This review makes interesting reading, as it’s something of a counterpoint to our retrospective CC’s and such that we’ve used to trash the poor, cute little baby Chevy. Although certain obvious shortcomings of the Vega (noisy engine, poor assembly quality, inconsistent performance and fuel economy, poor shifter, among others) had been noted since 1971, and many of them were improved in the 1973 version, it hadn’t yet quite developed the really bad rep it eventually did.
Presumably that’s simply because the oldest ones one the road weren’t yet quite two years old. My memory tells me it was in 1973 – 1974 that the frequency of serious engine issues started becoming more widely known, despite the lack of social media and such. R&T’s survey of Vega owners turned up a number of issues, including several serious engine failures and lots of sloppy workmanship, but it was not yet enough to rise to the level of a serious stinker.
Meanwhile, Chevy had been at work on the Vega, and the ’73 version had some notable objective improvements.
The Chevy engineers put their attention on the 2300 engine to improve performance a bit, despite tighter emission controls. Combined with a new Muncie 4-speed with different ratios from the previous Opel box and a higher (lower numerical) rear axle ratio, the net results were a reduction in the 0-60 from 14.2 to 13.5 seconds, a quieter engine at freeway speeds, and improved fuel economy, now a full 26 mpg. Tada! This makes the 73 the most desireable, unless you like the “shovelnose” front end that started in 1974.
The gearshift was batter, but still not really good. Noise measurements showed that the Vega was now quieter at idle and full throttle, and actually quieter than a Datsun 610 or Toyota mark II at 70 mph. That 2.92:1 rear axle ratio was a contributing factor.
But the Vega engine;s inherent thrashiness was of course still al-too obvious. Piston slap when cold added to that.
As always, handling (and good looks) were the Vega’s best qualities. Radial tires improved several aspects further. The Vega was faster on the skidpad than any other sedan or coupe save the Jag XJ6. But on rougher pavement, the rear axle still skips and hops, the suspension bushings are too soft, and the shocks are cheap junk.
True to its original aspiration, the Vega was deemed the best highway car in its class. Just make sure it doesn’t overheat.
Under today’s car marketing norms, something like the Vega would shine. Competitive performance and handling, styling that made the imports look dumpy, and enough durability to make it through the lease. But second owner beware!!
Chevrolet could have saved production costs, too, by making it in any color you’d want as long as it was white, black or silver-grey. With a grey interior.
Unfortunately, too many of the major auto magazines never addressed the serious reliability or quality-control shortcoming reputations of various cars, as these liabilities eventually became apparent to the public (and government). Somewhat proving, that selling new cars, and not consumer advocacy, was their primary objective.
Whether it was the Volare/Aspen or GM’s fwd X-cars, they left it to Consumer Reports, national media, buyer’s word of mouth, or government, to identify the major reliability/durability problems with these cars. Consistently, during followup road tests in successive years, their bad reputations for recalls/unreliability/poor quality, were never mentioned. At least, while the cars were still in production.
As an anecdotal aside, I watched an episode of The Price is Right from 1976 during the Christmas break. Mainly for the nostalgia. When introducing a prize Chevrolet Vega, show emcee Johnny Olsen highlighted the new Durabuilt engine, and various quality-control improvements made to the Vega that year. Something I had very rarely seen before (or after) by any game show promoting the features of a new car. TPIR would always stick to promoting features and options. Not vital durability improvements. Clearly having to compensate, for the car’s already poor reputation with the public.
I have worked in dealer service and I have a slightly different take. Customers would have been at dealer service departments for warranty repairs. The auto maker then has to make a choice: 1. Just let the cars keep failing because we only have a one year warranty, or 2. Fix the problem and reduce warranty expenses in the following models. Many upgrades are running changes. The upshot is the manufacturers know exactly what is failing in their products.
In my opinion, in the 1970s, option 1 was more common. The General had huge volume and didn’t much care about them thar ferriners all that much. They slapped their cheaper cars together like snap-together models and customers bought them. They knew the cars were poor quality. Small cars were bad and only meant to steer you to a more profitable car.
The oil crisis changed everything, or at least on my level. My dad bought a 1974 Toyota Corolla to save fuel, as his 1970 Pontiac was pretty much junk after four years. He was shocked at how good it was compared to everything else he had ever driven. In 1979, he factory ordered a Chevrolet Impala, which was slapped together and appeared to be painted by a drunk. He never drove an American brand car again.
The Durabuilt is so typically GM. They could have introduced this engine in 1971, but nooooooo, they cheapened it out and did huge damage to their brand.
In the Vega’s case, “most desirable” would have to be modified to “least undesirable”, which is probably a moot point since it assumes there are any in existance for sale to desire.
Seriously, I could actually see there being a small collector market for these. They are good looking little cars and as the first domestically designed and built GM subcompacts, they are historically significant. And as a hobby car it wouldn’t be relied on to be reliable, which was always the biggest weak point. Still, how many collector quality 73 Vegas could there be out in the world?
My parents bought a 3 year old used 74 Vega and their ownership experience was everything one would expect. Sedan, not hatchback, with the 74 nose, so not even good looking. They never bought another American car after that. I always thought it was a bit unfair to judge all cars based on one of the worst ever, but such is the power of a lemon and the danger to car companies of not taking quality seriously.
The problem with the Vega as a collector car is one of nostalgia. Most regard nostalgia as a good thing, but that is almost certainly not the case with most Vega owners. It’s like dredging up a really bad memory, and who wants to do that? Imagine going to a car show, seeing a pristine Vega, and remembering all the grief that was associated with it.
So, maybe it’s a blessing that, even though GM spit out, quite literally, millions of Vegas, very few remain in running (let alone collectable) condition. That, in and of itself, would be a problem. How the hell could anyone keep a Vega in any kind of condition fifty years later when it was harder than hell to do it when they were new? And who would want to spend the money to do it?
I went to a car show a few years ago where there two or three pristine Vega’s (admittedly Cosworths) and the nostalgia for my long-gone GT kicked in hard enough to have me looking for months on EBay, BaT and Hemmings for a decent example, preferably non-Cosworth, with no luck.
Yeah, Cosworths are likely the only Vegas that will ever be seen at a car show. TBH, I wonder if the whole Cosworth Vega project is one of the reasons the 1982 2.8L V6 Chevette prototype never made it to production, repeating the same expensive fiasco (not to mention that the V6 Chevette’s performance bested the V8-powered GM cars of the time, including the Corvette).
It’s a real shame because the 2.8L Chevette held promise to make it something of the first hot-hatch (at least in a straight line) before the Rabbit/Golf GTI made its big splash in 1983.
Anyway, the thing about the regular Vega is it ‘is’ interesting to marvel at GM’s cheapness, paricularly the earliest examples. That posted video of the low-mileage 1973 notchback Vega is a terrific example. I mean, the Vega was just bad, even by early seventies’ standards.
Stuff like an air cleaner element that couldn’t be replaced; it was necessary to buy the entire air cleaner ‘housing’. And it was all done so GM could save a few pennies on the assembly line.
Production costs would likely have been significantly cheaper since it would’ve been all in-house while the CosVeg had engines actually made by Cosworth. So it wouldn’t have been at as much a “one car for the price of two” as that car, but the fact it would blow the doors off the Sacred Corvette was probably what killed it.
A 5,000 mile ’73 Vega timepiece provides some interesting insight on the various shortcomings/crudeness of the design.
There is one, at least! Thanks for finding this.
It’s a shame that Toyota never aped Pininfarina’s styling for their small sedans and coupes the way that GM did. A Vega built and powered by Toyota would have really been something.
They did. It was called the Celica.
Which Celica was cribbed from Pininfarina? Early Celicas were indeed competitors to loaded Vega GT coupes, and they were superior in most objective and subjective ways, but they looked more like mini-Mustangs than four-cylinder Ferraris.
I’ve probably come across here in the past as a Vega apologist, and my 20-20 hindsight glasses are very rose tinted. But the ‘73 GT I owned from 1976 through 1980 was not a bad car for a cheap ($1200 used with 60K miles in 1976, very clean, good mechanically and not (yet) an oil burner).
I came from a 1965 Volvo 122S, a car with 1950’s design except for front disk brakes. By comparison, the Vega had superb handling on smooth roads, a torquier motor, and a quieter engine than the B18. And I loved the notchy, yet precise shifter. I did add aftermarket shocks and slightly smaller than stock European 185/70-13 radials which made a good handling car even better.
And then it overheated … but I still drove it for three more years, but as a second car to an Alfa and a Ford Fiesta. Replaced it in 1980 with a used Scirocco which made the Vega seem like a paragon of reliability and durability by comparison.
Interesting article. I had several ’73 GTs (they were the best of a bad lot), and every one still had the 3.36:1 ratio. I seem to recall the Saginaw was the 2.85 first gear unit as well. It was a stronger transmission than the Opel unit but not nearly as nice to shift.
The changes noted in the article did happen in ’74 though.
A buddy and I had a little side business going converting these cars to V-8s, and I took a LOT of them apart. I did use an especially nice ’73 GT as a daily driver for awhile and it was a pretty decent car, though I never saw anything close to the 26 mpg noted in the article. It eventually got an L-79 spec 327 and ran low 13s at Spokane. I had a lot of fun with the car, but hot rodders like myself and a terrible propensity to rust killed these cars decades ago.
I’ve often idly thought of finding a rust free ’73 GT (yeah, sure….) and installing a modern V-6 just for old times sake. I can see my Dad up above shaking his head as another dead Vega gets dragged into the driveway…..
Thanks for these bits of info; I’m quite sure my ‘73 GT had the 3.36 rear end.
I drove my beautiful 74 Vega gt through 4 years of college with NO issues. The a/c was reliable and though it wasn’t fast it handled great. Other than the rust issues around the hatch glass the car held up well with just regular maintenance. Never a problem with overheating either. She did break a timing belt after I married after college but I just think Valerie Vega was jealous of me marrying?
GM was entering compact cars for the second time with the Vega and all America was excited. Later on, we realized GM used the customer as the guinea pig. It followed the same format with the diesel, X-Car, HT 4100, etc, etc, etc.
Now it wants us to sing the praises of the Bolt and Lyriq.
Based on its prior track record, I wait this one out as well.
Thanks for all the interesting details .
-Nate
Lack of an internet allowed manufacturers to continue building any kind of junk they liked it took longer for word to leak out, sometimes,
It took Ford 12 months to stop assembling 2.5 MK4 Zephyrs in NZ the warranty claims made it obvious that engine was a lemon from 67 untill the end of production only the 3.0 Essex V6 was used in all models it was marginally better but that was the end of large cars from Ford UK.
I am aware critiquing a Vega with skepticism is the equivalent of shooting dead fish in a beach pail at this point, but that “best highway car in class” claim they are throwing out there in this article? Even ignoring what we know today, I find that pretty intellectually dishonest. This particular Vega is as ideally equipped as it’s going to get for that to be true, yes, but this is also a Vega that is nearly 40% more expensive than the starting entry point. The essential stuff you would have to add to replicate this (cough) strangely improved Vega in the real world at minimum would be the engine upgrade, the four speed, the ride and handling group, the radial tires, and the custom interior… $3,000 easily got you into a Toyota Corona, a vastly more substantial competitor in most respects. Hell, a 5-speed Corolla coupe was $600 less than this Vega in 1973, and I’m sure it would trounce it in performance and economy as well; RT tested the heavier Carina with the same motor and 4-speed the year prior and it already equaled or bettered this Vega in both. That’s probably the best compromise, actually. Equal performance and economy, more space and equipment, 78db at 70, and $2,600 out the door…
Around 1972, my thrifty grandfather traded in his Simca 1000 for a new Vega and what I remember most is how the suspension bottomed out on rough roads–a huge problem for a country doctor who made house calls. I think he kept it long enough for the fenders to rust through which took about 2 more years.
Every time I see a picture of a Vega I feel sad for the great American compact that might have been…
The seventies were the perfect storm for the Japanese. The domestic manufacturers were producting some of the worst-built cars since the late fifties while the Pacific Rim was importing some of the best. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where this was going to end. American consumers were getting burned badly, first by stuff like the Vega, then its follow-up (and even worse), the Citation. It just took one try of a Toyota, Honda, Datsun or even a Chrysler captive import to lose a loyal, lifetime American buyer for at least a generation.
If not for the domestics’ massive dealer network and fleet contracts keeping them afloat, they’d have all been gone a long time ago.
My take is American manufacturer’s had it in their heads that small cars were primarily for first time car buyers, or secondary cars to a more traditional full sized or intermediate in the same household. They didn’t read the market segment correctly for the times that a Vega might just be the only type of car a buyer for one is interested in, that it would be used as a primary vehicle for most of its buyers, not just for local errands by Detroit housewives.
I don’t believe the shortcomings were deliberately baked in so much as the engineering departments were operating outside their comfort zones and corporate wasn’t willing to put more development money into what they considered a novelty segment to smooth out refine them. The Citation was the point it became inexcusable, the Vega may well have been secondary car whose flaws didn’t necessarily reflect GMs more traditional products, but the Citation was poised to be a straight up family car, something Malibu buyers would be switching to, they blew that and they truly damaged their bread and butter.
The attitude dripping from the GM film in this post certainly supports some of your explanations here.
The argument of the Vega being a disposable, second car works to a certain extent. Still, it was a steaming pile that people paid good money for and expected to last longer than it did. I’ve read stories about Vegas being toast at 10,000 miles. There’s no excuse for a GM car to be gone by then.
The problem was how much of a dent it put into GM’s reputation as the US’ premier auto manufacturer.
But, yeah, the Citation is the one the really put the nail in that coffin.
Dan, I’m not giving the Pinto a pass. I did own one, I’m still here with my body parts. My Pinto never blew up (it rusted to crap). I grew up in the ’60’s. Where Ford put the gas tank in a Pinto was truly inexcusable. But that was a pretty common place most American car companies put their gas tanks in their cars. I think the worst design was the 1st Mustang. It used a rubber mat on top of the tank as a trunk floor, and a rubber hose to connect the tank to the filler.
I grew up in the ’60’s. The worst accident I saw was a mid ’60’s Pontiac burned to the ground from a rear end collision. I learned later that 2 people in the back seat perished in the fire.
It’s funny, I should add that the Corvair mounted its gas tank in front of the foot board, behind the front suspension cross member and between the two side frame rail members. The area in front of the front cross member was designed as a crush zone.
A very good design in the event of a collision. I’m sorry I have no knowledge of how Chrysler did it then.
Actually, the shortcomings were baked in. The Pinto, for example, had to come in at under $2000, or $1.00 per pound. Ford knew it would make for a cheap,crappy car but Lido didn’t care and it was not from Europe. The only reason cars like the Pinto and Vega existed as to get buyers into more expensive models.
It is hard to fathom how utterly cynical the car makers were/are. They didn’t make safer cars because they didn’t think they could make money on it. Instead of making decent, functional emission controls, they intentionally made the cars run badly while they fought the mandates in court. The Pinto gas tank issue was well known but it was cheaper to pay out the death settlements than fix the cars. They fought against airbags tooth and nail. There are just too many examples.
“So, Mr Smith, you are not happy with your death-rattling and smoking two year old Vega? Well, we can move you up to a Chevelle!”
The Pinto really wasn’t a bad car.
And that gas tank settlement study thing was debunked decades ago.
“Debunked”, no, it was not. The gas tank issues with the Pinto were real and exceptional (i.e., really much worse than comparably-sized other cars), and Ford’s handling of it was both negligent and immoral. The argument isn’t is too/is not, it’s to what degree. Many books have been written—some with exemplary objectivity and many references to primary documents and other reliable sources; others less rigourously supported by authors with one or another axe to grind.
While there’s no argument they were built to a cost, I don’t necessarily share the cynicism that the cars were deliberately poorly designed for the sole purpose of upsell potential. I believe GM and Ford saw these cars as lesser from their main product lines but in a way that an existing buyer might buy one of these cheaper sub-compacts as a car for his wife to get around in or juniors first car, which is how they incorrectly viewed the buyers of imports of the time.
The Vega and Pinto could have been much more cynically executed, along the lines of the Gremlin, a stubby Maverick or Nova could have gotten them into the category if they wanted and used their awfulness to upsell to the lines they cared about but that wasn’t the case, there was some level of effort to be noted that both cars had some fairly ambitious aspects to them not typically present in domestic designs including hatchbacks, aluminum engine blocks, overhead cams and rack & pinion steering. The execution was poor but I don’t think it was deliberate as much as it was hubris.
The regulatory aspects and GM and Ford’s reaction to them are another story entirely, but no regulation was forcing Detroit to produce subcompacts for 1971. They were once again trying to head off the swell of imports with a wealthy suburban Detroit understanding of what was appealing about those cars and what type of people drove them.
Ford’s safety issues with the Pinto were inexcusable. Functionally, the car actually ran because the engines were proven parts bin units from Ford UK and Germany. Imagine if the Vega had the Opel OHC 1900 engine.
Yes. Ford murdered people into buying an LTD. Absolutely, that’s it. And an unrelated study about rollovers proved it.
The Pinto saga was, in fact, debunked decades ago, starting with the Rutgers Law Review article, “The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case,” by Professor Gary T. Schwartz, which was published in 1991.
The Mother Jones article that got the ball rolling greatly overstated the number of fire-related deaths in Pintos. It also mischaracterized that supposed “smoking gun” Ford internal memo. That memo outlined a cost-benefit formula to be used for proposed federal vehicle safety regulations, and had actually been requested by the federal government from Ford. That is why it was never allowed to be admitted as evidence in any trial. The memo had nothing to do with the Pinto.
The Pinto’s overall safety record was actually better than many of its competitors, and if one focuses solely on fire-related deaths, was only slightly worse than its competitors.
In the two main Pinto cases – the Grimshaw case, and the 1980 case in Indiana – there was evidence showing that the Pinto in question had suffered a direct hit by a much larger vehicle traveling at 50+ mph (an early 1960s Galaxie in the Grimshaw case, and a 1970s full-size Chevy van in the Indianapolis case). Few small cars of that era would have emerged unscathed from that type of impact. (In the Indiana case, the driver had left the gas cap at the station after filling up the car. That is why she stopped in the middle of the road – there was no shoulder – as she was planning to make a U-turn to get the cap. The fact that the gas cap has not been placed on the fuel filler pipe also was a factor in the resulting fire. The driver of the Chevy van, meanwhile was reaching down to get a cigarette he had dropped, and did not brake before hitting the Pinto.)
A big enough mountain of words has been written about the Pinto that whoever wants to believe what they want to believe about it and doesn’t wish to hassle with the complex, grey, and squishy nature of reality can make it look like theirs is the one and only truthful winning argument.
For those who wish an appropriately rigourous, broad, and thoughtful overview of the Ford Pinto matter in realistic context—which does not award a gold crown to either the did-not or the did-too side—this book is a sturdy starting point.
Just to drive home the small car versus big vehicle scenario, just last week there was a terrible accident in Tishomingo, OK when a 2015 Chevy Spark with 6 teenage girls inside was obliterated by a heavy truck when the Spark pulled out in front of it on a highway. It was only possible to identify the Spark via the turn signals and an aluminum wheel, two of the only parts of the car still intact.
I’ll stick with actual research, backed up by real-world accident and fatality statistics that prove that the Pinto had a safety record comparable to other small cars of that era. That book only proves that regurgitating falsehoods and half-truths guarantees the replication of continued errors. I see nothing there that debunks the Rutgers Law Review article.
Of course, by repeating debunked information it appeals to those who don’t “want to hassle with the complex, grey, and squishy nature of reality” and want to continue to believe that “theirs is the one and only truthful winning argument.” The reality is that the Pinto case has long been debunked.
Again, there was no “smoking gun” memo, the number of actual fire-related deaths in Pintos was exaggerated by the Mother Jones article and the two main Pinto accidents were the result of being hit by much larger vehicles at 50+ mph. Those are the facts, no matter how much the writers of said book wish to ignore them. We can’t claim that Ford made an inherently dangerous car due to one aspect of its design, and then ignore real-world data that shows that its safety record in this area was comparable to that of its competitors.
I’ll also add that the NHTSA test that supposedly “proved” that the Pinto was dangerous, and used to justify the recall, was rigged. The Pinto didn’t explode after the first several attempts. The Pinto was rammed by a much larger vehicle – a contemporary Chevrolet Impala (one test had the Chevrolet Impala hit the Pinto at 48 mph – and it still didn’t explode).
Finally, to achieve the desired result (and justify the recall), the agency rigged the test by jacking up the Chevrolet to lower its front bumper, then turning on its headlights (to ensure a spark), making sure that the Pinto’s tank was full, and then increasing the speed of the Impala. That hardly constitutes proof that the Pinto was unsafe.
1971 got 18 MPG and 73 got 23? Might just as well put a 305 in it and cured the running and power problems. Probably 17-20 MPG and if you are buying a new car you shouldn’t lose your mind over a couple MPG…
Put in a 130hp 307 from 1972. You’d be looking at 25 mpg if you put a three speed Muncie stick behind the 2.92:1. The lesser torque would help the rear end stay together.
My neighbor worked at Lordstown where the Vegas were assembled. He said workers would deliberately sabotage the cars. Dropping a wrench into a door panel to introduce a permanent rattle. Wrapping a tuna sandwich around the heater in an inaccessible interior compartment.
I’ve read about Lordstown Assembly problems, and a lot of had to do with GM speeding up the line and reducing the number of workers, so I can’t particularly blame them. It was so bad that many of the vehicles had to be repaired at the final assembly quality review point before shipping.
But my favorite story about Lordstown is that, one day, the guys on the line got together and decided to ‘build’ (if that’s the proper word to use) a Vega that, ostensively looked like it was finished, but everything about it was assembled as haphazardly as possible. When it got to the quality review point, it was so bad that there was no way to get it in shape to ship without completely rebuilding it.
GM didn’t know what to do with the car. So, they just put it outside the plant, and there it sat for a very long time.
Sounds a lot like Van Nuys in the ’80’s. Post assembly rework rate was 25%.
And then when plants closed for good, …. what did they expect?
Oh, I know @Chicagoland. There’s no defending worker sabotage as some on this thread have done. And yes, when people wake up about the crappy cars, they vote with their pocketbooks as I predicted then. Even as a wise-cracking high school kid the outcome was entirely predictable. I take no pleasure, I assure y’all.
I remember friends in high school saying they’re gonna work at GM just like the old man does. Sorry, your old man… uh, need we say it decades later now?
In hindsight, my heart remains broken and my spirit infuriated at the pervasive, suicidal stupidity chosen by so many at the time.
Can’t help but feel they’re sort-of searching for kindnesses here. So many fundamentals of the car seem so bad – engine, still-average gearbox, hoppy rear-end, poor bushings, weak shocks. (As to weak shocks, find the Bud Lindemann test of one of these vs a Pinto: the boinga-boinga of the thing during the slalom or braking has to be seen to be believed!)
It’s amazing that performance was better. One can only presume the stonking 179lbs increase was those ’73 bumpers. That’s 7% of the car’s weight!
Still wins prettiest small US car ever, though.
Once again an article on the Chevy Vega and once again I’m going to defend my 74 Vega GT, my first new car.
I got to test drive a 73 GT from GM Canada and that’s what finally made up my mind on what my first car would be after graduating technical school. A nicely optioned GT was really a nice car around town and a great highway car capable of 30 mpg. A nearly two month summer road trip across Canada and the US proved the car was good for hauling two long haired 20 year old males and their gear in the back. Yes, the car did overheat near Palm Springs. But, a few years later with a rebuilt engine my little Vega carried on with very little rust thanks to a few years sitting in a garage. By 1990 it was sold for $400 and parts to a young man who had another vision for the car.
I always said the Vega was a well built, but poorly engineered automobile. John DeLorean I believe said it was “built by committee.”
Love the Vega, owned two of them. The factory 4 cylinder and V8 conversion. This vehicle would have been awesome with a nice health V6 4.3. and or a GT TURBOED UP.
I now own my third Vega. Have a tough time finding parts. Need a rear hatch w/ glass and hood.
Owned a 73 red vega gt.from brand new to about.1977..really of all the stuff said here..it was a good driving car new..tires were everything back then..esp.new tires on the car..the motor had problems after 50k miles..it did over heat some and the head gaskets were bad at 60k miles..just design problems Gm should have dart.sleeved the motor.with iron sleeves or iron blocked the motor..as always..they cheaped it out..as far the car..it drove well..interior was good fit was good and paint was good..great seats.steering and brakes good..I really liked the car..good driver..they should remake a good small car like the vega..and make it affordable. R
I too had a ’73 but a GT. No A/C. I did not realize undersized radiators caused the warping and oil burning. For that yellow one, put a larger radiator in and attack the rust. My car disintegrated with rust and blew through a qt of oil with each fill up.