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: andre1969 (Dec 04, 2008 8:18 am) 60K if you were lucky. And going up a long mountain pass on a hot day---you were dead meat. We used to call Route 80 going to Winnemucca Nevada as "The VW Bermuda Triangle". |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 04, 2008 8:31 am) The previous generations of 50's and 60's GM cars had been beautiful and reliable. So, going into the 70's we had expectations of GM to give us good, even great cars. Everybody who bought a VW knew exactly what he was getting into. Small, noisy, cold, breaks a lot but you could fix it for $100. The Japanese were giving you much the same but not so cold, or quite so noisy, and with nicer interiors. But again - you knew when you bought it. Nobody was expecting GM levels of comfort or quality from them. And the fact is, almost nobody really wanted to be reduced to buying those cars . We all still wanted our Pontiac LeMans or Buicks that went with the good life of the 60's. However, we understood that the economy was tanking and gas was outrageous. Somehow, we all expected GM to give us a small car that was as good as a miniature '67 Chevelle. Reliable (comparatively) fast, quiet.... Life was going to go on as before, albeit on a smaller scale. So, when the Vega came out, we had expectations. And, looking at the car, it looked like those expectations had been well met. Good looking, specially designed engine.... cool! America was going to be just fine, and nobody had to suffer driving a Beetle with cold feet and the radio blasting to hear it over the engine - unless he really wanted to, and most people didn't. Instead millions of us bought Vegas. And we all felt betrayed. (See Lemko's grandma story above). She fits this example perfectly, I think. The Vega was the first time that Lucy/GM pulled the football away. Broken promises, broken dreams. The Chevette, at least, made it obvious what you were getting into. It was a cockroach of a car, but you knew that when you looked at it, and although awful cars, at least they were cockroach-tough. I think they were the start of the saying that "GM cars run bad longer than most cars run at all".  P.S. - Just for the record, since I'm probably viewed as a GM basher here, Acura did pretty much the same thing to me with Integras. I had an 86, and 88, a 93, and then a 97. The 97 was the frog-eyed roundy generation. I hated that car, mostly because the previous two generations had been so good. Acura cheaped out on me. Dumped it after a year. Still won't go in an Acura dealership, even though the new Acuras seem like great cars. But.... I had expectations of what an Acura should be based on the previous cars, and that one let me down. Fool me once....
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lokki (Dec 04, 2008 9:22 am) The 510 won both the 1970 and 1971 Trans-Am Series in the 2.5 class. 
|
|
|
|
|
Your comments are right on target, lokki. That's pretty much what happened in many, many cases. As for the 510, it may have been one of the best cars ever made...unless you lived in Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Boston, or any of the major Canadian cities with the exception of Vancouver. In those cities the 510s weren't good cars. I owned one in Chicago, and regretted buying it. My experience would probably have been better if I had lived in California. Where we lived our previous cars, a Valiant, a 4-speed Mustang V8 and a full size Chevy, delivered a far better ownership experience than the Datsun 510. It's possible we were the exception, but I don't think so because other owners with whom I spoke had a similar experience. The things that prompted me to buy a 510 were the fact that, at the time, it was the only front engine car in its class with an OHC engine and independent rear suspension. These were great features for an economy car. Were the 510s that were raced usually modified? I'm thinking that maybe the 510 responded to modifications better than competing cars.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Dec 04, 2008 2:39 pm) Road & Track's "Top 100 cars of the Century" (01/2000 issue) Any 60s car is a rust-bucket.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 04, 2008 2:58 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 04, 2008 6:19 pm) I had a 510 once that my DOG dented (big fat Lab)--LOL! |
|
|
|
|
Cosworth Vega Detroit Roundup - Autocross Runs Car # Driver Car Details Class 1 2 3 4 5 Best Stock 4 Chuck Larsen Cosworth 2.0L, 110 HP, 185/70-13 Stock 48.958 48.253 49.296 47.870 47.045 47.045 1st 16 Chris King Cosworth 2.0L, 205/60R13 Stock 53.560 50.000 49.172 48.992 48.992 Modified 5 Jake Lippert 76 Vega w/Cosworth 2.0L, sprockets, BFG R1 Modified 44.405 43.580 43.288 43.922 43.154 43.154 1st 8 Kenneth Rock Cosworth 2.0L, 215/50R13, 10:1, 16:1 steering, sprockets, lg sway bars, shocks, cut front springs, Webers Modified 51.742 43.562 43.312 44.320 62.545 43.312 2nd 7 Mark Rock Cosworth 2.0L, 205/60R13, sprockets, mandrel bent 2.25" exhaust Modified 45.607 45.269 55.348oc 44.926 44.293 44.293 6 Tom Lippert Cosworth #0803, sprockets Modified 47.436 44.974 44.698 44.514 67.008oc 44.514 20 Greg Gibson Cosworth #0900, Hutton engine, Webers Modified 48.227 47.485 64.504 46.921 44.880 44.880 22 Steve Mayefske Cosworth #1000, Hutton engine, Webers Modified 47.434 45.486 45.450 44.999 45.496 44.999 18 Mark Bloomquist Cosworth 2.3L, 140 HP, Webers, lots of mods Modified 52.439 47.401 47.145 47.009 46.015 46.015 28 Dick Baumhauer Cosworth 2.3L, Webers, bars, lots of mods Modified 48.288 46.306 46.521 47.136 47.576 46.306 15 Dale Malin 72 Vega w/ Cosworth, 2.0L, lots of mods Modified 47.368 60.138 47.461 46.808 46.371 46.371 Competition 41 Mal Koomian Cosworth 2.0L, 110 HP, race tires Competition 39.385 39.176 40.017 39.541 55.577 39.176 1st FTD 30 John F. Cowall Cosworth Race Car 2.0L, Big tires Competition 39.757 39.988 39.294 45.620oc 41.263oc 39.294 301 John J Cowall Cosworth Race Car 2.0L, Big tires Competition 41.592+2 40.805 49.029 40.701 45.925+2 40.701 1 Joe Lathrop Cosworth 2.0L, Webers, 20.5x7x13 Hoosiers Competition 44.359 43.448 42.956 42.768 42.054 42.054 Unlimited 3 Dan McNally Camaro Unlimited 39.749 40.488 40.266 39.462+4 40.424 39.749 1st 27 Jeff Romeo Cadillac CTS-V Unlimited 45.159 46.686 46.481 46.274 46.624 45.159 12 Tim Morgan HHR SS, 2.0L, 250 HP Unlimited 45.185 46.973 45.678 47.344 45.185 9 Brad Stone 78 Pontiac Sunbird, 2.3L, 205/70R13 Unlimited 47.384 55.871 46.432 46.506 46.470 46.432 29 Brian Stone 78 Pontiac Sunbird, 2.3L, 205/70R13 Unlimited 63.939 60.066 59.374 58.266 56.756 56.756 14 Dick Bradach Chevy Vega Kammback Unlimited 69.220oc 68.812 67.232 66.474 70.553 66.474 Ladies Stock 10 Teresa Larsen Cosworth 2.0L, 110 HP, 185/70-13 Ladies Stock 48.898 47.724 48.091 47.576 47.457 47.457 1st 14 Hyla Koomian Cosworth 2.0L, 110 HP Ladies Stock 50.274 48.581 47.491 48.066 49.938 47.491 17 Katherine Vega Cosworth 2.0L, 110 HP Ladies Stock 58.347oc 54.218oc 51.758oc 51.065oc 52.692 52.692 Ladies Comp 2 Rachael Lathrop Cosworth 2.0L, Webers, 20.5x7x13 Hoosiers Ladies Comp 55.068oc 45.047 43.990 44.016 43.868 43.868 1st LFTD 19 Denise Bloomquist Cosworth 2.3L, 140 HP Ladies Mod 54.523+6 52.239 50.234 49.442 47.217 47.217 23 Kathy Cowall Cosworth #1000, Hutton engine, Webers Ladies Mod 52.532 50.993 49.607 49.140 49.415 49.140 Ladies Unlim 13 Sue Morgan HHR SS, 2.0, 250 HP Ladies Unlim 60.143 56.249 52.570 51.948 51.089 51.089 1st Practice 130 BW Cosworth Race Car 2.0L, Big tires Competition 39.862 38.745OC 38.595 23 Dick Baumhauer Cosworth #1000, Hutton engine, Webers Modified 43.919 43.148 41 Mal Kooiman Cosworth 2.0L, 110 HP, race tires Competition 39.503 39.319+2 27 Jeff Romeo Cadillac CTS-V Unlimited 45.961
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Dec 05, 2008 11:57 am) I like Cogsworth Vegas, and they can fetch a decent price. If anything, they show what GM could have/should have done (as usual). |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 14, 2008 9:41 am) I never heard of anything specifically chronic wrong with Chevettes, but being from a Chevy family at the time, I'd have definitely taken a 1976 or 1977 Vega (notice the years, they were improved from earlier ones) over a new Chevette at the time. I still like Vega wagons. I think with common-sense maintenance, a later Vega would probably have lasted as long as a Chevette (is that a good thing?!) Bill |
|
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
