Abandoned History: Oldsmobile's Guidestar Navigation System and Other Cartography (Part VI)

Corey Lewis
by Corey Lewis

Sacrificing much, GM spent billions and billions of 1980s dollars on technology and engineering entities at the behest of CEO Roger Smith, who wanted to transform The General into a company more resembling a conglomerate like GE. Half a decade later Smith was gone, and the remaining brass began to unwind the costly EDS and Hughes deals and return GM to its standard operating procedure. But behind the layers of finance and paperwork, Guidestar GPS was developed. And the first time the public got to see it was in 1994 in a very exciting debut.


A daring aerodynamic shape, frameless windows, grandiose full-width heckblende, and in-dash Guidestar navigation were all present on the 1994 Oldsmobile Aurora show car. The show car was production ready, save for the Guidestar. The all-new navigation system entered testing in late 1994 and was put into production Oldsmobiles for the 1995 model year.


Guidestar was developed in conjunction with Oldsmobile engineers, the newly formed Delco Electronics (Hughes), and component supplier Zexel USA. The high-tech navigation relied on multiple hard disk cartridges rather than multiple map CDs. The system’s computer was located in the trunk of each vehicle, and received satellite information via a small antenna (unlike on the TravTek Toronados). 

Location information was more accurate than a few years prior, given increasing civilian and corporate access to military-grade GPS information. Information was presented to the driver via a four-inch color LCD screen, with seven different LCD keys used for inputs. No touch screen troubles here! 


The first Guidestar test models in late 1994 were implemented in the San Jose, California area, distributed once again through Avis rental outlets. Notably, the Avis partnership was not directly with GM this time but negotiated through Zexel. Guidestar was only implemented on the Eighty Eight sedan for preliminary testing. Though it was not the company’s flagship (that’d be the Ninety Eight), Eighty Eight was more popular than the stodgy Ninety Eight. Ninety Eight was also due to be phased out in favor of the upcoming flagship Aurora, a most needed product change. 


Guidestar testing ramped up in a second location, Florida, after San Jose testing received positive reviews. As a result, Oldsmobile declared it would offer Guidestar as an option on 1995 Eighty Eight sedans. At the time the system cost $2,000 ($4,085 adj.). It could technically be implemented into any Eighty Eight, because it was not in-dash.

Rather the Guidestar that entered production resided on a stalk mounted to the floor under the dash. The unit itself was removable to prevent theft, though it would’ve been useless without the proprietary GM onboard computer in the trunk, and the requisite satellite antenna. It was neither as clean looking nor as slick as the Aurora show car, but could be installed without major changes to the dash.


When it arrived, the Oldsmobile Eighty Eight became the first production car available in the United States with a GPS navigation system. The timeline is a little unclear, but shortly after its introduction on the Eighty Eight Oldsmobile expanded Guidestar’s availability to the more expensive LSS and Bravada. It was available on all three models for 1996. Guidestar was never made available in the flagship Aurora, likely because the dash design was finalized long before Guidestar was ready for production. Given Aurora’s center console layout, a floor mounted metal post was not an option. 

Competition in the in-car navigation space heated up after Oldsmobile’s lead. Acura followed with hard drive navigation in the 1996 3.5 RL, though that implementation was in-dash and looked much more polished than Guidestar on a stick. The following year, the 1997 Prius became available with more accurate differential GPS, installed in-dash. Both the RL and the Prius used touchscreens in their navigation systems.

Unlike its TravTek predecessor, Guidestar did not offer live traffic information. Specific address numbers could be input, rather than a general street name as on TravTek. Additionally, points of interest were included to help guide to tourist spots, hospitals, gas stations, and other useful places. And because the hard disk storage was removable, the system could (in theory) be updated easily with new information and map cartridges.


Said mapping was a downside with Guidestar, as there was data for only 17 states. Each map cartridge installed in the system cost an additional $400 ($817 adj.). It would also mean a visit and payment to your local Oldsmobile dealer if you wanted to use guidance in a part of the country not covered by your car’s current set of maps. 

In case you were curious, in 1996 Guidestar worked in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. Assuming you received your state complimentary from GM at purchase, you’d need just $6,400 ($13,074 adj.) to have a complete set of Guidestar maps.

A very novel idea at the time, Guidestar was technology consumers had never seen previously. This cringy clip shows an Eighty Eight with Guidestar navigating the tony Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills, and arriving at a suitably contemporary mansion. Unfortunately, the way Guidestar was launched, implemented, marketed, and priced assured it remained a novelty for the wealthy.


With a high price and lacking usability in cross-country journeys, it appealed primarily as a $5 per day rental car device, and to some real estate agents. By the latter half of 1996, only 2,000 Guidestar systems had been installed in Oldsmobiles. Of those, 1,000 were the units purchased by Avis. Can you find an Oldsmobile for sale with Guidestar intact? Let me know.

Oldsmobile’s advanced concepts manager Vic Ide (retired 1999) said he wanted the system’s price to be cut to under $1,000 ($1,988 adj.) to make it more appealing, and insisted it must offer real-time traffic information. Both of those were admirable goals, but the Oldsmobile-only scope of Guidestar meant production scale for cost cutting and dollars for development just weren’t there. By all accounts 1996 was the final year Guidestar was offered. 


GM would return with in-dash navigation on the Cadillac STS in 1998, but by that time there was steep competition as every other auto manufacturer offered in-dash GPS. Additionally, portable offerings like Garmin came to market and would continually undercut the cost of in-car navigation packages. But Oldsmobile was still the first, and may we always remember Guidestar (1995-1996).


[Images GM]


Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.

Corey Lewis
Corey Lewis

Interested in lots of cars and their various historical contexts. Started writing articles for TTAC in late 2016, when my first posts were QOTDs. From there I started a few new series like Rare Rides, Buy/Drive/Burn, Abandoned History, and most recently Rare Rides Icons. Operating from a home base in Cincinnati, Ohio, a relative auto journalist dead zone. Many of my articles are prompted by something I'll see on social media that sparks my interest and causes me to research. Finding articles and information from the early days of the internet and beyond that covers the little details lost to time: trim packages, color and wheel choices, interior fabrics. Beyond those, I'm fascinated by automotive industry experiments, both failures and successes. Lately I've taken an interest in AI, and generating "what if" type images for car models long dead. Reincarnating a modern Toyota Paseo, Lincoln Mark IX, or Isuzu Trooper through a text prompt is fun. Fun to post them on Twitter too, and watch people overreact. To that end, the social media I use most is Twitter, @CoreyLewis86. I also contribute pieces for Forbes Wheels and Forbes Home.

More by Corey Lewis

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 32 comments
  • Scrotie Scrotie on May 02, 2024

    about 4 years ago there was a 1992 oldsmobile toronado which was a travtech-avis pilot car that had the prototype nav system and had a big antenna on the back. it sold quick and id never seen another ever again. i think they wanted like 13500 for it which was steep for an early 90s gm car.

  • Bob Bob 21 hours ago

    Funny how Oldsmobile was offering a GPS system to help if you were lost, yet GM as a company was very lost. Not really sure that they are not still lost. They make hideous looking trucks, Cadillac is a crappy Chevy pretending to be fancy. To be honest, I would never step in a GM show room now or ever. Boring, cheap ugly and bad resale why bother. I get enough of GM when i rent on trips from airports. I have to say, does anybody at GM ever drive what everyone else drives? Do they ever then look at what crap they put out in style fit and finish? Come on, for real, do they? Cadillac updated slogan should be " sub standard of the 3rd world", or " almost as good as Tata motors". Enough said.

  • Stan Reither Jr. Part throttle efficiency was mentioned earlier in a postThis type of reciprocating engine opens the door to achieve(slightly) variable stroke which would provide variable mechanical compression ratio adjustments for high vacuum (light load) or boost(power) conditions IMO
  • Joe65688619 Keep in mind some of these suppliers are not just supplying parts, but assembled components (easy example is transmissions). But there are far more, and the more they are electronically connected and integrated with rest of the platform the more complex to design, engineer, and manufacture. Most contract manufacturers don't make a lot of money in the design and engineering space because their customers to that. Commodity components can be sourced anywhere, but there are only a handful of contract manufacturers (usually diversified companies that build all kinds of stuff for other brands) can engineer and build the more complex components, especially with electronics. Every single new car I've purchased in the last few years has had some sort of electronic component issue: Infinti (battery drain caused by software bug and poorly grounded wires), Acura (radio hiss, pops, burps, dash and infotainment screens occasionally throw errors and the ignition must be killed to reboot them, voice nav, whether using the car's system or CarPlay can't seem to make up its mind as to which speakers to use and how loud, even using the same app on the same trip - I almost jumped in my seat once), GMC drivetrain EMF causing a whine in the speakers that even when "off" that phased with engine RPM), Nissan (didn't have issues until 120K miles, but occassionally blew fuses for interior components - likely not a manufacturing defect other than a short developed somewhere, but on a high-mileage car that was mechanically sound was too expensive to fix (a lot of trial and error and tracing connections = labor costs). What I suspect will happen is that only the largest commodity suppliers that can really leverage their supply chain will remain, and for the more complex components (think bumper assemblies or the electronics for them supporting all kinds of sensors) will likley consolidate to a handful of manufacturers who may eventually specialize in what they produce. This is part of the reason why seemingly minor crashes cost so much - an auto brand does nst have the parts on hand to replace an integrated sensor , nor the expertice as they never built them, but bought them). And their suppliers, in attempt to cut costs, build them in way that is cheap to manufacture (not necessarily poorly bulit) but difficult to replace without swapping entire assemblies or units).I've love to see an article on repair costs and how those are impacting insurance rates. You almost need gap insurance now because of how quickly cars depreciate yet remain expensive to fix (orders more to originally build, in some cases). No way I would buy a CyberTruck - don't want one, but if I did, this would stop me. And it's not just EVs.
  • Joe65688619 I agree there should be more sedans, but recognize the trend. There's still a market for performance oriented-drivers. IMHO a low budget sedan will always be outsold by a low budget SUV. But a sports sedan, or a well executed mid-level sedan (the Accord and Camry) work. Smaller market for large sedans except I think for an older population. What I'm hoping to see is some consolidation across brands - the TLX for example is not selling well, but if it was offered only in the up-level configurations it would not be competing with it's Honda sibling. I know that makes the market smaller and niche, but that was the original purpose of the "luxury" brands - badge-engineering an existing platform at a relatively lower cost than a different car and sell it with a higher margin for buyers willing and able to pay for them. Also creates some "brand cachet." But smart buyers know that simple badging and slightly better interiors are usually not worth the cost. Put the innovative tech in the higher-end brands first, differentiate they drivetrain so it's "better" (the RDX sells well for Acura, same motor and tranmission, added turbo which makes a notable difference compared to the CRV). The sedan in many Western European countries is the "family car" as opposed to micro and compact crossovers (which still sell big, but can usually seat no more than a compact sedan).
  • Jonathan IMO the hatchback sedans like the Audi A5 Sportback, the Kia Stinger, and the already gone Buick Sportback are the answer to SUVs. The A5 and the AWD version of the Stinger being the better overall option IMO. I drive the A5, and love the depth and size of the trunk space as well as the low lift over. I've yet to find anything I need to carry that I can't, although I admit I don't carry things like drywall, building materials, etc. However, add in the fun to drive handling characteristics, there's almost no SUV that compares.
  • C-b65792653 I'm starting to wonder about Elon....again!!I see a parallel with Henry Ford who was the wealthiest industrialist at one time. Henry went off on a tangent with the peace ship for WWI, Ford TriMotor, invasive social engineering, etc. Once the economy went bad, the focus fell back to cars. Elon became one of the wealthiest industrialist in the 21st century. Then he went off with the space venture, boring holes in the ground venture, "X" (formerly Twitter), etc, etc, etc. Once Tesla hit a plateau and he realized his EVs were a commodity, he too is focused on his primary money making machine. Yet, I feel Elon is over reacting. Down sizing is the nature of the beast in the auto industry; you can't get around that. But hacking the Super Charger division is like cutting off your own leg. IIRC, GM and Ford were scheduled to sign on to the exclusive Tesla charging format. That would have doubled or tripled his charging opportunity. I wonder what those at the Renaissance Center and the Glass House are thinking now. As alluded to, there's blood in the water and other charging companies will fill the void. I believe other nations have standardized EV charging (EU & China). Elon had the chance to have his charging system as the default in North America. Now, he's dropped the ball. He's lost considerable influence on what the standardized format will eventually be. Tremendous opportunity lost. 🚗🚗🚗
Next