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

ab348

fintail said:

For 80, that would be tough, I am not a big fan of the 78-80 Monte as to me it looks too busy and like a squished 73-77

David E. Davis famously wrote about the '78 Monte Carlo in C&D, describing it as a "steaming pile" that Bill Mitchell left on the doorstep of GM as he was leaving for retirement.

tjc78

@ab348 said:
David E. Davis famously wrote about the '78 Monte Carlo in C&D, describing it as a "steaming pile" that Bill Mitchell left on the doorstep of GM as he was leaving for retirement.

You could say something similar about any number of domestic 78-82 cars!

uplanderguy

It was either that mag or another, where the article said something like, “but what do we know? The car stopped businessmen in their tracks on the turntable at O’Hare airport”.

I still like the Malibu Classic coupe, all loaded up, best of all the new midsizes. I could see myself with one, other than most have been all rodded up.

I could actually handle a top-trim-level Cutlass Salon coupe now, although I surely couldn’t have back then.

David E. Davis has a short segment in the ‘64 Studebaker dealer introduction video I have. He said “I believe we’ll see a lot more Studebakers on the road this coming year”, because of styling. I wish he hadn’t been wrong on that.

fintail

I think Adam recently had a video mentioning the "buttless Cutlass". I've long had a low-key like of the period 442, if not a guilty pleasure.

The period Malibu coupe was a relatively handsome car, which is probably part of why it has a following among rodders/customizers.

ab348

In that cornering picture in the article, the whitewall seems to be rolled onto the asphalt.

texases

@ab348 said:
In that cornering picture in the article, the whitewall seems to be rolled onto the asphalt.

A common attitude of tires in those tests, unfortunately.

andre1969

I kinda like the aeroback 442 as well. I'll even admit a fondness for the 4-door '78-79 Cutlass Salon, if it's in the right color, and well-equipped. Awhile back I remember seeing one for sale online. It was a Salon Brougham, so the interior was pretty nice, and it was well-equipped...even the flip out vents in back were power. I think it was burgundy. The only downside was that it had the 260 V8.

I wonder how many Cutlasses back then were equipped with the 305? It seems like most of the ones I've run across either had the 231 or the 260. But back then, it seems like a Malibu or Monte Carlo was more likely to have a 305, vs one of the smaller engines. With the LeMans and Century, I haven't seen enough over the years to really get a feel, but I'm thinking most of them had the 231, vs the 301 (or 305, if you bought a CA/high altitude car, or just happened to get lucky?).

Did Pontiac ever use the 301 in Canada, or was a 305 always used in its place?

uplanderguy

In '78, the 305 2-barrel was the only V8 available on Malibu and Monte Carlos (well, 350 was available on the wagon); the 267 was introduced for '79. I had a 267 in my '81 Monte Carlo. I remember it being slow, but it was smooth-running and made V8 sounds, unlike my parents' '80 with the 229 V6.

I can never remember all the various engines used because of California smog emissions.

I rode halfways across the country and back in my friends' parents' new 1978 Cutlass Salon Brougham 4-door. It was that orange-ish color. I don't like the four-door slantbacks at all; I don't really like any of the GM midsizes in four-doors those years. The Salon was a 260. I drove it some on that trip as well. I remember being pretty impressed overall--again, was quiet and smooth and nimble and felt like a smaller big car. The interior was nice. It was a saddle-colored velour 60/40 front seat with center armrest. Not a pillow-style seat, but I'm not a fan of those anyway.

The '79 Malibu offered the 267 or a new-that-year 305 4-barrel. The F41 suspension was supposedly improved as well, but I just don't like the small styling details, in or out, as well as the '78. I wanted a '78 even back then, but as a poor college student...you know the rest.

uplanderguy

Road and Track tested the '78 Malibu Classic too. This is the interior I'm very fond of that year...the split front bench seat with dual center armrests, and the optional Monte Carlo-style instrumentation. The interior is luxurious in a simple way, which must've resulted in head-butting in the GM styling studios at the time. No woodgrain; no nameplates, just a bit of gloss black outlined in gold pinstripe.

But what's up with the steering wheel? It's upside down. Could it have been delivered that way? Would the wheel have turned that far? If so, why would R&T photograph it that way? Mystery of life.

On an unrelated note, maybe I need to stop posting on FB car pages, yeesh. This morning I had a guy on a "Muscle Car" page, where a '64 Studebaker Daytona R2 was posted, post that "In '65 and '66 they came with 300 hp 327's". Never, nada. I replied (politely) that only a 195 hp 2-barrel 283 engine was used as a V8 in those years. Response? "Your (sic) wrong. Google it". Butting my head against a wall now, good grief. I don't always have to be right....but I also don't have to pretend to be wrong, repeatedly, to massage someone's ego. Aren't car pages supposed to be....informational?

fintail

That upside down steering wheel makes me twitch a little. I hope to heck it was parked with the wheels cranked and not built like that - even for quality of that era I can't imagine it leaving the line like that.

Interesting how they claim a MB 280E is a "logical alternative" - that car had a base MSRP around 20K back then (not a ton of possible options, mind you) - probably double a nicely equipped Malibu. Random trivia, the 280E (and CE) was the only gasoline W123 sold in the USDM, and I think were dropped in this market by 81 or so as everyone wanted the diesels and few gassers were selling.

ab348

Given that article was published 6+ months into the production of the new Malibu, I seriously doubt that it could have possibly left the assembly plant that way given the hundreds of thousands of Chevys made with that steering wheel design before this one.

One note regarding the article - they say that the F41 option upgraded the standard 185/75R14 tires to 205/75R14s. You have to wonder how much better the handling would be with a lower profile tire on a larger wheel.

uplanderguy

I see from the close-up photo of the instruments, that the car had 3,700 miles. Not sure why R&T would have taken the pic with the wheel like that. Looks dumb.

Monte Carlo had 205-70 tires, so I don’t know why the F41 on the Malibu wasn’t the same.

Looking at the '78 Monte Carlo brochure online, I was reminded that the 4-speed transmission was available on the 305 V8, of course, but also on the Buick-built 231 V6. I've never even seen a photo of a 4-speed in the latter. I'll guess that it was available on the B-O-P versions as well, but too lazy to check.

kyfdx

ab348 said:

Given that article was published 6+ months into the production of the new Malibu, I seriously doubt that it could have possibly left the assembly plant that way given the hundreds of thousands of Chevys made with that steering wheel design before this one.

One note regarding the article - they say that the F41 option upgraded the standard 185/75R14 tires to 205/75R14s. You have to wonder how much better the handling would be with a lower profile tire on a larger wheel.

That optional size (assuming it’s correct) wouldn’t be lower profile. It would actually have a slightly taller sidewall.

andre1969

I'm wondering if that 205/75-R14 in the R&T article is a misprint, and it was actually a 205/70-R14? A 75 series tire just seems out of place with a package that's supposed to improve handling.

I could see a 205/75-R14 being used on a heavier car that they still wanted to use 14" wheels with. Like perhaps the wagon, or a car equipped with a towing package?

I was also surprised to see a 185/75-R14 listed as the standard tire size. I didn't think they'd put tires that small on a car that size. At least, I remember my Mom's '80 Malibu having 195/75-R14s.

kyfdx

Even a 205/70-14 has a taller sidewall than a 185/75-14. (and, I agree that's a more likely size)

The handling "improvement" is likely from the wider footprint, not a lower profile.

ab348

kyfdx said:

Even a 205/70-14 has a taller sidewall than a 185/75-14. (and, I agree that's a more likely size)

The handling "improvement" is likely from the wider footprint, not a lower profile.

The original magazine reference is most likely a typo. While the ‘78 Malibu brochure is silent on the subject, the ‘78 Monta Carlo catalog indeed states that 205R70/14 tires are optional on it, and I would suspect the Malibu offered the same choice.

uplanderguy

All '78-80 Monte Carlos came with 205R70/14 tires as standard equipment; all Montes built from '73-80 had the Sport Suspension as standard equipment. The optional tire in the '78-80 years was the same size, just with whitewalls.

I would suspect the Malibu would have the same size tires in the F41 package.

I see the '79 Malibu brochure actually lists 205-70 tires as optional, requiring the F41 Sport Suspension.

Something I don't think I realized was how much longer a Monte Carlo was than a Malibu...200.4 inches vs. 192.7. All in the hood I'm sure. I always liked the taut look of the Malibu, not an ounce of fat in the styling.

andre1969

The rear deck on the Monte Carlo looks a bit longer than a Malibu to me, even with the way the Monte slopes off at the rear. However, they probably achieve that look with a shorter passenger cabin that has the rear window moved a bit further forward.

I also remember the backrest of the rear seat being more upright in the personal luxury coupes, whereas it was more reclined in my '80 Malibu coupe. Oddly, the personal luxury coupes were listed as having slightly more interior room than the regular Malibu/LeMans coupes, possibly the Buick/Olds Aerobacks as well. Somehow, they managed to get a longer legroom measurement out of the personal luxury coupes. Something like 36.4" vs 35.1." From what I recall though, my Malibu felt roomier, and more comfortable, in the back seat than Mom's '86 Monte Carlo. I remember that upright backrest feeling less comfortable, but I don't remember perceiving a difference in legroom.

uplanderguy

Your post reminded me of a couple things. When my parents got their '80 Monte Carlo, I recall the rear seat backrest feeling pretty upright, and that the back of my head seemed nearer the almost straight-up-and-down rear window.

Really, a 1.3 inch increase in legroom is significant. The rear seat legroom in our '74 Impala Sport Coupe, a behemoth, was 35-point something, I feel pretty sure (too lazy to look).

I've posted a pic of my parents' '80 Monte Carlo here before. What I liked best about it was it had the optional belt moldings (bottom of door glass), which neither my '81 or '82, or my parents' next car, their '84, had; it was a one-year -only dark, almost-military, green and I remember thinking at the time that it was a good, smooth, even paint job. Also, the gold pinstriping from the factory, although it was on the fender blisters which I'd have preferred it being along the top of the body sides, like the '78, were paint, not tape. And it had 205-70's and Sport suspension, which none of our other Montes had (that feature and those tires became optional in '81). All that said, I was partial to my parents' '84 because of the toned-down woodgrain inside but mostly because of its 305 4-barrel, but I did like my '81 in two-tone Light Jade over Dark Jade with matching cloth interior. Of course the '81 was a good revision in styling.

roadburner

uplanderguy said:

All '78-80 Monte Carlos came with 205R70/14 tires as standard equipment; all Montes built from '73-80 had the Sport Suspension as standard equipment. The optional tire in the '78-80 years was the same size, just with whitewalls.

I would suspect the Malibu would have the same size tires in the F41 package.

I see the '79 Malibu brochure actually lists 205-70 tires as optional, requiring the F41 Sport Suspension.

Something I don't think I realized was how much longer a Monte Carlo was than a Malibu...200.4 inches vs. 192.7. All in the hood I'm sure. I always liked the taut look of the Malibu, not an ounce of fat in the styling.

A 1973 Monte Carlo equipped with the three speed manual received the standard suspension without radial tires or a rear anti-roll bar. See here.

andre1969

For some reason, I want to say those B-body coupes were 35.8". I think convertibles were the same. I do remember the Grand Ville, I remember the Grand Ville (and Bonneville for '75-76) having something like 38.5...it was identical to the 4-doors, I remember that much because Pontiac bragged about it in one of the brochures. The downsized '77+ B-bodies (or a 1985 Delta 88 Royale Brougham LS coupe, at least) were 38.1."

And yeah, I agree that 1.3" is pretty significant. So that's why I'm surprised that my Malibu seemed as roomy as it did. Sometimes I wonder how they come at those measurements, though. For instance, my '03 Regal had 36.0" of legroom in back, yet the only way you could put anyone behind me was if they sat sideways. But then my '76 Grand LeMans, a coupe no less, with only 32.9", while tight, isn't as bad. And I remember looking up my '67 Catalina once...33.9" IIRC. And I fit in just fine. Hower, I think those legroom measurements are some kind of combination of horizontal and vertical measurements. So a seat that's low, but far back from the front seat, could have the same measurement as a seat that sits up higher, but isn't as far back from the front seat. And I do recall GM bragging about "theater style" seating in those W-bodies. In contrast, the LeMans's back seat is a bit low, and the Catalina's, lower still.

Another thing that I just remembered about those downsized personal luxury coupes. From 1981 onward (and possibly 1978-80 as well), the little shelf behind the back seat was so narrow, a regular 6x9 speaker wouldn't fit. I think they used a 4x11 or something like that. At least, I remember wanting to put in an extra set of 6x9 speakers I had in my '82 Cutlass Supreme, and finding out they wouldn't fit.

texases

Yep, those skinny 4x10" speakers:

uplanderguy

A 1973 Monte Carlo equipped with the three speed manual received the standard suspension without radial tires or a rear anti-roll bar

I'm pretty sure this came up before. The base coupe (not 'S' or 'Landau') was a loss-leader kind of car. It was not available with an automatic transmission. In my 65.8 years, and having about lived at a Chevy dealership from '70 to '80, I have never seen a single one. If they were 1% of production, that's something. My guess is that they weren't even that.

Every single automatic-transmission Monte Carlo from '73 to '77, every 3-speed manual shift Monte Carlo S and Landau, and every single Monte Carlo from '78 to '80, had the bigger tires and Sport suspension standard.

Funny, I thought I remembered kind-of an asterisk type of description about the base '73 Monte Carlo in the brochure. I wonder if it even lasted the whole model year, as I just looked online at the brochure and I can't find a single mention of it--only the S and Landau, which came standard with 3-speed manual and the bigger tires and suspension goodies.

uplanderguy

When my parents had a '67 Chevelle four-door, my sister and her husband bought a used (maybe two years old) '69 Chevelle Malibu Sport Coupe. In '68 the mid-size coupes shrunk four inches in wheelbase and adopted a long-hood/short-deck styling, which did look nice. But I have 26 inch inseam and I remember feeling completely squashed in the back seat of that car. The trunk was small compared to the '67 car as well.

uplanderguy

I remember Pontiac bragging up the Grand Ville coupe's rear legroom, chalking it up to the formal roofline somehow. The Bonneville didn't have the formal roofline, and the added length of the wheelbase was ahead of the passenger compartment.

gsemike

Here are a couple I spotted in the wild. Checker Cab in Manhattan pulling limo duty. Accord wagon. I hadn't seen one anywhere in ages

uplanderguy

andre, did you see this '70 Catalina hardtop coupe on Marketplace? For a long time I didn't like the '70 big Pontiacs, and now I like them a good bit as I never see them it seems. I even think the skirts look nice on this car. I wouldn't pay his asking price for the car, but then I'm not in the market.

I always liked the Ventura option on the Catalina, rarely-seen that late. The seats weren't a whole lot more luxurious than the Catalina, but they did seem thicker, and the lower door panels were carpeted. I'd like this car more if it were the Ventura.

As we used to discuss, looks to me like the "Catalina" lettering above the glovebox has rubbed off. Upon closer look, maybe not.

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/108411989183959/?hoisted_items=686798193536846

gsemike

uplanderguy said:

andre, did you see this '70 Catalina hardtop coupe on Marketplace? For a long time I didn't like the '70 big Pontiacs, and now I like them a good bit as I never see them it seems. I even think the skirts look nice on this car. I wouldn't pay his asking price for the car, but then I'm not in the market.

I always liked the Ventura option on the Catalina, rarely-seen that late. The seats weren't a whole lot more luxurious than the Catalina, but they did seem thicker, and the lower door panels were carpeted. I'd like this car more if it were the Ventura.

As we used to discuss, looks to me like the "Catalina" lettering above the glovebox has rubbed off. Upon closer look, maybe not.

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/108411989183959/?hoisted_items=686798193536846

Those 70s are cool. Somehow managed to appear lean. Got very bloated after that

andre1969

It's really cool seeing a Checker still pressed into duty, after all these years. Actually, I'm impressed that they're allowed to do that. I was under the impression that nowadays, there are restrictions on taxis, that they have to be retired once they get to a certain age? Cabs are kind of a rarity out here in the boonies, but the last time I was in DC, it seemed like the taxi of choice was the Toyota Camry. I imagine most of them are crossovers these days.

Seeing that Accord wagon makes me feel old. I was still in college, and was only working part time in what would ultimately become my career, when the last one of those rolled off the assembly line. And here I am now, pushing my mid-50s, with retirement and social security really not THAT far off. Yet that car just doesn't look all that old. It blends in rather well with modern traffic. Try doing that with a 31+ year old car, back in 1993!

Oh, as for that '70 Catalina, yeah I'm in the same boat. Tended to not like them at all back when they were more common, but they do kind of grow on you. And yes, that lettering in the woodgrain WILL rub off! I can remember wiping down that part on my '69 Bonneville, and the gold wearing off.

I think if I wanted a mid-range GM full-size from that year, my first choice would actually be a Delta 88. Or a Ninety-Eight if I wanted to go ritzier. I like the front-end of them. Maybe not the sportiest thing in the world by 1970, but handsome enough. And they have sort of a slab-sidedness to them that makes them not look quite as fat as a Pontiac.

The '70 LeSabre's not bad either. Although, with the split grille, it makes me think a bit of an Oldsmobile, itself.

fintail

That generation Accord was peak Accord, the wagon is a nice vehicle and becoming desirable if in pristine condition.

A couple of spots from today. First, from an estate sale ad - a 1976 Granada (virtually no other info) - I notice the registration sticker expired in 1987:



And from a real estate listing, another Ford:

explorerx4

I saw this in a garage when we were looking to move to Ohio.

uplanderguy

That Galaxie convert is a '67. Nice car, as is the '56 Thunderbird, my fave of the three years.

gsemike

@andre1969 NYC cabs have become much more diverse. Of course, the standard used to be the Checker Cab. They were mostly gone by my time. I'm perceiving we are about the same age.

Started working in the city in 92. All cabs were Crown Vics and Caprice Classics. They're mostly gone but you will see one every now and then. The Nissan NV whatevers became the new official cab. They dominated for a while and are still around, but now you'll see everything. A lot of Rav4s, some Escapes.,..a lot of Camrys, Siennas Also will see a lot of one-offs. 1 model 3; 1 C class

I don't know about rules on retiring them. Will see some that are really pieced together and have 400k+ on the clock. It must be a brutal life. There are shops in the outer boroughs that specialize in just keeping these things together.

When I lived in Queens close to Manhattan there was a flat repair shop. They'd get cars in and out in 10 minutes

explorerx4

That Checker could be designated as a Black Car instead of a taxi.

ab348

gsemike said:

When I lived in Queens close to Manhattan there was a flat repair shop. They'd get cars in and out in 10 minutes

Just beyond the centerfield fence of Citi Field in Queens, home of the Mets, is 126th Ave, now Seaver Way, which is/was home to come of the most ramshackle and run-down auto repair places you could ask for. Chop shops along with mufflers and tire repairs seemed to be their stock in trade, but I'm sure they could get anything back on the road if you weren't too picky. I gather that the area is gradually being redeveloped.

tjc78

Little known fact many NYC Crown Vic cabs were actually extended wheel base models (like the Town Car L).

Hard to really tell the difference but the door panel (and extra leg room) was the easiest way if inside.

Regular

Extended

gsemike

@tjc78 Yeah. With the partition, there wasn't much room back there. Was always a pleasant surprise getting one of the extended ones.

@explorerx4 yes, the checker was definitely pulling car service details. I saw the driver handling a sign about Congratulations to the bridge and groom

andre1969

Weren't there actually two different versions of the LWB Crown Victoria? For some reason, I'm thinking one had regular-length window, and an extra-thick B-pillar, while the other had a longer window, and normal B-pillar? Or was that the Town Car?

tjc78

@andre1969 said:
Weren't there actually two different versions of the LWB Crown Victoria? For some reason, I'm thinking one had regular-length window, and an extra-thick B-pillar, while the other had a longer window, and normal B-pillar? Or was that the Town Car?

Yeah, I think what you are describing is the differences between the Town Car L and Vic extended. The TCL had the big B pillar

uplanderguy

I was in Kalamazoo, MI, Checker's home, in 1982 with work. I couldn't believe all the Checker sedans I saw there with whitewalls, wire wheel covers, and vinyl tops with the rear quarter windows covered over.

Checkers are known of course for being sturdy, but i've seen a few over the years where the tops of the rear fenders were rusted through which is a bit unusual.

uplanderguy

Bad pic, but an Olds Cutlass Ciera wagon I was behind in Kent yesterday. I think it's no older than a '91 since it has ABS (per the tailgate emblem).

I always thought those midsize FWD GM's made a good-looking wagon--really, better-looking than the coupes or sedans to my eyes.

uplanderguy

Poor pic, but three Gen 1 Cruzes in a row (including mine). You can tell they were built about 30 miles down the road.

gsemike

@uplanderguy Do they still bang you for $895 destination charge?

uplanderguy

Destination charge is like a postage stamp--it's the same whether a car is delivered a mile from the plant or across the country. And it is non-negotiable.

uplanderguy

We were just discussing this general era of GM midsizes. This pic was on FB today; Arlington, TX assembly. Cutlass sedan followed by Monte Carlo. 1980 model year.

Michaell

My cousin's husband worked his entire career for GM. Started in the Tarrytown, NY plant where they made, among other things, the "Dustbuster" minivans.

When GM closed that plant, the family (including my aunt) moved to Oklahoma City where they built the Malibu and the (last gen) Cutlass.

OKC got closed, so he transferred to the Arlington plant (he commuted weekly) where they were building the full size SUVs (Escalade, Tahoe, Suburban, etc).

He finally retired a few years back.

andre1969

Interesting. I never would have imagined a Cutlass sedan and a Monte Carlo would have rolled down the same assembly line.

uplanderguy

I've seen a photo of 1964 Chevelles, F-85's, and Tempests going down the same line at Fremont, CA. I might've posted it here at some point; can't recall for sure. I also posted a pic probably within the last month, of a '73 Catalina Safari going down the line at Janesville, WI, behind a Bel Air sedan.

Our '80, '81, and '82 Monte Carlos were all built at Baltimore. My parents' '84 Monte Carlo was built at Arlington. All were bought new at the same dealer.

The Colonnade-era Monte Carlos I saw throughout any given week at our local dealer's, were usually built at Baltimore, but I'd also see them come in from Oshawa, Ontario.

ab348

My Dad’s brand-new, bought-on-introduction-day ‘78 Grand LeMans Safari was built in Baltimore, shipped to and sold in Halifax, Nova Scotia. I always found that odd.

uplanderguy

My Dad’s brand-new, bought-on-introduction-day ‘78 Grand LeMans Safari was built in Baltimore, shipped to and sold in Halifax, Nova Scotia. I always found that odd.

That does seem odd. I don't know what was being built in either Oshawa or Ste. Therese, Quebec at that point.

Other than my C8, the only other car I ordered was a solid, dark plum (not what it was called) '85 Celebrity Eurosport 2-door with the 2.8 MFI V6 and aluminum wheels. I lived in suburban Atlanta at the time. I fully-expected it to be built in Oklahoma City which built Celebritys then, but when it came in (after three months), it was built in Oshawa, Ontario.

I recall seeing one or two well-loaded '87 or '88 Monte Carlo LS models, probably my favorite of that gen, with T-tops and the velour CL interior offered as options then, that were built in Pontiac, MI.