We all heard about the Big Three’s fondness for name debasement in Jason Shafer’s most excellent ’68 Newport CC. But sub-models fell to the same indignity. Anybody else remember the mid-’90s Cavalier “Rally Sport?”
Lest you forget, the original Rally Sport was an appearance package on the cool ’67 Camaro. Want a little more chrome and gingerbread on your Shivrollet? Look no further. Some may claim the 1967-68 Camaro was a bit plain, but I personally love the spare, no-nonsense looks.
Fast forward approximately thirty years. Now we have a J-body RS. While the idea itself wasn’t too bad, the execution was miserable. Of course, the Z24 was the boy-racer, top-trim Cav, and looked the part; it even came in an attractive convertible version. But the Cav RS? Bleah. Okay, the alloys look nice, but time hasn’t been kind to them either.
So, what did one get over a basic Cavalier coupe? Not much. How about a goofy purple logo that reminded one of a certain 1990s children’s TV show dinosaur. Hardly sporty.
I can hear you J-body fanciers now: Oh, but Tom, they must have had a bunch of interior upgrades. Umm, no. Well, there WAS more of the purple RS-logo on the headrests, but that was about it. Plain black plastic door panels, plain black plastic dash, and plain black cloth buckets. Blah.
And the back seat. Nothing but plastic-fantastic Rubbermaid™ penalty box seating. You’d like room for your kneecaps, you say? Too bad.
Nope, these things do nothing for me. The 1995 and up Cavalier and Sunfire coupes are pretty nice looking coupes, but the RS trim package was a fail. Why not just get a base coupe or full-boat Z24? Fortunately, the RS trim level has come back up in the world, returning–as it should–to the uplevel Camaros. Thank goodness!
image: chevrolet.com
Argh, that back seat…I’m sitting here thrashing my legs trying to kick the windows out.
I can see a very good reason for that back seat. We put a certain forum member in back there, and lock him in until he promises to quit ranting about roll down windows. (Grin)
Ha! Zackman’s timeout room.
I thought that a more cruel & unusual form of punishment for Zackman would be the back seat of a 1973 Chevelle with no AC, the heater on high, in New Mexico, in July.
What’s the point of putting “Rally” where the sun don’t shine? The Corolla S is another example of a half-baked attempt to sport-up a dull car that will impress no one.
I am pretty sure that most variations of the S came with a hotter engine.
Nope the S was all double stick tape-on body work. You had to pony up the big cash for the XRS if you wanted the bigger, hotter engine.
Yeah, 106hp instead of 104hp.
The factory site says all 2013 Corollas have the same engine (132hp 1.8), whereas back in the ’80s, GT-S Corollas had hotter, twincam engines, which made them special: one got more than just extra trim for the money.
I meant hotter relative to their downmarket SOHC stablemates, not hotter than the modern one.
Yep, in recent years, the S has been just a badge-and-trim job. No upgrades to the drivetrain or suspension.
The one you might be thinking of is the Corolla XRS. That one has a bigger Four from the Camry. But far more interesting, IMHO, was the old ’05-’06 XRS with the 2ZZ motor from the Celica GT-S. That one would rev to 8200 rpm–albeit slowly, due to different tuning than the Celica–and was only available with a notchy six-speed stick. Sadly, the rest of it felt too much like standard Corolla: unremarkable handling, high-chair seating, too-close pedals, tippy feel. And it looked just like the fake-fast S, which might explain why no-one bought it or even knew what it was.
But I digress…
Thanks for that bit of Corolla education. But evidently, the XRS didn’t catch on with enthusiasts; most of the lowered, souped-up, & noisy compacts I see are Hondas & some VWs; Toyota will have to work harder & longer to impress these kids.
Indeed–the last real efforts they made in that area were the Celica and MR-S, both of which were absolutely brilliant cars to drive, but didn’t sell.
I’d have counted myself among the ‘lowered, souped-up, and noisy’ crowd ten years ago, but we were all focused on Mazdas and Nissans (the Miata being my personal fave). Toyota and Honda were clearly losing interest in the segment by then, with Toyota cancelling their cars and Honda only paying lip service to it with turds like the 2003 Civic Si.
I had a 2002 Cavalier RS Sport right off the lot, and it was a nice looking car, though it was built with typical GM cheapness. Performance-wise it was fine. Unfortunately, the driver power window failed around 36,000 miles and other gremlins cropped up, just out of warranty (imagine that). When I wrecked it I was actually happy because it would have cost a good bit to fix, even though it was less than 3 years old.
My aunt has a 2004 LS Sport coupe, in bright yellow no less. It’s hardly exciting or inspiring, but it has been a perfectly serviceable automobile for her, and has proven to be much more durable than her 1992 Saturn SC was.
Reminds me of the ’95-’97 Plymouth Voyager “Rallye”. Really, a Rallye trim on a minivan? Similar to this car, all it offered were exterior graphics and a better stereo.
Yes, “Sport” edition minivans are over-the-top silly. Minivans are exactly the same market role as the Country Squire I grew up with, & there’s nothing sporting about them, other than the events you drive your kids to in them.
Now our Sienna 3.3 VVTi has two accelerations: hardly any, & zoom-zoom. A step-function in the throttle response, as engineers would put it. But it gets about twice the MPG of Dad’s 1970 429 Squire.
It’s still around, in the form of the Dodge Caravan R/T – the “man van.” Pathetic stuff, in my opinion.
A base neon was a much better choice for a crap can sorta sporty car.
As much as I love Neons, these things are outliving Neons 10:1 in rust country. I’m guessing everywhere else, too.
If I were going to put a car in SCCA, or LeMons, a Neon would be it, for sure. The local paved circle track has a “ride-along” program using a modified R/T Neon as the track car; it is the perfect car for the application.
The four-cylinder group has a bunch of Neons in it, virtually no Cavaliers. They’re too heavy and not enough power out of the Q4 or its successors. But, it’s about the only place I see a Neon. Or certain model year Civics, Integras and Sentras for that matter…
On the streets, I’ll take a Cavalier or Sunfire.
Please bring more Neon love. My avatar is liking the respect, attention, & love.
A new Neon was a superior driver, that’s for certain. Engine, transmission, suspension tuning, interior room and ergonomics… all superior to the J-car. Too bad Neons started decomposing to their to base elements almost immediately after driving off the dealer’s lot – an extra $30 per car spent on quality enhancements and a real head gasket would have made all the difference.
Not much you can do when the government forces you to build small cars. The real debasement for Cavalier is the Z24 model. I used to have an 88 Z24 convertible that was about as far away as a VL model of that year as could be. A lot of people thought it was a Mustang or a BMW 3 series convertible. By the late 1990s, the Z24 was nothing more than a trim up kit and even that wasn’t particularly different.
All the manufacturers seem to do it, but it really does not make a lot of sense to tart up what is supposed to be an economy car and try to make people feel better about whatever put them in the position to buy such a car.
Laugh all you want about how cheesily early ’90s that “Rally Sport” graphic is on this mid/late ’90s car, back in the day being an RS meant higher insurance rates on your bought-to-be-cheap Cavalier.
What’s written on the rear fender, though, doesn’t worry me as much as what’s written on the windshield – “$525 DOWN + (illegible)”. I’d maybe consider $525 to own it outright…
You probably can get one for $525; all you have to do is go to the same auction the dealer did. At least that’s always how I have assumed these guys work — the down payment is what they have in on the car, and whatever they get from the buyer before he defaults is profit.
The old timer’s line is to “make your money on the down stroke” so yeah you can be almost certain that they don’t have more than $525 into it and likely less.
Good grief for $525 you can get several of the cavalier things here you could even find one that runs given long enough but why would you, the biggest POS ever to have wheels fitted that Toyota got suckered into having their badges fitted to it is positively astounding.
The Rally Sport Cavy was a marketing ploy to appeal to female customers. It was equipped much like a Z24 (minus such “boy racer” elements as fog lights and the 150-hp 2.4L motor) and offered several improvements over the base 2 door (Alloy wheels! Body color bumpers!) without having to spring for the top-line LS.
By 1997 (the year I’d bet this one is) these were already terribly outdated relative to the competition, but they weren’t terrible cars. GM’s biggest sin was keeping this basic model around for 10 model years with negligible improvements.
The J platform lasted from MY1982-MY2004. It was among the longest surviving basic platforms of cars. The MY1995 redesign was pretty significant in looks as far as the body changed and the front sub frame was adjusted slightly to accommodate the 4 speed automatic transmission but the basic structure remained the same. The Cobalt and G5 from MY2005 was built on the Delta platform. J cars were pretty reliable, especially as time wore on especially considering the base cost but were long on the tooth. If you are interested in a small convertible, find a MY1995-2000 in the best condition. Unlike the earlier J cars, those were not farmed out to an ASC facility, but ASC set up shop inside the Lansing Craft Centre. The result was an exceptionally well almost hand built car similar to the Reatta, the last few years of the Cadillac Eldorado, the SSR, and a few other low volume vehicles.
You’re right, of course, about the J platform’s longevity, but this generation did a decent job of hiding its lesser roots for the first few years after the restyle. By 2000 or so, though, it was hopelessly behind the competition.
It’s also a shame that the convertibles were extremely flimsy, no matter who built them. The cowl shake even when new was ridiculous; the J platform was never intended to have its roof cut off, and no amount of patchwork support structure could hide that. I will grant you that the 1995-2000 convertibles looked good.
I have never driven a newer convertible, but my MY1988 Z24 convertible was incredibly stiff especially after the modifications that I did. So much to the point that was able to break 100MPH going around the banks of Charlotte Motor Speedway in 2009. In the early days of the Z24, the car was a pretty healthy step up from a base Cavalier, but was watered down significantly after the redesign. There is a pretty healthy subculture for the older Z’s (www.v6z24.com) since they were equipped with the 60* V6 and could be tweaked easily and inexpensively. I regret selling my car but we bought a historic house in 2011 when I semi retired and I had to let some cars go.
That is sharp!! To be fair, I’ve never driven an older J-car convertible, but I sold new (1997-1998) Cavalier convertibles and could never get over the amount of cowl shake they exhibited.
On one demo drive I noticed how the driver’s door, dashboard, windshield support, and steering column noticeably shook at slightly different rates over every bump. I immediately sought out a convertible-specific demo route with much smoother pavement.
With the MY1995 redesign, the Cavalier thinned out considerably. The early Z24s, especially the convertibles like mine, were downright plush. As you can see from the pic below the seats were Lear Siegler in a crushed velour with 6 way power driver. It really was a top of the line car the MSRP on my car was nearly $17,000 which was nearly 2.5 times the base VL coupe that was advertised for $6995.
Part of the problem was that some of the later model convertibles did not get the strut bar in the engine compartment. It was standard on the early Zs and pretty mandatory on convertibles. In addition to suspension tweaks, I went as far as installed a bar between the rear shocks plus an entirely new suspension system Eibach Pro-Kit with KYB AGX shocks and struts and polyurethane bushings mated to 245/40ZR17 Falken tires with Hawk drilled and slotted pads and rotors. I had no problems taking any and all comers especially after dropping a 3400SFI and true dual exhausts (two Magnaflow cats). Car sounded like this with Flowmaster Series 40 muffler:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yZ76kzT0SQ
I had no problems getting every last penny I put into it when I put it up for sale.
Craig, that is a pretty Z24. Very tasteful execution.
Agreed, that’s a real beauty. I can imagine how it hurt to sell it, though it sounds like you did it for a good reason.
That’s always GM’s sin, along with finally sorting out a good car and then dropping it.
“That’s always GM’s sin, along with finally sorting out a good car and then dropping it.”
This statement makes no sense to me. No matter who says it and when they say it. The J-Car has been the same,more or less, from day 1 to it’s grave. I’ve always said these were good cars to begin with as long as you aint comparing apples to oranges. At least you did say it is a “goog car” in your statement.
True the (third?) gen Cavalier RS was just a decal and content package but the 86-94 RS was a combination of the top trim line CL/LS with the performance of the Z/24 minus the boy racer junk. The 3rd gen RS would have been great with the Q4 motor IMO.
At a glance the RS “model” on the 95 up Cavalier’s always seemed like just a decal package that a dealer added on to a regular Cav. The earlier ones seemed like they had more trim added. That back seat is awful.
I am not sure if RS was actually a cataloged model for the Cavalier after MY1994. Before that, it was actually the middle model between the base/VL and the Z24. Prior to 1991, at least you got the sports dash with the full console, slightly altered interior, some suspension tweaks, and the ability to order the V6 which was not available on the base/VL cars except for the wagons in some years. The V6, of course, was standard on the Z24 models. The dash actually came out for the Type 10 (I have no idea what a “Type 10” is supposed to mean anymore than a “Type R”). The RS models got analog gauges with the digital gauges being optional. Z’s got the digitals standard but could be force ordered with the analog. The digital dash was wild for a compact car.
“The dash actually came out for the Type 10 (I have no idea what a “Type 10″ is supposed to mean anymore than a “Type R”).”
Think Citation X11. Probably some engineering designation to a J-Car body style.And I think the digital dash was an option on some years of RS’s too.
According to the standard catalog of Chevrolet, the Type 10 was introduced in 1982 and 1983 as the hatchback model. It was exclusive to the hatchback model but in 1984-1985 they applied it to the notchback coupe and convertible. In 1986 they switched it to RS.
91-94 generation Cavalier RS gave you the V6 option for the 4 door. This was my ’93 I drove while in college. All the torque steer of a Z24 with less body cladding
Last one of these I drove – 9 years ago – was like being kicked in the groin every time I hit a bump or even a crease in the road. Punitive motoring.
At least the “Rally Sport” on this mid-90’s Cadaver looks like it belongs on the car, debasement or no. What I REALLY hated were the dealer tape stripe jobs on gen-2 stripper Cavaliers with “RALLYE SPORT”…”RALLEY SPORT”…or even better…”RALLEYE SPORT” on the door. It was the visual equivalent of fingernails on the chalkboard. I’ll bet those tape graphics ran the price up, what, $500 a car…$495 of which was pure dealer profit…while the buyer went their way grinning that they got a “Ralleye” Sport….when in reality they were all the butt of the joke.
Ahh, the Cavalier. The car that many chose as the last-ditch uh-oh transportation. The local rental car company has them, oozing oil and displaying check engine lights. The students drive them, showing off their high school tassels on the rear-view. You walk by one and think, sure, in the meantime, if my car goes out – maybe for a few months until I can swing something better – maybe.
Bald Walmart tires. Teal. Purple RS badges. Rust. Cracked windshields. Rejection stickers. Peeling clearcoat.
The people responsible for the creation and the release of this car had no shame. How else to explain spitting on the history of the first gen Rally Sport Camaro with it’s special unique hidden headlamps. Or the split front bumper 70.5 Camaro Rally Sport that was one of Bill Mitchell’s crowning achievements, a car compared to some of Italy’s finest.
A tape job that could have come from Pep Boys instead came from the drawing boards that once seated so many great modern automotive designers….
You could say much the same for those who further disparaged the Camaro nameplate by sticking it on today’s ill-conceived, bloated, two-ton “pony car.” GM has repeatedly demonstrated it is unafraid to demean its most storied nameplates if there’s even the slightest chance it can sell a few more cars in the short term.
IIRC the ‘Rally Sport’ Cavalier, by this generation, was just a low-rung base coupe with the Z24’s exterior bits on it.
It’s a shame GM kept the J-body kicking around for so long, because the thing felt positively ancient by the time it was replaced in 2005. I had a few as rentals between 2000 and 2004, and the creaks, groans, clunks and nasty oily interior plastics belonged in another decade. The seats were like sitting on a half-dozen pine logs, awful on the freeway. And I was predisposed to like these, since I thought they looked quite nice from the outside and had an older Cavalier as my first car.
Have a 2002 Cavalier I bought brand new with 43 miles on it. Bought it out of desperation after my pos ’96 Contour that I had pampered for four years thanked me by blowing up at 122,000 miles. This turned me off to Fords, and I needed reliable transportation, but not a Metro. It was August of 2002, the end of the model year, and they were practically giving the last two ’02s away. I didn’t really like it at first, but as time went on it began to grow on me because of its dependability and reliability. It’s not exciting, but it runs great and I now have 193,000 miles on it. I’ve only replaced tires and two batteries and a taillight in almost eleven years. I’m sure my luck will run out soon, but it’s been paid off for six years so I definitely got my money’s worth.
My older daughter bought one after her now-ex-husband wrecked her 2000 Hyundai Elantra . . . . wait — did he do her a favor? At any rate, it seems decent enough, with the 2.2 in it. Maybe next, a REAL car…..
That’s actually a pretty desirable RS Cav; 5 speed, factory stereo, the alloy wheels, etc. Like any other Cavalier of the time, you could mix and match options to suit your needs and wallet. This was a step up from the base black bumpered Cavalier but not as expensive as the Z24. Kind of like a “highline” Neon. I’d really rather it had the Quad 4 in it with the 5 speed, but the chances are very high this is the 2.2 OHV motor. Regardless, I’d be interested in this one, but not for in BHPH deal…
Someone further up the string mentioned the dealer special “Ralley Sportts”, another sin was variations on this theme: the Z-20 or Z-22 Cavalier… Big bold graphics to remind you were too cheap (or broke) to go for the real thing…
I will defend the last generation Z24 and LS Sports, they were a nice package. Not an all out runner like some of the Acura Integras or DOHC Neons, but came well equipped to make it a car you could live with for a long time if you wanted.
I have a 1995 Sunfire GT and when compared to the equivalent Z24, the Z24 comes out ahead on equipment to the Sunfire GT, at least before you get into optional equipment. I know I’m the odd man here, but I like the looks of the Sunfire GT better than the Z24. One interesting (to me at least) is how many of the Z24’s and LS Sports around here are owned by non-teenagers, I don’t know what that means; whether they work well for adults, or they were cheap rides…
I always found the last-generation Cav Z24 and Sunfire GT equally (quite) attractive in different ways.
As an owner, I’m curious–does your sun visor overlap the rearview mirror? I had a Sunfire as a rental once, and recall flipping the visor up, and it knocking the mirror askew. At the time I chalked it up to sloppy GM design. Or was it a sloppy mechanic sticking a replacement mirror too far to the left?
Yes on both cars, the visor interferes with the mirror. I think it was a mistake on the General’s part. I’m sure the mirror is a universal mirror, meaning that it fits on many GM cars, I would imagine this was some sort of oversight and never corrected.
I wish I had my daughter’s 04 Sunfire to check against, alas, she totalled it a couple of years ago and is now gone.
My ’89 Camaro RS is from the years when there were only two Camaro types to choose from: the RS (base model) and the Z (performance model) . By the late ’80s, after the “upmarket” Berlinetta model had been dropped from the line-up, there was nothing lower than an RS.
So, as to the discussions on the thread about whether the RS designation on this ’90s Cav signified any actual performance upgrades or was just a meaningless designation — a sleazy magic-trick The General did with smoke, mirrors, and sticky-tape — I point out that in Third Gen Camaros like mine, the letters RS were literally meaningless, as you couldn’t buy one that wasn’t at least an RS. The two letters signified neither performance options nor even superficial appearance options — rather, it signified an absence of options.
(It’s like when the base full-size Ford of the late ’60s was called the Ford Custom — when in reality the “Custom” was the rental-fleet strippo with none of the Galaxie’s goodies, and therefore about as UN-custom as a car could be! )
Below: My “RS” can’t help it — it was born this way!
Did anyone notice the equally faux-sporty Honda Civic Del Sol in photo 3?
Shh…you should never speak ill of a Honda, even the del Sol its not polite company…
Regardless of angering the Honda gods, it can hardly be disputed that with a removable targa roof panel, double wishbones at all four corners and a high-revving engine, even that non-Si del Sol is a bit closer to the sports car ideal than a bestickered Cavy.
For that matter, it’s also closer to a “real” Civic than today’s travesty can manage.
I’ll second Rob’s sentiment. The Del Sol didn’t handle particularly well, with too much understeer, a wet-noodle chassis, and a too-slow steering ratio… and it was called out for it in its day, especially since it was judged in the context of Mazda’s then-new RWD Miata.
But a 160hp DOHC Four that revs to 7200 rpm, four double wishbones, and a unique body style is certainly something more special than a trim-package base J-body. Though, for the record, I don’t aspire to own either of them.
To put it another way, the Del Sol was something of a ’90s Japanese Thunderbird, whereas the Cav RS was more of a rental car in cheap makeup.
The del sol was… Ghey …
Which was the CRX replacement but supposed to be more sophisticated. Like the Paseo was really a snazzed up Corolla coupe but no one really liked either one. A CRX Si was a ricer’s wet dream but the del sol was the mom and dad version.
Anyways, the del sol isn’t really like a Cavalier anyways the featured car is more like a Civic HX or DX or CX or what ever the value stripper was at the time.
Miatas was fun, but interestingly never was ricified the same way as a Protege probably because they were more expensive and attracted a lot of older customers too.
Now now, inclusivity and all that–from a certified breeder, curbside classicism knows no bounds…
The Paseo was indeed a sheep in wolf’s clothing. Little more than a Tercel in a slinky dress. But I remain of the mind that the del Sol was more ambitious, though certainly in the form-over-function ‘date car’ vein so popular in Japan before the bubble economy burst.
Glad you think the Miata wasn’t too ‘ricified’. You might reconsider if you saw the lowered and variously ricified ’95 I used to own!
A local copier repair facility ran plain Cav wagons for techs, in the late 80’s/early 90’s. But one year, 1993, they got a good deal on RS wagons. The techs were glad to not drive something screaming ‘fleetmaster. But, after a few months, the side trims were peeling off. They switched to Escort/Focus wagons when the J wagons were dropped in ’94. Now in Matrixes, Vibes, or HHR’s.
BTW: Cav’y RS was not base model but the ‘mid level’, there was always a strippo base J car with no door ding guards.
And, on new Chevy Cruzes, ‘RS’ is a trim package, on LT and LTZ, not a separate model.
Spotted this afternoon at lunch. Seems to be a virtual twin…
Funny how the author makes fun of the Cavalier RS and than compares it to the original Camaro RS but fails to mention the 75-81 Camaro RS was the same as the Cavalier RS.In other words a decal and content package powered by a base engine package. I cant really comment on the 3rd gen Camaro RS because at least you could have ordered those with the top of the line Z/28/IROC motors if you were a police agency.Today those B4C Camaro RS’s are a highly sought after car.
Really? The ’75 to ’81 Camaro had goofy purple decals too?
All I see on this generation of Cav RS are the Pep Boys logos, alloys and little else. Hardly enough to make up a separate trim level. The 1991-94 Cav RS had a good list of standard convenience and appearance items–especially the red-accented side moldings and Custom Cloth tweed-like interior. My cousin had a black ’93 RS coupe and it was quite a step up from a base model.
According to my GM modeling chart, for 1998 (I just chose that year because there was an RS Coupe model for Cavalier listed who knows what this feature vehicle is…)
This is what you got for RS (above the base model but below the LS & Z24):
SPOILER (also standard on Z24 but not available on other models)
TILT STEERING WHEEL
CRUISE CONTROL
TACH
195/65/15 RBL TIRES (base models had 195/70/14)
THICKER FRONT SWAY BAR
ALLOY WHEELS (base models had steelies)
Plus the ability to order a lot more content. The base models were limited in their options like no power windows, keyless entry, etc. In that year at least, the LS was a 4 door model, so the RS was the mid priced coupe between the stripper base and the Z24 with the Quad 4 motor. I know the RS eventually left the lineup and an LS Coupe was born.
So in fact, the Rally Sport car wasn’t just a visual gimmick but a real model that offered you something more than the base stripper without going in full on the Z24 model with the Quad 4 motor and all the goodies (and higher price).
As for the Camaro, at least during 1975-1980, it was basically just an appearance package as a step up from the base Camaro, versus the more luxury LT/Berlinetta, and the almost performance oriented Z/28. In interest of time, I did not go through each year to see what changed, but for at least some of the years it was mostly a paint package as is pictured below.
The first generation Camaro offered an RS package, but it too was appearance, hence why you could have RS, SS, or RS/SS versions.
For the current generation Camaro, the RS is again an appearance package available on both LT and SS trim levels.
As far as the featured car’s color and “purple” in general, remember those colors had a popular phase in the 1990s so it was trendy.
So in the end, the Rally Sport/RS package of the featured car fit in pretty much along the scheme of things of the package throughout history. A mostly appearance package that offered some goodies to upgrade what was usually the base model. So there really wasn’t any debasement, unless you want to split a purist hair and say the RS designation should have only appeared on Camaros.
Time for the haters to settle down…
I appreciate the info Craig. I can understand there was more stuff on them than I noticed, but to me, and likely the average man on the street, these really didn’t look all that different from an LS of the same year. Were the alloys on this example available on the LS as well?
My other cousin bought a brand-new ’96 Z24 in the same color as this one and it was quite a looker. She drove it for years too. I just fail to see there was a need for the RS with the plain-Jane, LS and Z24 models already in the line.
In those years, there was no LS coupe. The LS sedans used a different wheel cover than the base cars with the alloys being optional. They were standard on the RS. The base cars had 14″ wheels, RS/LS 15″, and the Z24 16″. The only coupes were base, RS, and Z24. The Z24 was quite a step up from the base coupe in price, like $4K plus you got the Quad 4 motor. A lot of people did not want that so the only alternative was the RS. The base coupe only had a limited amount of options available to it, like a/c and a few other things. Most of the big comfort and convenience items like power windows, cruise, tilt, tach were either standard or only optional on the RS. So in fact there was a rationale for it. As far as looks, well the teal and purple colors were fads of the 90s. I suppose in another color it would have presented better. Something like the picture below in a dark color with the optional (only on RS and Z24) sunroof makes for a much more attractive car than the above car.
Not to pick, but I think we took one example and overgeneralized a bit. I am not a small car fan in general, so I have little interest in any of these vehicles but I do think there is too much made out of the value of brand/model equity these days.
Ah–no LS coupe. That explains it.
Also: People making fun of ’90s teal and purple is the reason why there are so many silver, white, gray, silver-gray, dark gray and black cars now.