Avanti (1987-2007)

If I had to vote on some fictional creation that I’m certainly glad does not exist in reality, I think “zombies” would merit serious consideration. Pretty much any undead thing that mingles and attempts to feast on the living, and is yet impossible to kill, isn’t something I have any desire to ever encounter.

Unfortunately, that idea hasn’t been written into the rules of the auto industry. I present to you, a creation of Studebaker – the Avanti coupe.

The Avanti (meaning “forward”, in Italian) was a creation of the last regime at Studebaker Motor Corporation, hoping to turn the auto market on its ear with a combination of style and performance quite unlike any other. Chevy had its Corvette at the time, Ford has its Thunderbird; thus entered Studebaker with the Avanti.

The original Avanti was actually a sort of novel idea. Like the Corvette, the body panels were formed from fiberglass. Based on the Lark sedan chassis, the idea was essentially to create a medium-price point muscle car, but with an upper-tier luxury interior. It was the idea of a Mustang before the Mustang came to fruition (although the Avanti cost considerably more). The original Avanti received a modest, lukewarm welcome, and maybe if the car had seen better engineering, and lower costs, it could have extended the life of Studebaker. But Studebaker failed. Not so with the Avanti, who got a new lease on life when the tooling and nameplate rights were purchased by local Indiana businessmen. The car continued to be hand-built in part of the old Studebaker facilities still standing in South Bend for almost two decades afterwards, at the rate of just under one car per day. The car changed very little in that time span, and developed a cult-like following – mostly old Studebaker fans who probably hoped to one day see a return of the old marque. In due time, however, the company ran afoul of financial problems and had to be sold to new investors. And it is at this point in the mid-80’s, where Avanti took that big ugly step from “nostalgic timepiece” to “omg kill that beast”.

A new owner, Michael Kelly (this name is important for relevance to the AoAH) bought the company and immediately instituted major changes. The first step (or misstep, if you will) was to rip the car away from it’s South Bend/Studebaker roots and relocate to the broken-down steel town of Youngstown, Ohio. Kelly also felt the car needed an update to its 20-something year old design, and introduced a new front fascia (to the chagrin of Avanti fans). Kelly also introduced concept designs and plans for a ragtop model, a 4-door Avanti sedan, and even an Avanti stretch limo. (This was still the 80’s, so an Avanti SUV or minivan idea hadn’t been tapped yet.) Kelly’s grand marketing ideas did give the car a tiny bump in sales, but the company continued to bleed cash and forced Kelly out of business a few years later. Like zombies in a bad story, though, the Avanti was not dead yet.

The Avanti went dormant in the 90’s, but the company came up with the not-so original idea of using a General Motors F-body chassis (Camaro/Firebird) and attaching newly-designed fiberglass panels to create a “modern new look” Avanti. The end result, as seen in the photos above, was actually something more akin to a Camaro that had undergone bad kit-car treatment. The windshield, roofline, window pillars and doors all but screamed “Camaro” at the time. Michael Kelly – remember him? – re-entered the picture and purchased the company back, hoping to market the new F-body based AVX. Kelly once again moved the company, this time to a spot west of Atlanta, where the kit cars vehicles would be produced. Avanti’s owners thought they had something really special, as the car was marketed with a stellar asking price of almost $80,000.

Eventually, the problem with using someone else’s platform arose – GM cancelled production of the Camaro and Firebird. This, however, did not mean the death of Avanti… just yet. Avanti production was moved to Ford’s Mustang platform, resulting in yet another re-design that didn’t look repulsive for the first time in a couple of generations. In fact, the ‘Stang’s shorter wheelbase resulted in a look that yielded some lines very similar to the original 1963 Avanti. As a bonus, the Mustang-based Avanti also gained cool Mustang technology like Ford’s powerful 4.6L V8 and well-sorted chassis. Kelly moved production once again, this time to Mexico, in 2006, hoping to cut costs and reboot the company’s image. A few months later, Kelly was arrested on federal charges of operating a Ponzi scheme (separate from the Avanti operations). Avanti Motor Corporation ceased operations for good in 2007, although the company’s web site is still active.

At long last, the zombie had finally been laid to rest.

Terrific history on Avanti here: Ate Up With Motor

 

Pontiac Aztek (2001-2005)

Welcome to the first of what will be several “obvious” inductees into the Archive of Automotive Horrors.

Alas, the Pontiac Aztek became an iconic symbol of everything that was heading in the wrong direction at General Motors at the dawn of the new millenium. Bad design, shoddy quality, and misdirected marketing all combined to doom what might have otherwise been a pretty good idea, but instead marked the beginning of the end for GM’s longtime and storied Pontiac Motor Division.

The easiest criticism to make about the Aztek was its awkward styling. Tall roofline, short wheelbase, odd fender-mounted marker/signal lights, and a front fascia that looked completely like the front ends of two totally different cars stacked together (or, as others would argue, looked like it had been inspired by a Dustbuster vacuum) – all combined for a public reception that met the Aztek with something just short of violent vomiting.

In fairness to the poor, ill-fated Aztek, the original concept design sported a slightly better design – a larger hood that incorporated the still-awkward looking grille, sleeker swept-back headlight pods, and aggressive rims and tires that begged for off-road trail duty. Designed and built around GM’s minivan platform (which was a great idea, because the world knows how incredible GM’s minivans were…. /sarcasm), the Aztek was supposed to be a “crossover” – oh, how I loathe that term – that offered Blazer-like utility with Grand Am-like livability. It was a pretty good idea that went horribly awry with bad implementation. Somewhere between the Detroit auto show and delivery to Pontiac dealer showrooms, design teams beat the front of the Aztek with an ugly stick, outfitted lower body panels with thick, ugly, plastic cladding (a 90’s Pontiac design cue that might as well have been the first nail in the coffin), and replaced the cool lunar rover looking concept rims with boring alloys. The gods were not pleased. The Aztek’s legacy will forever be its unattractive exterior design, and soon won’t be forgotten – you will find included on nearly every “Worst Cars” or “Ugliest Cars” list ever published – sometimes at the top. With other cars like the AMC Pacer and Ford Edsel routinely showing up on most of the same lists, that’s quite an accomplishment.

Curiously, the Aztek’s stable-mate sold by Buick – the Rendezvous – did not suffer from similar consequences. While the Rendezvous did not exactly go flying out of Buick showrooms, the little grocery-getter sold modestly well, with more conservative and upscale design, and a curious ad campaign featuring pro golfer Tiger Woods as the car’s driver. (As hard as it is to believe, it was not a Buick Rendezvous that Tiger was driving in that famous Thanksgiving weekend crash by his estate that imploded his marriage and golfing career.)

Additionally, the Aztek suffered from a multitude of quality and engineering issues. Many owners reported troubling electrical and electronic gremlins, as well as a tendency for the 3.4 liter V6 engine to run very hot (occasional overheating was a problem, as you can guess). The high-tech instrument cluster (which included GM’s pretty cool heads-up display) had issues, as well as body control functions that went bad (i.e. liftgate latches, power locks/windows, etc). Pontiac thought well enough to incorporate a small, Honda CRX-style, see-through vertical rear window glass on the rear tailgate to improve visibility – however, didn’t see fit to include a rear-window wiper, probably due to the narrow height of the glass area.

In spite of all of these things, and even with the extremely unpopular design, the Aztek still managed to find its way to some buyers and fans who managed to see through the flaws, and connect with the compact-sport-fun vehicle that GM was trying to market. Some outdoor enthusiasts favored the Aztek for its optional all-wheel-drive, a built-in cooler compartment, cargo flexibility options (with an interior wide enough to hold a 4-foot sheet of plywood – yes, that is right). Additional options gave buyers the opportunity to outfit their Azteks with bike racks, an air compressor, and an add-on tent that hooked up to an open tailgate which nicely turned it into a convenient camper (thus, totally completing that Dustbuster appearance).

In the end, the consumer market simply couldn’t get over the Aztek’s awkward looks, and after five years and a few minor trim alterations, GM brought Aztek/Rendezvous production to an end. As a footnote, the Pontiac Motor Division would end up folding four years later, victim not only to poor products like the Aztek, but also to a weak economy bringing GM to the brink of collapse. Last minute plans to convert Pontiac’s lineup to re-badged Holden-built automobiles came too little, too late. As it stands today in hindsight, the Aztek takes its place in history as a symbol of where GM went wrong, following the turn of the century.

More on the Aztek here: Aztekfanclub.com

Time Magazine’s 50 Worst Cars of All Time

As I’m getting ready to do the research work for my next feature on the A.o.A.H. blog, this curious Google search result immediately caught my attention. I don’t know that it’s permissive to copy and paste Time’s list of the all-time 50 worst cars ever produced directly to my blog, so I’ll just courteously link the story instead:

Time Specials: The 50 Worst Cars of All Time

Clicking on the first car at the top of the list will start a slideshow of all 50 vehicles (photos accompanied with a brief but cheeky explanation). Fun stuff. I do not believe this is a recent article (as the last car on the list is from 2004), but I couldn’t immediately find a publishing date. I’ll just have to assume for now that it’s probably no more recent than 2006 or thereabouts.

I am posting about this because it is relevant and interesting, but also because several of the cars on the list were ones that I had in mind for future postings, for obvious reasons. (It’s safe to single out almost every domestic on the list and figure that I’ve got it reserved for future consideration.) There are a few eyebrow raisers on there for myself, though – the post-Y2K BMW 7-series? Hummer H2? Ferrari Mondial? (How can ANYthing by Ferrari be considered a fail? Does not compute.) Interesting perspective, to say the least.

Enjoy.

Ford EXP (1982-1985)

As the first (and thus arguably, the toughest) entry and inductee into the Archive of Automotive Horrors, I’ve chosen the first generation Ford EXP based on one simple fact: I’ve owned one.

There’s a lot to dislike about Ford’s little two-seater, which are exactly some of the same reasons that a fair share of owners were attracted to the car. No backseat. No horsepower. Fake looking pop-up headlamps that actually weren’t pop-up headlamps. Perhaps the biggest achilles heel for the EXP though, was that it was based on Ford’s pedestrian econobox of the era, the Escort.

While it’s a matter of opinion (as with everything else), the EXP wasn’t an ugly car. It wasn’t Ford’s most beautiful design, yet it was far from its worst – particularly considering that a majority of the EXP’s components were shared with the Escort. While various sporting incarnations of the Escort were immensely popular in the UK and Europe at the time, that reputation didn’t rub off on the North American version, which was essentially marketed as a gas-miserly, entry-level economy car. In spite of its performance shortcomings, the Escort immediately became one of Ford’s best selling cars (of all time, even). Ford didn’t seem too interested in tinkering with the formula for the little car’s success beyond a 4-door and station wagon variant, and thus, the EXP was born – also partially due to Ford’s demographic research that said a forthcoming booming “Yuppie” market would go crazy for a car with this balance of economy and pseudo-sportiness.

Introduced in the spring of 1981 as a 1982 model, Ford engineered the EXP utilizing most of the Escort’s mechanicals and suspension. Front and rear overhangs were extended to allow for designers to make the coupe’s lines sleeker – particularly in regards to the front fascia, with a sloping, molded nose, a bulging Mustang-inspired hood, and a pair of signature protruding fixed headlamps. In spite of the deleted rear seats, the EXP weighed a bit more than its Escort sibling, with no tuning or modification to the 1.6 liter four banger engine to compensate, much less add improved performance. And what kind of performance did that mean? At the time of introduction, the engine threw down a whopping 70hp, which was just enough to push Ford’s baby hot rod to a top speed of 93mph (according to carfolio.com). Evidently, 0-60 times were so bad that they weren’t worth publishing, because search after search hasn’t revealed any findings. On the other hand, you could potentially achieve a remarkable 46mpg in your top speed quest, hoping to reach the neighborhood of 60mph before bedtime. Later in the model year, Ford did tweak the engine to an increased 80hp; and in 1985, Ford introduced an optional turbo that cranked out a respectable (and surprising) 121hp under 8psi of boost, good enough to push the car up to 60mph in under 10 seconds. That came only after competing mid-engine two-seaters like the Pontiac Fiero 2M4 and Toyota MR2 were introduced in 1984, forcing Ford to at least offer the option of cajones if buyers wanted it.

Other than the disappointing performance offered by the EXP, perhaps its most critical failing (in the eyes of its detractors) was the tunneled headlamp treatment. In execution, I think Ford intended the car to present a look of pop-up headlamps in the “open” position, but instead pulled off something akin to what critics might describe as a frog. It was a known fact that Ford designers actually did experiment with foldaway headlights in early EXP design models, but elected to go the fixed route; partially due to design, but more because of the car’s price point (in spite of costing more than an Escort), There were other Ford oddities that early EXP units (like the Escort) unwillingly inherited, as well – carburetor issues, warping engine heads, electrical gremlins… not to mention a horn switch – get this – that you activated by pushing in on the END of the turn signal stalk. (That aggravating feature mercifully disappeared on Ford cars a couple of years later.)

One annoying detail about my own EXP was the factory-installed TR Performance Package. This basically amounted to some nice suspension upgrades (swaybar, springs and struts) and special wheels and tires. The tires were top-shelf Michelin TRX tires, which were metric in size and thus required a special metric rim. Of course, Michelin quit producing the tires after a few years, leaving owners to either swap out for standard 13 or 14 inch rims, or a set of concrete blocks. That never became a concern of mine, as my own EXP was a fairly effective crop duster (oil burner) and the engine gave up the ghost after less than 125,000 miles (lack of maintenance being mostly the fault of the previous owner). It was re-assuring to cross paths with my old EXP being driven by another owner a year or two later, with a transplanted engine and a swapped set of wheels and tires.

Ford gave the EXP a makeover in 1986, with sportier bodywork, flush-mounted euro headlamps and a newer, fuel-injected 1.9 liter engine with improved reliability and performance. The car also kept to its front-drive, two-seater hatchback roots. Sales of the EXP fell below expectations, however, and with just over 225,000 of the two-seater coupes built altogether, Ford eliminated the EXP from production. (Years later, Ford would give the idea another go in the form of the Escort ZX2.)

A Mercury variant of the EXP, the LN7, was built and sold from 1981 to 1983 (about 40,000 units). The LN7 was essentially identical to the EXP, with a different grille and a larger rear hatch glass window. The LN’s rear hatch design later reappeared on the EXP Turbo, and again on the 1986 EXP’s makeover.

Additional information can be found at the EXP/LN7 Owners Club forums at www.fordexp.com.