1993 General Motors Model Line - Motorweek Retro 

A lot of it was good. I own a Vette of this very vintage that's fun to this day; the B-Bodies (Caprice, Roadmaster, Fleetwood) only got fun in 1994 with the LT1, but were still just plain good as traditional body-on-frame sedans and wagons. The Quad-4 was a great engine that was eventually ruined by excessive grandmaw-proofing, but that 185hp 2.3 showcased in the video showcases that they were still in an exciting phase. And Saturn - maybe you don't see many nowadays, but their offerings in the economy compact class they competed in were absolutely world-class. And then there's the 4th gen F-bodies that this video previews: They were the best-handling solid axle cars OF ALL TIME, and a power-to-cost bargain. So don't crap on a good GM year. Now, the mid-00s? Yeah those were pretty dismal, as are GM non-performance offerings today.

@@ImmortanDan We owned cars from these years. They were junk man. World class? What world is this? Saturn cars has body panel gaps a mile wide, utter shit paint, terrible engines. There is a reason why most of these brands are gone and GM totally failed into bankruptcy. Either you don’t know what a quality car is or you have an extremely low bar. Best handling solid axle cars when everyone else was using a modem independent suspension? As if that means something. Just trash cars. From the late 70s until just a few years ago. To defend anything during those years is delusional.

@@MercOne Well, I will concede that my Vette is just the best GM could do back then, but I can also say that I own stuff from back then and I don't find it bad at all. The paint wasn't the best but if you judge a car by paint then you're not fit to judge shit; and the engines were good. Old-fashioned, but you could actually fit the fuckers if they broke. And yes, I have a low bar. I don't expect "all the latest" from a car; and in fact, GM's worst efforts, whether from back them or these days, occurred when they tried to experiment too much. And don't you knock on the solid-axle muscle car; anything in that power and nimbleness segment, but with an IRS, would've been far more pricey. You are living proof that there's such a thing as negative nostalgia.

@@ImmortanDan Man please. You’re making a fool of yourself. Again we owned cars from era and they were utter junk. You just have low standard ls which is typical of American car apologists. I didn’t judge s car by its paint. Are you just understanding what the sir junk means? Their paint was ONE ASPECT of many points of junk construction. Piss poor interiors, crap seats, falling headliners, eating alternators left and right, creaky structures, speakers that crackled, the list goes on and on and you’re trying to defend this junk? You have no bar. You just like junk. They shit they had problems with had nothing to do experimentation, they couldn’t put a car together. You know basics. All junk. GM was terrible, Ford was worse, and Chrysler may as well have sold turds. All this junk is why the “imports” caught on. You are proof of revisionist history.

@@MercOne : GM pioneered numerous automotive 'first' in the industry which are things we take for granted now. That "Modern Independent Suspension" you speak of has been on Corvettes since the mid 60's and other mainstream GM cars since 1979. Your hate for GM cars sounds as if you owned a bunch of run down junk boxes already done with their service life. GM solved their paint problems 30 years ago.