Various automotive outlets reported Wednesday that General Motors and Ford plan to cull their slowest selling cars from their respective lineups. Given the double digit decreases in sales these four nameplates experienced over the last several years, this news shouldn’t come as too much of a shock. That doesn’t mean the cancellation of any of these models isn’t noteworthy.
There isn’t much to say about the Taurus that hasn’t already been said, so I’ll stick to discussing the current generation model. This is the last Ford sedan currently on sale that was explicitly designed for the North American market. It’s introduction happened a bit differently than previous vehicle debuts: various automotive blogs got their hands on a pretty clear picture of one in April 2008, over a year before its official reveal. That probably wouldn’t happen today. Nevertheless, the car that was in that picture absolutely stunned the internet, myself included. The 2010 Taurus may look ho-hum by contemporary standards, but Ford didn’t have many visually significant vehicles in its lineup at the time. And it was one of the first pieces of evidence that under CEO Alan Mulally, things would be different.
The Taurus hasn’t received any significant mechanical or visual updates since the 2013 model year, but it still has a few tricks up its sleeve. It’s the only mainstream, front wheel drive full size sedan with available all wheel drive. And the only one with a dedicated performance trim level. At one time it was the only full size sedan that could be had with a turbocharged four cylinder engine. And even without incentives, it’s also one of the cheapest. Police departments also have the option of picking a Taurus if desired.
Ford’s Fiesta also followed a similar trajectory in the United States. Like the Taurus, the Fiesta was revealed over a year before its debut in America. Obviously the circumstances were different, but the subcompact did receive a lot of hype prior to its arrival in the western hemisphere. European publications hailed the 2008 model as a watershed moment for the segment and front wheel drive vehicles in general. The Fiesta also made quite the impression on the folks behind Top Gear, and the segment where Jeremy Clarkson reviews the Fiesta by taking an example through a series of truly absurd circumstances is itself an important piece of modern automotive history. The video’s subsequent arrival on YouTube also illustrated the importance of the internet in automotive marketing. Ford likely understood this when creating the Fiesta Movement, a multi-faceted campaign where a number of internet famous individuals were given a Fiesta and encouraged to share their experiences online.
It’s a testament to the driving dynamics of the Fiesta that Car And Driver can review what is essentially a ten year old car and still come away impressed with how it acquits itself on the road. And the hatchback also set the visual standard for subcompact hatchbacks as well. Enthusiasts will decry the loss of the ST variant, and they’re justified in doing so, but the truth is that any combination of the Fiesta is fun to drive. And the spunky subcompact was more than just the sum of its parts, as its international rollout was also a reflection of the One Ford plan and the business acumen of Mulally.
The 2018 Sonic at the NY auto show on Monday. No one was giving it much attention. The same goes for the Fiesta. Conspicuously absent were the Taurus and Impala.
While the Chevrolet Sonic never received the critical acclaim of the Fiesta, it did help improve GM’s reputation in the United States and elsewhere. Ford’s subcompact arrived in American showrooms with decades of heritage behind it, and its likely that a decent portion of Fiesta buyers had parents who were familiar with the first generation, which was sold in the United States from 1976 to 1981. Unfortunately for Chevy, they didn’t have that luxury, because the predecessor to the Sonic, the Aveo, was a truly horrid vehicle. The subcompact represented everything customers came to expect from General Motors: a cut rate interior, mediocre driving dynamics, and unrefined powertrains.
Like Ford, General Motors relied on its international assets to produce a small vehicle to compete with the likes of the Honda Fit and Nissan Versa. GM Korea answered the call with the the new Sonic, which is still called the Aveo in its primary market. The current model pretty much cured all the ills of the previous model. Good looks, a very competitive powertrain, and a distinctive interior contributed to customers and the automotive press giving the brand a second look.
Chevy’s car lineup left a lot to be desired in the 2000’s. The Cavalier, Cobalt, and aforementioned Aveo never really threatened the American or Japanese vehicles they competed with in the marketplace. GM also turned to an overseas division to rehabilitate its standing in the American full size sedan segment. Opel created the Epsilon II platform for its Insignia in Germany, and the architecture underpins the current Impala. The sedan’s European roots definitely contributed to its positive reception upon its arrival in 2013, for the 2014 model year. In fact, the car was so well received it earned significant praise from Consumer Reports, which gave the sedan a 95 out of 100 rating, a superlative score that showed just how far GM had come in a few short years.
| Year | Chevy Impala | Ford Taurus | Chevy Sonic | Ford Fiesta |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 156,797 | 79,960 | 85,646 | 71,073 |
| 2014 | 140,280 | 62,629 | 93,518 | 63,192 |
| 2015 | 116,285 | 48,816 | 64,775 | 64,458 |
| 2016 | 97,006 | 44,098 | 55,255 | 48,807 |
| 2017 | 75,877 | 41,236 | 30,290 | 46,209 |
One look at the table tells you all you need to know. All four vehicles currently sell at a much slower pace than they used to. The minimum percentage drop here is about 35 percent.
Why are automakers selling fewer small cars and sedans? The United States produces substantially more oil now than it did ten years ago. In 2007, American oil production averaged 5.074 million barrels per day. That output ballooned to 9.321 million barrels last year.
The price of Brent Crude generally sets the standard for global oil pricing. It’s precipitous drop off in early 2015 is another reason why Americans don’t need to sweat so much at the fuel pump.
It’s also impossible to ignore the effect the recession had on car buyers in America and abroad. There’s less need for entry level cars when those customers start being able to purchase something a little more upmarket.
And there are a plethora of other factors at play here. A certified pre-owned Fusion, Cruze, Malibu, or Focus can easily fill the gap left by these cars if and when they’re cancelled. So can crossovers. Product plans can only move so fast in the auto industry, which is why these cars didn’t appear until several years after the double whammy of the recession and the spike in oil prices. And that’s precisely why they’re being cancelled now. I’m sure we’ll soon be reading about what products will take over for these four cars at each of their respective factories, either by a leak or an official announcement from Ford or GM.
While these four vehicles ride off into the sunset, their legacies are worth remembering. With some or all of their platforms originating from international components, each nameplate reflected the importance of globalism in the 21st century. The Fiesta’s reintroduction into the United States was proof that Alan Mulally thoroughly vanquished the fiefdoms that hampered previous efforts to bring overseas assets to America.
Every vehicle in this group showed the world that American automakers were going to survive. The Sonic and Fiesta raised the bar for the subcompact segment. Downsizing didn’t mean a downgrade anymore. And the Impala and Taurus previewed both companies increasing competency with building bigger sedans, which would bear even more profitable fruit with the redesigned Fusion and Malibu.
I have no doubt that if these cars are living beings, their final thoughts will be filled with peace and purpose. Goodnight you princely foursome. The Force will be with you. Always.
Related Reading:
Future CC Drive Report: 2011 Ford Taurus by Jason Shafer
Chevy Impala RIP? Looks Like The End of the Road For An American Classic by Paul Niedermeyer
This is so stupid, everybody is sounding the death bell for sedans, it’s not going to happen, cuv’s are a passing fancy where everyone has to “keep up with the joneses” at the end of this rediculous craze…..all the idiots that caned their sedans are going to feel like fools when they realize they have no sedans to offer and peoples taste’s turn back to cars. i can see a chevy suburban as a lasting suv,but thats an institution. cuv’s pretty much all look a like and are pretty boring to both look at and drive. i wouldnt mind that new caddy xt4 at least that stands out. but to say and think that sedans are dead is the equivelant of auto suicide.
I’d like to agree with you eddie, but we can point to Station Wagons and Personal Luxury Coupes for examples of an entire vehicle segment that dried up and blew away.
In the case of the wagons, folks started “sounding the death bell” several years after the introduction of the minivan. Sure enough, with each new year overall sales dropped, new models stopped arriving, and manufacturers eliminated models at the bottom of the sales report.
The tale of the PLC ran for a bit longer, but played out in much the same way.
“are going to feel like fools when they realize they have no sedans to offer and peoples taste’s turn back to cars.”
Or are sedans the new coupes? The coupe/2 door market died in the 90s and has never come back. It won’t, either. Modern sedans have become almost as useless for families. They are also more difficult to get into and out of than SUVs/CUVs for older folks. They are not as fun to drive as more dedicated sports cars for those who do not need 4 doors. Have I just described 90% of the non-truck market? I do not doubt that tastes will change, but whatever folks go back to, I do not see it being the sedan as currently offered.
HI JPC, I have to argue with you on one point. You, and others as well, keep saying that CUVs and SUVs are easier for older folks to get in and out of. Not true. Patently not true. With higher step in heights, they are harder for older folks, especially those with bad hips or knees, and those of smaller stature. I know of this personally. My 80-something Aunt could not get in my Hyundai Santa Fe with her bad hip, and my brother, recovering from a motorcycle accident that left his leg shattered, could not get in that vehicle either. We were able to ferry either one in the DeVille sedan, or the Buick Century we had at the time. Real Estate agents used to own sedans to drive customers around as they were easy to get in and out of, versus a truck or a low-slung sporty car. I humbly suggest you try to help hoist Grandma into a SUV sometime and see just how easy it is to get an older person in or out of one. God forbid you try to hoist her into a large 4X4 pickup! The distance between ground and the bottom of the door is much higher in SUVs and CUVs than in a sedan, so it is a matter of physics to say which one is an easier reach, especially to those with mobility issues.
You are so very right with that comment about older folks or anybody with hip and knee issues. My father, turning 92, has no hip issues or knee issues but does use a cane for steadying himself when walking. He literally falls into my 91 626 but can manage my 2004 Focus sedan and 2004 LeSabre. As you watch him you can quickly see anything higher isn’t going to work. I’ll personally stick to sedans as I just plain hate SUVs.
Forgot to include CUVs along with the larger SUV.
Yes the SUVs on the market are too high for easy entry and exit but that doesn’t mean the CUV’s are too tall by a long shot. I’d say that the current crop of “compact” CUV’s like the RAV-4, CR-V, Escape, ect and some of the “mid-size” are at the perfect height for easy entry *and* exit. It is the exiting that is the problem with the modern mid-size and smaller sedans as they are just too low for many people.
My MIL is well into her 70’s and my wife and I drive her on occasion. My wife had a Fusion that was replaced by an Escape and she immediately noted how much easier it was for her to get out of because the seat is not so low. That doesn’t mean she would rather we show up in the F250, just that there is a right height that isn’t too high yet isn’t too low either.
” when peoples taste’s turn back to cars.”
How does one know that will happen? UV’s have been a growing segment, since the 80’s. Ask most C/SUV owners and they say they will “never get a small car again”.
And if gas proices go up, there are hybrid trucks and UV’s ready to come out.
Can dream of the “good old days” of annual styling changes, but they aren’t coming back. It is too expensive to re-tool parts just to entertain car fans.
Until last year I would have agreed with you, Eddie.
Low is fun when you’re young, true. But as we have gotten older, we have begun to appreciate being able to get into a vehicle without dropping down (or climbing up). Just slide in sideways, same height – Ahh! Crossovers are much easier for us older folk once the joints start playing up.
Packaging-wise, they’re very similar in the proportions and space utilization to sedans we knew in the forties and early fifties, before the ‘longer-lower-wider’ thing got out of control. With competent suspension design the higher centre of gravity isn’t all that noticeable, and with all the electronic nannies they slather cars with these days it should never be a factor.
What’s not to like?
Pete, even in our 40s the siren song of the CUV called to us due to its slide-sideways in seating. Our “truck” is still over a foot shorter than a midsize sedan but is so much more comfortable.
It’s not a passing fancy. People have been steadily preferring the packaging of SUV/CUVs since at least the 90s, and much earlier if you care to look back far enough to before sedans were mainstream. Remember the intense popularity of the Explorer? CUVs have been getting drastically better, and will continue to with car makers dedicating most of their resources to those types of vehicles. The ride quality and gas mileage delta between sedans and CUVs has shrunken to the point of being almost irrelevant for most individuals. Having more space to carry people and things, as well as riding higher, is clearly preferred by most 21st century drivers. I don’t see that changing.
the sonic along with the focus are the only answers we have to the VW Golf and we are losing the Sonic way to go GM leaving the door open to markets you are just too stupid to stay in or participate in.
The Cruze hatchback is Chevy’s direct competitor to the Golf. The Sonic is a size down, and would be in the same class as the Polo if we had that car.
Ed, I think you are off by a factor of 1000 in regard to oil production in the US according to the chart. Production is more like 9million barrels, not 9000 barrels.
Also I didn’t realize that in the early 70’s, the US actually produced more oil that that, 10million barrels per day according to the chart. Is that really correct?
Cutting these four probably isn’t the end of the (anyone’s) world. They still have similar vehicles available for now (Fusion, Focus, Malibu, LaCrosse, Cruze, Spark, Trax). It is notable though that the “imports” don’t seem to be cutting theirs.
As regards the Taurus, the Nissan Altima will be available with AWD once the new version is released for sale, and the Subaru Legacy of course is. I think the Fusion has a trim (or version) with AWD as well. Maybe those aren’t considered “Full”-size but they aren’t tiny inside either with arguably more usable space than the Taurus.
Fixed now.
Yes, the import brands are basically continuing their long-term process of taking over the overwhelming majority of the US passenger car market. The Big Three are ceding it to them, as they’re back to not making any or meaningful profits from them. A rather remarkable development when seen from a long-term perspective.
The implications are unsettling, like a scaled-up version of what happened in the minivan market. Once sales of the ‘high-value’ 8/10ths solutions they were fielding dried up, the domestics (Chrysler excepted) simply packed up and went home without ever trying as hard as they might have. It’s not hard to imagine a future where full-size trucks and SUVs are the last segments they play in.
An additional challenge to domestic sedans is that Japan’s automakers are increasingly streamlining their US and JDM sedan lineups, allowing them to put all their development dollars in one high-budget basket, as Japanese buyers continue to develop tastes for bigger cars. For example, the same Accord is now sold in Japan and the US (an unfortunate side effect being the loss of Acura’s TSX), and while the Accord, Camry, and Civic aren’t high in the sales charts there, the Corolla is in the top 12 and the Prius is #1.
The wild card in all this would seem to be China, where car sales are booming, notchback sedans are strongly preferred to hatchbacks, and where brands like Lincoln and Buick still have quite a favorable image. The Big Three’s ability to capitalize on that market over the next decade could potentially be the strongest determinant of their sedans’ financial viability and survival in the US.
“It is notable though that the “imports” don’t seem to be cutting theirs.”
This is an interesting point to consider. On all but their largest sedans the Asian and European entries are sold in several other markets, but I doubt that the US entries are. And even for the larger Asian sedans (like the Accord and Camry) those companies do not have the lure of Truck Nirvana tempting them to re-allocate assembly capacity. The Asian companies will sop up some more share when competition abates, and (for now, at least) everyone will be happy.
“The Asian companies will sop up some more share when competition abates”
We can already see that happening, and despite fewer nameplates in the segment, the mainline import sedans have seen their sales soften.
Over the next ten years, I expect the sedan segment to follow the lead of the Minivan segment, where the secondary players fade away, while the established nameplates fight for a respectable piece of a shrinking market segment.
“On all but their largest sedans the Asian and European entries are sold in several other markets, but I doubt that the US entries are.”
I’m not sure how you meant that but in my eyes that is a failing of our domestic brands rather than a success of the imports. After all, it’s relatively recent that Fords are similar to their Euro counterparts and GM US and GM Europe easily could have developed and/or marketed more vehicles together ever the years.
A lot of that (I believe) comes from A) this market being a very large one and thus a need for further outlets or sales abroad wasn’t deemed necessary as opposed to makers based in smaller markets/countries and B) due to it being so large, the somewhat typical mindset of many that nothing but the US matters. I think (some) people are starting to finally wake up to is that there is much more to the world than the US.
“in my eyes that is a failing of our domestic brands rather than a success of the imports.”
Agreed-
US built Accords and Camrys are designed for and pretty much exclusive to the US market. In this segment Honda and Toyota both generate around 300,000 sales a year. That’s a successful business model.
The question is, will there still be enough sales in the segment to keep the factories busy in 2023?
That is the big question. The Asian transplants have large and very efficient factories that can generate healthy profits from churning out sedans at those kind of volumes. Which is precisely why Toyota is doing what it takes to keep Camry volumes up. But will it work, and last?
I was thinking in terms of 1) the large stuff that is popular enough here to sell in large numbers does not have much of a market abroad and 2) the stuff that is more appealing to those abroad does not sell in large numbers here so it makes more sense to manufacture there (Europe) or ignore smaller or more difficult markets (Japan, Korea). China is its own thing, obviously.
FYI: Honda is cutting Accord production, they are closing the plant for a while to ‘ease inventory’. Sounds like Detroit makers cutting slow selling cars?
If the high and mighty Honda Accord is losing sales to CUV’s, with a brand new model no less, you know “times are a-changing”.
I saw that article from March 12th about the 2018 Accord and it didn’t seem to sold like the previous generation. http://numerique.banq.qc.ca/patrimoine/details/52327/2408280 I suspect the CVT and the drop of the V6 for a turbo-4 had probably made some customers afraid.
I saw that article from March 12th about the 2018 Accord and it didn’t seem to sold like the previous generation. http://numerique.banq.qc.ca/patrimoine/details/52327/2408280 I suspect the CVT and the drop of the V6 for a turbo-4 had probably made some customers afraid. and the design of the front-end didn’t helped things either so I guess the 2018 Honda Accord is Honda’s “plucked chicken.
US Oil production peaked in 1970, but should overtake the previous record this year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_field_production_of_crude_oil.png
I had an Aveo as a rental car once. I didn’t think it was all that bad. Well, I liked it better than the Cavalier I’d gotten the previous time I’d rented a car, anyway (which I found ironic, since the rental company considered the Cavalier to be a step up from the Aveo in their lineup). I know, if the Cavalier is your point of comparison I suppose it can make almost anything look good.
Some interesting thoughts. I have not checked lately, did Ford ever fix the Taurus’ single fatal flaw – that “largest console ever” and generally claustrophobic interior? This was a cardinal sin in such a large sedan.
I know that my argument has a lot of pushback around here but I see our CAFE system as hurting our industry once again. It moved everyone out of sedans and into less-constrained (read more powerful) SUVs and CUVs. Once we got used to the kinds of room and utility and power they provide it is hard to go back to a sedan. Particularly an underpowered one as an increasing number of them are. CAFE is going to force them to become lighter and slower (the surest ways to higher EPA mileage numbers) and thus even less appealing to the American buyer.
Yes, your argument does get quite a bit of pushback around here, from me in particular. 🙂
Sure, during the malaise era, performance became mostly quite feeble. But then trucks weren’t exactly powerhouses back then either, unless one ordered a big block 460 or 454, which didn’t have much appeal during high gas price times. Ask Jason Shafer about what he thinks of a Ford pickup with the 300 six in the early 80s. Lack of performance was a universal feature.
And the big car never really went away: the downsized GM B/C bodies were roomier inside in every relevant metric compared to their horrendously space inefficient predecessors. And they were built into the 90s, but killed because trucks were already grossly outselling them and GM needed the production capacity. But it wasn’t for lack of performance, as the LT-1 version was a veritable hot rod then.
The SUV/truck boom started in the 60s, picked up steam in the 70s, and became a juggernaut in the 80s. From the beginning, it was the appeal of driving something different and cool and tall and something that theoretically could take you up the side of a mountain that made them popular.
And there was simply the growing affluence of the 80s. In Texas, the Suburban became the soccer-mom-mobile of choice already in the late 70s/early 80s. Why? because they could; it was huge, which matched much better to their outsized new tract houses. Americans like BIG. And trucks and SUVs were simply going to come in versions that were much larger than the passenger sedan/wagon.
These two huge drivers: the outdoorsy image of SUVs, and the just the sheer size of trucks and big SUVs were the two forces that started killing the sedan. And the CUVs, which allows buyers to have both of those qualities to varying extents without much compromise, is the final coffin nail.
Particularly an underpowered one as an increasing number of them are.
You must be kidding, right? An increasing number?? Any base 4 cylinder sedan now can accelerate in muscle car territory. And they keep getting faster and faster.
And modern sedans are just as roomy as the big American cars of yore. I’ve spent quite a bit of rear seat time in my brother’s Camrys; it’s more comfortable back there than just about any American car ever was. And if that’s not roomy enough, there’s the Avalon, with even more leg room.
Modern sedans like these can transport 4/5 adults every bit as comfortably as the sedans of yore. And they’re faster and vastly more efficient too.
The problem is not CAFE: it’s given us these incredibly efficient yet comfortable and fast and great-handling sedans. The problem is the American consumer, who perpetually lusts after the next big/bigger/biggest thing, literally in the case of SUVs and Trucks.
We’re just living in the new Bulgemobile age, or more like its actual manifestation. Look at so many American’s girth and the size of their houses. Nothing is ever big enough. Well, as long as energy and food are cheap, and the economy is strong.
The sedan has gone the way of the 1100 sq. ft. tract house. And appropriate portions at fast-food/chain restaurants. And broadcast tv. And Sears. And gym class.
Well, not everywhere. In California, where lots of folks spend hours on their commute, it seems to me that the percentage of modern sedans is yet rather high. Some folks still see the benefit of an efficient sedan, thanks to CAFE. 🙂
Bravo, well stated.
Consumers are the cause of, and the solution to, this “problem.”
Manufacturers need to sell what they build. So, they market. Customers tell manufacturers what they want. They attend focus groups. They take part in surveys. They carefully craft an agenda of what they find useful and need in transportation.
Then they go and buy the exact opposite.
And just when manufacturers decide to retool and build what is popular, tastes change. Gas prices go up (or down). Fashion says something else is now de rigueur.
Just watch. The minute that the last Fiesta goes down the line, the last Sonic gets purchased off the lot, when the last rental Taurus and Impala get turned in at Hertz/Avis, something will happen. A war. A shutdown of a couple of refineries. Some shipping problem. Anything that causes a spike in oil prices, and people will clamor to buy a Geo Metro while trying to unload their new Hummer, just like 2004, but with new models.
It is sad that the “Big 3” gave up the market. A large American sedan used to mean something.That it has been relegated to the luxury market only is a damned shame.
Correction, gas prices spiked in 2008, not 2004.
From Det News
” … spikes in the cost of fuel are less worrisome now than they were during the fuel crisis. Vehicles are more efficient, and automakers will have a slew of electrified powertrains to offer consumers.”
And if “history repeats”, then gas will go down again after it goes up, right?
Yes, TC, it will. If history does not repeat itself, it certainly rhymes.
The issue is not the cyclical nature of gas prices, rather the nature of humans to react to issues without looking long-term. Long-term would see that there should always be a good mix of product to allow for variances in need. When you stop making something, it does not mean that it may not become needed in the future. As gas prices rise, demand for small, efficient cars goes up, and vice versa. There will be changes. To negate options for future choices when this happens is myopic at best.
While I still prefer a sedan, the swing has been to crossovers, which aren’t the gas-guzzling SUVs of the early 2000s. The best-selling models have been the Nissan Rouge, Toyota RAV-4, Honda CR-V, Ford Escape and Chevrolet Equinox. I wouldn’t quite characterize them as the second coming of the “Bulgemobile.”
In 2016, we traded my wife’s 2005 Focus SE sedan for slightly used 2014 Ford Escape. My wife is very happy with her purchase. She isn’t a “car person,” but she told me that she loves her Escape. In the real world, the difference in fuel economy between the Focus and Escape hasn’t been that noticeable, although ours is the front-wheel-drive version.
While I still prefer a sedan, the swing has been to crossovers, which aren’t the gas-guzzling SUVs of the early 2000s. The best-selling models have been the Nissan Rouge, Toyota RAV-4, Honda CR-V, Ford Escape and Chevrolet Equinox. I wouldn’t quite characterize them as the second coming of the “Bulgemobile.”
I made it quite clear that many CUVs afford some of the qualities of trucks and SUVs without most of the compromises: “And the CUVs, which allows buyers to have both of those qualities to varying extents without much compromise, is the final coffin nail.”
I was referring to the continued increase in sales of full-sized pickups and large SUVs. Their growth continues at a strong pace. This has been happening for decades now, and shows no sign of slowing down. There’s no doubt that large trucks are “hot” and they have been outperforming the market overall. In 2017, pickup sales increased to 16.4% of the market from 15.3% in 2016. That’s a full percentage point in market share in one year alone.
Excuse me for going off topic here, but that ’58 Bulgemobile ad is hilarious!
Rammstein’s bulgemobile-ish fire truck from their Benzin (!! Gasoline !!) song / video clip popped into my head right away. That’s the band Rammstein of course, not CC’s regular commenter.
Excuse me for going off topic here, but that ’58 Bulgemobile ad is hilarious!
as we lurch farther off topic….do you remember the 6000 SUX of the mid 1980s?
“We’re just living in the new Bulgemobile age, or more like its actual manifestation. Look at so many American’s girth and the size of their houses. Nothing is ever big enough. Well, as long as energy and food are cheap, and the economy is strong. ”
Now isn’t that the truth about many in the U.S. Well, energy and food won’t be cheap forever.
There is much truth to what you say, and the American companies made a lot of bad decisions. *However* I would argue that you did not spend enough time trying to navigate the world of large sedans in the 80s. GM sold a lot of B/C body cars in 1977-79, most all of them with reasonably powered engines. But look at them starting in 1981 when unnaturally small (if not outright bad) engines took the place of the 350s and 403s and 425s. GM pretty much stopped development and planned to kill them, so they were never updated. Even after they became popular again among older buyers GM had to basically give away a Chevette to sell a 307-powered Park Avenue. CAFE (as it was written) killed the large American sedan and made it a fool’s game to build a quality small car because they weren’t selling well after the late 80s. Chrysler’s Neon may have been as good as small American cars got, but then Chrysler didn’t have the CAFE problems of Ford and GM because they had no really big cars to sell. Old-timers were willing to accept the compromise of awful performance in their big 80s cars but younger people were not. Chrysler called its minivans “trucks” to escape CAFE, and it worked. The 4 cylinders went away soon enough and nobody missed them.
Having lived with large vehicles my entire life there is really no substitute for a minivan/SUV today, particularly for anyone with a family of more than 4 people. Sedans have become narrow and small inside and modern trunks do not accommodate the kinds of things that families tend to take with them. The modern version of CAFE (with its “footprint” system) is going to hurt the sedans again because most of the easy mileage gains have already been gotten there. There is a lot of low hanging fruit in trucks/SUVs, but not so much left with cars. Unless the current Federal drama doesn’t change things, look for large sedans to get more expensive and harder to find with decent power. That’s my prediction, anyway.
*However* I would argue that you did not spend enough time trying to navigate the world of large sedans in the 80s.
Bingo! As did a huge percentage of the car buying population. But not because of their engines, but because they’d moved on, to something other than a sedan, for a whole number of reasons.
What were youngish/boomer American families buying in the 80s? Just about everything but American sedans, but not for the reasons you stated. They were snapping up Chevy S10 Blazers, Jeep Cherokees, and Ford Bronco IIs, or the Japanese 4x4s if they wanted a compact SUV. All of which had less interior room than a Chevy Impala. And they were all grossly underpowered in their early incarnations.
Or a Japanese sedan/wagon/coupe/etc. simply because they were considered to be significantly higher quality and more reliable than American cars, which they were. And all of them were smaller and less roomy than a Chevy Impala.
Or they may well have bought a sport/luxo coupe, like a TBird, Monte Carlo, one of the many GM coupes, or others, all of them less roomy than a Chevy Impala.
Or they bought a BMW 320i, 528e or Mercedes diesel, or Volvo, or…because it was madly cool and they could afford it. And of course they were all smaller than a Chevy Impala.
Or if they had multiple kids they bought one of the new Chrysler minivans or a Dodge Colt/Plymouth Vista wagon (or whatever it was called). Or some other compact van or such. Because its interior offered multiple rows and the seating was flexible and because it was newer and cooler than an Impala wagon.
Nobody wanted an Impala sedan or wagon in the 80s, except increasingly older and conservative buyers, regardless of what was under the hood. Every one of the cars they were buying listed above was as slow or slower than an Impala with a 305, or an Olds with a 307.
it wasn’t about the engines, Jim, it was about wanting something new, different, cool, efficient, Japanese, European, 4WD, or whatever, as long as it wasn’t the boring dull sedan their parents or grandparents had driven or still drove.
It was all about a continuing change in consumer behavior on a macro scale. Perhaps you were unhappy with the 305 or 307 in a GM sedan/wagon, but the overwhelming majority of the folks who bought cars in the 80s were clueless about that, as they were snapping up little four cylinders and diesels as fast as they could be made or imported. They would probably have been surprised at how snappy a 305 Impala was compared to what they were buying.
I see where you’re coming from, but there was nothing new or cool to be had in a B body after three years of the virtually indistinguishable styles after 1977, and the 80 refresh only served to entrench them as old man cars. The segment wasn’t exactly providing youthful submodel alternatives like they had been in the early 60s, just Dad/Grandpa spec Caprices and Crown Vic’s and fleet spec Impalas and LTDs. There were always rebellious factors at play between youth market cars and grown up cars, but did that hurt sales of cars like the original Roadrunner, where it shared virtually all panels with grandma spec Belvederes? No.
My parents were from the Midwest, so maybe that makes this anecdote irrelevant, but both moved on from American cars in the 80s too, to VW, then Saab, then Audi. In the 70s My Dad had the Cutlasses as well as a 78 Trans Am, and married my mom in a new 80 downsized G body Cutlass Supreme – it was around this point he went import with the Jetta GLI, and his description for why is indeed based in part on the engines, and the ever chintzier brougham trim new American cars were riddled with. My Mom liked her Rabbit and Jetta because they had good driveability compared to the couple of AMCs she had gone through in the 70s. For them imports were hip and trendy because they offered something American cars didn’t even try to keep up with.
Yes. The Impala or Olds 88 was not an old man’s car in 1977 or 78. Families bought them and with the 350s (and 403s) they were pleasant to drive. But starting in 1980-2 they became actively unpleasant. And there was no further investment until the 92 Panther. But by then the “old man car” reputation had thoroughly taken root.
Any family not willing to pay the premium for an underpowered and unappealing big car was left with an undersized sedan/wagon (Fairmont? Reliant?). No wonder they chose a minivan or a Cherokee or a Suburban or something other than a sedan.
And who now is avoiding the SUV mom and dad drove? Nobody.
@JPC On the one hand I’d say that we are seeing the rejection of the SUV that they grew up in with the rise in popularity of the CUV. On the other hand it is a little early to make that call as the minivan segment was still pretty healthy until the late 90’s. So we are at the point where we are still seeing reasonable numbers of the minivan generation entering the market.
And who now is avoiding the SUV mom and dad drove? Nobody.
Well that’s because they were cool parents, of course 😛
Surely genuinely cool parents wouldn’t have hopped on a tiresome bandwagon.
@XR7 Yup the boring parents were still driving minivans in the 90’s and early 00’s.
Present and accounted for. 🙂
Unfortunately, all true. It could be summed up as:
“I don’t know how to bring meaning into my life, but if I can increase my monthly payments and gas consumption by at least 25%, things may change.”
See Ate up with Motor’s recent commentary about the latter.
If instead of throwing away money on one of these vehicles, people put it into a home solar power unit, they might actually accomplish something.
S/CUV’s are not a “passing fancy” or fad. Not since it’s been about 25 years of growth, since the first Ford Explorer, and even more time if count the 1980’s Jeep Cherokee.
And while there are lots of big trucks selling, a hot segment is sub-compact CUV’s like Buick Encore, Honda HR-V, and Chevy Trax.
If gas goes up, hybrid UV’s will be available and make money for car makers. Don’t expect sub-compacts to be #1 sellers, expect to rental fleets.
OTOH, I don’t agree with other websites that say “sedan death watch”.
Typical GM. Just when they get the Impala right, they kill it off. Sure, they are slow sellers for all the reasons listed, but it’s a little galling when the current generation kept the virtues of the previous one intact (excellent 3.6 V6 option, size, value for money) and fixed the chief sins of its predecessor (crappy plasticky fake-wood interior, dull as dishwater styling).
The strong used fleet is the biggest elephant in the room, there’s just zero incentive to spend up to twice as much buying a new subcompact when you can have a car that better speaks to you that’s 5-10 years old, with few if any bugs and virtually indistinguishable styling and performance from their current equivelant.
Additionally with the current median buying age in the 50s, many of us are buying automotive handmedowns with very different priorities. We can debate endlessly about the efficiencies, practicalities and ease of ingress of CUVs, but at some point the pro argument sounds like the sales pitch for those phones with the giant buttons.
In the matter of incentive, one scenario is if/when the used market ends up as prolipherated with SUVs and crossovers as the new market is currently trending towards, could this drive a reversal in median age to younger, previously used market, buyers to buying new sedans(or even sporty cars, or something new entirely) from the companies left offering them? Perhaps this is the long game Toyota is playing, while GM and Ford just see current trends as the perminant new normal.
As for these models, meh. The current Taurus took a long time to get to a point where it could even be considered a modest success, if you count the Five Hundred in it’s lineage, and even then it was a little blip. The Explorer was the true victory the D3 platform provided, otherwise it was an absolute flop in sedan form. The Impala just never seemed to have much purpose to go on after the W body. It and none of these are bad cars by any account, but there’s nothing particularly capturing about it. As for the Fiesta and Sonic, for all their merits they really do nothing the Focus and Cruze can’t, other than the slightly smaller dimensions. In fact I remember my mom intending to get the Fiesta brand new, but ended up finding a used 2009 Focus had exactly what she expected the new Fiesta to be.
In general having two separate categories of compact is a relic of the 1970s, just as having two catagories of what could arguably be called midsized (full size has been extinct for a few decades as far as I’m concerned) is unnecessary now as well. It’s likely just sales cannibalization at this point, and simplifying the lineups out of the various sub-categories wouldn’t be a bad thing. Two sedans, two xUVs and maybe even one sporty niche vehicle would be more than enough for a given brand to offer. Frankly they could pare down the two sedans/two utility vehicles to one each and just offer different wheelbases like they did in the old days, do they really need different platforms and styling anymore?
Agree that biggest competition to brand new cars are good used cars. It’s not the days of them only lasting barely 90-100k miles.
Given that so many people buy CUVs because of the active/outdoorsy connotations of how they look, it’s highly amusing to me to think of them as the automotive equivalent of “phones with giant buttons”.
Seems like natural selection and smart business to me. GM still has other efficient sedans (Malibu, Cruz) plus the EV Bolt in the event we have another gas shock. Likewise Ford still has the Fusion and Focus. The only “domestic” that seems to really be exiting sedans/subcompacts is FCA, but their offerings were never segment leaders, so I’d wager the philosophy was “cut the losses–if you can’t be in the top tier of a segment, then don’t play.”
The U.S. market has expressed a clear preference for CUVs/SUVs, and most of the offerings are actually reasonably fuel efficient given their capacity and capabilities. Die hards will argue that old-school wagons are “better” because they don’t have the added weight and higher center of gravity, but that is a very esoteric argument for most buyers. CUVs/SUVs are easy to use, easy to drive and offer the high riding driving position that satisfies current (and foreseeable future) market demands.
I’m glad to see makers going where the money is, rather than hanging on to old concepts too long (which proved to be nearly lethal to several U.S. makers through the years).
As an added note on FoMoCo, huge kudos to them for the Lincoln Aviator–that is exactly the sort of vehicle they should be building for the luxury segment, and will payoff far better for them than the Taurus or Fiesta ever would. My wife saw the Aviator on TV, and actually came to me gushing about the “gorgeous new Lincoln” and how she wants to look at one when they come out. I almost couldn’t believe it… but it shows that Lincoln may finally be rediscovering how to read the upscale American market correctly.
Toyota and Nissan have relied heavily on hefty incentives and fleet sales to move the Camry and Altima, respectively. (Does this sound familiar?) The Camry was all-new just last year, but apparently Toyota has been discounting it heavily since day one.
Honda’s all-new Accord has won plaudits from every corner. Honda has resisted the urge to sell it to fleets in large numbers, and incentives have not been generous. Accord sales are down 12 percent for the calendar year, and some dealers are refusing to stock any more Accords.
I’m sure that Ford and GM executives have been watching these developments very carefully.
Lincoln dealers are selling Navigators “from the delivery truck”. I expect Aviator to be a hit, too.
Average buyers are not “car guys” who say “a station wagon is a proper family car” or expect ‘sportiness’ and ‘dynamic driving characteristics’.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2018/04/04/gm-executive-says-automaker-will-abandon-midsize-cars/33558289/
A follow up from GM to that NYT report is in today’s Detroit News. URL above.
“… [GM] top brass says it’s still all-in on the dwindling sedan segment.”
Regarding Ford Fusion, from same Det News article:
“… [Ford] canceled the 2020 redesign for the North American Fusion. That doesn’t mean Ford will drop the nameplate … could include shifting the model name to a different vehicle architecture.”
I owned a 80 Fiesta and really looked forward to the arrival of the 2012 model. Unfortunately, the money for a new car wasn’t there in 2012. The money is now there, but the car is not. In my area, 90% or more of new Fiestas at dealers are sedans (I want “another” hatchback) and 99% have automatic transmissions….BOOOO!
If you look at the sales figures of the 4 cars profiled, the Fiesta has reasonably steady sales numbers at least compared to the others.
BTW, it should be noted that the Spark and the Fiesta are available in other markets with appearance packages that mimic the appearance of CUVs. (Well, the Spark faux crossover is available in the U. S. though I can’t imagine why.)
So maybe if these 4 cars were “dressed” up as faux crossovers…..?
Car companies will sell frying pans welded together if they think they can make money at it. Sedans will continue to be available, but as Paul has stated above, the Asian brands will dominate even more. The sedan is very popular in Asia, and the Asian brands have the huge advantage of very large volumes. The Kia Rio doesn’t sell worth a hoot in the USA but something like half a million are sold worldwide.Same for the Accord and Camry, the platforms have a multitude of uses all over the world and have huge economies of scale.
The same doesn’t apply to GM and Ford. They sell at relatively low volumes even in Europe since they have so many models. The Mondeo never made sense in the USA, since the volumes would be too small to justify the factory space. The result is the Mondeo is now a dated design while the Camry and Accord are brand new. Is it worth making cars that don’t sell? Well, that’s easy to answer.
The American based car makers will still make their money off the trucks, because that is where the volume, and thus profits, lay. They will offer CUV’s and SUV’s. I would suspect Fiatsler won’t be selling anything but trucks soon.
Interestingly enough, the company that seemed to predict the rise of the SUV and CUV died slightly over 30 years ago this year.
I know that Ford’s Explorer was the vehicle that set the SUV on the path to stardom and started to push out the minivan and sedan as people movers
But it was AMC’s introduction of the AMC Eagle and the XJ Jeep Cherokee that opened the door to the crossover and the SUV. The Cherokee was fun to drive
I am glad the Taurus is getting shit-canned as unlike previous generations, the atrocious center console and the low roof made it a pain in the ass to drive and to get in and out.
I hope the Ford 3.5l V6 gets dumped too. A piss poor design to have a timing chain driven water pump that is inside the timing chain cover. Unlike a water pump that is driven by a timing belt which you replace periodically and have easy enough access doing the job, the 3.5l’s water pump requires the engine to come out to change it. Plus it has another flaw, when the water pump starts to leak out of its weep hole, it splashes onto the base of the dipstick tube and allows coolant into the engine oil.
My folks just got stuck with a $2500 bill to replace the water pump on their 2009 Taurus with only 80,491 miles on it.
Pure rubbish design.
And thats exactly why I stick with my older, simpler, easier to work on cars. If I had a $2500 repair I’d have a expensive paperweight in the driveway…I don’t have that kind of money to spend. I HAVE to own cars I can work on myself, no if’s, and’s, or but’s. It helps that 99% of newish cars do nothing for me as far as excitement. But I am a different (nut)case than most folks on here who just can’t possibly understand why I derive a massive amount of pleasure of using 40+ year old cars on a daily basis.
This too shall pass….
The big problem I have with the Sonic and Fiesta getting axed is that there’s no reason for it, because there was no good reason for the Trax and Ecosport to have ever been allowed to have their own body stampings in the first place!
Subaru showed the way with the Crosstrek – people will happily buy a CUV that’s literally just a hatchback with a lift kit, flares and a different nameplate/marketing identity. So why not build that for volume alongside three lower height hatchback-car variants – a “Prices Starting At…” special, a high-MPG model and a hot hatch? No need to bother with a sedan, people only bought the sedan versions on price anyway.
That’s another point – part of the reason for the Sonic’s BIG dropoff for 2017 was when it was facelifted, they dropped the cheap hatchbacks and the only way to get a non-sedan Sonic is to buy an RS with a $20k MSRP.
Very good point about the Crosstrek. In Europe, there are “crossover-fied” versions of all manner of A, B, C, and D segment vehicles and some of them don’t even appear to be any higher.
If GM and Ford followed your advice, then if crossovers did wane in popularity (doubtful), they could just rip off the plastic and turn ’em back into Sonics and Fiestas.
I know the B-segment has never been as popular in the US as in Europe and Australia – hell, for many years there are only a handful of offerings – but I always find it puzzling when an automaker chooses to pull out completely. Because then they’ve gotta spend all that marketing money when they inevitably re-enter the segment and let people know, “Oh, we actually DO make cars that size”
Funny how the Sonic AND the Opel Corsa got fairly light redesigns and the “new” Ford Fiesta in Europe is also much the same. I guess there’s less of an expectation to have tight model cycles in that segment, even in Europe. The Fiat Punto is an extreme example of that.
If the Spark stays, I think it’s fine to nix the Sonic. Having A- and B-segment cars in the lineup is surprisingly decadent for a brand in the US. Axing the Fiesta is a mistake though, especially if the Focus continues to grow. The EcoSport has gotten off to a slow start and, frankly, needs a more thorough redesign. But I get the appeal of the cars siphoning sales from these, the sub-compact crossovers that are going to continue selling well.
The Taurus? It was ok in 2010 but now it’s too flawed, too dated, and needs to go. The Fusion is there and, while its trunk is smaller, it has a more comfortable interior. Besides, the Taurus’ police variant is getting smoked in the sales race by the Explorer Interceptor. It’s an ailing segment, why bother bringing over the Chinese Taurus?
The Impala? Hmm. While it’s somewhat redundant, now that the Malibu has grown again, it has gotten significant critical acclaim. Maybe if the next-gen model takes on the Alpha platform, adds a genuine police variant, etc, the Impala might be more relevant.
Some question whether Ford will even stick it out in Europe, or pull out like GM. They simply can’t make the kind of profit margins there (if any) that they need to pull up their stock price. I would guess the odds are somewhat better than 50% that they will Eurexit within the next few years.
Fact is the writing has been on the wall for the Fiesta and Sonic from just about the time of their introduction. They were a reaction to the last gas price scare which was well on its way to being forgotten by they time they made it to our shores.
In theory the “low” gas prices should have made large cars more popular again but unfortunately is seems everyone has leapfrogged that segment for a crew cab pickup which really is today’s full size sedan, while extended cabs are today’s large coupe/PLC.
Saw a piece on the news wire yesterday. “Informed sources” say the Sonic dies by the end of 2018. Fiesta and Taurus gone “within a year”.
The Impy might stick around a bit longer. I was having lunch in a Wendy’s on Ann Arbor Rd in Plymouth a couple months ago, and a large, sleek, sedan, completely swathed in padded black camo, went by. Granted Toyota, Hyundai and Nissan all have engineering and development centers here, but my hunch is the sedan was not from one of them. Ford already announced they will not do a next gen Fusion, and it didn’t look at all like a Charger/300, the redesign of which FCA has put off repeatedly. What it’s styling most resembled is the current Malibu.
As for the Sonic, GM still imports significant numbers of Chevy Trax and Buick Encores from Korea, as well as shipping the Opel Mokka to Europe from Korea. In February, GM said the fate of GM Korea would be decided “within weeks”. Hours ago, the CEO of GM Korea said the company does not have the cash to pay workers a bonus promised in last year’s contract and due tomorrow. The CEO isn’t altogether sure they have enough cash to make this week’s payroll.
The Sonic is built at the Orion Township plant, which it shares with the Bolt. I don’t see how the Bolt, alone, can keep that plant open. My suspicion is GM is getting ready for the Korean operation to go toes up, shove the Sonic out of the way and move the Korean tooling for the Trax/Encore to Orion, while Mokka tooling goes to San Luis Potosí , because Mexico has a better trading relationship with Europe than the US does. The Trax and Sonic are both on the Gamma platform, which should ease the transition.
The next gen Ford Focus is unveiled in Germany on April 10th. Ford North America’s disinterest in the Focus is so great that US Focus production will end in May, so Wayne Assembly can be converted to Ranger production. Ford has Foci stashed all over the place in an attempt to tide them over for a year, before Chinese production of the Mk 4 starts. I would not be surprised that, once Ford has gone a year with no new Focus production, it decides to not bring the Mk 4 Focus to the US at all.
And, I still maintain the next gen Focus is very likely a reskinned next gen Mazda3, because Ford doesn’t care enough about the product segment to make a big investment in it.
Yes, hopefully GM will finally bring production of Encores and Envisions stateside, even if the elimination of current products doesn’t materialize to free up capacity.
In a way I think it’s a shame that we’re (in the USDM) losing these cars, but largely I think they were an over-reaction to the GFC. At least with the GM lineup, the Sonic was a middle child, with the fairly competent Spark below and the quite competent Cruze above. Once the Malibu escaped it’s Ep1 bones, the new Impy was redundant. IMO, there’s little more the Ep2 Impala can do that the EPxx Malibu can’t do. Someone further up the string said what I’ve been thinking that these smaller cars (like the Fiesta and Sonic) were GFC babies, now that the after effects have shaken out, there’s no need for these vehicles in our domestic lineup. Other than the fact that I like the Fiesta ST and the Sonic Turbo. But, I wasn’t going to buy either one of those cars. I have a “thing” for a Fiat 500 Abarth, which kind of negates either one of those previously mentioned cars showing up in my fleet.
I’ve long been an avid opponent of CAFE. I strongly believe it has cost the US producers a fair amount of their profits and incentives to give the US customer cars they want to drive. If you have to average ALL of the cars in a given line up to meet some arbitrary mileage target, none of them will be particularly good. I’ve long wished that US manufacturers would do what the German companies do, which is to build the cars people want and have them pay the gas guzzler tax. I have no issue with emissions standards (EPA), having grown up in a formerly heavily industrialized area, I appreciate efforts to keep my air and water clean. I believe that CAFE has been more harmful to the US car producers than almost any other force, including foreign competition.
More than once it’s been opined that S/CUVs are the cars from the 1930’s – 1950’s re-imagined for contemporary life in the early 21st Century. For the most part, S/CUVs are the chair-height, easy step in, upright seating position cars were back in middle of the last century. I know that many folks here are not fans, and honestly, if they were to fly off the face of the earth, I wouldn’t be too sad. But, I can understand why people like them, they are fairly handy for their form factor.
Like a man much wiser than me once said: To each their own.
If you have to average ALL of the cars in a given line up to meet some arbitrary mileage target, none of them will be particularly good.
CAFE doesn’t work that way anymore. When CAFE worked the way you describe, automakers could built all the V8 powered Crown Vics and Town Cars they wanted to, but they had to sell enough Escorts and Foci to pull the sales weighted average up to the standard. Additionally, they could design the cars any way they wanted to.
CAFE methodology was changed in 2006. The government got into the business of designing cars via CAFE. The new methodology uses a mathematical equation to calculate the mpg requirement for each vehicle based on that vehicle’s footprint, the product of the wheelbase and track. There is no required fleet average anymore. That’s how FCA can get away with not building any small cars to offset the fuel consumption of the Charger and 300. Because the mpg requirement is based on footprint, lengthening the wheelbase automatically reduces the mpg requirement, so look for cars to have very little front and rear overhang as the wheels are pushed out to the corners of the body, and, as we are seeing, more high strength steel is now being used so the steel can be made thinner to reduce weight without reducing the size of the car.
Additionally, the reformed CAFE reg openly stated that the mathematical equation was intentionally skewed to set mpg targets for small cars that were relatively hard to meet and mpg targets for large cars relatively easy to meet, to discourage the production of small cars. Additionally, the targets set for trucks are intentionally made easier to meet than the targets for passenger cars.
Bottom line is CAFE now favors big SUVs with minimal front and rear overhang and punishes small sedans with their longer rear overhang needed to provide a trunk.
Steve: I know that CAFE was revised in 2006, but I was really referring to it’s initial version back in the 70’s. That iteration did the most damage, forcing the domestics to produce cars consumers didn’t want or like.
I guess if I would have included that tidbit of info, that would have been helpful, LOL. However, your reminder of the current CAFE guidelines *is* instructional, as I’ve gotten fuzzy on the details.
The other thing the old CAFE did was to virtually require a complete redesign of nearly every component with an eye to making it weigh less. If American cars had a single trait through the 70s it was that they were robustly overbuilt. Yes they were heavy but there was a built in durability that was absent from many lesser European cars. This changed in the 80s as one part or assembly after another was replaced, not infrequently with something inferior. Look at Craigslist for 15-20 year old American cars – how many of them are good reliable cheap transport as opposed to time bombs waiting to explode into massive repair bills. Now look at pickups/SUVs from that era which seem to have survived in much higher numbers and are priced higher.
The other thing the old CAFE did was to virtually require a complete redesign of nearly every component with an eye to making it weigh less.
Making cars lighter is easy, make them smaller (a strategy prevented by the new CAFE standard)
My take on cars of the late 70s into the 80s is not so much lightness, as an unrelenting cheapness. Maybe due to people objecting to the rapidly rising prices due to the high inflation of the 70s, maybe due to competition based on price from Japan.
I have commented before on my POS 78 Zephyr. Every piece of chrome plated exterior metal trim corroded in a year. Polished aluminum bodyside molding trim of earlier models was replaced by chrome plated plastic that deteriorated in a year. The well developed scissors type window regulator was replaced by a thin single rail that required regular lubrication to work. Self adjusters for the rear drum brakes were deleted. Grease fittings for parts that required lubrication were deleted. Yes, you can argue that the deleted parts saved a few ounces, but they also cut cost, while other makes were still using the proven, effective designs.
GM cars in the 80s were notorious rusters. By the time an 80s GM car in Michigan was 4 years old, it looked like it had chicken pox as rust was breaking out all over the body. Yes, you could argue that GM may have saved 4 pounds of paint by making the coating thinner, rather than GM cutting cost by making the paint thinner, but no other make rusted like an 80s GM.
When Iacocca took over at Chrysler, he discovered the company had no financial controls. No-one could tell him what it really cost to make anything. The company simply spec’d progressively cheaper materials and sloppier tolerances. Mopars were notorious for electrical problems. Part of the problem was the cheap plastic spec’d for the electrical connectors, that would deteriorate and break in a few years.
Your Zephyr was one of the first CAFE cars. Ultra light weight and a 4 cylinder engine. Every single piece redesigned from the late 70s on forward started with a goal to shave weight. A side benefit of less weight is usually less cost. How many window regulator failures do you remember from any car before 1980? Imagine how robust a THM400-based 4 speed automatic would have been? But that would have weighed too much so a THM2004R was used in big, expensive cars instead. Plastic gears replaced metal gears in little parts like HVAC actuators. It was a thousand little pieces that were lightened and cheapened so that another MPG or two could be squeezed out in the EPA test cycle.
I have been formulating a theory. When things no longer serve their purpose, most buyers will change their habits. Only the older and more tradition-minded will stick with the old choice while everyone else goes elsewhere. This is how large American cars went from “family cars” to “old man cars” in the space of only three or four years. By 1984-85 big cars were getting more expensive (to throttle demand for CAFE purposes) and less satisfying to drive (too-small engines and too-tall axle ratios). The first Mercury Sable I drove was a revelation compared to my mother’s 85 Crown Vic with its underpowered V8 and poorly chosen gear ratios. Ford was able to get those elusive MPGs via reduced drag instead of low power and bad gearing.
Yup, Ford even bragged that the Electronic Voltage Regulator for the alternator weighed 1/2 pound less than the earlier electro-mechanical one in info about the new 79 Full sizers. Thats looking for weight loss in any way imaginable.
WRT to the POS 78 Zephyrs: A 1978 Zephyr ES was his first and only brand new car; we researched and drove a number of models in and around the Zephyr’s size and price range. After much debate he settled on the ES 2 door as his prize.
What a prize it was. Ultimately, the car was made to be durable. But there was a very long period of time dealing with various faults of engineering (never buy a brand new design). CAFE in it’s ridiculousness forced Ford to produce a car that was half baked upon introduction.
While the same thing happened at the other two majors, they had the scale to survive it all, with overseas divisions and foreign alliances, AMC did not. CAFE was the death knell of AMC. They absolutely did not have the engineering, manufacturing or purchasing clout to take their home-grown cars beyond 1983, at least in their form as they existed in 1978.
Before the CAFE mandates, US cars were mostly decent, repairable somewhat efficient, if clodlike due to size and weight. GM probably had the best response to CAFE with the downsized B-bodies, but physics is a b!tch and to get the fuel economy numbers demanded by CAFE, not consumers in the mid-80’s they released the FWD B bodies. Great cars in and of themselves, but clearly NOT what the target demographic wanted.
This stuff has persisted to the present day and managed to find more victims. Of course, now that we’re using an even weirder formula, more mutations are happening. Bye, Ep2 Impy. It was nice knowing ya…
It is interesting to think about the idea that CAFE may have actually saved Chrysler. They bumbled into the first FWD subcompact with the 1978 L body (via their ownership of Simca) and it was the K program (done undoubtedly as a response to CAFE) that convinced the fence-sitters in congress to approve the loan guarantees. Without the K there would have been no minivan. Does anyone think that Chrysler would have survived without the K car and the minivan? Left to its own devices, Lord knows what Chrysler would have cooked up for the early 80s (if it had lived that long).
How many window regulator failures do you remember from any car before 1980?
None, and I never had a problem with a window regulator in any car after the Zephyr either.
Here’s another example of cheap first on that Zephyr: It had sheets of black material hanging vertically around the bottom of the engine compartment, probably some sort of airflow management. The material looked like thick tar paper. It was not light, but it was weak. The sheets were held in place by plastic buttons at their top. Within months, the heavy, but weak, sheets started to tear off of the buttons and dangle under the car. Mine was not the only one with this issue either as, for several years after, I would see Fords on the road with these sheets dangling and dragging under the cars before they finally fell off entirely.
The side view mirrors were another example of cheap first. Remember the accounts of cars built during the Korean war? Nickel was reserved for the war effort, so automakers did not use it in chrome plated parts, with the result that the chrome plated parts corroded in short order.
From a piece on CC a few years ago:
One change dictated by the war was the use of so called “Korean Chrome” on bumpers, grilles and pot metal trim pieces. The name referred to the practice of skipping the nickel in the process of binding the chrome to a flash of copper and then the steel and coating the whole thing with clear lacquer. The result was rust covered trim pieces after just a year or two (even faster in the midwest) Nickel was tightly controlled by the government as a strategic defense material and the problem persisted until 1954.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/cc-history-%E2%80%9Cthat-special-time%E2%80%9D-the-u-s-auto-industry-during-the-korean-war/
The cast metal side mirror housings on the Zephyr would not be made even an ounce lighter by omitting the nickel layer, but they would be cheaper. The mirrors on the Zephyr corroded just like a Korean War era car.
Another issue: the wiper blades were a single piece of plastic. In the winter, that single bar of plastic became so rigid it would not follow the contour of the windshield. On the driver’s side, the blade would only wipe the bottom couple inches of it’s sweep, with the rain and snow higher on the windshield, the part of the windshield I needed to see through, untouched. In later years, Ford relented and put two hinges in the wiper blade so it would follow the windshield contour better. I doubt there was a measurable difference in weight between the one piece blade and the hinged blade, but the one piece blade was certainly cheaper.
I maintain that the rule was cheap first, and if it made the car lighter, that was a happy bonus.
Steve, my 79 Thunderbird also has those pieces of tar under the engine compartment. They were used by Ford in advertising for better aerodynamic’s and better fuel mileage which I highly doubt it made any difference on that heavy thing. My ‘bird also has a tin plate bolted under the radiator support to the front crossmember for the same thing. My tar strips are still in place, not hanging down, even after almost 40 years.
But there was a very long period of time dealing with various faults of engineering (never buy a brand new design). CAFE in it’s ridiculousness forced Ford to produce a car that was half baked upon introduction.
Inadequate testing and development is another cost cutting strategy.
Packard rushed it’s V8 and heavily revised Ultramatic into production in 55. It only took customers months to discover the faults that Packard would have discovered if they had bothered to run a proper test program. I think it’s in “Master Motor Builders” that the author says words to the effect “contrary to popular opinion that the V8 went straight from drawing board to production, Packard did run a few prototypes, including one or two that somewhat resembled the production engine”.
Everyone has heard the story of how the 53 Studebakers started production, and the front fenders didn’t fit. That happened because Studebaker refused to spend the money to set up a pilot line to make sure everything fit before starting full production. When the Lark was ready to start production, Harold Churchill demanded the money be spent to set up a pilot line, to make sure the Lark’s launch would go smoothly.
As for not buying a first year car, while I was struggling with the Zephyr a coworker bought a 79 Mustang, which was nothing but a truncated Fairmont, hence a second year car. His experience was about the same. The POS Mustang was gone in a year.
I must have edited out the fact that the first new car Zephyr was for my brother. Knowing that makes my diatribe a little less nonsensical.
Eh, my 1980 Mercury Capri RS Turbo was an exceptionally poorly polished turd. I’ve mentioned it here once or twice… I really should have known better, but I was 18, old enough to get my own new car (even though it was a leftover), it was so pretty in black with the mint green strips above the fender blisters… Hell, not only did I suffer through that one, I bought an 1985 that was good… Until year two, then the stuff hit the fan. I went back for more with the 1986 5.0L, but the third time was the charm. Of course, I had to sell that one with the arrival of my first kid…
JPC: I don’t know that Chrysler got any better due to CAFE. Just as much as CAFE didn’t force Ford to build crap in that era, CAFE didn’t engender the creative rush that a dying company has while trying to stay relevant in the market. That fear of unemployment may have had more to do with Chrysler’s sudden flourish of good ideas…
The management and engineering people that Lido stole or coerced to come over from Ford were unleashed, able to have the space to work on their ideas that had been quashed at Ford. They knew they had to get their sh!t together in order for Chrysler to survive at the time. I think that they did a fantastic job.
I really see a similar scenario with GM at the moment. Due to the US governments guarantees, able to come back from the brink of extinction, they’ve worked on a narrow set of goals, it appears. All of the recent releases have been quite competent if not very good cars, no major issues with quality or assembly.
They’re aggressively chasing profitability by using all the tools available to them (although the changes in the UAW agreements since 2007-8 have given them some room to move, too). I never thought I’d see the day where GM would let themselves become the third or fourth largest auto maker globally, but they saw what happened when they chased market share.
Speaking as a Thunderbird fan and a Personal Luxury Coupe fan, I’m surprised that the Impala and Taurus have hung on this long. Obviously, the Impala and Taurus aren’t PLC’s, but they’re not really very far removed, even if they have four doors. The SHO and Impala SS seem to fit the mold of PLC’s even as a sedan…..sporty, luxurious (with the right options) and with some level of prestige, but might be something that a family man would drive as a compromise between a sports car and an outright luxury car. The Impala and Taurus are cars that could have rightfully seen the axe at some point in the last 20 years or so…..certainly not that much longer after the Mark VIII or Thunderbird got axed in the late 90’s, considering that more and more people had moved to either minivans, SUV’s and CUV’s in the last couple of decades.
For example, Oldsmobile always struck me as a casualty of the economic/ trend change away from sedans. They were perceived as an old brand which was one of the reasons, but Olds’ venturing into minivans and away from their bread and butter sedans were pretty much the death knell for them, as far as I can tell. They never really seemed to recover, as their main buyers were literally dying off, and they were trying to find their footing with a younger demographic.
A lot of interesting comment and thoughts in this thread. Back in ’66 or ’67, one of my wealthy relatives bought a second car to park at her second home in Southern Oregon. It was a Jeep Wagoneer, and the family wondered… WTH? After all, she owned two Mercedes’s and a beachfront home on Laguna Beach (price that out today!). What was she doing with a Jeep? After thinking about it a bit, it made sense. V8, Automatic, all the usual Power Accessories (and A/C) that she was used to, in a relatively compact size with 4WD.
At about the same time, there was a wealthy family at my school that always had a late model Fleetwood and a New Yorker T&C Wagon. One day, while waiting to get picked up, a Jeep Wagoneer pulled into the parking lot. I wondered who’s car that was… until those kids ran up and jumped in. Another WTH moment… they had nice cars, why the Jeep? Simple answer- the older kids had started to learn to ski, and they had bought a Chalet up ny Lake Tahoe. This was in the 60’s… and I would contend that Jeep led the charge to SUV’s by offering something upscale families could use and still be comfortable with.
I was in the Chevy biz when the ’92 suburban hit the showrooms. I picked on that model year specifically because that was the Suburban that lost forever the lumbering truck feel that plagued earlier versions. And the sales floodgates opened up. Same thing happened again three years later when the first Tahoe showed up.
The point is, as Paul mentioned already, these trends have been a long time in coming. I don’t predict they’ll disappear anytime soon. Not in my lifetime, at any rate.
I’m not surprised that Ford is dumping the Taurus. I had a 2014 Taurus Limited as a company car and it was awful. I can’t believe a car so big and bulky on the outside could be so cramped and confining on the inside. The Taurus also had a stiff, uncomfortable ride and very uncomfortable seats that left me with lower back pain and a very sore bottom. The ergonomics on the Taurus were beyond horrible as well as the terrible visibility, and the steering felt lifeless like a Ford from yesteryear. The only plus about the Taurus was it’s cavernous trunk and it didn’t leave me stranded anywhere. I was elated when I was able to say bye bye to the Taurus.
PS Ford had a much better idea with the original Taurus back in 1986!
Make fuel as expensive as it is overhere in Europe, and look what happens.
Almost free gas is what drives the US buying choices.
While changes in automotive taste and trends are inevitable, the overall space and utility of today’s larger sedans is about what American brand compacts offered in the late 1960’s. A small car like the Fiesta isn’t capable of much beyond simple commuter duty. It’s backseat is not functional and there is no functional cargo space unless the backseat is folded down. What’s missing in the car world is what we used to consider mid-size and large cars. This was very much aided and abetted by CAFE over the course of many years.
So, the Explorer is the 2018 Torino Squire and the F-150 Supercrew is the LTD. Through in the Fusion as today’s Falcon, and Ford’s line-up is just as complete now as it was in 1968.
Politicians are clueless about economics, and the green lobby isn’t far behind politicians. However, I’ve actually read a few grumbles from the green lobby that higher mileage cars may keep fuel prices down and conspire to keep the internal combustion engine around longer. Holy hell, somebody gets it! But, unfortunately, that voice of reason is rarely heard.
What the green lobby should want is CLEAN cars. I’ve spent enough time in Los Angeles and Las Vegas to understand this and agree with it.
So, if the Smart Car is in fact in anyway smart, than a no compromises F-150 Supercrew powered by solar generated electricity would have to be named the GENIUS edition. All we need is a version that can be charged in 10 minutes or less at convenient locations. Technology will likely get us there.