First Performance Utility Vehicle

[blacksambo]

What was really the first performance utiility vehicle? Said differently, what is the VX's palce in automotive history. Was the Mercedes G-Wagon the first? I'm guessing the Porsche Cayenne thinks it's first but it would seem to owe alot to the VX, at least in terms of styling innovation. What does the group know about this subject? I hate to see the "obscure" history words used when describing the VX in Wikipedia. Don't you?

[Knivx]

I wouldn't classify the G-wagen as a PUV only for the fact they were first designed with utility in mind. Just like Land Rover Defenders. They were used for military applications and utility needs, then became the fancy status symbols they are now. Maybe would consider the ML but they came out around the same time the VX was. Maybe an older AMC but they were more car like, the first crossover? I'd never heard of a PUV till the Vehicross so maybe that term was created for the VX?

[ZEUS]

I still gotta give that credit to the GMC Typhoon which has been brought up here a few times. I'm tempted to get one...

[circmand]

What was really the first performance utiility vehicle? Said differently, what is the VX's palce in automotive history. Was the Mercedes G-Wagon the first? I'm guessing the Porsche Cayenne thinks it's first but it would seem to owe alot to the VX, at least in terms of styling innovation. What does the group know about this subject? I hate to see the "obscure" history words used when describing the VX in Wikipedia. Don't you?

First general utility vehicle was the Jeep it stoop fpr GEneral Purpose vehicle GEP or Jeep. Built in a few days by the Bantam corporation in Butler PA for the army in WWII. It was built from spare parts but due to the small size of the Bantam Corporation the Army accepted their design and awarded the productioncontract to Ford. To assuage their guilt the Bantam Corp was given the trailer contract for the 2 wheel jeep like trailers.

[Knivx]

I still gotta give that credit to the GMC Typhoon which has been brought up here a few times. I'm tempted to get one...

Ah, yes I forgot about those. And there are the special edition Ford Explorers (saleen?) And Durango's? Then there is the 5.9 limited Grand Cherokee in 98 only. After the Jdm VX was already being built though.

[Knivx]

First general utility vehicle was the Jeep it stoop fpr GEneral Purpose vehicle GEP or Jeep. Built in a few days by the Bantam corporation in Butler PA for the army in WWII. It was built from spare parts but due to the small size of the Bantam Corporation the Army accepted their design and awarded the productioncontract to Willys and Ford. To assuage their guilt the Bantam Corp was given the trailer contract for the 2 wheel jeep like trailers.

I wouldn't call the Ford GPW or the Willy's MB "Performance" utility vehicles which is what he was asking about. The first SUV would be attributed to either the first GM suburban or the Willys wagon though.

[blacksambo]

This is an informative dialog. Let's find the best place for the VX to slot into and end it's automotive obscurity. Thanks.

[circmand]

I wouldn't call the Ford GPW or the Willy's MB "Performance" utility vehicles which is what he was asking about. The first SUV would be attributed to either the first GM suburban or the Willys wagon though.


First Performance utility vehicle. By the standards of the time the Jeep was the 1st utility vehicle designed for multiple uses in various terrains. It is in fact the vehicle for ehich the sport utility vehicle was descended from. Remember the Jeep was a troop transport, ambulance, artillary transport and spotting. If it is not a utility vehicle nothing is.

IMHO

[Knivx]

First Performance utility vehicle. By the standards of the time the Jeep was the 1st utility vehicle designed for multiple uses in various terrains. It is in fact the vehicle for ehich the sport utility vehicle was descended from. Remember the Jeep was a troop transport, ambulance, artillary transport and spotting. If it is not a utility vehicle nothing is.

IMHO

Yes the MB/GPW was a utility vehicle. But not a "sport" utility. At least in my mind. It all descended from those jeeps true but then they all became their own thing. As far as the puv niche the vx was definitely one of the first. It's all semantics.

[SlowPro48]

The AMC Eagle, which was an AWD crossover that debuted 30 years ago, was ahead of its time and kinda funky looking - especially the version based on the Gremlin. Look at a Nissan Murano, Infinity FX or even the VX and tell me you don't see a little bit of Gremlin in them. ;eekb; I'm sure by today's standards its performance would be rather underwhelming but back in the days of Chevettes, B-210s, Pintos and 17 second Corvettes, the motive force from its 4.2 liters wasn't too shabby - and despite the generous ground clearance, it handled more like a car than an SUV.

So that's it then - the Eagle has my vote for the first PUV and spiritual predecessor to the VX.

[ZEUS]

I never considered the Eagle a "performance" anything. The SX4 was the nastiest of the litter and was/is considered the performance variant of the the Eagle but it was still just a car and not a utility vehicle. Vote DENIED! :P

[circmand]

Yes the MB/GPW was a utility vehicle. But not a "sport" utility. At least in my mind. It all descended from those jeeps true but then they all became their own thing. As far as the puv niche the vx was definitely one of the first. It's all semantics.

But the question was not Sport Utility it was performance Utility so I stickl by my answer.

[Chopper]

Easy...Pfffffttt! LM001.....1981....Lambo:bgwo::bgwo::bgwo:

[JoFotoz]

Lamborghini LM002....?

jo

[SlowPro48]

Vote DENIED! :P

What?! No love for a jacked up AWD station wagon with a big straight six?

Ah well... Performance is relative I guess. I rode in one back in 1980 and it felt like a rocket...

...compared to my MG Midget!

[ZEUS]

Actually after reading your post I looked for some Eagles on eBay. There's love! I did see two Lambo LM's on eBay yesterday too - $90,000+ I think.

[RickOKC]

Ha! I remember the Lamborghini LM002. I'd forgotten about the term "Rambo Lambo" - hadn't heard that in years (decades?) and it made me LOL when I saw it on Wiki.

[blacksambo]

This is a very lively discussion! Let's keep it going until we find a spot for the VX, and fix the Wikipedia citation, once and for all. Thank you one and all for your very insightful input.

[SlowPro48]

Sambo I already found a spot for the VX - my driveway! I'll have to check out the Wikipedia entry - I don't know what you're talking about...

Zeus forget that $300 woody wagon on eBay - here's the type of Eagle you'd be more interested in:
http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/data/500/thumbs/exo_eagle.jpg (http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=17576)

I kinda like these though:
http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/data/500/thumbs/eagle_sx4.jpg (http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=17574)

http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/data/500/thumbs/eagle_wagon_3.jpg (http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=17575)

Some people stuff V8s in them..

[JHarris1385]

The LM00 is my vote. If I could ever get my hands on one of them!

[ZEUS]

The guy who built the green exo-caged one is named Curt, he owns Evolution 4x4 in Casper Wyoming. It IS cool! It has the drivetrain of an early Bronco. He has built up a few Eagles - we used to lovingly call him "Joe Dirt" but last year he shaved off the mullet. His latest project is a rat rod style crawler. I like Eagles, I just can't consider them a performance SUV... not even a performance car. Still, I would kinda like to have one of those SX4's. :yeso:
Sambo I already found a spot for the VX - my driveway! I'll have to check out the Wikipedia entry - I don't know what you're talking about...

Zeus forget that $300 woody wagon on eBay - here's the type of Eagle you'd be more interested in:
http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/data/500/thumbs/exo_eagle.jpg (http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=17576)

I kinda like these though:
http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/data/500/thumbs/eagle_sx4.jpg (http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=17574)

http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/data/500/thumbs/eagle_wagon_3.jpg (http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=17575)

Some people stuff V8s in them..

[ZEUS]

Oh and here are some more pics of it if you are interested (see a VX in the distant future... I mean background? That reminds me, he said he always liked the VX.:
http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/data/500/Eagle3.jpeg
http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/data/500/Eagle2.jpeg
http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/data/500/Eagle1.jpeg

[circmand]

Jeep is an automobile marque (and registered trademark) of Chrysler. It is the oldest off-road vehicle (also sport utility vehicle – SUV) brand. It inspired a number of other military Light Utility Vehicles such as the Land Rover which is the second oldest brand. The original vehicle which first appeared as the prototype Bantam BRC became the primary light 4-wheel-drive vehicle of the US Army and allies during the World War II and postwar period. Many vehicles serving similar military and civilian roles have since been created by many nations.

Jeeps were used by every division of the U.S. military and an average of 145 were supplied to every infantry regiment. Jeeps were used for many other purposes including cable laying, saw milling, as fire fighting pumpers, field ambulances, tractors and, with suitable wheels, would even run on railway tracks. An amphibious jeep, the model GPA, or "seep" (Sea Jeep) was built for Ford in modest numbers but it could not be considered a huge success

Okay the rest of you making niminations let see some proof of your nominations worthiness and maybe we should do a poll

[blacksambo]

Perhaps we ned to look at the styling of the VX to place it ahead of the other 4 wheel drive examples. Maybe it's the aggressive nature of the styling that sets it apart? That Lambo doesn't seem to have really aggressive styling like the VX, it looks more like a big DeLorean or Hum Vee to me??? At any rate, aggressive styling became very popular after the VX, just look at the BMW M6 coupe for example. Who started all that stuff? Was it the VX, it's a coupe, also?

[circmand]

has its unique styling that prefaces what is the cool thing for the new generation. From tail fins on caddies that inspired it on all vehicles, to going from round edges in the 60s to sharp edges in the 70s. From station wagons to mini vans (yes thats right mini vans were hot and extremely popular and copied when they first came out.) Lee Iacoca tried to get Ford to make them instead of the station wagon but was refused so he went to Chrysler and saved te company. Convertables used to rule the day then in the 70s and 80s you could barely find one but now they are back. The VX actually look a lot like the ground shuttles in 1999 a space odyssey (a 70s TV Show)

[blacksambo]

has its unique styling that prefaces what is the cool thing for the new generation. From tail fins on caddies that inspired it on all vehicles, to going from round edges in the 60s to sharp edges in the 70s. From station wagons to mini vans (yes thats right mini vans were hot and extremely popular and copied when they first came out.) Lee Iacoca tried to get Ford to make them instead of the station wagon but was refused so he went to Chrysler and saved te company. Convertables used to rule the day then in the 70s and 80s you could barely find one but now they are back. The VX actually look a lot like the ground shuttles in 1999 a space odyssey (a 70s TV Show)

This is helpful. Is the VX the start of aggressive styling that even the new Honda Crosstour sports?

[vt_maverick]

I think the VX represented the birth of the modern crossover, no more, no less. There are two theories on crossover design: (1) put a sports car body/engine on truck underpinnings, or (2) put a truck-like body on car underpinnings. Isuzu chose the first model with the VX, but most other manufacturers have gone the second route with much more success. Turns out people generally want the tougher, more capable look of a truck while retaining the soft ride of a car.

That said, I think you do have to acknowledge the AMC Eagle SX4 as a close relative to the VX. Maybe the two represent the general dichotomy amongst crossovers. Crossovers that look more like trucks/SUVs (VX, Toyota Highlander, etc.), and ones that look more like cars (Eagle SX4, Crosstour, it's Acura equivalent).

[blacksambo]

I think the VX represented the birth of the modern crossover, no more, no less. There are two theories on crossover design: (1) put a sports car body/engine on truck underpinnings, or (2) put a truck-like body on car underpinnings. Isuzu chose the first model with the VX, but most other manufacturers have gone the second route with much more success. Turns out people generally want the tougher, more capable look of a truck while retaining the soft ride of a car.

That said, I think you do have to acknowledge the AMC Eagle SX4 as a close relative to the VX. Maybe the two represent the general dichotomy amongst crossovers. Crossovers that look more like trucks/SUVs (VX, Toyota Highlander, etc.), and ones that look more like cars (Eagle SX4, Crosstour, it's Acura equivalent).

I can agree with this observation. I think you are on to something. But is it the full story? Let's think about it.

[SlowPro48]

Zeus that is quite a ride - looks straight outta Road Warrior. I can just picture a hoon with a mullet driving it too!

[SlowPro48]

Is the VX the start of aggressive styling that even the new Honda Crosstour sports?

Before there was the Crosstour, there was the BMW X6.

And before the X6 there was...

http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/data/500/BMW_X6_AMC_Eagle.jpg (http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=17580)

[blacksambo]

Before there was the Crosstour, there was the BMW X6.

And before the X6 there was...

http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/data/500/BMW_X6_AMC_Eagle.jpg (http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=17580)

Good stuff! The VX is definitely the predecessor to the X6, but the Eagle didn't handle like a Miata or have 4 Low. Right?

[Riff Raff]

I think a key criteria factor to whatever PUV/SUV/CrossOver is being considered, it must have a seperate switchable lever/switch to engage 4WD "LOW RANGE". Otherwise, it ain't squat and should be excluded from our discussion.:bgwb:

[pbkid]

hmm.. very interesting discussion for sure....
circmand- generally i would agree with you on jeep being the first....UTILITY vehicle... but there is nothing performance or sporty about the first jeeps.

im gonna have to go with the eagle as well... first of its kind to have ground clearance, AWD and a little power...(ya maybe lacking in power a little, but its definately more powerful than an old jeep)

[blacksambo]

Yes but it can't handle like a Miata and has no 4LOw. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also, lacks the now popular aggressive styling. Right?

[SlowPro48]

Dude, you set a high standard - does any crossover handle like a Miata? Seems like decent ground clearance and low center of gravity would be mutually exclusive.

And about the 4-Low requirement.... I guess that's always been a characteristic of true off-road capability - but if you've got enough torque, in a crossover, who needs Low? Not that an Eagle had torque - but the X6 does - a friend took me for a ride in his hybrid model and I think he said it cranked out 575 ft-lbs. With that much twist on tap - you don't need no stinkin' Low Range! You can already pull a school bus straight up a wall with your street gears. Plus if you double/triple/quadruple the torque with a transfer case, you have to beef up all manner of stuff to cope with the potential additional stress so you end up adding a bunch of weight for a feature you'll hardly ever use. Most of these crossovers need more ground clearance to go off-road, not lower gearing...

[Riff Raff]

SlowPro48--- I disagree. In an off-road environment, 4WD "Low Range" is absolutely mandatory because the need to slowly crawl over obstacles and/or manuever slowly around obstacles with varying degrees of road surface (sand, mud, snow, slick-rock, tree-rooted, jeep-trail tire-rutted, etc). Trying to haul@ss in high gear in an off-road environment is merely gonna' get your vehicle either stuck (buried up to the axles due to its high HP torque) and/or totaled into a boulder or tree.

Additional ground clearance can easily be increased with taller O.D. tires, provided they fit within the confines of the fenderwells. When it comes to selectable 4WD "Low Range"-- either it came on the vehicle from the factory or it didn't. It can't simply be added later on a whim. Heck, even the tiny Suzuki X-90 (1996--1998) came with a 3-way transfer case in 2W-Hi, 4W-Hi, 4W-Lo.:bgwb:

[blacksambo]

The Miata thing is not my idea but rather Car&Driver I believe. After all Tone Monday claims to have dusted off 50 out of 70 Porsches in an Auto Cross competition and the ones he lost to had racing rubber etc. while he had SUV tires. So yes, it handled for its day. Open Road by Road and Track magazine called it the best handling SUV ever. Infact, they still comptete and won the Aussie Condo 750 Rally last month. Please respond.

[pbkid]

And about the 4-Low requirement.... I guess that's always been a characteristic of true off-road capability - but if you've got enough torque, in a crossover, who needs Low? Not that an Eagle had torque - but the X6 does - a friend took me for a ride in his hybrid model and I think he said it cranked out 575 ft-lbs. With that much twist on tap - you don't need no stinkin' Low Range! You can already pull a school bus straight up a wall with your street gears. Plus if you double/triple/quadruple the torque with a transfer case, you have to beef up all manner of stuff to cope with the potential additional stress so you end up adding a bunch of weight for a feature you'll hardly ever use. Most of these crossovers need more ground clearance to go off-road, not lower gearing...
while i have to agree that the X6 is a sweet ride for a street driven vehicle. i have to argue that there isnt much utility vehicle about it.... it would be hillarious to see something like that try to do anything of real offroad capability.


SlowPro48--- I disagree. In an off-road environment, 4WD "Low Range" is absolutely mandatory because the need to slowly crawl over obstacles and/or manuever slowly around obstacles with varying degrees of road surface (sand, mud, snow, slick-rock, tree-rooted, jeep-trail tire-rutted, etc). Trying to haul@ss in high gear in an off-road environment is merely gonna' get your vehicle either stuck (buried up to the axles due to its high HP torque) and/or totaled into a boulder or tree.

and sorry slowpro- riff is right on this one. if you took that thing out to a place like moab. it would either roll over, crash into something or get bogged down. you cant exactly just floor it....in any offroad situation, unless your looking to wreck or break your vehicle.
what do you think would happen in this situation with an X6? mmm... not a good idea.
http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/data/3227/00000153.JPG

[SlowPro48]

@Riff Raff:

Maybe you misunderstood my post. What I was saying is 4-Low is for true off-road but in a crossover you don't really need it. This was in response to your assertion that a crossover must have Low Range otherwise it "ain't squat".

There are plenty of fine crossovers out there that don't have 4L. The smart people who design them know most buyers aren't interested in bashing rocks on the Rubicon. They just want to do light-duty stuff like get to their favourite trout stream at the end of a rutted forest service road - so why add 500+ lbs of transfer case and beefed up drivetrain if you don't need it? My boss's new Acura MDX has enough power and traction to go anywhere my VX will go - it not only apportions torque front and back like the VX but also side to side. What it lacks is ground clearance - but what it gives up in ground clearance, it gains in handling. I guarantee you - he uses the MDX's good handling a lot more often than I use my VX's 4L!

Not sure what to say about the haul@ss in high gear/crash into a tree thing. I tend to think of momentum as a friend who keeps me OUT of trouble more often than getting me INTO trouble. Throttle control man! Just because that loud pedal goes all the way to the floor doesn't mean you have to put it there when you're in a tight spot!


@blacksambo

Well, I've driven a Miata and I've driven a VX and I can tell you, my VX is no Miata. It handles quite well considering its height and mass - but it's no low to the ground, 2500 lb sports car that's for sure. As far as Tone's success at autocross I think there may be a few other factors at work besides handling. AWD traction comes to mind. The autocrosses I've been to had really tight turns connected by short straights so RWD cars were at a disadvantage. Oversteer looks good to the spectators but wastes time. Corner speed was important (as with just about any type of racing) but the ability to put the power to the pavement and get to the next corner as quickly as possible was what separated the winners from the also-rans. (there's that throttle control again) This is where the VX would have an advantage over a Porshe or Miata. Also - did you consider that maybe Tone was a very good driver? He probably could have beaten some of those Porsches if he were driving a clapped out Country Squire. Not to insult any autocrossers here but that sport seems to have a lot of appeal to the weekend warrior type who doesn't have the skills to keep from wadding his expensive sports car up at the track so he runs over cones instead. Some really get into it and have serious skills but alot of the ones I saw lacked knowledge and precision - they were playing - basically just there to have fun and show off their car - and Tone would trounce someone like that no matter what he was driving.

[blacksambo]

Good points all. But C&D did say Miata and Open Road did say best handling SUV. So, keep the commentary coming. The VX is something special, and we need to define in order to get that "obscure" point off Wikipedia. Thanks

[circmand]

hmm.. very interesting discussion for sure....
circmand- generally i would agree with you on jeep being the first....UTILITY vehicle... but there is nothing performance or sporty about the first jeeps.

im gonna have to go with the eagle as well... first of its kind to have ground clearance, AWD and a little power...(ya maybe lacking in power a little, but its definately more powerful than an old jeep)


The original post asked for the first utility vehicle so I answered that question. Following high jackers continue to try to change the question to high light their prefered vehicle. As for performance and sporty? Well think back to the 30s and 40s when it came out. You could not even 4 wheel anywhere. They actually created the vehicle that made 4 wheeling popular, suree a car invented 40 years later is going to do it better but that means they are not first. Add to that all the functionality of the Jeep and you have a winner.

[vt_maverick]

What was really the first performance utiility vehicle? Said differently, what is the VX's palce in automotive history. Was the Mercedes G-Wagon the first? I'm guessing the Porsche Cayenne thinks it's first but it would seem to owe alot to the VX, at least in terms of styling innovation. What does the group know about this subject? I hate to see the "obscure" history words used when describing the VX in Wikipedia. Don't you?


The original post asked for the first utility vehicle so I answered that question. Following high jackers continue to try to change the question to high light their prefered vehicle. As for performance and sporty? Well think back to the 30s and 40s when it came out. You could not even 4 wheel anywhere. They actually created the vehicle that made 4 wheeling popular, suree a car invented 40 years later is going to do it better but that means they are not first. Add to that all the functionality of the Jeep and you have a winner.

I think you see what you want to see.

[blacksambo]

No high-jacking here. The original Thread request was for First "Performance" Utility Vehicle, and the discourse on the history of all Utility Vehicles is quite helpful at getting us to the point we need to reach. Thanks

[circmand]

I think you see what you want to see.

That proves my point even I saw it difeerently then it was. Thanks VT for proving my point even if it was at my expense

[vt_maverick]

No worries circ, in fact if you read carefully enough, sambo actually was actually coining a new term called "utiility" - I think it's like utility 2.0 or something. ;)

[Jay Dunford]

what do you think would happen in this situation with an X6? mmm... not a good idea.
http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/data/3227/00000153.JPG

I need to try that again this year with the new 35' MTR's

[pbkid]

you were really freakin close jay....
just a little hung up for ground clearance.. which the 35's should take care of.

[blacksambo]

No worries circ, in fact if you read carefully enough, sambo actually was actually coining a new term called "utiility" - I think it's like utility 2.0 or something. ;)

Let's forgive the typos and reach a new higher ground for the VX!

[SlowPro48]

just a little hung up for ground clearance.. which the 35's should take care of.

Oh heck yeah - and make it handle like a Miata too! :bgwb:

[blacksambo]

Again, C&D's idea.

[blacksambo]

Have you seen the TopGear episode on the BMW X6? Saw it re-aired last night. They said the X6 was the most useless car ever made! They showed it being unable to climb a grassy incline while a Rover in 4 Low flew by, and the X6 spinning hoplessly in two inches of snow on the flat. So, the VX easily tops that. How do we name a place in history for the VX? I think it's easier that we think.

[blacksambo]

How about it's the first car to handle or corner well on a wide variety of terrain and surface conditions? Comments?

[circmand]

Oh heck yeah - and make it handle like a Miata too! :bgwb:

The Miata is not high on my list for handling and performance in the sports car catagory. Being small it gives the appearance of being zippy and agile but really not much power or performance

[vt_maverick]

How about it's the first car to handle or corner well on a wide variety of terrain and surface conditions? Comments?

How about we just say it's the "self-proclaimed first-ever PUV"? I think if you're looking for a truly defensible "first-ever" statement you're probably wasting your time.

[Mile High VX]

How about we just say it's the "self-proclaimed first-ever PUV"? I think if you're looking for a truly defensible "first-ever" statement you're probably wasting your time.

:thumbup::thumbup:

[blacksambo]

Well, if we are going to move from"obscure" it better really proclaim something different about itself, and since the Lambo was an earlier PUV it kinda makes the VX second albeit that vehicle didn't have 4 Low. By emhasizing the handling ability on all surfaces, even rock climbing etc. that mandates the 4 Low capability, and that would definitely set the Vx apart from the Lambo. It would then be a first to accomplish this desirable task, among others. What do you all think?

[Ldub]

IMO...I can't imagine this topic, even in it's misunderstood form, has accumulated over 50 replies...:rolleyesg

Whatta we goin' for here???...braggin' rights?

An absolute definitive description?

Y'all enjoy this: :badhorse:...:yesgray:

I'll be over here, looking much like this:...:_thinking

[SlowPro48]

blacksambo, why do you want to move from obscure? A lot of people consider the VX's obscurity to be a positive attribute to ownership.

[Ldub you've obviously figured out what the real deal is with this thread but without discussion of politics it just doesn't have the legs to go the distance - so come on man - don't stand by the sidelines and watch a helpless thread die - help it out - even if you have to talk about orangutans...]

[Riff Raff]

The only thing I wish the VX had was another separate lever for 4WD-Hi (50/50 locked) mode. So, in essence we would have 3-modes on the VX: TOD (normal); 4WD-Hi (50/50 locked); 4WD-Lo (50/50 locked).:grino:

[blacksambo]

Typically cars with obscure designations are left out of the history books and subsequently undervalued. Is that what the group wishes? (hard to imagine, but nevertheles possible) If we don't put forth the effort, the Wikipedia description of obsure will stand, but I don't thinks it's deserved, otherwise this thread would not have had so much comment. We should keep trying. My two cents, so to speak.

[circmand]

The first crossover with the lower half of the body covered in BLACK cladding?

[VXR]

The first crossover with the lower half of the body covered in BLACK cladding?

not a good idea since the cladding is clearly not black:yesb:

[blacksambo]

Style certainly can play a big part in removing the obscure designation. That's what the managing editor of C&D said in their video review of the VX back in '99, while testing it in Hawaii. How about the first PUV that can go from competitive street handling to nimble rock climbing, which also introduced strongly aggressive styling features. (These features are on a great many cars today. Again making the VX first.) Or something like that?

[blacksambo]

Whew. Just out. The VX was spared from Forbes top ten list of car flops. Now we have to work hard to build up the VX image so it acheives the fame it rightfully deserves:

Legendary Car Flops
These autos were the best at being the worst.
.print
send e-mail this page
IM this page
Buzz Up! By Hannah Elliott

1978 Ford PintoThe recent news that Consumer Reports put the 2010 Lexus GX 460 on its "Don't Buy" list has already impacted the vehicle's future--Toyota has issued a stop-sale order on the $52,000 SUV and commissioned extensive testing to determine the cause of its failure.



The safety warning could also pose a public relations problem for the beleaguered company--the GX is the only vehicle to receive the "Don't Buy" designation since it was instituted last July. Only 11 vehicles have received the less-severe "Not Acceptable" rating since the list began in 1969.



But it's too early to call the GX a failure. That label could come after a couple of years of poor reception. Think more along the lines of the 1971 Ford Pinto. Or the 2001 Pontiac Aztek.


MORE AT FORBES.COM
» Photos: 10 Legendary Car Flops
» The 10 Biggest Vehicle Recalls
» Worst-Made Cars On The Road
» The World's 10 Most Popular Cars


"The Aztek is the only car that I can remember that people would walk by and actually point and laugh at you when you were driving it," says Jake Fisher, a senior automotive engineer at Consumer Reports who has worked in the automotive industry for 14 years. "I remember being parked in it, and people would giggle and point because it was so hideous looking."



The Aztek, GM's first attempt at a crossover vehicle, isn't the only car to elicit such a reaction. The Lincoln Blackwood, the Yugo and the Cadillac Cimarron, in the opinions of the industry experts we sought, also make our list of the worst car flops.



Behind The Failures
In addition to Fisher, who is also a professional driver, Mike Caudill, an automotive expert for NADA Guides, and Karl Brauer, editor-in-chief at Edmunds.com, contributed to our list of the worst flops in history. Each had his own ideas about what makes a vehicle a flop (the cars on our list must have been sold in the U.S. in mass-production volumes available to any buyer)--Fisher says the Honda Del Sol should be on our list because of its odd looks, poor driving performance and short production run; Caudill disagrees about the relative merits of its performance.



But our experts also fingered many of the same vehicles.



The Ford Edsel is one of those models. Along with the Yugo, Edsel is virtually synonymous with the phrase "automotive failure." It was produced from 1958 to 1960, ostensibly as a way to help create a new, up-market division at Ford Motor Company (Edsel cars cost between $2,500 and $4,000, which was more than Ford-branded cars at the time, but less than the Lincoln-branded cars; Mercury cars were priced about the same). But sales were dismal (84,000 total, about half of the projected rate) and critics lambasted its styling (a unique horse-collar grill, among other things), its reliability and overall quality.



The 1982 Cadillac Cimarron is another frequently mentioned flop. Cimarron was Cadillac's first try at making something small--dealers had requested a fuel-sipper because gas prices had become prohibitively high. The Cimarron was built on an economy-car platform and offered either manual or automatic transmission, with some amenities. But it appealed neither to Cadillac's loyal followers, who appreciated powerful V8s and Cadillac's domestic luxury edge, nor to buyers who favored Europe's luxury brands, whose cars out-handled and out-classed the Cimarron in every way. It was discontinued after just six years of production.



"It came at a time when Cadillac was trying to discover itself, and it was one of the ugliest vehicles they ever could have made," Caudill says. "It doesn't look like what you'd expect a Cadillac to look like. If you look at a Mustang now vs. a Mustang then, you go, 'Wow, cool.' But you don't look at a 1982 Cadillac Cimarron and go, 'Man, I need one of those.'"



It Takes A Special Car To Fail
Not just any car can be a flop. Most have a combination of a stinted production run, drastically lower-than-projected sales (at least 50% lower than expected), and critical and/or popular disdain. It will likely also have poor safety or reliability scores, although that's not a prerequisite. One thing is certain: They all end up costing their makers a lot of money. Ford lost $200 million-$250 million (or $1.55 billion adjusted for inflation) on the failed Edsel venture, according to reports at the time. Years later, Ford also lost millions in settlements paid for lawsuits brought over safety complications with the 1970 Ford Pinto.



The Pinto was Ford's first subcompact car and was successfully redesigned to sell hundreds of thousands of units during its 10-year production run. But it earned a devastating and long-lasting reputation after reports of a faulty gas tank that could burst into flames during rear-end collisions. Hundreds were killed in fire-related accidents, and Ford received scathing criticism when investigators discovered that an inexpensive upgrade would have prevented the problem. All told, it cost Ford more to repair all the faulty Pintos than it cost to make them in the first place.



The 1984 Pontiac Fiero, too, had combustion problems: chronically low levels of oil in the car's engine led to roughly 200 reported fires and dozens of injuries, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and GM press releases.



Of course, many "flopped" cars have enthusiastically loyal cult followings: '80s-philes love the Back-To-The-Future-famous DeLorean, and collectors pay thousands of dollars for hard-to-find Edsels. Red Bull even fastened large soda cans to the tops of a fleet of bright-red Suzuki X-90s, ugly-duckling two-seaters that sold for just two years, in order to advertise its energy drink.



Other notoriously "bad" cars weren't really that bad, Fisher says: Maybe they just failed to resonate, or perhaps they were meant to spur something even better down the road. The Cimarron flopped--but it might have helped pave the way for Cadillac's 2010 $35,165 CTS, also a compact luxury sedan, which has re-energized the brand and won rave reviews from critics and consumers alike.



The same goes for GM's first potentially mass-produced electric vehicle, the EV1. While there's virtually nothing redeeming about the odd-looking, unreliable and expensive car, it does have a certain value, Caudill says.



"Sometimes in the automotive industry, you have technologies come out that help other automakers learn what not to do, as opposed to what to do," he says. "You have to applaud General Motors. They gave it a shot."



Top Five Legendary Car Flops
Cadillac Cimarron
Production Run: 1982-1988



Total Units Sold: 132,500



Flop Notes: Low sales; poor performance; didn't work coming from a luxury brand.



Ford Edsel
Production Run: 1958-1960



Total Units Sold: 84,000



Flop Notes: Outré styling; low sales.



Ford Pinto
Production Run: 1970-1980



Total Units Sold: Unknown



Flop Notes: Fuel tank problems led to combustion during rear collisions.



GM EV1
Production Run: 1996-1999



Total Units Sold: 1,100



Flop Notes: Expensive and unreliable; low sales.



Lincoln Blackwood
Production Run: 2002 in the U.S.



Total Units Sold: 3,300



Flop Notes: Low sales; expensive; carpeted truck-bed made it impractical.



Click here for the full list of Legendary Car Flops

[circmand]

The VW Thing poor sales and stopped production due to safety issues

The Corvair the only auto I know to have actually had a book dedicated to its death trap status

[circmand]

not a good idea since the cladding is clearly not black:yesb:

Clear black it is matte black

[SlowPro48]

Typically cars with obscure designations are left out of the history books and subsequently undervalued. Is that what the group wishes?

Yes!!!

Well... I don't know about the group but that's what I wishes. It's the only way I'll be able to afford my dream of owning one of each color. Except Proton. Proton is for pooh-boys.


If we don't put forth the effort, the Wikipedia description of obsure will stand, but I don't thinks it's deserved, otherwise this thread would not have had so much comment. We should keep trying. My two cents, so to speak.

Dude, you do realize you can change that Wiki entry anytime you want don't you? Jump on it man! Wax eloquent! In fact if you do that and put a bunch of crazy, erroneous stuff in there (e.g., claim the cladding and hood insert are black) you might get a little more mileage out of this flogged horse of a thread due to the resultant squabbling. Even if you do that though I still say unless you start talking some politics this thread will never even come close to The Kerry Thread...

[Ldub]

Whew. Just out. The VX was spared from Forbes top ten list of car flops.

Phew...we dodged that bullet...:rolleyesg

You have no idea the "pins & needles" feeling I've been experiencing, waiting to see the Forbes opinion...:uhohgray:

We're talkin total edge of my seat here...:yesgray:

My sarcastic point being...I don't care what the opinions posted on, or in, wiki, Forbes, C & D, whatever say...:sleepgray

I know that I get to drive the most baddest PUV ever produced on the planet, & it makes me happy...:thumbup:

Damn what history has to say...:smilewink

[blacksambo]

The "whew" was tongue in cheek, for sure. Just a little humor to push things along.