Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options

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

19749759779799801306

Comments

  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 16,946
    I think I would have taken a Tempo/Topaz over the Cavalier or Aries/Reliant back in the day. If anything they looked a little more substantial and with decent wheels not altogether ugly.

    2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic

  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 16,946

    2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic

  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 20,278
    fintail said:

    I remember looking at a high option Topaz coupe with my dad, before we got the Tempo. He remarked something similar to "it's like a small T-Bird". Even as a kid, I didn't quite buy that one. It was plush anyway.

    Ford did some unusual things back then. I remember looking at an ‘81 Escort during introduction week and being impressed with the interior - it seemed really nice, especially compared to a base model Fairmont that was taxicab-plain inside. I think they did something similar with the Tempo/Topaz interiors. Neither were particularly great cars to drive early in their production runs though.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 53,335
    was that a vintage of Escort that was basically a rebodied Mazda 323? If so that could explain it;

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,414
    My brother's first car was a 1985 Aries (yellow!), this was around 1998/99. The Tempo seemed worlds more modern, something about the driving position in the K-car seemed odd to me, like the seat wouldn't go back far enough.
    tjc78 said:

    I think I would have taken a Tempo/Topaz over the Cavalier or Aries/Reliant back in the day. If anything they looked a little more substantial and with decent wheels not altogether ugly.

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,414
    When I was a kid, a lady down the street had a bare bones Fairmont 2 door sedan (not the unusual "Futura" coupe). I remember being amused at the low spec - dog dish caps, blackwalls, spartan interior - I think it might have even been a manual. My uncle had a Fairmont wagon for awhile that seemed normal inside, and when I was in grade school I remember a classmate's family had a Zephyr sedan that almost seemed a little sporty - blackout trim, some kind of wheels or sporty hubcaps, silver and grey IIRC Can't recall when I last saw one of those.

    I won't make any claims that the Tempo was a beautiful drive, but I have to keep fond memories of it - maybe as it defied expectations with its longevity, or as I drove it a bit when I was a new driver.
    ab348 said:


    Ford did some unusual things back then. I remember looking at an ‘81 Escort during introduction week and being impressed with the interior - it seemed really nice, especially compared to a base model Fairmont that was taxicab-plain inside. I think they did something similar with the Tempo/Topaz interiors. Neither were particularly great cars to drive early in their production runs though.

  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 53,335
    back in 1979, when the family Volvo (1969 144) was needing replacement, I remember going shopping with the folks. I know we looked at a Fairmont (Futura, no clue why since no way they were getting a 2 door like that) and an Omni. Can't remember if there was anything else in the mix. Ended up with a bare bones Omni. Way less comfy seats, that was for sure!

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • sdasda Member Posts: 7,577
    stickguy said:

    back in 1979, when the family Volvo (1969 144) was needing replacement, I remember going shopping with the folks. I know we looked at a Fairmont (Futura, no clue why since no way they were getting a 2 door like that) and an Omni. Can't remember if there was anything else in the mix. Ended up with a bare bones Omni. Way less comfy seats, that was for sure!

    Did the Omni have the VW sourced engine or the later Peugeot engine? I had a ‘top trim’ SE 84 Horizon with the 2.2 Chrysler engine, 5sp, ac, ps, pb. It was a surprisingly decent car.

    2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech

  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 53,335
    edited March 2020
    the first one (I think it was first year for that car) was IIRC a 1.6l. I remember that as the VW based one. I believe that one had issues (using oil maybe) and they traded it a few years later for a little nicer one that was better. I think that was a 1.7l, which could have been from Puegeot.

    My wife (before she was that) after college bought a 1984 Horizon. That was a luxury car in comparison. Cloth seats, PS, automatic (the family cars were both 4 speeds) and the big 2.2l motor. That was actually pretty quick for the day. and still the best car I ever had for driving in the snow.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • bhill2bhill2 Member Posts: 2,596
    stickguy said:

    back in 1979, when the family Volvo (1969 144) was needing replacement, I remember going shopping with the folks. I know we looked at a Fairmont (Futura, no clue why since no way they were getting a 2 door like that) and an Omni. Can't remember if there was anything else in the mix. Ended up with a bare bones Omni. Way less comfy seats, that was for sure!

    Oh yeah. I had a '69 142, which I traded in on a '72 164 because the 142 was carburated and didn't like the gas that was available, and the 164 was fuel injected and less fussy (besides, the 164 was a stick and the dealer couldn't give them away, so I got a REALLY good deal on it). Anyway, my butt has never forgiven me for giving up the seats in those two cars.

    2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])

  • roadburnerroadburner Member Posts: 18,324
    What I despised about the Topaz was it's weedy powertrain. The four cylinder didn't have enough torque to pull a hooker out of church yet the automatic would up shift to top gear at something like 30 mph, whereupon the engine would drone and vibrate as it lugged its way north of 1200 rpm.

    Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
    Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
    Son's: 2018 330i xDrive

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,414
    I drove our Tempo like a "manual" much of the time, making it upshift late.

    I suspect the fintail might be faster 0-60.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    I have a Consumer Guide from 1985 that has a road test of a Topaz. 2.3/automatic. 0-60 was something like 15.9 seconds. I only drove my stepdad's Tempo once. I remember he took my '80 Malibu for a day, because he wanted to go over it and make sure it was safe and there was nothing wrong with it, and he let me drive his Tempo that day. Good LORD, what a dog! My Malibu felt like a musclecar in comparison!

    I think my stepdad's was a GL trim level. I do remember it having some alloy wheels that I didn't think were very attractive. For some reason, alloys that are designed around a 4-lug pattern always seem a bit off to me. It was white with a gray lower body. I actually don't remember it seeming cheap inside, at least not in the sense of a Chevette or base level Fairmont. But overall the car was just nothing to write home about.
  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 20,278
    edited March 2020
    My oldest brother had a Topaz sedan that I drove only once, but it truly failed to impress in any way.

    I rented an Omni for a week back in '84 when I was touring the midwest, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois. It had the 2.2 engine and it could scoot quite well. I liked it fine, although I remember being unimpressed by the interior/dash design. But it drove really well.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,860
    I felt the Fairmont squared off against the Malibu. I think the Malibu drove and rode superior in every possible way...except the Fairmont's rear windows rolled down. :)

    Remember up to maybe the mid-or-late eighties, whatever model Chevy had, there was an equivalent at Ford, and vice-versa. That got a bit muddied up later.

    I used to drive all kinds of X-cars as rentals. I did like the utility factor (exterior vs. interior space) and differentiation of styling among divisions. I hated K-cars--nothing wrong with the utility, just basic-box styling.

    For all the grief people gave Omnis and Horizons (and I had done my share), I drove late ones as rentals and I was pretty impressed with the acceleration, all things considered. My friend was a Chrysler zone service rep at the time and he said the body dies were wearing out, meaning the newer cars had air and water leaks compared to the earlier ones. He also said AMC Kenosha built better Fifth Avenues than Chrysler did, LOL.

    The rental cars I hated the worst? (And this is when I travelled 26 weeks a year)--Renault Alliance and Encore. "The One To Watch", indeed.

    Not a fan of Tercels back then either. Some scoot, but they revved all the time it seemed, looked like someone stole the hub caps, and the vinyl smelled funny.
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • MichaellMichaell Moderator Posts: 262,152

    Not a fan of Tercels back then either. Some scoot, but they revved all the time it seemed, looked like someone stole the hub caps, and the vinyl smelled funny.

    When I was a junior or senior in HS, my dad and I flew to Seattle for a college campus visit (University of Puget Sound). I remember the rental being a Tercel.

    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

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,414
    Fintail could definitely dust one with those numbers.

    I suspect the wheels you mention are these, which I agree are not exactly beautiful:

    image

    The ones to find are these TRX wheels, which I have never seen in person, but have seen in numerous period promo shots. I'd quickly have converted our car to these if I had found a junkyard set back in the day, tire issues included:

    image

    I know I have mentioned it, but my dad had a Horizon, and loved it - claimed it was the best snow car he ever owned, it was reliable, fast for the day, practical. Replaced by an S-10 Blazer which he eventually didn't like at all.
    andre1969 said:

    I have a Consumer Guide from 1985 that has a road test of a Topaz. 2.3/automatic. 0-60 was something like 15.9 seconds. I only drove my stepdad's Tempo once. I remember he took my '80 Malibu for a day, because he wanted to go over it and make sure it was safe and there was nothing wrong with it, and he let me drive his Tempo that day. Good LORD, what a dog! My Malibu felt like a musclecar in comparison!

    I think my stepdad's was a GL trim level. I do remember it having some alloy wheels that I didn't think were very attractive. For some reason, alloys that are designed around a 4-lug pattern always seem a bit off to me. It was white with a gray lower body. I actually don't remember it seeming cheap inside, at least not in the sense of a Chevette or base level Fairmont. But overall the car was just nothing to write home about.

  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 53,335
    It was Amazing in the snow. Skinny all season tires, and easy to sequential shift the 3 speed AT (had L-2-3). So could run through the gears without touching the brakes.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 17,680
    fintail said:

    I won't make any claims that the Tempo was a beautiful drive, but I have to keep fond memories of it - maybe as it defied expectations with its longevity, or as I drove it a bit when I was a new driver.

    I think that is my claim on fond memories of our 1985 Camry. It was a homely little thing, but it took us many, many miles and I have a lot of great memories with that car.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,860
    edited March 2020
    The whitewalls actually benefit that silver Tempo coupe! And, there's an old ('76 or '77) Nova Concours behind it.

    Chevy sure milked the "Concours" name, and Cadillac used it later. I always liked the '75 Nova LN a lot better in the small details. But that's another story.
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,860
    RE.: K-cars--Am I remembering this right, but did the four-doors when first introduced not have roll-down rear windows? And then later they did?

    This sounds like one for andre!
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 20,278
    edited March 2020
    I remember a couple of things about Tempo/Topaz wheel covers. When they first came out some of them had plastic wheel covers, which were new for the time. Unfortunately nobody at Ford seemed to remember that braking can make wheels get hot, and those early plastic covers would often warp quite badly. The other thing was that many of them used a wheel trim ring with some sort of hubcap. Those wheel trim rings were nearly a dead ringer for the ones used on '68/'69 Cutlass SSII wheels, Back in the early '90s those were unobtainium, but a set of pristine Tempo rings could be picked up at virtually any junkyard for $20.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,414
    Not Andre, but I am pretty sure you are right. When I was in high school, a friend had an early Aries sedan (black with black vinyl top, I remember it clearly) and I swear the rear windows didn't roll down.

    IIRC the first car with a digital clock I remember was an early K-Car with a "Chronometer" clock, I remember riding in the car when I was maybe 5 years old and the car was new, it belonged to someone my parents knew.

    RE.: K-cars--Am I remembering this right, but did the four-doors when first introduced not have roll-down rear windows? And then later they did?

    This sounds like one for andre!

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,414
    edited March 2020
    Our car might have had those rings - it had wheels with a chrome/aluminum finish ring, kind of unusual now that I think of it. Maybe something for the higher trim earlier cars, I think I can see it in this 85 brochure page:

    image

    "There isn't much you can add to make the Tempo Luxury GLX a more completely equipped car" B)

    Brochure pic is interesting too, for comparison to our car. Ours was a very late build (9/85) and had a factory CHMSL and 1986 style steering wheel, a 4 spoke rather than the "A" shape shown in that pic.
    ab348 said:

    I remember a couple of things about Tempo/Topaz wheel covers. When they first came out some of them had plastic wheel covers, which were new for the time. Unfortunately nobody at Ford seemed to remember that braking can make wheels get hot, and those early plastic covers would often warp quite badly. The other thing was that many of them used a wheel trim ring with some sort of hubcap. Those wheel trim rings were nearly a dead ringer for the ones used on '68/'69 Cutlass SSII wheels, Back in the early '90s those were unobtainium, but a set of pristine Tempo rings could be picked up at virtually any junkyard for $20.

  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 16,946
    Because I’m bored ... I looked it up. 81 K cars did not have roll down windows. 82 on up did.

    Source was Allpar.

    2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023

    RE.: K-cars--Am I remembering this right, but did the four-doors when first introduced not have roll-down rear windows? And then later they did?

    This sounds like one for andre!

    Good lord, don't get me started on those stationary windows...I'm having a flashback now to April, 1982, the first time Grandmom rode in the back seat of her new Malibu Classic Estate wagon, realized the windows were stationary, and ended up getting such a mouth on her it would embarrass Satan's possession of Regan in "the Exorcist"! We were Methodists, but that Sunday were tempted to drop Grandmom off at the Catholic church for confession!

    Anyway yeah, the 1981 Aries/Reliant sedans and wagons did have stationary rear door windows, with flip out vents, similar to GM's downsized intermediates. However, the K-cars didn't give you the hollowed out door panels and recessed armrests. When the 1982 model year started, they stayed stationary, but in the middle of the model year, they made them roll-down.

    I do recall reading that Chrysler did a cost-benefit analysis, and over the volume they were building the cars, they weren't saving any money in making them stationary. However, I have a few other theories. 1) When the Dodge 400 and LeBaron came out for 1982, I believe they had roll-down rear windows right from the get-go. So, that might be one factor that made it more worthwhile to simply make them all roll down, as it was the same basic design. 2) While GM got away with those stationary windows for the life of that generation of A/G body, they were also sold at a higher price point, and more likely to be equipped with air conditioning. The K-cars were supposed to be cheaper compacts, sold at a lower price point, and less likely to be purchased with a/c. But those stationary rear windows almost make air conditioning mandatory. That might have hurt their sales some. In fact, I've read that Chrysler did botch the launch of the K-car in 1981, by offering mostly fully-optioned models when it first hit the showroom floor. And, in the middle of a recession.

    My uncle briefly owned one of those early '82 Reliant sedans, back in 1989. At the time, he had a 1980 Chevy C20 pickup with a 350 that was a guzzler. He wanted something more efficient, and knew someone who had a couple old cars they wanted to sell. One was the Reliant, the other was a '66 Catalina. I never did get to see the Catalina, but heard it was a teal/aqua color. Anyway, guess which one I was rooting for? NOT the one he ended up getting!

    He only had it for a few months. IIRC, he paid something like $600-800 for it. It died on him, and he put $400 into it. Then it ran into other issues, and I think he dumped it for $200. I rode in it a few times, and drove it once or twice. I don't remember much about it, except that I timed it once with a stopwatch from 0-60, and it was somewhere in the 25 second range. And, while it did feel like a small, cheap car with not much bulk to it, it was actually pretty wide inside. Now I'm pretty sure this isn't how they measure shoulder room, but out of curiosity, I took a tape measure to it, and door panel-to-door panel, measured where the armrests bolted in, it was something like 58". I think my '80 Malibu coupe was about 57" up front, and my '68 and '69 Darts were only 56".

    It still felt like a small car to me, but, I guess the tape measure doesn't lie (unless you let it sag :p )
  • omarmanomarman Member Posts: 2,702
    In fact, I've read that Chrysler did botch the launch of the K-car in 1981, by offering mostly fully-optioned models when it first hit the showroom floor. And, in the middle of a recession.

    I remember that. Double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates along with K cars loaded with window stickers rising upwards of $10k. I think it was Channel 10 news that went out into new car showrooms in Columbus to get reaction of both sales staff and customers to the K car release. I read a comment by one of the dealership salesmen who was quoted in the Dispatch as saying, "We're hoping that gas prices keep going up." His logic being that when pump gas prices go up, people spend crazy money on smaller cars with better MPG.
    A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,860
    I remember early Citations being all loaded up too. I think that was typical back then.
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 20,278
    Oddly enough the K-cars got decent-to-good reviews from the car magazines at introduction despite its shortcomings. I remember driving one and finding it rather underwhelming. The later refresh that created the "Super K" in 1985 seemed to address some of the worst flaws. Dad had one of those, a wagon, and it was OK. The K wagons were very popular around here.

    The issue about the rear windows always struck me as odd. I get that people didn't like them not rolling down but I rode in the back of our '78 Grand LeMans a lot and it wasn't a huge deal. Any by then many 2-door models had fixed rear glass already, like the GM Colonnade coupes, so you would have thought people would be used to it. Evidently not.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,860
    edited March 2020
    You know, I agree, ab. Most rear-sent ventilation always came from the front windows anyway, IMHO. And like you said, the colonnade coupes hadn't had them for five model years before.

    I think the scooped-out armrest area in the door could've been made more useful if the rear area of the cutout wasn't made diagonal, but straight-down. Always seemed to me those armrests were too-far-forward to be of much use.
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,860
    edited March 2020
    I'm thinking in the Citation (and I'll assume Phoenix too), there was an option to make the rear quarter windows open, even though the rear door windows did lower. I'm a bit sketchy on this but I'm thinking they weren't electric, maybe? I seem to think the lever/switch was over the driver's door window, in the headliner/ceiling. When I'm not working, I'll have to check out the brochure on that.
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,107

    I remember early Citations being all loaded up too. I think that was typical back then.

    Then and now. I just read about how no new $60,000 Corvettes can be found.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 265,514
    texases said:

    I remember early Citations being all loaded up too. I think that was typical back then.

    Then and now. I just read about how no new $60,000 Corvettes can be found.
    When they are all pre-sold, might as well get maximum profit off each one. :(

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    I always remembered the Citation, and other X-cars, as having rear windows that went down a bit more than half way while oddly, the Celebrity and other models based on them had rear windows that went down a bit less than half way. I think it might be a visual trick, because the roofline of the X-cars sloped off a bit more than the A-, so while the front part of the window still went down the same amount, with the way the X-'s tapered toward the back, there was simply less glass to make disappear.

    My grandparents had almost always bought 4-door cars, although I think they had a '52 Buick that was a 2-door sedan. Still, they were accustomed to cars with roll-down windows in back. Their '68 and '72 Impalas were both 4-door hardtops, so they were really accustomed to that open-air feeling. They had pretty much missed the first wave of downsizing, and the personal luxury coupe craze, which is what pretty much eliminated roll-down rear windows in 2-doors. so to them a 4-door car with stationary windows was a shock.

    I think with 2-door cars, the transition to stationary rear windows wasn't that big of a deal, because many people bought a coupe for the style, and not the practicality. Or they bought it because they had small kids and didn't want them opening the rear doors. And as personal luxury coupes became more common and a/c more affordable, that closed-off-from-the-outside world style, with small opera windows and huge C-pillars, became all the rage.

    I bought my first old car, a 1969 Dodge Dart GT hardtop coupe, in the fall of '89. I remember most of my friends being amazed, at a 2-door car having roll-down rear windows, and no B-pillar. It's amazing how quickly something that was once so common can be looked at as almost a freak show, once it's been out of the public mind for a few years. And in 1989, it's not like hardtop coupes and sedans were exactly rare sights. They were becoming less and less common as the years went by, but they were still out there.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    I remember reading an old Consumer Reports that was highlighting GM's downsized '78 cars. They said that GM had done a lot of wind tunnel testing in designing those cars. Supposedly, the air flow inside the car was actually better with the flip out vents in back, than it would have been if they had made the rear windows roll-down.

    I've wondered though, if that was in relation to a window that could fully roll down? Or, the windows in the cars, as they existed, if they had been designed to roll down? As it was, the models that had the flip out vent in the C-pillar had a huge rear door window that would have only been able to roll down a few inches. The more formal-roof models, and wagons, that had the vent in the trailing edge of the door, had a window that might have been able to go down about half way.

    Looking back on it now though, those roll down windows just don't seem like that big of a deal. On my Dad's '03 Regal, where they actually do roll down most of the way, one of them quit working. I think it started working again intermittently about a year ago, but then stopped. Naturally, in the down position. I jiggled around with it some, and did get it to roll back up, and then it quit for good, again. When the weather is nice, I'll usually crack the front windows, and roll down the one good rear window an inch or so, to get better air flow and less buffeting.

    One of the back windows on my '79 5th Ave quit working years ago. I never bothered to get it fixed. However, I should add, that the 5th Ave doesn't get driven that much, only on nice days here and there, and once a year to Carlisle PA. And in Carlisle last year, that was the last time someone even sat in the back seat. Same with my Regal. It's rare these days that I have someone in the back seat.

    My house mate bought a 2017 Murano last April. I went with him when he test drove it, and rode in the back. But y'know, even though he's had it almost a year, I couldn't tell you if the back windows roll down all the way or not. I'm sure they go down at least most of the way, though. In more recent years, cars have been going back to higher beltlines and smaller windows, so it's just easier to make a window go all, or most of the way down.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023

    You know, I agree, ab. Most rear-sent ventilation always came from the front windows anyway, IMHO. And like you said, the colonnade coupes hadn't had them for five model years before.

    I think the scooped-out armrest area in the door could've been made more useful if the rear area of the cutout wasn't made diagonal, but straight-down. Always seemed to me those armrests were too-far-forward to be of much use.

    I think one concession GM made, with the Colonades, is that the front door and window glass was a bit longer than the previous models, so they extended a little further into the rear seat area.

    As for the hollowed out area in the rear doors of the '78 models, I think GM probably made that area as big as they could, given the shape of the doors. GM also used that little space efficiency trick of shoving the rear seat back, further over the rear axle, which increases the rear legroom measurement, and maintains the shoulder room measurement, but at the cost of 3-across seating comfort. Doing so makes for a bit of wheel well intrusion, which forces the outboard passengers to lean inward. Also, shoving the seat further back like that does move you further away from those hollowed-out armrests.

    In retrospect, GM probably could have just gone with regular armrests, as those downsized '78 intermediates still had more shoulder room than any similar-sized car on the market. I've seen them listed at something like 57-57.5", depending on the trim level. The more luxurious models, with plusher door panel trim, would be a bit narrower. The personal luxury coupes were a bit narrower though. Despite using the same basic dash, I remember my '86 Monte Carlo having no gap between the edges of the dash and the door panel trim, while the gap on my '80 Malibu was about a half-inch on either side.

    I think pretty much any sedan based on the Ford Fox, as well as the Mopar F/M body, had about 56" of shoulder room. The '75-80 Granada, I believe, was only around 54-55". So, GM was already at the head of the pack. But, I think GM was trying hard to come as close as possible to the '77 Colonades, trying to come close in some dimensions, and even improve, where they could. So, they hollowed out the door panels, in an attempt to make 3-across seating as comfortable as the '77's. And they went with those space saver spares, to boost trunk volume, even though the more squared-off bodies already gave you an improved trunk. The '77's were around 14-15 cubic feet, depending on which brand you bought. I think the LeMans was actually the worst. The '78's were around 16-17 cubic feet.

    Another aspect of the '78's that I didn't like at the time, were the shrunken standard engines, like the Chevy 200 V6 and Buick 196. They really were dogs. But at the same time, I'm sure they were an improvement over a '77 Chevelle with a 250-inline, or a LeMans with a 231 V6. And when you figure that Ford was putting 4-cyls and 88 hp 200's in their Fairmonts, the 250 in the Granada was a real dog, and the Mopar slant six was going into "compacts" that in some cases weren't that much lighter than a downsized '77 Impala, it probably made sense, at the time.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,860
    Agreed on those GM V6's.

    The '79 Malibu Classic could be had with a 4-barrel 305 in the coupes, new for that year, but that wouldn't make me look for one now over a '78. I like the diagonal-cut taillights on the '78. :)
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    Oh, was the 305-4bbl coupe-only? I didn't realize that. I know that there was another round of emissions tightening for '79, and the 305-2bbl dropped from 145 hp to 130. And then for '80 I believe the 305-2 disappeared entirely, leaving only the 305-4, with 155 hp. It had 160 for 1979, which was pretty impressive, for the time. For comparison, the 360-2 in my '79 5th Ave only has 150 hp...but makes up for it in torque, I think.

    Also, I know we've had this discussion before, but I can't remember the outcome...but, wasn't the Chevy 350 actually available in the '78 Malibu, for at least part of the model year? Back in high school, one of the substitute teachers drove a '78 Malibu coupe, a two-tone brown over beige as I recall. He said it had a 350, and it came from the factory that way.

    I know you could get them in Malibu police cars, at least through '82. I have a book on Mopar police cars, from something like '79-'02 or whenever it was published. It always listed the Michigan State police test results that came out every year. I remember the MSP testing an '82 Malibu with the 350, and an '83 with the 305. Strangely, I don't think the 305 was that much slower than the 350. And a 350 Malibu wasn't much quicker than a 350 Impala, despite the lighter weight. However, in those days they were trying to balance fuel economy and performance, even in police cars, so I wonder if they stuck the Malibu 350 with a taller axle than the 305, or the Impala 350?

    I think GM was doing that with civilian cars a lot, as well. My grandmother's '85 LeSabre had an Olds 307-4bbl and a 2.73:1 axle, but if you got a Cutlass Supreme in that setup, I think they stuck you with a 2.41:1 axle, and the end result is that it was really no quicker, despite losing a few hundred pounds. I think my Mom's '86 Monte Carlo, with its 305, also had a 2.41:1 axle. It felt a bit quicker than the LeSabre, but I think another problem is the transmission liked to upshift earlier with the LeSabre. I wonder if it had something to do with the 305 hitting its peak torque and hp at a higher rpm than the 307? I also recall that Grandmom's LeSabre was a LOT livelier, when I shifted it manually! :p
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,860
    edited March 2020
    Bad wording on my part--I put 'coupes' as that's the only model I'd have considered, then or now. :)

    I can say with a pretty good level of certainty, that no '78 or '79 Malibu coupe or sedan came with a 350 (not counting police package). I am almost just as certain that engine was available in Malibu wagons though. That could have been interesting!

    I'll look in the brochures after work. Taking a little break now!
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    I just looked up the '78 brochure online. Looks like yep, the 350 WAS available in wagons, for '78. At least I think that's what it says...it's rather blurry. Other models had to make do with the 200 V6 or the 305-2bbl. In California, it looks like they substituted the Buick 231 for the 200.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,860
    A friend of mine who has sold cars privately for 40 years, and knows what I like, will send ads to me with pics fron online. Even in low-mileage, original cars, we always laugh at how many people think any small-block Chevy is a 350. People say "350" in ads for "original" cars, when they show the underhood sticker that says "305", LOL!
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    In a similar note, every once in awhile somebody will read the torque sticker off the air cleaner of a Buick engine from the 60's, and come up with some awfully monstrous displacements!
  • omarmanomarman Member Posts: 2,702
    I'm not sure what year unless I look up the EPA reports but I think there was a Chevy Monza which was sold with a 350 engine from factory. High altitude or maybe an emissions thing?
    A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 265,514
    omarman said:

    I'm not sure what year unless I look up the EPA reports but I think there was a Chevy Monza which was sold with a 350 engine from factory. High altitude or maybe an emissions thing?

    I remember the 305 Monza

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    IIRC the Monza used the 350 in 1975 only, as a stopgap, because the 305 didn't come out until '76. Because of emissions controls, and tight packaging, it was choked down to something like 125 hp. Then once the 305 came out, they started using those. It had around 140-145 hp, I think.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 265,514
    302 in my ‘77 Cobra II was rated at 135 hp. Had the world’s tiniest carburetor. :(

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • omarmanomarman Member Posts: 2,702
    edited March 2020
    Okay that's the one 1975. I recall reading about V8 Vega swaps back then using many factory V8 Monza parts and wondering why not start out with a V8 Monza to begin with?

    edit to add: Although I liked the mini-Camaro looks of the Vega better :smile:
    A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    When I was a kid, my grandparents' neighbor used to put 350s in Vegas and race them. But he was putting "real" ones in, not those choked down Monza rigs :p The Vega was a bit lighter than the Monza, although by the time you beefed up a Vega to take a V8, I don't know how much difference there really was.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,860
    Yes, a 350 was the California engine for a V8 Monza in '75, and it was pushed down to 125 hp--but that's when the 262 was only 110 hp.

    Two high school friends of mine got new '75 Monza 2+2 V8's and I was extremely envious. It took me until Feb. to see one at our dealer. I loved the styling, in and out, but it had to have had THE most-cramped rear seat ever put in a domestic car, LOL.

    The one friend was the son of a Chevy-Buick Service Manager from a dealer about 25 miles away. The friend ordered the front fender tags that said "5.7LITER", just to have them.

    Ironically, while he's not a friend anymore, he still has that Monza and he also has a 13K-mile '75 Cosworth Vega which was the only one my hometown dealer got in.
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 20,278
    Speaking of K-cars, here’s a low mileage pristine wagon from ‘88 on BaT of all places:

    https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1988-dodge-aries/

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

This discussion has been closed.