Six Cars General Motors Didn't Need to Build

[Rusty_OToole]

What do the actual statistics say about early Corvair crashes?

The US government investigated the Corvair in the early seventies. They not only analyzed all available accident statistics, they had a team of engineers test them on the skid pad and race track.

The report came out in 1972, and proved that the Corvair was not a dangerous car and in fact was slightly above average in its safety record.

Of course the report was quickly buried and forgotten. You might be able to find it on the net but I doubt it. I do remember that it came out in 1972.

Later. I found this news item about the report

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-government-study-disputes-naders-charges-against-corvair

From Wikipedia:

A 1972 safety commission report conducted by Texas A&M University concluded that the 1960–1963 Corvair possessed no greater potential for loss of control than its contemporary competitors in extreme situations.[25] The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a press release in 1972 describing the findings of NHTSA testing from the previous year. NHTSA had conducted a series of comparative tests in 1971 studying the handling of the 1963 Corvair and four contemporary cars—a Ford Falcon, Plymouth Valiant, Volkswagen Beetle, and Renault Dauphine—along with a second-generation Corvair (with its completely redesigned, independent rear suspension). The 143-page report reviewed NHTSA's extreme-condition handling tests, national crash-involvement data for the cars in the test as well as General Motors' internal documentation regarding the Corvair's handling.[1] NHTSA went on to contract an independent advisory panel of engineers to review the tests. This review panel concluded that "the 1960–63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests...the handling and stability performance of the 1960–63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic."

Ralph Nader, who is not an engineer, denounced the report (which he had demanded be done in the first place) as "a shoddy, internally contradictory whitewash".

Edited March 27, 2014 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Restorer32]

And not just GM. I lost a friend, a serious Mopar guy, when out of frustration I remarked that Chrysler deserved to go bankrupt (the first time) for making the K car. The car was so bad I can't even remember exactly what it was, a cute little station wagon that was nothing but trouble.

[Guest my3buicks]

The Geo line were actually rather dependable cars - Look how many Trackers you still see on the road today, you even still see a lot of Metro's. Storms didn't sell in great numbers so you don't see them often now. Prisms are still all over the place as well. None of these cars were GM built, they were all in cooperation with other manufacturers, Toyota, Suzuki, etc.

[avgwarhawk]

And not just GM. I lost a friend, a serious Mopar guy, when out of frustration I remarked that Chrysler deserved to go bankrupt (the first time) for making the K car. The car was so bad I can't even remember exactly what it was, a cute little station wagon that was nothing but trouble.

K car was a mess.

The Geo line were actually rather dependable cars - Look how many Trackers you still see on the road today, you even still see a lot of Metro's. Storms didn't sell in great numbers so you don't see them often now. Prisms are still all over the place as well. None of these cars were GM built, they were all in cooperation with other manufacturers, Toyota, Suzuki, etc.

Yes sir. GEO was ok. Not sure why they disappeared. Perhaps not selling in any numbers?

[Guest my3buicks]

I think their main purpose Chris was to get people into the Chevy dealership that were looking for small cars - once that happened they morphed the cars back into Chevy small cars that you see today.

[avgwarhawk]

I think their main purpose Chris was to get people into the Chevy dealership that were looking for small cars - once that happened they morphed the cars back into Chevy small cars that you see today.

I tell you what got me into the dealership. It was a new 88 Monte Carlo that I purchased in 88. Pile of used parts really. Within a week the car, with 38 miles, was back at the dealers for a pinion gear/yoke replacement. It was all down hill from them. Never purchased a GM since(other than the 54 Buick). In 1993 after numerous repairs to the Chevy(blown valve seals twice, yoke/pinion gear, speedo cable, check engine light, new ECM, clean out the EGR/intake of coke and shutting off at random, a bad vibration they could not find and fix until 18k miles later...a stupid unbalanced drum from the factory) I turned it in on a new 93 GEO Storm. The Chevy at just over 38K miles. Mightmare it was. I did not want anything Chevy from then on. Still don't. I'll purchase a Buick all day though.

Edited March 27, 2014 by avgwarhawk (see edit history)

[Bleach]

That's an urban myth. The plugs were a booger to change, but you didn't have to pull the engine. Removing the mount bolts and rocking the engine to one side did make it easier

That was on the '75 Monza with 350 V8. We didn't even bother to do that. We cut a neat little hole in the fender well on the side of the plug and then made a little plate of sheet metal to attach over the hole. That way when it returned to our shop for a tune up again, we could easily access that plug.

[Dave@Moon]

The Geo line were actually rather dependable cars - Look how many Trackers you still see on the road today, you even still see a lot of Metro's. Storms didn't sell in great numbers so you don't see them often now. Prisms are still all over the place as well. None of these cars were GM built, they were all in cooperation with other manufacturers, Toyota, Suzuki, etc.

"Not GM built" is debatable. Isuzu built the Geo Storm, which at the time was 49% owned by GM. The Tracker and Metro were built by Suzuki, which was 5% GM owned at the time. The Geo Prizm (ne Chevy Nova, ne Chevy Prizm) was a Toyota Corolla derivative built along with Corollas at the NUMMI plant in Fremont, California, a joint venture with Toyota. After the Prizm was cancelled the Pontiac Vibe was built there for a while alongside more Corollas and Toyota Matrixs. GM pulled out in 2009 (when Pontiac died), and Toyota closed the plant in 2010. Part of the plant is used to build Tesla cars today.

[Dave@Moon]

K car was a mess.

...that saved the company for the next 30 years. They weren't a bed of roses, but they were steps in the right direction.

[PONTIAC1953]

"People might take these critiques too seriously and too personally. Look at it this way: the worst car ever built is still a car -- will still likely take you from A to B, still has interesting features, still has appeal on multiple levels, especially for collectors."

Optimist. You probably aren't familiar with the Pontiac Firenza, a GM product of the seventies that gets my vote for the worst car ever made. It is the only car I ever heard of that had an owner's club formed specifically to seek redress from the manufacturer. They once staged a protest rally in Toronto that ended in a parade to GM headquarters in Oshawa, 30 miles away. Less than half the cars made it. Most of them broke down on the way, and 4 caught fire.

I nominate it as a car that has no interesting features, no loyal owners, no appeal to anyone on any level, and no collector interest.

By the way this is the first Pontiac Firenza, which was a Vauxhall product made by GM in England. Later they used the name on a J car which was merely boring.

The Firenza is to the Corvair as the Yugo is to the Porsche.

it was Oldsmobile that had the Firenza, not Pontiac. Charles Coker, 1953 Pontiac tech advisor.

Edited March 28, 2014 by pontiac1953 (see edit history)

[PONTIAC1953]

That was on the '75 Monza with 350 V8. We didn't even bother to do that. We cut a neat little hole in the fender well on the side of the plug and then made a little plate of sheet metal to attach over the hole. That way when it returned to our shop for a tune up again, we could easily access that plug.

the Chevy Monza never had a 350 V8, 305 yes, 350 no. Charles Coker, 1953 Pontiac tech advisor.

[PONTIAC1953]

When the Vega came out Pontiac rebadged it as the "Astre". Then they had the Monza, famous for having to pull the engine to change the spark plugs. Pontiac followed suit with the Venture?. I think Olds and Buick also got into the act with their own versions. Somebody said the Corvette was a great success but let's not forget the plug came close to being pulled in the beginning. I think they only saved it because they didn't want to admit they were losing to the Thunderbird.

Pontiac didn't follow suit with the venture, Pontiac did have the Ventura II, which was based on the Chevy Nova. related to the Chevy Monza was the Pontiac Sunbird. Charles Coker, 1953 Pontiac tech advisor.

[Guest Magoo]

the Chevy Monza never had a 350 V8, 305 yes, 350 no. Charles Coker, 1953 Pontiac tech advisor.

Quite right. There was also a 262 CID V8 available in the Monza 1975-76. Also offered in Nova and Pontiac Ventura.

Slightly smaller bore and longer stroke than the original 1955-57 265 CID Chevrolet V8.

[llskis]

Quite right. There was also a 262 CID V8 available in the Monza 1975-76. Also offered in Nova and Pontiac Ventura.

Slightly smaller bore and longer stroke than the original 1955-57 265 CID Chevrolet V8.

Magoo and Pontiac1953: You are not doing your homework very well. A 350 was indeed a option in 1975 in Calif. due to the emissions of the smaller

V8. I should know; my brother bought a brand new one. Here is the proof from WIKI:

Chevrolet's new 4.3 liter (262 cid) V-8 engine was optional. The smallest V8 ever offered by Chevrolet, it featured a Rochester 2-barrel carburetor and generated 110 horsepower (82 kW) at 3600 rpm. For 1975 only, Monzas sold in California and high altitude areas met the stricter emissions requirement by substituting a version of the 5.7 liter (350 cid) V8 engine with a 2-barrel carburetor tuned to just 125 hp (93 kW). Larry

[avgwarhawk]

...that saved the company for the next 30 years. They weren't a bed of roses, but they were steps in the right direction.

I think the quote was, "Thanks America. Now it is up to us." Lee Iacocca. This is what saved Chrysler. Bail out 1979. The K Car to follow.

[llskis]

FWIW: Al Holbert won the IMSA GT Championship in 1976 with SBC Monza. Picture below. Larry

Edited March 28, 2014 by llskis
Spelling (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

it was Oldsmobile that had the Firenza, not Pontiac. Charles Coker, 1953 Pontiac tech advisor.

Before there was an Olds Firenza there was a Pontiac Firenza. They may not have been sold in the US but they were sold in Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_Firenza

[Bleach]

it was Oldsmobile that had the Firenza, not Pontiac. Charles Coker, 1953 Pontiac tech advisor.

That is correct but the Canadian car being referred was simply called Firenza. GM of Canada dropped the Vauxhall name. Maybe it was sold by Pontiac franchises in Canada?

[Rusty_OToole]

That is correct but the Canadian car being referred was simply called Firenza. GM of Canada dropped the Vauxhall name. Maybe it was sold by Pontiac franchises in Canada?

That is right. They tried selling Vauxhalls through Pontiac dealers in the US in 1958 but soon gave it up. In Canada, they kept trying through the early seventies. They had the Vauxhall Viva, Envoy Epic, and Firenza. I think they changed the name every couple of years as the customers got onto them.

[PONTIAC1953]

Magoo and Pontiac1953: You are not doing your homework very well. A 350 was indeed a option in 1975 in Calif. due to the emissions of the smaller

V8. I should know; my brother bought a brand new one. Here is the proof from WIKI:

Chevrolet's new 4.3 liter (262 cid) V-8 engine was optional. The smallest V8 ever offered by Chevrolet, it featured a Rochester 2-barrel carburetor and generated 110 horsepower (82 kW) at 3600 rpm. For 1975 only, Monzas sold in California and high altitude areas met the stricter emissions requirement by substituting a version of the 5.7 liter (350 cid) V8 engine with a 2-barrel carburetor tuned to just 125 hp (93 kW). Larry

I stand corrected, I did find on the internet where the Monza did have a 125 hp 350 V8 option. Charles Coker, 1953 Pontiac tech advisor.

[Guest Magoo]

Magoo and Pontiac1953: You are not doing your homework very well. A 350 was indeed a option in 1975 in Calif. due to the emissions of the smaller

V8. I should know; my brother bought a brand new one. Here is the proof from WIKI:

Thanks! Corrections are always welcome. I had forgotten about the CA/RM cars.

[Dave@Moon]

...a version of the 5.7 liter (350 cid) V8 engine with a 2-barrel carburetor tuned to just 125 hp (93 kW). Larry

Now if there was EVER a car GM "didn't need to build"....

[Chris Bamford]

That is right. They tried selling Vauxhalls through Pontiac dealers in the US in 1958 but soon gave it up. In Canada, they kept trying through the early seventies. They had the Vauxhall Viva, Envoy Epic, and Firenza. I think they changed the name every couple of years as the customers got onto them.

As I recall, Vauxhaull Vivas were sold by Chevrolet dealers and the badge-engineered Envoy Epic sold by Pontiac dealers.

Back in 1972 or so I had a '64 Viva (photo) and my best friend had the near-identical '65 or '66 Epic.

[Guest Magoo]

By the way this is the first Pontiac Firenza, which was a Vauxhall product made by GM in England. Later they used the name on a J car which was merely boring.

There was also an Olds Starfire Firenza in 1978-80. The 1975-80 Starfire was the Olds variant of the rwd H-body Chevy Monza. Like the Chevy, The Olds H-body was also available with a V8.

[Guest Oldengineer]

I worked for GM in Dayton, Ohio back then, and, special ordered a 75 Olds Starfire. The only engine option was a 231 CID V6 - the uneven firing version built by Buick. It was an interesting car. The performance was decent, it got excellent fuel economy, and had absolutely pitiful brakes. The GM bandaid was to use really soft pads to get the thing to stop, and, it ate a set of front pads every 12k miles.

Regards:

Oldengineer

[padgett]

To me the biggest GM "blunder" was to destroy the diesel market in the country for a generation and a half. In the 80's when light, clean, responsive turbo diesels were just getting started, by trying to convert an excellent passenger car gas engine (Olds 350) that did not have the bottom end strength a diesel needs & lacking a proper water seperator was a recipe for disaster- for a while there were more dead Caddys and Buicks on the Interstates than armadillos - that was in 1982-86 and only this decade are diesels with mpg to rival hybrids but without all the batteries becoming acceptable again.

ps I won A Lot of autocrosses (F-stock) with a '78 Sunbird V8/4-speed. Did break a front Vega GT wheel at almost every event.

Edited March 31, 2014 by padgett (see edit history)

[Guest cben09]

A friend had an early GMC pickup,,,,We all waited to see if the bottom end would survive,,

BUT,,under 40,000 mi I think,,,a skip developed,,and it had torn up lifters and cam,,,

AND cracked 5 out of the 8 exhaust seats,,,

He himself was a shop owner,,GM was not very interested in helping out,,

Phone to Detroit did not help

That was the raw part of the deal,,AAAAH memories,,,Ben

[Steve Braverman]

To me the biggest GM "blunder" was to destroy the diesel market in the country for a generation and a half.

That piece of crap diesel has been out of production for over 30 years, and yet people still remember it. I still get people telling me my '99 GMC diesel is a converted gas engine, even though it's a pure design by Detroit Diesel with a proven track record.

The 350 diesel did more than damage GM's reputation, it has helped the oil companies continue to sell large amounts of gasoline in the US, when the rest of the world gets clean efficient diesels in almost any kind of vehicle.

Ironically, even VW, who has the best small diesel in this country, is selling a hybrid.

[Bleach]

I don't think not having a water separator was a major issue that killed the GM diesel engines in 80's. Few diesel powered vehicles at the time had water separators, Mercedes Benz included. I had an 84 Mercedes 300D turbo diesel and it didn't have one. It seemed nothing could kill that car. Mercedes at the time knew what they were doing.

[CarlLaFong]

The "fact" tht the GM 350 diesel was a converted 350 Olds is an urban myth that won't go away.

The block and heads were unique to the Diesel as were the majority of the internals. The biggest problem with them was the head bolts being too weak, allowing them to stretch and blow head gaskets, and the main bearing bolts were too short which caused bottom end failures. There are a few people, today, who specialize in them and use ARP fasteners and a few other tricks. They are building very reliable engines that will run hundreds of thousands of miles. My cousin built one for his Seville and drove it for years with no issues and got 25+ MPG to boot. GM fixed all of the major issues with the engine, but it was too late since the early ones ruined their reputation

[Rusty_OToole]

My father bought a Pontiac Parisienne Brougham diesel new in 1980 and I owned an 81 Chev 1/2 ton with the same engine. The problems we had were with the Roosamaster fuel injection system which seemed to be badly thought out and prone to wear, and the fact that they were very hard to start in cold weather, and demanded a starter that would spin the engine at 100 RPM before they would fire.

We had Mercedes diesels before and after, and there was no comparison. The GM 350 was a great engine, powerful and economical and quieter than the Mercedes, but no where near as reliable or long lived in daily service.

[padgett]

My understanding is that Mecerdes and BMW had planned to be 90% diesel and turbo diesel in the US market by 1990ish. Then that had to be changed.

[Guest bkazmer]

The "fact" tht the GM 350 diesel was a converted 350 Olds is an urban myth that won't go away.

The block and heads were unique to the Diesel as were the majority of the internals. The biggest problem with them was the head bolts being too weak, allowing them to stretch and blow head gaskets, and the main bearing bolts were too short which caused bottom end failures. There are a few people, today, who specialize in them and use ARP fasteners and a few other tricks. They are building very reliable engines that will run hundreds of thousands of miles. My cousin built one for his Seville and drove it for years with no issues and got 25+ MPG to boot. GM fixed all of the major issues with the engine, but it was too late since the early ones ruined their reputation

Expecting the customers to figure out how to fix the top and bottom ends of the engine would tend to ruin one's reputation, no?

[Guest cben09]

Does anyone know if there was a history of soft parts,,not hardend in the GM diesel

or any history of valve seat failure,,it seemed odd to me as diesels run so cool compared to gas engines,,or was holding tolerance a more likely problem???

It was a real nice truck,,BUT,,,I bought a Cummins,,,happened to come with a Dodge cab an' runnin gear,,liked it so much in 8weeks,,bought a second one,,both 93',,,Now if I can mount the Suburban body on one of em,,,,89 Sub',,,,,Cheers Ben

[Bleach]

...We had Mercedes diesels before and after, and there was no comparison. The GM 350 was a great engine, powerful and economical and quieter than the Mercedes, but no where near as reliable or long lived in daily service.

I once drove a 1979 Cadillac with 350 Olds diesel. It had what seemed like adequate power at the time but it was smelly and very noisy.

OTH, my 300D with a 5 cylinder turbo diesel engine had more HP and was quieter. It felt like a sport sedan compared to that Cadillac.

[John_S_in_Penna]

Magoo is a good automotive writer, and I can tell

he likes thought-provoking automotive discussions.

Interesting that no one has commented on the 1929

Buick yet. I guess the hobby has lost all the old-timers

and early car executives who could give us first-hand

knowledge of that car.

Stylistically, I rather like those 1978-era "aeroback"

Cutlasses and Centuries, especially the coupe versions.

I can't own everything, but they would be inexpensive

and distinctive conversation pieces today.

[CarlLaFong]

Expecting the customers to figure out how to fix the top and bottom ends of the engine would tend to ruin one's reputation, no?

The auto manufacturers have never expected the customer to do their R&D work, though it does happen. GM figured out the problems, with the last of the 350 Diesels but, as I noted, their reputation was fatally wounded by that time

[cahartley]

The "fact" tht the GM 350 diesel was a converted 350 Olds is an urban myth that won't go away.

The block and heads were unique to the Diesel as were the majority of the internals. The biggest problem with them was the head bolts being too weak, allowing them to stretch and blow head gaskets, and the main bearing bolts were too short which caused bottom end failures.

My Dad was bound and determined to buy a first year production Olds 88 diesel and he did despite my arguing about buying a first year experiment.

Turned out the engine was fine. He never had any trouble with the engine although he did have to have the Roosa Master injector pump rebuilt.......but that was self inflicted from using Heet in the fuel. The injector pump seals were not compatible with alcohol.

The REAL problem with those cars was putting a stinking 200 transmission behind the engine....... :mad:

They simply couldn't handle the torque, self destructed and were routinely being replaced with 400 trannys by dealers all over.

I won a settlement for my folks from GM over that issue.

The guy at the other end didn't want to buy my argument that the low end torque of the engine was tearing the 200 to pieces but I won that argument.......

They continued to drive that car for several years and really loved it.

[Bleach]

The 200 transmission could barely handle the power delivered from any of their engines. I had an 83 Firebird at the time with a 2.8L V6 and the 200 trans. It was toast by 20K miles.

I got rid of the car soon afterward when it took over two weeks to get a replacement trans shift control cable that got damaged from a road hazard that rendered the car nearly inoperable for that same period of time.

[padgett]

I thought all of the Buick turbo GNs and GNXs got THM200-4Rs. Were quite quick.