Do any of the carmakers look back at their roots?

Or at least what made them successful in the first place?

I was having a conversation with another car guy and we got into where the major companies are going wrong.

Mitsubishi was the best example my friend gave out.

Lets be honest. Mitsubishi came to life in the 90's, maybe even into it's peak. They produced some of their best cars; many not even sold here in the US or Canada. Turbocharging (not on everything), AWD, and slick designs made these cars desirable. I know there were some technical problems, but I had a friend who had a 1992 Eagle Talon TSi he bought brand new, that he had all the way up into the early 2000's and the only thing that ever went wrong was the turbo seals.

Lets look at some of what they had:

3000 GT VR4

FTO

Galant VR4

Legnum VR4

Eclipse GS-T or GS-X (you know how hard it was to find a unmolested pic?)

EVO

I'm sorry, but Mitsubishi sold a lot of cars in the 90's. Some hot, some not, but they still sold a lot. I see a lot of 90's DSMs running around here; Eclipses, Talons, Stealths, 3000GTs, Galants, and even Monteros. (The domestic stuff counts)

The only cool car they have right now is the Lancer Evolution.

Is there any car company you guys think would benefit to look back into their past and adapt some stuff to newer technology?

BMW could use some hindsight imho. they used to subscribe to the idea that the 3 was the entry level and most sporting model, as you needed more space you'd upsize to a 5, and if you could afford it ultimately land in a 7.

now the 3 is bigger and heavier than a 5 of just 22 years ago and a 1 needed to be introduced to fill their own marketing void. seems to me that BMW (and a lot of other companies) are designing and marketing the model to keep the buyer in that car rather than offer a range of models that graduate a buyer through the brand.

It's too late now, but Pontiac should have done it. They went from being the #3 car maker in the 1960s behind Chevy and Ford, to selling Azteks.

I think a big issue nowadays, is that they need an airbag for every part of the body, making the cars heavier and bigger.

in the case of Mitsubishi- their product lineup changed right along with the people that bought their cars in the 90's. what was the ideal vehicle for someone in their mid 20's back in the 90's is no longer the ideal vehicle for that same person in their late 30's today...

I'll agree on the great Mitsu decline... I had a 93 Diamante back around the turn of the century... and it was a really nice car that was more like BMW 5 series than the new BMW 5 series. Understated good looks, fast, quiet and comfortable. When it was time to replace it with something newer... they were practically out of business.

Any consideration to buying a mitsu ended for me when they decided to make their logo so effin big. Evo's are pretty cool looking cars, but I'd never buy one because of that huge logo. Just my opinion, but to me it's just too ugly.

I agree with you on BMW. I never did figure out why they insisted on making the 3er bigger and heavier. If they had kept it e36 sized, people would have moved up to the 5er and the 6er as their tastes and wallets evolved. That was the original reason for having the bigger, heavier, and more luxurious cars in the first place, right?

But then, look at GM. Used to be you started in a chevy and moved up the nameplate chain until you were close to retiring and driving a caddy.. they sure screwed that up with branding the same car with every badge

Subaru is going the wrong way as well. Can you imagine that they built their name in north america on an almost 2 decade old chassis, and have been using essentially the same motors since 1992? That sure sounds like a profitable business plan to me... and then they changed it at their peak essentially. Sure, their sales have been one of the few to continually grow through the recession, but at what cost? And does that actually have to do with the new cars, or was that momentum?

"....Pontiac should have done it. They went from being the #3 car maker in the 1960s...."

If you leave out the words "in the 1960s" you could insert the names PLYMOUTH or OLDSMOBILE as both brands were in the #3 sales position at different times in the last 60 years.

As far as looking back, it;s not always a good thing. Take Buick. To my mind, the only thing that kept Buick from disappearing instead of Pontiac is that the Buick name is one of the biggest in China. For the last decade or two, Buick has really been a 2 model car brand, and neither model was all that inspiring. In the late '90s GM and Buick sold what was essentially the same car under two names: the Regal and Century, this is my idea of badge-engineering at it's worst.

But the real point I wanted to make about Buick and that they should NOT have always looked back was their numerous styling....mistakes? A "signature" feature of Buick styling for decades has been that side sweep that starts at the front of the car and curves down to the bottom of the rear door/wheelwell/fender. The need to apply that "touch" to every Buick (save the Skyhawk) and most of the models in the late '90s made some ordinary cars very ugly.

But if you mean car manufacturers should go back to their philosophic roots....that ship seems to have sailled.

Jeep refers back to the original but look at the difference. Over 1000 lbs in weight and the new Wranglers are huge in comparrison. The 2011 Ford Fiesta, a sub-compact has virtually the same dimenstions as the departed Escort, a compact.

Chryco seems to be doing that with Jeep right now. Dropping models that shouldn't have been made in the first place, possibly bringing back something akin to an XJ. Sounds like good business sense to me.

In reply to iceracer:

When you have to add 1000 pounds of safety equipment, that happens.

Derick Freese wrote: In reply to iceracer: When you have to add 1000 pounds of safety equipment, that happens.

Where can I sign that safety waiver to get rid of that 1000# of "worthless" bloat???

I knew up until a few years ago, in my 1996 Ranger, you could get a DS airbag cover from the Brazil model, plus the PS cover that came stock and eliminate the whole airbag system. Reminds me I should call and see if I can still get one....... ;)

Brian

Every car manufacturer(of present-day, anyway), is always trying to move whatever their current car is to a more "upscale" position. So now Civics are mid-size sedans(compared to their econobox roots), and they have to bring in new models(Fit, CR-Z) to fill the gap left behind, etc.

stuart in mn wrote: It's too late now, but Pontiac should have done it. They went from being the #3 car maker in the 1960s behind Chevy and Ford, to selling Azteks.

G8, GTO, Solstice all came after the Aztec.

I like the 1000 lbs of safety crap on my daily driver. I wouldn't settle for less in a family car. If you have to have something brand new in whcih to go rip-roaring around with reckless abandon, get a motorcycle or an Ariel Atom.

As for Mitsubishi, pretty much every car they had back in their supposed heyday was pretty much midpack. And they practically invented the useless, bloated overweight sports coupe. So, no big loss there.

Otto_Maddox wrote: I like the 1000 lbs of safety crap on my daily driver. I wouldn't settle for less in a family car.

I feel anger rising. I'd like to use you as an example of all that is wrong with the world.

In reply to HiTempguy:

I've got a Miata and a 944 for lightweight driving fun, but if I am heading out to Wally World in the family truckster, my main concern is safety.

As was said earlier, you could make the argument that companies should stick to their spiritual roots. That would give the company a strong brand identity. GM is a classic example of where that failed miserably. The lines between each got so blurred, they were indistinguishable.

At the same time, a company does need to be able to respond to a changing market. If Honda built a 1981 Accord today, it would be a miserable failure. And I don't mean from a technology standpoint...obviously much has changed in 30 years. But that Accord was very small, very simple and pedestrian. That was the mid size import sedan market then. Today, American buyers looking for a "mid-size" family sedan want something big, with gizmos galore. The Accord is a luxo-barge compared to its' roots, but they sell a crap load of them.

I think a good example of sticking to philisophical roots is Mazda. At least with the Miata, the 3/MS3 line and arguably the RX-8. Sure, they're bigger/heavier than the original Miata, GLC and RX-7, but they're on the same philosophy. I think Volvo has done this fairly well too.

HiTempguy wrote:

Otto_Maddox wrote: I like the 1000 lbs of safety crap on my daily driver. I wouldn't settle for less in a family car.

I feel anger rising. I'd like to use you as an example of all that is wrong with the world.

By the way HiTemp, Hate to rise your anger more... but to a big degree, I'm with Otto. I've got a wife and 3 young children. I haul them around in my 2+ ton minivan with 8 airbags and safety gizmos galore, and I'm happy to do it. But when I drive to work, I'm in my Miata having a blast.

Klayfish wrote:

HiTempguy wrote:

Otto_Maddox wrote: I like the 1000 lbs of safety crap on my daily driver. I wouldn't settle for less in a family car.

I feel anger rising. I'd like to use you as an example of all that is wrong with the world.

By the way HiTemp, Hate to rise your anger more... but to a big degree, I'm with Otto. I've got a wife and 3 young children. I haul them around in my 2+ ton minivan with 8 airbags and safety gizmos galore, and I'm happy to do it. But when I drive to work, I'm in my Miata having a blast.

I believe what HTG is getting at is the old axiom "If you build something "idiotproof", you are just building a better idiot." You can apply roughly the same exact thing to safety. Vehicles have got to a point where the driver is so isolated from actually driving, you need the safety to save themselves from themselves.

Brian

Cotton wrote:

stuart in mn wrote: It's too late now, but Pontiac should have done it. They went from being the #3 car maker in the 1960s behind Chevy and Ford, to selling Azteks.

G8, GTO, Solstice all came after the Aztec.

And they were all great cars, but it was too little, too late - the damage had been done. By then, most people associated Pontiac with pedestrian cars with lots of corrugated plastic bolted on them, so even when they finally started selling something interesting not enough people were paying attention.

By 2000, Mitsubishi was making this:

I think is is called the Craptastic Poopmobile DE, with standard rust-o-matic tin body panels and power by Briggs and Stratton.

(actually, that is an insult to Briggs and Stratton who make some reliable engines with plenty of power. Neither of which can be said for the Mirage 1.5L)

And to answer the original question:

Turbos, AWD, Lotus Handling....these guys were on the right track.