Well most of the responses were “Vega was worst car evah!” Which it certainly wasn’t. It had its flaws but could of been a great car.
Imagine if they would have went with perfectly serviceable front drums and used the savings in other areas then the Vega story would have turned out differently. So basically the odd descision to go with front discs doomed the cega from the start. Remember the Maverick was set to cone in at 2k dollars and 2k pounds and had front drums and was a legendary car.
Actually, it ranks as one of the worst cars ever built. And it’s laughable that you’re bringing out your favorite topic to explain the many levels of failure present in the Vega. You didn’t ask what kind of car the Vega could have been (which was quite good, as many of us said), you asked what kind of car it was, which was terrible, even by the standards of the day.
I remember reading a study of this failure. The car came out with some innovative technology including state of the art rust proofing in its early designs. The problem was that the bean counters wanted the car cheapened in so many ways it was just a terrible car when it hit the market. The rust proofing was no more and the alumasil engine was done so cheap it didn’t work as promised. Others have done this correctly and it wasn’t a disaster.
I seem to remember that a lot of the problems were corrected and that it wasn’t a bad car in the last few years but the PR damage was done and sales never recovered. This car might not be remembered as such a lemon had it come out as originally designed.
The GM Diesels were another classic example of this. They were a disaster but didn’t have to be. They were rushed and too many corners were cut. Later models had many problems corrected so weren’t awful but the damage was done. Diesel passenger cars were tainted in the US for decades because of this disaster.
I concur. It had so MANY problems. Not just one, but several very very costly problems - Engine, tranny, rust, axle. Those problems could have been avoided…but they weren’t.
They fixed the tranny problem. But still had rust issues and Engine issues. They renamed it the Chevy Manza and put in a V-8 it’s second year of production.
The Engine issue was a design/manufacturing nightmare. Quote for GM engineer - " He said, “…We were trying to put a product into production and learning the technology simultaneously.” That’s just a disaster waiting to happen.
Why they didn’t go to a steel sleeve engine from the start really boggles the mind. Added weight was less then 20lbs and zero difference in the manufacturing process. Oh well.
Here’s another great link on the problems at GM that led to the Vega being in trouble even before it shipped:
Long, long time ago, the TV show, 60-Minutes, did an exposé on how cars mileage was set back; by using a bent coat hanger to flip the odometers wheels back, to replacing worn-out brake and gas petal rubber pads, to replacing the worn dials and buttons on the dash and radio, to fluffing carpets, to putting saw-dust in manual transmissions and rear ends to quite them down, and so much more…
The secret was that you had to be good (careful) to align the odometers number so they were not skewed, the brake and gas petals had to be scuffed so they did not appear new, the engine had to be detailed just enough to look clean but not so clean that it appeared like they were trying to hide something.
Just stop !
If you think about it, it’s hard to figure why auto companies do any kind of rust proofing at all, beyond just enough to keep the car safe enough to drive for 7 years or so. Rust proofing makes a car last longer, and the longer the car lasts, the longer the auto company execs have to wait until they can sell another car. It must be due to auto buyers readings reports from organizations like Consumer Reports, who study the robustness of new car designs.
I’m a proud Liberal, a firm believer in the value of Unions and the importance of Buying Domestic but as a former Vega owner, that car was a Cluster Flop.
On the plus side the body design of the GT Fastback was great right down to the Ferrari inspired tail lights. The 4 speed tranny was a joy, light to shift and solid, the handling was great, the interior was understated but classy and the fold down rear seats and the amount of space was really inovative. And for someone who prefered to “Buy American” it was an easy choice.
But then reality struck …
Watching that video painfully reminds me of my college days when faced with a choice between a “well paying and secure Union Job at the Steel Mill or GM” the Mom firmly put her foot down and said, “I’ll be damned if my son goes off to work at …”. And also for the kid there was a price to be paid, “Get out of here College Boy, you’re not one of us!”
In my town the Mills are gone, GM is gone but today there’s a huge unmet demand for skilled workers with a Community College and Engineering backgrounds to build and run the Chip factories and Auto plants.
Instead of arguing about pennies wouldn’t it make sense to subsidize the Community College and 4 year college education of kids in these necessary fields?
I was only about 6 or 7 years old at the time, so my memory might be a little hazy, but…
In 1976 or so Grandpa’s 66 Skylark was worn out and he wanted something economical to drive so he came home with a Monza Coupe, 4 cyl, 4 speed. He thought it was a fun little car, but not Grandma. So one day she says “I found a little money in my old sock, we’re going back to the Chevy dealer.” And they came home with a 74 Impala. Now Grandma never learned to drive, so Grandpa used the Monza to go to work, but had to drive the Impala whenever Grandma needed to go somewhere.
I remember Grandpa having to tinker with the Monza quite a lot, enough so that he bought a new Skylark in 1980 when the X-body cars came out. Out of the frying pan and into the fire…
Give me a break, Rick . . .
I’m 50
As I recall, you’re a few years younger than me
You weren’t in a position to buy a car in 1972
uh huh
Its a valid point! Look at all of the competitors back for 71, Maverick, Pinto, VW Bug, Dodge Dart and or Duster, ect…All of them had front drum brakes! Why did they try to make the Vega something it didn’t need to be?
If they would have saved on the front brakes and put the money into cylinder liners things would have been different.
The Chevy Vega had amazing wonderful superb front disc brakes yet everyone still says what a horrible car it was. So obviously all of the “superior” qualities of the disc brakes did nothing to make the Vega favorable in the history books.
So my point is valid.
As a great man (Tom) said, your opinions are “Non impediti ratione cogitationis: unencumbered by the thought process.” Nobody on God’s green earth EVER considered the Maverick a ‘legendary car’. It was cheap, had its roots in the '60 Falcon, and was nothing more than cheap transportation. Luckily it lacked the several major flaws of the Vega.
Lets see, The Maverick was one of the greatest cars of the 1970s, It was all things to all people, there was a Luxury Decor option, Police Package, Grabber, Sprint, and a Stallion Package.
You could get a miser that sipped fuel or a tire shredding version. It was the right car at the right time and it was a great car. If it was such a bad car why did ford bring the name back for the new Maverick pickups?
Is the VW Beetle a legendary car? It was a cheap car with roots from the 1930s. How prestigious does a car have to be before we can consider it legendary? So many people on here are so boujie its not funny. We are so disrespectful to the technologies and the machines that made this country what it is today.
Since you like being smart, why don’t you look up the definition of legendary and get back with me and tell me again the Maverick is not a legendary automobile.
I repeat, THE MAVERICK IS NOT A LEGENDARY AUTOMOBILE!
I drove them when they were new, my friend had a ‘Grabber’ V8, it was fine, nothing special in any way.
How many Vegas, Mavericks, Dusters, and Novas have you driven?
I have driven 0 Vegas, I owned 2 Mavericks, a 73 and a 74 with straight 6 engines and automatics, I have driven 1 Duster and 2 or 3 Novas.
The Mavericks were good cars, the 73 was very rusty which was to be expected at 20 years old, the 74 was a cremepuff, I wish I never got rid of it.
Is the Ford Taurus legendary? I believe it is. Back in 1970 the Maverick was new and exciting, and was a LEGENDARY car of the 1970s, The Mustang was based off the same Falcon, is the Mustang not a legendary car? Do tell,
if the Maverick was legendary, then ALL cars were legendary. Can’t have it that way.
The Mustang was based on the Falcon, but opened an entire new car category with looks and excitement. None of that applied to the Maverick. It was Ford’s budget attempt to compete in the compact car market.
The Taurus was revolutionary for Ford, stunning styling and function for the time. Again, nothing that applied to the Maverick.
Dude . . . 
I had 4 Vegas, 3 Dusters and 2 Pintos, they all had front disc brakes, only base models came with front drum brakes.
There was nothing pricy about Vega disc brakes, they had unvented rotors, only 1/2" in thickness. With drum brakes on the way out, it would have cost more to engineer both drum and disc as optional.
Maverick, Mustang, Dart and Duster were “acceptable” but no match compared to mid-size and full-size cars at that time. I have a Duster and my Dodge Stratus is much more pleasurable to drive.
