So. Why build brand recognition at all?

[Tornado]

The April Fools Joke posted by skip, when combined with the Ford 500 and Freestyle naming fiasco (not to mention most of the rest of the new products on sale today) made me wonder: Why the hell build brand recognition at all?
Think about it:
Ford Escort: Hollowed grounds in Europe, with a rather strong following in America as well. So they replace it with the Focus. I can't recall any particular reason to do so, either.
Ford Bronco: Though it arguably came out for the better, why did they rename the Bronco and Bronco II the Expedition and Explorer, respectively?
Lincoln Zephyr. Strong name. Nice car, as well. Replaced after a single year with the MKZ (which is one of the dumbest names ever). Why? To boost sales?
Land Rover Discovery. Storied name, with a long past. So Ford sells the current car here in America (only) as the LR3. Ditto the Freelander. I can understand why Ford wanted to do this, as they wanted to get rid of reliability problems that have plagued the Discovery name since new. However, if I recall correctly, immediately after launch, the LR3 was plagued with reliability problems anyways. I don't even want to know what they do to the Defender nameplate.
Then we come to Cadillac. Lets start with the the most obvious example: The DeVille. Or DTS, as it were. Now, I can understand that GM wants to reinvent the brand and whatnot, but why oh why did they rename the DeVille (and I will continue to refer to it as the DeVille from here on out), then proceed to peddle the same garbage anyways?
Then we have the rest of the brand. The Catera I can understand the renaming, as that was a disaster for the company. But the Seville? People loved the Seville! So why throw away a model with 50 years of heritage?
Eldorado? Why throw away 49 years, then debut a car that sits in more or less the same market position and even looks like it was styled to be its replacement?
And don't get me started on random assortments of letters for the other two products in their portfolio (BLS, SRX).
Now, lets go to Pontiac. Oh, Pontiac. We have the Grand Am dead, giving way to the G6. The Grand Prix? G8. Why? I can understand the G5, but that is only because the Sunfire was always total tripe. They should totally rename the GTO the G11. If this renaming is essential to reaching a new demographic, why is the same demographic buying the cars anyways? Also, if such a new demographic is so important, why aren't they bothering to do the same at Chevy?
Speaking of Chevy, no more Monte Carlo? When you made the SSR, why didn't you call it El Camino?
Then we have Buick. Regal? Not a particularly good car at the end, but a much better one before. Replaced by a name that is slang for masturbation in French (If I recall correctly). Century? A 70-year old model, killed for the same name. LeSabre? 40 year old nameplate, killed as well. And that whole age demographic thing talked about above? Double that for Buick, because they had to absorb all of the vengeful Oldsmobile (don't get me started) buyers before they burned down the GM headquarters with denture cleaner. Why couldn't GM redesign the cars and sell them renamed? Do some model reshuffling or something.
Then we have random brand renaming cars to random letters, such as Acura from Legend to RL. Integra to RSX/TSX. Niether of the two original cars had any particular reason that such a renaming would be necessary, but there you go.
Toyota has a couple as well. Celica to that understeering pig Scion tC, for example. As is Toyota Tercel to Toyota Echo, then Yaris.
Then we have Dodge, who seems to rename their compact cars every time they are redesigned. Then we have Dodge RAM Van to Dodge Sprinter (though that one is at least acceptable, considering botyh the quality and demographic differences).
So, why do companies bother if they are only going to throw the name away?

 

[Joey D]

The Caterra and DeVille are still somewhat living. The DTS stands for DeVille Touring Sedan and CTS stands for Caterra Touring Sedan.

What gets me is the need to drop the name S-10 in favorite of the Colorado. The S-10 was one of the best selling small trucks out there, so they got rid of it. The Trailblazer replaced the Blazer, even though it's the size of a Tahoe.

I'm with you I don't understand it either.

 

[Jim Prower]

Monte Carlo: I never liked it. It was the ugly, cushy '70s big brother of the Chevelle, and It deserved to be plastered onto a 20-year old platform and go away. If an intermediate-size Zeta coupe is sold, (Monaro, folks, not Camaro) It's gonna be the Chevelle.

SSR: NO, NO, NO. It's a truck. It's on a truck frame. Same frame as the Trailblazer, in fact. It's just lowered, an has a convertible roof. You want an El Camino? Get a Holden Ute.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, to put it simply, I understand what you are talking about, but I think youre forgetting one thing; For a lot of people, some of those names represent times in which the given product weren't as good, and at least with the majority of people looking to buy cars and trucks today, they have little or no connection with the names at all.

...Would I defend every change? No, certainly not. Often times it appears as though companies go through changes simply because they can, and then it belly-flops, and then they go back to where things should have been (see Ford Taurus).

So if I may go through a few of your picks, I'll try to think them through:

- Ford Fivehundred/Taurus: It should have been this way from the get-go, and we know it...
- Land Rover LR2: I'm not certain the 'Disco' name was well-respected here in America, so a change-over to LR2 wasn't hurting anyone.
- Ford Escort: That one could have been left behind, especially when considering the American market. But for the UK and such, I see your point...
- The Bronco: They want to bring it back, they really do, but I think OJ screwed that one up big-time.
- Cadillac issues: Generally speaking, changing the names of the Cadillacs pushes the brand into the whole Cadillac 2.0 and 3.0 point that they are supposed to be at, leaving the era of floaty luxury rides. Granted, its a shame that they aren't directly referred to as the Seville and DeVille, but most people know what they are, and could care less.
- Pontiac issues: Outside of the Grand Prix name, its hard to say whether or not most of their product names carried any weight at all. Granted, legendary names like GTO won't fall by the wayside, but I don't think the G5/G6/G8 setup works that badly. It, thus far, seems to have worked out well...
- Chevrolet issues: The Monte Carlo died because nobody was buying them outside of the few dedicated NASCAR fans. The name could be replaced by the Chevelle if GM decides to do a Chevrolet version of the Monaro, but we won't know for sure. The reason why the SSR wasn't the ElCamino is simply because of the name, 'Super Sport Roadster.' They never built a convertible ElCamino, and they never will...
- Buick issues: Similar to Cadillac, I think they wanted to have a 'fresh start' with the names given the shoddy past they were coming out of. Granted, I'd like to see LaCrosse fall to the Regal nameplate, but I think you can buy them as the Regal still in Canada... I'm not certain.

...Those are my assorted thoughts for now, as I am running late for Bible class...

...More later...

 

[Tornado]

Monte Carlo: I never liked it. It was the ugly, cushy '70s big brother of the Chevelle, and It deserved to be plastered onto a 20-year old platform and go away. If an intermediate-size Zeta coupe is sold, (Monaro, folks, not Camaro) It's gonna be the Chevelle.

The problem with that is that the Monte was around for nearly three times as long as the Chevelle ever was.

SSR: NO, NO, NO. It's a truck. It's on a truck frame. Same frame as the Trailblazer, in fact. It's just lowered, an has a convertible roof. You want an El Camino? Get a Holden Ute.

I know all these things. The problem is, though, that the SSR is closer to the original spirit of the El Camino (read, 1959) than the Ute is.

For a lot of people, some of those names represent times in which the given product weren't as good, and at least with the majority of people looking to buy cars and trucks today, they have little or no connection with the names at all.

I understand that. The problem is, though, that such renaming means nothing when said newly named car suffers from the same problems as the car it replaced (see Landy Disco. And Cadillac "DTS."). And then there are the times where the car replaced was better than the car doing the replacing (Jeep Cherokee, for example. Even more absurd is that the Liberty is sold as the Cherokee in many markets).
I get why they do it when they replace abominations (see Sunfire to G5 and Cavalier to Cobalt), but when they screw up the replacing (Cherokee to Liberty. Discovery to LR3)? Makes the whole name change kinda useless.

 

[Pupik]

I notice that the American automotive brands tend to have identity crises every few years or so, yet we rarely see this with Japanese and European brands. The problem tends to be that the Big Three have lots of smaller brands between them, but if one product sells outside it intended demographic, the marketing team has a fit, and decides to "re-create the brand".

It seems like three different hospitals are always defibrillating one patient after another, because one brand is always rumored to be dying one year, then it's okay in the next year.

Personally, a nameplate should only be killed off if nobody's buying the car. I suppose it can work if you're trying to shed the old ideas and old customer base of a product that's outdated...but if it sells, why bother re-tooling and re-training? It only confuses people.

And this alphanumeric labeling crap has got to go. The next automaker who thinks they're being original by dropping an interesting or long-standing name for some generic moniker is still stuck in 1990, or gets excited by data mining. It doesn't conjure up any images or importance, either.

 

[Jim Prower]

The problem with that is that the Monte was around for nearly three times as long as the Chevelle ever was.

Okay, fair enough, But that's pretty much because Chevy wouldnt' let it die. I still say piece of '70s trash.

I know all these things. The problem is, though, that the SSR is closer to the original spirit of the El Camino (read, 1959) than the Ute is.

I disagree. The El Camino was an Impala with a bed. The Ute is a Commodore (soon to be Impala) with a bed. The SSR is taller than an El Camino ever was (I Have to step up into one) and Is more trucklike in most respects. It's a lowered pickup with a chopped roof. Hell, It resembles a '40s chevy pickup more than anything else.

 

[1X83Z]

So, why do companies bother if they are only going to throw the name away?

What basically happens is the domestic brands come out with a new car name but then the car they attach to that name is so bad and does so poorly that after a short time they have to come out with a new name for a new car. Another reasons is that people like buying fresh, new stuff and new names help them in that respect. So that answers your question; I'm sure you people will now spend pages discussing specific cars.

 

[YSSMAN]

^ Good point.

...I think one of the big difficulties that the automakers are eventually going to have is splitting the difference between the 'Baby-Boomers' and that of what I like to call the 'ADD Generation,' which includes 'Gen-X' and the current 'Gen-Y.' With so much demand for something new and fresh every few years by younger folks, they (the companies) are going to be more likely to introduce models that are completely new with all-new names more frequently than ever before.

...Does that mean that they will give up on 'standard-issue' models?

Probably not...

I dunno. I guess it is hard to give everything a straight answer. Certain brands and models are well-established simply because they are, and have been around for so long. Certainly, that doesn't protect a brand from extinction (see Oldsmobile, Plymouth), but keeps models like the Monte Carlo around for presumably far too long.

I dunno. I've heard plenty of complaints about all the companies wanting to bring back all of the old models with the old names still attached to it (Camaro, Muria, 500, etc), and and the same time I hear complaints of too many new models with no connections to their predecessors. What it comes down to is that we the consumers decide what is made, and what isn't... And untill we completely decide how the market should be managed, we're likely to continue on the path that we are on right now.

 

[harrytuttle]

I notice that the American automotive brands tend to have identity crises every few years or so, yet we rarely see this with Japanese and European brands. The problem tends to be that the Big Three have lots of smaller brands between them, but if one product sells outside it intended demographic, the marketing team has a fit, and decides to "re-create the brand".

This absolutely happens to Japan and Europe. Audi's been through a few name changes (80/100/200 to A4/A6/A8); BMW's added and deleted cars over the years (3 compact, 8-series); Porsche lost more siblings to the 911 than any other car company. Honda introduced then did nothing with the NSX; Toyota finally brought the Supra and Celica to greatness then killed it; Nissan can't decide if the US deserves rear-wheel-drive or not (Hello? Silvia? Are you there?). Conversely, the US has definite mainstays: Corvette, Suburban, Mustang, Jeep....

You have to remember that the auto industry is only about 100 years old, and halfway through that two of the major players were almost completely destroyed, requiring a total reconstruction. That left the recently heavily industrialized US with easy pickings for quite a while. It wasn't until the 80's that the US had any real competition (especially domestically), and it wasn't until the late 90's that they realized they were in serious trouble. Thus the "recent" name game.

The real reason brands are re-invented (or replaced) is for the youth market. Young buyers (or first-time buyers) are the #1 target of all companies in all industries, but brand loyalty is easier to come by in the auto industry. Familiarity may breed contempt, but it's familarity nonetheless. Cars are a major purchase, and why would someone venture into the unknown with that much money?

The US companies are not viewing their brands correctly. They keep competing with themselves (Ford/Mercury/Lincoln all fight against each other, for example), when it should be that each demographic should be pushed toward one sub-brand or the other. Overlap == death. This failure creates "old man" brands like Oldsmobile and Buick, where only "old people" drive those cars. Once this happens you can either reinvent the brand and most likely fail miserably, or shut it down.

Personally, a nameplate should only be killed off if nobody's buying the car. I suppose it can work if you're trying to shed the old ideas and old customer base of a product that's outdated...but if it sells, why bother re-tooling and re-training? It only confuses people.

I definitely agree. Too many decisions are made using small focus groups, which from what I can tell never seem to focus on anything good. Branding does actually work if you maintain it. It requires effort and long-term thinking, something I have to admit Americans are not good at.

 

[Pupik]

This absolutely happens to Japan and Europe. Audi's been through a few name changes (80/100/200 to A4/A6/A8); BMW's added and deleted cars over the years (3 compact, 8-series); Porsche lost more siblings to the 911 than any other car company. Honda introduced then did nothing with the NSX; Toyota finally brought the Supra and Celica to greatness then killed it; Nissan can't decide if the US deserves rear-wheel-drive or not (Hello? Silvia? Are you there?). Conversely, the US has definite mainstays: Corvette, Suburban, Mustang, Jeep....

I don't think the "identity" crisis really struck too many brands outside of America, the established luxury-performance brands like Audi, BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz...not much has changed in 20 years. They may offer some new models to fill niches here and there, but overall, there's not much to worry about with brand identity, except for one to rise above the crowds and differentiate themselves. Even Saab and Volvo have stuck to their guns in terms of identity, although they both curse themselves somewhat with their identity.

On the other hand, the Japanese brands developed different lineups outside the name, offered a different buying and service experience, and cars that weren't available before to give the buyer a Honda/Nissan/Toyota par excellence. Well, except for the EX/I30/ES 330.

It's suddenly occurred to me that another problem with the model name changes also occur from legal issues: Ford couldn't re-use "GT40" or "Futura", Toyota almost lost their Lexus division to "Lexis Nexis" before the first car was sold, and when you realize that pharmaceutical companies spend many years developing a unique name for a new drug, you start to understand why numbers and letters look attractive to marketers.

In my opinion, even a cheesy or overused name like "Wildcat" or "Stormtrooper" has a bit more appeal than a name like LS400, E320, or A6. The Japanese-market cars have awesomely-nonsensical names like Toppo BJ and Life Dunk, which definitely puts a thought into your head, although maybe not about cars. If the Big Three followed this, we'd have names like Chrysler Antivivisectionist, and Ford Bloviator, so I suppose the name changes are here to stay...

 

[YSSMAN]

I don't think the "identity" crisis really struck too many brands outside of America...

For the most part, I'd say that you are right. One of the biggest problems we have, and it seems to be unique to the American brands, is that we continue to run the companies like its 1957, not 2007, and so we go on and on offering essentially the same products (only slightly different) through different brands to appeal to generally similar tastes of the public. So while you could save yourself a $1000 and buy an Impala, some people go for the Grand Prix because its 'more exciting' inside and out, and offers a more 'exciting' level of performance... Despite the fact that it is essentially the same car...

I mean, we're trying desperately to fix it, but it sometimes works, and it sometimes doesn't. I think the problem we would have, at least in my mind, is that if we cut say both of the Big Three companies down to two brands, the likely wouldn't capture as much of the market as they should. Theory would suggest that spreading a wider option among consumers brings in more cash flow, but at the same time, it increases confusion almost exponentially.

...Do we need to have the Impala and Grand Prix as the same car? No. But we do need Chevrolet and Pontiac...

In my opinion, even a cheesy or overused name like "Wildcat" or "Stormtrooper" has a bit more appeal than a name like LS400, E320, or A6. The Japanese-market cars have awesomely-nonsensical names like Toppo BJ and Life Dunk, which definitely puts a thought into your head, although maybe not about cars. If the Big Three followed this, we'd have names like Chrysler Antivivisectionist, and Ford Bloviator, so I suppose the name changes are here to stay...

If anything, it is the one upside to most American car companies is that they like to use names, most of the time. There is just something cool about things like Chevelle, Cougar, Bonneville, Barracuda, Javelin, hell, even Matador. Its that unique word that defines the car and the image you have of it in your mind... I mean, when I say Pinto, does that not automatically bring an image and an idea to your head?

...As far as crazy names go, I doubt it would ever get that nuts in the US, but it would be cool if we tried it a time or two. I'm a big fan of using foreign words that don't make any sense on cars...

Lets do a few German-influenced names...

A Dodge Verpakte?
A Ford Tod?
A Chevrolet Brotkasten?

...sweet...

 

[1X83Z]

This absolutely happens to Japan and Europe. Audi's been through a few name changes (80/100/200 to A4/A6/A8); BMW's added and deleted cars over the years (3 compact, 8-series); Porsche lost more siblings to the 911 than any other car company. Honda introduced then did nothing with the NSX; Toyota finally brought the Supra and Celica to greatness then killed it; Nissan can't decide if the US deserves rear-wheel-drive or not (Hello? Silvia? Are you there?). Conversely, the US has definite mainstays: Corvette, Suburban, Mustang, Jeep....

You're missing the point. With American name changes, stuff goes from Taurus to Five Hundred to Fusion; from Windstar to Freestar; from Lumina to Malibu; from Stratus to Avenger with no rhyme or reason - basically every time America comes out with a new car, they change the name, too. Yes, Germany has dropped models, like the 8-series, but they don't change names. You don't see BMW re-naming the 3-series every single time it debuts anew - that's what Chrysler and company do, though.

Here's a fact: since the U.S. debut of the BMW 5-series, in 1975, which of course has kept the 5-series name since then, Dodge has changed the name of its large sedan five times - from Coronet, to Diplomat, to Monaco, to Intrepid, to Charger. You could argue that St. Regis and Mirada are included too. That displays the U.S. name change turnover quite well.

 

[YSSMAN]

No, it shows that Chrysler is retarded.

...If we were to look at the comparative model from Ford or Chevrolet, the name changes were kept to a minimum.

Ford went from LTD to Taurus, and pretty much left it there (for the most part) where we are today.

Chevrolet had a bit of a different change, as they couldn't decide what size car they wanted to build for a period of time. Undoubtedly they started with the Malibu in '75, and then switched to the Celebrity, but then it splits between the Lumina and the Corsica, and thereby the Lumina went back to the Impala, and the Corsica went back to the Malibu name.

...And generally speaking, GM's name changes were justified. I doubt anyone fondly recalls the Celebrity or the Corsica... Although, I'd say the Baretta sat better with most folks...

 

[Tornado]

Here's a fact: since the U.S. debut of the BMW 5-series, in 1975, which of course has kept the 5-series name since then, Dodge has changed the name of its large sedan five times - from Coronet, to Diplomat, to Monaco, to Intrepid, to Charger. You could argue that St. Regis and Mirada are included too. That displays the U.S. name change turnover quite well.

In that same span of time, Audi sold the 5000, then changed it to the 100, then changed it to the V8, then changed it to the A6. Meanwhile, the A4 was originally called the Fox, then the 4000, then the 80/90, then the A4.

 

[Deathclown66]

For a lot of people, some of those names represent times in which the given product weren't as good, and at least with the majority of people looking to buy cars and trucks today, they have little or no connection with the names at all.

it's one or the other.
either a lot of people hear the name and associate bad things with it, or a lot can have no connection to it at all.

Either way, it doesn't matter.
If you hear the name "Sunfire" and think POS, when the G5 comes out, you know that is the Sunfire's replacement.
If you hear the name "Sunfire" and don't make a negative connection, the new "Sunfire" still won't trigger a negative connection.

They change names to attempt to remove negative connections, and trick buyers into thinking it's an all-new car, down to the very last piece.


let's see.... Fox, Rabbit, Golf, Jetta.
4 nearly identical cars made by foreign automaker VW.
all made at once.
Now, VW brings back Rabbit.
makes EOS, which seems to be Cabrio-2007 style.
Which always seemed like a golf. or jetta. but convertible.

BMW never needs to change names, because 99.9% of Americans just don't know which the hell is which
545i? 525i? 320i? 323i? 325i?
Hell, I don't know the real differences between these cars, except a higher number, means bigger car.
We just see 'em and go, "look, a beemer"

Mercedes: See Above.

99.9% of Americans don't realize that "Mini" is not the model name, or at least, wasn't in the past.
Hell, again, I'm not sure if it's a model name now or not.

Did Dodge fool anybody with the "SRT-4" that wasn't a Neon? no.
Did Pontiac fool anybody renaming the Grand-Am G6? Hell yes.
too bad it was Pontiac's best-selling car......

Corporations make stupid decisions, all the time. Well, this is no exception.

 

[1X83Z]

No, it shows that Chrysler is retarded.

...If we were to look at the comparative model from Ford or Chevrolet, the name changes were kept to a minimum.

You're crazy. In the same period, Ford went from Granada to LTD to Taurus to Five Hundred to Fusion. Just as bad. Chevrolet was even worse, as you noted.

In that same span of time, Audi sold the 5000, then changed it to the 100, then changed it to the V8, then changed it to the A6. Meanwhile, the A4 was originally called the Fox, then the 4000, then the 80/90, then the A4.

Since the 100 and V8 were sold simultaneously you can't make that distinction - the A6 was the 5000, then the 100, then the A6. Not that bad. The V8 was a predecessor to the A8, not the A6.

 

[YSSMAN]

You're crazy. In the same period, Ford went from Granada to LTD to Taurus to Five Hundred to Fusion. Just as bad. Chevrolet was even worse, as you noted.

Not so fast there...

From what I have seen, it would be LTD to Taurus, and thats about it. If we're going to use the argument that we can't use the same cars that are built at the same time, the Taurus was only recently officially killed off, so while that does give it a year or so as the Fivehundred, it by no means can be considered replaced by the Fusion, given that they were both made at the same time...

...Granted, I just thought of another model in the long history of the Malibu-sized cars... The 'Chevrolet Classic' which was pretty much GM stretching out the Malibu of the late '90s as far as they possibly could...

I dunno. You look at the long list of cars made by the American automobile companies, and you're going to see a pretty substantial list of models that all did the same thing at roughly the same time. Changes happened because they could make them, it was a fresh-start in their eyes, and while the uber-successful nameplates went without any major changes (models like the Impala and the 300-series come to mind), others came and went because they wanted to create new buzz on a new product...

...Granted, these were times when we didn't have any competition beyond ourselves in the market. We didn't have to worry about the pesky Camry or Accord, much less the full-onslaught of models from Korea and Germany, etc.

Tit for tat, we've got everybody beat when it comes to name-changes... So what? I didn't hear too many people crying over the Grand-Am to G6, or Intrepid to 300C.

In all, I'd personally be more concerned about the mis-use of classic names and trim levels than anything else, and that by every measure, is a problem that we need to deal with at some point...

 

[Deathclown66]

what, those damn dirty apes naming new family cars with V8's after classic.... family cars with V8's?

 

[harrytuttle]

I don't think the "identity" crisis really struck too many brands outside of America, the established luxury-performance brands like Audi, BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz...not much has changed in 20 years. They may offer some new models to fill niches here and there, but overall, there's not much to worry about with brand identity, except for one to rise above the crowds and differentiate themselves. Even Saab and Volvo have stuck to their guns in terms of identity, although they both curse themselves somewhat with their identity.

I think your looking too short-term. Most of the changes in the US are within those last 20 years, and primarily because of the US companies newfound reasons to make such changes: the old junk doesn't sell. This decline has been going on for close to 30 years, and none of the big three could get their heads around the fact that their cars were simply awful. Their response was mostly marketing-oriented, and terribly thought out (well, anything other than making better cars is a terribly thought out response).

However, it's not just name changes that go wrong. Look at the path the Charger went through from 1970 to 1980. Front-drive a Charger does not make, but this was a response to the incoming rush of front-drive Japanese hatchbacks. The Mustang almost did the same thing (which fortunately only spawned the short-lived Probe).

All these panic-induced changes being discussed are all within recent decades, and some are slowly being recovered from. When you look further back (to at least 1946), and look wider (to include all markets), this sea change of branding and naming is far less surprising.

But no more intelligent....

 

[YSSMAN]

However, it's not just name changes that go wrong. Look at the path the Charger went through from 1970 to 1980. Front-drive a Charger does not make, but this was a response to the incoming rush of front-drive Japanese hatchbacks. The Mustang almost did the same thing (which fortunately only spawned the short-lived Probe).

Personally, I'd find that more dissapointing and offensive than the occasional name-change on a specific model. Chrysler did a good job of soiling some pretty decent nameplates back in the late '70s and the majority of the '80s, as GM and Ford (for the most part) did a good job avoiding classic names altogether. The idea of a FWD Mustang continues to perplex me, and some of the treatment of other classic models in recent terms was bad mojo for a while as well... Keep in mind, they nearly called the Ford Flex the Fairlane, which would have erased just shy of 20 years of rich history in the US...

All these panic-induced changes being discussed are all within recent decades, and some are slowly being recovered from. When you look further back (to at least 1946), and look wider (to include all markets), this sea change of branding and naming is far less surprising.

But no more intelligent....

Certainly so. We also have to remember that this was a time in which a given model would several changes year-to-year, some bigger than others. The early Camaro comes to mind with the changing lights and grilles (among other things), as well as the 'gills' that appeared in '69. Or there was Chrysler's obsession with the changing letters with the 300 every year from 1955 to 1965, going from C-300 to 300L.

...But it is back when they could do that, and today they cant do it as easily as they could back then. With a pretty constant pressure to create brand and model recognition, major changes to a model usually aren't welcome. But with the baby-boomers having solid control of the market, we're likely to see more classic nameplates return, so we'll see what happens...

 

[Tornado]

You're crazy. In the same period, Ford went from Granada to LTD to Taurus to Five Hundred to Fusion. Just as bad. Chevrolet was even worse, as you noted.

What are you talking about? The Fusion is sold alongside 500.
The midsize class went: LTD->Taurus->Fusion/Taurus/Five Hundred.
Full size went: (older) LTD->LTD Crown Victoria->Crown Victoria.

Since the 100 and V8 were sold simultaneously you can't make that distinction - the A6 was the 5000, then the 100, then the A6. Not that bad. The V8 was a predecessor to the A8, not the A6.

The V8 was essentially a 5000 with a V8 in it, I believe, but I see your point.

 

[1X83Z]

What are you talking about? The Fusion is sold alongside 500.

For the same market that the Taurus left. You can't call the Five Hundred anything but a midsize sedan. And you all keep leaving off the Granada.

 

[Tornado]

For the same market that the Taurus left. You can't call the Five Hundred anything but a midsize sedan.

I'm not. But it wasn't renamed the 500 or anything. That's poor product placement, not poor name recognition.

And you all keep leaving off the Granada.

Which still only takes it up to 4 cars.

 

[1X83Z]

Which still only takes it up to 4 cars.

...still a disgusting amount. What's really comical is that we looked at, what, 30 years? 20 were Taurus only - that leaves three products in ten years, four if you look at it my way. Absolutely pathetic. At least Mulally is setting things right again - Sloan teaches you how to do that.

 

[Tornado]

What's really comical is that we looked at, what, 30 years? 20 were Taurus only - that leaves three products in ten years, four if you look at it my way. Absolutely pathetic.

And no one ever said Ford was smart. However, it doesn't only apply to American companies. Look at Chevrolet: They had the Malibu. Then they went to the Celebrity, Corsica, and then back to the Malibu. Which they are still at. Thats only three different names.
Buick had the Regal and the Century for that entire span. Ditto the LeSabre.
Oldsmobile had the Cutlass, then the Cutlass Ciera, then the Cutlass, etc.
Then there is the aforementioned Audi A4.

 

[KurtisGSXR]

I just thought I'd backtrack to let you know that the reason Ford dropped 'Escort' as a UK name is because the Mk5 and Mk6 Escorts were ****ing diabolical, awful midrange shunters with absolutely no redeeming features.

To be fair we still bought hunderds of thousands of them anyway. It's a similar story with the Vauxhall Corsa.