Recently. We're not talking Mercury, the automaker that's being driving around sans map for (four) decades. No, we want to know who you think most recently has put match to script. Great candidates abound. Could it be Jeep and the brand-slaughtering Compass softroader? Toyota and their new found love of recalls and unreliability? Maybe Porsche, with its embrace of water cooled SUVs and an upcoming four-door sedan. I'm arguing for Subaru. Subaru? Yeah, Subaru. Rewind your mind to 2002. The WRX had just landed on our shores, completely redefining egalitarian performance. Outbacks were everywhere. Forresters will always be the official car of lesbians, but back then they were the smart alternative to the SUV. The 'Camino'd Baja is a bullet they'd like back. But hey, at least they were trying. In fact, the all-AWD brand was the positioned to become the thinking/poor man's Audi. And pistonheads everywhere knew the STi was on its way. Today? The WRX is not only uglier, but softer. The most expensive model in the lineup isn't the sharp dressed Outback, but the formerly pussy-faced Tribeca. A turd of an CUV that few want and no one aspires to. The new STI is indeed meshugga, but sadly, like the whole of Subaru, not meshugga enough. OK, your go.
67 Comments on “QOTD: Which Brand Has Lost the Plot?...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Subaru is a strong case for clueless.
I think Mini is on the brink of harpooning itself with cars like the Clubman and upcoming mini SUV.
I vote for Acura. They don’t even seem to realize just how valueless their brand is.
[Naming Chrysler would be a cop out to this question]
I vote for Mitsu. They only have 1 car that anyone could possibly want, 2 if you count the soon to be Ralliart, the GTS Lancer is okay.
There could be hope if they follow through on that sportback concept.
I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before, but I nominate Nissan UK. Have you seen their line up?!
Micra: Small city car.
Note: Small CUV.
Qashqai: Medium CUV.
Pathfinder: Large SUV
X-Trail: Large SUV.
Murano: Small SUV.
3050Z: Sports car.
If you want a medium hatchback (i.e Civic or Corolla) or a family sedan (i.e Malibu or Taurus) Nissan doesn’t cater for you.
Check out http://www.nissan.co.uk for evidence.
Subarus were never lookers to begin with (we need to get that out of the way). The only thing they ever had going for them was the fact that every car in their lineup had AWD. But then everybody else started developing AWD, and their flaw of having a one-trick-pony to their marketing game was exposed. If Subaru had a plot, it was a weak one to begin with.
Volkswagen. VW was founded to be the "people's car," providing affordable, reliable transportation. Now it's all over the map with everything from the Polo to the Touareg to the Phaeton. They've lost touch with what makes a Volkswagen a Volkswagen by trying to be all things to all auto buyers. And now they're going to be peddling rebadged Dodges? Give me a friggin' break!
Acuras are all pretty much badge engineered Hondas, and the possibility of a non-mid engined NSX shows how far they’ve fallen from the days of the original NSX and Legend.
Sabb is completely useless
I'm going with Porsche.
There is no substitute– only now there is.
The 911 is still a singular supercar (even with the GT-R barking at its heels) and the Boxster got my bucks, but the Cayenne is an answer to a question BMW (and others) already answered. As is the Panamera, which is so not a 928 it hurts.
You can talk all day about how the Cayenne saved the company, but its the best example of brand defilement I can name (and the most personally painful). And the excuse given for this hideous beast– we need the money to build better sports cars– has not manifested itself in better sports cars. When will the Boxster get the power it deserves? Where's the next gen 911? How about an entry level Boxster? Did I mention a 928 for today? I think I did.
The only brand that truly "gets it" (or "has it") is, gulp, Ferrari. OK, maybe Maserati. Give 'em time…
Isuzu?
Oh my mistake, I thought the question was “which brand has lost the market”?
Having bought one used Subaru, a 1992 SVX, which I adored, leased a 1996 Outback, and rbought in the last two years five new Subarus for family and for my business, I guess one would say that I’m a Subaru loyalist, but despite the fine reliability of all those cars, I would rather drive an Audi. (I had a 2001 A6 4.2 and a 2004 allroad 4.2, neither of which was close to any of the Subarus for reliability; thus I switched to Subaru. I’ve read that late model Audis are reliable and am likely to pay too much for a new Audi soon.) Subaru’s sturdiness and cost of ownership are top-notch, but I have never understood why their cars usually look ugly or dull, except for the SVX, designed by Giugiaro.
I gotta go with Cadillac. They’ve decided (or maybe they didn’t decide) to forget, sort of, about luxo-barges, and focus, sort of, on sports sedans. But they still make luxo-barges. And pickups. Uh… what happened to the 30 foot long Queen Marys of the road?
I vote for Saab. Their cars are 10 years outdated, and they have sunk as low as selling badge engineered Subarus and Chevy SUVs. As thetopdog said, Saab is completely useless.
Well…I’m a WRX owner (2002) and I’m seriously considering the new one. Why? It’s still ugly but more practical. Softer? Maybe more comfortable but people seem to forget the old WRX with it’s skinny tires and body roll wasn’t really that hard. I think one mistake they are making is with the Legacy. Seems they wanted to make it the poor man’s Audi, and almost did. But what happened the the turbo wagon? The spec B seems half hearted. Oh well. Also I don’t vote for Mini…clubman is a good idea. My wife is already planning to replace her Mini with one. Costs not much to make and will get some low level sales.
Sadly, I have to agree about Subaru. I own a couple of Legacies (1996, 2004), and may not return to the fold when my 12 year old one kicks the bucket. If it ever does that is… it still drives like new despite leading a terribly abused life. Typical, classic Subaru. There’s a reason that so many of these second gen Legacies still prowl around the backwoods of Vermont and New Hampshire.
I’ve seen first-hand their progression from inexpensive, tough-as-nails, go-anywhere machines that will not die to heavy, thirsty, overpriced, near-lux also-rans. No sir, I don’t like it.
I don’t know about “soft”, but what I DO know is that the new STi is faster and more capable than the old STi while at the same time being more practical and more refined. You can take THAT to the president.
My vote goes to Acura and Saab right now. Has anyone seen the refreshed 2009 RL? Acura has totally ruined that car. Or how about the preview pic of the 2009 TSX? It has almost exactly the same exterior as the current TSX, except Acura has managed to make it look uglier and ungainly.
Saab, well I don’t even need to mention anything. I’m sure we all know how useless their current lineup is.
Runner-up would be Nissan and Infiniti. All of their “new” and “redesigned” cars look like simple refreshes of their old, dated predecessors.
Subaru I leave out of this only because of their ties to Toyota which will only help make them more competitive and also their technical expertise. A big reason for leaving Subaru out of this is their new boxer diesel engine, which is in-fact the world’s first boxer diesel engine.
I agree with Frank, except he forgot to mention the Routan. Where the feck does THAT fit in with ANY sort of brand strategy? “Hey, remember the microbus and how cool it was? Yeah, here’s a chrysler minivan with a VW logo slapped on it instead. Have fun!” Where’s the love, dub?
My vote is Pontiac. I have no idea what they’re supposed to represent. Nicer Chevys? Not-so-nice Buicks? The excitement division can’t hang their helmet on an invisible GTO or blubbery Solstice. I can’t see the road they’re on.
I will only state this once: What happened to Saab was not their fault. Saab was always a niche market before GM came along and tried to turn it into a cash cow. All their models had relatively long shelf lifes; the 900 was around for…15 years, the 99 about ten. This worked well for Saab, as they were a nice market. Volvo has faired better since being bought by Ford. They at least were able to put out new models in more acceptable time spans than Saab. When GM saw that Saab was not as profitable as their shareholders wanted it to be, they cobble together the 92x and the 97x to try and boost sales on the cheap. I feel that it’s going to take at least another 8 years before Saab gets back into the game, according to GM. If of course GM is still around by then.
Wow, big question.
Obvious ones are already on the thread…
Chrysler: no one wants any of their cars
Dodge: the confirmed kill of the magnum, their ONLY original, interesting product says it all
Jeep: *cough cough* Compass
VW: except for the Rabbit, GTI, and possibly Eos, its a mess
Saab: doesn’t seem to exist anymore
Pontiac: Dude, where’s my G8?
Mercury: Bleep, bleep, beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep
Buick: the same, with just the enclave acting as a defibrillator, albeit temporary.
Kia: selling Hyundai clones, only uglier
Acura is a special case: the only ones I see around are the SUVs. The cars have a lot of potential, but the brand is nowhere
Subaru: I read a while ago in Automotive News that the brand had abandoned its doomed upscale strategy, so I’m hoping it’ll come back to its sense quickly, although increased ownership by Toyota does not bode well on the blandness factor…
Megan Benoit
I agree with Frank, except he forgot to mention the Routan.
Uh… Megan… that’s the “rebadged Dodge” I referred to.
Saab. No question in my mind. Even the people I know who owned and loved them dismiss them as “a GM.” One couple, who still own a relatively late model “Saab,” might buy a Volvo (they’ve had those, too, and still like them). But never another Saab.
There was a time when Saab owners were proud to own the weirdest production cars available in North America (V-4, freewheel, ignition between the seats, 2-cycle motors, side windows that curved around a vertical axis, bodystyles like nothing else) but now… it’s just another GM. Well, OK, a GM with the ignition between the seats.
A friend had an ‘84/5/6 4-door, no turbo, and, everytime we went somewhere in it I marveled at how a) nice and b) weird it was. The first time I went for a ride in it, in any Saab, we hopped in, his hand fell below the stick and did something that started the car and I thought “WTF???” And he loved it.
And I think their sales numbers reflect this, no? Aren’t they slouching towards less than 24K cars/year, US?
Robert Farago :
February 13th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I’m going with Porsche.
There is no substitute– only now there is.
The 911 is still a singular supercar (even with the GT-R barking at its heels) and the Boxster got my bucks, but the Cayenne is an answer to a question BMW (and others) already answered. As is the Panamera, which is so not a 928 it hurts.
You can talk all day about how the Cayenne saved the company, but its the best example of brand defilement I can name (and the most personally painful). And the excuse given for this hideous beast– we need the money to build better sports cars– has not manifested itself in better sports cars. When will the Boxster get the power it deserves? Where’s the next gen 911? How about an entry level Boxster? Did I mention a 928 for today? I think I did.
The only brand that truly “gets it” (or “has it”) is, gulp, Ferrari. OK, maybe Maserati. Give ‘em time…
The family that own Porsche have been content simply being the “most profitable” car company for what, the last ten years!
These folks appear to only see $$$ and no longer care about what a Porsche is supposed to be. If a Porsche pick-up or Minivan would sell they would make it. All the more money to chase after VW with!
I have been claiming for a long time that Porsche cars are living off of the legend. Its OK because they are about to get slapped around once again by some extremely competent “low priced” lowly Japanese whips that are coming down the pipe. Hopefully the competition from such cars as the GTR, LF Lexus, EVO, STi, etc will force them to step up their game once again.
And yeah the boxster is actually a $35,000 car that deserves to be put in its place!
It seems almost all automakers are on the road to becoming full line automakers. I wonder how many full line makers we need? I wonder how many full line makers can survive?
I vote for Porsche because as RF said, they’ve really defiled the brand by making an SUV.
I think the problem with the new WRX is that Subaru is trying to keep their customers. 99.9% of the Scoobies I see are driven by younger people, mostly guys. And that is everything from the WRX to the Outback to the Legacy and the flying vage. I’ve always had this image that the Subaru guys grew up and bought Audis afterwards. It seems to me that instead of trying to keep the WRX/WRX STi/I and all that younger and “harder” if you will, they are trying to soften it up so that guys who used to have no problem with sht seats and a harsh suspension and loud turbo boxer will now want the more “luxurious” softer friendly ride.
Porsche, I don’t have a problem with, really. I personally don’t understand why anyone would buy a Cayenne over a Toureg, but thats just me. Otherwise, the Boxer, Caymen, 911s still hold to what makes a Porsche a Porsche. I’ll withhold judgement on the Panamara till we actually see them on the road and have some seat time.
Mercedes came pretty close to getting my vote here as well. But they’ve recovered fairly well from the buyout of Chrysler. I have no clue why they went to that whole “Look, a Mercedes under 35k” thing they had a while back. Never really got it, but I thought it was stupid. However, I think they are back in the right mindset now.
Toyota, meh. They haven’t lost their plot, they are just boring. I would almost say it a bad move for them to bring back cars like the Celica, MR2, or Supra.
I’ll have to contimplate this one a bit more before I make my call.
Saturn. None of the above comes even close. Saturn was conceived to be one thing only: to prove that Detroit could build an efficient small car to compete with the Civic and Corolla. And now they’re selling 5,000lb CUV’s.
I’ll say Cadillac!
They are supposed to be big ass floaters that do double duty as hearses, limos and pimpmobiles! What are they now? I dunno!
I’m going to second Saturn. They’re so lost they somehow forgot where they put their plastic body panels.
Did I mention a 928 for today?
I think a 928 for today would be a bad idea for Porsche because of several reasons;
If a modern 928 today did what it would have to do, it would depreciate Porsche’s most valuable asset, namely the 911 brand name, because in many ways it would have to be better, immediately making the 911 only 2nd best (at most).
It would also have much tougher competition than in 1979-1995 which poses the question if they will make enough profit from this hypothetical 928 to make good for the inevitable 911 sales losses they will suffer.
Also, the previous 928 sort of worked (a little) eventually because Americans liked it and Europeans kept buying 911s, but don’t forget it was initially intended to replace the 911 and in the end they were just lucky things didn’t end up a lot worse.
Then finally, I would say a modern 928 already exists in the form of the 911 Turbo (luxury, easy to drive, cruise missile, no rear-enginedness in the driving experience) whereas the modern day Turbo (widowmaker) is called GT2 nowadays.
So, looking at it this way, no matter how bad an idea I think the Panamera is it might be their only oppertunity to bring something like a new 928 to the market, for the simple fact that it has four doors and will not be directly compared with the 911. Not that anyone should want them to anyway.
Talking about 928s…anyone notice that in one of britney Spears’ video clips (don’t know which one) she drives a 928 in a pool which then magically turns into a 944…
On another note; did I just gave this comment less credibility with this question?
I would argue that Porsche is finally fulfilling its long held desire to regain control of VW, and that cars like the Cayenne were part of the ruthlessly profitable strategy to allow them to do so. How’s that for staying “on plot”?
Then finally, I would say a modern 928 already exists in the form of the 911 Turbo (luxury, easy to drive, cruise missile, no rear-enginedness in the driving experience) whereas the modern day Turbo (widowmaker) is called GT2 nowadays.
A 911 Turbo lacks the understated appeal of the orginal 928. Folks that a new 928 would appeal to do NOT want to see a rear wing on the back of their car. Also the 928 was most popular in automatic. A 911 with an autobox makes the driver look like a big dork that brought the 911 turbo strictly to achive “the look”.
a. Lieberman is back? awesome!
b. I nominate BMW. I think Infiniti stole their mojo and they need to find Austin Power’s time machine to go back 40 years and bring back the 2002 tii.
Tomorrow’s QOTD suggestion: which brand is still on target?
crickets…
Frank: re VW: “founded to be the people’s car”
You could say the same thing about Toyota, or just about any manufacturer that has expanded their line-up in the last thirty years. Grow or die. And its worked for them globally (except in the US).
But Saturn’s expansion only comes at the expense of other GM’s divisions. It’s a cancer.
I’ve gotta go with Porshe. If only because it, until recently, had the strongest brand DNA. And that just shouldn’t be messed with.
You’re next QOTD should be who is most on-brand. I bet a couple of names from this thread pop up there too. My vote would be for Mazda.
Subaru is more Greek tragedy than bad branding. They have fought the good fight for boxer engines and AWD for so long they have put themselves in a technological corner. The desperate branding doesn’t change the fact the cars themselves are quite good.
Nobody is more off-brand than Saab. Although I think the least effective branding has got to be Dodge. Dodge wants to be a mainstream player but brand themselves as macho outsiders.
I’m torn between Porsche, for the reasons given by Mr. Farago, and VW. Not exactly the “people’s car” that it started out as. I don’t see anything in their lineup that harkens back to their roots. At least Porsche still makes the 911 and the Boxter. Yeah, VW brought back the Beetle, but it isn’t anything like the original Beetle other than a similar shape. The Touareg and Phaeton are built for what reason?
I’ll reserve my most on target vote for tomorrows anticipated QOTD.
I’m just short of a fanboy, but Subaru’s got my vote. They’ve really fallen off-message and ever since building the SUV they always stood against they’ve been tumbling downhill in terms of brand integrity.
However, I can’t entirely blame them because it seems the market has evolved past the point where Subaru’s old ideals were highly marketable. Everybody’s got an AWD/4WD option now and SUVs are shrinking to more reasonable proportions, stacking the Outback and Forester up against some very strong competition. The Impreza still stands on it’s own in my mind, as an AWD small car, but the mileage is rubbish and the WRX is overpriced, especially considering the MS3 and SRT4.
The only brand-unique proposition they have is the boxer engine, but nobody seems to care about the dynamics of driving (lower center of gravity, etc.). I’m crossing my fingers; if they can come just a little further downmarket without getting cheap, I think they can salvage themselves and recreate the magic.
Any suggestions for tomorrow’s “project car from hell”?
1) Acura
2) VW
3) Porsche
Chrysler is too easy to nominate. They’re not just lost, they’re invisible.
John R :
February 13th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
[Naming Chrysler would be a cop out to this question]
I vote for Mitsu. They only have 1 car that anyone could possibly want, 2 if you count the soon to be Ralliart, the GTS Lancer is okay.
There could be hope if they follow through on that sportback concept.
I certainly see your point, and four years ago (about the time the Endeavor and current Galant were launched, and the Diamante and Montero models killed), I would agree completely. Mitsubishi had a full lineup and a definite place in the world in the mid- and late-1990s. Then… Well, let’s just say GM has nothing on Mitsubishi’s quick and very painful evacuation of US market share. Now, however, I feel they’re on the rebound. Lazily facelifted ‘09 Galant notwithstanding, the Lancer lineup is a credible small car with tons of tech for a great price, the Outlander (despite selling to almost nobody) is a well-reviewed SUV with a discernible mission, and the coming 2010 Concept-ZT-based Galant should restore the midsize to its mid- and late-90s place. There’s also heavy talk of a smaller, lighter, sportier AWD Eclipse based on the current Lancer platform to replace the bloated fleet-queen we have now (note the Concept-RA from Detroit this year). They’ve got a decent plan for the future, and good investment in product. I would say keep your eyes open for good things from Mitsubishi, and only time will tell if the public bites.
My vote goes to Subaru. They had a nearly-unchallenged niche carved out as little as two model years ago. Since then, they’ve launched a redesigned Tribeca that wants desperately to be a rental-ready Pacifica, the Toyota-rific new Impreza line, and have managed to bungle the near-heavenly Legacy (I think the 2004 Legacy is one of the best looking recent midsize sedans) into a finned, gilled, hole-ridden blight. The future holds Toyota-based models, and the capacity being left open at their plant by their entirely lacking models is being taken up by a revived Celica with AWD and a Subaru boxer engine, of all things! Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Paul Niedermeyer
Saturn. None of the above comes even close. Saturn was conceived to be one thing only: to prove that Detroit could build an efficient small car to compete with the Civic and Corolla. And now they’re selling 5,000lb CUV’s.
Shoot, Paul, you beat me to it. Except you neglect one thing: it was “the practical person’s sporty car.” Cool-looking. Fast and flat on corners. Very stable at high speeds, like 100mph. I was on a Saturn listserve from around ‘93 well into the ’00s. But what had been a very active listserve began to decline in ‘96 or so, after they dumbed the thing down, and it really began to peter out in the late’90s, early ’00s.
Yeah, VW brought back the Beetle, but it isn’t anything like the original Beetle other than a similar shape.
In fact, it’s the opposite. The original was all about practicality and disregarded style. As a result, it became an icon of practicality. Easy to work on. Economical. Despite small size, fairly reasonable luggage space. Relatively low maintenance. Simple to a fault. The New Beetle is a totally impractical fashion statement. No luggage space. You might as well get a Miata. Not particularly economical, though not bad I suppose.
Not to steal Paul Niedermeyer’s thunder here, but I vote for Scion, given what they did to the xB. For those who don’t remember or didn’t yet frequent this site, Paul N had an excellent editorial on that months ago, which should be searchable.
One more: GMC – The Acadia is neither a truck nor “professional grade”.
how did the forester become the vehicle of choice for lesbians – was it the sturdy styling?
well I dont know if they ever had plot but my vote is for Suzuki.
Subaru has not lost their way. They still produce all wheel drive vehicles. They needed to increase their market share, sales, and profit. They needed an SUV because that was were the market was headed. Now, their designer screwed up but the B9 was not a bad SUV. They improved this year’s B9 look, engine, and C pillar.
The new Impreza is more refined to capture more sales from the mainstream public. Subaru can not survive in today’s auto market with quicky, loud, basic vehicles.
VW has lost its way with 40k Passats, 50k Touregs, No CUV, No small high MPG car. Peoples car? Pfffffffttt….
This was VW Group decision though, to chase the high profit Lambo, Bentley, and Buggatti. Leaving VW to almost being invaded by the Arabs.
I’ll put in another vote for Saturn. The started with a clean slate and managed to screw it up in a little over a decade. They’ve gone from “A different kind of car company. A different kind of car” to being just another brand in GM’s muddled lineup.
First they ignored the brand by neglecting to give it anything new, so it simply stagnated for a while. Then they gave it some warmed-over clones of Chevy models (and not exactly Chevy’s best models). Then they ditched those and decided to move upmarket and bring in the Opels instead.
You could argue that Saturn never had much of a plot to start with, but they’ve managed to lose it in a remarkably short time.
Oldsmobile
I’ll vote for Saturn and Pontiac. Saturn is the new Mercury and I’m not quite sure the point of Pontiac.
A better question might be; Which automakers still “have the plot” as I think less have one than don’t.
Chrysler seems to have a plot. unfortunately its about Six feet deep.
Acura is clearly lost.
In their hotly-contested segment, the Acura brand is all about…wait…thinking…
And I’d be so bold as to suggest that Honda itself could loose its way.
The new Accord is so large as to be an un-Honda. The Pilot and the Ridgeline are not of Honda’s roots, really. The Odyssey is not the essence of what a Honda is: A minivan? Please.
Cars like the Civic (which I own) and the Si, sure. Bring on the CR-Z and the cool hybrid coupe and I’m on board. Otherwise? Be careful Honda, or you’ll become passé.
Paul Niedermeyer says “grow or die”. Fair enough. I’d say loose your focus and risk dying. Perhaps it’s a matter of finding the right balance between the two.