So it continues. The 2000s were a decade of dying domestic brands, rapidly expanding German lineups, transitioning Korean automakers and the occasional misstep by the indefatigable Japanese. I present to you a suite of cars ranging from a Swedish V8 truck to a full-size German hatchback. Obscure now, and Curbside Classic material in 15-20 years.
Saab 9-7X
A visit from the Swedish Envoy
The basic idea of the 9-7X was sound: utilize a shared platform to economically bring a SUV to an underperforming brand that desperately needed one. But GM’s implementation – simply using an Oldsmobile Bravada body shell to bring a 6th GMT-360 derivative to market – was woefully misguided.
The Oldsmobile Bravada, the 9-7X’s body donor
While Ford purchased Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin – four brands with great prestige that ended up requiring far too much investment – GM chose a quirky, niche automaker, Saab, to position in its stable as a quasi-luxury brand. Ford may not have made much money on Volvo, but their model strategy was coherent and the brand didn’t suffer. They invested in a full-line of cars and SUVs with a distinctive design language. In the 2000s, GM gave Saab a replacement 9-3 on its Epsilon platform – a decent near-luxury entry, if not a 3-Series rival – and starved the brand of anything else. The decrepit 9-5, riding on the GM2900 platform first launched in the 1980s, was forced to endure nips-and-tucks until a 2006 facelift gave it the automotive equivalent of a Jocelyn Wildsenstein face. Two new models arrived to bolster Saab’s tiny range: the Subaru-derived 9-2X, which I shall cover later, and the 9-7X.
9-7X photos courtesy of S. Foskett
For Saabophiles, the body-on-frame 9-7X must have felt like a sucker punch. However, a tiny base of hardcore fans isn’t enough to sustain a brand with grander aspirations. There was exciting new product coming, eventually, but in the meantime Saab’s product range had holes that needed to be filled. The 9-7X was clearly a GM truck, but this wasn’t an ordinary rebadge. The suspension was tuned to deliver more European ride and handling, with a lower ride height, standard rear air suspension and all-wheel-drive. The dash was modified to add Saab’s signature vents and cupholder, and the ignition was placed between the seats. A smart new fascia with Saab’s aircraft-style grille was added, and some other detail tweaks were made. The gutsy 4.2 Vortec I6 with Variable Valve Timing came standard and at first produced a healthy, Northstar-rivalling 275hp and 275 lb ft. If you wanted more power, you could move up to a 5.3 V8 (300hp, 330 lb ft), or from 2008, the Aero with the TrailBlazer SS’s 6.0 V8 (a roaring 390hp and 395 lb ft). However, all the 9-7X’s engines were stuck with four-speed autos.
9-7X sales figures are very difficult to track down, as I don’t believe GM actually broke down Saab sales figures. Considering that between 2005 and 2009, Saab was only selling roughly 17-30,000 units of its entire range, it’s safe to say the 9-7X wasn’t a sales success. Retailing at the $40k mark – considerably more than a TrailBlazer – this should come as no surprise, and also shows why used 9-7Xs appear to be very cheap. If you’re in the market for a used SUV, you could do a lot worse than a 9-7X. It was easily the best GMT-360, it was just a terrible new buy. In 15-20 years’ time, people will either wonder why a Swedish brand produced such an out-of-character vehicle, or they will scarcely remember the car or the defunct brand from whence it came.
Mitsubishi Galant
A gallant effort that fell on its sword
Sometimes Japanese automakers don’t get it right first time around. The mid-size segment is arguably the most crucial passenger car segment and one of the most fiercely competitive. It’s important that automakers follow the right formula if they want to achieve sales success, but even if they do they still may not succeed. Witness Mazda, and its oscillation between Americanized and global 626s and Mazda6s over the years. Fortune favors the Big 3 Japanese sedans. Even if you get the package as close to the formula as possible – and the previous Mazda6 hit it dead on – you still won’t reach your goals. Much as that Americanized Mazda6 failed to surpass even its predecessor in sales, despite a much larger body and a gutsy V6, the 2004 Mitsubishi Galant saw its market share shrivel. And it shouldn’t have.
2003 Mitsubishi Galant
Flashback to 2003. The penultimate Galant is shifting 65k units, a sharp drop from the previous year’s 97k. Basically, its volume is at Mazda6 levels, and there are some parallels between the two: both are on the smallish side, sharply styled and handle well. Nissan had a similarly small mid-sizer that didn’t even have a V6, but for their third-generation Altima they decided to go big or go home. A class-leading 240hp 3.5 V6 and a big increase in dimensions, dwarfing even Nissan’s flagship Maxima, saw the Altima jump up the sales charts to over 200k a year. It was Mitsubishi’s turn to do the same. The 2004 Galant replaced both the outgoing Galant and the aging Diamante, and featured a brawny, 230-horsepower, 250 pound-feet 3.8 V6 shared with the Eclipse and Endeavor, and a mediocre 2.4 four with 170 horsepower (the later, sport-tuned Ralliart model had a 258hp V6). It was heavier, though, than the outgoing Galant and a good 300 pounds heavier than an Accord. The rear stabilizer bar was dropped, but it gained disc brakes all-round. The interior was much more modern, although the satin-look dash was polarizing and hard plastics prevailed. Outside, the car was sharply styled, with a dual-nostril grill, and clean, simple lines. Critics were impressed with its interior room, smooth ride and fun-to-drive handling.
photo courtesy of Desert Auto Trader
So, Mitsubishi had replaced a sporty, smaller mid-sizer with a sedan that was sized right, priced right, handled better than a Camry and looked sharper than most mid-sizers without being over-the-top. Sounds like it could have really grabbed some more sales for Mitsubishi! Of course, we all know how the story ends. Here are the numbers, though: sales fell by over 20k units in its debut year. Each year until 2009, sales would fall around 10k units, before finally leveling off in the low teens. With that kind of volume, Mitsubishi must have felt disheartened. But for a cosmetic revision and a seemingly annual rejiggering of the trim levels, development effectively stopped. The Ralliart, the V6 engine and the five-speed auto were axed for 2010, leaving only the four-cylinder with its archaic four-speed. It’s at this point where the criticism of the Galant really gained credence. It was now behind the times, and the flaws it had at launch (heavy curb weight, interior quality) had only been exacerbated with age. The Galant limped on until 2012, when all three Project America Mitsubishis met the executioner.
photo courtesy of Siemens Chrysler
It’s quite easy to knock the now defunct Galant, but the truth is it was a good car. Sadly, though, Mitsubishi’s scorched-earth product strategy left the Galant almost entirely untouched over its lengthy nine-year stint. In the early/mid-2000s, Mitsubishi released some decent, competitive product – Galant, Lancer, Eclipse, Endeavor– and they let it all wither on the vine. By the end of the Galant’s run, it was like a ghost, down to just two sad, outdated four-cylinder models, lingering on Mitsubishi’s website long after they left production.
An Embarassment of Niches
I’m frankly exhausted by the German automakers’ obsession with filling niches no one thought existed, padding out their lineups almost annually with another new niche product. The Mercedes CLS started this niche-seeking trend; it was drop-dead gorgeous and led to the BMW 6-Series Gran Coupe and the Audi A7, so that’s not too shabby. BMW is determined to best the other Germans at filling nonexistent holes in its lineup, so after launching the hideous X6, it released the 5-Series GT in 2010. The 5 GT is effectively a 7-Series, chopped down but blown up; it rides the same wheelbase as the SWB 7-Series, but is three inches shorter overall and around three inches higher. It also has a rear hatch that opens either like a conventional hatch, or like the trunk of a sedan. The main problem with the 5 GT, though, comes from across the showroom. An X5 is very versatile, looks a lot better and costs $6k less. I don’t know what 5 GT sales figures are like – surprise, surprise, BMW doesn’t report them separately – but I have seen quite a few in Manhattan. Somebody is buying them, but I feel they would be a lot more ubiquitous if BMW had given them more graceful styling and a better price point.
The Mercedes R-Class completes our trifecta of utterly pointless niche vehicles, and thanks to its individual nomenclature, I have the sales figures to prove this was a bust. Furthermore, Mercedes acknowledges it wasn’t getting anywhere with it and has pulled it from the US market. According to Mercedes-Benz at its launch in 2005, the R was a “Sports Cruiser”: an interesting title for a 5000lb crossover. After a little while, Mercedes repositioned it as a “Family Tourer”. To cut through the nonsense, it was a seven-seat crossover based on the ML. Unlike the GL, though, which was actually the seven-seat edition of the ML, the R is lower to the ground and more curvaceously styled (and tows 5,000 pounds less). It was still a fairly long, two-box shape though, which led to some Mercedes minivan remarks. Unlike a minivan, though, the R-Class lacks practical sliding doors that really help touring families with ingress and egress.
pictured: a much more successful and better-looking crossover
The other comparison made by commenters was that the R-Class was similar to the Chrysler Pacifica, another product released during the time of DaimlerChrysler’s “merger of equals”. I never understood that comparison, as the Pacifica looked much more like a conventional crossover, was based on Chrysler’s FWD minivan platform, sold for thousands less and actually sold over 50,000 units annually in its first five years. 50,000 annual units are what Mercedes anticipated for the R-Class, but they were laughably misguided. Their best year was around 18,000 units, and otherwise they sat firmly in four-digit territory. 18,000 units, approximately, was what the GL did in its worst year. There were diesel and AMG R-Classes, but the very same variants were available in the ML and GL. The R-Class was just a big, confused wagon that Mercedes didn’t know how to market or sell; it offered nothing exceptional or unique; and was consistently outsold by its ML and GL siblings. For all the Germans’ sense of adventure diving into these niches, there is also a calculated pragmatism to their actions. Every niche model they release is heavily based on existing models, to keep costs down. If the styling is done well, then they receive handsome dividends as fashion-conscious luxury buyers flock to their new models. However, if the styling is ungainly or bland, they have to spend money telling people why their new idea is a good idea. The 5-Series GT and R-Class seem to spring from fairly smart ideas – a hatchback with a capacious interior for passengers and a lower-slung, luxury minivan – but sticking so close to their platform donors just leaves them compromised and underdone. It’s hard to convince someone of a good idea when you haven’t executed it correctly.
Volkswagen Passat W8
A gentleman’s Grand Prix GXP
Volkswagen’s beautiful but utterly misguided Phaeton wasn’t their only dazed adventure into luxury car territory. The Phaeton was a wonderfully designed barge featuring mechanicals shared with the Bentley Continental, competing at a price point far beyond Volkswagen’s usual territory. The 2002-04 Passat W8 perpetrated a different kind of folly: Volkswagen tried to make a 5-Series rival out of its by then six-year-old mid-size sedan, and retail it for $40k. Volkswagen shoehorned its 4.0 W8 engine – with 271hp and 275 lb ft of torque – into its mid-size Passat. Of course, you can’t simply drop in an eight-cylinder engine into a mid-size, front-wheel-drive sedan without some major changes, even if it is the compact size of the W8 engine (effectively two aluminum, narrow angle 2.0 V4s joined together). Volkswagen added its 4Motion all-wheel-drive system, to quell the torque steer. The two transmissions available were a 5-speed Tiptronic automatic, and a 6-speed manual. The W8 was also available in either sedan or wagon.
photo courtesy of Toffguy
The $40k, 4.0 Passat was almost 4000lbs. That means the Passat was around 400lbs than a BMW 540i, and it felt it. However, the news wasn’t all bad with the Passat’s dynamics. Critics noted it had little torque steer thanks to the 4Motion system, although with 271hp it was less powerful than many rivals. The W8 was still smooth and punchy, though, and the car handled confidently. The Passat’s interior featured wood and leather, but too much resembled lesser Passats’ interiors. Although the quality and design was impressive in the $25k arena, it was much less appealing at $40k. Matt Stone of Car & Driver put it best in his long-term evaluation of the car when he said, “The Passat W8 is either an awfully expensive VW or a screaming bargain of an eight-cylinder sport sedan. Or both.” Volkswagen name and overall lack of luxury cachet aside, the W8 looked very much like Passats that retailed in the $20-30k range, with only a different exhaust, badging and alloys to visually indicate you had a much more unique ride. If someone is splashing $40k on a sport sedan, they generally want it to be visible. Buyers obviously agreed, with its second year of sales only totaling approximately 2,300 units. You will hit Curbside Classic gold if you find a W8 wagon with a stickshift.
Suzuki Kizashi
Something great did come. And then it went.
A combination of low sales volume and the recent signing of the death warrant for Suzuki’s North American operations make their entire lineup fodder for this article. The Kizashi was probably the best passenger car Suzuki has ever sold, and the only mid-size sedan they developed. The name translates to “something great is coming”. According to Suzuki, the Kizashi was 100% Suzuki and shared nothing with GM’s Epsilon platform, despite the two companies’ previous ties. However, the smallish intermediate – sized between Jetta and Passat – was supposed to get GM’s 3.6 V6 as an up-level option. Instead, the Kizashi came only with a 2.4 four-cylinder with 185hp and 170 lb ft, and with your choice of six-speed manual or a CVT with paddle shifters. All-wheel-drive was optional with the CVT. Those sound like pretty uninspiring power figures, but critics found the Kizashi gutsy enough and were even impressed with the CVT. Handling was crisp and firm and the Kizashi was lauded as one of the more fun-to-drive and refined cars in its segment. The interior, too, was modern and high quality.
One fly in the ointment, though, was the Kizashi’s bland styling. The front was vaguely Volkswagen-like, and the rear had an unfortunate Bangle Butt. After three exciting Kizashi concepts at different auto shows – a dragged out, almost Camaro-esque preview tour – the final product resembled a somewhat melted-looking Jetta. Add to that: low brand recognition; a dwindling number of dealerships; and an entirely new nameplate for a company that had barely participated in this segment. These factors were enough to keep buyers away, and sales never cracked five digits. I don’t usually like to speculate on future product, but I don’t imagine the Kizashi will survive beyond this generation globally. Suzuki’s strength is usually in very small cars, and it does a solid trade in Japan. Elsewhere, they are a niche player; the lack of a diesel, too, means it won’t succeed in Europe. I give it to the end of this generation before it is discontinued as Suzuki “refocuses”. A shame, as this was their first individual effort at a mid-size sedan and they knocked it out of the park.
I always liked the lines of the Mitsubishi Galant of this vintage. Too bad they stopped with the overall styling and left out the finer details that would have made these stunning cars, at least in the looks department, and that’s what a lot of people judge by, including me.
These were originally thought to be the next-gen Sebring/Stratus twins, and even some Chrysler people were disappointed when it didn’t happen. I very briefly considered one before I went back to GM and Chevy.
The Pacifica? Very nice anti-minivan, I thought, and speculated that it would be a great vehicle to travel in. Was I wrong? I’ve never heard much about these, and saw lots of them, but they are disappearing pretty fast.
I see a Suzuki around here from time to time. They are a stealth design – you don’t notice them unless they are right in front of you and you spot the emblem!
Interestign that you mention a Chrysler tie-in with the Galant. Whenever I see a final-gen Galant, and always wondered if they were actually a hastily reskinned Chrysler product. The roofline is so close to that of a 2nd gen Dodge Intrepid, many of the design cues remind me of the Intrepid, and the taillights look like something that was just thrown together to fill in the space.
As for the Pacifica, they didn’t sell all that well. They were one of the early “crossovers” and were intended to be fairly upscale, but that made them pricey. Perhaps that was intentional, so they wouldn’t steal sales from Chrysler minivans. A lot of Pacifica components were not shared with any other Chrysler vehicles, including the interior switchgear, so costs couldn’t be amortized over a number of models. That may also make finding some replacement parts difficult once these get on in age.
Part of the Pacifica’s failure was that, being the first, Chrysler guessed at what a CUV should look like. And they guessed wrong. Most everything in first generation CUV’s that followed used styling that made it look like a slightly softer version of a Rubicon-pounding SUV. The Pacifica looked like a minivan with regular doors.
Notice that nobody else who followed with a CUV made it look anything like a minivan?
Ford Flex? Same idea, in a boxier form.
It still kinda looks like a big Jeep Cherokee. The ‘boxier form’ design is what puts it on the right side of the line. The Pacifica looks like another mommyvan with some detail changes.
From what I understand, sluggish sales in its first year were due to the wrong product mix. Chrysler built – and dealers ordered – a ton of loaded versions, and almost no base versions were available. Many people were discouraged when they saw an advertised base price and then everything on the lot was 7-10k more expensive. Like if there were no Jeep GC Laredos on the lot, only Limiteds.
The lesser models, with wheel covers, non-HID headlights, bench 2nd row, and plastic cladding were meant to remedy this, but it was a bit of a case of too little, too late in regard to gaining a ton of momentum.
I never thought about the looks aspect of the Pacifica’s sales performance. It seems that a lot of companies’ early efforts were wagon-like (Flex, Freestyle, Pacifica, Caddy SRX, Uplander minivan [even those awful long-hood GM minivans tried to have a little bit of a wagon-y crossover look, further muddying the waters])
As I commented below, a family friend briefly owned a 2004 black Pacifica Touring. Riding in it on many occasions, I was very unimpressed. The interior was very cheap (even for a $25,000 car) and the high beltlines and small windows made it very cave-like.
I think people realized that it didn’t offer anything more (besides different styling) than a more practical Town & Country.
Cave-like? Maybe it was ahead of its time. Few cars today have good visibility, unfortunately.
I’ve never understood the point of any CUV, but the people I know who have owned Pacificas all seemed to like them.
With the exception of the Kizashi,and maybe the GM suv’s, what a bunch of turds! Even the Kizashi is up for debate. It’s nice looking, or at least has more character than the typical Japanese mid/compact segment, but the brand did die. Is it a deadly sin?
I don’t think so—IIRC it even got a recommendation from Consumer Reports. I’d say the inability to turn its niche into a strength like Subaru (which Suzuki resembled in some ways in the American market), the general increase in size of American cars in the 2000s, and (the death blow) selling Daewoo products for much of the decade killed Suzuki. Even if it had a better name, the Kizashi would have still been too little, too late.
I liked the next-to-last gen Galant. Especially with the chrome grille. One/two-year-used examples were plentiful at the time I needed to buy a new car. But I had three kids, two of them still in baby seats, and I needed more space, so I ended up with a minivan. And ever since, I’ve looked wistfully on those Galants every time I’ve seen one. I saw one, chrome nosed, on the road yesterday. Good looking, by all accounts decent performing and good handling, and not bloated like the contemporary midsized competition. What’s not to love?
And then they went and mucked up the styling for the final generation. What the HECK is up with that weird C pillar and those chunky rear flanks? No thanks.
I’m surprised that William found some positives regarding this Galant. I had one as a rental last year and thought it was awful, even allowing for its being a rental. Moaning engine, clunky controls, cheap interior. It seemed like a developing-world knockoff of a modern midsize sedan.
It would be interesting to look at the divergent paths of Mitsubishi and Hyundai over the past 20 years. One company got its act together while the other screwed up and pretty much gave up.
I’ve never considered it a sharp design, either. Although one of the most immediate and visceral “blech” reactions I’ve had to a car was to an earlier-generation Galant, that only happened when I stepped into the interior—I always thought they looked nice on the outside. The 2004 Galant, though, just struck me as clunky, blocky and cheap (the Diamante was saddled with the same design language for the last year). At least we can give it credit for honesty, I guess.
I do think Mitsubishi’s nineties offerings are a treasure trove of potential CC’s, though—the Diamante wagon, the VR4 and the Expo come to mind off the top of my head.
+1
Those were my thoughts too. I would have never given the last Galant serious consideration. I don’t remember any accolades from the press either.
I wonder how many of the W8 Passats got sold for full sticker. A neighbor of mine has the twin of the car in the article; he is a salesman for the local VW/Porsche/Audi/MB/BMW dealer and he got his for much, much less. Apparently it sat on the lot for nearly a year and the dealer sold it to him for around 25k. As far as I know he has not had any real trouble with his, of course he doesn’t drive it all that much as he has access to demos from work.
I kind of want a ralliart gallant as my next commuter car. Ive come to like a nice v6 in traffic. As mentioned the interiors on these looked o but were rather cheap but that doesn’t really bother me.
My wife has a friend with a W8 passat they bought new and love with the exception of dealer service bills (mostly drive by having to have parts flown in from germany as the w8 parts are not stocked in the US)
I have seen a W8 Passat wagon with a stick several times. There is a blue one on the north side of Chicago (around the Swedish Hospital) that I run across whenever I don’t have a camera. It is in very nice shape and I have pointed it out to my wife and kids. I call it basically Volkswagen answering a question that no one asked.
That’s a pretty cool car in its own right, just for the novelty of it. I’ve seen a W8 wagon around here, and maybe 1 or 2 W8 sedans. I didn’t even know you could get a stick in one.
(Can’t resist…) Put a stick in it, it’s done.
The one my wifes friend has is a stick. When they had twins they needed a 2nd bigger car and were upset that VW didn;t offer anything with 3 rows and stick (they bought a Routan anyways)
Not a stick, but I did find and write up a W8 wagon a while back: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-capsule-2002-volkswagen-passat-w8-half-a-bugatti-veyron-engine-for-only-40k/
Looking back, I’ve wondered why there was a lull in my interest in automobiles between ca. 2004 and 2011, and now I’m remembering why—excess and bloat. That is all that these say to me. Who needs a two-ton, eight-cylinder, $40K Passat? One of the things I’ve always found fascinating about mass market cars is the need to compromise, to make a vehicle that expresses a certain set of values at a price point. The W8 did none of that—expensive, slow, gas-guzzling, what’s the point?
I completely understand the Midsized Horsepower Wars—after all, I like driving a (smaller) midsizer with a (smaller) V6, and most midsize buyers still choose an I4 because it’s perfectly competent when mated to a good transmission. Still, it kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth—in the end, putting engines with >240 hp in cushy midsized sedans seems kind of pointless beyond straight-line bragging rights, and it just seemed so emblematic of the decade in American car design as a whole. Something wrong with your car? Make it bigger, up the displacement, skimp on R&D. It really felt like the stuff I didn’t like about the American automakers’ focus on trucks was seeping into the world of sedans (and what coupes were left), and I found my interest in cars drifting away.
Things seem to be getting better now—automakers have to develop global platforms, so even if a car is altered for American taste at least we’re still getting something that was actually engineered for other developed-world markets, rather than in the 2000s when Ford would facelift the original Focus instead of bringing over a new one, or when we’d be given the Caliber to make us miss the Neon. And ironically CUVs help too—though I’m definitely on Team Wagon, the shift to car-based CUVs means that automakers can’t neglect the same platforms that carry their sedans.
I remember ’98 Galant was released in the U.S. I really loved the sharp styling of that car, especially pre-facelift. Then the ’04 Galant came out. I get that Mitsubishi was just riding the trend of bigger, more powerful, but that car was always hideous and woefully outclassed by rivals. It just looked like a bloated monstrosity, much like other Mitsubishis of the mid-00s. No wonder Mitsubishis on life support in the U.S.
As for the 5 Series GT, one of the most ridiculous cars of the decade. Its proportions are way too tall and narrow to be a luxury car. Nobody needed it, and nobody bought it. The new 3 Series GT looks better, but still totally unnecessary. The Q7 pulls of the hatchback look way better, in part because of its lower, wider stance. I don’t think that the X6 looks that bad, but I’m not a fan of the 6 Series Gran Coupe.
The idea of the R-Class was actually good, but its design wasn’t well-executed. Not to mention that it came near the end of Mercedes’ design language cycle, so quickly looked very dated compared to other MBs.
I have to disagree with you on the Pacifica. I was never a fan of its looks. Far too wide, especially at the rear. Black ones reminded me to much of a hearse. A family friend owned one for about two years, and I have to say that riding inside left me very under impressed as well. Incredibly cheap hard plastics, fake wood and metal-looking trim, and very low-grade leather (3rd row was obviously vinyl). Not to mention the awkward ride height and incredibly claustrophobic environment.
As much as I dislike the tall stance of the 3/5 GT’s (the first time I saw one the highway I may have audibly said “What was that?”), I have to admit in general I really love the recent return of the large luxury hatchback (though more in Tesla, A7 or even Panamera form). Countless Saab 9000s are smiling down from heaven (or maybe up from hell).
I always took the R-class as a Mercedes minivan (or rather large-ish Euro MPV), not-so-plain and not-so-simple. I kind of liked it for that reason—they seemed to be fairly popular among the grown-up yuppies in my old neighborhood of Chicago.
Had a friend who had the Saab…Actually was a die hard GM guy who loved Pontiacs and when he started making some money bought that Saab. We would mess with him and be like look at that nice Blazer. Hey, why is the ignition switch in the center console? What kind of Chevy is this anyways? He would reply, it’s a Saab!!! Registered as a Saab! Insured as a Saab. Actually, I really like that steering wheel…Not a bad truck just didn’t need to be sweded for an extra 20 grand.
There were alot of leftover 9-7x’s after the plant closed in Dec. 2008. Also, quite a few people were fooled into thinking these were actual Swedish built SAAB’s. roflmao
Saabs were heavily rebated in their late days. I recall reading on a GM forum that a 9-7 V8 could be obtained at lower price than the equivalent Trailblazer. Since it was domestically produced, all of the “GM family” discounts applied as well.
About a year ago I stumbled across an R63 AMG parked on the street. I never heard of such a thing and it seemed too ridiculous to be real, but it looked surprisingly authentic (most fake AMGs are obvious) so I hit Wikipedia and was surprised to learn that it was, in fact, a legit Mercedes-Benz model. Apparently one of only 70 or so that made it to the USA. While glancing over that same R-Class article I saw the sales figures Mr. Stepford shared here and was even more shocked to find that the R was an enormous failure! The streets are littered with them here in Manhattan and have been since they debuted. I’ve only been west of the Hudson River once in the last 5 years, and up until that point I had always assumed they were a big hit. Given the extraordinarily low sales numbers, I wouldn’t be surprised if 50% of all US sales were in NYC. The Pacifica is (still) very common here too, as are wagons and small crossovers in general.
I feel bad for Suzuki and wish they had caught on here. I’ve always liked their homegrown models and think they’ll continue their success in other markets. I still see lots of SX/4s (and tons of their trucklets) but I’ve only ever noticed a handful of Kizashis. I remember watching the promo videos for it on YouTube and they were pathetically low budget (the video production quality, not the car). It was obvious even then that if “Something great” really were coming, it was coming to a continent other than North America.
In the last part of this series, I mentioned never having seen a Chrysler Aspen Hybrid. Well, the effect has struck again – I saw one just two days ago, as well as a recent and shiny new Mitsubishi Galant (a car I thought they stopped building around 2006) on my walk home last night. I know this is just beating a dead horse, but I’m convinced Mitsubishi is not long for these shores either. I think they were hoping they could get out in front of everybody else in the electric car game with the i-MiEV (the most absurdly exploitative name ever) but so far they’ve sold less than 2,000 of them going on 4 years. A nice try, IMO – but all the stuff that came out right afterwards was so much better. Now they’re trying to pitch it as the ultra-affordable EV and I don’t think that will work either. Most people buying these cars currently can afford the added expense of a Leaf or Fit EV and both are a huge upgrade. I sat in an i-MiEV at last year’s NYIAS and it was flimsy as hell. I’ve read that they’re launching an Outlander PHEV model soon (trying to get out in front on the SUV plug-in game?) and I bet if that tanks they’ll pull out (intentional pun) of the US.
Sean Cornelis: The R and the 5 GT are oddly common in Manhattan. Pacificas are very common uptown too, which surprised me, but despite not reaching Chrysler’s sales targets, they still shifted around 50k units for a few years, IIRC. I’m also bemused how the three-year Lincoln Aviator is common uptown too. They are sharp trucks but they have terrible gas mileage. I’m not a truck guy by any stretch, but the Aviators have nice interiors and exteriors.
And I’m not a wife. It’s “Stopford”. 😉
I noticed how common the Pacificas are in NYC. Frankly, I see so many that I start to think they were very successful. And in fact they are all running not POSs rotting in lots. Happen to think it’s a decent car, especially for those who need something that easier to get in and out of. Funny, their are like three of them in the garage near me. Must be good cars to buy second hand.
The Rs were all over the place. Not as many now…I mainly see them waiting outside of fancy buildings and private schools. Seem to be child/nanny transports and fancy car service minivans.
MY SINCEREST APOLOGIES! Arghhh… I’m so, so very sorry – you probably hear that a lot, right? I’ve spent my whole life reminding people that my name doesn’t have an “I” anywhere in it (CORN-EL-ISS, not CORN-EEL-YUS). Your Stepford Wives is my Planet Of the Apes and Soul Train, so I feel your pain.
+1 on the Aviator. Lincoln nailed the interior on it and the Navigator, and though I’d prefer those interiors were available inside a fullsize Lincoln sedan, both trucks don’t look bad on the outside, either. These are all actually secret guilty pleasure crushes of mine, sad as that is to admit. I even dug the Escalade when it first debuted (despite being nothing more than a Yukon Denali with a Cadillac crest). Before any of them existed, one of my biggest obsessions was the Jeep Super Wagoneer of the late 60s (and the GW to a lesser extent). That’s what I initially associated all the really schnazzy, body-on-frame, luxo-SUVs with and still do to this day. There was a point in the middle of the last decade where these vehicles turned into rolling monuments to bad taste and rap video fodder, which I think has now past. It was tough to look at them the same way during that era.
And of course, just like the R-Class and Pacifica, Navigators and high-end GM fullsize SUVs are parked on every street corner between Herald Square and Central Park. I see the hybrid versions pretty often in that area, too. I wonder if anyone has ever actually driven one on unpaved surfaces? I know I would if I had this one below:
Correction: that should have read “doesn’t have a ‘U’ anywhere in it” – can’t believe I messed up my own name!
The correct pronunciation: Cor-nay-lis.
A close friend (who, like most people, is not a car nut like we are) has been driving his Mitsubishi i-MiEV every day for nearly two years now, and he loves it. I’ve driven and ridden in it and it seems well built to me. He’s had zero problems and zero maintenance. The name simply means Mitsubishi innovative Electric Vehicle, what’s exploitative about that?
Mark my words, and like it or not, the MiEV is a shape of things to come. As I pointed out at the time (CC Capsule here) it was the only logically laid-out EV, meaning rear-motor/rear-drive. Since then the Tesla S has been a big hit with that layout. All the other major EVs are adapted from gas FWD platforms, which doesn’t make sense for an electric. High-end EVs will look like Teslas, but affordable 2nd-car commuter EVs will eventually look like the pioneering Mitsu. Which makes it a future CC.
Cutter Ford/Mitsubishi in Aiea (Oahu) appears to be doing a brisk business in these Mitsu electrics . . . . Nissan certainly is with all the “leaves” blowing around!!
Mark my words, and like it or not, the MiEV is a shape of things to come.
Oh I do like it, I like it a lot! I think you might have gotten the wrong impression here, or maybe I just didn’t explain myself well enough – but I think the i-MiEV is both an awesome car and undoubtedly the shape of the future in more ways than one. That said, there’s no denying it has fallen short of the sales volume Mitsubishi was hoping for in North America. I think that’s likely due to the fact that most people currently in the market for EVs on this continent are (at least) upper-middle class and live in areas where several notably more upscale models became available not long after the Mitsubishi’s introduction. I agree that the i-MiEV is much more impressive from a design standpoint than the factory EV conversions of ICE cars currently out there, but in practical terms those cars are much more appealing to the vast majority of buyers in this demographic. The interior of the car I sat in at the auto show, which was a regular production model, was full of chintzy hard plastics, and beyond the touch screen unit in the dash and a very nice steering wheel, the overall look and feel screamed “bargain priced subcompact from 10 years ago”. I’m sure some of that was an attempt to maximize lightness, and it’s not to say the car isn’t built well, but it certainly didn’t come off well at all.
Toyota was able to snag so many Prius buyers away from luxury or near-luxury makes early on because they were really the only game in town for several years, but that window shut on Mitsubishi the second the Leaf showed up. When the Nissan EV debuted, it was only around $3k more than the i-MiEV and it’s really a much more substantial and well-trimmed car. I know which one I would have bought (had I the means, which I don’t/didn’t!) in 2011. Mitsubishi’s latest price drop is certainly a big deal, no doubt, and possibly (hopefully) a game changer for them, but it’s also getting to be a much more crowded playing field very quickly. It looks like the Spark EV will end up around $5k higher and the smart Electric Drive about $4k higher before incentives. At the very least, that makes it a much tougher decision.
Now with regards to that silly name – I know what it stands for, but it’s clearly meant to evoke association with both Apple products and either MyFordTouch or Myspace/social networking apps in the most convoluted fashion possible. It also sounds ridiculous if you actually say it out loud. They may as well have called it a MiiV-e CoupeR if they wanted to piggyback! For real, though, they should have gone with i0 – much more simple, still has a tech-y connotation, and doesn’t sound like you’re having a seizure when it’s spoken (“i-ZERO”).
Somehow I missed both of those fantastic articles on your friend’s i-MiEV and the Detroit Electric. Wow!!! That’s the coolest “brougham” CC has ever featured! I’m sooooo very jealous that you got to drive one and be a passenger in the other. All those early electrics are ridiculously fascinating. It’s amazing how advanced they were for their time and how usable they still are to this day. The time period we’re in right now has so many similarities to that era with regards to all the different forms of propulsion available, but unlike then, I don’t view the current automotive landscape as “competing” technologies in the same way internal vs. external combustion and gas vs. electric duked it out back then. IMO, gas isn’t going anywhere in any of our lifetimes, but hybrids and EVs are undoubtedly here to stay and will become increasingly popular as the technology gets cheaper and more efficient. Cars like the Tesla, Leaf, Volt and all of Toyota & Ford’s hybrids/PHEVs have proven that the future is already here in some segments… is the <$20k EV the next one to burst open? I guess we'll have to just wait and see, but I've got my fingers crossed.
I know this is getting super long-winded so I'll wind it down – it's a topic I've become more and more interested in over the last couple years and I could go on about until I'm blue in the face. I know some people shuddered in horror when an EV Week at CC was suggested, but I think that would be great!!
I’ll admit to having a soft spot to the i-MiEV. It passes the incredibly low bar of being the best Mitsubishi I’ve ever been in (no driving impressions unfortunately), and I can’t help but be impressed by how well it’s packaged—I always remember it as a much bigger car than it actually is.
The last Galant was built in 2012, not 2006. And some still think it is still in production, since there were so many leftovers the past model year.
Anyway, Galant/Eclipse shared R&D costs with Chrysler for years, and when they cut ties, then Mitsu couldn’t afford to bring out an all new one.
Who said anything about 2006?
Sad how Mitsu looks to be ready for a dirt nap. When they were hooked up with Chrysler, there were a flock of Mistu models available, from the conventional, like the Arrow and Sapporo, and small pickups, to the very popular Colt.
My Aunt had an 82 Colt, with the “sport” package: the “big” 1.6L and twin stick trans, but still the skinny 155/80-13s. Compared to a 1.4L LeCar or a 1.5L GLC, it went like the hammers. And it had a nicely finished interior as well.
They developed a reputation for cluch problems, including my Aunt’s. Always wondered if it was from people driving around town in “econ” range and slipping the clutch to get it moving. I pulled off the highway in it one day and wondered why I kept killing the engine at the first stop sign I came to. Noticed the “econ” light on the dash lit. Shifted to “power” range, and pulled out with no problem.
Most of the Mitsu dealers in my area are gone now. None of the survivors has had a Lancer Sportback on their lot in a couple years. But then, they lost me as a Sportback prospect when they eliminated the manual trans and made the CVT standard.
I’ve never seen a Lancer Sportback (unless you’re counting a Lancer Wagon) – and I live in Hawaii where two people actually purchased the new shit-box, Thai-built Mirage.
I think the biggest travesty in terms of trying to market a car in the U.S. is/was hands down, the VW Phaeton. The ONLY one I saw was a display car at the (King) Ted Stevens Airport up in Anchorage – this one, I believe was a W-12 and it had the then whopping MSRP as equipped price tag of around $74K. If a W-8 made jaws drop price wise, this W-12 was even more absurd in having a VW premium sled near Audi A-8 territory. What were they thinking?
Back to Mitsubishi . . . perhaps the U.S. leg was putting all of their chips in the Outlander/Endeavor pot at the expense of the Galant which is why it looks, feels like a 2004 car . . . in 2009-2012 . . . which it was. In the very near future, at least in America, the only time you’ll see the name “Mitsubishi” on a vehicle, the word, “Fuso” will follow it . . . .
I think Suzuki might have been able to hang on here had they Federalized the Swift to sell alongside the Kizashi (which really is a nice car, albeit a chunky bar of soap). Instead, they (cheaply) tried to fill the gap with underwhelming, budget priced Daewoo cars (which were not sold new here in Hawaii) and SUV’s that they lacked the development money to keep up with the competition . . . and the “let’s sell a truck” hasty off-the-shelf Nissan rebadge . . . just in time for less-than-full-size truck sales in America to precipitously drop . . .
“…perhaps the U.S. leg was putting all of their chips in the Outlander/Endeavor pot at the expense of the Galant which is why it looks, feels like a 2004 car ”
A few years ago, I looked at the Japanese domestic market Mitsu site. Very interesting. The Galant and Eclipse we were getting were gone from the JDM site, apparently only existing in the US because the Normal, Illinois plant was tooled for them and it was cheap enough to keep cranking them out, but, being gone from the JDM, received zero development.
What we call the current Lancer here, was the next generation Galant in Japan, and what we had as the previous generation Lancer here, was still offered as the Lancer there.
The Swift would have been a huge success up here in Canada, too (where Suzuki is also bowing out of the market after this year). Considering the Smart/Fiat 500/Honda Fit/etc are very common sights on our roads…
Yet to see a new Mirage on the street though. Even *we* have our standards.
Mitsubishi Galant and sporty do not belong in the same sentence they are a very mediocre family sedan with poor handling and minimal comfort, the replacement Mitsu 380 sedan was worse, Only the VR4 twin turbo model had any performance. A constant stream of SUVs will not increase the readership on this site.
I know you hate the Galant/380 but most critics disagreed at the beginning of their lifespan. My sister had a 380 and it was smooth, powerful with pretty solid ride and handling characteristics. Just a big turning circle.
We have an ’00 Diamante/Verada (to give it its Aussie-market name), and were quite disappointed when the Galant-based 380 came out. The whole car felt cheaper, and did not look as good as our oldie. So we’ve kept it. There’s nothing in Mitsubishi’s current range to replace it. I’d imagine we aren’t the only ones to feel that way, as there are still plenty on the road in Australia.
I drove a couple of 380s as rentals (their biggest market?) and agree, they were ok transport appliances – but I saw absolutely no reason to buy one over a Toyota.
A giant failure really, with 32k built in total against a development & tooling cost of $600m (70% of the car was changed) – $18750 development cost in each car before buying any steel.
Whenever I see a Kizashi I always get a pang in my heart. It had so much potential. The Twin Cities seem to be a hub for Suzuki cars, and I really think this car had so much going for it yet the odds stacked against it. Looking at the 9-7X honestly makes me think want to go to GM and demand my tax dollars back. Its honestly like they were trying to slaughter Saab…
The Saab thing is just the tip of the iceberg for why I want my tax dollars back from GM. What numbnuts decided it would be a good idea to keep Buick around, knowing full well their entire demographic is in nursing homes right now? And keep GMC which is a total retread of Chevy’s truck division? And the Volt? Ugh, the very sight of that turd makes me want to puke, much like every other hybrid/electric on the road. Good luck ever digging out of that multimillion dollar pit of doom. Killing off Pontiac was a TOTAL idiot move, as it was the only GM division with any real potential for snaring in a young, performance minded demographic. I hear tell the Chinese love Buicks. Good, sell the entire division off to them and let them run with it. Good riddance, no one loves them here! Saturn could have went back to its roots of being strictly a small car focused division, distanced from GM and with its own unique products. Id say killing off Hummer was an idiot move too. True, the H2 was badly executed but the H3 was brilliant. It sold like hotcakes, didn’t have the bloat of the H2 and had the potential to take on the Wrangler which is one of Chryslers hot sellers as well. The HX Wrangler clone was genius, as was the H3T that actually saw production. The Camaro, the Silverado, and the CTS sedan and coupe seem to be the only thing (profitable) selling from GM.
The last ‘Galant’ AKA Mitusbishi 380 in Australia was supposed to be the saviour of Mitusbishi in Australia but was a total flop and ended up only being bought at greatly reduced prices by grampas and hire car companies. It replaced the long running Magna range that was really just a joke car. I take great delight in seeing them burnt out on the side of a road after being stolen. You can buy low mileage examples for the cost of a kilo of rice.
KJ
The Passat W8 was just a bizarre thing, in Australia it cost $98k! From a test: “Volkswagen boasts that the W8 weighs just 190kg, but that’s actually 5kg more than a Chevrolet 5.7-litre V8. Some of the extra weight comes from the balance shafts needed to stop the W8 from shaking out of its mounts.”
The thing I remember about the BMW 5-series GT was the massive size of the ‘trunk’ lid hinges, you could nearly hang the doors on them let alone that little opening in the hatch. Given the starting points of the 5-er sedan (and wagon) and the X5, what is the point of having both the X6 and 5GT – too much fragmentation of sales.
Suzuki Kizashi was a poorly-judged product, being so much smaller than its competitors. Only a small percentage of buyers would go there, the car is only a touch larger than a C-segment car.
Wow…on paper, the stats on that W8 Passat wagon don’t look too impressive. But that said, a wagon bodystyle, a VW rocking 8 cylinders, awd, and a manual trans…..I would LOVE to have that! Even if the engine is a bit flaccid by todays standards, I guaran-damn-tee that some nutty VW/Audi tuner can hotrod the balls out of it. All blacked out, in the right color and with some vintage Fuchs wheels (black centers, polished outer lips) and dumped a couple inches…uncork that exhaust….I can see me rocking it!
What was Suzuki thinking, with that car? The midsize sedan market is crowded as hell as it sits…and lets face it, the damn things are BOOOOORIIIINNNNGGG! Suzuki made waves with the Samurai, of course that got the kibosh from that whole Consumer Reports debacle *coughbullshitcough* and even the Sidekick was a popular rig. If Suzuki would have focused on sporty subcompacts and not let the Vitara become another soccer mom mobile then they may have managed to carve out a niche and held strong.
Before they gawked up the styling the Galant looked like it was just BEGGING to be re-done as a coupe. Granted, it would have likely fared no better than the Sebring/Stratus coupes and for the same reasons: nice styling but no real performance does NOT make for a coupe that will find many buyers. the 3rd and 4th gen Eclipses are proof of that. Still, it would have been nice to see such an animal on the road.
Johannes – You’d know better than me, I’ve never met anyone with the same name outside of my family. My great-great-great-great grandfather came over from Antwerp during the Belgian Revolution, so any Dutch/Flemish accent was American English-ized loooooong ago.
My second given name is Cornelis, often it’s a first/given name here instead of a last name.
All I remember of those Galants is that the back seat couldn’t be folded down, which I thought was a very odd omission for a car made for the American market. Perhaps to drive people with a need for more flexible space into SUV’s? Who knows.