2007 Detroit Auto Show: Concept Car Winners and Losers
The 2007 Detroit auto show ended its media preview days Tuesday and opens to the public tomorrow. Mike Hanley, Joe Wiesenfelder and David Thomas spent the past few days covering Cobo Hall’s floor in search of the best and worst cars revealed by the automakers, in an effort to not only ensure show-goers don’t miss anything worthwhile, but also to keep the automakers on their toes. Here's what they thought of this year’s wild concept cars.
DT: Winner
There was no question among us or anyone else we know that the Chevrolet Volt was the undisputed winner of this year’s show. A plug-in electric hybrid that uses a gas-engine-powered generator could actually change the way we drive. Nothing is more radical than that.
MH: Winner
Even though the Volt is most significant for its intriguing drivetrain technology, GM made a wise decision not to go crazy with the exterior shape. It's futuristic, but still something car buyers could see themselves in.
JW: Winner
If looks were all that mattered, the Volt definitely wouldn't stand out quite as much. Having what are effectively two separate drivetrains, as today's hybrids do, isn't very cost-effective. The Volt's principle is more likely to be both profitable and affordable after time, thus making it a viable long-term product. Whenever fuel cells come, they'll drive fully electric cars. That's what the Volt is.
DT: Winner
When it first hit the internet I thought for sure this was a loser, but after seeing – and more importantly hearing – it in person, I think there’s room for a throaty V-8 sedan in Ford’s lineup. I’d still like to see a different front end, though.
MH: Loser
Ford has done the big-muscle-sedan thing in the past with concepts like the 427, and I don't understand why the automaker didn't experiment more with the Interceptor instead of taking cues from last year's F-250 Super Chief pickup concept.
JW: Loser
I didn't like the Ford 427 concept in 2003, and I don't like this version (and it clearly is a version) much better. The ready-made gauntlet grille could knock an episode of "The A-Team" down to 30 minutes, but it doesn't do much for the car's presence. A concept cannot live by rumble alone.
DT: Loser
As good as the Volt was, the Bevel had to be the bottom-feeder of the show. It got little attention from the crowds, looked like a brown lump of metal and has little likelihood of ever reaching production. No angle made this vehicle look better. Ugh.
MH: Loser
The Bevel was one of the most ungainly concept cars at the show. Even though it includes some surprising features like a "doggie hutch," I can't stand the way it looks.
JW: Loser
This one is more concept than car, for sure. I don't hate it like I hated the Acura Advanced Sedan Concept. I can see kids liking it for the same reason they like big, boxy cars like Hummers. If the criterion is whether I, personally, would want to look at it — in person or photos — ever again, then yes, it would qualify as a loser.
DT: Winner
I thought this could have won the top prize if the Volt hadn’t surprised us all. It had something most others didn’t: sex appeal. Plus, when this S-Type replacement comes to market it’ll look a lot like this. Jaguar dealers would probably start taking orders now if they could.
MH: Winner
Wow. Who would have thought Jaguar could produce a sedan as sporting as its new XK, which is quite a looker in its own right.
JW: Winner
On looks, this is your winner, at least among the cars whose production versions might be priced in the lower atmosphere rather than the stratosphere. I love the XK and anything that looks like it. If Jaguar doesn't put a cheesy painted grille on it, it could be the biggest seller the automaker has ever known.
DT: Loser
Sure, the Camaro Convertible looked good and perhaps even more polished than the coupe that debuted last year, but no one seemed to take notice of it among the Volt buzz. Plus it’s still at least two years away from hitting the road. Boring.
MH: Loser
The Camaro Convertible is suffering from a case of overexposure by appearing again as a "new" concept car, when the only significant change is that its roof has been snipped off. If you want attention in Detroit, you've gotta do more.
JW: Loser
It's significantly better-looking than the coupe, which is rare, but somehow irrelevant and uncompelling. We agree with DT. Send all hate mail to him.
DT: Winner
Even though it looked better with a darker paint job in press photos, the MKR still showed its beautiful lines on the rotating pedestal. Ford needs to start taking chances with Lincoln, and this is the right way to do that, unlike the MKS concept last year.
MH: Winner
Lincoln needs a performance car like this in its lineup. If the automaker doesn't end up putting a new V-8 engine in its new sport sedans, the twin-turbo V-6 in this concept might prove to be an able substitute — if it ever sees production.
JW: Loser
This is the best example that I can remember of a car looking better in photos. On that account, I consider it a loser. Lincoln would probably be wise to base new designs on it anyway.
Acura Advanced Sports Car Concept
DT: Winner
Acura needs to work on its naming conventions — talk about boring — but like the Accord concept, the production Acura sports car could look a lot like this concept and fill the void left by the NSX a few years back. I like fast cars, so win-win.
MH: Winner
The best thing about this concept is that it is yet another signal of Acura's return to the exotic sports car segment.
JW: Winner
No joke, Dave; and after the reactions to the similarly named, retina-searing Acura Advanced Sedan Concept in L.A., they'd have been better off naming this concept Herbie. The only reason I consider the Jaguar concept hotter is that it could turn into something the masses can afford. You gotta see this one.
Jeep TrailHawk & Chrysler Nassau
DT: Losers
These two were so underwhelming and brushed over that we just lumped them together. Sure, the Nassau could be the future 300C, and it looked nice and all, but the overall presentation and lack of suspense ruined it for me. There was too much else to see to spend much time on these two.
MH: Winner, Loser
The sporty Jeep TrailHawk, with its chopped roofline, holds together rather well in person, but the Nassau — regardless of its hatchback styling — seems to be a step backward for Chrysler styling.
JW: Losers
As I said in my write-up, the TrailHawk looks like innumerable past Jeep concepts, and the Nassau is just a design study. I appreciate that Chrysler didn't do what is all too common among concepts: display a painted foam model and say it runs on E85 and that it has an iPod jack and anything else trendy they can throw on a data sheet. But when it comes to the concept as a whole, the thing ... to ... re-- ... zzzzzzzzz.
DT: Loser
The concept of a small Volvo SUV is a home run, but the execution of this concept struck out on just three swings. The front is misshapen, the rear is too bulbous and it was just unappealing overall.
MH: Winner
I'm in the camp opposite Dave; here's hoping the XC60 retains its muscular-wagon styling when the real thing comes out in early 2009.
JW: Winner
I'm not gaga over this one, but there are some thoughtful features. Aspects of the exterior recall the new C30 two-door hatchback, which itself is a bit odd but is a favorite of mine. The XC60's proportions fall a bit short in comparison, but I'm still giving Volvo a long leash because it’s done such a good job breaking out of its styling box. Pun intended.
DT: Loser
I had to remember to even look for this one. Again, this concept was totally overwhelmed by the hype of the Volt. It’s a standard hybrid sports car that would be much more likely to hit the streets than the Volt, and Toyota Supra fans would finally have a worthy replacement. Too bad the lack of buzz might kill it.
MH: Winner
Seeing this car in person gave me a totally different — and more positive — perspective on it. It has a compact, purposeful shape and looks ready to mix things up on the racetrack.
JW: Winner
The concept's future will depend on how it's perceived by consumers at this year's auto shows, not just professional smarty pantses like us. I cannot condemn it yet. If nothing else, it deftly combines curves and sharp edges, which is often a recipe for an eyesore. (Honda REMIX, I'm looking in your direction ... guardedly.)
DT: Winner
I hate to even call this a concept; the real thing will probably look just like this. It’s a nice redesign for a popular model. I’m glad to see Honda not playing it totally safe on such a high-volume car.
MH: Loser
I'm giving this one a thumbs-down. I'm no fan of forward-sloping rear ends like the one on the Accord Coupe, and its face looks a little plain to me.
JW: Winner
They clearly learned their lesson with the transition from the bland, seventh-generation Civic to the current, more-stylish eighth-generation model. This one's a hit in the making.
DT: Loser
We saw the Nagare in L.A., and this new concept doesn’t change my opinion on the future of Mazda’s design. It’s radical, but will it work in the real world? Plus, who wants to see such similar concepts one show after another?
MH: Loser
I'm with Dave here. The Ryuga suffers from what you might call the "Camaro effect" — if you bring the mostly same concept car out twice, people won't care that much the second time around.
JW: Loser
Dave is right. Mike is right. And know that I'm the guy who liked the Nagare. The only good thing about this one is its name: Ry-OOOOOOOO-gaaah!
DT: Loser
This one gets a loser mark only because it too lost the battle of the buzz to the Volt. This is actually a plug-in hydrogen hybrid. Sound far-fetched? Nope, Ford has a prototype running in a Ford Edge SUV out on the test track. Cool stuff. Too bad no one noticed. It also looked a lot better in person and had a radical interior.
MH: Winner
For some reason — perhaps lack of sleep the previous few days during the auto show — I give the Airstream the nod here. With its lunar-rover looks and digital lava lamp inside, it's one of the craziest — and coolest — things to see at the show.
JW: Loser
There are four problems with the concept inspired by 2001: A Space Odyssey. One is that I hadn't lost as much sleep as Mike had. Another is that I've sat in ’70s-era plastic eggshell seats, and no one from the present, let alone the future, would stand for such a thing (or sit, as the case may be). The third, as Dave said, is that it seems like just another fuel-cell experiment, and the public has caught on that fuel cells won't be a mainstream reality for many years. Chevy showed in its Volt a gas-powered generator and said it could be a fuel cell instead. Ford showed a fuel cell and said little else. Advantage: Chevy. Fourth: As I remember it, 2001 ended badly.
Related:
2007 Detroit Auto Show: Production Car Winners and Losers
Previous
Subscribe to our feed
Email us your tips!
While several of the concept cars unviled this week look promising - most still remain just concepts. We all know that few concepts actually end up in production - they largely just serve to polish a company's image.
It's clear that increasing fuel efficiency is the direction automakers need to head – so let’s get past the hype of a handful of concept vehicles and look at what they are doing with the rest of their fleet. Overall average fuel economy from the Big 6 is worse today that it was 10 years ago and Detroit is at the bottom of the pack. They are still fighting tooth-and-nail against increasing fuel economy regulations, suing states that try to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and in December argued before the Supreme Court that carbon from tailpipe emissions was not even a pollutant.
Most of the fuel-efficient cars at the show (GM's Volt, Ford's Airstream) have no production schedules - and are tokens offered to promote their "Green" image. Even Toyota shows us a hybrid built for power, not fuel economy - while also bringing us an even bigger, gas-guzzling Tundra CrewMax. And the E-85 (Ethanol) vehicles? A cheap way for companies to exploit a loophole in CAFE standards and avoid paying fines while recklessly keeping us tied to oil.
For an automaker to really lead the industry and be accountable for their role in climate change, oil dependancy, and energy security they would:
• Stop lobbying against rises in fuel economy (CAFÉ) standards
• Drop the lawsuits against states like California who are trying to regulate greenhouse gases
• Commit to leading the industry in fuel economy across their entire fleet.
I’ve been working with the Freedom From Oil Campaign to make automakers honestly prioritize fuel economy and move beyond oil – check out what we do at
http://www.FreedomFromOil.org
Matt: I follow what groups like yours do, and I respect what you do (short of promoting your group on a blog, which is likely to get your otherwise legitimate points removed; that's Dave's decision).
Though correct, your attacks, and those of many environmental groups, are misdirected. You're only going to get so far by appealing to the automakers. They are businesses, and to expect them to do anything short of exploiting every last loophole (which they do) and making practically every decision based on profit or share value or the promise thereof (which they also do) is naive. That's what companies do. Automakers are not a public utility.
If we have a problem with them, there is one thing we can do: pressure our elected officials. The key word is elected. If the American people care about these issues, they will act. The only thing that will make significant numbers care, as we've witnessed regularly and predictably, is if there's some financial advantage -- real or perceived -- that accompanies the act of doing the right thing. And believe me, you and I would probably agree almost across the board on what the right thing is.
You might get farther in the short term by publicly shaming the automakers, but the long war is one of education and regulation. --JW
Why on earth would you rate the Camaro, a production-intent design that's been seen and seen and seen before ... along with concepts that are entirely new and heretofore unseen? Even the quirkiest of concepts has a novel appeal next to the best of stuff that's familiar. Thus, yours is a totally misguided assessment of the Chevy, wouldn't you say? Apples and oranges, if you'll pardon the pun.
Interesting assessments. Re 2001: A Space Odyssey, I thought that movie ended happily.
DanTron,
It's so funny I thought the same thing as Joe and then I mentioned it to our managing editor and he was like "I thought it was a good message at the end?" so 15 years since I last saw it I have no idea. I guess I just remember a crazy computer and a guy turning into a fetus. Oh and Ford put the 2001 line in its press release. Guess it wasn't a clear cut reference.
As for the Camaro Desmo, GM calls it a concept not us. THEY launched the convertible at Detroit as a new concept. It is hand built. there is no production line for it yet. The fact that its listed under concepts isn't misguided in our opinion and I've yet to see anyone call it a production vehicle and we'd have no reason to doubt the automaker's claim that it is a concept.
That said, I'd put the Jaguar and Honda "concepts" here on the road and in dealerships before the Camaro.
I think Dave pretty much summed it up there. Have you ever known someone to go into the fetal position because something _good_ happened?
Can you guys honestly tell me you wouldn't be more interested in any car if it had pod bay doors?
I wonder if the Airstream has a version of HAL?
Stop lawsuits against efforts to regulate greenhouse gasses?
CAFE a good thing?
What an idiot and complete baloney.
The lawsuits were a political move, no automaker brought any suit against any state, it was to other way to suck up to idiots like the first poster.
CAFE is just a way of saying that though government will never regulate where and how you live it will label automakers as bad guys to placate the fools rather than admit that government and it's followers are failures. Can't regulate your house or how much you spend, screw the producers.
BTW, the Toyota sportscar looks like the cow catcher on a old train.
so does the new accord! aston martin my aizzle! looks like 1980s trash!
These are the scary headlights of the aforementioned Trailhawk. They're supposed to represent a 'bird of prey'. I know that, because the newspapers wouldn't shut up about it. And I've seen about ten-thousand concept drawings of it, all ready. I have no idea what kind of Jeep headlights they are, but there are a few of them at the show.
For more info about this post check out:
http://www.jpartsonline.com/jeepheadlights.html
JW says, "the TrailHawk looks like innumerable past Jeep concepts".
I am not sure that this is a bad things. Car buyers tend to be very conservative and don't take risks easily. This is the reason that Toyota had to make Lexus for luxury buyers and Scion for "hip" buyers.
Another example is trucks, some say that the best truck is the Honda, but it is not selling a lot, because the Ford/Dodge/Chevy buyers are very loyal to their trucks, specially the ones who use them for construction or business.
So, probably Jeep is just appealing to their loyal fans with cars that are the lines they want. Can you imagine a Scion type Jeep? Me neither.
are these worst concept cars?