A time-honored tradition for car enthusiasts is anxiously awaiting the next generation of the [insert model name] to see in what ways it’s better or worse than the previous model. Most of the time, the new thing is an improvement overall, as car technology is ever improving, and car styling ages quickly, so newer = better is frequently true. But not always, which brings us to today’s Ask and those cars that felt like missed opportunities at the time, or maybe seemed like the right car for their moment but in retrospect leave you pining for what could have been. My call was the fourth-gen Eclipse, a real miss as a chonky cruiser that should have been a lighter, more lithe machined (and less goofy looking). I put the question to the gang:
Brian
The Alfa Romeo 4C stands in my mind as one of the biggest almost-hits of the 2010s. It had so much going for it: An absolutely stunning design, a carbon-fiber monocoque, a mid-engine powertrain with a snarly turbocharged four-cylinder at its heart.
But despite all that, it’s sort of faded into obscurity for two reasons: 1) Because it wasn’t very good to drive, and 2) Because it didn’t have a manual transmission. Had it come with a third pedal instead of that standard dual-clutch, any qualms about driving quality would’ve been quickly forgiven, and the 4C would be cemented in history.
Jason
I always thought the ID.Buzz became a missed opportunity. This was a car I was eagerly anticipating – I’ve been hoping VW would resurrect the Type 2 as a modern car for a long time, and really lean into its retro aesthetic, so when they first started showing prototypes (which started way back in 2001, remember) I was very excited.
The end result had a lot of the look I was hoping for, but the decision to make it a pure battery EV – which was an understandable choice, considering VW was crawling out of the Dieselgate morass – saddled it with a price that’s just too damn high and the low-ish range limits its ability to do what it should do best: be a fantastic road trip car.
A new Microbus should have been a slam dunk for VW. What we got just wasn’t.
Stephen
Chrysler Aspen. Especially with how far out front they were with the hybrid version way back in the pre-bankruptcy days. Full-size, 4WD Hemi lux truck is a highly lucrative and profitable segment, and one that fits the Chrysler brand perfectly. Additional investment could’ve segmented the Aspen as a continued offering in the segment and offered a viable choice vs the other domestic full-size SUVs and the Armada/QX.
Sadly, we know that the Aspen was short lived and today Chrysler continues to flounder with only one minivan offered in its stable for years now
Your turn:
What Cars Were The Biggest Missed Opportunities?
Top graphic image: Mitsubishi
To me it’s more a drivetrain than a given car.
I think Air cooled VWs could have gone a lot further.
The Gol, Saverio, and Hormiga were a good start, and frankly are how air cooled VWs should have gone.
They should have had the torque vectoring ZF transasxles as an option (like a LSD but it constantly varies power sending to the wheel with the most traction, opposite of a open diff).
They should have kept making progress on EFI.
They should have oil cooled the heads but kept the air cooled cylinders for more power and better emissions.
and kept producing Air Cooled VWs in developed countries for at least as long as air cooled Porsches were sold there.
I think Toyota missed out with this current generation of the Tacoma.
First of all, it’s quite an ugly truck. But it’s available as a 4-door truck or a 2-door truck.
https://www.thedrive.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/18/Taco-Hero-2.jpg?quality=85
It’s also available with an automatic transmission or a 6-speed manual transmission.
https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/2024-toyota-tacoma-double-cab-4×4-manual-106-670548fa0f519.jpg?resize=980:*
But if you want the 2-door truck with a 6-speed manual transmission, you’re screwed.
To me, it seems there would be more of a market for a 2-door, 6-speed truck than a 4-door 6-speed one.
Missed opportunity, for sure.
They really should have stolen the 7 speed manual from Ford. Granny Low gear is really helpful off road especially if the T-Case ratios is not 4 to 1.
I agree that the ID.Buzz is a big missed opportunity, but mostly because in North America they’re not offering the small wheelbase version. That smaller van would be an ideal upgrade from our Golf, but with only one child we don’t need a gigantic three-row van to drive around mostly empty. :\
The Cadillac Cimarron. GM went “Lincoln Versailles” and tried to put lipstick on a Cavalier pig. Had they introduced it to actually compete with the BMW 3-Series it would have had a different roofline from the rest of the J-bodies, 4-wheel disk brakes, 5-speed, 2-liter overhead cam with fuel injection, maybe a limited slip transaxle to eliminate torque steer, and a unique dash instead of one that was ripped from the Cavalier.
The Merkur brand. Could have made a lot more 80s yuppies happy if it had been priced more competitively against the other cars yuppies were buying.
Merkur should have set the tone for the entire Mercury brand. Especially now; they could have let Ford go all-truck + Mustang three decades earlier and let the Mercury brand handle all of the cars.
But “One Ford” and all…
The Pontiac Turbo Trans Am with the 3.8 Turbo from a grand national was a really good opportunity for Pontiac F-Bodies to really shine and separate themselves from the Chevrolet sister cars. Chevrolet again did not have the guts to allow it since the motor effectively outran the Corvette at the time, but I still think it was a mistake.
The 4c started out sounding like a 3cyl diesel tractor. After a few videos advertised it sounded like crap, they changed something.
Its still a bad sports car for charging real car money, and supplying a kei car experience.
Also needs a stick.
GM with the Blazer. Ford, Jeep, and Toyota are going hard in the off road SUV market and GM refuses to dip a toe into it outside of the Hummer which I would consider a vanity vehicle more than an off roader even if it does have decent off road chops. The current Blazer is a kinda OK as a vehicle I guess, but why in the world would you waste the name on that barely competitive, not-at-all off road focused, wannabe Venza? They couldn’t have at least pulled a Honda and made something like the Passport with some form of off roadiness let alone gone full blown Bronco/Wrangler/4Runner and done a true off roader? I’d even be fine if they still made the existing Blazer under a different name, but make a dang SUV off the Colorado platform and compete with the other off roaders and give the Blazer name back to something that deserves it.
I’ll also add, why wont GM go after the F150 Raptor and TRX and are pussyfooting around with the ZR2 Silverado? Step it up and make something more inline with a Raptor instead of the Tremor. Maybe they could kill two birds with one stone and make a Raptor/TRX version of the Tahoe. At least they would be the only one on the market with a hardcore off road full size SUV, just like the OG Blazer.
Your are spot on with the Blazer. The target was “empty nesters” like the Venza and Edge. Which isn’t necessarily a bad segment to have an entry for, but also it was only marginally bigger than an Equinox for a bunch more money. And it was much more show than go.
Timing for a Bronco/Wrangler competitor would have been perfect.
I agree with this so completely. Ford has turned the Bronco into a full
Fledged lifestyle brand, with universal appeal. Young men love em. Young women love em. Old men love em. Old women love em. Urban. Rural. Black. White. I used to think Jeep was the only one that could catch lightning in a bottle like that and have a vehicle that was as attractive to an old army vet as it was to a high school cheerleader. But ford did it, by not screwing up the important stuff, and launching it with t shirts and hats.
The Chevy K5 has MORE nostalgia and exposure than the bronco, this should have been so much a no brainer.
But I think it boils down to the same reason GM has always historically shot itself in the foot: I think they were too worried it would steal sales from the Colorado and Canyon pickups, that print more money.
I would go so far as to say the 270 HP NA Atlas straight six in the old trailblazer was a missed opportunity. teething problems aside that flow through head straight size made a lot of HP for the time and would have made a far more interesting base motor in the Silverado’s, the Camaro and so on. Imagine what it could have been with a twin turbo set up and a well designed awd system in say a low to the ground GMC Canyon….Syclone.
The atlas was such a good engine, and while saying this at my local bar would get me an ass whipping, it was such a leap forward from the 4.3.
I honestly think the trailblazer was a bit of a missed opportunity, they looked good, rode like a dream, actually held their value well, and ran FOREVER. They needed a 2nd generation, instead we got the first gen. traverse……which was the single biggest automotive purchase mistake I ever made.
I think they are hanging there hats on the Colorado for offroad chops. Colorado ZR2 Bison is the current big dog in that group I believe. they are definitely chasing the Tacoma more than Jeep and/or the Bronco.
And it’s a mistake. Look how many Raptors and Broncos Ford is selling or 4Runners, Land Cruisers, and GXs Toyota does. GM is missing out big.
I would tend to agree, I think the blazer is getting the axe with an ice motor as well, but even with both drive trains the real bronco alone(no Sport) sold almost double the number. They cannot just plop an enclosed bed on a Canyon and call it good either. the wheels need to be out near the edge of the body for those that actually wheel to approve, they need a manual trans option, even if they sell only a few and they need a real transfer case with a locker in there as well as at each axle. This is of course just for a a select few option routes of course, but with out them, the mall crawlers will ignore it because the guys they are trying to emulate will as well.
Also the Fiero.
Fiero is probably the most obvious example of GM starting something too soon and then killing the whole thing just as the kinks were worked out.
If there are opportunities missed in the past, allow me to turn your attention to opportunities missed in the present.
Honda CR-Z comes to mind.
Comes to very few minds.
Came to my mind.
I saw one in traffic yesterday. It was even a manual! I thought the styling was weird and the proportions unsettling when they were new, but now I think the styling has aged very well.
Agreed. No one was asking for a sporty looking but heavy, slow and inefficient hybrid with two seats and a manual, but boy did Honda deliver.
If only they had thrown out the hybrid and put the Si drivetrain/suspension in that thing, I would’ve bought one instantly.
They also could’ve made a base model with the base civic engine and a manual that would’ve been far more fun to drive and about as efficient as that crappy hybrid (while weighing and costing much less).
The funny thing is the car it replaced was one of the lightest, most efficient hybrids ever made. So I dunno if it was the hybrid drive was wholly to blame for the bloat.
The 2004 Civic ranged from 2449-2703 lbs depending on trim vs 2661-2740 lbs for the hybrid:
https://hondanews.com/en-US/releases/release-f793f7689c6a44628d079c004c34c4ca-2004-honda-civic-hybrid-specifications
https://hondanews.com/en-US/honda-automobiles/releases/release-db716ff6ead21e5b8aa11d004c34c4cb-2004-honda-civic-sedan-specifications
So while I’m sure the hybrid bits added SOME weight I think there’s more to it than that. Better crash protection perhaps.
Most Jeeps aside the Wrangler and Grand Cherokee.
How many nameplates trotted out, flash in the pan, but no longer legs when the SUV market was growing by leaps and bounds?
Where’s the Jeep version of the CR-V/RAV4 with a Trail Rated badge that knocks out 150k-200k+ sales per year reliably year after year?
Not just another mediocre effort that pops sales up until people realize it’s junk and then they collect dust on dealer lots.
You’ve got the brand recognition, just need the product.
Discontinuing the old Cherokee before the new hybrid one came out was all the evidence needed to show their entire c-suite needed to be sacked and replaced. Literally the hottest segment in the world, and your bread-and-butter product as you’ve tried to move the Grand Cherokee more up-market, and you let it lapse?
Actual conversation that I had, DOZENS of times-
“We’re looking to get a new Cherokee”
“Oh, I’m sorry but they’ve been discontinued, it’s the compass and then the grand Cherokee now. I usually suggest people actually check out a wrangle-“
“Oh no, we’ll just keep our Cherokee then, it’s perfect for what we do”
(Call them back just to touch base and see if they’ll look at a grand Cherokee)
“Oh, no we just went out and bought a CrV, but thanks!”
Idiots. Complete idiots.
All our company cars were Cherokees when I got hired (some Chargers mixed in for managers who didn’t want an SUV) and now they are all Equinoxes. I can’t say for sure they’d have gotten Cherokees again, but I can say it wasn’t an option.
It was a solid competitor once they had the formula right. Doesn’t seem to be talked about much but after about 2016 reliability on them was completely sorted out and they were actually getting a really good reputation with owners for going 100k plus miles without so much as a check engine light. By 2021, people were trading in 150,000 mile Cherokees and were ready to get another, but a HUGE AMOUNT of them were very disappointed to see that we were now asking $40k plus for the exact same car in 2021 that they bought in 2016 for 29k. A newer screen and LED lights. That was about all the difference in 6 model years. When you have Kia and Hyundai coming out with 3 suvs in that price range that all get redesigns every 18 months, it gets tough to stay loyal, even when the Cherokee was good.
I looked at the price when I got mine handed down from the previous person in my role. A new one in 2023 with the same spec was $38k. The window sticker was in the glovebox from 2021 – $33k.
That’s a lot of increase.
My wife loved her 2019 Durango R/T that we paid ~50k for. We went shopping again last year and the price for a Durango with lesser specs (several features that were important to her were only available on the Hellcat trim) was in the low 60s.
We went out and got a lightly used luxury SUV for the same money.
I know inflation has been a thing in the past few years, but Dodge has lost it on pricing.
What you’re describing is the Compass, which was 147K in 2019, 171K in 2019, then dropped to 100K in 202 because STLA decided to focus on higher profit vehicles. It’s never returned to previous numbers, this is also US only figures, second highest market is Brazil.
The Trailhawk trim is exactly what you’re asking for.
I’m just wondering if Jeep lets the Compass wither at this juncture, or actually puts the effort/money into the vehicle. We shall see.
The KL Cherokee was a 200k+ seller in the mid-2010s, yet floundered (even moreso than other Covid-era vehicles) until it faded away in 2023.
Jeep had several missed opportunities to literally grab a huge chunk of a growing market with well-known nameplates. The execution and reliability issues conspire to poison otherwise solid launches.
A happy return customer is the literal easiest sale. Ask Toyota or Honda.
They do have a 3rd generation Compass, it’s already overseas. We were supposed to get it for this MY (I believe) but tariffs changed plans. Eventually we’ll get it, and the new Cherokee, built up here in the US within the next couple years (Cherokee’s are already hitting lots for MY2026, but are built in Mexico with the Wagoneer S it’s based on).
It’s going to be interesting how it comes out though.
not to mention the more rugged “looking” Renegade using the same undercarriage.
It is kind of too bad they did not go Jimny on the Renegade version. I would have liked to see a Rear wheel biased, manual trans mini jeep with scout lines and front and rear solid axles optional.
Pontiac Aztec. If it hadn’t been quite so hideous to look at I think GM could have kick-started the crossover craze a few years early.
The actual product was very different from the concept drawings. It’s as if they couldn’t show the production people the concept drawings and instead tried to describe it to them over the phone.
“No no no, more tall wagon less assless minivan!”
A friend that owned a Buick Rendezvous (the Aztec’s cousin) and absolutely loved it. She was disappointed when they discontinued them – Buick “replaced” it with the Enclave, but it wasn’t quite the same to her, and I got the impression the Rendezvous just didn’t sell well.
I’m not afraid to say it; the Hornet.
The entire premise I agree with, a crossover that was more than “it was supposed to be”, and less at the same time. More pep, more sport, less practical, less basic.
Somehow, they turned what should’ve been a sportier Compass into…. that mess.
Dodge really needs a fun, sporty, cheap 4-cylinder vehicle again. The current Dodge CEO even said the Hornet was supposed to get a GLH version, and I’d wager the new 4 banger in the Grand Cherokee was probably the motor they were going to use for any performance Hornet.
Quality issues (and/or perceptions) aside, the Hornet was so overpriced that it never even warranted a conversation. There are some plug-ins at a dealer near me now. “New” 2024s. $20k off sticker and still a touch over 30 grand.
The Hybrid definitely was way overpriced.
I think the normal gassers were just a tad in comparison, and honestly the gassers were the better choice.
Dart too.
In a different world, that’d probably still be around. I still can’t believe Sergio treated it, and the G2 200, like the Commander.
How’s this for a missed opportunity?
Between 1980 and 1985, GM spent $45 billion in capital investment. A GM exec in this article is quoted as saying “For the same amount of money, we could buy Toyota and Nissan outright.”
Yeah, Roger Smith acted like his whole job was to just find creative new ways to set money on fire
Honda CR-Z. It could’ve been the second coming of the CRX, but we got the fat Elvis version.
MK8 GTI/Golf R-getting rid of physical buttons (now they’re back) and making it DSG only.
Not to pile on Stellantis, but….
The new Charger. A botched launch of a car that nobody wanted at exactly the wrong time for a big electric coupe. No sedan or ICE for the first two years and the ICE that we’re getting is the wrong one for the people who would be most likely to buy it.
This one… Is it a ‘miss’ because it was the wrong car, or is it a ‘miss’ because it was badly rolled out?
I LOVE the look of it – it looks a proper “Charger”, got rid of the massive butt of the Challenger, has plenty of interior space.
I LIKED the drive of it – I’ve driven faster and I’ve driven better handling, but it was still a pretty nice pile of giggly hoots to drive.
I LIKED the combo of “American muscle” and “EV” – and it even had the right name for the job.
I HATED the price that never seemed to come down at all no matter what the rest of the industry was doing.
I HATED that it was a first-gen Fiat/Chrysler/Dodge product in a non-core market, so it would probably be unreliable and badly supported.
It COULD have worked – but it didn’t.
Both. The old charger should have stayed in production, the “new” charger should have been 2 Chryslers (one a sedan, one a higher riding crossover but on the same platform) neither would have any stigma attached for not being a V8, and both would have potentially been big news.
I think the charger would have made a way cooler “New Yorker” or “imperial”
Chrysler is so broke they can’t even badge engineer their own vehicle.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so painful.
Oh, that’s a good idea. I wonder if there were barriers to keeping the LX platform current on safety regs?
If anyone can figure out a cheap way to keep current on safety regulations and have it somehow still work, it’s stellantis! They fixed the gladiator’s offset crash rating by bolting a damned piece of angle iron to the frame.
They had an old car that was somehow selling extremely well despite its age, outperforming newer competition, dropped it, and replaced it with one that sells the same in 12 months as the old one did in a couple of weeks, that’s a serious bungle right there
In addition to 10 grand cheaper, it needs to be 15 inches shorter, five inches more narrow and have a full fastback design.
It’s a hatchback. Embrace it!
Hyundai Santa Cruz. Small sporty looking and with a truck bed. Not all of us need or pretend to need to tow an aircraft Carrie while carrying a whole ass house in the bed. Sometimes we just need a bed for some small stuff or a recycling/yard waste run to the local trader station. It took way too long to come out and when it did no hybrid option so the mileage was meh, it looked.. ok.. but nothing like the concept. And the Maverick was better in almost every way I can think of (I like the looks of the Santa Cruz better, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder). They dragged their feet for so long after generating huge buzz and it fell flat.
Honda Crosstour. Had it been released now, it would have been a perfectly normal looking vehicle but 10-15 years ago the “coupe”-UV wasn’t much of a thing.
We just picked up a very nice TSX Sportwagen as our second vehicle and while driving it home I passed both a Crosstour and ZDX and thought how Honda went 1 for 3 in the design of these non-mainstream automobiles.
The 2000s era Pontiac GTO.
Not that it wasn’t a good car, it was. But I think it should have had a little more retro flavor, rather than a rebadged Aussie Holden Monaro.
I could also go with the Plymouth Prowler. Looked awesome (especially with those dumb bumperettes removed. But then they stuck it with a V6! Lame.
It was either the V6 or not build it at all, Chrysler really didn’t have an acceptable V8 to use at the time
I will argue to my death that a 360 would have fit in there.
You might have shoe horned it in, but it would have weighed at least 150lbs more while likely making less power, not really something for a car that was mainly intended as a real world demonstrator for some of the company’s advanced manufacturing techniques
I totally understand.
But nobody remembers it for its advanced manufacturing techniques.
They remember it as that car that unfortunately never had a V8 because of the limits of their manufacturing techniques.
It needed a v8 only because leaving it out of a car like that screamed “ALL SHOW AND NO GO”. Boulevard cruiser. For style purposes only. The automotive equivalent of a toupee.
A power adder v6 would also have worked.
But, wouldn’t the Magnum V8 of the era have also been more show/no additional go?
I find it hard to believe Chrysler couldn’t have hopped up a Magnum in the time it took to develop the Prowler, had they wanted to.
Even so, better mocked for being the 3rd gen Firebird than the Mustang II.
Well, it was also an older engine that was already in the process of being phased out, they clearly weren’t interested in throwing more money into it, the V6 they used was their most modern, highest performance option, and that’s what they wanted to feature as matching the ethos of the car. Investing in V8s had been sort of a low priority at Chrysler since the ’80s, that’s where they still were, going into the mid/late ’90s, they probably didn’t think anyone would notice much, since they hadn’t made any V8 cars of any kind since 1989, vs, say, Ford and GM, where they were still very much a consistent part of their DNA all through the 90s
Everything you’re saying makes logical sense.
It was still the wrong call.
More weight/less power and highly unlikely they were interested in getting the emissions reworked for a non-truck, low volume application
Some geniuses eventually got a V8 in there:
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1999-plymouth-prowler-28/
https://www.allpar.com/d3/fix/engines/SRT-Prowler-project.html
https://www.autoblog.com/news/this-wisconsin-shop-will-swap-a-hellcat-v8-into-your-plymouth-prowler
I’m not buying it that it being an EV made it too expensive. I think it was VW’s poor decision making on pricing. The Buzz is basically a slightly larger ID.4, why is that platform-mate able to be $15k cheaper? Why is Kia/Hyundai able to offer a three row EV for 10% cheaper that has more range, is faster, and has faster charging. VW got greedy and though nostalgia would mean they could demand a higher price.
On top of that, VW’s poor EV expertise and lack of ability to improve their EVs at the rate of their competition is what made the Buzz a bad car. The whole platform was mediocre from the start when they released the ID.4. Its had lower range and performance than most of the competition since the day it was released in 2020. VW then continued to fall further and further behind as they didn’t/couldn’t make similar improvements like the competition has been. A milquetoast platform which VW then chose to drop a brick shaped cabin on 5 years later only exacerbated the platforms already apparent shortcomings.
I wanted one so bad. But that price and range was a joke. I could have tolerated the range if it was $45k, not $60k starting. Went with a different minivan instead.
As the former owner of three 1st gen Insights, one with a 240hp K20a engine swap, I can definitively state that the 2nd gen Insight broke my heart. Honda, in one generation went from a cost-no-option moonshot of a car that thumbed its nose at the accountants to a car that was a crappy 2nd gen Prius knockoff 10% less efficient than a Prius & 10% smaller than a Prius.
I remember its unveiling, I’ve never heard a louder sad trombone in my life.
Yeah came to say this too. Love my first gen holy cow did they lose it and never make a sequel to the car.
It’s still one of the only all Aluminum cars out there. Others that try are only partially aluminum (Audi/jag).
I still average in the 60’s mpg wise and love rowing my own gears in a sub 2000lb ride. So fun.
The “Linsight” li-ion modding community almost ropes me back into ownership. If we weren’t selling all our Earthly possessions to emigrate out of the USA, I’d get another one. Maybe one will turn up for sale in the Netherlands and I’ll give it a shot.
PT Cruiser… It was one optional AWD system away from being turned into an entry level CUV for Chrysler.
But apparently FCA/Stellantis doesn’t like having growing sales for Dodge or Chrysler
I was thinking PT Cruiser as well, but only because the Pronto Cruiser concept was so damn cool and what we got… wasn’t.
I owned a PT in the past. Whether it was cool is subjective.
What’s not subjective is that it was an affordable, solidly built and practical small car with easy to remove rear seats making it easy to haul surprisingly large things.
And if you got it with the manual, it had performance better than other small/cheap cars and decent fuel economy too.
What the PT needed was a more efficient automatic and more comfortable seats
Also, it was an enormous, money-printing hit when it came out, but, rather than follow that up properly, they just let it fade away into irrelevance
This is kind of an opportunity in the process of being missed, but the reboot Honda Prelude is what I think of. It could have been *so good*, but the price and a couple design decisions will (likely) doom it.
The Suzuki C2 concept. They could have had a real competitor to the Miata decades before the toyobaru twins.