Cars are generally created to fit a specific demographic that’s been carefully analyzed by a whole team of professionals. When you hear someone say that “there’s a butt for every seat,” that’s because somebody somewhere calculated the exact income level, age range, number of kids, tortilla preference, hat size, and other factors for prospective buyers’ butts destined for that seat.
Surprisingly, there are times when even the biggest car makers concoct a vehicle or signature feature for buyers who simply don’t exist, or exist only in painfully small numbers. It can really make you scratch your head, wondering how no one asked even a few simple questions before green-lighting these ultra-niche products.
For example, how often do you need to carry a giant armoire cabinet? Or maybe a grandfather clock, or I dunno, a full-size replica of the Venus De Milo. Not that frequently, right? So, paying a premium for an SUV that could allow you to transport such tall products probably wouldn’t be big on your list. I would guess not, but for some reason, GMC thought it was worth a shot making an Envoy XUV with an electrically sliding roof over the cargo area. It’s not surprising that they could only move 16,000 for the first year it was available. When sales dropped to 11,000 units the following year, GM pulled the plug.
What’s funny is that Studebaker tried this idea and failed miserably. Did General Motors think more people wanted to haul refrigerators upright forty years later?
Ford has made similar mistakes. Have any Mustang buyers seemed like they really longed for a more Euro-style ponycar with a “biplane” rear spoiler and a turbo four-cylinder engine? I would say no. The vast majority wouldn’t want it any more than those who preferred lithe and athletic coupes imported from places known for pasta and pretzels hankered for an American two-door that shared its underpinnings with the Ford Granada.
Worse, there was competition within Ford for these unicorn customers, who could also choose a T-Bird Turbo Coupe or maybe a Merkur XR4Ti from one of FoMoCo’s own dealerships.
Somehow, “Are we sure anyone will even want these?” went unasked (or was answered “Yes!”), and Ford went on to create the Mustang SVO. In truth, it was a deceptively appealing car and arguably one of the best Fox bodies ever made, but it was just too “Mustang” for import buyers and too foreign for Mustang people. It’s no wonder that only 9,840 were sold over a two-year run. (I always got the feeling that it was held back by not being available with the 302 V8.)
You readers can think of far more examples, right? Hell, there’s a lot of you out there – far more people than could fit into a Cadillac Cimarron or Catera, which can also go on the “who asked for this?” list.
Didn’t Honda target the Element to youth-living-at-home-still with no jobs, but instead learned that the Element was wildly popular with retirees?
How a unemployed youth still living at home gonna buy any car at all outside of “mommy and daddy bought it for me”
I think that’s also the entire lesson of the Scion marque…any new cars aimed at kids in the last 20+ years are unlikely to succeed because only some very lucky/well-off kids are buying new cars.
Wasn’t the Envoy XUV trying to compete with overseas Toyota-based technical crowd?
Would make for a great movie.
There are several I can think of that all have one thing in common; overpriced for brand they are part of even if they offer value. The most recent might be the Kia stinger on paper it should have done well but didn’t really. The same mistake Hyundai made with their luxury offerings including the Genesis model before splitting it off to it’s own brand. The VW phaeton was a big one that confused many people. The dodge hornet / toenail can also fit into that but for many different reasons the market segment is there they just made something horrible and way overpriced.
I think the Stinger was such a great shame because it was more in line with the kind of thing Maserati should have doing than what Maserati was actually doing at the time with the Ghibli.
The Toyota Solara. It was like a good idea a decade out of date. And the convertible version seemed to exist only b/c with a name like that, Toyota had to offer one.
The Edsel. There was no space in the market for a car between the top of the Ford line and the bottom of the Mercury line, and in any case the Edsel prices overlapped with the Mercurys in practice. The design was a huge gamble and flop, but once the stupid grilles were done away with in 1960 there was even less reason to buy one over a Mercury. There’s a reason why it’s become such a famous case study in corporate failure.
Dodge Hornet.
Dodge Charger.
The Pontiac Aztec is the first thing that comes to mind. It was doomed before it was actually put on sale, got bad press from the start.
But the exceution of it kind of sealed it’s fate. they could have put many of the outdoorsy things like coolers and tents into so many other more rugged and useful platforms and done better, the hacked minivan was surprisingly done better by Dodge in the form of the Journey and even then it was often panned by the critics.
I was going to mention it for other than the usual reasons; “big” (minivan-size) crossovers with only two rows of seats have only ever been strong sellers briefly. In a Buick-Pontiac-GMC showroom in the early ’00s the Vibe offered almost as much room as an Aztek for a lot lower base price and higher gas mileage, while the Rendezvous offered the same package as the Aztek but with a third row.
I had a friend in college with the SVO; he loved it. It was pretty nimble for a Fox body, without the extra mass of the 302 in the nose but comparable power for the weight, he said it was all the go with better handling. He was a fan.
except it was mostly on paper, on the street it rarely kept up with a 5 speed 5.0. the Turbo Coupe Thunderbird was a far cleaner design of that platform vs the V8 version and I think that more than anything is what sold it for a bit, but even in those the lack of adequate head gasket bolt clamping force kind of did the design in. I kind of wonder if the modern 2.3 turbo in the base mustangs would not be a perfect swap for an older SVO, but I am not so sure they got all the steam passage issues worked out in the modern floating cylinder block design, so head gaskets are still a concern.
It’s been done. But seems kind of dumb considering the Lima can easily make over 400hp. I’m not sure what head gasket issue you are talking about. I never had an issue with the 8 SVOs I’ve owned until I started really upping the boost.
Variations of that 4 cylinder engine were the most raced engine in the world.
A new exotic head came out, even when Ford discontinued the race blocks.
Also, with regards to the SVO “rarely keeping up with with the 5.0”, all I can tell you is that when I was in HS and got my first SVO (1984), the “hot” car was a 1988 (I think) notchback 5.0 and my SVO would beat/tie it at the “strip” and kill it in the curves. The only modification to my SVO was a Gillis valve that increased boost to 17 lbs.
This may be a different take, but the Alfa Romeo 4C. Beautiful carbon fiber car with a crappy interior and no options. Marketed to hardcore sports car enthusiasts, but with a turbo 4 engine and NO MANUAL TRANSMISSION OPTION!!! Who’s going to put down $70,000 for one of those? Apparently too punishing to use as a daily. If you have the bucks, park it in your living room as a work of art I guess. Did they sell many of those? I think I’ve only seen one out in the wild (in Portland, Maine oddly enough).
Especially since by the time it had been Federalized it was heavier than an ND anyway.
It was wild how badly Alfa missed the mark with the 4C. It could have been great, even for the ridiculous money they were asking, but no.
Two-seaters, especially coupes, are a heavy, heavy lift in America. As we are a foolish people.
I always thought it was odd that Ford was trying to sell the SVO while at the same time trying to sell the very similarly positioned (and looking and powered) XR4TI in the same showroom.
The XR4ti was not positioned anything like the SVO. Nor was the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe. Just because they had turbocharged fours means nothing. Was the Lincoln LSC a competitor to the Mustang GT? I mean, they were basically the same car and had the 5.0 (4.9).
in a sense, yes. the Capri was gone in v8 Form by 85, so those of us that lusted after a better appointed mustang looked at the T-Bird and Lincoln LSC to see if we could swing the purchase price, that is for sure.
The SVO, the XR4Ti and the Turbo Coupe were all attempts at going more european, the XR however lacked the more traditional version to sell alongside it and when the bottom dropped out on the euro trend, so did the XR.
It isn’t “just because they had turbocharged fours.” It was because they looked similar (including similar styling garnishes), were very similar in size, had basically the same drivetrain, had similar performance, cost about the same and were given accolades by the contemporary car rags vs more typical domestic fare of the time for the same reason. Car and Driver even did tests directly comparing them.
“Rollin’…
In my 4.9.
Can’t round up
And that’s quite fine.”
XR4Ti was an attempt at Euro styling as that seemed like the emerging market trend for middle brands like Buick/Olds and Mercury. it was based off something that was actually quite popular in England, even though most Americans thought the styling was not good.
Well, it wasn’t an “attempt at Euro styling” it actually was the Ford Sierra, but without the Cosworth engine. The Sierra was a very successful 80’s sedan in Europe, with one crazy option that was stolen the moment you parked it, the Sierra Cosworth. If Ford had brought that level of craziness over to the US, it probably still would have failed, but it would have been a wild car. Instead, we got an unpronounceable brand name, with a completely forgettable model name, and a very tame engine. They proceeded to tame it further in successive years until I guess you could gotten one for free at the end. My mother had an 85. Was nowhere near as much fun to drive as the 78 280z it replaced, or the Porsche 944 she wanted to buy.
Also… the VW Phaeton. Who exactly was clamoring for a $100k 12 cylinder Volkswagen?
To be honest that’s a brand / logo image problem that’s gone out of control in America. Acura, Infiniti, Lexus, Audi, Genesis are all made up fake brands to make people in the US feel better for buying a high end car, and most importantly not feel bad getting it a from a company that makes low end cars. GM perfected this then ruined it, but VAG is a very close second. If it was an Audi RS69 it probably would have sold very well. I’d never buy it because I’ve already learned my lessons, but many people would because it was a special Audi much like the V10 M5 and honestly appreciate ludicrousness if they plan to trade it in about 2-3 years after purchase.
the newest Maserati Ghibli. They actually thought they were going to sell 50k of those a year. C&D and R&T were writing about them all the time before they came out (2012ish)
The SVO didn’t sell for two reasons: (one really) It was significantly higher priced than the GT and Ford spent zero effort training the sales team how to sell/market it. I owned a 1985 GT and a 1986 SVO (still have it) and the SVO was/is better in every single category.
The Kia Rondo.
Too car like to be an SUV, too minivan like to be a car, and too SUV like to be a minivan. The irony of the fact that it was only about six years too early to be a smash hit isn’t lost on me, I happen to own one, a 2008 Rondo LX V6. My ex didn’t want it anymore when we broke up, and since I’d bought it and it was still in my name, I kept it and sold the Avalon once I fixed the A/C that broke on the Rondo right after the ex and I split up. It’s an incredibly practical machine, with durable plastic surfaces that take a beating, storage absolutely everywhere, a crap-ton of room, the high roof and windshield of a van, and to my absolute astonishment, zero blind spots.
That said, it’s still an odd duck built for a market that didn’t exist (yet).
Now you’ve got the Ford Transit, Nissan NV200, Ram City Promaster, Mazda 5, that, while they’re classified as minivans instead of SUVs, are roughly the same size and shape. You also have an entire market of compact, car-based SUVs called “crossovers”, which weren’t quite a thing when the Rondo first arrived.
Might have sold more of ’em if they called it the Kia Platypus.
My uncle had one for about 12 years and really liked it. Pretty trouble free, served their needs as empty nesters who still needed something bigger for utility.
My parents also had a Rondo, an EX I4 after downsizing from a van. It was more refined than a Mazda 5 and appreciably roomier too, being almost 3″ wider.
The smaller crossovers were all pretty varied like you said, the CR-V had only just dumped the swing-out tailgate. In the Kia lineup, the Sportage was a lot smaller, the Sorento was still a thirstier BOF vehicle. Third rows were still being stuffed in everything outside of a minivan left and right, no matter how small (Outlander, RAV4 arrived with them at the same time, Hyundai had the new Santa Fe) so it also gave Kia such a 7-seater until the 3-row Sorento showed up. Ours was a 2-row though.
Canadians are more open to that style so it did live on for another generation there, and they also got the Chevy Orlando. Not unlike the Nissan Axxess’ Multi-year run up there after 1990-only here.
Hybrids explored the idea again with 2-rows – the C-Max was a little too small, the Prius v was similar but you had to be open to Prius oddities (and that one did offer a 3rd row globally).
The Cadillac Cimarron was a huge hit with one demographic. Elderly widows. They traded in that boat Sedan Deville once their husbands died off. Well we always drove Cadillacs but I just really didnt want something that big. Not the market Cadillac was aiming for.
Id also argue the Caddy ATS had no business existing. Those things are TIGHT inside, along with an ugly dash and chintzy finish. Smallest Cadillac should have gone is the CTS.
Same thing applies to its CT4 sucessor, but for a different reason. By 2020 when it was introduced, sedans were/are basically salesproof, nobody wants them. And the ATS-V/CT4 Blackwing should have had the base model Corvette V8. Only reason people bought the CTS-V was for the rip roaring v8. The great handling helped as well in that it was basically a 4 door Vette
That almost describes my mom. She replaced a Camry with a Rio Hatchback because she really wanted something smaller. She had the money to spend up to about 80K but this is what she wanted. Having driven it, I really like it, even the CVT wasn’t that annoying like I was expecting.
edit – Oh, she also got it in a bright color. My entire life was silver or gold. Maybe she’s cooler than I thought.
While I agree that giving the ATS a goofy twin turbo V6 (that makes the same horsepower as the lighter and more compact V8 they already had designed that chassis for) is the exact kind of dumb brand defiance that led to the XLR having a worse engine and transmission than the Corvette they based it off for basically no benefit, I strongly disagree with the assertion that it had no business existing. Not only is it not Cadillac’s fault that it debuted at the exact time that BMW realized that they could cash in their cachet and slap their logo on any ungainly half assed piece of shit to great success, but it was extremely refreshing to have a legitimate competitive driver’s car that was just as easy to live with as a Malibu when it cames to parts and servicing without having to put up with the grotesque caricature of boomer aphorisms pretending to be a car that had been foisted upon the entire domestic sporty car range for the previous 8 years.
I for one was extremely happy when I had mine that I didn’t have to put up with the idiotic design constraints GM carried over from its deeply flawed predecessor when it was focus-tested to hell and instead just had a modern sporty and fun car; and enough people seemed to agree since the ATS basically still exists and the 6th generation Camaro that gave it its bones is long gone and was on a death watch its entire life.
Buick Cascada. They look like Murano Cross Cabs but not as tall, FWD and a high belt line convertible for $8000 more than the Regal Sportback
Similar was the last Regal GS but that was a pretty cool car that just wasn’t marketed well.
Any car where the manufacturer’s marketing team thought they would market towards the youths. This includes everything ever made by Scion, the Honda Element, Kia Soul, Nissan Kicks, Ford Fiesta, etc. They seem to forget that young people don’t have any money and that older folks who have money like cheap, reliable, and whimsical/fun vehicles.
Extremely surprised not to see the Lincoln Blackwood or Mark LT mentioned yet.
Luxury pickups are certainly a market, but the key insight was keeping the plausible deniability of the blue-collar badge (that guy drives an F-150, just like me).
It depends on market. The Mark LT got a 2nd generation in Mexico
I have told the story here before from the lead mechanic at my parents’ favorite shop, who had an elderly female customer who drove nothing but Lincolns. One day she rolled up in a brand spanking new Mark LT with less than a thousand miles on it. What could possibly be wrong with such a brand new vehicle, he asked?
“John, you just got to do something with this thing – it drives so much like a truck. what can I do about it?”
“Uhhhhh… take it straight back to the dealership, and trade it in on the Town Car you should have bought the whole time?”
Renault Wind: an ugly, heavy, and impractical Twingo roadster with a sunroof smaller than the canvas roof of the MK1 Twingo
I’d be the one to say yes to this. I confess.
at the limit, the Gordini version can be of interest but this car was a failure which was only sold for 3 years, here nobody wanted it but it is clearly a future collector’s item like the Avantime or the Peugeot 1007
The Isuzu Vehicross. That thing was awesome and would sell amazingly now, but people having a demographic “lifestyle” image they try to conform to didn’t get invented for 5-10 years.
I dunno about this one, Isuzu built cheaper ceramic molds for the Vehicross knowing the production run would be limited. I judge them more on why they chose to focus on a niche product knowing it was niche instead of focusing efforts on updating the Trooper/Amigo/Rodeo that were their actual bread and butter. It was an attainable “halo vehicle” for the brand that didn’t have a large enough market share to need one.
Murano Cross Cabriolet. Nissan figured if there was a market for convertible cars and a market for convertible SUVs (like the Wrangler), there should be a market for convertible CUVs too!
Nissan was wrong.
I don’t even think they thought there’d be a market for it….allegedly it got made because Carlos Ghosn’s wife wanted one. It sounds insane, but this is Carlos Ghosn we’re talking about here and he’s not exactly known for his rational decision making.
Saw two different Cross Cabriolets in Reno last week.
I suspect one of them was the one I saw heading west on I80 on Wednesday last week. Can’t be too many of them around in any one location. It was the light pinkish color.
My car, and user namesake: 2004 Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback Ralliart.
Mitsu thought that historically wagon-averse USA was primed for a compact wagon (Sportback), and then went a step further and made a sport version (Ralliart).
As you might expect, tens and tens of cars were sold for one model year in ’04, before they pulled the plug.
I don’t care though, I’m never selling mine. Best oddball I’ve ever owned.
Oh but that 2nd gen one that was the hatchback was amazing! I had one as a loaner for a week when my Tacoma was getting some work done and had a blast with it!
It was fun, and that’s the one everyone thinks of. Nobody knows mine exists.
I remember a guy I was stationed in the UK with had a dark grey one. I always thought it was neat!
It didn’t help that they only finally reached the dealers just as the discontinuation was announced.
R58 mini coupe and R59 mini roadster.
Let’s make a pretty fantastic small car, make them less useful, less attractive, and more expensive. Production over 3 model years was 27k for the coupe and 29k for the roadster.
I’d argue the paceman was a similar situation
The Paceman I argue was the bigger head scratcher. Who wants a bigger MINI with fewer doors and sloped roof?
Any current Nissan?
Chevy SSR and Dodge Durango convertible. Truck guys and convertibles often do not mix.
I think you mean Dakota. Although a Durango ‘vert would have been interesting.
yes dakota both d words.
I just had the privilege of visiting an aging man’s car collection (that I could tell was in the early process of pondering clearing out) and he had amongst other things, an SSR, Dakota vert, Geo Metro convertible, Triumph TR7, Plymouth Scamp (the 80’s trucklet version), 90s Cutlass vert, 2(!) Buick Reatta’s and a Caddy Allante.
My mind was so thoroughly blown that I almost had to sit down. It’s like he directly had this question in mind when purchasing his cars.
This one was particularly silly because the Venn diagram of the people who would have thought the 5000lb truck convertible with the Corvette engine was cool enough to spend over 40 grand on it and the people who dreamed their whole life to buy a (famously Corvette-engined) Corvette convertible for around the same price when they retired is like one circle.
If you want to see who buys expensive trucks, go to the farm and gin show.
Check the parking lot.
The big land owners have outrageous trucks, often heavily modded as well.
You can add the Plymouth Prowler to that list.