I have a similar story. In my hometown the owner of the Mercedes salon paid money for each emblem that was broken of a car's hood. It was around 2000-2005. I know this from the owner's son.
Mostly, mascot or emblem theft was a 90's media-generated gangster thing limited primarily to higher-crime areas to wear car emblems on a chain, so maybe they were gopniks but 15 years too late. Also why Rolls Royce invented the retracting bonnet mascot. They early ones were silver plated and later ones were optionally gold plated. (Of course like Porsches, Rolls Royce can and are customized, so I wouldn't at all be surprised if a solid platinum or palladium Spirit of Ecstasy exists.)
80's BMWs, Cadillacs, and Jaguars were big money makers for my dad. His dad and him bemoaned that they could've made more money if only they were dishonest. They both had experience working at dealerships as mechanics. They saw more tactics than these:
- Charging for parts not replaced (which is why you always ask to see the old parts)
- Magically finding other things wrong that need expensive, unnecessary parts (which is why you always get a written estimate before leaving, and appear to have a somewhat understanding of what constitutes the vehicle)
- Eyewash: overselling standard procedures or aspirational steps not performed, usually with the purpose of justifying higher prices and/or increasing customer satisfaction (if there's too much marketing, then you're the mark)
Also: In the US, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) is 99.8% a confidence scam: it's a for-profit marketing company that sells a false appearance of authority and credibility with negligible actual due-diligence or accountability.
The “better” car companies simply design systems that force more labor hours into regular maintenance. For example, BMW’s ingenious battery placement that allows them to bill $700-$900 for 5 hours worth of work. Oh, and changing your own battery will void the warranty. Fortunately for BMW most of their clientele has enough money to not care.
Not in the US it won’t.
See Magnusson Moss:
2302.c here: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prel...
You'd have to be a lawyer to make that act work for you.
There isn't an automotive engineer in the world that would keep their job after submitting such a design, let alone get it into production.
The British government, concerned about the number of venomous cobras in Delhi, offered a bounty for every dead cobra. Initially, this was a successful strategy; large numbers of snakes were killed for the reward. Eventually, however, enterprising people began to breed cobras for the income.
French officials wanted a lifestyle more like home, including flush toilets.
So they built a sewer system. It was a perfect breeding ground for rats.
Now, Hanoi had a rat problem.
They hired exterminators, but it wasn't enough. So they offered a bounty to anyone who would kill a rat and bring in the severed tail as proof. It was much easier for them to dispose of a collection of rat tails instead of entire rat carcasses.
The locals quickly figured out that you could remove a rat's tail without killing it, and send it back into the sewers to breed more rats with fresh young tails.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/hanoi-rat-massacre-190...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hanoi_Rat_Massacre
Here is an article that ties together the rat massacre, the cobra effect, factory workers' gloves, overtime pay, and heat-based bonuses:
Note that I'm not saying they won't, just that it's a bad idea in a new and exciting way.
I suspect if you time-box the reward that'll fix the cobra effect problem. Announce that you'll only pay for dead rats for ~4 months and at least in the final month people should realize that its time to kill the golden goose and provide all the rats they have instead of breeding for more.
> When the government became aware of this, the reward program was scrapped. When cobra breeders set their now-worthless snakes free, the wild cobra population further increased.
You seemed to use the fact that a car was used as a taxi in Europe as evidence that the car is not luxurious.
My point is that cars used as taxis in Europe are often from upmarket segments, so it's not good evidence that a car is not luxurious (relatively - we're talking MB/BMW class here).
This does not mean I'm saying that a specific Mercedes from the 1960s was or was not luxurious. I find it hard to imagine any car from the 1960s would be luxurious by modern standards, my experience of older cars is they were very much metal tins on wheels.