Define "Generic" When it Comes to Cars.

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnBM01
  • 60 comments
  • 3,048 views
JohnBM01

JohnBM01

21 years!
In Memoriam
Messages
26,911
United States
Houston, Texas, USA
Messages
JMarine25
Generic usually means that something is not really special, not really important, not really having any special attributes about it. It's just there to be there. So how did this idea come into play? Well, this comes from a Suzuki (the automotive side of Suzuki) commercial where some lady said wasn't a Toyota fan, then said "Hondas are... generic." So this got me thinking, "what exactly is a GENERIC car?" What qualifies as a "generic car?"

To kick off my first thread in the month of November, I'll start.

A generic car would have to be a machine that has ho-hum performance and completely lacks character. If you're a car manufacturer, your automobiles should pack some sort of image to the general public. Even a lowly van or sedan has to have some sort of character, and if you don't have character, you're driving just... a regular car. For the one who wants to stand out, why drive a car that lacks character? If you ask me, I laughed when the Suzuki commercial had that lady saying "Hondas are... generic." Heck, if I wanted generic, one word- Kia. Almost every Kia lacks any sort of character, so I'd say Kias are "generic." Suzukis are... somewhat generic, but that's my view.

GTPlanet, what exactly is generic when it comes to cars and trucks? Give a more-than-generic reply, GTPlanet!
 
pretty much any FWD chevrolet is generic.

i think generic means easily forgettable. your "lacking in character" comes close but doenst quite encapsulate how bland, unremarkable, and characterless a car is.

my old toyota was lacking in character. but i would occasionally look at it afresh, and notice teh simplicity of its design, the elegant engineering that reduced costs, how inoffensive it was, and marvel.

i couldnt do that in an impala, malibu, cavalier etc. pure rental car material.
 
Pretty much any FWD Sedan made by some Japanese company. I think a Toyota Corolla is generic.
 
Depends on the Corolla, I've driven a 91ish GT-S, they're a lot of fun. I don't think you can be 'generic' with a 7500rpm redline :)
 
I don't know that I agree with your definition of generic, especially "...not really important...", but I understand what you're getting at. In using your take on the definition, I would classify any vehicle which I confuse with other vehicles at first glance. Meaning, a vehicle which has very little qualities which distinguishes itself from other similarly bland rides. Predominantly a car that was built purely for A to B transportation. Or....over 80% of the boring stuff rolling around on European roads. :dopey: :sly:
 
Most "generic" cars are, to me, not "bad" per se, but not "the best" at anything in particular. Toyotas exemplify this.

I think if one were to look 'generic' up in a dictionary there should be a picture of a Toyota next to it. Honestly, has Toyota made anything halfway exciting...ever? Everything they make is generic, with respect to their own class of vehicle.

To this most Toyota diehards have brought up the Mk. IV Supra. Sure, a Mk. IV Supra is a fine sports car. But it's the most boring sports car ever made. Toyota has a whole slough of models for sale in North America, but each and every one could be a Camry for all intensive purposes. The Supra was the "Camry" of sports cars, just as the Tundra is the "Camry" of pickup trucks, the Corolla is the "Camry" of compact sedans, the Highlander is the "Camry" of mid-sized car-based sport-utilities... Boring, (not boat-like but) not particularly good handling, average power, average-to-mildly offensive looks.

The last Toyota to incite any particular interest was the Mk. II Celica Supra.
NiceRedOne.jpg
 
My definition of generic is a car with handling, top speed, acceleration, stock-tire-grip, mileage, etc. that is in mid-range generic. Of course this will cover a lot of cars which is why i think there r a lot of generic cars. I'd say about 75% of the world population drives a generic car. BMW's (under 60,000 of course), Audis, and lower-class mercedes are all my definitions of "Generic Luxury Car".
 
And as I said earlier, the MR2 and Celica are the "Camries" of sporty compact cars. Well, not so much the MR2. But the Celica for sure. The Celica has been a snoozoramic little econobox (including the newest generation boy racer; especially the generation before that) ever since it moved off of the rear-drive chassis in the late '80s.

Even then, the MR2 was bested by the Fiero in the '80s, Miata throughout the '90s, and the new Toyota-powered Lotus Elise is everything the MR2 wished it could be: exciting, popular, well-powered, excellent handling...
 
I wouldn't say an MR2 falls in that category. There is a relatively short supply of smaller, less expensive, sporty MR cars. Then again you made some good points and also I agree with the Celica bit.

Camry's are pretty generic. AE86 is generic too.

Honestly Toyotas really aren't usually too exciting, but the Supra is the most definite exception. Even the first generation Supras have intriguingly exotic interiors and most people like the exterior styling of both generations also.
 
Firebird
Even then, the MR2 was bested by the Fiero in the '80s, Miata throughout the '90s, and the new Toyota-powered Lotus Elise is everything the MR2 wished it could be: exciting, popular, well-powered, excellent handling...
Click to expand...

I don't see any justification for calling the Fiero or Miata better than the MR2. The Lotus Elise is double the price of the MR2. It's essentially what an MR2 would be if Toyota were making them twice as expensive.

The Mk1 MR2 was and still is a superb car. It's mid engined, affordable, reliable, has a solid, high revving motor... you'd have to be nuts to go take one out for a drive, or to even look at it and call it generic, or the "camry of sporty compact cars". It's not even a sporty compact car, it's a sports car, if a lightweight midengined car doesn't classify as a sports car than just about nothing does.
 
It's no more or less a sports car than a Miata. Take that how you want.

The Fiero is a pretty superb car itself, though they aren't perfect. In fact they have had their share of cases of lighting on fire sometimes, don't remember why. Aside from that though, they are interesting cars, like an MR Firebird Del Sol as I call it. Some interesting engine swaps have been done with Fieros too.
 
I didn't mean to say that the Fiero and Miata aren't good cars, but I don't think that they are somehow justification for calling the MR2 generic.
 
Can a "generic car" also apply to sports cars and even supercars? What do you think?
 
Good question. I don't think supercars can really be called generic. Well, lemme rephrase that. I don't think any generic supercars currently exist, not in my opinion anyways, but it's not impossible to make a generic supercar. Actually if you consider the Dodge Viper a supercar, to me that's pretty generic for that level, so if that's the case I retract my previous statements.

Sports cars can be generic. A Camaro Z28 (no offense) in my opnion is generic. They made it that way, so it'd be easy to afford. It worked too, it's awesome performance per dollar. Again, nothing against Z28s.
 
There are plenty of generic sports cars out there. Case in point, the V6 Mustang (previous generation 'Stangs, not the current 2005 model). But, I have to agree that there are no generic supercars, the thought of a generic supercar is very oxymoronic.
 
retsmah
The Mk1 MR2 was and still is a superb car.
Click to expand...

And I never said otherwise. Just that, of all of the small sports cars (the definition of which has traditionally been a two-seat, two-door open-top car with the engine up front and driving wheels in back; if it will please the fanboys I'll call it a sports car) produced in the last two decades it has always been the "average" one. The one that has had average power, average handling, etc. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the facts are that most of the MR2's competitors have been "better" "sports cars". Better acceleration, better handling, etc.
 
The Proton Impian, signifying Proton's
"Cars-as-white-goods" philosophy.

Also, the Proton Gen2. They just bought the so-called "technology" from the ancient Rover 45, and stuck their own body on it.
 
Generic is toyota. Any modern toyota is generic, with exception to the not-quite-exciting MR2. If it is possible to call a luxury brand generic, then that would be lexus.
Sports cars are not generic, because of (usually) looks, and better-than-average performance. An exotic car/supercar cannot be generic, either. There aren't enough of them produced.
 
The Infinty I30 is the epitomy of generic.

I've seen that car in so many insurance ads, with the logos blacked out. Any car that makes it into an insurance ad is generic. Or the anonymous sedans you see in the yellow pages under "auto body."
 
There's only one color picture in the dictionary, and it's under "generic":

2002-chevrolet-malibu-sedan.jpg


Interestingly, the press picture seems to capitalize on the boringness of the car. I think this is one of those scandalous GM pictures where they put the car on asphalt in front of a huge backdrop. I remember in the mid-90s when they did that for the big vans, the backdrop sometimes wouldn't reach the ground or it wouldn't be the same color as the ground and they'd release it anyway. Classic.
 
^ I agree, The Chevy Malibu/Classic is generic.

-> But I have more to add here on the list (USDM only):
-Hyundai Accent GS (wheather sedan or hatch)
-Any Ford Taurus made (except the SHO)
-Hyundai Elantrs GS series.
-Mitsubishi Lancer ES
-Toyota Corolla CE
-2004 Toyota Tacoma Standard regular-cab short-bed
-Ford F-150 Heritage-series
-Honda Civic DX
-Honda Accord DX
-2003 Suzuki Vitara Standard 4 cylinder
 
i think if a car is going to be labelled as generic, then the entire range of cars in that line is generic, unless you have a specific standout model that you wish to exclude.

so if a honda accord DX is generic, then all honda accords are. it cant be only the base model, unless the base model is absolutely dour in comparison to the rest.

of course the exception i was talking about would be something like the mitsubishi lancer and the lancer evos.

it just doenst make sense (to me) that only a certain trim line is what makes a car generic. it either is or isnt. and adding power windows, locks and an engine with vtec does not undo generic if it already is.
 
^ You guys didn't tell me that I have to generalize these cars, not specify each model/trim line. :indiff:
 
you didnt get what i was saying.

to paraphrase; if a car sucks, it sucks. even if you add power windows, door locks and a vtec engine. thats essentially the difference between a honda accord DX and a honda accord LX or EX.
hence my post above.
did you actually read it or did you just take it to mean i was opposing your viewpoint?
 
so if a honda accord DX is generic, then all honda accords are. it cant be only the base model, unless the base model is absolutely dour in comparison to the rest.
Click to expand...

I assume we can then break the Accords into four classes: sedan, V6 sedan, coupe, V6 coupe.
 

Latest Posts

Back