GTP Cool Wall: 2001-2005 Pontiac Aztek

[Worst_Driver]

The final nail in Pontiac's coffin. Seriously uncool.

Everything wrong with GM in the late 90's and early 00's. Cheap plastic body cladding does not equal sporty.

 

[Zenith]

Sub zero. Owning the Breaking Bad car is an instant panty-dropper.

 

[MatskiMonk]

There was also a tent package that came with the Aztek.

Well, I've got to say, this is a massive plus in my opinion... may not be the greastest tenting vehicle known to man, but this appeals to me.

Since the cool wall =/= the good looking car wall, I have to say, I'm leaning more towards the top options on the poll than the bottom ones...

edit: this is the exact reason I've owned to BMW tourers with split tail gates

 

[Minty]

I'm not gonna say it's a bad thing, since it's practical and does what it needs to. But practicality and coolness are two entirely different things to me, so I'm gonna go with seriously uncool because it's hideous.

 

[Slash]

Sub zero. Owning the Breaking Bad car is an instant panty-dropper.

Make sure it's missing a hubcap

 

[White & Nerdy]

Deeply uncool. Car people and non car people alike recoil in horror as these things pass. That is not a cool reaction.

Though given the usual pointless rant against progress from W&N I was very tempted to vote cool just for the hell of it.

So what is progress to you anyway then?

 

[Joey D]

So what is progress to you anyway then?

Clearly you think progress is big, RWD vehicles from a company that was hemorrhaging money from GM.

 

[Bopop4]

Would be seriously uncool because it's a late 90's, early 20's Pontiac with no redeeming qualities.

But getting everyone in a row because of its styling, and the practicality of it bumps it up to an uncool.

 

[Doog]

It's ugly but it rides pretty smooth.

They weren't bad vehicles. They were practical, roomy, and rode surprisingly well. I don't even think they look as bad as people make them out to be. They weren't even that slow either.

This. The ride quality was astounding.

Did the Aztek not ride similarly to the U-Body minivans it shared its platform with? The Venture I recall riding in had a pretty unsettled, bouncy ride quality, but then again it was a little worn out.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

So what is progress to you anyway then?

Progress, in a car, is good quality. Good packaging, good materials, sat nav and other amenities, great fuel economy, good performance, and a great chassis. We know what your definition of progress is, and it isn't.

 

[Antonisbob]

Please, don't call is a Pontiac, it embarrasses mine.

Seriously uncool, like.... why would someone design that?

 

[YSSMAN]

Did the Aztek not ride similarly to the U-Body minivans it shared its platform with? The Venture I recall riding in had a pretty unsettled, bouncy ride quality, but then again it was a little worn out.

I think it may have depended on the model that you had. I spent a lot of time in Ventures and Montanas around that time, and there was quite a difference just between those GMT200s, let alone the shortened U-Body models that were sliiiiightly different. I definitely remember the Montana having better control overall with what seemed like stiffer springs (less bouncy), but the U-Body ones were so normal that I can't remember anything particularly good about either.

 

[GranTurismo916]

I know it has positives, but the one negative that it's almost the ugliest thing in the world, not even car-wise, brings it down to Seriously Uncool.

 

[skynyrd]

Seriously Uncool beyond any doubt.

I recall hearing stories that they sat new, completely untouched, on dealers' lots for years, and judging by the line of Azteks as the local Pontiac dealership back when these were a few years old, those stories were true. I used to see them driving around from time to time (it's not a car that's easy to miss), but that all stopped about six or seven years ago...I haven't seen one on the road or in anyone's driveway in years, so it seems they've mostly died off or been relegated to the weeds in the backyard.

 

[Nicksfix]

The sheer fugliness of this vehicle trumps any form of practicality that this thing may have.

Seriously Uncool

 

[Crash]

Practical car, which is great, but no one cares how practical your car is if it's this ugly.

I know the ugly does not equate to uncool automatically, but in this case, its ugliness defines it.

Seriously uncool.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Clearly you think progress is big, RWD vehicles from a company that was hemorrhaging money from GM.

Actually, if you believe Bob Lutz, Pontiac was on its way to being profitable. It just hadn't quite made it when the total economic meltdown hit. They were just a day late and a dollar short. The same thing almost happened with Buick, but other factors were at work there.

Progress, in a car, is good quality. Good packaging, good materials, sat nav and other amenities, great fuel economy, good performance, and a great chassis. We know what your definition of progress is, and it isn't.

The problem I have with progress is that, every time it happens, it only seems to make things worse. Station wagons give way to crossovers, notchback coupes become incredibly difficult to find in anything except overtly sporting segments, everything-by-wire filters out any noticable fun present in a car, and constant improvements to automatic transmission efficiency make it ever less likely that Joe Doesn'tcareaboutdriving will ever buy a manual, which in turn means there's ever less chance of getting one on anything but a sports car. And I'm supposed to like and support this stuff?

 

[Beeblebrox237]

The problem I have with progress is that, every time it happens, it only seems to make things worse. Station wagons give way to crossovers, notchback coupes become incredibly difficult to find in anything except overtly sporting segments, everything-by-wire filters out any noticable fun present in a car, and constant improvements to automatic transmission efficiency make it ever less likely that Joe Doesn'tcareaboutdriving will ever buy a manual, which in turn means there's ever less chance of getting one on anything but a sports car. And I'm supposed to like and support this stuff?

Yes. Modern cars are safer, more efficient, more practical, more reliable, more powerful, and more refined than in the past. You should care about all of those things. The cars themselves are not causing people to buy automatics, it's the people. You know, here in the UK, people still buy estates, and 90-95 percent of cars are manuals. America is not the only car market in the world.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Yes, but it is the one that's being ruined. More powerful - in some market segments! Others cancel out technological gains by downsizing. Safer, OK, can't argue with that. More practical? Marginally. A 3-door hatchback has only slightly more space than a comparable 2-door coupe in many cases, as you can't really stack above the bottom of the rear window anyway, and the cargo area is also easier to see into and break into. More efficient, also depends. There's no doubt that the fuel-saving technology available today is a marvel, just imagine how much more effective it could be if cars hadn't gained 500-800 pounds over the last decade or two. And it comes a price. Which leads me to... refinement. You say refinement, I say isolation. I want a physical throttle linkage, not an intentionally sleepy drive-by-wire system trying to smooth out my inputs. And no steer-by-wire filtering out my steering feel either.

And it should be possible to find a practical car that's also good-looking, cool, and not over-refined. Good luck though!

 

[Joey D]

Which leads me to... refinement. You say refinement, I say isolation. I want a physical throttle linkage, not an intentionally sleepy drive-by-wire system trying to smooth out my inputs. And no steer-by-wire filtering out my steering feel either. And it should be possible to find a practical car that's also good-looking, cool, and not over-refined. Good luck though!

Just because you like, a vast majority of the new car buying public doesn't. I don't want to spend $30k on a car that I can "feel" everything working. People buy new because they want the comfort that comes with a new car.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

My eyes get it away, it hurts so bad

 

[Tornado]

I'm kind of curious why W&N is getting tarred for the implication that the crossover segment was just starting out. Sure, it was just a natural progression of the market so Pontiac didn't "start" it (though he didn't say they did) so much as do it early, but there really weren't any competitors for the Aztek when it first came out. The closest on the market would probably be the Lexus RX (which was much more successful and earlier), but that was more luxury oriented (which is why the Rendevous were also made). The CR-V and Rav4 were still smaller vehicles at the time (the Rav4 especially), and the Pilot didn't come out for another couple years.

 

[White & Nerdy]

I'm kind of curious why W&N is getting tarred for the implication that the crossover segment was just starting out. Sure, it was just a natural progression of the market so Pontiac didn't "start" it (though he didn't say they did) so much as do it early, but there really weren't any competitors for the Aztek when it first came out. The closest on the market would probably be the Lexus RX (which was much more successful and earlier), but that was more luxury oriented (which is why the Rendevous were also made). The CR-V and Rav4 were still smaller vehicles at the time (the Rav4 especially), and the Pilot didn't come out for another couple years.

Exactly. Pontiac could have harvested lots and lots of delicious $$$ from that trend, as obnoxious a trend as it is, but instead people just waited for the next one to come along.

 

[homeforsummer]

Used to think it was the ugliest car on the road, but these days it doesn't seem that ugly compared to some new cars that have come out in recent years.

Much as I think the Aztek is uncool (and ugly), I do agree with you here. It no longer looks as bad as it once did - familiarity breeds acceptance, I think. There's quite a lot of cars from the last few decades that have become less awful as they've aged.

So what is progress to you anyway then?

Not railing against these, for a start:

We could have had a real, American car company with a majority-RWD lineup. Instead, we have the Spark, Sonic, Cruze, the new I4/V6 "full-size" Impala, and so forth.

GM, and indeed the other two of the Big Three, spent the 70s, 80s, 90s and most of the 00s making the worst small cars in the entire world. The only reason they didn't make the worst small cars in the entire world in the 60s and earlier is because they didn't really make small cars back then.

In the last few years, each of the Big Three has turned its affordable car lineup around completely and now competes with success in those lower sectors. Granted, some of that is because the Japanese have forgotten how to make good small cars and half of the US ones have been developed in Europe, but still.

Save for the Spark, which is awful wherever you're from, there's nothing wrong with any of the cars you mentioned. Certainly not compared to the stuff that came before. That's progress.

That "American RWD lineup" you lust for doesn't exist because it isn't commercially viable. The reason the entire US auto industry almost collapsed during the financial crisis and needed bailing out was partly because the automakers got complacent and thought that building low-quality, ancient junk would work forever.

They've now turned that around too. That's also progress. In fact, as someone professing to like "American" stuff, you'd think you might see the value in US automakers producing competitive, successful cars and not soaking up billions of taxpayer money in bailouts while having to dispense with all the companies that helped drag it down.

 

[White & Nerdy]

GM, and indeed the other two of the Big Three, spent the 70s, 80s, 90s and most of the 00s making the worst small cars in the entire world. The only reason they didn't make the worst small cars in the entire world in the 60s and earlier is because they didn't really make small cars back then.

I'd beg to differ. It may have a big heavy V6 right over the front wheels, but that old Sunbird is still fun-to-drive in its own way. Simply becuase of not having some obnoxious drive-by-wire system at work, that car will accelerate or decelerate as roughly as you care to make it. If you manage the clutch and throttle smoothly, it'll move smoothly, but if you stomp on it, it'll go, no waiting or smoothing whatsoever. And it makes me wonder, "why is it so difficult to find a cheap car that's practical, yet still lets you drive this way when you feel like it?"

In the last few years, each of the Big Three has turned its affordable car lineup around completely and now competes with success in those lower sectors. Granted, some of that is because the Japanese have forgotten how to make good small cars and half of the US ones have been developed in Europe, but still.

Save for the Spark, which is awful wherever you're from, there's nothing wrong with any of the cars you mentioned. Certainly not compared to the stuff that came before. That's progress.

Depends on your point of veiw. The Spark, to me, is awful before you even get to how it drives. It's a microscopic car with a microscopic engine and a long list of "cute" colors that apparently change yearly to stay trendy or something. The Sonic isn't too bad, but some elements of the styling could use a bit of work, specifically the sedan's messed-up proportions. The Cruze's engine, though appropriate in the Sonic, is far too small for a 3,000lb car, and puts out less horsepower than the base engine of its predecessor regardless of what you think of displacement downsizing. The goofy styling is the final straw for that car.

The Impala is fine as an appliance, but if I had the money and the intent to buy a full-size sedan, I'd skip the new-car lineups entirely and find a used Pontiac G8, or wait for the Chevrolet SS (AKA "faster version of what the Impala should have been in the first place").

That "American RWD lineup" you lust for doesn't exist because it isn't commercially viable. The reason the entire US auto industry almost collapsed during the financial crisis and needed bailing out was partly because the automakers got complacent and thought that building low-quality, ancient junk would work forever.

Do you really think the G8 is a "low-quality" or "ancient" "junk" car?

More relevant to this thread, crossovers are another bit of "progress" that definitely didn't progress in the right direction. A crossover is, effectively, a station wagon that's taller, heavier, more difficult to maneuver, slower, uglier, and uses more gas, created only because the way CAFE was set up didn't really make much sense.

 

[Slash]

Much as I think the Aztek is uncool (and ugly), I do agree with you here. It no longer looks as bad as it once did - familiarity breeds acceptance, I think. There's quite a lot of cars from the last few decades that have become less awful as they've aged.



Not railing against these, for a start:



GM, and indeed the other two of the Big Three, spent the 70s, 80s, 90s and most of the 00s making the worst small cars in the entire world. The only reason they didn't make the worst small cars in the entire world in the 60s and earlier is because they didn't really make small cars back then.

In the last few years, each of the Big Three has turned its affordable car lineup around completely and now competes with success in those lower sectors. Granted, some of that is because the Japanese have forgotten how to make good small cars and half of the US ones have been developed in Europe, but still.

Save for the Spark, which is awful wherever you're from, there's nothing wrong with any of the cars you mentioned. Certainly not compared to the stuff that came before. That's progress.

That "American RWD lineup" you lust for doesn't exist because it isn't commercially viable. The reason the entire US auto industry almost collapsed during the financial crisis and needed bailing out was partly because the automakers got complacent and thought that building low-quality, ancient junk would work forever.

They've now turned that around too. That's also progress. In fact, as someone professing to like "American" stuff, you'd think you might see the value in US automakers producing competitive, successful cars and not soaking up billions of taxpayer money in bailouts while having to dispense with all the companies that helped drag it down.

You basically just said everything that's American made is 🤬.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I'd beg to differ. It may have a big heavy V6 right over the front wheels, but that old Sunbird is still fun-to-drive in its own way. Simply becuase of not having some obnoxious drive-by-wire system at work, that car will accelerate or decelerate as roughly as you care to make it. If you manage the clutch and throttle smoothly, it'll move smoothly, but if you stomp on it, it'll go, no waiting or smoothing whatsoever. And it makes me wonder, "why is it so difficult to find a cheap car that's practical, yet still lets you drive this way when you feel like it?"

The Sunbird platform was terrible, but since you say it's "fun-to-drive in its own way", I have to ask: what other cars have you driven, then? It's really not hard to find a car that matches or outperforms that in anything except rusting.

It's a microscopic car with a microscopic engine and a long list of "cute" colors that apparently change yearly to stay trendy or something.

You mean like... nearly every car's yearly paint changes?

The Sonic isn't too bad, but some elements of the styling could use a bit of work, specifically the sedan's messed-up proportions.

Blame the sedan's existence on your country's insistence on needing sedan versions of everything.

The Cruze's engine, though appropriate in the Sonic, is far too small for a 3,000lb car, and puts out less horsepower than the base engine of its predecessor regardless of what you think of displacement downsizing. The goofy styling is the final straw for that car.

A 1.4L (with turbo) is barely smaller than the 1.6-2.0L engines that are the majority in that segment. Of course, you still operate under the idea that a bigger number always equals a better engine.

The Impala is fine as an appliance, but if I had the money and the intent to buy a full-size sedan, I'd skip the new-car lineups entirely and find a used Pontiac G8, or wait for the Chevrolet SS (AKA "faster version of what the Impala should have been in the first place").

While I agree that the name of the SS is wrong (being a trim level on all the other cars), the G8 and it are a completely different type of car from what the Impala buyer would want. And I know which one will sell more for GM (and likely be more profitable too).

Do you really think the G8 is a "low-quality" or "ancient" "junk" car?

You're missing the point; the G8 was none of those things, but it also was a halo model, a small-numbers niche product that was never going to make a big change to a company's profit margins. For a company in dire financial straights like the GM of the '00's, it was frivolous when the rest of the lineup was such crap.

More relevant to this thread, crossovers are another bit of "progress" that definitely didn't progress in the right direction. A crossover is, effectively, a station wagon that's taller, heavier, more difficult to maneuver, slower, uglier, and uses more gas, created only because the way CAFE was set up didn't really make much sense.

Like you said, depends on your point of view. Speaking of CAFE, crossovers have allowed companies to build on car platforms but still get treated as trucks, so it's been a very easy way to eke out more fuel efficiency. And the general population loves SUV's, but only a tiny fraction use them for things like heavy towing or off-roading. So the new crossovers cover the vast majority of uses without all of the drawbacks (or at least, such extreme levels of drawbacks) that old ladder-frame, truck-based platforms provided.

Do I like crossovers? Nope, not particularly - give me a wagon any day. Would I rather them than a bunch of Tahoes and Expeditions puttering through big cities? Yep.

You basically just said everything that's American made is 🤬.

No, that's just poor reading comprehension.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Ugh, this has descended into the stereotypical W&N vs everyone. And W&N is pretty much always wrong in those cases.

 

[Bopop4]

I'd beg to differ. It may have a big heavy V6 right over the front wheels, but that old Sunbird is still fun-to-drive in its own way.

It only took 3 pages for the Sunbird to rear it's feathers, that might be a new record.

that car will accelerate or decelerate as roughly as you care to make it. If you manage the clutch and throttle smoothly, it'll move smoothly, but if you stomp on it, it'll go, no waiting or smoothing whatsoever.

Wait, kinda like every car?💡

I can do all that with Mom's CR-V...

And it makes me wonder, "why is it so difficult to find a cheap car that's practical, yet still lets you drive this way when you feel like it?"

Like a Corolla/Civic/Sentra/Accent/anyothersmallcarwithamanual?

Might as well get a 2007 Ford Focus, 45mpg and 135hp, plus it's blue!

But it does have comforts like cupholders, and a CD player, so it might not be right for you..

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I'd beg to differ. It may have a big heavy V6 right over the front wheels, but that old Sunbird is still fun-to-drive in its own way. Simply becuase of not having some obnoxious drive-by-wire system at work, that car will accelerate or decelerate as roughly as you care to make it. If you manage the clutch and throttle smoothly, it'll move smoothly, but if you stomp on it, it'll go, no waiting or smoothing whatsoever. And it makes me wonder, "why is it so difficult to find a cheap car that's practical, yet still lets you drive this way when you feel like it?"

Aww yeah, 140 bhp! Dat Sunbird, so fast. I bet you can out accelerate anyone because you "know how to drive it." Really, your car is not that fast. Face it, modern cars are faster, more efficient, more refined (yeah yeah, we know you think refinement is for wimps who like to be comfortable), and likely handle better than a J-body with no roof and a massive V-6 hanging over the front axle.

Depends on your point of veiw. The Spark, to me, is awful before you even get to how it drives. It's a microscopic car with a microscopic engine and a long list of "cute" colors that apparently change yearly to stay trendy or something. The Sonic isn't too bad, but some elements of the styling could use a bit of work, specifically the sedan's messed-up proportions. The Cruze's engine, though appropriate in the Sonic, is far too small for a 3,000lb car, and puts out less horsepower than the base engine of its predecessor regardless of what you think of displacement downsizing. The goofy styling is the final straw for that car.

The Impala is fine as an appliance, but if I had the money and the intent to buy a full-size sedan, I'd skip the new-car lineups entirely and find a used Pontiac G8, or wait for the Chevrolet SS (AKA "faster version of what the Impala should have been in the first place").

There's a reason that people bought more Impalas than G8s. I prefer the G8, sure, but most people aren't me or you. Most people don't care how cars drive, deal with it. Most people want something comfortable, safe, and cheap. Hence, the Impala.

Do you really think the G8 is a "low-quality" or "ancient" "junk" car?

More relevant to this thread, crossovers are another bit of "progress" that definitely didn't progress in the right direction. A crossover is, effectively, a station wagon that's taller, heavier, more difficult to maneuver, slower, uglier, and uses more gas, created only because the way CAFE was set up didn't really make much sense.

If it's all to do with CAFE, then why do I see plenty of crossovers where I live? You're so closed-minded. America is not the only place in the world, you must learn that. Seriously, people like crossovers, People in general don't care about handling, but they feel safer when they're higher and can see better. And that's why they buy crossovers. They're more expensive to own, but the general population likes them. Can you argue with the fact that Porsche made enough money off the Cayenne to be profitable, so that they could keep producing manual transmission, rear wheel drive sports cars? (I know you can argue with anything sensible, it's a rhetorical question)