50 Worst Cars of All Time

andre1969

Oh wow, small world! My grandparents bought a '75 Dodge Dart Swinger from Banning. My uncle bought an '88 LeBaron turbo from them as well...the same one that he sold to me when I was married and then let her have it in the divorce.

Interestingly, he went there to look at the Grand Am! He didn't like them though, because he didn't like the interior, so he ended up buying the LeBaron, used. This was April of 1990.

Mr_Shiftright

Ah yes the Le Baron KABOOM Turbo, with bio-degradable paintwork.

"I'd like an oil filter, spark plugs, and 2 dozen head gaskets, please"

andre1969

LOL...yeah, the head gasket did blow on that car. But thankfully, we were divorced by that time and it was her problem, not mine. The head was warped, too. She and her mother found some place that put on a new gasket and a used head for something like $750, but the car still wasn't running right. I talked her into letting me borrow it and take it to my mechanic. It turns out that the guy that put the head and gasket on used a bit of creative license when it came to re-attaching all the vacuum hoses, wiring, etc.

My guy got it running as decent as could be for $75. But he also told me that the turbo was shot, and compression was low in two cylinders, and to not sink another dime into the car! Within a month or so it started blowing sickly-sweet white smoke out the exhaust.

In its defense I guess, the car did make it to about 115,000 miles and 9-10 years (it was late 1997 when it finally gave up). The light brown/champagne colored paint was still shiny, but you could see spots where it was starting to wear thin. I'm sure in a year or two it would've really gone to hell.

That car had also gotten stolen a few times and taken on joyrides. Miraculously, it never got torn up in the process, but I'm sure it got driven hard.

Oh, and the '75 Dart my grandparents bought turned out to be the worst car they ever owned, in their opinion. They had always been Ford people, but started liking Pontiacs in the 60's, so they bought a '67 Tempest and then a '71. The Dart sent them running back to Ford though, and they never strayed again! It used to stall out, and the dealer's service department never could find the problem, so they gave up and traded it on a '77 Granada, that promptly ate its transmission. :sick:

I think '75 was the first year that Chrysler put Lean Burn on the slant six, so that might have been what was causing it to act up so bad.

hpmctorque

The problem with your grandparents' '75 Dart may have been that their car didn't have a catalytic converter, and the better engine tuning the converter permitted. The '76 Aspens and Volares could be ordered with or without a catalytic converter, or maybe some came with one while others, with the same engine, came without the converter. I know this seems awfully strange, but it's true for the first year ('76) AspensVolares, so I'm guessing it may be true for the '75 and '76 Darts as well, since they used the same engines. Why this was, I don't know.

I know this to be true of the Aspens/Volares because my father-in-law bought a new '76 Volare. I had read that it was best to avoid the ones without converters because, in order to meet the prevailing emissions requirements, the engines were tunes to run very poorly. In addition to the driveability issues they didn't accelerate as well as the converted equipped ones. Anyhow, my father-in-law heeded my advice, and his Volare, a 318 V8, was a strong performer. In fact, it had surprising acceleration. Much quicker, for example, than my '78 LeMans with the 305. Build quality was awful, if not worse, however, but that's another matter. To its credit, that Volare also rode and handled very well for a family sedan of its day. The ride and the steering were much better than the Dart's. My parents had a Dart, so I was able to compare these two cars. The Aspen/Volare had the potential for being excellent cars if they had been assembled better and had inner fenders for rust protection. Inner fenders were added for '77 or '78, but the early ones rusted like the Vegas.

Mr_Shiftright

Whenever you run into cars with these mechanical/electrical emissions devices, you're going to have trouble. They are like evolutionary freaks going from one form but not yet a successful species. The old systems were in place since the 1920s and worked very well. The new systems we have now are complex but reliable. But the stuff "in the middle" was hell. All those finicky vacuum pull-offs, and valves that get sucked this way and that, and those "half injection/half carburetor" systems that were good at neither.

lemko

Ugh! Muy hideoso! :lemon:

My brother and I used to joke that "EXP" stood for "EXtensively Plastic!" The Ford marketing people had enough chutzpah to have the original two-seater Thunderbird pictured alongside it in the brochures.

hpmctorque

So true. You can't speak in terms of the best of those pre-fuel injection cars, but the least bad.

The introduction of catalytic converters for '75 was a notable step forward (for example, my '78 LeMans 305 V8 started and ran fine), but fuel injection delivered a major improvement in driveability. Many of the '73 models had driveability issues, and delivered weak performance and poor fuel economy to boot. However, as they continued to tighten emissions standards it seems that the nadir was the '74 models, plus the '75-77 models that weren't equipped with cats.

jj2me

OK, ldl20's family must stop buying their cars themselves. Instead, use a purchasing agency to select and buy cars for them: Citation, Excel, Spectrum, Alliance. Each had a cheap initial price, yes. Hope your family has learned something about value.

1975 slant six Dart? No way is that among the worst. My Mom had one and it went forever, or at least until the moaning sounds from the rust holes convinced her to trade up. Got $400 for it from her mechanic in the late '90s. It had become a cult car, desired by young people.

jj2me

OK, Popular Mechanics lists the Chevy Vega #1 of GM's worst:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/reader_rides/4293188.html

"...Vegas were being junked so aggressively that some salvage yards in Southern California had signs up saying they wouldn't accept any more"

This 50 worst list is just wrong in leaving off the Vega. I gave away a Pinto at 105,000 miles, and saw it go 220,000 miles before I lost track of its ownership. The SSR could also exit the list to make way for the king of junk, the Vega.

boomchek

Good article on all of the wrost cars.

I remember the early price leader Chevettes (from ym old car magazines) didn't even come with a back seatr, it was optional!!

I guess it'd be a good car for pizza deliveries and parts drivers.

texases

:" remember the early price leader Chevettes (from ym old car magazines) didn't even come with a back seatr, it was optional!! "

Wasn't that one called the "Scooter"? Or something like that :confuse:

boomchek

I think the base one were the Scooters. Equipment level equal to that of an actual scooter :P

texases

According to this, give me the Vespa instead of the Chevette! "It's not a car, it's a curse"

boomchek

That was a funny review. So many people in the comments sectin defended the car though and got upset at the reviewer. :confuse:

Mr_Shiftright

People who defend the Chevette sometimes remind me of people who defend the occult or "alternative" medicine, by saying that the reason you're having trouble is your "attitude".

lokki

The problem is your attitude

Exactly!
I was once complaining about a problem with my Acura Integra, and my friend said, "What do you expect, Lokki? Of course you're going to have problems. It's just a cheap little car. They all have problems."

Silly me. Expecting better.

oregonboy

What does your friend own???

Mr_Shiftright

In all seriousness, I would rate a Trabant higher than a Chevette.

hpmctorque

"In all seriousness, I would rate a Trabant higher than a Chevette."

An objective comparison (considering only the attributes and deficiencies, and not assigning any value to the historical significance of the Trabant) would have to put the Trabant below the Chevette.

andys120

It is often forgotten that the Sachsenring Trabant was an advanced design at the time it was introduced in 1957

It had a steel monococque frame at a time when most cars used body-frame construction. The roof, doors and fenders were of Duroplast, a plastic at when only
Corvettes used non-metal body panels and it was driven by the front wheels when only Saab and Citroen were using FWD.

Unfortunately the design didn't change during the 40 years of production so it was completely obsolete by then but then again so was the VW Type 1 (Beetle).

The Chevette OTOH was obsolescent the day the first was made.

Mr_Shiftright

Exactly my point. The Trabant had an excuse for being as bad as it was, and at least it is an *interesting* car to own. If the Trabant was communism at its worst, the Chevette was capitalism at its worst and more shameful, in that it was created out of free will. :P

fintail

I can have a little affection for the Trabi, with its raspy smoky little engine and its unusual construction. The people who made it didn't have much in the way of resources, but they tried. The Chevette to me is simply a malaise compact, no matter that it might be better suited for roads here.

hpmctorque

"If the Trabant was communism at its worst, the Chevette was capitalism at its worst and more shameful, in that it was created out of free will."

I certainly wouldn't cite the Chevette as a paragon of advanced design, but in my opinion the Vega was worse. I also wouldn't defend the Chevette. However, let's be totally, totally honest; if you could afford only one small car, which I presume was the case with most Trabi owners, wouldn't you choose a Chevette over a Trabi? You might, for a variety of reasons, choose a Trabi over a Chevette as your third car, but would you really prefer it as your daily driver and only mode of motorized transportation?

In response to the limited versatility of the Chevette Scooter, Chevette also offered a 4-door, which Trabi didn't.

I'll grant you that the Trabi handily exceeded the Chevette in one area, and that's in the amount of pollutants its feeble 2-cycle engine spewed into the atmosphere.

oregonboy

But, wait!... there was also a Chevette diesel, as I recall.

fintail

A Chevette is like a Lexus compared to a Vega, no doubt. The Vega is worse IMO, as it looked pretty good on paper, but was such a bad experience in reality. Creating false hopes is a pretty harsh sin.

A diesel Chevette with woodgrain side trim would be a really interesting ride :shades:

Mr_Shiftright

The Vega was at least attractive. Being bad AND ugly is something special.

oregonboy

The Vega was doubtless built with even less attention to detail and slightly lower quality materials than the other paragons of automotive virtue: early 70's Detroit iron. After all, it was an economy car.

And the engine was a total disaster. It was an experiment in cost-cutting, aluminum block technology, that tuned to crap; a classic case of GM bringing a product to market before its time... using early adopters as beta-testers. What an insane way to run a company. Was it arrogance or incompetence?

But I digress. What I wanted to say was, when it was introduced, it was lauded by the automotive press as not only stylish, but the best handling American economy car ever. (Faint praise, I suppose). But until the engines began self-destructing, it was highly regarded. They sold a bunch of the suckers. :lemon:

hpmctorque

"Being bad AND ugly is something special."

I believe the issue here is which was worse, the Trabant, Chevette or Vega. I put the Chevette at the top of the heap (pun intended) of this lowly group of three. I'm neutral on its styling, because in my opinion the Chevette's styling was about on a par with the Trabi's.

The Vega was the styling and handling winner. I drove a '73 with the optional handling package, or whatever they called the option that upgraded the suspension and included a tach, and it handled well. In fact, the Vega with this option package may have been the best handling small car of its day. The interior was also competitive, and a cut above the other two cars mentioned here. Also, especially with the optional engine upgrade and the optional four-speed manual, the Vega was the quickest of the three cars in this comparison. Unfortunately, these attributes were trumped by the lousy engine and - let's not forget - the inferior resistance to rust. For Vegas residing in the Rustbelt (an appropriate term when discussing the Vega), it was a race as to whether the body would outlast the engine. When the body won that race, it generally wasn't by much. That's because the Vegas with rust perforations in the body were still driveable whereas the ones with bad engines weren't. Well, okay, some wheezed along, belching smoke, but not for too long. By contrast, it usually took the rust damage longer to reach the terminal stage. Was the Vega the worst ruster of the period? Probably not. The iconic Datsun 510 was at least as bad, and probably a little worse. Just ask the man who owned one in Chicago - me. A close relative owned the Vega that I alluded to above, so I could compare these two. The often praised 510 also had some serious cold weather driveability issues until the engine warmed up. I only mention this because, while the 510 was undoubtedly a better car than the Vega in moderate climates, it was little better overall than the Vega if you lived in the Northern states. After all, a rust heap is a rust heap, even if it performs like a Ferrari.

I won't waste your time or mine arguing whether the Vega was less bad than the Trabi, or visa-versa.

andre1969

is that even in the final year, 1977, they still managed to sell about 100,000 of them. And two of its offshoots, the Monza and Sunbird, proved to be fairly popular.

lemko

...that might even be worth saving is the Cosworth.

I remember when my Grandmom traded her excellent black 1964 Chevrolet Biscayne sedan for a new 1973 Vega. Even to an 8 year-old's eyes I could tell this car was junk. It was this ugly yellow mustard color. It smelled funny for a new car, was filled with ill-fitting hard plastic, the headliner was this perforated cardboard stuff and was warped. Even the dome light looked cheap compared to the one in the '64 Biscayne. The car was buzzy and rattly. The engine sounded like a lawnmower. There was barely enough room in the back seat for my 6 year-old brother and me. I recall many times sitting in the backseat with my brother while the Vega's hood was raised as Grandmom was explaining to the mechanic some malady the car was suffering during her frequent visits to the Chevrolet dealer. It was easily the worst car I remember.

hpmctorque

Well, by its final year, or by ~1975, they had fixed the rust and the engine overheating problems, so by then the Vega was less bad than before.

If the '71-'73 or '74 had been equal to the '75-'77, the Vega wouldn't have been the poster child of what was wrong with GM. I'm not suggesting that the '75-'77 Vegas were good cars, but they were acceptable for their time and their market niche. The Pontiac Astre, which was a rebadged Vega with the Iron Duke 4 in place of the Vega's aluminum engine, was somewhat better than the Vega, because of its engine. The bad news is that the Iron Duke, especially in those days, was really agricultural, in terms of NVH.

jj2me

Putting sleeves in the Vega block changed the durability of the aluminum block engine, although overheating/head gaskets was still a problem with the mismatched aluminum block and cast iron head. My friend's sleeved '74 got about 100,000 miles. My 1971, with the non-sleeved engine, as I reported a few pages ago, got 35K and 30K on its two engines.

As far as the question above about whether it was arrogance or incompetence, I don't think we can measure GM's arrogance or incompetence properly today without the perspective of the early '70s. That was a brief moment in time of great prosperity that is rarely experienced in any country. It was the time of the "Great Society," when jobs went wanting, employers couldn't hire enough grads. The thought was that things were becoming disposable, easy for the average person to just replace. I think I read something to that effect by Ed Cole at the time. Unfortunately, Ed actually produced such a displosable product, the Vega.

hpmctorque

There's certainly a lot of truth in what you said, jj2me, but I'd say that what you described was more true from '66-mid '73 than after. In Fall '73 we had the oil embargo, which precipitated the worst post-WWII recession until the current one, possibly. The same can be said of the stock market. Except for brief recoveries, the '69-'74 market, and especially much of '73 and most of '74, was pretty aweful.

Only time will tell whether the current recession will be comparable to the '73-'74 one, not quite as bad, or worse. The financial markets are suggesting that this one will be worse than the earlier '70s one. The residential real estate market is certainly much worse than any preceding one since the '30s. But to your point, yes, most car buyers purchased new cars with the idea that they'd keep them for two-four years in the '70s. The notion of driving a car beyond 100,000 was unusual back then. A few people tried to coax 100,000 miles out of their cars, but not much more. Even the "good" cars only lasted two-three times as long as a Vega.

Mr_Shiftright

If engine durability was by itself the mark of "badness", then the VW bug would have been regarded as a very bad car as well.

I think it's not just whether a car is bad or not, but rather the public humiliation it endures, that sticks in our mind.

I think the Chevette was a worse car than the Vega, but the Vega was touted as being the "import fighter to push the foreign car off our beaches" or some such nonsense.

The Chevette was just carelessly thrown into the mix with no fanfare. It died quietly off stage in other words.

andre1969

If engine durability was by itself the mark of "badness", then the VW bug would have been regarded as a very bad car as well.

Didn't VW at least take that into consideration when designing the Bug? Basically making the engine a disposable part? Every 60,000 miles, just take out the three bolts, let it drop, and throw another in?

Mr_Shiftright

That's true, and they were cheap to fix. Even today you can get a rebuilt engine for a VW bug at a ridiculously low price vis a vis other cars of that era.

60K if you were lucky. And going up a long mountain pass on a hot day---you were dead meat. We used to call Route 80 going to Winnemucca Nevada as "The VW Bermuda Triangle".

lokki

The point that VW and the Datsun 510 were almost/just as bad as the Vega in a lot of ways is absolutely true... but raises another point.

The previous generations of 50's and 60's GM cars had been beautiful and reliable. So, going into the 70's we had expectations of GM to give us good, even great cars. Everybody who bought a VW knew exactly what he was getting into. Small, noisy, cold, breaks a lot but you could fix it for $100. The Japanese were giving you much the same but not so cold, or quite so noisy, and with nicer interiors. But again - you knew when you bought it. Nobody was expecting GM levels of comfort or quality from them.

And the fact is, almost nobody really wanted to be reduced to buying those cars . We all still wanted our Pontiac LeMans or Buicks that went with the good life of the 60's. However, we understood that the economy was tanking and gas was outrageous. Somehow, we all expected GM to give us a small car that was as good as a miniature '67 Chevelle. Reliable (comparatively) fast, quiet.... Life was going to go on as before, albeit on a smaller scale.

So, when the Vega came out, we had expectations. And, looking at the car, it looked like those expectations had been well met. Good looking, specially designed engine.... cool! America was going to be just fine, and nobody had to suffer driving a Beetle with cold feet and the radio blasting to hear it over the engine - unless he really wanted to, and most people didn't.

Instead millions of us bought Vegas. And we all felt betrayed. (See Lemko's grandma story above). She fits this example perfectly, I think. The Vega was the first time that Lucy/GM pulled the football away. Broken promises, broken dreams.

The Chevette, at least, made it obvious what you were getting into. It was a cockroach of a car, but you knew that when you looked at it, and although awful cars, at least they were cockroach-tough. I think they were the start of the saying that "GM cars run bad longer than most cars run at all". :shades:

P.S. - Just for the record, since I'm probably viewed as a GM basher here, Acura did pretty much the same thing to me with Integras. I had an 86, and 88, a 93, and then a 97. The 97 was the frog-eyed roundy generation. I hated that car, mostly because the previous two generations had been so good. Acura cheaped out on me. Dumped it after a year. Still won't go in an Acura dealership, even though the new Acuras seem like great cars. But.... I had expectations of what an Acura should be based on the previous cars, and that one let me down. Fool me once....

Mr_Shiftright

Oh I think the Datsun 510 was one of the best cars ever made. Even today, you can get good money for one. It's the only Japanese sedan of the 60s/70s that is even remotely collectible. They still race them in fact, with great success. These cars are eligible for Trans-Am 2.5, Production and B-Sedan in most race organizations.

The 510 won both the 1970 and 1971 Trans-Am Series in the 2.5 class.

hpmctorque

Your comments are right on target, lokki. That's pretty much what happened in many, many cases.

As for the 510, it may have been one of the best cars ever made...unless you lived in Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Boston, or any of the major Canadian cities with the exception of Vancouver. In those cities the 510s weren't good cars. I owned one in Chicago, and regretted buying it.

My experience would probably have been better if I had lived in California. Where we lived our previous cars, a Valiant, a 4-speed Mustang V8 and a full size Chevy, delivered a far better ownership experience than the Datsun 510. It's possible we were the exception, but I don't think so because other owners with whom I spoke had a similar experience.

The things that prompted me to buy a 510 were the fact that, at the time, it was the only front engine car in its class with an OHC engine and independent rear suspension. These were great features for an economy car.

Were the 510s that were raced usually modified? I'm thinking that maybe the 510 responded to modifications better than competing cars.

Mr_Shiftright

Well sure your results may vary....but the 510 was voted among

Road & Track's "Top 100 cars of the Century" (01/2000 issue)

Any 60s car is a rust-bucket.

andre1969

So basically, a great car to autocross, just don't get it wet! Any 60's car may be a rust bucket by today's standards, but there is still a wide variance in durability. And something like a Vega, '76 Volare, or most of what Japan was peddling at the time is gonna make your typical 60's car look like a brand-new car in comparison.

Mr_Shiftright

You'll always get a fight outta me if you diss the 510. It's a car I greatly admire, as do many car enthusiasts, given the time and place it was introduced. When a Vega or a Chevette wins a Trans Am race, let me know!

I had a 510 once that my DOG dented (big fat Lab)--LOL!

hpmctorque

Cosworth Vega Detroit Roundup - Autocross
Runs



Car #
Driver
Car Details
Class
1
2
3
4
5
Best



Stock



4
Chuck Larsen
Cosworth 2.0L, 110 HP, 185/70-13
Stock
48.958
48.253
49.296
47.870
47.045
47.045
1st

16
Chris King
Cosworth 2.0L, 205/60R13
Stock
53.560
50.000
49.172
48.992
48.992







Modified



5
Jake Lippert
76 Vega w/Cosworth 2.0L, sprockets, BFG R1
Modified
44.405
43.580
43.288
43.922
43.154
43.154
1st

8
Kenneth Rock
Cosworth 2.0L, 215/50R13, 10:1, 16:1 steering, sprockets, lg sway bars, shocks, cut front springs, Webers
Modified
51.742
43.562
43.312
44.320
62.545
43.312
2nd

7
Mark Rock
Cosworth 2.0L, 205/60R13, sprockets, mandrel bent 2.25" exhaust
Modified
45.607
45.269
55.348oc
44.926
44.293
44.293


6
Tom Lippert
Cosworth #0803, sprockets
Modified
47.436
44.974
44.698
44.514
67.008oc
44.514


20
Greg Gibson
Cosworth #0900, Hutton engine, Webers
Modified
48.227
47.485
64.504
46.921
44.880
44.880


22
Steve Mayefske
Cosworth #1000, Hutton engine, Webers
Modified
47.434
45.486
45.450
44.999
45.496
44.999


18
Mark Bloomquist
Cosworth 2.3L, 140 HP, Webers, lots of mods
Modified
52.439
47.401
47.145
47.009
46.015
46.015


28
Dick Baumhauer
Cosworth 2.3L, Webers, bars, lots of mods
Modified
48.288
46.306
46.521
47.136
47.576
46.306


15
Dale Malin
72 Vega w/ Cosworth, 2.0L, lots of mods
Modified
47.368
60.138
47.461
46.808
46.371
46.371






Competition


41
Mal Koomian
Cosworth 2.0L, 110 HP, race tires
Competition
39.385
39.176
40.017
39.541
55.577
39.176
1st FTD

30
John F. Cowall
Cosworth Race Car 2.0L, Big tires
Competition
39.757
39.988
39.294
45.620oc
41.263oc
39.294


301
John J Cowall
Cosworth Race Car 2.0L, Big tires
Competition
41.592+2
40.805
49.029
40.701
45.925+2
40.701


1
Joe Lathrop
Cosworth 2.0L, Webers, 20.5x7x13 Hoosiers
Competition
44.359
43.448
42.956
42.768
42.054
42.054







Unlimited



3
Dan McNally
Camaro
Unlimited
39.749
40.488
40.266
39.462+4
40.424
39.749
1st

27
Jeff Romeo
Cadillac CTS-V
Unlimited
45.159
46.686
46.481
46.274
46.624
45.159


12
Tim Morgan
HHR SS, 2.0L, 250 HP
Unlimited
45.185
46.973
45.678
47.344
45.185


9
Brad Stone
78 Pontiac Sunbird, 2.3L, 205/70R13
Unlimited
47.384
55.871
46.432
46.506
46.470
46.432


29
Brian Stone
78 Pontiac Sunbird, 2.3L, 205/70R13
Unlimited
63.939
60.066
59.374
58.266
56.756
56.756


14
Dick Bradach
Chevy Vega Kammback
Unlimited
69.220oc
68.812
67.232
66.474
70.553
66.474






Ladies Stock


10
Teresa Larsen
Cosworth 2.0L, 110 HP, 185/70-13
Ladies Stock
48.898
47.724
48.091
47.576
47.457
47.457
1st

14
Hyla Koomian
Cosworth 2.0L, 110 HP
Ladies Stock
50.274
48.581
47.491
48.066
49.938
47.491


17
Katherine Vega
Cosworth 2.0L, 110 HP
Ladies Stock
58.347oc
54.218oc
51.758oc
51.065oc
52.692
52.692







Ladies Comp



2
Rachael Lathrop
Cosworth 2.0L, Webers, 20.5x7x13 Hoosiers
Ladies Comp
55.068oc
45.047
43.990
44.016
43.868
43.868
1st LFTD

19
Denise Bloomquist
Cosworth 2.3L, 140 HP
Ladies Mod
54.523+6
52.239
50.234
49.442
47.217
47.217


23
Kathy Cowall
Cosworth #1000, Hutton engine, Webers
Ladies Mod
52.532
50.993
49.607
49.140
49.415
49.140







Ladies Unlim



13
Sue Morgan
HHR SS, 2.0, 250 HP
Ladies Unlim
60.143
56.249
52.570
51.948
51.089
51.089
1st





Practice

130
BW
Cosworth Race Car 2.0L, Big tires
Competition
39.862
38.745OC
38.595

23
Dick Baumhauer
Cosworth #1000, Hutton engine, Webers
Modified
43.919
43.148

41
Mal Kooiman
Cosworth 2.0L, 110 HP, race tires
Competition
39.503
39.319+2

27
Jeff Romeo
Cadillac CTS-V
Unlimited
45.961

Mr_Shiftright

Well nice enough for a local race, but it's not the Trans Am against world competition.

I like Cogsworth Vegas, and they can fetch a decent price. If anything, they show what GM could have/should have done (as usual).

uplanderguy

My wife had a '78 Chevette 4-door, 4-speed when I married her in 1989. It had well over 100K miles, body wasn't too bad, but it smelled like gasoline inside all the time. I bought her a new 1990 Corsica 5-speed and she was like a kid at Christmastime! Got 108K troublefree miles out of that car.

I never heard of anything specifically chronic wrong with Chevettes, but being from a Chevy family at the time, I'd have definitely taken a 1976 or 1977 Vega (notice the years, they were improved from earlier ones) over a new Chevette at the time. I still like Vega wagons. I think with common-sense maintenance, a later Vega would probably have lasted as long as a Chevette (is that a good thing?!)

Bill

hpmctorque

I've also heard of Chevettes going over 100,000, on the original drivetrain. And you're correct, as I wrote in an earlier message, uplanderguy, that the '76 and '77 Vegas were significantly improved over the '71-'74, at least. I'm not sure whether the improvements to which we're referring were in the '75 model year or the '76, but they included inner fenders for rust protection and steel cylinder linings.

It may be one for the records, but a member of my family coaxed a '73 Vega just over 100,000 miles on the original engine. He had to replace something in the cylinder head (can't remember what exactly), and it was a total rust bucket when the engine totally died between 100,000 and 101,000, but it managed to cross the milestone mileage figure.

hpmctorque

For all their issues, I think that Pintos (the ones that didn't get rear ended) and even Gremlins were more durable than Vegas. Of course, that's feint praise.

Although the Gremlin was plagued by a variety of gremlins, the AMC I-6 engine that was used in these cars was good for its day. In fact, I think that engine was the same one which later earned an excellent reputation in Jeeps. I think that AMC engine was finally replaced by a V6 in Jeeps for the '06 model year. From what I've read the I-6 was a better engine than the newer V6, in terms of fuel economy and smoothness, and maybe torque also.

hpmctorque

I should mention that my message #148 was intended to chronicle some anomalies, rather than to defend Vegas and Chevettes.

andre1969

Oh I'm sure we all have anomaly stories like that! I knew a guy, from one of my Mopar clubs, who back in the day had a Pinto and a Vega! Both of them made it to around 100,000 miles. The Pinto never had any significant problems. The Vega needed to have one cylinder sleeved, around 80,000 miles I think, but he talked about it like that was no big deal. I wonder how much something like that would cost?

I don't personally know anybody who's kept a Chevette long-term. I was always under the impression that it was one of those cars that helped spawn that "GM cars run bad longer than most cars run at all" line.

Mr_Shiftright

Sure you'll find exceptions. Every now and then someone slips off a ten story roof and falls into a passing flatbed truck filled with mattresses---but that's a database of ONE!

My definition of a "worst car" would be something like this:

A car that has one or more serious inherent faults that will cripple 25% or more of the units manufactured within the first year of operation

So for instance if you take a Saab 900 Turbo, with a pretty well documented head gasket failure rate of around 9%, that ain't great but that doesn't make it one of the world's worst cars. But if you take a Maserati Bi-Turbo, where you could hardly find one that hasn't had an engine rebuild, (or multiple engine rebuilds), that's pretty bad.