Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Corporate politics had something to do with the Vega engine. Chevrolet had a nice OHC iron block, aluminum head engine for the car, and Engineering Staff designed the aluminum block, iron head engine that was selected for production. Low manufacturing costs are probably what swayed the decision. The die-cast aluminum linerless block had been a dream for a long time at GM.
By corporate politics, do you mean Ed Cole, the father of the Corvair?
From what I understood, the nightmare that was the early Vega engine was mainly his dream.
It was even an ugly engine in its installed form.
I remember this from my days of Vega ownership.
The engine was a very rough runner at higher revs, but the car was geared tall enough that you wouldn't notice this at any cruise speed.
The car had wonderful ride and handling on very smooth roads.
Throw a couple of bumps in there and you'd swear that the car had no suspension at all.
Take the same platform and throw in a SBC and you ended up with a very nose-heavy little car with a very stylish shape, no interior space and no real performance. This platform had a huge tranny bulge and driveshaft tunnel to begin with.
That the Monza didn't end up with unacceptable understeer is a tribute to GM's chassis tuning engineers of the time.
The Vega had enormous promise, as did the earlier Corvair and the later Citation.
All of these cars failed to deliver on what they promised.
I've also owned a couple of Corvairs and a V-6 Citation.
Of the three, I'd now buy and enjoy a good Corvair, although the Vega was a handling fool on smooth roads while the Citation was quite fast for a small car of its day and had a ride that was quite smooth and even floaty, very much like GM's larger cars of the day. It would also corner very well, although not as well as either a Vega (on smooth roads) or a Corvair.
Corporate politics had something to do with the Vega engine. Chevrolet had a nice OHC iron block, aluminum head engine for the car, and Engineering Staff designed the aluminum block, iron head engine that was selected for production. Low manufacturing costs are probably what swayed the decision. The die-cast aluminum linerless block had been a dream for a long time at GM.
By corporate politics, do you mean Ed Cole, the father of the Corvair?
From what I understood, the nightmare that was the early Vega engine was mainly his dream.
It was even an ugly engine in its installed form.
I remember this from my days of Vega ownership.
The engine was a very rough runner at higher revs, but the car was geared tall enough that you wouldn't notice this at any cruise speed.
The car had wonderful ride and handling on very smooth roads.
Throw a couple of bumps in there and you'd swear that the car had no suspension at all.
Take the same platform and throw in a SBC and you ended up with a very nose-heavy little car with a very stylish shape, no interior space and no real performance. This platform had a huge tranny bulge and driveshaft tunnel to begin with.
That the Monza didn't end up with unacceptable understeer is a tribute to GM's chassis tuning engineers of the time.
The Vega had enormous promise, as did the earlier Corvair and the later Citation.
All of these cars failed to deliver on what they promised.
I've also owned a couple of Corvairs and a V-6 Citation.
Of the three, I'd now buy and enjoy a good Corvair, although the Vega was a handling fool on smooth roads while the Citation was quite fast for a small car of its day and had a ride that was quite smooth and even floaty, very much like GM's larger cars of the day. It would also corner very well, although not as well as either a Vega (on smooth roads) or a Corvair.