In 1971 (the Good Old Days??), Car & Driver did a comparison test of six of the small cars offered in the US market. Their rankings are probably not that surprising, in view of the fact that they didn’t/couldn’t take durability/reliability into account during their test. If they had been able to take durability/reliability into account, I think that their rankings would have been very different.
Overall, I think this article shows us just how far automotive technology has advanced over the last 50 years,
Well, in all fairness, the Vega did handle well (by 1971 standards) and it was also fairly peppy–for the time. As I implied earlier, they had no way of knowing that it would turn out to be a rolling disaster.
I owned 2 Vegas. They were a good-looking vehicle. Handled well. Decent power for its day. The problem was reliability. Premature engine failure. There were at least 5 different transmissions used and 3 of them had major problems. The body rusted out prematurely also.
What really frustrated me about it was that all these flaws could easily have been prevented. The fix for the engine was to steel-sleeve the cylinder walls. This made the engine extremely durable. The transmission I had was made by their Opel division and was very durable. The Siginaw version wasn’t so durable. The premature rust could have been greatly reduced with inner fender liners.
Yup!
When a magazine test-drives vehicles, they judge them on the obvious points, such as acceleration, braking, handling, build quality, etc. In the few days or weeks that they are driving those vehicles, they have no way of knowing about mechanical issues that would crop-up many months later.
I had a '72 Pinto. Fun as could be. Mine was a 2L German engine as opposed to the British 1.6L compared here. I’m sure my car would have beaten the Vega in a few categories. It had front discs unlike most cars of the day. I could drive all night for $3 worth of gas.
Your Pinto had the optional front disk brakes… the base 1600 had 4 wheel drums! Only the Pinto and the VW in the C/D test had 4 wheel drums, the others were disk/drum as standard.
1971 cars, adjusted for inflation were $13K to $15K… They were slower, handled worse, got poor mpgs and had rust holes appearing before the 36 month loan was paid off! All were pretty much scrap by the time they got to 100K miles.
Today’s bottom feeder cars are much better in every way. They may cost $21K to $24K, base price, but all are better equipped with AC and automatic transmissions. They are faster, safer, stop better, handle better, get better mpgs and will last 150 to 250K miles without the rust holes.
Ive always loved the Vega, I consider it a mini camaro. Whats funny to me is we are again using spray on cylinder liners with the same abmysmal results.
The Vega was the first car that Gm offered with standard front disc brakes, an odd choice considering it is not a preformance car. Perhaps the money wasted on front disc brakes could have better been spent on cylinder liners. History could have been changed.
They were sold at some Chrysler/Plymouth dealers, because Chrysler owned Simca at that point.
If you re-read the text regarding its crappy handling and braking and the fact that it was actually a gas hog (only 20 mpg, for what was essentially a 2-seater?) you might not think it was so odd.
From a Delco Moraine (GM’s old brake supplier) manager;
“Disk brakes cost the same as front drum brakes”
No money was wasted putting disk brakes on a Vega.
The Vega engine did great on the dyno durability test. Run it hard and things are OK. What killed the engine was the “granny cycle”. The sulfur in the gasoline becoming acidic from limited use and wrecking the cylinder walls
Let’s not forget about its other major engine issue. The cast iron heads expanded and contracted at a different rate than the aluminum block. This led to warped heads, head gasket problems, and overheating.
