“Complete Acquiesence”: How the Pontiac Aztek Happened | Hacker News Reader

“Complete Acquiesence”: How the Pontiac Aztek Happened

blog.caranddriver.com

It should be noted that folks who owned Aztek's loved them. This article makes it seems like the vehicle was despised across the board and that wasn't the case. Despite their looks they were solid cars with a ton of features. If anything this is a testament to the necessity elegant design on a solid product feature set.

Including a good review from Car and Driver...

http://www.edmunds.com/pontiac/aztek/2001/consumer-reviews.h...

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/pontiac-aztek-gt-road-te...

Being an Australian, I'd never heard of the Aztek.

It seems that the Leyland P76 has a similar history; what was actually a decent vehicle is now remembered as a complete failure for a variety of reasons.

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/legend-of-the-lemon-20130...

I think that's what he was driving at with the following quote:

"Many people in the car business do not understand that a vehicle has an image. To them, a vehicle is a collection of attributes. If your attributes are better than the other guy’s attributes, you’re gonna win. It’s engineer thinking, along totally rational lines. Their advice to an alcoholic is “stop drinking—is there something about that you don’t understand?” That’s not how people actually think."

If you add up an Aztec as a collection of attributes, it was a damn fine vehicle. If you engage with it from the perspective of an actual consumer -- a sometimes irrational, emotionally-influenced person whose sense of self is in some small way defined by the vehicle they drive -- the Aztec is a fiasco. Part of the function of a car is how the driver feels to own it, so form is part of the function. And the Aztec was a complete failure at providing that part of the function.

But the actual customers loved it. If anything it was too innovative. It was panned by people who weren't customers and weren't intended to be. If anything it is a fiasco of market demographics in that the company assumed the market for the Aztek was bigger than it was. For those whom they got the demographic right they nailed it.

If you look a few years later, the entire car industry was racing to get "Azteky" cars into the market. Honda Element, Scion xB, Nissan? Cube are all cars that have similar design/feature goals.

What's interesting is that the more successful later cars you mention are much boxier and utilitarian-looking. I recall the reaction to the Element being outright revulsion, but plenty of people bought it and other cars like it.

These days, I'd honestly rather look at (or be in) one of those boxy models than the ubiquitous "melted soap bar" of the late '90s/early '00s. At the very least, those cars are clear about the owner's interest in prioritizing function over perceived form. It's possible that the Aztek's "neither hot nor cold" aesthetic is part of what doomed it.

This is the Dodge Caliber to a tee. It actually looks like a mini Aztec and only survived two years before being replaced permanently by the Dart.

Amusingly, the "Azteky" cars you list were also failures of market demographics (and have all since been discontinued).

Of them the best seller, the Element, enjoyed mild success only because it missed its target market entirely. Instead of the "young urban males" it was targeted at, it was instead popular with older people who wanted an economical vehicle with easy cargo access, and dog owners, who wanted a n interior that was easy to clean.

The Scion xB isn't discontinued; it's expected to see a redesign for the 2015 model. Also, the Kia Soul is a very "azteky" car introduced more recently with some success.

Surely that's tautological. Of course the people who actually bought the car liked it. Why would you by a $20,000 car you didn't like?

You get no points for nailing your demographic to the tune of 27,000 cars a year at peak sales, when you need to sell 30,000 cars a year just to break even.

I meant in comparison to lots of cars that come out and are panned by both the general public and the people that bought them. The Aztec (and to a large extent the subsequent cars it inspired) were adored by their owners.

Full disclosure: I was until very recently an owner of a Honda Element and loved it.

I suppose people could like a car when they buy it and then get disgusted with it over time.

I wonder if there's a paradoxical filter effect at play. If a car is really obviously bad (for most people) then they won't buy it. But if a car is bad in a more subtle way, maybe people are more likely to buy it and then hate it later. Thus, one might expect overall terrible cars (in the eyes of the general population, at least) to have a fanatical following, since they're the only ones who would buy it.

Or it could just be that the thing looked like ass. What does Fr. Occam say?

My coworker (Optics Ph.d.) is still driving a 2000 Aztek that he purchased while in graduate school. Its electrical system and chassis components might not survive its 15th northern winter. He has not been able to identify a comparable replacement with his favorite feature: the cargo capacity with the rear seat removed. I've been trying to help him figure out which current model can adequately replace what he has always called "the ugly car".

I am in a similar sitation with a 2000 Honda CRV. It has a rear hatch with a swing open hinge and rear tire mount, perfect for hauling bikes. Unfortually I can't find a new vehicle with the same setup, everything now has "minivan" style hinges that open from the top.

http://colorado-artist.com/crv/images/Yakmia_SpareTime_22.jp...

Take a look at a Toyota FJ

Sadly this is the last year that Toyota is making the FJ Cruiser, so if you want a new one now is the time to act.

If he's serious about that stuff, he should look at a minivan.

Or here's a wildcard. It's similar to the Aztek, the GMC Envoy XUV. The Aztek gets about 94 cubic ft of cargo room, the XUV is 95.5. You won't find one new, but so long as you get the V8 4wd model it will last a long, long time with many replaceable parts.

Your coworker should look into a minivan with fold-flat seats. I rent them when I needed to move equipment. They have great cargo carrying ability with the flat floor, plenty of anchor points, and not having to worry about where to stash the seats is really convenient.

Chrysler T&C minivan. As a bonus, it's almost as ugly as an Aztek.

Nobody drives a T&C for the looks.

(I own one and it's hella useful, but that's the only good thing I can say about it).

The reviews are hilarious.. "The engine fell out on the second day, but hey, what can you expect!" (slightly paraphrased)

This story reminded me of the chapter in Business Adventures by John Brooks about the Ford Edsel.

The Edsel was one of the last large cars before economy cars became popular. The timing of the Aztek seemed similarly unfortunate. It was the first SUV crossover several years before crossovers became popular and it got flak for not fitting in with established vehicle types.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel

There were crossovers and small sport utilities for many years before the Aztek, so it certainly wasn't a timing problem. Look at the Toyota RAV4 (came out in '94), Honda CR-V ('95), Isuzu VehiCROSS ('97), and even original Jeep Cherokee ('84!). The Aztek was just a terrible looking vehicle for the mid-2000's, had a completely lackluster engine and drivetrain, and ended up being built on a mini-van platform instead of an SUV platform to reduce costs. There is truly nothing redeeming about the car.

>>>> There is truly nothing redeeming about the car.

While I agree with everything you said, most consumers would never know this unless they test drove one, or were somewhat engaged in the industry.

I would argue on the timing issue though. By the mid 2000's most companies were knee deep in trying to build out their hybrid lines and grab what was left of the market Toyota had already been dominating for years with the Prius.

The Aztec looked stuck between a company trying to make a full sized SUV and a economy sized crossover for the masses. These people were looking for a gas efficient hybrid or something getting a decent MPG rating. The engine and drive train killed that idea right out of the gate which left it nowhere to really fit in.

I don't really recall anything about the Aztek back when it was in production, but for the life of me I can't understand all of this hyperbole about it. To me, it looks EXACTLY like half of the vehicles that I see on the road every time I drive to work. It's not all that different from a modern Suburu Outback, Honda CR-V, Kia Sorento, Hyundai Tuscon, etc. It's pretty much your standard-issue "crossover" vehicle (i.e. 21st-century station wagon).

Granted, I think there's nothing particular attractive about "crossover" vehicles today, either. But they're popular and ubiquitous now. So is there some special aesthetic flaw in the Aztek that I'm not refined enough to appreciate, or is the issue simply that it was a decade ahead of its time?

I think that the Aztek is uniquely ugly as pictured, but you should find one without a color matched bottom. The ones I saw on the road has this taupe-colored plastic on the bottom half of the vehicle and it looks really terrible. I found a version of it with the grey bottom and the optional tent attachment. I think this is basically the ugliest configuration of any car that was commercially available in any era: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2006/10/in-praise-of-the-po...

I always thought this was an echo of the "sport" look of consumer electronics in the late 80s / early 90s. For example, the Sports Walkman:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2590/3820969452_8b0da67f1f.jpg

That extra dark plastic around the unit suggested an outdoorsy/rugged mode of use, even if the unit wasn't built to handle that.

When I was a kid, in the 60s, I loved cars. I'd visit the showrooms every September to see the new models. And some of the Pontiacs from the mid to late 60s were just stunningly beautiful. Buicks too.

Then the 80s hit, and GM was surpassed by Japan on quality, and they made these ugly cars. You could tell that they had a VP in charge of cheapness who made sure that a corner would be cut if it was at all possible. I owned an 83 Oldsmobile that was so bad I got rid of it after four years. This is what happens when the bean counters take over a company.

It just looks ugly, that's the first impression most people got (based on the quote about the market testing), myself included. I think it's that the lines don't really flow well with the biggest problem being the back side that looks like someone chopped off the trunk. Don't get me started on the weird headlight layout in the front of the car. I think another car that suffered from similar problems was the Subaru Tribeca B9 which always rubbed me the wrong way.

Yet I will always remember the Aztek as the car that Walter White once drove.

That was a deliberate choice in initially establishing the character. He was such a shlub that he dove an Aztek.

And it was the perfect choice, precisely for what it said about his character at the beginning of the show. Walter White, the put-upon high school chemistry teacher living in quiet desperation, driving around in a car generally perceived to be a big, swinging two-ton white flag to the world.

I love reading these kinds of stories. Although, I'd like to hear exactly how they made it so ugly. Just like I'd pay to read about Windows 8 -- how did they ignore all the feedback? Did no one use it internally and realize it's terrible for desktop use (open a PDF attachment in Outlook, and get transported to a full screen app!). I'd also love to see transcripts of meetings where MS decided not to leverage MSN into a social network, for instance. Or exactly how Google decided the "see if phone is active" permission should also give access to the serial and called/calling numbers.

It's neat to see these stories and just see, from the inside, how things end up broken or out of control.

That's Bob Lutz writing. I was just re-reading his book, "Car Guys vs. Bean Counters". It's fascinating to read how he thinks about cars. He writes that there is no part of the car market where an existing product can't do the job. So it's all about going for customer desirability, and looking for the "buy trigger".

Cell phones and tablets are just about to that point, at least until somebody has a new big idea. They're all little slabs with a touchscreen and some cameras.

But as the article points out. Industry experts don't always know what they're talking about.

>He writes that there is no part of the car market where an existing product can't do the job.

Sure, for Bob Lutz's understanding of the definition of "job". And remember Lutz and Waggoner oversaw GM's demise from... whatever it once was.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the tent-and-inflatable-mattress-and-removable-cooler-in-the-rear-center-console package. As I recall, these quirky features were simultaneously the advertised selling points and what made it unappealing, more so than its appearance. Like buying a car out of a SkyMall catalogue.

From Wikipedia[1]:

"The Aztek was able to carry within its interior a standard 4 feet (1.2 m) by 8 feet (2.4 m) sheet of plywood and was available with two rear cargo area options: a pull-out cargo tray that held up to 400 pounds (180 kg) that rolled on built-in wheels when removed from the vehicle, or a versatile cargo net system that held up to 200 pounds (91 kg) and could be configured (a claimed) 22 different ways. Options included a center console that doubled as a removable cooler and a tent/inflatable mattress package that, along with a built-in air compressor, allowed the Aztek to double as a camper. Extending this image was a seat-back mounted backpack, and a number of specialty racks for bicycles, canoes, snowboards, and other such items. An optional 10 speaker Pioneer stereo system provided a set of controls located at the rear of the vehicle for tail-gate parties as well as an unusual 2-piece tailgate with built-in cup-holders and contoured seating area for added comfort."

Most of these features are more fun than useful. Yes, I use backpacks. No, I don't need my car to have a backpack. It's like they started with a concept for a 'lifestyle' commercial with young, beautiful people having parties and campfires and looking at the stars, and then worked backwards towards a vehicle from there. Like they literally glued on symbols of vitality to a vehicle.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Aztek#Technology_and_no...

I think the aztek is a good case study in what it takes to make a concept car viable from an economic, government, and safety point of view. It also shows that all three of these factors are there to make a car suck more.

Accountants want the car to cost x dollars to make, so it means less body colored molding and more generic grey plastic panels that can be used on every color. It must be able to take a crash so the sleek hoodline needs to be fattened up some. Who knows what all conspired to foil the Azteks appearance.

The core aesthetic problems in the Aztek all came from the same place: to save money, they started with a minivan body and drivetrain, the GM U-platform. After the decision to base the Aztek around a minivan was made, everything was determined by the limitations of the platform:

* The hood line was determined by the pre-existing hardpoints in the U-platform body.

* The awful body cladding was determined by the pre-existing sheet metal.

* The second rate AWD options were determined by the pre-existing drivetrain

and so on, and so on.

Honest question: aside from the outside looks, what's so bad about this vehicle? (I started driving in the year 2006 so Aztek has been off market for sometime.)

It's my recollection that it was very well designed in almost every way aside from appearance. As in, the creature comforts were good, considerations for rear loading, ease of access, reasonable performance, etc. Unfortunately, when it comes down to it, people really make their vehicle buying decision based upon appearance. They may use a few requirements to pare down the field (e.g. AWD, four doors), but after that it's mostly looks.

Is the appearance really all that bad either? I don't love it, but I've seen plenty of slightly awkward-looking cars and I'm not sure what's supposed to make this one so particularly bad. Maybe the photo in the article is from an unusually flattering angle?

It is quite a bit different than the aesthetics of vehicles that were out at the time. It fits a lot better with current aesthetics with the rise of the crossover than it did a decade ago.

They actually look worse in person. The first time I saw one of these on the road, my jaw dropped - I just couldn't believe that something this unlovable made it into production. I distinctly remember thinking "GM has gone seriously off the rails". And this is coming from someone that owns a KTM 990A and a Honda Element!

It was ugly, but not ugly enough to be cute. See: Volkswagen Thing[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_181

Interesting: it looks like a more successful rival to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Moke Mini Moke.

In both of the pics in TFA, the camera is on the ground, so we're looking up at the vehicle. That's kind of an old trick for making any mostly-horizontal object look better. The truly awful angle from which to view an Aztek [really, has no one complained about the spelling of this name?] is from the back.

I own several ugly vehicles (a T&C minivan for one). I wouldn't have touched an Aztek at the time with stolen money.

It looks cheap. Its front is a single molded piece of cheap plastic that goes from the undercarriage to the hood. It is surrounded on all sides by more cheap looking plastic bits. GM is infamous for putting cheap plastic bits on their cars that simply don't stand up to the elements; so anyone who has ever owned a GM car knows what an Aztek is going to look like after the warranty period is over. As it turns out GM must have improved thier plastics and the Aztek has aged well. But there was no way to look at one when it was new and tell that it wouldn't crumble like an old milk jug after six or eight years in the sun.

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

You really think the way the car looks is that important? For some people it's just a way to get from one place to another.

I don't think it was like the PT Cruiser which was just garbage both in and out. The Aztek was just a really ugly car, and I think that was more than enough to kill it.

And for some reason, I remember the PT Cruiser was actually _really_ popular when it came out. I think it's in the top 10 goofiest looking cars on the road these days, but even I thought it looked nice at first

The PT Cruiser was another concept car that was mangled from auto-show to production:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Pronto_Cruizer

If you mow down some drug dealers, the car not only looks bad but breaking bad (SCNR)

I found the car an over-faceted monstrosity but since that time several uglier cars have been introduced - e.g. Nissan Cube - that didn't seem to suffer the same level of rejection. So timing is probably everything.

Nissan seems to be pretty consistent in their terrible designs. Every time I see a Juke on the road I wonder what sort of combination of poor taste and good fortune allowed someone with no design sense to make enough money to buy such a bug-eyed monstrosity.

I remember it was on the cover of Autoweek. The caption said: "Pontiac Aztek wins Best in Show award at Pebble Beach...Yeah, right."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com