(first posted 1/28/2013) The Chevrolet Vega’s genesis goes back to the fall of 1959, a point in time up to which the compact car market was primarily served by imports such as the Volkswagen Beetle and a few domestics, including the Studebaker Lark and Rambler American. The Big Three saw an opportunity and jumped into the market in 1960 with the Chevrolet Corvair, Ford Falcon and Plymouth Valiant, all of which saw some levels of success.
By the end of the decade, the Studebaker and Rambler marques were effectively gone from the US Market, and cars like the Chevrolet Nova, Ford Maverick and AMC Hornet, while deemed “compacts,” were really only small versions of traditional mid-size cars designed to seat six. Powertrains may have started with thrifty four and six-cylinder engines, but V8 engines were also on tap. These were certainly not the compacts of a decade previous, and it was becoming evident that there was a new opportunity in the true subcompact car space.
By the mid-1960s, both Chevrolet and Pontiac had small car concepts on the boards, but Ed Cole, then GM Executive Vice-President, had also started a small car development program using GM’s corporate engineering and design staff, which was presented for review by Chairman James Roche in 1967. As interest in moving forward with a sub-compact grew, Cole’s design was chosen over the Chevrolet and Pontiac Design Studio concepts, making the Vega the first car at General Motors to be a “corporate” car as opposed to a divisional one, a move which was not well received by the staff at Chevrolet Division.
Meanwhile, John DeLorean had been reassigned from head of Pontiac Division to the Chevrolet Division, which was behind schedule on the 1970 Camaro, Nova and Corvette, and was also bleeding from fallout over bad publicity on the Corvair. DeLorean played by his own rules, which rankled many at GM, but he was also an effective manager, and made dramatic improvements at Chevrolet in short order.
In the middle of all those challenges sat Vega. The car was already on the “prime path” to production, so other than making a few tweaks here and there, and implementing a rigorous quality inspection routine, DeLorean really couldn’t hope to do more—Vega would have to ship “as-is.”
A series of teaser ads led up to the launch of Vega in September, 1970, and initially, four variants of the H-body were available. While the Notchback sedan and Kammback wagons shared rooflines (and thus doors and other components), the more popular Hatchback had a lower roofline and shared a fold-down rear seat with the Kammback. The cars were identical from the cowl forward. The Panel Express model (CC here) was a bit of an odd duck—basically a stripper with only a driver’s seat and steel panels in place of the rear quarter lites, it was designed to be a light delivery truck, and if my memory is correct, was actually listed in Chevrolet’s literature as a truck, not a car. This variant represented about 2% of H-body production.
A GT version of Vega could be ordered, which brought a little more power (110hp vs. 90) through use of a two-barrel carburetor and slightly “warmer” cam grind, along with full instrumentation on the dash.
All Vegas were designed to be transported vertically on specially-designed rail cars which could hold 30 cars instead of the 18 a standard auto carrier held.
DeLorean and Chevrolet Division were still trying to make Vega into something worthy of all the hype, and in 1972 built a prototype with an aluminum-block V8, which ran sub-14 second quarter miles as tested by Hot Rod Magazine. It was not to be, however, repeating the rejection Chevrolet Divisions had experienced in 1968, which its own in-house engine design with an aluminum head (shown above in the XP-898 concept car which utilized many Vega components) was passed over for the cast iron head engine used in production.
In 1973, Vega was lengthened slightly by adding three inches between the front bumper and grill (with a steel filler panel to improve the aesthetics). 1973 would also bring the introduction of the Pontiac Astre to Canadian markets. Astre is French for “star,” a play on Vega’s name. Astre would be offered in the same configurations as Vega, only with the Kammback being called the Safari and an SJ trim level topping out the options list.
1974 and federal regulations brought a fairly substantial restyle to the growing H-body line due to the 5mph bumper mandate.
Astre’s taillights adopted the Firebird’s from that model year as well.
In February, 1974, calendar-challenged GM launched the Spirit of America special edition Vega, essentially a paint and decal package, presumably intended to capitalize on the upcoming American Bicentennial.
Around this time, GM was pressing ahead with plans for a rotary-engined Vega, but as more and more problems surfaced, including rising gasoline prices, it became obvious that the rotary was a dead end as an option in an economy sub-compact car.
1975 would bring some fun options to the H-body offerings, starting with the Pontiac Astre L’il Wide Track option, designed to spice up sales a bit.
Chevrolet, after missing its initial deadline, would also finally introduce the Cosworth Vega in 1975.
The Panel Express was dropped from the option list at the end of the 1975 model year, and the Monza was introduced alongside the Buick Skyhawk and Oldsmobile Starfire.
Things got really confusing with the Pontiacs, as you had the Astre in 1975, which was still based on the Vega design. 1976 brought the Sunbird, and either my search-fu is off, or it appears the initial Sunbirds were also Vega-derived.
To make things even more confusing, the Sunbird wagon continued to use the Vega Kammback design up through 1979.
1976 saw the cancellation of the Cosworth Vega, and the introduction of the limited-edition Nomad Wagon (note the restyled rear quarter window treatment).
Not wanting to miss out on the Broughamification of America™, the Vega Cabriolet Notchback was tarted up a bit to fit the bill.
Little changed in 1977 as the original H-body cars were phased out, the Monza and derivatives having taken the baton by this point. Remaining Vega components were used up by offering a Monza “S” version in 1980—it was essentially a stripped-down Vega with a restyled grill.
Monza was offered in several trim options for 1977, including the Mirage (shown) and Spyder (in either the Z01 Package, which had some hardware upgrades, or the Z02 Appearance Package). Base engines were still the Durabilt four, but an optional 145hp 305 c.i.d. V8 could also be ordered.
1979 brought a restyled grill to all Monza models except the 2+2, and was the final production year for the H-body, after a total of around four million vehicles produced for all makes, models and variants.
After a two-year hiatus, Chevrolet would introduce the successor to the H-body platform, the Chevrolet Cavalier and its four brand siblings. The J-body would be in production for over twenty years with well over 10 million units produced.
One could effectively come to the conclusion then, that the H-body experiment was GM’s “practice run” for the sub-compact car market. They truly did hit the mark in several areas (styling, handling, decent price and economy), but were hobbled by the end results of corporate politics and cost-cutting, which resulted in the Vega in particular receiving such a black eye that it never really recovered, despite having become a decent quality car by the end of its run. Monza and its siblings of course benefited from all that (and one can’t help but wonder if the name and styling change were intended as a move to slowly back away from Vega’s reputation).
The H-body platform turned out to be highly flexible, supporting a wide range of engines and stylistic variants, which were effective in keeping the sales numbers reasonably high, and for a decently-long production run as well.
GM, emboldened by its success with the H-body experiment, would press on with renewed energy, to the point where the J-body cars truly were “badge engineered” without regard to brand promise and expectations (Cimarron by Cadillac, I’m looking at you).
GM in the 1960s created some pretty wild and unique cars, and the brands still stood for something. The 1970s were the H-body decade, and it’s obvious to us now (hindsight being 20-20) that perhaps it was Ed Cole’s decision of 1968 to pursue a common-platform “corporate car” that indeed was the very moment that GM changed paths and truly started the decline that eventually killed the company.
Seems incredible they spent so long designing it and it was such a disaster,GM had plenty of successful cars of this size around the world, the sensible move would have been a modified captive import from UK or Germany as those did not have anywhere near the faults the Vega came with.
Always wondered about this too, Bryce! My suspicion is that Detroit had the old “Not Invented Here” attitude happening…Also I think, ironically,the Vauxhalls had reputation for fragility under American condition. As for Opel, when the H programme got seriously underway, it was less than twenty years after WWII. While German cars like the VW were acceptable to buyers, making the “heartbeat of America” brand over as an Opel derivative may have been seen by the marketeers as playing with fire! This is just a theory, can anyone else add to it?
Were they that much better? Everyone asks “why didn’t they use an Opel” and then someone who had an Opel back then chimes in with “they were crap too!”
I dunno.
That’s a fair question, but my impression is that the Ascona’s body wasn’t so lightly built as the Vega and the Opel CIH engine, while not long on refinement, didn’t have anything like the problems of the Vega’s four. So, if Opel wasn’t necessarily a paragon of ’80s-Toyota-like reliability, it wasn’t notorious in the way the Vega became.
The original small Chevy designed by Chevy engineers would’ve had the stoutness U.S. car buyers would’ve wanted in a smaller car in those years and it would’ve had the OHV four from the Chevy II. Chevy engineers were well into development of it when the 1968 edict from GM Corporate (at Ed Cole’s lieutenants’ orders) to come to an “all stop” on this development and go with the GM corporate design which was plagued with problems well before GM beancounters stepped in. Too many cooks spoiled the broth. DeLorean’s book outlines the Vega debacle in detail and his accounts were transcribed in 1974! Long before the end of the Vega and it’s variants.
The OHC Vauxhall Victors were ok as long as you changed the cambelt at the correct intervals and went on to be the LOTUS LV engines. The cars were marginally bigger than the VEGA but that engine was also installed in the Viva and the performance Chevettes.
They may have been crap, but man the 71-72 Vega is actually gorgeous. Mini camaro. 73 got a bit uvkier and by 74 they were ugly. I wud love to have a 71 Vega.
_THIS_ ! .
.
Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory .
.
And sad to say I’m a GM / Chevrolet Fanboi but the truth is the truth .
.
Dammit .
.
-Nate
> While German cars like the VW were acceptable to buyers, making the “heartbeat of America” brand over as an Opel derivative may have been seen by the marketeers as playing with fire!
Wasn’t the Chevette an Opel deriative of sorts?
Yes, the Chevette (US version) was quite Opel-related, but 5 years after the Vega launch, I suspect anything was worth trying to mitigate the woes of the Vega.
I guess they were far too expensive for the market. Think an Opel of this size was as expensieve in Europe as a midsize sedan in the US, no less. Slightly larger Opel Kapitan / Diplomat with it’s 200 inch / 5 meter o/a length was a luxury car in Cadillac’s territory and with a sticker price only slightly lower than that of a Mercedes (DM 10-11 000 vs. DM 12-15 000).Local production could lower the cost a bit, yes – but doubtfully to the desired level of $2,000.
It’s much like the DE designed Ford Mondeo / Contour which had proven to be too expensive for the US market and later was substituted with the US designed Fusion, which, being larger than a Mondeo and having larger engines, is as cheap as a much smaller Ford Focus in Europe.
And yes, they were crap, too )
Wasn’t this the situation where GM looked into building an Opel over here (the Manta?) and found out that they literally could not do it — that US plants could not build to the close tolerances of the Opel design and engineering specs.
You’re thinking of the the Opel Diplomat, which was briefly considered as a basis for the Seville.
Mad Hungarian – you hit the nail on the head. It is true that the Opel built in America/Canada was seriously looked at and it was found that it could NOT be built in North America precisely because of the tolerance issues. The investment in bringing the level of assembly quality found on German built Opels would’ve cost more than a clean sheet development of a cheap-to-engineer-cheap-to-build new car “acceptable” to domestic norms. In hindsight, we now that in the long run, the cheapness of the H seriously damaged GM’s reputation and cost the company down the line as buyers abandoned GM small cars in droves – and avoided them all together.
We had OHC Vauxhalls from England not that they were trouble free but better than a Vega undoubtably
Vegas are good cars if ya build them up just like anything else. I have a 1976 vega with a 383 stroker dart heads dart manifold Holley 750 double pumper long tube headers Afro aluminum radiator 637 lift 338 duration with a 110 separation comp cam. Roller rockers 1.6 hurricane intake all m s d. Taylor wires 9 second 1/4 mile 5.7 1/8 mile. So are all Vegas bad don’t think so. This is my daily driver
So not quite factory then. 🙂
You can’t compare European car prices with US prices. European and UK cars include VAT taxes that we don’t have in the US. And if you are talking about final consumer prices there are big additional taxes on cars there. I don’t know if they are included in published retail prices, but in the EU/UK all taxes are included in the sales tag price of everyday purchases. When you bring your purchases to the cash register you pay what the tags say, not some percentage more.
GM and Ford both kept trying the captive import route and it only really worked with the Ford Capri and only while exchange rates were favourable. The Wasn’t Invented/Built Here mantra was also a massive hurdle for any non American car to clear from consumers through to unions and management. It’s hard to imagine how different the world was back then pal.
I remember being at the Detroit Auto Show in 1977 when the Iron Duke replaced the aluminum engine. A local dealer was working the show for prospects and I overheard him telling a potential customer that “…the car now has the durable Iron Duke engine, which is much, much better than the original aluminum engine.” At that point, I turned and thanked him for all of the issues I had with the aluminum engine. He quickly disappeared.
Great essay. So much potential here…with bigger brakes on Monza…different engine and better build quality in the beginning…and some other tweaks, like better body differentiation among the divisions…the H bodies would’ve been a lot more fondly remembered.
Ah, yes, the Spirit of America package. That must have been available across the Chevy lineup. My brother had a ’74 Impala Spirit of American coupe.
There was also a Spirit of America Nova…
Which I owned as a daily beater in the mid-1980s. I’d never seen the Vega version before, it weirdly reminds me of my old Nova.
Ed, this survey-of-a-platform with lots of pictures is neat, I really like it.
A buddy of mine in high school had the ’74 Nova “Spriti of America”. 350 four pot and four-speed car. Came from Pennsylvania as the stick in California in ’74 was “n/a” (a four-speed anyway. Driver’s ed car in ’75 was a ’74 four-door Nova with a 350 four barrel and three-on-the-tree).
Ah, for the day that the ‘Spirit of America’ could be summed up by a paint and decal package across a maufacturer’s line up. Actually, I think Ford and Mopar had their own versions as well.
The leftover Vega hatch body shell was only used in 1978 with Monza badges. That seems to be the only photo on the net of one, they are RARE. Pontiac didn’t offer any Astres after it was discontinued in ’77, except for the Sunbird Safari. And the ’76 Sunbird was a H-body but used the Monza Town Coupe body shell. The “sport hatch”, based on the Monza 2+2, came in 1977. Not sure why Pontiacs hatch came a year after all the others, but at least they had an Astre to tide them over.
Always thought the Monza wagon/Sunbird Safari was a smart looker, although they were of course deeply flawed. Cookie from CarLustBlog wrote an entertaining article on his wagon:
http://www.carlustblog.com/2008/07/car-disgust–19.html
The H-body had so many fascinating permutations: Astre Formula, Sunbird Formula notchback, V6 Monza wagon, v8 Sunbird (one year only if my Pontiac brochures are accurate), V8 Starfire… The 79/80 Skyhawks and Starfires where they actually bothered to differentiate them visually from the Monza… I think they all look sharp and carry a lot of promise, probably promise left unfulfilled.
So you read Car Lust too. I believe the author of this post (Ed Stembridge) has an account over there. Would like to have one over there but can’t figure it out.
Yes, I do. They don’t post as often, but I enjoy a lot of what they do write. I linked to several of their Vega articles in my CCOTY post from today.
How do you set up an account there, Mr. Stembridge?
Just took a look, and I think you can comment without an account – just input your name (or a handle) and email address and comment away. I think you have to do one of those “type in the hopelessly distorted words” things to finish.
Ok, thanks.
It’s interesting, because during the 1970’s I had three H-bodies back to back. First was a ’73 Vega GT in the ubiquitous silver with the black stripe. I’m one of those who can actually say he had an excellent car in that Vega, giving me virtually no problems despite running the ’73, ’74, and ’75 seasons in local SCCA autocross B-sedan. I’ll fully admit, my rose-colored memories are due to my having traded the car in on a ’76 Monza 2+2. It was starting to burn oil (hell, it held up for three racing seasons!) and I have a feeling that I’d have run into a lot of problems had I kept it for the fourth year.
The Monza 2+2 was equally nice. Handled well, my first five speed, it also was a four cylinder although I’m certain it wasn’t the classic Vega engine. The big disappointment in this car was the weight. It was a cheap grand tourer, not a sports coupe. I never attempted to autocross it (it just didn’t feel right), and didn’t do a lot of frantic back road bombing. I did enjoy the car, however.
During this time period, my father picked up a year old ’77 Vega with Powerglide, cheap. As he was in one of his moods about gas prices and mileage, he figured this would be the answer. It gave good service. Uninspired, but competent. However, dad was a big car guy with a dealer’s attitude towards a small car. It only lasted about a year and dad was well ready to get into something larger and more luxurious.
Having had three H-bodies in the family with very little to complain about, and with dad loaning me the money for the new car (and under no conditions would he consider loading me the money for the Ford Fiesta S I really wanted – Chevy or nothing, and no Corvette), I decided to do a hot handling sport wagon. Got the Monza wagon, V-6, five speed, heavy suspension and tyres, full instrumentation.
It started out wrong when the car was delivered and I discovered that Chevy would only put the full instrumentation in the fours and eights. So I’m stuck with the strip speedometer and no tach. Two weeks after taking delivery, the carburetor sticks while I’m out with my fiancee, and I almost had to get towed home. It went downhill from there. Definitely the worst turkey I ever owned, and it was traded in ’82 on a new Omni. Two years later, that car was still sitting in the Dodge dealer’s lot.
And after that Monza, I didn’t touch another Chevrolet for twenty years.
I had a college friend who autocrossed a Vega. He discovered (to his delight and everyone else’s horror) that he could pop the hood release at speed, after which the hood would raise up about 6″ and float there (front hinged hood, remember), allowing the underhood pressure a way out. He said the car would squat down and really grip like that.
He was pretty short, though, and said it was a challenge to see over the hood!
During this time period, my father picked up a year old ’77 Vega with Powerglide, cheap.
If it was a ’77, it probably had a Turbo-Hydramatic 250; everything I’ve read indicates that the Powerglide was last offered in ’73.
Yeah, it would have to have been a turbo 250 3-speed. My 1976 Vega hatchback had that tranny. It was gutless, but it was a good car. I called it the Vegamatic.
“…with dad loaning me the money for the new car (and under no conditions would he consider loading me the money for the Ford Fiesta S I really wanted – Chevy or nothing, and no Corvette),”
One of two Vega owners I knew in the late ’70s, bought his under very similar circumstances. He was probably 17, and buying his first car. His father insisted the car meet three criteria: it had to be new; it had to be American; and it couldn’t be a Corvette. My friend, a Euro sportscar type and the guy who taught me how to heel-and-toe, really wanted (and could afford) a Porsche 914 (yes, the “Porschewagen”), but that was foreign-made and his dad vetoed it. So my friend reluctantly settled for a Vega GT… and proceeded to maniacally drive it like it was a 914. Or maybe a 917. Vegas didn’t last long under the best of conditions, but especially not with SCAA kind of driving.
Years later, in the ’80s, my pal bitterly recalled that purchase — long after his Vega had gone to the wreckers — by saying words to effect of, “That Vega lasted five years before it was utterly worthless. But if I’d bought that 914, it would still be here, and I’d either still be driving it, or I could sell it for a decent price. Thanks for the great car advice, dad.”
The other Vega owner I knew was a teenaged shadetree mechanic who stuffed a heavily-modified 350 SBC into his… but left it entirely stock on the outside so nobody would see him coming. That thing wasn’t just fast, it was dangerously fast. And it certainly surprised a few muscle-car drivers at stoplights. I was driving a pretty quick 240Z at the time, but declined the offer to be humiliated by the V8 Vega.
The warmed-over wagons didn’t set the sales charts on fire either even if they’re not as super-rare as the Monza S coupe. They had pretty strong internal competition from the new-for-78 four door Chevette, and the Citation hatchbacks basically replaced them.
Are any other cars still transported using this method?
I’ve never heard of any. The problem is the fluids (oil, tranny) can spill out when the car is uprighted.
The Vega was designed with this in mind, but yes, it’s the only car I know of that was ever shipped this way. Somewhere out on the interwebs is a web site dedicated to Vertipac rail cars (I’ve seen it before!).
BTW, it wasn’t ALL VEGAS, only cars going to the west coast were Vert-A-Pac cars, the ones going elsewere werer carried on regular cars.
Yes there was a special option code for Vert-a-Pak cars that allowed them to keep oil, fuel, trans fluid etc, etc, in the cars when standing on their noses.
No modifications had to be done when the cars were unloaded, they were ready to go right off the train, GM worked with the railroad companies on some interesting solutions in through the late 60’s and 70’s, In the picture in the articebehind the Vega Vert-A-Pac railcar, there is a Stac-A-Pac rail car that was used for full size cars. You can see some Cadillacs in it.
Correct about the special option code; it was VK5:
http://www.h-body.org/library/hbodyfaq/hbodyfaq-allsections.shtml#1.29
I wonder if Lordstown ever mistakenly installed a regular battery in a VK5 car, and what happened when it was loaded into the Vert-A-Pac carrier? Wow, what a mess that ould be!
Also, if you look at the photo that Carmine refers to, it’s interesting to see that the cars in Vert-a-Pac and Stac-Pac carriers were shipped fully “dressed,” which was unusual. Unless this was just done for a photo op, the wheel covers were installed during shipment, instead of being packaged in the trunk. I’m guessing that’s because the design of these containers kept the cars away from thieves and vandals.
I have pics from a Cadillac book where they show the cars going into the Stac-A-Pac containers with the wheelcovers and everything, Cadillac build a huge loading area on the end of their Clark St. (Cadillac Main) plant in Detroit in the early 70’s designed around the Stac-A-Pac rail cars.
Nash began rail freighting cars on end in ’46 or ’47…..
.
BTW: I am _loving_ all the detailed info in this great article ! . when Vegas were new all I heard was hate, when I tried to point out that they looked *exactly* like tiny Camaros people got fighting mad .
.
-Nate
Strange then Chevrolet decided to replace Monza with Cavalier (but decided to use Monza monicker in Brazil http://www.flickr.com/photos/hugo90/4128600367/ ) while Buick continue to use the Skyhawk, Pontiac dusted off the Sunbird name after a short try with J2000/2000. Strangely the H-body Oldsmobile Starfire wasn’t sold in Canada.
I had a ’78 Sunbird Formula notchback silver exterior/red interior with the V6 and 4-speed manual shift. It was a decent car except for a transmission leak. Aaah, a real red interior and white letter tires. I also had trouble replacing the red/orange stripe tape that peeled off one Wisconsin winter.
Tced, I like that car a lot! Given it’s time period, no doubt, it was a Baby Firebird Formula, right down to the Firebird Trans Am like rear spoiler, And better gas mileage to boot!
All these variations but no four-door? By going all-in with the baby Camaro angle, they basically ordered anyone with kids to go buy a Toyota, Rabbit, etc., or else move up to a Dart/Maverick-sized car.
Back in those pre-car seat days, though, a lot of people with kids wanted two-doors. That way they didn’t have to worry about the kids in the back seat having access to a door they could open and fall out of. And I think a lot of Americans just expected a car this size to come as a two-door. Ford’s Pinto came only as a two-door. For that matter, so did the Volkswagen Beetle.
The lack of four-door models definitely became a liability over time, though. It showed that GM and Ford saw cars this size as afterthougts, fit for a young person buying their first new car, or maybe for a family expanding from having one car to two. But you weren’t supposed to use these as a proper family car. After the 1973 energy crisis, however, an increasing number of Americans were doing just that, and they were turning to imports to get what they wanted.
There was also a prevailing engineering assumption in those days that short-wheelbase cars were not suited for four doors, both for structural reasons and because the doors would be too short for easy entry and exit. For example, when AMC revived the original Rambler platform as the Rambler American for ’58, the engineers insisted that four doors simply weren’t going to work with a 100-inch wheelbase; they later did it, but it wasn’t ideal, so for ’64, hedged their bets by stretching the wheelbase to 106 inches. When Ford brought out the Maverick four-door, they stretched the wheelbase for “Quattroporte” Mavericks and Comets to 109.9 inches.
the J-bodies had a 101 inch wheelbase and looked fine in 4-dr form.
I should also like to add that the K-cars had a 99.9 inch wheelbase, looked just fine in 4-dr body styles and actually had more room inside than the Js.
I don’t think looks were the problem, it was ingress/egress. Transverse FWD made this possible since so much less of the wheelbase was used up by the front fender, pulling the whole cabin forward.
Short wheelbase RWD 4 doors can be a pain, as much as getting to the rear seat of a coupe.
There was no “two year hiatus” between the H and J bodies. 1980 Monza and Sunbird production continued into early 1981, and the J bodies were introduced in the spring of ’81 as early ’82s.
Ah, thanks for the clarification – it wasn’t clear from my sources…
I dont think they actually made any in 1981 MY/calendar year, those they sold them through 1980, I think most of those were made through 1979 and maybe early 1980, the J-cars had mid 1981 intro as 1982 models, Lordstown needed to have downtime to re-tool from the RWD H-cars to the FWD J-cars.
From what I understand, GM continued building Monzas and Sunbirds through the end of calendar year 1980, but they were all titled as 1980 models, even those built after the rest of GM’s lineup (and the rest of the car industry in general) had switched to MY81 production.
From past discussion here, there were apparently some new federal requirements that went into effect for the 1981 model year, which GM was able to avoid by titling these cars as ’80s and not producing them beyond the end of CY80. Due to the energy crisis that hit in the summer of ’79 driving up sales of small cars, the ’80 Monzas and Sunbirds actually sold fairly well (at a time when sales of GM’s bread and butter larger GM cars were plumetting). In the light of that, GM wanted to keep selling them until the J-cars were ready, but the aforementioned regulatory requirements made building 1981 model year Sunbirds and Monzas problematic. The solution was to keep building 1980 models for as long as possible (until the end of the calendar year), minimizing the gap before the J-cars were introduced without incurring the cost of developing 1981 model year Monzas and Sunbird that would comply with the new requirements.
Another great look into the Vega H body by Ed, much appreciated! I often wondered about rain intrustion on those rear Vega notchback louver vents. Never understood the use or need for them……
Here in the Northeast, Joel Rosen of Baldwin-Motion fame was selling V8 Vega kits in the back pages of High Performance Car magazine. I recall much time spent contemplating the purchase of said Vega and kit but never followed through. Probably a good thing, too as the horsepower to weight ratio was off the charts. Through the fogs of time, I recall a complete Vega V8 was sold, the Baldwin-Motion Super Vega. This was no 305 CI Detroit smogger, no, this was a car with a little more power then that! Also to never be forgotten were the drag strip exploits of the late Bill “Grumpy” Jenkins and his 74 Vega Pro Stocker that dominated Pro Stock like never seen before….
The rear louvers had baffles on the inside, and I never had water problems in my trunk. Actually, the only rust problems I *ever* had with the car were around the front and rear glass. There was not good drainage out of the channels and I remember pulling both front and rear glass several times to sand and repaint before the rust got too aggressive.
I came close to doing a V8 swap, and had a 4-bolt mains 350 ready to go, but my best friend’s Dad talked me out of it (he was into stock car racing when he was young). The V6 was a good fit – lighter, and still a nice power bump (torque especially) from the 140. The car still handled quite well, which would not have been the case with the 350.
Although I thoroughly enjoyed the V8 4-speed 1975 Monza 2+2 that I owned – why not? It had V8 torque and 2500 rpm would get me 80 mph, rare at the time – but it did have a few GM-type issues – inadequate brakes and front suspension for the engine weight, rapidly-wearing door bushings, not-stout-enough firewall where the clutch cable came through. Its performance spoiled me for Mercedes sedans which I’d liked until then, and its handling was nearly competitive with them.
I’m trying real hard Ed but I just cannot buy it. Not only did I buy that Starfire but had a niece with a genuine vega. I would never have bought the Olds if I had known it was a Vega. The engine fooled me. It also made it tough to buy the hype when the 3800 nomenclature came out. That engine was also mine in a 72 cutlass that puked it’s transmission at 40k and couldn’t get out of it’s own way.
Those tricks sold me on Nissan. I have had Chevys since and probably will again. The 4.3, the 283 and the 350. Liked them all but have a terrible taste in my mouth for the vega and anything like it. This is still the CCGOTY (goat of the year) in my books. I can’t take it seriously unless you are planning to nominate the yugo or the hyundai when their time comes.
My mom’s cousin owned a succession of Vegas over the course of the Seventies, and, apart from my vague memories of the era (I turned six in 1979), the only thing I recall about the species was Car Talk (of NPR fame) having a “worst cars of the century” feature, where, of course, the Vega came up…with the comment, “This car was built out of compressed rust.” Then, sometime after that particular Car Talk feature, my Dad told a story about leaning against mom’s cousin’s Vega (I think with his butt against one of the quarter panels) and he pushed it in. Yes, HE PUSHED IT IN! Now, folks, we all know that Dad was a little heavier back in the Seventies than he is now, but, come on, when the metal on your car is approximately the same thickness as that of a present-day Coke can, we just MIGHT have a problem…
But where does the Chevette platform fit into all of this?
Not an H-Body… but it would make for an interesting expansion of the theme of compact and sub-compacts in the 1970s. A quick check reveals the Chevette was introduced in 1975 and was produced through 1987 in the US and 1998 in South America.
The Chevette always struck me as an odd step for it’s time. I’d be interested in seeing the sales comparisons for Chevette platform cars vs the H bodies. I may dig around if the mood strikes.
The Chevette, which was introduced for the 1976 model year only as a two-door, was originally slotted in a bit beneath the Vega. It was intended to compete in the post-energy crisis world with the smallest and most fuel-efficient imports, like the Volkswagen Rabbit, Toyota Corolla and Datsun 210. A four-door Chevette on a a longer wheelbase was added in 1978. This moved the Chevette more into the American small-car mainstream and I think was part of the reason the Vega and Astre were dropped/merged into the Monza and Sunbird that year. I don’t have sales figures in front of me, but I suspect that the H-bodies were the better sellers in 1976-77, the Chevette in 1978-81.
The J-bodies were then introduced as early 1982 models in the spring of 1981. Though they were considered direct replacments for the H-bodies, they offered a greater range of body styles and had far broader appeal, so much so that they more or less replaced the Chevette as well. Chevy kept building the Chevette, but it was no longer Chevy’s main subcompact offering, being reduced to a low-end budget role. The “captive imports” introduced in 1985 would seem to have crowded it out of that position, though. By the mid 1980s the Chevette was hopelessly outdated, and no longer served any particular purpose in Chevy’s model lineup, but GM apparently kept building them for as long as they could sell them.
I thought I used to have a Consumer Guide publication, either a 1988 new cars guide or a used car guide from around the same period, which indicated that Chevettes continued to be sold into the 1988 model year. Wikipedia says that ’87 was their last model year, however, indicating that they actually went out of production in December 1986.
Here you go, courtesy of Consumer Guide ‘Cyclopedia. I combined figures from all the “H” car line (Buick, Olds, Pontiac) into one lump (“H”) and I combined the Chevette & T1000 totals into the other (“T”):
H/T
1971: 269,905 / 0
1972: 390,478 / O
1973: 427,300 / O
1974: 456,085 / 0
1975: 467,441 / 0
1976: 388,771 / 189,793
1977: 271,372 / 135,446
1978: 267,531 / 300,951
1979: 305041 / 371,088
1980: 373,956 / 453,141 – “X” car debut
1981: 0 / 505,775
1982: 0 / 279,259 – “J” & “A” car debut
1983: 0 / 197,525
1984: 0 / 282,630
1985: 0 / 142,347
1986: 0 / 126,919
1987: 0 / 53,823
Here’s what I always counter argue to the “terrible” Vega, 1972-1976, they sold shockingly high numbers of Vegas, this was already about 2 years after the car came out and suposedly after everyone discovered that the cars were terrible, if the Vega was SO bad, how come it continued to sell in such huge numbers? The Vega really didn’t start to fizzle out until 1977, which is a normal progession for a car that many model years old.
My answer is that in those years, GM and Chevy in particular had this huge base of happy customers who would consider going nowhere else. So, they bought Vegas for the same reason that people still bought Odysseys after their transmission failures were well known and why people still bought Toyotas despite their engine sludging problems. It takes a long time to repel customers who really want to buy your stuff. That phenomena of people who keep buying Hondas and Toyotas, well GM was the beneficiary of the very same phenomena in the 1970s. Had Chrysler made the Vega, it would not have been around long enough for Iacocca to save it.
I would agree with loyalty, but wow, nearly 500K a year for several years, the oil embargo must have helped too.
The continued high sales volume of the Vega throughout most of its life isn’t too hard to figure out. Besides the loyalty thing, in the context of the subcompact cars of the time, well, they were all pretty bad. Even the vaunted Beetle was beginning to slip with the advent of government emissions regulations. And its replacement, the Rabbit, wasn’t exactly a paragon of reliability, either.
But most critical was that subcompact cars like the Vega simply weren’t mainstream yet. It was much more of a cheap, second car used for very short, local trips or a work car. There weren’t many used as the only transportation and certainly not for any long distance vacations. Not to mention that most people just accepted that a small, cheap car was going to have issues. The Japanese hadn’t yet gained a foothold in the US.
Now, when GM’s second big Deadly Sin, the Citation, hit, it was a whole new ballgame. It was much more of a mainstream, single-car family vehicle so its failings were a whole lot more acute. Plus, there were the much higher quality Japanese alternatives.
GM and Ford decided to introduce the Vega and Pinto after seeing rising sales of foreign subcompacts in the late ‘60s. VW was at its all-time U.S. sales peak in this era (IIRC, VW sold about 500K vehicles in the U.S. every year from 1968-71), while Toyota and Datsun had gone from a tiny presence to significant players between 1965 and 1970. There was clearly a growing market out there for something smaller than American compacts like the Nova and Falcon, and GM and Ford wanted a piece of it.
As far as the decision to introduce these models (leaving aside the execution for the moment), I think the sales of the Vega and Pinto during their first three or four years on the market indicate that GM and Ford called this right. As already noted, a lot of American carbuyers in those days just reflexively shopped domestic brands, so for a lot of people looking for a subcompact, it made sense to go to a Chevy or Ford dealer. I had commented in another post that, in hindsight, the Vega and Pinto come off as afterthoughts, fit for a young person buying their first new vehicle, or maybe a second car for a family expanding from one to two vehicles, but not something you were supposed to use as a proper family car. They came only as two-doors, and weren’t terribly space-efficient. In the early ‘70s, though, a lot of Americans buying cars this size didn’t really expect anything more.
As Carmine noted, the oil crisis was in the short run a boon to both the Vega and Pinto. I believe that both enjoyed great sales during the 1974 model year, as demand increased for fuel-efficient cars. By contrast most larger vehicles saw their numbers plummet, and overall new vehicle sales were down sharply due to a recession.
My sense is that Vega and Pinto sales both dropped significantly in 1975, falling below their pre-1974 levels. I’d cite several possible reasons for this:
–The recession continued, prompting more people to abandon the idea of buying a new car, even a fuel-efficient one.
–This was right around the time that reports of quality issues with the Vega in particular, and (probably overblown) safety issues with the Pinto, were reaching critical mass.
–This period was a significant inflexion point in the history of American carbuyers abandoning domestics for imports. The energy crisis was causing more people to take subcompacts seriously as all-around family cars; in that regard, Japanese competitors were clearly superior to the Vega and the Pinto. The Japanese automakers also had a better reputation for quality, and most of the vehicles they were selling had newer and fresher designs than the five-year-old Vega and Pinto.
That having been said, I’m struck by the numbers that Junqueboi posted. While Vega sales may have been down in ’75, overall H-body sales were pretty similar to ’74, actually increasing slightly. This suggests that part of the Vega’s decline may have due to cannibalization by the new H-body variants. I don’t think it’s as simple as saying “All of the people who bought other H-bodies in ’75 would have bought Vegas if the Vega had continued to be the only H-body available”. I don’t think that’s really true; I’d suggest that type of logic leads to the conclusion that the H-bodies might have sold even better in ’75 if not for the factors noted above. But it’s intriguing how close the ’74 Vega and ’75 overall H-body figures are. Cannibalization may have played a bigger role in the Vega’s ’75 drop-off that I would have thought.
The ’76 H-body figure is down, but still not too bad, especially when you consider that some sales were probably lost internally to the Chevette. Only in ’77 do the numbers start to get a bit troubling. I’m surprised at how well the H-bodies held up in 1978-79 given the age of the basic design and the presence of the longer-wheelbase four-door Chevette on the market. The uptick in H-body sales for ’80 was driven by demand for small cars in the wake of the second oil crisis and the fact that Monzas and Sunbirds were produced for an extended 1980 model year.
Note the sharp drop-off in Chevette sales in 1982, when the J-cars were introduced. But look at the 282K GM was able to sell as late as 1984! I guess they just kept building them for as long as people would buy them.
Chevette was based on GM’s global T body, which was in use as Opel Kadette. Wasn’t just whipped up for the US.
It was rather ironic that the Isuzu Impulse/Piazza was actually heavily based from the Isuzu Gemini/I-Mark/Buick Opel Isuzu platform albeit YES a stretched chassis from the RWD T-Body Chevrolet Chevette which was too bad Chevrolet was never given an Isuzu Impulse/Piazza body style. This stretched version of the RWD T-Body was in fact only 3″ shorter than the RWD H-Bodied 1974-77 Chevrolet Vega and around 7″ shorter than the 1975-80 Chevrolet Monza.
The Vega seemed like it was the 14th floor’s way of paying Delorean back for skirting GM corporate rules to get the GTO into production.
But, for once, MT did get it right by naming the Vega 1971 COTY. It was a brand-new, ground-up, endeavor that did trump all the competition. As Car and Driver put it, the Vega and Gremlin were the only cars in their class that were actually able to handle being on the freeway. Even today, knowing all the initial Vega’s flaws, I might take a Vega over the Gremlin.
I remember the controversy about the Monza V-8 shortly after it was introduced-all of old school mechanics and part guys out there were freaking out because the engine had to be lifted to change the spark plugs. Add to the mix 1975 being the first year of the HEI , catalytic converters, and rectangular headlamps (a dirty commie plot!) the world was coming to an end! You couldn’t work on your car with all of this alien s**t on it! Actually-GM has to be commended for getting some mileage out of the H-body platform. They definitely had a bunch of variations produced. I think the ultra head-scratcher of the bunch has got to be the 1978/79 Sunbird Safari wagon. To the uninitiated they probably are thinking “What is this freak of nature Vega with a factory V-6?” The one thing that cracked me up about the Monza-era H bodies was the absolute biggest tires on the V-8 models was a BR70-13. (I guess with the 4-lug wheels, they didn’t think this one through). They may have been the poster children for GM beancounting-induced engineering, but they were a good looking line of cars (mostly…).
Again, a myth that engine has to be lifted to access plugs. There’s only one plug hard to reach, but it can be done.
The Monza/Skyhawk/Starfire hatchback styling was pretty obviously cribbed from the Ferrari 356GTC/4. In fact I don’t think GM was shy about owning up to it. There are parallels that can be drawn between the styling of other H-body cars and various Italian iron as well, see http://forums.h-body.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38320
This wasn’t the first time that Chevrolet cribbed Ferrari, either. Take a look at the grille on a ’55 Chevy…
Nice overview, Ed.
I wish there were more info available on the behind-the-scenes saga of the GMRCE two-rotor, which was the intended powerplant for the H-body Monza; as late as spring 1974, GM was saying they expected to have the two-rotor engine available by mid-’75. The retirement of Ed Cole may have had a lot to do with the rotary’s demise — it was put on indefinite hold shortly before Cole’s departure — but I suspect there may have been some major drama there. GM spent a reported $50 million just on the license, but they basically abandoned it.
Given some of the horrible engines GM permitted to be sold to the public, you have to wonder how bad the rotary was.
One oddity (and potentially worrisome sign) was that GM insisted that their license agreement not require them to share research with Wankel, NSU, Curtiss-Wright, or any of the other licensees. I can understand wanting to protect their proprietary data, but it seems to have meant GM spent a lot of time and a lot of money reinventing the wheel. For example, until around 1973, GM was still trying to use cast iron for the rotor housings, presumably for cost reasons, while both NSU and Mazda had long since accepted that aluminum was the only practical approach. (The issue was not weight, but thermal conductivity; with cast iron housings, the area around the spark plugs got too hot, eventually causing the rotor housing to crack.)
Re the GM Wankel, I wonder what AMC was smoking, in counting on such unproven technology, & from a competitor no less, for the Pacer. And quite apart from the seal problem, Wankels have always been gas guzzlers, something the heavy Pacer, built to an abandoned Fed. safety std., didn’t need.
Imagine how much further AMC could’ve gone developing their own 4-cylinder, and transverse FWD setup ahead of the rest of the industry.
It could have been a great car. But it wasn’t. It was COTY in the same way the Ayatollah Khomeni was Time magazine’s “Man Of The Year” in 1979.
Comment of the day!
Such a beautiful car and such a monumental pile of shit…what a shame ! Maybe with a good engine swap…?
Was a sedan version of the Vega/Astre ever considered?
The Notchback was the sedan version…
I’ve never seen any sketches of a 4 door, there really weren’t many compact sedans yet, there were a few, but this was kinda aimed at a a VW, the Japanese weren’t that big yet in 1970, VW sold mostly only 2 doors, the Beetle and the sqarebacks were all 2 doors too, and even a small 2 door wagon too, the Pinto had the same bodystyle choices too.
As you may recall, I did a “what if” on a four-door Vega Estate: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/what-if-chevrolet-vega-and-ford-pinto-four-door-wagons/
But you’re right, two-doors were the preferred choice for much of the ’70s. Just look at the Cutlass Supreme coupe’s success during the same time frame.
I recall dad’s Hillman SuperMinx (yes, a real name) giving up the ghost in 1975. Since we were a Chevy family (for the family car anyway) the second car search started off at the Chevy showroom and the new Monza 2+2. It was quickly ruled out when Dad tried out the back seat and his feet got stuck trying to get out! Apparently the +2 in the back had to be Munchkins. Much to my chagrin the “sexy European” Capri was crossed off as too expensive and we we ended up with one the the first Honda Civics in Vancouver.
Shoulda fixed the SuperMinx nothing really went wrong with those they just wore out over time.
1. Other reason two doors sold well was style people considered them ‘sporty’. Four doors were for families or middle aged and up before the 1980’s. Import sport sedans changed all that.
2. Seems like adding the Chevette was GM giving up on the H body. They added 4 door and was near #1 selling car in 1979. The J cars were pushed as compacts versus ‘economy cars’. There were plans for an S car for 1983-ish, to replace Chevette and target Ford Escort. But Roger Smith killed it, saying “too costly to build” and instead started NUMMI, imported Chevy badged Isuzus, and not to mention pouring cash into making Saturn.
I love these sorts of Automotive Histories. Chock full of information, pictures, and details. Thank you. Also, the picture of the train car being loaded up with vertical Vegas is hilarious!
I met this fella in 2012 who was about 23 years old. He has owned this car for almost a year. It is a mint low mileage 1972 Chevy Vega GT in Mohave Gold with black pinstripes. Upgraded 2 barrel 4 cylinder (original and runs well) with 4 speed and interior in immaculate condition. To ever see a Vega anymore, a pre 74 at least, one in this condition, and one owned by a fellow too young to even ever seen one on the road is amazing…
Might be the same car featured in Hemmings Classic Car last year. They did a story on Vegas, one guy had a GT with something like 87 miles on it !
Wow! I was just looking through images of Vegas and then I run into my own! The picture above is my Vega at a car show in Ohio. Jonathan I do not believe my car was featured in the Hemmings Classic Car. My car has a few more than 87 miles on it. 5 years after that car show in 2012 it has gone from 31k to about 35k miles. Keeping it in a garage under a cover for most of the year so the condition will stay nice! Planning on keeping it forever!
Love to see more pic of yur Vega Brett…love it, I also have a 72 GT but built as a Motion Super Vega Tribute…add me on Facebook…My name is Leo McAuley from Nova Scotia, Canada
I owned a 1976 Kammback wagon, with the 4cyl. and 4 speed. Worst car I ever owned. I went thru three different engines in under two years and was glad to get rid of it when I sold it.
I owned a 76 Monza hatchback (Vega 4 Auto) a 76 Buick Skyhawk (3.8 4speed)a 76 Olds Starfire (5speed v6) then a 78 Monza Hatchback (4speed v6)and liked all but the 4 cyclinder automatic. Now own 2 1988 Dodge Daytonas they kind of look the same. LOL
The same day the Vega appeared in Cincinnati I drove it and the equally new Audi 100. The Chevy was driven around the block by the salesman with me as passenger. From this lackluster demonstration he then pulled out his order book and expected an instant sale. The Audi was lent to me with a suggestion of where the twisty roads could be found and no stipulation on a time for returning it. Same with the BMW 2002. Does that tell you anything about their relative confidence in their products?
Ahhhh GM Subcompacts, one of my first loves… My best friend through High School was from a line of Pontiac people and his first car, a hand-me-down from his mom was a 77′ Pontiac Astre… As I read in an above post, 77′ was the first year for the Iron Duke 151 c.i.d. 4 cyl, but I am fairly certain the Vega didn’t ever get it, only the Monza and various Pontiac’s/Old’s… I also knew a guy who had a factory 77 Vega Kamback with a V6 and a borg-warner 5 speed. Later I worked in auto parts and on more than one occasion I ran across parts books which listed 76-77 Vega’s with an available factory V8, a 265 iirc… but was told it never actually made the production line??
My friend later ended up with a 77′ Formula Astre, black with gold trim, factory sunroof, radial tuned suspension, rally gauges and vinyl seats with cloth inserts. I ended up with a blue 76′ Astre GT with white graphics and interior, which someone had transplanted a 151 from a Camaro. My friend would buy up any sub-compact with a GT or similar package, so both of our cars ended up with the largest sway bars, v8 springs up front and he discovered that 87 Thunderbird rear coils with 1 1/2 coils cut off made the perfect ride height / rake and stiffness to make these cars handle like they were on RAILS! We both ran 235/50/13 rear and 205/50/13 BFG’s on polished 5 slots. His 151 was hopped up a bit with a marine cam, worked head and a carb from a SCCA Vega and it would TEAR-UP saginaw transmissions… Mine eventually got a buick 231 with a Holley 450cfm 4 barrel, cam and some headwork, headers, high-rise alum intake and a Muncie M-21, and it was the BEST handling / quick / fast car I had ever driven until I recently drove a hopped up Subaru WRX. We also bought a silver 75 Astre on a trip to montana but it was a beater with a 140 and a slush-box TH200… couldn’t kill it though…
I WOULD LOVE to find a decent formula, gt or lil’ wide body Astre, please hit me up at princelton@gmail.com if you know of a west coast barn find….
Truly and unattractive and unappealing car, I remember as a kid every one of these I saw were rusting away.
My parents had a 75 Astre hatchback. I have many fond memories of that car, even though it probably doesn’t deserve them. In its day, that car was pretty versatile: it had decent room for two adults and two kids, and the hatch meant you could cram all sorts of stuff into the back. I remember dad pop-riveting aluminum sheets over the fist-sized rust holes right in front of the rear wheels and spray painting them. Other than that, the body held up OK. It think the motor began to become unreliable after about 7 years, to the point that the car was parked in the early 80s. After it had sat for years, one day dad and I decided to try to fire it up. After hours of tinkering with who-knows-what, it finally came to life. We didn’t dare take it out on the street, fearing it would stall and not re-start. Good times.
Aren’t those lacey spoke aluminum wheels on the silver Li’l Wide Track the same wheels used on a Mustang II? Interesting…
You know what sucks? Advertisements that talk and you can’t shut it off.
Great article. Here’s one of the teaser ads Chevrolet released in 1970.
Fascinating article – I thought I knew most of the models from the 1970s and 1980s but had never heard of the Vega Nomad before. From the image in the article it looks like it was a special door and B pillar, but if you look at this image it is clear they used filler panels.
I think this was some local dealer group appearance package.
“1976 brought the Sunbird, and either my search-fu is off, or it appears the initial Sunbirds were also Vega-derived.”
The 1975 notchback Monza Towne Coupe is missing from the article, of which the Sunbird is badge engineered. A spring ’75 intro, TC came first. Was answer to the Mustang II Ghia notchback. Towne Coupe had vinyl top standard at first, and then had steel roof like Sunbird in ’76 standard.
So yes, the 76-80 Sunbird was Vega derived.
That third-to-last picture just looks wrong to me. The Monza hatch’s body shouldn’t have what looks more like a Town Coupe nose. Definitely an oddity–if I ever saw one like that on the street it was way too long ago to remember.
Then again I can’t recall the last time I saw a Monza of any type on the street. Last H-body, period, that I can recall would be a lightly modified Starfire owned by a student at the university where I worked, and that was probably 2005 or so.
“hatch…what looks more like a Town Coupe nose. …”
That was the new “base Monza” nose for 1978-80. Meant to replace the cheaper Vega. The original 4 headlight nose was on the upper level trim.
Confusing, yes.
The Monza got its’ midcycle facelift in ’78 to both the full-urethane/quad square headlight nose and the chrome bumper/single round light one. Where formerly the latter was for the Towne Coupe and the former for the 2+2 hatchback, now the “base” nose was offered across all body styles with the urethane nose optional on some;
Monza 2+2 (hatchback); base or urethane
Sport Coupe (notchback); base or urethane
“S” coupe (Vega body); base only, 1978 only, <3000 built
Wagon (Vega body); Base only, 1978-79.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were two slightly different and non-interchangeable base noses, one for "true" Monzas and one for the Vega body. This would also explain why Sunbird wagons kept the 1977 Astre front through 1979.
I think main reason for new for ’71 GM/Ford sub-compacts was Toyota and Datsun were making inroads and the VW Beetle was no longer the ‘go to’ small import. Pinto/Vega were meant to compete with Corolla/510, along with Beetle.
While the first ’70 Maverick was aimed import sub-compacts, it was more of a place holder until the Pinto. For ’71, Maverick got a 4 door, upper trim packages, and 302 V8 option, to replace Falcon.
Ford GM and AMC all targeted the VW Beetle, both in their ads and corporate statements.
A major mistake, considering how out of date the VW was, but it was the biggest contender, sales wise at the time
“The 1970s were the H-body decade, and it’s obvious to us now (hindsight being 20-20) that perhaps it was Ed Cole’s decision of 1968 to pursue a common-platform “corporate car” that indeed was the very moment that GM changed paths and truly started the decline that eventually killed the company.”
I just love this last line. While it’s true that the Vega was a crummy car, the H-body’s real legacy is how it was the beginning of the end for the autonomy of the GM divisions which, for nearly their entire, loyal customer base, was a primary allure. Without that autonomy, the GM divisions became nothing more than copies of each other, which is exactly what the much smaller Ford and Chrysler had been doing. Why the hell would anyone buy an Oldsmobile or Pontiac when they could get a nearly identical Chevy for much less? While the theory was great in the short-term financial sense, the corporate XP-887 project would seal the eventual, ultimate fate of the weaker performing, middle divisions and even bring the whole of GM to the very brink of existence.
They certainly did GM no favors, but the X-body compacts (beginning with the 1971 Pontiac Ventura) was the first real example of platform sharing where GM cynically made minor variations to create a “new” product.
In terms of a cheap subcompact, platform sharing (at the time) seems less egregious in my opinion. Once you start talking mid-priced popular models like the 1982+ A-body cars, the cynical re-badging becomes much more an acute and real issue.
The difference was each division’s version of the X-body got a division-specific drivetrain. That practice ended with the H-body variants. In fact, some of us geezers remember the big flap when some full-size Oldsmobile B-bodies got Chevrolet engines. Today, no one blinks an eye as to who manufactured the engine in what they’re driving.
I was under the impression all four divisions of the X-cars used the Chevrolet 250ci I-6 as standard equipment (possibly transmissions also?). Optional power trains, yes, I agree. That’s not really any different for the H-body cars, however.
The X cars at least weren’t intended to be that way, the 68 Nova was created by and intended to be a Chevrolet period. The creation of the Omega or Ventura or Apallo all came much later, deep into that body’s lifecycle. They were more like captive imports to those brands, rather than like the Vega which was a corporate creation, completely independent of Chevrolet and every other division, but foisted on them by corporate. This became standard practice during the Roger Smith era to date, GM became the brand and the divisions became trim.
That’s a good way to differentiate the earlier X-body from the H-body as to badge-engineering. The X had always been a Chevrolet product that all the other divisions eventually received (and they were at least able to use their own optional V8s, at least until the final RWD iteration). In fact, in what might have been the final old, GM-style method of distinctive platform sharing might have been the 1975 Cadillac Seville which was Nova-based, but was all but impossible to tell from appearance, alone.
The H-body, OTOH, was pure GM corporate, and it got passed around with whatever GM corporate used as a drivetrain and no major styling changes. The later Buick version of the Monza, the Skyhawk, got a Buick V6 which would eventually make it’s way into all other Monza derivatives. It was the one I would have liked to have gotten for that reason, alone. None of the Olds and Pontiac versions of the H-body had a division drivetrain. Then there was the Cimarron…
As stated, it began with Ed Cole in 1968, but it really got going in full force with Roger Smith in the eighties with mainstream cars where the only differences were grilles and taillights.
> The later Buick version of the Monza, the Skyhawk, got a Buick V6 which would eventually make it’s way into all other Monza derivatives. It was the one I would have liked to have gotten for that reason, alone. None of the Olds and Pontiac versions of the H-body had a division drivetrain.
Pontiac from ’77 onward used their Iron Duke 4 in their Sunbird and Astre as the base engine. I seem to recall that lump of an engine made it into some other cars as well. 😮
I’d forgotten about the Iron Duke in the Pontiacs. It’s really saying something about how bad the Vega 2300 engine was when the Iron Duke is an improvement.
Well, the Y body 1961-63 “senior compacts” also shared platforms, and some sheet metal.
IMHO pre-1949 Chevy and Pontiacs look the same, just more chrome “silver streaks” on Pontiacs, though they had straight 8 motors.
Tomcatt360’s comment that the Maverick didn’t get 4 doors until several years after intro is a good example that 2 door small cars (or not so small, e.g. Mustang, Cutlass Supreme and Grand Prix) were still very common in family use back then. I was surprised when Honda intro’ed the 4 door Accord in 1979 (?). At the time Hondas were hatchbacks, period. That car, then the 4 door Civic and later, of course, the Camry, changed the automotive landscape, 4 door 510s and Coronas notwhitstanding. To me, the “fastback” look of the Pinto and Vega seemed a bit anomalous when they were launched, but the fact they were only two doors didn’t seem odd at all. IIRC the Pinto didn’t offer a hatch originally, and Ford had to hustle to get that out to be competitive. Three doors not four 🙂
One reason speculated as to why GM blurred divisional autonomy was US Gov’t threats of “breaking GM up”. Harder to do when intertwined.
The irony is that, given how things eventually worked out, breaking the GM divisions up into specific, individual companies might have been a better way to go in the long run.
The most likely scenario was considered to be splitting it in two; Chevrolet and Everything Else. Which meant that during the reorg that created GM Assembly Division (and scuppered DeLorean’s quality control program mentioned above), Chevy didn’t get to keep a “home plant” unlike the other divisions.
My grandmother, who was a train engineer in the 70s and 80s, vividly remembered the Vert-A-Pac system when I asked her about it. Pretty neat.
I’ve wondered before how the emphasis on designing the Vega to work with the Vert-A-Pac system affected the car’s operation and longevity. In addition to shipping the car on its nose, it was also designed to be shipped with all fluids fully topped off. I just can’t imagine that being good for a car whose normal orientation is horizontal, also being able to be shipped vertically.
OTOH, maybe the Vega would be a great car to drive down a vertical cliff.
In reading some earlier comments about Vert-a-pac, it seems not all Vegas were shipped in this manner and there was a special code for the package. Given the labor strife at Lordstown at the time, I would wager that more than a few Vert-a-pac Vegas shipped with the wrong parts, for example, the wrong battery. It would leak acid and hasten later corrosion. Could this have been the source of some of the Vega’s more pronounced rust issues?
Sadly, no. The Vega’s rust issues were another example of GM making a Great Leap Forward without fully testing it, or worse not caring that it didn’t work. Vegas shells were dipped in a rustproofing solution. Unfortunately the design allowed for air pockets to develop between the front fenders, cowl, and firewall during the rustproofing process, leaving the steel in those areas dangerously unprotected. Some people specifically state that the Top Brass knew this but made no attempt to fix the problem. However to save money no fender liners were used. This meant that when driving in the rain or snow water was sprayed onto unpainted AND unrustproofed steel. So the UAW doesn’t get any blame for rust – it’s all on management
When the red 73 Vega appeared on my screen I was struck by the similarity in styling with the 73 Cutlass Salon / Supreme, from the headlight pods to the grille behind the bumper. Never noticed that before.
My first (and third) cars were 1980 Pontiac Sunbird hatches, so I’m always up for a good H-body article. Both of mine were base models with the Iron Duke, good (read “slow”) cars for teenaged boys. Well, other than the atrocious handling-mine had teeny 165-80-13 tires, no sway bars and worn shocks/springs, so cornering meant lots of body lean, tire squeal and sliding around. I did get a ride in a properly set up V8 Monza, and it was like being in a whole different car. My cars were examples of the dreaded “bean counter syndrome”- just a couple parts would have transformed them into much better vehicles. The styling needed no help, though!
Nothing to add to the discussion, really, except this period photo (SoCal somewhere). I’m a confirmed Ford guy, but still think these are *great* looking cars.
With all the research and new technology that went into the development, production and transport of these cars, and the price-sensitive market segment they sold in, did they actually make any money for GM?
I wonder how many H-body sales were lost because they never offered anything with rear doors. That was a dealbreaker for my parents in the ’70s who had three kids and never even considered any of the ’70s American subcompacts because of the inconvenience of not having rear doors.
When the FWD X-Bodied Chevrolet Citation was introduced during the Spring of 1979 to replace the much reliable, dependable and durable Chevrolet Nova, it was slightly smaller than the aging 1980 Chevrolet Monza and yet much roomier and had more cargo space, and lighter than the Monza. In addition, I am not sure how much of this was accurate that the 1971-80 Vega/Monza floor pans and not the entire chassis though were also later used for the downsized but larger 1982-92 & 1993-02 Camaros as well.
My understanding is the rear suspension design was similar between the Monza and the newer Camaro, but they don’t interchange. A common mod is S10 axles, to get 5-bolt wheel pattern (instead of the weird 4×4″ H’s came with, that nothing else used (except Chevy II’s with 4-bolt wheels) As far as I know, you can’t just stick Camaro stuff under a Monza. As far as interior room, my Sunbirds looked great, but didn’t have all that much room inside-the transmission tunnel took up a lot of space, and the floor under the hatch was pretty high, like not deep enough to stand a bag of groceries upright at the back of the hatch. Especially with the spare tire laying flat back there… To say nothing about the rear seat occupants. I usually just left the back seat folded down in my ‘Bird for more cargo space (and to pretend it was a 2-seater) My parents had an 81/82 (can’t remember which one now) Pontiac Phoenix (Citation twin) that thing had a lot more room in it compared to the Sunbird. My parents keep cars forever, but the Phoenix was so troubled they traded it on a Chrysler Laser 2 years later (which was the same size as the Sunbird but had a lot more space in it because of the FWD)
At 16, I took my first driving test in my dad’s new 1970 4-spd Vega Panel Express, which did have a passenger seat. (Special order, maybe?) Believe it or not, after a couple of years he traded it in on ANOTHER new Vega, a ’72 Vega GT wagon. (automatic, aargh) I put a lot of miles on both of them, and have to confess that we had no problems with either of them, beyond that intermittently roughish idle thing. A buddy of mine had a ’72 GT hatchback which also put in at least 4 years of reliable service. And this was through some brutal Florida heat. Maybe we got lucky.
There were no “1970” model year Vegas. Some built in late ’70, but VIN is 1971 model year. Nor were there “1959 Corvairs”, same reason.
Build Date not always equal to official Model Year.
I have owned 10 H-body cars 2 were new never had problems with them other than my new 72 GT. It has a piece of metal in the float bowl that would move around and block fuel flow. I do all my own repairs and found them very reliable and easy to fix. Still have this one in my garage and find it lots of fun.
My first car was a new 1979 Chevy Monza hatchback with the 3.2 V6. Had it about 9-10 years and put about 120,000 miles on it. Very good car. A few issues but for the most part, a reliable, fun car. Biggest complaint is that it was horrible in the snow to the point of being unsafe on slippery roads. Fast forward to 2009 and I bought another Monza hatchback…this one with a 305 V8. 10 years later, still have it and it runs great, though it is a weekend car and not a daily driver. My two 1979 Monzas were very good, surprisingly reliable cars. Maybe by 1979, they worked a lot of the bugs out.
No 2300cc ‘Vega’ motor anymore by ’79, major source of problems.
Had 6 H bodies, and never had a problem with any of them. I wish I could be around when these new “musclecars” look and perform when they’re 46 years old. Built out of cheap plastic and reynolds wrap bodies, and all aluminum, leaky ass blocks. You can have all the “700hp” Demon Hellcat, “Coyote” Mustangs you want, but if you can’t get it to the ground, it don’t mean squat. I’ve personally relished in watching many of them spinning out into curbs, trees, ending up in the woods trying to keep up with my, declared by most in this blog, POS ’75 Monza Towne Coupe. 450 hp 400 small block, with a built TH350, and an Eaton 2:93 posi is is enough to embarrass the inexperienced in front of their social media addicted girlfriends. 155 mph not to the floor. Gotta love a hand built death machine.
Always liked the silver with red inside Vega’s.
“Why the hell would anyone buy an Oldsmobile or Pontiac when they could get a nearly identical Chevy for much less?”
Same with Mercury, why bother after the Grand Marquis market faded away? While Dodge priced themselves as Plymouths and said “get a mid level brand for less”, pushing away lower brand. Chrysler and Buick still barely hanging on these days.
OTOH, GMC gets well off suburbanites who “refuse to be seen in a Chevy”, so the “Sloan Ladder” seems to still work for trucks.
It was all about money. GM created the Vega, because it wanted a profitable small car. It was cheaply made because it wanted a profitable car. It was shipped as a lemon, because GM wanted a profitable small car. GM lost scads of loyal owners, because they bought a Vega – which ended up not being such a profitable car.
The Vega was what happens when a oversized corporation filled with overpaid idiots, focus more on marketing and profits than on putting a decent car together.
I bet not a single moron got fired over the Vega debacle either.
Fired? More like promoted. As evidence, one need look no further than the 1979 X-body (Citation).
What’s stunning is that after foisting the one-two, Vega-Citation punch on the American car buying public, GM, somehow, managed to hang on for another three ‘decades’ before declaring bankruptcy. That is simply incredible.
Not sure how true the following is yet read the H-Body and T-Body reportedly shared the same origin by way of the 1964 General Motors XP-813 on the Cars: Design & Style
Facebook page.
If the above can indeed be verified, how much componentry did the Vega and Chevette share with each other? Would it be closer to the mark to say the Chevette was loosely to some degree a shortened Vega (or was the Vega with the exception of their engines basically an enlarged Chevette despite appearing first in 1970?), on the basis the 5-door Chevette in North America upon its introduction shared a similar enough wheelbase as the then discontinued Vega?
Not true. First off, these various XP designs were just that: concepts and clays. They never advanced to the pre-engineering phase. If certain stylistic cues were reused on later cars like the Vega or T-Car, that does not mean there was a direct lineage.
The Vega obviously came first, and is a 100% homegrown (US) design with front and rear suspensions that very closely resemble those used by larger Chevy cars (Camaro, Nova).
The T-Car was engineered at Opel, Its front and rear suspensions are quite different from the Vega. It was a smaller Euro-centric successor to the previous Kadett, from whom it borrowed its rear suspension design.
They are two very different cars.
Thanks for clearing up the matter.
Apart from a V6 Chevette test car did GM in North America look at emulating the overseas versions of the T-Car by fitting their Chevette with larger engines to create a “Halo” effect, since the online info appears to establish the Vega engine for all of its large displacement to negligible emissions strangled output (never mind the Cosworth Vega motor) was actually lighter than the 1.6 (Isuzu?) engine used in the Chevette?
In that respect a relatively big jump in displacement for the North American Chevette whether from 1.6 to 2.3-litres or 1.6 to 2-litres would not be unusual when looking at Vauxhall’s version with its 1.3 and 2.3 engines, while the 2-litre Cosworth Vega engine would be comparable with the Kadett C’s 1.9/2-litre models or the 2-litre Impulse/Piazza.
Probably not in any serious way, because the mission of the U.S.-spec T-body Chevette was to be cheap and to prop up Chevrolet CAFE numbers. Chevrolet’s idea of special halo version of the Chevette in this period was the ultra-cheapo Scooter, a stripped-down model designed for the lowest possible price. There was a “high-output” 49-state engine with a whopping 5 additional horsepower, because a Chevy wasn’t a Chevy if there wasn’t SOMETHING for the salesperson to talk punters into adding for just a few dollars more, but if someone wanted something a little sportier, a Chevrolet dealer would surely have steered them into an H-body Monza.
It wasn’t that there was any technical reason Chevrolet couldn’t have put a bigger engine in the Chevette, it was that there was no business reason. Scooter notwithstanding, if you look at the list prices of the Chevette and the list prices of the Monza, there was really not a lot of daylight between them. Each step up in size generally meant bigger per-unit profits, and so there was very little incentive to make the Chevette sportier or nicer if in the process it was just going to steal sales from the Monza, or the Nova, or the Malibu.
This is part of the reason why the U.S. Chevette has such a lackluster reputation in this country. Unlike, say, the Mk2 Ford Escort in the UK, there really weren’t any “cool” versions to elevate the reputation of the dour price-leader variants. It was a car Chevrolet felt they needed to have, but weren’t that interested in people actually wanting.
This was one of the really fundamental differences between smaller cars in the U.S. market and smaller cars elsewhere: It was almost always going to be more profitable to steer buyers into a bigger model than to sell them a fancier version of the small one.
With something like a Corolla in Japan or a RWD Escort in Europe, there were various reasons some buyers just weren’t going to go for a bigger car, which created an incentive for automakers to develop plusher and/or sportier versions of those smaller models. For instance, in Japan in the seventies, there were quite a few repeat Corolla buyers, and Toyota was keen to cater to those customers.
In the States, neither domestic automakers nor their dealers particularly wanted the buyers of the smaller, cheaper models to buy two of them in succession. The object was almost always to get them to trade up, and because the overall cost of ownership of a car in the U.S. is not strongly correlated to size or engine displacement or even fuel economy, getting buyers to step up to the next larger model was both reasonably possible and good for the bottom line.
S models were built in 1978 not 1980 as leftover Vega bodies were from 1977. Also no mention that the 262V8 was initially offered in Monzas.
I have doubts any Vega-bodied Monza S coupes were ever sold, much less the almost-3000 units often claimed. The brochure shot here is almost the only one I’ve ever seen even in photos or real life (I once found one other photo that I posted on the rare Vega/Monza thread), and a Google image search for a Monza S comes up blank except for the photo shown here.
In Quebec, in French, we called these cars Chevrolet « dégâts »and Pontiac « désastre ». Dégâts means damage, ans desastre means disaster. It was prophetic!
What else did this corporate engineering staff work on? Was it a new organization made up of people from the divisions? It seems expensively redundant, or had they already decided to begin to centralize almost everything, as happened later?
Engineering Staff was not part of the divisions, which had their own engineering departments, and it had been around for a very long time (since well before WW2). It was a Sloan thing, kind of a follow-on to Kettering’s Research Laboratories.
It did various advanced and developmental engineering projects, some of which were picked up by one or more of the production divisions. For instance, their transmission development group did a lot of work on torque converter transmissions, which led in the forties to Buick Dynaflow and the original Chevrolet Powerglide transmission, and a group within Engineering Staff did a lot of the initial development on the Buick aluminum V-8, although Buick ended up redesigning it quite extensively. As I understand it, Engineering Staff also provided additional engineering support for divisional projects, I assume on a consultancy basis.
Since each division had its own engineering staff, including an “advanced” section doing R&D, it was arguably redundant, but Sloan was very keen on the importance of enabling the corporation to develop new technology and new engineering IP, which, given the rapid pace of automotive development in the twenties and thirties, was a fairly logical idea. The divisional R&D was focused on that division’s needs, and it was clear there would sometimes be promising new technology that would be beyond the resources, budget, or inclination of any one division, but that it was in the corporation’s interests to develop, either for the eventual benefit of the manufacturing and supply divisions or to license to other companies.
Chapter 14 of Alfred Sloan’s My Years With General Motors explains how the central-office Engineering Staff came to be. He described its purpose like this:
“The Engineering Staff provides an intermediate, medium-range link between the Research Laboratories and divisional engineering activities. It chiefly develops new engineering concepts and designs, and appraises them for commercial application.”