For quite a few years, the Pontiac Motor Division of General Motors had a job to do. It’s job was to recall the Division’s great bygone days as the company’s standard bearer for performance by bringing to market a hot road car that would make the buff books go into a swoon.
But all too often, once the buff books turned their GM-provided test vehicles back into the promotional fleet, the buzz went away and Mr. & Mrs. America would go on to buy other cars in great numbers. Sometimes this was because Mr. & Mrs. America were too dense to buy the really good stuff. But other times – it was the car.
In 1973 Pontiac played the performance card with the Grand Am. Everyone went wild about the Grand Am in the fall of 1972. Everyone who wrote for magazines, anyhow. It was not a stupid muscle car that made up for its lack of manners with way too much power. It was a finely balanced road car which showed us towards a market where handling and roadability were the reasons for its existence.
Sadly for Pontiac, there was something called the BMW 2002 which did what the Grand Am was supposed to be able to do, only without all of the superfluous flab of the corpulent GM A body. That BMW also charged slightly more money for a lot less car showed that the Bavarians had figured something out about the aspirational market in this country – something that General Motors was never able to grasp. Pontiac’s failure to move 71,000 Grand Ams over the original model’s three year life showed that the buff books were not always right.
The following decade, Pontiac would try again. The time period? The go-go 1980s. The car? The 6000 STE.
The 1982 Pontiac 6000 was one of four flavors of GM’s first all-new A body since 1978. Pontiac had spent the previous four years trying to sell a LeMans that had trouble getting traction in the sliver of daylight between the Oldsmobile Cutlass and Pontiac’s own Grand Prix. The LeMans would compete “up a division” for 1982 when it was renamed Bonneville, sent out to appeal to a dwindling number of traditionalists who still appreciated the traits of the broughams that Detroit had developed into an art form before the dismal era of post-peak-oil.
The 1982 A body cars were basically lengthened X body cars. The new models shared critical measurements like front (58.7 inch) and rear (57 inch) tracks and many other stats with their smaller progenitors. The new As even shared the 104.9 inch wheelbase of the Xs’ hatchback sedan body. The main difference was a roughly twelve inch increase in overall length, apparently split between overhangs up front and out back. The EPA calculated about three additional cubic feet of overall interior space, but most of this was likely due to the adoption of the “sheer look” upright roof design in place of the fastback bodies of the X sedans.
During the 6000’s first model year of 1982 it was essentially an updated LeMans, meaning that it was not much different from its siblings named Celebrity, Cutlass and Century. But in 1983 Pontiac tried to make things interesting.
In addition to offering regular (6000) and premium (6000 LE), Pontiac went all Grand Am and introduced the car it hoped would appeal to the sports sedan crowd – the 6000 STE.
In 1964 Pontiac had taken a vanilla Tempest and added a hot engine. However, the buyer still had to pay extra for many other items necessary to make the car into a truly appealing package, both mechanically and visually. The 6000 STE went the other direction.
“STE” stood for Special Touring Edition. With this car, Pontiac declined to follow the then-typical GM playbook which took a basic car and added some touches for a sporting appearance. The STE was an expensive upgrade which made for an extremely well-equipped car. If the brochure was accurate, leather and a sunroof were the only ways for one STE buyer to one-up the next. Pontiac threw everything into the STE from air conditioning and electronic ride control to carpeted floor mats. With this all-or-nothing package, there would be no stripper STEs.
Mechanically the car received a fuel injected “High Output” 130 bhp version of the 2.8 L Chevrolet V6, which was exclusively mated to a 3 speed automatic with a lockup torque converter. This powertrain was accompanied by specially designed or tuned components for suspension, steering and brakes, all of which interfaced with the pavement via beefy Goodyear Eagle GT tires. In the introductory brochure Pontiac claimed that the STE was “[p]ossibly the most exciting high-performance sedan to hit America’s streets in a long, long time!”
130 SAE net horsepower was not nothing in 1983. For example, it outpowered the base engine in the new Thunderbird, even though the Bird’s 3.8 V6 had a full liter in displacement advantage. On the other hand, the BMW 318i was down only 30 ponies against the STE with an engine smaller by one liter (and weighing 500 pounds less). And what did real performance look like in 1983? The Mustang GT was good for 175 bhp, which was definitely setting the new standard in bang-for-the-buck performance. Plus, each of these others (and the 145 bhp Thunderbird Turbo Coupe to name another example) offered a stick shift to cater to the enthusiast market.
The STE’s level of excitement (such that it was) did not come without a cost – the base price of the STE was about $13,500, which was a pretty fair amount of money for an American car of this size in 1983.
The buff books went wild. The car was named as one of Car & Driver’s Ten Best that year. C&D was effusive in its praise.
“If the downsized General Motors big cars of 1977 were the best American cars since the end of World War II, the 1982 General Motors A-bodies are the best since 1977, and the Pontiac 6000STE is the best of all. Exactly opposite the Firebird, the 6000STE is light and lively, features the most up-to- date technology available from GM, and comes wrapped in sheetmetal that can only be described as controversial. Another major point of differentiation is the fact that these cars aren’t selling very well. We believe that the appearance of the A-cars will grow on the American public, and the 6000STE ought to lead the way in that regard. It is, by our lights, the most handsomely trimmed and detailed new product in the current GM portfolio. It is also the least compromised, and the one that does the best job of telegraphing exactly what kind of car it is, and to exactly what kind of driver it is supposed to appeal. This is in every way a Car and Driver kind of car. Fun to drive, economical, distinctive in appearance, comfortable in an active participant’s sense of the word, and absolutely contemporary.”
Popular Science thought enough of the car to include it in a four way 1983 test which also pitted the Dodge 600 ES and the Buick Century T-Type against the $20,000 Audi 5000 Turbo. The Pontiac acquitted itself well in this test, approaching or beating the much more expensive Audi in performance numbers.
Unfortunately the excitement of the motoring press failed to retain potency in Pontiac showrooms. The STE’s production figures tell the sad tale:
1983 6,719
1984 19,236
1985 22,728
1986 26,299
1987 8,802
To put this in some perspective, there were 26,080 DeSotos built in 1960.
The car seemed to go out of style relatively quickly. PopSci tried again to compare three Amerikaners to an Audi in April of 1986, but the STE (by then priced at about $15,000) failed to make the cut. Instead the new Ford Taurus was the focus of the magazine’s affection as a bang-for-the-buck sports sedan. Like the STE three years earlier, the Taurus performed with numbers that neared those of the Audi 5000S and for a whole lot less money (and despite the Ford being saddled with all-season radials).
GM’s conception of a European-style sport sedan was skewed by the ’80s (as it had been in the ’70s and as it would be again in the ’90s). On the plus side, the STE was made to handle about as well as a front-heavy, MacPherson strut, fwd, twist beam rear axle car could handle. Sure, it was far from overpowered, but then neither were the European targets.
It got “the look” with toned down and blackout trim that GM thought would resonate. Unfortunately, stylists at Audi and Ford were beginning to take vehicle styling in a different direction, one that the square-rigged A bodies were ill prepared to go. And this ignores that to the untrained eye the STE looked an awful like Aunt Maggie’s Cutlass Ciera.
And while the STE carried full instrumentation, it was: A) electronic which pretty much every buyer in this class considered a gimmick and B) stuck in a panel that would have been right at home in Grandpa’s ’69 Catalina. And a 5 speed Getrag manual was not added to the options list until the 1987 model.
Add to all of this the fact that the cars never had that “machined from a single block of steel” feel that was so commonly found in German sports sedans of the era and you got . . . a really expensive GM A body that was fairly quick and handled pretty well.
The STE was undoubtedly the best version of GM’s ’80s A body sport sedans, outclassing the Buick T-Types and Chevrolet Eurosports in terms of both the effort put into building them and on the performance merits of the cars that resulted. But like those lesser models, they were still just decent cars with decent performance whose claim to fame was that they were better drivers than the models farther down the line. At least Pontiac put more distance between the STE and its base models than was the case elsewhere under the GM umbrella.
These STEs were not balls-out performers like the Buick Grand National or even the 1985 Ford LTD LX. Actually, they were not as powerful as the 1986 3.0 V6 Taurus. The first four model years also never got a stick shift, something that Chrysler was putting into cars like the Dodge 600 and Lancer. The final verdict has to be that the real Euro-American sports sedan of the ’80s was coming from Ford, albeit in a highly Americanized form. The Taurus had the look outside, had the look inside and was not really at a power or handling disadvantage either – and it wasn’t really even trying to be a sports sedan. And while the Taurus was never going to woo many buyers out of a BMW or Audi, the sad fact was that the 6000 STE wasn’t going to either.
The “Goooste” would take a year off then come back for a final lap in 1989, this time in AWD form. Pontiac was doing what it could with what it had, but . . . sorry.
All in all, the car was not really a flop, but it wasn’t a hit either. In its three best years (the only ones that got to five figures in production) the car sold about as well as the 1973-75 Grand Am had, though the STE had the advantage of a better economic climate.
When new, the 6000 STE generated a lot of respect but failed to turn that respect into decent sales figures. Sometimes time has a way of righting a wrong like this. An extreme example would be the Dodge Charger Daytona that languished on dealer lots in 1969-70 but is worth a fortune to collectors today. ’80s cars like the Buick Grand National and the Fox body Fords have fan support that has become quite robust. The 6000 STE, however, remains an inexpensive oddity – when you can find one at all. But then so are cars like the Omni GLH and the original Taurus SHO, both of which put more “sport” in sport sedan than the STE ever did.
Is it because the car was not powerful enough? Because it lacked a stick shift for all but its final year? Or was it looking for a niche that just wasn’t really there. It is not difficult to conclude that by the mid 80’s most buyers willing to consider a GM A body were not really interested in performance, and most buyers really into performance were not interested in a GM A body.
If you were a longtime GM buyer who wanted the nicest, coolest, best driving A body you could get in the mid ’80s, the 6000 STE was the car for you. But if you were looking for the best sports sedan you could get for the money? The STE may have been worth a look, but you could be forgiven for not falling under its spell.
Note: Measurements were obtained from www.automobile-catalog.com
Further Reading
1982-91 Pontiac 6000 – The Power Of The Halo (William Stopford)
1991 Pontiac 6000 LE – A Rare Sight (Carey Haubrick)
1980-84 Pontiac Phoenix – A Short (And Feeble) Second Life (Paul Niedermeyer)
COAL: 1984 Pontiac 6000 Wagon – 20 Years Of Use And Abuse (Carlo DiTullio)
I may be imagining this but weren’t these headlights initially described in some publication as composite homofocal? It seems to me they also had glass lenses instead of the Lexan lenses we have today that are so prone to hazing.
Many if not most of the early flush headlamps in the US had glass lenses, at least until the 1990s when plastic lenses were introduced to save weight and reduce breakage (and likely, manufacturing cost).
While it saved the motorist from having to deal with lenses broken by rocks and gravel, or having to purchase and mount clear plastic protectors in front of them, it also introduced a more common problem that crops up over the years: The dreaded headlamp cataracts!
Composite, yes; that is a term that found favor in America for what are officially called replaceable-bulb headlamps (as opposed to sealed beams).
Homofocal, no. There is such a thing as a homofocal headlamp; it was an oddly-named technology developed by Charles Spencer and his team at Lucas in the early-mid 1980s to improve headlamp efficiency and performance (yuk it up if you like, but Lucas did some very good lighting R&D in the ’80s). The SAE paper is here. Instead of a single parabolic reflector, it involved parabolic sections of differing focal lengths. That technology was found on mainstream models including the ’87-’92 VW Jetta/Golf and the ’87-’93 Saab 900, but does not appear in any of the Pontiac 6000 headlamps, which were made by Bosch and used simple parabolic reflectors.
Their glass lenses, as you note, did not degrade like polycarbonate lenses. This is more than just a minor “dangit”. Pedestrian deaths are rising even as other kinds of traffic-related fatalities are dropping, and the nighttime pedestrian kill rate is rising faster and higher than the daytime rate. One very rigourously data-backed reason for the increase is an unintuitive one: headlamp degradation. I’m sorry I can’t show you the data I’m basing this comment on, because it was compiled and analysed for a specific purpose and is not released for general publication. But I can and will describe it for you pointwise:
• About 75% of traffic-related pedestrian fatalities happen after dark.
• From 2009 to 2016, daytime pedestrian fatalities increased 16%, while nighttime pedestrian fatalities increased by 82%. Since 1994 it has grown steadily more and more hazardous to be a pedestrian at night versus in daylight in the United States.
• To gain approval, plastic materials used in headlamp lenses are required to pass an outdoor-exposure test where they’re left out in the sun for 3 years, after which they are allowed to have not more than 30% haze (which is a lot—there is a very sturdy case to be made that this requirement is much too lax).
• The average age of a vehicle on US roads in 1990 was about 7.6 years (2000, 8.9 years. 2014, 11.4 years. 2018, 11.8 years).
• Headlamp lens haze diffuses and scatters what should be a focused beam of light, severely degrading the driver’s ability to see while simultaneously increasing glare to other drivers. To put numbers on it: a batch of headlamps properly made of approved materials, used and exposed to the sun for four years, put out only 32% of the light they originally produced. Maximum intensity within the beam was only 23% of the original and intended value. These lamps, as aged, did not come close to meeting minimum performance requirements. A recent AAA study came to similar conclusions.
• Headlamp lenses degrade faster and worse in hot, sunny states than in cold, cloudy ones. Properly analyzed and compensated for confounds, the data show the night/day pedestrian fatality ratio in high-haze states is over triple the ratio in low-haze states. Five states—Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia and Texas—accounted for almost half of all pedestrian deaths in 2018. All five are bright, sunny, hot states.
Bottom line: Ford devised a cheap and lax standard for plastic headlight lenses in 1983. NHTSA said “K, whatever you want is fine with us”. Pedestrians die as a result.
Daniel, thanks for this amazing breakdown.
+100!
Comment of the Year nomination for Mr Stern
»bows, doffs cap« Thanks kindly, Tatra! 🙂
You’re welcome. Thanks for the thanks! I wish I had a magic wand to wave and fix the regulatory problem. It’s even more pathetic than it sounds, because there are plastic lens materials available right now, today, that have passed all the tests (3-year exposure, etc) and are much more durable, much more resistant to haze and other kinds of degradation. They’re affordable, and they’re compatible with existing lens moulding tools and techniques. Problem is, the US reg is written specifically around the assumption of polycarbonate materials, which are soft and damage-prone. The reg says plastic headlamp lenses have to have a coating, which is supposed to protect the base polycarbonate from abrasion, UV, chemical attack, etc. It’s coated samples of lens material that have to be left out in the sun for the three years, coated samples that have to be scrubbed with steel wool, coated samples that have to be wiped with a prescribed list of chemicals, etc. The superior materials I just described not only achieve their superior performance without a coating, but there’s no coating that would do anything but drag their performance down to the level we already have.
So the good stuff can be used for any lamp lens on the car…except headlamps, because no coating and the reg says coated. This from the agency that babbles and crows about how their regulations are technology-neutral and performance-based. Meanwhile, the new materials can be used for headlamps everywhere else in the world. Yay, America! Woooo!
You’re welcome; thanks for the thanks! The problem is even worse and sadder than it seems: there are now materials with much better durability of optical clarity, resistance to abrasion and chemical attack, etc. They’re fully compatible with existing moulding techniques and tools, they’re commercially available and affordable, but they cannot be used for headlamps in the United States because the US reg specifies coated lenses, assuming any plastic lens is going to be made out of UV-prone, abrasion-prone, chemical-prone polycarbonate. The new materials achieve their superior performance without a coating, and any coating would drag them down to the present level. Everywhere else in the world: no problem.
Daniel’s explanation of headlamp haze I find to be an excellent explanation of what a cataract does. The lens inside your eye has gotten as hazy, or worse, than the headlamp lens. Now combine a hazy headlamp with a hazy lens (anyone over 60 will do) and the effect can be disconcerting and dramatic. One of the most common complaints in my office is nighttime haze and glare combined with a slower dark adaptation curve. Surgical replacement with an IOL will help the haze and glare.
Does the data account for pedestrian and driver cell phone usage?
I’d like to ask you to please take another careful look at what I wrote and see if the answer to that question might occur to you.
I met a U.S. Navy officer who had special ordered an ’87 6000STE wagon with a 5-speed. I believe it was white, and we agreed he probably had the only one. Very cool car.
I don’t doubt that such a vehicle was built, but can’t help but wonder if this was done by a dealership, using a closely-optioned 6000LE wagon as the blank canvas.
It seems odd to me that a single wagon body would be EPA certified with a drivetrain that was unique to the STE.
Agreed. I don’t believe it was a genuine factory car. By this time, GM’s production systems were not set up to do what it had once been able to do in the 60s and early 70s. It was too disruptive, among other things.
Wasn’t the five speed an option- if rarely ordered- that no one thought of putting in a wagon ? I saw the car a few times, he brought it in occasionally for regular maintenance at the Presidio service station where I worked. He told me he had ordered the car, and that he had to wait for it. I took him at his word. This was about 1992.
I don’t think it’s that he could not have gotten a wagon with the stick, but that I don’t believe the STE ever came as a wagon. Now someone could probably have gotten pretty close with a careful walk through the options book but it is my understanding that the STE only came as a 4 door sedan through its entire life.
That would be an S/E wagon, STE was only available as a sedan.
The S/E had the bigger swaybars and sideskirts, and the STE grill and lights.
They were fairly rare and the wagons even rarer.
He had to special order it, and perhaps he paid some kind of additional fee. Or maybe he found a dealer willing to work with GM to get the car built. He was a officer I the U.S. Navy, and that may have helped. If a Commander in the U.S. Navy had come to my dealership looking for a special car, I would have bent over backwards to help him. It wasn’t that big of a deal, since the five speed was an option. All that was required was to build a 6000 wagon as an STE . Like I said, I saw the car on more than one occasion. It had the lower body cladding, the correct wheels, bucket seats, console, everything. ( Yes, the badges too )
My father had a 1986 Pontiac 6000 S/E wagon for a long while. Never saw another one like it. I remember reading they only made about 3000 that year…
This car is an example of why so many cars of the 1980s and forward will not become collectibles.
All that electronic gadgetry from this era is either impossible or extremely costly to repair and maintain.
Dash of an STE:
“Digital” dashes in 80s cars are quite rudimentary, any nerd with a soldering pen can fix what little can go wrong in these in an afternoon, and they’re little more complex than electronic analog gauges. Most of the time it’s actually as simple as replacing the backlight bulbs.
Aren’t those digital dashes in the Pontiac 6000 STE vacuum fluorescent displays that don’t have backlight “bulbs”? Don’t they have a common ballast that can go bad? The ones I remember that did have a “bulb” was the Ford “shine through” display. At my former place of employment I used a ’93 Ford Ranger and the radio display was dark. Behind the display was a very small incandescent bulb that had burned out. To replace the bulb I had to tilt down the display and use tweezers to remove and replace it.
That may be the case, I’m more familiar with the Ford digital displays that used halogen backlight bulbs that fit 194 style bulb sockets(which work as a substitute, albiet not as bright), but it looks backlit to me. Still, if those are VFDs in the STE I have no reason to fear them failing, I’ve never owned one thing with a VFD display, be it car stereos, VCRs microwaves etc that had the display go bad after many years. The display in the 86 Riviera would concern me though!
Just love all the little buttons, living in Colorado 76-17 they just don’t work so well with gloves.
After 40,000 klms on my 1986 Pontiac STE, the biggest problem was the ABS (anti-skid braking system) pump. It was no longer available to buy except for a few incidental pumps at over $2,000. I ended getting a local brake and fabricator to rebuild the old pump for $200.
Rip out the abs and use trad brakes…but there are other ABS DC motors from eg Ford zThunderbird;
MacPherson Strut Front Suspension. Standard!
It must be said that the other ’80s buff book darling, the Volkswagen Golf/Rabbit GTI, was also a front-heavy FWD car with MacPherson struts and a twist-beam rear axle and handled quite well for all that.
Likewise the current Ford Fiesta, which is very nimble even in basic form and positively accomplished as an ST.
I’m not sure what your point is. Lots of cars with those same basic attributes have been great handlers.
Or am I missing something from your comment?
I think that is his point, responding to this:
On the plus side, the STE was made to handle about as well as a front-heavy, MacPherson strut, fwd, twist beam rear axle car could handle
Matt’s got it. I would have quoted it, but I thought it would be implicit.
It’s implied that a manual was not available (“Because it lacked a stick shift?”). While that was true initially, and the source of carping from the automotive magazines, a Getrag 5-speed manual was available about midway through the STE’s five-year production run.
Alas, these were like many GM cars of the day, half-baked at introduction and improved over a few model years to where they should have been when initially released.
A couple of additional fun facts about the STE that were unmentioned: These got ABS added fairly early (if not the first) among the A-platform cars, and the four-wheel discs were also a rare find on that platform. Also, the rear suspension had a self-leveling feature which used air shocks connected to an onboard air compressor; as an added bonus, the air compressor had a port in the trunk and a hose, and could be used as an inflator for the tires (and anything else, for that matter).
Correction: The Getrag 5-speed manual was available about midway through the STE’s SIX-year production run.
Well, six if we count the 1989 AWD version that came out after the model was cut for 1988. From what I have seen the AWD did not offer an available manual, so that would make for 1 year out of either 5 or 6, whichever way you prefer to count. I kind of think of the 89 AWD as its own thing.
I remember the Car and Driver review of the AWD version, which indicated that the Pontiac engineers who developed the package said there was no chance of a manual version because there wasn’t an existing manual transaxle they could have adapted and the projected sales (and I suppose the age of the platform) precluded tooling for a new case.
The AWD was an elaborate parts-bin kludge, which is the only reason they were able to offer it at all. In that respect it was kind of more clever than good, but an A for effort at any rate.
As you were commenting I was furiously researching this issue . The first listing for an available 5 speed I have found in brochures was 1987, so the very last year. I am making a revision to the text to clarify this.
Shout out to Will Stopford who provided a valued assist as I was working around the unavailability of the Old car Brochures website.
The 5 speed was available in 1987 and 1988. The 89 STE’s are AWD only and only available with the 3 speed auto. The STE was available on the 6000 platform from 83 through 89. The Grand Prix sedan was given the STE treatment (less AWD) in 1990. The 1990 6000 SE could be optioned with AWD.
The STE (84-89) was also the only A body with 4 wheel disk brakes.
From what I have seen in my research Pontiac did not offer the STE at all in 1988, but skipped from the 1987 straight to the AWD version for 89.
They definitely offered the 1988 Pontiac 6000 STE in both FWD and AWD trim.
Well written JP! I had (briefly) one of the AWD STE cars from late in the model run. I think the way you described it is best; it was the best of the A bodies. It handled very well with the AWD. It handled better than the other cars in our family fleet at the time anyhow (consisting of a 6000 Wagon and an 82 Civic). So not a very high bar to clear. But still, the best handling car I owned until I got into Thunderbirds and Mustangs in the 90s.
That dashboard of all electronics and the buttons on the steering wheel just screams 1980s. 😁
I definitely saw a fair number of these running around Metro Detroit at the time, likely due to company lease programs. I like the look of the car, and having amber rear turn indicators was an early sign of a “Euro” or “foreign” looking car. I find it funny that many non-US cars now have red rear turn indicators.
These cars also included the V6 bleat that was common in this era. Drivers would stomp on the accelerator and this awful, non-performance sound would blast from the exhaust with little forward progress to show for it.
My English teacher in high school had one of these, and I recall it being broken into so that the steering wheel with its many buttons could be stolen. Obviously this was pre-air bag but presaged steering wheels with many buttons that are now common despite air bags.
Could have been the gearing, but my Dad’s 6000 S/E had plenty of get up & go. Right on with the exhaust note though. Sounded like a tug boat
We had two STEs and i had the pleasure of assuming the last one. The radio was stolen probably seven times-so much so my dad made a fake cover from the plastic housing to look like the radio was already missing. The instrument panel on the dash looked like the cockpit of a plane at night. I loved these cars-they came loaded from the factory! Put over 200k on mine-the digital Odom stopped at 199999!
These were a little over the top back in the day. I recall sitting in one at Maxon Pontiac in the showroom. Never saw so many buttons on a steering wheel in my life! My Dad really fit the mold. Ordered a new Grand Am in Nov 72, loved it. Replaced it with a new 87 6000 S/E. Loved that one too. The S/E build quality was good with plenty of power / great bucket seats and tight handling. Engine quit after 20 years but the interior remained mint. Like to have one now
I love the Dustbuster van in the 4th photo! How appropriate!
These not only looked like Aunt Maggie’s Cutlass Ciera, they also strongly resembled Elmo the neighbour’s Chev Celebrity. So up the money for a few extra horsies and get a car that many a folk would still mistake for a downmarket General car. Made no sense.
You comparison with 1960 DeSoto sales was interesting. Both were looking for that specific niche in the market, and arguably, market demographics drove a higher number of potential customers in 1986 than in 1960 due to population growth. Excellent article JP!
Since writing this I have been puzzling about what (if anything) Pontiac could have done to make the STE work. More power certainly would have helped as well as a 5 speed from the beginning. But while Irv Rybicki’s styling worked on mini-lux Cutlass Cieras and Centuries, it just didn’t say “sport sedan”. And there is nothing about those wheels that says “sport sedan” either.
I am no great fan of GM in the 80s but I feel bad for them on this one. They really did try to make a first-rate driver’s version of this car. The chassis components were very well done and the idea of selling it fully-equipped was also a good idea.
But I am left wondering if there was any way this recycled X body had what it took to play in the league it was trying to play in. I also wonder if all of the love from the press was more about hope that GM could still play with the big boys (and that we were coming out of the developmental ice-age of 1974-82) than about the hard facts about this car, especially as it existed in 1983.
Last point – the Ford Taurus SHO took this idea and improved on it. But I wonder if this car was too big to appeal to buyers of sports sedans. Just like the sport versions of big cars died in the late 60s, were sports versions of cars in this class similarly doomed?
I really enjoyed reading this, JP. You have given this car its due!
I was intrigued by these when they were new, but, in retrospect, their main problem is that they reflect the mindset that was increasingly handicapping GM during the early 1980s.
Namely, EVERY A-body should have been this good. People were rebelling against the idea that they should have to pay considerably more money for a car with added attention to detail and better all-around performance.
By 1983-84, even family sedan customers had become far more sophisticated in their expectations. This was driven by a combination of the Honda Accord’s impact, the severe recession of 1980-82 and rising new-car prices that made people more conscious of how they spent their money. The first Taurus effectively took the wind out of this car’s sails.
Trivia bit: the STE had a compressed air hose in the trunk; you could pump up basketballs, beach toys, etc. I’m sure it had the compressor on board to serve the suspension, but this was a neat and unique add-on.
Congratulations on the find alone; I’ve had my eye out for one since CC day one.
You described its assets and liabilities well and fairly. Pontiac did what it could given what it had to work with, which really should have included a bit more power and a manual. And a proper analog dash.
Yes, it was the best of its kind from an American maker, but despite all the bells and whistles, it was no better than a regular Taurus in its fundamental role, but it cost more.
It reeked way too much of so many other ill-fated projects at GM at the time, like the Fiero: constantly trying t play catch up for not having it right assets to start with.
But it was a nice drive in its first year or two, if you had to have a domestic sports sedan.
I have been sitting on this one for awhile. It was quite ratty looking and I had hoped either that I would find a nicer one to write up or that someone else would. Neither happened so I finally took the plunge. Now that I know the production figures it is not hard to understand why they are so hard to find today.
Great write-up! This car is definitely an example of buff book enthusiasm not translating into sales. I think there were several key reasons for the miss:
The target market for “American sport sedans” in the 1980s was not particularly large. Image conscious buyers could pay up for genuine European sport sedans, while others interested in nimbler cars with semi-sporting intentions could pick from credible Japanese offerings like the Nissan Maxima and Toyota Cressida. Mainstream U.S. domestic buyers valued comfort, style and reasonable performance. The STE was not a head-turner (no FWD A-Body was), while decent comfort and performance could be had from any of the GM divisions. Americans correctly saw all these FWD A-bodies for what they were: up-to-date workaday family cars, and they served that role well, at least until the Taurus arrived. But selling any of them as “Sport Sedans” was a stretch, sort of like trying to market meatloaf as pâté.
And you really can’t gloss over the style issue. Other than the initial “6-eyed” front-end (fog-lights mounted inboard of the quad headlamps), there wasn’t much to set the STE apart from the other generic FWD A-Bodies. Previous A-Bodies had been styled under the watchful eye of GM Styling Chief Bill Mitchell, so they had unique personalities, even if some were over-the-top, like the first Grand Am. But the FWD A-Bodies were Irv Rybicki cars, and they delivered all the excitement of a boiled potato. There was no way for Pontiac to dress it up right to deliver the necessary sort of style/swagger needed to earn the desired image credibility. Plus when Pontiac added the aero headlamps and replaced the traditional Pontiac split grill with a bland round badge, the STE’s limited visual uniqueness was completely erased.
Inside the STE was even worse. The strip speedometer, hard plastics and boring contouring were absolute non-starters for any product claiming sporting credentials. Ironically Oldsmobile had the best dashboard layout of the bunch, with a genuine open binnacle for instruments that looked reasonably modern. However, unlike GM sister divisions, Olds barely attempted to field any “sport sedan” versions, so the best dash layout of the A-Body bunch went to people simply looking for a smaller Cutlass.
I was an avid buff book reader as a teen in the 1980s, and I gobbled up all the praise surrounding the STE. So when it came time for my Pop to replace his ’82 Buick Regal company car in 1984, I urged him to check out the STE. We headed over to Paretti Pontiac and test drove one–it was just OK but not stellar. Pop had never warmed to the FWD A-Bodies, finding them boxy and uninspired. The STE simply added “expensive” to that list, and the car was a complete non-starter for my father. He just got another Regal, which fit the bill for his business needs.
I was able to convince him to switch to Pontiac in 1987 for his company car. But in that case it was the new FWD H-Body Bonneville SE, which came across as a modern update of the American “big car” formula. The 3.8 V6 was smooth and offered respectable performance, the car was handsome outside with up-to-date styling touches like the alloy wheels and minimal chrome trim. And the interior was quite nice, especially the dash and instrument cluster. It wasn’t pretending to be “European,” but it was a well-done execution of the comfort, style and reasonable performance that American car buyers (like my Pop) wanted and expected. This Bonnie, in SE guise, basically killed any remaining STE sales, as it was a better looking (inside and out), newer car.
Good point on the new Bonneville as the final nail in the STE’s coffin. I think the Taurus was the other.
Closest Ciera to this is the 1988 International Series, FE3 suspension along with a 3.8l V6. These could get up and go.
The much roomier Bonneville SE also had the STE’s steering wheel buttons, which were a lot easier to work than the tiny buttons on the rather low radio itself (no knobs). I waited for the extra 15 hp on the ’88, but I was sold on the handsome dash at an ’87 car show.
I’ve always been a sucker for electronic automotive wizardry and I have to say the 6000 STE blew me away. All those buttons on the steering wheel and long-copy warning lamps and monitors in a rainbow of colors. I’m surprised it was so critically acclaimed, as automotive journalists tend to reject gimmicks.
Liked the STE form first launch, being a Pontiac fan since a kid and MY dads 59 Bonneville first of line of same and Grand Prixs as well. My 1980 Audi 4000 was due for replacement. I decided it was time for a sport sedan Pontiac in the vein of Audi. The STE seemed to be close enough. Test drove a new 86 and was impressed enough to consider but it seemed less connected to the road than my then 6 year old Audi. I ended up going back to Audi and picked up a new 86 4000 saloon. Actually got a better trade number from them than at Pontiac. Odd that both cars, the 4000 and the STE are nearly unicorns on the road today. even here in rust free Az. Have seen neither in nearly a quarter century. A shame. Would enjoy owning an STE, if only for the rarity.
Actually ’57 was the first yr for Bonneville, albeit in much more limited numbers, and a regular model in ’58
Shipped from Spokane WA to NY; used in multiple episodes of The Deuce; The City on the Hill and Power Book three raising kan…
I hate to say it but Lipstick on a Pig comes to mind. GM did all they could with the platform but the task was just impossible.
I thought these Chevrolet Celebrity EuroSport VRs were striking. I only saw them in red or white and I never realized there was a coupe. The few I saw were sedans.
At the time, I was pleased by GM’s creation of the 6000 and particularly of the idea behind the STE. To me, it appeared to be the car that I thought GM should be making for the 80’s. A car that had been engineered rather than designed. No more unnecessary baroque curlyques and flourishes in the styling -just lean and clean- a 1964 Catalina – updated to ‘modern’ spec with a fuel-injected V6 and FWD.
The STE seemed especially well suited to the Pontiac meme of ‘performance’ cars – with the meme updated to include the 80’s expectation that cars should handle and brake as well as go fast. I thought that if GM managed to deliver a decent product they had a bright future ahead for them. The concept was excellent.
Somehow though, it managed to be another GM failure in the classic pattern. Another Great Leap Forward delivered half-baked, and then abandoned just as the flaws were being sorted out.
I had a coworker who bought a 6000 in 1987, while I bought an Acura Integra. He liked to point out that the Pontiac was everything the Integra was, except that his car had a V6 to my I4, and that his was a better value. Three years later he was driving a Toyota, and I still had my Integra.
The major reason the 6000 STE did not sell in higher numbers was because Pontiac dealers did not have the STE on lots in numbers that were comparable to the lesser 6000’s. The dealers did not have the manufacturer incentives available on the STE that they had on the lesser 6000’s and did not want to have a large stock of “lot poison.” When you visited most Pontiac dealers and inquired about this car they led you to the mid-range 6000, Bonneville, Parisienne, or Grand Prix depending on the model year of your inquiry.
Another reason these did not sell is because the dealers that did stock these “knew what they had” and marked the price up above MSRP.
If I had walked onto a Pontiac lot asking about the STE and the dealer instead showed me a fully loaded Parisienne for about the same money I would have fell for the “bait and switch” too and been delighted about my good fortune. Which was probably (in GM Management’s view) the point of the “Halo” 6000 STE in the first place.
I would argue that the reason the dealers didn’t stock them is because they knew they wouldn’t sell. The STE’s MSRP was over 50% higher than a regular 6000 sedan. it was going to be an uphill battle, realistically, from the get-go.
I can assure you that if there had been a genuinely large demand for them, the dealers would have made sure to have some to sell.
The STE should have had a premium of maximum 25%. Pontiac priced these unrealistically, as the kinds of buyers who were in the $15+k market for a sports sedan were not fooled that easily. The real problem is that everyone instantly knew if you were driving a BMW, Audi or Saab. Hardly anyone knew that these were anyhting other than another Pontiac 6000, except for the enthusiasts.
I feel like nearly every premium GM made in the 80s had the same pricing problem, be it STE, T-Type, Typhoon/Syclone etc. It banished all their interesting and forward looking cars to cult status.
I think the 80s was a real watershed decade for GM. GM still thought it was the industry leader, as it had been as recently as the late 70s. But by 1984 or so both Ford and Chrysler were (at a minimum) serious competitors with very credible products. And beyond this, the Europeans became the standard for expensive stuff while the Japanese became the standard for mid-market and lower.
Also this car perfectly illustrates the slow dissolving of the old GM Motor Divisions. There was so much about this car that was outside of the control of Bill Hoglund and Mike Losh as Divisional managers. The car’s Pontiac-specific styling items were few and far between. It seems that there were still some flame-keepers in engineering but something really different would have required more of a guerrilla-style Divisional manager than Pontiac had in those years.
The T Type usually was a reasonably priced trim and suspension package, except for the turbo Regal–which sold well as the Grand National. The T Type’s problem was the cars it was applied to, the brand on the cars, the dealers that sold them, and the other 98 percent of the inventory at those dealerships.
The Syclone wasn’t overpriced for what it was. It was just a silly combination of products–an expensive Ferrari beating drivetrain in a cheaply made GM mini truck. It’s like putting a $10K stereo in a car with crank windows and A/C delete.
I drove an STE once that was in our shop and it was a nice car for the era. However, it was not 50% nicer than a standard Pontiac 6000 LE, which was by far the volume model of the series. The truth is by this point, circa 1985,GM had finally made the X-Car derived platform relatively reliable.
Another misconception was that the Taurus did in the STE. The price alone of the STE did it in and it really didn’t drive much better than the LE. By the time the Taurus came around, GM had been flogging the A Bodies for four years and could afford to discount them like crazy. Huge numbers went to fleets and rentals so the used market was saturated with relatively new GM stuff and cheap prices.
All the A-bodies made volume right to the end. The car magazines hated them but the buying public was lapping them up. The best of the lot were the V-6 Cieras, after 1986 when they got port injection. These cars were made right up to 1996, when side impact made them obsolete.
Their replacements, the W bodies, killed GM.
From 1979 to 1987, GM sales dropped from a bit over 5M ti a bit over 3M. The W bodies had nothing ro do with that.
Every A body Ciera/Century retail sale in the Nineties was poached from another GM model. It was zero plus business.
The culprits in the collapse of GM passenger car business in the Eighties were the FWD X/J/A and the poor old Chevette. They gutted Chevrolet and diverted young buyers to Japanese products. When other GM divisions bounced back to pre recession record high sales, Chevrolet was down a million units.
The rot spread to the other divisions in less than five years as the good news spread about Japanese cars and as Japanese brands offered upscale products that competed directly (farewell Cutlass, hello Camry).
Whatever their competitive flaws, the corpse was cold before the W bodies showed up.
Paul it’s SAAB, like BMW it’s an acronym… Svenska Aeroplan AB.
SAAB owner since 1971.
Did you tell Saab that it was making a mistake on its brochures?
Even in Saab’s 1952 brochure, it’s written as Saab 92 in the text.
So yes, technically it’s “SAAB”. In normal writing everywhere, it’s “Saab”.
Here’s another. I could do this all day long…
This,
There was no haggling on the price on these at a Pontiac dealership when they were new. They also weren’t pumped out in large numbers on purpose the first few years, then like anything else other cars became available and sales dropped.
Great article JPC! Although I enjoyed the read, I can’t say that I am a fan of these cars. While C/D raved about how good the A and X body platforms were when they were new, many domestic car enthusiasts started to lose interest in domestic cars with vehicles like this, me included.
I think the problem with this car runs deeper than not having enough power, and not having a manual transmission. These along with the poor quality control, the lack of differentiation were definitely contribution factors, but the biggest problem was the Pontiac arrow head. I think what often happens is enthusiast purchasers, such as the buff book guys often get mixed in with image conscious car purchasers. This was a car that an enthusiast could like, and it had the performance that was pretty darn close to the more expensive Euros. But the buyer looking for that image that only a Euro car can present, would likely not be interested in a Pontiac, no matter how good it can perform. We see the same thing today with Cadillac compared to the Euro sedans or even back in 1973 with the Grand Am.
The way I see it is that the enthusiast buyers are a small group, and really don’t account for much in sales. Those who are concerned with buying a car for image, one with more cachet than average Joe down the road, they account for a healthy portion of the market. While they may say they are concerned with performance numbers, and handling, etc, they are really far more concerned about the image those numbers represent.
The Taurus seemed to be somewhat of the exception to this, appealing to some of those who would tend to lean towards import brands. However, the difference with the Taurus was that it was well built and executed, had very cutting edge style and it wasn’t built to just appeal to enthusiast, rather it appealed to a broad spectrum. It was a fundamentally good car. However, even the SHO performance version was never a huger seller and didn’t seem to play any appreciable role in slowing down the Euro sports sedan market.
I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a STE in person before, I’ve been aware of them forever since my Dad thought they were cool(of note he was buying the real European cars these aspired to be, including the Audi100/5000) but never saw one outside of a computer screen or brochure. Having never driven one let alone seen one, I never got the appeal myself, even though I tend to appreciate the post-malaise flavors of the 80s like the original Taurus SHO, the 6000STE I just cannot see as anything that much more special than a Celebrity Eurosport. I do find the 6000 styling the best of the A bodies, and the original 6 headlight nose is pretty cool, but like the H-body Lesabre T-types it just seems like 90% improvement in looks, 10% improvement on performance.
The SHO powerplant transformed the Taurus, as did the Turbo in the Grand National, or the reintroduced and now high output 5.0 in the 82 Mustang. That’s why these cars gained a following despite modest numbers by today’s standards, they were all important stepping stones to the current future. The STE got fuel injection, ooh ahh. Just like everything else did around that time, with similar bumps in power.
I had an 86 STE. The EFI 2.8 didn’t appear till 85. It was the carbureted Citation X-11 V6 at first.
The X-11 supension goodies also lent to it’s credible handling prowess. There was a 4 speed manual available but not many took it, and the specially calibrated TH-125 was a bi-polar automatic. Mine liked to bang the 1-2 shift off, but be absolutely butter smooth on the 2-3 shift.
ABS was optional starting on very very late 86 models, and the 4 wheel disc brakes were lackluster at best for feel and stopping power (at least on my 13 year old and 90,000 mile example)
The EFI 2.8 had plenty of poke to pull the car all the way to 125 mph (redline limited), and was decently quick to 60 (I clocked mine at around 8.5 seconds) It was not a slouch on a winding road though. and the interior room was on par with my 76 Chevelle (the Chevy version of the LeMans) though 5 was a bit of a tight fit due to the cars narrower dimensions.
The one time I ran it on the drag strip, it turned in a 17 second 1/4 mile time, don’t remember the MPH. 86 was the last year of the iron headed 2.8 in the FWD application, 87 switched to the aluminum heads and EFI/DIS system. I had tweaked the engine in mine after reading up on a story about the X11 needing more ignition advance, and set mine accordingly – that woke up the somewhat lazy response and made it a more lively car.
Mine did not have ABS, suede, and sunroof options.
It was the car that nicknamed “Darth Vader’s bathroom” due to the digital dash, the gauges worked fine in my opinion, the STE specific interior trims were nicer than the base model stuff, the carpet was different and a heavier feel than the base cars had. It was very quiet inside, actually quieter than mom’s 92 Buick LeSabre at speed – though it couldn’t match the performance of the 3800 mostly due to the STE’s relatively heavy 3100 pound curb weight.
I would get it again, but put the S/E’s rear sway bar on it to dial out the somewhat nasty understeer these cars had baked in, as the S/E was the balls-out performer of the bunch, and the STE was the more subdued and refined package. I’d also put the 3800 in it, or the blown 3800 in it, as the 2.8 is just a bit too small and noisy for such a role ( I can still hear it run up to redline in my mind – it always sounded a bit strained)
The 86 brochure says nothing about a manual being available, but it could have been a mid-year addition. A stick was shown in the 87 brochure.
One big shortcoming of the 6000 was the instrument panel. There was nothing sporting about the horizontal speedo.
Sporting cars have round dials.
Otherwise, as a 18yr old, I thought the 6000 in general, and STE in particular were nicely trimmed and not cheap inside.
At the same time, I remember thinking that a 19-plus second quarter mile for the 6000 V6 (the STE was low 17s I think) was too slow. And the 6000 was rather pricey, knocking on $10000, or almost double the price of our family 1980 Fairmont.
As much as I wanted to American cars in general, and Pontiac (maker of the Firebird and Trans Am) in particular to ‘win’, even Car and Driver’s praise didn’t make up for the numbers I read and what I saw.
I had similar thoughts about the 83 T-Bird. Looked great, but that instrument panel…yuk! And 5-speed was super, but that turboing the thrashy 2.3 liter that propelled our Fairmont so roughly anything above moderate rpm….
I was approaching “I’ll buy a nice car” age, lots of nice Hondas, Mazdas, and VWs for those of us who couldn’t afford a BMW….
The Fiero…another half-baked attempt. A tractor motor with a wide ratio trans. A few years later, Toyota gave us an MR2 that looked homely, but was the common man’s Ferrari Dino, complete with 7500 rpm redline!
I still liked the Citation X11 though….the poor mans Saab Turbo, I thought—and arguably better looking! And I had round dials! The vertical radio, well, that was a minor nit.
If GM couldn’t do it for Team USA, who could?
Half-baked. On the cheap. Ultimately, the 6000STE belongs in this category.
The 86 Taurus, to it’s credit, did not. Nor did the 89 T-Bird. Not did the Jeep Cherokee 4.0 liter.
It didn’t sell because it was an ugly brick at a time when the latest look was aerodynamic. You don’t drop that amount of coin on a car that ugly.
Sure, she’s got a great personality, is smarter than a whip, is an amazing athlete, but looks like Jethlene Clampett from the Beverly Hillbillies.
It looked good in its market when introduced in 1983. It was widely considered refreshing at the time to finally have a domestic sport sedan that was genuinely understated and elegant, and competitive with European offerings. If not up to Japanese quality.
I thought the headlight treatment was subtle, while still looking very unique and cool. Of course the Taurus (and Thunderbird) changed everything. The A bodies dated quickly.
Her name was Jethrine. All of the boys in Bugtussle knew that.
I don’t think it was ugly. Of course, I was biased (pro-American, GM fan), but it came off MUCH better than the square back Malibu, the truly ugly LeMans (which went from handsome in 78-80 to UGLY with the batmobile Firebird front end and squared off rear window–totally dysfunctional).
Of the A-cars, the 6000 was the best, and I did not find the squared off roof offensive.
In 1987, when GM rounded the rear window, I thought it looked worse.
In 1983, the 6000 looked contemporary. And, sitting in one in the showroom, it did not feel cheap inside. Even the horizontal instruments, which I criticized, looked decent. They looked good–for an American car (which is a backhanded compliment), but didn’t work for a Euro contender.
The 6000STE was a good American Sport Sedan…a good ASS, lol. But part of the charm of an ASS was that it cost a lot less than a foreign car (as in 1975 Nova LN with a 350, vs Saab/Volvo/Audi100/Peugeot). The 6000 STE was priced like the big boys—real money, but not as good.
GM of course likes to make the same stupid mistakes. 30 years later, THIRTY years, and one bankruptcy later, they launched the 6000STE’s successor (in some regards), the Cadillac ATS. Unexceptional powertrain (credible, but not a standout), with EXCEPTIONAL ride and handling. So-so interior–but not bad. A credible competitor to BMW 3 or Audi A4.
But, dudes, it’s still a GM car, and Cadillac aint what it used to be (thanks to a host of stupid moves, like V8-6-4, Cimmaron, and being old-fashioned too long). You don’t price it like a BMW 3, dummies. NO, you do what the Japanese did in the 1970s, and Koreans did in the 2000s—you offer MORE for LESS. Once you gain traction in the market place, then you slowly raise the price….
GM’s ATS was overpriced. The CTS derived from if that followed was overpriced (previous CTS was the size of 5-series and price of a 3-series and a good car). Result: these cars floundered in the market and never realized their full potential, and failed (unless you consider paltry sales a success).
I recall thinking these were about the most attractive American sedan one could buy back then. I had a friend who worked for GM that got a discount on one in ‘84 and IIRC, it proved to be a decent but meh car for him.
I live in a GM town in a GM state (Michigan), so I remember seeing what seemed like a lot of STEs on the road when I was a kid. I was, however, very car cognizant and quite young at the time, so maybe they just stood out to me. One of my 4th grade classmates’ dads drove one, and I remember thinking that he must have been doing OK in life. Then, like most older cars, one day they were all gone!
Chevettes, Escorts, Fox Mustangs, Fox T-Birds, K-Cars, and Chevy Celebrities once roamed the roads in great numbers, too.
..and Fairmonts! I continued to see Fairmonts for years after K-cars and Chevettes. Like Celebrities—but Celebrity was 5-7 years newer.
The original STE headlight design, giving the illusion of six headlights worked very effectively. It looked bold, and very original. The uniqueness (and appeal) is largely lost in this later headlight design.
+1 this is the most compellingly distinctive feature, the later aero headlights are little distinguishable from competitors who also went for ever wider designs in their composites(the Mercury Sable took it to the full extreme with the awesome lightbar).
The “six” headlights remind me of this
Totally agree on the headlamp change…should have kept the cyclops lights…
I recently acquired a one owner 1987 STE from the state of Washington, shipped to NY for use in Period film / tv productions. It’s not welcomed in my ‘toni’ Westchester community. I picked this GM model as (i) had one as a sales engineer selling high-tech electronic components in the 80’s to which we were required to source GM models and (ii) the Star Wars dash resonates 80’s (iii) the killer app was the on board pump for the beach, soccer stuff…( this model retained all the accessories and of course the Dolby enhanced cassette player) . I would have preferred the cyclops headlight version but $200 sales price did not warrant being picky.. The car to-date has appeared in multiple episodes of an HBO series and upcoming Showtime early 1990’s. The other major kiss of death is its white but there are no other more fitting metaphors for this period.
Forgot the phot
My late grandmother purchased a black 86 STE new. She was not exactly the target demographic but 14 year old me thought it was awesome! I don’t think my grandparents shared this opinion though as it departed within a few years in favor of a Fifth Avenue.
I like the looks of the body, and the one I test drove long ago drive well. The seats were comfortable and visibility was great. The motor was only adequate. The steering wheel and dash were too busy for me. I ended up keeping my ’79 Accord a little longer because it was more fun. Sounds bizarre to say that, but it was my impression at the time.
The original Taurus looked like a bar of soap to me but it was far better on interior design and feeling of quality. So the interior of the Taurus, the slickness of the Honda stick-shift and the nice boxiness of the Pontiac would suit me. But I like weird things I guess.
I remember those bizarre dig-i-dash instrument panels and those horrible looking steering wheel hubs that looked like a calculator’s keypad in those STE’s. What were they thinking? All of that stupid, cheap looking, plastic, 80’s “high tech” gadgetry was certainly a forgettable time in American automotive culture. Although the STE wasn’t necessarily a bad car, it just couldn’t hold a candle with its foreign competition. The quality, reliability, driving dynamics, and value just wasn’t there in the STE compared to the BMW 3 series, Audi 4000, Nissan Maxima, etc. It seemed like the STE 6000 literally dissapeared from the roads over night, compared to the long lived BMW’s, Audi’s, Toyota’s, Honda’s and Nissan’s that just kept humming along and along……
Car filled the bill for mid 1980’s