Crossover Utility Vehicles are all the rage now, while cars are slowly disappearing from the showrooms. However, manufacturers seem to have no compunction about taking the names off of these old cars and reapplying them to CUVs. The results of these name transplants are often automotive non-sequiturs.
First up, we have the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross, taking the name of the legendary 90s sports coupe (and depending on your perspective, the not-so-great 2000s and 2010s followup models). I had hoped that the slow sales of this CUV might put the brakes on this name desecration trend, but I fear it will not, as we shall see.
Next up, the Audi TT, which is soon ending production and is rumored to have its name slapped on a battery-powered CUV. While this is still in the early planning stages, Audi has been dropping hints about this for a while. The 2014 Audi TT offroad concept (pictured above) gives you an idea of what a crossover TT might look like.
Lastly, and perhaps most egregiously, we have the Mustang “inspired” BEV crossover that Ford plans on unveiling later this month. Technically not a replacement for the Mustang (at least not yet), it is more of a brand extension to the existing Mustang coupe. It likely will not be called a Mustang, but instead something Mustang-esque, like Mach E or Mach 1. But make no mistake: The multiple Mustang design cues (like the three-bar brake lights and galloping pony logo) make it clear the connection they are trying to establish here in the mind of the buyer. 3D CAD drawings of this car recently leaked, and there are numerous renderings available online, a sampling of which I have captured in this article.
But name desecration is hardly a new phenomenon. Remember when Ford tried to put the Mustang name on what ultimately became the Ford Probe? The Korean Pontiac LeMans? I could go on, but I have to leave some for everyone else.
So I’ll kick it to you: What do you think is the worst form of Automotive name reuse?
1988-1993 Pontiac Lemans. Need I say more?
+1000!
+10,000
I actually felt insulted when GM did this.
“Sirs, have you no shame? At long last have you no shame at all?”
Immediately thought of this, and knew everyone else would too. Now, time to think of some others…
I was annoyed when Pontiac used the full size 1960s Ventura name on a re-badged 1970s Nova.
But in general, the 1970s (starting in 1973 with primitive emissions counter measures) were less than spectacular years for GM.
Compare to the above photo.
Somehow I knew that was going to be the first comment before I even read this post.
That was the first one I thought of, too, but when I saw there was already over 30 comments I was certain someone had already mentioned it, and I was proven right.
I’ll post my own candidate below, but that picture makes a damn fine argument.
I blame this for the demise of Pontiac.
It may not be entirely true, but that’s my story and I’m sticking with it.
I agree the Lemans pictured was one of the worst name transfers. To go from legendary midsize to a Chevette sized sub compact.
The Grand Am was another Pontiac blunder. All the big three did it with their cars, remember the small Cougar.
What about the Duster being put on a Dodge Aspen. We had Dodge Dart not too long ago.
The Duster name was never applied to the Dodge Aspen. However, it was later applied to the Plymouth Sundance.
He should have said Volare. Mopar F-body, either way.
L body (Horizon) too!
The Probe really wasn’t far off formula other than being FWD with Japanese roots, it was still essentially a ponycar and most importantly a Coupe. Had it come out in 1982 I don’t think enthusiasts would have cried foul to Ford, but in the late 80s it was poised to replace the now refined Fox and its legendary 5.0. The very idea that they’d use the Mach 1 name on a BEV crossover of all things is insane. And wish Ford the worst of luck if they actually commit to using it on that ugly Tesla imitator with mutilated taillights
The 77-79 and 81-82 “base” Cougars that were nothing more than intermediate sedans and wagons.
1976 Charger comes to mind as a close second… do I mean 1975 you ask? No, Córdoba clone or not it was at least a relativemy handsome specialty body, and really the Charger always was in essence a PLC. In 1976 however that became the SE while the *base* Charger was now using the dull Coronet body.
And the current Charger for that matter… yes, there’s the hellcat, scat pak Daytona High performance packages, and even its current styling pays pretty good homages to the Chargers of yore, whilst, in my opinion, still looking mostly modern. But it’s a 4-door, which I could still overlook, but it’s a 4-door that occupies an entire full size segment. Not a specialty model like the original. I have a hard time coping with Charger police cars, Chargers are supposed to be the cars that get chased!
Perhaps if the production charger were closer to the concept car shown in 1998, the name might’ve been less of a divergence from past practice…
…but that’d’ve made it a Coronet or a Polara or a Monaco, and those dogs (or Dodges) won’t hunt no more.
I agree with the current Charger. A fine car, in its class, but a Charger should not be a 4 door sedan. The Korean LeMans is so bad it’s not even in the running.
Yes, yes. Let the hate flow through you…
The Mach 1 name was last used as an option package on the Mustang fifteen years ago. There’s not really anything sacred about it. Especially if Ford uses Mach E, which really does nothing to sully the name.
As for the EV being an “ugly Tesla imitator with mutilated taillights,” I’m just seeing a crossover coupe like vehicle that’s a solid mix of Fusion, Edge, and Mustang design cues. I see nothing on it that says Model X or Y.
The Mach 1 name was last used as an option package on the Mustang fifteen years ago
And? It was a comprehensive V8 performance and trim package just like the Mach 1s of yore. Mach 1 or Mach E, people will catch the reference, most people I have known with those new edge ones refer to them as “Mach’s”. Ford hasn’t explicitly used the Cobra name in 15 years either, is Cobra not sacred too?
The grilleless grille silhouette front end, the greenhouse, the black roof and rear hips scream Tesla Model 3 and Y. I’m even suspecting these renderings are modified images of them.
The point is that automotive name reuse doesn’t really sully anything that came before it. Especially if the current models (Charger, Challenger, Mustang) are doing fine in their own right. Performance trim names aren’t terribly sacred.
I can see some Tesla in the front end, but otherwise Ford just combined elements of the Edge, Fusion, and Mustang into one vehicle, including the rear hips.
I don’t at all think this sullies what came before, if anything name debasement does the opposite, making the old stuff that much more appealing by comparison. The question is why? Why take away the Mustang’s ability to use the Mach name in its own future by wasting it on this, and why if it’s not sacred is it being revived at all?
Mach 1, Boss, Cobra, Shelby may be trim names but they are trim names synonymous with Mustang. Plastering them onto anything else is just as much debasement as Mercury plastering the Cougar badges onto sedans/wagons, and on the horn pads of Lynx and Capris during the “sign of the cat” campaign. It’s cheesy and shallow marketing, reeking of desperation trying to capitalize on the one distinct model in an otherwise floundering also-ran lineup. Unfortunately Ford seems to be there once again.
Perhaps the thinking is that the electric vehicle, like a top trim Tesla, will absolutely spank any internal combustion vehicle on a drag strip. From that perspective it makes sense, some electric vehicles absolutely are performance machines.
Frankly I think that’s half the reason a lot of the traditional sporty luxury cars are in decline, they no longer have much of a “performance” crown to hold onto. Tesla especially has decimated that aspect of the market. Additionally, having something like a Hellcat isn’t half as interesting when an electric car at 3/4 of the price will take the pink slip….not everyone buys it just for the sound or the look.
Of all the old Mustang names out there the Mach name is the most obvious one denoting speed, it being a measurement of speed itself.
Jim, the only tesla that stands a chance against a Hellcat is the p180d…$133K. That’s two Hellcats and proper tires. Muscle cars aren’t in decline, they’re doing very well, outside the botched camaro. But that’s not sporty/luxury. Tesla doesn’t appeal in any way to gearheads, anymore than Hellcats appeal to technophiles. Two VERY different buyers.
I think ford is screwing the pooch with this mach ev thing. If they want a Mustang inspired crossover, that’s fine—it needs to use Mustang power and that means the 5.0 MUST be on the menu. If they’re gonna pursue EVs (a fool’s errand) then it should be completely devoid of any Mustang or performance car nods. Greenie tech and American muscle DO NOT MIX. That’s going to only piss off/alienate both sides of the aisle.
I personally don’t object to that, Jim, but what I then question is why not make an EV Mustang package and call it Mach 1?
@Matt – Likely due to the best way to make an electric car being to develop it that way from the ground up. To develop a second small coupe platform just for an electric Mustang doesn’t seem like an efficient use of the funds when the bulk of the market seems to want a CUV type of thing. Even if they plopped a new body on whatever this new thing is that’s sort of Mustang shaped, the market is quite small. It’s relatively small for the regular Mustang already.
At the end of the day they need to figure out a way to make money. If they think that more people will buy a Mustang-cued Mach-whatever named thing than something else then they will do whatever needs doing to make it so.
I’m aware of that, I ultimately suspect the longterm goal for the Mach E is to test waters and act as stopgap to what will be a full blown Mustang crossover.
If my cynicism is proven wrong there will eventually be a next generation Mustang coupe presumably on a truly all new platform(the current S550 is an extensive update to the previous S197) and I’d expect it to be modular for EV and gas configurations given the trajectory of technology. Save the Mach 1 name for then. Why the rush to revive this name that has been dormant for 15 years?
No, “Cobra” is not sacred (viz the Pintostang excrescences it was applied to).
….and it killed any credible use of the name for 12 years. 😉
How about the mid seventies Monza reuse as opposed to the original Corvair?
Think the renderings are based on the ford body in white
I agree with with you Edward. The Mach 1 name means nothing to a lot of folks (including myself)
So why not use it for something else?
As for Mustang fans being up in arms about using the name Mustang on a SUV. Why should Ford really care? I understand that in the late 1980’s when Ford was poised to call the Probe a Mustang, there was a lot of opposition to this (probably having more to do with the anti-Japanese attitude of the time rather then FWD) and that Ford heard the complaints and backtracked.
However back then Ford was selling a lot of Mustangs (88- 170,080, 89- 161,148) and those sales were very important to Ford’s bottom line so they caved to the complaints.
But now in 2019, there is a much different story. This story is called “Times Change”
In Model Year 2018: Ford sold 75,842 Mustangs.
By contrast Ford sold the following:
909.330 Ford F-Series
272,228 Escapes
250.690 Explorers
113.345 Focus
134.122 Edge
173.600 Fusion
(If anything Ford should rethink killing off the Fusion and Focus with those sales numbers)
All in all Ford sold 2,497,318 vehicles in 2018.
So if they piss off Mustang owners who cares? They don’t have no clout anymore.
After all when Porsche brought out a 4 door car and SUVs folks complained. When Jeep came out with a 4 door Wrangler folks whined but they sky did not fall in on these automaker. I see a lot more 4 door Wranglers then 2 door ones
Perhaps Ford will sell more Mustang name plated vehicles with the crossover.
Ether way Ford should tell Mustang owners that the 1960’s are over and it is 2019, time to move on
Fine, piss away the last remnants of fun in the car industry so milquetoast crossover owners can feel cool driving a “Mustang”.
The fun car market is so tiny that anyone chasing that niche is bound to lose money and fail spectacularly.
As much as it sucks, we the enthusiasts are about 0.00001% of the people out buying new cars. And if we do buy new, we usually buy something practical or more luxurious than sporty, and buy and keep old cars for the fun factor.
OEMs are in it to build and sell new, so our collective love of cars has little or no bearing on what they will build to make a profit. We need to be glad that we have the cars of the past around for us to still enjoy.
And when all the old cars rust away and get priced out into new car territory by investor collectors, then what? I’d gladly buy a 1970 Challenger, but I can get a brand new one for less money, drive it daily, have a warranty etc.
I don’t see how flooding lineups with 19 variations of crossovers will be sustainable either. Slapping a few heritage names on them isn’t going to disguise the fact that the iconic name is meaningless after a mere few years if they are a success, moving 100-200k units a year
And it’s quite ironic the “shut up, enthusiasts are insignificant” attitude is hinged on an argument about using model or submodel names enthusiasts care about on vehicles for non-enthusiasts that don’t care or know what the names are anyway.
“The very idea that they’d use the Mach 1 name on a BEV crossover of all things is insane.”
I dunno, the Mach 1 name didn’t conjure up any great visions of speed and power when they hung it on the Mustang II from ’74 to ’78. The package did include an engine upgrade to the V-6 (which you could upgrade to a V-8 from ’75 to ’78), but no one expected 60’s level performance.
Link to my ’74 Mach 1
I think manufacturers look for the best product name available to them, and then apply it to product that reflects current times.
Well it was still attached to a Mustang fastback at least, and almost nothing conjured up great images of speed and power between 74 and 78. But its misapplication did kill off the Mach 1 name for 25 years, so it still kind of proves my point.
Same goes for the Cobra II. Ford debased two of their best performance names so badly in the 70s that they had no choice but to revive the generic GT name for 1982’s performance revival.
We’ll have to see what actually transpires in the form of the vehicle that actually materializes……if it does actually materialize. For some reason, the innovation and the lack of real certainty in the industry reminds me of the early 20th Century…..tried and true horse and buggy versus internal combustion engine, versus steam power, etc. There were overhead cam engines and turbo/ supercharging available with the high end auto makers, but the domestic auto makers were trying to find the configurations that best suited a blend of affordability and desirability.
It’s anyone’s guess as to what a muscle car may look like in 15-20 years or so. As a traditionalist (I’m 40), I’d like to think that the cars that I grew up with will continue to rule, but the tried and true diehards that go to the Sunday car shows are all getting very gray, ‘ya know.
Heck, if 50 years ago, anyone said that Jeep would be basically the last independent standing (at least in name and the configuration that they built their brand on), they’d likely be declared insane.
A muscle car of the future will look like a muscle car or it won’t be a muscle car, simple as that. If it can’t sustain profitably let it die and bury the names with it. If a new crossover based subsegment of performance cars emerges, it’ll be its own thing just like every other variation of automotive performance. Sports sedans were called sports sedans because the bodystyles werent traditional sports cars for example.
I’m wondering the age of everyone in favor of the Mach 1 (or E) naming scheme, as it feels as though only tried and true diehards would be this eager or desperate to revive that badge on what’s proposed. I’m 30 and was in high school when the 03-04 Mach 1 was out and had friends my age who owned and raced them through our 20s. You think WE will be buying these in a few years because of the name?
The Packard Cavalier of 53-54 was an elegant sedan in the middle of the Packard range.
The Chevrolet Cavalier was most decidedly not elegant.
Chrysler Aspen. What were they thinking? 30 years wasn’t long enough to clean the smell off that name. There were still a lot of people around in 2007 who remembered the F-Bodies, not so fondly by many. Another named filched from a sedan and put on an SUV.
Runner-up would be VW reviving the Rabbit nameplate in 2008. AFAIK that didn’t last long. Rabbit memories are also not fondly recalled by all.
As for that Ford CUV, I understand why they did it, but that doesn’t stop me from wanting to kill it with fire.
In today’s wacky world, maybe they should try an Edsel comeback.
Well…..Ford Ranger!
They could have an Anxiety special edition.
There is currently a “Rabbit Edition” of the current GTI so they just can’t keep their fingers out of the hutch…
The Aspen reminds me of another similar one that came around at the same time, the Lincoln Zephyr. I don’t think it would be an exaggeration to say that more people recalled the Mercury Zephyr based on the Fairmont of the late 70s than the 30s-40s Lincoln. Especially when both were obvious tarted up Ford’s.
(Though one could easily argue the Mercury Zephyr itself qualifies.)
I actually liked Rabbit better than Golf, I was kind of happy to see it come back at the time. My Mom loved her 84.
Why would have possessed them to name a high roller SUV after a small Dodge with a horrendous quality record that almost sank the company in the ‘70’s? How was that a good idea?
The square-jawed 1980-82 Mercury Cougar (the Granada twin, not to be confused with the Cougar XR7, which was itself based on arguably the worst Thunderbird ever).
I can’t speak for you Yankees, but here in Halifax the Eclipse Cross is actually a pretty strong seller.
Olds did slap on “Cutlass” somewhere to almost all their cars in the 80s.
The Charger name has been used on small Japanese coupes, Omni 024 twins and four-door sedans, as well as a Cordoba twin.
Ford used “LTD” confusingly on separate models for awhile.
They also used “Taurus” for the X, and what was the Five Hundred.
Back to Olds, the “4-4-2” moniker changed it’s meaning several times including mainly a decal package. It’s been everything at some point.
Correction: I was thinking of Challenger not Charger for the Japanese coupe.
Just as bad!
“Renegade”. From the early ’70’s to mid 80’s that name emblazoned on the hood of many a boldly styled CJ-5/7 and even a body kitted YJ Wrangler for a couple of years. Yeah, it was an appearance package but it had STYLE. I really thought that Renegade shouldve been the name for the YJ and all of its successors. What FCA calls Renegade these days definitely does NOT conjure up images of testosterone fueled roguishness (and that’s another ill-fitting name), even if it’s an unusually capable vehicle for a car based CUV. Since I owned a ‘78 CJ-7 Renegade with a swapped in AMC 360 barely muffled with dual cherry bombs, I have a specific image in mind what ‘Renegade’ is and what debauchery it enables.
The upcoming ‘Blazer’ is likewise a disgrace to that nameplate. Im sure it’s a perfectly fine replacement for the comparable midsized sedan these cuvs are supplanting. If ‘Blazer’ can’t be what every K-5 had been (burly BOF, V8 powered offroad capable 2-door open top sports utility) then at bare minimum it should resemble the ZR2 version of the S-10 Blazers made from ‘94-‘05.
Well the Blazer is already out, and I don’t think it’s a disgrace to the nameplate. The mid 90’s Blazer was pretty terrible and damaged the name to the point where the new one could only improve things. And it seems like it has.
The mid-90’s S10 Blazer wasn’t ‘terrible’. The 4.3 V6 is a proven piece, and the overall lineup made a LOT of sense: four doors were mild mannered and family oriented, the two doors offered sport oriented Extreme and offroad focused ZR2 packages mirroring the pickups. Both had some appropriate suspension and running gear upgrades. I see literally ZERO of any of that offered on the current lame fwd based Blazer. The newer V6 having a power advantage over the older motor is the only advantage, otherwise BOF, rwd based wins all day long.
BOF, RWD based wins the two dozen people that want to buy that new. It doesn’t win the millions of people who quite clearly want a car-based, efficient, FWD/AWD vehicle to drive themselves and their families to school, stores, work, etc in any conditions.
The majority of people buying BOF RWD-based vehicles to take them heavily off-road are buying them well used.
As little as I personally care for the Blazer, they built the right vehicle format-wise for the market. It may well be a failure but it’ll do better than it would otherwise. GM is in business to make money, not to satisfy a couple of dozen people on the internet.
The 4Runner is taking all the BOF, RWD-based market that the Wrangler 4-door leaves behind. Durable, capable enough, upgradeable, and with stellar resale and reliability/durability reputation GM wouldn’t stand a chance if they tried to compete. Both of those vehicles benefit from a long history and are popular with people well outside the circles that one would traditionally consider interested in such vehicles, i.e. serious off-roaders and trail-runners. I’d say more than half (80%?) of buyers never even take them offroad and half of them probably can’t explain what BOF means. They aren’t interested in a Chevy. They probably won’t be interested in the Bronco either, for that matter.
For the record I think both the current Blazer and the S10 based Blazer are trash – bulletproof it may be 4.3 was a rough leaky burden, one of those engines GM in particular had a knack at where you wish they would just die already! – anyway…
While I agree about what most people want is what you describe, there is no reason RWD based can’t be that in this day and age, especially with AWD which throws all FWD advantages out the window. Most people don’t know or care about FWD or RWD if the technology is equal. There are Grand Cherokees everywhere and other than being unibody are as traditional as they come and work just fine for modern normal buyers. For the rest of us few it’s nice to have the future selection. The 4Runner has stellar resale because of this reason, there’s dwindling choice for anything else like it.
Is the current blazer actually even selling well somewhere? I have looked at them going past dealer lots but I struggle to recall seeing more than two on the road since they came out, at least around my parts. The 90s ones were way more common(and still are for the most part). I’ve read limited reviews since I loath this segment, but the few I read were mixed at best.
They’re FWD since they are mostly based on existing car platforms. Since you are correct that nobody cares there is no point to developing a new RWD platform that isn’t being used for a car when you can just adapt an existing one, usually FWD, for the task at hand. And no, the Blazer isn’t particularly impressive, it just fills a gap.
The one area where FWD based doesn’t lose its advantages are those hybrids that use an electric rear axle to supply AWD as needed. You keep the flat floor and general space efficiency.
The GC is RWD mainly due to this generation having been developed with MB, the upside being it allows the V8 to be offered. None of the three (or four?) smaller Jeeps are RWD based. The GC could just as easily be FWD really, as you say it doesn’t particularly matter, nobody buys a CUV specifically for its “handling characteristics”, if FCA had a turbo-6 they’d just as likely offer that in place of the existing V8.
XR7,
I don’t think GM wants to actually sell any Blazers. I think it is a Mexican Jobs Program or somesuch, Have you built and priced a Blazer on-line? It is not hard to get them to cost $50,000 or about what two Nissan Rouges cost. CVT or not, two Rouges would last me about twenty years…at least.
James, I agree with you on the Blazer being overpriced for what it is, but I doubt any Renault-Nissan product would easily last 20 years, especially a kids carrying CVT equipped CUV like the Rogue.
The Dodge Challenger name slapped on a 4-cylinder Mitsubishi in the late 1970s/early 1980s (twin to the Plymouth Sapporo, which was at least more honest about its Asian roots).
Here it is in all it’s glory :-/
Didn’t that iteration of the Challenger come with a “semi-hemi?” 😉
No, the 2.6L Mitsu motor was a hemispherical combustion chamber engine.
Upon release, the 1981 FWD Ford Escort had a semi-hemi combustion chamber engine, hearkening back to the Boss 429. Although, the relation was pretty far separated at that point.
On the positive side, if one knew nothing of its badge engineered Mitsubishi roots it’s not any worse than the Mustang II at least. It actually has a few styling traits the Fox Mustang used too
I’ve noted this too. The Mitsubishi-built Challenger when it arrived in 1978 was a considerably better car than what Ford called a Mustang that year, and a direct competitor.
MG ZS – from wolf in sheep’s clothing sports saloon/hatch in 2001 to cheap SUV in 2015.
You beat me on Le Mans so I’ll suggest Nova.
I remember TV ads for the Corollnova that showed the new car, and then alternated to a souped up 70’s version with the words “NO LONGER AVAILABLE” underneath of it. At least the marketing team was in on the joke.
Honorable mention to Cougar.
The Cougar was the first one that sprang to my mind, as well. Seems like more than any other name, Cougar bounced around between numerous, distinct models:
Ponycar
Personal luxury car
4-door
Station wagon
Mid-size coupe
Compact coupe
As an aside, one of my favorite stories about the original, successful budget musclecar, the Road Runner, was how John Riccardo (later Chrysler president) had actually pitched the Road Runner name be on a distinct model line with 4-door and wagon versions.
The “Cougar” was always available as a coupe throughout its run. The sedans and wagons were available to people who wanted a “sporty” version of a Ford sedan or wagon.
If there was a Mustang Mach 1 in production currently and then Ford wanted to bring a Mach E to market I think people would be less critical. The fact that there is no Mach 1 available and Ford may debut a Mach E is upsetting people.
On the other hand, I don’t see what Ford could give a Mach 1 today to make it special or differentiate it from the current Mustang line-up. Perhaps the 3.5 Ecoboost from the Ford GT? Then people would complain that the Mach 1 should not be a V-6, etc.
The Boss and Mach 1 were only available as options on the Mustang because Iacocca did not want Shelby associated with the Mustang brand during his tenure. Shinoda actually coined the “Boss” trim as a tribute to Iacocca. The current Mustang has reverted to “Shelby” nomenclature making the Mach 1 and Boss names no longer necessary.
This is definitely the core of the backlash. People have been expecting a Mach 1 package since the last one ended in 04 on the newer retro cars, and then Ford teases over a decade later the return…. on an electric tall station wagon?
I think there’s a place for the Mach 1, and that place would be what the periodic Bullitt editions occupy, or even have it occupy the space the GT track pak occupies. The 03-04 Mach 1 was basically the 2001 Cobra, using the same DOHC 4.6 and big brakes and handling suspension, but with the live axle in back and all the cosmetic features added(shaker comfortweave seats, gauges etc). The 2012-2013 Boss 302 was similar in spirit as well. Something dynamically and cosmetically above the GT but below the SVT/Shelbys. Make the GT a V8 value option, akin to the old LX 5.0s
The OG Mach 1s basically replaced the GT, and their base engine was a rather anemic 351 2V with single exhaust. The Bosses really were what occupied the niche the 65-68 Shelbys had occupied, and Boss referred to Bunkie Knudson, not Iacocca, who brought Shelby in on the Mustang.
I agree too that the Cougar at its core remained a PLC for the bulk of its life, and in the wagon/sedan years the XR7 was the “real” Cougar (who says submodel names aren’t important?).
I’m not sure how the Mach E or whatever it will finally be called makes the Mustang the most egregious example, it won’t be called Mustang. They are just saying that it is Mustang Inspired which means it will likely share Mustang styling cues. Having a family resemblance is very common.
Using the Mustang to inspire other Ford vehicles goes back to the beginning. The Bronco was sold as a “new kind of sports car” with the “spirit of the Mustang”.
The Falcon from which the Mustang was born also gained Mustang inspired styling, ie long hood and short deck in its later years. The current Fusion shares some styling cues with the Mustang too.
The Maverick was another Mustang inspired Ford and of course the Pinto name was also inspired by the Mustang.
The current Fusion shares some styling cues with the Mustang too.
Umm the Fusion came first, the Mustang adopted its cues for the 2015 redesign, departing from the mostly standalone retro cues of the 05-14 generation.
None of those historic examples were as blatant, the Bronco looked nothing like a Mustang, it just was named after another horse, and marketing capitalized on that very tenuous connection, Maverick didn’t have triple vertical bar taillamps, and the Falcon’s long hood/short deck design was as much inspired by Mustang as it was conveniently cheap to chop the butt off the larger Fairlane it was based on. None shared much else.
When Ford released the teaser for the “Mach E” it spelled out distinctly “Mach 1”in the old 70s Mach 1 font. Maybe they saw the deserved backlash in the year+ since and changed it to “Mach E”, but the intent is there.
I didn’t say which one came first just that there are similar styling elements on the Fusion and Mustang and they are aimed at completely different markets.
Yes they did tease it with the Mach 1 moniker but that was quickly changed to Mach E after the faithful cried foul. Even if they do use Mach E that doesn’t preclude using Mach 1 on the Mustang in the future if desired.
Note the original named trademarked for this vehicle was Model E which is why Elon is stuck with S3XY for his cars instead of SEXY like he wanted but wasn’t quick enough at the trademark office.
I think the Porsche Cayenne was “inspired by” the 911, styling-wise and performance-wise, as this Mustang-ish crossover will be. Ford is just adding electric propulsion to that formula. Maybe it will help prepare the Mustang faithful for the inevitable changeover to electric power.
The 1986 Oldsmobile/Buick/Cadillac Elrivado.
Mercury Capri-
Not the Lincoln Coupe from the fifties.
Not the captive import from the seventies.
Not the Fox body from the eighties.
No, the worst use of the Capri name was the Australian built wanna be Miata from the nineties. To be fair, the name wasn’t the problem. If the car delivered on the promise, the name would have been fine. But since they used it on that sad sack of a car, they earned my derision.
Yes, the last version of the Capri pretty much killed the name.
I don’t think it killed the name, only because that’s not what most people think of when they think “Capri”
And certainly not the UK Corsair-based coupe from the 60s
IMHO it’s all historically fitting, as crossovers are now the thing those coupes were back in the day – a chance for carmakers to dig through the parts bin and sell what they find as status symbols at a price higher than usual.
Too lazy to look it up right now, but I think FCA badged some full-size RWD Dodge or Chrysler sedans as Lancias in Europe. That’s just sacrilegious. But then a Lancia Fulvia is my automotive wet dream, and I loved T87’s writeup of the Lancia Aprilia.
If I ever buy another Chrysler 300 I most certainly will change out the grill, wheel centers, airbag cover and rear emblems to turn it into a Lancia Thema.
But calling a Chrysler 200 a Lancia Flavia was sacrilege.
The R/T badge on a Dodge Journey
The Dodge Caravan R/T takes that even further away though…
I don’t have an issue with Dodge using R/T for the performance version of its cars at this point. It has been used on all sorts of models way before it ever found its way on a Caravan and Journey.
I would have preferred that Chevrolet re-issue it’s Zxx nomenclature in the 2000s instead of Cobalt SS, Malibu SS, and HHR SS but that ship has sailed.
The same dilution happened with Ford’s SVT and now ST.
Something that bothers me today is Buick’s use of “Custom” when nothing really was “Custom.” This year Buick creates an Extended-Length Encore and calls it GX instead of the obvious “Custom.” It’s no suprise to me anymore though since Buick had a convertible called Cascada instead of SKYlark and a station wagon called Regal TourX instead of Regal Estate or I would have reluctantly accpeted Regal eXtate if they absolutely had to work an X in there somewhere. I guess I should be happy that its 2020 and I can still buy a brand new Buick at all….?
I didn’t know about the Caravan, I think I found the R/T badge on the Journey particularly bad, because out here we had a very honest application of the R/T badge, and to Chrysler Australia’s credit, discontinued the letters when they pulled out of racing.
( hard to post a picture of one on the track back in the day, this one is from Allpar , I know Bryce will like it !)
+1
Mercury using the name “Monterey” on their minivans back in the mid 2000’s, I don’t get why they had to use the name on a classic full sized car onto a minivan
Chrysler using the name “New Yorker” on the K cars back in the 1980’s, I always felt the name should’ve been retired after the discontinuation of the R bodies or use it on the M-body cars instead.
That was due to Bill Ford’s decision to name all Ford name models beginning with “F”, all Ford SUV’s beginning with “E”, all Mercury’s begin with “M”, and all Lincolns beginning with “MK.”
I am not saying that slapping “Monterey” on a minivan was a correct decision but Mercury was handicapped by the Bill Ford Edict and looking at it that way makes use of the Monterey name slightly more justified.
I think Pontiac using Trans Sport on a minivan was way worse. There was nothing Sport about it and it instantly made the Trans Am worse by alliterative association.
The Chrysler New Yorker was…
“Until its discontinuation in 1996, the New Yorker had made its mark as the longest-running American car nameplate.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_New_Yorker
I did not realize this fact until I brought a 1995 New Yorker and did some research on it.
I think the New Yorker should have continued instead of burying it in favor of the “LHS/300.” I am probably in the minority with that opinion though.
I’ve totally forgotten all about the mid 90’s Chrysler New Yorker, I thought they were a great alternative to the Buick Park Avenue of the same era, I also wish they would’ve continued making the New Yorker after 1996 as a family luxury car and the LHS/300 as the sporty near luxury car.
Over 50 years of brand equity just flushed away with the axing of the New Yorker. LHS sounds like someone’s high school.
Pontiac Tempest on a rebadged Chevy Corsica in Canada.
The 2011 DeTomaso Deauville.
Hmm…let’s try again.
What a lovely GM parts-bin interior!
I’m certain some reviewer had to say it back then, but DeTomaso Dullville.
I was never too wild about the use of the GTO moniker first on the Ventura, and 30 years later on the Holden Monaro. Not that the GTOnaro was a bad car, but its styling lacked something that was present in the GTO’s first few model years.
I agree that the styling on the original GTO’s was far better than the Holden design. However, the GTO was a performance version of the Tempest and the 1964 Pontiac Tempest was a damn fine looking car in its own right.
At the time the Holden was imported to the US, Bob Lutz was looking for something special but not expensive to bring to Pontiac and the only car available in GM’s portfolio that would have worked for Pontiac was the Holden Monaro.
Should GM have done better…absolutely but if they had done better they would not have needed to hire Lutz in the first place and the GTO never would have been resurrected. I will say that the Holden designed GTO did a good job of fitting in to the 2004 Pontiac line-up with styling that was clearly 21st Century Pontiac.
Uh, Pontiac re-used the GTO moniker from Ferrari, so that one pretty much takes the cake anyway…
You beat me to it. Gran Turismo Omologato. I still remember about 35 years ago stumbling up to the Hertz counter at LaGuardia after a tiring flight from the West Coast, and being offered a free upgrade to a “sports car”, a Daytona. The first thing that came to mind was a Ferrari 275 GTB/4. Not the two door hatchback K Car they gave me the keys to.
Oh, yeah…point well taken!
In 1984, when the British arm of PSA-owned Talbot, formerly Chrysler UK, formerly Rootes, was finishing a final pint in the last chance saloon, trim levels of the outdated Alpine and Solara models were branded Minx and Rapier, and proclaimed to be fit for the 80s. They weren’t, of course, and the plug was pulled on Talbot shortly afterwards.
Ha! I read the headline as “Relieve the legend”!
That seems more appropriate.
China has their own ideas about using western car names and imagery.
That is magnificent.
To be fair, some re-use of names looks ‘what were they thinking’ worse today with the passage of time, than when manufacturers first re-used them.
In 1978, the Challenger name didn’t have the value it does today. Or had in 1970. In an era of uncertainty with cars being downsized for the first time, and fuel economy and space efficiency being priorities, many saw the original Challenger on the used car market as gas guzzling rust buckets. Which they were, given there wasn’t much value in the pre-owned car market for them. Driven into the ground dinosaurs from an era that was gone for good. They weren’t seen as collector items yet. And made a bad choice as daily drivers in that era. In fact as a kid, I never really equated the Mitsubishi/Dodge Challenger car (or name) with the original. That it was ever attempting to emulate the original in any way. Other than being a sporty young person’s car in tune with the times. I don’t recall many purists raising a big fuss at the time, given few thought cars like the original would ever come back. Whether in the car magazines or on the street. Thinking like most people, the era of high horsepower pony cars was going away for good. I think many saw the Mustang II in the same light. Not realizing a high horsepower/performance epoch would return with a vengeance.
I agree. If dodge had continued making the Challenger using their own designs it wouldn’t be a stretch to presume they’d have ended up conceptually different from these, they’d probably be Omni based in that scenario it could have been worse. I think what throws gearheads off, and I do speak for myself, is the presence of the GM F bodies, but they really were anamolys, with styling that was lucky enough to be adaptable to the late 70s standards of sporty design sensibilities – I can’t imagine Challengers looked contemporary in that period, the fuselage flanks were very dated and coupe roofline was more suited to brougham than sport at the time(do cringe at the thought of a 1977 challenger with stacked rectangular headlights and opera windows). The Fox Mustang is where the segment wound up and GM followed with the third gen F bodies. The Mitsubishi challenger wasn’t far off
The Challenger never got opera windows, but the Charger did!
Matt, in 1978 many young American buyers would have considered a Mitsubishi-based Dodge Challenger a timely and more desirable car than the dated late to the pony car market original, that many thought its time had long passed.
Hemi.
Mass market sellability years later in 1978, when less fuel consumption meant a lot to young buyers. As the 426 was no longer offered in the final years of the original Challenger. And the 440 was cancelled in 1978.
Tough to find a *mass market* for profit with thirst V8s in 1978.
Well this.
Though like I said, I don’t think the 70 Challenger bodyshell was quite this conducive to a successful update like the 70 F bodies proved to be. They basically cornered the market with no direct competition.
Good example Matt. But I highly doubt the market for pony cars was big enough to support a mass market for the BIg Three and AMC after 1975. I think because GM was the only player that stayed in the market, they were able to capitalize. The Smokey and the Bandit franchise didn’t hurt either. 🙂
Plus, those former pony car buyers all largely moved on to personal luxury broughamobiles by then. While many of those late 70s Camaros and Firebirds had a high luxury/brougham quotient. 🙂
1957 and 58 Packard. They were nice Studebakers. Not many were fooled.
And as long as we’re talking Studes, how about those last Avantis in the ’00s that were obviously just restyled GM F bodies?
And to further screw things up, the next generation of Avanti was based on the Mustang…
I’ll nominate PSA for making a “brand” out of two letters that used to stand for the most daring and revolutionary car Citroën ever made.
This!
I wouldn’t complain if it at least had a pneumatic suspension.
If the PSA/FCA merger happens they’ll likely have to cull some brands, and I hope this is one of them.
DS… Deadly Sin?
Well, let’s see. The Dodge Dart, maybe? I donno, I just can’t really get offended about any of this. There isn’t anything sacred or off-limits or untouchable about car names. This is not 1969, ’79, ’89, or ’99, and people who bellyache about the application of an old name to a new car or blow a gasket because ZOMG SACRILEGE IT DOESN’T HAVE A V8 AND A CARBURETOR!!!!111111!!! don’t exist, statistically speaking. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The most popular Valiants and Darts dating from 1967 onward competed primarily with Mavericks and Novas. The latest Dodge Dart was placed in an extraordinarily competitive segment, with extremely competent competition.
Using the Dart name was no fault of the car, if it didn’t succeed. It was a decent car, in a much tougher field. The reputation from the 60s and 70s of the name ultimately likely didn’t mean much to most buyers. So, I doubt it tarnished any reputation the original Valiant/Dart had.
I think in the case of the 2013-2016 Dodge Dart, the name actually handicapped the car
To me the name Dart, brings up memories of being stuck in Grandma’s 1972 Dart stripper model with no A/C and vinyl seats in hot weather. Why would I want to be reminded of that when I go out to my 2015 Dodge Dart?
The original Dart was Moper’s car to steal the cheapskates and skinflints away from AMC. For every highpowered Dart sold, there were probably 6 cheapskate mobiles(with vinyl and no AC) sold
The name handicapped the 13-16 Dart. Other then the name the car was not a bad car. It was well equipped (love that hidden compartment under the passenger seat cushion) and nice to drive. The car fits in with any 2019 model car.
Also speaking fo Studes, when is someone going to revive the Dictator name?
There were Presidential and Congressional “Editions” of Cadillacs and Lincolns in the 1990’s. I think that is the closest we will get in modern times.
Let’s get really uncomfortable…
How about a Chevrolet Master?
Oldsmobile using the name “Starfire” on the Chevrolet Monza H-body cars in 1975, to me the true Starfire was the performance, luxury oriented car built in the early to mid 1960’s, I don’t get why they didn’t use the name Firenza to begin with.
I don’t think Corsair bodes well for the upcoming Lincoln. And while this one never happened, it would have been the most mortal of automotive sins.
Almost 100 comments in and no one has cited the most obvious one of all. Edsel dancing on the grave of the 1955 Willys Bermuda by naming their wagons the Edsel Bermuda. No respect for what was. Just no respect. Oh, Caddyshack is on. I have to go!
How about “Hemi” applied to current engines that are not actually that design? Hemi means 331, 354, 392, or 426 cubic inches with a great combustion chamber and valve design. Two rows of rocker arms and those massive valve covers are also a nice touch.
Hemis were around long before Chrysler discovered them bit of a cheek really Chrysler claiming something Peugeot invented.
How about Chrysler’s use of “Rebel”? Originally an AMC Rambler model in 1957, it now appears on a Dodge–oops Ram–truck. The term Rebel has not aged well, for reasons that are all too obvious.
Speaking of Ram, it too has changed from a longstanding symbol for Dodge cars and trucks to a feeble attempt at a brand name.
Wait, don’t tell me the word Rebel cancelled too now?
Better tell Disney, they have quite the franchise full of rebel protagonists!
I doubt the ‘Rebel’ connection from the 50s/60s means anything to young buyers. So, it’s not compromising the reputation of the originals. Only to those that remember them. I was a kid in the 70s, with woke car interests, and the Rebel name didn’t have a great deal of value to me at the time. In fact, Rambler and Rebel seemed very dated to me then. In spite of the reputation they inspired for older buyers, they held back AMC from my POV in the 70s. Reinforcing in fact, AMCs reputation for dated technology.
The Rebel name I think of is the little Honda motorcycle of the ’80’s.
Screw FCA corporate. I still call them Dodge trucks.
Many of the ones I thought about were already mentioned, except the Toyota Supra. The last Supra was a Toyota that could give the Corvette serious competition.
The new one is just a cynical BMW rebadge.
Chrysler Aspen, maybe. What were they thinking? Would Ford have considered calling the Navigator the “Granada”?
Ford Five Hundred.
That “F” naming convention should have gotten people fired. The car should have been called “Galaxie”, not the suffix once used.
And renaming it the “Taurus” was also a bad idea. That car was no Taurus.
The Toyota Land Cruiser started life as a credible Jeep competitor and eventually grew into a larger 4 door SUV.
Toyota wanted to re-create the original Land Cruiser in the Toyota FJ Cruiser. Though widely panned by the automotive press it wasn’t a bad car. It just ended up being too bloated, more of Toyota’s answer to GM’s Hummer brand. The main problem was it was an answer to a question no one was asking. The rise of newer CUVs, higher fuel prices and Hummer like vehicles declining popularity led to its early demise.
Eclipse Cross saw one recently it held me up on a rural road, theres something wrong when your new CUV cant out pace a 44 tonne tanker thats speed limited to 91kmh, the sports car that had the same name was only called that in the US Mitsu Japan probably doesnt even know about it.
I’d be happy if we actually had car names. Go through any contemporary parking lot and what do you see? An alphabet soup (more like gruel) of letters, almost seemingly designed with some sort of pretzel logic to express some attribute of the car.
“Hey Bob, how do you like your ASDF?” “Well, not as much as my other car, the QWER, but it’s OK…” Wait, I screwed up. That should have read “as my other CUV…” But I digress…
The alphanumeric sequence made sense when the Germans used it 60+ years ago, but now that everybody has adopted and modified it to suit their marketing aims, we get all kinds of weird variations that seem to make no sense. Really, what is a HR-V? Q70? ATS? C-HR? XT-6?
I’m pleased when I hear about a new car that actually has a name. I can understand what that is when you say: Malibu, Accord, Corolla… But PU4? No clue. And I say that as the owner of a G6!
It hasn’t happened yet, but I predict Chevrolet will revive the Impala name to use with a large CUV
The Saab badge on a Chevy TrailBlazer.
How was the 9-7x name reused?
AMX…
Good one! I somehow pushed these Hornet/Concord AMXs out of my memory. The 79 liftback is almost worthy of the AMX name though.
I know I’m going to be in a tiny, tiny minority here, but this is the first time I’ve seen that unholy marriage of Mustang and crossover… and I want one.
What comes AFTER the SUV-Crossover boom goes bust???
The domestics again caught flat footed, having phased out sedans and invested endless dollars in self-driving tech that nobody wants, and expensive battery tech that has limited appeal.
There will be more bankruptcy, takeovers, and execs blaming everyone but themselves.
Nothing, it won’t go bust. Statistics and algorithms have proven definitively that humans are stable predictable creatures only enticed by sheer practicality and function in products, and don’t at all overestimate their needs or grossly overexaggerate the difficulty of rudimentary tasks using past technology such as the low sedan when compared perfect modern technology such as the crossover.
Afterall, had the tall upright indistinguishable vehicle been common in the 1930s or something, we’d have never departed from them!
The good names of Imperial and LeBaron have been tarnished.
Honorable mention must go to the Dodge Swinger. It was a more innocent time then…
When the Dodge Dart Swinger was being sold, people still referred to the 1890’s as the gay 90’s. It meant happy back then. My mother used to say that she was from the last generation that thought that a girl needed a husband to have a baby.
Did “swinger” mean something different back then? There was a hugely popular Polaroid camera in the ’60s called the Swinger too.
For some historical context, I remember my dad telling me that the Lincoln Zephyr – the first one – was seen as “not a REAL Lincoln.”
I’m going with when GMC’s badge for its titan of the higway, the Astro COE class 8 heavy, was resurrected for use on a pint-size van.
This has happened before, but here in the EU (and other parts of the world) the Galaxy name never had the same connotations as in the US, so they got away with it.
…and the period in which it DID mean something was long enough in the past so that most people were unaware of the travesty.
Very late to this party, but I see the Impala name returning on a very styled version of the new Chevy Blazer.
Wow, such a tough one, and not surprisingly, much of the most egregious offenses come from GM. The Korean built LeMans. The Japanese Nova, based on a Corolla. Affixing the storied GTO moniker to a bloated LeMans in 1973, then committing an even more gross sin by slapping it on a lackluster Ventura. Putting the Malibu name on that most anonymous, invisible, and horribly innocuous sedan in 1997, then Oldsmobile decided to one-up Chevy on the blasphemy-meter and called their version the Cutlass! That one really put steam under my collar! The Monte Carlo named placed on that dull little coupe that was little more than a 2-door Lumina. Or how about the lame, slight of hand GM tried to pull in the early N-body Skylark days, calling the 2-door version a Somerset Regal. It was almost as if GM knew they were guilty of sullying the Regal name, and hoped the the Somerset moniker that preceded it would somehow soften the blow. It did not work, at least on me.
Other makers are guilty of this transgression as well. What about Mercury putting the Capri name on that little turd in the early 1990s? Or that same manufacturer having the unmitigated audacity to put the Cougar name on that misshapen excuse for a car that debuted in 1999?
Or how about good old perpetual screw-up Chrysler, and the seemingly endless bastardization of the LeBaron name, that I swear was affixed to every crappy K-Car variant at some point and even a few M-body rear-drivers as well. Let’s not forget their debacle of sticking the Aspen nameplate on a clumsy, thirsty, and overall very underachieving SUV. The rental car agency I worked for between 2009 and 2012 had dozens of those lumps in its fleet.
It likely will not be called a Mustang, but instead something Mustang-esque, like Mach E or Mach 1
Nope, they went and did it. Mustang Mocky
https://www.ford.com/suvs/mach-e/2021/