Jump to content
Create New...

What are some crappy old GM cars?


Recommended Posts

I'm doing an essay on How GM went from being the biggest and teh best to turning out crap to now working to improve their image...Which cars were complete piles of crap following the oil Crisis? I'd appreciate the help...thanks!

Also, what year was GM's highest market share and what percent was it?

Edited by Dodgefan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cadillac engine that switched from a V8 to a V6 to a V4

The diesel 350 Oldsmobile V8

The great downsizing of 1985-1986 of all the fullsized cars and luxury coupes

The Chevy and Oldsmobile 350 debacle

The look alike GM cars from that same era in the 1980's

The X Bodies

The issues really started in the early 1980's

The whole stripping each division way of its independence and merging them in car groups( CPC and BOC)

The bad leaders Roger Smith, Robert Stempel and Ronald Zarella

The whole marketing effort to market cars like toothpaste and consumer products( 1990's)

The botched launch of the new Oldsmobile

The killing of Oldsmobile

The fact they let models languish for too long with out changes( 1992 Eldorado and the Saturn line up)

The whole Saturn start in the 1980's

GM stopped listening to the customer in the 1980's. They lost touch with what buyers want

The duplicates of models across car lines

The mess that has been made of the images of many GM cars( trying to fix that now)

Pontiac Aztek

The quality that suffered and lost them buyers.

the GM minivans( front wheel drive)

Bad cars:

Chevrolet Vega

Edited by NINETY EIGHT REGENCY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not always the car as a whole that was a pile, sometimes it was just the engine. The 8-6-4 is the most notorious example even though it was one year only. Most of the crappy engines were from attempts to squeeze better fuel economy out of really large cars. One of the engines I loath the most is Cadillac's 4100 series V8. This engine was used on most Cadillac models beginning in 1982 after the failure of the 8-6-4. It had 125hp at 4200 rpm and 190ft/lb of torque at 2,000rpm. Put this in a 4,000lb. Cadillac and calling the performance "underwhelming" would be polite. The engine had to work so hard to move the car that there were no net gains in fuel economy unless all driving was done at a 60mph cruise. The intake manifold gaskets gave out fairly early in the engine's life and GM's initial response was to put "Stop Leak" into the cooling system. If there was a coolant loss and the engine overheated it was basically a goner as parts of the aluminum block would warp enough to ruin the engine. They never did get the issues of this engine fixed and it was replaced by a redesigned version that was 4.5 litres.

The 4100 is basically a deal breaker for me in my search for an old E-body or Seville. Since my target year is 1985, I would actually even take a car with an Olds 350 diesel over a 4100 because by 1985 they had the issues with the diesel worked out. The 4100 really ruins an otherwise good car.

Edited by Oldsmoboi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the history of the W-body is a great example. The pre-1988 models had been known for good quality and high sales. The 1988 thru (in some cases) 2001 models had lackluster sales and had nothing but issues. Starting in 1997 with the Buick Century they turned that model lineup around.

Case in point;

1985 Monte Carlo = Collectors item, chassis had great sales numbers, loved by many, hated by few

1990 Lumina = Brake issues, electrical issues, etc., not able to give them away

2007 Impala = In top 10 for sales and in top 3 for quality rankings and built at #1 plant in North America (or #2 depending on year)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pontiac Le Mans anyone? I'm taking the imported one from the late 80's. Chevy Sprint, Toyota Nova, original Geo's...all of these and many more are real low spots in GM's history if you ask me.

Edited by Delta Force79
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pontiac Le Mans anyone? I'm taking the imported one from the late 80's. Chevy Sprint, Toyota Nova, original Geo's...all of these and many more are real low spots in GM's history if you ask me.

I agree with the first part, but the Geos weren't so much bad cars as they were really poorly marketed. They should have gone to the different divisions...

The Prisms ended up being pretty good cars.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*raises hand*

OhOhOHH!!!!!

I've owned a few of the nasty ones myself! LOL

I've got to give credit where credit is due....

*Chevy Citation and it's other GM bretheren were bland terrible little cars that never had the success of even the bland K car rivals.

*ANY Chevy minivan. Terrible to drive compared to the other minivans... The Astrovans were NOT a nice vehicle to drive.

Dustbuster Pontiac Vans had an added styling repulsion too.

*Pontiac Fiero (sorry Viper). It came out to alot of expectations and floundered terribly. By the time changes were made to make it liveable it was cancelled, GM cut their losses and ran.

*Geos were less than stellar mechanically.

*Vegas/Astres had engine problems etc, but they WERE also entry level cars, the fit and finish of a cheap 70's car shouldn't have high expectations IMO.

*Cadillac's 4-6-8 deserves an honorable mention.

*Toyota / Nova was a low point that should never have happened IMO.

*Pontiac Aztec. From a styling standpoint it's a shining example of how to NOT sell a vehicle. If the looks were anywhere near acceptable the Aztec might have had a chance. The looks were disasterous.

*First generation Avalanche. Body cladding made it look terrible. Take a look at the NEW Avalanche in comparison, it's an absolute beauty beside the original. Good case for "improvement" IMO....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Chevy Citation and it's other GM bretheren were bland terrible little cars that never had the success of even the bland K car rivals.

*ANY Chevy minivan. Terrible to drive compared to the other minivans... The Astrovans were NOT a nice vehicle to drive.

Dustbuster Pontiac Vans had an added styling repulsion too.

If we're talking the U-Vans, then yeah, I agree. However, the Astro's and Safari's (as well as Savanna's) aren't that bad. In fact, they're quite good, and are superb when compared to an Econoline. At least when I drove an Astro, I didn't feel like I was going to die.

However, the Sprinter is my favorite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say one thing about the U-vans. The ones with the 3800 are fast...

The Astro vans weren't the epitome of comfort of build quality, but the 4.3 in those things was a torque monster. Slap some bigger tires on an AWD Astro/Safari and you can have more fun than should be legal.

:yes:

Not only that-those van run forever-I can't tell you the number of vans I've seen with well over 200k on them....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

um do you guys not remember the number of X bodies and Sprints GM sold?

I loved my X body and my sprint. I say the Caviler/sunfire/sunbird and W/G bodies were pretty bad. the U bodies. caddies line up from almost 94-2003. buicks line up from 88-2006.

pontiacs line up from 2002-2006.

a mistake was the death of the B body should of just refreshed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The First U-Bodies were the best ones they made. We had a 3800 Trans Sport and it was one PEPPY SLED. It was also light and aerodynamic because of the composite body panels and dustbuster snout... contributing to a real world fuel economy return of ~25-27MPG City and 40-43MPG Highway... Ours went 175K before we sold it in 1999 (saw it still running on the expressway as lately as last year, recognized it by a scuff on the rear bumper... very emotional... like seeing an old friend) but I see many these days with over 300K... no joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The First U-Bodies were the best ones they made. We had a 3800 Trans Sport and it was one PEPPY SLED. It was also light and aerodynamic because of the composite body panels and dustbuster snout... contributing to a real world fuel economy return of ~25-27MPG City and 40-43MPG Highway... Ours went 175K before we sold it in 1999 (saw it still running on the expressway as lately as last year, recognized it by a scuff on the rear bumper... very emotional... like seeing an old friend) but I see many these days with over 300K... no joke.

We had a 95 Lumina. I have no idea why my parents thought they needed a minivan, but they bought it. They realized their mistake shortly and traded it on a new Suburban in 96. It was a good van though and like you said they run forever, but it was still a minivan. There is actually a professor on campus who owns our old van. I recognized it by one of the pieces of side glass. When we had it I hit a baseball through the side glass. When it got replaced the tint didn't match up quite right. The same dealer stickers are on it still as well. Even though we didn't have it long, we made a lot of memories in that van.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:yes:

Not only that-those van run forever-I can't tell you the number of vans I've seen with well over 200k on them....

My Safari is 11 years old and runs like a new vehicle. My mechanics Astro van has 350,000 Plus on it without having drivetrain problems or a rebuild.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I agree early W bodies were pieces of sh*t for th emost part, they were quite stylish and modern at the time. They just werent built to hold up over time, especially the interiors which are horrible. My grandmother's 91 Lumina's dash has peeled up around the defroster vents and sticks up like a wind guard. The interior materials is insulting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK.

Which "real world" was THAT??!?!

LOL

And- I cannot believe I overlooked the Quad4s!

:duh:

Yours and mine... I've done the math!

http://carsurvey.org/review_57326.html

^^

I'm not the only one either. I think it was an anomaly/fluke of some sort though.

We put Bosch plugs and a K&N filter too.

Edited by vonVeezelsnider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My folks' 86 Gutless Ciera with the 2.5L Iron Duke was a piece of $h! car that aged very poorly.

My friends with 3.4L Grand Ams and Aleros have had lots of stupid issues and the engine sounds like $h! when cold for a car sold this century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been battling my mother's $h!ty old '89 Beretta GT for YEARS. It's toast--it's go so many problems wrong with it, that it's obviously never going to run again. in mint condition, they only blue-book for $500, and in her car's condition (Looks as if it's being held together with bubblegum and scotch tape), it's absolutley WORTHLESS.

Yet, she stubbornly refuses to get rid of it, and she wants me to fix the damn thing.

Sorry Ma. Not. Possible.

so yeah, you got my vote down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vega, Monza, Celebrity.... ALL (FWD transverse-mounted-motor) 86-up Cadillacs prior to the Northstar powered ones.

I've had good experiences with Citations and Chevettes... truth be told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My family owned 2 1987 Cutlass Ciera's, both bought brand new,one white, one black. Both were 2.8 liter V6 models, the white one ended up stolen I believe. The black one lasted over 10 years, and survived 4 rather big accidents. The motor never gave us a problem and the tranny always shifted smoothly. My father finally got rid of it because he decided to buy a Jeep instead. But I have no complaints about Ciera's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-Jett:

I've known two people with Berettas (both 2.8 liter V6 powered/5-speed) who got OVER 250K miles out of them.

The second one was at 288,000 miles when some jerk bought it off her and blew the motor in like a week

"racin' it against a Mustang" but if he had been less of a looser he would have gotten many more years out

of it I'm sure. This is the same kid who blew up a Grand National BTW...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings