Featured Articles

5 Car Brands That Have No Use Anymore

Posted in Car Branding by David | May 7th, 2008 | 3 Responses |

Sometimes a brand needs to die. Here’s my pick on five car brands that deserve to take a long dirt nap.

Packard Motor Company

Should Ford Motor dump Mercury and Volvo? Jerry York, the longtime adviser to billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian’s Tracinda, which recently acquired 5.6% of Ford, seems to think so. According to Automotive News, on May 1 he said out loud what a lot of people have been quietly thinking, namely that Ford should sell its two struggling brands, Mercury and Volvo.

via Autospies

1 Mercury
I just have this picture of a bunch of old farts riding around. Mercury needs to take a dirt nap asap.

2 Volvo
Ford has way to many brands to manage Volvo, sell it off or kill it. It’s better off either way.

3 GM
I hate the GM brand. Never liked a single one of its cars. Chevrolet is a much stronger brand.

4 Buick
Reminds of Mercury for all the same reasons. Agh, kill it off soon.

5 Saturn
Good concept, wrong era. Just die now. Please.

Our Best Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 Responses

  1. alexis says:

    This is sooooooooo not true. My dad has a mercury that has lasted him for 8 years and more. whoever wrote this needs to take a hike up a hill, fall off, land in swamp, and get eaten by alligators

  2. When the last exciting or interesting vehicle a marque built is decades past, that’s when you indeed know that it might be time for it to be allowed to float into that vast Sargasso Sea of oblivion filled with nameplates such as Triumph, or closer to home, Oldsmobile. It’s a sad thing for any auto enthusiast when that happens, akin to taking a beloved old animal companion in for his or her last visit to the veterinarian. But as the passing of Lehman Brothers showed us last week, sometimes life is a cruel thing.

    As for the list, Mercury hasn’t built any really interesting cars since sometime in the late 1960s. Most auto enthusiasts I know, get all dewey-eyed about those 1949-’51 Mercury sedans with the chopped top, because James Dean drove one in “Rebel without a Cause.” In fact, a well done “lead sled” version of those cars, can bring good money at auction. But Geebus, that’s many decades past now isn’t it?

    Buick is a car so old in its imagery, that even – or most especially – John McCain wouldn’t be seen in one. There indeed was a time when Buicks connoted good build quality and, in the case of the 1970 GSX, stage I and stage II, muscle car performance, in a gentleman’s suit, so to speak. But again, that was a while back.

    Saturn is doing better, especially with underpinnings from GM’s European operations; so I have to respectfully disagree on that one. There might be some more life in Saturn than any of use know.

    As for Volvo, Ford really never knew what to do with Volvo. Jacques Nasser – remember him? – paid all that money for the S80 platform, if the truth be know (and an anonymous PR guy I know told me, within earshot of Mr. Nasser, he heard that), back in 1999. So their was an exchange of ideas, product and platforms. It benefitted Ford much more than Volvo.

    Since the company that Henry founded needs cash – who doesn’t these days? – let’s hope that Volvo can find someone willing to allow them to do what they do best: make cars that are interesting to drive and allow you to survive the most horrendous of crashes. Let’s just hope they don’t sell it to the Russians or the Chinese. The former would kill all sense of the new style the cars and the sole SUV have acquired, and the Chinese wouldn’t give a rip about safety. In fact, they’d be likely to make the first unsafe Volvo. If you think not, tell that to all those poor folks losing their children over the lack of regulatory oversight in China. Combining communism and capitalism was never a good idea; and we sure don’t need a Volvo made there.

  3. GM was never a “brand” or even a “marque,” just a name tag that Billy Durant came up with, way back in the early part of the last century. It started with Buick – if that tells you anything – and Durant ended up acquiring Chevrolet. In fact, Durant himself was ousted by the GM Board of Directors in 1910, only to retain control in 1916. By 1920, Durant had purchased more than 10 auto manufacturing and supply companies, and was forced out again.

    He was replaced by Alfred P. Sloan in 1923 and Sloan lasted until 1956. He was first president of GM and later chairman. Sloan was the guy who came up with the idea of the annual model year change and the idea that you are what you drive. Cars were established, according to price points, as much as engineering. Buicks were solid doctor’s cars, for example. Cadillacs were the pinnacle of excellence – well, this is when they had V12 and V16 engines, and after WWII, one of the very best high compression overhead valve V8s.

    The point of this digression, is GM just doesn’t mean as much as it used to. So the idea of ridding humanity of the nameplate is something that could indeed come to be. Chevrolet, by the way, was at one time, merely a dependable, solid car for the middle class. But the small block V8 of 1955, which while much modified, lives on today, changed all that. Besides, that division of GM was named after a French racecar driver, Louis Chevrolet, and deserves to live, even if GM goes away.