Memories Of The Old GM And Its Cars

dave8697 · June 2009

The 4.0 Aurora had a cut out switch to prevent trying to start a motor that was already running. They made them too quiet. First time I let a BMW owner drive my Rivy he ground the starter into the flywheel. That's why they put a tach in them? But since the fuel shuts off at 90 mph, what other reason to have a tach?

zaken1 · June 2009

Only the camshaft sprocket was nylon (actually; it was a nylon overlay on a metal core); the crankshaft sprocket was the regular metal item. That nylon cam sprocket was also used on the 231ci Buick V-6. So GM was obviously very concerned about the image created by quiet engines. And GM formerly used pressed fiber camshaft gears on the old Chevy inline 6s for the same reason. I once replaced one of those fiber gears in a parking lot, after it disintegrated. Had to take the camshaft out and bring it to a machine shop to have the new metal gear pressed on. And the metal gear seemed like too sloppy a fit to me; so the machinist put some Loctite on the cam underneath the gear. It apparently held after that.

But Honda took a far more creative approach in dealing with the gear noise problem. They wanted to use a gear primary drive in their 160cc and 175cc twin cylinder motorcyles; but helical gears were unacceptable for that application; because of the side loading and power loss they create. Straight cut spur gears would have solved the side loading and power loss problems; but anyone who remembers the sound of a 1950s VW Beetle in first gear (They had a straight cut, non synchro spur first gear), which was typically audible a half block away, knows why that design would also be unacceptable. Honda engineers then designed a straight cut spur gear, with two offset parallel rows of teeth; which was essentially two identical spur gears mounted side by side; with one gear rotated 1/2 pitch from the other gear. The 1/2 pitch offset between the gears placed the teeth on each gear so they lined up halfway between the teeth on the other gear. That design reduced the backlash and play between the teeth so dramatically that this dual row spur gear was as quiet or quieter than a helical gear.

imidazol97 · June 2009

>once replaced one of those fiber gears

Now that you mention I had heard of the fiber gears. Interesting responses from both. Thanks.

corvette · June 2009

"The 4.0 Aurora had a cut out switch to prevent trying to start a motor that was already running."

AFAIK all GM vehicles now have this feature. This is from memory, so it may be off: When the ignition key is turned to the start position for more than 100 ms, the starter cranks for xxx ms, even if you let go of the key and allow it to return to the "run" position. The starter won't activate when the engine is running, even if you turn the key to the start position.

My old VW Jetta (and older BMWs) had a mechanical lockout that would only allow you to turn the ignition key to "start" one time per cycle. If the engine failed to start, you had to turn the key completely off before it would allow you to turn to the start position again.

Having one of these types of lockout is actually one of the pieces of technology I look for in forming my opinion about whether a car is state-of-the-art or not.

roadburner · June 2009

My old VW Jetta (and older BMWs) had a mechanical lockout that would only allow you to turn the ignition key to "start" one time per cycle. If the engine failed to start, you had to turn the key completely off before it would allow you to turn to the start position again.

My 2004 X3 has the manual lockout, as do my 2002 and 318ti. From about 2000 on the V8 Bimmers had an automatic start function to reduce wear and tear on the starter; just turn the key to start and release it. Of course all the BMWs with push button start share that feature.

zaken1 · June 2009

When I was 15 1/2, and had just gotten my first drivers license; a friend of the family, who owned a chain of gas stations, gave me a chance to drive his new 1957 Corvette. It had the (very conservatively rated) 283cid, 230HP engine; with a 3 speed close ratio stick shift (2.2:1 first gear) and a 3.08:1 rear end. I wanted to show the car to a friend whose father owned a Dodge dealership; so the owner of the Vette let me drive the car from San Jose, CA to Livermore, CA, while he sat in the passenger seat.

I was entranced by the sound of those throaty pipes and the whine of the gears, along with the taut, responsive handling and instant acceleration. I drove the car very carefully and conservatively; but when we reached my friend's house, the owner got in the driver's seat and took my friend and me for a demonstration ride. We drove to the long, straight road that was used as an unofficial drag strip, and the owner stopped at the beginning. He then got on it hard enough to spin the rear tires for about 75 feet, and when it got traction, he floored it and ran it up to 6,000rpm in first gear. That was 85mph; due to the 2.2:1 first and the 3.08 rear end. I was totally blown away by how hard it pulled; and even my Mopar loyal friend had to admit it was very fast. I later calculated the speeds it would have gone in second and third gear at 6,000rpm. They were 110mph in second, and 140mph in third.

Whatever mistakes and stupid decisions GM made in their days; the Corvette was a wonderful car; which in my mind, made up for countless blunders they did. Many years later, I tuned a modified 427 Vette; which was owned by the wife of another friend. I had a very different response to that one. It felt way overpowered and impractical, the all synchro 4 speed was rough and noisy, and I came away less than enthusiastic. But the '57 Vette was the stuff that legends are made of; and which teenagers dream about.

urbc · June 2009

They've been doing the same thing they've always done. Just better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEY5wycJtIE

corvette · June 2009

Your 2002 does that? Wow, the Germans really are 20 years ahead of everyone else.

cadillacmike · June 2009

NorthStars are DESIGNED to use oil to keep the rings from wearing out. The cross hatching on the cylinder walls is very agressive to hold oil. This causes consumption bue does not result in a blue cloud following one's car. I have nearly 120,000 miles on my 2000 ElDorado, and it's consumption is only about 1 qt between changes.

And I'll keep my Eldorado convertible over any Japanese car made then or now.

cadillacmike · June 2009

Sounds like a good morning vietnam flashback - when the big corporal was always trying to start the jeep when it was already running :P

isellhondas · June 2009

Anybody with a Northstar engine needs to know it's normal for them to use some oil. It's not a "bad" thing. Just normal for a Northstar.

andre1969 · June 2009

Chrysler started switching towards corporate motors around 1957. Before that, the various divisions had engines that were related in design, but shared very little in the way of components. I think 1957 was the first year that Plymouth and Dodge used the same-size 6-cyl. And that year DeSoto Firesweeps used a Dodge 325. Otherwise though, the divisions were pretty different, as Plymouth used mainly 277's and 301's (318 was a Fury only engine). Dodge had the 325 (although the D-501 used a Chrysler 354 Hemi) DeSoto's engine was the 341/345 Hemi. Chrysler used a 354 poly/392 Hemi.

In 1958, the "B" engine came out, in 350/361 configurations. Plymouth used the 350 in the Fury. Dodge used the 350 in the more upscale cars and the 360 in the D-500 package. DeSoto used the 350 in the Firesweep and 361 in everything else. Chrysler stayed with its old 354 and 392 engines.

For 1959, the 350 was dropped and 383 added, and a raised deck version was introduced as a Chrysler-only engine. It came in 382 CID (called a 383 just to add confusion, but different bore/stroke) and 413 versions. I think the raised-deck "383" was dropped after 1960. In 1961 you could get a 413 in a Dodge Dart or Plymouth Fury, so by that point, the corporate engine had pretty much transcended all boundaries at Mopar.

Ford started going towards corporate engines in the late 1950's as well, but don't know their history as well. Ford had the "Y-block" V-8 as standard but for 1958 two new big engines came out. One was the "MEL" engine, used in Mercurys, the bigger Edsels, and Lincolns. The other engine was the "FE" engine, used in Fords and the smaller Edsels. The old Y-block was eventually replaced by the smallblock "Windsor" that first came out as a 221 in the Falcon, but grew to 260, 289, 302, and eventually 351 CID. I believe the FE block was more or less replaced by the "Cleveland" block, and the MEL block was replaced by something called a "385" block, which was the 429 and 460.

By 1977, Chrysler had to deal with a slant six, smallblock V8, and bigblock. Ford had the Pinto 4, straight six, Windsor, Cleveland, and "385". In contrast, GM had a Chevy-6, smallblock V-8, and big-block (still in trucks), plus the Pontiac 4-cyl, Pontiac 301, and the older 350/400, plus the Olds V-8, plus the Buick V-6 and Buick V-8, plus the Cadillac V-8. GM also had a lot more volume than Ford or Chrysler, which no doubt helped, but having to deal with that many engines surely must have cut into their efficiency.

And interestingly, GM weathered the late 70's and early 80's rather well, while Chrysler almost went bankrupt in the late 70's, and truth be told, Ford wasn't far behind!

tlong · June 2009

Your 2002 does that? Wow, the Germans really are 20 years ahead of everyone else.

My 85 Jetta did that and so did my 66 beetle. So I guess they are actually 40 years ahead. :P

tlong · June 2009

NorthStars are DESIGNED to use oil to keep the rings from wearing out. The cross hatching on the cylinder walls is very agressive to hold oil. This causes consumption bue does not result in a blue cloud following one's car. I have nearly 120,000 miles on my 2000 ElDorado, and it's consumption is only about 1 qt between changes.

I wonder why Northstars do that when there are countless engines out there that don't wear rings and also don't need to burn a lot of oil? (Legitimate curiosity). Example - our Nissan engine in a Mercury Villager went 240K miles and still didn't burn any oil.

stever · June 2009

It's not a bug, it's a feature. :shades:

My Quest is only up to 132,000 miles and it uses no oil. My '97 Subaru takes a half quart now and then and it drives me crazy.

I suppose I wouldn't mind too much if this ride burned a bit of oil now and then:

Up for Auction: Harley Earl's Personal 1963 Corvette (Inside Line)

zaken1 · June 2009

Thank you for the information on the evolution of Chrysler corporate engine models.

Having owned a 1957 Dodge with the 325 poly V-8, I have a particular interest in Mopar vehicles of that vintage. So your comment about the 1957 Dodge D-501 having a Chrysler 354 Hemi; but the 354 Chrysler of the same year being a poly, leaves me confused. I know that Chrysler previously used a 354 Hemi in their own brand cars; but are you saying that they reintroduced the 354 as an economy poly version after they came out with the 392 Hemi?

Incidentally, one issue which many people miss is that there were two different 318s; the 1960-66 models all used a big block engine; which I think had solid lifters, and used 3/8" reach spark plugs. The last year of the 318 big block was 1967, but in that year, there was also a small block 318 with hydraulic lifters and 3/4" reach plugs; which was an enlarged version of the 273 that had first come out in 1965. And the small block 318 is the one that has continued ever since then; and also evolved into the 360.

To legalize this post with a citation about old GM memories; my Mother once owned a 1948 Chevy fastback 2 door. It had two awful design features: one is that the 3 speed column shift had a vacuum assist mechanism which further reduced the already minimal effort that would normally be required to move the gearshift lever. But the problem with that newfangled labor saving device was that it didn't work when the engine had stalled or was not turned on; so in those instances, it became almost impossible to shift the car into gear. I eventually bought a kit which disabled the vacuum shift assist. After that, it shifted like a regular car.

The second memory I have of that old stovebolt was that the windshield wipers were powered by intake manifold vacuum. But the small 90hp straight six had relatively little power; so it frequently took lots of throttle to climb hills or accelerate. However, when the throttle was opened more than about halfway; the manifold vacuum dropped low enough that the wipers slowed down to a crawl. And that dangerously reduced the visibility in wet weather; and made the car virtually undriveable in heavy rain.

My grandfather once had a 1948 Cadillac; which was his pride and joy. As a child, I was fascinated by the power windows; which I had never seen in a car before. But I didn't know that those power windows were powered by a hydraulic mechanism; and that the seals were relatively vulnerable to heat and abuse. So one day, I sat in the parked car while my grandfather was outside doing some kind of errand; and amused myself by running the windows up and down. The windows eventually stopped moving. When my grandfather returned, he saw a puddle of hydraulic fluid underneath the car!!! I don't think they ever connected me with that problem.

andre1969 · June 2009

Having owned a 1957 Dodge with the 325 poly V-8, I have a particular interest in Mopar vehicles of that vintage. So your comment about the 1957 Dodge D-501 having a Chrysler 354 Hemi; but the 354 Chrysler of the same year being a poly, leaves me confused. I know that Chrysler previously used a 354 Hemi in their own brand cars; but are you saying that they reintroduced the 354 as an economy poly version after they came out with the 392 Hemi?

Oh, cool! Which model Dodge did you have? As for the whole Hemi versus Poly thing, Chrysler started making some of their engines, for lack of a better word, modular. The Hemi heads were heavy and expensive to produce, so some engines came out with a cheaper, lighter poly-head versions. IIRC, Chrysler's first poly-head engine was in 1955. It was a 301 CID unit and put out something like 188 hp with a 2-bbl carb, or 200 with a 4-bbl. The Hemi that year was a 331. Without looking it up, I want to say it put out 250 hp in the NYer and Imperial, and the C-300 had 300 hp. The next year, 1956, Chrysler came out with a 354 Hemi for the NYer and 300B, while the 331 was reduced to a poly-head version and used in the Windsor. For 1957, the 392 Hemi came out, while the 354 became a poly-head, for use in the Windsor and the newly-introduced midline Saratoga series. It had 285 hp with the 2-bbl carb and 295 with the 4-bbl.

As for Dodge, they came out with the Red Ram Hemi in 1953, a tiny 241.3 CID unit with 140 hp. It was bored to 270.1 CID for 1955, but I'm not sure if Hemi versus Poly heads came into play yet. For 1956, there was a 270.1 with 189 hp, a 315, which was a stroke of the 270.1 that had 218 hp, and a higher-output verions with 230 or 260 hp. I think this was the first D500 option. I'm sure the D500 engines were Hemis, but I dunno about the lesser versions.

For 1957, the 315 was slightly bored to a 325. It had 245 hp with a 2bbl, 260 with a 4bbl, and the D500 version had 280 hp with a hotter 4-bbl, or 310 with dual quads. The 245/260 hp versions were just poly heads, but I think the D500 325 might have had the Hemi heads. Also that year, for the D-501 option, they used a 354 Hemi with dual quads and 340 hp. FWIW, that's the same hp as the standard engine in the 1956 Chrysler 300B, so it may have just been a carryover of that engine. Googling around, I found a blurb that mentions the D501 was actually a racecar-only version. They only built 100 of them, and only 4 are left today. They sold for $3314 apiece...a lot of money for the day, in theory, but my grandparents paid $3500 for a well-equipped Ford Fairlane 500 4-door hardtop that year, and I spec'd out my '57 DeSoto Firedome once, and figure it probably MSRP'ed for around $3800. Anyway, I found that blurb about the D-501 here.

wesleyg · June 2009

Interesting post about the old vettes. I'm in your age range, it seems, and owned 5 or 6 vettes since my first, a 1960 with 2 tops, dual quad 283, red and white which of course I still miss today. My oddest Corvette was a 1969 with a factory 427, that one would realy rip, but since I bought this one used, it had no power steering, it literally steered like a cement truck. Actually caused me to sell it after 10 months. To this day I cannot imagine what the original purchaser had in mind when he ordered it, since it surely could not have been a factory build without a specific order, who in their right mind would order such a beast.

hpmctorque · June 2009

The 241 and 260 Plymouth V8s had poly heads. It's interesting that the '55 241 Plymouth poly was rated at 157 hp, while the '53 Dodge hemi of the same displacement was rated at only 140 hp. Anyhow, here''s some interesting information from Allpar, regarding the '55 Plymouth V8...

"The new Plymouth "Hyfire" V8 was available in two displacement and three horsepower ranges. The 157 hp engine was of 241 cubic inches, while a 260 cubic inch engine produced 167 horsepower, and later, a mid-year addition of a power package (four-barrel carburetor and dual exhaust) increased the 260 to 177 horsepower. The latter engine was not part of the original plan. J.C. Zeder, Director of Engineering, claimed 'we are not seeking to develop higher speeds and greater power than anyone else. The increased speeds and torque of the 1955 Plymouth, when combined with the PowerFlite transmission, results in improved performance in low and middle ranges, plus greater economy.' In other words, Plymouth's new V8 was considered to be no more than a higher-powered extension of the traditional and reliable Plymouth flathead six. The horsepower race, at the time, was considered to be the exclusive property of luxury cars. But Chevrolet's new V8 brought that concept to an end and the horsepower race to the low-priced field. Plymouth had to respond, and they did  with the 1955 power package and later with the 1956 Fury.

The overhead V8 was another facet of the latest automotive fashion. Everyone had to have one if they wished to keep selling cars. So Plymouth had one. If people like Zeder had their way, the familiar flathead six would still be Plymouth's sole powerplant. It was still available in spite of automotive writers, who, caught up in the V8 fervor of the times, claimed that the days of the six were numbered, and that if it weren't for fleet buyers and a few thrifty individuals, it would vanish completely. This year for Plymouth, the 230 cid six was upped to 117 horsepower for those who really wanted it.

Those who really wanted the six appeared to be mostly in Canada. But then, the six was what the Chrysler Corporation of Canada mostly offered. On the north side of the border, only the Belvedere series was available with the new V8. It came either in the 240 or 260 size, but not with the power package. The Plaza and Savoy series were six-cylinder powered only. The body availability in these series was different from that in the US, as was the model coding. The Plaza was coded P26-1 and was available as a four door sedan, a club coupe and as a two-door wagon. The Savoy was called P26-2 (not P26-3 as in the US) and it came in four (not two) body styles: four door sedan, club coupe, special club coupe (hardtop) and four door wagon. The Belvedere was designated P27-2 (as in the US) and was available In the same four body styles as the Savoy. Later demand brought on a six-cylinder Belvedere series under a P26-4 designation- The Savoy hardtop was the beginning of a common Canadian practise of offering this body style one model lower than in the U.S. When ordered with twotone paint, the Savoy even came with the Belvedere side trim! The Canadian Savoy outsold all other series combined, and Plymouth's sixes outsold its eights five- to-one. It would be two years before Plymouth's V8 would outsell the six in Canada.

Of course the Canadian Plymouth six continued to be the 25" long block. In fact a six-cylinder PowerFlite car came with the big 251 ci engine just discontinued on the Chrysler Windsor. Surprisingly, this engine was larger in displacement than the small V8 Plymouth offered. Not surprisingly, only 486 of the 241 V8 engines were sold in Canadian Plymouths that year."

dave8697 · June 2009

Northstars are up to 300 HP and rev about 1k rpm at redline higher than the typical GM V8 preceeding it. Oil consumption of a qt between oil changes may be avg for all cars at 120k miles and 7500 miles between oil changes.

zaken1 · June 2009

Thanks for the additional information. My best friend in High School was the son of a Dodge Dealer. So we spent many nights cruising around in his 1956 Dodge D500, (on which the solid lifters made significant noise until the engine was fully warmed up) and later in his 1957 Plymouth Fury (on which he had installed the dual quad manifold). The mechanics at the dealership were highly motivated to make his cars as fast as possible, and I eagerly followed everything they did. We also did lots of legal and illegal drag racing in those cars. So I came to appreciate the advantages of Mopar engineering.

I bought my '57 Dodge in 1966. I had a job as a service technician for burglar and fire alarm systems; and was often driving long distances; so I needed a car that would be reliable. The car was a bread and butter 4 door sedan; I think it was a Coronet. It had the 325 poly engine with a Stromberg WW 2 barrel carb, single exhaust and 2 speed Powerflite transmission. I couldn't afford to make it look nice; but I put a lot of work into the mechanicals. Freshened the motor with a ring and valve job; along with a set of anti pump up hydraulic lifters. Bought 4 new Michelin tires, Monroe HD shocks, installed a noticeable but not obnoxious dual exhaust system, assembled and installed one of the early model CDI ignitions; I think it was a Heathkit (I used to be able to quote all those names and models; but after 43 years, I don't remember it all anymore) and a Mallory coil. Then bought a Stromberg jet wrench (which I still have) and a Mallory adjustable pressure electric fuel pump; and began blueprinting the tuning. Eventually got it up to 21mpg. But the car looked like a beater.

One day, a CHP car stopped me as I went through the toll plaza on the Golden Gate Bridge. The officer had spotted the crack in my windshield. He walked up to me and began looking over the car. He noticed the brand new Michelins, and then saw the fire extinguisher mounted in the passenger footwell. At that, he turned to me and said "I saw the crack in your windshield; but I can see now that the car is well maintained; so I'm not going to make an issue of it. Drive carefully, and have a nice day!!!" And he drove away. That left me with a good feeling.

dieselone · June 2009

The 4.0 Aurora had a cut out switch to prevent trying to start a motor that was already running. They made them too quiet.

Heck, my wife's 01 Impala with the crappy 3.4 had that feature. I figured they put it in their because the clientele was loosing their hearing. LOL. The 3.4 was hardly refined. I believe my wife's current '07 GP with the 3800 v6 has the same feature. I can't remember because I try my best never to drive it. IMO, you'd have to be deaf and numb all over to not realize it' running.

tlong · June 2009

Thanks for the added info. I wonder if there is some formula for oil consumption which might be a function of displacement and average rpm or something like that?

dieselone · June 2009

Thanks for the added info. I wonder if there is some formula for oil consumption which might be a function of displacement and average rpm or something like that?

For me it's been all over the map. I've had engines big and small, low revving and high revving that have and have not used oil. The worst was a '92 Saturn SL2 that burned about a 1qt every 500 miles after 60k miles and Saturn said it was normal.

My first car was a '75 Buick Regal with a 350, my grandpa bought it new and gave it to me in '87. It used a qt every 1,000 miles since it was new. It still lasted well over 130k. Trans was heading south when I got rid of it.

I had a '98 Ford SVT Contour which had a DOHC 2.5L 195hp v6 that would easily rev to it's 7200rpm fuel cut off. It never used a drop of oil over the 75k miles I put on it and I beat that car using it in many SCCA Solo II competitions and such.

The '03 305 v8 in our boat has never used any oil either and you'll be hard pressed to find a harsher environment for a car engine (basically a car engine with a few marine spec parts). It's spent many hours running 1/2 to full throttle at 3k - 5k rpm.

I had a '95 Neon with the DOHC 150hp 2.0L 4cylinder that also would rev to 7k rpm and it would occasionally use a qt per oil change interval, never a big deal. I'd have to add a qt occasionally to my 5.3 powered Suburban, primarily if I had been towing the camper or boat a lot in hot weather. The 5.4 in my Expedition has yet to use any oil at 51k miles.

I think the owners manual in every vehicle I've owned has stated some oil consumption is considered normal. It probably comes down to variation in the manufacturing process. Some will some won't I guess unless it's a Northstar and then it's considered a normal side effect of it's exotic machining process or whatever...LOL

isellhondas · June 2009

I don't understand why it's a big deal to add a quart of oil once in awhile.

I've had a couple of Mazda RX-7's and they need to burn some oil. I know that I had to watch the oil level and add a quart about once every 1000 miles.

If I had a Northstar I would do the same thing. Not a big deal.

With our Hondas, I rarely check the oil level between changes and I guess I should in case they decide to start using a bit of oil.

xrunner2 · June 2009

I don't understand why it's a big deal to add a quart of oil once in awhile.

Many years/decades ago, that was the norm, the expectation. In my own experience with GM vehicles with V8's in the 70's, 80's, 90's, adding oil was not questioned.

Starting in 1984 with first Honda, I was pleasantly surprised that it did not need any oil additions to crankcase between changes. That has been my experience with many Hondas and Acuras (and Nissan) since then.

The Japanese auto builders had refined the engineering of their engines to have attributes of good power, reliability and no (or extremely low) oil consumption between changes.I recall the sales brochure of my 97 Maxima extolling the advanced engineering features of their engine including a term, if I recall, micro fine finishing on all interior engine and component touching surfaces.

Apparently, GM was incapable of engineering a Northstar engine without having to use a quart of oil every 1k-1.5k from what I hear.

Imagine if norm was "burning" one quart of oil every 1k miles for every vehicle manufactured today. What a waste of petroleum resource, not to mention added pollution.

dieselone · June 2009

It's not a big deal IMO.

lemko · June 2009

but people have better things to do with their time than baby their cars.

They do? :surprise: I can't think of anything better!

lemko · June 2009

Also, the Northstar holds more oil: 8 qts vs. the usual 5.

lemko · June 2009

Wow. If this is Harley Earl's personal 'Vette, he'd have been 71 years-old when it was new! Go, Grandpa, go!

xrunner2 · June 2009

Jim Mateja, Chicago Tribune writer/tester for last 30 years, listed his 10 most memorable GM cars in yesterdays newspaper.

1959 Cadillac  sports largest tail fins ever
2002 Cadillac CTS  saved the division with its leading edge design
1954 Chevrolet Corvette  true American sports car
1957 Chevrolet Bel Air  featured tail fins, one of most popular collector cars
1960 Chevrolet Corvair  immortalized Ralph Naders Unsafe at Any Speed
1967 Chevrolet Camaro/Pontiac Firebird  double barrel competition for Ford Mustang
1964 Pontiac GTO  launched muscle car era in US
1984 Pontiac Fiero  last minute GM decision made it a 4-cyl econocar
2001 Pontiac Aztek  defined butt ugly
1996 EV1  started life as Impact, the worse car name ever

No Buick, Oldsmobile, Saturn, Hummer, GMC, Saab on top 10 list.

Pictures of the cars were shown by decades: 50's, 60's, 80's, 90's, 00's. Nothing memorable from 70's by him.

lemko · June 2009

Yeah, that's HIS opinion. Notice there's nothing before the 1950s either and a few glaring omissions. Why mention the 1954 Corvette when the 1953 model was the first Corvette? The CTS debuted as a 2003 model, not a 2002. I wouldn't credit it as having saved the Cadillac division as much as the Escalade. The EV1 is memorable? By whom? Why is the EV1 a bad name? I'd say "Edsel" was a much worse name. Even the Ford family didn't really like it. Notice, he only mention three as to bash GM. I'm surprised the knucklehead didn't mention the Vega if that was his intention.

Memorable Buicks:
1936 Buick Century
1941 Buick Limited
1949 Buick Roadmaster
1953 Buick Skylark
1958 Buick Limited
1963-65 Buick Riviera
1965-70 Buick GS
1966-69 Buick Riviera
1971 Buick Riviera
1987 Buick Grand National

Memorable Oldsmobiles:
1902 Oldsmobile Curved Dash
1948 Oldsmobile 88
1953 Oldsmobile Fiesta
1962 Oldsmobile Starfire
1964-1972 Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser
1966-69 Oldsmobile Toronado
1968-72 Oldsmobile 442

Lemko's All-Time Memorable GM Cars, (Now, this is just my opinion! :P ):
1955 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Starfire
1961 Chevrolet Biscayne
1962 Chevrolet Corvair
1964 Chevrolet Biscayne
1965 Chevrolet Impala
1965 Pontiac GTO
1967 Chevrolet Bel Air
1968 Buick Special Deluxe
1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham
1970 Chevrolet Impala Custom
1971 Chevrolet Impala
1973 Chevrolet Impala
1974 Chevrolet Impala
1975 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1978 Chevrolet Impala
1979 Buick Park Avenue
1979 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Regency
1980 Chevrolet Citation
1982 Chevrolet Malibu Classic
1982 Chevrolet Caprice Classic
1987 Chevrolet Caprice Classic
1988 Buick Park Avenue
1989 Cadillac Brougham
1994 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
2001 Chevrolet Impala
2002 Cadillac Seville STS
2005 Buick LaCrosse CXL
2007 Cadillac DTS Performance

hpmctorque · June 2009

The most awesome Buicks on your list, in my opinion, considering their period were the first three ('36 Century [arguably the first muscle car with big engine in a mid size body], '41 Limited, '41 Roadmaster), and the '63 Riviera. The were drop dead gorgeous cars.

I think you may have meant the '49 Olds 88, which was the first model year for the all-new Rocket V8. It was introduced in the fall of '48.

The first generation Toronado was a break-through design, even though several European cars and Cord featured front wheel drive much earlier. I believe the Toro was the first powerful FWD V8 with automatic transmission, with available seating for six.

xrunner2 · June 2009

Yeah, that's HIS opinion. Notice there's nothing before the 1950s either and a few glaring omissions.

Remember, memorable can be postive or negative. I would agree that if list were expanded, then 63-65 Buick Riviera and 66 Olds Toronado should be added as positives to Mateja's list to bring it up to 12. Note that Mateja "actually" test drives cars (for 30 years) then writes about them in the Tribune.

Perhaps we could start a GM Memorable list of its 100 worst cars. Start with Vega, then Cimmaron, Citation, Chevette, 4-6-8 Cad or was it Olds, etc, etc.

imidazol97 · June 2009

Let's stick with more or less positive things in this topic. :shades: There are plenty of other topics where the discussions have been allowed to be negative.

xrunner2 · June 2009

Given GM's sorry bankrupt state, there are of course many negatives that people have memories about. While I had good experiences and enjoyment from GM vehicles owned continuously over 35 years (3 at a time in one 7 year span), I had my share of grief. We can share all kinds of memories. Board topic does not say "Positive" Memories of the Old GM and its cars.

tomcatt630 · June 2009

My parents' 70 Monte Carlo was a great 2nd car and never broke down as our '68 Plymouth Fury wagon did. Had it only 2 years, 73-75. Ran great until it got rear ended and frame was bent, :sick:

andre1969 · June 2009

We can share all kinds of memories. Board topic does not say "Positive" Memories of the Old GM and its cars.

Well, the newest GM car I've ever owned was a 1986 Monte Carlo, and it was a great car until it got t-boned with 192K miles on the clock. So for the most part, my memories of GM have been fairly positive. At least, if I've gotten stuck with any crap GM cars, I can lay the blame more on old age/previous owner(s), than at GM's doorstep.

I just have to keep that thought in my mind when I go home tonite, if I decide to try playing with my '76 Grand LeMons again and it decides not to start. :shades:

isellhondas · June 2009

Of the 50's and 60's were so much better than the cars Ford and Chrysler were putting out. Compare a 1965 Malibu to a 1965 Fairlane and the quality differences jump out at you.

Lincolns and Imperials wre never up to the level of a Cadillac and a Buick Riviera was a much better car than a Thunderbird.

My opinion, I know, and yours may differ.

iwant12 · June 2009

I meant to ask you, andre, is that the original paint on your Pontiac? In the pictures, it looks pretty sharp. The Grand Prixs of that era were also good-looking cars.

Regards,
Dale

andre1969 · June 2009

I meant to ask you, andre, is that the original paint on your Pontiac? In the pictures, it looks pretty sharp. The Grand Prixs of that era were also good-looking cars.

Thanks, it actually looks better in pictures than in person though! The car was repainted at some point in its life. It was originally a color called "Firethorne", which was kind of a dark metallic red. Last year, at a car show in Macungie PA I snapped a shot of this 1976-ish Ventura, which I think is Firethorne...

It's now painted a darker burgundy color, and honestly, they didn't do the best job in the world. One of those jobs where if you open the trunk, hood, or doors you can see the original color. At least it's a similar color though, not like they took a white car and tried to paint it black, or something clashy like that!

BTW, my LeMans was supposed to go to that car show, where I saw that Ventura, but it died then, so at the last minute, I had to substitute this...

It was kind of amusing...I had a 1965 or so Chrysler on one side of me, and I struck up a conversation with the owner, who thought it was kinda neat to see my car, since the R-body Mopars are kind of rare. Well, I mentioned that I had originally planned on putting in a '76 LeMans, but the GM piece of crap let me down. I hadn't noticed that 1960 Caddy that pulled in beside me on the show field, and I think the driver heard me say that...he didn't seem amused!

I think the 1976 Grand Prix is really sharp, but with the 1977, there's one little detail that bugs me. I just don't like the way they stuck the turn signal in between the headlights. Gives it sort of a clumsy, swollen look IMO. Still, in the right color, with the right engine, they're nice cars!

cisco19 · June 2009

It was 1971 or 1972 and my Mom and Dad purchased a beautiful Pontiac Bonneville two-door coupe it was a large white car with a black roof. I could still remember riding in it many a times then I guess it broke down and it was gone. Then some years later, my Dad's friends had a beautiful maroon red Oldsmobile Cutlass Sedan, it was just sheer beauty of a car. General Motors made some great and beautiful automobiles and I have not even mentioned Chevrolet or Cadillac. I pray to God that General Motors does not disappear.

Karen_S · June 2009

Join Consumer Advice Editor, Phil Reed, and other Edmunds staff for an auto industry chat Wednesday night, 9:00 -10:00 pm/et (6:00 -7:00 pm/pt). To enter the chat, click on the banner at the top of the page. See you there!

tomcatt630 · June 2009

The Ventura is nice, but it overlapped the Omega and Skylark. The Phoenix replaced it but it was overshadowed by Skylark as GM's 'mid priced compact'.

Eventaully, the 1980-84 Phoenix was FWD, then replaced by 1985+ N body Grand Am, which had more character, and then it overshadowed the Buick and Olds versions.

hpmctorque · June 2009

Pontiac was very much on the right track with the '85-'91 Grand Am. I bought a new '86 4 cylinder (the OHV Iron Duke) 2 door with the 4-speed and handling package. Excellent car with attractive styling, and a super value for it's day. Drove it 188,000 miles before it blew a head gasket, at which point I junked it rather than fixing it, because someone had backed into the drivers side door shortly before the gasket went, and the A/C compressor broke at ~152,000. This car was very low maintenance, and still had the original clutch, although much of my driving at the time was highway.

The only weakness of that car, given it's price, was the engine. It defined the term agricultural. A neighbor who heard it idling once asked me if it was a diesel, and he was serious. Once those engines had a few miles on them the timing gear wore, and they emitted a loud, crude sound, kind of like you'd expect an old diesel farm tractor to sound.

I considered the 3.0 V6, which I believe was a small displacement version of the Buick V6, but the only transmission available with that engine was a 3-speed automatic. I was looking for better fuel economy at that time. The V6 was an okay engine, for its day, but not all that good. Nevertheless, I might have chosen it if I could have coupled it to a five-speed.

For the '90 model year GM did an odd thing with the Iron Duke engine. They commissioned John Deere, of all companies, to substitute a timing chain for the timing gear. That accomplished the goal of quieting the engine down. A couple of other detail changes also boosted the horsepower, but GM then dropped that engine when it redesigned the "N" compact platform for the '92 model year. The results of that redesign were lackluster, at best. The Grand Am got tackier looking, the Olds Cutlass Calais was replaced by the underwhelming (un)Achieva(r), and the Buick Skylark acquired weird styling. I kind of liked the Achieva coupe and the rather strange looking Skylark coupe, though, but not the 4 doors. I though the unusual looking dashboard design of the '92-'95 Skylark was neat.

Based on my experience with my '86 Grand Am I would have bought another "N" coupe if the Quad 4 engine hadn't been a disaster. That engine was very promising on paper, in that it was both powerful and economical. Unfortunately, it was a disaster, durability wise, so that '86 Grand Am was the last new GM car I ever bought.

berri · June 2009

I had a Ciera with the Iron Duke. It literally could not pass a semi on a wet interstate with a strong headwind! pathetic

andre1969 · June 2009

I knew a guy who had a 1985 Somerset Regal with the 2.5 and a stick shift. I think he and his wife ended up getting around 190,000 miles out of it, and the only thing I can remember him saying went bad with it was the headliner...which they had some Amish people replace for around $150. I lost contact with him years ago, though, so I dunno how long they ultimately kept the car. I knew him through the Maryland DeSoto club, but I distanced myself from that club because I got tired of hearing the other members reminiscing about the War Between the States and such :shades: And he ended up selling his '55 Fireflite Coronado and getting a '72 Corvette that would have done Larry Tate proud.

When my Mom wanted a new car in 1986, she initially wanted a Grand Am. However, my Granddad talked her out of it and she got a Monte Carlo instead. I think Granddad told her not to get any 4-cyl FWD crap because he wouldn't be able to work on it!

Now that I think about it, my uncle was thinking about a Grand Am in 1990. He went to Bob Banning Pontiac/Dodge in New Carrolton to look at them. By that time though, I think they had changed the interiors enough that they were getting cheaper and weirder. At least I remember him saying he didn't like the Grand Am because it was too plasticky, so he bought, of all things, a used 1988 LeBaron coupe!

I liked the N-body when it first came out. They seemed really well-appointed initially, although they did cheap out a bit in later years (plus that odd 1992 redesign). One reason they might have seemed so upscale is that, had gas gone to $3.00 per gallon and gov't kept tightening fuel economy standards, these N-bodies would have been replacements for the Regal, Grand Prix, and Cutlass Supreme. And most likely, there would have been a Monte Caro version, too.

Back in 1992, I went to California, and was supposed to get a Dodge Colt or something like that as a rental car. However, they ran out of their cheap cars, and substituted a new Grand Am for me. I was excited at first, since these cars seemed like a big deal at the time, but unfortunately it was a piece of junk. It was crude, unrefined, and while it was kinda quick from, say, 0-60, it seemed to bog down at higher speeds. The 1991 Civic sedan I'd had as a rental 6 months before was actually a better highway cruiser. The Grand Am also had a short in the horn, that would make it honk when I hit a bump, or turned the wheel the wrong way. At first we thought it was cute, until it went off and got stuck late at night in a bad neighborhood. I looked all over for the fuse panel and couldn't find it. I think it was in the side of the dash and you couldn't see unless you opened the door, but I had never experienced that in a car before, so I didn't know to look there. I ended up popping the cover off the steering wheel and disconnecting a wire!

That '91 Civic had actually given me a newfound respect for small cars. However, this '92 Grand Am made me think, what the hell is GM doing?!

hpmctorque · June 2009

Now that you mention it, I recall that I had to replace the headliner once also.

"...there would have been a Monte Caro version, too."

I'm not sure whether the Corsica/Beretta used the "N" platform, or a modified N. I've read conflicting things on these Chevy models. Maybe they had their own unique platform, and just shared some platform components with the other Ns. I don't really know.

Corsica/Beretta had some engines that were exclusive to Chevy. For example, the 2.0 and 2.2 OHV 4 was not shared with Pontiac, Olds and Buick Ns. The 2.8 V6 was aslo a Corsica/beretta exclusive, but I believe the 3.1 V6 was shared only with the Achieva.

xrunner2 · June 2009

The 2.8 V6 was aslo a Corsica/beretta exclusive, but I believe the 3.1 V6 was shared only with the Achieva.

Recall reading back then that the Baretta with V6 had ridiculous requirement to undo engine from mounts, move somehow to get at some of the spark plugs when replacement needed. More GM excellence in engineering.

au1994 · June 2009

I got an 89 Beretta in the spring of 1990. It was a former rental that my dad got at auction and had, less than 10k when I got it. It was a stripper, no cassettte, no pwr windows or locks. It had the 2.0 4cyl and a 3 spd auto and was absolutely dog slow. Even when I got it the top was already orange peeling, but really did not get that much worse in the 5 yrs I owned it. I put about 65k on it and in that time the drivers side window jumped out of track twice, alternator went at about ~40k, engine control module went at ~30k, freeze plugs went at ~60k.

Decent enough looking car and the interior materials were not bad for the time. Obviously the alternator and computer module left me stranded, but it did get me through college and about a year beyond that when I traded it on a Tacoma 4x4. I gave the General another chance with a GMC Canyon, but it just wasn't me. Not an all bad little truck, but definitely miles away from the Frontier or Tacoma.

I hope they emerge stronger an leaner. It seems that they do everything about 80%. Good design...poor interior. Good interior...poor assembly. Maybe the new company can get it right.

Memories Of The Old GM And Its Cars

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles