2015 featured several high profile revivals of major film franchises. Both Mad Max: Fury Road and Star Wars: The Force Awakens succeeded because George Miller and J.J. Abrams understood what ingredients made the earlier entries so compelling. The teams behind the latest Fantastic Four and Terminator movies did precisely the opposite.
The auto industry has also had its fair share of revivals over the last couple of years, with similarly mixed results. After all, each model is essentially its own brand, and subsequent generations can be viewed the very same way we view movie sequels. Does the newest entry live up to what came before? Does it respect the spirit of its predecessor, and did it contain some new elements to keep things interesting? These are make-or-break questions for automotive nameplates, and poor decisions can ruin the legacy of a name forever.
My inspiration for this piece came from two things: the North American International Auto Show and William Stopford’s excellent series covering the death of nameplates under the General Motors banner.
More specifically, Chrysler’s new minivan got me wondering about the revival of old names. If you thought the vehicle pictured above was simply a new generation of the Town and Country, you may want to brace yourself: it’s now going to be called the Pacifica.
Did you just spit out your coffee or beverage of choice? That almost happened to me when I first read about FCA’s latest people mover. Barry Koch neatly summarized the saga of the first generation Pacifica about a year ago, and William covered the saga of this storied nameplate several months later. The Pacifica never really lived up to anyone’s expectations, as it was an odd duck that couldn’t cut it as a luxury crossover or a mainstream one. Poor build quality didn’t help either.
This makes FCA’s decision to resurrect the name a bit confusing. Although the Pacifica sold in somewhat respectable numbers, its customer base has certainly moved on after eight years. Plus, if they do want to come back to the brand, would want to by purchasing a minivan? There is a real risk Chrysler might be simultaneously alienating former (or current?) Pacifica owners and shoppers looking for the Town and Country.
But there is a chance this gamble will actually pay off. It’s not a coincidence both vehicles are named after an extremely exclusive city right off the Pacific Ocean. Just like its predecessor, this new minivan is aimed towards the luxury buyer, and away from the bargain basement transaction prices that gets you into a Dodge Caravan, which most certainly affects the Town and Country. FCA wants a minivan that isn’t viewed as the value leader in the segment, and reviving a name with luxurious overtones could work out. In any event, Car and Driver’s 2003 verdict of the Pacifica as “A thoughtful blend of space and style without the minivan stigma” is now extremely ironic.
Reviving old names isn’t a new phenomenon, of course. Dodge decided to use the Dart moniker for its compact sedan, a name which had last been seen on a new vehicle in 1976. Whether or not that had an impact on sales is anyone’s guess – its performance in the segment since its introduction has been mediocre at best – never posting numbers above the 100,000 mark. That’s likely due to its tepid reception upon hitting the market in 2012, when the car was criticized for its unrefined powertrain and subpar interior quality, while being recognized for its decent ride, appealing proportions, and functional infotainment system. None of its shortcomings are terribly damning, but consumers have clearly flocked to other automakers compact offerings instead. Could things have been different?
When the Dart was first announced several years ago, a substantial number of automotive armchair quarterbacks wondered why FCA neglected to call it the Neon. After all, the Neon bowed out only several years prior to the introduction of the Dart. What exactly, were the downsides of using it? Millennials can likely still recognize the nameplate today; go back four years and its even plausible that a number of them were in the market to replace their aging Neon with something new.
That obviously didn’t happen, and instead we got a nameplate last used on a car sold new during the Nixon administration. Only Baby Boomers could have an affinity towards that name – but were they the target demographic in this case? That is the only way the use of the Dart name makes sense. In any event, its far more likely individuals who recognize the Dart name from decades past were shopping for a Grand Cherokee, or a 200, or a Journey. Anything but a compact sedan. I don’t know if using the Neon name would have garnered more sales for Chrysler, but there is no way it could have hurt.
The decision not to resurrect the Neon name is even more perplexing given the success of the Challenger. The Challenger name has almost instant recognition among Baby Boomers, and its abundantly clear the muscle car was built primarily to cater to that demographic. It arrived at the right time; several years after the Mustang regained its former glory with the 2005 redesign and a year before the Camaro returned to showrooms. That the coupe is still relevant eight years later is a testament not only to its robust powertrain choices but its decades long heritage as well.
Which brings us to the last case study: The new Lincoln Continental. We last saw the Continental back in 2002, when it was based off the underpinnings of the Taurus. Fitting then, that this new iteration employs the CD4 platform, as the architecture premiered first on Ford’s current mid-size sedan, the Fusion. We’ll find out later this year out if the new sedan can match the refinement and luxuriousness of its competition while setting itself apart from the Fusion and MKZ.
Even if the Continental turns out to be a sales dud, bringing the name back was a smart move. The moniker brings a lot of heritage to the table, although I’m going to argue that doesn’t matter at all. Aside from its rich history, Continental defiantly bucks the current trend of numbered or alphanumeric branding that is far too prevalent on vehicles with an MSRP above $50,000. CT6, G90, S90, Q60, RX 350, E-350, C-3PO, BB-8. Most of those are actual names of vehicles either currently on sale or confirmed to hit the market shortly. My point is this: if nothing else, having a real name automatically establishes the Continental as the car that is separate from the herd.
It’s a smart move, especially due to Lincoln’s uncertain future. Lincoln isn’t doing badly – the brand increased sales by seven percent last year – but it is on shaky ground. That makes the choice to bring back the Continental an easy one: at this point, Ford doesn’t have much to lose.
Automotive revivals present a dose of risk and reward. If an automaker understands the demographic that would likely favor the return of a discontinued nameplate, or if there is nothing to lose, it makes sense to bring a name back from the dead. Things become tricky when an old moniker replaces an already well known nameplate however, and I guess we’ll have to wait until the new Pacifica hits showroom floors to see if the change creates any sort of lasting impact. Are there any other rules that need to be followed when playing the name game? When is the right time for an automaker to revive an old name?
Logic plays no part in these decisions. BMW has revived the Mini name, in a move that has been successful commercially if not aesthetically. The new car is an oversized pastiche of the old one, lacking the spirit of the original design but highlighting some of the features that were dubious fifty years ago. And yet folk still buy it !
And yet the first-gen new Mini showed many obvious links to the iconic styling of the original. On the third-gen, which we have, the styling links are much more tenuous, but they’re still there. Okay, you could say it’s too bulky and is cramped in the back, but it sure goes like stink, just like the original Cooper did.
The original Mini never sold in very large numbers here, so most Americans only got a look at the car through photos. Most of them therefore don’t know just how small the original Mini really was. If the new one had been that small, it would have most likely flopped on the American market.
+1!
Amen.
BMW didn’t “revive” anything as the original Mini was in production for 40 years [1959-1999] and the BMW version came out in 2000. Not like the name languished for any length of time like Dart, Pacifica, Aspen or Continental
I’m starting to wonder if names mean anything anymore, considering what the OEMs have done to their heritage.
That doesn’t mean I don’t care, but I may have bought my last new car, so nostalgia may be the only reason I still want names connected to their heritage of a vehicle.
No more than three syllables, and easy pronounciation. There is a reason no one ever called a car the “Kaiserslautern” or “Moenchen-Gladbach”.
The Alfa Romeo Giulietta 1750i Turbo Benzina Quadrifoglio Verde comes to mind.
Here’s the engine. Which raises the question how 1750i is written out in Italian.
The whole hot hatch. Another FCA product with an old name, engine displacement included.
THAT is what the Dart should be….with SRT-4 option. But the Caliber name would have been more fitting.
I agree, the Dart should have had an SRT-4 option. The intial allure/ charm of the original Dart in the 60’s, was the option to get a big engine in a smaller, lightweight car. The Nova SS was great at this, too….even if you didn’t get the SS, you still had got a car that had the potential, down the road, to drop a massive engine into.
The 1.75 liter turbo gasoline engine in the Alfa Romeo above is good for 240 hp. As far as I know that engine is not used in US-FCA cars.
The engine is also used in the Alfa Romeo 4C and previously in the Alfa Romeo 159.
@Ryan: I don’t think most Dart buyers saw the car as a potential muscle car. The A-body Dart was a more orthodox-looking Valiant spin-off to replace the oddball Lancer, and the vast majority of them had a Slant Six or maybe the base 273/318. A Dart with the 340 or 383 was a quick car, to be sure, but not many were sold that way and Dodge’s periodic attempts to market sporty versions fell pretty flat. I think the general perception of the Dart was as a plain-vanilla compact.
I think it was smart to drop the Caliber name. The Caliber never sold all that well, and it always seemed a car in search of a niche. Was it a compact hatchback? A *tall* compact hatchback? A mini-CUV? The Caliber seemed to have a personality crisis from day one, and the reviews I’ve heard have been largely negative also. Kind of how GM had no reason to call their current compact offering the Cobalt.
Neon might not have been a bad idea though. The Neon was never refined, and most that are left on the streets are clearly beater material, but it definitely had “cheerful” on lockdown. Maybe they wanted the Dart to seem more serious?
Despite the name dating back to Nixon, I think Dart wasn’t a bad idea though. Even if people had no prior perception, it’s short, snappy, alliterative, and suggests sharpness and precision.
mille sette centi cinquante i
Well then, repeat after me: Alfa Romeo Giulietta Mille Sette Centi Cinquante i Turbo Benzina Quadrifoglio Verde.
The try and get the knots out of your tongue!
Just say Alfa Romeo Giulietta QV (Quadrifoglio Verde: green four-leaf clover, see the little emblem on the car).
Johannes, I seem to recall at one stage (’80s?) Alfa used GCL as a trim level indicator in some English-speaking markets. Green Clover Leaf, of course!
Pete, the QV-emblem dates back to 1923, when it was first used on an Alfa Romeo race car. To bring luck, of course.
As a T&C owner myself, I was initially surprised but I do think the T&C name was long overdue for retirement. It’s rather hokey and let’s face it, there’s very little “country” in a minivan. Pacifica is a much better and more modern name. I don’t know if it will help, but I certainly don’t think it will hurt. Most consumers don’t know the original Pacifica was a dud.
What may hurt is that simply awful plastic fake glass wrap around panel on the D pillar. It looks great in most photos because you can’t tell it’s really plastic.
Other than that, from what I’ve seen so far it looks like they did a great job on the Pacifica…name included.
Ironically, American cars named after exotic-sounding CA coastal towns (e.g. Bel Air, Catalina, Newport, Monterey, Malibu) have been a bit down-market for the folks who live in those rarefied locales.
Can’t sell an old person’s “people mover” to younger generations. T&C long and cumbersome to say.
Chrysler selling vans at a fire sale prices was a dead end, and they need to compete with higher margin Honda/Toyota rigs.
I’m wondering how many would-be customers know about the “extremely exclusive city right off the Pacific Ocean”. I’m thinking to many it’s just a name, but it’s miles easier to associate with the product than F22, Q85, T18 or PDQ.
The re-branding of the 2 Chrysler products shows us that in the case of the Challenger, they emulated the earlier version with an even more potent, modern, high-tech version.
As for the Dart, there is no similarity. I had a 64 Dart GT with a 273 V8 and a 4 speed trans. It was a great little car. The modern version is nowhere near even a 4 door 60s or 70s Dart. These new Darts are some Italian car made over to carry a Dart badge, but is nothing at all similar to what people thought of the former Dart badged cars. Pictured is my 64 Dart hauling the largest available U-Haul trailer from New Jersey to Los Angeles in 1968.
Strange for the pedestrian Dart to get a “makeover” to a more European (& probably more costly to own) platform shared with the Alfa Giulietta. To me, “Dart” or “Valiant” connotes the same thing as “Corolla”: reliable basic transportation.
” To me, “Dart” or “Valiant” connotes the same thing as “Corolla”: reliable basic transportation.”
If you only compare the ‘majority’ of Darts…and Valiants, for that matter, you have a point. The difference is with a corolla, a basic appliance is all it ever was and pretty much all it will ever be.
Hemi’s ’64 would have been a fast little ride in its day. The Dart in GT and Swinger guise could be equipped to be a real barnstormer from the factory and a good many received heart transplants to make them absolute hellraisers. To this day, the Mopar A body is a solid platform to build a worldbeater. They look cool, there well built and they respond very well to go-fast mods.
Truth be told, a Duster/Demon or any 2 door h/t ‘regular’ A body stuffed with a 340 or even a 360 would be my weapon of choice for a muscle car. Theyre attainable, parts are easy to come by, theyre well built, and they have the right balance of handling, straight line speed and even day to day practicality to make it the perfect do-it-all classic.
All true, but don’t forget Toyota offered hot Corollas, too, like the GTS.
And the supercharged GT-Z version of the later coupes, although we didn’t get those.
Interesting that it shares a platform with an Alfa-Romeo. Would that be a Fiat platform, or does Alfa have an exclusive platform these days?
C-Evo platform; an improved version of the Fiat Group’s C-platform (Fiat Bravo, Lancia Delta).
I’ve read that the next generation Giulietta will be RWD, just like the new Alfa Romeo Giulia D-segment sedan.
The Dart name was used on a full sized Dodge for 1960-61, then the ‘downsized’ ’62, and finally moved to compact for 1963-76.
So, name changes/shuffles go back decades.
Yes, but that was within the DODGE make and models. The 60-61 Dart body style, which was the first attempt at uni-body construction, then to the first year of the ‘B’ body in 62. The name was then transferred to the Lancer ‘A’ body in 63. That was the first year of the ‘A’ body which continued through the 76 year model when the ‘A’ body was discontinued. Thank goodness that the Aspen was NOT designated as an ‘A’ body.
Now they have something that has absolutely nothing in common with the 60-70s Dart built by the genuine Chrysler Corporation.
Dart was probably chosen less for its heritage than its zippy sounding name, perfect for that class of vehicle. Whatever name recognition it had was likely as reliable transportation, not a bad thing. The Neon didn’t really have a good rep, so why bring back the name?
Buick really needs to bring back the Riviera moniker instead of the microwave-sounding name applied to it’s show coupe: Avista.
I tend to agree with about 90-95% of this write-up. That said, I don’t quite understand why FCA wants to toss out a perfectly good name. A better move might be to make a luxury/special edition of the T&C and call it the Pacifica.
(BTW, the area called Pacifica recently made the national news….it’s western most cliffs are crumbling and falling into the ocean.)
When should a name be resurrected by a car company? When they are doing it to launch a decent car and not cash in on the rep of a “classic” model. Good example? The 2016 Chevy Impala. Horribly bad example? The 2001-2006 Impala.
Mercury re-using the Montego name? Good name, but they waited to long to re-use and then used it on a largish family sedan….it would have worked better for a Milan-sized car.
“Horribly bad example? The 2001-2006 Impala.”
Funny you say that. When the 2006 restyle was shown, many called it a “Lumina”. I owned a 2004 Impala and loved it, owned it for over 8 years. I bought a 2012 Impala and it is twice the car of my old one, much more refined, better all-around car. Perhaps a major reason is that my 2004 was a base model w/sport appearance and my 2012 is the LTZ trim. Both cars were bought new.
It should have been a Lumina IMO. If the Impala name was brought back on anything, it should have been on a Chevy version of the G-body 112.2″ WB Bonneville/Aurora/LeSabre.
Y’all are looking at this from enthusiast standpoints rather than the standpoint of the Average Consumer who goes to buy a new car. The Average Consumer sees a new nameplate and thinks it’s a new car and completely different than the one that existed previously. If it has a carryover nameplate, and the Average Consumer thinks, oh, my friend had a good experience with {carryover nameplate} then I want one. If the Average Consumer thinks, blech, a Town and Country, my Mom has one, or my aunt has one, no sale.
I pay no more attention to what kind of computer I have than the average consumer puts into thinking about a car. This is some kind of Toshiba, and as long as it works and isn’t very difficult to use, I’ll keep it. I don’t know any details about it except I had Windows 8 taken off and Windows 7 Installed.
My mother still will not look at anything called a Century after a bad experience with a ’77 Century. Never mind that she drives an Olds Ciera.
My bet is that 80+% of the buyers (women) who insist on SUVs have no idea that an Odyssey or Sienna rides under the skin of their Pilot/Highlander.
People shown the Intrigue in clinics liked the car a lot, but flatly refused to buy anything called Cutlass.
And, I think there is some rationality to this. If you tell someone in conversation, I drive a 3-series, they instantly have an image which for the most part is positive. For whatever irrational reason, minivans have a stigma. I would not, no matter how good the car became, drive anything called an Aveo or Sonic.
Personally, I’ll buy another Chrysler minivan no matter what they call it. I think this is a good move on their part because it does seem upscale and takes it out of the realm of rental car land and ugly plastics.
I think Chevy made a big mistake with the Impala by not renaming it. Apparently the car is a huge leap forward from its predecessor (how could it not have been?) but when I hear Impala, I don’t think, $39K, I think, $15K Enterprise special.
You can sell a good car with a good (read, exciting, no baggage) name, a good car with a mediocre name, and in the instance of the Ford Mustang II, a bad car with a good name, but it’s hard to sell a good car with a bad name. (Merkur?)
If you had an APPLE computer, you would pay attention to that fact. Owning a PC could be anything, but owning an Apple, that makes it something special.
A computer and operating system that you can depend on.
I have both an Apple and an HP, Both actually work equally well…To me the whole Mac/PC thing is kinda Coke/Pepsi or Canon/Nikon. MacOS and Windows are both OK OS s (Leaving out ME and Vista…,But then My first iMac wasn’t all that hot either…) The only people who are truly passionate about operating systems are the Linux folks….
When I was choosing an affordable laptop, I brought a Toshiba because I thought it would be an ok reliable unit.
It also appealed because it is a Toshiba “Satellite”.
A car name I just love.
I recovered an “ancient” Toshiba Satellite from a bunch of junk left in an apartment last month, It was well used by a teenager of the ’90s based on the stickers it had. Natch, the battery was dead, but when plugged in to the wall, it fired right up with….Windows95! I guess that says something for build quality.. Needs MoPar stickers though…..
Pry off the Toshiba badge and replace it with Plymouth.
‘When I was choosing an affordable laptop, I brought a Toshiba because I thought it would be an ok reliable unit.’
You want a reliable laptop, hit up eBay, and look for Haswell or Broadwell Latitudes, and they’ll outlast any Satellite, and if you look hard enough, can be found for about the same price.
I think that a name is possible to bring back in this day and age, if the name in question hasn’t been diluted enough or drag through the mud to mean absolutely nothing in the long term.
Names like Monte Carlo, Cavalier, Caprice, LeSabre, Grand Prix, Bonneville, Crown Victoria, and similar names such as that have no chance. They’ve gone through so much, been dragged through so many iterations, and had such less than fond memories associated with it that there’s really no point in bringing them back. They have no cachet to stand on, no leg to stand on, and in the end, there’s really no point in trying to bring them back because they’ll flop.
A name has to have enough worth in it that bringing it back won’t seem like a waste of time. Lincoln brought back the Continental nameplate because of the fact that there’s still enough recognizability and worth that it is able to stand on its own. Whether it succeeds is something else entirely, but that’s one example of a name being brought back. Same thing with the Camaro, Challenger, Charger, NSX, GT, etc. Sometimes a name can be incredibly obscure but its modern rendition can still be worthwhile (Chrysler 300), other times there’s really no point in bringing back a name that’s been dead for a while (Fiat 500)
I guess it depends on the context, and it all comes down to whether or not it will be able to work. Cadillac can bring back names like Fleetwood, Deville, and Eldorado just fine, because there’s still enough worth in those names. Ford can’t bring back names like Galaxie, Falcon, Torino, and Fairlane because there’s really nothing in those names worth bringing back to the modern world. I’m not sure I’m wording this right, but I hope that people can get the gist of what I’m trying to get at.
I think you’re saying it depends on people’s mental image when they hear the name, whether the association is good, bad or indifferent. You can really only reuse the name if the association is positive. Agreed.
Exactly.
This reminds me of when Pontiac brought back the GTO. It had been dead for 30 years. It didn’t mean anything to most of the car buying public. BORING styling didn’t help either. If it were to succeed it would have to be a great car with drop dead gorgeous styling. From what I’ve read it was a great car. Trouble was it looked like a wet bar of Irish Spring soap. Even a legendary name can’t overcome that.
Didn’t help it came two years after the Firebird was axed, the most recognizable name Pontiac had at that point.
Disagree on the Fiat 500. It’s been overused for the product diffusion though.
Keeping Falcon here in Australia hasn’t helped.
Well, I’m looking at this from the American market. I understand that in Europe and Australia, Fiat 500 is very nostalgic for the general populous at large. But in America, the name has no meaning to us. No one ever heard of the original, and no one even remembered Fiat apart from the guys still making “Fix It Again Tony” jokes. If the idea was for the 500 to be carried on nostalgia, that nostalgia is lost on the international market.
I know where you’re coming from, but ‘500’ has two things going for it:
1. The predecessor is both cute and distinctive looking and can be applied to contemporary automotive aesthetics
2. It has a back story. Edward’s intro only touches upon the greatest malaise infecting Hollywood; the known quantity. Mad Max and Star Wars are two successful examples amongst the dross that Hollywood puts out based on legacy properties. For FCA, the 500’s backstory is crucial in the soft marketing of this MINI competitor, and I don’t think it matters too much whether purchasers of the new 500 had a direct experience with the older one. Having said that, I don’t think it’s as potent a backstory as MINI, but for Fiat it’s enough to have a successful product.
Let me put it another way. A small proportion of the billions of dollars earned by the Ironman movie franchise would have come from those who had read the comic.
I like the Fiat 500. It is actually a comfortable driving car that you can take on long trips with you or with one other person. The back seats are useless for passengers but when put down, gives you a lot of storage space due the flat space (the spare tire is actually under the back of the car(like a truck)
I had one as a two week loaner while my Fiesta was at the dealer getting repaired under warranty. The dealership has a Enterprise attached to it and I was given a rental under Ford’s dime. That 500 was very roomy for a driver(I am 6 ft 1 in tall and if I put the seat all the way back, I could not reach the pedals)
It was very good in the snow that had fallen the day before the car was picked up that year and the other divers seemed to respect the thing. I was always cut off or tailgated when driving my Fiesta but in the 500 nobody rode up my ass and when somebody needed to get in front of me they used turn signals.
Well, seeing as we’re talking about baggage and negative connotations, should Fiat drop the Fiat name for their cars in the US and replace their whole brand name with something else? Hey, they’re not using Plymouth at the moment…..
I disagree that bring back the LeSabre name would be a lost cause. The Lesabre sold very well up until it was discontinued in 2005. There is no reason to think that the LeSabre would not have sold well in 2006 or 2007 if the car would not have been discontinued. It also sold very well in the previous generations.
I also think that if Buick offers a large car and calls it LeSabre then it will sell very well.
I agree that GM needs to bring the Deville name back
However I don’t think bringing back the Eldorado is a good idea. The days of the personal coupe are long over and the Eldorado has not been a sales success since 1985.
LeSabre should be the name of whatever car GM wants as the standard Buick sedan, The name has no negative connotations, The problem is, Today Buick is left with more Bada$$ names than cars to pin ’em too.
Well said. Rivieria, Roadmaster, GNX, Electra, all very cool names with no baggage. Buick is on the upswing, not just because of good products. I would venture to say that the marketing campain is a huge part of that. I am only 29, and my wife and her other millenial friends who know zilch about cars are constantly laughing and saying “that’s not a Buick” when they see one. Any marketing campaign with a one liner that sticks in your head and so perfectly encapsulates the message the head honchos are trying to get across is gold…
I disagree on LeSabre. It does have a negative connotation–to anyone younger than mid-boomer, it’s an old person’s car. It was a good, reliable car that did a great job of being comfortable, isolating, relaxing transportation, but it’s undeniably an old person’s car. Same as Century. Maybe those names can be resurrected at some future point, but right now they’re damaged goods.
I think they made a wise choice in bringing back Regal since it didn’t have quite the same connotations as Century and LeSabre despite sharing showrooms with them and being canceled around the same time. It sold in lower volume (which perversely helped) and was distinctly premium to the Century despite looking similar.
If they want to bring back another heritage nameplate…they could do Centurion maybe, though that one is little remembered. Wildcat would be great if they had a sports coupe or sedan. Maybe they’ll bring out a coupe if that market ever recovers, but Regal is doing the sports sedan thing at the moment.
If they *ever* bring out a full electric or even a plug-in hybrid and don’t bring back the Electra nameplate, I’m going to be sorely disappointed!
It’s very unfortunate that this happens – I remember reading that Honda and Toyota maintain their brand names for decades because they invest in quality and don’t want to erode confidence in the nameplates. The domestics, unfortunately, have to dump once good names when their quality sinks to levels they can’t recover from. For example – Cavalier –> Cobalt –> Cruze.
I was happy when the Dart came back (Neon would have worked) and was disappointed when Cadillac and Lincoln abandoned their once strong nameplates. .
It’s a bit mysterious then Toyota did replace some names like Corona for Camry and Cressida for Avalon and more recently, Tercel-Echo-Yaris. While the Yaris is rechristened Scion iA in the United States, the Yaris monicker keep going in Canada.
And the Scion TC could had been a good Celica…
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Toyota did NOT replace the Corona with the Camry or the Cressida with the Avalon. The Corona and Camry were separate models, which were available simultaneously in some markets. (The Corona name survived in Japan through 2000.) Likewise the Mark II/Cressida and the FWD Avalon; while Toyota stopped selling it in the U.S., the RWD Mark II line continued elsewhere, more recently renamed Mark X. Deciding to import one model instead of another is not the same thing as renaming a model line.
To someone who knows what’s going on, deciding to import one model instead of another is indeed not the same thing as renaming a model line. But consider the Cressida/Avalon situation from the vantage point of a consumer interested in a large Toyota.
This consumer has no clue that the Cressida was called the Mark II in most other markets (did anyone other than the USA get the Cressida name?) and that a new generation was sold there. So the fact that Toyota decided to import another model is lost on those consumers. Many if not most of them were probably unaware that the Cressida was RWD, or if they knew, did not see that as a plus. Instead, they saw the six-cylinder Cressida disappear for a year and then saw the similarly-sized, similarly-priced, similarly upmarket-aspiring Avalon appear in the same spot in the lineup. Voila–you’ve created the impression that the model line was renamed. In this case perception is perhaps more important than reality.
I don’t think it hurt sales as the Avalon was a good car, but at the same time I don’t think Cressida was damaged and if they had wanted to call it Cressida instead of Avalon in this market, they certainly could have.
RE: Name: Dodge Dart; “…last used on a car sold new during the Nixon administration…”
FWIW, the last ’76 Dart was sold when Ford was President, remember all the Chevy Chase pratfalls of the day? Nixon resigned in ’74.
> I don’t know if using the Neon name would have garnered more sales for Chrysler, but there is no way it could have hurt.
Oh yes it could! When I hear Neon, my first thoughts are: cheap, cheerful, head gasket failure.
I don’t believe that FCA was specifically targeting boomers by calling the new car “Dart”. They were looking for a name that they already had a trademark on which sounded good, had a neutral to positive image, and was fit for an edgy-looking compact car. On that basis, Dart is a good name. To the detractors who said “This is not a real Dart!”, FCA could’ve just as easily replied, “You’re thinking old think!” That is exactly what enthusiasts were told when they criticized the new Charger for having 4 doors.
I like Pacifica as a name, and the minivan itself looks very nice from the pics I’ve seen. As another commenter said, I don’t think most consumers know the previous Pacifica CUV was a flop in the market. I also think it was time to retire the Town & Country name. I will always associate that name with DiNoc fake woodgrain, which makes it extremely dated.
What concerns me more is that they may be alienating a large chunk of the minivan market by not offering a comparable Dodge Caravan model. That has been the “bread and butter” minivan offering. Sergio is messing with a successful formula there, and I hope it works out for them.
There was a Chrysler concept in 1999 called the Citadel. I thought that was a very good name that should’ve gone on a production model. I see that it recently appeared as a trim level for the Dodge Durango.
Don’t forget the first dart.
Don’t know if anyone has heard the news, but FCA plans to phase out the Dart and 200 when they hit end of run, in favor of selling cars “… from future partners”.
Fiat is looking for a merger and will not design new replacements, and instead want to sell rebadges of others’ designs.
So, maybe the Neon name will come back after all?
I like the new Chrysler minivan.
As do I. It’s hard to design a minivan (a box on wheels) to actually look stylish without making it look like a bloated turd; Chrysler did a good job IMO.
Electra,Fleetwood & Bel-Air are ones I want to see revived, The current Chrysler 300 could have been Imperial if moved a bit more upmarket. But I’m holding out for a Chrysler C-3PO! That actually DOES sound like one of the Gawdawful names used today!
The 2000-2005 Impala should have been named Bel-Air simply because it only had two tail lights per side. Technically only one because the inner lights were the back-up lights with red reflectors!
Technically, I suppose the same could be said for my 2012 Impala. It actually has two tail lights in the cluster with the backup light.
Oh, well… I tried…
Naming the first gen FWD Impala “Bel Air” would have made the transition to the new better verion easier. They did keep the old one for fleets,so Bel-Air for cops and taxis, Impala for regular consumers!
Please. No more attempts at bringing back “Imperial”. The name has been debased so many times over so many decades, it’s truly had any cachet it ever had whored out of it.
It’s best sales year was 1957. The last iteration was as a stretched and tweaked K Car. Before that a personal luxury coupe that bombed. Prior to that a thinly disguised New Yorker and on and on.
Also, the show car Imperial Chrysler showed around about a decade ago was hideous. It did not make me sad when it wasn’t built.
I don’t’ disagree that Chrysler mishandled the Imperial name, I just note that the ’05 and up 300 is popular and could have been a better “reboot” of the name where I’d put ‘300″ on a powerful touring sedan and Imperial on the more traditional luxury version.
Well, the show car I’m talking about was based on the LX/LY platform — mechanically, it would probably have been just fine, but good lord it was ugly.
Is it true that the Town and Country is being totally retired and replaced by a more upmarket van named the Pacifica? I was aware of the NAIAS concept but did not know it was that significant…I don’t think resurrecting the name is a bad idea, the average consumer has no idea what the original Pacifica is. Regarding bringing back old names generally, I think as long as it doesn’t evoke memories of bad cars or cars that for whatever reason began to be seen as uncool or “old-man cars” than it is not necessarily a bad business idea. As a car nut though I cringe when I see a 4-door Charger and a front-drive Impala, though I doubt highly the average consumer knows or cares. Cool article by the way!
How would you like to see FCA launch a new version of the time honored Volare, tongue in cheek, a lovely Italian name. Anyone remember singing the song?
I never made the connection haha…clearly your observational skills top mine.
After the recalls came down, I’d sing: “Vo-Lar-ray…..Oh,no…..”
No, they’ll use that name for a new Fiat…..
Well, they already recycled the name from the Volare’s twin, Aspen, so anything’s possible.
Hemi: it’s the first song I remembered as a child.
The actual city of Pacifica is falling into the ocean right now, after stupidly failing to understand that shorelines always erode. Not a good time to use the name.
One wonders how much longer the Fiat side of FCA intends to keep the Dodge AND Chrysler brands, period. “Fiat Pacifica” sounds more natural than “Fiat Town & Country.”
As long as the product makes sense for the name, then why not? In the case of the Pacifica, it actually started out as a higher trim line on the G body Daytona. Which is kind of funny, because the Laser gave way to a product more in line with Chrysler (LeBaron) leaving the sportier and more aggressive Daytona to Dodge…who luxes it up in a way that would have made more sense on the Laser anyway. That said, I don’t have an issue with the T&C name going away, since that usually denoted a woody, whether real or fake. And I don’t predict being in the market for a minivan or CUV anyway. Like….ever.
The Challenger was resurrected in the most true-to-form way possible. So yeah, the name makes perfect sense. The OP mentions it being built to them, but I fully disagree there. The Charger, maybe had the Boomers in full consideration since it became a sedan and automatic-only. The Challenger surely appeals to those who bought the original and have been pining for another. But us Gen Xers and even the Millenials were square in those crosshairs too. The number of guys in their mid 20s to mid 40s (as well as quite a few ladies) who are piloting these cars around is testament to that. You have to remember: Boomers may have bought these cars new, but when us GenXers came of age, the old school muscle cars were still very attainable. My HS parking lot (88-92) had a fair number of 60s Camaros, a Charger, and quite a few ’60s mustangs. My buddy who was a few years ahead of me found a clean ’71 340 Challenger for like $6500 in 1993. We used to absolutely TERRORIZE the local so called ‘badass’ in his Chevelle 454 SS. Many Millenials with any kind of gearheads in their family tree respect American muscle as well, and at my work parking lot, all the modern muscles are well represented. No one over 45 owns them, either.
The Challenger was always at the bottom of the “pony car” sales charts, even outsold by the Javelin.
If I am not mistaken, Dodge has sold far more Challengers this time than it did the first time around. A success by any measure. Appeals to both Boomers and people decades younger.
If I recall correctly, the original Challenger did outsell the Plymouth Barracuda, which was odd, given that the Barracuda had been on the market for several years before the 1970 E-bodies debuted.
In 1968 and 1969, the AMC Javelin outsold the Barracuda, even though the Barracuda was the only pony car offered by Chrysler Corporation during those years, and that Barracuda was a very handsome car (better than a contemporary GM F-body, in my opinion).
It was kind of a wash because the Challenger seemed to cannibalize Charger sales, though. (That gets complicated because of the attempt to apply the Charger name to all the two-door intermediates in 1971, of course.)
I think that the inherent problem with bringing back any nameplate, is that the bad things about it can often still be too well known, but the good things about it (namely the styling and it factor, at least from something like the Dart’s big block/ lightweight car aspect) can rarely be duplicated in today’s marketplace. By that, I mean, there’s a different set of rules that designers and engineers have to abide by, in order to appease all sides: the buying public’s taste, the EPA, CAFE requirements, government safety standards, etc. I remember when Jay Leno was describing his Miura, when he said (and had a great point), something to the effect that “this was back when auto designers had full freedom to design whatever aesthetically looked pleasing. No bumper crash standards, etc”. Arguably, the vehicles today are way safer, but Leno has a point. And as far as distinctive designs, unfortunately, most (if not all) car makers nowadays are so afraid to deviate from the norm, because terms like “ahead of their time” are often meant to describe ambitious or ambitiously flawed, where the buying public didn’t buy enough of those cars so as to make it a profitable venture for those car companies.
As a fan of the Thunderbird, I thought that Ford never should have discontinued it (and re-continued it again, just to discontinue it), but the two door personal luxury coupe, as a market segment, was dying in the late 90’s. I’ve had some thoughts on what would make it a good car if they were to bring it back today, but even among the term “luxury”, things like power door locks/ windows and things like that, they’re not luxuries anymore, they’re standard. That sort of ties in with Lincoln’s unsure footing right now, that was mentioned in this article…….how do you offer true luxury that can sell in enough units that is affordable and doesn’t cost you over 70 thousand dollars? You still have to be able to afford a monthly payment on these things, and vehicles are typically known as one of the worst investments. The minute that you drive it off the lot, you’ve lost a good chunk of money.
Thunderbird remains one of the great car names of all time and the prestige legacy of the original two-seater continues with so many of them having survived. Given that the car was a two-seater, four-seater, convertible, coupe, and even a four-door sedan over the years, I think Ford missed an opportunity to bring the nameplate back as a small, four-door, sports/luxury sedan a decade or so back, rather than as a two-seater for which there was little market. It would have been a logical successor to the original concept of Thunderbird but in a contemporary and popular style. Unfortunately there is too much competition in that category today to bring in yet another new model (especially by Ford, where even Lincoln struggles as a luxury division), although Hyundai undoubtedly will do so with their new Genesis division.
Oddly I thought of Genesis as the South Korean “Buick”.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Thunderbird nameplate will return. On what I don’t claim to know, but I think its eventual resurrection is inevitable.
Pacifica had to be one of the bigger turds of the new names they have tried to introduce over the last couple of decades. Why they would revive that name is beyond me – hell Chrysler Voyager would would have been better. At least Plymouth has been dead long enough for most of the populace to have forgotten it.
I swear I see more Pacificas now that they have slipped down to BHPH status and most of the ones I see running around are dying the slow steady death of poverty and neglect.
Why FCA does anything is like trying to divine Delphic utterances.
The Voyager was sold in Europe as a Chrysler, so that would make sense.
Some names are simply good names, and deserve use again on a good vehicle.
For some of those with memories of old versions of a nameplate, the new car may not live up to old expectations, but with CAFE and safety regulations, some of those old expectations may not even be legal to build anymore.
I saw the Charger sedan last night at the auto show, and had to admit that it is a cool, racy name attached to a car that lives up to those images. Dodge has the Challenger, it does not need another retro coupe based on a ’60s car.
The Dart was a great pick for a Dodge compact. Dodge Dart has alliteration, a bit of a sporty sound, and seems a lot more alive to me than Corolla. I think Civic works well for a compact, but appeals a bit differently than a name like Dart. The Dart’s real problem is that it isn’t a particularly good car, and has been panned by the automotive reviewers since day one. I doubt calling it Neon would have improved things. What the modern Dart needs is an improved second generation.
I thought FCA was absolutely nuts to move Dodge trucks to the RAM brand, and still do. But, it does not seem to have hurt the full-size pick-up. Proof that an appealing product can overcome a name.
Again, I think FCA is nuts to destroy the equity in the Town & Country name. Combining the T&C with the Dodge Caravan may make some sense – if all would go well, FCA could lay claim to having the best selling minivan in the U.S. The current combined sales of T&C and Caravan beat both the Odyssey and the Sienna. Personally, I liked the original Pacifica, and think it was a good name, but I’m the minority and the name seems a bit tainted.
In a perfect world, where FCA actually wanted Dodge to prosper, moving the trucks to the Ram brand would be nuts, In the real world, where FCA is slowly trying to kill of Chrysler and Dodge and keep Jeep and Ram trucks, it makes perfect sense. I don’t know why, but Chrylser has been cursed for two decades by corporate interlopers determined to destroy it…
I don’t think they’re trying to kill Dodge, I think they’re trying to move it to a niche performance brand. Keep the Charger and Challenger, and maybe something like the V8 Durango. A distinctly American flavor of performance.
They are in fact trying to kill the Chrysler name. I think when this generation of 300 is ready for replacement, the entire brand will be axed and the Pacifica will become a Fiat.
Acura needs to bring back Legend and Integra.
Does it matter what name is used, as long as it “hits” it’s intended market. If the car behind the name is a dud, the car maker has squandered a “billion” dollars.
The first time I saw a Ford Tauras, I was not impressed. But, the market told me otherwise!
If the new Dart had been to Weight Watchers before it’s debut, it could have nipped at the Corolla’s ass and Mario would have had something to brag about. Instead, he announced that he is killing the car this week.
As my dad would say, you better “walk the talk”or no one will respect you!