Contrary to what some might think, I don’t get any great thrill out of documenting the decline and fall of what was once the world’s largest and most profitable corporation. It’s a sad story, but as long as I keep running into the products of its sins sitting on the streets, it’s a story that’s hard to ignore. We’ve done 22 Deadly Sins so far (listed below), and they’ve been written up in arbitrary fashion, as they presented themselves. But what should number 23 be? And how many more should there be?
On The Purpose And Nature Of GM’s Deadly Sins
#7 1976 Chevrolet Malibu Classic
#8 1984 Pontiac Bonneville Brougham
#11 1975-1979 Cadillac Seville
#12 1990 Pontiac LeMans (Daewoo)
#17 1980-1985 Cadillac Seville
#18 1991 Chevrolet Lumina Euro
# 20 1991 Oldsmobile Ninety Eight by Brendan Saur
#21 1986-1991 Cadillac Seville
The L cars: Chevy Corsica, Beretta, and Canada’s Pontiac Tempest. Not up to par in 1987, absolutely laughable in 1996.
I’m really surprised these have yet to be deemed sin-worthy. Even by ’80s Detroit standards their interiors were very plasticky and cheap. The Beretta was particularly disappointing as it was originally intended to be a competitor for the T-Bird/Cougar and the new LeBaron coupe. Most of the Berettas I saw on the road in the late ’80s were driven by college kids (predominantly female) who got one as a high school graduation gift from mom and dad. Every Corsica I’ve ever experienced was either a rental, ex-rental or a corporate fleet car.
Rental Corsica’s are some of the worst Ive driven. Legend has it that the car was designed to a National spec. The New Jersey assembly plant that built them had the worst quality ratings at the time. I second the nomination.
If we’re going to delve into the Corsica (and we should), then let’s also talk about the Chevy “Classic”, the holdover Malibu that was kept around for rental fleets only. Which could also lead us to the Captiva, which is sold as a fleet-only car in the US.
Let’s just call the whole idea of catering (pandering?) to fleet sales and ruining one’s brands a Deadly Sin unto itself. By bending over backwards to satisfy the likes of Enterprise (which buys either 8% or one-eighth (I can’t remember) of domestic vehicle production in the US), GM effectively made itself into a purveyor of rental cars, halo cars, and trucks, and that should have been its new post-bankruptcy division structure.
I had a loaded ’89 Corsica LTZ that I was quite fond of. Only quibble was the bizarre dash styling.
I think an argument could be made for including ALL GM cars from say 1980 to about 2010 as Deadly Sins, as all had flaws of some form or another that turned customers off to them. I say this as a person who has been fond of GM cars my whole life. It’s undeniable that the existing DS’s cut a very wide swath though, and it’s easy enough to draw correlations to models not yet included from the ones that are.
I’d even give an honorable mention to GM’s 70s offerings, especially the A body coupes, for making them think that they could make ANYTHING, no matter how lackluster, and sell hundreds of thousands of copies.
I nominate the Chevrolet Corvair as the beginning of the end of engineering bravery at GM, or the EV1 as the end of the end of engineering bravery at GM, pre bankruptcy. I love and admire both vehicles and their respective engineers deeply.
I nominate them for lack of conviction and perseverance on the part of GM management.
It would not be a car. it would be Mr. Goodwrench.
Goodwrenchx-large
Mr Goodwrench was a famous mechanic for General Motors. He went missing a few years ago and Stephen Colbert was given the honor of tracking him down. Stephen used all of the resources at his disposal to find Mr. Goodwrench but it was impossible for no one knew what Mr. Goodwrench looked like as no actual pictures of him exists.
GM declared Mr. Goodwrench legally dead in November 8, 2010.
In Memoriam: Mr. Goodwrench, 1977-2010
Search Update:
Mr. Goodwrench was actually killed by Stephen Colbert and he admitted of committing the heinous crime on November 16, 2010. But as we all know, unless you can produce a body, the crime never happened:
I have a confession to make. I actually found Mr. Goodwrench on the first day of shooting. And I murdered him. I had to! If they knew I’d found him, they would have ended the ad campaign. I needed that money! I have a boat! — Stephen Colbert
Any given Opel. Opels were pretty decent little foreign cars (relative to the time and place) but for some unknown reason, GM gave them to Buick dealers to sell. Buick dealers didn’t really want to sell them, nor service them, so Opel died in the US.
If you want to do Ford’s Deadliest Sins, you can tell the same story about Mercury dealers and the Capri… or the Merkur line… or the Capri (the Australian one)
Well, in the late 50’s when VW was growing, GM imported Opel, Vauxhall and Holden for B, O, and P dealers.
Only Opel remained, into the 60’s, Buick was ‘stuck’ with them.
Was not an “unknown” reason. Was to compete with VW, Renault and other growing sales of imports.
Well the Capri actually was the second best selling imported car in the US shortly after it was introduced. So yeah I think the Mercury dealers didn’t mind selling them at all.
Also not all Buick dealers were Buick-Opel dealers, I’m not sure what the process was but I would bet that most of those that did add Opel was because they wanted a small/imported car to sell to their customers. I doubt that many Buick dealers were forced to add Opel. I’m sure that it may have been strongly suggested and the district reps likely played one dealer against another to persuade those that weren’t that interested in taking on Opel.
As a buyer of a new 1971 Opel Sport Coupe from a Buick-Opel dealer, I can attest that their attitude toward my Opel, at least, didn’t fall much short of “Thanks. Now get this pos off my lot.”
How about those diesel Oldsmobiles? My yuppie parents had two… they never bought American again.
If one could be found, I’d love to see a Deadly Sin on the Chevrolet Copper Cooled. Unfortunately, I think they’re all at the bottom of Lake Michigan.
The Buick Gallery in Flint, MI has one, and I have pictures of it. Unfortunately, I have no idea where said photos are at in my Dad’s home file server.
Or Lake Erie.
GM bought them all back except for one that I think ended up in the Henry Ford Museum.
But let me put THIS out there…the Chevrolet Copper Cooled, bad as it was, is more like a noble effort gone wrong…which puts it on par with other spectacular failures from the early years of the business. I’d like to see Paul’s take on it but I’m not sure it’s a Deadly Sin…
I see the Deadly Sins as products of GM cynicism, arrogance, greed or just plain Bart Simpsoning the assignment.
HUGE difference.
And while every car company has had its share of Deadly Sins (did anyone do the 1957 MoPars?)…I believe GM belongs in a class by itself simply because of the reputation they built in the second quarter of the 20th century as the world’s best automaker…a position from which they walked away, model by model, in the ’60s and ’70s.
Ford needed Henry to relinquish control to ensure its survival and fortunately Henry II was smart enough to hire the “Whiz Kids” and reinvent the company.
Chrysler has swung on a pendulum for most of its existence and it’s been well documented here.
How about the Chevette? Total. Piece. Of. Shit. I should know from experience. It was the best selling car in the USA for a couple of years but where are they now?
hmm…
all remaining Chevettes have had V8s swapped into them and are now pretty cool, actually….: )
I guess “coolness” is in the eye of the beholder!
Michigan, as one will pop up from somewhere in Michigan, right when I am extremely busy.
I do not believe the Shovette was ever the best selling car in the US or even close to it. I don’t think was even the best selling Chevrolet in any year. It was late to the initial lets trade in our big cars for tiny ones rush that crowned the Pinto the best selling car and the Vega the best selling Chevy and GM. Olds and its Cutlass took over from there and then it was back to full size and intermediates when the downsized cars started coming out. Until of course the next energy crisis and by then people knew that it was an outdated piece of Junk.
Google it!
I nominate the GM service department as the next deadly sin.
+1!
I had to get a new seatbelt for my rusty but trusty Prizm. This forced me into the bowels of the local Chevy dealer’s service department, where they sent me to the parts department, which was in a separate building and another freakin’ decade. I spent what seemed like hours being ignored and then grunted at by jerks, because hey, we’re GM! Where else ya gonna go?
Any negative stereotypes about government employees can apply just as well to those who work for powerful private-sector bureaucracies.
Haha, that story is a doppelganger for the one I had at the GMC/Pontiac dealer.
MarcKyle64 If not all GM customer service
Early 90s Olds Achieva. What an ugmo, with a reliability record to match. Same goes for the early 00s Malibu.
SAAB: The new generation 900. The SAAB 9-7x. Or the whole GMT360 program for that matter. The HBO documentary “The Last Truck” is fantastic.
This. What GM did to Saab is a showcase of corporate arrogance and stupidity.
My nomination, if not already done: STUPID alphabet soup naming of our beloved Pontiacs. G5,G3,G6, Gee-wiz….When they had magic like Grand Prix, FIREBIRD, Catalina, LeMans, Tempest, and Bonneville.
Was Lutz’s idea, thinking the names would make import buyers think “Oh, I’ll get one since it sounds Euro”.
Lutz brought out too many halo cars, and not bread and butter, nuts and bolts that sell. The Solstace was a flop, and even current GM boss Ruess thinks so.
G8 got rave reviews, but GM muscle car fans said “too many doors”, “too much $” and “it’s ferrin”. So it was a loss.
While his heart was in the right place, Lutz was responsible for two Pontiac duds that helped kill the brand:
2004 GTO — Big coupes were already dead in this market. And Pontiac loyalists weren’t fooled by putting plastic nostrils on a Holden Monaro. Comparing sales projections to actual sales is probably good for a laugh.
Solstice — To preserve the looks of the concept car, they made too many compromises and built a car that was completely impractical even by roadster standards. Bad idea from start to finish, especially considering that buyers had the option to get a Miata instead.
Lutz was out of touch with market, thinking it was still 1968 and the big GTO would sell, but it had no style to it.
Enthusiasts demanded GM to import performance cars from abroad, but they don’t buy them. They always say “Let someone else take the depreciation” and then whine when ‘pet cars’ are dropped.
At least the modern Pony cars are selling OK, and I refuse to call them ‘muscle cars’.
The Solstice was not that bad a car – it and it’s Saturn twin the Sky together handily sold more cars than the Miata every year of full production:
C.Y……..Miata………..Solstice……….Sky
2005…….9801………..5445……………0
2006…..16897……….19710……….8671
2007…..15075…………16779………11263
2008…..10977…………10739……….9162
Considering that the Miata was the fully revised NC version for the 2006+ period, that’s pretty impressive.
Today a Solstice commands a slight premium (perhaps 10-20%) over the Miata in the used market, but that may be just because there are so many more Miata’s to choose from.
I agree, I think that naming scheme was practically an open invitation to kill the brand. Frankly Pontiac was the ONLY GM brand up to that point that still had good names for their models.
Diesel Oldsmobile or Chevette would be my votes
Agree with L cars, meant to be ‘import fighters’ and GM let them rot away. Then replaced with barely updated Malibu, based on same chassis.
But, they figured, let cars rot, since they assumed Trucks would be their ‘specialty’. Had the same attitude for small cars, “if you can’t afford a truck/SUV, then we are giving you a penalty box car”.
The great Chevrolet (formerly known as Daewoo) fiasco in Europe. It almost seemed like GM wanted to kill off their own Opel~Vauxhall heritage.
And push all the cost on Opel to make it look bad so GM could convince its shareholders to get rid of it.
Almost..They found out he US Buicks and many Chevy’s in the USA are built using Opel ( German ) Engineering!!!!!
They can’t sell it (Opel)..They’d be r-u-I-n-e-d……Or that should be ruined..Again!!!!!
GM USA might be paying the bills..Or that should be Uncle Sam :-))
But it’s the Europeens who are doing the heavy lifting.
How much of that new hot selling Caddy..The ATS developed in Europe.
The entire Buick range is the Opel Insignia..as far as I can see.
Isn’t the Malibu and the next size up the Chevy Impala.
It almost seemed like GM wanted to kill off their own Opel~Vauxhall heritage.
GM initially wanted to sell off Opel, hence wanted to establish the Chevrolet brand. Then they changed their mind on Opel, so they changed their mind on Chevy. How many millions of dollars went to money heaven on that one?
Promiscuity…I name that sin!!!!
They have bought too many companies.
Anybody remember they tried to buy Fiat..Then Fiat turned the tables and got GM to pay the Billions for a divorce.
Then of course there is Daewoo..that you are talking about..And shooting themselves in the foot in the Euro Marketplace..Just in time for the Euro currency meltdown
And the latest was a tie up with Peugeot..which has bit the dust.
GM is a harlot for other automotive companies!!!!
It’s a scarlet woman!!!!!
In fact i can see a little scam there.
Set up a motor company and wait for GM to come along and offer you multi Billions to buy you out…GM would buy just about anything.
How about the cars that really were the last nails in the GM coffin before it was pushed into oblivion in 2008?
Chevrolet SSR, HHR, etc
I wouldn’t put the HHR in the deadly sin category. Aping the PT Cruiser’s styling on what was an essentially a Cobalt wagon might have actually helped them sell a few more.
But I wholeheartedly second the nomination of the SSR. It’s a rolling emblem to the unique reality distortion field that prevailed at GM in those days.
More of Lutz’ pet projects. To impress the ‘cool car guys’, who really don’t buy new cars. They only get 20+ year old project cars, once they get “permission” from spouse.
Worst part of the SSR was that it came in the wake of the discontinuation of the F bodies. How on earth GM could say one day the “Camaro isn’t profitable and not worth updating”, and the next day announcing “We now have a 50s looking retro truck car 2 seater convertible thingy!”, I will never wrap my head around, what the hell were they thinking!?!?. The conceptually similar Prowler wasn’t exactly a runaway success for Chrysler.
This is definitely my vote for D/S. It came only a few critical years before the bankruptcy and given the Mustang trumping sales the 5th gen Camaro has enjoyed in the last several years, it definitely left a void in their lineup that neither the SSR or the 04-06 GTO properly filled
GM had some obligations to the Canadian government at the St. Therese plant where Camaro/Firebird were built. Those obligations became cost-prohibitive amidst falling sales and so the lines were dropped…and I believe they had to remain dropped for a period of time.
Besides the F-bodies became and remain associated with some of the most negative stereotypes you could imagine for a new car…despite the fact that were fine cars. Not building a Camaro for eight model years allowed the palate to be cleansed so a new one might have a fighting chance.
I get SOME of the hate for the SSR but every one I ever saw was well-screwed together and ran well for what it was. I know it was a modified TrailBlazer chassis but this wasn’t bringing a knife to a gun fight like the 1997 Malibu or the Cobalt/G5. It was a niche vehicle and some people bought and enjoyed them.
The 2004 GTO needed to look more like a GTO. Instead it looked like a Chevelle. But again I’ve known people who’ve owned one and they LOVED theirs.
ANYTHING running a GM Gen III/IV/V (aka “LS” motor) CAN’T be THAT bad. At the very least you can yank the drivetrain and drop it off at my house, I have a ’57 Handyman where it can live happily ever after. 🙂
No doubt BUT there’s a reason the LS motor is pretty much the go to V8 to swap into customs/restomods these days. Those are great motors seeking a great looking body, which IMO the factory equipped cars with them haven’t been.
I wasn’t aware of the plant obligations, and if there was some kind of clause preventing manufacture eleswhere I can see their rationale for the gap(although I think they shot themselves in the foot in that case). Negative connotations to justify the absence seems like a stretch though, what were they, Mullets and/or trailer parks? That can be said about entire GM model lineups of the 80s and 90s.
I also know a few people who love their GTOs, as do I since they’re pretty much cut price M3 killers in every sense except for trunk space due to federalization. They’re very roomy inside (including the back seat)and quality and materials are superb, especially coming off cars like the F bodies that literally reek of Fisher Price grade glossy molded plastic. BUT every person I know with one is the 3rd owner it seems, and that’s because they are excellent used high performance cars and the subdued styling allows them to fly under the radar. I don’t know any original owners of them, and judging by the prices I know they can be attained for they probably took a big hit in depreciation.
I’ve only seen maybe 10 SSRs since they hit the market, and at least 5 of them were on dealership pedestals when they were brand new. I don’t even see them at car shows so I’ll have to take your word that people who bought them enjoyed them. Either way I can’t imagine GM made any money on those things.
There should be a special mention for the raft of mediocre cars that GM put out in the late 90s and early 00s. Not terrible, but not good either. GM largely MEHed itself to death.
In particular, I would nominate the 2004 Pontiac Grand Prix.
If the SSR was sold as a fixed roof pick-up version for 28>30k and they called it an ElCamino they would have had a hit.
Chevrolet Tahoe / GMC Yukon / Chevrolet Silverado / GMC Sierra
These were good vehicles and that was precisely the problem. They were quite lucrative for GM and sold in droves. In turn, GM focused too much of their attention on the light truck market and shortchanged the passenger car market which had been their bread and butter for eons. The level of refinement found in GM pickups should have been shared with the passenger cars, but they churned out cars like the Cobalt and the various Saturn’s.
Opportunities squandered.
+1. They focused too much on them, one consequence was the dropping of the B-body Caprice/Roadmaster.
+2 same thoughts here. The trucks themselves weren’t bad, it’s that GM (all of the Big 3 in fact) didn’t really want to sell anything else. Then the Great Recession came and nobody wanted them anymore.
This is a very interesting idea. Even today, GM’s trucks are much better examples of the breed than their passenger cars. Ford seems to build competitive trucks without short-changing their cars.
But here’s what I wonder: maybe this is a case of playing to your strengths. If you believe that Toyota is a superior car-building organization (and I do believe that), then even GM-at-its-best would have had a hard time outdoing something like the 1992 Camry. On the other hand, with the trucks, GM put its effort into a segment where Toyota couldn’t be competitive (lack of expertise, related to the non-existence of this segment outside the US). So instead of fighting a war of attrition, you could argue that GM retreated on one front so they could win elsewhere.
It’s not a satisfying explanation, given what Ford has managed, but I think there’s something to it… at least enough to save the trucks from Deadly Sin status.
The poster child for the policy of strategic retreat that dogged GM in particular and Detroit in general from 1980-2008.
“We were never really into small cars, slap something together on the old platform for CAFE credits and dump ’em in fleets.”
“Midsize cars are still selling, who cares about transaction price? We’ll just take yet another $50 per car of cost out.”
“We’re bullish on fullsize SUVs! 50% markup over a pickup, almost pure profit! They’re the next *big* thing in family cars!”
“Gas is $4 a gallon? Oh s-“
The Cadillac Catera. The Cimarron was at least tolerably reliable.
Great suggestion Hope the article goes into depth about how Cadillac was flailing around and how in the world Catera was supposed to help
Yeah, the Catera was a notorious bomb and the chintziest rebadge ever. My brother’s Catera had long achieved beater status before it hit 80k.
Who’s Lisa Catera?
The doctor that zigs.
Legend has it that the ducks were removed from the Cadillac crest as a result of GM’s embarrassment over the initial Catera ad campaign.
Another vote for the Catera as a deadly sin. For me anyhow, it showed how weak GM’s domestic engineering had become, and at the same time, how strong the provincialism of GM’s domestic management had become. They simply could not allow something ‘not invented here’.
As I understand things, the Catera was a pretty good car – as an Opel in Europe. However, Cadillac engineering could -not- just federalize it to the minimum necessary and leave well-enough alone. As I understand things, most of the disasterous problems were in components that that were changed to domesticate the car.
In any case, the car was another black mark for GM – the wierd advertising campaign, the baking batteries, the engine failures; all went to prove that Cadillac was still dead and that GM’s American engineers had reached ( and reached downward) to the level of the British Leyland engineers who had managed to screw up the Acura Legend enough to nearly kill British car sales forever in the U.S. when they sold it as the (tarnished) Sterling.
The current Malibu repeated the mistake of the Ford Contour — GM failed to recognize the failure obvious fact that a mid-size sedan “world car” with a small back seat cannot succeed in the US. At least the forthcoming replacement model would suggest that the lesson has been learned.
The current Impala seems to be out of synch with the reality that the large family sedan market is dwindling. Chrysler has figured out that the shrinking market that remains for such things is a niche that wants its cars to be loud and proud — large sedans stopped being the default family car a long time ago.
I suspect that the US-spec Colorado/Canyon will go the way of the Solstice — a lot of initial excitement until the pent-up demand is filled, followed by lackluster sales that won’t recoup the several hundred million dollars that were spent on the US factory and R&D. GM has a history of chasing flash-in-the-pan ideas that don’t take it anywhere.
For awhile, I’ve banging on about the idea that Cadillac should have been transformed into GM’s global SUV brand and Opel into its global luxury brand. It’s strange that GM has a German badge yet refuses to build on the German engineering hoopla created by VAG/ Porsche, Daimler and BMW. Trying to convince most of the world that an American luxury passenger car is superior to a German one is pure folly at this point.
But Opel has no prestige in Europe.
Heck Honda doesn’t.
And as for Vauxhall the less said the better..vis a vis image.
No Cadillac is there only choice for a shot at the Prestige market.
Unless they own some dormant badge that they could bring back.
Borgward from Germany is coming back….Watch this space and GM will buy it up!!!
GM doesn’t have a global luxury brand. It will need to create one, regardless.
If managed correctly, Opel could be the next Audi, which also didn’t have much of a reputation in Europe and actually had a bad reputation in the US prior to its revival. It went from being close to nothing to a viable competitor to BMW and Mercedes.
Opel has a meh reputation in Europe and no reputation at all in the US, which is the closest thing that GM has to a clean slate. (SAAB was supposed to be the BMW beater, but that obviously never happened.)
The sin that drove GM into bankruptcy was failing to make a fund (preferably not run by GM) to cover worker benefits in their retirement years.
The Oldsmobile Aurora might make a good one. The 1995 Aurora was big on the outside like a Buick Park Avenue or Cadillac Deville, but the inside was more like midsize. This was very noticeable going from a 1995 Riviera to the 1998 Aurora. I certainly think this did not help Oldsmobile from getting the axe.
Aurora was another car for showing off at car shows, but then not getting sales. Import purists would never set foot in Olds store, and old timers wanted carriage roofs and wire wheels.
Also, making Olds ‘sportier’ impeded on Pontiac’s role. But then, they had Saturn to feed, also. The Intrique also overlapped.
A GM fan would go on and on about the brand images for days, but modern car buyers couldnt care less about the 1950’s hierarchy.
I’d nominate the abandonment of the Astro Cargo Van. I have one, an 03, and plan on keeping it on the road as long as possible as there is absolutely NOTHING out there that would be a suitable replacement.
Why do all the new vans look so crappy?
Why do all the new cars look so crappy?
The 1971 Cadillacs probably mark the tipping point that started Cadillac’s long decline. They saddled the proud brand with two kinds of bloat: Bloat in physical dimensions and in bloated ambitions for sales volumes and market share.
I agree… and I think Paul would, too! Because the cheapening of the large-car platform was covered in DS #15:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1973-oldsmobile-delta-88-gms-deadly-sin-154/
In my opinion, GM dealerships should be called simply General Motors, forget the secondary names. Offer the best of the best of each brand and make sure they are built well and RELIABLE!! Offer a great warranty so customers feel comfortable, and make the showrooms family friendly and cool. You would be amazed how many cars they would sell. So, if you went to your General Motors dealership, you could buy a Corvette, Volt, CTS, Verano, Cruze, Impala, Malibu, etc. etc. You get the idea – I think it would work, and the diverse amount of GM dealers could dwindle down but still have the market share they want.
I actually agree with this. The names that had such meaning in the past had it because they were basically independent companies within the GM Umbrella. The names today have only a fogey significance to Boomers and none at all to their children and grandchildren. “Cadillac” means a lot to me but I’m basically an automotive reactionary. If we are globalizing here, it’s time to just call it a General Motors (insert model name here) and retire the marques. They haven’t really meant anything to anyone in 30 years.
The problem is that a lot of people buy the marque as much as the car. Trying to sell a car or truck that doesn’t have a strong brand is significantly more difficult, even if the car is pretty good, because you have to try a lot harder just to get buyers to look at it, much less buy it. That’s been a huge problem for GM for quite a few years and is affecting a lot of companies in markets like the U.K., where anything that doesn’t have a “premium” brand” tends to suffer catastrophic depreciation.
GM tried a while back to stick “GM” badges on the fenders of every vehicle they made. I remember class-conscious acquaintances sniffing at that — if you’re buying an expensive upmarket vehicle, you don’t really want to be reminded that it comes from the same company (then) making Cobalts and IONs.
Older people do because they remember what the marques at GM used to mean.
Today the GM marques either have a bad connotation, or, increasingly, no connotation AT ALL to buyers under 40. If the GM name itself is mud, then perhaps something else.
Otoh the Chrysler Pentastar emblem was quite successful for a good number of years to the extent that people complained when it was retired.
I always had the (unrealistic)fantasy that the perfect dealer structure would take it another step past this: Eliminate the corporate dealer networks as we know it. Have dealerships be like shopping centers, put the brands side by side and really shop for them. You can have one that sells the affordable brands – Toyota, Ford, Honda, Chevy, Hyundai, ect. and then have a Luxury dealership that handles Cadillac, Lexus, Acura, Mercedes, BMW, Rolls Royce, ect.
It is happening and it’s a can of worm. When Toyota dealership is working together with Cadillac everything is wrong for customers. ( in Troy, Mi )
Evanston, IL
Evanston Rolls Royce & Toyota
It was there in 1971, I have not been in the area for awhile.
Looks like they are gone.
I got my Toyota truck from Autohaus on Edens which sold
Mercedes-Benz, Jenson and Toyota
The General Motors name is mud since the bailout. A lot of people see it and still think “Government Motors”. GM even thinks so, in the 00’s they put little GM badges on all their models. No more though.
> In my opinion, GM dealerships should be called simply General Motors
That was one of OldGM’s major initiatives. It was the reason all those cars had GM badges on the fenders — the idea was that you could find a car at the “GM Internet Portal”.
Here’s the problem: The average person (who isn’t posting about cars on the internet) has no idea that say Buick is owned by “GM”. When they were going bankrupt, there was a public opinion survey and a huge number of people thought that GM actually owned Chrysler.
GM is on the stock ticker, it’s not a “consumer brand”.
The other unsolvable problem is state dealership and franchise laws. You can’t just take dealership A and give it to B. Shutting down Oldsmobile cost GM billions of dollars to buy out the dealers. After that,the only real way to rationalize the rest of the dealerships was to go bankrupt.
As far as a deadly sin? GM has had its share of good cars and bad ones. Some ideas have been far better than others. I don’t quite agree with the 1978 Grand Prix, 1975 Seville or the 1989 Camaro RS as being deadly sins. The Vega? The Citation? Any Buick Century or Oldsmobile Ciera with the 3.0 V-6 (I know because I owned one!) There you go, some deadly sins. I guess everyone will have their own opinion.
It’s too early to write this one up, but there’s a deadly sin in Cadillac showrooms now: The ELR.
Let’s hope that’s Cadillac’s final deadly sin.
How about the Oldsmobile Achieva? Gotta admit, that was the low point in my automotive ownership :-p Economical, to be sure, but the car started bucking and jerking at high speeds (unfortunately, it was not just a simple TPS sensor or a fuel injector issue : ( Additionally, the empty passenger seat was so flimsy it would wobble going down the road. My other car at the time was my avatar (a 1971 Custom Cruiser)- which felt like a tank when compared to this POS. Once the Rocket engines went away, Oldsmobile died a slow and painful death thanks to cars like this.
POS? Which size Cadillac is that? 😉
Ouch!
Agree with previous comments, however, if it must be a car how about the Monza? Especially the TC (town coupe) as it tried to inject style and excitement/sportiness into one of the most dreadful pile of mechanical bits to leave a GM factory. The Monza fastbacks were very lightly cloned and then passed off to Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and Buick…..with the Pontiac being the only vaguely distinctive model.
I’ll second Jason Shafer’s nomination of the Tahoe/Yukon/Silverado/Sierra. I’ll also agree with nominating the SSR.
And while I’m at it, how about the Pontiac G8/Impala SS? To me, it seems a waste squandering resources on “halo” vehicles when your bread and butter cars are aging and mid-pack at best.
The “sin” of sending your stale old Impala sedan into rental fleets when other companies are supplying their current models.
Although we’re talking cars here at CC most of the time, this is GM, and I would consider the SD50 a failure, and a turning point in GM’s loss of the locomotive market. Also, what about the RTS bus?
LOL….we think alike about the SD50! 🙂 Looking at our time slots, we were thinking the same thing while typing our posts out….!
To think those people in the Tower took the greatest locomotive and largest diesel engine builder in the world, the company that dominated the railroad world, single handedly killing off the steam locomotive and ran it into the ground via benign or purposeful neglect was a crime.
Personally I think the G8 never got a fair shake. It only was on the market for 2 model years, which(correct me if I’m wrong) weren’t even complete years, those model years were the peak of the economic turndown/gas price spikes and as mentioned above got a stupid alphebit soup name.
Similarly squandered is the nearly identical current Chevy SS. It’s totally redundant with the Impala, is less distinctive/attractive than the G8 (it basically looks like a long Cruze) and also has a stupid name – SS is a trim package, NOT A MODEL! And there’s been virtually zero marketing effort for it whatsoever.
My dealer had one that I sort of looked at while waiting for my salesperson to get paperwork sorted out when I was trading the ATS for the CTS. I would not trade my CTS for the SS, mostly because I would not want the big V8 and would want AWD. What you do get is the Corvette engine in a sedan.
The old line about “Those who want it can’t afford it, and those who can afford it don’t want it” describes the G8 pretty well IMO.
They sold like hotcakes with $5K on the hood.
EMD SD50. The SD50 was EMD’s answer to the rising star in General Electric’s Dash 7 lineup of locomotives. Up until the introduction of it’s SD50, EMD was the dominant locomotive manufacturer in the world. However, GE was hungrier while EMD rested on the laurels of it’s legendary SD-40-2 line. How so? By taking the old 645 engine and “upping” the horsepower to keep up with the GE Dash 7 lineup, with resultant poor reliability and service. By designing and installing inferior electrical systems and traction control systems that attempted to put the new found horsepower to the rail.
The result of all this was EMD…..GM…….losing forever it’s dominant market status to General Electric. The replacement SD60 and the later SD70 are by all accounts, excellent engines; but it was a case of too little, too late. EMD never outsold GE ever again, following the SD50.
In the 90’s, a locomotive horsepower race between EMD and GE exploded, resulting in a 6,000 hp locomotive by each builder. Neither survived in the US into the long term. The EMD engine itself was a radical departure from long time Champion of the 2 Stroke Diesel, EMD…the first 4 Stroke diesel. Bought in quantities by Union Pacific and Canadian Pacific, the engine and locomotive no longer ride any US or Canadian rails, all having been retired from service over various mechanical and reliability problems. The 265-H engine survives today in Chinese railroad service. Because of their failures in addressing issues with this new engine, EMD has been caught flatfooted without an EPA compliant Tier IV locomotive for sale in the US as of this writing, leaving GE as the sole player in brand new, compliant locomotives for sale down at the local locomotive “show room”. The present day owner for EMD, Caterpillar, hopes to have a compliant locomotive out by 2017 or so….. But the entire story of from Penthouse to Outhouse began with the EMD SD50 Series.
+1. This is all so true. It’s a real shame, isn’t it?
Indeed, it is! The story of EMD under the 1980’s ownership of Roger Smith and that gang reflects directly on the company itself. When the real engineers like Boss Kettering or Dick Dilworth (EMD) ran the company, it achieved incredible success. This Deadly Sin Series aims the spotlight directly on the Bean Counters at the top floor; who rode on the backs of these great engineering minds and ran the company right into the ground…..
That’s thinking ourtside the box.
I can play that game!!!
How about the Pancake Diesels that they used in US Submarines prior to and during WW2
By all accounts it was not a successful design.
When you factor in that after Pearl Harbour Chester Nimitz took command of the Northern Pacific arena on a US Submarine ( the Battleships were damaged ) There you go.
Having bad engines was no joke.
I think the best engine would have been the Fairbanks Morse engined submarines.
But you must also factor n , those submarines would have been designed around those Pancake engines. So to not fit them would have meant a change in the centre of Gravity/ floatation.
https://oldmachinepress.wordpress.com/2014/08/17/general-motors-electro-motive-16-184-diesel-engine/
BTW the link says the engines worked well..I’ve heard different.
🙂
Interesting engine there, but not one to nearly sink a company! During the same time frame as this pancake diesel was on the design boards and manufacturing lines, EMC/EMD was also outfitting the entire US Navy ATF ocean going tug fleet with it’s 201A series diesels, V12, non-turbocharged engines, in addition to powering many other ships in their fleet. Several of those tugs were transferred to US Coast Guard service and served up into the 1990’s. I served on one of them as a young fireman apprentice, in the late 70’s, helping to maintain them. Fantastic engines that ran forever, although they did like to leak lube oil! The 201A was succeeded by the 567 and later, the 645 and 710’s; all two stroke, just like that failed pancake motor.
It was a night and day difference from a company firing on all cylinders as GM did during the war years, compared to GM/EMD in the time of the SD50, when the bean counters refused to invest and basically sat back, watching their product and market share dying on the vine and over run by the competition.
This wouldn’t be the first time I was ever wrong but I think your timeframe needs to be adjusted. FM opposed piston diesels and 248/278 GM 16 cylinders were the engines used in the WW2 boats. In the fifties the Tang class used some pancakes that were terrible. Never having served on one I do not know what they changed to. The albacore was all experimental and I think pancakes were one of the experiments.
I think the FM/GM engines were all the diesels had during the war. The Manitowoc boats had FM and the EB (Connecticut) boats GM. Power ratings were almost identical. Things were far too serious to experiment.
Unable to reply directly to Lee Wilcox; he is correct. The main engines in the US Navy/USCG Fleet Tugs were indeed the EMC (ElectroMotive Company) 278A engines.
Link: http://www.tugboatenthusiastsociety.org/pages/tugmach-diesel-historic-CDED-278A.htm
The Fairbanks-Morse opposed-piston diesel engines did see some railroad use. They were efficient and lighter in weight for the amount of power they produced, than the competition’s diesels. But they were expensive to own and maintain. Work on the bottom piston-cylinder was particularly difficult. Fairbanks-Morse departed from locomotive manufacture in 1963.
Ironically, the Soviets reverse-engineered it and used it widely in locomotives.
Due to continuing marine applications and fixed-generator use, the Fairbanks-Morse engine remains in production, as it has been continuously since 1938.
In line with the SSR and GTO nominations above I think there’s a slew of stuff from the 90s 00s that should be covered at this point, I think the DSs from the 80s is just about exhausted to the point of beating a dead horse(I get it they’re mostly all terrible). GM seemed to recognize their perils at some point by the 90s and actually began trying again, sometimes successfully, but often with a fatal flaw, occasionally unrealistic and baffling, with quite a bit of dreck in between, all of which continued unabated until judgment day.
You have written up the 91 Saturn and I understand the reasoning but there was a far worse Saturn sin. I’m not certain that this was the first year but in 2002 I became aware that Saturn was just an anglicized Opel. My Vue had massive teething problems but I still drove some GM products after that. An Olds Bravada was the final nail in the coffin. I agree with comments I have read recently that said Saturn should have had a name change in 2002. Olds would have worked but so would Buick or Pontiac. A rose by any other name.
To alter a popular saying from the bailout days, it seems that GM may be too big to succeed.
They killed SAAB…That’s gotta make the cut.
Exhibit 1 The “Cadillac BLS”
I think the L shouldn’t be there.
My vote would be for buying Saab in the first place.
Did they really have any justification for that beyond, “Hey, Ford just bought Volvo!”
Agreed.
And for that matter Ford buying Volvo deserves near DS treatment too.
How about one on GM engines? Going from divisional engines to corporate engines (which alienated old customers) but after doing so still keeping a ridiculous number of engines which came close to duplicating horsepower while staying different. (ex: 3400 and 3800 in production at the same time – having overlapping production of 307 and 305 V8s for years after divisional engines supposedly didn’t matter…)
How about installing a faulty ignition switch in cars for 10 years, knowing all the while they were faulty.
Hear hear. Had the ignition switch recall done and the key still won’t come out of the ignition till you diddle the button under the steering wheel. Again. Still.
Early reports started coming out with the 03 IONs. Mine’s an 05. Fought this for 10 years. 3, 4, 5 switches now. 3 hour oil changes at the dealer, takes a week or more to get the damned thing back if I ever have any work done.
Yeah: ignition switches and dealer service, definitely Deadly [and ongoing] Sins.
C’mon, where’s the Pontiac Aztek, the vehicle that could conceivably be blamed for killing an entire GM division? To me, it was just as bad as the 1971 Ventura or Fiero.
Chevettes were miserable cars, but they were relatively reliable, many achieving ‘cockroach of the road’ status.
All Oldsmobile diesels did was to get anyone who bought one to never, ever consider buying another diesel, again.
OTOH, that whole slew of cars that Oldsmobile slapped the Cutlass badge onto in a cyncial attempt to garner sales, yet actually diluted what was their ‘golden goose’ to the point of irrelevancy (and ultimately killed that brand), might be a good nominee.
Just my opinion…
Pontiac had no reason to exist after 1981 when their unique engine lineup disappeared for good. They went back to being a fancy Chevy when there was no need for such a car. Just make better, fancier Chevies – hole filled.
Jim Wangers interestingly said something very similar about Pontiac in the 1960s.
Paraphrasing, “Pontiac had no reason to exist, so we had to give it one.”
“…that whole slew of cars that Oldsmobile slapped the Cutlass badge onto…”
That was weird, even for GM. Maybe they should have just renamed the entire division Cutlass at that point?
The Saturn ION is a good low hanging target but I think I’m going to go way out on a limb and nominate the Chevy Volt. While I believe that the Volt is i s a good car and is well made, it is proving to be a poor business decision.
Arguably, the jury is still out on the Volt.
For one, the Volt helped restore some of GM’s reputation for technical innovation. It finally ended all the “who killed the electric car” clamor, too. Those kinds of things don’t hit the bottom line, but reputation and brand perception matter.
In terms of sales, no one is having success with plug-in hybrids right now. But with batteries getting better and cheaper, it’s too soon to write them off as a technological dead end.
With a new generation of Volt coming, clad in new Civic-like styling, Chevy might finally be in the right place at the right time.
I’m going to respectfully disagree about the Volt. I am not a huge fan of the vehicle itself. I view it as a cramped expensive vehicle, specifically designed to be ‘just like a Prius, but completely different!’ Still, one has to understand that it was never built to sell in any volume – it’s a halo car which was built for one customer – the government. The question facing them at the time was ‘How can we justify pouring money down a rathole? What possible excuse can we give for continuing the existence of a bankrupt purveyor of cars that aren’t selling?
The Volt was the symbolic answer to that question.
” The NEW General Motors will not be the same company as the old one which built schlock vehicles to sell to subprime buyers- no, no, no! The NEW General Motors will be building environmental friendly vehicles that happen to exactly fit your agenda! Why we predict there will be a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 and you can quote us on that! NOW can we have the money please?”
In that sense, the Volt sold very well. Another point that is in its favor, is that the Volt seems to be very reliable. I haven’t followed it for a few years now, but except for a couple of freak fires, I think it has had an excellent quality record. Had the Volt been a quality disaster, it probably would have been a coffin nail. Instead, it has been (for those who choose one) a very good car. Whoever is responsible for keeping the bean counters at bay and forcing a quality product at a time when the instinctive response of every executive was to cut costs deserves a statue, and perhaps sainthood.
Respectfully, the Volt is not a Deadly Sin.
I think GM put their heart and soul into that one and I’ve heard very, very little in the way of problems. Besides I think you’ll find the next one to be a better business decision.
Saturn Ion…on the other hand…both Deadly AND Sin.
Indeed. If anything, the Volt is more of a candidate for Greatest Hit. Anyone with even a passing interest in GM vehicles (past and present) is doing themselves a disservice by not at least taking a test drive in one. They really did try their best to beat the Japanese (specifically, the Toyota Prius) and many have said they succeeded, harkening back to the days when GM was Number 1 in the world. Unfortunately, the biggest issues with the Volt are those beyond GM’s control:
– The price of gas.
– Whether the owner has the capacity for easily accessable plug-in charging (preferably, at the highest charging rate).
Honestly, from what I’ve read, with the huge hit in resale value (EVs depreciate at a frightening rate), buying a used Volt at a very low price has the potential of actually returning people to the GM fold.
With the Volt’s battery capacity the average person doesn’t really need the fast charge rate at home. At the 12a setting 110v will charge a fully depleted battery in about 8 hrs. Now if you are going to come home and then take a trip to the store on a frequent basis then you’d probably really want the 240v charger at home. Even for the average person 110v at work will give you a full charge by quitting time assuming you don’t go out to lunch and use up too much of what you got in the morning.
Yes indeed. GM deserves a gold star for the Volt. They are doing cutting edge stuff with a very capable product. As with all things high tech release 2.0 should bring a lot of upgrades and improvements. I do not think that anyone doubts that various types of electric vehicles will eventually be the majority of the market. And, GM will be seen as a leader. Good for them!
My first take on this headline was that you’d be focusing on the ongoing sins of another marque. Roger Carr’s multitudinous output on BMC has served as a parallel Deadly Sins series on the decline of the UK car market. I wonder whether an overview would give a broader picture and help readers navigate those pieces.
I have said it before, I will say it again. DS 23 should be Roger Smith. Period.
I’d agree with this. His disastrous corporate reorganization, the Saturn debacle, the GM10/W-body boondoggle, the money wasted on automation that never worked, these can all be laid at his feet. Changes had to be made, but seemingly every change he made was exactly what he should have done if he was actively trying to destroy the company. As a beancounter by profession he should have known better.
But, since it’s about the cars and not the executives that ran the company (although that can obviously be part of the story), go with the GM10/W-body cars. Did GM ever make any money on those cars? I’ve read that they lost a not inconsiderable sum on every one of them, not even taking into account the cost of development and the average-at-best product that resulted.
As a beancounter by profession he should have known better.
Smith did what beancounters do: grow profit by making the product cheaper/shoddier. It works until the customers catch on.
Recall Chrysler’s long slide started with Lynn Townsend’s promotion in 63, and accelerated with his replacement John Riccardo until they went looking for a government bailout in 1980. They were both beancounters.
iirc, Townsend’s fall came in the fall of 73. The story goes that he went on vacation in Hawaii, and left word to not make any decisions in his absence. Car sales collapsed for everyone, but noone had the stones to call Townsend and ask if they should reduce production rates. So the cars piled up in storage lots everywhere, I remember pix of the Michigan State Fair grounds jammed with unsold Chryslers, until Townsend mosied back from vacation.
Riccardo was a chip off the hubris block too. When Chrysler was broke, he went to DC and declared that their failure was entirely the government’s fault because the safety and emissions standards were more of a burden because Chrysler was smaller than GM or Ford, so, he figured the government should give Chrysler $1B. Not a loan guarantee, a straight out gift. I could hear him being laffed at from Kalamazoo.
Michigan State Fair ground…
Right on Woodward Ave and 8 Mile Rd. I remember seeing a photo of ’79 full size Chrysler jammed there too. Chrysler has a lot of influence on east side of Woodward.
The Sales Bank wasn’t as a result of Townsend going on vacation or the OPEC embargo. (it actually started before that) It was a deliberate means of keeping the plants running when sales were low which continued right up to the bailout. The Sales Bank cars were notorious for oddball option combinations like power windows and locks on a car with no a/c and dog dish hubcaps.
My ex-inlaws owned a ’79 Volare that had to have been a Sales Bank car. It had the Super Six (2 bbl) and an automatic, but manual steering and possibly no power brakes. It also had no factory a/c despite being sold new in Mobile, AL (it did have dealer-installed a/c along with a dealer-installed radio)
I remember after mid-year, power brake is standard on Volare, but it’s really hard to imagine one comes without AC nor radio. Those models without AC even don’t have vents on dash!
My nomination is drawn from my comments on the Cavalier thread. In recognition of the “new” General Motors. Confirmation that, after the bailout, all the dealers put out of business, all the taxpayer’s and investor’s money that went to money heaven, the “new” GM is just like the old, I nominate a product developed and produced since 2009, and central to the company’s success.
The Chevy Cruze.
Chevy sold 273,000 Cruzes last year. That’s more than any other GM passenger car. It’s more than the Equinox, or any other SUV. The only thing in GM’s line that sells more is the Silverado pickup.
The Cruze looks great, handles well.
In terms of reliability and customer satisfaction, it’s a steaming pile of poo. Consumer Reports tags it, and the Fiesta, as the worst cars on the market. Owner reviews are blistering. GM didn’t learn a thing from going bankrupt, and probably many of those quarter million Cruze buyers per year will never go near GM again.
You’re good Steve. And you’re right. I’ve read hundreds of reviews and got the same impression. Cruze buyers will definitely “Find New Roads”. Away from their local Chevy dealerships.
I had the chance to attend a customer clinic for the Cruze and the Volt long before they came out. I really loved the Cruze, and determined that it would be my next new car. But after what I’ve read it’s the same old GM. And that includes the Sonic.
Never have a problem with my ION except the ignition switch. Why would I sign up for all that nonsense and get a worse car than I’ve got no matter how “premium”, refined and competitive it’s supposed to be?
The funny thing is that 3 out of 4 2012-2014 Cruze owners at my place of work have nothing but good things to say about there cars. No problems with any of those. The 4th was an early 2011 that had an issue with the 1.4T which the dealer fixed right the first time and no other issues to report. I heard that early build turbo engines had some issues and I read something about a few owners with the coolant smell. My parents neighbor bought one last year. I’m going to ask him what he thinks of his tomorrow. I rarely listen or put any faith in Consumer Reports. 90% of there recommendations go contrary to my own findings and I’m talking about other things than just cars.
I have a 2017 2nd gen Cruze with a manual transmission. Ordered it to get the manual because the 1st gen autos were said to be clunky.
Not long after I got it, learned they were losing pistons. Running premium in an effort to forestall such a failure. Will be $$$$ out of my pocket over the years.
Now I hear the plastic clutch slave cylinder, buried deep in the bell housing, fails and strands the owner wherever it is it gave up. And spreads debris throughout the clutch AND BRAKE system, due to the shared fluid reservoir. Requires replacing the ABS module as well as disassembling the clutch to replace it.
Hasn’t left me stranded yet, at 20,000 miles, but is certainly a ‘fool me twice’ moment for me. (Parents’ GMs also usually had stupid and costly problems.) My two Japanese-brand cars that I ran for 27 years were largely trouble free. Nothing ever went wrong with the engine or clutch or transmission internals on those. I may sell or trade this soon, take the big loss I can barely afford, not just to save money but to save being stranded in a dark and dangerous highway somewhere.
Saturn L Series [more cynical parts bin engineering], the 05 & up corporate Minivans, and yes, I’d have to agree: the ION. Even more parts bin engineering, total lack of understanding of Saturn customers and small cars in general. If GM could make a GM Deadly Sin { 91 Saturn } deadlier, they doubled down here.
I will say that barring the ignition switch, my 05 has been quiet riding, reliable, economical and still looks like new. Original battery lasted nearly 9 years. Nothing else other than oil changes, gas and tires. They got the Ecotec and 4 speed GM auto right at least.
All of those pale in comparison to the Pontiac Aztek. It took two cars to kill off Saturn [the L and ION], but the Aztek was vastly more poisonous.
They got the Ecotec and 4 speed GM auto right at least.
Yup. Unlike the Cruze, Consumer Reports gives the Cobalt’s engine and auto trans high marks, especially in the later years.
Suspension is another matter. I pulled the CarFax on an 06 Balt with 108,000 on it that a local dealer has. In the last 10,000 miles, that car has gotten new struts, new rear springs and new suspension arm bushings.
I started hearing a thunk-thunk-thunk when I went around low speed corners in my 25 mph speed limit neighborhood. I thought it was a CV joint. Off to the dealer. Turns out a STEERING SHAFT broke on my 07 Cobalt. At 8,000 miles. A car I’d had since new that wasn’t abused at all. I was not amused. Then the radio started cutting in an out intermittently at 14,000 miles. It was traded two weeks before the warranty expired.
Steaming pile of poo.
Instead of picking a car, lets point our arrows at GM CEO management and the appropriate sin:
Roger Smith ( 1981 thru 1990): Took a bad situation (Japanese invasion) and only made it worse with the Chevy Nova & Saturn (Gluttony- over indulgence of GM resources)
Robert Carl “Bob” Stempel ( 1990 thru 1992): Was a great engineer, but didn’t understand customers (Sloth- laziness to think beyond the slide ruler)
John Francis “Jack” Smith, Jr (1992 thru 2000): Killed the Oldsmobile brand to due Cutlass dilution (Greed – pursuit of material possessions like the Cadillac Catera and neglected the balance of the car lines)
Rick Wagoner (2000 thru 2009): Obsessed with pick-up trucks and neglected the passenger car (Lust -intense and uncontrolled desire)
All the above should receive an award (or indictment) for killing GM.
The bankruptcy was a mixed blessing. It allowed the sweeping out of the old guard. GM now realizes that its got to fire on all cylinders or it can become the next Studebaker.
Lets hope Mary Barra has what it takes to revive GM
GM under Roger Smith had a remarkable talent for turning record-breaking astronomically high development costs into mediocre, barely-competitive-at-launch product.
Whoever inked that deal where they ended up paying Fiat billions to NOT buy the company belongs in the business hall of shame.
That, and the way GM was too arrogant and hidebound to learn or apply anything from the NUMMI joint venture with Toyota.
The aardvark-nose re-skin of the minivans – Montana, “Uplander,”, etc. They always struck me as one of the stupidest, most clueless vehicles the company ever made. Trying to create a “crossover” on the cheap by tacking a big beak on the front and thickening the C-pillar to ape SUV styling, with disastrous results. They had some of the worst proportions of any vehicle ever, and the company spread the stink around by giving one to Buick and even Saturn. Absolutely no one was fooled into thinking they were anything other than a terrifying refresh of the previous, non-competitive van. Wasn’t this another brilliant Lutz idea?
You’re talking about the 2005 update of the 1997 U-vans? At least the front end crashworthiness was improved, but that nose looked terrible! GM tried to palm them off as “crossover sport vans,” which went over like a lead balloon. Reliability was no better than that of their predecessors. I’m not sure if Lutz played a significant role in green-lighting these.
Pontiac Aztek/Buick Rendezvous
Those are two real stinkers!
I haven’t read any of the other comments yet, but right off the top of my head:
– 1997-2003 and/or 2004-2007 Chevrolet Malibu – a total lack of effort for such an important segment, relegating Chevy to rental car status in the minds of most.
– N-body Pontiac Grand Am – Not so much the first generation, but the 2nd and 3rd (1992-2005) really sealed Pontiac’s fate, cementing it as a maker of obnoxiously styled economy cars. A sad end to Pontiac’s performance past, and not even cars like the G8 or GTO could save it (the bailout only hastened Pontiac’s impending death)
Agreed on The N-Platform Grand Am. The car that single handedly ruined the image of Pontiac (In my mind. at least)
I’d also nominate the later J-Cars (Last Generation Sunfire, mostly). An economy car that was “meh” with a built in body kit!
The modern cars from GMB (General Motors of Brazil). GMB used to built american truck and Opel cars and always had been a reference in the market, but today they make low cost cars and Daewoos.
23) Olds Diesel
24) Saturn- All of Them
25) Chevy Aveo, Epica, and Optra
I haven’t read all the comments above so forgive me if someone has already suggested the 1923 “copper cooled” Chevys. I realize that it came at a time when GM was going up, but I believe it is the first good example of putting something half-baked in to production. Probably not a lot of the commenters would be old enough to remember when it came out. I’m old, but not that old.
I think a lot of people with memory of that are around Woodmere in Fort Wayne now.
How about the Cadilac HT4100 V8 and Northstar? Two engines that managed to help kill the Cadillac cash cow and accelerate luxury car buyers turning to imports.
Maybe we need a separate category for deadly-sin engines —
Northstar
Oldsmobile V8 grenade diesel
V8-6-4
Iron Duke
A much better list would be:
1) HT 4100
2) 5.7 diesel
3) 8-6-4 technology. (The engine it’self is just fine)
4) Early build Northstars
5) Aluminum Vega engine ( The Iron Duke was far better)
Without a doubt the first deadly sin the Corvair needs to have its day.
For one it was the first time GM really showed consumers that they were willing to risk their safety for the sake of a few dollars. Instead of fixing a known issue like the engineers suggested they “fixed” the problem by lowering the front tire pressure to dangerous levels.
It also showed that they had run out of original ideas at least for their most important brand. It was nothing more than a Chevized version of the Beetle’s basic layout. Then they had the stupidity of marketing it with the tag line “we put the engine in the back where it belongs in a small car”. Very smart marketing tell your potential customers that the competitor you are targeting has it right and you are just copying them.
The reasons behind the Corvair cheap-out would be interesting reading I think. GM was at or very near its technological peak when the Corvair was developed. The aluminum V-8, the rope-drive Tempest, the IRS Corvette, the FWD Toronado, the best A/C in the industry, the best automatic transmission in the industry. The list of advances is a long one, and the Corvair is an impressive achievement technologically. Why after the millions (billions?) invested in developing the Corvair would any sane executive permit the bean counters to save $7 (or whatever the number was) in the suspension? Something in management must have changed late in the game for such a blunder to have occurred. The standard rule for product development (at least nowadays) is to overbuild the early product, and start looking for savings after its success in the market is assured.
Could someone tackle this subject? It’s worth a couple of beers to me if I ever run across the author!
I have two nominations: No. 1, the Oldsmobile diesel engine, No. 2, the GM minivans.
I haven’t read all the comments, so I don’t know if anyone else has nominated…the 1959 Cadillac. Why? Because it shared front doors and the greenhouse with the 59 Chevy, and everything else between. It was perhaps the first example of extensive component sharing across divisions, which led inexorably to the disastrous badge-engineering of the 70s and 80s, and ultimately to the complete redundancy of Pontiac and Oldsmobile. Prior to these, one could make a credible argument that each division’s cars were truly unique, but I think the slid started here.
Here are some GM deadly sins. It involves 2 cars and 3 engines.
1. Cadillac Catera: The Catera was Cadillac’s second attempt at competing with entry-level luxury imports (BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Lexus). It was a sales dud and it had reliability problems. My parents had one for several years. It spent quite a bit of time in the shop. They now have a Lexus ES350 which was far more reliable. Also, there was the hokey “Caddy that zigs” sales campaign featuring a cartoon duck.
2. Pontiac Aztek: What was GM thinking? It looked like a Citation on steroids.
3. Oldsmobile diesel: Back in 1978, Oldsmobile wanted to build cars with diesel engines. So, they converted the legendary Rocket 350 into a diesel and installed it into Cutlass and Delta 88 models. It even found it’s way into Cadillacs. Trouble is, that engine cannot handle high compression ratios. So, it blew many a head gasket.
4. Cadillac V8-6-4: In 1980-81, gas prices were rising and the 6 liter Cadillac V8 was a gas guzzler. So, they used a computer controlled device that would shut down cylinders when the car is cruising along. Going into 4 cylinder mode. Trouble is, crude technology kept it from being reliable.
5. Cadillac HT 4100 V8: In 1982, Cadillac downsized it’s V8 to just 4.1 liters. That engine produced an anemic 125-135 horsepower. The results were disastrous. The big Cadillac DeVille/Fleetwood Brougham, Eldorado and Seville with that engine cannot get out of their own way. You would have beenbetter off buying a Buick Electra/Park Ave/Riviera or Oldsmobile 98 Regency/Toronado with the 307 V8 and get more engine for the money.
The U Platform minivans.
The Chevy Avalanche. What a useless, ugly tank of a tr… well, what was it supposed to be? An ugly 1/2 ton car with no trunklid? A hiking shoe with wheels? They get even worse with age, what with faded paint and plastics with wax embedded in them. If I want a giant 4-door to tow a boat with, I’d much rather find a ’74 Impala. Who uses the 4-wheel drive on those anyway.
Just a good donor car with its LS motor.
This is a hard question, because when considering GM’s deadly sins, I’m always able to think of some redeeming quality when I think of the larger cars. Not so with the smaller cars. The Saturn’s justifiably been listed as a deadly sin, as has the Cavalier… the Saturn began with some promise, whereas the Cavalier eventually improved.
The Chevette was awful the entire time it was on the market. And like the Cavalier, it was based on a reasonable platform. I understand Chevy wanted to upwell customers into a number of the brand’s bigger small cars, but many buyers were willing to pay slightly more for a higher quality car of the Chevette’s size (think Civic as the best example).
When you think of the Kadett C, the Isuzu Gemini or even the Vauxhall Chevette and Latin American Chevette, it’s clear Chevy could’ve done more with the T-platform in the US.
OK, GM has built some pooches. So has every other car company, yet I don’t see them getting anything like the regular bashings that GM gets here.
And lets not forget that GM dominated the global car market for decades.
That seems to be forgotten in all the GM bashing here. They were doing a lot right, for
a damn long time.
Actually it’s not forgotten at all. GM was doing a lot wrong for long damn time in order to have fallen from their lofty market share to eventual bankruptcy.
You need to read Paul’s intro article “On the Purpose and Nature of GMs Deadly Sins” to understand where he’s coming from with this series. My take is that GM was Paul’s favorite car company, so he’s offended with their many missteps, more-so than other manufacturers.
BigOldChryslers: I’ve suggested the same thing. It’s not indiscriminate bashing. The source material is right here on CC: “On The Purpose and Nature Of GM’s Deadly Sins”
GM worked hard to bankrupt itself. It’s not bashing to attempt to dissect why and how.
I still love my ION, the 99 Cavalier I bought as my first new car, the X Cars [especially the Citation ], the N Calais I owned which my brother still has, the 95 Saturn SL1[he has that one as well].
It doesn’t make them good cars and it doesn’t make them any less “Deadly Sins”. But I’ve had my fill from GM.
That’s always the impression that I’ve gotten, too – although maybe not really “offended” so much as just documenting the reality of the situation. The failure of GM is one of the most interesting and nuanced stories in automotive history. That’s why it’s worth coming back to again and again.
Roger Carr has written many incredible articles that are effectively a “Deadly Sins” of the British auto industry series, and no one has ever accused him of “British-Leyland bashing”, nor should they. It’s a myth that GM gets uniquely and unfairly negative treatment on CC.
yet I don’t see them getting anything like the regular bashings that GM gets here.
GM gets bashed because we expected better of it. Noone else in our lifetimes had GM’s volume, or GM’s money, or GM’s market share, or GM’s capabilities. 50 years ago, GM was twice the size of Ford, but they phoned it in until their market share was cut in half, profits turned to losses and they went bankrupt.
“GM gets bashed because we expected better of it. No one else in our lifetimes had GM’s volume, or GM’s money, or GM’s market share, or GM’s capabilities. 50 years ago, GM was twice the size of Ford, but they phoned it in until their market share was cut in half, profits turned to losses and they went bankrupt.”
Absolutely! No other car company raised customer expectations higher, succeed in fulfilling those for so long then misstep-by-misstep disappointed and angered customers to the point of bankruptcy. Dour old Alfred Sloan lead legions of true car guys to create the greatest corporation and greatest selection of compelling, aspirational cars until hubris took over with new bean-counter management attitude infections beginning in the ’60’s. But like any behemoth rotting from within, it took decades for the infection to finally topple the giant.
The new GM now has a chance to redeem that long-term damage but it will again take savvy car guys and not bean-counters to perhaps return it to the greatness of old.
So, its OK to build mediocrity if you’re a smaller company then?
So, its OK to build mediocrity if you’re a smaller company then?
Building a mediocre product is a road to ruin for anyone, but you shouldn’t be surprised to get a second rate product, from a second rate company. In the 70s, Chrysler was second rate. Compare the reliability and owner satisfaction of a Plymouth Volare, to an Olds Cutlass of the same year. The Cutlass was the best selling car in the US for a reason. GM could hire the best engineers, and provide the best facilities, because their volume meant they could spend more on R&D, because they had more cars to amortize the costs over.
I agree. It would be nice to see Ford and Chrysler called out for the crap they made during the 70’s to 90’s. Just for a change of pace. here are some good deadly sin examples for Ford and Chrysler.
Since the Cavalier last week was a deadly sin for being launched with a slow 88 HP engine how about the initial Ford Escort with it’s horribly slow 69 HP 1.6 carbureted engine that when combined with automatic could barely crest 20 MPH up a hill. Or how about the 1981-1983 Imperial for it’s “it might run or not” fuel injected 318 that was based on a far cheaper Mirada. Or the Ford Fairmont for being one of the most horribly lightweight cheaply constructed noisy tinny cars ever made for the time. The Ford 255 V8. The lovely it might run variable Venturi carburetor. The junk Essex 3.8 V6 which ate head gaskets and cracked heads for lunch. The Chrysler Ultradrive transaxle. The 2.2/2.5 Trans 4 Chrysler engines that wiped out cams, suffered pin knock, had poor head gaskets and ate sensors at an alarming rate. The Ford Contour with a smaller back seat than the current Malbu ever thought of having. The Ford Pinto, 1980 T-Bird/Cougar, the 1981 Granada/Cougar, early 4.6 V8 engines that burned oil and blew intake gaskets, the Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare’, use of the junk Mitsubishi 2.6 and 3 liter V6 engines in there products, the horrendous Ford of germany 2.8/2.9 V6 that had a plethora of issues with heads, gaskets and bottom ends and many many more issues.
I also find it quite a stretch to call a 1984 Pontiac Bonneville a deadly sin. First, this car was introduced in 1982 in response to a slow down in big car sales and Pontiac did not believe that full size cars would be around much longer with the then current gas prices so made the G-body Lemans a Bonneville. Well Ford did the exact same thing twice. The 1980 Granada name was slapped on the smaller tinnier Fairmont with more sound insulation and a mushier suspension and the same anemic engines carried over. Worse in 1983 they took the full size LTD name and put it on the same cheap compact sized Fairmont trying to pass that off a premium offering. How exactly is this different? If the downsized Bonneville is a deadly sin then so is the LTD/Marquis!
The 1978 Grand Prix. First off no A/G body ever belongs on this list. They were light years ahead of the dumpy Ford and Chrysler offerings in efficiency, performance with V8 engines, ride, handling, comfort and even trunk space. A better choice for a real deadly sin would be the 1980 terribly conceived T-Bird and Cougar complete with powerhouse 88 HP 200 six made available during the later part of 1980 moving around over 3200 LBS of pork.
If the 1976 Seville is a Deadly Sin then the Lincoln Versailles is a Super Deadly sin.
If the Corsica is such a horrible car what does that make a Tempo? An engine derived from an outdated straight six design from the 50’s. Plastic ball joints that failed during the first year of ownership. Horrible power sapping automatic trans axle. A carburetor when GM was using TBI in there J and A body offerings. The worlds worst power steering pumps that often caught fire. yes folks these were a real steaming pile.
And lets not forget Lincoln’s wonderful FWD Continental with the lovely sluggish Essex V6 initially and then later the powerhouse DOHC 275 HP 4.6 Intech tied to the amazing bullet proof Taurus 4 speed automatic that puked it’s guts the same was as attaching a 4t65 to a small block Chevy in a W-body!
I’ll be the first to admit GM has screwed up one time too many. The bailout is often brought up. But lets also consider that Chrysler was also bailed out. Twice! And worse they continue to languish on the bottom of CR/true Delta and Wards auto up to this current day for reliability.
I don’t disagree that Chrysler and Ford have built plenty of stinkers too. And Chrysler has been the topic of its own deadly sin series. Have we ever done a piece on a post 1956 Mopar where quality has not been one of the threads of the article? And you are right that they continue to struggle with quality and durability, at least in certain lines. I understand that Ford is spared strict “Deadly” sin status because the company did not actually die, as GM and Chrysler did.
My only argument is with your count of two “bailouts”. Chrysler’s 1980 bailout consisted of the government guaranteeing loans which Chrysler later paid back in full. Nobody was out any money on the 1980 bailout. The 2008-09 version for both GM and Chrysler was, of course, quite different.
Hummer: The whole brand. The day it came out under GM, I knew they would eventually be lambasted by everyone for what amounted to obnoxiousness on four wheels. The fact that well paid GM executives couldn’t see this just amazes me.
SAAB: The whole brand when under General motors. The concept was a lot like Saturn, we can’t seem to fix our existing brands, so we’ll create / buy another one. But, wow, what a fantastic opportunity for a 6th GMT360 vehicle.
GMC: Diluting Chevrolet sales figures since 1912.
I make two nominations.
The first is how GM handled the 1961-63 “senior” compacts from Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac. Instead of developing their unique features for another generation, GM took the easy way out and turned them into “Mini-me” versions of the full-size cars for 1964. That worked in the short run, but it reinforced the message that doing things the cheap and easy way was the surest path to success. By the time the market and regulatory climate had changed in the 1970s, GM’s ability to successfully innovate had seriously atrophied. GM kept looking for the “cheap and easy” way to meet the challenges of government regulation and foreign competition, with disastrous results.
The second Deadly Sin isn’t a particular vehicle, but rather GM’s (ultimately futile) attempt to maintain the Sloan brand ladder in the 1990s and early 2000s. GM spent a ton of money trying to differentiate vehicles on shared platforms. The corporation tried to distinguish them in ways that were lost on most customers. By 2000, GM vehicles from different divisions were largely competing with each other for the dollars of an ever-shrinking pool of GM loyalists.
The senior compacts/intermediates are an interesting case because it’s easy to see why GM went the direction they did. The senior compacts had a lot of differentiation in areas that really didn’t translate into distinct identities or USPs for customers — three different automatic transmission designs, for instance — or that were troublesome. The 3.5-liter V-8’s early problems certainly rubbed a lot of people the wrong way and the advances in thinwall iron casting cut into the aluminum engine’s advantages. So, I understand why GM said, “Why are we spending all this money like this?” but…
How about the 1990s Monte Carlos that looked exactly like a Lumina?
Or the Cheese-Wedge Buick Skylark?
Or the Toroflow Diesel?
Pontiac Aztec. UUUUUgly and what a piece of crap. My sister and idiot brother-in-law bought one new. It spent 21/2 years of the 3 they owned it in the shop.
Here’s the kicker. My idiot Pontiac loving brother-in-law still claims it was a good car.
Interesting , I also owned an Aztek , but wouldn’t consider myself an idiot.
I went into the purchase knowing full well about the black cloud overhanging the Aztek as far styling.
I didn’t (and still don’t) care, about the Azteks looks.
The price I paid was excellent,actually ridiculously low for the features of the vehicle.
Comfortable riding, roomy, good gas mileage ,and as Pontiac advertised, a very very versatile vehicle.
What I wasn’t prepared for ,and in hindsight would have stopped me from buying my Aztek was its terrible build quality ,and reliability
Like your brother in law , I think my Aztek spent more time at the dealership , than in my driveway. The weekly problems became almost comical
I chuckle when I read, or hear people calling Korean cars “junk” or “disposable crap”.
My Kia Rondo has been perfect in 90,000 miles of ownership.
If they can do it ,why not a giant like General Motors?
My Kia Rondo has been perfect in 90,000 miles of ownership.
If they can do it ,why not a giant like General Motors?
That is the point of the GM bashing, and, actually, the bashing of the big three. Many times, they were not even trying to turn out a good product. I have lived in Michigan my entire life, so far, so big three PR is local news. Consistently, since the 70s, big three management has blamed all their problems on the government, the union, or the Japanese, then headed for the country club.
The early Toyotas and Hondas were pretty bad, but they worked the problems and turned it around. The early Hyundais and Kias were pretty bad, but they worked the problems and turned it around. VW was tragically incompetent for decades, but seems to have turned it around in the last ten years.
The US big three? They offer products that look good on paper, but fail in execution. Infotainment systems that are glitchy. Bleeding edge powertrains that are half baked. They even fail at anti-freeze, like DexCool that, if not maintained precisely fills the cooling system with brown muck.
oh….there’s another candidate for “deadly sin”, DexCool
The first video put the coolant muck down to air mixed with the coolant. What happens if you mix DexCool with green antifreeze.
What happens when you use stop-leak in DexCool
Again, at the local GM dealer for one of the never ending problems with my Aztek. The service manager has the hood up ,explaining something to me ( I don’t remember what) when I happen to notice this same brown scum on top the Dexcool in the coolant recovery tank.
This was with less than 3 years on the coolant .
His answer to me about the brown scum “its normal”.
… I happen to notice this same brown scum on top the Dexcool in the coolant recovery tank…His answer to me about the brown scum “its normal”.
Apparently, it was “normal”, especially in a V6. “Normal” does not imply desirability however. Apparently GM didn’t do any testing before switching to DexCool, as it seems that DexCool dissolves the gasket materials used in older design engines.
The Wiki article about antifreeze says a lot of lawsuits were filed against GM for engine damage caused by DexCool. GM agreed to compensate claimants, but then filed bankruptcy, so the chances of people ever recovering anything are close to nil.
I think beginning with my 1995 Riviera my cooling systems all had Dexcool. None of them ever had brown scum. The SRX never had a coolant change during the 6 years that I owned it. There were no leaks and always serviced at dealers, so no one added some other type of coolant (which is probably the source of brown scum).
I put just over 90,000 miles on my 2007 SRX with no real problems. The front shocks did get replaced at about 90,000 although I had not noticed they were getting bad. Otherwise, the inflamous northstar V8 ran without a problem.
My nomination for ‘Deadliest Sin’ in the 2.5 Iron Duke 4 cylinder (or as I called it: the ‘Iron Duck’-you stepped on the gas pedal and all you heard was a thrashy ‘QUACKKKKKKKKK!’ coming from under the hood). GM kept allegedly upgrading it: Crossflow head! Throttle body fuel injection! Roller lifters! Distributorless ignition!! Lets call it ‘Tech 4’! We’ll stick it under the hood of our highest volume vehicles! Never mind the “improvements” over the years were the engineering equivalent of putting a Band Aid on a compound fracture–they just really phoned it in with this engine. I think the front wheel drive versions (X and A body) versions were particularly awful-these things idled so rough, I thought the dashboard and steering column were doing to vibrate apart within the first week of ownership (must’ve been the option code FU2 Vibro-matic steering wheel….). GM really fell on their sword when it came to domestically produced 4-cylinder engines in this era.
Going to nominate the Corvair- not for the car itself, which while less than perfect wasn’t much worse than many others on the market, but for GM’s behaviour after “Unsafe” was published.
Instead of fixing the design, compensating the injured or killing the product, they went for a smear campaign of Nader…and got caught.
People will forgive bad things done for good reason, or good things done for bad reasons.
They will not forgive bad things done for bad reasons, and done incompetently!
The whole exercise left a sleazy air about the corporation that segued neatly into the general dodginess of the Watergate era.
Thanks for the list !
I think that the Cadillac Catera would be a good GM Deadly sin : It’s an Opel underneath. How do you want to compete with BMW and Mercedes Benz with an Opel, which is the equivalent of Ford ? That’s silly.
The Omega did theoretically compete with the E-Class and 5-Series in Europe, as did the contemporary Ford Granada/Scorpio, although even then, that was getting to be a tough sell because of the lack of a premium badge. You got more stuff and more engine for the money, but also much poorer residuals.
The Opel Senator B was even a bit closer to the E-Class. I only remember the (German) straight 6 engines in the big Opels from that era.
The Catera had a newly developed (English) V6, didn’t it ?
Yes the Catera’s V6 was 3.2 liters with an odd angle between the cylinder banks (less than 60 degrees, about 54 maybe?).
Right. This was the last 6 cylinder engine I remember seeing under the hood of a big Opel. In an Opel Senator B (1987-1993), early nineties.
Opel Senator B. Bigger and more luxury than the Omega in Etienne000’s picture above. Same platform though.
In France, Opel does not compete with other German brands. It’s more a ‘generalist’ automaker. They used to compete with the Renault Safrane, Peugeot 605 I think. But anyway, an Opel with a Cadillac badge is not the vision I have from Cadillac In my opinion. They did the same thing with the BLS, taking a Saab and try to sell it as a Cadillac. This didn’t work either !
Opel isn’t a premium brand (to its undoubted sorrow at this point), but in a lot of markets, the Omega — and the big Renault, Peugeot, Ford, et al — was in the same price range as the lower-end E-Class and 5-Series. The Opel and its ilk gave you more engine and more equipment for the money, but not the badge, which ended up being the downfall of that class in Europe.
Hard to fault GM for the first-gen Corvair; one of the elements to its tricky handling was the swing-axle rear suspension, an engineering solution even being used by Mercedes-Benz during the Corvair’s gestation GM’s “Dustbuster” minivans and the subsequent Pontiak are more deserving of scorn. Ignoring Pontiac’s rich history for the sake of Buick/Cadillac sales in China when there was more difference between Chevy’s and Pontiac’s lineups than between GMC and Chevy truck lines/ Selling Saturn Vues with Honda engines. Lastly, the whole ” rationalization” of GM’s products, which left no reason for marque loyalty.
Ignoring Pontiac’s rich history for the sake of Buick/Cadillac sales in China when there was more difference between Chevy’s and Pontiac’s lineups than between GMC and Chevy truck lines/ Selling Saturn Vues with Honda engines.
Actually, Pontiac was a made up brand, jinned from the corpse of Oakland, and lacked the provenance of Buick or Olds. It may have been a bit older than the other made up brands: Plymouth, DeSoto, Mercury and Saturn, but it was no loss, compared to forsaking Ransom Olds.
I think the problem with Sloan’s ladder, was they abandoned it. As soon as the brands started invading the market segments of the other brands, they started losing their identity. When nearly every division offers an X body and a J body, what makes a Buick a Buick?
In the 80s, imagine if Chevy had exclusive use of the J body, Pontiac the X, while Buick used the A and Olds used the N. GM paid to develop all these platforms, but by offering every platform in every store, they were competing with themselves.
The so called ladder never really existed in the mid-priced range (Buick, Oakland and Oldsmobile). Cadillac was (around the World War One time frame) at the top of the ladder, and after WWI Chevrolet was clearly to low end. But Buick’s low end models seems to be price very close to the top end of Chevrolet. Oldsmobile moved around the price structure somewhat. Pontiac was one of 4 companion cars. Oakland was replaced by their companion car (Pontiac), while both the Buick and Olds companions were very short term car. Cadillac’s LaSalle lasted for about a decade before being replaced by the Series 61 (after renumbering).
By the end of the 50’s, the low priced cars (Chevrolet …) were full sized and with the introduction of compact cars the whole ladder idea was junk. I think this is where the Big Three made a serious blunder (or deadly sin).
In the early 1950s, GM’s product ladder was distinguished on the exteriors mostly by increasing the quantity of the chrome as they progressed from Chevrolet to Cadillac. Underneath, there were V8s, straight 8s.and straight 6s hooked up to automatics including Dynaflow, Hydra-Matic and Powerglide. When Semon “Bunkie” Knudson took over Pontiac’s reins, he infused the marque with a performance identity more sharply defined than that of Buick and Olds.
There was supposed to be a price difference too:
1951 Chevy Bell Air – $1630
Pontiac chieftain six – $1527
Buick Special – $1680
Olds 88 – $1785
top of line Olds 98 about $2500
top of line Buick about $2600
My point is this: The low end of Buick or Olds (not sure which is higher up, can’t tell from this) should not be within $50 of Chevy’s top end.
Another nomination – not a car though. The Sloane Hierarchy. The ladder of different makes that a buyer was supposed move up as they grew more affluent.
Did it really work after the early 1960s? Or did trying to keep a differentiation between makes end up sucking up too many resources, especially as emission controls and safety legislation came along?
Of course, eliminating Pontiac, Buick or Olds wasn’t possible at the time due to the number of cars sold, but it really seemed to become a golden noose sometime after the mid 1960s.
I don’t know if it’s exactly a Deadly Sin, but I’d love to read Paul’s take on the life and death of the EV1. As the years have gone by, it seems more and more like a massively wasted opportunity to me. The car itself was really incredible, and with the NiMH batteries its range was well beyond that of its modern counterparts… but I’m not sure that the success of hybrids and EVs was something that anyone could have seen coming back then. Tesla wasn’t even a glimmer in Elon Musk’s eye when the last EV1 was built, and for that matter, the “success” of electric propulsion is still relatively limited.
But I do think hybrid/electric domination of the industry is inevitable, and GM could have been right there at the forefront with Toyota had the EV1’s development been expanded.
GM made s big deal about the Malibu Max being a 5-door. They already had SAAB, who was famous for filling that niche, but they stopped making SAAB 5-doors right before the Malibu Max came out. DUH!
Sure hope someone mentions the Pontiac Montana SV6. What is an SV6 anyway?
Throw in its hideous siblings the Chevy Uplander, the Saturn Relay, and the Buick Terraza. Note to GM: sticking a bulbous nose on a minivan does NOT make it a crossover, okay?
Forgive me if this is a repeat–I scanned, but didn’t totally read, all 185 posts so far.
Aztek?
In the early to mid-80’s I began to notice that GM began to place non-qualified and mostly non-trainable people in key positions at the zone level. This “deadly sin” was a fatal blow.
For me, the gm’s most deadly sin was that they didn’t launch an fwd, reliable small cars in 1950’s or 1960’s.
It should have been a world-beater small cars to compete with the volkswagen’s beetle and later with japanese cars.
“Contrary to what some might think, I don’t get any great thrill out of documenting the decline and fall of what was once the world’s largest and most profitable corporation.”