Cars that "devalued" the brand...
Discussion
Manufacturers are often "blasted" by the purist/enthusiast community when they bring out a new vehicle that doesn't fit in with the perceived ideology of the brand. Porsche is a classic example with the Cayenne in the early 2000s and to a lesser extent the Panamera and the availability of diesel engines in a Porsche later. More recently, the Urus came under fire for being a betrayal to the Lamborghini brand.
However, in the above two examples, I would have to disagree. A lot of the purists/enthusiasts that object in many cases don't actually have any interest in buying the new models or can't afford to, so it's irrelevant anyway. The people who actually do are usually quite wealthy and will own multiple cars and need a more practical family car/daily driver to sit alongside their Hurracan/Aventador/911/Cayman. In the past, they may have liked to have another Lamborghini/Porsche but there wasn't anything available for them, so they bought an S-Class or a Range Rover instead or whatever. Why would Porsche/Lamborghini want to lose this potentially captive market?
Rather than "devalue" the brand, I would argue that the Cayenne/Urus add value to their respective brands. They still offer the ultimate in performance and handling for that class of vehicle and the Urus looks like a Lambo and is the fastest SUV you can buy? Sure, perhaps there's a bit more Audi in there than one would have liked and an NA V10 or V12 would have been really cool but the Audi-ness probably makes it an easier car to live with and in all fairness a better all-rounder too. As a comparison, consider the E60 M5 and the C6 RS6 with their NA V10s. I still have an irrational "want" for an E60 M5 because of that crazy V10 but I don't think there's any question that it was a flawed car and the V8TT replacements of both vehicles were much better all-rounders and just as quick. Porsche have been in the SUV game a bit longer and when they announced the Macan, it didn't seem to meet with much resistance, as enthusiasts had come around to the idea of a Porsche SUV. Perhaps if other struggling manufacturers with a "pure" ethos, such as Lotus had brought out an SUV, they might be doing a bit better than they are today.
If I'd saved my whole life to buy a Porsche/Lamborghini then I don't think a Cayenne/Urus would quite cut it but then I'm not really the target market and if I had the means to have a fleet of multiple luxury cars, then I'm not going to say that I wouldn't buy one.
However, I think some cars were badly executed and are quite rightly derided for "devaluing" their respective brands, the Edsel and Ford Pinto being classic examples. So what cars do you believe "devalued" and had a negative impact on the image or reputation of their brands?
Here's a few off the top of my head. Some obvious, others not so obvious.
Austin Allegro
Morris Marina
Peugeot 307 - started Peugeot's slide from good-looking, sweet handling and mechanically tough cars to ugly, fragile, badly built, unreliable pieces of crap, although they seemed to sell fairly well at the time. Fortunately, they're going through a bit of a renaissance now with stuff like the 508 and 3008.
Renault Laguna II - similar to the above but even more disastrous, shame because they were quite a comfortable, spacious, nice-looking car, just very badly executed. A friend had 3 of them in a row and they were all unreliable pieces of junk.
Original Mercedes A-Class - the engineering seemed quite clever on paper but in reality it was a rather odd-looking, gutless, thirsty, uncomfortable, unreliable, badly built and harsh-riding piece of crap. I can find redeeming features in most cars but having run one as a company car for a year, this would be the exception. It seems like the A-Class has finally morphed into a pretty decent car but Mercedes really messed up the first time, whereas BMW/Audi did a far better job of distilling their brand values into a smaller package with the 1-Series/A2/A3.
City Rover - OK, Rover were already on the ropes at this point but despite variable build quality and designs much in need of an update, the 25/45/75 were all actually pretty decent cars. However, the OAPs all needed an "upgrade" for their Metros/Rover 100s and this is what Rover gave us. Based on an Indian Tata of some sort, it definitely didn't feel like a Rover and would have been sub-par even in the 80s. Still, despite it's short life it still sold surprising well but all those people should have bought the considerably better and no more expensive 25 instead.
VW Fox - with VW being a "global" company, this was a product of its South American division and whereas it wasn't a bad car per se, it didn't have the quality or showroom appeal that a small European VW should have in comparison to the Lupo that preceded it and the Up! that came after. The nice thing about VWs from this era was that you could get out of a 50k Touareg and into a 10k Polo and feel instantly at home i.e. you had the blue backlighting and all the major controls were in the same place etc. This had none of that and no appeal apart from being quite spacious and freakishly tall.
But I think the Aston Martin Cygnet has to take the cake. Judging by the number that I see, I think that Aston Martin were a little misguided in thinking that this was the 2nd vehicle that their customers wanted but that would have been OK if they had actually put some effort into it and created something themselves. Putting a chrome grille and a leather interior in a Toyota iQ and charging double for the privilege was really taking the piss and a dark day for my favourite car brand.
So what are your automotive "villains". The ones that really damaged/"devalued" the brand in your opinion?
However, in the above two examples, I would have to disagree. A lot of the purists/enthusiasts that object in many cases don't actually have any interest in buying the new models or can't afford to, so it's irrelevant anyway. The people who actually do are usually quite wealthy and will own multiple cars and need a more practical family car/daily driver to sit alongside their Hurracan/Aventador/911/Cayman. In the past, they may have liked to have another Lamborghini/Porsche but there wasn't anything available for them, so they bought an S-Class or a Range Rover instead or whatever. Why would Porsche/Lamborghini want to lose this potentially captive market?
Rather than "devalue" the brand, I would argue that the Cayenne/Urus add value to their respective brands. They still offer the ultimate in performance and handling for that class of vehicle and the Urus looks like a Lambo and is the fastest SUV you can buy? Sure, perhaps there's a bit more Audi in there than one would have liked and an NA V10 or V12 would have been really cool but the Audi-ness probably makes it an easier car to live with and in all fairness a better all-rounder too. As a comparison, consider the E60 M5 and the C6 RS6 with their NA V10s. I still have an irrational "want" for an E60 M5 because of that crazy V10 but I don't think there's any question that it was a flawed car and the V8TT replacements of both vehicles were much better all-rounders and just as quick. Porsche have been in the SUV game a bit longer and when they announced the Macan, it didn't seem to meet with much resistance, as enthusiasts had come around to the idea of a Porsche SUV. Perhaps if other struggling manufacturers with a "pure" ethos, such as Lotus had brought out an SUV, they might be doing a bit better than they are today.
If I'd saved my whole life to buy a Porsche/Lamborghini then I don't think a Cayenne/Urus would quite cut it but then I'm not really the target market and if I had the means to have a fleet of multiple luxury cars, then I'm not going to say that I wouldn't buy one.
However, I think some cars were badly executed and are quite rightly derided for "devaluing" their respective brands, the Edsel and Ford Pinto being classic examples. So what cars do you believe "devalued" and had a negative impact on the image or reputation of their brands?
Here's a few off the top of my head. Some obvious, others not so obvious.
Austin Allegro
Morris Marina
Peugeot 307 - started Peugeot's slide from good-looking, sweet handling and mechanically tough cars to ugly, fragile, badly built, unreliable pieces of crap, although they seemed to sell fairly well at the time. Fortunately, they're going through a bit of a renaissance now with stuff like the 508 and 3008.
Renault Laguna II - similar to the above but even more disastrous, shame because they were quite a comfortable, spacious, nice-looking car, just very badly executed. A friend had 3 of them in a row and they were all unreliable pieces of junk.
Original Mercedes A-Class - the engineering seemed quite clever on paper but in reality it was a rather odd-looking, gutless, thirsty, uncomfortable, unreliable, badly built and harsh-riding piece of crap. I can find redeeming features in most cars but having run one as a company car for a year, this would be the exception. It seems like the A-Class has finally morphed into a pretty decent car but Mercedes really messed up the first time, whereas BMW/Audi did a far better job of distilling their brand values into a smaller package with the 1-Series/A2/A3.
City Rover - OK, Rover were already on the ropes at this point but despite variable build quality and designs much in need of an update, the 25/45/75 were all actually pretty decent cars. However, the OAPs all needed an "upgrade" for their Metros/Rover 100s and this is what Rover gave us. Based on an Indian Tata of some sort, it definitely didn't feel like a Rover and would have been sub-par even in the 80s. Still, despite it's short life it still sold surprising well but all those people should have bought the considerably better and no more expensive 25 instead.
VW Fox - with VW being a "global" company, this was a product of its South American division and whereas it wasn't a bad car per se, it didn't have the quality or showroom appeal that a small European VW should have in comparison to the Lupo that preceded it and the Up! that came after. The nice thing about VWs from this era was that you could get out of a 50k Touareg and into a 10k Polo and feel instantly at home i.e. you had the blue backlighting and all the major controls were in the same place etc. This had none of that and no appeal apart from being quite spacious and freakishly tall.
But I think the Aston Martin Cygnet has to take the cake. Judging by the number that I see, I think that Aston Martin were a little misguided in thinking that this was the 2nd vehicle that their customers wanted but that would have been OK if they had actually put some effort into it and created something themselves. Putting a chrome grille and a leather interior in a Toyota iQ and charging double for the privilege was really taking the piss and a dark day for my favourite car brand.
So what are your automotive "villains". The ones that really damaged/"devalued" the brand in your opinion?
Wooda80 said:
The Cygnet makes perfect sense when you view it as an Accessory product rather than a traditional car.
If you want something stylish to put on the back of your yacht to drive around Monaco, or in one of your underground car park spaces to tootle around Kensington or Chelsea when you are at home then there's nothing quite like it to compare.
If you start looking for What Car? group tests and seeing if you can get one instead of a 320d with your employee car allowance then you are missing the point.
It's easy to understand an Aston Martin owner buying an Aston Martin branded watch or pushbike, for example, even though objectively better watches and pushbikes might be available at a similar price point from mainstream watch and pushbike manufacturers. So it was with the Accessory Town Car.
It was more the "lazy" engineering that I took offence to, not the fact that AM made a small hatchback. If they had made their own "mini"/"smart car" etc then that would have been fine but a rebadged, double price Toyota seems like a bit of a cynical attempt from a manufacturer that I had a high regard for. I don't think they sold many, so I guess for curio value alone, values remain solid but there's far more class in buying a MINI/Fiat 500/Smart car/ordinary Toyota iQ in my opinion than that "chaved-up" tat.If you want something stylish to put on the back of your yacht to drive around Monaco, or in one of your underground car park spaces to tootle around Kensington or Chelsea when you are at home then there's nothing quite like it to compare.
If you start looking for What Car? group tests and seeing if you can get one instead of a 320d with your employee car allowance then you are missing the point.
It's easy to understand an Aston Martin owner buying an Aston Martin branded watch or pushbike, for example, even though objectively better watches and pushbikes might be available at a similar price point from mainstream watch and pushbike manufacturers. So it was with the Accessory Town Car.
Harris_I said:
Oddly I have the opposite view. Agree it's not everyone's cup of tea, but an unusual and interesting design, I wish more car manufacturers would take risks with design.
A lot of space in a small footprint. Very clever engine/cabin packaging - it may possibly have avoided fatalities when my father had a heavy frontal impact at high speed. The engine slid under the passenger compartment and the car was a write off but 4 people emerged from the car in one piece. (He wasn't conducting an elk test, in case you were wondering).
Ride is sensitive to wheel size. We've had both big and small wheels, and the former are terrible, but the latter makes it a pleasant enough (if unexciting) steer.
I've been looking at cars from my learner driver daughter and the old A-class seems to be a really sensible first time car: small, lots of visibility, easy to see the corners, safe, has a feeling of solidity other first time learner cars don't have (like her current Peugeot 207). What's not to like?
The current A-class seems inoffensively bland and undifferentiated from the rest of a saturated market.
I think that I could have forgiven the looks if it was actually a pretty decent car (see my thoughts on the Vauxhall Mokka) but it wasn't. Getting a job at a Mercedes-Benz dealership as a 22 year old and being told that I was going to get a Mercedes company car was pretty exciting but my A160 Elegance LWB manual was not the dream and lots of things broke in the year that I had it, even though it was brand new! You don't see a lot of these around any more and I can understand why and this was a 20k Mercedes. My mum's 5k mk1 Ford Ka was a much nicer car in every way. I agree that the engineering sounded pretty clever and had some merits in terms of packaging, interior space and safety and the mk2 A-Class (similar idea but improved) might have turned into a decent car (I can't say because I haven't driven one). The thing is, a "base-spec" 1-Series still drives and feels like a smaller BMW, the A-Class was in no way comparable to a C-Class/E-Class etc. A lot of space in a small footprint. Very clever engine/cabin packaging - it may possibly have avoided fatalities when my father had a heavy frontal impact at high speed. The engine slid under the passenger compartment and the car was a write off but 4 people emerged from the car in one piece. (He wasn't conducting an elk test, in case you were wondering).
Ride is sensitive to wheel size. We've had both big and small wheels, and the former are terrible, but the latter makes it a pleasant enough (if unexciting) steer.
I've been looking at cars from my learner driver daughter and the old A-class seems to be a really sensible first time car: small, lots of visibility, easy to see the corners, safe, has a feeling of solidity other first time learner cars don't have (like her current Peugeot 207). What's not to like?
The current A-class seems inoffensively bland and undifferentiated from the rest of a saturated market.
niggtv said:
Cygnet was never intended to be a big seller - it was produced purely for sustainability and efficiency metrics.
I remember reading something about that. Was that just a tax incurred by the UK government on UK manufacturers though because other luxury car manufacturers (Bentley, Jaguar, Land Rover, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati) didn't seem to have the need to bring out a similar vehicle.Red 4 said:
All cynically badged modern Rovers and MG.
If you're talking about the "Chinese" MG stuff then I would agree but I think that the ZR/ZS/ZT were all sufficiently "sporty" enough to merit the MG badge over their Rover counterparts IMHO. I'm not getting the "hate" for the X-Type. Brands like Jaguar/Rover in times of financial hardship need to do the best they can with the tools at their disposal or just let the brand die. Jaguar weren't going to be able to carry on just making XJs and XKs and desperately needed to compete in the small executive class to survive but the only small executive-sized platform available to them was a FWD Ford platform and I don't think that the X-Type was a bad effort under the circumstances. A nicer car than the Mondeo it was based on, maybe not quite as sweet a handler as the 3-Series but on a par with the Rover 75 at least (itself a pretty decent car) and remember even the 3-Series probably sold in biggest numbers with a 4-pot diesel under the bonnet. My friend owns two X-Types (a saloon and an estate) and is well into the Jaguar "brand". I tease him that he doesn't drive a proper Jaguar but in all fairness, it's a pretty decent car and being a musician, he doesn't really fit the UKIP-supporting stereotype! I think that Jaguar should have got into the 3-Series market sooner to be honest and could have maybe done a bit more with the platform i.e. a coupe and cabriolet version and the long gap between the X-Type and XE was unfortunate but the X-Type probably saved the company and allowed them to develop a dedicated RWD platform next time around more befitting of the brand. One might also argue that the mk1 Freelander was a little rough around the edges but certainly broadened the appeal and accessibility of the Land Rover brand, similarly reviving that company and the Freelander 2 was a much more polished effort.
Red 4 said:
I was talking about the latest "Chinese" MGs.
But now I come to think of it MG did a reasonable job of destroying their own brand with the last MGBs.
Utter s
te.
The Rovers you mention were OK I suppose but more of a trim level than anything else.
Having done a stint selling MG Rover in the early 2000s and driven several new Rovers/MGs, I would say it was a little bit more than a trim level. In the same way that the Mazda MX5 and Fiat 124 are "the same", the 25/ZR, 45/ZS and 75/ZT were "the same" but had distinct characters. They looked pretty different, had different seats and different suspension tuning, which made them "feel" different and engine options which were unique to the respective brands. For instance, I don't think that you could get the higher output 1.4 16v in the 25 (105PS in the ZR vs. 80ish in the 25), the non-VVC 1.8 litre engine was not available in the 25, although the VVC engine strangely was in the 25 GTi (not that I ever saw one and it may have put out less power than in the ZR 160). You couldn't get the 2.5 KV6 that you got in the top-spec ZS180 in the 45 but you could get a 2.0 KV6, which wasn't available in the MG. IIRC, the "top-spec" ZT190 with the 2.5 KV6 also put out more power than in the equivalent 75. For a cash-strapped company, I think that the MG ZR/ZS/ZT were a good effort from Rover and possibly the first company to offer you a "modified" look with the more humble engine options out of the factory. It's only relatively recently that BMW/Mercedes etc "jumped on the bandwagon" with M SPort/AMG-line versions of it's "boggo" models. The ZR 105 (1.4) was our biggest seller, as it was cheap, fairly affordable to insure for a younger driver and yet you could order it from the factory to look pretty much identical to the top-spec 1.8 VVC model. There was also a distinct divide between the demographic of Rover (generally older) and MG (generally younger) customers.But now I come to think of it MG did a reasonable job of destroying their own brand with the last MGBs.
Utter s
te.The Rovers you mention were OK I suppose but more of a trim level than anything else.
The Li-ion King said:
This. Especially when they put the Duratorq diesel engine in the Jag that could be found in the Mondeo and Transit, it was a dark day.
2 Series Active Tourer is awful, I went to look at one for a 7 seater, I think it was a 216d with a thrashy 3 pot engine in poverty spec, the only saving grace was the power tailgate.
Still, the cops dont seem to mind the petrol ones, but not a true rear wheel drive, or X vehicle either in performance or build quality.
Toyota Z4, sorry I mean Supra is another example...
Yes, I tended to think that BMW had spared themselves from this scenario, as I think even the cheaper 1-Series/3-Series Compact were quite well executed and stuck to the company's ethos but the Active Tourer was a genuine wtf moment! A BMW in badge only.2 Series Active Tourer is awful, I went to look at one for a 7 seater, I think it was a 216d with a thrashy 3 pot engine in poverty spec, the only saving grace was the power tailgate.
Still, the cops dont seem to mind the petrol ones, but not a true rear wheel drive, or X vehicle either in performance or build quality.
Toyota Z4, sorry I mean Supra is another example...
Roger Irrelevant said:
As virtually none of the examples given of cars that 'devalued' a particular brand had any appreciable effect on the manufacturer's bottom line - usually quite the opposite - I can only conclude that 'devalued the brand' in fact means nothing more than 'caused a few internet car bores to have a whinge'.
Actually, perhaps there was one...Vauxhall were a pretty popular and well-liked brand in the early 90s. The Corsa had more showroom appeal than the dated mk3 Fiesta, the mk3 Astra probably had the edge over the mk5 Escort, as did the mk3 Cavalier over the dated Sierra and the Omega over the fugly Scorpio. They also had some sporting credibility with the GTE/SRi models, the Calibra and the Cavalier's success in the BTCC. However then Ford brought out the mk1 Mondeo and Vauxhall the mk1 Vectra. The Vectra looked OK but wasn't the big step forward over its predecessor that the Mondeo was and thanks in part to a very scathing review from a certain motoring journalist, I'm not sure if the Vauxhall brand has ever really recovered. These days, Fords are generally quite well regarded, whereas Vauxhall and Audi are probably the most derided on PH. At least Audi are "desirable" to many and commercially successful though, whereas Vauxhall not so much, even though their current cars may be pretty decent.
Another car that I think probably saved the company but came across as a bit "new money" and not "proper" in the view of traditional Bentley fans with its humble VW underpinnings was the original Conti GT.
Harris_I said:
We've had diametrically opposite experiences! 
Family has owned 2 A-classes. Admittedly a sample size of 2 is not helpful, but 100% reliable over the past 10+ years (still own one) and the car feels very tightly put together (in contrast the French and Italian hatches in our family have deteriorated quickly).
On the other hand, the 2001 C-class owned by a family member was the true brand devaluer and epitomised the DaimlerChrysler era: an absolute dog of a car, crude 4-cylinder engine, hopeless performance and fuel economy, tatty trim, rusted wheel arches. I couldn't bear to look at another Merc again until someone threw me the keys to an SLS one day, and I became a convert to AMGs (the real ones, not the fakes).
No problem, happy to agree to disagree. Family has owned 2 A-classes. Admittedly a sample size of 2 is not helpful, but 100% reliable over the past 10+ years (still own one) and the car feels very tightly put together (in contrast the French and Italian hatches in our family have deteriorated quickly).On the other hand, the 2001 C-class owned by a family member was the true brand devaluer and epitomised the DaimlerChrysler era: an absolute dog of a car, crude 4-cylinder engine, hopeless performance and fuel economy, tatty trim, rusted wheel arches. I couldn't bear to look at another Merc again until someone threw me the keys to an SLS one day, and I became a convert to AMGs (the real ones, not the fakes).
Seriously though, the original A-Class was the first Mercedes that I drove and a massive disappointment. I also ran a Vaneo with the clutchless manual for a couple of weeks whilst my A-Class was in the shop for a gearbox fault. Even uglier but it did at least ride better with that massive wheelbase! I actually got so sick of driving A-Classes that I defected to an MG Rover dealership after a year and ended up with a Rover 25 instead, which was fine. Sorry if this sounds harsh but the original A-Class is possibly my least favourite car of all time...ok, second least favourite, I forgot about the City Rover! 
In contrast, I loved the old W202 C-Class Estate that I owned briefly a few years back! 2.5 turbodiesel, 40mpg, 200k, 700 pounds, a lovely, comfortable and very practical car despite being a '99 and having surface rust on every exterior panel!av185 said:
Interesting points but I think it is more a case of Vauxhall (and to lesser extent, Ford) having declining sale at the expense of increasing Audi BMW and Mercedes sales on the backdrop of low interest rates driving low pcp 'mumflies' together with the German brands traditionally having higher residuals.
Pity really as imo contemporary Vauxhalls are in most cases as good as the cleverly marketed German 3 but continue to have a 'prestige'/ image problem for whatever reason.
That's true to some extent but the Corsa/Astra/Fiesta/Focus are still significantly cheaper than anything Audi/BMW/Mercedes make. The Fiesta/Focus/Mondeo seemed to have somehow gained an air of middle-class respectability, rather than being looked down on as a bit "downmarket" like they used to be. People generally know that they're pretty good cars now but they just get on with the job and don't shout about it. If anything, Ford and VW have switched in the marketplace, with the VWs being a bit "shoutier" and sometimes bought to impress. Part of Vauxhall's problem today is little to no brand image. Half the range is "GM", the other half "PSA", will they still be around in 5 years time? Nobody knows. The litmus test, is that I can't honestly say that if I were to make a shortlist of 3 cars that I would consider buying in each sector, that a Vauxhall would be in any of them. I can't be alone in this and other than the old buffers who have always bought Vauxhalls because they're "British", I see relatively few on the road compared to Fords/VWs and can't see many being sold to privare buyers, so I'm assuming that fleet/rental fleet sales are keeping them propped up at the moment. In the 80s/early 90s, I think that the answer to that question would probably have been different.Pity really as imo contemporary Vauxhalls are in most cases as good as the cleverly marketed German 3 but continue to have a 'prestige'/ image problem for whatever reason.
king arthur said:
This x 100.
The Rover Metro wasn't a bad super mini in its day but it was an AUSTIN!
When in the history of marketing has the idea of taking a mass market product and sticking a premium brand (which Rover still was at that point) on it ever done anything other than ruin the brand?
Rover was still a maker of large cars (okay, the Rover 200-badged Honda Ballade wasn't but it wasn't actually a terrible car). What in God's name made AR's inept marketing department think the way to sell more Austins was to put Rover badges on them? When has this ever worked for ANY other car maker?
So, no longer was Rover remembered for decent exec cars with V8 engines that unfortunately fell apart. Now they were known for little rot boxes that used to be Austins, that fell apart. Way to go, whoever's idea that was.
I'm no Metro fan but I seem to remember the Rover Metro being pretty well regarded in its day and the small Rovers (Metro/R8 Rover 200/400) being praised for their "quality" in comparison to the competition in the early 90s. The Rover Metro was a pretty decent update of the archaic Austin Metro with the new K-Series engines etc and it was competing against outdated dross such as the mk3 Fiesta/mk2 Polo/K10 Micra/Renault 5/Peugeot 205 etc. Alright, the Peugeot 205 was actually a really good car but still the best part of 10 years old by this point. OK, they strung it out for too long and by the time it became the Rover 100, it was hopelessly outdated in its sector and a 1 star safety "deathtrap" but in the early 90s, not a bad little car.The Rover Metro wasn't a bad super mini in its day but it was an AUSTIN!
When in the history of marketing has the idea of taking a mass market product and sticking a premium brand (which Rover still was at that point) on it ever done anything other than ruin the brand?
Rover was still a maker of large cars (okay, the Rover 200-badged Honda Ballade wasn't but it wasn't actually a terrible car). What in God's name made AR's inept marketing department think the way to sell more Austins was to put Rover badges on them? When has this ever worked for ANY other car maker?
So, no longer was Rover remembered for decent exec cars with V8 engines that unfortunately fell apart. Now they were known for little rot boxes that used to be Austins, that fell apart. Way to go, whoever's idea that was.
The Maestro and Montego literally transitioned from Austin to Rover completely unchanged, so I would say that they were bigger offenders than the Metro to be honest.
Raygun said:
The Metro at the beginning of the 1980's was very popular, similar to the BMW Mini in recent times and more recently the modern version Fiat 500.
It's easy to say how crap they were now but do remember it's forty years ago, most run of the mill cars forty years ago were crap if we're comparing them with today's run of the mill cars.
I'm not sure if it was a "fashion" item in the same way as the MINI and Fiat 500 are now but it was certainly very popular and seen as the "future" in comparison to the Mini which was still available at the time and probably considered to be quite outdated i.e. with a hatchback and later a 5 door option, more practical, spacious and refined etc. Certainly, when I was in 6th form in the late 90s, the "default" first car was a Metro or a mk2 Fiesta. Maybe if you were lucky and your parents paid for it, a mk2 Golf! 20+ years down the road however, time has looked more favourably on the Mini than the Metro. It's easy to say how crap they were now but do remember it's forty years ago, most run of the mill cars forty years ago were crap if we're comparing them with today's run of the mill cars.
Touring442 said:
And now the Transit. Maybe I should start a thread on just how utterly crap the 18 plate Custom that I drove last week was.
Oh really? I rented a new ("old") Transit back in 2013 and was shocked how horrible it was. It made me have a bit more sympathy for "white van man" and understand why they often drive the way that they do i.e. get to where they need to go as quickly as possible so that they don't have to sit in the uncomfortable seats/listen to the horrible racket of the diesel any longer! I would have hoped that the new one would have been decent.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff