Which companies have the most cars in the game? Find out here.

[CWR63]

When discussing US Fords in another thread, posters would occasionally state that there were too many Fords in the game already - which felt sorta true, so I would guiltily agree that it may be the case. Then I thought, 'wait, Ford's been around for 109 years and has produced many different vehicles, even different types of vehicles (Ford Tri-motor, Ford big rig trucks) while many Asian and some European makes have only been around for half that time. Plus, a Ford is a Ford the whole world round; Australian, European and UK Fords all fall under the same store in the game, unlike GM which sells under Holden, Opel and Vauxhall in those same regions - of course it looks like there are too many Fords!'

So I went through the store today and counted - I have all of the DLCs so this count is accurate until the next DLC in April. The count for Ford would have been twice as much 5 years ago, but they sold Aston Martin (15 cars in game) in 2007, Jaguar (6) and Land Rover (1) in 2008, divested a majority share of Mazda (17) in 2009 and sold Volvo (4) in 2010: the 43 cars that added to their current total would have put them in third place, currently Ford is a distant fourth. Independant companies with 5 or less cars in the game are not included; starting from the bottom:

Tata: Jaguar (6) + Land Rover (1) = 7

Subaru = 8 Everybody seems to own a bit of Subaru (maybe even I do, I just don't know it) so I'm listing them as independent for simplicity.

Hyundai = (7) + Kia (2) = 9

Lotus = 10

Mitsubishi = 11

Peugeot (9) + Citroen (3) = 12

Aston Martin = 15

Mercedes Benz = 16 (before selling Chrysler in 2007 this number would be 46, pushing Ford to fifth place)

Mazda = 17

Honda (20) + Acura (10) = 30 -3 Acura duplicates = 27

Toyota (17) + Lexus (10) + Scion (2) = 29 -1 Lexus duplicate = 28

BMW (28) + Mini (3) = 31

Renault (6) + Nissan (28) + Infiniti (2) = 36 -2 Nissan duplicates = 34

Ford (36) + Mercury (1) + Shelby (2) + Saleen (3) = 42 (of the Fords, 28 are US region, 2 could be either US or Europe depending how exact you want to be: only the 5-door Fiesta is sold in the States, the 3-door in the game is Europe only, and the GT40 MK II was developed in conjunction with Lola, the UK company. 6 cars are Australian, 8 are Ford of Europe/UK, if the Fiesta 3-door & GT40 MK II are included). That's 42 -4 Ford of Australia duplicates = 38 Fords total, including 2 Australian with other region totals unchanged.

GM: Chevrolet (32) + Pontiac (12) + Holden (7) + Vauxhall (6) + Cadillac (4) + Buick, Opel, GMC and Saturn (2 each = 8) + Oldsmobile and Hummer (1 each = 2) = 71 -4 Holden & 2 Chevrolet duplicates = 65

Fiat (2) + Abarth (2) + Ferrari (33) + Alfa Romeo (9) + Lancia (3) + Maserati (6) + Chrysler (3) + Dodge (22) + Plymouth (3) + Eagle, AMC & Jeep (1 each = 3) = 86 -1 Ferrari & 1 Dodge duplicate = 84

VW (16) + Audi (31) + Lamborghini (12) + SEAT (5) + Bentley (4) + Bugatti & RUF (2 each + 4) = 72 - Add 30 Porsches come March 22 and the total is 102 -4 Audi duplicates = 98 -2 RUF (as RUF is not technically owned by VW) = 96

Until the May 22 release of the Porsche expansion pack, Fiat leads with 84 vehicles in the game to VW Group's 66. Ferrari currently leads the individual marques having 32 vehicles, with Chevrolet a solid second with 30, and Ford of North America either tied at second or a close third, depending on how content is determined.

That's the objective data. As to whether a particular company has more or less than their fair share of cars in the game, that's subjective.

 

[Fezz_ST]

Nevermind my post, just woken up

 

[artboy76]

Nice post and the car industry interests me almost as much as watching cars race.
From the multi platform cars and from the cars made from the 'parts bins' in factories (FIAT are experts in this field.....) and to just how badly wrong the UK car industry got it in the end.....
And the horror stories within like BMW buying MG Rover for key elements of the business (Mini, FWD development to name a few) then running the rest into the ground losing thousands of jobs in the UK..
Fascinating stuff and your post is a great read as theres things i didnt know like JEEP being owned by FIAT etc...

To think this all started from Henry Ford saying:

"Any customer can have a car painted any colour he wants so long as it is black."

Lovely stuff.

 

[sega freak]

RUF Automobile GmbH is not from the Volkswagen Group.

 

[Scaff]

And the horror stories within like BMW buying MG Rover for key elements of the business (Mini, FWD development to name a few) then running the rest into the ground losing thousands of jobs in the UK..

Not even remotely close to what happened.

http://www.thinkingmanagers.com/management/takeovers.php

Want to point at who killed Rover, then look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Venture_Holdings


Scaff

 

[Luminis]

While the data might be objective, I don't quite get what it's supposed to achieve.

Sure, if you're buying a Porsche, a VW, or a Lamborghini, the money will go to the same company, the VW AG. I fail to see how that is of any importance for the game whatsoever, though; a Porsche is unique in terms of design, performance and driving feel, as is a Lamborghini, as is a VW. If you were to achieve some sort of parity between all of the companies, we wouldn't ever be able to get all of the semi-important Porsche, VWs, Lamborghinis and Bugattis (Veyron, for example) into the game, while other companies, such as Toyota, with its subsidiaries Lexus and Scion, would be flooding the game with cars.

So, as long as a Lamborghini Aventador isn't the same as a Porsche GT2RS and a Volkswagen Scirocco, and as long as a Nissan BNR34 Skyline GT-R isn't the same as a Renault Clio Sport V6, lumping them together isn't going to show you anything.

Ford is a distant fourth.

Why, oh why am I getting the feeling that this is the prime reason for creating this thread?

RUF Automobile GmbH is not from the Volkswagen Group.

Precisely, they're entirely independant.

 

[artboy76]

Not even remotely close to what happened.

http://www.thinkingmanagers.com/management/takeovers.php

Want to point at who killed Rover, then look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Venture_Holdings


Scaff

I know that Scaff but BWM played their part too, they did after all pillage the company then sell to Phoenix group for £10......
They purchased MG Rover to explore their own research into front-wheel-drive chassis design, for eventually....the Mini......hence why the Rover 75 was both RWD and FWD and eventually the chassis would become the Mini's.....

Lets not get to precious on how the motor industry is ethically...... even by major industries low standards, its got some dark dark areas.....

 

[artboy76]

While the data might be objective, I don't quite get what it's supposed to achieve.

Sure, if you're buying a Porsche, a VW, or a Lamborghini, the money will go to the same company, the VW AG. I fail to see how that is of any importance for the game whatsoever, though; a Porsche is unique in terms of design, performance and driving feel, as is a Lamborghini, as is a VW. If you were to achieve some sort of parity between all of the companies, we wouldn't ever be able to get all of the semi-important Porsche, VWs, Lamborghinis and Bugattis (Veyron, for example) into the game, while other companies, such as Toyota, with its subsidiaries Lexus and Scion, would be flooding the game with cars.

So, as long as a Lamborghini Aventador isn't the same as a Porsche GT2RS and a Volkswagen Scirocco, and as long as a Nissan BNR34 Skyline GT-R isn't the same as a Renault Clio Sport V6, lumping them together isn't going to show you anything.


Why, oh why am I getting the feeling that this is the prime reason for creating this thread?


Precisely, they're entirely independant.

Its interesting, not everything has to be a conspiracy.

Personally Lambos lost their soul when VAG took over, but then i suppose they wouldn't be where they are now in today's world were it not for VAG....
Its good to know who owns what regardless of its relivence to Forza 4.

 

[Scaff]

I know that Scaff but BWM played their part too, they did after all pillage the company then sell to Phoenix group for £10......
They purchased MG Rover to explore their own research into front-wheel-drive chassis design, for eventually....the Mini......hence why the Rover 75 was both RWD and FWD and eventually the chassis would become the Mini's.....

I know a lot of people who have (and continue to) work at both the Swindon and Oxford plants and as such have a fairly intimate knowledge of the events and results.

A few errors with your above post, first the RWD 75 came out over a year after BMW had sold Rover, as such BMW did not take advantage of it at all (nor did they instigate it), its was one of many failed vanity products from the Phoenix group. Nor did the MINI chassis come from a 75, so of the suspension work (at the rear is related), and its interesting to note some of BMW's own work on FWD design was used on the 75

At the time of the launch there had been speculation within the media that the Rover 75 used the BMW 5-Series platform, perhaps due to the overall size of the model, the apparent presence of a transmission tunnel and the use of the parent company's rear suspension system. This was in fact not the case; Rover engineers had used the concept of incorporating a central tunnel which had been explored by BMW as part of their own research into front-wheel-drive chassis design. As the 75 took shape, this core engineering was passed over to Rover and evolved into the Rover 75 structure[citation needed]. The tunnel concept, along with the rear suspension system, was also used by the Rover engineers for the design of the MINI.

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_75

Now that's not to say that BMW did not take advantage of Rover's history with FWD, but as a company Rover have never been know as front runners in FWD chassis design, and certainly not in the time they were owned by BMW.

Lets not get to precious on how the motor industry is ethically...... even by major industries low standards, its got some dark dark areas.....

I'm more that aware of the dark areas of the industry, I've worked in it for long enough, however I'm also aware of the detail and not just the press noise around it.

You accused BMW of asset stripping Rover and that is nonsense, you don't invest billions in a company you want to strip. The merger failed for many reasons, and both sides were at fault, however an asset strip it was not.

When BMW sold it to the Phoenix group they did so for a nominal price (£10 for the company and £20 for an engine plant), BMW were also responsibly for redundancy payments for the first three years and paid "dowry" in the form of a £427million interest-free loan and stocks of cars.

Yes both parties in the Rover BMW merger were at fault, but BMW didn't leave Rover high and dry when they sold them, far from it. However BMW were a much better target for UK tabloids when Phoenix drove Rover into the ground less than fours year later (and if I recall BMW didn't get a penny of the loan back).


Scaff

 

[Luminis]

Its interesting, not everything has to be a conspiracy.

Personally Lambos lost their soul when VAG took over, but then i suppose they wouldn't be where they are now in today's world were it not for VAG....
Its good to know who owns what regardless of its relivence to Forza 4.

Haha, being a bit paranoid about hidden agendas comes courtesy of my job, I guess

If we're moving away from FM4, though, I find these two charts to be rather nice (if a bit outdated):

 

[VXR]

Some of the Phoenix Group's ideas such as Le Mans and the SV was sheer recklessness in hindsight. Rumour has it they turned down FIAT's offer of the Stilo platform as a 25 replacement. If so, they deserved to fail. Whilst it might not have been a class leading platform, it was at least newer than the one they had.

 

[artboy76]

Rover 75 had BMW components. Scaff your just quoting off the same wiki pages as i'm using. To suggest BMW didnt have any part in Rovers downfall is fool hardy.

 

[Scaff]

Rover 75 had BMW components. Scaff your just quoting off the same wiki pages as i'm using. To suggest BMW didnt have any part in Rovers downfall is fool hardy.

Many of which were developed by BMW independently of Rover in the case of the 75.

I've also not stated at all that BMW had no part in Rovers downfall, quite the opposite, hence the reason I said:

The merger failed for many reasons, and both sides were at fault, however an asset strip it was not.

However it certainly wasn't the asset stripping exercise you suggested, nor were BMW (or Rovers old management structure) the reason Rover failed. mismanagement by Phoenix however was a major factor.

Phoenix were left with a company that would be tricky but not impossible to turn around and just about every move the made resulted in that turn around being further away. To be blunt if BMW had left Rover with Mini and Land Rover (under Phoenix control) I strongly fear we would not longer have those two brands either.


Scaff

 

[Wolfe]

Here's your top ten with their ranks on Wikipedia's "Top vehicle manufacturing groups by volume."

1. VAG (#3)
2. Fiat/Chrysler (#11 and #13)
3. GM (#2)
4. Ford (#5)
5. Nissan/Renault (#6 and #10)
6. BMW (#14)
7. Toyota (#1)
8. Honda (#7)
9. Mazda (#15)
10. Mercedes-Benz (Daimler AG is #12)

Obviously we're driving more enthusiasts' cars than volume sellers, so brands like BMW and Mazda get bumped up. Fiat/Chrysler has all those Ferraris, as well as the Chargers, Challengers, Vipers and other Dodges. Meanwhile Toyota and Hyundai (#4) rank low, Hyundai especially. Peugeot/Citroën and Suzuki are #8 and #9 on the Wiki list.

It's interesting to see how the "enthusiast" focus shifts things around.

 

[Luminis]

Welll...

Best-selling models: Best-selling vehicle nameplate -

• Toyota Corolla (more than 32,000,000 sold in nine generations since 1966) - Ford F-Series(33,900,000 sold in twelve generations since 1948, as of May 2010)
• Best-selling single model - Volkswagen Beetle (21,529,464 of the same basic design sold worldwide between 1938 and 2003)
• Best single-year sales - 1.36 million - 2005 Toyota Corolla
• Best single-month sales - 126,905 - July 2005 Ford F-Series

I wouldn't call those cars to be exactly enthusiast's cars. Well, some might be enthusiat's cars now, years after their production was halted (case in point: AE86 Corolla). But given that those cars are generally what makes companies sell loads of cars, it's to be expected that the best selling brands aren't necessarily offering the msot interesting cars to drive on a track

 

[CWR63]

Subtract the 2 RUF from VW and they still have 100 cars in the game. I did not count all of the Saleens and Shelbys in Ford's total, just the modified Fords: Saleen has the F-150 and the 2000 & 2006 Mustang based models and Shelby has the 67 & 69 Cobra Mustangs. Counting all the possible US Fords, the total is 30, less than Chevrolet or Audi.
I included the info about Mercedes because I was surprised that one of the oldest and most prestigious marques had only 16 vehicles in the game - less than Mazda. Made me feel strangely guilty, like I hadn't visited my grandma in the hospital or something...

 

[Luminis]

^
That might be because Mercedes isn't exactly producing a lot of enthusiast's cars. There's the odd SLS and SLR, a few classics (most of which aren't exactly driver's cars) and the AMG/Black Series models. I agree, though, that there are a few cars missing that would indeed qualify as enthusiast's cars. First and foremost rhose which have been used for all kinds of racing by Mercedes-Benz themselves.

I couldn't come up with a Mercedes that's raced as much as a Miata, for example, or an E30 M3/3 series. At the end of the day, some cars are going to be missing. That's obvious. Now, which cars should be sacrificed? Cars that are used as race cars in grace roots motorsports, or various luxury cars, which would make up a large part of Mercedes' line-up over the years? Personally, I'd prefer the latter to be excluded.

Compare that to the VW AG, where you could include the majority of the cars made by Porsche and Lamborghini. Sure, racing pedigree and a large group of enthusiasts may not be the only focus for T10 to go by, but I do think that the majority of the cars is still picked depending (partially) on that.

 

[artboy76]

Many of which were developed by BMW independently of Rover in the case of the 75.

I've also not stated at all that BMW had no part in Rovers downfall, quite the opposite, hence the reason I said:



However it certainly wasn't the asset stripping exercise you suggested, nor were BMW (or Rovers old management structure) the reason Rover failed. mismanagement by Phoenix however was a major factor.

Phoenix were left with a company that would be tricky but not impossible to turn around and just about every move the made resulted in that turn around being further away. To be blunt if BMW had left Rover with Mini and Land Rover (under Phoenix control) I strongly fear we would not longer have those two brands either.


Scaff

Scaff, no argument from me that the Phoenix four where a bunch of frauds. My point mainly was about the whole incestuous car industry.....as the family tree highlights.
And that did BMW purchase Rover to save it? Or for the rights to Mini / landrover?
Once we answer that we can get a better picture of where it went wrong.

 

[CWR63]

Speaking of Mazdas, are we still without the Cosmo (I'm away from my XBox and relying on the FM4 website for the car list right now)? I'm wondering how much say car companies have in which cars are in the game - which might explain some of the interesting choices for a racing game...

 

[Luminis]

Well, companies can either agree to a licensing deal or disagree. This could very well mean that T10 has to feature some specific cars in order to get others.

Most companies would, I'd guess, want to see the cars they've currently got on sale added to the game, but I doubt that those are the "interesting" choices your're reffering to. At the end of the day, it comes down to taste, and I think that T10 caters to different tastes rather well.

 

[CyberPunch83]

I must hand it to you for the well-researched thread. I never would have broken up the cars that way but your method makes sense. Be sure to keep up the excellent work and keep it updated with the April car pack and the May Porsche Pack.

 

[CWR63]

I will update this after those 2 DLC packs, and just because the season pass ends maybe the DLC will continue. Perhaps the Porsche pack will be less than the projected 30 vehicles - ten years ago I wouldn't have imagined that I'd need to write 'vehicles' instead of 'cars' when referring to Porsches.

 

[Populuxe]

RUF Automobile GmbH is not from the Volkswagen Group.

No, they're not, but I understand entirely why he included them. Porsche is now under the VW Group umbrella, and RUF are heavily (or not so heavily in some cases) modified Porsches. They're more than simply a tuner shop, but not nearly a full manufacturer in their own right (despite their protestations and manufacturer type certificate.)

It's the same reason he listed Saleen and Shelby under Ford despite the fact that they are not a part of the Ford automotive empire.

 

[Luminis]

^
Which doesn't make sense at all, since this whole thread is purely about technicalities. A Ferrari 458 and a Fiat 500 have nothing in common, but are listed under the same company; so, why should a RUF be listed as a VW, despite being very similar to the corresponding Porsche model?

It's technically not part of the VW group. Hence, it shouldn't be included in its line up, easy as that. There's no room for interpretation here. It's not part of the VW AG.

 

[Populuxe]

so, why should a RUF be listed as a VW, despite being very similar to the corresponding Porsche model?

I would say "because" rather than "despite." The basic car that RUF modified was originally a Porsche, which is under the VW umbrella. So the company isn't a part of VW, but the cars are.

 

[Luminis]

I would say "because" rather than "despite." The basic car that RUF modified was originally a Porsche, which is under the VW umbrella. So the company isn't a part of VW, but the cars are.

That's simply wrong. The cars that are classified as RUFs have never, ever been a Porsche. The chassis get a RUF VIN from the get go and that's it, really.

So, no, the cars have never been part of the VW group, either.

 

[Populuxe]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that Porsche manufactured the chassis which was then sent to RUF for final assembly.

 

[Luminis]

Porsche supplies RUF with unmarked chassis and bodies. Porsche is a supplier to RUF just as Brembo is a supplier to Porsche.

RUF Automobile GmbH is a German automobile manufacturer. RUFs are built from unmarked Porsche bodies and chassis. When a chassis arrives, RUF builds their own independent work into the car. Because RUF installs many of their own-made parts, the company is recognized as a manufacturer by the German government.

That's why video game developers can use RUF to bypass the Porsche license, but not tuning companies like Techart or 9ff.

 

[Populuxe]

Porsche supplies RUF with unmarked chassis and bodies. Porsche is a supplier to RUF just as Brembo is a supplier to Porsche.

You have to admit there is a quite a degree of difference between brake rotors and chassis and bodies. Porsche is selling Porsche cars that have been designed, engineered and manufactured by Porsche to RUF so they can create their own unique interpretation of Porsches. The lack of a Porsche VIN doesn't change any of that.

 

[Luminis]

You have to admit there is a quite a degree of difference between brake rotors and chassis and bodies. Porsche is selling Porsche cars that have been designed, engineered and manufactured by Porsche to RUF so they can create their own unique interpretation of Porsches. The lack of a Porsche VIN doesn't change any of that.

Er, no, Porsche doesn't sell a car to RUF. It sells parts to RUF, which are then being assembled into a RUF, which also includes a fair share of genuine RUF parts, developed and produced by RUF. What they are receiving hasn't even been a car before.

The lack of a Porsche VIN changes a lot, by the way. It means that the car has never been a Porsche, has never been a part of the VW group and is made by the manufacturer that puts its VIN on the car, which would be RUF. If even the German government (which is anal about cars as it gets, really) accepts them as an individual manufacturer, which isn't owned by the VW group or any company therin, what else is there to be said?

I actually don't get why we are debating this; this isn't open for interpretation. A RUF isn't Porsche, nor has it ever been Porsche. That's a fact, not an opinion or anything. What you're trying to do is to claim that the wall over there isn't orange, but red. Just because orange is mixed from red and yellow doesn't mean that the wall is red.