An Artifact From a Grim Era in Detroit’s Showrooms

[cpzilliacus]

N.Y. Times: An Artifact From a Grim Era in Detroit's Showrooms

"This was the car that started the decline,"  Alan Spiegel said, turning his beige Chevrolet Citation into the parking lot of the Bridge View Tavern, a restaurant that, he promised, served the best burgers in Westchester County.

The Citation and its General Motors siblings, Mr. Spiegel suggested, epitomized the ills of American car manufacturing in the 1980s – and the model's ultimate failure opened a path for the success of Japanese brands that are today's top sellers.

Mr. Spiegel's culinary judgment would prove spot on. His theory about the role this particular model played in the history of the auto industry required a bit more explanation, however, starting with a review of events that took place in this neighborhood.

From the foot of Beekman Avenue in Sleepy Hollow, a suburb 25 miles north of New York City, the view stretches across a sprawling empty lot on the east bank of the Hudson River, immediately north of the Tappan Zee Bridge. The 99-acre site was once occupied by the General Motors North Tarrytown Assembly plant.

The factory, which built Chevrolets and other G.M. vehicles for 81 years, closed in 1996 and was razed by 2000. Its crumbling concrete foundation remains an eyesore in an otherwise picturesque setting.

[PHLBOS]

The main issue w/those X-bodies were that they were rushed into production when gas prices soared and long gas lines returned in early 1979 before things on those cars were fully tested and sorted out.  I remember Ralph Nader criticizing those cars a week before they first went on sale.

The cars were originally planned to roll out in the fall of 1978 as '79 models (Popular Science listed such) but GM decided to post-pone the roll-out by a year (fall of '79 as '80 models) and would have done so had the crap not hit the fan regarding the fore-mentioned gas price skyrocketing and long gas lines.

Truth be told and IMHO, they weren't really bad cars in terms of room, ride and ergonomics; my personal favorite X-body stylewise was the Chevy Citation 2-door Club (notchback) coupe.  Sadly, these cars were simply done in by multiple workmanship & reliability issues along with dealership service shops giving customers the run-around (note: this was back when dealerships only sold no more than one or two new car brands under one roof).  I knew many people that went to import brands after purchasing these cars.

GM finally got most if not all the bugs fixed on their '84 and '85 X-bodies (Chevy renamed their model Citation II for that reason); but the buying public, by then, were already soured by these cars and wanted nothing more to do with them.  It is worth noting that the basic X-car platform (w/a longer body) and underpinnings lived on as GM's FWD mid-size A-bodies and ran through the 1996 model year.  Unlike their X-body bretheren; the A-bodies were a lot more reliable... especially models made after 1985.

The FWD N-bodies, originally planned to replace the RWD mid-size personal coupes (Monte Carlo/Grand Prix/Regal/Custlass Supreme) launched in 1985, wound up replacing the X-bodies instead.  N-body sedans rolled out for the 1986 model year.

To this day, I have to ask what was Chevy smoking when they named their X-car after an Edsel?  The other divisions simply carried over their previous compact names.

[Brandon]

Yet again, the New York Times proves it knows nothing of Detroit or the auto industry.

GM's decline started well before the X bodies.  Does the Vega ring a bell?  How about the blurring of the divisions that started back in the 1950s?

[agentsteel53]

How about the blurring of the divisions that started back in the 1950s?

when was the first badge-engineered car?  same body, mild trim differences, different make.

[formulanone]

Probably not long after these once-independent automobile companies "merged" under the same corporate umbrella. But I guess post-WWII, when the positioning of the brands in a tiered structure (entry-level, mid-market, performance, luxury) really took off.

[corco]

My guess would be the Chrysler/DeSoto Airflow in the 30s, not counting pickups and vans

[Takumi]

This commercial didn't help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PvBZIFa-aQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[algorerhythms]

I like the part where they're towing a boat trailer right above the text saying "DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS."

edit-- I didn't notice until the second time watching it that there were no rear tires on that car. Which makes their demonstration even worse, because you have to be watching for that detail to notice it...

[Stephane Dumas]

Yet again, the New York Times proves it knows nothing of Detroit or the auto industry.

GM's decline started well before the X bodies.  Does the Vega ring a bell?  How about the blurring of the divisions that started back in the 1950s?

Others said it was back when Ralph Nader attacked GM about the Corvair.

[PHLBOS]

Probably not long after these once-independent automobile companies "merged" under the same corporate umbrella. But I guess post-WWII, when the positioning of the brands in a tiered structure (entry-level, mid-market, performance, luxury) really took off.

It is worth noting that up until the downsizing that took place in the late-70s; the badge-engineered full-sizes featured different wheelbases (& lengths) for each make.  Among the B-bodies, Chevy was typically the shortest (base size) with Pontiac, Oldmobile & Buicks all being slightly larger.  So one going to a more pricier make usually meant one was getting a slightly bigger car in the same size class.

Such also came into play back when several state police agencies required minimum wheelbase & weight standards for their patrol cars.  Which explains why there were indeed police packages offered for Mercurys (they were larger than Fords) , Buicks, Dodges (they were larger than Plymouths) & Oldsmobiles back then.

GM's decline started well before the X bodies.  Does the Vega ring a bell?  How about the blurring of the divisions that started back in the 1950s?

Others said it was back when Ralph Nader attacked GM about the Corvair.

In the 60s, Chevy's bust car was indeed the Corvair,
in the 70s, it was the Vega and
in the 80s, it was the Citation.

While one could say that the Dustbuster-nose-shaped Lumina APV and its counterparts and Pontaic's Aztec were GM's bust vehicles of the 90s & 2000s respectively; those were hated more due to styling rather than performance and/or reliability. 

While the Aztec was a sales disaster, it's more sensibly-styled Buick Rendezvous cousin was one of the first cross-overs (aka CUV) that had some success in the automotive market.

[agentsteel53]

This commercial didn't help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PvBZIFa-aQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

what's so bad about it?  sure, it has dated production values that scream "holy shit 1979" but... well, it is from 1979.  I can think of dozens of commercials from my childhood (late 80s) that were just as cringe-inducing, so maybe that one is just ahead of its time?

[Takumi]

That song has been stuck in my head all day.

chevyciTAAAAAAAAAAAAA-tion!

[Takumi]

But seriously, the ad says "hey, we're going to shos you several reasons this car is awesome and the way of thr future!" and then the car became a giant flop.

[corco]

My Mom had a 91 Olds Silhouette dustbuster when i was growing up- that was actually a great car. She really liked the modular seats that were really easy to put in and take out- far easier than the big benches in the Aerostar and Chrysler vans. They were weird looking, but for my money they were the best minivans available at the time.

[cpzilliacus]

Does the Vega ring a bell?

Yeah, the Vega was conspicuous by its absence.

As bad as the Citation was, the Vega, with its self-melting engine and rust-prone body was much, much worse. 

About the only nice thing I can say about the Vega is that I learned to drive a car with standard transmission and clutch in a Vega (it was a four-on-the-floor transmission).   At the time, the public schools in Maryland offered driver education (they no longer do), and would usually get slow-selling demonstrator cars from nearby auto dealerships for on-the-road driving lessons.  In retrospect, I  think that even back then (1974), cars with manual trannies were relatively slow sellers at "American" car dealerships. Most of the kids in my class wanted nothing to do with driving a standard transmission, so it was me and one or maybe two other students that learned the tricks of driving one, and as a result, we got more on-the-road driving time, including a fair number of miles on the Capital Beltway.

[cpzilliacus]

That song has been stuck in my head all day.

chevyciTAAAAAAAAAAAAA-tion!

Yeah, I remember that from the early 1980's.  I think at the time, Chevrolet spent a lot of money sponsoring NFL football, including this commercial.

[briantroutman]

Yet again, the New York Times proves it knows nothing ...GM's decline started well before the X bodies.

That's true, but in fairness to the Times, it was the interviewee who was claiming that the X bodies were the beginning of GM's downfall.

What I think is true, though, is that between the X cars and the Oldsmobile diesels, which came out around the same time, the early '80s marked the point at which widespread conventional wisdom turned decidedly against GM. It seems that, before about 1980, many people shrugged off a problematic car like the Vega and either dismissed it as a fluke or wrote it off as "...they all do that". But after a bad experience with either a Citation or diesel Olds (or maybe a Cimarron or the V8-6-4 engine) many GM owners woke up–like a person who's been trapped in an abusive marriage for years. And suddenly a Datsun or Toyota didn't seem like a car solely for Nader-loving commies.

I've heard more stories of loyal GMers who owned a Citation or the like, hated it with intense passion, and bought an '83 Accord which became the first of many Hondas.

In my opinion, GM should get a certain amount of credit for at least being somewhat forward-thinking with the FWD X car, even if the concept failed miserably in execution. At least the rough idea was modern for its day: front-wheel drive, transverse engine, available three- and five-door hatch... In the compact/mid-size class, GM was two years ahead of Chrysler, three years ahead of Nissan and Toyota, and four years ahead of Ford.

Of course I'd rather drive any of those latecomers over the Citation, but at least at least looked like GM was retreating from the "We don't have to try. We're General Motors." attitudes of the '70s.

[formulanone]

Sometime in 1979, Car & Driver declared it to be one of the most important cars Detroit would produce. They admit profusely that they'd really dropped the ball on that claim to this day.

So when the press messes up in their premature declarations, they then exacerbate a failure/mis-step/error by calling something a "flop" because it didn't meet their  misinformed and/or lofty standards. But at least, C&D's somewhat apologetic about their claims (then again, most automotive journalists show disdain for the previously-heralded outgoing models, but only after they've been consigned to production history, unless the new model is hugely disappointing).

[PHLBOS]

Sometime in 1979, Car & Driver declared it to be one of the most important cars Detroit would produce. They admit profusely that they'd really dropped the ball on that claim to this day.

So when the press messes up in their premature declarations, they then exacerbate a failure/mis-step/error by calling something a "flop" because it didn't meet their  misinformed and/or lofty standards. But at least, C&D's somewhat apologetic about their claims (then again, most automotive journalists show disdain for the previously-heralded outgoing models, but only after they've been consigned to production history, unless the new model is hugely disappointing).

Your link correctly makes reference to GM's X-body (the Chevy Citation) being Motor Trend's 1980 Car of the Year.  A few years later in their Used Car review article, they listed the X-body as one of their worst with the comment, "The most recalled cars in history, need we say more?"  A writer wrote back and reminded them that they gave the COTY award to this car a few years earlier and MT, back then, responded w/a snide comment, "Many thought Richard Nixon was a great president as well."

Long story short, just because automotive and even consumer magazine(s) give a new car a glowing review or award; doesn't necessarily mean it will be a good vehicle long-term.

[Henry]

The same can be said for NBC, the once-mighty TV network that hasn't been the same since its Must-See TV days of the 1980s and 90s.

[bugo]

The Vega was the car that started the decline, not the Citation.

[bugo]

The Edsel was a good car.

[bugo]

The Cimarron wasn't a bad car, it was just not a Caddy.

[Brandon]

The Vega was the car that started the decline, not the Citation.

The Cimarron wasn't a bad car, it was just not a Caddy.

If you look at the decline in market share for GM, Ford, and Chrysler, it becomes very obvious that the "decline of Detroit" is very much the decline of GM.  Ford's share is only a little smaller, and Chrysler, of all things, is damn near the same.  It's really GM that fell, and hard, with vehicles like the Vega and Cimmaron, and more to the point, a crappy dealer system.  Dealers seem to play a huge role in how a brand is perceived, and there's far too many shitty ones.

The Edsel was a good car.

But it was poorly marketed, and it came out at the wrong time (on the eve of a recession - the same one that would kill a similarly positioned brand, DeSoto).

[US71]

I like the part where they're towing a boat trailer right above the text saying "DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS."

I've always wondered how many people attempt what's on the TV? Or maybe that's why we have "Jackass"