Hyundai Forums banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Caution: This thread I made contains words that are deeply identified as part of British English (e.g. saloon (sedan in the U.S., Canada, and Australia), bonnet (hood), boot (trunk), estate (station wagon), tyre(s), etc.)

Despite the trade dispute (or trade war) between Japan and Korea still ongoing, it could be neither impossible, nor possible to have Japan's deeply but almost endangered Suzuki and Mazda car companies (FYI: Suzuki also makes motorbikes (aka motorcycles) hence being the fourth-largest in terms of producing cars within Japan) to form some unlikely-looking alliance with the Hyundai Motor Group (Hyundai, Kia, Genesis Motors, etc.) in order for the two aforementioned Japanese marques to refuel their sales, and even strategies in every corners (finance, domestic (Japan), and overseas markets).

But that idea could export Suzuki and Mazda's cars to Seoul (via HMG for licencing, despite the ongoing uncertainty regarding the Japan-Korea trade war), while at the same time neither Suzuki, nor Mazda could import and thus sell some of Hyundai, Kia, and Genesis' vehicles into Japanese soil via Suzuki or Mazda-associated dealerships (similar to Mazda in the past that they sold Peugeot's vehicles within its shops), perhaps in my mind it could be inside Suzuki's shops so that Suzuki too could recharge its lineup (so do money (won to yen again), despite SMC's stakes being purchased and thus being held by.Toyota)

But also two of them were formerly parts of two deeply mediocre American car companies, such as General Motors (GM, for Suzuki) and Ford (for Mazda). But with that hypothetical arrangement, Suzuki and Mazda's fantasy of forming such partnership (deal or joint venture/JV) with HMG could have the said two (Suzuki and Mazda) to swallow and even utilise its blueprints (hence its manufacturing capabilities, so do HMG's strategies regarding marketing, engineering, etc.) that could result to a change within the cars of Suzuki (SMC) and Mazda (MMC), such as the mechanical parts (primarily non-ICEs, but also styling cues and chassis) used in HMG's cars from the time Hyundai Motor Company purchased Kia to the present day, meaning that Suzuki for example could rebadge some of Hyundai's vehicles that were not sold in Japan and also various countries in Europe like France, Germany, Italy, Benelux, etc. (e.g. the Elantra and Sonata saloons, the Starex (aka Hyundai i800), etc.), as examined by images below (edited by me, notice references from Suzuki and Mazda's logos/badges).

442635


442636

We call this project as the Suzundai Mazkia

And never forget that Mazda in the past utilised names used by Hyundai and Kia (e.g. Porter, Bongo, and Proceed). - Genda Nicolai Iwakawa (to be continued, lads?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Suzuki and Mazda are currently protectorates under the Toyota group.

IMHO, Hyundai and Kia should go it alone. However, if the FCA-Peugeot merger goes through and they have to shed brands, I hope Hyundai picks up Alfa Romeo and merges the G70 and Giulia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Suzuki and Mazda are currently protectorates under the Toyota group.
Foreigner here:

I guess but despite that I made this thread two years ago, perhaps in the first place, Suzuki in particular would have not exist if only one whose named N-I-S-S-A-N kept itself alive and kicking...

For sure in an alternately and historically hypothetical scenario, that would have been useful for Nissan (in particular - circa ages ago like 1960s, 1970s, or whatever) to take over, kill off and reorganise Suzuki - as well as Mitsubishi Motors - into the former's orbit.

But if Nissan (Datsun) would perform that kind of alternately and hypothetically historical acquisittion, then with Mitsubishi Motors (which used to supply tech to Hyundai cars) already digested itself into Nissan's umbrella, meant the latter would take Mitsubishi's place as technological supplier to Hyundai - which is deeply evidenced through their cars' exteriors for looking similar (as seen below).

456775

Hyundai Pony, HMC's first car
456776

Nissan Pulsar, N10, aka Datsun Cherry and [Datsun] Pulsar in the Australian and New Zealand markets

Mazda meanwhile, also merged with Nissan and thus became a luxury division of the latter, whereas at the same time Nissan hypothetically and historically benefited itself from Mitsubishi's technologies - this would have prevented Ford and Chrysler from being great (as both of them made bland-looking cars the same time they ridiculously rebadged Mazdas and Mitsubishis).

But also, Nissan too had taken over Ford in turn to benefit half of the former's cars from the underpinnings of the latter's cars, hence the [Ford] Cortina's chassis and its [Ford's] V6 engine became useful for Nissan to build its priZed sports car for example - with the partnership of Kawasaki instead of Yamaha.

Anyway in addition to those things, perhaps the only reason why Nissan (and neither Toyota nor Hyundai) should have made use of itself to acquire Mazda and Suzuki (plus Isuzu and Mitsubishi) from their masters, Ford and GM (plus Chrysler for Mitsubishi), circa 1980s, 1990s or 2000s was because the GT-R manufacturer later realised they neither have much sales presence in South, Southeast Asia and Oceania (mainly Australia and NZ) as when the likes of Toyota dwarfened its [Nissan's] potentials - which is also considered to be deeply evident that (in reality) both Mazda, Hyundai-Kia, and Mitsubishi (plus Toyota) dominate the Aussie and Kiwi markets, whereas the South Asian (mainly India) market is conquered by Suzuki thus the Hyundai Motor Company, and as well as Southeast Asia with the courtesy of Isuzu, Mitsubishi, and Suzuki (plus Toyota) too.

IMHO, Hyundai and Kia should go it alone. However, if the FCA-Peugeot merger goes through and they have to shed brands, I hope Hyundai picks up Alfa Romeo and merges the G70 and Giulia.
Mate, give me a break, a Hyundai Motor Group product with Alfa Romeo references being smacked on? Anyway, this kind of idea was also similar to Alfa at the time when they were not taken over by Fiat, which meant that the former [Alfa Romeo] forged a partnership with Nissan (in 1980) and ridiculously ordered one of the latter's cars just to be souped up with technologies and looks coming from Alfa - the outcome of this was AR introduced the Arna in 1983 and the result was it had possessed the combination of European engineering and Asian styling (the opposite to what Hyundai-Kia currently have for its cars; European styling and Asian engineering).

By the way, with Fiat-Chrysler and Peugeot now already merged with each other, and while Alfa would have no opportunity to break away from Stellantis, perhaps the only kind of remedy that the latter [Stellantis] would perform just to protect itself from being catched up by the Chinese brands is to merge [Stellantis] with TOYOTA instead of Hyundai - financially and technologically (which means expecting Toyota to take over Stellantis would rather be like Ford when they estabilished the so-called Premier Automotive Group alongside Lincoln, Aston Martin, Volvo, Jaguar, and Land Rover, from 1999 to 2008).

Whereas in conjunction to that, the Hyundai Motor Group (HMG) would rather monitor what Nissan is doing with Renault, and when bad luck happens (as you deeply know Nissan always gets poorly performing tech like CVTs), therefore Nissan too would break away from Renault's umbrella and [let Nissan] merge thus share tech with Hyundai-Kia as a result - for sure the more Nissan would benefit itself from Hyundai's penny bank and mechanicals would also be the more the former would rather forge a deal with Ford just to gain [Nissan] benefit from the latter's underpinnings in order to make its [Nissan's] cars look beautiful...

And moreover, mate, could you please check this thread I made recently here on this website? - Hyundai Forums - for sure, this might be my third time to be active here...
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top