Having never properly set forth my purpose and criteria for the GM Deadly Sins series, it seems like this might be a good time to do so. I understand that they challenge some readers, and it may seem we’re picking on GM unfairly. Humans by nature tend to affiliate themselves to various groups and tribes, which may be sports, religious, ethnic, cultural, political, and many others as well as our favorite automotive brand or company. Which explains the endless automotive pissing matches that have gone on since they were invented. Cars, especially more so in the past, are generally deeply enmeshed in our emotional brain centers. It may be impossible (and dull) to eliminate any personal bias in our writing about cars and their makers, but there is a much bigger picture issue that drives this series.
GM was once the world’s biggest and most profitable corporation, period. As such, its long decline and ultimate death (it really did die; the new GM is a wholly new legal entity) is of very considerable interest to anyone interested in cars and their history. In fact, to deny analyzing what went wrong with GM would be the ultimate act of self-delusion.
I have had a long and intense relationship with GM. As a boy, it was clearly the company I was most affiliated with, and I’ve written plenty about that. But perhaps because of my bi-continental background, there was always a strong inner tension between my feelings for GM and other American cars versus European cars, even as a child. In the fifties and sixties, the two were generally very different. And although I wanted to be accepted with the home team, I struggled with certain doubts about American cars (and their engineering/design priorities) within a few years after arriving.
Although large American cars from the golden era were endlessly appealing on so many levels, we don’t have to go over the well-known history of all the difficult changes that were essentially forced on Detroit. Some of those were externalities largely beyond the industry’s growth (emission controls, energy crises, etc.), but there were many huge vulnerabilities that GM and the other American makers mostly allowed themselves to be prey to.
The inability to make a truly successful small car, to improve quality and reliability, to properly react to major changes in the market place, and to embrace the need for true cultural change in management; among others. We all know what happened over a span of some four decades, but the bottom line is this: the cars that are being made today by GM, Ford and Chrysler much more reflect the European approach to design, and the Japanese fastidiousness with quality and efficient production, than what was once known as the traditional American approach to car design and production. Sorry, but that’s the reality.
But; and a very big but indeed, that doesn’t mean that we’re here to gloat on the demise of GM, Chrysler, and the near-death of Ford. First of all, there were many interesting, appealing, unique and well-built cars during this period of crisis for the American car industry. Speaking for myself, I’ve learned to appreciate those cars much more thanks to the many comments and articles written by other writers over the past five years since I began this journey of exploration. Which is what it is: I’m not coming with a specific agenda. I’m willing to give credit wherever it’s due. And I welcome other writers to balance my own reality, which is not fixed.
In essence, my personal GM Death Watch began quite a long time ago, but I truly began to wonder about GM’s long term health about 1980-1982. Having had personal experience with GM’s X-cars, and driven a 1982 Cimarron 1.8, and taken a good hard look at the inside and outside of a 1980 Seville while living in Southern California, which, like it or not, really has been a driver of many national trends. GM’s cars then simply looked very uncompetitive and hopelessly out of touch (the B-body largely excepted). History has proven that to be correct.
If there’s any doubt, look at the 1983 Audi 100/5000, the 1985 Mercedes W124, or the 1997 Lexus RX300 to see how they’ve influenced all modern cars and CUVs, inside and out. Of course, in more recent years fresh new ideas and designs have also sprung forth in the US as well as Europe and Japan, but they all bear their marks, along with a few other key (foreign) cars.
Enough background: what exactly qualifies a car to be a GM DS? Any car that didn’t specifically counter GM’s downward spiral. Here’s the key issue: having a car be called a DS does not mean that it was necessarily a truly bad car! It’s not reflection on any given car to be wholly lacking in qualities that were attractive to some or many.
But GM’s decline was wholly the result of its cars; that’s what it was supposed to be in the business of making. And unless any given car was able to strongly counter (subjectively or objectively) GM’s decline, then it was part of the decline. That’s a bit harsh, perhaps, and clearly we’ve tended to choose those cars that were relatively more deadly than others.
Having said that, let me add that obviously there are personal, subjective, emotional and even humorous aspects to documenting GM’s decline. Which is where you come in, with your comments and your contributions with alternate points of view. We’re here to learn, but a chuckle or two along the way never hurts, especially on such a painful subject.
We also have a GM’s Greatest Hits Series, which has lots of room for augmentation. But not every GM car is going to fall in one or the other group. And there has been at least one Chrysler DS, and there may well be more. But there’s one more important fact to remember when/if we tend to single out GM: due to its overwhelming market share through the seventies, GM was not just the leader of the industry; it almost was the industry inasmuch as it had huge ability to influence it. It’s hypothetical, but if GM had adopted disc brakes or fuel injection earlier, and made a big to-do about it, do you think Ford and Chrysler wouldn’t have had to match them? And that could apply to almost any aspect of car building. GM failed to exercise true leadership.
As is often human nature, GM became lazy, defensive and hubristic after it achieved such mammoth success. Just read John DeLorean’s account in “On A Clear Day You Can See GM”, or a host of other books on the subject, although his is perhaps the most damming. That’s not to damn everyone at GM, as there were still many fine folks and accomplishments, but ultimately the results percolated down, as it always does in every organization. GM had a cancer in its executive offices, and it was a deadly one.
Here is a list of the GM Deadly Sins so far, which are numbered strictly according to when they were written, and not according to any ranking of deadliness. And yes, it will get longer yet. And yes, it has not been without controversy; sometimes I’m a bit unsure about a few myself. But even a superb and handsome car like the 1966 Olds Toronado embodied significant aspects of the kind of thinking that eventually brought GM down. Would I love one? Of course; but that’s not the point of this particular exercise.
All written by PN unless otherwise noted:
#7 1976 Chevrolet Malibu Classic
#8 1984 Pontiac Bonneville Brougham
#11 1975-1979 Cadillac Seville
#12 1990 Pontiac LeMans (Deawoo)
#17 1980-1985 Cadillac Seville
#18 1991 Chevrolet Lumina Euro
# 20 1991 Ninety Eight Brendan Saur
#21 1986-1991 Cadillac Seville
#24 2005 Buick Terraza Brendan Saur
#26 1985 Oldsmobile Calais Supreme GN
#27 1976 Chevrolet Cosworth Vega
#28 1997 Chevrolet Lumina Brendan Saur
#29 1997-2001 Cadillac Catera Jeff Nelson
#32 1959 GMC DLR8000 “Crackerbox” Semi Truck
Well this should be interesting…
I’m going to wait before commenting further because I want to see where this is going to go.
FWIW Paul, my current desktop background pic is the Burgundy Olds Cutlass Supreme Brougham you shot, Perfect? No, but I LOVE that car!!!
I can certainly add some suggestions for the GM Greatest Hits series.
My bias is showing (ahem) but I would nominate the 1988-98 GMT400s.
Thank you Paul and my experience and yours are very similar even though I was born in 1977. I was born into a GM worshiping family (on my Father’s side) and a Ford family on my Mother’s side. Until long after I got my drivers license I would not consider anything other than from the one GM. I spent my pre teen years dreaming of the day I would move from Chevrolet to Pontiac to Oldsmobile to Buick to Cadillac like God and Alfred Sloan intended. My beautiful wife at my side, our perfect children in the back seat. (FYI my father currently owns a Pontiac Torrent and a mid 1990s Suburban 4×4. Oh and a 1967 Mustang.)
My first car was a 1982 Celebrity that had been in the family since 1985 and 45,000 miles and a car that was taken care of by my meticulous father (seriously the man’s cars were sometimes cleaner when he got rid of them then when he bought them.) The engine needed rebuilt at 100,000 miles, the body developed scary levels of rust before the end of the 80s, the clear coat flaked off even with my fathers careful care. I thought all cars did that… they must right? Because GM is the best damn auto maker in the world!
My second car a 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, another family heirloom. God I loved that car. Steering column had to be rebuilt shortly after 100,000 miles (it nearly fell into my lap) then the frame rusted through at the sway bar link in the front, and the trans was starting to let go around 150,000 miles. Carb rebuilds every 50,000 miles. But all cars do that right? The man who stole that car on a dark cold Thanksgiving weekend in Southfield, MI did me a favor.
When it came time to replace it my insurance check and my meager teaching income allowed me to by a 4 year old 1997 Escort wagon with but 21,000 miles on it. Although the engine was gutless the Mazda engineered guts were superior to anything I had driven previously.
About the same time my (now ex-) wife’s 1994 Cutlass Ciera decided to eat its transmission at 75,000 miles. (FYI her generous parents paid to replace it and the GM remanufactured trans bit the dust exactally 75,000 miles later… and the warranty on the replacement trans… 75,000 miles)
Several years later (2006) I purchased a 2004 F150 Heritage with the smooth as butter 4.6V8. I still have that truck and will keep it hopefully as long as Paul has kept his F100.
Now I realize that Ford cars were crap at various times (variable venturi carbs anyone) and there is a reason that the taste of death has been in Chrysler’s mouth many times. But my bad experiences were at the hands of a company that I was raised to think of as invincible.
Carmine has occasionally accused me of being anti-GM too. Let me say that my sentiments echo Paul’s and I do condem GM for the sins of the past. Having said that I hope for GMs success. I will be buying a car next fall. I have come to the conclusion that depending on my commute it may behoove me to purchase new for a variety of reasons. I will look at a Cruze (LT2, turbo, manual please) or a last of the W-body Impalas (3.6 VVT+6 speed auto = SWEET) but I will also look at many other cars from many other manufacturers. May the best car win.
Oh c’mon, Dan, the sweet siren call of the Land Yacht is calling your name.
Get ’em before they’re all gone or in Jay Leno’s aircraft hangar.
And right about there is where GM started to pick up the plot again (although call me a freak because I’d rather have one of the 350 NON-LT1 derived engines). OH WAIT THEY DIDN’T PICK UP THE PLOT AGAIN CAUSE THEY KILLED THOSE CARS IN 1996… TO BUILD SUVS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Breathe Dan… I never gotten over that. I have a flaming hatred of SUVs brought on by the death of American station wagons.)
If I could order a new B-body Caprice with hardly any options save the biggest avaible engine and tow package I would. And no ripping me off by charging me $32,000 for a police cruiser built in Austraila doesn’t count.
I’m being sorely tempted by a 93 Roadmattress in cherry red with maroon leather. The owner is even making himself a pain in the ass by calling me about it.
My father calls them “RoadBLASTERS” I think he could imagine himself traveling at a high rate of speed with the cruise set, miles of interstate streching out before him my “Church Lady” (google it) Mother be damned.
BTW go test drive a 2012 Impala. Find a nice strech of highway. Set the cruise at 80mph. Listen to the engine and watch the tachometer hover below 2000 rpm. Forget which wheels are being driven. It will sound like you’re in a mid 80s B-body and that V6 will be no more stressed out than a SBC would be. Praise the Lord. It only took 16 years but GM brought back the feeling.
I agree on the Impala. Dad occasionally drives a white 2010 or black 2011 Impala LT company car when he has to go out of town. I’ve driven the ’10, and it’s a very nice car – comfortable and quiet. And I’ve driven Volvos for fifteen years.
Have him call me – I’ll drive it to Oakland and ship it on Matson to Honolulu!
The Roadmaster is in Regina, Saskatchewan. Still interested?
I’ve always felt the traditional wagon was killed off by the mini van – rightly so IMO.
The traditional wagon was killed off by regulation that made it unprofitable to produce, and was directly replaced by a traditional wagon body on a truck chassis.
Your reply shows why we need more DS cars from other makes.
You can substitute a Ford, Mopar and even some early foreign product easily with all of the issues you listed above.
Heh. I’m sure some DSs are still being made even today. Honda Crosstour, anyone?
There are two of those around where I live and both are black. I’ve seen them during the day but I suspect their next owners will be night-dwellers.
If early foreign product means Japanese when they were an emerging industry, there were relatively few cars that weren’t better than the previous model – I take your point that there would have to be some mis-steps along the way however.
On the European side of things – definitely! Exhibit A: Lancia Beta
Agreed that it would be interesting to see some DS cars from other makes. There are some brands that could do no wrong back in the ’80s and ’90s which today look as though they may be starting to go down the same path as GM as they decontent their products in response to rising production costs, and introduce flawed designs in the “Relentless Pursuit of Growth”. Of course it’s hard to call current models “deadly sins” since we don’t know how things will end yet…
The UK industry might be another source of “Deadly Sins”. They were the number one exporter of cars back in the late ’50s, and 25 years later it was pretty much all over.
The demise of the UK auto industry can be summarized in 2 words:
British.
Leyland.
Although the old GM and Chrysler are dead, I’m glad the domestic industry and some of its brands survived – not just for the jobs and technical capabilities they provide, but also because North American cars are part of the landscape and I think the streets would be less interesting if they were to disappear.
The remains of Rover slipped beneath the waves in the UK about seven years ago, and the last time I was over there I noticed domestic cars are starting to disappear from the streets of that country. Although the Volkswagens and Fords that have replaced them are no doubt nice enough cars, it seems like a bit of local character has been lost. I’m happy that the same thing did not happen here.
I was at the local car show last week, and it seems as though there are some definite signs of life at GM and Chrysler. The products themselves seem much improved, and there seemed to be larger crowds and a more upbeat environment at their displays than I remember from a few years ago.
Hopefully both companies continue their turnaround, and hopefully Paul will do a “GMs Greatest Hits” piece featuring a well worn, street parked, daily driven CTS-V wagon in 2037…
It seems logical to spend more time on a company that fell from a position of absolute dominance than you spend on #2 or #3. I reckon you can still see more old GM examples than much anything else. I have two chevrolets sitting outside my house and I no longer care much about the brand. Sometimes a story does not reflect well on it’s subjects but it’s still the story.
Y’know, it’s an interesting cross section. I guess everyone has their opinions. Myself, I owned a 1992 Pontiac (Daewoo) LeMans. It remains one of my favorite cars, and had some idiot not lit it on fire one Halloween night ten years back I would probably still be driving it. I can understand the bigger picture now having read the article, but I’d still buy another one for my commuter car if I could find one…
Quite a few Lemans still alive in the wild here and the Daewoo Cielo which was identical they have no monetary value but seem to keep running
I was reading this thinking I was going to get PO’d or find Carmine’s Manifesto. I was surprised to find that I agree with almost all of the DS series. I think I’ll have to go back and re-read them for a little refresher.
I think GM found a little redemption with the 81 refresh of the Grand Prix and GM needs to be given props for admitting a screw up and bringing the Parisiene out(too little-too late).
And if they had kept all the B-bodys in production as long as the Caprice I would direct less anger at GM. The H-body’s should have been brought out as G-body replacements like the Bonneville was I would have much greater respect for the first generation H-bodys. Oh and Ford wouldn’t have made so many conquest sales with the Panthers in the mid 80s.
So true on the G body. They needed to disappear around 84-85. Ford really jammed GM in 86 and there’s no way GM didn’t know the direction Ford was going after the Tempo and T-Bird came out.
I don’t really understand how someone can get mad at a car being called a Deadly Sin in the first place.
Case in point: My Lincoln, although it isn’t a DS and isn’t even a GM car, is an objectively awful vehicle that I love in spite of its faults. Just because a car is bad doesn’t mean it is devoid of at least some good qualities, and it doesn’t mean nobody can like it.
Lighten up, people…
I too enjoy and understand the DS series, in fact its a big reason I started coming here. Many of the cars listed are virtually extinct from the roads, car shows and don’t even have enthusiast followings today. I find The Deadly sins series and Curbside classics as a whole as a great resource for learning or sharing stories about these forgotten cars, positive or not. If anything I pay more attention to the cars when I stumble across them now.
My own MN12 Cougar and the same Thunderbirds could easily qualify for deadly sin status for Ford given its controversial development costs and its impact within corporate management at the time, regardless of how advanced it was. I have no delusions about it but I still love the hell out of them for what they are.
The reason there are so few of the cars on the DS list still on the road was they were, to a one, pieces of utter crap. I know of what I speak, I made loads of money over years having GM junkies loyally wrenching on their just out of warranty GM Dream Mobiles. Then about 1990-1990 they all either bought Japanese or the farm. Killed our garage business. No money to be made fixing Toyotas.
I don’t get mad about the 76 Malibu Classic being a DS even though the first “love of my life” was a 73 Chevelle Deluxe complete with Rubbermaid interior and Uniroyal rubber floors.
I don’t quite understand the comparison used in the 89 Camaro DS though. It dosen’t get me mad, it does confuse me though. A Mercedes W124 vs an 82 Camaro? I’d expect a “German Taxi” that costs 1.5 to 2 times what the American Sport Coupe costs to perform that way.
That wasn’t the case with earlier or later Camaros. They’d easily have out-dragged a regular mid-size Meredes. My point was that in the early-mid eighties, GM didn’t put enough effort into engine performance, and it hurt them. That cross-fire Camaro shouldn’t have been wearing Z28 badges.
That makes sense now.
I agree, Ford and Chevy really tripped up on “performance” in the early 80s. When your Hot Rod powerplant is a choked 305, 307 or 302 you have issues.. At least Chrysler was trying with the H.O. 2.2 and later the Turbo torque steer machines.
Funny thing about the Cross Fire system, it seemed to work O.K. on the Corvette..
GM could have hotrodded the 305 very easily and later did, with a proper EFI system. The only reason they did the Crossfire abomination was to meet stricter emission standards. It worked relatively okay, it just didn’t make much power and the early C4 (Computer Controlled Catalytic Converter) systems lacked any way to diagnose a problem. To make on run, you just replaced parts until you got the right one. About 90% of the time it was the fuel pump, a $600 job in 1985.
I hate the Chevy SSR, so I understand the reason for the DS series and negative CCs, but I’ll admit that I’ve been slightly saddened by the choices of the DS series (Toronado, C4 Corvette, 1st gen Seville) in the past. (I also didn’t love the ’69 Marauder CC)
I can’t imagine that too many people enjoy reading negative things about the stuff they like. Or maybe I’m just insecure.
It isn’t that I like the car any less after reading the article, but I consider Paul to be a very talented writer and overall level-headed guy. I’ve been reading his stuff since 2007.
When I see a new CC about a vehicle that I like, I would personally prefer to read him focusing on the positive aspects of the vehicle and deliver a love-fest like only he can. Instead I end up reading about how the car sucked or contributed to the downfall of the company that built it.
It can definitely be a bit deflating.
I guess I could always skip the DS articles, but I’ve never been upset enough at one to consider that needed. I’m not that over the edge.
But if/when he puts the Trofeo on the list, I’ll have to declare a Jihad.
I remember talking for a short bit with my Dad around 1990 or so about GM at that time of the possibility of GM going under then, It’s a shame that they didn’t learn their lesson then and not have had to actually go under in 2009.
That said, I remember being pleasantly surprised at the Cobalt, as mediocre as it was how much more European it was, the ride was less floaty, it had bucket seats etc, not trying to shoehorn the old sedan paradigm into a modern compact.
It’s really not to difficult to hear or know about or have experienced GM’s worst mistakes, thankfully, my parents in the very few GM vehicles they had and my 2 70’s era Novas didn’t have too many issues that were the direct result of GM’s mistakes, and that was despite my parents having owned 2 FWD X bodies.
My little former Ranger truck looked to have been put together with decent quality materials as the plastics used to construct the dash, while plainly styled seemed of decent, sturdy and of durable quality, unlike the flimsy plastic fascia and foam like cushiony plastic dash top (that dried out and crumbled) used in my ’78 Fairmont.
In the end, GM definitely lost its way and their products for years/decades showed.
The fact that the old US sedan paradigm has finally died and I’m SO glad and am glad to see GM trying harder to make decent product again.
Sad that by the mid 1960’s, all innovations and prowess slipped by the wayside.
It is sad that GM became fixated on short term profits and that cars to them became a mere abstraction on paper; just a sideshow. And I suspect that many of us find it fun in one way or another to belittle the General – they did it to themselves.
Pretty much every carmaker has had a Deadly Sin. Even Hyundai, the darling of Consumer Reports and all car buff magazines at the moment, has plenty of Deadly Sins in its closet.
My E46 BMW was considered a Deadly Sin by the BMW faithful on the internet when it first came out. Forum fanboys claimed it was proof that BMW was pulling a Lexus and going soft. I don’t care. I still love the car, its tight six-speed manual gearbox and the way it hammers down the road.
If GM continues to focus on product that’s competitive with the world’s best – meaning the best Asian and European cars, not just Ford and Fiatsler – and doesn’t revert to their old myopic focus on short term profitability that brought them to the brink of death in 2008-09, I think they’ll be fine in the long run and we won’t see many more deadly sins.
Now about that diesel Cruze wagon, GM?
IIRC, that initial kerfuffle was due to BMW fitting much lighter steering than on the E36 for the first couple years of E46 production. In response to the complaints, BMW dialled it back in the 2002-onward models. Yours looks like one of those (hard to tell from the thumbnail!) in which case you got the good-steering one.
GM’s Deadly Sins are some of the most fascinating, just in terms of business history–the concept of an organisation that size, going from 50% US market share to less than 20% in a few decades, is amazing, and it’s interesting to pick apart the individual missteps that got it there.
That said, I’d love to see more DSs from other manufacturers. I also owned one–a third-generation Mitsu Eclipse, the first fattened-up one with the 3.0 V6. With a stick, black leather and silver exterior, it was a great tourer on a long, winding freeway like Highway 1. Trouble-free too. But it was so off-message after the turbo AWD DSM cars that it killed a name many had expected to become an institution.
Yeah, mine is a late E46 330, which has the “better” steering rack. The forums still whined that it wasn’t as good as the E36 until BMW introduced the 330 Performance Package in 2003, which had updated suspension bits and 10 extra horsepower thanks to Alpina camshafts and tighter suspension bits.
I remember wondering exactly what Mitsu was thinking when they introduced that Eclipse. As a sporty GT car, it looked nice, but it wasn’t the insane AWD turbo madness of the DSM. If Mitsu had a Gen 3 turbo AWD car (or better yet, brought the Evo over in 2000 to fill the old DSM slot) the WRX wouldn’t have had such an impact on the sport-compact market when it hit the US market in mid-2001.
Meh, I’ve driven most trims of the E36 and E46, and IMHO the 2002+ 3-Series was always tops. The E36 tiller had more weight but less feel, and its effort ramped up more erratically off-centre.
Can’t offer much insight on the Eclipse. To a young 20-something, the third-gen was fast, it looked good, it had an awesome stereo, and it was cheap used. Mitsubishi pinned their fortunes on a compromised “Project America” chassis that formed the basis of everything from my car to the family-taxi Endeavor. Sad to say, they probably shouldn’t have farmed this project out to the US.
Mitsu remains a schizophrenic outfit today, pitching world-class Evos out of one side of its mouth and horrid rental-car fodder out the other. I hope they sort things out in time to stay in the second tier.
Hyundai… It seems like that company flipped a switch in 2007 and started making decent cars. There is literally zero development lineage between the uninspired crap in the early 2000s (Elantra hatchback, that’s you) to the 2008 Accent (Cute little car). And now we have the stunning (Hyundai-owned) Kia Optima which, despite only being offered in monochrome paint, is a real stunner (better looking that the current Fusion imo).
I’m touched really…I am.
I still dont believe that cars like the 1975-1979 Seville, the 66 Toronado, 78 Grand Prix and the perhaps the Corvette and Camaros belong on the same list as such cars as the Vega and Citation.
It’s not as much about the cars as it is about the corporate values (decision making) they represent. For example, I think the point Paul was making about the 75-79 Seville was how its success encouraged the bean counters at GM to go ever deeper into the badge engineering cesspool (think Cimarron). He was not saying/implying that it was a bad car, it wasn’t
The GM H-bodies (LeSabre, 88, Bonneville) were examples of the bread and butter engineering that GM excelled in for many years. Yes, the engines were sawed off V8 to V6s with push rods, but you couldn’t beat their 20 MPG city/30 highway economy coupled with huge interior and trunk space. 20 years after the introduction of the 2nd gen model, you still see them motoring around in relatively good condition.
Certainly, there were many DS cars over time and I’ve also had some of those. Time to give a little credit to the plus side.
I can’t get away from this, as it is forever burned in my young mind, but when the auto world hit me square in the face and when I realized something seriously went wrong was the onset of the GM Colonnades – the major beginning of the death of the pillarless hardtop style. What made things worse – I have never owned a hardtop – but adding insult to injury was the fixed side glass on coupes. That one feature, in my opinion, signed the death warrant of a practical, usable, desirable mid-to-large coupe. Turns out I was right, too.
Yeah, it really WAS GM’s fault for the slow death of the auto industry as we knew it.
That being said, the cars now are far better than anything that came before. An Impala that gets over 30 mpg in any year before 1999? Blaspemy!
I close with a slightly altered closing sentence from George Orwell’s 1984:
“But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved 4 door sedans.”
“An Impala that gets over 30 mpg in any year before 1999? Blaspemy!”
You know, if Chevy had signed on to the FWD H-Body in the mid 80’s and called their variant the Impala, it might have happened a lot earlier. The 3.8 liter V6 coupled with the wide ratio 4-speed automatic and a tall final drive ratio would pull 30 mpg freeway. I knew a couple people who owned Bonnevilles and were very happy with them.
Holden Commodores 3.8 4 speed auto can achieve 30+ mpg highway FWD has nothing to do with it. Mamual varsions were rated 35mpg on magazine road tests
US or Imperial gallons?
Hey, sleds were what GM did best. Were I looking for a $2000 car, an H-Body would be number one on the list.
> GM failed to exercise true leadership.
That’s the essence of the focus on GM’s deadly sins. GM was in a position to advance the very Art of the Automobile, and had the money to pull it off. Its not that it fared much worse than its competitors, just that it squandered away a MUCH bigger opportunity. The neglect of the Japanese domestic market by GM and Ford was astoundingly short-sighted. There wouldn’t have been a Toyota Motors that way, and statistical quality control would be a GM/Ford trademark. Good thing they’re not making the same mistake with China. The only solace lies in the fact that it takes the German Government to finally put up a credible European challenge to GM, but that is more a reflection on the European economy than GM’s prowess.
You might find this interesting:
http://history.gmheritagecenter.com/wiki/index.php/General_Motors%E2%80%99_Asia-Pacific_Saga
“Most people don’t realize it, but General Motors was the dominant player in the entire Asia-Pacific region up until World War II. Vehicle assembly operations were established in Japan in 1926; China in 1927; and India in 1928. GM also entered Australia in 1926 and established Holden’s (now Holden) in Australia 1931.
With this broad base, GM was a major player in the region right up until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 1941, December 7. GM was actually number one in the Japanese market from the 1920s through the 1930s and had a larger share of the market there than in the U.S.
After World War II, however, GM was forced out of all major Asia-Pacific markets except Australia. In Japan, laws written with the guidance of the American General Douglas MacArthur prohibited U.S. automakers from re-entering the market.”
Thanks for the link. Although I was aware of GM’s (and Chrysler’s) ouster from China and India, and the reasons for the same, viz Chiang Kai Shek and Communism, I’d always expected post war Japan to be different. Although the protectionist policy appears to have MacArthur’s name on it, I can’t imagine what political shenanigans went into those ridiculous laws. GM’s re-entry into India has been an unmitigated disaster, with complete destruction of the Opel brand. Chevrolet badged Daewoo cars seem to be doing better now. GM China is, of course, a power house, but it remains to be seen if the Chinese and Indian operations (that have been wrested from GM by SAIC) return to GM or not. Thanks again. It surely was interesting.
One correction – Holden’s was a coachbuilding firm who turned to car bodies in the days when cars were imported as bare chassis – they actually built bodies for Fords prior to the local Ford factory being built. GM bought them up, rather than established them.
here here! I love the DS series, even if I think that some of the sins are merely venial. GM is like any near-monopoly: success breeds complacence, and if they’re lucky/wise, they’ll eventually recover from having their butts kicked.
That’s not the way it usually shakes out for big companies, of course. But there’s no harm in wishing them well in the future while remembering how they reached their present state.
I sincerely hope a Ford and Chrysler deadly sins series is in the works…
What about the Europeans? Plenty of Deadly Sins there, the biggest one in recent memory being the Mark 4 Golf/Jetta.
There’s a bit of a semantic issue there with Ford and other companies, since they didn’t actually die. So really, their sins should be called near-deadly sins.
And the challenge with Chrysler is that they bounced around so much; their decline wasn’t as linear as GM’s was.
But we’ll give it a shot.
How bout the “Dips In Chrysler’s Roller Coaster”
Ding ding ding! Ten points for Dan!
Paul, you’ve clearly articulated the reasons for having a GM Deadly Sin series. It’ll be easy to point future discussions here as time moves on and puzzled questions arise.
I, too, began to wonder about GM…Detroit in general in the early ’80’s…but especially GM.
And if I had to put the reason for whole debate into two sentences, they would read:
GM was Americana. And America trusted them.
As I shared in another thread…GM had played at such a high level for so long that the expectations were higher.
Between 1925-1960, as America moved from just being on wheels to being auto-dependent…there were no missteps on the order of Chrysler’s homely ’49-’54 line or the junk ’57’s. Or Ford’s hopelessly outdated suspensions and brakes pre-1949. GM brought you the Motorama, the Parade of Progress, and were constantly innovating in styling and engineering.
When GM began to let us down, and then did so regularly and with impunity…it merited, indeed cried out for a Deadly Sin series.
Imagine your grown child graduating from a top university magna cum laude…and then coming home to veg on the couch and eat potato chips.
That’s Vega.
The expectations were thru the roof…and the car was junk. America’s trust had been betrayed.
Now imagine that same child never cleaning up after themselves, leaving empty bag after empty bag of chips in the living room attracting bugs and mice?
That’s the X and J-bodies.
America’s trust betrayed, and now spat upon.
Parents toss their real-life Bart Simpson out of the house, change the locks and clean up the mess?
That’s America turning to Ford, Chrysler and imports.
Now GM is starting to rebuild trust, starting once again to build more than 2-3 vehicles you’d actually want to own without a wheelbarrow of cash on the hood.
I’ve appreciated very much the Deadly Sin series…AND the Greatest Hit series. I look forward to more of each.
And to anyone stumbling upon these postings and comments who still wonders why all the fuss back and forth, I respectfully suggest they avail themselves of the automotive histories available here, at Ate Up With Motor, and other sites including marque-specific sites like Allpar. Because in a way…this IS American history, and has much to do with why we are the way we are, above and beyond the automobile.
Paul has already described the “Dips In Chrysler’s Roller Coaster” both here and at TTAC.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/04/chrysler-rip/
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/chryslers-bi-polar-history-part-1/
Could you do a Ford’s Follies?
While the Cross Fire 305 in the 82 Z28 was trying to push 165 horsepower Ford was screaming from the mountaintops about the “Boss” being back with the 302 churning out 157 ponies in the “New” GT.
FWIW, I’m quite certain that 157 hp Mustang GT was faster than the 165 hp Z28. I’d almost bet on it.
If you go by what the car rags said, you’re right. The Mustang wins when compared to the LG4 powered Camaro (145hp) by over a second in the quarter mile. The Crossfire and auto equipped Camaro had the Mustang by 9/10 in the quarter.
That said, I need to think before I speak..
I had a T-Topped 82 Mustang GT 4 speed that really was a better car than the 90 Camaro RS (TBI 305/auto) that came to the stable later. It didn’t really do anything better than the Camaro. It was just something about it being a Mustang..
The Mustang was faster. Car and Driver said of the ’82 Cross-Fire Camaro, “the Z-28 is Emily Post polite; all others go first.”
Where’s the Cadillac V4-6-8 and Oldsmobile diesel?
What’s most interesting about the list are some of the cars that aren’t on it:
Aztek
Fiero
Tempest ‘rope-drive’
’91-’96 B-body
’53-’55 Corvette
and, most notably, the Corvair.
But there’s good reason. Although all of the above might have been considered sales failures, they weren’t really Deadly Sins.
I am doing a GM case study for my thesis and DeLorean’s book was a must-read. The rot and decline actually began a few years after DeLorean’s arrival, the early Corvair debacle, the decontenting of product, Vega committee car, X clones, etc. ad nauseam.
In hindsight it is amazing how long it took GM to fall. I may not agree on all the cars you (Paul) portrayed as Deadly Sins (’75 SevIlle – no – accept for the arrogant pricing perhaps), but your observations and your accurate degree of automotive history are on the mark.
I read that book last summer and have to agree. Delorean made a pretty good case that the rot in the GM hierarchy was systemic and fairly well advanced by the mid 1960s. It just took another 15 to 20 years to show up. The other interesting takeaway from that book is that if Ford could have only managed to bake some moderate level of quality into its cars of the late 60s and early 1970s, GM’s decline could have come a lot faster than it did, because Ford was building some really innovative and appealing cars at that time and had anyone at GM who was paying attention very worried.
I read somewhere – but I can’t remember where – that the rot at GM really set in sometime in the late ’50s when senior management started to focus on financial performance, rather than building the best cars and trucks they could.
I really need to get a copy of DeLorean’s book sometime. My dad keeps talking about it too. He had a copy, but loaned it out to a neighbor when I was a kid, and the neighbor threw it out when he was done reading it. 🙁
I bought a used copy on Amazon last year.
Numbers don’t lie. 82 Mustang GT is listed at 16.3 in the quarter, the Crossfire Z is listed at 15.8.(I misread an 83 Z28 review earlier at @ 15.1)
The Z could have been a ringer though, they were still doing that deep into the 80s.
If you really want to have some fun read the 1983 MT comparo between the Z28, GT and the Daytona Turbo Z.
The Mopar was last but for half the cylinders the Daytona was a serious hit.
The Deadly Sins features are some of my favorite articles here – please keep them coming. The exploration into the hows and whys of these cars is fascinating.
None were bigger and had farther to fall than GM and no car company is as interesting as them either – seems pretty reasonable that most of these DS articles would be dedicated to them. There are some Ford and Chrysler articles too though.
I know I’m biased by the past, but I can’t imagine ever buying a GM car because of.
1) Our family’s past GMs:
74 Chevy Vega – nuff said
81 Chevy Impala – Torqueless 273 V8, interior turned to dust
83 Buick Regal – Back half of frame rusted out and fell off
2) My experiences with GM in the auto industry:
-“Due to cost reduction program we’re decreasing your contract value by 10%”
-Not paying 90% of contract value due to disagreement between safety and production
I know a lot of Americans take it personally that they were bailed out, but that doesn’t bother me. At least we got SOMETHING for our money, unlike the bank bailout. I just can’t bring myself to consider them based on past experience…
Your gripes with GM make perfect sense. I get that you were treated shabbily by them and are understandably wary of their product. I have a similar issue with Fords.
What bugs me are the folks who had one bad car (of whatever stripe) 30+ years ago, never bought another one from the same company again but endlessly bitch about it all these years later. What’s the point? Any of the people responsible for the car/buying experience/whatever have long since moved on (or passed on).
As an example, I had several bad Fords in the 80’s and 90’s. I probably won’t buy another one again. However, I don’t think that calling for the whole company to be killed with fire will really do anything about the troubles I had years ago.
I’ve learned my lesson and moved on.
My theory is that Paul comes down on GM so hard because he is a GM fan at heart, and wants to cheer for them, but they kept making blunder after blunder.
You don’t have to theorise. Paul was self-admittedly an altar boy of St. Mark of Excellence in younger days. 🙂
I have some reading to do – not only have I not read all the articles, there are quite a few where I’m not familiar with the subject!
Where is the DS for the Chevy Uplander and it’s corporate cousins?! I hate EVERYTHING about it and it’s corporate cousins! They’re noisy, smelly, HORRENDOUSLY ugly, unsafe, cheap-feeling, very-poorly-equipped, and up in states that have roads that are COVERED in salt in winters like Michigan, rust-prone (at two or three years, orange dots about as big as a dot from a ballpoint pen were all over the bottom half of the door panels and fenders). I HATE those cars with a vengeance. “Load of S#!£” is what I think “LS” really stood for instead of “Luxury Sport”!
Bright Idea: Paul, you could do those DS’ (The DS’ for the Uplander and it’s corporate cousins) in a series like you did in the CCCCC, Auto-Biography, or like Michael Freman in Cars Of A Lifetime for a few examples!
So in other words: GM! You’ve thrown $#!£box after $#!£box on your consumers and turned them away from you. You finally seem to be coming out with some good products and then kill the brands with those products (with the sole exception of Cadillac) and then leave your consumers with what? MORE ROLLING $#!£BOXES! Just what any market doesn’t want>:(
Note;this comment is based on personal experiences with a stripper Chevy Uplander LS. “Load of S#!*” is what I think “LS” really stood for instead of “Luxury Sport”. That car is the ultimate uglified, cheapened, safened, throw-away, spiritual successor to the 1959 Chevy Brookwood wagon!
I suspect that one of these will eventually be featured in my “How Hard Can It Be to Make a Minivan” series. So many awful minivans, so little time!
Current Score of “Rivalry Points”:
Alfasaab99: 1
Chevrolet Uplander LS (Load of $#!£): 0
Oh yes, I forgot they were also bland, tasteless, uninspired, unlovable, and worst of all, uninnovative!
Paul, the Toronado was very influential in GM’s transition from RWD to FWD because they used it to refine the FWD drivetrain in general so they would know how to make it work in compact, midsize, and full-size cars and FWD is used across the board (except in SUV’s and Zeta platform cars) in America, Europe, Australia, and the UK.
I don’t agree with you. The Toronado’s UPP drivetrain had nothing in common with the transverse drivetrain they used for the X-cars and all subsequent GM fwd cars. What you say sounds good, but it’s just not true.
By the time they engineered their transverse fwd transaxe, they had dozens of other European transverse fwd cars they were looking at, not the 7.4 liter Toronado.
I highly disagree with saturn being on this list,their were alot worse cars that downplayed gm’s image,Pontiac Aztek,Chevy Cavalier,their overall lackluster attention to safety,etc.
Funny thing is Im still driving these cars from the 70’s.
73 Buick Centurion
73 El Camino
73 Gran Prix
Anyone think any car built recently,will be running 40 years from now?
See you then!
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
Dennis, you are FORTUNATE.
Had you said “’65 Buick LeSabre, ’68 El Camino and ’69 Grand Prix”, I’d be more inclined to think differently, to say, “hey you got some good cars there and well maintained.”
Now, some truth.
1) ANYTHING built by ANYBODY in the US market in 1973 had to deal with immature emissions technology and I’m gonna bet to a car, all three of yours have been desmogged so they would run. That’s what everyone else did after the cars were a few years old.
2) GM Powertrain and Hydra-Matic divisions still made a relatively durable product in 1973. Many powertrain combos never went thru the swoon that others did. A TH350/400 is pretty much a TH350/400 no matter when it rolled off a GM assembly line. Many engines had to be adapted with EGR heads and intakes which could be a touch-and-go affair, yet the bottom ends were still durable, a weekend head/intake swap’s not an unreasonable option.
If you live where the tin worm isn’t an issue, good. Here in the Northeast, rust got to most everybody’s 1970s cars quickly, in many cases, more quickly than their 1960s counterparts. The manufacturers were trying to improve rust resistance but it would be a few years yet before there was real progress. PLUS, there was a run of bad steel in many GM vehicles of your era. The tin worm hit those early and often.
To your question. The answer is unequivocally…YES.
At the very least, the GM Gen III/IV/V series V8’s (collectively known as “LS”) are a work of genius. Yes, new technologies such as direct-injection and displacement-on-demand sometimes have bugs that only time and experience will fix.
But 300-400,000 miles is not an unreasonable ask for an LS drivetrain, especially in a Silverado/Tahoe/Suburban or their GMC/Cadillac counterparts. Plus the chassis components are miles ahead of 20 years ago. Finally we see components properly sized and engineered for the vehicle. Eight of the twenty longest-lasting vehicles on the road today are the Silverado/Suburban and its variants.
To be fair it wasn’t just GM. In the same way the traditional class-ridden management structure in British companies led to their demise through the 60s and 70s, the American paternalistic model destroyed their industrial giants through the 80s and 90s. Both model were driven from the top down, and playing the corporate game was more important than pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. Messengers got shot.
In 1992 both IBM and GM managed to post the biggest ever corporate losses in history. In IBMs case it was willfull blindness to local area networks (I was there), for GM it chose to ignore much better foreign cars.