General Motors was a very different company in the 1990s. This was the General Motors behind the innovations found at Saturn and baked into the EV1. GM’s brands also emerged from the malaise of the 1980s by putting horses back under power barns and attempting hot and fun compacts. One of the bright spots in GM’s radical 1990s was the Chevrolet Beretta, a car that many have forgotten but is still pretty awesome, even today. Much ink has been spilled about the Beretta itself, but not a whole lot about its name. See, Beretta is also the name of a gun brand, and Chevy naming a car after it caused an interesting lawsuit that was eventually resolved with a symbolic trade of a car for a rifle and a shotgun.
Naming a car is no easy walk in the park. Automakers go through an intense process involving several departments from marketing and design to communications and legal. Massive teams of talented people sift through market research and even consumer-suggested names to find the right feelings and imagery that they want to evoke for their vehicle. These people also go through painstaking work to make sure the names they choose don’t have negative connotations in the markets where the vehicle will be sold.
The naming process of a car is fascinating, and as Consumer Reports once noted, it’s why we got the 1955 Ford Thunderbird and not the Ford Hep Cat, which was really one of 5,000 names under consideration for the personal luxury coupe.
Getting it wrong can be disastrous. Who hasn’t heard the legend about the Chevy Nova failing to sell in Spanish-speaking countries because “no va” means “no go?” Reputable car sites have repeated it, and I still hear prominent YouTubers make the claim today. But here’s the dirty truth. That was always a myth. If you can speak the language, you will know that “nova” and “no va” are not the same. Regardless, the Nova actually sold well in Spanish-speaking countries. So, even if some people did think the Nova “didn’t go,” clearly not enough people actually cared.
Still, that doesn’t mean there aren’t examples of bad names out there. The Studebaker Dictator was a wonderful little ride when it debuted in 1927. As Mac’s Motor City Garage writes, Studebaker marketed the Dictator as a car that would “dictate the standards” of the mid-priced field. By all accounts, the Dictator was also a fine car, and one that would be a sweet classic to own today. I mean, their style was fantastic, and they were built featuring L-head straight-sixes and a straight-eight.
Studebaker discontinued the Dictator name in 1938, and while the automaker didn’t give a reason, automotive historians have pointed out that it’s not too hard to connect the dots given what was happening in the rest of the world at the time.
But even if you make sure you don’t piss off or confuse the public, you still need to make sure you aren’t upsetting other companies. Automaker legal departments take trademarks seriously, and if another company owns the name that the automaker wants to use for its car, action must be taken. An example reported by Consumer Reports is the time when the Ford Mustang was originally sold in West Germany as the Ford T-5 because an industrial equipment company owned the trademark to Mustang in the region.
Some automakers will get around this by giving their cars entirely made-up names or names based on winds, waters, and other natural phenomena. Other times, automakers may find themselves embroiled in a lawsuit after unexpectedly ruffling the feathers of a company serving a completely different market. That’s what happened with the Chevrolet Beretta, and the story is almost as fascinating as the car itself.
Named Like A Gun
Two years ago, I found a perfect, 45-mile Chevrolet Beretta at the Volo Auto Museum here in Illinois. I was shocked because, at the time, I wasn’t even able to remember the last time I had even seen a Beretta, let alone one that still had its paint and bumpers. Truth be told, that 2023 sighting of the Beretta was the first and the last time I had seen one in a while. I don’t even remember a Beretta showing up for last year’s epic Galpin car show.
That’s sad because the Beretta remains an awesome mark in GM history, from my previous coverage:
The Beretta was a product of a struggling General Motors. As I explained in the retrospective on the Lumina Z34, the 1980s were not kind to the General. Ford launched its Taurus in 1986 and GM just didn’t have a worthy competitor. The Taurus looked like it came from the future while the Chevy Monte Carlo and the Chevy Celebrity were stuck firmly in the 1980s. In 1982, GM started development on the GM-10 program. This $7 billion program was intended to replace the Chevrolet Celebrity, Pontiac 6000, Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, and Buick Century.
General Motors was reorganized in 1984. The GM-10 program marched forward, and suddenly, its importance grew. As CNN explains, GM held 44.6 percent of the car market in 1984. However, public interest in GM products waned, and by the GM-10 program’s debut in 1987, GM’s share had shrunken to 36.6 percent. As was reported at the time, GM made a bet on the bad times of the 1970s continuing into the 1980s. Thus, its cars were smaller, traded power for fuel efficiency, and relied heavily on front drive platforms. Unfortunately for GM, things got cheap again, and buyers weren’t as interested in GM’s penny-pinching strategies.
GM’s plan to get back on top was to flood the market with new models. My retrospective continues:
As the Chicago Tribune reported in 1987, General Motors was also developing a replacement for the maligned Citation. The N platform was Oldsmobile’s replacement for the X platform while the L platform was Chevrolet’s equivalent of the same. In 1987, Chevy’s L-body Corsica sedan was launched to fight a lengthy list of competitors including the Dodge Aries, Ford Tempo, Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Nissan Stanza, Mazda 626, Plymouth Reliant, and Mercury Topaz. GM projected sales of 600,000 units over 18 months.
The Corsica would have a platform mate in the form of the sporty Beretta two-door coupe. According to the Chicago Tribune, the Beretta’s foes were fierce and included the Acura Integra, Chrysler LeBaron, Ford Mustang, Toyota Celica, and the Nissan Pulsar NX. The newspaper also saw the Beretta bumping up against GM’s own Pontiac Firebird Trans Am, Chevy Camaro, and Pontiac Grand Am. My mind is a bit blown at the idea of the Beretta being seen on the same level as a Mustang. The Beretta and Corsica also had to convince buyers to step up from smaller compacts while getting people to forget the Citation.
Design of the Beretta was performed in the same GM design house behind the Camaro, Corvette, Monte Carlo, Cavalier, and Corsica. Overseeing the design was Irvin Rybicki, who led GM’s downsizing plans through the 1980s. Rybicki rose from chief designer in the 1960s to eventually taking over vice president of design in 1977, taking the position that was held by Bill Mitchell. From a design perspective, the Beretta was a step forward for GM. The vehicle’s lighting was better integrated with the sleek body and those metal panels were galvanized to help battle rust.
As noted above, the Beretta and the Corsica had a lot sitting on their shoulders. GM desperately needed to get out of its slump, and the only way to achieve that was by getting people into dealerships. Thankfully, GM got its recipe right this time. Buyers and reviewers found the Beretta to be a perfectly fine, affordable sports coupe.
Chevy even produced some actual holy grail-level Berettas with the likes of the performance-minded GTZ, GTU, and Z26. At its hottest, the Beretta was available with a Quad 4 inline four good for 180 HP and 160 lb-ft of torque, which allowed a five-speed manual-equipped Beretta to hit 60 mph in around 7.6 seconds. That was legitimately quick for a cheap coupe back then! The Beretta even came with V6 power if that tickled your fancy better.
What’s In A Name
In 1988, the first full year of Beretta production, Chevy managed to move 275,098 units. The Beretta was a hit, and GM was feeling good about its future. But it wasn’t out of the woods yet.
As the Los Angeles Times reported, in 1986, Fabbrica D’Armi Pietro Beretta S.p.A. caught wind that Chevrolet was launching a car called the Beretta. That year, the arms manufacturer’s legal team warned General Motors that its new car would be in conflict with its trademark. The 500-year-old company had registered its Beretta trademark here in America back in 1954. While it’s unlikely that consumers would confuse shotguns, handguns, and technical vests for a front-wheel-drive Chevy, Beretta took this very seriously.
It’s not explained exactly why GM didn’t heed the warning or how this situation was somehow deemed acceptable in the first place, but GM launched the Beretta anyway. Beretta, the gun manufacturer, followed through on its warning in 1987 and sued General Motors in a U.S. District Court in New York.
The Chicago Tribune reported on just how upset Beretta was:
An Italian gunmaker named Beretta sued GM because the automaker markets a car called the Chevrolet Beretta. The Italian firearms maker had the name first, about 460 years before GM decided to use it. Though it`s unlikely that a vehicle used for a special Saturday night might be confused with a Saturday Night Special, Beretta says the issue goes deeper.
Beretta charges GM is ”guilty of unfair competition,” though you`ll be hard-pressed to find too many Chevy dealers who`ve had to turn away disappointed customers looking for a semiautomatic or too many gunshop owners asked to ”Bring out the one with the V-6.”
Of course, you can imagine the dismay among potential buyers of gun or car when they mistakenly go to the wrong store and ask for one ”fully loaded.” The suit also asks Beretta, the gun folks, be compensated for ”related losses, including reputational damage to Beretta.”
Surely, You Can’t Be Serious?
As you saw above, there was a lot of joking around going on as well. Car and Driver even published a mock “road test” comparison between the Beretta car and a Beretta handgun. The Chicago Tribune couldn’t help itself:
Perhaps the Beretta folks think that the next time GM announces a Beretta recall, owners will head for their holsters rather than their garages and bring back the wrong product for repair. In announcing the suit, which was filed last week in federal district court in New York, the Beretta gun people expressed concern ”about potential negative connotations should the GM Beretta car develop a history of quality control problems.”
Beretta seems concerned that baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet have gotten in the way of 9-mm., .45-caliber, double-barreled and repeat-action firing. Forget ”The heartbeat of America” and bring on a target. The Beretta gun crew says it has a reputation to preserve. ”No other gunmaker has won more gold medals and awards in Olympic competition,” argued Robert Bonaventure, general manager of Beretta`s U.S. affiliate when reached by phone.
He does have a point. Beretta couldn`t even win one of those ad campaign awards the buff books disguise as ”car of the year.” And when it comes to Olympic spirit, most U.S. teams usually have Japanese carmakers as their sponsor. Perhaps Beretta fears the problems GM has had to bear will stand in the way of people`s right to bear arms engraved with the Beretta nameplate.
It gets even more hilarious because Bonaventure did explain why he thought people would somehow confuse the two very different Berettas, from a different Chicago Tribune story:
”People like you who don`t know Beretta is a gun will see the ads for the Chevy Beretta and someday go into a shop to purchase a gun, see the name Beretta and say, `When did GM start making guns?` ” he said.
A Beretta For A Beretta
While seemingly everyone was laughing about this, Beretta didn’t think it was funny and wanted $250 million ($703,783,010 today) from General Motors. In the end, the suit settled on positive terms for everyone. General Motors agreed to pay $500,000 ($1,437,945 today) to the Beretta Foundation for Cancer Research. As part of the settlement, GM was allowed to continue using the Beretta name as long as GM acknowledged the gun manufacturer in its documentation on the vehicle.
“We are satisfied that the result of this agreement will be to help fight a disease that causes victims in all countries,” said Pier Giuseppe Beretta – Chairman of Fabbrica d’Armi Pietro Beretta
There was also a symbolic trade as part of the settlement, too. GM Chairman Roger Smith traded a Chevy Beretta GTU in exchange for a Beretta rifle and a shotgun. At the time, the car was worth $15,610 ($44,892 today), and it was reported that Beretta’s arms ran up to $15,000 as well. Sadly, it wasn’t reported what the value of the two guns was, but I suppose it doesn’t matter.
In the end, Chevrolet built just under a million Berettas over a nine-year production run. So, paying off Beretta was probably worth it. This case is also a good example of how just operating in an entirely different market might not be enough to stave off a trademark infringement lawsuit. At the very least, it looks like everyone had a ton of fun in this instance. Though this does make me wonder. Has anyone somehow managed to confuse Beretta guns with General Motors?
*BAM*
“Is the cancer still there?”
“Yep.”
*BAM*
“Okay… how about now?”
So I was a Chevy dealer tech when the Beretta was a new car. Honest review from me. It drove nicely, had decent power for the era. There were some recalls and driveability concerns that GM addressed. But the drivetrain was very solid with no common failures.
My honest review after owning 4. Decent power, even with an auto. Good looks, reliable. Very comfortable seats. Interior material quality was abysmal. I think Playskool had better quality over their plastics.
I was loaned a Beretta car for awhile.
I was surprised by the power.
The rear suspension had collapsed giving it massive negative camber.
I could not break the rear tires loose.
However it wore out rear tires really fast!
That limited driving. I spent a lot of time buying up sets of tires from salvage yards.
Stunning cornering though.
Yes! The ubiquitous 3.1 V6 was GM’s tried and true workhorse. They used it in everything they could and for good reason!
We had a Corsica when I was growing up. Dark grey with red interior. There were 7 of us so it was always double buckled for us
Seven in a Beretta?
Impressive!
Yea we had the Corsica so it had the front bench too
In the ‘80s near here was a woman named Sony, and she opened an eatery at the mall called Sony (maybe Sony’s) and… Sony (the electronics giant) made he give up the name
I think if GM really wanted to cash in on Beretta reputation for quality they should have used that name on a pickup or off road 4×4 instead of a tarted up economy car. Buyers of pickups or 4x4s are much more likely to make that association.
Or they could have gone all in, Royal Einfield style:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=royal+enfield+built+like+a+gun&ia=images&iax=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fimages-na.ssl-images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51X0i6AdyQL.jpg
The Beretta was a piece of crap
A HS buddy of mine had one. I think it was a 2.2L 3A. I thought it was a good looking, reasonably comfortable car to ride in but I never drove it so I can’t comment on that.
My first car was a 2.2 1992 base model Beretta. I loved it but I’d have kept it longer if it had the 3.1 because that 2.2 was a bit underpowered for that size car.
My grandpa got it for me for $1,250 in July 2005 with 71,400 miles. An old lady special that smelled like cigarettes. I adored it.
Bought a 90 Beretta GT new (3.1L with automatic) and then put 240,000 trouble free miles on it over the next 7 years with nothing but oil and tire changes. It was an amazing car.
The larger majority of new carry permits are women.
Overwhelmingly, women with intro level training outshoot men in firearm combat situations. This evens out as men get more training.
There is a collection of defense events under the title Armed Citizen.
Very educational
Not sure what that has to do with this but OK.
It’s not well known, but accepted as conclusively accurate.
There are different theories, like finer motor control for women.
This may apply to other skills, like racing, where results are not as dramatically obvious.
Again not seeing the relevance here.
That POS was $45k in today’s money and bought when rates were higher and loan terms were shorter. Another example of how cars are not too expensive today, it’s all the other things that are too expensive.
Counterpoint: Todays cars are expensive but a Beretta was WAY more expensive.
I met Mr Beretta in the governor’s office in Tennessee.
He was there to announce they were moving manufacturing to a free state.
He was having a good day, and was exceptionally cordial and pleasant.
Very friendly.
For those unaware, firearms are one of very few products always expected to function as designed 100% of the time.
Cars don’t even register on a list like that, for reliability.
For those unaware, firearms are the second leading cause of death for children after auto accidents. Also, their manufacturers need a special legal carve-out so they don’t need to worry about the same product liability standards that apply to almost every other business.
I guess Mr. Beretta was having a good day because he loves the idea that he can make money and doesn’t need to worry about being sued by the families of dead kids. Classy.
I don’t buy any of that propaganda for a second.
There have been a few well known cases of faulty designs, usually with shotguns.
One of those issues was so quirky it took years to identify.
Most issues with children and firearms are caused by negligent parents failing to teach safety.
Most schools no longer teach firearms safety, and interestingly, driver safety.
The appropriate comparison between vehicles and arms could only be artillery and bombs, not light arms.
If you feel firearms are unsafe, feel free to protect yourself and others from wild animals and violent criminals with wishful thinking.
It’s very popular some places.
It is always interesting how ammosexuals like yourself, are the ones who spend their entire lives afraid of everything. Without a life based on fear you can’t justify the desire for the tools needed to support the fantasies you have about killing people. Folks who are always happy to step over the bodies of dead kids to get to their faux-patriot props. Truly vile and pathetic people all around.
BTW, the law I was refering to is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. But since your existence depends on being 99% ignorate of the world around you I doubt you care. But I am glad you got to meet a guy making a buck off of dead kids. Sounds like your type of dude.
Why don’t you go back to the Daily Stormer to try to pick up some more life tips.
Bigots and fascists like you who adamantly reject the Constitution and democracy are the more serious problem in this country.
You are literally America’s Nazis.
Sorry you hate human rights, and obviously other people.
Look, I know it must be hard to get through life with an education provided by the Daughters of the Confederacy, especially when your family tree looks like a telephone pole. But here is the thing. You haven’t said anything that would counter the only statistic mentioned. You haven’t done that because it is accurate. But, because you are such a coward, you feel a need to be armed to protect yourself from brown bears and people at all times, you need to justify thousands of dead kids. Now I’m sure that, since in your social circles the stars and bars are perfectly acceptable, the fact that you’re a sociopath goes largely unnoticed.
As far as the rest of your non-sequiturs are concerned it is funny that somebody who supports a rapist that is currently laughing as he wipes his ass with the constitution and you lick his taint. Not that the constitution was ever more than a fig leaf to defend racism for your crowd, but just keep in mind that even that leaf has been dropped. Any vestige of credibility your patriotism had is long gone. The fact that your preferred political persuasion is indistinguishable from the Patriot Front, David Duke, and folks who wear 6MWNE shirts while physically assaulting the democratic process, there wasn’t much credibility left anyway.
BTW, why don’t you honor us with the reason you support the administration and their anti-trans policies? I’m sure you have the courage to do so in public, right?
Now, get back into your bunker and cower with your guns. You never know when a tiger or a person who speaks Spanish might wander by.
Fascists like you are why liberals like me exited the toxic democratic party by the millions.
My politics haven’t changed since I was “too left wing” for the formal democratic party platform.
I have been a strict democratic party voter until people like you made it clear the party no longer actually represented anything they claimed.
A much better question is why did the Democratic party CHOOSE to elect the gop, alienate most citizens in USA, and throw away abortion rights and potentially rights of gay, trans and low income people?
Cult followers like you make ethical people ashamed to be associated with the democratic party in ANY way.
I pay attention to what politicians actually do. I laughed when Trump said he was running. Then I watched the daily criminal activity of Clinton and Obama (ashamed I voted for him twice) and the Bidenistas and cult followers like you.
Then I stopped laughing.
You and those like you elected Trump by your own choice, and likely the next few gop presidents.
So, thank you for your service.
Under none of your fing business, one of my best friends is s American and entered as a border criminal, is now a citizen and voted for Trump. I spend fair amount of time at events with gay and trans people.
I trained wahhabi Muslims in secret service level close protection tactics.
We got along fine. I’ve lobbied for support of The Arc, which is how I met Mr Beretta.
I was offered local leadership of Acorn twice and I’m trained in 60s protest protocols, ie always legal. And I’m moderator on an international website, often contentious in comments.
Chris Rock said,
“The first amendment is first for a reason.
That’s why it’s first.
The second?
Just in case the first doesn’t work out”
All hot air as you sit and watch the Constitution get flushed away while justifying your false equivalencies.
I had voted in every election for over thirty years while never voting for anyone coming in first or second place. Typically, fairly libertarian minded folks, because I knew that the single biggest threat to the country was that eventually Americans would elect a monster.
It was obvious from the start that Trump was a fascist, that his rhetoric was a perfect parallel of David Duke and all the centuries of white supremacists planting a false picture of patriotism, including the fetishization of violence and firearms.
So, as Trump sells pardons for hundreds of millions, takes massive bribes from foreign governments, discusses eliminating habeas corpus, eliminates human rights, and citizenship rights from trans people, you sit and make excuses. Because pathetic people like you always need to blame somebody else. But make no mistake, you wanted it, you got it. The idea that you spend time at events with trans people is a counter to the fact that you support making them second-class citizens is laughable. Do you have “a black friend” to prove you aren’t a racist despite siding with David Duke and championing his policies? Because there is the rub, you do support the racist, bigotted policies, you just are too much a coward to admit it so need to hold up a few human shields and hide.
Just a month ago, while near the border in west Texas on a project, one of the local contractors said he was looking forward to using his AR on the coming Mexican roundups. He hoped it would end up like the helicopter hog hunts he had been on. He might have been a bit surprised when he learned he had been fired from a $10m contract the next day. He didn’t think open racism was a problem because people like you have made that type of belief mainstream.
The idea that whatever the alternative to Trump’s clear, obviously criminal fascism is an excuse for supporting Trump is pathetic. If you didn’t know what he was by the end of the first four years, you are an idiot. If you voted for him anyway, you are a fascist. He wasn’t shy about stating his policies and cribbing from Duke and others. Yet, you and the other vile people like you have always been fascist; you just needed an excuse. Clintons, Obama, laptop, pizzagate, on and on and on. All of this is why your pseudo-patriotism about the 2A is obviously bluster. The 2A is just the way you justify your fetish for firearms. When the time came, you didn’t just sit by and watch the country get taken over by a fascist; you cheered it on.
It is also telling that despite your flood of excuses for why you support the new fascist oligarchy and their racist, homophobic, and anti-trans policies (and why everything is everyone else’s fault since they MADE you do it) that you still have failed in to support your original claim about firearms killing children. Because, like everything else about your resume, you don’t care. You need guns to feel safe, and dead kids are just fine by you.
You have never taken one safe breath of air that wasn’t provided for you by those willing to step up and protect you.
This has not changed, your cognitive dissonance, bigotry and racism notwithstanding.
Rights to control your personal security and access to arms is a human right that no legitimate government may restrict.
All other rights vanish without it.
The Second merely recognizes that human right all people everywhere are born with, a natural right.
You have obviously never thought about this.
Consider that the right to abortion, the right to be gay, even your right to be willfully ignorant, the right to make any self determination in your life, derives from the same explicit rights that gives actual citizens a right to arms.
You can’t support any personal rights without supporting personal defense and self determination.
Similarly, you cannot advocate abortion restrictions and support defense.
It’s all part of the same thing.
States and countries with laws impeding human rights are not legitimate.
So again, you have nothing on the original point or any reason for supporting the current administration’s racist, homophobic, and trans phobic policies. Just your fetish for violence that trumps all. You need to avoid those things because they make it obvious what a vile person you are and that you care nothing about human rights. After all, your idea of a free state is one where some folks aren’t allowed to use pubic restrooms. You are truly a moron. One that makes a whole lot of excuses as to why they are never responsible for anything. It is always somebody else’s fault. Truly pathetic.
What is especially pathetic about cowards like you is how you can vomit that entire self-serving line of B.S. while supporting an administration that has openly stated its disdain for the rule of law and the Constitution. You aren’t a freedom fighter despite your cosplay; you are the boot-licking brown shirt fantasizing about rounding up the people you don’t like at gunpoint. Authoritarianism is rarely imposed by an outside force; it is almost always implemented by extremist nationalists like yourself.
As I mentioned earlier, return to your job moderating The Daily Stormer, where your point of view is considered reasonable. Just remember, when the actual threat to freedom appeared, you did nothing to oppose it, you swore to help it, gun and all.
It is really because kids don’t die young. They never post how many die under 10. Just scam artists using statistics to fake results
Well that is because children are unlikely to die from any disease because they live until they die. It is said statistics prove lies. On fact 25% of traffic accidents are caused by drunk drivers. So 75% are caused by sober drivers. So according to your decision people should drive drunk.
Analysing statistics is so important these days, it should be basic science taught from day one.
Interestingly, I received my best instruction on statistics from an expert in the field, taking a fantastic political intern course created by both parties in the state.
Your conclusion works only if 25% or more drivers drive drunk. Alleged statistics claim 3% are impaired at any time. 3% of drivers who are the impaired are causing 25% of accidents. Sounds like they are doing more than their share.
What is the rate per mile for auto accidents? Since you are too stupid to recognise meaningful statistics, you assume they are all black magic.
So, you are saying that since kids don’t often die from heart disease, dying due to traumatic gunshot wounds should be expected. Were your parents aware that they raised a sociopath?
I appreciate that you aren’t bright enough to understand when you are making a fool of yourself. The only value you bring to the universe is that of an example of how idiotic and vile everyone with your belief system is. Keep posting stuff. It’s informative.
Do you not expect other things you purchase to function as designed every time you use them?
I expect it.
I rarely get it.
GM famously said no one expects a car to last more than 50,000 miles.
Cars are also always expected to function as designed 100% of the time. When brakes or steering fail people die.
But they DO fail. As do guns:
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/06/08/3000-army-rifles-have-failed-a-crucial-safety-test-and-thousands-more-still-need-to-be-tested/
https://gunsamerica.com/digest/remington-in-trouble-again-court-filing-claims-repaired-model-700-triggers-still-malfunctioning/
I have two antique guns, both all original parts, neither has ever failed in any respect.
Some gun failures can result in lawsuits and criminal charges, even for owners uninvolved in the issues.
I own a Kalashnikov because it is the most reliable rifle ever built as an autoloader.
A Kalashnikov was found in Syria that could be traced to Iran in the 70s.
This firearm was exposed to sand and dust and appears to have never been cleaned or lubricated, or maintained in any way.
It is still fully functional.
I trained with M4s.
We cleaned those at least once a day.
Personally, I would like to see car parts quality treated seriously.
Suspension and steering failures can be instantly catastrophic. I am even looking at active steering stabilizers designed for such events.
I spend more time shopping for quality parts than I do installing them.
I once had an abrupt lower ball joint collapse, a. commonly fatal event.
The larger tires I had mounted were too large to come out under the body, so the car dropped on top of the tire.
Car slid to an instant stop, but no injuries.
Recent purchase, car had dry ball joints somehow.
I blocked the entrance to an international airport for a half hour. They were not amused.
Everything fails eventually. Even the sun will eventually fail to shine. The best you can do is prolong the failure with regular maintainence, quality consumables and light useage.
Unreliable weapons designed for defensive use typically get sued and are forced out of business.
The ATF can turn off their sales overnight if they choose, since no due process interferes.
Word of mouth is usually corporate death.
Financial services have blocked use by firearms companies using racketeering tactics.
I hope Trump shuts the guilty ones down.
Will we ever see deadly quality car companies treated the way legit firearm companies and customers have been?
FYI I’m told Hipoint makes safe if crude handguns and at a low price point.
Considering most gun bans rely on inflating prices with illegal tactics, they serve a purpose.
I know people that have to carry, but need to visit armed robber friendly areas that ban carrying into stores.
Criminals call those parking lots “gun shops” for a reason, so they change to Hipoints after having several glocks stolen.
Response to this government failure is an attempt to criminally prosecute victims of gun theft.
Let me guess
Everyone that has a gun stolen refuses to report it after that?
I doubt the manufacturers of Saturday night specials are too worried about being sued since the other moniker for those junk guns is “suicide special”. Nor do I think their other clientele are very likely to show up in court either.
Saturday night special was yet another anti firearm scam to drive up costs and restrict guns, long exposed lie, but there are so. many of them.
I wouldn’t own a Hipoints, but I’m told they are overbuilt and very reliable.
They weigh as much as an all steel 40s era handgun though.
There have been some guns that wear out quickly compared to better firearms.
At some point, you get what you pay for, moreso with some brands than others.
You can get an imported shotgun close to $100, and it’s well worth it.
Mine is all USA manufactured, built to police and military standards with a heavy defensive barrel, multiple safeties, dual trigger action and a 20 round magazine
Will I ever need to order discontinued parts from Asia or turkey? No
Changed from a 357 Glock to Steyr mannlicher handguns.
Match grade quality, easily tuned.
Some people have fired thousands of rounds before replacing the barrel.
Relative bargain for the quality.
I could pay more and get less.
So the shooting of Reagan, Brady and two others with a Rohm 14 Saturday night special was just a yet another anti firearm scam to drive up costs and restrict guns?
The term “Saturday Night Special” is yet another con to fool the gullible, and well known at this point.
Shooting at presidents should be illegal, and probably is.
That was a massive failure by the secret service
.They currently employ a two part strategy called PSD and CAT.
You can see it employed by Karzai’s security on video.
The term “Saturday night special” is just a moniker for a cheap, small caliber firearm like these:
https://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/pistols/antique-pistols—cartridge/saturday-night-specials.cfm?gun_id=101958079
https://madisonguns.com/premium-saturday-night-special-pistol-10-flat-rate-shipping-1/
https://gunmagwarehouse.com/blog/rohm-rg10-ramen-noodle-revolver/
“Yet another con to fool the gullible”
It’s called “marketing”.
If unions hadn’t blocked cars from being built in non union areas the Asian market would not have succeeded so well
Ford offered such low pay at their new superplant in Tennessee that they had to increase base pay by 50 percent to get enough interest.
Commute is long and application process is arcane, but their pay offer didn’t match local unskilled jobs.
I tend to think us car companies threw away their advantages, same as companies commonly do today.
It probably didn’t help when Chevy started calling the pistons cartridges.
Given the GM build quality of the time, Beretta’s stated reasoning that their reputation could be damaged held more water than an Olympic pool.
You don’t hear gun manufacturers clamoring for the day they can finally get past trademark to release the Chevette pistol and inherit its associated goodwill.
I would totally buy a Hi-Point Chevette. No way MSRP is more than fifty bucks.
At least owning a Chevette allowed you to tell people you owned a Vette.
I wouldn’t put anything past Hi-Point after they sold a model called the Yeet Cannon.
That’s why you don’t run a contest to let the public name your product. It’s not like Boaty McBoatface hadn’t warned them.
I am suprised that the article didn’t include an example of the “GM acknowledged the gun manufacturer in its documentation”, I would be interested in how GM included this acknowledgement.
It was a little statement that “Beretta” is used with permission of the (full name) Beretta company.
On the back of brochures or in a bottom corner of ads.
See the bottom of Page 16: https://www.auto-brochures.com/makes/Chevrolet/Beretta/Chevrolet_US%20Beretta_1994.pdf
Perhaps they should have named it Biretta, which is a cardinals hat.
“If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime”
“And dat’s da name of dat tune.”
My dad had a pre-production ‘88 beretta GT demo – 14” rims, 5spd, red velour interior. Fifteen years, 290,000 miles, one clutch, one throwout bearing later he got sick of looking at it and sold it to the narcoleptic paperboy. NP put another 100k on it – still didn’t burn oil, still got 39mpg – before he had an episode and met a dump truck in an inappropriate way.
Not a great car, but a really, really good, cheap, reliable car.
Now I desperately want to hear more about the narcoleptic paperboy.
I’m going to say that there is a better than zero chance those two guns are worth more than the car today
Yeah GM definitely got the better end of the deal on this one.
Pretty sure that was true in 1987 too.
It’s a near-certainty of that being the case.
All that effort put into naming new models, and people still come up with stuff like “bz4x.”
Precisely because names are too much effort. Alphanumerics are the lazy way out.
The funny thing there is that so many of those manufacturers still feel the need to change those alphanumeric formats every couple generations or so.
Owned a (Chevy) Beretta in the 90s and still fondly remember it. It ended up being positioned (in reality, not GM’s fantasies) as a sorta uplevel sport coupe if the Cavalier or Sunbird was too coarse for your tastes. She was fun to drive, handled well for what she was, and I’ll always remember how the seats were of shockingly high quality for something at that level.
IIRC, part of GM’s lame legal defense was that it derived that name from its use of “Berlinetta” as a Camaro trim level. Nice try, but not exactly the Cobra defense that Ford used to battle Carroll Shelby to a draw.
If memory serves, the German Mustang trademark was for lawn mowers. (That assumes the article I read was accurate, and complete – industrial machinery would definitely cover lawn mowers.)
As for the lawsuit, Beretta S.P.A. was right to sue. GM leveraged the Beretta name to market the car – even though most people (especially back then) had no idea what Beretta was, enough people did that it caused the story to go whatever the ’80s version of “viral” was. GM got a ton of free marketing out of the deal.
And, dare I say, the cars weren’t of the same caliber (apologies to Dodge) as the guns.
I’m a fan of Beretta firearms, and despite my general dislike for GM products, I’ve always had a soft spot for the Chevy Beretta as well, but somehow this was all new information for me.
I wonder what the Italians did with that Beretta?
Maybe placed it in a museum as a warning from history?
Melted it down to make more guns.
One can hope!
Can confirm it’s still around. It’s in the US.
If Ford had chosen their back-pocket “option #2” of building a FWD Mustang (which essentially went on to be the Ford Probe), the Beretta absolutely would have been a direct Mustang competitor.
Now just imagine one of the Bishop’s alternate futures, where the Beretta and a FWD Mustang squared off in market competition — and what that might have brought to car enthusiasts on both sides. Fun food for thought.
Always nice to see mid-to-late 80s and early 90s GM cars getting some love. GM was determined to haul themselves out of the Malaise Era and their initial early-80s missteps, and put out a whole range of car-of-the-future-now designs. Unfortunately for many buyers, the full experience was often costly to buy in the upmarket trims, or limited in output by margin-conscious management. So buyers and onlookers tended to see more of the lowest-common-denominator models roll off the lot with boring, droning Iron Duke power, substandard tires, and bland trim. Because GM management. *Sigh*.
I’ve always liked most of GM’s styling from that era. Aero shapes, but generally with some nicely sculpted edges. The first-generation Taurus was attractive, but it and everything else Ford designed seemed to get blander with time. The 1983-85 T-bird and the Merkur XR4Ti(Sierra) were some of Ford’s best head-turners in the US in the early 80s. After that, they started to slide too far into the droopy melted-bar-of-soap look. Or half-hearted rounded boxes like the Tempo/Topaz.
Ford seems to alternate between “edgy” and “good neighbor” with its designs. The first gen of whatever is often striking, but then that gets toned down in the second/the refresh. If the vehicle makes it to the third gen, it often gets head-turning (or at least more spicy) design again. Wash rinse repeat until the model gets waxed.
I think you’re on to something here. I’ve felt that way about numerous Ford models over the years, but I thought it was just me.
It’s usually something grossly wrong with the nose. Whoever did the current Explorer really blew it. That sloped grill really doesn’t fit the vehicle.
I remember in the late 90s every barretta I saw was already mostly made of rust to a degree that they stood out as rusty to me even against their contemporaries. The one preserved in a museum may have only escaped a rusty fate by being in climate control.
By the late 90s and early 2000s, it seemed like every GM car model from the previous mid-80s to early-90s generations were getting scruffy.
My experience from owning one was that supplies of model-specific parts were getting spotty. Plus there were numerous running changes over those years to add complexity. For all but generic parts used all the way into current models, GM was leaning into the “after 10 years for a model, they don’t have to provide parts support” practice. And they certainly weren’t encouraging the aftermarket suppliers to take up the slack.
My impression was the newest iteration of GM management wanted those cars off the road. They wanted buyers to ditch what should have been perfectly repairable cars and get into… the poorer-quality offerings GM was foisting onto the market by then. Yet they were killing Saturn and Oldsmobile. Pontiac was getting pushed out to pasture. The Beretta was gone, the Corsica replaced by increasingly inferior Malibu models, culminating in the Vectra-based version that virtually no one liked. The FWD Impala was getting little love and was increasingly pushed into fleet sales. Buick was starting to be propped up mainly to grow its brand for export to China. Cadillac was squarely in the midst of an identity crisis. They settled on decent, moneymaking trucks and SUVs. And built up the
tarted-up Chevy TahoeEscalade’s identity and market share. Not GM’s finest hour.In 1962, GM sold half of the cars sold in the US. One of every two. 50% market share. They’ve been mismanaging things to a fairly steady downward trend line ever since, to the point where now they’re at about 16.whatever% market share (roughly one of every six) and still trending down.
GM hasn’t had a fine decade in over half a century.
They also got more competition. In 1962, there were barely any imports into the U.S. market. Toyota barely existed in the U.S. Honda didn’t sell any cars in the U.S. for another 7 years. VW had only been here since 1955 and what did they sell? The Beetle, Karmann Ghia, and van?
Yes, in the 70’s, 80’s, GM (and Ford and Chrysler) left the gate wide open for the competition to come in and grab their market share, but in 1962 it was basically Big Three or nothing and GM – with Chevy, Olds, Pontiac, Cadillac, GMC dominated.
They got that competition because they weren’t building what many consumers wanted, and counted on little more than nationalism and arrogance to guide their product development decisions.
At least that’s my conclusion from the peanut gallery.
The harder it is to sell your current car, the less likely you are to EVER buy another one of that brand.
Perhaps someone should let car companies know?
As a high school student in the late 90’s, there were plenty of Berettas and Corsicas in the student lot. A Beretta Z26 or GTU could have been a pretty cool car to have though.
With that said, it is no surprise many of them didn’t survive the 00’s when they get in the hands of the guys who put two Kicker 12″ subs in the back and little into regular maintenance.
By comparison it seems like way more EK Civics are still puttering around, even removing Si models from the mix. Just saw one today, nothing special, just apparently a daily driver for someone.
I forgot about them and haven’t seen any in decades. I do wonder how many barrettas had a trunk full of barrettas in the mid 90s. There was a batretta plant in southern Maryland lots of Chevy barrettas in southern Maryland too always thought that was amusing. It was the ultimate smib car.
I worked with a degenerate that asked me one day if I wanted to buy a Beretta and my first thought was, “I don’t want a gun from him.” He then clarified it was a car and I was even less inclined to buy a car from him.
There’s another very good reason for Beretta to go after GM for trademark infringement. If you don’t defend a trademark when it’s threatened, it can be viewed as abandoning the trademark. Another gun manufacturer could have started calling their guns Beretta, and while they most certainly would have been sued, had they just rolled over for GM they could have lost their case against the infringing gun.
That’s a great point! I wonder if that was the real reason why Beretta did this, because the public-facing explanation is sort of hilarious. Clearly, journalists of the ’80s thought so, too.
I think it’s the same reason that Jeep went so hard after Mahindra brought the Roxor. Which on the surface was pretty ridiculous.
Given how much shorter vertically the current Jeep grills are, that whole Mahindra suit was simply ridiculous.
I think they’d have done better welcoming the “classic” look of the old CJ, as it might have led to future Jeep sales. I really liked the original Roxor, but the new ones are ugly and not something I’m interested in, even though I’m now at a point where I could use that sort of vehicle.
Instead, I’m contemplating a Slate reservation. Great job, Stellantis.
I agree.
I won’t be first in line for a Slate, as I’m not much of an early adopter, but in 3-4 years when my daughter starts driving and I need another vehicle in the fleet, I am very into what they’ve shown.
IIRC, not too long before that, sometime in the mid or late 1980s, Rolls-Royce sued Ford/Lincoln because of how closely the Lincolns’ grilles back then resembled those of Rolls-Royce but the courts said that because they waited so long before suing (Lincoln started using that grille design circa 1977) Rolls-Royce no longer had a valid case. So it’s possible the Italian Beretta might have taken note of Rolls-Royce’s loss and decided to act pre-emptively.
Would have to look it up to determine whether my memory serves me right, though, but that’s how I always remembered it every time I saw one of those Lincolns on the road, especially when one was broken down on the side of the road, a surprisingly common sight, ha.
I guess the letter Beretta sent to GM warning them must have been a blank one.
Seems like Beretta’s lawyers had some real ammo against GM. They had no silencer during the court proceedings.
Beretta must’ve been real heated about this, like a. smoking gun (hot to the touch.)
I’m sure the automotive magazines of the time loved writing about this.
All I read is typical GM arrogance.
Couldn’t possibly have named it “Baretta” after the TV character who drove a blue ’66 Impala…
…much less “Corsica Coupe” tho, could they?
Always liked Corsica as a name. I enjoy when domestics try to impart that yur-o-pee-en flavor to their offerings. It’s silly but endearing.
My wife inherited a Corsica when she got her driver’s license at 16. She was almost 30 when she finally bought her first new car (’06 Mazda 3). She still talks about how great the Corsica was. And the 3 too. She bought that right before we met. It was great.
I rented a Corsica once. It had the dynamics of a bowl of Jello.
I don’t doubt that, but it was incredibly tough and reliable over the long haul for her. She drove it from age 16 to age 29 without a single breakdown or failure to start.
Mercury Milan VOGA represented a nod to American tradition: both a European location name and a fashion label trim.
To be fair to GM, who ever heard of this little Beretta company? Probably some little operation that just popped up overnight
I’m not a gun guy at all – but even I knew what a Beretta was back then.
I’m sure someone at Chevy saw the Berettas being used in “Scarface”, “Lethal Weapon”, and “Into The Night” and thought “Let’s name a car that”
The joke is that they’ve been in business since 1500 (as a forge/blacksmiths) and making firearms since 1526, and are a pretty enormous company, there’s absolutely no excuse for GM’s behavior
They wouldn’t have liked it if someone else started selling, like, portable TVs or something under the Chevrolet name, would have been in court faster than a Vega’s fenders could rot
Still six more years until Biggie Smalls told us how useful it was for getting the loot.