"POLARIZING" DESIGN

[Robert Hall]

You and I must be the last two left on Earth..... Last year (in my previous life) the dealer I worked at brought a couple U.S. version used '07 Grand Marquis up for sale. I would make any excuse to 'borrow' one to do errands or goof off. Other guys thought I was nuts. Well, then again I loved scooping the '03 Mini Couper S, too. Go figure.

I've actually had the clerks at Hertz ask me I instead if wanted a Sable or something smaller...I usually always try and reserve a GM or TC.

I'd love to drive a Mini Cooper S....there are some small cars I really like, and though I love modern sports sedans like the CTS and various BMWs, I also enjoy the classic American land yachts...

[MyerShift]

Yeah...I just wish they had done a better job with their recent compact and midsize cars.. the '90s 'cloud' cars were great looking, IMHO.

I agree. I had a 1996 Plymouth Breeze.

It was great looking (colour was medium fern; a grey green; that always looked best on a dank, damp day) and was fun to drive.

It was also quite efficient; averaging 28 mpg with my heavy foot while my new Volkswagen only averages 25 mpg.

It only had 68000 miles on it when I attained it, and had over 125,000 miles on it later when I finally had to give it to "car heaven". Ugh.

I must say, it was perfectly acceptable reliability wise. Never left me stranded and never had some catastrophic failure because it "was a Chrysler".

Only age related issues. Hell, the AIR CONDITIONING still worked.

I disagree that Chryslers are (were) generally inferior products. My experiences with two Chryslers were fantastic.

[CARBIZ]

Given the perspective of the day, the original 'cab forward' cars were ahead of their time in nearly every way. I rented a Neon in September '94 when I was in Victoria, BC for a week. I loved the car. Design-wise, it was leagues ahead of anything else on the road at the time - and it had a darned cute advertising campaign to go with it. However, Chrysler's nagging quality problems killed the lead that they enjoyed with this car. Hell, if the Neon had turned out to be reliable as hell, we could have a Dodge as the #1 selling car today, rather than the Civic.

I also seriously considered a '94 Intrepid when they first came out. I was amazed at the back seat room being more accomodating than my '91 Caprice at the time. I loved the look/finish of that car. There is no doubt in my mind that Chrysler was the Queen of the auto show circuit in the '90s with their exciting new designs. Where did the wheels fall off? Was it Lutz's retirement? Was it incessant tranny/a/c and other issues that Chryslers were plagued with?

As with GM, we could speculate endlessly all the 'what-if' scenarios out there.*

[regfootball]

Polarizing design has NOTHING to do with Chryslers problems.

Their problems deal with bad/outdated over all line ups, bad quality, even worse perceived quality and not enough R&D.

If anything, the polarizing design PUT THEM BACK ON THE MAP in pop culture. And any good marketing guy will tell you that's half the battle.

Think of it this way:

Chrysler as a division had 1 or 2 polarizing designs and a slew of bad quality, poorly executed cars. In contrast, Saturn has a WHOLE STABLE of excellent products that debuted altogether, for the most part, with forgettable designs.

Who is mentioned more and talked about more in pop culture? Which division has product specific mainstream aspirational buyers (meaning NOT Mopar nuts and NOT longtime saturn/GM fans) and a HUGE aftermarket presence?

Don't think that's a fair comparison?

Then how about this: The current Scion xB verses the previous Scion xB. Which one has more sales and has more fans in the market/pop culture?

I rest my case.

And that's why Chryslers new "organic" bland designs and GM's "global generic" designs will not fare so well unless the product is a KNOCK OUT HOME RUN on the quality and ergonomics side.

If I were Ford, I'd be readying some bold designs for the next few years, because they can really cash in if the product is executed right.

the market in terms of volume when the 300's etc came out was large enough to support the segment of the market that liked this polarizing design. a polarizing desgin with limited appeal will capture the lovers right away. and then, die just as fast. after the 'fad' wears away, what are you left with?

You do make great points about the quality of the interior and ergonomics issues drving people away. in the case of these cars, its absolutely correct.

so if your point is ultimately that people will buy great design, yes, that's true.

but, does chrysler want to be niche? they put all their eggs in one design basket. The rapper / bling crowd and redneck crowd seems to like them still, but as i said, that's exactly why it turns off the mainstream. there are what, 20,000% more buyers of mainstream looking vehicles?

CRV's, accords, camrys. Women love them. Men with little testosterone like em. But ya know, that's who buys cars and who has money in this country.

Like disco, the 300 aesthetic died hard and fast, but it was great while it lasted.

Any company that must sell products in a fashion arena must conform to some level of fad, but if you even use your saturn example, they sell half a million astras over the pond, so design clearly is not at fault there. And yet that is perfectly mainstream.

You are correct about Ford badly needing a design injection. I hope it does not compromise their recent quality rep.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I agree. I had a 1996 Plymouth Breeze.

It was great looking (colour was medium fern; a grey green; that always looked best on a dank, damp day) and was fun to drive.

It was also quite efficient; averaging 28 mpg with my heavy foot while my new Volkswagen only averages 25 mpg.

It only had 68000 miles on it when I attained it, and had over 125,000 miles on it later when I finally had to give it to "car heaven". Ugh.

I must say, it was perfectly acceptable reliability wise. Never left me stranded and never had some catastrophic failure because it "was a Chrysler".

Only age related issues. Hell, the AIR CONDITIONING still worked.

I disagree that Chryslers are (were) generally inferior products. My experiences with two Chryslers were fantastic.

See this illustrates why american cars MUST have polarizing design to succeed.

Your Breeze sounds like it was just as good, if not better, than your VW. Yet, you feel better about owning the VW, right?

It's all about perception. Detroit automakers must go the EXTRA MILE to entice most consumers to seriously look at their products. Detroit automakers must connect on an emotional level as opposed to a logical level.

I pray that what I've said is wrong, because GME is preparing a whole slew of bland-o-generic GM products for us. But if the attractive, (or at least the Sky, Outlook and Aura are) yet bland Saturn offerings are any indication, we won't be seeing a sales surge anytime soon. The product is excellent, but the consumer refuses to look.

And in the big segments, the media encourages the public NOT to look. (Remember how the Vue got slaughtered, even though it's a great product? It's no coincidence that the Vue is in one of the hottest segments right now AND it was Saturns one saving grace and hottest seller before the redesign.)

[The O.C.]

The 300's were great cars, with great design. The problem with Chrysler is that the rest of their lineup, was essentially craptacular.

Dodge Nitro? What the hell was that?

True.

And that is truly the problem with Chrysler. In no other product segment did they execute a vehicle as well as they did with the LX cars.

A "polarizing" design could mean many things. The 1986 E-coupes from GM were most certainly some of the most polarizing redesigns to come from GM in the recent past. In this case, we are talking about dramatically smaller FWD coupes (and the Seville sedan) that failed to carry on the sheer presence of their predecessors......and to many consumers, looked like rehashed copies of the less-expensive N-car coupes of the time.

These cars were so polarizing in their way that consumers stayed away from them in droves.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

the market in terms of volume when the 300's etc came out was large enough to support the segment of the market that liked this polarizing design. a polarizing desgin with limited appeal will capture the lovers right away. and then, die just as fast. after the 'fad' wears away, what are you left with?

You do make great points about the quality of the interior and ergonomics issues drving people away. in the case of these cars, its absolutely correct.

so if your point is ultimately that people will buy great design, yes, that's true.

but, does chrysler want to be niche? they put all their eggs in one design basket. The rapper / bling crowd and redneck crowd seems to like them still, but as i said, that's exactly why it turns off the mainstream. there are what, 20,000% more buyers of mainstream looking vehicles?

My point has nothing to do with sales, because Chrysler has PLENTY of money, so sales RIGHT NOW aren't an issue. OF COURSE $4/gallon gas and a recession are going to kill the inflation in the market for large, V8 powered cars.

The LX cars we're phenominal. The reason sales are in the crapper is because Chrysler FAILED to follow those cars up with anything as polarizing and desirable. Look at the recent introductions; the Compass and Patriot have "cheap poser" written all over them. The Caliber is awkward (which happens to be why I like it) the Sebring and Avenger are a joke. The supposed PT Cruiser refresh consisted of what, new headlights? The Durango is ugly, weird and doesn't posess nearly the character that the previous generation did and the Aspen has all of the virtues of the Durango, except with Chryslers '80s throwback' grille treatment.

Now the Jeep Wrangler..... That design has character and as a result was a HUGE hit.

My point is about marketing. Consumers increasingly ARE NOT getting the message, especially when it comes to domestics automakers and the 'name change game' that they've been playing for 10 years now. To produce a design that creates as much buzz as the LX cars initially did is a remarkable feat and qualifies as a success.

Ask anyone, ANYONE you meet on the street about the Chrysler 300 and they'll 1) know what you're talking about and 2) give you a well constructed opinion of the car (good or bad -- doesn't matter) Ask anyone on the street about the Saturn Aura and you'll get either 1) a blank stare or 2) A compromised answer to the tune of "Isn't that the newest saturn model"

The rapper/bling/redneck argument is weak at best... 1) That is a small minority or buyers 2) That's basically discrimination and racism. And such stereotypes can be applied to ANY car on the market. 3) If it makes such a damn difference with brand identity, then why can the Cadillac Escalade show up in every 50 cent video, yet Cadillac CTS sell to top executives and Cadillac DTS sell to traditional, old skool buyers? 4) Not to mention, it's good that it appeals to minority buyers since that is the fastest growing niche in the industry anyway.

CRV's, accords, camrys. Women love them.

But for different reasons...

They love them because of the name attached to them. I'd LOVE to be a Honda or Toyota salesman, because that has to be the easiest sell on the face of the planet. Now, I'm not saying those aren't excellent cars, because they are really good cars. But it's like comparing apples to oranges and Detroit BETTER realize that in a very quick timeframe.

People buy Toyota, Honda and Nissan (sadly, it rides on the success of the other two) BY DEFAULT. People buy Hyundals and Kias BECAUSE OF THE PRICE and people buy Detroit cars BECAUSE OF EMOTIONAL APPEAL. That's why cars such as the 300, Charger, Camaro, Corvette, HHR, GTO, Escalade, Enclave, H2, Mustang, Thunderbird are such huge hits (sometimes until the niche is played out) and cars like the Cobalt, G6, Malibu, Astra, and domestic minivans have such a hard time.

Is this changing, can/will it change? SURE it is as we speak but it's going to take FAR longer than the time Detroit has or it's going to take a revolutionary product to do it (Volt, anyone?)

Men with little testosterone like em. But ya know, that's who buys cars and who has money in this country.

I agree 100%

Like disco, the 300 aesthetic died hard and fast, but it was great while it lasted.

That's a chance you have to take with a design like the 300. If Chrysler were smart, it would've actually updated the looks of the cars a few years ago when it supposedly "refreshed" the car.

But ultimately, the 300 paid off big time for Chrysler. had they followed up with equally impressive (yet harder to execute for Detroit companies) product, we wouldn't be talking about GM merging with them right now.

Any company that must sell products in a fashion arena must conform to some level of fad, but if you even use your saturn example, they sell half a million astras over the pond, so design clearly is not at fault there. And yet that is perfectly mainstream.

"Over the pond" has nothing to do with america. This is a completely different environment and scenario. That's an apples to oranges comparison if I ever heard one. We ALL know that the Astra is to GME what the GMT800 trucks were to GMNA, an easy home run batted from an under handed pitch. It was TOO EASY for GME to design a successful product in that niche in that environment. I'm not saying the Astra is a bad car by any means. But it does not have the presence or significance to succeed on this continent. And the sales are showing that. This is one reason why I oppose GME designs and PCS plan to expand Saturn so much. That is a HUGE gamble that could be disaster for GMNA (and GME knows it AND likely wants it to happen, now)

You are correct about Ford badly needing a design injection. I hope it does not compromise their recent quality rep.

Ford has done excellent with some of their designs. For instance, the Flex is already eating the Traverse' lunch in the reviews based on design alone. The Fusion killed in the market and reviews (by "kill" I mean was a huge success for Ford, not in comparison to the top imports -- Rome wasn't built in a day)

[regfootball]

True.

And that is truly the problem with Chrysler. In no other product segment did they execute a vehicle as well as they did with the LX cars.

A "polarizing" design could mean many things. The 1986 E-coupes from GM were most certainly some of the most polarizing redesigns to come from GM in the recent past. In this case, we are talking about dramatically smaller FWD coupes (and the Seville sedan) that failed to carry on the sheer presence of their predecessors......and to many consumers, looked like rehashed copies of the less-expensive N-car coupes of the time.

These cars were so polarizing in their way that consumers stayed away from them in droves.

hey, that riviera had a TOUCH SCREEN DASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[regfootball]

i get a kick out of you saying I'm racist. I'm just reporting the daily driving report. All those liberal architecture student's thoughts must be bleeding into your head now............I'll laugh every time daily I see an LX car with bling wheels or dubs, tinted windows, gawdawful striping, 'billet grilles' and chrome pillars, or hues so bright it would burn the sun itself.

and that is even after i drive by denny hecker dodge every day which is by where i drop off my kid.

all the rich guys feeling inadequate about their penis size (and who use to work in the financial industry) already turned in or traded in their 300's. The status seekers are avoiding the LX cars like the plague, just as women always have.

When the fashion conscious and status seekers and women abandon a car manufacturer and they haven't chased it down with anything new.......looks like chickens are coming home to roost.

CRV's are cute and safe and tidy and unfortunately that is what rules the market these days. Polarizing will get you a splash in the press, for a bit.

Chrysler as a brand may be damaged for a decade or more because of their move to gangsta car design. Calibre, Avenger, etc. We're almost a decade removed from the 300M, latter intrepids, etc. that the public embraced so much.

Edited October 28, 2008 by regfootball

[The O.C.]

hey, that riviera had a TOUCH SCREEN DASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All joking aside......if GM had taken that screen, continually improved it and made it more user-friendly.....well....GM could have been seen as the leader in touch-screen interfaces!

(Ironic that now most manufacturers utilize the very same screens to integrate their nav and radio systems....)

[regfootball]

what's NAV?

[CARBIZ]

what's wrong with disco?

[trinacriabob]

what's NAV?

Net Asset Value, the unit price for a share of a mutual fund well, not so funny right now...

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

i get a kick out of you saying I'm racist. I'm just reporting the daily driving report.

I'm not calling you racist... I just meant that it could be construed as a racist comment. You know that you're one of my favorite posters here at C&G. (At least I think I've said that before. But anyway, it's true.)

All those liberal architecture student's thoughts must be bleeding into your head now............

God help me if that happens. My family and friends are on strict orders to shoot me if I start acting 'liberal' in any way

I'll laugh every time daily I see an LX car with bling wheels or dubs, tinted windows, gawdawful striping, 'billet grilles' and chrome pillars, or hues so bright it would burn the sun itself.

I agree... A lot of them are tacky. But my point is someone liked the design enough to take the time to do that. I don't see many "blinged out" Cobalts or Camrys.

and that is even after i drive by denny hecker dodge every day which is by where i drop off my kid.

You have a kid?!?! I never knew.

When the fashion conscious and status seekers and women abandon a car manufacturer and they haven't chased it down with anything new.......looks like chickens are coming home to roost.

I don't really think any of those elements drive the core of the market though.

CRV's are cute and safe and tidy and unfortunately that is what rules the market these days.

By default, yes. The reason Toyota and Honda sell is because they're a safe bet. But Detroit WILL NOT be able to sell on that for a very long time, so they must appeal to emotion.

Chrysler as a brand may be damaged for a decade or more because of their move to gangsta car design.

The Sebring, Aspen, Crossfire, long outdated PT and less than stellar minivan replacements did as much or more to damage the division,

We're almost a decade removed from the 300M, latter intrepids, etc. that the public embraced so much.

Different drivetrain, different time (domestics still owned the market then) different public consensus.

It's a new game now. If competent engineering alone could sell domestics cars, then the Malibu, G6, Fusion, Milan and Aura would own the segment.

Edited October 30, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

All joking aside......if GM had taken that screen, continually improved it and made it more user-friendly.....well....GM could have been seen as the leader in touch-screen interfaces!

(Ironic that now most manufacturers utilize the very same screens to integrate their nav and radio systems....)

Nah, the media wouldn't allow that.