Actually I did like my Vega’s. They were stylish, fun to drive. They were how the most unreliable vehicle I ever owned. The Vega’s could have been made much more reliable with a litle more money.
My wife’s aunt bought a new Vega back in the day and the engine in it went south in about 10k miles. Once redone it was a pretty decent car (bland excluded…) and I seem to remember she kept it for another half dozen years or so.
There’s still a couple of Vegas motoring around here as I see them now and then along with 3 or 4 old Mavericks.
The early Pontiac Fieros were an abomination. The last of the breed, especially the GT, was not too bad.
The early/mid 70s Subaru wet sleeve engines were worse than the Vegas. At least with the Vega there was hope. With the Subarus failure was a given… 
The early/mid 70s Subaru wet sleeve engines were worse than the Vegas
I rebuilt my Vega with Steel sleeves. There was a machine shop in town that was specializing in it. But the vehicle still had transmission problems and axle problem…and in the North East - Major rust problems. Most the Vega’s that were bought and stayed here in the North East have long rusted away. The rust in the Vega was worse then the Japanese vehicles of the same era.
Those Subaru engines had steel cylinder liners. The problem with them is that they were not part of the block. Each cylinder rested on a copper gasket whose thickness determined the amount of cylinder protrusion above the block surface.
It was recommended that the head bolts be retorqued every 15k miles. Copper is a soft material so it usually wasn’t long before the liner protrusion was zero due to gasket crush; much like a penny on the railroad tracks. At some point after that the head gaskets would give up.
The little engines ran pretty well for their size; it was just keeping them going that was the problem. In many cases the lower end was lost because of engine oil dilution from coolant.
I don’t like Chryslers in general at all but the 2.7L takes the cake for a modern engine. This thing had so many defects working against it that most were toast by 100k.
The Ford 6.0L Powerstroke seemed to be nothing but problems. It can be fixed but it is pretty expensive.
The GM ignition switch problem is another. It was so minor and they did everything to cover it up.
@cwatkin: I’d certainly agree that the 2.7 wasn’t Mopar’s best effort. But the only real problem with it was oil sludging, which could be avoided by religiously changing the oil and/or using full-synthetic. I wouldn’t want to own one, but there are plenty of other engines that should be on the ‘wall of shame’.
Regarding ugly cars … don’t knock 'em if they are old. And don’t necessarily praise design features that make you put more time and attention into maintaining their “beauty.” Come to think of it, that kind of works with people, too.
Many years ago, our late-model BMW was stolen in Cambridge “Our Fair City” MA (the desk sergeant said we were #1455 for the year for that precinct alone – it was only late May – and #1456 walked in while we were there). The car was soon recovered. We strongly considered burglar alarms, ignition blockers, wheel locks, etc. for the Bimmer but concluded we’d still have to put up with Boston fender-benders, Boston’s creative car purloiners, Boston’s winter road salt, and Boston’s poorly maintained roads. Etcetera.
Our solution: We bought a ten year old Volvo (the dealer wasn’t quite sure of the exact year and we didn’t care) that looked like someone used it to practice Bondo work. It was painted several shades of grey, and the trunk was fastened with a bungee cord, but the structure and the engine were sound (we did check these out). It was, in short, the kind of car that not even a masochist would want to steal. It made an Aztek look glamorous. In short, it was t.h.e. perfect (or “poifeckt” if you are a local) Boston car.
We added a Porsche racing stripe, which brought smiles from many who saw it (except Porsche drivers) and a new fluorescent bungee cord for the trunk, and that was about all we ever did for it.
It was also one of the most enjoyable cars we’ve ever owned, and that includes a Porsche, the BMW, and two Benzes. We seldom locked the doors, never worried about the roads or the drivers or the car thieves or people opening their doors into it, and we just saved our brakes when we encountered all the potholes. The Volvo was relatively simple and reliable, and gave us the gift of Equanimity. There’s a reason wise people say cars are just cars. The old Volvo was plenty ugly, but not having to worry about wear and tear and theft is a blessing. I think that’s one reason Subarus and trucks (or Win 7 devices, or A-10’s) are so popular and appreciated – they are not terribly beautiful but they are efficient and often get the job done as well or better than their more glamorous (and delicate) brethren (or sisthren).
BTW the Volvo was accident-free but still looked ugly when we finally had to re-cycle it after I was assigned overseas. Yeah, there’s a place for cars you have to obsess over, but everyone should have at least one ugly car.
I think we can summarize that modern cars are great, but all those features have to be proven and reliable. Consumer Reports will not rate a new design since they have been burned in the past recommending a nice car (such as the 1986 Taurus), and find it full of flaws that had not been corrected yet.
Some modern items are a pain in the butt such as the I-Drive on BMWs. GM takes more time to correct faults than the life of a car model, so they are forever behind the 8 ball. The only manufacturer I would buy a first model from is Toyota, but I prefer the model in ins third year or so. My 2007 Toyota has yet to have repair because something broke prematurely.
"Lets not forget the Chrysler Engineering Marvel that was the 2.7L V-6"A used car dealer friend of mine told me he won't buy anything made by Chryco that has an engine with a displacement ending in .7. That includes the 2.7, 3.7, and 4.7 liter engines. I only have first hand experience with 4.7L engine, replacing two in Grand Cherokees with right at 100K miles. Those were early ones, and sure look like a Mercedes design with their aluminum camshaft covers. I think they have improved over the last 15 years or so.
Just my 2 cents, but I think the Chrysler 2.7 thing may be overblown and mostly because of a class action lawsuit and internet wildfires.
A short essay (more of a rant) a few years ago by a Chrysler service manager of almost 30 years stated the issue with the 2.7 was due to not changing the oil regularly enough; pure and simple.
He also stated that in all of the complaints about sludged engines (including other Chrysler engines) the customer would always state that:
They changed the oil regularly, religiously, on time every time, followed proper maintenance,…
He also stated that in discussions with the customers which led to questions about proof of maintenance that:
They can’t find them, lost them, did it themselves and have no records, the dog ate them…
I’ve seen sludged engines of just about every make of vehicle and the common denominator is oil changes not done often enough; and much like missing oil changes, records to back up claims to the contrary are also MIA…
Sorry but I’ve never owned an ugly car. Any car I owned that had rust also got the rust fixed and the paint polished and waxed. Just too much pride to drive a junker.
MG
I’m 99% certain the mopar 4.7 was not a Benz design, or even a derivative
however, the mopar pentastar v6 is almost certainly heavily inspired by the benz 272 v6
Although the pentastar came out later. I’m pretty sure there is no parts interchangeability, though
The Chrysler 2.7 had issues with the water pump leaking internally and an undersized PCV system that also contributed to its problems. I suspect some of the people I knew who had such terrible problems with this one might have overlooked these issues and not had them corrected. They all billowed clouds of blue smoke and then put a rod through the block. They were all good about changing the oil so I suspect some other issue was at hand. I know some people who have rebuilt these and said they aren’t that bad once rebuilt which doesn’t make sense. The main problem is finding one without a hole in the side.
As the proud owner of a 3.7.all I can say is,that the rebuild vendors claim they have fixed the shortcomings(almost impossible to modify too)
@MG,the theme from Jaws
I knew someone who had a Liberty with the 3.7L. I didn’t know them real well but they were having issues with the oil pressure light coming on at idle. I guess there was an issue with the oil pump or something on these engines. I remember looking it up at the time and it seemed pretty widespread for certain years of this engine.
And yet, Jeep had a stalwart performer in the 4.0 I6. Sometimes you need to know when to leave well enough alone!
Yeah, that 4.0L was excellent. I knew a guy who neglected it, never changed the oil, added oil when the low oil pressure light came on, and he got like 500k out of it before the rest fell apart from rust and such.
Now how does the 5.7L HEMI rate? Based on the suggestion to avoid Chrysler motors ending in a 7, this would fit. I don’t think it is terrible but have heard the connecting rods aren’t all that strong if you decide to tune it up for added performance. I also know a guy where one dropped a valve seat, leading to a chain of events that caused a catastrophic failure of the engine.
@cwatkin: Dropped valve seats were a problem on some 1st-gen hemis. (not real common, but enough to mention) I’ve never heard of any connecting rod problems. They do suffer from the famous “hemi tick” though, although it doesn’t seem to affect operation.
I believe the Hemi connecting rod issues are pretty much only if you mod the engine for more performance. I think the big complaint was that there isn’t much room for more power without tearing the engine down for major upgrades. Maybe this was only the 1st gen engines too. Look up “What Breaks On 2008 To 2011 Dodge’s” and you will find some info on this.