Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars 50 Worst Cars of All Time
298 messages, Last post on May 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Dec 01, 2008 8:35 pm) It had a steel monococque frame at a time when most cars used body-frame construction. The roof, doors and fenders were of Duroplast, a plastic at when only Corvettes used non-metal body panels and it was driven by the front wheels when only Saab and Citroen were using FWD. Unfortunately the design didn't change during the 40 years of production so it was completely obsolete by then but then again so was the VW Type 1 (Beetle). The Chevette OTOH was obsolescent the day the first was made.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andys120 (Dec 02, 2008 7:02 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 02, 2008 9:46 am) |
|
|
|
|
"If the Trabant was communism at its worst, the Chevette was capitalism at its worst and more shameful, in that it was created out of free will." I certainly wouldn't cite the Chevette as a paragon of advanced design, but in my opinion the Vega was worse. I also wouldn't defend the Chevette. However, let's be totally, totally honest; if you could afford only one small car, which I presume was the case with most Trabi owners, wouldn't you choose a Chevette over a Trabi? You might, for a variety of reasons, choose a Trabi over a Chevette as your third car, but would you really prefer it as your daily driver and only mode of motorized transportation? In response to the limited versatility of the Chevette Scooter, Chevette also offered a 4-door, which Trabi didn't. I'll grant you that the Trabi handily exceeded the Chevette in one area, and that's in the amount of pollutants its feeble 2-cycle engine spewed into the atmosphere. |
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Dec 03, 2008 4:16 pm) 
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Dec 03, 2008 4:16 pm) A diesel Chevette with woodgrain side trim would be a really interesting ride 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Dec 03, 2008 7:25 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 03, 2008 8:11 pm) And the engine was a total disaster. It was an experiment in cost-cutting, aluminum block technology, that tuned to crap; a classic case of GM bringing a product to market before its time... using early adopters as beta-testers. What an insane way to run a company. Was it arrogance or incompetence? But I digress. What I wanted to say was, when it was introduced, it was lauded by the automotive press as not only stylish, but the best handling American economy car ever. (Faint praise, I suppose). But until the engines began self-destructing, it was highly regarded. They sold a bunch of the suckers. 
|
|
|
|
|
"Being bad AND ugly is something special." I believe the issue here is which was worse, the Trabant, Chevette or Vega. I put the Chevette at the top of the heap (pun intended) of this lowly group of three. I'm neutral on its styling, because in my opinion the Chevette's styling was about on a par with the Trabi's. The Vega was the styling and handling winner. I drove a '73 with the optional handling package, or whatever they called the option that upgraded the suspension and included a tach, and it handled well. In fact, the Vega with this option package may have been the best handling small car of its day. The interior was also competitive, and a cut above the other two cars mentioned here. Also, especially with the optional engine upgrade and the optional four-speed manual, the Vega was the quickest of the three cars in this comparison. Unfortunately, these attributes were trumped by the lousy engine and - let's not forget - the inferior resistance to rust. For Vegas residing in the Rustbelt (an appropriate term when discussing the Vega), it was a race as to whether the body would outlast the engine. When the body won that race, it generally wasn't by much. That's because the Vegas with rust perforations in the body were still driveable whereas the ones with bad engines weren't. Well, okay, some wheezed along, belching smoke, but not for too long. By contrast, it usually took the rust damage longer to reach the terminal stage. Was the Vega the worst ruster of the period? Probably not. The iconic Datsun 510 was at least as bad, and probably a little worse. Just ask the man who owned one in Chicago - me. A close relative owned the Vega that I alluded to above, so I could compare these two. The often praised 510 also had some serious cold weather driveability issues until the engine warmed up. I only mention this because, while the 510 was undoubtedly a better car than the Vega in moderate climates, it was little better overall than the Vega if you lived in the Northern states. After all, a rust heap is a rust heap, even if it performs like a Ferrari. I won't waste your time or mine arguing whether the Vega was less bad than the Trabi, or visa-versa. |
|
| is that even in the final year, 1977, they still managed to sell about 100,000 of them. And two of its offshoots, the Monza and Sunbird, proved to be fairly popular. | |
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars 50 Worst Cars of All Time
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
