Talk:Rebadging/Archives/2014

Images which don't belong
There seem to be multiple images of cars that are not mentioned in the text. They should be removed. There is also much unsourced content. Please fix this. The images problem would probably be the easiest place to start. If there is no properly sourced explanatory text for a model, then the addition of the image is OR. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Why no BL?
British Leyland were among the worst offenders. Badging an Austin Princess as a Wolseley. Or an Allegro as a Vanden Plas. Or a Mini as a Riley, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.145.31 (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The ADO71 was launched with Austin, Morris and Wolseley badge-engineered variants as the 18-22 series, then re-badged as a Princess without any marque name, and then after a facelift became the Austin Ambassador. It was never sold as the Austin Princess RGCorris (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe that their biggest such "offence" was by badging the same car (the ADO16) from October 1965 no less than six different ways: Austin 1100; MG 1100; Morris 1100; Riley Kestrel; Vanden Plas Princess 1100; Wolseley 1100. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, that was BMC as it took place before the merger with LMC. They had already done something similar with the small Farina saloons, although they only had five badge-engineered variants - Morris Oxford, Austin Cambridge, MG Magnette, Wolseley 15/60, Riley 4/68. RGCorris (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No, their biggest offence was putting an MG badge on a metro and claiming it was the heritage of the MG sportscar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.93.229 (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * People often forget that MG didn't just make sports cars, even in the days of Cecil Kimber. The earliest MGs were essentially souped-up Morrises; only later did they produce their own designs - which included saloon/touring cars. Consider the various Magna and Magnette models; or the SA, VA, WA, YA and YB. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the so-called Morris Mini was the most notorious - it was engineered at the Austin Design Office - its former chief competitor before both firms were amalgamated. BL didn't want to lose either marque name, or specify one as the slightly higher marque by making extensive improvements to the vehicle.

But historically, the most well-known badge engineering was the Bentley under the ownership of Rolls-Royce. The grille and its sheet-metal fitments were the sole differences between the two during the 1950's and 1960's. 4.154.249.49 (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Weird inclusion of Ruf
Under the section "Luxury Vehicles", there is mention of Ruf, the well-known German modifier of Porsche cars. But it even says in the text that what they do isn't really "badge engineering". And if it were, were are the rest of the German "House Brand Tuners" -- AC Schnitzer, Alpina, AMG, Buchmann, Gemballa, Irmscher, Oettinger, Strosek...? They all to some degree try (or tried) to claim to be "manufacturers", putting their own label on cars built by others, to at least the same extent as Ruf.

And, like Ruf, they modify (or modified) the actual car enough to at least arguably justify the switch of label. So either they belong here too, or -- which is IMO the case -- Ruf doesn't either.--CRConrad (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. Makes me think about Shelby Mustangs, too. Custom tuning is not what the term rebadging means in wide consensus. Rebadging is calling a Ford Taurus a Mercury Sable and pretending it's "different". I may go delete the area you mentioned. — ¾-10 00:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed the paragraph for now. It was a nicely written paragraph, and I don't have a problem with it per se, but if it is restored to the article, it needs to be introduced with some kind of sentence transition such as "Somewhat like rebadging but not exactly is ...." Regards, — ¾-10 01:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggest re-naming this article "Rebadging"
Badge engineering is just a corporate euphemism for rebadging and should have no more credibility given to it than a re-direct. The badge is the only real change and there is no real engineering involved in the process. Today this process is just a way of persuading people to pay a higher price for a vehicle, as illustrated by the prices paid in the US and Australia for "Chevrolets" and Holdens" which are sold cheaply as Daewoos throughout musch of the world. We should not be supporting this nonsense by agreeing to their advertising terminology. &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: I don't have a problem with either title as the page name, but I think I like "rebadging" more because it is neutral in tone. People often say it without any particular connotation attached, just denotation. "Badge engineering" is essentially a wisecrack. It's not advertising terminology, it's actually just an injoke among gearheads. Having it as this page title is sort of like having the article on waste collectors residing at pagename sanitation engineer. There's a reason why the latter redirects to the former and not the other way around. — ¾-10 16:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅, per 2 supports above, no oppose, and WP:BOLD. — ¾-10 21:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)