By Jeff Glucker
BoldRide.com has fired up a new reoccurring post series that caught my attention. It’s called “Why Your Car Sucks/Rocks“, and the goal is to examine a specific automaker then discuss the reasons why said automaker rocks… and why said automaker sucks. First up, they start off light by going with a departed brand: Pontiac.
Some highlights? That’s easy, thanks to the GTO. Low-lights are easy too, though. Head over to BoldRide to check out the reasons that Pontiac rocked and also why they sucked.
[Source: BoldRide]
Ross Ballot 
Kamil Kaluski
I liked it. It left me wanting more.
Sure, Pontiac is an easy target, but I'm just thinking that Mr. George Kennedy is also sharpening his knives, so to speak, for other automakers.
Wow, that was a short, fairly shallow piece in my opinion. Any piece about Pontiac heralds the old one, bags the 80's to 2000's, hates on the Aztec and Vibe.
Seriously kids, come up with a reasonable discussion about how a brand got killed just as it got it's groove back. Even the hated versions of this brand are still running around somewhere, a lot of them even still have the body panels. Just think if they'd kept RWD longer than just reviving it at the end.
Pontiac rocked because they marched to a different drummer, and its management didn't care if Chevrolet's management got pissed off and complained to the higher ups in GM management. Start off with Bunkie Knudson taking the reins in the '50s, ditching the Silver Streak moldings, introducing the Pontiac V8 (which was superior to Chevy's small block, IMHO), bringing out the Wide Track chassis in '59, and stuffing a 389 into a Tempest, birthing the muscle car era.
They sucked when they tried to chase the Europeans, and build a poor man's BMW.
1966 2+2 421 4 speed Pontiac .
May not have been the fastest car
Sure did feel like it.
The '65 2+2 was good for a 3.9 second 0-60 time, with the 421 Tri-Power and 4-speed, in Car and Driver's famous comparo against the Ferrari 2+2.
http://www.330gt.com/magazinearticles/caranddrive…
Good link
The idea of a Pontiac and Ferrari side by side comparison
Sleek bred in the bone race car / and Pontiac
Torque specs real close on those two.
No paragraph about why Pontiac sucked is complete with the words "body cladding".
Cheap criticism boldly applied to a defunct product..
Get a real job.
Pontiac Aztek wasn't shit! Divisive, yes. Misguided, certainly. A sales disaster? If you count actual living, breathing people and not rental or corporate fleets then yes, of course. And yes, it was a nail in Pontiacs coffin. But a GM car as controvertial as the Aztec could only be branded as a Pontiac.
And that's why Pontiac didn't suck. Yeah, there was a lot of miserable crap with the triangular badge (I'm looking at you, Daewoo Lemans), but there was certainly more innovation (for better or worse) in Pontiac than in Buick or Chevy.
I reckon on an approx 35% suck rating.
Ironically, I'm looking at an Aztek to replace my Comanche. I mean after a post from 1/2 way across the world about one is posted here in the Hooniverse, a Comanche is now not just obscure enough for this Hoon. 🙂 But no BS, I am seriously considering one.
I'd totally rock one. I think I'd cut a certain dash if I took one camping. There are literally zero of them around over here so, owing to the fact that nobody's ever heard of them there's no ridicule, either. I'll never get one, of course… but hey;
At Least I Have The Brochure.
They've been growing on me. A good buddy has one, and they have their ups and downs. They're huge on the inside, the drive train ain't bad and the ride is pretty comfortable (compared to my TJ…). They won't win races, they are kinda ugly (but it's not as awful looking to me :), and the rear visibility sucks. Oh, and GM interior, but eh, I drive a Jeep.
Is there any reason people hate the thing other than being feck-ugly? I mean, yeah, bad timing to introduce such a hideous looking porker, but other than that, I haven't actually read any criticism that warrants the title of one of the worst cars of all time. A title that many are quick to slap on it.
I can see it being a decent option if it's the kinda vehicle you needed/wanted.
Indeed. See also Ford Scorpio, Fiat Multipla et al. And me. I have a shit face, but am actually pretty awesome.
I still, to this day, like the Scorpio.
Me too. Post '94 it went a bit eww, but when they repositioned the badge to the centre of the grille, lost some of the chrome and darkened the lights, it looked great. Excellent drive, too.
Ugly is a subjective term .
We must get past the part where we are judging by looks.
That's what I'm trying to do. Even when I use the Googles, I get a C&D review which basically says it's neat, but ugly…
"Highs:
Useful accessories, quiet interior, a good balance between maneuverability and cargo room.
Lows:
Does not include a personal disguise for when you're driving in crowded areas.
Verdict:
A decent vehicle with nifty features that's blemished by adventurous styling."
The Ugly will be next to file discrimination suits.
UGLY?facially and temperamentally disadvantaged.
I think it might have become a symbol for GM's wayward ways, but it was pretty much just because it was feck-ugly. The Buick Rendezvous never got near as much stick – though I find its design fascinating for some reason, I could actually write a great deal about why if I thought anyone would care.
Submit something….there is always Submission Thursday…
As noted above, a near and dear friend has one, so I see his silver one all the time and have ridden in it more than a couple times. The visibility sucks. It isn't fast, but it isn't slow. The ride is quite comfortable. It has a GM interior, but a big handy one. It's funky looking. My friend's is a front driver. They're a solid Not Bad. Certainly much better than a number of things that bore a Pontiac badge during that time period.
I'd never buy one. No manual transmission, too big and ungainly for my tastes, but I wouldn't look down on a hoon who bought one. One of the last GM oddballs.
(EDIT: Of course, GM may come out with more oddballs, and some might throw the Volt into that category, but the Aztek was certainly one of the biggest risks that they've taken on in last decade or so.)
The upside is when you're inside of one, you don't have to look at it.
The rear suspension design was actually pretty awesome, and wound up modified to fit under the Pontiac Solstice concept car (a mishmosh of parts across the GM stable to rush a small concept car to the auto shows only a few months in the making when it was displayed)
And since everyone universally pans its looks they are cheap used and decently bulletproof.
For me, I would upgrade to the Rendezvous, but there are better outdoorsy accessories for the Aztek that would suit me better.
Also, who doesn't want to own a "Car that killed a brand."
Why your article sucks/rocks: Bold Ride.
Why your article rocks:
– It's an idea with potential.
– Inspires discussion.
Why your article sucks:
– Unfulfilled potential
– Inspires "discussion". (vitriol)
– Subject that has been beaten to death.
– Cheap shots.
– Unsubstantiated arguments. (Hit-n-run style writing)
– Self proclaimed hyperbole filling in a substance-free shell.
Perhaps this series will fan out and provide something new. But for now, it's not…
Next up … KV Mini.
Rocks because driven with rocks.
Rocks because spare body parts available on nearly every corner.
<img src="http://azfoo.net/places/tempe/graffiti/666/pics/30_UtilityBoxGodGraffiti.jpg">
Sucks because only two people at a time can enjoy the motoring experience.
Convenient, certainly, but I'm not sure it could move under its own power with such thick body panels.
[youtube zERjM-S1EV0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zERjM-S1EV0 youtube]
This is why Pontiac rocks, distilled into 30 seconds of GET PSYCHED! This was a brand that had at different points, big torquey V8s, turbochargers, AWD, powerful inline fours (unrefined with the Quad4, high-revving in the Vibe GT), and multiple two-seat sports cars. Hell, at the time of Pontiac's demise, every car in their lineup except the Montana was available with a manual, sort of.
But the malaise era meant they had to Brougham up, and in the 80s and 90s, there were too many cars that were Chevrolets cheaply ribbed for no one's pleasure.
This is very old news, and I think I handled it better than most… Go here to read my Pontiac Memories:
http://www.automotivetraveler.com/index.php?optio…
Thank you; that was a much better read.
Nice to see you checking in here… hope you're well on your way to recovery!
I disagree on the Vibe, especially the second generation. I won't say it was for everyone, but it was the closest we got to an economy wagon that could actually do some grunt work and wasn't Korean (When being Korean still meant BAD).
<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/11/14/automobiles/autoshow/600-Pontiac-Vibe-front.jpg">
They were re-badged Toyotas!
For less than their Toyota twin and with more content. Funny, I never hear this complaint for the Subaru BRZ….
It's a shame that generation of Vibe kind of got screwed, they're genuinely good cars.
My driveway agrees. I needed something to replace a totaled Saturn Vue (of my wife, 5-speed FWD) that could cart the kid and our stuff (stroller, muddy gear, bike stuff, etc.) and still get reasonable gas mileage.
We refused to be the family with one kid and a full-size SUV.
Her list of requirements were short, but difficult to find cars that met it.
-Under $20,000
-Space for stroller and luggage at the same time for road trips
-30 mpg hwy
-Manual transmission
We had the choice of :
Subaru Impreza (smaller, more expensive and worse gas mileage)
Chevy HHR (if you're in one you don't have to look at it, but you also can't see out of it)
Ford Escape S (felt really cheap next to the Vibe GT, also rear drum brakes)
Jeep Patriot (No thanks)
Hyundai Elantra Touring (Felt pokey with the 2.0L, just didn't like it overall)
I'll be honest, we'd do it again in a heartbeat. The car is really solid and has worked out really well for us.
I went with the Matrix flavor, I think Pontiac production was winding down when I was looking (I need my manual, and they're thin on the ground.) There are at least some different options out there now, but it's really rare that I drive something in that category that I think is actually better than what I've already got.
My wife was still at the Toyota dealership when we got the Pontiac. But her dad was a GM retiree and my family has the Ford plan, so the Pontiac Vibe GT with the stick and no sunroof came down to under $18,000 with incentives.
The Toyota XRS with XM (Hockey and baseball) and VSC was coming out at $21,000.
So we knew which of the sisters we were going to pick if we went that route.
Our biggest hang-up was that with incentives I could get a 2.4L ecotec HHR with a 5-speed, have more cargo, wider back seat, and better gas mileage for $14,500.
I just couldn't get past the ugly.
The HHR also had awful steering, going by memory. That's all I remember about it though.
I'd buy the second gen as a better car, although isn't the first gen with the peaky, high-revving 1.8 more exciting? It's practically (nothing like) an Elise wagon!
For that 1100 rpm it was a blast. Actually the Corolla XRS is the sleeper of that group. They made the engine less frantic, but also it was in a boring looking Corolla.
The problem was it required premium, or it wouldn't "Lift" (Toyota's word) to the hotter cam profile. Of course the other problem was you had to run your hatchback up to 6800 rpm to hit it.
The 6-speed should have been kept to the newer GT, it could use an extra highway gear. But the 2.4L has a lot more usable power (and torque) than the 1.8L.
I actually thought that Pontiac brought off decent performance and styling in large and medium cars, especially for the price, way up into the 80s. Thought many of the big Pontiacs of the malaise years were the best looking American cars of the time. Especially when compared with the Blue Oval and the Pentastar of the day. Maybe that's because of generally good childhood memories of a '67 Pontiac Executive.
The Aztek – Walter White drove one to and from his meth lab.