(first posted 9/21/2015) Small cars have never been a strong talent for General Motors. Throughout the history of America’s largest automaker, the corporation has always placed a greater emphasis and priority in large vehicles, whether it be full-size cars or full-size SUVs. Smaller cars on the other hand have always been somewhat of a half-hearted effort, or at least that’s the way it would appear given most of the smaller cars GM has put out in the last several decades.
Naturally, there is a somewhat logical explanation for this in that larger cars simply make more money for GM. Given their lower retail prices, the gross margin on small cars is lower for all automakers than it is for larger, more expensive cars. But for various production, supplier, and other complexities, in many cases, GM often ends up losing money on every small car it sells.
So, if higher transaction prices are equal to higher profit margins, why not just specialize in the product you can produce for less and sell for more? It sounds like an easy decision, but the big picture is far more complicated than any textbook economics principal. The truth is that the market for large cars is always less stable, as higher fuel costs and recessions are always significant threats to the sales of these vehicles.
Moreover, an even more important consideration is the negative effects to brand image when it comes to the continuous practice of releasing inferior products. This is especially significant in a segment that, despite lower profit margins per unit, is a far more important to long-term vitality. GM has certainly been making much better cars in recent years, but sadly, the way in which many people perceive these cars has not improved as much as the cars themselves.
When it comes to compact cars for its mainstay Chevrolet brand, it seems GM’s strategy in the past always went as followed: come out with a car that was at very best average among class competitors, produce it with few changes for as long as humanly possible, then replace it with a car of similar mediocrity, slapping a new name on it to avoid association with its predecessor. In terms of renaming, Cavalier was the one exception in that it managed to last for three lengthy generations spanning 24 model years. Regardless, names like Citation, Cavalier, and Cobalt don’t bring to mind the most positive memories.
Despite a single generation of ten model years, out of sheer lack of any noteworthy or memorable quality, the least remembered of these cars is the Corsica. Sold from 1987-1996, the Corsica filled the place of Chevy’s intermediate car which had been left vacant since the Citation was discontinued in 1985. Fitting rather snugly between the smaller Cavalier and larger Celebrity (and later Lumina), the Corsica competed against similar-sized vehicles including the Ford Tempo and Plymouth Acclaim.
It may have seemed unnecessary for Chevy to offer yet another small car so close in size to two others, but keep in mind these were the pre-crossover days. Sedans sold in far greater numbers and accounted for a much larger percent of overall brand sales. Unlike today, they didn’t just come in small, medium, and large, so for an automaker of GM’s size, filling any visible gap was a justifiable action.
Furthermore, the Corsica was not without value proposition. For about twenty-percent more than a base Cavalier, the Corsica offered more features, space, and available V6 power. At least at the time of its introduction, it was easily the most stylish and modern-looking sedan in the Chevrolet stable, and it had a decidedly less rickety appearance than the J-car Cavalier.
Early Corsicas were somewhat appealing, at least from an onlooker’s prospective. With several trim levels, choice of engine and transmissions, and a decent number of options, the Corsica presented potential buyers with the ability to equip one to his or her own preference. Early models also featured rather attractive red-accent trim. In lieu of a wagon, a cleverly disguised hatchback was available from 1989-1991, adding considerably more cargo capacity. Also briefly offered, was a range-topping LTZ model, jazzing things up a bit with a grille-less nose, body kit, alloy wheels, and upgraded interior.
Nevertheless, the Corsica was very much a value-oriented automobile. Just one look at the interior would clear up any doubts of this. Quite frankly, the original interior was rather numbing and barren. Thankfully, a redesigned instrument panel arrived in 1991, the only significant update the Corsica saw over its entire run. Not that it did much to improve overall levels of refinement. Reflective of both its downmarket and fleet intentions, Corsica interiors were still bestowed with rental-grade cloth and a general lack of any excitement.
It should be noted that the Corsica’s L-body (shared with its Beretta coupe sibling) was exclusive to Chevrolet, so rather uncommonly, these two models did not have any rebadged siblings from other GM divisions. Although the L-body was somewhat mechanically related to the N-body, the Corsica/Beretta utilized an extensive amount of unique components.
In terms of styling, the Corsica was clearly more aero-influenced than any other Chevy sedan at the time of its introduction. There were, however, still many straight lines and sharp angles in the design, giving it a far more boxy and conservative appearance than the new designs that Ford was coming out with at the time. Early design sketches show a far more radical plan, with more curves and flowing lines, but these ultimately did not make it to production. It is quite interesting to compare how each automaker approached aero styling in the late-’80s/early-’90s, and this perhaps deserves an article of its own.
GM, and in particular, Chevrolet’s interpretation of the “aero look” during this period was far more cautious, with a lot of squareness still present in its designs. Admittedly, some of this was the result of long development cycles, with finalized designs appearing years before vehicles ever made it off the assembly line. Regardless of this, Ford, which had first popularized the aero trend several years earlier, was moving on to increasingly organic shapes by this point. Owing to this, in a matter of just a few years, the Corsica was already beginning to look dated and dour.
Given its “inbetweener” position in Chevy’s sedan lineup, it’s easier to see why the Corsica was not updated during its run. Its bookends, the Cavalier and Lumina, were more important cars to Chevrolet and thus a higher priority when it came to making updates. While neither car was perfect, the Cavalier was indeed cheap and the Lumina was very spacious, two of the most important requirements of the compact and mid-size classes, respectively. The Corsica, meanwhile, was more of a bonus for Chevrolet. Given its steady sales, now creating a hefty return on investment, Chevy just didn’t feel the need to put any more money into this fleet-queen.
Taking into account its elderly age, the Corsica sold quite well right up until the end, even if the bulk of its sales were to fleets. From a high of almost 300,000 in 1988, Corsica sales soon leveled off near the 150,000 mark, where they would remain through 1996. These numbers do not include the 2-door Beretta, which from 1991-on was selling between 40,000 and 70,000 units annually. Chevrolet, however, would commonly lump Corsica and Beretta sales numbers together, as the latter was just the coupe version of the former in all but name.
What’s curious about the Corsica is that it wasn’t even much of a bargain in its later years. Although much nearer in size to the Cavalier, its price was far closer to the Lumina. Starting at just under $9,000 in 1987, base prices steadily rose to just over $14,000 in its final year (just under $22,000 in 2015 dollars). By that point, steep dealer discounts were extremely likely, but significantly more modern cars could be had for that kind of money in 1996.
Of course, the Corsica wasn’t even the oldest small car left in the GM stable by 1996. The A-body Buick Century and Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera had been around since 1982. And although their general appearance and amount of creature comforts hadn’t advanced much in that time, GM had at least made some thoughtful mechanical and quality improvements over the years, helping them become among the most reliable American cars on the road by their own discontinuation in 1996. These cars also had a loyal consumer following, mainly those who wanted reliable, no-nonsense transportation, and who had often owned multiple A-bodies over the years.
Nonetheless, the Corsica was painfully outdated by time Chevy finally pulled the plug. Lacking the modern safety and convenience features that were becoming omnipresent as well as sufficient crash-worthiness for the tougher standards soon to arrive, the Corsica simply couldn’t continue as it was. After ten years of anonymity, Chevy finally axed the Corsica. Unsurprisingly, it would be superseded by another forgettable, “that’ll hold us over for a few years” car, the 1997 Malibu.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1988-96 Chevrolet Beretta
Curbside Classic: 2002 Chevrolet Malibu
Curbside Classic: 1990-94 Chevrolet Lumina
“The Corsica offered more standard power….”. I thought the Corsica and Cavalier had the same engines when the Corsica was introduced?
I wonder if GM MIGHT have made money on some of it’s small car (lines) if there had been fewer platforms. I mean why the L-cars and nearly….but not quite similar N-cars?
I doubt it started out that way but the Corsica appears to have been designed with fleets as their chief customers. Easy/cheap to service with “low-tech” mechanicals and interiors that were dull but reasonably durable.
My father owned about 3 or 4 of these Corsicas. He liked the simple mechanicals and he was a “no frills” kind of guy who once told me he never understood the idea behind the whole Pontiac line. He stopped buying them when he no longer needed a “second” car. His “first” car was a Taurus with the Vulcan engine….he would own about 3 or 4 of those, too.
Same thing I was wondering. Does anyone know why GM decided to give Chevy their own body this time around rather than a version of the N body (Grand Am etc.)? Well at least in the U.S. – Canadians got a Pontiac clone of the Corsica called Tempest.
Weren’t there only *two* generation of Cavaliers spread over those long 24 years?
There were 3 generations of Cavalier: 1982-1987, 1988-1994, and 1995-2005. You could argue that 1982-1994 was a single, but the car received substantial enough updates for 1988 to be considered a new generation in my mind.
I’d consider the ’88-94 a mere facelift. Same doors, same windows, same seats. Coupes were changed a bit more but it’s the same basic car IMO, kind of like that halfway-through refresh the Ciera and Century got with the more rounded front and rear sections (and those sedans at least got a new roofline).
A question for another place and time is, why does the criteria for what constitutes a new generation vary so much from one car to another? Like to me, the ’71-’73 Mustang feels like a different generation from the earlier models, yet they’re all widely considered to be first-gen Mustangs. The ’65 and ’73 ‘Stangs are way more different from each other than an ’82 and ’94 Cavalier.
In any case, I think it can be agreed that the J-car was produced for a very long time using the same underpinnings for over two decades.
To your question, I wish I could give you a clear answer. As you say it varies so much from one car to another. The Ford Taurus is always a car that comes to mind for me in regards to this.
There are some sources that will say the pre-fullsize Taurus only had 2 generations (1986-1995; 1996-2007), while most say there were 4 generations (1986-1991; 1992-1995; 1996-1999; 2000-2007). I think your question may have inspired a future QOTD 🙂
“I’d consider the ’88-94 a mere facelift. Same doors, same windows, same seats.”
By this line of reasoning, you could *almost* say the Monza was a facelift of the Vega… (c:
The 71-73 Stangs were on the same ‘Falcon’ platform, along with the pre-72 Torinos. Stretched, but the same. Check underneath one at a car show and see the same shock towers.
The Torino was based on the “wide” platform established in 1966, it was essentially the same layout but nothing was common between it and the old narrow the Mustang and pre 66 Falcon platforms. The 71-73s only revised the shock tower stampings and changed up front suspension pickup points, they are otherwise identical to the preceding 70 models underneath
This would make a great QOTD for further debate! But I can’t resist jumping in now with my perspective, since I think what you outline regarding the Cavalier is at the heart of why GM during this period was so incredibly frustrating to watch.
Whether the Cavalier was refreshed once or not all during a 13 year period, the fact remains that it was basically the same car for an Ice Age! During those same 13 years, we had 4 generations (not mid-cycle facelifts!) of Honda Civics, including multiple all-new platforms. There were also 4 generations of Toyota Corollas, and 3 generations for both the Nissan Sentra and Mazda 323. Second-tier Mitsubishi also fielded 3 different generations of cars (Tredia/Mirage) during the time span. Even the Germans, with longer gestation cycles and minimal changes during a generation, made all-new cars for the segment with more frequency: VW offered 3 generations of Golf/Jettas in the same 13 year period.
My opinion on the Cavalier? At best, the 1988 revamp was a fairly minor mid-cycle refresh, though it emerged at the time when an all-new generation was due.
The sources that say the Taurus had only 2 generations are wrong.
There were four. The 86-91,92-95,96-99 and 00-07 versions. The 92-95 was a redesign and not a refresh of the 86-91 version
I adhere to common conception regarding generation designations, but I don’t always agree with them. There were more changes throughout the run of the entire first generation Mustang than there were between gen 1 and gen 2 Taurii. I really struggle in particular to see what separates the gen 3 and 4s besides a minor restyle and some decontenting.
So, completely different bodies, aside from the doors and part of the roof, doesnt equate a redesigned car? Along with an all-new interior? The cars grew with each generation and were just as “redesigned” as most any car sharing its platform with its predecessor.
I guess they should come out with all-new, bespoke platforms every 4 years? That sounds reasonable.
Define “generation”. Someone’s restyle/refresh is another person’s generation. It’s a hard one for everyone to agree on. The same goes for the definition of “platform”.
The Ns were originally designed as replacements for the Toronado, Grand Prix and Riviera. Chevrolet didn’t want to be part of the program for the Monte Carlo.
When the popularity of the larger cars increased they were kept in the lines, the Ns were shuffled downward and sold as “premium” compacts.
“New Values” customers GM claimed were BMW intenders [AKA yuppies ] would cross shop these new offerings.
Part of GM’s bubble research loop, I guess. And the Ns would have the Iron Duke, something BMW could never claim. /sarc.
All this was well documented by MT and C&D at the time.
As for the Mustang, in all my years I’ve never heard of the first generation including the 71-73. Those were based on intermediate underpinnings and totally unrelated to the 65-67.
The Mustang of that period was always broken down into 65-68, 69-70 and 70-73, thus three generations. Two if you lump 65-70 together.
“The [1985] Ns were originally designed as replacements for the Toronado, Grand Prix and Riviera”
They were meant to replace the G body Cutlass Supreme, Grand Prix, and Regal, actually. Prototype pic in Car and Driver had those nameplates.
The E body Riv/Toro/Eldo that you are thinking of was in 1986, and is well documented here in CC.
Regarding Mustang, the MCA considers ’71-’73 part of 1st gen, along with many car clubs, publications and collectors. It may be bigger, but it’s a Falcon underneath, still. Same as the 1962-71 Fairlane/Torinos, stretched Falcons.
The 71-73 Mustang IS NOT based on the intermediate wide platform. The same floorpans, cowl, frame rails, etc. were shared from 65 all the way through 73. The body got wider via tumblehome and the shock towers got reshaped twice, once in 67 and again in 71 to clear available engines.
I stand corrected, and I should know!
Someone else claims “I have never heard the 71-3’s being called 1st generation Stangs” and was rebuttal to that statement.
My mistake. The Corsica’s V6 must have been in my mind, though it was not standard.
Thank you for highlighting this fact.
I never even realized the styling of the Corsica was supposed to be of the “aero” design theme until I read articles and comments about them on car websites like this. Both the overall shape (roofline, beltline) and the specific details (entire front end, specifically headlights) are so rectangular, straight-edged, and blocky that I assumed the theme in the original studio was “old-school GM”, with an ever so slight nod to the coming aero trend by making the sharp 90-degree corners slightly rounded off (taillights, rear glass, hood slope) and making the bodyside slightly convex. To put it another way, I thought it was styled under the same late-80s aesthetic that created the Plymouth Acclaim and the facelifted A-bodies you mentioned in the article. The word “aero” never really came to mind looking at them in traffic among Fords and Japanese cars, but I suppose it just goes to show how badly they botched the execution.
IMO the mix of right angles and very sublte curviness clashed really badly, and these are awkward looking cars from a lot of angles. It seemed like 70% of the ones I saw were in that white exterior/maroon interior color combination that GM loved around that time, it must have been the default for fleets I guess? Tons of Luminas built that way too. The rest seemed to be in this maroon color, or that really unattractive dark blue/gray. By the year 2001 whatever the original color was had inevitably turned into a luxurious two-tone of gray primer and surface rust on the roof and hood.
It was actually aerodynamic though. When it was introduced Chevy touted the fact that the Corsica was more aerodynamic than a Porsche 928 or Ferrari Testarossa.
My friend Jim had one of those white over dark red Corsicas when he was in college. Man, was that a beaten-down, rattly, smoky, miserable heap of a car… About a month after he graduated and got a good job, he showed up in a new Honda S2000. After dealing with the Corsica for four years, I guess he decided it was time for something nice!
This car was produced at around the time rear-seat headrests started becoming common, particularly amongst imports, and one of those so-typically-indifferent GM oddities of this era were the slight lumps that showed up on many of their rear seatbacks including this one, enough to *suggest* an actual headrest, yet nowhere near tall enough to serve as one.
I think at some point, just like amber turn signals, headrests became more than a functional item but also a styling feature in their own right among the domestics. I recall thinking how unnecessary the loop-style front headrests looked on the 2000-2005 Impala LS (the fake sporty trim), as if a big cushy sedan was trying to ape some high performance sports car, or an old Volvo(?) The rear headrests “humps” were a GM thing well into the 2000s – I think they wanted to give the image of a modern sporty car without actually bothering to install separate headrests. They do look better than the cheap flat-top seatbacks Ford used until the 2010s.
GM still doesn’t get it. The Lambda CUVs, which are supposedly their minivan replacement for families, don’t have a headrest on the middle seat in the 2nd row. Took it right out of the running for us. I find it unbelievable that we have more crash tests than ever before yet something like that can go unmentioned in safety scores.
Something about the rear-view mirror needing an unimpeded view out the back, I suspect.
Perhaps, but my bet is that GM found that it’s too expensive to put in a headrest that folds down like the ones you’ll find in the Explorer, Flex, Pilot, Highlander, Sorento, Santa Fe, Durango, etc.
It’s not like you can see a whole lot out the back of a Traverse anway.
Of course styling is a subjective thing, I never really got into the whole “aero” thing. The original aero Fox bodies were the only ones I actually liked, And the 1990 Lincoln Town Car was vastly better looking for than the 1993 Cadillac Fleetwood, Every car soon enough became a souless jellybean. Thankfully the 300 came along and I’m even gratefull that someone approved of “Weird” designs like The Aztec and Cube to break up the 1990s turd-blob era.
Spot on about rear headrests being there for style and the suggestion that they’re keeping up with the imports. I just wonder why they didn’t make the built-in headrests a few inches taller so they’d actually be functional at least for shorter people, even if they weren’t separate or adjustable. Were they afraid buyers would complain about their rearward visability being blocked? Why weren’t Honda or Mazda worried about it then?
I had a new one of these in 1993, bought at a very good price by me the year I got married. It was trouble free and very economical. It held together well in a wreck I was in and I survived, my wife survived, and our basset hound survived. Because of all this, it many ways, it was the best car we ever had. To this day we have the bowtie we snapped off the grill after the wreck pressed into our family bible to remind us how lucky we were that day.
I will add the Brendan is wrong that the car received no updates aside from the new dash in 1991. When launched, the car had a 90hp 2.0 4 and a 125hp 2.8 V6. At the end, the car had a 120hp 2.2 4 and a 160hp 3.1. In my book, a 33% increase and a 28 percent increase is an important upgrade but what do I know,
I am going to be reading a lot in the comments repeating the story that all the volume of this car doesn’t matter because they are fleet or I guess in my case a low info buyer. I will say this, I was following the year to year changes a lot closer than you were. It is true that the import buyer had completely turned away from this car. Given that fact, why listen to them about it. They just didn’t care.
Brendan and William have done a lot of work researching the A body, the W body, the Tempo, and now this L body. They have admiited that the cars sold well and were fairly trouble free. The point is to them that that shouldn’t matter on the cool peoples opinion is the only that mattered. Their designs did not adequately take into account more expensive foreign options A high volume low margin car keeps a UAW factory running, a lot of volume for the dealer. A good ownership experience can lead to repeat business.
It was probably inevitable that this type of car go away. They can be made for less in a third world hell hole. There are fewer entry level buyers as economics become more dicey for the bottom 3/4s of the people. None of this is to be celebrated and I for one miss this type of American car.
Brendan I do appreciate the work you put into these write ups and you of course have the right to have a different opinion than I do.
To address 2 points you raised:
a displacement increase of 10% with a commensurate increase in power isn’t considered to be a significant upgrade by many people, but instead it’s considered to be a feeble attempt to remain competitive.
And speaking of feeble attempts:
These cars weren’t/aren’t considered to be all that “cool” by many readers here precisely because they were feeble attempts to build a competitive car for a market that wasn’t (yet) asking for all that much. While they are fairly ugly cars, the Tempo/Topaz twins at least pushed the envelope with their styling.
Yes, I’ve used the word “feeble” a few times here because a corporation the size of GM could and should have done more than build a car with the idea that folks at this price point (or any price point) only need “GOOD ENOUGH”.
Imagine where APPLE would be if it had that as it’s motto.
A 9-10% displacement increase yielded a 28-30% hp increase, with no decrease in economy. Feeble minds at work.
I thought apples moto was build everything in China and dress like a stage hand. I have no desire for Robert Stempel to do have done that.
Jon, during this period, everybody was getting more power out their engines thanks to improvements in engine management systems. At the time, that degree of improvement was no big thing. And the starting point was quite low, for 1988.
John C – your perspective is interesting to me. It’s certainly true that “Good enough is good enough” and the Corsica met that standard. However it was barely good enough unless you had pretty low standards. As one of those import buyers who turned away from GM and would never consider a Corsica, let me tell you my perspective. First let’s start with my experience with GM. In 1988-1989 I had two Japanese engineers working with me who asked for my help in buying American cars – they wanted to try them from curiosity -they would never have a chance to buy them in Japan. So, one bought a Z-28 and the other a Z-24 Cavalier. The Z-28 had a wheel bearing go at 12,300 miles. The Service writer had to write up the mileage as 11,300 or GM would refuse coverage he said. The Cavalier had paint that delaminated in three years. “Too Bad”, the Dealer told me. Further, both cars had interior bits and pieces that simply sagged, cracked or broke so that the cars looked very old after a few years. Still they ran, I concede that. So, I guess they were good enough. As an American, for whom these cars represented America, I was embarrassed and a bit ashamed with how bad they were. Further, I considered myself warned as to what I could expect from GM.
However, for roughly equivalent money, I personally owned an Acura Integra that still looked and ran as new five years and 120,000 miles later. Now I will concede your point that my Integra was made in Japan, although Japan is hardly a “Third-World-Hell-Hole”. However, if I had wanted an American-worker built car I could have had a Honda Accord. A quick search of Craigslist for Dallas today shows 168 1990-1996 Accords for sale. The same search for a Corsica reveals 3 cars.
Now which car proved to be a better value for its owner over time? The American built Corsica or the American built Accord?
You make some valid points, but comparing a Z24 to an Integra is not one of them.
1986
Chevrolet Cavalier
Z24 Hatchback FWD
Original MSRP: $9,808
1986
Acura Integra
RS Sedan FWD
Original MSRP $10,403
Only a difference of $595 in MSRP
THe Japanese did suffer the J body Cavalier rebadged as a Toyota both flavours have shown up here used ex JDM, not great cars, of course that was later.
They always seem to reach when it comes to GM. For example, those “rental grade” seats appear to be holding up great in the featured car and I recall them being perfectly comfortable. The rest of the interiors were quite poor, I will say that. But they were much more modern looking IMO than the Japanese cars of the time. And look at all those soft touch materials, that’s the epitome of quality according to today’s media.
I am glad you liked you Integra, I like them as well. The 1993 Corsica LT cost $11870 with dest. A 93 Accord DX cost $14280. Over 20% more at list price and at the time of my purchase the Corsica had a $750 rebate. That makes the difference 28.4%. I can’t prove this, but I think it a good guess that the Chevy dealer was more price flexible, so a buyer would have paid about a third more for the Accord. What did he get for this. More room? No the Corsica and the Accord were within an inch on headroom and legroom, front and rear. More mileage? No, The Accord was rated 24/31 manual and 22/28 auto. The also 2.2 liter Corsica was rated 25/24 manual and 23/31 auto. Both cars had a driver side airbag but the Corsica also had standard ABS, which if you wanted on the 93 Accord, you had to buy the $19300 EX.
There were valid reasons to chose either car. There were many buyers for both. I personally think a few Accord buyers would have benefited by at least taking a look at the domestic competition. Many did not bother.
The highway number on the manual Corsica should read 34mpg. Sorry
Are those the old un-adjusted EPA numbers, or the adjusted ones?
They are the EPA numbers from 1993. My best recollection is that the numbers were adjusted down 10% city and 22% highway in 1986. There was a further downward adjustment of 10% city and 8% highway in 2008. The unadjusted numbers still count for CAFE. The Accord and Corsica numbers are apples to apples.
I don’t think the adjustment are that simple. Supposedly the 2008 adjustment take into account changes in driving habits. I find that the EPA rating does not mean that I can predict what I will get exactly. In particular, my 1998 Aurora and 2002 Seville, both rated @27 highway I think, would give me 29 MPG @70 MPH on long trips. My AWD 2007 SRX rated @22 MPG highway would get about 21 MPG @70. My turbocharged 2.0L AWD ATS would get about 29 MPG, but these trips usually had quite windy conditions. My AWD CTS 3.6 gets about 27 to 28 on long trips, with low winds.
The EPA changes for the pre-2008 cars is about 2 MPG, which sort of looks like about 10%, but not exactly.
I have a lot of respect for the domestic automakers because I know what they are capable of. Especially today, they are putting out some excellent cars, but there are still some people that don’t put them on their list because of perceptions of cheapness, unreliability, poor quality…. And I’m sorry John, but selling this car for 8 long years when it was only average at first, and scarcely revising it…. That didn’t help. There were plenty of satisfied Corsica owners and you were one of them, but where did that take Chevy? You seem to be advocating GM simply settle for being a budget automaker, selling cars that are 75% as good as rivals for 75% the price. GM is better than that (although for a while it seemed it wasn’t) and that is an extremely flawed business strategy because what happens when you want to sell a car that’s 100% as good as rivals? At the same price? That’s why a car as competent as the Cruze isn’t number one or two in the segment anymore. Years of Chevy putting out substandard compacts has fuelled perceptions. Sure a Cavalier might have been cheaper than a Corolla, but the strengths of the latter have kept it powering along at the top of the sales charts even as its become a very average car. Your strategy of selling 75% cars – which I would less charitably call “half-assing it” – didn’t work.
Also, I was much more charitable of the Lumina because it represented a little bit more effort (I criticised the Tempo and Century models from later in their respective generations when they should have been replaced). With some further refinements, the Lumina could have been more compelling, but at least it offered something different to the imports in that it had V6 engines available including the powerful 3.4. If you can’t match them, offer a USP…
John,
First of all, let me say that I respect your opinions of this car and others. However, just because something sells in high numbers, it doesn’t mean that it’s a high-quality and competitive product. Millions of people eat at McDonald’s every year. I’m sure most don’t go there because they actually think it serves good quality food. It’s just cheap and convenient for these people, plain and simple.
Never in this article do I say that the Corsica is “uncool”, nor do I state that any competition is so. The point I’m trying to make about the Corsica is that it was less-than noteworthy effort to begin with, and Chevy kept selling it for a decade, while many other competitors (Japanese and American) had been redesigned twice in that time.
It’s like a student turning in a grade C-worthy book report, and then proceeding to turn in the same report in English class year after year, all while his peers are improving their writing skills and putting out better work with each successive year of schooling.
The salads at McD’s are not horrible.
Hey, I was one of those students!
Lots of good points in this comment string. I think Brendan’s about McDonald’s is particularly relevant. I don’t see much sense in saying that Burger King has a much better burger than McDonald’s. They are both very similar in price and quality, and neither are competitive with someplace like Fuddruckers or Red Robin.
Similarly, domestic compacts of the late 80s to mid 90s are very similar to each other. I’d be hard pressed to say that the either the Corsica, Tempo or Spirit (or Shadow, if you prefer) is better than the other two. I have had a Corsica and a Spirit, and they were both very good cars in my opinion. Now I have an Altima. Of course the Altima is better, but for 1/3 less money as John noted above, I think the domestics were still competitive. Of course, I go to the entry level fast food joints at least 5x as often as the higher end restaurants.
My biggest issue with the domestic compacts was the way they were equipped. As sales were fleet and entry level centric, most were equipped with 4 cylinders and 3 speed automatics, with few options. I suspect much of this was because this is how dealers ordered the cars to have on their lots, and if one wanted more/different equipment you would have to custom order, in which case you wouldn’t get as good of a deal on price.
To summarize, these weren’t competitive with imports, no domestic at the time really was, and yet they were still good cars that sold well.
I am not sure when the market just totally segmented. Import buyers were not considering domestics and vice versa. The Accord and Corsica really were exactly the same size. The ultimate performance really weren’t that different in 0-60 or mileage. With luck and good upkeep both cars would last far longer than the cars they were replacing. Yet there was almost no cross shopping. The import buyer got his extra sophistication and short product cycles for his extra money and the domestic buyer got his exceptional value. I think there was a place for both in the big market. I think it was ashamed that the domestic gave up and bet the farm to chase the brass ring that was just not there for them with cars like the Contour or Saturn.
I test drove a a second-hand one of these in the late ’90s. I really enjoyed the V6, but the interior was what sunk it for me. It was just so cheap inside. I ended up buying a 2 year old Chrysler Cirrus instead. That car was much more modern to my eyes, and more comfortable. Of course it rusted out within 2 years and was the first of two disappointing Chryslers in a row. I’ve never bought another.
I had two Corsicas as company cars during their production run, the second being the fastback version. Drove both of them 120,000 plus miles without incident or problem. I did have to buy a support pillow for my lower back, because there was no lumbar support, but in fairness, I also used it in my own personal Audis. There’s something about spending hours in these cars, driving through all sorts on Central NY weather, that breeds affection for them, so I have absolutely nothing snarky to say about them.
In lieu of a wagon, a cleverly disguised hatchback was available from 1989-1991, adding considerably more cargo capacity.
Wow, I’d forgotten all about that one, the hatchback Corsica was a rare bird – I worked for a supplier to GM at the time, living in SE MI and spending plenty of time around high GM concentration areas and rarely saw those.
That vehicle is a great example of GM’s wastefulness at the time – completely tooling up a hatch and folding rear seat plus revising the BIW is a huge investment and to do it on a car as ‘Bleh’ as the L-Car can only result from a serious shortcoming in analysis.
Did they really think tens of thousands of new customers were going to come streaming in through the door for a hatchback L-Car with its chintzy Playschool interior and crappy paint?
Perhaps they thought the 1 out of 25 Citation owners who weren’t scared away from ever buying another Chevy may want another hatchback….
GM did recycle the FWD hatchback idea in a more successful form in the Malibu Maxx. That was a worthwhile package as far as economy v. space efficiency, one of the more attractive vehicles GM made at that time.
Apart from occupying the time of a few dozen engineers for a couple of years, the hatchback L-Car was just pointless.
Anyone wanting a (not too-)compact hatchback from a Chevy dealer could’ve bought a Geo Prizm (through ’91) and GM would’ve done well to sign up for the (already fully cooked by Toyota) next generation hatch rather than developing the L-body one.
I was given a 94 as a gift from my Father-in-law and it was a very reliable car for 11 years and was still a daily driver when we donated it with 120k on it.
I hate to admit it, but the 5-door Corsica was a good looking car. I saw so few of them, however, particularly in comparison to the large number of 2- and 4-door models, that I almost wondered if they weren’t a “real” model…almost like a factory experiment that was killed off after a few units were tried out.
I owned a 1989 Corsica hatchback. Thought the hatchback styling was way better than the sedan and very versatile. Once during a bad snows storm, my front doors froze shut. I got in through the hatch and climbed to the front seat. Made it home!
How many others did you see in the time you owned it?
Honestly, not that many. Maybe 3 or 4.
Heh, I used to have trouble with the doorlocks icing up in a Mustang, I did the crawl through the hatch thing too.
Another GM car from the 1980s that pains me. There was so much potentially “right” about this car, but GM did not “sweat the details.” Like so many of their offerings from this era, I wonder if it was originally scheduled to have been released earlier, in which case it would have been far more competitive. Given the hatchback configuration, I have to think that the Corsica was originally seen as a Citation successor. Had it appeared in 1985 (pre-Taurus), it would have seemed quite leading edge.
L-body versus N-body was also confusing to me. I remember reading that Chevy “opted out” of the N-body program for 1985, perhaps a good call giving the extremely limited styling flexibility dictated by the rigidly vertical roofline. The L-body was much more attractive. But it couldn’t have been cost effective to have J, N, L, and A-bodies all in such close proximity. It would have been the perfect time for The General to revert to its successful roots and just offer 2 small car platforms. The smaller could have gone to Chevrolet (value) and Pontiac (sporty), while making the larger platform exclusive to Olds (“premium” value) and Buick (luxury).
Also, in defense of the Beretta (wow, I never thought I would write those words!), it was far more than simply a 2-door version of the Corsica. The Beretta had very different and handsome styling (one of the best from GM during a dark period), with its own attractive roofline and sheetmetal, along with unique elements like the vertically-mounted “hidden” doorhandles (like the W-body coupes). The Beretta was reminiscent of the strategy that had previously been deployed by GM’s successful A-special coupes: the same chassis, powertrain and interior components as the sedans, but wrapped in a differentiated and more stylish exterior package.
I’ve said before that J – A – H would have been the smart move for GM at that time, putting the $$$ spent on L, N, W and Saturn into improving their interiors and powertrains.
Seven different FWD platforms with negligible size differences and (largely) the same I4 powertrains between them was just ridiculous.
FWIW, the L and N bodies were based on the J, so not too much extra cost. Later years had L body Malibu in same plant as Grand Am/Alero.
Oh, and the Corsica was meant to be the “1987 Citation”, per a Car and Driver spy photo article.
The Malibu was an N body, the L died with the Corsica/Beretta.
The Malibu was a platform called P90 which replaced L in its Chevy guise and A in its Oldsmobile Cutlass guise. It did borrow heavily from the N-Car though.
GM was extremely confused in their pass car product development cycles in this period, having a weird system where brands were split across engineering groups, CPC (Chevrolet-Pontiac-Canada) and BOC (Buick Olds Cadillac).
Truck group (the old GM Truck and Bus) was always better (read: less centralized and therefore less bureaucratic) to deal with, at least until they moved out to that GM Pontiac Centerpoint building.
GM in the late-80s and early-90s was a sprawling mess on the product development side – I think a big reason for all these reengineered tweener-sized cars was just turf-protecting and job security, they made little sense in the actual retail market.
You know your stuff “XR”, L should have stood for ‘Lame’.
P90 was the “all new” car called Malibu.
Also confusing that Chevrolet would do a two door with completely different sheetmetal in addition to offering so many different sizes.
After the 88 restyle of the Cavalier, the Corsica was within an inch or two in length and interior dimensions, except perhaps shoulder room. This never made sense to me.
The Beretta was like Ford Probe, it nearly replaced the Camaro. So said Car and Driver.
In 1993, I rented a Corsica for several weeks when my own car was being repaired for accident damage. While I expected to loathe it, I was pleasantly surprised. It drove well, was comfortable, decently powered, and seemingly well put together. Of course, nothing actually excited me about the Corsica, but I can see it being a very reasonable car for someone who doesn’t care much about cars.
Later on, during the late 1990s, a friend of mine inherited a high-mileage 1988 Corsica, and it was reliable and functional, despite not being treated particularly well.
While it’s easy to yawn and forget all about the Corsica, it wasn’t a bad car… just a boring one. With a little more effort, it could have been an outstanding seller for GM.
Always liked the styling of the Corsica. But not much else. Cheap interior, low-quality components and industrial-grade powerplants.
I have never understood why GM couldn’t make money from its small cars while Honda built an entire company around two small ones: Civic and Accord, and made tons of $$$ from them.
The pictured Corsica from my work parking lot seems to be a daily driver, and also seems to have had some tweaking done underneath… catches my attention every time I walk past. It’s the only Corsica I’ve seen around here (Middle West) in years. I *have*, on the other hand, seen maybe a half-dozen Berettas…
Atleast the Beretta was a indestructable car, my gtu 2.8 carried me through highschool, got it with about 200k on it and loved it, always kept it clean and waxed (black w/ red rubstrip kinda like the Mustang GTs of the era) but did not treat it nice looking back, punched it to the floor EVERY day leaving school and got it sideways as well, never gave a issue and just seemed to ask for more, kinda how people refer to older Civics. The Cobalt and Cavalier seem to be similarly indestructable as well. Cannot believe I did not wreck the poor thing or kill it.
I miss the living hell out of that car, had the awesome fully digital (LCD) dash that had features car have just started to get standard very recently (outside temp, miles to empty, instant and average MPG, digital tach/speedo..ect) and that never gave me issues either, which is shocking since it was 1989 technology. Would love another one except make it a manual tranny this time around.
It seems a lot of girls I dated had Corsica’s or Beretta’s. The girl I took to my senior prom had a 5 speed manual Fastback version…. honestly it’s what made me ask her out. She was the only girl I dated that knew how to drive a manual before we met. Another had a Beretta that had over 250k miles on it, she sold it still running, and that guy wrecked it.
They did seem to be solid reliable cars, except for the cheeap interior anyway.
As with most American cars, one had to “work the option list” to get a decent Corsica.
I had a later model, V6, 4 speed automatic model for a work issued car. Medium blue with darker blue cloth interior, steel wheels with chrome center caps and chrome trim rings.
With aftermarket struts/shock absorbers, Michelin radial tires and a slowly burning out rear resonator/muffler that gave a delightful growl to the engine, it morphed into a Darn Decent Driver.
The front seat fit my full sized American, 48-Long suit body comfortably, the factory air conditioning was ice cold and conquered even a Tampa, FL summer, the back seat was usable for 2 full sized Americans, the trunk held a lot of work-related crappppp.
For the time period, it wasn’t that bad of a car.
I liked our ’88 Corsica.
The 4-cylinder engine IIRC was a brand new design and was pretty close in acceleration to the 2.8 V6, at least with a stick, which mine had. Low 30’s for MPG was pretty routine.
Sadly the thrust bearing became sloppy and the engine was rebuilt at about 30,000 miles. Sloppy wrist pins led to a second rebuild at 60,000 and it was making noise at 88,000 miles, at which point we traded it in for an ’84 GMC Jimmy.
One thing I DON’T remember was sloppy, cheap-feeling steering – a characteristic I found in most every other GM FWD I drove in those days.
If the build quality and durability had only matched my driving enjoyment…well, then, somebody already made a car like that in 1988. The Honda Accord.
You know GM knew how bad it was, when, in the Chevrolet 100th anniversary TV special, they came as close to an apology as you’ll get from a transnational industrial giant on a TV show, when they characterized 30 years of small-car mediocrity as follows:
“We just didn’t have our heart in it.”
Excepting Nova, cars like Sonic and Cruze are truly a first for Chevrolet. I guess 30 years late is better than never. The upcoming Cruze (in blue, 4th photo from top) actually looks – dare I say it – desirable?! And a refreshed Sonic is also on the way. I drove one of those last year, and it was actually fun.
Chas: the 4 cylinder was the original 1.8 increased to 2.0 then 2.2 that was eventually replaced by the Ecotec 2.2.
I test drove both a 4 and a six and with the six, had an entirely different feel to it, a lot more substantial. It changed the character of the entire car, really.
The 4 was very similar in feel to the 86 Olds Calais I had at the time.
GM automobiles here in Europe – which are small cars by US standards, have really been excellent and competitive from the late 80’s on. Its their larger cars that have struggled as they compete with luxury brands in that segment (BMW etc).
1994 was the last year for the molded Corisca logo on the trunklid before GM thought “Ah to hell with it” and started applying stickers instead.
By 1995-96, with the cheap sticker badges, the only new Corsicas seen were rentals, and by 2000, most were BHPH specials, junked by 2004.
GM at the time was like “buyers of these are cheapskates, so we’ll give them what they deserve”. While other makes were dedicated to compact cars. GM acted as of the ’97 Malibu was ‘good enough’, but took ’til Cruze to finally get acclaim.
The 95s added monochrome paint over the former blackout trim. The 2.2 engine gained 10hp to 120 and the automatic EPA mileage went from 23/31 city/highway to 25/32. The 95 Accord DX auto was 23/29 EPA mpg for 1995 and still cost over 20% more not including rebates and dealer discounts. The Corsica was available to not just fleet buyers in 95-96. A new option that year was a bright red color that had not been offered before. The tires also got bigger with new hub caps and there were now standard daytime running lights. I know, I know, who cares?
Don’t forget about the Canadian market rebadge, the Pontiac tempest
One of the oddest things about the Corsica is that it was initially sold only to fleets; no retail sales, no advertising, no magazine reviews, etc..
In the fall of 1987, my boss at Telemundo came out to the Bay Area to visit the station. When we went out to the parking lot to go for lunch, he walked over to this car I had never seen before. Or heard of before. What the hell is this!!! A Chevy Corsica!?! What’s that? Can you imagine how odd that was for a car guy to encounter a rental car that he’s never seen before. Very odd.
It probably says something about the Corsica’s intended mission in life.
There was some advertising for the Chevrolet Corsica months before it debuted.
I remember buying the 50th Anniversary of Life Magazine Special as a pre teen in December 1986 and the first three pages folded out to an ad for the Chevrolet Corisca, a tan model pictured in a sand dune with the words “The winds of change are blowing at Chevrolet”
Hey I found it!
http://www.vintage-ads.com/AdDetail.asp?ItemNum=1987-013
I believe Chevy has started doing this again… only they are rebadging existing models. The Captiva comes to mind, I believe it is just a re-abdged Equinox
The Captiva is the old Saturn Vue….the 2nd generation model that went on sale in 2008. (So the Captiva is a old design by most standards.)
BTW, you can’t buy a new Captiva in the U.S. they are all ex-fleet/rental vehicles.
With respect, it also may say something about how little import buyers like you in the bay area were even paying attention to big three offerings by the fall of 1987.
John: It’s a well know fact that the Corsica was initially sold only to fleets. From wikipedia: The Corsica was first sold as fleet cars to rental agencies and to large companies in 1987, prior to mainstream release.
I will modify my earlier comment and say that I was aware of the Corsica coming, although I didn’t see that particular ad. But to see one (as a rental car, no less) before it was officially released was an odd thing, and had nothing to do with my own bias, or those of the rest of the West Coast. Sounds like maybe you’re showing a bit of bias?
And now that I think further on it, that Corsica sighting was in the summer of 1987, not the fall.
From what I understand they did that to weed out any potential issues before going mass production with the L-bodies. I know it worked but do not remember all the issues they found, only one I remember was strange curvature of the windshield that created a bad distortion or something like that in certain conditions.
Not a bad idea actually as rentals tend to get the living shit beat out of them, good way to make any potential issues surface and iron them out.
That doesn’t say much for GM’s confidence in producing a new car. I guess the disastrous roll-out of the Citation was the reason for this.
Let’s just say that it’s not something Toyota or Honda ever did.
Not to mention all the engine fiascos. By the mid 80’s GM was drifting.
Chevy purposely sold the 1st few months production of the Corsica in an attempt to get the car perfect before unleashing it on the buying public. 10 years later, they did the same thing when they started production of the 97 Malibu.
Which pretty much takes you back to 1 of my earlier comments that it looks like Chevy/GM built the Corsica to appeal MORE to fleet buyers than actual car buyers.
BTW, the Austin/Morris Marina sold in huge numbers, according to the current issue of CAR. And instead of offering rebates, maybe GM should have spent the money on the cars….making them better.
I think the point of rolling it out that way was to give the early production cars a shakedown in rental fleets (iirc Avis and one other were at least partly GM-owned at the time) rather than have teething troubles in the hands of retail customers as beta testers which had become a once-a-decade event by then.
When the Corsica was unveiled to the buff books for test drives, GM made a point of trumpeting the fact that the car was first put into rental car service. The logic was that it would be good “testing” to make sure the car was built properly. Ridiculous to ever put your product in consumer’s hands before you were certain it was ready, or to showcase your all-new baby… as a rental car?!?! But that was GM in the 1980s.
The attached scan is from the January 1987 Motor Trend write-up of the Beretta, which featured this blurb on the Corsica as well. It noted that the entire initial ’87 run of 13,000 to 15,000 units was destined for fleets. Also comical is the market research profiles GM used to define the how “different” the buyers would be between the Beretta and Corsica. Wonder where that Cavalier buyer fit into that mix, and what did they drink? Cheap vodka?
The “testing” of new cars in rental fleets is not something new. Many Euro and Japanese cars have been held back from the US market by about a year to find any bugs that may exist. It’s been said that domestic Japanese owners were beta testers for foreign markets.
In recent years, roll outs have been simultaneous on virtually all car models for their given markets.
My biggest shock when I first saw the Corsica and Beretta was the lack of wheel well lips! The wheel well openings just looked carved out with a sawzall with the edges smoothed out.
I did feel these cars offered something beyond the crude-looking window framed Celebrity. More up-to-date, anyway.
My uncle had a nice, bright yellow Corsica, but I never got to drive one, but I hope they drove better than those awful Tempo/Topaz things Ford had that I always got stuck with at the Grand Rapids airport Hertz counter!
I REALLY wanted to like these cars because although I hated GM at the time, I wanted to return to Chevy’s offerings, but then the Plymouth Acclaim was born and that settled that!
Returning to Chevy’s fold would have to wait until 2004.
I agree that the Acclaim/Spirit were way better than the cross town Tempo and Corsica. Prefered to rent AA’s over the other two in early 90’s, and I’m a Blue Oval nut.
I agree, Zackman. Not only were the wheel openings poorly detailed, they were way too big, as they were for many GM cars at the time. I don’t know where this styling affect came from but it was awful.
I agree wholeheartedly, the AA’s were much better than their crosstown competition. By the time the AA’s were released, they were much better de-bugged than anything else on the market. I may have made this known before, but I’m no fan of the Tempaz, and after having good experiences with my (Mopar) H body Lancer, the AA, which had similar roots, would be my first choice.
Corsica was “jump the shark” for this GM former fan boy. The X cars tested my patience, but the bland, boring, “who cares” L bodies were it, afterwards GM cars were for “older people” or just “cheap wheels”.
[Of course their new cars are much better, but I still say for “other people”, except maybe the Cruze]
I know this isn’t going to sound like me, but…
This was a deadly sin, no doubt. Poorly engineered, poorly executed, and made no excuses about it being cheap. Also having a low price. They had the rigidity of Al Dante pasta. I remember these clearly. My mother had an ’81 BMW 320i and it was starting to get a bit unreliable about ’95. The local BMW dealer was also a Chevy dealer, and it gave out these POSs to anyone who had the gall to not buy a BMW within the past 5 years. Terrible strategy- my moms next car was not a BMW.
But I protest the comments about the look. Especially from the front. This car reminds me of contemporary Lancias. It has a certain flush-fitting Italian look to it. Especially from the front. Horrible car, but no bad looking at all.
“They had the rigidity of Al Dante pasta.” – ROFL!!!! I’ve never heard that analogy before!
The Corsica/Beretta were not bad cars in their time. That time passed by 1991 or 1992, to be fair. But considering the competition at the time, this car was a good mix of value and reliability. I drove my Beretta for 150,000 miles and had only a few problems with it, none of which was terribly expensive.
In Praise of the Corsica
When my dad was looking for a new car in ’89, we cross shopped the hatchback version of this with the P body Sundance/Shadow and the Grand Am. Both the Grand Am and Corsica would have ended up being considerably more expensive than the Sundance, so he bought a Sundance, which we kept until my brother reversed it into a light pole after . . . he doesn’t want anyone to know what happened.
But for a car that no one felt any passion for, these are still around in fair numbers and very durable. If someone is in the market for cheap wheels, I’ll recommend this in a heartbeat (pun intended) because the parts are cheap, incredibly common, easy and cheap to repair, and a $1500 Corsica is likely to have a lot more life in it than a $1500 Accord, because by the time the Accord reaches $1500, it will have been beaten to death. No one is likely to steal a Corsica (of course, I thought no one would steal a four cylinder Caravan and I was wrong TWICE).
The styling held up well from 88-96, which is more than you can say for most cars. It was clean, contemporary, and if not exciting, handsome and not overdone. It didn’t look like a harbinger of a future that never came like the Tempaz did only a few years into its run. The cars were cheap to buy, cheap to run, and durable.
Plenty of people deserve good, basic transportation, and with the discounts that came in probably around 92, you could get a larger, more substantial car than a Civic at a Civic price, and possibly better dealer treatment. It’s not exciting, but it’s sort of a plain ham sandwich rather than applewood smoked ham with artisan gouda and arugula on heritage bread.
Remember also this may have been the first GM car launch EVER in which the cars were not plagued with major first year problems. The X bodies, we know. The A bodies had morning sickness for the first few years of production. The C and H front drivers had stalling problems and transmission problems in the first few years. The N bodies had problems. The 86 E bodies were built by robots which were busy painting and smashing each other rather than building the cars. The GM 10 (w)s had issues for a couple of years.
This was a milestone car for GM in terms of quality. It actually was right, right out the door. It wasn’t great, but it was right.
Ha ha, no one would steal a Corsica?
On 2 different occasions my 8-9 year old J2000 was nearly stolen. And 1 of the reasons why I bought it new was I thought no one would want to steal it. The other? GM’s legendary A/C systems.
I had a mate who wanted a car nobody would steal. He bought an old rear-engine Škoda. He was right!
I remember the Chevrolet Corsica. I thought it was Chevrolet’s best modern car I’ve seen, 2nd only to the Chevy Caprice and Caprice classic of the same vintage.
Nice, another US car I recognized immediately since it was also available here.
Below a 1992 Corsica 2.2 LT with a 5 speed manual.
You can pick it up for almost free (€ 650), but it seems to be OK.
I see the amber taillights. Did they make any other changes? I remember an early Beretta ad of a Swiss market model. I am a little surprised to see it. I think there is a good case for the car in the USA where it is 95% as good as a Accord at 75% of the price with the patriotic plus of a higher domestic content and not having to export your hard earned wealth. In Europe though wouldn’t have been more like 90% of a Vectra at 125% of the price with high Euro tarriffs while exporting your wealth.
I don’t know about any other changes, John. Headlights maybe ?
I can’t speak for other Euro-countries, but a decent variety of US cars was still imported here throughout the nineties.
From the Chevrolet Corsica to the Lincoln Continental Mark VIII and Mercury Grand Marquis. What I remember is, that “the price was right”. No other big car with a V8 was available at the price of, for example, the Ford Thunderbird or the FWD Lincoln Continental from that era.
The price for a contemporary Cadillac Seville was substantially higher, IIRC.
The only officially imported US cars right now are Cadillacs, Jeeps, the Ford Mustang and the Chevrolet Camaro and Corvette.
Legend has it that when GM brought out the Beretta, the high end Italian gun manufacturer told them to desist or they would bring out a crappy Saturday night special shotgun and call it a Chevy.
I still want to know how much effect the spending of so much money on the Saturn project had on Chevrolet development during this time.
The J cars stagnating was result of Saturn getting oodles of $$$, for one thing, and Cor-ettas being unchanged and sold to fleets.
The Corsica was eminently forgettable even as a rental car. I rented several but the only one I specifically remember is the one where the linkage for the driver’s interior door control fell apart and I had to leave the car through the right front door.
I rented one in the summer of 1996 to drive from Harrisburg to Detroit. It was, as you said, thoroughly forgettable. It wasn’t terrible, but it certainly wasn’t great, either.
I think the w body is best.
“Given its “inbetweener” position in Chevy’s sedan lineup, it’s easier to see why the Corsica was not updated”
The size classes in 1988-96 changed a bit too.
Originally, the J-body Cavalier replaced the Vega based H body Monza, which were sub-compacts, but the eventual successors Cobalt/Cruze are compacts.
Cor-etta was the X body compact’s successor, so if name was not changed, would have been the “1988 Nova”*. Then, the next generation was moved up to mid size with Malibu, and Lumina [Celebrity successor] was upsized into the FWD Impala ‘full size’.
* The NUMMI car maybe should have been called Corsica?
GM was letting its cars – particularly its smaller ones – languish for a long stretch without a complete revamp, while the Japanese competition was getting a makeover every 4-5 years, and growing a little with each new model.
The J-cars thus started out as one step above a Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla and Ford Escort, and were initially aimed at the Honda Accord.
By the time GM got around to giving them their first major makeover for 1995, the Civic, Corolla and Escort had grown so much that they were now the direct competition, while the Accord was now competing against the Lumina.
I bought a brand new Corsica, during the Summer of ’94. I traded in an ’87 Plymouth Reliant K sedan for it. The Reliant had nearly 100,000 miles. I was engaged and it seemed like a new car was the best thing to do. This was my first new car.
I loved it. It was reliable. It got good gas mileage. It was great during the Winter of 95-96, which was horrible in PA, where I live. Unfortunately, it was totaled in an accident. We replaced it with a ’98 Malibu, which was a piece of junk.
I now have the Chevrolet Volt. So far, so good.
Perceptions are subjective, but I guess I have a hard time looking at the Corsica as a small car. Sure, compared to a 1975 Buick Electra, it’s the size of a rowboat, but by ’80s or ’90s standards, it’s a medium-size car and a couple of rungs up the price/size ladder.
That fact makes it harder for me to accept the traditional “small cars are hard” argument as an excuse for the Corsica’s various failings and general lack of ambition. Nobody is expecting midsize family sedans to be exciting or exotic, but it’s hard to see a clear selling point for the Corsica beyond price. It has less styling flair than even the Cavalier (and much less than the Beretta, which had a certain corn-fed charm) and its identity and place in the Chevrolet lineup were always vague. It makes most sense as a free upgrade to a rental Cavalier, which I assume is how a lot of them were originally sold.
It’s not that it’s a horrible car — my overall reaction has always been, “Well, you could do worse” — but that it seems like the automotive equivalent of military field rations: It seems like it should come in a crate stamped, “CAR, MEDIUM, RED.”
I’ve been very critical of Chrysler’s overextension of the K-car platform, but I think Chrysler did a much better job of establishing what most of the K-car derivatives were supposed to be. It wasn’t always convincing, but you could see what they were thinking. Here, well…
The Corsica was my first car in the states. It was an eleven year old 89 model. It had six cylinders and was very good in the Midwest flat roads.
Coming from European econoboxes, the interior seemed pretty nice (have you ever guys driven a cheap Renault or VW from the 80’s? Not a pleasant experience, sure). What I found very odd is that it has air conditioning, what was still rare in Europe in 89, four electric windows….. but it has idiot gauges….
The interior was not bad. No cracks even after the bitter Nebraska cold and the blistering summer. I remember I left a cassette in the dashboard and it MELTED… because of the Nebraska heat.
It was a good car for$895 and it lasted more than one year, until the transmission stopped going backwards. Some dealer gave me $100 and I bought a 92 Sunbird, which I used for long trips around the US with no problems.
The last photo of the monochrome gray Corsica is identical to the car owned by a friend of my mother’s. Anna bought that car new in 1994, to replace an ’88 Subaru DL that had been totaled in an accident. I don’t know if that’s the car she necessarily would have chosen, but she made the mistake of going car shopping with her brother-in-law, who apparently was a dyed-in-the-wool Chevy guy. He took her straight to his preferred Chevy dealership, they determined that the Corsica best fit her budget and needs, and that was that. And I think *that* is how GM sold quite a few of these cars–to die-hards and traditionalists who weren’t going to consider a Ford or Mopar, let alone one of those “furrin” cars. Her brother-in-law was definitely that type of traditionalist.
All that having been said, the car marked its 21st year in her ownership this year. She’s long retired and doesn’t drive much anymore; I doubt the car has much more than 50k on it. But it’s still running and has, by all accounts, been pretty reliable (I think it’s the 3.1 V6). So the later models had that going for them at least.
One word, National.
Paul mentioned that these were sold to fleets before retail. I believe National Car Rental was the first customer. I had one as a rental back when my company had a contract with National. While the V-6 was smooth, it was gutless and not economical with the 3-speed transaxle to which it was mated.
Mom had a 87 Beretta, dad kept blowing the head gaskets on that poor little 4 cylinder.
My experience with the Corsica has been mixed.
Back in the day, I worked at a Tier 1 auto parts supplier. I was sitting in the smoking lounge (yes, we had those) with a co worker. He mentioned something about the new Corsica. I expressed my opinion that I thought it was the ugliest copy of the then-new Ford Taurus; he then countered that he had just picked up a new Corsica. I slinked away, red faced in my embarrassment. I really didn’t want to offend the guy.
In 1991, I was working for a big craft supply company, my boss had a new Corsica. My boss’ Corsica had the uprated 3.1 V6, with ABS and dual airbags, making it one of the safest cars on the road at the time. Too bad she (my boss) wasn’t so safe…
Later in the 90’s, my new neighbor in GR had two Corsicas, one that was late 80’s that one of her kids drove and one she drove that was a 94 or so. She kept that car until 2004, until she traded it in for a then new Saturn Ion. IIRC, she got 200K out of the last Corsica. Whenever she got a new car, the old one went to one of her four kids. (She still has the Ion. I drive it occasionally. It’s really a PITA to drive, even though it’s a 5 speed. But the 2.2L Ecotec is underpowered in this application.)
I often think of Chevrolet’s position in the Sloan ladder, meant to be inexpensive transportation. When they produce a car like that, i.e., the Corsica or Cavalier or even the Lumina, folks whip out the flak cannon and unload a few clips. Modern day Toyota produces a Corolla with a 4 speed automatic trans and rear drum brakes and they get a pass.
How does this work?
Today, I see pix of Corsicas like the black hatchback with the steelies on it, and think we’ve lost something. What happened to the inexpensive durable compact car? Like my neighbor, who just wants a car that will start in the morning and has a good heater for the winter time…
I currently have a Pontiac G6 Sport Sedan. With it’s 166 HP Ecotec 4 cylinder and 6 speed autobox, it’s faster, more economical and flexible than my 1983 Trans Am, by a huge amount. What is so wrong with that?
Corsicas tend to catch my eye because Portland, OR is big on import cars and with Corsicas being 28-19 years old that makes them rarer. I saw a bright red mid-1990s Corsica the other day and it sure caught my attention because I hardly ever see Corsicas. Here is a Corsica Hatchback from earlier this year. Part of me wants to buy a Tempest or Corsica just to find out more than this car.
I’m fond of the Corsica hatchback the most. I think it’s a shame they did not offer that from the beginning. By the way, us Canadians received a twin of this – the Pontiac Tempest sedan, from 1987-1991. It was offered in base and LE trim (similar to the Corsica LT and LTZ trims). This was sold concurrently with the N-body Grand Am. So the Grand Am’s purpose was to attract the sportier-minded set, while the Tempest was intended as a family compact, just like the Corsica. Here’s a nice one in red.
My late spinster aunt had a Citation, a Corsica, and a late 90’s Malibu, three winners in a row. She didn’t ask me for advice.
How was the corsicas L body different from the grand am N body? From looking under the hood and underneath they look the same but with different interiors and front and rear ends.
GM was in terrible financial position in early 90’s and, I understand, close to bankruptcy. I would think costs of Saturn and the W body flop are main reasons. GM had no money to update J, L, and W bodies. I remember rumors in mid 80’s of these cars getting an OHC V6 that was also rumored for the proposed FWD Camaro; very disappointing when 2.0 and 2.8 were the engines. I remember back then wondering to myself the point of these cars – Citation was a failure and didn’t see need for something between Cavalier and Celebrity.
I can say one good thing about the Corsica. They seemed to have better off road clearance than competing models in rental car fleets.
My final Army duty station was the Presidio of San Francisco. Once the Army knows you’re going to retire, they don’t give you any important assignments. Those are reserved for soldiers intending to stay longer. In my case, I was assigned to inspect reserve unit weekend drills in 12 western states.
Those weekend drills were often in field training locations. Easily reached with tactical vehicles. As an outsider, I’d fly to the closest airport, rent a car and try to catch up with the unit I was inspecting.
If Hertz or Avis ever saw where their weekend rentals were being driven, I suspect they’d rethink their whole idea of government discounts.
It may be faint praise, but I don’t recall ever tearing anything off the bottom of a Corsica, puncturing something holding vital fluids or any other similar mishap. Can’t say that about Corsica competitors.
Here is the genius of the Corsica: It was designed, not for the gearheads on Curbside Classic but for people who thought about their cars like they thought about their refrigerators, not at all except when they needed them. They didn’t need to know engine rpms or even that engines had rpms. They wanted a car from the dealership down the street that would get them where they wanted to go with reasonable economy, safety and comfort. They wanted it to fit the people and stuff they would put in it. they wanted it to go when they stepped on the right pedal and stop with the left. It didn’t need to be overly modern, just not overly old fashioned. These are people who can’t tell an Accord from a Temp and when asked what kind of car something is, answer: “A blue one” Perfect car the Corsica for its intended purpose.
These were rental fleet cars, made of mouse fur, plastic, and styled plainly. It rode cheap, it smelled cheap and it sounded cheap. Unfortunately, it wasn’t priced cheaply. It wasn’t made as solidly as a Kcar, or a Tempo. It was a rental car.
A co-worker rented the first Corsica I ever saw, early July 1987. We were on a business trip to Seattle (we both lived in Central Texas) but I flew in from Pennsylvania, where my Grandparents (lived), was there for 4th of July, took a small puddle-jumper to Philadelphia and then Seattle (my first trip there…actually Everett). He pulled up in a car I’d never seen before, turned out it was a Corsica. We went out for a nice dinner, celebrated my 29th birthday. I’d rented a Nissan Stanza (for some reason we each needed a car, can’t recall why) and as I was there for 2 weeks, I took a trip to Mt Rainier one day of the weekend…tried to take a “shortcut” on the map, it turned out to be a logging road, and I couldn’t find room to turn around…ended up taking quite a bit longer than if I hadn’t found the “shortcut”, not to mention I shouldn’t have done that trip with a rental car. We were there with a group of other people we knew from Toronto, and a Dutch guy,