We all know the story of how the Fox-body Mustang was almost replaced with the FWD, Mazda-derived Ford Probe. What some of you may not know is GM nearly made the same mistake with its Camaro and Firebird, although in true 1980s GM fashion, their error came with a lot more hubris and an enormous sum of wasted money.
To GM’s credit, they didn’t try to replace the F-Body with some flimsy restyled Cavalier. The GM-80 was to be a front-wheel-drive coupe, yes, but an optional all-wheel-drive system was planned. But the V8 engines so popular in the RWD F-Bodies weren’t going to survive the transition to FWD.
Instead, the GM-80 cars were going to be powered by the gutsy Quad 4 four-cylinder and the 24-valve “Twin Dual Cam” 3.4 V6 that would later appear in the GM W-Body. The Quad 4 would have likely been the High Output, 180-horsepower version installed in hot versions of the GM N-Body cars and the Chevrolet Beretta.
The 3.4 V6 – derived from Chevrolet’s 60-degree V6 engine family – was to be a lot more powerful than the related 2.8 in the F-Body. In development, GM engineers had managed to crank out 285 horses from the V6. Unfortunately, GM lacked a FWD transaxle that could handle that kind of power and the engine was subsequently detuned to 200 hp and 215 ft-lbs. That was more horsepower than the Camaro V8 was producing in 1986 but less torque. A viscous limited slip differential was to be standard equipment.
Performance would have been aided by a considerable reduction in weight, in part aided by a shrinking of dimensions. The GM-80 cars were to ride a 96-inch wheelbase, five inches shorter than the F-Body’s wheelbase. GM planned to make the GM-80 their first high-volume, plastic-bodied car, with molded plastic panels fitted to a steel structural frame à la the Pontiac Fiero. GM had also considered building the GM-80 with an extruded aluminum frame, a rolled-steel tubular structure, or an all-fiberglass frame. The use of composites was appealing to GM, not just for owners’ convenience and the benefits to corrosion resistance, but also as a way of reducing manufacturing costs. The format also allowed for easier regular changes of design.
The GM-80 program’s massive cost overruns would suggest composite-bodied cars weren’t the silver bullet GM needed to reduce production costs. Had they have reached production, the GM-80 cars would have been priced unsustainably higher than their predecessors. At least GM had learned a little more about the production of plastic-bodied cars, although at tremendous cost.
Sure, GM could have pitched the GM-80 cars as more sophisticated, high-tech sport coupes. They wouldn’t have been the only FWD/AWD coupes in town, with the DSM triplets and the Mitsubishi 3000GT and Dodge Stealth all arriving over 1990-1991 and the GM-80 slated for a MY1989 or 1990 launch. But were existing Camaro and Firebird buyers the kind who would have considered an Eagle Talon? A significant amount of F-Body (and Fox-Body) sales were humble four- and six-cylinder models purchased by owners who liked the sporty looks, but a similarly healthy number of buyers craved the torque and sound of the V8.
A GM-80 mule
GM had initially projected 350,000 annual sales for the GM-80 twins – in comparison, the Fiero’s best year saw 140k units sold – but as development costs spiralled out of control, CEO Roger Smith demonstrated a rare example of fiscal prudence and canned the project. This was announced on October 19, 1986 in an interview with The Detroit News. Had the GM-80’s gestation continued, the project would have eventually cost $1 billion, possibly more. There is no exact figure as to how much GM wasted on the project but, considering development was quite far along by the time Roger Smith swung the axe, it was a lot. Those on the project, including chief engineer Fred Schaafsma, likely would have seen this news coming as suppliers had been notified in the summer of ’85 that the project was temporarily on hold.
It wasn’t just cost that killed the project. The GM-80 cars had also overshot weight targets and performed poorly in crash tests. And although all-wheel-drive was mooted, it wasn’t locked in, nor was the rumored twin-turbo 3.3 V6. The project was in high gear in 1985 as GM downsized its large cars. GM didn’t know yet how poorly, for example, the downsized E-Bodies would be received. However, it would have known by then that gas prices had stabilized and there was still room for a RWD V8 model in their lineup, even considering CAFE targets. There was still some internal opposition to the idea of an all-FWD passenger car lineup.
Not a Toronado, not a “Silhouette Touring Coupe”
Although the contemporary ’90 Fiero prototype survives in GM’s collection, the GM-80 cars appear to have all been scrapped. There are many more details to the GM-80 saga that have been left untold, and many rumors have spread. Buff rags at the time spoke of a potential third GM-80 for Oldsmobile, possibly using the Silhouette name. However, the evidence shows these were just confused reports based on mistakenly-identified mules. What added fuel to the fire of this particular rumor was Oldsmobile’s early research and development for the Aurora, as Oldsmobile project staff spoke to focus groups about a planned flagship upscale sedan. Interestingly, reports stated the Aurora would receive all-wheel-drive and the High Output Quad 4. Rumors also abounded of a sporty Oldsmobile in the vein of the Buick Reatta and Cadillac Allanté, but those cars’ slow sales scuttled those plans.
The GM-80 project was an overreach and could have been a very Deadly Sin for the company. Had the project reached production, GM would have been replacing two iconic RWD V8 coupes with new cars that were more expensive, possibly no lighter or faster, and with two non-V8 engines that eventually proved to be rather flaky. Cancelling this project was probably the smartest thing Roger Smith did at the helm.
Related Reading:
CC Forgotten Future: 1990 Pontiac Fiero Prototype
Automotive Histories: The Cars That Never Were
Curbside Classic: 1992 Saturn SL – GM’s Deadly Sin #4 – The Eulogy
Top 10 Obscure Special Editions and Forgotten Limited-Run Models: Chevrolet Edition, Part I and Part II
Well it certainly looks better than the 4th gen f-bodies.
I disagree. The 4th Gen F-bodies weren’t too good, but they were better than this horrible thing. And both of them look a lot better than the 5th and 6th gen cars.
I’ve often theorized that “the problem” with Ford and GM after the mid-late 60s is that they refused to look beyond what the other was doing. I mean, how coincidental is it that Ford and GM both planned FWD pony cars? And yet, somehow both managed to “pull the plug” on their FWD sporty cars at the last minute.
As far as the plastic body panels making styling changes, that was shown to be somewhat nebulous, as the Saturn SL series barely changed in….what, 10-12 years?
I think the situation with Ford and the Probe is fascinating, because now that time has passed, we now know what became the first probe was essentially locked in the fall of 1982 (so assuming a 1984/1985 introduction). Yet Ford waited until 1989 to introduce the completed product as sales of sport coupes were in decline. Why wait so long?
The Probe, when styled and conceived, was assumed to be a Tempo derivative. Tempo functional style and proportions proved to be incompatible. So, the project was revised to a 626 derivative.
The other timing delay was the result of the manufacturing plan – a new Mazda-owned assembly plant in Flat Rock, MI. The plant was a replica of Mazda’s Hofu plant. To assure a smooth launch, all of the Flat Rock tools and equipment were piloted in Hofu, as were the prototype vehicle pilot builds. Once proven-out, the tools & equipment were knocked-down and shipped to Flat Rock, where they were meet with an embarrassing building. Mazda’s Japanese-based plant build team mistakenly ordered perforated assembly plant roof panels instead of corrugated roof panels. So, installation of tools and equipment had to wait for a new plant roof.
The vehicle did begin shipment in 1Q1988, so it had a very long 1989 model year. Even though it took 5 years to get to market, the design theme was so progressive, it still looked very advanced.
Interesting info. And I’d have to agree that the above prototype looks like a Tempo Coupe and does not have the lines of the production Probe.
On a side-note, supposedly the Probe didn’t really have the best name for the target audience. Women were thinking more “gynecologist” than “spacecraft”.
The unholy marriage of a Toronado, Geo Storm, and a bit of Corvette in the nose. The taillights call out the styling of the future Aurora in at least one of those photos.
This car would seem to display the rot that was going on within GM by the late 1980s. The regular reshuffling of rising managers from this project or department to that one simply killed their ability to design a new product that was timely, cost-effective, good and appealing in the marketplace.
Every development project suffered through a rotation of managers, none of whom came in with much relevant expertise (because they were being exposed to new areas of the company every time) and most of whom left before the project’s completion, starting the same learning cycle over again. The old days of a stable Divisional engineering staff overseen by a long-term Divisional Chief Engineer and Manager were well and truly over by 1985 (except for maybe a short-term exception at Saturn).
Very neat reading! I had no idea GM had toyed with a front-drive replacement for the F-bodies. Maybe the idea made sense in a world where VW and Honda were being proclaimed fun-to-drive cars, gas was expected to be very expensive, and GM hadn’t seemed to figure out why everyone was eating their lunch.
At least it seems like the development work was useful for engineering lessons.
Very interesting post! I knew that this car was in development, and in some ways the idea of a FWD/AWD sporty coupe wasn’t crazy–there was a market for such cars at the time. BUT, cost efficiencies would have been required, and the GM80 was the opposite of what was needed–it seems like a crazy over-reach for a relatively niche market. The original magic of the Pony Cars (and their Asian imitators) was that they used modified underpinnings from high volume lines, thereby keeping costs down. High style, decent price, good performance were the mainstays of the segment. As “everyday” cars shifted to FWD, so too did many sporty coupes. 4- and 6-cylinder engines also made sense, combining performance and fuel efficiency. Had these engines been done right, buyers might not have missed the old-school Detroit V8s so much (plus, Corvette would still have the V8). But it was GM in the 1980s, so “done right” wasn’t realistic–just as well that they passed on this one. Plus, GM was clearly smoking a fat one when they made their sales forecasts in the 1980s–350,000 of these?!?!? Well, it fits with GM’s projections that the GM10s would immediately account for dominant share in the mid-size segment….
I wonder what the sum total would be if you added up the forecasted sales they put out in the 80s, the W-bodies were an absurd amount too and I seem to recall a bunch more posted that weren’t even close with as well. I guess they thought every new platform would be the one to turn the corner and not only result in returning to their former sales peak, but eventual 100% market dominance.
Late in the development process Rodger Smith asserted that he forecast the W-bodies would be 25% of the automotive market by themselves… (snicker)
350,000 Camaro/Firebirds per year is roughly what they were selling in the late-70s/early-80s, no? Add an Oldsmobile and maybe it wasn’t so nuts.
And likewise with the GM10. I don’t think they were smoking anything other than SEC reports. When the cars were being planned, GM had 40% marketshare and had ruled the midsized segment for decades. They had a half-dozen plants building them. Maybe their latest cars hadn’t been so good, and maybe there was more competition. But GM10 was so awesome it would fix all that and put GM back in their rightful place. Why would anyone say it was going to say it wouldn’t sell as well as the Chevelle Malibu Classic Landau Colonnade Coupe?
GM expected mass trade ins of old opera window coupes for new W bodies. But ended up getting Blazers, or worse, Fords/Imports, instead.
I don’t remember reading anything about this program at the time. (I’ll confessing to checking the date of publication on this item to make sure it wasn’t April 1.)
It does sound like the end of this development program was a mercy killing, but the styling of that prototype in the first two photos looks pretty nice to me. It has really well-balanced proportions for any car, but especially for a FWD coupe.
Ironically, GM actually DID produce a FWD (and later AWD) sporty coupe starting 1989–it just never came to the U.S. The Opel Calibra, sold in Europe (and badged as a Chevrolet for South America and Holden for Australia), was based on the updated J-Body (GM2900) Opel Vectra. Using the traditional Pony Car formula, the Calibra started with the Vectra but improved handling and offered racier styling (reportedly the car had the lowest coefficient of drag of any production car in 1989). The Calibra was offered with 4-cylinder (including available Turbo) and V6 engine configurations.
While the Calibra could never have been a Camaro replacement (just like the Probe was unable to serve as a Mustang replacement), it could have given Chevrolet a contender in the small sporty car market (similar to Ford’s strategy). It also looks like the Calibra could have been positioned as a nicer car than the Isuzu-based GEO Storm.
Of course, Chevy should also have updated and upgraded the Cavalier in-line with the European GM2900, and then the Calibra would have been a natural companion offering.
Calibra rear 3/4 angle:
Funny you mention the Storm. GM could have avoided much of this and just imported the turbocharged all-wheel drive model of the Impulse/Piazza for a high performance Storm and called it a day.
I was under the impression that what eventually became Saturn was the original idea for the Camaro replacement. I see now I was incorrect. There were lots of parallels. Thanks. Love the site.
A Deadly Sin averted, just barely.
That projected 350,000 sales figure just proves that there was some kind of psychotropic gas injected into the GM headquarters HVAC system.
It’s impossible, because they either had to open the windows in summer, or used the window units for AC. A modern HVAC system wasn’t installed until GM left the old headquarter few years ago.
I’m sure there was a psychotropic something. I’m guessing it was snorted off of polished board room tabletops, though. I mean, city leaders make up some wild numbers to justify stadiums and other ridiculous on-its-face development, and 92 percent of all infrastructure projects (regardless of continent, oddly enough) run over budget (rail projects being the worst offenders) run over budget (27 percent overage). We all know they cook the job creation numbers and the ridership numbers and the budget numbers to get the project approved.
350,000 of these though? That would make the numbers for The Big Dig look fiscally conservative!
With GM having moved over 250,000 Camaros alone in 1984, and probably enough Firebirds to fill-out over 350,000 units, I can see where the planners were coming from with this estimate.
Now, do I believe it would have happened? No. Much of the market for the Camaro and sporty coupes in general was moving on to other things like the Chevy S-10 pickup. True believers in this segment were leaning toward the Mustang, and the FWD GM-80 would have hastened this.
Cancelling this car may have been among the few things GM got right in the ’80s. I imagine a reforecast of sales was part of the decision.
agreed I failed in many ways GM wanted to follow the front-wheel-drive bandwagon that the imports such as the Japanese and the Germans were doing during that time and it would have been a recipe for disaster or bowl f-body cars
Based on the pictures of the mules they had, If they had used the coupe body style instead of the hatchback, Those could have been the Toronado or Eldorado of the 80’s instead of the shrunken head versions they did put out.
Of course that would have been really doable if they hadn’t insisted on using the materials they were working with.
I’m sure the very last model year of it would’ve been brilliant, the car it should’ve been all along.
That’s a given! 🙂
FWD was seen as the trend of the future. I remember reading so many Comparison test articles in Car and Driver in the Eighties where domestic products were panned for their “old fashioned rear wheel drive lay out” Funny how fifteen years later domestic FWD vehicles were panned for their “econo box” drivetrain layouts! By then RWD was almost exclusively used in the elite European marques. Mercedes, Bmw, Jaguar, etc. never made the change and this made RWD the preferred “prestige’ set up. Audi went to AWD to avoid the stigma. Yes I know that for ultimate handling RWD is preferred but there wasn’t anything wrong with FWD for most passenger cars. In fact it has a lot of advantages for packaging and poor weather traction.
interesting also, is how worried domestic manufacturers were about the rising price of gas. Besides improved engine technology less vehicle weight was important. So the cars had to get smaller. From an old article I read, even Cadillac was thinking that they would have to reduce to a four cylinder engine for their main car models.
Well the future arrived and cars are better than ever. But most new domestic cars are still pretty heavy. But as manufactures learned you don’t build what you can’t sell. Consumers want big cross overs and even bigger trucks and SUVs.
FWD goes beyond drive wheels, FWD packaging creates major compromises in styling, overhangs become longer, fenders become shorter and wheels become flat or even convex. This layout can be styled around nicely if designers are given free reign but when trying to stay within the established parameters of a model as long running as a Camaro or Mustang the results are predictably underwhelming. The key motivators in this segment are either styling or performance, nobody cares about packaging efficiency in a Camaro.
And the key word in old fashioned rear wheel drive layout is layout. European cars didn’t have live axles, that’s what was old fashioned.
The FWD 1993-97 Ford Probe GT is still one of the most attractive sport coupes of the 1990s and 2000s… low hood/cowl, great meat/track width, the right blend of organic and sculpted lines, and awesome driver ergonomics (very Honda-like). It cornered like it was on rails.
Yeah, C&D was all “as soon as all of America is driving small FWD cars..” in early 80’s, as if it was a given. Then, they were suddenly “BMW is the holy grail” in mid 80’s and called all smaller cars “econo-boxes”.
Anyway, I also remember seeing spy pics of GM80 cars in C&D and they were gushing “Look at the new Camaros!”.
GM could have used the Beretta as the basis for the Camaro, just as the Nova was the heart of the 1st gen Camaro. I wonder why they didn’t cheapen out and do it that way.
The Beretta’s L-Body was little more than a lengthened N-Body, which was in turn just a stretched J-Body. Putting the Camaro on that platform would have been the depths of laziness.
” the depths of laziness”
Exactly the style of GM at the time
I remember some magazines saying the Beretta almost was a Camaro replacement, or was going to be “Camaro Beretta”, to sell along side “Classic” RWD.
So Roger Smith gets one right? I guess a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
So, which division was supposed to get the gleaming, cutting-edge Duct Tape Special in the last photo?
It looks like an N-body Buick Skylark taillight panel. But I guess it’s an engineering mule with no production-ready outer panels.
I’ll bet some of those are Jim Dunne spy photos. I remember looking at those every month in Motor Trend and Car and Driver in the 80’s. I don’t remember the GM-80, but agree that it appears GM dodged a bullet on it. I’m sure it would have joined so many other 80’s and 90’s GM products in the “Seemed like a good idea at the time” category.
Popular Mechanics used to show Jim Dunnes photos each month, also. Under “Detroit Listening Post” section.
Great article – I thought I was a knowledgeable car guy but I don’t remember anything about these still-born GM-80s.
What strikes me is the typical GM 1980’s styling – where everything looked pretty much the same – from Caddy to Cavalier…
Thanks for shedding some light on this subject. Definitely an interesting possibility.
Awesome article. I either missed this saga the time or had just completely forgotten about it. I recall Ford’s struggle with decisions on a FWD pony car being much more public, and probably a publicity boon in the long run for the Mustang and Probe.
Chrysler had the K based Daytona/Laser coming and Ford had Probe, so it was known around town and GM was going along with what was ‘expected’. But also, to match imports such as FWD Celica and Pulsar.
Easy to say “what were they thinking”, but wasn’t really that off base.
I admit, I wrote a letter to GM about the time the FWD F-body replacement was exposed. It was not a nice letter at all. I basically told them if they called this car a Camaro or Firebird, I was done with GM, period. I got a form letter back, saying it was being “re-evaluated” for production. I thought then and now there were drugs involved in even the thought of doing it.
IIRC, it was originally supposed to be based from the FWD X-Body Chevrolet Citation much in the same way to the Nova based Cadillac Seville replacement, but Pontiac balked at the proposal so the Firebird and the Camaro remained RWDs from 1982 through beyond. Cadillac wasn’t also brought up to the idea of a Citation based Seville so it settled with the larger BOF FWD K/E-Body Eldorado platform instead. The only time Cadillac revisited a smaller FWD Sedan was when they have used the FWD J-Body Chevrolet Cavalier instead and calling the car a Cadillac Cimarron.
Wouldn’t the GM-80 have also likely received the Isuzu-built 240+ hp 3.5 V8 from the Chevrolet Feretta prototype?
Additionally while production versions of the GM-80 Camaro/Firebird would have been a deadly sin, couldn’t it simply be repurposed like the Ford Probe was?
Costs to “repurpose” the 80 were too high, and MSRP would have been too expensive to compete with Probe, Daytona, Eclipse and Celica. They already had the Beretta and Grand Am as sporty FWD coupes, affordable, too.