Well, I guess it goes without saying that the 1986 E-body GM coupes are, uh, polarizing (said while wearing his Mister Diplomacy hat). But, I have to admit I like them, though I am aware that they were a little stubby in their original form. But they got more and more attractive as they were refreshed, and I personally feel the 1986-92 (’93 for the Riviera) E-bodies were pretty nice cars–with a couple of caveats, mind. Here’s a rare Troféo I saw in Rock Falls, IL last summer. Despite my Cadillac love, I might take one of these over a similar Eldo.
This one was a little weathered, but it was still sharp. And the Toronado was the only one with hidden headlights–and you know how much I love those things! And if that wasn’t enough, it has the dark red leather interior! No touchscreen on this one, though. Although faded, it appeared to have its factory-applied White Diamond paint, making this a 1991 or ’92.
Why do I like them? Is it just blind preference? No. Back in 1998 I test-drove a Garnet Red 1989 Eldorado with the 4.5L V8, and I absolutely loved it. It drove well, had plenty of power, was comfortable, and had pretty nice handling. No wallowing barge, this car! And I should mention that at the time I was driving a 1991 Volvo 940SE with the Turbo Plus package, black over saddle tan leather. That was a fine handling, fast car too, and for the Caddy to earn my thumbs-up, it had to be good.
And it was. One thing that was really cool was that dusk was approaching when I drove it. A little monitor below the gauges suddenly came to life, saying “headlamps suggested.” Whoa! How did the car know that? I was also enamored of the plush dark red leather upholstery. Nice car–it must have been, for me to bother taking a photo of it–I was an 18-year old teenager at the time, too!
I am quite sure the Olds and Buick versions were just as capable–excepting the 1986-87 Eldo with the 4.1 V8. That 4.1 engine is primo DS material, but that’s a topic for another day. You have to give Cadillac points for improving the Eldo’s proportions in the 1988 refresh–and then giving buyers a much better engine in the 4.5. The later 4.9 made these cars luxurious hot rods! Just look at the ’86 and the ’88. I’ll take the ’88, and not just because it is my favorite yellow/yellow color combination!
I like the 1989-93 Rivieras too. The elongated tails the Toro and Riv got (in ’90 and ’89, respectively) made them much better-proportioned. My ode to the ’89 Riviera can be read here.
But! I am of the opinion that the original 1986-88 Toronado was the best of the original 1986 E-bodies. In fact, it was very attractive–purposeful, without the baubles and bangles of the previous version. A nice design. That’s right; I said it: Nice design. So there!
One last thing: these cars were not as small as they looked. If you’ll notice, our featured Toronado is parked next to a mid-’90s Explorer Limited, and as you can see, the Toro does not appear to be Honda Civic-sized. A 1992 Toronado was 200.3″ long, 72.8″ wide and had a 108″ wheelbase. The 1992 Achieva was 187.9″ long, 67.2″ wide and a 103.4″ wheelbase. So yes, the premium GM coupes of those days were bigger–certainly wider, which nearly always adds to the feeling of spaciousness–important in a luxury car.
I know I promised a full CC on the Troféo some time ago. It will indeed be written up, however, as I found a really, really nice one. But until then, let’s drink in the last luxury Oldsmobile coupe: the 1992 Toronado. DS? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But I still love ’em!
I have never driven one of these so I can’t speak to its driving experience but visually I think its the best looking of all the E bodies. I would entertain owning one of these buts its hard to find one that hasn’t been ran into the ground and I have a hard time justifying a restoration on an 80s fwd car. With that being said, I will laugh the day the baretta or corsica become a classic…
These ’90-’92 Toros are so under-rated! They’re really quite a striking design, and I think they’ve aged really well! I love those hidden headlights too, but the taillight design is even better. It truly looks like something from a concept car. I’d like to see how they look at night. The ’86-’89s did have that awesome shifter though.
I’d definitely like to get my hands on one of these. They aren’t exactly common, even on eBay. And every one I’ve seen has significant leather wear and even rips at the seems due to all the stitching required by the perforated inserts and heavy bolsters.
Funny thing; I’ve seen at least six in the last year or so: two white, two in bright red, one in black cherry, and one in black. All were Trofeos, I haven’t seen a standard 1990-92 Toronado in close to ten years.
Yeah I feel like Olds probably made more Trofeos than regular Toronados during this period, in attempt to better fit in with their “innovative technology” image during these year (if that was even the direction they were going for; it seems they went from broughamy to techy to import fighter in a matter of 5 years or so, overlapping with models from each).
I can’t remember the last time I saw this generation Toronado. I’d probably stop traffic to get a few pictures if I see one!
Interesting fact: if you bought a regular ’90-’92 Toronado, you could still get velour front bench seats, column shifter, and wheel discs (not wire though 🙁 )
Here’s an admittedly lousy picture of the base Toronado from my 1992 deluxe Olds brochure (took it with a camera, not a scanner). I kind of like those turbine-spoke alloy wheels better than the Trofeo’s rims.
Also note the whitewalls–perfect 🙂
I’ve only seen one ever, a friend of mine bought a clean one we took in on trade for his mother, it was a grey on grey velour column shift Toronado. Interestingly enough, I also took in a Trofeo identical to the white on red subject car from the article, it was a looker on our used car lot, she sold quickly.
I remember Car and Driver being puzzled by that back in 1990 or thereabouts. They thought the Trofeo actually handled quite well, but thought the Toronado was suffering from a serious identity crisis — that it was trying to be both a lounge lizard and an import fighter and ending up not exactly being either.
My parents has a brand new one in 1990. I could not see who would buy a base one over a Trofeo. The Trofeo looked so much better.
I hate touch screens on cell phones bad enough much less a moving vehicle. The Toros & Rivs are so-so to me…..I think the T-Types & the awesome Touring Sedans are so much cooler rides.
Those little Eldos totally do it for me though. An ’88 or ’89 would be my pick due to the taillight restyle and lack of that big goofy square airbag-bomb steering wheel.
My ’97 Nissan had touchscreen a/c which is reasonable to use. Then again, unlike many of today’s systems, the touchscreen only has a pictogram and three decent-sized “buttons”, for the mode and increasing/decreasing fan speed. Of course it also functions as the TV screen, and then the increase in the number of “buttons” is inversely proportionate to their size and ease of use…!
Unfortunately, I’m not an expert on GM in the late 80s. But I find the Trofeo reminds me a lot of a Cutlass Ciera Coupe with a different roof line and different plastic bits?
I find their proportions and packaging seem very similar. I imagine the Trofeo, offered a lot more options and was a lot more expensive?
Could a Ciera Coupe be optioned like a Trofeo?
I have to admit, I am suspicious of GM’s design direction at the time. And what seemed like an effort to greatly consolidate car lines to reduce costs.
Could a Ciera Coupe be optioned like a Trofeo?
To a point, yes; and in fact the car in your picture is a higher-end Cutlass Ciera XC model which meant that in addition to the dressed up exterior it also included the FE3 suspension, better tires, alloy wheels, much nicer bucket seats, a floor shifter/center console and full gauges. If you also checked off the order form boxes for some power accessories and the same 3.8l V6/4-speed automatic from the Toronado it would probably make for a very similar car in many ways.
However, the Ciera was also on an older and less refined platform. The suspension design didn’t offer the same ride quality or, in theory, handling prowess. I say “in theory” because the lower weight of the Ciera may have made it irrelevant. The Ciera interior was clearly older and less luxurious even with the XC trim pieces as well, and if these two cars were parked next to each other I think the external differences would be readily apparent.
That said, all of that is stuff which is barely tangible to many car buyers. They would likely notice the difference from behind the wheel, but when giving a casual glance in a parking lot or Olds dealership? Eh… which is exactly the point of Paul’s DS article on the Riviera. How do you get them behind the wheel if this car, at twice the price of a Ciera/Calais/Whatever, that comes with roughly the same “stuff” and is at least somewhat similar in appearance?
FWIW, I never really thought about it much – but looking at some pictures, I do agree with Tom that the Toronado was the best looking of this generation E-body. I never, ever see these anymore and didn’t see many back when they were still relatively new either.
I’d like to add, that if you drove similarly equipped cars of each of these platforms back to back, you’d notice a huge difference in the driving characteristics between the two. The Toro and the Ciera drive nothing like one another, due to their different missions.
I could see someone making a similar assertion looking at the Cutlass Calais, since it was similarly styled to the Toro at the time; but it is markedly smaller. Again, you would notice a large difference; the N body Calais is/was an economy/compact car dressed up, the E body Toronado was personal luxury coupe. They’re not that close to one another.
Heh! Forgot the photo…
Thank you for your very helpful reply Geozinger. This really solves what I wondered. I thought the Trofeo may have now been Ciera based, given I thought they now looked so much alike.
I still can’t fully understand why GM would redesign the Toronado Trofeo, in order to improve sales… But in the process, have it looking more like the older Ciera! At least to my eyes.
I enjoy many GM products pre-1980 and post-1992. Beyond the 80s full sized cars, the large E-bodies, and the F-Bodies… I could never get excited about much else. They look too much alike.
Daniel – Wikipedia has a pretty easy-to-follow system of breaking down all the different GM platforms (E-body, A-body, etc.) and how they relate to each other, and yeah I should have just mentioned up front that no, the Toronado and Ciera were not directly related in any way and likely shared very little in terms of the basic structure/chassis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:General_Motors_platforms
In regards to geozinger’s comment, I also didn’t meant to imply that there wasn’t any difference in how these two drove. There is undoubtedly a noticeable difference, the point I was trying to make was only that I don’t think there was enough of it visually or in terms of what you get for the price premium to convince many potential customers at the time. One of many cases of “good car, bad product” for GM back then, IMO.
BTW, if you burn through all those platform articles and want to really nerd the eff out, the “List of GM Engines” page is one of my favorite jumping off points for wasting ludicrous amounts of time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_General_Motors_engines – it’s mind boggling that one company built all this amazing stuff, and some of it that really sucked too. I get criticized on here often for dissing GM too hard or whatever, but I think they’re the most interesting American auto manufacturer by far.
And one last note on the Toronado – why have I never seen one of these with a 3800SC swapped into it?! An ’86-’88 model or ’90+ Trofeo would make a great home for that engine, especially with a 5-speed manual transmission behind it. Now that’s something that would get me a whole lot more interested in these things.
Thank you for your very thorough reply Sean. When I first saw the redesigned Trofeo, back in 1990, I wondered if it was now Ciera based. No longer E-body based like the Riv and Eldo, but A-body based. I thought it now looked in size and proportions, more like the Ciera coupe. Except, for the roof line and exterior details. Whether it was founded or not, it reminded me somewhat of the relationship between the Chrysler TC by Maserati and the Chrysler LeBaron. In terms of comparable exterior style and overall dimensions.
I found the very similar GM style amongst platforms at the time, had me wondering about the roots of this restyled Trofeo.
An interesting write-up on a car I know little about, thank you Tom. The proportions of it are unusual, to say the least. In that front 3-quarter shot, the front and rear wheels appear to be too far back. Yet in the rear 3-quarter shot, the wheels look better, but the trunk looks disproportionately long. Having said that though, I love the front and rear light treatments, and the shapes of the side and rear windows and C-pillar is very handsome.
I’m going to blame all of that on the colour – having previously only seen the black Toronados in the old C&D ads, this is the first time I’ve seen one in white, a colour which seems to accentuate both the bad and good parts of the design.
Incidentally, how is ‘Toronado’ pronounced? I presume the ‘Toro’ is like ‘Zorro’ of cape and sword fame, but am clueless about the ‘nado’ part. Is it ‘Toro-nay-do’ or ‘Toro-nar-do’? Thanks in anticipation…!
Tor-nod-oh. Oh maybe Toro-nod-oh, if someone really wants to speak the extra “o” (which I’ve never heard it spoken as).
Toro-nah-doh.
My grandmother’s favorite car was her 1972 (from what I’ve gathered from photos)
Toronado. She always said “Toroh-nad-oh” She’s originally from Wisconsin but has lived in Alabama since she was 17 and has mostly a mild Southern accent but every so often there are words she says with the Wisconsin accent and Toronado is one of them.
I say TORA-NAHH-DOUGH, but I also drink cawfee so that might not be correct. For the longest time when I was younger I thought these were an “Oldsmobile Tornado”.
I did what I should have done, and watched the old ads on youtube. The older ads from the 60s seem to pronounce it Tora-nah-dough; by the late 80s it’s morphed to Toroh-nah-dough. And yes Sean, same here, I though it was Tornado for years too!
Different authors, backgrounds, experiences and perspectives. Not everybody agrees with everything, but the great thing about CC is we can gather here to discuss the subtleties of manufacturers and their cars in a non-threatening environment. The (car) world would be very boring if we all thought exactly the same!
The Trofeo and the original Range Rover were the first two “real” (not the Batmobile/Ecto-1/etc.) vehicles that I remember really liking. So it has a special place in my heart.
Plus equipped with the Buick V6.
One of my brother’s high school buddies had a ’91 Trofeo. I never understood why he raved about it so much. But then, he was into mid-90s Grand Ams at the time, and I was a strictly RWD kinda guy (still prefer them) – despite all the time he spent on them, I still insisted that “hot 3.3” was an oxymoron. Needless to say, I was less than open-minded, and wrote it off as just another FWD “little car”.
Then I stumbled upon one myself years later, ended up buying it, and finally it all made sense. True, it was a bit too “curvy” for my tastes, and the lack of a supercharged engine option seemed like a bit of an oversight. But they absolutely had a lot going for them.
I should clarify. Trofeoes in general had a lot going for them; this particular example did not. It was clean and straight with lowish miles, but it had been abused. You’d never know to look at it, but you could feel it plainly in its handling, shifting, braking, and everything else. (That’s the gamble when buying a non-runner!) I ended up parting it out it for a modest profit.
To this day, I still am casually looking for another (on the cheap, of course). I saved the parts I didn’t sell for a possible future purchase. Many of them ended up on my faux Touring Sedan, though, which is filling the void in the meanwhile. (Had I known how much work I’d put into building that schizophrenic Ninety-Eight, I’d have kept the wrecked Trofeo – might have been an easier project!)
Another one for the “someday” file…
These are my favorite of the ’86-’91 E-bodies as well. I haven’t seen one in a while, though.
I agree with the styling of the 1986 Toronado being the least compromised of the 1986 E-body cars, there are lots of subtle hints of the 1966 Toronado with the full width taillights and the hidden headlights. The slightly curvy roof and side glass on the Toronado add a futuristic look to the profile.
Its also interesting to note the that Toronado was the only E with a flipper style door handle opposed to the grab/pull handles that the Eldorado and Riviera used, also note the lock cylinder INFRONT of the door handle, a 1986-1989 Toronado unique feature that was carried over from the 1979-1985 cars.
I love Toronados period. Not a single one I would turn down. Oldsmobile’s personal luxury flagship has been one of my dream cars since I first became aware of cars.
The Rocket remains my favorite.
I give GM credit on these E’s, they are differentiated and share little in sheet metal. But, to acknowledge a point I understand Bill Mitchell to have made, it’s tough to style a little car. These still seem quite similar.
The Riv and Eldo seemed forced – traditional design cues on a small body with odd proportions. The Toro seems more cohesive and has some original ideas, but I’ve never been sure what to think of the rear panel over the tail lights. On some Colonnade cars this would have been a cheesy filler panel. This car states a case that it is a high style element.
No wonder buyers were confused in this era.
The red Toro in the ad does look like a clean design. I can see some oddball W body lines in it. Again, I’m as conflicted now as I was then. I elected to buy an ’87 Grand Marquis LS – as did many others – to settle my conflict in this era.
Just ‘cos it’s a Deadly Sin doesn’t mean it’s a bad car taken on its own merits.
Quite right, as I’ve pointed out endlessly over the years. But it seems like way too many folks don’t get that important distinction.
+2
I wondered if someone was going to write up an E-body Toro…
I never owned one, but had access to them as a used car salesman. After I left that line of work, several other people I know had them too. I got to drive theirs on occasion and my initial reaction to the cars remains the same.
I’m particularly fond of the Trofeos, being the top of the line Toros, they were the nicest and best looking (to my eye) of all of the E bodies.
Nice find! I’m a little jealous…
Funny how one’s mind works. As soon as I saw the “Got the DS blues?” title, I dived in expecting an article on Citroen . . . . . . .
Always loved that last generation Toronado, though.
I’ve got the DS blues, still haven’t finished my DS CC. How can my writing be worthy of a Goddess? Don’t worry though, I’m getting over it.
Nice article and sweet car Tom.
I’d like to find that Eldorado you test drove way back when…only now (with the 4.9). I’m getting the itch for a much less generic and conventional daily driver.
There’s a very nice medium blue Trofeo parked at the apartment complex right behind my work, maybe I should snap some pics?
The 86-92ish E cars were no small, in and of themselves, but they were a radical departure from what came before it.
The real deadly sin, and as I look back at 40 years of my GM involvement, was that until the 1990s, GM was so large and had so much money, that it could do virtually anything that it wanted. GM always liked to bet big, I am not talking so much physically big, although they did that too, but the ideas were big and the execution radical.
Once GM bit into the transformation apple with the approval of the X cars in 1975, GM basically did two things, it spent about 1/3 of its time nursing along the existing models (mostly RWD) that were already in the pipeline and most of which continued to sell well, and 2/3 of its time developed totally new models that bore little resemblance to the vehicle that they were intended to replace. GM management believed, and to a large extent they were mostly right on paper, that the market was forever changed by OPEC, CAFE, emissions, and safety. The problem is, that for 60 years prior, the American public bought into GM for what is was and well, domestic car buyers are not so easily changed. Import buyers, in the early years, were notoriously elastic in their purchases, most of them were either better educated, or were quirky enough to buy into the peculiarities and vagaries of those product lines.
Despite some of the changes that were forced by the various regulations GM managed to do well for a while. The 10 years between 1975 and 1985, while marked by some drop in market share, were generally profitable except for a short time in 80-81 during the height of the recession and interest rates that crimped car sales. Even then, that could be chalked up to economic factors that were out of the control of the manufacturers (which was largely true). So GM embarked on a product development that was both radical in its designs as well as its depth. Few times in history do companies completely transform their product lines and in such a short period of time. Even fewer do that from positions of power (as GM did when their market share was 50% as opposed to a company facing evaporating sales) and even fewer survived.
Some companies, mostly in technology and other goods and services that rapidly evolve, are well known. The biggest being Apple who is known for three extremely important consumer goods, the Apple II microcomputer, the Macintosh, and the iPhone. (I guess you can throw in the iPad and iPod in there too but the iPhone was the kicker). But they also built a lot crap in between and almost died, TWICE.
Well cars, being a capital intensive product and being the second largest purchase for many people behind their house (and the largest for some), one cannot respond so quickly. Well, GM management felt that they should just go a new and radical across the board. The problem was that for a small company, or one that was facing extinction like Chrysler in the late 70s early 80s, it is a necessary thing. However at that time, GM was king of the hill, and defined automotive manufacturing if not in the US, but heavily influenced it worldwide.
The problem was that when you owned 50% of the market (80-85% if you count the other three who were selling largely the same kind of stuff) who were generally satisfied with the designs were not going to just drop everything and turn on a dime. Domestic car buyers liked conservative cars that were simple yet classic in design, simply executed in mechanicals and features, emphasized comfort and performance, and mostly importantly, looked special. Even the economy and compact cars could be optioned to give the buyers something unique.
The radical approach to these new models (mostly FWD) were novel in their engineering, if not their execution at first, but and certainly had the potential to be “better” cars than their predecessors, but when it was all said and done, something was lost in the process. Who is to say that badge-engineering was the culprit, that phenomenon continues today and the imports can be accused of doing that exact thing. Some say it was primarily poor build quality, but in my experience, build quality in the 1980s was at or above the quality from the mid 1970s at the height of GMs popularity. Of course cars were more complex as time went on so issues were more visible and usually took longer to resolve. With that said, it is a proven fact that consumers, in many instances, will accept some defect in their products if the product evokes strong emotion and/or is very well liked. That does not mean that sh*t can be shoveled out to the consumer, but it is but only one aspect. An example of this would be in high end European cars that are notorious, even to this day, for being sometimes unreliable but often very fussy hard to maintain and expensive. Yet their popularity persists in some circles who accept the tradeoff for a particular experience.
Of course it has been debated in automotive circles for years what GM could have done differently. Back in the 1975 when the whole X car platform was debated, it was a spirited choice between going FWD, and going something with a more conventional design but in a small more efficient package. Would it have made a difference if the other issues would have still been there? At the time, the Asians and Europeans were the primary builders of small RWD cars. In fact, RWD persisted in some forms to this day. The domestics had already produced subcompact and compact cars of conventional RWD designs, albeit mostly sport two doors. The 60s era Falcon, and the 70s Maverick were as small but as conventional a design. FWD ultimately won out for spacial considerations, the ability to isolate the drive train to the front of the car opened up a whole avenue of design possibilities some realized to success some not so much. Despite the initial success of the Citation hatchback sedan, the idea of a hatchback sedan was not repeated with particular success with any other domestic or import model. Hatchback coupes had found some success with certain models and today most hatchback coupes are very square designs. The conventional three box seems to be the styling rule with most cars sold in the US, even with today’s severely rounded designs that make you think the rule is now three ovals. Another aspect that was on the minds of execs, during the heights of the Cold War, was that many smaller RWD cars of Asian and Japan were considered unstylish and bland, evoking the austerity of the Soviet Union, something decidedly unAmerican. So by debuting radical new models, GM was able to flex its muscle, attempt to define the market, and show leadership on this front. It was thought that if GM got in front of these changes, then it would be in control of the technology and the design elements. At that time, GM was considered a market maker and other manufacturers were hesitant, outside of niche models, to try anything too radical with volume products. So, in a way, while the X cars in particular turned out to be a black eye for GM, they and the other FWD cars that followed did have a profound effect on the market. The public did become accustomed to these new design paradigms, especially with larger midsize and full size cars paving the way for other manufacturers to break offer larger FWD cars as well. Who knows if Honda would have introduced the Legend in the United States, which I believe was the largest FWD car produced by a Japanese make then, at a time when Toyota was still peddling the Cressida as its largest offering, and RWD. While Toyota did offer the LS400 in RWD form, along with Nissan the Q45, a whole slew of midsize and larger FWD vehicles were offered for years until RWD came back into fashion a few years ago. Interestingly, the Europeans largely clung to their RWD/AWD designs, at least for larger cars outside of VW.
If anything, the X cars, and subsequent cars sold the US on the idea of a transverse FWD car in the mainstream. By 1984 with the debut of the C body cars, they were the largest FWD mainstream cars produced in the world, and in the case of the Cadillac, the largest FWD transverse V8s. FWIW, the nouveau-Cord design of the E & K body FWD cars were dismissed early on as they were too expensive a design to practically incorporate for small than full size cars. Also it was clear that the split trans axle design that defined the THM425/325 was not practical for a small transmission like the THM125. Eventually, twisting the engine became necessary not only for spatial reasons but for design functionality as well.
So really, IMO, GM lost its voice because it stopped building cars that people wanted to buy and wanted to be seen in. Complain you may, but Cadillacs of yore were Cadillacs because they were garish and well “Cadillacs” while many Cadillacs of recent years, an arguable to some extent today are extremely competent yet exceedingly bland vehicles. I suppose which is ok for someone that values function to a fault but for some, will trade a level of absolute performance for conspicuous consumption.
So for GM to survive in the 21st Century, and I think it is moving in the right direction, is not only to build a car that meets or exceeds the Asians and Europeans on paper, but also offers something distinctly American that makes consumers want them over their competition. We are slowly getting there, I think.
**For the veterans that may have noticed my extended absence I am back briefly during the Thanksgiving holiday in North Carolina on vacation. Life in Washington is, well, dramatic to say the least and more difficult at times than anything experienced in my years at GM. At GM, the corporate culture could be stifling, but then, long-timers grew to understand the behavior patterns and manage them and find balance. In Washington, there is no balance, and hasn’t not been especially recently. Only 535 (at least Congresspeople) fiefdoms with their own agendas beholden to no one especially those that come from “safe” districts. That is about all I will say about the subject so as not to risk becoming political, but it is very time consuming and laborious which is why I have not been able to do anything online outside of my work beyond light news reading. Let’s just say 40 years at GM and now likely 17 months or so in Washington and of course being a consumer and working in the son’s car repair shop I have seen just about the entire circle of the automotive business in the United States.**
Great comment. Differentiation in GM products was awesome and ‘badge engineering’ was not a cause of bankruptcy. A person could choose basic, sport, entry-level lux, mid-level lux, or full lux. Selling an Olds instead of a Buick meant a sale for GM, and not Ford or Chrysler.
So what’s the deal? I missed why you disappeared. If there’s a link somewhere that I missed, would mind pasting it in here? Your GM factoids and experiences are interesting… and I’m a big fan of GM products prior to the mid 90’s.
I did not make a large announcement but a few hints in comments, etc. I work for the Secretary of Transportation right now in Washington on special projects. Since it is a current role and a governmental role, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that at this time. Suffice to say, I am very busy, which has left me virtually no time to engage in much. I am home in North Carolina for the week which is why I got on now, after I found out by someone that this site was for sale I thought I would stop by. I take the train back Sunday evening to DC and then I will be busy until the 15th or so of December then back in North Carolina until about the 8th then back in DC.
Craig – Very glad to hear from you, and I agree so, SO very much with the last part of your comment about how it’s crucial for GM to remain a distinctly American manufacturer. I actually think they’re doing a great job of this right now, it’s just unfortunate that it took a near-death experience for them to get to that point. Much of the current Chevy, Buick and Cadillac lineups are, IMO, the best stuff GM has done since the early 70s and most of it is a lot more exciting than what’s coming out of Japan right now.
This is actually a common theme in automobile design. Comfortable is bad, too many cooks in the kitchen are very bad. Ambition focused out of necessity and a singular vision makes good cars more often than not. AMC’s swan song was the brilliant XJ Cherokee, Ford and Chrysler both did their best work when they were absolutely forced to, as did most of the imported brands when they were busy taking huge pieces of the US market. Too much success apparently makes boring and/or shitty cars. It doesn’t have to be that way, but it almost always is. Honda, for instance, I think still makes excellent, extremely high quality vehicles, but there’s no denying that they lack a certain element of exciting design and progressive ingenuity that was their primary commodity during their rise to the (near) top. This is something I think would be interesting to sit down and chronicle at some point – the automotive industry’s never ending cycle of resistance to change and revolutionary design or death from complacency.
And if you agree with that, I have to ask… why are you always suggesting we give GM a pass? They could have adapted – in fact they DID adapt: they’re doing it currently and doing a damn good job of it – but they didn’t do it back when they still had the opportunity to hold onto all that market share. However revolutionary these cars were (in relation to their predecessors, anyway), they were still dressed up in outdated Broughmantic fashion. Some of them were even very good cars, but I think few people beyond the diehard loyalists saw the appeal in their basic qualities through the formal roofs, fake wires (big cars) and compromised shortcomings/shoddy build quality (small cars) that came to be associated so closely with General Motors products from the 70s onwards.
FWIW – I don’t think badge engineering in-and-of itself is such a bad thing, or the root cause of what killed Olds, Pontiac and Saturn. IMO, the Alfred Sloan model could, and should still work – but it isn’t compatible with the way the dealership system evolved in the US. I wish all three could have stuck around. Olds and Pontiac were always my favorite GM lines, and I liked the S-series Saturns a lot, too.
Anyway, I could yap on a bit more even but I don’t want to turn this into a Russian novel. I’m sure you must have your hands very full and I can’t even imagine how frustrating and insane it must be to work (or do work for) the federal government right now. I’m sure D.C. makes GM’s level of organizational dysfunction seem quaint in comparison – but I hope that we’ll see you again sometime after you finish your work down there!
Happy holidays and best of luck!
I don’t really suggest we give GM a pass, ultimately a company, and an individual for that matter, will rise and fall on their own. With that said, I do see the value of looking at all the factors that come into play when a dominant company loses its dominance. I offered the Big Three/Four TV network as a parallel example of when markets opened up and the dominant players are forced to compete. It would be fallacy to think GM would have kept 50% market share forever, even with perfect product execution. Poor product planning coupled by the effects of OPEC/CAFE disrupted the market. GM and the domestics dominated until the 70s partly because that many world economies were recovering from WWII, trade in capital goods was still somewhat restricted and expensive, and due to two world wars, the dominate generations at the time were resistant to purchasing imported goods. Tom wrote an article about his grandfather’s Lincoln purchases that speak to this effect. If you look at the trend in domestic-vs.-foreign make buying in the US, you will see where domestic makes are still dominant are in areas of the US that are very US-centric in their mindsets. Without getting too political, it is tied together.
Broughamy things were offered because people bought them. Although fairly rare, the imported makes did offer Broughamy styling touches as well at times on some of their cars to mimic American styling tastes. I have seen more than one Corolla with a vinyl top and Corollas and Camrys had hood ornaments at times in the 1980s. Eventually, most of the imported makes concentrated on building mass market cars in the compact and midsize class which is still where their strength is. Until recently, most imported makes only produced a limited amount of models for the US market. Honda got along mostly producing the Accord and Civic platform with variants like the CRX and Prelude based off of those. Even to this day, the domestics typically have larger numbers of models than foreign makes.
Finally, complacency is a loaded word at times. Many companies, not just auto makes, can become complacent. If anything, GM was NOT complacent in the 1970s and 1980s, that was actually the problem. They were TOO radical in their approach, wanting to change absolutely everything, and doing so in a grandiose way. Everything was altered, massive investment in technology, it was like the fall of the Soviet Union, shock therapy, everything you knew before was thrown out. The problem was that too much was invested and the wheels were turning so fast with the new platforms that could not really be altered once gas prices dropped precipitously. GM was ready for the new reality that turned out to not really come. Well at least not until the 21st century at least.
Nice to see you drop in, Craig. I will echo the part of your comment that GM’s spectacular wealth in 1979 turned out to be more of a curse than a blessing. Chrysler under Iacocca was petrified of GM, knowing that it had the money to throw brand new product at every single market niche. This was why Chrysler retrenched and killed some platforms in the early 80s. Iacocca’s plan was to pick and choose which segments he had a fighter’s chance in.
Also, pretty much everyone at the time bought into the conventional wisdom of $4/gallon gas going forward. The longevity of Ford’s Panther cars and the GM rwd D body was pure fluke – gas came down, the economy picked up, and lots of folks in the 80s bought another old-style rwd sedan. Chrysler gave up too early in cancelling the R platform, and probably would have kept it also had it been made through, say, 1983 or 84.
GM’s wealth hurt it. Chrysler and Ford had been through (at least) one major brush with bankruptcy in 1979-80, which forced them to clean house and focus on the basics. GM did not have that experience, as was pointed out by Elmer Johnson in a lengthy memo to GM upper management shortly before he resigned. The company had become sclerotic and full of bureaucratic systems that got in the way of doing what they had been able to do in the 1950s or 60s. An awful lot of GM’s market share loss was picked up by Ford and Chrysler in the 90s, both of which were offering some very appealing new cars and trucks. Also, I agree with you completely on CAFE – GM had always been the leader in large vehicles, and was hurt more by CAFE than anyone else. As I recall the way it worked, Mercedes or BMW could pay the per-vehicle fine because of low numbers. If GM crossed that threshold, it would not just be a Cadillac fine or a Buick fine, but a fine on every GM vehicle, no matter its size or brand.
The biggest issue, and what I argue, is that GM’s wealth allow it to make big bets. Instead of much slower, more evolutionary designs, or ones were an aspect of a car was changed radically, it was like the baby was thrown out with the bath water. The X platform, followed by the J, then the A and F, and then the C, and then the H & E were monumental undertakings in a 10 year span. It was breathtaking to say the least the volume of change that occurred at that time. Unfortunately two things happened, 1) Gas came down which blunted the public’s desire for small cars, and 2) GM cars lost a lot of their distinctiveness which really contributed to the public shopping outside of the domestic sphere. The WWII generation at the time remained loyal to the domestics but market share was seriously eroded with the Baby Boomers and Gen X.
Had GM gone with a more incremental route, they would have been able to more quickly adapt to long term decrease in oil prices that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s without simply resorting to building a lot of truck-based vehicles as they did in the 1990s.
GM was always worried about anti-trust problems until the 1980s. Yes GM had ins in high places, but given the worldwide shock of OPEC and the expectations of gas prices, that was much larger than anything that GM could have dealt with. It was 9/11 like mindset, if GM would have tried to buck CAFE, there would have been all kinds of problems. It would have been a mess.
That and the inevitable occurrence that once the Japanese and European economies recovered from the WWII experience that they would become players on the world stage.
Preaks Truth – What was the “read between the lines” thing? I still don’t get the implication. Maybe just chill out a little bit, ya know? That comment only comes off as rude because a lot of your other comments are very argumentative.
@Sean – Thanks for your interest in my thought, but clearly my thoughts aren’t welcome here, since I don’t agree with Paul’s bashing of Dominant GM. “Read between the lines” was a shot at Paul’s BS and that can’t be tolerated when his site is up for sale!
Bashing of Dominant GM You’re right, absurd thoughts like that aren’t very welcome here. Do you ever stop to read your comments? Or consider history as it really was? This site prides ourselves on the level of intelligence of our commentators, and I see that you’re quickly making yourself an outcast.
Why, because I’m smarter than you? Ever think it was POLITICS (i.e. unions) that destroyed GM??? Or don’t you have any knowledge of the inner-workings of the company??? Or are you just a liberal who can’t face facts???
Pricks Truth – Yes, we’re all muslim communists trying to subvert god’s America into faggotry and sin via critique of cars that haven’t been sold new in over 20 years. And we would’ve gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for you meddling kids and that rotten mutt!
Let me ask you a few things, though: do you think the comment you just wrote makes you sound like a sane person? And why are you so furious about this alleged bashing of “dominant” GM? Is your dad Roger Smith? Are you 14 years old? Because all the grown ups that I know don’t talk to each other in the way you spew bursts of rage at everyone who has managed to not agree with your very special opinions – even on the internet.
The UAW absolutely deserves some blame for GM’s failures, but as much as I dislike the UAW’s schtick and that whole type of SKREW DA BOSSES attitude that’s so prevalent in whatever labor unions are left in this country, they hardly took down GM on their own. And if it’s all unions and fact-averse liberals that destroyed GM, then surely you weren’t in favor of redistributing taxpayer wealth in the form of GM’s government bailout?
Also, can you show me where, exactly, Paul has ever bashed GM? Was there some article I missed where he was like “FUCK PONTIAC, Y’ALL!! MURCADES W124 DA SHIT 4EVA, FUCK Y’ALL BITCHES!!” I honestly can’t recall ever reading “bashing” on his, or any other author’s, part. I still don’t get the read between the lines thing either. Is that like a conspiracy thing, or do you mean he’s trying to temper the “GM bashing” by forcing Tom Klockau to write less critical articles?
I think this generation of tornado is pathetic. Compact and looking like a ciera/Calais. Very plastic looking. Why on earth would anyone buy this over a v8 cougar bird or mark isbeyond me. The added on rear extent ion don’t look right but its an improvement. The Rivera always was the better looking car. Would never consider this version ever.