You know, starting in '70, the Biscayne no longer appeared in the full-size Chevy brochure, but still could be had. I used to have the big 1971 showroom album and the Biscayne was in there, but not in the brochure...and no mention in the album of it being only available in fleets or anything. Makes me wonder if any mention of six-cylinders in full-size '72 Chevys only took place in the big showroom album, thinking only fleet buyers would really be interested. Or not.
I like the '72 Chevy, but I never liked how little trim was on Impalas. The 4-door sedan, sport coupe, and sport sedan only had a thin bright body-side molding (vinyl insert extra)...no rocker trim; wheel opening trim optional (standard on Custom Coupe). The Biscayne and Bel Air had standard rocker trim and ALL other trim on an Impala could be ordered on them, meaning they could end up with more exterior trim than you could order on an Impala!
I remember the Caprice 4-door sedan (w/post) was a mid-year addition, so this brochure must be a second edition.
So much of the instrument panel, and steering wheel, of a '71-72 big Chevy was black, that I'd have probably chosen a black interior so at least it looks color-keyed!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I keep looking for a Burgandy (you have that color, right?) Genny
Yes, I have the burgundy. I have only ever seen one other one in my color. There certainly aren't many of them around, and it seems if I do see another one its silver.
I think '73 might've been the last year for the straight six in the big Chevies. At least, the '73 sales brochure mentions it, and I think someone posted a link to a '73 Bel Air with a 250 and 3-on-the-tree on eBay a couple months ago. Sort of a greenish-brown color with a black interior IIRC?
For '74-75, I think the base engine was a choked-down 350-2bbl with 145 hp, and then in '76 that gave way to a 305-2bbl, also with 145 hp. Then, with downsizing, they started offering the 250 again.
I think the Fords and Plymouths got so heavy that they were forced to go to standard V-8 power, as well. I believe Ford even had to go to standard V-8 even with their midsized cars! I'm pretty sure the '77-79 LTD-II had a 302 as the base engine, but I think the earlier Torino dropped the 6-cyl at some point, as well.
I'm sure they probably used that standard V-8 as a bragging point in their advertising, as in "We're the only ones in this class to give you STANDARD V-8 power", when the truth would have been "Our cars are so damn heavy they need a V-8 just to keep up!"
There was a black-on-black low-mileage '73 Bel Air six with 3-speed on eBay a few months back that we discussed, that sold for a pretty high price considering the car.
We had a '74 Impala Sport Coupe, purchased new, that had the standard 350 2-barrel V8 rated at 145 hp. You're correct Andre, in that sixes were no longer offered on big Chevys in '74. The 305 was never offered on 'big' Chevys in '75 or '76. In fact, there were no 305's at all 'til the '76 model year, and then only in Monzas, Novas, Chevelles, and Monte Carlos.
Our '77 Impala Coupe, purchased new, had the 305 with 145 hp. Since the car was so much lighter, it was way peppier than our '74 and got considerably better mileage too.
Those 'general' old car reference books are interesting to peruse, but I'd never take for granted any of the information in them...I've seen way too many goofs of a very basic nature in every one I've ever looked at. Your best bet is to look online at the original sales brochure on the 'Old Car Manuals Project'--although even brochures might be a tiny bit suspect as I am thinking the '72 big Chevy brochure may be about the availability of a six-cylinder; plus sometimes revisions are made in the middle of a model year, for which the manufacturer would print revised brochures (that's my experience with Chevy, anyway).
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Here's one piece where the factory literature isn't correct...I remembered it and googled it and here it is..from the '70 Chevrolet Accessories brochure:
Too bad they didn't follow through on it...I think it looks great, especially with skirts (those first Montes are one of the only cars that I think look 'natural' with skirts).
I still think your best bet for factual info is from the original sales brochure.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
You're right, the 305 was available on the Camaro as early as '76. Brain f**t on my part I guess. I was a weird teenager...Camaros didn't do much for me; I was far-more into Malibu Classics and Monte Carlos in '76, and Novas and Monzas in '75.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I was a weird teenager...Camaros didn't do much for me; I was far-more into Malibu Classics and Monte Carlos in '76, and Novas and Monzas in '75.
I can relate. When I first saw "Smokey and the Bandit" in the theater, it really turned me on to the '76-77 style of Pontiac LeMans. I'm sure most normal kids would have been turned on by Burt Reynold's Trans Am.
There was a black-on-black low-mileage '73 Bel Air six with 3-speed on eBay a few months back that we discussed, that sold for a pretty high price considering the car.
THAT's the one I was thinking of! Don't know why I was thinking it was greenish-brown.
Oh, and I see what you mean about the inconsistencies in those old car books. Mine lists the 145 hp 305 as being the base engine in the '76 big cars, but looking at www.tocmp.com, a 145 hp 350-2bbl was still standard.
I also like the way they came out with a stripper Impala S model, which I presume was meant to replace the Bel Air. Seems like old models never die, they just get re-named! In a similar fashion, for 1986, what had been the Impala got renamed as simply "Caprice"
Remember that the THM offered up to '69 was the TH-400. Big, tough tranny that sucked up a lot of HP. It must have been a dog mated to a 307.
In '69 GM introduced the TH-350. Smaller, more efficient trans, better suited to smaller engines because it couldn't handle the torque of the really big engines. That is why a THM was available with any engine that year. What you got depended on what engine you ordered.
In '78 GM came out with the even smaller and lighter TH-200, largely unloved at first. My '78 Delta had the TH-350 backing an Olds 350 V-8. My '79 Electra had a TH-400 backing an Olds 403. Dad's '78 Lemans had a TH-200 backing a Chevy 305.
I was a weird teenager...Camaros didn't do much for me; I was far-more into Malibu Classics and Monte Carlos in '76, and Novas and Monzas in '75.
I liked the 70.5 - 72 Camaro's (early Gen II models) better than the first gen which is probably also not common. Prior to that I really preferred the Mustang, but it got bloated in 71. I think Camaro started doing that (though not as much) by the mid 70's. I liked some of the Javelin's as well, but my favorite pony car is the early 70's Dodge Challenger.
I was far-more into Malibu Classics and Monte Carlos in '76, and Novas and Monzas in '75.
I wasn't so much into mid 70's Chevy's except for the Monte Carlo. However, I understand your preferences because that time period seemed to have mid sizers that I thought looked nicer than the then current pony cars whether Cutlass, Cordoba. or even the Ford Elite.
I agree, the early '70's Camaros looked nice...I don't know why they didn't do the wraparound rear window right from the first...looks like it was meant for that.
I could never get past how a car of that external size had so little back seat and trunk. I think the trunk was 6.7 cubic feet or something...they should have called it a 'rear glove box'!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
you want weird, I had an affinity (or maybe it was just what i could find/afford) as a teen for AMC products. By early in college, I had gone through a Gremlin and a Hornet.
my first car was actually a '67 Camaro, but then I went odd ball with a Duster. Then the gremlin. in between was a Nova that had issues and never got titled. Then it got weird (an Opel)
I don't know if you were weirder than me or not! I liked Studebakers, but didn't buy one 'til 1988.
I can vividly recall looking at the local Chrysler-Plymouth-AMC dealer as a 16 or 17 year old, with a buddy of mine...daydreaming as usual. A salesman came out and said, "Hey, want to see the new car?". We said 'sure'. They had just gotten their first Pacer in. It was bright yellow and a cheapie--dog dish hubcaps and all. I think the salesman wanted to gauge the reaction of a couple teenage guys. I was stunned. I remember saying, "It looks like a bug squatting to take a sh**." But, I give them this, it was original and had a roomy interior for its overall length. They had it tucked in a service bay in the corner of their Service Dept.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I seem to see that a lot. I know it takes up room in the engine bay, but if I had a factory A/C car gutting that equipment would be the last thing I do. I would want it operational, its not like on that big V8 its sucking up that much power.
Bad decision these days. A working AC can add 15%--20% to the value of some "classics", so on a $10K car that's an extra $1500 value. It's certainly something worth fixing---perhaps not on this $500 cheapie but on many cars.
If you can't fix it, at least leave it intact.
There are a few exceptions to this rule but not too many. Early Porsche buyers, for instance, don't care whether you have the original AC in there or not, because a) it doesn't work and b) it gets in the way of just about every service procedure.
My '84 had two little center vents.. and that was it... the outboard vents didn't get A/C, just fresh air... Wasn't too bad, as long as the outside temperature was under 70.... :surprise:
That was my thought too. I think the guy got carried away with the aftermarket parts bug and bought a set of pulleys he didn't need to get. Hopefully all the parts for the A/C come with the car.
I dunno if this one would be bigger than, say, a '71 Pontiac or Olds clamshell wagon, as those were huge. But the Mopar fuselage wagons were plenty big.
I like that car, but those rear quarters look a bit shaky. Exhaust manifolds don't look lie they have any coating other than oxidation. The far end of the exhaust pipes are just right.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
I dunno if this one would be bigger than, say, a '71 Pontiac or Olds clamshell wagon, as those were huge. But the Mopar fuselage wagons were plenty big.
GM's '71-76 wagons were on a 125" wb for Chevies, 127" for the other models, so I think that would trump just about everything else out there. For '69-73, Dodge and Plymouth wagons were on a 122" wb, Chryslers were on a 124". For 1974, I think all the Mopar wagons went to a 124" The '73-78 Ford and Mercury wagons, IIRC, were actually fairly petite, on a 121" wb. Marquis sedans and coupes were on a longer 124" wb, but the wagon was forced to share the Ford wheelbase.
Chrysler had a knack for styling their cars to LOOK big, though. I couldn't find any stats for the '71 Polara, but a similar '72 Monaco wagon was 222.8" long. Plus, these cars were fairly flat-faced, and did not have protruding bumpers., so basically, that 222.8" is all car. Even if some other car is, say, 10 inches longer, it's not necessarily going to look bigger if that additional length is all in the bumper, and/or if the front of the car is prow-shaped. A '73 Caprice wagon, for instance, is 226.8" long, but I'm sure that 5 mph front bumper, which is also vee-shaped, adds more than 4" to the length of the car, compared to the Dodge.
I've heard that the clamshell tailgate ate up a lot of interior room on the GM wagons, but going by cargo volume, GM's clamshells had 106.8 cubic feet, plus under-floor cargo on the 2-seat models. And 100.8" of floor space behind the front seat. (1973 Chevy brochure) In contrast, a '73 Polara/Monaco had 104.2 cubic feet, and 99" of floor space. Oh, as for overall length, the 5-mph bumpers, which on the Mopars basically meant big rubber blocks, puffed up the length to 227.9" for Polaras, 230.1 for Monacos.
Thanks for the fact-checking, Andre. Chrysler's big wagons sure looked wide, but I guess a lot of that is the 'fuselage' styling. For a big wagon, I thought the '71-76 GM wagons were the best-looking out there, inside and out, and I always liked how the brochures would show one with a trailer attached, but the tailgate could still go down.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
You're welcome. I think that fuselage styling probably did make the Mopars look bigger. As for overall width, they were probably all close, at 79-79.9". Once you hit 80" or more, I believe it would have to be classified as a medium-duty truck. IIRC, even pickup trucks, vans, and SUV's are held to this standard.
The '71-76 GM cars were a bit "fuselaged" themselves, but had lower beltlines and a lot more glass area, and I think that gave them a lighter look.
Oh, for comparison, I looked up the stats for Ford's '73-78 wagons, but couldn't find interior dimensions until the '75 brochure. The '75 LTD wagon was up to 225.6" by that time, but still on a 121" wb. It only had 94.6 cubic feet of cargo space (plus more storage under the floor), and the floor area was only 92.3". So technically, it failed the "plywood test", as it couldn't carry a 4x8 sheet flat on the floor with the tailgate closed.
When Chrysler redesigned their big cars for 1974, they lost a little bit of interior volume. The floor area dropped slightly to 97.7", so it still passed the "plywood test", and cargo volume was down a bit to 100.8 cubic feet. It was on a 124" wb, and the '76 model was 227.7" long.
Out of curiosity, I looked at the stats for the bloated 70's intermediate wagons. The '72-76 Torino/Montego wagons had at least 48" between the wheel wells, so they could hold a 4x8 flat, but didn't have the length, so the tailgate had to stay open. They had about 87" of length. The '71-78 Dodges and Plymouths also had at least 48", and the '73 brochure claims that the Coronet wagon can hold a 4x8 flat, with the tailgate closed. But it lists the length of the cargo floor at 94.3", just short of 8 feet. I guess they figure you could always move the seat up a bit.
GM's '73-77 intermediates failed the plywood test in both dimensions. Only 44.5" between the wheel wells, and a 90.2" load floor.
I always thought that Ford and Mopar generally had better looking wagons than GM in the 60's and 70's. Now I'm not gonna throw an early to mid 60's Buick or Olds out of the garage though. Got to admit that a Ford Country Squire or Mercury Colony Park is probably the classic wagon of those days, although some of the full size Chrysler's were very nicely done too. Another wagon that really says late 50's/early 60's is the then ubiquitous (at least around the Chicago area) Rambler Cross Country.
Another wagon that really says late 50's/early 60's is the then ubiquitous (at least around the Chicago area) Rambler Cross Country.
The Cross Country was the 4-door hardtop, right? My Mom's second car was a 1959 Rambler wagon, black with pink trim, but I don't think it was the 4-door hardtop. She doesn't remember much about it, except she paid around $200 for it, and one of the wheels fell off of it while she was driving it! :surprise: She bought a brand-new '66 Catalina convertible when she was a senior in high school (saved half the money waiting tables, and borrowed the other half from an aunt), but I can't remember if she traded that Rambler, or sold it outright.
I think there was a hardtop version of that Rambler wagon for a year or two in the 50's, but then the wagons all went pillared.
Now the 65/66 Pontiac convertibles, still find them downright gorgeous. Personally, I think the Catalina with its shorter wheelbase pulls off that body better than the Bonneville, although they are both lookers. So did your mom go from frumpy wagon to sexy rag top during a middle aged crazy spell - just kidding!
Now the 65/66 Pontiac convertibles, still find them downright gorgeous. Personally, I think the Catalina with its shorter wheelbase pulls off that body better than the Bonneville, although they are both lookers. So did your mom go from frumpy wagon to sexy rag top during a middle aged crazy spell - just kidding!
I really don't notice the difference in length with the Catalina versus the Bonneville, unless you see them side-by-side (which actually happens at car shows...at the GM show at Carlisle, my '67 Catalina is usually parked next to a '67 Bonneville, and then the difference is blatant), or with the 4-door models, where you can really see the extra 3" or so added in that little area just behind the back doors.
I think the '65 Pontiacs are just about perfect. The '66 models are nice too, but I prefer the forward thrust of the headlights on the '65 models.
As for Mom? Well, her first car was a '57 Plymouth that Granddad found for her, for $75, in 1965. Being a Mopar fan, that's the car from her youth that intrigues me the most. But she doesn't remember much about it, other than that it was big, gray, and at one point, someone closed a door too hard and it broke a window! But she doesn't remember the model, body style, engine, or anything else about it. I think the Rambler was just something to tide her over until she could save up for what she really wanted.
I always thought it was amusing that she thought the Plymouth was too big, yet the '66 Catalina she got was even bigger. But, they made big improvements in handling by that time, at least if comparing my '57 DeSoto to my '67 Catalina is a good gauge. So the Catalina probably felt a lot more nimble than that '57 Plymouth did.
A few years ago, I was showing my Mom around my garage, and she noticed my '76 LeMans. She recognized it as being similar to the '75 LeMans she once owned, and asked me..."are you serious? I really owned a car that was that big?!" And I told her yep...in fact, you once owned one that was even bigger! And pointed to my '67 Catalina, which wasn't much bigger than her '66, although the styling made it look fatter. She just couldn't believe it, that once upon a time, she drove a car that size, and acted like it was no big deal.
Actually, the Cross Country was the wagon. The hardtop was the Country Club. The hardtop wagon, which I think was only available in the Ambassador, was called the Hardtop Cross Country. I am just weird enough to want one.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
Me, too. I like the round instruments in the center better than the square ones on the '66, and I like the woodgrain on Bonnevilles and Grand Prixs on the right 1/3 of the dash better than that big clear plastic panel on the '66's.
I like the Catalina's shorter wheelbase, but I like the seats and woodgrain dash panels and assist bar on the Bonneville. I like the Bonneville's fastback roof better than the Grand Prix. I'd really like a '65 Bonneville Sport Coupe with buckets and console. Rare, but available. Only thing I don't like about the '65 Bonneville is that goofy Bonneville emblem on the front fender that looks like a flying saucer. They wisely got rid of that in '66.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
About '60's GM wagons, from '61 to '64 I could never stand the totally non-descript cutout of the rear doors...a perfect, bolt-upright parallellogram. But then an outside supplier built GM's wagons then.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Yeah, that perfectly upright C-pillar on those '61-64 models isn't the most beautiful thing in the world. I imagine it was better from a functionality standpoint though, making for better access to the back seat.
My wife's different. She'll look at a Chevy Sprint, Toyota Yaris, or something similar and sat she couldn't believe she once drove something so small. Now, a Buick LaCrosse is hardly gargantuan, but it's a limousine compared to a 1986 Chevy Sprint.
Could you get those wheels on a '65 Skylark or Sportwagon? I guess it doesn't much matter, as it looks great! I, too, like the color a lot.
A childhood friend had a white one of these--also a '65--but with full wheelcovers. Red interior. Really nice car. His Dad was a gruff guy that I was always kind-of scared around, but he had good taste in wagons!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
AFAIK you could get those wheels on a Skylark or Sportwagon. I agree, they do look good. I had a Teal Blue Mist 1968 Buick Special Deluxe wagon with a white roof. My car had a medium blue vinyl interior and sported full wheel discs.
So was the hardtop wagon called the"Cross Country Club"?
AMC called them the "Hardtop Cross Country", but I have seen them referred to as the "Country Club Wagon". In any case, a Rambler hardtop station wagon just pushes my 'funky' button. Also, since the Ambassador had 250-270 hp, I would imagine that it could hold it's own in the day.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
That's really nice. They're pretty simple cars too. I had a '64 Skylark convertible and at that stage a lot of stuff that later was plastic was still made of metal. Oddest thing about mine was the water-heated choke pulloff, which never gave me any trouble but seemed to have great potential for same. The 300 V-8 would likely be a bit overmatched for that wagon, but it seemed to work well in my car. I know a lot of people went to those wheels from the aftermarket during recent restos. Originally the deluxe full wheel covers on the '64 (dunno about '65) had a big diecast chromed spinner on them which made them heavy and tough to keep the cover on the wheel. Worst thing about these was a very delicate thin-rimmed steering wheel which is almost always badly cracked by now.
Comments
I like the '72 Chevy, but I never liked how little trim was on Impalas. The 4-door sedan, sport coupe, and sport sedan only had a thin bright body-side molding (vinyl insert extra)...no rocker trim; wheel opening trim optional (standard on Custom Coupe). The Biscayne and Bel Air had standard rocker trim and ALL other trim on an Impala could be ordered on them, meaning they could end up with more exterior trim than you could order on an Impala!
I remember the Caprice 4-door sedan (w/post) was a mid-year addition, so this brochure must be a second edition.
So much of the instrument panel, and steering wheel, of a '71-72 big Chevy was black, that I'd have probably chosen a black interior so at least it looks color-keyed!
source: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/American-Cars-1960-1972/J-Kelly-Flory/e/9780786- 412730
Yes, I have the burgundy. I have only ever seen one other one in my color. There certainly aren't many of them around, and it seems if I do see another one its silver.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
For '74-75, I think the base engine was a choked-down 350-2bbl with 145 hp, and then in '76 that gave way to a 305-2bbl, also with 145 hp. Then, with downsizing, they started offering the 250 again.
I think the Fords and Plymouths got so heavy that they were forced to go to standard V-8 power, as well. I believe Ford even had to go to standard V-8 even with their midsized cars! I'm pretty sure the '77-79 LTD-II had a 302 as the base engine, but I think the earlier Torino dropped the 6-cyl at some point, as well.
I'm sure they probably used that standard V-8 as a bragging point in their advertising, as in "We're the only ones in this class to give you STANDARD V-8 power", when the truth would have been "Our cars are so damn heavy they need a V-8 just to keep up!"
I guess until someone comes up with a stock '73 full size Chevy w/ 6 cylinder, I'm gonna stick with 1972.
We had a '74 Impala Sport Coupe, purchased new, that had the standard 350 2-barrel V8 rated at 145 hp. You're correct Andre, in that sixes were no longer offered on big Chevys in '74. The 305 was never offered on 'big' Chevys in '75 or '76. In fact, there were no 305's at all 'til the '76 model year, and then only in Monzas, Novas, Chevelles, and Monte Carlos.
Our '77 Impala Coupe, purchased new, had the 305 with 145 hp. Since the car was so much lighter, it was way peppier than our '74 and got considerably better mileage too.
Those 'general' old car reference books are interesting to peruse, but I'd never take for granted any of the information in them...I've seen way too many goofs of a very basic nature in every one I've ever looked at. Your best bet is to look online at the original sales brochure on the 'Old Car Manuals Project'--although even brochures might be a tiny bit suspect as I am thinking the '72 big Chevy brochure may be about the availability of a six-cylinder; plus sometimes revisions are made in the middle of a model year, for which the manufacturer would print revised brochures (that's my experience with Chevy, anyway).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3527/3827579924_2d3f4a3f1e.jpg
An image of a '70 Monte Carlo convertible!
Too bad they didn't follow through on it...I think it looks great, especially with skirts (those first Montes are one of the only cars that I think look 'natural' with skirts).
I still think your best bet for factual info is from the original sales brochure.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I can relate. When I first saw "Smokey and the Bandit" in the theater, it really turned me on to the '76-77 style of Pontiac LeMans. I'm sure most normal kids would have been turned on by Burt Reynold's Trans Am.
THAT's the one I was thinking of! Don't know why I was thinking it was greenish-brown.
Oh, and I see what you mean about the inconsistencies in those old car books. Mine lists the 145 hp 305 as being the base engine in the '76 big cars, but looking at www.tocmp.com, a 145 hp 350-2bbl was still standard.
I also like the way they came out with a stripper Impala S model, which I presume was meant to replace the Bel Air. Seems like old models never die, they just get re-named! In a similar fashion, for 1986, what had been the Impala got renamed as simply "Caprice"
In '69 GM introduced the TH-350. Smaller, more efficient trans, better suited to smaller engines because it couldn't handle the torque of the really big engines. That is why a THM was available with any engine that year. What you got depended on what engine you ordered.
In '78 GM came out with the even smaller and lighter TH-200, largely unloved at first. My '78 Delta had the TH-350 backing an Olds 350 V-8. My '79 Electra had a TH-400 backing an Olds 403. Dad's '78 Lemans had a TH-200 backing a Chevy 305.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I liked the 70.5 - 72 Camaro's (early Gen II models) better than the first gen which is probably also not common. Prior to that I really preferred the Mustang, but it got bloated in 71. I think Camaro started doing that (though not as much) by the mid 70's. I liked some of the Javelin's as well, but my favorite pony car is the early 70's Dodge Challenger.
I was far-more into Malibu Classics and Monte Carlos in '76, and Novas and Monzas in '75.
I wasn't so much into mid 70's Chevy's except for the Monte Carlo. However, I understand your preferences because that time period seemed to have mid sizers that I thought looked nicer than the then current pony cars whether Cutlass, Cordoba. or even the Ford Elite.
I could never get past how a car of that external size had so little back seat and trunk. I think the trunk was 6.7 cubic feet or something...they should have called it a 'rear glove box'!
my first car was actually a '67 Camaro, but then I went odd ball with a Duster. Then the gremlin. in between was a Nova that had issues and never got titled. Then it got weird (an Opel)
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
'71 Polara Custom wagon
Would make an interesting project as it seems to mostly need interior trim and paint. That would make for a neat hauler.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I grew up a GM guy and closet Studie admirer, but I do think Chrysler's wagons were bigger than GM's and Ford's, when bigger was a positive thing.
Interesting car.
I can vividly recall looking at the local Chrysler-Plymouth-AMC dealer as a 16 or 17 year old, with a buddy of mine...daydreaming as usual. A salesman came out and said, "Hey, want to see the new car?". We said 'sure'. They had just gotten their first Pacer in. It was bright yellow and a cheapie--dog dish hubcaps and all. I think the salesman wanted to gauge the reaction of a couple teenage guys. I was stunned. I remember saying, "It looks like a bug squatting to take a sh**." But, I give them this, it was original and had a roomy interior for its overall length. They had it tucked in a service bay in the corner of their Service Dept.
I seem to see that a lot. I know it takes up room in the engine bay, but if I had a factory A/C car gutting that equipment would be the last thing I do. I would want it operational, its not like on that big V8 its sucking up that much power.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
If you can't fix it, at least leave it intact.
There are a few exceptions to this rule but not too many. Early Porsche buyers, for instance, don't care whether you have the original AC in there or not, because a) it doesn't work and b) it gets in the way of just about every service procedure.
My '84 had two little center vents.. and that was it... the outboard vents didn't get A/C, just fresh air... Wasn't too bad, as long as the outside temperature was under 70.... :surprise:
The sad part? This was my first car with A/C...
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I dunno if this one would be bigger than, say, a '71 Pontiac or Olds clamshell wagon, as those were huge. But the Mopar fuselage wagons were plenty big.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Exhaust manifolds don't look lie they have any coating other than oxidation.
The far end of the exhaust pipes are just right.
GM's '71-76 wagons were on a 125" wb for Chevies, 127" for the other models, so I think that would trump just about everything else out there. For '69-73, Dodge and Plymouth wagons were on a 122" wb, Chryslers were on a 124". For 1974, I think all the Mopar wagons went to a 124" The '73-78 Ford and Mercury wagons, IIRC, were actually fairly petite, on a 121" wb. Marquis sedans and coupes were on a longer 124" wb, but the wagon was forced to share the Ford wheelbase.
Chrysler had a knack for styling their cars to LOOK big, though. I couldn't find any stats for the '71 Polara, but a similar '72 Monaco wagon was 222.8" long. Plus, these cars were fairly flat-faced, and did not have protruding bumpers., so basically, that 222.8" is all car. Even if some other car is, say, 10 inches longer, it's not necessarily going to look bigger if that additional length is all in the bumper, and/or if the front of the car is prow-shaped. A '73 Caprice wagon, for instance, is 226.8" long, but I'm sure that 5 mph front bumper, which is also vee-shaped, adds more than 4" to the length of the car, compared to the Dodge.
I've heard that the clamshell tailgate ate up a lot of interior room on the GM wagons, but going by cargo volume, GM's clamshells had 106.8 cubic feet, plus under-floor cargo on the 2-seat models. And 100.8" of floor space behind the front seat. (1973 Chevy brochure)
In contrast, a '73 Polara/Monaco had 104.2 cubic feet, and 99" of floor space. Oh, as for overall length, the 5-mph bumpers, which on the Mopars basically meant big rubber blocks, puffed up the length to 227.9" for Polaras, 230.1 for Monacos.
The '71-76 GM cars were a bit "fuselaged" themselves, but had lower beltlines and a lot more glass area, and I think that gave them a lighter look.
Oh, for comparison, I looked up the stats for Ford's '73-78 wagons, but couldn't find interior dimensions until the '75 brochure. The '75 LTD wagon was up to 225.6" by that time, but still on a 121" wb. It only had 94.6 cubic feet of cargo space (plus more storage under the floor), and the floor area was only 92.3". So technically, it failed the "plywood test", as it couldn't carry a 4x8 sheet flat on the floor with the tailgate closed.
When Chrysler redesigned their big cars for 1974, they lost a little bit of interior volume. The floor area dropped slightly to 97.7", so it still passed the "plywood test", and cargo volume was down a bit to 100.8 cubic feet. It was on a 124" wb, and the '76 model was 227.7" long.
Out of curiosity, I looked at the stats for the bloated 70's intermediate wagons. The '72-76 Torino/Montego wagons had at least 48" between the wheel wells, so they could hold a 4x8 flat, but didn't have the length, so the tailgate had to stay open. They had about 87" of length. The '71-78 Dodges and Plymouths also had at least 48", and the '73 brochure claims that the Coronet wagon can hold a 4x8 flat, with the tailgate closed. But it lists the length of the cargo floor at 94.3", just short of 8 feet. I guess they figure you could always move the seat up a bit.
GM's '73-77 intermediates failed the plywood test in both dimensions. Only 44.5" between the wheel wells, and a 90.2" load floor.
The Cross Country was the 4-door hardtop, right? My Mom's second car was a 1959 Rambler wagon, black with pink trim, but I don't think it was the 4-door hardtop. She doesn't remember much about it, except she paid around $200 for it, and one of the wheels fell off of it while she was driving it! :surprise: She bought a brand-new '66 Catalina convertible when she was a senior in high school (saved half the money waiting tables, and borrowed the other half from an aunt), but I can't remember if she traded that Rambler, or sold it outright.
Now the 65/66 Pontiac convertibles, still find them downright gorgeous. Personally, I think the Catalina with its shorter wheelbase pulls off that body better than the Bonneville, although they are both lookers. So did your mom go from frumpy wagon to sexy rag top during a middle aged crazy spell - just kidding!
I really don't notice the difference in length with the Catalina versus the Bonneville, unless you see them side-by-side (which actually happens at car shows...at the GM show at Carlisle, my '67 Catalina is usually parked next to a '67 Bonneville, and then the difference is blatant), or with the 4-door models, where you can really see the extra 3" or so added in that little area just behind the back doors.
I think the '65 Pontiacs are just about perfect. The '66 models are nice too, but I prefer the forward thrust of the headlights on the '65 models.
As for Mom? Well, her first car was a '57 Plymouth that Granddad found for her, for $75, in 1965. Being a Mopar fan, that's the car from her youth that intrigues me the most. But she doesn't remember much about it, other than that it was big, gray, and at one point, someone closed a door too hard and it broke a window! But she doesn't remember the model, body style, engine, or anything else about it. I think the Rambler was just something to tide her over until she could save up for what she really wanted.
I always thought it was amusing that she thought the Plymouth was too big, yet the '66 Catalina she got was even bigger. But, they made big improvements in handling by that time, at least if comparing my '57 DeSoto to my '67 Catalina is a good gauge. So the Catalina probably felt a lot more nimble than that '57 Plymouth did.
A few years ago, I was showing my Mom around my garage, and she noticed my '76 LeMans. She recognized it as being similar to the '75 LeMans she once owned, and asked me..."are you serious? I really owned a car that was that big?!" And I told her yep...in fact, you once owned one that was even bigger! And pointed to my '67 Catalina, which wasn't much bigger than her '66, although the styling made it look fatter. She just couldn't believe it, that once upon a time, she drove a car that size, and acted like it was no big deal.
Actually, the Cross Country was the wagon. The hardtop was the Country Club. The hardtop wagon, which I think was only available in the Ambassador, was called the Hardtop Cross Country. I am just weird enough to want one.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Me, too. I like the round instruments in the center better than the square ones on the '66, and I like the woodgrain on Bonnevilles and Grand Prixs on the right 1/3 of the dash better than that big clear plastic panel on the '66's.
I like the Catalina's shorter wheelbase, but I like the seats and woodgrain dash panels and assist bar on the Bonneville. I like the Bonneville's fastback roof better than the Grand Prix. I'd really like a '65 Bonneville Sport Coupe with buckets and console. Rare, but available. Only thing I don't like about the '65 Bonneville is that goofy Bonneville emblem on the front fender that looks like a flying saucer. They wisely got rid of that in '66.
I had the little sister of the Buick Sportwagon - the Special Deluxe wagon.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
A childhood friend had a white one of these--also a '65--but with full wheelcovers. Red interior. Really nice car. His Dad was a gruff guy that I was always kind-of scared around, but he had good taste in wagons!
AMC called them the "Hardtop Cross Country", but I have seen them referred to as the "Country Club Wagon". In any case, a Rambler hardtop station wagon just pushes my 'funky' button. Also, since the Ambassador had 250-270 hp, I would imagine that it could hold it's own in the day.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6