.

They still have a fair number of unique parts, they still have a fair amount of individual development and certification, they still have their own parts supply chains… these all add costs compared with literally having the same vehicle.

It's not that I see no reason to have multiple marques—after all, there is meaningful differentiation between the different VW ones, for example. But at some point you've got to stop and ask when you have too many.

Re: Auto manufacturer family tree: Who owns what?

#169

Post by option »

PraetorianGourd wrote: post #147
option wrote: post #82

Before buying any Volvo or Polestar consider that those are owned by China.

Almost without a doubt, so is the company that made the device you are typing on. Likewise, the chair you are sitting on. If you are standing, there is a good chance one of the articles of clothing on you are "owned by China". If you are driving today, a vast majority of the parts in your car were made in China by Chinese companies. The brakes that you depend on were made in China, as were the spark plugs which ignit…

silly “all or nothing” dichotomy. it is, gradual, consistent efforts that change status quo

Re: Auto manufacturer family tree: Who owns what?

#170

Post by wlecometo »

LtWorf wrote: post #54
consp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While being not even the biggest in total number of sales (wikipedia says fifth). I still find it strange that it's a Dutch company (and Fiat Chrystler before it), since the Netherlands has no local-origin car manufacturer since DAF-Cars was sold to Volvo in the '70.

The Netherlands entire business is to be a tax haven inside the EU market. Their hobby is telling other countries that they suck because their economy is bad (partly because of NL being a tax haven).

> The Netherlands entire business is to be a tax haven inside the EU market.

while taxation in NL is lower than other countries like italy or French, it is not a tax haven, which is a precise definition that involves also border line legal activities.

what you maybe mean is that NL was able to lower taxes on companies because they understand their values, while other nations decided to go for a "tax the sh*t out of everything" and now they are surprised that companies are closing or moving to other nations.

the actual reasons for FCA and Mediaset to move to NL was more about legal : on average in italy you get a decision in 5 years, in NL on average it takes 6 months.

Post reply on HN