Things that looked good on paper

Once in a while we will be hit with a flash of brilliance. In that perfect moment one can see what should be done, everything required to do it and how it will make everything better. It is somewhere in between the idea and the implementation that things can go horribly horribly wrong.


General Motors immediately sprung to mid when I started thinking about this. There is something about this company that allows it to repeatedly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. My suspicion is that the accountants trump the designers. There are always small concessions that you can make to price that the average consumer will never noticeably impact the client. GM has a tendency to pass that point.

1962 Chevy Corvair

Image borrowed from: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/david_e._davis_jr._convincing_chevy_to_enter_a_team_of_corvairs_in_the_1961_shell_4000_trans-canada_rally-column/gallery/1962_chevrolet_corvair_700_series_coupe_photo_17


The Chevy Corvair is a classic example of a good idea gone bad. Most North American cars were front engine / rear wheel drive. Rear engine / rear wheel drive was something that you found in Porches and VWs. This set up saved materials and space. It also put the weight of the engine over the drive wheels. It gave the Corvair a nice look. It had a huge trunk and good passenger space.

It all fell apart with the rear suspension. Instead of using the design of the sporty Porsche, they borrowed the suspension design from the VW Bug. Keep in mind that the VW Bug had less than 60 hp while the Corvair was 80 hp and marketed as a sports car. By the time they upgraded the suspension on the Corvair the reputation was shot. The promotion and production of the car slowly petered out. It made GM a company that is still very risk averse.

You can almost smell the hair mousse and parachute pants

Image found at: http://www.auto-facts.org/1984-pontiac-fiero-tps.html

The Fiero should have been a slam dunk for GM. The marketing concept was reminiscent of the original Mustang, a good looking sporty car that somebody with their first job could afford. They borrowed he design from the Fiat X1/9 that had been in production since 1972. Once they had the idea they ran through the GM parts bin to save even more costs. This car should have been a slam dunk. Toyota stole the same 12 year old design at the same time. The Toyota was produced for 23 years. The Fiero was produced for 5, which is about the shortest amount of time a major manufacturer can kill a model. It took them four years to kill the much reviled Pontiac Aztek (which I will discuss later).

Fiat X 1/9, where they stole the designs from

Image from: http://ref-fiat.info/fiat-x19-us-1982.html

Toyota MR2, their version of the same idea

Image borrowed from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/45676495@N05/5029189815/

It seems you need three major screw ups:

First, GM’s marketing department was not promoting the vehicle that the assembly line was producing. The original Fiero was designed as a sporty and fun everyday car. The marketing department was selling a red blooded fire breathing sports car. Nothing ruins a product’s reputation faster than disappointed clients. The suspension was borrowed from the Chevette and the Phoenix / Citation. It was functional rather than performance orientated. It was the same story with the engine (but more on that in the next point). It wasn’t a bad car. It just wasn’t what people were expecting.

Second, there were so many mechanical problems. Many of the problems came back to the challenges of cooling a mid-engine car. They put the radiator all the way at the front. This means they had to run the coolant to the front and back again. They managed to leave the pipes used for this in a position where they could be crushed by people trying to jack up the car. This also meant that there was a special procedure for adding coolant. The car had to be running and some versions of the instructions say that you had to remove the thermostat. If you didn’t do these things there would be an air bubble in the system and that would make the car overheat. Then, due to a misprint somewhere, the dipstick and the owner’s manual indicated that the engine required 3 litres of oil. Unfortunately it required 4. There was also a flaw in the casting of the connecting rods. Due to some imperfections they could shatter if things got too hot.

It was a perfect storm of mistakes. When you add people driving it hard, like the sports car the marketing department kept telling people it was, the engine fires were inevitable.

Third, GM took too long to rectify the problems. By the time they started addressing the issues the car’s reputation was shot.

It was only a couple of years later that Mazda released the incredibly successful Miata. Mazda was able to use this to redefine their whole company. Mazda ate GM’s lunch.


Pontiac managed to miss the mark again with the Aztek. Large vehicles to haul the family around have been top selling vehicles for decades. In the 70’s this turf was owned by the station wagon. They took regular sedans, stretched the roofline back to the bumper, slapped a tailgate on it and it was done. Mechanically they were almost identical to their sedan counterparts. Often it was just a matter of beefing up the suspension to handle the extra weight.

Original concept vehicle for the Pontiac Aztek

Image borrowed from: http://www.autospies.com/news/Recently-Deceased-The-Top-10-Reasons-Why-Pontiac-Failed-44511/


The station wagon had a long run as the family hauler of choice but in the 80’s people started migrating to the minivan. It was a rejection of what mom used to drive. In the 90’s people rejected the minivan and migrated to SUVs. The SUVs had the space families required but most of them were designed for off road ability.

The GM designers saw the future. They knew that less than 10 percent of SUVs sold would ever see use in anything more rugged than a mud puddle. They knew that people were buying them for their carrying capacity and because they looked tough.

Their idea was solid. Build a vehicle that looks like an SUV, drives like a car, hauls cargo like a van and they threw in all wheel drive for good measure. Just like the Fiero, they had all the elements right and then things went horribly wrong.

How did they manage to drop the ball?

They based the Aztek on the Pontiac Montana, a basic low rent minivan. They removed the sliding doors and added a slanted rear hatch. This made it the size and shape of a minivan but with less utility. To distract people from this they made it incredibly ugly. Reviews around the web seem to indicate that it was a bit of a lemon too.

There is a rumour that GM executives were told that they WERE going to have Azteks as their company vehicles and they WERE going to be seen smiling while they drove them.

In the last year of production they sold 25. That is incredible, especially when you consider that GM was throwing incredible rebates at it.

Today, crossover vehicles, which they call these now, are one of the fastest growing markets. At least GM has now produced some crossovers that don’t look like they were designed by multiple designers who hated each other.

The version they put on sale. They seemed to hide a lot of them in the woods

Image borrowed from: http://www.familycar.com/roadtests/pontiacaztek/

I could go on, but I think I am trying your patience with the length of this article. I may have picked on GM a bit. There are a number of GM missteps I have left out, but no manufacturer is without sin.

Ford had the Mustang II, Honda had 4 wheel steering, and Mazda toiled in futility for years with the Wankel Rotary Engine.

Maybe someday I will whine about them in “Things that looked good on paper part 2”. Only time will tell.