10 Cars That Damaged GM's Reputation

[6 Shooter]

Popular Mechanic's Article...​

GM's current precarious situation didn't come about overnight. There are arguments to be made that various government regulations led to the disaster and that management can't escape much of the blame, and there are plenty who contend it was a series of disastrous union labor contracts that have put the company at risk. But there's one thing everyone agrees on: Over the past few decades GM put some truly terrible products out on the market. Unreliable, uninteresting and flat ugly, these were cars that simply destroyed GM's reputation. It's ironic that right now, just as it teeters near bankrupcy, GM has never had a stronger lineup of cars and trucks. From the shockingly good Chevrolet Cobalt SS, turbocharged and solid Saturn Astra, to the sweet-natured Cadillac CTS and the brilliant Chevrolet Corvette ZR1, the corporation's product portfolio is strong. But each of those cars is weighed down by the legacy of products like the ten listed here. We've arbitrarily limited ourselves to cars built since 1970 here, so don't look for the ill-fated Corvair or truly horrid 1917 Chevrolet Model D on the list.

 

[Brooklinite]

There seems to be a pattern of trying to do the right thing but rushing to market with technology that isn't quite ready. (ie Aluminum engine blocks, V 8-6-4, Diesel Olds, EV1) I really hope that the Volt doesn't get added to this list.

 

[warren s]

The “concept” that specific cars damaged GMs reputation is just plain silly. Some models may be good examples of what GM did wrong over the years, but it’s the over all lack of quality that helped to put GM on the skids. Like roofs that peel off of $75,000 Z-06s as a good example.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

GM needs to build cars like the Toyota Camry. Its as about exciting as toasted rye bread, nothing innovative, no breakthrough technology, not a particularly great looking car either – BUT a solid reliable car that doesn’t scream “Lowest cost vendor” – and keeps customers coming back for a new one every 5 years whiles its still worth a plugged nickel on a trade in.

 

[DRTH VTR]

I owned one of those Vegas. I bought it with about 10,000 miles on the clock and it already had a new engine. After a few years, it had a top-end overhaul done, largely from heat related damage. I drove it to the junkyard at about 75,000 miles when it was clear that it would need a new engine.

I think a better cooling system would have solved the major issues at the cost of a few dollars.

The only American cars that I have bought since that Vega have been my Corvettes.

 

[bill81vette]

I owned a vega,several of the chevettes as well as cavaliers,and a good number of there pick-ups.I have always found chevy's to be very dependable....

 

[killain]

The “concept” that specific cars damaged GMs reputation is just plain silly. Some models may be good examples of what GM did wrong over the years, but it’s the over all lack of quality that helped to put GM on the skids. Like roofs that peel off of $75,000 Z-06s as a good example.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

GM needs to build cars like the Toyota Camry. Its as about exciting as toasted rye bread, nothing innovative, no breakthrough technology, not a particularly great looking car either – BUT a solid reliable car that doesn’t scream “Lowest cost vendor” – and keeps customers coming back for a new one every 5 years whiles its still worth a plugged nickel on a trade in.

I don't believe that any one or any few cars ruined General Motors. If you look back further you see a heck of a lot of 'New' concepts that changed automobiles completely on their back. The Olds Ultra High compression engine, was one that set the automobile community on it's ear, Four wheel disc brakes in the C-3 corvettes had never been done before. Even further back you had the automatic headlamp dimmer not to mention all of the electronic fuel injection systems engineered into mass production by GM. There are a lot of others, BUT, nothing can change mathamatics and General Motors needs to correct, change, negotiate new contracts that are in the competitive realm of the entire business. GM pays $71 and hour for work that Nissan pays $42. THERE IS NO WAY to continue this practice and stay in business. The only thing that can be cut at this point is electricity and the steel and other materials that go into building an automobile. And we all know, if you put a weak product on the market it dies. GM has to go back and completely reorganize how it does business. You can't spend 10.00 to make 12.00, it's when you spend 2.00 to make ten that your buiness flourishes. There's a really good article at www.salon.com/automotive GM needs to fix this problem before anything else can happen, or it won't. And it's not that they can't or won't engineer good cars, it the math, just math !

 

[napacruzerC5]

Surprised that the Pontiac Fiero did not make the cut. Just as Pontiac was solving engine fires and other quality control issues GM killed it. Loved my 1985 GT. Could have been a Corvette killer if developed further otfl

 

[Red Vette]

We had a new 73 Vega and it ran perfectly for 5 years with no problems. Traded it in on a 78 LeBaron and had multiple problems; this is when Chrysler was in bad shape and used cheap parts on everything. Went back to GM products ever since and have not regretted buying GM over the years.
Barrett

 

[Yoda]

There seems to be a pattern of trying to do the right thing but rushing to market with technology that isn't quite ready. (ie Aluminum engine blocks, V 8-6-4, Diesel Olds, EV1) I really hope that the Volt doesn't get added to this list.

I can't remember the exact year(s)... but when the General used a GAS V8 as a Diesel in there pickup lineup :ugh That worked really good

It also seemed to me the General designed hidden pockets in their vehicles, and no matter how many times it was "undercoated" the fenders/doors/floor boards and frames RUSTED after a couple of years, esp. in the Pickups
(SOLUTION: Move out of the RUST BELT) otfl

Bud

 

[67vet]

My parents bought an 80 Citation. Being older they didn't drive much, but when they did they worried about the brakes and the engine stalling.
They had many trips to the dealer while it was under warranty. Never got it fixed and they traded it in on a Plymouth which wasn't much better.
They bought a Toyota Camry in the late 80's and never had any problems.
I inherited the car in 1992 and it ran great till I sold it.
Detroit could have made better average cars. Not the k car, x car etc. They scared off many buyers.

 

[GerryLP]

Am I seen it, but I can't believe it!

The EV1 was ripped from their leasing "owners" while trying to calm dow the hushed fears from oil companies believing that their end was near, and they were right to be affraid, for the unfortunate leasee's swore about their loved vehicles at the hand of GM. I believe only one of these vehicles was actualy sold to an owner, and that EV1 was the only one that did not meet it's eventual sacrifice.

Now it is being blamed for GM's predicament. I find it hard to believe my ears!

The fact of the matter is that these days no die hard pro corporate business is complaining about government interferance with the business market. Who knew?

 

[njlouc]

Why:
1. Did it take so long to come out with the HHR?? When it came out it was old news.
2. Didnt GM produce the new camaro on the old camaro frame? Development would have been very fast.
BTW i had a 1992 Chev. Corsica It was a company car. I would never have bought one, however in the 35000 mi. that i had it, it was amazing rugged and reliable.

 

[vett boy]

The problems we're design and engineering issues .Toyota engineers we're /are smarter.Most of the imports everyone rave about have little or no engineering done in the USA .

Yes ,it true and it hurts .( Someone mention Yugo now )