ex-x-fire

It just seems funny that GM would allow a niche car to be built without more platform sharing. It would seem the Buick, Olds, or even Caddy could have made a sporty sedan using the f body platform. I think they envisioned more parts sharing with the vette, be seems like they used more from the g bodies instead. I bet the rwd 3rd gen was a hard sell to the GM brass back then.

jharrison5

Not really. The Vette didn't share its platform until they built the Cadillac XLR in 2009.

ex-x-fire

I know, that's why I said the envisioned parts sharing with the vette. Its obvious that they didn't share much of anything.

MoJoe

iTrader: (5)

Corvette is the flagship, and wasn't going to share with any other vehicle. F-bodies got the powertrain hand-me-downs from it. Still do.

The car was designed in the late 70's. With the 2nd-3rd gen switch, Pontiac was forced into using the "corporate" aka Chevy small block, in the Firebird. That was a big step toward the current "platform sharing". There were lots of chassis back then, A,B,F,G,X,Y, being shared within the GM family.

A lot of platforms were going FWD... little to no sharing there. Just out of the gas crunch, and recession in the late 70s... They were cutting cost, which limited performance options in other models.

Along came the mini-van and SUV, to reduce the percentage of "cars", especially RWD cars, therefore fewer models to share a platform.

We're lucky we got as good as we did.

FormerL69

iTrader: (2)

This is just my opinion -- I would think back then the F-Body was selling in good enough numbers between Chevrolet and Pontiac that GM didn't need to expand the platform to any other division. Also in that era, those two divisions were really the only marketed performance brands and even fell under the same organizational structure when CPC was formed in '84.

Buick, Olds and Caddy (BOC, the other part of the GM re-org when CPC was created) had no real performance models in the early 80s, with the exception of the turbo Buick's mid-decade, and even those (I believe) were kind of a skunk works deal.

I suspect GM expanding the platform to the other divisions didn't make marketing or financial sense. It's not like F-Bodies sold in the millions like the other car platforms (Corvette excluded) and they were probably making enough money as things were to just leave it alone. Expanding the paltform to other divisions was likely too costly to justify in terms of changes needed to interior and exterior styling as well as manufacturing.

Just my $0.02.

58mark

iTrader: (3)

when you say platform sharing, I think of the Cadillac Cimarron. That's what happens when you try to stretch a platform all across your line

jmd

iTrader: (4)

The third gen was a great effort at borrowing from the parts bin for some parts yet giving it it's own chassis. Not a scratch-built effort; I'm not sure anything GM makes ever has been.

The F-body from inception through 4th gen is nowhere near the hand-me-down pile of junk a 64 through 93 Mustang is; those are far more bastardized off of a mid-sized sedan.

Lower control arms, brakes, seats, radiator were all in use already. They did modify A-body platform spindles to work with struts, changed bushing sizes in front LCAs, re-angled the (same) trailing arms for the use with the panhard / torque arm. And upsized the swaybars in later years. The platform from which these parts were borrowed was pretty much just a downsized version of a larger A-body introduced in '73, which borrowed front suspension parts from the '70 F-body. So it's cyclical.

If you don't feel the G-body is a sporty sedan, that's understandable. Take all the landau, padded roof, wire wheel covers and other crap off, use some Decals on the SS or a Buick special with turbo and that's what they did instead of creating yet another platform like you suggest. Manufacturers try not to compete with their own product.

okfoz

IIRC, I remember reading that at one point Buick & Oldsmobile wanted an F-body but was never granted it. May have been one of those issues where the market was too small to really dictate the necessity of it. If they plan on 200,000 customers a year, it is less expensive having to make 140,000 Chevy's and 60,000 Pontiacs, but if you throw 1 more brand in the mix you end up with 120,000 Chevy's, 50,000, and 30,000 Buicks. When they could save money by just making 2 basic cars instead of tooling for a third.

At one time Chevy, Pontiac, Olds, BUick & Cadillac were very different companies, they all used different platforms, the cars really did not share as much, then they tried to break them up because of this, to fight this off GM had to merge many of the different brands and have cross brand cars to insist that they were too intertwined to actually break up. With only a few exceptions, since the 1960's really there have not been a lot of cars that were unique for a particular brand. Obviously the Corvette was unique, the Fiero was unique, but it still shared a drive-train & parts from the Citation, The Reatta was a shortened Riviera, The Riv which was tied to the Olds Trofeo/Toronado, Cadillac Eldorado. Even the Cadillac Convertible (name escapes me) back int he late 80's - early 90's was based strongly on the Eldorado, with a body made by Pinionfirinea.

I think another reason why they did not cross bread was GM knew the clientele of Buick, Olds & Cadillac probably were not interested in a sporty car. Buick & Cadillac are specifically Upper End or Luxury Brands. Olds was a middle of the road car. The F-body was for people who could not afford a Corvette, but wanted some excitement.

Why no platform sharing with Olds, Buick & Cadillac? Cost.

If you look not many platforms during the 80's really transcended every level of GM, there were a few, like the Caprice, Pontiac Bonneville/Perissianne {sp}, Olds Delta 88/98 Buick Lesabre/Park Ave, & The Cadillac Fleetwood. GM did try the Cavalier, Sunbird, and failed miserably with the Cadillac Cimmeron, so they were thinking along these lines, but they learned their lesson, and ended up with only the Cavalier & Sunbird in more recent years.

I think the Skylark ended up being more like the ever so slightly larger Beretta, Pontiac Grand Am body, I do not even know what the Olds was during this era. AFAIK Cadillac never had a Monte Carlo, Regal, Grand Prix, Cutlass "G-Body" or later W-Body ?

Wife'sCar

iTrader: (1)

Well there's a reason why the mustang has been in constant production every year since 64 in some form.

okfoz

The reason why the Camaro went on hiatus from 2003-2009 had to do with Union contracts. It would have probably remained in production, possibly with some updates to the design in 2003, but the life of the design had come to an end and it was no longer "safe" by the new crash standards. GM had a Union contract that the Camaro & Firebird would not change to a different manufacturing facility other than the one in Canada until 2009. So instead of creating a completely new car in a facility that might not have been able to handle it they opted to drop it from production.

AFAIK the Mustang started out as a Falcon, but later on it really became it's own car.

Not a Ford guy but that is how I see it.

John

LAFireboyd

iTrader: (3)

The F-Body was a shared platform. It was shared between the Chevrolet Camaro and the Pontiac Firebird. We toss around the term "3rdgen" in the singular form, as if it represents only one division's car, but it represents the cars of two divisions: Chevrolet and Pontiac. So the platform was, in fact, shared.

And given the history, 3 generations deep, to have created an all-new model would simply have been viewed as bastardizing the originals, and people would've treated it like a bad step-child. Besides, GM was threatening to can the two existing models at the end of their 3rd generation, so there was no reason to expand the platform anyway.

RedLeader289

iTrader: (2)

The F-body was only ever a pontiac/chevrolet platform from it's inception, that stayed true from '67 through '02.

If something's not broke, don't fix it. Chevrolet did 'sporty' platform sharing with olds and buick in the form of the chevelle/cutlass/skylark cars, which translated into the G bodies in the 80's. I could be off, so if I am then someone correct me.

ex-x-fire

Platform sharing has been a long thing with the f bodies, all those nova & other x bodies will take any performance part that a z28 will. It does keep cost down when cost of designing the platform is paid off sooner.
GM really took a gamble with the 4th gen, sale got less & less as years went by, that's why they cancelled them in 02. They never got near the sales like in the late 60s, late 70s & early mid 80s. Plus they were hard to insure by the people who wanted one.

okfoz

GM Made an attempt to continue in the niche markets of the F-body with the Pontiac GTO, and the Chevrolet SSR. The GTO was a rebadged Holden Monaro. and the SSR was a Trailblazer based truck made by ASC (Yes the same ASC that did all of our Convertibles).

Both of those failed miserably, they probably did not have much invested in the GTO, as it was already a proven platform, they were making the Cadillac Catera on the same platform, IIRC it turns out that the GTO is the same platform used on the G8, the "SS" and the Gen 5 Camaro.

82tarecaro

iTrader: (4)

Yet the Mustang survived for years, and seems to have a more loyal collector car following then the third gens. Conversations here always seem to start with things like "Is it OK to paint my car with a rattle can?"
I own both and the performance of the generation of Mustangs I own, including the Fox Body always seemed superior to the F Bodies. The F bodies may have handled better, but in the 80's and some of the 90's they were always outgunned by the little 5 liter.

Oh, and BTW - 1st and 2n F Gen cars borrowed heavily from the X bodies, and the third gen shared many suspension parts with G bodies. Also, the rear suspension was lifted from the Chevy Monza.

okfoz

There was definitely cross sharing of some of the minor parts like outside door handles were almost universal from GM, even my 77 Electra had door handles that were almost identical to my 3rd gen. Many of the internal little pieces like that. It keeps costs down and no one would care. The inside door handles were also used by the Fiero, the headlight motors were used by the Buick Reatta... The rear axle was the same as the S-10 but wider. I actually have an electric trunk release on my 1967 Riviera that bolted in from a 1974(?) Ford Thunderbird.. So even some interbreeding did take place.

The topic is basically why Olds, Buick & Cadillac did not get an F-body, many of the same parts can be found on other GM cars is not in doubt.

Wife'sCar

iTrader: (1)

I own 4 mustangs, a 69, 92, 94, and an 04. Similar year and condition third gen vs mustang the mustangs seem to hold there value a bit better. It helps that there weren't as many trim options and motor choices for the mustang I think. You either had a base model with a 4 cyl or v6 depending on the year, or you had an lx or gt that had a 5.0, or you had a cobra, which also had a 5.0. So roughly 2 motor choices, and 3 trim levels.

If you had a v8 fox body you had a 5.0, so they only had to worry about the one block, the cars were more streamlined as far as choices. Even with the sn95 (94-98 year models) and the new edge stans (99-04) the only fancy ford made options were cobras for both and mach 1 for new edge. Apart from that you had a mustang v6, a mustang GT v8, or a mustang cobra v8 Anything else like Roush or Saleen or whatever were made by specialty houses, and actually had to be listed and sold as used cars since the specialty house actually had to buy the cars from ford or dealers and then resell them, making anyone who bought one legally the second owner as far as a paper trail is concerned.

With the camaro alone there's base models, rs, z28, irocz, then the base model became the rs, and you could have an rs 305, as well as a z28 with a 305, or an IROC with a 305, or depending on what options you chose you could get the 350, then it was broke down into throttle body injected, or tuned port injection for the 305, there's still debate on what motor you could get with which year ttops, or transmissions, tons of different interior options, then there's the firebirds, and trans am to throw into that list of even more choices and options, they corrected this when the 4th gens hit, if you had an rs you had a v6, if you had a z28 you had an lt1. But by that point I think they were already losing to much in sales to gain traction back. Of course there's the fancier versions of the 4th gens like the ss and all that, but if you bought one of those models they all had the same motor and options list.

I believe a greater profit could have been had from having just a base option, which would only come with a v6, or a higher option like z28 that came with a v8, which should only have been a 350. Your only options should be interior quality, manual or auto, and ttop or hard top. Then they could have had the IROC as a cram all the options and biggest motor car option.

All the extra parts and choices caused them to have to produce (spend more money) on parts, as well as all the different computer tunes for the different motor, intake, and trans options. Then they needed to produce extra parts not assembled on the cars for shops and dealers to make repairs.

I think over diversity was bad in the long run. Some people are afraid of options. One of the managers for the company I work for refuses to eat at any fast food restaurant that he can't order a combo off a menu with a number. He freezes when presented with to many options.

okfoz

I would agree that GM just had just too many engine options. They should have had 3 at most. The V6, 5.0TPI and the 350 TPI, and called it a day. The L03 and LG4 were great for filling the dealers lot, but the parts on them were used in many other cars & Trucks....

I think a lot of that came down to EPA mandates, and fuel economy & Fleet overall scores... Do what I do, blame the bureaucratic government for too much oversight, a little is ok, but it seems every time you turn around they are going crazy, I suppose it has to do with being relevant. If they do not find something wrong, then they do not feel like they are doing their job, so in effect you have mission creep where things become more and more difficult, just for the sake of becoming more difficult.

----------- Edit

Of course it could be that GM wanted to keep reliability scores up so you offer a low HP car...

82tarecaro

iTrader: (4)

It is ironic that the latest versions of the Camaro and the Mustang see a reversal of things. The Mustang has its own unique platform and the Camaro shares its platform with a few models.

okfoz

The GM Zeta Platform (used on the Camaro thru 2015)
Holden VE Commodore
Bitttter VEro Sport
HSV E SEries
Vauxhall VXR8
Chevy Lumina (obviously not the one in the US)
Pontiac G8
Chevrolet Omega (Obviously not in the US)

Holden (Chevrolet) Caprice (Chevy SS in the US)
Holden Monaro


Edit
Somehow the Zeta Platform is related to the Sigma Platform... I think the Zeta was an evolutionary step, but they somehow shared many of the same pieces... still trying to piece that together. (Apparently Sigma was exclusively Cadillac)

Edit II
When the GTO was being released in 2004, I remember speaking to someone and they were referring to the Catera, GTO as being a Zeta platform, but I found that the predecessor to the Zeta was the V-body, but that seems odd to me... Needs a little more digging IMHO. I just don't have time right now.

1986BANDIT

n

Drew

iTrader: (58)

Drew

iTrader: (58)

BTW, turn off "infinite scrolling" and "related threads" in your profile, and you won't accidentally reply to the wrong topic.

1986BANDIT

TNX

Fords88Bird

WifesCar interesting read, along with this whole thread.👍

ksr

Old thread, but an interesting topic.

I think the answer is pretty easy though. 3rd gens debuted in late 1981. So they had been on the drawing board since the later 1970s. The US at that time was in love with coupes of all sizes and types. Cadillac sold more Coupe Devilles than Sedan Devilles. GM moved crazy numbers of midsize cars, and a large percentage of them (like Cutlass Supreme, Grand Prix, Monte Carlo, Regal) were coupes. Just about any car was available in both coupe and sedan versions, even ordinary family cars like a Chevrolet Caprice or near-luxury cars like a Buick LeSabre or Olds 88. The later '70s were huge years for the Camaro and Firebird. 1979 was the peak, with the 2nd gens selling about half a million cars combined. When you're moving that many cars, there's no need to share the platform. That's way more than enough volume to justify an dedicated platform.

Beyond that, GM's overall market share was still over 40%. And even though you'll find plenty of maddening examples of cost-cutting and cheapening of the final products, overall they didn't worry about spending money on development because they really came to believe in their own invincibility. This was a company that didn't just survive the Great Depression, it turned a profit the whole time. Success bred hubris among the top brass which played a part in GM's eventual decline. And not long after the 3rd gens debuted, the market starting turning very hard and fast away from coupes. By 1986, the sales numbers across the board were falling fast, and the 3rd gens were no exception to that.

Maybe it would have been better if the 4th gen had used some shared platform with another GM car line. But by 1993, there really wasn't much left at GM to share it with, as just about everything had gone to front-wheel drive, outside of maybe the Caprice which wouldn't have worked. And the 3rd/4th gen platform wouldn't have been very suitable for an Oldsmobile, Buick, or Cadillac, at least not at that time. I suppose maybe there could have been an adaptation to something like the Reatta or Allante, but their sales volume wouldn't have done anything to have kept the cars from getting canceled in 2002. And the chassis likely wasn't refined enough for a premium Buick or Cadillac.

It's too bad that GM didn't think ahead just a bit when the f-bodies were killed in 2002. Cadillac was finishing up development of its great Sigma RWD chassis that underpinned the first CTS, which launched as a 2003 model in early 2002. If that had been used for a new Camaro and Firebird, they could have avoided their long hiatus from 2003-2009 and possibly could have been the best Camaros and Firebirds ever to that point, with a RWD chassis and fully-independent suspension.

Rosco the Iroc

A caddy F-body? That would have been a **** show. Plus I see it as a bonus from the plain yogurt cars of today that it didn't go corp-wide. That's why these have a whole new following. There is no mistaking a 3rd gen Camaro or T/A for anything else. I'm glad.

Fords88Bird

I do miss seeing the big lux coupes.

ksr

Same here. I liked the last Eldorado and Mark VIII. There were some great Rivieras too.

I miss coupes in general. So few around anymore. It's a world of lookalike CUVs.

ksr

That's why I said that it wouldn't have been refined enough to be a Cadillac. Or a Buick.

But like with the Cadillac Alpha chassis underpinning the 6th gen Camaro since 2016, it would have been interesting if they had thought of Cadillac-Chevrolet-Pontiac chassis sharing back when the CTS Sigma platform came out in 2002. It might have sparked some newer interest in Camaros and Firebirds, the cost savings could have made the Camaro/Firebird more viable, and could potentially have been a truly great car. I had a 1st gen CTS for 10 years. It was great car; terrific chassis and handling.

Fords88Bird

Too bad GM didnt get rid of Buick instead of Pontiac but being eventually focused more on SUVs i guess was their better choice.
The fact that Pontiac made something as crap ugly as the Aztec (one of my top 5 all time car disasters) that had no good angles maybe did them in.

ksr

I didn't like that decision at all, but at the time I understood the reasoning. Pontiac was largely overlap with Chevy. True, they did have the G8 and Solstice, but both were money losers.

The thinking at the time was that Chevy would be what it is. Cars for pretty much everyone, including their performance cars. Cadillac was luxury. Buick was supposed to be near-luxury and in the middle of those two in terms of price. Cadillac's former manager, Johan de Nysschen, tried to really take Cadillac upscale. Prices for the next generation of vehicles, like the 3rd gen CTS, were significantly higher. Unfortunately, it was asking for too much of an increase, too fast. The buyers stopped coming, and Cadillac's prices eventually came down significantly, right into what was supposed to be Buick's range. With cars and SUVs generally getting more expensive, Buick was already facing pressure on the bottom end from ever-more expensive Chevys. Right now, Buick has a decent enough lineup of SUVS, such as they are. And I think they're making a decent attempt to look like a good, near-luxury SUV. But the jury is out on that and I'm not sure Buick really has much of a future.

A true performance brand at Pontiac would have been a better option. GM always paid lip service to that. "We Build Excitement!" and all that. But really, they never fully committed to it. If Pontiac was the performance brand, why was the Corvette a Chevy? And okay, that was never going to change. The dealers would have burned down the RenCen. But when the 5th gen Camaro launched in 2010, there wasn't a Firebird. Even before the announcement of Pontiac's closing, there wasn't going to be a Firebird. IMO, the 5th gen should have been a Firebird. And only a Firebird (no offense Camaro fans). If you wanted to really define Pontiac as a performance brand, the 5th gen should have landed at Pontiac, and only Pontiac. Chevrolet should have been the economy, family car, truck and SUV division (isn't that enough?), even though they'd always have the Corvette.

If the 5th gen had launched as a Firebird only, I think it would still have been a success, with the 85K sales that Chevy achieved. And that Firebird, along with the G8, Solstice, and even the G6 coupe and convertible, would have given Pontiac a pretty credible performance lineup. I think it would have saved the brand. (And that sport truck G8 ST, an American version of the Aussie Ute, was on its way prior to the bankruptcy.) And really, Pontiac's sales figures in the years prior to the announcement of the closure were, while way down from their past, still better than Buick's. And considering that Pontiac shared floor space with Buick and GMC anyway, this approach certainly wouldn't have done any worse than GM's current Chevy-Buick-GMC-Cadillac setup.