The global financial crisis is suffocating the Detroit automakers, but the problems at General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have been festering for years—even when the mighty "Big Three" were earning billions. Aging factories, inflexible unions, arrogant executives and shoddy quality have all damaged Detroit. Now, with panicky consumers fleeing showrooms, catastrophe looms: Without a dubious federal bailout, all three automakers face the prospect of bankruptcy. There will be plenty of business-school case studies analyzing all the automakers' wrong turns. But, as they say in the industry, it all comes down to product. So here are 10 cars that help explain the demise of Detroit (For a slideshow, click here): Ford Pinto. This ill-fated subcompact came to epitomize the arrogance of Big Auto. Ford hurried the Pinto to market in the early 1970s to battle cheap imports like the Volkswagen Beetle that were selling for less than $2,000. Initial sales were strong, but quality problems emerged. Then came the infamous safety problems with exploding fuel tanks, which Ford refused to acknowledge. Message: The customer comes last. "The problems for the domestics really started in the '70s when they were offering cars like the Pinto up against higher-tech, better-built Toyota Corollas and Honda Civics," says Jack Nerad of Kelley Blue Book. Chevrolet Cavalier. GM sold millions of Cavaliers in the 1980s—and decided the thrifty car was so successful the company didn't need to update it for more than a decade. To milk the model, GM even added some lipstick and high heels and tried to peddle the upgrade as the Cadillac Cimarron—a legendary flop. Honda and Toyota, meanwhile, were updating their competing models every four or five years, and grabbing market share with each quality improvement. A new Cavalier came out in the mid 1990s—then languished for another decade, while GM put most of its money into big trucks and SUVs. GM has since improved its small cars. "But they have to be miles better than the imports for Americans to forget how bad their small cars used to be," says Jamie Page Deaton of U.S. News's Rankings and Reviews car-ranking site. Even if they are better, many Americans wonder why they should give Detroit a second—or third—chance. Chevrolet Astro. While Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda were refining their minivans in the 1990s and coming up with innovations like hideaway seats and electric sliding doors, GM was offering an old, truck-based van gussied up with carpeting and cupholders. "It showed GM's repeated failure to market competitive products based on styling and packaging," says Tom Libby of J. D. Power & Associates. The Astro drove like a bread truck, and consumers noticed. It also earned the worst safety ratings in its class. Before long, GM was effectively out of the minivan segment. No biggie—those were just mainstream American families the automaker decided to ignore. Ford Taurus. Try to explain this logic: After its 1986 debut, the Taurus became a perennial bestseller. So for the next 20 years, Ford let quality decline and neglected the family sedan, while pouring love and money into trucks and SUVs. By early this decade, the Taurus had become a dowdy, rental-lot staple. So Ford simply retired the Taurus in 2006 and replaced it with the 500 sedan—which went on to set records as one of the most short-lived models ever. A year later, Ford revived the Taurus name and applied it to a bastardized 500. But by then, the damage was done. Ford Explorer. This breakout vehicle helped launch SUVs and drove record profits at Ford in the 1990s, as Americans flocked to big utilities that could take them off-road if they ever got adventurous. It also blinded Ford to the future. "Executives could not see beyond the green piling up at their feet," says David Magee, author of How Toyota Became No. 1. "The Explorer helped create an addiction that lasted 15 years." GM and Chrysler followed right behind, with SUVs like the Chevy Trailblazer and the Dodge Durango—lockstep moves that reveal how the Detroit automakers focused on each other rather than the broader marketplace. Jaguar X-Type. Ford bought the British luxury brand Jaguar in 1990, when all three Detroit automakers were seeking ways to expand their global reach. Eventually, Ford decided to build an entry-level Jaguar starting at around $30,000 for people looking to move up from, say, a Mercury Marquis. The down-market move "represented everything that Jaguar is not," says Libby of J. D. Power. The X-Type was built on an ordinary sedan platform from elsewhere in Ford's lineup, and the front-wheel-drive system underwhelmed enthusiasts used to rear-drive European makes. Jag purists were horrified, and aspiring luxury buyers shunned the X-Type in favor of BMWs, Lexuses, and Acuras. After fumbling the luxury brand for nearly two decades, Ford sold Jaguar to an Indian conglomerate in 2008. Hummer H2. It sure seemed cool back in 2003, when gas was less than $2 per gallon. And it sure seems gaudy now. This supersized SUV clearly had a heyday, but it also helped paint parent company GM as an enviro-hostile corporation that sold only gas guzzlers. Sales collapsed as gas prices rose toward $4 a gallon in mid-2008, and GM has been trying to sell the division for six months—with no takers, so far. "GM wanted to make Hummer a signature company brand," says Magee. "Instead, it showed the company was out of touch with the needs of the 21st century." Toyota Prius. While GM was spending $1 billion to build up the Hummer franchise, Toyota was spending $1 billion to develop a high-mileage hybrid—even though gas prices were still low. After the Prius debuted in the United States in 2000, GM execs seized yet another opportunity to display their intimate knowledge of American consumers, arguing that hybrids didn't make economic sense and that only environmentalists would buy them. Today, Toyota can barely keep up with demand for the Prius, and it has plans to start building them in the United States. GM, meanwhile, is scrambling to rush hybrids and other high-mileage cars into dealerships—far too late. Chrysler Sebring. Did Chrysler engineers set out to build the world's most boring car? Of course not. Yet Chrysler still produces this blandmobile to keep assembly lines running and maintain a presence, however weak, in the sedan market. In the new Darwinian auto industry, this model seems destined for extinction, since the only way to sell marginal cars is with steep discounts, which money-losing automakers can no longer afford. In fact, if Chrysler ends up being carved into pieces and sold to competitors, as many analysts expect, most of its passenger-car lineup could get the axe, since there's little to distinguish it. Besides—what's a sebring, anyway? Jeep Compass. Quick, what's the difference between the Jeep Compass, the Jeep Liberty, and the Jeep Patriot? The bosses at Chrysler, which owns Jeep, could explain, but the real answer is that Chrysler has oversaturated its strongest brand lineup in a desperate attempt to boost sales. "The Compass is not needed," says James Bell of Intellichoice.com. "Just the Liberty, please." The Compass has the same mechanical underpinnings as the Dodge Caliber, which helps illustrate one of Detroit's favorite tricks: Create multiple versions of every product under a bunch of different brand names, hoping that if buyers shun one, they'll take a more favorable view of another.

This ad is not displayed to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on Yotatech!

My only question is which one of the big three poops the proverbial bed first? I`ll say Dodge...

Good post!

ha, nice post...Ill have to find that book about toyota

Great post.

In the early 70's I'd had a relationship w/ a waitress that had a Pinto....rear access was like a hatchback and made for some nice/exciting times. Her ex had a factory tricked out Mustang. Yes, our U.S. autos definitely were lacking in quality/dependability. The '70 Firebird I purchased after separtating from Uncle Sam blew a 'fibre' timing gear bending every valve as I was travelling in excess of the posted 70 mph. The dealer told me that 'fibre' timing gears were used to lessen noise. Luckily my car was under a 5 year/50k mile warranty Excellent post and thanks for bring up some good memories (Pinto related).

Ahh yes the Cavaliers and the Astrovan. I tend to try and talk customers out of fixing either one (with the exception of the Cavalier with an Ecotech engine) as it's a waste of both our times and their money. The Astros are just a PITA to work with and notorious for the 4.3 intake leaks and pouring oil pans. The earlier Cavs (cannot remember the engine size) notorious for blown head gaskets and surprise surprise! oil pan leaks. There was even a recall for the Cavs with the wiring to the starter possibly resulting in a fire during a hard start situation. We are required to wire in a relay to the starter.

I've said it before, but, Astrovans sell like hotcakes. At least around here they do. I go to auctions to buy and flip vehicles. All the used car guys around here know about the Astrovan and how they sell. I've bought 2 and they've sold quickly, and I've made some of the most profit from them as well compared to other domestics.

good for boarder jumping?

I'm not sure I agree with the statement that the earlier American econo cars were inferior in technology, on quality. What about the early 80's Nissan Stanza. Was that the pinnacle of engineering of the early 80's. Sure some of them had 4WD, but what else makes them special???

How about the Honda CVCC??? What sets that car apart from all the other econo crap of the 70's/80's?

Bottomline: People seem to want the big 3 to fail. Why? I'm not sure. Would it strengthen the economy, or teach anyone a lesson? NO. In fact if any one of the big three fails, the rest will soon follow. And many millions of Americans will be left without jobs, and the rest of us will be stuck to pick up the tab on the billions of dollars in tax revenues that the gov't will lose out on with the big three belly up.

I guess I'm partially bias, being that I really only like Toyota trucks and I could care less about anything else they make. The truth is, and this will come as a shocker to many: Toyota quality has declined to a far cry of what they built their reputation on.

That being said, Toyota is managed better than most other car companies. But, does that mean good management is reflected back to the consumer?

This list seems a little off to me.......how could the Taurus, Exploder, and Cavalier make a death list?
They made BILLIONS off these cars, shouldn't the list be full of failures that they spent millions on that didn't sell well and they lost money on instead?
The baby Jag is a good pick but hey where's the Pontiac Aztek.....that thing was freaky horrible, didn't sell for crap and cost tons to develop and manufacture.....now thats a failure and what truly cost them.
How about Mustang II's?
They were just wrong on so many levels!

Oh yeah, what about the Dodge Nitro?

How is the Astro a flop, or a desparate attempt to compete with the "superior" Japanese minivans of the times? What about the fact that Dodge/Chrysler had the minivan market pretty much to themselves? Would the early Honda Odessy be considered "advanced" for it's market segment? How about the fact that it took Honda until 2000 to make a van with sliding doors. Or how about the Mazda MPV with its Rear wheel drive body on frame construction which has more in common with trucks than vans. The even offered those with 4 wheel drive. Even the crowd favorite, Toyota, sucks in the minivan market. Have we forgotten the mid engined abortion that Toyota scambled up and forced to the market to compete with the American minivans? These are all the minivans of the 90's which the Astrovan(which is not technically a "minivan") competed with until GM added a "proper" minivan(Chevy Venture). The Chevy Astro is by no means a failure, and even though it was not updated for 5+ years, it still sold strong up until the end. The Astro van filled in a "niche" market, which minivans and regualar vans couldn't fill. The astrovan got decent mileage, which the larger vans didn't, and could also tow 4500 pounds, which the minivans couldn't, and still cannot.

Heh I read the one about the 10 Cars that killed Chevy.

Pretty damn funny. Especially the one about the EV1.

I can't belive they crushed them all lol. I'm sure some Granola Hippie was trying to make the connection between that and Chevy Trucks crushing the envroment lol .

Does anybody else think that Rallye Pinto would look cool with some Hellas on the front bumper?

Sad but true

I'm thinking it would be better with some on the roof too.

ok what about the edsel ? that was a big flop. i mean if they want to go back that far.

would those be lighting the fire from the exploded gas tank ??

i dunno i like pintos. and, as stated, the rear hatchback area makes for some good times at the drive in, whereas my toyota cannot. (well, the bed, but its cold and exposed).

Let's not forget:

Chevrolet Chevette, Citation, and Vega.

AMC Pacer and Gremlin.

Cadillac Barritz.

Ford 500.

Lest we forget the other cars NO ONE bought.







Sorry, I meant this actually:





^The Chevy Hearse. The owner was sooo keen on getting away from it, he left it parked in the middle of the street.



The car marketed as an irresponsible buy.

Lots of people bought PT Cruisers, and Dodge Magnums.

True that...
I think I've seen 2 aztecs in my life...
And one mark LT

the lincoln trucks look nice, but i REFUSE to buy a truck that the manual says DO NOT TOW WITH THIS VEHICLE.

My first car was an 84 cimmaron. I will agree that that one killed them.

The 85 Stanza I had was an awesome car. 4cyl 5 speed and would do 90mph in third. I loved that turd!!!

Hmmm. I still think American cars suck. I only like the Caddy CTS. I have not driven one yet, and honestly it was not a consideration when I was looking. My wife got her Lexus IS250AWD instead. I admittedly bought my Yukon this year because of all the rebates. My poor 22RE could not tow the boat. American automakers have a long way to go. It's not 'will they last' but 'can I stay awake driving this turd'.