Why do you so desperately want to remember the Vega as being a wonderful automobile?
2 Likes
Câmon db, you can say it, I donât have a thin skin 
1 Like
This discussion about the Chevrolet Vega reminds me of Willy Loman in Arthur Millerâs play âDeath of a Salesmanâ. One minute Willy is bragging about how wonderful his 1928 Chevrolet is. The next minute Willy says that the government should prohibit the manufacturing of the car.
3 Likes
Please forget my comment . . . thatâs why I deleted it 
Triedaq, good you checked in⊠Could you enlighten Rick on the quality of the Ford Maverick suspension? As I recall you had some less than fond comments about the comfort.
1 Like
My 1st cousin who lived in a trailer park in the 1980s had a Ford Maverick
There was an engine bay fire and that was the end of the car 
Well, then I guess itâs a good thing I canât afford an oven, either. (Just kidding, but seriously, I am a big believer in keeping something until itâs used up.) So if this hypothetical 1971 Vega still ran well in 1985, then common sense would dictate to keep driving it until it has broken down, and cannot be repaired anymore.
My wife says its because I like to fantasize about the good old days. But I know the 1970s were not really that wonderful, every decade had its challenges.
I would be very upset if I bought a new Vega in 1971 and in late 1973 when the oil embargos hit, the engine in my Vega started to go bad. What good was a Vega if you couldnât depend on it. Its a little dissapointing to think you couldnât depend on your Vega.
Now if my Vega blew up in late 73 you know what id replace it with? A Mustang II. It was Lee Iacoccaâs little jewel. It was the right car for the right time.
The Mustang II was essentially a glorified Pinto.
@old_mopar_guy
As I have commented before, I once owned a 1971 Ford Maverick Grabber. I bought it as a used car in 1973. It had the 250 cubic inch 6 engine.
It didnât ride as well as the 1965 Rambler Classic it replaced. The Grabber had bucket seats which were comfortable for me. The 250 cubic inch 6 cylinder engine accelerated much better than the 199 cubic inch 6 in the Rambler it replaced.
I often joked the the Maverick rode like a wheelbarrow. It really wasnât that bad. It certainly rode better than the 1950 Chevrolet one ton pickup that I owned at the time.
The oil consumption was a quart every 300 miles with the Maverick until I had the valve stem seals replaced. The oil consumption was reduced to a quart every 1250 miles which was acceptable to me. I think the cost of replacing the valve stem seals was $50.
The Maverick did start readily in cold weather. It sat outdoors and I was able to start the engine on the first try when the temperature was 22 degrees below zero.
1 Like
Yes it was. But it was a Pinto that Lee Iacocca worked his magic on. The 64 Mustang was a glorified Falcon yet we love those and put them on a pedestal.
The Pinto was referred to Leeâs car. The Mustang II was referred to as Leeâs little jewel.
Iacocca was a visionary, everything he was involved in ended up being the right car at the right time.
People love to criticize Lee Iacocca, like the time he had the designers put the Rolls Royce grille on the Lincoln, but you know what, he was right. Now its an iconic look. He also snuck a similar grille onto some K car variants.
The K car was already under way when a unappreciative Henry Ford II fired Lee, what a stupid thing to do. It just shows Henry Ford II was a foolish drunkard and a blowhard.
But when Lee got to Chrysler he inserted a little Iacocca magic into the K car ensuring its runaway success. And I know someone will let me know the K car was the worst car ever made, blah blah blah. Well maybe it was a good car, maybe it wasnât but it was s huge sales success and ended up being one of the most versatile platforms of all time.
2 Likes
I donât know about the Vega, but our GM made it to much more than 100,000 miles. I learned to drive in, and then inherited, our familyâs 1971 Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser. It had an 350 âRocketâ V8. Dad had it rust proofed by Ziebart the very day after it was purchased. It was still running perfectly after 12 years and 150,000 miles. But It was killed in a deep ditch in a snowstorm which broke a rear spring, cracked the windshield and crushed the entire right side of the car.
My Dad had a fire engine red 1974 Mustang II notch-back with half the roof covered in white vinyl. A good looking car that WAS the right car for the time. Dad was an attorney in a very rural area whose clients were small town businesses and real estate investors in all directions. He could afford whatever he wanted, but he needed a car that got decent gas mileage. These were the days of gas lines, odd and even day licence plate gas buying and gas rationing. After a bad experience with a 1973 Mercury Capri he bought the Mustang II with the 2.3 liter 4 cyl engine and manual transmission. It was everything he wanted: comfortable, good handling and solid ride, good on gas, but not hugely powerful. It WAS a HUGE improvement over his previous three Fords, cars who really deserved the insult Fix Or Repair Daily:
-
A 6 banger 69 Mustang convertible that shimmied horribly at 55 MPH and above,
-
Fun and beautiful sky blue '71 Mustang V8 convertible that got only 8 MPG, and,
-
A really fun and fast '73 Mercury Capri (6 banger with manual tranny) that was totaled when it nearly killed my parents. The rear differential locked at 70 MPH.
Dad traded the Mustang 6 years and 125,000 miles later. It still looked good and everything still worked well. I liked driving the thing. It wasnât that powerful but the manual transmission gave it a little guts and it handled better than any other car I was able to get my hands on. I inherited momâs Vista Cruiser cause dad didnât think the little Mustang was that safe a car for my sister and I to train on.
Hereâs your chance to own one! F40 Motorsports has a 1976 Cosworth Vega for sale! Only asking $27,500.
3 Likes
So what? GM was the #1 world wide for decades. They havenât held that position for years. Currently at #6.
If cheap labor was the reason then the Yugo should be #1 now. Itâs NOT. Iâve had a lot of relatives (over 30) who worked for Chryco or GM or are still currently working for Chryco or GM at various positions in manufacturing. Including a Brother-in-law who was a Plant manager for Chryco in Detroit. You really donât know what youâre talking about.
You have no idea how the american auto industry works. If buying American is considered patriotic then why doesnât GM/Ford and Chryco buy American. Go to any automated automotive manufacturing plant in the US and youâll find robotics from Japan and Korea. Why did the big 3 ship many of their manufacturing jobs out of the US. Why does the Big 3 buy a lot of their steel and electronics from outside this country? I donât need a punk telling me Iâm NOT patriotic. I served my country as a combat Vietnam veteran. What service/war did you serve.
You really need to get educated. Sorry but WRONG again.
4 Likes
I personally owned a â62 Chevy II Nova and a 72â Vega GT and in comaprision to ANYTHING made today, both cars were awful.
At the time loved them both, including the unloved Maverick but frankly they were âlast ditch carsâ.
If you couldnât swing the $300-$500 for the handling of a an old MGA/Bugeye Sprite/Triumph Spitfire you were stuck with a '56 or 57 Chevy which has loads of enngine room. Wouldnât corner worth a damn but quick off the line.
The later Maverick and Chevy Nova were both a joke, lacking the power of the Mustangs, Camaros/Firebirds, Mach 1âs and AMC Javelins and the handling of the imports.
So you are saying that a non union assembly plant does not have lower costs (and provides lower quality of life for the worker) than a union assembly plant? When the big 3 complain about legacy costs and union benefit costs are they lying?
I making this statement from a 1971 prospective. Thank you for you service, I did not serve, Vietnam was over by the time I was 18 and by the time Desert storm started I was almost 30. There was nothing to get drafted to and I did not enlist.
Look at my statement and pretend its 1971.
Well look at the ancillaryâs from the heyday of GMâs engineering and manufacturing might, Everyone either knows someone who worked for GM or worked for some company that GM supported.
Never said that. Never implied that. GM/Ford and Chyco were building inferior vehicles (and in many cases still are). I donât buy the cheapest vehicle. My biggest criteria is reliability. Thus the reason weâve been buying Hondaâs, Nissans and Toyotaâs/Lexus since the 80âs. We average over 300k miles on our vehicles. Some have reached over 400k miles. Best I could do with any of the GM vehicles I owned was 120k miles. And since this is about the VegaâŠit was one of the least reliable vehicles ever made. Had absolutely nothing to do with labor union costs. It had everything to do with GM not building a reliable vehicle. GM, Ford and Chryco and pretty much out of trying to compete with Japan and Korea in cars (with the exception of vehicles like the Mustang and Corvette).
Yes they are. Decades ago GM was making record profits. All they had to do was take $2 billion from the profits one year to shore up the retirement accounts. They didnât. Instead they chose to give outlandish bonusses to their VPâs and higher. The big 3 are still extremely top heavy. The new GM president made a statement when she became president several years ago - âWeâre going to start making reliable vehiclesâ. START??? What does that tell you. Go watch the documentary âRoger and Me.â GM still hasnât learned itâs lesson.
3 Likes
This thread has been entertaining.
BUT
Donât some consumer grade mower engines and such use a similar technology with no iron liner?
1 Like
The technology WORKS. Itâs the manufacturing process that GM screwed up with. They were learning how to manufacture the engines while they were selling them.
1 Like