If you’re thinking economy car or any kind of car, remember: We’ll take on anyone in our class and come through… for you! More »
1972 Chevy Vega or Plymouth Duster? Get The Deluxe Wheel Covers and Whitewalls! [Classic Ad Watch]
Related Posts
Leave a comment
66 Comments.
Leave a Reply
Make it 750 and I’d still take the Duster.
Timtoolman, tornadoes are my friends!
Chrysler did have plans for a subcompact more like the Pinto and Vega codenamed the “25 Car”. According to the “New Cars for ’71″ book the car may have been drawn up on a shortened Duster platform, like the Gremlin/Hornet, according to info that had leaked about dimensions. An artist’s impression in the book showed something that looked indeed like a tailless hatchback Duster. Chrysler shelved the idea and went with captive imports instead.
62imperialcrown
@FromaBuick6: Seems to me that its easy to be objective. Any objective, unbiased person would conclude that the Vega was an unmitigated P.O.S.
mdensch
@kake81: I’m accustomed to old car advertisements touting a brag list of features that seem really austere, today.
But… #25 on that list, “anti-freeze?!!!” Fantastic! Numbers 21 and 26 are not far behind.
tih20
@tonyola: Not really true. My ’76 Gremlin, which I had from 1999-01, had zero rust on it whatsoever.
AMC did thorough deep-dip rustproofing well before they started with the Ziebart process in 1980. AMC paint quality was also much higher because of their paint process.
As I’ve said above, I’d have taken a ’72 Gremlin X V8 or 2-door Hornet SST 258 instead of either of these cars. And I’d have paid about the same money for it.
Jude Butler
@Roberto G.: Fred Garvin would like to sell you a Duster, but he needs to unhook his elaborate system of trusses first.
Ed Wood Jr Jr
The Duster wins here, hands down. When it comes to “economy” cars, I’ll take a larger car over a smaller one, any day, especially when it has a bigger engine and only costs a whole 75 bucks more.
Also, it’s hard to be objective in this scenario when everyone knows now that the Vega was just about the biggest piece of shit ever sold to American customers.
FromaBuick6
@ranwhenparked: The Zeibarting wasn’t offered until 1979 or 1980. Older AMCs were just as fervent rusters as most other cars. Datsuns did rust as with most period Japanese cars, but in general Mopars were worse than the rest of Detroit when it came to rust.
tonyola
@tonyola:
Datsun’s were hardly better in the rust protection department. Of course, back then, it was pretty much a given that anything was at least going to have crust on the wheelarches after 5-6 years.
Out of all of them, AMC was probably the best built, I believe they were the first to do factory Ziebarting.
ranwhenparked
Duster, no question imo. Slant 6, roomier, better styling esp the taillights.
Skink
@mdensch: I’d dispute the better handling on the Maverick. The Duster had front torsion bars that gave good control of the front wheels and more feel than the Maverick. I’ve driven both cars, and the Duster was definitely more roadable, though both cars still had the limitations of leaf-spring solid axles. The Duster also had a few more features, like standard flip-open rear side windows as well as temp gauge and ammeter.
tonyola
@Jude Butler: Hell yeah! Not to mention a drivetrain nearly as bullet-proof as the Duster without all the electrical gremlins.
Yeah sure, I’m a die-hard Mopar guy. But the first ZomBee hoon-mobile was a 72 Gremlin and I know from first and experience you can’t kill the damn things. The 258/4.2L was pretty stout too.
ZomBeeRacer
@tonyola: My Mom and then me as a teen had a Volare Wagon (stick! Got my drivers license on that car) and it literally rust in two, set of railroad tracks had me suddenly a view of the sky.
This all said, at the time I’d have probably picked the Vega then done the facepalm and a “shoulda got the Duster” after driving it off the lot and seeing an oxidation trail behind me.
driven to insanity
@songs: My mother-in-law was a single parent in the 70′s with 6 kids and a Chevy Vega.
TurboBrick [LIGIER]
@tonyola: It would be a tough call. The Duster was bigger and roomier but the Maverick handled better and, with the larger six, would out perform the Duster. Chrysler’s slant-six was bullet proof, to be sure, but powerful it was not. The real beauty of it was that it would run forever whether you maintained it or not. Ford’s sixes were decent enough but you did have to change the oil now and then.
mdensch
@kake81: with whitewalls!
driven to insanity
The first car my dad bought when he got to America was a Plymouth Duster. Room for five? He packed at least 8 kids into that thing. The 80s were a different time.
songs
@DrLemming: A piece of trivia, in Australia, Chrysler restyled the Valiant (badged as a Chrysler Down Under) as a “mini-fuselage” gen known as “Valiant VH” [www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au] The Valiant VG was the last Aussie model who used bodies similar to our A-bodies [www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au]
stephdumas
Duster, absolutely! Didn’t all Mopars get electronic ignition for ’72? That feature alone makes it worth the extra money.
TurboBrick [LIGIER]
@Lee M. Janotta: . . . and here’s their ad from 1972. 102 hp in that 1.6L, with that lightweight body, what a mover.
kake81
Those would have been seventy four very well spent dollars. At the time, theVega was very attractive, new and shiny. That didn’t last.
Van Sarockin, rogue trebuchet
@mdensch: I’d still take the Duster over the Maverick – no hesitation.
tonyola
A pox on both their houses!
Corolla 1600 Twin Cam: $2,110.
Lee M. Janotta
I just saw a ’68 Plymouth Valiant for sale at a car show today in incredibly nice, unrestored condition (yah, right, like somebody’s gonna restore a car like that). Flat vinyl bench seats, rubber floor mats, the slant-six with Torqueflite. Dang, it was tempting.
That said . . . if I had to choose between these two, the Duster wins hands down. If you’re under about 45, you probably have no idea just how crappy those Vegas were. Total junk, pure and simple.
Now, if a ’72 Maverick were one of the choices . . .
mdensch
@LTDScott: What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Except for the bodywork. That shit rusts away.
brachial_plexus
@stephdumas: Chrylser made a lot of hay in their comparative advertising by saying in effect: “Look, for the price of one of our competitors’ shrimpy little buzzboxes, you can have a REAL car!”
tonyola
@tonyola: Also, the Duster wasn’t originally in Plymouth’s plans for 1970, You can find more on Allpar and How Stuff works. Australia got even a interesting variant of the A-body with an Hemi-6 called Charger
Btw, I read once an article of Collectible Automobile of June 1999 about the Duster and it mentionned there was also a similar ad of the same kind, this time against the Ford Maverick.
stephdumas
AND whitewall tires? SOLD!
Lee M. Janotta
Since I’d hot rod either I go for the size and design of the Vega.
Anders Nøkleholm
@DrLemming: The Valiant that spawned the Duster was only three years old when the latter was introduced, and I’ve always thought that Chrysler did a good job on the styling given a very limited budget. Valiant didn’t even have a two-door hardtop or any sporty models in 1967-1969 – those had been relegated to the Barracuda. However, the ‘Cuda grew in 1970, so there was room for a sportier-looking Valiant. The timing was right because intermediate performance cars were starting to give way to hotter compacts. It didn’t hurt that Chrysler was able to price basic Dusters down near Maverick, Pinto, and Vega territory, an advantage gained by using an existing platform. Dusters could be a bit crude and rough around the edges, but they were no worse than Mavericks and they certainly handled better. By the way, the trunks on Dusters were enormous because of the long tail and high rear bodywork.
tonyola
@worthless_cos: Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. It pains me to think that in 2010 dollars it’s about 4 or 5 grand… still a pretty good deal if you think about all the stuff you get.
Too bad it says nothing about how you’re gonna intercool the thing…
RadioFlyerPartDeux
@fatfrank72: In 1992? Yes, I saw tons of them. Hell, I had a few.
Jeremy Wilson
Deluxe wheel covers? Hot damn!
Fordboy357
The point of why the Duster was such a success compared to the competition is that although it was an old design, it was a GOOD design. Reliable, affordable and quality. Sure it didn’t have all the newest stuff. But it was still unibody, which GM couldn’t say about many of their cars at the time, it had disc brakes on the front which was the cutting edge in braking tech in those days. Most importantly, however, it eschewed the wrap-around “more is cheaper” philosophy of tacked-on trim that was popular in the 70s and gave buyers a BASIC car. The fact that the engine options included the unkillable \6 or the also very reliable 318 did not hurt matters.
While you could say the Duster design was “old”, was there any American car that was on the market in 72 that really offered features sorely missed on the Duster? I doubt it.
Alvin Brinson
For the same money as these two cars, I’d have picked up a Gremlin X V8.
The Gremlin had a bumper-to-bumper warranty, V8 power in a small package, incredible hoon potential, and good rustproofing.
All for the same money that the Duster and Vega seen here sold for.
Jude Butler
I’ll take the Vega. Verticle shipping FTMFW!
PipeSmokingVolvoDriver
@0:36. Brakes? Well shit then it’s a no brainier that I’ll be taking the dusters.
What the hell?? Who would sell a car without brakes? lol
yah5
yeah but by today’s standards $73.95 is like $90,000!!!
jon_daniels
Al Bundy-mobile all the way, although I do still like Vegas.
LTDScott
The Vega was just shite.
It was a garbage car from GM, plain and simple.
The Duster wasn’t new in ’72, was decently-sized, and the 225 slant-six…post-apocalyptic engine material.
I’m not saying the Duster wasn’t a crap car, but it’s light years ahead of the Vega.
Family had one of each in the 70′s. I choose, in this case, a Datsun 510 sedan or wagon.
Mom: ’72 Vega
Uncle: more Dusters/Darts than I can count…you really can’t kill the slant six
Dad: a ’70 510 wagon, my first memories of serious automotive work, helping him swap the 1-speed automatic for a manual
The Datsun was easily the best of the three.
Baby Beater Benz
@RadioFlyerPartDeux: From a 2010 perspective, I look at those prices and just grit my teeth.
worthless_cos
If you listen real close, you can here the Vega rusting. But I probably would have bought it, two cases of beer in returnable bottles, a three finger bag of weed, a dozen ludes, several hits of blotter acid and a half gram of coke.
mat181
In Duster we trust..er.
Illini300C
@worthless_cos: So, for about $700 more, you could have you very own Yenko powered Vega? Where the hell do I sign?
RadioFlyerPartDeux
The announcer is the separated, lost twin of Oscar Goldman…
Roberto G.
My dad had a Plymouth Duster. If it was good enough for Pops, it’s good enough for me.
jawnc
Kind of a no-brainer. Duster with the 360, unless I had a hot SBC lying around to swap into the Vega. And even then I think I’d rather have the Duster.
JB_Finesse
I wasn’t interested at all until I saw that the Duster came with white wall tires.
there4igraham
With all this talk of old datsuns, I would like to see someone write about the late 80′s and early 90′s Nissans. I’ve had my 89 Sentra since it was new and it now has half a million miles on it. And I see them on the road all the time. Can the same be said for twenty year old dusters/vegas/pintos or gremlins in 1992? Or even american 89 year model compacts?
fatfrank72
@Adam Schmidt: This one
Adam Schmidt
I chose the Duster, it’s parked outside my apartment right now.
Adam Schmidt
@tankman: There’s no confusion – I owned a Duster. The rust was horrible and incurable. Not just in the fenders and rocker panels either – it even rusted in the roof and upper doors. One of the side mirrors fell off because the metal holding it crumbled away. Mine was not an isolated case either. Volares had plenty of problems of their own, but they were no worse than Valiants or Dusters when it came to rust.
tonyola
Hmmm….I wonder what autocrossing one of these was like. Yes the stock Vega was horribly underpowered, but more weight up front is not the answer.
worthless_cos
@Jim-Bob wants a Yaris: And had Duster owners laughing at you as your Datsun rusted away underneath you. You might be confusing Dusters with Volares.
tankman
Duster, hands down, and I’m definitely not a Mopar guy. You still sometimes see these Dusters on the road, and I’m not sure I have ever seen a running Vega.
gman1023
@Vavon: It’s looks like a small Camaro!
Vavon
I’ll have the Vega then, Thank you very much!
Vavon
It’s ironic that Chrysler made a killing with the hot-selling Duster. After all, it was the most half-hearted effort of any of the then-Big Four to counteract rising import sales. The Duster was based upon the oldest platform of any US compact and Chrysler didn’t even bother to clean up the Valiant’s aging design. I think the 1973 Hornet hatchback looked leagues better.
That said, there really wasn’t an outstanding US compact or subcompact during that period. The Vega and Pinto had their fatal problems, and pretty much all of the compacts were neglected by their makers in favor of bigger (re: more profitable) cars.
DrLemming
My parents bought a Plymouth Valiant Scamp with a 225 slant-6 in 1971. When we sold it in 1987, the engine and transmission were still going strong. It needed a new carburetor because when it was my parents car they never let the fuel tank drop below a 1/3rd full. When it was my car, I rarely put in more than a $1.75 of gas at a time. Sadly, this practice sucked 15 years of sediment out of the tank and killed the carburetor. Then it killed the replacement carburetor. Then the tank was cut in half, cleaned out and welded back together. But the 2nd bad carburetor remained. The guy I sold it to finally fixed the carb, and he drove it until losing it in a divorce years later. That one car probably got more use than any 5 Vegas sold in 1971.
CJinSD
Duster. Lose the “deluxe” wheel trims, though.
joeisuzu
Duster, 340, 4 speed.
blackfriday490
My Dad had a Vega. Bought it new & He got rid of it 1 year later, after numerous problems. It was probably only worth 73.95 at that point.
At least with the Duster, an adult human of average size could sit in the back, and if it had the slant 6, you could count on it running forever, even if the rest of it fell off.
pidgeonsplatz
The Vega is one of the few cars that makes the bodywork of the Duster appear durable. It would be a race to see which one decomposes first to a pile of reddish brown bits – the Vega would win but not by much. However, it would be no contest as far as mechanicals – the Duster has earned its bulletproof rep. Both cars would be crude daily drivers with lots of shortcuts and rough edges. Forced to make a choice between these two, I’d take the Duster but I know that I could have a nice Datsun 510 in 1972 for this sort of money.
tonyola
I’d have used the extra $73.95 towards one of these…
Dustin-The-Wind
Duster FTW! And I will pay $73.95 if they leave the whitewalls off.
MOPAR-MAN
Knowing what I know now, I would buy the Plymouth Ruster. Sadly, while the engines is the Rusters were far better than the Vega, the cars shared the same lack of corrosion inhibitors. So, even though the engine would last indefinitely, if you lived in the Northeast both cars would rot out from under you in less than 10 years.
However, if I was shopping for a car in this price range in 1972, I would have bought neither of these. I would have bought a Datsun 510 instead.
Jim-Bob wants a Yaris