Bloomberg has a piece that is chock full of analysts imploring Mitsu and Suzy to pack it up and leave the American market. Both firms rage, rage against the dying of the light, but the numbers are not pretty. Mitsubishi sales are down over 50 percent in the first half-year, continuing a slump that has gone uninterrupted since 2003. Suzuki is down a whopping 6o percent in the first half of 2009, and neither firm seems to have the products to turn the bad news around. Rumors of Suzuki’s Swift coming stateside, the Kizashi and an FWD version of the SX4 hatchback don’t seem to be the “consistent, sustained effort” that analysts say Suzuki needs. Mitsubishi President Osamu Masuko says “we will never give up the U.S. market,” but there’s little indication of what’s coming down the pipe, besides a $40k EV. Should these two stay and fight? Merge? Leave? What say you?
Pity about Suzuki…the SX4 seemed like an interesting little car. And the Grand Vitara seems attractive enough. But even combined I can’t see them surviving on that. (The XL7 is dead and the Equator pickup, well, what can I say.)
Mitsu is pretty uninspiring. They came to Canada long after they were in the US and I remember going to the dealer to see there wares. Absolutely nothing noteworthy about any of them. The Eclipse was okay, but barely big enough for a large housecat to sit in comfortably.
In short, their departure would be a non-event.
The only thing worthwhile that Mitsu makes is the Evo, and even that is too expensive for what you end up with. Everything else in the lineup decided to bring Ginsus to a Glock fight.
As for Suzuki, not even the Swift can save it. The Swift would compete in an increasingly crowded market against the Fit, Versa, Aygo (I like the Euro name better), forthcoming Fiatsler 500, forthcoming Fiesta, and whatever other small car pops around. It would compete on zero name recognition, as Suzukis are motorcycles, not cars.
They should both pack it in and call up Isuzu for a retirement party.
“They should both pack it in and call up Isuzu for a retirement party.”
Quite right. They wouldn’t be missed.
Covered here already:
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/suzuki-mitsubishi-japanese-surrender/
I don’t understand the hoopla around the Kizashi. The concept was nifty, but isn’t it just another Epsilon-based midsize sedan?
I think there’s a market for Suzuki in North America, but that market would be out-Scion’ing Toyota with weird-but-good kei cars. There’s no hope for them in the mass market, but there is a viable niche there, especially with Scion floundering.
Mitsu is more or less done for. Their best chance was as a better Mazda than Mazda (or a better Subaru than Subaru). They flubbed both, and other than the Evo, they’ve got nothing.
I was down to Florida for vacation recently and saw a few Mitsubishi sedans that I have never seen up in MI (at least not the latest gen versions like a newer Diamante). They were rentals, but it was still odd to me that I have not seen this generation of Mitsus before in the flesh. Not a good sign for Mitsubishi.
Suzuki has an interesting quirky worldwide history and lineup of vehicles, so I think they’d have a shot if they could make it feasible to certify and sell their best stateside. They need to get rid of the rebadges, however…that’s never worked for anyone. A Swift, SX4, Kizashi, Vitara, Wagon R, Australian market APV van for commercial/light duty use, and Vitara-based pickup (true smaller Japanese pickup) I think would work. But if it’s not profitable, then it needs to go.
I would like for both to leave. Half the reason why there is so much hemorrhaging in the US market is because there are two many companies competing for a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. We need some to go down before this can all go back to normal.
They could merge, buy the Pontiac “brand”, rebadge cars as Pontiac, snag 1/2 of the soon to be gone GM dealers and capitalize on the past for much of “flyover country” car buying clientele.
Of course, their compact car would have to be called “Phoenix”.
Pontiac Swift (a very fast, small bird)
Pontiac Phoenix (SX4)
Pontiac LeMans (Lancer) and GTO (EVO)
Pontiac Firebird 4 cylinder (Eclipse)
Pontiac Trans Am V6 (Eclipse)
Pontiac Grand Am (Galant)
Pontiac Grand Prix (Kizashi sedan)
Pontiac Safari (Kizashi CUV)
Pontiac Outlander
(Now, am I jesting or serious? Who knows… The way things have gone in the automotive – and non-automotive world – lately, I often stop to wonder if I’m the only sane person left)
BTW speaking of the world going totally stark raving, did anyone else see the article about the prospects of corpse-eating self-fuelled “foraging” military ROBOTS?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532492,00.html?test=latestnews
I’m starting to lose hope in humanity, here…
Bring back the 4 door Sidekick and I will ditch my Element. Oil burner would be nice.
Suzuki could and should the segment occupied by Scion. A small truck would round out the product line nicely. There is a market for dependable, affordable four bangers.
As to Mitsubishi, what hell is a Mitsubishi? It suffers the same problem as Pontiac and Saturn. I am not even sure the folks at Mitsubishi could tell you what a Mitsubishi is.
I’d like to see Suzuki survive and sell their own products. The half-assed garbage that was coming out of GMDAT was not a good representative of Suzuki’s cars. Another round of high priced gas would spur some small car sales, and Suzuki could make it in an environment like that.
Mitsubishi only has one half way desireable car, I couldn’t care less if they hit the road. I mean, how many Evos can they actually move in a year?
It’s GM’s fault again, for badge-engineering crummy cars and selling them as Suzuki products. The REAL Suzukis I have seen while traveling abroad are range from cute to interesting in appearance, and seem pretty advanced for what they are.
I see examples of both brands out here on the left coast, though not in anything close to huge numbers. Personally I would miss the Evo. A truly fun drive, even if it’s too sharp a tool for the overall general populace. But the rest of their lineup is all too uninspiring. Same goes with Suzuki; stick with bikes and that end of the retail market and call it a day with the car side here in NA.
Suzuki really won’t be a big player especially if they rebrand GM products. Suzuki is actually a successful car make in Japan with the kei (stands for mini but not a homage to the Chrysler “k”) cars. These are less than 600cc engines and basically built for overcrowded cities to ease driving and parking. Of course these cars are way too small for most US citizens in height and girth. Suzuki car company really should call it quits in the US b/c the one niche they are really good will not work in the US.
Mitsubishi on the other hand – needs to stop rebadging Dodges as their own. They should really follow the formula of Mazda / Subaru. Push fun to drive cars and decent reliability. Plus add the super car option for their sedate versions like in the Evo. Don’t chase mainstream cars, minivans, trucks, or suvs as these markets have been or are now contracting. The Evo series and the newly powered RalliArt cars are amazing to drive and very fun. Start with these halos to help push their slower more economical versions to those who can’t afford them. Maybe take a page from Subaru’s book and offer only AWD with every car they sell.
Marketplace will take care of the problem soon enough, even if the manufacturers don’t. Most of the Mitsu dealers around me have closed already.
Biased reply here, considering that I live in Normal, IL…
Mitsu’s major problem is that they are horrendously short on desirable product in the US. We build almost as many Galants here in Normal for international consumption (especially Russia) as we do for domestic consumption. Mitsu could do great things if they either designed some better vehicles or partnered to produce someone else’s great vehicles. Their plant is one of the most highly-automated facilities in the US and they’ve negotiated landmark concessions from the UAW. It’d be a shame to toss all of that out the window by clinging to the sinking endeavor/eclipse/galant platform which DOES. NOT. SELL.
One of the higher-ups over there has joked with me about how many random people ask him when we’re going to get the lancer/outlander platform to build stateside. From what I understand, the plant management have done everything short of offer up their first-born children to corporate trying to get some frigging new product at the plant.
Those who think that Suzuki should leave the US market, on the basis of one poor year, should keep in mind that, unlike Mitubishi (“continuing a slump that has gone uninterrupted since 2003”), Suzuki actually held its own through July 2008. While Suzuki does have a shortage of product at the moment (though Suzuki’s US lineup is finally free of Daewoos), floorplanning issues seem to be a bigger problem. (Thanks, GMAC!)
Suzuki ought to stick it out at least through 2012, unless remaining in the US market causes losses of such a scale as to imperil the company’s existence.
ETA: In the spirit of full disclosure, I ought to have mentioned that I am a happy owner of a 2007 Suzuki SX4.
Hell yes they can survive.. only if they quit being so modest. Why aren’t they bringing their competitive subcompacts to the States? Suzuki with their Swift, Mitsubishi with their Colt/i..
Doesn’t Mitsubishi have a Triton that could somehow compete with the pick-up truck here with the states? I’m not sure if it will be competitive, but I know for sure that it’s a big improvement from the badge-engineering crap (Raider).
AuricTech, that’s one reason Mitsubishi should merge with Suzuki, at least in the USA/Canada.
Mitsubishi actually has a finance company and would be able to take care of both sets of dealers. Or better yet, merge both sets of (small) dealership organizations, and sell one brand of car in North America.
Whether it be Mitsubishi, Suzuki or “Pontiac” (see my other post)
BTW, there are few semi-successful “rebadged car marques” in the world.
Opels are sold in the UK under the “British” Vauxhall banner. Opels are sold in Australia under the “Australian” Holden banner.
Fail ’em both. Suzuki has been tenacious but never quite get their products right.
Mitsu has been failing for years, and despite the cult of eclipse and evo, they have nothing competitive in the rest of their range.
If I were running Suzuki or Mitsubishi, I would try hang around a bit longer. Chrysler, GM and Ford are going to lose market share in a pretty serious way, and perhaps there is a piece of the pie for Suzuki and Mitsubishi.
Suzuki’s been around since 1990’s. I had A 1992 Swift GT and a 2005 Aerio.
I think a combination of things has kept them from doing better here.
my $0.02
1. dealers are few, even in metro Chicago.
1a. Was here before the Fit, Yaris, Rio etc. but still hasn’t sold well even when gas went to $4+/gallon.
2. quality engine & trans is good, the rest is so-so. (I don’t think any worse than the Yaris, Fit, Rio, etc., just peoples perception that Toyota or Honda are better.)
3. not very common, parts are available thru dealer but depends elswhere. Example – Wiper blades were available at Autozone and Walmart but no air filter.
4. aftermarket hop-up no longer supported since 2004. Was hard to find with my 1992 also.
5. known for sport bikes. (it’d be like John Deere making cars for years but few people know)
6. only small suv or small sedan, no sport 2door, no larger suv or sedan like Hyundai.
7. lower resale value.
A variation on Menno’s idea. Make a deal with Penske to supply Saturns.
Quick note for “highrpm”….
Please don’t take this personally but let’s get real. Michigan and particularly metro Detroit is about the most unreal car market in terms of what is on the street compared to the rest of the USA. Of course you’re not going so see many Mitsu’s or most other “Imports” as Lutz might call ’em.
Sadly, Detroit has a very limited scope of what’s on the ground and being drivin by the former Big 3 and their supplier base citizens. You might find some “imports” around Royal Oak or Birmingham but that’s about it…..
Thus, better to not use Michigan or Detroit as a true representative sample for the USA
My rational side says they should both pack it in. Few in the U.S. have cared about either brand for years, and it seems unlikely that will change. My emotional side would like them to stick around and make quirky products that appeal to the people who don’t want just another Toyondassan.
As consumers, are we really served by the removal of more and more car manufacturers from the market? Healthy competition improves the entire breed, so it would be ideal for new competitors to enter the field as weaker manufacturers die off. Otherwise, what’s the incentive for the remaining few players to continue innovating and making better cars? Shame about those huge barriers to entry in the form of the auto world’s astronomical cost structures. Also, pricing power is great for the manufacturers, but it ultimately comes at our expense. (I’m choosing, ostrich like, to ignore the 800 lb gorrilla of government intervention propping up zombie manufacturers – which also comes at our expense.)
Lastly, why is it that Europe and Japan, both smaller markets, seem to support so many different brands, while the U.S. seems to be heading towards a world of less choice?
After experiencing a new Galant as a rental three weeks ago, I can think of no solid reason why Mitsu should hang around. What a waste of a car…I truly missed my Ford Fusion. The last Mitsubishi that held my interest was my 1978 Plymouth Arrow!
Suzuki for sure, and Mitsubishi maybe, have the ability to survive until GM, Ford, Chrysler are gone. Then they will get much bigger.
Six years ago I wanted to buy a 4-cyl Galant with anti-lock brakes. That combination wasn’t available (despite assurances from the slimy salesman that he could find me one.)
This lost sale was the direct result of moribund business management, not bad engineering or quality.
On a related note, why the hell can’t I buy a sedan, ANY SEDAN, with factory privacy glass?
Suzuki and Mitsubishi should go out with a bang and make a factory ‘Busa powered Mitsubishi i.
talkstoanimals :
Scale, you can run a fair-sized sales network in Europe or Asia out of a bunch of small, fairly centralized shops. And in Japan, the company owns the shops anyway.
Here, if you want to be nationwide, you have to stock a bunch of dealers, preferably by being their main option, keep them in adds and financing AND deal with tighter margins.
Suzuki and Mitsubishi both tried to get big the easy way, by doing contract work for other makers. Both have other sections that keep autos afloat (or at least support the lean years in the US). Neither really even kept up with Nissan (let alone Toyota/Honda) when they went big on the US market. Now they are really fighting with Kia/Hyundai for their own “label” sales. Mitsubishi also had an early run-in with the perils of cheap credit.
When it became clear that the current Eclipse’s launch would make or break Mitsubishi, I knew they were doomed. Not because the Eclipse is bad (which it sorta is), but because you can’t count on that kind of car saving you.
Suzuki though… I think they would be much healthier now if they had never been forced to sell Daewoos. I’d like to give them a chance now that they’re selling their own SX4. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t try the Swift here though. The Kizashi might be alright, and the Grand Vitara doesn’t seem that bad.
Besides, they sell a lot of motorcycles. Just sell cars out of those dealerships too. They should do more to use their motorcycles as halos. Mitsubishi can’t really do that with their big screen TVs.
@talkstoanimals
While we are not better served by fewer car mfg’s, the market and smaller co. innovation finds a way. Remember we had the big 3 who ignored the small car market, others catered to that and allowed much more choice now than we did. Also Gm tried (chickened out) electric car market and suddenly is trying again, along with Fisker, Tesla, and hybrids.
The hard truth?
What will all the dirtbags who have nothing but crap for credit buy if these two turds disappear?
It’s been proven time and again. If you have a pulse, you can be bought by Suzuki or Mitsu.
Would be a wise decision for both Mitsubishi and Suzuki to give up in the US.
The ultimate goal for them still has to be to make profit. Obviously, they can make money elsewhere, at least Suzuki.So,it should be OK for everyone.
They would be in good company, too. Nobody in the US, for example, really misses Peugeots, Citroens, Fiats, Alfas, although they have some interesting cars. Maybe too little, to cover the US market.
KIA is the new brand of socially disadvantaged.
If Mitsubishi brough Diamante in, I would seriously consider getting it. I’m in the market for something like it right now. But since there was such a big gap in Diamante availability, it should be considered 1MY car now.
Two words: excess capacity.
spyspeed: “why the hell can’t I buy a sedan, ANY SEDAN, with factory privacy glass?”
Because (a) window tint is easily applied by dealers and other aftermarket vendors; and (b) what a buyer considers to be a car with trendy “privacy glass” a state may ban as an unsafe blacked-out mafiamobile.
Mitsubishi can go. Suzuki, on the other hand, should drop everything from their lineup except the products they make themselves (SX4 and such), and then make a deal to start selling them through Saturn dealers. That, or hook up with Kia, because Kia and Suzuki have the worst dealer networks of all.
Both are goners in North America. Turn out the lights.
Then there is the local Suzuki dealer who had been an Isuzu dealer. One who he’ll pick next to exit the US market?
Only Mitsu has anything remotely interesting, the Evo. Everything else is far behind the class leaders (at least perception-wise). Why pay a Japanese price for semi-suspect reliability when the Koreans are doing the same for less (and with a better warranty)?
Oh and the Evo is hideously expensive. Being more $$$ then nearly every entry-level luxury car is a bad idea. An MR can zoom past $40K with options. That’s 335i/IS350/G37 territory.
@Dick :
The hard truth?
What will all the dirtbags who have nothing but crap for credit buy if these two turds disappear?
I’ve never been able to figure out whether most Mitsubishis burn oil because their engines suck or because they are bought by people who never change the oil.
Suzuki’s raison d’etre in North America was to supply Geo Metros and Trackers for GM, then to serve as a conduit for their share of GMDAT’s output (which, being non-Hyundai Korean cars, were pretty crappy). Mitsubishi was a supplier for rebadged small Chrysler-family stuff in the ’70s and ’80s, then they rode the DSM wave for a while in the ’90s only to crucify themselves on 0-0-0 at the beginning of the new millenium (though we did get some out of it).
Suzuki’s best hope is to leverage their microcar and motorcycle strengths into the US market (think Hayabusa/Wagon-R), and if Mitsubishi can make the MiEV thing commercially viable they could go in that direction. Basically, they need to be where the big lumbering giants of the market aren’t.
Ack, I forgot how awful the html parser was. Anyway, this ad too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG0RnkragG8
I say they should go, and the tuba should go with them. Why the tuba? Out of the entire orchestra or marching band there is usually only one tuba. Clarinets and violins are much more popular. Why should a perfectly decent violinist be pushed aside because we have to pay a salary to the tuba player?
Finally! bumpy brings up the MiEV. Something that could be a potential game changer for Mitsubishi in the North American market as well as worldwide. I’m not saying that EV’s are going to dominate the auto industry anytime soon but the technology Mitsubishi has put into this vehicle makes it a very important first step into the future. Mitsubishi has already made a substantial investment in promoting an EV capable infrastructure in Oregon, California and parts of Canada. They need to support their dealer network by bringing more product (the Colt, the Grandis, DIESELS!!) over to North America. If they keep the U.S. plant viable until they slowly increase market share with the EV they can supply their dealer network with U.S built vehicles free of import taxes. As others here have already mentioned, the loss of market share by the former “Big 3” open up plenty of potential for companies that can build right here. Yes, It could take years but the alternative, running away and giving up, guarantees failure.
I change my oil in my 2003 Outlander as scheduled. I have 46,000 maintenance free miles on this vehicle and have been very pleased with its performance. I’ve owned a Mazda, Toyota, Saab, Mercedes and a few others. I owned a Mercedes C320 that was in the shop every other month for electrical repair all three years I owned it.
The only thing that bothers me about my Outlander is that my AC/Heat knob is about to not be able to switch from AC to heat. The cost for repairing that? $800…
Yep, $800…
Other than that, great vehicle. Next one though…Toyota…Honda…or Nissan…
Why should a perfectly decent violinist be pushed aside because we have to pay a salary to the tuba player?
It seems to me that this line undercuts the argument that Suzuki and Mitsubishi need to leave the US market. After all, nobody is compelled to “pay a salary” to either firm (such as is the case with Gummint Motors and New ChryCo). Those of us who prefer their products freely pay to purchase them. Further, should the US market be deprived of automotive tubas and piccolos, simply to increase the sale of violins and trumpets? If so, then I expect a call for Maserati, Bugatti and other specialty makes to leave the US market.
Contrast the presence of Suzuki and Mitsubishi in the US market with that of other firms, and ask yourself who is paying for what unpopular musicians….
esg. My son feels your pain.
He has a 2004 Toyota Matrix. 66,000 miles with only some minor problems (and an ill-fitting windshield) Runs good, decent gas mileage.
The only thing that bothers him is that his drivers side door lock is malfunctioning. The cost for repairing that? $480.00
Yep, $480.00
I don’t really believe it’s a “Mitsubishi” problem.
Truth is..this country needs more junkyards, not less.
***On a related note, why the hell can’t I buy a sedan, ANY SEDAN, with factory privacy glass?***
probably because there is no uniform standard re. opacity and some states ban tinting on front windows.
Laws for truck/SUV/van tinting are different than for sedans.
talkstoanimals :
July 15th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Lastly, why is it that Europe and Japan, both smaller markets, seem to support so many different brands, while the U.S. seems to be heading towards a world of less choice?
Because both market run to similar tastes… which tend towards the smaller side compared to the US market. Smaller players who sell their products across a wider range of markets can have better success than a big player whose products only work in one.
Kei cars are an exception… they’re Japan’s SUV… or, more accurately… their own car-buyer tax-loophole. One that keeps the Kei market alive, despite the cars being much too small for serious export elsewhere.
The US, on the other hand… granted their car-buyer tax loophole to SUVs. Now, SUVs, unlike Kei cars, are large, luxurious, and pretty guzzly. How much of Ford or GM’s European and Asian sales do you think is made up of SUVs? Not much… thanks to higher gas taxes, narrower roads and the fact that they cost a hell of a lot outside the US. The fact that they sell at all is only because businessmen and politicians need something big and sturdy to armor-plate, but many European brands offer better luxury and in-house armor-plating… Ford and GM only have strong presences in foreign markets because of their foreign arms… Opel, GMDAT, Mazda, Ford Europe… which make cars that the rest of the world actually wants.
The US market can’t support many manufacturers because to sell in the US, you need something different from what is sold elsewhere. Or that’s what the car companies think. Numbers back it up, though… the Ford Mondeo/Contour… the Saturn Astra… the Holden… errh… Pontiac G8… all well-received in their home markets, but just not competitive in the US.
Suzuki is in a good position for this crisis… except in the US… where it’s forced to sell GMDAT products. Selling a wide variety of cars, kei cars, motorcycles and scooters, they have a good connection with young consumers… not to mention the fact that their Alto and Swift nameplates sell pretty well under the Maruti brand in India. Shorn of its links to GM, Suzuki should survive. In fact, it ought to do better.
Mitsubishi, on the other hand, is a basketcase. They only have two decent products… the Outlander/Lancer platform and the Strada/L200 (noteworthy as the best performing ladder-frame pick-up in EuroNCAP crash-testing). Their Galant/Endeavor/Eclipse line is a mess… the Pajero is no longer competitive and way overdue for an overhaul… the Colt might have some merit, but is saddled by design excess worse than the previous “Boulay” nose saga.
I really would like to see Mitsubishi live, but I doubt they can survive in this climate.
the title should really say ‘in the USA’ at the end
Ever since I saw Tiff review the Euro-Swift a couple years ago on Fifth Gear I’ve been absolutely smitten by it. I went straight to the Suzuki booth at the Toronto auto show to ask about it and they said it would reach our shores when they update the model elsewhere in the world. Now it looks as though it might never happen.
*Shrug*
Cars like the Focus and the Swift would be a deal-maker against the Mini in my opinion, but sadly, we cant buy anything cool and economical here in the land of fast food.
But I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. WRC surrender-monkeys don’t get much sympathy from me. If these two brands leave, please take Subaru with you. Maybe the three of you can put your chest hair together and make something that will give a kid in India some goosebumps.
I would love to see Mitsubishi survive. Problem is, they failed to capitalize on the Evo’s popularity and spread the “rally-inspired” heritage down the line. The current Galant was an ‘ok’ car when it debuted but the recent facelift did nothing to improve sales. As a matter of fact, I read that dealers were negative about the car when it was first shown to them before the official unveiling. Right now the only car that inspires some amount of desire is the Lancer line (Evo included) and…maybe…the Outlander. The Galant is in serious need of a redesign, the Endeavour is long in the tooth, the Eclipse has effectively lost its audience and the Raider (seriously….the Raider?).
Suzuki needs to stick to what it knows best ie. small cars. The Kizashi is nice enough concept but I fail to see it gaining any traction as a production model.
I owned an 07 Outlander XLS for 18 months and I can honestly say it was a good car. The seating was supportive, The ride firm and the 3.0 ltr V6 lively. My main complaints were the 3rd row of seats and the drive door panels that were very plastic. Some of the interior fit & finish could of been improved (2 shades of silver painted plastics next to each other)
but the fact remains that this was a fun car to drive which is more than can be said of the Rav 4 or CRV. I now drive an 03 Honda Pilot. Very reliable but it bores me close to death each time i drive it.
I miss my Outlander :-(
The problem with Mitsubishi is that in the US the only good vehicles they have are the Oulander & Lancer. As others suggest adding the L200 (with diesel) & the Colt to the range and then work to replace the Galant with something people want.
Both Mazda & Subaru compete with the Toyota’s & Honda’s by creating cars that are reliable AND fun to drive – based on the Outlander lancer twins Mitsu could do the same
Mitsubishi? They’re toast unless they get back their 80’s and 90’s innovative roots…they used to be a very inventive car company…not so much anymore.
Suzuki? Give to me and I’ll turn it around…but it would take awhile and some cash. I have never ever understood why Suzuki cars doesn’t lean on Suzuki bike’s reputation and build sporty cars like they build sport bikes…and why only econo-class cars? Why not something more upmarket? Again, calling upon the bike side’s reputation I would start by pulling out of the U.S. market and stay away for a few years. Over the next few years, I would try and build a no-excuses sports car…something with Corvette levels of performance for around $40,000. Then I would build a true small 2-seat roadster (think Honda Beat/Miata/MR2 Spyder) for around $25,000….Then I would build a Lancer Evo/Subie WRX competitive sedan and like the EVO/WRX, you can buy it as a base model FWD sedan for $18K, and all the way up to a 300HP AWD $40,000 super-rally car…I think Suzuki should study their bike reputation, understand what makes that very successful for them, look at Lotus and Porsche’s line of vehicles(minus Cayenne) and move in THAT direction and stop trying to be an econo-car builder. You’ve got a great rep…use it.
Yes, it’s really a shame about Mitsu.
Problem is, the Evo, especially the Evo X, especially the Evo X MR, is just _so damn good_. I absolutely love mine.
I’m a little sentimental about Suzuki. A feisty and persistent presence in the American market that has always produced simple reliable vehicles that suffered only in comparison to Honda and Toyota. They seem to be strong in segments that will grow larger as gas prices inevitably rise. Here in Colorado they are the hands down used car choice for cheap efficient and reliable 4wd use. If they keep it simple and cheap they could survive and I want them to.
Mitsubishi on the other hand has always struck me as more corporate and less soulful. Though I loved my 91 Turbo Colt it only went 95K before the Turbo quit and even at the age of 9 was starting to suffer from lack of dealer parts support. Their new product has never really spun my prop. Not particularly attractive or innovative. I wouldn’t really miss them at all.