What cars, in your view, are pointless?

  • Thread starter Turbo
  • 251 comments
  • 19,627 views

Turbo

(Banned)
3,824
United States
Elizabeth, New Jersey
Every once in a while, a manufacturer cranks out a car that there was no market for. A car that answered a question that was never asked. A car that did not serve and purpose or have a use.

Here, we can discuss this category of cars. These cars can be ugly, good looking, slow, fast, weird... as long as they served zero purpose for the brand.

A few examples of these cars are:

2001-2002 Lincoln Blackwood: Basically, this Lincoln's first truck, and was the first luxury-oriented pickup truck to enter the American market. It was a badged-over Ford F-150. At the time, upscale SUVs were becoming popular, but there wasn't a demand for luxury trucks. Unfortunately for the Lincoln, it was only offered in one color (Black) and one configuration (SuperCrew), did not have AWD available, and had an astoundingly high bace price of $52,500. All of these mishaps added up to a vehicle that sold appallingly; just 3,300 were sold in a year and a half.

2002_Lincoln_Blackwood_2.jpg


1997, 1999-2002 Plymouth/Chrysler Prowler: During the 1990s, sports coupes, hot hatches, and large family haulers were in high demand. 1930s-esque hot-rod cars, not so much. No one expected a modern, factory hot rod to enter the market in the late 1990s, or any other decade. Also during this time period, Plymouth has undergoing a downfall, and the folks at Chrysler thought that a unique vehicle like the Prowler would bring buyers back to the brand. Unfortunately they were wrong; the Prowler was not profitable enough to make Plymouth turn around. On the bright side, the Prowler was mostly praised, sold decently, and was offered in some peculiar colors.

2008-10-05_Red_Plymouth_Prowler_at_South_Square.jpg



2010-2014 Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet: Introduced in 2010, this was world's first convertible crossover. Until the CC's existence, no one ever thought that type of vehicle was possible. It wasn't a practical car, nor did it serve any purpose; traditional convertibles and crossovers were evidently better buys than this. Because of terrible sales, the "convertible crossover" departed from the market. The only other convertible crossover available for purchase as of 2017 is the Land Rover Evoque Convertible, and it is no more successful than the CC. Also, the CrossCabriolet was once of the least cool cars ever polled in the Cool Wall, according to the results.

 
The Murano really is mobile excrement from all angles and I've not had the misfortune to see one in person.
 
VXR
The Murano really is mobile excrement from all angles and I've not had the misfortune to see one in person.
More specifically, the Murano cabriolet is utterly pointless.

The regular one is OK, but I don't know what the market was for it amongst Nissan's other crossovers?
 
If I had the powers to do so I would... It doesn't really matter anyway does it. Still, 3 years later and I'm still struggling to see the point of the Murano CrossCabriolet.
 
2001-2002 Lincoln Blackwood: Basically, this Lincoln's first truck, and was the first luxury-oriented pickup truck to enter the American market. It was a badged-over Ford F-150. At the time, upscale SUVs were becoming popular, but there wasn't a demand for luxury trucks. Unfortunately for the Lincoln, it was only offered in one color (Black) and one configuration (SuperCrew), did not have AWD available, and had an astoundingly high bace price of $52,500. All of these mishaps added up to a vehicle that sold appallingly; just 3,300 were sold in a year and a half.

2002_Lincoln_Blackwood_2.jpg

You forgot the thing that made it completely pointless, the upholstered bed!

112-0201-2way-10z%2B2002-lincoln-blackwood%2Bopen-tailgate-flat-bed-view.jpg


Granted I will give them some credit for the bedside storage boxes.

They seemed to have learned their lesson though as the Mark LT, a simple F-150 badge job, managed to sell around 35,000 during it's 5 year run in the U.S. It was also successful enough in Mexico to the point they made a second generation solely for that market.
 
It's really only pointless if it didn't make the expected profit, (Aztec, all those GM minivans) or market impact (GTO :(, G8, SS, SSR).

GM have been pretty good at pointless over the years.
 
Yep, it used a version of the Mazda RF engine, good for a whopping 52hp. It was the answer to a question no one asked, especially when, back then, gasoline was under a dollar per gallon. It could do nearly 50mpg which even today is pretty good, but I remember reading an article in a magazine that quoted a 0-60 time in the low 20s. :lol: Which means you'd get 50mpg... eventually.
 
2017 BMW M4 CS

IMG_2120.JPG


Here's a brand new BMW M4 that features some carbon fibre, a 33hp power bump, a few less kilograms, a special interior trim and no manual option...

...for $30,000 more than the standard M4!

This new price brings the CS within the firing line of the new Porsche 911 GT3, so is the car actually worth that much?​
 
Lamborghini LM002

1200px-Lamborghini_LM002_Gen1_Type129_1986-1993_1988_frontleft_2013-03-17_U.JPG


$160k for one of the worst looking vehicles on the planet. It looks like one of those flip over dune buggies I had when I was 5.

And to think that this abomination came from the same brand and year as the quintessential super car from the '80's.

Countachgold.jpg
 
2017 BMW M4 CS

View attachment 642947

Here's a brand new BMW M4 that features some carbon fibre, a 33hp power bump, a few less kilograms, a special interior trim and no manual option...

...for $30,000 more than the standard M4!

This new price brings the CS within the firing line of the new Porsche 911 GT3, so is the car actually worth that much?​
$30,000 more than the M4 prices it at $96,000 (that's actually very optimistic). That's nearly $50,0000 less than a GT3, so how is it "within' firing line"? Esp. over the $133,000 M4 GTS?
 
Avalon and Aurion.

The Camry comes with a V6 on specific models. There was no need to make the great-grandpa versions of grandpa Camry's.
 
Crossovers wich are not real SUV.
Can you elaborate on this? I don’t know what a 'real SUV' is, but to me the typical Sports Utility Vehicle is a 4x4-styled vehicle, with on-road comfort emphasised over any particular off-road ability - to the point of there being no real preparation for off-road ability aside from optional 4WD and mildly elevated ground clearance - and a style-over-substance approach that appeals to suburban family life.

The only difference between that and a Crossover is that the crossover is based on a car platform.
 
Crossovers wich are not real SUV. CUV in general. Juke, rav4, qashqai, x6, santa fe and so on... World doesn't need this stupidity.

Just in general I really don't like crossovers either, just don't see the point in them. Whether their an SUV crossed with a standard hatchback or a coupe, they don't seem to be any good in either department. They just seem to be very average in either case, managing not to excel in either the SUV or Hatchback/coupe etc area.

Oh and they're usually very ugly. Looking at you BMW X6 and Nissan Juke especially.
But that's just my little rant :lol:.
 
This might get a bit "stereotype-y", but crossovers are - real time, safe indicators of a below average driver.

That's odd, I've always found the below average drivers to be driving Versa's. :sly:

I think CUV's are great actually and am considering one for my next car. Granted a part of that is me wanting something with AWD and there being a lack of options for an actually small SUV that's not priced ridiculously like the Wrangler.
 
Aston martin lagonda taraf

BLYHw-KjrkZ.jpg


Avalon and Aurion.

The Camry comes with a V6 on specific models. There was no need to make the great-grandpa versions of grandpa Camry's.
I always looked at the Aurion for being a camry with an alternative design but yeah didn't understood why we needed to have a camry with a 4 cylinder engines and another camry with a V6 on it as separate cars.
 
Back