
“Complete Acquiesence”: How the Pontiac Aztek Happened - DavidChouinard
http://blog.caranddriver.com/complete-acquiesence-bob-lutz-reveals-how-the-pontiac-aztek-happened/
======
mikeryan
It should be noted that folks who owned Aztek's loved them. This article makes
it seems like the vehicle was despised across the board and that wasn't the
case. Despite their looks they were solid cars with a ton of features. If
anything this is a testament to the necessity elegant design on a solid
product feature set.

Including a good review from Car and Driver...

[http://www.edmunds.com/pontiac/aztek/2001/consumer-
reviews.h...](http://www.edmunds.com/pontiac/aztek/2001/consumer-reviews.html)

[http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/pontiac-aztek-gt-road-
te...](http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/pontiac-aztek-gt-road-test)

~~~
vibrolax
My coworker (Optics Ph.d.) is still driving a 2000 Aztek that he purchased
while in graduate school. Its electrical system and chassis components might
not survive its 15th northern winter. He has not been able to identify a
comparable replacement with his favorite feature: the cargo capacity with the
rear seat removed. I've been trying to help him figure out which current model
can adequately replace what he has always called "the ugly car".

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Chrysler T&C minivan. As a bonus, it's almost as ugly as an Aztek.

~~~
joezydeco
Nobody drives a T&C for the looks.

(I own one and it's hella useful, but that's the only good thing I can say
about it).

------
sleazebreeze
This story reminded me of the chapter in Business Adventures by John Brooks
about the Ford Edsel.

The Edsel was one of the last large cars before economy cars became popular.
The timing of the Aztek seemed similarly unfortunate. It was the first SUV
crossover several years before crossovers became popular and it got flak for
not fitting in with established vehicle types.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel)

~~~
tdicola
There were crossovers and small sport utilities for many years before the
Aztek, so it certainly wasn't a timing problem. Look at the Toyota RAV4 (came
out in '94), Honda CR-V ('95), Isuzu VehiCROSS ('97), and even original Jeep
Cherokee ('84!). The Aztek was just a terrible looking vehicle for the
mid-2000's, had a completely lackluster engine and drivetrain, and ended up
being built on a mini-van platform instead of an SUV platform to reduce costs.
There is truly nothing redeeming about the car.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>>>> There is truly nothing redeeming about the car.

While I agree with everything you said, most consumers would never know this
unless they test drove one, or were somewhat engaged in the industry.

I would argue on the timing issue though. By the mid 2000's most companies
were knee deep in trying to build out their hybrid lines and grab what was
left of the market Toyota had already been dominating for years with the
Prius.

The Aztec looked stuck between a company trying to make a full sized SUV and a
economy sized crossover for the masses. These people were looking for a gas
efficient hybrid or something getting a decent MPG rating. The engine and
drive train killed that idea right out of the gate which left it nowhere to
really fit in.

------
StevePerkins
I don't really recall anything about the Aztek back when it was in production,
but for the life of me I can't understand all of this hyperbole about it. To
me, it looks EXACTLY like half of the vehicles that I see on the road every
time I drive to work. It's not all that different from a modern Suburu
Outback, Honda CR-V, Kia Sorento, Hyundai Tuscon, etc. It's pretty much your
standard-issue "crossover" vehicle (i.e. 21st-century station wagon).

Granted, I think there's nothing particular attractive about "crossover"
vehicles today, either. But they're popular and ubiquitous now. So is there
some special aesthetic flaw in the Aztek that I'm not refined enough to
appreciate, or is the issue simply that it was a decade ahead of its time?

~~~
hnal943
I think that the Aztek is uniquely ugly as pictured, but you should find one
without a color matched bottom. The ones I saw on the road has this taupe-
colored plastic on the bottom half of the vehicle and it looks really
terrible. I found a version of it with the grey bottom and the optional tent
attachment. I think this is basically the ugliest configuration of any car
that was commercially available in any era:
[http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2006/10/in-praise-of-the-
po...](http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2006/10/in-praise-of-the-pontiac-
aztek/)

~~~
joezydeco
I always thought this was an echo of the "sport" look of consumer electronics
in the late 80s / early 90s. For example, the Sports Walkman:

[https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2590/3820969452_8b0da67f1f.jpg](https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2590/3820969452_8b0da67f1f.jpg)

That extra dark plastic around the unit suggested an outdoorsy/rugged mode of
use, even if the unit wasn't built to handle that.

------
seanconaty
Yet I will always remember the Aztek as the car that Walter White once drove.

~~~
danko
And it was the perfect choice, precisely for what it said about his character
at the beginning of the show. Walter White, the put-upon high school chemistry
teacher living in quiet desperation, driving around in a car generally
perceived to be a big, swinging two-ton white flag to the world.

------
MichaelGG
I love reading these kinds of stories. Although, I'd like to hear exactly how
they made it so ugly. Just like I'd pay to read about Windows 8 -- how did
they ignore all the feedback? Did no one use it internally and realize it's
terrible for desktop use (open a PDF attachment in Outlook, and get
transported to a full screen app!). I'd also love to see transcripts of
meetings where MS decided not to leverage MSN into a social network, for
instance. Or exactly how Google decided the "see if phone is active"
permission should also give access to the serial and called/calling numbers.

It's neat to see these stories and just see, from the inside, how things end
up broken or out of control.

------
Animats
That's Bob Lutz writing. I was just re-reading his book, "Car Guys vs. Bean
Counters". It's fascinating to read how he thinks about cars. He writes that
there is no part of the car market where an existing product can't do the job.
So it's all about going for customer desirability, and looking for the "buy
trigger".

Cell phones and tablets are just about to that point, at least until somebody
has a new big idea. They're all little slabs with a touchscreen and some
cameras.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
But as the article points out. Industry experts don't always know what they're
talking about.

>He writes that there is no part of the car market where an existing product
can't do the job.

Sure, for Bob Lutz's understanding of the definition of "job". And remember
Lutz and Waggoner oversaw GM's demise from... whatever it once was.

------
akjetma
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the tent-and-inflatable-mattress-and-
removable-cooler-in-the-rear-center-console package. As I recall, these quirky
features were simultaneously the advertised selling points and what made it
unappealing, more so than its appearance. Like buying a car out of a SkyMall
catalogue.

From Wikipedia[1]:

"The Aztek was able to carry within its interior a standard 4 feet (1.2 m) by
8 feet (2.4 m) sheet of plywood and was available with two rear cargo area
options: a pull-out cargo tray that held up to 400 pounds (180 kg) that rolled
on built-in wheels when removed from the vehicle, or a versatile cargo net
system that held up to 200 pounds (91 kg) and could be configured (a claimed)
22 different ways. Options included a center console that doubled as a
removable cooler and a tent/inflatable mattress package that, along with a
built-in air compressor, allowed the Aztek to double as a camper. Extending
this image was a seat-back mounted backpack, and a number of specialty racks
for bicycles, canoes, snowboards, and other such items. An optional 10 speaker
Pioneer stereo system provided a set of controls located at the rear of the
vehicle for tail-gate parties as well as an unusual 2-piece tailgate with
built-in cup-holders and contoured seating area for added comfort."

Most of these features are more fun than useful. Yes, I use backpacks. No, I
don't need my car to have a backpack. It's like they started with a concept
for a 'lifestyle' commercial with young, beautiful people having parties and
campfires and looking at the stars, and then worked backwards towards a
vehicle from there. Like they literally glued on symbols of vitality to a
vehicle.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Aztek#Technology_and_no...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Aztek#Technology_and_notable_features)

------
S_A_P
I think the aztek is a good case study in what it takes to make a concept car
viable from an economic, government, and safety point of view. It also shows
that all three of these factors are there to make a car suck more.

Accountants want the car to cost x dollars to make, so it means less body
colored molding and more generic grey plastic panels that can be used on every
color. It must be able to take a crash so the sleek hoodline needs to be
fattened up some. Who knows what all conspired to foil the Azteks appearance.

~~~
hapless
The core aesthetic problems in the Aztek all came from the same place: to save
money, they started with a minivan body and drivetrain, the GM U-platform.
After the decision to base the Aztek around a minivan was made, everything was
determined by the limitations of the platform:

* The hood line was determined by the pre-existing hardpoints in the U-platform body.

* The awful body cladding was determined by the pre-existing sheet metal.

* The second rate AWD options were determined by the pre-existing drivetrain

and so on, and so on.

------
angkec
Honest question: aside from the outside looks, what's so bad about this
vehicle? (I started driving in the year 2006 so Aztek has been off market for
sometime.)

~~~
was_hellbanned
It's my recollection that it was very well designed in almost every way _aside
from appearance_. As in, the creature comforts were good, considerations for
rear loading, ease of access, reasonable performance, etc. Unfortunately, when
it comes down to it, people really make their vehicle buying decision based
upon appearance. They may use a few requirements to pare down the field (e.g.
AWD, four doors), but after that it's mostly looks.

~~~
leoc
Is the appearance really all that bad either? I don't love it, but I've seen
plenty of slightly awkward-looking cars and I'm not sure what's supposed to
make this one so particularly bad. Maybe the photo in the article is from an
unusually flattering angle?

~~~
ScottBurson
It was ugly, but not ugly enough to be cute. See: Volkswagen Thing[0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_181](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_181)

~~~
leoc
Interesting: it looks like a more successful rival to the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Moke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Moke)
Mini Moke.

------
squozzer
I found the car an over-faceted monstrosity but since that time several uglier
cars have been introduced - e.g. Nissan Cube - that didn't seem to suffer the
same level of rejection. So timing is probably everything.

~~~
Zikes
Nissan seems to be pretty consistent in their terrible designs. Every time I
see a Juke on the road I wonder what sort of combination of poor taste and
good fortune allowed someone with no design sense to make enough money to buy
such a bug-eyed monstrosity.

------
chrisbennet
I remember it was on the cover of Autoweek. The caption said: "Pontiac Aztek
wins Best in Show award at Pebble Beach...Yeah, right."

