News:

"The phone is a remarkably complex, simple device,
and very rarely ever needs repairs, once you fix them." - Dan/Panther

Main Menu

Chevy Corvair or Vega

Started by AE_Collector, August 22, 2010, 02:00:06 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Shovelhead

#15
I'll add some Vega information. I owned one, and worked in Chevy dealership parts departments at that time.

The 71-74 Vega was built without a fender liner. Hence, mud, salt, calcium chloride was kicked up by the front tires. The cowl panel, engine compartment sides and fenders rusted away rapidly. Basically unprotected metal, with a coat of paint more or less applied quickly, which was the norm at the time.

In about '75, GM had a special policy to replace fenders and repair (?) rust damage to these cars. The factory "fix" was to install new fenders with a thick coating of a hard undercoating applied to the insides of the fenders. But still no fender liners were installed. So, the road splash STILL collected in the cowl and the engine compartment panels. We installed a new design set of fenders on mine, sandblasted the cowl and undercoated it along with installing a set of 1975  fender liners.  But once rust starts, it continues. I always washed under my fenders, but I was the exception, not the rule.

The engine was good for it's time, but coupled with a low capacity cooling system and no coolant recovery tank, it was easy to run them low. This coupled with the aluminum block and a cast iron head having different expansion rates coupled with a weak head gasket design prone to failures spelled disaster to the engine.  And owners were not using a 50/50 mix of coolant and water many times. Straight water caused electrolysis in the cooling system, adding to problems. We had factory authorized reman engines supplied by GM for replacements again on a special policy. There was a campaign at the time to add a coolant recovery jar and a low coolant warning module to 71 to 74's.  In 75 they were factory installed.

I actually liked my Vega, in fact I drove it like I stole it. It lasted about 90k on the original engine. When the rear shock absorbers ripped out of the floor, it was time to go away.

The parts books listed a rotary engine for 1975, but it never made production. It was pulled at the last minure due to the seals on the rotor prematurely wearing out.

Another piece of trivia, this time for the 1975 Monza. The 262 V8 engine was delayed due to engine valves not meeting the EPA emission standards for wear, a 50k durability test.
In it's place a low output 350 engine was substituted. a small block was a tight fit in that engine compartment. Replacing the rear spark plugs was a real treat, IIRC you had to either lift the engine or drill holes in the engine compartment to access them.

McHeath

Had a friend with that version of Monza where you had to do magic tricks to replace the plugs.  That was crazy, what were they thinking putting a car like that out on the street?  Someone else I knew had a car that you could not replace the oil filter on without jacking up the engine as well after loosening the mounts, I don't recall the car make however.

And that fender liner story is priceless, for a few bucks per car they could have avoided much of that problem and the massively bad publicity, but the suits made the call and we all know what happened as a result. 


KeithB

I owned a 1977 Monza with the 5.0 Litre (305 cubic inch) V8.  For all that displacement, the poor beast barely made 135 to 150 horsepower.  You could actually change the rear plugs without cutting the fender wells, but not unless you had very small hands.  The A/C compressor made it particularly difficult.  Regarding the valves, mine started wearing out between 60K and 75K miles.  It lived with a valve tapping until I finally had her hauled away, somewhere about 90K miles.  I'll miss the old gal, she did me good for many years.

HarrySmith

Yeah ,in the mid 70's GM really choked the V-8 trying to cut emissions. I recall a Corvette V-8 that only had around 190 horses :o
Harry Smith
ATCA 4434
TCI

"There is no try,
there is only
do or do not"

AE_Collector

Quote from: KeithB on August 24, 2010, 01:25:22 PM
I owned a 1977 Monza with the 5.0 Litre (305 cubic inch) V8.  For all that displacement, the poor beast barely made 135 to 150 horsepower.  You could actually change the rear plugs without cutting the fender wells, but not unless you had very small hands.  The A/C compressor made it particularly difficult.  Regarding the valves, mine started wearing out between 60K and 75K miles.  It lived with a valve tapping until I finally had her hauled away, somewhere about 90K miles.  I'll miss the old gal, she did me good for many years.

Are you sure it was a 305? I thought the 305 was designed more in the 80's. Pretty sure they used a 262 V8 but maybe there were other optional engines. I know that the 262 was pretty low on the horses as you describe. The 70's were a bad time for performance!

What color was your Monza, Keith? I saw the white one with black trim and really wanted it but had my new 1974 Vega already and had just finished putting the 350 into it.

Terry

HarrySmith

from Wikipedia:
305
Production: 1976–2000
Displacement: 305 cu in (5 L)
Power: 130 hp (97 kW)-250 hp (186 kW)
Bore and Stroke: 3.736 × 3.48 in (94.9 × 88.4 mm)
Harry Smith
ATCA 4434
TCI

"There is no try,
there is only
do or do not"

AE_Collector

Quote from: Shovelhead on August 23, 2010, 10:49:02 PM

In it's place a low output 350 engine was substituted. a small block was a tight fit in that engine compartment. Replacing the rear spark plugs was a real treat, IIRC you had to either lift the engine or drill holes in the engine compartment to access them.

Thanks for the input Shovelhead. Was it definitely a 350, not a 305 engine? I never heard that before. I didn't have much trouble changing the plugs on my V8 Vega. I think I did have trouble when I had the headers on it but I got a set of GM exhaust manifolds off of a 1980ish V8 (might have been an early 305 V8) that fit real nice so I junked the headers and side pipes and went with a conventional underneath dual exhaust on the Vega.

I had the retrofit low fluid indicator installed by GM. Can't recall if I had the V8 in it then or not. Proibabaly not as they would have shown me the door! I actually ran the V8 with the larger stock Vega radiator from the GT version of the car. Can't say that I never had problems with that combination on a long trip in hot weather but it got me by and kept the engine compartment looking like a stock GM offering. Took a couple inches out of the driveshaft and that took care of that. Unlike the Pinto that came with a driveshaft that looked like 1 inch EMT (electrical conduit)

Terry

Wallphone

They had a lot of valve problems with that 5.0 Chevy engine. GM also got sued because they were putting that defective Chevy engine in Buick's & not telling anyone. When I bought a new 1978 Buick Regal it had that engine in it but they told you beforehand. At about 50,000 miles it started clicking and I lived with it until I sold it. I also had to replace the flywheel because the teeth wore out from not being heat treated correctly. No, I didn't try to start it while it was already running. Plus I had to get it repainted because the silver paint fell off. I never bought another Buick.
Dougpav

AE_Collector

#23
Ever since the Chevy Engine in Buicks fiasco hasn't the wording been something like "Equipped with a GM Engine"? I still see vehicles around with peeled paint, another huge fiasco.

Terry

Dennis Markham

DougPav, it was about 1978- 1979 that the City where I worked bought Buick patrol cars.  Only two of them.  They had V8 engines (I have no idea what cubic inch) but those cars were always in for repair.  The heads on the engines actually warped and were each time replaced by the factory.  At that time several manufacturers were making police vehicles so there were some choices.  But we never bought a Buick again.  Unfortunately the shift was toward the Dodge Diplomats in the early 80's.  Another car that was problematic and we hated to drive.

JorgeAmely

Dennis:

You think the Buick engine in the police cars was bad? What about the Oldsmobile V8 diesel engine (converted from a gas engine)? I had a friend with one and had my share in trying to keep it alive. The starter pinion sometimes stripped trying to turn around the engine (which was diesel now). During the years she had it it had two cylinder head gaskets installed. The engine was not robust enough to contains the pressure developed by the diesel combustion.  >:( >:( >:(

I wonder where the rocket scientist that designed it is now?  ??? ??? ???
Jorge

AE_Collector

Quote from: JorgeAmely on August 24, 2010, 06:19:06 PM
I wonder where the rocket scientist that designed it is now?  ??? ??? ???

Well, of course he was a "Rocket Scientist"...Oldsmobile Rocket 88 etc....

Terry

KeithB

Quote from: ae_collector on August 24, 2010, 01:40:02 PM
Quote from: KeithB on August 24, 2010, 01:25:22 PM
I owned a 1977 Monza with the 5.0 Litre (305 cubic inch) V8.  For all that displacement, the poor beast barely made 135 to 150 horsepower.
What color was your Monza, Keith? I saw the white one with black trim and really wanted it but had my new 1974 Vega already and had just finished putting the 350 into it.

Terry
It was red with a white vinyl half-roof.  Let's not leave out that other chemical engineering of the late 70s, where the vinyl used for the dash and center consoles rapidly discolored, apparently because it was somewhat porous and unstable.  It was impossible to keep one looking decent, even using ArmorAll vinyl cleaner and protectors. 

McHeath

Great stories all.  It's fun to recall these cars, one rarely sees one on the roads now.  The 70's cars were such trouble in so many ways, I'm figuring it was the start of emission controls that hit the car makers squarely in the nose and they were slow to adapt.  I had a 73' Chevy pickup with the 350 that got horrific gas mileage and in return gave some pathetic horsepower figure of like 145 ponies or such.  And of course the dash cracked all to heck and gone, the door panel plastics turned into some sort of chalky mess, and the the transmission failed repeatedly.  Lots of other just little problems were endless, U joints, brakes, AC, radiator, and it even managed to develop some rust in the front lower fender corners, a shock here in our area. 

What's interesting is how durable cars can be now.  My youngest just bought from another family member a 98' Dodge Neon R/T with 160k on the dial.  But it runs fine, never had any major work done, not even a clutch.  And my wife's 95' Honda Civic is creeping up to 200k and also has never had any major work done, just keeps going.  Sure things break on them, but it's not like the problems we all recall being so common in the 70's and early 80's. 


Phonesrfun

Quote from: McHeath on August 24, 2010, 07:56:38 PM
......but it's not like the problems we all recall being so common in the 70's and early 80's. 

I think those were dark days for Detroit, and what wound up letting the imports get their foot in the door, and rightly so.  Now, things seem to have really turned around as far as quality is concerned.  I have a 2000 Mustang V-6 with about 150k and it runs really well.  I did have to replace a rear axle bearing recently, but that's another story.
-Bill G