Alliterative auto model and make

[Max Rockatansky]

True, still weird how some brands use the first letter of the make up as the first letter of the model.  Ford was infamous for using "F" in a ton of cars as well.  I seem to call that alliterative names are commonly used because it's easier for the average car buyer to remember them, thus making whatever said vehicle happens to be stick in their mind more.  Essentially a form of subliminal advertising I suppose.  The Europeans makers were big on using letter combinations of numbers in a similar manner such as the "3" Series or "C" Class.  The really interesting thing is that Cadillac aside from making better products really saw their image rebound significantly after adopting a European model naming convention.

Both Benz and BMW have done spectacularly well with their 3-digit model designations; so much so that not only Cadillac but Chrysler (even pre-Benz involvement) tried adopting that idiom (e.g., Chrysler 300), but with limited success.  Perhaps the "mainstream" US market is more inured to names, alliterative & otherwise, with the numerical designation suggestive of upscale ambition -- a tricky prospect, given the sociopolitical mood of the country these days!

But the top-selling vehicle's designation is a combination of the alliterative (although barely) & numerical -- the F-150 Ford pickup.  But I think that one can be chalked up to coincidence -- it'd sell well regardless of what it was called!   

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/abcs-of-why-car-names-are-now-letters-and-numbers/

http://jacksonville.com/autos/2014-11-07/story/malcolm-hogan-what-car-name-letters-numbers-rule

And I recall a story someplace about what letters and numbers sound sexy and important.  You probably won't find too many "W" models out there, for example.  Obviously there's VW, but get beyond that and what does "W" remind you of?  Wagon maybe?  Even when crossovers were being made, they steered away from calling them any sort of Wagon as much as possible, or tagged on something sexier-sounding to wagon.

I seem to recall the Dodge Magnum was called a "Sports Activity Vehicle" for that exact reason.  Apparently they didn't want anyone making the mistake that it was the old family Truckster that Dad drove on the pre-planned trip to Wally World.  Personally it's cars like the Magnum and CTV-V Wagon that made wagons cool again...too bad it never became anything other than a niche trend for car people.

[1995hoo]

I always liked the Saab 9-5 wagon, though there were a couple of reasons why Ms1995hoo didn't want me to buy a Saab (gist: she had a bad former boyfriend who had had a Saab).

[Max Rockatansky]

I always liked the Saab 9-5 wagon, though there were a couple of reasons why Ms1995hoo didn't want me to buy a Saab (gist: she had a bad former boyfriend who had had a Saab).

Funny how the most inane things will get a taint, that's why I couldn't get an orange Challenger...same exact thing.  Weird thing is that I don't think the term "wagon" or the actual body style have garnered the same stigma as say the "mini-van."  For whatever reason it would seem that car makers aren't really willing to roll the dice on a wagon option all that much anymore after the Magnum and CTS.  Most of the European brands won't even bring their wagon offerings state side anymore.  I find that odd given how hatch backs seem to remain popular which I always kind of lumped in the same category in regards to styling.  The ironic thing is that all these CUVs are basically just a combination of a Wagon and a Mini-Van just with a new name.  They share basically nothing in common with a true body-on-frame SUV but almost everything with wagons and mini-vans.

[empirestate]

Ford Five-Hundred
Chevy Chevelle
Plymouth Prowler
Lexus LS (#)
Saturn SL- (#)

Two that I'm shocked weren't mentioned
                 Chevy Camaro
                 Chevy Corvette

They don't begin with the same sound, so some may not consider them alliteration. (Unlike the middle of that last sentence.) The same could be said of your Lexus and Saturn examples, since the names of the letters L and S are pronounced beginning with vowels.

[sparker]

"W" is two syllables. 

Huh?  Out here in CA it's still 3: "duh-bull-you".  Maybe south of Mason-Dixon it's shortened, as with the nickname of President #43: "Dubya" -- now that's 2 syllables.  Just surprised it wasn't shrunk down to only 1 syllable; have an uncle (by marriage) in OK who goes by his initials W.D.; colloquially called "Dub" for short.  Man of few words unless he's got a story to tell -- he's a direct descendant of the pre-statehood U.S. Marshal that chased the Doolin-Dalton gang around the territory circa 1890 or so (and pretty much wiping them out one at a time!).   

[PHLBOS]

Weird thing is that I don't think the term "wagon" or the actual body style have garnered the same stigma as say the "mini-van."  For whatever reason it would seem that car makers aren't really willing to roll the dice on a wagon option all that much anymore after the Magnum and CTS.

Two possible reasons why the Magnum & CTS wagon never caught on saleswise:

1.  Marketing/advertising was practically non-existent (the vehicles themselves can't be faulted for such).

2.  Despite being wagons both of those models lacked a couple of utilitarian-related (what makes a wagon a wagon) items: limited cargo space & all-round, unassisted visibility (particularly w/the CTS wagon).  The Magnum wagon didn't have that much more cargo space than a Focus wagon of the era.

Most of the European brands won't even bring their wagon offerings state side anymore.

A sales opportunity that was missed IMHO back when gas prices were higher. 

I find that odd given how hatch backs seem to remain popular which I always kind of lumped in the same category in regards to styling.

A generation ago, hatchback sales were literally dying in the U.S. once their notchback sedan counterparts started offering fold-down rear seats (a once-exclusive item for hatchbacks & wagons) but manufacturers brought them back and such enjoyed a revival in sales.  Although, today's hatchbacks lack the all-round visibility of their predecessors.

The ironic thing is that all these CUVs are basically just a combination of a Wagon and a Mini-Van just with a new name.

Quite true.  Such is mostly a marketing thing. 

They share basically nothing in common with a true body-on-frame SUV but almost everything with wagons and mini-vans.

Basically most SUV buyers would've bought large station wagons had this been a generation or two ago.

[Otto Yamamoto]

Weird thing is that I don't think the term "wagon" or the actual body style have garnered the same stigma as say the "mini-van."  For whatever reason it would seem that car makers aren't really willing to roll the dice on a wagon option all that much anymore after the Magnum and CTS.

Two possible reasons why the Magnum & CTS wagon never caught on saleswise:

1.  Marketing/advertising was practically non-existent (the vehicles themselves can't be faulted for such).

2.  Despite being wagons both of those models lacked a couple of utilitarian-related (what makes a wagon a wagon) items: limited cargo space & all-round, unassisted visibility (particularly w/the CTS wagon).  The Magnum wagon didn't have that much more cargo space than a Focus wagon of the era.

Most of the European brands won't even bring their wagon offerings state side anymore.

A sales opportunity that was missed IMHO back when gas prices were higher. 

I find that odd given how hatch backs seem to remain popular which I always kind of lumped in the same category in regards to styling.

A generation ago, hatchback sales were literally dying in the U.S. once their notchback sedan counterparts started offering fold-down rear seats (a once-exclusive item for hatchbacks & wagons) but manufacturers brought them back and such enjoyed a revival in sales.  Although, today's hatchbacks lack the all-round visibility of their predecessors.

The ironic thing is that all these CUVs are basically just a combination of a Wagon and a Mini-Van just with a new name.

Quite true.  Such is mostly a marketing thing. 

They share basically nothing in common with a true body-on-frame SUV but almost everything with wagons and mini-vans.

Basically most SUV buyers would've bought large station wagons had this been a generation or two ago.

I recall the first time I noticed the term SUV, was in an advert for the International Scout in the late 70's if I recall correctly. Not that it was the only vehicle of the type, as there was the Ford Bronco.

XT1254

[PHLBOS]

I recall the first time I noticed the term SUV, was in an advert for the International Scout in the late 70's if I recall correctly. Not that it was the only vehicle of the type, as there was the Ford Bronco.

That was back when most SUVs were of the 2-door variety (don't forget the original Chevy Blazer & the GMC Jimmy).  Larger 4-door types like the Chevy/GMC Suburban and the Jeep Wagoneer weren't really associated with the SUV label/moniker until the mid-80s.

[Max Rockatansky]

Weird thing is that I don't think the term "wagon" or the actual body style have garnered the same stigma as say the "mini-van."  For whatever reason it would seem that car makers aren't really willing to roll the dice on a wagon option all that much anymore after the Magnum and CTS.

Two possible reasons why the Magnum & CTS wagon never caught on saleswise:

1.  Marketing/advertising was practically non-existent (the vehicles themselves can't be faulted for such).

2.  Despite being wagons both of those models lacked a couple of utilitarian-related (what makes a wagon a wagon) items: limited cargo space & all-round, unassisted visibility (particularly w/the CTS wagon).  The Magnum wagon didn't have that much more cargo space than a Focus wagon of the era.

Most of the European brands won't even bring their wagon offerings state side anymore.

A sales opportunity that was missed IMHO back when gas prices were higher. 

I find that odd given how hatch backs seem to remain popular which I always kind of lumped in the same category in regards to styling.

A generation ago, hatchback sales were literally dying in the U.S. once their notchback sedan counterparts started offering fold-down rear seats (a once-exclusive item for hatchbacks & wagons) but manufacturers brought them back and such enjoyed a revival in sales.  Although, today's hatchbacks lack the all-round visibility of their predecessors.

The ironic thing is that all these CUVs are basically just a combination of a Wagon and a Mini-Van just with a new name.

Quite true.  Such is mostly a marketing thing. 

They share basically nothing in common with a true body-on-frame SUV but almost everything with wagons and mini-vans.

Basically most SUV buyers would've bought large station wagons had this been a generation or two ago.

With the Magnum the thing that I always thought really did it in for good is when Chrysler brought the Charger back.  I remember people went nuts for those Chargers even though there was a lot of old school guys complaining it was a sedan.  I think the Magnum was more an exercise in trying to stand out rather than creating a true wagon based on utility.  The CTS I think came down to a lack of marketing coupled with really a lack of reason to get it over the coupe or sedan.  The second gen CTS sedan was an absolute stunner...but you'd see someone usually at a car show with a CTS-V wagon.  Those things would hog up a lot of attention because they were so rare even when they were new and the car guys knew it.

That's the funny thing, the hatch backs coming out today are often better looking than their sedan counter parts.  The new Cruze hatch might be on my short list a couple years from now when I need to replace my Sonic.  It's very obviously like you said with the lines that it isn't the old practical utility box of old...I suppose you do get the benefit of a shorter vehicle.

And that's the funny thing.  I have a brother who swears on body-on-frame only SUVs, he's hardly driven anything else the last 15 years.  I have a sister who has a Dodge Journey who dared to call it an SUV in front of him.  She got lit up on why it's a glorified Mini-Van and was probably one of the most spectacular car rants I've seen a long time.

[PHLBOS]

With the Magnum the thing that I always thought really did it in for good is when Chrysler brought the Charger back.  I remember people went nuts for those Chargers even though there was a lot of old school guys complaining it was a sedan.

The Charger also tapped into another market that Dodge literally owned decades earlier... law enforcement.  Yes, there were police-packaged variants of the Magnum wagon and Chrysler 300 for 2005; but once the Charger was launched for 2006, the police package became a Charger exclusive among Mopar car offerings.  It did well in the retail market because it was a lower-cost alternative, but similar-type car, to the Chrysler 300.

I think the Magnum was more an exercise in trying to stand out rather than creating a true wagon based on utility.

That may be true & fine for concept vehicles; not cost-effective for the production/retail market. 

The CTS I think came down to a lack of marketing coupled with really a lack of reason to get it over the coupe or sedan.  The second gen CTS sedan was an absolute stunner...but you'd see someone usually at a car show with a CTS-V wagon.  Those things would hog up a lot of attention because they were so rare even when they were new and the car guys knew it.

Rare and/or poorly selling vehicles typically are attention getters at car shows.

That's the funny thing, the hatch backs coming out today are often better looking than their sedan counter parts.

Such is more of an opinion; I'm not a fan of hatchbacks past or present.

The new Cruze hatch might be on my short list a couple years from now when I need to replace my Sonic.  It's very obviously like you said with the lines that it isn't the old practical utility box of old...I suppose you do get the benefit of a shorter vehicle.

The latter part of the your last sentence may be the only reason I see for such.  As I previously stated once notchback sedans started offering fold-down rear seats (to increase cargo space when needed); the original virtue/advantage of an old-school hatchback faded.

And that's the funny thing.  I have a brother who swears on body-on-frame only SUVs, he's hardly driven anything else the last 15 years.  I have a sister who has a Dodge Journey who dared to call it an SUV in front of him.  She got lit up on why it's a glorified Mini-Van and was probably one of the most spectacular car rants I've seen a long time.

In my view, if a particular vehicle offers 4WD (as opposed to AWD) as an option; it's considered an SUV regardless of whether it's FWD or RWD-based.  If it only offers AWD as either standard or an option, it's a CUV (cross-over).

Example: Ford Explorer (though FWD-based since 2011) is an SUV whereas the Ford Flex, which utilizes a similar but stretched platform, is a CUV because it does not offer 4WD.

[roadman]

From the 1970s - Chevy Caprice/Buick Century/Pontiac LeMans

Nope, based on what the OP's asking for.

From the 1980s - Ford Tempo/Mercury Topaz

Nope (the OP's asking model name and make, not 2 model names).

From the 1990s - Ford Contour/Mercury Mystique

Yes, for the Mystique, no for the Contour.

My bad - I misread "Alliterative" as "Alternative."  Have since removed my original post.

[Max Rockatansky]

With the Magnum the thing that I always thought really did it in for good is when Chrysler brought the Charger back.  I remember people went nuts for those Chargers even though there was a lot of old school guys complaining it was a sedan.

The Charger also tapped into another market that Dodge literally owned decades earlier... law enforcement.  Yes, there were police-packaged variants of the Magnum wagon and Chrysler 300 for 2005; but once the Charger was launched for 2006, the police package became a Charger exclusive among Mopar car offerings.  It did well in the retail market because it was a lower-cost alternative, but similar-type car, to the Chrysler 300.

I think the Magnum was more an exercise in trying to stand out rather than creating a true wagon based on utility.

That may be true & fine for concept vehicles; not cost-effective for the production/retail market. 

The CTS I think came down to a lack of marketing coupled with really a lack of reason to get it over the coupe or sedan.  The second gen CTS sedan was an absolute stunner...but you'd see someone usually at a car show with a CTS-V wagon.  Those things would hog up a lot of attention because they were so rare even when they were new and the car guys knew it.

Rare and/or poorly selling vehicles typically are attention getters at car shows.

That's the funny thing, the hatch backs coming out today are often better looking than their sedan counter parts.

Such is more of an opinion; I'm not a fan of hatchbacks past or present.

The new Cruze hatch might be on my short list a couple years from now when I need to replace my Sonic.  It's very obviously like you said with the lines that it isn't the old practical utility box of old...I suppose you do get the benefit of a shorter vehicle.

The latter part of the your last sentence may be the only reason I see for such.  As I previously stated once notchback sedans started offering fold-down rear seats (to increase cargo space when needed); the original virtue/advantage of an old-school hatchback faded.

And that's the funny thing.  I have a brother who swears on body-on-frame only SUVs, he's hardly driven anything else the last 15 years.  I have a sister who has a Dodge Journey who dared to call it an SUV in front of him.  She got lit up on why it's a glorified Mini-Van and was probably one of the most spectacular car rants I've seen a long time.

In my view, if a particular vehicle offers 4WD (as opposed to AWD) as an option; it's considered an SUV regardless of whether it's FWD or RWD-based.  If it only offers AWD as either standard or an option, it's a CUV (cross-over).

Example: Ford Explorer (though FWD-based since 2011) is an SUV whereas the Ford Flex, which utilizes a similar but stretched platform, is a CUV because it does not offer 4WD.

That was the thing with the Magnum, when the concept was shown people went absolutely nuts for it.  The design of the LX platform was much more suited to the 300 which also had a lot of fanfare.  I seem to recall a lot of people were calling for a sedan version of the Magnum simply because they liked the styling but didn't want the wagon on the back.  It actually sold over 30,000 units plus it's first four model years which I don't most people would call a disappointment for a modern station wagon but in comparison the Charger sold 114,000 something units in 2006 during the first full year back on the market.  Even the Challenger traditionally has sold better than the Magnum ever did with sales peaking at 66,000 I believe last year.  So I guess good on Chrysler for fixing a mistake and salvaging the LX platform by giving buyers the vehicles they really wanted/needed. 

Ironically the Magnum had its own police package offering.  I never saw one in the field but I did hear stories about some departments actually buying them for K9 units:

http://www.policecarwebsite.net/policepackage/magnum.html

But you're right, Charger became the more go to car for police fleet vehicle service.  That became more true after Crown Victoria production ended.  The Charger is the closest car to largest of the Crown Victorias and is by far the most cost effective.  The Caprice is too specialized which drives the cost up and Interceptor is based off an undesirable platform that's front wheel drive based. Granted you'll hear nothing but older officers complain that they don't have something body-on-frame anymore....I suspect they just miss their big cushy boats.  On occasion you'll still see a Crown Vic floating around, usually it is being driven by some twenty year guy. 

In regards to the hatches, you're dead right about the utility and ergonomics being gone.  Ironically you can hear the same said in almost every segment, that usefulness is being traded in for styling.  Those vanilla jelly bean shapes with super wide glass were definitely the most effective means of letting you see a better view of the road.

In regards to the SUVs, where my brother is coming from is the perspective of someone who has done a lot of off-roading all his life.  Usually that means something like; CJ Jeep, Blazer, Bronco, Tahoe, Suburban, Excursion, and the like is the only thing that's going to do.  Outside of the most extreme dirt roads the clearance and capability of most modern CUVs is more than enough to handle the terrain.  Personally I'm still iffy at buying a car based platform that looks like an SUV, has the ride height, and has some form of 4WD only to take it somewhere then bite off more than I can chew.  But then the overwhelming majority of people buying those vehicles will never have them out of a day-to-day driving situation much less a dirt mountain path.

[PHLBOS]

But you're right, Charger became the more go to car for police fleet vehicle service.  That became more true after Crown Victoria production ended.  The Charger is the closest car to largest of the Crown Victorias and is by far the most cost effective.  The Caprice is too specialized which drives the cost up and Interceptor is based off an undesirable platform that's front wheel drive based. Granted you'll hear nothing but older officers complain that they don't have something body-on-frame anymore....I suspect they just miss their big cushy boats.  On occasion you'll still see a Crown Vic floating around, usually it is being driven by some twenty year guy. 

It's worth noting that Dodge (& Plymouth) haven't had a body-on-frame-platformed car since the late 1950s (the last BOF Mopar car was the '66 Imperial LeBaron).  That didn't stop many law enforcement agencies (CHP being one of them) from selecting them as their patrol vehicles.  That's right, the original Blues-Mobile (a '74 Dodge Monaco) featured unitized construction.

In regards to the hatches, you're dead right about the utility and ergonomics being gone.  Ironically you can hear the same said in almost every segment, that usefulness is being traded in for styling.  Those vanilla jelly bean shapes with super wide glass were definitely the most effective means of letting you see a better view of the road.

I recently drove an old, low-mileage '87 LTD Crown Victoria S sedan (plain-Jane boxy vehicle) several months ago and was blown away by the visibility and being able to see the actual corners of the car both front & rear.

More recently, the current Taurus (2010 and later) vs. the previous 2008-2009 Taurus (a rebadged/facelifted Ford Five Hundred) shows how different a car utilizing the same platform can be.  Inside, the newer one feels cramped & claustrophobic and has poor visibility whereas its immediate predecessor felt open, airy, very roomy and had excellent all-around visibility.

[Max Rockatansky]

But you're right, Charger became the more go to car for police fleet vehicle service.  That became more true after Crown Victoria production ended.  The Charger is the closest car to largest of the Crown Victorias and is by far the most cost effective.  The Caprice is too specialized which drives the cost up and Interceptor is based off an undesirable platform that's front wheel drive based. Granted you'll hear nothing but older officers complain that they don't have something body-on-frame anymore....I suspect they just miss their big cushy boats.  On occasion you'll still see a Crown Vic floating around, usually it is being driven by some twenty year guy. 

It's worth noting that Dodge (& Plymouth) haven't had a body-on-frame-platformed car since the late 1950s (the last BOF Mopar car was the '66 Imperial LeBaron).  That didn't stop many law enforcement agencies (CHP being one of them) from selecting them as their patrol vehicles.  That's right, the original Blues-Mobile (a '74 Dodge Monaco) featured unitized construction.

In regards to the hatches, you're dead right about the utility and ergonomics being gone.  Ironically you can hear the same said in almost every segment, that usefulness is being traded in for styling.  Those vanilla jelly bean shapes with super wide glass were definitely the most effective means of letting you see a better view of the road.

I recently drove an old, low-mileage '87 LTD Crown Victoria S sedan (plain-Jane boxy vehicle) several months ago and was blown away by the visibility and being able to see the actual corners of the car both front & rear.

More recently, the current Taurus (2010 and later) vs. the previous 2008-2009 Taurus (a rebadged/facelifted Ford Five Hundred) shows how different a car utilizing the same platform can be.  Inside, the newer one feels cramped & claustrophobic and has poor visibility whereas its immediate predecessor felt open, airy, very roomy and had excellent all-around visibility.

But that might be one of the "supposed" reasons that Chrysler fell so far behind Ford and even to an extent GM through the 9C1 police package era.  I find that incredibly ironic given how CHP was bitching and moaning that there wasn't a good replacement for the Crown Vic but they perfectly fine with the Monaco.  CHP went with Explorers of all things and it's not too uncommon to see a Crown Vic in their fleet.  In fact there is one patrol vehicle that's all white instead of the standard CHP paint scheme, I suspect it was an unmarked unit at one point.

Yeah it's interesting to think how ergonomically correct those 80s boxes really were.  That was really the peak of when design efficiency for everyday use over everything else, sight lines included.  Nowadays you can't get a basic box with good visibility because every car has to have some design flair to it or it can't compete in the market.  The only car that I can think of that's hanging onto the bottom of the barrel no-frills approach would be the Nissan Versa.  I had one of those as a rental car a couple weeks back on a work trip out of state and I regret not taking pictures.  That thing had manual crank windows, L/1/2 on the shifter, an overdrive button, manually adjusted mirrors, and even hub caps over steel wheels.  Aside from the exterior appearance I could have sworn I was back in my 1992 Pontiac Sunbird...even the visibility was decent.

[PHLBOS]

But that might be one of the "supposed" reasons that Chrysler fell so far behind Ford and even to an extent GM through the 9C1 police package era.

Chrysler fell behind mainly due to not having a comparably-sized vehicle after 1981 to compete with the full-size Chevys & Fords of the era.  The M-bodies (Diplomat & '82+ Gran Fury) weren't originally intended to be full-size vehicles and were, hence, smaller than the full-size Fords & Chevys of the era.  Towards the end of its production life; CHP basically wrote them out of their specs and went with either Fords (Crown Vics) or Chevys (Caprices).

I find that incredibly ironic given how CHP was bitching and moaning that there wasn't a good replacement for the Crown Vic but they perfectly fine with the Monaco.

The Monaco was a bonifide full-size car w/RWD & an available V8 (usually the 440 Magnum block) and was comparably sized with its competitors.  It also met CHP's minimum 122" wheelbase requirement (dropped in 1975) it had for its vehicles.  At their largest, Chevy & Ford fell short by 1/2 inch to an inch; which was why CHP used Oldsmobiles and Mercurys for a couple of years.

CHP went with Explorers of all things and it's not too uncommon to see a Crown Vic in their fleet.  In fact there is one patrol vehicle that's all white instead of the standard CHP paint scheme, I suspect it was an unmarked unit at one point.

Right after production of the Crown Vic.; CHP beefed up their minimum payload specs. to a point where only pursuit-rated SUVs can be selected (Explorer-based Utility Interceptor and the Tahoe PPV) for the Enforcement Class vehicles.  CHP likely was offered a better deal with the Utility Interceptor (Explorer) than what Chevy was willing to sell its Tahoe PPV for.