Talk:Chevrolet Vega

Dodge Charger

Mentioning Vega parts used for Dodge Chargers does not belong under Vega Hot Rodding...Keep it in the Charger Article.Vegavairbob (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cosworth Vega

"The limited-edition 1975 to 1976 Cosworth Vega (see main picture) was a special performance version of the subcompact introduced long before cars like the Golf GTI' or Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution."

The golf gti was introduced in 1976 and the scirocco gti already in 1975. definitely not long before as mentioned above.

Body styles

The body styles as they are currently listed are incorrect. I've already edited the page once to correct the mistake, but someone switched it back, so it is once again incorrect. From 1971 to 1977, the four available body styles were the sedan (notchback), coupe (hatchback), kammback wagon, and Panel Express (sedan delivery) . For the sake of the Vega, please do not switch it back again. If you doubt my credibility, I can provide a scanned copy from an original 1971 sales brochure (upon request).

Edit: I have made the necessary modifications.

Edit2: Jeremy, I can back you up on the glove box issue. My '73 hatchback had one but my '71 Panel Express doesn't. So some of them did, some of them didn't.

The Panel Express was discontinued at the end of the '75 model year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegavairbob (talk • contribs) 06:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"First with front discs standard"

I was going to mention that GM trucks got front discs standard in 1971 as well, but then it dawned on me that another GM product received standard front discs long before either - the Chevrolet Corvette. I can't find any references for the exact year but the discs would've become standard by '68 at the absolute latest, and I'm almost certain they became standard sometime during the second generation. Ayocee 00:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Chevy Vega Wagon Kammback.jpg

I was sent the following message regarding the image. Does anyone have have a way of explaining or adding to the description so that the Station Wagon picture can remain? It is a simple scan of from a publicity (promotional) item. Thanks! CZmarlin 02:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Chevy Vega Wagon Kammback.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Glove Box

I don't know if they meant all the vegas had no glove box, but my 1974 has one so unless it isn't traditional than the article may be wrong Jeremy

The Price Is Right

The first game played on the first episode of The Price Is Right, Any Number, offered a 1972 Vega as the prize. It was won, making the Vega the first car ever given away by the show. Would this be too trivial to include in the article, or should it be added? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

It's not that the Vega is a bad car, OR a good car. It's just that there are plenty of folks out there who view the Vega as a poor car. Just a quick Internet search revealed:

Sale were terrific, hovering around 400,000 through 1974. But after that, Vega's propensity to rust and a deserved reputation for poor engine reliability began to catch up with it. [1]

• Only 72-73 models didn't have inner fender liners, so only these early models had rust problems.

In 76, Vegas had Galvenized sheet metal and several layers of rust preventative treatments. Outlined in 76 changes. I will add the How stuff works link. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

"It depends on your definition," said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Auto Safety. "People pick on a vehicle like the Yugo, which was just a generic lemon. The Ford Pinto was a safety lemon. The Chevrolet Vega was an engineering lemon. The Edsel was a styling lemon." [2]

It wasn't an engineering lemon. The aluminum engine REQUIRED full oil and coolant levels and a fully functional cooling system. If engine was properly maintained it lasted as long as any other. The engineering was sound. That's a FACT.

I will add this link. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

The Vega was an early attempt by General Motors to break into the fuel-efficient compact car market. Unfortunately, the Vega quickly earned a reputation for consuming, not gasoline, but motor oil. The Vega's aluminum engine just wasn't up to the job and, according to various sources, the cars were plagued by mechanical problems, including a hearty appetite for lubricants. Premature rusting was another commonly reported issue. [3]

• Worn or brittle valve stem seals was the reason for the Vega's high oil consumption as the engine accumulated higher miles. (76 models had longer life seals) The typical owner didn't have them replaced because it wasn't on the maintainence list and was more involved than a tune-up....neither was the thermostat on the list, which if it failed could lead to overheating and possible engine damage. These facts are mentioned in the article.

I will add this link to article. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

When I wrote recently about 10 cars that sank Detroit, I thought that by including the Ford Pinto, I would capture everything wrong with the wheezer-mobiles Detroit started pumping out in the 1970s. But even worse than the Pinto, many readers insisted, was the Chevrolet Vega. This compact, meant to take on imports like the Volkswagen Beetle, actually won honors as Motor Trend's Car of the Year for 1971. It sold well. Then the body started to rust. The aluminum engine started to warp. There were engine fires and mounting recalls. Horrified buyers fled, and General Motors killed the car by the late 1970s. [http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/12/19/the-chevy-vega-the-worst-detroit-car-ever.html

• It's really too bad Rick doesn't have any statistics about how many of the first million Vegas( 71-73) rusted prematurely compared to ANY 70's cars including Toyotas. Let's see, I think I saw ONE 71 Toyota on the road in the last 20 years. Maybe he should do a little more research for some facts. The fact is early Vegas had no inner fender liners (added for '74 up models) so the premature rusting was the 71-73 models front fenders (under certain conditions ie.salt, etc.) Chevrolet replaced rust damaged fenders on 71-73 models under Vega's expanded warranty. The rate of rusting on other parts of the car was no more than any other car domestic or foreign made at the time.

By the way, since I don't have any statistics on how many fenders rusted, I just mentioned the cause for the possible rusting (no liners and when it was corrected (1974 models) and what Chevrolet did about it (replaced '71-'73 rust damaged fenders for free) That's neutral. Your article and countless others on the web just like beating a dead horse.

And the Vega didn't help sink Detroit (or GM) as the FWD vehicle that replaced the Vega/Monza sold half a million cars in its first year (1980) (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

More importantly, there's this blurb (which comes after the one negative review of the Vega): Readers had some info for the C&D.com staff, posting a few Vega reviews of their own. CD from Burleson, Tx. said...

• This was deleted (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Comments made on a "comment section" on an online article? Not exactly Wikipedia reference material

Omhseoj (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

These are owners reviews of the cars they owned over 30 years ago in reply to the negative-biased web article. The article info, the link for the article and the owners reviews in reply to the article are listed at the end of the Reviews and awards subsection.(VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

This article outlines the Chevrolet Vega. The review section has a reference for every single comment and review. The negative car and driver review is 38 years after the car was introduced (current review with a link)... DeLorean section written 10 years after introduction has his negative comments pertaining to Vega's design and GM's mismanagement concerning the car. Some of the road test reviews have negative comments about the engine roughness and noise. I have not written any of my opinions in the article. The reviews are from auto magazines and owners. I will add the above links to the article. (1972) and Lordstown Factory strikes. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

don't need all problems listed, it is possible to find all kind of statements from different sources, all is needed facts --Typ932 ^T·C 06:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• I will add these links to article.(VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

I deleted the posts from the Car & Driver.com message board. The problem with including a quote from "CD from Burleson, Tx" is that we have no idea who CD is. Is he/she an expert in the automotive field? A skilled mechanic? A highly-educated auto engineer? Or just some guy/gal who once owned a Vega and thought that it was pretty good? References, facts, and commentary must come from a reputable source. It's like the difference between a professional historian saying (after much research and deliberation) "I believe that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest American President" versus you or I making that same statement.Omhseoj (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Good article, but as a former Vega owner (and GM employee), it seems a little too much pro-Vega. Our 1973 model lasted 60,000 miles. The tops of the fenders rusted through in a year (although to be fair, everything rusted back then) and the dealer certainly didn't offer to replace them under warranty (warranty back then was 12 months, 12,000 miles) and when my brother drove the car, he let it get hot and it killed the engine. (although, try that with a BMW sometime, same result).

The engine was difficult to tune. I remember fruitlessly trying to get it to run smoothly - the engine rocked back and forth in the engine bay like a baby in a cradle. Mixture and idle controls were locked from the factory, there was little the user could do to adjust the engine. It just ran rough, and that was it, due to the horrible inherent harmonic balance. The "Do-it-yourself" manual that came with the car was another marketing joke targeted at the self-reliant movements of the time (back then, your average hippie could rebuilt a VW engine with little more than a few open end wrenches and a pair of pliers). The "so-it-yourself" repairs were very limited and mostly things like oil changes and checking tire pressure. Pretty much everything else was "take it to the dealer" and of course the dealers probably insisted on that.

GM was pushing 3-speeds in these cars when the Japanese were selling 4- and 5-speed transmissions. Again, one of those "It could have been great, if only..." kind of deals, but there are so MANY of them - it could have been great, if only it was a Toyota Celica. Let's just cut to the chase here.

By 1975, the car was the butt of jokes and derision. GM's solution was to tag the motor "Durabuilt" as if the marketing could trump reality. However, I doubt many saw through the ruse. Arguably, like most GM products, by the time they got it right, it was too late. The later model cars were quite durable, particularly the Monzas sold with the "iron duke" engines. They rarely rusted and could last well over 100,000 miles.

Most of these cars were sold on price alone. They were not loved or cherished and went to the junkyard rather quickly. Very few viewed them as well-engineered pieces, despite all the cutting edge technology GM tried to force into the design (another GM hallmark, I'm afraid, trying to leapfrog the competitor through technology and falling flat). The article POV seems to be from a GM insider, with lots of production details, and not enough about how the public perceived this car.

Let me put it this way: When the Chevette came out, people at the time viewed it as a major improvement.

It wasn't, but that's another story. Chevettes rarely rusted, though. I'll say that.

FWIW

A link you may find useful:

WORST CAR EVER: http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2008/12/19/the-chevy-vega-the-worst-detroit-car-ever.html Joe Patent (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Joe, I can assure you, I'm no insider. In the Criticisms section the problems with the car's underdeveloped engine and cost related body rust problems are explained with complete referenced information. The poor public perception of the car is mentioned in the intro and in Criticisms. No need to mention it in every section. The reader will draw their own conclusions based on the referenced facts in the article. Since about 2,000,000 were made at the rate of 100 or more per hour, the Vega (especially the 1971-72 models) was not a "consistent" car in terms of durability or performance (especially MPG) due to this high build rate and unfinished development. Some owners experienced a trouble free car.. the ones who usually were careful with their attention to fluid levels. Some experienced nothing but problems. Development went on throughout the cars life-span which is described throughout the article. In 35+ years it was time for a neutral history. The article does just that where as all of the retrospective internet articles are biased and don't use reliable referenced facts. Every bit of info in this article is referenced. Only the 1968-1970 Development section and Stillborn L-10 engine section was provided by an insider.. the Lordstown Vega Factory Coordinator. All reviews are referenced by publications who actually tested the car. Current reviews are based on what? All of the Vega's problems are outlined in the Criticism section and what was done to correct them and when. There might have been more Vega owners who had good luck than bad although there are no statistics so I make no claims nor do I express ANY opinions in the article about the car, its design or the way it was rushed to market. I leave it to the engineers and auto historians to do that in their referenced statements. Most other articles assume all Vega engines and fenders went bad. What info are they drawing from? Nothing reliable because it isn't known. We obviously will never know how many engines and fenders were replaced under warranty. I state in a referenced statement that engine damage was common and state Chevrolet's responses. Same for the rust issues. Its all explained, and what was done in upgrades and further development to the engine and upgrades to the body. That makes a neutral, un-biased and informative article worthy of Wikapedia. As far as your link above..The writer is probably frustrated by the completeness and neutrality of this article which I'm sure he has read as he used some tidbits from it but his conclusion is just opinionated hype. Next month he'll probably select the Pinto (a worthy contender) I had listed some Vega owner reviews good and bad which were regarded on this talk page as not reliable and I deleted them. Recent reliable auto publication retrospective views on the car are also listed in Reviews. The article is neutral.(Vegavairbob (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

____

You make some good points. I recognize that cheap cars are rarely loved by their owners because they are sold on PRICE. As a result, people are not inclined to spend money servicing them or taking care of them.

Also, the point where you junk a cheap car is far sooner than a more expensive car. If a BMW needs a new transmission, you think about it. If a Cavalier (the successor to the Vega and actually a very durable design) needs a new transmission, you junk it.

So the Vega syndrome happened to the Chevette, the Pinto, the Yugo, etc. All were cheap cars unloved, and rarely seen on the road today, at car shows, museums, etc. Simply because they were bought for utility and tossed when the utility was done.

While the Pinto had its infamous fire problems, I recall at the time (1973) that most people I knew felt the Pinto was a better car. It did not have the rust and engine problems the Vega had.

But all that being said, the Vega was a real problem for GM at the time, as it seriously damaged their reputation in the small car market. And if you owned one, you would not be happy getting 60,000 miles out of a car, even if it only cost you $2000 or so brand new.

But I still think the article is a little too pro-GM. The Vega here does not come across as the debacle that it was at the time. A whole generation of car buyers switched to foreign makes as a result of the Vega. It certainly opened up my eyes, and I ended up working at GM.

And blaming the Vega's woes on the consumers (not keeping enough coolant or oil in the car) is pretty laughable. Many of these cars died regardless of maintenance level. They were just badly made, period. GM was trying to recover from a major strike, and everything made in the 1973 model year rusted like mad.

During the 1970's some of my friends started buying foreign cars, like Toyotas. They started reporting weird things - like the car going well over 100,000 miles without the engine seizing (most American cars in that era were pretty trashed by 80K miles). While we all bashed Japanese cars as "junk" and said "Be American, Buy American!" these disquieting stories from Toyota owners started to sink in.

Yes, early Japanese cars rusted - eventually, not in the first year. One friend had a Corolla that rusted its shock towers out - after nearly 8 years in New York salt. But the car was so reliable, he had them re-welded and drive it another 8 years. Unlike a Vega owner, he felt the quality of the car made it worthwhile to repair.

After I left GM, I bought a Toyota Camry. The difference in Engineering is quite noticeable to an automotive engineer. No stamped-steel valve covers or hoses and wiring that is made as short as possible. Everything is organized and aesthetic, even under the hood. They can easily go 200,000 miles with proper care. Although by that point they are basically worn out and are junked. And since no one "collects" such mundane products, few are left on the road today.

So yes, there is a real quality difference between the Vega and other cars of the era. The smirky remarks made above about statistics on fenders rusting (AGAIN, the dealer did NOT repair ours under warranty) versus Japanese or other cars misses the point - Vegas rusted THROUGH the first year you had them. That's inexcusably bad quality control. That's a poorly made car. Period. End of discussion. No "But, you see..." or whatever.

Just my perspective, as a Vega owner, GM employee, and someone who was there at the time and owned a lot of these small cars.

Joe Patent (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Making article better

I think images should be set to default size, so the reader can choose by himself the wanted size, also more inline citations are needed for this long article. --Typ932 ^T·C 06:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC) OK (VegavirbobVegavairbob (talk) 06:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

The default size is when you left the size away eg. [[File:Vega 140 Engine.jpg|thumb|Vega 140 CID OHC 1bbl L4-90 hp]], it may look quite small, I think default is 180px, but the user can choose from own wikipedia prefeences what size to use for thumbnails, it makes article to look more professional. --Typ932 ^T·C 06:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried no px and they looked larger than what I was using (280px) I tried 250px which I've seen used in most auto articles. They look smaller. Is this Ok? (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk))

Please explain the inline citation. Is that a reference? I listed references for all reviews and quotes. In a larger area of quotes (DeLorean factor)the reference is listed at the end of each section. Also a general reference is listed for production info and the like. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Yes its reference in text, it could have more as the article is quite long, the thumbanil size is found on your preference settings >my preferences>files>Thumbnail size. In wikipedia it is preferred style not to use any size in thumbnails and put the wanted one to own settings, see Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Thumbnailing --Typ932 ^T·C 10:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• The Vega oil consumption problem was added in Engine after "overheating is a serious concern for the Vega engine" problem due to wearing valve stem seals. also mentioned was the fact that early Vegas were usually low on oil and coolant at the same time causing potential engine failures. Problems address by chevrolet also mentioned later in subsection. As mentioned by Typ932

• The Vega engine block failure problem was added (made more clear) in the Engine subsection before the #29 ref.

• The 71-73 Vega premature fender rust problem was added under 1974 (1971-1977 Subsection) where the problem was addressed by Chevrolet on the 1974 models and what Chevrolet did for the owners of the affected 71-73 models.

• The 71-72 Vega carburator recall was added in Engine (right before overheating is a serious concern...) where the problem was addressed by Chevrolet on the 73 models by switching carburator manufacturers. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Good, Bad, or Otherwise

I would suggest relocating all good car/bad car discussion to a new section. The Vega had several common complaints: the engine would overheat; the engine would leak oil; the engine would fail; the car's body would rust; the car's fenders would rust; the original carbs were defective and ended up getting recalled. Each of these has two points of view- for example, the cars were rusty, but the steel used in many early 70s cars was often poor and led to early rusting. Having a dedicated section in which these issues are listed and discussed would solve many issues in this article. Omhseoj (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion considered, however, I didn't think there were many issues with it. The information in article is complete, factual, and there are no opinions expressed by me. Rather than debate the car's issues as listed in other articles, I just listed the facts and history of the car including its issues, but unlike most web articles, I include how each issue was addressed by listing the improvements made to the car over its lifetime. No opinions are expressed here as this site's purpose and policy dictate.

There is a long subsection on the engine which includes referenced information on "engine troubles" in the third paragraph including, oil consumption problem, cooling problems, block scoring, carb recall and Chevrolet's expanded warranty and engine replacement policy that was offered for Vega owners. The fourth paragraph lists the improvements made in the '76 engines including the Chevy Durability Run showing the problems were addressed. Engine issues are also addressed in John DeLorean's words in DeLorean Factor subection. A seperate problems section would just be repeating the same information provided in those two subsections. As suggested by Typ932 above, this is not a consumer reports article. Only the facts are needed. Other Vega issues I listed above under Improving the article have been added. The 71-73 fender rust issue was added in 1970-1977 subsection and how that problem was corrected in 74 with added liners, then in 76 with galvinized steel. The problems are all here, but unlike most of the current web "retrospect" articles, no opinions are given by me as editor. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

I think the Vega's reputation as a poor car is one of the things that makes it significant (from a Wikipedia point of view). As such, it seems more encyclopedic to place this information in a dedicated section so that it is easy to find and read. Again, both sides would be represented in the section- "the car rusted easily"/"many cars of the ear rusted easily."

The problem with scattering these issues across sections is that it overlooks the larger concept. It becomes a series of "this was a problem, but they fixed it," "this was a problem, but they fixed it" whilst ignoring the larger view of "all of these problems, fixed or not, greatly damaged the car's reputation among reviewers and future historians."Omhseoj (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll make a seperate section on problems. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
• The problems sub-section has been added. Can we remove the neutral dispute tag? (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

external links

The link section is getting too big, it should be reduced --Typ932 ^T·C 14:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I removed a few external links.Vegavairbob (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Article issues

Where to start?

• Chevrolet Vega#1973 Vega GT Showroom Stock #0 contains too many quotations that rely solely on one citation, and is abusing fair use.

removed all but a couple of quotes...Vegavairbob (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are far too few citations. I believe that one general citation is applied at the end of a paragraph for some sections, but this really needs to be applied at the end of each major statement or paragraph.

13 citations added to Problems section.Vegavairbob (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "Problems" is also a quote farm and needs to be trimmed or removed.

quotes removed. only a couple of qoutes retained. section revised.[User:Vegavairbob|Vegavairbob]] (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is no organization to the current setup. For instance, "1970-1977" and "1978-1979" can fall under "Production." "Aluminum engine block" can also fall under "Engine" as it is relevant more specifically to that than to the car as a whole. See WP:LAYOUT.

this is doneVegavairbob (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Problems" contains no subsections; instead, the subsections are merely bolded text, which isn't approperiate.

this is doneVegavairbob (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any notification or some verification that some of the images, like File:Vert A Pac railcar.jpg, do not contain copyright information? I am not sure it falls under Public Domain, especially if the image is derived from General Motors.

see belowVegavairbob (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Chevrolet Vega#1973 Vega GT Showroom Stock #0 contains peacock terms (not sure it's another lengthy quotation): "It was a celebration. Emotions were displayed. He was a race fan in a maroon windbreaker, grinning uncontrollably...." There were a few others, but most have been removed.

removed thisVegavairbob (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are applying for GA status, there is a lot of work that needs to be done (and from someone who has submitted and been approved for 5 GA's, and reviews GA's on another account). seicer | talk | contribs 11:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Other major issues include,

• Multiple spelling errors. I counted at least 20 in one small section alone.

• Incorrect grammatical tenses (e.g. "is" should be "was" in most instances of this article).

this is doneVegavairbob (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

seicer | talk | contribs 15:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

copyrights

Prior to 1978, GM did not copyright factory related photos or brochures. They are public domainVegavairbob (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Just wanting to have it clarified just in case. seicer | talk | contribs 16:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

reorganization and other issues

I reorganized the article. Addressing all issues today. i will indicate under each listing as they're done.Vegavairbob (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work :) Sorry if I put you off earlier by being bold and doing swift changes, but it's looking better than ever. I'll try to clean it up some come Monday. seicer | talk | contribs 23:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I will include the citations as requested.Vegavairbob (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

L4 straight4

So is the L4 name for engine or does it represent the type of engine? this is encyclopedia and everybody dont know what is L4, and usually those sshortings should also to be written out --Typ932 ^T·C 18:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If its name then is should read like Duke 140 CID L4 straight-4 (or inline 4) --Typ932 ^T·C 18:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

L-4 is the same as I-4 (inline-4) all of text is written with "inline-4" I switch the captions from L-4 to I-4 which is easily identified with "inline-4" used in all of the text in the article. (I-4 is only used in captions and is proper instead of straight-4 which is not used to identify this engine) Vegavairbob (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup - tone & style

We are writing an encyclopædia here, so we need to pay attention to encyclopædic tone when writing articles. Omitting articles like a or the before the model name (e.g., "Vega is an all-new car", "Vega's engine has an all-aluminum block", "The new Notchback model will join Vega's family this year", etc.) is a standard marketing and advertising tactic to anthropomorphise or personify inanimate objects so that consumers will feel an emotional connection to the product and want to buy it. Except in direct pullquotes, it is unencyclopædic to employ this sort of promotional gimmicks or affectation in the text of an article. I have gone through and made consistent and appropriate use of articles.

I've also tightened up the image captions. The article is entitled Chevrolet Vega, so it's not necessary to repeat the phrase "Chevrolet Vega" in each image caption. In addition, I've unforced the thumb sizes (except in infoboxes, of course); per WP:IMGSIZE we let each reader determine how images are displayed rather than setting a fixed thumb size unless there's a legitimate reason to override the default sizing. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

All images are unfixed except (the legitimate reasons are) ads in reviews are too large and one other image in design which is too small. ad images are 180px and the one image in design is 275px. The rest are unfixed. In the thumb captions there is room to include the full names of the cars, they look better this way and unless you plan on changing the thumb captions in most of the car articles, they should stay this way.Vegavairbob (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with fixed image sizes is they are can cause strange effects for people running different monitor resolutions. If I'm not mistaken Bob you are trying to make the images and captions fit with each other, while this is a nice idea, it will only work for people running an identical monitor resolution so it is pretty much a futile task. --Leivick (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Tense

There are appropriate uses for both the present and the past tense when writing about vehicles and other items no longer in production. The vehicles still exist, of course, so when speaking of them in general terms we use the present tense. However, when discussing manufacturing operations, advertising campaigns, features of particular marketing emphasis, equipment changes, facelifts and suchlike, we use the past tense, for those happenings happened in the past. This is a simple matter of English grammar and syntax. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of this and read the full discussion on this tense issue.Vegavairbob (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Article ownership

Vegavairbob, It looks as if you're having some difficulty understanding how editors work coöperatively to improve articles. Editors may, at their own option, confine themselves to particular kinds of edits. Some editors, for example, go around fixing punctuation errors or reformatting improperly-configured references. But no editor has the right or authority to dictate how other editors may and may not contribute to an article. When an editor fixes ungrammatical or awkward wording, or helps move an article towards encyclopædic tone is not a matter of switching to words that editor happens to prefer. It's a matter of article improvement. I would ask—again—that you take a very hard look at your behaviour with respect to WP:OWN, for your persistent, overt ownership of this article is reaching a level at which I will soon feel I have no choice but to request scrutiny of your actions. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit & citations

I've gone through and copyedited for consistent style and encyclopædic tone. There was some POV material related to the adequacy of the cooling system; that has been restated with neutral phrasing. Some minor typographical errors have been fixed, as have some improperly-formed citations and quotes.

Some of the sources cited may not be reliable — we need to scrutinise the veracity and reliability of [4] for encyclopædic purposes, for example. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

Wdl1961, meatpuppetry is not permitted on Wikipedia. You've made it clear you don't like me, and that's your prerogative, but you are not helping anyone or anything by acting in Vegavairbob's stead to revert legitimate edits to this article. If you continue to do so, I will report you for meatpuppetry. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann please take a look at what WP:MEAT actually says. Wdl1961 was not recruited by Vegavarbob. As far as I can tell they have never had any contact. Your above post implies that Vegavairbob is engaging in meatpuppetetry which there is no indication of. On the other hand it is hard to tell what Wdl1961 was trying to do with his last couple of edits, they don't look helpful and he would be wise not to engage in wikistalking of Scheinwerfermann. --Leivick (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Vega Magnum?

The article doesn't touch on this, but I distinctly remember seeing a Vega in 1980 with the nameplate "Vega Magnum." The nameplate looked to me like something from the manufacturer, but I suppose it could have been something that was customized. The car clearly had some manner of small-block V8 motor. Does anyone have any data on this vehicle that might be appropriate for the article?

There is no record of a Vega Magnum manufactured by Chevrolet or marketed by Chevrolet dealers. There is also no record of a Vega V8 swap vendor (Motion, etc.) offering a Vega Magnum. Nameplate was probably custom made. (Vegavairbob (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC))