Teh Car Blogz

When a manufacturer releases their latest and greatest innovation on society, they usually pump it up with great fanfare, a huge advertising budget, and all the hoopala they can possibly drum up. Sometimes it works, sometimes it’s completely unnecessary (VW sold out the entire US allotment of 5,000 first-generation R32’s without spending a dime on advertising), and sometimes it just doesn’t make a difference to the fact that the car they’re selling is complete, unmitigated crap. Hey, it happens. Just ask Ford:

10) Buick Terraza (2005-2007)

This was another of GM’s brilliant badge-engineering ideas. With the death of Oldsmobile, they lacked a luxury-equipped minivan to do battle with… uhh, well, that’s a good question. Anyway, with no Olds Silhoutte to satisfy the “wood and leather seats minivan” crowd, GM cranked out a Buick version of their newly-redone “Butch” minivan. Behold, the Terraza!!!

Holy god-almighty is that one ugly Minivan! And this wasn’t exactly a class known for beautiful vehicles. This van-truck-abortion failed for a multitude of reasons. One, the Minivan market is deader than JR. I don’t know who shot him. Two, holy godalmightly it’s heinous. It looks like a mutant porcine with wheels and lights. And three, oh my god was it expensive. And of course, being a GM minivan, it was COMPLETELY AWFUL IN EVERY IMAGINABLE WAY. Why pay nearly $40k for a loaded-up, ugly Terraza when the same money bought you a loaded up, actually-kinda-nice Honda Odyssey? The Honda had another 50(!) horsepower, better fuel economy, immeasurably better build quality, and more advantage than anyone cares to argue over. Of course, the answer was that you DIDN’T pay 40k for a Buick minivan, because there were gigantic rebates on the hood from Day 1. Still, the moved off the lot like a Polio Victim through a hurdles course. These went out of production in 2007 and I bet dollars to donuts you can still buy a new one at your local

Pontiac/Buick/GMC/Chevrolet/Cadillac/Saab/Hummer/Daewoo/Subaru/Suzuki dealer.

But why? Someone please shoot this car.

9) Isuzu Vehicross (1998-2001)

Isuzu announced last month that after January 2009, it would no longer have a presence in the US consumer-car market. I can hardly blame them. Their sales peaked back in 1999 in the middle of the SUV craze at just over 100,000 units shifted. Last year, they moved a grand total of 7,098 vehicles. In an ENTIRE YEAR. That’s about 15% of the amount of Camry’s that Toyota moves in a month. Still, Isuzu used to be a major player in the US back in the day, and they had one alarming display of courage that will perhaps never be matched by another carmaker. The VehiCROSS was a concept car that pretty much went straight to production in 1997 (1998 for the US Market.) It was based on the smaller Rodeo but had the larger 3.5L 24v Trooper V6. From a technical standpoint, it was impressive. It had an advanced “Torque on Demand” 4WD system, very small approach and departure angles due to a complete lack of overhand, and was generally a very credible off-road machine. There was just one problem:

Oh my GOD! Wow. Where to begin, here? Maybe it’s the gigantic bling-bling 18″ chrome wheels on an off-roader? Maybe it’s the 412 pounds of plastic cladding? Maybe it’s the fixed rear window and unopenable rear door? Or maybe, JUST MAYBE…

it’s the FANGS! yes, every single VehiBLEURGH came standard with a set of TITANIUM FANGS in the grille. TITANIUM! Oh yes. And of course, it was expensive. There are two reasons you never see them: they were limited production, and no one bought them. I wonder why!

8 ) Jeep Commander (2006-Present)

This one fits under “Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.” But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Or in today’s $4.00/gallon market, it’s more likely paved with Jeep Commanders. The idea was simple: stretch out the new Grand Cherokee chassis to create a 7-passenger SUV to keep Jeep loyalists with growing families in the fold. They gave it butch, square styling highly reminescent of the Cherokee’s of yore. And then they gave it a 5.7L 330-horsepower HEMI. Seems like a winner.

Unfortunately, it came out just as gas prices started accelerating skyward. And it might as well’ve been a 5-seater; the third row was about as useful as a Chocolate Teapot. The handling was dangerous, the gas mileage was hilarious, and why not get a Tahoe? Dealers are now saddles with a huge amount of Commanders, some with 100 or greater days of lot-life (when a healthy amount is 60 days at the maximum.) The sooner Cerberus kills this rolling jokebox, the better. Of course, they could still probably sell what they have left for the next three years - that is, if they can even sell them all.

7) Subaru B9 Tribeca (2005-Present)

Sure, an argument can be made that no matter how ugly it is, Subaru cars are good at the core. I’d say that the exception is their first shot at a full-sized SUV, the B9 Tribeca. It’s a hallmark of automotive journalists that you can’t write about the Tribeca without mentioning the front-end styling which is highly reminescent of female genitalia. I’m not immune. The grille DOES sort of look like a labia. Hey, I’m just sayin’. It does resemble it.

The styling was done by Walter d’Silva, who used to work for Alfa Romeo. Ask me how I figured that one out:

The problem was, despite the controversial (read: wretch-inducing) styling, the Tribeca wasn’t really… any good. The 3.0L flat-six that works so wonderfully in the Legacy and Outback had cut off a bit more than it could really chew here. It sucked down 93 octane dead dinosaurs to the tune of the low 20’s on the highway. The handling was secure, but rolly-polly and boring by Subaru standards. The interior looked great but the quality of materials was “questionable.” And the grille looked like a vag… umm, like something it shouldn’t. It’s no surprise the Tribeca only went two years before Subaru restyled the front end to

the point of anonymity/Chrysler Pacifica. Speaking of which…

6) Chrysler Pacifica (2004-2007)

Maybe the road to hell is paved with Pacificas. Unlike many cars on this list, I consider the Pacifica to be a pretty design, all things considered. It’s impressive how elegant of a vehicle they were able to carve out of the “shoot me now”: silhoutte of a Grand Carasnore. The proportions were good, the details were well-thought out, and the interior packaging design was both comfortable and efficient. So why is it here? Well, when they originally started selling the Pacifica, the entry-level price was $34k. Which is a lot for a minivan that’s not quite as useful as a minivan.

So the Pacifica sat pretty on dealer lots - for months, and months, and months. Despite being a good design, they priced it out of viability. Then after they gave it a facelift and gave it a useful bump in power, they still languished on lots as buyers shied away from the mediocre gas mileage and reports of shoddy reliability. Game, Set, Miss.

5) Saab 9-7X (2005-Present)

There is no more shining example of GM’s “people are stupid and will buy anything” philosophy than the Saab 9-7x. Production of this SUV began in 2005, to replace the now-defunct Oldsmobile Bravada. Despite the Saab looks, it’s 100% GMT360 underneath - the same thing as a GMC Envoy, Chevy Trailblazer, Isuzu Ascender, etc etc. Sure, they moved the ignition to the center console. But as is plainly evident, an ignition on the center console does not a Saab make. The 9-7x is affectionately known as the Trollblazer by Saabists - Trailblazer/Trollhattan, of course.

It’s not necessarily that the 9-7x is a bad truck - which, of course, it is. It’s the blatant disregard for Saab’s heritage and core clientèle that really shows that GM has about as much sense as Paris Hilton strung out on coke. Saab are known for safe, efficient, practical and comfortable cars - none of which describe a Traiblazer, I’m sorry. Saab didn’t need an SUV - I can’t see any way that it is doing Saab any favors. Their sales were already low enough as it is, why piss off the loyalists with a rebadged Traiblazer? Please kill this thing.

4) Pontiac Aztek (2001-2005)

I’d have to say the Pontiac Aztek mainly failed in the market because Pontiac can’t spell. It certainly wasn’t because the Aztek was a bad vehicle, per say. In fact, believe it or not, the Aztek has a very devoted owner following. They’ve even got a website: Aztek Fan Club!! It was quite a useful vehicle - available all-wheel drive, good fuel economy and decent passing power, very flexible interior space and tons of “lifestyle options.” You could even get a tent that fit around the back tailgate. How hip! And JD Powers rated the Aztek as the best entry-level SUV in initial quality and customer satisfaction in 2001, saying customers gave it top scores in everything… except exterior appearance. Hmm.

The Aztek was a great vehicle concept let down by perhaps the worst styling the world has ever seen. This thing made a Hyundai Excel look sexy. Check out the double hood! It’s as if one wasn’t enough. “What else do you think the front end needs, Ed?” “How about another grille?” “Sure, why the hell not?” Observe the gas cap, punched into the flanks with a hammer. Check out those too-cool-for-school 3 spoke wheels! How about that “chop-top minivan” rear window line? Or the 47 acres of greyish ribbed black plastic? Or how about how the proportions look to be done by a 3 year old, with more than a wheel’s worth of heigh from the wheel-well to the top of the fender? Admittedly, this was one of the 2001 models - they got rid of the grey plastic crap in 2002. But it didn’t do anything to change how unbelievably ugly this car is.

In fact, despite how basically good of a car it was, consider the following fact: The Aztek went out of production in 2005. Yet check the GM Sales charts for 2007 and you’ll notice that there were 25 new, untitled Azteks sold through Pontiac dealers last year. The car had been out of production for 2 years! That’s a lot life of… eternity! They couldn’t give the things away. Yikes.

3) Chevrolet SSR (2003-2006)

Unlike the GM nominee behind it, the SSR is pretty much the inverse: a gorgeous car with an absolutely ridiculous concept. The SSR was shown as a concept at the 2000 Detroit auto show, based on a lengthened Chevy S10 chassis and with V8 power. Due to overwhelming positive consumer response, the SSR was fast-tracked to production and was released to the public in 2003. GM decided that the S10 chassis was a bit too small for the SSR, though, and ended up basing the car off of the ubiquitous GMT-370 chassis, which was the long-wheelbase version of the Trailblazer, Envoy (and the Saab 9-7x!)

The SSR tried to be far too many different things at the same time. It was a 2-door, two-seat, folding hard-top pickup truck. As a result, it just really didn’t do anything well. Because it was a modified Trailblazer underneath, it couldn’t handle worth a damn. Because of the flashy styling, the bed was too small to transport anything useful (like a dirtbike, a 2×4, anything like that.) And of course it had a hinged hard tonneau cover, which meant that you couldn’t really load stuff in there anyway. Oh, and the bed was carpeted.

Since it was a folding hardtop, interior space was at a premium - despite being on a large truck chassis. People over 6′ really don’t fit comfortably in an SSR, which is fairly ridiculous. So it was cramped, useless, and poorly handling. But it was sexy.

The main problem, though, was that despite it’s pseudo- El Camino/ Muscle car looks, it was slow. It originally came with the GM 5.3 Vortec V8 and a 4-speed automatic, which only made 300 horsepower. In a car weighing 4700lbs, this was not a recipe for pavement annihilation. 0-60 came up in a leisurely 7.7 seconds, and it could barely crack the 16-second barrier in the quarter-mile. In other words, challenging a V6 Accord sedan at a stoplight was not a good idea for an SSR owner.

Oh, and it was $42,000.

Still, you have to give some credit to GM. For one thing, they had the balls to build it. It looked impossibly exotic out on the road amid the sea of Alticamcords and Kias. It was unique. And they remedied the power situation in 2005 with the fitment of the Corvette-derived LS2 Gen-III small block V8, a 6.0L all-aluminum pushrod motor with 390 horsepower and an available Tremec T56 6-speed manual which brought the 0-60 time down into the high five-second range. Still, it’s not hard to see why the SSR was a flop, with just a smidge over 24,000 units sold over a three-year period. Further proof that sometimes, concept cars should remain just that.

2) Volkswagen Phaeton (2004-2006)

If you’re reading this website, chances are you already know the story of the Phaeton. It was Volkswagen’s ambitious attempt at the full-size ultra-luxury market, and by all accounts it was damn good. It was based on Audi’s full-sized A8, but used primarily steel construction rather than aluminum, so it was a bit heavier. It was introduced in 2002 in Europe with a wide range of engines, from a 3.0L TDI V6 to a 6.0L W12 and a 5.0L V10 Diesel. It was an astonishingly well-engineered car, of course. For instance, the windshield wipers were designed to function up to 186 miles an hour in a severe downpour - even though all the Phaetons were electronically limited to 155 miles an hour. The Phaeton was sold in the US from 2004 to 2006. The standard engine was Audi’s fantastic 4.2L 32-valve V8, making 350 horsepower. All-wheel-drive was standard, of course. By all accounts it was a fantastic car. The W12 was optional in the US and commanded a $100,000+ pricetag.

There was just one problem: The starting price was nearly $65,000 - actually slightly more than the starting price of an equivalent Audi A8. The one fact that can’t be ignored: in the US, luxury car buyers primarily buy expensive cars to show off to their neighbors and make their co-workers jealous. No matter how nice of a car it was, no one was impressed by a VW keyfob - the same one you got with a $15,000 Golf diesel. The Phaeton was an unmitigated disaster, with total US sales totalling just over 2,400 units over a three year period. Residuals were awful, and like it’s luxury brother the Touareg, the Phaeton was plagued with reliability issues stemming from the simple fact that Volkswagen had never produced a car that complicated. The model was quietly withdrawn from the US market in 2006. You can’t chalk it up to a bad car - you can chalk it up to the lack of intelligence of it’s intended market. It’s a shame.

1) Lincoln Blackwood (2002)

A Brave move on Lincoln’s part, to be sure. Bravery is often ill-informed, though. The Blackwood was a conglomeration of different Ford Truck parts - the body of a F-150 Crew Cab, the nose of a Navigator, and a cargo box with carpet and stainless steel liners built by, of all people, Magna Steyr. While it was a nice truck (obviously), there were a few problems. Primarily, it was only available in 2-wheel-drive, whereas it’s competitor the Escalade EXT was available with a much larger engine as well as 4WD. The carpet, stainless-lined bed didn’t exactly make it feasible to throw real truck stuff in there. Being 2WD and only have 300 horsepower meant the Blackwood was basically incapable of boat-schlepping duty, which is one of the primary concerns of people buying retardedly expensive pickup trucks. Oh, and it was $52,000. Unwise.

Unsurprisingly, this dead-in-the-water marketing excercise sold like space heaters in the Sahara. It was only in production for 15 months and sold a stunning total of 3,356 units, with the final few going for well below MSRP. Lincoln quietly pulled this idiotic model from it’s lineup, and replaced it in 2006 with the Mark LT, based on the new (and greatly improved) F-150 chassis, but thankfully gave it available options to make it useful - like four wheel drive, a real bed, etc etc.

This one is hard to explain. I mean, I know that most Americans are just dumb enough to buy almost anything, but did Lincoln really think this was a car that even had a target audience? Honestly. A tremendous flop, but at least they didn’t break the bank on development costs, right?

I hope that someone takes these failures as a lesson. First - why make a car that answers a question no one’s asking? Who really wants to buy a car that fits an obscure niche you created yourself? And no matter how good a car is on a subjective level, if it’s ugly, or overpriced, or has the wrong badge, it’s not going to work. No matter how many happy hopeful rainbows you cast over your product, if it’s stupid, or poorly made, or just never should have existed in the first place, it’s not going to work. Sometimes I really wonder if the manufacturers have a dude somewhere to tell them “Hey! That makes NO GODDAMN SENSE!”

BTW, Big Three: I’m currently for hire. I’ll take 80k a year starting. Imagine the change when you get a no-bullshit opinion on some of the absolute shit you guys turn out. It’d do a world of good.

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 12th, 2008 at 7:06 pm and is filed under Car Theory, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.