Almost-Great Cars by Forbes
05-16-05, 12:25 PM
#1
Almost-Great Cars by Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/2005..._0509feat.html
NEW YORK - Car critics can sometimes seem a bit nasty and mean-spirited, so it's nice every now and then to demonstrate that we are rooting for things to work out at some companies.
We have nothing against General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) and Ford Motor (nyse: F - news - people ). Just because the companies are losing market share and have fixed costs that are so high they may prove to be unsustainable in the long term doesn't mean we dislike these automakers. But when we see the introduction of one mediocre Pontiac or Saturn after another, our reporting thereof may have a tone of disappointment.
In the slide show that follows however, you will find us cheering for such American brands as Pontiac, Ford and Cadillac. This piece may be titled "Almost-Great Cars," but it is not about bad cars. To look at bad cars, consult our annual "Automotive Turkeys" and "Worst Cars" features.
Rather, this piece is about ten vehicles that are within shouting distance of being great--and could be so with just a bit more work.One of the hardest things in the world to manufacture is a car that feels just about perfect--a car that does what you want it to do, and in which everything is where you would expect it to be. In a great car you, the road and the vehicle are united as one.
Of course, different people feel connected to different kinds of cars. We have heard some say they feel that special bond with Mitsubishi's scorching-hot Lancer Evolution sedan. Others feel that Porsches connect car, driver and road better than any other vehicle. The new Lotus Elise gets a lot of praise in the motoring press for doing just that, even if it falls short in other areas.
Then there are the cars that almost do it for us. That's what this piece is about: Vehicles that are pretty good but have one or more significant issues that prevent us from loving them. In some cases, we have reported on individual cars that could be better, such as Land Rover's new LR3 sport utility vehicle, which just needs a slightly higher level of features and amenities in order to make good on its company's aspirations to be a tier-one, premium automaker.
Click here for a look at "Almost-Great Cars"
In other cases, we have reported on entire model lines. One complaint is sometimes enough to drive us through the ceiling. We love driving Audis, for example, but cannot for the life of us figure out why modern Audis all seem to come with touchy, grabby brakes that are impossible--at least for us--to modulate smoothly (and Audi drivers write in and tell us they have the same problem). However, we have not included Audis in our slide show because their corporate designs are so strong--so far ahead of those of virtually every other automaker--that we don't feel comfortable calling Audis anything but great.
We do, however, feel comfortable calling DaimlerChrysler's (nyse: DCX - news - people ) Mercedes-Benz cars "very good" as opposed to "great." This is because they have a major flaw, pretty much across the board: They are sleek, but unreliable. (Please see the slide show that follows for more information.)
In some cases, making "very good" cars as opposed to "great" ones is the difference between a runaway success and a runner-up. You will notice a couple of Cadillacs in the slide show that follows; that's because the brand is almost there. It almost has the goods on a luxury automaker, such as BMW, but for reasons about which we will elaborate, it doesn't. This is why General Motors officials still talk about how they are working to make Cadillac "the standard of the world" again--not how they have done it.
For a look at cars that are just about where they need to be, follow the link below.
Click here for a look at "Almost-Great Cars"
I found it to be a interesting article to post here...
NEW YORK - Car critics can sometimes seem a bit nasty and mean-spirited, so it's nice every now and then to demonstrate that we are rooting for things to work out at some companies.
We have nothing against General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) and Ford Motor (nyse: F - news - people ). Just because the companies are losing market share and have fixed costs that are so high they may prove to be unsustainable in the long term doesn't mean we dislike these automakers. But when we see the introduction of one mediocre Pontiac or Saturn after another, our reporting thereof may have a tone of disappointment.
In the slide show that follows however, you will find us cheering for such American brands as Pontiac, Ford and Cadillac. This piece may be titled "Almost-Great Cars," but it is not about bad cars. To look at bad cars, consult our annual "Automotive Turkeys" and "Worst Cars" features.
Rather, this piece is about ten vehicles that are within shouting distance of being great--and could be so with just a bit more work.One of the hardest things in the world to manufacture is a car that feels just about perfect--a car that does what you want it to do, and in which everything is where you would expect it to be. In a great car you, the road and the vehicle are united as one.
Of course, different people feel connected to different kinds of cars. We have heard some say they feel that special bond with Mitsubishi's scorching-hot Lancer Evolution sedan. Others feel that Porsches connect car, driver and road better than any other vehicle. The new Lotus Elise gets a lot of praise in the motoring press for doing just that, even if it falls short in other areas.
Then there are the cars that almost do it for us. That's what this piece is about: Vehicles that are pretty good but have one or more significant issues that prevent us from loving them. In some cases, we have reported on individual cars that could be better, such as Land Rover's new LR3 sport utility vehicle, which just needs a slightly higher level of features and amenities in order to make good on its company's aspirations to be a tier-one, premium automaker.
Click here for a look at "Almost-Great Cars"
In other cases, we have reported on entire model lines. One complaint is sometimes enough to drive us through the ceiling. We love driving Audis, for example, but cannot for the life of us figure out why modern Audis all seem to come with touchy, grabby brakes that are impossible--at least for us--to modulate smoothly (and Audi drivers write in and tell us they have the same problem). However, we have not included Audis in our slide show because their corporate designs are so strong--so far ahead of those of virtually every other automaker--that we don't feel comfortable calling Audis anything but great.
We do, however, feel comfortable calling DaimlerChrysler's (nyse: DCX - news - people ) Mercedes-Benz cars "very good" as opposed to "great." This is because they have a major flaw, pretty much across the board: They are sleek, but unreliable. (Please see the slide show that follows for more information.)
In some cases, making "very good" cars as opposed to "great" ones is the difference between a runaway success and a runner-up. You will notice a couple of Cadillacs in the slide show that follows; that's because the brand is almost there. It almost has the goods on a luxury automaker, such as BMW, but for reasons about which we will elaborate, it doesn't. This is why General Motors officials still talk about how they are working to make Cadillac "the standard of the world" again--not how they have done it.
For a look at cars that are just about where they need to be, follow the link below.
Click here for a look at "Almost-Great Cars"
I found it to be a interesting article to post here...
05-16-05, 06:41 PM
#3
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup, Forbes did a good job with this one.
Personally, I'd add the Corvette, any current BMW (for the same reason they put Mercedes on the list), all Saabs (for the same reason they put Volvo on the list), and the entire Infiniti lineup on this list as well.
Notice that no Toyota/Lexus products or Honda/Acura products made the list (though they did take a passing swipe at the RL for its 6-cylinder engine
).
Personally, I'd add the Corvette, any current BMW (for the same reason they put Mercedes on the list), all Saabs (for the same reason they put Volvo on the list), and the entire Infiniti lineup on this list as well.
Notice that no Toyota/Lexus products or Honda/Acura products made the list (though they did take a passing swipe at the RL for its 6-cylinder engine
).
05-16-05, 10:09 PM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well Lexus interiors are very respected!
Here are the rest.
Caddy STS
Caddy XLR
Ford 500 (who cares)
LandRover LR3
ALL Maseratis
Mazda RX-8
VIRTUALLY ALL MERCEDES BENZES! 
Nissan 350Z
Pontiac GTO
Volvo S80
The concept for the Cadillac XLR was great: a luxury convertible with muscle. Unfortunately, Cadillac misfired on the luxury component. If the XLR roadster had an interior that was as nice as that of, say, a Lexus, it would be a great car. After all, old Caddies used to be the epitome of luxury inside and out. If only GM was willing to devote the resources to do that again.
Caddy STS
Cadillac's STS is a fine luxury sedan. The problem is that it's too expensive. The STS starts at $41,000, but a fully-loaded model will cost you $67,000, which is too much for a car that is almost as luxurious as its competition from Mercedes and BMW, but not quite.
Even the entry-level STS may be too expensive. You could spend $15,000 less on a Toyota Avalon sedan and get 25 more horsepower.
Even the entry-level STS may be too expensive. You could spend $15,000 less on a Toyota Avalon sedan and get 25 more horsepower.
The XLR has sporty driving dynamics. On some American sports cars, such as the Corvette, a stripped-down interior is fine--it's even part of the macho ethos, to say nothing of the fact that some buyers just won't pay for a premium American car. But the XLR, with a base price of $77,000, wants to be a premium automobile, and its interior just isn't where it needs to be.
LandRover LR3
Land Rover wants to be a premium automaker. Its sport utility vehicles are as reliable as British dentistry, but the company has decided its new LR3 SUV is so good that it's worth $10,000 more than the Discovery, the model it has replaced. The strategy seems to be--as it is at Cadillac--"if it costs a lot of money, people will think it's premium."
The problem is the LR3 doesn't quite justify its sticker price. While it's nice, it isn't as luxurious as it should be. It lacks such increasingly common luxury features as a rearward camera to assist you in backing up, sun shades for the side windows and adaptive cruise control--all of which are available on Toyota's Sienna minivan, which isn't even a premium nameplate. The LR3 doesn't have adjustable pedals either.
The problem is the LR3 doesn't quite justify its sticker price. While it's nice, it isn't as luxurious as it should be. It lacks such increasingly common luxury features as a rearward camera to assist you in backing up, sun shades for the side windows and adaptive cruise control--all of which are available on Toyota's Sienna minivan, which isn't even a premium nameplate. The LR3 doesn't have adjustable pedals either.
Maserati, the storied Italian automaker, has made quite a comeback, and is very close to being great again. One obstacle is that two of its three vehicles, the Coupe and Spyder two-doors, have designs that are old and uninspired. But read on.
The newest Maserati, the Quattroporte sedan (pictured above), is the traffic stopper to critics of Maserati design. It is simply stunning. However, like the Coupe and Spyder, its driving dynamics still need some ironing out. For example, all three Maseratis have automatic transmission modes that are clunky and have unsettling power lags between shifts.
The newest Maserati, the Quattroporte sedan (pictured above), is the traffic stopper to critics of Maserati design. It is simply stunning. However, like the Coupe and Spyder, its driving dynamics still need some ironing out. For example, all three Maseratis have automatic transmission modes that are clunky and have unsettling power lags between shifts.
Another comeback we would love to see work out, Mazda's RX-8 marks the return of rotary engines to the automotive market. Enjoying the sports car capabilities of the rotary, however, is not easy. The RX-8 is sluggish off the line, and to tap its potential, you need to flog it constantly. With a manual transmission, the RX-8's peak hp (238) does not come on until 8,500 rpm. Younger drivers might like this. Otherwise, it gets a bit exhausting.
The RX-8's design is also a bit much. Its severe looks come in large part from those pronounced front wheel arches, which give the RX-8's front end the appearance of a sneering upper lip. This may be to your taste, but the RX-8 is decidedly unbeautiful.
The RX-8's design is also a bit much. Its severe looks come in large part from those pronounced front wheel arches, which give the RX-8's front end the appearance of a sneering upper lip. This may be to your taste, but the RX-8 is decidedly unbeautiful.
Mercedes-Benzes are so elegant, so sophisticated and so luxurious. Why must they be so unreliable? To new Mercedes C-Class coupes and sedans, Consumer Reports assigns "predicted reliability" ratings of "fair," the second-lowest on its scale. To new Mercedes CLK-Class coupes and convertibles, E-Class sedans and wagons, S-Class sedans and SL-Class convertibles, it assigns ratings of "poor," the lowest. On March 31, Mercedes announced a recall that would affect 1.3 million of its cars. Note to Dr. Eckhard Cordes, the recently installed chief of Mercedes' car group: Please return Mercedes-Benz once again to its rightful place as one of the world's most luxurious and reliable auto makers.
Comebacks that are almost great are a recurring theme on this list. Nissan's 350Z sports car is one of them, as is the next vehicle in the slide show. While the return of the "Z car" has been a success in terms of sales volume and profit contributions, the 350Z suffers from crummy components. Cheap plastics and other materials abound on the vehicle, beginning with the door handles.
One industry analyst has posited that the Z car's dashboard is made of "reground toothbrush handles." Of course, the 350Z was designed for cheap thrills. Unfortunately, we believe too much emphasis has been placed on "cheap."
One industry analyst has posited that the Z car's dashboard is made of "reground toothbrush handles." Of course, the 350Z was designed for cheap thrills. Unfortunately, we believe too much emphasis has been placed on "cheap."
Car enthusiasts were so excited to learn that General Motors would resurrect the Pontiac GTO, one of the most ferocious and storied cars Detroit ever produced. Then they saw the resurrection: a tepid--make that "warmed-over"--design based on a car from Holden, GM's Australian subsidiary. If you're going to revamp an icon--and more importantly, inject some excitement into the kind of staid lineup that Pontiac has--you have to make the vehicle less bland-looking than this.
Where the GTO succeeds, however, is in offering a lot of hp--400--for a reasonable price of $35,000. To channel that power, however, you will need to negotiate such obstacles as pedals that are spaced too far apart.
Where the GTO succeeds, however, is in offering a lot of hp--400--for a reasonable price of $35,000. To channel that power, however, you will need to negotiate such obstacles as pedals that are spaced too far apart.
Volvo has Cadillac/Land Rover Syndrome: It wants to be a premium automaker but isn't quite there yet. The company's S80 flagship sedan is a comparative bargain but doesn't feel nearly as luxurious inside as the competition from Mercedes and BMW.
Worst of all, the S80's engines are wimpy. The entry-level power plant has only five cylinders, which is almost unacceptable on a luxury sedan. Acura takes enough heat from analysts and enthusiasts for going with a V-6 instead of a V-8 on its RL flagship sedan. A five-cylinder luxury sedan is almost unheard of.
Worst of all, the S80's engines are wimpy. The entry-level power plant has only five cylinders, which is almost unacceptable on a luxury sedan. Acura takes enough heat from analysts and enthusiasts for going with a V-6 instead of a V-8 on its RL flagship sedan. A five-cylinder luxury sedan is almost unheard of.
05-16-05, 10:10 PM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Iceman
Yup, Forbes did a good job with this one.
Personally, I'd add the Corvette, any current BMW (for the same reason they put Mercedes on the list), all Saabs (for the same reason they put Volvo on the list), and the entire Infiniti lineup on this list as well.
Notice that no Toyota/Lexus products or Honda/Acura products made the list (though they did take a passing swipe at the RL for its 6-cylinder engine ).
Personally, I'd add the Corvette, any current BMW (for the same reason they put Mercedes on the list), all Saabs (for the same reason they put Volvo on the list), and the entire Infiniti lineup on this list as well.
Notice that no Toyota/Lexus products or Honda/Acura products made the list (though they did take a passing swipe at the RL for its 6-cylinder engine
).
Trending Topics
05-17-05, 05:58 AM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
The majority of the opinions I either agree on or have no comment, but I think they made four mistakes. They panned the Ford 500, the GTO, the Acura RL, and the Cadillac STS. I didagree with all four of these....I have a high opinion of these cars.
The RL's engine is by no means wimpy in spite of being a V6....its 300 HP and 260 ft.lbs. is comparable with a lot of V8's.
The Ford Five Hundred's 203 HP rating, agreed, is not huge, but the CVT transmission partially makes up for that by its astounding efficiency (better than a lot of manuals). Its acceleration is comparable as the same car would be with a conventional transmission and 230-240 HP.
The STS, IMO is an astounding-looking car with a super-plush interior and excellent wood-paneling. I don't agree with the "cheap-looking" and "overpriced " classification at all.
The GTO was panned for looking "plain", but think back to the original ones 40 years ago. With one exception....the bright-orange "Judge" with the yellow stripes in 1969 and 1970....GTO's were plain back THEN, too. They were in fact just plain-jane Pontiac Tempest / LeMans coupes with hood scoops and big engines.....which in fact is EXACTLY what today's GTO also is....a plain-jane Holden Monaro with scoops and a big engine
The RL's engine is by no means wimpy in spite of being a V6....its 300 HP and 260 ft.lbs. is comparable with a lot of V8's.
The Ford Five Hundred's 203 HP rating, agreed, is not huge, but the CVT transmission partially makes up for that by its astounding efficiency (better than a lot of manuals). Its acceleration is comparable as the same car would be with a conventional transmission and 230-240 HP.
The STS, IMO is an astounding-looking car with a super-plush interior and excellent wood-paneling. I don't agree with the "cheap-looking" and "overpriced " classification at all.
The GTO was panned for looking "plain", but think back to the original ones 40 years ago. With one exception....the bright-orange "Judge" with the yellow stripes in 1969 and 1970....GTO's were plain back THEN, too. They were in fact just plain-jane Pontiac Tempest / LeMans coupes with hood scoops and big engines.....which in fact is EXACTLY what today's GTO also is....a plain-jane Holden Monaro with scoops and a big engine
Last edited by mmarshall; 05-17-05 at 06:03 AM.
05-18-05, 03:06 PM
#9
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mmarshall
The GTO was panned for looking "plain", but think back to the original ones 40 years ago. With one exception....the bright-orange "Judge" with the yellow stripes in 1969 and 1970....GTO's were plain back THEN, too. They were in fact just plain-jane Pontiac Tempest / LeMans coupes with hood scoops and big engines.....which in fact is EXACTLY what today's GTO also is....a plain-jane Holden Monaro with scoops and a big engine
(EDIT: I don't know why the auto-censor blanked out w i s t f u l. Apparently the acronym for telling someone to "suck an egg" is considered too wild for our board...)
05-18-05, 07:27 PM
#10
Lexus Champion
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mmarshall
The STS, IMO is an astounding-looking car with a super-plush interior and excellent wood-paneling. I don't agree with the "cheap-looking" and "overpriced " classification at all.
While it may not be selling as well as GM had hoped - I think this car is well worth its price tag.
M.
05-19-05, 01:16 AM
#11
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 1,509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by whipimpin
I have to agree with you here. The STS is an amazing car - the sort of vehicle that Detroit (GM in particular) needs to make more of.
While it may not be selling as well as GM had hoped - I think this car is well worth its price tag.
M.
While it may not be selling as well as GM had hoped - I think this car is well worth its price tag.
M.
05-19-05, 07:30 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Incendiary
Is it not meeting expectations? Sales figures were pretty amazing from what I saw.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post