During the 1980s, GM had its greatest loss of market share ever, setting the stage for its ultimate demise. It was a remarkable performance, and those of us that were around at the time were utterly dazzled by its ability to keep spitting out new Deadly Sins at a breakneck pace. How did they do it?
Ask Irv Rybicki.
GM had perfected the process to creating Deadly Sins to a few key approaches. The easiest and most common one was just the failure to develop the key mechanical and technical aspects properly, as in the Vega, Citation, Olds Diesel, 4100HT, among many others.
Another sure-fire approach was hubris, the excessive pride and self-confidence in its abilities to understand the realities of the market. Grosse Pointe Myopia was another name. The Cimarron, case in point. Sure, we can take on the BMW 3 Series with that.
GM’s styling, as led by its Design VP Irv Rybicki during the 80s, was very much a key factor too. Rybicki, had been promoted to replace Bill Mitchell in 1977 instead of Chuck Jordan because the execs on the 14th floor wanted a pliable Design VP who would do their bidding. They got that, and more. Sex and Soul? We’ve had our fill of that. How about anodyne and gender-neutral?
Rybicki oversaw the most crucial period of GM as it was downsizing all of its lines for a second time to FWD, starting with the 1980 X cars.
Among others, he was directly responsible for perhaps the greatest GM DS, the disastrous 1986 downsizing of the E-Body Coupes (Eldorado, Riviera and Toronado), which had a long and proud tradition of being GM design standard bearers and profit makers.
GM cars created during this time almost invariably had repetitive and dull styling, poor proportions, and lacked differentiation between the various brands.
One of the more unusual moments in the Rybicki Era was the Cadillac Allante. Indulging in the deadly sin of envy, Cadillac was desperate for a Mercedes SL of its own, and decided (how and why exactly seems to be lost to the mists of time or dementia) that Pininfarina was the one to design it. Now that wouldn’t have happened under Bill Mitchell. Although it will certainly not go down in history as one of PF’s better jobs, undoubtedly input from Cadillac had something to do with that, especially the front end. But it’s not really a bad looking car, given the FWD architecture PF had to work with.
Not surprisingly, the Allante turned out to be an embarrassing flop. Cadillac by the mid-late 80s had already slid so far down in terms of its image and prestige, that there was no way the SL crowd was going to touch it. Loyal older Cadillac buyers bought them, and it quickly became known as a white-shoe, white-belt Florida golf-club retirement car.
But the GM designers were mighty miffed that the job was not given to them. So they set out to prove that they could do a better two seater than Pininfarina. cue hubris:
They brought in a Porsche 944 as their key inspiration. A bit curious, since the 944’s predecessor 924 was designed in 1973 or so, more than ten years earlier. And there was one glaring problem with that: the 944 was of course a RWD sports car, whose engine was all or mostly behind the front axle centerline. Meanwhile, the Reatta was given a shortened E-Body Riviera FWD platform. That vast difference in proportions was all-too obvious. As well as the vast gaps above the Reatta’s tires in their wheel openings. Must have been some sort of deadly GM decree at the time.
The Allante had the same problem, but PF managed to resolve it somewhat better. There’s decidedly more gap between the door leading edge and the front wheel opening, the front overhang seems a wee bit shorter, and its longer tail makes it look more balanced. Of course, that’s relatively speaking.
But the biggest issue with the Reatta was its identity crisis. What exactly was it supposed to be? That question clearly hadn’t been thought through properly. As the VW Beetle proved so convincingly, having a clear identity and image is a critical factor to success. GM obviously hadn’t yet absorbed the lesson of the VW, whose success in its later years was all about a new generation expressing their dissatisfaction with the car business as usual, and GM in particular. Which explains GM’s inability to ever build a truly successful small car. And why they were tanking during the 80’s, when former VW drivers were now snapping up BMWs and Hondas and such.
GM’s mindset was fundamentally still stuck in the 1950s. Why not? It had been their golden years; in 1955, GM was the world’s biggest corporation by far and the first to ever post a profit of $1 billion ($9.3 billion adjusted). And the Reatta was just an updated take on the 1955 La Salle Roadster. That was FWD too; well, in theory, as GM hadn’t yet actually figured out how to build a working FWD drivetrain. It got pushed unto the stands at the Motorama. It’s the thought that counts, right?
As to the LaSalle’s styling, let’s just say that even the Reatta has it beat. Ugh.
Was the Reatta a sports car? With a 165hp V6? A luxury two-seater? A more affordable Mercedes SL? How about an expensive two-seat commuter?
The Pontiac Fiero, another DS which has Irv Rybicki written all over it too, suffered from the same lack of mental acuity as to its mission in life. It was proclaimed to be a “two seat commuter”, undoubtedly because its pathetic Iron Duke four and underdeveloped suspension would have made a mockery of the word “sports car”.
What I said in that Fiero Deadly Sin applies perfectly to the Reatta: The real test of a great company is the ability to precisely define the vision for its products and then execute it with the least possible deviation. This is precisely why GM failed; over and over it promised brilliant sparkling Futurama-brand diamonds but delivered coal. In the case of the Reatta, they couldn’t even define its vision. But those poor designers had the jones to show up the Allante; that’s what was really important. Who needs to define a car’s mission if you’re GM? Build it and they will come.
The Reatta’s full-width taillights were also inspired by a Porsche, but not the 944’s.
No, this one. Wasn’t it obvious? And doesn’t the Reatta just ooze that Porsche sexiness and soul?
Those qualities were certainly not on display in its interior either, or its widely-panned touch-screen Electronic Control Center.
Not surprisingly, the Reatta was a bust. It lost GM money from start to finish. It was way too expensive to build at the Lansing Craft Center (I’m surprised they didn’t use “Centre”), but its initial price of $25,000 ($53k adjusted) was considered too high for what it was. Which pretty much sums up the dilemma of GM during the 80s: folks weren’t willing to pay what GM thought their cars were worth, as their perceived image and status had been so badly eroded.
The convertible version was supposed to be available from the start, but severe structural problems that were never fully resolved held up its arrival for a full two years. How do you explain that? Two years?
It didn’t make any difference; by 1990 the Reatta was dead meat, and GM knew it. Like so many domestic cars of its ilk (think 2002 Thunderbird), what little spark of interest there was initially was quickly satiated. In 1989, its first full year, sales peaked at 7,009. By 1991, all of 1,519 Reattas found buyers. A total of 21,751 over four years. Another GM halo car turns into the devil’s horns.
And the excuse given for killing the Reatta? GM needed its production facilities for its next Deadly Sin, the EV-1. Good luck finding one of those.
In the great pantheon of failures throughout GM’s history, of the five divisions, Buick managed to be the least stumble-prone. Even the Reatta, while certainly not great, seems better than the Allante (at least the convertible version).
But the comparison with the last, retro-Thunderbird is apt. Once the original hoopla died down, the general mediocrity of the product was just too much to justify the high price. In the Thunderbird’s case, there was no shortage of them on dealer’s lots during the final years of production (and at discount prices, too). Probably the same case with the Reatta, too.
Buick made the only truly great GM car of the Roger Smith era: the Grand National/GNX.
I think the Reatta looks nice, but it was saddled with an early version of a touchscreen for the stereo and some other controls. A *monochrome* touchscreen.
I absolutely LOVE it when you go off on GM with both barrels blasting!!! They did it to themselves. My new ’82 Trans Am…don’t even make me go there.
Oh, man, a 1982 f-body. While yours was a Trans Am, I have no doubt the experience was similar to Car and Driver’s long-term review of a 1982 Z28, subtitled, “A 20,000 mile Tale of Woe”. It was such an unmitigated POS (we’re talking major drivetrain issues like having to replace transmissions and rear ends here) that they decided to give it back early.
IIRC, some of this generation of f-body were built at the assembly plant in Norwood, OH (a suburb of Cincinnati). It was one of the worst GM plants, particularly in terms of absenteeism. It was a strike at Norwood that caused the 1971 f-body to be of such a limited production. As one might imagine, when word came down that GM had had enough and was going to shutter the plant, suddenly, everyone decided to show up, and there wasn’t enough parking for all the employee vehicles.
It wasn’t just Norwood OH. Van Nuys CA also built that generation of F body cars. While labor relations were much better, the cars weren’t. Poor engineering combined with GM Assembly Division management resulted in a huge percentage of the Van Nuys plant floor space devoted to rework, after management got credit for each car that could drive off the end of the assembly line under its own power.
I remember when this one came out, I immediately thought, this thing is going to sink like a rock. Ugly, underpowered, poor build quality…who’d want to buy one of these?
Put this side by side with a Lexus SC 300 – night and day…
First gen Lexus SC, night and day.
Second gen Lexus SC = Reatta
The Lexus SC came out NINE years later! Oh, wait, it only came out THREE years after the Reatta.
The Toyota you want to compare the third-gen F-body or the Reatta with is the contemporary Supra. Both generations were everything either car needed to be. The ads in 1982 even had Dan Gurney saying it had “the right stuff” before the movie about the original seven astronauts came out.
Another glaring error in the gestation of the third-gen F-body was the decision not to use the Turbo Trans Am engine, instead put the Pontiac V8 out of production altogether. That asymmetrical hood bulge on the Trans Am was meant to accommodate it. Imagine 210 hp right from the start instead of having to wait three years for Tuned Port Injection.
That’s another story. But it is a chapter in GM’s descent down a slippery slope in the 1980’s.
The second gen SC and Reatta are comparable from an execution/market position, not directly as contemporary rivals due to their timelines, obviously. I don’t put either one in the category the F body cars and Supra occupied, those are sports cars, the first gen SC was a PLC, sharing the market with the Cadillac Eldorado, Buick Riviera, Lincoln Mark VIII, Tbird/Cougar, Acura Legend coupe. The Reatta was kind of in an undefined category as a pseudo sports PLC, I can’t think of anything else that really compares besides the Mercedes SL series of cars. The universally unloved second gen SC falls into that category perfectly, as does Ford’s retro Thunderbird.
The lack of turbo Firebirds for the third gen was probably for the best if the 301 80-81 system was carried over, though it is a bit sad the offset hood bulge had no functional merit though. It looked cool and intriguing on both generations, and the screaming chicken spitting fire onto it on the 80-81s was one of the more clever graphics of the high performance sticker epoch.
The real tragedy of dumping the Pontiac V8 and by extension the full corporate consolidation of engines is the resulting cost savings didn’t seem to manifest themselves into better cars as any rational person would presume they would. A better interior without leaky seals, and creeks and rattles for example would be well worth the minor loss of brand identity. And if that’s too much to ask, why couldn’t Pontiac carry over just turbo system on the now corporate Chevy V8?
GM sort of got it right when they built cheap basic cars. My ’90 Cavalier is basically a four door Vega with a much more rugged engine. And better rustproofing.
That was the thing about GM’s bottom-feeder cars. Yeah, the driving dynamics sucked and were dead last in their class, but the cars were cheap to buy for just about anyone with the lowest McJob. The main components were stout enough, and when something broke or fell off, if the local parts store didn’t have a replacement, it wouldn’t take much scouring of a local junkyard to find what you needed to get it back on the road.
There’s a reason that stuff like the Chevette, Cavalier, and Cobalt, even though they were cheap as hell, still managed to keep chugging away as cockroaches-of-the-road for a long time. It’s even more amazing when one surmises that the routine maintenance of these kinds of cars was almost certainly lacking.
The Shadow/Sundance (and to a lessor degree, the Tempo/Topaz) were better cars in virtually every way, and equally very affordable. Can’t say at the time, I’d recommend the Cavalier/Sunfire to anyone.
Judging by all the piston knocking head gasket repaired 2.2 Mopars we had to fix and the dozen or so Tempo’s that continually came back to our dealership at the time for disintegrated front end components, that annoying as hell and troublesome motorized belt, failed A/C, interiors that rattled themselves to pieces, a transmission that upshifted so fast you lost what little power that the OHV 2.3 offered and numerous terrible clearcoat paint jobs that were peeling off in just 4-5 years time I would hardly call these two as superior to anything.
Never thought I’d hear a positive remark about the Tempo! Reliable transportation. Don’t miss the two I owned, but I have no hard feelings about them either.
This is my cue to insert the classic meme of the times:
”GM cars run bad longer than most cars run at all.”
That’s the one. I wonder how often the words “yeah, it might be a POS, but it’s still getting me to where I want to go” were spoken in regards to a GM product.
Cheap, but then you got a$$ jacked by the dealer when it came time to fix the $hit engineering and build quality.
If the Vega had a better engine and better rustproofing (which its Monza descendant got later on), it would have done just fine. The Japanese competition was still basically turning out well-built mediocre cars. Contemporary road tests praised the Vega’s handling versus other small cars and they sold very well until the problems surfaced.
The problem was that the Monza stayed in production until 1981 and the Cavalier came out overweight and underpowered right behind it. Once that was rectified somewhat, the cars were OK but again, failed to keep up with the fast pace of change the Japanese were maintaining. The Accord and Civic went through three redesigns before the Cavalier finally got a restyling. And three more before the Cobalt came out.
So it went from the Japanese making well-built mediocre cars to the Americans doing the same. And lagging behind as a result.
I had the pleasure of owning one of these Paul and although i really liked it,it rode well,handled adequately, my best description of the car would be a luxury commuter car. the interior was well done as i never had a problem(even the dash worked well)and was very spacious with plenty of storage and room to move around in comfort. I agree that GM sucked back then(and now)they could have done so much better with the products that they put out. They have eroded my loyalty and love for their products(still love the old stuff). Thanks for this nice reminder of a car that although it had questionable proportions……………..was nice to own and drive.
Fast forward to 2019: nothing’s changed.
Just wait until they introduce “the future” with all those amazing GM EVs. Now that such vehicles are the “obsession du jour” (along with autonomy) in the auto biz, GM is of course diving-in with the usual half-baked bluster. No doubt the soon-to-be GM EV line-up will blow away that damn Musk and those damn electric-charging Germans, just like the J-Cars had the Japanese makers quaking in their boots and the world’s prestige brands were terrified of potential market share incursions due to the Reatta/Allante.
Let’s be fair: The Bolt is very competitive in the EV space right now, and GM’s smart enough to sell them all over the place (unlike Hyundai/Kia who only sell their EVs in something like 10 states and are just now getting around to surpassing the 200-mile range mark). Ze Germans are talking a big game around charge times, but we haven’t seen much real-life tech out of them yet. Between GM’s electric offerings, they’ve used up their EV tax credits already.
GM still has some flaws, but I think they’re in a fine position vis-a-vis EVs.
very competitive??
Presumably you’re not aware of the fact that the Bolt’s sales in the US are down substantially in 2018 compared to 2017? As in a drop from 23,297 in 2017 to 18,019 in 2018.
And apparently you also missed that GM has as much as admitted that it loses some $9,000 on each Bolt. The Bolt is a compliance-mobile, pure and simple, and they sell it in other states for image/PR reasons.
And that GM buys everything that makes the Bolt an EV (battery pack, motor, inverter, controllers, etc.) from Samsung? They just assemble it from bought components. Meaning they have little or no experience in building their own EV components.
Meanwhile Tesla sold some 140k Model 3s in 2018, but that was almost all in the 3rd and 4th quarter after production ramped up. And it has a 20+% profit margin.
GM still has some flaws, but I think they’re in a fine position vis-a-vis EVs.
How much GM Kool Aid did you have for breakfast? 🙂
I’m not convinced the Bolt and Model 3 compete against each other, aside from that they’re both EVs. There are multiple reports suggesting Model 3 demand in the U.S. might be exhausted, and the $35,000 Model 3 is vaporware. Musk himself has said it costs Tesla 38k to build a Model 3, whereas ticking pretty much all the boxes on a Bolt gets you to 40ish.
Model 3’s a fine car, and I’m seriously considering one once I sell my project house. Tesla’s unquestionably the industry leader in the EV space, and they’re transforming the whole industry in some ways.
I’d also say, though, Model 3’s playing in the space where 3-Series plays, and catering to the folks that would buy in that space. There’s not a snowball’s chance Bolt’s playing in the same space. Bolt’s competing much more with Leaf and the handful of forthcoming Hyundai/Kia EV offerings (Soul, Kona, and the other one whose name escapes me presently).
I believe GM’s in a decent place with regard to EVs because they, compared to most of the industry, actually have one on the market. I think it much less problematic that they’re buying pieces from suppliers than your comment seems to suggest.
I mean, where’s the rest of the industry? BMW’s sold, what, 7 of their EVs in the last, um, ever? Ford has nothing to speak of. Hyundai/Kia are just finally looking to break the 200-mile range barrier with their upcoming stuff. How long did Honda chase the Fuel Cell dream after most everyone else abandoned it as a dead-end?
As far as I can tell, GM, Nissan, Hyundai/Kia, and probably Toyota are actually ready to go. Maybe VW’s ID range will be something, and maybe Porsche’s talk of quick charging won’t be vaporware. Ford has nothing, despite their noise about mobility campuses bla bla blah… Actually, that whole company’s got some problems right now.
So, not Kool-Aid. Just my assessment of the field right now. To be fair, the signal-noise ratio is still pretty high in the electrification realm, though.
The Bolt’s biggest problem seems to be that people keep trying to compare it to a car that cost $20K more and wasn’t even available at the same time. GM deserves credit for producing a viable EV. But I think its real problem is that the market for EVs is not as strong as thought. Model 3 sales are falling off a cliff in the US. Musk as always has an excuse for that, huckster that he is, but continually under-delivering by large margins while being massively overvalued is not a sustainable business plan. It just isn’t.
GM deserves credit for producing a viable EV.
Viable = Profitable. You think losing $9,000 per Bolt is viable?
Mary Barra said just today that she doesn’t expect GM’s EVs to be profitable until early next decade. That’s pretty far out, and we know how reliable these projections are. Let’s check back in 2023 and see whether GM is building viable EVs.
Also worth note: Tesla has recently announced they’ll acquire Maxwell Technologies to get their hands on capacitor tech, and they source their batteries from Panasonic (whose stock took a 9% hit when Tesla announced the Maxwell deal).
Companies source stuff from other companies. Like I said, I’m not convinced that’s too much a thing in this day and age.
and they (Tesla) source their batteries from Panasonic
It’s not nearly as simple as that. Panasonic was brought in to manufacture the cells but the chemistry and material content of these batteries were Tesla’s which has made major strides in changing the chemistry to lower cost, improve density and reduce cobalt. Panasonic is essentially an in-house subcontractor, not a independent source as is the case with most other EV makers.
And Tesla builds the battery packs, which is in some ways more important than the cells themselves. It’s widely acknowledged that Tesla’s costs for their complete battery packs is well below what others are able to build them for. Tesla is shooting for $100 per KWh, which would make them as cheap as an IC engine.
@Paul:
“Viable = Profitable. You think losing $9,000 per Bolt is viable?”
“Mary Barra said just today that she doesn’t expect GM’s EVs to be profitable until early next decade. That’s pretty far out, and we know how reliable these projections are. Let’s check back in 2023 and see whether GM is building viable EVs.”
That number was from 2016. A 2017 report commissioned by UBS and reported on by Bloomberg estimated a $7,400 loss per car. That same report uncovered that the Bolt powertrain cost $4,600 less to produce than previous estimates had suggested.
A January 2018 report by Reuters talked about GM’s work on getting the cost of batteries down and quotes Mary Barra as estimating GM EV profitability by 2021. She’s still going with “early this decade” as the target date, as of the most recent GM earnings call.
I don’t see this as a problem for GM. Tesla’s been at it for the better part of a decade, and they’ve just finally had two profitable quarters. I’m also reminded of the fact that Microsoft never made money on the original X-Box.
The point there is that it costs money to break into a new segment. Right now, my take is that GM’s buying EV market share and spending the money to establish themselves as a serious player in the segment. GM is profitable, with healthy margins, and seems to have favor with Wall Street right now. They can afford the hit now.
And I assert that spending the money now is a smarter play than sitting back and coming late to the party. Isn’t one of the common themes of the Deadly Sin series that GM missed market trends and had to play catch-up after the fact?
Yup, the bolt is fugly
I’d argue that the Bolt is doing OK in the EV space, but is hardly dominating the segment. Among the Top 10 best selling plug-ins of 2018, the Bolt is only #7 (and down 14% year-over-year in the “booming” EV market). With 18,306 sales in 2018, the Bolt trails the Tesla Model 3 (139,372), Toyota Prius Prime (27,595), Tesla Model X (26,100), Tesla Model S (25,745), Honda Clarity (18,602) and Chevy’s own soon-to-be-discontinued Volt (18,306). So yeah, GM is ahead of the Nissan Leaf (14,715), BMW 530e (8,664) and Ford Fusion Energi (8,074), but I wouldn’t say they have strongly demonstrated their potential to be a leader in the EV space. And the luxury German offerings that will be arriving en mass look to be pretty compelling for people who want to switch to an EV.
And to that end, the real sustainable demand for EVs in the broad mass market is still to be determined. The actual size of the EV market growth outside of certain states (California alone accounts for 53% of total U.S. EV sales) may still prove to be smaller than what pundits are predicting for rapid and total market dominance by EVs versus ICE vehicles. Companies like VW and GM who are rushing to make huge bets on EV-centric line-ups may face unexpected challenges as the adoption curve moves from the early-adopter stage to the broader market. Hyundai/Kia doing a gradual roll-out in the markets with demonstrated high EV demand actually makes more business sense. Trust me, lots filled with GM EVs in Chicago during another Polar Vortex will be as popular as lead balloons.
I’d have never guessed Honda could shift that many of the Clarity. 89 mile range? The others you list ahead of the Bolt are the three Tesla models, and two hybrids. Looking at the long-range full-EV options, you’re talking about Tesla and Bolt.
I think you’re right that the EV market size is very much TBD. I still maintain that whoever can get the price and/or the fast-charge time under control will win. Right now, Tesla can slide on price based on the premium image, and they’re the only ones with a fast-charge system worth talking about. 75 minutes on a Bolt? Forget it. And the rest of the long-range pack is in the same league.
If viability includes profitability, Tesla has yet to prove it’s viability. A few good quarters does not make up for years of loses, though a charismatic CEO and mesmerized shareholders helps gloss things over. I think BEV’s will represent a large share of future passenger vehicles, but profitability is still a ways off. I believe it is coming though. Have to start somewhere.
All you need to know about this era of GM is that they announced Saturn before Honda, Toyota and Nissan announced Acura, Lexus and Infiniti. All three Japanese luxury brands were on the market before the first Saturn was sold.
So, yeah, I’m not surprised they needed two extra years to develop a Reatta convertible.
In 1984, Roger Smith announced a massive reorganization of GM that resulted in absolute corporate chaos for a few years. (This reorganization, in retrospect, marked the final nail in the coffin of what was left of the divisions’ autonomy.)
Many key product programs were delayed, including the critical W-bodies. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Reatta convertible got caught up in that, too.
Other than the the LS 400 those cars were all retrims of existing cars not new products so pretty easy to create there was no ‘development’ stage to go through.
The convertible looks awful. Looks like a giant Capri, a Ford Deadly Sin.
Interesting point about the lack of vision. I’m trying to think about who I know would have bought one. Not me, not my Dad or any of my siblings. Not a great car for my brother with his 7 kids 🙂
Maybe the owner of a company I worked for who intentionally always drove GM company cars (he had an Aurora) and one young engineer I worked with in the 90’s who liked flashy stuff (gold chain bracelet, Olds touring 2-door) but that’s about it.
As an aside, I slightly miss the GM apologists who are going to foam at the mouth elsewhere. (Hi guys, we know you read this stuff)
There was an Olds Touring 2-door? What year?
Thanks.
Well, it had fog lights and the same rims & wide tires but probably not a touring, more likely a well optioned 98 or something. I road in it a few times, he drove it hard and the wide tires helped some, but it was so nose heavy it cornered like a rock on a string.
Same guy also had an MGA, which was a much more pleasant riding experience…
It’s worth remembering that at least some critics back in the time thought well of these. John Davis of Motorweek immediately springs to mind, thanks to Motorweek’s YouTube channel where I recently saw his very positive review of this car.
I always rather liked the style of them, including the interior. As an adult, I imagine they drive like most of the 3800-equipped front-drivers GM had at that point, which suits me just fine given that I had three separate examples of that ilk over the years.
I do agree that these landed with a thud in the market and that GM got some of it wrong-pricing, mostly. It’s also something to imagine had GM gone full-on touring car with these. The price point was already sky-high, so the corporate need to appease the masses was already a moot point. At this point, I wonder what some suspension work and a bit of hottening could do for one of these.
Honestly, I occasionally scour Craigslist looking for a decent example to buy.
GM Deadly Sin? Sure, why not? If it was the 1960s and GM was flush with cash, they could have afforded to do some interesting experiment to see if there was a new market niche to exploit. In the 1980s, though, it pulled resources away from the core business, which itself was in the shit.
I will say, though, this is proof that Rybicki’s crew could design something without a formal roofline and that was somewhat attractive, if they put their minds to it and had the audacity to buck the bosses.
100% this – all of these points. Yes, they were overpriced, but I absolutely love their style, the 3800 was probably as solid an engine as anything else out there at the time, and I think that if the right example came along at the right price (and strictly as a weekend driver), I might be tempted to pull the trigger.
If I recall correctly from the Buick brochure I collected when these were first new, I thought the Lansing plant was actually called the Reatta Craft “Centre” (with an -re). I’m sure I have that brochure in storage somewhere, but I’m not digging for it this weekend. 🙂
If any 80s Buick screamed for the T-Type treatment (plus maybe a turbo or supercharger on the V6) this one was it. With the GN Buick proved that it knew how to build something for enthusiasts. But maybe this was another case of GM corporate suffocating what positive energy there may have been at the Divisional level. It was a problem for Pontiac in the 60s and was a problem for everyone by the 80s.
Car and Driver summed up the appeal of the Reatta convertible by depicting the car being driven by a raisin (or is it an avocado?)
Lol, I wonder if they were trying to make a totally-legit-no-copyright-problems-here California Raisin. This would have been at the height of the time during which that/”they” were a thing.
By contrast here’s C/D’s cover for the first Miata.
A great addition to the DS series! I remember being absolutely mystified by these when they were introduced: who on earth would want a squishy Buick 2-seater? The answer of course was basically “no one.”
I will have to dive into my archives, but I would swear that GM in fact did call it the “Lansing Craft Centre” replete with the cheesy spelling. If I can find proof of that, I will post it.
Seeing the corporate photo of Irv Rybicki staged in front of the renderings of future (never to be) products, I can’t help wondering if those were actually some of the last designs of the Mitchell era. First, many of the cars in the drawings are pretty good looking and have some real flair, something Rybicki himself was incapable of delivering. I particularly like the rendering that I presume to be of a Cadillac sedan on the upper-right–far better looking than the stunted dud that arrived for ’85. Also, I’m guessing the photo was taken when ol’ Irv was appointed to the job in late 1977, so they just grabbed the best renderings and posed the picture. I wonder if Mitchell wanted to laugh or cry when he saw the shot….
This site has a reference to the “Craft Centre” on page 3.
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/1988-1991-buick-reatta2.htm
Also, from liquisearch.com:
“The Lansing Craft Centre was a specialized General Motors automobile assembly factory in Lansing Township, Michigan. The plant started production (as the Reatta Craft Centre) in 1987 and closed in 2006. At the time of its closure, the plant was 985,000 square feet (91,500 m2) in size, and employed 400 workers.
The facility was originally built by GM as a foundry in 1919, and sat across Saginaw Street from the Lansing Metal Center.
The Lansing Craft Center was the construction site for low-volume vehicles like the General Motors EV1, Buick Reatta, and Cadillac Eldorado. The Craft Centre also produced the convertible Chevrolet Cavalier and Pontiac Sunfire. Its final product was the Chevrolet SSR. On November 21, 2005, General Motors announced that it would close the Lansing Craft Centre in mid-2006. The final SSR, a unique black-on-silver model, was built on March 17, 2006. Many of the Craft Centre workers were transferred to the new Lansing Delta Township Assembly plant.”
Another factoid to point out the lunacy of GM in the 1980s was its obsession with 2-seaters. Of the car divisions, only Oldsmobile was never “blessed” with such a machine during GM’s disastrous decline. I bet they thought about it, though, given the pathetic state of GM’s product planning in the 1980s. It was sheer lunacy to have signed off on so many 2-seaters chasing such a small segment. The market for such cars was minuscule at the time, with a few niche sports and GT cars accounting for what little volume existed. Only the Corvette, well-defined and successful long before the 1980s, is the one 2-seater from The General that was ever remotely good or popular.
The Fiero was a good concept. A sporty 2 seater at a fairly low price could have been a really good niche. I remember that they sold well at first, before the catching-on-fire thing became known.
Even the Allante had a sort of market out there (if it had been the right car for that market). But this? Head scratcher.
Yeah, but the Fiero really was just an Americanized rendition of the Fiat X1/9, which hardly represented a huge “opportunity market.” Plus the Fiero was stunted by GM’s decision to make it a “commuter car” and thus render it a pretty underwhelming machine. I think it sold well at first because of its looks, and then quickly crashed because of car’s reputation for poor performance, handling and quality. Of course the fires didn’t help, but I think the issues were far deeper than that. And the arrival of the “Japanese X1/9” (aka the Toyota MR2) showed how the concept of an affordable, sporty 2-seater could be executed well. And think of the huge business Toyota (and others) did with sporty 2+2 coupes like the Celica and Supra–these cars represented a much bigger volume opportunity and GM had nothing at all to compete (the F-Body and J-Body were both too flawed to achieve real success against well-executed Japanese and European sporty cars)
I’d also argue that the luxury GT 2-seater segment, as embodied by the Mercedes-Benz SL, was basically a class of one. It was a luxury bauble from one of the world’s most admired brands and sold on those merits, not because its buyers were actively seeking a 2-seater. They wanted the ultra-expensive, decadent and stylish topless Benz, and that was the SL, which happened to have 2-seats. It probably would have sold just as well as a 2+2. And frankly Cadillac would have done better to make the Allante a 4-seater as well, since the brand at least had some heritage of offering luxury convertibles with a back seat.
“And frankly Cadillac would have done better to make the Allante a 4-seater as well, since the brand at least had some heritage of offering luxury convertibles with a back seat.”
Point well taken. There has always been a wide gulf in sales separating 2 seat convertibles from 4 seat ones. And unless I am missing one, a pricey/luxurious 4 seat convertible was a niche not being served at the time (that Chrysler-Maserati mashup excepted).
The entire commuter car thing was what it took to sneak it out the door past the bean counters. It did make some sense when the pencil was first put to paper there was a new wave of people who were buying high mpg cars, no matter how spartan they were, with their primary mission to be used for the daily commute carrying a single person. I know in my post gas crisis 70’s neighborhood many of the dad’s had base model sub-compact “commuter cars” that rarely were used for anything other than getting them to and from work.
The Fiero was fantastically popular for a 2-seater. In less than 5 full model years, it sold 370K. The average exceeds any single year of Miata sales. Every single year of sales exc the last exceeds any single year of US Miata sales. You can reasonably argue that GM botched the product and poisoned it, but not that the product wasn’t right for the market. Times were good and folks wanted a sporty, reasonably priced car.
I remember wanting to like these when they came out. They reminded me of Buick from before my lifetime – a desirable, prestigious car with a little swagger and style. The problem was that it was none of those things.
It had no appeal to the sports car lover as it was underpowered and had marshmallow handling. It had no appeal to they typical older buyer of a personal luxury car because of no back seat for packages or grandchildren. It had no appeal to the high-income guy with multiple cars because he had by then become used to so much better. Buick loyalists with high incomes – there was the demographic.
I always found the Allante at least a little appealing. Not for what they charged for it new, of course. The LeBaron convertible (and coupe) that was in Chrysler showrooms at the time was better looking than this, had a back seat and a folding top, and was considerably less expensive if someone wanted a small V6/FWD personal car. GM kept answering questions that nobody was asking.
Another thought occurs – this was kind of like minivans. The LeBaron convertible was an unexpected hit in the early 80s. Just like with minivans. And, just like with minivans, GM seems to have figured that people bought them only because GM wasn’t offering something “more fabulous”. Then GM tried to do “more fabulous” and flopped while Chrysler sold every LeBaron convertible they could build. And the 87 of the newer style sold really well too. Once again, Chrysler (and Lee Iacocca) had a much better idea of what the public really wanted than GM did.
Easy to blame Irv Rybicki, but the 14th Floor is the real culprit here, since they wanted a “yes” man and Rybicki filled the bill.
Then again, what if Chuck Jordan had succeeded Bill Mitchell? Didn’t GM’s bean counters still have wayyyyy too much control? The only change would’ve been better-looking Deadly Sins.
Paul, I’m glad you resumed this series. I’ve made no bones on these pages about being a GM fanboi but TRUE love is not blind.
Besides, someday after we’re all gone and future students of 20th/21st Century American history wonder how GM went from World’s Largest Industrial Corporation to bankruptcy, these snapshots will provide major clues.
“… went from World’s Largest Industrial Corporation to bankruptcy…”
Same thing with Sears, once “world’s largest store” and K Mart, too.
Sears/Kmart can largely be laid at “Fast” Eddie Lampert’s mismanagement, but Sears did commit one major unforced error before his time; getting out of mail-order in the early ’90s just a few short years before online shopping became a thing, having kept the most sophisticated order-fulfillment operation in America going for decades only to shut it all down and then have to rebuild it from scratch before the decade was out hurt bad.
Chuck Jordan did succeed Irv Rybicki, but by then, the damage had been done.
GM cars became markedly more attractive in the 1990s under Jordan’s tenure, but customers were no longer seduced by styling alone. The best-selling Camry (let alone the big Lexus) was hardly a looker in the 1990s.
GM cars like the Oldsmobile Aurora and fourth-generation Seville failed to achieve long-term success, primarily because their good looks couldn’t overcome the poor long-term reliability and lack of “polish.”
Same with the Oldsmobile Intrigue versus the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord.
To be honest, I’m not entirely confident Bill Mitchell himself would have fared much better. The 14th floor was absolutely convinced of an imminent apocalyptic fuel crisis, yet chose to keep all 5 divisions with 5 separate models(and in fact expand them) rather than consolidate and reorganize product for this dire situation – something that probably should have happened anyway. The resulting cars were predictable dull and indistinguishable in no small part due to the massive total number of them.
Irv Rybicki’s biggest failing separate from that was pressing forward with Bill Mitchell’s sheer look through the next two downsizing cycles, rather than finding a new direction more suited to what were now very different cars. They missed the Aero boat Ford got on by an entire generation of product, and never recovered from it. Irv’s later catch-up designs were actually pretty good, but they placed GM firmly out of a design leadership role, which let’s be honest was always GM’s most marketable strength over everyone else. Chuck Jordan in his place maybe would have done better initially, we can only speculate, but while the designs under his tenure were nice enough, they still weren’t cutting edge either.
In 1988 I worked with an older electrical engineer who was very hands-on and mechanically experienced. He was a Buick guy, and IIRC he drove a RWD A/G Century, in moderate brougham trim. When the Reatta was first shown at the LA Car Show, he latched onto it as his dream car, and subsequently bought one. I didn’t really get it, but I was probably 25 years younger than him.
The Reatta emerged during GM’s “Dark Period” of marketing (which is still going on with the Cadillac division today).
No clear message, no clear statement. Not sure what this bunch was smoking at the time, but a garbled message developed by a marketing Dept in disarray.
With the impending elimination of sedans in the GM fold, Only P/U’s and SUV’s will be left. Based on this scenario, what’s at the Chevy & Buick dealers will be a duplicate in the GMC lots.
Therefore, just eliminate the Bow Tie and Buick divisions, and GM just knocked out another strata of costs. The board of directors must be singing a song of glee!!
I honestly can not believe it. They used a Porsche as the “design bogey” for the Reatta? In that context this is most definitely a Deadly Sin.
In my opinion, the idea of some kind of “halo” car for Buick had promise, but the execution…oh my goodness.
Strangely, I think this car might have looked better if it hadn’t deviated so far from the straight line/plenty of right angles look that GM was heavily invested in in the early 80s. And certainly going RWD might have made a good selling point. But it is like whoever was responsible for the many different decisions involved in getting this car into production….made the WRONG decision 99.9% of the time.
Seems like the kind of car Florida retirement community drivers would buy. Go to the golf course,go for ‘early bird’ dinner specials, go to Publix, go to bingo, and maybe take the wife for a Sunday drive.Anyway, it sure beats a nondescript mini-van!
Without commenting on its history or “deadly sin” status, I actually really like how the Reatta looks on the road today. Doesn’t really look like anything else, and it probably helps that they sold poorly and are seen so rarely.
These are among my favorite cars for the “donk” treatment (although I think technically the Reatta would be a “bubble”). Something about the proportions really works with oversize wheels, as evidenced by this shot off the web.
Reatta, inspired by the 1948 Davis Divan ……
Good call!
Reatta was another “halo car” to brag about at Auto Shows, but cut costs on their “bread and butter”, turning off buyers. All because, “GM is in the business of making $$, not cars”.
After Bill Mitchell retired, that was it for them. Then was all “paycheck” leaders who only cared about their “Golden Parachute”, and “free new cars” every 30 days.
I agree with “Autoextremist”, they are back to their old ways, after bailout.
Arrogance, with a side of myopia. Perhaps GM *was* the best in the 50s and early 60s, but that doesn’t mean they were GOOD. And when the arrogance kicked in, it seemed to be a case of “people will buy our cars, no matter what we offer for sale”.
And when cars were available that were better than what GM was selling, they didn’t care – they simply assumed people would buy GM cars anyhow. That arrogance is what effectively killed GM. All these deadly sins were just symptoms of the problem.
This is a classic problem in older companies. When sales are relatively near peak possible and stable, promotional priorities change, the guy who get seats at the big table change accordingly. Prophets of Doom and Boat Rockers are pains in the seat bottom to manage and, at best, just plain wrong about 95 percent of the time. So, guys who don’t complain about following the tail of a plough horse year after year get the nod, and the wild-eyed-geniuses get the look, and often the boot.
Then, when product engineering starts to stagnate, as it will, first the stylists get their turn till they go all tail-fin, and then the marketers charm their way into to the room. When “See the USA in your Chevrolet” falters, all those bright accounting types who just sat in the back while the Engineers talked, get their chance. Saving a penny is as good for profits as earning a penny. Image what we’d make if we saved $100 per car! It never occurs to anyone that those tiny little mammals (VW, Honda, Toyota) will encrouch on the dinosaurs by eating their eggs (economy cars) and when the meteor hits the Yucatán, so to speak, the dinosaurs will begin to die out while the little guys thrive. Why not? Because all those prophets of doom and boat rockers were let go years ago.
I have always liked these. I had a chance to drive a couple of them for week at a time back in the early 2000’s and I liked them. The 3800 in it actually made the car sort of scoot. It certainly kept up with highway traffic easily.
I had a chance to get a 1990 Reatta, back in 2009. It was at a mom and pop car dealer in Shillington PA and I noticed it when I went up there for my grandma’s funeral. However the place was closed and it would have been poor taste to look at a car on that day had it been open. I never got around to pursuing it further.
I do think that this car could have used a supercharged 3800
In the Reatta’s defense, its proportions would actually be just fine if it were mid engined like the Fiero, and when I was younger that’s exactly what I thought Reatta was based on. The biggest styling sins to me is all in the details, like the tinny bright trim surrounding the lights and on the bumpers, and the tiny blocky convex wheels. But the biggest failing of all is that it did nothing whatsoever to elevate or draw interest to the Buick brand – it was a halo lacking a body – no design cues came from any prior Buick, nor even did any trickle into any subsequent Buicks. It was as if the car was designed first and decided what brand it goes to second. It shouldn’t have been made at all, as is the core problem that’s outlined, but even given the benefit of the doubt that there was this mythical 2-seat commuter segment GM saw as ripe for tapping, this still wouldn’t have been the right car for it.
Also, the Reatta, Fiero, and Allante should go to show that the oft. mocked Bob Lutz wasn’t the catalyst for GM engaging in unnecessary pet cars. Management culture seemed to relish in these projects, and not learn anything from them constantly flopping.
GM cars created during this time almost invariably had repetitive and dull styling, poor proportions, and lacked differentiation between the various brands.
14th floor exec: “So for the Allante we’ll use Pininfarina, who excel at repetitive styling and lack of differentiation between brands!”
Sorry I couldn’t resist 🙂
Agreed about Pininfarina. Which is why Mitchell would never have hired them to do a GM car. He respected them and copied them, but he wasn’t going to ever have them design one of his cars.
It was a clear reflection of how bankrupt GM’s design mojo was at the time.
One other reason for using Pininfarina was to try to impress Import Car intenders in the late 80’s. Same reason for Ford to try selling Merkurs in Lincoln-Mercury dealers.
“Hey yuppies, we got a foreign car here at our Cadillac dealer, too”.
I know the Reatta was pointless, but I actually like the design of this car. It was distinctive, not derivative of other GM products, and modern, but not trendy. Reattas caught my eye when new… and they still do.
Unfortunately, the beauty was skin deep (of course others would argue the beauty didn’t even go that far). And like Matt notes above, the details on this car absolutely stink and just scream cheapness. I still like ’em, though.
@ Phil B; That was exactly who GM had in mind for this car; The florida retirement guy/successful executive/successful executive’s wife who wanted something “fun” and a “little Sporty” in a relaxed fit. It’s like Dockers and a golf shirt, but in a car. Basically, this car was intended for the same people who buy those Lexus RX300 crossover things now.
I’ll go completely against the grain here and explain why this car made a lot of sense. Perhaps not at the price, and certainly not in the volumes GM predicted, but then GM was wildly delusional about volumes in the late 80s and mid 90s, and had predicted that each W body should get a separate plant and even that the Cutlass would require two plants.
Who wanted a premium two seater coupe/convertible? Image was everything in the go go ’80s. (Making up statistics) 90% of trips are taken by one person anyway, and probably 95% by two people, so two seats are all most people need anyway, and two seaters are seen as “sporty” and “fun.” Older people with money wanted a fun toy car to go to golf and dinner and such in and the baby boomers and tail end of the Greatest Generation wanted to feel kid free after decades of station wagon duty and this was a good idea. Those people being in their reading glasses years, they wouldn’t want the flinty ride, cheap appointments, low class image, and cramped accomodations of a really sporty car like a Corvette or Mustang or Camaro, (the Miata would not have appeared until after this car was developed, and the Miata was cramped, spartan and drove hard.) The Thunderbird/Cougar were too sedan like and too low class. The Fiero sold well, especially initially, and perhaps those customers would want something like it, but fancier. The Fiero far outsold its MR2, EXP, Turismo, Charger, Sirocco, and CRX rivals, despite not being as good a car (well, it was better than the EXP.)
This car had a nice, relaxed fit, luxurious, beautifully finished appointments, a nice sporty look, and a reasonably well sorted chassis. 165 hp was not extremely powerful, but certainly adequate. It wasn’t as marshmallow as past Buicks, but it did what it was designed to do and was certainly sporty enough for its intended audience. Although reviewers hated the Graphic Control Center, the customers loved it and thought it was high tech and distinguished their cars from lesser cars. This was even built well, and didn’t suffer the quality problems that plagued the Allante and Fiero. I’ll bet that unlike many of the deadly sins, this one didn’t turn off its owners the way those cars did.
C/D at one point cited it as being built for Buick Dealers’ Wives, which made sense.
The only problem with this car was that there were a lot fewer Buick Dealers’ Wives than they had claimed there would be.
Question; if you don’t like this car, what car has GM done in the 30 years since that was better? Styling is subjective, but it’s cleanly styled, I love the pop up headlights, it’s attractive, and the interior is richly finished and nicely appointed and luxurious. It was well made and reasonably powerful. Perhaps the Lexus SC300 was a better driving car, but A) it was also a lot closer to 40K than 25 and B) I hate Toyota’s blobby, suppository styling. Today’s closest GM equivalent would be the Buick Cascada, which is an ugly Opel with an ugly cramped black plastic bathtub interior. It may not have been a high mark in GM’s history, but I’d definitely take it over anything they make today and it was reasonably desirable then.
“… being built for Buick Dealers’ Wives…”
These halo cars were also for GM white collar workers and their families to tool around in.
I used to know Buick rep in my car club and he’d bring a different new Buick around, each meet up, to show it off. But, when asked about the engine/drivetrain he was like “who cares? it looks good”.
The points about image are well taken. I remember being able to choose Reattas from the National Car Rental Emerald Aisle, for the price of a mid size, along with Sevilles, DeVilles, Bonneville SSEs and other examples of GMs “status” cars from the 90s. A lot full of these available for $24.95 a day tended to dent the image!
“They brought in a Porsche 944 as their key inspiration” Is this a fact or you making an assumption. If it’s an assumption I don’t see it… You also claim, “The Reatta’s full-width taillights were also inspired by a Porsche, but not the 944’s”. I guess the same could be said of a late A body Century or even a Mercury Marquis or a Chrysler LeBaron.
I don’t disagree with the lack of focus on Buick in planning and execution with the Reatta I question some of your comments on its inspiration.
From here: https://auto.howstuffworks.com/1988-1991-buick-reatta1.htm
GM designer Dave North being quoted: “‘If you can’t get that rounded jelly bean look out of that car and start making it make sense with some lines on it,’ he (Rybicki) said, ‘I’m going to take that project away from you.’ That afternoon I went out to the Proving Grounds for a competitive product show, and the new Porsche 944 was there. Porsches were always rounded, soft cars, but that one had stiff lines on it. I went back to the studio and told one of the designers, Ted Polak, to put creases on the Reatta, which ended up running the length of the car.”
Another inspiration came from another Porsche: “One thing that made the 911 different,” he says, “was the taillight that ran all the way across the back. So we did that on the Reatta. That taillight has about a dozen bulbs in it, and Buick came in and said, ‘Why do we need all those lights?’ They didn’t like it because it cost more money. I said this car has to look different, has to have some recognition.” The full-width taillamp (with 14 bulbs) made the cut.
As a general rule, I don’t just make things up. Perhaps “key inspiration” is a bit hyperbolic, but the initial design they had come up with was very rounded and blobby and not satisfactory. The 944’s influence was a key step in making the Reatta design workable and acceptable.
Thanks Paul for the clarification….Love all of your posts and have found your insights well thought out and the research impeccable.
As an architect I found Rybicki’s designs uninspired and not cohesive. After the 77 B bodies GM designs really degenerated
Just gonna leave this here. 🙂
Thanks. I had a repressed memory about it being “Centre”, but Wikipedia and other sources said it was “Center”.
I have a Reatta brochure from 1987 which spells Centre as Centre.
I agree with Savage on all points. Back in the 80’s I worked at a Chevy/Buick dealer and got to drive a few. I really liked them and the people that state the build quality was typical GM bad I bet never sat in or drove one. Overpriced yes for sure but nice looking and put together well.
Amen to that. They had a comfortable ride and had a lot to offer standard like ABS, keyless entry and 4 wheel disc brakes. Most cars still had disc/drum setup without ABS. The car had one of GM’s best engines ever (3800 V6)
(say what you will about the General but starting in 1992 every lowly Cavalier/Sunbird had standard ABS, you could not get that in a 1992 Corolla and it was an option you had to pay for in the 93-97 model)
Despite being a 2 seater, these cars had lots of room in them for storing stuff. I loved the space behind the seats, you had 2 deep cubby holes that were covered and lockable. when the tops of the cubby holes were shut, the tops were almost flush with the floor so you could sit stuff flat in the back. They also had this huge lockable trunk pass through door.
This was a 2 seater you could take on a 2 week road trip. The behind the seats space could fit at least a couple of large suitcases. There anchor points for you to tie down the cargo. Then you had the trunk which was pretty large and deep for a two seater.
Wow, John Henry’s! That picture must be at least a decade old.
They DID spell the name of the plant as “Centre.” I distinctly remember it from the time and a Google search confirmed it, with numerous period mentions of “Reatta Craft Centre.” They put Lansing in the name after the Reatta was taken out behind the barn and shot.
“Reatta Craft Centre” always sounded to me like a wonderful place to learn macrame….
Fun article! GM sure made some easy targets in those years. Glad to see there are still some deadly sins to chronicle.
Maybe the worst rear half on a coupe of all time!
I LOVE these cars. My dream is to buy a clean red one (were they all red?), lower it a few inches, tighten up the suspension, throw on a supercharger and maybe a restrictive exhaust and confuse the holy hell out of my wife. My fave GM car of the 80s!
They don’t look bad in person.
I always thought these cars were beautiful. It’s definitely NOT a sports car but a grand touring 2-seater. Keeping in mind that you weren’t paying MB SL prices, you did get a reasonably quick, roomy (2-seater), with some high tech gadgets, and pretty decent materials. I’d have thought it would have generated enough sales to be successful to 1) Florida retirees 2) executives who wanted a 2-seat “commuter” 3) people with disposable income for a good looking specialty car.
I look for these on Craigslist, too. I haven’t been ready to pull the trigger yet (I daily drive a Miata and not sure I can explain 2 2-seaters to my wife)
What do you think of the development of the Reatta compared to other GM specialty cars. In particular
1) The Corvette was half baked and not very successful until the 60s. It barely survived the early C1 generation.
2) The original Riviera was very well developed. It was handsome, well made of good materials, and it performed (acceleration and handling) admirably. The car magazines loved it. Though it was successful, I’m not sure it ever outsold the Thunderbird, which wasn’t nearly as nice a car.
3) The original Eldorado/Skylark/Fiesta. I think these may be the first signs of eventual DS’s. What were they thinking? The Eldorado and Skylark names may have eventually been successful, but not on these behemoths.
The original Eldorado, Skylark, and Fiesta weren’t intended as serious products and weren’t big corporate investments. They were limited production showroom attractions. When the original Eldorado demonstrated a public appetite for a more glamorous Cadillac, the division changed the model from a radical modified custom body to a standard car with easy and inexpensive trim and sheetmetal variations.
No doubt GM went thru a horrible phase in the 80’s and 90’s. The problem was it didn’t learn from its mistakes. One of the seven Deadly Sins is hubris (ie: arrogance) and GM repeated the same mistakes while the Asian and Euro brands kept chipping away on the corners.
I was under the impression that bankruptcy was the means to salvage GM, but the mistakes keep coming with Cadillac. Lincoln has found its groove with the Aviator, Corsair, and Navigator. Lets hope Cadillac drops the alphabet soup and produces aspirational, desirable cars.
Thank you for posting this again Paul. I would like to add my criticisms yesterday of the underwhelmingly bland design of the first S-10/S-15 to the list of GM’s various underachievers.
Gm did get it right with the Caviler. My parents had two of them and wrecked both. One we got T boned at a stop light…The other my mom took a curve too fast and rolled it. She bounced off a rock and ended up tangled up in a chain link fence. Both times my parents walked away with minimal injuries. I lived on the border with Mexico for a while too and the third generation cars are thick on the ground down there. Most of them beaten and battered beyond recognition but still running and driving.
The point of the Fourteenth Floor being as much or more to blame as Rybicki is demonstrated by the fact that the one undisputable Greatest Hit to come from a clean sheet of paper in the Smith/Rybicki Era was the GMT400 trucks. At the time the executives were still of the mindset that pickup trucks were almost a sideline, albeit a profitable one.
Today, of course, they probably think of themselves as a pickup-truck company first and the results show in an ugly Chevy and a Rube Goldberg tailgate on the GMC.
Irv Rybicki and Roger Smith, the dynamic duo! It’s amazing that with them in charge it took GM as long as it did to go under.
The Reatta had no presence. There was nothing very memorable about it visually, except the not-good-looking rear window. There was no “go” in the lines. It looked like it was sitting still, when it was moving. That rear end was bizarre, with a droopy rear end and the ginormous wrap around tail lights.
The interior had no presence either. It had no “go”. It looked like it was supposed to avoid looking like something exciting.
I could never figure out what the Reatta was supposed to be. It was too expensive for a commuter car and too boring to be a sports car. It looked like it was designed by a sleep walker afraid of being waking up and discovering that they wet the bed.
I still can’t look at a Reatta care about it. Sad.
It’s like watching someone with diabetes gradually loose their limbs. First they give up on sports cars, then small cars, then medium sized cars, then coupes, until all that’s left is SUVs and pickups and now they’re coming for those too.