General Motors' Branding Fiasco Part Two – Chevrolet's ADD

Paul Niedermeyer
by Paul Niedermeyer

During the American car industry’s formative years, entrepreneurs started car companies left and right, jostling for quick profits and market share. Flint Rock native William Durant had a meta vision: agglomerate the best of the new automakers to create an empire called General Motors. This he did, through endless charm and clever financing. But Durant gambled too much too often, and lost control of his brainchild. The Chevrolet brand was born out of wedlock, to fund Billy Durant’s comeback.

Durant convinced Swiss-born race car driver Louis Chevrolet to lend his name and engineering talents to the start-up. Chevy launched its first car in 1912. The success of the “Classic Six” five-passenger sedan– complete with a windshield, electric lights and a folding top– fulfilled Durant’s ambitions; paving the way for a brief return to GM’s helm.

More to the point, Chevy’s branding identity was born: value for money.

In 1915, Chevy underlined the point with the 490, named for its $490 price. The model was a direct challenge to Ford’s Model T. By 1927, Chevrolet’s production numbers crested 1m, sailing by Ford. (For 51 of the next 55 years, the Bowtie outsold the Blue Oval.)

In 1929, Durant successor Alfred Sloan green lighted a new six cylinder model. Chevrolet’s “six for the price of a four” jibed perfectly with the brand’s basic selling proposition, and paid off in spades.

Ford’s 1932 V8 tried to up the ante. Even though the flat-head V8 became a hot-rod legend, Chevy’s smoother, more powerful and efficient six remained the people’s choice.

In ’50, Chevy introduced the Powerglide transmission, welcoming American mass market motorists to the world of the automatic gearbox. In ’54, Chevy customers could enjoy power brakes, windows and seats.

In ’55, Chevy brought V8 power to the people. Although pistonheads tend to focus on the model’s 162hp small-block engine– which unseated the Ford flathead as the hot-rodders weapon of choice– the car’s size, price (around $1700) and performance hit the sweet spot. The ’55 – ’57 Chevys were also [relatively] well constructed and more stylish than comparable Fords and Plymouths.

If only Chevy hadn’t followed its competitor’s footsteps during the ‘58 – ‘60 maximum barge era. But they did, with a vengeance, losing both their reputation for right-priced mechanical innovation and their focus on bottom-rung-of-the-ownership-ladder positioning.

Chevy super-sized their cars, and kept on growing. The ‘58 Impala was specifically designed to give Chevrolets a “big car look.” Though immediately successful, the trend towards full-size Chevys was a big mistake. Literally. It began the process of blurring the brand’s carefully nurtured entry-level identity with that of Pontiac, Buick and Cadillac.

By the early ‘70’s, Chevy’s passenger cars had become leviathans that shared a lot more with their brother brands than just their size and the dubious “GM Mark of Excellence” badge. GM’s relentless badge-engineering– sharing mechanical bits between divisions– removed many key distinctions between brands. With the debut of the pumped-up and plushed-out the ’71 Caprice, the gap between Chevy and Caddy products narrowed to a minuscule 25 percent.

Of course, Chevrolet hadn’t abandoned small cars; it just seemed that way. From an engineering, style and price point-of-view, the ’60 Corvair was about as good as it got. It was an ambitious and influential model in keeping with the brand’s promise of inexpensive innovation. But the final design was flawed, hamstrung by beancounteritis, and then buried by Ralph Nader.

Chevrolet tried again with the ’62 Chevy II. The parts bin special soon morphed into their new mid-market template; it porked-up and changed its name to Nova, leaving the compact market wide open for the imports. The ’71 Vega and ’76 Chevette were another doomed salvo in the brand’s ongoing, miserable and futile attempts to counter the small import tsunami.

Meanwhile, the downsized and evergreen Impala/Caprice (’77 – ’90), Citation and Malibu marked a welcome return to the “classic” Chevrolet mid-sized, bargain-priced formula. Both models were neglected to death.

Chevy stuck with the Cavalier for 24 years. While the Japanese competition refreshed its competing products every four or five years, Chevrolet kept building essentially the same car. Alas, evolutionary– or revolutionary– engineering was no longer the GM way.

The Corvette and Chevy’s trucks were the exception the proved the rule. Unfortunately, the former has nothing to do with Chevy branding and the latter’s success distracted Chevrolet from its declining passenger car fortunes– to the point where a Korean-built compact is now the entry point to a decidedly lackluster, fleet-oriented passenger car lineup.

The Aveo points to Chevy’s future: cheap compacts from Korea, China and India. And not just for us. GM’s small “world cars” now carry the moribund dreams of the bowtie badge’s creators. It’s an ambitious effort that will ensure GM’s global survival. Or not.

Paul Niedermeyer
Paul Niedermeyer

More by Paul Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 37 comments
  • Anonymous Anonymous on Jun 15, 2009

    [...] cost competitive and produce top quality, reliable, desirable vehicles. Check out this post on The Truth About Cars for a quick review of the Chevy [...]

  • Stan2 Stan2 on Oct 22, 2009

    After the 60's and early 70's the cars fell apart - no innovations anywhere - Windows that would hit your head Cutlas - Film scum would go on the windows - Keys that bang on the column in any turs still like this in their outdated trucks - Springy rides - Windows freeze up - Lousy heat - Sick and tired of seeing rust in the same places for 2 decades. I mean come on. - Fat gus sucking motors. - Chrome (alum paint) on PlasTIC remember that - Seats ripping - How about the rivet bolts in the Bumpers.Remember those???? - GM needed a re-invention starting in 1975 - and yes FORD needs NEW Ford decals I bought one and took that ugly cheap looking badge off.

  • Steve Biro I’ll try one of these Tesla driverless taxis after Elon takes one to and from work each and every day for five years. Either he’ll prove to me they are safe… or he’ll be dead. Think he’ll be willing to try it?
  • Theflyersfan After the first hard frost or freeze - if the 10 day forecast looks like winter is coming - that's when the winter tires go on. You can call me a convert to the summer performance tire and winter tire car owner. I like the feel of the tires that are meant to be used in that season, and winter tires make all of the difference in snowy conditions. Plus, how many crazy expensive Porsches and Land Rovers do we see crashed out after the first snow because there's a chance that the owner still kept their summer tires on. "But...but...but I have all wheel drive!!!" Yes, so all four tires that now have zero grip can move in unison together.
  • Theflyersfan One thing the human brain can do very well (at least hopefully in most drivers) is quickly react to sudden changes in situations around them. Our eyes and brains can quickly detect another driving dangerously, a construction zone that popped up while we were at work, dense fog out of nowhere, conflicting lines and signs on some highways, kids darting out between cars, etc. All of this self driving tech has shown us that it is maybe 80% of the way there, but it's that last 20% that still scares the crap out of us. Self driving computers can have multiple cameras feeding the system constant information, but can it react in time or can it work through conflicting data - think of construction zones with lines everywhere, orange signs with new exit information by the existing green exit sign, etc. Plus, and I think it's just GM's test mules, some systems require preexisting "knowledge" of the routes taken and that's putting a lot of faith in a system that needs to be updated in real time. I think in the next 15-20 years, we'll have a basic system that can self drive along interstates and highways, but city streets and neighborhoods - the "last mile" - will still be self drive. Right now, I'd be happy with a system that can safely navigate the slog of rush hour and not require human input (tapping the wheel for example) to keep the system active.
  • Kcflyer night and day difference. Good winter tires save lives or at least body work. And they are free. Spend a few hundred on spare wheels on tire rack. Mount the winter tires on them. They replace your regular tires and save a commensurate amount of wear. Thus, over the life of the vehicle the only added expense is the extra wheels. I can usually find a set of used wheels for less than 400 bucks all in on craigslist or marketplace. Then swap the wheels yourself twice a year. TPMS has added a wrinkle. Honda has the best system that requires little or no expense. Toyota/Lexus has a stupid system that requires a shop visit to program every stinking time. Ugh (worth it over a honda since your valves don't need to be cleaned every 60000 miles)
  • Bruce Purchased (in 2024) a 1989 Camero RS. I wasn't looking for one but I picked it up for 1500. I wanted to only pay 800 but the fellow I bought it from had a real nice family and I could tell they loved each other. They needed the money and I had to give it to him. I felt my heart grow like the Grinch. Yes it has the little 2.8. But the write up does not represent this car. It has never been messed with, all original, a real time machine. I was very fond of these 3rd gen Cameros. It was very oxidized but straight, interior was dirty but all there. I just retired and I parked in my shop and looked at it for 5 months. I couldn't decide how to approach it now That I can afford to make of it what ever I want. Resto mod? Engine swap? No reason to expect any finacial return. Finally I started just doing little things. Buffed and polished the paint. Tune up, Fluids. I am still working it and have found a lot of joy in just restoring what I have just the way I found it just fixed and cleaned up. It's just a cool looking cruiser, fun to drive, fun to figure out. It is what it is. I am keeping it and the author of this critical write up completely misses the point. Mabey the point is what I make it. Nothing more and nothing less.
Next