This piece first appeared in January 22nd, 2009 edition of the Pioneer Tribune, a weekly newspaper from Manistique, Michigan. Please visit their website: http://www.pioneertribune.com/
We have heard a lot of news lately about how much financial trouble the big three automakers are in. They have been basically admitting that they screwed up, and now, we the people need to bail them out. I can’t help but think that they might not be in such dire straits if they had truly been giving the people what they want.
I think back over the years how Detroit would taunt us with concept cars only to tell us that these cars will never see a showroom floor. It seems that they create these fantastic automobiles for the sole purpose of watching the public beg for something they can’t have.
My daughters do the same thing to each other. “Look what I’ve got. Want it? Too bad.”
A decade or so ago Chrysler finally gave in and introduced the PT Cruiser. It was all retro-looking, and it sold like hotcakes. The debut of the PT Cruiser was one of the most successful in Chrysler’s history.
Other manufacturers soon followed suit. Chevy introduced its HHR retro-wagon (which was designed by the guy who headed up the PT Cruiser design team), while Ford redesigned the Mustang with a look that hearkened back to the ’60s. Redesigning the Mustang to look more like its late ’60s counterparts was something I had heard talk about over the years but never expected to see.
From what I have read, all of these vehicles have been very popular with the public. It makes me wonder why the Big Three didn’t think of doing this sooner. It’s not like they had to spend a lot of time at the drawing board to come up with these designs. It would seem that, for the most part, all they needed to do was look into their archives and say, “Hey! That looks cool, lets make it look like that.” Kind of like the auto world plagiarizing itself.
With the exception of the cars noted above and a handful of others, for nearly 20 years the basic design of a car was that of a slightly modified egg. There is little distinction between manufacturers these days, let alone distinction between models. You don’t even get a choice between scrambled or over-easy.
Chrysler even took the lack of creativity to a new low when it introduced the Neon, which was sold by both the Dodge and Plymouth divisions. In the past, automakers would have at least given them a different name: the Dodge Aspen and the Plymouth Volare, the Ford Maverick and the Mercury Comet, the Chevrolet Blazer and the GMC Jimmy, to name a few vehicles that were virtually identical, with the exception of the name badges on them.
Maybe all of the automakers should pool their assets and form a new company: “The Generic Automobile Company.” They could make just one model of car, and to save money they could eliminate any type of creative department and just call them 2-door or 4-door: “It’s the all new GAC 4-door for 2010 …”
Last week the Speed channel aired their annual broadcast of the Barrett-Jackson collector car auction from Scottsdale, Ariz. This auction is a huge show-off fest, where guys with big checkbooks and bigger egos try to outbid each other for cars that are worth a quarter of what they are selling for. This is also where average guys around the country get the idea that their 1980 Ford Grenada is worth $110,000, just because some fool spent that much for one at Barrett-Jackson.
The thing that struck me while I was watching the assorted vehicles roll across the stage was the design that went into the cars from the ’50s, ’60s and early ’70s. More thought went into the look of the hood ornament on cars from that era than goes into an entire automobile today. Every part of these cars had style. Sure, they had engines big enough to have their own Zip codes, and they sported the aerodynamics of Mt. Rushmore, but who cared? Gas was cheap. The answer to bad gas mileage was a bigger gas tank.
To tell the truth, I’m not convinced smaller engines and better aerodynamics are the answer when it comes to fuel economy. The 1979 Volkswagen Rabbit, with a diesel engine, reportedly got 57 mpg on the highway, and in the mid to late ’80s Honda was producing the CR-X HF, which got 51 mpg using a gasoline engine.
I don’t know what science automakers are using these days, but with all of the technological advances in the past 20 to 30 years, you would think that all car manufacturers would be able to brag about something more impressive than a little over 30 mpg. Big deal.
With modern technology, I would almost be willing to bet that you could get a ’57 Chevy to get comparable gas mileage to many cars on the market today.
If the automakers aren’t going to give us true fuel economy, at least they could let us have some style while we’re waiting.
I think back over the years how Detroit would taunt us with concept cars only to tell us that these cars will never see a showroom floor. It seems that they create these fantastic automobiles for the sole purpose of watching the public beg for something they can’t have.
My daughters do the same thing to each other. “Look what I’ve got. Want it? Too bad.”
A decade or so ago Chrysler finally gave in and introduced the PT Cruiser. It was all retro-looking, and it sold like hotcakes. The debut of the PT Cruiser was one of the most successful in Chrysler’s history.
Other manufacturers soon followed suit. Chevy introduced its HHR retro-wagon (which was designed by the guy who headed up the PT Cruiser design team), while Ford redesigned the Mustang with a look that hearkened back to the ’60s. Redesigning the Mustang to look more like its late ’60s counterparts was something I had heard talk about over the years but never expected to see.
From what I have read, all of these vehicles have been very popular with the public. It makes me wonder why the Big Three didn’t think of doing this sooner. It’s not like they had to spend a lot of time at the drawing board to come up with these designs. It would seem that, for the most part, all they needed to do was look into their archives and say, “Hey! That looks cool, lets make it look like that.” Kind of like the auto world plagiarizing itself.
With the exception of the cars noted above and a handful of others, for nearly 20 years the basic design of a car was that of a slightly modified egg. There is little distinction between manufacturers these days, let alone distinction between models. You don’t even get a choice between scrambled or over-easy.
Chrysler even took the lack of creativity to a new low when it introduced the Neon, which was sold by both the Dodge and Plymouth divisions. In the past, automakers would have at least given them a different name: the Dodge Aspen and the Plymouth Volare, the Ford Maverick and the Mercury Comet, the Chevrolet Blazer and the GMC Jimmy, to name a few vehicles that were virtually identical, with the exception of the name badges on them.
Maybe all of the automakers should pool their assets and form a new company: “The Generic Automobile Company.” They could make just one model of car, and to save money they could eliminate any type of creative department and just call them 2-door or 4-door: “It’s the all new GAC 4-door for 2010 …”
Last week the Speed channel aired their annual broadcast of the Barrett-Jackson collector car auction from Scottsdale, Ariz. This auction is a huge show-off fest, where guys with big checkbooks and bigger egos try to outbid each other for cars that are worth a quarter of what they are selling for. This is also where average guys around the country get the idea that their 1980 Ford Grenada is worth $110,000, just because some fool spent that much for one at Barrett-Jackson.
The thing that struck me while I was watching the assorted vehicles roll across the stage was the design that went into the cars from the ’50s, ’60s and early ’70s. More thought went into the look of the hood ornament on cars from that era than goes into an entire automobile today. Every part of these cars had style. Sure, they had engines big enough to have their own Zip codes, and they sported the aerodynamics of Mt. Rushmore, but who cared? Gas was cheap. The answer to bad gas mileage was a bigger gas tank.
To tell the truth, I’m not convinced smaller engines and better aerodynamics are the answer when it comes to fuel economy. The 1979 Volkswagen Rabbit, with a diesel engine, reportedly got 57 mpg on the highway, and in the mid to late ’80s Honda was producing the CR-X HF, which got 51 mpg using a gasoline engine.
I don’t know what science automakers are using these days, but with all of the technological advances in the past 20 to 30 years, you would think that all car manufacturers would be able to brag about something more impressive than a little over 30 mpg. Big deal.
With modern technology, I would almost be willing to bet that you could get a ’57 Chevy to get comparable gas mileage to many cars on the market today.
If the automakers aren’t going to give us true fuel economy, at least they could let us have some style while we’re waiting.
No comments:
Post a Comment