(EXPANDED FROM 8/17/2023)
In its April 1974 issue, Popular Science shed light on a Chevrolet Vega-based sporty coupe that was slated to compete with the subcompact Ford Mustang II. The unnamed car’s main claim to fame would be a 206-cubic-inch Wankel engine. Jim Dunne (1974) listed a number of innovative features, including what a subhead called the “End of the oil change”:
“GM President Ed Cole has stated that the RC 206 [engine] may not require any periodic oil change. Test units are running with a normal consumption of one quarter per 1500 to 2000 miles. Some oil must be burned up, for if the apex seals are not lubricated, they cannot seal properly. ‘The oil requirement factor will drop by at least two,’ said Ed Cole, making clear what the targets are.
The engine oil is also responsible for cooling the rotors (the housing is water-cooled). Mazda uses external oil coolers, but Chevrolet cools the oil right in the sump, which is finned on the outside and exposed to a cooling air stream underneath the car. Oil changes can be eliminated because the Wankel is free of blowby gases to contaminate the oil.” (Dunne, 1974; pp. 86, 172)
Dunne added that Chevrolet staff referred to the Wankel-powered car as a “Mustang killer.” However, it was projected to have a base price of $4,000. This was in contrast to the Mustang II, whose 1975 prices ranged from $3,529 for a base four-cylinder notchback to $4,188 for a V8-powered Mach I (Gunnell, 2002). One reason for the Chevy’s higher price was the need for two catalytic converters.
“GM has $100 million staked on [the Wankel],” Dunn noted, “and reports suggest that Chevy will charge $800 extra for the engine alone — over the new small V8!” (1974; pp. 86, 172)
No Mustang killer here
Of course, as it turned out the Monza was only offered in four-cylinder and V8 models. Its prices started at $3,570 for the notchback “Towne Coupe,” which was only $41 higher than a Mustang II notchback.
Production for 1975 would surpass 136,000 units, which was arguably respectable but well short of the Mustang’s almost 189,000 units. However, for 1976 output would fall sharply to under 81,000 units whereas the Mustang would hold steady. A similar pattern held in 1977.
The aging Camaro would prove to be more of a “Mustang killer” than the Monza.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on Aug. 17, 2023 and expanded on Aug. 16, 2025. Production figures and specifications from Flory (2013).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Dunne, Jim; 1974. “Coming in ’75: Chevy’s new Vega-sized Wankel-powered car.” Popular Science. April issue: pp. 84-86, 172.
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2013. American Cars, 1973-1980. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet Monza (1975)
Why would anybody pay an extra $ 800.00 for a Vega with a rotary engine ? By 1974, the word was out that the Vega was a trouble-prone car with the aluminum four-banger. G.M. had hyped the Vega 2300 in late 1970-1971 as the American import fighter. Why would anybody believe that a new type of engine from Chevrolet would be any better than the Vega 2300 ? G.M. was not Mazda, that didn’t hype their rotary models other than advertised them starting in 1972. But the Wankel would have tanked in the 1973 Arab oil embargo for both G.M. and A.M.C. and again in 1979. I owned a 1985 RX-7, which by then was a very refined, smooth, powerful and reliable sports car. The only drawback was that for such a light aerodynamic car, the twin-rotor B-13 engine did not deliver stellar gas mileage. Of course, by 1974, Ed Cole was no longer President of G.M. Do you think Cole would have put Corvair flat-sixes or Wankel rotaries in place of Chevy sixes and small-blocks in Checkers if he had not have crashed that plane in 1974 ?
Well, it did at least result in a handy and great-looking Chevy Monza coupe that was great on the road and in modified format was a success in racing.
Mr. Ludvigsen, it is an honor to communicate with you. I have several of your books and treasure the copies of Sports Cars Illustrated the you edited and directed. My wife and I owned a red 1977 Monza 2+2 hatchback coupe with heavy-duty suspension, radial tires, and a 305 cu. in. V-8. It was a well-built car but the TurboHydramtic 250 was not up to the challenge of the small-block. At less than 2,500-miles, the transmission failed. We bought the car from Pete Estes’ son, Bill Estes in Zionsville, IN. Bill had personally sold us the car at his recently acquired Chevrolet dealership. (I knew him with his sponsorships on WIBC radio when Bill was general manager of Tutweiler Cadillac.) He ordered a replacement under warranty, but it was a TH350. I understand that from that point on, he only sold V-8 Monzas with the TH350 or manual transmission. My wife mainly drove the car, but it was a real hot rod. The only thing we should have added was Positraction, We could easily spin the wheels if we did not carefully use the accelerator, and my wife collected a few speeding tickets. When it was paid off, she sold it to a young man, whom promptly got involved in a street speed contest and totaled the Monza by hitting a utility pole. (Fortunately, he escaped serious injury !)
How did Ed Cole manage to trot Chevrolet down a dead-end path with the Wankel engine, and still get to keep his job with GM?
I have thus far only found the year Cole retired — 1974. He hit age 65 in September of that year.
John Z. DeLorean argued in his book about GM (go here) that Cole’s contributions were “strongly confined to the product areas alone.” His position as president did not include oversight of GM’s foreign holdings and financial decisions tended to be made elsewhere. Being hemmed in like that may have accentuated Cole’s desire to tamper with product designs to a greater degree than past GM presidents.
Of course, Cole also tended to gravitate toward engineering solutions that ended up having problems that cost GM dearly. The paradox is that without Cole, GM might have produced much blander cars from an engineering standpoint.
Or, arguably, the same cars without dead-end engineering, such as a redesigned Corvair with a front, liquid-cooled engine (as you’ve previously discussed) which could have become the 1975 (Corvair) Monza. If Ed Cole had been at AMC, he would surely have bankrupted them, lol.
The Wankel Rotary was ultimately a white elephant, GM, Citroen and NSU (later VW with passive stake via production KKM 871) would have been better off collaborating with Mazda to help off-set the cost burden and with few exceptions limit its application only to sportscars.
Holden would develop a Torana-based Monza-looking Rotary-powered car called the Green Lizard/Ikara, which never went beyond the clay model stage and was cancelled alongside the GM Rotary project. Had it or ideally its styling reached production, it is possible the Ikara’s styling would have been applied on other Holdens including the stillborn Torana VA.
https://www.shannons.com.au/club/news/retroautos/green-lizard-rotary-torana/
Robert Spinello stopped by to say that “The 262 V8 replaced the rotary. They weren’t planning on a V8 until the rotary was cancelled.”
Ah, the 262. The thirst of a V-8 (110hp) and the power of a 250 straight six (105hp), the worst of both worlds. At least in California, you got the 2bbl 125hp 350 which was rated at 20 mpg highway according to my source. 88 cubes bought a whopping 15 more hp to the party. Thanks, Chevrolet!
I remember the used up V-8 Monzas at the Buy-Heres around 1980 being…okay up to 55 mph or so, but needing a lead foot lots of the time and feeling heavy for the size. A Wankel would have been really sluggish and wouldn’t get any better MPG than Monzas got anyway. A turbo for each rotor would have been a necessity. Or more rotors, a 4 rotor wankel would be the equivalent of a V-12, wouldn’t it?
All while GM should have been concentrating on making the customer happy. That Wankel program cash would have bought a lot of reliability for GM.
OK, I’m probably the odd duck, but allow me to tell you the tale of my first three (modern) cars:
1973 Vega GT, college graduation gift from my father, I was allowed anything I wanted as long as it was a Chevrolet and not a Corvette (so much for my dream of a Triumph Spitfire). Owned it three years, three seasons of campaigning B-sedan SCCA autocross, lots of rallying, plus the usual abuse expected of a motorhead in their twenties. When I traded it in the car was still solid and reliable, I still have very fond memories of it, although I’ll admit I probably would have been thinking a bit different had I kept it for a fourth year. I was noticing a wisp of exhaust smoke at trade-in time.
1976 Monza 2+2, four cylinder with that crazy dog-leg five speed. Another gift from dad, grad school this time, only the restrictions were expanded to Corvette and Cosworth Vega. Where I treated the Vega distinctly sporting, after driving the Monza for a couple of week I tended to consider it very much a blue-collar GT. Obviously heavier, wasn’t quite the car that I’d want to run amongst the pylons. Very comfortable car for long trips to various science fiction conventions, rock concerts, or weekends with whoever was my current sexual involvement. If anything, I’d enjoyed this car a bit more than the Vega, partially because the Vega taught me once and for all that you never buy a GM product with the base interior.
1979 Monza Kammback. Ok, I finally have to put my own money down and buy my own car. As I’m not exactly wealthy, dad is, of course, willing to loan me the money . . . . . . with a few restrictions. As in, “It has to be a Chevrolet, and he’s not footing the bill for a Corvette.” (No, in all this time, I never considered a Camaro, you need to get a V-8 in those things, and I hate V-8’s. Too bloody ‘Murican.). Built this one big time: V-6. Five speed. Heavy suspension. The biggest tires available. Top of the line interior. Full instrumentation (essentially the Vega GT instrument cluster, which I always liked).
It went wrong upon delivery. GM decided (without notifying me) that only the fours and eights get the instrument package, V-6’s get the plain strip speedometer. Then they tried to swap my five speed for an automatic (again, fours and eights only). Fortunately the dealer caught this and forced them to not change it – knowing me well enough that I’d refuse to take delivery with an auto (he told the factory that he was refusing delivery if the change was made). The car tuned out to be the worst four wheeled piece of crap I’ve ever owned, with multiple problems including the paint wouldn’t stay on the body, carburetor problems . . . . . suffice to say the next time I owned a Chevrolet automobile was my current 2017 Bolt. Which I’m totally happy with.
Back in the early 80’s a buddy of mine got an 1976 (IIRC) Olds Starfire with the 3.8V6 with the five speed manual transmission. It was a bright yellow with a black interior and black stripes, a real pleasant and sunny car after his dour black Scirocco paycheck eater.
I knew a few people with the 262 V8 , which as many folks noted was a slug. But oddly, the 105 HP V6 was a rather sparkling ride with the 5 speed manual. The Buick V6 had a pretty decent amount of grunt and other than being rather rough at times could really sling that Starfire down the road.
I also knew some folks who had the original Mazda RX-3s, and found they were rather gutless at lower RPMs. Those cars were relatively light (~2000 lbs) compared to the H-bodies (2800 + lbs) and were not quick off the line. In retrospect, it was probably a good thing that GM dropped the rotary in the H-bodies, I think it would have been more of an exercise in misery than the 262 already was.