10 Cars That [really,really] Damaged GM's Reputation (With Video)

GM's current precarious situation didn't come about overnight. There are arguments to be made that various government regulations led to the disaster and that management can't escape much of the blame, and there are plenty who contend it was a series of disastrous union labor contracts that have put the company at risk. But there's one thing everyone agrees on: Over the past few decades GM put some truly terrible products out on the market. Unreliable, uninteresting and flat ugly, these were cars that simply destroyed GM's reputation....

Legend has it that when Chevrolet Division Manager John DeLorean went to the GM Proving Grounds to get his first look at a prototype of the new 1971 Chevrolet Vega, the front of the car literally fell off onto the ground. But that bad omen didn't keep DeLorean from putting the Vega on the market.

Responding to increased import sales, the Vega showed up at the same time as Ford's similarly ill-fated Pinto. Both were relatively conventional cars by Detroit standards, with their four-cylinder engines in front sending power back to a solid rear axle. In fact, the only innovative thing on the Vega was the all-aluminum block around which its 2.3-liter four-cylinder engine was constructed.

Unfortunately, the art of building aluminum engine blocks was in its infancy back in 1971 and the unlined cylinder walls of Vega engines were scoring almost instantly. That led to lots of oil burned and early death for this engine. Throw in haphazard build quality and sheetmetal that you could practically hear rusting away, and the Vega truly rates as one of GM's great debacles.

But the Vega was actually a sales success. Chevy sold nearly 268,000 during the 1971 model year, over 390,000 during 1972, almost 396,000 during 1973, and over 450,000 during 1974 (sales finally collapsed during the 1975 model year). After all, its mini-Camaro looks were handsome and in an era of fuel shortages it was pretty stingy on gas. Plus, back then there were millions of buyers who insisted on buying only American products. But ultimately that meant there were just that many more people disappointed by the Vega. By the mid-1980s, Vegas were being junked so aggressively that some salvage yards in Southern California had signs up saying they wouldn't accept any more. When even the junkyard won't take a car, that's trouble

It's hard to imagine the hoopla that surrounded the introduction of the all-new 1980 Buick Skylark, Chevrolet Citation, Oldsmobile Omega and Pontiac Phoenix in April of 1979. These four awkwardly proportioned "X-Body" front-drivers directly replaced GM's rear-drive compacts (of which the Chevy Nova was the most prominent) and promised a revolution in how the corporation designed and built cars. Chevy alone sold an incredible 811,540 Citations during that prolonged 1980 model year based on that promise. Unfortunately, the reality was that these four- and six-cylinder cars probably suffered more recalls and endemic problems than any other GM vehicle program.

The problem wasn't so much the basic engineering of the X-Body cars as it was that no one apparently spent any time doing the detailed engineering that determines a car's success. So customers complained of disintegrating transmissions, suspension systems that seemed to wobble on their own mounts, and brakes that would make the whole car shudder every time they were applied. There were so many niggling faults and a seemingly endless series of recalls that sales of the car almost tanked by its third year. Still, through 1985, a few million escaped to the public, souring hundreds of thousands on GM.

The Chevrolet Chevette was already outdated when it appeared in 1976. Based on GM's "T" platform, it was a primitive, front-engine, rear-drive subcompact in a small-car world that was busy being revolutionized by front-drive cars such as the Honda Civic and Accord, Volkswagen Rabbit and Ford Fiesta. It was underpowered too, originally being offered with a 1.4-liter Four making 53 hp or a 1.6-liter version of the same engine rated at 70 hp.

Chevrolet saved itself a lot of development time and money by picking up the Chevette design from GM Brazil. The Georgia-built small car was a solid sales success too, selling almost 450,000 units in 1980 alone. But it was always a car that sold strictly on price, with no real virtues of its own. And it was a huge help to Chevrolet in sneaking in under the federally mandated CAFE standards. But it also meant that for 11 years GM didn't bother developing an advanced small car specifically for the American market.

In fact, when it finally came time to replace the Chevette in 1987, what Chevrolet did was create the "Geo" sub-brand and put redecorated Isuzus and Suzukis onto the Chevette's bottom rung on the model ladder. In truth, Chevrolet has never had a homegrown vehicle in this subcompact segment since the Chevette died, and that could be one of the company's greatest missteps of all.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of a smaller, more athletic Cadillac. But it was a terrible idea to rebadge the Chevrolet Cavalier and attempt to pawn it off as a true Cadillac.

The compact J-Car program was already well under development at GM by the time Cadillac decided it wanted a version of its own. With little time on its hands and no desire to spend much money, what they came up with was a Cavalier with a different grille, a slightly modified interior and some hydraulic dampers between the body and front subframe. Otherwise, the 1982 Cimarron was powered by the same 1.8-liter four-cylinder engine as the Cavalier, backed by either a four-speed manual or three-speed automatic transmission.

Cadillac tried to sell the Cimarron as a domestic alternative to cars like the BMW 3 Series—that was just pathetic. Not surprisingly, practically no one fell for it and the Cimarron never sold well. But to many people, this proved that GM at the time had little regard for the storied and significant Cadillac brand.

Saturn was GM's attempt at a do-over. Starting with a fresh plant in Spring Hill, Tenn., and a fresh labor agreement in that location with the UAW, the idea was that GM would create a fresh dealer network that would sell fresh new products in a refreshingly straightforward manner. It didn't quite work out that way.

Actually GM did a rather good job of setting up the plant, dealers and "no haggle" sales schemes - Saturn buyers really did seem to enjoy shopping at and buying from Saturn dealers.

But Saturn's cars were thoroughly mediocre. Built around a steel space-frame with plastic body panels bolted on, there were gaps between the panels big enough to stick a hand through. Yes, the plastic panels were resistant to collision damage, but they discolored and faded quickly, and as they aged, they cracked. Beyond that, the first Saturns had four-cylinder engines that sounded like threshing machines but didn't make a lot of power. These cars were nothing special in either handling or looks, and they were neither particularly space- nor fuel-efficient. At least they weren't unreliable. But Saturn's cars were simply no match for competition from Honda, Toyota, Mazda and a half-dozen others.

So GM, which got so much right when launching Saturn in 1990, blew the opportunity to build a new, loyal customer base by not getting the product right.

When Pontiac introduced the Aztek crossover vehicle for 2001, it was actually getting a jump on a new market. Unfortunately, however, the Aztek was just about the ugliest thing anyone could remember being unleashed on America's roads since the 1958 Edsel. No, that's not fair — the Edsel was way better looking than the Aztek.

Pontiac had shown the Aztek in concept form back in 1999 and, generally speaking, the reviews were excellent. But while engineering the concept vehicle as a production machine, GM took an incredible wrong turn: the corporation decided to base the new Aztek on the existing platform of its front-drive minivans. And because the minivans had certain dimensions that would be expensive to change, the Aztek wound up with some of the most awkward dimensions imaginable. For instance, the minivans' tall firewall and resulting high cowl worked fine on those plain boxes, but left the Aztek appearing tall, narrow and oddly fragile.

Compounding the mistake of was the Aztek's horrid shape, and the whole thing was covered in awful, gray plastic cladding. Hideous.

In its defense, the Aztek was roomy and versatile and had solid, easygoing road manners. But that was nowhere near enough to compete with the Japanese crossovers.

From the late 1970s and into the early '80s, Oldsmobile sold the most popular car in America: the Cutlass. Olds was on a sales roll; it seemed nothing would be able to stop the division. Then came the Oldsmobile diesels, and stopping is exactly what they did best.

Instead of designing a new series of diesel engines from scratch, GM decided to base its new diesel V8 architecture on the existing gasoline Oldsmobile 5.7-liter V8's. Of course the modifications were extensive in order to handle the 22.5:1 compression ratio of diesel operation—much stouter iron block, new cylinder heads, reinforced bottom end—but it was still a series of modifications rather than a clean-sheet design. Soon after the 5.7-liter diesel V8 debuted in Oldsmobile full-size 88 and 98 models (during 1978), the engines started tearing themselves apart.

That extreme fragility was despite the fact that the 5.7-liter diesel option cost between $800 and $1000 extra per car and only made a puny 120 hp and a stingy 220 lb-ft of peak torque at 1600 rpm. In short, these engines were awful. But the 4.3-liter version of the diesel V8 was even worse—rated at only 90 hp, it was somehow even more fragile.

The diesel V8s (and a short-lived diesel V6) were eventually offered throughout most of the Oldsmobile line and spread to the other vehicle divisions as well. And when the engines inevitably blew up, the cars they were in would either head to an early death in a junkyard or have a more reasonable powerplant swapped in.

There was nothing wrong with the theory behind GM's attempt to turn Cadillac's throttle-body injected 6.0-liter V-8 into an economy engine during the 1981 model year. The technology was called "Modulated Displacement" back then, and the idea was that as engine load decreased, fewer cylinders in the engine would actually be fired to produce power. In other words, at full throttle, the "V-8-6-4" was a V8, as it reached speed it became a V6 and when cruising it was a V4. That was the theory; in reality, most of the time these engines were just broken. Conceptually it's almost identical to what GM is selling today as Active Fuel Management on some V8s.

The old Modulated Displacement system worked by altering the rocker-arm fulcrum so that intake and exhaust valves on particular cylinders were held shut by their springs. Unfortunately the solenoids and primitive electronics that were supposed to make this work rarely worked themselves. And even when the V-8-6-4 was running on all eight cylinders it was only making a laughable 140 hp.

Even though GM abandoned the V-8-6-4 in everything except limousines after just one year, the damage was done. Here was one more half-developed, cynically marketed technology that GM just couldn't make work.

Going strictly on functionality, the Hummer H2 is a capable machine. It's very good off-road, it rides reasonably well on-road, it's plenty powerful enough, can tow a lot, and will hold a few people and a lot of their stuff. And since it's based on the same platform as GM's full-size SUVs, the corporation makes a lot of profit on every one it sells. Function, however, isn't the H2's problem.

The problem with the H2 is that it's proudly politically incorrect in an era when the forces of political correctness are winning. The H2 gets crummy fuel mileage, its looks come straight out of the military at a time while the military is fighting an unpopular war, and it's freaking huge. Some people may actually like peeving off their neighbors by being rebellious in their vehicle choice, but an antisocial image is tougher for a large corporation to pull off.

GM was introducing the H2 (and establishing Hummer dealerships) at just about the same time that Toyota was taking the green-tech high ground with vehicles like the Prius and other hybrids. The H2 came to embody GM's presumed environmental callousness and the environmentalist fringe was vandalizing both Hummer dealerships and random civilian-owned vehicles. But worst of all for GM, when gas crested past $3 a gallon, the H2's sales cratered and they haven't recovered.

Even today, the two-seat GM EV1 remains one of the best-engineered, best-working pure electric vehicles ever released to the public. With clever engineering throughout its aluminum structure, an incredibly aerodynamic body and a whole bunch of lead-acid batteries, the first-generation EV1 was able to go maybe 75 miles if driven with extreme care. The second-generation EV1 with nickel-metal-hydride batteries upped that range to about 150 miles.

The problem with the EV1 was that it was almost impossible to drive in traffic with anything approaching the ideal technique the car needed to stretch its range. So its real world range was often down around 40 miles and driving it was often a white-knuckle thrill ride as the driver tried to stretch out every last electron to make it to a charging station.

GM built the EV1 to satisfy a mandate from the state of California that 2 percent of a manufacturer's fleet sold there be zero-emissions vehicles (that number would rise to 10 percent by 2003). However, the EV1 and electric vehicles built by other manufacturers finally convinced the California Air Resources Board that the zero-emissions mandates weren't achievable by then-current technology. This led to the cancellation of the mandate.

So GM canceled the EV1, and when the leases on the 1117 it had produced ran out,GM took them back and crushed them. To the committed environmentalists who had leased one, that was completely unacceptable. And suddenly the world was full of conspiracy theories about why GM "killed" the electric car (see the movie clip below). If the Hummer H2 makes GM seem callous toward the environment, the way GM handled the EV1 makes the company seem downright hostile. It's been a public relations nightmare.

However, the experience GM gained by producing the EV1 may pay off in the long run as many lessons learned with that car are being ported over to the new 2011 Chevrolet Volt.

“Toyota and Honda both came out with some very poor milage monster trucks and SUVs at this same time also...”

Nothing drank gas like an H2 or even an H3. I used to rent them when going up into the mountains in the winter when skiing and those things only got about 8 mpg. Very dependable though and one got me safely back down off a mountain in very rough blizzard conditions and snow a couple feet deep, so I was glad to be driving it. In comparison, the Japanese branded SUVs got around 18 mpg although they couldn’t haul as much, and I wouldn’t depend on them off road as much as a Hummer product.

have you driven the new Malibu?

if not, you should...it’s very nice compared to the previous model. they’ve really done well by that car, and they can’t keep em on the lots! (even today with the huge drop in sales)

Well value holding means nothing to me, I drive cars until they literally die... so doesn’t matter which brand it is, by the time I’m done with it it has no value to speak of.

ONly time value comes into the equation is if you trade every 5 years or so (or less).

In general I agree but the H2 has one big problem for me. The visibility stinks. The small windows are a turn off for me. I will stick to Tahoes but not from 2006 on. The plastic bumpers do not stand up here in the outback.

You are exactly right. I have said on other threads, GM and Ford would do well if their vehicles would outlast the average finance contract. When you see Nissan, Toyotas and Hondas out there with near 200,000 miles, it’s hard not to notice. Not that there aren’t the occassional GM and Ford with that mileage, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near the same number.

GM has offered such vehicles for what I need and I do not apologize to anyone for buying them and using them.

Same here! My daily driver is a '97 Grand Am and my toy car is a '97 Z28.

No real problems with either car for about 3 years now...well, except for the ones that were by my own doing!(with the Z)

I’ve had eight GM pickups or SUVs over my lifetime. As hunting/fishing/camping vehicles and family haulers, they can’t be beat IMO.

Wish I still had that 1966 Camper Special with the Corvette engine!

We had a Citation in 1981. The radio never worked, the welds on the hood all broke loose, sometimes the brakes wold lock up and you would spin out on wet pavement and the dash shattered in cold weather. We also had a late 70’s pickup truck that the body literally rusted away leaving the frame and drive train.

Swore off GM products and became hardcore Ford customers until the late 90’s then switched to Toyota and Honda becuuse resale value of domestic cars were dismal

I took a 2 year old Ford with 40,000 miles in to trade and the trade in value was 30% new price. I told the dealer that if the next Ford car I bought was going to loose 70% value in 2 years they can keep it, I am buying Toyota from now on. I walked out and haven’t been back in a Ford dealership since, that was 10 years ago.

In fact, the first time I saw one, I threw up in my mouth a little.

It wasn't until the tenth or so that I was able to suppress the gag reflex.

I own and buy, and will buy nothing but GM cars and trucks.

I've had Toyota's, Nissan's, Fords, Audi's and I still prefer GM's.....

That's the story......No reason to change it.

“I’ve owned many Fords in my day and never had a one of em die on me, I’ve owned Toyotas, Mazdas, VW’s, Chryslers as well... My fords cars had their idiosyncracies but they were reliable, ford full size vehicles I have owned are beyond compare, nothing else out there comes close. If ford could get the reliability and build quality of their full size divisions into their passenger cars they’d have no issues, as long as they let their Euro division style them... Man have they missed the boat on styling for a long long time”

If I’m not mistaken, Ford uses Mazda engines. If only they could get the Transmission issues worked out.

Yall can say what you want.... but my 03 Chevy S10 is the best vehicle I have ever owned. Aside from tires and batteries, after 110k miles the starter is the only part that has been replaced. Still quiet and solid.
I truly don’t believe that I would trade it for a brand new truck.

have you driven the new Malibu? if not, you should...

No. At least it looks like you might be able to see out the back window now. I try to get foreign cars whenever I rent. (Last US/GM car experience was on a group outing with a couple of guys in October. We left our motel at 10AM in bright daylight to drive to the track. After a full day at the races we got back to the car and the battery was deader than a doornail. Just another delightful US car experience! I think I'll pass on the new Malibu as long as I am able.)

ML/NJ

Trucks have always been the saving grace of GM. Unfortunately, they crank out alot of crap cars.

The trucks prove that GM can build a good vehicle. But it also highlights the questiong "Why don't they?"

The only GM car I've had was a 1996 Saturn. It was a decent car, but just not quite as good as the other cars I've owned. After I had it for five years I'd have to drop it off the the mechanic every few months to pay him a few hundred dollars. Nothing major, but I just got tired of things like a bad brakes, blocked sunroof drain, bad brakes, a leaking radiator, bad brakes, bad alternator, did I mention the brakes?, burning oil, failed clutch master cylinder, bad ignition switch. My previous Mazda needed a thermostat replaced, a snapped exhaust bolt, and had a twitchy radio that was too expensive to replace, but other than that it was just regular maintenance.

Bought a new ‘05 Malibu hatchback. Splurged and got the SuperSport addition for less than 30K just before oil prices went up. It’s not the prettiest car but it is fun to drive. It has awesome handling and powerful acceleration.

At some point I would like to try putting either a turbocharger or nitrous system into it.

My only complaint with the car is that at 130 mph it’s got some serious vibration. :)

The people I know who own Hummers love them. And they love them because they are SO politically uncorrect. The Hummer has a great underground following.
It is an excellent car off-road and has great towing.

.....I've had my H2 since it came out in 03.....

.....one of the best trucks I ever owned.....
.....(and I've had every thing from Chevy 2500's to Land Cruiser's).....

.....it's been great and now that it's getting long in the tooth, I'm torn on what to replace it with.....

.....I can guarantee you that it will not be.....

.....a politically correct weeny-mobile.....

hey if you like GM then buy GM. Its your money and its a free country.

I want to like GM but have had very bad luck with them. I also strongly dislike supporting the union which pushes socialism in America.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

10 Cars That Damaged GM's Reputation (With Video)