The Sorry State of Affairs in Automobilia in the 1970s, 80s and 90s

[Max Rockatansky]

What was worse to me was that Pontiac started to turn it around a short time after the disaster of the Aztec but got the axe anyways.  The GTO while just a rebadged Holden was unique in the GM lineup but more so was the Solstice before Saturn got it's own variant.  Had I been kick for the day I would have picked Pontiac to save over Buick, but the latter was much better shape as a division. 

Has anyone else ever thought GM could have saved all the divisions if they just had fewer models per division (and therefore less re-badging)?  Same for Ford and Chrysler.

The problem was that it was never in the business model of GM not to platform share, even back in the heydays of the 1960s.  All the effort that went into developing fuel economy and emissions technologies had to be spread to each division during the 1970s and 1980s.  If anything GM should have started consolidating brands as early as the 1980s when it first became apparent that most of the brands were redundant.  As different as the GTO and Kappa Cars were they didn't sell not had good enough margins to justify their existence over something like trucks or Buick. 

[D-Dey65]

If anything GM should have started consolidating brands as early as the 1980s when it first became apparent that most of the brands were redundant.

GM was actually doing a lot of consolidating since the 1980s though.

-1980, the GMC Truck and Motor Coach Division stopped selling the Intercity Coach Buses.
-1987, GM sells all their heavy trucks to Volvo, and Rapid Transit Series and Classic Buses to MCI.
-1990, they started making Saturns.
-2003, they stopped making school buses.
-2004, they stopped making Oldsmobiles, but also sold off the Electro-Motive Diesel trains.
-2009, they stopped making medium-duty trucks (Remember when GMC's slogan was "The Truck People from General Motors?")
-2010, they stopped making Pontiacs and rebadged Isuzu truck, and failed to sell Saturn to Penske.


There have been people who say that "as GM goes, so goes the country." The White Stripes once had a song called "The Big Three Killed My Baby." I say the Big Three killed themselves.

[Max Rockatansky]

If anything GM should have started consolidating brands as early as the 1980s when it first became apparent that most of the brands were redundant.

GM was actually doing a lot of consolidating since the 1980s though.

-1980, the GMC Truck and Motor Coach Division stopped selling the Intercity Coach Buses.
-1987, GM sells all their heavy trucks to Volvo, and Rapid Transit Series and Classic Buses to MCI.
-1990, they started making Saturns.
-2003, they stopped making school buses.
-2004, they stopped making Oldsmobiles, but also sold off the Electro-Motive Diesel trains.
-2009, they stopped making medium-duty trucks (Remember when GMC's slogan was "The Truck People from General Motors?")
-2010, they stopped making Pontiacs and rebadged Isuzu truck, and failed to sell Saturn to Penske.


There have been people who say that "as GM goes, so goes the country." The White Stripes once had a song called "The Big Three Killed My Baby." I say the Big Three killed themselves.

But brands didn't start disappearing largely until the 2000s.  Once divisions didn't have their own engines anymore what was the point of rebadging platform-mate cars?  There was hardly a difference between say a Lumina versus a Grand Prix.  That whole progression of starting at a Chevy and working up to a Cadillac didn't mean a damn thing when all the cars shared engines on the same platform. 

[RobbieL2415]

The GM G-Bodies has some niece (IMO) aero packages too like the Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix 2+2.  I really wanted the Monte Carlo SS in particular since it really did resemble a stock car, the T-Bird has the same vibe.

Apparently the Grand Prix 2+2's aeroback was very poorly done, even worse than an ASC convertible conversion from the late '70s-mid '80s.

Pontiac lost all credibility as a GM marque when they started making their version of the Chevette, the 1000.

Pontiac got their version of the Chevette earlier in Canada with the Acadian. http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1980-Pontiac-Acadian-Brochure/index.html

Same with the Vega version, the Astre. http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1973%20Pontiac%20Astre%20Brochure/index.html

IMHO, the 2001 Aztek was a clue that Pontiac lost all credibility as a GM marque. Remember, the offerings from all the other divisions were inspired by Chevy in one way or another, and still are today.

In a similar vein, Cadillac lost its own credibility as a GM marque with the 1982 Cimarron. At least it got away with making the 1975 Seville look very different from the Nova and its related counterparts, which is remarkable in its own unique way.

I think it was earlier than that.  Like when they made the Montana (Chevy Venture).

One could also argue the end of GM originality came with the formation of NUMI and the Geo marque.

They should have just called those cars the Chevy Camry and Chevy Corolla.  They're exactly the same.

[Henry]

If anything GM should have started consolidating brands as early as the 1980s when it first became apparent that most of the brands were redundant.

GM was actually doing a lot of consolidating since the 1980s though.

-1980, the GMC Truck and Motor Coach Division stopped selling the Intercity Coach Buses.
-1987, GM sells all their heavy trucks to Volvo, and Rapid Transit Series and Classic Buses to MCI.
-1990, they started making Saturns.
-2003, they stopped making school buses.
-2004, they stopped making Oldsmobiles, but also sold off the Electro-Motive Diesel trains.
-2009, they stopped making medium-duty trucks (Remember when GMC's slogan was "The Truck People from General Motors?")
-2010, they stopped making Pontiacs and rebadged Isuzu truck, and failed to sell Saturn to Penske.


There have been people who say that "as GM goes, so goes the country." The White Stripes once had a song called "The Big Three Killed My Baby." I say the Big Three killed themselves.

Chrysler had this exact same problem too, especially from the early 1970s to 2000, when Dodges and Plymouths looked exactly alike, cosmetic changes aside. Its business model was very backwards, as although Dodge was supposed to be the entry-level brand (a la Ford and Chevy), Plymouth was actually cheaper and less sporty as well. And the namesake division was an extremely cheap competitor to Cadillac (and to some extent, Lincoln), which didn't bode well at all for its image. The one thing that saved Chrysler from total extinction was the acquisition of bankrupt AMC, as Jeep has now become its strongest asset. As Eagle was too similar to Plymouth, it was mercifully dropped in 1998. FWIW, the Prowler and Voyager should've ended production when their brand did instead of being rebadged as Chryslers, which further damaged their new brand's reputation as a luxury marque. However, it was a stroke of genius to remake the erstwhile Dodge Ram into its own brand, so there you go.

[Tonytone]

Anyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90's do not last at all.

It seems any used vehicle in the 90's transmission is completely trashed. This is also true for 90-2003 but 2000's is not listed.

If the vehicle is not a Honda or Toyota it will not be drivable today

The most infamous for this is a 1997 Ford F150 & anything Chrysler. I noticed Acura TL from this time also had transmission issues which I believe is due to the heavy body.


iPhone

[ErmineNotyours]

My first car was a 1996 Ford Focus Escort that I bought in 1998.  It died in traffic in 2007.  I had it towed to my mechanic, and he refused to fix it.  He said it was totaled and that these Ford Focuses (Foci?) Escorts don't last long.  I kept my eye out and saw at least one or two of the cars still on the road for about a year after.

This was just a few months after I had him replace all the burnt out lights behind the dash, which required the removal and reattachment of the speedometer cable, at no little expense.  After this, it whined whenever I went over 60 in cold weather.  I was worried about dealing with that again next winter, but it was not a problem.  Previously, I replaced the alternator and replaced the catalytic converter.  (It did not convert my car into a Cadillac.)  I expected to keep it for a while.

Edit: Whoops, my second car was a 2001 Ford Focus.

[RobbieL2415]

If anything GM should have started consolidating brands as early as the 1980s when it first became apparent that most of the brands were redundant.

GM was actually doing a lot of consolidating since the 1980s though.

-1980, the GMC Truck and Motor Coach Division stopped selling the Intercity Coach Buses.
-1987, GM sells all their heavy trucks to Volvo, and Rapid Transit Series and Classic Buses to MCI.
-1990, they started making Saturns.
-2003, they stopped making school buses.
-2004, they stopped making Oldsmobiles, but also sold off the Electro-Motive Diesel trains.
-2009, they stopped making medium-duty trucks (Remember when GMC's slogan was "The Truck People from General Motors?")
-2010, they stopped making Pontiacs and rebadged Isuzu truck, and failed to sell Saturn to Penske.


There have been people who say that "as GM goes, so goes the country." The White Stripes once had a song called "The Big Three Killed My Baby." I say the Big Three killed themselves.

Chrysler had this exact same problem too, especially from the early 1970s to 2000, when Dodges and Plymouths looked exactly alike, cosmetic changes aside. Its business model was very backwards, as although Dodge was supposed to be the entry-level brand (a la Ford and Chevy), Plymouth was actually cheaper and less sporty as well. And the namesake division was an extremely cheap competitor to Cadillac (and to some extent, Lincoln), which didn't bode well at all for its image. The one thing that saved Chrysler from total extinction was the acquisition of bankrupt AMC, as Jeep has now become its strongest asset. As Eagle was too similar to Plymouth, it was mercifully dropped in 1998. FWIW, the Prowler and Voyager should've ended production when their brand did instead of being rebadged as Chryslers, which further damaged their new brand's reputation as a luxury marque. However, it was a stroke of genius to remake the erstwhile Dodge Ram into its own brand, so there you go.

2001: Last model year for any car to have a three speed automatic transmission (Cavalier)
2008: Analog OnStar service ends.
2009: Kills off Hummer.
2010: Kills off all remaining 4-speed automatics.
2010: Production of the F35 manual transmission ends, the last m/t made by GM, though they didn't make many in-house.
2011: Kills off Saab.  Auto brand is sold to a Chinese company.  Saab Jets is still going strong.
Early 2010s: phases out the last of it's V6 engines.
Late 2010s: kills off every passenger sedan stateside.

[Tonytone]

My first car was a 1996 Ford Focus Escort that I bought in 1998.  It died in traffic in 2007.  I had it towed to my mechanic, and he refused to fix it.  He said it was totaled and that these Ford Focuses (Foci?) Escorts don't last long.  I kept my eye out and saw at least one or two of the cars still on the road for about a year after.

This was just a few months after I had him replace all the burnt out lights behind the dash, which required the removal and reattachment of the speedometer cable, at no little expense.  After this, it whined whenever I went over 60 in cold weather.  I was worried about dealing with that again next winter, but it was not a problem.  Previously, I replaced the alternator and replaced the catalytic converter.  (It did not convert my car into a Cadillac.)  I expected to keep it for a while.

Edit: Whoops, my second car was a 2001 Ford Focus.

Yea sedans aint exactly Fords strong suit. But god damn that car lasted a while did you drive alot or get regular maintenance on everything?


I know some vehicles can withstand the test of time when others cant.


iPhone

[J N Winkler]

Anyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90's do not last at all.

It seems any used vehicle in the 90's transmission is completely trashed. This is also true for 90-2003 but 2000's is not listed.

I have never heard of such a correlation.  What I do know is that the ATFs of the time were based on Dexron II/III, which shears down rapidly if it is formulated out of conventional ("dino") basestocks.  Once the viscosity goes down, shifts start to bang and wear goes way, way up.  Some manufacturers recommended ATF drains and fills for their models, but many did not, and owners frequently skip this service anyway since they don't understand the need for it.

If the vehicle is not a Honda or Toyota it will not be drivable today

It really depends on design and maintenance.  I have a 1994 Saturn with an automatic transmission that is considered pretty unforgiving of neglect.  The factory requires a drain and fill with Saturn ATF (conventional, based on Dexron II with a friction modifier) every 30,000 miles, and one service had been skipped by the time it fell into my hands.  I drained and filled the transmission with Castrol TranSynd (Amsoil Torque-Drive is spectographically identical and works too) and shifts are still well-timed and butter-smooth at about 160,000 miles.  I get well-modulated shifts even if I have the throttle pedal almost all the way to the floor.  Because TranSynd is a synthetic ATF and extremely shear-stable, it is effectively lifetime fill.

[RobbieL2415]

Anyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90's do not last at all.

It seems any used vehicle in the 90's transmission is completely trashed. This is also true for 90-2003 but 2000's is not listed.

I have never heard of such a correlation.  What I do know is that the ATFs of the time were based on Dexron II/III, which shears down rapidly if it is formulated out of conventional ("dino") basestocks.  Once the viscosity goes down, shifts start to bang and wear goes way, way up.  Some manufacturers recommended ATF drains and fills for their models, but many did not, and owners frequently skip this service anyway since they don't understand the need for it.

If the vehicle is not a Honda or Toyota it will not be drivable today

It really depends on design and maintenance.  I have a 1994 Saturn with an automatic transmission that is considered pretty unforgiving of neglect.  The factory requires a drain and fill with Saturn ATF (conventional, based on Dexron II with a friction modifier) every 30,000 miles, and one service had been skipped by the time it fell into my hands.  I drained and filled the transmission with Castrol TranSynd (Amsoil Torque-Drive is spectographically identical and works too) and shifts are still well-timed and butter-smooth at about 160,000 miles.  I get well-modulated shifts even if I have the throttle pedal almost all the way to the floor.  Because TranSynd is a synthetic ATF and extremely shear-stable, it is effectively lifetime fill.

The second gen H bodies are notoriously long-lasting.
N bodies arguably have the worst powertrain options.

[GCrites]

Anyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90’s do not last at all.

It seems any used vehicle in the 90’s transmission is completely trashed. This is also true for 90-2003 but 2000’s is not listed.

If the vehicle is not a Honda or Toyota it will not be drivable today

The most infamous for this is a 1997 Ford F150 & anything Chrysler. I noticed Acura TL from this time also had transmission issues which I believe is due to the heavy body.


iPhone

The '90s and 2000s were also peak times for timing belts, which had a burdensome service interval that many low-income and unsympathetic owners skipped. Many a car was scrapped as the timing belt failed and the pistons immediately collided with the valves, turning a skipped $mid-three digit maintenance bill into a $four-digit engine rebuild. It was more of a small car thing than a big sedan or truck thing though as many of those stayed with timing chains. Some manufacturers still managed to screw up chains even with crummy guides, followers and bogey wheels in this era.

[D-Dey65]

Whether or not you like the Pontiac Fieros, this is bad news for collectors:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/fieros-forever-giving-away-tools-and-rare-pontiac-parts-after-flood-ruins-shop/ar-BB14IC5z?ocid=spartan-dhp-feeds

[bugo]

Chrysler had this exact same problem too, especially from the early 1970s to 2000, when Dodges and Plymouths looked exactly alike, cosmetic changes aside. Its business model was very backwards, as although Dodge was supposed to be the entry-level brand (a la Ford and Chevy), Plymouth was actually cheaper and less sporty as well. And the namesake division was an extremely cheap competitor to Cadillac (and to some extent, Lincoln), which didn't bode well at all for its image. The one thing that saved Chrysler from total extinction was the acquisition of bankrupt AMC, as Jeep has now become its strongest asset. As Eagle was too similar to Plymouth, it was mercifully dropped in 1998. FWIW, the Prowler and Voyager should've ended production when their brand did instead of being rebadged as Chryslers, which further damaged their new brand's reputation as a luxury marque. However, it was a stroke of genius to remake the erstwhile Dodge Ram into its own brand, so there you go.

Plymouth was introduced in 1928 as Chrysler's low priced marque, which position it held until it was discontinued in 2001. Dodge was a medium priced make. Later on, Dodge became Chrysler's "sporty" division, similar to Pontiac. The classic Chrysler ladder from 1955-1961 was Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler and Imperial. Plymouth competed with Chevrolet and Ford, Dodge competed with Pontiac and low-end Mercury, DeSoto competed with Buick and higher end Mercury, Chrysler competed with Buick and Edsel and Imperial competed with Cadillac and Lincoln.

[bugo]

2010: Kills off all remaining 4-speed automatics.

The 2011 Chevrolet HHR had a 4 speed automatic.

[Stephane Dumas]

2010: Kills off all remaining 4-speed automatics.

The 2011 Chevrolet HHR had a 4 speed automatic.

And Toyota had kept a 4-speed automatic in the 2009 Corolla.

[Henry]

I think you forgot something here...

Plymouth was introduced in 1928 as Chrysler's low priced marque, which position it held until it was discontinued in 2001. Dodge was a medium priced make. Later on, Dodge became Chrysler's "sporty" division, similar to Pontiac. The classic Chrysler ladder from 1955-1961 was Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler and Imperial. Plymouth competed with Chevrolet and Ford, Dodge competed with Pontiac and low-end Mercury, DeSoto competed with Buick, Oldsmobile and higher end Mercury, Chrysler competed with Oldsmobile, Buick and Edsel and Imperial competed with Cadillac and Lincoln.

Otherwise, you hit it right on the nose.

[GCrites]

2010: Kills off all remaining 4-speed automatics.

The 2011 Chevrolet HHR had a 4 speed automatic.

My 2012 Colorado has a 4-speed automatic.

[CoreySamson]

2009: Kills off Hummer.

GM is reviving Hummer as a EV subbrand of GMC. I believe the new Hummer was supposed to be revealed by now, but then corona happened.

[Ned Weasel]

I once took on the challenge of drawing my dream car, so I took inspiration from the mid-90s Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera and made it more aerodynamic and intended it as something that could be all-electric or a plug-in-electric hybrid.

I called it the "OC," for lack of a better name.  It's also the icon I'm using on the forum these days.

[DJStephens]

Anyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90's do not last at all.

It seems any used vehicle in the 90's transmission is completely trashed.

Hmm. I have two early nineties Buicks.  But both have the more durable three speed THM 125 versus later four speed autos.   Both have the more durable Buick V-6 versus the later weaker 60 degree V-6.  They both still run and are drivable.   

[RobbieL2415]

Anyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90's do not last at all.

It seems any used vehicle in the 90's transmission is completely trashed.

Hmm. I have two early nineties Buicks.  But both have the more durable three speed THM 125 versus later four speed autos.   Both have the more durable Buick V-6 versus the later weaker 60 degree V-6.  They both still run and are drivable.

Yuk. Three speed auto boxes.

[Tonytone]

Anyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90's do not last at all.

It seems any used vehicle in the 90's transmission is completely trashed.

Hmm. I have two early nineties Buicks.  But both have the more durable three speed THM 125 versus later four speed autos.   Both have the more durable Buick V-6 versus the later weaker 60 degree V-6.  They both still run and are drivable.

It seems to be more of a late 90's issue or different use of cheaper material.

Also it could be how well the person took care of the car.

But my god the amount of destroyed transmissions on 98-2000 cars ive seen is amazing. There are more cars from the 80s running.


iPhone

[Takumi]

Anyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90's do not last at all.

It seems any used vehicle in the 90's transmission is completely trashed.

Hmm. I have two early nineties Buicks.  But both have the more durable three speed THM 125 versus later four speed autos.   Both have the more durable Buick V-6 versus the later weaker 60 degree V-6.  They both still run and are drivable.

It seems to be more of a late 90's issue or different use of cheaper material.

Also it could be how well the person took care of the car.

But my god the amount of destroyed transmissions on 98-2000 cars ive seen is amazing. There are more cars from the 80s running.

In some cases, the engines were mated to transmissions that weren't able to handle their power output. In the case of turn of the century Hondas, they had introduced a manual shift mode for many of their automatic cars, mainly V6s, but a bad internal design caused them to fail prematurely when said mode was used.

[Stephane Dumas]

Should we said goodbye to Mitsubishi soon?
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/06/mitsubishi-in-america-slow-fade-out-ahead/

Mitsubishi watched as its U.S. and Canadian volumes rose steadily over the past several years – growth hampered by a limited product lineup and so-so vehicle quality. Still, it was growth, and Mitsu made sure to celebrate each year-over-year sales increase.

Well, that was then, and this is now. As a member of an alliance dominated by Renault and Nissan and hit hard, like many others, by the coronavirus pandemic, the future holds a different strategy for the Japanese automaker. For the U.S., it also seems to hold fewer Mitsubishis.

Previously, Mitsu targeted North America and China for its future growth. Now, with its alliance partners insisting on a concerted, collective effort in which each member capitalizes on individual strengths in a limited number of markets, Mitsu now plans to abandon its previous growth plan.

In a shareholders meeting last week (reported on by Automotive News), the automaker's CEO, Takao Kato, announced a turn away from North America and China. The company's focus will now be on Southeast Asia and Pacific nations.