By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Was also browsing random thoughts and found this junkyard image:
1985 Tempo, notice the steering wheel - it's an airbag car. Driver's airbag was optional on 85+ Tempos, but I suspect very few were made, and I don't recall having seen one before, not in person anyway. Too bad the car appears to be a lost cause, as a low key Tempo enthusiast, this caught my attention.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
andre--regarding the F-41 suspension--I looked at the GM Heritage Center site and saw the detail they had for '78 full-size Chevys. The GR70 tires were only available with the F-41 suspension, which is what I remember, but there was no mention in the options list there, what all was included in the F-41 option.
All the magazines back then always said they could hardly believe how inexpensive the F-41 package was. And re.: pricing of wheels--for what seemed like a number of years, the Chevy Rally Wheels and bright center and trim rings, were only $56 over the standard wheel and hub cap. I was always surprised how inexpensive that was as an option.
I always thought the Tempo/Topaz sedan redesign was a step in the right direction. The coupes looked chubby to me. That said, around here in the later years, the coupes seemed to be advertised by dealers as loss leaders and the pricing was almost amazing for a car like that.
On the subject of handling upgrades in cars, my 1985 Consumer Guide says of the Crown Vic "Three inexpensive options (handling suspension, 215/70R-15 tires, and Traction-Lok rear axle) added only $223 to the list price of our Crown Victoria, yet they did much to improve its performance ratings." It also lists a 205/75R-14 as still being the standard tire, so going to those tires they mentioned seems to imply a wheel upgrade, as well.
The car they show in the picture is sporting turbine wheels. But, I wonder if the 215/70R-15 just got you a steel wheel with hubcap, and you still had to pay extra for the turbine? Or, if the bigger tire got you the turbines, I'd say that $223 total was a really good deal! Probably about $500-600 adjusting for inflation, but still a bargain in my opinion.
I’d have to look it up but I don’t believe in 1985 Ford called anything “handling suspension”. If anything it would have been a tow package car. That typically had larger sway bars.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
Was the trailer towing package the option that got you the dual exhaust and 3.55:1 axle?
Odd to see the base Malibu with sport mirrors and Rally Wheels.
Being the base car, the interior is dismal--real dismal.
It has limited slip differential of all things too, and no A/C.
And....the original owner's name was 'Andre' on the paperwork shown there, LOL.
I love low-mileage cars. And on most GM's anyway, I can tell if the mileage seems real or not. I believe this one.
Sticker on this car was $6,816.00, which struck me as high. The Rally Wheels were shown as $96 extra. I remember $56 on Monte Carlos, anyway, but it occurred to me that that's on top of a full wheel cover, as opposed to on top of a little hub cap as on a base Malibu. Our Monte Carlo was $7,070.00 at the bottom of the sticker, which I am absolutely certain--I had the window sticker until probably six or seven years ago and looked at it a good hundred times. Seems like a Monte Carlo should be more than $254 more than this Malibu. Equipment was similar but the Monte of course had the standard sport suspension and 205-70 tires, and ours also had gold painted pinstripe, tinted glass, clock, AM-FM radio, and a rear seat speaker, and chrome belt moldings. No floor mats nor limited-slip though.
Ours just had hubcaps, but they were full sized at least, and not dog-dish. Ours also only had a driver's side mirror...no sport mirrors.
It does look nice in that green. Now that I think about it, I don't know if I've ever seen a green '80 Malibu. It seems like green was popular in '78-79, and in '81 there was the occasional light jadestone. But then in '82-83, they seemed like they were mostly blue, or earthtone/champagne type colors.
Was the interior on this one cloth or vinyl? Ours was all vinyl, and in the dark blue, didn't look bad, for the time. Although after being used to nicer cars over the years, I'm sure I wouldn't be so fond of it now, as I was back then!
I need to go through my old pictures and see if I can dig up a pic of Mom's old Malibu. Unfortunately, in those days, it wasn't all that common for us to "waste" film taking a pic of a car! The best we could hope for was usually catching a glimpse of one in the background of a family photo or something.
**Edit: According to my book, a base '80 Monte sport coupe started at $6524. Was an automatic standard on the Monte by 1980? It was still optional on the Malibu. If so, that would account for at least part of the price difference. A Dodge Mirada was $6645 and that came standard with an automatic, so I figured at $6524, the Monte would probably have it standard.
Here's the window sticker, and green seating:
@andre1969
I’m wrong. They did have a Handling Suspension, along with Heavy Duty and then the Trailer Tow that was the suspension parts with dual exhaust and higher ratio rear. It also included trans and oil coolers too.
I never realized it was available outside of the the trailer towing package back then.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
Wow, I didn't realize that the 195/75/R14 was actually an option! I just checked the sales brochure and sure enough, they list a 185/75/R14, fiberglass belted radial whitewall as standard!
Ours also didn't have posi, but did have a/c and an AM/FM radio. So maybe it is reasonable to think that my Mom's '80 stickered around $7,000, as equipped. She bought hers in February of '80, so maybe it's possible the base MSRP was raised above $5502 by then, as well.
Interesting that it had Posi, but I wonder if that was more common further North, where you had to worry more about snow and icy conditions.
As for that '64 Impala, I can decode it a bit further...
4: 1964
18: Impala V8 (doesn't specify WHICH V8 though)
47: Sport Coupe (hardtop)
Y: Wilmington, DC assembly plant
229405: Sequence number
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I do remember our Monte Carlo had something called "Value Appearance Package" that included the painted pinstripe, belt moldings, wide sill moldings, and Rally Wheels. I'll assume that group cost less than those options individually. All those things really dressed the car up substantially.
My '81 Monte Carlo 267 had limited-slip. I found it better in the snow but it seemed worse at the time to me, on ice.
I wonder how much an AM/FM radio would have cost, over the AM-only? And I'm guessing the tint at the top of the windshield was an option? Oh, and a rear window defroster; I know that was an option even on expensive cars back then. Mom's car had the tint and the defroster.
Too bad my Mom didn't spring for the rally wheels and the sport mirrors...that would have made for a nice looking car. But, she just bought it off the lot, no special order.
ETA: I actually like the shade of green in that Malibu interior but that front seat looks like a park bench. Mean-looking thing.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I’d like that plain Malibu a good bit better if it had the standard Three-speed floor shift. I think the 229 was better than that 3.3 they used a couple years before that. The 3.3 didn’t even crack 100 hp.
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
Yes, beginning in 1980 Chevy had its own 3.8.
I thought all GM 3.8s were Buick.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
On the road today, an extremely clean 65-66 Newport 4 door post.
For some reason, it was a bit low on torque the first few years. Whereas the carbureted Buick 231 was usually good for around 190 ft-lb, the Chevy 229 only had 175 ft-lb. In theory, you'd think it would have been a better performer than the tiny 200 V6 they used in 1978-79, but I don't think there was much difference. Part of it was because of the 229's low torque, but also, Chevy took advantage of that larger displacement, and slipped a taller rear end behind the 229. A 2.56:1, compared to a 2.73:1 for the 200.
At some point, GM did revise something in the 229, and I think they got the torque up to 190 ft-lb.
Similarly, in '78-79, Buick had a tiny 3.2/196 CID V6 that was standard in the Century and Regal. I forget the hp, but it was actually a few more than the Chevy 3.3/200.
In those first two downsized years, there actually was a reason to move up from a Chevy to a Pontiac...a LeMans or Grand Prix had the 231 standard, whereas the Malibu and even the Monte Carlo just had the Chevy 200. But then, oddly, with Olds, the Cutlass Salon and Supreme had the 231, while Buick made you take the 196 standard, so it seemed like a step down.
However, in Cailfornia, the 200 and 196 weren't offered, so you got a 231 as the base engine.
I was a little surprised the 231 was only 105 hp in '78.
Chrysler was the same way with engines, but started pushing corporate engines in 1958. But, before that, Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto, and Chrysler each had their own V8. I think the flathead sixes might have been related across the divisions though, just offered in various displacements. But then, for '58 they launched the new corporate wedgehead V8, trying it out first on all DeSotos, the top Dodges, and as an option for Plymouth, but mostly seen in the Fury. For '59 the Dodge engine, a 325 poly-head, went away, replaced by the 326, which was a slight enlargement of the Plymouth 318. And that same year, a raised deck version of the Wedge replaced the Hemi in Chryslers.
So, as early as 1959, Chrysler was basically down to two V8 families. The "A" engine (started as the Plymouth V8, and was the 318/326), and the "B/RB", which was the 361/383 in B format, and 383/413 in RB (Raised-deck
Ford was similar, that they never really got the engine bloat. I'm not sure about the early years, but by the late 50's I think they had the Ford Y-block, the "FE" engine, and the "MEL" engine family.
By the time the 70's rolled around, GM was dealing with a mess of big blocks and smallblocks from the various divisions (although I've often heard the Pontiac V8 referred to as a "medium" block). Meanwhile, Mopar managed to get through it with just two basic V8s, and I think Ford was still doing it with 3. At least, wasn't the 400 still a holdover from the old "FE" engine family?
Now, Chrysler did get really messy in the early 2000's. At one point, for V6s, they had a 2.7, 3.2, 3.5 (LH cars), 3.3 and 3.8 (minivans) and 3.9 (trucks). But, maybe that wasn't *TOO* bad...now that I think of it, the 2.7 was unique. The 3.3/3.8 were the same family. The 3.5 started as an OHC version of the 3.3/3.8, and the 3.2 was a reduced-displacement version of that. And the 3.9 was the good old fashioned American method of saw-off-a-V8 (in this case a 318). Oh, and then if it was a model that shared anything with Mitsubishi, there was the 3.0. But, these days, Chrysler pretty much settles all those various needs with one 3.6 V6.
I wonder, too, if unions might have played a role in having all those different engines and such with GM? When you think about it, if you reduce the number of engines, and other parts, you probably reduce the number of employees, as you simplify the assembly plants and reduce the number of parts vendors and such. It would also eliminate redundant R&D departments, which is good for profitability, but I'm sure each division probably pulled the "Not in MY Backyard!" routine. And probably had the clout to get away with it. For awhile.
Nice summary of engine history. It helps jog my memory which, well, never mind.
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
Our '74 Impala was also built at Wilmington, so they were building full-size Chevys there for at least a decade. Our '77 Impala was built at Janesville, WI.
RE.: '64 Impala--I dislike the styling, although I know a lot of people like them. If a '64 Sport Coupe was traded in on a new car at the end of September '80, why do I think some low-level employee like washboy or grease-and-oil guy at the dealership probably bought that trade-in?
A friend of mine who is 76 and a lifelong mechanic always says that in his opinion, the full-size 1963-64 Chevys and Fords were at the peak of workmanship, quality, and reliability. If that's the case, yet another thing that seemed to go away after the events of 1963.
Incidentally, our '67 Chevelle 4-door sedan, 300 Deluxe, six with 3-speed, 30K miles, fetched us exactly $550 trade-in on our new '73 Nova, which we took delivery on Oct. 6, 1972. Admittedly, that was off only a sticker bottom line of $2,625. That the guy got $800-plus for a car that was seventeen model years old in 1980 isn't bad.
I think part of the problem with the proliferation of GM engines was complicated by the tradition of each brand having their own engine manufacturing foundries and manufacturing facilities, so there was a lot of capacity there that GM didn't want to just throw away until it became pointless to continue once they realized that their sales volume was declining and likely wouldn't ever come back. Plus you had some buyers who were loyal to, say, Olds, Buick, or Cadillac engines versus Chevy, which they considered inferior. It took a lot of convincing before GM bean-counters were allowed to shut those engine factories down.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Dad used to gravitate to Olds. He thought the Rocket V8s were fine engines. Knowing how powerful some of the Chrysler engines were he would sometimes give a sideways compliment saying too bad Chrysler bodies rust, rattle, squeak, they have good powertrains. Yet he traded his 59 Catalina for the 63 Olds 88 because the floors had rotted out on his 6yr old Pontiac, to boot, the transmission was acting up.
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
I really think the blur of divisions and individuality really began at GM with the Celebrity/6000/Ciera/Century. Even the X-cars were more differentiated among divisions--at least for styling, in and out. I'll give them credit for giving the midsize FWD's individual instrument panels. I think Ford/Mercury and Mopar had given up on that long before.
The 'superiority mentality' died hard. I remember a guy telling me how superior GMC was to Chevrolet in the mid or late '70's. I gotta believe one ran down the line right behind another, and the emblems and grille inserts being the only differences.
We've discussed this before too, but I think through 1970, Chevy really put their money where you could see it--interiors that were a bit above similar models in the 'prestige' divisions, and sometimes exterior trim standard that were optional on the 'prestige' divisions. That said, you were saddled with Powerglides and smaller V8's, and slightly shorter wheelbases, to compensate, LOL.
I do remember my uncle telling me he dumped their '67 LeSabre in '69 as it already needed a valve job.
Meanwhile, Lincoln did exist before Ford acquired them, but then Ford Motor Company brought out Mercury, Edsel, and occasionally tried to push Continental as its own brand, a step above a "mere" Lincoln.
Similarly, Chrysler acquired the Dodge Brothers, but then launched Plymouth and DeSoto, and from '55-75 tried to push Imperial as its own division.
This might also be why, among the GM ranks, it seems like you might have people who love one division but hate another, whereas among the Ford folks and the Mopar folks, they seem to be more like one big happy family.
Chevrolet: 4-cylinder engines
Oldsmobile: 6-cylinder engines
Buick: 8-cylinder engines
Pontiac: Performance versions of any/each of the products.
Which brand of car product the engines went into wouldn't matter as much as the focus of each brand on the best engines coming out of their plants. Just a wasted opportunity. So many mis-steps that turned golden geese into dry hens. Consider the Fiero, for instance.... The Iron Duke murdered that product's future, yet it was among the hottest products on the market (from an interest perspective) for several years in the 80s.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
As for the Chevies and their nicer interior, I'll admit, Uplander, I got a little jealous when you told me that the '67 Impala had carpeted lower door panels standard. Prior to that, I thought it was only the SS that had that. Suddenly my Catalina seemed so...inadequate!
In '67 Pontiacs I like the Bonneville Brougham interior for looks (although the good-looking 'Strato Bench' seats, used across the divisions, were pretty thin in the backs, in my memory), and I also like the Ventura and Executive cloth seats, which they didn't offer on the two-door hardtops!
I like the 2+2 that year too as a model, just for the Studebaker-production-numbers rarity, even though it has fake vents on the front fenders!
'67 Impala standard interior:
I truthfully don't care for Caprice interiors of the period--too frou-frou.
I tend to think of 1985 as the last "glory year" for GM. Yes, they had their problems, and the cracks were starting to show, but sales were still strong. In fact, seven of the top ten nameplates were GM. In no order: Cavalier, Celebrity, Caprice/Impala, Delta 88, Cutlass Ciera, Cutlass Supreme, and Century. Ford had the Tempo and Escort. The one import at the time was the Sentra.
I think the Cutlass Supreme is a bit unfair though, as they lumped the sedan in with the personal luxury coupe. In my mind that's like lumping the Bonneville-G with the Grand Prix, or the LTD with the Thunderbird.
I do remember for 1986, GM went down to 6 of the top 10. I think the Delta 88 and Cutlass Supreme dropped off, but the Grand Am joined the ranks. I think Ford added the Taurus. As popular as the Taurus was, it didn't start off that way. Either it started off slow in 1986, or it was a late entry; I can't remember, but for the model year, I remember the Celebrity outselling it by a wide margin. However, the Taurus caught on fast for '87.
This could be the most over the top production Caddy of the 70s and 80s.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTR5dAoo1/
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart