Pointless automobiles, a recollection of sorts.

[YSSMAN]

I kind of hope they don't. The world doesn't need another expensive, complicated luxury SUV that can't offroad even with 4WD.

I think you're heavily underestimating the performance of the trucks, but are also confusing what "offroading" means in a civilized area like the lower 48.

Our GMT800, and two GMT900 Avalanches were more than capable running around on our acreage behind our home. Hauling dirt, equipment, pulling stumps, and generally doing what you'd otherwise use a pickup for. Same can be said with family members' Tahoes and Yukons of the same generations, all of which were just as happy on the interstate as they were on a back road, or on basic trails that needed the extra attention of 4WD and a bit of ground clearance. Does that mean that they'd out-perform a 4WD Honda CR-V or even a Subaru Forester? We all know what the answer is to that. If you're driving it right, and have decent tires, you'll get the job done just fine.

But for hardcore off-roading? You know... two tracking? Rock climbing? River crossing? No. Absolutely not. I don't think anyone in their right mind are buying a GMT900+ to do any of that. North of the Mason Dixon Line, you're getting one to survive the winter, haul the kids around, and maybe tow a boat come summer. At most...

If we're going to talk SUVs that are the height of capability in a truly off-road setting, the list generally comes down to the following:

• Land Rover Range Rover
• Toyota Land Cruiser
• Jeep Grand Cherokee

With the exception of the Jeep, they're all significantly more expensive than a comparable Tahoe, and are probably even less-likely to see actual dirt. In fact, I don't even know if I've ever seen a Land Rover that isn't an LR4 doing actual work... I can't even tell you the last time I saw a new Land Cruiser. So, when it boils down to what people are going to be using them for, the Chevrolet wins out, hands down. More space, better fuel economy, cheaper, able to carry more and tow more, all while being able to get you up your snowy driveway or down that greasy dirt road when taking the kids to school. Off-road capability means absolute bunk out here in the real world for the overwhelming majority of people who are buying these trucks - Its been this way for the better part of 30 years, now.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

@YSSMAN Over here, Land Rovers really do get used. The Defender, which you don't get, is pretty much the standard farm vehicle. It's also incredibly capable off road. That said, W&N should love the Defender because it's about as simple as cars come, apart from the off road kit that comes standard. Though he probably doesn't like the I-4 turbodiesel.

 

[MatskiMonk]

@YSSMAN Over here, Land Rovers really do get used. The Defender, which you don't get, is pretty much the standard farm vehicle. It's also incredibly capable off road. That said, W&N should love the Defender because it's about as simple as cars come, apart from the off road kit that comes standard. Though he probably doesn't like the I-4 turbodiesel.

Interestingly...

Kind of like a Jeep, only European.

Someone restrain me before I vote "meh".

 

[ilikewaffles11]

I do, hence my love for the AMG E63 Wagon and CTS-V Wagon... Do you not have kids? If you do, do you not like to hear them laugh as you stomp on the gas?

Sorry I didn't get a notification that you quoted me.

I'm 16, of course I don't have kids. While I'm all for absurdly quick wagons, I just don't see the point in a minivan with 500 HP. Typically when people go to buy a minivan, sportiness isn't a selling point on the car... Hence why I find it pointless. I'd absolutely love an E63 AMG Wagon though.

However another car I find pointless, the Plymouth/Chyrsler Prowler.

 

[Ken]

But the Prowler gave us the retro design movement. That movement gave us such cars as the new Thunderbird, the PT Cruiser, and the Chevy HHR.

Wait, those cars all sucked and were pointless. Good point. I wish the Prowler never came around.

 

[Slash]

Yeah but then muscle cars.

 

[ilikewaffles11]

It did also give us the FJ Cruiser, which is a very good thing.

 

[-Fred-]

The Prowler was a great concept with poor execution, and perhaps ahead of its time, considering Chrysler's situation at the time. The fact it came with the Caravan/Intrepid V6 and was available only with an automatic transmission killed it. It's like it didn't know what it was. It looked like a hotrod, but was equipped like a boulevard cruiser. It wasn't very good at being either of those, and badging it as a Plymouth, a moribund division that didn't mean anything since the 70s and was offering at the time cheaper versions of Dodge models, certainly didn't help.

It's one of those cars you see and think; "That's a cool car, but you're an absolute idiot for buying one".

 

[LivingWithGames]

Shame really, because I really like this car and knowing now that this is pointless...

...I'll have to try to forget it. That's one of teh few Plymouth/Chrysler cars that I admire the looks. Now I know why this hasn't been much in games these days = because it's crap. (Test Drive 6 was the game I first bought it. But I admit, it was the cheapest I think, and it sucked.)

__________

I have one car here, may not be so pointless but the fact I rarely see those anymore, it's a shame. Behold, the Dodge Copperhead a.k.a Concept Car which a.k.a the Concept Vehicle.

I know for one fact, it wasn't so useless back then in 1997, it was a cheaper options for those that loved the Dodge Viper. It was LESS than half of the pricing which was, impressively good. Only thing is, it was supposedly to eb released around 2000. I don't know wether it did or did not release, or even have several cars done.

 

[Joey D]

They never built the Copperhead.

 

[LivingWithGames]

Oh my God.

Now you see how pointless that is. I only know this car only in games, dead serious. I first saw it in Gran Turismo and boy, I was in love, according to wikipedia, this car would have excellent handling - just like in the game.

I jsut cannot believe this...this..car didn't...oh God.

I better go back to this topic tomorrow, I don't feel good.

 

[Tornado]

The Prowler was a great concept with poor execution, and perhaps ahead of its time, considering Chrysler's situation at the time. The fact it came with the Caravan/Intrepid V6 and was available only with an automatic transmission killed it. It's like it didn't know what it was. It looked like a hotrod, but was equipped like a boulevard cruiser. It wasn't very good at being either of those, and badging it as a Plymouth, a moribund division that didn't mean anything since the 70s and was offering at the time cheaper versions of Dodge models, certainly didn't help.

It's one of those cars you see and think; "That's a cool car, but you're an absolute idiot for buying one".

At least with the Prowler Chrysler didn't make it so it had under 300 horsepower with a 4 speed automatic but also weigh 5000 pounds.

 

[Joey D]

Oh my God.

Now you see how pointless that is. I only know this car only in games, dead serious. I first saw it in Gran Turismo and boy, I was in love, according to wikipedia, this car would have excellent handling - just like in the game.

I jsut cannot believe this...this..car didn't...oh God.

I better go back to this topic tomorrow, I don't feel good.

It's a concept car, most don't get produced and the ones that do fail pretty bad (see Chevy SSR or Plymouth Prowler).

 

[niky]

Concept to production can work pretty well. If the company has done the legwork beforehand.

The problem with cars like the SSR and Prowler is that the companies didn't do the legwork to provide a solid mechanical foundation for those cars before releasing the concepts. And when surprised by the public reception the cars got, were left scrounging around for platforms and parts for rapid production.

Then again, such things are toys with limited appeal. Ford spent a lot on the new Thunderbird, and it eventually went down the drain, too.

 

[YSSMAN]

The early 2000s were a weird time at GM, though. They tried to do a lot of things on that GMT360 platform, beyond the trucks. It wasn't just a TrailBlazer, it was also the SSR, and the concept car I still wish they would have done:

At least to some extent, the Bel Air made sense. It would have been an appropriate way to replace the Monte Carlo, and selling on the name would have meant eighty bazillilion sales from the Greatest Generation. Hell, the thing would have been ready to go with all-wheel-drive and a turbocharged I5 engine with 300+ BHP. Forward thinking? From GM? In the early '00s? Crazy.

It's pretty clear they learned from the disaster that was the SSR, though. By the time that thing was ready to go six-feet-under, Lutz's pet project with the Solstice was so over-prepared by the time the concept debuted, it was probably green-lit before the car was even showed off. And again, they blew a huge opportunity by not doing a Nomad, you know, before small, rear-drive cars with room for four were cool again.

 

[TheCracker]

At least to some extent, the Bel Air made sense. It would have been an appropriate way to replace the Monte Carlo, and selling on the name would have meant eighty bazillilion sales from the Greatest Generation.

Looks almost exactly like a (slightly more cab-forward) GM-styled 2002 Thunderbird. I can't see how it would have faired any better. An iconic name didn't do the 11th gen Thunderbird much good in sales figures.

 

[White & Nerdy]

I'm not sure I agree on the SSR. It had a point - a practical, yet stylish toy for people with lots of income and a unique sense of style. It proves that "practical roadster" didn't have to be an oxymoron - too bad the bed had to be too delicate to do truck things with. It was always a boulevardier, and from that POV the original LM4 325ci V8, with only 300 HP to move this truck's heft, and mandatory 4AT kind of made sense. Only you still would have had to have been nuts (or just willing to sacrifice a lot for style, while having unique taste in the first place) to buy something that slow for that much money, even if you never planned on using its full performance. Once GM fixed that problem by installing a Corvette engine and giving it a proper gearbox, they discovered that, even if it made sense from a certain point of view, no one cared. Perhaps a bit like the Murano CrossCabriolet, it was "an answer in search of a question". The demand for highly-styled retro boulevard cruisers had been overestimated.

 

[Joey D]

The SSR wasn't the least bit practical. You couldn't put anything in the bed besides two sets of golf clubs. The bed was also carpeted, which meant even if you did take it to the hardware store you weren't likely to put bags of dirt or a couple 2x4's in the back either. I don't believe it was tow rated either, so you couldn't actually do anything truck like, like pull a Wave Runner or your skiboat. Oh and the cabin was small and hard to see out of, which made it annoying to drive.

 

[Tornado]

Even the Lincoln Blackwood was more practical than the SSR.

 

[YSSMAN]

Even the Lincoln Blackwood was more practical than the SSR.

Which reminds me:

On my recent travels to the American South, I happened upon a Lincoln Blackwood in the lost city of Atlanta. My reaction went from a, "Hey, is that a Lincoln Blackwood?" to a "Holy ****ing ****, its a Lincoln Blackwood!" To which my friend thought I had lost my mind, and dumped me off on 17th street to find my way home in the concrete abyss that is the unholy cluster-funk of downtown Atlanta. Thankfully, I was guided by Amazing Grace, found my way to the Lower Fourth Ward, before stopping in a local bakery and consuming eleventy brownies and contracting diabeetus. Something something Walking Dead. Confederacy.

 

[niky]

If you didn't end up riding home in a brand-new Hyundai that somehow avoided the ravages of the Zombie Apocalypse, I call BS.

 

[Bo]

The Cayman is pointless for two reasons:

It's a Boxster with a hard roof. Why not just put a folding metal roof on the Boxster and tune up the engines?

Porsche could have made it more powerful and better than the 911, but they didn't. The Cayman wasn't designed to the best of Porsche's ability, and that bothers me.

Because a folding metal roof is substantially heavier than a fixed one, and the lack of rigidity is detrimental to the handling.

 

[RocZX]

VW Phaeton
I don't get the point of it at all.
VW is "the people's car", all their cars are average, affordable and not luxury cars. They have Audi for their luxury cars , I don't see a point to a VW badged A8.

 

[niky]

Apparently, neither did the buyers who didn't flock to VW dealerships in droves to buy this car. It was a spectacular sales failure in the US, though somehow still lives on...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

VW Phaeton
I don't get the point of it at all.
VW is "the people's car", all their cars are average, affordable and not luxury cars. They have Audi for their luxury cars , I don't see a point to a VW badged A8.

As @niky said but I think you all are missing the finer side of this one. It's for the assistant that can't afford his/her's bosses car but needs to look as professional.

 

[RACECAR]

As @niky said but I think you all are missing the finer side of this one. It's for the assistant that can't afford his/her's bosses car but needs to look as professional.

So basically, you would only buy this if you could not afford an Audi.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I'd take the Phaeton 10 times from 10 if it meant avoiding the Audis enermous gawping front end!

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So basically, you would only buy this if you could not afford an Audi.

Pretty much, VW can't loose out on the money they could be making if the Audi A8 was cheaper.

 

[Tornado]

Apparently, neither did the buyers who didn't flock to VW dealerships in droves to buy this car. It was a spectacular sales failure in the US, though somehow still lives on...

Or anyone other than Piech, for that matter.

 

[Joel]

VW Phaeton
I don't get the point of it at all.
VW is "the people's car", all their cars are average, affordable and not luxury cars. They have Audi for their luxury cars , I don't see a point to a VW badged A8.

I guess they were hoping for better value as a selling point. That's what the Touareg sells on, it's a cheaper Cayenne. Some would also prefer driving a car that's a bit of a sleeper, not that Audis are particularly showy but nobody is going to key a VW.

Obviously didn't work out but I can kinda see the rationale.