Pointless automobiles, a recollection of sorts.

[-Fred-]

We've got ugly ones, we've got ugly but appealing ones, we've got cool ones, ones we didn't know about, good ones we saw today, but what about the ones that serve absolutely no purpose and leave you wondering why they even left the drawing board?

Allow me to introduce the Acura ZDX. Based on the Acura MDX midsized luxury SUV, with the same engine, but uglier and less practical.

The whole pointlessness of the thing becomes obvious once you look at its rear end. The hatch opening is narrow, so nothing fits in the boot, and the roofline is so low than anyone over 5"4 cannot sit in the back. You can see the headliner and the headrests pretty much become one with another. What's the back seat for, then, your dog?

During my brief stint at Acura a few years ago, we were told the average customer was "in his mid 50s, married, whose kids had left the family house and were looking for something luxurious and enjoyable". At around 50k when new, the ZDX didn't find many takers (under 7000 units were sold in 5 years), especially since people in their "mid 50s looking for something luxurious and enjoyable" all drive something German.

Another pointless machine that comes to mind is this, the Nissan Murano Cross-Cabriolet.

And if you haven't found out why it's absolutely pointless with the picture, there's something wrong with you.

 

[Cano]

I was gonna post the Murano I'll think of something else later on. Good thread Fred.

 

[TheCracker]

Along very similar lines...

 

[-Fred-]

Ah yes, the X6, even more pointless in M trim. And the PT, which was a Neon, however even more horrible to drive.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

While I'm rather fond of it, it has to be posted:

Seeing one of these is quite a spot indeed.

 

[AudiMan2011]

Following the X6, the X4.

Also, there's sports 4x4's such as the;
Cayenne Turbo and Turbo S

X5M/X6M

supercharged V8 Range Rover Sport

and ML63 AMG that join the realms of complete pointlessness

 

[homeforsummer]

I struggle with the inherently negative concept of "pointless" cars since I can usually see a point in most things, even if that point is very, very limited. But VehiCross aside (which gets a free pass for being unashamedly weird, that being its point) I pretty much agree with those above.

I'd typically give a pass for anything which is better looking even if it's more useless than its equivalent. Otherwise every coupe ever would be pointless for being less practical and more expensive than the sedan on which it's based. But cars like the X6 are ugly too, which makes their supposed advantage over an X5 disappear.

I don't agree that the powerful SUVs above are pointless. An SUV has a point on its own, and who is to say that people don't want a more powerful one?

 

[RocZX]

BMW 3 & 5 Series GT

 

[xMARKITOx]

I have lived in the suburbs my whole life, and these are the types of vehicles that most families around here have. From my own experience, they are very useful. Hockey moms and soccer moms etc, love these SUV/Crossovers. They are perfect for carrying all the kids sports crap and for tournament road trips. It's also a plus for all the dads too. Its a great alternative to buying a minivan.

 

[TheCracker]

I have lived in the suburbs my whole life, and these are the types of vehicles that most families around here have. From my own experience, they are very useful. Hockey moms and soccer moms etc, love these SUV/Crossovers. They are perfect for carrying all the kids sports crap and for tournament road trips. It's also a plus for all the dads too. Its a great alternative to buying a minivan.

SUV/Crossovers are fine. It's the ones that are compromised to be more like coupes or convertibles that are problematic. They're meant to be practical cars, but a substantial amount of the practicality is lost for the sake of, debatable, 'style'

 

[xMARKITOx]

SUV/Crossovers are fine. It's the ones that are compromised to be more like coupes or convertibles that are problematic. They're meant to be practical cars, but a substantial amount of the practicality is lost for the sake of, debatable, 'style'

I agree. Those are terrible.

 

[Cano]

the answer was just a section of the forum away:

 

[SVT Cobra GT]

Just pointless really.

 

[Gotbeefboy564]

Surprised no one said the Pontiac Aztec and the Toyota Prius.

 

[AudiMan2011]

Surprised no one said the Pontiac Aztec and the Toyota Prius.

Prius sort of has a point given that it's the best selling hybrid in the world.

 

[xXKingJoshXx]

Surprised no one said the Pontiac Aztec and the Toyota Prius.

Neither of those are pointless...

 

[Gotbeefboy564]

I don't see how yours are pointless either.

 

[xMARKITOx]

I'm failing to see the how most of these posts are "pointless". At least give reasoning to back up your posts.

 

[homeforsummer]

Just pointless really.

I'd disagree on both. The A7 gets a pass on style alone - comfortably one of the best-looking Audis - but to justify it further it's an A6 with a hatchback, which is more practical than an A6 with a boot and more striking than the Avant.

The A5 Sportback, again, is a more practical variant of the vehicle it's based on. The point of each, really, is to offer variety to the customer without costing the company huge amounts in development costs, since under the skin all the components are already widely used.

Each also sells pretty well, which is more than can be said for say, the BMW 5GT.

 

[Downhill Dino]

Ford Shelby Raptor.

 

[White & Nerdy]

All sports SUVs seem pointless to me, even if I wouldn't mind driving them. If it's performance and practicality you're after, a station wagon of equivalent size and luxury would do the first one better and not give up much as far as the second one goes, while getting better gas mileage too. If it's off-road capability you're after, well then your Forester STi or ML63 isn't going to have much left after installation of the pavement-calibrated drivetrain gadgets, the aero addenda, and the lo-pro tires.

Same with crossovers. Apparently the idea is a more socially responsible SUV - some of the SUV's off-road ability, with better gas mileage, but without being as dorky as a station wagon or minivan. The actual result is often still helpless in serious off-roading and still guzzles more gas than an equivalent wagon or minivan. Most crossovers, then, are fine cars in their own right as long as you don't compare them to any of the things they're supposed to be alternatives to. Most of the things people would want from a crossover can be done just as well or maybe better by a wagon, a minivan, or a real SUV.

And yes, I agree on those stupid four-door coupe/SUV things. They have all the faults of a crossover, but are a shameless display of form over function - and not in a good way, as they aren't all that good looking. Yes, I know a lower roofline is technically sleeker and may have aerodynamic benefits, but lower ride height (i.e. a normal sedan or four-door coupe) probably provides better benefits while maintaining a usable back seat and trunk, and usually looking better as well.

 

[ilikewaffles11]

Surprised the Mercedes R63 AMG didn't get a mention yet. Because who says to themselves 'You know, I need something to haul the kids, but it also needs to have at least 500 HP'?

 

[Zenith]

Like @homeforsummer said, the "point" of every car is to sell. If it sells, then the car wasn't pointless.

If we get into cars that needlessly overcomplicate a market, we can see examples such as the BMW 4 Series Gran Coupe.

We made a four door version of a two door version of a four door car.

If we want to talk about cars that I personally don't understand why people buy, we can look at BMW M3 Convertibles.

This is partially because I only see 40-something women driving them. I can't help but think that they would be better served by a 335i Convertible, but they just saw that the M3 was the top option and went for that.

In this case "pointless" is largely defined by where I live and the car culture of various customer groups. I'm sure an M3 Convertible would be lots of fun to blast on a mountain road, but I don't believe the people who buy this car are aware of it.

 

[Fastcarguy]

Just pointless really.

why are these pointless?

 

[Slash]

 

[xXKingJoshXx]

If we want to talk about cars that I personally don't understand why people buy

That's what I initially thought this thread was about. HFS has a point, but I think Fred's point was to show cars that you just can't understand why anyone would buy them.

 

[homeforsummer]

That's what I initially thought this thread was about. HFS has a point, but I think Fred's point was to show cars that you just can't understand why anyone would buy them.

I can understand that, but then that rather highlights the lack of knowledge/imagination that some people here have.

It certainly doesn't take a great deal of thought to understand why people buy many of the cars mentioned in this thread. Hell, @White & Nerdy's post has been one of the most sensible so far. It demonstrates he understands why people buy certain vehicles even though there's potentially better ones out there. Rather than just saying "This is pointless" as some people have done.

 

[Harry6784]

Car may be decent, but whenever I see these around, they're always driven by middle aged businessmen with dark shades and a Bluetooth in their ear. Might as well drive around with a sign saying "I couldn't afford a 911"...

 

[Zenith]

Car may be decent, but whenever I see these around, they're always driven by middle aged businessmen with dark shades and a Bluetooth in their ear. Might as well drive around with a sign saying "I couldn't afford a 911"...

I bet there's a guy on the Porsche owners forum saying that anyone driving around in an F-body might as well be carrying a sign saying "I couldn't afford a Corvette."

Personally I can think of plenty of reasons to buy a Boxster, especially the new ones.

MR layout, open top, tuned by some of the best engineers in the business, great sports car without sacrificing too much (Lotus) or without costing too much (911).

 

[-Fred-]

That's what I initially thought this thread was about. HFS has a point, but I think Fred's point was to show cars that you just can't understand why anyone would buy them.

That's pretty much where I was going with this. The kind of car anyone with half a functioning brain, or an ounce of common sense, would not buy.

A Boxster isn't pointless, it's a great roadster for one, that allowed Porsche to stay alive, along with the Cayenne. I see it as an "entry-level" Porsche with all the qualities and refinement you'd expect out of a 911, and a better/more fun option to a Z4/SLK. The Cayman just adds a closed roof to the equation.

BMW's range is getting harder and harder to understand, and I think they have completely missed the point with some of their models. Like the 3&5GT, which are less practical, uglier and pricier than the 3&5 Touring. And the 4&6GC, which are 4 door versions of 2 door versions of 4 door cars.

The 6 GranCoupe in particular baffles me. It's nothing more than a slightly better looking 5 series with a sloping roofline, so why not make that the 5 series instead, and get rid of the actual sedan? Audi and Mercedes, with the A7 and the CLS, at least offered something desirable, something different.