Suicide Doors: A Metaphor for the US Auto Industry?

[atomicalex]

At the NAIAS on Sunday, two highly anticipated (and widely leaked) concepts were shown by Ford and the US Chrysler division of DaimlerChrysler.

The Ford F250 Super Chief pickup was not only the most extravagant truck shown since the Lincoln Blackwood, its interior rivaled the finest Pullman carriage to be found in the railroading days of its namesake. With Eames-esque plywood and leather seating complete with flip-up footrests, it was everything today's Detroit cannot afford. In the days of shrinking (high-paying) union employment, the entire city is beginning a strict diet. This raises the question - who is this luxury for?

Later in the day, the design honcho from GM gave his pitch from, yes, an Eames chair and ottoman. He expounded on the value of laminated plywood and leather. Irony. Pure, golden irony.

Ford's (and GM's) recent struggles with profitability have trickled down to their US workforces, and it's not uncommon to pick up the Detroit Free Press and see a story about an assembly line worker who will no longer be able to afford a new F150 every year. The rest of America has been living like this for some 10 years now for the dot-com-ers, and for close to 40 for everyone else. The boom days have been over for a while, and the Iraq war is not World War II - there won't be a post-war recovery like back then.

With the existing buyer base eroding daily, what is the purpose of wowing the press with a silly truck? For the most part, the press were non-plussed, looking at the Super Chief as an exercise in futility, something along the lines of installing light rail transit in Detroit: never going to happen.

Chrysler's Imperial was just as ostentatious. The wide open passenger cavity said one thing to this viewer - "look! I won't catch my Oscar de la Renta loaner on the hinges!" Drawing its bone structure from the 300C, this luxo-barge was just another attempt to out-bling someone else. If this was the best the crack team of designers could come up with, it's about time to call in the Germans. Too many parts from the past, too many design cues from Rolls, not enough Zetsche. Nothing about the vehicle said 2006, or even 1980, for that matter.

It was wrong. Ford's concept was silly, but Chrysler's concept was scary. By stretching the platform even farther, putting yet another shell on it, and sticking even more gee-gaws and fancy bits on, they cheapened the stunning 300C, effectively telling the world that ithe 300C isn't good enough any more. The Imperial is bling. A redeeming feature of the Super Chief is that it is at least not bling.

Reaching back is not the answer. Reminding people of past glory doesn’t distract them from icky reality any more. It’s time to get over the retro thing and move on.

The most redeeming concept shown today was not a luxurious wafter at all. It was small, fuel efficient (if a bit noisy), and flexible. It was parkable, packable, and instead of insulating the driver from the world on a sea of leather and foam, it hung the driver out to dry, literally.

The Ford Reflex, a tiny turboDieselhybrid (say that three times fast) with its upward opening, reverse-scissor doors and Aeron-style seating is much closer to where our domestic auto industry needs to go. Lean, mean, and not looking back any more.

[CP2]

If that's an original piece, then well put. I couldnt stand the Imperial concept - it looks atrocious. I'll admit that I did like the Super Chief concept, but not because of its interior (which in itself is eerily reminiscient of the recent Phateon Limousine), but because of the Tri-Flex fuel drivetrain.

You condemn both concepts, but the Super Chief I think was decent, again - it brings three things a concept usually has, outrageous styling, realistic possibilities, and forward thinking mechanicals, in one package. It's the very basis of what a concept car is for - and while we know that interior's just silly, if that powertrain makes it to production, it'll be closer to that Reflex concept than you might think....

As to the Imperial, you're spot on.

[GTI_CH]

Quote, originally posted by atomicalex »

Lean, mean, and not looking back any more.

I don't know about not looking back. How about just put your glasses on before you look back. The big 3 have let great car names run to the ground. The only retro cars that have worked (and are still working) are the LX platform cars from Chrysler. So I guess you could say Dodge had the balls to take the Charger name an modernize to sell. It does'nt have much to do with the old charger, but thats a good thing.

American car manufacturers can't decide on what they should be as a company. Asside from trucks, dodge is the only brand that has succeded in being American, marketing wise.

[Jettavr666]

Quote, originally posted by atomicalex »

Ford's (and GM's) recent struggles with profitability have trickled down to their US workforces, and it's not uncommon to pick up the Detroit Free Press and see a story about an assembly line worker who will no longer be able to afford a new F150 every year. The rest of America has been living like this for some 10 years now for the dot-com-ers, and for close to 40 for everyone else. The boom days have been over for a while, and the Iraq war is not World War II - there won't be a post-war recovery like back then.

you bring up a very good point here.

America is obviously very interested in getting back into the luxury car game big time, because of the profitability of the cars, but to many american's I think its just seems to be a symbol of times where America was a easier place to live.

America isnt the land of oppertunity for most people that it once was. Today its not easy even for well educated people to find a job where they can easily meet all their needs, and have the extra things that they want. Cars, both luxury, and non luxury relfect this. Brands like Hyundai and Kia are floursing, as well as low priced imports from chevy, toyota, and others. Still we see a resurgance of ultra luxury cars, and a wider price gap in cars. This can be akin to the gap in workers wages, and the widing of class boundaries. Poorer people are getting poorer, and Rich are getting richer.

[AKADriver]

Interesting thoughts. I'm not one to subscribe to gloom and doom forecasts - all speculation aside, we do still enjoy a higher standard of living than we did in 1956, in purely quantitative terms. Of course, also, concept cars are supposed to be ostentatious, to a point.

I think what the Super Chief and the Imperial show, though, is an ostentatiousness for its own sake. The transparent LCDs and billet aluminum parts found in most concepts exist to get you excited about the latest incremental changes in the state of the art of automotive design that will actually trickle down to the consumer. But the Super Chief and the Imperial... nothing shown there is new, nothing is accented and sexed-up by the glitz. The glitz is all that's there, it's what you're supposed to be looking at.

[JimmyGolf]

Wait, so it's okay for Europeans to make luxury cars but not Americans?

I don't understand your argument.

[WhistlerYOW]

This is Detroits strongest showing in years... That isn't supposed to happen, I knew SOMEBODY would be able to put a depressing shroud over it. Guess I was right.

These are concepts. They are meant to show that the Big 3 still have the design/engineering prowess and passion to build world class cars despite their floundering market shares, and that they can still fight imports on the home turf. I think they are doing a great job. Every new model to come out of this show which has gotten any attention has been a Chrysler, Ford, or GM. The Europeans and Asians have been invisible so far... that is how it should be in Detroit.

I don't know where the whole social commentary comes into play either. So the American economy isn't perfect right now, so the Big 3 shouldn't come out with luxurious concepts and production models? What about the Lexus and the new S-Class? Nobody complains about those. Auto shows are all about excess. People in North America are obsessed with excess and the lavish lifestyle. Why do you think so many people are more interested in Paris Hilton's life than their own?

I'll be at the show in just over a week, so maybe I'll change my mind by then, but from the press coverage I've seen I think you're take is just doom and gloom. Theres already enough of that flowing around in the media.


Modified by WhistlerYOW at 3:26 PM 1-10-2006

[GTi Giant]

well put

[Jettavr666]

Quote, originally posted by JimmyGolf »

Wait, so it's okay for Europeans to make luxury cars but not Americans? I don't understand your argument.

Quote, originally posted by WhistlerYOW »

This is Detroits strongest showing in years... That isn't supposed to happen, I knew SOMEBODY would be able to but a glum shroud over it. Guess I was right.

lol Im not sure if you were referring to my post of not, but I wasnt trying to crap on detroits showing, or infer that only Europe should build luxury cars.

I think what the poster is inferring is that suicide doors, or hell even the whole retro deisgn craze tries to hark back to "better times" Giving the idea that the "good old days" were a better time for america. Im not saying its right or wrong, but it is an interesting theory, and I bet a decent argument could be made both for and against it.

[Goonster]

Quote, originally posted by atomicalex »

The Ford F250 Super Chief pickup was not only the most extravagant truck shown since the Lincoln Blackwood, its interior rivaled the finest Pullman carriage to be found in the railroading days of its namesake. With Eames-esque plywood and leather seating complete with flip-up footrests, it was everything today's Detroit cannot afford.

Excellent article. Did you write this, or paste it from somewhere else?

The Eames' are heroes of mine. The notion of pressure-molded plywood as "bling" interior in a pickup truck is pretty weird. IIRC, the Eames' developed their first line of molded plywood chairs under a navy contract for low-cost furniture using reusable materials (steel and aluminum being needed elsewhere in the early 1940's).

Can you imagine this thing parked in front of the Eames house?

I can see molded plywood in the Honda Element, VW Microbus or an IKEA-edition Volvo, but not an F-250.

edit: added pic

[username]

Quote, originally posted by Goonster »

The Eames' are heroes of mine. The notion of pressure-molded plywood as "bling" interior in a pickup truck is pretty weird. IIRC, the Eames' developed their first line of molded plywood chairs under a navy contract for low-cost furniture using reusable materials (steel and aluminum being needed elsewhere in the early 1940's). Can you imagine this thing parked in front of the Eames house?

I totally agree goonster, though unfortunately the eames' work, in this day and age, is more associated with wealth and exclusivity than forward thinking ethical design

i think a molded plywood interior would work better in a volvo truck myself

Modified by username at 3:45 PM 1-10-2006

[DenCo]

Yes yes.... how dare they attempt to make a comeback or go more upscale than a Chevy Cavalier!!! They should return to making little econoboxes like in the 80s, that'll definately fix everything.

Ok, I'll cut the sarcasm now, but what makes you say that the Americans shouldn't do luxury or that they should call in the Germans? I personally think the the 300s and even the Imperial are pretty good, save the slightly strange styling of the Imperial concept well... its interior at least. On top of that we have we have Lincoln which always has been all about "American luxury" and lets not forget the much underrated Buick who's making a comeback at the moment.

You have to remember (or stop ignoring) the fact that brands like Chrysler were all about luxury up to sometime around the 80s, so it's more like a return to what they used to be rather than trying to remind people of past glory to " distract them from seeing the 'icky reality' ". I also doubt that the Imperial is only to "out-bling" somebody else, as we're in a world where almost all brands are suddenly trying to go upscale for one reason or another, this is just Chrysler's attempt at the same. Think of it as their Phaeton, I guess, and remember that this is merely the concept.

You're right though, Chrysler thing is scary. It must be scary for the competition to see the many great things that Chrysler has been able to pull off lately from so little platforms. I also fail to see how anything else being added to the LX platform somehow taking away from the 300C, even if the Imperial does go into production and is slotted above it? Is the flagship model of any brand the only thing you consider being "good enough"? Did the introduction of the Phaeton suddenly cause the fall of the Passat? I don't think so.

They definitely do have a problem and they could be in trouble if things get worse, but all signs point to somewhat of a resurgence of the big 2 1/2. On top of that, I think the problems have more to do with unreasonable union contracts, a few bad decisions and missed opportunities (as if the Europeans, Japanese, Koreans, etc. have been perfect), and a prevalent general negativity towards them. Remember the "Pontiac is too extreme and the body cladding is pathetic" thing which soon changed to "Pontiac is too bland now and I hate that they ditch that style they had".

With all that said, the solution, if there is one, would be to impress the public somehow, get their attention on your own (if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself, right?) in a positive way. This is pretty much what I think they're doing now with some of those over the top concepts such as the Super Chief. If you look at new models actually slated for production such as the Buick Enclave, Lincoln MKX and MKS, Ford Edge, etc., you'll see that they're being much more reasonable and that many people will be able to afford them. I doubt piles of 2 door diesel hybrids will save anyone.

[atomicalex]

I think the Eames-eaque interior on the Super Chief was the one thing that did work. The concept was as beautiful and well-executed as it was silly. Regardling the Imperial, its interior is a mish-mash of elements. I did not find it to be cohesive in its design language.

All comments on design are opinion. They are occasionally objective.

My deep concern remains that there aren't going to be buyers for mass luxury in the near future. So why spend the design and R&D dollars on it, when those valuable resources could go to things that solve existing problems? The domestics are bleeding engineering staff in addition to manufacturing staff. Put the brains on projects that will innovate in the technology arena, please!

[Four Speed Fox]

So many outstanding points on all sides, but this is what sticks in my mind:

I'm a bit of an Eames/HM nut. There's a surfboard and a couple wire tables right here in the room with me, and a Noguchi table in the next one. Charles and Ray wanted to make affordable design. The whole idea with the shaped plywood was that it was far, far cheaper to make than traditional hand-carved furniture.

But... two things happened. Machines got smarter, making it easy to create a "hand-worked" item in seconds, and production moved overseas. A Noguchi table is a thousand dollars - five times the cost of the average coffee table in a furniture store - because it's made in America, and the other stuff is made in China.

The Eames stuff was never meant to be upscale. It became upscale, first because it was aesthetically pleasing, and then because production stayed in this very expensive country. Has anyone considered that the only chance the Big Three have is to follow the same route? As long as we are busy paying China to weave the rope with which they will hang us, as vwlarry so eloquently noted, they may have no choice. When Chinese full-sized trucks arrive for ten thousand dollars, perhaps a Super Chief is all that will sell.

There's one thing you can depend on, though - this country is stratifying in a big hurry. The day when the average UAW forklift driver earns as much as a small-town doctor is about to be gone forever. We are all going to face increasing competition from overseas.

So when you get up, put on your Indonesian suit and Chinese tie, walk past your Chinese furniture to get in your Lexus and drive to work, it's worth considering how long it will be before the Far East has a replacement for you.

Of course, eventually our misshapen dollar will crash to the ground and we'll compete heads-up with everyone... but it won't be a fun ride.

[vwlarry]

I get the feeling that some folks are confusing, or let's say equating, the recussitation of Detroit's traditional marques, with the ultimate goal of rehabilitating them, with the dreaded "retro". They're not the same, or even directly comparable. The re-establishment of a moribund carmaker, such as Cadillac, or Buick, or the current subject, Chrysler, as a healthy, worthy, and competitive player in the marketplace has nothing to do with the nostalgia of retro, at least not when the goal is being reached with solid, contemporary engineering and technology, and well-executed, tasteful design. Retro, in and of itself, is nostalgia, and as such it seldom energizes a maker toward the goal of becoming competitive with other makers who's minds are focused upon the future. However, it IS relatively harmless when used in judicious doses, such as when VW reinvigorated its US operation with the New Beetle, or Ford with their Mustang redux. When retro is used as a rallying point, it is good. When it used as the sole reason for being, it is less-so.

Look at Porsche, perhaps the world's ultimate, and most successful practicioner of the delicate balancing act of mixing just enough retro into their contemporary and even advanced designs so as to make the whole something occassionally magnificent. They never fall into a morose state of pining for the past, which would cripple them in the face of the public, and also would tend to stifle their creativity, which is a Porsche stock-in-trade. I feel that the American makers are feeling their way through this same balancing act, though on a larger scale. It's also my feeling that they deserve at least the moral support of the public-at-large as they make this honest effort to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and get back into the fray. There's nothing wrong with GeeEmm's, Ford's and Chrysler's products that a whole bunch of old-fashioned goodwill won't surely help to cure.


Modified by vwlarry at 5:13 PM 1-10-2006

[Jettavr666]

Quote, originally posted by Four Speed Fox »

So many outstanding points on all sides, but this is what sticks in my mind: I'm a bit of an Eames/HM nut. There's a surfboard and a couple wire tables right here in the room with me, and a Noguchi table in the next one. Charles and Ray wanted to make affordable design. The whole idea with the shaped plywood was that it was far, far cheaper to make than traditional hand-carved furniture. But... two things happened. Machines got smarter, making it easy to create a "hand-worked" item in seconds, and production moved overseas. A Noguchi table is a thousand dollars - five times the cost of the average coffee table in a furniture store - because it's made in America, and the other stuff is made in China. The Eames stuff was never meant to be upscale. It became upscale, first because it was aesthetically pleasing, and then because production stayed in this very expensive country. Has anyone considered that the only chance the Big Three have is to follow the same route? As long as we are busy paying China to weave the rope with which they will hang us, as vwlarry so eloquently noted, they may have no choice. When Chinese full-sized trucks arrive for ten thousand dollars, perhaps a Super Chief is all that will sell. There's one thing you can depend on, though - this country is stratifying in a big hurry. The day when the average UAW forklift driver earns as much as a small-town doctor is about to be gone forever. We are all going to face increasing competition from overseas. So when you get up, put on your Indonesian suit and Chinese tie, walk past your Chinese furniture to get in your Lexus and drive to work, it's worth considering how long it will be before the Far East has a replacement for you. Of course, eventually our misshapen dollar will crash to the ground and we'll compete heads-up with everyone... but it won't be a fun ride.

hit the nail on the head

[thesteve]

This thread is way too intelligent for The Car Lounge......

Seriously.....what a breath of fresh air.......tons of good food for thought......

[phlipski]

I love the interior of this truck, but aside from that the thing is a complete waste. Look at the size of it. It's like Ford all of a sudden got an inferiority complex after Dodge released the Mega-cab. I may be wrong but it really appears that these car makers are improving drivetrain efficiency so that they can build bigger/heavier cars, and in the end the net fuel economy is the same!

-John.

[thesteve]

Quote, originally posted by phlipski »

I love the interior of this truck, but aside from that the thing is a complete waste. Look at the size of it. It's like Ford all of a sudden got an inferiority complex after Dodge released the Mega-cab. I may be wrong but it really appears that these car makers are improving drivetrain efficiency so that they can build bigger/heavier cars, and in the end the net fuel economy is the same! -John.

What the industry does or doesn't create directly reflects the consumers demand. There's no conspiracy here. There's no direct correlation between weight/mass and profit.