One of the sadder stories in General Motors history is the Vega. On paper, the Vega was supposed to be a revolutionary compact built with advanced techniques to show the world that Detroit could still be a leader. In practice, the car rusted on showroom floors and fell apart, burning away the goodwill built by the engineering – but it wasn’t entirely a disaster. Chevrolet morphed the Vega into the sporty Monza, and for just a single year in 1975, Californians could get it with a 350 cubic inch V8. The weird part is that the Monza was never even supposed to get this engine.
One of the wildest parts about the Vega story is the car we got technically wasn’t the car we were supposed to get. The Vega was developed during a time when pretty much the whole world was allured by the promises of the Wankel rotary engine. In theory, a Wankel could have been more reliable than a piston engine since it has fewer moving parts. Because a rotary completes three full Otto cycles (intake, compression, combustion, exhaust) per rotation, a little 300cc rotary could produce the kind of power a piston engine of double the displacement puts out.
The thought was you could take a physically smaller Wankel and make a lighter-weight, more efficient car with it than a conventional piston engine would allow. Wankels rev high and have a phenomenal power-to-weight ratio. If you were an automaker or motorcycle manufacturer in the 1960s and the 1970s, the rotary seemed like the engine of the future and you were quick to nab a license from NSU, the engine’s home manufacturer.
As the New York Times reported in 1970, General Motors paid $50 million ($406,315,721 today) to NSU for global licensing rights to the Wankel engine. As the newspaper continued, the Wankel was known for problems including sealing issues, lubrication issues, and emitting heavy emissions. Engineers were confident that these issues had either already been solved by NSU or could be solved with more development.
In 1972, General Motors announced that by 1974, the Vega should have a rotary of GM design. The press praised this report, touting a future where American consumers would have quieter, smaller, more reliable cars while also pumping up the auto industry through the purchases of tools and machinery to manufacture rotary engines in America.
However, the dream wasn’t there yet. At the same time, it was reported that General Motors was battling wear caused by friction with its rotary’s apex seals and combustion chamber coating. At the time, Mazda figured a rotary would need to be rebuilt every 60,000 miles at a cost of $160 ($1,227 today). Making matters worse was the fact that as GM was finding out, rotaries were expensive to build and were heavy polluters.
Weirdly, the writing was already on the wall. In July 1973, Motor Trend reported that a 1975 Chevrolet Vega with a rotary would have achieved 16 to 18 mpg, worse than the 20 to 26 mpg offered by the four-cylinder. The major draw of the rotary was that it was supposed to be a greener engine, but all evidence pointed to the contrary.
Dark clouds hung over Michigan in 1974 when General Motors delayed its rotary indefinitely, citing an inability to get the engine to emit less pollution. By 1977, General Motors threw in the towel, with the New York Times reporting that General Motors canceled its rotary program after the engine failed to “demonstrate the potential for low emissions levels and fuel economy equal to those of current reciprocating piston engines.” As I’ve written before, nearly every single company that experimented with rotary power failed to prove the engine’s case. Mazda is still working with rotaries today but in a far reduced capacity than in the past.
General Motors wanted to place its Wankel in the Corvette-style GT, the Vega, and this, the Vega-based Monza. Since the thrifty Wankel never panned out, the General went with what it knew, America still got a sporty car and General Motors got a grail in the process.
Ambitious, But Problematic
I already recently wrote about the development of the Vega, so I won’t go over the whole thing. Click here to read that piece. But, if you missed it, I’ll make it quick. Hagerty quotes Michael Lamm from the April 2000 issue of Collectible Automobile magazine:
“Every specification, the way the Vega was engineered and styled, its performance, handling, fuel economy, quality, durability, ease of maintenance, comfort, options, body choices, the Lordstown assembly plant—even the way it was shipped—was carefully planned and refined by the best minds in the business. The goal was to make an automobile that would cost one dollar per pound, beat the VW Beetle in quality and value, one-up the Toyota Corona in amenities and performance and outsell what GM knew was coming from Ford, the Pinto … and he wanted it in showrooms in 24 months. This was a brutally short time to design and engineer a new car, especially one that borrowed almost nothing from any other. But timing was crucial.”
The Vega wasn’t just a car to compete with the imports, but it was supposed to show that General Motors still knew how to innovate. This was a car that was supposed to weigh less than a ton and be better than a Volkswagen Beetle in every conceivable way while also being an affordable technological marvel. Some 80 percent of the welds of a Vega were automated, reducing factory worker load and improving quality. The car was supposed to have a Wankel engine, but General Motors still gave it a novel aluminum block four, and there was even a brand-new process created just to ship the cars to dealerships.
Chevrolet General Manager John Z. DeLorean was tasked with selling the Vega, which was difficult because the Vega was designed through another new process. In the past, GM’s divisions had the autonomy to design and engineer their own cars, but the Vega was designed and engineered by GM corporate and then passed down to Chevrolet. Reportedly, Chevy’s engineers weren’t particularly thrilled with putting the finishing touches on a car they didn’t design in the first place.
This is often cited for the reason that the Vega was ambitious, but ended up a reliability disaster. The Vega quickly grew a reputation for rusting before the customer even took delivery and then falling apart, overheating, and destroying engines after purchase.
Truth be told, it wasn’t uncommon for the cars of the 1970s to be unreliable hunks of junk or rustbuckets. Many of our readers chimed in the last time around to talk about how quickly German cars reduced themselves to piles of iron oxide. The reviews by the legendary Bob Mayer of TV station WTVJ in Miami, Florida, showed that few brands seemingly knew how to put a car together well.
GM’s problems with the Vega never stopped it from continuing to develop the vehicle. Later, the Vega would try to fight the Europeans with the Cosworth Vega and then there was the Monza.
Chevrolet’s Answer To The Mustang II
According to Automobile Magazine, the pony car found itself on the ropes in the 1970s as demand waned. The AMC Javelin and Plymouth Barracuda died after the 1974 model years while the Dodge Charger became a personal luxury car in 1975. Meanwhile, the Ford Mustang was technically still a pony car, but it underwent a massive change to become the Mustang II.
As Automobile writes, General Motors planned to follow the rest of America’s automakers. GM President Ed Cole wanted to kill the Chevy Camaro, the Pontiac Firebird, and the Trans Am as he didn’t want to invest the cash to get the General’s pony cars to meet the bumper standards of the early 1970s. Ultimately, the General’s ponies were saved by enthusiasts within GM and its own dealers, who didn’t want to see these legends die. The fans were right, too, as sales of these cars ticked up.
The Monza 2+2 was a car for the times. It was a downsized sport coupe, allegedly borrowed its profile from the Ferrari 365 GTC/4, got an Italian name, and was supposed to have that novel Wankel engine. John Z. DeLorean referred to the Monza as “the Italian Vega.” The Monza was built on the Vega’s platform, sharing the 97-inch wheelbase and unibody. However, the Monza got its own body on top as well as the Vega GT’s torque-arm rear suspension with front and rear anti-roll bars designed to eliminate the wheel hop the Vega was known for during braking.
But, more than that, the Monza was supposed to be the sporty car the Vega didn’t really turn out to be. Unlike the Vega, this car even got V8 power, or what passed for V8 power in the Malaise Era, anyway. You may wonder why Chevy decided to build a V8 compact sports car on the bones of the Vega. According to DrivingLine, the appeal for GM was being able to create a new small model using the cheap existing architecture of the Vega.
Production began in late 1974 for the 1975 model year and GM hoped for a hit. The press seemed to love some aspects of the Monza. Road & Track complimented the vehicle’s drop-dead gorgeous looks but knocked it for having wheel covers that looked like alloy wheels instead of just having real alloy wheels. The publication also praised the fact that the Monza appeared to be quieter than the Vega it’s based on.
In terms of handling, the magazine said the Monza has neutral handling, but you could induce some oversteer if you try really hard. Otherwise, the car didn’t have much in the way of understeer, either. Road & Track concludes the Monza “goes pretty well where it’s pointed,” but warns that the steering has little road feel.
Unfortunately, when Road & Track compared the Monza against a Ford Mustang II V8, the Mustang II beat it in most measured performance metrics. It took the Mustang II 10.5 seconds to hit 60 mph while the Monza was a more leisurely 13.4-second sprint to 60 mph. The Mustang II stopped much quicker and had better lateral g acceleration, too, but the Monza destroyed the Mustang II in fuel economy. In the end, the publication actually found it hard to choose. Road & Track said the Monza handled better in the real world, was more pleasant to drive, was more comfortable, and perhaps most importantly in the fuel-crunched 1970s, was far cheaper to fuel. In the end, the magazine chose the Monza as the victor by a small margin. The Mustang II may have dominated on paper, but the Monza turned out to be the better real car.
The Grail
So, if you’re choosing a Monza survivor today, which one should you choose?
A base Monza had the Vega’s 140 cubic inch four, which made all of 70 HP. This engine could have been hopped up with a two-barrel carburetor, kicking power up to 84 HP. At first, the hot engine was the 262 cubic inch V8. This was the engine tested by Road & Track and it was good for a whopping 110 HP. Remember, V8s struggled big time to make power back in those days.
In 1976, the Monza saw the 262 replaced with a 305 cubic inch V8 that made 145 HP and 245 lb-ft of torque in 49 states and 135 HP and 240 lb-ft of torque in California. This would be the hottest engine placed in the Monza’s engine bay.
At the 10th Annual Galpin Car Show, I met a reader who said he had a Monza worth calling a Holy Grail. I apologize for forgetting your name, dear reader, but you told me that the Monza to rule them all was not the 305, but the 350 cubic inch V8.
Update: The reader was none other than Alec! Thank you so much!
Not only was this the largest engine put into the Monza, but it was also sold for just a single year in 1975. How does something like this happen? Well, the 262 was not certified for California, so GM chose a V8 engine that was and landed on the 350.
This engine was slightly hotter than the 262 and offered 125 HP and 235 lb-ft of torque. That was with a two-barrel carburetor. Our reader says the Monza community believes there are exactly two Monza 350s out there that were hopped up when new with four-barrel carburetors, but I wasn’t able to confirm this.
But what I can tell you is that it’s believed there are only 3,699 Monzas with the 350, which is impressive as a total of 731,504 Monzas were built over its six-model year production run. Our reader notes that the 350 is coveted in the Monza community and those who want more power don’t tend to have too many troubles as the 350 is quite receptive to tuning. I’ve seen some hopped-up 350-swapped Monzas claiming well over 300 HP.
It also looks like you’ll be able to find one of these for under $10,000. The problem will be just finding one for sale. It’s not hard to find a Monza for sale, but finding a 1975 with a factory 350 seems to be a challenge. As it is there weren’t many made. Who knows how many have survived to the modern day?
I’m also warned that it’s not all burnouts and power once you tune things. Remember that the Monza was originally designed to hold a Wankel, not a chunky V8. The difficulty of basic maintenance was such a big deal it was the subject of an article in the New York Times, from the newspaper:
The plug is very close to the steering column and sometimes the engine has to be lifted as much as one‐half inch in order to remove the plug, a spokesman said. “It would be easier to jack up the horn button and put whole new car under it,” said one disgruntled Chevrolet dealer service manager who did not want to he identified.
That doesn’t sound fun! But, if you can put up with maintenance that would make a modern Volkswagen blush, it sounds like you’ll be getting an underrated ’70s coupe. The Monza has gotten old enough that just seeing one still rolling around will be special enough, then you’ll pop open the hood and reveal that surprisingly large engine in a small car. Just, don’t think about the spark plugs.
Do you know of or own a car, bus, motorcycle, or something else worthy of being called a ‘holy grail’? Send me an email at mercedes@theautopian.com or drop it down in the comments!
(Images: General Motors, unless otherwise noted.)
.jpg){kind=link}
I’ll never be able to read 70’s V8 specs and not hear “How do they get so few horsepower out of a V8 motor?”
https://youtu.be/0oXNk5j8V88?si=6Cfx7Tk9s8Udf8S8&t=9
*I understand the whys and hows, that’s just a phrase that’s permanently seared into my memory…
A Buddy in high school had one with the 262 and a 4 speed. It was not at all fast, but I do remember it was kind of nose heavy and light in the tail and you could dump the clutch and do an incredible burnout. Made the car sound a lot meaner than it was.
A roomate in college had a 305 with the automatic. It was ridiculously slow.
At this point, I would skip these Vega turds and get a nice Caprice Classic instead…
From GM fever dream to a punchline in a The Tubes song… Google “What do you want from life.” About 3:49 into the song.
my Mom’s first car was a Vega, a 1971 model she bought used in 1974 – she really wanted a 1969 Corvair that was on the same lot, but my grandfather insisted that 5 years was too old for a car, and a 3 year old model would have a lot more life in it. She still has PTSD from that thing, apparently left an oil slick everywhere it went, blew through antifreeze the way most cars use gasoline, and, eventually, shredded the gears in the transmission, one by one, until she was running in 3rd all the time. That one finally went out on Broad Street in Philadelphia and she junked it and bought a new Pontiac Sunbird, ironically a badge-engineered Monza, the defacto 2nd gen Vega. Had a T-top and a 4 speed and was fairly loaded, she actually loved that car, and still regrets getting rid of it. She had it rust treated annually from new to prevent winter corrosion issues and says it was completely reliable, but, ultimately, traded it in on a more practical Plymouth Horizon as a 4-door family car, which turned out to be a total disaster almost as bad as the Vega.
Should add that she’s a Toyota loyalist these days
I’d hardly call a 75 350 2 barrel “hot”. Oh and the trick back in the 80’s to make plug changes on Monzas easier was to take a hole saw and cut a hole in the inner fender.
It was rated for 125 but near as anyone can tell it was just the 145hp 2bbl. You know how manufacturers were about power ratings. But hey, who left them stock?
Yeah kind of crappy cars even with the V8. But due to lightness and RWD they quickly became the best/cheapest drag cars when modified and they are still out there now. GM made a ton of them and some lasted longer in the dry west . Not bad. But still ok
There was a drag Vega that I used to see around town. It was a baby blue hatchback and it was jacked up at the rear to accommodate huge drag slicks. The rear view was literally Drag Slick-Pumpkin-Drag Slick. No visible axle. It also had a parachute mounted to the rear. Appeared to be stock wheelbase, which scared the sh*t out of me even as a teen.
I assumed he was driving it to the drag strip, about 45 miles away. Because of that car, I still have a soft spot for Vegas.
The 3.8L (231 CID) Buick V6 wasn’t a bad engine in this vehicle – I had a ’79 “S” hatchback with the Saginaw 4 speed manual transmission, which had a bad 2nd gear synchro ring. But I only paid $250 for this thing (this was in the mid 80s) and I knew how to massage that without crashy sounds when driving. Grey exterior and bordello red inside.
Unfortunately, the Vega heritage made itself known in these things in various infuriating ways.
Cheap nylon brake “hardware” and junk-metal pins that held the calipers in place would eventually cause the caliper to work loose and make braking a real adventure.
The vehicle itself had a very weird lack of body stiffness. Closest thing I could compare it to is a Sebring convertible. If you’ve driven one of those, you’d recognize the wet-cardboard-like body flex on uneven or undulating pavement.
Two-door, so the hinges were utter trash because the brass bushings that kept the doors from sagging when open were long gone. Replaced the bushings, but the doors were always a little off on that car.
Front spring collapse wasn’t unusual, and having the clutch cable rip through the firewall was an invective-inducing moment that wasn’t uncommon as well. See, the cable mount put stress on the location where the cable passed through the firewall, which of course was not reinforced.
This was bought cheap because it had experienced a warped oil pump shaft (gerotor oil pump driven off the distributor). It was stuck good; I had to use a slide hammer to get it out of the housing and my entire body weight could hang from that thing. Once I replaced that, it ran surprisingly well. Funny thing was the car would run but the oil light would flicker on and off. Once I was able to check oil pressure with a gauge and saw what was up, it was surgery time for that pump.
Two other sad things happened to this car. One, my foot slipped off the clutch while trying to accelerate into traffic and the result was a slam-shift that exploded the clutch plate and broke the bellhousing. Very lucky I wasn’t injured. Second, while driving on the interstate one night, a new ticking sound became a loud bang and subsequent red lights on the dash. Broken con rod. It went to the boneyard after that, but I did get $50 for scrap.
I forgot about the brake hardware and the caliper pins. The keeper on the pin would come off and the pin would work its way out and rum the rim. I finally drilled the ends of the pins and used cotter keys on them which solved the issue. The clutch cable was another sore spot also. Then the insulation in the heater system deteriorated, and on defrost you’d get all of these particles of debris blowing around.
That heater thing happened to me suddenly, and I was like, “why is it SNOWING in my car, wait, that’s not snow, what the hell?”
I bought my Skyhawk in 1981 when I was 19 with 40,000 miles drove it until early 1989 with just under 100,000 miles. A friend had bought a 1979 Buick Road Hawk with the glass roof just before I got mine. Mine was faster stock than his even though I had the odd fire 3.8 and his 79 had the better flowing high port heads. When I swapped to the Holley four barrel intake, I found one intake port on the head was nearly covered half way with casting flash which I ended up grinding out with a die grinder talk about quality control.
“So, if you’re choosing a Monza survivor today, which one should you choose?”
It wouldn’t matter since whatever was under the hood would be replaced.
I’m sure there is a junkyard 4th-gen Firebird with a solid 3800 Series 2 drivetrain and a complete wiring harness somewhere within 20 miles of my house. That would be way more fun than an emasculated ’70s SBC for dirt cheap, with the added benefit of not having to loosen the motor mounts to change the spark plugs.
A 3800 was literally my first thought. Then an Iron Duke.
That’s the correct choice. Sure, an SBC can be built up way farther, but it’s too much weight for the nose of the poor thing
GM (and to be fair, Chrysler, Ford, and AMC) were too cheap (i.e.focused on profits), lazy, and arrogant to be arsed to find ways to make more than 135hp from a smogged V-8. Everything that made the Malaise Era so very malaise can be blamed on the arrogance of the Big 3+1.
Honda bolted their CVCC system onto a GM V8 engined car and it passed smog testing without a catalyst. GM were not amused.
But CVCC was a dead end in itself. Was curious, what kind of Performance on the CVCC V8?
Torch wrote an article on this in his past life. Apparently it made 160 HP (net) which was the same as with cats. Better hydrocarbon and monoxide reduction, but not as good NOx removal. Mad respect to Soichiro for this ultimate clapback to GM’s verbal diss.
My first car was a 1978 Camaro with the boat anchor 305/2bbl. My friend ate my lunch in a drag race one night with his 1979 Ford Fiesta. That was the night I learned an object lesson in power to weight ratio. That car was slower than a tax refund, but boy, she sure was pretty.
Those times Toyotas were MUCH better value for money…..the only issue with them was that they tended to rust out like most other cars….But, sadly we see today, the QC issues and Tundra/Tacoma debacle (with the high cost engine replacements) is making them like the domestics in 1970s…The loyalists will kill me for saying this, but it is what it is…
Annnnnnd you’re back with more anti-Toyota nonsense lol
It is not nonsense…look at the new Tundras and Tacomas if you do not believe me…
In the early ’70s, needing an explanation for what they were going to do with the GM Rotary, the company claimed an upgraded Vega coming while Pininfarina was discretely working on the big-step-ahead Monza. While being the same platform, chassis details of the H-body particularly with front structure were upgraded and the transmission tunnel raised for the higher rotary centerline. Early press renderings showed four round headlights before GM tree’d the competition by taking a gamble that rectangulars would be DOT-approved. As it became apparent the rotary would not be used, GM shifted the program into being Mustang II competition and the H-body engine bay which no matter who says what just “happened” to accept V6 and V8 engines, got ’em in appropriate versions. Anti-roll bars of-course don’t affect wheel hop but the rear torque arm handled power better than the well-designed-regardless Vega 4-link. The Monza brand effectively shed some of the already-toast Vega name, they sold well and were an excellent car. I had a ’75 V6 Skyhawk with the raised tunnel and a buddy had a ’76 305 Monza where the stamping was lowered upon abandonment of the Rotary, a friend had the Pontiac-version 151 cid with an overdrive 5-speed…any of those cars handled and rode very well, were as reliable as anything else and would keep up with traffic at the time. If I could think of one gripe it would be heavy doors wearing on the hinges, same as a contemporary F-body. I’d happily be driving one today.
Then came the J-car. That would be a vehicle I have nothing nice to say about.
My last car was a base-model ’74 II and now I have the TOTL ’75 350 Monza, and man… That tall tunnel really is huge. Plus jacking it up is always fun watching the nose try to stay on the ground. There’s a pic out there of a round-headlight car that looks a lot like a 78ish Celica
So….I own a ’77 Monza ‘Spyder’ fitted with the range topping, Tarmac rippling, 305. It’s a confused car. Adorned with a big Arachnid on the hood, named after an Italian race track, some ‘Ferrariesque’ styling apparently (if you have cataracts) and ‘Spyder’ decals writ large on the sides and rear (‘Spyder’ being typically used to describe an Italian convertible, not an American hatchback). Because of the aborted Rotary program and the hasty re-engineering to accept the V8, there are a lot of compromises. The central tunnel is raised to accept the higher output shaft of a Rotary, which has an adverse effect on interior space. The sump, exhaust manifolds and water pump are all unique to the Monza fitment and that sump (and transmission pan) are easily damaged (ask me how I know). The amount of times I’ve been looking to buy parts (like headers or a replacement sump), only to see ‘excludes Monza’ in the small print…Even a common upgrade like new wheels is damn near impossible because they are cursed with a 4 x 4″ stud pattern. New, replacement panel parts aren’t available, and even windscreens are getting hard to source. They were poorly built new and harder to rebuild now.
BUT! – people love it. I drive it every other day and the amount of comments, Shaka’s and thumbs up I get when cruising around is awesome. It’s one of only a handful I know of here in New Zealand (including a recently imported Californian 350 car). I’m certain there are more here as race cars than there are as road cars. It sounds pretty good (had to cut a muffler out because it was crushed from bottoming out), handles ok and, after a tune-up last Sunday, also goes ok too – for what it is. Most of the mechanical shortcomings can be addressed and that’s the plan, it’ll just take a little longer than my Camaro.
I have always thought those were cool little cars. A friend of mine had one in high school that was already falling apart when he got it.
I coulda sworn it was a shorty Corvette waterpump, just with a mega-overdrive pulley. Probably should make sure before I swap it for an aluminum one!
Def check and let me know – mine’s just started leaking…(of course it has!)
The super H body cars (Monza) and their Corporate cousins used to be everywhere. Now you rarely see them. Had a 77 Buick Skyhawk with V6 4 speed, it had the F41 handling package with the quicker ratio steering. It handled pretty good back in the day. The interior was crap and falling apart at 4 years old. Mine was Firethorn red with white interior like the leading photo, I added the Monza Spyder front and rear spoilers. I added a four barrel and headers which helped the performance. It was my main transportation in the 80’s. They looked good for the time period. Do I miss it, not really.
Oh man, I forgot to mention: The F41 was standard on the earlier ’75 cars, so all the 350 cars (which were fully loaded) had it. Only for 76 with the S (lower trim) was F41 an option and the main draw of the Spyder, so the 350 cars were big-motor Spyders without the decals.
Had a manual Monza V8 262 back when I was in uni. Spent way too much money on it, put headers on it, a 4 barrel carb, and even then it could barely get out of its way. At least it sounded great.
Barely made it to 3 years old when it started falling apart, literally. Just seeing pics of one sends chills down my spine.
The V8 4sp car is the one to have even if it is a 262, since that is easier to replace than converting an AT car to the 4sp.
I really wanted to see if I could drop a 350 into it, but when gathering the cost, it rapidly went to, do this, or be able to eat and pay rent.
There was a slightly more rarified air Vega. the Yenko Stinger Turbo was also one year only and considering where Don Yenko sold cars it was likely only a one or two stater. but I recall any a V8 Vega’s being tough to beat on the street. it would never be a terrible thing to have started the show with a factory 350 for hopping up over time.
They were the lightweight darlings of 1/8th-mile drag strips all over the place when I was a kid, as well as Monzas and Mustang IIs.
I recall an old friend who would take us out for Italian and when the food came he would say “Monza” and hold his arms out waving for everyone to eat lots.
Miss you Joe Man.
A friend of mine in high school had a Monza liftback, with the 262 and a manual transmission. I don’t remember if it was a 4-speed or a 5-speed, but it was a sharp looking car in black over red. He was a fairly handy mechanic for a teenager, and since you can get SBC speed parts pretty much at any mini mart, he had hopped it up a bit. It was pretty quick for a kid’s car circa 1986-87.
Unfortunately he had it one the lift at the local vocational school one day, I’m not sure who was responsible for this but it fell off. He drove it around for a little bit after that, all bent, but soon after it simply disappeared. A shame that, it was a neat little car.
My friend Tim had one while I was at UCSB! It was awesome since in the early 80’s (At UCSB from 81-85) cars were so underpowered! We would take it out on Stage Coach Road in the mountains behind UCSB, and had fun driving it on the Rincon on our was to LA!.It was a three speed automatic, but it was still a blast! I remember the chassis was pretty flexi! His was red with a white interior!
This, in a strange, backwards way, sounds a lot like the Ford Focus PZEV of the early ’00s. The first Foci stateside were powered either by a SOHC 2.0l, leftover from the Escort, or a DOHC 2.0l from the Contour (and ZX2). The most you could get early on was 130hp. The SVT Focus for 02 bumped power up to 170hp, but only 145lb/ft torque (at many RPMs).
In trying to create a veh that met PZEV emission targets of green (Cali emissions) states, Ford turned to the DOHC 2.3l from Mazda, which they’d been using in the Ranger since ’01. The 2.3l “Duratec” was clean enough in the Focus to meet Green state emission targets, qualifying as a PZEV vehicle, and even the PZEV 15y/150,000mi emissions warranty. Most importantly, it made 145hp and 150lb/ft at a more usable 4,000RPM. It was only available in green states and became the standard engine in those states.
true, I recall one of my friends from college got a pre-owned 2003 or 2004 Focus 4dr sedan with the 2.3 Duratec. It’s appliance white paint paired with 14″ factory wheel covers and crank windows would make you believe it had a puny 2.0 split port under the hood. If it just had a 5 spd instead of the 4F27 slushbox, though….
For the youngins, spark plugs back then needed to be replaced MUCH more often than now.
And you often had to manually adjust the gap that the spark occurred in.
mostly because tuning a carb, especially in the malaise era when timing was retarded and adjustment screws were hidden to avoid mucking with them, the result was often rich or lean running vehicles.
I’ve read that the driveline tunnel was comparatively high in the Vega/Monza due to the planned use of a rotary engine.
Correct, but only for 75. 76s had a lower tunnel.
“got an Italian name,” One of the best tracks in the world, more than just a name.
Unpopular opinion, Monza sucks as a race track. Everything gets bottled up at the chicanes, half the pass attempts at those result in one of the cars cutting the chicane or being forced off. Watch a junior series race there and I can almost guarantee a third of the race laps will be behind the safety car.
A full-on pro-touring Monza, with an LS3, 6-speed manual, and Corvette chassis parts would be quite a fast car.
Just make it a tribute to those IMSA Monzas, those things were wild.
I would see those in magazines when I was a kid, and I thought they were the most badass looking race car I’ve ever seen.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT1g12VT0xPMTpCXNOIVjdaV7QBv1zYYADDkiJ0KiFY8g&s
Neat little fact, the Monza was basically a 3rd gen Camaro predecessor. Same torque arm, plant, all that, and cancelled in 1980 for a 1982 Camaro release
“Camaro III”
My dad had a 350 Monza when he was living in LA in the mid-70s. To this day he will happily tell anyone who will listen about how big of a pile of crap that car was. He admits the Vega it replaced was worse, but the 350 was heavy, anemic and really only had the V8 sound and some torque on its side. He happily got rid of it when he took a job outside of Cali a year or two later and replaced it with a lightly-used ’75 Slant-6 Dart. He hated the car so much that he refused to let me pick up a Monza project car when I was 16 or 17, even though it was only like $200 and actually ran.
Monza to Dart, talk about from the frying pan into the fire. My dad’s ’74 Dart Sport slanty bought the farm at only 70k, puked a con rod like it was yesterday’s sushi.
And he went right back to the Chrysler dealer for his next car.
Yeah, my dad somehow had good luck with his, but my grandfather had a similar experience to your dad with his Slant-6 Valiant and swore off Chrysler afterwards.
it was likely the one year difference. the first year catalytic converters really did a number on vehicle drivability and reliability over time.
Mopar Quality Lottery. Get a good one and they can be as reliable as anything, but they’ve had more than their fair share of lemons at any given point.
It seems like Mopar products from back in the day only come in two quality levels: Swiss watch, and Swiss cheese. My family hasn’t owned too many Chrysler products, but we’ve had good luck with the ones we’ve had. Better luck than average, I would say. But when you get a good one, you really get a good one. When you don’t, you truly don’t.
And yet the very same people who happily accepted that reality (general malaise-era garbage) are the same ones who always complain about how modern cars are crap…
True, I kind of like the sweet spot in between. Late 90s-early 2000s cars have just enough computerization to make them run right, but not so much as to become a pain in the ass (expensive repairs, nannies, etc).