This is not a simple question.
In the case of Ferrari yes it can be seen as just a money grab. Ferrari charges enough on the cars they can live and should live at low volumes. You should not see a Ferrari every day or in a Walmart parking lot.
In the Case of Porsche it is a cure for volume they need to stay alive. Porsche needed the extra volume as they are not selling cars in the volume or price range of Ferrari. It is ok as long as they do not tag the SUV as a 911 SUV.
In the case of Corvette. Chevy has no need to sell a Corvette SUV as it is a pure money grab that could do more name equity damage to the Corvette name.
#1 Corvette is a model not a brand.
#2 Chevy has a very extensive line of SUV and CUV models. So volume is not needed.
If Chevy wants to tie the name they should just take the Tahoe and give it to the Corvette team and let them tune it. Call it a Chevrolet Tahoe Z06 by team Corvette. Slap in a DOHC V8 lower it and tune it for handling and add larger brakes. But do not call it a Corvette. That mistake would be as large as naming the new Blazer a Blazer.
Ford should never have tied the Mustang name to the Mach E. There is nothing Mustang about it. To me it is as bad as Olds naming 3 crappy FWD cars Cutlass thinking the name would fool people. Ford is trying this with the Bronco name now too. One really is a Bronco and the other in name only.
Name equity and what people identify with it is something that is earned and hard to earn back if destroyed. Cadillac has been working decades to earn back name equity after the names were used on poor product.
Each case needs to be looked at and the needs should be understood. There is no one formula for all here.
The Ferrari deal is this. The old man would never have approved this and would have shot anyone even suggesting this. This is a product of a publicly held Ferrari that is now open to many poor ideas.
This is not something they need or should do even just for the money. Image and name value are worth more here and they get more per car price wise to more than make up for not having one.
Ferrari has also limited production to protect the image and equity so why start to mess with it now.
Look at Maserati today. They once was a very exclusive company built on racing. Today they are just another car in the snow at Barnes and Noble parking lot. Alfa is also becoming something less than special.
Air_and_Water, truer words never said. Ferrari's road cars sold strictly to playboys and girls, half of whom, in the '50s, also considered dreck like Buick Skylarks, Cadillac Eldorados, Oldsmobile Fiestas, Packard Caribbeans; it was strictly wanting to, as the English put it, "cut a dash." They used the same instrument panel switches as Fiats long before Fiat took over Ferrari, none of Enzo's road cars rustproofed; strictly spin offs for jet setters who had to have the latest thing, only to move on after a couple years.
A friend owns a '63 Lusso. There isn't much to it other than its high revving sohc V-12, it sorely needing a fifth (overdrive) gear. The most notable thing about it, other than helping Maranello's racing efforts, is the '67 Camaro copied its body, just as the '55 Chevy aped Ferrari's grille.
Are Ferrari's road cars then and since fun to drive? Or course. But so are XK Jags and others with more low speed torque, lacking the drama of high rpm. So now we've got Ferrari SUVs, just like Porsche for decades has sold handbags and sunglasses. Some salute any and everything run up the flagpole, without knowing why. Marque allegiance is comical as people rooting for a given city's collection of free agent ballplayers.
Absolutely. Enzo would've sold toasters had they funded his true love, racing. The same might be said for Ettore Bugatti. Ralph Stein and others experienced with both reported Alfa's street cars had the same performance but were more reliable.
According to Griff Borgeson, the wealthy young Count Felice Trossi,
president of Enzo's Alfa-Romeo racing team, Scuderia Ferrari, from 1932-on, long familiar with Alfas, Bugattis, and supercharged S series Mercedes -- you've probably seen Trossi's gleaming black SSK boat tail speedster -- was taken with Packard's new V-12 in 1932. Borgeson recounted:
"The combination of marvelous performance, along with safety, luxury, and
comfort brought about Trossi's enduring conversion to that marque and model. He began collecting them, buying at least two or three a year, each custom body more lavish than the last."
The count commuted the 171 miles separating his Biella home from Scuderia
Ferrari in Modena in these Packards, Borgeson reporting that "the bravura
with which he drove them is the stuff of legend." These 1932-39 Packard Twelves are what inspired Enzo Ferrari's and Gioacchino Columbo's premiere 1947 V-12.
The two marques "commanding Ferrari's intense interest," continued Borgeson, were Packard and Bugatti. If you want to know from where Ferrari drew his prancing horse imagery, recall Bugatti's love of "pur sang horse-flesh." Ettore Bugatti preferred a Packard Eight for long trips across the continent to his own road cars.
Skip the marketing and buff articles; note what the principals themselves drove. You may've sat in or driven a DeLorean. They are unusable by anyone taller than 5"11 or 6 feet. John DeLorean was 6' 4".
Meanwhile, a luxe marque can always sell a junior or more popularly priced model, but it's rare that a premium badge launched by a mass producer has cachet and succeeds. Toyota wisely marketed Lexus as a new brand.
We could make snarky remarks as to why anyone would want an SUV or "crossover" in the first place. My girlfriend thinks the latter look like wheeled hamsters in heat, regardless Nissan, Ferrari or Rolls-Royce. She drives a slick little dohc Miata, a premium and very real sports car regardless price.
He would sell cars but he would never sell a SUV. He was not even happy with some of the things Fiat pushed in cars.
The point is he had enough money from cars built on race cars that he had no need for toasters or CUV.
If you note most of his street cars were just retuned or rebodied race cars.
He would never wasted money developing a SUV.
Oh, please. You people with your “the Bronco Sport isn’t a REAL Bronco” are ridiculous. It’s a name. Ford can slap it on whatever they want. Who put you in charge of deciding what’s “real”?
The Mustang Mach E is doing surprisingly well. Your report of it’s imminent demise are a bit premature: https://insideevs.com/news/558927/us-ford-mache-sales-2021/
Reality Check: Porsche did not have to start making SUV's to survive. Nor did they have to make Panameras.
When the Cayenne was introduced, Porsche's two cars, the Boxster and the 996 (911) were very profitable. In fact, the 996 was the most profitable per unit of any car in the world. They didn't need to start making SUV's to offset the sports cars. That is a false assumption repeated endlessly.
The reason they started making SUV's is because ego maniac CEO Wendelin Wiedeking wanted to grow Porsche and take over VW and Audi. His plan failed and the exact opposite happened and Porsche lost their independence and he was out. Wendelin Wiedeking is the same reason the first Panamera was such an ugly humpback -- he insisted he could sit his 6'5 self in the back seat and be chauffeured around.
As a lifelong classic air-cooled 911 enthusiast and serial owner I don't mind, and have never minded, that they did an SUV. It is a SPORTS Utility Vehicle after all. However knowing what it all led to is annoying. As is the constant repetition of the lie that Porsche needed to start making an SUV to survive and keep making sports cars. NO. THEY. DIDN'T.
Why do you suppose station wagons became poplar? Americans wanted bigger vehicles with more space. That hasn’t changed.
You profess your love of a bigger vehicle while also dissing other bigger vehicles.
Yep! You gotta love it when people shout “If I was in charge!” and then ramble off all sorts of stuff they’d “fix”. People vote with their wallets. If you’re not buying a new car every few years, you aren’t driving the market and setting the tone.
Porsche did the SUV for volume. VW is a company built on volume and Porsche is expected to do its part. The CEO needed more vehicles and was not wanting to go cheap like a 924 or 944 again.
The Panamera is not of a volume to carry what is needed.
Even the Lambo tech is leveraged with Audi. Bentley has shared the W engine tech.
VW has done a good job of leveraging their tech across different brands to share costs. But yet they hide it well.
While the Porsche SUV models are generally VW based they did do a good job tuning them and giving enough power to overcome the sheer bulk of weight.