The which is worse thread got me thinking about these two fine examples of 1970s automotive technology. My dad had a knack for buying cars off the top ten worst cars list. Heck he almost bought an Audi Fox ! However he did buy a 75 Pacer and a 74 Vega so I have personal experience with those and my opinions are largely based on that. First up the Pacer. Ours had the 258 six, automatic in over 100,000 miles they gave no problems. Which is a good thing when you look under the hood! Pacers were designed around a rotary engine. Mazda got the rights to that or something and at that point in the development, they just stuffed piston engines in. The only real problem I rember with it was broken door and window handles. Given the size of those, the hardware should've been beefed up. My older brother took it off to college and I don't recall what happened to it from there. But it had well over 100,000 miles on it at that point and had been driven by teenagers. A tough car really. The Vega? From the sleeveless aluminum engine to the water born paint that car was a POS. At 40,000 miles it burned an almost equal amount of oil and gasoline. It was rusted everywhere possible. It drove like a cheap car, stopped like a cheap car and took forever to get up to 60 mph. Just an all around horrible excuse for a car. It maybe had a bit over 50,000 miles when it went to the scrap yard. By the time I was doing mechanic work in Dallas Texas 1984/85 I tuned up exactly one Vega with its original engine. I did Pacers and even Gremlins all the time because they were still running. My contention is, as they rolled of the assembly line, the Pacer was far and away a better car than the Vega. I'm curious if someone can come up with an intelligent argument that a Vega, not capable of running 100,000 miles without an engine rebuilt or an external oil tank, was the better car.