Small cars are finally getting the royal treatment. With gas prices rising, being more eco-conscious is chic. Small cars are becoming desirable and automakers are finally putting some polish into them.
Two new microcars are hotly anticipated in the United States for 2011. They are the Fiat 500 and the Scion iQ. I won’t go into all the specs for either car as there are many reviews online that cover them in detail. What I want to do today is go on the record with my predictions for their sales. In short, I think the Fiat 500 will go supernova (that is to say it’ll have hot initial sales with a fast cool down period) while the Scion iQ will not only find a nice niche but be a “must have” car for many years.
In my opinion, the only critical difference here is the design. On paper, these cars are so similar, that they should really just split their target markets right in half. However, the subjective parts of these cars will make all the difference.
Over the past decade, we’ve seen a lots of little cars including the PT Cruiser, Chevrolet HHR, the new Beetle, and the Mini Cooper hit the market with varying degrees of success. Adding style to an affordable car can generate nice sales since the lowest end of the market always has the most potential consumers. Some of these cars have had better longevity than others (like the Mini Cooper and the Beetle), but they all did pretty well right out of the gate. The thing that they all shared was retro or “heritage” styling. Aside from the Mini Cooper, all of the designs that these cars were based on were fairly successful in their own right back in there day. Since the Mini Cooper didn’t have as much nostalgic credit with buyers, the Mini had to come to the market and stand on its own. And it did. The Mini’s original design stayed true to the original but still looked balanced, sculpted, modern and most importantly - attractive.
The Fiat 500 has heritage too. In the 1950s, the 500 was a European hit, but it was never intended for American markets. Now, I’ll admit that the Fiat does show that typical Italian style. The car looks artfully crafted with tastefully chrome accepts, and the detailed creases in the sheetmetal remind me of the Vespa scooters. However, and I’m sure many will disagree with me, I think the car overall looks ugly. Yes, I can see the resemblance to the original, and I understand the need to tie the lineage together, but I think that the execution looks like it was a slave to the original design instead of being inspired by it. The slant back looks like an afterthought and doesn’t properly unify with the wheels or wheel arches in the back. The front end looks like a cartoon face or a character on Thomas and the Magic Railroad. To some people, the fact that this car is not manly or brutish will be what makes it charming. They’ll buy it for that carefree, European, 1950s image. I can envision a lot of women driving this car.
Personally, I would make some design changes. I would’ve liked the hood shut line to create an upper eyebrow for the headlights. I would’ve put a sharp crease around the wheel arches make some of the large swatches of flat sheetmetal. I also would’ve made the front grill opening higher and larger and tilted the front fascia forward to lean into the wind a bit. I wouldn’t buy this car in its current state though, rally version or not.
For me, the Fiat 500 falls down where the Mini Cooper found success. The Mini looked solid and the design looked deliberate from the front to the rear. With some running lights and aggressive decals, it looked like a race car and actually had some street cred. For people with a $20,000 budget and a personality, the Mini Cooper was a no-brainer alternative to the Honda Civics. I have no doubt initial sales of the Fiat 500 will be brisk. Everything unique and affordable finds a quick buyer, and Americans have been in a drought for a while when it comes to creative cars. I don’t think the Fiat 500 will find the same types of success that it finds in Europe though where buyers fondly recall the original. For Europeans, the Fiat is capitalizing on the youthful memories. Here, it’ll have to rely solely on its merits which are otherwise pretty thing.
By now you’re thinking, “so how the hell can you think the Scion iQ will do any better?” Well, I think the iQ hit a homerun in some philosophical departments first. Similar in style to theSmart ForTwo, Toyota understood the “if it’s small, embrace it” philosophy, and didn’t try and make the iQ look bigger than it really is. It’s upright and looks even a little top-heavy like the ForTwo and has a distinct “form follows function” style. Obviously, the iQ doesn’t have a heritage like the 500 or the Mini Cooper with an existing fanbase. But, I think that the ForTwo blazed a lot of trails for this car already by priming the American consumer that these small urban cars have personality. I think that most people will see a lot of the ForTwo in the iQ design and that’s a lot of familiarity that Toyota doesn’t have to reinvent.
In addition, the iQ appears to have addressed the ForTwo’s deficiencies. I think the ForTwo would’ve been a huge success if it had felt a bit more solid on the freeway, had a more durable transmission, and was cheaper. The iQ seems to make strides in all of these categories and grows a bit in size as a result. However, the basic exterior design looks like a solid car. There is subtle sculpting in the bodywork around the wheels giving the iQ a very planted look by creating the illusion of car mounted onto a much wider platform. The front fascia is cute, and although it’s not as aggressive as the original concept car, it’s still clearly more gender neutral than the Fiat. Even the modest body kit concepts that I’ve seen online significantly improve its aggressive factor. Modest changes to the iQ seem to yield far more drastic personality changes than the full-on rally edition of the Fiat. Not only am I willing to drive the iQ, I actually want to buy this car. I think others will too. Specifically, I think that this car will entice the much younger buyers that Scion has already been targeting, but also the iPad-wielding thirty-somethings that need a daily driver with modern style.
I think more people are realizing that they can live with a smaller car on a day-to-day basis, and that bodes well for any automakers that are willing to invest premium materials and creative design into smaller packages. It also means that the competition is getting more fierce and ugly cars won’t be tolerated anymore. I even think the Fiat 500 is a giant leap forward from the previous options like theChevrolet Aveo or the Dodge Caliber, but I just think the upcoming competition is a step ahead of the Fiat. There is no doubt in my mind that the 500 and the iQ are certainly helping to raise the standard. But between them, I think we’ll see that the iQ did more things right and will ultimately have the legs to lead the small car race.
Why The Fiat 500 Will Bomb And The Scion iQ Will Rock
Monday, August 8, 2011
Why Losing HUMMER Was a Shame
Just the title of this article is going to be enough to get diehards to dig in their heels, regardless of what side of the fence they stand on with GM’s now-defunct HUMMERbrand. But now that the brand is dead, I think it’s a good time to reflect on why it’s gone, if it made any difference at all, and what we lost with it.
Let me fully disclose here that I really liked HUMMER. I thought that both the H2 and the H3 were great-looking vehicles. They were uniquely American in design and really tough trucks. As a conservationist and an outdoor enthusiast, I didn’t much care for their gas mileage and in most ways, I thought that they were overkill. But I thought the same about the Yukon and the Excursion. Yet, I never felt an emotional response to either of their designs.
Criticism Was Just But Unfairly Directed
Now I truly believe that the environmentalists can claim a large portion of the demise of HUMMER. While the HUMMER was certainly large, inefficient, and bold in styling, it was the relentless attack on conspicuous consumption that was a key reason for the decline in sales. Everyone from professional athletes to construction foremen had to potentially face the wrath of the environmentally conscious. Real-world mileage for the H2 was in the low teens, but so were a number of other trucks including the Yukon, Excursion, and Grand Cherokee. For most potential buyers, it was just easier to switch to another vehicle that flew below the radar. You know, more sensible trucks like the Range Rover or the QX56.
Just Shifting Sales
And so here is my first criticism for the loss of HUMMER. The military-inspired H2 HUMMER was the iconic HUMMER, but its sales were never a significant percentage of overall truck sales. At its height, HUMMER sold about 34,000 H2s annually. By comparison, Ford still sells about half a million F-150s annually, andGMC is still selling more than 100,000 Yukons annually. If you add the Chevrolet Suburban to GM’s totals, GM still sells 170,000 full-size SUVs each year. This is essentially the same hardware that the HUMMER H2 rolled on, albeit in a much more mainstream package.
Let me fully disclose here that I really liked HUMMER. I thought that both the H2 and the H3 were great-looking vehicles. They were uniquely American in design and really tough trucks. As a conservationist and an outdoor enthusiast, I didn’t much care for their gas mileage and in most ways, I thought that they were overkill. But I thought the same about the Yukon and the Excursion. Yet, I never felt an emotional response to either of their designs.
Criticism Was Just But Unfairly Directed
Now I truly believe that the environmentalists can claim a large portion of the demise of HUMMER. While the HUMMER was certainly large, inefficient, and bold in styling, it was the relentless attack on conspicuous consumption that was a key reason for the decline in sales. Everyone from professional athletes to construction foremen had to potentially face the wrath of the environmentally conscious. Real-world mileage for the H2 was in the low teens, but so were a number of other trucks including the Yukon, Excursion, and Grand Cherokee. For most potential buyers, it was just easier to switch to another vehicle that flew below the radar. You know, more sensible trucks like the Range Rover or the QX56.
Just Shifting Sales
And so here is my first criticism for the loss of HUMMER. The military-inspired H2 HUMMER was the iconic HUMMER, but its sales were never a significant percentage of overall truck sales. At its height, HUMMER sold about 34,000 H2s annually. By comparison, Ford still sells about half a million F-150s annually, andGMC is still selling more than 100,000 Yukons annually. If you add the Chevrolet Suburban to GM’s totals, GM still sells 170,000 full-size SUVs each year. This is essentially the same hardware that the HUMMER H2 rolled on, albeit in a much more mainstream package.
What I suspect is that many people who liked the H2’s size and capability moved by choice to a more acceptable brand, thereby avoiding the inevitable passive-aggressive tweets about their lack of concern for the environment. In the end,HUMMER took shots for its sheetmetal and not for its running gear.
HUMMER Was On A Greener Track
Most people that I’ve met didn’t even realize that there were two different models of HUMMERs. In 2005, HUMMER introduced the smaller H3, which was based on the small truck platform from GM. The H3 kept most of the design cues from the H2. Considering that HUMMERs are so rare anyway, many consumers just assume that any HUMMER they see is an H2.
Initially, the H3 came with the in-line five-cylinder engine which got up to 18 miles per gallon on the highway. While this fuel economy rating still had room for improvement, it was pretty good for a truck platform and even competitive with most of the crossovers at the time. Overall, the H3 was a more compact, livable package and quickly outsold the classic H2 with over 50,000 units sold in 2006. Again, these total sales were pretty trivial when compared to total truck sales in the U.S., but it further shows how niche and insignificant HUMMER really was.
The Real Reason Why Losing HUMMER Was A Shame
Despite all of this, I never pictured myself purchasing a HUMMER. For me, it was just too much overkill and too expensive.
HUMMER Was On A Greener Track
Most people that I’ve met didn’t even realize that there were two different models of HUMMERs. In 2005, HUMMER introduced the smaller H3, which was based on the small truck platform from GM. The H3 kept most of the design cues from the H2. Considering that HUMMERs are so rare anyway, many consumers just assume that any HUMMER they see is an H2.
Initially, the H3 came with the in-line five-cylinder engine which got up to 18 miles per gallon on the highway. While this fuel economy rating still had room for improvement, it was pretty good for a truck platform and even competitive with most of the crossovers at the time. Overall, the H3 was a more compact, livable package and quickly outsold the classic H2 with over 50,000 units sold in 2006. Again, these total sales were pretty trivial when compared to total truck sales in the U.S., but it further shows how niche and insignificant HUMMER really was.
The Real Reason Why Losing HUMMER Was A Shame
Despite all of this, I never pictured myself purchasing a HUMMER. For me, it was just too much overkill and too expensive.
However, it was a trip to the 2008 North American International Auto Show that brought all of this HUMMER history came together for me in a single moment with the HX concept vehicle. As a Jeep Wrangler owner at the time, I was a loyal Jeep customer, but the HX took the Wrangler and improved on it in all the areas that I had wished for. The HX looked wider, lower, and tougher. The slant back and the huge fender flares were clearly HUMMER heritage, and the HX looked every bit as rugged and utilitarian as any truck I had ever seen.
I was smitten. I made a commitment to myself that day to start saving my pennies for the HX.
As my emotions settled down, I started to look into the proposed specs of the HX. I realized that it was also going to sport improvements to the engine. Both a four-cylinder and a six-cylinder were being proposed with a possible (but estimated) 36 mpg on the highway. I realized that the HX was going to be the future for HUMMER. HUMMER wasn’t going to force you to trade off effiency for design or technology for ruggedness. GM had finally put some advanced engineering into the brand, and it was going to pay off for them big time.
The HX was going to be affordable, starting around $20,000, and it would livable with respectable mileage and a garage-friendly size. It would welcome back a throng of off-road enthusiasts to GM like Jeep had done for Chrysler. And the best part is that it was a unique look and maybe just as important, uniquely American like the original H1. There was nothing like it from any automaker.
As my emotions settled down, I started to look into the proposed specs of the HX. I realized that it was also going to sport improvements to the engine. Both a four-cylinder and a six-cylinder were being proposed with a possible (but estimated) 36 mpg on the highway. I realized that the HX was going to be the future for HUMMER. HUMMER wasn’t going to force you to trade off effiency for design or technology for ruggedness. GM had finally put some advanced engineering into the brand, and it was going to pay off for them big time.
The HX was going to be affordable, starting around $20,000, and it would livable with respectable mileage and a garage-friendly size. It would welcome back a throng of off-road enthusiasts to GM like Jeep had done for Chrysler. And the best part is that it was a unique look and maybe just as important, uniquely American like the original H1. There was nothing like it from any automaker.
Unfortunately, there wasn’t going to be anything like it. After following the HUMMER saga through the recession, it appeared that the HX was doomed. As GM tried to sell the brand to the Chinese company, Sichuan Tengzhong, I thought that there might be a chance that the HX would be revived. An early press release during negotiations suggested that the HX would still be developed. An appearance by the HX in the Transformers movie seemed to suggest the possibility, but now it looks like the HX was just another concept that will sit in a museum somewhere. HUMMER is gone.
It’s sad really, as I’m certain the HX would’ve been an awesome off-road vehicle, a strong seller, and environmentally acceptable. Losing the HX was a shame. So was losing HUMMER.
The Chrysler 200 is the Motorola XOOM of Cars
A few months ago, Motorola released a video hinting at their new tablet computer. It was snarky and condescending to all previous tablets from the Ten Commandments to the Apple iPad. With that much chutzpah, I knew that the XOOM was going to be a serious powerhouse wrapped in a sexy package.
The reality: it ended up being a much-panned and oft-overlooked tablet.
The lesson here is that good marketing is to be expected, but calling out your competitors means that you’re really bringing it.
Enter the Chrysler 200. The now-famous Super Bowl commercial from Chrysler featuring Eminem and scenes of Detroit replays on TV repeatedly. As a Detroit native, for the first few weeks after the Super Bowl debut, my friends and I forwarded the video around, as it became something of the viral hit for Chrysler. I thought that it was cool, gritty, and pretty accurate for us that still love Detroit.
But when you call out other automakers and point out that this car is “luxury” from the USA, you better bring your big guns. That means it better be damn good. And this is the point where things start falling apart for the Chrysler 200.
Buy what you sell
In sales, there’s a phrase “buy what you sell.” It means that you have to believe so much in the products you offer to customers that you happily use it to. I’m sure Steve Jobs uses an iPhone. I’m sure Elon Musk drives a Tesla. What I’m pretty sure is that Eminem doesn’t drive a Chrysler 200, and now I’m pretty sure anyone that likes true imported luxury cars is not putting the Chrysler 200 on their shortlist.
It’s not that the 200 is a bad car, nor is the Motorola XOOM really a bad tablet. It’s really that the 200 looks and feels like an evolution of the Sebring, which is something that Chrysler was trying to avoid (hence the name change). The Sebring wasn’t a bad car in my opinion, but it never claimed to be a BMW 330. It found its niche as a sharp but forgettable family sedan or as a rental-car workhorse. And that was fine.
The problem is that when you simply change the sheetmetal and christen it the savior of the American auto industry, you’ve made more outlandish promises than Obama did in 2008.
Now, I finally got my hands on a 200, and across the board, it’s better than the Sebring it replaces in about every way. The interior upgrades are the most notable, getting the standard Chrysler corporate upgrade that the Journey, Grand Cherokee, and 300 got with a much more polished (if not slightly generic) dashboard. The outside is a bit more mundane. The front end is good with better headlight proportions instead of the bulbous Sebring headlights that looked like a garage-built graft from a BMW 5-series. And the overall sculpting of the metal looks more solid than the art deco treatment on the Sebring.
Unfortunately, everything from the A-pillar back looks almost indistinguishable from the previous generation. In my opinion, the 200 (and the Sebring) suffers from an unfortunate design decision to give the front end a long (almost dramatic) hood and an unimpressively stubby trunk. The greenhouse sweeps to the midline on the trunk and looks more like a fastback or the similarly offensive Porsche Panamera. For me, this is the first major missed opportunity on this redesign. Chrysler could’ve keep the same wheelbase and extended the trunk further out back. They could have disguised the length of the cabin with a more abrupt end to the rear window and the whole package would’ve telegraphed a much larger car, with much more dramatic sweeping lines, and a stance that looked more like it’s leaning into the wind. However, on the redesign, even the taillights are only modestly changed, and so simply from a styling standpoint, the 200 is a letdown because you have this eerie sense of deja vu.
A better car for the “imported from Detroit” commercial would’ve been the 300. At least there’s a chance that I would buy that car. But then again, it's not made in Detroit.
More 300, please
The second missed opportunity is to take the 200 into the style school of theChrysler 300. The 300 found huge success in its boxy, brash, unapologetic, flying-fist style. For me, the reason that this worked is that the 300 looked intimidating. The 200 went the sleek route and looks emaciated. For me, the original Cadillac CTS looked like the younger brother of the Chrysler 300 with its full box design and upright front end. And from a sales perspective, I think Cadillac proved that consumers agreed.
Now, taking a drive in the 200 is where I really started to doubt the renaissance of Detroit and wondered if the Big Three might simply be up to their old tricks of playing it two steps behind the foreign companies and hoping that your sense of newfound patriotism would help overlook the aforementioned shortcomings. Once you get onto the city roads, you’ll find that the ride is fine, but it’s neither sporting nor luxurious. The road and suspension noise seemed worse than in other cars in this class like the Civic. And let’s not forget about that engine. You could be forgiven for not knowing how many cylinders it has because you really can’t tell. If it’s a V-6, it’s feels like it’s a generation old. If it’s a four-cylinder, it’s pretty average. In my opinion, get the smaller engine. It’s going to perform much the same way (underwhelming) regardless of which engine option you select on the order form.
There’s just something all around about this car that feels a bit flimsier or “thinner” than other cars in this class. If Chrysler had simply updated the Sebring and threw it out there quietly like it did with similar upgrades in the Dodge Journey, the press on it would be fair and mostly flattering with headlines like “Sebring Injected with a Dose of Luxury” or “Sebring Steps Up from Rental Car Quality.” But the fundamental problem for me is that the hype around this car promised that you could stop looking at imports and that a badass with unlimited money like Eminem is willing to drive it. But neither of those claims are even close to reality. And the latest improvements to the 200 over the Sebring are simply overdue and basically just keep the 200 relevant in today’s market. In the end, I can’t see the 200 doing much better in sales than the Sebring did. Upgrades are nice, but the other car companies didn’t sit idly by either.
My advice to Chrysler is that we know that big changes are needed in Detroit both within the city and the auto industry, but that means you really need a flagship or halo car that we would aspire to own and puts all other cars on notice. Most of the Detroit-owned luxury brands are gone which makes this a difficult exercise. Cadillac hangs in there with competitive cars that people do aspire to drive like the Escalade, but Chrysler doesn’t have a car that can claim that kind of respect yet.
Past concept cars like the Chronos or the Firepower would have been worthy of a slogan like “imported from Detroit.” Kicking off that campaign with a car like the Chrysler 200 means that “imported from Detroit” could end up being a warning for buyers instead of a rallying cry.
The Chrysler 200 is the Motorola XOOM of Cars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)