{"id":72227,"date":"2026-06-06T05:18:06","date_gmt":"2026-06-06T09:18:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/?p=72227"},"modified":"2026-06-06T05:18:53","modified_gmt":"2026-06-06T09:18:53","slug":"automotive-misfires-redefining-failure-and-legacy-among-iconic-car-brands","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/automotive-misfires-redefining-failure-and-legacy-among-iconic-car-brands\/","title":{"rendered":"Automotive Misfires Redefining Failure and Legacy Among Iconic Car Brands"},"content":{"rendered":"

When Automotive Innovation Backfires: What Drives Iconic Manufacturers to Miss the Mark?<\/p>\n

The automotive industry, often romanticized as a crucible of relentless innovation and engineering prowess, is also a theater of spectacular miscalculations. Even the most storied manufacturers, flush with resources and heritage, have produced models that seem, in hindsight, almost willfully out of step with consumer expectations or technical realities. The evidence suggests that these missteps are rarely the result of sheer incompetence; rather, they emerge from a complex interplay of market pressures, regulatory shifts, and the perennial temptation to chase trends or fill perceived gaps in the product lineup. The recurring motif is not simply failure, but a particular kind of failure: one that exposes the limits of brand identity, the hazards of technological overreach, and the unpredictable alchemy of consumer taste.<\/p>\n

How Do Market Misreadings and Brand Identity Collide?<\/p>\n

A pattern emerges when examining vehicles like the Jeepster, Cadillac Cimarron, and Aston Martin Cygnet. Each represents a manufacturer\u2019s attempt to court a new demographic or comply with external constraints\u2014suburban comfort, European compactness, or emissions regulations\u2014by leveraging an established brand. Yet, the resulting products often suffer from a kind of existential confusion. The Jeepster, for example, was neither rugged enough for Jeep loyalists nor sufficiently differentiated to attract new buyers. The Cimarron, a thinly disguised Chevrolet, diluted Cadillac\u2019s luxury cachet without capturing the intended European import-fighting market. The Cygnet, a rebadged Toyota iQ, stands as a case study in regulatory compliance trumping brand coherence.<\/p>\n

The practical significance of these cases lies in their demonstration that brand equity is not infinitely elastic. Consumers, especially those drawn to heritage marques, are acutely sensitive to perceived authenticity. When a product is seen as a cynical exercise in badge engineering or regulatory box-ticking, the backlash can be swift and enduring. This is not merely a matter of aesthetics or performance; it is a referendum on the brand\u2019s core values.<\/p>\n

Why Do Technical Innovations Sometimes Undermine Consumer Trust?<\/p>\n

Models such as the Chevrolet Corvair, Maserati Biturbo, and Triumph TR7 illustrate the double-edged sword of technical innovation. The Corvair\u2019s rear-engine layout and swing axle suspension, while innovative, became the focal point of a national safety controversy, catalyzed by Ralph Nader\u2019s influential critique. The Biturbo\u2019s promise of affordable Maserati performance was undone by chronic reliability issues, while the TR7\u2019s wedge design and mechanical frailty tarnished Triumph\u2019s sporting legacy.<\/p>\n

These examples underscore a critical tension: innovation, when insufficiently tested or poorly executed, can erode rather than enhance a manufacturer\u2019s reputation. Methodologically, it is difficult to disentangle the effects of engineering flaws from those of media amplification or regulatory scrutiny. However, the practical outcome is clear\u2014consumer trust, once lost, is rarely recaptured within the lifecycle of a troubled model.<\/p>\n

Are There Structural or Temporal Factors That Exacerbate Failure?<\/p>\n

The context in which these vehicles were conceived often reveals as much as their technical or design attributes. The Ford Pinto and Mustang II, both products of the 1970s oil crisis and shifting regulatory landscape, reflect the constraints and anxieties of their era. The Pinto\u2019s fuel tank design, while not unique among contemporaries, became emblematic of cost-cutting at the expense of safety\u2014an interpretation that, while contested by some industry analysts, proved decisive in the court of public opinion.<\/p>\n

Temporal anomalies also surface. The Renault Avantime, for instance, anticipated the crossover-SUV trend but arrived before the market was prepared to embrace such a hybrid. The Fiat Multipla\u2019s interior packaging was genuinely innovative, yet its styling was so polarizing that it overwhelmed any functional virtues. In both cases, the models were arguably ahead of their time, but their commercial failure suggests that innovation without contextual resonance is a high-risk proposition.<\/p>\n

Who Bears the Hidden Costs of Automotive Misadventure?<\/p>\n

The most visible casualties of these missteps are, of course, the manufacturers themselves\u2014measured in lost sales, damaged reputations, and, in some cases, brand extinction. Yet, the ripple effects are broader. Suppliers, dealers, and even consumers who invest in these vehicles often find themselves saddled with products that depreciate rapidly or require costly maintenance. There is also a subtler, second-order consequence: the chilling effect on future innovation. When a bold experiment fails spectacularly, it can reinforce institutional risk aversion, leading to a period of cautious incrementalism that stifles genuine progress.<\/p>\n

What Lessons Should Informed Readers Draw from These Patterns?<\/p>\n

The recurring failures catalogued here are not merely cautionary tales; they are instructive case studies in the limits of prediction and the perils of overextending brand identity or technological ambition. For industry observers and consumers alike, the evidence suggests a need for skepticism toward models that promise to redefine segments without a clear, credible rationale. When evaluating a new vehicle\u2014especially one that represents a radical departure for its manufacturer\u2014scrutiny should extend beyond the press release to the underlying engineering, market logic, and brand coherence.<\/p>\n

For manufacturers, the lesson is more sobering. Success in the automotive sector is not simply a matter of technical excellence or marketing acumen; it requires a nuanced understanding of consumer psychology, regulatory environments, and the often-unforgiving dynamics of timing. The most successful brands are those that innovate with discipline, respect their own heritage, and\u2014perhaps most importantly\u2014know when to resist the siren call of the next big thing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\"Even<\/a><\/p>\n

Unreliable, ugly or both, these cars stood out in the worst possible way<\/p>\n

\n

Even the most successful car companies miss the mark.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

We can think of many instances in which car firms (usually cash- or time-strapped) fumbled as they attempted to replace a popular model. Sometimes they got ahead of themselves by trying to fill a niche that didn\u2019t exist yet \u2013 and that, in some cases, was never created. The resulting models asked more questions than they answered and they stood out like a puddle of engine oil on a red carpet.<\/p>\n

Here, then, are some of the largest misfits from the automotive world. Some of these cars will remain unloved for decades to come while others have become more enticing as they\u2019ve aged:<\/p>\n

\n

Jeep: Willys-Overland Jeepster (1948)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

Jeep parent company Willys-Overland worried suburbia-dwelling motorists wouldn\u2019t buy a bare-bones, four-wheel drive off-roader like the CJ-2<\/strong>. It launched a more road-focused model named Jeepster in 1948 <\/strong>to lure a new set of buyers into showrooms. Offered only with rear-wheel drive<\/strong> and a small amount of ground clearance, the Jeepster was presented as a luxurious roadster; it was the exact opposite of the CJ-2.<\/p>\n

Buyers who visited a Jeep showroom wanted a four-wheel drive vehicle so they completely ignored the Jeepster. Those who would have been interested in the model likely didn\u2019t know it existed because Willys did a poor job of advertising it. Production ended after the 1950 model year<\/strong> though leftover examples were sold through 1951. Jeep made less than 20,000 examples of the original Jeepster. It resurrected the nameplate in 1966 as an alternative to the International-Harvester Scout.<\/p>\n

\n

Chevrolet: Corvair (1959)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

The Corvair should have become one of Chevrolet\u2019s best-selling cars during the 1960s. Released in 1959<\/strong>, it was a rear-engined alternative to the Volkswagen Beetle that was available in a wide variety of body styles including a coupe and a convertible. Buyers could even order a high-performance turbocharged model. Safety advocate Ralph Nader<\/strong> damned the Corvair in his 1965 book Unsafe at Any Speed<\/em>. The title said it all: Nader argued the Corvair\u2019s swing axle rear suspension made it highly dangerous and accident-prone.<\/p>\n

The second-generation Corvair received an independent rear suspension but the damage to its reputation was already done. Chevrolet stopped production in 1969 <\/strong>and never made another rear-engined model (partly because the layout\u2019s popularity had started to wane).<\/p>\n

\n

Volkswagen: K70 (1970)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

Volkswagen purchased NSU <\/strong>in 1969<\/strong>. The deal included all of the firm\u2019s intellectual and physical property. What officials in Wolfsburg really wanted was NSU\u2019s production capacity; they had no interest in the troublesome, voodoo-like Wankel technology that powered the Ro80 and they even canceled a mid-range four-door model named K70 that was mere months away from its market launch. Volkswagen executives back-pedaled and gave the K70 the green light for production under one strict condition: NSU couldn\u2019t have it.<\/p>\n

Though it was developed entirely by NSU, the K70 made its debut in 1970<\/strong> wearing a Volkswagen badge. It was the company\u2019s first front-engined, water-cooled model and it was one of the more forward-thinking cars in its segment. And yet, it struggled to find its spot in the Volkswagen range. Entry-level examples overlapped with the rear-engined, rear-wheel drive 412 and upmarket variants competed in the same class as the Audi 100. Only about 210,000 examples<\/strong> of the K70 had found a home by the time production ended in 1975. By that point, NSU was dying a slow death.<\/p>\n

\n

Ford: Pinto (1971)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

The Pinto sub-compact took Ford into a class of the American new car market it had never been present in. As the company\u2019s entry-level model<\/strong>, it competed against a growing list of value-packed economy cars imported from Japan and Europe. However, the fuel tank on the Pinto was positioned between the Pinto\u2019s rear bumper and its rear axle.<\/p>\n

It could get punctured during a rear-end collision, even one at relatively low speed. The Mercury Bobcat<\/strong> \u2013 a badge-engineered Pinto \u2013 suffered from the same problem. The company\u2019s resulting legal troubles became increasingly serious and it ultimately caved. In 1978, Ford launched what was then the largest recall campaign in American history when it asked 1.5 million<\/strong> Pinto and Bobcat owners to get their car fitted with a protective shield and a modified fuel filler neck.<\/p>\n

\n

Ford: Mustang II (1974)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

Still feeling the shockwaves of the 1973 oil crisis<\/strong>, Ford developed the Mustang II with an eye on fuel economy, not performance. It also chose to build the model on a version of the Pinto\u2019s platform in a bid to make it smaller and lighter than the original.<\/p>\n

This turned the once-mighty Mustang a shadow of its former self and the transformation nearly squashed the nameplate. The Mustang II wasn’t offered with a V8 when it went on sale in 1974 <\/strong>and its top-spec engine was a V6 with 171hp <\/strong>on tap. In comparison, the original Mustang offered up to 271hp <\/strong>in its first year on the market.<\/p>\n

\n

Triumph: TR7 (1975)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

The TR7 shamefully ended Triumph\u2019s heritage-laced line of fun-to-drive, attainable sports cars<\/strong>. Its love-it-or-hate-it wedge-shaped design wasn\u2019t completely out of line with the styling trends of the 1970s. Looks alone didn\u2019t kill the TR7; appalling reliability<\/strong> did. It took Triumph a few years to figure out how to build the TR7 reliably. By the time it did, and by the time it added a convertible to the line-up, the model\u2019s reputation was already trashed and there was no hope left of recovering it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Production of the TR7 (and the later, US-focused, V8-powered TR8<\/strong>) ended in 1981. Triumph closed in 1984.<\/p>\n

\n

Porsche: 924 (1976)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

The 924 came to life as a joint project between Porsche and Volkswagen<\/strong>. The former needed a car to replace the 914 <\/strong>and the latter wanted a range-topping coupe. Volkswagen decided not to move forward with the project and instead released the Golf-based Scirocco<\/strong>. Porsche had to replace the 914 so it purchased the 924 project from Volkswagen and finished it on its own.<\/p>\n

It was too late to weed out the Volkswagen roots. The 924 launched with a 2.0-litre four-cylinder engine<\/strong> shared with the Audi 100 and the Volkswagen LT and a four-speed manual transmission borrowed from the Audi parts bin. Production took place in a former NSU factory located in Neckarsulm, Germany.<\/p>\n

The 911 and the 924 occupied opposite ends of the same spectrum. Many argued the 924 wasn\u2019t a real Porsche because it was front-engined, water-cooled and it gave off whiffs of Volkswagen-ness that anyone who got near it could smell. More powerful variants like the Turbo and the S later helped enthusiasts warm up to the model.<\/p>\n

\n

Ferrari: Mondial 8 (1980)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

The Mondial 8 stood out as one of the most poorly-received cars ever to wear a Ferrari emblem. Critics complained the\u00a0214hp<\/strong>, 3.2-litre V8 that the 2+2 Mondial launched with wasn\u2019t powerful enough. Those willing to accept its performance quickly realized they couldn\u2019t take advantage of it as often as they wanted because the Mondial was plagued with mechanical and electrical problems.<\/p>\n

Ferrari fixed many of the Mondial 8\u2019s problems when it released the Mondial QV in 1982. The later variants of the car were quicker and better built than the early models.<\/p>\n

\n

Cadillac: Cimarron (1981)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

Cadillac turned to Chevrolet for help in expanding its range in a bid to compete against increasingly popular European imports like the Saab 900<\/strong> and the BMW 3 Series<\/strong>. What followed was one of the most egregious illustrations of badge-engineering. Released in 1981<\/strong> as a 1982 model, the Cimarron was a posher Chevrolet Cavalier (a highly mediocre car to begin with) that offered, to Cadillac\u2019s credit, a long list of standard equipment. It didn\u2019t look, feel or drive like a Cadillac; even period ads referred to it as \u201cCimarron, by Cadillac\u201d <\/strong>instead of the Cadillac Cimarron. It was the brand\u2019s first four-cylinder car since 1914 <\/strong>and its first stick-shift since 1953<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Executives predicted they could sell 50,000 examples<\/strong> of the Cimarron annually but sales peaked at 25,968 during the 1982 model year. The model taught Cadillac a valuable lesson in badge-engineering. John Howell, a Cadillac executive during the 2000s, famously kept a photo of the Cimarron captioned \u201clest we forget\u201d on his office wall.<\/p>\n

\n

Maserati: Biturbo (1981)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

The Maserati Biturbo and its off-shoots should have gone down in history as one of the best-driving family cars<\/strong> of the 1980s. On paper, it victoriously placed Maserati’s hallmark performance in a package that was smaller and more affordable than the Quattroporte.<\/p>\n

The Italian firm lost the plot in the execution phase and it delivered one of the most unreliable cars<\/strong> it has ever made. Mechanical and electrical problems were frighteningly common, especially in early cars, and sales dropped when motorists realized what they were buying.<\/p>\n

\n

Alfa Romeo: Arna (1983)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

The Volkswagen Golf\u2019s success made government-owned Alfa Romeo green with envy during the late 1970s<\/strong>. The perennially cash-strapped firm couldn\u2019t afford to develop a competitor from scratch so it teamed up with Nissan to enter the segment as quickly and cheaply as possible. The Arna was born in 1983 <\/strong>as a Nissan Cherry<\/strong> with an Alfa-specific grille and an Alfasud-sourced running gear.<\/p>\n

Buyers who wanted a Nissan bought one, they didn’t shop for an Alfa, and the Arna routinely missed its sales targets. Even the Ti variant felt more Japanese than Italian and it was overshadowed by the more expensive 33<\/strong>. Executives surprisingly considered updating the model during the late 1980s but Fiat immediately cancelled the project<\/strong> it when it took over Alfa in 1986.<\/p>\n

\n

Pontiac: Fiero (1984)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

On paper, the Pontiac Fiero looked ready to give European and Japanese sports cars a run for their money. It was developed as an affordable mid-engined performance car<\/strong> in the vein of the Fiat X1\/9<\/strong>. In application, early models were a disappointment. Pontiac saved money by using suspension components shared with some of the cheapest cars General Motors offered during the 1980s and fitted the Fiero with a 2.5-litre four-cylinder engine rated at 92hp<\/strong>. It didn\u2019t handle or accelerate as well as its low-slung design suggested.<\/p>\n

Adding insult to injury, early examples exhibited an alarming tendency to catch fire. Pontiac righted many of the Fiero\u2019s wrongs for the 1988 model year<\/strong> but the changes came too late.<\/p>\n

\n

Cadillac: Allant\u00e9 (1987)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

In 1987, Cadillac seriously tried to end the Mercedes-Benz SL\u2019s dominance over the luxurious, two-seater roadster segment by releasing its own high-zoot convertible named Allante. Pininfarina <\/strong>made Allante bodies in Turin, Italy, and shipped them to Detroit where Cadillac installed the running gear. Executives likely figured the Italian connection would give the Allante more prestige.<\/p>\n

Cadillac charged $54,700<\/strong> (about $140,0000 in today’s money) for the Allante in 1987, the model\u2019s first model year on the market. That year, the 560 SL cost $55,300.<\/strong>The Cadillac didn\u2019t drive as well as the Mercedes because it had less power (170hp vs 238hp) and it was front-wheel drive. Early models also suffered from problems like a leaky convertible top<\/strong>. Annual sales only crossed the 4000-unit mark in 1993<\/strong>, the nameplate\u2019s last model year on the market.<\/p>\n

\n

Lotus: Elan (M100) (1989)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

Backed by General Motors, Lotus envisioned the M100-generation Elan as the car that would allow it to increase its presence in the United States. The roadster needed a sizable dose of\u00a0mass-market appeal<\/strong>, which none of the company\u2019s other models had, so engineers decided to make it\u00a0front-wheel drive<\/strong>. It was the first, last and only front-wheel drive model in the company\u2019s history.<\/p>\n

Lotus enthusiasts gave the Elan a lukewarm reception. Some didn\u2019t like the wedge-shaped styling while others were put off by the switch to front-wheel drive. The cheaper, rear-wheel drive\u00a0Mazda MX-5 Miata<\/strong>\u00a0put a spoke in the Elan\u2019s wheel and sales remained upsettingly low, especially considering the substantial amount of money Lotus put into designing it. About\u00a0559 examples<\/strong>\u00a0of the 3855 series-one Elans manufactured from 1989 to 1992 made it to America. The series-two model made in 1994 and 1995 was sold only in the UK.<\/p>\n

In an unexpected twist of fate, Lotus sold the rights to the Elan to Kia which made about 1000 units of the roadster. From an image standpoint, it worked better as a Kia than as a Lotus.<\/p>\n

\n

Porsche: 911 (996) (1997)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

Porsche made significant changes to the 996-generation <\/strong>911 introduced in 1997 and most of them were not welcomed by enthusiasts. It looked different than its predecessors because it borrowed styling cues like L-shaped headlights from the smaller Boxster<\/strong>. It also sounded different due to a flat-six engine cooled by water rather than air. Problems with the IMS bearing cemented its reputation as the\u00a0infeerior 911.<\/p>\n

Emissions- and noise-related regulations forced Porsche to stay committed to water-cooling but the company gave the 997-generation <\/strong>911 a design better aligned with tradition. Every 911 released since has been a careful evolution of its predecessor, not a revolution.<\/p>\n

\n

Fiat: Multipla (1998)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

The original Fiat 600 Multipla released in 1956 <\/strong>divided the public\u2019s opinion with its unconventional, function-over-form design. The born-again Multipla from 1998 <\/strong>was a lot less divisive; nearly everyone agreed it was nauseating to look at. Those who judged it by its ungainly sheet metal missed out on a cleverly-packaged interior with six real seats <\/strong>and a minivan-like amount of space. Stylists were clearly onto something when they\u00a0started the development process but they pushed the design envelope too far.<\/p>\n

Fiat gave the Multipla a thorough face-lift in 2004 and kept building it until 2010<\/strong>. It even influenced a competitor, the Honda FR-V<\/strong>, but it remained hugely controversial until the end of its production run.<\/p>\n

\n

Pontiac: Aztek (2000)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

Our look at black sheep cars wouldn\u2019t be complete without mentioning the Pontiac Aztek. It was previewed by a concept car in 1999 and, by most accounts, it should have remained as one. Think of it as Pontiac’s Multipla. It was a surprisingly versatile car but buyers couldn\u2019t look past its gruesome front end and its off-beat proportions. It retired without a direct successor in 2005 <\/strong>and Pontiac shut down in 2010<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

If being misproportioned wasn\u2019t bad enough, the Aztek suffered from an identity problem within the Pontiac line-up. It was made in an era during which the firm was trying to renew its image. It bridged the gap between the 1990s, when the automaker’s line-up\u00a0was as interesting as a toilet seat, and the 2000s, when it briefly tried to embrace all-out performance in a last-ditch effort to stay afloat. Buyers hadn\u2019t caught crossover fever yet so no one knew what to make of Pontiac\u2019s hatchback-SUV mash-up.<\/p>\n

\n

Renault: Avantime (2001)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

Renault made the Avantime to explore what a two-door, upmarket variant of the Espace <\/strong>could look like. In hindsight, it was the answer to the question no one asked. From its leviathan-like proportions to its double-hinged doors, the Avantime was generally regarded as an example of what not to do when designing a car, not as a trend-setter like Renault envisioned.<\/p>\n

The Avantime went on sale at about the same time as the four-door\u00a0Vel Satis<\/strong> which confused potential buyers; which one was Renault\u2019s true flagship? Sales were low and production ended after Matra <\/strong>\u2013 the firm who built it on behalf of Renault \u2013 closed its car-making division in 2003. Renault sold 8557 examples<\/strong> of the Avantime during a 22-month production run.<\/p>\n

\n

Jaguar: X-Type (2001)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

Jaguar developed the X-Type while part of Ford\u2019s Premier Automotive Group<\/strong>. Executives pictured a luxurious entry-level model aimed at the BMW 3 Series<\/strong>\u00a0– the segment’s gold standard at the time – and the Mercedes-Benz C-Class but they made the mistake of starting with an evolution of the front-wheel drive platform found under the Ford Mondeo<\/strong>. To make matters worse, they tried hiding the X-Type\u2019s humble origins by launching it with a V6, four-wheel drive and no diesel engines in an era where volume came from four-cylinder engines, diesel engines (in Europe), and rear-wheel drive.<\/p>\n

The X-Type was innovative – it was one of the first cars fitted with a touchscreen – but Jaguar ultimately released the wrong product, on the wrong architecture, at the wrong time. Its disappointing sales in Europe and in America reflected that.<\/p>\n

\n

Lincoln: Blackwood (2001)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

The Navigator <\/strong>SUV sold exceptionally well so Lincoln wanted to repeat its success in the pickup truck segment. The firm also needed to fend off competition from rival Cadillac, whose Chevrolet Avalanche-based Escalade EXT<\/strong> had caught everyone by surprise when it broke cover in 2001<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Starting with a four-door Ford F-150, Lincoln added a Navigator-esque front end and installed a much nicer interior. So far, so good. Unfortunately, the Blackwood was only available with rear-wheel drive and it was useless as a truck because its carpet-lined cargo box was topped by a plastic tonneau cover. It could carry golf clubs, groceries but not much else.<\/p>\n

In America, the Lincoln Blackwood was offered only during the 2002 model year<\/strong>. The Mexican market got it for the 2003 model year, too. Its failure didn\u2019t discourage Lincoln, though. The company released another F-150-based pickup truck named Mark LT<\/strong> in 2005 which managed to briefly outsell the Escalade EXT before falling flat on its face. Lincoln left America\u2019s pickup segment in 2008.<\/p>\n

\n

Aston Martin: Cygnet (2011)<\/h2>\n

\"\n<\/p>\n

In 2011, Aston Martin\u2019s line-up stretched from the limited-edition,\u00a0750hp\u00a0<\/strong>One-77 to an oddball city car named Cygnet. It was very evidently based on the\u00a0Toyota iQ<\/strong>\u00a0(sold as a Scion in America). Aston Martin admitted it re-badged Toyota\u2019s smallest car to comply with fleet-wide\u00a0CO2 regulations<\/strong>\u00a0imposed by the European Union. While it received a more upmarket interior than the iQ could ever hope to offer, it kept Toyota\u2019s\u00a098hp\u00a0<\/strong>1.3-litre four-cylinder engine.<\/p>\n

Ulrich Bez (pictured) was the boss of Aston Martin at the time and the company hoped to sell\u00a04000 units\u00a0<\/strong>of the Cygnet annually. Production ended in 2013 after the company produced\u00a0less than 1000 examples<\/strong>. It has steered well clear of the city car class since the Cygnet\u2019s demise.<\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":72228,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"Default","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,137],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-72227","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-featured","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72227","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=72227"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72227\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":72229,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72227\/revisions\/72229"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/72228"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}