Cars That Could Have Been Great, But Missed

hpmctorque

There was a time in the '70s when GM was working on rotary engine designed, and even talked about converting all of its engines to rotaries. I think the rotary's combination of relatively low weight, power and packaging possibilities were seen as the advantages. Low fuel economy and high emissions killed that initiative.

If GM had proceeded to convert even some of it's models to rotary engines, it probably would have joined GM's passenger car diesels as yet another might have been great that missed. I'm not critical of GM for their research into the rotary engine, though. On the contrary. The company investigated it, and ultimately rejected it. GM deserves credit for trying something new.

lemmer

I remember, possibly correctly, that the rotary was slated for the AMC Pacer at one point.

hpmctorque

That's right. AMC was planning to buy the rotary engines for the Pacer from GM. the Pacer's legacy could heve been quite different if only... Yeah, if only.

Mr_Shiftright

You mean the Pacer could have been worse than it ended up as? :P

lemmer

Shifty, the eternal optimist....

texases

(ap) Kenosha, WI, Jan. 23, 1977 - AMC announced all Pacer sales and production have been halted, pending resolution of a $400,000,000 class-action lawsuit over failed Wankel engines. Compainents claimed that high initial gas and oil usage was followed by complete engine failure, allegedly caused by poor rotor seal design. GM, a named co-defendant, was unavailable for comment.

andre1969

You mean the Pacer could have been worse than it ended up as?

Well, they mainly used AMC 258 6-cyl and 304 V-8's, hooked to Torqueflite transmissions, didn't they? I'd guess the powertrains, at least, might not have been too bad. I think I read somewhere that the rear-end they were using actually dated back to the old 1950's Nashes, although that could be a rumor.

hpmctorque

Oh, sure! Just imagine if the Pacer had had a new technology,bleeding edge '70s GM engine. At least the AMC I-6 same a solid, time tested unit.

Mr_Shiftright

It's just such a goofy car coupled to primitive tech. I dunno, it does nothing for me. It's almost....well.....in the face of all that was being developed in the automotive industry worldwide.....sort of pathetic, really.

"Hey, mom, I baked a cookie...it's kinda burnt".

It's a car that couldn't have been anything...well I take that back...maybe it could have morphed into other goofy cars, like the Scion xB or the Nissan Cube??

hpmctorque

"sort of pathetic, really."

In a way, that accounts for some of the Pacer's charm. Look, AMC was on the ropes, and we were just coming out of a serious recession when, on a shoe string budget, the company desperately tried a long shot. It tried to introduce an all new, completely different niche car, with parts bin components. Not a bad strategy, for a company with few options. The long shot obviously missed, and missed badly. But, for many years to come, attendees at classic car shows will take time to look at the one or two Pacers that are on display. Those who know the history of the car will cut AMC some slack for its failed effort.

andre1969

Those who know the history of the car will cut AMC some slack for its failed effort.

Heck, I might even go so far as to call it "noble attempt", rather than "failed effort". And I think the Pacer actually did sell tolerably for a while. I think it had a couple years where it was over 100,000 units. Not too shabby for a company that was otherwise going down-hill fast.

They were kind futuristic looking for the time, too, although when I was a kid, I remember we used to make fun of them. And they used to remind me of that little thing the Mammoth Car smeared into an embankment in an episode of Speed Racer. Although in retrospect, that was probably inspired by an Isetta. Not to mention the fact that Speed Racer probably pre-dates the Pacer by about 8-9 years!

I remember sitting in one in the junkyard years ago. It was the larger, station wagon model, and considering the quality of the seats, it was probably a higher trim level. It had just been received by the junkyard, and hadn't been torn into yet. I remember thinking that it was a comfortable little car...up front, at least. The back was miserable, though. It was like they took the front seat of a comfy mid-70's intermediate and combined it with the back seat of a subcompact.

Mr_Shiftright

No,...... I think "pathetic" is good. :P

Most companies, when they die, produce an elegant swan song (can we say Auburn Speedster? Packard Caribbean? Studebaker Avanti?).

There's no excuse for slinking off into the night and leaving a mess behind.

andre1969

Most companies, when they die, produce an elegant swan song (can we say Auburn Speedster? Packard Caribbean? Studebaker Avanti?).

I dunno...the first thing I think of is the 1958 Packard Hawk, the Studebaker Lark that Francis Bavier drove to her grave, the 1961 DeSoto. 1960 Edsel (although it was the best looking of the bunch) K-car base Imperial. The final Plymouth produced was a Neon. The final Olds was most likely an Alero. The final, Nash-based Hudsons (Hashes) were dreadful things. Although the final big Nash, the 1957, I found to be reasonably attractive.

Granted, most of those were divisions, rather than individual companies. But usually car brands, like tv shows, "jump the shark". They don't go out with a bang, or end on a high note.

I wonder what the last Saturn or Pontiac to roll off the assembly line was? Now Saturn really doesn't have the heritage of the other brands, so to be fair, they weren't reduced to crap towards the end like so many others. With Pontiac, I hope the last one to roll off the assembly line was at least a G8 or Solstice. But watch it end up being some rental-spec G3 or G5...G6 at best. :sick:

berri

"There's no excuse for slinking off into the night and leaving a mess behind"

Hey, its actually kind of ironic - they sold to Renault and the French didn't they. People use the sidewalks as toilets in Paris.

andre1969

People use the sidewalks as toilets in Paris.

Didn't they also plant nice, big trees along all the roads so that the [non-permissible content removed] could march in the shade? :surprise:

BTW, I was in Paris back in 1994, and I had been warned, that people tend to view the world as their urinal. I remember sitting in a restaurant, looking out over the sidewalk, and saw this little boy with his mother. Well, the little boy whipped it out and was about to let loose, but the mother chided him and he put it back. So, the times, they are a'changing. However, I do remember the subway stations were kinda reeky.

tomcatt630

"AMC was on the ropes ... we were just coming out of a serious recession..."

First, the Pacer was not 'whipped up' overnight during the 1975 recession. Also, AMC was doing OK during 1970-74 time frame, when Pacer was in its design stages. The loss of the GM Wankel delayed the Pacer to spring 1975. But, the new for 1974 Matador coupe took a lot of development cash, and bombed badly. :lemon:

Pacer sold well its first year to the 'first on the block' buyers, but then declined. At that point, around 1977-78, then AMC was on the ropes. Renault then came in and bought controlling interest.

andre1969

That Matador coupe was an ugly looking thing, but didn't they actually do pretty good on the NASCAR circuit?

My biggest gripe about it is the headlights, with the bug-eyed/frog-eyed/frenched look or whatever they call that look. I think if they could have found a way to integrate the headlights better, or make them hideaway, it could've looked pretty sharp.

The sedans and wagons weren't TOO hideous looking, although that swollen nose was a bit much...kinda like a big Dodge Dart that took a punch in the nose.

AMC also evidently knew something about space efficiency, because, according to the EPA, those Matador sedans are the only old-school intermediates that actually classify as full-size when it comes to interior volume. They were rated at 110 cubic feet of interior volume, 20 cubic feet of trunk space.

In contrast, something like a 1978 Cougar/LTD-II sedan was only rated at 101 interior, 16 trunk. The 1978 Fury/Monaco were 101/20. I don't know what GM's '73-77 intermediates were, as the EPA's website only goes back to 1978, but I'd guess around 101 for the interior, and only 14-15 for the trunk!

The '77 Impala/Caprice, the new benchmark for full-sized cars, was 111/20.

So, AMC was building downsized full-sized cars before anybody, but they just didn't realize it!

texases

"My biggest gripe about it is the headlights, with the bug-eyed/frog-eyed/frenched look or whatever they call that look."

The Matador had NOTHING on these things:

lilengineerboy

While the EXP looked silly, the Dodge Omni 024 and Charger/Turismo had the headlight thing going on like that too. The pop up looking headlights that were always up...

uplanderguy

Those EXP's and LN7's were ugly, and expensive to boot! I remember a college friend who bought a new one, and it stickered at $9,100--a grand more than the new '81 Monte Carlo V8 I bought.

lemko

My brother and I would joke that EXP stood for EXtensively Plastic! :P

hpmctorque

If the Ford EXP and Mercury LN7 disappointed on looks, they certainly didn't compensate with performance. One reason for that is, for whatever reason, they were heavier than their sedan counterparts. The Dodge and Plymouth compact coupes were also heavier than the sedans, but they had decent styling..

Now, the EXP/LN7 didn't have the DNA to be great, but they really should have been better. By comparison, I think the Charger/Turismo met expectations.

armes

There is a Ford Mustang in the Auto Museum Behind the Dusenberg Museum in Auburn, Indiana. This was one of the prototypes that Ford used to tinker with the rotary engine. Looks strange to see a little Wankel in a Stang!!! :surprise:

Mr_Shiftright

Mr. Wankel really put one over on the Japanese...clever man.

Lucky for us, we didn't adopt the Wankel---imagine THAT just before the first gas crisis of 1973.

martian

I am one of the lucky few that had a good Vega. Mine was the higher output engine, and it handled well, The 4-speed tranny shifted well. I drove mine to 88,000 miles, then I gave it to my brother. Its end was spectatcular-he was at a tolbooth on the Mass Pike-and a pistion cracked-clous of white smoke before the engine seized.
He ivested $800 on a steel-liner block, and drove it another 4 years.
I remember a mechanic commented on the weird brown scum in the radiator overflow tank-that was the aluminum block, corroding and blocking the radiator.
GM-oh why don't you learn from your mistakes?? :sick:

martian

You are right. How did the Germans pawn off their crappy A/C systems in the USA? Most of them won't cool the car down at 70F. I also thought their radios sucked big time (lousy FM sensitivity)-although that probably is due to FM stations being 50 miles apart in Europe.I guess that is why SAABs and Volvos all came with Clarion radios (nicht Blaupunkt!) :shades:

bhill2

I would like to stretch the word 'great' and nominate the Mercury. It never would have been a world beater, but I think that it could have been (and periodically was) much more than just a badge-engineered Ford. In the early '50s it looked completely different than a Ford, and in fact more like a junior Lincoln. In the later '50s, especially '57, it was a far more striking car than the Ford as well as more luxurious (in the context of the time of course). That is, during this time the Mercury was a car for a Ford owner to aspire to. In the '60s and beyond the difference between the two marques became less and less, but I would point out one more example; if I had been in the market for a personal car in '67 (which I could only dream of being), I would have gone into the Mercury dealer for a Cougar without even glancing at a Mustang. In short, maybe never great but a lot more desirable than it became.

Mr_Shiftright

the only way a Mercury could have been great in the 60s would be if there was no Mustang ever made. It will always live in the shadow of the Mustang and since there are a gazillion 60s Mustangs still out there, this shadow isn't going away.

I think the 49-51 Mercs were very cool and probably, IMO, the only Mercs to ever approach greatness----why? Because they were iconic----James Dean and all that jazz. They appeared in movies, on posters and are still popular with people building period rods and customs.

I thought post 56 Mercs were rather grotesque.

bhill2

Well, from the perspective of the present a lot of late '50s cars were rather grotesque. The sense of the statement was that they were very distinct from Fords, much like Buicks (which were also rather grotesque) were distinct from Chevrolets, and at the time considered an upgrade. As I said, I am not actually saying that Mercuries were great, they just had considerable unrealized potential. With regard to the Cougar, you are right that it probably would not have existed without the Mustang. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't more desirable. The gen 1 Mustang was, after all, basically a Falcon in a prettier wrapper. IMHO the gen 1 Cougar demonstrates how much better the gen 2 Mustang could have looked if Ford had put the right people on the job. It was also better fitted. That is why I used it as an example of what Mercury could have been.

andre1969

I think in some ways the 1957-58 Mercury was a bit ahead of its time. I really don't think the '57 is all that bad, unless you got the models with the hideously grafted-on quad headlights. But it was just a heavy-handed looking car in general, and rather boxy in shape for a 1950's car. In contrast, the middle-priced GM cars that Mercury went against were more rounded and sleek, and the Mopars, well they just about made everybody look ancient that year.

But, that rounded-off swoopy style wouldn't last, and big tailfins would soon become out of style.. And, what did cars become in the 1960's? boxy, for the most part. Sure, they'd get swoopier and fatter later in the decade, but in many ways, a '57 Mercury just seems like an early 60's car, in 50's drag.

1957-60 was the only time, IMO, that Mercury really had its own true identity. It was neither junior Lincoln nor senior Ford, but finally stood on its own. It was also moved upscale and tried to increase its customer base, to where instead of being mainly just a Dodge/Pontiac competitor, it also competed with DeSoto, Oldsmobile, Buick, and Chrysler. They moved it upscale to clear some room for Edsel, but then when Edsel failed, Mercury was moved back downscale, to once again become, for the most part, a glammed up Ford that competed with Dodge and Pontiac.

I always thought the 1959 Mercury was a handsome looking car. I guess they lost a ton on that investment though. I had always thought it was just a facelifted '57-58, but it was supposedly all-new for '59, and had no Edsel counterpart. For 1960 it was given an extensive facelift that to me, made it look all-new, and then for 1961 was dropped and reverted back to the Ford platform.

While not exactly fondly remembered, I think Mercury's best years were actually in the 1970's, when it really capitalized on that "Junior Lincoln" look. Mercury saw its highest sales years of all time. Now some of the cars were a bit of a joke, like the Bobcat and Comet. But the Monarch and Zephyr definitely seemed like an upgrade from the Granada and Fairmont, and their bigger cars, like the Cougar and Marquis, were nice.

omarman

Yep my dad liked the "junior Lincoln" look of Mercury back then. He bought a new '73 Monterey sedan which looked (otherwise) like this 2dr hardtop for sale. Same color, engine, etc. Just never saw a 2 door version of this MY car before. That price is a bit odd too. $8k for a brown, early 70s Mercury?

Edited to add: Actual color was ... something-bronze-metallic. I forget now what the sticker listed.

Mr_Shiftright

Cougars always struck me as Mustangs styled by a baker of birthday cakes---the car didn't fool me one bit. I always knew, even as a kid, that this was a Mustang knock-off, slightly upscale.

The problem with the Cougar is that it didn't have a real identity. Nobody knew what to make of it, because its character was imitative and IMO artificial. It suffered like the Edsel suffered---a product of marketers, not a product of real car people.

fintail

You don't think this is elegant? :shades:



I wonder what happened to this old thing...it seems to have been dragged out of a garage, it sat out for a few days on ancient rotten tires, and then vanished. I never saw it again. It was actually in pretty nice shape.

Mr_Shiftright

Looks like one of the robots on Mystery Science Theater 3000

fintail

Those lights, the bumper, the weird rear quarter panel styling...certainly different.

Mr_Shiftright

just imagine the 3 robots all mushed together, and it'll start to make sense.

But seriously---the problem with that Mercury is that the styling is so chaotic. Different parts of the car collide with each other. There's no harmony whatsoever in the design. It's totally irrational.

fintail

It sure differentiated itself from a Ford, anyway :shades:

isellhondas

Cougars were glorified Mustangs and nothing more.

It was like a "me too" Mustang. Certainly not "bad" cars but no better than a Mustang.

The sequential turn signals were stolen from a 1965 T-Bird and were pretty cool. Talk about a primitive system the way those worked!

andys120

I always thought the 1959 Mercury was a handsome looking car

In the context of 1959, one of the worst years ever for styling, it was. In fact it looked a lot better than a contemporary Lincoln but underneath the relatively restrained styling was a really awful car. I learned to drive on a '59 Monterey (4dr H/T) and I was thrilled to see my Pop trade it in on a really good-looking and much better performing '64 Catalina.

I recently saw a restored '58 Merc two tone H/T coupe yellow/brown with a Continental kit. What a mess, it was one of the worst-looking cars I ever laid eyes on. :sick:

isellhondas

The quickest way to ruin the looks of ANY old car is to hang on a Continental Kit.

Even worse then fender skirts!

andre1969

I think the main thing that I like about the '59 Mercury is the relatively clean front-end, with the aggressive forward thrust to it. But I don't like those odd, jagged fins on it. And I think the folks at Mercury didn't get the memo that there was a recession going on and bigger WASN'T better. That year, they went from a 122" wb (1957-1958) to a 126" wb for the cheaper models and a whopping 128" for the big ones! They probably figured they were getting up-staged by cars like DeSoto, Chrysler, Buick, and Olds, all of which offered a 126" wb or larger (127.5 on the Buick Super/Roadmaster) in 1957-58. And even the bigger Pontiacs had a 124" wb, and Dodges were on a 122". But by the time they were able to react for 1959, the market was demanding smaller cars.

The people I bought my '57 DeSoto from had a '64 Catalina 4-door sedan, purchased used in 1966. They were going to trade the DeSoto, but the wife liked it so much that they decided to keep it and become a 2-car family. The Catalina must have been a good car though, because they kept it until 1980, when they traded it on a new Century 4-door, which they still had when I bought the DeSoto in 1990.

berri

I kind of like the roof line and rear door window treatment on that baby. I think it was Andre that said the four headlight looked awkward and kind of just stuck on. That was probably true for most of the 57/58 models. I think only the Mopars of that era were designed to accommodate them.

berri

I don't mind the 59 Merc, although I find its styling a bit squished out and exaggerated which I think is also the case on the 59 Dodge. When I was young I didn't particularly care for the looks of the 64 Pontiac, except the Grand Prix. The rear end kind of turned me off. I preferred the 63 (and have always thought the 65 was just plain gorgeous). But as I aged, I better appreciated the integrated look of the 64, even though I still personally prefer the 63 and 65 models. I always thought that the DeSoto was one of the prettiest 57/58 Mopar offerings (I also liked the 55). I guess my ideal 57 Mopar would have a Chrysler 300 trapezoidal grille and a DeSoto rear end along with a gold Fury side trim spear. I'd sure find it hard to choose between an Adventurer or a 300, but would probably lean toward the DeSoto (like I'd be that lucky to afford either one!).

igozoomzoom

The Pontiac Fiero is definitely one of GM's biggest screw ups, which is serious considering how many major screw ups during the 80'!

Initially conceived as a sports car by Pontiac engineers, the sold the idea to top management as a two-seat commuter vehicle. During the second oil crisis of the 70s, that was their only chance to win approval. They also had to make some compromises to keep development costs as low as possible. One of those compromises was claiming that many existing GM parts could be used for the Fiero. The engine was the 2.5L 'Iron Duke' that served as the base engine in the Chevy Citation and the other horrid X-cars. The Fiero's front suspension was derived from the Chevy Chevette...hardly the parts bin I would have chosen!??

But there were also some high-tech, cutting-edge processes and materials used to reduce production costs. The Fiero was the first car to use a steel space frame with bolt-on plastic body panels, years before Saturn built their entire original lineup the much the same way. The use of plastic panels meant that no steel-stamping machinery and dies were needed, saving a substantial sum in costs required to get it into production.

The car had a very clean, futuristic design compared to everything else on the market when it debuted as a 1984 model. It was more than a year before the closest competitor, Toyota's look-alike MR2, showed up. The MR2 was much busier-looking, totally opposite in comparison to the sleek, flowing, clean-looking Fiero! The MR2 had a better engine than any GM 4-cylinder for the next 25 years and it had the handling ability to match the car's acceleration.

Even though the Fiero was a looker, it was clearly not a sports car. That was quickly apparent to the automotive media and the Fiero was crticized by many for the use of such mediocre powertrain and front suspension. The 2.5L made more noise and vibration than power, probably not a bad thing considering the feeble front suspension that handicapped the car's handling and ride quality. It was slow with the standard 4-speed manual and the 3-speed automatic moved at a glacial pace. It could have been even worse, though...the original engine planned for the Fiero was the horrid 1.8L introduced in the '82 Cavalier and other J-cars, but dropped the following year because it was too weak even for an econobox!

The lack of power was addressed with the introduction of a V6 model in 1985. It featured the 2.8L V6, also from the X-cars, and made 140hp paired with a 4-speed manual. The mediocre front suspension wasn't replaced until 1988, which was the Fiero's final model year. For 1986, a 5-speed manual Getrag tranny was paired with the V6 and the top-level GT added body panels behind the rear window that gave it the look of a fastback. Despite these substantial improvements, trouble was brewing almost from the start....

By the end of 1985, a total of 148 engine fires had been reported to GM, mainly in 1984 models. Ultimately, Pontiac stated in 1988 that there had been 260 reported engine fires and 10 minor injuries. My cousin was one of those 260! While stopped at a red light in downtown Atlanta, a truck driver ran up to her windows yelling 'FIRE!" and got her out and away from the burning car. He initially noticed flames coming thru the vents located right behind the rear window. In less than 20 minutes, all that remained was a charred steel space frame, four alloy wheels without rubber and nothing else recognizable! Even the responding police and firemen watched in amazement as the the red body panels dripped away as they melted. Not a fun experience, but on the bright side- GM paid her about double what she had paid for the car, for her trauma as well as her property loss. She used that money to purchase the very first 1986 Acura Legend sold in Atlanta...and kept it for 17 years...but I digress...

The Fiero concept had so much potential, but GM was one of the worst possible companies to make it happen. The only worse scenrio I could imagine would be if Chrysler had built the Fiero instead of GM...it's actualy amazing that there was no 2-seater K-car derivative???

lemko

I thought the 1959-60 Mercuries were rather attractive and don't mind the 1957 models that much because the styling was distinctly different from the Ford. I'd say from the late 1960s through 1978, the big Mercury was a practically Lincoln. Heck, even the 1979 through 1991 Grand Marquis maintained distinctly different styling from the Crown Vic. I referred to my 1989 Grand Marquis LS as "the poor man's Town Car." The 1992-2010 restyling made the Grand Marquis and Crown Vic practically identical.

lemko

...to James Dean's ride:

lemko

Dumb question, but how DID they work?

lemko

Aaargh! I HATE Continental kits on ANY car, but the Mercury was the absolute worst with the bumper extended out about two feet and those stupid "cruiser skirts!"

andre1969

I think it had a little mechanical connection that would go around on a little oval track or chain, or something like that, when when it passed behind each taillight, it would make contact and turn it on?

isellhondas

That's right.

A little motor ran electrical contacts together.

If it was quiet and you were sitting in the back seat, you could hear it running.