As a past owner of a 1972 Vega, I can say that “Worst” is relative and in the eye of the beholder, after all there was the AMC/Renault LeCar, practically anything made by Peugot or Simca and of course the legendary Yugo
The fastback hatch was a pretty nice body design, sporty handling, a nice stick shift and decent fuel economy so if you overlook the poor build/design quality with misaligned body panels and doors, a muffler that fell off in a week, plastic body panels that faded from orange to pink and started to rust in about a year and an engine that was worn out at 50,000 and couldn’t be rebored so I guess it wasn’t all bad. Just a simple matter of spending thousands of dollars replacing most of the drivetrain, welding in new body metal, replace most of the interior and you’ve got yourself a spiffy old Vega.
But back to this Aspen, having made my fair share of questionable youthful decisions and restorations/restomods, I’m reminded of the parental wisdom, “Son, just because you can do it doesn’t mean that you should do it”.
Haul it off to the recycler or bring in the backhoe for a decent burial.
I think MT naming the Vega COTY in 1971 wasn’t a bad choice, nobody knew of the problems to come. It was quite an advance for GM and a decent car for the first few miles.
I think that the Vega was just one more example of GM’s rushed development of new cars in the '70s & '80s. I agree that it looked good, and the people I knew who owned one also raved about its handling. If GM had just taken a bit more time to fully test the engine before finalizing that design, it would likely have been a winner. Even the rust problems could have been conquered with some redesign after it was brought to market.
Back in those days, GM’s SOP was to have their first and second year buyers perform the long-term durability/reliability testing for them. Usually (but not always… ) flawed GM designs would be vastly improved by the 3rd or 4th year of production, but by that time they had alienated tens of thousands of customers with their unreliable vehicles. And, a lot of their vastly improved vehicles wound up being taken off the market a year or so after the initial design problems had been remedied.
I’ll just say that my 74 Olds Cutlass was a great car. Smooth, quiet, comfortable, good power, not terrible on mpg, and you could drive it all day long without getting cramps. The biggest issue was the 350 trans that would only last about 150,000 miles. Then there was some sand blasting issues on the paint due to the body curves, but great car.
I had one of these. No rust issues - but I lived in Arizona at the time. The lean burn system was a constant issue. Mine had a 318 with a 4 barrel carb. Even the dealership in town couldn’t work on that thing. Transmission failed at around 30K. I always thought it was a nice looking car and it rode pretty
So after all the horror stories, he wants to know about restoration. Anything is possible, I suppose, depending on the level of investment one can afford.Looking at all those leaves, I have to wonder about rodents and the wiring.
Any manufacturer that would put a 2 barrel on a V8 has rocks for brains. A progressive 4 barrel gives more power PLUS better mileage, given a light foot in everyday driving.
Yep, when I ordered my 74 Cutlass, I had to pay extra for the 4 bbl. Otherwise it came with the 2. But yeah, with normal driving the 4 was more economical and you had the extra when you needed it.
I think the 1955-58 Chrysler 300, and Desoto Adventurer as well as the early Plymouth Fury, all came with two four barrel carbs. I don’t think Dodge ever did that, I seem to recall that the D500, D501 and D501-R were all just options, not special models.
All Packard Caribbean V8s were twin 4 Bbl and I don. recall any Cadillac or Lincoln OHV V8s that had a two bbl carb, at least until they started re badging Chevies.
Yes, the high performance and luxury models often came with 4bbls. But for just about all the ‘regular’ cars the first step up from a 6 was a 2-bbl V8.
You got me thinking now over the last 50 years but actually don’t exactly remember what I had. I think my 59 Pontiac was a 4 bbl but my VW was a one like a lawn mower. I’m pretty sure my 68 Dodge with the 318 was a 2 bbl. No idea on my others but after 81 it was all injected. The only one I actually OH myself was my 74 Olds.
After all this wisdom, I think the steps you should take lead to the phone, where you call someone to haul this off to the junkyard for its scrap value.
Maybe in the near future. For now I’d be seeing if the engine can start and run, just for the fun and satisfaction. Then try to drive it (and stop it.) When the reality settles in, that’s the time for that phone call.
Rebuilding the fuel system; tank, fuel pump, carburetor, filter and hoses before moving the vehicle to pavement to be assessed will be a waste of time. Fuel injected engines are easier to revive, and a plastic fuel tank is a plus.
Perhaps I misinterpreted what @shanonia was trying to do. I was under the impression the goal was to get a running, useable car. If it’s a project, more for the challenge of waking something up rather than to have a practical car, then dive right in. I’ve certainly done that in the past and had surprisingly mixed results, occasionally succeeding without too much cash invested, but the cost of doing what was needed to make a car reasonably safe was too much. I finally learned that it was better to let most dead cars stay dead.
I’ve seen complete rust buckets completely restored to new. But they were classics like a 64 Mustang or early Camaro. This isn’t a classic car. It’s just not worth it.
