"Facelifts" - Do they strike a chord? Do they make THE difference?

Every manufacturer eventually faces the reality of having to bring about changes in existing models to boost sales. A manufacturer like Honda has brought about changes every 4-5 years even in a successful model like the City; each model mostly getting better than it's predecessor. And all generations being significantly different in terms of looks, styling and technical specifications. Although this generally bodes well for the product, many manufacturers have resorted to mere "facelifts" [facelift : Major change or changes to a car's styling (often including new sheetmetal and/or interior design) with minimal changes to its underlying machinery.]. So, the model is "refreshed" but only on the exterior and everything is untouched inside. And that is packaged as Product 2.0. Now while we all appreciate considerable improvements in a car as long as they are not just cosmetic, manufacturers are busy dishing out "facelifts" of almost their entire line-up every few years in the hope that this would resurrect the product's sales figures. What's not amusing is what comprises the "facelift". While Honda provided a new set of tail-lamps and an optional sunroof on the Civic, Volkswagen is offering a Bluetooth HU and steering controls on the Polo. It is rarely that we see anything significant w.r.t. engine specifications, addressal of problems in existing models in the facelift. Honda Civic and City facelifts still face low GC problems despite them being widely discussed. Take Jazz for instance, apart from a new grill and lamps, there's no value addition! City too is rumoured to have a facelift with just the bumpers and lamps being changed. Oh yea, and an optional sunroof! It was funny how Maruti came up with a "facelift" of each of it's line-up and the facelifted version had prism headlights and tail-lamps. NOTHING ELSE! Here's the thing - for how many of us are such cosmetic makeovers a dealbreaker? In the sense, how many of us would start choosing one car over another because it has a Bluetooth HU or steering mounted controls or a sunroof. To be put in a different way, if technically one car is superior than the other (among the same segment), would anyone choose the 2nd car JUST because it has more frills or has a sportier front grill? Surely, the Indian customer is becoming a lesser fool by each passing day than he earlier was. Almost all look for the stuff that really matters - engine, technical soundness, A.S.S.; and THESE are dealbreakers. Take the current Honda City for example. The car has a gem of an engine, very good styling and good interiors. Despite being under-featured, people are lining up to buy the City because it has a good engine and Honda's reliability. There'll be many more customers if Honda gave the City what it lacks - some more features, address the GC issue. But instead of providing ACC, Honda is providing a new bumper and tail-lamp. How is that going to help?! (A diesel heart is required too but of course, they need time for that.) So, why do manufacturers continue to fool us (rather think that they are) by offering us the same stuff but packaged better. Instead of addressing the underlying issues in the existing models or having significant improvements technically, why do they rely on bumpers and tail-lamps to boost sales? Would you be swayed by such petty enhancements? Is it sufficient to win customers just on the looks? I understand that competition drives manufacturers to continually improve their products. But then, why are these improvements just on the looks?! Thoughts?

URL: