So I have to ask, Shifty. Was the Chevette a "worst car" by that definition? I always had the the impression that it was a crying shame as a car, but was reasonably reliable.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
Good point! I think in the case of the Chevette, the entire automobile was a "fault". I doubt one of them could go one year without having to repair it and worse yet, the next failure would be something different.
It takes as much genius to make a car completely bad as it does to make it completely good I think.
"It takes as much genius to make a car completely bad as it does to make it completely good I think."
I know what you're trying to say, shifty, since the cars that are "completely" bad or good are statistical outliers, but I don't think your statement is correct.
After reading all the list even if I didn't read all the responses I would agree with most of them. But what I don't understand is how they missed the X1/9 and the LeCar? And I happened to like the Morgan Propane car and the EV-1. But I can see their drawbacks. They also missed the Datsun F-10 and the B-210.
I had a neighbor who had issues with his Datsun F-10, and I've read other complaints, but I thought the B-210, which I believe was the RWD predecessor to the FWD F-10, was a good little car.
In the Book, "The Reckoning,." about the failings of the domestic manufacturers and the increase of imports the head of datsun USA said they all knew the B-210 was a horrid little car but it was the best they had at the time. He said he felt guilty watching a young American couple drive away in one but they, Nissan/Datsun needed the money. And the Le Car needs no explanation. Ours wasn't a bad little car but it was a slug compared to about anything on the road. A woman bought it from us for her teen age son or daughter, I don't remember witch. She said it should keep them from getting any tickets.
I know one of the more rust-prone spots of the Vega, at least the earlier ones, is the base of the A-pillar. And in the past, I'd always heard that once the rust gets in there, the car is done.
However, yesterday I was at my mechanic's place, as he wanted me to see the progress on my '67 Catalina. He does body work as well, and had fixed the rust at the base of the windshield. While I was there, I noticed a Mini (the "real" one from the 60's) in his shop, that had recent weld work done at the base of both A-pillars. That got me thinking about the Vega, so I asked him how hard it would be to fix one.
And he said, "No big deal". And then a second later, he got this confused look on his face, and said, "You have a VEGA?!" I replied something like "Oh GOD no!", but that I had been talking about them with some friends, and was curious as to how fatal it really is once those A-pillars start to go.
I also used to wonder why the things would start to rust at the base of the A-pillar, as that just seems an odd spot. Usually cars rust down at the lower parts first. But, when I saw how bad my Catalina looked with the windshield out, it was obvious. That base part where the windshield sets in is shaped like a little trough, almost like it was designed to hold water. So once the seal starts to go, it's easy for water to get trapped down in there and do its damage. And I guess it's really easy for it to accumulate in the corners of the windshield, at the A-pillar base.
This is why one of the major items on my checklist for appraising classic cars is in fact "Door and Window Seals".
If they are all "perished" as the Brits say, it is a major undertaking to replace all that, and definitely not in the "deferred maintenance" category.
So I give a major knock on points to a car with totally wiped out door and window seals. That could drop a pretty car from a #2 to a #3. Lots of labor to do doors, door windows, vent windows (especially), and both windshields!! You have to work slowly so you don't damage irreplaceable trim parts.
So I give a major knock on points to a car with totally wiped out door and window seals. That could drop a pretty car from a #2 to a #3. Lots of labor to do doors, door windows, vent windows (especially), and both windshields!! You have to work slowly so you don't damage irreplaceable trim parts.
I had my mechanic replace the window seals in the door of my '85 Silverado when he did the power window motor. Part of the process of changing the motors in that truck involves taking the window out anyway, so they were easy to get to. I figured while he was in there, no harm in replacing them.
I had been griping about that truck, and how hard it is to get to the motor, and having to remove the window. But I guess that worked out in my favor, making it simple to replace the window trim.
I'd like to shift the discussion a bit..to ask: REALLY bad cars-didn't they all disappear? For example, the maligned VEGA-they still sold them in fairly large numbers..what about: -Daihatsu (Charade?): that name still gives me chuckles! I remember them advertising..but never actually saw one! They must have been pretty awful cars! -DAEWOO Leganza: now and then, you see one ..rusted out and blowing blue smoke..the poor owner is wondering how long his heap will last..and paying $75 for an air filter (airlifted from Korea)! -LADA (Canada): do our friends in Canada regret buying these POSs? -RENAULT (all models),nuff said! -Cadillac CATERA (WHO dreamed up that awful name?):a few oldtimers in Florida bought them.
While the Lada, Renault and Catera deserve to be on the list, I thought the Daihatsu Charade was a decent small car.
I believe that Daihatsu is owned by Toyota. Although I'm not very knowledgeable about this brand, I think the main problem with the Charade in the U.S. was a combination of a lot of competition, coupled with too little marketing support. I remember speaking with one owner who had racked up close to 200,000 miles, and raved about his car. Of course, a sample of one isn't statistically meaningful, but how many Vega, Pinto or Yugo owners could sing similar praises.
Don't know much about the Leganza, but that suggests that it may not have been one the the worst cars on the market. The fact that it became an orphan soon after it was introduced in the U.S. made life difficult for this model. Orphaned cars soon tend to be regarded as throwaways by their owners. Their rapid decline in resale value, plus the additional difficulty and expense of obtaining spare parts and service, conspire against proper maintenance. How many orphans are meticulously maintained?
The Catera was a disappointment. Good intentions, poor results. This American version of the Opel model on which it was based not only added 500 pounds before it crossed the Atlantic, thereby negatively affecting handling and fuel economy, but it also had reliability problems. Cadillac dealers generally didn't like Cateras.
Once the Daewoo nameplate went away, didn't the redesigned version of the Leganza make it to our shores as the Suzuki Verona? I think it's also sold elsewhere as the Chevy Epica?
Like you mentioned, HP, it probably wasn't a horrible car per se, but just had a poor dealer network with people who didn't know how to work on them. Plus, like you say, as cars become worthless orphans with little resale value, they tend to be viewed at as throwaway cars, and therefore don't get the maintenance they need.
Charade is a poor choice in a name, but I can think of a few others...such as the Suzuki Esteem and Ford Aspire. So while one was charading as a car, yet another had self worth issues, while the Ford aspired to one day be a "real" car?
As for the Caddy that Zigs, at least it was a better effort than the Cimarron! It probably would have been held in higher regard, if the Lincoln LS hadn't come out around the same time. I remember the LS being a big deal at the time, although I didn't last. A guy at work had one, and it's the main reason he drives Acuras today. :sick: I wonder if the Catera would have worked better as a Saturn model? It could have slotted in as their top model and given them the illusion of a full roundup with small cars (S-series and then the Ion), medium (L-series), and large-ish (Catera). Although maybe the Catera really wasn't much larger than the L-series? I cant' remember now.
Trouble with the Catera is it looked too much like a Lumina and the super-stupid marketing campaign! The cartoon bird? Geeze, did you see Bugs Bunny endorsing BMWs? Was Porky Pig hawking Lexuses? "The Caddy that Zigs?" Who came up with that? The Advertising Agency that Smokes Blunts?
I think the earlier Fiat style Ladas were at least somewhat robust, if not made of shoddy materials - but the later Samara line that made it into Canada was crap.
I still see a Charade or a Rocky on the road now and then. I think they were pretty well made, they just sold in small numbers, so they are a rare sight.
I don't see many Daewoos anymore, the stigma of a dead brand and their bargain positioning from new can't help.
I agree with lemko about the lame promotional campaign for the Catera, too. Someone got paid way too much for that one.
"...didn't the redesigned version of the Leganza make it to our shores as the Suzuki Verona? I think it's also sold elsewhere as the Chevy Epica?"
I think you're right about the Verona, with a few changes from the Leganza. Not sure about the Epica, but that could be correct too.
" I wonder if the Catera would have worked better as a Saturn model?"
I don't think a RWD near-luxury model would have been suitable for Saturn's position within GM or the marketplace. The fit was fine for Cadillac, as the Catera could be cross-shopped against the 3-Series and C-Class, and was the predecessor to the CTS. The problem was that the car didn't measure up.
" I remember the LS being a big deal at the time..."
Yeah, I wanted to like it, and would have bought one, but the TL just seemed better overall, and a safer bet than the Lincoln. The TL is my wife's daily driver, and she's very happy with it. It's had some issues (eg. had to replace the catalytic converter at 99,000 miles), plus a couple of other things, but overall the TL is well designed and well built. We dislike the '09, though. Wouldn't buy it.
My impression also of the Daihatsu was that it was a pretty rugged little car. I wouldn't put it in a "worst car" category at all.
The Catera however, seems to be not much more than a huge bundle of trouble for its owners. While here at Edmunds we only get a small slice of life in a Catera, the stories posted by owners are pretty horrifying. Makes you stand up and take notice. Could be another Cimarron in the making here.
Fiats....oh Fiats. A flawed marque to be sure but you can't argue with success. They have become a powerhouse in Europe, a place where competition is certainly formidable. Right now, they are suffering a bit, but I think this is an economic problem not a mechanical one.
Right now, they are suffering a bit, but I think this is an economic problem not a mechanical one.
One thing I've often wondered about some European cars sold here in the US, such as Fiat, Renault, and Peugeot...were they really that bad, or was it more a matter of mechanics over here not knowing how to work on them, plus limited dealer networks and parts availability?
I used to think the Peugeot 505 was a neat looking car, but I've heard horror stories about them. There was this woman at work back in the 1990's who once owned one. She had such bad luck with it that she had a T-shirt that had a picture of a 505 on it, and a bunch of disparaging remarks about the car below the picture. I guess it must have left quite an impression on her!
I think it was mostly as you say---some foreign makes suffered from poor parts networks, very few trained mechanics, and, to be frank, ignorant owners who simply won't do the maintenance because it's not a Chevy 3/4 ton pickup truck. If your Fiat manual says "adjust shims for valve clearance every XXX miles" or your Peugeot manual says "add diesel fuel condition when re-fueling", you'd better do it or else.
Also some of these cars were not build specifically for USA driving conditions. There are very few parts of France that get up over 100 degrees, and very few parts of Italy that go below 0 Farenheit.
Do old Volvos always start in winter? You bet they do. Look where they came from.
Also, some of these "second tier" European makes are a devil to work on. The book flat rate to replace a water pump on a little Fiat X1/9 is 7.7 hours!! Rear power window on some Ferrari 2+2s? 12 hours!!!
I had just returned from living in Japna when the Diahatsu Charade hit the states and so I followed their story with interest. Diahatsu is a well known company in Japan and a fair sized player in the crowded small car market there. They're also 51% owned by Toyota. Here's their website (English).
The Charade was a classic case of a foreign company having a poor understanding of the market. The Charade was a "upper line" small car, with a nice interior, good accessories, etc. The Japanese kept hearing about how Americans wanted small cars. Well, we did, but to Americans "small car" also means "cheap car" and Diahatsu's were comparatively expensive.
Combine a wierd unknown name, and a "high" price and you can expect sales to be slow. I also suspect that they got a double whammy from Hyundai's entry into the market in the mid 80's - Whammy A being how cheap the Excel was, and Whammy B being all the quality problems with the Excels made people very leery of buying a car from a company that they'd never heard of.
People in Japan liked them, and the few people I knew in the states who had them didn't seem to have a lot of trouble with them....
I don't think a RWD near-luxury model would have been suitable for Saturn's position within GM or the marketplace.
Well given that GM never did know what its divisions stood for, I'm not sure I agree. I mean, the sports car (Corvette) is at the low end division (Chevy), the rebadged Cobalt (G3) is at the excitement division (Pontiac), a rebadged SUV is at the "born from jets" division (Saab), and a family crossover (Acadia) is at the "professional vehicles" (GMC) division!
That's a good question. FWIW, the base price of a 1953 Corvette was $3495. An AM radio was about $150 and a heater was around $91, and all 300 '53 Corvettes had these options installed. So all of a sudden we're looking at $3736. In comparison, a 1953 Cadillac Series 62 coupe could be had for as little as $3571, and even the convertible only started at $4144!
Back in 1953 though, the divisions were playing around with various halo cars meant to draw in showroom traffic. Olds had the Fiesta, Buick had the Skylark, and Cadillac had the Eldorado. So maybe in that vein, the Corvette for Chevrolet made sense? I don't think Pontiac had a "halo car" in 1953, although there were prototypes based on the Corvette.
For 1954, the price of the Corvette was dropped to $2700, but that was still a lot of money in those days for a Chevy. In later years, the price did seem a bit more reasonable. The 1957, for example, base priced at $3176. I think the base price of my '57 DeSoto Firedome was around $3085, although as equipped it stickered for more like $3800. That same year, my grandparents bought a well decked-out '57 Ford Fairlane 500 4-door hardtop for $3500. And FWIW, I read that the typical '58 Impala convertible, a car with a $2841 base price, left the assembly line optioned up to around $4,000. So while the Corvette never became a cheap car, it did become more attainable. For awhile, at least.
I just looked up the specs for a 1972 Corvette, and it was $5296 for the convertible, $5533 for the coupe (Odd that the coupe was cheaper?). Anyway, that same year, my grandparents' '72 Impala was around $5,000. So even here, the Corvette seemed like it was reachable for those who really wanted it.
However, at that base price you just got a 200 hp 350. If you wanted the 255 hp version, you paid like $485 more for it. Oddly though, the 270 hp 454 was only around $290! A/c was an option, at around $464. Power brakes and power steering were also optional.
I guess the 1970's was when the price started jacking back up, though. The base price of a 1979 Corvette was around $10,200. Suddenly we're talking entry-level Cadillac/Lincoln territory, or well into New Yorker, Electra/98 territory.
They were actually incredible cars. The most confortable seats of any car I've ever sat in and those diesel engines were as as tough as a box of rocks.
BUT, they had to be maintained properly according to the book and most Americans woudn't do that. I had a good independant who only workied on Peugeots. He used to complain about how people would "kill" them at 150,000 miles. This guys was a bit of a Prima Donna (Mr. shiftright knows what I'm talking about) and if a poorly maintained Peugeot was brought to him, the owner would get a lecture and he would cut no corners to try to save them money.
He was honest and competant but he would mince no words and if a customer was a cheapskate, he would decline their work. Luckllly he liked me and would take extra care of me and do me favors.
I remember him telling me that replacing a heater core in a 604 was 12 hours of vexacious work!
A lousy dealer network and people who didn't understand them ran them out of the US.
I'll second the notion that access to good mechanics and strict maintainence was a necessity for "furrin" car ownership. I was one of the lucky ones a buddy of mine introduced me to a Dutch guy who was once a mechanic for Maserati's Race Team (he had the picture of himself and Fangio). Frank owned a repair shop specializing in Mercedes, Rolls and Jaguar.
Not only was he happy to to care of my '66 TR-4A and later my '71 Fiat 124 Spider, he considered them a vacation from the finicky high end cars and occasionally let me work off part of the bill by waxing a customer's car. With that kind of support I was able to drive that car for many happy miles with no more problems than any 1970s era car.
I drove a Fiat all across the western US...and back again....and I had an MGB that was a daily driver for over two years. Sure enough, as soon as I sold this reliable and beautiful car, within a month it was running like crap. The SUs were so maladjusted I had to actually take them apart to fix them.
I had a Peugeot 504 diesel sedan and I drove that car for over a year, including a trip in summer from California to Colorado. It even had working AC. Very comfortable, strong car. I liked it because it had license plates from Aruba when I bought it, and a bullet hole in the hood, down through the left inner fender. The car was very clean but I left the hole there.
We have very good furrin' car mechanics in the San Rafael and the Berkeley area---some of the best in the country in my opinion.
My cadre of mechanics have only refused me 2Xs, when I inquired if they would fix car so and so if I bought it.
One blunt refusal from all sources was on a Subaru SVX and the other was a BMW Bavaria. (I was just trying to flip these cars, I didn't want either one).
the Merkur XR4Ti. When I was in high school, mid 80's, these cars we very popular. I remember liking them when they came out. I think they made another model, the scorpia or something, but it didn't seem as nice. I dont think ive seen one in the last 10 years.
My buddy installed a 375 HP 327 in his 1972 Vega. He did such a good job that it looked factory produced. It had a 350 Turbo trans and I forget what kind of a rear end.
It looked like a normal Vega but HOLY SMOKES, that vega would run! I rode in it once and refused to after that.
Finally it scared him once too often and he sold it.
My neighbor used to race Vegas when I was a kid, but he did it with 350's. Have no idea on the hp. I imagine even a fairly mild V-8 would be pretty hairy in a Vega.
Yes, the Merkur XR4Ti had a turbo version of the 2.3 four used in the Pinto, Fairmont and Mustang, and the Mercury badged equivalents, the Lynx, Zephyr and Capri. Yeah, I remember reading that this engine was fast, but not refined.
I rode in a XR4Ti a couple of time, but didn't notice the roughness, or experience the performance, for that matter, since we were just commuting. The driver was very proud of his new car, but he didn't show off its performance.
The Merkur Scorpio sport sedan had a German V6.
I believed the '84-'88 Thunderbird turbo-4 also used the XR4Ti engine, with some minor modifications. I don't recall if the Mercury Cougar could also be equipped with that engine.
The first Merkurs had a double wing, and the later ones had a single wing.
You will rarely if ever find any *early* turbo technology from the 1980s that isn't trouble-prone----overheats, blown head gaskets, cooked batteries, dreadful turbo lag----all the things you'd expect from unperfected technology.
You would bring up the Sterling. I remember when they first announced those things and I'm thinking "Wow! That'll be terrific. A Japanese car with British insides."
Well, no. It was like the old "this guy has right field so screwed up no one can play it" thing. I think the British parts talked the Japanese ones into giving up which they did in a hurry.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
You will rarely if ever find any *early* turbo technology from the 1980s that isn't trouble-prone----overheats, blown head gaskets, cooked batteries, dreadful turbo lag----all the things you'd expect from unperfected technology.
I owned a mid 80s (1987) Saab 9000 Turbo (non-intercooler) which had plenty of problems in the 100,000+ miles I put on it, bad transmissions, bad clutches, bad electrics but never had any trouble with a Turbo, engine or related components. I was always careful to give the Turbo a minute to "spool down" before shutting down.
The Saabs used to cook the batteries (too close to the turbo downpipe). The turbo itself was pretty sturdy, that's true---it was just everything connected to that Saab that broke.
I had a 1980 Mercury Crappi Capri with the Turbo 2.3L. I learned a lot about what can go wrong in a car in a very short time while I had that car (exploding turbos, cat converters, heater core, power steering failure, clogged radiator, clutch, and head gasket) all before 70K miles. Not bad, except that I bought the car used when it had 60K miles. Not only was this car unreliable, it was sssslllllloooooowwwww and got rotten gas mileage....ugh...Vowed never to own another turbo after that one
Ah well, my next car was a brand new 1986 Honda Civic Si, what a WORLD of difference. I owned that one for 4 trouble free years.
so aside from the exploding turbo, bad cat, leaking heater core, busted power steering, clogged radiator, burned out clutch and the leaking head gasket----any complaints? :P Sounds like all three of my Saab turbos.
was a 1988 LeBaron coupe, and I guess it wasn't too bad in retrospect. My uncle bought it used in 1990. He had gone to the local Pontiac/Dodge dealer (you'd know this one, HPMcTorque...Bob Banning) to check out the Grand Ams. He ended up hating how cheap and plasticky the interiors were. I know that might sound hypocritical, ragging on a Grand Am's interior and then picking a K-car derivative, but honestly, its interior wasn't that bad.
He sold it to me in 1995, after I got married. I think it had around 78,000 miles on it by then. He'd had a few issues here and there, but nothing too major. By around 90,000 miles though, it had its first major repair that I can remember. Between the timing belt, camshaft and crankshaft seals, and a bunch of suspension work, it ran up to around $1,000. We divorced around that time, and I let her have the car, knowing that it wouldn't hold up the way my '68 Dart would.
And sure enough, by around 115-120,000 miles, that car was shot. The a/c compressor blew up, power antenna broke, some sensor went bad and made the thing idle fast enough that you had to shut it off in gear. My ex-wife also had a new radiator put in. Whether it really needed it, or whether she got taken, I'll never know. The nail in the coffin came when the head gasket blew. She and her mother found someone to put on a new gasket and used head, for around $750. The old head had warped. Well, when she got the car back, it ran like crap. I talked her into letting me borrow it, and took it to my mechanic. He got it running, as best he could, for $75. Turns out that the other guy had left a jumble of disconnected and/or improperly re-connected wires and vacuum hoses all over the place. My mechanic also did a compression check, and found two cylinders were just about shot, and the other two were marginal at best. He told me to NOT put another dime into the car!
She drove it for a few more months, until it started blowing white smoke again. Then she sold it back to me for 90 bucks. That's how much tickets were to go see Faith No More at the 9:30 club in DC. She always had the hots for their lead singer, Mike Patton...who looks vaguely like one of her ex boyfriends. Amazingly, the car started up for me, and I was able to drive it to my grandmother's. I pulled the radio out of it, naively thinking that it would fit in my '79 Newport. It was the same size, but the wiring harness was different, so I never did anything with it. In fact, it's still in her grandmother's garage. I ended up selling the rest of the car to someone who wanted it for parts.
So for the first 90K miles, it wasn't a bad car. Hell, back then, sometimes you were lucky if your car even made it that far! It got decent economy too. I forget what it was rated, but I usually got around 20 mpg around town, maybe 28 or so on the highway. Wife could break 30. Not bad, considering it only had a 3-speed automatic, without the benefit of overdrive. It actually seemed fast at the time, but in retrospect, probably no quicker than my Intrepid. I think it needed premium fuel, too. Torque steer was pretty brutal, though. It was comfortable too, for such a small car. We drove it out to Washington State for our honeymoon, and it was roomy enough for me to put up with it for that long. My uncle had always hated the car because of its low driving position, but it seemed okay to me.
Still, I'm kinda glad that car's gone now, and not sentimental enough about it to want another.
Comments
A car that has one or more serious inherent faults that will cripple 25% or more of the units manufactured within the first year of operation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
So I have to ask, Shifty. Was the Chevette a "worst car" by that definition? I always had the the impression that it was a crying shame as a car, but was reasonably reliable.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
It takes as much genius to make a car completely bad as it does to make it completely good I think.
I know what you're trying to say, shifty, since the cars that are "completely" bad or good are statistical outliers, but I don't think your statement is correct.
However, yesterday I was at my mechanic's place, as he wanted me to see the progress on my '67 Catalina. He does body work as well, and had fixed the rust at the base of the windshield. While I was there, I noticed a Mini (the "real" one from the 60's) in his shop, that had recent weld work done at the base of both A-pillars. That got me thinking about the Vega, so I asked him how hard it would be to fix one.
And he said, "No big deal". And then a second later, he got this confused look on his face, and said, "You have a VEGA?!" I replied something like "Oh GOD no!", but that I had been talking about them with some friends, and was curious as to how fatal it really is once those A-pillars start to go.
I also used to wonder why the things would start to rust at the base of the A-pillar, as that just seems an odd spot. Usually cars rust down at the lower parts first. But, when I saw how bad my Catalina looked with the windshield out, it was obvious. That base part where the windshield sets in is shaped like a little trough, almost like it was designed to hold water. So once the seal starts to go, it's easy for water to get trapped down in there and do its damage. And I guess it's really easy for it to accumulate in the corners of the windshield, at the A-pillar base.
If they are all "perished" as the Brits say, it is a major undertaking to replace all that, and definitely not in the "deferred maintenance" category.
So I give a major knock on points to a car with totally wiped out door and window seals. That could drop a pretty car from a #2 to a #3. Lots of labor to do doors, door windows, vent windows (especially), and both windshields!! You have to work slowly so you don't damage irreplaceable trim parts.
I had my mechanic replace the window seals in the door of my '85 Silverado when he did the power window motor. Part of the process of changing the motors in that truck involves taking the window out anyway, so they were easy to get to. I figured while he was in there, no harm in replacing them.
I had been griping about that truck, and how hard it is to get to the motor, and having to remove the window. But I guess that worked out in my favor, making it simple to replace the window trim.
-Daihatsu (Charade?): that name still gives me chuckles! I remember them advertising..but never actually saw one! They must have been pretty awful cars!
-DAEWOO Leganza: now and then, you see one ..rusted out and blowing blue smoke..the poor owner is wondering how long his heap will last..and paying $75 for an air filter (airlifted from Korea)!
-LADA (Canada): do our friends in Canada regret buying these POSs?
-RENAULT (all models),nuff said!
-Cadillac CATERA (WHO dreamed up that awful name?):a few oldtimers in Florida bought them.
I believe that Daihatsu is owned by Toyota. Although I'm not very knowledgeable about this brand, I think the main problem with the Charade in the U.S. was a combination of a lot of competition, coupled with too little marketing support. I remember speaking with one owner who had racked up close to 200,000 miles, and raved about his car. Of course, a sample of one isn't statistically meaningful, but how many Vega, Pinto or Yugo owners could sing similar praises.
Don't know much about the Leganza, but that suggests that it may not have been one the the worst cars on the market. The fact that it became an orphan soon after it was introduced in the U.S. made life difficult for this model. Orphaned cars soon tend to be regarded as throwaways by their owners. Their rapid decline in resale value, plus the additional difficulty and expense of obtaining spare parts and service, conspire against proper maintenance. How many orphans are meticulously maintained?
The Catera was a disappointment. Good intentions, poor results. This American version of the Opel model on which it was based not only added 500 pounds before it crossed the Atlantic, thereby negatively affecting handling and fuel economy, but it also had reliability problems. Cadillac dealers generally didn't like Cateras.
Like you mentioned, HP, it probably wasn't a horrible car per se, but just had a poor dealer network with people who didn't know how to work on them. Plus, like you say, as cars become worthless orphans with little resale value, they tend to be viewed at as throwaway cars, and therefore don't get the maintenance they need.
Charade is a poor choice in a name, but I can think of a few others...such as the Suzuki Esteem and Ford Aspire. So while one was charading as a car, yet another had self worth issues, while the Ford aspired to one day be a "real" car?
As for the Caddy that Zigs, at least it was a better effort than the Cimarron! It probably would have been held in higher regard, if the Lincoln LS hadn't come out around the same time. I remember the LS being a big deal at the time, although I didn't last. A guy at work had one, and it's the main reason he drives Acuras today. :sick: I wonder if the Catera would have worked better as a Saturn model? It could have slotted in as their top model and given them the illusion of a full roundup with small cars (S-series and then the Ion), medium (L-series), and large-ish (Catera). Although maybe the Catera really wasn't much larger than the L-series? I cant' remember now.
I still see a Charade or a Rocky on the road now and then. I think they were pretty well made, they just sold in small numbers, so they are a rare sight.
I don't see many Daewoos anymore, the stigma of a dead brand and their bargain positioning from new can't help.
I agree with lemko about the lame promotional campaign for the Catera, too. Someone got paid way too much for that one.
I think you're right about the Verona, with a few changes from the Leganza. Not sure about the Epica, but that could be correct too.
" I wonder if the Catera would have worked better as a Saturn model?"
I don't think a RWD near-luxury model would have been suitable for Saturn's position within GM or the marketplace. The fit was fine for Cadillac, as the Catera could be cross-shopped against the 3-Series and C-Class, and was the predecessor to the CTS. The problem was that the car didn't measure up.
" I remember the LS being a big deal at the time..."
Yeah, I wanted to like it, and would have bought one, but the TL just seemed better overall, and a safer bet than the Lincoln. The TL is my wife's daily driver, and she's very happy with it. It's had some issues (eg. had to replace the catalytic converter at 99,000 miles), plus a couple of other things, but overall the TL is well designed and well built. We dislike the '09, though. Wouldn't buy it.
The Catera however, seems to be not much more than a huge bundle of trouble for its owners. While here at Edmunds we only get a small slice of life in a Catera, the stories posted by owners are pretty horrifying. Makes you stand up and take notice. Could be another Cimarron in the making here.
Fiats....oh Fiats. A flawed marque to be sure but you can't argue with success. They have become a powerhouse in Europe, a place where competition is certainly formidable. Right now, they are suffering a bit, but I think this is an economic problem not a mechanical one.
One thing I've often wondered about some European cars sold here in the US, such as Fiat, Renault, and Peugeot...were they really that bad, or was it more a matter of mechanics over here not knowing how to work on them, plus limited dealer networks and parts availability?
I used to think the Peugeot 505 was a neat looking car, but I've heard horror stories about them. There was this woman at work back in the 1990's who once owned one. She had such bad luck with it that she had a T-shirt that had a picture of a 505 on it, and a bunch of disparaging remarks about the car below the picture. I guess it must have left quite an impression on her!
Also some of these cars were not build specifically for USA driving conditions. There are very few parts of France that get up over 100 degrees, and very few parts of Italy that go below 0 Farenheit.
Do old Volvos always start in winter? You bet they do. Look where they came from.
Also, some of these "second tier" European makes are a devil to work on. The book flat rate to replace a water pump on a little Fiat X1/9 is 7.7 hours!! Rear power window on some Ferrari 2+2s? 12 hours!!!
http://www.daihatsu.com/
The Charade was a classic case of a foreign company having a poor understanding of the market. The Charade was a "upper line" small car, with a nice interior, good accessories, etc. The Japanese kept hearing about how Americans wanted small cars. Well, we did, but to Americans "small car" also means "cheap car" and Diahatsu's were comparatively expensive.
Combine a wierd unknown name, and a "high" price and you can expect sales to be slow. I also suspect that they got a double whammy from Hyundai's entry into the market in the mid 80's - Whammy A being how cheap the Excel was, and Whammy B being all the quality problems with the Excels made people very leery of buying a car from a company that they'd never heard of.
People in Japan liked them, and the few people I knew in the states who had them didn't seem to have a lot of trouble with them....
Well given that GM never did know what its divisions stood for, I'm not sure I agree. I mean, the sports car (Corvette) is at the low end division (Chevy), the rebadged Cobalt (G3) is at the excitement division (Pontiac), a rebadged SUV is at the "born from jets" division (Saab), and a family crossover (Acadia) is at the "professional vehicles" (GMC) division!
Even (especially?) in the early 50's I'd think it should have been an.... uhm,
Oldsmobile? :confuse:
But not a Chevy!
That's a good question. FWIW, the base price of a 1953 Corvette was $3495. An AM radio was about $150 and a heater was around $91, and all 300 '53 Corvettes had these options installed. So all of a sudden we're looking at $3736. In comparison, a 1953 Cadillac Series 62 coupe could be had for as little as $3571, and even the convertible only started at $4144!
Back in 1953 though, the divisions were playing around with various halo cars meant to draw in showroom traffic. Olds had the Fiesta, Buick had the Skylark, and Cadillac had the Eldorado. So maybe in that vein, the Corvette for Chevrolet made sense? I don't think Pontiac had a "halo car" in 1953, although there were prototypes based on the Corvette.
For 1954, the price of the Corvette was dropped to $2700, but that was still a lot of money in those days for a Chevy. In later years, the price did seem a bit more reasonable. The 1957, for example, base priced at $3176. I think the base price of my '57 DeSoto Firedome was around $3085, although as equipped it stickered for more like $3800. That same year, my grandparents bought a well decked-out '57 Ford Fairlane 500 4-door hardtop for $3500. And FWIW, I read that the typical '58 Impala convertible, a car with a $2841 base price, left the assembly line optioned up to around $4,000. So while the Corvette never became a cheap car, it did become more attainable. For awhile, at least.
it probably went to Chevrolet because they had an engine and transmission for it and the "young blood" to build it.
However, at that base price you just got a 200 hp 350. If you wanted the 255 hp version, you paid like $485 more for it. Oddly though, the 270 hp 454 was only around $290! A/c was an option, at around $464. Power brakes and power steering were also optional.
I guess the 1970's was when the price started jacking back up, though. The base price of a 1979 Corvette was around $10,200. Suddenly we're talking entry-level Cadillac/Lincoln territory, or well into New Yorker, Electra/98 territory.
They were actually incredible cars. The most confortable seats of any car I've ever sat in and those diesel engines were as as tough as a box of rocks.
BUT, they had to be maintained properly according to the book and most Americans woudn't do that. I had a good independant who only workied on Peugeots. He used to complain about how people would "kill" them at 150,000 miles. This guys was a bit of a Prima Donna (Mr. shiftright knows what I'm talking about) and if a poorly maintained Peugeot was brought to him, the owner would get a lecture and he would cut no corners to try to save them money.
He was honest and competant but he would mince no words and if a customer was a cheapskate, he would decline their work. Luckllly he liked me and would take extra care of me and do me favors.
I remember him telling me that replacing a heater core in a 604 was 12 hours of vexacious work!
A lousy dealer network and people who didn't understand them ran them out of the US.
Mercedes, Rolls and Jaguar.
Not only was he happy to to care of my '66 TR-4A and later my '71 Fiat 124 Spider, he considered them a vacation from the finicky high end cars and occasionally let me work off part of the bill by waxing a customer's car. With that kind of support I was able to drive that car for many happy miles with no more problems than any 1970s era car.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I had a Peugeot 504 diesel sedan and I drove that car for over a year, including a trip in summer from California to Colorado. It even had working AC. Very comfortable, strong car. I liked it because it had license plates from Aruba when I bought it, and a bullet hole in the hood, down through the left inner fender. The car was very clean but I left the hole there.
We have very good furrin' car mechanics in the San Rafael and the Berkeley area---some of the best in the country in my opinion.
My cadre of mechanics have only refused me 2Xs, when I inquired if they would fix car so and so if I bought it.
One blunt refusal from all sources was on a Subaru SVX and the other was a BMW Bavaria. (I was just trying to flip these cars, I didn't want either one).
It looked like a normal Vega but HOLY SMOKES, that vega would run! I rode in it once and refused to after that.
Finally it scared him once too often and he sold it.
I rode in a XR4Ti a couple of time, but didn't notice the roughness, or experience the performance, for that matter, since we were just commuting. The driver was very proud of his new car, but he didn't show off its performance.
The Merkur Scorpio sport sedan had a German V6.
I believed the '84-'88 Thunderbird turbo-4 also used the XR4Ti engine, with some minor modifications. I don't recall if the Mercury Cougar could also be equipped with that engine.
The first Merkurs had a double wing, and the later ones had a single wing.
Well, no. It was like the old "this guy has right field so screwed up no one can play it" thing. I think the British parts talked the Japanese ones into giving up which they did in a hurry.
I owned a mid 80s (1987) Saab 9000 Turbo (non-intercooler) which had plenty of problems in the 100,000+ miles I put on it, bad transmissions, bad clutches, bad electrics but never had any trouble with a Turbo, engine or related components. I was always careful to give the Turbo a minute to "spool down" before shutting down.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
CrappiCapri with the Turbo 2.3L. I learned a lot about what can go wrong in a car in a very short time while I had that car (exploding turbos, cat converters, heater core, power steering failure, clogged radiator, clutch, and head gasket) all before 70K miles. Not bad, except that I bought the car used when it had 60K miles. Not only was this car unreliable, it was sssslllllloooooowwwww and got rotten gas mileage....ugh...Vowed never to own another turbo after that oneAh well, my next car was a brand new 1986 Honda Civic Si, what a WORLD of difference. I owned that one for 4 trouble free years.
He sold it to me in 1995, after I got married. I think it had around 78,000 miles on it by then. He'd had a few issues here and there, but nothing too major. By around 90,000 miles though, it had its first major repair that I can remember. Between the timing belt, camshaft and crankshaft seals, and a bunch of suspension work, it ran up to around $1,000. We divorced around that time, and I let her have the car, knowing that it wouldn't hold up the way my '68 Dart would.
And sure enough, by around 115-120,000 miles, that car was shot. The a/c compressor blew up, power antenna broke, some sensor went bad and made the thing idle fast enough that you had to shut it off in gear. My ex-wife also had a new radiator put in. Whether it really needed it, or whether she got taken, I'll never know. The nail in the coffin came when the head gasket blew. She and her mother found someone to put on a new gasket and used head, for around $750. The old head had warped. Well, when she got the car back, it ran like crap. I talked her into letting me borrow it, and took it to my mechanic. He got it running, as best he could, for $75. Turns out that the other guy had left a jumble of disconnected and/or improperly re-connected wires and vacuum hoses all over the place. My mechanic also did a compression check, and found two cylinders were just about shot, and the other two were marginal at best. He told me to NOT put another dime into the car!
She drove it for a few more months, until it started blowing white smoke again. Then she sold it back to me for 90 bucks. That's how much tickets were to go see Faith No More at the 9:30 club in DC. She always had the hots for their lead singer, Mike Patton...who looks vaguely like one of her ex boyfriends. Amazingly, the car started up for me, and I was able to drive it to my grandmother's. I pulled the radio out of it, naively thinking that it would fit in my '79 Newport. It was the same size, but the wiring harness was different, so I never did anything with it. In fact, it's still in her grandmother's garage. I ended up selling the rest of the car to someone who wanted it for parts.
So for the first 90K miles, it wasn't a bad car. Hell, back then, sometimes you were lucky if your car even made it that far! It got decent economy too. I forget what it was rated, but I usually got around 20 mpg around town, maybe 28 or so on the highway. Wife could break 30. Not bad, considering it only had a 3-speed automatic, without the benefit of overdrive. It actually seemed fast at the time, but in retrospect, probably no quicker than my Intrepid. I think it needed premium fuel, too. Torque steer was pretty brutal, though. It was comfortable too, for such a small car. We drove it out to Washington State for our honeymoon, and it was roomy enough for me to put up with it for that long. My uncle had always hated the car because of its low driving position, but it seemed okay to me.
Still, I'm kinda glad that car's gone now, and not sentimental enough about it to want another.
Did the door handles fall off of that, too?
Not bad detail for a mid 80s toy car. Resale value for the toy and actual car are probably similar, too.