The 1986 Ford Taurus changed everything when it came to the mainstream American midsize car. It is not a huge exaggeration to call it the Chevy Impala of the 1980’s. Just as the Impala would vault itself far beyond the competition, the Taurus did something similar for the next generation.
In 1955 Chevrolet introduced its new V8 engine, thus matching the one feature that had distinguished Fords for decades. Over a period of twenty-five years Chevrolet parlayed the success of its 1955 model into a near-monopoly on the coveted Number 1 sales spot in the US – hence all of those USA-1 license plates affixed to the classic Chevys that crowd America’s car shows. When we used to have car shows, anyway.
Chevrolet’s dominance was never greater than after Ford tried to out-Chevrolet Chevrolet with the large size and forward style of the 1960 model. Ford’s gambit failed and that entire 1960-64 generation of “regular” Fords fell far behind the cars found in Chevrolet showrooms. How far behind? This far:
Chevrolet vs. Ford 1960-64
| Chevrolet | Ford | |
|---|---|---|
| 1960 | 1,391,485 | 911,034 |
| 1961 | 1,191,908 | 791,498 |
| 1962 | 1,424,008 | 704,775 |
| 1963 | 1,571,730 | 845,292 |
| 1964 | 1,574,468 | 923,232 |
So what does all of this ancient history have to do with the 1990 Chevrolet Lumina? It is proof that what comes around goes around.
We all know that the ’86 Taurus was a smash hit for Ford, replacing a decent but not terribly competitive LTD based on the aging Fox platform. Front wheel drive was the new normal and while there was plenty of room to carp about some of the details of the Chevy Celebrity, few argued that it was not a good car. But after the Taurus something needed to be done for Chevrolet to recapture the momentum in heart of the new car market.
We have written plenty here about the “GM-10” debacle, that plan for a new groundbreaking midsize platform that was going to set the standard for what a midsize car should be. Hugely over-ambitious, way over budget and deeply behind schedule, the Pontiac Grand Prix, Oldsmobile Cutlass and Buick Regal versions began to roll out of factories in 1987. Inexplicably, it would be two more years before Chevrolet got its own version – the Lumina. And to co-opt that great advertising line from the 1957 Plymouth, Suddenly it was 1960! But instead of re-living the Chevrolet version of 1960 the Lumina got to try out the Ford version.
Lumina v. Taurus 1990-94
| Lumina | Taurus | |
|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 278,311 | 313,274 |
| 1991 | 157,782 | 299,659 |
| 1992 | 188,557 | 409,751 |
| 1993 | 200,842 | 360,448 |
| 1994 | 75,753 | 397,037 |
Like the 1960 Ford, the 1990 Lumina had a reasonably promising start – if being outsold by the Taurus could be considered as reasonably promising from within the gates of GM. But just as the Ford of the early 1960s went into a comparative sales funk and stayed a distant number 2, the Lumina did the same thing as the rest of the first generation cycle played out. Except for that final year – where the 1964 Ford finally started showing some signs of life, the 1994 Lumina rolled over and played dead.
Like the 1960-61 Ford, the early Lumina was not a bad car. It was simply a not very appealing one, either inside or out. Where the Taurus was the definition of a modern car in the segment, the Lumina seemed to be looking back to the early 1960s for inspiration, satisfying die-hard Chevy buyers but few others.
That wide (and largely content-free) dash reminded me of the one in the ’63 Bel Air wagon my father had when I was a kid.
But its stodginess factor in the early 1990’s suggested the even less appealing Ford version of 1960-62.
Outside, Chevy’s stylists tried a hat tip to the triple taillight era which may have been the car’s best feature. The front certainly was not, with an awkward grille that would be thrown down the memory hole after the first production year.
Another Lumina styling feature that harkened back to the Ford of the early 1960s was the styling of the greenhouse area. The large glass area, low beltline and thin C pillar looked very un-Taurus (and not tremendously upscale).
Sort of the way the mid-level Fords looked in the first couple of years of the generation we are examining.
Chassis dynamics was another area where Chevrolet seemed to be looking back to the glory days of 1962. The problem was that in 1962 “Chevrolet” and “chassis dynamics” were two words that were never used in the same sentence. While the standard Taurus wowed the auto journalists with its high level of chassis competence (particularly for an American mid size car) the Lumina did not, unless a buyer popped for the optional “Euro” suspension, which Popular Mechanics’ testers found to be only marginally better than the Taurus’ standard setup.
General Motors was in a difficult period when the Lumina debuted. It was as though they felt the need to prove that they were still the leader in automotive style by going in a direction that ran counter to where style trends were actually going.
If the Fords of the early 60’s did not do anything horribly, they also did nothing particularly well. Except for one thing – they were tough cars that stood up well to abuse. The Lumina seems to have followed this parallel also. And like the old Fords the later ones seemed to be better in this way than the early ones.
I suppose the biggest difference in the cars we are comparing is that where Ford truly upped its game with the new 1965 model, the second generation Lumina did not. The 1995 Lumina would be a popular car with midwestern GM retirees and rental fleets, but it would not do anything to improve Chevrolet’s appeal to those looking for a competitive midsize sedan.
I have sat on pictures of this first-year Lumina for a long time, not really knowing what to say about it. The car simply didn’t interest me – a state of mind I shared with quite a lot people back when these were new. I have finally decided that this Lumina was not so much a cause of Chevrolet’s 1990’s malaise as a symptom of it. General Motors’ increasingly sclerotic systems and dysfunctional management were like a sort of auto manufacturer’s Alzheimer’s disease in which the company was gradually losing the ability to do the things that once came so naturally to it.
In the age-old Ford vs. Chevy (or Chevy vs. Ford, if you prefer) sales war, things looked rosy for Chevrolet at the beginning of the 1980s. But after swapping the lead in a couple of close years in 1988-89, Ford’s passenger cars took over as the perennial USA-1 in 1990 and has never been threatened (domestically) since. The Taurus was the start of an epic turnaround in the fortunes of the Ford Motor Company. The Lumina, on the other hand, was the beginning of Chevrolet’s descent into the status of perennial meh-mobile. Looking at this car (and having spent time around multiple Taurii) it is not hard to understand.
Further Reading:
1990-94 Chevrolet Lumina – Not Quite Saving the Best Till Last – William Stopford
1991 Chevrolet Lumina Euro – GM’s Deadly Sin #18 – Where’s The Light? – Paul Niedermeyer
Very apt analogy, and funny enough the rear whale-tailesque spoiler offered on these Luminas even bear a coincidental resemblance to the 60 Ford fins from the side. Oh how the mighty had fallen, the sales numbers are pretty striking but match up to what I remember, what’s crazier is the Lumina figures I presume also cover the coupe, which the Taurus didn’t even have and still bested. The 95 sedan and coupe(Monte Carlo) seemed a lot more popular from my midwest vantage, but that’s right about the point when the Taurus fumbled.
Looking at it more, boy the first gen Lumina styling was a mess, it reminds me a lot of the AMC Pacer in its gigantic fishbowl greenhouse and pinched nose, but without any of the cute character, and it’s butt sticks out awkwardly far, in fact it’s proportionally one of those “I can’t tell which end is coming or going” cars. Then there’s the virtual lack of tumblehome, the square wheelarches, the skinny little tires in a narrow track, in fact I was going to mention the scene in Days of Thunder where the rival drivers faced off in a street race/demo derby with a rental Taurus and Lumina just for the fun reference, but looking at the screenshot says quite a lot about the two designs – the Taurus has a wide confident stance and the Lumina looks tippy toed and unsure of itself – and that’s a top trim euro model!
That’s a really great picture.
After a decade long diet of mostly unappealing cars from GM, I don’t think anyone was surprised at how underwhelming the Lumina was when launched. However, many people were disappointed. And frustrated. In fairness to GM, the bland Corsica did prepare us for the Lumina.
Car magazines were clearly apologetic about products like the Lumina and Caprice, when describing them as appealing to traditional car buyers. Translation: They were boring cars. I recall thinking at the time, it was almost self-sabotage. Made sense, they were immediately popular in the fleet of my city’s transit service.
Like the Corsica, they looked so early, mid 80s generic, that I never gave them a second glance. The 5 year old Dodge Lancer/Chrysler LeBaron looked more European and stylish. Rather than creating Taurus-like excitement, they seemed like fleet vehicles from day one.
Excellent analysis JP.
Fully agreed. I never understood the appeal of the Corsica – to me it perfectly defined the term “anonymous motor vehicle”, something you’d see in an insurance company ad for blandmobile.
The Taurus/Sable weren’t without their issues (my sister bought a new 1988 Taurus; my mom a gently used ‘91 Sable in ‘93)…I recall warped rotors a perpetual problem… but they drove very richly and distinctly. Definitely a jump forward for the domestics…. if only they could have built-in quality close to Toyota or Honda.
This was a great analysis!
By 1990 my aunt and uncle had been solid Chevy buyers for at least 40 years. When their combined income allowed it, then even bought 2 Chevys, 1 for each of them. But when it came time to replace their 3 year old Caprice the local dealer nearly lost a customer. He tried to steer my uncle into a new Lumina, and after a short test drive my uncle was very unimpressed. If, as the salesman insisted, the Lumina was going to be Chevys new full-sized sedan, my uncle would hold on to his Caprice until Chevy produced a decent replacement.
It’s my contention that GM always seemed to curse Chevrolet with the ugliest versions of the corporate shared cars. Occasionally, Chevy got a beautiful version (79 Malibu). But this Lumina was just the dog’s breakfast of cars.
This one looks particularly sorry with its cream-of-backwash color, and the cheap aftermarket wheel covers straight off of a Dodge Shadow. But it is in clean condition and probably provide(d)s reliable, unexciting transportation for somebody. And at least it has some nifty plasti-wood trim to add some panache to the magenta interior; especially that thoughtful chunk of it underneath the horn!
These looked best in two-door form. Sure, the butt was still too big. But everything else comes together better here.
I’ll grant you, the dash was just weird – wide, flat, featureless. But that was what Chevy was doing then. I had an ’89 Beretta and its dash was from the same school.
The tall greenhouse with side windows that fell below the normal sill line made for commanding visibility. I long for that in cars today.
I finally decided that in the right color, in the Euro trim and with the right wheels and from the right angle these were not bad looking. But that was not how most of them were.
I recall being so tired of the Celebrity at the time (which I had never liked all that much to begin with) I really tried to find these attractive. I eventually gave up.
I had a ’93 Z-34 coupe, and it was a good car. The visibility was great, it drove well, was fairly quick for 1993, and got decent fuel economy. I also thought it looked good.
Very accurate perspective. My career involved a lot of travel and therefore many car rentals. I recall the first Lumina I drove. Someone asked how I liked it; I responded that Chevy had finally offered a car that was nearly as good as the 1986 Taurus had been… just several years late.
Somewhere along the way I read a review / critique of the Lumina’s styling. The review offered the Lumina as the poster child of GM’s infatuation with committees, as it appeared three committees were used to create the Lumina – one for the front, another for the greenhouse, and a third for the rear. Then the outcomes of each were married to create the Lumina.
Thirty years later that assessment comes to mind every time I see a first generation Lumina.
Now when I see a Lumina I will think about it being 1960!
You make me think that the Celebrity was kind of like the 57-59 Ford in at least one way – as late as 1987 it was still generating good numbers – over 362K. But unlike the Ford analogy, the Celeb fell off badly in 88-89. The 90 Lumina was actually an improvement from the 89 Celebrity in sales, which was good for 201K units.
That expresses my reaction to this car’s styling very well, though I didn’t have the words for it before.
I don’t find any part of the car badly styled in isolation–but they don’t come together at all. The front, rear, and greenhouse all look decent individually but they war with each other along the demilitarized zones of the A and C pillars.
In contrast, I don’t find the individual aspects of the Taurus all that attractive (blunt big-eyed front fascia, and the rear trunk/tail lights are not as cleanly styled as the Lumina), but they form a cohesive whole that makes the entire car far more appealing.
I could go on and on about my brand new 91 z34 but I am still trying to suppress those memories.
Oh? I was very close to buying one new in ’91. I never cared for the Taurus and still don’t while I did like the Lumina and that Twin-dual cam V6 sounded very interesting.
In retrospect I’m so glad I ordered my ’91 S-10 Blazer 4door instead (which I still own.) I’m sure my infatuation with the car would have worn off and seems I dodged a bullet avoiding the TDC engine. Pity.
You know, the engine gave me no problems and I enjoyed the performance. But many other things gave me problems (paint, elec, suspension) so I traded it in just as the warranty expired.
Roger Smith had a remarkable talent for turning money into meh, with so many programs, not just GM10 but also Saturn, the Poletown plant, all-at-once robotization, and the big divisional reorg (which iirc was what set back the GM10 program in the first place) that yielded cars that felt dated at launch and cheapened-out in the showroom to the point they had to be pushed out the door as low-profit fleet fodder. Good used cars, most of them, but as I’ve commented before that was a logical consequence of having nickel-and-dimed themselves out of competitiveness at the intended price.
You’ve kept a laser focus on Ford and the Taurus, but Toyota and Honda were really doubling down on putting the money where the customer could see it just as GM was doing the opposite.
Honda and Toyota were definitely surging ahead in those years, but as of 1990 were still roughly a size (or at least a half size) down from the Taurus/Lumina class. I don’t doubt that Ford looked at the world for inspiration, where GM quite likely looked at – well, who knows what they were looking at.
I was going to say they were probably focused on the Taurus, but I have long suspected that GM’s insular culture didn’t really see anybody as competition, and simply built what they saw as a class-leading car. After all, as late as 1981-82 GM had been so far out front of the rest of the domestics in market share that it wasn’t even a contest. But by the late 80s, boy were they wrong.
I think the first generation looked better than the refresh.
” It was as though they felt the need to prove that they were still the leader in automotive style by going in a direction that ran counter to where style trends were actually going.”
Ironically, that’s exactly what Richard Landgraff, the man put in charge of the 1996 Taurus, felt Ford had to do with the redesign. And that’s how America got the ovoid mess that ended up behind the Camry and Accord in 1997.
The first Lumina had a really ugly grill that just didn’t work at all. The one they used on the next years edition to the end of the 1st generation worked better with the slats. To me, the greenhouse on the 4dr looked really out of proportion, especially near the c-pillar. The 2 dr looked better over all.
I didn’t find the interior so bad if it was equipped with the custom interior which featured a nicer cloth, and split bench or buckets. The base interior trim was bad.
But, I will never forget that horrible bright blue color ( Maui Blue) these first generations come in. The car was way to big to pull off that bright color. There were so many in that horrible color !!! That color worked better on the smaller Cavalier.
The best thing I can say about the Lumina is probably that GM actually kept the name around for a second generation but then made that one so bad and unappealing that the name was finally retired after that for good.
I suppose it got people to work and play and whatever but was likely sold to GM diehards as well as in areas that perhaps had few other dealer options.
It’s styled better than the next one was…I wonder if there’s a GM dealer video proclaiming what exactly they thought was so good or superior about it.
I don’t however think that Ford really upped it’s game further with the second generation Taurus for 1992 either, it was more of a nip and tuck that didn’t do too much, never mind the Lumina but the Intrepid was out a year later and the Japanese really upped their offerings. Then Ford went full hara-kiri four years later but that’s been discussed before.
The 1996-1999 Taurus/Sable, if you find one in good condition looks A LOT better in today’s traffic than it did in 1996. The 2000+ body style actually looks more dated now. See pic compared with modern Chevy in the background.
The 1996 Taurus, much like the 2001 Pontiac Aztek were preparing us for a future that we were not ready to accept. Sort of the opposite intention of the World’s Fair and Motorrama days. Yet here we are.
I think the second gen Taurus was fine, it would have been better had the mechanical issues with the 3.8 and transaxles been addressed but Ford didn’t need to reinvent the formula, it worked very well. The Camry went multiple generations with nip tuck updates after the 1997 model, the basic Taurus body design was strong enough make it into the early 2000s without looking out of place in the automotive landscape. The Intrepid was cooler looking when it debuted but aged like cheese into the 2000s, and the Japanese offerings – Camry, Accord, Maxima, Altima were pretty conservative in the vein of the gen 1 & 2 Taurus through the decade. The gen 3 to me struck me as cocky GM like hubris, that Ford needs to come up with a groundbreaking redesign to set the industry scrambling to catch up for the next 10 years. The Duratec replacing the troublesome 3.8 as well as many chassis updates actually did make the Gen III an objectively better car, but and they eschewed the major body overhaul and focused those savings on quality the Taurus might have stayed a class leader a little longer
As to James’ point, I think the SHO aged better, the ground effects fatten up the lower body a bit and the wheel design both give the car a more modern sedan presence, but the regular versions I disagree. Gen 1 or 2s in any form still look better among todays traffic, gen 3s are only refreshing because it’s nice not to have an angry faced car in the rear view mirror. The front end I never even felt was the challenging aesthetic aspect of the gen 3, then or now, it’s the pinched back end that’s the big problem, followed by the concave bodysides.
It’s just coincidence I found an SHO. But it is getting harder and harder to find a clean 1996-1999 base model. I can’t remember the last time I saw a clean base Taurus or Sable from those years.
I was looking for a picture of a Taurus, Sable, or Continental with a relatively modern car next to it and this is the best I could come up with.
One aspect of the Lumina saga that I find odd is the discrepancy in exterior styling risks when contrasting the Lumina vs. the Lumina APV minivan.
With the minivan, GM went way overboard in trying to create a futuristic design. With the Lumina sedan/coupe, they erred in the other direction – coming up with such a myopically conservative design that I think its most modern styling feature was body-colored bumpers.
The mid-size sedan market was glutted in the late ’80s and early ’90s, and glutted with some very good cars. Creating a new car that was all but invisible was most certainly a self-inflicted wound for GM.
I was thinking the exact same thing this morning, regarding the contrast between the Lumina sedan and the Lumina APV. Their similarities being they shared the name ‘Lumina’. The differing approach to their styling demonstrated to me, GM was not clear enough with their design language direction. Even if minor styling cues were similar. In fact, I thought then the APV’s styling was too gimmicky. As the long nose, and unusual driving experience, added little to the practicality of the van. Even with the Shuttlecraft exterior styling, the APV still was not yet a competitive match for the Chrysler vans. In GM’s second attempt at a competing minivan.
In defence of the Lumina APV, I will credit their ruggedness. My sister owned a ’92 with the 3.8 liter V-6 that went 450,000 kms. And due to its plastic body panels, still looked good 10 years later.
I think the minivans developed on an entirely different track than the sedans – I believe Pontiac was the cheerleader for the minivan and with their plastic bodies and spaceframes, were constructed in a completely different way from the GM-10 sedans. I never really saw much commonality between them, other than powertrain sharing. Chevy was the only division that tried using the same name between the lines – Olds and Pontiac made no effort to tie them to the Cutlass/Grand Prix.
Utter garbage.
I’ve driven and loved Bowties for my entire driving life, but most all the FWD models of that day were embarrassingly bad compared with Ford and the imports. The GM-10s were the pinnacle, yet in light of the Xs and FWD A-bodies from the previous decade, not surprising. The fact that they lasted to the 2014 model year as the W-body Impala Classic is astounding to me.
I like where Chevy’s been over the past decade or so, it’s like with Pontiac out of the way they could improve the driving experience again, and the ones we’ve owned and/or driven are a night-and-day improvement from the bad ol’ GM-10 days..
Great article Jim! These GM-10 W-body cars were probably one of biggest debacles in GM history and IMO the Lumina was the worst of the bunch. As was already pointed out, the ancient and really no longer competitive Celebrity was still getting good sales numbers after the Taurus was introduced. GM was had the resources, and the knowledge to design a true Taurus competitor. Had they even just basically copied the Taurus formula, like the did with the ’67 Camaro, they would have been fine.
Instead the massive bureaucracy wasted millions and came out with a sub-par product, that was too late to market. One thing I disagree in the article,I would argue the Lumina was simply not a good car. IMO GM loyalty is what sold most of these cars, and even that was not enough in many cases. Not only did it have the out of touch styling, but it had a horribly styled interior, engines and drivetrains that were not competitive, and they weren’t well made. GM did ridiculous things, like the convoluted suspension design with the transverse fiberglass leaf spring and the cartridge struts on the front end. Why were they reinventing the wheel just to come out with a costly and poor alternative. Why not use conventional struts and a multilink rear suspension like the leading competitors?
When these cars came out, my dad had become a GM loyalist mainly because of the bad luck with our Fairmont wagon and the really good luck with our Pairisenne wagon. These cars weren’t even on his radar. Our neighbors bought an APV van shortly after they came out, and Dad just thought that GM had lost it’s way. If you can’t even convince a middle class family man to buy your products, who had little concern about driving the latest and greatest, you’re in trouble.
A couple of points should be mentioned. The Lumina was introduced in the spring of 1989, so the 1990 model year was an extended one, accounting somewhat for the higher numbers. I can’t find the release date of the 1995 Lumina, but I am pretty sure the 1994 MY was cut short, which accounted for the low numbers in 1994. The production numbers for the 1995 Lumina improved dramatically and stayed pretty solid for a few years. If you factor in the Monte Carlo sales, the second generation was far more successful, although it still trailed the Taurus by a fair amount.
1995:
Lumina: 242,112
Monte Carlo: 93,150
Taurus Sedan: 345,244
Taurus Wagon: 50,494
1996:
Lumina: 224,573
Monte Carlo: 80,717
Taurus Sedan: 348,671
Taurus Wagon: 45,439
1997:
Lumina: 234,626
Monte Carlo: 72,555
Taurus Sedan: 384,844
Taurus Wagon: 13,958
The 1995 Lumina may have been a conservative mid-western special, but it was a big improvement over the first generation cars. It was much more intune with the mid-size car buyer than the 1990 Lumina, even if it wasn’t class leading in anyway. It certainly wasn’t as big of a step forward as the 1965 Ford, but then again Ford never did catch up to Chevy in the 1960s. GM knew the 1st generation Luminas were the biggest flop of the W-cars, and that’s why it got the first major overhaul. At least the 1995 Luminas were competent enough to keep GM loyalist customers. However, they weren’t going to steal and Camry or Accord customers and probably only the most conservative Taurus buyers might have jumped ship.
All good points, Vince. As for the quality thing, I was thinking in terms of how these cars aged vs. their direct competition. I never felt that the Taurus aged all that gracefully, with transmission and various other woes that killed these cars before they should have died. The Dynasty et al (and also the Intrepid) also seemed quite brittle, but these seemed to have longer lives as cheap beater transportation than many other cars. Though I will admit that I have no direct experience with these, it seemed that the engines and transmissions were reasonably stout – and got better as the designs got older.
As with so many other GM models of the time, they were lousy new cars, but pretty decent cheap beaters at 10 years old.
I would agree that the W-bodies were stout cockroaches of the road. Although, even at that, the A-bodies, J-bodies and later W-bodies seemed to be much longer lasting that the first generation W-bodies. I also recall here in rust country, the early rear disc brakes on the Lumina were particularly problematic, prone to seizing. In 1995, Chevrolet reverted to rear drums, which proved to be much better in real world conditions.
I agree with you on the American competition of that time. The Ford Taurus may have been ground breaking, but they had their issues like rust, transaxle issues and of course head gaskets on the Essex engines. My uncle proudly bought a new Taurus wagon in 1990 to replace his problematic Fox Cougar wagon. He loved that car, until after 110K miles the transmission failed. By that time the rust had started too. He was quite upset as he had babied the car, and it spent half it’s life in salt free Oklahoma.
I really tried to like these. I even looked at buying a Z34 coupe once but just couldn’t bring myself to do it. The interior and the general proportions of the exterior just turned me off. I had been driving my trusty old 83 Chevette with 189,000 miles on it and now needed a bit bigger car. I ended up with a Beretta, a decision I never regretted. In fact, I bought a second one and had both for nine years. But, that Taurus. God awful. I’ve stated it before, the first time my younger sister saw one her remark was, “It looks like a dog turd on wheels.” My sentiments exactly and still holds true today. If the Taurus proved one thing to manufacturers it was that they no longer had to put money into how a car looked. And that still holds true today. The Taurus set the bar for ugliness and everyone has been raising it even since.
Great write up, I recall as a high school senior in 1987 thinking all the new W’s were horribly awkward looking. And the next body style wasn’t much better.
But, I appreciate them for what they are: an old fashioned, indestructible, distinctly American car that laughs at deferred maintenance. Of course there are W’s everywhere you look in everyday traffic, in the form of the last body Impala. Heck, even my local police still have a few W Impala squad cars that have outlasted some of the first Chargers they bought.
The original W’s are getting thin on the ground, but the Impalas will be with us for a while yet. They seem to be a popular “buy here pay here” car for the obvious reason that you can sell them (and repo them) to neglectful buyers over and over again.
I think the GM10 program was the source of a quote along the lines of “we lose money on every one but make it up on volume”
I have nothing more to add about the Lumina. The W10 fiasco may have been the deadliest sin of all, costing GM some $10 billion or more.
As to the comparison with the 1960 Ford, I find these historical comparisons often a bit lacking, due to so many different circumstances. Sales of the 1960 Ford dropped in exact proportion to the sales of the 1960 Falcon. If you add back Falcon sales (436k), the total is 1347, or very close to the full size Chevrolet. It’s a well know fact that the Falcon cannibalized big Ford sales, whereas the Corvair brought in import buyers.
The impossible-to-answer but interesting-to-speculate question is how big Ford and Chevy sales would have been in 1960 if their compacts had not existed. Was the ’60 Ford so bad stylistically in comparison to the ’60 Chevy? I don’t think so; it was newer and fresher, for sure.
Big Ford sales dropped even further in ’61 as Falcon sales again increased. And then in ’62, the Fairlane arrived, cannibalizing even more big Ford sales.
Of course the Chevy II arrived in ’62 too, and did not seem to make a dent in the big Chevy sales. But then ’62 was a stronger year for the market, and undoubtedly a good number of disappointed Dodge and Plymouth would-be buyers headed to Chevrolet instead of Ford.
So the argument that the big Fords in 1960-1964 were less attractive holds some water, but I’d say it’s not the only or primary reason for their reduced sales.
You know this undoubtedly, but Chevrolet had been a solid number #1 since 1938 (except for a close 1949), not just since 1955. The gap between Chevy and Ford was quite big in many of those years.
Oh, I agree that history does not repeat with much precision (if any at all). I know that the Falcon (and to a lesser extent the Fairlane) played a role in their day, but it is also interesting that the big Ford’s 2 worst years were the years when both Plymouth and Dodge sales imploded. It looks like an awful lot of those would-be Mopar buyers bought Chevys and maybe Falcons. And perhaps a surging Pontiac pulled a lot of those buyers in. Because they sure weren’t buying big Fords.
Something else occurs to me that I have not really thought about – It is common wisdom that the Falcon and Fairlane cannibalized the big Fords of 60-64, but the 65 big Ford improved to 67% of Chevy’s figure (978,519 to 1,470,750), up fairly decently from the 59% figure of 1964. And in 1965 Ford had the Mustang phenomenon. I think it’s arguable that Ford’s failure in the full size market from 1960-64 may be more complex than just cannibalism from below. Whatever Ford added to the mix for 65 (like the LTD) helped, despite stronger competition all around.
but the 65 big Ford improved to 67% of Chevy’s figure
That had more to do with Chevy’s weak showing in 1965, with a 2.3% drop in market share (I use that because the markets jumped so much year to year) for the big Chevys.
I think it’s arguable that Ford’s failure in the full size market from 1960-64 may be more complex than just cannibalism from below.
Actually, their full size cars’ market share was better in ’60-’64 than ’65. when big Fords’ market share dropped to 10.0% from 11.4% in ’64. For that matter, big Fords’ market share were higher in ’60, (13.0%) ’61 (13.8%), ’63 (10.7%) and ’64 than they were in ’65 (or ’66).
Another significant and commonly overlooked factor in Ford’s ’60-’61 sales: Comet was a substantial hit those years, selling 200k in ’61 with a 3.4% market share. There’s no doubt that also affected big Ford sales too.
And anyways, I had to find *something* to write about a 1990 Lumina. 🙂
For the reasons you mentioned regarding 1960 Ford, I don’t think it is fair to compare Lumina to Taurus sales directly.
Sales should be combined for all W-Body Cars (Lumina, Regal, Cutlass Supreme, and Grand Prix) vs (Taurus, Sable, Continental).
Probably should compare Taurus and Sable wagon sales to…
A-Body wagons until they were discontinued and then the Saturn Wagon.
GM minivan sales combined should be compared to Ford Aerostar, Mercury Villager, Nissan Quest, and Mazda MPV sales combined.
That would be (almost) a true apples to apples comparison.
It is important to remember that GM is always playing the “up-sell” game. I think that they actually made the Lumina late and ugly on purpose, to move those buyers to Regal’s and Grand Prix’s. To GM, a sale is a sale and they want to maximize ATP at all costs.
Ford, (probably because it is the Founder’s Family Name) never had an issue selling and making Fords “High-Lux” in spite of it perhaps taking sales away from Lincoln, Mercury, and Edsel. The world’s first retractable hard-top convertible (Sunliner) was a Ford, not a Lincoln.
I was glad Chevy went with their trademark 6 tailight look but I think they blew it by making them wrap around the corners of the car. Depending on where you are standing you sometimes only see 5 of them or 4 or 5 whole ones and fractions of the outboard wrap around units. The 6 light look worked when you saw all six. Lumina was a terrible name. It sounds like a drug advertised on TV.
GM were on something of an idiotic-name jag around that time, weren’t they. Yeah, ask your doctor if Lumina is right for you. Flush decades of Cutlass brand equity right down the crapper with Achieva. Corsica: not just the name of a place the target demographic mostly couldn’t locate on a globe, it also contains the word “Sick”, so, like, 2-for-1 value on that one. Beretta: it’s a hairstyle accessory of some kind? Or are we supposed to be impressed that it sounds like a gun? Maybe it was meant to remind us jamokes of that cheesy ’70s cop show.
I’m sure there are more, but I’m beginning to feel queasy; I’d better go take a Lumina and lie down.
Idiotic GM Names Continued…
Pontiac VIBE (as in NVH) ironically, because it was built in-part by Toyota probably had the least NVH issues of any GM car of that era.
Pontiac G(X) (Hello, you are not Audi!)
Honorable Mentions…
Chevy Avalanche (built during bankruptcy)
GMC Syclone
GMC Typhoon
Ironically, I always thought Lumina was cool, because Dale Earnhardt was cool and he drove a Lumina.
I wish GM built a Lumina Coupe in 1995 so Dale could have won eight championships. He never really got a handle on the 1995-1999 Monte Carlo on non-restrictor plate tracks (all tracks except Daytona and Talladega.)
When the 2000 Monte Carlo debuted, it was clear that Dale’s driving skills were not diminished and he finished in second place, ahead of Jeff Gordon in the championship standings that year.
Meanwhile, the 1995-1999 Monte Carlo body made Jeff Gordon a legend…go figure.
My contemporary impression of this Lumina, with its low-looking beltline and tall window glass, was that its styling was inspired more by the Honda Accord than by the Ford Taurus.
My very memorably, ah, dynamic high school maths teacher, Mrs. Gavin, bought a Lumina in 1990 or ’91. In 1993 or ’94 it caught on fire and burned down, all by itself. When I remarked along the lines of “That happens more often with Fords”, her eyes got big and she said “That’s exactly what the firemen said!”.
Other than that one little anecdote, about the only thing I think about the Lumina and its contemptoraneous junkmates is that they’re on the list of cars I’m glad we mostly don’t have to see any more.
Right around the time of the Delco CS-130 alternator. Those were a bit failure-prone when they first came out in 1987. Basically suffered from poor cooling and internal electrical connection issues, they could short out even with the key off and cause problems. I believe there was a recall to install a fuseable link between the alternator and the battery on some cars that didn’t come equipped with one from the factory.
When my Son and I discussed cars we referred to boring, prosaic, ugly, cars of no distinction as “non-cars.” The Lumina fills that bill.
Supposedly the original propose styling of the Lumina was very close to the 1986 Taurus. That would not have been an issue if the GM10 had not been so far behind schedule (due in no small part to GM’s constant reorganizations going on at the time) and had beat the Taurus to market. But it didn’t. When GM first got a look at the ’86 Taurus it caused a panicked restyle of the Lumina resulting in what you see here, putting the Lumina even further behind schedule (and 2 MY’s behind the rest of the GM10’s). All was not lost however, as the original Lumina styling was recycled in 1991 for the Caprice…….
At the very least the Lumina’s were sound mechanically and the styling did improve somewhat in successive generations on through to the 2000 Impala and Monte Carlo. What was ironic was the Taurus went from a very nice looking car to Lumina-esq uninspired rental car in 1991 to an abject styling disaster in 1996 with the ‘catfish’ look. Too bad.
The first generation Taurus was not without its mechanical issues, in particular the Essex 3.8L V-6’s head gaskets and the ATX automatic transaxle. I remember being a bit surprised at how fast the 1996-91 Taurus and sable disappeared from the automotive landscape, while the homely Lumina seemed to be around forever, delaminated paint and all.
It’s hard to imagine but its true that ALL 4 of these similar-sized Black 4 Door Sedans were indeed Chevrolet Luminas. The first two on the top photos were exactly related FWD W-Body Cars along with the Philippine version middle row right which was indeed our version of the Buick Century/Regal 4 Door Sedan. These were Front Wheel Drive. The middle row left was the Middle Eastern 4G Holden Commodore VE sourced Chevrolet Lumina 4 Door Sedan which were our versions of the Pontiac G8 and then later on becoming Chevrolet SS 4 Door Sedans. The last Chevrolet Lumina 4 Door Sedan on the bottom row center was our Cadillac Catera 4 Door Sedan based from the 3G Holden Commodore 4 Door Sedan. The Holden sourced Chevrolets were Rear Wheel Drive however.
Your last middle pic there, Pedro, is the ’04- 06 VX Commodore, which was the last update of the ’97 VT body (it mainly got the 4-cam Alloytec engine that’s still used in GM stuff today, in place of the old iron pushrod V6)). Wow, an old Commodore as a Caddy – how very upmarket!
In Australia now, VX Commodores are pretty much worthless.
Were these mix and match cars assembled there, or imported?
These similar-sized Black 4 Door Sedans were indeed Chevrolet Luminas. The designs aimed at certain foreign markets were for the most part entirely different from the North American versions. It’s very much in analogy much like Toyota likes to used the Corolla name on different subcompact models and body styles as well.
The Lumina went to fleet sales quickly and we had them in droves. I was hopeful, but immediately disappointed with the Lumina when we first got them. They made poor first impressions. There was no front end. The grille looked like a mesh screen and seemed completely uninspired. There was something immediately different and unappealing with the flat sides of the car. The low belt line was nice, but there was no tumblehome. There was no depth to the sides of the car. The car looked like it was low and melting. The rear end treatment wasn’t bad, but the overall effect of the exterior was cheap. The Beretta looked cheap, and the Lumina had the same look.
The interior was even worse. First – no leg room. I was very frustrated driving these cars because the front fender cut into the leg room. The bench seat wasn’t supportive and after a while, my thighs were cramped and jammed. The dash was too low. I felt like I was sitting on the car with the low beltline, low dashboard, and not in it. Visibility was great, but the feeling behind the wheel was uncomfortable and weird. I had to drive the Lumina across the US and I always dreaded it. These were not comfortable rides.
Then there was the horrific “automatic” seat belts that attached to the doors. These things were cheesy, didn’t work, and a complete pain to use. The burgundy mouse-hair interiors were think and cheap as well. Everything about the Lumina cried out as cheap Mattel-quality auto design. The instrument panel was stupid looking and you felt like you weren’t sitting in the center of it. Who does this? I thought it was so bad to put the window button on an arm rest that you that you couldn’t see them, as they were sloping away from the driver. I never recalled another car that put commonly used accessories away from you, forcing you to read down to find them.
The transmission was a three-speed with a shifter on the column. It looked like it was designed in the old Soviet Union for some kind of diesel bus.
The Lumina was a good size and roomy. It felt light and modern, but also quite cheap. While the Taurus and Sable had an interior that focused on the driver, the Lumina seemed to have an interior that focused on looking like a fashion statement that didn’t care how it worked for the driver.
I didn’t expect much from the Corsica and it didn’t disappoint as a result. What Chevrolet needed to avoid was making a bigger Corsica and disappointing the market in a big way. The Lumina was not a winner.
I think the 1st-generation Lumina may have used the same headlights as the Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera, although the side markers wrap around the fenders more. Just seems like a visual similarity between the A-Body & early W-Body.
When my dad’s mother was still able to drive, her last car was a 2nd-generation Lumina. The few times I rode in it it was actually a pretty decent ride (it no doubt had one of the V6s), except for one of the rear seatbelt buckles being damaged (the car was used) to where only 2 passengers could legally sit b/c the mechanism wouldn’t lock in place. But the biggest flaw with the car’s design was in the engine compartment: the battery was located right underneath the water pump. Jump-starting or replacing the battery was an absolute nightmare since practically everything else under the hood had to be removed to even have access to the terminals. And if the car was parked head-first in a single-car garage, good luck routing the booster cables. Whoever designed that part of the car must have been drunk.
CORRECTION: the battery was underneath the windshield washer reservoir. But the battery access–or lack thereof–was still no joke. The air-conditioning system also had to be worked on several times; NOT a good problem to have right now.
The biggest “sin” that GM made with the Luminas was to offer the piece-of-crap Iron Duke and a 3-speed automatic transmission in them. The “Iron Duke” was an embarrassment from the beginning, when “Pontiac” (You know…GM of Brasil) changed the bore ‘n’ stroke of the 153 Chevy II four-popper and pretended it was something new. Yeah, the Iron Duke was offered in Brazil years before Pontiac “invented” it and put it in the H-body.
The 3.1 should have been the base engine, the 4-speed Overdrive should have been the base automatic, and the “good” 5-speed manual optional. The Euro suspension should have been the base, with the Z34/Euro 3.4 suspension optional on all models.
The second-generation Luminas/Monte Carlo was hatefully de-contented. Two examples: drum rear brakes, and windshield wipers that weren’t lifted off the glass when parked–leading to permanently-distorted rubber wiper blades. The Monte is terrible to get into and out-of; and the sun visors are a joke.
I didn’t mind the seat belts on the first-gen cars; beats the hell out of loading explosive devices into the passenger compartment (“air bags”). I just didn’t use the belts most of the time.
We bought a Lumina Euro 3.4 (a four-door version of the Z34) as a “lease-return” vehicle–just under 6000 miles, about 6 months old. Previously leased to the Minnesota Twins baseball team. The salesman called it a “Brass Hat” car, and never did explain what the hell “Brass Hat” meant. I still don’t know.
The only real problems we had with it in over twenty years of “daily-driver” use:
Oil leak at the oil pump drive (failed o-ring, but a nightmare to replace–the rear head has to come off, which is why the aftermarket has figured out “alternative” repairs.
Power brake vacuum booster (partial failure–provided some but not enough assist.) Common as dirt on the first-gen cars. If you have a firm pedal, but no stopping power-you’ve almost certainly got a partially-failed booster.
Intake gasket failure. GM had a lot of problems with intake gaskets on several engine families, sharing the concept of a hard-plastic “carrier” that had molded silicone “lips” that did the actual sealing. The silicone lips tore, leaked air into the intake tract. Leads to a high, but rough idle speed.
Minor problems:
Timing belts were supposedly good for 60K miles. Not great.
Lots of folks piss’n’moan about rear brake calipers. I never had a problem with ’em. Use the park brake now and then! If you don’t use the park brake, the rear calipers don’t adjust properly.
There was an odd exhaust rattle that was never solved. GM’s approved “fix” was to remove the “dual exhaust” in favor of the “single” exhaust of the lower-spec cars.
The vacuum hoses under the hood were hard plastic. They get brittle, especially under the battery. When that hose cracks, the cruise control loses speed on hills, and the heater shifts to “defrost” when engine vacuum drops. Finding the break, splicing the hard plastic vacuum hose with sections of rubber hose, and assuring that the vacuum reservoir ahead of the LF wheel is connected fixes those issues.
When our ’92 got hit, I bought a nearly-identical ’93 to use as a parts-car. Once I transferred the fenders, grille, bumper, steering column, etc. to the “good” car, I realized that the “parts car” was in basically great condition other than the problem areas listed above. I bought some junkyard parts, flipped the dented/bent fenders from the ’92 upside-down in the back yard, and jumped up and down on the dents to push them back out. I drove the ’93, Wife drove the ’92.
I finally popped the transmission on the ’93 by towing it home after blowing a head gasket. The transmission never recovered from the tow, but the engine ran great after repairs.
The ’92 apparently has a failed crank sensor, and won’t start.
Both the ’92 and the ’93 have over 150K miles on them.
I’m currently driving the ’98 Monte Carlo I inherited from Dear Old Dad. Nearly 35,000 miles on it. Still has the original O2 sensor (for another few days.) It’s needed tires and battery, a blower-motor resistor, front brake pads, and nothing else I can think of other than fluids and filters.
This is good stuff, I think we need to hear from you more on here.
Brass Hat is an old term for high ranking military officers.
If you squint, it looks a lot like an ’89-’93 Accord blown up a little bit and with the proportions slightly altered.
The ’89-’93 Accord wasn’t a bad design to copy. It was handsome and somewhat elegant especially with the slight touches of chrome Honda used. But it wasn’t a breathtaking, stunning, or gorgeous design by any means.
I remember as a 12 year old kid I went with my Dad to look at these when they came out in ’88. One place Chevrolet and GM definitely missed out on was the interior materials and design. Shabby and cheap. You know how rich a nice velour is, like the one they were using from the ’80’s? This was the opposite and was cheap and tacky and worn out feeling. The whole car felt spongy and insubstantial. It wasn’t plush and cosseting; it was cheap. An Accord had very nice interior materials. The Sundance he bought instead had very nice interior materials and felt much more substantial.
This car reminds me of . . . you ever go to a government office, or a school, and all the desks are cheap stamped brownish steel with cheap formica tops designed some time in a time before style and a place without style? The sort of furniture that looks old and beat up new off the truck?
That’s what this car was. We also looked at the ’95 refresh when dad wanted something bigger than the Sundance, and it was equally wretched. At least the first gen Lumina was cheaper than its W Body competition, but the 95 had cheap velour, weird, lumpy cheap seats, and was no cheaper than the much more stylish Cutlass Supreme Dad ended up buying.
It’s sometimes impossible to ignore American myopia.
The very same company producing this execrable pile of Lumina released the VN Commodore in Oz in 1988. This car at least looked half-decent (if a bit bland). It had the old iron V6 from Buick shoved in (very late in development), the decent 4 speed GM trans, it was RWD, it was – despite being slightly smaller than this Lumina – big enough to seat 5 and lots of luggage, it had good seats, 4 discs, did 0-60 in about 7.5 and got 25 mpg plus. The essential anvil toughness of those US mechanicals meant it was very reliable.
I’m not about to say it was a great car, because it wasn’t. The interior wasn’t pretty, the rear axle could feel as if held on by stretchy pants, the V6 was clatteringly crude at certain revs, and the entire car did not feel exactly strong (and it was very indifferently put together).
But it had actual appeal as a a thing to drive and to own, an appeal I would have thought might’ve worked well in mid-US. A more sophisticated version of the mid-sizers of old, and even the biggies . Could even be had with a V8, you know.
Did they even know they had an outpost they owned making such a thing? Did anyone in GM then even have a phone with an international line?
The answer has to be “no”.
And I can’t help but wonder if they, and many others besides in that great land, have such phones to this day.
Maybe it was a matter of American proud, accepting Opel products should be like accepting they couldn’t build something good on their own in their own homeland. I’m not saying it in the racist matter, but it could justify the existence of some local departments, some local costs, local funds instead of developing products only in partnership with other GM divisions… there is no other reason to explain why GM burn money in so many redundant projects.