Humor columnist Morris Workman shares his "odd-servations" and twisted perspectives on small-town living, national news, sports, and societal whims. His wit and gentle satire are designed to make you smile, make you laugh, and mostly, make you think.

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Car Name Games

I have a pet peeve, an ongoing bone to pick with American car manufacturers.
It’s similar to my take on the downward spiraling movie makers in Hollywood, but I’ll save that for another time (or you can see this week’s movie review at Mesquedia.com).
I hate industrial laziness.
For hundreds of years, Americans have been at the forefront of industry and invention and innovation and a lot of other “ins.”
But lately, the American car manufacturers have become exceedingly lazy in developing new cars.
Mostly, it’s the marketing department, which is so bankrupt of new ideas that they are simply rolling out proud names of past muscle cars and slapping them on poor excuses for automobiles.
Chevy is the leader in this practice.
In the last few years, they have introduced a new Impala, Caprice, Monte Carlo, and Malibu.
None of them even slightly resemble their namesakes from the 1970s.
Even the Corvette now looks more like a poor man’s Ferrari than the proud sports car of the 60s and 70s.
Not to be outdone, Ford is so lazy that they didn’t even bother to come up with the idea of using old names for new cars, they stole that laziness from Chevrolet.
Their latest entry is the Ford 500, which looks like a Taurus on steroids.
Henry Ford’s company is already way behind the pack in developing new cars, a race currently led by Chrysler.
This new entry is, well, it’s an ugly car.
Not as ugly as a Ford Tempo or a terminally woeful Ford Escort, but eminently uglier than the Crown Victoria.
However, to their credit, Ford has actually rolled out new versions of their two best cars, and managed to make them look like their namesakes.
The Thunderbird finally looks like a Thunderbird again, the sexy 1950s version.
It’s a work of automotive art on wheels.
But the coolest, sexiest, unequivocally the best vehicle in their lineup is the 2005 Ford Mustang.
They finally got it right (except for the price tag) after three really bad imitations, circa 1978, 1980, and 1995.
The car looks just like the 1960s version, although that model rolled out at a pretty fair price in 1965, while today’s version begins at a pricey $19,770.
While the ‘Stang is a masterpiece, it’s also an indictment of the Ford designers who haven’t come up with an attractive new auto since Lee Iacocca left them in 1978.
Ford’s Mercury division has also jumped on the bandwagon, using the proud Montego and Monterey names.
The Monterey isn’t even a car!
They’ve slapped the name on a minivan!
The Montego is…well, it’s just another ugly little car.
Come on, Ford, step up!
Get original!
If you can’t come up with a decent design on your own, steal a couple of designers from Chrysler.
I hate that this is now a German-owned car company, but you can’t argue with the fact that Chrysler has designed THE best looking vehicles in America over the last 10 years.
And, until recently, they even managed to come up with fresh names.
There is no cooler car on the planet than the Prowler, followed closely by the Viper.
While Chrysler priced the Prowler out of existence, there’s no denying that their designers are the best.
Another great looking car is the PT Cruiser.
Okay, “PT” isn’t the most impressive effort at naming a car, but at least it’s original.
In fact, the only two re-treads in Chrysler’s inventory is the Chrysler 300, a breathtakingly gorgeous car that deserved its own name, and the new Dodge Charger.
The Charger front end looks like the Dodge Magnum, the coolest station wagon to hit the highway since Chevy’s Nomad in the 1950s.
But for all its racy appearance, it looks nothing like the original Charger, a long, low, mean-looking race machine with a spoiler and a throaty engine.
Chrysler gets a pass because they at least have designed a unique-looking line of cars, but the hard work of their designers should have been rewarded with catchy new names.
In my opinion, President Bush should quit mucking around with Social Security and playing patty cake with North Korea.
There are more important laws that need to be written, like a Federal statute that would make it a capital offense to use a proud old name on crappy new cars, an offense that should be punishable by death.
Or at least a harsh sentence of 20 years behind the wheel of a Ford Escort.

3 Comments:

Blogger michelle said...

Happy Birthday to me.......
Anyways, I used to have a 69 Montego and it was the ugliest car but man it could kick any guy's ass in racing. I miss that car and wish I still had it, when I saw that they had remade it I wanted to cry, they made it into some family mobile.....ACKKKKKKKK

8:44 AM

 
Blogger Scott Garner said...

I drive a 2002 Mustang and I thought Ford did a great job with the 2005 in terms of price -- it costs less than my model!! Mustang has always been tagged the "affordable muscle car," and even though I drive the V6 version, I still have PLENTY of getup-n-go. Mainly because the engineers designed the car to have lots and lots of low-end torque. i have a little over 200 HP, but I get it at just 3400 RMP (vs. 180 at 5000 rmp for some of the import models of similar price and design).

My gripe about Mustang, 2000-2004... teh seat belt design is absolute crap.

8:31 AM

 
Blogger Workman Chronicles said...

It always makes me feel old to see the car companies turn a cool car into a family sedan. It makes it worse when your kids find out you used to drive what was then a flashy ride, look at today's vehicle with the same name, and say "boy, you were an old fuddy duddy back then, too!"

I agree the Monte Carlo is one of the most egregious offenders in this perverse name game. Although the 1970 Monte Carlo also suffered from an inaccessible back seat. (My first serious girlfriend had one of those, so I know all about problems in the back seat...)

Admittedly, I didn't realize Ford was charging so much for the previous 'Stang. And compared to other beefeaters on the road, the new Mustang is pretty reasonable. I'm just old, and still have trouble swallowing a sticker price of 20 grand for a small car.

Scott, you're wiser and older than your years. It was my generation that used to brag about RPMs and HP (revolutions per minute and horsepower, to you kids.) Today it's all about MPG and DB (miles per gallon and decibels).

One of the other great things about the original Mustangs was that they were built on a box frame. You could basically drive them into a cement truck, then just peel off and replace the front clip (fenders and grille). Nearly indestructible!

I don't know about the new Ford, but most of today's cars are unitized bodies and crumple zones, which means they go to pieces when you rub up against a rose bush in your driveway.

Admittedly, the new safety designs combined with the airbags make crashes more survivable. But when you've totalled your beautiful ride, is life really worth living?

(Sorry, little bit of teenage angst snuck out there)

*Morris

9:02 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home