Do any of you know why Chevy sub-contracted the 87+ verts instead of just making them in their factory?.....

 

Willie, Do you know?

 

Maybe because the Gov. made the auto makers discountinue production of convertibles around 1976.

 

That's what I was told too. I guess Ronny Reagan had issues with the safety of convertibles, so our government outlawed American auto manufacturers from producing any!

Chevy wanted to reintroduce the Camaro convertible on the 20th anniversary, but they got jammed up by the man. To get around the law, they went to ASC, (which was not without it's problems) and that's why the total production run of verts for 1987 was way off the mark at only 744 cars.

 

Somehow Chrysler got around all this ... they had a "K" Body LeBaron convertible in '82. And Saab had verts in the early 80's, too.

In 1976, the government put in place stricter roll-over crash specs, and manufacturers were afraid that their verts wouldn't pass. So most quit making verts altogether rather than dump a bunch of time and money in R&D just to find out it was all for nothing. As a matter of fact, the '76 Caddy Eldorado was marketed as the "Last American Convertible".

And I'm pretty sure a vert would have to pass a government crash test whether it was produced by the factory or not, as long as they were sold by a factory-direct dealer. So, I doubt that "the man" is the reason our verts were made by ASC. I'd say it has more to do with the fact that it was probably cheaper to outsource the job on the verts than to build or revamp an existing production facility and hire more workers to make the verts.

Ronnie was still running the show in Cali back in '76. I think you meant Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter. And I doubt the Pres. actually had a hand in this anyway. He's got more important jobs to do ... like nailing secretaries.

P.S. There are GM F-Body verts that preceed 1987. Autoform did them, and they passed govt. specs.

 

Yeah, cheaper to outsource such a small number of cars to someone who could build every one as a one-off instead of retooling an entire line for it.

 

Hmmm... I didn't know that roll-over was the real core issue, but it makes sense I suppose, or that this all started as far back as 1976. I was guessing it wasn't until the 80's, Reagan was elected president in 1981 and served until 89.

I seem to remember that Gov. Jerry Brown tried to outlaw the Chevy Corvair around that time too.

So I wonder how a vert could EVER pass a roll-over test back then or now...

 

And they made that 4 cyl convertible (lebaron) in a turbo model too hehe I see many blown engine convertible lebarons at public auction, soooooo cheap too...
Hard to believe the Sebring does so well in the convertible market, I bet it has big market share.

 

I am pretty sure that there weren't any verts produced by any manufacturer from 1976 til 1982.

And as far as passing any safety tests, I don't think any vert is really safe in a rollover ...

Example A: Pontiac For Sale

But, then again, how the hell do you roll and F-Body?

 

Whoa!

I think that looks it was a T-Top. I hear that they are more prone to rolling than a vert is...

 

What are you talking about? It's a vert. It says it's a vert. I can see it's a vert. It's a vert....... "more prone to rolling".......


I think you guys are on the right track about it being WAY more cost effective to outsource. It's the same with a lot of factory upgrades. A lot of the upgrade parts are made by different companies. Most are just installed on the line (an obvious problem when it comes to uninstalling the top half of a car and putting some canvas back in it's place).

 

wow sucked to be the guy driving that when it rolled. i wonder if hes alright.

 

That's interesting. My first convertible was a 1979 Fiat 2000 Spyder.

Lon

 

It still looks like it was a T-Top to me. And I was just making a joke about them rolling over more easily. Lighten up.

 

Then I stand corrected. I should have said "American" verts from 76 to 82. Does anybody know if there were any of those?

 

Plain and simple, it was a matter of cost effectiveness. Why set up or alter a production line, and train employess when you could just outsource the job to a facility that was already making Mustang convertibles. GM also outsourced the TTA, it anything you would think that the TTA would be much easier to make on the line than a convertible would be, but they outsourced these 1555 cars to PAS, they did the enginering and modified the cars at their facility(esentially put in a special version of the buick 3.8 Turbo into a GTA). They actually designed the 4th gen to be a convertible, it was built on the assembly line along side the coupes. It is a much better convertible than ours, however not nearly as good looking imho.

 

4th gen convertibles have the same basic structure as the coupe. The difference (beside frame rails) were extra metal bracing laid on top of the front and rear subframes, a cross brace spanning the tranny tunnel, and some extra bracing behind the rear seats. They are very solid.

 

The 4th gens might be solid, but they aren't very pretty IMO. After Pontiac did the Banshee prototype in the late 80's, I think they started designing the 4th gens with a lot of Banshee influence. The look of the rounded fenders, pointed nose and raised rear-end were hot (even for the Camaro) in the early 90s, but I just don't think they have a timeless beauty like our third gens.

Even my '92 (and the 91s) have a little "kiss" of the Banshee in them with the front fiberglass. The 91 and 92 fiberglass also has a kind of "throwback" look to the 77s and 78s with the slits where the fog lights are.

Anyway, I definitely believe the cost-effectiveness of outsourcing the verts was the reason for the outsourcing. But no matter the reason, I'm glad the verts were made.

 

I have both a '87 and a '95 convert, the 95 has more body shake than the '87, but the quality of the '95 is much better than the '87. Chris