[1958carnut]

The original concept... View attachment 71205 View attachment 71206

If they'd have put those orangish lights in with the headlamp housing and made the grille opening all one opening it would have been so much better.

 

[bmwboy2007]

The original concept... View attachment 71205 View attachment 71206

Here's some more photos

Nothing ungainly looking about that. This is a much more cohesive package than what Pontiac was ultimately given.

 

[09W]

No; it's easily got just as much ungainliness. Jigsaw-puzzle-esque at the A- & D-pillars, and what's with the partial wheel flares?

 

[MisterMe]

I think that the Reatta as a Pontiac would have worked. A Fierro Big Brother, Sportier than the Buick, and the Fierro already laid the Tracks. The Fierro didn't need to be Mid Engined, in fact the Tech's that worked on them would have given anything if they weren't.

I believe a lot of GM's failures were because of the Vette. Chevy Guys would cry if something infringed on the "Halo" without doing much work to keep it on top. Think of what a WS6 could have been without Boundaries? Again the GTA laid the Ground Work for an Awesome Car.

Anyways, 1 of the 3 Cars that were on the Lots while I was selling that I shuda bought was a Reatta, 1989 White with Blue Int.

The challenge faced by two-seat roadsters is not the Corvette nor is it "Chevy guys." The challenge is the market size for two-seat roadsters. It is small--tiny even. By tiny, I mean fewer than 40,000 sales per year. And that is a good year. If GM allows other brands to even hint that thier new two-seater competes with the Corvette, then it will be splitting that 40,000 unit market. The Pontiac Fiero, Pontiac Soltice/Saturn Sky, Buick Reatta, and Cadillac Allante did not compete with Corvette. The Cadillac XLR pretended not to compete with the Corvette. General Motors is not a charity and it is not a hobby. It is a for-profit corporation. If its products are not highly profitable, then GM must have other very good reasons for building them.

 

[ksr]

I thought that the idea behind the Reatta was solid. You look at it now as a Buick two-seater, roadster or hardtop, and you think, "Buick? Are you kidding?" But this was 1988. Buick was still building Grand Nationals and still competing in NASCAR. It was a brand that had a heritage not just of being the luxury-oriented "doctor's car," but also of building some very credible and great looking performance cars. At the time, it really didn't seem like such a bad fit for the Buick lineup. A great looking car. With its platform, it was never going to be a ripping performance vehicle, but they did market it as a luxury, practical two-seater, going for the empy nest crowd perhaps.

The market changed pretty drastically at that time. Two-door cars had been incredibly popular for a long time. Cadillac sold a lot more Coupe Devilles than Sedan Devilles. GM sold coupes by the hundreds of thousands, with the Firebird, Camaro, Grand Prix, Monte Carlo, Cutlass Supreme, Regal, Eldorado, Riviera, Toronado. Just about every GM car could be had in 2- and 4-door versions. But starting in the late '80s, the market moved hard and fast away from coupes. The GM-10 program was a massive disaster and it wasn't so much due to the cars being horrible; they were decent cars. GM launched them as coupes just as the market really turned against coupes and as the Explorer-driven SUV craze was getting under way. GM went from having four perenially best-selling cars in the Regal/Cutlass/Monte Carlo/Grand Prix to cars that all sold just a fraction of their former volume. At the same time, the downsizing of the luxury Riviera/Eldorado/Toronado coupes was another disaster, with sales plummeting to rock bottom very suddenly. In the early '90s, GM was very close to declaring bankruptcy in large part because of these disasters. The halo cars, Allante/Fiero/Reatta didn't help the matter and out of necessity had to be killed off. Unfortunately, this killed off an intriguing 2nd-gen Fiero and a supercharged Reatta.

 

[bmwboy2007]

No; it's easily got just as much ungainliness. Jigsaw-puzzle-esque at the A- & D-pillars, and what's with the partial wheel flares?

C and D pillars have much sharper lines than the production version.. The way the D pillar was handled addresses the ungainliness of the production version, with the manner in which the sloping rear was addressed with character lines that are distinctively ABOVE the rake of the rear.

It looks to me like the concept version was hit with an ugly stick prior to production. The sharp lines and creases were melted into an amorphous blob. I have no idea why someone felt those changes were required, but any inherent good looks were washed out entirely. Really a travesty.

 

[ksr]

^^^
Definitely a nicer, cleaner design. Wouldn't have been for me, but would almost certainly have fared better.

 

[BlackGTP]

C and D pillars have much sharper lines than the production version.. The way the D pillar was handled addresses the ungainliness of the production version, with the manner in which the sloping rear was addressed with character lines that are distinctively ABOVE the rake of the rear.

View attachment 71222

View attachment 71223

It looks to me like the concept version was hit with an ugly stick prior to production. The sharp lines and creases were melted into an amorphous blob. I have no idea why someone felt those changes were required, but any inherent good looks were washed out entirely. Really a travesty.

I agree, to my eyes the concept was more cohesive. I'd not call it pretty, but I think the production version would've been better received if it stuck to the concept's styling. This thread probably wouldn't exist.

I don't know how to put what I'm seeing into words - the concept looks like a solid piece while the production version has a "made with Elmers glue and paper Mache" look to it.

 

[kirk.collicutt]

Again , i stand by my comments earlier , The Aztek , was not Ugly especially with the refresh in 03 and the body color cladding.
With AWD and the larger factory tires it was a competent and very practical family SUV. I remember at work when i got the Aztek and co-workers got the Ford Escape , they mocked my car until they rode in it and compared it to the Ford. The Pontiac had a way better ride, a roomier interior and comfortable seating for 5 , better few economy and definitely a superior AWD system.
Also mine was more trouble free than the Escapes we had experience with at the time. I enjoyed it so much and was ready for another in 2005, but along came the Equinox and it was lower priced than the Pontiac, so that was the direction the company took.
One of my co-workers , bought my Aztek when the lease was up and kept it 5-6 years. they used it more like a pickup especially due to the roomy and practical cargo area.
The Aztek was way better than the critics made it out to be, they just did not understand the vehicle and most spent very little time with it so were never able to appreciate all it offered

 

[Ambalanche]

The original concept... View attachment 71205 View attachment 71206

have they made it look like the original concept? I bet it would’ve been a whole lot. More successful!

 

[Archon]

Wrong, EVs are a corporate tragedy. The Nissan Rogue is a corporate tragedy and a design tragedy. Nissan itself is a corporate tragedy.