General Motors had a lot of great hits, but it had plenty of failures too. Like the kid from a good home and with plenty of pocket money that picks up bad habits and ends up on the wrong side of the law, GM’s failures often receive a lot more scorn because they should have known better. The following are a collection of underdone, overwrought, underwhelming, and over-the-hill GM cars that often (and often deservedly) receive a lot of scorn. Today, let’s look at the glass half full and see to it that whatever redeeming qualities these vehicles had are recognized.
Chevrolet’s first subcompact was the cute Vega, offering mini-Camaro styling and an aluminum-block four-cylinder engine. It was the latter that was instrumental in turning this promising little car into a reliability disaster. Despite rampant engine failures, the Vega lasted 7 long years on the market and the related Monza and its badge-engineered cousins lingered until 1980. On the plus side, the Vega (and related Pontiac Astre) eventually received more reliable engines, they were always more fun to drive than the Pinto and the wagon was quite a looker.
Released to much critical acclaim and huge initial sales figures, the Chevrolet Citation (and its fellow GM X-Body compatriots) suffered from extensive quality and reliability issues, causing it to rack up recall after recall and burn many, many buyers. Torque steer issues and the low-tech four-cylinder aside, these weren’t bad to drive – Citation X-11s with the H.O. V6 and uprated suspension were actually quite fun – and the basic bones ended up being used for the successful GM A-Body. The Citation and Phoenix’s hatchback body style was also very practical.
While the Vega and Citation were falling apart in owners’ hands, Chevrolet was selling the humble and much less ambitious Chevette. Based on the global T-Car platform, GM offered the venerable subcompact for a whopping 11 years with very few changes. Lacking the sporty variants offered on the Vega, Monza and Cavalier, the Chevette was sold as basic transportation. Solid, reliable and utterly dull, the Chevette was always one of the cheapest cars on the market.
The Saturn Ion represented yet another half-baked effort by GM in the compact segment. To replace the aged S-Series, GM utilized the new global Delta platform shared with the Opel Astra and Chevrolet Cobalt. But despite an all-new platform, the Ion was uncompetitive, suffering from an odd and plasticky interior and an overall lack of refinement. GM quickly rushed some mechanical and visual changes, but the Ion never posed a threat to the segment leaders, although the supercharged Red Line was a hoot to drive.
Cadillac was yet another GM division upon which a lackluster compact car was foisted. A hastily rebadged Chevrolet Cavalier, itself not a particularly stellar effort, the Cimarron was a cheap and dirty way to give Cadillac a luxury compact. Ultimately, Cadillac’s attempt to bring in younger buyers failed and the Cimarron sold poorly and damaged Cadillac’s image almost as badly as the disastrous engines used by GM’s luxury division in the 1980s. If you wanted a really nice Cavalier, the Cimarron was your car and later models did receive ever so slightly more distinctive styling and a more powerful V6.
Sometimes doing things differently doesn’t pay off, as the first-generation front-wheel-drive GM minivans proved. Futuristic styling and clever dent-resistant composite plastic panels made the “Dustbuster” minivans one of the segment’s more unique offerings, but Chrysler continued to dominate the segment. Although these quirky vans were less practical and had worse visibility than the Mopars, they were fairly reliable and were competent dynamically, especially the later examples with the 3.8 V6.
GM’s second-generation minivans were much more orthodox, eliminating the plastic panels and space-shuttle styling. But the U-Body platform would take a daring turn with the 2001 Aztek crossover. It’s fairly safe to say that had these Pontiacs been less, shall we say, hideous, they would have sold a lot better. Cheap plastic interior and so-so dynamics aside, the Aztek was very versatile. Alas, GM’s good designers must have called in sick and thus Pontiac’s first crossover was saddled with awkward proportions and messy lines. Sales fell well short of expectations despite the rising popularity of crossovers, and the Aztek was retired for 2005.
The Vega, the Aztek… If you struggled to say something nice in the previous two instalments of this series, you are going to have a momentous struggle today. Look through the rust and the engine smoke, though, and tell me if you see a silver lining on these cars.
GM air conditioners are so good they were used by Rolls Royce
They provided employment to those who built, sold and serivced them.
I know I’m going to get my ass kicked for saying this, but I thought the Cimarron wasn’t a really “bad” idea. They needed a small/sporty/economical Cadillac. The Cavalier wasn’t bad looking so why not use it? Yes, it was very obviously a “warmed over” Cavalier, but GM shared platforms/body styles all the time.
Anyway, I thought the D’Oro package did it some favors.
The 1983 Cadillac Cimarron D’Oro:
No, I honestly agree that the CONCEPT of the Cimarron was not bad. Its execution, on the other hand…
Had they given it tailfins, a unique roofline, or at least a convertible version (the return of convertibles was a big deal in the ’80s), it may have gained some more traction in the marketplace.
The D’Oro special edition is my favourite Cimarron next to the last few model years with flush headlights and the V-6 a standard equipment. Canada only had the Cimarron until 1987. I liked it, but it should have had some unique sheet metal from other J-bodies.
I have very little positive words in regard to the general. Perhaps it stems from my 2010 Chevrolet Cobalt that fell to pieces at 67000 miles (transmission seized) or maybe it was borrowing my grandfathers horrendous Citation that caught fire in a Taco Bell parking lot due to a heater malfunction that did it. I will say this, I enjoyed my 2002 Chevrolet TrailBlazer a good bit until it was stolen. That was a pretty good GM product.
I had a 2010 Cobalt as a daily driver up until about a month ago. It was a loaded LT with the sunroof, Pioneer sound system, etc. Well maintained and at 57k the transmission went on it. As well, it leaked onto the floorboard through the windshield every time it rained or was washed. Despite the issues on the surface it was a neat car. GM just can’t stop cutting corners it seems though. Needless to say, I lost my shirt.
My aunt had a vega wagon. We could fit her Great Dane in it.
My friends mom had a citation when I was in high school in the 90’s.
It ran good for her. Took a nasty hit and got totaled. No one was hurt.
I had a Chevette at the same time. I loved it. Ran great no trouble. Shouldn’t have sold it. ?
I liked the nicer grill on the Cimmaron.
I thought the rims on the Ion were kinda cool
Don’t know jack about the DustBuster vans but always thought they looked kinda neat.
As for the Aztec. I would take it over its platform mate ( Buick Rondevious) (spelling?)
It was better looking than that half minivan suv morph. Thing looks like a half finished clay model made it to the production line. ?
The Cosworth Vega was an interesting piece of work, if overpriced and undersold, and I’m pretty sure it was GM’s first U.S.-market DOHC production engine. (It may have been the first GM twin-cam engine, but there may be earlier Vauxhall or Opel homologation specials that beat it for corporate first.)
The Cosworth Vega was a hot ride. DOHC 2.0 litre w/ 140hp made 3-Series owners nervous. (or at least made CosChev owners THINK they were making 3-Series owners nervous)
Uhm, sadly, the Cosworth Vega was NOT a hot ride. The original press releases suggested 185 Horsepower, but by the time the Cosworth engine reached the showrooms, it actually only produced 110 Horsepower – interestingly enough, the same output available from the standard Vega engine of 1971.
http://www.cosworthvega.com/cosworth_vega_history.html
The whole saga is a very, very unhappy tale.
The horsepower ratings used in 1971 were gross horsepower; in later years it was net. So the 110 horsepower listed for 1971 became 90 a year later; the 1971 2 bbl engine did not generate the same power that the later Cosworth did.
Actually, we were both wrong. According to Standard Catelogue of American Cars the 1975 CosChev put out 120hp from 122cu in, which was pretty good back then. In ’76 power dropped to 110.
GM’s issues were that they would release a merely competitive (not leading) product, which was half-baked and took 3 years to really hit its stride, then build it for so long that it was woefully out of date. This makes sure that people remember it being sold against a product that was two cycles newer as well as remembering early build ones that were terrifying.
The nice thing that I’ll say is that most of these vehicles would’ve been a sturdy choice by the time of their first MCE. My family had several of these cars with mixed results, including a first-year V6 X-body Skylark that had a collapsed lifter when it had less than 60k miles. First year cars/engines can be a funhouse of strange problems.
You know, it’s really amazing when a big company does the same schitck for years and never learns from it. In the case of GM, they conjure a new product. Then it passes through a zillion hands, costing more at each stop, because everybody wants a piece of the pie. Said cool new product then goes over budget, and panic cost cutting ensues. The cars are then introduced with a honking great PR campaign to get the GM loyalists to buy their latest thing (and we know our old stuff was bad but this is better)at inflated stickers.
As the cars sit on lots due to their absurd prices, the GM zone rep goes to each dealership and calls their sales staff useless and lazy, etc, and dealer principals scream for rebates and discounts, which soon come.
And GM is still doing this. It’s hard to believe. With products like the Vega and Citation GM was at least leading in something. Now they make a decent pick up, but their cars are also
rans.
You’re supposed to say a nice thing. Find something anything, like they had really nice the valve stem covers.
That was certainly true from the Roger Smith era to the bankruptcy–indeed, the one led to the other. I strongly disagree that is the case now. Chevy has its most competitive car lineup since the early 1980s. Other then the soon-to-be replaced Malibu, they are well-reviewed. They generally sell well; sales of the Impala are down, but transaction prices of the new model are higher and fleet sales have been taken over by the “limited,” which is the last gen model. Apparently, GM will be going the same when the new Malibu is released.
Caddy’s recent offerings have been highly regarded by enthusiast magazines as having out-sported BMWs. Sales are down–way down over the past 15-20 years–but I don’t think the product is to blame. Caddy has raised prices significantly, going after profit over market share–something the Smith/Wagoner GM simply didn’t do. And I think it is a transition period for Caddy–it’s once-massive stable of buyers, people who “waited my whole live for a Cadillac,” are either dead or past their car-buying years. Younger people don’t take Cadillac seriously. It will take many years of good product to change that.
GM’s car line up is an also ran. A Malibu is no Accord, not even close and I’ve driven both at length. There is absolutely nothing trend setting or top shelf in their line up. You’ve have to have rocks in your head to buy any GM car new since they have horrid depreciation.
Cadillac is dead unless it does something like make a better Tesla S for less money. Don’t see that coming from GM. Chevrolet cars make money since they are global brands (except the Malibu, which is a sales flop) but the Opel stuff at Buick is long in the tooth, and Opel ‘ s solvency is rather an issue.
The only thing that GM makes money on is the trucks. The rest don’t have to volume to rack up big profits.
I have to disagree. You said the entire GM lineup consisted of also-rans, which J Smith refuted correctly. The Cadillac lineup, the Chevy SS, Verano, Encore, Impala…. Hell, even the older Equinox and Lambda crossovers review well and sell well!
This is the most consistently competent lineup GM has probably ever had. And yeah I get it, the Malibu sells worse than its predecessor, but I’ve driven one too – a 2015 four-cylinder – and rear cabin space aside, it compared very well with the Accord, which I’ve also driven. The current Malibu is a bit ugly but GM quickly got an MCE to market and here’s a new Malibu coming late this year/early next year when the current car launched in 2013. Those are some Honda-esque generation lengths.
Then why is this fact not reflected in the value of my GM shares?
Vega – Beautiful styling job in all three body styles, not a bad line on any of the pre-5 mph bumper ones.
Citation – An absolute worldbeater on paper, and they DID finally work all the bugs out once the model’s reputation was ruined.
Chevette – Basically a good car; in manual transmission/F41 suspension/deluxe interior form it could be genuinely pleasant and actually fun to live with. Dirt-cheap total cost of ownership.
Ion – Some paraplegics found the 3-door coupe, a low-slung with a ginormous driver’s door opening, ideal for wheelchair transfers and storage. Retail workers also favored the plastic body Saturns for dent resistance, a feature that takes greater priority when your workplace parking lot is shared with the general public wielding shopping carts.
Cimarron – ….
Dustbusters – No division offered factory-installed woodgrain trim. In 1990 that was saying something.
Aztek – Honestly, could you imagine Walter White having had anything else?
Vega: They don’t make ’em like that any more.
Thank goodness!
The Vega was really fast in the quarter mile once it was converted to a V8.
It’s the American way. Build a car that has nothing wrong with it that can’t be fixed soundly with 300 hp. Also attempt to fix mainstream and oddball imports alike with the same cure.
But it does work:)
Vega: like many have said, probably the best looking subcompact ever. Add a Chevy small block and you have a killer package. Id like to have one.
Citation: I built a model X11 notchback when I was a kid
Chevette: It was RWD and my uncle had one.
Ion: my neighbor has one.
Cimarron: no
Dustbuster Vans: My high school buddy’s Dad owned a flower store and had one for a delivery van and occasionally Id drive for them on weekends and holidays; I think it was the Pontiac. I also think it had the 3.8 V6 because it was pretty powerful and fun to drive, pretty roomy too.
Asstek: Walter White had one
Late to the Vega party (as usual!), but I’d have to second the general gist of the comments above: great, neutral handling and not a bad line to look at. Might be selection bias since I owned one, but I preferred the lines of the notchback over the fastback. Very roddable, of course and I finished my ownership with a Buick 3.8l under the hood. Handling suffered, but not much, and I outran a Maserati with it once driving home from a weekend at Road Atlanta. He was as surprised as I was!
The other thing in its defense was that it taught me how to wrench, and I learned some actual mechanic skills, as opposed to parts replacing skills.
Can’t say enough good things about my ’84 Chevette. The trick with these was to buy a later model and go with the 4 speed and power nothing. Pleasing looks, aided by the front “air dam” restyle and tiny spoiler built into the rear hatch. Added some decent 70 series radials, gas shocks, halogen sealed beams and I was good to go! Economical to buy, operate and maintain. My only regret was not having a 5 speed, which I’ve heard was available on some later models.
Also loved the FWD A-bodies with the 2.5 L Iron Duke! The “Tech 4” versions with TBI were hard to beat. Would especially take another Celebrity wagon. A Buick or Olds version with a V6 wouldn’t be too shabby, either.
One of the oddities about the 5 speed in the non-diesel Chevettes is that it was only offered in the two-door. Must’ve been something to do with different wheelbases and tailshafts requiring different driveshafts.
OK Gotta say something nice. Let’s start with my 71 vega sedan delivery. Right after high school I enrolled in a trade school for automotive technology. It was 30 miles each way and my hot rod Chevelle was taxing my meager income. So I bought this 5 yr old Vega dirt cheap with a bad engine.(I know hard to beleve). I installed a used engine (aka new ticking time bomb) and this car provided me with an endless source of hands on experience for a budding mechanic. The sedan delivery had steel panel sides and no rear seat, just a flat cargo deck. I fixed it up inside like a little hippie van and I saw paradise by the dash board lights. In 1989 a local kid sold me a slightly battered 78 chevette 4 dr for a 150 bucks. I was commuting in a 400 v8 F150. In all regards it was an expendable spam can to me but it just kept on running. I beat it like a rented mule for 3 yrs. and spent nothing on it. Question : Will Azteks be the Edsel of the millennium? When no more are to be seen will they suddenly be cool again? If so will the one parked in my pole barn become a “rare barn find” in 20 yrs?
My favourite GM cars are the Corvair, both first and second generation. I like the 1980 and later Chevette, particularly the Chevette Diesel. I also like the Cimmaron. And last, but not least, I like the Cadillac Catera.
I have 2 friends who bought Cateras. Nice handling. But run far, far away. You may as well buy a Jag…
What’s wrong with the Catera?
I drove both the Vega and Pinto when they first appeared. The Vega was by far the better of the two, but thank goodness I bought a Duster. That was amongst the best cars I ever owned. Too bad about the Vega’s engine. It was quite a decent car other than that.
I once rented a Citation with a 3.8 V-6. Wow! That was quite the mover…and quite memorable really.
To me, the Catera was a worse sin than the Cimmaron. The Cimmaron was an innovative idea at the time- a small, luxury car from a premium domestic marque. I would prefer one over the Lincoln Versailles.
The Catera would have been a better candidate to be rebadged as a Buick Century, but there is no good reason for it to be a Cadillac.
Out this way GM shoved a Buick engine into the Catera told everyone it was a brilliantly engineered Australian design, the locals swallowed the coolaide and they are still everywhere
Vega: Great looking, good handling. And with biodegradable body panels, it was green too. My parents bought a new one back in the mid-70s; my mom got it in the divorce about a year later. I was pretty small, but I do recall rust through on the front fender . . .
Monza: Had two of these, both Iron Dukes. The first was bought by my dad, lightly used in 1980. He put nearly 100K on it and gave it to my older brother in 1980. He proceeded to drive the crap out of it, with minimal maintenance for three years. The door handles had cracked and bent upward, such that it could only be opened from the inside. But it still ran. Sort of. In the spring of 1990, I traded a portable CD player and 6 CDs to my brother for $50 and the car. I then sold it for $150. The guy I sold it to put in a new clutch and water pump and drove it for a while. Monza 2 was a bad purchase–first car I bought without any input from either my dad or step-dad. POS. I learned a lot from that one.
X-cars: I had three of these at various times; my parents had one (Skylark) and my grandparents had the rare Pontiac Phoenix. A 1980, bought in the fall of 1989, was my first car (sort of). Nice condition, roomy, good fuel economy, reliable. Great car—until I crashed it. Second one: another 1980. POS. Stalled at every stop unless it was revved. And, if it stalled, the starter connection was bad, so I had to keep a coke bottle handy to prop it up (I later fixed this). Eventually, all the forward gears of the tranny went out. Of course, this was summer of 1990 and it had over 100K, so I suppose it lasted long enough. The third one was a 1984 or 1985 notchback with a five-speed; I drove it for a good part of the summer of 1994. Other than lacking AC, it was a pretty good car. Maybe even a little fun to drive with the stick.
Chevette: INDESTRUCTIBLE! Had one, a 1984, for about 15 months. I wrecked it, rear ending a Cadillac. My dad and I repaired it over a weekend, spent about $50 doing so. Looked bad, but still ran. I treated it like crap—thrashed and abused it mercilessly, didn’t change the oil, etc. But it would not die. With the four-speed, it would get great highway mileage—although it always sounded like it would expoke at speeds above 55 mph. I eventually sold it to buy a 1978 Olds 98. A friend of my dad’s bought it and used it as a commuter for several more years.
Cimarron: Something nice . . . It may have been a poor Caddy, but it was a nice J-car.
Ion: Red Line was fun to drive, so long as you didn’t cut yourself on the hard, sharp plastic of the interior.
GM’s dustbuster minivans: Stepmom had a Lumina APV for nearly a decade. Quite nice—quiet, plush, cavernous. The 3.1 liter V6 provided a decent mix of performance and fuel economy by the standards of the time.
Aztek: Check, please!
I find this challenge to be the toughest. Here goes:
Vega: tried to be innovative in a segment not known for being cutting edge. The styling, the concept (not execution) of the aluminum engine and even the novel freight shipping practices (tipped up sideways on rail cars) were all trying to show that GM was invincible.
Citation: The cars were actually perfect for the times and offered big car buyers a very comfortable, efficient way to maintain what they loved about larger cars in a smaller package. The styling, available equipment and even performance (V6) could have permanently transformed the U.S. vehicle landscape IF they had been executed well.
Chevette: where GM actually did have staying power was with this durable, undesirable car. Based on a competent, conservative global platform, at least it worked.
Saturn Ion: OK, this is just about my least favorite car ever… hmmm, let me think… the plastic wheel covers weren’t bad looking.
Cimarron: at least demonstrated that Cadillac had woken up and realized that they had a competitor besides Lincoln. If they had modified the J-body as much as they did the X-body when making the Seville, then it might have been a credible Cadillac–the notion of creating a Caddy in that segment was not entirely wrong.
The dustbusters: bold design in a conservative segment. Love them or hate them, you can’t miss them.
Aztek: as a very early crossover, combining SUV attributes with minivan roominess and functionality, the notion behind the vehicle was sound. Someone needed to build the ugliest car for the 21st century.
Regarding the innovative upright shipping of the Vega, wasn’t that the main reason for the switch to side-terminal batteries? It began with the Vega because of the shipping method, but then GM figured out that because it saved a few seconds (and was cheaper) by using bolts that screwed into the battery, rather than having a pair of large, lead terminals, all their cars got them, eventually.
It might have been easier and cheaper, but it seems like the much smaller contact area of those damn side terminal batteries meant that not nearly as much juice was getting to the electrical system, not to mention that it was a lot tougher to get a jump start.
For the 100th post and some interesting reading here is an archived Car & Driver comparison test of the 1971 Vega and the 1971 Pinto.
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/chevrolet-vega-vs-ford-pinto-archived-comparison
Interesting reading, particularly for those who are too young to have lived through the 70’s.
If you have ever wondered “Why did everyone start buying Japanese cars?”, I think this article will provide some answers for you.
From the article: “As a point of interest, the Vega’s flow-through system is augmented by a blower that operates whenever the ignition is on.”
I remember that in my dad’s ’79 GMC pickup. I wonder what GM’s reasoning was in not putting an “off” position on the heater/vent fan switch. Small manifestation of towering arrogance, or simply a cost-driven decision?
I’ve always liked the looks of the Cimarron. It’s too bad it was just another J car instead of the only J car.
As a former, never again GM owner,….say something nice?
Okay, the service writer at the dealership really was a nice person, and I eventually decided that the odor of Dexcool wasn’t that overpowering.
Vega – Wifes uncle (engineer/inventor) had one and also had a very long highway commute. He loved the car and got nearly 300,000 miles out of it with careful maintenance.
Mine had about 220,000 when I traded it toward a Suzuki Samurai…
Vega: Didn’t catch fire like a Pinto.
At least there was not a Fiero pictured above.
The Vega rusted away before it got old enough to catch on fire.
🙂
Unless you had it undercoated like I did. Something I learned from my father. He had thre dealer undercoat his new 62 Comet sedan. Didn’t feel a radio was worth the expense. The undercoating made my 74 Vega helped it survive well into the 1990s.
Undercoating couldnt prevent the type of rust I saw. The channels around the glued-on windshield and rear window trapped water and dirt, causing rust perforation, even here in California.
Hmm, not a problem my GT had. But there was some rusting on the lower rear quarters. Otherwise my car held up really well after five winters before I bought my Mustang in 1979. After that the Vega was stored away for a few years in a dry garage and put back on the road with a rebuilt engine in 1985.
Well this has been a real hot topic.
My 1974 Vega GT was the right purchase at the time. The other choices in similar sized vehicles just didn’t appeal to me. The GT was Comfortable, good on gas, good looking, good handling and then the engine overheated one hot summer day near Palm Springs, California. Yes the engine just wasn’t the same after that. I still dream about that car…
If I might make a serious comment about this series? This particular post was way too many cars to comment on in one string. I have experience with all of these GM models in one way or another. There’s so much I would like to say, but I’d have to submit my own articles for each of them. Thanks!
Growing up near Lordstown, Ohio during the 1970’s and 80’s all of small GMs were rather populous around town. The Vega was released when I was nine years old, they were still daily drivers for many folks when I graduated high school in 1980. With many of the models mentioned, many friends and acquaintances had them, but there are too many tales to tell…
WRT the Vega: If it didn’t rust out from underneath you and you didn’t have an early one with the original engine, they weren’t *that* bad of a car to run. I had friends who had a 76 or 77 hatch, it survived for about 8 years in Northeast Ohio winters, which was pretty elderly back then.
My favorite memory is the Vega a buddy got for doing some construction work; he didn’t need the car, but he had a spare SBC and we made a hot rod out of it. I see that GM has released the new 2.5 turbo motor (the one that goes in the ATS and new New Camaro) as a crate engine. I would love to stuff one of these in a Vega or a Chevette. 275 HP in a light little car like that? Woo hoo!
I’ll only touch on one other car here. I have an odd affair with the Aztek. When we were looking for a new car in 2001, I wanted a minivan (our kids were young back then), but my wife didn’t want a minivan. We ended up with an Aztek after she insisted on a test drive. Originally, I hated it. But after a year or so, I eventually appreciated it’s size, utility and economy. Fast forward 14 years and we again have an Aztek in the driveway. I’m hoping that the West Michigan winters don’t kill this one before I get a few more years out of it…
Oh and I still want a Cimarron D’Oro with the 2.8 V6!
I have to agree. A friend of my mom’s had a Vega when I was a boy. It wasn’t a bad vehicle, and it served her well for several years. I used to see quite a number of Citations throughout its production run. I had a teacher who had one, and seemed to love driving it. I’ve always liked the 1980 and later Chevettes, particularly in diesel form. Was it slow? Yes, painfully slow. But so what? I didn’t mind it. I appreciate being able to go farther on a tank of fuel before needing to refuel.
You will never EVER get me to say one nice thing about X-cars… because there’s nothing nice to say about them. Same goes for Shovettes. I would be ecstatic if they both suddenly became extinct…
If you owned a Chevette you could honestly say you owned a “vette”.
One nice thing. OK The Cadillac Cimarron (or the Cinnabon) anyway the bully is my High Schools parents bought him a brand new Cimarron as his first car and made him a laughing stock for it. I thought that was a nice thing.
I am the only one who likes the ion. Bought my moms. Great mileage. Very good engine performance. Huge trunk. Dual fold down rear seats. Plastic panels.
Viva entropy. Viva oxydation. What? No Plymouth Horizon?
Probably not surprising that there’s no Plymouth Horizon in a “GM Edition” of this series…
Oops, my bad!
These are some of the cars that made my Dad the GM Man jump ship and buy Japanese! I suppose the one good thing you could about any of these was that when you took it in to get it fixed, you wouldn’t have to wait a few days until the “Guy Who Knows GM” showed up.
Everyone of them was shiny when it was new!!
If the Aztek was so hideous why did Nissan make a shrunken deformed little brother of it in the form of the Juke? It’s drivetrain and suspension was the same as the minivans and intake manifold gaskets aside could be a long lasting rugged powertrain combo. There were very versatile and many folks loved the ability to use them at the camp to sleep in.
The X-cars aren’t half bad if you avoid the 1980-81 versions. We sold a pile of 83-85 versions and they seemed okay for the most part. They were space efficient, decent on gas, could handle really well with a suspension and tire upgrade and the V6 engines were smooth and peppy, something the K-cars lacked with the rude crude 2.2 and junk 2.6 engines at the time.
The 2005 on up Ion was actually a fairly decent car and we have seen loads of them with upwards of 200K plus miles on the original 2.2 and 2.4 Ecotec engines and the reliable 4t45E transaxle. The center dash was as goofy as anything offered over at Scion and Toyota and interior quality was similar if a bit lacking.
The Vega’s were crap engine wise and rust wise but were neat to look at and offered a more fun to drive car than the Pinto
The Cimarron was just a plain mistake but a later run 1987-88 V6 with the enlarged power dome hood was a decent smaller car with some luxury amenities for the time.
Chevette- they were cheap cars to buy and cheap cars to maintain. The way they were ordered dictated much of the owners happiness with them. The higher output engine combined with suspension upgrade and deluxe trim made them a bit more easy to live with and I remember these cars being fairly reliable from any owners I spoke with.
Dustbuster vans- there plastic bodies didn’t rust or dent, they came with one of GM’s more solid 3 speed trans axles in the 125C combined with the reliable 3.1 FI V6, they later came with the 3800 and 4T60, the seats were light and efficient and configurable, weight on these vans was lower than some competitors and they drove very car like.
The Aztek is a great car to camp in with the optional tent and air mattress. My 75 Ventura Sprint hatchback is similar, but I cannot find the optional tent, so I use the Aztek tent.
The Pontiac Astre Formula was sweet with its Iron Duke.