ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (01/09/86)
The Vega should not be in contention for worst car in this new best/worst thing. Remember, the Vega came out at a time at which Detroit honestly believed it could not make money on small cars and was seeking ways to keep small cars OUT of America. I honestly believe the Vega was a deliberate effort on their part in this direction, the feeling at GM having been that anyone who ever owned a Vega would never want to own another small car again as long as they lived. As such, it cannot be viewed as a failure, but as a stunning success, too much of a success in fact; Detroit is now making DECENT small cars, but nobody believes them. All those former Vega owners are determined never to own another AMERICAN-MADE small car again, as long as they live. Justice, maybe?
struve@calma.UUCP (Dimetry Struve) (01/10/86)
Let's not pick on the Vega! It had a lot of redeeming qualities: styling, handling (the GT or Cosworth), decent performance for its time, excellent freeway fuel economy, ease of repair (a quality one often had the chance to appreciate). I wish I still had my almost cherry '73 GT which I sold in 1980. My pick for worst car based on personal experience would have to be the Pacer.
rdz@ccice6.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (01/13/86)
In article <495@imsvax.UUCP>, ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > The Vega should not be in contention for worst car in this new best/worst > thing. Remember, the Vega came out at a time at which Detroit honestly > believed it could not make money on small cars and was seeking ways to > keep small cars OUT of America. I honestly believe the Vega was a > deliberate effort on their part in this direction, the feeling at GM > having been that anyone who ever owned a Vega would never want to own > another small car again as long as they lived. As such, it cannot be > viewed as a failure, but as a stunning success, too much of a success > in fact; Detroit is now making DECENT small cars, but nobody believes > them. All those former Vega owners are determined never to own another > AMERICAN-MADE small car again, as long as they live. Justice, maybe? Having worked for a Chevrolet dealership, and having owned a 1975 Vega for 5 years, I have to disagree. Chevy was scrambling to keep small FOREIGN cars out of America, as was Ford. They knew they had missed a whole market segment and were playing catch-up. The MAIN problem with the Vega (and there WERE problems!) was that they tried to bill it as a little Impala and a Corrolla at the same time. Neither Impala buyers or Corrolla buyers were satisfied because they saw the car as the oposite of what they had wanted. As far as owning one, I guess I would rate mine (GT hatchback) a grade of C. It did some things well, others it didn't. It was the smallest car I ever owned and I have not gone back to the "sub-compact" catagory in the two cars since then because of personal preference. BTW, the car could take a hit! I had two accidents with mine. In one I took out the rear quarter pannel of a Chevelle with the loss of my rubber bumper strip being my only damage. In the other, an El Camino rear-ended me. He lost his bupmer, grille, one headlight, and buckled his hood and front fender. I lost one tail light and had the bumper thrown SLIGHTLY off kilter.
dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (01/16/86)
> > > Let's not pick on the Vega! It had a lot of redeeming qualities: > styling, handling (the GT or Cosworth), decent performance for its > time, excellent freeway fuel economy, ease of repair (a quality one > often had the chance to appreciate). Not to mention ugly as hell, tendency to start burning oil around 70k immediately followed by a burp which is the inside of the engine turning into spagetti. David Albrecht
moroney@jon.DEC (Mike Moroney) (01/17/86)
What's all this knocking of Vegas?? They weren't so bad _if you don't abuse the cooling system_. They have a "low coolant level" idiot light which will come on before any trouble. To show how awful my father thought they were, he got one as a rent-a-car in 1973, liked it enough to buy one used, and later (in 1977) bought a new one. It had 80K with no major problems (except a starter) and no problems with the motor. My father gave it to my younger sister who promptly made the "aluminum meltdown motor" live up to its name. So how bad the Vega is depends on the driver as much as anything else. (My sister is rough on cars - after she turned the Vega's motor into a pile of slag, she replaced the motor with a used Iron Duke. She destroyed that one, too, about 6 months later, and now is having trouble with the third motor!) I have to agree with another noter that those little cars survive accidents well, my older sister flipped hers once (thank God for seatbelts!) and it was fixed, and my younger sister (the one who destroys motors) got in the way of another car, and again it was quite repairable, even though the insurance company declared it totalled) I know someone who had a Monza with an aluminum Vega motor with some 143K and no problems (except it devoured motor oil!) -Mike Moroney
marr@yale.ARPA (Leon Marr) (01/21/86)
Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <406@ccice6.UUCP> rdz@ccice6.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >As far as owning one, I guess I would rate mine (GT hatchback) a grade >of C. It did some things well, others it didn't. Agreed. The Vega has been much maligned, but it really wasn`t much worse than mediocre. I drove a `72 Vega wagonback for over 130,000 miles until one night in October `83 when another driver decided to run a red light. I certainly wouldn`t expect many small cars to survive a 45 mph side impact. In fact, I feel pretty lucky to have survived myself. Admittedly, at that point it was burning oil like our home furnace, but then this *was* the original aluminum 4 cylinder engine. It`s acceleration was laughable, it`s handling mushy, but it was basic transportation for me during high school and college. That it did well. Regards, Leon Marr decvax!yale-comix!marr@UUCP marr@yale.ARPA MARR@YALECS.BITNET