(first posted 12/1/2017) While developing the 1996 Taurus, Ford engineers purchased a Toyota Camry and took it apart to find out what made it such a superbly-built vehicle. Careful attention was paid to the smallest of details, right down to the screws and the panel gaps. The fresh new Taurus, even in base model guise, came standard with thoughtful touches like folding rear seats and solar glass windows, surprise-and-delight features that came out of a lengthy research and development period and were intended to please discerning Accord and Camry buyers.
For 1995, however, Chevrolet just put a new body on their five year-old Lumina and called it a day.
GM had haemorrhaged cash and efforts were being undertaken in the early 1990s to stem the tide of red ink onto the company’s balance sheets. Cost-cutting was an inevitable step to restore profitability to the beleaguered giant and few cars suffered more than the Lumina (and its Monte Carlo coupe sibling) during this period of cost-cutting. It wasn’t so much that content was removed from the car but, rather, that very little was changed for what was supposed to be a new generation.
There were positive additions, mind you. The structure had been stiffened somewhat, making the car feel more solid on the road. Dual airbags were belatedly added to the Lumina line, something that by 1994 had become a glaring omission in the previous model. The styling was also much more contemporary than the last Lumina, a car that had effectively used a sketched design from the early/mid-1980s. While the ’90 Lumina wasn’t a bad-looking car, arguably its worst design cue – the squared-off wheel arches – were still carried over to the ’95.
One look inside the car was enough to tell you GM wasn’t trying to mimic the Camry or Accord. The first-generation didn’t exactly have a world-class cabin but it certainly had a distinctive design. Where it suffered was in ergonomics, with hard-to-read gauges and hard-to-reach controls. GM fixed that with the ’95 Lumina but they also cursed it with arguably the ugliest interior produced by the company during the 1990s. It had all the cheap, scratchy, hard plastics of a Cavalier or Camaro but with a design that didn’t even try to look expensive. The center stack lacked any kind of accenting or contrasting elements and instead looked like some kind of Fisher-Price play set painted a drab gray (or beige). And GM’s build quality still wasn’t great in the mid-1990s, so you couldn’t make the practical argument that it was “hardy” and would “wear well”. No, it looked and felt like crap and would probably age poorly too.
To a family sedan buyer or, more likely, a fleet purchaser, the Lumina was still an enticing choice. For just over $16,000 (before incentives), you could get a base model 1996 Lumina with standard dual airbags, air-conditioning, automatic transmission and power locks. That was almost $2k less than the new Taurus.
For an extra $1k, GM’s 3.4 Twin Dual Cam V6 was an option, producing 210 hp and 215 ft-lbs of torque, an increase of 50 hp and 30 ft-lbs over the venerable, standard-fit 3.1 V6. That was some good performance, although the 3.4 was louder, somewhat underwhelming low in the rev range and less reliable. All Luminas also were engineered to understeer safely and provide little in the way of steering feel. Driving excitement wasn’t the name of the game here, however, and to the Lumina’s credit the car had a commendably smooth ride and a relatively hushed cabin.
Tellingly, GM touted the Lumina’s new value pricing. This was a family sedan that was designed to sell on price, not one that had been designed to be a better car than the hot-selling Camry, Accord, or Taurus. For undemanding buyers, the value ploy worked. Unlike the last generation, which generally sold between 150,000 and 200,000 units a year, give or take, the “new” Lumina sold between 200,000 and 225,000 units a year. That was a decent bump – especially considering coupe sales were now reported separately – but it was still around half of what the Taurus was achieving.
GM had cheapened out and taken the 1990s Kia route – old product, low price – with the highest-volume passenger car from its highest-volume brand, and they still couldn’t beat the pricier, controversially-styled Taurus. And, realistically, they shouldn’t have been zeroing in exclusively on their hometown rival anymore. The Camry and Accord had seen a meteoric rise to the top of the sales charts and their popularity showed absolutely no signs of abating. GM appeared to be targeting Buick and Oldsmobile products at Honda buyers, leaving Chevrolet at the bottom of the totem pole to appeal to bargain buyers. Even then, GM had muddied the waters by retaining blue-light special models like the Buick Century. This was a corporation that still offered the same number of models as it did when it had twice the market share, and a corporation that insisted on giving each brand a full line of vehicles.
The company clearly needed a wake-up call, something that didn’t really happen until the next decade. Chevrolet models tended to be decontented to make sure they weren’t as “nice” as Pontiacs and Buicks and Oldsmobiles, a practice that continued well into the new century. Well, Toyota and Honda were doing just fine with two brands a piece and they didn’t have to worry about spreading marketing and development funds across multiple different brands. And GM’s attempts at creating different “import fighter” models showed they weren’t quite in touch with consumers. After all, was a Camry really that exotic and different and fun-to-drive?
Chevrolet launched a top-end Lumina LTZ in 1997 to help fill the void left by the departed Chevrolet Caprice and Impala SS. While it added niceties such as the old Twin Dual Cam 3.4 V6 as an option, as well as some styling tweaks and a firmer suspension tune, it made little sense for buyers to spend more money on a Lumina when rival brands, let alone GM’s other brands, offered a more cohesive package. The sales figures bear this out, too: in 1998, 208,627 Luminas were produced and a whopping 82% of those were the base model. Shoppers just didn’t see the point in paying more for the LTZ or even the mid-range LS.
After 1997, the Lumina had become the marque’s de facto full-size sedan. That didn’t sound completely ridiculous as, after all, the Lumina had always been awkwardly sized slightly larger than the Taurus, even though that hadn’t exactly translated into more interior room. But for 1997 as well, the Lumina would be joined by a new model wearing an old nameplate: Malibu.
This was Chevrolet’s attempt at targeting the Camry and Accord more directly and to better align the Chevy car range against Honda and Toyota’s, but the indirect result was lame duck status for the Lumina. The Malibu had a wheelbase just half an inch shorter, boasted more rear leg room, had the same 3.1 V6 (and an even more efficient base four-cylinder), a nicer interior, greater cargo volume, and superior dynamics. All the Lumina really had over the Malibu was a bench seat and a more powerful optional engine, which by now was GM’s well-regarded 3.8 V6. This engine swap, by the way, was one of the few changes made to the Lumina during its run and was a good one—although down 15 hp from the 3.4, it was more refined, reliable, torquey, and fuel-efficient.
The light was going out for the Lumina, something also demonstrated by GM’s introduction of re-engineered second-generation W-Body cars like the ’97 Buick Regal and Pontiac Grand Prix. These were bigger, with a wheelbase of 109 inches (110.5 in the Pontiac), and featured bolder styling and more resolved dynamics. This left the Lumina and Monte Carlo as what are now considered “Gen 1.5s”.
With the Malibu firmly ensconced as Chevy’s mid-size offering, the Lumina’s replacement – resurrecting another heritage nameplate, Impala – would increase in size and be positioned more distinctly as Chevy’s full-size model. The new Impala was introduced in 2000, however the Lumina lingered for that year with a reduced model range. As Chevrolet was wont to do, the car then saw a fleet-only year in 2001 before finally being put down.
If any GM brand suffered during the 1990s, it was Chevrolet. Trucks and sports cars aside, their range was uninspiring and any cars with flashes of greatness were left to wither. Much like the ’95 Cavalier, the Lumina was simply a lazy revision of an existing car masquerading as something fresh and new and selling almost entirely on its low price. The Lumina was truly a blue light special.
Lumina LTZ photographed in Inwood, Manhattan, NY in 2014; LS in Washington Heights, NY in 2017.
Related Reading:
CC 1997 Lumina: GM’s Deadly Sin #28 – The Re-Gifter
Curbside Classic: 1990-94 Chevrolet Lumina – Not Quite Saving The Best ‘Til Last
Curbside Classic: 1996-99 Ford Taurus – Making Over A Family Friend
CC: 1997-2003 Pontiac Grand Prix – Randy’s Here For Dinner And He Brought The Wild Turkey
Yuck, a reminder of some truly bad years for American cars!
I don’t know about truly bad, as a 1990s Lumina/Malibu required a lot less maintenance than anything built in the previous two decades by GM.
In my opinion, the mid-to-late 1970s malaise-era cars were far worse. We had a 1977 Chevrolet Impala – THM200 transmission had to get rebuilt at 40K miles, and the non-hardened cam lobes in the 305 engine wore down by 85K miles.
The difference was that competitors had really upped their game by the time this Lumina appeared – more than GM had during the same stretch of time.
I was always under the impression the 77-78 Impalas were pretty solid cars. I do recall the cam lobe problem however. Had a friend with a 78, believe it was a 350 with a THM350 trans(I think). A very nice car.
I can relate. My family’s ’80 Monte Carlo was an atrocious car in terms of build and quality. Like you, our transmission was junk and needed frequent rebuilding, and I remember my dad saying “soft cams” being the problem another time. I honestly grew up thinking that it was normal for a vehicle to nearly always be in the shop for something.
I think this generation of Lumina was GM’s answer to Chrysler’s LH. Everyone rushed to make their boxes more aerodynamic ever since Chrysler went cab-forward. The Lumina isn’t quite an LH, but it’s a little closer than Ford (Taurus) due to its conservative yet modern design.
The interior could have used a little more help though; it’s the typical frumpy ’80s-90s GM look. The dash controls seem very straightforward and uncluttered though, something that is woefully lacking in 98% of 2017-era cars.
That Lumina dash is extremely similar to the setup Ford used in the first generation Taurus. And it looks like GM couldn’t be bothered with matching the quality of a ten year old interior.
Interesting you mention that. Maybe their thought was to make this “familiar” to those who might be ready to trade in their first gen Taurus?
I immediately saw that resemblance too. Specifically, the ’86-’89 Taurus without the optional automatic temperature control HVAC, which replaced the three round knobs with rectangular electronic controls. The last two years of the original Taurus, ’90-’91, had a redesigned dash.
Great overview of a very forgettable car.
I’ve always found the styling progression of the 1st gen. Lumina / 2nd gen. Lumina / Impala to be interesting. To me, the 2000-05 Impala looks like it would be the first in the series, not the last, with its angular style and high decklid. The Impala looks to me like it could have been the Celebrity’s direct replacement.
The featured 1995-2001 Luminas were nice, cleanly-styled cars, though exceedingly bland. If it had just one distinguishing feature (interior comfort, great drivetrain, etc., it could have easily beaten up on the Taurus).
But nothing in the world is as bland as that generation of Malibu. If there’s any car that epitomizes Chevrolet’s woes during the 1990s-2000s, it’s that dull, dull Malibu.
You’re absolutely right about that era of Malibu being a pretty blah car, but GM managed to make it even worse. The “Classic” fleet edition was an awful, cynical machine, with obviously cheap fit and finish and an overall feel that the parent company had just given up.
So dumpy, that first FWD Malibu.
Another MT COTY winner. But only if one opted for the high zoot model.
And no “Bumper Of The Year” award” again.
How much advertising did GM have to buy for that one ?
’97 Malibu only won COTY since it was the last year of only Domestics. And matched their “new car” rulebook. Then, finally, MT combined import and domestic cars for ’98 on.
COTY had been a “who’s turn is it” award for the Big 3 to run ad campaigns for quite some time.
That wood dash trim though
Does one admit to having driven at least one example each of the Lumina, the Malibu, and the Impala? And in the case of the Impala, it’s likely been around twenty of them.
Durable and reliable? Yes. Well built? Well, that depends upon your definition. Exciting to drive? No.
The worst of the bunch to me was the Malibu as it was plain sad. The Lumina (which I only drove once, briefly) had a goodly degree of the GM float that isn’t always unwelcome.
Will, you’ve hit the nail on the head.
When I began dating the woman who is now my wife, her mother had a 1999 Malibu. “Reliable” is not a word I would use to describe it. The car was basically shot by 100,000 miles.
I had one of these Luminas as a driver’s ed car in 2007. I don’t know what year it was, but I remember the mileage being quite low, something like 60,000. It had A/C and power seats, but no power windows or mirrors. It rode smoothly but was forgettable otherwise.
An absolutely awful-looking car, and really showed how far GM had fallen. I was a Chrysler fan in those days because our K-derived cars were great and I was still angry at GM for dropping the ball in the 1970s, especially when giving us such things as the X cars.
I really did like the first generation Lumina, as it did have some design appeal, especially the red-orange Euro Sports I saw all over the place.
These 2nd gen Luminas were atrocious in so many ways that I figuratively gagged at the sight of them.
I had my one and only taste of these in 1995 when I rented a Monte Carlo for a business trip to the Cleveland area. The car was certainly serviceable, but had not a shred of any possible appeal to own one, though for years I secretly wanted to get back to diving a Chevy. That would wait another 9 years!
I rented one of these Lumina’s for a long road trip from Washington DC to New Hampshire and back for a long weekend. At the time I had a 1997 Nissan Maxima with a 5-speed that I was leasing and I didn’t want to add miles to the leased car.
(As an aside, when I leased the Maxima, I drove a 1996 Accord and it was quite disappointing compared to the previous generation. Buzy 4 cylinder and weak breaks. Further, my mother had had a gen three Camry which was also a less exciting car than her gen two Camry.)
Upon entering the Lumina I thought wow this car is just not even trying to compete with the Japanese competition. It just felt cheap and confirmed all of my stereotypes of GM cars at the time. Then I drove it 10 hours each way over a long weekend and I LOVED IT! I was an excellent vehicle on the highway, solid, powerful, smooth, maneuverable, with strong brakes. The column shifter for the automatic was a comfortable place to rest my right hand and the small diameter steering wheel was easily and precisely controlled with one hand.
It was quite a long time ago now, so who knows if my impressions will match those of other folks, but I remember it being so noteworthy that I called my dad (who had had company car chevy’s in the late 60s) and told him how nice a car it was to eat up miles in. He said that’s always been a strength for Chevy, good engines and good highway comfort.
The only decent-looking car in the long, sad, stretch of Luminas and pre-2014 Impalas was the first-generation Lumina coupe in Euro trim.
That’s not even the Euro trim. That’s the Z34, the step above the Euro. Standard 3.4L engine, ground effects, sports suspension.
That’s the one I had, bought it in ’93. I liked the car a lot, good interior room, reasonably quick, good brakes, decent fuel economy, handled well for a front driver.
The trim was all loose, rattling by the middle of the second year. The seat belt winders quickly lost their interest in retracting too.
So The Question Is:Us Big Three Don’t Want To Make vehicles As Reliable As Toyota Or They Can’t? Because I Was Reading Reviews On 2015 Impala&Tons Of Complains.Apparantley They Are Still Making Unreliable Cars.
I considered the styling on these to be a giant step backwards. The first Lumina may not have been universally loved, but it at least had a style. This one lost that, and picked up two really irritating things I could never see past: (1) The multiple horizontal lines that striped across the car’s sides and (2) the way the roof, C pillar, rear door and rear window all came together at a single point. Not sure what I would do differently on that last one, but I cannot see past it.
Chevy in the 90s was like Chrysler in the early 70s. Chrysler built Chryslers for people who wanted Chryslers. Chevy did the same in the 90s. For those who liked Chevys, they were good cars. For those who didn’t, well . . .
JP’s correct. The Lumina wasn’t a bad car, in terms of durability or reliability. But it did nothing to stem the flow of mid/full size sedan sales to Toyota and Honda. The real sales disaster during this time period was the Taurus. While the Lumina styling offended no one, the rounded Taurus introduced in ’96 hit the market with a resounding thud. “Polarizing” doesn’t really begin to describe consumer reaction to that bodystyle.
I did notice in JD powers ’17 Dependability Survey that the 2 most dependable models sold in the US are, in order, the Toyota Camry and the Ford F150 pickup. Not coincidentally, that’s also the #1 selling passenger car and truck- for quite a few years running.
Right now I’m playing Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII, which is the second sequel to FFXIII, and one of the characters is called Lumina, which I thought was funny.
Also, there is no way the Lumina in the first photo could have gotten out of that spot without bumping the Villager or Corolla.
Yes, exactly, that parking job is amazing. First thing I noticed, since the car is so unnoticeable, was the boxed in parking.
Then I thought about it, I can’t honestly recall the last time I had to park on a street like that, downtown, highly urban, cramped quarters. Spoiled by the wide open spaces of the western states I guess, my town has one little downtown section like that a few blocks long. But if you go back a block it’s all big parking lots, which I do when I go down there once in a blue moon to buy, uh, um, what would I buy down there?
Better looking than it was when it came out, at least in comparison to these Transformer collections of lines angles and curves.
Never liked these much. Always disliked the name as well. I had a lot more interest when Chevrolet revived the Impala name.
Plus my brother’s 2014 former fleet only Impala is competent, smooth riding and well constructed.
Excellent, even handed account, William.
“If any GM brand suffered during the 1990s, it was Chevrolet. Trucks and sports cars aside, their range was uninspiring and any cars with flashes of greatness were left to wither. ”
You nailed it! Hard to believe how Chevrolet fell from its dominant position the the ’60’s and early ’70’s to the slop that they deemed as “cars” in the 1990’s.
GM interiors in the Chevy and Pontiac ranges were pretty depressing places to be in the 1990s, and these Luminas are absolutely the poster child of that. They were austerity trying to masquerade as high design. They were only slightly more interesting than a hospital’s waiting room and not much more comfortable. They were as well-made inside as Jos. A Bank’s “Buy 1, get 3 free” suits and about as attractive as one that hadn’t been tailored at all. They were apparently inspired by communist concrete apartment blocks and old-school dentistry. They were, at the end of it, bland soulless cars designed by bland soulless committees for people even deader inside than the interiors. No hope, no aspiration, no joy, not even the detachment and temporary respite afforded by alcohol or drugs.
It’s like GM went out of its way to insult its buyers and make sure those buyers knew that GM thought they were cheap trash barely worth the corporation’s contempt.
“If you don’t like our cars, then get a truck, we need the profits”
^This. The simple answer to the big slide in Chevrolet cars is that the market had shifted to trucks and big SUVs. That’s where the big profit margins resided, and that meant it was just fine if Chevrolet’s cars were built and sold mainly to fleets while the cars civilians were largely buying were Toyotas, Hondas, and Fords.
In that regard, the Lumina was just fine.
I want to frame your analogies
I always thought these 2nd-gen Luminas were good-looking cars, much more attractive than the previous generation. The in-laws had one and I drove it a couple of times and I thought it drove pretty nice too, from what I remember. Quality was typical GM though, they got rid of it at about 100,000 miles because it was having way too many mechanical problems.
Had so many of these as rental cars.
Sometimes when I get a rental I don’t like, I beat on it just to see if it is really as bad as 1st impression. This was such a sorry car I never bothered.
It’s hard for me to explain my attraction to these cars. I guess it’s kind of like my appreciation of the slantback GM A-bodies from the late ’70’s. This gen of Lumina is kind of like comfort food, not always fantastic, but you know how you’ll feel when your done with your meal.
There’s something about the generic-ness of these that appeals to me in a perverted way. At the time, we had the 1st and 2nd gen Taurus and the LH cars appeared. The 2nd gen Taurus was just a bit weird and the LH cars were rocket ships from the future. This gen of Lumina seemed more approachable. Dynamically, I know it wasn’t great, but like others have posted, it could eat the miles.
Whither the Chevrolet Division back then. Purposefully held back to ensure they didn’t poop on the higher division’s sales, and now struggling to gain respectability again. I think it will come back, but it will take some more time.
“There’s something about the generic-ness of these that appeals to me in a perverted way”
Yeah, I’ve always had a thing for bland-looking, generic, utilitarian cars myself. Comes from being an introverted cheapskate, probably…
“Purposefully held back to ensure they didn’t poop on the higher division’s sales, and now struggling to gain respectability again.”
I think this is the most compelling part of this story-The “higher” divisions were barely competitive with Honda, Toyota, and Ford. But, rather than elevate the work of the entire corporation to get up to snuff, they hobbled Chevy and Pontiac to maintain their artificial, irrelevant, and long-since defunct brand hierarchy.
When I made the controversial comment last week about GM planners making boring cars with no substance because they missed the key points of why the camcords eating their lunch, THIS is the car I was talking about(and the Malibu). Crappy platform – btw you usually can’t ‘see’ a stiffened structure, it’s usually built in and impossible to identify unless you tear apart the car, but not these! Pop the hood and you’re greeted by a bunch of tubular braces hastily bolted to the same ol W body structure – devoid of any freshness in the styling, and it’s resemblance to a baked potato isn’t flattering at that
The LTZ is a thing I totally forgot existed on the Lumina, and this may be the only one I’ve seen caught in the wild. The additional sin of those styling tweaks being the raiding of the Monte Carlo parts bin for the taillights and trunklid panel. Not only was the poor Monte Carlo name debased by rebdging the the Lumina coupe as such, but they robbed it the only meager aesthetic trait that separated the two!
The W-bodies – So many development dollars pi$$ed away.
I’m sure the program eventually made money but only by staying in production for 30 years. Honestly if the rear seats hadn’t felt like they were bolted directly to the floor and if they’re hadn’t been so many head-gasket eating engines attached to them I would have liked the whole thing better.
Those N-body Malibus and Cutlasses were far more cynical though to be quite honest.
I threw up in my mouth a little. Others may argue, but this, to me, is the absolute WORST generation of Chevies EVER. Their ad tag line should have been – “Chevrolet – when have absolutely given up on life”. The Euro version was okay at best, but the rest were just horrid. On a good day.
The interiors were really the low point of the Chevrolet and Pontiac lines during the late 1990s and contrasted with the ever-improving offerings from major competitors like the Camry, Accord, and, in my opinion, even the Taurus.
I travel frequently for business and have rented all three of these at various times and places. One Malibu stands out in my memory for being so uncomfortable after a long day that I fought 90 minutes of Atlanta rush hour traffic to return it to the airport and get something else. The replacement was a shoddily built Lumina, whose gas flap refused to open, causing me to literally coast into the return lot on fumes. The Impala, on the other hand, proved to be a comfortable and quiet interstate cruiser and became my go-to GM-brand rental. Still, if there was a choice, I preferred the relatively more spacious Taurus, especially if I had rear seat passengers.
For 1995, however, Chevrolet just put a new body on their five year-old Lumina and called it a day.
Agree, they were like “hey we changed it, it’s good enough for our employees’ family and friends”. Was better then the 1990, but only up to level of ’86 Taurus, if that.
“…corporation that insisted on giving each brand a full line of vehicles.”
GM brass and loyalists kept saying “any day now, we will make a comeback” and “When Baby Boomers age, they will want our bigger cars:. Uh huh, just like those “29%” lapel pins,
This is just the kind of boring cars my company used to lease for us, nobody wanted to buy them when the lease was up. Now we get Subaru Legacys and no cars got back to the auto auction.
“Much like the ’95 Cavalier, the Lumina was simply a lazy revision of an existing car masquerading as something fresh and new”
The 1995 Cavalier was not a “lazy revision”. It was a clean sheet redesign. I think the radio and one style of wheel cover were the only carryovers.
I actually like the Lumina. While not the most attractive car out there, they did give a comfy ride and were great cars for long distance travel. It is true that they did not out sell the Taurus but they sold very well. I drove many of the 95-01 Luminas over the years. Yes the interior was very low rent but interestingly enough the Lumina felt more substantial then that POS 2001 Accord I owned for a few years.(god that was such miserable decontented crapbox). I had a friend with a 1997 Accord and it felt every bit superior to my 2001 Accord. It is like the 98-02 Accord took a step back from the 94-97 and felt cheap in every way.
I don’t think GM was really chasing the Accord of Camry when the Lumina was designed. I think it was the Taurus they were chasing. After all the best Camry ever made (92-96) was an also ran against the Taurus during its entire run (Ironic that the best Camry made could not dethrone the Taurus but one of the worst ones(97-01) did.
I miss my 98 Lumina, I learned to drive in that car. However, the car had many problems from day one. The interior was garbage, the plastic would sweat in the hot summer sun. The seat fabric was far too thin, almost every power accessory failed at some point. And let’s talk about that 3.1 v6 Intake manifold would fail every 30,000 to 40,000 miles. A blown head gasket would kill the engine, and rust on the engine cradle made it impossible to repair. Other issues developed with the breaks, including hard to pin down issue the master brake cylinder. All of this aside it was kind of a fun car to drive.
My parents bought a ‘98 base model when I was 11. I thought it was an all around decent car. I wouldn’t mind owning a decent one for commuter duty. The ‘99 Century that replaced it had a flimsier, smaller feeling interior.
I drove one of these as a rental years ago. It just screamed “fleet car”, with cheapness and mediocrity in every way and numb dynamics.
It was like driving clinical depression to the office.
In South Africa there was also a Chevrolet Lumina, but it was a rebadged Australian Holden four door sedan and a pickup. Only models sold had a mean V8 engine! Popular among street racing crowd or show offs……
This car…….. Yawnnnnnn…….. Night night. Zzzzzzzzz
Not sure what happened but i seem to be completely cut off from CC after my last comment. Nothing is coming through to my email and not sure what to do.
Usually GM gets the stick for coming up with a good idea, and then executing it badly, like the Corvair, Vega, Citation, Fiero, V-8-6-4, Oldsmobile diesel, etc. The ’86 Riviera marked the beginning of the GM era of really bad ideas. (Other bad-idea standouts would be the Dustbuster vans, which had some good ideas, like the flexible seating and plastic body panels, and were interestingly styled, the Whale caprice, and the ’92 N bodies, just to name a few) There were no saving graces for any of these cars, and they didn’t have that 11th hour improved engine/suspension reprieve of “well, they got it right at the very end.”
Both this generation and the previous generation Lumina were awful cars. I remember looking at the first Gen Lumina when my Dad needed a new car in 1988/1989 and my first reaction, as a 12 year old, was, “This is a NEW car?” It didn’t feel “new,” it felt instantly tired, soggy, cheap, and outdated, even older than the Celebrity it replaced. The first gen Lumina looks an awful lot like the generation of Accord that debuted in 89, but the Accord’s detailing, materials, and slightly trimmer proportions make it look much nicer than the Lumina. The inside of the Lumina was boring, uncomfortable, and featured that bunker-slit dash design that GM used on the first-gen W bodies. Did anyone ever look at that dash before production? Even the blue-hair Century/Ciera with their horizontal speedometers were better than those awful bunker slit dashes. I distinctly remember the materials inside the first gen lumina being low grade- the seats were soggy and lumpy, and covered with something like Bulgarian ultrasuede.
We looked at a ’95 when Dad decided we had outgrown the Sundance. That Lumina was even more pitiable. It was like- – – you know how you have an office Secret Santa party, and you have to buy a gift for someone you don’t really know anything about and don’t particularly like or want to impress? So you go to the nearest CVS or Walgreens on the way into work and grab a candle and tin of Danish Butter Cookies or something – it doesn’t matter the scent or flavour, it’s just, sort of, a thing, vaguely redolent of despair, inadequacy, and surrender. The seats were once again lumpy, the dash was plasticky and cheap looking and feeling, the fabrics had been switched from Bulgarian ultrasuede to Bulgarian terry cloth of a grade not even the most desperate Jerry Springer guest would steal. It was a car like, if your child has ever informed you at 8:30 at night they have to make a map of your state out of salt and dough and it’s due the next morning, and you tell them, no, you should have told me earlier, now it’s up to you, and your 8 year old messes around and comes up with . . . this. It wasn’t even on the Hyundai level of, well, we are really TRYING.
The Buick, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile versions of this car were, if not MUCH nicer, considerably nicer with better styling, interior appointments, and the same price, and the Century/Ciera were much nicer as well and even cheaper to boot. Then there was heavy competition externally; Chrysler had retired the last K descendants in favour of the much larger inside LH cars; the Taurus, although aging, was much larger and more comfortable, the Camcords were better cars, and even the Sonata was making improvements. ANYTHING was a better car than the Lumina. Then when the other W bodies were refreshed for 98, everything except the Century was leaps and bounds better.
What is even sadder is that Chevy was barely competitive in the truck market at this point. The Explorer completely squashed the Blazer in sales.
Pretty as a bitchy bride and about as handy as a horse whip in a cemetery. The perfect police car for Pleasantville.
Don’t want to say anything negative though..
Regarding the first pic in the article: how would he get his car out of that parking spot?
What is with the incredible 2 feet of front overhang on this car and most large American front wheel drive cars? Originally designed for a V8 ahead of the front axle? Does it have a front cargo area ahead of the radiator? No wonder smaller vehicles had more interior room.
There’s a familiarity to that rear three quarter view, the C pillar and curve of the panels into the rear fascia is very similar to the VT Commodore. In profile there’s further similarities, in fact if you moved the front wheels forward 3 inches and shortened the front overhang by another inch you’d almost have a VT Commodore in profile. Great read, it’s always nice to see one of your articles when I open the site in the morning
Chevrolet Celebritys, and first and second gen Luminas were staples of the OC Transpo Transit Police in Ottawa, from the mid ’80s through the late ’90s.
“GM appeared to be targeting Buick and Oldsmobile products at Honda buyers”. Ford targeted the Taurus at Honda buyers- a Ford. GM should have targeted a Chevrolet at Honda buyers. Not the W- body Lumina, but an H- body ’86 Impala/Caprice. Perhaps by 1997, at the end of the H- body’s run, GM could have sorted out its proliferation of overlapping models, coming up with a reworked Sloan ladder. In the meantime, an H- body Chevy could have covered lots of bases, and made the Chevrolet division tons of money- on top of the billions saved by not making the W- body at all.
About all I can say is these cars hung around a lot longer than same-vintage Taurus’s did.
I always felt modern, rounded wheels arches would have made these look vastly better.
And more conventional within their market, and current design styling trends. Odd wheel arch shape made them look like an odd mashup of ’70s and ’90s design. A fail!
Though still somewhat generic, design looks more Olds Aurora or Chrysler LH-Car-like.
Super fast Photoshop.
I see Dyckman Street behind that LTZ! Tread bike shop out of frame to the left in the second pic.
Life is better in Inwood.