An overview of a vehicle lot is shown.

The Worst Cars Ever Made: Part 2 – The Geo Prizm

The Geo Prizm—and the Geo brand as a whole—has become little more than a minor footnote in automotive history. First debuting in 1989, General Motors’ compact sub-brand was conceived as a way of allowing the automaker to compete with the new wave of small, efficient compact and subcompact models emerging from Japan and South Korea. GM’s approach was simple: take an established model from one of these existing Asian brands, slap a Geo badge on it, and watch the money roll in—but that’s not exactly how it all went down.

By all estimates, the Geo Prizm should have been a heartwarming success story. After all, the car was based on the Toyota Corolla—one of the best-selling models of all time, with over 44 million units sold since it entered the market in 1968—but that wouldn’t be enough to save the ill-fated Prizm and the Geo brand at-large. By 1997, Geo was kaput after just eight years on the market.

GM is a bit notorious when it comes to axing sub-brands. That goes for relatively short-lived automotive experiments—such as Saturn, Geo, and Hummer—but also extends to some of the longest-running names in the industry, like Pontiac and Oldsmobile. Still, eight years is an embarrassingly short run for any brand, so what went wrong? We’ll explore all that and more as we dive into the history of the Geo Prizm and see if it deserves its reputation as one of the worst cars ever made…

A Little Teamwork

To understand the automotive experiment that was the Prizm—and the Geo brand as a whole—a little context can be helpful. It’s the early 1980s, and GM’s Fremont, California, assembly plant is in chaos. Plagued by worker unrest and dysfunctional management, the plant faces frequent strikes and closures. When the assembly line is up and running, things aren’t much better: employees were said to abuse both alcohol and cannabis while on the clock, and they weren’t above expressing their discontent with sophomoric hijinks that supposedly included stuffing the door panels with half-eaten food, soda bottles, and other detritus.

Whether these rumors are true or not, one thing is for sure: something was rotten in the state of California—but don’t take our word for it. “It was considered the worst workforce in the automobile industry in the United States,” said Bruce Lee, a union leader for United Auto’s western region in the 1980s. Fed up with the chronic unrest and struggling to meet the demand for the sort of small, fuel-efficient cars that came into vogue following the oil crisis of the 1970s, GM made a bold decision: it would shutter Fremont, retool the facility, and launch a new joint venture with Toyota.

These days, joint ventures are nothing new in the auto industry. Some of today’s most exciting models were produced as a collaboration between two existing brands—like the Toyota 86/Subaru BRZ, Mercedes SLR McLaren, and Toyota Supra MK5/BMW Z4—but back in the early ’80s, such models were still a rarity. A joint venture offers some unique advantages for both companies, allowing automakers to reduce development and production costs while increasing capacity and enabling the sort of skill-sharing and best practices that go a long way toward improving efficiency. Joint ventures also reduce the overall liability for each partner, making the approach an alluring option for all involved.

They say a camel is a horse designed by a committee. While bringing in too many stakeholders isn’t always the best idea for large-scale manufacturing, the GM/Toyota joint venture—known as New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI)—would be a boon for both the American and Japanese brands. With access to Toyota’s famously efficient Toyota Production System methodology, GM was able to level up its manufacturing process, reduce waste, and better compete with the new breed of small, efficient models emerging from the overseas market.

NUMMI workers—many of whom were the same GM employees fired from the plant in 1982—were invited to Toyota’s Takaoka plant in Japan, where they got the chance to experience the Toyota Production System up close. Inspired by Toyota’s egalitarian structure that saw more input from workers, a no-layoff policy, and other culture-improving changes, NUMMI workers left behind many of their bad habits from the plant’s GM days.

So, what did Toyota get out of the deal? Increased access to the American market, for one. The Fremont facility was Toyota’s first US manufacturing facility and allowed the Japanese company to learn some valuable lessons about operating on American soil. In particular, GM was able to guide Toyota in dealing with American workers and the United Auto Workers union, which was often a hurdle for foreign companies looking to establish a presence in the US. The California facility also allowed Toyota to sidestep new import tariffs, which was an important factor in maintaining profits and keeping the brand affordable to the average driver. This foray into the American market was an important step for Toyota, which had recently watched Japanese rival Honda find so much success with its first US manufacturing facility.

After two years of planning, retooling and training, the 1985 Chevy Nova would be the first NUMMI-produced model to hit the streets. The subcompact Nova would be joined by the Toyota Corolla in 1986, which would provide a unique opportunity to compare Toyota’s Japanese and US facilities. American workers were able to produce Corollas just as quickly, efficiently, and accurately as their Japanese counterparts, proving just how far the Fremont facility had come since its garbage-in-the-doors days. The Corolla would also set the stage for the emergence of the Geo Prizm, which would join the NUMMI lineup in 1990.

The Rise of Geo…

The Nova nameplate had been around since 1961, but the NUMMI-produced version shared little with its predecessor. Inspired by the Japanese-exclusive Toyota Sprinter—and essentially a Corolla in everything but name—the Nova would serve as a template for all NUMMI models to come. By rebadging successful Japanese models for the American market, NUMMI was able to take advantage of the inherent efficiencies of the joint-venture approach.

NUMMI was all set up for success, but there was one problem: buyers weren’t really interested in small, American-made cars. Japanese automakers like Toyota and Honda had gained an impressive reputation for value and quality among American drivers, but slapping a Chevy badge on a Corolla and calling it a Nova had made that reputation all but evaporate. The problem was a matter of marketing, not engineering, leading GM to launch an entirely new subcompact brand in 1989. In addition to the NUMMI-produced, Toyota-inspired models, GM also acquired a stake in Japanese auto brands Suzuki and Isuzu. This move gave GM a stable of small, efficient cars that could be rebadged for the American market—and the Geo brand was born.

Geo would kick things off in 1989 with a rebadged Suzuki Swift minicar dubbed the Geo Metro, a compact Suzuki-made trucklet known as the Geo Tracker, and the subcompact Geo Spectrum, which was just an Isuzu Gemini in disguise. The NUMMI-made Geo Prizm—previously the Chevy Nova—would join the lineup in 1990 alongside the Geo Storm, a sport coupe that hid an Isuzu Impulse behind its Geo badge.

In some ways, the birth of the Geo brand is a little confusing. GM already had plans for a dedicated small-car brand in Saturn, which would hit the market just three years later, making Geo look like little more than a stop-gap measure in the wider fight against subcompact/compact imports. Then, there was the dealership structure. A big part of the reason GM launched the Geo brand was to help distance the NUMMI-produced models from some recent and notable Chevy lemons, including the Corvair, Vega, and Citation, and a 1987 study showed that almost one-third of drivers were steering clear of domestic dealerships altogether. Why, then, GM thought it was a good idea to sell Geo models exclusively through its 4,900 Chevy dealerships is beyond the understanding of most experts.

This confounding move gets at a core truth in the Geo story: models like the Geo Prizm weren’t bad cars—they were badly marketed cars. Based on some of the most successful Japanese models on the market, Geo cars should have had every chance to succeed if not for some perplexing decisions on the part of the GM brass.

…And the Rapid Fall

Geo sales were anemic, to say the least, but was the Prizm really as bad as its reputation would suggest? Not in the least. A review of the 1996 model on was nothing short of glowing, describing the Prizm as “one of the best compact cars money can buy. It does everything well and looks good, too.” The first-generation’s base model put out around 102 hp thanks to its 1.4-liter four-cylinder engine, but those looking for a peppier ride could upgrade to the sportier GSi model, which boasted 130 hp as well as a sport suspension. The Prizm’s interior was rather sparse, but given the subcompact’s budget-oriented price, this didn’t exactly come as a surprise.

That’s not to say that the Prizm’s build quality was poor. Toyota’s manufacturing methods allowed NUMMI workers to create some of the most reliable, well-crafted models to ever roll out of the Fremont facility. The Prizm would get its first redesign in 1993, with Geo creating a more powerful, roomier version of the model that would bump its designation from subcompact to compact. A 1.8-liter engine gave the Geo a little more get-up-and-go, creating a well-balanced offering that was packed with value, but that wouldn’t be enough to save the doomed Prizm and the rest of the Geo lineup.

In the end, GM’s Geo problem could only be blamed on GM itself. In selling a direct competitor to its own compact Chevy Cavalier, GM essentially undercut the Prizm with its own homemade offering. The Cavalier didn’t just offer more power and interior space than the Prizm; it was also less expensive, with the ‘96 model starting at $12,700 compared to $14,300 for the Prizm. That’s not to say it was a better car—per, “The [Prizm] feels substantial, conveying the impression that it will last quite a long time. In contrast, the Cavalier feels somewhat cheap, flimsy, and unrefined.” Still, the backward pricing structure put the Prizm at a serious disadvantage and goes to show how disjointed GM’s execs were when it came to marketing the Geo brand.

The Prizm also struggled to match the reputation of the best-selling Corolla, which is a bit confounding considering that the two vehicles were essentially identical and often produced on the exact same assembly line. GM didn’t communicate this similarity clearly enough, leading drivers to prefer the famously reliable Corolla over its reskinned cousin, the Prizm.

Geo’s sales numbers speak for themselves. In eight years on the market, the brand managed to sell just 800,000 units. That means that each of GM’s 4,900 Chevy dealerships sold just 20 Geo models per year—a sobering statistic that goes a long way in explaining the brand’s failure. In the end, the Geo experiment didn’t end with a bang but a whimper. Following the 1997 model year, Geo was reabsorbed into the wider Chevy brand, which continued marketing Metro, Prizm, and Tracker models through the early 2000s, with the final one ceasing production in 2004.

The brand’s demise didn’t come as a surprise to many. In the end, Geos were simply doomed by their lack of innovation. Rebadging an existing model for the American market might seem like a savvy business move, but when you don’t make any changes that add value, increase power, or offer some sort of novelty, your persistently low sales can’t come as too much of a surprise. That said, slapping the “Worst Car Ever Made” designation on the Prizm isn’t exactly fair. The Prizm was a fine car—“one of the best,” if Edmunds is to be believed—but even sharing 98% of its DNA with the popular Corolla wasn’t enough to make up for some serious deficits in the Geo brand’s marketing.

In the end, the Geo Prizm stands as a prime example of a reliable, affordable, and well-rounded vehicle that just never found an audience. Whether that’s due to a flooded subcompact/compact market or a failure in management is largely a matter of opinion, but one thing’s for sure: we’d much rather be seen behind the wheel of a Geo Prizm than some of the other models that have been graced with the “Worst Car” status.