GM X-body, 1979-85

"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura) 03/20/2019 at 11:25 • Filed to: None

2

11

These came with a 4-speed manual transaxle as standard equipment. This one has the optional three-speed automatic. I always liked these: sedan proportions, but smaller.

ttyymmnn > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 03/20/2019 at 11:33

0

That was the same as the NPD Malibus, wasn’t it?

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > ttyymmnn 03/20/2019 at 11:41

1

No; this was FWD. Those were RWD, G-body. (Had to look it up...)

The Jennings -- remember them? -- had one of these G-bodied cars with the manual trans.

SpeedSix > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 03/20/2019 at 14:49

1

And there’s even a 3-inch model of the Oldsmobile version, from Majorette of France, with an opening hood.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > SpeedSix 03/20/2019 at 15:22

0

Wow; who knew? Is that yours, or Google’s?

ranwhenparked > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 03/20/2019 at 19:51

0

Pictured: The exact point where GM’s total disdain for their own customers that had always been apparent to economy car buyers first became obvious to the middle class. 

SpeedSix > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 03/20/2019 at 23:26

1

Not mine, but not an uncommon casting. Shouldn’t be too expensive, especially if without the card or box packaging.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > ranwhenparked 03/21/2019 at 07:26

0

Interesting analysis. I liked these cars, and Chrysler’s K-cars as well.

RacinBob > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 03/21/2019 at 09:00

0

I liked the X body’s, and actually was working summers for GM just before they came out. In the context of the time, they were much better than the nova they replaced in regards to handling, ride, interior and economy.

Like the K car, they spawned the modern GM FWD architecture and as such they were a successfull effort. Remember, the follow on to the X class was the mid-sized C alais A body and that sold in huge numbers.

I think of GM cars of the era as well designed, with casual assemble and testing. Once the first owner got the bugs out of them, they were pretty solid....

The problem with GM was they didn’t double down and continue to develop. I bet there were GM cars 15 years later based pretty much on the original ‘80's X. Meanwhile, Honda had gone through 3 generations of designs. An ‘80 Honda vs an ‘80 X, the GM looks pretty good. A 95 Honda vs GM, not so much.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > RacinBob 03/21/2019 at 09:04

0

I just crushed my ‘89 Camry; the State of California paid me $1,000 to do it. I still drive the ‘90 Corolla. Both show 250k on the odometer. Nothing compares or ever will compare to those two cars.

I liked these and also the K-cars. I have always prized sensibility above features and spiff. The more sensible, in my experience, the more maintainable and the more dependable. The cars I mention above, from Toyota’s Golden Age in the United States, were all of that.

ranwhenparked > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 03/21/2019 at 19:08

0

Styling wise, nothing was wrong - they were a logical evolution of Bill Mitchell’s tasteful Sheer Look.

But, in terms of build quality and reliability, the X-cars were probably the Death Valley of GM’s many low points. Also in typical GM fashion, they engineered the faults out of the design in time to ensure that they had to rename it to something else to have a shot at winning back customers. 

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > ranwhenparked 03/21/2019 at 23:07

0

they engineered the faults out of the design in time to ensure that they had to rename it to something else to have a shot at winning back customers.

I don’t follow. Would you mind explaining that to me?