If you want to be guaranteed that your Cohort pictures will end up on the pages of CC, have them be of a Vega. Well, there’s others too, but a Vega, especially a Cosworth Vega, will always do the trick, like this one shot and posted by Nathan Williams.
Yes, I’ve had a “special relationship” with the Vega ever since I drove a friend’s new ’71 with Powerglide. Oh, what a feeling! A very palpable one, actually, thanks to the vibrations. Enough of that; what we have here is the uber-Vega, a sporty version Chevrolet spent some three years teasing us about it hi-output 16 valve DOHC engine , only to drop a gigantic dud in our laps: 110 hp, modest performance, but at twice the price of a regular Vega. That’s why I gave it the Deadly Sin award (#27).
Such a lot of advance press was involved, including a test or two of a hot prototype. But in the end, it was mostly just a lot of hot air.
Road and Track’s test of a CV was an embarrassment, with a 0-60 time of 12.3 seconds. They summed it up in saying it was what the regular Vega should have been all a long, but just not at twice the price. The engine ran smoother and quieter, and performance was what it should have been. Oh well…it seemed like a good idea at the time.
This looks like a reasonably well-kept original CV, but far from pristine. It’s probably fair to say that CV’s are likely to outlive regular Vegas due to their collectability.
It still does nothing for me, except to evoke a chuckle or two. But here’s something I hadn’t thought of until now: it’s the only car to receive two GM Deadly Sins. Now that’s quite a feat.
CC Cosworth Vega: GM’s Deadly Sin #27 – Too Little, Too Late, Too Expensive
CC 1971 Vega: GM’s Deadly Sin #2
R&T Review: Cosworth Vega – A Better Vega For twice The price Of A Regular One
CC: Cosworth Vega #2196 (Detailed History of the CV and Personal Ownership Experience) Ed Stembridge
The thing that galls me the most about the Vega is that it really was innovative and could have changed the way cars were built and sold in the US … except they rushed it to market, gave it an engine that belonged in a snowmobile or a lawn tractor, and spent $1.46 on quality control. It was always a reasonably good-looking, affordable car that tended to make its buyers swear they’d never buy a GM product again.
I wonder how many got traded in on Aspens and Volares. That would be enough to put anyone off car ownership forever.
If only they’d spent a couple million on putting an aluminum crossflow head on the Chevy II 153 and the rest of the development fund on rustproofing.
Also, the premium for a Cosworth was so high Chevy advertised it as “One Vega for the price of two”.
The thing that galls me the most about the Vega is that it really was innovative and could have changed the way cars were built and sold in the US
Really? I see it as nothing but a somewhat smaller Camaro or Nova. It had the same basic front suspension, used Chevy and Opel transmissions, and there was nothing really new or innovative about its rear suspension either.
There’s a reason so many ended up with sbc V8s in them; they were just a typical somewhat more compact Chevy.
The only thing that was “innovative” was the engine, and that was a total dud.
You forget Vegas were shipped standing on end and that the rear suspension was later used for 1980’s and later F-bodies!
It was GM’s hallmark: innovation is not permitted. Any advances MUST be strangled in the cradle. If they manage to make production, they must be so watered-down as to be worse than what they replace.
The Pinto was FAR more innovative than the Vega.
Really? The Pinto was essentially a UK Ford Cortina with a new low swoopy body that had less interior room than the Cortina. Same engine, transmission, suspension, etc.. Not a whole lot of innovation in my book.
GM Convair—big innovation—lots of issues, leads to Vega with little innovation.
Ford Mustang—little mechanical innovation—best seller, leads to Pinto with little mechanical innovation.
Simply a corporate reaction to the corporate version of pain and pleasure, or difficult paths versus easy paths. Corporate types take the path of greatest chance of success and least risk.
Same front suspension maybe, but the Cortina III had a four-link coil rear end.
I should have been more precise: Cortina Mark II.
I know of at least one! My aunt bought a Vega wagon and after keeping it only about six months somehow traded it in on an Aspen wagon. She was one of the lucky ones, she had the Aspen for years with little trouble.
Ah well. If Dad had come home with this instead of the regular Vega I would have been thrilled. Mom not so much, she didn`t drive standard so ours had the PG auto.
Nice to see one in the wild though, I still regret net getting a ride in Ed`s CV.
Well, I’ll remind you I have yet to get a ride in your Bug, Doug! (c:
I’m almost done with my shop, BTW. Get your front beam yet?
In one of his last articles for Jalopnik, noted taillight-trivia expert Jason Torchinsky offered proof of what I had long thought was an urban legend, these late Vegas had fake amber rear turn signals.
https://jalopnik.com/chevys-bean-counters-turned-the-vegas-taillights-into-t-1848484534
The Cosworths are the only Vegas that show up at local car shows. The survival rate of these cars must be relatively high.
I don’t think I have ever noticed a CV painted that color – every one I can recall was either brown/gold or black. It is a shame that these missed the market so badly. Twice.
I thought they were all black with gold trim. It’s too bad GM had sold the little Buick V8 to Rover. They might have perfected it in the intervening ten years and avoided some of those future aluminum engine problems that cost them so many customers and the reputation of Cadillac.
IIRC, all ’75s CVs were black with gold trim, but ’76s were available in any Vega color (with the gold pinstriping). I like this color combo.
Correct. Black was a CV-only color for ’75, too.
“Why didn’t GM bring over Opel designs in the 70’s?”
They did. One was the T-Car, aka Chevette. If they “brought over” a larger Opel for a ’76 Seville, it would have been “Americanized”, too. And, we know all about the US version of the “world” J car.
You could buy Opels at your Buick dealer in the early ‘70s. Argue that Buick was the wrong sales channel for them, but they were there.
Germany didn’t debase their currency in the late 60s and 70s like the US did, so importing Opels became increasingly less profitable. Buick dealers were probably very happy to have small, non-Vega cars to sell in MY ’74, when big cars sold poorly, but by the end of ’75, fear of gas lines and price jumps had subsided–until 1979. Sales may not have justified keeping up with US emissions standards, either.
It must have been the pet project of someone at Chevrolet who had too much ego involved to let it die in utero. By the time it arrived, the Vega was well-known to be a total dud, and even if the engine *did* arrive with 140hp, the rest of the car was so awful that I’m surprised they sold as many as they did.
Throwing the question out there, because I don’t know the answer. Did the engine people for the Vega believe that the off-the-shelf GM fours were inadequate in some way? Was there the perception at GM of a compelling need to develop an all new engine for the Vega?
If I recall correctly, Ed Cole, who had designed the landmark 1955 Chevrolet V-8 (and worked on the 1949 Cadillac V-8), was responsible for the Chevrolet Vega engine. He was in love with the technology. And he had the clout to make it happen.
If DeLorean’s book is to be believed – and his account sounds plausible – Chevrolet wanted to use a conventional four-cylinder engine of its own design, but the 14th Floor overruled the division.
The problems were twofold. One – as customers discovered – GM’s execution of the technology wasn’t ready for primetime. Two, the engine was relatively expensive to manufacture, so the accountants forced cost reductions in other areas.
Ed Cole did oversee the development of the Vega, and he was in love with aluminum and new technology.
As to the use of other GM fours, the only domestic one was the Chevy 153 four. It was the only engine that ran with more vibrations than the Vega 2300. But that could have been tamed considerably like the Brazilians did when they increased the bore and reduced the stroke of the Chevy four, creating the Chevy 152. Pontiac followed suit when they revived and modified the Chevy four into the Iron Duke, which ran somewhat smoother than the Vega 2300.
That was a lot more obvious than building a new engine from scratch. With a good head adapted from their scb V8, it would have made plenty of power (essentially one-half of a Z-28 302).
Yes, they could have adopted the Opel cam-in head four, but it wasn’t an exceptional engine either.
The obvious choices were a modified Chevy II four, or a new but more conventional four.
One of the reasons that Cole used an aluminum block was to help amortize the huge investment GM made in aluminum foundries for the Corvair. But that coud have been used for a proper aluminum head on an iron block, like was so common in Europe and Japan.
The reason tthat the Vega 2300 had such a long stroke and big displacement was to replicate the feel of low end torque of American V8s. That’s also why it came standard with a three speed manual, and very high (low numerical) rear axle ratio. Cole was trying to replicate the qualities of a big American car in a small one. It utterly backfired, as small car buyers mostly liked the sporty feeling of smaller engines and a good four speed stick.
I don’t know what the corporate problem was, but I’ve driven both the Vauxhall slant four and the Opel CIH engine (they both turned up in local Holden Toranas). The Opel was not good, and the Vauxhall was dire. Each thirsty, rough, and slow. Why? Biggest auto maker in the world, and this?
I’ll speculate for a moment that Ed Cole knew their Euro options were crappy, and so designed a four from scratch, but realities of cost made his ideas into something even worse than GM Europe offered. That, or his ego/tech-love made him reject the idea of a good crossflow pushrod four adapted from the Chev 2 engine. After all, the engine in the Celica of ’72 was an iron pushrod crossflow, and a cracker of a thing (in its time).
As a curiosity, and apart from the rear-engined Skoda, are there any other post-war engines with an alloy block and iron head?
The 1981 and up Cadillac “High Technology” V8 (41, 4.5, 4.9L).
Of course Ed Cole never considered using the Opel or Vauxhall engines, for several reasons, most of all his ego.
He wanted a long stroke, large displacement low-rev four for two reasons: long-stroke engines are better for emissions, and he wanted a very low and fat torque curve, as he was convinced that’s what American buyers wanted, hence the three-speed standard manual and high rear axle gearing. A loafer.
Both of those choices are valid, especially the first. The second not for those that already had come to appreciate the fun of flogging a small engine with a slick four speed, but he was targeting buyers who might well be downsizing from a bigger American car.
The idea of using an aluminum block without a liner, thanks to adding 17% silicon, was a good idea, and one that would eventually be used very widely. But this was going to be something totally new, and with risk.
The risk was greatly exacerbated by the idiotic decision to use an undersized radiator, thus grossly increasing the likelihood of overheating, which then would warp the open deck block enough to cause severe oil burning.
The valve guides were also deficient, for some reason, leading to heavy oil consumption, exacerbated by the easy to warp cylinders.
The head was made of iron for several reasons. Of course it was cheaper. It added structural strength to the flimsy cylinder block. And simplified camshaft bearing issues.
It all could have been made to work with a few more years of development. Which is exactly what happened: in 1976, the “Dura-Built” version came along, with numerous changes including to the head. It essentially solved all the issues.
It was a classic case of GM hubris, as exhibited over and over and over: the Olds diesel V8, the Cadillac V8-6-4, the X-Cars, the Northstar V8, etc. etc. GM was obsessed with the idea that new technology was what was going to keep them out in front, and invariably all of it arrived half-baked, or less.
Chrysler slant six. All used iron heads, they were built with open-deck aluminum blocks (with iron cylinder liners) for a few years early on.
Vega could have ended up as an Opel based car, but with the infamous 2300 motor we got.
There was also Vauxhall’s OHC slant four, but it didn’t reach 2.3 litres until 1972. Plus it wasn’t federalized. In single-carb low compression 1972 form it was good for 100hp @5200 and 139lb/ft of torque @3000, so maybe not ideal for America.
There’s also the fact that it was also a pongy, stinky dog of an engine, Mr W.
I drove one (1600?1700cc?) in a ’73-odd Torana, and still remember all these years on for its unique awfulness.
Road tests of the era suggest a similar reaction, if with better-mannered references than odiferous canines.
It is sad to be a two time winner of the deadly sin award.
EARNED – but still sad.
Huh – is there an AMC Deadly Sin category?
It would be pretty interesting, wouldn’t it?
AMC Deadly Sin? AMC never died. Chrysler paid a hefty $1.5 billion for AMC.
4th photo shows the glorious fake tri-color taillights.
Not Cosworth’s greatest hour, clearly.
But to British ears, Chevy and Cosworth goes together like…. well, not like Ford and Cosworth, that’s for sure.
Ford and Cosworth, like apple and pie. or something.
By 1976-77 “Vega’s” were “persona non grata” to most of us. Wish I’d a known they were “not awful” by then.
I’d a hunted out a leftover, unsold one in 1978.
Everyone was riding of the lot in “Monza’s and “Chevette’s that year.
A Vega in Ontario with minimal rust? What black magic is this?
Say, I’ll defend it, this lost soul.
Now, I’ve never seen a Vega in the metal, but from any picture ever put up anywhere, my lordy, is it a handsome car, especially at first, when bumpers in the US didn’t have govt-regulated hives.
Some folk – I may or may not be amongst ’em – wax on and on (and off) about the glories of things like the Fiat 130 and 124 coupe, or the Lancia Gamma coupe, or, not to blaspheme for believers, the ’72 Ferrari 365, all of them those European paragons of high taste and restraint right at this time, yet we – sorry, they – have forgotten to include the Vega in the club.
I know – they know – that Bill Mitchell had a good look each year at what was on the go in Europe, but they – we – don’t acknowledge that amongst the incestuous copying of material still rife in this part of the industry, GM arguably did the best interpretation of the lot. I acknowledge it, and here argue it, for this lost soul. It’s a familiar object of not much interest to older-ish folks here at CC, but shorn of that context, it looks a lot different. It looks really good.
Let’s face it, the Gamma and the 130 at minimum were shitboxes worse-behaved than any Vega, and a boatload of money more was needed for entry to them. THEY, on one view, are sins of a much higher order, surely, if only for the cheating price of entry. GM , with the Vega, merely made a mediocre econobox in an era when most such cars didn’t last long anyway: the posho stuff has to be the bigger disaster, no?
And in ’75, most US performance cars were gasping, but so were heaps of smarty-pants Euros in America when they had to exhaust so as not to kill. The Cosworth Vega theoretically should’ve been better than it was, sure, but the haughty Euros abroad weren’t really any better at 2-odd litres, were they?
If one adds the superb looks to the Euro-in-America-equalling performance, I suggest to you all that, if it’s a sin at all – and I say it isn’t – it’s a fair distance from deadly.
You can now wrest my case.
The ultimate apples to oranges (and lemons) comparison.
Everyone thought that the Vega looked great, me included. That’s never, ever been an issue. Cute as a button, although the very low body made it cramped. Terrible space utilization. No proper four door sedan with a taller greenhouse. One again, looks were supposed to trump practicality. Meanwhile, the Corolla was significantly smaller yet offered better accommodations.
Back to your very fruity comparison attempt. The Vega was to be a cheap small car to be built in very large masses. The 130 and Gamma, not. Those two were never sold in the US, making the comparison even more ludicrous.
Everyone knew and expected high-end Italian cars to be beautiful but very finicky; hence the “Italian mistress” label so widely used back then.
Comparing the Vega to those two is…utterly impossible and futile.
I really don’t like the assertion that small ass-market cars like the Vega (and Falcon) were designed to be disposable or “not last long”. That was never the case; and expectations were never accordingly. Small cars often outlasted big cars simply because there was less to break, and when something did break, it was easier to fix.
The Vega had numerous issues that required many recalls starting in its first year. All issues due to lack of development and durability testing, due to a rushed schedule and such (presumably).
It was the polar opposite of the Ford Pinto, which wisely was nothing more than a well-proven Cortina MKII with a new body. Now major issues, until the gas tank location issue.
The BMW 2002Tii (sold in the US at that time) had 130 hp from 2.0 L. The Jensen-Healey, with a very similar design to the CV, (DOHC 16 valves) made 140 hp (US version) from 2.0L. I could probably find others.
Well, I did say wrest. You have, back to reality.
I’ve never heard anyone here before express strong love for the looks of the Chev, and wanted to offer it love by comparison to fancy fineries of like style. And, as it did on trains, and it does stand up.
It was perhaps slightly pome to further analogize about function, and, like GM itself, over-stepped ambition.
(Wouldn’t use the Jensen-Healy, though. It was notoriously undriveable, and made the original Vega look reliable, so its power output could best be described as so brief as not to exist).
I’ve never heard anyone here before express strong love for the looks of the Chev,
How utterly odd, as I’ve never, ever in over 50 years since it arrived heard anyone say that it wasn’t cute or good looking, or even better (we’re talking about the original 1971-1973 version front end versions).
I would suggest you read some of our earlier articles on the Vega, so we don’t have to cover so much old, well-trod ground again.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/cc-chevrolet-vega-winner-of-1971-small-car-comparison-and-gms-deadly-sin-no-2/
As to the Jensen-Healy, it’s power output had nothing to with its reliability issues.
Though old, and well-trod into the ground again, I shall obey your suggestion and attend my re-education camp forthwith.