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
|
|
|---|---|
|
I've also heard of Chevettes going over 100,000, on the original drivetrain. And you're correct, as I wrote in an earlier message, uplanderguy, that the '76 and '77 Vegas were significantly improved over the '71-'74, at least. I'm not sure whether the improvements to which we're referring were in the '75 model year or the '76, but they included inner fenders for rust protection and steel cylinder linings. It may be one for the records, but a member of my family coaxed a '73 Vega just over 100,000 miles on the original engine. He had to replace something in the cylinder head (can't remember what exactly), and it was a total rust bucket when the engine totally died between 100,000 and 101,000, but it managed to cross the milestone mileage figure. |
|
|
|
|
For all their issues, I think that Pintos (the ones that didn't get rear ended) and even Gremlins were more durable than Vegas. Of course, that's feint praise. Although the Gremlin was plagued by a variety of gremlins, the AMC I-6 engine that was used in these cars was good for its day. In fact, I think that engine was the same one which later earned an excellent reputation in Jeeps. I think that AMC engine was finally replaced by a V6 in Jeeps for the '06 model year. From what I've read the I-6 was a better engine than the newer V6, in terms of fuel economy and smoothness, and maybe torque also. |
|
|
|
I should mention that my message #148 was intended to chronicle some anomalies, rather than to defend Vegas and Chevettes.
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Dec 06, 2008 6:14 am) I don't personally know anybody who's kept a Chevette long-term. I was always under the impression that it was one of those cars that helped spawn that "GM cars run bad longer than most cars run at all" line.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 06, 2008 7:16 am) My definition of a "worst car" would be something like this: A car that has one or more serious inherent faults that will cripple 25% or more of the units manufactured within the first year of operation So for instance if you take a Saab 900 Turbo, with a pretty well documented head gasket failure rate of around 9%, that ain't great but that doesn't make it one of the world's worst cars. But if you take a Maserati Bi-Turbo, where you could hardly find one that hasn't had an engine rebuild, (or multiple engine rebuilds), that's pretty bad.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 06, 2008 7:27 am) A car that has one or more serious inherent faults that will cripple 25% or more of the units manufactured within the first year of operation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- So I have to ask, Shifty. Was the Chevette a "worst car" by that definition? I always had the the impression that it was a crying shame as a car, but was reasonably reliable.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bhill2 (Dec 09, 2008 1:09 pm) It takes as much genius to make a car completely bad as it does to make it completely good I think. |
|
|
|
|
"It takes as much genius to make a car completely bad as it does to make it completely good I think." I know what you're trying to say, shifty, since the cars that are "completely" bad or good are statistical outliers, but I don't think your statement is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Dec 10, 2008 9:24 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 10, 2008 11:06 am) |
|
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
