You are right about all three of the Big Three being guilty of this, and as such, you might like reading this article: https://www.hagerty.com/media/automotive-history/9-tragically-flawed-gm-vehicles-whose-heroic-fixes-...
The Comet, Mazda Cougar and the Taurus were cars beyond trying to make them into something memorable.
But the one here that is one of the most over looked and under appreciated vehicles of the last 30 years was the Sport Trac.
Now I am not talking some obscure concept but the real thing.
It not only predicted the future of crew cab mid size trucks but look around today and just look at how many are still on the road and are still in good shape.
As we seldom see a well preserved Ranger here in the rust belt yet there are still large numbers of high mile Sport Trac’s that are still in remarkable condition.
I am shocked Ford did not use the Sport Trac name for the Maverick vs the name of a very crappy car that is rarely seen or remembered in a positive way.
Ford was ahead of the market with this vehicle and they should claim a major win here.
I have put Mavericks back on the road and taken others and cut them up with a torch here they had not already fallen apart.
Were there worse cars yes, but there were many better options too.
Most of the cars in this segment and time were built to a price and most of them rotted away in a matter of year hence so few left when so many were made.
The First gen Mustang was a cool car but a poorly made car. Same rust issues and poor design like the floor of the trunk being the gas tank. Remove the gas tank no trunk. Oil leaking in line sixes, poor paint on poorer metal. Short cuts like this were too common of the era. In hind sight they are scary.
Not sure about you but while many railed about the Pinto gas tanks the rest of Fords tanks were far from the safest.
That is why several companies sell fuel cells to replace the factory tanks to improve the safety of these cars.
I admire the early Mustang but may never own one due to the construction.
Even the collector car I have today has it’s short comings. I don’t try to deny what was wrong.
I came close to buying a Maverick, a 1974 I think, with the 302 V-8. It was almost a throwback to the muscle car days, but it had the uninspiring 2-bbl carb version and available only with an auto trans. However, I remember it being a decent driver. I certainly don't see it as a flawed Ford!
Every brand and most models have flaws.
The key is accept the wins with the losses other wise you lose credibility trying to tell me it’s Jack when it was cola.
GM, Ford, Chrysler in the 60’s-2000 made a number of mistakes.
Even worse at Olds is the killed the RWD Cutlass then tried to slap the name on three forgettable FWD cars. Those in charge at the time mistakenly thought the name would carry over. They forgot the car matters more than the name.
Too often names are also recycled because the company already owns the name. The cost of finding, testing and registering a name legally can be very expensive today. Hence the continued registration of old names that often pop up again.
I really was disappointed Ford slapped the Mustang name on a EV CUV and the same for the Blazer name. There was a lot of name equity for not names built on a reputation of what they represented. Both names today are on vehicles they don’t really represent.
Call it cheap? call it Lazy but I call it wasteful of a name that was miss used. Both of these CUV models would have done as well with new names and would have been less controversial.
I think the issue was this. The Blackwood was more luxury vehicle than truck. If it has a more useable bed in it it may have sold better. But the bed ended up just being a big trunk. You haul much there it would damage the bed.
The SSR suffered this too as there was no real truck use for the bed.
The Cadillac version of the Avalanche did ok but it has a very usable bed.
Even Cadillac stayed away from a full on truck. The Denali and now High Country filled the niche. The King Ranch also did the same.
Also at the time of the Blackwood the price was shocking at the time as trucks were much cheaper then and many back then never imagined paying that much for a truck let alone one that could not haul much more than luggage.
It was a truck before its time.
Agreed The Mach e should never have been called a Mustang or Mach E.
This was just lazy marketing.
I too am against the use of the Corvette name on anything but a two seat sports car built by Chevy. To make an SUV would be tragic. Yes Porsche has several SUV models but they are not named Carrera or 911. They were their own models in the Porsche brand line up. Corvette and Mustang are specific models not brands.
It amazes me that car enthusiasts don’t get it. We are a very small MINORITY of the car buying market. Car companies don’t make money off us, the make money from the large portion of the market that are not car people. This list is proof of that. Most of the cars listed were designed for the enthusiast but we didn’t buy them so they flopped. Why do you think manuals aren’t available anymore? Because only enthusiasts bought them. Car companies are in the business to make money, not please enthusiasts. So they are going to make cars that the majority of the buying public wants. And they will name those vehicles what they feel will bring excitement to the car. So by naming it the Mustang Mach-E they were smart. They get to use the Mustangs name to bring attention to what is a fantastic electric vehicle. That’s marketing genius. Ford doesn’t care that a small group of car enthusiasts (who probably wouldn’t buy an electric vehicle anyway) don’t like the name.
Sorry to bring you the bad news but we enthusiasts are just an afterthought to the car companies. They will give us the occasional jem when it doesn’t cost them to much to make. Even the mighty Mustang lives only not from GT and Cobra sales but from the 4 and 6 cylinder models that vastly outnumber V8s.
Nova I get what you are saying but here is the issue.
To get great name equity it takes a great car and years to build on that name.
The difficult thing is to choose a new name that connects and the added cost associated with it. So some marketing people often not true auto people will resort to use a current name like a car was a Oreo.
The trouble is a name is not what makes or breaks a car it is the car. The car will bring equity to the name not the name to the car, The Mach E success is due to what it is not what it is called.
Now where the danger is if you use a good name on a poor car then you risk damage to the brand equity of the name and good model. Imagine Corvette on a Aztec? It would not have saved the vehicle and it would have damaged a good name.
Marketing people need yo do their jobs and sell product with new original names. They are not fooling anyone enthusiast or non enthusiast.
Now if you want to use similar styling that is fine. The family theme was strong in the past and that worked but even then Chevy did not call every car Corvette.
Olds really did a lot of damage to the Cutlass name. The slapped it on thee different forgettable front wheel drives. The Cutlass name did not save the poor cars.
Ford should have created a new name and let the new model define it or take an older retired name that better fits whst this vehicle is.
like the Blaze at Chevy it is nice but it is not a Blazer. This created a lot of issues with even non enthusiast. Chevy may have been better using the Nomad name as it was more a sport wagon vs off road vehicle.
Ford should have trusted they had a great vehicle and let it create its own name.
As a Nova fan, I know all too well about slapping a classic name on a crappy car. Do you not remember the rebadging of the Toyota Corolla as a Chevy Nova in the 80’s? Talk about dragging a classic nameplate through the mud. But this is different. Mustang isn’t just a nameplate, it’s a lifestyle. One of unbridled freedom and excitement. That’s what made the original Mustang so popular and why they are using the Mustang name on the Mach-E. It’s promoting a feeling, not just a vehicle.
One more thing, what is your opinion on the Charger? Many thought it was blasphemous to call a 4-door sedan a Charger. Chargers were always 2-door cars! Now look at it. It’s not only popular but hugely successful with R/T and Super Bee and Hellcat and Red Eye versions.
Yes I was going to bring that up. The late use of the Nova name really damaged the name and prevented further use of it.
As for the life style thing that is not as much I’m play anymore. Performance cars sell in smaller numbers today than they ever have.
The Mustang sold in hundreds of thousands per year not can’t sell six figures per year.
The Pony car formula of cheap RWD car converted into a performance car is dead. Today it is just higher priced GT coupes with declining sales.
Lifestyle is Wrangler and Bronco. I expect GM will enter that feel good market soon as it is growing fast.
I was not troubled much with the Charger kept to the theme just with two more doors in a Sedan strong market at the time.
But even their numbers pale to what they once sold back in the performance days. As of now they will die soon and go electric.
The trouble with the Mach E is it is not a performance car. It is a EV family wagon. Anything EV is going to have good acceleration but it is just going to be another EV CUV. There is no feel good about another appliance.
Talk now is there may be a EV Camaro sedan coming. As long as it is a car I can live with that but if it is a CUV no use another name.
Heck Ford could have used Adrenalin for the Mach E and created a new classic that could hold its own identity.
Bottom line Ford should never had used the Mustang name on this thing. They may regret it later when they really need the name for another product like GM might with Blazer.
Why are you so angry? It's just a car, not even politics. Heck, don't have to call it Taurus. If you want Ford name recognition than how about thunderbird or galaxie? Heck... I'm all in on 're creating the thunderbolt. The mustang was not cancelled and that's why it was not on the list. If you read my post, I said an e mustang would be cool, just make it a 2 door. Anyway, no big deal. But now I'm on a new track for all these mach e posts, they should have called thunderbolt, whadda ya say guys?
This is what had damaged Lincoln and Cadillac. The Corporate engines and platforms have robbed them of their true image and identity. Cadillac today makes a cool car but it has the same engine as my wife’s CUV. Should I pay more money for that? But that is another issue all together.