Hey, Doug, I know you hate the Cimarron

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duke
  • 26 comments
  • 1,098 views

Duke

Keep 'em separated
Staff Emeritus
Messages
24,344
United States
Midlantic Area
Messages
GTP_Duke
...and I don't blame you. But surely you have a special place in your heart reserved for this mechanical wonder:

97811021990107LRG.jpg


All the practicality of a Mazda Miata!
The peppy, fun-to-drive sportiness of a Geo Metro!
The sleek stylishness of a Ford Aspire!
And the legendary off-road ability of an AMC Eagle!

All rolled into one irresistable automotive package...
 
Hey, I used to have one of those. It came with my Dukes of Hazzard General Lee Super Stunt playset. I traded it for a GoBot, though.


M
 
Ahh, the X90. College girls' choice when daddy didn't want to buy them a Mustang.
 
Officially rated by Top Gear magazine as the "Worst Car Ever"...
 
Originally posted by Famine
Officially rated by Top Gear magazine as the "Worst Car Ever"...

You beat me to it, but every time I see one on the road I have a chuckle to myself.

I'm not sure what is more ridiculous, the fact that someone at Suzuki signed it off for production (what had they been smoking) or that someone actually bought one.

Amazingly 1,500 were sold in the UK; I do wonder howmany of them Suzuki pre-registered.
 
Hahahahahah I just found this:
Road Test Evaluation

Basically, the strange-looking X-90 feels like a tall, crude sports car from the 1960s--one that could use a semester or two of finishing school to gain some refinement. At highway speeds, occupants in the X-90 are bombarded by excessive engine noise, road rumble, and wind howl. The engine itself produces a loud, coarse growl when accelerating. Wind noise grows intrusive around the removable roof panels at speeds beyond 35 mph.

You can expect a lively ride--but not in the fun-filled sense. There's a lot of bouncing and pitching on the highway, coupled with stiff, jarring reactions to bumpy pavement. Because it's tall and lightweight, too, the X-90 is easily buffeted by crosswinds. Not really an SUV, the X-90 is not meant for even gentle off-road driving, despite 4WD availability.

Acceleration and passing power are adequate with manual shift, though you'll often have to floor the gas pedal to achieve decent results. And when you do, that action generates considerable noise and vibration. The pace slows considerably in an X-90 with automatic, but noise levels are just as unpleasant. We averaged 23.5 mpg in a 4WD model with 5-speed.

Head and leg room are adequate for 6-footers. Unlike many 4WD vehicles, entry/exit is easy, with almost no step-up into the interior. Visibility to the front and sides is good, but wide rear pillars create large obstructions over both shoulders.

Climate controls are simple and well-marked. Stereo controls are tiny, and nearly impossible to use in the dark. Storage space behind the seats is minimal, and doors are devoid of map pockets. The trunk is narrow and not particularly deep, and the spare tire eats up some of the potential luggage space.

Value for the Money

Being unique does not necessarily translate to being popular--or desirable. Whether intended as a sport-utility or a car, the X-90 is not a good value, especially when compared to the Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, or Jeep Wrangler. For a modestly priced sporty small car, consider something like the Dodge/Plymouth Neon or Chevrolet Cavalier/Pontiac Sunfire.
:ouch:
 
No one in their right mind recommends a J-Body as an alternative to anything... Not even to a 10 speed bike!
 
Originally posted by Monster7
Could you buy them like that - Nope.

Except for the Jeep Cherokee Limited wheels and the good set of tires (which was probably your problem when you got stuck), yes, you could buy an Eagle exactly like that.
 
Here's the thing - the Suzuki X90 had a purpose. More importantly, it had competitors, and it provided exactly what the cheapest convertible on the market intends to provide: a convertible top and little else. I know it was bad. I knew it was bad in 1996. But the Cadillac Cimarron is simply an unattainable sort of bad that I don't believe will ever be parallelled ever again. And this is from someone who will readily agree that in the last fifteen years, a lot of really bad cars have been produced. But the Cimarron today would be like BMW asking Ford to borrow the Focus sedan platform and sheetmetal (keep in mind the Cimarron looked exactly like the Chevrolet Cavalier it was based on) so they could throw in leather seats, and a bad navigation system and call it the 1-series.

Ahh, the X90. College girls' choice when daddy didn't want to buy them a Mustang.

You'd be surprised how many buyers were men. I'd bet it's only 60-40 women-men.
 
1) It's not a convertible. Was it in fact the cheapest removable-top car? I didn't think they were that cheap.

2) On the Cimarron, you forgot to mention the worst fake burl-walnut plastic in automotive history. What is it about luxury car buyers that makes car companies think they demand fake plastic wood trim? Even modern car companies that should know better - like Audi - insist on spreading fake wood around the interior like a disease.

3) The thing about the Cimarron that redeems it over the X-90 is that the "engineering" Cadillac spent on it probably cost about 50 bucks, and they spent maybe another 50 on advertising it. So they had a CAFE-saving car in their fleet for less than the cost of a couple Earl Scheib paintjobs. Whereas the X-90 had considerable engineering costs, even raiding the Suzuki bin for the crappy Sidekick drivetrain. So as bad as the Cimarron is as a car, it filled the role Cadillac needed - to improve their average fleet fuel economy numbers - for virtually zero investment on their part. I'm sure Cadillac didn't care if they ever sold a single Cimarron ever. They just needed it to be available for sale. The X-90, on the other hand, was a reasonably large loss for Suzuki - a car company without the resources to easily absorb any loss at all.

4) I remember in 1996 I first saw the X-90 on the lot of a big dealer in Maryland called Cook Motorcars. They had about 50 of them, and I remember thinking "they'll never get rid of those stupid things". In fact, in the intervening years, every single X-90 I've seen on the East Coast has a "Cook Motorcars" badge on the back. They must have been giving them away free with every Volkswagen purchase by the time they got rid of them all.
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
1) It's not a convertible. Was it in fact the cheapest removable-top car? I didn't think they were that cheap.


If the top's removable, even to a t-top, it's a convertible.
 
So that's it? That's all you're going to say? And you're clearly wrong on the "convertible" thing, to boot. If anything, it's a targa, but most definitely not a convertible.

And all those other interesting topics for debate just slip right on by you... sheesh. Your weakest post ever.
 
:lol:

I'm not going to argue badness of two cars produced ten years apart in different classes which were bad for different reasons.

Look - the X-90 was bad. But I wouldn't even put it in the top ten bad cars of all time. The Cimarron was bad because it absolutely destroyed Cadillac's image at a time when Cadillac's image needed a huge boost. After Cimarron, nobody saw Cadillac as particularly luxurious and then came Lexus and Infiniti, and suddenly Cadillac was a second-rate premium brand, similar to Lincoln's status today - but fifty times worse, and all thanks to one single model.

The X-90 did its job. It wasn't beautiful, powerful, or even that good, but it was not only the cheapest convertible (removable top = convertible. "Targa" is just Porsche's fancy term for "big sunroof") that year, but the cheapest SUV - and 'the cheapest' anything can't ever be 'the worst' anything - it's supposed to be bad.
 
But what about this? This is right up your alley, and I'm sure you have the definitive answer. And it's a question I've been unsuccessfully asking myself for 10 years or more:
What is it about luxury car buyers that makes car companies think they demand fake plastic wood trim? Even modern car companies that should know better - like Audi - insist on spreading fake wood around the interior like a disease.
Please put me out of my misery and answer this question.
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
But what about this? This is right up your alley, and I'm sure you have the definitive answer. And it's a question I've been unsuccessfully asking myself for 10 years or more:

Please put me out of my misery and answer this question.

I'm not sure - wannabe high-end and true high-end companies have been using it for years - they think it spruces up interiors. The vast majority of people actually likes fake wood, Duke, and certainly nearly everyone prefers it to the low-quality plastic we all know they'd use otherwise (that's probably what it comes down to - it's cheap, it doesn't look quite as cheap as it is, and it's better-looking than cheap plastic).

Frankly it's becoming completely moot - the use of real wood is sweeping the motor industry.
 
I just have to comment on what Duke said about that dealership giving away cars. I don't know about the rest of the country but the KIA :yuk: dealership in my town is giving away a new Rio to every buyer of their mini-van! wow! Buy one get one free CARS! now KIAs are cheap pieces of crap! But probably not as bad as the X90, i thought the first one I saw was some home made kit car, i couldn't believe a major manufacturer actaully made that toy!
 
idunno, if you need a relatively cheap car, the Kia isn't a bad option... The problem is that they've been known to skimp on vehicle safety by making them so they'd pass government tests with flying colors but fail miserably in real life situations.
 
^ Oh well that's comforting. But I'll never own one or drive one, so it sucks for everybody who does. And the first sportage i ever saw on the street, they had probably been out less than a year, made a rattling sound like it had valve problems when stopped next to me at a stop light. There is a reason those things cost less than 7 grand new!!!! You get what you Pay for.
 
They used to start at something like $13000. If one was being offered for $7000, it was probably one of those dealer gimmicks to get people to show up at the dealer.
 
Well, I don't know then cause every time I hear a KIA ad on the radio they are selling the Rio's for like 4,999 and the MiniVans for like 12,999, and the spectras i think go for like 8,999 or 7,999. Of course, like i said, they actually advertised Buy One Get One Free....
 
Back