The Power Wheels Jeep Hurricane is the car the American market has been screaming for: a sleek, zero-emission, gas-free SUV. AND, with its Ultimate Terrain Traction system, the Hurricane can go places “no other battery powered ride-on can go.” Yes, it’s a toy: a Fisher-Price product for middle class parents with automotively aspirational children– and whose aren’t? But here’s the kicker: it’s based on a concept car unveiled at The North American International Auto Show back in 2005.
The carbon fiber show car upon which the quarter-scale Hurricane was based featured two Hemis and a four-wheel steering system. The system was so flexible the Jeep could move sideways or spin in a circle, like, well, a Hurricane. While its twin V8 powerplants were never destined for an assembly line, the Hurricane offered other, more practical innovations.
The Hurricane’s one-piece body was mounted to an aluminium spine; a brilliant piece of engineering promising light weight and strength. Its drive train and suspension were mounted right to the body, making assembly a breeze. The Hurricane was so simple and elegant that I felt sure a version would make it to the showroom.
Fisher-Price understood the magnetism of the design and built their version. Jeep did not. In the ensuing years, Jeep built the Ten Worst nominees Commander and Patriot, and our first place “winner,” the Compass. As of October, Jeep dealers have 169-day supply of Commanders, the Patriot hangs about for 142 days, and the Compass can go 150 days without further production. For perspective, the less practical and more “fun” Jeep Wrangler has an almost ideal 62-day supply.
What does the toy industry know that the car industry doesn’t? They know that children don’t calculate mpg or worry about global warming. Whether they’re pushing it around the floor, controlling it by radio or sitting and driving, they want a way cool car. Period. Sure “real” car buyers put away childish things, but do they WANT to?
The debate over whether or not Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli and Ford CEO Alan Mulally are “car guys” touched upon this issue. And then the media moved on to the business of saving the American car business– even as the toy industry continues to provide America’s pickiest consumers with exactly what they want (albeit and scarily enough built in China). And yet Detroit has had tremendous success with toy-like cars, from the Mustang to the P.T. Cruiser to the Chrysler 300.
Unfortunately, even when the domestics get the gestalt, they get it wrong. One of the key factors driving the toy industry: instant gratification. When kids see an ad for the V_BOT Radio Control Transforming Vehicle, they want it NOW. No toy company could stay in business with a two-year lag between consumer awareness and products on the shelves.
Now consider the new Chevrolet Camaro and the recent Transformers motion picture. Chevy’s marketing department spent millions placing the new Camaro front and center, to win the hearts and minds of teenagers everywhere and, presumably, unleash pester power. The Camaro-based Bumble Bee went from full-scale prototype to movie car to a toy movie-goers could run out and buy in the space of months.
Meanwhile, the “real” Camaro is nowhere to be seen. Any traffic generated by one of the biggest– and presumably most expensive– piece of automotive product placement in recent history will be dissipated by delay. Conclusion: even when carmakers appreciate a vehicle’s elemental not to say infantile appeal, they fail to cope with the limited shelf life of new hotness.
Call it the Hot Wheels paradigm. Since 1968, this toymaker has known that its clientele has a short attention span and an insatiable appetite for the thrill (and pride) of the new. That’s why they release an endless fleet of new designs as fast as they can, producing several takes on existing models. That’s why they’ve produced their own creations (The Splittin' Image, Torero, Turbofire, and Twin Mill) and pimped existing models (Volkswagen Beach Bomb) right from the git-go.
Once upon a time, Detroit “got it.” Products were cosmetically refreshed every single year. These days, cars like Ford’s eminently customizable Crown Victoria and its platform siblings are left to wither on the vine– growing older and less desirable with each passing year. Caddy’s new CTS has the right idea, but the pace of progress remains piss poor.
This is not to say Chrysler, Ford and GM should spend all their time listening to adolescent boys. Again, kids don’t sweat gas prices or suffer carbon-based guilt. They’re attracted to extreme machines like Hummers and Vipers, and that kind of vehicle isn’t going to pull Motown out of the muck at the moment. But as my wife points out on a regular basis, most men are developmentally stuck around 12-years old. Why not go to the source?
“most men are developmentally stuck around 12-years old”
As Curley would say “I resemble that remark
nyuk nyuk nyuk.”
Great article. And sooooo true. My wife just rolls her eyes at my “Ohhh, I want one” comments.
Sounds good, but with the short attention span we men have, will it pay to constantly retool for models that will have a short production run? Today’s Camaro is tomorrow’s Challenger, which is the next day’s GT-R, which is the Evo X after that.
This kind of production model goes beyond being not cost effective; a car manufacturer simply cannot shoulder the cost to bring out a string of one hit wonders that’s a hit today and s##t tomorrow.
I loved Hot Wheels as a kid (I’m old enough to remember when they first came out). My favorite – Splittin’ Image, the coolest Hot Wheeel – ever. Mine was blue. Twin Mill was a close second.
quasimondo : a car manufacturer simply cannot shoulder the cost to bring out a string of one hit wonders that’s a hit today and s##t tomorrow. Yes BUT– Mr. Martineck doesn't necessarily mean a new model every year. More like some kind of change every year. Like it ustabe. The success of SEMA-oriented tuners and modifiers indicates that Martin is on to something here. Given CAD-CAM, JIT, flexible assembly lines and other manufacturing advances, shouldn't it be LESS expensive to create relatively minor mods now than in the fifties?
quasimondo :
I don’t think we always need radical change. I can, by sight, identify every Ford Mustang from 1965 to 1975. It’s easy. There’s lots a cosmetic changes, sometimes big, sometimes small. After 1975 it gets real hard to see year-by-year changes. I don’t thin the new one has changes at all since 2005. There’s lots of variations, but I’d loved to see more alterations to the base model every model year.
Perhaps the marketing “genius” was to have the car out by the time Transformers 2 hits the screen (or maybe 3 … or 4…) and the kids who loved the first movie will be of car purchasing age – or that of major influencer.
Products were cosmetically refreshed every single year.
Body-on-frame construction made that easier, I believe, but I’m not an automotive/structural engineer. Alas, that’s becoming a lost art with just the Panther triplets and trucks & big SUV’s built that way. As I pointed out in a prior comment, it’s still how Detroit makes its big profits, something unchanged since the advent of the modern assembly line almost 100 years ago.
To pull that frequency of model change off nowadays, you need to have the financial and engineering resources of Toyota: Scion tC comes to mind as a rebodied vehicle that took just 13 months to execute on the EU Avensis platform. But, there have been problems with the sunroof wind deflector shattering.
I really wanted the Hurricane to make it to production. Seems like the good ideas never make it out of the art studio.
But as my wife points out on a regular basis, most men are developmentally stuck around 12-years old.
Michael, I know this comment was meant as hyperbole, but I gotta challenge it. The reality is that most men grow up, get jobs, and take on life’s responsibilities. As much as we’d like to have that Ferrari, Benz, or iPhone, the vast majority of us have higher priorities, such as family, mortgages, etc.
Finding balance is life’s challenge. And it affects our car-purchasing decisions.
Most of us (even TTAC readers!) want a fun car, but we are also mindful of economy, financials, resale, reliability, and practicality. As much as my eyes pop open when I see an ad for the new Camaro, I know I’ll never buy one.
And therein lies the problem with the Detriot 2.8. They squander their precious resources and limited talent on endless variations of Mustangs, 300s, and SUVs. All high in image, but out of balance with all of other considerations in a vehicle purchase.
I say kudos to Jeep for not making the Hurricane. We don’t need another macho niche machine.
Well, Detroit has a history of stunning show cars that never made it into production. No changes there.
I don’t know if Detroit needs to change their cars every year, it would already be something if they could adopt the way of the imports where it usually works like this:
A new car gets a thorough refresh after about three years and is replaced after another three years.
In Detroit, a new car is produced for 6 years without any changes, but since there are no vehicles in the pipeline, instead of being replaced, the car then gets a superficial face-lift and after another 4-6 years, the car is at the rock bottom of the market to such an extend, that they can’t even replace it because its name is worth nothing anymore. They have to introduce a new nameplate, and while the imports can carry over their customers into the next gen Civic etc, Detroit has to establish a new name with tons of advertising money that can’t be spent on R&D so that after 6 years, there won’t be a replacement ready…
CeeDragon:
Most of us (even TTAC readers!) want a fun car, but we are also mindful of economy, financials, resale, reliability, and practicality. As much as my eyes pop open when I see an ad for the new Camaro, I know I’ll never buy one.
I’m not so sure about that. Sure, the Camaro has a limited appeal, but the 300 and PT proved that a mainstream motor can have Hot Wheels curb appeal.
Why is it an either or deal?
Kurt B: “Perhaps the marketing “genius” was to have the car out by the time Transformers 2 hits the screen (or maybe 3 … or 4…)…”
I don’t see GM investing ad money today for a payoff years from now. If GM wanted to invest now to gain future customers, wouldn’t they just build more reliable cars that stay new-looking inside longer and have better resale value? Such a program would also likely cut warranty costs.
—
A little perspective is necessary… that toy Jeep doesn’t have a tenth the parts that a real Jeep has and the “body” is going to be far easier to make. There are job shops that will return plastic parts from your CAD drawings in unbelievably short timeframes (if memory serves, many are in China).
But the underlying problem is that Detroit is slow compare to some others. Unibody has been a fact of life for years; to stay on top of things means finding a way of building a new unibody car in a short time. The last I heard, Toyota could get a new car out the door at least a year faster than Detroit. That’s the challenge.
CeeDragon : I say kudos to Jeep for not making the Hurricane. We don’t need another macho niche machine.
I had hoped Jeep would come out with a fun, affordable little car. A Manx Dune Buggy you didn’t have to build yourself. It’s a niche I think is empty at the moment.
Great article – and it makes a compelling argument for the main reason behind buying a car: pure, unadulterated subjectivity. Of course, there are lots of people who value objective criteria like price (Kia anyone?), fuel consumption, resale value, and so on. But lots more buy a car simply because they like it – some of them even because they looooove it. (I’m a sucker for the PT Cruiser, which – objectively – is absolute rubbish next to a Golf or a Mazda 3 for instance, but subjectively: coooooool. I had a few of them as holiday rentals, loved them dearly, and man, do they stand out in a car park full of Camrys!)
Which is why people go out buying 3-Series BMWs, and if you’re only in for family or couple transport, there is really nothing a Camry won’t do better for thousands less. But it has the pistonhead kudos and social appeal of herpes.
Back in the 1950s, the presentation of a new-model-year Cadillac was a showstopper – and it did nothing to actually improve the car. All it did was keep people’s love for big Caddies alive. These days, you get the same Lincoln Town Car for what feels like two million years – and even when it was launched, it was so boring it seemed like Belgium on wheels. (Can you imagine a ten-year-old and his mates pressing their noses against a dealership window for a Town Car…?)
What I simply do not understand is the complete failure of the Big 2.8 to even capitalise on their own success: glamorous, drool-over-me cars like the Mustang, the 300C, or the PT Cruiser (for $15,000, nothing will ever be as great), sold like hotcakes, and people were falling over themselves to get their hands on one. Yet somehow Chrysler managed to launch the Sebring next, which is so screamingly awful it should come with a written apology from the CEO, and scrap the PT. Hmm.
So why are the imports and transplants stealing the show left, right and centre? Because GM, Lincoln, and Chrysler singlehandedly pissed away decades of history of fascination, desirability and drooling over cars (just compare a 1959 Eldorado Biarritz and a Cimarron if you don’t believe me).
” … most men are developmentally stuck around 12-years old. ”
Then ditto for most women. Cars, clothing, cell phones, purses, shoes, etc. …. we all have our childish vices.
I’m not sure exactly when Detroit lost the keep it fresh magic, but they sure lost it. Up into the 1960s every car model got freshened every year and a complete redo every 3-5 years. Grills, lighting, dashboards, interiors and such were always changing.
In the 1970s when safety and emissions regulations started notching up these regular updates started dying off. Interestingly enough, the Europeans mostly had never done the annual change for the sake of change thing. The VW bug, Volvos, Mercedes and BMWs which made it to the US typically had long model lifetimes.
Today the leaders in keeping it fresh are the Japanese. Every volume model gets a complete redo every five years or so. Honda typically ramps up included equipment once or twice during the lifetime of a design in order to keep up some buyer interest. Since new car loans are typically 4-5 years it makes sense that when new car buyers are in the mood for another new car they should see something really new when they stop for a look.
Pity the poor Grand Marquis owner who is in for a 100k mile service at their friendly dealer and pokes a head into the showroom to see what’s new. If they happen to find a Grand Marquis they will be disappointed to see that it looks like their current car after a really nice wash and detailing job. No reason to get a new one.
we need less badge engineering and more sheet metal and platform engineering.
cars can be camry boring underneath, but why do they have to be so lame on top?! it doesn’t cost more to make a car look cool, does it? sheet metal is sheet metal.
it’s so frustrating sometimes.
I would love it if the domestics were able to “refresh” thier models at least every TWO years or so. How long has the 300 been out? It is already starting to be a bit ubiquitous. I think they would have kept sales alive had they altered the grill, then change the tailights, UPGRADE THE INTERIOR, etc….
Then people that said, “Well, I just don’t like it because of the headlights, or tailights, or the funky color of the instrument binnacle”, would then look at each refresh, and go, “Oooh, thats different, maybe I will look at that!”.
That said, I don’t think it would be realistic. The retooling, even for small headlight and taillight changes would strap the domestics profit margins even more (and then we would be writing articles on how idiotic it is for the domestics to spend wasteful money retooling for small changes every year). And I believe that is where the aftermarket add-ons/tuner industry has its place. Get tired of your 300C? Bolt on a really shiny fake Rolls-Royce grill… and then change it in two years when you get tired of it.
I think the best compromise would be the “special editions” we see Ford churning out with the Mustang. It keeps people interested in the vehicle, and gets older Mustang drivers to go back to the dealer to oogle over the latest Shelby GT/Mach 1 /California Special /Bullitt/Triple White Secretary Special /V-6 Automatic Pony Package with extra viagra in the glove box Editions.
If Chevrolet and Dodge follow suit with thier “halo” cars (including the Wrangler), the toys the article talks about, people with a urge to buy a car that minute will walk in the showroom, and then readily be talked into the slower selling (but much more affordable) sedan that has been languishing on the lot for 160-days with a lot of incentives…. and a paint scheme similar to the Halo Car.
P.S. I’m glad Porsche doesn’t follow this rule at all…. otherwise people would stop mistaking my older Porsche for a brand new one!
P.S.S. I am taking therapy for displaying occasional shallow characteristics.
This is a great subject, and the writer has several good points. I especially agree with you on the dune buggy idea, Michael. Where is the lite little Jeep they should have made instead of those abominations? Can’t someone engineer a better suzuki samurai? Now that the 4 door wrangler is the big seller, you could do it without cannibalizing more sales than you made.
Also, Ford has found a good idea with all the special editions. They sell. And they likely bring people into the show room. We tell jokes here, but they do sell.
So, what’s the downside with more changes to cars each year? As mentioned, it’s production costs. Also, there may be a depreciation increase. Still, if it sells more cars, you would be ahead I think.
Why don’t we get more hot wheels cars from the 2.8? Because no matter what hot, fresh, and original idea you come up with, if the car is just mediocre, or worse, the sales fizzle. The design becomes linked in everyone’s minds with the crappy car instead of the dreams they inspired. Then they hate you for it. Examples – PT Cruiser, T-Bird, Prowler, etc.
The new styling that brought Chrysler back from the dead over a decade ago, started killing it again the second people realized that the cars were falling apart. When even a three year old version could be seen rolling down the road looking like a worn out old car, no one was impressed with them anymore. Quite the opposite, most people didn’t want to be seen in one. The styling that made them unique now made the owners stand out as suckers rather then fashion mavens.
To make an analogy, it’s like when you eat something that makes you sick. My wife got sick off of some bad shrimp once. She doesn’t like it anymore. It tastes bad to her. She wonders how she used to eat it at all. She forgets she used to love the stuff. Now she eats less seafood overall, and certainly doesn’t enjoy it as much.
OTOH, My mom used to hate gatorade. Could NOT understand how I drank it. Then she got sick and the doctor made her drink the stuff. Her body needed the gatorade, and now she likes it. Her body tricked her taste buds into liking something she previously hated because it had such a good reaction to it.
Cars are the same way.
LACK OF FOCUS, that is Detroit’s main problem. Detroit does not need any more one hit wonder speciality cars. Detroit (Big 2.5) need Focus.
Honda and Toyota are successful because they are focused on a simple mission; Build the best decently price ($25,000) family sedan!
THAT IS WERE THE MONEY IS AT STUPID!
Since the current perception is that Detroit can NOT build a good everyday car the rest of their lineup suffers under this preception. If these guys cant build a decent family sedan why do you expect them to build anything else that is good.
Cars like the Mustang and 300c will always sell well when they are freshly introduced. Americans LOVE a good fad! The problem is these types of cars “play out” quickly because they tend to have more “flash” than substance. This strategy leaves the Big 2.8 with an endless line of half-ass, flashy, cute cars that DO NOT measure up to the industry leaders in any way.
So at the end of the day what do you want in your driveway? A flashy 300C POS that looks silly after a year or so. It also makes the owner look rather lame in short order. Or would you rather go with the serious, no-nonsense Accord that make you look like a smart, secure individual.
Back in the 70’s, domestic carmakers did indeed make cosmetic changes every year. Velour upholstery was so last year, now that crushed velvet is available, and I can’t wait until next year when it comes out in plaid.
So while the Big 3 agonized over fabric choices, the Japanese focused on little things like reliability, combustion efficiency and quality. Looks like that was the smarter path.
Although I’m no domestic fanboy, I have to state that it is unfair to say that Fisher Price understood the appeal and built the Jeep that Jeep wouldn’t. There are simply a lot more factors that goes into such a decision for Jeep than for Fisher Price.
Honestly in America you can still get damn near anything you want if you have the means and are willing to make use of them.
A 4WD vehicle that can spin on a dime can be built for you buy several aftermarket specialty shops. It might cost you a pretty penny but if you can afford it hey!
Vehicles like this are not the mission of GM, Ford, or Chysler. These companies are no different than Honda or Toyota, they are mainstream auto manufacturers that need to succeed by producing desirable mainstream automobiles.
If anything Toyota is the company that currently needs to think outside the box. They have the money and means to explore “new and exciting” niche products. The irony is unlike Detroit Toyota does understand that these type of “side trips” only take R&D money away from their consistant money maker MAINSTREAM products.
The big 2.8 and domestic car fans need to get it though their heads that rehashing former products that were popular for reasons outside of being excellent designs is a big fat waste of time. While Ford has been busy making poorly built retro Mustangs Hyundai is working on the what might possibly become the real “new” Mustang with the first AFFORDABLE new RWD coupe in god nows how many years!
Just keep in mind that the single largest selling car in the US is the Little Tikes Cosy Coupe. Perhaps Detroit should be hiring ceos from toy companies. They certainly understand rapid product cycles and efficient production, although they may need some advice on product safety :).
THAT IS WERE THE MONEY IS AT STUPID!
One word: Porsche.
There is a lot more to be made selling volume than high dollar, but let’s not forget that the bottom line is still the bottom line.
If the 2.8 could convince the country that they are not here for our needs, but to make money, and that they should be able to do that with less interference from laws and lawyers, then it would be as easy thing for them to succeed.
They aren’t the best at making Camry killers because for over a decade they were making all their money on SUV’s. They may have been short sighted, but if we would all stop having such an attachment to them it would help. The problem is that there is no flexibility in the business, so they cannot take advantage of their “Americanness”.
Stop over regulating them on every angle, and they will win. We should regulate transparency on crash issues, and warranties. We should regulate a minimum amount of pollution per mile. We should have reasonable employee protections. That should be it.
Then stop letting them lose millions over lawsuits for things that are other peoples faults and we will have our 100 mpg flying robot cars in a couple decades.
I would love it if the domestics were able to “refresh” thier models at least every TWO years or so…altered the grill, then change the tailights, UPGRADE THE INTERIOR, etc….
This is exactly what the Big 2.x DON’T need to be doing. Because they’ll divert resources into meaningless cosmetic changes instead of fixing the very real mechanical and quality issues that seem to accompany most new models out of Detroit.
Emulate Toyota and Honda and constantly fix/improve the bugs in your vehicles. Annual cosmetic changes are from the bad old days when Detriot operated like three divisions of a monopoly and could waste time prettifying its dinosaur-tech leaf-sprung, drum-braked, OHV-engined vehicles.
You’re absolutely right, Michael Martineck.
I would kill to drive the warthog from the Xbox game Halo in the real world. So it takes 11 gallons to cross 250 yards? Big deal.
Hey Jeep or Hummer – build me a warthog dammit.
This is why I love the //M wheels on my car. They are dead ringers for the hot wheels wheels I had as a kid.
M-B has an almost identical wheel too !
I think this goes to show once again that the brain of an enthusiast operates on an entirely different wavelength than most people’s. And once again, that’s a bad thing. Any automaker fool-hardy enough to follow the chain of thinking advocated in this article would be immeasurably screwed. Not the “don’t advertise what you don’t have” part. That’s common sense. But the rest? The chief difference between now and the 50s…60s, whatever, when you had those yearly updates, is the customer. People didn’t mind their cars breaking down, because they were used to it. They drank gasoline like a frat boy drinks Budweiser, but no one cared, because that’s what cars did. And, god forbid, you had a crash…let’s face it…you were going to die. But once people realized that you could buy a car that wouldn’t leave you stranded, didn’t suck a walletful of fuel, and (eventually) would be safe, they changed their tune in droves. Suddenly, having the “nu nu nu!” style wasn’t as important. That process is well documented here and in other sites. But this article just seems to be ignoring it. The reason cars like the Hurricane don’t get made and why constant updating isn’t done is because it would be ridiculous and unnecessary. Like the Bugatti Veyron, it would impress people for…a day. Then they would leave and buy something they can carry their children in without getting vertigo. And another thing, I don’t think the biggest problem is that the domestics don’t update their cars enough. It’s that six months after a car is launched, you never hear about it ever again. I think just having a yearly campaign would be a lot more cost-effective than doing what you’re suggesting. I’m seeing more commercials for the ninth-gen Corolla at the end of its (too long) run than I have for the Cobalt, which is half as old. And even then, the ads just say you can lease an LS with a manual transmission that no one wants and nothing standard but the air inside for the change under your sofa, so head to your nearest Chevy dealer. Or not. When I frequented domestic boards, the arguments I heard all the time were “Only sheep buy Toyotas” and “Yeah, our cars don’t sell, but at least they aren’t boring.”, which is just a ludicrous statement. People don’t mind boring. Hell, some people seek it out. I’m not trying to speak for all Americans, but I think saying that we want a car that takes us from point A to point B in a reasonable amount of pace and comfort without looking ridiculous is fair. No, it’s not an either-or dilemma, Farago. More like a continuum. Take for instance, the 2002-3 Nissan Altima. It’s by no means the prettiest car I’ve ever seen in my life, but it was the first mid-size car in a while that people could look at for 30 seconds without feeling the need to leave to do something else. And in its first year of sales, it seemed to be taking from Camry and Accord. Brilliant. Until people started complaining about the cheap, rattling trim. And the noisy engine. And the comparatively bad fuel economy. Just in time for Nissan’s crippling quality problems. So far as I can tell, the only thing the Altima has done is lead to the over-styling of the ‘07 Camry and ‘08 Accord, both of which will still sell better. That’s the thing. Chances are, a good-looking mediocre car isn’t going to sell better than a more plain car that actually is good.
What amazes me is how old American iron (be it the Hurricane, or a ’70 Cutlass) has the right stuff to permeate through countless aspects of our culture, yet Detroit cannot capitalize on their strongest asset.
(Mustang and Corvette notwithstanding)
If they get it right, it rots on the vine. While they chase Camcords, Global platform-swapping, and core clouding endeavors like SAAB, Jaguar, etc Detroit manages to alienate everyone remotely interested in their cars. You can bet a large swath of American motorists will go for a new Ford Galaxie, Chevrolet Chevelle, Buick Wildcat, Pontiac Grand Prix, Cadillac Eldorado (the list goes on and on) who wouldn’t otherwise consider American cars.
Then again, they do consider Detroit products when the incentives roll out every 2-3 months. Discounting or American innovation? I know which one I’d rather have.
“You can bet a large swath of American motorists will go for a new Ford Galaxie, Chevrolet Chevelle, Buick Wildcat, Pontiac Grand Prix, Cadillac Eldorado (the list goes on and on) who wouldn’t otherwise consider American cars.”
When the history of the American automotive industry is written, one whole chapter should be devoted to the stupidity of killing off names which have huge brand equity. I can hardly believe that the high priced marketing folks still think this is a good idea.
Nissan likewise did itself a big disservice way back when they changed from Datsun to Nissan in the US market. It was only a few years later that they fell into the arms of Renault of all companies as their savior. Renault has substituted cost cutting and fashion chasing for quality and Nissan’s results show it.
For decades Japan’s auto industry was led by Toyota with Nissan/Datsun hot on it’s heels. Now Nissan is a second class player back in the pack after Toyota and Honda.
One final note. Sometimes the only thing worst than letting a car get stale is to completely botch the redesign. That is exactly how Ford took Taurus from #1 in sales for 1995 to Rental Queen with the 1996 Oval Design Nightmare.
I still stand by the statement that if you want to keep the volume rolling then there has to be some substantial good reason for a person to trade in the old wheels for new. There is method to the Japanese practice of a new vehicle every 5 years or so.
Carshark,
I have to disagree with what I think you mean. I think you may be missing the mark. Sure, we all want hot wheels cars, here. Yes, many more people buy Camcords. Yes the big 2.8 boards are in their own world.
Still, your example of the Altima was the better point. They made a car that everyone thought was going to be a Camcord with more style, and they started gaining ground. It’s only after the cars prove unworthy that they stop selling. If GM came up with a boring car that equaled the Camcords in everyway, how many years before they really started to get back market share? Wouldn’t they be better off with an “Altima” that has Camcord quality? Are redeeming qualities that are not boring somehow a negative?
If you can’t get the quality, you will NEVER outsell Camcords. So, if you can’t get the quality right, either stick to what you are good at, or build exciting crap, or hit’em where they ain’t. Even if you get the quality, are you desiring to wait years for people to realize it?
I assume you don’t want the 2.8 to ignore my point about Porsche profit and the bottom line being the bottom line? What they are good at is building SUV’s for low dollars and selling them at high prices. The market for that may come back around. Or, the hybrid versions may work. But there are people still making vacuum tubes. If you make the best of something, you can keep doing it for a long, long time.
In the meantime, they can try to beat the Camcord, but wouldn’t they best hedge their bets by trying to come out with something different at the same time? Would they be better off laying off the few thinkers they may have left because we know those people don’t want to redo the Camcord? Let’s fire everyone with a good idea? Would you have killed the Miata?
There are a few niches with better odds for success than the 2.8 trying to beat the Camcord next year. Do a peoples’ car, or a peoples’ SUV. If boring is good, insanely boring is better. Only insanely boring has cache that Camcord doesn’t. Make the next VW, or citreon super seller, or Model T. That would get us all behind them, AND the world market for one of these is about to start doubling at an insane rate.
Make it out of composites, or make it out of cheap steal body on frame with rivets. Whatever. Make something that isn’t even US compatible and export it. Make it in palestine for the palestinians. I don’t care, just stop sitting around with a bunch people who have never really made anything in their lives drinking coffee and stroking each other.
Great things often take lots of boring hard work, but they are rarely accomplished in the USA without passion. The 2.8 people need passion about something other than dividing up the left over crumbs of their once thriving empires. You won’t get it with the new Bu. I don’t care if it’s twice the car of any Camcord. Ain’t gonna get it done. Not gonna raise morale, not gonna tip the buyers perceptions, and not gonna save the day. I am not saying it’s a loser, just that it’s not a horse that will run from the back of the pack to win the race.
Heck, the Japanese didn’t win with the Camcord’s until they had carved out a niche in subcompacts. Even if the target is winning the Camcord segment, I think you have to approach it somehow from the flank.
Hope that’s enough prose for you. Sorry if my metaphors and similes were not up to the standard.
:)
Back in the ’80s, Detroit DID concentrate on more than the cosmetic.
By 1987, Detroit cars had electronic fuel injection, distributorless electronic ignition,
lockup torque converters, overdrive transmissions, etc.
I’ve owned both an ’87 Sentra and an ’87 Pontiac 6000. The Sentra was easily the biggest POS I’ve ever had.
While the 6000 would start in any weather at the turn of a key, the Sentra kept you guessing, “Is this a one-pump day or a two-pump day” knowing that a wrong calculation would leave you cranking and cranking, foot to the floor, until you got either a smoke plume or a dead battery.
The Sentra’s carburetor had a bunch of electro-vacuum devices attached to it, some of them leaky, none available at the parts houses or Nissan unless attached to a new carb that cost more than the rustbucket was worth. Whenever I plugged another vacuum leak, it really didn’t do ANYTHING , positive or negative to performance or economy other than to reduce engine shake at idle.
What the Hell was all of that crap for, anyway.
Should I have needed a new injector unit for the Pontiac’s throttle-body injection system, I could have had one for $60. I replaced one on another car by unplugging the electrics, prying the unit out with a screwdriver, and gently tapping the new one in with a small hammer and block of wood.
The car started right up on the new unit–no adjustments necessary.
The body of the Sentra was a rat’s nest of boxed-in areas that rusted through.You didn’t store anything in the trunk and the carpets “squished for days after a rain.
The Pontiac had a couple of almost-through spots on the door bottoms, but the passenger and trunk compartments stayed dry and dustless.
The Sentra could have redeemed itself with good fuel economy, but got the same 27mpg in good weather as the bigger, more comfortable Pontiac.
In cold weather, the Pontiac slipped to 23mpg; the Sentra plummeted to 19. Some economy car!
IMHO, Detroit’s 1980s ads should have “outed” all of the Jap competition that was creaking along with carbs and mechanically-driven/timed ignitions while Detroit was busy spending millions on Engine Management Systems of The Future.
@zenith
Like the Cadillac V-8-6-4? Wasn’t the best usage of money, from what’s been said. And your example is only one anecdote versus the sea of evidence throughout history. The Big Three may have good ideas at times, but their execution leaves much to be desired. The Japanese may not have been the hugest innovators, but their patience allowed them to see the land mines GM, Ford and Chrysler stepped on, so they could avoid them.
@Landcrusher
I guess the reason I don’t think styling is as important as some here say is that usually the company that has the most adventurous design is the one that has to because they’re behind. Lambos are more aggressive than Ferraris. Recent Chrysler have more style than Chevys. Same with Nissan and Toyota. When they bring out a new car, not sure if it will overtake the leader, they need something else to stand out. The leader, however, just needs to not pull a ’96 Taurus.
As for Porsche and its high-profit, low-volume ways, well…I was one of the few saying that GM updating their SUVs early was a good thing. I know that wasn’t the “in” thing to do, but GM’s offerings were almost 7 years old. And I know that everyone looks at the hybrid GMT-900s as another cynical money grab, but I’ve always thought that if you want to save gas in a fleet, putting a hybrid in a 15 mpg vehicle to get 20 mpg will save more gas than it would making a 40 mpg vehicle get 45 mpg. And I do think that there are people who drive bigger SUVs who would like a smaller fuel bill afforded by a hybrid. The problem isn’t the idea. Once again, it’s the execution. This time, the pricing.
You can get a Chevy Tahoe LS 4×4 for $38,795.
The Hybrid 4×4 version starts at $53,295. That’s a $14,500 premium! The hybrid’s not on TrueDelta, so I’m not sure as to what extra goodies are made standard, but STILL that’s a steep ask.
And I don’t think I would have killed the Miata. If you want to be thought of as a sporty car company, an inexpensive, rear-drive two-seater coupe or roadster isn’t a bad idea. If you want to be thought of as a serious off-roader company, however, why do you need a double-engined, zero-turning radius, carbon fiber-bodied dune buggy with unfathomable dials? It’s just TOO extreme. I would have been on board for the Gladiator or whatever the other Jeep compact truck concept was called. That was a good idea that would have made good sense. I think the Trailhawk would have worked (taking the openness of the Wrangler and giving it to a Grand Cherokee-sized vehicle), though I’d have been a bit worried about the crash ratings. Unfortunately, I would have green-lighted the Compass, too. In my defense, I was thinking, ‘Hmmm. It won’t be good on the rocks, but it’ll be great in the forest. It will expand Jeep’s outdoorsy image, without diluting it.’ A seven-slot rally thoroughbred, not a Caliber reskin with a tampon dispenser.
zenith :
Come on man, you are comparing a Sentra with a Pontiac 6000!
I remember the 1980s very well and a 1987 Nissan Sentra was the cheapest car you could buy outside of a Yugo or a Hyundai Excel. The Pontiac 6000 was the mean of GM production cars of that era.
To be fair you need to compare your Pontiac 6000 to a 1986 or 1987 Nissan Maxima. Now your 6000 is coming up short in very major ways. While your 6000 was equiped with an el cheapo TBI FI the Maxima was equiped with a fully electronic TPI Fi system. While your 6000 was squeeling sideways under heavy breaking with its rear wheel drums the Maxima was making use of discs all around. The 1987 Maxima was also putting out a healthy 157hp to the v6 6000s 128 or 135.
I will even grant you that the Maxima did cost a few more bucks than a 6000 so I will drop it down to a Stanza. Now the v6 equiped 6000 would leave any Stanza in the dust but outside of that the Stanza was the better built car. Trust me I have spent enough time with an 87 Stanza and 6000 to know.
Wait, if I am correct Pontiac was still sell those T1000 Chevette clones to compete with the Sentra back than. I dont think you want to go there.
Heck, the Japanese didn’t win with the Camcord’s until they had carved out a niche in subcompacts. Even if the target is winning the Camcord segment, I think you have to approach it somehow from the flank.
Good plan. Where’s the competitive GM compact car, to beat the wedge of cheese Civic, the long-in-the-tooth Corolla, or the idiosyncratic Mazda3?
Oh wait, never mind.
These are the cars 1st time buyers look at, and those people become brand-loyal 2nd time buyers when it’s time to get something that can accomodate a child’s seat.
You know what I just realized? The 300 has been giving the Mustang a run for it’s money in terms of special editions.
Here’s the range, from the site:
LX
Great American Package
Touring
Touring Walter P. Chrysler Executive Series Signature Series Value Package
Limited
300C
300C Walter P. Chrysler Executive Series
300C SRT Design
Heritage Edition
300C SRT8
A couple of those I haven’t even heard of. Chrysler, to their credit, has been trying to keep interest in their flagship.
Great editorial Michael! Fun to read and absolutely right on the mark! Kudos.