Boy did this guy nail the topic right on the head!

Go read:

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/...192.A11746.html

The only point he missed is the one about ego satisfaction.

That is where some of the pundits who comment here are stuck!

Let me summarize:

Flint: Why People Buy Cars

Detroit does not get it! Vehicles are a tool! Vehicles must be versatile tools for it to be worth 30 grand.

My comments to Flint:

AH - OK - Yea sure! (As I scratch my head.) Yea, what exactly does Detroit not get? They are very good - great at building versatile tools. But exactly how does your editorial help Detoit design, build and market vehicles people want?

Edited January 18, 200719 yr by evok

This was laready posted, but in a less flattering thread. I don't get how Detroit doesn't "get it" either.

Anyway, what kinda moron feels the need to degrade Detroit and at the same time right a pointless article telling the readers why we buy cars...I'm pretty sure we all know why we buy them, we don't need some hack telling us the obvious.

That's the stupidest Flintstone piece I've yet read...

Yeah, sorry but I don't agree with this at all. I would buy the Volt in a second, and I would buy the Smart ForTwo as well if it weren't so expensive.

That's the stupidest Flintstone piece I've yet read...

Let me summarize:

Flint: Why People Buy Cars

Detroit does not get it! Vehicles are a tool! Vehicles must be versatile tools for it to be worth 30 grand.

Then 'splain the Aztec, Envoy XUV, Malibu Maxx, Impala with flip and fold, or Ion Quad Coupe, Lucy!

Some of the most versatile vehicles in their class and they're 6-feet under or headed there soon.

nah, i get his point here.

That is why this thing, this automobile, is worth $30,000, because it is a tool that will do so many things. When you start subtracting the things that this tool can do, it loses value.

that's kind of the essence of what he is saying. car 'buffs' need to GET that real folks pay big ass dollars to buy cars nowadays and most buyers place function and comfort at the top of the list of required attributes.

What the smart is good at is parking, but parking ranks relatively low on the reasons for buying a car, except in two cities, Paris and Rome. And for the price of this two-seater, a European could buy a small car, such as the Volkswagen Polo, that would carry four and stuff and be good for traveling anywhere.

Exactly. The Polo is a much more useful device. I would go one step further to say that in the USA, with its wide expanses of interstate, the Golf / Rabbit is the minimum useful car out there.

Then 'splain the Aztec, Envoy XUV, Malibu Maxx, Impala with flip and fold, or Ion Quad Coupe, Lucy!

Some of the most versatile vehicles in their class and they're 6-feet under or headed there soon.

Well, this is where the simple idea of DESIGN comes in. Each of the vehicles you mention have special and unique attempts at enhancing function. Only problem is, they left out the good looks on all those vehicles ('cept the Impala). The common assumption in a brain dead society like ours (that focuses mainly on short term gratification) is brilliant form and brilliant function cannot co-exist together.

Its rare it does because no one exerts the effort these days to sweat the details so they do.

That's ok, because time (i.e. quick to market, quick to develop) is more important to the financial health of companies than making an extremely thoughtful attractive thing but selling it for a higher price.

It's the USA, its who we are. Decisions are made based mostly on quick turning of products and services that don't require much in the way of thought or design but DO ring the cash register.

In the case of those cars, all of them, GM had great ideas but was not enabled to make them what they could be. They got cheapened, watered down, and ugleed.

Like the Aztek that sits in my garage. The wife loves it, kid loves it, i like it a lot, and we have used to do things with a vehicle we have never been able to do before. Only a minivan would be more useful. Do we care that its ugly? Not that much, when it comes to putting the cash down, but we would think of it even higher still if it were attractive. But no one cares about the styling of their car when they are loading huge boxes in their vehicle (like for a full size metal headboard), in the IKEA parking lot. Or, have you ever been able to haul retaining wall block in the trunk of your 3 series? (and still have back seat room, well that didn't exist to start I guess).

The Envoy XUV was something I told my dad to look at. I think it would be perfect for him. He wants a pickup to haul loads, but most of the time needs an SUV for long distance travel and cargo capacity.

The Maxx is a good attempt at trying to bridge a car to the usefulness of a crossover. Its a shame they made it slightly ugly. Its a really nice package.

The quad coupe concept is brilliant. But the Ion is too small and the plastic body panel gaps and GM's old school sloppy construction made the whole car seem junky, in addition to the bizarro dash. Had the quad coupe been done on say, the G6 coupe and done with great precision, i think it would have been a lot more successful. but at that point you might as well just get a 4 door i guess.

I get his point, he is saying, guys, you still are not designing very much function into your cars and making them usable.

I kind of think he is taking an unfair jab at the Volt though. If GM pulls that off, it will be huge. i do think the Volt can be a useful car. They just can't half ass the execution of it.

Edited January 19, 200719 yr by regfootball

That's the stupidest Flintstone piece I've yet read...

For the win!

(Sigh)

Some of you still don't get it!

When you look in the mirror in the morning, do you know the person looking back at you?

Sounds like a lot of you don't..............................

Us? (You.)