Question of the Day: Do We Want to Keep Going Back to the Future?
From time to time, the auto industry gets on a retro kick. Whether it’s the exterior design of the mid-2000’s Ford Mustang or even closer to the past with vehicles like the Plymouth Prowler or Chevy HHR, everything comes back.
Well, the latest form of “what was once old is new again,” is coming in the form of vehicles that retains a core group of fans when the automaker canceled its production. Think Nissan’s recent move to bring back the Xterra.
After a small flurry of that kind of activity, two more fan-favorite vehicles are looking to return: the Mitsubishi Pajero, or as it was known in the U.S., the Montero, and the Ford Excursion, which we chronicled earlier today, which looks to be returning as an EREV … and makes a lot of sense.
Whenever automakers reach back to try to move forward, there are two responses: praise for the move and criticism for a lack of originality. So we ask today: Do you want either of these nameplates to return in a few years or should they spent $20 on a couple of pizzas and having a naming party? (Ed. Note: As someone who always wanted an Excursion, if they bring it back as an EREV, it better look like a tank on wheels!)
[Image: Mitsubishi, Ford]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.
Michael Strong has spent more than 25 years writing about the automotive industry. A Detroit-area native, he’s written about everything from local car shows to product reviews to financial news. Currently he writes and edits for a variety of national and local publications. He’s also a longtime member of the Automotive Press Association and the International Motor Press Association, and a graduate of Georgia Southern University. Hail Southern! Despite a love for ’70s land yachts and BMWs from the late ’80s and early ’90s, his personal vehicle is neither of those.
More by Michael Strong
Comments
Join the conversation
A lot to unpack here.
I think if a name has a clear identity and it can be reapplied in a relevant way. The Bronco is a perfect example of bringing back an old name to a product that works in the current market. While I think the Bronco Sport could be even stronger if executed better, there is no denying that overall both Broncos have been a success.
The current Blazer is probably the opposite. The name had already lost cache as an also ran to the Explorer and Grand Cherokee that was left on the market 5 years too long and ended up taking the last car factory in my state down in its misery. So then you slap the label on an ok but very generic crossover 15 years later. Once again the new Blazer is an also ran model with no real identity.
Car names are also hanging around longer. The Accord is now older than if Ford had been selling Model A's to its introduction point. Camry is only a few years younger. I would be shocked not to see both models being built in some form 10 to 20 years from now. (In fact the Camry going hybrid has made the once future car Prius become irrelevant)
The Big 3 ironically went in the opposite direction and failed, consistently changing passenger car names than scrapping almost all of them entirely.
So while I think overall the market could use some shaking up and new names and concepts would be exciting, renames and bringing back names just to do so probably is a mistake.
I've decided my 2010 Jeep Liberty has a Hemi. It's not really a Hemi, I just call it that. Much like Stellantis.