10 worst gm cars???

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
Disagree with that list strongly.

I'm aware that the GM X-cars were subject to a lot of recalls and 'glitches'...BUT, the basic drivetrain (2.5 I-4 and 2.8 V-6) were very reliable engines that lasted.


As much as I hate the Chevette for being an abyssmally bad car, the X-bodies were actually worse.

The inspiration for the X-body was the then up and coming Honda Accord. It seemed to be a simple enough design but people were waiting 6 months to receive one at the Honda dealers.

GM got the shape of the Accord right and goofed up everything else they could.

I'm not even talking about the radio and HVAC controls mounted sideways. The BMW E21 3-series had it's stereo mounted in an odd position too (backside down with the face pointing straight up) so it's in good company there at least. Although when you tossed the factory stereo on the 320i, you could drop in a Pioneer Super Tuner w/ Cassette and didn't have to turn your head sideways to see the display.

The front subframe on the X-body was apparently attached to the rest of the car with marshmallows.
To exascerbate the situation with the subframe, the rack and pinion was mounted separately from the subframe. Not too worry...the mount for the rack and pinion corrodes and cracks easily and soon will allow as much play as the subframe.
Early Fox body Fords had the brake bias wrong and they were still far better than the X-body. Marginal brake pressure will lock the rear brakes
The heater core, although virtually inaccessible, was apparently made out of papier-mache and would spontaneously erupt on your passenger's feet
Fuel and transmission lines were badly made and routed. Chinese factories are laughing about how poorly made the transmission lines were.
If you had a manual transmission, it's shifter was as vague as an early Kia Sephia.
The rear control arm mounts were badly welded and would fall off.
The 2.8 had an expensive and difficult Varajet 2bbl
The 2.5 would regularly cough up timing gears, MAP sensors, and the EGR system was hopeless

You are right aboutthe A and N bodies having X-body DNA. It was probably good for the X-body to have so many problems for those cars. It's mistakes they didn't have to make twice.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

I enjoyed driving my x-11. I HATED driving my 83 Honda accord 3 door. Reliability is overrated. Ask anyone who likes Brit cars.

 

[cadfaeltex]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I enjoyed driving my x-11. I HATED driving my 83 Honda accord 3 door. Reliability is overrated. Ask anyone who likes Brit cars.


HEY NOW, I resemble that remark.

 

[Tros]

I've got to say, I wanted to drop kick my '84 Pontiac Fiero. The idea of a mid-engine domestic car still appeals to me, but that Fiero... Wow, it left a dirty taste in my mouth.

 

[Doc Holiday]

Originally Posted By: Tros
I've got to say, I wanted to drop kick my '84 Pontiac Fiero. The idea of a mid-engine domestic car still appeals to me, but that Fiero... Wow, it left a dirty taste in my mouth.

Funny thing about the Fiero....the last year they produced it, they got it right...only to drop it. That is according to all the auto magazines at the time. The last year GT v-6 with that "aero" back side glass.

Also the Corvair was a very good car killed for no reason. That said it's day were numbered as Chevy's own Camaro was stealing sales from it like crazy.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

People didnt appreciate the space age engineering - so they gave us the big boat car on a truck frame. IIRC the eary 60's olds f85 (or ??) have a front engine 215 Al block v8 and a rear transaxle ala Vette? Engine tooling was bought by BL/Rover and used for decades.

 

[Sayjac]

Oldsmobile Diesel = oxymoron. Not quite what Rudy had in mind.

The Aztek while ugly, as mentioned, was not a particularly bad vehicle. Probably did damage GM's rep though, especially for styling. OTOH, considering the current Crosstour and Juke, might just have been ahead of it's time.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Doc Holiday
Originally Posted By: Tros
I've got to say, I wanted to drop kick my '84 Pontiac Fiero. The idea of a mid-engine domestic car still appeals to me, but that Fiero... Wow, it left a dirty taste in my mouth.

Funny thing about the Fiero....the last year they produced it, they got it right...only to drop it. That is according to all the auto magazines at the time. The last year GT v-6 with that "aero" back side glass.

Also the Corvair was a very good car killed for no reason. That said it's day were numbered as Chevy's own Camaro was stealing sales from it like crazy.


GM has a long history of doing that. Fixing all the problems in their "problem children" and then promptly discontinuing them.

The '76 Vega had all the cooling and lubrication problems fixed. There was no '77. We had a '76. It was completely gutless compared to our '73 GT but it did not burn an excessive amount of oil, did not overheat, and had no rust.
The '88 Fiero finally got rid of the Chevette front end and the X-body front end in the rear. They also fixed the cooling problems, engine fires, and late in '86 finally fitted a 5 speed to the V6. The Fiero was just the 180hp Quad 4 or 210 hp LQ1 DOHC V6 away from being an outstanding transverse mid-engine sports car but GM killed it.
And the Corvair.....fought Nader, fixed it, killed it.

The Vega

 

[Norm Olt]

Originally Posted By: buster
That's a tough one, so many to choose from. LOL


And now...

There's the VOLT!

p.s. The problem with those diesel's (both the 350 & 4.3L versions) were that they took gas engines and tried to jump on the diesel bandwagon (as in Mercedes Benz's very successful models).

 

[edwardh1]

remember while GM was making all this junk from the late 60s to the late 80s their ceos were making millions with lots of perks

 

[TFB1]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog

The '76 Vega had all the cooling and lubrication problems fixed. There was no '77.


Nope '77 was the last year...

The Monza was used to replace the Vega in '78 with a restyle and added wagon models, though was still the same basic vehicle as Vega... Monza was lucky in that it was introduced for the '75 model year, so only suffered one year of the "bad" aluminum engines...

Vega's death spike was Pontiac's '77 Astra that touted the fact it used the "Iron Duke" vs Chevy's alu engine, '78-'80 Monzas also used the Iron Duke...

As bad as the early Vegas were, the Olds diesels were no doubt the worst disasters on the list... Generally the Vegas kept running even when using a quart of oil per tank of fuel, those diesels commonly went clank, clank, boom and that was the end...

The Chevette may have been dated and uninspiring but was a fairly reliable car, with no major issues... The Turbo 200 auto trans was problematic but that applied to several other GM models as well...

 

[Burt]

Originally Posted By: TFB1

The Chevette may have been dated and uninspiring but was a fairly reliable car, with no major issues... The Turbo 200 auto trans was problematic but that applied to several other GM models as well...


My brother-in-law claimed that the reason the door wouldn't shut easily on his chevette was the car was so-well built it was too air tight...

 

[aquariuscsm]

Seems like ALL mid-70s cars were total junk for some reason.

 

[Tros]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog

The '88 Fiero finally got rid of the Chevette front end and the X-body front end in the rear. They also fixed the cooling problems, engine fires, and late in '86 finally fitted a 5 speed to the V6. The Fiero was just the 180hp Quad 4 or 210 hp LQ1 DOHC V6 away from being an outstanding transverse mid-engine sports car but GM killed it.


Very true. I was surprised during the peak of the tuner craze that we didn't see a budget mid-engine GM product. Then again, I kept waiting for a company to make a budget 4 cylinder rwd (That wasn't a miata)... I never saw that either.

 

[addyguy]

Originally Posted By: TFB1
Originally Posted By: Spazdog

The '76 Vega had all the cooling and lubrication problems fixed. There was no '77.


Nope '77 was the last year...

The Monza was used to replace the Vega in '78 with a restyle and added wagon models, though was still the same basic vehicle as Vega... Monza was lucky in that it was introduced for the '75 model year, so only suffered one year of the "bad" aluminum engines...

Vega's death spike was Pontiac's '77 Astra that touted the fact it used the "Iron Duke" vs Chevy's alu engine, '78-'80 Monzas also used the Iron Duke...

As bad as the early Vegas were, the Olds diesels were no doubt the worst disasters on the list... Generally the Vegas kept running even when using a quart of oil per tank of fuel, those diesels commonly went clank, clank, boom and that was the end...

The Chevette may have been dated and uninspiring but was a fairly reliable car, with no major issues... The Turbo 200 auto trans was problematic but that applied to several other GM models as well...


The thing that really baffles me about these cars is there was no clean cross-over between them...there was a weird period in 1978 When Monza and Sunbird 'wagons' were nothing more than Vega and Astre wagon bodies, with Monza noses and tailights stuck on them, with the 2.5 as an engine.

 

[edwardh1]

we had a new 84 olds with the 4 cyl iron duke- rough running with lots of midrange vibration when the transmission shifted into high (GM too cheap to put a balance shaft in it like the toyota camrys have)- developed at 8000 miles a 1 teaspoon per night coolant leak, first trip to olds dealer replace head gasket, 2nd trip to olds dealer take head off send to machine shop, surface the head reinstall, no change in leak, they then 2 weeks later discovered that all the blocks made over a 2 month time period had porosity (small holes) in the block not the head (when did gm start casting blocks 1920??)so they called us back in, replaced the block and reused all the other parts, old pistons cams etc , but new bearings and rings, what did that cost? , took one week, car ran fine after that except for in first 10,000 miles, thermostat housing leaked, radiator leaked, one shock absorber leaked, high speed air con fan relay quit, radio quit and a few more things all requiring trips to the dealer.
subsequent cars have been 2 civics one infinity and 2 toyotas.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: TFB1
Originally Posted By: Spazdog

The '76 Vega had all the cooling and lubrication problems fixed. There was no '77.


Nope '77 was the last year...

The Monza was used to replace the Vega in '78 with a restyle and added wagon models, though was still the same basic vehicle as Vega... Monza was lucky in that it was introduced for the '75 model year, so only suffered one year of the "bad" aluminum engines...


There was no Monza wagon, only hatchbacks and notchback coupes. i recall they never used the aluminum motor.

Quote:
Vega's death spike was Pontiac's '77 Astra that touted the fact it used the "Iron Duke" vs Chevy's alu engine, '78-'80 Monzas also used the Iron Duke...


I wonder how much of that was due to the aluminum engine being dropped because the Vega was dropped? Also, I imagine the Iron Duke was much cheaper to build than the aluminum engine!

Quote:
The Chevette may have been dated and uninspiring but was a fairly reliable car, with no major issues... The Turbo 200 auto trans was problematic but that applied to several other GM models as well...


The Chevette was a cheap econocar...accept that and it wasn't bad. My sister had a late-70's Civic, and the Chevette was no worse than THAT thing! Other than the early TH200 problems (I recall they were soon ended when the Chevette switched to the TH-180 in, IIRC, 1979), they weren't bad.

 

[Spazdog]

Quote:

The '76 Vega had all the cooling and lubrication problems fixed. There was no '77.


Quote:
Nope '77 was the last year...


I stand corrected.

Quote:


There was no Monza wagon, only hatchbacks and notchback coupes.

The 1978 Monza Station Wagon:

Quote:
The Chevette may have been dated and uninspiring but was a fairly reliable car, with no major issues... The Turbo 200 auto trans was problematic but that applied to several other GM models as well...


Quote:
The Chevette was a cheap econocar...accept that and it wasn't bad. My sister had a late-70's Civic, and the Chevette was no worse than THAT thing! Other than the early TH200 problems (I recall they were soon ended when the Chevette switched to the TH-180 in, IIRC, 1979), they weren't bad.


No. I assure you that the Chevette was as bad as it's made out to be and I say that from experience.
My mom had a 1976 Volkswagen Rabbit and it did EVERYTHING better. Even with the wood shaving cushioning poking you through the vinyl seats. The early Civics were at least fun to drive. The Chevette was not. And my Chevette required such a heavy left foot just to keep up with '80s traffic that it got about 20mpg. I could drive all night through Austin with my dad's girlfriend's early Civic and put a gallon or two back in it to fill it up. It was rated at 54mpg. I don't think it got that but it was probably honestly 40 mpg.

And then there is servicing the idiot designed Chevette. The distributor is below the A/C compressor on the opposite side of the engine from the plugs. A simple tune-up required removal of the A/C. The number 4 spark plug wire is about 6 feet long. To remove the starter, you have to either take the intake manifold off or remove the steering column.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I drove--back to back--a friend's Chevette (3-door hatch) and my sister's CVCC Civic (4-door sedan). Both were standard shift...yes, the slushbox Chevette was terribly slow. (Then again, the "Hondamatic" Civic was no faster!) I preferred the Chevette. The Civic had three glaring flaws: one, it was incredibly loud. On the highway, the din rivaled a canvas-top Jeep CJ. Two, It rode like an oxcart, also rivaling an old CJ5. Three, anything that had to be serviced cost about three times as much as it did on anything else.

The Chevette was quieter. Power seemed comparable, though the Chevette was not at all forgiving of being caught in the wrong gear. The Chevette rode better than the Civic. (I am not saying it rode WELL, but it was more like, say, a J-series pickup or a Scrambler than a CJ5.) Parts were cheap...I recall doing a full brake job (pads, rotors, shoes, adjusters, front calipers) for about $50. I did a starter in that one...took maybe half an hour. (Like most, it had no A/C.) I never did a comparison (didn't drive either car enough), but my friend claimed mid-30's for mileage in the Chevette.

Those two cars were the reason I bought my first metric tools.

And that's not a Monza wagon. That is a Vega wagon with Monza badges.

 

[addyguy]

That is what is weird - it IS a 'Monza wagon'....Chev used left-over Vega wagon bodies, gave them the 2.5 Iron duke, and modified the front and rear end, and called them Monza wagons.

Vega's NEVER came with the 2.5 I-5, only Monza's did - this is how you distinguish them!