Dead on Arrival: New Models That Don't Have a Chance
June 23, 2008
By Bill Visnic
One bizarre fallout from the wild-ride shift in consumer tastes is a spate of new or soon-to-be-released models that were designed and developed under assumptions about the U.S. market that now are absolutely invalid.
The result: a slew of white elephants designed when gasoline was $2 per gallon (or less) and Americans were still buying 800,000 F-Series pickups and everything else that looked big, sucked gas and telegraphed that you had arrived at that special entitlement heaven espoused by Rush Limbaugh and everyone else who insisted cheap energy and cheap mortgages are an American birthright.
It might be almost laughable if the U.S. domestic auto industry weren't in such disastrous shape -- and had the luxury of time to once again make amends for decades of single-minded product-development choices.
Here's a short list of our favorite vehicles that, thanks mostly to the new rules governing the auto industry, suddenly look titanically dumb:
BMW
• X6: Most everybody admits: Great car to drive, probably one of the silliest "packages"
currently on the market. It's a jacked-up but road-oriented crossover that weighs 5,000 pounds yet is a tight fit for four occupants, much less their gear.Get a good look at this one: it's like it was concocted in the Jurassic Park lab, a premium-octane-slurping freak of nature that really has no business in the BMW lineup (which Monday launched ads boasting BMW's mpg) -- except that three years ago it probably seemed like a totally cool idea.
CHRYSLER
• Dodge Challenger: Just months ago, Chrysler was chest-thumping about how you'd have
to be an idiot if you weren't hot for the V8-powered Challenger coupe. Now all the carmaker wants to talk about is the "value" of the Challenger with a V6.
• Dodge Ram: An all-new one's coming this fall. By that time, India's Mahindra & Mahindra may be launching it, though. For the rest, see Ford F-150 below.
FORD
• F-150: Did anybody have even the slightest trepidation about a bigger footprint, V8s only,
seven (!) trim levels, power running boards? Apparently, they all thought the proliferation never needed to stop: "We don't need no stinking V6s!"
Overnight, the F-150s gone from the franchise to the product they'd rather not mention -- much less have to launch this fall in the shadow of Exxon station signs. That unnerving intro, by the way, now has been postponed by two months, purportedly to clear out ballooning stocks of the old model -- but probably also to buy marketing some time. We figure they'd love to just cancel the mindlessly Bigfooted new F-150 and just soldier on with the current one, as General Motors has announced it will do with its pickups and big utes.
Here's a fun quote from the press materials attributed to Mark Fields, Ford's president of The Americas, that Ford's PR crew might want to run through for updating:
"With Ford's product-led transformation in full swing, the new F-150 could not have come at a better time -- for Ford and for our customers."
• Flex: All right, we might accept this mildly intriguing mutation of a station wagon and a minivan -- as a niche experiment. And if the price of this slab wasn't laughable: A semi-decent one starts at $32 grand and the Flexi they've been handing the press are $40,000-plus.
Ford pissed away its once-considerable minivan volume. We can't see the Flex's "daring to be different" and Sync bringing that back. While we're at it, 4,640 pounds and 16 mpg in the city isn't exactly a recipe for success, either.
• Lincoln MKS: We hope Lincoln doesn't really believe its own bluster on this car. Semi-
modern styling and a few dashes of "tech" on the equipment list aren't enough to make this reincarnation of the last Continental (R.I.P. 2002) anything vaguely desirable -- or competitive.The profile is crisp enough but could be anything, the grille's more than a little overwrought and the interior looks like Bette Midler's idea of hip.
Notes to Lincoln: 1. Acura's already doing this better, and it can't sell it. 2. The terms "flagship" and "front-drive" still don't mix -- just ask Acura. 3. Don't brag about "8,600 orders" before the MKS even hit the showroom. We saw Alan Mulally out back of those dealerships threatening to hand out an old-fashioned Irish butt-whipping if they didn't order a bunch.
GM
Hummer
• H3T: It took $4-per-gallon gas to get GM management eyeballing this dead-end division?
The company says Hummer's place in the corporate cosmos is "under review." What oughta be under review are the goofballs who convinced themselves GM needed Hummer in the first place. And just so you know, this isn't a case of Monday-morning quarterbacking -- we've been saying this since GM acquired Hummer in '98 and gas cost WAY less than it does today.
Now GM's got no choice but to launch the H3T. A Hummer pickup would have been marginal in the go-go late '90s, but the T is the product of the "we have to get Hummer more product" rationale that, abetted by the quickly changing market, only underscores what a misguided decision Hummer was in the first place.
Cadillac
• CTS-V: Yet another example of GM arriving at the party 20 minutes too late. What's left of this market in two years will wholly belong to the Europeans. And that's if they can get the dollar-euro seesaw balanced again.
HONDA
• Pilot: Everybody looked uncomfortable when the lightly disguised concept was revealed,
and now the '09 production version is just plain embarrassing. No matter how Honda tries to spin it, the decision to green-light the boxy SUV styling -- the look would have been passé a half-decade ago -- was a serious strategic mistake.Launching the new Pilot exposes one of the Japan Inc.'s only flaws: reluctance to backtrack once a course has been set. Maybe after gauging the early reaction, if somebody with power had been able to say, "This stinks, and we need to try again -- even if it means delaying our precious launch timetable," the Pilot might have been redeemed. But Honda didactically marched straight to Badville with the second-generation Pilot. It's a true turkey.
• Accord: Fat, heavy and overstuffed. The world didn't need a bigger and more luxie Accord, but that's what Honda uncharacteristically decided was best for the latest generation. Incentives appeared immediately, which also is aberrant for any new Accord.
Granted, when broad assumptions about Honda's most important car were crafted five or six years ago, the world was a different place. But the Accord already had grown so much, it's hard to fathom how famously imaginative Honda got itself to a place that said more size and more stuff was the best route for "improvement." The new Accord seems to be evidence of lazy or indifferent developmental initiative -- it's a relentlessly un-innovative package, and that's the true disappointment of the new Accord.
INFINITI
• FX50: If you must have a V8, it should be 5 liters, and that's what the new-gen FX50 crossover flaunts.
But wow, the last thing the ultra-niche FX line (2007 total sales: 20,727) needed to expand the sales base was a larger, 390-hp V8 that yields, uh, 14 mpg in the city. Yep, that's 14 mpg -- and premium unleaded's required. That scraping sound you hear is hari-kari swords a-sharpening.
TOYOTA
• Venza: "Fat, dumb and stupid is no way to go through life, son."
Tell us where Toyota's going with the Venza that Chrysler hasn't been with the blubbery Pacifica and Mercedes with the blubbery R-Class?
All we can add is this thing had better be a lot lighter than it looks, because while Toyota's at least got a four-cylinder penned into the mix, we can't imagine the car actually moving much with it. This is what happens when you try to invent too many things from too few platforms.
VOLKSWAGEN
• Routan: Somewhere between the time VW decided it needed a badge-engineered minivan for the U.S. and this fall when it's actually available, Germany missed the memo that nobody wants a minivan anymore. To make matters worse, quality-challenged VW enlisted even more quality-challenged Chrysler to build it.
By the way, when will they stop it with the hideous names?
• Tiguan: Decent enough cute-ute savaged by the ruinous currency exchange rate. How bad is it? The cheapest Tiguan is $23,200 for a front-driver. The equivalent Honda CR-V (the segment's best seller) is a rollicking $2,500 less. The most you can spend on a CR-V is $28,400. That's $475 less than the entry-level all-wheel-drive Tiguan.
And stop it with the hideous names, already.
Photos by manufacturers
1 - BMW X6: Amazingly great to drive, especially if you have the environmental consciousness of a Russian oil oligarch.
2 - Dodge Challenger: Tell us again about the demand for new-age muscle cars.
4 - Ford F-150: They made all the wrong moves with the '09 model. We're betting by the time it's launched, there's a six-cylinder option.
5 - Lincoln MKS: What happens when "Let's update the Continental" is your development goal.
6 - Hummer H3T: If the customers' choice is the H3 SUT or white-hot needles in the eyes, GM needs to find a good needle supplier.
7 - Honda Pilot: Another of Honda's little meltdowns. Actually, melting this thing would be an improvement.
8 - Infiniti FX50: Nissan's Hummer. Good thing it's interesting to look at -- maybe the dealers can turn them into fancy fountains or something.
9 - Toyota Venza: Another Pacifica wannabe, only we doubt the third time will be the charm.
Posted by Michelle Krebs at 6:14 AM under Chrysler , Commentary , Companies , Featured , Ford , GM , Toyota | Comments (15) | digg this | Seed Newsvine
I do not know who Bill Visnic is, but he seems as if he is trying to make himself credible by attacking literally everyone. It is quite reminiscent of every article a New York Times food critic has written.
It is apparent that he failed out of his English 101 class too many times. He says, "Fat, heavy and overstuffed" to describe Honda's new Accord sedan. The problem is that he fails to specify where and why it is fat, heavy, and overstuffed. Anyone can make a statement. Few can truly cite an example. Where is the actual weight figure? Why were the dimensions not compared to that of Toyota's Camry and other midsized competitors?
In Visnic's piece about the 2009 Lincoln MKS he states, "Don't brag about "8,600 orders" before the MKS even hit the showroom. We saw Alan Mulally out back of those dealerships threatening to hand out an old-fashioned Irish butt-whipping if they didn't order a bunch." When did Mulally do this? Where? What report said this. It might be true, but real writers include facts, not merely statements.
Posted by: jhed379 | June 23, 2008 at 5:24 PM
The current economic stagnation is accelerating this shift in taste.Americans will still pause along the way down the luxury ladder,stopping for a brief respite in a Venza or Accord.Eventually though,they will realize a $16,000 Corolla or Fit will do the trick.If enough of us get 35-40 mpg it will help lead to more energy security.
Posted by: middleoroad | June 23, 2008 at 8:02 PM
I have to say, I mostly agree with Visnic's assessment of the vehicles listed above. And I don't particularly care how he did in English 101. While at the New York Autoshow, I got to see, up close and personal many of the aforementioned beasts.
The BMW X6 is just plain ridiculous. I'm a well below average 5'8-1/2" tall, and I can say that the top of my head barely misses making out with the luxurious headliner while sitting in the back seat. Even the German tourists that sat in the back seat after me didn't have anything good to say about the Bavarian beast. So much for patriotic loyalty I guess.
And VWs newest offerings? Even during the press days before the general public got a chance to pick and poke at the cars, the Routan minivan looked beat up and cheap. The Tiguans looked nice enough from the outside, but on the inside, seemed to be missing VWs usually nice interiors.
But back to the X6. This particular vehicle is a perfect example of what I hate about the direction of the crossover/SUV market. Enormous proportions on the outside, without functional and practical room on the inside. I could spend all night writing about the number of crossovers and SUVs that have no more room for people and luggage than an average sized mid-sized sedan, or even a small hatchback. It pisses me off to be honest, because, I'm a guy who likes to go biking and hiking and camping and the like. And I need room on the inside--not a lot of bulky sculpted sheet metal on the outside.
And even though cars off all types are just getting bigger on the outside, there is no additional room for my tent and bike and fiance and stuff. It's why, incidentally, I always appreciated the Chevy Suburban. An enormous and inefficient vehicle to be sure....but that thing could swallow up people and gear like that guy who always wins the Nathan's Hot Dog eating contest. It was an honest, unapologetic vehicle with a purpose at least.
Identity confusion runs rampant in the automotive industry.
Even Toyota managed to screw up one of their best. A few years ago, Toyota decided that what the RAV4 really need was more seats. Because you know, all those big families were out shopping cute 'utes for their next automobile. So instead of sticking with a superior and delightfully old-school design that allowed you to completely remove the rear seats creating an enormous cave-like structure for more gear than you could possibly imagine, they decided to lock those seats in and wedge a third row of seats that has Willy Wonka's Oompa Loompas crying out for more room. Why did they do this?!?!?! Because everyone else was doing it I suppose? And you know what our parents always said about this particular brand of logic.
And I HATE that with every re-design of a car (pick a car, any car), one of the primary selling points (at least if you read the press releases), seems to be the vehicle's bigger dimensions. Why? Why can't manufacturers spend time making stylish small cars better in subtle and important ways (better interiors, more sophisticated suspensions, additional safety features, etc) while keeping them small.
Why does the Mini Cooper have to get a little more "maxi" every year? Didn't we all love the cute compact Mini when it first arrived?
Wasn't the whole point of the Acura TSX was to have a sportier, less pudgy Honda Accord, the one the Euros got to drive? And now look at it....jeesh. Still an okay car I suppose (at least that's what all the auto journos seem to say), but it's totally lost it's identity in my opinion.
Posted by: vc95 | June 23, 2008 at 8:51 PM
What about the biggest mistake of all of these, from Toyota?
They just invested millions in building a brand new truck plant last year to build the Tundra.
And now Tundra sales not only missed their projections, but sales have severley declined.
The other cars on the list come from existing or flexible manufacturing lines, making the Tundra from Toyota the biggest corporate mistake in recent history!
Posted by: frank_1 | June 24, 2008 at 6:57 AM
Another disappointing AO article. Great "Hindsight-is-20/20" insight.
1 - BMW X6: Wrong - Sold out for months.
2 - Dodge Challenger: Probably right.
4 - Ford F-150: Wrong - will still be a top 5 seller. Watch how quick those V6s appear.
5 - Lincoln MKS: Questionable.
6 - Hummer H3T: Duh. All Hummers soon to be extinct.
7 - Honda Pilot: Wrong - Ugly, but always the practical choice. Honda will sell more of these body-on-frame SUVs than the big 3's versions.
8 - Infiniti FX50: Correct.
9 - Toyota Venza: Wrong - you think a Camry Wagon won't sell?
This article was DOA.
nf
Posted by: noflash1 | June 24, 2008 at 7:51 AM
Whether Ford wants to admit it or not, the size and number of holes in the engine block are a direct influence on fuel economy. I recall a press release 4-5yrs ago stating by a Ford bigshot that their truck could and should get better fuel economy. That being said, what is the bigg idea behind a bunch of V-8s being the only available engines in the monstrously huge and decadently equipped new Ford trucks. Are they TRYING to become extinct as an auto maker? I am sure Toyota will be willing to step up and take their place after they are gone.
Posted by: whitey9 | June 24, 2008 at 8:27 AM
I agree with most of this article with one exception. How did the Accord make it onto a DOA list? Correct me if I am wrong but didnt the best selling car list last month (you remember, when gas became stupid expencive) go something like this:
Honda Civic
Toyota Corrolla
Honda Accord
Toyota Camry
Ford F-150
How does a car that sells 3rd on the list because of its good gas milage and comfortable package get rated as DOA?
And just to show I am not biased being a Honda guy, I do agree with their other comment on Honda. The new Pilot was a victim of bad timing. 3 years ago the Pilot outsold the CR-V 4 to 1. Last year those numbers reversed. Take a slow seller and revamp it right at the time no one is buying big SUVs. I think if the new Pilot would have hit the market 3 years ago it would have been a hit. Just bad timing, you almost have to feel bad for the truck.
Posted by: bymmot | June 24, 2008 at 8:50 AM
I, too, see hope for the Toyota Venza, now that the Highlander is no longer the "just right" size of the original. Sure, there's always the RAV4, but the Venza will court an older crowd seeking Avalon-level comforts and luxury -- along with the greater ease of entry that only a tall wagon can provide. However, I think the bigger deal is indeed that new 2.7-liter four-cylinder engine -- that's going to feel downright torquey compared to the workhorse 2.4-liter. Evidently, Toyota foresaw a day (today?) when V6s would lose their appeal.
Posted by: Erin Riches | June 24, 2008 at 10:44 AM
I also disagree with Bill about the Accord. Sure, it's too big, but it also has class-leading fuel economy. And it's selling well: I see many on the road, and it was 3rd best seller last month.
One car that I think is surely DOA is the Astra. Seriously, I'm yet to see one!
Posted by: blackadder5639 | June 24, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Wow...I'm really surprised the "new for 2008" Kia Borrego SUV wasn't mentioned. This V8 powered SUV is a decade late to the SUV party and is surely doomed. The V6 powered Dodge Challenger SE gets decent fuel mileage (~25 MPG HWY) so stop picking on it. Not everyone wants a boring, slow hybrid family sedan.
Posted by: brianaustintx | June 24, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Wrt VW Tiguan: given Car and Driver and Edmunds already like it, Tiguan will have cachet with some Compact Crossover buyers, no matter what it costs. Besides, compact crossovers in top gear dress cost just as much as Tiguan (Toyota RAV4 V6 and Subaru Forester XT both hit $30K).
Posted by: kurtamaxxxguy | June 25, 2008 at 7:06 AM
The '09 F-Series launch has been reportedly pushed back two months to Novemberish. This will give the dealers time to move out the '08s and the foundries to crank up V6 production.
>I say bring out an updated version of the Manual Transmission Special Value Package from the 90's; V6, 5-or 6-speed manual, free A/C, AM/FM/6CD,and Sync- she'll stay in the top five
>I'd like to like the Lincoln MKS- but "flagship"? Maybe a dinghy to row out TO the flagship. The original MKR was salsa muy caliente; this is catsup.
> Honda Pilot- sunglasses between the headlights, huh?
>Toyota Venza- Producct Planners evreywhere but Chrysler thinks the Pacifica is the new black. To wit: the 7/8th scale Subaru Tribeca.
We are entering another automotive dark ages like we had in the mid 70s. Back then, the double whammy of the oil embargo and new EPA regulations gave us the Mustang II, Vega, Chevette, Renault Le Car, Pacer, ad nauseum. Let's all hope this one ends with the decade.
Posted by: fulcrumb | June 25, 2008 at 9:57 PM
That list is pretty accurate, IMO.
If the X6 is sold out, it won't be for long. Newer models are always harder to get @ launch, but the long term demand for a weird looking suv/car that guzzles gas @ 14 mpg and is 65-70k is not very good. Premium gas wasn't $4.50 3 years ago. You might as well get a practical SUV that can handle 5 adults and have a 3 row if you don't care about gas mileage
Honda can get away with making ugly cars. People buy them just for the Honda reputaion and resale. But the accord and new pilot are definately a step back looks wise. They're opening the door for other Japanese brands to get some sales.
People needs trucks as they're the backbone of many businesses, but smaller sales figures are going to be a reality for everybody in the truck market.
Posted by: rjlaero | June 26, 2008 at 12:57 PM
As stubbornly as the domestics have stuck to their big guns, as slow as they've historically been to react to market changes, and as profitable as those big guns (cars) have been in recent times I can understand why they're now caught looking more inept than normal. In 35 years they've yet to learn.
And I can understand why Infiniti and BMW (as producers of luxury cars) would market thirsty cars. (Although the X-6 seems so pointless from nearly any perspective.)
But Honda, Toyota, and VW disappoint me a bit. Yes the above models aren't they best examples, but each has plenty of better suited models in this $4/gallon gas era.
As stated VW should work on quality improvements and finding better names. (Where do I apply to work for them on names?)
Toyota should have developed an update for the 2nd generation RAV-4, dumped the Venza, and dumped the Highlander (not needed with the current RAV-4).
Honda should go home to their roots. While reactions to the Pilot largely reflect $4 gas, the Accord has gotten too big. My favorite Accord was the 1996 vintage models. Since then they've lost their way in size, weight, and being overstylized. I'd also like to see Honda do a smaller coupe/sedan of the Fit for those of us that don't need the car to haul bigger loads.
Posted by: mcmanus | June 27, 2008 at 5:06 AM
Great article!! whether I agree or disagree with you (or your grammar) you have created a ;lightening rod for discussion. I agree with the principle of your article but not all of your opinions, just as you may disagree with mine.
The Ford F-150 survives through contractor sales who need trucks as work vehicles. True, trucks have grown huge in stature and opulent in nature; what happened to the good ol' work truck. Still, in the midst of an oil crisis, Ford needs a competitive F-150 and this one will be good and sell enough to contribute to Ford's bottom line.
I also agree with the Tiguana (enough with the silly names) that it may offer an upscale feel for its class but it is priced too far out of its class and into the next class. I drove past one on a lot and it had a price of over $33K. At that price point there are simply better options (In my opinion).
A Camry station wagon, my wife is looking forward to it. The Pacifica and the R-Class are the same vehicle and can not be counted as two failures. In fact, I don't think the Pacifica could be considered a failure at all.
The Pilot is still a comfortable cross-over that gets respectable mpg, as compared to truck based SUVs and will weather the storm. Additionally, Honda does have hybrid techno which could boost the efficiency past the level of sport-cutes. I agree with the author that the Accord has grown to undesirable dimensions but I don't think that the masses will agree as Accords (especially efficient and powerful 4-cylinders) will sell stronger than ever.
Challenger as well as the new Camaro; what are they thinking releasing powerful v-8s in the midst of an oil crisis for it was the oil crisis of the 70's the made pony cars extinct, with the Camaro dying during times of surplus.
Will Lincoln make my short list; absolutely not. My wifes next car will be in that segment but I don't trust the resale value and the quality difference is not great enough, if any, to sway us to a Lincoln. I think that many may respect the new Lincoln but too few will write out a check; we are leaning to an Audi A-6 or an E-class.
I am intrigued by the X-6 as my wife loves it and I don't care for it at all. I think that it is too much of a specialized vehicle and can't imagine that it will find enough homes.
A DOA vehicle would be the Dodge Journey because it does not offer anyone anything that any other car manufacturer does not offer.
I do like the Hummer H3T that is based on the Colorado platform and although it is a gas hog it is very cool and what the Jeep should have evolved into. It's success will be hinge on whether it gets a diesel engine, which is more efficient and powerful.
Posted by: carguy76 | June 30, 2008 at 6:22 PM