I couldn’t help notice that it’s that time of year again – Motor Trend has awarded the Car Of The Year trophy to the new for ’12, made in the USA VW Passat. Since the Passat is screwed together over in the next county (at the new VW plant in Chattanooga), naturally I feel some local pride. But still, there is that nagging sense that giving a major award to a car that hasn’t made its chops yet is something of a risk for both the recipient and grantor. Any number of things could begin breaking, burning or falling off the car and making both the giver and the taker look foolish. Here’s hoping that this doesn’t happen to the Passat. But before we crack open that champagne, let’s take a look at some of the past COTY recipients to remind ourselves just how fickle fame can be.
First, a little background. Motor Trend has been awarding the coveted calipers since 1949 (full list here). Cadillac won that year on the strength of its new high compression OHV V-8 egine. MT for many years had an American-cars only criteria for the award. That morphed into a bifurcated arrangement in the early 70’s to recognize an “Import Car Of The Year” and finally, one car, one trophy became the norm in 2000.
The award is like money in the bank: frequently featured in a company’s advertising, winning a COTY trophy can put a car on many shoppers lists where they would otherwise not look twice. And strangely, for all of the innovative models churned out by the independents during their years, only one independent ever won the award (the 1963 Rambler). Motor Trend’s one time near monopoly on model recognition has spawned all sorts of imitators over the years and while still potent, it’s not nearly the force that it was. But it is a part of our automotive history that bears more than just cursory review.
There have been good Car OF The Year selections and some real head scratchers. Today, we’ll take a little sampling of both, and I hope you’ll chime in down there in the comments.
Bad COTY:
Chevy Vega–1971
The 70’s were a decade when dangerous, potent, hallucinogenic drugs tore at the very fabric of our society. How else to explain giving the industry’s top award to this rattletrap lemon from GM? The Vega PR team must have consisted of hypnotists to convince MT that this was even an adequate subcompact, much less a praiseworthy class leader. No matter. MT extolled the virtues of the Vega to all and sundry. Our own Paul Niedermeyer even gave this car a coveted single digit GM “Deadly Sin” designation. Of course, after a few thousand non ringer Vegas hit the streets, it became obvious that GM had sold the gullible press and the public the tartest lemon in their basket. The Vega soon found itself on a lot of other lists (of cars to avoid) and is today on just about everybody’s top 5 worst cars of all time. Motor Trend must have been pretty stubborn – they doubled their fun by giving the Chevrolet Monza (substantially the same car underneath) the award for 1975.
Good COTY:
Infiniti G35-2003
Infiniti introduced a great handling, smooth and eerily quiet luxury car for 2003 that utilized the excellent 3.5 litre mill that had made the 350Z a blast to drive. Nissan had produced a car that was serious competition for the BMW 3 series and customers took notice. The company got its due when Motor Trend awarded the G35 COTY. Sales promptly spurted upward and the series lives with us still (with the requisite sheetmetal and detail changes) as the G37.
Bad COTY:
Ford Mustang II-1974
The ultimate love it / hate it machine. The Mustang II was a triumph of good timing when it replaced the original ponycar in 1974. Heavily based on the execrable Pinto, the Mustang II kind of distilled all of the disco/malaise shortcomings of small cars in that era into one mushy, insipid package. Also sired by Lee Iacocca, the II tried to be too many things at once (economical, sporty, luxurious) and never really mastered any of them.
One big shortcoming that MT failed to address in its laudatory profile on the car was the lack of a decently powerful engine. The deuce was the first of many iterations of this car that attempted to get back to the original formula that made the brand popular to begin with. Car watchers will note that that process continues to this day.
Good COTY:
Chevrolet Corvette-1984
This was an obvious (but inspired) choice. The ‘vette had become a rolling cliché after a 15 year run of the 1969 generation. The ’84 was a like falling in love all over again for most sports car enthusiasts. Chevy had finally taken the car out of the late 60’s idiom and given it a look and feel that were up to date and fresh. Of course, not every one agrees that the C4 was an improvement, but for this twenty-something car watcher, it was goodbye and good riddance to the overpriced, flaccid Mako Shark inspired disco wagon that it replaced.
Bad COTY:
Renault Alliance – 1983
This was the car that proved conclusively that given an even playing field and the freedom to innovate and tap into its true strength, the American worker can build a car every bit as bad as the French. As we have seen, the “Appliance” enjoyed a season of popularity when it debuted for 1983. But alas, the second Gallic COTY recipient looks like it will be the last (Citroen won the prize in 1972 with its SM). The Alliance went from a sensible, in demand economy car to disposable back lot dog quicker than you can say “quality control issues”. Unquestionably, the COTY award gave this car more attention than it could have ever gotten on its own, and probably a lot more than it deserved. By 1988, the Alliance was out of production.
Good COTY:
Chevrolet Caprice-1977
GM handled the downsizing of this car with enough aplomb that it was a blindingly obvious choice. Enough so that MT almost made up for the previous years idiotic choice of the Volare/Aspen stinkbombs. The Chevy full sizer was the bread and butter profit machine in those years and showed that GM could still do a good job when it wanted to. The ’77 line was the breakpoint for a lot of car buyers that truly signaled the end of an era of cheap oil and automotive excess. Henceforth, there would be no giant car/giant engine combinations on offer from the world’s largest car company. Ford and Chrysler saw the success that GM had with its downsized full size cars and quickly took a meat axe to their family tanks. Within a couple of years, (mostly) sensible cars were the order of the day.
Worst COTY:
Chevrolet Citation-1980
This award did as much damage to Motor Trend’s reputation as it did to GM’s. Almost before the COY issue got into the mailboxes of subscribers, Citations (and their badge engineered clone linemates) started self destructing and sending a lot of unhappy owners running for their lawyers. Locking brakes, shift linkage issues and third world assembly standards made a lot of ex-GM owners of its early adopters. It was later revealed that GM had carefully hand picked and massaged the cars that MT tested and thus hoodwinked the very people that should have known better. The Citation became an epic flameout for GM and by 1986 was gone completely (this for a car that retailed over 800K units the first year). The Citation was later stretched and pulled to form the basis of the A body Chevy Celebrity, but MT must have gotten wiser because no A body ever got within a mile of any kind of award from the magazine.
So another year is in the books and no doubt the Passat will bask in the reflected glory of this award and pull in some serious coin for the mothership back in the fatherland. Or maybe not. Only with the passage of time will we know if this car is worthy of its new lofty status. But for the moment, the Passat is the king of the hill. Long live the king.
I had an ’83 Alliance MT — that’s right, the Motor Trend Car of the Year Edition. There was even a little numbered plaque on the dash noting the honor. Mine was car #1200.
There was a lot to like about this car, at least initially. It was a comfortable driver despite its size. It sipped gas — 40 MPG was an everyday occurrence. It had a snazzy for the time stereo.
But it was gawdawful slow, even with its 5-speed manual transmission. I once timed a 45-second trip to 60 mph, though I’m no professional driver. I’m sure a pro could have done it in 35. This car had trouble getting out of its own way.
Then at 75,000 miles it began to self destruct. It spent as much time in the shop as on the road. The unlicensed teenaged driver in a Ford Maverick who T-boned it, thus totaling it, did us all a favor.
I remember well the August 1970 Motor Trend.
Notice the car’s description as “1975 Vega”…Chevy had made it a selling point that there wouldn’t be the annual styling changes characteristic of the rest of Detroit at that time…proof that GM was serious about fighting the imports. (LOL)
Among the ‘bon mots’ uttered by DeLorean in the piece was something about the Vega’s brakes being overdesigned and capable of stopping a 2 1/2 ton truck.
I bought a ’72 Kammback in black, back in 1975. It was zippy, rode well for its size and had a 4-speed so it was a blast to drive. I didn’t live in Arizona so the rust monster had attacked early and often…taking out the front brace that held the lower radiator mounts, for example. This was discovered when I did some hooning in the form of trying to get rubber in 2nd gear…I did, but the jerking action separated the mounts from the brace and the radiator flew back into the fan, causing the engine to overheat and a head gasket to blow. From there it was all downhill.
At least the ’75 Monza had an available V-8. I also owned one of those, in 1982. Another 4-speed car. Wife and I loved it except for the 15.000-mile brake changes. Guess when DeLorean said they’d stop a 2 1/2 ton truck, he meant only once. I wonder how long the brakes lasted on an automatic model, back in those pre-locking torque converter days.
Aaron Severson dug up a lot of dirt on the development of the Vega and DeLorean’s attempts to correct the problems. This is a must read:
http://ateupwithmotor.com/compact-and-economy-cars/195-chevrolet-vega-cosworth.html
I remember there was much hope riding on Vega’s success, but GM hubris got in the way at multiple points in the story. Also in the AUWM piece it’s revealed that Vega was in essence GM’s first-ever car designed by committee, rather than developed autonomously by one of the divisions.
I wonder how long the brakes lasted on an automatic model, back in those pre-locking torque converter days.
I don’t know how a locking torque converter would have helped. As far as I know, most lockup transmissions unlock the converter when you take your foot completely off the gas. If not then, they unlock when you touch the brakes.
Not the GM’s I’ve driven…and I don’t think my wife’s Subaru is like that either. When your foot is off the gas they are still in lock-up and so engine braking is possible.
However they do unlock when you touch the brakes….and I believe stay unlocked until you hit the gas again.
“At least the ’75 Monza had an available V-8.”
If my memory serves me correctly, wasn’t that the car that you had to pull the engine for a tune up ?
Yes but they had special motor mounts that you accessed from underneath. Just don’t jack on the oil pan…which as a matter of fact I did. Once. And only once. That was about a $200 lesson!
The H-body was originally supposed to be powered by the GM Rotary Combustion Engine (GMRCE), which was quite compact: 18 inches tall, 15 inches wide, 13 inches long. At one point, GM was talking about a 1973 (probably MY1974) introduction, subsequently pushed to mid-1975. Ed Cole finally tabled the rotary project in the fall of 1974, less than a year before it was supposed to be in production, so I imagine there was some scrambling to accommodate conventional V6 and V8 engines. The SBC V8 is about 22 inches high, 23 inches wide, and 29 inches long (without transmission), so you can see the difference!
Funny thing about the brakes on Vega being oversized, they were almost as large as a Chevelle’s. I wouldn’t make them try stopping a 2 1/2 ton truck.
A 71 Vega weighed around 2200lbs and had 10″ rotors/9″ drums,
A 71 Chevelle weighed around 3800lbs and had 11″ rotors/9.5″ drums..
Monzas with V8’s, indeed. Good friends had one, It was light blue metallic and had the white vinyl interior and had the 4spd manual too.
It, I don’t think was terribly unreliable at all as they kept it up and drove it for years before finally selling it sometime in the early to mid 80’s.
My Mom had a ’76 Vega and from my own readings on the car a few years ago, Chevy fixed many of the issues that plagued the early models like the rusting in places where it shouldn’t have, like the roof for instance and added steel liners to the aluminum blocks to help with wear and solved the overheating issues by adding coolant recovery tanks, which I read was the instigation for them being a requirement in ALL cars due to the Vega’s engines being prone to overheating at any given time due to this lack of a recovery bottle.
Thus by the time hers was built, it was a decent little car though slow as molasses thanks in part to it having a 3spd auto and A/C, both rare at the time I think and hers was the Kammback wagon in that beautiful chocolate metallic brown. Hers was reasonably reliable outside of the so, so gas mileage and its performance, especially when loaded down but in general.
Funny how easily fooled motoring journos are or is it they really do not know good from bad or as I suspect the manufacturer who buys the advertising acreage buys the award. Wheels magazine in Australia once a respected motoring publication commited the sin of choosing a particularly ugly poorly made car as its car of the year and on paper their choice looked good but once the vehicle was released to the public they avoided it in droves the early adopters found it was rubbish and warranty claims mounted. The magazine has never recovered its former kudos and the journalists involved are still writng pieces trying to justify their choice and recover lost careers I maintain it was advertising space sales pressure that forced a stupid decision along with specially prepared cars that got the P76 a COTY award similar to the tricks used for the Citation Why does anyone believe these people anymore they have NO credibility. These ‘experts’ also get factory ringers to test they dont have live with themm week after week of fail to start frustration and dealer indifference to pieces falling off their views are not accurate to ownership
Not only that but they gave the COTY to the V8 version only. Just as big a blunder was the Holden J-car Camira which was typical GM car quality-wise and I think the original press cars may have been ringers
my dad had an early Camira 84 not a good car Id forgotten it was COTY the two greatest lemons from the Aussie industry and both were COTY slight lack of credulity here methinks. The 6 cylinder P76 was the volume sales version it was atrocious
It would be fun to work through the full list of all MT award recipients. Many of them were cars that burned their buyers. Basing a car buying decision on the COTY is about as likely to result in a good ownership experience as basing a car buying decision on paint color. I would argue that the 1984 C4 was not a good choice for COTY, because the car wasn’t ready for prime time. The enigne was a cludge. The manual transmission was a cludge. The suspension was rigid and the body was not. The interior was terrible. Remember the cloth speaker grills right where your calf brushes them every time you get in or out of the car, wearing holes in them in no time? The rattles? The stuff falling off? Maybe the press cars were massaged again, but shouldn’t MT have learned from the Citation? It was only 4 years earlier.
Buying any car in its first year of manufacture is a risky decision, unless you’re buying it used so there’s some history of what problem areas to look for. This list proves that even COTY recipients are not immune.
What a great Category Alex is all I can Say. Will be back to read this fine entry after I catch up reading about Turkey week.
I am actually very interested in reading the Actual list of winners.
I believe it reads a lot like Best New Artist @ The Grammy Awards.
Some real Turkeys are within.
I remember really questioning The 1987 Revised Thunderbird Turbo win as MT COTY.
Alliance is an ultra embarassing choice.
I Believe the Fairmount Should have won in its first year. Ditto the 79 Mustang for coming after the Mustang ll.
I begin to wonder if Motor Trend gived the award for the T-bird in ’87 as an effort to fix the mistake of ’83? When the “Aerobird” gen debuted in 1983, it reversed the T-bird fortunes and paved the way for the ’86 Taurus.
I think that sounds like a very (for Motor Trend) Logical reasoning in avarding it to the T-Bird, which I think was a solid car in those years.
Now going to Look Up, OH was Alliance 1983….instead of Thunderbird, yeah that was a big mistake.
I put little faith in the weight of anything Motor Trend publishes. The most engaging piece of writing they’ve published (at least in the last 20 years) was the series of articles where they drove trucks to Death Valley and explored abandoned mines.
The attitude they’ve had towards the companion “Truck of the Year” is downright schizophrenic. At some points they didn’t even bother handing out the award at all, and they’ve continually redefined what they’ll give it to: First they included vans with trucks, then they grouped them with cars; then they split it into “truck” and “SUV” delineations with the result that only about half a dozen vehicles qualify for the award and most of them are variations on pre-existing models. Meanwhile, the pool of contenders for the proper “Car of the Year” swells and swells…
Motor Trend lost all credibility years ago with ‘COTY’. Why anyone would care what they say or what car they ‘honor’ escapes me. MT a complete waste of time…
Motor Trend CotY is the automotive equivalent of the Best New Artist Grammy. Go ahead. Win it. I dare ya. You’ll probably be dead or a has-been within five years.
I gather it has been admitted that they rigged the award in return for advertising dollars in the past, has it been established what years that covered?
It seems as if Chrysler had devoted some of its meager funding to its European operations towards bribery. This is the only reason that I can think as to why both the Chrysler/Simca Alpine and Horizon were Car of the Year winners. Neither car could be described as either innovative or even fit for purpose. However, few cars since the Vega have combined the propensity to rust with unappealing engine noise in the way that Chrysler has with these two turkeys.
Trying to find a positive, I guess both were hatchbacks, and they had decently comfy interiors, at least until the water leaks permeate them with the smell of mold. Those horribly rattly engines were at least reliable, or to be more accurate, outlasted the bodywork. Plus….. no, can’t think of anything else.
This is an interesting article, but, in all fairness, we are judging the recipients of this award with the benefit of hindsight.
In the spring of 1979, the GM X-cars WERE a big deal. They were roomy, economical and reasonably peppy. They also possessed a much higher degree of structural rigidity than other American cars of that time. Gas mileage was a huge concern when these cars debuted, as the second fuel crunch had just started in California that spring, and was spreading to the east. There was a tremendous amount of interest in these cars. And if they seemed infested with too many bugs – other American cars of that time were hardly Lexus-like in their build quality or engineering.
The AMC/Renault Alliance was also a big deal. It offered an astonishing ride for a small car of that era, and the interior trim was a cut above most other small cars of that time. The pedestal bucket seats were clever and really did improve rear-seat room, as you could easily put your feet under the seats.
The Mustang II offered a fair amount of luxury for a small car at that time. We can wail about the death of the muscle-car era, but, by 1974 most buyers were ready to leave it behind. They did not want Pontiac GTOs or Hemi Road Runners. They wanted Monte Carlos and Cutlass Supremes, so a mini-Thunderbird that got better gas mileage and was easier to park seemed like a good idea at the time. And its attempt to be all things to all people was exactly what the first Mustang had done. The lengthy options list and opportunity to tailor the car to the buyer’s wishes had been selling points from day one in April 1964.
These cars were big news when they were introduced. Of course, they turned out to be disappointments for varying reasons. Perhaps the answer is not to name a “Car of the Year” until five years after all of that year’s new entries have been on the market and in the hands of customers. But, by then…who cares?
When the Mustang II won, it was dark winter of 1974, when gas was supposed to be in short supply “indefinitely”. So, the lack of ‘power’ didn’t matter.
One thing, many casual car buffs will say “Lee I. magically whipped up the M-II right after the OPEC Embargo”. No, it takes years to plan a new car, so the II was well underway when gas was still 30 cents a gallon.
All good points Geeber.
A friend bought a new Aspen in 1976 and the rear axle broke in two within months of purchase. My boss owned both a Mercury Grand Marquis and a downsized Cadillac Coupe DeVille. Neither were high-water points for their respective marques. I’m sure there are other similar stories of crappy late 70’s cars I’ve forgotten over the years.
But that said, the X-cars had more than their share of bugs…even for that day.
We all love to rag on Mustang IIs but you are absolutely correct. Remember the first Earth Day in 1970? A consciousness shift was taking place; plus insurance rates had come to make muscle car ownership all but impossible for many potential buyers. Pollution controls and heavier platforms all figure in here too. Horsepower was NOT “in” in 1975…luxury and economy were.
As you note, people were expressing concern about gas mileage before the Arab Oil Embargo in late 1973. Sales of small foreign cars, along with sales of domestic compacts, were growing in the early 1970s. Even the much-maligned Vega and Pinto sold well prior to the first fuel crunch.
Meanwhile, sales of muscle cars basically collapsed after 1969. (People forget that, at the time, many Chrysler-Plymouth dealers couldn’t give away brand-new Superbirds, which are now worth a fortune, and, by the early 1970s, many dealers would not order Hemi-equipped cars without a hefty deposit, as the cars were virtually unsalable.)
The pony cars didn’t do much better. The 1970 Dodge Challenger and Plymouth Barracuda were big flops, and the 1971 Mustang didn’t sell all that well, either. Chrysler Corporation’s success story in the early 1970s was the Plymouth Duster.
Even the second-generation Camaro and Firebird were initially sales disappointments. They didn’t hit their stride until after 1975, when all of the domestic competition was gone.
Meanwhile, the Capri, Opel Manta and Toyota Celica were selling well…which suggested that an entry from one of the domestics would be profitable. Turns out that Iacocca was correct.
(People forget that, at the time, many Chrysler-Plymouth dealers couldn’t give away brand-new Superbirds, which are now worth a fortune,
The 1970 Plymouth Superbird is a poor example of how musclecar sales were on the wane in the seventies. It wasn’t a musclecar, per se, but a NASCAR special that was built solely to satisfy a rule requirement.
In fact, due to the inability of Plymouth dealers to sell any new Superbirds for years, the car should actually be considered a strong contender for turkey of the seventies. Quite ironic since, as mentioned, they’re among the vehicles which command the highest prices at today’s auto auctions.
It’s true that the Superbird/Daytona was an homologation special, and was never going to be a volume product, but sales of other Supercars were also tanking, as geeber points out, and the pony cars were losing steam.
I think insurance was the biggest reason — if you were under 25, you could end up spending as much on insurance as car payments over a three-year period. Also, the Baby Boomers who had been the primary audience were getting to the age where they were starting to have families, at which point something that was cheap, got decent mileage, had room for kids in the back seat, and whose insurance premiums wouldn’t cost more than groceries.
This is an interesting article, but, in all fairness, we are judging the recipients of this award with the benefit of hindsight.
Indeed. While not trying to defend what has always been an obvious shill for the auto manufacturers (ever notice that the same manufacturer never wins two years in a row?), it’s worth noting that the competition for some (if not all) of the years didn’t really offer any viable alternatives to what was ultimately chosen as COTY.
Take 1971, for example. What else was brand-new that year from Chrysler (Ford wasn’t a contender because I think the Torino had won in 1970) that would have been a better choice than the Vega? Mopar intermediates? Even if Ford was available, what did they have that was ‘new’: Mustang? Pinto? Maverick? GM’s other ‘new’ vehicle was the restyled full-size cars. Not exactly a wide or varied selection to choose from.
About the only thing that comes immediately to mind that ‘might’ have been a better choice is the boat-tail Buick Riviera, but it would have been based entirely on styling. The Vega, for better or worse, was quite ground-breaking (if poorly engineered) in comparison.
Frankly, considering the rest of the warmed-over domestic crap that was brand new in 1971, the Vega really wasn’t that bad of a selection, and that’s pretty much the way it went with all COTY awards, many of which now seem to be head-scratchers.
Strange coincidence, I spotted this vintage 1971 Plymouth Satellite tv ad who was elected “US Car of the Year” by Road Test magazine on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7n_znPqW_k
The car I was most in love with in 1971, Nodoubt about it… The All New El Dorado, particularly that grand looking convertible. They must not have held up all that well. I Never see a 71, 72, or 73 El Dorado anymore.
@rudiger: You have made the most pertinent point. The whole COTY award is only truly useful if every company puts out a new car model/platform every year. It hardly happens that way anymore, the models/platforms have much longer lives than they used to.
I kind of look at these awards as so much advertising gingerbread, it’s some accolade some marketing person can slather on the banner ad on top of your webpage. Or, more like the Oscar award to an actor who’s a good guy, but is now old and possibly facing death, suddenly wins an Oscar for some (made up) reason or another, as an honorarium.
The basis for the award is no longer useful to most consumers. If they want real reportage on what car to buy, there is a myriad of choices available to them, but the COTY is irrelevant.
“The AMC/Renault Alliance was also a big deal. It offered an astonishing ride for a small car of that era, and the interior trim was a cut above most other small cars of that time. The pedestal bucket seats were clever and really did improve rear-seat room, as you could easily put your feet under the seats.”
Every Renault going back at least as far as the Renault 4 (Including “Le Car”) had those exact same features. Grew up near a family that had four kids and two Renault 10 sedans. Really nice little cars, much more desirable than the Appliance. Felt sorry for the kids who had to ride four across every day though — especially after being the fifth one a few times.
“[the Citation] retailed over 800K units the first year”
IINM, that 800K figure reflects an extended 1980 model year, starting early with a spring 1979 introduction. I believe the number built/sold just during the 1980 model year was something like 650K. Even at that, it’s still a pretty amazing statistic. I doubt that any single passenger car model has approached that level since then. It was a perfect storm of a car that seemed revolutionary in concept (at least for Detroit), introduced at a moment in time when economic conditions/gas prices made cars of its class especially attractive, at a point in history when many consumers still preferred to buy American (or tended to wind up at their local Chevy dealer simply through intertia), and still preferred to buy cars (not pickups, minivans or SUVs).
“The Citation was later stretched and pulled to form the basis of the A body Chevy Celebrity, but MT must have gotten wiser because no A body ever got within a mile of any kind of award from the magazine.”
While the X-bodies quickly got a reputation as cars to be avoided, it seemed like the FWD A-bodies never suffered from that stigma, being regarded as no worse than anything else GM built in that era. I don’t think the carbuying public realized how closely the two designs were related. MT undoubtedly knew, though.
A similar story could be said about Chrysler’s M-body (Diplomat/Le Baron/Fifth Avenue/1982 New Yorker/1982-89 Gran Fury/Canadian Caravelle) who was derived from the F-body Aspen/Volare.
The A-bodies never suffered from that stigma because (1) By 1982 GM had worked the worst of the kinks out of the small FWD platform – the X bodies of 1982-85 were not nearly as bad as the 1980-81 versions, and (2) A bodies were built to a higher price point than the X cars, so more care was put into their manufacture.
For the same reason, the more expensive Buick and Olds versions of both the X and A cars were better than the Chevy and Pontiac versions. They were more expensive, and so tended to be of somewhat better quality.
Despite all that, their rear-drive G and B/C cars were still better at the time. It took until about 1988 for GM to really get their act together with their modern FWD platforms.
The Pontiac 6000 STE would have been a better COTY choice in ’83 than the Alliance was!
About the C4 ‘Vette: “it was goodbye and good riddance to the overpriced, flaccid Mako Shark inspired disco wagon that it replaced.”
Uh…I don’t think so…
Totally. Absolutely. Definitely. Wrong, wrong, wrong. This version was the Corvette at its nadir. It’s gotten better ever since it was finally changed.
The C4 Vette was the first Corvette that you could actually put up against the best Europe had to offer. The C3 was nothing more than the C2 bowdlerized, given a mullet, and turned into the lowest common denominator. Just a redneck, knuckle dragging excuse for a sports car.
The 1968-1982 Corvettes were good cars too, they were still some of the best handling cars of the late 1970’s, but it was clear that time had past it by by the time the 1984 Corvettes came out, the 84 was siginificant even inspite of its first year flaws, it was the first truly all new Corvette since 1963, it was such a leap foward over the car that it replaced/
The ’87 T-Bird won simply because it had new sheet metal. One criteria for being nominated was newness. Same as the 1990 Town Car and 93 Probe. Yawn…
Also, the first import named COTY was the 1972 Citroen DS21, but then domestics got it back 73-75 until the first official “Import COTY” for 1976, Toyota Celica.
It was the SM not the DS that was car of the year in 1972.
“The ’87 T-Bird won simply because it had new sheet metal.”
Not true. The updated sheet metal was part of the package for 87/88 but there were a slew of changes to the 87/88 Turbo Coupe that helped it win COTY.
Introduction of an air/air intercooler and updated electronics gave it a power bump to 190hp and 240 ft/lb of torque(5 speed cars), Automatic ride control with driver override, 4 wheel anti lock disc brakes, an updated T5 transmission(“World Class”), 16″ alloy wheels, and an updated interior made this TC much different than the 83-86 models.
And 2 years later it was off the market, some “COTY”! 😉
Off the market because the Fox chassis Mustang and T-Bird were supposed to be gone by 89.
The Probe was to take the place of the Mustang and the MN-12 platform was the new Thunderbird.(The MN-12 Super Coupe took the honors for 89.) 😀
Regarding the 77 Caprice and the line “Henceforth, there would be no giant car/giant engine combinations on offer from the world’s largest car company.”
But, GM’s truck divisions glady sold people “Giant Cars” years later. CAFE laws made cars smaller, but then buyers went to trucks for room, and then demanded more creature comfort, and then got 50% market share.
A rather disingenuous comment. The 70’s oil crisis was almost 20 years past by the time the SUV craze took hold.
No, the the SUV “craze” really started in the mid 80’s with the Jeep Cherokee, about a few years after the dark days of 1982, when ‘gloom and doom’ or $5 gas was supposed to come about by 1985 [sure didn’t]. Chevy Suburbans sold for full sticker in late 80’s, into the 90’s until another plant was re-tooled, killing the B Body. Also in fall 1990, the Ford Explorer took off. So, really, about 4 to 8 years after the ’82 recession, buyers forgot about downsizing, and flocked to bigger vehciles.
Point is, that the statement ‘Henceforth no more gas hogs’ is incorrect. People considered SUV’s as “cars” and the big full sized ones sold well for a while and got alot of former big car owners. Only the ‘Great Recession’ of the past 3 years has gotten some more efficient cars out on the streets.
That 50% of the market went for “trucks” is correct, but all minivans, large vans, SUVs, and oddballs like the Chrysler PT Cruiser were considered “trucks” for safety, emissions, and fuel economy purposes. It was actually the explosive growth of the SUV (later CUV) segment that contributed the most to the “truck” market.
The fact that so many of Motor Toons COTY winners have crashed and burned has destroyed whatever credibility they had. If anything, I think they’ve become an inverse indicator of a vehicles quality. Call me cynical, but I’m beginning to believe that the award is based on what the editors think will generate the most ad revenue for the magazine.
Seriously, if MT ceased giving these “awards” do you think anyone would really care?
Of course, they turned out to be disappointments for varying reasons.
Except for (briefly) blowing out the (barely sparking) pony car flame on the huge-ass fat Mustang of ’71-’73, the Mustang II had nothing to apologize for. Sure, it was a better-handling Pinto, available in plain, luxury, sporty, and utility flavors. Closer in size and weight to the ’65 than the ’73 was as well. Ford, with aid from OPEC, looked brilliant. And they sold approximately a million of them over the 5 year run.
Those were weird times, people. For every Scirocco, there was a graphics and spoiler special added to a Hornet they called the AMX…or 442….or R/T. Weird times indeed.
It might be interesting to compare the Motor Trend COTY with the Canadian Coty, Automobile COTY, North American COTY, International COTY. Here the link to the winners lists on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Trend_Car_of_the_Year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Car_of_the_Year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_Magazine_All-Stars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Car_of_the_Year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Car_of_the_Year
I’m surprised no one has mentioned Shamu yet?
And what about the other Malibu?
I’m actually kinda surprised the 1997 Malibu wasn’t mentioned, especially considering it was awful even back then. What’s weird is that the C5 was introduced at almost the same time and yet they didn’t give that the COTY award until the year after. Oh well.
The 97 Malibu was one of the last times when MT had only ‘domestics’ compete for COTY, and a separate Import award. And another one for the ‘wtf?’ file.
I am sure when MT merged Import and Domestic awards, the Big 3 sales managers were p-o’ed!
Wow, the MT cover from 1971 is a real touchstone…
I love the sub-headline: “Paul Newman raps on cars, racing”.
Who knew the guy was so far ahead of his time? 🙂
In the late 1980s, my parents had an Alliance. I have been told that it was well put together and a pleasure to drive. Then, the engine blew up and they sold it for $200.
“Strangely…only one independent ever won the award (the 1963 Rambler)”
MT gave no COTY award in 1953, the year of the Studebaker Starliner!
I recall at least one competing publication suggesting in print that the MT award was bought and paid for.
Good point. There is no denying that MT (and others) attempt to sell ads to the very companies whose products they review. We know how well that worked out on Wall Street.
I say that the world would not mind terribly if they waited until the end of the model year to give this award. Of course,this would open up an entirely different set of issues,but it might make the award more credible.
As a child of the ’70’s, I remember the move to smaller, more efficient cars well, While I regretted the loss of the “muscle car”, I appreciated the need for more fuel efficient cars. I have owned or driven many of the cars mentioned above, including:
1980 X-car (Pontiac Phoenix) – V-6/4sp., accellerated like a quarter-mile missle, horrible torque steer, brakes that locked up on me one night on the interstate on dry pavement and swung me around 180 degrees at 50 MPH. Also drove various stretched versions (Celebrity) – by then GM had finally ironed out the flaws, and these were pleasant, reliable cars, even with the TBFI version of the “Iron Duke”, now known as the “Tech IV” – a huge improvement over the earlier buzz boxes
1980 Mercury Zephyr (Ford Fairmont) wagon – 200 CID I-6/auto., solid, but felt (and sounded like) it was made out of Reynolds Wrap when you closed the doors. Seats w/no padding – whole car felt cheap – I was glad when a really BIG deer put it out of it’s misery.
1980 Monza, 1979 Pontiac Sunbird – both 2.5L “Iron Duke”/4sp., Continuations of the Astre/Vega when no amount of marketing could any longer overcome their soiled reputations. Both were horrible junk – no interior room (you had to practically lay down in one to drive it), tiny trunks, motors pulled from forklift duty, poor interior fit-and-finish. Both met violent ends…
1964 Renault 10 – some tiny 4 cyl./4sp., Got me around Germany for a few months, by 1982 it was tired – constantly leaking oil and needing service. Nice 4-wheel disc brakes, would do 100 MPH on the autobahn.
1979 Dodge Aspen – 225 I-6/auto, pleasant enough to drive on american roads, a bit noisy, good gas mileage. Made well into the 90’s as the Chrysler Fith Avenue.
1979 Ford Pinto – 2.3L/4sp., I was impressed by the crisp handling, smooth ride, and room in the wagon I borrowed from a friend. I probably would have bought one if they hadn’t ended production. Morons laugh when you pull up to the local “cruise night” in one today, but they were much better cars than most give them credit for.
1997 Chevrolet Malibu – 2.2L/4sp. auto., Drove one as a rental car. They took an Olds Alero/Pontiac GrandAm, removed everything worthwhile, and left a car with no soul. Strictly Point A-to-Point B material.
GM’s first U.S. mini-car cost $200 million to design and bring to production. In today’s money that’s over a billion dollars – it wasn’t by chance the Vega out-handled more expensive european sport sedans.
At $2090. when introduced, it was a bargain. No other car company in the world was able to invest hundreds of millions of dollars on a vehicle to sell in that price range, and GM made little or no profit on the Vega which was usually ordered with few options (GM’s profits came from expensive options).
AMC in contrast, spent all of 5 million to convert an existing Hornet compact into the Gremlin, selling it for about the same price as the Vega which was new from the ground up, sharing nothing with existing vehicles. But in a rush to bring the car to market, numerous piecemeal “fixes” were performed by dealers and Chevrolet’s “bright star”, received an enduring black eye despite a continuing development program which eventually alleviated most of these initial shortcomings. The final models, having the benefit of six years of refinements, were fine automobiles.
The liner-less aluminum/silicon engine technology that GM and Reynolds Metals developed turned out to be sound. Mercedes-Benz and Porsche use sleeveless aluminum engines today, the basic principles of which were developed for the Vega engine.
Motor Trend said in 1971, “So, the Chevrolet Vega 2300 is Motor Trend’s 1971 Car of the Year by way of engineering excellence, packaging, styling and timeliness. As such, we are saying that for the money, no other American car can deliver more.”
Motor Trend Classic said in 2010, “Chevrolet spun the Vega as a more American, upscale car. And let’s face it, the car looked hot. So can you blame us for falling hook, line, and sinker for the Vega and naming it 1971’s Car of the Year?”
“..well-maintained examples are great looking, nice-driving, economical classics..”
I guess you know better than Motor Trend – past & present
Robert – are you saying that Chevy Dealers were responsible for the Vega’s bad reputation? I don’t think that the dealers can be blamed for a badly designed car that caused many buyers no end of trouble. I don’t care how much money GM spent on it, the car was a quality nightmare. John Delorean’s book went into great detail on the car’s problems and its troubled development that was done at the GM corporate level rather than within the Chevrolet Division. The engine is legendary for its problems, and the body rusted at a rate that made it stand out even in the early 1970s.
Nobody disputes that the car was substantially better at the end of its run – I should hope it was. The 1980 Volare was a pretty decent car too. Also, it is doubtless possible to lovingly restore one or find a hardly-ever-used original and maintain it in light of all that is now known about them, and have an enjoyable car.
Do we know more than Motor Trend? We certainly know more about the Vega now than Motor Trend knew about it in 1971. And I would hardly consider the MT Classic piece a serious analysis of the car based on “a few gentle miles.” What they say is true – a very nice example is good looking and can be considered nice driving, just as a well-restored Model A can be considered nice driving. And for the record, yes – I believe that the collective wisdom of the CC commentariat knows more about the Vega than Motor Trend, then or now.
I am happy that there are those out there (like you) who love and appreciate a car that many others do not. I am happy that there are nice Vega survivors, and that there are those out there who lavish time and money on others to restore them. And Lord knows, I understand what it is like to love the unlovable (due to my irrational infatuation with late 1970s Mopars). The Vega was not without its good points (although this can be highly subjective.) But there is also nothing wrong with recognizing the Vega for what it really was – a car that underwent a difficult development and that was highly (if not fatally) flawed.
You are incorrect. Can’t you think up something new, some new discovery,maybe The fatally flawed line is getting old.
The car’s teething pains only involved some cost cutting – the fender liner cancellation at ’70 intro and addition in mid-1974, Early Vegas that overheated did so from customers not checking fluid levels. The coolant level light was added in ’74, got that..and Chevy replaced those engines. It has been determined (by informed sources) that the design of the car and engine were not flawed from their inception and were continually improved like any other product.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Stick with Mopars..you’re out of your element. You will not win this debate.
I suppose Chevy omitted the coolant level light because it was on back order from so many other cars using coolant level lights and overwhelming the suppliers. No, wait – NOBODY else used coolant level lights. Because nobody else NEEDED coolant level lights. That kind of owner hyper-vigilance may have been expected with Renaults or Alfa Romeos, but nobody went (then or now) into a Chevrolet dealer to buy a car that you have to check the coolant level daily with catastrophic consequences if you failed to do so.
As for the rust, I don’t really care WHY the cars developed rust holes the size of Rhode Island within the first couple of years, just like I don’t care why 69 Ford LTDs or 76 Volares did the same thing. After all, all of the GM and Fisher Body engineers lived in – wait for it – DETROIT! My God, man – is there any more hospitable climate for car rusting than salt-capital-of-the-midwest-Michigan? But hey – they fixed the problem in only 3 1/2 years.
I appreciate that you love these cars, I really do. There are elements of them that I like as well – for example, I consider the early Vega hatchback to be one of the most visually attractive small cars of the 70s.
But please, let’s be realistic. How often do we heap damnation on, say, the 55 Chevy. There may be things we don’t like about it, and there may be other cars that appeal to us more, but nobody disputes that that era’s Chevrolet was an excellent piece of work, especially for the price. No need for coolant level lights or add-on fender liners there. They got it right up front and it became an icon. Chevy customers had grown up knowing how good Chevrolets were. Vega customers deserved better than they got.
Let me tell you something Mr. Mopar. The car was $2090 when it came out, that’s why a few things were left off. The car came in over budget, and was to compete with even more austere Beetles and 1.6 liter Pintos, both with drum brakes I might add.
$200 million investment and only $2090. BEAT THAT A Duster maybe? Give me a break. Now as far as the coolant light. The damn engine was made of aluminum and it was tested for a million+ miles but was never allowed to run out of coolant, but they were in the field in the hands of customers. The overflow tank and light were added to all cars previously sold as a no-cost dealer upfit within a year and included in ’74 models from the factory. the damaged engines and fenders were replaced and the 5 year warranty was added until the car was dropped, replaced by the smaller, cheaper Chevette.You got PLENTY for $2-$3k. And many of the 1.7 million who bought one (about half million) still bought one after the early engine trouble became known because the warranty was after-all 5 years better than ANY price level car offered included no charge. and the car was rated better than anything short of 4,000. including most of the imports. In styling, handling, mpg, and yes reliability. It still was rated the most reliable Chevy under the Nova, early engine failures included. I guess they ALL didn’t fail, huh? MT said no other American car delivered more FOR THE MONEY, and that’s why it was car of the year.
Jeff,
Do you know Frank Markus from Motor Trend?, I do…He’s the technical director of MT
Here are his own published words after driving my 73 Vega GT for the Fall 2010 issue of Motor Trend Classic.
“After a few gentle miles, I begin to understand how this car won its awards and comparison tests.” “Well-maintained examples are great looking, nice-driving, economical classics like Baltic Ave. with a Hotel, the best ones can be had for $10K or less.
The reliability of your article has just been shot down.
In regards to the Monza, again you’re barking up the wrong tree..you guys need to check the facts-
MT said “…In the past, the Motor Trend Car of the Year was selected by the editorial staff, or at least by a combination vote of editors and guest expert panelists. But for 1975, Motor Trend invited to share in the judging a wide cross section of members of the national motor press, experts from areas of industry not associated with the manufacture or distribution of motor vehicles, and last – 10 of our readers who would compose the consumer panel.”
n July 1974, Motor Trend’s staff selected 15 cars to vie for the Car of the Year and Golden Wheel Award honors.
These cars were then judged by a panel of 25 distinguished members of the automotive press. They selected the nominees for five Achievement Awards and the Car of the Year. The Achievement categories were: Engineering, Styling, Safety, Economy, Value. Five Achievement Panels selected the winner in each specific achievement category. Car of the Year was picked by a sixth panel combined with a Consumer Panel (MT Readers) from five nominees, not from the achievement winners.
-” Chevrolet’s Monza 2+2 V-8 emerged as Motor Trend’s 1975 Car of the Year from a long, tight and difficult contest that involved the opinions of scores of people, nearly impossible logistical problems and a selection process unprecedented in the history of the award.”
Jeff
In regards to DeLorean’s book, he was not a third party reporting. he was in the mix, and his reporting of the facts are somewhat biased. That’s right Politics.
He ran Chevy, but the Vega was a corporate car. He had little say on the car’s final design and his Chevy division wanted to do do their own design. Even Chevy’s aluminum head was rejected by Ed Cole (GM pres) The car would be as Cole wanted it, not DeLorean’s way. He admits in the chapter engineers are biased towards their own designs. He was an engineer He was an engineer and was negatively biased towards the car he would have to promote, and it finally came out after he resigned .So take that book and use the Vega chapter for toilet paper. He was just stuck in the middle with little power. He did get his way with the Cosworth, but the book talked mostly about how he earned so much money for GM. That call lost money.
Come on Jeff, any other reliable sources of information up your sleeve.
Okay, you don’t like DeLorean’s book. When you have proof that it is inaccurate, particularly regarding the development of the Vega, please let us know.
Maybe he was negatively biased towards the car because, as an engineer, he knew an inferior design when he saw it.
It’s not as though either Chevrolet and GM as a whole have gone on to ever-greater glory since he left…
rattletrap lemon from GM huh? You need the Vega History lesson 101
You can’t rewrite history – I don’t care how many dumb lists you concoct – it is your opinion that is flawed
Motor Trend awarded the Vega 1971 “Car of the Year.”
MT: “The base Vega is a magnificent automobile without any options at all.” “…It is appropriate that the final choice was a car that reflects Detroit’s timely response to the people’s needs instead of a copy writer’s idea of what they should need. So, the Chevrolet Vega 2300 is Motor Trend’s 1971 Car of the Year by way of engineering excellence, packaging, styling and timeliness. As such, we are saying that for the money, no other American car can deliver more.”
American Iron and Steel Institute awarded the Vega in 1971 for–”Excellence in design in transportation equipment.”
Motor Trend awarded the Vega GT 1973 Car of the Year in the Economy Class.
MT: “The best version of the Vega came out on top matched against the best versions of its competition.”…”The Vega was judged solid, warm and comfortable, with a good finish.” Pleasing the American car buyer is a delicate task. Economy really means economy with an illusion of luxury. This time Chevrolet won the guessing game.”
Car and Driver readers voted the Vega “Best Economy Sedan” in 1971, 1972 and 1973 in “C&D’s Annual Reader’s Choice Poll.”
C&D: “In 1971, the Vega’s first year on the market, it managed to unseat the incumbent import, breaking its eight year winning streak.”
Car and Driver selected the Cosworth Vega one of the “10 Best Collectable Cars” in its fourth annual “Ten Best” issue, saying: “We’re talking about historical significance here.”
Try reading a fully referenced, unbiased history on the car. (two years in the making) You might learn a few things that could influence your flawed opinion, you stupid dumb shit.
When you have proof that customers who had actually driven the car for 50,000 miles were singing the praises of the Vega, please let us know.
No one is denying that the Vega included a fair number of unusual technologies and even some innovations. Hence, the awards that you cited.
The problem was that they didn’t work properly in the hands of real-world customers for too many years.
And please skip the “Customers weren’t maintaining the cars properly” nonsense. GM had been building and selling cars in this country for 60 years when the Vega was developed. It knew that Americans tended to be casual about maintenance. Yes, import owners (at least, non-VW owners) tended to be more meticulous about maintenance and car care. But GM advertised the Vega as a car that could be treated like your typical V-8 Impala, and didn’t need much maintenance. Oops…
Whose fault is that? Those meanies at Consumer Reports?
I remember a quote from the head of either Toyota or Honda during those years. He basically said that the Vega did as much to boost their sales as anything they did themselves.
Vega History 201-some of the Vegas reviews from the experts (I warned you you wouldn’t win this debate)- and my opinion hasn’t even been voiced …
Motor Trend magazine in an August 1970 review of the basic sedan MT said, “The low dollar Vega is a complete automobile. It requires nothing more to be an enjoyable, functional piece of transportation;” “The Vega will get you there without generating any unscheduled stops;”
Of the GT coupe MT said, “The Vega GT with a 19 sec. quarter mile e.t. doesn’t rattle any splines. But forget it if that’s all you want. Even at 19 seconds the GT fills you with as much adrenalin as some of its faster big brothers.” “Some cars get a little scary the faster you push them; this one is just the opposite, the handling improves. There’s no roll steer of any kind, tied in with car’s refreshing neutral steering give the GT some exciting handling characteristics;” “In summary the Vega GT comes close to what a racing GT car should be, in handling, performance and comfort. Because it’s basically a low-priced compact, the results are all the more surprising and rewarding;”
Of the wagon MT said, “Under normal driving conditions, the wagon is well behaved and takes you where you want to go with a minimum of fuss and maximum comfort.” “In spite of the understeer, for a wagon the handling is quite good;” ” Motor Trend included the Vega as one of the “Ten Best Cars of 1971.”
Road and Track’s editor, John R. Bond said in September 1970, “I think the Vega is beyond a doubt the best handling passenger car ever built in the U.S. It has many other good qualities, but the roadholding impressed and surprised me most of all.”
Road & Track in a November 1970 road test of Vegas Plain and Fancy said, “The Vega in standard form rides and handles very well indeed.” “Freeway cruising is relaxed and quiet and it was economical notwithstanding our overall mileage figures which included some very hard driving;” “Inside one finds that the large glass area–so reminiscent of those of the Fiat 124 Coupe — give outstanding vision in all directions;” “The steering is in a word, light;” “The basic Vega, pretty and intelligently designed though it is, is poorly equipped and rather unpleasant to drive and we don’t think many customers will settle for it. The optioned car however is a decidedly good package;” “Optioned, the Vega becomes a pleasant car to drive, marred only by the unseemly engine racket. It also becomes something other than a low-priced economy sedan, but one is hard put to name a coupe as attractive and capable as this at a comparable price.”
Car Life magazine in September 1970 said, “How good is the Vega? In two words, very good.”
Road Test magazine in September 1970 said, “It’s innovative without being complex.”
Sports Car Graphic magazine said in September, 1970: “The new die-cast aluminum Vega 2300 (engine) is a masterpiece of simplicity. There are many innovations made to reduce the number of pieces and improve repairability..”
Super Stock magazine in October 1970 said, “What Chevrolet did was engineer a completely new car for the tastes and needs of the 1970s, and they’ve done a beautiful job.”
Road Test said in a November 1970 road test. “To put it bluntly, the the Vega with the 110-hp engine, is sort of a junior hot rod; it reminded us vaguely of some flying time behind the stick of a military Piper.” “With the inexpensive handling package, our test car has no peers in the cornering department. Fast turns are level safe and normal.” “Standard disc brakes give Vega stopping power that touch a record for us — of 140 feet from 60 mph.” “We like the Vega;”
Hot Rod magazine in November 1970 said, “The Vega is a hard car not to like. Even the men who run companies that build competitive cars admit that. It is the result of the largest single expenditure by Chevrolet and General Motors for any single car model. The investment reaches into the hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Road and Track on the Yenko Turbo Stinger II in April 1971 said, “A turbo-charger and other good things transform the Vega into a sports car. Even the SCCA says so. Yenko says the prototype using the optional 3.36 gears did the quarter mile in 15.5 sec.”
Track and Traffic magazine in April 1971 said, “There’s one thing the Vega will (hopefully) do for the North American driver, and that’s to educate him on the joys of good handling.”
Car and Driver in 1971 said, “The plain Vega sedan is as good-looking a car as you’ll find in its class…with the Vega they’ve turned out one of the finest-looking compact sedans in the world;” “The front seat passengers should have no complaints and the trunk is generous, but knee room in the rear is in tight supply.”
“Car and Driver in their 1972 “Tire Test” said, “We had chosen a Vega as the test car because it was one of the few Showroom Stockers with handling balanced enough that we could be sure it was the tires we were testing and not some quirk of the car.”
Hot Rod magazine road tested a Vega GT Kammback in March 1972. HR said, “The car never looks like something you had to buy…It’s the kind of car we’d buy to look good in, work on, add to, and wash once a week.”
Hot Rod voted the Vega GT “Best Buy” of the entire 1972 Chevrolet line.
Super Stock magazine in a July 1972 road test of a Vega GT said, “It is a damn nice little car with plenty of room, great handling, and a pretty high level of overall finish.”
Service Station Management and Motor Service magazines in a July 1972 survey, the Vega was voted–”Easiest to service, least mechanical problems and best overall in its class” by independent servicemen.”
Road & Track in a 1971-72 model owner survey said, “The level of assembly doesn’t match the virtues of the design. 70% would buy another Vega and 30% wouldn’t, show a high degree of dissatisfaction with the car.”
Road & Track in a Vega GT road test in June 1973 said, “The 1973 Vega is still the stylish, somewhat sporting economy car it was when new, but improved. The engine is doubly improved, as it has the reduced emissions required by law and better performance (regardless of official power ratings).” “The gearshift has been reworked to match the new transmission.. It’s less balky and more precise than the original units.” R&T concluded, “After what we’ve said about earlier Vegas, it’s a pleasure to report the current Vega is attractive, respectably quick, and frugal-and it’s the best highway car in class. Well done Chevrolet.”
Road Test magazine in a 1973 Vega GT coupe road test said, “The Vega could be thrown into just about any kind of turn with full expectation of making it through;” “the cornering force developed was far beyond expectation.” “The bucking engine has somehow been tamed by invisible means.” “The four-speed gearbox was crisp, precise and impossible to fault.” “The disc/drum brakes performed flawlessly at all times. Panic stopping tests were accomplished with no tendency to swerve;” “The air-conditioning is easily the best of any of the so-called “little cars;” “The interior, seats and carpeting were well done and of good materials.
Road Test in a July 1974 Vega LX Notchback road test said, “The 1974 Vega is a vastly improved car over the original.” “What engine vibration and noise there is becomes noticeable at very low or very high engine speeds. The engine noise never becomes objectionable until 5,000 rpm, which is beyond the range of normal use.” “The wheel hop has been eliminated with both rear wheels remaining planted firmly on the pavement even with the most brutal starts.”
Car and Driver in May 1974 said of the Vega GT, “What we have here is a car that will cut and run with the best of them. It is a natural on a road course, sure footed and fleet, with a sense of balance that you rarely find in a sedan.” “We particularly like the solid feel of the shifter.” “The test car was also optioned out with variable ratio power steering which offers a very quick 3.0 turns lock to lock and quite an accurate feel. “The carpets, the door panels and the seat coverings are high quality, particularly in light of the Vega’s low overall price.”
Motor Trend in a Cosworth Vega test in October 1975 said: “The Cosworth Vega goes like the proverbial bat out of Carlsburg Caverns.” “At moderate speeds, the car is as close to neutral handling as any American car I have ever driven.”
Car and Driver in a 1975 Cosworth Vega test said, “The outstanding feature of the Cosworth Vega is its excellent balance..Roll-stiffness distribution is ideal, with little understeer entering a turn, and just the right amount of drift from the tail as you put your foot down to exit ..Through the woods or down a mountain, the Cosworth is a feisty aggressor willing, if not altogether able to take on the world’s best GT cars.”
Road & Track in a 1976 Cosworth Vega road test in March 1976 said, “”We can’t resist saying that with the Cosworth Vega engine, the Vega now runs the way it should have run all the time-easy, smooth, good response, good handling: a nice balance between performance and economy.” “The Cosworth Vega’s handling is very good.”
Collectible Automobile magazine in the April 2000 issue said, “The Vega engine was, without a doubt, the most extraordinary part of the car…
Vega versus competitors
As domestic automakers entered the subcompact class, The introduction of the Chevrolet Vega on September 10, 1970 followed the AMC Gremlin by six months and preceded the Ford Pinto by one day. Motor Trend in February, 1971 said conservative estimates had placed the cost of bringing the Vega (XP-887) from drawing board to production reality at a staggering $200 million compared to about $5 million for the AMC Gremlin. The Vega competed directly with its domestic rivals and Japanese imports from Toyota and Datsun as well as the successful, but aging VW Beetle.
Five months prior to the Vega’s public introduction, Chevrolet invited six publications to participate in a test run from Denver, Colorado to Phoenix, Arizona. Six cars were provided, driven out to Denver from the GM Proving Grounds in Milford, Michigan. Three Vegas – a sedan, coupe, and wagon, VW Beetle, Toyota Corona, and Ford Maverick.
August, 1970 Motor Trend and September, 1970 Car Life magazines reported on the two-day test run: “The motoring press took an 890-mile trip in three Vegas and three competitors. The Vegas won.” “The most impressive part of the trip was the cornering power of the three Vegas. None of the other cars could begin to keep up.” Michael Lamm said, “We all agreed that the three Vegas were well put together, that they were comfortable, roomy, reasonably quiet, and fun to drive.” John Bond, publisher of Road and Track and Car Life, who’d never been overly fond of American automobiles said he thought the Vega handled better than any economy car he’d ever driven. The highest speed attained on a level road was 105 mph at 5,250 rpm by the Vega coupe with the L-11 performance option. The highest fuel mileage recorded was the Vega sedan at 25.5 mpg. The best 0-60 time was the L-11 Vega coupe at 13.5 seconds.
Car and Driver in 1971 awarded top pick to the Vega above the Ford Pinto, AMC Gremlin, VW Beetle, Toyota Corolla and Chrysler Simca. C&D said: “The Vega was the most expensive car in the test by almost $300 but the Vega’s virtues are nicely in proportion to its price and it was the unanimous favorite.” “The Vega pulls down the number one position because of its particular suitability to American driving conditions. In general the Vega is quick and nimble without the sports car harshness most American car drivers find objectionable.” “The Vega’s tall 2.53:1 axle ratio allowed a low 3,000 rpm at 80 mph.” “It was the quickest of the cars tested, taking 12.2 seconds to reach 60 mph.” “The Vega is an excellent combination of performance and economy.”
“Car and Driver” in a 1971 comparison with the Ford Pinto said, “The Vega hits its stride on the open highway. It has good directional stability and the front bucket seats are comfortable for most drivers;” it was agreed that the Vega’s far superior flow-through ventilation system was more than enough to offset the driveline tunnel heat.”
Motor Trend in a 1971 VW-Pinto-Vega comparison said, “The engine in the Vega is the strongest of the three…its drag strip performance will blow the doors off both the Pinto and the VW. The Vega, while enjoyable to drive, is a more serious car. It’s faster, more comfortable, quieter and better riding than either the Pinto or VW while still delivering respectable fuel economy.”
Motor Trend in a 1972 comparison test “Back Door To Economy” chose the Vega GT best car over the Ford Pinto Runabout and Gremlin X saying, “Chevy has had it all along.” “Even extended trips do not induce excessive driver fatigue and that is one reason why it was the Car of the Year in 1971.
Car and Driver in a 6-Car Comparison Test Super Coupes in 1972 rated the Vega GT’s styling over Pinto Runabout, Opel 1900 Rallye, Mazda RX-2, Capri 2000, and Toyota Celica, saying: “…If looks alone determined the best Super coupe, the Vega GT would win hands down without ever turning a wheel.”
Road Test magazine in the 1976 Super Coupe Shootout — Alfa vs. Mazda vs. Lancia vs. Saab vs. Cosworth Vega, RT said: “The results are in Figure 2. Read ’em and weep, all you foreign-is-better nuts, because right there at the top, and by a long way at that, is the Cosworth Vega. It had the fastest 0-60 time, the fastest quarter-mile time, and tied with the Saab for the shortest braking distance”. “The Cosworth is American, and a collector’s item, and it came close, damn close to winning the whole thing.”
Motor Trend Classic magazine in the 2010 “Loving Look Back” comparison — 1973 Vega GT, 1972 Pinto Runabout and 1971 Gremlin X said, “Chevrolet spun the Vega as a more American, upscale car. And let’s face it, the car looked hot. So can you blame us for falling hook, line, and sinker for the Vega and naming it 1971’s Car of the Year?” Motor Trend Classic closes the article saying, “Emotionally, Jim Brokaw summed it up in January 1972: Gremlin has power, but Pinto has the price, and a much quieter ride. Which car is best? Vega.”
Had enough yet?
Well, Robert, when you are right, you are right. The Vega was a great car. Customers loved them. They went on to regularly outsell the Pinto. And the Japanese cars that had started to make inroads were beaten back and GM went on to build up a massive leadership in small cars in the U.S., which is largely to thank for its current 40% market share. Oh yes – and Car & Driver never put the car on a list of the 10 most embarrassing award winners in automotive history. And of course, if you Google something like “worst cars ever” the Vega never comes up on any of those lists. With this kind of record, I can see why you would consider anyone who doesn’t simply love the car to be insane. Gotta go – I have to get back to regular reality.
How come when C&D or any of the other automotive press praises the Vega they are brilliant and wise, but when they criticize it they are idiots? I don’t hate the Vega. However, I recognize that it suffered from flaws, moreso than many other cars of its era. You, on the other hand, are apparently unable to see any flaws in the car at all. I guess we’re done here.
I never said it didn’t have flaws. I guess you didn’t read my comments.
I said FOR THE MONEY, the car was and is, worthy of its Car of the Year Award. I also know the flaws were corrected, which most of you internet “experts” conveniently fail to mention. And they were corrected pretty quickly, well before 1976, and at no cost to their owners.
You will not win this debate because you are ignorant of the facts, and you fail to even grasp them when they are explained.
Somone arguing that the Vega was a great car? Well, that has made my day! Thanks for the chuckle.
The Vega may have performed better in ROAD TESTS than its competition. The problem was that, 50,000 miles later, the Vega was either in the junkyard, or headed to it, while the competition was still running.
Motor Trend Classic is an interesting publication, but its road test of the Vega, Pinto and Gremlin 40 years later has even less bearing on the real-world experiences of owners with these cars than contemporary road tests did.
In the mid-1970s, California junkyards actually posted signs that said, “We are not taking any more Vegas.” This, for a car that was less than four years old.
The Cosworth Vega is irrelevant to this discussion. It was produced in paltry numbers, and dealers had a tough time unloading the cars that they did receive.
It’s really nice that Chevrolet eventually got around to correcting the car’s flaws, although taking five model years to do it is hardly working at lightning speed. Of course, it’s better to introduce a car that isn’t riddle with numerous, serious flaws in the first pace.
And if GM spent all of that money on the Vega’s development, and produced a dud like the Vega, it shows that the seeds of its bankruptcy were already sown in the late 1960s, when this car was developed. “Spending more money” does not necessarily equate with “superior results,” and the Vega certainly proves it.
Another “expert” – Nobody said it was a great car, but I said it was worthy if its Car of the Year award, and 40 years later, so does Motor Trend. Chuckle on that.
As Packard said, “Ask the man who own(ed) one.”
I’ve run into MANY people that owned them showing one of my low-mileage cars the last 10 years at car shows (picking up over 30 awards by the way the majority first place)
Half had ’em were used as transportation from new, and don’t recall more than one or two who said they had engine or rust problems. The rest had done V8 conversions, and both groups have had fond memories of their cars. The public from what I’ve seen, in my direct participation in the hobby with these cars for 35 years, has not had any level of bad experiences we are led to believe by these damn web articles and lists. It has grown totally out of proportion with reality.
Robert, every car has its enthusiasts. That doesn’t offset the millions who don’t remember their Vegas quite so fondly.
Here’s the thing: you keep reverting to using strong language in your comments, which is not consistent with how we operate. So I’m going to close the comments on this thread for now. We’ve certainly heard your side of the story more than adequately. Thanks for dropping by and entertaining us.
“Nobody said it was a great car,”
The gets the CC Understatement Of The Year award.
Robert, anything beyond that you’re wasting your breath on. It’s understandable why MT gave the Vega the COTY. Nobody here is actually arguing that it shouldn’t have, at the time. The whole point of this article is that within months of the Vega’s introduction in the market, its many faults and weaknesses became better known, thus in hindsight, it seems rather silly to have awarded the COTY to a car that became the posterboy for “Lemon”.
That’s it, in a nutshell. You just said it “wasn’t a great car”. So why should the COTY have gone to a “not a great car”?
There’s no doubt that the Vega had many interesting and positive qualities, but it ultimately was a failure, and a serious black eye for GM.
And equally undoubtedly, there are lovers of Vegas out there, as there should be, for all cars. It’s truly great that the Vega has such a strong supporter as you and others. We can really appreciate that.
But your emotional attachment to the Vega will never undo the history that it compiled. GM released a car that had numerous intrinsic flaws and weaknesses, and many folks had horrible experiences, and would never again buy a GM car because of it. Thus, it was one of GM’s Deadly Sins, contributing to its ultimate demise. Nothing you (or MT Classic) say can ever undo that. Those are facts and statistics, not just a couple of bloggers’ opinions.
Please know that I was very excited about the Vega at the time it appeared, and recommended one to a friend. It was an unmitigated disaster, like so many of the others in the first couple of years of production.
But please enjoy your Vega! I still have a soft spot in my heart for them; they’re so cute.
There are few great cars and I can’t afford any of them. What is your point?
The car doesn’t deserve all this bullshit going round on the internet.
I don’t recall my grandfathers new 72 Vega wagen having ANY engine trouble before it hit 100k miles in 3 years. he used it as a private cab on the weekends. yea. I also don’t remember ANY rust on that car, I also don’t remember any engine trouble on his 74 GT or my Moms 77 Monza or my first car, a 73 GT with 72k miles until the water pump went at 120k. Truth is all this bullshit is overblown, I’m sick of all you worthless non experts trying to tell me something I might not know. Truth is most of you know shit.
Did you miss this –
The damn engine was made of aluminum and it was tested for a million+ miles but was never allowed to run out of coolant, but they were in the field in the hands of customers. The overflow tank and light were added to all cars previously sold as a no-cost dealer up-fit within a year and included in ’74 models from the factory. the damaged engines and fenders were replaced and the 5 year warranty was added.
That sums up in a nutshell – The rest is all bullshit. Stop the bullshit.
The car continued to sell almost another million units after the trouble surfaced, the reviews continued to be favorable as well with the Cosworth topping the list. When the Monza was introduced, that car was praised for taking the Vega design to a still higher level (quietness, more isolated ride, V8 option) of development, itself earning a MT award. Two MT Car of the Year awards for the same basic design in two forms. You can’t change history.
If GM never tested the engines to see what happened when coolant got too low, that is a major testing failure right there. Again, GM had building cars for 60 years by this point. It knew that Americans were hardly meticulous about car maintenance.
That testing procedure may have worked for standard V-8s and I-6s that had been in production for two decades, but it was not sufficient for a new car with new engine technology.
The blame lies squarely on GM, not on the posters on this site, the testers at Consumer Reports or the hapless owners who dumped their Vega for a Corolla.
And if the Vega was so great, and such an awesome car, why can I buy a 2013 Civic and 2013 Corolla (both nameplates were on the market in 1974), but I can’t buy a 2013 Vega?
It doesn’t matter they didn’t do granny tests letting the engines go dry. It’s obvious an aluminum engine will not sustain those conditions. The engines were replaced, the upgrades were made and a 50k mile warranty was issued. They made good with customers even if at fault and went forward.
That’s a dumb question. Can you buy a Bel Air, a Chevelle, a Nova, a Caprice, a Monte Carlo. Different marketing that’s why. Chevy always changed names on their cars, especially when brand loyalty became more scarce. Other GM divisions kept their model names much more often. The Vega name doesn’t conger up thoughts of greatness like Camaro or Impala, that’s besides the point.
Be sure to check out the Motor Trend Classic Spring 2013 issue (Cosworth Vega)..like the Fall 2010 issue (Vega GT) THAT”S REALITY.
Robert, I’ve sent you an e-mail. If you want to compile some of your comments and debate points about the Vega for an article here, I’d be glad to run it.
Please know that this article is old, and only touches on the Vega. I have written at least two other pieces on the Vega that get much more regular viewing than this one:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/cc-chevrolet-vega-winner-of-1971-small-car-comparison-and-gms-deadly-sin-no-2/
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1974-vega-kammback-gms-deadly-sexy-sin-2-take-two/
Here’s a short piece on the Cosworth Vega. You’re bound to love it:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cohort-classic-1976-chevrolet-cosworth-vega-too-little-too-late-way-too-expensive/
Anyway, rather than keeping this comment thread going where no on can see it, I’m inviting you to write a piece on the Vega. We have over 100,000 visitors per month, so give them a chance to see your shot at re-writing the Vega’s history.