I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)

andre1969

Uplander, is this what you mean by the "casket handles"?


I don't mind them, because they look sturdy, at least. Those pull straps, like what's on the blue Grand Prix, tended to pull loose after awhile. Or at the very least, the little snaps that held the screw covers in place would break, and the cover would fall off.

I think this is also an example of a gray interior that's done right. At least to me, I find it attractive, and definitely not cheap looking. My one critique, is that if I was the stylist, I would have toned down that slab of woodgrain on the door panels, that the pull handle is built into. I mean, it needs *something* there in my opinion, to spruce it up. But I'm with you, in the idea of the less woodgrain, the better!

Also, while that looks like a pretty nice seat, what would probably be called a "Brougham" or "Limited" trim level in many cars, is it actually a solid bench?! If it's a split bench, they've done a great job at lining up both sides almost perfectly. The driver's backrest seems slightly more reclined, but that could be from age/use. And that split that runs across the middle of the seat, from side to side, seems like it's further back on the passenger side, but then the fronts of both sides seem like they line up.

fintail

Eldo Touring Coupe with those wheels has to be substantially rare these days.

When I was in high school, an English teacher I got along with bought a "new" used car to replace something I don't recall (he kept the early downsized Caprice wagon that I recall he had some sentimental attachment with), it was maybe an 87 Sedan DeVille with a similar "Touring Sedan" package, wheels, etc.

uplanderguy

Yeah, those are the hinged 'casket handles'!

uplanderguy

I seem to remember those Eldorado Touring Coupes having a pretty nice interior. I like chrome outside though.

I am a big fan of the styling of the '79-85 Eldo; old-skool luxury, but boy I'd have to think twice about a 4.1!

Michaell

uplanderguy said:

I seem to remember those Eldorado Touring Coupes having a pretty nice interior. I like chrome outside though.

I am a big fan of the styling of the '79-85 Eldo; old-skool luxury, but boy I'd have to think twice about a 4.1!

Gee, you could take it to Otto to get “brightened up”

tjc78

andre1969 said:

I was just on YouTube, looking for something else, and somehow this 1984 Eldorado Touring Coupe test video popped up in my feed...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf0o-Rj0wmQ

I'll admit, after watching it, I actually have a bit more respect for that era of Eldorado with the 4.1. Motorweek got it to do 0-60 in about 13.1 seconds. That's not going to scare any Mark VII LSC drivers, but it's still better than I thought it would be. For some reason, I was expecting something like 15-16 seconds!

I'd still be leery of a 4.1 because of the reliability issues, but knowing it's not the slug I thought it would be, does make me like it a bit more.

The 4.1 was pretty much a dog. An 84 Town Car was
12.3 to 60. Obviously both are very slow, but imagine owning that and getting beaten by a LTC?

sda

When the 4.1 was increased to 4.5 the hp went from 135 to 155 and torque increased too, don’t remember exactly but thinking 200 to 220. It made a nice increase in performance. My 89 Seville with the 4.5 only needing regular gas would do 0-60 in 10 sec or slightly less. A nice improvement from 13. It was on the downsized platform from the 83, so that probably made a difference as well.

fintail

Even I have always thought the 79-85s were extremely handsome cars, but I guess you'd want a 79-80 (or maybe an 81).

uplanderguy said:

I seem to remember those Eldorado Touring Coupes having a pretty nice interior. I like chrome outside though.

I am a big fan of the styling of the '79-85 Eldo; old-skool luxury, but boy I'd have to think twice about a 4.1!

uplanderguy

For detail styling, I like the '84 and '85--body colored side molding with no chrome edging, which gives the clean look of no molding, and no front fender engine badging. But I'd forsake that to get a real engine, like the '79 or '80.

The Biarritz then was a bit of overkill I think. By then I was tired of leather seating with 100 buttons in each seat back and bottom insert. I like the leathers Caddy had then which were comparatively plain in design, better.

tjc78

The button tufted leathers just scream period to me, so if I was to get something like that I would want it.

Lincoln stayed away from the buttons and went more with pillow-top styling through the 80s.

andre1969

My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a RWD Fleetwood Brougham, which was the last year they used the 4.1 before switching to Olds 307s. It had 135 hp and 200 ft-lb of torque. 0-60 took 14.8 seconds, and used a fairly revvy 3.42:1 axle to even get that.

I vaguely remember seeing a road test on tv, ages ago, of one with the 307. As I recall, it wasn't much quicker. But then, years later, with the advent of the internet and easily being able to look things up, I found they used a 2.73:1 with the bigger engine. The main improvement was fuel economy, with a rise from 16/22 to 18/25.

Consumer Guide also tested a newly downsized FWD Fleetwood with the 4.1. In that car, the 4.1 had 125 hp, 195 ft-lb of torque, and used a 2.97:1 axle. 0-60 was 12.2 seconds.

With those FWD personal luxury coupes, I like them all, but tended to prefer the Toronado and Riviera to the Eldorado. Especially, once the Eldo started using 4.1's and the other two relied on Olds 307s. I imagine though, the 307 wasn't much quicker than the 4.1, although it was more durable.

Most people don't have anything nice to say about the 307, other than it being durable. But I keep thinking of my grandmother's '85 LeSabre with its 307, and thinking that it actually wasn't that bad. But, these E-bodies tended to be a few hundred pounds heavier, so that might have overwhelmed the engine more.

I used to think a 3.42:1 axle would make the engine too noisy, for a car like this, but I guess once it went into overdrive, that would cut it down quite a bit at highway speeds. Plus, I'm sure they had plenty of sound insulation. And then, I remembered my old 2000 Intrepid had a 3.89:1 axle, although top gear cut that down to effectively 2.6:1 or so. And I don't remember it being particularly unbearable at higher speeds. And my DeSoto has a 3.31:1 axle. It's not the quietest thing in the world, but that's mostly because of it being a hardtop, wind noise, not much sound insulation, etc. And while you can hear the engine and exhaust, it doesn't sound like it's revving needlessly.

tjc78

The 307 was fine for the times. Reliable, decent on gas (relatively) and very smooth. Perfect for the cars they were typically installed into.

The Ford fuel injected 302 was better, but I think I’d rather have a 307 than the 318 with the computer carb in something like a 85 ish Fifth Avenue.

ab348

Unfortunately the 307 was just overmatched in most of the applications it got used in. It was a good engine in terms of durability and emissions, certainly more robust than the various comparable SBCs, but it just wasn't big enough for a B or C-body. I remember driving an '84 Olds Custom Cruiser with a 307, the full-size wagon, and while it was OK around town, when you got it on the highway and wanted to get up to speed it mostly just made noise, not momentum.

Given that, I can't imagine how bad the Caddy 4.1 must have been. It seemed an unhappy engine right from the start, needing more development and testing, but that aside, it was just so undersized. I know that GM was going down a path of reducing engine size everywhere then, with the 4.4 SBC and the Olds 260 among others, but they were all just awful. I cannot imagine what they were thinking at GM and Cadillac by developing such a tiny V8 for their top of the line cars with such low power.

tjc78

I always thought the turbo 3.8 from the Buick line would have been a nice top trim engine for the Eldorado. Maybe it wasn’t smooth enough for Caddy buyers?

uplanderguy

andre, that Grand Prix bench seat interior does look like...a bench seat. I don't think I ever saw one like that.

My '82 Monte Carlo had the Custom Interior which became the CL interior in '83. Mine had a bench seat--not available in a 55/45 in '82, which struck me then and now as weird. The standard interior was available in 55/45. Perhaps the Grand Prix was the same, who knows.

My friend had an '84 Riviera (yes, that Briar Mist or whatever it was called). 307. He always complained it was slow. He "upgraded" later to an '88 Riviera which he claimed was faster and he liked the car better, supposedly.

Except for soft cams in the early '305's, I'm not aware of Chevy V8 reliability issues in the era. Conversely, Chevy 350's are usually known to be bulletproof. They eventually put EFI on the 305, which the 307 never got to my knowledge. I always thought it was unforgivable to offer the Chevy buyer a stronger V8 in a Caprice Classic than the Cadillac owner got in a Fleetwood Brougham. What were they thinking at "The General"?

sda

This was the interior that dad had in his 79 Eldo. I really like the saddle brown color, not too dark, rich, warm. The seats are not over the top like the Biarritz, but still very nice. The leather was soft and supple and the seats comfortable. The dash could have used more gauges and less fake wood trim, though it still looked nice. Too bad a leather wrapped wheel was not included. The back seat was fairly roomy and comfortable.

uplanderguy

I like that interior, very very much. I guess I expect woodgrain in a Caddy of that era.

I love the supple look of domestic leather of that period, although it tended to get creases.

That color is great, to me--it's almost like leather is supposed to be that color--like a saddle!

I even like high-quality vinyl interiors of that general era to be that color, as, again, it just seems that leather or something that looks like it, should be that color!

In a '64 Avanti, vinyl interior, I'd want that color interior with any exterior color for that reason, and I'd also pick that color for the early '70's Cadillac Calais 'expanded vinyl' interiors.

xwesx

My 1969 C20 has a 307 in it (original). It doesn't break your neck on acceleration, but it'll pretty much pull anything (albeit, not quickly!).

Michaell

xwesx said:

My 1969 C20 has a 307 in it (original). It doesn't break your neck on acceleration, but it'll pretty much pull anything (albeit, not quickly!).

My dad's 1970 C-10 had the 350 with a 3-speed automatic. Coming of age in the late 70's, it had great acceleration compared to the other cars I drove at the time. He also installed a free-flow muffler, so it sounded good as well.

uplanderguy

Different engine, but same displacement of course. That engine was last used by Chevy in the '73 model year.

andre1969

My 1985 Consumer Guide also tested a LeSabre Coupe and Delta 88 sedan with the 307, and a Parisienne with the 305. The only one that had a 0-60 time listed was the Delta 88, at 12 seconds. However, they gave all three cars a 4/5 rating for acceleration, so they were all close. They did mention that the Delta 88 felt more lively than the LeSabre, but I guess you can chalk that up to the wide variation in quality control back then. Or, it could have even been something as simple as what time of year they tested the cars, temperature, humidity, etc...all things that affected carbureted cars to some degree.

They also tested a Crown Vic, which did 0-60 in 10.5 seconds. It had the dual exhaust and 3.55:1 axle. It was still rated at 140 hp, but I seem to recall tjc98 saying that the dual exhaust actually added 10-15 hp? It was still rated 4/5. I think this year, Consumer Guide's cutoff to get a 5/5 for acceleration was 9.5 seconds or better? At least, they tested a Daytona turbo that did 9.4, and got a 5/5, and a Cressida that did 9.6, and got a 4/5.

Oh, they also had a Grand Marquis, which they gave 4/5 for acceleration, but didn't list a time. It had the single exhaust, and a 3.08:1 axle. For comparison, the GM 307 cars had a 2.73:1 axle and the Parisienne used a 2.56:1.

My Consumer Guide also has a test of a Cutlass Supreme with the 307, but just a 3-speed automatic. The axle is listed at a 2.14:1. For the longest time, I thought that was a transposition error, as they also had a Regal with the 231/3-speed, and it was listed at a more rational (but still tall) 2.41:1.

But then, years later, I learned that they really did offer axle ratios that tall. I wonder what it was like, driving something geared that tall? Must have been a real pain, off the line, hearing the engine almost begging to rev up, and actually having a nice grumble to it, but being held back by tall axle.

sda

andre1969 said:

My 1985 Consumer Guide also tested a LeSabre Coupe and Delta 88 sedan with the 307, and a Parisienne with the 305. The only one that had a 0-60 time listed was the Delta 88, at 12 seconds. However, they gave all three cars a 4/5 rating for acceleration, so they were all close. They did mention that the Delta 88 felt more lively than the LeSabre, but I guess you can chalk that up to the wide variation in quality control back then. Or, it could have even been something as simple as what time of year they tested the cars, temperature, humidity, etc...all things that affected carbureted cars to some degree.

They also tested a Crown Vic, which did 0-60 in 10.5 seconds. It had the dual exhaust and 3.55:1 axle. It was still rated at 140 hp, but I seem to recall tjc98 saying that the dual exhaust actually added 10-15 hp? It was still rated 4/5. I think this year, Consumer Guide's cutoff to get a 5/5 for acceleration was 9.5 seconds or better? At least, they tested a Daytona turbo that did 9.4, and got a 5/5, and a Cressida that did 9.6, and got a 4/5.

Oh, they also had a Grand Marquis, which they gave 4/5 for acceleration, but didn't list a time. It had the single exhaust, and a 3.08:1 axle. For comparison, the GM 307 cars had a 2.73:1 axle and the Parisienne used a 2.56:1.

My Consumer Guide also has a test of a Cutlass Supreme with the 307, but just a 3-speed automatic. The axle is listed at a 2.14:1. For the longest time, I thought that was a transposition error, as they also had a Regal with the 231/3-speed, and it was listed at a more rational (but still tall) 2.41:1.

But then, years later, I learned that they really did offer axle ratios that tall. I wonder what it was like, driving something geared that tall? Must have been a real pain, off the line, hearing the engine almost begging to rev up, and actually having a nice grumble to it, but being held back by tall axle.

It would probably shift 1-2 at 60+ and reach top speed in 2 not 3 ! lol

fintail

I remember my friend's 69 Nova with a 307 and 2 speed would do 1-2 at around 60 under hard acceleration, always alarmed me.

sda said:

It would probably shift 1-2 at 60+ and reach top speed in 2 not 3 ! lol

fintail

That does look comfy, curl up and take a nap.

I know I have mentioned it, when I was a kid, a good friend of my mom's had an Eldo of that era, blue on blue (I think it had a blue interior, maybe grey, but I swear it was blue). It was also that button tufted leather, and I remember it was very nice to ride in, I rode in the back numerous times. Caddys of that era still had a plush ride even if there were other occasional quirks. Something I associate with that car is George Benson's "Give Me The Night", I recall hearing it in that car more than once, I guess she had it on tape.

sda said:

This was the interior that dad had in his 79 Eldo. I really like the saddle brown color, not too dark, rich, warm. The seats are not over the top like the Biarritz, but still very nice. The leather was soft and supple and the seats comfortable. The dash could have used more gauges and less fake wood trim, though it still looked nice. Too bad a leather wrapped wheel was not included. The back seat was fairly roomy and comfortable.

uplanderguy

My guess only, but it seems like I always saw the fewest Toronados of all three of those E-cars (I think they were called)--although certainly not rare; it was a GM product, LOL! I never cared for the Riviera's 'hips'. I see the '67 Eldorado in the '79, which I like to think of.

Small thing that struck me unusual then about the Toronado--it had "Toronado" nameplate on the trunklid, but "Oldsmobile" on the sides. That was contrary to the industry norms then. The '71-73 Cadillac Calais was like that too, although I thought that way they needed to make fewer "Calais" nameplates, LOL.

I have to say that with the huge (and some would say disastrous) '86 downsizing of these cars, I liked the Toronado best. Seems like in magazine reviews and ads it was typical to see a navy blue Toro with gray or silver along the bottom, and I liked the Olds wheels then too.

andre1969

Sales-wise, the Toronado was the slowest seller of the three coupes. And that might be part of why I tend to gravitate towards it, as my favorite of the three...sort of a root for the underdog sort of thing. I also like the front-end, with the low grille...it's weird, and depending on the grille texture, which changed a few times (but I don't think every single model year), could be a bit hit or miss. But it's just offbeat enough that I kind of like it.

Also, I know this is a minor thing to focus on, but with the Toronado you got a temperature gauge standard, whereas the other two just gave you idiot lights. Now, it was still idiot lights for oil pressure and battery, so it was hardly what you'd call "full gauges," but still a minor step in the right direction.

And, when they shrunk these cars for '86, I thought the Toro was the coolest. I loved the hidden headlights, although I know that's something you don't like, Uplander! Oh, and that '86 downsizing was disastrous! Now, to be fair, the market for personal luxury coupes was going to start drying up, anyway. But, I wonder if shrinking these cars helped hasten the demise of the market, in general?

Here's the sales stats for '85:
Toronado: 42,185
Riviera: 65,305
Eldorado: 76,401
Mark VII: 18,355

Here they are for '86:
Toronado: 15,924
Riviera: 22,138
Eldorado: 21,842
Mark VII: 20,056

With GM effectively removing themselves from this market in their attempt to redefine it, I'm surprised, that sales of the Mark VII didn't suddenly start to take off. But then, buyers tended to be more brand-loyal in those days, so many of those buyers may have just gone for some other GM product, rather than jump ship to a Ford. No doubt, a lot of them just held onto their '85 and earlier Toro/Riv/Eldos, as well. And heck, for a lot of them, that may have been the last car they ever bought. Now that I think about it, their 1985 LeSabre was the last car my maternal grandparents bought, although Granddad did buy an '85 Silverado about 8 months later. Granddad passed away in 1990, at the age of 73. Grandmom had to give up her license on her 75th birthday, in 1999, when she couldn't pass the eye test anymore.

uplanderguy

I didn't remember the hideaway headlights on that first '86 Toronado, but I remember liking the car in profile and especially liking the rear end styling.

I didn't like the longer Trofeo, whenever it came out--had a visible seam above the taillights I didn't like--I dislike visible seams worse than hideaway headlights, LOL!

I did grow to like the Eldorado from '90 and '91 when they stretched the rear quarters a bit. Nice lacy aluminum wheels. That's a car I could like as a car to use today.

uplanderguy

That orangish '78 Malibu Classic Landau I posted here several days back made its appearance on a FB page called "Let's Bring Back Reasonable Prices to the Muscle Car Hobby Again". The main guy reminds me of someone who used to post here....posts demonstrably wrong information as fact and his opinion is the only one that matters, sigh.

About that Malibu, which is being asked $17K for (crazy, I know, but probably based on the other car I mentioned with 4-speed being sold when the asking price was also $17K), the site master said "Those cars only cost $3K new and I consider them to be a Chevy K-Car. Not worth more than $3K". When I posted that car was at least $6,500 new and probably closer to $7K, not $3K (where was he in the '70's?) as I'd looked at a hundred of them when new, he replied, "Whatever".

When I replied that I didn't believe he could have been shopping them for quite awhile, and that he wouldn't find one in original condition like that, like we had discussed here, he said, "History is $5-8K". What history? I look for those cars frequently and I have seen two for sale in probably three years that were original, low-mileage, and in good condition. Sheesh.

I used to tell my kids, "It's OK to say you're not sure about something, or you don't know. It doesn't mean you're weak".

Wish more people came from that point of view, LOL.

andre1969

Just out of curiosity, I checked, and the last time a Malibu was under $3,000 was 1973. And even then, if you got a Malibu coupe with a base V-8, it barely broke that barrier, at $3,010. Oddly, the sedan was a bit cheaper, at $2,987. The Chevelle DeLuxe models were all under $3,000, unless you got a wagon.

I had never noticed that before. I figured the sedan would have been a bit more expensive, as it had an extra set of doors and roll-down windows, and a bit more material, in general. But, anyway, at those prices, it still wasn't going to be the type of Malibu most people were craving.

Now, I'll say $5-8K is about all I'd want to pay for a nice, downsized Malibu coupe. But I'm also sure that if I really wanted one, I'd also be waiting for a long time!

uplanderguy

It's funny....I remember the $3,010 Malibu V8 base price for '73. When the model year started, it was $2,949, as there was a price freeze, federally. The '73 Malibu had some optional exterior trim that was standard on a '72, which I think might've been GM's way to not lose as much money on the all-new design for '73. I also remember the '70 being $2,809.

I probably wouldn't pay more than $8K for a nice original Malibu Classic (I'd want a '78 or none, truthfully). But what that means is....I most-likely would never be able to buy one, LOL. They're just not out there, and if they are, very rarely, they're not for sale at anywhere near that price.

That statement comes from a place of personal experience, not pulling it out of....well, you know, LOL.

The two-door Chevelles always started more than the four-doors--even though the four-door got you four more inches of wheelbase, and in '73, both were pillared hardtop styling (as opposed to a hardtop coupe versus four-door sedan with window frames and center pillar). Chevy used to pull some sleight-of-hand by saying "Chevelle comes with standard six or standard V8", but the base prices were different. Top of window stickers would say "Malibu Colonnade Hardtop Coupe-6" or "Malibu Colonnade Hardtop Coupe-V8", and the V8's base price was about $100 more than the six.

uplanderguy

Now, on that site there's a guy saying he was second owner of a '78 Malibu Classic coupe with 350 and "the original owner bought it that way. You could get it in the Malibu Classic". I posted the engine page from the brochure. Guy responded, "Yeah, and Olds says they never put a 403 in an '80 Cutlass Supreme but I bought one new".

Yeah, OK there, tiger.

GM wasn't known to bend regular production for one-off stuff. This guy is very special apparently.

Here, we have different tastes of course, but there's no outlandishness.

fintail

Funny, if I came up with a story about something along the lines of a factory built M100 V8 in a fintail, I'd be laughed off the internet by probably 1000 different people, there'd be no tolerance.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

Now, on that site there's a guy saying he was second owner of a '78 Malibu Classic coupe with 350 and "the original owner bought it that way. You could get it in the Malibu Classic". I posted the engine page from the brochure. Guy responded, "Yeah, and Olds says they never put a 403 in an '80 Cutlass Supreme but I bought one new".

Yeah, OK there, tiger.

GM wasn't known to bend regular production for one-off stuff. This guy is very special apparently.

Here, we have different tastes of course, but there's no outlandishness.

Well, you could get the 350 in '78 in a Malibu wagon in high-altitude areas. Not in the coupe. And the 403 in an '80 Cutlass would be quite the trick as the 403 went out of production during the '79 model year.

uplanderguy

I told him that. He was as certain as before, sigh.

"The 350 was available in the Malibu Classic".

As if Chevy ever offered a larger engine based on only a trim level, sheesh.

fintail

Saw a bulletnose Stude convertible today. 80s style hot rod/custom, not what I would do with one. Also saw a few old VWs, 60s Barracuda, ~70 Impala coupe, Dodge 600, Olds Silhouette, 70s Cadillac hearse, 2x 80s Tercel 4x4 wagons, E34 540i, decent Pinto hatch, immaculate big 70s F-series, decent 78-79 Bronco.

Michaell

Caught a glimpse of a 240Z tonight. White, mediocre condition, was surprising to see how small it was.

uplanderguy

Funny, if I came up with a story about something along the lines of a factory built M100 V8 in a fintail, I'd be laughed off the internet by probably 1000 different people, there'd be no tolerance.

There's no sin in being wrong, but when it's something so easy to verify, and the wrong statement is touted with total confidence, ugh.

fintail

Liars (or those touting "alternative facts") can be pretty confident. Sounds like they crossed the line between an error and attempted deception pretty fast. Plenty of this in automotive circles, probably from all brands, people touting options that didn't exist, wild performance claims, etc.

uplanderguy said:

There's no sin in being wrong, but when it's something so easy to verify, and the wrong statement is touted with total confidence, ugh.

uplanderguy

People go to sites to get information, so try and be for-real. You know how it is when something is in print; it's then gospel! LOL

Even on the Studebaker club site, if someone posts a car for sale--and a lot of times, it's not their car--if I or others point out non-authentic stuff that isn't spelled out in the ad, hooboy some thin-skinners get mad about your "nitpicking". Hell, it's only information. I would hope someone would point stuff like that out to me if I was considering a model I didn't know much about. It's like these guys don't want that information pointed out (and in a courteous manner I might add).

Just saw the funniest ad (parody) on the 'Classic G-Body Garage' FB page:

1987 SS, no title, no motor, no pictures, Make Offer! Serious Buyers Only!

Not a stretch from some ads, LOL.

andre1969

Yesterday on a lunch run, I saw a '65 Dodge Coronet hardtop coupe. Bright red. Had some seriously big hood scoops on it, so either the owner was faking, big-time, or it was set up for some serious performance!

As for 350s in the downsized GM intermediates, I know I've mentioned it before, but back in high school, a substitute teacher at our school had a '78 or '79 (memory's fuzzy, but I'm leaning towards '78), and I do remember him saying it had a 350. Now I'm sure that, if it did, either he or someone else, other than GM, put it in there. At the time though, I was just a high school kid, so I didn't know any better.

texases

I think resto-mods of those Mopars are pretty popular, seems like half the pics of Coronet coupes have that wide low hood scoop. Not like my '72 Duster slant six, with the dual fake hood scoops they put on the 'posers'.

ab348

At a nearby supermarket parking lot just now, a nicely-preserved late-70s Volvo 242 in this color and with these wheels, lowered but not this much. Can't remember the last time I saw one. These were cool cars in their day, and I think you could get them with a turbo engine.

uplanderguy

andre, regarding Chevy 350's, a friend of mine who has sold collector and late-model cars as a side job for a couple decades and I have both commented how virtually every ad we see, even for "original" seventies Novas and Colonnade Chevelles, say the car has a "350"...even in the middle and later part of the decade. When I was looking at those cars new--and I spent a lot of time doing that--many, many more were 305's than 350's. We both figure guys advertise a 305 as a 350 and don't even know it.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

andre, regarding Chevy 350's, a friend of mine who has sold collector and late-model cars as a side job for a couple decades and I have both commented how virtually every ad we see, even for "original" seventies Novas and Colonnade Chevelles, say the car has a "350"...even in the middle and later part of the decade. When I was looking at those cars new--and I spent a lot of time doing that--many, many more were 305's than 350's. We both figure guys advertise a 305 as a 350 and don't even know it.

I could definitely see that with the Nova, but the Chevelle surprises me a bit. Still, in my own experience with looking at Colonade LeManses and Grand Prixes, once the 301 became available for '77, it seemed like it was awfully common...even in a more upscale car like a Grand Prix. So a similar thing probably happened with the Chevelle.

When Consumer Reports tested a downsized '77 Chevy (can't remember if it was an Impala or Caprice), it had a 305 and they compared it to a Cutlass Supreme sedan with the Olds 260. Also thrown into the mix was an LTD-II with a 302 and a Mopar (can't remember if it was a Fury or Monaco) with a 318. Going from memory, the 305, 302, and 318 were all fairly close in 0-60, like in the 13 second range. I was impressed that the heavier LTD-II and the Mopar did as well as they did, with those engines. But the poor Cutlass was just over-matched, and took something like 21.6 seconds.

I'd be curious to see how a '77 Chevelle with a 305 would have stacked up. There really wasn't a huge weight difference. A V8 Malibu 4-door started at 3737 lb, while the Classic was 3824. An Impala V8 4-door was 3659 lb, and 3701 for the Caprice. It was enough difference for bragging rights, as in "our new, wave of the future full-sized car is lighter than any current midsized car!", but I imagine in real world driving, nobody noticed a ~100 lb difference.

sda

I really did not understand the viability of the Olds 260. Quiet, smooth and reliable, yes. But not much better mpg over the 350 and just a weakling in general. A college friend had a fairly base 77 Cutlass Supreme coupe. It seemed he always had the accelerator planted to the carpet to just keep up with traffic. Before I got the 76 Sunbird I test drove a 75 Omega hatchback with the 260, no a/c. I was really surprised by its lack of pep, a real slug. The Sunbird with the 5sp, 231 V6 and a/c felt like a sports car in comparison and that was with the crazy tall 2.56 rear end.

stickguy

I like those volvos. That looks like a base engine car wearing later turbo wheels. And either bagged, or all 4 springs rusted through and broke. And those cars liked to rust.

A guy on YouTube just did a turbo LS swap into a wagon version of this generation, with a manual. Something like 700 WHP on the Dyno. All stock outside, including wheels and rusted out tailgate. But looks fun.

ab348

I think these days with '70s GM cars that someone opens the hood, sees a SBC, and just assumes it is a 350, especially if the emissions sticker is gone underhood. My '77 LeMans 2-door had the 305 and I don't remember it being particularly sluggish.

Nobody understood the 260 Olds engine. It seemed partly developed to allow GM to put the weak 5-speed manual behind it that would have broken attached to an Olds 350, just so they could advertise a manual 5-speed Cutlass, and partly as part of GM's bizarre fuel economy strategy for the late '70s/early '80s that meant fitting under-sized, weak under-performing engines in many models.

uplanderguy

I have to check on this, but Chevy only used the 262 for model year 1975 I believe--in Novas and Monzas. The 305 came out in '76, even for Novas and Monzas, but also Chevelles and Monte Carlos. The majority of Chevelles and Monte Carlos I saw new for '76 and '77 were 305's although the 350 was optional, and virtually any V8 Nova I saw from '76 to '79 was a 305.

Most '77-79 big Chevys I saw were also 305's.

The 305 2-barrel was 145 hp for 1977, as we had one. I'm glad they didn't still use the 262 in their cars at that point.

EDIT: Both the 262 and 305 were available in '76 in the Monza, and not just in CA.

They did introduce the lame 267 for the '79 model year, in the Malibu and Monte Carlo, and it was used through '82.

stickguy

Sunday got behind a (I think) 90's something MB 300D sedan. Wife even commented about how much it smelled, and this one was not even pouring smoke or all black on the back. Needless to say, it did not move out all that fast.

laurasdada

Not obscure, and certainly put a smile on my face, a "recent" Alfa Spider Veloce, in quite red (including bumpers). Very nice shape, top down on an unseasonably mild Boston area Saturday afternoon.