In that configuration it was fast, and fun, and not terribly unpleasant to be in; he would tell me stories of working on Vegas when they were new and he was a newly-minted mechanic, with stacks of crate engines in the corner for the steady parade of Vegas that came in with warped blocks — only to have the same cars come back in for another, because the new engines had the same problem as the old. When he took it for mandatory smog testing, he would run it on alcohol, then drive home and rebuilt the carb.

As far as I know, he still has it.

I’ll try to address (rebut) some of your points:

Yes, rust problems were rampant, but the Vega quickly acquired a rep for being worse than average, perhaps because of shortcuts (thinner steel, sealing, etc.) Worse than average is not good enough, especially in conjunction with other problems.

I never wrote anything about “replaceable engines”; another commentator made the claim that they were designed/advertised that way. That is simply not the case. I also never said that the Vega was designed to be “disposable”. Any suggestion by GM that the Vega and/or its engines were designed to be disposable would have been the kiss of death. If you read Chevy’s brochures of that time, you’ll see lots of claims about durability. Also, keep in mind, the Vega was priced 10-15% higher than the VW and most other small cars; it wasn’t all that cheap, for the times. ($2300 vs. $1800 for a Corolla)

Keep in mind that the Vega’s #1 competitor was the VW Beetle, which made its rep on reliability and longevity.

You’re misinformed about the claim of Japanese removing their engines after 60k miles. It’s just not true. Here’s what happens there: Japan has very strict car inspection programs, and there has been a strong societal pressure to buy new cars every three to four years (that’s fading quickly now). Anyway, the combination of these two forces results in many Japanese cars being scrapped with low miles, and the engines are taken out and shipped to the US, where different attitudes prevail. These cars in Japan are NOT getting new engines installed; they’re being melted down for steel.

I didn’t say GM has forgotten its history in regard to the Vega; but I am encouraging them to learn from it, and keep in mind that their history of introducing new technology has been very spotty (Olds diesel, V8-6-4, etc.) I truly hope the Volt works well out of the box, as it will be an interesting addidtion to the automotive scene. GM can’t afford a slip-up; that’s my point.

I agree with the writer of this editorial on many points; however some misinformation about the Vega first needs to be addressed.

If you would believe all that is written today about the 70s cars in the modern press, it seems the Vega was the only car that rusted out. Nothing could be farther from the truth. All early ’70s GM cars had corrosion issues. However you never hear about the rust the Camaros or Chevelles of the same era had as it is only politically correct to bash the Vega, after all the Camaro may be written about again real soon and we need those advertising dollars. All early 70s GM cars were rust buckets. This is one fact you never hear.

The Vega did contribute significantly to automotive corrosion resistance. Starting with the 1975 Vega, GM implemented corrosion resistant metal alloys and new metal finishing methods. They also refined the Vega design to seal out moisture. These changes were successful and the knowledge gained was used in other model lines. The journalists always miss this fact.

What I find humorous is the picture of a Vega used with this article. It is of a 1975 Vega! I don’t see the terrible rust that was supposed to be the bane of all Vegas. That’s because as I previously stated the rust problem had been fixed by 1975.

It’s also humorous that the writer bemoans the replaceable engine concept. He complains that the engines were designed to be replaced every 60,000 miles. In Japan this concept has been institutionalized. Japanese engines are regularly removed from ALL cars at 60,000 miles. This has even spurred an industry where cheap Japanese takeouts are exported to America and regularly installed into American ‘Japanese’ cars. GM could have sold this concept if they would have dropped the price of the cars some more. Instead they spent the money on advertising when they should have simply told the truth. They tried to sell a car that didn’t exist.

The Vega was much improved by the end of its production, however as correctly stated it was too late to fix the Vega reputation. But the writer never clearly states that the problems of the Vega were ultimately solved. When it comes to the Vega “Truth about Cars” is still only telling half truths.

Now where the writer and I agree is that the Vega was designed as a disposable car. They cost a few thousand dollars when new. In today’s world there is no comparable car, as even the Cobalt is not designed to be disposable. The problem with the Vega is that the marketing people convinced GM’s management to LIE to sell cars. The problem as correctly stated was that the Ad Men had hyped the car too much. The expectation created in the mind of the consumer was clearly not achievable. So GM sold the car with the typical wink and nod of a new car salesman.

The Vega was designed to be a basic transportation car. You buy one, drive it for three to four years and throw it away! So did it meet its intended design? It was cheap, easy to drive and the car had good lines. And in my opinion it met the design objectives. Show me a comparable car today – You can’t because America has rejected the disposable car concept as people are more willing to invest 6 years of their income into car payments.

Has GM learned anything from the Vega episode? In the writer’s opinion they have forgotten their history. He argues that the Volt is the same old GM song, promises, promises and more promises which will never be realized. But this time the situation is a little different. In the Vega, GM clearly designed a different car than they promised. If GM had made a few more initial refinements, spent a little more money on materials, and designed the car they advertised, or advertised the car they designed, it may have been a smashing success. Unfortunately they told the salesman’s lie. With the Volt, GM is designing the same thing that they are promising. Now if GM is going to repeat past mistakes, and the hype surrounding the Volt is again just another basket of lies, they will probably be buried by their competition.

If only there had been that much truth in advertising. If GM had even suggested that the Vega engine was diposable, it would have been the kiss of death. Don’t forget, the Vega was priced at least 10% higher than its competition, and was positioned as a “premium small car”. To even have suggested that the engine had a limited lifespan, the Vega would have been dead in arrival. As it was, the reputation of engine problems is what killed the Vega. Chevy’s extended warranties came to late; by ‘75, the Vega was dead meat, and sales had plummeted.

I wish I still had that magazine ad copy.

At the time, I was working at the Chevy zone office on LI and we just looked at each other in amazement when we saw the ad.

You’re probably the only person who doesn’t consider the Corvette a regular production car. Considering the one millionth Corvette rolled off the assembly line in 1992….’nuf said.

I always thought that Corvettes were anything but regular.

The Vega sold over 2 million units from 1971 to 1977

The Corvette sold 1 million units from 1953 to 1992.

Hardly what you could call “regular” production.

I have one of those ERTL Vegas in my collection. Remarkably realistic….has a little cancer on the rockers already, IIRC. ;-)

@nino:

I should’ve stated that among regular production cars (which the Avanti and Corvette certainly were not)

You’re probably the only person who doesn’t consider the Corvette a regular production car. Considering the one millionth Corvette rolled off the assembly line in 1992….’nuf said.

I see your point, in theory. After all, I’m a Fox Chassis fanatic.

But when spreading the Fox gospel I point out that Fairmonts and Mustangs take decades to die. Vegas were dead in the water by the time 1975 rolled around.

And they deserved their rep: not being born when the Vega arrived, I’ve only seen salt eaten Pintos from Colorado fare better than Texas-born Vegas.

If only there had been that much truth in advertising. If GM had even suggested that the Vega engine was diposable, it would have been the kiss of death. Don’t forget, the Vega was priced at least 10% higher than its competition, and was positioned as a “premium small car”. To even have suggested that the engine had a limited lifespan, the Vega would have been dead in arrival. As it was, the reputation of engine problems is what killed the Vega. Chevy’s extended warranties came to late; by ‘75, the Vega was dead meat, and sales had plummeted.

Volt makes much more sense than a pure electric car since it is completely compatible with existing infrastructure. I hope they pull it off. If they don’t, one or more competitors will. In 20 years people will look back on the big debate over the new 35 mpg CAFE rules and laugh at how primitive those expectations really were.

“A jump ahead of most, Lincoln offered front disc brakes as standard equipment last year.” (Which would have been the 1965 model year)

I stand corrected

Understand that I’m not saying that things were rosy with the car. My point was that GM put a lot of high technology into the car and its production. When problems became evident, they tried to do something about it. Maybe it is because of this experience that GM had with the Vega that they became “gun shy” about introducing new technology in its cars.

You’re right that the Vegas I have driven are non-stock factory “hot rods” (the roaster wasn’t even a Vega, but an experimental body chassis combo that used a Vega motor with the not produced cross flow aluminum cylinder head), but the ease of these conversions by both the factory, aftermarket, and individuals, I believe point out the flexibility of the design as well as a longing “what if”.

“Kelsey-Hayes ventilated discs are standard on the Lincoln and the Thunderbird and optional on the Mustang – a fact that we heartily applaud.”

In The Complete History of the Ford Motor Company by the editors of Consumer Guide, this entry is recorded for the 1965 Thunderbird:

“More significant was the standardization of front disc brakes, something this weighty personal car had long needed.”

Here is what Motor Trend said about the 1966 Lincoln Continental at its introduction:

“A jump ahead of most, Lincoln offered front disc brakes as standard equipment last year.” (Which would have been the 1965 model year)

“It’s possible that I’m a little partial to the Vega as I’ve driven many derivatives of the car including a 3.5 liter aluminum V8 version that had 200HP and weighed less than the standard car that was a dream to drive then and would be a competitive drive today. I also got to drive a roadster based on the Vega with the crossflow cylinder head on the Vega block which was really something special.”

So you drove various non-stock Vegas…that’s obviously a different experience than the other 99.9% of Vega owners. Perhaps your various experiences disprove the idea that ‘you can’t polish a turd’.

What you don’t see about the extended warranties is that by 1976 – only 5 years with the Vega on the market – the cars were deteriorating so fast, and problems so rampant, that GM had to offer that warranty just to get people to even think about buying one of these things. Had they addressed many of the issues? Apparently. But that alone wasn’t enough to break the stigma that these were truly crappy automobiles.

You know things are bad when it only takes a few years for a car to get such a (justly deserved) reputation. Just like the spin on the Vega being the ‘first car to offer rust warranty’ – that’s not really something to boast, the General had to offer that warranty. If every car from that era rusted as bad, how come there are plenty of non-restored early-70s cars on the road today without terrible rust?

Today, with information sharing what it is, it doesn’t take long for reliability issues to become public knowledge…but for the Vega to earn that reputation in the early 70’s really tells you something about the commonness of its issues.

I don’t remember the 1965 T-bird or Lincoln having them as standard though.

In my opinion, the General tried with the Vega. They used advanced engineering on the motor and in producing the car and by 1974 they had pretty much eliminated many of the problems that the Vega had. The General did with the Vega many of the things we complain that they don’t do now; constantly refine and fix the problems until they get it right. The extended warranties by 1976 I feel showed that they had made progress with the car.

It’s possible that I’m a little partial to the Vega as I’ve driven many derivatives of the car including a 3.5 liter aluminum V8 version that had 200HP and weighed less than the standard car that was a dream to drive then and would be a competitive drive today. I also got to drive a roadster based on the Vega with the crossflow cylinder head on the Vega block which was really something special.

Many who criticize the Vega I feel do so more from anecdotal references than from any actual experiences with the car. The rust problem with the car for example, was greatly alleviated by adding inner fender liners in 1974 and beyond model years. Yet, all you hear is about how badly Vegas rusted (true from 1971 to 1973)

The 1963 Studebaker Avanti had front disc brakes as standard equipment, as did the 1965 Ford Thunderbird and Lincoln Continental. The 1965 Chevrolet Corvette had four-wheel disc brakes as standard equipment.

nino: Yes, Vegas rusted out, so did many other cars of the time, but the Vega was the first to offer a rust warranty.

The Vega was far worse than other cars in this regard. It offered a rust warranty because it had to – the car’s reputation for early rustout was terrible.

nino: The 1976 Vega was the first car in the world to offer a 5 year, 60,000 mile warranty on its powertrain.

It had to offer that warranty because its reputation for premature engine failure was widespread by 1976.

nino: And for those that were saying the Pinto was a better car, the only thing the Pinto had were better engines that came from their European operations.

It also had a much nicer interior, and it wasn’t nearly the rust bucket that the Vega was.