The hopes were so high. And the expectations even higher. GM was finally going to take the Honda Accord and the other Japanese in its class head-on. “We’re going to send those guys right back to their own shores” were the fighting words of Chevrolet General Manager Robert Lund. Yup. No doubt about it.
And you know how it worked out too: Honda and Toyota and Nissan and the others closed shop in the US, as they just couldn’t take the competition from GM’s new J Cars, and crawled in shame all the way back to Japan.
Or more like “The Start of the Long Road To Death for GM?”
The J cars were GM’s great last hope against the imports. The Vega never made a dent, except in GM’s reputation. The Chevette wasn’t all that bad at first, but the imports were all better to start with and quickly leapfrogged it. The X Cars were really more targeted to domestic car buyers, downsizing from big cars, in the hope they wouldn’t defect to imports. But the J cars were the line in the sand: here’s where giant GM was going to hold the lines, and start pushing back.
But they didn’t do all of their homework.
They did some of it, creating a family of cars that were reasonably attractive, if not exactly exceptionally so. And the initial impression in terms of quality seemed adequate. And the handling, something GM had figured out, was pretty decent. But it all fell apart in two main areas: weight and under the hood.
GM cheapened out and used too many X car components, which were heavier. That and a general lack of keeping the J Car on a diet resulted in it weighing much more than its target, the Accord; 2920 lbs compared to 2225. That’s a whopping 32% more. That was the kiss of death right there.
And instead of starting with Opel’s smooth 1.8 L SOHC engine and making it a bit bigger and better, they cheapened out again, and created a new 1.8 L cast iron pushrod four using some of the 2.8 L V6’s architecture. It was going to be cheaper to build. And it was guaranteed to make the J Cars slugs. Which they were: 0-60 in 16.5 seconds, for this sporty-looking J2000 fastback.
That was slower than all but six of the 77 cars R&T had tested for its “Road Test Summary”, and those six were all diesels!
So it looked decent, and the interior wasn’t too bad, and it handled well enough with the optional handling package (something the imports didn’t need to offer). But it was fatally flawed, weighing too much, which meant that performance and economy were always going to be uncompetitive, until a V6 or turbo was finally added under the hood.
And one more fatal flaw: no 5-speed transmission, which by this time was the standard in this class.
And so it went, once again with GM, bringing to market a hugely expensive new car program hamstrung from the get-go with a few key serious shortcomings. The result was that the J Cars were not competitive, and GM quickly had to start lowering their prices to move the metal. And that became the pattern with the J Cars and its successors right up to the end. They were sold at a loss because GM needed them to meet CAFE regulations. And that’s why they never invested what it took to make them competitive. Why bother?
The painful story in greater detail here:
CC 1982 Chevrolet Cavalier: GM’s Deadly Sin #22 – The Decline and Fall of GM in 1.8 Liters PN
“ That and a general lack of keeping the J Car on a diet resulted in it weighing much more than its target, the Accord; 2920 lbs compared to 2225.”
The weight of the J-car was 2620. The Accord weighed 2340. Per the R&T specs.
There’s some confusion here, as R&T normally only goes by their own “tested weight” and in another chart they show that (attached) as 2920 and 2225:
And here’s their “tested weight” from their big spec page:
So much extra weight! And they thought this could be competitive.
What’s especially galling about this is that GM was selling a perfectly competitive J-car at the time, the Opel Ascona C. It had a better engine, it wasn’t overweight, and it had a five speed manual beginning for MY 1983.
GM North America’s severe case of Not Invented Here syndrome killed every single one of its homegrown small cars of the twentieth century.
Exactly. An Opel should have been the Vega also.https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1975-opel-1900-ascona-what-the-vega-could-have-been/
As well as that, did they really understand the segment of the market they were aiming at, and the expectations of buyers in that class? I’m not sure they ever did.
Did they really expect someone looking at a Honda or a Toyota would choose one of these instead, and be happy with it in the long-term?
The Cavalier sedan was basically the same car as the Ascona, although the Ascona had a more expensive engine. Much of the difference in performance was down to the Ascona having 1968 levels of exhaust emissions, cosmetic bumpers, and seat belts as its heaviest bit of safety gear. Bring the popular 1.6S level Ascona into compliance with the EPA, and it would have been as underpowered as any similar Chevrolet Chevette engine. Stick door intrusion beams and 5 mph bumpers on an Ascona, and it would have been as heavy as a J2000.
There were certainly other differences in terms of aesthetic choices and suspension calibrations, but a federalized Ascona would not have maintained anything resembling its leaded-fuel era levels of performance. GM did bring over an earlier generation of the Ascona, and I believe it stuck around through 1975. It was a better car than the Vega, and GM might have been well served to build it in Ohio. It still would have suffered from various emissions, safety, and efficiency regulations rolled out during the era that the J-cars were developed in.
The little pushrod four that GM developed only to take advantage of existing tooling certainly seems indefensible, but GM claimed between 85 and 88 horsepower for it. I believe the higher performance of the two 1.6 liter Ascona engine offerings was rated at 90 horsepower, suggesting that it might have retained as much as 75 horsepower with clean exhaust.
You could say that GM learned, eventually: by farming out its small car efforts to GM-Daewoo while washing its hands of making homegrown compacts and subcompacts.
Mom had an ‘85 Cavalier Type 10 (ok Bo Derek). Replaced a ‘79 Mustang. Charcoal gray 4-speed manual, deluxe Delco stereo system, no AC. Ate two clutches before 100k. Washer jets never worked properly. Overheated one day with Grandma in the car, raced to the closest shop. Started rusting within 3 years. Gross, right?
For what it was, at $8k then, it wasn’t terrible? Outside of the clutches crapping out every 35k, it actually was dead reliable. I think they had it for 8 years and something like 90k. They put a for sale sign on it one night for $1000 at that point and had multiple people calling with offers the next morning. The guy who did buy it repaired the very prolific rust and had it repainted. Saw it 3 years later still being 70%, so they weren’t THAT bad (smirk).
Funny how cars within the family grow on you, because if it wasn’t Mom’s, I’d call it a piece of shit, period.
And if said Mom had the nasty habit of using the clutch pedal for a foot rest, the clutch issues may not have been cars fault either.
She drove a ‘69 Road Runner and multiple Honda bikes, so no.
GM’s main problem was really its utter inability to produce a competitive product on a reasonable budget. GM consistently spent “more for less,” versus its competitors. Initially, that was because those competitors—which included Ford and Chrysler—didn’t have the same unlimited budgets and so could not afford to be so wasteful, but later on it was because decades of bureaucracy, union obligations and general corporate inefficiencies meant that it just plain *cost* more for GM to build anything. And the products were always mediocre to subpar.
As you say, components were lifted from the X-body in order to save on costs, but even with that measure, I bet GM spent far more than either Honda or Toyota on the J Cars.
This was a paradigm that carried forward for many more years, such as on the disastrous GM10 (W-body) program.
Billions wasted on GM-10 and they still didn’t even come out with a sedan concurrently with the coupes… One has to wonder where all the money went.
The GM-10 cars were delayed by Roger Smith’s massive reorganization effort in the mid-1980s.
As for why GM rolled out the coupes first – this market segment was swinging to four-door sedans for a variety of reasons (an aging customer base and child-seat requirements that meant children had to be placed in the back seat being the two most prominent). GM failed to realize this.
GM’s planning was based on the popularity of mid-size personal luxury coupes, but that market segment was in decline by 1986.
Yes, and then when they tried to make it a cross-divisional effort, they didn’t even give the program head any authority over engineers from the various other divisions. So you can imagine how trying to head up that program went.
The B-O-P/C-P-C reorg and the total market miss on sedans were inexcusable missteps.
Union obligations don´t add a gram to the car´s weight or require crumby engineering. German autoworkers get a good salary and can make cars which cost relatively low prices (e.g. the Ford Fiesta or VW Polol) in the EU market. Other things being equal, high labour costs drive efficiency elsewhere. GM´s inability to make a car as good as the Ascona is down to bad management and a cynical culture of management
Exactly, management gets the union it deserves.
My first car was a 1982 Pontiac J2000 LE sedan, green inside and out, one of the early ones built in the spring of 1981. I know it was an early one because, to cheap out by not providing a third seatbelt in the rear seat, my car had a plastic console in the center position to prevent anyone from sitting there – a new US government requirement in 1981 – and can be seen in the R&T photo car. The console had a pair of cupholders (rare in those days) on the notchback coupe and sedan models, but hatchbacks and wagons didn’t get the cupholders likely for fear the drinks would get knocked over when the seatback was folded down, something that couldn’t be done in the notchbacks. Cupholders or no, the lack of three-across seating proved unpopular and a third seating position with seatbelt was added starting in model year 1982 proper. At that time the throttle pedal was recalibrated so near-max acceleration could be had in the first inch of motion to make it feel faster. Late-1982 cars could be optioned with a better fix – the Brazilian fuel-injected OHC 1.8L engine that I wish my car would have had.
I bought my car in 1985 for only $2,600, which was just over half what an Accord of the same vintage would have cost even though they were similarly priced when new. Price aside, I’ll continue to defend buying a J-car rather than an Accord to this day. The 1982 model was unique, at least in top-line LE trim. It was a mini-Brougham in that year only, before Pontiac decided to pretend they were sporty and European by ditching the button-tufted velour and simulated woodgrain. But I liked it; it felt like a mini-Cadillac to me – much more so than the Cimarron did actually since it didn’t have any velour or fake wood. It was way plusher than an Accord! We’re talking first-generation Accord here since mine was built in early 1981. Did Accords have power seats with height and tilt adjustment? No. Did Accords have power windows and door locks? No (except in a limited-edition SE model available for a few months). Did Accords have a full set of gauges, even oil pressure and voltmeter? No. Did Accords have air conditioning that could make you chilly on a 100F day? No. And Accords (or the RWD Toyotas and Datsuns of the time) sure didn’t have all that rear seat legroom and trunk space that was essential for road trips, which were plentiful in those days.
Really, except for the wheezy carbureted engine, the J2000LE was a nice car. For me though it is inextricably entwined with memories of those road trips, of my first girlfriend, and my college years, all of which make me lavish undeserved praise on my old J2000. Improved drivetrains, came along before the model year was even over, and 1983 brought standard 1.8OHC or 2.0L engines in J bodies, along with a 5 speed manual (finally). But by then GM learned they couldn’t sell many high-trimmed J-cars and most from then on would be base trims, and the higher-level models were cheapened out.
It really is a shame. When I was in high school circa 1996 I had a 1984 Olds Firenza, highly optioned with the 1.8OHC, 5 speed manual, Rallye gauges and wheels, A/C, even a factory sunroof. Mine was nearly new (40k at the time!) and meticulously maintained. It really was a sweet little car.
Of course I broke a shift fork trying to do a FWD burnout a few too many times (who among us?) but it was a decent car. I’ve had many cars between then and now but the little J Olds still has a place in my heart! ☺️
It’s a shame that GM kept trying the same solutions which kept ending in mediocrity. The extra costs of GM bureaucracy and legacy should never be omitted from the story though – and why accountants are not the only folks needed to run a firm. 😬
I do remember when the “J” cars were considered the renascence of GM.
However, the bad habit of building to a price point caught up with them again. I’m sure GM spent just as much fixing issues and implementing fundamental improvements like fuel injection and corrosion resistance as compared to the total initial development cost.
Other than my ‘83 Cutlass, I have never entertained the purchase of a GM vehicle when looking for replacements. Sorry, but I knew too many folks burned by diesels, X cars, and Vegas.
“The Vega never made a dent, except in GM’s reputation”. Winner of Niedermeyer quote of the year! And I say that as someone whose perspective of my own Vega ownership experience is viewed through heavily rose-tinted 20/20 corrected hindsight.
Every. Dang. Time.
Going back to last week’s series on the 1960 compact cars. Every time GM (and Ford and Chrysler) tried to compete with foreign cars, they found a way to fail.
Three factors, I think. Beancounters. The “not invented here” syndrome. And the folks in the executive suite being largely unwilling to truly commit to building a good small car.
Going back to last week’s series on the 1960 compact cars. Every time GM (and Ford and Chrysler) tried to compete with foreign cars, they found a way to fail.
Evan, how many times have I pointed out with stats and charts and text that the Corvair was the only one of the 1960 compacts to successfully woo over import buyers?
Both the Falcon and Valiant clearly cannibalized sales from the big Ford and Plymouth/Dodge. But the Corvair didn’t. And import sales dropped substantially in 1960 and 1961. And stayed depressed for several years, that corresponded to the Corvair’s best sales years. So the evidence clearly suggest that Corvair picked up the bulk of the lost import sales. Unless you have a better conclusion?
The Corvair was the only truly successful import fighter ever built by Detroit, meaning import sales went down after its introduction. It wasn’t until 1967 that import market share was back to where it had been in 1959.
I’m sorry. You’re 100% correct. Please allow me to change “every time” to “almost every time”.
Yup. Porker. Slow. Expensive. Disappointing. That was my reaction to the General’s J-car in general, and the Pontiac in particular as my dad and I looked at the new J2000 in spring 1982 at the Pontiac dealer and left.. And I thought the Pontiac was a good-looking car.
The car finally lived up to the promise of its appearance with the 1985 Turbo; but it was not inexpensive by any standard in Turbo trim. And this is the GM way—overcharge for a winner. See Cadillac Alpha (ATS/CTS) some THIRTY years later.
Like Evan, I must not read everything Paul writes closely enough, as I overlooked the Corvair as the only successful import beater. Yet I totally agree!
And my cautious comment on the recent Corvair CC says the same thing— I feel vindicated!
Amen. Paul N may get the nom for best comment, but this is also correct about The Old GM Way: Overcharge for a Winner.
Countless examples exist of how GM got it ‘almost right’, shipped it, and then ‘upgraded’ the car along the way, thus fixing what was never broken, or shouldn’t have escaped testing in the first place. How many times (J and otherwise) have we said that — hoo boy, after a long production run and myriad fixes, “They finally got the (X / J / W / N etc) right”. GM using customers as test cases is nothing new – looking at you, Mr Musk?
Also, that’ll be Option Packages X99, Y98, and Z97 to make it handle decently and have an attractive appearance and interior… which will set you back another several thousand bucks. But it’ll be a REALLY nice one, ya know? 😬🤔
The Turbo came out in MY 1984. I bought one with a 4 speed that ate two clutches in 40k miles and the engine by 50k (I’d sold it to my brother by then). It was a big change from my ’74 Fleetwood, zippy but still comfortable. The serpentine belt was often noisy, and the A/C moaned at low rpm.
The big Plymouth was also hurt by the new full-size Dodge Dart, which took a lot of formerly Plymouth sales at the no-longer Dodge-Plymouth franchises.
The best J-car was the Isuzu Aska, one of the best cars in its’ class.
“and it handled well enough with the optional handling package”
Agreed that the imports didn’t need to offer it. But more, how many was a shopper likely to find in dealer stock? Those were usually inexpensive options, but they didn’t make the car look better and many dealers skipped that one.
The more I have studied these situations of slowly failing automakers, it all comes down to bad management systems that move people around too much or that drive away too many talented people. GM blew up the way they had successfully designed and built so many cars over the decades and replaced those systems with ones that looked good on paper but which could not deliver competitive products.
From what I’ve read, by the early 1980s, it was virtually impossible for an upper-management person to be fired from GM. That creates a corporate culture where a sense of urgency and doing the best job possible aren’t necessarily priorities.
And while Roger Smith’s reorganization of the mid-1980s still gets a lot of bad press, there were real issues that needed to be addressed. With the swing to unit-body construction on a large scale, it no longer made sense to have a separate step where everything was “handed over” to Fisher Body for production finalization. The reduction of the divisions to largely marketing organizations meant that changes were needed there, too. The problem was that the Smith reorganization created a lot of chaos without addressing some of the core issues.
Neutering the corporate design department after Bill Mitchell’s retirement – given that styling leadership had been a GM strength for decades – didn’t help matters.
GM wasn’t properly structured to effectively respond to the North American automotive market of the 1980s and beyond, and top management didn’t have the foresight or ability to address this. The lackluster J-cars were just one symptom of this problem.
Not only that, the *Pontiac* should’ve had the optional handling package as standard equipment!
*Optional* sportiness was for Chevys, “big-car-ride in a small car” for Buick and Olds; at the Excitement Division everything they made had to handle.
Correct. Old GM always failed at the last hurdle by upcharging that which should have been standard per brand – paraphrasing Churchill’s words, having failed at all other opportunities they finally would do The Right Thing.
I once worked for a firm who thought this way, to ship the basic BS and upcharge for simple options, as a way to extract a bit more on a sale. It’s a cynical recipe created by accountants (turns out CEO was one and summarily fired, but that’s a different story) who don’t really understand why you’re in business in the first place – namely, we make money as the result of good products, not that we sell widgets which happen to make money. Roger Smith (and wholesale GM at the time) I believe fall clearly in this category. I love my spreadsheets as much as the next kid, but they are a tool, not the product unless you work for Microsoft.
New GM is making some hits these days, but it still smacks. Build the damned car the way it was supposed to be before the bean counters come to vote, not the other way around. Geez, no wonder Hyundai is eating everyone’s lunch money. 🤔🤷♂️
@ la673, a lot of automotive writers then and now treat people who bought american cars in the 70s and 80s . .. and 90s as mouth breathing drones brainwashed by marketing or zombie loyalty who never cross shopped the competition out of wilful insistent ignorance.
They all treat the accord as some sort of second coming, a car so brilliant that anybody who ever bought anything else was a complete ignoramus.
But the j cars (and a lot of other american cars then and now) had some advantages as well. The accord didn’t get fuel injection until well into the late 80s. As you pointed out, the j car could be had in very nicely trimmed versions and felt roomier and plusher. They were sportier looking and more stylish we had an 85 accord and an 85 sunbird at the same time and the sunbird had better interior materials and was more comfortable. The sunbird died fairly quickly from overheating problems and the accord died fairly quickly from transmission problems so the honda kool aid never impressed me the way some automotive journalists carry on. We had an 86 Sentra prior to the accord which was an absolutely wretched car in stripper format and would make your 2000 look like a cadillac.
Accords and Camrys are fine cars but they had their deficiencies as well measured against the competition.
Transmission problems? Manual or auto? Honda became known for their feeble automatics in later years, and they could’ve brought nothing but manual-transmission cars into America throughout the VRA years and still sold every one.
This was an automatic Accord. It was bought in 1989 to replace the Sentra which hydroplaned into a guardrail, and then was replaced in 1991 by a 1991 Oldsmobile Calais. I FAR preferred the Calais, Iron Duke and all. The Calais felt roomier, more luxurious, had better materials inside, and had a more premium feel. The 89 Sundance we had was similarly nicer. When the 89 Accord came out, that was a very nice car, but came at a very high premium over the domestics while the advantages could sometimes be hard to notice. Plus, until the mid 2000s Honda dealers didn’t have to sell you a car, and didn’t want to, and their attitude was, YOU should work for this car. The competition tried harder.
I bought a new car a couple of years ago and both Honda and Toyota were just plain rude.
I went to a Honda store to see a 2018 Civic coupe with the two litre engine and a manual transmission. When I got there, there was a turbo with CVT. When I asked why they had wasted my time, they said, “We don’t stock manual cars.”
Then I went to Toyota to have a look at a Camry Hybrid. The dealer had a “clean up fee” of $750 and a doc fee of the same. I have never paid either so I walked.
Only VW and Mazda were really ready to deal and I chose the VW over the Mazda 3. It was a tough choice.
Your story mirrors my parents experience in 2017. Mazda dealer took two hours to let my Parents drive a CX-9 and two different CX-5’s. The following day the Honda dealer informs them that they only had cloth equipped CR-V’s left in stock in EX trim. CX-5 it was, white on white Grand Touring.
The Honda Accord was far more reliable and longer lasting than a Calais or a Sundance. I had an Accord and friends had the other two. My car far outlasted both of theirs. GM concentrated on interiors, while Honda concentrated on the drivetrain.
Well. . . I cannot really say, because the Calais got Totaled after being rear ended twice by the same person . . . he hit me, then we pulled over and he managed to hit me again, then it got rear ended again, then it got T boned by an old man pulling out of a lincoln dealer. The time we had it it was trouble free requiring alternators and brakes The Sundance was likewise trouble free requiring a radiator, A/C service, and maintenance for 6 years until my Dad got a new 95 Cutlass Supreme. He gave the Sundance to my brother, who mostly destroyed it by backing into a concrete bollard at the mall at high speed (he was 16 or 17.) The Calais and Sundance were CAPABLE of high mileage, I think Murilee Martin profiled a Calais with over 300K miles in a junkyard find, but few of them made it that far. Either the owners got tired of them, or they lived short exciting second hand lives at the hands of people like my brother. Owners are more likely to spend $1000 on a torsion belt spring replacement for a car with some resale value than a Calais or Sundance.
Dad got 16 trouble free years out of the Cutlass Supreme before he decided it was time for a new car and got a 2011 Charger.
The Accord got a fuel injected version (SE-i) for 1985, the last year of the second generation and from then on it was available in the LX-i version of the third generation (with the pop-up headlights) starting with the 1986 model year.
Honda was late with offering major items like fuel injection, airbags, and anti-lock brakes, and often their availability required moving to high-trim models that were much more expensive. For example, in 1991 you could have a Ford Taurus or Chrysler LeBaron with a driver airbag (standard) and four wheel disc ABS, but all Accords had motor-mouse seatbelts, no airbag, no antilock brakes, and usually no rear discs. Also no power seats or even manual height or tilt adjustment, and a far slimmer selection of optional equipment. The Detroit cars let you choose buckets or split bench, velour or leather, upgraded suspensions, analog or digital gauges, numerous audio systems, and much more.
But you had to pay a lot extra to get that, and the base levels were still carbureted. GM was doing TBI in the early 80’s and Ford and Chrysler had fuel injection in nearly everything by the mid 80s. Wasn’t A/C a dealer installed option and not factory until late into the ’80’s? GM came up with a cheap, effective antilock braking system. Honda didn’t offer a V6 (could be argued they didn’t need to) until the mid 90’s and it didn’t offer any performance advantage over the 4. No turbo power either, whereas both the J car had a ?140 hp turbo four? and Chrysler offered 146 hp with the turbo 2.2.
Buick gave us distributorless ignition and the wasted spark system and sequential FI for the 1984 Grand National, and everyone eventually adopted those systems. Yes, the J car could have been better, but GM and the other domestics weren’t technological backwaters or solely concerned with slapping vinyl roofs and sporty wheels on economy cars.
I’d beg to differ. The early V-6 Accords made 200 hp and made the light car a real blast to drive. The four is a slug in comparison.
The original V6 Accord made some ~160HP using the ex-Legend’s 2.7 and many felt that it was indeed not significantly quicker than the ~145HP VTEC I4 in the EX.
As I recall, the dealer-installed A/C was all factory components and was the equivalent of a factory-installed system.
Hey there friend 👋☺️
As you may have seen above, I’m not a GM Hater, actually a GM Lover.
I had a 1986 (and 1991, UK-spec) Accord also. Its little carburetor didn’t make it a bad car. In fact I thought it was delightfully simple and made me think that the GM designs were overly complicated. This story is less about fuel injection than of bad engineering.
Bottom line is that a fuel injected car can run like a#$ and so can a carbureted car. These are not mutually exclusive, and presupposition that fuel injection is automatically better because it sounds cool is marketing, not engineering. (1958 Chrysler Electrojet, we’re calling you. 1981 Imperial, you too baby!)
As you observed, Honda didn’t adopt fuel injection – until it made sense! The carb Hondas were doing just fine, thanks. The fuel injection was a ‘sporty’ option (SE-i, see that little I) and it worked because it had been tested, not rushed to market.
Old cars are old cars. Your carb-having wheezy Cavalier didn’t start and the fuelie Volvo did.
Wow. Film at eleven.
I ordered my 1983 Pontiac 2000 so I could get it the way I wanted. By that year, you could get the OHC FI 1.8 engine with a five speed manual. I also got the sport suspension and rally steering wheel, gauges, sunroof, cloth seats, power steering and radio prep kit. It drove fine for the early eighties, and I got 39 mpg on the highway with it, 33 mpg overall.
When these cars came out, I was eighteen years old and I still wanted to be a GM fan. The X car had very much caused me to question GM’s ability to build a decent car. This was all the more shocking since I was used to driving a 350, F-41 Impala, which was quite a car for the day.
I chalked up the X car debacle as inexperience with FWD and I eagerly waiting for the J car to make up for all that X car badness. The hype was every bit as large as hit had been for the X car, the J car being delayed several times.
Then the J car came out. It was overweight and underpowered. It had a pushrod motor with iron heads that made all of 85 hp to pull 2600 lbs. My first reaction was, “What were they thinking!” It was like they really didn’t care much for their “import fighter” at all.
The disastrous intro of the J car relegated it to “just a cheap family car” status.
I had an Oldsmobile J car rental in 1985 and my this time, the cars were much better. From what I remember, the car had the LQ5 motor, stretched out to two litres. It had decent power for the time but I’d never have paid my own money for it.
The J car was vastly improved for 1983 (more powerful engines, fuel injection, 5 speed) and further by 1985 (available V6 or turbo 4) – typical GM fix it in its first few years on the market, after its rep has been trashed. The X cars were quite nice by 1982, the bugs having been worked out. Even the ’76-77 Vega was a decently reliable car by then with a good warranty. Why cant they build cars like that from the start?
X car debacle as inexperience with FWD
Haven’t we forgotten about the first FWD cars from General Motors: Oldsmobile Toronado and Cadillac Eldorado? They were introduced in 1966 and 1967 respectively. The UPP system was very robust enough to be used in GMC Motorhome in the 1970s.
Not to mention Opel’s first FWD car, Kadett D, introduced in 1979, which was much better car in every aspect. Shame that GM didn’t adopt Opel’s platform and rework it for the North American market like Holden did with Opel Commodore specifically for Australian market.
So, it doesn’t sound like General Motors having lack of experience with FWD cars.
I understand the logic that, based on construction time and effort, it takes about the same amount of time to build a large car versus a small one. And I also realize that there is not a lot less materials used in smaller cars versus larger ones. Kind of like comparing a sofa and a chair, both use the same materials, built similarly, but the chair uses less materials overall. But the margin on both the sofa and the chair are the same, and the pricing is not out of line for either when comparing the two. So why can some companies build small cars and larger cars and make money on both, while GM never could figure that out? Serious question. They had Opel, they had Vauxhall, they had Holden, and they basically controlled Isuzu and Daewoo, so they had product and experience in smaller, and Detroit certainly got larger cars. So why the inability to make a profitable – and desirable – smaller car here? I really just cannot fathom how a company could fail so often for so long.
Your theory is off just a bit, its like building a couch or a love seat, its about the same size, there is some minor material savings and that’s about it. So the hood for example is about 20-25% smaller. There is some material saving there but in the over all its not 20-25% cheaper when its done.
Crappy engines and transmissions and over weight. GM just couldn’t bring themselves to build a high quality car. They couldn’t see that getting the customer would bring them sales later.
Look how long it took them to fix some minor issues with the small block Chevy. Valve cover sealing on the small block wasn’t fixed for almost 30 years. The worst of it was the solution was basically a copy of the valve cover design used by Detroit Diesel when it released the 6-71 back in 1938.
I bought a new ‘81 Accord hatchback to replace our ‘78 Buick Regal Turbo Sport Coupe. Except for an issue with the wiring harness, the Accord was a great little car… it helped us to forget the ownership “experience” of that Buick, which was the last GM product I’ll ever buy.
That was before Honda perfected their automatic engine oil dilution, like my wife’s CR-V does.
When the fleet of 1981 Citation proved too badly made to keep on the road after 1 year, the company switched to Pontiac J2000s. However, because of my long term lease and miles I put on a car – I had to keep the 1981 Citation when it could be driven. When it was in the dealer’s shop, (which was monthly), I used one of the Pontiac J2000s.
The J2000 was better than the Citation, but was painfully gutless. Driving up I-80 towards Eisenhower Tunnel was an awful experience. The Citation attempting the same route resulted in hearing the 4 cylinder engine threaten to explode. It pinged and knocked like it was full of gravel. Driving it meant letting up on the gas because it was frightening to hear. As to the J2000 – it didn’t ping or knock, but it just didn’t have any power. Driving it meant keeping to the far right lane and praying at 20 miles per hour on the expressway.
It was also definitely smaller than the Citation. The Citation was a giant nerd car, but it was more comfortable than the J2000. Driving these cars meant sitting low to the floor with your legs more horizontal than in the X-cars. So after a few hours behind the wheel you were not comfortable. Worse there was no thigh support in the seats, so after a while, your felt like you were sitting cross-ways in a hammock, with your nads pinched between your thighs. Other than that – the J2000 was a better car than the Citation.
Yet – the dealer trying to fix the latest problem with the Citation would call the office and I was forced back into it for my next trip, meaning I had to give up the J2000.
Not only was the J2000 a better car than the Citation, I also drove an AMC Spirit, a Mercury Cougar, a Ford Escort and an AMC Alliance for the same job on the same trips, and all of them were better than the Citation. While the J2000 was a better car, it wasn’t better than the AMC Spirit, the Escort, the Alliance or the Cougar.
But at least the J2000 never left me stranded during any trips in it, unlike the monthly calamities in the Citation. These were very junk cars from Day 1 of ownership.
Later – in another travel job, these Pontiacs became the convertible rental cars for Hawaii. Red, blue or white – there were fleets of these Pontiac convertibles on every Hawaiian island I worked. I couldn’t stand them. They really weren’t very good cars.
That a J car wasn’t up to the level of a refreshed Gremlin says it all.
Yes, the early J-cars were indeed “Ice Wagon S L O W”.
When equipped with A/C and the 3 speed automatic transmission their “acceleration” was……gradual. Taking off from a stop light it felt like the emergency brake was dragging.
The last car that was that slow and exasperating was a 1960 2 speed Ford-o-Matic Falcon.
I really thought seeing an Opel Manta B liftback disguised as a Pontiac.
By 1984, these were the Pontiac Sunbird, and the first one in our family to buy one was actually my sister, who got reasonable service with hers (even up in Vermont, where it of course rusted, but kept running. On the other hand, it was my Father’s worst car. Both were bought new; my Dad bought his after an accident with his ’78 Caprice Classic Wagon…not sure why he didn’t have it fixed up, guess he didn’t want to bother with it. It was a big comedown from the Caprice in every way…of course it was about 2 sizes smaller, plus it was the first non-wagon primary family car since my Dad bought his ’61 Rambler wagon. By 1984, these had the 2 litre, and it was terrible…he needed a new engine by late 40k miles…by then, my Dad was tired of it. When new (just a few hunded miles) it lost its timing belt (up at six flags..we took it on inaugural trip to Ft Worth). He had it serviced regularly at the Pontiac dealer…but it didn’t help with longevity at all.
My youngest sister took it over in 1988, and it deteriorated further. The power steering hoses started leaking, and the switchgear (light switch) started flaking out. She had it maybe to 1990 (or 89, I don’t remember exactly) when the replacement engine threw a rod…and it was taken to the junkyard, only 80k or so miles, 2 replacement engines.
My Mother replaced the Sunbird with a Ford Tempo…sure, not much of a car, but she kept it up till 2009, 21 years, which at that time was a family record…of course it was used only as a local car, and wasn’t much to drive, but it kept going. In 2005 when my other sister (the one who had the other Sunbird in my family) she was going to share the Tempo with my Mother, and I fixed up a bunch of small stuff (gas door remote, power locks). It was only given up in 2009 during a state version of cash for clunkers, based on its age more than anything, and idea that a 21 year old car had to be a polluter (don’t think it was)…we got rid of it due to air conditioning compressor going, and we didn’t want to put the money into it, but in central Texas it is kind of required, so they traded the Tempo in on a Focus.
My youngest sister got the first of 4 Nissan 240 SX’s she and my next-to-youngest sister were to own (surviving sister still has her ’97 bought new). Unfortunately we lost my youngest sister to Ovarian cancer 12 1/2 years ago…she was only 37. But the SX’s gave them good service .and the ’97 is the oldest car in my family, and longest owned..only problem is that it isn’t as suitable for my soon to be 55 year old sister, though it was great when she bought it 23 years ago.
Ah, no mention of the J2000 should be made without noting how Pontiac couldn’t decide on what to call it. It started off in 1982 as the J2000 but that only lasted that year; next year it became just the 2000, except for the new mid-year convertible which was the 2000 Sunbird. For 1984, all bodystyles became 2000 Sunbirds, not just the ‘vert. Then in 1985 the number was dropped and it became just the Sunbird for the first time since the 1980 H bodies. That finally stook for a few years, but when the J body was restyled, the Chevy remained a Cavalier but the Pontiac became the Sunfire. The Sunfire would be replace by some alphanumeric designation like G4, I’d lost track by then.
In 1984 it was the 2000 Sunbird, I had one as my first brand new car. Only 20 years old but I was in the Navy which made it easy to get a loan.
Robert Lund was the head of Chevrolet? I think he was in charge of Chevrolet marketing during the years the Corvair was introduced. He had a seething hatred for the Corvair. David E. Davis at the start of his career came up with the idea of selling the Corvair as a sport sedan. Lund shot that down immediately! Lund saw the Corvair as a car for people who couldn’t afford Impalas. Lund wanted a car like the Chevy II all along. Makes me wonder why some folks get promoted, while others get fired.
The same old GM story, like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football.
Promising this time they were REALLY going deliver a better car than the Japanese — X-Car, J-Car, Saturn and on and on — only to emerge after spending a ton of money with yet another half-assed mediocre product with major shortcomings, try to paper over the difference with aggressive hype and expect people to buy it anyway Because America.
It also fell apart because in the 1980’s the economy was in the crapper and people needed to keep vehicles much longer especially when purchased new. Buying the Honda for $1k more likely netted a car with at least twice the lifespan, a fraction of the repair costs and higher resale. Chevy GM Robert Lund chest puffing against imports is so lame. Similarly in 2011 Jim Farley at Ford said about GM “I’m going to beat Chevrolet on the head with a bat, and I’m going to enjoy it.” What an absolute dipshit! I wouldn’t be surprised if Ford’s board sanctioned him and threatened to throw him out of his office window if he ever said something that stupid again.
Imagine a world where the J-car was lesser than an Accord only in engine torque, gearchange and overall quality. Imagine it had much better ride and damping than the choppy stuff then in Hondas, much better seats, steering with feel (p/s Hondas then sure didn’t), highly adjustable handling that was universally acclaimed as as good as the best fwd Euros (instead of permanent variations on understeer from Honda), performance about the same, mpg same, and a fizzy engine where 7,000 rpm was very easy to achieve by mistake. Oh, and a dashboard from the ’80’s, not 1971.
In short, imagine a J that was a much better car than the Honda and much, much better than the awful dross R&T is really struggling to say nice things about here.
Well, GM DID release it, in ’82, in Oz, as the Holden Camira. Opel and Holden engineers must’ve looked at the US J and wonder how the hell the US made such a pigs ear from a silk purse.
Heresy it might be for some to hear, but sometimes American exceptionalism evaporates almost as if it’s imaginary, and it’s far from the first time in big Old Detroit’s history that that faith has led things well astray.
[An important caveat. Good as the Camira was, it was a terrible, terrible consumer product, plagued by bad build quality, and even though the last 2 litre update was a really fine and reliable car, it failed in the market and was gone by ’88 and the lost investment very nearly took GM Holden with it, so, despite certain (different) illusions here, there was also sure as hell nothing too exceptional about Australia’s manufacture of the thing!]
My former employer bought one of the very early ’82 Cavalier sedans as a company car (I finally retired earlier this year). For reasons unknown to me (availability?), it had a manual transmission. In my opinion, the styling was fine, not ostentatious with simple lines and a generally pleasing shape — modest grille, chromed bumpers, lots of glass, and a decent slant to the rear window. The interior was okay as well, with reasonably comfortable all-vinyl bucket seats. The “great wall of China” dash in front of the passenger was somewhat off-putting though.
Paul has pointed out the car’s biggest flaw — it was gutless even in comparison to my base 1980 Volvo 242DL, which had all of 107 hp, but weighed about the same — 2900 lbs. The Cavalier was geared so tall that you couldn’t shift into 4th (top gear) until you had reached 40 mph on level ground. In contrast, my Volvo (also with only 4 gears, lacking the electric overdrive), could easily be short-shifted into 4th at 27 mph. This means with the Cav, you’d have to do a lot of shifting at city or suburban driving speeds on traffic-clogged roads.
Our particular car was not all that reliable, with a lot of niggling issues even though it was kept for only 4 years. Luckily, the cost of repairs was not very high, just a nuisance to require service so often.
On the bitterly cold morning of Reagan’s 2nd inauguration in 1985, I tried to take the Cavalier from my home at the time in suburban northern Virginia to the airport for a business trip. The carbureted 4 refused to start, so my wife had to drive me in the fuel-injected Volvo (which started without a hiccup) to the nearest Metro (subway) stop, from which I was able to reach the airport.
My third Pontiac was a 1981 J2000 wagon in beige after my 1971 T37 and 1977 Sunbird hatchback. We really loved our Red Sunbird! Second photo is me with the Sunbird and T37 behind it.
Here is a similar J2000 Wagon as mentioned above.
Back then I believed in buying American and frowned on those who were buying Japanese imports. I purchased GM cars exclusively . I purchased a new J200 hatchback in 1983. Absolutely the worst car I ever owned. It was in the repair shop from day one. I was so go glad I purchased the three year warranty. But three years of hell with this piece of crap made me realize that I would never purchase another GM product. Inasmuch as the car sucked, GM’s corporate mentality and lack of customer service was the icing on the cake.
It reality, it was GM’s loss as I’ve purchase dozens of their Japanese competitors cars since with none ever coming close to the POS that I bought back then. Was so happy that GM once declared bankruptcy followed by Pontiac closing up shop. The moral of the story is that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but…..