mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

Vega Engine (was OD)

To: mgs@Autox.Team.Net
Subject: Vega Engine (was OD)
From: John Van Valkenburgh <jvan@ipass.net>
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 12:24:59 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Larry Macy <macy@bblmail.psycha.upenn.edu>
>Well, I tend to disagree with this attitude. I owned a '72 Vega - bad rep 
> - not deserved. The engine ran great as long as there was oil running...

I might as well jump into this too.
My first car was a '72 Vega hatchback (body style 77).  I too was rather
fond of that car.  Partly I guess because it was my first one, but also
because it was extremely reliable.  My theory is that if a machine is well
engineered, it will be very reliable if maintained properly.  For example, I
replaced the water pump when it had a lot of miles on it BEFORE it went.  I
rebuilt the alternator when it too had a lot of use before it failed.  The
idea was that I did not want to be stranded in the middle of nowhere at
midnight when driving back and forth to College.  I did end up putting steel
sleeves in the engine however.  I don't know if running at high speed would
keep the silicon layer from deteriorating but since much of the driving was
in town I could not keep the revs up as much as I'd like anyhow.

Why bring up the old Vega?
I tend to get the same reactions from people who find out I have an MGB.
Again I don't think its entirely deserved.  I've found that you pretty much
get out what you put in the B.  Granted its not very water tight much less
air tight in the Winter rains, but that does not bother me as long as it
remains reliable.  A little cold air in the face keeps me alert anyway...

The thing that bothers me about the Vega is that it seemed to me to be one
of the last times GM tried anything really inovative and new.  Take the
Corvair for example.  For an American car it was pretty radical. Engine in
the back, air cooled.  I think it showed a certain sense of imagination if
not daring.  I just wish that GM had stuck to their guns and continued to
improve on the same theme.  The 'vair could have ended up being light, and
handling well (especially after the suspension change in '65).  With
advances in fuel/engine management it had the potential of being a stylish,
fun, and economical car.

I'm told the MGB was also viewed as a radical change when it first came out.
Front disk brakes standard.  No heavy frame.  Sporty but still economical
and durable.  If the MG organization had been allowed to keep their
engineering dept doing more than emissions improvements I can't help but
think that Abington would still be producing MGs today.  Not just "improved"
MGBs, but creative, sporty cars that the average guy like me could afford.

I can see that my alloted time on the soapbox is up :)

John Van Valkenburgh
Raleigh, NC




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>