When it was first launched, the Chevrolet Beretta was a sharp-looking coupe. Its powertrain line-up, however, was nothing exceptional. It used the same four-cylinder and V6 engines that powered tens of thousands of Cavaliers, Celebrities and Corsicas. Even the racy-looking GTU, despite its firmer suspension, used the same corporate 2.8 V6 as countless GM products. What the Beretta needed was a performance engine, and that’s just what Chevrolet gave it for 1990.
Enter the GTZ. Available only with a five-speed manual transmission, the GTZ used the high-output LG0 version of the Oldsmobile-developed, double overhead cam, 16-valve Quad 4. Displacing 2.3 liters, the LG0 produced 180 hp at 6200 rpm and 160 ft-lbs at 5200 rpm. Though it was down 20 ft-lbs on the ’90 Beretta’s flagship 3.1 V6, it produced 45 more horsepower and had a better 0-60 time – Motor Trend was able to hit 60mph in 7.6 seconds, compared to 9.3 seconds in a V6 Beretta. Say what you will about the Quad 4 – it had reliability issues, it was unrefined – but it gave the Beretta a kick in the pants.
As Oldsmobile had developed it, the Quad 4 first appeared in the Cutlass Calais. It soon proliferated throughout the Buick, Chevrolet and Pontiac line-ups in regular LD2 and high-output LG0 variants. Buick only got the less-powerful LD2 (and only in the Skylark), while Chevrolet only got the high-output LG0 and only in the Beretta.
1990 interior
Costing $1250 more than a Beretta GT 3.1, the GTZ added a firmer FE7 suspension tune and a fresh look of its own. The grille was blocked off and there was a unique front air dam and rear spoiler, body-colored 16-inch wheels, and a complete absence of brightwork. The GTZ also added standard air-conditioning, fog lights and a leather-wrapped steering wheel. Alas, the interior was almost identical to regular Berettas with its drab plastics and slabby, shelf-like dashboard. Fortunately, all Berettas received a redesigned and more attractive dashboard and driver’s airbag for 1991.
Critics found the L-Body Beretta GTZ to be a more cohesive package than the related N-Body cars. The Quad 4 was said to be less prone to noise and vibration, while the Beretta had superior roll stiffness to sporty Calais and Grand Am variants. There were still complaints about the GTZ’s peaky and noisy nature, however, and Consumer Guide also dinged the Beretta for its “uncoordinated suspension” even though they found it overall to be fun to drive.
In their 1990 Bang For Your Buck special, Motor Trend found the Beretta GTZ to be “more neutral, and thus, more fun to drive than the Calais and Grand Am”. Motor Trend did, however, criticize the Beretta’s “mushy brake feel” and “notchy shift action”. Despite a slalom time slower only than the Nissan 300ZX Turbo – not bad for a fleet of 20 test cars – the Beretta GTZ scored only 15th in fun factor. Still, its 0-60 time was just 0.3 seconds off a more expensive Ford Thunderbird Super Coupe and its list price of $13,750 was around a grand below rivals like the Eagle Talon TSi and Ford Probe GT.
Given Chevrolet’s higher sales volumes and the fresher look of the Beretta vis-à-vis the N-Body cars, it wasn’t surprising to see the Beretta GTZ to storm past its cousins in sales. Oldsmobile shifted just 818 Cutlass Calais Internationals with the LG0 in 1990 while Pontiac managed a more impressive 4921 LG0-equipped Grand Ams. As for Chevy, they shifted 13,239 Beretta GTZs, accounting for around 7.5% of all Beretta sales.
The four-banger GTZ’s glory was short-lived. The regular Beretta’s 3.1 V6 became a $119 credit option for 1991 and, despite only being available with a three-speed automatic, it appears to have been more popular than the mandatory-manual Quad 4. Just 3010 GTZs were produced for 1991 with the Quad 4 and this number continued to shrink during the GTZ’s run. In 1993, just 1.5% of Berettas used the engine.
For 1994, the GT and GTZ were replaced with the new Z26. Much as the Cavalier Z24 had used a V6, the Beretta Z26 was available with the Quad 4, the last number in the trim name merely indicating the Beretta’s position in Chevrolet’s sporty car line-up. The Quad 4 lost 10 horses for its final year but increased its sales slightly, 896 Z26s rolling off the factory line with the Quad 4. Pontiac, conversely, shifted three times as many LG0-equipped Grand Ams.
By this point, Beretta sales were in terminal decline. The Quad 4 Beretta was gone after ’94 and the entire line discontinued in 1996, the same year a new LD9 variant of the Quad 4 arrived, finally featuring balance shafts but down 20 horses from the last of the LG0s. Crucially, the addition of balance shafts improved refinement considerably and the LD9 engine lasted into the 21st century.
It’s likely the Beretta GTZ’s lack of an automatic transmission did it in more so than its rev-hungry four. The Beretta’s ageing body probably didn’t help, either, especially in such a fashion-conscious segment. Then there were the cheaper Cavalier Z24 and Beretta GT models, available with automatic transmissions and featuring V6 engines, relatively rare for the segment.
That was a multitude of factors to contend with before you even got to the engine, which was known to suffer from cracked heads and blown head gaskets. Nevertheless, the Quad 4 had outputs that were very impressive for a naturally-aspirated four in the early 1990s and remain impressive today. The Beretta GTZ was also an attractive coupe with a very different vibe from a cheaper V6-powered Cavalier Z24 or a similarly-priced, V8-powered Camaro RS, plus some meaningful suspension improvements over lesser Berettas. Alas, both because of and in spite of its engine, it probably wasn’t the best buy in the sport coupe segment or even within the Beretta line-up.
1990 GTZ photographed in Crescent City, CA in June 2019.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1988-96 Chevrolet Beretta – Latchkey Kid
COAL: 1995 Chevrolet Beretta Z26 – A Boy And His Car
Curbside Classic: 1990 Chevrolet Cavalier Z-24- Camaro Z-28 Minus Four?
I have seen 1 or 2 Olds 442s in the last few years, about as many Berettas. I agree, the V6 with automatic transmission combo was a more attractive proposition for most buyers, and I have to wonder if the Olds engine in a Chevy was a factor that worked against it.
Are the tires flat, or is it sinking into the ground?
I haven’t seen (or noticed) a Beretta in years, that monochrome white was so cool at the time!!
Those are just ultra low profile tires…a no cost option!
Locked and loaded, but jammed.
They look pretty flat to me!
And no, I’m NOT posting too quickly…
Another maddening example of GM’s engineers being kept on too tight a leash. Some engineer knew damn well that there were going to be head gasket problems, but got overruled by the bean counters. Too big a hurry to “get ‘er done!” It had to be frustrating. The same with the interior designers; “You want $800 in materials to do the interior? See what you can do for $600. Wait. Make that $450.”
These were handsome and tempting cars, but after two years or so, they could start looking shabby; a girl I knew had one (an 88 or 89) and the doors started sagging and the paint faded badly.
Worse, this was the era of “peak Japanese car”, making the contrast between them and GM even more vivid.
So the question becomes, would it have been worth it for GM to put another $1,000 of content into the Beretta? $500? That’s a hard question to answer, but I suspect not.
I really liked my 1988 Corsica – Beretta’s 4-door sister, bought new in the summer of ’88. Mechanically identical except for a little softer ride.
Mine had the base 4-cylinder with a 5-speed manual and overall was enjoyable to drive. The engine had its issues and was rebuilt twice, in 60,000 miles, under warranty. I’m sure if I’d sprung for the 2.8 – an engine I’d run in three different S-10s I’d owned over the years – it would’ve been far more reliable.
If it wasn’t for kids, I’d have probably bought a Beretta instead. I’ll always have a soft spot for them…though not soft enough to ever want to buy one.
“I’ll always have a soft spot for them…though not soft enough to ever want to buy one.”
This sums up my feelings exactly for the Beretta GTZ (and Z26). I’ve always liked the way they looked, and that monochromatic white just speaks to me. But not sure I would ever be willing to take the plunge and buy one. Maybe one day, if I happen to stubmle across the right one. But honestly, I’d still rather have another Tempo GLS V6/5-spd over this, that’s where my heart belongs in the early 90s domestic compact cars.
This was (and still is) a physically attractive car and I recall when this monochrome package was released, the wheels especially looked great with it. I wonder what happened to the tires on this one.
I had an ’89 Beretta GT with the 2.8 V6 and manual 5-speed. I drove it for about 130K miles. A persistent problem was the engine stalling. Several Chevy dealers were unable to fix it, until one dealer discovered the engine computer software was for the automatic transmission model. After getting the correct software (for a manual), the problem was solved. At about 110K, the transmission failed resulting in a $1K repair. Another expensive problem was the lighting for the ‘LCD digital dash’ which needed disassembly to replace illuminating light bulbs (where where the long-life LEDs?). Engine worked fine for me.
Nice review and a good companion article to the latchkey child piece published a few years ago.
I wanted to like the Beretta when these were new because of the attractive shape that set it apart from the hideous sheer-look offerings that dominated the GM lineup at the time. However, I rented a number of Berettas and Corsicas over their long production run and usually found them to be sluggish and noisy compared to the VWs and Volvos I owned at the time.
And while the VWs had their own issues with cheap plastics, one Beretta rented at the Cleveland airport on a bitter January day took the cake: I could not get the drivers door to open and summoned a lot attendant. He took one look at the car, yanked the vertical door handle hard, snapping it in two, but got the door open. He had me drive the car to a nearby garage, where he quickly replaced the broken handle with a new one, explaining that “they all do that when the temperature is below freezing”.
“they all do that when the temperature is below freezing”
That they did; my Aunt had a W-body Cutlass Supreme coupe, and a co-worker had a related Lumina Z34, both of which shared the B-pillar door handles. They would break off in Minnesota winters. Multiple times…
Some things never change – the plastic door handle on a certain Buick LaCrosse in my family broke in cold weather a couple of years ago. I lost count of the number of YouTube videos explaining how to replace it.
One would get the impression the temperature in Detroit never dropped below 50 degrees….how does this happen over and over? I’m boggled.
You really would think they would have learned by now that that is one area where they cannot afford to use a cheap material. Don’t they say one form of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
Too bad that GM didn’t fully develop the Quad 4. Always a day late and a dollar short of success. I liked the engine in my 1995 Grand Am until I got the bill for a water pump replacement. And then another 25K miles later. It could have been a great engine.
This subject car perhaps has flat tires because it might have been abandoned in this parking lot. If this photo was taken this last June, then the registration has been expired almost a year. Water pump, cylinder head, head gasket? Take your pick.
Just for fun, a period Motorweek review:
Somewhere in my archives I have pictures of a really nice “hot” Beretta – only in black. It is one of those cars I thought cool enough to photograph but which never got enough enthusiasm to actually write up. Maybe I will get there as I comb through the bottom of my photo barrel.
I worked with a guy who owned a Quad-4 powered Grand Am. He would gripe about how terrible Pontiacs were while extolling Buicks for their quality. Of course when it came to spending his own money he went to Acura, Honda and Toyota and never looked back.
The Beretta’s design is clean enough to have aged well. Though I liked the look at the time, I’m not a huge fan of the monochromatic all white exterior. It screams late 80s/early 90s, and appears too much a trendy time capsule on many sporty cars from the era. Check the tape player and you might find the cassette single of ‘Unbelievable’ by EMF. 🙂
Unbelievable – Ooooohhhh!!! I recall that time, the song was invariably followed up by Jesus Jones with “Right Here”… My last summer in college, good times.
https://youtu.be/MznHdJReoeo
Great find and highlight of this specific Beretta model, one I’ve honestly never found time to learn about in-depth, besides the plastic panel in place of an open grille.
I’ve always found the Beretta (and Corsica for that matter) to be the forgotten Chevrolets of their era, occupying a small crevice in Chevrolet’s lineup, sandwiched between the more budget-friendly Cavalier compact and midsize Lumina.
Especially as Chevrolet sold way more Cavaliers than Buick-Oldsmobile-Pontiac did their J-body cars, while the other brands had better luck with their intermediate N-bodies than J-cars, the Beretta/Corsica tends to get lost in the shuffle. I guess it’s comparable to automakers today filling every nook and cranny with another crossover.
My carpool buddy had a white GTZ (actually bought it for his wife) that he’d drive every now and then and I remember it was pretty darn quick for the times. They only held onto it for a couple years, as his wife complained incessantly about the manual transmission.
Great piece, Will. My affection for certain aspects of the Beretta (styling, exclusivity to Chevrolet, available power) seems to increase with each passing year removed from their ubiquity.
I can’t speak to the GTZ, but I did have a friend in high school with a burgundy-colored Beretta and for every aesthetic thing about that car that seemed perfect, there seemed to be at least one or two more niggling faults. My “favorite” was the glass moonroof that would bang closed when we went over the slightest of bumps.
Still, I had a lot of affection for both my friend and that car.
I like how the 97-05 Malibu is in the background. The 1997 Malibu was the direct replacement for the Corsica. the Corsica/Beretta was an example of GM dysfunction. GM had the Malibu waiting in the wings to replace the both the Beretta and Corsica and yet they spent all this time and money modifying them to be OBDII compliment in 1996 only to kill it off for the 1997 Malibu
That said, I had a 1990 Beretta and it was a good car(had the 5 speed). I did have to keep a bunch of spare door handles in the trunk because I was always replacing them.
It was a pretty awful car with it’s lo rent plastic interior and boring styling. Very gm. My friend had one and it had I think an iron Duke 4 ad was slow. Really slow.
I have my 93 Quad4 powered GTZ and will never sell it. They are simply too hard to find in decent shape these days. What it lacks in overall refinement is what actually keeps me interested in the car. It came with some electronic goodies (FI, power everything) but lacks the overly complicated and often troublesome electronics that plague modern cars. It is somewhat raw and rough around the edges, but doesn’t feel like it’s from the carburetor era either.
I do not share or comprehend the appreciative tone some of these comments take. In my experience—which I gratefully acknowledge is limited—these were awful, a real emblem of GM’s Mark of Excrement: full of half-baked engineering, cynically stingy specification, cheap and tacky materials and the usual indifferent build quality throughout.
A college roommate of mine had one of these GTZs when it was still less than five years old. I borrowed it a few times and found everything about it just execrable. Clumsy steering, numb brakes, a shifter and clutch that Fisher-Price would’ve been embarassed to put on a kiddy car, switches and controls that drunkenly hollered “I’M THE CHEAPESHT AND NASHTIESHT DJJJJJJJJJJUNK THEY COULD BUY WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!”.
The NASCAR stickers he’d added didn’t improve my impression of the vehicle.
Neither did the way he introduced himself on move-in day (“Hah! Ah’m Vaughn, f’m Tyinnissayee! Ah nyever met a Jyewish person afowur!”), but that’s hardly GM’s fault.
A white GTZ exactly as in the picture was my first new car after getting a good paying engineering job out of college. It had many flaws, like those dreadful door-mounted seatbelts that GM substituted for a genuine airbag, terrible heater from the HO Quad 4 engine, and no cupholder. But it looked stunning in all-white and turned heads everywhere. The HO Quad 4 at full throttle sounded much better from the outside than inside the car, and the car acquitted itself reasonably well at SCCA Solo II events and track days at mid-Ohio and other racetracks. I had 5 years of fond memories of this car before trading it in for an SUV, which was a mistake.
I had a white ’90 GTZ just as in the pictures, one of the most fun cars I ever owned. Had a head gasket replaced on a recall, despite not hsving any issues with my engine, a very solid low maintenance car. I have that MT Bang for the Buck magazine issue, the GTZ was the fastest through the slalmon course ahead of ALL the other cars including the 300Z turbo.