What cars do you consider 'brilliant failures'?

[tquattro]

Originally Posted by _HighVoltage_

I read the wiki article but I am still confused! What wxactly do they mean by "unintentional acceleration"?

Thedguy is right.

"The Audi story is by now, dismally familiar. "Sudden acceleration" accidents occurred when the transmission was shifted out of "park." The driver always insisted he was standing on the brake, but after the crash the brakes always worked perfectly. A disproportionate number of accidents involved drivers new to the vehicle. When an idiotproof shift was installed so that a driver could not shift out of park if his foot was on the accelerator, reports of sudden acceleration plummeted.

But a story to the effect that cars accelerate when drivers step on the accelerator doesn't boost television ratings or jury verdicts. And driver error is understandably hard to accept for a mother whose errant foot killed her sixyearold son. So with the help of such mothers, CAS and CBS knitted together a tissue of conjecture, insinuation and calumny. The car's cruise control was at fault. Or maybe the electronic idle. Or perhaps the transmission.

"60 Minutes," in one of journalism's most shameful hours, gave air time in November 1986 to a selfstyled expert who drilled a hole in an Audi transmission and pumped in air at high pressure. Viewers didn't see the drill or the pump—just the doctored car blasting off like a rocket."

source

[_HighVoltage_]

So basically there was nothing wrong with the cars and only idiots who didn't know how to drive died? That's really not fair to Audi!

[tquattro]

yes...but it affected the audi reputation very much, the audi's sales dropped, they had to rename the 5000( to 100/200) in order to reduce the damage.

[Ezbok58a]

Enough rambling, lets get this back on topic shall we?

The Edsel... brilliant transmission technology for the time (push button) But its radical new grille made the front look too much like a Urinal... the wagon version got funky boomerang taillights...the model limped along for 3 years, it was a disaster for Ford.




The Ford Thunderbird, This car was truely brilliant. A modern version of the classic thunderbird, even won Car of the Year when it came out, unfortunately the high price it listed at sealed the cars fate, truely a shame.



The Chevrolet SSR, Cool concept, stupid production vehicle...honestly who would want a conv pickup truck with a carpeted bed? And who would pay 53k for one?!?



Chrysler Turbine...a actual jet turbine powered car...



Cadillac diesel, take a olds gas motor and convert it to diesel...what could possibly go wrong? Everything



The Cadillac V8-6-4
The first engine to deactivate its cylinders to save fuel, only the transitions were as smooth as falling down the stairs...

[marcos_eirik]

Well, the Jaguar XJ220; Great car, awful timing. A £300K supercar launched right into a world wide recession was never a good idea, if it had been out two or three years earlier it would have been a success.

[bartboy9891]

Was the Thunderbird, SSR, or those two Cadillacs actually brilliant? The Thunderbird looked pretty interesting when it debuted, but the interior was low rent for something that was so expensive and I've heard that they weren't very good to drive. The SSR was a ridiculous concept in every way, that was just a failure. And the two Cadillacs just seem to be bad cars. The Chrysler Turbine was only loaned to 50 customers in the same way that BMW is loaning people their Hydrogen powered 7-series. I don't think that would necessarily be called a failure.

[starfox07]

I have forgotten completely about this car, hence why, in general, it is a failure.

[Schwupz]

Originally Posted by Ezbok58a

The Ford Thunderbird, This car was truely brilliant. A modern version of the classic thunderbird, even won Car of the Year when it came out, unfortunately the high price it listed at sealed the cars fate, truely a shame.

Absolutely. It's a damn elegant looking car that has some italian touch - which (especially for an american car) is a good thing in most cases

Chris

[t3h r0x0rs]

We all knew this was coming sooner or later; the Cadillac Cimarron which ran from 1982 to 1988. Basically a Chevy Cavalier with Cadillac badges at almost double the price. Badge engineering at its worst. Nearly killed off Cadillac, IIRC.

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by t3h r0x0rs

We all knew this was coming sooner or later; the Cadillac Cimarron which ran from 1982 to 1988. Basically a Chevy Cavalier with Cadillac badges at almost double the price. Badge engineering at its worst. Nearly killed off Cadillac, IIRC.

What was brilliant about the Cimarron/Cavalier exactly?

[_HighVoltage_]

Here is a car I thought was brilliant, but was not accepted very well. It was never produced in huge numbers, only 800 were ever made:
The mid 80's Shebly Lancer. It was powered by the awesome Chrysler 2.2 litre Turbo VNT engine, and was very-well equipped. The idea was to fight the BMW 3 series.

[MattW]

Originally Posted by thedguy

What was brilliant about the Cimarron/Cavalier exactly?

Maybe he's taking brilliant failure as "SO AWESOMELY BAD?" Sad thing is, I've actually seen a Cimmaron.

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by thedguy

What was brilliant about the Cimarron/Cavalier exactly?

The only thing brilliant about the Cimmarron was the idea - make a small Caddy to compete with the Audis and BMWs.

Everything else about it, including the actual car itself, was unmitigated fecal matter.

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by Schwupz

Absolutely. It's a damn elegant looking car that has some italian touch - which (especially for an american car) is a good thing in most cases

Chris

That wasn't the only reason it got killed. Not only did it look like a 50s T-bird, it also handled like a 50s T-bird. That's right, it handled like a barge and rolled like the ocean. This was "fixed" in later "handling packs", but by then it was too late and it'd scared off all the buyers.

The planned Sport version with the S-Type's 4.0L blower V8 never materialized.

[argatoga]

Originally Posted by Spectre

That wasn't the only reason it got killed. Not only did it look like a 50s T-bird, it also handled like a 50s T-bird. That's right, it handled like a barge and rolled like the ocean. This was "fixed" in later "handling packs", but by then it was too late and it'd scared off all the buyers.

The planned Sport version with the S-Type's 4.0L blower V8 never materialized.

Imagine if they had given it to SVT. Well I still consider it the first real Thunderbird since the sixties. Everything between them lost the point of the car.

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by argatoga

Imagine if they had given it to SVT. Well I still consider it the first real Thunderbird since the sixties. Everything between them lost the point of the car.

Imagine if they had let the engineers finish developing it instead of giving it to a female diversity appointee who has a track record of ruining everything she touched!

Yup, one of Nasser's diversity appointees was responsible for ruining the T-bird.

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by _HighVoltage_

Here is a car I thought was brilliant, but was not accepted very well. It was never produced in huge numbers, only 800 were ever made:
The mid 80's Shebly Lancer. It was powered by the awesome Chrysler 2.2 litre Turbo VNT engine, and was very-well equipped. The idea was to fight the BMW 3 series.

I'd almost say all the Shelby Dodge turbo cars are worthy of "brilliant failures." They were all pretty sweet cars, the Omni GLHS was every bit better than the old Mustang GT-350 except in looks, yet everytime there is an article in any magazine about the history of shelby, they completely ignore these cars.

I'm still partial to the Shadow based CSX. Much better looking car IMO. And to think I could have had one for $1200 in mint condition (with still working VNT turbo) a few years ago.

[Spectre]

Actually, the Shelby cars were actually a clear commercial success, not a failure.

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by Spectre

Actually, the Shelby cars were actually a clear commercial success, not a failure.

Like the 190e 16v cars, it has nothing to due with the money they made, or lack there of. It's the fact that they are completely ignored by enthusiasts. Look at any Shelby magazine/book and nearly all will at best gloss over the fact that these cars were made.

The Shelby mustang owners, even the new mustang, look down on the car. Though the moment one Turbo dodge owner tries to get a Shelby Mustang owner to race, they are quick to back down (I saw and laughed at this very site from someone at C&C just a few weeks back). 700hp+ mustang scared of a lowly FWD dodge