Even great car companies can get lost once in a while. Here are six colorful blunders in GM history.
Auto writers have often claimed that the cars featured here are the ones that wrecked General Motors. In MCG’s view, that’s not really true. Yes, there are some notably flawed products here, real stinkers. However, what drove GM to its eventual bankruptcy was all the mediocre product it pounded out by the millions for decades on end. And in recent years, the company has worked hard to reverse that legacy.
A great automobile company can survive the occasional mistake, and when most of these cars were produced, GM was the the largest automaker in history, and one of the world’s great engineering companies as well. So without prejudice, here are six cars that GM didn’t really need to make.
History records the 1923 Copper Cooled Chevrolet as GM’s first big product blunder. Its copper-fin air-cooling system was unworkable, but the project’s champion, Charles F. Kettering, was too highly regarded within the company to be refused. GM management, led by Pierre S. du Pont, followed him over the cliff. Of the handful of cars that were sold, all but two were purchased back and destroyed.
Salesmen cursed openly when the truckloads of 1978 Buick Century Aerobacks appeared on the dealer lots. Styled like hatchbacks but lacking their functionality, these coupe and sedan bodies (shared with Olds) featured odd little deck lids and claustrophobic fixed rear side glass. Excessively cheap interior materials didn’t help move units, either. In 1980, GM rushed in conventional three-box four-doors and discontinued the two-doors.
Another famous GM flop, the 1971-1977 Chevy Vega certainly wasn’t lacking in style and spirit. The sour note was the engine, a 140 CID SOHC four with two fatal defects: a linerless aluminum block that could not hold its water, and a poorly designed cast-iron head that also leaked like a sieve. Rusty body shells and management troubles at the Lordstown, Ohio assembly plant further cemented the Vega’s reputation as a loser.
The 2001-2005 Pontiac Aztek, an early attempt at a lifestyle crossover, is often cited as the ugliest car ever produced by GM. Acres of cladding and and stacked grilles up front could not disguise the fact that the Aztek was, under the tortured body panels, a GM minivan.
The 1929 Buick line was the first real misstep of newly appointed design vice president Harley Earl, and arguably the only major one in his 30-year reign at GM. With their bodies and beltlines awkwardly bowed outward, these cars were quickly tagged the Pregnant Buicks, a label they wear to this day.
The styling was undeniably fresh, and the engineering was bold and innovative, especially for mid-century Detroit. But the 1960-1964 Chevrolet Corvair (below) featured a penny-wise rear swing axle and other features that attracted a slew of product lawsuits—and the unwanted attentions of consumer gadfly Ralph Nader. The 1965-1969 Corvairs featured revised suspension, but too late. The 2009 bankruptcy aside, it’s said the Corvair supplied the biggest blow to GM’s public image in the company’s history.
I don’t think Nader’s targeting of the Corvair was the cause of its dismal sales performance. Its rear suspension and general layout and its handling was virtually the same as the competing VW Beetle, yet Nader left that alone Drive a VW around a corner fast and like the Corvair, its rear swing axle would tuck in and flip the car on to its roof But then again, so did a lot of the cars of that time which had live rear axles suspended by the most basic of rear suspensions. I think the Corvair failed simply because it was too different in what at the time was a very conservative marketplace Of coarse it didn’t help that the GM cut a few corners in the Covair’s development stage in order to get it in to production as quickly as possible in order to compete with Ford and Plymouth’s new compacts as well as the tide of foreign car imports starting to swamp the marketplace. And remember the Mercedes Benz of that time also had a swing axle rear end, yet engendered no controversy about its handling.
Nobody said Nader was responsible for the Corvair’s poor sales. By MY 1962, GM rushed the Chevy II to market. What does that tell us? If not for the safety issues the Corvair would be only an interesting footnote, but instead, it is remembered as the biggest PR fiasco in company history up to that time.
As I understand it, sales of the Corvair were doing ok if not spectacularly. However the minute Nader’s book hit the book shops, sales of the Corvair took an immediate nosedive. Had GM toughed it out a little bit longer the Corvair platform would have become a very good seller, and especially so if the still born Pontiac version had come on stream. The truth is that Chevrolet were not known up to that time for producing cars of the Corvair’s size, so combine that fact with the fact that the car was perhaps too technologically advanced for the average buyer of those times and it was no surprise that buyers were reluctant to put their money down for one. Nader’s book and the claims contained in it [some of which were rather dubious, to say the least] simply played on doubts the the buying public had about the Corvair.
Corvair was already on the way out. GM opted not to re-up since the Camaro was a more cost effective replacement. It used modular production and didn’t require a one-off engine, transmission, differential, heater, etc, etc. The effect of Nadar’s book is WAY overblown on the Corvair’s sales and production history.
The peak sales year for the Corvair was 1962 (the year I bought my Monza coupe, and it was a good car). After that sales began dropping because cars like the Chevy II became available with greater room, comfort and more powerful engines, for not a lot more money. And don’t forget the ’64-1/2 Mustang. Corvair sales were withering by the time “Unsafe at Any Speed” came out in ’65.
Yes, dismal sales. They sold 1.8 million Corvairs in nine model years.
The Corvair missed its sales targets by a country mile, got murdered by the Ford Falcon. That’s why GM rushed the Chevy II to market in only 17 months. Then in 1965-1967, sales fell straight down a mineshaft, from ~250K to ~25K. Some attribute the adverse publicity, others the Ford Mustang.
I think you could add the 1980-1985 X platform as well. I feel they were the final straw that turned America against GM and led to their bankruptcy. They were unreliable, uninspired and generally wretched cars. Corvair in the Sixties. Vega in the Seventies. X Car in the Eighties. Three strikes.
I think each were the best cars of their class among the Big Three, but were too expensive to produce as imagined. I also think that Ford has always understood the small car better and GM still can’t figure it out, even when they source them from Asia.
Indeed. I believe we have stumbled into another topic ripe for sequels.
You should test drive a Cruze and then a Sonic and try to make that statement again. That segment is filled with cars riding on reputation and short on content/quality. It’d buy a Cruze with at 6 speed and the 1.4T all day before a Civic.
Cruze quality is junk. I had a Beretta. 2 Malibus and the last a Monte Carlo. I have sent had 2 Honda Accords and will never go back to GM.
I drive a 2011 cruse Ls daily and I never have had any major problems with it that want taken care of by the warranty or extended warranty ands its a non turbo car with the 6 speed automatic with slap shift
Bill, this is an absolute bulls eye, save for the Corvair… I am fairly certain it could have survived the swing-axle issues (on par with many contemporaries from Europe, including M-B, Porsche, VW, Renault) if the engine weight issues caused by the iron barrels could have been fixed. Ironically, the exact process that was supposed to be magic for Corvair (etching the raw alloy rather than boring) took Vega down too.
Simpler yet, GM could have bolted on an $11 camber compensator. Voila, no safety issues…and the Corvair would be remembered today (when at all) as an attractive, slow-selling coupe prone to oil leaks and fan belt failures. But GM didn’t do that, and today the Corvair is remembered as one of the leading consumer product failures in American history.
I don’t make ’em, I just call ’em.
BTW. the GM tech who advised Chevrolet to install a compensator (in vain as it turned out)) was George Caramanna, who was also the builder of Yunick’s ’66 Chevelle.
Bet you’ve never even driven a Corvair. I’ve been driving them for 26 years. Early, late, Truck and Van. 1.8 million units in 9 sales years. Name a car that’s done that.
Also, remember that no less an engineering powerhouse than M-B purchased the Daytona Challenge Cup winning #50 1963 Pontiac Tempest AFX. All Tempests used the basic swing axle rear suspension from the Mk.1 Corvair (with the ’63 updates to the geometry) along with the lunatic ‘rope’ drive shaft — ironically, the least failure prone part of the drive train. Prepared by Ray Nichels, the 421 SD powered Tempest walked away from the rest of the field. Later totaled in a proving grounds accident in Germany; only the lightweight doors still survive.
I had one of those ’63 Pontiac Tempest Le Manses. Mine had the 326 c.i. V-8, and a 3-speed manual on the floor. It was a BALL to drive, but I had to replace the driveshaft FOUR TIMES, due to it twisting in half.
If you think otherwise, you must be referring to the base 4 cylinder model.
I have had good experiences with both the Corvair and the ’63 Tempest Lemans. My daily driver is a ’61 Corvair truck and the old car in my carport is a ’63 Lemans with a 326. It is the third of those that I have owned and despite having purchased a spare drive shaft, I have never needed it.
I would study driving habits before blaming the mechanicals. A lot of those cars survive to this day.
I think the Corvair had the potential to be Chevy’s Mustang way back in 1960. With hindsight, it had most of what made the Mustang popular. Had things happened differently, Ford may have given us the two seater Mustang I instead. The improved ’65 could have eliminated the need to create the Camaro and gone off to occupy an entirely different but profitable niche in American sporty cars. I really believe that they had a diamond in their hands and didn’t know what to do with it.
And had the Cosworth Vega happened on time, and the marque hadn’t already been tarnished, it would have crushed the Mustang II and the legendary 5.0 Mustang may never have come about.
Under another banner, there was the misbegotten Pontiac Fiero that could have kickstarted a genre. Had they gotten that right, we may never have had the Honda CRX / import craze or the long-running Miata.
On the positive side – I’d forgotten about the original Tempest. That was well executed and it did evolve into the “musclecar”. DeLorean was capable of greatness and I have to give credit to both he and GM for that one. It was also available with the aluminum Buick V8 that served served Leyland/Rover up into the new millennium. That same engine was the basis for the championship-winning Brabham Repco F1 engine and has a connection to ’80s-’90s Saabs as well.
The biggest G.M. flops were the 350 Olds diesel, the Vega, the X bodies, Pontiac Aztek and the Corvair in my opinion.
And then there were the foreign relatives pushed upon the Pontiac/Buick dealers: the Vauxhall and the Opel. Both could have been very big among young buyers with the right engine choices. As it was, buyers weren’t ready for that degree of “flimsiness,” even in an economy car. I remember seeing an Opel engine on a GM research dyno fitted with a 4bbl. Someone had a clue. Chatted with the operator, who gave me some impressive numbers…which I no longer remember.
I very much enjoyed my ’71 Opel Manta Rallye with the 1900 engine. It and the 1900 Sedan were champs in all of Car & Driver’s Showroom Stock Sedan testing. I think Pat Bedard campaigned one on the SCCA circuit.
Not all of us were looking for asphalt-burning power. We preferred a more “European” definition of performance. The Opel and the Datsun 510 and the BMW 2002 fit that bill. The Vega was aiming for it.
But I don’t remember any Vauxhalls at the Pontiac dealers, so you may be talking about when they originally came over in the late Fifties. The Opel Rekord and Kadette were inferior to much of the import competition, and to Ford’s captive import Cortina. Simca brought up the rear, befitting its parent company. Turns out that while everybody was watching the Germans, Datsun (later Toyota) outflanked them. So nobody had it right.
I will agree that the Opel GT needed a bit more punch. I guess they were worried about stepping on the Corvette. Only two years after its cancellation, the 1975 Vette couldn’t hit 170 horsepower with a 350 engine.
Yes, I was thinking of my own ’59 Vauxhall; foot to the floor as I cruised on the expressway. My only experience with Opel, while at Chrysler, was with one that had been fitted with a transmission that would later be used in the Valiant.
The Aztec competes not only for the ugliest car from GM, but the ugliest car ever. Just type “Ugliest Car Ever” (without pressing Enter) and see what Google auto-complete suggests …
There was more problems with the Corvair than the swing axles. The original ones came with a gasoline heater mounted in the trunk. Instant heat. But some knucklehead at GM decided to get rid of the heater and wrap the air cooled motor in metal shrouding. The fan in the heater would suck the warm air off the motor to heat the interior. It would also suck in the fumes from oil leaks, exhaust gases from any exhaust leaks, and a real putrid smell from any mud puddle that splashed up on the motor. The tin shrouding also rattled like hell. Even when the cars were delivered from the factory there was this stink coming from the motor into the interior. It was the assembly lubes burning off.
The cylinders weren’t sealed very well to the engine block or heads. If there were problems, the only recourse was to replace the cylinders and gaskets. At least GM supplied the cylinders with new pistons and connecting rods.
Those of us at Chrysler enjoyed the small car race in ’60 at the Daytona road course. The only time you saw a Corvair or Falcon was when the pack of Valiants swept by. Keeping the cameras on that group of Valiants almost cost the media any further NASCAR business, by the way.
I never followed the demise of the Corvair towards it’s end around 1969 I think, but didn’t G.M. have most of the cars issues corrected by then?
Close. The shroud heater system was the base equipment, the gas heater was optional.
Thanks. I guess the dealership where I was never ordered a base model. I don’t ever remember seeing a Corvair without the gas heater until about 1962. But that was a long time ago, my memory could be mistaken.
The thing that probably killed the Corvair more than anything was air conditioning becoming a must-have option. If you ever get a chance, check out a Corvair with the turbo AND air conditioning. The packaging is hilarious and impossibly inefficient.
The Vega’s engine problems pretty much killed it, the rust issues were just the icing on the cake. From what I recall, GM copied Porsche’s linerless aluminum engine design, but where Porsche did some kind of silicone treating to their cylinder bores, GM tried to save a few bucks by eliminating it and it didn’t work. By the time they realized what was going on and released “service replacement” engines with cast iron liners, it was too late for the Vega. The new replacement, the Monza, with the new engines, did well. Monzas were also available with the Buick design 231 V6 and the baby 262 cu in Chevy V8. Both of those engines fit the Vega using factory Monza parts, but were never offered. I guess GM figured to just cut their losses and move on. Most Vega’s ended up being drag strip warriors, at least until they rusted away.
One problem that Vega’s created in car washes that used the double track system. Just after the car launched they jammed up man of the old systems that had been in place. I can remember as a kid when the better car washes that drove the car through for you had signs telling Vega owners that their cars were not welcome if they had the double track system.
I agree, Nadar’s effect on the Corvair was relatively minimal. It was an unconventional car, and it didn’t sell relatively better than its conventional competitors, especially given the dominance Chevrolet had in the low-priced field. The wagons failed, the van spin-offs were also rans, although golf courses and landscapers loved the Rampside. It’s strongest seller, the Monza coupe and convertible, begat the Mustang which put the nail in the coffin. I love Corvairs, especially the 2nd generation, which have to rank as some of the most beautiful bodies to come out of Detroit, but they lacked popular appeal.
If we can broaden the discussion out to GM subsidiaries, the 1980 Holden VC Commodore model that was powered by the 1.9 litre “Starfire Four” engine deserves a mention. The Starfire was used in the Holden Sunbird, and was fitted to the Commodore in response to increasing pressure from the 1979 oil crisis. The engine was not a success however, as its lack of power meant the engine needed to be pushed hard to deliver acceptable performance, negating any fuel saving benefits.
Yes, the Corvair was such a flop that it (specifically the Corvair Monza) was Lee Iaccoca’s inspiration for the Mustang, one of the most successful cars ever launched. Don’t believe me, then read Lee Iaccoca’s autobiography entitled “Iacocca: An Autobiography”.
Sorry, Air Conditioning was never available on any turbocharged Corvair. You could probably have bolted one together if you tried, but neither factory nor dealer installation was available. When equipped with real tires, a late 65-69 Corvair will run away and hide from any contemporary Mustang – Unless you are at a drag strip! The gas heater was an option on 60-63 Corvairs. In 1960 standard was no heater! 1961-63 the “fresh-air” system was, as noted, a stinker, and continued through 1969. The most important thing the COrvair did for GM was to introduce it to unibody construction. Used on a majority of cars – GM and others – since then. The early Corvair 2-door body was one of the most rigid unibodys ever built by GM.
Let me see, the Corvair was the first unibody construction, first four wheel independent suspension featuring a lightweight aluminum motor…yeah, that idea was a total failure, they don’t make that car at all anymore. (and of course this is aside from the fact they sold nearly 2 million cars over ten years)
The Corvair was an interesting car with a number of worthwhile attributes. The Corvair also had a demonstrated handling defect and permanently damaged the public image of General Motors. These are all true statements about the Corvair.
Get you a properly mechanically maintained ’65 – ’69 Corvair Coupe with the 4 carb. engine, 4 spd. trans., optional quick steering sector, some slightly wider rims and performance tires, add a set of Koni or Bilstein shocks, and find you a fast curvy country road. Preferably mountainous.
I’ll bet you a quarter that you will have trouble removing that big grin from your face and you will not want the drive to end. There are many other mods available for Corvairs which will vastly improve even the above spec’d. car and their handling capability is simply astounding for a near 50 yr. old production car. I have several cars, but will always own a Corvair or two – and expect to have a number of them in my funeral procession.
I really have to disagree with the 1930 Buick addition – who calls these “pregnant Buicks”? Instead you should have included the 1929-1930 Viking and the 1930 Marquette. They were fine cars, but GM should have simply developed Oldsmobile and Buick models to squeeze into the line up instead of trying to start adding new marques.
You could have also added in the 1959 Impala, full line. There was no reason, after a single season, for Chevrolet to ruin the panache of the Impala by adding in mundane sedans. They should have kept it a halo model regulated to hardtops and convertibles.