[HN Gopher] Auto manufacturer family tree: Who owns what?
___________________________________________________________________
Auto manufacturer family tree: Who owns what?
Author : batirch
Score : 226 points
Date : 2022-07-06 08:44 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.whichcar.com.au)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.whichcar.com.au)
| Markoff wrote:
| 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.
| PinguTS wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| Vespasian wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| sofixa wrote:
| It's registered in the Netherlands for tax and regulatory
| purposes.
| LtWorf wrote:
| 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).
| franch wrote:
| 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... )
| [deleted]
| gpderetta wrote:
| I think Netherlands is just a convenient place for European
| multinationals to incorporate. ST Micro, another Italo-French
| company is incorporated there for example.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I always thought ST Micro was based in Geneva.
| gpderetta wrote:
| from Wikipedia: While
| STMicroelectronics corporate headquarters and the
| headquarters for EMEA region are based in the Canton of
| Geneva, the holding company, STMicroelectronics N.V. is
| incorporated in the Netherlands.
| fredsmith219 wrote:
| 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.
| smohnot wrote:
| Written from a Australian perspective & is missing some US
| marques, like that Honda owns Acura and Ford owns Lincoln
| edaemon wrote:
| It's also missing the newer manufacturers like Rivian, Lucid,
| Nio, and Xpeng, though their absence is somewhat
| understandable.
| ZWoz wrote:
| I found Skoda description lacking. Being one of few historic
| Czech car manufacturers is mention worthy.
| helij wrote:
| Also, one of the oldest car manufacturers in the world.
| arethuza wrote:
| And a maker of great value practical cars - my last 3 cars
| (and my wife's last 2 cars) have all been Skodas.
|
| However, I was disappointed that they stopped making the
| Yeti.
| SomeHacker44 wrote:
| Acura is mentioned in the accompanying text.
| smohnot wrote:
| yeah, I mean it isn't shown on a slide... if Lexus & Genesis
| are shown, Acura & Lincoln probably should be too
| kmlx wrote:
| 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...
| CSMastermind wrote:
| 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.
| linksnapzz wrote:
| 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.
| MisterTea wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The list seems to be Australia-centric. In the US Ford still
| owns the Lincoln brand as well.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| 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.)
| DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote:
| 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.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| 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.
| tmh88j wrote:
| >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-...
| neogodless wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| belval wrote:
| 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.
| stevenjgarner wrote:
| "~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...
| sircastor wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| pr0zac wrote:
| 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.
| belval wrote:
| 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!
| pr0zac wrote:
| I already don't buy Arc'teryx cause their stuff is way over
| priced but good to have yet another reason not to do so!
| s0rce wrote:
| I liked their stuff more when it was made in Canada. Some
| of it is still pretty good and if you get on
| sale/clearance/used its not that bad. I've had some
| jackets for 10 years.
| [deleted]
| Green_man wrote:
| 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).
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| Luxottica merged with Essilor in 2018. It's now a French-
| Italian company.
|
| They own: Ray-Ban, Oakley, Michael Kors, Varilux, Crizal,
| Transitions, LensCrafters, Clearly, EyeBuyDirect,
| FramesDirect.com, OPSM, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical,
| Sunglass Hut, Target Optical, Vision Direct, Vision Source,
| et al. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EssilorLuxottica
| jacquesm wrote:
| Hm, that looks like a good case for an anti-trust action.
| sseagull wrote:
| The more interesting/disgusting part is that they own
| EyeMed, so for many people they also get your insurance
| premium, and then also what you pay for glasses or
| whatever.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica#Medical_managed_c
| are
| samatman wrote:
| I personally view vertical integration much more
| favorably than the Borg-like horizontal consolidation
| Luxottica exhibits.
|
| Consider that CostCo does the same thing and members are
| generally happy about it.
| sokoloff wrote:
| The eyewear conglomerate is Luxottica (Italian, not French).
| keiferski wrote:
| They merged with Essilor, a French company, in 2018.
| Technically they are a Franco-Italian company.
| cju wrote:
| EssilorLuxottica (merger in 2018) is a French company with an
| headquarter in Paris and the stock part of the French index
| CAC40.
| NickRandom wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| willhinsa wrote:
| "What do you call your act?"
|
| "Brooks Brothers!"
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| And same for semiconductors. Everything seems to have been
| consolidating like mad.
| oboes wrote:
| The French newspaper "Le Monde diplomatique" made a very
| interesting family tree for media ownership in France:
| https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cartes/PPA
| [deleted]
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| Published on Github too
| https://github.com/mdiplo/Medias_francais
| skywal_l wrote:
| 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.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| 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"
| matsemann wrote:
| Impractical? Isn't it already being done?
|
| At least here in Norway, I can look up an organization and
| see all owners of that company last year. And press a
| button and it calculates the "true"/indirect owners up the
| chain as well.
|
| I can also go the other way. Select a person, and see what
| they own through multiple layers of companies.
| muxator wrote:
| Interesting.
|
| Is this a public service? Could you please give an url to
| know more about it? Thanks
| matsemann wrote:
| All companies have to provide a list of owners each year
| to our tax agency Skatteetaten ("IRS"). The data isn't
| exactly publicly available AFAIK, but anyone can ask for
| access.
|
| This is a company doing extra stuff with the data, and
| providing some of it directly online. Here's a lookup of
| the company I work for:
| https://proff.no/aksjon%C3%A6rer/bedrift/oda-group-
| holding-a...
|
| It lists owners, but as you can see it's mostly "Holding
| Companies". However, pressing "Indirekte eierskap og
| eiere" ("Indirect ownerships") one can see the true
| companies or persons behind those.
| muxator wrote:
| Very insightful, thank you!
| dpedu wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| sgt wrote:
| Even though Volkswagen (VW) owns cars like Porsche and others, it
| should be mentioned that Porsche SE controls and owns majority in
| VW.
| sxcurry wrote:
| 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.
| arethuza wrote:
| 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.
| sgt wrote:
| Correct, but they do pull the strings (the Porsche family).
| iancmceachern wrote:
| This misses the stake Toyota has in Subaru
| gennarro wrote:
| 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/
| option wrote:
| Before buying any Volvo or Polestar consider that those are owned
| by China.
| 3D30497420 wrote:
| Page seems down? Here's the Google Cache:
| https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BWE--R...
| sorenjan wrote:
| 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.
| legitster wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| adolph wrote:
| 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/
| mc32 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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).
| sharikous wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Exor (the Agnelli's) owns 14.35% of Stellantis and 22.91% of
| Ferrari.
| lizardactivist wrote:
| It's too bad that Saab is gone.
| ComputerCat wrote:
| Very cool, thanks for sharing
| csours wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| SomeHacker44 wrote:
| Tesla is mistakenly listed as having been founded by Elon Musk.
| (See e.g. Wikipedia for accurate information.)
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| He's LEGALLY a founder (as per the lawsuit)... but I get your
| meaning.
| dehrmann wrote:
| 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.
| sircastor wrote:
| This is absurd, and as bad as him being listed as the "Chief
| Engineer" at SpaceX
| dehrmann wrote:
| They're different. Rewriting history to say you're a
| founder is delusional. Giving yourself the title of "chief
| engineer" is akin to being the mascot of the company.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I see something like Chief Engineer no different from
| Executive Producer on movie or tv show...
| kergonath wrote:
| He can call himself however he wants (he's also completely
| unqualified to be called an engineer), but money cannot buy
| facts.
| asciiresort wrote:
| > he's also completely unqualified to be called an engineer
|
| What qualifies someone as an engineer? Math? What kind of
| math?
|
| Building stuff? What kind of stuff?
|
| Writing code? What languages count and what languages
| don't? Does CSS count?
|
| Or are you talking about some kind of academic
| certification or standardized exam?
|
| It seems like you are basing someone's engineering prowess
| based on their personal, social, political antics.
| [deleted]
| stewx wrote:
| Wow, somehow I was unaware that Hyundai now owns the majority of
| Kia.
| lightsandaounds wrote:
| They don't the majority. Hyundai owns 1/3 of Kia and Kia
| actually is a partial owner in several Hyundai subsidiaries.
| stewx wrote:
| I stand corrected: they owned 51% back in 1998 but more like
| a third now.
| [deleted]
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| Ah yes.. Chaebol's
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol
| kube-system wrote:
| You ever notice how similar their models are? Nearly all of
| their line ups are clones with different trim.
| skhr0680 wrote:
| It's not mentioned in the article, but Toyota owns 20% of Subaru
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| 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...
| mulmen wrote:
| Why would that be a sign of a bubble and not simply an
| overvalued stock?
| jansan wrote:
| 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.
| xnx wrote:
| This is great. If I was more motivated, I'd look up some sales
| data and make a treemap to represent the relative size of these
| brands.
| neogodless wrote:
| I've seen something like this in Car & Driver print magazine,
| circa September 2017 or so.
|
| (Memory could be off on time and which publication..)
| voiper1 wrote:
| Related ... 10 companies control the food industry:
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/10-companies-control-the-foo...
|
| https://archive.is/7eOPd
| amelius wrote:
| Related ... the top 1% of people control 90% of wealth
| crikeyjoe wrote:
| amelius wrote:
| I don't need much. I just hate it if others use their
| wealth against me.
| sophacles wrote:
| Shhh. the most important part of capitalism is
| disingenuously pretending money and power aren't the same
| thing.
| crikeyjoe wrote:
| You'd love cuba
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| Related...six companies that control the media:
|
| https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own...
| whalesalad wrote:
| Stellantis is a monster.
| Vespasian wrote:
| Stellantis and VW were pretty much tied in 2021.
| gsnedders wrote:
| https://www.factorywarrantylist.com/car-sales-by-
| manufacture... places Stellantis with 30% lower production
| than VW in 2021.
|
| 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).
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Stellantis is where all the brands with slipping or already
| low quality go, so having a lot of different brands at
| various price points is their thing.
| sofixa wrote:
| That's unfair. Maybe that was somewhat true to an extent
| for the American part of FCA, but isn't for PSA and Opel.
| The latter were in not great shape under GM for decades,
| but were turned around by PSA in a few years. Peugeot,
| Citroen, DS, Opel have good reputation.
| jmrm wrote:
| I don't know in the last 5 years, but Opel had a lot of
| different faults due to cost cutting measures, and
| depending of the model and the year of the different
| Peugeot and Citroen, it has or not lot of problems.
|
| One one hand, we have the examples of those models that
| had the infamous FAP HDi 110 hp engine that gives a lot
| of problems, and Citroen's "Hydractive" (hydropneumatic)
| suspension was discarded due to the many problems they
| gave. We had a 1st gen Citroen C5, that had those two,
| and it needed to visit the garage every every 2 year to
| have some pretty costly repairs. Also, some of their
| newer cars with AdBlue have factory design problems in
| this system, and repairing that module is knowing that is
| gonna be relatively expensive and it's gone to fail in
| the future.
|
| On the other hand, we had models like the Xsara, the 206,
| the 406, the C15, the Partner/Berlingo combo, and many
| others that were very reliable cars that rarely had
| problems.
| kergonath wrote:
| Peugeot seem to be doing ok in terms of quality in the
| last decade. It seems to me that they do a lot of
| horizontal segmentation, having the same cars sold under
| different brands in different markets.
| whalesalad wrote:
| They've given all the brands a budget and a time box to
| turn things around. Those that do will be retained, the
| others will go. My wife was a chemist there for a few
| years, since before it became Stellantis.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Nit: it's marques (brand of car), not marquees (cinema
| entrance).
| franch wrote:
| They keep all the marquees because they sell better in the
| various European national markets, but many models are now
| the same platform with some small aesthetic changes. For
| example the new electric citroen berlingo / fiat doblo /
| opel combo are the same car:
|
| https://www.citroen.it/modelli/berlingo/elettrico.html
|
| https://www.fiat.it/e-doblo/e-doblo
|
| https://www.opel.it/veicoli/gamma-combo/combo-e-
| life/panoram...
| franch wrote:
| 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.
| saisundar wrote:
| 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.
| netfl0 wrote:
| I did not know TATA owns Land Rover and Jaguar!
| PinguTS wrote:
| 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.
| gpderetta wrote:
| That's after it bought DeLorean for their time machine
| business I assume.
|
| edit: "after it will have brought" I guess
| PinguTS wrote:
| Sorry, wrong key pressed. Thanks. Fixed it.
| gpderetta wrote:
| Nooo now my comment is not funny anymore :)
| neogodless wrote:
| If your forum has a working "edit" button, you can revise
| history in your favor...
| sircastor wrote:
| 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.
| mabbo wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-06 23:01 UTC)