(first posted 7/12/2012) General Motors, as has been documented time and time again, was slow to respond to foreign competition. For years they seemed to think that if they just ignored the imports and kept on keeping on, they’d wear them down – and out. Well, that didn’t exactly happen. In the mid-1990s, they finally seemed to get it: They finally realized they had to field a competitive offering to counter the Camry, and the 1995 Lumina started the long process toward parity with Japanese quality and reliability.
As partially related in the ’96 Regal post, the GM W-body (also known as the GM-10 during development) took a different path for each of the divisions. Both Oldsmobile and Buick, for instance, sold both A-body and W-body cars side by side all the way to 1996. For Chevrolet, however, it replaced the A-body Celebrity (save the station wagon, which continued for one more year) in 1990.
The Lumina was offered in standard coupe and sedan variants and dressier “Euro” versions of same. Starting in 1991, a hot-rodded Z34 coupe was added to the lineup, featuring the Dual Twin-Cam V6 with 210 horsepower.
The Z34 was essentially a replacement for the venerable G-body Monte Carlo SS, despite its front wheel drive and no V8 in sight. The Lumina APV plastic-fantastic minivan was also offered from the get-go, but that model is beyond our scope for today.
The Lumina’s mission was to best the red hot Taurus, which was introduced in 1986 and doing quite well by 1990, thank you. The earlier Celebrity sold well through ’86, but once the Taurus came out it dated the Chevy’s “sheer” styling virtually overnight. While the Lumina never outsold the Taurus, the early ’90s Luminas sold well, with production of 256,270 in ’92 and 234,398 in ’93. In 1994, the Lumina stumbled badly, with only 86,626 made.
Part of it might have been due to the second- generation 1992 Taurus, which by 1994 featured standard dual airbags (the original Taurus got a driver’s airbag in 1990; a passenger airbag was optional in 1992-93). Yet as late as 1994, the Lumina didn’t even have a driver’s side airbag and its styling, although rather nice looking, had remained unchanged since its 1989 introduction. Time for something new…
Well, newish. The 1995 Lumina featured all new interior and exterior styling. Dual front airbags were a highly-touted new feature. Sheetmetal was smoother and less angular than in 1990-94. The new body, which was 3″ longer than its 1994 predecessor, rode the same W-body platform as its largely unchanged Buick Regal, Olds Cutlass Supreme and Pontiac Grand Prix corporate cousins.
Lumina coupes were history, in a way: The two-door version now bore the venerable Monte Carlo nameplate, thus making all 1995 Luminas four-door sedans. The Lumina APV minivan, however, was still around, but now sported a new nose that ruined the clean, if polarizing, “dustbuster” look.
Lumina sedans came in base and fancier LS models. The standard 3.1-liter V6 now produced 160 horsepower, representing a 20-plus improvement over the previous year’s 3.1. LS models could be equipped with the ex-Lumina Z34 Twin Dual-Cam 3.4-liter V6, which remained at 210 horses.
The $16,970 LS also came with standard anti-lock brakes, which were an available option on the $15,470 base model. Lumina prices for 1995 were very close to those of 1994, despite the new car’s almost total redesign. The new styling, ABS, dual airbags and attractive pricing all were meant to unseat the Taurus from its lofty first place perch.
LS models got cushier seating in Custom Cloth (shown above), which featured a different sew style than the plainer, fleet-special base model and its virtually nonexistent bolstering. In 1996, a leather interior was added to the LS option list, but for 1995 Lumina shoppers did without — or they got a Monte Carlo.
Sales were not bad, and with the questionable 1996 redesign of the Taurus, Chevrolet must have felt they had a chance to beat the Taurus. It didn’t happen. Rebadging the coupe as a Monte Carlo was a good marketing decision, but when Monte Carlo sales took off, they couldn’t be included in the Lumina total. What’s more, the 1995 Taurus lineup included a station wagon; yes, the Lumina minivan variant was still around, but its sales had already started tapering off (the 1995 facelift probably didn’t do it any favors either). And if that wasn’t enough, the Toyota Camry had been gaining ground since the introduction of a new and Lexus-like 1992 model.
So thus did the Lumina carry on, with only minor changes, through 1999. It was a rather nice car, but competition was fierce in the midsize field, and the Lumina found itself somewhat lost among the Camry, Taurus/Sable, Accord, and its fellow GM W-bodies, too.
The Lumina was continued in 2000 as a fleet-only model. I know this because, in 1999, my parents took us to South Padre Island, Texas, for Christmas vacation. At the airport we were supposed to get a minivan, but one was not available and the clerk tried to talk us into a extended cab pickup–for the five of us! No, thanks. We took a burgundy-color 2000 Lumina instead. Since I was in my late teens at the time, my brother and I were allowed to take the car for a ride. Brownsville didn’t have a mall, though the Whataburger fast food places were interesting – my brother loved them. Anyway, I thought it was a nice car — it had lots of room, a nice ride, and a good-size trunk. I was a little surprised to find it was a 2000 model when I checked out the owners manual, as I thought the Lumina had been replaced by the 2000 Impala–it had been, but at the time I was not aware of fleet models. Later on, when we were back home, I went to the Chevy dealer and got a 2000 Lumina brochure. It was only four pages long, since retail customers were expected to look at the Impala, at least judging from that car’s glossy, over 30-pages-long catalog.
I hadn’t really thought about Luminas since then, but on Memorial Day weekend my folks had a bunch of people, including my sister’s in-laws, over. Kenny and Vicki were driving this Lumina, which I hadn’t seen before. They usually had a Chrysler Town & Country. After asking Kenny about it, he told me it was his mother’s car, and she had bought it new. When she passed away, he kept the car to drive to work. It has a few bumps, bruises, and rust, but is in pretty fair shape for a car that had been driven through at least sixteen Midwestern winters. I also liked the color. Why don’t more new cars come in a nice dark green like this one?
As I’ve already mentioned, the Lumina became the Impala. The current 2012 Impala has the same basic underpinnings as this one, but that will change in 2013, when it will become a much more luxurious vehicle on the Buick Lacrosse platform. True, the ’12 Impala is not for gearheads, hot-rodders or luxury car cognoscenti. It is, however, a solid and comfortable family car. When it finally goes away this year I, for one, will miss it.
Ha! I KNEW the clue just HAD to be a Lumina!
I never particularly liked these for the styling – too many horizontal lines, like a layer cake of sorts. I did like the detached roof style – almost bubble-like, but it wasn’t enough to draw me in as I was still firmly in Chrysler’s camp for a few more years.
I’ve related this before, but I did have a 1995 Monte Carlo as a rental for a business trip one year and enjoyed the expanse of leather and other creature comforts my beloved 1990 Acclaim didn’t have. It drove extremely well, too.
“Why don’t more new cars come in a nice dark green like this one?” I can answer that easily: Most cars that you see abandoned/broken down on the side of the road happen to be green, far more than any other color!
I, for one, will miss the so-called “W body” greatly, as it has worked very well for me these last 8+years and I may just be buying a 2012 model to last me through retirement very soon. I suppose I’ll have to submit a modern-day CC article of my love story with my 2004 Impala!
When Chevy issued the 2-gen Lumina, I thought the styling was eminently forgettable. Yet, in the Clue issued yesterday, with just the barest snippet of bumper and tail light, I immediately pegged it as a Lumina (but missed the year pretty wide). So the styling must not have been that forgettable.
I didn’t know that the Lumina rode the same platform as the Grand Prix et al — all of which are immediately recognizable as siblings. Kudos to Chevy for taking the Lumina’s design in a direction that hid its origins.
Nice story, Tom.
I don’t begrudge anyone for liking these, but the original Lumina seemed sort of sad, like too much content had been left out in order to avoid competing with the BOP GM10s. The ’95 redesign took an awkward car that couldn’t tell its front from its back and made it into…an ’87 Corsica scaled up on a Xerox machine.
Hard to see these competing directly with Camrys, although they were certainly much roomier, which must have attracted people who prefer a big-ish car to a minivan/SUV. (I’m one of those people.)
Wait a minute. In 1999 Brownsville had two malls: the Sunrise Mall and the Amigoland Mall. You probaly came into town on 14th Street, which is the industial side of town., and didn’t get much beyond that. The malls, car dealers, restaraunts and such are located wet of that a few miles, on the main freeway.
That’s right. I remember Dad drove us all to the Gladys Porter zoo a couple days later, which was pretty nice. That same day we checked out one of the malls. I’m not sure which one, but I remember there was a Toys ‘R Us across the road from it.
Amigoland. The mall and the Toys R’ Us are gone. The place where the Amigoland Mall was is now a college for the TSC, I believe.
I always felt that this was when GM doomed itself to eventual bankruptcy. When it came time to design the new car, the plan was, “Only spend enough to keep the car competitive. Under no conditions do we spend the money to make a class leading product. The real money is saved for SUV’s.” Which, in the long run, made GM’s automobiles a bad joke with money on the hood to make it move off the showroom floor.
Yes, it eventually turned into the Impala which earned a begrudging respect – among those buyers to whom the only thing that matters in keeping a car is money, money, money. Like the Panther, a cheap-ass bastard’s special, excellent value for money if you really don’t care about driving.
I always felt that this was when GM doomed itself to eventual bankruptcy. When it came time to design the new car, the plan was, “Only spend enough to keep the car competitive. Under no conditions do we spend the money to make a class leading product. The real money is saved for SUV’s.”
Yes this, a thousand times this. You can always tell what a company cares about given where they put their efforts. GM didn’t really care about sedans from about the time that mainstream cars became FWD until bankrupcy.
Add to this the Chevrolet Malibu/Oldsmobile Cutlass of the same era. The ‘unable to notice it in traffic’ car because it was so bland and obviously earmarked against the previous generation Camry – with no design room made for the upcoming updated Toyota product.
Finally, add in the Cavalier. In production since 1981 with minimum updates (once again) just enough to keep it barely competitive.
Yeah, during those days, GM was completely disinterested in automobiles. Trucks and SUV’s were too profitable for them to bother. And nobody bothered thinking, “What do we do the day he customers have decided they don’t want SUV’s anymore?”
@ “a cheap-ass bastard’s special”
Gold star for the best description so far today. 🙂
If I’ve got a pet peeve regarding Internet blog and discussion groups, its on the car sites: Those people who call themselves auto enthusiasts, but who’s enthusiasm is limited to how cheaply they can operate an automobile and their ability to brag long and loud about it.
Sorry, that’s not car enthusiasm. That’s money enthusiasm, and I really wish they’d take their input to money enthusiast sites. Car enthusiasm is when you can love a car enough that it doesn’t matter how much it costs you to keep it on the road and performing to your expectations (see: Ferrari owner). Car enthusiasm is when you’re willing to buy a new car, and take the inevitable depreciation over the first couple of years, just because its such a neat car.
“Car enthusiasm is when you’re willing to buy a new car, and take the inevitable depreciation over the first couple of years, just because its such a neat car.”
Well, I don’t know if any of the vehicles I’ve bought new over the years would be looked upon as ‘neat’, but I loved them all, including my current ride.
I am an enthusiastic cruiser…
Car enthusiasm comes in many different shapes, you’re in no position to be the arbiter of who is an enthusiast and who isn’t.
Skye, while I agree with everything you say, cars are still dreams for a lot of people, youngsters in particular. This is the reason people who drive shitheap beaters will argue all day long whether a Camaro of a Mustang is better. They could never afford one but they debate nonetheless.
Take my piece about my Acura last week; many people said I paid too much but I doubt many of them are driving sports sedans. I countered that if any of them could find a mid-sized sports sedan with less than 66,000 km, I would buy it.
So far, no takers. But everyone has an opinion.
Also, quite a few people are big fans of utilitarian cars of previous eras, like A-body Darts and Valiants, Checker Marathons, and early Falcons and Chevy IIs, precisely BECAUSE they’re utilitarian. (And I suppose because Sting Rays and GTOs have become terrifyingly expensive, but that’s another matter.)
If you’d told the average Classic car buff of the mid-sixties that cars like the intermediate Supercars would one day be considered classics, they would have scoffed. If you told them that there’d one day be fan clubs for the Valiant and Falcon, they would have thought you were high.
I have never met any Acura owners, that have ever had anything negative to say about the brand. And all of them owned their Acuras for many, many years, problem free.
I would love to have an older Acura NSX, myself. It is a shame, that Honda never made a LHD model, for sale in the U.S. during the 1990s. Those were an awesome looking car. And they were Mid-engine, RWD.
Often times a person wants that lowest possible cost of ownership car so they can afford to have the “enthusiast” model too and save it from the treachery that is the daily commute.
The Lumina (either generation) didn’t do much for me. I think it was a side effect of the only available engines being the completely underwhelming 3.1V6 and the gasket eating 3.4DOHC with the reliable 3800 no where in sight.
What’s funny is I remember when the Lumina coupe came out, my father grumbled; “Why the hell didn’t they just call it the Monte Carlo?”
Then when the name was changed to Monte Carlo; “Why the hell didn’t they call the Z34 the SS?”
You know who owns a red FWD Monte Carlo SS now? His brother Tim.
The Lumina didnt get the 3800 until 97 or 98, with the LTZ model.
All 3 engines, the 3.1, 3.4 & 3.8 had lower intake gaskets that self destructed. The combination of Dexcool, a new plastic gaskets and inadequate thread locker on the intake bolts turned formerly reliable engines into time bombs. 75k miles was a pretty good lifespan estimate for the gaskets. Regardless of what you think of the styling, the unreliability of the engine gave these models a really bad rep. It took a few years before anyone realized the extent of the problem. Eventually, GM ended up in a class action lawsuit and had to pay out quite a settlement. Unfortunately, the legal proceedings may have contributed to GM’s slow fix to the problem. I can’t see into their head of course, but it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that they were worried changing the design would be interpreted as an admission the original design was flawed – which it was.
I think almost everyone who bought one of these was either a fleet manager or a longtime Chevy loyalist. I used to work with a fellow whose parents bought one of these new. The parents were in their 80s, and it was their first new car since the 1950s. It was funny. They had a hard time finding a car because they wanted a sunroof, but not a cd player (“Because we don’t have any cds”).
By the time the old folks were done with the car, absolutely nobody in the family had any interest in it, even though it was a really nice, low mile car. This is how far Chevy had fallen. Everyone in the family had Toyotas, Acuras, and such. Chevy? No thanks.
The styling was so bland. I cannot imagine that very many people traded in a car of a competing brand. Don’t forget that in addition to the Taurus, Camry or Accord, these things had to compete with Intrepids, which were very appealing cars when new. This car was a perfect example of a car designed to sell to the same pool of customers that GM/Chevrolet had been selling to for years, but were not appealing enough to bring any new customers into the showrooms.
GM’s recent history did not suggest that these cars would turn out to be as good as they actually were. They were certainly better than the extremely brittle Mopars, and I don’t believe that they suffered from fragile transmissions like the Taurus.
I agree with you on the Intrepids, especially the second-gen that debuted in 1998. Those things really turned heads at the time, and were one of the cars that I think advanced design for the entire industry at the time. They were very slick cars for the time.
The Lumina, along with every other GM vehicle from that era, makes me mad. Very mad. Because each one of them seemed like an insult to the world, as if the product planners in RenCen were saying “we think Americans are so stupid they will love anything we throw at them.”
Not that this is a bad car per se. But GM had the resources to make them so much better. The anger stems from how the just seemed to miss the mark on every single model. I’m talking even about the Cadillacs, supposedly their top of the line cars. The Brougham became a misshaped lump with a goofball vinyl top that looked like a bad toupee. And, like this car (which is rather featureless in its design), had an overly plasticky, cheap feel to it. I think because of that, people touted these cars more for being reliable transportation than anything else.
Looking at many cars from this era rekindles that anger, but especially some of these non-descript, moribund GM appliances. GM was certainly not the only automaker serving up half baked designs, but only a decade or so before they were rocking along as the force to be reckoned with.
I remember getting excited with anticipation each time they came out with a new model introduction, thinking that “maybe this time it will get better”, but they never did, at least until the 2000s, bringing with them more and more disappointment and, of course, me shopping elsewhere for cars. Don’t forget, little Chrysler was building stunning cars during this period.
There, I’m done. 🙂
For of all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: “It might have been!” – John Greenleaf Whittier
Just think what GM could have done with their vast resources of engineering and manufacturing talent, plants, suppliers, etc., etc., etc. if they had made up their mind to do something superb.
True story: when I was selling these in 1997 – after the car had been on the market for two years already – I was told to highlight three things during all Lumina demos:
1) Dexcool. ‘Nuff said.
2) The large knobs for the climate control and headlights. “Look how easy it is to find and use these controls…” that the customer would have figured out how to work anyway in short order. Also notice that all the knobs are exactly the same!
3) My favorite: the tiny plastic ball inside the fuel filler neck to prevent splashback. It also made it impossible to completely top off the tank for delivery. “Yeah, when the fuel gauge reads 3/4, it’s actually full.”
These were decent cars, just not in any way exciting or competitive with anything else in the midsize sedan field. Very mid-90s GM. Compared to the Lumina, the new-for-’97 Malibu was a revelation, even if it too was hampered by GM’s “just barely good enough” engineering mindset.
Funny, Stainsey, your comments just about sum up exactly how I feel about Honda and Toyota today.
I must disagree in part. IMO, these were the very definition of a bad car. Right up to the end, all 3 V6 engines could be expected to need a 4 figure repair job due to design change that caused premature lower intake gasket failure.
I can recall a 1996 Car & Driver comparison test where the Lumina came in last, and was summed up with the sentence: ‘Attention, K-Mart shoppers.’
That was pretty much the impression I got. Pillowy, sink-to-the-floor seats, light and loose steering, a rowdy 3.1-litre V6, and creaky doors and trim gave the Lumina the feeling of a decade-old car when it was nearly new.
Sure looked nice, though. The overhangs look huge now, but this was a very pretty car for its day and its price point.
This is the time frame when I had stopped doing business as an air conditioning contractor but still had the license. That meant I could moonlight and needed to (because teaching doesn’t pay too much, right Dan?). I still needed a truck or something that would pull a trailer. I tried economy cars but fuel savings did not equal the lost income.
Somehow missing this generation of Chevy did not seem to put a large hole in my life. Ex SIL had a Z34 and it turned to trash pretty quickly. Thought that spoke loads about the person and not so much about the car. I thought they looked pretty good but never wanted to own one. I didn’t understand why the taurus sold so well and this didn’t seem to.
My dad bought a ’90 Euro model almost new, it was a “PAP” car that the engineers would drive for a few thousand miles before being sold. Light blue with the flying saucer hubcabs. I loved the styling at the time, and still find it distinctive. I remember being upset when he showed me the hubcabs it was going to have in the brochure, because the alloys were SO much cooler. For me though, the coolest thing was the stereo. Refined it was not, but the bass was incredible to my teenage ears, and I could really blast my rap music. That and the guttural noise the exhaust made, a promise of power that it couldn’t deliver.
I would agree with your assessment of the GM Delco radios of the time. Great bass response from the circa 1980’s vertical slide adjuster. There was something uniquely satisfying about adjusting the bass and treble on those Delcos. An unintended(get real-GM beancounters would not permit obvious tactile feedback of any kind) feel that made GM’s cars and trucks special.
Sorry Tom but these things could not and did not have much success against the Camry and Accord. The reason is simple: they just weren’t as good a car. Having worked at a Chevy dealer, I could lost a dozen reasons why the Lumina was a POS compared to a Camacord, but I won’t bother here. Strut mounts? Intake gaskets? Crappy electrics, anyone?
These things were Fleet Queens; I know quite a few people who bought them off fleet auctions and got a cheap car that needed repairs regularly. Nobody could go long in a Lumina and not make a repair of some sort.
The fact they are still flogging this dinosaur even to this day as the Impala says a lot about Government Motors.
Because it was mentioned in the article, I’ll tell you about the 2012 Impala I’m renting while my car is in the body shop. I had a 2002 Impala for a while, I think I like it better than this one.
Plastic, plastic everywhere: Even the steering wheel feels like plastic. It feels like cost-cutting everywhere. At least the plastic feels high grade and not tupperware. I would expect this in an Aveo or Cruze, but not an Impala that sells for over $25,000.
Horrible sightlines: What with the bunker slit windows all around and the rear & c-pillars being blocked by the ginormous head restraints for the back passengers, I don’t dare try to back into anything! Even the front passenger head cushion blocks my view through the right rear passenger window, Unnecessarily wide A, B &C pillars, with the attached interior trim making the problem worse. The A pillar by the driver can hide a car opposite me at a stop sign. Now that I’ve driven one from this generation, I’m going to be acting like I’m invisible to Impalas from now on.
Driving dynamics: Busy ride, I experience every bump. Handling seems okay, but not fun. Chevrolet seems to want cars that handle well so they make the suspension harsher, but that mission is lost at the steering wheel. Lots of understeer combined with ride harshness is the worst of both worlds. Either gimme a cushy ride as a reward for the understeer or great handling to make up for the ride. It’s a half-assed compromise that sucks all around! Motor is average in power, needs more cubic inches or a supercharger to be able to move out of it’s own way.
Build quality: seems to be okay, I noticed a few loose trim pieces, but that may be because it’s a rental. No rattles, some suspension noise. Strange placement of the controls for the driver information center. The cruise control is confusing, not intuitive like the stalk they used for 30 years.
I have had quite a few Impala rentals over the years and I agree completely. The Impala is hopelessly outclassed by any of its competition. Like the car in the article, it is a Fleet Queen. If you need a Prairie Schooner cheap the Impala is a good car.
In 2010, I had an Impala and a Camry SE as back to back rentals. The Camry is 1000% better.
I would add the lumbar control that I can never seem to get in a comfortable position.
A 303 hp car does not need “more cubic inches or a supercharger to be able to move out of it’s own way”. Yes, the Impala is dated, but it’s one of the best (if not THE best) hp/$ cars anywhere. Are you sure you’re renting a 2012?
Is there any difference between a 2006 and a 2012, other than engine changes?
Nope. Sure it has plenty of hp, but how much do you really need? I found the four banger of the Carmy SE more than adequate, while returning 30 mpg at 80 mph at high altitude. And even with that fast motor, the rest of the car is hopelessly out of date.
Fleet Queen.
I second the “not enough power, even with the 3.6L” comment. A friend rented a 2012 Impala for a recent visit to NM, and I couldn’t believe it when I looked under the hood and saw the VVT engine cover. The car seemed completely asthmatic; granted, we’re above 5,000 feet here.
Rob as a New Mexican who has driven the car the issue is that you can’t be afraid to rev it. The problem with that is in the intrest of fuel economy the car is programmed to resist “reving it” (hence the thumb shifters). The car doesn’t downshift unless you go past 3/4 throttle and the throttle travel is long.
It could be that he had a dud, as even flooring it did not produce the effect I would expect from a 300-hp car weighing less than two tons. I’m sure the actual numbers wouldn’t support it, but my dowdy four-cylinder Escape feels quicker when floored.
By the way, congratulations on your apparent promotion! Nice to see the Gallup school system recognize a genuine asset.
300 hp??? You guys have got to be kidding! It sure didn’t feel like it, I was guessing around 200 hp because it has the same acceleration as my 200 hp Five Hundred with the 3.0 V-6.
The gas mileage absolutely sucks when I put E-85 in it, I’ve been averaging 14 mpg with FlexFuel. I would think the computer would adjust for the higher octane and advance the timing a little for more power and mileage, but it doesn’t. GM must have the engine optimized for horsepower instead of torque.
The problem with the current Impala is that it has essentially become the 2012 equivalent of the 1970s AMC Matador – a dated car that has a few virtues, but is otherwise completely outclassed by the competition.
At least the 2013 model looks like it will be a huge improvement, and finally interest customers beyond Avis, Hertz and the local police department.
Wife had a 2011. We enjoyed the car except for the three transmissions that it went through in 120,000 miles. She now drives a Honda CRV.
The tail-light design on the second-gen Luminas drives me batty! They could have done something cool with them, given each section its own bulb, but not GM. Not only did they do away with rear disc brakes on the redesign, they also gave the Lumina one brake light per side. Worse yet, the last light was nothing more than a reflector.
OK, rant over.
What bothers me is both generations of Lumina had 3 taillight sections to each side like the old Impalas, then they brought the Impala name back and ditched the three taillight sections. WTH?
It’s always been my understanding that Impalas got two, Caprices got three.
Working in the car rental industry in the 90’s, I had the opportunity to drive many first & second gen Luminas. When first introduced, I thought the earlier Luminas were very cool looking, a departure from the norm for Chevy. But also a poorly executed idea, mainly inside. The dash was certainly futuristic, but the ergonomics were just plain terrible, and it felt like it sat below your knees… very low. The seats were uncomfortable, taking weeks to find a tolerable position. When the 2nd gen Lumina came out, the difference in overall feel was night & day. It felt more ‘solid’, seats were better by an order of magnitude. The dash, while basic, was much more functional and up in front of you where it belonged. The main drawback – the powerplant. Same ‘ol same ‘ol tired GM 6 cyl under the hood, which were noisy even when new. I’m not sure what GM did to this engine, but when the 1998 models hit our lot, they felt (and sounded) 10 times better.
But the comparisons I’ve read to the Taurus here are quite interesting. When the 2nd gen came out in 1992, that was a totally forgettable car, even when compared to the Chevy. My immediate reaction was ‘bigger Tempo’. Same goofy feeling gear shifter, same rock hard seats, same terrible ride, same gutless acceleration, same crappy radio, and overall the same cheap feel as the earlier version, without the looks to carry the package. It seemed like a giant step backward for Ford. The Camry felt refined compared to both, but even the 3rd gen models had a air of cheapness to them that wasn’t characteristic of Toyota at that time. I remember the truck delivering 6 shiny brand new 1992 Camry’s to our lot one night. Two of them had no reverse gear. We had to push them off the carrier! What a difference from the near-bulletproof earlier model.
My nod would go Chrysler for best domestic sedan in the mid 90’s. The 1st gen Intrepid was modern looking, reasonably comfortable, handled much better and that 6 cyl made it just plain fun to drive (even the exhaust note was cool). The stereo rocked too! lol (I was young once 🙂
And we can’t overlook the Accord here, which was by the 90’s one of the best cars produced anywhere on the planet. While it was about as tight as a mass produced car can be made, the Accord, like most other Japanese designed fare at the time simply lacked personality. Nothing distinctive about it. A Maytag with four wheels.
True, the Intrepid was a nicer ride than either the Lumina or Taurus, but really, that is hardly much competition. That and it fell apart at an alarming rate, even faster than the other domestics.
I owned a 1990 Accord and it initially, it lacked, “personality.” However, over a short period of time the car really grew on my because it was just so darned competent.
“True, the Intrepid was a nicer ride than either the Lumina or Taurus, but really, that is hardly much competition. That and it fell apart at an alarming rate, even faster than the other domestics.”
Boy, you’re not kidding about the Intrepids falling apart. When was the last time you saw either generation on the road? I may have seen one last week and looked like something left over from the ’70’s!
“…Boy, you’re not kidding about the Intrepids falling apart. When was the last time you saw either generation on the road?…”
I drove mine to/from work four days last week, alternating with an even older Taurus! It’s nice-looking enough (actually, almost-new looking, it’s been garaged almost all its life) that I put its portrait into the Cohort some time ago.
There do seem to be fewer second generation Intrepids around, probably because their 2.7L DOHC V6, with which the vast majority were sold, had a fatal flaw which would probably cost more to fix than the car was worth, once it broke. The 3.3L OHV V6, standard in the first generation, is a torquey engine (designed for the minivans) and has proven durable. I looked at the second generation and didn’t feel that it was all that much different to ride and drive in, not enough to be worth replacing mine…and this was BEFORE the 2.7’s fatal fault surfaced.
But its looks were so appealing!
I remember seeing a pre-production version of the revamped Lumina at the 1994 Philadelphia Auto Show and thinking that it was a huge improvement over the current Lumina…and that it still fell short of the Camry, Accord and Taurus.
I don’t know if we can blame this car’s mediocrity on GM’s truck fixation. GM was getting beaten by both Chrysler and Ford in the SUV market during most of the 1990s. The Suburbans sold well because they had the market to themselves until the debut of the Ford Expedition, and the Chevrolet full-size pickups were also sales leaders (in some respects, these vehicles were the true descendants of the old, rear-wheel-drive Impala/Caprice).
But the Blazer was outclassed by the Explorer and Grand Cherokee, and the S-10 wasn’t as good as the Ranger. A 1990s Blazer wasn’t any more competitive compared to an Explorer or Grand Cherokee than this car was compared to a Taurus or Camry. The business press of the 1990s was full of criticism for GM’s slowness to react to the SUV boom.
The real culprits here were Saturn and GM’s first brush with bankruptcy. GM was supposedly a “fax away from bankruptcy” at one point in the spring of 1993.
Saturn generated much favorable publicity, but it never made any money. It soaked up money in the late 1980s and much of the 1990s that could have been devoted to the other divisions. Warm-and-fuzzy articles about Saturn homecomings do not pay for critically needed updates of key models.
The first brush with bankruptcy, combined with the money lost on Saturn, hampered Chevrolet’s efforts to effectively update its passenger cars. Hence, half-hearted efforts like this Lumina, and a Cavalier allowed to soldier on for far too long without a major revamp.
The truck fixation was not so much compared to the competition (which was beating it). It was in comparing it to unit profit. Trucks were cheaper to build and made higher prices per unit. Remember, this was at the height of SUV mania. So GM was definitely distracted by the more profitable units.
I can’t remember who (probably some semi-faceless middle-manager type) but someone from GM commented in a Wall Street Journal article back in the mid-90’s, something to the effect, “Business could be really great if we could just drop the cars entirely.” After the inevitable jaw drop at that one, I noticed said dude wasn’t making any more public pronouncements. And that one got forgotten real quick.
Much has been made about “focusing on gas-guzzling SUVs” by the press and alleged Deep Thinkers…but really: what was GM and the others supposed to do? People wanted those cars. They were willing to pay a premium for them. Were the auto companies supposed to try to dictate taste, REFUSE to supply what people wanted?
Ford tried that, in the 1970s. There was a real thirst for a more-practical car than the long, low, swoopy Torino station wagons of the time. Hal Sperlich and others tried to interest Hank The Deuce and the bean-counters into investing in the Mini-Max; with zero success.
Ford wanted to dictate the market. Eventually, the people Ford fired got together at another company and introduced the car that kept Chrysler alive for another 25 years, the minivan.
So…had GM righteously refused to supply gussied-up trucks and Suburban knockoffs to the public, they’d have simply gone to Jeep – or Toyota (and many did). GM would STILL have not been able to sell its small cars. Even if, against all odds, against reality, they’d cracked the Quality nut with their small cars, they’d have been fighting for a shrinking share and against purchasers’ memories of past cars.
So they built what would sell. The problem is, autos are too much of a fashion-statement, in terms of size and design; and as such, tastes can change easily. Gas prices went upwards…instability; which is Kryptonite to the consumer market. And with it, all the people who wanted big trucks but didn’t NEED them…were out of the market.
There’s simply no real way to plan for instability. The only course of action is to be flexible; have parallel lines on the drawing boards; and have union contracts that allows immediate, cost-free labor adjustments and closings.
None of which they had. Most of which were beyond their powers.
Some things are just beyond the control of those who get caught up. This was one; GM was pinched by shrinking market share; by bad labor contracts signed twenty years earlier by people now long retired; and by the political-economic mess that is our energy-policy.
Yup, it was not GM and Ford forcing customers to buy SUV is was customers demanding SUV and being willing to pay a huge premium for them that drove the market.
The father of a friend of mine used to be an executive at Ford and he told me that the first generation of Explorer brought in about $10K in profit for the dealer and Ford combined, while an Escort brought in $1K to split. So lets see what are you going to do invest in SUVs and put them on the front line or spend your money and clog your lot with low margin cars.
It was worse than that. The Escort, and comparable GM cars, actually LOST money per-sale. They were offered up for the CAFE credits, which allowed Ford to pump out Panthers and GM to keep their land-yachts in a sea of green.
But, think of that. Make 5k on the sale of a Suburban? Or LOSE $525 for the sale of every Cavalier?
Certainly some of the time the Escorts went out the door at a negative profit but most of the time it did not. The numbers I quoted were averages so while they may have lost money on the Pony at both levels buy the time you added AT AC, and stepped up from the Pony model to be able to do so, there was some even if miniscule profit so it averaged out that they did make money overall on the Escort.
Understand the profit differential, but the bottom line is that a full-line manufacturer cannot afford to abandon an important segment.
The Civic-Corolla and Accord-Camry segments were important, even in the late 1990s. GM, Chrysler, and, to a much lesser extent, Ford, are still paying dearly for virtually writing off these segments to focus on trucks and SUVs in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Ford did not write off those segments they just missed the mark by a mile with the bubble Taurus, and then had to decontent with the hurried refresh to put the platform back in the black.
Having read Lutzs book, he credits the problem to a bureacratic structure. each car platform was assigned to a Vehicle Line Executive, who was compensated on mission accomplished. Basically, the VLEs got paid by bringing new models to market under time and under budget. So even after the results of negative focus group testing came in, the VLEs pushed forward with their new cars instead of making changes that would have improved the cars but would have resulted in setbacks to the Plan and accordant higher costs. This mentality, of course, frustrated the designers and engineers to no end, but it wasn’t their company. GM belonged to the beancounters, led by Waggoner and Henderson, and a complacent Board.
There was a reason GM went tits up. Many, actually; this being one of the more obvious ones. A GM Deadly Sin.
Amen.
Paul, come on, you know that GM’s belly-upism was caused by Japanese spies poisoning our drinking water.
Sheesh, what are you thinkin’? It has to be true, I saw it on the internet.
I couldn’t agree more. This car was so utterly mediocre in every way possible, that it should have been the template for the “Mediocrity” car in the Subaru ad. My boss got a new one as his first company car back in the 90’s, and he couldn’t have been more proud. That pride wore of quickly, and after a year he desperately wanted something/anything else.
I foolishly bought a used Lumina for a work beater back in ’05. Owned it for a year, and had to replace the a/c compressor, fuel pump, alternator, and a headlight. I wouldn’t have bothered with the compressor, but by this time only the front passenger’s power window would work. It was not the cheap transportation I thought it would be, it was worse! Staring at that miserable Rubbermaid interior every day was tough — one of GM’s worst interiors of the last 25 years. In most cars, you may find one panel that isn’t perfectly aligned on the dash, but in this car NO panels lined up.
BTW….. I would guess that 80% of the Lumina’s you see in the rust belt have the parking brake cable dangling below the frame, with a rusted metal piece attached at it’s lowest arc only a few inches above the ground.
Almost forgot — the white paint was literary coming off in chunks. I know a lot of cars of this era had paint issues, but this was extreme.
I enjoyed my 79 Cutlass and 83 Regal, but this Lumina was the pits.
If we are to accept that this car is yet another Deadly Sin then the 1996 fish Taurus is a double deadly sin for what it did to that car and handed over sales to the Camry and Accord.
My experience with the Lumina echoes the above comments. I recall renting a 98 or 99 LTZ to take to a conference in Orlando and being quite favorably impressed in general. The car felt solid, ate up the highway miles, handled bumps with aplomb, stopped when I wanted it to, and it had the Buick 3800 V6 (instead of the twin-cam), which had such good torque and throttle response-didn’t seem to notice if it was carrying just me, or a whole car load of fellow conventioneers to lunch or an evening at Circque du Soliel. The exterior did indeed resemble a scaled-up, puffed-out Corsica, perhaps sketched out on the back of a napkin over drinks, and the interior was a wierd assemblage of basic plastics of varying curves and shapes, as if Playschool had done the interior for the Alien spaceship. The seats had limited padding and were covered in that strange, pixillated velour fabric also found in Saturns of that era. But they were also comfortable and commodious, the controls were logical and accessible, and I’m sure the good people of Minnesota appreciated those big dials and switches in the wintertime. It felt, to drive, like a worthy successor to GM’s previous Big American Cars, like Dad’s 68 Catalina, only with actual shock absorbers and brakes. If only, if only-if only they had paid some attention to design, and materials, and presentation. Another one of those pretty good, but too late, and not quite good enough efforts that led to the fall.
The one time I drove one of these, on a trip from New York to Pennsylvania, I felt pretty much exactly the same way you did. It was also a ’98 or ’99 LTZ trim with the 3800 Series II. Drove well, comfortable, good power, good gas mileage, plenty of space – but a painfully cynical design in every respect. Everything about it was safe, boring and appliance-like. It would be hard to imagine anyone ever being excited about owning this car.
In some ways, maybe those are actually respectable attributes. I don’t really know… to me, this Lumina was like a continuation of the A-Body cars – and people seem to like them for the same reasons they hate this. Go figure…
Anyway, the Lumina was obviously a dud compared to the Accord and Camry from the same era – but I actually thought it was a much better car in function than the Ford Taurus. GM should have gone with the 3800 as standard equipment in them from the get-go. The “Dual Twin Cam” V6 was cool in theory, but an unreliable, maintenance nightmare in real life. The regular 60-Degree V6 (3.1l in these) was just OK, and did much better when used in the smaller, lighter platforms.
The Lumina in LS and LTZ trim scored higher than the Taurus in several Consumer Guide tests that I have. It was cited as being smoother and quieter and the 3100/4T60 combo were better behaved and provided a bit more power with 20 more horses and 15-20 extra torque. It also started out 1500-1700 buck less at the time.
I want to like at least some cars from every era, but the late ’90s is tough. I’m not crazy about the ’95 Lumina styling (it reminds me of Tupperware), but I can’t think of any stellar sedan alternatives from that time. The best I can think of (at least from the US) are the swoopy Chrysler 300 sedans and the Aurora/Riviera (one of which I owned–the Buick). They were pricey but at least less Rubbermaid-ish than their contemoraries. I’m sure as time goes by I’ll start feeling more charmed by the late ’90s cars.
The 1994 model year Lumina was cut short for the mid year intro of 1995’s, so that is why the sales # dropped.
And, believe it or not, fleet Luminas continued into 2001! Actually that’s believable.
Overall, the Lumina was lame and meant to get GM loyalists trading in old Celebritys, Corsicas, and Citations. GM was still thinking all they had to do was cater to loyal buyers. Short term thinking. “Oh, those Baby Boomers will buy our bigger cars, once they grow up” they assumed, until market share dropped below 30%.
I remember seeing these things everywhere when I was a kid. Now I very rarely see a 2nd gen Lumina and I never see a 1st gen. I figured they would hold up well as I do see Regals and Cutlass’s of the same generation around. For some reason these cars met an early grave, either because they were mostly fleet cars or the people who bought them just didn’t care about them. Perhaps the Olds and Buicks lasted longer because they were sold to a, how do you say, mature audience. I still see many 90’s Camrys, Accords, and 2nd and 3rd gen Taurus (which suprises me as these Taurus were known for crappy transmissions) driving around. I thought the 2nd generation looked attractive, much more so than the 1st generation. Although when I was a kid I wondered why anyone would want a Lumina over a Caprice with a LT1….
Hey, I guessed right on the CC! (95 LS)
I never got to drive one, but they must be somewhat good cars because I see them everywhere (beat up, but still driving)
A CC I’d like to see (and not the half-assed junkyard one(s) done) would be for the Chevy Beretta, preferably a GTU, but any would be cool. Don’t know if you’ll find a GTU on the curb though as they seem to be getting rare and people are starting to like them again. But like I said, any Beretta would do, and not a junkyard one again 🙂
These cars just make me recoil with ennui, if you will.
Interesting article The Lumina badge stayed on the market in the Middle east years after it disappeared from US roads. GM export marketting simply glued Chev Lumina badges to a Holden Commodore and alls good they sell well.
I looked up the wikipedia page to get a handle on the size of these cars, and noticed they cite a 3rd & 4th gen Lumina, being the Commodores sold in the Middle East.
Having read the comments I don’t think I’ve missed out by having zero experience with these cars, and it has certainly reinforced my perceptions.
Opel/Vauxhall Omega became Commodore at Holden. But of course with stronger V6/V8 engines. Than they rebadged and named them as Chevrolet Lumina and exported to the Middle-East, South-Africa and South-Americas…
That’s how the Opel Omega became Chevrolet Lumina. These shouldn’t be mixed with the original North-American Luminas… Only the nameplate lived on… What had been the latest Pontiac GTO in North-Americas, that was Chevrolet Lumina Coupé in the Middle-East…and Holden Monaro in Australia. But this configuration has to be originated from the older Opel Monza/Vauxhall Royale Coupé.
The El Camino concept also lived on at Holden. It became Chevrolet Lumina UTE in South-Africa… All of them were based on the good old german Opel Omega. Which had been resold as Cadillac Catera in the North-Americas.
It’s hard to imagine but its true that ALL 4 of these Black 4 Door Sedans were indeed Chevrolet Luminas and all have identical exterior sizes. The first two on the top photos were exactly related FWD W-Body Cars along with the Philippine version middle row right which was indeed our version of the Buick Century/Regal 4 Door Sedan. These were Front Wheel Drive. The middle row left was the Middle Eastern 4G Holden Commodore VE sourced Chevrolet Lumina 4 Door Sedan which were our versions of the Pontiac G8 and then later on becoming Chevrolet SS 4 Door Sedans. The last Chevrolet Lumina 4 Door Sedan on the bottom row center was our Cadillac Catera 4 Door Sedan based from the 3G Holden Commodore/2G Opel Omega 4 Door Sedan. The Holden sourced Chevrolets were Rear Wheel Drive however.
GM should revive that black/red color combo (exterior) cause it makes anything look great/somewhat good.
The second generation Lumina always left a bad taste in my mouth. It seems like these were always driven by rude single mothers with horrible demon children, even when new. Every time I see trash thrown out of the back window of a car, or hear a lady screaming at her kids at a stoplight, its one of these cars. The only difference between 1997 and now is the Lumina’s windows are rolled down because the air conditioner has worn out, whereas in 1997 the lady would be waving a lit cigaret in the air.
Somehow, it seems the folks who bought the Monty version were classier.
These (White ~1996>>) had been driven by the U.S. foreign embassy/consular folks in Europe… No shouting, nor thrash throwing out of the back windows… So the white Lumina’s appearance had been quite impressive among dozens of boring silver and black painted annoying diesel audis, mercedeses, bmws, toyotas, vws…
Did anyone else notice the 2012 Caprice in the fourth picture?
If you’re referring to the silver car, that’s a (subcompact) Suzuki Forenza.
Whoops, my mistake.
Funny how much they look alike, though!
In FWD car Demo Derbies, yes they do exist, old Luminas are popular to smash. W body Impalas are the ‘Imperials’ of FWD demos!
I just saw one last night being hustled through a parking lot with a sign on the roof for a sandwich shop. Some teenager with loud music was really making it scoot.
As an British teenager visiting the US for the first time in the early nineties, the Lumina was a novelty to me and I thought they were pretty cool, especially with the NASCAR / Days Of Thunder tie-in. I particularly liked the lights concealed behind the grille on the early models.
I’ve had two of these, a ’98 and a ’99. Both were white base models & former rentals. One had the paint flaking and peeling off all over (started when the car had about 30,000 miles on it, only a couple years old). The other one had some chips out of the paint near the trunk, thats how it starts. Beware of any GM from this era with white paint. Both had piston slap, and one had to have the intake manifold gasket replaced at 94,000 miles and at 130,000 miles began to eat coolant again, indicating the problem had returned. Any model year Lumina after 1995 will have piston slap and intake gasket problems (especially on the 3.1), after ’95 they cut costs in the engine build specs allowing more leeway and causing piston slap (engine noise when you start the engine cold, it subsides once the car is warmed up and driven). You can hear the metal on metal and it affects performance and engine longetivity. These cars were solid and reliable, with decent power and the handling was secure if unexciting. The car was fairly roomy inside and the the fabrics and plastics were made from fairly decent if not top notch materials. The check engine light would come on intermittently when the EGR ports would become clogged with carbon. Overall this was a competent, anonymous, forgettable car that did everything well but nothing particularly great. Factory stereo & speakers sounded good for stock, clean with great bass. Both cars are safe in a wreck. One was t-boned but still drivable and later finished off in a front end collision at 110,000 miles, no injuries. The other also done in a head on collision at 164,000 miles (rear-ended someone when the brakes locked up in the rain on the freeway, no ABS). No injuries in that accident either. The 3.4 was offered in ’95, most Luminas are equipped with the 3.1 SFI V6 but the 3.4 and 3.8 series 2 were both available on the LTZ trim. The police version had the 3800, dual exhaust, spotlight, plain wheels, and a digital speedometer readout that’s not available on the mainstream version.
Still have one. A 1996 Base. Handling is excellent. Suspension is smooth. The 3.1 V6 engine has impressive torque. From my aspect only the halfshaft seals are arguable. Why? After certain time the halfshaft seal could budge out causing immediate leak of the differential oil. Therefore it could cause the crack of the differential during exploitation/driving. It is a so called “hard part” and due to this fact isn’t available as a replacement. It must be a kind of type error which might be an issue on its other GM siblings. I had experienced the same occurence on the 3.4 V6 Trans Sport Montana as well. But lucklily the halfshaft seal error had been observed just in time. So the differential failure had been avoided (maybe) in the last minute…
“…parity with Japanese quality and reliability” ?
??
???
“first posted 7/12/2017“
Damnit, did I fall asleep, again?
I’m also rather bummed that there isn’t one post about the Bobby Fuller Four. Bobby Fuller is my favorite musician killed by gangsters.
Tom is just humblebragging about his time machine!
Thanks… fixed.
These have always struck me as rather plain, especially in that white color that was fond of flaking off. i rode in a taxi one of these once, which was no more than 5 years old at the time, but had the white paint flaking off and the rear suspension bounced whenever it hit a large bump.
White is a tough color for Chevy. My daughter and I play a game while commuting, pointing out Chevy vans. 50% of the white Chevy vans have chipped paint on the hood….
I had an aunt and uncle that were dyed in the wool Chevy fans. All my uncle’s life he only ever owned Chevys. He would buy a new “big” Chevy, and a year or two later my aunt would buy a new “small” Chevy…and then they would repeat in the 3rd or 4th year.
In the mid 80s they dropped by their local Chevy dealer to look at the “brand new” Lumina. The salesman told them the Lumina was being marketed as a replacement for the Impala.
Well, after a short test drive my aunt and uncle decided there was no way the Lumina would be their next “big” car, and instead bought a new Caprice Classic to replace their 3 year old Caprice. The biggest turn-off to the (1st generation) Lumina, in their opinion? The really awful dashboard design/assembly.
The 1st generation Luminas “featured” a dashboard design where several of the long, horizontal SLABS of plastic just sat atop each other like a clumsily assembled submarine sandwich. The 2nd generation corrected this flaw, but it still didn’t look all that great.
BTW, my aunt and uncle would own a Vega and at least 1 Cavalier and neither of those cars kept them from buying another Chevy….but they couldn’t see spending good money for the pile of a car that was the Lumina.
The first Luminas were 1990 models, but released in spring 1989. “Mid 80s” would maybe be a Celebrity?
Chevy once asked me to sit in this car blindfolded for an ad and I immediately asked BMW?
. . . then someone started the engine and destroyed the illusion.
WE dont have FWD Luminas but just mentally comparing it with a couple of other V6 FWD sedans we do have in roughly that size it doesnt compare well with either the 3.0L V6 Peugeot 405/6 or the 3.0L Toyota Camry.
I guess timing is everything. Yesterday, when I exited my gated community, a Lumina of this vintage was sitting near the gatehouse. I hadn’t seen one in years and you really don’t expect to see one of these in Naples, FL anywhere. I stopped to look at it and the guard came out and said, “Isn’t it cool?” Actually, it was. And after looking at tortured creases on very unattractive new Benz’s, BMWs and Audis at every intersection in Naples, I had to admit the smooth and unpretentious lines of the Lumina were very refreshing.
Now the millennial-ish guard liked the car because of its ironic value in such an upscale town, but it made me wonder more about who the heck would ever keep a Chevy Lumina as a condo car in the first place.
I’ve seen an immaculate burgundy Lumina of this generation at the local greasy spoon several times recently. Personalized plates with the owner’s first names. It looks like a late model even now.
The respect for their “stuff” is apparent. It impresses me every time I see a modest or internet loathed automotive piece treated with such respect.
Yay! Dweezil. In actuality, these were tremendous cars. We supplied them to our field staff and they lasted for millions of miles without incident. Is GM better now? Lots. But to continually dump on some of these cars from the 80’s and 90’s gets really old, especially on days when the Peugeot is held up as some sort of paragon of goodness.
I like what Dweezil said as well, however GM’s suicide was very predictable and frankly deserved as the crap they foisted on the public for decades came home to roost. They finally make reasonably competitive vehicles, although with rare exception (Corvette, Escalade and Volt) do they make anything class leading or aspirational. They remain a manufacturer of price-leaders or convenience.
Both generations of Luminas reinforced my hypothesis that Chevy can only make great pick up trucks and truck variants.
Well, I have to fall in the Lumina hater camp. I felt these and some of the later Chevy offerings were just awful aesthetically. They may be great cars, but there was nothing about them that said anything to me but “Lumina – when you have finally given up on any chance of an exciting car”. Of course, I felt that whole period was “Chevy – for when you absolutely have given up on life”. Again, they may be the greatest car in the world, but not exciting enough to me to care. I was doing a lot of motorcycling in that period as well, so cars were not my greatest interest.
That gray interior – all gray and shades thereof. Just nothing that excited me. And the exterior was just as bland. Of course, I like Dodge Darts – 68 through 72. So what do I know??? LOL.
I do respect the defenders for their loyalty.
Used “venerable Monte Carlo” twice.
There was absolutely, positively, nothing quality bound regarding the Lumina. Build quality was spotty, reliability was questionable and the interiors looked and felt extremely cheap.
Comparing a Lumina to a Camry or Accord is like comparing the works of Rembrandt to a finger painter. Of all the 90s cars I still see on the road they’re virtually all vintage Camry’s and Accord’s. Yes, they sold boatloads of them, but there were boatloads of Ford Taurus’ sold back then and how many of those do you see anymore? How about anything GM made and especially any Chrysler vehicles from that era still on the road?
Fact is Toyota’s and Honda’s were, and still are, beautifuly engineered and built. No corners are cut with those rolling jewels.
Funny it’s just the opposite here in Upstate, NY. Very few 90’s Accords, Camry’s, Corolla’s and Civics are ever seen and if they are they are usually real piles of junk barely hanging on. Not a day goes by without seeing an A-body Ciera/Century, H-body, W-body from the 90’s and loads of older trucks and even the occasional B-body and Panther Ford. Yes even certain Taurus/Sable fish bodies appear every now and then.
We aso 2-3 times a year go to various parts of PA such as Lancaster, Carlisle, Lebanon and Hershey as examples. We see the same stuff there and far more American iron than Japanese. I think it comes more down to the area you’re in. The West coast for example would be heavy in Asian and German cars while up North is would be more American iron.
You have obviously never owned or driven long term a 1998-2002 Honda Accord. Talk about a car that corners were cut on. Everything about that generation Accord felt cheap.
I bought a brand new 2001 Honda Accord. It went through 3 transmissions in the space of 20,000 miles. Thanks to Maryland law, I was able to force Honda of America to buy that POS back. Only later did Honda have a recall for those transmissions.
Everything about the 98-02 (except the looks) was sub-par compared with the 94-97 Accord.
As for the 97-01 Camry, you hardly see many around anymore(at least where i am at (Balt-Wash area), with their sludgematic engines and so-so build quality. By contrast the 92-96 Camry is plentiful around these parts. I think the 92-96 Camry was peak Camry as none since have come close to matching it.
I will give Honda another chance (I love the current ridgeline) but my 2012 Scion XB was my first and my last Toyota.
There are probably many reasons, in addition to the ones you cited, for the Lumina never managing to overtake the Taurus from the throne of mid-size sedans.
The first-gen Taurus/Sable was a rugged and dependable vehicle. I don’t like many Ford offerings, however the first-gen Taurus was one of the few that have earned my respect. Also, Ford managed to beat GM in performance, with the Taurus SHO. The Yamaha 3.0L DOHC was a beast of an engine, and stifled even the 3.4L DOHC in the Lumina Z34 packages.
Factor in the issues with failed intake gaskets, and the many electrical gremlins that Luminas had(namely the power window switches and turn signal switches), amd it is easy to see why the once dependable Lumina was destined to extinction. In 1996, matter only got worse, as the GM Death-Cool not only ate the intake gaskets even quicker, but also managed to clog up the engines and eat the head gaskets, as well.
Second Gen Taurus/Sables didn’t have these issues, BUT there were some years that had recalls for the AX4N automatic transmission failing(which may have only apllied to Canadian-built Taurus/Sables, because I have only seen the recall stickers on “VIN 2” models in the second gen Taurus/Sable.
All in all, the Lumina wasn’t a totally bad car. It wasn’t a great car, either. It just wasn’t as reputable and competitive as the Taurus was/still is.
And it kinda sucks, because in “Genuine GM” fashion, the bean counters thought it would be better to turn the once-reliable “LH0” engine into a junk heap, hoping to profit on either a trade-in/buy-new, or expensive repair bills and costly labor at a Chevy dealer.
I give credit, where it is due, and this is one of those times that GM deserves to be rightfully knocked down a peg, in my opinion.
These weren’t bad when they came out at least in LS trim and above. But in odd GM ’90’s fashion, they let the older than Lumina Ws from other divisions linger for 2-3 more years. I like these better than the preceding Lumina and succeeding Impala. The ’06 Impala was probably Chevy’s best entry in this class since the 1970s.
These were at the larger end of midsize but considering the full-size market was decent in 1996 and fleet sales its a bit surprising a FWD Caprice based on either the LeSabre or Park Ave wasn’t concocted.
To me the Taurus had lost its way even by this point, and I hated the ’96 oval disaster (did not look nearly as bad on the Sable)
The Lumina has better design, but the Taurus is a better car. Correct, Taurus won.
GM/Chevy won in long run, since both Taurus and its replacement, Fusion, are dropped, while Malibu is still for sale. Lumina was supplanted by W body Impala, which was classed as full size, and Malibu grew into mid size in 2008.
My Uncle’s departed father-in-law (well, my Uncle’s since gone too, though his wife my Aunt is still around) had a Lumina….kind of a sad story, we live 1700 miles away, and were up visiting them, my Aunt made a big dish of lasagne, and her Father came to eat with us…it was the last time we saw him, a few weeks later he had a diabetic shock and drove past a stop sign, both him and his Lumina were gone (unfortunately he hit someone).
My Dad covered the large sedan field pretty well, he started with an ’86 Dodge 600 which was totalled by my sister in ’89, which started him having qty-3 Sables in a row (’89, ’94, and ’96) followed by 2 Impalas (’01 and ’06)…my sister took over the ’06 after my Dad passed and then my Mom stopped driving. My favorites were the ’94 and the ’01. Chevy cost reduced them so they could offer features that might otherwise be optional, but I didn’t appreciate the tradeoffs. One issue shows up if battery goes flat…you cannot open the trunk, since there’s no longer a lock cylinder, only solenoid that won’t work if battery is totally gone. Not thinking I bought my Dad a battery booster box which naturally we kept in the trunk, but with a completely flat battery, there’s no way to access the trunk (without tools..which of course would also normally be in the trunk). No fold down rear seat on base model so can’t got that route…have to remove the seat back to get in somehow. Also, they got rid of the access panel on the floor of the trunk which allowed you to get to the top of the fuel tank without dropping it..of course, one of the evap sensors went bad, and it is on top of the tank…takes a simple job and makes you drain the tank so you can drop it (where to put the gas while working on it?). Anyhow, I’m in the minority I’m sure, but I’d rather they put in at least a lock cylinder in the trunk so you can get in even with a flat battery and forego the keyless entry…but of course that’s not possible. Otherwise a good basic roomy car kind of like the base model strippers they used to offer in full sized for those willing to go without the extras, but still wanted to buy full size.
Not sure how different the Lumina was from the Impala, but I liked his ’01 Impala, it still had some of the old school things like lock cylinders, column shift, and bench seat. The latter came in really handy when he went into a wheelchair (in 1 day after taking oral chemo)….we put a transfer board between the wheelchair and the passenger seat and had him sit on a towel which I’d pull him into the passenger seat (since there was no console in the way). Didn’t have to get him a handicap vehicle, to go to local doctor appointments, his Impala allowed us to take care of him as he developed infirmities.