Conceptually speaking...

June 29, 2007 - By John LeBlanc

OTTAWA - During my previous life in the advertising racket, the presentation of creative concepts was always a very defined process.

Vernacularly known as “the dog and pony show,” presenting in the abstract was done because the client’s expertise was usually in something like software engineering. (In other words, not marketing.) Getting too specific with fonts or actual photography would only distraction the client from the big idea we were selling.

Having now hung out on the auto show circuit for a few years, I realize the word "concept" isn’t as well defined in the auto industry. Some concept cars are artistic flights of fancy, never to be seen again. The other end of the scale are merely preproduction prototypes, put on display for purely commercial reasons.

For instance, at the Detroit auto show in January, Honda unveiled their Accord Coupe "concept."

In fact, there was nothing really "conceptual" about Honda’s new show car.

Bar some exaggerated fenders and obligatory oversized wheels, the vehicle on display was really a prototype of the 2008 Accord two-door coming this fall. In fact, the lack of abstraction was painfully obvious.

Of course, Honda’s not the only culprit here.

Among others, one could call out Lincoln’s MKR concept—it also debuted at Detroit—as more of a "styling exercise" than a true concept.

Ford’s head pen, Peter Horbury, freely admitted the MKR’s reason for existence was to test the waters of a new look to be used on all new Lincolns going forward. Like the Jaguar CX-F (which also was presented as a concept, but really isn’t), the MKR is likely headed for production.

Not leaving much to the imagination then, eh?

So, then, if automotive marketing folks use the label too loosely, how does one know if one’s looking at a true concept car or just a production model that’s been pimped over?

A true concept should make you think unconventional thoughts. It should be fresh, immature in its development, with zero chance of being offered for sale anytime soon. Dodge’s 2003 Tomahawk, which was a Viper V-10 based motorcycle with four (yeah, four!) wheels, is a good example.

Want something more recent? How about Ford’s Airstream, developed in conjunction with the iconic camper maker.

With its two-piece, gullwing side door with drop down step (wow!), an interior inspired by Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (golly gee!) plus a fuel cell drivetrain that operates under electric power at all times (awesome!), the Airstream certainly earns its concept grade.

As a true concept, the Airstream hypothesizes. Its notions are pie-in-the-sky. Not simply next year’s production model with a body kit and bigger wheels. Unless the current Ford CEO, Allan Mullaly, starts dropping acid during product development signoffs, the Airstream won’t be sold alongside the Fusion and Edge anytime shortly.

As you can imagine, the liberal bending of the term concept doesn’t stop when the auto shows pack up and leave town.

Rivalling the exaggerated car ad illustrations of the 1950s and ‘60s, today, many automakers release outlandish concept sketches, even after the production model has been unveiled.

Finally, what about the concept car “ride and drives” programs automakers put on?

“Road tests” of these cobbled-together vehicles are nothing more than public relations events designed to garner coverage about a car that’s years from being sold. Any driving impressions are about as bona fide as Pamela Anderson’s mammaries.

In the end, all concepts are definitely not created equal. Keep this mind when you try and separate the “dogs” from the “ponies."

- John LeBlanc is an Ottawa-based automotive critic and publisher of straight-six.com.