What's in a name? Why it looks like car companies have run out of good names | Opinion

Naming cars used to be simple - either you picked some evocative names (think Mustang, Falcon, Monaro, etc) or a sequence of numbers and/or letters (think 3 Series, C-Class, A4, etc) - but these days it feels more like car names are randomly selected by marketing teams rushing to get to the weekend.

Take the Audi e-tron, for example. This week the German brand announced that it would be changing its name from simply ‘e-tron’ to ‘Q8 e-tron’, giving it a clearer place in the line-up alongside the existing internal combustion powered Q8 models.

However, this only partially clears up the confusion Audi created for itself by naming its first all-electric model ‘e-tron’ because it had already used that badge for several plug-in hybrid models, thus creating a muddled brand message around its electric strategy.

Read More About Holden Commodore

Form a Q! Audi drops e-tron badge for refreshed electric SUV Polestar in Australia: Everything you need to know Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

But Audi is far from alone by having trouble selecting names for cars in this modern age. There’s the Porsche Taycan Turbo (which is electric and therefore has no turbo) and the syntax-troubling all-capitals MINI as well as Mazda and its many SUV nomenclatures (CX-3, CX-30 and MX-30).

It makes you wonder - have car companies simply run out of good names?

A lot of the current-day problems can be attributed to the growth of downsized engines and the introduction of electric models. For this example, BMW serves as the ideal case study, with its previous structure of model line (3 Series) and engine size (2.0-litre four-cylinder) translating to a simple 320i badge on the boot, while the smaller 1.8-litre model was the 318i - thus providing a clear and easy-to-understand name to customers.

But not anymore. Since the boom of downsizing engines with the help of more nuanced turbocharging technology allowed car makers to offer the same engine in various states of tune, the BMW 320i and 330i are both powered by the same 2.0-litre engine, albeit with different power outputs. It took BMW a long time to explain the concept to the media and I imagine a similar or longer period for customers.

Then there’s electric cars, with BMW opting to take the very 2000s attitude of sticking an ‘i’ in-front of anything and cashing in on Apple’s success with the iMac, iPhone and iPad. But with the BMW i3 and i8 underwhelming buyers, the brand has had to switch to a strategy of electric versions of existing models which has led us to the complicated iX3 and i4 eDrive40. And to top it off, despite already having an iX3, the brand has followed Audi’s lead and created a flagship model known simply as the iX - thus creating another point of confusion.

At the other end of the spectrum, new-brand Polestar has taken a typically Scandinavian-minimalist approach to its model names that will ultimately end up being confusing. Polestar simply calls each new model the next number in order, so Polestar 1 then Polestar 2, Polestar 3 and so on. So far, the company has confirmed six models, but aside from release dates there is no rhyme or reason for these names other than to arbitrarily tell them apart. So, the Polestar 3 will be a large SUV, the 5 will be a sports sedan and the 6 will be a convertible sports car - the Polestar 7 could literally be any shape or size the company decides it needs a model.

The Polestar 3 will be a large SUV.

Which raises the question of what happens if the company is successful? Polestar 13? Polestar 26? Polestar 153?

It’s not just the premium brands that are struggling to come up with a clear, descriptive range of names.

While it certainly hasn’t hurt the brand when it comes to sales, Mazda’s decision to introduce two compact SUVs led to the confusing CX-3/CX-30 duo - and spoiled what was an otherwise well-named range; CX-3, CX-5, CX-8 and CX-9 all made sense as each model grew larger.

The CX-30 sits above the CX-3 and below the CX-5.

Now the brand is leaning into this naming plan, with the CX-60, CX-80 and CX-90 all set to arrive in the near-future to make it harder for customers to clearly understand the differences between models.

Hyundai is a brand that has traditionally put in a lot of thought to its names - i30 was a deliberate attempt to move away from its cheaper image with Excel and Accent - and Tucson is a more evocative and memorable name than ix35. 

In fact, Tucson slots in nicely alongside the Santa Fe and Palisade, creating a theme of adventure. But its more recent SUV addition, Venue, simply fails to do that despite there being so many more US cities the brand could have drawn from.

You might be asking at this point, so what? What’s in a name? Does it really make a difference to how well a car sells or performs? My answer to that would be - yes… and no.

Ford had great success with its locally built and well-named Territory - it was a capable SUV with a name that inspired adventure. Its replacement, the Endura (known as Edge overseas), wasn’t quite the same car but the uninspiring name certainly did it no favours.

The Opel Insignia was rebadged as a Holden Commodore.

And would the final Holden Commodore have been better received had it been called the Holden Insignia or similar, rather than trying to cash-in on a nameplate that it was clearly unrelated to?

But perhaps the best example of this in recent times is the Nissan Tiida. Not only was it a stupid name that looked odd and was hard to pronounce, it replaced Pulsar, a nameplate that was deeply established. It didn’t help that the car wasn’t great, but by the time Nissan Australia finally swapped back to Pulsar for its small car, it was too late, and buyers had abandoned the brand for more familiar names - Corolla, Mazda3 and i30.

So, there is clear value in finding a name that resonates with customers and sticking with it…