Citation for suckiness

[Faust]

Yeah, that's true. You gotta wonder how much GM was "encouraging" them to pick the X-Car that year, eh?

Don't worry about it, lordairguitar: I will definitely be building it stock! I can't waste an opportunity like that!

[mnwildpunk]

Got to love the 80's

[niteowl7710]

The kit itself is just the old Monogram Citation that was an unfortunate victim of Revell's "Lowride ALL THE THINGS!!!" kit series that they did.

[ToyLvr]

Owned an Olds "Omega" version of the X car back in the day.

Its old style "Iron Duke" 4-cylinder ran well, and overall the car gave my family good service.

Later on, bought a new '85 Cavalier J-body. Once again, a vehicle which performed well and gave little trouble.

I realize that there are critics of the X body cars, but it worked well for me.

[mnwildpunk]

The Iron duke was as close to bullet proof as motors can get

[Faust]

Of course the Iron Duke rocked! It was a Poncho motor!

Poncho Power!

C'mon, you had to know that was coming!

[Chuck Most]

Seemed like GM worked out quite a few of the X-Body bugs as time wore on, but the damage to the car's reputation had already been done.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Just for the record...

The Cadillac Cimarron was not based on the Citation. It was based on the Cavalier. The Citation was an X-Body, while the Chevy Cavalier and Cadillac Cimarron were J-Bodies...Quite a few mechanical bits were the same..

Chuck is right, of course.

I just never paid much attention to either of them, and not paying attention can make you say stupid things.

My bad.

[Chuck Most]

I just never paid much attention to either of them, and not paying attention can make you say stupid things.

Not stupid... just not privy of every detail. The various platforms did share quite a few hard parts, anyway.

[Ace-Garageguy]

... You gotta wonder how much GM was "encouraging" them to pick the X-Car that year, eh?

Maybe that's where a chunk of that $3 billion R&D budget went...

[deuces wild]

I once owned the Pontiac version... Think it was the Pheonix.. It was the 4-door..

Great in the snow.. That's about it and glad I got rid of it. I never bought another front wheel drive car before or since that one..

[dieseldawg142]

....

Edited May 11, 2018 by dieseldawg142

[Zarana-X]

I don't see how the lowrider, or tuning version of this kit got approved.

As for the real cars, my sister in law had one when we were teenagers, and my best friends grandma had one. I don't remember problems with either of them. The grandmother's car was still immaculate until she was no longer able to drive. (about 1993)

[blazefox]

Its easy to make t

it kool just have to have a 56 ton tank on top

[Casey]

Dave Zinn did a nice job of de-suckifying this one.

Yes, he did, and always knew just what to do without doing too much.

The second issue Citation "X" (kit #2288) of the kit is much more appealing in that '80s club racer Rally (Monogram'scar word, not mine) sort of way:

Even the original issue Citation Turbo (kit #2278) is fairly clean and restrained:

Collectible Automobile ran an excellent article on the GM X-bodies a few years ago, and it's well worth seeking out IMHO. The X-cars were GM's first compact FWD cars, and I'm sure GM understood the learning curve was gong to be steep, but I never saw them as a huge failure and still like them, especially the '84-5 Citation X-11.

[Swifster]

My dad bought an '80 Citation notchback similar to the subject kit. It must be the only Citation that was not recalled. But that car was weird in the way it was optioned (my dad bought it off the lot). It was a V6, automatic and NO power steering. That thing was a bear to drive. But with the V6, it was very peppy. It was so base that the car came with 1980 style dog dish hub caps. And my dad never swapped the AM radio.

A few years later I was working at a Chevy dealer and they had a 1984 Citation II X-11 notchback. It was white with blue stripes and a blue interior. It had the V6 and a 4-Speed. I really wanted that car. I ended up with an '86 Escort GT as my first new car.

I wouldn't mind a couple of these kits. I thought the notchbacks were nicer looking than the hatchbacks. I'd like to do a stock one and then dress one up in SCCA Improved Touring trim (race car).

[Faust]

Man, NO power steering? That would suck, especially on a front driver!

I agree; the notchbaks are better looking to me, too. Of course, I prefer the Mustang II Notchbacks over the fastbacks as well. To me, fastbacks from that era just scream "welfare beater". I don't know why, they just look low-class and pre-POS'ed up. It's the same for Monzas, too.

The good news is that the Citation won the poll, so once I clear off the plane I'm building now, it'll be going into production!

Rejoice! (?)

Now, I just need a good colour for it. Does anyone have any good photos of X11s they might have owned?

[Atmobil]

Interesting this thing with the cars that suck, they can be great modellingsubjects some times. To me it seems that most cars from the early 80s suck. I think that as a global fenomenon. cars started to suck somewhere in the 70s and in many ways they still have not stopped sucking. Ofcoursce there are many great cars aswell but things like the Cadillac Cimmaron, wich to us in Europe is a lot better known as the Opel Ascona or Vauxhall Cavalier in the UK. The first two generations of the Ascona was RWD, not spectacular cars but quite good looking and was relatively succesfull in rallying. In manyways a bit like the first two generations of the Ford Escort (the european Escort that is).

The third generation Ascona was based on the GM J body. I don't know much about the cars you got in the states on that platform but as Ascona it was never a bad car. They worked and did run well. You could even get go-faster versions like 2.0i or if you did not care for speed but wanted your car to be noisy and slow you could have a 1.6 Diesel. But as a car, it is so boring and ugly. Looking at it, you get depressed and want to kill your self. They all where hearingaidbeige with rusty spots around the wheelwells. Like this 81 for sale right now: http://www.finn.no/finn/car/used/object?finnkode=54137427

When I was 18, these cars where the norm for 18 year olds to buy. Several of my friends had Ascona C, or Kadett E or other 80s Opels or Fords and quite a lot of Volvos. The Volvo is possibly the only car from that time that I don't think of as a car that suck so much but ofcourse, the 240 is 40 years old this year and was based on the 140 that was launched in 1967...well before the global-car-sucking started.

In the older times, cars where great and designed in a way that showed the world what a spectacular thing this was but I think that at some point cars stopped being a great thing and ended up being throwaway appliances that are almost excusing themself for being here. You see it clearly in the car adverts, I remember seeing car adverts from the 60s (like for the first Mustang) and it made you want the car but today the adverts are showing cars as something that is just there and sometimes they try and claim that you have to buy it because it will save the world or something like that.

Having said this, I like models of sucky cars. I could easily buy the Cititation if I come over it at a good price. I got quite a lot of sucky car kits, even the 2010 Prius from Fujimi. So ugly you need to wear weldinggoggles to look at it.

[jbwelda]

AtMobil, Gaute, you should be a writer! that was one of the most hilarious reviews or commentaries I have read in a long time. "Hearing Aid Beige" indeed!

jb

[Atmobil]

Hehe, thank you very much

[Faust]

I second that, Harry!

Gaute: you have a great way with words! Well done, sir!

I sadly agree about the change of the car from an expression of styling and engineering prowess to little more than a rolling toaster. It's a sad thing...

[MrObsessive]

One of the things that have led to "suckiness" on the part of autos today is the fact that styling departments seem to no longer want to take chances on styling directions. Why must most new cars I see on the road today have that same C pillar "kickup" in the rooflines (I call it the Fusion kickup)?

It's also a bit sad that whenever a new model is intro'd on the auto circuit, by the time the production models hit the showrooms, the design is so watered down that it looks mostly nothing like what was shown previously.

Case in point.............

We all remember the absolutely gorgeous 1999 Charger show car that was shown at most of the major auto shows back then. The automotive press was tripping over themselves as this was the best looking car that Chrysler had made in some time, maybe since the Viper, and certainly since the "cab forward" look was making inroads earlier that decade. There was much talk about the Charger being reintro'd right around the 2005-06 time frame, and everyone had expected (maybe wrongly so) that the production car would look pretty close to the knockout show car.

What did we get?? A car that looked absolutely nothing like the show car, and was creamed in the 'net and the automotive press for looking the way it did. It wasn't a bad car, but names mean things and I can remember Car & Driver saying that in their many years of publishing the magazine, they had never received so much angry and negative press over one car.

Now Chrysler did make up for things somewhat when they restyled the car in 2011.........but it was still watered down from before, but of course over ten years had passed, and styling tastes had changed. While it's true that some concept cars are not practical to build in production, I just hate the teasing that gets you all excited for a particular styling change, only to be terribly let down.

Now having said this, it seems as though another reason cars appear the way they do is the fact that so many government regulations have dictated what should and shouldn't be on a car.

Hardtop rooflines?? Forget it! Pointy tailfins?? Not on your life!

Yet we get such far out designs (Nissan Cube anyone??) at times that I don't know how they got out of the styling department's board rooms. It would be nice for car designs to be a bit more daring and not be ugly, and yet still be distinctive from one another, than for the appearance to be nothing more than a mundane account of the styling department's time. Of course we know that styling is subjective..............jus' sayin'.........

Just my 2¢............

Edited December 24, 2014 by MrObsessive

[Ron Hamilton]

I had one of these when they were new.

It was a real hoot to drive, with the V6 Engine burble, and the top down. It was not the best car I owned, but for what it was, I have no complaints.

I replaced it with one of these

Which was a much better car, but I missed the open air, so I replaced it with one of these.

My wife hated convertibles, but I loved it. I even built a model of it while I had it.

[Faust]

I agree with you, Bill, about styling being all gear towards "sameness". It's not as interesting or as exciting as it was before, that's for sure. Of course, with aerodynamic calculations, government crash regulations and now the pedestrian impact safety standards (Europe only, I think, but that's why new Mercedes cars have the vertical grille), there's only so much a poor stylist can do. I would hate to be a stylist now; you'd have a vision, and it would end up looking like a Fusion/Civic clone when done! Must be disheartening.

However, I disagree with the Charger thing. I find the 1999 Charger plain and weak looking. It looks like a viper and a Concord had a love child, but all the good parts got lost! I find it uninspiring and tepid at best. By comparision, I really like the first of the "new" Chargers, and the 2011 restyle is, to my eyes, the most beautiful car on the road today. The 2014 restyle is terrible; it's just back to an uninspired subcompact (Dart) inflated to full-sized proportions. Blech.

Ron:

Nice cars all three! I'd love kits of the first two!

[jbwelda]

yeah I have to agree about the Charger. meh.

but I noted in Bill's post that he gave the Nissan Cube a sideways compliment when he said something about how he couldn't imagine that design getting past a boardroom decision process. I take that to mean that it was too wild for some milquetoast design committee made up of bean counters and economy experts. I bring that up for a couple of reasons: I really like that design for what it is, a vehicle that would otherwise be another anonymous people mover. I especially dig the touches like the asymmetrical rear window, the front egg crate grille and the rear light surround with the puckered up look of the little coffin kinda sorta. But the second reason is that I think the Scion van (not sure of the name they used, might have been some combination of letters and numbers) had already pioneered the way with that very same look (a little cleaner to my eye than the Cube), kind of a breadvan look, and had sold very well I think based on the number of them I saw on the street. This of course is not in Japan where their true market might be but in California where some trends are still made. I still think both these vehicles look really great lowered down with wide tires and nice rims, especially in some of the offbeat colors I have seen them in, like khaki.

so I was wondering if that was really what you meant, Bill, or if you meant you didn't see how that design got put out on the road at all?

jb