Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Memories Of The Old GM And Its Cars
386 messages, Last post on Dec 04, 2009 at 9:01 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
The Ventura is nice, but it overlapped the Omega and Skylark. The Phoenix replaced it but it was overshadowed by Skylark as GM's 'mid priced compact'. Eventaully, the 1980-84 Phoenix was FWD, then replaced by 1985+ N body Grand Am, which had more character, and then it overshadowed the Buick and Olds versions.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tomcatt630 (Jun 10, 2009 11:28 am) The only weakness of that car, given it's price, was the engine. It defined the term agricultural. A neighbor who heard it idling once asked me if it was a diesel, and he was serious. Once those engines had a few miles on them the timing gear wore, and they emitted a loud, crude sound, kind of like you'd expect an old diesel farm tractor to sound. I considered the 3.0 V6, which I believe was a small displacement version of the Buick V6, but the only transmission available with that engine was a 3-speed automatic. I was looking for better fuel economy at that time. The V6 was an okay engine, for its day, but not all that good. Nevertheless, I might have chosen it if I could have coupled it to a five-speed. For the '90 model year GM did an odd thing with the Iron Duke engine. They commissioned John Deere, of all companies, to substitute a timing chain for the timing gear. That accomplished the goal of quieting the engine down. A couple of other detail changes also boosted the horsepower, but GM then dropped that engine when it redesigned the "N" compact platform for the '92 model year. The results of that redesign were lackluster, at best. The Grand Am got tackier looking, the Olds Cutlass Calais was replaced by the underwhelming (un)Achieva(r), and the Buick Skylark acquired weird styling. I kind of liked the Achieva coupe and the rather strange looking Skylark coupe, though, but not the 4 doors. I though the unusual looking dashboard design of the '92-'95 Skylark was neat. Based on my experience with my '86 Grand Am I would have bought another "N" coupe if the Quad 4 engine hadn't been a disaster. That engine was very promising on paper, in that it was both powerful and economical. Unfortunately, it was a disaster, durability wise, so that '86 Grand Am was the last new GM car I ever bought.
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Jun 10, 2009 1:25 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Jun 10, 2009 1:25 pm)  And he ended up selling his '55 Fireflite Coronado and getting a '72 Corvette that would have done Larry Tate proud. When my Mom wanted a new car in 1986, she initially wanted a Grand Am. However, my Granddad talked her out of it and she got a Monte Carlo instead. I think Granddad told her not to get any 4-cyl FWD crap because he wouldn't be able to work on it! Now that I think about it, my uncle was thinking about a Grand Am in 1990. He went to Bob Banning Pontiac/Dodge in New Carrolton to look at them. By that time though, I think they had changed the interiors enough that they were getting cheaper and weirder. At least I remember him saying he didn't like the Grand Am because it was too plasticky, so he bought, of all things, a used 1988 LeBaron coupe! I liked the N-body when it first came out. They seemed really well-appointed initially, although they did cheap out a bit in later years (plus that odd 1992 redesign). One reason they might have seemed so upscale is that, had gas gone to $3.00 per gallon and gov't kept tightening fuel economy standards, these N-bodies would have been replacements for the Regal, Grand Prix, and Cutlass Supreme. And most likely, there would have been a Monte Caro version, too. Back in 1992, I went to California, and was supposed to get a Dodge Colt or something like that as a rental car. However, they ran out of their cheap cars, and substituted a new Grand Am for me. I was excited at first, since these cars seemed like a big deal at the time, but unfortunately it was a piece of junk. It was crude, unrefined, and while it was kinda quick from, say, 0-60, it seemed to bog down at higher speeds. The 1991 Civic sedan I'd had as a rental 6 months before was actually a better highway cruiser. The Grand Am also had a short in the horn, that would make it honk when I hit a bump, or turned the wheel the wrong way. At first we thought it was cute, until it went off and got stuck late at night in a bad neighborhood. I looked all over for the fuse panel and couldn't find it. I think it was in the side of the dash and you couldn't see unless you opened the door, but I had never experienced that in a car before, so I didn't know to look there. I ended up popping the cover off the steering wheel and disconnecting a wire! That '91 Civic had actually given me a newfound respect for small cars. However, this '92 Grand Am made me think, what the hell is GM doing?! |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 10, 2009 3:59 pm) "...there would have been a Monte Caro version, too." I'm not sure whether the Corsica/Beretta used the "N" platform, or a modified N. I've read conflicting things on these Chevy models. Maybe they had their own unique platform, and just shared some platform components with the other Ns. I don't really know. Corsica/Beretta had some engines that were exclusive to Chevy. For example, the 2.0 and 2.2 OHV 4 was not shared with Pontiac, Olds and Buick Ns. The 2.8 V6 was aslo a Corsica/beretta exclusive, but I believe the 3.1 V6 was shared only with the Achieva.
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Jun 10, 2009 5:09 pm) Recall reading back then that the Baretta with V6 had ridiculous requirement to undo engine from mounts, move somehow to get at some of the spark plugs when replacement needed. More GM excellence in engineering.
|
|
|
I got an 89 Beretta in the spring of 1990. It was a former rental that my dad got at auction and had, less than 10k when I got it. It was a stripper, no cassettte, no pwr windows or locks. It had the 2.0 4cyl and a 3 spd auto and was absolutely dog slow. Even when I got it the top was already orange peeling, but really did not get that much worse in the 5 yrs I owned it. I put about 65k on it and in that time the drivers side window jumped out of track twice, alternator went at about ~40k, engine control module went at ~30k, freeze plugs went at ~60k. Decent enough looking car and the interior materials were not bad for the time. Obviously the alternator and computer module left me stranded, but it did get me through college and about a year beyond that when I traded it on a Tacoma 4x4. I gave the General another chance with a GMC Canyon, but it just wasn't me. Not an all bad little truck, but definitely miles away from the Frontier or Tacoma. I hope they emerge stronger an leaner. It seems that they do everything about 80%. Good design...poor interior. Good interior...poor assembly. Maybe the new company can get it right. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jun 11, 2009 5:19 am) |
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Jun 10, 2009 5:09 pm) Yeah, the Corsica/Beretta were also on the N-body, same 103.4" wheelbase and all. The N-body itself was derived from the J-body (Cavalier, et al). It's interesting that they still tried to keep the Chevy and B-O-P differentiation with these cars, with the Chevy using Chevy engines, and the rest using the Pontiac 2.5 or the Buick 3.0 initially. I know in later years they started mixing things up more. The Buick 3.0 got upsized to a 3.3 around 1989 or so, and also around then I think Pontiac began playing with turbos in the Grand Am. And I'm sure the Quad 4 factored in somewhere. I imagine one of these cars with the 3.3 V-6 would've been pretty gutsy for the time. I was always under the impression that with the 1992 models, they ditched the 3.3 and went with the Chevy 3.1, but it looks like they waited until 1994 to make that change. |
|
|
|
|
The Bar-sica was the L body, but shared many parts with J and N. The Corsica was dull as dishwater and slow and noisy. Compared to an Accord or Camry, it was ancient. But, was 'good enough' for GM [and Avis] and it was nearly unchanged for nearly a decade. Then the P90 Malibu was 'car you knew America could build'. Well that is true, it was not much of a step forward. To me, the lack of interest in making Chevy's compact/mid size cars competitive is one of the top reasons for GM's decline. Chevy is supposed to compete with all mainstream brands, and to offer mediocre cars is bad business. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Memories Of The Old GM And Its Cars
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
