yeah 190hp at 6500 rpm! they were in the compacts that olds and pontiac put out at the time.
Let's make a list of the 10 worst GM cars ever
- Thread starter Chuck1986
- Start date
- Status
yeah 190hp at 6500 rpm! they were in the compacts that olds and pontiac put out at the time.
Cosworth Vega:
110 hp, 0-60 12.3sec, 1/4 mile 18.5, Top Speed 112mph.
Marketing Slogan : "One Vega for the price of Two"
Who could resisit that!!
The problem for GM is they Could/Can make a very good car, but it would proberbly only be recognized as 'good' perhaps 10 years after it's release. A Bad car not only get recognition straight away, it stays in our memory longer!
It seems we well remember the Vega, That was 30 years ago!
The 2 liter Cosworth engine was on the drawing boards as early as 71. It featured an all aluminum block and DOHC head with 4 valves per cylinder in a pentroof chamber, electronic fuel injection, and a stainless steel header among other things. These are features you find in engines today.
The prototype made 130+ horsepower but GM couldn't get it past emissions and the car itself was heavy. With emissions choking it down to 110 hp and a fat car, it was a slug. To bad technology wasn't available back then to get this engine up to it's potential in production trim. Competition versions of this engine with a HD block made 300 naturally aspirated horsepower at 9000 rpm. The one in the picture was built for reliability and 'only' made 270 horsepower @ 8700 rpm. http://www.race-cars.com/engsold/cosworth/1165985049/1165985049ss.htm
Hey Chris, what's your opinion of the 7.0L found in the '77-'79 Cadillacs?
Didn't those Cosworths have a lot of trouble with block / head warping? I think it was the techs in the GM garage where I worked that said they could actually watch one of those engines warp out of shape and blow head gaskets while idling in the shop. Something to do with bad casting processes and inconsistent heating / cooling.
How about the late 70's Chevy Monza and it's twin, the Pontiac Sunturd?
Those would definitely be contenders...
I had a 78 Monza. No prize winnner in the ergonomics department and it was SO nose heavy. Understeered like a pig and I was always hitting the bump stops on the front suspension, even after new front shocks were installed. But, I think it was a better car than a Vega. It did have a very solid, heavy feel to it even though it had a lot of rough edges. I cut my teeth as a detailer on this car. Paint was badly oxidized, engine compartment filthy and tires bald when I bought it in 1986 for $1100. Sold it in 1988, shining like a new penny for $1400. Unfortunately I still suffered a loss since I put in a new clutch, brake master cylinder, lifters, heater core, radiator, tires, stereo and countless hours of my time rubbing out the paint. Very dependable car until the temperature dropped below -10. It had to go when I fell in love with a spicy red 86 Civic Si. Vroooom
They had a lot of Vega DNA. They were all H body cars.
Like shooting turds in a barrel.
A friend of a friend had a later model Sunbird, my buddy was having a hard time trying to replace his Buddies Dash instrument lights and asked if I knew anything. I had a look and was at a loss as to how to get behind the Dash. In the end we all went to the GM service counter, we discovered you had to remove the windshield and destroy the Dash pad ($500 Can) just to get at the lights. The car was sold the following September, un-fixed.
D*amn..that's weird. I thought all those had clusters that pulled out over the steering column. You remember what year it was?
H body was a heap, the Sprint was a basic small car that many people ran the ---- out of for over 150,000 miles with no problems. It was one of the best sub-sub-compacts made.
Quote:
Those would definitely be contenders...
Let's not forget the OTHER badge-engineered monza clone: The Buick Skyhawk.
Ditto on all that with my 1976 Buick skyhawk. It handled like a lawnmower, had no traction on the rear, and was ugly as sin. But I will say that for a mid-70's econobox, the wierd 3.8L oddfire engine ran good- despite sounding like a V8 with a bad miss... 'cause that's exactly what it was. It came out with an early version of the T-5 transmission, which I THINK (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) was only available in the Buick version of this awful little car. I will say, though, that the thing got 28mpg... which was impressive all things considered.
I got rid of it when a control arm mount for the rear axle rusted off.
Post deleted by wwillson
All these posts and no one mentioned the Pontiac Aztek? A vehicle designed by people just out of Legos...
Sorry I don't recall, I guess it was early 90's, The Dash cluster was marked 'Vauxhall' I guess it was borrowed from GM's U.K. subsidiary.
J bodies like the pontiac 6000 and buick century. Driving in my friends old entury was like russian roulette, because it had a tendancy to cut off suring crucial moments like left turns!! the acadian/chevette is in it's own category.
The Sprint was, of course, a Suzuki, just like the Metro that replaced it. They were quite good cars for 150K or so of almost no fuel cost motoring.
I know of one Metro (driven by someone with whom I work, who has a really long commute) with well over 220K, still driven every day.
I know of one Metro (driven by someone with whom I work, who has a really long commute) with well over 220K, still driven every day.
- Status
Similar threads
