In defense of the Chevrolet Vega

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 02:25:54 -0800 (PST), Bjorn >
wrote:

>On 26 Dec, 23:32, "hls" > wrote:
>> "Dave U. Random" > wrote in messagenews:7c72e1de1c91730597965e562bbb8aaa@anony mitaet-im-inter.net...
>>
>> > (Car Lust) - During Viva Las Vega week, my fellow contributors
>> > acted as the prosecution in the case against the Chevrolet Vega--
>> > the car that should have been GM's small-car savior but that
>> > instead has become one of the automotive world's most notorious
>> > synonyms for failure.
>>
>> The Vegas I knew of had the silicon/aluminum engine which was
>> a disaster in every case that I ever heard of.
>>
>> Other posters have mentioned other engines.. I Â*never saw them.
>>
>> This was, IMO, a piece of cheap junk, engineered (?) to sell cheaply
>> to junk chumps. Â*A true POS.
>>
>> GM earned its bankruptcy.. It wasn't a gift.
>
>Maybe it is fair to say that GM management was/is gifted?

There was plenty of junk around in the 70's.
Not just GM junk.
The Vega was just worst than most others.
I got through the 70's with only one serious car problem.
With a '64 Bug, a '67 Skylark, a '66 F-150 and a '74 Dart.
A '71 Nova with a 307 burnt a valve - I really pushed that one - and
I junked it. Consider it the Worst Car I Ever Had.
Every other car had no engine or trans problems, they just rusted
away.
VW sold a lot of Rabbits that started burning oil right away.
The Jap cars were quickly dissolved by rust and you had to scrape the
ice from inside of windshields while driving up north.
Never heard anything good about them either.
AMC was ALL junk and probably blew more head gaskets than Vegas.
I don't know about Fords, except my dad was happy with his LTD.

You couldn't go far wrong with a GM 350 or Chevy or Chrysler
straight 6.
Those were probably the best.
Some might add the Chrysler 318, but I've never been a Chrysler fan..
Most EVERYTHING else was JUNK.
ALL OF THEM.
Those pioneers who bought small for fuel economy ended up paying more
in the long haul.
But they were necessary sacrifices to advance technology.
I honor their sacrifice. Suckers. Nah. just kidding.

Only other '70's cars I had besides the Dart and Nova was a '76
Caprice and a '78 Chevy Beauville van I bought after 1980.
Both with 350's, and both did just fine except for rust.

The '70s was a terrible decade for all cars.
GM continued that trend in the 80's with the Citation and its
brethren.
But just like the Vega, anybody with any sense didn't buy them.
The Citation and it's ilk were a boon to Jap auto manufacturers.
That's when they began to really began to eat the market.
First decent 4-cyl GM had was the 2.0, and first decent V-6 was the
2.8.
I bought both only after they were proven.
Now I'm looking at the Ecotec to be in my next ride if I go with a
Malibu.
It'll be my first without push rods.
But if I decide on an Impala, it'll be a 3.5 with push rods.


--Vic

I'm crossposting this to rec.auto.tech - might get other ideas, since
they are much more sophisticated in matters automotive..

On 27 Dec, 12:30, Vic Smith > wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 02:25:54 -0800 (PST), Bjorn >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 26 Dec, 23:32, "hls" > wrote:
> >> "Dave U. Random" > wrote in messagenews:7c72e1de1c91730597965e562bbb8aaa@anony mitaet-im-inter.net...
>
> >> > (Car Lust) - During Viva Las Vega week, my fellow contributors
> >> > acted as the prosecution in the case against the Chevrolet Vega--
> >> > the car that should have been GM's small-car savior but that
> >> > instead has become one of the automotive world's most notorious
> >> > synonyms for failure.
>
> >> The Vegas I knew of had the silicon/aluminum engine which was
> >> a disaster in every case that I ever heard of.
>
> >> Other posters have mentioned other engines.. I *never saw them.
>
> >> This was, IMO, a piece of cheap junk, engineered (?) to sell cheaply
> >> to junk chumps. *A true POS.
>
> >> GM earned its bankruptcy.. It wasn't a gift.
>
> >Maybe it is fair to say that GM management was/is gifted?
>
> There was plenty of junk around in the 70's.
> Not just GM junk.
> The Vega was just worst than most others.
> I got through the 70's with only one serious car problem.
> With a '64 Bug, a '67 Skylark, a '66 F-150 and a '74 Dart.
> A '71 Nova with a 307 burnt a valve - I really pushed *that one - and
> I junked it. *Consider it the Worst Car I Ever Had.
> Every other car had no engine or trans problems, they just rusted
> away.
> VW sold a lot of Rabbits that started burning oil right away.
> The Jap cars were quickly dissolved by rust and you had to scrape the
> ice from inside of windshields while driving up north.
> Never heard anything good about them either.
> AMC was ALL junk and probably blew more head gaskets than Vegas.
> I don't know about Fords, except my dad was happy with his LTD.
>
> You couldn't go far wrong with a GM 350 or Chevy or Chrysler
> straight 6.
> Those were probably the best.
> Some might add the Chrysler 318, but I've never been a Chrysler fan..
> Most EVERYTHING else was JUNK.
> ALL OF THEM.
> Those pioneers who bought small for fuel economy ended up paying more
> in the long haul. *
> But they were necessary sacrifices to advance technology.
> I honor their sacrifice. *Suckers. *Nah. just kidding.
>
> Only other '70's cars I had besides the Dart and Nova was a '76
> Caprice and a '78 Chevy Beauville van I bought after 1980.
> Both with 350's, and both did just fine except for rust.
>
> The '70s was a terrible decade for all cars.
> GM continued that trend in the 80's with the Citation and its
> brethren.
> But just like the Vega, anybody with any sense didn't buy them.
> The Citation and it's ilk were a boon to Jap auto manufacturers.
> That's when they began to really began to eat the market.
> First decent 4-cyl GM had was the 2.0, and first decent V-6 was the
> 2.8.
> I bought both only after they were proven.
> Now I'm looking at the Ecotec to be in my next ride if I go with a
> Malibu.
> It'll be my first without push rods.
> But if I decide on an Impala, it'll be a 3.5 with push rods.
>
> --Vic
>
> I'm crossposting this to rec.auto.tech - might get other ideas, since
> they are much more sophisticated in matters automotive..

I think you are right that it was not just GM dropping quality for
greed for many years.
Particular problem for GM was size and they did not see the trend of
improving quality for cheap cars in general until way too late.

What will happen now with GM is anybody s guess because they are
obviously doing some things right.

The Volt is looking good at the moment and there are a lot of good
cars made by GM.

If it is enough is hard to tell right now and it is certainly too soon
to tell if the management and the management systems have improved
enough for GM to survive in todays buyers market.

If someone would try to make cars the way they did 40 years ago in
todays information society they would be crusified like what happened
to GM earlier.

I am very interested to follow GMs fate now as a social experiment.

A few years ago it was quite obvious what would happen and it was
really interesting to see how long time it took for GM to fall flat on
its face.

Today we have not began to see what GM is all about yet and everything
is a bit foggy with all the bailout/loans/politicians involved.

On 12/27/2010 07:30 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 02:25:54 -0800 (PST), >
> wrote:
>
>> On 26 Dec, 23:32, > wrote:
>>> "Dave U. > wrote in messagenews:7c72e1de1c91730597965e562bbb8aaa@anony mitaet-im-inter.net...
>>>
>>>> (Car Lust) - During Viva Las Vega week, my fellow contributors
>>>> acted as the prosecution in the case against the Chevrolet Vega--
>>>> the car that should have been GM's small-car savior but that
>>>> instead has become one of the automotive world's most notorious
>>>> synonyms for failure.
>>>
>>> The Vegas I knew of had the silicon/aluminum engine which was
>>> a disaster in every case that I ever heard of.
>>>
>>> Other posters have mentioned other engines.. I never saw them.
>>>
>>> This was, IMO, a piece of cheap junk, engineered (?) to sell cheaply
>>> to junk chumps. A true POS.
>>>
>>> GM earned its bankruptcy.. It wasn't a gift.
>>
>> Maybe it is fair to say that GM management was/is gifted?
>
> There was plenty of junk around in the 70's.
> Not just GM junk.
> The Vega was just worst than most others.
> I got through the 70's with only one serious car problem.
> With a '64 Bug, a '67 Skylark, a '66 F-150 and a '74 Dart.
> A '71 Nova with a 307 burnt a valve - I really pushed that one - and
> I junked it. Consider it the Worst Car I Ever Had.
> Every other car had no engine or trans problems, they just rusted
> away.
> VW sold a lot of Rabbits that started burning oil right away.
> The Jap cars were quickly dissolved by rust and you had to scrape the
> ice from inside of windshields while driving up north.
> Never heard anything good about them either.
> AMC was ALL junk and probably blew more head gaskets than Vegas.
> I don't know about Fords, except my dad was happy with his LTD.
>
> You couldn't go far wrong with a GM 350 or Chevy or Chrysler
> straight 6.
> Those were probably the best.
> Some might add the Chrysler 318, but I've never been a Chrysler fan..
> Most EVERYTHING else was JUNK.
> ALL OF THEM.
> Those pioneers who bought small for fuel economy ended up paying more
> in the long haul.
> But they were necessary sacrifices to advance technology.
> I honor their sacrifice. Suckers. Nah. just kidding.
>
> Only other '70's cars I had besides the Dart and Nova was a '76
> Caprice and a '78 Chevy Beauville van I bought after 1980.
> Both with 350's, and both did just fine except for rust.
>
> The '70s was a terrible decade for all cars.
> GM continued that trend in the 80's with the Citation and its
> brethren.
> But just like the Vega, anybody with any sense didn't buy them.
> The Citation and it's ilk were a boon to Jap auto manufacturers.
> That's when they began to really began to eat the market.
> First decent 4-cyl GM had was the 2.0, and first decent V-6 was the
> 2.8.
> I bought both only after they were proven.
> Now I'm looking at the Ecotec to be in my next ride if I go with a
> Malibu.
> It'll be my first without push rods.
> But if I decide on an Impala, it'll be a 3.5 with push rods.
>
>
> --Vic
>
> I'm crossposting this to rec.auto.tech - might get other ideas, since
> they are much more sophisticated in matters automotive..

as far as the Impala goes, I would definitely go with either the 3.5,
3.9, or 3.8 if you are going older... I had one as a company car with
the old 3.4 and it was awful and underpowered. I'm not a big fan of the
chassis though...

older Chrysler products, I don't understand the hate, as long as you
stay away from "Lean Burn" cars and the Aspen/Volare (RUST!) they were
actually the best of a bad lot IMHO

AMC's blowing head gaskets? really? I have no personal experience with
them but from what I've heard it seems like they are the engine of
choice for high boost turbos as they are supposedly almost as strong as
the old Studebaker V-8s and are much larger in displacement...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 06:13:29 -0800 (PST), Bjorn >
wrote:


>
>The Volt is looking good at the moment and there are a lot of good
>cars made by GM.
>

I've never had a problem finding value in GM cars, but I always buy
used which is a tremendous advantage with GM.

>If it is enough is hard to tell right now and it is certainly too soon
>to tell if the management and the management systems have improved
>enough for GM to survive in todays buyers market.
>

The Volt is a great concept as far as I'm concerned.
But until its quality is proven it won't do GM much good.
The PR value is significant now - but if the car fails it will be a
very big failure.

>If someone would try to make cars the way they did 40 years ago in
>todays information society they would be crusified like what happened
>to GM earlier.
>
>I am very interested to follow GMs fate now as a social experiment.
>

That's mostly been written already. The union has caved out of
necessity.
Hopefully the corporate culture has been swept of most of the trash.
What's important now is running a profitable business. That means
producing quality vehicles and gaining market share.
Despite past failures and earning enemies, there is a large segment
of Americans who want GM to do well and will buy their products if
their trust is earned.
Then some don't care or even think about GM as a brand.
They just buy what appeals to them for various reasons.
Two of my daughters have Hyundai Santa Fe's.
I don't know why.
Except they brag about the warranty.
$27,000 per.
That's just not in my vocabulary, nor are SUV's.

>A few years ago it was quite obvious what would happen and it was
>really interesting to see how long time it took for GM to fall flat on
>its face.
>
>Today we have not began to see what GM is all about yet and everything
>is a bit foggy with all the bailout/loans/politicians involved.

True.

--Vic

On 2010-12-27, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> AMC's blowing head gaskets? really?

I've been driving and working on AMC cars for decades, the only general
head gasket issues I am aware of are with the 196 six-cylinder aluminum
engine they used for a few years in the early 1960s. (The metallurgy of
the time was not up to the task.) Also the old 196 cast-iron mill was
a pre-war design that needed the head retorqued at regular intervals to
prevent gasket problems.

The 232 cid Rambler Six introduced in 1964 was a completely different
animal, and with engineering updates was used through the 2006 model
year in Jeeps.

> them but from what I've heard it seems like they are the engine of
> choice for high boost turbos as they are supposedly almost as strong as
> the old Studebaker V-8s and are much larger in displacement...

That would be the old Nash 250/287/327 cid V8 engines. Those engines
were rushed into production to replace the Packard V8 that Nash had
been using in the Ambassador, and were overbuilt with forged rods and crank
due to limited testing time. (The engine went from design to production
in only 18 months!) See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_V8_...281956-1966.29

--
Roger Blake
(Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled due to spam.)
"0bama snoozed while oil oozed."

There is an interesting similarity to former GM failure and BPs
failure with the oilrig.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us...pagewanted=all

"What emerges is a stark and singular fact: crew members died and
suffered terrible injuries because every one of the Horizon’s defenses
failed on April 20. Some were deployed but did not work. Some were
activated too late, after they had almost certainly been damaged by
fire or explosions. Some were never deployed at all.

At critical moments that night, members of the crew hesitated and did
not take the decisive steps needed. Communications fell apart, warning
signs were missed and crew members in critical areas failed to
coordinate a response.

The result, the interviews and records show, was paralysis. For nine
long minutes, as the drilling crew battled the blowout and gas alarms
eventually sounded on the bridge, no warning was given to the rest of
the crew. For many, the first hint of crisis came in the form of a
blast wave.

The paralysis had two main sources, the examination by The Times
shows. The first was a failure to train for the worst. The Horizon was
like a Gulf Coast town that regularly rehearsed for Category 1
hurricanes but never contemplated the hundred-year storm. The crew
members, though expert in responding to the usual range of well
problems, were unprepared for a major blowout followed by explosions,
fires and a total loss of power.

They were also frozen by the sheer complexity of the Horizon’s
defenses, and by the policies that explained when they were to be
deployed. One emergency system alone was controlled by 30 buttons."

The similarities are that in both BP oilrig and in GM operations the
tools were all there and all the handbooks were there and what was
needed to do in order to keep everything going.

Problem in both cases were that management did nothing to test out the
systems and see if they really did work.

In both cases there was a blowout (actually a bailout in GMs case) and
a lot of measures should have been taken by management but they did
nothing and were just frozen in time.

In the BP case the events have been investigated and blame passed
around.

In the GM case I am not sure if they have identified the problems and
acted to stop them happening again.

It is not enough to send management on seminars in Hawaii and spend
some time enjoying beautiful women and good wine and food once in a
while.

They should prepare and try out real life problems and know how to act
on them.

I am not sure the systems inside GM have been tested yet for future
problems.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 09:53:51 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote:


>
>as far as the Impala goes, I would definitely go with either the 3.5,
>3.9, or 3.8 if you are going older... I had one as a company car with
>the old 3.4 and it was awful and underpowered. I'm not a big fan of the
>chassis though...
>
> older Chrysler products, I don't understand the hate, as long as you
>stay away from "Lean Burn" cars and the Aspen/Volare (RUST!) they were
>actually the best of a bad lot IMHO
>
>AMC's blowing head gaskets? really? I have no personal experience with
>them but from what I've heard it seems like they are the engine of
>choice for high boost turbos as they are supposedly almost as strong as
>the old Studebaker V-8s and are much larger in displacement...
>

I don't have any experience with them either, except buddys with a
Maverick and Gremlin both blew a head gasket at low miles.
So I was guessing.
OTOH I never had a buddy with a Vega.
Friends are friends.
I don't hate Chryslers. No experience with them beyond my '74 Dart
and my ma's '55 Belvidere flathead with the blown head gasket.
I just stick with what I know best, a limited GM selection.

My son the mechanic hates Chryslers though.
He was actually warming to one - his girlfriend's 2000 Stratus - when
he started maintaining and driving it.
Then it burned to the ground at a busy intersection.
Embarrassing to a mechanic like him, with all them firemen asking what
happened and him with no clue.
PS line came loose due to a faulty fitting.
They had it sent to a scrap yard after paying a couple days storage
fees to the towing outfit.
A week later they got a recall notice from Chrysler addressing the
hose fitting. Too late. They never got a cent. Total loss.
Now he doesn't hold back.
He works on the trucks all the time and hates seeing them come in.
Says you might as well order 5 Pitman arms to get it lined up, since
they're all differently made. Talking about the 1500's and up.
Said he'd buy a Toyota or cut off his balls before he bought a
Chrysler.
Anyway, I consider him prejudiced, but reliable.
OTOH, I always liked the looks of the Sebring ragtop, and the Pacifica
is a good looking SUV to me.
Anyway I came here to praise Chrysler, not bury it.
They can handle that all by themselves.
Just like GM, I hope they get their act together.
More selection and competition is good.

--Vic

An old buddy of mine, he is a Chevrolet fan.He has owned two Vegas
before.His first car was a 1955 Ford.He said he slapped the dashboard
and the radio fell out.
cuhulin

On 2010-12-27, Vic Smith > wrote:

> I don't have any experience with them either, except buddys with a
> Maverick and Gremlin both blew a head gasket at low miles.

Nothing special about maverick engines. Same inline 6s and 302 V8 used
in mustangs and other fords.

> OTOH I never had a buddy with a Vega.

My parents had a vega. sold it with 93K miles and 8 or 9
chicago winters. rusted out, burned and leaked lots of oil. guy who
bought it patched it back up and sold it. It probably hit 100K+ before
it reached the junkyard.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 10:10:14 -0600, Vic Smith wrote:


> Anyway I came here to praise Chrysler, not bury it. They can handle that
> all by themselves. Just like GM, I hope they get their act together.
> More selection and competition is good.
>
> --Vic

Have always had Chrysler Corp. cars, as have my family. Presently have: 1941 Chrysler Windsor, 1991
New Yorker 5th Avenue, 2010 Dodge Avenger. Great cars.