Some cars and automotive technologies of the past have withstood the test of time and become synonymous with pushing the automotive industry forward. Unfortunately, some noble efforts to create a vehicle that consumers would desire didn’t quite make the cut and have proved to be more of a leap backwards rather than a step forward.
1958 Ford Edsel
When Ford debuted the Edsel, it was heralded as the most innovative cars ever produced both for its features and its design that looked like nothing else on the road. Developed as its own division within the Ford Motor Company, the Edsel brand was the second most successful car brand launch ever when it went on sale in 1958 with 63,110 Edsels sold in the U.S. alone.
But despite initial success, arguably fueled primarily by Madison-avenue hype, car buyers quickly turned their back on the Edsel. With its bulky proportions and vertical grill that was said to resemble a vagina, the car wasn’t easy on the eyes. During the recession of the late 1950s, the overpriced Edsel also wasn’t easy on the wallet either. After only two years, the oversized, overpriced, unreliable Edsel was discontinued, and the name has since been synonymous with failure.
1981 DeLorean DMC-12
Forever immortalized for its role in the Back to the Future movie franchise, the DeLorean DMC-12 embodied automotive design innovation. With its body designed renowned auto designed company Giugiaro, which also designed such notable cars as the De Tomaso Mangusta, BMW M1, and Lotus Esprit, the DMC-12 was not only beautiful, but also featured distinctive stainless steel outer skin panels and gull-wing doors.
Unfortunately, engineering problems and budget overruns plagued the company from the start and the short lived company fell into bankruptcy and company founder John DeLorean was arrested soon after on drug trafficking charges. While the design of the DMC-12 was stunning, it was unfortunately overpriced, extremely heavy, and underpowered thanks to its meager 2.8-liter Peugeot V6 engine. Production of the DMC-12 lasted from 1981-1982.
1971 Ford Pinto
Alright, so this may be the first time that the words “innovation” and “Pinto” have been so closely associated. But the Ford Pinto was indeed a very new direction for the Blue Oval. With rising the gas prices in the 1970s, consumers started to demand a new kind of automobile that was both fuel-efficient and affordable. Import brands such as Toyota, Datsun, and VW started to see market share grow thanks to their compact offerings. Hoping to stop the import brands in their tracks, Ford introduced the Pinto as their first North American subcompact car.
With its peppy four-cylinder engine, sporty “fastback” styling, and ultra low price tag that undercut much of the competition, the Pinto was innovative not so much for its design or features, but for its ability to meet the import competition head-on. Sadly, consumers didn’t care for the Pinto’s knack for spontaneously bursting into flames, and sales ultimately tumbled. Due to a deficiency in the design of the car’s rear-end, there were numerous instances of the gas tank rupturing and catching fire in rear-end collisions. This resulted in a tarnished reputation and an early demise.
Saturn
Saturn may not be remembered for producing awe-inspiring vehicles, but Saturn did have one of the most innovative corporate strategies when the division emerged in the early 1990s. Like Ford’s creation of the Pinto, General Motors developed Saturn to deal with the success of import brands in the U.S. auto market. Promising a completely “different kind of car company,” Saturn operated with some degree of independence from its parent company. Despite some cannibalization of GM’s sales and numerous defects on early models, Saturn quickly developed a community of customers with an emotional connection to the brand, particularly due to its “no haggle” prices. Despite consumers’ love of the brand, Saturn’s sales never quite reached GM’s optimistic expectations and in 2009, following a failed attempt to sell the brand, GM announced that Saturn would meet its demise by October 2010. It turns out that being a “different kind of car company” just wasn’t enough.
1934 Chrysler Airflow
With its perfectly balanced 50-50 weight distribution and streamlined curves, the Airflow was ahead of its time in terms of design and engineering. While the Airflow was truly an impressive engineering feat, sparking a fundamental change in automotive design, it wasn’t exactly the most reliable car on the market as the engine had a tendency to fall out. To make matters worse, its cutting edge design was part of the Airflow’s problem and consumers simply weren’t ready for it. Sales never got off the ground and Chrysler’s corporate styling reverted back to more conservative and mainstream designs.
1961 Amphicar
A vehicle that’s part car and part boat – where could something like that go wrong? The Amphicar was the first mass produced amphibious automobile. Based on a similar design used by the German military, the Amphicar could reach a top speed of 7 mph on water and still provide a competent on-road ride. Unfortunately, the car had one major draw back – it wasn’t quite fully waterproof. These vehicles were commonly plagued by leaks, and sometimes they completely sank beneath their occupants.
1981 Cadillac Fleetwood V-8-6-4
A bulky and boxy Cadillac sedan may not look very innovative, but under the hood resided the first U.S. built engine to feature cylinder deactivation. An increasingly common feature on engines today to reduce unnecessary fuel consumption, this was incredibly advanced technology for engines in the early 1980s. It was so advanced that it proved to be a bit too much for semiconductors and on-board computers to handle it efficiently. While it was a noble effort by General Motors, this technical marvel resulted in an engine that stalled frequented, produced plenty of noise pollution, and delivered anything but smooth acceleration. These characteristics ultimately hurt sales.
1997 GM EV1
An electric car produced and leased by the General Motors from 1996 to 1999, the EV1 put the Detroit automaker on the map as a leader in automotive technology. Consumer reactions to this first mass-produced electric vehicle were favorable.
Unfortunately, while the technology behind the zero-emissions EV1 was truly innovative, it was considered too expensive to build and GM execs believed that the EV niche was simply unprofitable. Fans of the EV1 were bitterly disappointed by GM’s controversial decision to discontinue the vehicle and conspiracy theories also helped to tarnish GM’s image as a purveyor of eco-friendly technology. The perceived self-sabotaging if its electric vehicle program was also the focus of the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?
1971 Chevrolet Vega
Like the Pinto, the Chevy Vega was not innovative for its design or engineering, but for marking the Detroit automaker’s first try at a subcompact car. Designed to be economical and to compete more aggressively with compact imports, the Vega had a clean design that even featured a front-end reminiscent of the Chevy Camaro. Under the hood was a 2.3-liter four-cylinder engine that produced more power than much of the competition and initially earned a positive response from consumers and automotive journalists alike. But the engine proved to be the Vega’s Achilles’ heel as it lacked durability and the seizing of its aluminum cylinders was a common complaint. The early engine and fender corrosion issues were largely to blame for the public’s poor perception of the car.
1958 MGA Twin Cam
A graceful and stunningly beautiful British roadster, the 1958 MGA Twin Cam was available with a high-performance engine that was intended to match its sporty exterior character. This engine was unique in that it featured dual overhead cams, which was a rarity in those days. Sadly, The temperamental motor didn’t deliver the level of performance that sports car drivers wanted and when driven hard the engine would leave oil and other debris all over the road as it burned through pistons and left drivers stranded. Despite being technically innovative, the engine was soon dropped due to notorious and ongoing warranty problems.
* * *
Read more offbeat automotive news on this Nissan News Blog.
