1996 Pontiac Grand Am SE review from North America

Water pump

mass airflow sensor

fuel pump

ignition module

radio light (inoperative)

remote rear view mirror bezel.

Best Features:

The power and gas mileage from the LD9 Twin Cam 4 cyl engine is exemplary. There's plenty of torque and I've averaged 24/35 MPG in city/highway driving, respectively.

Worst Features:

The engine itself is solid, but the peripheral parts suck. By peripheral parts, I mean things like alternators, water pumps, mass airflow sensors, and the like.

Summary:

My Grand Am (a.k.a. the Mulletmobile) has been a mixed bag. Since they depreciate rapidly and I bought the car used, it was very inexpensive to purchase ($10,000 for a car with only 12,000 miles).

The car handles decently, and is reasonably attractive. It has ample power and gets great gasoline mileage too. It also is reasonably roomy, both in the passenger compartment and in the trunk.

I think the car is basically mechanically sound, but there are some niggling problems with the peripheral parts. I have no idea why GM doesn't do something about them. Some are EASY to solve:

The water pump is a good example. It's very difficult and expensive to replace because of how it's driven by the engine and where it's at, and unfortunately, they are prone to failure after only about 30,000 miles. That is ridiculous.

The alternator and engine sensors are other examples. If the bugs with these parts were worked out, GM would have made an damn good car. Sadly, they didn't.

GM has a habit of introducing a good basic design without working out the bugs, alienating customers while they take their time in working them out, and then, after the bugs are almost all fixed, poopcanning the entire design in favor of another because of the (now undeserved) bad reputation. And then, the cycle starts anew.

The LD9 engine is a good example. What started as an interesting, technologically advanced engine with a lot of bugs (the Quad 4), was later dramatically improved with the LD9 Twin Cam. All they had to do was to fix a few additional bugs (the water pump, alternator and ignition module), and they'd have a reliable, economical, and powerful engine. But, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, they instead dropped the powerplant in favor of the Ecotec. I don’t get it.

To owners having trouble with the brakes/rotors, hear this: ceramic brake pads are your Nirvana.

And to those having trouble with their front end: Make sure your local quickie lube is lubing your chassis. Unlike most FWD cars, GAs have front end joints that require lubrication.

Anyway, I digress. The bottom line is that the GA is fundamentally decent reliable transportation with a little pizazz, and when purchased used, can be had very inexpensively. Just watch out for the peripheral parts.

The devil is in the details. If only GMs nose was in the same place, the GA would be a very nice little inexpensive car.