(first posted 2/21/2018) If one were to hold a competition for cars that get little respect, Chevette might win the grand prize. It was cheap, no-frills transportation that sold in the millions. It was sparsely equipped, nearly antiquated even when new, and slow. It broke no new ground, excelled at nothing other than low price, and was seemingly everywhere. And when the economic crisis that spawned it faded into memory, Chevettes became beater cars and were then scrapped. But beneath its utilitarian facade lies a fascinating corporate tale of panic, strategy, disappointment, success and obsolescence, all contained in one 2,000-lb. package.
For years it seemed as if Chevettes were everywhere. Now, though, they are almost gone, particularly early examples like this one – which makes this car a perfect lens through which to examine the Chevette’s meandering history.
Chevette’s origins lie with the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo – that immense geopolitical event that sent shockwaves through world economies and brought gasoline lines to Main Street. Between the fall of 1973 and the spring of 1974, global oil prices quadrupled, and suddenly Detroit’s bloated cars seemed archaic. Panicky customers clamored for efficient cars, import sales surged, and experts proclaimed the era of cheap oil was over.
For the auto industry, this demanded swift, strategic action, which was not a core competency of General Motors. In this case, however, the often-musclebound giant responded to the need for a small, inexpensive car with uncharacteristic alacrity. In December 1973 – at the gas crisis’s peak, and a month after President Nixon urged Americans to sacrifice unnecessary indulgences to conserve energy – GM fast-tracked a new “minicompact” for North America
Specifically, the Board of Directors instructed Chevrolet to produce a version of the T-car, a vehicle then under development on other continents (including the German Opel Kadett and the Brazilian Chevette). In choosing this route, GM prioritized timing. Its other option – to develop an all-new car for North America – would have put the new model in production by 1978. That was too far in the future. A modified T-car could be ready in a mere 19 months, half the development time of a typical new car.
The task to create a North American T-car variant fell to 31-year-old John Mowrey, the Chevette project’s chief engineer. He had quite a task ahead of him, which started with GM sending his team blueprints (and translators) for the German and Brazilian T-car plans. Mowrey, an excellent choice for the project, was rare among GM’s staff in that he was quite enthusiastic about small cars… and predicted that “in 20 years, big cars will be a social crime.”
Chevette was far from simply a badge-engineered Kadett. Most obviously was that while other T-cars came in multiple body styles, Chevette was developed only as a hatchback. Mowrey’s team, in fact, created all new body panels. They also used a modified engine, redesigned the underbody (for greater corrosion resistance), designed a new interior, and accommodated various US safety standards.
Over half a million T-cars had been made worldwide by the time North America’s Chevette debuted. They included: Opel Kadett (Germany); Holden Gemini (Australia); Chevrolet Chevette (Brazil); Isuzu Gemini (Japan); Vauxhall Chevette (Great Britain); and Opel K 180 (Argentina)
The GM Directors’ choice to modify a T-car for this project was far from unanimous. Some product planners advocated FWD for a more modern layout, rather than the RWD T-car. However, the Directors thought that having a more traditional car ready for 1976 would be better than having a FWD model for 1978. Though controversial, this was a defensible strategy – after all, the decision was made at the height of the oil embargo when it seemed that demand for minicompacts would only go up, and RWD was hardly a deal-killer for most customers in the 1970s.
From the outset, the 1976 model year was GM’s goal, and that goal was met. Chevette’s US introduction was held in September 1975 on the US Capitol Grounds, a symbolic location because with ever-increasing federal regulations, Washington rivaled Detroit as the nation’s most important city for automotive news. Just months earlier, Congress enacted its Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, and at Chevette’s introduction, Congressmen received a sneak peek at what was then the highest-mileage US-built car.
The Capitol Hill debut also attempted to stir up patriotism among consumers, as GM had import buyers in its crosshairs. Expecting the majority of Chevette sales to be “import conquests,” GM anticipated its strongest sales to be in import-heavy coastal markets. Company strategists were ecstatic about having the first domestic car in the minicompact class.
General Motors developed its North American Chevette quickly and on target, and the car generated significant press coverage. All that was left by 1976 was to see how customers reacted. Unenthusiastically, as it turned out. After an initial flurry of interest, first-year sales simply tanked.
Several factors caused this early sales disappointment. Most importantly, the crisis that spawned the Chevette had faded away. By 1976, gas prices had stabilized, and big land yachts came back into vogue after a brief hiatus. Small car sales, while still significant, ceased their rapid growth. This, of course, was unfortunate timing for the Chevette, and something over which GM had no control.
But not all of Chevette’s initial struggles resulted from external events. One internal problem, for instance, was that GM overestimated consumers’ appetite for frugality. Chevette was cheap, but not necessarily a good value compared to its imported competition. With standard equipment that was sparse even for its class, Chevette offered few advantages over the Rabbit, B-210, Corolla or Civic.
GM kept Chevette’s base price as low as possible, assuming that customers would appreciate the stripped-down content. They estimated, for example, that the bargain-basement Scooter model in the above ad (equipped with rubber flooring and without a rear seat), would account for 25% of total Chevette production. But for 1976 that figure was just 5%. It turned out that even economy car customers wanted a certain amount of creature comforts – and Honda, Toyota and VW were more responsive to this desire. GM addressed the value issue in later model years, but for 1976-77 value-for-money was a noteworthy drawback for Chevette vs. its competition.
Another early stumbling block was dealer apathy. Chevy dealers were often indifferent about Chevette sales, and overtly steered prospective customers to larger (more profitable) models. This was widespread enough to alarm GM, which responded by bringing sales personnel from across the nation to the Wilmington, Del. plant where Chevettes were made, hoping to instill more pride among the sales force in this little car. GM stressed in these sessions that small car buyers are sophisticated people who know what they want, and that “trying to bait-and-switch… is not necessarily a good idea.”
GM Chairman Thomas Murphy (left) and President Pete Estes (right)
Little could disguise the fact, though, that the 1976-77 Chevette was a huge disappointment. Before its release, Chevrolet General Manager Robert D. Lund predicted 300,000 annual sales, but within a few months he halved that prediction. Given this harsh letdown, it’s interesting to see how GM executives publicly reacted:
- Lund himself dubiously declared that although Chevette was not capturing as many import sales as predicted, the model’s primary goal had really been to keep existing Chevy customers who wanted a smaller car.
- GM Treasurer John R. Edman was probably less than forthright when he claimed that “despite some indications to the contrary, we consider the Chevette a success.”
- Chevrolet’s Marketing Director, Tom Staudt, put a holistically positive spin on the Chevette, pointing out the car’s “across-the-board impact” on the industry, and claiming that it provided GM with a “halo” for its efficiency efforts.
- But the most revealing comment came from Chairman Thomas A. Murphy, who said that while he was pleased that GM executed its Chevette program quickly and with great agility, “There’s no way you can sell something to a man who doesn’t want it.” “Garden-variety Americans,” he added, “don’t want small cars.”
Murphy’s comment wasn’t an isolated remark. Former GM Design Studio Chief David North told Automotive News in 2008 that the prevailing mantra inside GM during his 1959-1991 tenure was to “let the Japanese have” the small car market.
These types of comments explain much about General Motors’ difficulty producing successful small cars. Many in GM’s upper hierarchy simply didn’t see the appeal, and Chevette’s early flop appeared to confirm this for them. Such complacency, however, was fraught with danger. It validated the naysayers’ opinion that small cars were a losing proposition, and blinded the company to market trends that suggested otherwise.
With that background, let’s examine our featured car from Chevette’s second production year. Chevette’s general appearance presented an uncluttered, upright design that bore a mild resemblance to VW’s Rabbit, one of its chief competitors.
Chevette was narrow (3” narrower than a Rabbit), with an interior somewhat hampered by the RWD configuration, but GM made several accommodations for greater comfort. The car’s relatively high roofline led to adequate headroom, and GM ensured that the seats were mounted high off the floor so passengers wouldn’t sit with their knees uncomfortably high.
Overall, Chevette’s interior was a composite of crude and comfortable (higher-trim levels received fake wood trim and nicer upholstery), and also between international and Detroit aesthetics. The bare metal door trim, however, served as a constant reminder of the car’s cheapness.
The rear seat offered a bare minimum of room and comfort for the day. The seat could fold down, which provided ample room for two people and their luggage.
Four adults could theoretically fit in Chevette, but in such a circumstance, the driver’s 6’3” friends probably wouldn’t be friends for long. And under such a load, Chevette’s 88 mph top speed would have been a good bit lower.
Once underway, drivers found Chevette’s suspension to be very competent, with unequal-length control arms in front and a solid axle in back, similar to GM’s other T-cars. The car’s springs provided for generous suspension travel, and delivered minimal wheel hop (a common complaint with leaf-sprung small cars of its day). Overall, Chevette’s handling was agile, its steering taut, and the ride comfortable and stable. In fact, the suspension was this car’s most endearing driving attribute.
Power was its least endearing attribute. Early Chevettes came with either 1.4- or 1.6-liter versions of the same engine, sourced largely from the Brazilian Chevette. Either engine made for a slow car. Our featured car came equipped with the optional 1.6, which put out 63 horsepower. Though no 1970s subcompact was fast, Chevettes were downright lethargic – particularly when things like an automatic, air conditioning and extra passengers were added. Chevette’s iron-block engine, though, did prove to be reliable.
As for comfort, noise, roominess, etc. – these were largely mid-pack for its day. A 1978 Car and Driver comparison of seven econoboxes summed up the early Chevette by describing it as “the median car in both Fun and Utility.” Road & Track echoed this mediocrity: its 1978 long-term Chevette report was insipidly titled “It Did The Job.” No more, and no less.
There were some small innovations, though. Showing its international roots, Chevette was the first US-built metric car. It was also the first American car to feature a multi-purpose turn signal stalk, called “Smart Switch,” which included wiper/washer controls and a (probably rarely used) headlight flasher. The front seats featured a novelty as well – inertia-type locking mechanisms that enabled passengers to move the front seatbacks freely to access the rear seat without needing to push down a separate lever.
While largely similar to the introductory year, 1977 Chevettes such as our featured car benefited from a few driveability refinements, such as revised cam timing, taller axle ratios, and a modified braking system. Importantly, both engines gained a few sorely-needed horsepower. Trim versions were shuffled too – with the odd Woody model being replaced by the Sandpiper (above), which came replete with graphics of the eponymous shorebirds on the car’s rocker panel.
Our featured car is a standard Chevette (not the budget Scooter, or one of the special models), with the 1.6 and automatic, but otherwise containing few options. Such a car would have listed for about $3,500 in 1977. Though the list price was low, the imports still outflanked Chevette in terms of value.
The lack of outstanding qualities in a crowded subcompact field made for another unhappy year (sales fell by 29% to just 133,000), and at the close of 1977 it appeared that Chevette would be an utter failure.
Such pessimism was premature. For 1978, GM added a 4-door model, and prices/equipment were adjusted to offer better value. This was the key to success. It took three years, but Chevette finally approached the 300,000 mark that its makers had hoped for from the beginning.
Source: Standard Catalog of Chevrolet, 1912-2003
Buffeting this popularity was the 1979-80 oil crisis and subsequent recession, which brought market impacts once again favoring inexpensive, efficient small cars. Chevette’s high-sales mark came in 1980, when the then-5-year-old model sold nearly 450,000 units, making the stodgy, slow Chevette one of America’s best-selling cars.
At that point, GM had momentum in the competitive small car field. If it had replaced Chevette then with a more modern FWD model, the company could have carried that momentum forward. However, that did not happen. From Chevette’s 1980 sales peak, GM began a steady descent into irrelevancy in North America’s economy car market.
Chevette production continued with minimal updates until the 1987 model year, by which time it was thoroughly obsolete. Ultimately, Chevette developed a reputation as a rather conservative choice for an econobox – it was domestic, RWD, and as Consumer Guide put it, “unimaginative to an extreme.” This was far from the import-fighting car targeting young coastal buyers that GM imagined in the mid-1970s, but it was a niche nonetheless, and 2.7 million customers bought Chevettes over the 12-year model run. One might say that Chevette was the economy car of choice for the “Garden-variety Americans” that GM’s chairman contended did not want small cars.
Ironically, when Chevette production ended, GM was left only with small hatchbacks produced by its Asian partners. The anointed import-fighter that first failed, then thrived, and eventually sold nearly 3 million copies – was succeeded by the very imports it was created to battle.
Was Chevette a success for General Motors? Yes and no. It’s hard to call a car that topped the sales charts a failure, and GM’s quick, focused effort to get the car to market in just 19 months was a splendid example of corporate agility. Chevette’s failure lies with GM’s inability to follow up on its success. If GM had put as much vim and vigor into improving Chevette as it had into developing the car in the first place, then the history of North America’s small car market might have been much different.
Photographed in Arlington, Virginia in August 2017.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1980 Chevrolet Chevette Scooter: A New Category Of Vehicle Paul N
And here we are, 50 years later. GM’s large SUV’s outsold all luxury sedans (priced over $60K) by a margin of over 3:1. All brand were imports except Tesla S, which was the largest seller in that segment. Ford announced they’re bumping production of the new Expedition/Navigator 25% in response to better than expected demand(!). Their F-Series pickup outsold the top three selling passenger cars (Camry, Civic, and Corolla) combined. Meanwhile, sources say Ford is seriously considering pulling the plug on the Fusion (175K sold last year) to free up plant capacity. The Focus is already going to China, and the Fiesta’s probably toast, as is the Taurus.
In other news, GM is trying to figure out how or even if it will bail out it’s Korean small car division. It’s going to take $2.8Billion to keep them solvent… (I’ll spare you the “your taxpayer dollars at work” comments).
My dad was right- the only thing you could really count on was change itself.
Meanwhile the top selling car in the UK is the Ford Fiesta, the least space efficient subcompact, although I think they have the new one now unlike here in the US. Two big reasons: fuel prices being two or three times higher, and a country that is not 3,000 miles across.
I’m late to this, but here’s some information to amuse. In Aus, these were sold as Holden Geminis (one of 40 names the car has had worldwide), and won Car of The Year on release in ’75. They were often something like the third best-selling car for some years after. And – this is true – they raced them in a one-marque series with real race drivers. In the state of Queensland, they still do…
Compared to the Toyota Corolla, the Datsun 180B (610) or 120Y (B210), Mazda 808 (818?), they were a damn sight nicer. The Honda Civic and VW Golf, both much better again, were limited by quotas and tariffs. (Also, FWD VW’s had a justified reputation here for hopeless fragility). They actually WERE an aspirational car here, particularly for females. We also got a wagon and panel van and the coupe, which is still a pretty car. They were tough as nails, solid, great handling, pretty cramped in the back (as were all the RWD competitors mentioned). 0-60mph in about the 13 second range, top around 95, on leaded fuel. In short, they weren’t a bad car at all. But they dated fairly quickly, and it must be said that as automatics (not common) they were horridly slow. I drove one the nuns owned; it needed prayerful occupants for sure. I can’t imagine an auto with a/c, which sounds as if it was a common US spec with the even lower-powered engine.
Beyond pollution stuff and rustproofing, why did Detroit faff about for 19 months to come up with frumpier styling than the existing T-cars, and an interior no more interesting? And why not release it as a four-door sedan from the off? In other words, GM Europe had a perfectly good (or at minimum, adequate, saleable) car to start making, but Detroit said “NIH” and wasted time to get nowhere much.
Your comment about the nuns made me think of a group of “Little Sisters of the Poor” here in Gallup, NM who for a long time had a baby blue metallic Pontiac Astre (twin of the Vega).
Acceleration with auto trans and AC was certainly slow with a elderly nun at the wheel.
Wow, in 1980 Chevy alone (and by extension GM) sold 450,000 Chevettes and (in a extended year) over 800,000 Citations. And to think by the late 80’s all that goodwill and marketshare was a distant memory. Mmm mmm mmm!
A fair amount of that lost goodwill and market share could be attributed to the 800,000 Citations sold.
Although the Chevette was not ambitious or progressive it was relatively reliable, far different than the previous Vega or the later Citation. Therefore it was a car that did not turn off its owners to future Chevys like the Vega and Citation did.
I test drove a 4 speed Chevette in 1977, looking for a possible replacement for my 1975 Opel Manta.
Gotta admit, the Chevette had a darn good air conditioner.
The rest of the car, when compared to the Opel, rather resembled a coal cart in it’s crudeness.
I went to work in the Vancouver Planning Department in late 1990, and the car pool available for site visits was controlled by the much more influential Engineering Department. A lowly Chevette was one of the few cars available to the Planning for regular use, and was always the last to be checked out.
I assume that it was properly maintained, and admittedly it must have been long in the tooth by then, but the experience of driving it in the city was nerve-wracking. My main memory, besides its overall primitiveness, was the apparent feebleness of the brakes, which required a lot of pedal pressure on any significant hill.
Some years after I started, there was a period of labour unrest that ended up in a strike. I remember some idle speculation that the persistence of the Chevette in the motor pool was part of an overall plot to kill off all the Planners :-).
Is that Geraldo Rivera sitting in the backseat behind the driver?
The issue is the car stayed too long at the party with only a facelift and year-to-year revisions when a full redesign was needed in the early 80’s. It started out as a decent subcompact that fell farther and farther behind the times.
A guy I knew in HS had a Chevette…and I had an interesting comparison, since my Honda-worshipping sister had a circa-1979 Civic. I preferred the Chevette. VASTLY cheaper to service, RWD without the Civics weird handling, comparable gas mileage, and much easier to maintain than Honda’s CVCC engine and bizarre carb.
For all of whatever negatives Chevettes had, The cars were cheap to buy,cheap to drive and (importantly) cheap to fix/keep alive. These to me make an economy car. Seeing the repair costs on today’s super fuel mizers, A ’76 Impala might be cheaper to run long term, let alone a. Chevette! – A plus feature: You can tell everyone you drive a ‘Vette. Take THAT Pinto driver,! LOL.
You think you had it bad? In Britain, the Chevette (same body, but smaller 1256cc Vauxhall engine) was considered an average small family car, not really a compact budget vehicle. If you wanted rock bottom motoring in late 70s Britain, you had the likes of the minuscule 650cc Fiat 126-for years the cheapest new car you could buy-the Citroen 2cv, Mini 850 and Reliant Robin, all of which made the Chevette an appealing proposition for many, it was a “proper” car here, not a penance. It was still pretty awful though.
In a way GM execs of the 1970’s got one thing right. Americans don’t want small cars. In 2018 the best selling vehicles are not cars but trucks. The best selling car is the 7th place Toyota Camry and sales of it have gone down almost 30% from last year. There is not a single sub-compact car in the top ten best selling cars. Trucks and SUVs/CUVs have all but taken over. This might change if fuel prices go up, but I don’t see the long term trend of bigger and bigger cars popularity going away.
https://focus2move.com/usa-best-selling-cars/
And irrationally, subcompact CUVs which are nothing more than small hatchbacks lifted a couple inches (to the detriment of their cornering and fuel economy) are among the fastest-growing segments.
I have to admit, I have disliked the Chevette with a passion, almost since its introduction. Mainly because it has always so strongly exuded cheapness.
I’m somewhat surprised at the amount of reaction to this wonderfully written feature. The Chevette and later Pontiac Acadian were certainly basic transportation and the cars certainly redeemed themselves by 1980. It was that year of Acadian my soon to be wife bought a four-door hatch and loved the car. It had a few options and a nice, durable interior. Ran like a charm while she owned it.
GM’s strategy to get the Chevette to market worked, too bad the market had changed by then. In the end, they sold plenty and a few still roam the streets today.
No article or facebook post about any other car seem to get as much reaction as posts about the Chevette, or perhaps the Yugo. People who never owned one, and perhaps never saw one, seem to have violent opinions about them.
I was born in 1976 so these were common when I was growing up. My take on it is that when it debuted, it wasn’t a terrible car and light years ahead of the Vega, Pinto, and Gremlin. The Vega, Pinto, and Gremlin were really not sized for adults, and barely acceptable for small children in the back seat. The Vega also had infamous quality problems, and while the Pinto and Gremlin were better, they weren’t MUCH better. Most people’s definition of a small, economy car was the Beetle, as Japanese imports were not really widespread yet, and the Chevette was certainly better than the Beetle. It was arguably better than the Corolla and certainly better, and much better looking, than the Datsun B210. The civic might have been better in some ways but the Civic was really teensy.
The Chevette was slow, and spartan, but so was everything else small at that time. It was roomy for such a small car, reasonably durable, and attractive. It had a well established dealer network and didn’t run the risk of disappearing back to some foreign land.
GM never bothered to update the car much because it did its job, plus GM had enough woes investing in much more profitable lines. Should it have been better by the mid ’80’s? Possibly, but the point of the Chevette was to sell enough cars to keep the CAFE standards by then, and the oil crises which had led to the Chevette being a hit were gone. The problem with these cars is that it costs just as much to develop and manufacture a $6000 Chevette as it does to develop and manufacture a $15000 Buick. The FWD Kadett was eventually brought here as the Pontiac LeMans, which was a quality disaster, but the only way GM could manage to import the thing and not lose a bundle was to have it made in Korea.
Despite cheap appearances, the Chevette actually wasn’t all that cheap. In the beginning it listed for around $3000, but C/D in an early test managed to put $1000 worth of options on the thing without even putting air or automatic on it, but moldings and upgraded upholstery and what not, making it pretty close to the price of a much more substantial car.
I bet that GM sold these things at a loss by the early ’80’s just to meet CAFE standards and to keep the more profitable lines, like the Oldsmobile Delta 88 and Caprice, running.
Did anyone, personally, buy one of these new by the early ’80’s? I recall they were popular as Avis specials, probably for the Sir-for-$2-more-per-day-I-can-put-you-into-a-Buick incentive, and as phone company/fleet specials, but no one ever says they had a mid ’80’s Chevette new, they always say they had one as a teenage beater.
I suspect everybody who grew up not-rich in the 1970s or 80s has stories to tell about a Chevette. Mine is from the mid-80s, when my dad decided to take a new job, one that brought with it the exciting promise of a company car. His disintegrating 1974 Dodge Dart Sport was sold (we referred to it as the Odge, since the “D” had departed the trunk lid sometime during the Carter administration) shortly before he went off to his first day at the new job.
I waited patiently through the entire afternoon of his first day, imagining what he’d drive home in that evening. It would be domestic (this was the Midwest in the 1980s after all), and it would be something sensible with four doors. But maybe it would be something interesting and a little flashy–a 6000 STE, or maybe a turbo Le Baron GTS? After I waited hours for his return, I finally saw (and heard) him clattering down the street in a brown 1982 Chevette. I’ll never forget the disappointment of that moment.
It was everything you’d expect a well-worn three-year-old Chevette to be. It smelled vaguely of cigarette smoke, it was incredibly slow and loud (saddled with an automatic and air), and it had a dent the size of a serving platter in the driver’s front fender. Dad hated it, but he stuck it out for more than half a year, not wanting to be a whiner at his new job. There was at least one silver lining: it was so small and easy to drive that it became the first car that I was allowed (as a ten-year-old) to steer around an empty parking lot.
The Chevette became too great a burden to bear in its first winter with us. Dad was driving home from a work trip in the dark on a snow-covered I-75 when he spun out and slid across the median, almost into oncoming traffic. (Turns out light weight, rear drive, and worn tires are not a good combination for snowy highway driving.) He finally demanded a new car that week, and he came home in a new, bright red 1986 Nova hatchback–quite an improvement.
The Nova didn’t stay with us very long, succeeded by a parade of more substantial Celebrities, 6000s, Bonnevilles, and Sables over the next decade. Though this teenage car nut wished that his company would spring for a 3-series or even an Accord, the memory of the Chevette was enough to make me thankful for all of them.
Owned a 80 Chevette 1.6L automatic 2dr with A/C. Couldn’t kill it. Took one road trip with it to Colorado. Across Nebraska got 31mpg, turned on the air and dropped to 24mpg. Would climb mountain grades in 2nd gear, could not pull 3rd. So engine screaming going up at probably 45mph. Mechanically had a few issues, ate alternators for awhile, broken the timing belt twice, rear springs broke, valve seals failed. Best one was when the engine quit cruising down a city street at 40 mph. Looked into rear view mirror as it sounded like I had run over something. Turns out it was engine parts falling off my car. The crankshaft bolt had failed and the crankshaft pulley and cam drive sprocket fell off. Turns out there was a minor engineering problem that GM knew about but did not want to fix. The cran pulley was held on only buy one bolt. The pulley was sandwiched between the crank bolt and the timing belt sprocket, all of these pieces just s;ipped onto the crank. There were two little holes in the pulley that aligned with two little knobs on the face of the timing belt sprocket. Well it turns out the cycling clutch od the A/C compressor would kind of keep jerking back and forth until the crank bolt fatigued and you were left with patrs falling off your engine. The fix was a new crank and a better bolt. Being a GM employee I got the car fixed for free. Of course the dealer screwed up the fix. The car seemed more gutless than usual. Nothing wrong according to the dealer. Decided to check a few things myself. Ignition timing is way off. Take it back to dealer, Oh no sir can’t possibly be off that far sir, you must have made a mistake. Yea right, I a mechanic for 24 years at the time, working for GMC Truck and Coach Division of General Motors, I believe I know how to check the timing on an engine. Well they fixed it, my mistake was not checking their work. About a year later was doing a spring tune up on it. Plugs, wires, rotor, cap etc. Check timing and it is off a bit. Go to move the distbutor and it is hard up against the A/C compressor mount. On further examination is ses the A/C bracket is torched where the distributor is touching it. What a bunch of hacks! On the 1.6L you have to removed a lot of crap to pull the distributor including the fuel pump, the fuel pump ran off the top side of the distributor gear. The distributor ran off the crankshaft. So anway I did finally get the thing timed correctly no thanks to a crappy dealer service compartment. Only good that ever came was the dealer was closed by GM when GM went bankrupt. Oh yea one other thing, this was my wifes car, she had it when we got married. She had picked up a couple of speeding tickets driving this thing. Turns out she had need new rear tires and the tire shop put on a larger diameter tire putting this speedo of by a good margin. Thanks alot crappy tire shop.
I had ’84 and ’86 Chevettes and I absolutely LOVED them. I could pack my kids and a whole weekend of camping equipment and still have room for me. I drove them both to death and if I could I’d buy another in a heartbeat. They were the coolest little cars ever.
I got a then two year old 1977 4-speed Chevette as my first car. Other than the rust issues (fascinating watching the pavement go by through the holes in the passenger footwell), and a couple of engine rebuilds, mine was a fairly reliable transport. It definitely helped having a manual transmission and putting 70 profile tires on which brought acceleration to tolerable. Drove it for 6 years through high school and a good portion of college.
I remember seeing an issue of Hot Rod Magazine where someone had swapped in a 4.1L Buick V6 and turned it into a 11 second drag car that was still streetable. The 2.8 GM V6 would have been a really nice daily driver engine in it.
I had a 77 Chevette 1.4L / auto and a 1985 Chevette S (1.6L/4-speed).
Both cars were owned in the late 90s/early 2000s. Both were cramped and underpowered. This car was about the same price as the Vega, a more powerful and better handling car which sold nearly half a million its final three years 75-77 and two million total. Chevette’s sales were nowhere near the 300,000 annually Chevrolet had predicted. In 1978 Chevette production was ramped up 50% with the 4-door introduction and the older, larger Vega was discontinued. The Monza took over the Vega’s lower price point and its sales improved but never topped 200,000 units. The Chevette went into the 80s selling as well as the Vega had in the early and mid 70s.
I am the owner of the Chevette pictured in the original story. I had no idea it had been photographed or written about until today. I still own it. It ran regularly until 2011. I loved it! It was very reliable. It still runs and I’m going to get a new paint job in the spring. For all those of you who consider the Chevette a ‘pos’, you might like to know that in ‘78 I had three bosses, one who owned a Fiat, one a TR-6, and another a Mercedes , and I had to drive them all home one night in freezing rain, as the Chevette was the only one that would start! And, yes, I know it was terribly underpowered, as the car I had to trade in for it was a GTO that only started when I didn’t have to go to work.
Elaine, I’m glad you enjoyed the article on your car, and congratulations on keeping your Chevette for so long! I hope when you get it painted that you’ll update us here with a picture.
And going from a GTO to a Chevette must have been quite a change!
My Mother in law owned a Chevette and I found it to be a very cheaply built car. It seemed crude compared to my old,mid 70’s Civics which were also cheap basic cars. However a low priced car has to be built economically to sell at a low price. My MIL’s Chevette broke it’s timing belt in my driveway, and it was easy for me to replace it, a point in it’s favor. My favorite inexpensive car was my ’90 Civic SI. It was practical, roomy, well built, and got great gas mileage. It could satisfy an enthusiast and a tight wad at the same time. Are there new small cars (non hybrid) that can break 40 mpg. and make you happy at the same time?
Since my work commute was only 20 miles round trip for over thirty years, super high fuel economy hasn’t been a real high priority for me. But I do admire a sensible, well built, economical, good performing car. Another favorite car was a ’97 Acura CL coupe with the four cylinder and five speed transmission. It was as economical as an Accord, and as plush as an El Dorado.
It just seemed like the Big Three didn’t give a damn. To smug to figure out that the imports were going to eat their lunch. These clowns could have produced world class products but they refused. The Big Three were always reacting late and with half baked products. Did they think the imports were going to just build sub-compacts and compact cars? Didn’t think that maybe the imports might expand and build a mid-size car? Might explain how we end up here in 2024 and the domestics have pretty much abandoned the car market.
Vega polluted the Chevy image, so Chevette couldn’t overpromise. The car got a nice welcome and whoever handles GMs PR back then, did a superb job. Vegas were infamous and instead of cowering in the ditches with these cars, GM pretended that the Chevette was America’s new savior. The Vega lowered Chevy buyer’s standards to the point where the Chevette was seen as an alternative to foreign imports. Yeah – the Chevette was painfully adequate, but it was adequate.
I always saw the Chevette as a penalty box. They were cars for folks who couldn’t buy a real car. Not a shred of sportiness. You could sport-tape up those cars and they’d still look like a modern Crosley. They reeked of cheapness during their entire run.
To GM’s credit, the Chevette overstayed its welcome. It was produced for years beyond its expiration date. Just to spite us. Just to prove that the car wasn’t a complete piece of crap. Just to have us see Chevettes used by the US Postal Service as rides for staffers emptying blue US Post Office receptacles on America’s corners. Proof that the Federal government wasn’t wasting our tax dollars on real cars. Chevettes were used to deliver pizzas by oily teenagers, deliver pharmaceuticals to a nursing home, and scramble onto expressways to remind us that if we didn’t make that month’s car payment – it was our punishment.
To those who love the Chevette – thank you! But please don’t express any wonderment over your inability to attract a date for Saturday.
In response to the Fuel crisis, Ford did something similar, it turned to Europe and federalized the then new German built Fiesta.
While it didn’t outsell the Chevette, it was a thoroughly modern FWD car and superior to the Chevette. It was economical, nimble, fun to drive, roomy, well built, and quick off the starting line.
We had 2 of them and thoroughly missed them when they were sold (mine in 1988 with 150,000 miles, and sold for more than I paid for it in 1984).
Seeing this again, reminds me again of what a TOTAL PO$ out new ’76 CHOVette was! It made all 3 of the not so gr8 Pintos we had seem like SOLID sub compact automobiles!
Below is a photo with 2 of my Chevy’s: my excellent-for what it was-’56 Chevy 150 “street rod” and the worst junker/clunker GM ever put on USofA roads….our ’76 CHOVette! 🙁 DFO
Let’s not forget that a bit of the sales drop was due to Pontiac offering its version, the T-1000 (I think it may have also been offered earlier with a different name but don’t recall).
Has any automaker ever put less effort into designing a set of tail lights? Good grief, GM.
I miss the days when there was an interest in selling new cars to Americans who don’t have more than the average annual income to spend. I’m sure someone will mention the Versa or Mirage as evidence that you can still buy a relatively inexpensive new car, but that certainly isn’t the same thing as manufacturers developing affordable cars for Americans, nor there being a healthy market for them. Average income as gone nowhere, but new cars are almost all targeted at people with much higher-than-average income, or at least a willingness to destroy their lives with debt. If you want to buy a new sports car, there are more choices if you want to spend at least $400K than if you want to spend $50K or less.
The cheapest new Corolla on Cars.com within 30 miles of my city is $29,034. Did consumers with household incomes near the mean vote with their wallets, or did bad policies that exploded the costs of housing, education, and medicine make the decision for them? These days you can add the cost of food to that list.
I have posted about my 1st car in the past – 1987 Pontiac Acadian, bought brand new when I was 17. It was a 2 door, 2 tone grey/silver paint, automatic, deluxe interior which meant nice cloth seats, am/fm stereo radio, dual sport mirrors and a cargo security cover. Say what you will about these cars, but they were good on gas, very reliable and most importantly to me at the time – cheap to buy, operate, maintain and insure (relatively speaking for an under 25 year old male driver in Toronto. I had that car until 1995 with around 400,000 km’s on the original engine & transmission. It still ran well, but I had to let it go due to underbody rust and oil leaks. These cars served their mandate as a cheap basic A to B transportation.
A friend of mine had a Shove-it, a hand me down from his doting Uncle.
Although, slow, noisy, crude and rude, it always started. But it was our last choice for transportation.
The best feature that I can remember about it was the always excellent GM factory air conditioning. SO very desirable here in Hot & Humid New Orleans, LA, USA.
The owner joked that the A/C compressor had more power than the engine attached to it.