Thank you for spelling 'cease' right. With all honesty, you could have spelled it 'seize' and noone would have batted an eye. Thank you again. Have a Blessed Day!
Great explanation of what happened. I grew up in early '80's and as a teen and later adult, we did not know anyone that wanted to buy an American made car. I feel bad about that now that I am older but no one wanted one at the time. It was all about Japanese and if you had the money, German. Even my father who fought in WWII ended up buying Japanese after his new Ford Thunderbird bought in 1983 was a complete disaster and eventually caught on fire in the garage one day. They ended up buying a Mazda 626 and drove it over 200,000 miles and later a Toyota truck with similar milage then they want on to own Honda Accords in their later life. I now look at the American cars from that era more positively and think we may have been too harsh on them. But like you said the testing was put on the public and sadly many of the cars turned out to be pretty good once the kinks were worked out but by then, it was too late. The damage had been done.
Happy New Year Adam! This is honestly the best explanation of the late 70s and early 80s CAFE rush that automakers faced, and I'd agree it was one of the largest contributors to the overall downfall of the USDM. However, I think two other pieces of legislation that really contributed to making CAFE such a nightmare were emissions controls and safety. Over the years, I've collected a lot of both new and used car buying guides from the 1970s, and the overall story seems to be that fuel economy in the late 60s wasn't that bad, and got significantly worse in the early 1970s as emissions control systems and more restrictive tuning came into play. The overly lean tuning on many vehicles obviously affected power and general drivability, but my understanding is that reliabilty (especially at startup) took a big hit as well. When catalytic converters (at least in the case of GM) were introduced in 1975, fuel economy went up some, thanks in part in not having to tune as lean or utilize the same emissions control systems that had been such a burden '72-'74. I think these years really hurt US automaker's reputation for quality, when brand new vehicles were now running worse and with less power than those made a few years earlier. Rushed models and engines in the late 70s and 80s with so many recalls only compounded this. Safety legislation also contributed to heavier vehicles, which also would've hurt the car companies' abilities to build more efficient vehicles, even before adopting smaller models. I'm not going to say reducing emissions or increasing safety protection were bad things, but like CAFE standards, they were honestly good ideas that were rushed way too quickly, and all at once. Having to engineer vehicles that could meet all three standards, while also retaining some level of nice performance, let alone daring styling... it's no wonder that some aspects of design started to take a back seat during the 70s and into the 80s. I can't imagine the stress for the managers and engineers, so I'm very much looking forward to these interviews. Maybe I'm a little biased but I feel like they had the world stacked against them during this era, so the fact that there were still good cars being made (albeit a bit more few and far between than in the 60s) is really impressive, and I have immense respect for the wins that were managed in this era. It also, I think, shows a bit of why companies started relying so much on badge engineering- if you have less time to design a car, you're going to not only recoup those costs however quick as possible, but you also need to take your basic design and use it to refill your product line as older cars get retired for one reason or another. I really appreciate you helping give these cars a fair wrap- some of them do suck, but even then, there's real world reasons why they sucked. These weren't idiots just stumbling into a car design studio or an engineering lab and deciding to make terrible cars. The success of vehicles like Oldsmobile's many Cutlasses show that even GM still had some understanding of what the market wanted at the time, and I think that should be acknowledged along with the "bad" of the malaise era. Loved the video and thanks again Adam! When it comes to cars, context is everything.
You really nailed it. A big part of the problem faced by Detroit was that the car buying public was used to seeing bigger cars as better. An ad of the time for a Chrysler: "Chrysler, Chrysler, Newport; a big Chrysler priced like never before, twenty nine hundred and sixty four". Much of the buying public resented the downsized cars, and switched to pickup trucks. And the small American cars [Vega, Pinto, Horizon, Gremlin] were simply terrible.
@@stephendavidbailey2743 Small Cars were CHEAP Looking and Poorly built. Detroit was pushing the bigger cars. What was called a Compact, in the 60 is now considered a Premium Full or Luxury Size today. Trucks have grown immensely since the 70s, and most never see any duty as to what they are really designed for, Hauling Cow Shit out of the barn to the Manure Pile.
Excellent job! Added weight due to new safety regulations, the oil crisis, and CAFE all within a short period of time really took a lot of money away from the Big 3 and AMC. You made an excellent point about rebadging. Once it was 1980, GM, Chrysler, and Ford had already lost a lot of money due to CAFE and safety regulations, which meant that they didn't have enough money to let their brands design recognizable vehicles that set them apart from others. GM was also stuck with and on the path to putting engines from one brand into the vehicles of another brand. The Chevy 305, Buick V6, Olds 307, and certain 4 cylinders were put into numerous other vehicles. It's so hard to easily tell a Grand Marquis from an LTD Crown Victoria, Diplomat from a Gran Fury, Cavalier from a Sunbird, Escort from a Lynx, Aries from a Reliant, etc.
Also I had noticed here in Michigan when the Cafe standards for cars increased so did the distance of traveling to our local grocery store and other retail stores increased. The bigger and better malls opened in areas near freeways where one would definitely need a car to get to. Neighborhood mom and pop businesses had closed forcing residents living in those communities to gas up and drive out of their communities to get the most quality goods and services
@@agentorange2554 not just small mom and pops neighborhood stores but most of the businesses had lieft their supporting communities and moved further from the communitiees into strip malls and malls. Now the malls are closing with the exceptions of a few malls and mega malls that are surrounded by freeways instead of walkable communities
Just like what happened about 10 years ago when more people started going back to public transit. As soon as gas prices became super high, they cut service and raised the fares, forcing people to drive and pay those high prices.
Thank you for this history lesson, Adam. Having become a newly licensed driver in the late '70s, I drove a lot of these cars when they were new or nearly new. Some were clearly not well engineered or made, but many were. What I used to observe is when an owner was unhappy, it was usually related to driveability. and rarely about quality of body assembly or functionality of features.
Adam, I always hear you say that you never experienced a problem with particular problem engine. I believe that the reason for this is because you KNOW HOW properly operate a vehicle my friend, whereas most others do not. You & I are people with an engineering-type mind & are aware of a vehicles expectational limits. You do terrific job at what you do Adam. It's always a pleasure watching you videos my friend !!!
So many things to discuss here, but, to your title question, what caused the US manufactures to fail, you picked the right car for your topic illustration. As a GM employee, I bought, with the company discount, a new car every year from 1979 till 1991. I can tell, my 1980 Citation (Tarrytown New York build) was an absolute piece of garbage. The Engineering problem with the rear brake lockup was real! As if this car wasn’t bad enough, my 81 Skylark (Willow Run) was even worse. The dealer never did sort out all the electrical problems with that one. Of course, I stayed with GM products, I worked for the company, but I often wondered how many other customers who bought those crap 1980-1983 X-cars, said, never again to GM. I would say, in my opinion, the rush to get the FWD X-cars to market represents the pinnacle of the CAFE problem. Thanks, as always Adam, for an interesting discussion. I say this with great respect, as a car lover, and a genuine aficionado, that your knowledge astounds me. I learn something every time. Keep them coming! PS - lest I leave the wrong impression, I had many, many excellent GM cars! In particular, how about an 87 Regal Limited with the T - Type Decor group and the 3.8 Turbo? Shoulda kept that one!
Thank you for chiming in, especially with your experience. My dad had a new 1978 Buick Electra and it was really a great car. He wanted to trade it on a Citation and thankfully, he backed out. He instead went to a Toyota Corolla, which really bothered him. I have always preferred GM and just bought a 22 Chevy Silverado LTD RST. Wow has the engineering become amazing!
Last new American car i bought a 1974 Pontiac Ventura needed a valve job at 12500 miles although it was shaking at idle for at least 1000 miles while mechanics screwed around with the carbs and spark plug wires. Turned out the no lead gas didnt protect the valves like leaded gas and they failed. That and the fact that molding would fall off going down the road. BTW the OEM tires must have been made by Kleenex because my wife seemed to have a flat every week. I drove down to the Goodyear store and put a set of the new steel belted radial tire within a month of buying the car. Awful car
And how was it my '81 Skylark Limited was one of the best cars I ever owned? A leaky water pump at 80,000 miles was the only issue in 140,000 miles of driving. Weird...
We’d all benefit from more porch talks from Adam! The MVSA of 1965 plunged a butcher knife into USA domestic cars, and when CAFE came along, the knife got twisted. The companies improvised and adapted, sure. But they could never quite overcome such draconian government regulation.
That was one of the butcher knives - there were several. There was that one, the CAFE regulations that only applied to American cars, (the Japanese only had to follow an individual model economy rule - make a gas hog and that model only is slapped with that Gas Guzzler tax, but if Detroit makes enough gas hogs that it dragged down the average, EVERY SINGLE MODEL, NO MATTER HOW ECONOMICAL, is taxed) - the third butcher knife is that the Japanese heavily subsidize their auto exports, and the more we lower our prices, the more they subsidize their exports. The fourth one is the fact that our government has been indifferent to the fact that the Japanese have make it almost immpossible for us to sell OUR cars over there.
@@michaelbenardo5695 no one can afford to pay someone to work for them for 30 years and then pay them another 30+ not to work for them at sometime you end up asking for bail outs or start asking the government for bills like nafta
Good insight and explained very well. I always thought the 1977 GM downsize was truly well done. Our 1974 Thunderbird got 8mpg, replaced by a 1978 Cadillac Fleetwood that was truly magnificent and got 20 mpg. I agree with you that to keep improving, serious compromises were detrimental. I also believe that the end result is why trucks and SUV’s are so popular today.
My dad owned '54, '65, and '68 Belairs, all bought new. I owned a '71 Impala and a '74 Impala, both with 350s and a few years old when I got them, but well maintained. A few years later, my second ever brand new car was a very sharp, loaded '81 Caprice, which of course was one of the new generation B-bodies that had been downsized in '77 with some cosmetic tweaks in 1980. I liked my dad's Belairs, especially the '65, and my earlier Impalas, especially the '71, but my '81 Caprice was better in every way. Much more trim on the outside but just as much room inside. It made far more sense than the bloated pre-'77 B-bodies. It's still one of my favorites among the 40-ish motor vehicles I've owned so far.
@@TS-ef2gv Downsizing the Chevy was a smart idea, as they had become really big, probably too big for a low-priced car, but the should NOT have downsized the Cadillac, the biggest Buick, (the 4 holers), nor the Olds 98. And they should not have downsized the Pontiac, the small Olds, and the small Buick, (the 3 holers), as much as they did. They should have remained bigger cars than the Chevrolet.
Outstanding insight, and deductively articulate explanation for the role of government in the unmitigated failure. To this day, the country hasn't learned how damaging CAFE regulation is. Further exacerbating the problem was having to sell many more efficient vehicles in order to offset the higher profit, inefficient vehicles consumers would otherwise buy. Invariably this led to necessarily cheap, and generally inferior products compared to Japanese or European makes which sold well in foreign markets with far more expensive gas.
Good Morning, Adam. Well-explained history and I look forward to Part 2. I am a boomer who lived through the “malaise” period, a time when my career required a great deal of travel driving domestic company cars that were leased for two-year terms starting in 1979. Over the next several years, I had a Malibu (was overall good), followed by an Olds Omega, then Buick Skylark (both X-cars). I got promoted and inherited a 1985 Pontiac Bonneville that had the worst, most anemic V-8 I’ve ever driven. Other than the Malibu, these were horribly manufactured cars that were underpowered, noisy, and unrefined. Then 1987 happened and my replacement for the Bonneville was a first generation Mercury Sable. It was like leaping forward twenty years in design, power, build quality, and handling. It was like driving a European luxury car by comparison. I believe what made such a huge difference in the negative attitude toward domestic cars was all the things you covered while the Japanese cars were improving their quality by leaps and bounds… particularly in greatly reducing their tendencies to prematurely rust. Further, “Consumer Reports” was very down on domestic cars which carried a lot of influence during that period, which still somewhat lingers to this day. Happy New Year! 👍👍👍
Your depths of knowledge is amazing! I grow up with these cars was an avid reading of the car magazines during the, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s through today and this review blew me away! My biggest complaint about the US auto industry is the lack of quality build and design. To me corporate greed was to blame for the failure of the automobile industry. Quality was already in a death spiral long before the CAF regulation effect. But maybe you cover that in the next parts of this review. Great insight on this topic! 👍
I've been waiting for your take on this very issue. Excellent explanation of why the timing of cafe made it so challenging for the domestics. On top of cafe, we also had big emission requirements coming on board at the same time as cafe. The domestics had a very steep hill to climb and it's no wonder there were some stumbles on the way. The Japanese imports, by comparison pretty much had the cafe handled just through natural product development, so most of their r&d dollars could be focused on improving quality. It's almost like our government set out to make our industry fail. Thanks for doing this video. Look forward to more. You are one of the most knowledgeable auto enthusiast channels online.
Also, the Japanese government subsidized their auto industry. Heavily. That is something that can't be overlooked, as it is impossible for private companies to compete against wealthy governments for ever, never making much of a profit.
I think our government did indeed want our auto industry to fail. Many of the politicians hated the fact that all the auto workers, steel workers, and tire/rubber workers were members of strong unions that couldn't be broken, so they decided to instead destroy the industries. Add to that the car-hating hippies and beatniks became of age and became politicians, corporate board members, etc. and planted seeds of destruction from the inside.
@@michaelbenardo5695 it almost seems like it, doesnt it. I also find it suspicious that a national 55mph speed limit was also enacted at about the same time as most of the imports at that time, especially Asian imports wouldn't handle sustained high speed cruising at that time. The Japanese carmakers worked diligently to improve their cars to handle our driving conditions. I know for a fact that one of my first cars, 78 Plymouth arrow, (Mitsubishi) would hardly go 70 at max, much less cruise comfortably doing so
@@howebrad4601They claim they lowered the speed limit to reduce fuel consumption, but the last time they did that, during the war, it was actually to save tires, not gas.
Hey Adam, Happy New Year! I just watched your porch chat regarding the enactment of the CAFE in 1975. I lived through that era, and let me tell you, back in the late 60s,early 70s, it was really hard for us Gearheads to make it through our days. We never saw any of that coming, and when the 73 embargo came, it was downright and painful. The gas shortage, with it's gas lines, and restrictions, we didn't think we were going to survive. Then dealing with the challenges of what was happening to the cars, and who can forget the national 55mph speed limit, well I guess none of us thought how hard it was for the US auto industry to meet the federal demands. It was a very dark time. But I will tell you, you do an excellent job of explaining the sudden constraints that were put on them industry that by that time had become pretty comfortable doing things the way they did. After all they were the "Big Three " they didn't care, they didn't have to. But now we/they have adopted to all the changes for the most part. I do feel badly that the sour taste in people's mouths regarding the maleze years still exists. The US is building better cars than they ever did and don't get credit for it. It just tears my heart out when I'm stopped at an intersection and I'm the only one driving an American car! I'm from Detroit, my parents worked at Ford and Chrysler. We saw the good years and enjoyed the cars that supported our familys and our country. It was our auto industry, and we loved and wanted it to be healthy. I'm always so happy to hear that Chrysler has survived another brush with death. Chrysler brought a lot of industry standards to the table for building cars. Thanks again for your excellent review of the subject matter.
I’m looking forward to your first insider interview. This should be a great series. As you are familiar with the finance end of the car business, I’d love to hear how money flow affected the engineering of the vehicle developments. 👍 I’m also amazed you can sit outside where you live and not be more bundled up. It will be -34C tonight here. Cold enough that no carbed car would likely start without a block heater. My First car was a 1978 Cutlass Supreme Brougham in 1985. Loved the car to death. By death I mean spun bearings in the 260 V8 and body rot. I still have fond memories of it and have owned many GM vehicles since (and two Fords). I’m partial to Japanese motorcycles and tractors though
Back in 1981 we had bought my wife a new Chevrolet Citation four-door hatchback. It was our first front-wheel-drive automobile. Other than the radio being horizontal if I can remember correctly I didn't care for that the car was okay and I believe we held onto it until 1986 and traded it in on a Buick. I've owned so many cars in my lifetime I can't keep up with every model. Certain ones bring back to memory to some degree. Thank you. This gentleman has the financial means to keep the history of a lot of cars alive this is a very unique RUclips channel.
Happy New Year Adam. Thanks. This was very interesting. I remember running to the dealers from school, in 1977 to see the downsized cars. I loved most of them. It was exciting to see the changes and I was hopeful that we would be competitive with the foreign cars. But evidently they pushed too fast, and sacrificed quality for speed of production. 🤦🏻♂️
They actually turned out good. They really declined in 1980 with attempts to further reduce weight due to tightening CAFE. I think the big mistake was in downsizing the Cadillac, the big Buick, (the 4 holers), and the Olds 98. They should have remained truly big cars, and the Pontiac, Olds 88, and the small Buick, (the 3 holers) should not have been downsized as sharply as they were. They should have remained bigger than the Chevy, even if only slightly.
This is by far the most diverse automobile channel on YT. I love these "fireside chats" you do! Very informative and we thank you for sharing your immense knowledge blended with your personal views and passion for cars. Happy 2022 everyone. Aunt Barbara adores you!
My first brand-new car was a 1975 Chevy Nova 2-door coupe (mid-level) with the 350 cu. in. V-8. It was an enjoyable car, that was fun to drive (great drivetrain) and fairly good quality. I kept it for seven years and only needed regular maintenance and minor repairs. I replaced it with a new 1982 Honda Accord hatchback, which was amazing compared to the Nova. I kept it for five years, but then needed a car with a/c, so I looked at a new 1988 Accord, which by that time had become a lot more expensive. Chevrolet had just brought out the new Beretta for 1988, and the price was good, so I bought one. Unfortunately, the Beretta was the biggest turd I ever owned. Multiple failures of components, some of them repeatedly over the time I owned it. I had put so much money into repairs that I felt my only option was to keep it. It cost me a fortune in repairs, and to this day I am still bitter about it. I really wanted to like this car. I still like GM products, but I have opted to use public transit for the past 20+ years., as the car sort of left me in the poor house. I could place all of the blame on GM, but instead I blame myself for trusting GM to have built a better car by that time. Adam, as always, you are interesting to listen to (you know what you talk about!) and I look forward to future videos. Thank you, and Happy New Year!
Great video. I’ll never forget having strangers push my mom and I out of an intersection when our Vega Wagon simply died. Permanently. Later on our 84 Buick Century suffered a similar fate. And then by chance, we rented a Honda Civic to go on vacation. Wow: what a difference in terms of performance and overall build quality. I’ve been buying Hondas ever since. I’m sure American cars have come a long way since then, but I’ve never forgotten the headaches caused by those malaise-era domestics.
14:15 thank you Adam for remembering the Oldsmobile Diesel engine and their contribution to this time frame with regards to CAFE. Virtually every automotive historian always forgets about the Olds Diesels. Great Video!!!
I have a 1985 Olds 98 V6 4.3 diesel. I also own and have put many many miles on mid 80s 6.2 and 6.5 diesels. I can't drive the 98 V6 diesel bc of a power steering pulley alignment issue that is puzzling me
I own a low-mile 1981 Delta 98 DX block. I’ve driven it 1000s of miles including one 1900 mile road trip. Loud outside, a little cold-blooded, but an absolutely beautiful ride and totally trouble free. The 1981 “DX” engine was the one GM should have made first. The upgrades included better head gaskets and stronger head bolts that threaded more deeply into the block. The main cap bolts were also better and more deeply threaded into the block. A new roller hydraulic lifter was developed with a new cam profile to suit. A stronger oil pump driveshaft was added.
Great topic for discussion - Adam, you had to be alive in 1973 when the first Oil Embargo struck to know how terrible it was. I was a kid and remember waiting with my mom for 1-2 hours for a small ration of gas - and then the gas shortage caused the economy to tumble. People were angry and they told cutting jokes like- ..."What good is a Cadillac Eldorado - when you can't buy gas for it?" As you said, doubling CAFE from 1974 to 1985 seemed impossible, but it had to be done for national security reasons. Society goes a lot smoother when people can drive their car 1,000 miles in a month instead of 500 - and that's probably how the CAFE rule makers saw it.
I would have preferred no CAFE at all, but should have been more gradual over a longer period of time - maybe starting at 18 mpg for 1978 and increase .75 mpg per year through 1991 to get to 27.5
My brother had a couple of X-11’s from new, the first one (burnt orange) lost the bottom end at 14k miles. They bought it back as he was a service tech at a huge Chevy store in Pasadena Texas. His second one was red with a manual transmission, it lasted a couple of years till he got a Z28.
Another thing that killed brand loyalty was when Caddy’s had Olds engines, Pontiac had Chevy motors, Buick had Pontiac motors and the lawsuits that followed
I'm so glad GM kept the B-Body platform rear wheel drive. My first car was a 77 Impala. I've also had an 80 Olds Delta 88, 84 Buick Electra, an 88 Caprice Classic Brougham, and I currently have a 96 Buick Roadmaster sedan. All wonderful cars to drive. Out of all the cars I've owned, GM B-Body cars are definitely my favorite. I really like my Roadmaster, but I definitely want to get an older B-Body. Preferably something from the mid 80's.
I’ve had two 1979 Caprices as well, they’re fantastic daily drivers. Tons of interior room but surprisingly nimble. I put an edelbrock carburetor on one and was able to really get some good mpg out of it, around 20.
Thanks so much for all you do for us Adam. Do your videos wherever it is good for you? Just keep it up because you are a doing great!! Plus you challenge my car knowledge nerdiness and make guys like us look normal.
I would argue that there was a general lack of innovation that the US automakers suffered from that was in place quite a few years before CAFE. Coming off the late 60s when they ruled the roost, the cracks were evident, mostly in their being unable to effectively answer the VW Bug. Japanese cars in the late 60s were not all that great either and European cars were seen as somewhat quirky, so they had the opportunity. That opportunity was squandered among the younger generation with cars like the Vega which had awesome styling, but if the rust did not get it, engine failure did. I think the Pinto was a more solid car but had its own issues in the courts. Finally, Chrysler didn't even compete with a domestic product in this space and just imported cars from Mitsubishi. This pretty much killed a significant part of the younger generation that had either gotten burned on one of these cars or had friends or family that did. These people became Toyota, Honda and Nissan buyers and either stayed with those brands or moved up to European cars. Another lost opportunity came with the malaise era luxo barges where the idea was to put a vinyl roof on everything along with opera windows and coach lights, put a Brougham badge on it and call it good. Meanwhile, the Europeans were making cars that actually connected the driver to the road and Japanese were making cars that were reliable and cheap to own. This was more of a slow bleed that became suddenly evident in 1979 when US cars for the most part seemed pretty inferior on the world stage by comparison. So while CAFE was a hard hit, it just made the US automakers situation that they were already in worse and brought on products like the Cimarron, the HT4100, the GM Diesel that further dissatisfied customers and sent more of them away to the Japanese and Europeans.
US Automakers always have had trouble producing a good quality small car. The Corvair was probably the best one and Ralph Nader killed it, then came the VEGA disaster. The Ford Pinto could have been a decent car if Ford didn't scrimp on a $2 part that put the gas tanks at risk in a rear collision. They all got FAT and complacent and the Japanese ate their lunch. I used to have a 1981 Honda Accord and it had issues too but it was better than the stuff GM was putting out. My Ex had a 1979 Ford Mustang with a V6 that started drinking oil before it even hit 30k miles. GM V6s were just as bad in the era. I had an 87 Buick with a V6 that was drinking oil by the time it had 50k on it. I made them rebuild the engine in it since I had an extended warranty on it and it had 3 pistons with the rings turned in it. I think Modern V6s are a lot better. I have owned a few Ford Tauruses and never had an issue with any of them. I think domestic vehicles got a lot better when they started coming with a 3 year bumper to bumper warranty.
@@WhittyPics In 83 a friend of mine traded in his 78 Buick Regal for a 79 Accord. I was blown away how quiet tight and smooth that car was. I ended up buying an 86 Prelude a few years later, and did not go back to buying American cars for about 15 years after that. Right now I have a 2013 Cadillac ATS which I am very happy with.
Fully agree.. and I would add that the styling of the Japanese and European cars were a step ahead.. especially by about 1983.. they were just "in".. and American cars, while still attractive in the eyes of many, ( especially to the 'buy america only' crowd ) just were not considered in style anymore to large segments of the market.. so many were sold on honda accords or Toyota products.. Volkswagens.. and higher end European cars like audis, or volvos like the 240 or the 760's.. all of which looked way more sophisticated next to Chevy citations, plymouth reliants, and yes, chevrolet impalas.. or most other gm products.. so on top of reliability being seen by so many as inferior in American cars, it certainly didn't help that they were also seen as relatively unstylish by a lot of people. Finally, I will add that leasing took off in the 80's, which allowed many to acquire 'more car' than they would otherwise be able to afford.. which probably helped European brands get a bigger slice of the market. And once people drove a 1980s European model, there was no chance they'd ever find themselves back in an oldsmobile or buick showroom!
@@WhittyPics , Just as a nitpick, Nader didn't kill the Corvair. Falcons and Valiants set the price point for that market segment and the Corvair had too many unique parts to be made for similar low costs. GM tried to get the other divisions to sell Corvair platform cars and the other divisions weren't interested. The Corvair was doomed to be a low profit car. The Chevy II/Nova and the Camaro were alot more profitable It's been argued that GM kept the Corvair around after the success of the more popular and profitable Chevy II just to show that Nader wasn't pushing GM around.
You really nailed it. Detroit was hung up on annual styling tweaks, overdosing on plasti-chrome, long hoods and landau roofs. I'm sure the younger engineers and product planners were trying to appease depression-era bosses and traditional-mindset customers (who likely lusted after Deusenbergs as kids). Growing up on the West Coast, I watched as rational consumers (young or old alike) were less hung up on cubic inches and land-barge proportions. VW busses and Datsun pickups were typical for conservative suburban driveways. Some of us rejected the more-is-better mindset and bought the smallest possible (my first car had 2 cylinders, 36 CID, 36hp & 10"tires). Thankfully, the German and Asian companies now engineer & build in the USA, and we have a successful new American automaker shaking things up worldwide.
The worst thing about the onset of the CAFE standards it that they arrived as the crash-test, bumper and emissions standards, all of which had made cars heavier and more fuel hungry, were still being phased in. It was a perfect storm of over-regulation that turned the 1973-1983 period into a lost decade for Detroit.
Sad but true. I still say the CAFE regs were pro Japanese and anti Detroit, as a Japanese auto maker who made a gas guzzler had that tax slapped on THAT MODEL CAR ONLY, but if an American company made one, EVERY SINGLE CAR THEY SOLD, NO MATTER HOW ECONOMICAL, had that tax on it. And it was Gerald Ford, a Republican, not a Democrat, not a "liberal", not a "Socialist" who pushed for that and signed it into law.
Fascinating! I drove some of those cars and never knew the history behind them. Your videos should be required viewing for everyone in the auto industry.
You should do a video like this that involves the history of the 5 and 10 mph bumpers. Most vehicles that have been made for the past 20 years or so no longer have what a 5 and 10 mph bumper looked like back in the 70s and 80s.
It started in 1973. 1973 passenger cars were required to have 5 mph front and 2.5 mph rear bumpers. In 1973, Mopar did a cheap bypass act by putting big rubber guards on the front bumpers. But Uncle Sam got wise to that and required full frontal protection the following year, along with requiring 5 mph rear bumpers as well. The only model years that both front and rear bumpers on new passenger cars sold in the US were legally required to withstand 5 mph impacts were 1974 to 1981. I had a 1981 Toyota Corolla Sport Coupe during the '80s that was hit twice at (about) 5 mph, both times without damage. Then, in 1982, came the "Reagan Abomination," in which bumper standards got relaxed back down to 2.5 mph (both front and rear) from the 1983 model year onward. As for 10 mph bumper standards, I've have never heard of any that would apply to passenger cars, maybe on an Abrams A-1 tank when hit by another Abrams A-1 tank, but certainly not passenger cars.
I hadn't thought about this subject for many years and your explanation put ALOT of things together for me regarding why things are the way they are today. History (the truth) has a way of doing that. Thank you Adam
Ahh the variable Venturi carbs. I thought about that fiasco just the other day. Rushed to market with virtually zero dealer support from Ford. So the dealers, rather than sinking a bunch of resources into figuring these carbs out opted to just replace them with 2100 2 bbl carbs. I will say this fiasco likely pushed Ford head long into multi port fuel injection ahead of the competition. Another super interesting video, Adam. Happy New Year to you as well.
Had a continental big block took variable venturi turd off ,bought a brand new holley 500 cfm 2 barrel dropped jets down a little and car never ran so good ,ahh back when gas was 100 dollar a gallon and 12 miles to gallon didn't bother me lol,
I really enjoy your commentary. In the fall of 1978, I was in college and driving from my parents house to school. After transmission in my mom’s 1969 Impala needed major work (and i didn’t flunk out of school), my dad and went out to purchase a good car for me to drive. He purchased a 1977 Malibu with a strait 6 engine that was a major disaster; the gas mileage was less than my aunts 77 Malibu with a 305 V8. Long story short, the straight 6 did not have the power to pull the car. In the fall of 1978. I was looking for a car. I went to the AMC dealer and looked at a Spirit. The sales person practically cried when I told him I purchased a Ford Fairmont Futura. My experience with the Fairmont was so bad, that it took me 15 yrs before I purchased another Ford. And that early 90’s Ford was so bad, I haven’t purchased a Ford product since then. I only purchase Honda products now.
I really like the historical side of GM in particular. I grew up a GM driver then owner but I quit buying them in the 90s. I dint think I’ll ever buy another one.
We had a new 97 grand prix as a kid...it was a great car... my first car was a 91 regal limited...then had a 95 olds aurora and recently I got a 51000 mile 98 monte carlo...i love 90s gm cars ...grew up around them and that's the time they actually. Started getting interesting an much more refined and distinct than the 80s cars..the 90s was peak gm in my opinion
Thank You Adam! This actually to me was one of the most informative car videos I have ever seen, although not really showing cars. You now definitely have a new excited follower in Germany.
Adam, Always enjoy the car chats and living in MN, I understand the challenge of driving our collector cars in the winter. I recall watching an Auto Moments special on the development of the AMC Pacer...and it seemed that government regulations with fuel economy and CAFE, and safety and emissions standards and trying to engineer everything to fit together was a challenge, especially for the Pacer since it's GM sourced rotary engine was cancelled and AMC had to quickly retrofit it's existing engines into the car. The point was AMC had to anticipate roof crush and other standards in anticipating the car's lifespan on the market. I was in the 5th grade when the GM 77 program came to market. And I think that was the high water market of the malaise period and was one of the rare moments GM hit the market with the right product at the right time. From what I've heard, GM"s continuing downsizing to front drive with the C body in 1985 was based on an analyst's prediction that gas would be 3 bucks a gallon by the mid 80s. Of course we had an oil glut and GM was stuck with the front drive lookalike cars which Lincoln and Ford capitalized on with some of their ad campaigns for the Town Car. GM didn't have a decent four cylinder..since they botched the four cylinders with the Vega. If you think about it, the first modern GM four cylinder was the Quad 4 in 1988. I'm not counting the Cosworth Vega since that was limited production. So as a stop gap, you had the iron Duke which ran well into the early 90s. Even the V6 that evolved into the 3800 had its roots in the Buick 225 V6 of the early 1960s. Probably from a cost accounting standpoint, GM found it better to mix existing engineering footprints with new front drive platforms. While the imports had better economy, and quality, they did rust quickly in our winter salt environment. Our malaise era Cutlass was with us for 12 years and the body was very solid with minimal corrosion....the door panels didn't line up nor was it as refined as a contemporary Toyota but it didn't rust out either. My Dad was the classic GM customer..buy the Chevy and move up the product chain..and that is pretty much what was imprinted on me as far as what to expect in a car was the driving dynamics, look and feel of a GM car of the day. Until I met a well to do family that had Hondas....and I was stunned at the level of refinement of the Accord versus a Pontiac 6000. When I was close to graduating from college, I test drove an Accord versus a Pontiac Grand Am with the Iron Duke....about the same price but the Accord had no radio, no AC and no Cruise control....you had to get that installed at the dealer...while the Grand Am has a stereo with a tape deck, AC and Cruise.....and extremely clumsy driving dynamics and a rough four cylinder versus the Accord...and since the Grand Am appeared to be the better value, that's what I got...and I still kick myself for not getting the Honda Years later, Dad bought a Subaru Outback and a Legacy sedan because he liked all wheel drive and the way the cars handled. I swore off GM but ended up buying two Chevy Volts which it seemed GM over engineered by under marketed. Otherwise, we buy Honda Odysseys as our main family vehicle. Today, with modern computer hardware and software, it will probably be easier to engineer around government mandates...much more so than the crude emission systems used 40 to 50 years ago. Even my 87 Dodge Dakota has some of the "lean burn" legacy...a Holley carb and a maze of vacuum lines and a big box containing the spark computer. Really shows how far things have progressed...and these videos bring back some great memories of cars that I've ridden in or driven.
GM had an available four cylinder in the Chevy II* . Based on the Chevy inline six it shared the same bore speed as the SBC. GM should have been able to redesign the SBC head to adapt it to the four cylinder. I do know that AMC had provisions built into the machining lines for their inline six to convert to 4 or even 5 cylinder *the tooling may have been shipped to Brazil.
Thank you for that comprehensive summary of what helped knock the U.S. car industry off its pedestal. I appreciate your highlighting the Olds 350 diesel (had a neighbor in my father's car pool to work who experienced the whole engine replacement fight with one of those!) and the Pontiac 301 camshaft - the 301 always being an enigma to me as I wondered if it was any better than that Chevy 305 my family had in our '78 Impala. You really make a fair argument - I had long been under the impression that the U.S. auto industry was capable of making the advancements if they put their engineering minds to it but that the American car buyer was sort of a herd driven by fad toward mainly Japanese car brands despite any improvements made in Detroit. By the way, I remain a diehard American car buyer and drive an unimpressive - but reliable - Ford Focus wagon. Have no idea what I will end up replacing it with when I finally have to.
Very interesting to say the least! I was employed at Mitsubishi from 89’-04’ and worked on the line all the way to Quality Control that test drove the autos before they shipped. I loved that job!
Were you working for DSM in Normal Ill? Or did Mitsubishi have a separate manufacturing plant not associated with Chrysler? I lived in Illinois then and remember driving past that plant once or twice.
@@marcusdamberger hello yes when I started in 89’ it was called DSM (Diamond Star Motors). We joked around saying it meant “dust sweep mop” it was only one plant and at that time we built the Eclipse, Eagle Talon, and the Plymouth Laser. A couple years later they ventured into the four door category along with the SUV called the Endeavor.
Adam, very nice presentation of the impact of CAFE on the big three! Having lived through those times and had friends and relatives in GM and Chrysler, I think from that limited perspective even the engineers hired and working for the domestics were NOT up to the challenges. “Hide bound” or similar terms come to mind. When we moved to Detroit we were struck by the very narrow view point of many people living there. If California was considered “wild and open”, Detroit and the American Midwest were the complete opposite. We were glad to move away after a few years.
Certain industries in the US tended to siphon off the cream of the engineering talent. Aerospace for one. Often the auto industry was getting second tier people. But not always. Detroit had some really talented engineers. The big problem in Detroit was management. And that management being dominated by the bean counters and MBA types. Don't misunderstand. You need those people. But in the end you are building a product that while functioning as an appliance in many ways also evokes emotional responses. The marketing guys understood that. A bean counter never will. The US auto industry did have its "appliance" type cars in the 60s and 70s. Chevy lls, Ford Falcon, Chryslers Dart/Valiant, Rambler American and base model Chevelles etc. Basic transportation. As to the conservatism of the American manufacturers. In some ways I think that was a "this is the way we've always done it" type of thinking. Chrysler never really did get it IMO. Ford and GM certainly had experience with the European market they should have been able to get it. There is another problem with GM I think. In many ways GM was the most innovative and risk taking of all the US auto manufacturers. Not overall but in being willing to try different things. The early 60s and then the original Vega are examples of this. In the early 60s the cars were they took risks to some extent where the Corvair and the models from Pontiac, Olds and Buick based off of that platform. The POB models were conventional in layout but reached out to try other technologies. The Covair was clearly inspired by the VW. But in the end yhe Corvair left a bad taste in GMs collective mouth. The car wasn't a failure. Total sales were well over one million units. But it was a disaster PR wise. Then there was the Vega. Fairly conventional in layout. As were the Japanese cars of the time. In fact in 1970 FWD was rare in the US. But the engine. While workable in theory the plated aluminum cylinder bores failed in large part because of two things. Owner neglect and cost cutting. The cost cutting came in when GM reduced the thickness of the Nickel/Silicon coating that provided the wear surface for the piston rings. The fact that the body on the Vega left the factory seeking to migrate back into the crust of the Earth as IronOxide and lousy build quality certainly did not help.
@@mpetersen6 The Corvair, Ralph Nader, and our transformation into a sue-happy society made the industry scared of trying anything different. That Vega engine was a horrible blunder. If they had have made it out of iron, it would have been a trouble-free engine, which is what us Americans were used to - trouble-free engines.
Another thing to consider: the Japanese government and the auto industry worked together for the overall benefit of both. While the American government and the auto industry were hostile towards each other.
Hey, Carl Albert & Jerry Ford, let's ruin the US Auto Industry so we have less tax revenue to collect, just because they don't like people who make a profit and are successful.
@@billolsen4360 It was not only those who hated people who make profits, it was also those who hated the fact that the auto workers, steel workers, and tire & rubber workers were members of strong unions that couldn't be broken. The solution? Take their jobs away from them. Our major industries got it from both directions.
@@michaelbenardo5695 And where are the strong unions today? Out there aggressively organizing these companies who are giving fat bonuses to billionaires who pay their employees trash wages? No! The union bosses are busy forcing Sleepy Joe to avoid even mentioning firms like Tesla whose workers make 24% more than UAW counterparts.
Awesome talk, as always. I grew up at the side of my grandfather who sold Chevys, Buicks and Oldsmobiles at a small southern dealership until he retired in 1972. GM was the home team and it deeply saddened me when the caliber of their cars degraded. I'll take the lines and chrome and power of GM in the '60s over anything produced now. Happy new year, Adam.
To me the GM cars of the '60s and early '70s were the best looking. After that things changed, bodies got bigger and heavier, the heavy mandated bumpers did not justice to the styling or weight, and there was less and less distinction between the divisions.
When I got married in 1975, bought a Corolla Deluxe, great car 28-31 MPG! However, my Dad's '84 Sedan DeVille blew me away with its 4100 engine and 28 MPG HWY! He only drove 10-12K miles per year and had no problems with that engine!
Always enjoy your "Garage-side Chats," Adam! You've explained perfectly what happened in a 20yr span, in 23mins. I never realized how much they had to do in so little time. Now it explains why a friend in high school had to keep a box of motor oil in the trunk of their 3yr old Buick Skyhawk (and the engine sounded like canastas being played.) Happy New Year, thank you for taking the time to share your gorgeous cars, and knowledge!
One of the main reasons for the failure of the American automotive industry in the Seventies actually happened in the Forties. To my understanding, and minimal fact checking, we forbade Japan from making airplanes as a condition of their surrender. Suddenly a whole industry full of engineers had to find jobs. They started making bikes, scooters, and motorcycles, partially to feed their families, but largely because that was the main mode of transportation in post war Japan. Small lightweight motorized bikes were Japan’s “people’s car”, like the Beetle, 2CV, and Fiat 500 were for their respective countries. As the industry (largely isolated from western norms and ideals) grew into its natural conclusion of making autos, the Japanese were in the perfect position to make cheap, lightweight, efficient, reliable vehicles, because they’d been honing their engineering skills on motorcycles for a couple of decades. The thought processes carried over to four wheels. If that isn’t completely accurate, it is certainly an interesting thought. I had a great history teacher once… There’s also a pretty famous story (I won’t elaborate here, google is your friend) about Honda buying a ‘74-ish Impala, applying the CVCC emissions technology to it, and making way better mpgs out of it (maybe more power too?). It was done as a response to GM execs who were up in arms with the new standards, and said it couldn’t be done.
Very interesting discussion...I was driving a semi-hopped up AMC Gremlin X (headers, carb, manifold), then got a job 50 miles away from home. I went out and bought a 1974 Honda Civic. Everyone would point and laugh that a car could be so small. I was getting 35 miles a gallon though. It was easy to work on and dead reliable. The only issue was the placement of the ignition coil at the top of the firewall where snow would melt and short it out. I gave it away with 135,000 miles on it.
My favorite example of Detroit downsizing was when Ford Motor Company went from selling the Fox body Fairmont/Granada to offering the Tempo - which had a push rod 4 cylinder that was derived from the old "Thriftpower" 200 cu. inch 6. Even though my first car was a 1963 Ford Galaxy, I'm more familiar with the design changes on European cars during this period. In short, there were teething issues in the implementation of analog electronic fuel injection - namely Bosch's early L-Jetronic systems - which didn't get a Lambda O2 sensor until 1983'ish. When the analog electronic fuel injection system worked, life was great. The ECU had about 25 old-school transistors acting like relays. Fuel flow was mainly dependent on the engine RPMs and a signal from electromechanical air flow meter. I won't go into the number of sensors placed through out the engine - but they were all analog. Digital electronic fuel did not come into the picture until the late eighties. Long story short - the older analog electronically controlled system was too complicated for most gas station mechanics of the period. So, more often than with earlier years with carburetor fuel systems, European vehicles required a trip to the dealership - if no local shops were available for the job.
Adam …Happy New Year to you and your family! Great video,I agree 100% as I grew up from the 60s and saw the whole automobile issues through the years. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and looking forward to your interviews. My family owned just about all the cars you mentioned..American small cars were Awful and these companies knew it…..admitting they didn’t know how to build smaller cars. My moms friend pulled into our driveway with a new 1978 Honda Accord….a nice car but even they started to burn oil at around 70-80k miles but was improved in just a couple of years.
From my observation, Japanese automakers stuck with a model and just kept making small improvements with examples like the Corolla, Civic and Sentra. GM would throw a dart, invest billions, the project would fail and back to the drawing board.
You are forgetting that the Japanese heavily subsidize their auto industry, so they are guaranteed a profit. Our auto makers have always been on their own. That's why the original GM went broke - they were trying to match the Japanese on price, so they eventually were selling cars at below cost. No private company can do that forever and not go broke.
You nailed it 100%.I avoided GM's FWD cars from the 80's for the longest time and bought their midsize and mid 70's full size cars,then switched to Honda & Toyota. Even though they got much better over the years,i never trusted their quality again.
Great historical review. IMO Ford handled this better than GM or Chrysler in the long run. They were smart enough to acknowledge they didn’t make small fuel efficient cars well so they turned to their European operations. Ford at that time was second to VW in sales in Europe and they were mostly small fuel efficient cars. Ford first big effort was the Pinto. Although it turned out to be an explosive failure. It’s 4 cylinder OHC engine (similar to what they used in Europe) was pretty good. Ford later used the Pinto engine in numerous products up to the 90’s. The Escort and Tempo were pretty good small cars compared to their domestic counterparts.
Chrysler owned Simca and Hillman in the 1970s. At first the imported the Hillman Avenger and sold it as a Plymouth Cricket. It was poorly built in ENGLAND. At the end of the 1970s they imported another car from Simca before they sold it to Peugeot. The Simca was sold as the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon and was a hit for 10yrs.
I had a 77 and two 88 Chevy caprice's all 3 where great the 88's where the best the 77 was a victim of bad cam and weak transmission my uncle replaced the 305/200 with a 350/350 I bought it in 93.
Very well done video and analysis. Your remarks about people having fond memories of their parents American cars of the 50's and 60's is true. It's those late 70's and early 80's problematic cars that caused many to buy Honda, Toyota and the other imports and never return to buying domestics. As those people got older through the 80's and 90's and needed bigger and different vehicles, the Japanese were right there with the right vehicles to fit their needs. I never thought I'd see the big 3 challenged and overtaken like that.
In addition to the CAFE standards affecting domestic manufacturers across their fleets there was also a lopsided effect when compared to European manufacturers. For example when Mercedes-Benz produced an S-Class or BMW produced a 7 Series that fuzzed gasoline there was a $3000 gas guzzler tax tacked on to each unit sold in the US however it didn’t effect the fleet of 190 class or 240 / 300 class Mercedes or 240i BMW cars sold as they weren’t effected by the fleet factor of the Corporate Average. It wasn’t a level playing field.
Dear Adam, I generally love your videos, your collection and taste in cars, plus your very pleasant demeanor in your vids ! -- I'm a life long car guy from Holland, who aspired to be a car designer from age 10 through 20; studied Industrial Design engineering at the Technical University of Delft, a small touristy city between Rotterdam and the Hague, best known for Delftware Blue pottery -- but alo for winning the Aussy World Solar Championship seven times since 2001 ! Your view on how the CAFE, safety, and emissions legislations were all very tough on the US auto industry is very enlightening, but I feel a need to make some counterpoints ... The Big Three all needed a hard Kick in the Butt to start competing with the best products from the foreign auto industry ! -- Moreover, they COULD have considered LEARNING from the most successful foreign products - whether these were sold in the US or not. -- AND: ALL three owned overseas subsidiaries, that already posessed crucial technologies, implemented in their smaller cars, because BOTH local laws AND consumers wanred these ! G.M. had Opel/Vauxhall (EU), Holden (Oz), and Isuzu (Jp), and developed stakes in Toyota and Suzuki. Ford had major centers in Germany and the U.K., and a stake in Mazda; and Chrysler bought Sunbeam (UK), and Talbot (France). But the Big Three stayed VERY focused on selling BIG cars, with large displacement V8 motors, and many of them HEAVY, due to body-on-frame construction, to kling to the annual model change approach ! Compact cars were never taken as seriously by them, as by their foreign competitors... A rare exception were the down-sized, very high quality 1975 and 1980 Cadillac Sevilles. Making European subsidary cars comply with the comparatively easy-going U.S. laws, was always easier, than engineering American cars to the strict European standards... And this is how it played out. Ford invested BILLIONS for their 1985/'86 Mercury Sable / Ford Taurus, only to design cars virtually identical to the German '85/'86 Ford Scorpio... -- Chrysler co-developed their Dodge Omni hatchback and its siblings together with te Talbot Horizon, and really benefited from this cooperation. Their following K-cars also offered Amerians truly compact - Instead of "down-sized" - cars, that they Bought in Droves ! Chrysler was since then chosen not Once, but TWICE, as an attractive merger partner, by European car-makers, because of their ability to make (relativey) compact cars. Ford was the best able to transition into making some truly global cars, with their Ka, Fiesta, and Focus platforms. The Mustang Mach E are, and the Bronco-Sport will also be type-approved in Europe. G.M. began very promising, with the Cavalier as a global car, but eventually the accountants decided to simply liquidate ALL overseas assets, with Opel/Vauxhall now even folded into Stellantis - so effectively merged with rival Chrysler... AMC's HUGE Mistake was to develop the Pacer -- a quirky car that I love, by the way !! -- AMC only had money to develop ONE more whole new car, and it should have been like a new Hornet: a flexibe new platform, that could be built in different wheelbase lengths, in many different body-styles, and optionally with 4-wheel drive.
Oh, and one more thing: when Ford, G.M. & Chrysler started putting V8s in their 2nd gen, VW-inspired 1970s compact Vans, they successfully lobbied congress for the famoua 'Chicken Tax' protectionism, instead of making engines more efficiently burning... When one of Detroit's Big Three's bosses commented, that Honda's CVCC engines just wouldn't work in an American-sized car, Honda's bosses were so angered, that they built a V8 with CiciC-technology, simply to prove him wrong, and make him eat his words ! Honda had no intention of actually making V8s like this -- The whole point of this improved efficiency, was that you could get enough power, and clean enough emissions out of a 4- or 6-cylinder, and not even need the expense (or weight !) of a catalytic converter, combined with an enormous, heavy, and rediculously down-tuned engine-lump...
Great talk. I really enjoy your videos. I have nothing to add other than 2 things: working for a Chevy dealer my dad once brought home an early Citation 4 dr. It was an attractive car. I still think it’s a nice looking car. We took it on a family day trip somewhere. It was pretty nice as I recall, very roomy. Shortly after that I was at his work one day looking at cars in the showroom. They had a maroon Citation on the showroom floor that had orange peeled paint and overspray on the chrome window trim! My 10 year old self noticed this and was shocked! I can only imagine what potential buyers though. What did he buy for my mom to drive at the time? A 1978 Honda Civic. It was basic but I never remember it giving us any trouble. Unfortunately That began a long period of foreign car ownership that continues to this day.
Great video! Very informative!! The build quality of domestic vehicles of this era was terrible. Not only was the engineering flawed in many ways but, the quality of materials they used (particularly on the interiors) was diminished from previous years. They went from door panels and other interior parts made from fiberboard and steel to brittle plastic that rattled, squeaked, and broke if not handled gently. GM trucks had such ill fitting doors one had to slam them repeatedly to get them to latch completely. Subsequently, door panels were jerked loose from their weak fasteners, making them rattle even more. This type of thing happened a lot to many other domestic cars of this era.
Definitely more interviews with people like Bob Lutz. He's endlessly fascinating. No corporate mumbo jumbo, just good plain speak; more of that please. Gooday from Australia, :)
Impressive for off the top of your head...strange but in the late 70s I was in my early 20s and I don't remember anyone from my parent's generation gave a hoot about FWD, in fact they sought out RWD vehicles because they hated the handling of FWD or didn't trust it's reliability. So maybe if engineering concentrated on quality and improvement of familiar RWD design and reduction of weight it would've gone better? My dad loved putting the chains on the tires of his 60 F100. But it sounds like traverse mounting was by far the smaller challenge US carmakers faced. Oh and AMC, the old Nash Rambler, which was one of the leaders of downsizing and economy in the 50s and 60s under Romney...what a shame!
A comment to Mike.....I owned both an '83 and '88 Accord. Both great cars and lasted many years. The weak spot on the '83 was rust, but no rust on the '88. The pop up headlights on the '88 had a couple of issues but inexpensively repaired by the dealer.
I've particularly appreciated how you once compared the 1971-76 GM full-size car to its immediate predecessor and explained what was lost in terms of engineering design and assembly quality. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how the same early-1970s GM full-size design stands in comparison to its downsized successor of 1977 and onward.
To my understanding, GMs 77 intros were generally huge hits with the market, looking at the Sedan DeVille, Electra, Olds 98, and Bonneville. I remember BEGGING my grandfather to buy a 77 Bonneville, black with acres of red velour. He instead bought a 77 Phoenix, aka Nova with slightly nicer trim. Windows exploded, the left power window had to be pushed up to go down…it was just appalling.
@@scottlevine7646 Oh yeah, the downsized ones were definitely hits in the marketplace. However, Adam had made some very helpful comments about the engineering below the surface on the '71-'76 cars vs. their predecessors. I simply wondered the same thing about their successors.
@@OnkelPHMagee That's a fair point. It's hard to imagine GM quality getting *better* in the mid 70s (when the '77s were in development). But you have to appreciate how relatively agile the General was to get those '77s into development so quickly after the '73 crisis. Certainly the '77 Caprice/Impala were a monster hit, and actually had more room than their gargantuan predecessors ('71-'76). There was a moment when the '77 Cutlass outweighed the '77 Delta '88 I believe. There's a small set of mid-to-late 70s car reviews from a local Miami news station (can't find or I'd link) that I think you'd find interesting.
Thank you Adam, and a happy and prosperous new year to you as well. You are an amazingly smart individual and have a very spot on view of the US auto industry for a man of your years. I so agree with the faults you have laid out, as I am a baby boomer and have lived thru the periods as you have so accurately described. While I really wish for domestic vehicle that fits well in durability, quality and economy, I continually find myself at the Japanese branded dealerships for my car purchases. Sad but true. You have an amazing collection of wonderful cars from that period, and I truly respect your views, and cant wait for your next video. Thanks again.
The beginning of the end for American auto manufacturing was when their accountants started running things over the real car people running these companies.
@@jimmyellison2766 No it didn't, because almost ALL the world's auto makers are unionized, not just those over here. What helped kill our's is the fact that the Japanese subsidize their auto exports and block our cars from their country. And many of the Europeans slap tariffs on our cars, which prices them out of the market. And our government, no matter who is president, refuses to do anything about it, only cries, "Free Trade", "Free Trade".
Not so much. Besides the usual Mustang and Trans Am, muscle cars in general, as well as Broncos, which cars we could say that were enthusiast cars? It was more marketers rather than car people who brought us the memorable performance cars.
@@michaelbenardo5695 If anyone ever wanted to see what could happen to the US auto industry maybe someone back then should have taken a look at the British! I think there were a few similarities.🤔🤔🤔🤔1
Hi Adam, from Sydney , Australia. My dad was an American he held a major position here for the US government from 1969. So I'm now 65yrs old & being around at the time & being a smart guy, the US automakers were hit with the perfect storm, riding high with the powerful engines of the mid & late 60's & the horsepower race. The first company that was tapped on the shoulder by the US government , was the Mopar group when they put forward for sale the 2 "winged warriors" . In a skunkworks , Cadillac had been working on a 13.1 litre V12 a big brother with shared engine componentry with the 472/501 v8's The V12 became stillborn. The giant Caddy v8's really only lasted a few years themselves before they were de bored & shrunk , then killed off in 1982 altogether. Add the reinforced front & rear bumper systems front & rear to all the cars , heavier door intrusion bars , plus inflation post Viet' war , then top all that off with the Arab Oil embargo. SO like you said the US auto makers had to make something , even if it was too early to market with those products. However by doing this in this what was effectively an emergency to their survival, they soiled their names/brands with a huge amount of their heartland prior supporters and after paying good money for "junky" problematical cars many Americans said never again . I have cousins that live in San Francisco and also some in San Diego, to this day they hate some of these poorly designed home market cars. But read on and , let me tell you a new Japanese car from this period was no better, maybe worse mates & also my girlfriend bought Japanese imports and ALL of them had problems to , all ill conceived all short lifespan cars . As what many Americans , either now do not realise, or had no idea of, was the virtual lockout of many smaller European cars , as they did not comply with the hasty new bumper & crash/crumple laws. There was no way the manufacturers of some of these nasty small cars could ever modify the current versions to suit the almost immediate new laws introduced basically overnight. So near zero little French , Italian , German British or Japanese cars arrived on US shores for a few years as they were totally non compliant, hence the US car makers had a crack at trying to provide clients needs with way way smaller cars and right sharpish as well. There was one upside with the 1982 , model year 83 global GM "j" body cars , they were all galvanised steel to attempt to make them last . The last time a US automaker did that was near 20 years prior, as the 1965 Galaxies & their sisters , the big Mercury's were a US big 3 companies first foray into a fully galvanised body product. And I owned a 1965 Galaxie here in Sydney , I bought it from its first owner in early '80's & I kept it 30 years, it had zero rust, NONE . Note this that living on Sydney's Northern beaches with bulk salt spray from the Pacific ocean, my girlfriends new Toyota Corona needed rust work in its 2 year warranty period as both the front & rear bonded windscreens had grown rust patches and caused water leaks, worst of all was a huge puddle found in the spare tyre well as behind the tail light pods there were holes , hidden by the trunk lining & the car lived in a carport next to my '65 Galaxie & '58 Holden, and her company car a new "j" body Holden Camira, the company she worked for kept cars 5 years, she kept the Toyota Corona 2 years as it needed even more rustwork before the warranty was out, one actual road wheel rim needed replacing as it had rust where the 2 halves welded together , plus 3 out of 4 doors bottoms had rust where the outer skins wrapped around & were welded to the inner frame the upholstery clips onto, SO there was no quality in this era Japanese cars, where as the 'j' bodied GM Holden Aust' Camira had no rust at all with its full galvanised steel construction. In 1september 1982, I bought an export spec' RHD 1974 Cadillac Fleetwood Talisman in sable black & with gold interior (mustard color), I still own it today , January 2022, it lived in the same carport back then & it didn't rust , but the Toyota sure as hell did 9,000klms & falling to bits, so we sold it. Australia went metric in 1974, so the Talisman is a metric kilometres car with 709,000klms on it now in january 2022, and still running fine with its original engine. With my position, I could have 2 private cars operational costs, rego & insurance fully paid for plus some extra salary , OR, I could have a new Mercedes S class every 2 years. I preferred the Talisman & my white 1972 70th anniversary Fleetwood Brougham both have been serviced monthly, paid for as part of my salary/employment . Let me say that the "aussie" spec' '65 Galaxie is dressed internally like a Lincoln has Lincoln type carpet, the seat upholstery , head lining and the 65, 66 & 67 aussie Galaxies , have a complete mirror image RHD rendition of the 61, 62, 63 Lincoln dash panel, A Lincoln radio , Lincoln Air conditioning switch/lever module, with Lincoln door handles, window crank handles, arm rests, the Lincoln hydraulic windscreen wipers with Lincoln vacuum intermittent wipe/sweep system too, so they look like a Galaxie LTD with door posts externally , however ,internally they are fully dressed as a total option Lincoln. As a new car here in Australia you had 4 choices when you were purchasing or ordering your new Galaxie1, color of paint & trim 2, engine size 390ci or 289ci 3, Vinyl roof yes or no, 4 Air Conditioning yes or no - otherwise they were fully optioned & trimmed as Lincolns would be. In 1965 models if you selected the 390ci engine , you got the dual 4 bbl pale metallic green, side oiler, police enforcer engine with the nice cast alloy valve covers so they are near silent with engine running & hood open and deliver at least 400 horse power. If you were mean & ordered the 289ci single 2bbl carby engine you received a "slug" that could barely get out of its own way, a friend bought one just months after I bought mine , when I drove his one it felt like a gigantic 17ft long , 4cylinder car no guts at all even with good old 102 octane leaded premium fuel in its tank. Regards a RHD "aussie" spec Cadillac Talisman you only needed to choose color that was your sole choice, otherwise they came with fully optioned included was ACRS (airbags), ABS brakes and what stateside was a Buick only item Maxtrac (traction control). Not available at all was a sun roof , no left side external thermometre in base of the left door mirror, no garage door openers in sun visors, no opera lights & no illuminated vanity mirrors on sunvisors. GMH-Aust for 1971, 72 , 73 & 74 received incomplete Buick Riviera's and Cadillac Fleetwood's from the USA to GMH-A's Pagewood , Sydney plant and created all the unique RHD componentry using shared firewalls , RHD version Buick forward mounted steering boxes & steering draglinks & amber rear turn indicator & reverse light lenses . A mere 100 of each Buick & Fleetwood's for the 4 model years from August 1970 to July 1974 . As in july 1974 GMH- Aust released their own version of a Fleetwood , the HJ Holden Statesman Caprice we already had a Statesman Custom & Statesman de Ville . These aussie Caprices also used internal Cadillac Fleetwood componentry too and were very upmarket with GMH-A building probably only 2,000 of them each year from 1974 thru to 1985.
Hi Adam, yes the mid-seventies were not the best times in the auto industry, I recall an ad for the Honda Civic & it's fuel economy, everything else in that ad had the worst mileage, remember, in 71 the horsepower in cars was reduced because of air pollution, emissions, etc, every year the HP went down, that's why cars were gas guzzlers, they were big, comfortable, stylish cars, the feds made the cars shrink to improve gas mileage, our 75 Cutlass got lousy fuel mileage, ended up with a Chevette, a slightly better car, then I had a 81 Z28, I enjoyed it, my late sister had a 77 Honda Civic, a good car, the only problem she had was a radio speaker that crapped out, I mean the auto industry with the changes in bumper safety, gas savings, etc, kept making cars more expensive, that's why todays cars are totally overpriced, we can't afford squat, we need to go back to when we'd buy a basic model, add the options you'd need, & keep the price reasonable, instead, there's nothing inexpensive, we just need to shrink the prices, make sure it's safe, & not crap out, rust out, or any other disaster, wasn't the point of owning a car to maintain it properly, & it'll run forever, think of the few people whose cars have over a million miles on it, but they still enjoy driving it!!!!
Agreed, that's why the Chinese electric car industry is going to make huge inroads in the US and Australia where I am, from this year onwards. It's all about price.
@@mikevale3620 But if workers would be allowed to re-unionize, and unions would be allowed to truly thrive, many people wouldn't care that much about price.
I remember going to the GM plant in Framingham, MA for a field trip. The class watched as a test driver drove a car up on to the dyno. The speed went up to about 50 and then dropped almost instantly. Turns out the engine never had oil put in it and it seized up - must have had assembly lube or something. I had 3 or 4 GM vehicles with a multitude a problems after that. I've been driving Japanese cars ever since.
Adam, Planned obsolescence caused by corporate arrogance is the root of the problem. Don't tell me an industry that was easily leading the world in the late 1960s deteriorated so badly over the next 2 decades by mistake. In regard to CAFE in 1975, QDR was already in a nosedive by the time those regulations were enacted. Your own fleet demonstrates the beginning phase of "build quality sloppiness" that was already taking place in the early 70s. BTW that small Pontiac was commonly called the Dis-Astre. If the Detroit 3 had been half as loyal to their customers as the customers were to them, they would still be called the Big 3. Lastly, I am glad you mentioned the fact the industry was allowed to sleepwalk between 1985 and 2010 with ZERO mandated increases in fuel efficiency. Even incremental improvements over that time would have seriously reduced the shock therapy necessary now.
Adam, thanks for another great video and analysis. Two other items I would point to. First, the U.S. auto industry, prior to the arrival of Japanese cars, had no real competition. The VW bug was the only car for which the U.S. industry had no answer, at least in the beginning. The Falcon was sort of a response. Without competition, there was no need to push harder on quality. And quality is the second point. Cars from the 1950's to the 1970's generally couldn't get to 100,000 miles without an engine or transmission rebuild. Most people got rid of their U.S. cars when they hit around 70,000 miles. Suddenly the Japanese show up with cars that easily exceeded 100,000 mile lifespans. Again, the U.S. industry didn't have an answer for that. Many people went with quality, i.e., Japanese cars. Less bother.
The early Japanese cars weren’t great either and didn’t hold up well. It wasn’t until the late 70s/early 80s that they improved significantly. Even then, they rusted very very quickly. In the 80s/90s, they pulled away on quality.
@@RareClassicCars Agreed. If a time machine took me back to 1972 I would take a Valiant over a Toyota. Today I drive a Pontiac Vibe made out of Toyota parts.
@@RareClassicCars Adam, thank you for the quick reply. In 1976, my college roommate had a new Toyota Celica. That car was a revelation compared to an American "compact" car. It really ran well, and I don't remember any quality complaints. Arguably, we don't need CAFE anymore. Consumers now are educated about gas mileage, they will vote with their wallets for higher mileage cars. And if someone wants a Charger widebody, God bless them, floor it and pay for the gas!
@@RareClassicCars We love them but more importantly, they love us back. The Vibe was in the Top 10 selling cars in Canada the month (08/09) it went out of production in California. Its Matrix twin was so popular we had a 2014 model when 2013 was the last year Stateside. We also had an extra model year of the original Venza and the Prius v. Wagons and wagon-stye cars never went out of style here, we just can't get them anymore due to America's warped wagon aversion.
All these Cafe events coincided with the imports flooding in with their quality and high mpg. The struggle to survive was on with the American manufacturers. The US Government didn't " protect " our American manufacturers either like the Japanese Government protected theirs.
I have always bought American... and really have had no problems. But it is quite evident the problems the American auto industry had in the 70's and 80's were unfortunately self inflicted and mostly caused by bean counters , greed and poor management. The American auto industry proved they could make high quality and beautiful cars in the 50's and 60's, nobody can deny that. All cars today in my opinion are at their highest level of quality, partly because the Japanese forced the entire auto industry to get it's act together where they were lacking. Germans included.
GM did a lot of things to try to meet the standards. All the things Adam mentioned, i had a 1981 Caprice 2-door with the 229 V6. That was another example. Excellent video Adam. One must remember too that GM had more money to gamble with than the others.
I think that the problem consists of many factors. But since the 50s, it has become more profitable to produce electronics in Japan, then in Hong Kong and finally in China. it was the beginning of the end of the auto industry too
Adam you are spot on , I lived through the era and worked in a garage and then two automotive machine shops . I saw and drove many iterations of the cars and engines mentioned . It was quite a wild time for the US auto industry . Cars I thought were crap , now look and seem interesting to me in hindsight . Ahh Nostalgia! Happy New Year and Thanks 😊
I remember in April 1979... my parents came home with a 1980 4 door Chevy Citation. It had a horrible paint hanger on the B pillar. I couldn’t believe that got past quality control. Apparently quite a few other things on those “X” bodies did as well.
Like everything. 79 was the year my Dad, who owned auto repair shops, ran out and bought his last Buick, garaged it, drove it a few times in the summers and then made it his retirement car in the early 1990's, with less than 10,000 miles on it. He's experienced his customers frustrations of Ford Courier, Chevy Luv, and he read articles about the Ford Escort, and rebadged Mitsubishi's, by Chrysler, with all of their defects as American and Japanese automakers attempted their collaborations. the early GM v-6 engines had huge issues before Buick squared up the 3;8 and Chevy perfected the 4.3. He was already engine swapping GM diesels on cars that weren't even 6 months old. He thought it the end of full sized cars with dependable v-8 cruisers. He was partially right.
Had a 1981 buick skylark and then a 1980 Chevy citation! Both had the little 2.8 liter v 6 ! Seemed to be good running engines but really hard to get to things when working on one! The oil pans was bad about leaking! Transmissions worked well! Power steering pumps are very hard to line up correctly so the belt doesn't pull it !
@@TheCat1dog we had a 77 nova and the salesman said, if we liked that car we will love the citation. We did actually. Except until the transmission went out and my dad parted with it forever. The nova we still had as a second car and in fact I still have it!
@@richardmartink679 Those 1976 to 1979 Nova / Skylark / Omega / Phoenix cars were durable, reliable and simple and cheap to maintain. What a family car should be.
Excellent video. I remember very well back in the '70s and currently own a 76 Eldorado convertible. You nailed it. It truly was a witch's brew of bad timing on the part of the Government. Oh, how history is now repeating itself today.
It's amazing to me just how heavy cars have become. My 1984 Bronco literally feels like a small car compared to my mom's late model Jeep Liberty. These politicians always light the candle at both ends. They want good fuel mileage, but they cancel most of this out with emission controls. They want good fuel mileage, but they cancel it out by increasing the weight (safety additions) of vehicles. The second biggest hurdle I see with electric vehicles is the weight. The quest to get a 500 mile range out of an electric car may require a CDL license at some point?
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 I'm skeptical, but I'll look into it. Do you happen to know what the make and model of this Chinese vehicle is? If not, no big deal. I think that I'd trust a YT car reviewer over the Chinese sales brochure. Maybe there's a video out on it?
@@133dave133 no i don't have a name. They all have weird names. But pretty sure i've seen it on the "fully charged show" here on youtube. They have someone in china who reviews cars from there. Very interesting chanel and high production values if you don't know it.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Yeah, I'll check it out. I don't believe anything that China, or their "employees" say, but if they're exporting them, I'd like to see a review of it.
00:19:08 Changing to 5 volts is brilliant, thank you for teaching me how we arrived at this standard! Probably how we learned to ignore all sensor readings with the ECU during startup after going to 5 volts also. This is why you must never start your EEC era fords with at the fender solenoid manually, the computer never receives the crank signal and cannot progress into normal operation mode. You will not be able to set timing correctly either. Ford Article No.(TSB) 9018B2 or 90-18B-2.
Very informative as always, Adam. I think you hit the nail on the head. The environmentalists unfortunately were starting to have substantial control over almost all aspects of American life from the early 70s onward. The reason CAFE standards came into being was the Arab oil embargo in 1973, imo. Instead of embarking on a plan to produce more oil, thus increasing supply, and moderate prices, Congress chose to circle the wagons, and attempted to force drastically reduced consumption, while ignoring supply problems, which caused even greater dependence on foreign oil. It also counted on the benevolence of the Middle East oil sheiks, which was not forthcoming. The Middle East saw our vulnerability, and Congress’ lack of wisdom, and exploited it tremendously. Amazing that for a time during the Trump administration, the USA was a net exporter of oil, which apparently is no longer true under the current president, with resulting high gasoline prices. That’s a different discussion for a different day, perhaps. Nevertheless, our government seems to continue making the wrong moves, or makes decisions that greatly compound our problems.
Everything you say is 100% correct, but the reason the oil companies who stopped producing over here is because of profits - it is more profitable for them to import foreign oil than it is to produce it, so they stopped producing it. President Obama is the one who pushed them to drill, baby DRILL, but they got mad when they only made 9 billion instead of 10 billion on it. Not president Biden's fault.
Wow! I've never heard the other side of why cars were made so bad everyone always just talks about how bad they were and how cheap the companies were. Thank you for sharing this with us i appreciate it,i know have a better understanding thanks to you. I wouldn't be surprised if the foreign automakers bribed some politicians to push the cafe standards on the American automakers to turn everyone against them hmm something to think about because they were asking the American automakers to pull off a miracle basically wow. Thanks again.
I also find it ironic to say the least that just as the Japanese cars were coming online, we had a 55mph national speed limit which was designed made for the Japanese cars. If the limits were left at 70 to 75 people would have realized the early hondas and toyotas weren't in the same league
@@howebrad4601 like they say there's no such thing as coincidence. And knowing human nature i wouldn't be surprised. Just thinking about how many people lost their jobs from factories closing wow!. We need to really start thinking to domesticate our buying.
I saw the Citation and I thought you were going to review it. I'm not disappointed as the info you gave in this video was very enlightening. Thank you.
@@RareClassicCars Looking back... Chrysler would have done well to have kept the R bodies in production. By 1985 gas had come down in the Reagan era, and GM sold every B body they could produce. All Chrysler had was the M body that was the flawed Aspen/Volare F body with the troublesome front mounted torsion bar suspension. Meanwhile Lee Iacocca kept stretching K cars to ridiculous proportions.
@@drippinglass I absolutely love the R Bodies - they represent a fascinating snapshot of a company in the midst of swift transition…making do with what they had to compete in the traditional market, while betting the farm on a future based in FWD and 4 cylinders! I agree completely that they should have been kept around - the improvements in fit/finish and quality were substantial during their brief three-year run…imagine how nice those Rs would have been if granted an additional four to five years of life!
I grew up in the 1970s knowing Ford, GM, and Chrysler vehicles -- they were modern, efficient, stylistic and very competitive to the Japanese automakers I knew -- Toyota, Datsun, and Mazda. They were also very competitive to the European automakers -- Peugeot, Citroen, Renauly, Volkswagen, Audi, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, etc. In fact, GM and Ford were the biggest of them all. But then I moved to the US and was blown away by how awful the products from GM, Ford, and Chrysler were. They weren't the same modern products I had grown up with -- my Mom had had a Ford Cortina. Instead, the America products had styling that was 15 years in the past. They were crudely engineered, and the build quality was awful. I remember going to the Chrysler dealer in March 1979 and noticing the orange peal and runs in the paint. At the Pontiac dealer, I was shocked to realized that cars had no undercoating at all and looked like they were rusting on the dealers lot. CAFE is an excuse Detroit likes to hand out there -- pushing the blame on someone other than themselves. The real reason that Detroit failed is their own complacency and arrogance. Their management sat in their ivory towers oblvious to the fact that even their own overseas divisions were decades ahead of them. When the foreign automakers came to the U.S. with modern products, the American consumer responded and Detroit awful products were at a disadvantage.
This is what happens when you have government and industry being reactive instead of proactive. The government basically wanted to fight the gas prices and shortages that occurred. If the manufactures would have been left to their own devices and had seen a downturn in sales due to better cars coming from Japan, they would have addressed this correctly. They would have been able to take the time to improve all these issues. I was in the garage business during this time and it was a mess with trying to get these cars to run correctly. We lost something during the years. I look back at the time when dealerships were creating atmosphere about buying a car. The new models would be introduced under covering of the sales area windows. They were able to create excitement each year and then all that went away.
First paragraph, Japanese cars werent that good. You clearly forget they used to rust like nothing else. B. All that emissions control tech was new and untested. Just theories put into immediate production C. The real reason the US auto industry has performance issues is because the US economy isnt the powerhouse it was post WW2. There was room for various marques and brands. As globalization occured, good paying jobs were exported for other areas leaving urban blight and distraught former industrial cities. The remaining population became more rats in a maze trying to make it to the end without falling behind or behind shuffled off by an invisible trap door. With that enthusiasm for life extinguished there went the passion and interest for what to be new car shows. Also these new cars look so similar a new car show only would show how unininspiring and uninnovative these new cars look at.
Everything you say is right on the money including how baby boomers DID admire the tough, yet richly pointed and refined American cars of the 60's and early 70's, but then were alienated by the fragile mechanicals of the 80's on up models, hence they started taking a look at the offerings from Japan. My first "Japanese" car was a 1986 Chevrolet Nova (a rebadged Toyota Corolla) which totally amazed me with it's ride and seat comfort and the durability /reliability of its mechanical components.
As a boomer, all that downsized FWD crap turned me off Detroit. Some of the later full sized cars like the Ford Panther platform and the RWD Caprice cars were still good.
Great discussion. I don't know how many times I have made this point. I went to work at GM mid career in 1989. I had several neighbors and acquaintances who were GM engineers during those dark days. They related the frustration of re-inventing the models under immense pressure. I'm generally in favor of smog controls and CAFE standards, but the unintended result (possibly) was a knife in the back of the domestic auto industry. The Japanese cars weren't all that great in the 70's , but they met CAFE and they were able to spend their money on better designs and other improvements in the 1980's rather than scramble to meet CAFE. The success of those Japanese cars in the late 1980's and 1990's forever wounded the domestic industry.
Often times I see domestic vehicles as too expensive for what you get. Why? 1) overall reliability 2) resale value. I simply can’t afford them. They can break down too often. And are worth next to nothing when it’s time to sell. I can’t do it.
I think the exact opposite is true IMO when you compare domestics to Japanese and European makes. For example a domestic SUV is often cheaper than a comparable Japanese one that is less roomy with less features but priced more. People pay a premium for many foreign makes because they think they are superior. I’ve driven GM products all my life and I have never had any major issues with any of them and you get more car for your money. My grandparents who are in their 80s have a late model Honda CRV and I am appalled by how thin and tinny the doors are. So very cheap!
@@tyler2610 I agree on your points. If you never sell your domestic vehicle you come out ahead. I own a 2004 Crown Victoria. And it breaks down a lot. So I stooped driving it.
Your video makes some good points, but there are also other major factors that contributed to this "malaise era" disaster in the American auto industry: It now seems clear that Pontiac, Saturn and Oldsmobile bit the dust because several basic past assumptions and market forces went the way of the dinosaur: (1: back in the old days, GM could afford six car divisions, plus GMC, because passenger sedans, coupes and station wagons were in demand and they could differentiate themselves more on styles, trim levels and specialized options. Gradually, over the past 50 years, dramatically fewer people wanted old-fashioned cars. (2: rear-wheel-drive, big cars, and V8s gave automakers more flexibility in offering a variety of products in varying sizes, engines and configurations. Now, rear-drive cars have been displaced by SUVs, minivans, crossovers and crew-cab pickup trucks; this trend obviously started in the '60s or the '70s. (3: the big killer of Saturn, Pontiac and Oldsmobile is the decline of America's middle class. The Middletons are feeling the economic pinch, and it ain't pretty. It's a wonder that Buick and GMC are still around. So in the end, Pontiac, like Mercury, Plymouth, AMC/Eagle, Oldsmobile and Saturn, was probably waiting for the sun to set on them anyway; it was inevitable. That isn't to say that the C.A.F.E. fuel economy regulations and the smog regs didn't have a major role in this "malaise era" crisis. They did. Maybe those rules hit too fast, but GM, Ford and Chrysler also had a major attitude problem. In the early days of the Cold War, these domestic automakers seemed to think that the answer to everything was to stick a bigger V8 under the hood and just charge more money. Clearly, the largest component in their inability to change in response to the Energy Crisis was their own poor judgement. It never ceases to amaze me how all of these automakers failed to recognize the opportunity to improve their lineup of four-, five- and six-cylinder engines before the Energy Crisis. Why did it take so long to make transmissions with overdrive gears universally available? Why was there not more emphasis on turbocharging and fuel injection? It just boggles the mind that these automakers were introducing new downsized models in the late 1970s and clear through the mid-80s, and very few of these cars had an overdrive gear, or exhaust headers, or fuel injection, or even roller cam tappets. Did the Chevy Citation models ever come with a four-speed AOD? If they had opportunities like this that were essentially "the low-hanging fruit", and they essentially never even asked the question until 1985, that's a major fumble right there. But there's another dimension to the multi-billion-dollar "downsizing" disaster that nobody ever mentions. They were downsizing all of these cars to try to improve gas mileage and emissions. Why did they still have V8s in passenger cars? If fewer pistons means less frictional loss, then the V8 was a major problem. What did the Caprice, Monte Carlo, and Camaro need a V8 for? Front-wheel-drive versus rear-wheel-drive may be an issue in the pursuit of fuel economy, but what good did it do to sell compact Chevy Citations with three-speed automatics and lackluster V6s and Iron Dukes fed by carburetors with no fuel injection systems anywhere to be found? GM did one thing right in 1985, but not enough of it: they introduced the new Chevy Astro with a 4.3-liter V6 (a 350 V8 with two cylinders chopped off). From 1985 to 2005, that minivan and 4.3 V6 proved itself to be a remarkable workhorse combination, with V8-like power and improved gas mileage. The 4.3 V6 was essentially made from all existing parts from the old 350-cubic-inch V8 (5.7 liters) so the amount of R&D GM invested in that motor was obscenely small. Why did it take so long to introduce this motor? Why did it take until 1985? Why not 1982, or 1980? GM could have invested a very small amount of money in the 4.3 V6, given it TBI and a balance shaft, tubular headers, a tuned intake plenum, and roller cam tappets. GM could likely have eliminated V8s from every remaining rear-drive passenger sedan and the Camaro/Firebird. And in 1985, GM showed off an eye-popping Camaro GTZ concept car with a fiberglass clamshell hood and a 4.3 V6 turbo based on the existing F-body. Faster than you can say "Buick Grand National", GM could have sold a 2+2 sport coupe with rear-wheel-drive and no V8. And that 4.3 turbo would've been right at home in a 1985 Corvette. That GTZ tease was monumental is showing how short-sighted GM's management could be. Rear-wheel-drive cars may not be inherently efficient, but car buyers appreciated its legendary reliability, handling and work applications. The B-cars, G-cars, and F-cars could have continued on through the 1980s and beyond with rear-wheel-drive and without V8s. The proof is right there for us to see today: the Chevy Astro and GMC Safari ran from 1985 to 2005 with practically no significant changes, therefore negligible R&D invested for 20 years. During that time, the constants were: rear-wheel-drive, all-wheel-drive optional, and the 4.3 V6 mated to a four-speed AOD with a towing selector. If that minivan could serve GM for that many years with very few changes and thus negligible investment, then it's hard to argue why GM didn't invest more in upgrading that engine and making it the main engine for the B-, G- and F-bodies from 1982 forward. Automaker management can't blame it all on Uncle Sam if they walked right by the low-hanging fruit and acted like they don't even notice.
*_HAPPY NEW YEAR, ADAM_* (and everyone else). Leave it to a government to destroy industry. We have a free market capitalist system where the customer needs and desires drives change over time. A government acting in an abrupt and dictatorial fashion results in chaos... CAFE for the auto industry in the 1970s and 1980s, and a good example today would be heavy-handed Covid restrictions and mandates.
The Government CAFE rush was certainly to blame for the US auto industry problems, that and the emissions requirements. The auto industry did not have time to meet the standards given the technology at the time. The rush to design new engines and adapt computer controls caused problems because there was no time to test - so new designs went out to the consumer and problems happened. Total blame on US Government. Also, advancements in oils, coolants and sealants - well that just took time to evolve and wasn't available back in the day. We had many GM cars when I was young and they all were good because my Dad always kept up the maintenance them. People wouldn't change the oil, coolant, spark plugs, change out points, and lube the chassis. People would drive the wheels off the cars and then wonder why they would break down. You had to follow the maintenance schedule which came with your car and people didn't and they blamed Detroit for their own lack of responsibility. Our brand new1973 Caprice Classic was a very nice car, quiet and never had a problem, cold AC and very nice road car and I never forget it had a great new car smell. People used to think it was a Cadillac sedan deville. My Dad ordered a new 1977 Caprice Classic loaded, had the 350 4bbl and sport suspension F41 package. That car was amazing, was just like a Cadillac Seville, a real head turner with the sport wheel covers and nice paint scheme with vinyl top. In 1980, he bought a volkswagen rabbit new for his commute car, because of the cost of gas and it was fashionable to buy a compact car, but that car was a disaster! Fuel injectors always leaked causing bad starting and running, paint was lousy and so small and only 20 MPG tops and you had to sacrifice to much room - was scary to take on highway because you felt like you were gonna get squashed!. He traded that in on a brand new 1985 Olds 98 and that was such a nice car! Got 30 MPG on highway and so comfortable. The he bought a 91 Olds 98 and that was perfect, no problems got 33 MPG on highway and he kept that for 20 years! Then he bought a Cadillac DTS and that car is perfect, no problems ever! Nice big V8! People neglect their cars and blame US! Blame themselves! And I'll never buy an electric car - no way. I've had Camaros, Mustangs, F-150's - all good - any problems were wear and tear or self inflicted. There had been constant bash of US auto industry for years and Consumers Reports also in bed with the bashing as they always gave US cars black marks and Jap cars all red - very suspicious and likely biased corrupt given what we now know of the media. Anything US made is always trashed by a segment of US that hates the US. Okay, now I am done! Happy New Year! And you have such great knowledge! carbs, engines, history, nice to hear it. Oh, also, people forget that US Auto industry business model was that they wanted you to trade every 3 -4 years anyway, these cars were meant to be consumed not on the road forever and then when the prices went up in the 70's people expected their cars to last much longer and they were mechanical items that just plain wore out. Expectations of consumers shifted and some you can never satisfy no matter what.
I️ watch a lot of car videos and you never cease to amaze me.
Adam is quite knowledgable.
@@WhittyPics I think he makes most of this stuff up. who is going to verify what he says is true? haha
Thank you for spelling 'cease' right. With all honesty, you could have spelled it 'seize' and noone would have batted an eye. Thank you again. Have a Blessed Day!
@@markhenry5294 I’m glad I️ could make someone’s day.
Great explanation of what happened. I grew up in early '80's and as a teen and later adult, we did not know anyone that wanted to buy an American made car. I feel bad about that now that I am older but no one wanted one at the time. It was all about Japanese and if you had the money, German. Even my father who fought in WWII ended up buying Japanese after his new Ford Thunderbird bought in 1983 was a complete disaster and eventually caught on fire in the garage one day. They ended up buying a Mazda 626 and drove it over 200,000 miles and later a Toyota truck with similar milage then they want on to own Honda Accords in their later life. I now look at the American cars from that era more positively and think we may have been too harsh on them. But like you said the testing was put on the public and sadly many of the cars turned out to be pretty good once the kinks were worked out but by then, it was too late. The damage had been done.
Happy New Year Adam! This is honestly the best explanation of the late 70s and early 80s CAFE rush that automakers faced, and I'd agree it was one of the largest contributors to the overall downfall of the USDM. However, I think two other pieces of legislation that really contributed to making CAFE such a nightmare were emissions controls and safety. Over the years, I've collected a lot of both new and used car buying guides from the 1970s, and the overall story seems to be that fuel economy in the late 60s wasn't that bad, and got significantly worse in the early 1970s as emissions control systems and more restrictive tuning came into play. The overly lean tuning on many vehicles obviously affected power and general drivability, but my understanding is that reliabilty (especially at startup) took a big hit as well. When catalytic converters (at least in the case of GM) were introduced in 1975, fuel economy went up some, thanks in part in not having to tune as lean or utilize the same emissions control systems that had been such a burden '72-'74. I think these years really hurt US automaker's reputation for quality, when brand new vehicles were now running worse and with less power than those made a few years earlier. Rushed models and engines in the late 70s and 80s with so many recalls only compounded this.
Safety legislation also contributed to heavier vehicles, which also would've hurt the car companies' abilities to build more efficient vehicles, even before adopting smaller models. I'm not going to say reducing emissions or increasing safety protection were bad things, but like CAFE standards, they were honestly good ideas that were rushed way too quickly, and all at once. Having to engineer vehicles that could meet all three standards, while also retaining some level of nice performance, let alone daring styling... it's no wonder that some aspects of design started to take a back seat during the 70s and into the 80s. I can't imagine the stress for the managers and engineers, so I'm very much looking forward to these interviews.
Maybe I'm a little biased but I feel like they had the world stacked against them during this era, so the fact that there were still good cars being made (albeit a bit more few and far between than in the 60s) is really impressive, and I have immense respect for the wins that were managed in this era. It also, I think, shows a bit of why companies started relying so much on badge engineering- if you have less time to design a car, you're going to not only recoup those costs however quick as possible, but you also need to take your basic design and use it to refill your product line as older cars get retired for one reason or another. I really appreciate you helping give these cars a fair wrap- some of them do suck, but even then, there's real world reasons why they sucked. These weren't idiots just stumbling into a car design studio or an engineering lab and deciding to make terrible cars. The success of vehicles like Oldsmobile's many Cutlasses show that even GM still had some understanding of what the market wanted at the time, and I think that should be acknowledged along with the "bad" of the malaise era.
Loved the video and thanks again Adam! When it comes to cars, context is everything.
Agree with what you say. HNY!
You really nailed it. A big part of the problem faced by Detroit was that the car buying public was used to seeing bigger cars as better. An ad of the time for a Chrysler: "Chrysler, Chrysler, Newport; a big Chrysler priced like never before, twenty nine hundred and sixty four". Much of the buying public resented the downsized cars, and switched to pickup trucks. And the small American cars [Vega, Pinto, Horizon, Gremlin] were simply terrible.
@@stephendavidbailey2743
Small Cars were CHEAP Looking and Poorly built. Detroit was pushing the bigger cars. What was called a Compact, in the 60 is now considered a Premium Full or Luxury Size today. Trucks have grown immensely since the 70s, and most never see any duty as to what they are really designed for, Hauling Cow Shit out of the barn to the Manure Pile.
@@pjimmbojimmbo1990 Big pickups are bought by men with masculinity issues.
Excellent job!
Added weight due to new safety regulations, the oil crisis, and CAFE all within a short period of time really took a lot of money away from the Big 3 and AMC.
You made an excellent point about rebadging. Once it was 1980, GM, Chrysler, and Ford had already lost a lot of money due to CAFE and safety regulations, which meant that they didn't have enough money to let their brands design recognizable vehicles that set them apart from others.
GM was also stuck with and on the path to putting engines from one brand into the vehicles of another brand. The Chevy 305, Buick V6, Olds 307, and certain 4 cylinders were put into numerous other vehicles.
It's so hard to easily tell a Grand Marquis from an LTD Crown Victoria, Diplomat from a Gran Fury, Cavalier from a Sunbird, Escort from a Lynx, Aries from a Reliant, etc.
Also I had noticed here in Michigan when the Cafe standards for cars increased so did the distance of traveling to our local grocery store and other retail stores increased. The bigger and better malls opened in areas near freeways where one would definitely need a car to get to. Neighborhood mom and pop businesses had closed forcing residents living in those communities to gas up and drive out of their communities to get the most quality goods and services
I remember, when there were small neighborhood grocery stores all over the place. All gone now.
@@agentorange2554 not just small mom and pops neighborhood stores but most of the businesses had lieft their supporting communities and moved further from the communitiees into strip malls and malls. Now the malls are closing with the exceptions of a few malls and mega malls that are surrounded by freeways instead of walkable communities
excellent point! I didnt think about that
@@stickshiftdriver1832 Abandoned malls and dead mall videos, I spend hours watching them.
Just like what happened about 10 years ago when more people started going back to public transit. As soon as gas prices became super high, they cut service and raised the fares, forcing people to drive and pay those high prices.
Thank you for this history lesson, Adam. Having become a newly licensed driver in the late '70s, I drove a lot of these cars when they were new or nearly new. Some were clearly not well engineered or made, but many were. What I used to observe is when an owner was unhappy, it was usually related to driveability. and rarely about quality of body assembly or functionality of features.
Adam, I always hear you say that you never experienced a problem with particular problem engine. I believe that the reason for this is because you KNOW HOW properly operate a vehicle my friend, whereas most others do not. You & I are people with an engineering-type mind & are aware of a vehicles expectational limits. You do terrific job at what you do Adam. It's always a pleasure watching you videos my friend !!!
So many things to discuss here, but, to your title question, what caused the US manufactures to fail, you picked the right car for your topic illustration. As a GM employee, I bought, with the company discount, a new car every year from 1979 till 1991. I can tell, my 1980 Citation (Tarrytown New York build) was an absolute piece of garbage. The Engineering problem with the rear brake lockup was real! As if this car wasn’t bad enough, my 81 Skylark (Willow Run) was even worse. The dealer never did sort out all the electrical problems with that one. Of course, I stayed with GM products, I worked for the company, but I often wondered how many other customers who bought those crap 1980-1983 X-cars, said, never again to GM. I would say, in my opinion, the rush to get the FWD X-cars to market represents the pinnacle of the CAFE problem. Thanks, as always Adam, for an interesting discussion. I say this with great respect, as a car lover, and a genuine aficionado, that your knowledge astounds me. I learn something every time. Keep them coming!
PS - lest I leave the wrong impression, I had many, many excellent GM cars! In particular, how about an 87 Regal Limited with the T - Type Decor group and the 3.8 Turbo? Shoulda kept that one!
Thank you for chiming in, especially with your experience. My dad had a new 1978 Buick Electra and it was really a great car. He wanted to trade it on a Citation and thankfully, he backed out. He instead went to a Toyota Corolla, which really bothered him.
I have always preferred GM and just bought a 22 Chevy Silverado LTD RST. Wow has the engineering become amazing!
Last new American car i bought a 1974 Pontiac Ventura needed a valve job at 12500 miles although it was shaking at idle for at least 1000 miles while mechanics screwed around with the carbs and spark plug wires. Turned out the no lead gas didnt protect the valves like leaded gas and they failed. That and the fact that molding would fall off going down the road.
BTW the OEM tires must have been made by Kleenex because my wife seemed to have a flat every week. I drove down to the Goodyear store and put a set of the new steel belted radial tire within a month of buying the car.
Awful car
And how was it my '81 Skylark Limited was one of the best cars I ever owned? A leaky water pump at 80,000 miles was the only issue in 140,000 miles of driving. Weird...
I too liked my 1st FWD gen Bonneville, the sweet 3.8
i'm sure UAW didn't have anything to do with it
We’d all benefit from more porch talks from Adam!
The MVSA of 1965 plunged a butcher knife into USA domestic cars, and when CAFE came along, the knife got twisted. The companies improvised and adapted, sure. But they could never quite overcome such draconian government regulation.
they can't overcome UAW
@@jimmyellison2766 Why do you people always blame working people and their unions for everything?
That was one of the butcher knives - there were several. There was that one, the CAFE regulations that only applied to American cars, (the Japanese only had to follow an individual model economy rule - make a gas hog and that model only is slapped with that Gas Guzzler tax, but if Detroit makes enough gas hogs that it dragged down the average, EVERY SINGLE MODEL, NO MATTER HOW ECONOMICAL, is taxed) - the third butcher knife is that the Japanese heavily subsidize their auto exports, and the more we lower our prices, the more they subsidize their exports. The fourth one is the fact that our government has been indifferent to the fact that the Japanese have make it almost immpossible for us to sell OUR cars over there.
@@michaelbenardo5695 no i blame the government for letting it happen
@@michaelbenardo5695 no one can afford to pay someone to work for them for 30 years and then pay them another 30+ not to work for them at sometime you end up asking for bail outs or start asking the government for bills like nafta
Good insight and explained very well. I always thought the 1977 GM downsize was truly well done. Our 1974 Thunderbird got 8mpg, replaced by a 1978 Cadillac Fleetwood that was truly magnificent and got 20 mpg. I agree with you that to keep improving, serious compromises were detrimental. I also believe that the end result is why trucks and SUV’s are so popular today.
My grandfather had a beautiful red '77 Caprice two door with a white vinyl half roof. He traded it at 50k like he did a lot...
My dad owned '54, '65, and '68 Belairs, all bought new. I owned a '71 Impala and a '74 Impala, both with 350s and a few years old when I got them, but well maintained. A few years later, my second ever brand new car was a very sharp, loaded '81 Caprice, which of course was one of the new generation B-bodies that had been downsized in '77 with some cosmetic tweaks in 1980. I liked my dad's Belairs, especially the '65, and my earlier Impalas, especially the '71, but my '81 Caprice was better in every way. Much more trim on the outside but just as much room inside. It made far more sense than the bloated pre-'77 B-bodies. It's still one of my favorites among the 40-ish motor vehicles I've owned so far.
@@TS-ef2gv Downsizing the Chevy was a smart idea, as they had become really big, probably too big for a low-priced car, but the should NOT have downsized the Cadillac, the biggest Buick, (the 4 holers), nor the Olds 98. And they should not have downsized the Pontiac, the small Olds, and the small Buick, (the 3 holers), as much as they did. They should have remained bigger cars than the Chevrolet.
Outstanding insight, and deductively articulate explanation for the role of government in the unmitigated failure. To this day, the country hasn't learned how damaging CAFE regulation is. Further exacerbating the problem was having to sell many more efficient vehicles in order to offset the higher profit, inefficient vehicles consumers would otherwise buy. Invariably this led to necessarily cheap, and generally inferior products compared to Japanese or European makes which sold well in foreign markets with far more expensive gas.
Good Morning, Adam. Well-explained history and I look forward to Part 2. I am a boomer who lived through the “malaise” period, a time when my career required a great deal of travel driving domestic company cars that were leased for two-year terms starting in 1979. Over the next several years, I had a Malibu (was overall good), followed by an Olds Omega, then Buick Skylark (both X-cars). I got promoted and inherited a 1985 Pontiac Bonneville that had the worst, most anemic V-8 I’ve ever driven. Other than the Malibu, these were horribly manufactured cars that were underpowered, noisy, and unrefined. Then 1987 happened and my replacement for the Bonneville was a first generation Mercury Sable. It was like leaping forward twenty years in design, power, build quality, and handling. It was like driving a European luxury car by comparison.
I believe what made such a huge difference in the negative attitude toward domestic cars was all the things you covered while the Japanese cars were improving their quality by leaps and bounds… particularly in greatly reducing their tendencies to prematurely rust. Further, “Consumer Reports” was very down on domestic cars which carried a lot of influence during that period, which still somewhat lingers to this day.
Happy New Year! 👍👍👍
Your depths of knowledge is amazing! I grow up with these cars was an avid reading of the car magazines during the, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s through today and this review blew me away! My biggest complaint about the US auto industry is the lack of quality build and design. To me corporate greed was to blame for the failure of the automobile industry. Quality was already in a death spiral long before the CAF regulation effect. But maybe you cover that in the next parts of this review. Great insight on this topic! 👍
I've been waiting for your take on this very issue. Excellent explanation of why the timing of cafe made it so challenging for the domestics. On top of cafe, we also had big emission requirements coming on board at the same time as cafe. The domestics had a very steep hill to climb and it's no wonder there were some stumbles on the way.
The Japanese imports, by comparison pretty much had the cafe handled just through natural product development, so most of their r&d dollars could be focused on improving quality. It's almost like our government set out to make our industry fail.
Thanks for doing this video. Look forward to more. You are one of the most knowledgeable auto enthusiast channels online.
Also, the Japanese government subsidized their auto industry. Heavily. That is something that can't be overlooked, as it is impossible for private companies to compete against wealthy governments for ever, never making much of a profit.
I think our government did indeed want our auto industry to fail. Many of the politicians hated the fact that all the auto workers, steel workers, and tire/rubber workers were members of strong unions that couldn't be broken, so they decided to instead destroy the industries. Add to that the car-hating hippies and beatniks became of age and became politicians, corporate board members, etc. and planted seeds of destruction from the inside.
@@michaelbenardo5695 it almost seems like it, doesnt it. I also find it suspicious that a national 55mph speed limit was also enacted at about the same time as most of the imports at that time, especially Asian imports wouldn't handle sustained high speed cruising at that time. The Japanese carmakers worked diligently to improve their cars to handle our driving conditions. I know for a fact that one of my first cars, 78 Plymouth arrow, (Mitsubishi) would hardly go 70 at max, much less cruise comfortably doing so
@@howebrad4601They claim they lowered the speed limit to reduce fuel consumption, but the last time they did that, during the war, it was actually to save tires, not gas.
Some of the us cars couldn't make 20k miles while Toyota and Honda were 100s and 100s of thousand miles and monster mpg
Hey Adam, Happy New Year! I just watched your porch chat regarding the enactment of the CAFE in 1975. I lived through that era, and let me tell you, back in the late 60s,early 70s, it was really hard for us Gearheads to make it through our days. We never saw any of that coming, and when the 73 embargo came, it was downright and painful. The gas shortage, with it's gas lines, and restrictions, we didn't think we were going to survive. Then dealing with the challenges of what was happening to the cars, and who can forget the national 55mph speed limit, well I guess none of us thought how hard it was for the US auto industry to meet the federal demands. It was a very dark time. But I will tell you, you do an excellent job of explaining the sudden constraints that were put on them industry that by that time had become pretty comfortable doing things the way they did. After all they were the "Big Three " they didn't care, they didn't have to. But now we/they have adopted to all the changes for the most part. I do feel badly that the sour taste in people's mouths regarding the maleze years still exists. The US is building better cars than they ever did and don't get credit for it. It just tears my heart out when I'm stopped at an intersection and I'm the only one driving an American car! I'm from Detroit, my parents worked at Ford and Chrysler. We saw the good years and enjoyed the cars that supported our familys and our country. It was our auto industry, and we loved and wanted it to be healthy. I'm always so happy to hear that Chrysler has survived another brush with death. Chrysler brought a lot of industry standards to the table for building cars. Thanks again for your excellent review of the subject matter.
I’m looking forward to your first insider interview. This should be a great series. As you are familiar with the finance end of the car business, I’d love to hear how money flow affected the engineering of the vehicle developments. 👍
I’m also amazed you can sit outside where you live and not be more bundled up. It will be -34C tonight here. Cold enough that no carbed car would likely start without a block heater.
My First car was a 1978 Cutlass Supreme Brougham in 1985. Loved the car to death. By death I mean spun bearings in the 260 V8 and body rot. I still have fond memories of it and have owned many GM vehicles since (and two Fords). I’m partial to Japanese motorcycles and tractors though
Back in 1981 we had bought my wife a new Chevrolet Citation four-door hatchback. It was our first front-wheel-drive automobile. Other than the radio being horizontal if I can remember correctly I didn't care for that the car was okay and I believe we held onto it until 1986 and traded it in on a Buick. I've owned so many cars in my lifetime I can't keep up with every model. Certain ones bring back to memory to some degree. Thank you. This gentleman has the financial means to keep the history of a lot of cars alive this is a very unique RUclips channel.
Happy New Year Adam. Thanks. This was very interesting. I remember running to the dealers from school, in 1977 to see the downsized cars. I loved most of them. It was exciting to see the changes and I was hopeful that we would be competitive with the foreign cars. But evidently they pushed too fast, and sacrificed quality for speed of production. 🤦🏻♂️
They actually turned out good. They really declined in 1980 with attempts to further reduce weight due to tightening CAFE. I think the big mistake was in downsizing the Cadillac, the big Buick, (the 4 holers), and the Olds 98. They should have remained truly big cars, and the Pontiac, Olds 88, and the small Buick, (the 3 holers) should not have been downsized as sharply as they were. They should have remained bigger than the Chevy, even if only slightly.
This is by far the most diverse automobile channel on YT. I love these "fireside chats" you do! Very informative and we thank you for sharing your immense knowledge blended with your personal views and passion for cars. Happy 2022 everyone. Aunt Barbara adores you!
My first brand-new car was a 1975 Chevy Nova 2-door coupe (mid-level) with the 350 cu. in. V-8. It was an enjoyable car, that was fun to drive (great drivetrain) and fairly good quality. I kept it for seven years and only needed regular maintenance and minor repairs. I replaced it with a new 1982 Honda Accord hatchback, which was amazing compared to the Nova. I kept it for five years, but then needed a car with a/c, so I looked at a new 1988 Accord, which by that time had become a lot more expensive. Chevrolet had just brought out the new Beretta for 1988, and the price was good, so I bought one. Unfortunately, the Beretta was the biggest turd I ever owned. Multiple failures of components, some of them repeatedly over the time I owned it. I had put so much money into repairs that I felt my only option was to keep it. It cost me a fortune in repairs, and to this day I am still bitter about it. I really wanted to like this car. I still like GM products, but I have opted to use public transit for the past 20+ years., as the car sort of left me in the poor house. I could place all of the blame on GM, but instead I blame myself for trusting GM to have built a better car by that time.
Adam, as always, you are interesting to listen to (you know what you talk about!) and I look forward to future videos. Thank you, and Happy New Year!
I owned a Beretta Gt in the early 2000's. The 3.1 engine wasn't bad, and it wasn't rusty. I shouldn't have traded it.
Did many many head gaskets on these gm 3.1 engines they were a decent car but unfortunately some turned out to be 🍋 lemons,
@@frankorobinson1540 Yes, and I got a huge lemon 🍋 with that Beretta!
I had a new 1988 Beretta GT. It was garbage. Traded it in on a 1991 Saturn SC2, which was a great car.
You liked a Honda better than a Nova?
Great video. I’ll never forget having strangers push my mom and I out of an intersection when our Vega Wagon simply died. Permanently. Later on our 84 Buick Century suffered a similar fate. And then by chance, we rented a Honda Civic to go on vacation. Wow: what a difference in terms of performance and overall build quality. I’ve been buying Hondas ever since. I’m sure American cars have come a long way since then, but I’ve never forgotten the headaches caused by those malaise-era domestics.
14:15 thank you Adam for remembering the Oldsmobile Diesel engine and their contribution to this time frame with regards to CAFE. Virtually every automotive historian always forgets about the Olds Diesels. Great Video!!!
I have a 1985 Olds 98 V6 4.3 diesel. I also own and have put many many miles on mid 80s 6.2 and 6.5 diesels. I can't drive the 98 V6 diesel bc of a power steering pulley alignment issue that is puzzling me
I own a low-mile 1981 Delta 98 DX block. I’ve driven it 1000s of miles including one 1900 mile road trip. Loud outside, a little cold-blooded, but an absolutely beautiful ride and totally trouble free.
The 1981 “DX” engine was the one GM should have made first. The upgrades included better head gaskets and stronger head bolts that threaded more deeply into the block. The main cap bolts were also better and more deeply threaded into the block. A new roller hydraulic lifter was developed with a new cam profile to suit. A stronger oil pump driveshaft was added.
Great topic for discussion - Adam, you had to be alive in 1973 when the first Oil Embargo struck to know how terrible it was. I was a kid and remember waiting with my mom for 1-2 hours for a small ration of gas - and then the gas shortage caused the economy to tumble. People were angry and they told cutting jokes like- ..."What good is a Cadillac Eldorado - when you can't buy gas for it?"
As you said, doubling CAFE from 1974 to 1985 seemed impossible, but it had to be done for national security reasons. Society goes a lot smoother when people can drive their car 1,000 miles in a month instead of 500 - and that's probably how the CAFE rule makers saw it.
I would have preferred no CAFE at all, but should have been more gradual over a longer period of time - maybe starting at 18 mpg for 1978 and increase .75 mpg per year through 1991 to get to 27.5
My brother had a couple of X-11’s from new, the first one (burnt orange) lost the bottom end at 14k miles. They bought it back as he was a service tech at a huge Chevy store in Pasadena Texas. His second one was red with a manual transmission, it lasted a couple of years till he got a Z28.
Another thing that killed brand loyalty was when Caddy’s had Olds engines, Pontiac had Chevy motors, Buick had Pontiac motors and the lawsuits that followed
I'm so glad GM kept the B-Body platform rear wheel drive. My first car was a 77 Impala. I've also had an 80 Olds Delta 88, 84 Buick Electra, an 88 Caprice Classic Brougham, and I currently have a 96 Buick Roadmaster sedan. All wonderful cars to drive. Out of all the cars I've owned, GM B-Body cars are definitely my favorite. I really like my Roadmaster, but I definitely want to get an older B-Body. Preferably something from the mid 80's.
I’ve had two 1979 Caprices as well, they’re fantastic daily drivers. Tons of interior room but surprisingly nimble. I put an edelbrock carburetor on one and was able to really get some good mpg out of it, around 20.
Thanks so much for all you do for us Adam. Do your videos wherever it is good for you? Just keep it up because you are a doing great!!
Plus you challenge my car knowledge nerdiness and make guys like us look normal.
I would argue that there was a general lack of innovation that the US automakers suffered from that was in place quite a few years before CAFE. Coming off the late 60s when they ruled the roost, the cracks were evident, mostly in their being unable to effectively answer the VW Bug. Japanese cars in the late 60s were not all that great either and European cars were seen as somewhat quirky, so they had the opportunity.
That opportunity was squandered among the younger generation with cars like the Vega which had awesome styling, but if the rust did not get it, engine failure did. I think the Pinto was a more solid car but had its own issues in the courts. Finally, Chrysler didn't even compete with a domestic product in this space and just imported cars from Mitsubishi. This pretty much killed a significant part of the younger generation that had either gotten burned on one of these cars or had friends or family that did. These people became Toyota, Honda and Nissan buyers and either stayed with those brands or moved up to European cars.
Another lost opportunity came with the malaise era luxo barges where the idea was to put a vinyl roof on everything along with opera windows and coach lights, put a Brougham badge on it and call it good. Meanwhile, the Europeans were making cars that actually connected the driver to the road and Japanese were making cars that were reliable and cheap to own. This was more of a slow bleed that became suddenly evident in 1979 when US cars for the most part seemed pretty inferior on the world stage by comparison.
So while CAFE was a hard hit, it just made the US automakers situation that they were already in worse and brought on products like the Cimarron, the HT4100, the GM Diesel that further dissatisfied customers and sent more of them away to the Japanese and Europeans.
US Automakers always have had trouble producing a good quality small car. The Corvair was probably the best one and Ralph Nader killed it, then came the VEGA disaster. The Ford Pinto could have been a decent car if Ford didn't scrimp on a $2 part that put the gas tanks at risk in a rear collision. They all got FAT and complacent and the Japanese ate their lunch. I used to have a 1981 Honda Accord and it had issues too but it was better than the stuff GM was putting out. My Ex had a 1979 Ford Mustang with a V6 that started drinking oil before it even hit 30k miles. GM V6s were just as bad in the era. I had an 87 Buick with a V6 that was drinking oil by the time it had 50k on it. I made them rebuild the engine in it since I had an extended warranty on it and it had 3 pistons with the rings turned in it. I think Modern V6s are a lot better. I have owned a few Ford Tauruses and never had an issue with any of them. I think domestic vehicles got a lot better when they started coming with a 3 year bumper to bumper warranty.
@@WhittyPics In 83 a friend of mine traded in his 78 Buick Regal for a 79 Accord. I was blown away how quiet tight and smooth that car was. I ended up buying an 86 Prelude a few years later, and did not go back to buying American cars for about 15 years after that. Right now I have a 2013 Cadillac ATS which I am very happy with.
Fully agree.. and I would add that the styling of the Japanese and European cars were a step ahead.. especially by about 1983.. they were just "in".. and American cars, while still attractive in the eyes of many, ( especially to the 'buy america only' crowd ) just were not considered in style anymore to large segments of the market.. so many were sold on honda accords or Toyota products.. Volkswagens.. and higher end European cars like audis, or volvos like the 240 or the 760's.. all of which looked way more sophisticated next to Chevy citations, plymouth reliants, and yes, chevrolet impalas.. or most other gm products.. so on top of reliability being seen by so many as inferior in American cars, it certainly didn't help that they were also seen as relatively unstylish by a lot of people. Finally, I will add that leasing took off in the 80's, which allowed many to acquire 'more car' than they would otherwise be able to afford.. which probably helped European brands get a bigger slice of the market. And once people drove a 1980s European model, there was no chance they'd ever find themselves back in an oldsmobile or buick showroom!
@@WhittyPics , Just as a nitpick, Nader didn't kill the Corvair. Falcons and Valiants set the price point for that market segment and the Corvair had too many unique parts to be made for similar low costs. GM tried to get the other divisions to sell Corvair platform cars and the other divisions weren't interested. The Corvair was doomed to be a low profit car. The Chevy II/Nova and the Camaro were alot more profitable
It's been argued that GM kept the Corvair around after the success of the more popular and profitable Chevy II just to show that Nader wasn't pushing GM around.
You really nailed it.
Detroit was hung up on annual styling tweaks, overdosing on plasti-chrome, long hoods and landau roofs.
I'm sure the younger engineers and product planners were trying to appease depression-era bosses and traditional-mindset customers (who likely lusted after Deusenbergs as kids).
Growing up on the West Coast, I watched as rational consumers (young or old alike) were less hung up on cubic inches and land-barge proportions.
VW busses and Datsun pickups were typical for conservative suburban driveways.
Some of us rejected the more-is-better mindset and bought the smallest possible (my first car had 2 cylinders, 36 CID, 36hp & 10"tires).
Thankfully, the German and Asian companies now engineer & build in the USA, and we have a successful new American automaker shaking things up worldwide.
late 70s to mid 80s liquid lunch was a common activity and no one gave a shit thats a BIG reason and it was the mindset of the country back then
The worst thing about the onset of the CAFE standards it that they arrived as the crash-test, bumper and emissions standards, all of which had made cars heavier and more fuel hungry, were still being phased in. It was a perfect storm of over-regulation that turned the 1973-1983 period into a lost decade for Detroit.
Sad but true. I still say the CAFE regs were pro Japanese and anti Detroit, as a Japanese auto maker who made a gas guzzler had that tax slapped on THAT MODEL CAR ONLY, but if an American company made one, EVERY SINGLE CAR THEY SOLD, NO MATTER HOW ECONOMICAL, had that tax on it. And it was Gerald Ford, a Republican, not a Democrat, not a "liberal", not a "Socialist" who pushed for that and signed it into law.
Fascinating! I drove some of those cars and never knew the history behind them. Your videos should be required viewing for everyone in the auto industry.
You should do a video like this that involves the history of the 5 and 10 mph bumpers. Most vehicles that have been made for the past 20 years or so no longer have what a 5 and 10 mph bumper looked like back in the 70s and 80s.
It started in 1973. 1973 passenger cars were required to have 5 mph front and 2.5 mph rear bumpers. In 1973, Mopar did a cheap bypass act by putting big rubber guards on the front bumpers. But Uncle Sam got wise to that and required full frontal protection the following year, along with requiring 5 mph rear bumpers as well. The only model years that both front and rear bumpers on new passenger cars sold in the US were legally required to withstand 5 mph impacts were 1974 to 1981. I had a 1981 Toyota Corolla Sport Coupe during the '80s that was hit twice at (about) 5 mph, both times without damage. Then, in 1982, came the "Reagan Abomination," in which bumper standards got relaxed back down to 2.5 mph (both front and rear) from the 1983 model year onward. As for 10 mph bumper standards, I've have never heard of any that would apply to passenger cars, maybe on an Abrams A-1 tank when hit by another Abrams A-1 tank, but certainly not passenger cars.
I hadn't thought about this subject for many years and your explanation put ALOT of things together for me regarding why things are the way they are today. History (the truth) has a way of doing that. Thank you Adam
Ahh the variable Venturi carbs. I thought about that fiasco just the other day. Rushed to market with virtually zero dealer support from Ford. So the dealers, rather than sinking a bunch of resources into figuring these carbs out opted to just replace them with 2100 2 bbl carbs. I will say this fiasco likely pushed Ford head long into multi port fuel injection ahead of the competition.
Another super interesting video, Adam. Happy New Year to you as well.
I owned a full size LTD with the variable Venturi carb. A bad memory.
I still have one.....on a shelf, a reminder that I STILL don't have a manometer.
Had a continental big block took variable venturi turd off ,bought a brand new holley 500 cfm 2 barrel dropped jets down a little and car never ran so good ,ahh back when gas was 100 dollar a gallon and 12 miles to gallon didn't bother me lol,
I really enjoy your commentary. In the fall of 1978, I was in college and driving from my parents house to school. After transmission in my mom’s 1969 Impala needed major work (and i didn’t flunk out of school), my dad and went out to purchase a good car for me to drive. He purchased a 1977 Malibu with a strait 6 engine that was a major disaster; the gas mileage was less than my aunts 77 Malibu with a 305 V8. Long story short, the straight 6 did not have the power to pull the car.
In the fall of 1978. I was looking for a car. I went to the AMC dealer and looked at a Spirit. The sales person practically cried when I told him I purchased a Ford Fairmont Futura. My experience with the Fairmont was so bad, that it took me 15 yrs before I purchased another Ford. And that early 90’s Ford was so bad, I haven’t purchased a Ford product since then. I only purchase Honda products now.
I really like the historical side of GM in particular. I grew up a GM driver then owner but I quit buying them in the 90s. I dint think I’ll ever buy another one.
We had a new 97 grand prix as a kid...it was a great car... my first car was a 91 regal limited...then had a 95 olds aurora and recently I got a 51000 mile 98 monte carlo...i love 90s gm cars ...grew up around them and that's the time they actually. Started getting interesting an much more refined and distinct than the 80s cars..the 90s was peak gm in my opinion
Thank You Adam! This actually to me was one of the most informative car videos I have ever seen, although not really showing cars. You now definitely have a new excited follower in Germany.
Danke!
Adam, Always enjoy the car chats and living in MN, I understand the challenge of driving our collector cars in the winter. I recall watching an Auto Moments special on the development of the AMC Pacer...and it seemed that government regulations with fuel economy and CAFE, and safety and emissions standards and trying to engineer everything to fit together was a challenge, especially for the Pacer since it's GM sourced rotary engine was cancelled and AMC had to quickly retrofit it's existing engines into the car. The point was AMC had to anticipate roof crush and other standards in anticipating the car's lifespan on the market.
I was in the 5th grade when the GM 77 program came to market. And I think that was the high water market of the malaise period and was one of the rare moments GM hit the market with the right product at the right time. From what I've heard, GM"s continuing downsizing to front drive with the C body in 1985 was based on an analyst's prediction that gas would be 3 bucks a gallon by the mid 80s. Of course we had an oil glut and GM was stuck with the front drive lookalike cars which Lincoln and Ford capitalized on with some of their ad campaigns for the Town Car.
GM didn't have a decent four cylinder..since they botched the four cylinders with the Vega. If you think about it, the first modern GM four cylinder was the Quad 4 in 1988. I'm not counting the Cosworth Vega since that was limited production. So as a stop gap, you had the iron Duke which ran well into the early 90s. Even the V6 that evolved into the 3800 had its roots in the Buick 225 V6 of the early 1960s. Probably from a cost accounting standpoint, GM found it better to mix existing engineering footprints with new front drive platforms.
While the imports had better economy, and quality, they did rust quickly in our winter salt environment. Our malaise era Cutlass was with us for 12 years and the body was very solid with minimal corrosion....the door panels didn't line up nor was it as refined as a contemporary Toyota but it didn't rust out either.
My Dad was the classic GM customer..buy the Chevy and move up the product chain..and that is pretty much what was imprinted on me as far as what to expect in a car was the driving dynamics, look and feel of a GM car of the day. Until I met a well to do family that had Hondas....and I was stunned at the level of refinement of the Accord versus a Pontiac 6000. When I was close to graduating from college, I test drove an Accord versus a Pontiac Grand Am with the Iron Duke....about the same price but the Accord had no radio, no AC and no Cruise control....you had to get that installed at the dealer...while the Grand Am has a stereo with a tape deck, AC and Cruise.....and extremely clumsy driving dynamics and a rough four cylinder versus the Accord...and since the Grand Am appeared to be the better value, that's what I got...and I still kick myself for not getting the Honda
Years later, Dad bought a Subaru Outback and a Legacy sedan because he liked all wheel drive and the way the cars handled. I swore off GM but ended up buying two Chevy Volts which it seemed GM over engineered by under marketed. Otherwise, we buy Honda Odysseys as our main family vehicle.
Today, with modern computer hardware and software, it will probably be easier to engineer around government mandates...much more so than the crude emission systems used 40 to 50 years ago. Even my 87 Dodge Dakota has some of the "lean burn" legacy...a Holley carb and a maze of vacuum lines and a big box containing the spark computer. Really shows how far things have progressed...and these videos bring back some great memories of cars that I've ridden in or driven.
GM had an available four cylinder in the Chevy II* . Based on the Chevy inline six it shared the same bore speed as the SBC. GM should have been able to redesign the SBC head to adapt it to the four cylinder. I do know that AMC had provisions built into the machining lines for their inline six to convert to 4 or even 5 cylinder
*the tooling may have been shipped to Brazil.
I refuse to have a car with computers in it.
@@mpetersen6 The Pontiac Iron Duke was an updated and re-worked Chevy II engine, at least in it's original form.
Thank you for that comprehensive summary of what helped knock the U.S. car industry off its pedestal. I appreciate your highlighting the Olds 350 diesel (had a neighbor in my father's car pool to work who experienced the whole engine replacement fight with one of those!) and the Pontiac 301 camshaft - the 301 always being an enigma to me as I wondered if it was any better than that Chevy 305 my family had in our '78 Impala. You really make a fair argument - I had long been under the impression that the U.S. auto industry was capable of making the advancements if they put their engineering minds to it but that the American car buyer was sort of a herd driven by fad toward mainly Japanese car brands despite any improvements made in Detroit. By the way, I remain a diehard American car buyer and drive an unimpressive - but reliable - Ford Focus wagon. Have no idea what I will end up replacing it with when I finally have to.
Very interesting to say the least! I was employed at Mitsubishi from 89’-04’ and worked on the line all the way to Quality Control that test drove the autos before they shipped. I loved that job!
Were you working for DSM in Normal Ill? Or did Mitsubishi have a separate manufacturing plant not associated with Chrysler? I lived in Illinois then and remember driving past that plant once or twice.
@@marcusdamberger hello yes when I started in 89’ it was called DSM (Diamond Star Motors). We joked around saying it meant “dust sweep mop” it was only one plant and at that time we built the Eclipse, Eagle Talon, and the Plymouth Laser. A couple years later they ventured into the four door category along with the SUV called the Endeavor.
Adam, very nice presentation of the impact of CAFE on the big three! Having lived through those times and had friends and relatives in GM and Chrysler, I think from that limited perspective even the engineers hired and working for the domestics were NOT up to the challenges. “Hide bound” or similar terms come to mind. When we moved to Detroit we were struck by the very narrow view point of many people living there. If California was considered “wild and open”, Detroit and the American Midwest were the complete opposite. We were glad to move away after a few years.
Certain industries in the US tended to siphon off the cream of the engineering talent. Aerospace for one. Often the auto industry was getting second tier people. But not always. Detroit had some really talented engineers. The big problem in Detroit was management. And that management being dominated by the bean counters and MBA types. Don't misunderstand. You need those people. But in the end you are building a product that while functioning as an appliance in many ways also evokes emotional responses. The marketing guys understood that. A bean counter never will. The US auto industry did have its "appliance" type cars in the 60s and 70s. Chevy lls, Ford Falcon, Chryslers Dart/Valiant, Rambler American and base model Chevelles etc. Basic transportation.
As to the conservatism of the American manufacturers. In some ways I think that was a "this is the way we've always done it" type of thinking. Chrysler never really did get it IMO. Ford and GM certainly had experience with the European market they should have been able to get it. There is another problem with GM I think. In many ways GM was the most innovative and risk taking of all the US auto manufacturers. Not overall but in being willing to try different things. The early 60s and then the original Vega are examples of this. In the early 60s the cars were they took risks to some extent where the Corvair and the models from Pontiac, Olds and Buick based off of that platform. The POB models were conventional in layout but reached out to try other technologies. The Covair was clearly inspired by the VW. But in the end yhe Corvair left a bad taste in GMs collective mouth. The car wasn't a failure. Total sales were well over one million units. But it was a disaster PR wise. Then there was the Vega. Fairly conventional in layout. As were the Japanese cars of the time. In fact in 1970 FWD was rare in the US. But the engine. While workable in theory the plated aluminum cylinder bores failed in large part because of two things. Owner neglect and cost cutting. The cost cutting came in when GM reduced the thickness of the Nickel/Silicon coating that provided the wear surface for the piston rings. The fact that the body on the Vega left the factory seeking to migrate back into the crust of the Earth as IronOxide and lousy build quality certainly did not help.
@@mpetersen6 The Corvair, Ralph Nader, and our transformation into a sue-happy society made the industry scared of trying anything different. That Vega engine was a horrible blunder. If they had have made it out of iron, it would have been a trouble-free engine, which is what us Americans were used to - trouble-free engines.
Another thing to consider: the Japanese government and the auto industry worked together for the overall benefit of both. While the American government and the auto industry were hostile towards each other.
While thats because the government ingeneral don't care about the American people at all.
Hey, Carl Albert & Jerry Ford, let's ruin the US Auto Industry so we have less tax revenue to collect, just because they don't like people who make a profit and are successful.
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN! Finally somebody besides myself knows this!
@@billolsen4360 It was not only those who hated people who make profits, it was also those who hated the fact that the auto workers, steel workers, and tire & rubber workers were members of strong unions that couldn't be broken. The solution? Take their jobs away from them. Our major industries got it from both directions.
@@michaelbenardo5695 And where are the strong unions today? Out there aggressively organizing these companies who are giving fat bonuses to billionaires who pay their employees trash wages? No!
The union bosses are busy forcing Sleepy Joe to avoid even mentioning firms like Tesla whose workers make 24% more than UAW counterparts.
Seriously looking forward to the interviews. Great channel. Thanks.
Awesome talk, as always. I grew up at the side of my grandfather who sold Chevys, Buicks and Oldsmobiles at a small southern dealership until he retired in 1972. GM was the home team and it deeply saddened me when the caliber of their cars degraded. I'll take the lines and chrome and power of GM in the '60s over anything produced now. Happy new year, Adam.
To me the GM cars of the '60s and early '70s were the best looking. After that things changed, bodies got bigger and heavier, the heavy mandated bumpers did not justice to the styling or weight, and there was less and less distinction between the divisions.
Another thought provoking chat-a great subject/question. Looking forward to subsequent chapters.
When I got married in 1975, bought a Corolla Deluxe, great car 28-31 MPG! However, my Dad's '84 Sedan DeVille blew me away with its 4100 engine and 28 MPG HWY! He only drove 10-12K miles per year and had no problems with that engine!
Always enjoy your "Garage-side Chats," Adam! You've explained perfectly what happened in a 20yr span, in 23mins. I never realized how much they had to do in so little time. Now it explains why a friend in high school had to keep a box of motor oil in the trunk of their 3yr old Buick Skyhawk (and the engine sounded like canastas being played.) Happy New Year, thank you for taking the time to share your gorgeous cars, and knowledge!
really enjoy your channel, one of the best of the many classic car channel i subscribed for
One of the main reasons for the failure of the American automotive industry in the Seventies actually happened in the Forties. To my understanding, and minimal fact checking, we forbade Japan from making airplanes as a condition of their surrender. Suddenly a whole industry full of engineers had to find jobs. They started making bikes, scooters, and motorcycles, partially to feed their families, but largely because that was the main mode of transportation in post war Japan. Small lightweight motorized bikes were Japan’s “people’s car”, like the Beetle, 2CV, and Fiat 500 were for their respective countries. As the industry (largely isolated from western norms and ideals) grew into its natural conclusion of making autos, the Japanese were in the perfect position to make cheap, lightweight, efficient, reliable vehicles, because they’d been honing their engineering skills on motorcycles for a couple of decades. The thought processes carried over to four wheels.
If that isn’t completely accurate, it is certainly an interesting thought. I had a great history teacher once…
There’s also a pretty famous story (I won’t elaborate here, google is your friend) about Honda buying a ‘74-ish Impala, applying the CVCC emissions technology to it, and making way better mpgs out of it (maybe more power too?). It was done as a response to GM execs who were up in arms with the new standards, and said it couldn’t be done.
Very interesting discussion...I was driving a semi-hopped up AMC Gremlin X (headers, carb, manifold), then got a job 50 miles away from home. I went out and bought a 1974 Honda Civic. Everyone would point and laugh that a car could be so small. I was getting 35 miles a gallon though. It was easy to work on and dead reliable. The only issue was the placement of the ignition coil at the top of the firewall where snow would melt and short it out. I gave it away with 135,000 miles on it.
My favorite example of Detroit downsizing was when Ford Motor Company went from selling the Fox body Fairmont/Granada to offering the Tempo - which had a push rod 4 cylinder that was derived from the old "Thriftpower" 200 cu. inch 6.
Even though my first car was a 1963 Ford Galaxy, I'm more familiar with the design changes on European cars during this period. In short, there were teething issues in the implementation of analog electronic fuel injection - namely Bosch's early L-Jetronic systems - which didn't get a Lambda O2 sensor until 1983'ish.
When the analog electronic fuel injection system worked, life was great. The ECU had about 25 old-school transistors acting like relays. Fuel flow was mainly dependent on the engine RPMs and a signal from electromechanical air flow meter. I won't go into the number of sensors placed through out the engine - but they were all analog. Digital electronic fuel did not come into the picture until the late eighties.
Long story short - the older analog electronically controlled system was too complicated for most gas station mechanics of the period. So, more often than with earlier years with carburetor fuel systems, European vehicles required a trip to the dealership - if no local shops were available for the job.
I believe the problematic fuel injection system was K-Jetronic. I owned a Volvo 164 with this system; simply terrible.
Adam …Happy New Year to you and your family! Great video,I agree 100% as I grew up from the 60s and saw the whole automobile issues through the years. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and looking forward to your interviews. My family owned just about all the cars you mentioned..American small cars were Awful and these companies knew it…..admitting they didn’t know how to build smaller cars. My moms friend pulled into our driveway with a new 1978 Honda Accord….a nice car but even they started to burn oil at around 70-80k miles but was improved in just a couple of years.
From my observation, Japanese automakers stuck with a model and just kept making small improvements with examples like the Corolla, Civic and Sentra. GM would throw a dart, invest billions, the project would fail and back to the drawing board.
You are forgetting that the Japanese heavily subsidize their auto industry, so they are guaranteed a profit. Our auto makers have always been on their own. That's why the original GM went broke - they were trying to match the Japanese on price, so they eventually were selling cars at below cost. No private company can do that forever and not go broke.
You nailed it 100%.I avoided GM's FWD cars from the 80's for the longest time and bought their midsize and mid 70's full size cars,then switched to Honda & Toyota.
Even though they got much better over the years,i never trusted their quality again.
Great historical review. IMO Ford handled this better than GM or Chrysler in the long run. They were smart enough to acknowledge they didn’t make small fuel efficient cars well so they turned to their European operations. Ford at that time was second to VW in sales in Europe and they were mostly small fuel efficient cars. Ford first big effort was the Pinto. Although it turned out to be an explosive failure. It’s 4 cylinder OHC engine (similar to what they used in Europe) was pretty good. Ford later used the Pinto engine in numerous products up to the 90’s. The Escort and Tempo were pretty good small cars compared to their domestic counterparts.
Over 3 million Pintos were sold in 10 years so I wouldn't call that a failure.
The Tempo was funky, but good in the snow. A grandma's vehicle, but loads better than the Granada/Monarch twins. The Fiesta wasn't bad .
Chrysler owned Simca and Hillman in the 1970s. At first the imported the Hillman Avenger and sold it as a Plymouth Cricket. It was poorly built in ENGLAND. At the end of the 1970s they imported another car from Simca before they sold it to Peugeot. The Simca was sold as the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon and was a hit for 10yrs.
The gas tank in the Pinto was way overblown.
I had a 77 and two 88 Chevy caprice's all 3 where great the 88's where the best the 77 was a victim of bad cam and weak transmission my uncle replaced the 305/200 with a 350/350 I bought it in 93.
Very well done video and analysis. Your remarks about people having fond memories of their parents American cars of the 50's and 60's is true. It's those late 70's and early 80's problematic cars that caused many to buy Honda, Toyota and the other imports and never return to buying domestics. As those people got older through the 80's and 90's and needed bigger and different vehicles, the Japanese were right there with the right vehicles to fit their needs. I never thought I'd see the big 3 challenged and overtaken like that.
In addition to the CAFE standards affecting domestic manufacturers across their fleets there was also a lopsided effect when compared to European manufacturers. For example when Mercedes-Benz produced an S-Class or BMW produced a 7 Series that fuzzed gasoline there was a $3000 gas guzzler tax tacked on to each unit sold in the US however it didn’t effect the fleet of 190 class or 240 / 300 class Mercedes or 240i BMW cars sold as they weren’t effected by the fleet factor of the Corporate Average. It wasn’t a level playing field.
FINALLY, somebody besides myself how knows this! I can't understand why so many are OK with this!
Dear Adam, I generally love your videos, your collection and taste in cars, plus your very pleasant demeanor in your vids ! -- I'm a life long car guy from Holland, who aspired to be a car designer from age 10 through 20; studied Industrial Design engineering at the Technical University of Delft, a small touristy city between Rotterdam and the Hague, best known for Delftware Blue pottery -- but alo for winning the Aussy World Solar Championship seven times since 2001 !
Your view on how the CAFE, safety, and emissions legislations were all very tough on the US auto industry is very enlightening, but I feel a need to make some counterpoints ...
The Big Three all needed a hard Kick in the Butt to start competing with the best products from the foreign auto industry ! -- Moreover, they COULD have considered LEARNING from the most successful foreign products - whether these were sold in the US or not. -- AND: ALL three owned overseas subsidiaries, that already posessed crucial technologies, implemented in their smaller cars, because BOTH local laws AND consumers wanred these !
G.M. had Opel/Vauxhall (EU), Holden (Oz), and Isuzu (Jp), and developed stakes in Toyota and Suzuki. Ford had major centers in Germany and the U.K., and a stake in Mazda; and Chrysler bought Sunbeam (UK), and Talbot (France).
But the Big Three stayed VERY focused on selling BIG cars, with large displacement V8 motors, and many of them HEAVY, due to body-on-frame construction, to kling to the annual model change approach !
Compact cars were never taken as seriously by them, as by their foreign competitors...
A rare exception were the down-sized, very high quality 1975 and 1980 Cadillac Sevilles.
Making European subsidary cars comply with the comparatively easy-going U.S. laws, was always easier, than engineering American cars to the strict European standards... And this is how it played out.
Ford invested BILLIONS for their 1985/'86 Mercury Sable / Ford Taurus, only to design cars virtually identical to the German '85/'86 Ford Scorpio... -- Chrysler co-developed their Dodge Omni hatchback and its siblings together with te Talbot Horizon, and really benefited from this cooperation. Their following K-cars also offered Amerians truly compact - Instead of "down-sized" - cars, that they Bought in Droves !
Chrysler was since then chosen not Once, but TWICE, as an attractive merger partner, by European car-makers, because of their ability to make (relativey) compact cars.
Ford was the best able to transition into making some truly global cars, with their Ka, Fiesta, and Focus platforms. The Mustang Mach E are, and the Bronco-Sport will also be type-approved in Europe.
G.M. began very promising, with the Cavalier as a global car, but eventually the accountants decided to simply liquidate ALL overseas assets, with Opel/Vauxhall now even folded into Stellantis - so effectively merged with rival Chrysler...
AMC's HUGE Mistake was to develop the Pacer -- a quirky car that I love, by the way !! -- AMC only had money to develop ONE more whole new car, and it should have been like a new Hornet: a flexibe new platform, that could be built in different wheelbase lengths, in many different body-styles, and optionally with 4-wheel drive.
Oh, and one more thing: when Ford, G.M. & Chrysler started putting V8s in their 2nd gen, VW-inspired 1970s compact Vans, they successfully lobbied congress for the famoua 'Chicken Tax' protectionism, instead of making engines more efficiently burning...
When one of Detroit's Big Three's bosses commented, that Honda's CVCC engines just wouldn't work in an American-sized car, Honda's bosses were so angered, that they built a V8 with CiciC-technology, simply to prove him wrong, and make him eat his words !
Honda had no intention of actually making V8s like this -- The whole point of this improved efficiency, was that you could get enough power, and clean enough emissions out of a 4- or 6-cylinder, and not even need the expense (or weight !) of a catalytic converter, combined with an enormous, heavy, and rediculously down-tuned engine-lump...
Thanks Adam for this fascinating video on the short comings of the American auto industry in the seventies & eighties (the malaise era) 👍👍
Great talk. I really enjoy your videos. I have nothing to add other than 2 things: working for a Chevy dealer my dad once brought home an early Citation 4 dr. It was an attractive car. I still think it’s a nice looking car. We took it on a family day trip somewhere. It was pretty nice as I recall, very roomy. Shortly after that I was at his work one day looking at cars in the showroom. They had a maroon Citation on the showroom floor that had orange peeled paint and overspray on the chrome window trim! My 10 year old self noticed this and was shocked! I can only imagine what potential buyers though. What did he buy for my mom to drive at the time? A 1978 Honda Civic. It was basic but I never remember it giving us any trouble. Unfortunately That began a long period of foreign car ownership that continues to this day.
Guessing that was probably a damaged in transit car with a very poor repair as the vehicle paint would’ve been applied before that trim.
Great video! Very informative!!
The build quality of domestic vehicles of this era was terrible. Not only was the engineering flawed in many ways but, the quality of materials they used (particularly on the interiors) was diminished from previous years. They went from door panels and other interior parts made from fiberboard and steel to brittle plastic that rattled, squeaked, and broke if not handled gently.
GM trucks had such ill fitting doors one had to slam them repeatedly to get them to latch completely. Subsequently, door panels were jerked loose from their weak fasteners, making them rattle even more. This type of thing happened a lot to many other domestic cars of this era.
Also the sun really did a number on those cheap interior plastics of that time, making them fade in no time, brittle and crumble.
Definitely more interviews with people like Bob Lutz. He's endlessly fascinating. No corporate mumbo jumbo, just good plain speak; more of that please. Gooday from Australia, :)
Impressive for off the top of your head...strange but in the late 70s I was in my early 20s and I don't remember anyone from my parent's generation gave a hoot about FWD, in fact they sought out RWD vehicles because they hated the handling of FWD or didn't trust it's reliability. So maybe if engineering concentrated on quality and improvement of familiar RWD design and reduction of weight it would've gone better? My dad loved putting the chains on the tires of his 60 F100. But it sounds like traverse mounting was by far the smaller challenge US carmakers faced. Oh and AMC, the old Nash Rambler, which was one of the leaders of downsizing and economy in the 50s and 60s under Romney...what a shame!
My dad was one of those.
A comment to Mike.....I owned both an '83 and '88 Accord. Both great cars and lasted many years. The weak spot on the '83 was rust, but no rust on the '88. The pop up headlights on the '88 had a couple of issues but inexpensively repaired by the dealer.
I've particularly appreciated how you once compared the 1971-76 GM full-size car to its immediate predecessor and explained what was lost in terms of engineering design and assembly quality. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how the same early-1970s GM full-size design stands in comparison to its downsized successor of 1977 and onward.
To my understanding, GMs 77 intros were generally huge hits with the market, looking at the Sedan DeVille, Electra, Olds 98, and Bonneville. I remember BEGGING my grandfather to buy a 77 Bonneville, black with acres of red velour. He instead bought a 77 Phoenix, aka Nova with slightly nicer trim. Windows exploded, the left power window had to be pushed up to go down…it was just appalling.
@@scottlevine7646 Oh yeah, the downsized ones were definitely hits in the marketplace. However, Adam had made some very helpful comments about the engineering below the surface on the '71-'76 cars vs. their predecessors. I simply wondered the same thing about their successors.
@@OnkelPHMagee That's a fair point. It's hard to imagine GM quality getting *better* in the mid 70s (when the '77s were in development). But you have to appreciate how relatively agile the General was to get those '77s into development so quickly after the '73 crisis. Certainly the '77 Caprice/Impala were a monster hit, and actually had more room than their gargantuan predecessors ('71-'76). There was a moment when the '77 Cutlass outweighed the '77 Delta '88 I believe. There's a small set of mid-to-late 70s car reviews from a local Miami news station (can't find or I'd link) that I think you'd find interesting.
I thoroughly enjoy your videos, such unbiased delivery with an in depth knowledge of the motor industry.
Great job.
Great and very insightful discussion. Really enjoyed this.
Thank you Adam, and a happy and prosperous new year to you as well. You are an amazingly smart individual and have a very spot on view of the US auto industry for a man of your years. I so agree with the faults you have laid out, as I am a baby boomer and have lived thru the periods as you have so accurately described. While I really wish for domestic vehicle that fits well in durability, quality and economy, I continually find myself at the Japanese branded dealerships for my car purchases. Sad but true. You have an amazing collection of wonderful cars from that period, and I truly respect your views, and cant wait for your next video. Thanks again.
The beginning of the end for American auto manufacturing was when their accountants started running things over the real car people running these companies.
so UAW has nothing to do with it
That too. Accountants only know that if they start the thing, and put it in gear, they can make it move forward.
@@jimmyellison2766 No it didn't, because almost ALL the world's auto makers are unionized, not just those over here. What helped kill our's is the fact that the Japanese subsidize their auto exports and block our cars from their country. And many of the Europeans slap tariffs on our cars, which prices them out of the market. And our government, no matter who is president, refuses to do anything about it, only cries, "Free Trade", "Free Trade".
Not so much. Besides the usual Mustang and Trans Am, muscle cars in general, as well as Broncos, which cars we could say that were enthusiast cars? It was more marketers rather than car people who brought us the memorable performance cars.
@@michaelbenardo5695 If anyone ever wanted to see what could happen to the US auto industry maybe someone back then should have taken a look at the British! I think there were a few similarities.🤔🤔🤔🤔1
Hi Adam, from Sydney , Australia. My dad was an American he held a major position here for the US government from 1969. So I'm now 65yrs old & being around at the time & being a smart guy, the US automakers were hit with the perfect storm, riding high with the powerful engines of the mid & late 60's & the horsepower race. The first company that was tapped on the shoulder by the US government , was the Mopar group when they put forward for sale the 2 "winged warriors" . In a skunkworks , Cadillac had been working on a 13.1 litre V12 a big brother with shared engine componentry with the 472/501 v8's The V12 became stillborn. The giant Caddy v8's really only lasted a few years themselves before they were de bored & shrunk , then killed off in 1982 altogether. Add the reinforced front & rear bumper systems front & rear to all the cars , heavier door intrusion bars , plus inflation post Viet' war , then top all that off with the Arab Oil embargo. SO like you said the US auto makers had to make something , even if it was too early to market with those products. However by doing this in this what was effectively an emergency to their survival, they soiled their names/brands with a huge amount of their heartland prior supporters and after paying good money for "junky" problematical cars many Americans said never again . I have cousins that live in San Francisco and also some in San Diego, to this day they hate some of these poorly designed home market cars. But read on and , let me tell you a new Japanese car from this period was no better, maybe worse mates & also my girlfriend bought Japanese imports and ALL of them had problems to , all ill conceived all short lifespan cars . As what many Americans , either now do not realise, or had no idea of, was the virtual lockout of many smaller European cars , as they did not comply with the hasty new bumper & crash/crumple laws. There was no way the manufacturers of some of these nasty small cars could ever modify the current versions to suit the almost immediate new laws introduced basically overnight. So near zero little French , Italian , German British or Japanese cars arrived on US shores for a few years as they were totally non compliant, hence the US car makers had a crack at trying to provide clients needs with way way smaller cars and right sharpish as well. There was one upside with the 1982 , model year 83 global GM "j" body cars , they were all galvanised steel to attempt to make them last . The last time a US automaker did that was near 20 years prior, as the 1965 Galaxies & their sisters , the big Mercury's were a US big 3 companies first foray into a fully galvanised body product. And I owned a 1965 Galaxie here in Sydney , I bought it from its first owner in early '80's & I kept it 30 years, it had zero rust, NONE . Note this that living on Sydney's Northern beaches with bulk salt spray from the Pacific ocean, my girlfriends new Toyota Corona needed rust work in its 2 year warranty period as both the front & rear bonded windscreens had grown rust patches and caused water leaks, worst of all was a huge puddle found in the spare tyre well as behind the tail light pods there were holes , hidden by the trunk lining & the car lived in a carport next to my '65 Galaxie & '58 Holden, and her company car a new "j" body Holden Camira, the company she worked for kept cars 5 years, she kept the Toyota Corona 2 years as it needed even more rustwork before the warranty was out, one actual road wheel rim needed replacing as it had rust where the 2 halves welded together , plus 3 out of 4 doors bottoms had rust where the outer skins wrapped around & were welded to the inner frame the upholstery clips onto, SO there was no quality in this era Japanese cars, where as the 'j' bodied GM Holden Aust' Camira had no rust at all with its full galvanised steel construction. In 1september 1982, I bought an export spec' RHD 1974 Cadillac Fleetwood Talisman in sable black & with gold interior (mustard color), I still own it today , January 2022, it lived in the same carport back then & it didn't rust , but the Toyota sure as hell did 9,000klms & falling to bits, so we sold it. Australia went metric in 1974, so the Talisman is a metric kilometres car with 709,000klms on it now in january 2022, and still running fine with its original engine. With my position, I could have 2 private cars operational costs, rego & insurance fully paid for plus some extra salary , OR, I could have a new Mercedes S class every 2 years. I preferred the Talisman & my white 1972 70th anniversary Fleetwood Brougham both have been serviced monthly, paid for as part of my salary/employment . Let me say that the "aussie" spec' '65 Galaxie is dressed internally like a Lincoln has Lincoln type carpet, the seat upholstery , head lining and the 65, 66 & 67 aussie Galaxies , have a complete mirror image RHD rendition of the 61, 62, 63 Lincoln dash panel, A Lincoln radio , Lincoln Air conditioning switch/lever module, with Lincoln door handles, window crank handles, arm rests, the Lincoln hydraulic windscreen wipers with Lincoln vacuum intermittent wipe/sweep system too, so they look like a Galaxie LTD with door posts externally , however ,internally they are fully dressed as a total option Lincoln. As a new car here in Australia you had 4 choices when you were purchasing or ordering your new Galaxie1, color of paint & trim 2, engine size 390ci or 289ci 3, Vinyl roof yes or no, 4 Air Conditioning yes or no - otherwise they were fully optioned & trimmed as Lincolns would be. In 1965 models if you selected the 390ci engine , you got the dual 4 bbl pale metallic green, side oiler, police enforcer engine with the nice cast alloy valve covers so they are near silent with engine running & hood open and deliver at least 400 horse power. If you were mean & ordered the 289ci single 2bbl carby engine you received a "slug" that could barely get out of its own way, a friend bought one just months after I bought mine , when I drove his one it felt like a gigantic 17ft long , 4cylinder car no guts at all even with good old 102 octane leaded premium fuel in its tank. Regards a RHD "aussie" spec Cadillac Talisman you only needed to choose color that was your sole choice, otherwise they came with fully optioned included was ACRS (airbags), ABS brakes and what stateside was a Buick only item Maxtrac (traction control). Not available at all was a sun roof , no left side external thermometre in base of the left door mirror, no garage door openers in sun visors, no opera lights & no illuminated vanity mirrors on sunvisors. GMH-Aust for 1971, 72 , 73 & 74 received incomplete Buick Riviera's and Cadillac Fleetwood's from the USA to GMH-A's Pagewood , Sydney plant and created all the unique RHD componentry using shared firewalls , RHD version Buick forward mounted steering boxes & steering draglinks & amber rear turn indicator & reverse light lenses . A mere 100 of each Buick & Fleetwood's for the 4 model years from August 1970 to July 1974 . As in july 1974 GMH- Aust released their own version of a Fleetwood , the HJ Holden Statesman Caprice we already had a Statesman Custom & Statesman de Ville . These aussie Caprices also used internal Cadillac Fleetwood componentry too and were very upmarket with GMH-A building probably only 2,000 of them each year from 1974 thru to 1985.
Hi Adam, yes the mid-seventies were not the best times in the auto industry, I recall an ad for the Honda Civic & it's fuel economy, everything else in that ad had the worst mileage, remember, in 71 the horsepower in cars was reduced because of air pollution, emissions, etc, every year the HP went down, that's why cars were gas guzzlers, they were big, comfortable, stylish cars, the feds made the cars shrink to improve gas mileage, our 75 Cutlass got lousy fuel mileage, ended up with a Chevette, a slightly better car, then I had a 81 Z28, I enjoyed it, my late sister had a 77 Honda Civic, a good car, the only problem she had was a radio speaker that crapped out, I mean the auto industry with the changes in bumper safety, gas savings, etc, kept making cars more expensive, that's why todays cars are totally overpriced, we can't afford squat, we need to go back to when we'd buy a basic model, add the options you'd need, & keep the price reasonable, instead, there's nothing inexpensive, we just need to shrink the prices, make sure it's safe, & not crap out, rust out, or any other disaster, wasn't the point of owning a car to maintain it properly, & it'll run forever, think of the few people whose cars have over a million miles on it, but they still enjoy driving it!!!!
Agreed, that's why the Chinese electric car industry is going to make huge inroads in the US and Australia where I am, from this year onwards. It's all about price.
@@mikevale3620 But if workers would be allowed to re-unionize, and unions would be allowed to truly thrive, many people wouldn't care that much about price.
There are as many answers to this question as there are stars in the sky! I am very much looking forward to this entire series! 👍🇺🇸
I remember going to the GM plant in Framingham, MA for a field trip. The class watched as a test driver drove a car up on to the dyno. The speed went up to about 50 and then dropped almost instantly. Turns out the engine never had oil put in it and it seized up - must have had assembly lube or something. I had 3 or 4 GM vehicles with a multitude a problems after that. I've been driving Japanese cars ever since.
Korean 4 me. Hyundai.
Adam, Planned obsolescence caused by corporate arrogance is the root of the problem. Don't tell me an industry that was easily leading the world in the late 1960s deteriorated so badly over the next 2 decades by mistake. In regard to CAFE in 1975, QDR was already in a nosedive by the time those regulations were enacted. Your own fleet demonstrates the beginning phase of "build quality sloppiness" that was already taking place in the early 70s. BTW that small Pontiac was commonly called the Dis-Astre. If the Detroit 3 had been half as loyal to their customers as the customers were to them, they would still be called the Big 3. Lastly, I am glad you mentioned the fact the industry was allowed to sleepwalk between 1985 and 2010 with ZERO mandated increases in fuel efficiency. Even incremental improvements over that time would have seriously reduced the shock therapy necessary now.
Yes it was, you're correct. I do think, however, CAFE accelerated the decline heading into the 80s.
@@RareClassicCars A case study of the 1980s NUMMI joint venture between GM and Toyota would be so helpful in illustrating so many of these themes.
@@rightlanehog3151 that’s a good idea. I used to know quite a few of the original GM NUMMI folks.
Adam, thanks for another great video and analysis. Two other items I would point to. First, the U.S. auto industry, prior to the arrival of Japanese cars, had no real competition. The VW bug was the only car for which the U.S. industry had no answer, at least in the beginning. The Falcon was sort of a response. Without competition, there was no need to push harder on quality. And quality is the second point. Cars from the 1950's to the 1970's generally couldn't get to 100,000 miles without an engine or transmission rebuild. Most people got rid of their U.S. cars when they hit around 70,000 miles. Suddenly the Japanese show up with cars that easily exceeded 100,000 mile lifespans. Again, the U.S. industry didn't have an answer for that. Many people went with quality, i.e., Japanese cars. Less bother.
The early Japanese cars weren’t great either and didn’t hold up well. It wasn’t until the late 70s/early 80s that they improved significantly. Even then, they rusted very very quickly. In the 80s/90s, they pulled away on quality.
@@RareClassicCars Agreed. If a time machine took me back to 1972 I would take a Valiant over a Toyota. Today I drive a Pontiac Vibe made out of Toyota parts.
@@rightlanehog3151 those are still all over Canada. People loved them!
@@RareClassicCars Adam, thank you for the quick reply. In 1976, my college roommate had a new Toyota Celica. That car was a revelation compared to an American "compact" car. It really ran well, and I don't remember any quality complaints. Arguably, we don't need CAFE anymore. Consumers now are educated about gas mileage, they will vote with their wallets for higher mileage cars. And if someone wants a Charger widebody, God bless them, floor it and pay for the gas!
@@RareClassicCars We love them but more importantly, they love us back. The Vibe was in the Top 10 selling cars in Canada the month (08/09) it went out of production in California. Its Matrix twin was so popular we had a 2014 model when 2013 was the last year Stateside. We also had an extra model year of the original Venza and the Prius v. Wagons and wagon-stye cars never went out of style here, we just can't get them anymore due to America's warped wagon aversion.
All these Cafe events coincided with the imports flooding in with their quality and high mpg. The struggle to survive was on with the American manufacturers. The US Government didn't " protect " our American manufacturers either like the Japanese Government protected theirs.
I have always bought American... and really have had no problems. But it is quite evident the problems the American auto industry had in the 70's and 80's were unfortunately self inflicted and mostly caused by bean counters , greed and poor management. The American auto industry proved they could make high quality and beautiful cars in the 50's and 60's, nobody can deny that. All cars today in my opinion are at their highest level of quality, partly because the Japanese forced the entire auto industry to get it's act together where they were lacking. Germans included.
Bean counters?
@@chaosdemonwolf1 Cost cutters. They always cause serious damage to the company they work for, regardless of what industry it is.
@@michaelbenardo5695 Somehow, that makes perfect sense.
GM did a lot of things to try to meet the standards. All the things Adam mentioned, i had a 1981 Caprice 2-door with the 229 V6. That was another example. Excellent video Adam. One must remember too that GM had more money to gamble with than the others.
That 229 V6 must have been within 10 HP of the 267 V8.
I think that the problem consists of many factors. But since the 50s, it has become more profitable to produce electronics in Japan, then in Hong Kong and finally in China. it was the beginning of the end of the auto industry too
The end of American exceptionalism!
Adam you are spot on , I lived through the era and worked in a garage and then two automotive machine shops . I saw and drove many iterations of the cars and engines mentioned . It was quite a wild time for the US auto industry . Cars I thought were crap , now look and seem interesting to me in hindsight . Ahh Nostalgia! Happy New Year and Thanks 😊
That’s how I feel about my 84 Olds Omega. It’s just fun to drive as a great memory. It wouldn’t have been a great new car
@@RareClassicCars I have a 73 AMC Matador Wagon that I've owned for about 20 years . You couldn't give me an AMC of any kind back in the 70s
You think a Mercury Lynx Wagon is interesting?
I remember in April 1979... my parents came home with a 1980 4 door Chevy Citation. It had a horrible paint hanger on the B pillar. I couldn’t believe that got past quality control. Apparently quite a few other things on those “X” bodies did as well.
Like everything. 79 was the year my Dad, who owned auto repair shops, ran out and bought his last Buick, garaged it, drove it a few times in the summers and then made it his retirement car in the early 1990's, with less than 10,000 miles on it. He's experienced his customers frustrations of Ford Courier, Chevy Luv, and he read articles about the Ford Escort, and rebadged Mitsubishi's, by Chrysler, with all of their defects as American and Japanese automakers attempted their collaborations. the early GM v-6 engines had huge issues before Buick squared up the 3;8 and Chevy perfected the 4.3. He was already engine swapping GM diesels on cars that weren't even 6 months old. He thought it the end of full sized cars with dependable v-8 cruisers. He was partially right.
I remember the commercials in Spring of 79 for the Citation, declaring it the first Chevy of the 80’s. A friend of mine’s dad had a 2 door.
Had a 1981 buick skylark and then a 1980 Chevy citation! Both had the little 2.8 liter v 6 ! Seemed to be good running engines but really hard to get to things when working on one! The oil pans was bad about leaking! Transmissions worked well! Power steering pumps are very hard to line up correctly so the belt doesn't pull it !
@@TheCat1dog we had a 77 nova and the salesman said, if we liked that car we will love the citation. We did actually. Except until the transmission went out and my dad parted with it forever. The nova we still had as a second car and in fact I still have it!
@@richardmartink679 Those 1976 to 1979 Nova / Skylark / Omega / Phoenix cars were durable, reliable and simple and cheap to maintain. What a family car should be.
Excellent video. I remember very well back in the '70s and currently own a 76 Eldorado convertible. You nailed it. It truly was a witch's brew of bad timing on the part of the Government. Oh, how history is now repeating itself today.
It's amazing to me just how heavy cars have become. My 1984 Bronco literally feels like a small car compared to my mom's late model Jeep Liberty. These politicians always light the candle at both ends. They want good fuel mileage, but they cancel most of this out with emission controls. They want good fuel mileage, but they cancel it out by increasing the weight (safety additions) of vehicles. The second biggest hurdle I see with electric vehicles is the weight. The quest to get a 500 mile range out of an electric car may require a CDL license at some point?
In china they are selling 700km pasenger ev's already. Which i think is 500 miles or there about.
Don't think they are much haevier then a model s.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 I'm skeptical, but I'll look into it. Do you happen to know what the make and model of this Chinese vehicle is? If not, no big deal. I think that I'd trust a YT car reviewer over the Chinese sales brochure. Maybe there's a video out on it?
@@133dave133 no i don't have a name. They all have weird names.
But pretty sure i've seen it on the "fully charged show" here on youtube. They have someone in china who reviews cars from there.
Very interesting chanel and high production values if you don't know it.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Yeah, I'll check it out. I don't believe anything that China, or their "employees" say, but if they're exporting them, I'd like to see a review of it.
@@133dave133 lol, and you do believe what western companies say?
Anyway, it is a british chanel so you're all good.
00:19:08 Changing to 5 volts is brilliant, thank you for teaching me how we arrived at this standard! Probably how we learned to ignore all sensor readings with the ECU during startup after going to 5 volts also. This is why you must never start your EEC era fords with at the fender solenoid manually, the computer never receives the crank signal and cannot progress into normal operation mode. You will not be able to set timing correctly either. Ford Article No.(TSB) 9018B2 or 90-18B-2.
Very informative as always, Adam. I think you hit the nail on the head. The environmentalists unfortunately were starting to have substantial control over almost all aspects of American life from the early 70s onward. The reason CAFE standards came into being was the Arab oil embargo in 1973, imo. Instead of embarking on a plan to produce more oil, thus increasing supply, and moderate prices, Congress chose to circle the wagons, and attempted to force drastically reduced consumption, while ignoring supply problems, which caused even greater dependence on foreign oil. It also counted on the benevolence of the Middle East oil sheiks, which was not forthcoming. The Middle East saw our vulnerability, and Congress’ lack of wisdom, and exploited it tremendously.
Amazing that for a time during the Trump administration, the USA was a net exporter of oil, which apparently is no longer true under the current president, with resulting high gasoline prices. That’s a different discussion for a different day, perhaps. Nevertheless, our government seems to continue making the wrong moves, or makes decisions that greatly compound our problems.
U.S. also had price controls on oil which exacerbated the problems with shortages.
Everything you say is 100% correct, but the reason the oil companies who stopped producing over here is because of profits - it is more profitable for them to import foreign oil than it is to produce it, so they stopped producing it. President Obama is the one who pushed them to drill, baby DRILL, but they got mad when they only made 9 billion instead of 10 billion on it. Not president Biden's fault.
@@eth39232 I remember those.
Thank you for all of your excellent RUclips videos! I really enjoyed your CAFE standards discussion.
Wow! I've never heard the other side of why cars were made so bad everyone always just talks about how bad they were and how cheap the companies were. Thank you for sharing this with us i appreciate it,i know have a better understanding thanks to you. I wouldn't be surprised if the foreign automakers bribed some politicians to push the cafe standards on the American automakers to turn everyone against them hmm something to think about because they were asking the American automakers to pull off a miracle basically wow. Thanks again.
I also find it ironic to say the least that just as the Japanese cars were coming online, we had a 55mph national speed limit which was designed made for the Japanese cars. If the limits were left at 70 to 75 people would have realized the early hondas and toyotas weren't in the same league
@@howebrad4601 like they say there's no such thing as coincidence. And knowing human nature i wouldn't be surprised. Just thinking about how many people lost their jobs from factories closing wow!. We need to really start thinking to domesticate our buying.
@@omar_padilla Sadly, score of people today are super-selfish and don't give a damn about their fellow working-class countrymen.
If you know the history of the US electronics industry as I do, you'll know bribes were definitely part of the equation.
I saw the Citation and I thought you were going to review it. I'm not disappointed as the info you gave in this video was very enlightening. Thank you.
The Chrysler “R” bodies were really just a continuation of the “B” body, that started in 1962 as the full size Dodge and Plymouth for that year.
Correct
@@RareClassicCars Looking back... Chrysler would have done well to have kept the R bodies in production. By 1985 gas had come down in the Reagan era, and GM sold every B body they could produce. All Chrysler had was the M body that was the flawed Aspen/Volare F body with the troublesome front mounted torsion bar suspension. Meanwhile Lee Iacocca kept stretching K cars to ridiculous proportions.
@@drippinglass I absolutely love the R Bodies - they represent a fascinating snapshot of a company in the midst of swift transition…making do with what they had to compete in the traditional market, while betting the farm on a future based in FWD and 4 cylinders!
I agree completely that they should have been kept around - the improvements in fit/finish and quality were substantial during their brief three-year run…imagine how nice those Rs would have been if granted an additional four to five years of life!
I grew up in the 1970s knowing Ford, GM, and Chrysler vehicles -- they were modern, efficient, stylistic and very competitive to the Japanese automakers I knew -- Toyota, Datsun, and Mazda. They were also very competitive to the European automakers -- Peugeot, Citroen, Renauly, Volkswagen, Audi, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, etc. In fact, GM and Ford were the biggest of them all. But then I moved to the US and was blown away by how awful the products from GM, Ford, and Chrysler were. They weren't the same modern products I had grown up with -- my Mom had had a Ford Cortina. Instead, the America products had styling that was 15 years in the past. They were crudely engineered, and the build quality was awful. I remember going to the Chrysler dealer in March 1979 and noticing the orange peal and runs in the paint. At the Pontiac dealer, I was shocked to realized that cars had no undercoating at all and looked like they were rusting on the dealers lot. CAFE is an excuse Detroit likes to hand out there -- pushing the blame on someone other than themselves. The real reason that Detroit failed is their own complacency and arrogance. Their management sat in their ivory towers oblvious to the fact that even their own overseas divisions were decades ahead of them. When the foreign automakers came to the U.S. with modern products, the American consumer responded and Detroit awful products were at a disadvantage.
I would blame the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 causing the whole CAFE standard to begin with.
Look forward to the interviews. I feel like it will be a time machine. Travel back in time with the knowledge we have now.
This is what happens when you have government and industry being reactive instead of proactive. The government basically wanted to fight the gas prices and shortages that occurred. If the manufactures would have been left to their own devices and had seen a downturn in sales due to better cars coming from Japan, they would have addressed this correctly. They would have been able to take the time to improve all these issues.
I was in the garage business during this time and it was a mess with trying to get these cars to run correctly.
We lost something during the years. I look back at the time when dealerships were creating atmosphere about buying a car. The new models would be introduced under covering of the sales area windows. They were able to create excitement each year and then all that went away.
First paragraph, Japanese cars werent that good. You clearly forget they used to rust like nothing else.
B. All that emissions control tech was new and untested. Just theories put into immediate production
C. The real reason the US auto industry has performance issues is because the US economy isnt the powerhouse it was post WW2. There was room for various marques and brands. As globalization occured, good paying jobs were exported for other areas leaving urban blight and distraught former industrial cities. The remaining population became more rats in a maze trying to make it to the end without falling behind or behind shuffled off by an invisible trap door. With that enthusiasm for life extinguished there went the passion and interest for what to be new car shows.
Also these new cars look so similar a new car show only would show how unininspiring and uninnovative these new cars look at.
@@broncomcbane6382 You can also blame the Democrats for this as well.
if the government wouldn't have let UAW rape the manufactures of car in the usa we wouldn't have this problem in the 1st place
@@jimmyellison2766 Exactly the government should've stayed out of our business.
@@CJColvin yeah they had to cover there asses for the UAW bullshit so Clinton did nafta so the usa auto manufactures could save money from UAW
Everything you say is right on the money including how baby boomers DID admire the tough, yet richly pointed and refined American cars of the 60's and early 70's, but then were alienated by the fragile mechanicals of the 80's on up models, hence they started taking a look at the offerings from Japan. My first "Japanese" car was a 1986 Chevrolet Nova (a rebadged Toyota Corolla) which totally amazed me with it's ride and seat comfort and the durability /reliability of its mechanical components.
As a boomer, all that downsized FWD crap turned me off Detroit. Some of the later full sized cars like the Ford Panther platform and the RWD Caprice cars were still good.
Yes, I had a 1985 1/2 Escort and after that just had Panthers - 1989 and 2004 Crown Victorias and currently have 2010 Grand Marquis with 91,600 miles.
I didn't like it when GM downsized the B and C bodies in the mid '80s. They looked like the FWD A bodies and it was hard to tell them apart.
Great discussion. I don't know how many times I have made this point. I went to work at GM mid career in 1989. I had several neighbors and acquaintances who were GM engineers during those dark days. They related the frustration of re-inventing the models under immense pressure. I'm generally in favor of smog controls and CAFE standards, but the unintended result (possibly) was a knife in the back of the domestic auto industry. The Japanese cars weren't all that great in the 70's , but they met CAFE and they were able to spend their money on better designs and other improvements in the 1980's rather than scramble to meet CAFE. The success of those Japanese cars in the late 1980's and 1990's forever wounded the domestic industry.
Often times I see domestic vehicles as too expensive for what you get. Why? 1) overall reliability 2) resale value. I simply can’t afford them. They can break down too often. And are worth next to nothing when it’s time to sell. I can’t do it.
I think the exact opposite is true IMO when you compare domestics to Japanese and European makes. For example a domestic SUV is often cheaper than a comparable Japanese one that is less roomy with less features but priced more. People pay a premium for many foreign makes because they think they are superior. I’ve driven GM products all my life and I have never had any major issues with any of them and you get more car for your money. My grandparents who are in their 80s have a late model Honda CRV and I am appalled by how thin and tinny the doors are. So very cheap!
@@tyler2610 I agree on your points. If you never sell your domestic vehicle you come out ahead. I own a 2004 Crown Victoria. And it breaks down a lot. So I stooped driving it.
Your video makes some good points, but there are also other major factors that contributed to this "malaise era" disaster in the American auto industry:
It now seems clear that Pontiac, Saturn and Oldsmobile bit the dust because several basic past assumptions and market forces went the way of the dinosaur: (1: back in the old days, GM could afford six car divisions, plus GMC, because passenger sedans, coupes and station wagons were in demand and they could differentiate themselves more on styles, trim levels and specialized options. Gradually, over the past 50 years, dramatically fewer people wanted old-fashioned cars. (2: rear-wheel-drive, big cars, and V8s gave automakers more flexibility in offering a variety of products in varying sizes, engines and configurations. Now, rear-drive cars have been displaced by SUVs, minivans, crossovers and crew-cab pickup trucks; this trend obviously started in the '60s or the '70s. (3: the big killer of Saturn, Pontiac and Oldsmobile is the decline of America's middle class. The Middletons are feeling the economic pinch, and it ain't pretty. It's a wonder that Buick and GMC are still around. So in the end, Pontiac, like Mercury, Plymouth, AMC/Eagle, Oldsmobile and Saturn, was probably waiting for the sun to set on them anyway; it was inevitable.
That isn't to say that the C.A.F.E. fuel economy regulations and the smog regs didn't have a major role in this "malaise era" crisis. They did. Maybe those rules hit too fast, but GM, Ford and Chrysler also had a major attitude problem. In the early days of the Cold War, these domestic automakers seemed to think that the answer to everything was to stick a bigger V8 under the hood and just charge more money. Clearly, the largest component in their inability to change in response to the Energy Crisis was their own poor judgement.
It never ceases to amaze me how all of these automakers failed to recognize the opportunity to improve their lineup of four-, five- and six-cylinder engines before the Energy Crisis. Why did it take so long to make transmissions with overdrive gears universally available? Why was there not more emphasis on turbocharging and fuel injection? It just boggles the mind that these automakers were introducing new downsized models in the late 1970s and clear through the mid-80s, and very few of these cars had an overdrive gear, or exhaust headers, or fuel injection, or even roller cam tappets. Did the Chevy Citation models ever come with a four-speed AOD? If they had opportunities like this that were essentially "the low-hanging fruit", and they essentially never even asked the question until 1985, that's a major fumble right there.
But there's another dimension to the multi-billion-dollar "downsizing" disaster that nobody ever mentions. They were downsizing all of these cars to try to improve gas mileage and emissions. Why did they still have V8s in passenger cars? If fewer pistons means less frictional loss, then the V8 was a major problem. What did the Caprice, Monte Carlo, and Camaro need a V8 for? Front-wheel-drive versus rear-wheel-drive may be an issue in the pursuit of fuel economy, but what good did it do to sell compact Chevy Citations with three-speed automatics and lackluster V6s and Iron Dukes fed by carburetors with no fuel injection systems anywhere to be found? GM did one thing right in 1985, but not enough of it: they introduced the new Chevy Astro with a 4.3-liter V6 (a 350 V8 with two cylinders chopped off). From 1985 to 2005, that minivan and 4.3 V6 proved itself to be a remarkable workhorse combination, with V8-like power and improved gas mileage. The 4.3 V6 was essentially made from all existing parts from the old 350-cubic-inch V8 (5.7 liters) so the amount of R&D GM invested in that motor was obscenely small. Why did it take so long to introduce this motor? Why did it take until 1985? Why not 1982, or 1980? GM could have invested a very small amount of money in the 4.3 V6, given it TBI and a balance shaft, tubular headers, a tuned intake plenum, and roller cam tappets. GM could likely have eliminated V8s from every remaining rear-drive passenger sedan and the Camaro/Firebird. And in 1985, GM showed off an eye-popping Camaro GTZ concept car with a fiberglass clamshell hood and a 4.3 V6 turbo based on the existing F-body. Faster than you can say "Buick Grand National", GM could have sold a 2+2 sport coupe with rear-wheel-drive and no V8. And that 4.3 turbo would've been right at home in a 1985 Corvette. That GTZ tease was monumental is showing how short-sighted GM's management could be. Rear-wheel-drive cars may not be inherently efficient, but car buyers appreciated its legendary reliability, handling and work applications. The B-cars, G-cars, and F-cars could have continued on through the 1980s and beyond with rear-wheel-drive and without V8s. The proof is right there for us to see today: the Chevy Astro and GMC Safari ran from 1985 to 2005 with practically no significant changes, therefore negligible R&D invested for 20 years. During that time, the constants were: rear-wheel-drive, all-wheel-drive optional, and the 4.3 V6 mated to a four-speed AOD with a towing selector. If that minivan could serve GM for that many years with very few changes and thus negligible investment, then it's hard to argue why GM didn't invest more in upgrading that engine and making it the main engine for the B-, G- and F-bodies from 1982 forward. Automaker management can't blame it all on Uncle Sam if they walked right by the low-hanging fruit and acted like they don't even notice.
*_HAPPY NEW YEAR, ADAM_* (and everyone else).
Leave it to a government to destroy industry. We have a free market capitalist system where the customer needs and desires drives change over time. A government acting in an abrupt and dictatorial fashion results in chaos... CAFE for the auto industry in the 1970s and 1980s, and a good example today would be heavy-handed Covid restrictions and mandates.
The Government CAFE rush was certainly to blame for the US auto industry problems, that and the emissions requirements. The auto industry did not have time to meet the standards given the technology at the time. The rush to design new engines and adapt computer controls caused problems because there was no time to test - so new designs went out to the consumer and problems happened. Total blame on US Government. Also, advancements in oils, coolants and sealants - well that just took time to evolve and wasn't available back in the day. We had many GM cars when I was young and they all were good because my Dad always kept up the maintenance them. People wouldn't change the oil, coolant, spark plugs, change out points, and lube the chassis. People would drive the wheels off the cars and then wonder why they would break down. You had to follow the maintenance schedule which came with your car and people didn't and they blamed Detroit for their own lack of responsibility. Our brand new1973 Caprice Classic was a very nice car, quiet and never had a problem, cold AC and very nice road car and I never forget it had a great new car smell. People used to think it was a Cadillac sedan deville. My Dad ordered a new 1977 Caprice Classic loaded, had the 350 4bbl and sport suspension F41 package. That car was amazing, was just like a Cadillac Seville, a real head turner with the sport wheel covers and nice paint scheme with vinyl top. In 1980, he bought a volkswagen rabbit new for his commute car, because of the cost of gas and it was fashionable to buy a compact car, but that car was a disaster! Fuel injectors always leaked causing bad starting and running, paint was lousy and so small and only 20 MPG tops and you had to sacrifice to much room - was scary to take on highway because you felt like you were gonna get squashed!. He traded that in on a brand new 1985 Olds 98 and that was such a nice car! Got 30 MPG on highway and so comfortable. The he bought a 91 Olds 98 and that was perfect, no problems got 33 MPG on highway and he kept that for 20 years! Then he bought a Cadillac DTS and that car is perfect, no problems ever! Nice big V8! People neglect their cars and blame US! Blame themselves! And I'll never buy an electric car - no way. I've had Camaros, Mustangs, F-150's - all good - any problems were wear and tear or self inflicted. There had been constant bash of US auto industry for years and Consumers Reports also in bed with the bashing as they always gave US cars black marks and Jap cars all red - very suspicious and likely biased corrupt given what we now know of the media. Anything US made is always trashed by a segment of US that hates the US. Okay, now I am done! Happy New Year! And you have such great knowledge! carbs, engines, history, nice to hear it. Oh, also, people forget that US Auto industry business model was that they wanted you to trade every 3 -4 years anyway, these cars were meant to be consumed not on the road forever and then when the prices went up in the 70's people expected their cars to last much longer and they were mechanical items that just plain wore out. Expectations of consumers shifted and some you can never satisfy no matter what.
Toyota and Honda even though they had their problems they still built better automobiles. Toyota Honda achieved customer loyalty
The domestic companies achieved that long before.
@@mikeperry6794 The domestic companies my have achieved that a long time before but they lost their customer loyalty in the present time
@@toddygallent7258 I was a Buick owner for 26 years. Never disappointed. Drove them to almost 200k. Some over that. Never had a major problem.