Auto manufacturer family tree: Who owns what?

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).

franch3• 4 years ago

The original mother company of Fiat/FCA (Exor, controlled by the Agnelli family) now merged in Stellantis, also own stakes in Ferrari, CNH Industrial (New Holland Tractors, Case and other industrial and farming equipements), Iveco and a bunch of other brands. Quite a concentration of companies.

netfl0• 4 years ago

I did not know TATA owns Land Rover and Jaguar!

PinguTS3• 4 years ago

That's when Ford hat its problems in the 2008 crisis and sold off its then so-called Ford Premium Group that consisted of Volvo and Jaguar.

gpderetta4• 4 years ago

That's after it bought DeLorean for their time machine business I assume.

edit: "after it will have brought" I guess

mabbo2• 4 years ago

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.

21434• 4 years ago

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 any of their products are good is a different matter; it may or may not be — I don't really know.)

Tata motors in India has been pretty good over the last few years. They now make very desirable products designed for the Indian market — ie., spacious, efficient, practical cars with good enough performance, reliability, high scores in GNCAP crash tests, at a price which a lot of Indians can afford.

Tata cars probably won't win any races, but they have finally figured out the pulse of the Indian market.

sircastor3• 4 years ago

I worked for Jaguar Land Rover for 7 years. It almost never came up. I would say that most of the company operates independently. Occasionally we would engage with Tata's other arms (I recall early on doing work with TCS - Tata Consulting Services to do some software development.)

Sometimes as I'm out and about I'll see old Ford-era Jaguars and I'm pleased that the company has independence to make its own vehicles.

touristtam3• 4 years ago

They bought it from Ford when they decide to desinvest from their European luxury brands (after Jaguar didn't manage to compete with BMW).

gennarro• 4 years ago

Anyone interested in this should dive into the NHTSA data. Something like “make by manufacturer” explains this quite nicely, albeit without the history that the article nicely explained. Example: https://transportation.report/manufacturer/976/

Markoff2• 4 years ago

Wow, I don't follow car news recently, so just now discovered Peugeot, Citroen, Fiat and Opel have same owner now (Stellantis), still can't comprehened how could be such merger approved by regulators.

Also was aware that Nissan and Renault cooperate, but didn't know there is also Mitshubishi with them. Btw. Adobe Acrobat logo would like to have a word.

PinguTS3• 4 years ago

That's when GM had his crisis and sold of all its non-US brands Opel, Vauxhall and so to PSA. It was a big mess.

Then just recently FCA and PSA formed Stellantis.

PSA and Fiat worked together previously, as their van the Fiat Ducato is basically the same as the vans from PSA group and the same as the Iveco Daily. They closely worked also together in other areas.

The small cars by Fiat was also partly joined development with Opel in the mid 1990. That relationship worked loosely for years, even while Opel still was part of GM.

jaclaz• 4 years ago

Also later, as an example I have a 2006 Opel (Vauxhall) Vectra C 1.9 TD, the engine (and well as the Saab 9-3 one) is a FIAT one, and they share quite a few "common" parts outside the engine with the Fiat Croma.

Vespasian2• 4 years ago

I faintly recall that this was in part a response to VW growing too big in the years before. Before the merger Fiat, who was struggling at the time, tried to fusion with Renault but the French government blocked it.

Maybe someone has more information than me.

consp• 4 years ago

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.

franch3• 4 years ago

The reason for being a Dutch company is purely for a taxation advantage, and it goes back to the fact that FIAT/FCA moved its headquarters to the Netherlands under Marchionne's leadership. Other italian companies (Mediaset owned by Berlusconi Family) did this too recently: ( https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2021/09/18/mediaset-la-sede... )

gpderetta4• 4 years ago

I think Netherlands is just a convenient place for European multinationals to incorporate. ST Micro, another Italo-French company is incorporated there for example.

sofixa2• 4 years ago

It's registered in the Netherlands for tax and regulatory purposes.

LtWorf• 4 years ago

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).

touristtam3• 4 years ago

Something that went amiss in the graph is the Samsung Car division that Renault took direct ownership a while ago.

fredsmith219• 4 years ago

It would be interesting to see this for auto component companies. For example AC Delco used to be owned by GM, then was spun off as part of Delphi, which changed its name to Aptiv.

smohnot2• 4 years ago

Written from a Australian perspective & is missing some US marques, like that Honda owns Acura and Ford owns Lincoln

SomeHacker442• 4 years ago

Acura is mentioned in the accompanying text.

smohnot2• 4 years ago

yeah, I mean it isn't shown on a slide... if Lexus & Genesis are shown, Acura & Lincoln probably should be too

ZWoz• 4 years ago

I found Škoda description lacking. Being one of few historic Czech car manufacturers is mention worthy.

helij• 4 years ago

Also, one of the oldest car manufacturers in the world.

edaemon• 4 years ago

It's also missing the newer manufacturers like Rivian, Lucid, Nio, and Xpeng, though their absence is somewhat understandable.

belval2• 4 years ago

I always wanted something like this but for all companies. I feel like it would be a great tool to help people understand how giant conglomerates are actually a big part of what we consume.

My favorite are outdoor clothing companies which almost all tie-in to the same Chinese investment fund. Or how glasses companies all belong to that one French conglomerate.

oboes• 4 years ago

The French newspaper "Le Monde diplomatique" made a very interesting family tree for media ownership in France: https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cartes/PPA

rcMgD2BwE72F• 4 years ago

Published on Github too https://github.com/mdiplo/Medias_francais

pr0zac2• 4 years ago

Which brands are you talking about and could you point to something showing the ownership (not doubting you, just wondering). Looking up Patagonia, Columbia, and VF Corp (North Face, Timberland, etc) none of them appear to be Chinese owned, but its quite likely their Wikipedia page is missing info.

Green_man• 4 years ago

I know anta sports (Chinese) owns Arc'teryx and Salomon (and other brands as well), which are both big deals in very niche parts of outdoors companies (mountaineering/climbing and trail running/skiing respectively) but I don't think there's any single Chinese company that owns all the outdoor brands, unless anta is owned by some other company. Luxottica, the eyeglass company gp referred to is also Italian, not French (afaik), and their stranglehold was weakening with online retailers breaking in (last I checked was ~5 years ago, this might have regressed since).

belval2• 4 years ago

I was thinking of Anta Sports (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anta_Sports) which owns a lot of skiing/mountaineering stuff but I was remembering wrong.

I guess you get good news every day!

skywal_l• 4 years ago

Ideally, in a democracy, it should be open and transparent who owns what, up to the individual. That should be the basic principle of a free market.

mistrial92• 4 years ago

good direction but impractical.. a tech lead at Starbucks quipped "we don't actually know how many people work at Starbucks right now" .. huh? because, though they do have modern cloudy tech, there is meat-space time involved in edge transition from state of employed to not-employed, etc. So it is true, even with "perfect" observation of events, the leaders have ranges, not hard numbers.

So it is with markets. There are indistinct conditions that may exist for some time, and decay, and financial privacy, etc. So even given "perfect" observation of events, it is not fully transparent.

Nor would you want it, I argue. Once you as an individual are involved with markets and partners and committed relationships, some faceless bureacracy is tracking your parking spending? or more to the point, your ownership stakes? So we must re-invent public markets. Too much to change at once, and imperfect cooperation, so.. set a direction. "messy"

balderdash• 4 years ago

Why? What does a system of voting have to with privacy?

sokoloff3• 4 years ago

The eyewear conglomerate is Luxottica (Italian, not French).

keiferski• 4 years ago

They merged with Essilor, a French company, in 2018. Technically they are a Franco-Italian company.

cju• 4 years ago

EssilorLuxottica (merger in 2018) is a French company with an headquarter in Paris and the stock part of the French index CAC40.

adhesive_wombat• 4 years ago

And same for semiconductors. Everything seems to have been consolidating like mad.

stevenjgarner• 4 years ago

"~80% of the 50 largest public companies are connected to one another through 1 or more shared board member(s)" [1]

The "three most connected companies" through interconnecting directors are "3M (7 connections), Boeing (6 connections) and Amgen (6 connections)" ... "Other highly-connected companies include Walt Disney, Apple, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, IBM, and Procter & Gamble – each has five board members that also serve for other top 50 corporations." [2]

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/923c92/80_...

[2] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/50-largest-u-s-companies-bo...

NickRandom• 4 years ago

Here ya go (I knew I had seen it somewhere so I'm glad I managed to find it again). Here are some links to assorted sources about brands etc. It makes for fascinating reading imo

"These 10 Companies Own Almost All of the Brands You Use" https://thehomestead.guru/10-companies-own-brands/

https://gizmodo.com/fascinating-graphic-shows-who-owns-all-t...

https://www.dividend.com/how-to-invest/9-companies-that-own-...

https://capitaloneshopping.com/blog/11-companies-that-own-ev...

https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendancoffey/2011/10/26/the-fo...

Retric• 4 years ago

That first list is interesting because I recognize most of them as terrible products.

My mental model of brands was as a quality stamp, as in people would recognize a product from advertising but if they disliked the product then it wouldn’t help. But, I think there is a second effect in play. If you start with something of high quality that people consume regularly you can very slowly lower the quality without people noticing. Continue long enough and old brands are going to end up as lower quality.

sircastor3• 4 years ago

I was recently looking at Tool brands and came across a similar article explaining how all the popular tool brands you know are owned by a handful of corporations.

https://toolguyd.com/tool-brands-corporate-affiliations/

Cd00d• 4 years ago

Whenever I see that chart I feel gratified that I chose Makita when I was making the big battery decision a few years ago.

Personally, I lean to independent brands. I don't want my Milwaukee tools having all the same parts as the Ryobi line - makes me assume I'm being suckered into an identical tool that's way more expensive. Even if the Milwaukee is usually superior, I'm guessing some things just are exact copies with red paint. I'm the same way with say Patagonia over North Face - I'll always avoid VF Corp brands for something that's still building legacy, rather than profiting on historical credibility.

I guess the same is true with previous generation stuff. Abercrombie & Fitch, and Eddie Bauer used to be premier outdoor equipment companies with great down jackets and sleeping bags, fishing equipment, even shotguns. Now they're both brands representing clothes I don't want. Both brands sold and were aggregated with other companies in the late 1980s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Bauer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abercrombie_%26_Fitch

SomeHacker442• 4 years ago

Tesla is mistakenly listed as having been founded by Elon Musk. (See e.g. Wikipedia for accurate information.)

FuriouslyAdrift3• 4 years ago

He's LEGALLY a founder (as per the lawsuit)... but I get your meaning.

sircastor3• 4 years ago

This is absurd, and as bad as him being listed as the "Chief Engineer" at SpaceX

kergonath4• 4 years ago

He can call himself however he wants (he’s also completely unqualified to be called an engineer), but money cannot buy facts.

dehrmann2• 4 years ago

IANAL, but it more like the company has a legal obligation to tell that story and let him call himself a founder, but it's an out-of-court settlement, so we're free to call him an early investor and leave it at that. Now if Tesla to make a libel claim against the sources saying Eberhard and Tarpenning were the real founders, it can.

stewx2• 4 years ago

Wow, somehow I was unaware that Hyundai now owns the majority of Kia.

kube-system• 4 years ago

You ever notice how similar their models are? Nearly all of their line ups are clones with different trim.

lightsandaounds• 4 years ago

They don't the majority. Hyundai owns 1/3 of Kia and Kia actually is a partial owner in several Hyundai subsidiaries.

stewx2• 4 years ago

I stand corrected: they owned 51% back in 1998 but more like a third now.

FuriouslyAdrift3• 4 years ago

Ah yes.. Chaebol's

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

skhr0680• 4 years ago

It’s not mentioned in the article, but Toyota owns 20% of Subaru

csours• 4 years ago

Disclosure: I work for GM. Anything here is solely my own opinion or experience.

Fun fact: Chevrolet kind of bought GM. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/gm-buys-chevrole...

"Still the owner of a considerable portion of GM stock, Durant began to purchase more shares in the company as his profits from Chevrolet allowed. In a final move to regain control, Durant offered GM stockholders five shares of Chevrolet stock for every one share of GM stock. Though GM stock prices were exorbitantly high, the market interest in Chevrolet made the five-for-one trade irresistible to GM shareholders. With the sale, concluded on May 2, 1918, Durant regained control of GM"

And then after this the DuPont Family effectively controlled GM for quite a while. They previously had a relationship because GM used DuPont paints.

----

As to the manufacturer family tree: things get significantly more complicated when you add joint ventures. Ford famously partnered with Mazda, Chrysler partnered with Mitsubishi, and GM partnered with Isuzu and Suzuki and even Toyota for a while (NUMMI). Nowadays GM and Honda have a few codevelopment projects; even the concept of what a joint venture means has significantly changed. My list is this comment is far from authoritative or exhaustive.

RajT88• 4 years ago

Chrysler partnered with Mitsubishi

The epic "Diamondstar Motors" as I recall. Responsible for generations of kickass cars under different names. Conquest/Starion, Laser/Talon/Eclipse, Stealth/3000GT.

flyinghamster• 4 years ago

In addition, Chrysler had captive imports from Mitsubishi at least as far back as the 1971 Dodge Colt. The GM/Isuzu and Ford/Mazda relationships went back to the 1970s as well.

SkeuomorphicBee• 4 years ago

As to the manufacturer family tree: things get significantly more complicated when you add joint ventures.

Yes, and even more complicated because some of those joint ventures where country-specific. For example, in the 80s (and early 90s) due to the economic crisis in Brazil and Argentina, Ford and Volkswagen created the joint venture Autolatina to join forces during the crisis. So both brands shared engines and released sight variations of the same cars.

adolph2• 4 years ago

Oh, the link between GM and leaded gasoline makes more sense in that context.

TEL had been identified chemically in the mid-19th century, but General Motors had discovered its effectiveness as an antiknock agent in 1921, after spending several years attempting to find an additive that was both highly effective and inexpensive.

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

Video treatment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3dnLzthDA

sgt2• 4 years ago

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

sxcurry• 4 years ago

Also, to be more precise than the original article, Volkswagen AG is the parent company, which owns a number of brands, including Volkswagen and Audi.

arethuza5• 4 years ago

Porsche SE is a holding company though - it doesn't directly make cars.

Porsche cars are made by Porsche AG which is a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG - Porsche SE then holding a controlling stake in Volkswagen AG.

sgt2• 4 years ago

Correct, but they do pull the strings (the Porsche family).

rurban• 4 years ago

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.

Gravityloss• 4 years ago

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.

photochemsyn• 4 years ago

It'd be interesting to see this expanded into the secondary supply chains, and the primary factories, all of which may or may not be owned by the car corporations themselves.

These networks sprawl out pretty quickly, I imagine. Modern cars rely on microcontrollers and microprocessors, and without chip fabs that comes to a halt. They also require varying amounts of steel, aluminum, carbon fiber, other plastics and metals, and natural rubber.

Then there's the physical locations and the international ownership / leasing / agreement structures. For example, Rust Belt manufacturing of vehicles in the USA for the US market has mostly relocated to Mexico:

https://napsintl.com/mexico-manufacturing-news/mexicos-auto-...

"According to Forbes, about 80 percent of the cars manufactured in Mexico are exported globally, with about two-thirds of those exports going to the United States. In 2014, the industry comprised about $19 billion in investments. Production for that year was estimated to reach 3.2 million cars, double what it had been five years prior."

A network map of everything that went into a Mexican-made vehicle that was purchased in the USA would be highly complex, and if you then asked for an ownership map of all the shell companies, holding compenies, investors, primary owners etc. involved, the complexity would likely increase by a factor of ten.

Just tracking the global production and ownership of raw lithium and electric car battery manufacturing, for example, would be a fairly massive undertaking.

fibers• 4 years ago

building out a massive BOM for all platforms would be next to impossible because it would require forcing OEMs to disclose their contracts with Tier 1 suppliers. I totally agree with you becasue that would be such a cool thing to do

sharikous• 4 years ago

Ferrari is listed as independent (rightly,) but it is owned in a big part by the Agnelli family (Exor) who own also a big part of Stellantis.

No employee in the Ferrari factory has a non-Stellantis car (Alfa Romeo or Maserati preferably)

So I think it should be clarified that Ferrari and Stellantis (specifically Fiat) are related

jeroen• 4 years ago

Exor (the Agnelli's) owns 14.35% of Stellantis and 22.91% of Ferrari.

adolph2• 4 years ago

While "ownership" is often interpreted in terms of value-flows and control, the model of Ikea's corporate structure indicates that actually modeling value-flows and control would be more helpful than using "ownership" as a proxy.

IKEA’s organizational structure might sound a bit confusing at first, but I looked into it to see how its business model works so that you could gain clarity on that.

Put it shortly, IKEA as a brand comprises two separate owners. INGKA Holding B.V. owns the IKEA Group, the holding the group.

At the same time that is held by the Stichting INGKA Foundation, which is the owner of the whole Group. IKEA Group is not the owner of the brand, which is managed by Inter IKEA Systems B.V., part of Inter IKEA B.V. that is the real owner of the IKEA Concept.

Thus, IKEA Group is a franchisee that pays 3% of royalties to Inter IKEA Systems.

https://fourweekmba.com/who-owns-ikea/

option2• 4 years ago

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

PraetorianGourd• 4 years ago

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 ignite the fuel (most likely not domestic) that is transferred through the gears (of Chinese origin). The energy moving the Chinese made differential being transferred to the axels and eventually the tires, made in China, to the road, perhaps financed via Chinese loans.

But yeah, buying a Volvo is what keeps the CCP in power.

option2• 4 years ago

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

sorenjan• 4 years ago

I only skimmed trough it, but the section about Polestar is wrong. It says that their racing division was renamed Lynk & Co. Lynk & Co is a different car brand focusing on a subscription sales model. Polestar's racing division was renamed Cyan Racing. Polestar is also partly owned by Geely, which of course also owns Volvo which owns part of Polestar...

Geely recently bought the mobile phone manufacturer Meizu.

ComputerCat• 4 years ago

Very cool, thanks for sharing

dpedu• 4 years ago

Tesla – Founded 2003
It was founded by former PayPal owner Elon Musk

Hah. Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.#Founding_(2003%E2%...

tsomctl• 4 years ago

A lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five – Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Musk, and Straubel – to call themselves co-founders.

Granted, he wasn't there to sign the articles of incorporation, but he joined very early.

iancmceachern• 4 years ago

This misses the stake Toyota has in Subaru

mc32• 4 years ago

Stellantis is like the new Step parent to a bunch of step children that were given up for adoption by their biological parents. Some premier brands but also a lot of second tier brands and smaller brands overall. I wonder if they can keep so many brands afloat. Over the last 20 years or so the larger MFGs have shed brands and consolidated.

dchest• 4 years ago

They mostly keep releasing the same car under different brands, so the cost for brand differentiation with respect to actual car production is pretty much the same as if it was a single brand. They even add non-Stellantis brands to it, e.g. Toyota (for example, see their European range of small, medium and large vans).

legitster• 4 years ago

Interesting fun fact - the Japanese sub-brands were mostly created to get around US import restrictions. At the time, the US had super imposing quantity limitations on Japanese cars. So the workaround was the companies spun off luxury companies (Lexus, Acura, Infiniti) so they could sell fewer cars at a higher markup.

glowingly• 4 years ago

Acura launched first, since Honda already had a factory in the US (originally for motorcycles). Honda was still smaller than Mitsubishi, Nissan, and Toyota at the time, iirc. That factory is still the oldest operating, US factory from a foreign automaker.

Amusingly, the import restrictions were "voluntary," as much as geopolitics can be voluntary.

CSMastermind• 4 years ago

I know that Ford takes a lot of flak (deservingly in many cases) but I've always been very impressed by how consistently the company has seemingly been run. If I remember correctly, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I don't, they are the only one of the 'Big 3' American auto manufacturers to not need a bailout.

bobthepanda• 4 years ago

Yes and no.

Ford did not participate in the explicit bailout for the auto industry, but their financial arm did receive loans from the federal government. (GM and co. also received this type of assistance in addition to the bailout.)

MisterTea• 4 years ago

There was a time when Ford owned a bunch of brands at the same time which made them quite a large car company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company#Former_marq...

I was very surprised to see they were listed as stand alone in that list.

brk• 4 years ago

The list seems to be Australia-centric. In the US Ford still owns the Lincoln brand as well.

DwnVoteHoneyPot• 4 years ago

Ford is bipolar. On one hand some models are pure garbage. Then on the other hand their F-150 truck is incredible. Mustang and new Bronco are also loved.

lowbloodsugar3• 4 years ago

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 "The GT350 is not a track car" - Shelby is rolling in his grave). Ford's "halo" car is $300k MSRP, GM's is $190k. Guess which one you can actually buy. I have owned three Mustangs including a GT500, and tracked them, and will never buy Ford again.

neogodless4• 4 years ago

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.

tmh88j2• 4 years ago

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 other "normal" vehicles. If anything it's hurt them. The Focus RS was arguably axed because of dealer greed[2]. Of course Shelby has more fanboys, Chevy doesn't have an equivalent. Ford has made non-Shelby Mustang Cobras in the past and currently have the Mach 1 to replace the Shelby GT350. 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. Ford churns out performance pack Mustangs like they're base models.

[1] https://www.kbb.com/car-news/ford-ceo-wants-future-of-online...

[2] https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/07/barks-bites-focus-...

mulmen2• 4 years ago

I wouldn't consider that movie as an accurate depiction of Ford. The actual GT40 race car benefited greatly by the expertise and resources of Ford. For example they created a computerized(!) drive train simulator that ran the engine and transmission through hundreds of pre-programmed laps. This enabled them to continually refine the drive train and improve reliability.

The movie makes it look like scrappy Carroll Shelby and Ken Miles were simply smarter than the clowns at Ford but that's not the whole story.

linksnapzz• 4 years ago

One of the things that Ford has, which GM and Chrysler did not, is the continued heavy involvement of the founding family. There are two classes of Ford stock, one for family and one for everyone else. The holders of the family shares have a way-outsized voting influence on the board, and can bring a great deal personal interest and scrutiny into how the company is run. Always remember whose name is on the side of the building.

kmlx• 4 years ago

mazda still going strong, with toyota owning just 5% of it. excellent, as their mx5/miata is a gem of car.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toyota-mazda-idUSKBN1AK0R...

https://www.automotiveworld.com/news-releases/mazda-continue...

camjohnson26• 4 years ago

And a few months ago Tesla was valued more than all the brands on the list, combined. If that isn’t a sign of a stock market bubble I don’t know what is.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/14/tesla-valuation-more-than-ni...

mulmen2• 4 years ago

Why would that be a sign of a bubble and not simply an overvalued stock?

jansan• 4 years ago

Agreed, but remember that if you are thinking about betting against Tesla that the market can stay (much) longer irrational than you can stay solvent. There is a quote from the early 20th century: "Wall Street's graveyards are filled with men who were right too soon."

When VW stocks went through the roof due to a short squeeze a few years ago, a very conservative German billionaire named Adolf Merckle saw that VW's stock value was ridicilously overpriced, so he decided to bet agains the stock. But the stock price went further up and stayed there long enough to make him lose all of his money. He then committed suicide.

pmcollins• 4 years ago

if apple were worth more than all of the other personal computer makers combined (maybe it is idk) would that also be a sign of a bubble? is that all it takes or does growth rate matter?

saisundar• 4 years ago

Given the recent influx of EVs, some of these charts explain why certain brands seem to have launched them now.

Hyundai, kia and Genesis for instance, share the same ev platform.

Volvo and polestar too,with their EVs.

Audi, Vw, Porsche too have all launched EVs with surprisingly similar specs ( especially in terms of miles/kwh).

These ownership trees help explain why, clearly.

lizardactivist• 4 years ago

It's too bad that Saab is gone.

explaingarlic• 4 years ago

Good of Stellanis to buy/own all of the companies that my Dad told me not to buy cars from :D

basicplus2• 4 years ago

One thing is for sure, ever since daimler and chrysler were joined at the hip, mercedes vehicle quality dropped like a stone.

Markoff2• 4 years ago

Btw if you put Lexus under Toyota and Infinity under Nissan, you should also put Acura under Honda, all of these are equivalents of luxurious subbrands of mother brands.

Auto manufacturer family tree: Who owns what?

Related Stories