Talk:Chevrolet Vega/Reception

The "Reception" and "Awards" sections were identified in the RFC as a section that needed improvement. The pre-RFC versions are listed below. Please add your suggested improvements after that. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Pre-RFC versions of the Reception and Awards sections
Please do not modify the content in the collapsed section, instead please make changes in the following "Suggested changes" section.

Automotive press
Motor Trend magazine in an August 1970 review of the basic sedan said, "The low dollar Vega is a complete automobile. It requires nothing more to be an enjoyable, functional piece of transportation." "The Vega will get you there without generating any unscheduled stops;" of the GT coupe MT said, The Vega GT with a 19 sec. quarter mile e.t. doesn't rattle any splines. But forget it if that's all you want. Even at 19 seconds the GT fills you with as much adrenalin as some of its faster big brothers." "Some cars get a little scary the faster you push them; this one is just the opposite, the handling improves. There's no roll steer of any kind, tied in with car's refreshing neutral steering give the GT some exciting handling characteristics. In summary the Vega GT comes close to what a racing GT car should be, in handling, performance and comfort. Because it's basically a low-priced compact, the results are all the more surprising and rewarding;" and of the wagon MT said, Under normal driving conditions, the wagon is well behaved and takes you where you want to go with a minimum of fuss and maximum comfort." "In spite of the understeer, for a wagon the handling is quite good." Motor Trend included the Vega as one of the Ten Best Cars of 1971.

Road & Track magazine in September 1970 said, "Vega is the best handling car ever sold in America." Road & Track in a November 1970 road test of Vegas Plain and Fancy said, "The Vega in standard form rides and handles very well indeed." "Freeway cruising is relaxed and quiet, and it was economical notwithstanding our overall mileage figures which included some very hard driving." "Inside one finds that the large glass area–so reminiscent of those of the Fiat 124 Coupe &mdash; give outstanding vision in all directions." "The steering is in a word, light." "Optioned, the Vega becomes a pleasant car to drive, marred only by the unseemly engine racket. It also becomes something other than a low-priced economy sedan, but one is hard put to name a coupe as attractive and capable as this at a comparable price."

Car Life magazine in September 1970 said, "How good is the Vega? In two words, very good." Road Test magazine in September 1970 said, "It's innovative without being complex." Sports Car Graphic magazine said in September, 1970: "The new die-cast aluminum Vega 2300 (engine) is a masterpiece of simplicity. There are many innovations made to reduce the number of pieces and improve repairability.." Super Stock magazine in October 1970 said, "What Chevrolet did was engineer a completely new car for the tastes and needs of the 1970s, and they've done a beautiful job." Road Test said in a November 1970 road test. "To put it bluntly, the the Vega with the 110-hp engine, is sort of a junior hot rod; it reminded us vaguely of some flying time behind the stick of a military Piper. "With the inexpensive handling package, our test car has no peers in the cornering department. Fast turns are level safe and normal." "Standard disc brakes give Vega stopping power that touch a record for us &mdash; of 140 feet from 60 mph." "We like the Vega."

Hot Rod magazine in November 1970 said, "The Vega is a hard car not to like. Even the men who run companies that build competitive cars admit that. It is the result of the largest single expenditure by Chevrolet and General Motors for any single car model. The investment reaches into the hundreds of millions of dollars." Road and Track on the Yenko Turbo Stinger II in April 1971 said, "A turbo-charger and other good things transform the Vega into a sports car. Even the SCCA says so. Yenko says the prototype using the optional 3.36 gears did the quarter mile in 15.5 sec." Track and Traffic magazine in April 1971 said, "There's one thing the Vega will (hopefully) do for the North American driver, and that's to educate him on the joys of good handling."

Car and Driver in 1971 comparison with the Ford Pinto, said, "The Vega hits its stride on the open highway. It has good directional stability and the front bucket seats are comfortable for most drivers;" it was agreed that the Vega's far superior flow-through ventilation system was more than enough to offset the driveline tunnel heat. Car and Driver in 1971, said: "The plain Vega sedan is as good-looking a car as you'll find in its class...with the Vega they've turned out one of the finest-looking compact sedans in the world." Car and Driver in their 1972 Tire Test said. "We had chosen a Vega as the test car because it was one of the few Showroom Stockers with handling balanced enough that we could be sure it was the tires we were testing and not some quirk of the car." Hot Rod magazine road tested a Vega GT Kammback in March 1972. HR said, "The car never looks like something you had to buy...It's the kind of car we'd buy to look good in, work on, add to, and wash once a week." Hot Rod voted the Vega GT "Best Buy" of the entire 1972 Chevrolet line. Super Stock magazine in a July 1972 road test of a Vega GT said, "It is a damn nice little car with plenty of room, great handling, and a pretty high level of overall finish." Service Station Management and Motor Service magazines in a July 1972 survey, the Vega was voted–"Easiest to service, least mechanical problems and best overall in its class" by independent servicemen."

Road & Track in a Vega GT road test in June 1973 said, "The 1973 Vega is still the stylish, somewhat sporting economy car it was when new, but improved. The engine is doubly improved, as it has the reduced emissions required by law and better performance (regardless of official power ratings)." "The gearshift has been reworked to match the new transmission.. It's less balky and more precise than the original units." R&T concluded, "After what we've said about earlier Vegas, it's a pleasure to report the current Vega is attractive, respectably quick, and frugal-and it's the best highway car in class. Well done Chevrolet."  Road Test magazine in a 1973 Vega GT coupe road test said, "The Vega could be thrown into just about any kind of turn with full expectation of making it through;" "the cornering force developed was far beyond expectation." "The bucking engine has somehow been tamed by invisible means." "The four-speed gearbox was crisp, precise and impossible to fault." "The disc/drum brakes performed flawlessly at all times. Panic stopping tests were accomplished with no tendency to swerve;" "The air-conditioning is easily the best of any of the so-called "little cars;" "The interior, seats and carpeting were well done and of good materials."

Road Test in a July 1974 Vega LX Notchback road test said, "The 1974 Vega is a vastly improved car over the original." "What engine vibration and noise there is becomes noticeable at very low or very high engine speeds. The engine noise never becomes objectionable until 5,000 rpm, which is beyond the range of normal use." "The wheel hop has been eliminated with both rear wheels remaining planted firmly on the pavement even with the most brutal starts." Car and Driver in May 1974 said of the Vega GT, "What we have here is a car that will cut and run with the best of them. It is a natural on a road course, sure footed and fleet, with a sense of balance that you rarely find in a sedan." "We particularly like the solid feel of the shifter." "The test car was also optioned out with variable ratio power steering which offers a very quick 3.0 turns lock to lock and quite an accurate feel. "The carpets, the door panels and the seat coverings are high quality, particularly in light of the Vega's low overall price."

Motor Trend in a Cosworth Vega test in October 1975 said: "The Cosworth Vega goes like the proverbial bat out of Carlsburg Caverns" "At moderate speeds, the car is as close to neutral handling as any American I have ever driven." Car and Driver in a 1975 Cosworth Vega test said: The outstanding feature of the Cosworth Vega is its excellent balance..Roll-stiffness distribution is ideal, with little understeer entering a turn, and just the right amount of drift from the tail as you put your foot down to exit ..Through the woods or down a mountain, the Cosworth is a feisty aggressor willing, if not altogether able to take on the world's best GT cars." Road & Track in a 1976 Cosworth Vega road test in March 1976 said, "We can't resist saying that with the Cosworth Vega engine, the Vega now runs the way it should have run all the time-easy, smooth, good response, good handling: a nice balance between performance and economy." "The Cosworth Vega's handling is very good."

Motor Trend in their International Report-The 60,000-mile Vega February 1976 said, "Chevrolet conducted a 60,000 miles in 60 days Durability Run of the 1976 Vega and its Dura-Built 140 engine. Chevrolet chose a 349-mile Southwestern desert route in order to show the severely criticized engine and cooling system had been improved in the 1976 model. In more than 180,000 miles (290,000 km) of total driving, the cars used only 24 ounces of coolant, an amount attributed to normal evaporation under severe desert conditions. Furthermore, fuel economy for the three test Vegas averaged 28.9 mpg over the duration of the run, while oil was used at the rate of only one quart every 3400 miles. All three 1976 Vegas completed the total 180,000 miles with only one "reliability" incident — a broken timing belt was recorded."

Collectable Automobile magazine in April 2000 said, "The Vega engine was, without a doubt, the most extraordinary part of the car." "For '76 GM started to get it right. The Vega was now a fairly decent car, but Chevrolet's release of the even less expensive Chevette in 1976 put the handwriting on the wall.

Motor Trend Classic magazine's Fall 2010 issue featured A Loving Look Back Gremlin-Vega-Pinto retrospective comparison test. Frank Markus, Technical Director of Motor Trend said of the original 6k-miles 1973 Vega GT, "After a few gentle miles, I begin to understand how this car won its awards and comparison tests." "Well-maintained examples are great looking, nice-driving, economical classics—like Baltic Ave. with a Hotel, the best ones can be had for $10K or less."

Automotive press
Motor Trend in the August 1970 review of the basic sedan said, "The 90 horses under the hood are pretty much out of it above 55 mph when it comes to any rapid passing." " It does have limits but the only one that might cause a little concern is the panic braking; the machine goes into a hairy left skid, but the whole thing is controllable." Of the GT coupe, the magazine said, "Only the shifter is a little disappointing; it doesn't have a short throw and that solid snick, click feeling as it drops into gear." and of the wagon MT said, "As is the other two models, the wagon has some brake problems - panic stopping from 60 mph produces wheel hop. Not as violent as the coupe, but disconcerting."

Road & Track in the November 1970 Vegas Plain and Fancy test said, "The basic Vega, pretty and intelligently designed though it is, is poorly equipped and rather unpleasant to drive and we don't think many customers will settle for it. The optioned car however is a decidedly good package..." and "The engine proved a let down. It's extremely rough and noisy." Road & Track in a 1971-72 model owner survey said, "The level of assembly doesn't match the virtues of the design." "70% would buy another Vega and 30% wouldn't, show a high degree of dissatisfaction with the car."  Road Test magazine said in a November 1970 road test, "One negative is that the Vega is noisy, we wonder if this will be acceptable to the owner of a current American compact. Car and Driver in a 1971 road test said, "The Vega's interior, A stylist's idea of the American dream, drew heavy criticism. It's deeply contoured plastic door panels and the dash are inordinately complex but short on function. The treatment is too heavy for a car the Vega's size. The controls, too, were unlike the imports. Every lever, pedal and crank - shifter, clutch, window winders, etc. - required exceptionally long travel to do its job. The engineers were obviously obsessed with minimizing driver effort where possible." and "Considering the Vega's overall size (almost seven inches longer than the Pinto) the interior room is disappointing. The front seat passengers should have no complaints and the trunk is generous, but knee room in the rear is in tight supply."

Car and Driver in the 1971 comparison with the Ford Pinto, noted excessive heat radiating from the Vega's driveline tunnel," adding that, "the Vega's clattering engine and fruity sounding exhaust are genuinely unpleasant; "The low-peak disturbance at 2,200 rpm (second order engine shake) buzzed the shift lever as you passed through. This combined with the rubbery, balky shifter takes the fun out of low speed and sporting driving;" and "the engine was inclined to bog on even the slightest acceleration." At the time of its introduction Popular Mechanics said, "the Vega's fuel filler neck was inconvenient to use and allows spillage when topping off," "the car had fussy cold-weather starting", "appreciable engine noise", and "steering with a loose, dead feeling in the center." Car and Driver said in a December 1971 road test, "We've always thought of the Vega as a well engineered car, but many of its virtues are blocked by some equally impressive vises. For one thing its noisy - and most of it can be blamed on the log stroke Four which vibrates the hell out of the car.

Motor Trend in a 1972 Vega GT wagon test, "In spite of the suspension compliance, there is a trace of harshness in the Vega." Vega's achilles heal is the shift gate for the automatic, it works great for changing gears but it gets confusing on initial engagement. You just wiggle it around until the car moves in the proper direction." Car and Driver in a 1974 Vega GT coupe road test said, "It takes far more than than low price and the Vega's multitude of other virtues to redeem the engine." "The high braking effort stands in rather stark contrast to that of the other controls and plushy softness of the Vega's optional Custom interior." Road and Track in 1975 Vega GT track test said, "The Vega has two primary problems: too much weight and not enough power. Its 87 hp just isn't up to the task of of propelling the 2725 lb (curb weight) car with much verve. The pedals are positioned so poorly, heel and toeing is almost impossible. The Vega's steering is light but vague.

Road and Track in July 1976 in a Cosworth Vega test said, For all its exotic features however, the Cosworth Vega engine is not a high-performance unit. It develops 110 bhp and while this is 36 percent more than the standard 1-barrel Vega it still represents only 55 bhp per liter - modest indeed compared to engines of equal sophistication." and "The five-speed gearbox shift pattern and operation leave something to be desired." and "There is no optional power assist for the brakes, so the pedal effort for a 0.5g stop is a rather high 45 lb. Car and Driver in a September 1976 Short Take on the Cosworth Vega said, "The Cosworth is no more..a noble experiment that failed..the execution was a severe disappointment." and "Time and weight killed the Cosworth." and "The low priority of a project contrary to the corporate grain dragged the motor through a five-year gestation period while the Vega for which it was destined grew fat and heavy.. one regulation after another took its toll on the car's power to weight ratio."

Motor Trend said in its 40th Anniversary issue, in May 1989 feature Looking back over 40 years said, "We figured we had a couple of surefire winners on the cover in August 1970, with the Chevy Vega and John DeLorean. Hey, look, we didn't know, ok?"

Motor Trend in its 50th Anniversary Issue in September 1999 said, "The Vega seemed well placed to set the standard for subcompacts in the 70s, but it was troubled by one of the most vulnerable Achilles heels in modern automotive history; an alloy four-cylinder engine block that self destructed all too easily, and all too often. Once the word got out the damage was done, even though the engine had been revamped."

Collectible Automobile magazine in the April 2000 issue said, "The Chevy Vega has become a symbol of all the problems Detroit faced in the 70's." and "Ed Cole and the corporation initially had high hopes for the Vega, But then, little by little, everything that could go wrong, did. Had its big engineering and manufacturing plans succeeded, the last laugh might have belonged to Chevy." and "The greatest toll came in the damage it did to Chevrolet's and GM's reputation. The other effect the Vega had on GM was to help make the corporation conservative, and dull its will to lead."

Non-automotive press and Internet
Early criticism of the Vega came from the Center for Auto Safety. A letter from its founder Ralph Nader to GM Chairman Richard Gerstenberg contained a list of safety allegations. It also said that the car was a "sloppily crafted, unreliable and unsafe automobile" and that it "hardly set a good example in small car production for American industry".

In her 1974 book Paradise Lost: The Decline of the Auto-Industrial Age, noted historian Emma Rothschild said, "the Vega was an extreme case in the capacity for inspiring and then dashing consumer expectations." In 1979 Popular Science an article titled Secret car warranties reported that the cost of free repairs to the Vega in the 1970s ran into tens of millions, and that repairs were often done free of charge up to two years after the warranty ran out. In 1990 Time magazine said in The Right Stuff: Does the U.S Industry have It, "...The bad repution spread with the Chevrolet Vega, a poorly engineered car notorious for rust and breakdowns." In 1991, Newsweek magazine called the Vega costlier and more troublesome than its rivals. In his 1993 book In the Rings of Saturn, Joe Sherman said, that "by it's third recall, ninety five percent of all Vegas manufactured before May 1972 had critical safety flaws." adding that "reviews of the car noted its tendency to skid violently in sudden stops." and "The Vega's "checkered history only reinforced the belief that GM made inferior small cars. This legacy would prove far more important than any direct impact the Vega would have on GM's profits." In his 2005 book The Struggle for Control of the Modern Corporation, Robert Freeland said, "The Vega's heritage of poor planning and perfunctory implementation, led to an extremely poor quality automobile beset by mechanical problems," In his 2010 book Generation Busted, author Alan Zemek said, "Chevrolet's answer to the Japanese car, left it with a black eye."

In 2008, Popular Mechanics editor John P Huffman's web article, 10 Cars that Damaged General Motors said, "the Vega was actually a sales success. But ultimately that meant there were just that many more people disappointed by the Vega." and "Throw in haphazard build quality and sheetmetal that you could practically hear rusting away, and the Vega truly rates as one of GM's great debacles." The 2009 Car and Driver feature, Dishonorable Mention: The 10 Most Embarrassing Award Winners in Automotive History, Car and Driver.com editors listed the 1971 Vega third, criticizing Motor Trend's Car of the Year  stating, "That’s not to say the choice of the Vega as 1971 Car of the Year didn’t make sense in context..compared with Ford’s Pinto, the Vega at least seemed better. The Vega’s aluminum engine block even seemed like a technological leap forward. However, the aluminum block’s unlined cylinder bores scored easily, and the (usually misaligned) iron cylinder head let oil pour into them." In 2010, John P. Huffman of Popular Mechanics referred to the Vega as "the car that nearly destroyed GM."

The Vega received awards from Motor Trend, Car and Driver and the American Iron and Steel Institute. Chevrolet's early Vega advertising included ads promoting awards won by the car. Frank Markus, Technical Director of Motor Trend wrote in the Motor Trend Classic Fall 2010 issue, "Chevrolet spun the Vega as a more American, upscale car. And let's face it, the car looked hot. So can you blame us for falling hook, line, and sinker for the Vega and naming it 1971's Car of the Year?"

Motor Trend awarded the Vega 1971 Car of the Year. MT: "The base Vega is a magnificent automobile without any options at all." "...It is appropriate that the final choice was a car that reflects Detroit's timely response to the people's needs instead of a copy writer's idea of what they should need. So, the Chevrolet Vega 2300 is Motor Trend's 1971 Car of the Year by way of engineering excellence, packaging, styling and timeliness. As such, we are saying that for the money, no other American car can deliver more."

American Iron and Steel Institute awarded the Vega in 1971 for–Excellence in design in transportation equipment.

Motor Trend awarded the Vega GT 1973 Car of the Year in the Economy Class.

MT: "The best version of the Vega came out on top matched against the best versions of its competition."..."The Vega was judged solid, warm and comfortable, with a good finish." Pleasing the American car buyer is a delicate task. Economy really means economy with an illusion of luxury. This time Chevrolet won the guessing game."

Car and Driver readers voted the Vega Best Economy Sedan in 1971, 1972 and 1973 in C&D's Annual Reader's Choice Poll. In 1971, the Vega's first year on the market, it managed to unseat the incumbent import, breaking its eight year winning streak.

Car and Driver selected the Cosworth Vega one of the 10 Best Collectable Cars in its fourth annual Ten Best issue, saying: "We're talking about historical significance here."

Suggested changes
Guidance: Please use this section to suggest changes to the structure and content Reception section of the article - including merging in the Awards section if that is considered to be appropriate. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So, to kick things off, I say that yes the awards and reception sections should be merged into one section, perhaps titled "Reception". I also think that the current subsection arrangement within the Reception section is contrived and biased. My suggestion is to have an intro paragraph summarising the reception - initial praise & awards, followed very soon after by damning comments from the likes of Ralph Nader, followed by the legacy; then I would follow this intro paragraph with more detail arranged chronologically but not split in any way - so positive, negative, brickbat, bouquet, automotive, book, internet etc. all lumped together. YMMV & OITRVMMACTTA etc., so let's have other ideas/suggestions. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds great. There are a number of references that on the Talk page that include books, one by a credentialed historian.  Ohters are more pop-culture. Either way: one section, concise and to the point, without subsections, in chronological order, keeping to salient sources and salient points about the car.  Great work.842U (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe, before we start drafting someting, we should wait for other opinions. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely.842U (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest it not be edited, instead, eliminated. Most other car articles don't have a section like this.  By intent or not, the function of this section is to provide a shield for the car's problems by being able to say "well, the press liked it".


 * Its hard to consider something like winning Motor Trend's Car Of The Year Award significant. The list of past winners itself shows that.  Such memorable (sarcasm) cars as the 88 Pontiac Grand Prix and 70 Ford Torino.  Truely awful cars like the Plymouth Volare, Chevrolet Citation, Renault Alliance, and yes, the Vega.  And how badly they missed it in 84, naming the Corvette.  1984 was the year that we now know resulted in the car market being redefined, by the Voyager/Caravan.  And I think there was reason to think that at the time.  Corvette, indeed.


 * Anyway, section not needed. And not only that, a detriment to the article.Bradkay (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea. Do you think that some of the content currently in the section should be preserved elsewhere in the article? e.g., the Ralph Nader stuff moved to the "Problems" section. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No. I think all these opposing view sections and their material should be elimnated.  The article is supposed to be about a product, a car.  Tell about the features, that it sold well initially, that it was discontinued due to poor sales after manufacturer attempts to assure the public quality issues had been addressed failed, and leave it at that.Bradkay (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)