Topic: Monday Rant: What 'Luxury' Really Means

[Autos_Editor]

Justin Mastine-Frost muses on the meaning of luxury and the marketing industry's attempt to dilute its meaning in the automotive industry.

Read More...

[JohnM]

Luxury certainly does mean different things to different people.   Number one on the list to me is reliability.  Number 2 is quiet operation.  Three is comfort.

I don't require a huge number of bells and whistles so a luxury car does not have to be that expensive.

I've been for rides in Rollers and MBs and was distinctly underwhelmed in many cases.   You pay a lot for the nameplate as I came to understand when I worked in a Jag/Rolls garage as a kid. 

Also, there is the time shift.   Take someone who has driven ten year old cars - no matter what the brand and stick them in a 2014 Accord, Camry or Sonata and they'll think they are in a luxury car and they'll be right.

My 2007 Prius Touring has all of the luxury I need.  A Nissan Leaf would probably also qualify.   Few cars are quieter and not too many are more comfortable.

Handcrafted does not mean well built, particularly in days gone by for British or Italian cars.   From my point of view, if a car doesn't work well or is unreliable, it can't possibly offer luxury.   

Drop prestige from the luxury equation and the choice becomes much broader.   In 2014 luxury is abundant, not exclusive.

Cheers,
John M.

[ChaosphereIX]

lol the majority of luxury cars are horribly unreliable - see high end German arques or Italians for proof. Luxury does not mean reliability at all - they put their money elsewhere.

And not to bee pedantic or anything, but the ILX is indeed nearly a badge job of a Civic. Now I said NEARLY. The Buick Verano, OTOH, is not. It shares the chassis with the Cruze. That is it. No engines, body panels, or interior appointments are the same. I am not saying it is luxury. It is a nicely appointed middle-class vehicle. But a mere badge job it is not.

[tpl]

I don't consider my B250 a luxury car, entry level or not, regardless of its nameplate.   It is a well thought out hatchback. 
I do think that some of the "luxury" features are really just examples of the newish fact that computing power is essentially free nowadays.  Even the fuel economy ( which is pretty good) is made possible by relatively high powered and very cheap processors to, at the first level,  drive the engine and transmission computers and at the 2nd level to collect data from the wind tunnel that shapes the body and designs the tires.

[JohnM]

"lol the majority of luxury cars are horribly unreliable"

That is not as true as it once was.  In any case, having the car lie dead on -25C morning for the third time that winter automatically disqualifies it as a luxury or premium vehicle.  For the luxury of mental peace, the thing has to work without worrying about it.  I don't care if it gives you a pedicure at red lights.  Ditto requiring service every 3 months.  Who has time for that??

Clearly there are now extreme luxury vehicles which are also as reliable as Swiss or Japanese digital watches and even Jags are probably livable.  Did I actually say that?

Cheers,
John M.

[wing]

Luxury?  Lexus LX570

[inco]

Luxury?  Lexus LX570

Only in the eyes of the beholding!

[nlm]

IMO Justin you are confusing luxury cars with luxury brands and Buick is neither so its not a great example to use in your article. I see where you are coming from but if you substituted a MB S-Class or a BMW 5-series for the Verano and the ILX would your article still make sense? Just because a luxury brand builds a relatiely budget car in their line-up that car does not automatically mean luxury, to me anyways.

And entry-level luxury is not in my books an oxymoron. It's entry-level to a certain segment but by no means does it imply open to all. Think of it as more of a 'initiate' rank into the Stonecutters. And not every initiate moves up the ladder with these cars being the halo cars for many...that's what keeps the exclusive classes exclusive.

[johngenx]

A few decades ago when I started buying Mercedes' autos, luxury was defined by the brand very differently than by Caddy or other B3 makers.  It wasn't about gadgets.

It was about safety, security, and ability.  MB's were built to a high standard using cutting edge safety technology.  They could be driven at high speeds with ease and were stable and predictable in emergency maneuvers.  They were long lived and reliable, giving year after year of service with only routine maintenance.

[aaronk]

Very interesting article. While I think it's a bit shallow to blame the marketers for our current fuzziness over 'luxury' (people still need common sense), there is also something to be said for misinterpreting features for luxury. I often hear the term "near-luxury levels of comfort" or "near-luxury features", but features don't really define luxury. Maybe that's where the 'near' comes in, which brings up a whole new discussion - how near is 'near-luxury'? I have always been a proponent of the difference between a well-designed and well-engineered car rather than one that's just got creature comforts thrown on top of a mainstream car.

As a side note, if we're calling out the Passat CC as a fake luxury car, we should also include its closely-related Audi cousins who share many of its components. I suppose if you wanted to argue that cars with mainstream and/or shared underpinnings, the number of true 'luxury's cars would be a handful. A Rolls Royce Phantom? Yes, now we're able to talk real, authentic luxury.

[tooscoops]

todays buyer wants to think they have more money than they really do...

offering a "luxury" car that they can lease for 350 a month makes them think they made it...

how is that the manufacturers fault? its the consumers mindset... dealers, manufacturers, salespeople.. they are always trying to make their product seem like you should be expecting to pay even more for it... how many times do you see, "LOADED!!!11!!!oneoneone" next to the ad for what you know is a base model offering? happens all the time... and always has.

i do agree that luxury is thrown around too much, but in a time of four door coupes, dodge "dart" entry level 4cyls, muti-air/skyactive/ecoboost/earth dreams engines.... names and designations mean nothing anymore.

[Rupert]

   Luxury used to mean not having to walk to a bus in the rain to many of us. I doubt that any flagship could be the epitome of luxury...but more luxurious though. I am impressed by the things that the purse strings will open up to, without taking a sword to the Geordian Knot. The rest I don't consider much.
   What I am concerned with though is that each product line should pay a proffit for itself and not be propped up by lesser offerings from the same company...thus making product more expensive for those who never sit in the former...the lap of luxury. I believe that cars made to a budget, for the vast majority of the rest of us, are more interesting...take much more design effort and because of the far higher numbers...have to be reliable because of the fear of high bucks for recalls.
   Luxury, it's a word...yeah a word. Where do you go from there. They are all boats. Come to think of it I wonder how proffitable some of the outrageous HP sporting machines are.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

When cars like the Duesenberg SJ roamed the streets, luxury cars offered things not available to plebeian Ford Model As. Lots of power, supercharged dual overhead cam engines, decent brakes, high end paint and trim.

These days, there aren't many features offered on high end cars that aren't offered on even basic rides. The Focus can park itself, high end stereos are available in pretty much anything, automatic climate control, etc. The only thing that distinguished many luxury cars from plebeian rides is they offer more or marginally better versions of the same features. Even there, you can get a 500+hp Mustang for far less than the equivalent AMG super coupe.

I think it's easy for middle range or low end brands to legitimately claim at least a piece of the luxury market because the delineations are nowhere near as clear as they once were.

As far as Rollers, they were made from top notch materials, but were hopelessly outdated in their engineering and miserable to keep, you know, rolling. Now that they are just upscale versions of BMWs, they are much better.

[Fobroader]

Whenever I think of a luxury car, the S class comes to mind. If I had the money and was in the market for one, the S63 AMG to me is the epitome of luxury......saying that, a Range Rover would be cool as well because of its all weather capability.

S63 AMG


Range Rover



To me you can put whatever you want on a Buick or a Kia, sure, it will have pretty well the same kind of options as the S class Im sure, but the living space, materials and just a general feeling of occasion you will not get on the lower end cars.

[whaddaiknow]

Agree with SirO.
Back in the early day of automotive lust, belonging to the club of auto owners was luxury in itself. So it was easy to create something that was not attainable to the general public and further distinguish it by marketing cockiness like instead of listing the actual engine output, they would say power was "sufficient". The luxury meant going overboard.

Nowadays, "overboard" is economically viable for many mortals. So luxury resorts to special materials like whale foreskin or somesuch nonsense that has little to do with actual car performance and screams exclusivity like Louis Vitton (spelling?).

I would dare say that customer service is more important as a defining factor than raw horsepower or origin of the hide.
When you get a group of technicians flying in on a private jet to change oil or replace tires on your Veyron, that's luxury very few of us can afford.

[aaronk]

...
To me you can put whatever you want on a Buick or a Kia, sure, it will have pretty well the same kind of options as the S class Im sure, but the living space, materials and just a general feeling of occasion you will not get on the lower end cars.

Great use of words - feeling of occasion is it. It's not just about the number of features, its everything about how the car is put together with care, quality and purpose. I remember sitting in an early-2000's V12 BMW 760Li and thinking wow - this is a special car. From the stitched alcantara headliner to the near-infinitely adjustable power seats, the smell of real leather, it was just an experience that I noticed to be different and special.

[Fobroader]

Like Ive been in an Escalade and also in a G-wagen. Luxury SUVs both of them, the Mercedes was a buttload more expensive, but when you looked at the details inside and out, the technical specification and something as simple as slam the door.....you immediately knew why the MB was $50K more.

[Northernridge]

Nice article...compelling and relevant. 'Luxury' is a potent marketing concept. Nothing works in marketing unless the buying public cares about it. I'm amused by marketing criticism because really all the industry does is mirror aspirations back at consumers to remind people about what they simply must have – I figure criticizing marketers is like shooting the messenger. Western society is drunk on marketing consumption.

Back to luxury...it's an elastic concept without sharply defined edges and you see car companies trying to exploit this. Look how we all try to explain it without consistency.

To me, there is no separating luxury from expensive, exclusive and some version of excess (an extra helping of the unnecessary)...plus a net 'aura' or 'halo' that society generally acknowledges.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

It's unfortunate that blind testing isn't possible for cars, it would be interesting to see what people's opinions would be if they couldn't identify the brand.

When double blind testing was used in wine taste tests, the suposedly informed test subjects couldn't distinguish between a $100 bottle and $10 plonk, the results being 50:50 or random chance. Image and reputation are what steered the subject to choosing the expensive stuff when they were allowed to do the same test with the bottles clearly identified.

[Northernridge]

It's unfortunate that blind testing isn't possible for cars, it would be interesting to see what people's opinions would be if they couldn't identify the brand.

When double blind testing was used in wine taste tests, the suposedly informed test subjects couldn't distinguish between a $100 bottle and $10 plonk, the results being 50:50 or random chance. Image and reputation are what steered the subject to choosing the expensive stuff when they were allowed to do the same test with the bottles clearly identified.

Why is it unfortunate? People ascribe intangible value to all sorts of stuff...from wine to cars and everything else. It's how we are...we don't want blind taste tests.