Annual Model Change?

Remember the annual model change? Detroit is being swamped by new stuff from the foreigners. Maybe it's time to bring it back. You may think I'm nuts, but hear me out.

This is an old complaint, but our press test day drove it home. The car makers put their new car models on a race track in Pennsylvania for journalists to drive. The foreign makes had lots of new stuff: the new Accords, the G35s, the Z, the new E, the Baja, the Passat W8. I could go on for paragraphs: the Element, the Mazda 6, the Z4.

What's from Detroit? Next to Zippo. GM had a Saturn and the CTS. Chrysler had a PT Turbo and Ford a Marauder and Focus SVT. Maybe I missed a few, but the point is this: In cars, Detroit is being terribly outgunned.

So I thought: Why not bring back the annual model change?

Don't laugh. Let's remember it. A new car, then a facelift in each of two years, then another new car. We're talking mainly looks here, but there were engine and transmission changes, too, but not so often.

How did they do that? Here I use General Motors as an example, but it could be Ford or Chrysler.

Well, remember, before 1960 General Motors had just two basic platforms so they were changing a Chevrolet car, one Pontiac, maybe Olds, one Buick and one Cadillac. The talent and money was spread among only five cars, so they could design differences between cars built on the same platform. The trucks changed about once every 10 to 15 years.

Today there are so many platforms and models that it would be impossible to change everything at once, even for a facelift. There are all those trucks and crossovers, too. To be fair, General Motors has lots of new stuff coming, from specialty models such as the Chevy SSR to volume models such as the Malibu.

So what do we do? Remember, the goal is more frequent body changes.

Fewer platforms. Absolutely. If GM can build a Silverado, Tahoe, Suburban and Hummer H2 from one platform, then three should be sufficient for the car fleet, excluding special jobs like the Corvette.

With fewer platforms they could afford more variations. Convertibles, station wagons. Subaru can do a Baja, and it isn't dripping money. So why can't Detroit? Where's the Malibu Baja or Taurus Baja? That still is too many models for an annual model change, but why not give one platform a serious reskinning every three years? That would mean a variety of new stuff each year.

So what are the arguments against it?

It's going to cost money, and there are all those safety and emission regulations.

First, it won't cost as much money as going out of business, or giving a $10,000 rebate to sell a car.

As to the tests, well, if all those other companies are doing it, why can't our team?

So I say bring back the annual model change. If the old style model change won't work, find a new way. If you don't like this idea, find a better one. This is the car business. If you don't like it, go into parking lots.

Jerry Flint is a columnist for and former senior editor of Forbes magazine