Talk Back Tuesday: Death...or Euthanasia? Cars I Won't Be Missing
Like any automotive enthusiast I've been slightly nervous about the impending changes the industry will undergo in the coming months. Maybe slightly nervous don't go far enough...
How about thinly-veiled, heart-stopping panic? Yeah, that's accurate.
Anyone telling you "it's no big deal" or "seen it all before" is either very old or full or excrement. The level of automotive upheaval gripping this industry hasn't been seen for approximately 80 years (think 1930s, when dozens of big name automakers went belly-up in the midst of The Great Depression). Where and how will it all end? Well, anyone claiming to know can't even fall into the "old" category; they're simply spewing BS.
But we do have a growing list of dead and dying cars that simply won't survive the current crisis. We'll be presenting the list in both a feature article and an Edmunds Daily blog post this week (it numbers almost 50 models), but I've taken a close look at the list and come to a reassuring conclusion:
If natural selection helps strengthen a species, than this industry downturn is long overdue.
As such, I present the following dead and dying models I WON'T be missing:
Bentley Arnage: 1992 called, they want their luxury sedan back
Cadillac STS-V: Made obsolete (and over-priced) by the CTS-V
Cadillac XLR and XLR V: The Corvette is a performance bargain; the XLR is not
Chevrolet Cobalt: Let's hope the Cruze is FINALLY a Civic/Corolla/Mazda 3 competitor
Chevrolet HHR SS: It will always be a poor-handling PT Cruiser knock-off
Chevrolet Trailblazer: Likely the worst-handling SUV on the market
Chrysler Aspen: Because the Durango was such a hot seller already...
GMC Envoy: This one handles as poorly as the Trailblazer...wait a second...
Hummer H2 and H2 SUT: Like Arnold, their popularity has sunk to a new low
Hummer H3 and H3 SUT: Rebadged Canyons/Colorados, thus just terrible
Lexus SC 430: These were cool for about 18 minutes, but that was eight years ago
Mercury Sable: Is Mercury the automotive poster child for euthanasia?
Pontiac G3: Another mediocre rebadge of a mediocre car
Pontiac G5: See above
Pontiac G6: See above
Pontaic Solstice: Sometimes beauty really is only skin deep
Saab 9-7X: This wasn't a rebadge, it was heresy
Every Saturn: An interesting experiment in design and retailing...that never turned a profit
- Posted by
- Karl Brauer May 26, 2009, 6:00 AM
- Permalink
- Categories:
- Automotive News, Domestic Manufacturers Problems/Challenges, Talk Back Tuesday
- Technorati Tags:
- Dead and Dying Cars
I'll miss the H3 because there's a good vehicle there, just saddled with mismanagement and idiocy. Update the powertrain, give it more greenhouse, lighten the weight, and improve rear access and you'd have a damn good SUV.
Likewise I'll miss the current Vue and lament that we aren't getting the redesigned Astra and Insignia (especially the wagon!).
I'm curious, but how does the current trend in killing off cars and increased fuel economy regulation compare to the 70's?
Can the current automotive environment be compared to the gas crisis in 1973 and the fuel regulations of 1978? I personally feel there are very similar trends in the automotive industry such as:
* A sudden shift to smaller, more fuel economic vehicles
* A loss of large engine vehicles
* A loss of performance vehicles
* An increase in regulation (55 mph?)
* A decline in new car sales (I'm not 100% sure on this one)
* Difficult times for automotive companies (monetary losses)
* A decline in market share for domestic automakers
So, it seems to me, that some parallels (sp?) can be drawn from history more recent than the 1930's.
The only comment I can make to your list is the Chevy Trailblazer and it's ilk (Saab and Isuzu?) were more than just poor handlers (besides, can you make an argument for their demise beyond their dynamics?). They were clunky, prone to electrical gremlins, outdated, fuel guzzling, poor performing, over sized (three row seating...really?) and over weight body-on-frame trucks that don't have a market right now.
Even the BoF Explorer is going away. Only the Kia....um...something-or-other is the last midsized BoF truck, and it's light years ahead of the Trailblazer.
I can't comment on how it drives, but I always thought the XLR was a pretty cool looking vehicle. Many other similarly priced cruisers/sports cars/convertibles are so bland, but the XLR is definitely a head turner.
I think Karl is correct. I know I won't miss much of what is going away. The loss is the groups at the domestics that engineered the high performers on the list.
I agree with Heffling that this looks a great deal like the 1970's again from regulation and messing with consumer desires.
If I look at the Mustang for example, a top of the line 1969 made 376 hp (300 adjusted for SAE Net). A 1974 Mustang II made 105. It was not until 2005, 36 years later that a Mustang made 300 hp again. Yes technology can catch up - but it sure takes awhile.
It is indeed the 1970's all over again. But this time people and the market are prepared to distinquish with greater efficientcy.
GM and Chrysler are a shell of their former strength in the 1970's. Even though Chrysler was going bankrupt, it had tremendous brand loyalty. GM ran the market in those days (at least in the eyes of the American consumer)
There was no internet or consumer blogs regarding the relative qualities of products. Car magazines were bit players in the auto consumer's minds.
Now everyone reads reviews and uses the internet to research prior to pooring out a quarter or more of their salary on a car. Brand loyalty is a thing of the past.
So while GM, Ford and Chrysler suffered in the 1970's, they will go extinct this time. This may have been the case despite the recent foolishness of over regulation and subsidies. People don't want to buy a loser. That is what Chrysler has to offer. And the great percentage of GM cars are not much better.
Detroit has limped through the last decade by offering massive rebates and financing incentives to make their products cheaper by comparison to Honda and Toyota. This has helped them to maintain market share and given people the perception of value. However, those incentives will dry up with these new regulations. Cars will be more expensive and with that come greater expectations. Not just for fuel economy but for everything. Resale value, catche, reliability, durability, design. Although I can't make a blanket statement about all of Detroit's offerings. They are not on par in those categories as the imports.
Detroit leaned on their customers in the 1970's and 1980's. They have nothing left to lean on.
The fuel crisis comparison applies (though ours was brief and prices/trends are back to normal already), but do the 1978 fuel regulations really apply?
Bush signed that energy bill in Dec. 2007 but no one seemed terribly bothered about it. Sure, Obama then raised the regulations a couple of mpg above Bush's and advanced them by four years... but that was several weeks AFTER Chrysler and GM ran out of money and became government-supported zombies.
I don't think either set of regulations had anything to do with their demise. They're dead because they lost half their market share through poor products and poor PR (developing an anti-progress reputation, losing the youth by not having good economy cars), signed union contracts that didn't allow them to react to decreasing market share, failed to put money away for retiree benefits they knew they would have to eventually pay, wasted money on poor brand acquisitions and knee-jerk strategy flip-flops... regulations saved them, if anything, in the '90s by making SUVs so cheap to build.
Great analysis carlisimo. Agree 100%.
Carlisimo
I did not say the regulations were the cause of Detroit's demise only that the new regulations will make their life all that more impossible.
It was the lack of regulations that made SUV's relatively cheap in comparison to cars. Therefore the regulations did not "save" them.
But what is apparent is that these new regulations will doom them.
Edmunds didn't think the Trailblazer SS was that bad at handling:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=108306
First of all, the TB and Envoy went out of production last year. Secondly, its beyond stupid to criticize dated models that were praised when they were new. When the TB came out in 2001 no on new BOF SUVs were dead. They had great power, decent mileage and nice styling and features. They were generally well received by the press. Naturally they couldn't handle as well as lighter, car based FWD crossovers- they were real trucks.
The Cobalt is still in production so I'm not sure how its on a list of models that have been "killed" by the automotive downturn. Anyone covering the auto industry should know that. The Cobalt was always scheduled to be replaced and it will be by the Cruze, it has nothing to do with the current meltdown in sales. Also, when the cobalt came out it was seen as a legit competitor for the Corolla and Civic. Go back and read the intitial reviews.
"Resale value, catche, reliability, durability, design. Although I can't make a blanket statement about all of Detroit's offerings. They are not on par in those categories as the imports."
More ambiguous nonsense from a familiar source. Do you ever bother to offer any basis for your generalizations? Design? The Japanese lose there. Durability? Impossible to measure with any accuracy when considering a brand new car. Resale value? They are falling across the board and the incentives the Asians are piling on their models now will only narrow whatever gap exists. The fact that everyone but Honda is flooding rental lots with cars wont help resale values either. Cache? Its in the eye of the beholder. Toyota and Honda have ZERO cache to me. I don't associate cache with afterthought exterior designs and bland interiors. Apparently you think differently.
awesome