Loser cars: All awesomely lame, but which is king?

[Faust]

I love the "losers" as much as anywone, because they were what I grew up with too!

I agree completely with the sentiment of wanting to build what you either drove (or in my case) were driven around in! The Chevettes, Omnis and Citations of the world were far more accessible and far more important both historicallly and sociologically than any Ferrari or Lambo could ever be!

That doesn't mean I don't like to have some tongue-in-cheek fun at the "lovable losers' " expense, though!

Yes, the Citation will give you goosebumps, you are correct. Not for the reason they're saying, though!

[Tom Geiger]

Adam, I actually have a second Chevette model going. I'm finishing up the lime green bugger curbsider. I had a second interior pretty much done, so I cleaned up and primed a second body.. I know what it will look like, but I'm not talking just yet!

[mnwildpunk]

I would rather be seen in anyone of those and have more fun in all then I would in lets say a juke, scion,element etc etc etc

[Faust]

Two Chevettes, eh Tom? Awesome! I'm looking forward to it!

I agree, Dave; there's a surprising amount of "retro cool" to the "losers" of the past, and I for one would love an early EXP, even though they're not very exciting. I just like the style of the older cars, and you sure don't see them around any more!

I also concurr about the Juke, Scion, Cube (Don't forget the Cube!) and other "modern oddities". You have to wonder, though, if 30 years from now people will be saying exactly what we're saying about Jukes and Cubes and their ilk. I'm sure they will be, and we'll find it just as odd as people from the '70s would find it odd to hear us waxing nostalgic for Pacers and Chevettes!

I guess time really does heal all wounds, eh?

[jbwelda]

the thing is, those Cubes will be running years from now, unlike the bulk of the losers mentioned here even 5 years from their "birth". I think the Cube is one of the koolest vehicles around if only for the asymmetrical rear window. lower it down and there is no personnel carrier around that can rival it. but that's just me.

my mom had a Citation and even my dad, life long Chevy man, told her to just junk it and he would buy her something decent, this was after a year of ownership, bought brand new. then he went out and bought himself a new buick roadmaster wagons, reputedly the biggest car ever mass produced. he had that until he passed away a decade later. talk about a loser car...the darn dashboard was literally deep enough to serve as a card table. and it had to get maybe 8mpg max. but he loved it.

thing about these loser cars is they are a two edged sword: why did the model companies invest in tooling up such a loser car in the first place, but then what can you do with the model now that it is there. to me a funny car chevette, or a street gasser of comical proportions, seems appropriate. its just a model after all.

jb

[Tom Geiger]

thing about these loser cars is they are a two edged sword: why did the model companies invest in tooling up such a loser car in the first place, but then what can you do with the model now that it is there. to me a funny car chevette, or a street gasser of comical proportions, seems appropriate. its just a model after all.

jb

the Chevette was tooled up because GM bought promos from MPC. The kits followed as usual practice.

[Danno]

Thank goodness other turds have finally supplanted the K-cars as the most ridiculed and reviled denizens of the roadways.

[lordairgtar]

t

also got a hand-me-down '74 amc hornet once. underwhelming piece of ........,untill the 4 blew up

AMC never had a 4 in 1974.

[lordairgtar]

Cubes will be running years from now, unlike the bulk of the losers mentioned here even 5 years from their "birth". I think the Cube is one of the koolest vehicles around if only for the asymmetrical rear window. lower it down and there is no personnel carrier around that can rival it.

This.

[Tom Geiger]

This.

Gregg, I love that plate! The HHR van looks good in red too!

[jbwelda]

what has that HHR got to recommend it really? throwback looks? cause I know those things pretty nearly cannot get out of their own way and I am pretty sure the fuel mileage doesn't compensate for the lack of pep. And it sure doesn't have rearward visibility on its side. I do kinda like the looks but if that's all its got...loser.

jb

[Pete J.]

I think there are a whole raft of cars from the mid 60's when American manufactures decided they had to do small. The Gremlin, EXP, Chevette, Pinto, Horizon, etc. All were just what they were designed to be cheap little POS's. Can't think of a one that I would want to own.

[unclescott58]

I think there are a whole raft of cars from the mid 60's when American manufactures decided they had to do small. The Gremlin, EXP, Chevette, Pinto, Horizon, etc. All were just what they were designed to be cheap little POS's. Can't think of a one that I would want to own.

None of the cars you listed were offered in the mid-60's.

Scott Aho

[Joe Handley]

I think there are a whole raft of cars from the mid 60's when American manufactures decided they had to do small. The Gremlin, EXP, Chevette, Pinto, Horizon, etc. All were just what they were designed to be cheap little POS's. Can't think of a one that I would want to own.

HMMMMMM,.Gremlin, Chevette, and Pinto are all RWD while the Horizon is the nearly identical twin of the Omni.........which with a turbocharged 2.2/2.5l 4 cylinder and some of the goodies Caroll Shelby put on his versions of the Omni can make for some wicked little pocket rockets.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Joe Handley

[dieseldawg142]

........

Edited May 11, 2018 by dieseldawg142

[Joe Handley]

Why in the world would you put a little motor like that in a car that heavy?!

[Pete J.]

None of the cars you listed were offered in the mid-60's.

Scott Aho

Right you are. From the early 70's then, but that doesn't make them any better. They tried everything to make them appealing such as adding racing and other types of graphics. Giving them snazzier names, even giving them to tuning companies such a Shelby and Cosworth(remember the Cosworth Vega) and they were still just cheap little cars that the Toyotas and Datsuns ran circles around. The quality control of the American cars was just pathetic at that time.

[dieseldawg142]

.....

Edited May 11, 2018 by dieseldawg142

[Joe Handley]

Right you are. From the early 70's then, but that doesn't make them any better. They tried everything to make them appealing such as adding racing and other types of graphics. Giving them snazzier names, even giving them to tuning companies such a Shelby and Cosworth(remember the Cosworth Vega) and they were still just cheap little cars that the Toyotas and Datsuns ran circles around. The quality control of the American cars was just pathetic at that time.

In the case of the Omni GLH/GLHS, the only Toyotas or Datsun/Nissan that they wouldn't eat alive would have been the Supras and 300zx, and even then, it would have been a close fight and even the then current Ponycars weren't safe from the GLHS.

[gwolf]

I have that Monza kit and I've been getting more and more interested in building it. I'd go with that one.

[jbwelda]

>In the case of the Omni GLH/GLHS, the only Toyotas or Datsun/Nissan that they wouldn't eat alive would have been the Supras and

>300zx, and even then, it would have been a close fight and even the then current Ponycars weren't safe from the GLHS.

but of course you are talking about in a straight line...come to even a slight corner and there again is no comparison. those Omni's wallowed around a corner like an overladen barge caught in a current.

jb

[charlie8575]

what has that HHR got to recommend it really? throwback looks? cause I know those things pretty nearly cannot get out of their own way and I am pretty sure the fuel mileage doesn't compensate for the lack of pep. And it sure doesn't have rearward visibility on its side. I do kinda like the looks but if that's all its got...loser.

jb

Hmmm...

I had an HHR for a rental.

Kept 65 on the highway without any trouble at all and cruised quietly.

Handled nicely, comfortable.

Returned between 25-32 miles a gallon quite regularly.

Very usable, well-laid-out cargo space.

If I needed a small car, I would buy one without too much second thought.

As to your assault on the B-bodies. The Roadmasters didn't come out until 1991. If your parents had a 1980s Buick Estate Wagon (based on one year of Citation ownership you stated,) it would've been an Electra or a LeSabre, depending on the amount of money spent. The Electra had a nicer interior and a slightly different grille. Some years, it also had different woodgrain than the LeSabre.

I had several of the square wagons, all older ones running 350s (either Chevy or Buick) and a '77 Buick with the Olds 403. The 350 cars could return about 20-21 mpg on the highway, the 403 about 18. The city mileage was between 14-17, dpending on traffic and weather. All these cars did not have the benefit of 4-speed automatics or fuel injection- 4-bbls. one and all.

The 301/305/307 cars could be a bit thirsty, mainly because they were a bit underpowered. That said, 305/307 cars could still get that low-20s on the highway without too much effort, providing they were driven intelligently and in proper tune.

For the '91-ups, I've had four. Three Roadmasters and a Caprice. The Caprice and TBI Roadmasters could achieve an honest 25-27 miles a gallon on the highway. My '94, which has the LT-1 and towing package, gets between 20.5-22 on the highway, and about 17 in-town/suburban. If it had the 2.73 axle instead, I could do a bit better, but I do like having Posi.

As to the largest car- no. The 1971-76 B-bodies were much larger. I will agree that the dash on the 1991-up cars is ridiculously deep.

On to the main topic....

Loser cars are cool because they show you what people can come up with when, in many cases, they have to be creative with resources available.

Does that mean that the cars are losers? Not always- many of these cars paved the way for the future of automotive design. Were they cool? Depends on who you ask.

I loved our Aries. A lot of people make fun of K-cars. Without K-cars, there would probably be no Chrysler right now and all the neat stuff they're making.

Gremlins, Chevettes, Pintos, Vegas, Omnis, H-bodies. They filled needs that needed to be filled, and, for better or worse, provided a competitive product in the market at the time.

These were designed to be economy cars. Economy cars were not designed (and usually still aren't) to be sports cars with blistering performance out of the box. Sometimes, people forget that.

I love these automotive experiments, and having grown up with or around many of them, I have fond memories of these cars.

Charlie Larkin

Charlie Larkin

[Pete J.]

Charlie, I have to agree with you for the most part. The K car was credited with saving Chrysler, but it wasn't because they were great cars. It was the change in engineering and manufacturing philosophy that they represent. They were relatively high profit margin cars for the time and that is what saved the company. They learned how to build cars in a more modern sense. The cars were troublesome and turned into rust buckets in a hurry. I lived in Michigan in the 70's and those car(as would most American cars) rusted out in 3 to 4 years because of the prodigious amounts of salt they used on the roads. I particularly remember one personal incident with a K car. I rented one and was on my way back to Denver, when a Colorado

thunderstorm came through. I drove through a large puddle in the road and the car died. Now this would not have been memorable but within a few minutes there were three other K cars, bumper to bumper stopped by the same puddle. After a few minutes of drying out, we were soon on our way again. I swore at that point to never buy a Chrysler. There were a lot of inexpensive cars around in the 70's and 80's but it seems like in the long term only the Japanese cars provided good value for the time. Their quality control was so far ahead of the American cars at the time.

[Ace-Garageguy]

A Chevette diesel with an automatic gearbox has to top the lame list for me. Automatic Vegas were pretty bad, but at least the Vega wasn't a visually unattractive car. The poor little Chevette though...it had to be the most insipid, testosterone-free car ever built. Marry that to a low-output clattering diesel and a slushbox that quashed any hope of anything remotely resembling acceleration, and you have a true milestone of mediocrity.

[Pete J.]

A Chevette diesel with an automatic gearbox has to top the lame list for me. Automatic Vegas were pretty bad, but at least the Vega wasn't a visually unattractive car. The poor little Chevette though...it had to be the most insipid, testosterone-free car ever built. Marry that to a low-output clattering diesel and a slushbox that quashed any hope of anything remotely resembling acceleration, and you have a true milestone of mediocrity.

Oh, thanks! I had forgotten about the diesel Chevette. Now you go and bring it up again. Yea, you had to drive a stake to see if it was moving. You remember the Cosworth Vega? Now there was a car. All tarted up in Black with gold pin striping, trying to look like a Lotus. Open the hood and you had polished stainless exhaust and Cosworth heads. They really worked on the suspension and had an good little car, but it really wasn't a production car. I think they build less that 4000. It was expensive. It could run with the best of them but it was still a 70's Vega.