(first posted 1/15/2018) Return with us now to the good old days of 1971 and relive the joys of new car ownership of Detroit’s import-fighters. After you’ve read this, you’ll know exactly why the Japanese have come to utterly dominate the US market except for trucks. Detroit had it coming…
(hat tip to Lokki for turning me onto this at Amazonnews)
Wow, we forget how buying a brand new model from a Detroit manufacturer was such a crap shoot. And this wasn’t even Chrysler. 🙂 A mis-installed camshaft? A carb that loosens itself from the manifold in a few thousand miles, all while preventing the engine from running properly even when tight? Wow.
I remember the sound of that Vega valve clatter when these were relatively new. There was something mechanical about the sound of that engine that I liked. I do remember the Pinto engines as being much quieter, but then all you heard was the dumb-sounding exhaust of a little four (OK, dumb sounding to a kid used to American V8s).
Working in a gas station and a chain store automotive department; I witnessed more than one Vega that shook it’s carb and air cleaner loose. A Vega’s exhaust note always sounded to me like a marine engine, farting into the water, as they ambled by. Vega owners were the largest buyer of the cheapest 40 weight motor oil I sold.
A Pinto had a vaguely British sports car sounding exhaust note. Kinda-sorta “sporty”; but not as loud as a MG or Triumph.
Both, as you comment, sounded strange to any “All-American” boy used to hearing various American V8 engines on the streets of Anytown USA.
Of course Vega owners bought the cheapest oil we could find; when you use a quart of oil every 200 miles you buy in bulk. I quickly learned to carry three or four spare quarts with me at all times and to check the engine oil level on an almost daily basis. The 22 year old me had no trouble adapting and learning to live with the Vega and its many faults. The 66 year old me might be willing to drive one around the block, for nostalgia’s sake, but I definitely don’t want one as a daily driver.
I spent a cold evening in early 1978 trying to help a young lady get her 5ish-year-old Vega started. (No success – my old 6-Biscayne sat there idling with the booster cables attached, and the Vega cranked happily but wouldn’t fire.)
She was a student from out of town, and mentioned that her dad had said not to bother getting the oil changed – “That car changes its own oil!”
This engine sound of the Pinto is nothing special when you think about how Ford of England was one of the main users of the Kent and Pinto engines.
It sounded like a British Leyland product because its engine was a rival of their engines.
“…buying a brand new model from a Detroit manufacturer was such a crap shoot”
Dad bought a new ’69 Maverick with three on the tree that shifted so hard he could barely drive it. Turns out they forgot to put oil in the transmission. Never did shift really well after that, and he traded it for a Pinto hatchback after just two years.
Oops, it was a ’70 Maverick of course, but they came out in the spring of ’69.
I inflicted that on myself when my motorcycle tipped over and I didn’t realize the transmission was low. Refilling with Kal-gard gear oil got things back to normal after a few thousand miles.
Of course the Pinto’s 2.0 had its timing belt installed at the German factory where it was produced.
Yup that was not an American problem.
Ah, this sheds light on the cam being out 10 degrees! I had not thought it through – of course it would be a timing belt installation error.
Getting the cam timing wrong is easy on the Pinto engine, especially after a timing belt change, and getting it right does make a huge difference.
Um, “WAS a crap shoot?”
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/buying-maintenance/a14510137/ford-focus-rs-head-gasket-issues/
http://www.autonews.com/article/20160105/BLOG06/301059997/ford-gets-the-powershift-dual-clutch-transmission-right-but-is-it-too-
http://www.gmignitionupdate.com/product/public/us/en/GMIgnitionUpdate/index.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/01/14/fiat-chrysler-recalls-2017-pacifica-minivans-engine-stalling-problem/1032875001/
My first thought is “I want that hat!”
They are trying to be nice, or at least balanced. Vega is a good driver except for the engine which is unfit for a passenger car. Pinto is a good commuter except for the inadequate ventilation and painful seats. You can almost here the call “Isn’t there ANYBODY who can make a decent small car?” Oh wait, yes there is and it’s not you guys.
And finally, 12,000 mile spark plugs. I sure don’t miss that, I have the opposite problem on my 2007 Caravan. 250,000 km on the original plugs and still running fine, so I went to change them and snapped one off in the head, barely got it out with an extractor and just left the others alone…
With lead-added gasoline, inefficient carburetors and low-tech points & condenser ignition, getting 12K on spark plugs in the early 1970’s! Esp on 4 cylinder engines, which seemed to eat spark plugs like breath mints.
Don’t forget the anti-fouling plug adapters… we bought those by the gross until we had the engine sleeved.
Yup, the debate was whether to change the plugs every six months, or 10,000 miles.
Yeah, but the Vega plugs were so easy to change. You could practically do it with a Crescent wrench. My ‘73 Vega never lost anything to vibration … it did have the heavy steel vibration absorber (not technically a damper) bolted to the transmission (bell housing??). Was that included right from the beginning, or added later?
My ‘71 had the damper hanging off the (4-speed) transmission. My carb never worked loose, but the throttle cable linkage did on the way to Ga. Tech one morning. I had just enough throttle left to take my exit, where five minutes with my ever-present toolkit fixed it right up.
Brings back a lot of memories of 1970’s car driving and servicing (aieeeee!). Makes the difference between even cheap cars today cars of that era really noteworthy, fuel injection, electronic engine controls, etc really do make driving easier now.
One area that seems not to have improved is the way dealers ignore service bulletins, something that has always astounded me.
My dealer seems to check these, although perhaps it is only the ones that generate letters to the owners.
For my 2012 Malibu service bulletins seemed to show up in the system when my VIN was scanned for service. Guess GM was forcing dealers to pay attention.
Marine dealers are the same, as shop foreman, I was told by the brass to ignore them. And you can’t just pull over and walk to a phone booth if your boat dies.
a real shame,these cars could have been the blueprint for domestic small car excellence. that GM and Ford couldnt see it and kept on thinking they have no competition is sad. years later they still did the same thing with cars like the fiero and x cars. i like the vega,i always liked the 74 to 77 models with the scooped headlights. pintos were nice too. a little bit of caring and the imports would have had a lot to fear. i drive a 2001 BMW 330xi and have had it for 4 years,sure maintenance is a killer in the pocket if someting goeas wrong,,,,but its very reliable. just purchased a 1985 chrysler lebaron convertible(one owner) and although its been well maintained the the workmanship and durability are questionable. the bimmer has small issues that i wouldnt expect from a luxo sport sedan like a post covering sagging, but the car feels very solid and with blindfolds on,,,,,,you would think youre in a newer car. the vega and pinto was a missed (and messed up)opportunity to firmly plant our flag in our country, so much for hubris and stupidity.
Very interesting comparison. One thing I note is that the writing was better back then. But then they had so much more to work with.
This honest, balanced & informative road test is one of the reasons why “Car & Driver” was the “go to/read first” of all the many car magazine in both my Father’s house and mine.
Sadly, the current C&D is only a translucent shell of the one edited and influenced by the late, great automotive legend David E. Davis.
I’ve read C&D since the 80’s. It may not be as good as it used to be, but I still like it. I subscribe to both C&D and Motor Trend. I generally enjoy the C&D more and read it first.
I bought a new ’71 Pinto, equipped similar to the test car, with the addition of so very necessary (in Hot & Humid New Orleans) factory air conditioning. With it’s shiny black exterior, the hounds-tooth black & white cloth & vinyl deluxe interior and added Sears & Roebuck/Michelin X radial tires, it ran and handled as good as it looked.
I found it to be a fun-to-drive, “sporty” & reliable car….if somewhat crude in too many details for my developing automotive tastes. Eventually it’s shortcomings wore me down.
Eighteen months later I sold the Pinto and purchased a ’72 Opel Manta/1900 2 door coupe; highly recommended by “Car & Driver’ magazine.
WHAT a revelation! Here was a comfortable, peppy small car that made no apologies for it’s overall size. Chair height seats, an engine that whirrrrrrred like a BMW 2002 (and never shook), slick shifting 4 speed manual tranny, a usable back seat and trunk that was bigger than it looked..
The Opel Manta/1900 is what the Vega SHOULD had been.
Yes, I had one for quite a while. My Manta Rallye was about the most reliable and fun car I ever owned! Had to improvise with parts though. Spray can of Mustang grabber blue paint matched pretty good. Gas cap from a mopar. My father had a Vega. Nothing but trouble. Adjust the valves and they would still clatter since you would have to turn the allen key in increments. No way you could get it exactly where you wanted. Blew the head gasket at 46,000. Even the air filter element couldn’t be replaced separately. Anyone else out there remember those cheap rubber oil caps that got too hard to use after a short time?
Incredibly, I read tests like this and still bought a new 72 Vega. But after driving it for 2 years and NOT experiencing the problems outlined here I (eventually) bought a new 76 Pinto. (I was really Anti-Japanese, until the late 80s.)
While I didn’t have the problems detailed here with my Vega, I did have a windshield crack…while the car was just sitting in a coolish garage. And the assembly quality of the body from the windshield forward was….ridiculously wonky. (The hood sat higher than the fenders, for example, and panel gaps were big enough to jam a pinky finger into.)
By contrast, the Pinto was flawless. In the 2 years I owned it the only thing that broke was the parking light filament of one of the front turn signal/parking lights. Oh, and the front disc brakes developed a small bit of vibrations when applied.
In my case I read tests like this and still ended up with a ’73 Vega – because dad was buying me a car for college graduation (they sweated blood to get me to finish). Being a Chevy man, that’s the only thing dad would consider buying me, but of course there’s no way he’d put out the kind of money for a Corvette.
So, for a guy who lusted over Lotus Europas, went all aflutter over a Fiat 850 Spyder, and loved to drive his other girlfriend’s Fiat 124 Spyder, the Vega GT was the closest thing to acceptable in the Chevy lineup.
To it’s credit, it was a good car, got me thru three seasons SCCA B-sedan autocross, and got traded in on a Monza 2+2 (same situation only grad school, same limitations) three years later before the engine started blowing smoke.
“his other girlfriend’s Fiat 124 Spyder”? How many girlfriends did you have? 🙂
We’re talking the Glam Rock 70’s. Two regular relationships, and then there’s how many you could pick up at the clubs on Friday and Saturday nights.
Life was fun when sex couldn’t kill you.
Ah, I remember those days fondly too, though unfortunately teenaged me took only scant advantage of that situation. My college years were in the early to mid ’80s, probably the worst time in the last half century to be a college student. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that popularity of shag-carpeted customized vans ended at exactly the same time….
You should have held out for a Cosworth Vega 🙂
That was my attempt in ’76. Dad took one look at the price and it immediately was made off-limits with the Corvette.
… which cost virtually the same price!
How many people went from a Vega to a Celica and never looked back? Chevrolet should have imported the Opel and rebadged it. It would have worked out better for them. The best engine for the Vega is a V-6, possibly the 4.3
The value of the DM would have made it cost-prohibitive to sell Opels in the USA. That’s why the Opel Manta, sold by Buick dealers, was discontinued sometime in the mid or late 1970s.
Won’t let me edit. Wanted to mention my Vega was a hatchback with the optional 110 HP engine like the test car in this article, but didn’t have the deluxe trim and wheel covers, it was a stripper. Don’t know if it had the handling package the test car had or not.
I always thought if the much better looking and handling Vega had the Pinto’s powerful and rev willing engine and nice shifting, quiet 4 speed transmission, it would have been a really good little car.
Both of those cars were very good for SCCA B-sedan autocross when they were new. The Vega had good handling right out of the box. The Pinto? Get the 2.0 engine, 4 speed, add a couple of sway bars and beef up the shocks (probably under $100.00 back then) and you had a car that could make a 2002’s day difficult.
Not necessarily beat it, but definite competition.
I remember they were pretty popular racers, a lot of the Car Mags had Pinto and Vega SCCA cars back then.
“…to office girls who aren’t quite sure which pedal is the brake.” This line made me laugh out loud as I thought of the blow-back a modern-day publication would receive from such a sexist statement.
It is interesting to note that the reviewers were almost ambivalent of the poor quality of each of these vehicles, as if they shrug their shoulders and say, “Meh. Whattya expect from vehicle in this price range? A misaligned camshaft or a carb that shakes loose all by itself is just part of the experience.” It shows how accustomed we have gotten to cars that are built to higher standards of quality!
GM, if not all of the big three, had the notion that people who wanted a small car wanted it to be a cheap as possible. GM did not think anyone would want a quality small car at a higher price. This is the point of the title.
Which is strange since the Vega’s engineering (and styling?) almost priced it out of the segment, leading to some heavy decontenting (such as making the fourth gear an option).
It is interesting how the first paragraph ends by stating “The cars survived, and did so with no major mechanical failures” then later the article goes on to recount the misinstalled camshaft and the carburetor bolt issue. I guess in those days those weren’t considered “major mechanical failures”.
They are major mechanical issues, they made the cars run poorly but they won’t strand you. Considering a loose carburator a failure undermines the real failures the Vega would have
The Detroit 3 wanted small cars to be cheap and nasty penalty boxes, so they wouldn’t tempt buyers away from their more profitable larger cars. They were either incredibly myopic or vastly overestimated brand loyalty, and left a massive gap in the market for the Japanese to invade.
“…Do it yourself. It’s easy on these cars because they are simple”
Another line I can’t imagine being uttered today, both for the gall of suggesting people use their hands, and that cars can even be that way. Takes a dozen fasteners just to get the plastic engine covers off now.
I am able to adjust my tire pressure, which usually needs doing after the dealers tire guys rotate them and reduce the pressure to the cold pressure (note that this is inside where it is at least 60 degrees). I adjusted them to 40 (warm) and when I came home last week in 10 below zero weather the tire monitors indicated the pressure around 37 psi.
Here is a 10k mile test with Pinto 3 speed and Vega powerglide automatics, shows why manual transmissions were the way to go back in the day.
The Vega had bashed in engine and transmission pans, bent driveshaft and scratches in the cases. It was discovered GM put wrong front springs in the car, which were too weak to hold up the front end. Engine running OK but valve tappet noise increased, GM said noise “is acceptable”.
https://books.google.com/books?id=qNcDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=popular+mechanics+pinto+vs+vega&source=bl&ots=6_tCajzbaR&sig=riSWNgq7S3-ZudR22l489nnMliI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxtszm29rYAhUC6GMKHW9wD3MQ6AEIRTAK#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%20pinto%20vs%20vega&f=false
It’s a pity they didn’t get together. A 2.0 Pinto engine and 4 speed in a Vega would be a
decent car
The Opel 1.9 engine would have probably been perfect. I think the 4 speed initially used on the Vega was actually the same transmission Opel used. Would have turned the Vega into a great car.
At Lokki’s suggestion, I read every word yesterday–very enjoyable and pretty darned candid, I thought.
I mentioned the Popular Mechanics head-to-head (1971), with the two cross-country trips. Here it is for the curious:
(part two)
(part three)
(conclusion)
@67Conti: Silly Me—-mea culpa—I didn’t see your handy link posting hours ago!
The first Vegas had horrendous front disc brakes that could barely stop a car. That was a necessary remedy part way through ’71 or in ’72.
Wow, on 67Conti’s above link to the Popular Science article, page forward to page 86, (6 pages past the linked to article) an interview with the late Dan Gurney retiring from racing. Since he just recently passed, it was a nice read
I guess it’s just the nostalgia, but it would be nice to have cars like that today. I really mean the form factor, visibility and rear wheel drive. I know that front wheel drive is far more efficient, and today’s cars are far more reliable.
I was taken aback by the original article’s inclusion of the DIY manuals. You couldn’t do that with today’s cars. The tools alone would cost more than they were worth (unless you could use them for other cars) not to mention you would need a lift in your garage to get to most of the maintenance points.
One of these with a modern engine would just fantastic. Imagine a Vega with a 1.5L turbo Ecotec… Or a 1.3L turbo in a Pinto? Wow!
Interesting reading of the “invisible” changes from ’71 to ’72. If I remember correctly, the “flow through ventilation” that C/D praised in the Vega had its problems (that I can’t recall), and was discontinued on 1972.
My parents bought a used Vega notchback (sedan) in 1976 for $700. It was a base “stripper” with 35k miles, the AM radio being the only option. I recall it was powered by a 140 cid engine. I don’t know for sure how dependable it was, but my folks loved it until it hit 100k miles just 2 years later. Funny thing reading he C/D road test saying they got it up to 95/105 mph. Huh? Perhaps the aerodynamics were a bit different between our notchback and the tester’s hatchback; but I distinctly remember riding home with my stepdad the day they bought it. At around 75 mph the front end would start to lift off the road, or so he exclaimed. No big deal to him, considering how light the car was, so he just never pushed it that fast, afterwards.
On a side note, I noticed a few commenters saying how great the Opel was, and I’m sure it may have been, and it does perplex me why GM didn’t market that car more so than they did? Not a true domestic? Surely Chevy could have given it more mass market appeal than stodgy old Buick could?
While we’re on the subject of Detroit’s small car offerings in 1971, no mention has been given to Chrysler Corporation’s rebadge of Mitsubishi’s Cricket in 1971, or was it 1972? I think it was a Plymouth offering. Dodge also had the Colt, I think that was a Mitsubishi rebadge, too; but it may have not come along until 1974?
I’m surprised that the 2-liter Pinto was quicker than the higher-power Vega engine, although clearly the substantial weight advantage was a factor. And man, I know modern tire expectations are very different from the ’60s and ’70s, but that the performance tires were A70-13 really blows my mind.
You shouldn’t be. The 2.0 early Pintos were sports cars in their times. They were popular and successful SCCA racers. Even the 1.6 Pinto was only a second slower in the C/D 6 small car comparison to 60.
The Pinto completely changed its character after 1974. Ford re–engineered the body to make it much less tinny and quieter, and that along with the 5 mile bumpers and the heavily de-smogged 2.3 Lima turned it into a dull slug.
I believe that many of the structural changes made for the Mustang II were also incorporated into the Pinto II (as I call it). The early Pinto was quite tinny, but light and very sporty. A Cortina with a big engine and a goofy body.
Yup, the standard tires were skinny little things, 6.00x13s, IIRC.
Paul, I’ve always wondered, was the Lima 2.3 related to the Pinto 2.0 engine (just bored and stroked and US-built to save money in an era, mid 70s, when the dollars decline made German parts, like engines, pricey),
or
was the Lima 2.3 a ‘clean sheet’ ? Do you know off the top?
I’m not an expert, but I thought the motor sounded kind of silky at lower rpms (in my 80 Fairmont 4-speed), a pleasant, in undistinguished, “whirrrr” sound.
However, at higher rpm, say above low 20s in first, or above 40 in second, it sounds rough and “thrashy”, as in “don’t go there!!!!”
Maybe going from 2.0 to 2.3 to get some extra oomph ‘unbalanced’ the motor and made it rough at mid-high and up rpms.
In comparison, my next car, an 86 1.8 8v VW GTI, felt creamy smooth and my kid brothers reaction the first time I wound the car out was “it sounds like a Ferrari, wow!”
I don’t have time to look it up right now, but my understanding is that the Lima 2.3 was technically a “new” engine, but very much based on the architecture and design of the European SOHC fours 92.0 in the US).
Large fours are very prone to vibrations. generally, 2.0 liters is considered the outside maximum to make reasonably smooth without balance shafts. Over that displacement requires a lot of finesse and skill. The 2.3 was decidedly buzzier than the 2.0.
“was the Lima 2.3 a ‘clean sheet ?”
I’m sure the Lima used the 2.0 bore spacing, and the overall layout was the same: Like the 2.0 the newer engine used camshaft towers built into the head, and the distributor, auxiliary shaft and oil pump were located on the driver’s side of the motor.
However, ALL the details were different. The 2.0 head had three cam towers and a spray bar for oiling, the 2.3 head used four towers and oil ports on the cam lobes. The timing belts were different, the 2.0 used a Bosch distributor while the 2.3 used an Autolight, and even the oil pumps differed.
Digging even deeper, they used different crank and camshaft seals, and different bearings on the rotating assemblies. So not a clean sheet design, but everything got tweaked so there was no component commonality.
I knew they had quite a bit of SCCA success (and the same engine was used to good effect in a lot of European Fords well into the ’80s), but in the classes in which it competed, outright speed wasn’t necessarily required. I guess I would have assumed the Vega 2300’s power and torque advantages would have given it the edge, in quarter mile trap speeds if not necessarily in 0-60 (given the Vega’s greater weight).
The Pinto had 21.7lbs per hp; the Vega 22.18. Fairly close, but in the Pinto’s favor. The Pinto had a 3.55 axle ratio to the 3.36 in the Vega, also in the Pinto’s favor. The acceleration results are almost perfectly what one would expect from these numbers: a modest but clear advantage for the Pinto.
As to how they felt subjectively, the comparison is much more uneven. The Pinto’s engine actually liked to rev, the transmission was as good as anything from Europe at the time (which is where it was from), and the light, tinny body made it feel fast. Never mind the crisp steering and handling.
The early Pinto felt like what it was: a Cortina with a big motor and a weird body. The Vega felt like a small Camaro, with half of a lazy V8 and American-style steering.
They had very different personalities. But those converged after 1974.
I was going to add that the gear ratios in the Pinto were better chosen.
But looking at the C/D data sheet, the motors are geared similarly, so my perceptions must apply only to 3-speed (yes, Vega came standard with JUST 3!!!!) Vegas.
It’s been amply documented by you and others, including C/D, how the Vega motor hated revs.
The Vega weighed 10% more. That’s pretty significant. I didn’t realize early Pintos were so light–about the same as my 86 VW GTI.
By 1976, the were pushing the 2500 lb mark, and more than the Vega in this test. I’m sure the increase was not ALL in the bumpers.
Mass IS the enemy!
And with emissions, I think in 1975 C/D found a loaded 2.8 V6 Pinto got 16 mpg!!! (maybe 18, but still pretty lame given the room, or lack thereof)
I seem to recall that back in the day, people often said to be sure the new car you buy wasn’t built on a Friday or a Monday. But never heard how to find out what day your car was assembled.
Don’t think I ever mentioned that a good friend of over 30 years had parents who both retired from one of the Big Three automakers many years ago. According to what I heard, inside the Detroit factory you could buy any kind of illegal drug you wanted. And, that there were actually prostitutes smuggled into the plant daily in case you were looking for some of that. So, I guess there’s lots of reasons cars didn’t get built right. So, even though the people were making decent pay, benefits and retirement, many of them could’t be bothered to build us a decent automobile. And, honestly,maybe the bad apples were a small percentage of all the employees, but they sure screwed things up for the American auto makers.
“Isn’t there ANYBODY who can make a decent small car?”
Buyers today say “we don’t want one”. Who would have ever thought? But, Asians are getting more CUV/SUV sales, so watch your backs, Motown.
I know I need a ‘decent small car”. That aged, ride I’m driving is going to leave me.
Why didn’t Ford just build Cortinas in the US? All the bugs were worked out,, the British seemed to like them, and there were coupes, sedans, and station wagons.
When did valve lash adjustment stop being necessary? Was that just an OHC thing?
I read somewhere (here?) that the Opel CIH engine was designed by corporate GM in Detroit, so NIH wouldn’t seem to be why the Vega didn’t get it. Perhaps the car was too heavy, or they wanted more torque.
Hydraulic lifters, which obviate the need for routine lash adjustment, started to appear on pricier pushrod engines in the ’30s, and were very common on American cars by the ’60s except in certain high-performance applications. They weren’t necessarily used in high-performance applications because hydraulic lifters can suffer “pump up” and valve float at high RPM. Also, they weren’t applicable to OHC engines, which don’t have valve lifters.
The Pontiac OHC six had I think the first really practical system for automatic lash adjustment for an OHC engine: The cam lobe acted on a finger-type follower, kind of like a rocker arm, one end of which acted against the valve stem and the other against a hydraulic plunger. The hydraulic plunger kept valve lash constant, but didn’t add to reciprocating mass or create the risk of valve float, since it wasn’t interposed between the cam lobe and the pushrod the way a valve lifter is. For cost reasons, it was a while before this became really common on OHC engines — Honda fours didn’t adopt hydraulic lash adjustment until I think the early ’00s, and so required valve adjustment every 15,000 miles — although tighter emissions standards eventually forced the issue.
As for the CIH engine, it may have been designed in Detroit, but there weren’t facilities to manufacture it in the U.S., and at the intended volume, that would have been necessary. Also, as Paul has pointed out several times before, one of the big impetuses for the Vega 2300 engine was that GM had a substantial investment in existing aluminum engine production facilities, originally set up for the Corvair, which needed to be utilized. “We have millions of dollars already invested in this factory facility that we need to use” is a much more compelling argument when it comes to these things than “We like this design better than that one.”
I wonder if the Vega engine got smoother with improvements, even early on, or they just varied a lot. My ‘73 GT with the Holley-Weber 2 barrel was no BMW 2002 or even 510, but it didn’t seem much rougher than my pushrod B18 Volvo that preceded it, or friends’ MGB’s or even my sister’s 1600 Kent Cortina. Not a very high bar, I admit. Mine had the big “tuned mass” vibration absorber bolted to the transmission. There’s even one of those big hunks of laminated steel available on EBay:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/125801115424?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=125801115424&targetid=1645685075008&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9032155&poi=&campaignid=20133407470&mkgroupid=147476396765&rlsatarget=pla-1645685075008&abcId=9312979&merchantid=101986922&gclid=CjwKCAiAzJOtBhALEiwAtwj8tlh_zWO7gfGn-8IXTQ4fPJ9jmVQcbJq-9qCorllwBIFh0yr_Xf18jRoCIrcQAvD_BwE
Ford and Chrysler to a degree, but especially GM IMO took the attitude that they didn’t want to build those cars and if they did people wouldn’t like them. They made sure of it.
To a degree it was everything with smog and safety standards that they were very resentful of having to meet, but especially small cars, small and quality combined were not in their vocabulary. They wanted to build 4500 pound barges with V8s and 3 speed auto transmissions. Anything else was under duress.
Yes, it never seems to have occurred to them that a buyer might look elsewhere. Maybe look for a car from, say, oh, a country with a long history of building smaller cars; an expert, like.
Decade after decade of market domination bred complacency. From comments above it’ seems like the brand of car you bought was like a religion almost; and ‘leaving the faith’ was unthinkable.
How times change.
That was literally something Garrison Keillor wrote into the early lore of his Lake Wobegon tales – Catholics drove Chevys, Lutherans drove Fords, the local dealers being members of those churches. (Somehow it wouldn’t work as well the other way around).
I thought 80s domestic economy cars were craptastic but these two lower the bar much further. I’m curious if they performed a long term domestic vs Japanese test when the Civic came ashore in 72, and if they did was the truth spoken so bluntly?
What a reminder of how cars used to be, and the advances that have been made. Disc brakes optional on the Pinto. No booster. Fixed backrest rake, and an uncomfortable angle at that. Only a three-speed standard on the Vega. No overdrive for either (yet). Real penalty boxes, for this first year, at least.
And how poorly they were built. Camshaft out of sync on the Pinto. How did the factory not catch that? Having worked on this engine I know how easy it is to get it wrong – but just slip the belt off and advance it a tooth. Easy. Been there, done that. But don’t think if some is good, more is better; if you advance it another tooth you get an engine that sounds like a Lancia Beta, but has the performance of a sick Beetle. Cam timing matters.
They really pulled no punches about that Vega engine. “Unfit for passenger car use” they say. And a carburetor that came unbolted. Wow!
A reminder of how magazines used to be, too.
All Australian early 1971 built Chrysler Valiants/Ford Falcon/Holden Kingswood (actually Belmonts) were all penalty boxes in their basic lower price models. 3 on the tree manual transmissions, vinyl bench seats, no radio or heaters, drum brakes, leaf sprung rear ends on Valiant and Falcon (Holden had coils on sedan so advanced!) 2 speed windscreen wipers, etc. Holden even had a early 60’s sized small six cylinder motor. Wasn’t until the Leyland P76 that equipment levels started to improve, but so did the base prices charged. Build quality on Australian made cars mirrored the US, hoping you didn’t receive a Monday or Friday car, with no cost extras like empty beer bottles inside doors, missing trim items, poor paint and rust issues from the factory.
Small/Medium cars were better with more competition.
At least things improved as the years followed. Ahh the good old days, they sure dont make them like they used to! 🙂
Oh don’t I know it, Travis! The next door neighbours had an XL Falcon deluxe with no heater. Getting a lift to school in that on a winter morning with a heart-stopping lack of visibility, and being told “Don’t touch the windows!” At least Dad got a heater, even if his was a manual with no radio. Manual steering and brakes, of course. Pretty body, 1930s tech.
I remember collecting brochures at the motor show, and optioning up my ideal car in my head – so much good stuff was on the options list. It was really only when Datsuns, Toyotas and other Japanese brands appeared in the sixties that Aussie motorists realised that a) why should all the good stuff you want be optional, and b) why shouldn’t it be well built?
The rest is history…..
Reading this makes me wonder if my 71 Pinto had any of the updates done. The mileage was OK but not impressive.
I owned a 80 Chevette and judging by the problems GM had with the Vega engine they didn’t learn much as my Chevette 4 cyl thru some pieces on the road one day. Cause, crank pulley retaining bolt failed and crank pulley and cam belt drive sprocket were last seen out of the rear window as they bounced along the pavement. The repair included a new crank. Unfortunately a hack of a mechanic couldn’t be troubled with installing the distributor correctly and the shop supervisor was no better. The dealer wanted to bill me for the repair. Luckily I was employed by GM at the time and a phone call to the Chevrolet rep took care of the bill. I reinstalled to dist correctly so the correct timing could be set. Only had to remove A/C brackets and pull the fuel pump.