The “Detroit Mind” story has generated an exceptionally broad and thoughtful comment thread, so it is hard to pick an individual item to highlight. I am front-paging Geeber’s comment because it offers important context about why General Motors handled the Vega the way it did.
This has been a robust discussion, and I appreciate Steve for facilitating it.
When using the Vega as a gauge on GM’s attitude towards small cars at that time is, we have to get the big elephant out of the room to get a real answer to that question. The Vega turned out to be a complete disaster in everything from reliability to build quality to refinement on the road. The implication over the years has therefore become that GM DELIBERATELY made the Vega this bad as a ploy to get people to buy a more profitable Nova or Chevelle instead of a low-profit small car. That is the way the quote I referenced in Yates’s book has been taken over the years in some quarters.
But that quote was offered by someone who did not work for GM, and had not been involved in the car’s development. The car had just been introduced, so he had no idea of how it would ultimately fare in the hands of actual owners.
I don’t believe that GM deliberately turned in a slipshod effort with the Vega. The real problem was that GM’s internal systems were increasingly unable to execute ambitious programs that required new technology. Over the next 15 years, the Oldsmobile Diesel, Cadillac HT 4100 engine and 1986 E-body downsizing would be disastrous in their own ways – and they did not involve low-profit economy cars. These programs involved some of GM’s most profitable vehicles. In retrospect, the Vega was the canary in the coal mine in that regard.
Whether GM handicapped the Vega by withholding certain features is an entirely different question, and often gets mixed up with how bad the Vega turned out to be. I don’t believe that the lack of a four-door sedan (or five-door hatchback) is proof of that so much as proof that GM was hyper-focused on VW, which had become the leading import by far while only offering two-doors.
The interior trim of the base models was stark, but a fair amount of that was driven by the cost of Ed Cole’s engine. If the program had used the engine designed by Chevrolet, the engine’s cost would have been lower, while reliability and even overall refinement would have been dramatically improved. Whether GM’s bean counters would have allowed the extra money to be put into upgraded interior trim is another question. GM was already struggling with a higher cost structure than the imported competition of that eras…and a low list price was seen as crucial to attracting customers. And GM wasn’t going to lose money on the Vega. No one reasonably expected GM to do that.
The “have it your way” approach to options was the Detroit way of doing business in this era. A very low base price was advertised, but customers were expected to pony up for high-profit options if they wanted a decent car. But that approach was even used on the Chevelle and Impala of that era. A stripped B-body was not a very pleasant car to drive. The expectation was that most customers would pay for a deluxe interior, power steering, power brakes, AM/FM radio and air conditioning to make the car much more pleasant to drive.
GM didn’t “think outside the box” by boosting the Vega’s appeal by making several features standard, but, again even the VWs of this era were hardly luxury models. The idea of an upscale economy car really didn’t go mainstream in the U.S. until the debut of the 1976 Honda Accord. (Although the 1974 Ford Mustang II was sold with a relatively high level of interior trim as standard equipment, but it was clearly merchandised as a step up from the typical economy car of that period. If buyers wanted a low price above all else, they were expected to buy a Pinto.)
— Geeber
RE:SOURCES
- wildaboutcarsonline.com (Automotive History Preservation Society): Chevrolet Vega (1971)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet Vega (1971, 1972)
- oldcaradvertising.com: Chevrolet Vega (1974)
Indie Auto invites your comments (see below) or letters to the editor (go here). Letters may be lightly edited for style.
Was the engine designed by Chevrolet for the Vega, the 153 Chevrolet or the 111 hp OHC L-10 prototype engine fitted to the Vega-based XP-898 concept?
It is worth noting the 153 Chevrolet engine would go on to power a number of locally built European GM models in places like Brazil, Argentina and South Africa without any problems, although perhaps it could have benefited from a OHC conversion at minimum (building upon the Chevy 6-derived Pontiac OHC-6).
Did wonder if GM would have been better off developing the Vega from either the U-Car (e.g. Opel Ascona B & Manta B) or the Holden Torana LH-UC, the latter basically being derived from a shortened GM V-Platform (specifically the Vauxhall Victor FE). A SWB V-Platform was something Vauxhall themselves also considered early on for the Vauxhall Cerian proposal during the U-Car project before it lost out to Opel’s proposal (with the suggestion the idea was pensioned off to Australia for the Torana LH).
One thing that perplexes me about the Vega would be the degree of commonality it shares with the 1973 T-Car Kadett C (aka Chevette), since both are rooted in the XP-718 programme before they diverged. Would it be correct to describe the Vega’s platform as an upscaled T-Car in some respects, prior to the T-Car featuring a roughly similar wheelbase as the Vega with the 5-door Chevette from 1978?
I honestly think the Vega is an example of what happens when you let the bean counters have more influence than the engineers over the design of a car. The basic idea of the Vega wasn’t bad, but the whole car was ruined by an overemphasis on cutting corners and taking cost out of the car to meet an unrealistic profit point. Examples: the deletion of the inner fender liners (to save less than $3/car), which led to premature fender rustout. Also, the reduction in radiator size to the bare minimum necessary for normal use along with no provision for a coolant overflow system; leading to premature failure of many engines and a ruined reputation for durability. Finally, the handing over of the actual assembly of the cars to GMAD, which cut corners by getting rid of as many extra workers as possible while still cranking out as many cars as they had before, leading to poor quality control and several wildcat strikes at the plant.
Not all of the Vega’s problems were the result of the bean counters having too much control over the program.
The engine that had been developed by Chevrolet was actually cheaper to build than the one that was ultimately used, from what I’ve read. But Ed Cole wanted the Vega to use his engine, which drove up costs. The Chevrolet engine would have been cheaper to build, as well as more reliable and most likely more refined in daily use. But Ed Cole was powerful enough to get his way.
Allow me to toss in a couple of thoughts as a past owner of a 1973 Vega GT, bought new:
1. The interior was definitely designed to maximize the odds of a buyer paying extra for the optional interior. The one mistake I made when ordering my car was to stick with the standard interior, and it was definitely awful. The seats were flat slabs of foam designed to an accountant’s spreadsheet, and owner comfort was not factored in at all. Having the GT, I did get an adjustable driver’s seat back – all two (count, em, two) positions of it. Yep, a simple two position lever allowing approximately ten degrees of difference in the seat back angle. Otherwise it was the same old “you cheap bastard” low end American interior.
2. From all the things I’ve read, the engine was a GM design thrust on Chevrolet, rather than being a Chevrolet design. Now, I’m one of the rare owners, three years and three SCCA B-sedan autocross seasons with no mechanical problems, although I was noticing a wisp of exhaust smoke constantly at the time I traded the car in (on a 76 Monza 2+2). Some of this probably had to do with my autocrossing, as I’d run the oil level about a pint high to minimize the chance of oil starvation while on the autocross course (I tended to drive aggressively, as I was competing against BMW 1600’s and 2002’s). I was also meticulous with coolant level, for the same reason. Nonetheless, the engine, at the time, sucked. I did have the same engine in the follow-up Monza, and it was a much better engine, as was the one in the 77 Vega my father owned for a short while.
3. I don’t think the lack of a four door particularly hurt the car at the time, mainly because of all the sub-compacts available in the US, if four doors were a necessity you went European. Renault 10’s immediately come to mind on this front, and the later 12. Even the Japanese were primarily selling two door subcompacts at this point. Because . . . . . . well, that’s what the market wanted, because their choices were limited by the manufacturer, who did so because the market, was buying two doors, because . . . . . . . yeah, that endless cycle. Back then, if you wanted four doors, you were expected to look one size up.
4. Both from personal experience, later reading, and watching the market at that time, American manufacturers pointedly didn’t take sub-compacts seriously. “Small cars equal small profits” was the mantra back then, and the manufacturers designed their sub-compacts with the intention that a customer would only ever own one in his/her lifetime, the next car being an immediate step up to a compact, and hopefully setting the stage to eventually owning nothing but ‘real’ (full sized) cars.
5. And never forget the overwhelming arrogance of the Detroit Three especially GM (who was still looking at the possibility of government-mandated breakup at the time of the Vega’s release). They only brought out compacts in 1960 because the Beetle wouldn’t go away. in 1971 they brought out sub-compacts only because the Beetle still wouldn’t go away, and the compacts were too large to directly compete. And by 1981, they tried again because, despite the Beetle having finally gone away, the Japanese had turned out to be a much bigger threat. At least after the failure of the 80’s small cars to drive the competition back into the ocean, Detroit was forced to admit that small cars were a permanent part of the American market.
It only took them 21 years to figure that out.
Your point about a customer basically being “forced” to spring for the deluxe interior made me remember something: the Vega’s standard transmission was a 3-speed manual. The available 4-speed was supplied by Opel in Germany, and was already in production; but GM wanted to have a 3-speed as standard to “encourage” buyers to pay extra for the 4-speed. Opel duly tooled up a 3-speed for the Vega, but because they had to design and tool up something new (plus the fact that not many customers went with the 3-speed), it was actually MORE expensive per unit for GM than the 4-speed did!
There appears to be an editorial bias towards all the cars should have been designed as 4 doors. With the Vega, let’s put that viewpoint into a historical context. The Vega came out in 1971. Not only VW but Toyota, Datsun and just about all the other imports were 2 doors. Even later on when VW brought out the Rabbit/Golf they too were 2 doors.
The Vega was just a reflection of the market.
Well, this is a journal of opinion. And in that era a full line of cars typically included four-door variants. One reason why is that four doors are more convenient for people with families, even if they are small families. Detroit’s general bias was that family cars should be big.
It’s true that the dominant body styles in the subcompact class had two doors, but there were also some fairly popular four-door models, such as the Toyota Corona and Datsun 510 in the late-60s and the Opel 1900 in the early-70s.
I disagree on the imports. The few 4 doors were few and far between on the road. I do not remember any Datsun 510 4-doors. In Europe may there were more in this size category but they were not coming to the US. At that time, the US was not the market for them.
I believe that you are applying a viewpoint of today that was not true “in period”.
My perspective is colored by growing up in California, which apparently was where the Japanese imports made their quickest inroads into the U.S. market. Toyota and Datsun were up-and-coming brands in the late-60s and early-70s, so it strikes me as relevant that they both offered four-door models.
I grant you that the enthusiasts were most excited by the two-door sedan version of the Datsun 510, but my sense at the time was that the four-door wagons were also quite popular (note that when I refer to four-door models, I’m not just talking about sedans).
Sorry, but Toyota and Datsun sold lots of 4-doors in those days. I’d be willing to bet that it was many more than 2-doors for Toyota, maybe 50/50 for Datsun.
2-door Rabbits may have been more popular, but 4-doors were offered. And, when the Jetta came out, 4-doors were definitely more popular than the rare 2-door.
For the Big 3, small cars have long meant either small profits, no profit or downright loss, and eventually devolved into compliance cars. One afternoon back in 2014 a cubicle mate was wondering why the Japanese companies were able to profit on small cars while the American companies were not. Being a numbers guys he pulled up the Annual Reports for Toyota and GM, studied them, then pointed out that Toyota had a measurably smaller compliment of workers than GM even though they both had similar global sales.
Just speculation but I have to wonder if a walk through the buildings and grounds of the two companies would tell a tale of two cities, if not today then perhaps yesteryear. The opulence of GM’s 1950s cars seemed to be matched by the opulence of its buildings, Motoramas, leagues of salaried workers, endless departments and functions, and extravagant executive pay and perks. All was in balance but was ill-suited to the light footprint required to profit on small cars.
Rambler sales in the 1956-58 timeframe were much higher than VW, suggesting that it was the bigger driver of Big 3 compact car programs.
I bought a new 1974 Vega GT – except for the rust and high oil usage from the aluminum engine – I LOVED it. It was like a tank and even though it rusted faster than I liked, it would go through a foot of snow in the mountains of Pennsylvania. Even though it looked like a bucket of bolts by the time we got rid of it, my wife’s boss bought it from us because he was so impressed by the way it handled in bad weather. He got another 2-3 years out of his $250 purchase!
Was the Vega necessary if the Australians were considering an upsized six-cylinder capable 99-inch wheelbase T-Car aka Chevette platform during development for what became the Torana LH?
https://www.shannons.com.au/club/news/retroautos/lh-torana-inside-story-secret-photos-from-design-to-driveway/