# These Cars Deserve Better Names
The automotive industry has always struggled with nomenclature. Bad names stick to cars like rust, and some vehicles from decades past carried monikers so awkward or tone-deaf that they derailed otherwise competent machines.
Jalopnik's piece points to a real truth: naming conventions have shifted, but they haven't always improved. Cars with forgettable alphanumeric designations dominate today's market, yet they still beat some of the cringe-worthy choices manufacturers made historically. The Probe, the Gremlin, the Aztec. These names didn't help their causes.
Brand identity matters in automotive marketing. A compelling name anchors perception, builds recognition, and shapes buyer psychology. Today's luxury brands lean heavily on letter-number combinations (BMW's 3 Series, Mercedes-Benz's C-Class) because they convey precision and hierarchy. Mainstream manufacturers load up on aspirational terms: Escape, Explorer, Compass. These words promise adventure without overreaching.
The older generation of carmakers took bigger swings. Some hit. The Mustang became an icon. Others missed badly. The Chevrolet Vega, the Ford Pinto, the Chevy Citation—serviceable cars hamstrung by uninspired or actively harmful names.
What makes a car name work? It needs to resonate with the buyer's self-image, hint at capability or character, and age reasonably well. "Bronco" communicates ruggedness and toughness. "Civic" suggests practicality and approachability. Poor names either date instantly or feel disconnected from the product itself.
Today's manufacturers obsess over global markets, which explains why generic names proliferate. "CR-V," "RAV4," "CX-5" transcend language barriers. They lack