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.
Some of the cars pictured are resale red.
The X-Cars were highly space efficient.
My driving school instruction car was an ’82 5-door Citation with the 2.5 4cyl. I thought it was a good driving car and the iron duke had soothing low frequency vibes. I subsiquently had a thing for the 2.8 X Type Citation that appealed to me in the same manner as the ’82 Mustang GT; a big engine practical sporty car both the X and GT have big hatchbacks to haul race tires/wheels. Both are obsolete, however I have an ’82 GT in my fleet as its easier to remain relevant for its purpose; autoX.
The Aztek achieved post-mortem fame on Breaking Bad as Walter White’s car.
And using that car in that role was a stroke of genius.
The Aztek was the automotive embodiment of Walter White. It was unappreciated, unloved, valued function over form, and was an entirely cerebral being, just like Walt.
My wife was extremely excited as a child when her parents got a dustbuster minivan, I believe it was the Chevy Lumina APV.
They were the most interesting and stylish minivans ever made IMO. My parents bought one of the first Lumina APVs in our town, with the looks and questions we got you’d think we were in a exotic. These were one of the most futuristic vehicles on the road at the time.
And they were actually quite practical. They were smaller and had cheaper interiors than the Chryslers, but they also had more reliable drivetrains and modular seating.
That interior quality really was dreadful unfortunately. My dad disassembled the dashboard and put it back together using rubber tape to help quell all the squeaks and rattles. And it was a PITA to clean that windshield.
I think that forward view must have taken some major adjustment. The base of the windshield must have been 5 feet ahead of the driver.
I always had a big problem with the Dustbusters compared to the Mopars.
Strike 1: The driver is sitting 40% of the way back from the front bumper, making these highly inefficient space-wise as well as visually egregious to look at.
Strike 2: Lending the dashtop expanse to the base of the windshield 32-36 inches…all reflective on the windshield especially in lighter colors.
Strike 3: Exceedingly cheap plastics inside, although that was par for all the domestics at the time.
I remember at the 1990 Houston Auto Show sitting in the Pontiac Transport and the Toyota Previa and thinking “no comparison”. Well worth the $4000 price increase to get the Toyota. Even the 1990 Grand Caravan, by then on a 7 year old chassis, left a better impression.
But we came here to praise GM, not to bury them.
1. Their pickup trucks and Suburbans are generally very competent and useful.
2. The NOVA cars were perhaps dowdy but highly competent.
3. GM styling ruled the market in the ’60s and ’70s.
4. The ’77 and then again ’86 full-size sedan redesigns showed what GM was truly capable of (in a good way).
1. These were not “highly” space inefficient. They were not as space efficient as a Chrysler, true, but they were not that far off and competitive in the market, slotting between the Caravan and Grand Caravan. And they offered full width seating for 3 across the middle row.
2. Much of that extra dash space was matte black.
3. True, as mentioned.
The Previa was well built but also an overpriced slug with miserable gas mileage. And it’s really not fair to critique GM’s styling while ignoring the also criticized styling of the Previa. Just as is the case today, all minivans back then had significant compromises. Unlike today, at least there was some interesting variety in style and functionality.
Good counterpoints. Viva la difference.
The Cimarron was almost an acceptable car when they finally gave it a V6 and a slightly longer hood. It was never a real Cadillac, but it would have made a decentish cut-rate BMW 3-series alternative. If it had a Chevy badge.
Cimarron: The Chevy with the Cadillac Price.
I wonder why GM didn’t use that tag line in their advertising.
Still, FoMoCo pulled a similar stunt, trying to badge engineer a Granada into the Lincoln Versailles.
Everyone paid the same price for the Saturn.
And this was good? Everyone paying the same, inflated sticker price?
At least the buying experience was haggle-free and low stress. Work with me here.
It was a great marketing idea with unfortunately a mediocre product. Non-hagglers, especially women, flocked to Saturn because of the ease of the purchase experience. Makes perfect sense.
I remember the big deal their first (only?) Homecoming event was in the early ’90s…thousands of people flocked to Spring Hill to kumbaya.
Sadly the Saturn line was getting quite competent just as they closed down.
The Chevette was cheap and cheerful.
Damn Will, you picked a hard bunch to say much nice about.
As you mentioned, the Cimarron did receive more distinctive styling in its final models years. I did kind of like the looks of the 1987-1988 models with composite headlights, foglights, and lower body cladding.
The Dustbuster minivans were also somewhat improved in their later years. The Silhouette in particular could be equipped with some nice perforated leather seats, and the instrument panel was cool, though the dash was way too deep.
That’s about all I’ve got on this one 🙂
I agree about the Cimarron. I wouldn’t mind an 88 Cimarron with a V6 and leather interior. I recall an EBay listing of a really nice one that was posted here a few months back.
The Silhouette was the Cadillac of minivans?
That’s awesome, how have I never seen that movie?
That Olds Dustbuster was the best part of a kind lame movie There, something kinda good.
A friend of mine bought a new 72 Vega GT and I enjoyed driving it. It had a nice neutral, balanced feeling and drove nice through corners. Too bad overheating problems (Texas in the summer) soured an otherwise nice little car. I owned two Chevettes that I bought used from Hertz. As ex rental cars they seemed tobe in fine shape with low mileage. One was an automatic and the other was a manual. I put a lot of mileage on both. They were OK appliances and were extremely reliable. I sold them both for nearly what I paid for them. I will actually admit to owning a Cimarron. My wife was looking for a new car and was comparing BMW 3 series, Honda Accords and some others when we stopped at the Caddy dealership and after looking at the Cimarron the salesman kept discounting the price until it was near rhe price of a well optioned Cavalier. So we bought it. It was ice-blue metallic with blue leater interior with every option under the sun. We drove it trouble free for many years. It was no BMW but it was quiet and the GM air conditioner worked great in the Texas heat.
Indeed, with a less ambitious price and from a less prestigious GM division, the Cimarron doesn’t seem all that bad.
I see these cars (particularly the early pre-Fed bumper ones) as an empty canvass. Get rid of that horror engine and there’s a huge choice of powertrains to fit, as well as suspension mods to make it into a BMW 2002-like fun car at half the price.
Those GM minivans actually did pretty well here, in the early / mid-nineties. All relative, of course. Sold as Pontiac Trans Sport.
Hey it’s Pontiac Transport with an Oldsmobile Silohoutte bumper cover. GM export trix!
No, look, it really says Trans Sport.
So a Sporty means of Transport. Brilliant export trix !
Say one nice thing? Surely, you can`t be serious.
I am serious… and don’t call me Shirley.
I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue..
The Chevette was western civilization’s version of the Trabant.
A SBC was a relatively easy Vega engine swap.
I had a friend in high school whose father had jammed a souped up 327 into a trashed monza. It was fast. Scary fast. Not faster than some of the other cars around, but in that car it was scary.
Our church used to have a Lumina van that someone had donated. I drove it a few times and found it comfortable and pleasant to drive, but I never personally had to deal with whatever issues caused the church to get rid of it.
I rode in a well-equipped Citation once when they had just come on the market; it was quite pleasant for me as a passenger. I’m thankful I never had to deal with ownership.
All the others? Never had to deal with them directly. The closest I ever got to a Cimarron was a co-worker’s ’84 Cavalier. The best I can say about that one is that it seemed boring and harmless.
The one (burnt orange) Cimarron that I sat in had a nice tan leather interior. That car made it’s owners very happy.
The Vega was a great looking little car until bumper laws ruined the styling. It was basically a collection of Pininfarina Ferrari styling cues on a harmonious small scale.
…and the Vega also aped a bit of the ground-breaking ’55 Chevy’s front-end design for a Chevy-heritage link.
the dash was much more pleasant than the Pinto.
The Chevette was available with an Isuzu-sourced diesel engine.
Sorry, that’s all I got.
The small bumper Vega was the best looking subcompact ever made
Yes, the Vega was quite attractive, but I think the 1995 Cavalier and Sunfire coupes give it a good run for the money in the looks competition.
Youre right, at least on the Sunfire coupes. GM really missed an opportunity there. A little better build quality and a turbo could well have relegated the civics into appliance-ville and won over the tuners. The contemporary Cavs were too soft and ‘vanilla’ looking.
Sunfire?! Ouch.
This one is actually going to be easy.
Vega: Good handling, drives nice, an absolute hoot for amateur motorsport. Then again, I traded mine in before year four, so I still wasn’t burning oil.
Monza 2+2: A very comfortable blue collar GT, handled nice, the five speed shifted well (although the pattern was odd). If it had been a couple of hundred pounds lighter, it would have matched the Vega’s tossibility.
Chevette: A very unsung freeway cruiser, get it with the manual and just run it about eighty all day. It’s an Opel, remember? Even cheap German cars have to be able to handle the autobahn. Had a buddy living in New England who made a lot of SF conventions east of the Mississippi. Racked up the miles on his Chevette (it wasn’t bare bones, as we like to wrongly assume they all were) and loved it.
Yes, I had fond memories of my cars, unfortunately ruined it with the ’79 Monza Kammback. Went back to the well once too often.
A college buddy bought a 1984 Chevette brand new, with A/C and a manual transmission. We took it on a road trip across the midwest and it got an honest 40mpg on the freeway with the A/C on.
The cigarette lighter was a $7 option, however.
Unless you smoke, then that shouldn’t be the most important option to have.
the Citation was a car rental upgrade (!) when I travelled to Florida in 1982. The Chevette had some decent storage space in the back. The Aztek had a better looking cousin in the Rendezvous. The Aztek diverted attention away from GM shutting down Oldsmobile.
I had expected the Rendezvous on the GM “say something nice” list, and the one I had for it was that it could seat seven or hold a 4×8′ flat with the hatch shut on it, both things that should be a baseline requirement for a two-box vehicle that size but were beyond its’ Acura and Lexus competitors’ capabilities (and the Aztek’s for that matter).
The Beretta and Corsica were about as awful as any car on this list.
The ’72 Vega hatch that my ex had was a handsome little car, and it handled quite nicely, too. If only GM had made a better effort at it, but then you could say that about many GM vehicles. And like many here, I drove most of the rest as rental cars and found them quite pleasant.
I don’t know why, but that freakin’ Vega really appeals to me now….that is, until I remember the abysmal ownership experience.
Ok here goes, the Vega looked good in adverts luckily thats as close as we got to them, Our Chevettes were better than the US efforts especially with a Bedford van 2.3L ohc motor, Ive had a great run out of some local Vauxhalls and Holdens so GM can make good cars, just not in the USA.
Actually Bryce, they CAN and DID make good ones in the U.S. as well…
Millions upon millions of them, just for the record.
The car Bryce is talking about was the Vauxhall Chevette HS & HSR. 135bhp from the 2.3 16v ohc engine. The rest of the car was also uprated. Very collectable here in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_Chevette#Chevette_HS
Smaller cars arent really what the big 3 do here. Our reputation is built on trucks, sports utilities, muscle cars and large cars. The passion and the profits just arent there when it comes to basic cheap transportation since by and large we only even bother since we’re forced to. Economic, regulatory and political factors are the driving motivation.
–small bumpered Vega was a total looker and the rwd configuration made hotrodding feasible.
–my uncle got over 200k miles out of a citation. X variants were in a position to assert Detroit as leaders in fwd performance. The hatchback setup is much more useful than the stodgy but better fleshed out A-bodies that followed.
–A Chevette with a swapped in 400sb was a bracket racing terror.
–Ion coupe with clamshell doors: sporty looks of a coupe but with sedan access. How quad coupes didnt replace sedans (at least with sporting aspirations) Ill never understand.
-aztec evoked strong love or hate reactions no doubt. Me, personally I prefer it to the hunchback looking sister Rendezvous or especially the lame dumbed down inoffensive cuvs of today. Aztec concept looked really cool…real thing lost something. But it was a reliable versatile rig.
How is quad coupe better than a nice long door? I am 6.1 and people could get in and out of the back seat, on my side, of my impala hard top with out me getting out. Modern cars have cheep little doors. The ones on my Impaler would have been at home on a bank vault.
A long door in 2 pieces (thats what the clamshell setup really is) is just easier to live with. The main doors are lighter, and easier on the hinges. And lets face it, todays parking spots are TINY. The long doors of a classic 2 door swing too wide nowadays. Not the fault of the cars…more of whoever is painting the spots.
Im not saying the clamshell setup is inherently superior to a ‘true’ 2 door. But 4 door sedans…absolutely.
The Vega was infinitely better looking than any other small car on the market at the time, gave reasonable economy, and from a C/D comparison test, could actually make it onto the highway and cruise at a decent speed unlike the Pinto/Corolla/Gremlin etc it was compared with. It also birthed the Hatchback Monza and its siblings, which has to be one of the most beautiful cars of all time and one of the most underappreciated designs. (no, seriously, FIND a bad line on it. Especially compared with the hideous Japanese cars and the Pinto with its misplaced bulges.
When the Chevette was birthed in ’76, it really was a decent small car compared with its rivals and not much worse or better. By the time the FWD revolution came round, it was behind the times, but still not worse than a Escort. And, it was an honest, cheap small car, and there wasn’t a BETTER Chevette. My mom bought a hair-shirt version of a Sentra back in ’86, and it was an absolute strippo model, no power anything, no a/c, no radio, no clock, no cigarette lighter, miserable vinyl seats, and it had the feeling, for a few more dollars, you could make it a decent car, and we’re punishing you for buying the Scrooge version. The Chevette was just a better basic car.
No one’s said anything nice about the Ion. It was dent resistant, and probably, given the durability of its Saturn predecessor, durable, and it wasn’t quite as ugly as the contemporaneous Echo.
I REALLY liked the Dustbuster minivans when they first appeared. They managed to make a minivan look interesting, only achieved by Toyota with its Previa and the Egg shaped Chryslers of ’96-01ish. They were plastic, which meant they held up well over the years, and they had individually removable and reconfigurable seats, which was very practical.
Why shouldn’t you be able to buy a loaded up Cavalier? Unfortunately the Cavalier, especially in its first year, was bog slow, but the Lincoln Versailles was worse because . . . WELL IT JUST WAS. Anyway, it does make sense that people who want a compact car shouldn’t be forced to endure crank windows, vinyl seats, and a dealer experience tilted towards the kind of people whose home might be on wheels.
The Citation was a revelation, a small yet spacious, comfortable, nicely trimmed sedan with the utility of a hatchback. The buyer coming to a showroom in 1980 to trade in a 6 year old comparable car, like a Dart/Nova, would have been blown away by the advancements, and the X was the best launch in GM history. Had GM gotten the quality right, Toyonda would probably have become also-rans. The Citation did give us the A-body and the 60-degree V6 which went on into 3.5 and then 3.9 formats.
I actually liked the styling of the Aztek, it has a kind of Judge Dredd look to it and was practical, without the minivan stigma. It still isn’t as ugly as the Element or Echo.
Actually, I generally agree with your comments. But, a thought on this…
“Why shouldn’t you be able to buy a loaded up Cavalier?”
You could, the first one I was ever close to belonged to a friend’s parents that were getting out of a loaded 1976 Pontiac Bonneville Brougham. They bought every conceivable option, including items such as power windows. It was still quite plastic fantastic inside, but that could be remedied by buying a Buick or Oldsmobile version. The Cimarron with a more reasonable price would have made a terrific top-of-the-line Buick Skyhawk.
I share some of your enthusiasm for the hatchback Monza. It is definitely underrated. However, it hasn’t completely held up in my eye over the years. The quad rectangular headlights are a little bit forced. The plastic front panel was often warped and didn’t align well with the hood and fenders. A quality control issue, I realize, not styling per se. In profile, the rear is a little too pinched, which is accentuated by the drooping helpline. One or the other should have been different.
Now I feel guilty for speaking badly of it.
The Monza was the first American car designed from scratch to have those quad rectangular headlights, which appeared a couple years before the singles.
That Chevette does look way out of place with that Opera crowd in the background wearing mink.
LOL. Yep, GM C, D, E platform territory for sure.
The basic competence of the Citation and X car was there. Xs that stayed in production as late as 1985 were decent cars much like the FWD A cars that were also fairly sorted out by the mid 1980s.
My BIL owned a ’92 Lumina APV with the 3.8 litre six, that proved to be quite long lived.
He accumulated over 450,000kms on it, before trading it in. Given the body was made of plastic, it still looked reasonably good, except for some paint fade.
A friend of my mom’s had a Chevrolet Vega when I was a boy. I thought it was the ugliest thing Chevrolet produced. I didn’t know how bad the car really was.
The Olds and Buick versions did have much nicer interiors than the Cavaliers. The Sunbirds had nice interiors too. Cars today are much better in almost every way except for interior design than what they were in the ’80’s. The plush velour and vinyl was nicer than the cloth and plastics we have today.
My wife’s 86 Cavalier coupe had a great interior. It was a durable little car that to this day she says she always loved. It was durable, and for what she paid? A great car indeed!
You can transform the Aztek into a tent, and the Saturn Ion Quad Coupe is one of the two only rear suicide half door coupes in the world, the other one being the RX-8, which alone makes it curiously cool.
Well… Hmm…. … A Vega gave me a nice funny memory. It’s the only car I ever saw that was actually dropping parts out of its engine while driving.
Without the Chevette’s failure at the beginning we wouldn’t have the wonderfully dark movie that is Falling Down? That’s nice, right? Indirectly, anyway.
Vega: nicest looking small car from the ’70s. Think I am the only one who likes the big bumpers on later models. The wagons with woodgrain were also pretty neat looking.
X-cars: sensible size, roomy interiors
Chevette: mostly reliable, cheap transportation for the masses
Cimarron: nicer looking than basic Cavaliers
Ion: rust proof exterior panels
GM’s dustbuster minivans: something different in a crowded market segment
Aztek: looked passably better in darker colours than lighter colours
On the Aztek, maybe if they started off with body-colored bumpers and more rounded wheel-wells the car would have had a chance. We got used to big black/gray cladding on the Avalanche and Element. But the second I laid eyes on an Aztek in person I knew it would fail…
The original Vega was at least very attractive, certainly more so than the Pinto and for most sane people more than the Gremlin.
One nice thing?
How about: “in every possible way, these were all very cheap vehicles.”
That really just positively nails it. Think of the most basic and cheapest Chevette, the Scooter. That was REALLY basic for the cheapskates that had to have a new and hopefully reliable little car.
My nice comment will be that when they – all the above cars – ran, they were doing what they were supposed to do – provide transportation.
I still cannot believe the Chevette/T1000 took 30 SECONDS to reach 60 mph. If you look it up on YouTube, MotorWeek did a road test of the T1000 and it was proclaimed the slowest car they ever tested!
On a positive note, I knew quite a few people that owned Chevettes/T1000’s and they actually liked their cars, for what they were – cheap decent transportation. It was the Japanese offerings that made these cars look and feel crude in comparison.
They never tested my Scout Traveler with the 196 (3.2 liter) four cylinder… It didn’t go anywhere in a hurry, except maybe downhill.
Yeah I was going to say the Chevette (except for the base cardboard door panel model) was probably at least the quality equivalent of the Vega or Pinto. But to compare it to a Corolla or B-210 is insane – Toyota and (then) Datsun were miles ahead on everything but rust protection. The Chevette and 1st gen Honda Civic came out the same year….two totally different leagues….
In high school I briefly worked as a floral delivery person. The boss’ car was a new Corona wagon….it was my first deep exposure to a Japanese-made car and it left a tremendous impression with how tightly it drove, the quality of the materials, and excellent gas mileage (for the times). Except for a captive import (Dodge Colt, Buick/Opel by Isuzu, Ford Fiesta), the Japanese were swinging hard.
Just one nice thing?
I’ll try.
Vega, They looked great before the Bumper standards hit. They still looked ok after.
Citation, The X-11 is an unsung Hot Rod. Especially after it got FI on the 2.8.
Chevette, They seemed to live long lives. Long, miserable lives.
ION, I have no experience with them. Looks like a competent car for people that don’t care about cars.
Cimmaron, It was a Caddy with an available with a Manual Transaxle!
Dustbuster, Oh boy.. I think you got me there.
Aztek, Oddly, the available Tent is it’s one saving grace. If I got it for free I wouldn’t turn it down.
The thing about the Aztec I find hard to understand is that the even more (subjectivly) hideous Buick Rendevous handily outsold it… I’ve never driven either so I guess I really can’t comment with any authority, but either seems (again, subjectivly) more desirable than the short-wheelbase GM vans they were based on.
Yes, while people have for many years labeled the Aztec as ugly, I think that really misrepresents its looks. It was different looking, certainly, while it was designed to be versatile and practical. I think that the label “versatile” should be its defining characteristic. And, as you say it was no worse, and was perhaps even better than its cousin the Buick Rendevous.
We had an Aztek for a week to test so I could write a magazine feature. The kids were young at the time and it served well as a family vehicle. I seem to remember it was well thought out for storage spaces, had really good visibility and was quite roomy.
A few can still be seen in my area in really good condition I might add. I also see a few of the Buick versions driving they roads.
I thought the Aztec was hideous at the time, but compared to today’s CUVs I think the design has actually held up pretty well. A lot of the criticism had to do with the fact that it was based on a minivan. But why that was so taboo but basing a CUV on an economy car (CRV, RAV4) was not is something I never understood.
Has nobody seen the Saturn’s dent-resistant panels? They were a pretty good idea.
Bought a ’71 Vega fastback 4 speed in ’79. Got me around for a year, used oil, lunched water pump when I got to work, no working temp gauge but steamed after I shut it off. Replaced pump, had less power and used more oil, sold it for $600.00. Bought it for $300.00, used tires for $100.00 and water pump for $50.00. No complaints. Friend had ’80 Citation 4 cyl stick, it was given to her. I changed a waterpump belt, it was easy. She lost her gas cap key, breaking it was also easy. It got her around town cheaply. Friend had an automatic gas Chevette. She drove the crap out of it and it got good mpg and was reliable, if noisy and under powered. I liked the 4 cylinder Cimarron because I could easily beat them at stop lights with my Rabbit, and the dirty looks I got from the owners were great!
I used to know someone who had a Citation 4 door hatchback. While I liked how it looked, compared to the Vega, having rode in one, I didn’t find it very comfortable, and it handled hideously! I remember wondering what the hell GM was thinking in designing these cars.
At first, I liked the Saturn cars. I found them to be different from what General Motors was producing. But as the years went on, and Saturn started adding models to the name, I became less than thrilled with what was being offered.
…and let the S-Series rot on the vine. The S-Series looked good and had many redeeming qualities, and I assume they got more aggressive with the pricing with time, but by the end of its run in 2002 (with only one significant exterior and two interior “facelifts”), it had competed against FOUR generations of Honda Civic! I do admit to having a soft spot for the S, but it was time for a replacement.
So what do they replace it with? The ION. An initial review in Car and Driver read, “We waited seven years for this?” It had some redeeming qualities, like the quad doors on the coupe and plastic panels again, but too many flaws to be taken seriously.
The ION faded away, and what was the replacement for Saturn’s “original” line? Oh, right, the Astra – that European hatchback that GM hated to market and couldn’t clear off lots. Where was the sedan? Newsflash: Americans want Sedans! (Answer: the Astra sedan didn’t arrive until the Buick Verano.)
But since I have to say something nice, the Astra was decent to drive.
The L-Series and VUE were also-rans, but…at least you didn’t have to haggle for them.
The problem with the Astra wasn’t that it was a hatchback, it was that it was too obviously a Cobalt hatchback at a 50% markup over what Cobalts were actually selling for, and a “premium compact” that didn’t include A/C or alloys as standard.
I had the 3door Astra. Loved that car. Everyone who drove it or rode in it loved it, too. Mine was loaded with a 5 speed. Needed a 6th gear. Parts got real hard to come by and I traded it off at 120k miles. It was no Cobalt, having driven both… Far superior to my ex’s Ion, too. Did I mention that I loved that car???
@ Jason and MT. I owned two Saturn S1s. Loved those cars and let my wife talk me into leaving the 2k S1 and buying a 2002 Saturn Vue. I guess that’s about the year they became Opel USA. Bad blunder. I commuted 100 miles per day and the car just swallowed the miles and usually approached 40 mpg while doing it. I would have continued buying one every 2-3 years as long as they made them had I not weakly agreed to the Vue.
I cannot say much else good about this very selective group. Had chevy trucks and a B body wagon but they aren’t included.
The Chevette was available as stated above. My dad had two of them, one after the other, for commuting. They weren’t quick, they were tricky in the cold winters, but they ran forever, with little maintenance. They were both great cars to rack up the miles and were amazing on fuel.
Would have helped by folks buy a used Aztek for me instead of a used Caravan, but the family mechanic said the Aztek’s drivetrain was unreliable and the electronic accessories were finicky.
All of these vehicles are decent looking and some are nice looking, but yea, half baked. I bet a Vega or a Citation that made it to 2015 and is taken good care of is a decently reliable vehicle. Portland, OR is full of Minivans, but the Dustbuster is rare as hen teeth as are all of these vehicles except for the Aztek which is becoming rare. How hard is it to work on a Dustbuster?
I had a neighbor who bought a Citation new in 1980. She drove it for 4 years and traded it for a 1984 Citation. She loved both.
The Aztek (as long as it’s not a 2001) doesn’t look that out of place today. I sort of like the later ones, but don’t tell anyone that. (However, the Rendezvous still looks hideous.)
I agree that the Ion quad coupe was an innovative, unique concept, even if it wasn’t a great car.
I have owned both a Cavalier & a Saturn(it wasn’t an Ion) and both were dependable transportation. Too bad I couldn’t say the same for the Plymouth Lancer. All of the cars had almost 100,000 mile when I bought them.
The Vega was a great looking car, and supposedly a decent drive when properly equipped. (NVH and reliability aside) Those Vert-a-Pac railcars they used to transport them was really cool too.
+1 on what most others have said about the Vega (styling, handling) and one more thing that put a Vega GT in my driveway: unappreciative owners who dumped them after a few years, causing very affordable second-hand pricing in the mid-’70’s. I sold my 11 year old Volvo 122S with 100K miles, oxidized paint and sun-ravaged dash and seat upholstery, and picked a spotless 3 year old, 60K mile Vega GT for just a few hundred dollars more. It wasn’t a perfect car, but far more satisfying over 4 years of ownership than the Volvo.
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.