Check this out
I like the vega:
I'll take exception to # 5, the early Saturns. People knew exactly what they were buying, a cheap reliable people mover. Saturn did this and did it well, and did it with fuel efficiency many people wish they could get today. A consistent 36-38mpg real world, with many seeing 40mpg highway, is nothing to sneeze at. Sure a new Saturn may have better fit and finish now, but it is 3x the price and twice the weight. And they still don't handle any better.
I'd second that thought. Early Saturns were great cars. Besides, the fit and finish arguement was almost always directed toward the plastic body panels. I'll take a little panel gap over rust, at least around here.
additionally, aztec's are a damn good wagon for cheap. If they weren't soo cheap I'd be less enthusiastic, but I like how they drive/function.
I think someone should find one of the Cadillac V-8-6-4 then put a good v8 in it, a 6 cylinder in the back seat, and hang a 4 cylinder off the rear. Tri-power!!!
I think the biggest shame with Saturn is that GM threw away so much of what made them good, particularly the buyer/dealer experience. I thought the whole point of Saturn was for GRM to come up with new cars, sold in a new way, and do things right. For the most part they did just that, then threw it all overboard for more badge-engineering. They could have--and should have--taken the lessons to heart and applied them to other divisions.
The bad news is, they didn't make much money at it. Not that I disagree with you.
I remember GM reps coming around to the store talking about how much "brand equity" we had, and how we put all the other subsidiaries (back when calling Saturn a division was a huge no-no) to shame in that department. Guess GM decided to cash out all their equity too.
they are not so much diss'n the cars as the missed oportunites, like with Saturn and the EV1.
I had a 93 Blue/Black SL2 5-spd. With sun roof. I loved that car and the buying expiernce.
Reciently I got a 05 Relay, just rebadged Chevy crap. too bad, I will never buy a saturn again
That story is bullE36 M3.
Outside of one engineering study, and two production cars that sold like mad EVEN THOUGH everyone said they were ugly all of the examples were built before 1989!
I know that I am ashamed of some of the things I did twenty years ago but I should be able to not be judged today for those errors in judgement. A lot of those cars failed but the echnology was eventually refined and adapted and are in use heavily today. The Vega was no flop, the car was able to hang with it's peers and eventually inspired the Monza. I agree the Chevette was no 2008 S2000CR but was it supposed to be?
C'mon, really?
The Vega was an OK idea, terribly executed. IF it hadn't rusted so bad, and been built so poorly, and hadn't had such a habit of destroying its engine so well, it might have been a pretty decent little car. But that's not he case.
The chevette was demonstrably inferior in pretty much every way to it's contemporaries, even the domestic ones. Chevette vs. Rabbit? Even Chevette vs. Omni... the Omni was a better car.
I don't think it's the high-profile "flops" that have put GM where it is today, though, no matter how one defines "flop".
I did notice, though, that GM made more X-bodies in ONE YEAR than the entire 25-year production run of MGBs and MGAs. Wow.
I'd be more apt to blame the horrible quality control on their engine lines from about '97 to '01 or so(or whatever their problem was). I work at a salvage yard, and we sell the 2.4L/3.1L/3.4L/3.8L/4.3L/5.0L/5.7L engines of that vintage faster than we can get them. We also install them, and I've seen WAY too many examples in our shop with less than 120k. That is a horrible life expectancy these days.
Is it just me, or do you NEVER see stories like this about Ford or Chrysler? Tho in Chrysler's case, they built cars off just 2 or 3 platforms in the '80s to mid '90s so it's hard to say any particular car got them into their mess today.
Honestly, the more I think about the big three the more I realize that they are like a talented artist with ADHD. They come up with a neat idea, produce the first attempt, then they change their minds and give up on it when it doesn't fit their perfect image.
The inconsistency of their products and innovation are partially to blame for putting them here. Everyone knows that the early versions of any product are likely to be not entirely perfect out of the box and with a few exceptions over the years, they have all failed in some way to follow through with those ideas and perfect them. There isn't anyone apparently with enough vision and stability to keep working on a product to perfect it it seems. The exceptions are of course halo cars, but why not have similar people for the rest of the models?
What I'd like to see from the companies is a commitment not only to build good quality cars that we want to buy, but to bring back the concept of the brands actually being different and trying to compete with each other. That I'd like to see.
Chrysler/Dodge with Jeep being the only "different" brand and even that is soiled by badge engineered crap.
Ford/Mercury/Lincoln? More badge engineered vehicles with different grills. Of course of the three they seem to be really making strides.
GMC, Chevy, Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac, Saturn, Hummer. Hummer should simply be GM's Jeep. Instead they are rebadged GM SUVs. The rest of the brands should pick an image and cultivate it. Cadillac should go after Rolls, Bentley, Bugatti. Don't settle for Audi, BMW, Mercedes or Lexus. Buick can do that. Pontiac can go after the performance market, including the Camaro and the Corvette. I don't know what Chevy is doing that is different enough to warrant their existence at this point outside of the Corvette, which should be spun off to its own brand to compete with Ferrari/Lamborghini/Maserati
How come the SSR is never on these lists? That was a really bad answer to a question only guys like Earl Hickey with lottery money and no regard for karma ever asked.
I know that I am ashamed of some of the things I did twenty years ago but I should be able to not be judged today for those errors in judgement.
Er... wrong? Just sayin'!
That magazine should stick to talking about the cars they know best...the flying ones we were supposed to have in 1958.
Tim Baxter wrote: C'mon, really? The Vega was an OK idea, terribly executed. IF it hadn't rusted so bad, and been built so poorly, and hadn't had such a habit of destroying its engine so well, it might have been a pretty decent little car. But that's not he case. The chevette was demonstrably inferior in pretty much every way to it's contemporaries, even the domestic ones. Chevette vs. Rabbit? Even Chevette vs. Omni... the Omni was a better car. I don't think it's the high-profile "flops" that have put GM where it is today, though, no matter how one defines "flop". I did notice, though, that GM made more X-bodies in ONE YEAR than the entire 25-year production run of MGBs and MGAs. Wow.
Amen brother. Those are some real stinkers on that list , Geeeez, it's just flat out depressing how bad so many of them were. No wonder the American car companies are where they are now.
fiat22turbo wrote: GMC, Chevy, Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac, Saturn, Hummer. Hummer should simply be GM's Jeep. Instead they are rebadged GM SUVs. The rest of the brands should pick an image and cultivate it. Cadillac should go after Rolls, Bentley, Bugatti. Don't settle for Audi, BMW, Mercedes or Lexus. Buick can do that. Pontiac can go after the performance market, including the Camaro and the Corvette. I don't know what Chevy is doing that is different enough to warrant their existence at this point outside of the Corvette, which should be spun off to its own brand to compete with Ferrari/Lamborghini/Maserati
I think Chevy is expected to make cars people can afford to buy :) You know, the bread and butter stuff. A Pontiac Camaro might be a tough sell to the public, but call it a Firebird and you'll have a better chance 
My uncle was looking for a Saturn back in the early days. We took it for a test drive. The side mirror broke off and there was so much distortion in the front windshield that it was like being in a rolling funhouse. Other than that, it appeared to have no redeeming qualities other than being made of tupperware. So he bought a Volvo and racked up some ridiculous number of miles on it instead.
What is GM's reputation anyway? Since I was born, they have been boring cars that are inferior to their Japanese and now Korean counterparts. I don't think any of the cars on that list hurt that reputation, they helped solidify it! Throw in the Celebrity, the Cavalier, the Lumina, the last two generations of Malibu...were any of these even in the same ballbark as a Civic or Accord or Camry? The cars that are hurting GM's crappy reputation are the current ZR-1, Cobalt SS, current Malibu, G8...
My dad had a chevy v6 pickup that was a real POS. I guess they were switching paint formulas and used some crappy urethane based paint that peeled and pocked. These were prone to develop a leak in the throttle body or intake and would keep running even after they were shut off. Besides that the most remarkable thing was that it was just junk. Now we have the toyota pickup with over 200K on it and still running strong.
I don't know about the saturns but some one I knew had the little one (sl2?) and he would take off on the freeway at 90mph so they aren't too bad.
I am not, and never was a gm fan, but I don't want to see them kick the bucket. that having been said, I actuly like the styling of the aztec, I just don't understand why a vehicle with those rugged looks didn't have awd standard. I've only ever seen a couple with awd. GM realy shot themselves (thier image anyway) in the foot with both barrels on the misshandling of the EV1 and Gass gulping Hummers. They should have continued to produce the 2nd gen ev1 for those would pay the price, and I think that in cali there would have been enough interested parties to keep that project breaking even. In comparison Toyota has a percieved very green image, but in fact sell a whole lot of gas suckers too. I don't even know what to say about Hummer. The local H dealer just went out of buisness a few weeks ago.
The Saturn ragging is way off "there were gaps between the panels big enough to stick a hand through" of course the gaps where big, plastic expands nimrod which is why they needed the gaps. My wife's 97 SL looks 2 yrs/old because there are zero dings in the car (thank you plastic.) Refined? No. Good basic transportation? More reliable than anything VW was putting out back then. I guess the 2400 lb weight and 40mpg was just misunderstood.
When I saw the list, I at first disagreed with 5 and 10, the Saturn and the EV1. But when I read what they wrote, I found I agreed with them. For it wasn't about the cars themselves, it was about GM and how GM damaged itself with the cars.
They authors liked the Saturn, they dinged GM for blowing a superb opportunity. That I very much agree with. The car was cheap and mediocre, and they could have sold millions of of them if they would have bothered. Instead, GM did just about everything they could to destroy the Saturn.
Similarly the EV1. "Even today, the two-seat GM EV1 remains one of the best-engineered, best-working pure electric vehicles ever released to the public." And GM again blew it. Doubly blew it if you consider the current project, the Volt.
Do I understand correctly that some Saturns have tube frames and plastic body panels? 
I liked my '75 Vega Kammback! Of course, it had had iron liners installed and didn't burn or leak anything, and had better cooling than the early cars. It was light, low, very practical and not bad looking. The GT instrument panel was pretty good, too.
Any grassroots type could work the suspension over, and engine swaps were well documented almost from day one.
In those pre-internet days, I was looking for a bent Cosworth Vega as a donor. A Kammback Cosworth would still be cool in my book.
http://jalopnik.com/5098838/ten-biggest-automotive-turkeys-of-all-time?skyline=true&s=x <--- better list..
You'll need to log in to post.
