RLSH700

I happened to run across this and wanted to share it. It's nice to see when the media actually admits when they are wrong. I would motion that they should do this more often in fact.

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/auto...motive-history

The funny thing is I mentioned several of these vehicles in a past point saying that just because something does well in a magazine comparison doesn't mean it will be successful, or that it is in fact a good offering, and I remember being criticized for the list that I provided which resembles this list.

The funny thing is take a look at the how the list tallies up.

Renault: 1
Ford: 5
GM: 4
Chrysler: 0

Do I detect a basis in the automotive press?

Yankee

Interesting... I think Motor Trend has alot more apologizing to do - for instance, there wasn't any mention of them naming the god-awful Shamu-looking 1991 Chevy Caprice as their 1991 Car of the Year. Sorry to mention a Chrysler product, but naming the 1976 Aspen/Volare as their car of the year wasn't exactly the best of thinking either (and didn't the AMC Pacer with the 1975 COTY?)

I guess alot of these were victims of the "seemed-lie-a-good-idea-at-the-time" syndrome. I remember when the Renault Alliance was introduced in '83 - a HUGE marketing campaign, the old fuddy-duddy AMC was finally energized with European cars - sure they were absolute POSs, but we wanted them to succeed - guess we couldn't see the forest for the trees, ultimately.

BLK 6050

That was my first thought...what about the 76 Aspen/Volare?
Some cars just take longer to show their true colors....maybe they should name their car of the year...several years later, after it's been on the road for a while......

brentmannrt09

Funny my old band mate back in the day, had an aspen, his first car, he didnt know or care to knowanyhing about car maintenance. we,he drove that car for several years before he sold it, He asked me, a budding motorhead, to check it out before he sold it. It was running fine, the rotors in front were toast, then I checked the oil just for due diligence and I only got this thick glop of goo at the very tip of the dipstick!!! LOL God knows how long he ran it like that but it stayed together! Run Aspen Run!

BLK 6050

Sounds like my friends 64 Dart GT...tappets would sing out as he drove it, as it had no oil getting to the top end...he asked a tech at the dealership about the issue....the tech told him NOT to change the oil, just add oil as needed...("If it's not broken...don't touch it, as it will start a long line of issues..) the poor Dart had over 200,000 miles on it, and maybe had a couple of oil changes in it's life time....engine was a 273 V-8
(As a side note, Dart was sold to a garage that parted the car out, saving only the clean front clip..sad end for a car that just kept on running....)
He later purchased a 4-door Aspen (ex-company vehicle) with small cop hub caps...it was a lot of fun as people would think we were undercover cops....he never had a bit of trouble with that Dodge..engine was a 318 V-8

RLSH700

Agreed, those two should also be on the list. The thing that is simply dellusional to me is when I hear people criticize GM for dropping those whalemobiles. They were dropped because they weren't selling nearly as well as they used to sell. Granted, I don't agree with the strategy that they replaced it with (large SUVs-a-plenty), but if they would have brought over the Australian RWD platform back then it might have worked. If they remained in production, they would be exactly in the same situation as the Crown Vic, so long in tooth, braces wouldn't repair the damage, only selling to cops and taxis fleets, and being used as a symbol of how outdated and out of touch the car manufacturer is.

The Aspen/Volare were another horrible one that should have been on the list considering that they just about killed Chrysler. My father had one for his 3rd car. Interestingly he liked it; however, he also likes his 04 Taurus so he is a glutten for punishment, and seems to like the worst offerings that the market can dish out to him.

This one line to me sums up why to a high degree that the automotive press keeps getting it wrong over and over again.

They put too much emphasis on things like this on the wrong cars. Who cares if it has more aggressive road manners? It's a FWD, weak I4 & pathetic V6 offering, automatic transmission, base level nameplate sedan. This is not a car that is meant to compete against $40K-50K BMWs, it is meant to compete against domestic equivalents and sedans like the plain as vanilla Camry & Accord. If it lacks space, style, room, power, quality, etc. It isn't going to succeed.

I just love their reason for choosing the Malibu back in 1997, because it was unlike the bold moves of the cloud cars and Contour. That explanation provides a better argument for why it should have been called out for the failure of making a competitive offering. I mean, how much more obvious could it have been that the car was a foolish move when the best thing they can say is it didn't push the envelope. I mean GM was loosing sales in the car market for years by then. How could offering more of the same be a good thing? What I just love is the fact that these fools selectively enforce these rules and choose the obviously inferior offering while deciding that the most obviously superior offering is the weakest contender.