With all (and I mean ALL) the squawking here about Caddy's slogan, and the past history of so many of those same guys hanging on to what magazines have to say, I'm surprised there has not been a single comment on the list of "accolades" and "awards" that Caddy has recently won and are posted on their site...link was provided by me several posts up.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I'm surprised there has not been a single comment on the list of "accolades" and "awards" that Caddy has recently won and are posted on their site...link was provided by me several posts up.
OK, I'll bite.
You mean for the 2 models and their variants?
Escalade and CTS.
I have always said the CTS in 2008 was the best car Caddy produced in decades. The CTS-V PROVES if GM wants to make "World Class" vehicles, they can.
The Escalade, however is a prettied-up Tahoe but I agree it's a great utility vehicle at it's core...Chevy.
The SRX is till a second-tier SUV in the LUX arena. Perhaps they should take it to the 'Ring for some tweaking!!
I am eagerly waiting for the ATS...then the XTS....then the ELR.
In the mean time, the slogan is currently bunk. Perhaps someday it can once again gain some street cred! :shades:
Hilarious. If he's not happy with his pay, he's free to go elsewhere, right?
GM isn't paying too low - overall executive compensation, especially for the CEO class, is way too high. Those who in reality have declared class warfare are making out like bandits.
Seems to me that patience isn't a virtue both in our government and their motor company! Wonder if they sell at a loss or go it until the new administration starts next January?
Looking at the forecast for the US auto market, even at the higher projections for auto sales in the U.S., predictions are that U.S. manufacturers loose some market share. Add Europe's decline and projected losses, and GM might do well to close the year at $25/share. The stock is trading at 29% below it's IPO price.
To break even, the government would need to average $53 per share for its remaining stake.
At current prices, the government would lose more than $14 billion on its GM bailout.
The sharp decline in GM's stock price has put the government's sale of its remaining shares on hold indefinitely. No sale is expected until after the November elections.
Yep, there's a reason that many large corporation board members are higher-ups in companies that have the higher-ups from companies they represent (as board members) on THEIR own boards... [non-permissible content removed] for tat, and the old worn out saw "If we don't pay them a 'competitive' wage, they will go somewhere else!".
Of course, I'm gonna support more $$$ for you when you reciprocate..l
LOL!
I'd tell these jokers to "Send me a postcard from your new, higher paying/more benefits position when you get there".
There's simply too much talent available to be extorted, and many shareholders are starting to see right through this sort of crap.
Oh, so now the determinant of quality is based on the sheer number of sales?
No, the determinant of any "World Standard" would be what most determines the baseline for it around the world. Caddy isn't it when it comes to luxury automobiles.
The sales gives a good indication of what is valued most by others by what they invest in. Heck, even in the USA, the desired "standard" isn't Caddy, let alone the total 195 nations of the world!
Perhaps the New World for Caddy is Detroit?? At least the GM Execs can afford a Caddy under the Government pay guidelines!!
In 1974, the Vega was the best-selling small car in the U.S. It must have been the best small car then.
Well, the buying public sure gave it the chance to be the best small car by purchasing so many, didn't it?
In the end... Who let who down?
Was the car trash because folks stopped buying it, or was it the other way around?
We all know the answer....
I was one of the lucky ones.... in one of the few times in my life. My Pontiac Astre was a really great car as long as I owned it.
I'd like someone to do to it what they did in the 65 Impala commercial, where the car is tracked down and returned to the original owner. I'd love to see what shape its in today.
I suspect it enjoyed a one-way visit to the compactor decades ago...
Well, that number one position happened after three previous model years of high volume. If you're old enough to remember reading the mags back then, the Vega was absolutely, positively, the darling of all the car mags then, repeatedly picked 'best small car' by readers of Car and Driver, and in fact their ads were full of blue ribbons for all their awards.
Somehow, since I check oil, check coolant level, and go back to the dealer if something doesn't seem right while the car's still under warranty, I suspect I would have had the same luck with a Vega as you had with your Astre.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Was the car trash because folks stopped buying it, or was it the other way around?
We all know the answer....
That's exactly the reason Chrysler was sitting pretty and seemed cash rich in the mid 90's. They actually had cars that sold becasuse they looked good on paper. Folks stopped buying them later on not because of Daimler, but because they got let down. Chrysler was never "healthy," hence, the 2 bailouts in short order.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Pintos, Colts, B210s, Rabbits, Monzas and, of course, Vegas. They were all pretty bad- even the early Civics were built like crap compared to their 80s successors- but the Vega stood apart as the quintessential pile-o-[non-permissible content removed] car. All of them suffered from the "100-year-old man syndrome," in which the act of attempting to repair one problem causes five new problems, and the same stuff would break over and over again. An entire generation of GM customers defected to Japanese marques as a result of the Vega's suckiness.
On paper, the Vega design looked like a huge jump into the future for The General: aluminum-block OHC engine, rope-and-center-pivot steering, lightweight unibody construction, the works. On top of all that, it looked much better than most of the cars coming across the Pacific. Sure, it had a solid rear axle, but so did most of the competition. The problem was that GM rushed the Vega into production before the engineers were done with it, Fourteenth Floor politics and general organizational dysfunction led to confusion and labor strife, and many of the futuristic features and techniques planned for the Vega resulted in disaster. Baffles in the engine's water jacket oil pan were supposed to make nose-down train shipping of new cars possible but resulted in overheating problems. Full-immersion rustproofing didn't work. The finished car was hundreds of pounds heavier than initially planned.
The problem was that GM rushed the Vega into production before the engineers were done with it, Fourteenth Floor politics and general organizational dysfunction led to confusion and labor strife, and many of the futuristic features and techniques planned for the Vega resulted in disaster. Baffles in the engine's oil pan were supposed to make nose-down train shipping of new cars possible but resulted in overheating problems. Full-immersion rustproofing didn't work. The finished car was hundreds of pounds heavier than initially planned.
Now, imagine an alternate past in which GM made the right choices with the Vega, lived without a homegrown competitor to the Pinto for another year or two while the engineers got the kinks worked out, and built a good Vega. Would the Corolla and Civic have established their unassailable toehold in the North American market? Would GM have skipped the atavistic Chevette altogether?
Again, ad nausea, their business model was a disaster. We don't want to relive that now, do we?
Six years (7?) of the Vega, 1,966,157 sold, new factory built that's still making cars (Lordstown - where Chevy is making the Cruise today).
Look at some of the competition at the time - Pinto, Beetle, and the Gremlin. The Pinto certainly didn't endear consumers to Ford's brand either. The new Chevy buyers don't even know what an AMC is.
By '74, the Beetle was stalling, sales-wise, too, as people saw it primarily for what it was...essentially a 25-year old design. Its replacement, the Rabbit, had many of the quality issues, and even some of its own, that the Vega and Pinto became known for.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I'd have enjoyed a '76 or '77 Vega at the time (in fact I like the '75 styling a bit better and I've heard some of the '76 improvements actually made it in during part of the '75 run). I recall that the base price of the Chevette hatch and the Vega hatch were identical at $2,899. I'd have taken a Vega over a Chevette, new, any day of the week.
Interesting; I don't remember any car back then that had a 5/60k warranty on anything, much less the engine. Even today, it's not as common as it should be.
Warranty seems like a version of what Hyundai has done with its big warranty - offer something big to skeptical people and see if they jump. Too bad that car finally got decent right before it was phased out, which seems to be a GM tradition.
Vega wagon can be argued to be the best looking small car of the era.
Emissions controls killed the Beetle. It wasn't the design. Air cooled engines couldn't effectively meet the oncoming EPA standards, and VW started shifting towards designs that could.
Beetles continued production for years and remained popular in countries that had less stringent emissions controls for years after it ceased to be available here.
True, but as much as people love that design, in hindsight, Beetles had some well-known shortcomings--heat and defrost, and that high-tech windshield washer that worked from the air in the spare tire! Plus, horsepower that made the 110 gross hp of the 2-barrel Vega engine look like a performance car.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The wagon lived on through the '79 model year as the Monza and Sunbird, and even the Vega hatchback lived on through '78, and maybe '79, as the Monza 'S'. In '78 and '79, both got the Iron Duke that Pontiac had used earlier in the Astre though. I think Pontiac switched in '76, but I'm not sure without looking it up. Between the two, I'd have taken the one that had the longer warranty.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I think the news is sad as long as folks continue to buy based on what a magazine like Motor Trend says instead of actually looking at and trying the cars themselves.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
It's a good synopsis of all the related issues with the car.
I didn't fault GM for the Vega/Astre issues, because much of the car was a bit revolutionary... What I DID fault GM for on the car was the company pretty much telling owners it wasn't GM's problem, but theirs.
Sticking the customer with a boat anchor is a poor way to do business.
Another example... 70's GM diesel powered cars. That little debacle still has repercussions in today's market in the US, as it relates to the popularity of diesels...
I don't think one can single out the VW Beetle as the only vehicle with shortcomings. Emissions control was only one factor coming into play at the time. Safety was another, and all cars along the lines of "econobox" levels shared that factor.
Frankly, the Beetle, like so many other makes/models, had a choice... Either evolve or be replaced with later technology. The Vega was a tragedy in the new technology field, and the Pinto, Rabbit, etc. all shared many of the same problems, whereas Toyota and Datsun did a much better job of it. It was easier to let the Beetle go away than to attempt re-engineering it (at least, at the time... The New Beetle demonstrated the body style was still much appreciated, even though the actual car was 100% different in every othe way from the original air cooled model).
That is an excellent blog and quite accurate. Usually, it seems that blogs are written by people who weren't actually 'there' and are full of factual errors. Of course, once something gets in print it becomes 'fact', sadly. I didn't find that in the article at all, although some people's memories in the comments below are off ('the Vega handled poorly compared to all the foreign cars I'd driven before it'...certainly not substantiated at all by anything I've ever seen in print in forty years).
As far as GM owners telling customers to 'stick it', I do know for a fact that Chevrolet replaced front fenders for free on Vegas, before Chrysler did the same for Aspens and Volares. GM did improve the cars and offer by far the best engine warranty in the business. I think I remember that Honda replaced fenders rusted out at the top for early Accords as well, and also pitched in on CVCC engine issues. '70's Mazda rotaries were notoriously crappy engines as well.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Oh yeah a Monza wagon...can't recall the last time I saw one, if I have ever seen one - many couldn't have been made. I have never cared for the Monza, to me the coupe looks cheap and the hatch looks odd.
If I was car shopping in those dark days and didn't have the money for a MB, I would have sought a full sized American car, a larger Japanese car like a Cressida, or sought a nice mid 60s era used car.
As the link I posted stated, it wasn't that GM NEVER did anything...
The point was GM waited SO LONG before doing anything to improve the Vega. By the time GM actually started implementing changes the model was already dead... Kinda like hooking up a respirator to a guy already in the morgue.
And the link explained why that happened... So many within the company putting their own welfare ahead of doing what was right for the customer... And the company.
In my recollection, the Vega was the first of many products that GM (and other US manufacturer's) began producing that had latent, imbedded flaws so massive that the customer wound up with an albatross hanging around his neck. Just ask anyone with a Vega that attempted to trade it by 1975 what level of value he was offered for his trade in...
Comparing the 69 Nova I owned to the 75 Astre, as an example...
Every 10K miles, it needed a new water pump. IIRC a rebuilt water pump could be had for $15, and about an hour to replace it. The drive train would last forever with proper maintenance, and when wear & tear finally caught up with it, you could bore the engine 10 thousandths, install new components, and you were ready for another 100K miles.
Not so with the Vega. It's inherent design problems made it all but impossible to get even 100k miles on the engine, and when it needed rebuilding, your choice was to replace it... Not rebuild it.
And, it was GMs first entry into "functional obsolescence". Before that, cars were designed with "style and operational" obsolescence. People who purchased new vehicles bought them on a regular basis, in order to have the latest features and looks. Usually, there was no mechanical or operational necessity to trade vehicles, and used car buyers could buy with far more confidence their purchase wouldn't have significant issues.
The Vega introduced functional obsolescence in that the car had a definite lifespan, based upon economic sanity. Sure, you could replace fenders and engines every 2-3 years and keep your Vega running, if you were insane... Much cheaper to buy anew ride with the "security" of some warranty time period.
Well, everyone who could did trade cars every three or four years back then. I got my license in '67 and remember my family going through a Galaxie, Valiant, Falcon, a couple of '74ish Volvos, two early '70s Bugs and an ill-fated '69 Bus that only made it a year.
The Valiant threw a rod early one morning while my Dad was going fishing, the Galaxie's block cracked on me away at school. The Bugs ran good but we didn't run them all that long - a '70 got traded for a '73. I don't think any of them made it more than 4 or 5 years in that decade. The only exception was my dad's beloved '53 Buick that he sold around '65.
Oh, a friend always drove Cutlass Supremes and was always breaking down and having to fix the fuel system.
If you got 100,000 miles on a car in the early 70s, you could get the local paper to write a story about it.
Excellent post. The point presented is exactly what happened to the big 3 from 1972-3 until the "Big Failure". This sums it up quite nicely:
As the people who analyze events like bridge collapses and ferry sinkings and airplane crashes will tell you, a major catastrophe is most often made up of minor failures and mistakes and miscalculations, and maybe even a few instances of plain old dumb bad luck. When several otherwise-small problems occur closely together, combining and synergizing and reinforcimg each other, you can quickly end up with something spectacular, ruinous, and expensive--what the kids today call an "epic fail."
Spread out over a couple of decades, that epic failure came to pass for GM and C.
I don't think your family's auto experiences mirrored the general population. Maybe so, but I don't think so. By the early 70's, most of the Interstate system was in place, and it wasn't very difficult racking up 100k miles in a few years.
There were countless 6 Cylinder and small block V 8 Chevys back then that could easily hold up for 100K, as well as the Chrysler slant 6, which was probably the mostly bulletproof 6 made in the US...ever. And, look what the west coast hot rodders used to do with the Ford flat-head V8!
Now, if one got 100K on an air cooled VW engine, that was definitely news. Then again, one didn't need much in mechanical skills to remove, rebuild and reinstall a Beetle engine. In high school, after being taught how by a friend's dad, iI assisted several friends doing exactly that, and the car would be running again by Monday AM to get to school.
My granddad had an old late 40's model Dodge and part of the general maintenance was changing out the engine main bearings every 10k miles... The journals were too narrow to take long term stress and 10K was about the max you could get on them. He dropped the oil pan and used wood shims to work the old ones out and the new ones in place.
Of course, lubricants back in the day weren't anything like what's available today, either, so that contributed to wear and tear.
That's an example of what I was saying earlier... You might not choose to do the maintenance, but if one was so inclined, he could run the mechanicals virtually forever.
The introduction of the Vega pretty much signaled the end of the era where owners could basically maintain their car's mechanicals for as long as the body held up, which admittedly, for some, wasn't really all that long...
That doesn't work for the 73 Torino Windsor that had timing chain play at 70K miles?
It wasn't (nor is it today) unusual for individual engine designs to have their own set of special "pecularities" which require specific maintenance not forseen in the beginning of the design.
Of course, an engine with a timing belt will require periodic replacement of the belt, but as long as the appropriate maintenance is done, its not a limiting factor in how long the engine runs.
If the specific vehicle that you mentioned had a known weakness in its timing chain durability, and was serviced accordingly, why would that be a limiting factor? How long would the engine run if you changed the timing chain every 60K miles?
I can agree that it might be a poor design, and it might be more maintenance than the designers originally predicted, but that circumstance is quite different from the Vega's engine.
Vega engines were manufactured to self-destruct, and NO AMOUNT of maintenance could change that. It wasn't intentionally designed that way, but block and head damage was guaranteed in that design. Its been well documented.
The old cars were easier to work on for sure. I used to adjust the valves on the Bugs every 3,000 miles myself.
But the 70s weren't a golden age for automobiles (nor were the 50s and 60s for that matter).
I don't think I've been stranded since '99. I was stranded below zero a couple of times in the '89 Voyager and once in the '82 Tercel (that one was memorable for a cold mile-long walk). The Tercel was the first car I had that hit 100k and it took ~17 years to do that (and it toured the Lower 48 at least three times).
Besides rescuing the friend way too often in that awful Cutlass, all the other cars were always needing something too. I lost count of how many times I had the Volvos towed in Chattanooga and Memphis (and like some of the vehement anti-GM crowd here, I have little interest in driving another one).
The '69 Bus I mentioned had the head gasket go, which was a common malady back then. Happened in the middle of an intersection on a left turn arrow out near Graceland during rush hour. My '74 CJ-5 was fun and ran good, but the top rotted away fast, as did the gas tank and wiper motor. Not sure how the late 70s Datsun wagon would have done. Didn't trust it after I T-Boned a Caddy on a BBQ run so it was a short timer.
After heading north and enjoying some lean years, a used late 70s beater Datsun wagon stranded us for a couple of days in Haines Junction YK. A used beater SuperBeetle died and we had to abort a trip to Denali one weekend. My wife hated the car long before that so that's how the wagon came into the fold.
About the best runners we had in the family were a mi-60s GMC pickup that my mom drove (it was notable for the right headlight that lit up the treetops), followed by her 70s Impala that usually ran good, but leaked. And we had the passenger door wired shut. She had a few Buicks in there too.
Cars these days run like Mussolini's trains in comparison. Even Chevys.
I recall that Vega's also had tinworm like something from the 50's. I remember from back in the 60's two issues with the Beetle. The heater and defroster was awful and you needed a warm coat and an ice scraper for the inside of the windshield in winter (but they were great for spinning donuts in the snow!). You could pretty much figure a ring job about every 40K. Old cars were easier to work on, but you're right about today's cars being much better built and durable. Those old Beetles were actually considered by many as one of the more reliable cars back then for comparison.
I believe getting 100K miles out of any engine in the early '70's was unusual. I remember even CR saying that a long-term '66 Buick LeSabre V8 needed a valve job at 50K, and I think that was more the norm than not.
You won't believe this, but a guy I know who worked at Lordstown got 108K miles out of his '73 Vega without the engine being rebuilt. He drove about 90 miles round-trip a day commuting from our hometown to Lordstown. His was a bland silver sedan, least attractive model IMHO, but it had the white Custom interior and GT instruments and was a 2-barrel, 4-speed model.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
>It wasn't (nor is it today) unusual for individual engine designs to have their own set of special "pecularities" which require specific maintenance not forseen in the beginning of the design.
>Of course, an engine with a timing belt will require periodic replacement of the belt, but as long as the appropriate maintenance is done, its not a limiting factor in how long the engine runs.
This Ford 351 Windsor was known to wear chains/gears. In that era, most people probably did as I did: they traded it.
But now I see your difference in cars: a Toyota/Lexus with an engine that is prone to sludging or gel is a self-destucting engine. A 3800 V6 that has leaks at the intake gaskets is repairable every 75K miles for a relatively low cost or repairable at 75-100K one time with the right replacement; they go 300,000 and more easily with regular maintenance.
Yes... Reliability has to be taken in the context of the times. A 1950 Pontiac generator would last the life of the car.... Just as long as the owner lubricated the oil cups for the front and rear bearings regularly.
Can you imagine telling folks today to do such a thing?
I agree with you in theory, although I'm not familiar with the individual products you mentioned.
The point is that, if there is some method for predicting what and when a particular maintenance task is required, then it can be planned for and performed.
On the other hand, if the damage potential is unpredictable, then yes, I would certainly place it in the category of self destructing. If your first sign of trouble is a seized engine, well...
There's a difference there, between properly maintaining a car or simply driving it until it stops running. No vehicle is totally maintenance-free.
Performing regular and expected maintenance on a vehicle is different than driving it until it dies. ALL vehicles require certain maintenance, oil changes, etc.
If a car's brakes need replacing at 50k miles, that's hardly a defect, unless that model normally gets many more miles on a set of pads/rotors.
Many timing-belt equipped engines will easily exceed 100k miles if the belt is changed every 50k miles, but very few will exceed 100k miles on an original timing belt.
Based on my Astre experience, I believe your story about the 73 Vega. He was definitely in the "exception" group, though.
I certainly don't look at any GM product manufactured today through the shaded glasses of the Vega.
Still, it can be argued effectively that the poor acceptance of diesel powered cars in the US today is directly tied to the memory of the poorly made diesels GM put out in the cars of the 70's.
Personally speaking, I see technology advancing so rapidly that a bad experience with an auto 10 years ago is probably irrelevant today. I had a horrible experience with an early S10 Blazer, but that vehicle was nothing like any SUV being made today. Competition today is so active between manufacturers these days that no company can survive long making inferior products.
Having said that, though, I do think it's reasonable to closely scrutinize any company getting government supplied grants, loans, or guarantees.
I would guess you would get as many different answers to your question as there are posters that respond to it...
Comments
It's a "Small World After All". :P
The point is they are not the "Standard of the World". Perhaps at one time long, long ago....Today, it's an EXTREMELY hollow message.
Regards,
OW
Beat this one to death enough? Got any other GM news perhaps?
OK, I'll bite.
You mean for the 2 models and their variants?
Escalade and CTS.
I have always said the CTS in 2008 was the best car Caddy produced in decades. The CTS-V PROVES if GM wants to make "World Class" vehicles, they can.
The Escalade, however is a prettied-up Tahoe but I agree it's a great utility vehicle at it's core...Chevy.
The SRX is till a second-tier SUV in the LUX arena. Perhaps they should take it to the 'Ring for some tweaking!!
I am eagerly waiting for the ATS...then the XTS....then the ELR.
In the mean time, the slogan is currently bunk. Perhaps someday it can once again gain some street cred! :shades:
Regards,
OW
Didn't you notice the ELR news I posted before?
Actually, the slogan is not working.
2011 Sales in the USA
BMW - 247,907
Mercedes - 245,192
Lexus - 198,552
Caddy - 152,389
Audi - 117,561
Just another measure...World's apart!
Regards,
OW
General Motors CEO says U.S. rules keep pay too low
Catch-22 anyone? Sell the stock at a loss or let it ride under Government control. What's a government-controlled company to do? :confuse:
Regards,
OW
GM isn't paying too low - overall executive compensation, especially for the CEO class, is way too high. Those who in reality have declared class warfare are making out like bandits.
Looking at the forecast for the US auto market, even at the higher projections for auto sales in the U.S., predictions are that U.S. manufacturers loose some market share. Add Europe's decline and projected losses, and GM might do well to close the year at $25/share. The stock is trading at 29% below it's IPO price.
To break even, the government would need to average $53 per share for its remaining stake.
At current prices, the government would lose more than $14 billion on its GM bailout.
The sharp decline in GM's stock price has put the government's sale of its remaining shares on hold indefinitely. No sale is expected until after the November elections.
Regards,
OW
Of course, I'm gonna support more $$$ for you when you reciprocate..l
LOL!
I'd tell these jokers to "Send me a postcard from your new, higher paying/more benefits position when you get there".
There's simply too much talent available to be extorted, and many shareholders are starting to see right through this sort of crap.
Oh, so now the determinant of quality is based on the sheer number of sales?
I'll give you one thing - you're the Cadillac of posters in here.
No, the determinant of any "World Standard" would be what most determines the baseline for it around the world. Caddy isn't it when it comes to luxury automobiles.
The sales gives a good indication of what is valued most by others by what they invest in. Heck, even in the USA, the desired "standard" isn't Caddy, let alone the total 195 nations of the world!
Perhaps the New World for Caddy is Detroit?? At least the GM Execs can afford a Caddy under the Government pay guidelines!!
Regards,
OW
Well, the buying public sure gave it the chance to be the best small car by purchasing so many, didn't it?
In the end... Who let who down?
Was the car trash because folks stopped buying it, or was it the other way around?
We all know the answer....
I was one of the lucky ones.... in one of the few times in my life. My Pontiac Astre was a really great car as long as I owned it.
I'd like someone to do to it what they did in the 65 Impala commercial, where the car is tracked down and returned to the original owner. I'd love to see what shape its in today.
I suspect it enjoyed a one-way visit to the compactor decades ago...
Somehow, since I check oil, check coolant level, and go back to the dealer if something doesn't seem right while the car's still under warranty, I suspect I would have had the same luck with a Vega as you had with your Astre.
We all know the answer....
That's exactly the reason Chrysler was sitting pretty and seemed cash rich in the mid 90's. They actually had cars that sold becasuse they looked good on paper. Folks stopped buying them later on not because of Daimler, but because they got let down. Chrysler was never "healthy," hence, the 2 bailouts in short order.
Pintos, Colts, B210s, Rabbits, Monzas and, of course, Vegas. They were all pretty bad- even the early Civics were built like crap compared to their 80s successors- but the Vega stood apart as the quintessential pile-o-[non-permissible content removed] car. All of them suffered from the "100-year-old man syndrome," in which the act of attempting to repair one problem causes five new problems, and the same stuff would break over and over again. An entire generation of GM customers defected to Japanese marques as a result of the Vega's suckiness.
On paper, the Vega design looked like a huge jump into the future for The General: aluminum-block OHC engine, rope-and-center-pivot steering, lightweight unibody construction, the works. On top of all that, it looked much better than most of the cars coming across the Pacific. Sure, it had a solid rear axle, but so did most of the competition. The problem was that GM rushed the Vega into production before the engineers were done with it, Fourteenth Floor politics and general organizational dysfunction led to confusion and labor strife, and many of the futuristic features and techniques planned for the Vega resulted in disaster. Baffles in the engine's water jacket oil pan were supposed to make nose-down train shipping of new cars possible but resulted in overheating problems. Full-immersion rustproofing didn't work. The finished car was hundreds of pounds heavier than initially planned.
The problem was that GM rushed the Vega into production before the engineers were done with it, Fourteenth Floor politics and general organizational dysfunction led to confusion and labor strife, and many of the futuristic features and techniques planned for the Vega resulted in disaster. Baffles in the engine's oil pan were supposed to make nose-down train shipping of new cars possible but resulted in overheating problems. Full-immersion rustproofing didn't work. The finished car was hundreds of pounds heavier than initially planned.
Now, imagine an alternate past in which GM made the right choices with the Vega, lived without a homegrown competitor to the Pinto for another year or two while the engineers got the kinks worked out, and built a good Vega. Would the Corolla and Civic have established their unassailable toehold in the North American market? Would GM have skipped the atavistic Chevette altogether?
Again, ad nausea, their business model was a disaster. We don't want to relive that now, do we?
Regards,
OW
Look at some of the competition at the time - Pinto, Beetle, and the Gremlin. The Pinto certainly didn't endear consumers to Ford's brand either. The new Chevy buyers don't even know what an AMC is.
It wasn't the Vega's fault. :mad:
Regards,
OW
The other competition around that time was the Corolla. Pretty tinny when it came out, but it worked out okay in the long run.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveseven/5378614208/
Vega wagon can be argued to be the best looking small car of the era.
Beetles continued production for years and remained popular in countries that had less stringent emissions controls for years after it ceased to be available here.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/autos/1204/gallery.detroit-automakers-slump.- fortune/?iid=HP_River
Here's a good read on the Vega...
http://www.carlustblog.com/2010/12/the-chevrolet-vega-what-went-wrong.html
It's a good synopsis of all the related issues with the car.
I didn't fault GM for the Vega/Astre issues, because much of the car was a bit revolutionary... What I DID fault GM for on the car was the company pretty much telling owners it wasn't GM's problem, but theirs.
Sticking the customer with a boat anchor is a poor way to do business.
Another example... 70's GM diesel powered cars. That little debacle still has repercussions in today's market in the US, as it relates to the popularity of diesels...
Frankly, the Beetle, like so many other makes/models, had a choice... Either evolve or be replaced with later technology. The Vega was a tragedy in the new technology field, and the Pinto, Rabbit, etc. all shared many of the same problems, whereas Toyota and Datsun did a much better job of it. It was easier to let the Beetle go away than to attempt re-engineering it (at least, at the time... The New Beetle demonstrated the body style was still much appreciated, even though the actual car was 100% different in every othe way from the original air cooled model).
As far as GM owners telling customers to 'stick it', I do know for a fact that Chevrolet replaced front fenders for free on Vegas, before Chrysler did the same for Aspens and Volares. GM did improve the cars and offer by far the best engine warranty in the business. I think I remember that Honda replaced fenders rusted out at the top for early Accords as well, and also pitched in on CVCC engine issues. '70's Mazda rotaries were notoriously crappy engines as well.
If I was car shopping in those dark days and didn't have the money for a MB, I would have sought a full sized American car, a larger Japanese car like a Cressida, or sought a nice mid 60s era used car.
The point was GM waited SO LONG before doing anything to improve the Vega. By the time GM actually started implementing changes the model was already dead... Kinda like hooking up a respirator to a guy already in the morgue.
And the link explained why that happened... So many within the company putting their own welfare ahead of doing what was right for the customer... And the company.
In my recollection, the Vega was the first of many products that GM (and other US manufacturer's) began producing that had latent, imbedded flaws so massive that the customer wound up with an albatross hanging around his neck. Just ask anyone with a Vega that attempted to trade it by 1975 what level of value he was offered for his trade in...
Comparing the 69 Nova I owned to the 75 Astre, as an example...
Every 10K miles, it needed a new water pump. IIRC a rebuilt water pump could be had for $15, and about an hour to replace it. The drive train would last forever with proper maintenance, and when wear & tear finally caught up with it, you could bore the engine 10 thousandths, install new components, and you were ready for another 100K miles.
Not so with the Vega. It's inherent design problems made it all but impossible to get even 100k miles on the engine, and when it needed rebuilding, your choice was to replace it... Not rebuild it.
And, it was GMs first entry into "functional obsolescence". Before that, cars were designed with "style and operational" obsolescence. People who purchased new vehicles bought them on a regular basis, in order to have the latest features and looks. Usually, there was no mechanical or operational necessity to trade vehicles, and used car buyers could buy with far more confidence their purchase wouldn't have significant issues.
The Vega introduced functional obsolescence in that the car had a definite lifespan, based upon economic sanity. Sure, you could replace fenders and engines every 2-3 years and keep your Vega running, if you were insane... Much cheaper to buy anew ride with the "security" of some warranty time period.
The Valiant threw a rod early one morning while my Dad was going fishing, the Galaxie's block cracked on me away at school. The Bugs ran good but we didn't run them all that long - a '70 got traded for a '73. I don't think any of them made it more than 4 or 5 years in that decade. The only exception was my dad's beloved '53 Buick that he sold around '65.
Oh, a friend always drove Cutlass Supremes and was always breaking down and having to fix the fuel system.
If you got 100,000 miles on a car in the early 70s, you could get the local paper to write a story about it.
As the people who analyze events like bridge collapses and ferry sinkings and airplane crashes will tell you, a major catastrophe is most often made up of minor failures and mistakes and miscalculations, and maybe even a few instances of plain old dumb bad luck. When several otherwise-small problems occur closely together, combining and synergizing and reinforcimg each other, you can quickly end up with something spectacular, ruinous, and expensive--what the kids today call an "epic fail."
Spread out over a couple of decades, that epic failure came to pass for GM and C.
Regards,
OW
There were countless 6 Cylinder and small block V 8 Chevys back then that could easily hold up for 100K, as well as the Chrysler slant 6, which was probably the mostly bulletproof 6 made in the US...ever. And, look what the west coast hot rodders used to do with the Ford flat-head V8!
Now, if one got 100K on an air cooled VW engine, that was definitely news. Then again, one didn't need much in mechanical skills to remove, rebuild and reinstall a Beetle engine. In high school, after being taught how by a friend's dad, iI assisted several friends doing exactly that, and the car would be running again by Monday AM to get to school.
My granddad had an old late 40's model Dodge and part of the general maintenance was changing out the engine main bearings every 10k miles... The journals were too narrow to take long term stress and 10K was about the max you could get on them. He dropped the oil pan and used wood shims to work the old ones out and the new ones in place.
Of course, lubricants back in the day weren't anything like what's available today, either, so that contributed to wear and tear.
That's an example of what I was saying earlier... You might not choose to do the maintenance, but if one was so inclined, he could run the mechanicals virtually forever.
The introduction of the Vega pretty much signaled the end of the era where owners could basically maintain their car's mechanicals for as long as the body held up, which admittedly, for some, wasn't really all that long...
That doesn't work for the 73 Torino Windsor that had timing chain play at 70K miles?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It wasn't (nor is it today) unusual for individual engine designs to have their own set of special "pecularities" which require specific maintenance not forseen in the beginning of the design.
Of course, an engine with a timing belt will require periodic replacement of the belt, but as long as the appropriate maintenance is done, its not a limiting factor in how long the engine runs.
If the specific vehicle that you mentioned had a known weakness in its timing chain durability, and was serviced accordingly, why would that be a limiting factor? How long would the engine run if you changed the timing chain every 60K miles?
I can agree that it might be a poor design, and it might be more maintenance than the designers originally predicted, but that circumstance is quite different from the Vega's engine.
Vega engines were manufactured to self-destruct, and NO AMOUNT of maintenance could change that. It wasn't intentionally designed that way, but block and head damage was guaranteed in that design. Its been well documented.
But the 70s weren't a golden age for automobiles (nor were the 50s and 60s for that matter).
I don't think I've been stranded since '99. I was stranded below zero a couple of times in the '89 Voyager and once in the '82 Tercel (that one was memorable for a cold mile-long walk). The Tercel was the first car I had that hit 100k and it took ~17 years to do that (and it toured the Lower 48 at least three times).
Besides rescuing the friend way too often in that awful Cutlass, all the other cars were always needing something too. I lost count of how many times I had the Volvos towed in Chattanooga and Memphis (and like some of the vehement anti-GM crowd here, I have little interest in driving another one).
The '69 Bus I mentioned had the head gasket go, which was a common malady back then. Happened in the middle of an intersection on a left turn arrow out near Graceland during rush hour.
After heading north and enjoying some lean years, a used late 70s beater Datsun wagon stranded us for a couple of days in Haines Junction YK. A used beater SuperBeetle died and we had to abort a trip to Denali one weekend. My wife hated the car long before that so that's how the wagon came into the fold.
About the best runners we had in the family were a mi-60s GMC pickup that my mom drove (it was notable for the right headlight that lit up the treetops), followed by her 70s Impala that usually ran good, but leaked. And we had the passenger door wired shut. She had a few Buicks in there too.
Cars these days run like Mussolini's trains in comparison. Even Chevys.
Any modern car than won't, on average, go at least 100k miles (with only basic maintenance) has some real issues.
And yet lots of people judge the current crop of GM cars by the 70s model they had. Yet the competition of the day wasn't any better.
Just like I do with Volvos.
You won't believe this, but a guy I know who worked at Lordstown got 108K miles out of his '73 Vega without the engine being rebuilt. He drove about 90 miles round-trip a day commuting from our hometown to Lordstown. His was a bland silver sedan, least attractive model IMHO, but it had the white Custom interior and GT instruments and was a 2-barrel, 4-speed model.
>Of course, an engine with a timing belt will require periodic replacement of the belt, but as long as the appropriate maintenance is done, its not a limiting factor in how long the engine runs.
This Ford 351 Windsor was known to wear chains/gears. In that era, most people probably did as I did: they traded it.
But now I see your difference in cars: a Toyota/Lexus with an engine that is prone to sludging or gel is a self-destucting engine. A 3800 V6 that has leaks at the intake gaskets is repairable every 75K miles for a relatively low cost or repairable at 75-100K one time with the right replacement; they go 300,000 and more easily with regular maintenance.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Can you imagine telling folks today to do such a thing?
The point is that, if there is some method for predicting what and when a particular maintenance task is required, then it can be planned for and performed.
On the other hand, if the damage potential is unpredictable, then yes, I would certainly place it in the category of self destructing. If your first sign of trouble is a seized engine, well...
How long do we hold a particularly bad, nonrepairable engine or other vehicle part against a company?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Performing regular and expected maintenance on a vehicle is different than driving it until it dies. ALL vehicles require certain maintenance, oil changes, etc.
If a car's brakes need replacing at 50k miles, that's hardly a defect, unless that model normally gets many more miles on a set of pads/rotors.
Many timing-belt equipped engines will easily exceed 100k miles if the belt is changed every 50k miles, but very few will exceed 100k miles on an original timing belt.
Based on my Astre experience, I believe your story about the 73 Vega. He was definitely in the "exception" group, though.
I certainly don't look at any GM product manufactured today through the shaded glasses of the Vega.
Still, it can be argued effectively that the poor acceptance of diesel powered cars in the US today is directly tied to the memory of the poorly made diesels GM put out in the cars of the 70's.
Personally speaking, I see technology advancing so rapidly that a bad experience with an auto 10 years ago is probably irrelevant today. I had a horrible experience with an early S10 Blazer, but that vehicle was nothing like any SUV being made today. Competition today is so active between manufacturers these days that no company can survive long making inferior products.
Having said that, though, I do think it's reasonable to closely scrutinize any company getting government supplied grants, loans, or guarantees.
I would guess you would get as many different answers to your question as there are posters that respond to it...