Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Very nice interior on the 7-Liter ("Litre"?) model.
I like the '66 Impala too, but not as much as the '65. Supposedly it has a beefier frame, but to lose those bullet taillights, to have a side molding put smack down the middle of the side, it loses the super-cleanness of the '65 IMHO.
I agree that the '66 Chevy design was a step back from the '65.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
This must be a rerun, I think this is the car @uplanderguy noticed carried a too-low stated price, this uplanderguy dream car nicely equipped Malibu in maybe the best color combo, MSRP claimed to be 4980:
And in the showcase, something with a more typical color for the era:
One thing I've wondered, though...considering how high inflation was in that timeframe, did the manufacturers sometimes raise their prices several times, throughout the year? For instance, perhaps the Malibu was cheap enough at the beginning of 1978 that you could get a nicely-equipped Landau for $4980, but later in the year, the MSRP was raised considerably? And perhaps the numbers my auto encyclopedia printed were from later in the year?
As a rough reference point, my Mom's new 1980 Malibu coupe was something like $6500-$6700 out the door I think, with tax and everything. Its base price was something like $5502, but stuff like automatic, a/c, am/fm radio, tint at the top of the windshield, whitewalls, etc jacked that price. It also had the all-vinyl interior, which was extra-cost from the cloth.
When I first learned that vinyl was often the extra-cost upgrade, I used to find that pretty amusing, because I always thought that vinyl was the lowest of the low, and cloth was an improvement because it wouldn't burn you in the hot summer. But then, they sometimes had some seriously cheap grades of cloth, in those days.
I think these Malibu coupes look better without a vinyl or landau roof, but it actually does wear the landau roof rather well.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
RE.: The Regal--our '77 Impala coupe, 305, no air, full wheelcovers and whitewalls, AM radio, bumper guards, tined glass, Exterior Decor Group, and that's it, stickered for $5,503.00. The Regal has chrome wheels and a vinyl top.
That Malibu Classic--the interior shot shows A/C and the 50/50 seats and the special instrumentation. What $4,800 in a '78 Malibu got you was a 3.3 wagon with 3-speed and no power anything but an AM radio and blackwalls.
That Malibu Classic as shown is a $7,000 car new. I know this as my friend's parents' '78 Malibu Classic sedan, not as well-equipped, stickered at $6,600. The 'Deluxe Bumpers' and bumper guards as shown on the Malibu were optional as well.
I would confidently bet a grand that there is absolutely no way in hell that Malibu stickered for under $5k. I seem to remember Johnny's description, too, said "Malibu", not "Malibu Classic". I was looking at these cars new, constantly then.
I believe this must have been an era where the car given away is not the actual car shown, which to me is bad.
Actually, compared to similar cars, the Regal was downright cheap. That same year, the Century Special coupe was $4170, while the regular coupe was $4304. The Century Custom coupe was $4628. Not surprisingly, with such a small price premium, the Regal outsold them all, by a pretty large margin.
That year, they sold:
52,864 of the coupe/Special coupe (this book combines sales of the two)
20,834 of the Custom coupe
174,560 of the Regal.
When these cars downsized for '78, in many cases sales were off slightly compared to '77. Or even if there was some improvement, they still weren't considered the downsizing success that the big car had been. However, the '78 Regal was pretty popular, jumping to 236,652 sales. However, I wonder if part of that is because of the clumsy Aeroback Century? Whereas the '77 Century and Regal had a strong family resemblance, and even the cheapest cars looked good, the Aerobacks put off a lot of buyers with their style. Sales slumped to 10,818 Century Special coupes, and 12,434 Century Custom coupes. There's also a Limited listed, but no sales, so I think they lumped them in with the Custom.
A Century Custom coupe was $4,658, while the Regal started at $4,885. A Century Limited coupe was $5,017, while the Regal Limited was $5,268
I can remember seeing a new '78 Monte Carlo stickering at $7,200-odd, and it had neither t-tops nor an electric sunroof, but the optional heavy-velour interior.
I always wanted a new one with those same wheelcovers, not a Landau, but black with gold pinstripe and the matching (Camel?) cloth 50/50 split front seat with dual center armrests.
That Camaro was looking long-in-the-tooth by then, but then I never even wanted a Camaro in '71 or 72.
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
Consumer Reports tested a 1977 Cutlass Supreme 4-door with a 260, and I think 0-60 came up in around 21.6 seconds. According to automobile-catalog.com it used a 2.73:1 axle. They do mathematical calculations to estimate their 0-60 times, and came up with a more optimistic 16.8 seconds.
Their estimated 0-60 for the LeSabre was 18.8 seconds. It used a more aggressive 3.23:1, but in the real world, I wonder if it was as bad as 25 or so?
Another 70s episode played in the background yesterday when I was working on something, and they had a Vega Kammback - a late run car, this was a 76 or 77. MSRP was a little over 4K. I know if I could spend $800 and go from a Vega to that Malibu, it would be a no-brainer. But of course, it wasn't quite so simple.
I'd wager many base MSRPs exist only in theory - you'd never find a total base car on the lot, you'd have to special order it.
So, while my book shows the '78 Classic Landau coupe starting at $4684, which would be with the 200/manual, maybe $4980 just represented the additional price of making the bigger 231 and an automatic standard?
So, in the case of the Malibu at least, maybe they were quoting the base MSRP, but the base for a California car, versus the base for a 49-state car, which is most likely what my book is quoting?
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
4-and 5-speeds were available with four-cylinders in the Vega and Monza lines in that time period.
I still would enjoy a '76 or '77 Vega Kammback--it's what the car should've been when introduced. Easy to forget they were the absolute darlings of the car press then. I'd still like a Cosworth too.
4-speeds were available in the '78 Malibu and Monte Carlo V8's, but I've never seen a real one. I believe they were available in Pontiac mid-sizes then too. Olds offered a 5-speed with their 260 in the Cutlass lineup then.
I could actually enjoy a '78 or '79 two-door Cutlass Salon Brougham in a dark color, with factory wheels. I like it better than the Buick Century with its yellow taillights. You just don't see the cars. At this point I'd prefer one to the formal coupes. Those '78 GM midsizes were arrogant in some of the design and engineering, and are much harder to find in nice, original condition than a Colonnade-era car, but I did always really admire the packaging of interior space versus exterior size. Almost a responsible old-car choice now, LOL. Most Malibus have been rodded up; for some reason are a darling of that set now.
https://www.streetsideclassics.com/vehicles/2098-tpa/1978-oldsmobile-cutlass-salon-brougham
I'd imagine a 260 with the 5-speed was especially rare in the sedan. What was the story with those 260/5-speed setups anyway? Did GM lose a bet, or something, and was forced to take delivery of them? I've heard the transmissions weren't beefy enough to mate up to larger engines, so that's why they used the 260.
Pontiac offered the combination on the LeMans in 1976, but not '77. I can't imagine there were many takers.
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
That 5-speed shifter does look like it sits pretty far back; maybe you had to get the buckets to get the 5-speed.
Overall, I liked the series. Sort-of a dramatic 'Back To The Future'.
The main character saved JFK, but when he returned to 2016, things in the U.S. were not well at all. The JFK storyline was almost a subplot in the whole thing.
A tagline throughout the series was "When you try and change the past, the past pushes back".
I do like the '80, though. I think having the grille be a bit more upright, and being sloped back in the headlight area helps the look immensely. Although now, it looks a bit out of place on an Aeroback coupe because it seems a bit too upscale, and out of place. The car is now sort of an automotive mullet...business up front, party out back! Now, if you get the turbo coupe in any of those years, I think it definitely looks sharper, with the black-out on the grille, and the spoiler.
I think I still prefer the Cutlass Salon, in any given year, though. I think the front-end was versatile enough that it worked well on a personal luxury coupe, a car with musclecar aspirations, the Aerobacks, and the notchback sedans of '80-81.
A friend of mine and I drove from NW PA to St. Louis to visit a school chum of ours, in 1978, in my friends' parents new Cutlass Salon Brougham 4-door, 260, in that copper color like a new penny (sort of). At the time I was impressed at how plush, smooth, and quiet a car that size could be.
https://barnfinds.com/1976-buick-regal-585-original-miles/
So that car on the show was a V8.
And, I was thinking the same thing about the Regal, that if you got a V6, it had a badge. That Barn Finds Regal is kind of interesting, in that it looks somewhat nicely equipped, with power windows and a/c, but still just having the 231. I had wondered, on occasion, if in a car this heavy if they made you get a bigger engine if you wanted a/c, but I guess this one answers that question!
It's interesting, too, that the GVWR on that V6 Regal is only listed at 5266 lb. My '76 LeMans is rated at 5622. I wouldn't think the engine choice would make that much difference...isn't GVWR usually tied more to the beefiness of the body and suspension? I guess the transmission would make some difference as well. But in '76, the 231 used the THM350, just like the 350 in my LeMans does. GM hadn't learned how to slip under-sized transmissions into over-sized cars just yet. Give 'em a year or two
Or, I wonder if that Regal really was 5622, and the writer of that article just had momentary dyslexia and wrote 5266?
Agreed. As was often the case, it wasn't a puffy padded roof with the quarter window notably reduced in size.
I always liked this black '78 Malibu Classic coupe, although it has a full-vinyl top and power sunroof. It stickered at $7552, and the sunroof was $499 so even without it, the car stickered at $7053.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/vintage-review-1978-chevrolet-malibu-classic-car-and-driver-goes-crazy-for-f41/
Of course those had a 3-speed tranmission while the 3800's I've driven had 4-speed transmissions.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Only the California Chevys got the 231 for '78 and '79. Maybe later years too; I'd have to look at the brochures.
The Regals and especially the LeSabres for '76 strike me as porky for the 231.
EDIT: The '78 Monte Carlo came standard with the 231 across the U.S., now that I think about it. Earlier Monte Carlos came standard with V8 power.
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
Then everyone's fave, a Vega. At least it's Kammback in a nice color, the ad copy mentioned both the new rust-resistance and improved engine. MSRP 3940:
And in the showcase, a Nova:
Speaking of Aerobacks, when I was a kid, there was a pristine 442 version in town - I thought it was a cool enough car. Don't see those much anymore.
That Skylark made me think of this '74 Apollo I saw on BaT a couple days ago. It's the "halo" style vinyl top that caught my eye.
That era Nova/Omega/Phoenix/Skylark looked nice in an upper-trim level in four-door version I think. I was always reminded of BMW in the shape and cut of the rear door, and that little extractor vent in the C-pillar.
Perhaps my biggest single automotive pet peeve!
That would actually keep me from buying a car. It would just slap me in the face every time I climbed in.
Body shops think no one will notice--wrong-o.
It's easy to get right, and very, very difficult to correct.
I have a buddy who rolls his eyes at me about that, but...come on!
I too have always seen that Nova as having a Hofmeister kink in the C-pillar. Here's a BMW that debuted a few years prior:
I've seen many a MB with misplaced trunk badges, too.
I found this very interesting. Note the 1st year 350 diesel with 120 hp. Hp decreased to 105 in subsequent years. Also note the relative small difference between the 231 and 260, with the main difference being torque.
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
Maybe they did recline the seats in these cars a bit more than most other cars of the time, because there really isn't a lot of headroom. For me it's just enough, but there's not an over-abundance of it.
That review reminded me of something else that I had forgotten. I had it in my mind that the 305-4bbl didn't come out until 1979, and was thinking they did it mainly for emissions reasons. In '79, the 2-bbl was choked from 145 hp to 130, and then dropped totally for 1980. But, the other day I was looking in a Buick brochure, and did notice mention of a 305-4bbl in the Century/Regal and the Cutlass. And with the same 160 hp that it had in '79. I wonder, if they only offered the 4-bbl in the Buick and Olds, but not the Chevy that first year, to try and give Buick/Olds a bit of cachet, a little extra something you couldn't get in a Chevy?
I wonder what difference in real world MPG there would be between the 231 and 260 if any at all.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
Could be. Where I lived, Pontiacs had the 301 and most of the Oldses I were aware of had the 260. Buicks seemed to mostly have the V6. I felt glad at the time that Chevy didn't use a 'baby' V8 in the '78 mid-sizes, but of course that changed starting for '79.
I also tend to associate Diesels with low hp for their displacement, but still lots of torque, even if it's in a limited rpm range. So when the Olds 350 Diesel showed such low torque numbers, that always perplexed me, too. I wonder if it's because they started with a gasoline engine? And even though they beefed up the block, they still did something to it so that it didn't put out that much torque, so it wouldn't put too much strain on the block and other engine components.
Supposedly, when they redesigned the Diesel for 1980, and hp dropped to 105, it was much more reliable than the 120 hp version. I think the torque dropped even further to 205 ft-lb?
Good lord, it must have been a pain to sell cars in California, and some high altitude areas!
It's interesting, that the Delta 88 left a big gap in engine choices, with nothing available between 260 and 350 CID. I think they did that in '77 as well, but in '79 I believe they used Pontiac 301s, and then the Olds 307 for 1980.
I meant to indicate mom's car was a 78 Olds 98 with the 403.
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
It was also 11 years old, and had about 61,000 miles on it when I bought it.
If I'm reading it right, it looks like it was only rated 14/16 on the window sticker, but if you used the old, raw, unadjusted 1977-84 numbers, it was 15/21. When it was new, it could easily break 15/21. Now, by the time it got handed down to me, in 2002 I think, it wasn't exactly showroom new. By then, in most local driving, I was lucky to get 10-11. I think the best I ever got out of it, was one time I drove it up to Pennsylvania on one of my car show trips, to give it a run. I tried to drive it as gently as I could, and I think I got about 18 mpg.
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
I remember our 66 Galaxie with the 390 seemed to average 10-12 mpg no matter the speed. I think the 68 Fairlane with a 289/3 on the tree could get over 20 in gentle highway cruising, too. I don't remember what the 60 would do, but with a 352 maybe not an economy champ.