http://www.carlustblog.com/2010/12/t...ent-wrong.html

Pretty good article on the failure of the Chevy Vega, alot of what happened was more systematic of GM problems at the time.

 

Aluminum block with a cast-iron head. Oh the humanity.....

My grandmother had one actually, purchased new in 1971. It had a 3-speed automatic. I was just a tyke when I was riding around in that thing, but even then it scared me because it made such a huge racket while barely accelerating not to mention it shook like a paint mixer.

Superb article. Thanks....

-Mirror

 

This would have been fine IF they had used iron cylinder liners... but they didn't. What they did do was use 9 layers of silicone coating on the cylinder walls. Guess what happens after about 40,000 miles at the most? Can we spell oil burner. In 1974, they did go with iron cylinder liners but by then, the damage had already been done in the public eye.

The other problem was rust. Chevy had developed a revolutionary way of bonding primer to the body by immersing it into a bath of primary and passing current through the car. Fine on paper but in reality the car did what Honda was famous for in the mid-80's; rust.

If I got any of this wrong or there is more, please enlighten me.

 

The silicon was throughout the AL in the block. The process etched back some of the aluminum in the bores so the pistons were in contact with the silicon. It was used more successfully in the 4.5L V8 MB engines of the 70's and the Porsche 928 V8 as well. Alot of the problems with the AL-block Iron-head engine were documented in the article.

Cost engineering really doomed the Vega, if the bean counters, unions, and management had gotten their act together it stood a chance.

Wiki's desciption is pretty good on the Vega.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Vega


My father-in-law had a Vega, he said it was the perfect disposable Chevy

FWIW, personally I prefer iron liners in a block.

 

Yep, there was definitely more; an undersized radiator with no expansion tank (cost cutting), different expansion rates between head and block made mincemeat out of head gaskets, heavy iron head on aluminum block resulted in huge NVH problems, etc.

 

Holy mother of car. I read that entire piece.

I mean, just, wow, what a colossal f-up GM culture was (is?). Maybe it shouldn't have been saved by taxpayer bailout as it probably increased the opinion of those inside the Ren Cen that they are invincible.

It makes me almost want to sell my GM car and flee back to the relative safety of Honda/Acura for my next daily driver.

 

I had one. I ordered a 1972 Vega GT in the fall of '71. The lime green color with black vinyl interior. It was a great looking car, but unfortunately doomed for failure. Had GM not taken such radical steps and kept with proven components and build technology, the car would have done better. It was a tremendous seller, however. I firmly believed back then that Chevy should have installed the buick 231 CID V6 in the GT in place of the 140HP 4-banger. They would have had a much better package engine wise.

Most car companies have made design blunders which have wound up costing them many millions of dollars. Some seem not to learn from their mistakes.

 

Interesting article, thanks for posting.


Does anyone remember the Cosworth Vega? I think I could walk across the intersection quicker.

I remember being told a few times of Chevrolet's insistence that Canadian railways modify their containers to ship the car vertically. On it's nose. GM wanted to save costs.

http://blog.collectorcarads.com/vert...pping/12/2009/




Terry

 

I remember the Vega Cosworth, it has a really interesting story. This article lays it out better than I could ever describe it: http://www.cosworthvega.com/cosworth_vega_history.html

As for the shipping weirdness, that actually sounds pretty cool (ok, in theory). Certainly a double-stacked container railcar is taller than a nose-ended Vega today, I wonder if any other car companies have done internal studies on something like that?

 

When I was in college, there was a guy there who had what I thought even to this day, was the best looking pre-74 small block Chevy Vega I ever saw. Yep, a small block. The engine fit the car perfectly and was shorter and not as tall as the 4-cylinder engine the car came with. His looked like it came from the factory like this. Beautiful street machine sleeper.

 

Lot of surprising stuff there, personally.

I know my mother had one when she was younger. Said it was terrible and sounded like a big sewing machine.

 

DIBS!

I wouldn't worry too much. Your CTS-V didn't happen by accident.

 

Unfortunately most of GM had similar problems that were presented in that article (division infighting, unions, bean counters, ...) during the 70's. Having Roger Smith and Bob Stemple as CEO's didn't help matters either. Although some of GM's culture changed in the early 90's, it's not been until the last decade that GM made some really needed big changes.

Many of GM exec's also knew how bad things were. I.E. the Sr. VP of drivetrains (who also was the lead on the original Z28) knew how good the CVCC Honda Civic motor was he commissioned a documentary film of the internal design and how it made for a lighter more efficient motor to show other exec's, managers, and engineers. Unfortunately the bean counters and exec's knew how expensive GM's OHC motors had been (both in manufacturing cost and later warrenty costs) so it fell on deaf ears.

 

^^^^^
I said, "ALMOST". (directed at pttl)

Just hit 20k miles yesterday. No problems with it at all. Couple of guys on the V forum are at 40k miles and no problems. Hoping that's a good sign.

Back on topic, I've had overnight to think about the article. It appears GM is finally listening to consumers and giving them what they want. I know you guys are sick of hearing about my V, but that's really a perfect example of the change in culture at GM. The first generation V was a great car that had multiple issues with the rear diff breaking. There was special attention given to that and as a result, the rear diff on the second generation V was made stronger. There are guys on the forum running 700 whp beasts through the stock rear diff. Yes, the new V cost more, but it was also a better car in every way than the first generation V.

It seems the GM corporate culture has changed at least some with the economic disaster. They are certainly making products that people want, which appear reliable, and the process to create product seems streamlined.

 

I got to the part about the priming of the paint and the void spaces - and I just couldn't go on anymore. These are things that people should have noticed - or GM probably did notice and didn't care.

our tax dollars

 

The last statement is so true. Honda had alot of problems with the 76-77 Accords. One was poor cylinder head gaskets which would disintegrate over time causing coolant to get into the oil ruining cylinder bores and pistons. Another was poor paint and bad design of the front fender liners (almost identical to the Vega). Alot of those early Accords had alot of run on tops of the fenders. Honda was pretty decent about getting the problems fixed. You didn't even have to be the original owner or in the warrenty period for a Honda dealer to fix them for free. That and working on a friend's Honda really turned me on to Honda's.

My college room-mate had a 86 Camaro IROC. It had the transmission replaced twice, the second time out of warrenty by ~5K miles. Both times GM covered it. Today he has a 90's Silverrado with ~200K miles and his wife's 90's Tahoe has ~150K miles. The Silvarado didn't get it's first tuneup til ~140K miles. Some folks thing everything that came out of GM was bad but they did/have made some really decent products even during the bad times.