Latest

2025 Nissan Murano Platinum Review 2025 Hyundai Elantra Hybrid Limited: Review So, like an idiot, I bought a 17-year-old Range Rover 2025 Mazda CX-50 vs. 2025 Mazda CX-5: Which is best? 2025 Nissan Murano Platinum – One Take Review

Hooniverse

Cars, Trucks, Bikes, Project Cars, DIY, Travel, Adventure, Podcast, Videos

Hooniverse Asks

Hooniverse Asks- What Car had the Greatest Negative Impact on its Brand?

By Robert Emslie Feb 28, 2013

Aztek

Win one for the Gipper. That’s entreaty attributed to George Gipp whose dying wish was that his beloved Notre Dame teammates win in his name. Pretty selfish, huh? Yesterday, I asked you about car or truck models which might have done the opposite, individually lifting the entire team. You offered up a slew of great nameplates, and one that stuck out more so than most was the Mustang, a car that seemingly has defined the Ford Motor Company, not just since its debut, but for all time.

Today, I want to hear about the cars whose presence has tarnished a brand- the bed seeds, rotten apples, the Cousin Olivers. I fully expect to see a Cimmaron nomination, and who could forget the Chrysler Maserati TC which debased the Italian Company’s name like it was a character from Requiem For a Dream.    

Many brands have offered bad cars, but only a select few have served up cars or trucks of such ignominy that it has tainted the company as a whole. It’s those models that I want today. What model do you think has had the greatest negative impact on its brand?

Image source: Airliners

By Robert Emslie

Related Post

Hooniverse Asks: Which Car, Truck, or SUV Needs to be Revived?

Jeff Glucker May 21, 2025

Hooniverse Asks: What’s the Greatest VEHICLE Ever Built?

Jeff Glucker May 5, 2025

Hooniverse Asks: Is there an affordable new car or truck that interests you?

Jeff Glucker April 30, 2025
178 thoughts on “Hooniverse Asks- What Car had the Greatest Negative Impact on its Brand?”

        1. The values of Exner-penned Dual-Ghias practically subsist on Dean Martin lore, regardless of model, but I never quite viewed it as an endorsement.
          Or anything else owned by celebrities of the 50s through the 70s, with just a few exceptions.

          Reply

  3. I have to say it is a tossup between Pinto and Corvair,although neither was as bad as the media would have had you believe.

    Reply

  4. For Ford, how about the bloated, underpowered Mustang II "King Cobra" or the Aspire?
    Toyota: The underpowered not-quite-a-fullsize-but-trying-top-compete-with-the-big-3 T100.
    Pontiac: The 80's LeMans

    Reply

  6. Ok.. I'll bite. I'm ready for some criticism on this… GT-R. Why you ask? Sure, it makes Nissan fanboys like myself drool. But, in comparison to the rest of the lineup… nothing gets that sort of special attention. They claim the new Nismo Z will be better and I'm sure it will be. Nissan fails to apply that "special touch and attention to detail" throughout the rest of their line. Hell, even the newer Z cars are parts bin heavy. Now, I say this not to point out that a parts bin car can't be good… but let's be honest… parts bin cars aren't as special as something focused. It looks kind of terrible IMO to have a showroom with a $100k GTR and an Altima in it. I'm actually hoping the Nismo brand goes nuts and can legitimately stand on its own if only to prevent such things from being seen. I guess what I'm trying to say is the GT-R is so awesome… nothing else in the lineup can really compare. There's no halo effect to rub off on anything else I'm seeing. It just doesn't make sense to me. I'm glad it exists… it's just… i dunno… maybe the Z is the better American halo car for that company? Ready for criticism in 3…2..

    Reply

    1. No criticism, just a friendly difference of opinion.
      This was my yesterday answer. I love that they kept the GT-R under the Nissan name, love that Chrysler kept the Viper under the Dodge name. Both are emphatically not luxury cars, distinctively unswanky and positively brutal. Driver's cars, and though a number of douchebags buy each, no one considers either a douchey car.
      Chuck Norris has a GT-R. It hurts my brain to picture Walker, Texas Ranger, sitting in an Infiniti.

      Reply

      1. Did I miss something? I thought the Viper was going to be badged as an SRT, not Dodge. Did they change their mind?

        Reply

    2. I'm not really a fan of the GT-R myself, (too much tech to boost numbers, and doesn't really seem like a driver's car) but I have to politely disagree in the context of this question. (thumbs upping you anyway due to an interesting point of view) Nissan as a brand was kinda slipping from the public view shortly before the GT-R was released. They needed something to bring people back into the showrooms and gain attention. I think the GT-R did really well with that. So to state that it had a specifically negative impact on its brand is not accurate, IMO.
      Now, whether it's relevant to the rest of Nissan's line and has any trickle down impact to the lower models… Ehhh…. That's a separate argument, and I could say it may not really happen.

      Reply

      1. It's not that it isn't awesome… I just didn't like the idea of it in the same showroom back when I sold em.

        Reply

        1. But the question is, "what car had the greatest negative impact on its brand?" Since the new GT-R seems to have thrust Nissan back into the public eye, and not in a negative way, I don't think this is it.

          Reply

          1. But what if a car in a lineup is so awesome that it makes other cars look really crappy? Kind of like the maker didn't try? I should clarify that I think Nissan's cars are much better now that when the GT-R was launched. At the time though, I was so confused. Yes, I realize there's a huge difference between 69k price and a 15k price and the attention to detail. It just seems like it didn't always used to be that way. I will succeed this to more of a personal disappointment though the company is doing better. Perhaps you are right and the GT-R sort of thrust them in that direction? I'm still a 90's, pre Renault merger, Nissan fan. Sorry, but I had to pick an oddball to answer the question with.

          2. Using your own logic I would think that, in a similar vein, the Corvette would do the same to Chevrolet as the GT-R to Nissan. With that kind of logic I would have to agree with you.

  7. <img width=500 src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/2006-2008_Mercury_Grand_Marquis_%281%29.jpg"&gt;
    This is Mercury's lineup in 2008-2009. It's the same as it was for several years before that with only moderate refreshes in styling. While none of these vehicles were particularly bad, they weren't particularly noteworthy, either. That, more than anything, can kill a brand. Letting the product become stale and dated will cause consumers to overlook it. It doesn't help when they are thinly veiled versions of another brand's vehicle, either.

    Reply

  9. Here's the obvious AMC answer, but I'm not picking it because of it's goofy persona and oft-insulted appearance (I actually kind of like them). Nope, I'm picking it because the Pacer was crazy expensive for AMC to develop, and they didn't really make enough money back after it's release to justify the costs. In fact, the Pacer may well be the car that killed American Motors. It was the last completely new car design that AMC released. Sure, the Eagle and it's 4wd were innovative, but the body was essentially a Hornet wagon, which first came out in 1971. The Spirit and Concord were stylistic retreads, too. At a time when AMC was strapped for cash (which was pretty much always), the money spent on the Pacer was a loss, and prevented AMC from having the capital to keep up with changing times in the 80s. Had the money been spent elsewhere (modern engines, fuel injection, etc.), maybe AMC would still be around.
    <img src="http://www.motorstown.com/images/amc-pacer-05.jpg"&gt;

    Reply

    1. I find it ironic that the radical, spacy styling was not intended to be Pacer's reason for being, but rather was a means of disguising the remarkable length-to-width ratio while accentuating the use of a rotary "engine of tomorrow" (even though it began feeling less and less tomorrow-ish as the Pacer was being developed).
      Even more ironically, the Pacer was quite assuredly more successful overall because the rotary intended for the car was scrapped. In hindsight, the rotary surely would have been a warranty quagmire for AMC and a service nightmare for dealers, who would have been woefully inexperienced with rotaries. Furthermore, a rotary's thirst and lack of torque would have made ownership much less satisfying, especially post-embargo. The tried-and-true AMC inline 6 may have robbed cockpit space and turned the Pacer into just a quirky-looking, utterly conventional car, but at least the engine would run, and run, and run.

      Reply

      1. I never thought about a rotary being a problem from a service standpoint, but I can see that. I still wonder what a wnakel Pacer would have been like. From what I've read, the AMC 6 has a few hundred pounds on the wankel they were going to use, and the redesign for the 6 added a little weight, too- and all of it on top of the front wheels. It could have been a significantly lighter and more tossable car had the wankel made it in there.
        On that thought, if I ever win the lotto I think one of my projects will be to put a Mazda rotary engine into a Pacer. Just because. Now I just need to work on winning the lottory. Which means I need to start playing the lottory. Dammit, I'm already really far behind on this plan.

        Reply

          1. That would be a blast with a V8. And it only needs a little tweaking on the rear roof line to look pretty good.

    2. I hesitate to +1 this one, but truly, danleym has a point. I've defended the Pacer in many an automotive argument, but truly it did cost AMC a substantial amount in development costs (given the abandoned Wankel engine) and in that respect (along with its polarizing looks) became the brand's Achilles' heel. On the plus side, it's an interesting car with good visibility, vastly upgradable running gear, and a useful hatch at the rear. It was unfortunately (like most of its kin) heavy and arguably could have benefited from two extra doors (if you don't have sexy looks going for you, utility is just the ticket). I'll remain a closet fan of the marque, but the Pacer was a disaster that inevitably happened.

      Reply

      1. I like Pacers. I really do. And I'm a huge fan of AMCs- there's only a handful I wouldn't want to own (mid 70s Matador comes to mind- not the Matador Coupe, they're cool, but the fullsize coffin nose ones, and Concord sedans don't do much for me either). I own a Spirit, the same car I called a stylistic retread. I'm just being honest- but I happen to think that retread worked out very, very well.
        Strictly from looking at the car for what an individual example is, Pacers are cool cars in my book. But as far as the whole production run is concerned and the effect on the company, they were definitely a disaster.

        Reply

  10. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the 2012 Honda Civic. For the first time in the history of mankind, "Civic" became a dirty word.

    Reply

    1. My question – Having not driven a Civic since about 1995, can somebody confirm that the 2012 Civic was really that bad, or was it another occasion of an automaker giving in to pressure from the press even though the average buyer thought it was fine?

      Reply

      1. It was a step in the wrong direction, but it really wasn't that bad. It was basically the 8th gen car slightly Toyotafied, softer and cheaper. Makes it less great, but as long as it's reliable (it should be), it won't have a real long term impact on the car, especially since softer and cheaper aren't quite dirty words to your average consumer. It just didn't help that for 2012, a number of the Civic's competitors received flashier, more hyped redesigns.
        It's still a good thing Honda has made some improvements to the 2013 car though.

        Reply

      1. I came to post Audi 5000, somehow scrolled past this without making the connection, and posted it anyway.

        Reply

      2. I don't know that that can qualify as leaving a negative impression for the brand though, since they made essentially no impression of any kind on anyone.

        Reply

        2. I actually knew someone at the time that owned a V8-6-4, and he liked his (his must have been one of the few reliable ones).

          Reply

  15. I disagree with the Aztec being the destruction of Pontiac, it was merely the culmination of many years of mis-management. And the Edsel – it's hard to argue that the car itself wasn't ungainly looking, but you also have to take into strong consideration the recession of '57-'58 that hit. ALL car brands took a nose-dive in production, and it was possibly the worst time in the world to introduce a new car.
    I'm going to for a crazy answer here:
    <img src="http://stwot.motortrend.com/files/2012/04/1961-Lincoln-Continental-side-view.jpg"&gt;
    Why? Because it's a stylistic high-point that Lincoln (or any car company) would be hard pressed to ever live up to. Look at what's happened with them since.

    Reply

      1. Chevrolet management never liked the whole Saturn idea, since it took small car resources away from them. But after the Vega, the Chevette, and the Cavalier, they'd already proven they couldn't be trusted to sell small cars.

        Reply

          2. I know a guy who went from a Hemi Charger daily driver to a Chevette, and another guy who went from a Six Pack Challenger to one. Both cars held up relatively well for cheap cars and provided their respective owners with satisfactory ownership experiences.

    2. For something to make an impact don't people need to remember it exists? The guy across the street from me actually had one, I drove by it every day, and I still periodically forgot they made it.

      Reply

    3. I think given Saturn's status as "The Brand Designed to Fail", it seems academic to try to pinpoint a specific model that shot it in the foot.

      Reply

    3. You're definitely onto something here. Given that Chrysler rechristened the Sebring as the 200 it was certainly carrying some baggage.

      Reply

    4. I'd be interested to see the source for the poor-reliability comment. I've been searching for 20 minutes & haven't been able to find anything very persuasive. Edmund's reliability history for the '07-'09 Sebring is decent, and on TrueDelta the '08 Sebring & Avenger both have good scores (that was the only model year they reported, probably due to inadequate sample size for other years.)
      Uninspired? Unattractive? Uncompetitive? I won't argue (much) and I'm in the Mopar Or No Car camp. I'm not convinced it's unreliable though.
      And I'm amazed the cars turned out as well as they did, considering the roadblocks that Daimler imposed:
      *"The programs (both C and D cars) failed miserably, due to the combination of CATIA v5, program management’s lack of direction, irreversable points and decisions, incompatible and incomplete understanding of requirements of the tools and program, and incompatible manufacturing parameters (Mitsu vs. Chrysler methods), and had to be completely restarted (for the design process—the development mule data was still valid, up to a point)."
      *Original is at Chrysler and Mercedes Engineering: From Best Practices in the 1990s to Behind the Curve in the 2000s http://www.allpar.com/neon/engineering.html

      Reply

      1. JD Power and Associates gave the 2007 Sebring two circles out of five, which they consider the bottom 20% of its market segment, and Consumer Reports gave it a below average rating at the time, and as a used car calls it a bad buy. I do take Consumer Reports ratings on new cars with a grain of salt, but they do work off good data on the used cars.
        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-40541148/a…
        …and yes, Daimler was wholly responsible for this. It's great to see Chrysler moving forward with Fiat. I make a lot of parts for them, and things have changed since the dark days of 2009.

        Reply

  18. There's one that I can see right now that may well be a problem for Chevy. The 2007-2008 Tahoe/Suburban has had problems with power door locks not working, oil consumption, exterior door handles breaking, interior door handle chrome peeling (creating sharp surfaces that cut hands), and other little things here and there that other Tahoes and Suburbans didn't have. I've had several owners of these vehicles tell me that they've had several Tahoes previously, but the experience with these vehicles is making them think about moving to something else. I can't say I blame them.

    Reply

    3. Nooooo! The Mk1 Beta saloon did have some rust issues, but the after they altered the engine mounts they were cured. Except for the odd italian habit of rust spots breaking out randomly
      I had an HPE, and like the pic a VX, fabulous car even though I bought it with about 60k on the clock
      But yes, press reports and sheep like UK buyers meant Lancia were doomed

      Reply

    1. My face involuntarily twitched a little as I scrolled down to this…
      I almost don't know that it had a hugely negative impact on the brand though, since nobody seemed to care enough about it. While it was terrible, it kinda slipped by unnoticed.

      Reply

      1. Oddly enough the Caliber appears to be a really well made piece of crap. My father has one as a company car, it has over 200k miles with no major repairs.

        Reply

          1. The company bought two or three of them, the others have been almost as reliable. Sadly, they might be disgracing America's roads for years to come.

          2. The Caliber, Compass and Patriot have mostly earned average to slightly above average reliability ratings from CR.

          4. Chrysler seems to have the unfortunate habit of either building terrible cars that won't die, or award winners that barely last past the test drive.

    3. Totally agree with this one. The 9-7x was pushed onto Saab dealers that were not looking for, nor needed a large Saab SUV to park on their lots. GM mis-management at it's absolute finest.

      Reply

      1. Right! GM was so blind to what Saab really needed they pushed that tin can on dealers and neglected to redesign the 9-3 and 9-5 in a timely manner. Can anyone tell I'm a anti GM Saab owner? lol Strangely enough, I really like the 9-2X esp. the Aero model.
        And the 9-7X was the best looking of that SUV family..the Trailblazer is hideous.

        Reply

    3. Not entirely driver error. The car was developed for the Euro market with a five-speed and when Audi started bringing automatics over to the US and selling them to Buick owners who wanted a Mercedes-Benz, they didn't move the brake pedal over to the left farther like it is on an automatic. Sloppy-footed Yanks got sloppy about moving their foot deliberately over to the brake and started leaving their foot on the accelerator a little when trying to brake, or shift into drive or reverse.

      Reply

  24. The Gulf War was televised. The Humvee was one of the stars. An influential Hollywood and political figure wanted one for his own collection, and the H1 Hummer was born. It was mostly a toy for the rich, but was also frequently used as a fleet vehicle in forestry, emergency medicine, and other public services that required getting people and cargo where roads were not available.
    <img src="http://neonsign.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/hummer-8.jpg&quot; width="500">
    Then the H2 came out. H1 was mostly relegated to dustbin status, and the H2 became the shiny object for the rich. Owners pimped them out to say "look at me" and when people looked, they noticed most of these screaming yellow bling machines were owned by douchebags, except for ones owned by thugs. And the public revolted, with frequent news reports of vandalism committed against these vehicles.
    H3 came out later, to trickle the image down to less-affluent wannabe douchebags who couldn't afford to trick out a $50K off-roader that never left pavement, and plans were made to introduce a smaller and cheaper H4, but by that time, the tide of public opinion had turned. Owning a Hummer would brand you as a "Hummer owner", and that was an unpardonable sin.
    When GM went bankrupt and tried to sell the brand, they were unable to make a deal, they were never able to reach acceptable terms with any buyer, and the Hummer division was written off.

    Reply

    1. I see a couple of well-restored neon green 914s running around my town – I saw the owner get out of one at the grocery store one evening, but I was in a hurry, so I didn't have time to ask him about it. And how do I know there are two? Because one has chrome bumpers, and the other's are body color.

      Reply

    2. The Dino was never sold or marketed as a Ferrari. There is not a single Ferrari badge or logo on the entire car. Enzo had this model designed as a tribute to his son (who died of a rare disease when he was young). Originally, Ferrari toyed with the idea of a entry-level supercar under the "Dino" brand, but left it alone as a one-model tribute car.
      The person that owns that one needs a slap for adding the Scuderia sticker shields to the front fenders. *facepalm*

      Reply

    1. The Porsche 924 was the 1964 Winchester push-feed bolt of its day. A well intentioned mashup of parts that were not yet ready for use in a high performance vehicle, the 924 is the car people point to when they insist the automaker can't do front engine/rear drive performance right.
      The 924 Turbo only served to exacerbate its powertrain longevity problem, as the system would regularly eat turbos and even its lubrication system suffered low mileage failure rates. I recall steering a local friend away from a 924 Turbo which had been advertised as having a new oil pump installed by asking him, "when was the last time you heard of an oil pump which only lasted for 30,000 miles?" He bought and restored an older 912 instead and was much happier with the end result.
      The later 928 would have been a much better representative of Porsche's foray into alternative drive train topologies; I'm certain it would not have suffered the same sort of derision the 924 endured. However it was not to be, and the original engineering compromise has permanently polarized fans of the brand into those who claim the company cannot do F/R vehicles right, and those who simply don't care.

      Reply

      1. I actually like it! Dammit!
        Alright it shouldn't have Cherokee badges, since the name conjures up a very specific shape and design purpose that it doesn't have any intention of filling, but I like it.

        Reply

        1. I don't hate the exterior design. I don't even hate the exterior design of the Compass. What makes me hate the Compass is the independent suspension on the corners and a lame front-biased AWD drive system (on those that aren't, ugh, FWD). Jeeps need to have solid axles and real transfer cases. They're not cars. Dodge can sell the mom-mobiles.
          The new Cherokee looks like it's going to be setup like the Compass. Which means it's going on the list of Jeeps I don't wave at (but I'm not too worried, the people who buy these won't know about the Jeep Wave anyway).

          Reply

          2. I think it makes sense to hate the Compass just because it's completely terrible as a car and even worse as a Jeep.

          3. I'm not sure that the Compass is completely terrible as a car (not a Jeep). But I'm not sure it's NOT completely terrible, either.
            The biggest criticisms leveled against the Compass (other than the styling, which is moot) have been the coarse engine, the horrible CVT, and the cheap, hard plastic interior. I spent a week driving an '09 rental, and the NVH seemed to be on a par with Ford's Duratec V6, which is no hallmark of refinement but isn't singled out for criticism in the way the GEMA World Engine has been. As for the interior, the '09 was the first year with the redesigned dashboard; I thought the cockpit was actually less objectionable than the base-spec Impala and Crown Vic rentals I had around the same time. That leaves the CVT, and that IS truly horrible. To make matters worse the take rate on the available 5-speed manual has been stuck at an abysmal 5%.
            Having said all that, I don't hate the Compass's basic configuration. Thanks to all that hate (and recurrent rebates that knocked thousands off most buyer's price tag), resale has plummeted faster than an F-104 with a flameout. Edmunds's TMV for a clean '09 with 48K on it currently sits at about 12 grand. If I could find one with AWD and a 5-speed for that price, I might consider it.
            …Okay, not really. I'd keep looking for a similar deal on an Xterra.

          4. I haven't really kept track of the line since experiencing an early one, but that thing was woeful. Terrible interior, terrible transmission – the CVT, of course, haven't even seen a manual version – terrible driving experience all around. I cannot think of a single redeeming feature. Also, weirdly cramped, if I'm comfortable back seat passengers are not allowed to have legs.
            Maybe I should see if they're any good now.
            EDIT: Sat in one since making this post, that's enough. Better materials, but still hard to see out of and poorly packaged. Also, loud. Didn't need to actually drive it, still bad.

          6. Two cars in my fleet:
            '06 Honda Civic Hybrid: Underpowered, CVT, but comfortable, excellent weight balance and spunky handling
            '01 Jeep Wrangler: NVH off-scale, crappy interior, high-riding, mediocre handling, but powerful and f-sporting unstoppable, good stupid redneck fun.
            Jeep Compass: Bad NVH, high-riding, meh handling, boring, awful CVT, crappy interior, Wikipedia thinks it has a 170Hp engine, which shouldn't be underpowered, but I bet it has a high-revving tune which isn't going to be made better in front of a CVT. It's the downsides of the two cars I own, and none of the upside. Also, Jeep used to imply a certain level of capability. I have much less of a problem with the Caliber. Yes, it sucks, but it's just a crappy Dodge.

          8. I posted a pic of the 07-10' Compass. Those model years do not carry the Trail Rated badge.

        2. While I don't hate it, I offer the following rebuttal which falls in line with your second paragraph.
          <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/1974jeepcherokeesj.jpg&quot; width="300/">
          <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/JeepWagoneerXJ.jpg&quot; width="300/">
          <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Jeep_Cherokee_2-door.jpg&quot; width="300/">
          <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/1994-1997_Jeep_Cherokee_(XJ)_Sport_01.jpg&quot; width=300">
          <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/97-01_Jeep_Cherokee.jpg&quot; width="300/">
          <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/2002-2004_Jeep_Liberty_Sport.jpg&quot; width="300/">
          <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Second_generation_KK_(Jeep_Liberty).jpg" width="300/">
          <img src="http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/331369/jeep-releases-first-official-photos-of-2014-cherokee-2013-new-york-auto-show-photo-502995-s-original-1.jpg&quot; width="300/">
          The Cherokee name should be reserved for a cheap, simple 4×4 with at least one solid axle. I think solids all around, a 4 cylinder diesel on a two box design small to mid size SUV that you can beat to death and it will keep going would have been a proper Cherokee. This should be the Jeep "OH LOOK WE'RE TRYING TO BE STYLISH OR SOMETHING", not a Cherokee. The Jeep Compatriot… Jeep Patass… I don't know.

          Reply

          1. Fair point. It doesn't look like an evolution of the old two box Cherokees, and that's a fair reason not to call it a Cherokee. However, my sacred cow is really the mechanicals. Cheap and durable are a part of that, IMO. That's where I draw the line on worthiness. I can get over the looks not matching up. Besides, get a couple dents in it, and it will start looking more like a Cherokee should.

          3. Remember: one of my automotive fetishes is solid axles. Before the Compass and Patriot all Jeeps had at least one solid axle. IRS done right won't make me completely happy, but I freely admit this is an irrational thing.
            But, yeah, it's going to be an Explorer and Pathfinder competitor. Not a Cherokee.

          4. Not even, it's going to be "compact". The H1 was just my proof that IRS can get it done when built correctly. CVT's are the devil's work though.

          5. Oh, I hate CVTs. My wife's car has one, and it's the most boring transmission possible. The Compass can be had with a manual (although not on the higher trim models… O_o). Given that you can have a third pedal and a real transmission, eh, leave it in the options list.
            Like I said, IRS not making me happy is an irrational thing. I would also note that making me happy is probably bad for business. EDIT: But the real point was IRS can work off-road, when done right (besides the H1, there's the Rally Fighter and many, many Baja 1000 cars), and Chrysler is not going to do it right in the new Cherokee. We agree on this. (And I brought up the Pathfinder and the Explorer, not because size, but because they were 4x4s that got nerfed.)

          8. Yeah, it's not a proper Cherokee by any means, but it is a pretty decent looking thing as these things go. Call it a Dodge Nitro and the backlash would be much less.

        3. To be clear: If the Compass kept its IFS, engine and transmission options (even the CVT) but mounted the engine longitudinally, put a transfer case (even a full-time 4WD t-case) behind the transmission and had even the chintziest solid axle in back (even something crappier than a Dana 35), I would be defending it.
          That suspension setup would make it at least as upgradable as a Tacoma or Hilux. And those trucks are nothing to scoff at. It may not equal those stock-for-stock, but the potential would be there.

          Reply

      2. Wikipedia is saying it's a platform cousin to the Giulietta and that there will be a FWD version. Damnit Chrysler. I missed this from the NYIAS. Sort of glad I did. Now where is that gif of the barfing coffee cup?

        Reply

        1. Giulietta platform means lifted dart… should have called it the compass and a boxier version the patriot to remain consistent.

          Reply

      4. If I found that washed up on the beach, I think I'd make sure it was dead to put it out of our misery…

        Reply

  29. I'm still curious about the Pontiac Aztek. Granted, when it came out it was very ugly, but today it's no uglier than the Nissan Juke. The only difference is that today people are desensitized to proportional, ugly vehicles.

    Reply

    1. They're really just funky looking and kind of big. They are a decent CUV. They're not underpowered, they're reasonably comfortable, and they're versatile. They come with the normal GM foibles (they have GM interiors). They also didn't make them with a manual transmission. But as I've stated elsewhere, there were way worse cars in Pontiac's line-up along side the Aztek (Pontiac G3 and Sunfire, I'm looking at you).
      I have a confession: after seeing them around, the Juke has really been growing on me. I sorta-kinda like it now.

      Reply

        1. MAYBE if we were talking an Odyssey. Or perhaps even a Murano. But a facelifted, half-assed-minivan Pontiac? No, you're not serious. There's no powertrain that could redeem that ugly beast. (And the Juke is likewise hopeless, even with GTR running gear.) And this, from a guy who finds merit in the AMC Pacer.

          Reply

    2. The Juke is deliberately strange, the Aztek is more unfinished and crude. I actually quite like deliberately strange.
      Honestly, given the weird lines I keep noticing on the Rendezvous outside my office window and the general messiness of the Aztek design, I seriously wonder what the hell was going on in the design studio when those two were coming down the pipe. Both look like the result of an extremely chaotic development, possibly with far-too-tight (or adjusted at the last minute) deadlines.

      Reply

        1. As I've said before, the Multipla is a Vulcan car – totally logical but made without much regard for our petty human emotions.
          Big windows that are easy to see out of, flat sides for more room, lights mounted where they can't be damaged. It all makes sense.

          Reply

      2. You can see why it turned out the way it did by looking at the original concept, which is a far more visually appealing vehicle despite – or because – of its weirdness. Once the bean counters got their hooks into the production Aztek, its fate was sealed. There may not be a huge difference between build-to-price and build-to-spec on the materials sheet, but there's a world of difference in the feel and appearance of the finished product.
        GM really needed something akin to Chrysler's Iaccoca/Shelby team in the 80s; the accountants were quietly notified they would be the first up against the wall if they attempted to kill the turbocharged L-body project, lost Daytona sales be damned. For these fringe and niche vehicles, the accountants need to learn how to facilitate the production, not cheapen it.

        Reply

    2. Come to think of it, I'm not sure this counts. I mean Chevy had the Corvair, Vega, Monza and Chevette all before the Citation. None did the brand any favors, regardless of sales volume (they sold a boat load of Citations).

      Reply

  32. The Peugeot 307, a car which lost almost everything what made 80s and 90s Peugeots great.
    It was neither nice to drive nor nice to look at and if it had reliability issues it had them non-stop!
    Most 307s were perfectly reliable, but many were absolutely hopeless, I disliked it from day 1.
    And on top of all that it was also a flop as a rally car. A Peugeot to be quickly forgotten!
    <img src="http://www.mercure-voyages.com/userfiles/media_fr/hertz/PEUGEOT-307.jpg&quot; width="650/">

    Reply

    3. If they completely illogically dropped the Ferrari California's engine in the Thema to create a new 8.32 (even if they could just throw Lancia badges on an SRT-8), I'd be very appreciative.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 64 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here

You Missed

All Things Hoon Nissan Reviews

2025 Nissan Murano Platinum Review

Hyundai Reviews

2025 Hyundai Elantra Hybrid Limited: Review

Project Cars

So, like an idiot, I bought a 17-year-old Range Rover

Mazda Reviews

2025 Mazda CX-50 vs. 2025 Mazda CX-5: Which is best?

© Copyright 2025 Hoonigan. All Rights Reserved.