Ever since TTAC began, we’ve been arguing that carmakers (including everybody) are making too many models for too many brands, denying themselves the benefits of customer loyalty and ever-improving design, mechanical and service-related excellence. Perhaps the recent “downturn” would convince these manufacturers to throttle back on the whole BUT WAIT! THERE’S THIS! thing. Nope. The automotive Powers that Be (and the pistonhead chattering classes) continue to adhere to The Magic Feather School of Flying Elephants New Product Development. In fact, now that Detroit’s lack of foresight has put The Big 2.8 in a paddle-less predicament at the top of excrement creek, they’re even more desperate to throw a four-wheeled Hail Mary. In this The Detroit Free Press is a more-than-willing accomplice. “10 vehicles that will redefine the auto industry in the next year” perpetuates the myth that a turnaround is only a vehicle– or ten– away. And the “winners” are… 2009 Audi A4, 2009 Chevrolet Traverse, 2024 Chevrolet Camaro (I kid), 2009 Dodge Ram, 2009 Ford F-150, 2010 Honda Insight, 2010 Lincoln MKT, 2009 Toyota Venza, 2010 Toyota Prius, 2009 Mazda6. Redfinition? You’re kidding, right? No Volt action? Damn! Meanwhile… Camry, Corolla, Accord, etc.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Deadtroit’s quest for instant profits will never change. Toyota and Honda have been offering unexciting but competent and reliable vehicles for decades and have slowly been chipping away at the big 00’s sales for decades. New and exciting only lasts until the new is over. Repeat sales are generated years later when the buyer looks at the overall experience of ownership. When I think of Deadtroit redefined, I think of the Edsel and the Vega. What Detroit needs now is the non-innovative common sense approach that created the cheap Chrysler Minivan from the K-car or the original Mustang from the Falcon.
The Freep article illustrates the bankruptcy of the automotive press. These folks don’t see themselves as journalists. They are naught but second-hand marketeers who will endlessly recycle tired, old adjectives to help Detroit sell its prosaic wares.
The simple truth is that this is not a big year for blockbuster designs. Perhaps the most significant car, the Honda Insight, looks to be little more than a me-too Prius. Yawn.
The overproliferation of models is a fad whose time will end once a struggling automaker declares — in an act of fiscal desperation — that a streamlined product line is the next best thing to sliced bread. Once their sales rebound, the auto exec responsible for this brilliant stroke of genius will get his face on the cover of Time magazine, and all of the other leading automakers will quickly take the leap. What was once a radical idea by a curmudgeonly blog will become The Way. One-upsmanship in streamlining model lineups will reach a fevered pitch until . . . .
Hey, did you hear that model proliferation is hot again?
What Detroit needs to do, at minimum, is to provide sufficient extra value to offset the depreciation their models suffer from. Only protection will allow them to do that profitably.
One part of this is identifying and neutralizing unfair trade practices by foreign manufacturers. Unlike the Thirties, the US is not running trade surpluses, but Smoot-Hawley type legislation runs the risk of locking up trade much as the credit markets are frozen up now. It may be a risk worth taking. I don’t think autos are inevitably a sunset industry in North America, it’s about creating the conditions for a vital domestic market.
When I read this article on the Freep website, I was glad to see that one of the first comments contained my exact sentiments regarding one of Mike Phelan’s choices: What the heck is so “redefining” about the Camaro?
Brave, new type of vehicle? Nope. First of its kind? Nope. A new way of thinking about a particular type of vehicle? Three strikes…you’re out!
That alone makes the article amusing, but added to it is the fact that there are two large pick-em-ups on the list. While I’m glad to see that the Dodge rides better and the Ford is lighter, the only “redefinition” I see in either is that they could redefine their makers’ corporate structure by bringing them that much closer to bankruptcy.
And don’t get me started on the Traverse…isn’t that just Chevy’s version of the Acadia/Outlook/Enclave?
Robert, I think you need to remove the strikethrough on “Flying Elephants.” You had it right the first time…
EDIT/ADD: eh_political, I’m not sure that Smoot-Hawley-type tariffs would work. With automobiles, the high-volume models now have so much U.S. content that their prices wouldn’t be impacted. On the other hand, it’s amusing to see how state and local governments rally to provide tax incentives for foreign-owned automakers to locate in their communities, yet we’d hear a blood-curdling scream of “Protectionism!” if any state were to charge TT&L at a lower rate for domestic-branded vehicles. Just a thought, and from a man who usually buys Nissans…
I hear you BuzzDog. The only thing that will save US industrial capacity would be a multi-layered approach with long term aims. Short term bailouts are a given, but without exacting a price from the clowns running the show they will produce only short term results, a “dead cat bounce”. Union and dealer concessions too. It is not too much for taxpayers to expect a return on their investment.
I think TTACers are a reliable source of good ideas for what a post-apocalyptic Detroit might look like. It is possible that a coherent template for the future of the industry could be anticipated here first. As satisfying as it may be to proclaim “let it die”, it is not realistic or ultimately desirable to expect such an outcome.
Killing GM Ford and Chrysler kills the future. While the companies exist, reform is possible, and with it the potential for better leadership to take the domestic brands back to the top.
This crisis could and should be an opportunity for renewal.
If Ford actually follows through for once and kills Mercury, then it’s the only one swimming against the tide. It will have only two branded vehicles at any one time and that’s on only a very few models.
That’ll do.
Chryco CAN’T do it because they have nothing else. If they cancel the brandings they will be down to something like 6 models assuming they kill the deadwood that they’ve promised and it will be obvious that the Emperor has no clothes.
GM won’t do it because that’s not the GM way. Much, much better to go down with the sinking ship, no? Ahhhhh pride, it’s a killer!
Pure marketing BS.
There is nothing redefining about the F-150. It is just a refreshing that keeps with Alan Mulally’s promise that Ford won’t let their models wither on the vine: they will update their cars every 3-4-5 years, Toyota style. Plus, there is nothing game changing about it; it is just an update to keep the model competitive. As for the Ram, I think that it does deserve a mention in the list, as at least it is bringing new features and technology to the market. Remember, it is the first pickup to have independent rear suspension, and it has the new whatever-the-stupid-Chrysler-name-for-it boxes in the bedsides.
The Ford Flex deserved a mention methinks. Although Ford is calling it a crossover SUV, the Flex could possibly be the revival of the station wagon, as well as being one of the best cars Ford has made this decade. We can use it as a preview of what is now going on at Ford since Mulally took the helms.
No redefining models are really being released this year. We will have to wait until next year, which will be the year when the redefining new models are released. And when they make their article next year, the 2010 Taurus BETTER be on that list. Judging by the spy photo, the 2010 Taurus is going to do exactly the same thing that the 1986 Taurus did: turn the entire auto industry on its ear, send everybody scrambling to emulate it, and swoop down to save Ford from bankruptcy.
Redefining is quite strong. It’s more like, “may sell better than the last batch”
If the Traverse sells well (I think it will) doesn’t that really mean that the Outlook and Acadia were “redefining”
The Prius future American plant may redefine more than the Prius itself. The Prius has already redefined enough.
runfromcheney- styling won’t sell a car. The Taurus won’t move unless people want to buy big sedans again.
and the Ram doesn’t have IRS it has coil springs- just like a 1965 Chevy truck
I see no problem with introducing new models, as long as it is not done at the expense of updating and improving existing ones. Ford is definately on the right track here, as long as it can keep up with the timetables set for refreshes. GM is doing better than it has in the past, Chrysler, well, who knows what the hell is going on at Chrysler anymore.
New vehicles are good to tap new markets, and to bring in conquest buyers from other brands, but as mentioned above, they have to be developed and supported if they are to survive. While Toyota and Honda have done a great job continually evolving the Civic/Corolla/Camry/Accord, I would never buy any of them simply because they have had all of the fun and quirkiness engineered out of them by now.
The 2009 Ram seems to be coming to market at the wrong time. The coil springs may help with making the ride better, but time will tell how they hold up for actual truck work. Dodge has come up with a great feature for a lux-truck just as the market for lux-trucks is dying.
The MKT could be big, depending on how it looks when it finally hits the market. The only real complaint anyone has about the Flex is the styling, so if the MKT looks great, sales will come.
2010 Rams and F150s with $6/gal fuel in Florida? Plug in Prius and Insight have potential. What will it take to pump their mpg up even higher?
What if they get greater then 40 mile all battery range before the Volt is ever released and sell for half the Volts price?
The Volt might be like the Ford Edge. Sure, it might be a nice vehicle. But the price prevents a lot of people from picking one up.
The only thing that could save trucks is if they become cheap again. And people can afford to use them as work trucks.
I remember a 1977 Chevy truck. It didn’t have a headliner in it. It was the smooth painted metal underside of the roof. No sagging headliner in that vehicle. That was a good truck too.
A good definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
they are apparantly still crazy after all these years.
Is the Mazda considered a Detroit vehicle? If not, then the domestic vehicles in the list are all light trucks and the foreign vehicles are all cars. Seems like the 1990’s all over again.