Infiniti just announced that G37 production will continue for at least the rest of 2013 and maybe beyond. They consider the Q50 to be a step up from the G37. The base price of the Q50 is slightly lower than the G, so it's obvious that they will lower the price of the G37 if they continue to manufacture it as a lesser model than the Q50.

2011 G37 sedan, loaded

 

Should see a price drop the G37 I'd figure, since its current MSRP is right along the Q50 isn't it.

 

hmm, that is a bit odd

I looked at my 2011 sedan window sticker the other day. Fully loaded was $41,600. I think the sticker for a journey with premium (no nav or sport) is more than that now. A 2013 G sedan optioned like mine seems to be around $46K. Will be interesting to see if the G37 comes back down a few grand.

 

Seems like a way to hedge their bet in a two fold way. If this forum is a microcosm of the general public, then there is obviously a split on how we feel.

1) They always have the G to fall back on.

2) Keep the G and sell it as inferior to convince the public the Q is a step above. Forget about the G and move on with the Q nomenclature.

I know I sound vaguely like Jesse Ventura, but it seems like an odd move and a way to convince people the Q is better. What better way to show an inferior product, then by charging less for it.

 

Car Forums are never a microcosm of the general public. They're representative of the enthusiast segment... whether that means gearheads, racers, garage queens or people who lease cars they can't otherwise afford with with the emotional commitment of an owner.

My guess is that the majority of people who will be driving a Q50 next summer are completely clueless about its release this summer.

 

Always good for a chuckle, I'm to the point where I no longer am sipping any drink when I read your posts, I got tired of cleaning off my keyboard

 

Is it because I stuttered there? Sometimes I type faster than I think. And sometimes I don't think and just type.

On the topic at hand... it seems to me INFINITI is trying to avoid crushing cars that they can otherwise profit from. It's a weird thing seeing the G37 on the same showroom as the Q50, but I suspect you won't see that. The old G's will be out in the back lot.

 

It'll probably have a couple uses~one would be to show someone that may be hedging on getting the Q that it's light-years ahead of the G w/ the tech. Or possibly someone that can't quite get the green light on a Q they could get into a G a bit easier. So far I'm happier keeping my G, especially since all the annoying rock chips are gone

 

Maybe the G's are not selling as well as they thought, resulting in a surplus. Rather than confuse the buyer with more choice, delay release of new product until some future date. Problem solved.

 

This actually seems somewhat logical since the G has already established brand awareness here in the US. Cadillac is also doing something similar with the new ATS as they now have the ATS, CTS and XTS offerings (Infiniti also has this model within their SUV lineup). Within Infiniti, this would allow them to enhance the M offering and make it compete more favorably with the Germans. Also, if people can start buying nicely equipped Gs in the sub 40kish range out the door (Trucar and Edmunds already will confirm this is happening today), who knows....this will definitely attract a much broader audience than the 45k sticker price they see today.

For us enthusiast that know the important mechanical underpinnings of the Q and G are essentially identical (Q is more gadget rich), it's utopia.

Where this could backfire is if the Q is introduced with a host of problems related to the increased use of electronic gadgetry (steer by wire scares me because BMW is struggling with this being problematic as well). This would hurt the brand. Right now, most buyers in this class realize Audi, BMW and Merc build the most technologically advanced platforms, but they are ok with the tradeoff Infiniti offers which includes much better reliability long term and performance that is comparable by majority standards. Tarnish that reliability image and Infiniti is trying to take the Germans on head to head....and unfortunately, I don't think they will win.

The "have your cake and eat it too" pseudo sleeper approach Infiniti uses appeals to the masses of displaced motorheads that have grown up and now need a reliable rig for work and family duties. They need to covet the brand they built and not try too hard to compete in a space dominated by the Germans for more decades than I have been alive.

 

Are you talking about the new model naming? Because Caddy is a good example. I hadn't thought of that before.

Are you talking about selling both models as current? Because I don't recall the Catera and the CTS sharing the same space.

 

What confuses me...maybe I'm being a bit dumb, is how the "G" is going to fit with the Infiniti "Q" branding?
Wasn't the purpose of name change to the "Q" be consistent throughout the line?

Can someone clear this up for me....

 

I think Catera died back in 2000. These were nothing more than re-badged Opel Omegas. The Saturn L series was almost identical and the parts interchangeable between the two.

I was referring to Cadillac taking the approach of introducing the ATS to their lineup as the entry level model, then boosting the content on the CTS so that it moved slightly up the scale just under their XTS. They essentially now have 3 RWD performance sedans available that range in price from the mid 30s to about 60k.

I think Infiniti may have decided to take the same approach per some of the earlier posts. From a marketing perspective, it made absolutely no sense to abandon the G, which is essentially the car that pulled them from the depths of bankruptcy back into profitability. It also shares decades of heritage with the Skyline, and heritage is really tough to establish within your brand.

I think the French/Renault side of the company drives alot of the branding/marketing (Japanese side drives engineering through Nissan) within Infiniti, which is most likely why alot of these decisions seem pretty half cocked and not well thought out.

I was happy to hear that they are back peddling a little.

I expect however that if they do take this approach, the G may be offered in more 'de-contented' versions, which may hurt the resale of existing models. I guess we will have to wait and see. The platform is solid and does not weigh that much for its size, so it may make sense for Infiniti to eventually generate a Turbo-4 that gets better mileage.

Maybe through the Renault side of the house....see example here

Infiniti is going to get killed by CAFE standards if they cannot improve the mileage on these cars.

 

^^^
2001 was the last year. Fine little car when new, not so much after a few years... IIRC. Horrible marketing approach in both byline and logo. Truly horrible. But that was the time when Caddy was trying to turn around and appeal to a younger, more performance-oriented market, and it was their first significant effort; (the low-volume, high cost Allante notwithstanding.)

Count me as one of the people who think abandoning the "G" nameplate is more damaging to the brand than whatever they hope to achieve with this new homogeneous model naming scheme. But I'm just a consumer, not a market analyst.

 

Per my last post, I think they too realized that they were sabotaging their own brand with the new naming scheme. I think they are back-peddling a bit now and rethinking. I would guess they had some focus group meetings after they announced the renaming and in-turn did not like the feedback received. For example, every analysts (you need these guys in your corner) I've seen starts out their review of the Q with a couple of WTF statements on the new naming convention. If you are going to completely re-brand your bread and butter product from the ground up, you best have your strategy well thought out.