|
|
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 15654
Location: SoCal | Originally posted by ProfessorBB:
I always thought the problem for the RX7 was that gearheads never really embraced the rotary engine design. Like Tucker, it may have been ahead of its time. We're going off topic here a bit, but the problem the rotary had/has was/is the development of the 4 valve per cylinder 4 cylinder engine. It made more power, got better gas, and lasted longer than 150,000 miles. Oh, and not a lot of low end torque. Mazda has worked hard to make the rotary overcome these issues. But the gas mileage of the current Rx-8 is still low. But people loved the Rx-7 so much that Mazda is planning on coming out with a new Rx-7 in the next 1-2 years.
Those who love rotaries, REALLY LOVE ROTARIES! |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2005
Posts: 12750
Location: Boise, Idaho | To wrap this back around, somewhat--the difference between the Rx7 and the cheap guitar is that the Rx7 wasn't competing with other Mazda brands. It kicked ass with the 280Z and 924s at a much lower price. They sold 50,000 of them in 1979, which made them at least twice as popular as the 924 and probably hurt 924 sales.
Perhaps a better analogy would be the 924 itself, a "cheap" Porsche that was an attempt to capture the low end market with a front engine. The Audi engine to a Porschephile was like sending a Balladeer over to be assembled in Korea. Some purists will always object. Some cheaper models may cut into sales at the upper end or hurt the brand image, but marketers try to give the impressions of a difference in quality commensurate with the price point. What might hurt Ovation more is if there are cheaper guitars that outperform the Celebrities and end up taking sales away from the whole line--like Mazda did to Porsche. I don't think that is going to happen to Ovation, because the real competition isn't likely to switch to the Ovation shape or style. Most of those imitators are fly by night or have trademark issues. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2006
Posts: 10777
Location: Keepin' It Weird in Portland, OR | Whenever this issue comes-up I always see it leaning towards the 'Stockholders Meeting' model...
How Ovation could better market it's guitars. [I, for one, Want Ovations to remain Affordable!]
Somehow, I thought Charlie thought that he had a better concept for a better guitar.
"Wouldn't the sound project better if the body of the guitar had a more parabolic shape?"
I know Americans love a winner, and you keep score with stock prices.
(which I think sux but we won't go there)
I don't know that he thought that he would put Martin outta business.
I've seen photos of hundreds of 'famous' people at least playing an O or A.
The more affluent members here have many different brands of guitars... Different tools.
I had a coupla cheaper Taks, but I sent them on...
That does not mean that all Taks suck.
My buddy Loves his old Gibson Acoustic. The fact that my 1121 sounded better did not change that.
All this is relative, up to peoples perceptions and tastes. Earlier on this site, someone said that they hoped that contour bowls would never end-up on the lower priced models. That is snobbery.
If it is a good design, why not make it available to the poor people.
This is like people who disliked my old Yamaha cuz it wasn't a Harley.
Yeah, Maybe there should be a more clearly delineated line between the imports and the USO's...
But if one costs $299 and the other costs $899 you could assume there is a difference. (besides the case)
[You shouldn't be buying guitars online unless you have tried one out in person, anyway.] |
|
| |
Should O even make cheap guitars?
