The i30, i35 and Maxima of those years had a flex beam rear suspension, which has no business being on a premium vehicle. Just for that reason alone I would never consider it.

But the current Maxima is excellent and if it was badged Infiniti, I could see it being a hot seller.

 

Infiniti's ES350 fighter. I would love to see the return of the G20 based on the Altima SE-R rather than the Sentra SE-R.

 

Rebadge Maxima and see those M sales go away ..just like with GS.
But it would be the best move since introduction of G35.

 

The best automotive companies must excel at FWD, RWD (and AWD configurations based on both) in order to serve all major/lucrative markets.

 

I am going to elaborate a little bit on my post above about how FWD is looking more like the “way of the future” and how companies will continue to follow in the footsteps of VW/Audi and Toyota/Lexus. Many of us have made fun of Audi and even Lexus for this part and platform sharing, but I think this is only the beginning of such arrangements in the automotive industry, born out of necessity.

I have no problem with companies like Lexus building ES 350s, RX 350s, and CTs as long as we can still have things like ISFs, LFAs, and LS 460s. Same goes for Audi. These mainstream FWD rebadges are a necessary part of business to fund lower volume, lower profit vehicles like the GS and LS. The profit margin on such vehicles is astronomically higher than platforms that serve one purpose- i.e. LS or A8. You have to pay the bills before you can party, so to speak. Look at how BMW and Mercedes have struggled to form partnerships in an effort to control skyrocketing R&D and production costs. We have all seen articles about attempted alliances and occasional slips into the red. There is proof that one strategy is a lot more successful than the other. While we sometimes snicker about Lexus’ and Audi’s “humble” roots within Toyota and VW, at the end of the day when all of the reports are run, BMW and Mercedes probably wish they had the type of resources that Audi and Lexus do.

By the sound of it, Infiniti has realized that it will need to rely more on Nissan in the future to remain viable and successful, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact it could probably greatly benefit both companies, as has been the case for Toyota/Lexus and VW/Audi. Take a flexible, capable FWD platform like the Altima and refine some of the features, add the luxury and technology that are expected, and wrap it in a package that looks more expensive and attractive than the car it's based on, and sell it at a premium. From there, do the same thing again but add 6 inches of ground clearance, optional AWD, and make the bumpers a little beefier- now you have both your ES and your RX.

The savings in R&D, manufacturing and retooling costs is astronomical. To me, it's sort of amazing that Infiniti has been able to survive like they have when all their products are derived off non-global, more expensive RWD platforms. I know the G is the Skyline in Japan, and they sell plenty of them, but it's still nothing like the Altima platform. FM is shared between most Infiniti products and the Nissan Z, so even though the model breadth that uses the platform isn’t bad, none are high volume like the ES or Camry, or TL or Accord.

If Infiniti could put out some core, entry level products like have been discussed here it would probably be a game-changer for the company. Products that are higher volume and cheap to produce are part of why the company has struggled for so long. The G has been their only saving grace, and it is a great car. I don't even know if an I35/Maxima-based car would really be necessary, because with a few tweaks I think the G could do the same thing. Make the interior a little nicer, add an optional wood and leather steering wheel, tone down the suspension on said "luxury" model and you have something that competes well with other laid-back cruisers in this segment.

Part of the reason that the IS/ES relationship works so well is size, where the IS is significantly smaller than the ES. The G is already almost a midsize car and I can’t see something much smaller being the volume model that they need. Lexus has this strategy nailed down, and I think that Infiniti’s idea to make the G a larger car for its segment might hurt the viability of something that is Altima or Maxima-based. Look at how the ES has impacted GS sales- Infiniti could be faced with a similar predicament depending on how a Nissan-rebadged vehicle would be packaged and positioned.

Considering the complications outlined above, I think their best chance for success would be a Murano/Altima based SUV, along the lines of an RX. The Rogue might work too. This could even be the next gen EX, similar to how Caddy changed strategy with the SRX from gen 1 to gen 2. The current EX doesn’t actually feel much larger than the G coupe, so that is obviously the biggest problem. Both the Altima or Rogue platforms would offer the needed space and flexibility, and they could also price it competitively.

Creating some type of higher volume rebaged-Nissan vehicle would open a ton of doors. SUVs are a sore spot for the brand, and as has been discussed the EX and FX both miss the mark. Something along the lines of an RX could really drive showroom traffic, elevate the brand, and even lead to something like a new Q down the line. In fact, it sounds like the upper brass have realized that such a product might be necessary to the brand’s survival.

Considering that, I think they should do something like the following:

1. Entry level model, perhaps based off the Sentra with a DI/FI powerplant. I think Lexus is doing this right by not directly challenging the 1 series with the CT.

2. Engineer the next G such that there are two engines and three models-
- G37/G30
o The lower end model needs to be focused on gas mileage, as this will continue to be a concern in the future IMO.
- Sport
o As the sport model is now
- Base/Normal
o As is now- well optioned, well equipped, but toward the sportier side of the segment
- Luxury
o Something with more wood and leather, a looser and smoother suspension, different wheels, etc. A car to compete with the ES, TL, CTS, etc.

3. Retool the EX to a smallish Altima/Murano based crossover
- EX 37/EX30
o Same explanation as above for the G engine choices
o Make AWD standard on sport and 37 models.

4. Retool the FX to be a little larger and a little more mainstream. Making it attractive wouldn’t hurt either.


At the end of the day I think it’s obvious that Infiniti hasn’t leveraged the resources that they could be. Nissan is one of the top brands across the globe and has plenty of resources to offer- too bad it took them this long to realize it. The same can be said for Cadillac, who is now raiding the GM parts bin for future models. This is simply what Lexus and Audi have been doing for years, albeit their formulas are far advanced past what Infiniti needs right now.

As devil’s advocate you have Acura, who has based EVERY product off one mainstream model. The brand is in a serious state of decline and continues to suffer, so while platform sharing and rebadging is beneficial to an extent, its application is important and may only be good in moderation.

As I have said a few times now, I think this platform, part, and cost sharing is the way of the future - the winners will be the companies who can do it best. What is "best"? IMO that would mean making cost-effective models that fit well within their brand image, and where the buyer isn't immediately reminded of the downmarket model that it is based on. Lexus and Audi can do it and Acura can't. Can Infiniti and Cadillac?

BMW and Mercedes have decided to diversify their portfolios off existing models, but many of those seem to be low volume vehicles such as the 1 Series, X6, and CLS. It is yet to be seen if this strategy will pay off, or if they will have to seek partnerships that seek to reduce the overall bottom line, not just the creation of niche models.

I think Infiniti is on the right track…

 

Yes it did, but, somehow, still managed to retain a good ride/handling combination even with a relatively simple beam in the rear. And a beam rear suspension does not require 4-wheel alignments like a true IRS.

 

Yes, lol, solid axle version is great for pickup trucks too (cheap and durable). 4-wheel alignments are infrequent and insignificant expense in the ownership cost of a premium sedan. These cars had compromised ride/handling that would not be acceptable in premium cars today. Even back then they were not considered to be near the top in the area of handling or ride.

 

Not only that, but the big QX56 (now discontinued), built off the Nissan Titan/Armada platform, was grossly unreliable, and, IMO, ugly.

Infiniti's big mistake, though, IMO, was dropping the nice QX4. I personally find the FX35/45 ugly, awkward-looking, and too stiffly-sprung, and, while the EX35 is a superb small SUV forward of the rear seats, the Munchkin-sized rear end is a joke for seating or cargo capacity.

 

LOL. You forgot the Mustang...cheap durability for burnouts. That's why Ford still uses it.


Relatively infrequent, yes, (unless you have a early-model Nissan 350Z with its notoriously bad settings), but not necessarily cheap. Many shops want $100 or more, though NTB (one of my favorites) offers free checks if no adjustments are needed (and they're usually honest about that).

Arguably, yes, today, that's true. The I30/35, though, had a good combination for its time.......it was highly regarded by a number of auto mags. You would not have guessed it was missing an IRS unless you actually bent down and looked under the car.

I still feel, though, that nobody does a ride-handling combo like BMW. Their chassis engineers, IMO, are true masters.

 

Yes....and the sales figures for the ES and RX prove that there is a place for FWD in luxury-vehicle line-ups, though, of course, the RX sells in mostly in AWD form, not FWD.


Audi did not necessarily start with VW, though both go back to the 1930's. The term "Audi" actually a German contraction for the term Auto Union, which produced a line of quirky, difficult-handling, rear-engined racing cars back in the 1930s. VW started with a whole different motive...Hitler's idea, similiar to Henry Ford's, for a cheap, mass-produced small car for the German masses.

 

Before we go too off-topic, that's a front-end alignment issue:

"Sport Z Magazine has received the following press release from Nissan North America regarding a front-end alignment warranty extension for '03 and '04 350Zs. Owners will receive a letter from NNA detailing tire reimbursement (including prorated costs, an FAQ, and a printable form required for compensation), which you can download now as a pdf at: www.sportzmagazine.com

FRONT-END ALIGNMENT WARRANTY EXTENDED ON 2003 AND 2004 NISSAN 350Z MODELS"

 

Agreed........that's why I went back to the FWD issue in the subsequent post.

 

Good, because I saw some trivia about Audi up there somewhere, that has nothing to do with how public views Audi today.

Yes, AWD RX (being a SUV) is a very popular model. And Lexus has done very well with sales of FWD ES350. Other car manufacturers will probably seek a piece of that high-margin business.

 

Lets not forget Audi wheather we like there cars or not they also seem to have a variety of AWD, FWD, and RWD vehicles as well..

 

Haven't forgotten Audi, especially with it's recent success in the US market.

But I have forgotten which Audi has RWD in the US?