If you need a laugh, find a copy of Richard Porter's "CrapCars"
(Bloomsbury 2005, ISBN 1-58234-638-0) which is a list of the 50 worst
cars of the last half century. Very opinionated and occasionally wrong
headed but often dead on and funny. He lists such milestones as #34 the
Maserati Biturbo ("If this car was sold without a steering wheel it
could barely have been less erratic") and #2 the Yugo ("When Yugoslavia
descended into war, at least someone had the presence of mind to bomb
the Yugo factory"). His winner? 1974 Mustang II - or Sports Pinto as
people called it at the time.

Jim

I hate to admit this, but when I was poor, young and dumb in the
mid-70's I owned two of the cars in this book - 1974 Mustang II and
1973 Chevy Vega.

The only thing good about the Vega is it had a heated rear window, so
your hands didn't get cold when you had to push it!

Now own a 2005 Honda Accord coupe.

Ed Ferguson

wrote in message
oups.com...
I hate to admit this, but when I was poor, young and dumb in the
mid-70's I owned two of the cars in this book - 1974 Mustang II and
1973 Chevy Vega.

The only thing good about the Vega is it had a heated rear window, so
your hands didn't get cold when you had to push it!

Now own a 2005 Honda Accord coupe.

Ed Ferguson


A neighbor of mine and I came home one day with a new car each. I had a
Datsun 210, and he had a Chevette. He proclaimed what a piece of **** car I
had bought. I said we'd see as the cars aged. His Chevette was forever
tossing timing belts (not chains) and wouldn't start half the time. My
Datsun ran for lots of years before I sold it, and I only put on tires,
brakes, and a distributor.

STeve

wrote:
I hate to admit this, but when I was poor, young and dumb in the
mid-70's I owned two of the cars in this book - 1974 Mustang II and
1973 Chevy Vega.

I had a 1976 "Mach I" for a couple years, first new car I every bought.
Wasn't a bad car, for the time.

I'd still buy a Cosworth Vega if I were to happen upon one. A good
friend is restoring one.
Surprisingly, even a stock base model Vega was a pretty good handler.

wrote:

I hate to admit this, but when I was poor, young and dumb in the
mid-70's I owned two of the cars in this book - 1974 Mustang II and
1973 Chevy Vega.

The only thing good about the Vega is it had a heated rear window, so
your hands didn't get cold when you had to push it!

Now own a 2005 Honda Accord coupe.

Ed Ferguson

Hey! I resemble that remark!

I waited for years for the engine in my Vega to crap out so I could swap
in something bigger -- finally something electrical died; I called it
good enough. Now if I could just finish the job...

Why, you may ask, am I shoving a V6 into a Vega? Because even though it
is a living, rusting example of what happens when consumers ask for
"inexpensive" and get "cheap", the styling just can't be beat.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

Rex B wrote:


wrote:

I hate to admit this, but when I was poor, young and dumb in the
mid-70's I owned two of the cars in this book - 1974 Mustang II and
1973 Chevy Vega.


I had a 1976 "Mach I" for a couple years, first new car I every bought.
Wasn't a bad car, for the time.

I'd still buy a Cosworth Vega if I were to happen upon one. A good
friend is restoring one.
Surprisingly, even a stock base model Vega was a pretty good handler.

Really? Mine handled like a boat -- perhaps because it's a station
wagon. It'll be getting a _firm_ anti-sway bar when it gets back on the
road (with a 3.4 liter V6 from Chevy High Performance, assuming they're
still available when I get the dang thing done).

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

wrote:
I hate to admit this, but when I was poor, young and dumb in the
mid-70's I owned two of the cars in this book - 1974 Mustang II and
1973 Chevy Vega.

The only thing good about the Vega is it had a heated rear window, so
your hands didn't get cold when you had to push it!

Well, I had a '76 Vega with 4-speed and the fancy instrument panel
(4 gauges plus tach speedo and clock). A/C too. It worked, and
pretty well. I blew the 7" clutch at 18000 miles, and had the
option to put in a 14" clutch plate. I did, it lasted through the
76,000 miles I put on the thing and was still going strong. But,
the clutch was undrivable. I had to invent a special technique
to drive it, which I wasn't able to teach anybody else. When
you started to engage the clutch, normally you'd increase the gas
a bit as the clutch was nearly fully engaged. This would cause
giant clutch chatter that would nearly break your teeth! Instead,
you took your foot OFF the gas until the clutch was fully engaged,
the get back on the gas.

But, other than burning a little oil (well, maybe a LOT of oil)
it really wasn't such a bad car. Got incredible gas milage, like
40 on the highway.

My vote for the worst car ever was a 1973 Dodge Dart Swinger, sometimes
confused with the Bic Bananna, as ours was yellow with a black vinyl
top. This was one of Chrysler's first unibody models, and they had no
idea how to control vibrations and resonances. When you went over
railroad tracks, the steering wheel would vibrate up and down with
such violence it was like holding onto a pneumatic jackhammer. I
actually got BRUISES on my hands from this! I eventually learned
to hold the wheel at 3 and 9 o'clock with my fingertips only, when on
rough road surfaces. If you needed to brake or turn on rough road
surfaces, just forget it -- the wheels were not actually on the road
surface more than 10% of the time.

But, the worst part was that the brake cylinders were not adjusted for
the weight balance of the car. This thing had a 318 V-8, automatic
and air conditioning, as well as power steering and brakes. but, they
only provided one set of brake cylinders for all variants, from 6-cyl,
man trans with no accessories to the massively front-heavy ones like
ours. The result is that when you hit the brakes, even for a relatively
gentle stop, the rear wheels locked up! In a panic stop, due to the
extremely light rear end and locked rear brakes, the thing would spin
on you with a vengeance! On ice, just taking your foot off the GAS
would make it start to get squirrely on you! I was greatly relieved
when that heap of CRAP went to the crusher. We did get to see that the
door beams really worked, though, as we got hit by a Buick! So, I will
give them credit for doing SOMETHING right.

Jon

Tim Wescott wrote:
wrote:

I hate to admit this, but when I was poor, young and dumb in the
mid-70's I owned two of the cars in this book - 1974 Mustang II and
1973 Chevy Vega.

The only thing good about the Vega is it had a heated rear window, so
your hands didn't get cold when you had to push it!

Now own a 2005 Honda Accord coupe.

Ed Ferguson

Hey! I resemble that remark!

I waited for years for the engine in my Vega to crap out so I could swap
in something bigger -- finally something electrical died; I called it
good enough. Now if I could just finish the job...

Why, you may ask, am I shoving a V6 into a Vega? Because even though it
is a living, rusting example of what happens when consumers ask for
"inexpensive" and get "cheap", the styling just can't be beat.


V-6? Hell, the Vega was DESIGNED to accept a small-block V-8!
Ever wonder why the engine compartment looked like the engine
room on a BOAT? To keep the weight balance within reason, an
aluminum V-8 might be a good option.

Styling? Vegas HAD styling? Hmmm, maybe in 1976 they looked OK,
if I saw a Vega on the road today, I think I'd laugh.

Jon

Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

I hate to admit this, but when I was poor, young and dumb in the
mid-70's I owned two of the cars in this book - 1974 Mustang II and
1973 Chevy Vega.

The only thing good about the Vega is it had a heated rear window, so
your hands didn't get cold when you had to push it!

Now own a 2005 Honda Accord coupe.

Ed Ferguson



A neighbor of mine and I came home one day with a new car each. I had a
Datsun 210, and he had a Chevette. He proclaimed what a piece of **** car I
had bought. I said we'd see as the cars aged. His Chevette was forever
tossing timing belts (not chains) and wouldn't start half the time. My
Datsun ran for lots of years before I sold it, and I only put on tires,
brakes, and a distributor.
Yeah. Well, I'm still driving a 1989 Toyota Corolla station wagon,
last model with a carburetor, and a stick shift. I'm still running
on the original clutch, and most everything else. I put on a new
starter at 110,000 mi, I replaced the distributor cap and wiring harness
(all one part) at 135,000, and it is now at 156,000 miles, still running
fine. Other than tires, brakes and exhaust, that is the total
maintenance I have done on it! (well, of course, oil changes, air
filters, batteries.)

I had it rustproofed, although the dealer said I was totally throwing
my money away. Well, maybe, but there isn't a SPOT of rust on it,
ANYWHERE, even underneath, after 16 years, and they DO use road salt here!

Jon

Jon Elson wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:

wrote:

I hate to admit this, but when I was poor, young and dumb in the
mid-70's I owned two of the cars in this book - 1974 Mustang II and
1973 Chevy Vega.

The only thing good about the Vega is it had a heated rear window, so
your hands didn't get cold when you had to push it!

Now own a 2005 Honda Accord coupe.

Ed Ferguson

Hey! I resemble that remark!

I waited for years for the engine in my Vega to crap out so I could
swap in something bigger -- finally something electrical died; I
called it good enough. Now if I could just finish the job...

Why, you may ask, am I shoving a V6 into a Vega? Because even though
it is a living, rusting example of what happens when consumers ask for
"inexpensive" and get "cheap", the styling just can't be beat.


V-6? Hell, the Vega was DESIGNED to accept a small-block V-8!
Ever wonder why the engine compartment looked like the engine
room on a BOAT? To keep the weight balance within reason, an
aluminum V-8 might be a good option.

I know. The easiest route would have been to find a V8 kit and change
to an automatic.

I had a discussion about this with my dad, who's forgotten more about
high performance cars than I'll ever learn. He felt that unless I
wanted to rip out the rear suspension and do extensive modifications I
shouldn't exceed 200 horsepower. _I_ felt that 200 honest horsepower
would be plenty for a street driver, and reachable with a 3.4L V-6.

Since I want to go around corners weight is a concern, and since I want
to pay for this in my lifetime an aluminum block is probably not in the
cards. But I'm putting a 5-speed behind the V-6, which should be
equivalent to an automatic and at least 25 more horsepower (automatic
transmissions are for weenies).

Styling? Vegas HAD styling? Hmmm, maybe in 1976 they looked OK,
if I saw a Vega on the road today, I think I'd laugh.

Jon

To each their own. It's a '71, which I find quite Camero-like.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

Steve B wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

I hate to admit this, but when I was poor, young and dumb in the
mid-70's I owned two of the cars in this book - 1974 Mustang II and
1973 Chevy Vega.

The only thing good about the Vega is it had a heated rear window, so
your hands didn't get cold when you had to push it!

Now own a 2005 Honda Accord coupe.

Ed Ferguson



A neighbor of mine and I came home one day with a new car each. I had a
Datsun 210, and he had a Chevette. He proclaimed what a piece of **** car I
had bought. I said we'd see as the cars aged. His Chevette was forever
tossing timing belts (not chains) and wouldn't start half the time. My
Datsun ran for lots of years before I sold it, and I only put on tires,
brakes, and a distributor.

STeve


I can just imagine the Vega team at Chevrolet asking themselves "what
did we do wrong the last time?".

"Well, it kinda looks good and with a bit of work it can be made to go
fast."

Then they made the Chevette.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

Rex B wrote:


wrote:
I hate to admit this, but when I was poor, young and dumb in the
mid-70's I owned two of the cars in this book - 1974 Mustang II and
1973 Chevy Vega.

I had a 1976 "Mach I" for a couple years, first new car I every bought.
Wasn't a bad car, for the time.

I'd still buy a Cosworth Vega if I were to happen upon one. A good
friend is restoring one.
Surprisingly, even a stock base model Vega was a pretty good handler.

Vega GT was a very pleasant little car all around, until you put your foot
through the rusted-out floorboard or your head through the rusted-out roof
or your hand through the rusted-out door . . .

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Rex B wrote in article
...


By that I meant it had good geometry. With proper bushings, good shocks
and springs, it would handle with the best of them.


You, obviously, never had to align a Vega......

The top of the spring towers usually migrated inward toward the engine, and
one would need to chain the fenderwell down, and jack up the chassis to get
the top of the spring tower (and the upper control arm mounts) back
near-abouts into correct position where shims would work.

I built a number of spreader bars that went over the engine and connected
the tops of both spring towers. A section of one-inch threaded rod built
into the spreader bar allowed for "fine-tuning"............

We always quoted a half-day's labor for Vega alignments.........

* wrote:
Rex B wrote in article
...

By that I meant it had good geometry. With proper bushings, good shocks
and springs, it would handle with the best of them.


You, obviously, never had to align a Vega......

The top of the spring towers usually migrated inward toward the engine, and
one would need to chain the fenderwell down, and jack up the chassis to get
the top of the spring tower (and the upper control arm mounts) back
near-abouts into correct position where shims would work.

I built a number of spreader bars that went over the engine and connected
the tops of both spring towers. A section of one-inch threaded rod built
into the spreader bar allowed for "fine-tuning"............

We always quoted a half-day's labor for Vega alignments.........

Oh, you mean like a Mustang - 1965-1970?

* wrote:
You, obviously, never had to align a Vega......

The top of the spring towers usually migrated inward toward the engine

OK, but that also happened to my cousin's Porsche 911.

Jordan wrote:
* wrote:
You, obviously, never had to align a Vega......

The top of the spring towers usually migrated inward toward the engine

OK, but that also happened to my cousin's Porsche 911.

Happens to early RX7s also, to a lesser extent.

wrote in news:1140803209.954797.180580
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

I hate to admit this, but when I was poor, young and dumb in the
mid-70's I owned two of the cars in this book - 1974 Mustang II and
1973 Chevy Vega.


Had a Mustang II also..2.3L 4 speed..engine rebuilt at 190K, finally
parted it out at 330K, but used the block and head to rebuild the 75
Courier at 300k (2.3L also). I finally parked it at 550K...truck still
runs.

Chevette's were called ****vettes around here. For good reason. I would
hate to think I had to drive one of those in a large city..you'd get run
over trying to merge onto an interstate. Took one of them forever + a day
to get to 60 mph.

Vega's weren't nearly as bad as a chevette.

I'd have to add the rust-while-you-watch mid-70's GM trucks.


--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
better idiots.

Remove sp to reply via email

Rex B wrote:


Jordan wrote:
* wrote:
You, obviously, never had to align a Vega......

The top of the spring towers usually migrated inward toward the engine

OK, but that also happened to my cousin's Porsche 911.

Happens to early RX7s also, to a lesser extent.

Happened to my ex GF's Super Beetle too, but it had some help from a Buick
g.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tim Wescott wrote:

Steve B wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

I hate to admit this, but when I was poor, young and dumb in the
mid-70's I owned two of the cars in this book - 1974 Mustang II and
1973 Chevy Vega.

The only thing good about the Vega is it had a heated rear window, so
your hands didn't get cold when you had to push it!

Now own a 2005 Honda Accord coupe.

Ed Ferguson



A neighbor of mine and I came home one day with a new car each. I had a
Datsun 210, and he had a Chevette. He proclaimed what a piece of ****
car I
had bought. I said we'd see as the cars aged. His Chevette was forever
tossing timing belts (not chains) and wouldn't start half the time. My
Datsun ran for lots of years before I sold it, and I only put on tires,
brakes, and a distributor.

STeve


I can just imagine the Vega team at Chevrolet asking themselves "what
did we do wrong the last time?".

"Well, it kinda looks good and with a bit of work it can be made to go
fast."

Then they made the Chevette.

Just a minor nit but the Vega was foisted on Chevy from On High.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:
--snip--
I can just imagine the Vega team at Chevrolet asking themselves "what
did we do wrong the last time?".

"Well, it kinda looks good and with a bit of work it can be made to go
fast."

Then they made the Chevette.


Just a minor nit but the Vega was foisted on Chevy from On High.

I have a theory that GM did market research and found that folks wanted
an inexpensive car, so some executive said "Oh, they want a car that's
cheap -- we can do that!"

Who was On High that foisted it on Chevy -- are there any histories that
I can read?

To me, the Vega was frustratingly near miss -- they could have spent
5-10% more on the thing and had something that really was a good,
inexpensive car. Instead they made a cheap piece of stuff that has some
good ideas (suspension geometry, the overhead cam, has a front-hinged
hood so it must be sporty), but just didn't add up to a good car in the end.

Ditto for the Pinto, except I think Ford came closer to the mark than
Chevy, particularly in the engine compartment (but the styling sucks, IMHO).

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:33:01 -0800, Jim McGill
wrote:

If you need a laugh, find a copy of Richard Porter's "CrapCars"
(Bloomsbury 2005, ISBN 1-58234-638-0) which is a list of the 50 worst
cars of the last half century. Very opinionated and occasionally wrong
headed but often dead on and funny. He lists such milestones as #34 the
Maserati Biturbo ("If this car was sold without a steering wheel it
could barely have been less erratic") and #2 the Yugo ("When Yugoslavia
descended into war, at least someone had the presence of mind to bomb
the Yugo factory"). His winner? 1974 Mustang II - or Sports Pinto as
people called it at the time.

Jim

My mean step dad bought me that mustang which was about 6 yrs. old at
the time. BTW the only car that I didn't pay for, he just wanted to
get rid of me fast. I had to fix it on the side of the hyway with like
close to zero tools to get it through the road trip.

Was cruzing the first day back and see this '62 2dr Galaxie setting
behind a strange gas station that I fell in love with the first time I
saw it. I circle around the back way to check out to see if it's the
exact car and sure enough it is.

Before I get out of the car in front of the business this 12+(not
yrs.old) girl comes out "Hooo what a cute car!" . She can't keep her
hands off the car and getting too close to me. I told her that I was
wondering if the car in the back was for sale and she said sure. They
wanted to put my car up on the rack to check it out and then gave me
the keys to the old car to cruse around for 20 mins. I came back and
she goes how much and I said hmmm let me think... ( was thinking how
much more I could stand to pay on top). Within 60 seconds she goes
I'll give you the car and $1,100 plus pay for the plate switch today,
lets go.

The gallaxie had AC that would pump frost too the back seat and always
had problems of cops pulling me over thinking I stole it or people
approaching me to sell it.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:18:40 -0800, Tim Wescott
wrote:
To me, the Vega was frustratingly near miss -- they could have spent
5-10% more on the thing and had something that really was a good,
inexpensive car.
===============================
I think you have just identified *THE* cause for the current
problems at both Ford and GMC. The value analysis people did not
know when to stop, or the manufacturing people were over-ridden
by styling.

My current complaint is the use of plastic headlight lenses
and/or projector style lights in place of the standard size glass
lens units. After a few years the plastic lenses start to be
come cloudy and cut down the available light. New units are not
availalbe for most older cars and new ones that are available
cost 100$US and sometimes a lot more. I now have to use fine
compound and a buffer 2 times a year to keep the lenses clear.
Older sealed beams and even halogon units were 10$ each tops.

Projector units have hot spots in the light pattern and tend to
blind the on coming drivers, and also have plastic lenses. If
you get a chance, drive an older car at night with sealed beans
and see the difference.

Uncle George

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:32:05 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
Rex B wrote:
wrote:
I hate to admit this, but when I was poor, young and dumb in the
mid-70's I owned two of the cars in this book - 1974 Mustang II and
1973 Chevy Vega.

I had a 1976 "Mach I" for a couple years, first new car I every bought.
Wasn't a bad car, for the time.

I'd still buy a Cosworth Vega if I were to happen upon one. A good
friend is restoring one.
Surprisingly, even a stock base model Vega was a pretty good handler.

Vega GT was a very pleasant little car all around, until you put your foot
through the rusted-out floorboard or your head through the rusted-out roof
or your hand through the rusted-out door . . .
=============================
Vega is the only car I ever heard of that warranted fenders for
rust through. Friend of mine had one in Connecticut and the
front fenders rusted through just behind the headlights in *ONE*
winter.

Engine was built upside down, had an aluminum block and cast iron
head! Any truth to the rumor this engine was developed by the
Dixie corporation that developed the Dixie cup. Their motto "use
it once and throw it away" seems to fit.

Uncle George

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:21:05 -0800, Tim Wescott
wrote:
Styling? Vegas HAD styling? Hmmm, maybe in 1976 they looked OK,
if I saw a Vega on the road today, I think I'd laugh.
Rumor has it that the styling was inspired by a pitching wedge.
Anyone know if you could get backspin on a pedestrian?

Uncle George

just to be contrary, I drive a car with projector lenses and it is
MUCH better than my prior car with regular head lamps. However, this
is not an american made car, maybe that's the difference - headlamp
lens is glass (and, sadly, a replacement headlamp assembly costs about
what a used lathe costs) so there is no loss of light over the 9 years
it's been on the road.

my point being, blame the corners cut, it's not always the tecnology



On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:12:46 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:18:40 -0800, Tim Wescott
wrote:
To me, the Vega was frustratingly near miss -- they could have spent
5-10% more on the thing and had something that really was a good,
inexpensive car.
===============================
I think you have just identified *THE* cause for the current
problems at both Ford and GMC. The value analysis people did not
know when to stop, or the manufacturing people were over-ridden
by styling.

My current complaint is the use of plastic headlight lenses
and/or projector style lights in place of the standard size glass
lens units. After a few years the plastic lenses start to be
come cloudy and cut down the available light. New units are not
availalbe for most older cars and new ones that are available
cost 100$US and sometimes a lot more. I now have to use fine
compound and a buffer 2 times a year to keep the lenses clear.
Older sealed beams and even halogon units were 10$ each tops.

Projector units have hot spots in the light pattern and tend to
blind the on coming drivers, and also have plastic lenses. If
you get a chance, drive an older car at night with sealed beans
and see the difference.

Uncle George
Bill

www.wbnoble.com

to contact me, do not reply to this message,
instead correct this address and use it

will iam_ b_ No ble at msn daught com
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

My Mom had a 1994 Corolla and is was nothing but crap. After 130,000 my dad
got rearended and it put that POS to its death. I put more parts in that
thing than any car I have owned and my mom is very good about up keep. When
my wife bought her 1995 contour my dad said we should have bought the
corolla or some other import, well we just sold the contour with over
170,000 miles on it and it was flawless, I am not saying the imports aren't
good but not all American cars are crap. My wife and I have owened 5 Jap
cars over the years and they did real good, I did have a 626 that was
excellent to a point but did start to need many repairs, the body LOOKED
like it had no rust until one day when I went to jack it up and the jack
went right through the floor, after close inspection it turned out most of
the floor was done, to bad that was a nice car to drive.
"Jon Elson" wrote in message
...
Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

I hate to admit this, but when I was poor, young and dumb in the
mid-70's I owned two of the cars in this book - 1974 Mustang II and
1973 Chevy Vega.

The only thing good about the Vega is it had a heated rear window, so
your hands didn't get cold when you had to push it!

Now own a 2005 Honda Accord coupe.

Ed Ferguson



A neighbor of mine and I came home one day with a new car each. I had a
Datsun 210, and he had a Chevette. He proclaimed what a piece of ****
car I had bought. I said we'd see as the cars aged. His Chevette was
forever tossing timing belts (not chains) and wouldn't start half the
time. My Datsun ran for lots of years before I sold it, and I only put
on tires, brakes, and a distributor.
Yeah. Well, I'm still driving a 1989 Toyota Corolla station wagon,
last model with a carburetor, and a stick shift. I'm still running
on the original clutch, and most everything else. I put on a new
starter at 110,000 mi, I replaced the distributor cap and wiring harness
(all one part) at 135,000, and it is now at 156,000 miles, still running
fine. Other than tires, brakes and exhaust, that is the total maintenance
I have done on it! (well, of course, oil changes, air
filters, batteries.)

I had it rustproofed, although the dealer said I was totally throwing
my money away. Well, maybe, but there isn't a SPOT of rust on it,
ANYWHERE, even underneath, after 16 years, and they DO use road salt here!

Jon

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
| Since I want to go around corners weight is a concern, and since I want
| to pay for this in my lifetime an aluminum block is probably not in the
| cards. But I'm putting a 5-speed behind the V-6, which should be
| equivalent to an automatic and at least 25 more horsepower (automatic
| transmissions are for weenies).
|

Sure they are! Buick 215 V8. All aluminum. Go looking for a BOPR
(Buick, Olds, Pontiac, Rover) V8 which can be had from the original 3.5
liter/215 up to 5.2 liter (with money of course!) They're still out there.
Used in the Buick Special from about 59 to about 63 and in the Olds Jetfire
(and even turbocharged from the factory.) They cast the blocks with
sleeves, and that never worked out so well. Rover cast the blocks first and
then pressed in the sleeves, which was a whole lot cheaper and a more
consistent process. There's lots of aficionados, mostly because the whole
motor, soaking wet, only weighs ISTR about 320 pounds and put out about 180
horse originally, give or take, depending on the configuration. This is one
of those underappreciated motors due to the lack of use on this side of the
pond and the reliability issues built into the processes of the time.
The Buick V6 is a cast iron version of this motor with two cylinders
lopped off, so the bolt pattern is the same and most of what's up front is
also interchangeable, even with a lot of the Rover stuff, obviously which
evolved on its own after being freed from GM's ownership in 1974.

Tim Wescott wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:
--snip--
I can just imagine the Vega team at Chevrolet asking themselves "what
did we do wrong the last time?".

"Well, it kinda looks good and with a bit of work it can be made to go
fast."

Then they made the Chevette.


Just a minor nit but the Vega was foisted on Chevy from On High.

I have a theory that GM did market research and found that folks wanted
an inexpensive car, so some executive said "Oh, they want a car that's
cheap -- we can do that!"

Who was On High that foisted it on Chevy -- are there any histories that
I can read?

I think you'd have to find some old car magazines from when the Vega was
new. The design was developed by a team at GM Corporate, not in-house by
Chevy--among other things the first time they actually ran it on the track
it broke in half.

To me, the Vega was frustratingly near miss -- they could have spent
5-10% more on the thing and had something that really was a good,
inexpensive car. Instead they made a cheap piece of stuff that has some
good ideas (suspension geometry, the overhead cam, has a front-hinged
hood so it must be sporty), but just didn't add up to a good car in the
end.

Ditto for the Pinto, except I think Ford came closer to the mark than
Chevy, particularly in the engine compartment (but the styling sucks,
IMHO).

And then there was that annoying bolt next to the gas tank.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Wescott wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:
snipity
Ditto for the Pinto, except I think Ford came closer to the mark than
Chevy, particularly in the engine compartment (but the styling sucks,
IMHO).


And then there was that annoying bolt next to the gas tank.

Drive anything into anything else that fast and one of them will burst
into flames.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

carl mciver wrote:

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
| Since I want to go around corners weight is a concern, and since I want
| to pay for this in my lifetime an aluminum block is probably not in the
| cards. But I'm putting a 5-speed behind the V-6, which should be
| equivalent to an automatic and at least 25 more horsepower (automatic
| transmissions are for weenies).
|

Sure they are! Buick 215 V8. All aluminum. Go looking for a BOPR
(Buick, Olds, Pontiac, Rover) V8 which can be had from the original 3.5
liter/215 up to 5.2 liter (with money of course!) They're still out there.
Used in the Buick Special from about 59 to about 63 and in the Olds Jetfire
(and even turbocharged from the factory.) They cast the blocks with
sleeves, and that never worked out so well. Rover cast the blocks first and
then pressed in the sleeves, which was a whole lot cheaper and a more
consistent process. There's lots of aficionados, mostly because the whole
motor, soaking wet, only weighs ISTR about 320 pounds and put out about 180
horse originally, give or take, depending on the configuration. This is one
of those underappreciated motors due to the lack of use on this side of the
pond and the reliability issues built into the processes of the time.
The Buick V6 is a cast iron version of this motor with two cylinders
lopped off, so the bolt pattern is the same and most of what's up front is
also interchangeable, even with a lot of the Rover stuff, obviously which
evolved on its own after being freed from GM's ownership in 1974.

I considered that, but I can get the 3.4L from a catalog, and the
Edelbrock intake from a catalog, and headers -- well, I'll have to have
those made.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

Jim McGill wrote in article
...
His winner? 1974 Mustang II - or Sports Pinto as
people called it at the time.


It's funny he should single out the M-II.......

.......given the fact that the original Mustang was built on a Ford Falcon
platform.....

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:15:37 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, "*"
quickly quoth:



Rex B wrote in article
...

By that I meant it had good geometry. With proper bushings, good shocks
and springs, it would handle with the best of them.

You, obviously, never had to align a Vega......

Don't be silly. Everyone KNOWS you can't align a Vegamatic or a
Shovit...er, Chevette unless you know the weight of the people
who were to be the normal passengers. Alignment changed with about a
50lb load differential. (How do I know this? I was a Hunter A111
system tech for a frame & body shop for about 4 years.)


The top of the spring towers usually migrated inward toward the engine, and
one would need to chain the fenderwell down, and jack up the chassis to get
the top of the spring tower (and the upper control arm mounts) back
near-abouts into correct position where shims would work.

I built a number of spreader bars that went over the engine and connected
the tops of both spring towers. A section of one-inch threaded rod built
into the spreader bar allowed for "fine-tuning"............

Luckily, the frame men did that for me most of the time.


We always quoted a half-day's labor for Vega alignments.........

Kinda like those 6.5 hour flat-rates for tuning the early Mustang
V-8s. It started with "R&R engine..."


- Woodworkers of the world, Repent! Repeat after me:
"Forgive Me Father, For I Have Stained and Polyed."
-
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:06:12 +1100, with neither quill nor qualm,
Jordan quickly quoth:

* wrote:
You, obviously, never had to align a Vega......

The top of the spring towers usually migrated inward toward the engine

OK, but that also happened to my cousin's Porsche 911.

Eyetalyun Vega.


- Woodworkers of the world, Repent! Repeat after me:
"Forgive Me Father, For I Have Stained and Polyed."
-
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design

Tim Wescott wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Wescott wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:
snipity
Ditto for the Pinto, except I think Ford came closer to the mark than
Chevy, particularly in the engine compartment (but the styling sucks,
IMHO).


And then there was that annoying bolt next to the gas tank.

Drive anything into anything else that fast and one of them will burst
into flames.

You've been watching too many action movies. "Burst into flames" is not the
normal outcome of a vehicular collision.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tim Wescott wrote:

carl mciver wrote:

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
| Since I want to go around corners weight is a concern, and since I want
| to pay for this in my lifetime an aluminum block is probably not in the
| cards. But I'm putting a 5-speed behind the V-6, which should be
| equivalent to an automatic and at least 25 more horsepower (automatic
| transmissions are for weenies).
|

Sure they are! Buick 215 V8. All aluminum. Go looking for a BOPR
(Buick, Olds, Pontiac, Rover) V8 which can be had from the original 3.5
liter/215 up to 5.2 liter (with money of course!) They're still out
there. Used in the Buick Special from about 59 to about 63 and in the
Olds Jetfire
(and even turbocharged from the factory.)

They cast the blocks with
sleeves, and that never worked out so well. Rover cast the blocks first
and then pressed in the sleeves, which was a whole lot cheaper and a more
consistent process. There's lots of aficionados, mostly because the
whole motor, soaking wet, only weighs ISTR about 320 pounds and put out
about 180
horse originally, give or take, depending on the configuration. This is
one of those underappreciated motors due to the lack of use on this side
of the pond and the reliability issues built into the processes of the
time.
The Buick V6 is a cast iron version of this motor with two cylinders
lopped off, so the bolt pattern is the same and most of what's up front
is also interchangeable, even with a lot of the Rover stuff, obviously
which evolved on its own after being freed from GM's ownership in 1974.

I considered that, but I can get the 3.4L from a catalog, and the
Edelbrock intake from a catalog, and headers -- well, I'll have to have
those made.

You can get the BOPR V8 from a catalog too. It was still in production
until last year I understand--if you can find pre-2002 Range Rover or
Pre-2005 Land Rover Discovery in a junk yard it should have one, or if you
google "Land Rover Parts" you'll find some US sources for complete engines.
If you google "Land Rover Engines" you'll find a different set of
suppliers, mostly in the UK, that have new engines with various mods.

Looks like with Ford taking over Rover, though, they've decided to purge
themselves of GM influence. Perhaps somebody else will buy the tooling and
keep it in production.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

My dad a am olds with the aluminum block motor, he loved that car.
"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
carl mciver wrote:

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
| Since I want to go around corners weight is a concern, and since I want
| to pay for this in my lifetime an aluminum block is probably not in the
| cards. But I'm putting a 5-speed behind the V-6, which should be
| equivalent to an automatic and at least 25 more horsepower (automatic
| transmissions are for weenies).
|

Sure they are! Buick 215 V8. All aluminum. Go looking for a BOPR
(Buick, Olds, Pontiac, Rover) V8 which can be had from the original 3.5
liter/215 up to 5.2 liter (with money of course!) They're still out
there.
Used in the Buick Special from about 59 to about 63 and in the Olds
Jetfire
(and even turbocharged from the factory.) They cast the blocks with
sleeves, and that never worked out so well. Rover cast the blocks first
and
then pressed in the sleeves, which was a whole lot cheaper and a more
consistent process. There's lots of aficionados, mostly because the
whole
motor, soaking wet, only weighs ISTR about 320 pounds and put out about
180
horse originally, give or take, depending on the configuration. This is
one
of those underappreciated motors due to the lack of use on this side of
the
pond and the reliability issues built into the processes of the time.
The Buick V6 is a cast iron version of this motor with two cylinders
lopped off, so the bolt pattern is the same and most of what's up front
is
also interchangeable, even with a lot of the Rover stuff, obviously which
evolved on its own after being freed from GM's ownership in 1974.

I considered that, but I can get the 3.4L from a catalog, and the
Edelbrock intake from a catalog, and headers -- well, I'll have to have
those made.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

" You can get the BOPR V8 from a catalog too. It was still in production
until last year I understand--if you can find pre-2002 Range Rover or
Pre-2005 Land Rover Discovery in a junk yard it should have one, or if you
google "Land Rover Parts" you'll find some US sources for complete engines.
If you google "Land Rover Engines" you'll find a different set of
suppliers, mostly in the UK, that have new engines with various mods.

Looks like with Ford taking over Rover, though, they've decided to purge
themselves of GM influence. Perhaps somebody else will buy the tooling and
keep it in production.

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/defa...?storyId=13228
"THE ROVER V8 WILL BURBLE AGAIN
The Rover V8 is dead -- long live the Rover V8!
Despite reports of its imminent death, the famous V8, used in many Solihull-built Land Rover products, is alive and burbling and in
production in the UK. MCT, the West Country based engineering and manufacturing specialist, has won a contract from Land Rover for
the continuation of production to support the aftermarket requirement for original equipment engines. ..."

J. Clarke wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:



J. Clarke wrote:

snipity

Ditto for the Pinto, except I think Ford came closer to the mark than
Chevy, particularly in the engine compartment (but the styling sucks,
IMHO).


And then there was that annoying bolt next to the gas tank.


Drive anything into anything else that fast and one of them will burst
into flames.


You've been watching too many action movies. "Burst into flames" is not the
normal outcome of a vehicular collision.

I know. But I still think that both the Pinto and the Chevy side-tank
issues were way overblown.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:32:05 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Rex B wrote:


wrote:
I hate to admit this, but when I was poor, young and dumb in the
mid-70's I owned two of the cars in this book - 1974 Mustang II and
1973 Chevy Vega.

I had a 1976 "Mach I" for a couple years, first new car I every bought.
Wasn't a bad car, for the time.

I'd still buy a Cosworth Vega if I were to happen upon one. A good
friend is restoring one.
Surprisingly, even a stock base model Vega was a pretty good handler.

Vega GT was a very pleasant little car all around, until you put your foot
through the rusted-out floorboard or your head through the rusted-out roof
or your hand through the rusted-out door . . .

I ran one for a couple years here in California..was still tight and
solid when I sold it to a kid here locally. But then..no snow and no
salt here in the desert.

The phone companies were using Chevettes for low ranker company cars
and occasionally they would show up at Nationwide auctions up in Napa.
I think I bought as least 3 of them, all needing only minor work, let
my wife drive em for a couple years then reselling them for a $500
more than we paid for em, including whatever repair costs there were
initially. Worked out pretty well.

I owned exactly one Pinto..dont remember the exact model..pretty
sporty. Ran pretty good, quick and handled well. Sold it to someone
for what I paid for it after driving it for a couple years. A couple
years later..I get a visit from two very large men from the FBI. It
appears that it had been used in a series of bank robberies in the
midwest somewhere, where the perps had outrun the cops (or out driven
them) and was ultimately found concealed out in the tules. Stolen
plates and they used the VIN number to track it back to us. Seems it
had been sold, but never registered to the new owners. I showed em the
copy of the Release of Liabliity and told them who we had sold it to,
best as we could remember..and they were happy.

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

"Gunner" wrote: (clip) Seems it had been sold, but never registered to the
new owners. I showed em the copy of the Release of Liabliity and told them
who we had sold it to, best as we could remember..and they were happy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And here I thought that the worst that would happen from not filing a
Release of Liability would be a couple of someone else's parking tickets.
This opens up new vistas. Suppose you sold the car to a
kidnapper/rapist/murderer or a terrorist.