Interesting that the Deluxe name was affixed to such a low end car, like Chevy was doing a jedi mind trick on the buyer. I would be curious to see how the car would look with a good detailing but.... meh
The price is ridiculous, even if this was in perfect museum-quality condition, which it isn't - missing the side molding on the RR door, missing the front bumper filler, and a bashed-in grille.
I like '73 Chevelles, simple grille, etc., but the fact is I can hardly think of a '73 car that had more of a railroad-tie front bumper than the Chevelle that year. I can remember our new Nova was sitting next to a Chevelle when we bought it and my Dad commented on that. Our salesman, whom Dad bought several new cars over the years from, said, "Lot more car to stop over there". He was probably right, but they could've sculpted the bumper better, which they did in '74, although I didn't like the grille or taillights of the '74 nearly as well.
Yeah, I guess by '73 standards, the Chevelle's bumper is about as featureless as can be. I don't mind it nowadays, but the later 70's and 80's brought a lot more of that styling (or style-less?) trend, so I guess I got used to it.
Would a '73 Chevelle still have had drum brakes, if you got the cheapest model with a 6-cyl? I tried looking for brochures, but the closest I could find was for the '73 Cutlass. It mentions front disc brakes are standard, but I think the Cutlass also came standard with a 350 V-8...I don't think they started putting 6-cyl engines in them until 1975, but I could be wrong. Anyway, if the Chevelle did have all-drum brakes in the base model, I think they were 9.5" drums, which were probably a bit over-matched in something this size.
I think I prefer the '73 Chevelle style the best, of the '73-77 generation. I like the way the grille extended outward under the headlights...sort of like a '60 DeSoto! Or an '80-89 Diplomat. And I always liked the round taillights on the '73. In the later years, they just didn't seem right. The '74 seemed too small for the space back there, and don't seem to fit quite right in the space. My guess is they used the '73 trunk lid, and that's part of the problem. Then, for '75, it seems kind of generic. '76-77 seem like they're trying to mimic something like a '74 Impala, perhaps, but the whole '75-77 stretch seems like they're a bit ill-fitting. I'm sure the workmanship of the times didn't help.
One detail I was sad to see go with the '73 redesign, is roll-down rear windows in the coupes. With the '72 models, even the cheap post models still had roll-down rear windows, although I don't know if they went down all the way or not. I guess with more common availability of air conditioning though, it was becoming a moot point. Plus, the door extends further back on the '73 model than the '72, so even without air conditioning, maybe that still helped air flow?
I thought it was a nice touch that the Nova stuck with roll-down windows on the 2-door models through '74. I guess though, being a cheaper car, it was less likely to be ordered with a/c, so that's why they kept roll-down windows around longer?
I think the way the Chevelle's windows were cut into the roof--tapered back--maybe there wasn't a way to make them roll down, I don't know. All '73 Chevelles had disc brakes. I would've thought (but don't know) that the Chevy 250 would have been standard in '73 Cutlass models (base series), but apparently not. Chevy always made a habit of saying they had a "standard six" and a "standard V8", but the base prices at the top of the sticker were different.
The 307 was standard on the '73 Chevelle, but I remember few of them and I about lived at our Chevy dealer in '73. Most were 350 2-barrels where I lived...and I want to say that was only a $26 option over the 307 and included front-fender emblems. I'm not certain of the dollar amount, but it was next-to-nil.
My best high-school friend, in '78, bought a bright green (factory color) '73 Chevelle SS, 350 4-barrel, black bench seats, silver striping. I loved it, but at five years in our winters, it had already been patched around those pretty round taillights. It was sold new in our town per paperwork in the glovebox, although I didn't remember ever seeing it before my friend bought it.
I just hated the '75 Chevelle. The wheelcovers looked like moons with trim rings, and the rear end panel looked like it was done in an auto shop class! A real 'hack job'! I hated too, how the '75 Impala Custom had an "Impala" nameplates in two places on the side--front fender and "B" pillar.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Re.: the '74 Chevelle--the Malibu Classic had a wonderful interior IMHO, and the instrument panel got some added brightwork and far-less black crinkle plastic around the instruments, but I'm not a fan of an opera window on a fastback roof. At the beginning of the year, you had to get a vinyl top on all Malibu Classic coupes and Lagunas. If you looked inside the car, you could see the outline of the big quarter window, with a filler insert installed. Both those things changed mid-year.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
yeah, I was thinking that too about the '73-77 windows. And not only with the taper, but maybe they were too far back over the rear wheel openings? My guess is that if they did go down, it would only be about half way, at best.
Oh, have you ever noticed on some of the '73 ads, factory photos, and sales brochures, they show the sedan and wagon models with the back windows down, but it gives the illusion they roll all the way down? I guess they simply just took the window glass out. Wonder if that would be considered false advertising? Oh well, at least it's better than what came with the '78 downsizing!
I've also seen old factory photos of the 1970 Duster 340, and the 1975 Coronet/Fury coupe, in poses that make them look like hardtops with the back windows down. But in reality, the Duster's back windows simply flipped out, and the post was just a bolted-in piece that was there for the window to hinge to. And while I've seen '71-74 Satellite/Chargers that were true hardtops, I've never seen a '75-78 Fury/Coronet/Monaco coupe with roll-down back windows, other than the factory photos. They still lack a B-pillar, but the rear glass is stationary, just like it was in other fake-me-out hardtops like the '79-85 Eldo/Toro/Riv.
Interesting that the Deluxe name was affixed to such a low end car, like Chevy was doing a jedi mind trick on the buyer. I would be curious to see how the car would look with a good detailing but.... meh
The price is ridiculous, even if this was in perfect museum-quality condition, which it isn't - missing the side molding on the RR door, missing the front bumper filler, and a bashed-in grille.
I agree. A lot of sellers seem to think, it's old therefore it's valuable, Old and rare doesn't necessarily mean desirable. You get it and then what?
I agree. A lot of sellers seem to think, it's old therefore it's valuable, Old and rare doesn't necessarily mean desirable. You get it and then what?
That, and low mileage. A lot of people seem to think that low mileage commands a premium. However, that's only true if the car is something desireable to begin with, and is already in great shape.
I could see that '73 fetching a high price if it was in pristine condition, and fully optioned up with a big block engine. Or even a 350. But as it is, it's just an old 4-door sedan with a slow engine, and very little in the way of options. I can't even imagine how slow something like that would be, with the 250. CR tested a '77 Cutlass Supreme sedan with a 260 V-8 and got 0-60 in about 21.6 seconds. I imagine this '73 would be almost as painful. I could probably remove two spark plug wires from my '85 Silverado, and it would still be faster!
I agree. A lot of sellers seem to think, it's old therefore it's valuable, Old and rare doesn't necessarily mean desirable. You get it and then what?
That, and low mileage. A lot of people seem to think that low mileage commands a premium. However, that's only true if the car is something desireable to begin with, and is already in great shape.
Yes, every ad wants to trumpet MATCHING NUMBERS! like it's the be all and end all, but that only matters if it's the right numbers. Who cares if a 75 Nova has the straight 6 it was born with? Wouldn't 99 out of 100 people rather see a nice massged 350 in there?
I could enjoy an old Grandma's '73 Chevelle, just for the funkiness of it, but I wouldn't pay a big price for it that's for sure. As I'd said, my sister had a new '73 Chevelle Deluxe wagon with six (!) and Turbo-Hydramatic, and it was slow. It was prone to dieseling too. Both it and our Nova six (same 250 engine) tended to stall a couple times when cold before pulling out of the driveway.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Yes, every ad wants to trumpet MATCHING NUMBERS! like it's the be all and end all, but that only matters if it's the right numbers. Who cares if a 75 Nova has the straight 6 it was born with? Wouldn't 99 out of 100 people rather see a nice massged 350 in there?
Yeah, most people would rather see the car hot-rodded. However, with me it would depend. If it was a mint-condition, low-mileage, lovingly maintained old lady car, I think I'd rather see it with its original 6-cyl. But, if it was something that wasn't so pristine, and had needs, I'd rather see it fixed up and preserved to however the new owner wanted it, than see it get junked or neglected.
My main rationale is that I get tired of seeing rodded and customized cars at the shows...they all start looking the same after awhile. And suddenly, the pristine, original, old-lady car stands out from the crowd, and ends up being the unique one.
As for that '73 Chevelle, it's probably the type of car that, if it had been my grandmother's, and she gave up driving, and it got passed down to me, I might appreciate it more. Or, if I just wanted a cheap, nice old car, and perhaps had some fond childhood memory of cars of that era, and found one at a good price.
But, even then, I'd probably just end up holding out for a nicer example. In fact, I actually did. Back in 2001, a local park and sell lot had a '76 LeMans coupe for sale that they wanted $1200 for. It was brown with a buckskin interior, pretty basic, with crank windows and such. I think it had a/c, but can't remember for sure. It also had a little rust here and there, including some holes all the way through in the trunk floor. I was tempted, until I popped the hood, to reveal a Chevy 250-6cyl. That put the car out of my mind, completely.
Probably a good thing, too, because that fall, I found the '79 New Yorker 5th Ave that I ended up buying, for $900. It's a much nicer car, and equipped a LOT better than that LeMans was. At that time, if I had bought the LeMans, I wouldn't have had the resources to buy the 5th Ave, as well, so I would have missed out on it. Or, sold the LeMans and bought it, I guess!
And, a few years later, a much nicer '76 LeMans did come along, and I bought it for $3000. It's not perfect, but is in much nicer shape, much better optioned (350-4bbl, power windows/seat, tilt wheel, the upgraded Grand LeMans trim package, Rally wheels, nicer color, etc). It was $1800 more than that first LeMans, but IMO represented much more than $1800 in added value.
And, I guess that's the problem with a lot of these old base level 70's cars. Unless you really have the urge for an underpowered stripper, you might as well just go buy a nicer one, for not much more money.
andre, next time you're at a Pontiac show and see a '74 Grand LeMans, looks inside. I bet that like the Malibu Classic coupe of that year, the first half of the year all had a vinyl top and you can look inside and see a large triangular cutout with a piece stuck in there to make the opera window!
I'll have to look around online, but I saw a pic a couple years back of a light blue '73 Malibu coupe, very clean,, six-cylinder, and there was a lady a couple doors down from my grandparents' house in my hometown, that had a car just like that. She wore bright red lipstick and those flat, round earrings that looked like after-dinner mints.
The pic online I'd seen a few years back sure looked nicer than the Deluxe being discussed here. The six in '73 was only 100 hp...a bit scary-low.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Yes, every ad wants to trumpet MATCHING NUMBERS! like it's the be all and end all, but that only matters if it's the right numbers. Who cares if a 75 Nova has the straight 6 it was born with? Wouldn't 99 out of 100 people rather see a nice massged 350 in there?
Yeah, most people would rather see the car hot-rodded. However, with me it would depend. If it was a mint-condition, low-mileage, lovingly maintained old lady car, I think I'd rather see it with its original 6-cyl. But, if it was something that wasn't so pristine, and had needs, I'd rather see it fixed up and preserved to however the new owner wanted it, than see it get junked or neglected.
My main rationale is that I get tired of seeing rodded and customized cars at the shows...they all start looking the same after awhile. And suddenly, the pristine, original, old-lady car stands out from the crowd, and ends up being the unique one.
As for that '73 Chevelle, it's probably the type of car that, if it had been my grandmother's, and she gave up driving, and it got passed down to me, I might appreciate it more. Or, if I just wanted a cheap, nice old car, and perhaps had some fond childhood memory of cars of that era, and found one at a good price.
But, even then, I'd probably just end up holding out for a nicer example. In fact, I actually did. Back in 2001, a local park and sell lot had a '76 LeMans coupe for sale that they wanted $1200 for. It was brown with a buckskin interior, pretty basic, with crank windows and such. I think it had a/c, but can't remember for sure. It also had a little rust here and there, including some holes all the way through in the trunk floor. I was tempted, until I popped the hood, to reveal a Chevy 250-6cyl. That put the car out of my mind, completely.
Probably a good thing, too, because that fall, I found the '79 New Yorker 5th Ave that I ended up buying, for $900. It's a much nicer car, and equipped a LOT better than that LeMans was. At that time, if I had bought the LeMans, I wouldn't have had the resources to buy the 5th Ave, as well, so I would have missed out on it. Or, sold the LeMans and bought it, I guess!
And, a few years later, a much nicer '76 LeMans did come along, and I bought it for $3000. It's not perfect, but is in much nicer shape, much better optioned (350-4bbl, power windows/seat, tilt wheel, the upgraded Grand LeMans trim package, Rally wheels, nicer color, etc). It was $1800 more than that first LeMans, but IMO represented much more than $1800 in added value.
And, I guess that's the problem with a lot of these old base level 70's cars. Unless you really have the urge for an underpowered stripper, you might as well just go buy a nicer one, for not much more money.
I recall seeing a really nice black 1973 Chevrolet Bel Air at one of the Carlisle shows with the 250 six. If the Chevelle would merely be slow, a full-size Chevrolet with the six must be glacial.
True. I'm thinking...although not sure..that the big Chevys with a six in '73 could only be had with a stick, but I might be wrong on that. There was a car that sounds like you''re describing, on eBay a couple years back. I found it interesting as it was just so unusual. I like oddball stuff like that, even if it isn't really desirable.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I remember the eBay Bel Air too, and do have a faint recollection of seeing the one in person that Lemko mentioned. Wonder if it was the same car? There can't be too many of those left...heck, there probably weren't that many built to begin with! IIRC, didn't the Biscayne go away after '72, and then the Bel Air went away after '75, being replaced by an Impala "S" or something like that for '76?
Oh, on the subject of under-sized engines in big cars, I'd say the one that has to take the cake must be the big LeSabre that got the 231 V-6. I think they only did that for '76, and on the 4-door sedan and 2/4-door hardtops. That must have been a serious dog. I remember seeing one for sale years ago at the car show in Macungie, PA, a 4-door hardtop IIRC.
Cadillac went through some miserable times as they struggled to meet the tighter emission requirements while boosting their gas mileage numbers.
The one year only disaster 4-6-8 engines in 1981 followed by the piece of junk HT 4100 engines that were junk from 1982-1987. They got much better in 1988.
Then the came out with the Northstar that had numerous EXPENSIVE to fit problems.
Amazing they have survived and prospered as so many loyal customers ran from them.
Cadillac went through some miserable times as they struggled to meet the tighter emission requirements while boosting their gas mileage numbers.
The one year only disaster 4-6-8 engines in 1981 followed by the piece of junk HT 4100 engines that were junk from 1982-1987. They got much better in 1988.
Then the came out with the Northstar that had numerous EXPENSIVE to fit problems.
Amazing they have survived and prospered as so many loyal customers ran from them.
I believe Cadillac started using the Olds 307 by 1987. True, the HT4100 was an abominable engine but a spectacular boat anchor!
andre, you are correct. The Bel Air's last year was '75, replaced by a budget "Impala S" model in '76. The Impala S still had the regular Impala interior though, although Bel Air-level exterior trim. The Biscayne went away after '72. In 1970 and later, the Biscayne was not mentioned at all in the sales brochures, which makes me think they were available to fleets only.
The '73 six-cylinder Bel Air was available only with the 3-speed manual trans, per the brochure:
Here's a '73 Chevelle SS wagon, a one-year only "Why'd they bother?" thing. Unlike the SS coupe, which came with Rally Wheels and with Turbine I wheels optional, the SS wagon came with Turbine I wheels. Like I said, I don't like the silver front-bumper filler, which changed to body-color mid-year. If I bought a '73, I'd have to paint that body color if it wasn't already. I've never seen an SS wagon in person.
A couple other observations about the '73-77 GM intermediates:
The four-doors I remember having very stiff detents holding the doors open. They were actually somewhat hard to close, and closed with a sound unlike any other I'd heard before then.
The cars really had no visible rocker panels from the outside (unless the door was opened). Rocker trim was applied to the lower doors.
The capping (for lack of a better word) below the side windows, separating the windows from the metal doors, used to separate rather easily; i.e., the black vinyl or rubber top layer would come off, exposing metal underneath. My friend replaced that on his Chevelle. Also, if you didn't keep the lower door drains cleared/open, you could hear water sloshing around inside the doors!
I still liked the way the cars looked and drove. In fact, any Chevelle or Monte Carlo of that era I drove, felt more sophisticated (for lack of a better word) than our '74 Impala. I never drove any B-O-P versions but would assume results would be similar.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Here's a '73 Chevelle SS wagon, a one-year only "Why'd they bother?" thing. Unlike the SS coupe, which came with Rally Wheels and with Turbine I wheels optional, the SS wagon came with Turbine I wheels. Like I said, I don't like the silver front-bumper filler, which changed to body-color mid-year. If I bought a '73, I'd have to paint that body color if it wasn't already.
I wonder what that front-end design originally looked like before those bumpers were tacked on. I know others here have talked about their preference for one year over the other, but this entire generation of Chevelle was extremely unattractive in the front view regardless of the model year IMO, due to the bumper design. I can sort of imagine a non-5mph bumper on there, much slimmer and more sculpted, that might make it attractive.
What are the wheels on that coupe called? I have had a set of those in 14" size in my garage for 20 years, bought in error (don't ask). No caps, and I don't know if they are available. I wouldn't mind selling them locally if I knew what to call them.
A couple other observations about the '73-77 GM intermediates:
The four-doors I remember having very stiff detents holding the doors open. They were actually somewhat hard to close, and closed with a sound unlike any other I'd heard before then.
The cars really had no visible rocker panels from the outside (unless the door was opened). Rocker trim was applied to the lower doors.
The capping (for lack of a better word) below the side windows, separating the windows from the metal doors, used to separate rather easily; i.e., the black vinyl or rubber top layer would come off, exposing metal underneath. My friend replaced that on his Chevelle.
I suspect they probably used a similar detent mechanism as was used on the 2-doors. With those massive, heavy doors on the coupe you needed a stiff detent. Applied to a 4-door design it might make them overly stiff.
The exterior window sweepers were an unfortunate design. They were a substantial metal strip covered in rubber with the sweeper for the glass attacked. The rubber covering over the metal would often crack and fail, letting water rust the metal strip. On my '77 LeMans I had that problem, tried to fix it with black silicone but that really didn't help. Eventually I got a set from the local Pontiac dealer parts counter and replaced them. These seemed a bit different than what my car originally had and looked better - I think they changed the rubber coating to more of a plastic.
They are Chevy "Rally Wheels". While Chevy, over the years, had different versions of them, the ones on that coupe are unique to the '73 SS only by their center caps with black centers. That exact wheel, with trim rings and a different cap, was used on 1971-72 Chevelles, 1971 and later Novas, and 1971 and later Camaros. Monte Carlos used the different, late '60's style five-oblong-slot Rally Wheels, through the '77 model year
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Cadillac went through some miserable times as they struggled to meet the tighter emission requirements while boosting their gas mileage numbers.
The one year only disaster 4-6-8 engines in 1981 followed by the piece of junk HT 4100 engines that were junk from 1982-1987. They got much better in 1988.
Yeah, that V-6 was the enlarged 4.1 version, which was also standard for a few years in the Electra, Ninety Eight, Toronado, and Riviera. It was optional in the LeSabre, Century/Regal, and made its way into a couple of Pontiacs.
One dirty little secret that Cadillac would rather have you forget, is that the Buick 4.1 V-6 actually put out more torque than their 4.1 V-8! It wasn't a huge amount...205 versus 195 ft-lb. They both put out the same 125 hp. So, in a drag race, the Buick V-6 might have actually been a bit quicker. I wonder if the V-6 would have been lighter as well? Normally, that would be a no-brainer, V-6 versus V-8, but in this case it was an iron-block V-6 versus an aluminum V-8.
Cadillac stopped offering that Buick 4.1 after 1982, and at some point the aluminum V-8 got boosted to 135 hp, although I forget the torque. My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a Brougham with one, and they got 0-60 in 14.9 seconds. They called performance "Dignified, at best". And, that tiny engine needed to have the snot revved out of it to get even that performance...GM put a musclecar-like 3.42:1 axle ratio in it to get that. When Caddy finally wised up and started putting Olds 307's in for 1986, they went to a more leisurely 2.73:1 axle, as the Olds unit had the torque and didn't need to rev like that. I don't know what 0-60 was on the 307 models, but fuel economy actually improved, as the engine didn't have to strain as much.
Supposedly, the 4.5 and 4.9 versions of that engine were pretty rugged. My grandmother's 90 year old cousin has an '89 Coupe DeVille that she got in 1992, and that thing still purrs like a kitten. Considering the neglect and abuse it takes (neglect from her, abuse when her son uses it), I'd say that's a testament to its strength.
In retrospect, it's a shame that Cadillac didn't just keep offering the 368 V-8, minus the cylinder deactivation, pay the CAFE fines, and build it into the price of the car. The 368 stayed around through 1984 anyway, as they used it in limo and commercial package. It would've made the cars a bit more expensive, but I'm sure buyers would have paid the premium, for the quality. Or, simply gone with the Olds 307, as they would eventually do anyway, for '86.
In retrospect, it's a shame that Cadillac didn't just keep offering the 368 V-8, minus the cylinder deactivation, pay the CAFE fines, and build it into the price of the car.
I suspect that was more a political decision than an engineering one.
Regarding an earlier comment about the 71-74 Satellite, most models had an operating rear coupe window, but the base Satellite had fixed glass, like I suspect many other models of that era.
I've heard that too, that the 368 engine itself was fine...it's just that the V-8-6-4 part of it was troublesome. And more specifically, it was when it made the jump from 8 to 6 cylinders that caused the problem. Supposedly there's some kind of physics problem involved there, and even to this day, engines with cylinder deactivation usually just make the jump right from 8 to 4 cylinders, and don't even mess with the 6-cyl step.
I wonder too, how much fuel they really save going from 8 to 6 or 4 cylinders? My 2012 Ram has cylinder deactivation, but to get it to go into 4-cyl mode, the pedal pressure has to be so light, that it's hardly using any gasoline, anyway. It's probably one of those little tricks that doesn't really benefit the typical consumer all that much, but helps them eke by on the EPA tests, and over enough volume helps them avoid paying fines.
As for the 368, I think it's essentially a continuation of the old 472/500 block, which became the 425 for '77, and then 368 for '80. So overall I'd guess it would be pretty rugged. Although I think they did some kind of cheapening with the 425...something to do with rocker arms that weren't as rugged, or something like that?
By '71-75, the Bel Air was down to just a 4-door sedan and station wagon. Most of the sedans were probably sold to taxi and other fleet buyers by that time, although I'm sure there was still some customer demand for a big, cheap, basic, workhorse wagon.
I'd imagine the Biscayne was even rarer, and it only lasted through 1972. I've seen a few Bel Airs from that timeframe, and even though the Impala wasn't all that ritzy of a car, you can see where they found ways to make it cheaper...for instance, the door panels, which actually look pretty nice as illustrations in the sale brochures, definitely look downscale in real life. And the seat materials seem a bit cheaper. But, it makes me wonder...what could they really do to make it even cheaper, for the Biscayne version?!
Sometimes too, I wonder if the manufacturers really saved any money by offering cheaper trim levels like that. While the Bel Air door panels and seat materials may have been cheaper, it still would be an added expense, to offer the extra variety. By the time the 1976 Impala S came along, I believe it actually used the same interior as the regular Impala, although they saved a few bucks by deleting some exterior trim pieces and, IIRC, some sound insulation.
I always thought the Impalas, through the early '70's, had nice seat trim and door panels but bland instrument panels. In fact, Pontiac Catalinas IMHO seemed decontented compared to Impalas. The exterior resembled Bel Air trim (i.e., only a rocker panel molding and roof drip molding standard--I guess the Bel Air did not give you the drip molding standard though), and the Catalina's seat trim seemed sub-Impala to me--same with door panels. The dash was better though--a lot better. There's a '72 Catalina convert on eBay now, red with white interior, and those points were driven home to me. I don't have the link handy. It's a beautiful car though.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Cadillac went through some miserable times as they struggled to meet the tighter emission requirements while boosting their gas mileage numbers.
The one year only disaster 4-6-8 engines in 1981 followed by the piece of junk HT 4100 engines that were junk from 1982-1987. They got much better in 1988.
Yeah, that V-6 was the enlarged 4.1 version, which was also standard for a few years in the Electra, Ninety Eight, Toronado, and Riviera. It was optional in the LeSabre, Century/Regal, and made its way into a couple of Pontiacs.
One dirty little secret that Cadillac would rather have you forget, is that the Buick 4.1 V-6 actually put out more torque than their 4.1 V-8! It wasn't a huge amount...205 versus 195 ft-lb. They both put out the same 125 hp. So, in a drag race, the Buick V-6 might have actually been a bit quicker. I wonder if the V-6 would have been lighter as well? Normally, that would be a no-brainer, V-6 versus V-8, but in this case it was an iron-block V-6 versus an aluminum V-8.
Cadillac stopped offering that Buick 4.1 after 1982, and at some point the aluminum V-8 got boosted to 135 hp, although I forget the torque. My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a Brougham with one, and they got 0-60 in 14.9 seconds. They called performance "Dignified, at best". And, that tiny engine needed to have the snot revved out of it to get even that performance...GM put a musclecar-like 3.42:1 axle ratio in it to get that. When Caddy finally wised up and started putting Olds 307's in for 1986, they went to a more leisurely 2.73:1 axle, as the Olds unit had the torque and didn't need to rev like that. I don't know what 0-60 was on the 307 models, but fuel economy actually improved, as the engine didn't have to strain as much.
Supposedly, the 4.5 and 4.9 versions of that engine were pretty rugged. My grandmother's 90 year old cousin has an '89 Coupe DeVille that she got in 1992, and that thing still purrs like a kitten. Considering the neglect and abuse it takes (neglect from her, abuse when her son uses it), I'd say that's a testament to its strength.
In retrospect, it's a shame that Cadillac didn't just keep offering the 368 V-8, minus the cylinder deactivation, pay the CAFE fines, and build it into the price of the car. The 368 stayed around through 1984 anyway, as they used it in limo and commercial package. It would've made the cars a bit more expensive, but I'm sure buyers would have paid the premium, for the quality. Or, simply gone with the Olds 307, as they would eventually do anyway, for '86.
My 1994 Cadillac Sedan de Ville had the 4.9 litre V-8. Though it was only rated at 200 hp, the car was hardly a slouch. It was so smooth-riding, you'd be hitting 100 mph on the turnpike if you didn't pay attention to the speedometer. Hard to believe it was a descendent of that miserable HT4100 engine! My friend had a pristine 1983 Sedan de Ville with that 4.1 litre engine. His car only had 13,000 miles on it. I'd be super-paranoid of that engine though Cadillac made many improvements over the dreadful 1982 engine.
Here's the '72 Catalina convertible I mentioned a couple posts ago. It's beautiful I think, but I wish you could've gotten the Catalina Brougham in a convertible that year.
By '71-75, the Bel Air was down to just a 4-door sedan and station wagon. Most of the sedans were probably sold to taxi and other fleet buyers by that time, although I'm sure there was still some customer demand for a big, cheap, basic, workhorse wagon.
What I can't understand is the reasoning behind limiting the 6-cylinder to a 3-speed stick. I would think that would make it essentially sales proof. I believe that by that time they no longer offered Powerglide in the full size, so perhaps it was just that the Turbohydramatic was incompatible, but if so, why bother offering the six.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
That's a good point, bhill2. I guess the thinking was to have a product for every customer and to keep that oddball customer from going elsewhere. Studebaker in the '62-64 model years was somewhat like that; many permutations of options, engines, etc. When they moved all production to their Canadian plant, they discontinued many of the combinations. Some interior combinations were not even sold in the double-digits in the previous year I've read.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Here's the '72 Catalina convertible I mentioned a couple posts ago. It's beautiful I think, but I wish you could've gotten the Catalina Brougham in a convertible that year.
That interior is at least comparable to an Impala, I think. Around that time the Impala had that awful herringbone "sport cloth" upholstery. The dash is better too. Nice car, there.
Here's a '72 Impala white vinyl interior,. I like the bolster. The dash in the Pontiac was better, hands-down IMHO. On the Impala door panels, I always liked the little chrome 'impala' on the woodgrain part, not visible in the pic.
I think I like the seats of the Impala a little better than the Catalina, but to me it's just a matter of taste...I don't know if one's really more upscale from the other. I just like the way the Impala has that extra strip that goes across towards the top, where the buckles are. To me it gives the Impala a more dressed-up, finished look. But, who knows...maybe that was actually a cost cutting move? On one hand, it's more pieces and complexity, but maybe it was put there to cover a seam in the vinyl, where the Catalina, on the other hand, uses a larger piece, so it doesn't need anything to cover the seam?
As for dashboards, I do think the Pontiac has a nicer dash. I like how it has more of a sporty, cockpit, driver-oriented feel. IIRC, Buick and Olds did this as well. I know Buick and Olds changed their dashboards a few years later, with the Buick going for a flashier, chromier affair that had sort of a 70's futuristic look to it, where the Olds made me think of a nice, antique desk, somehow. I can't remember if Chevy or Pontiac changed their dashboards during that run or not...I don't think they did, other than maybe minor accents here and there.
I think Buick and Olds changed their instrument panels in '75 or so to accomodate the optional airbags that neither Chevy or Pontiac got back then.
The outside of that Catalina convertible is sure pretty. That was definitely before the 'badge engineering' period. The Impala looks nothing like the Pontiac IMHO, for example. Did you see the original double-white-stripe spare in the trunk of the Catalina?
A big-time Studebaker friend of mine owns a '72 Buick LeSabre Custom Convertible. He says he loves it more and more over time and considers that GM was at the top of their game on full-size cars then. Maybe hard to argue.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
By '71-75, the Bel Air was down to just a 4-door sedan and station wagon. Most of the sedans were probably sold to taxi and other fleet buyers by that time, although I'm sure there was still some customer demand for a big, cheap, basic, workhorse wagon.
What I can't understand is the reasoning behind limiting the 6-cylinder to a 3-speed stick. I would think that would make it essentially sales proof. I believe that by that time they no longer offered Powerglide in the full size, so perhaps it was just that the Turbohydramatic was incompatible, but if so, why bother offering the six.
I think that it's marketing. Put a low price in the paper and then sell them an Impala once you tell them the details. My car is an 03 Altima 2.5S. They sold about a million of them, but officially, you could also get a 2.5, non S. Same car as mine with no AC or CD player. I've never seen one but it let them say 'starting at $15,900' or whatever
The vents in the trunklids of the all-new GM big cars in '71 were part of the flow-through ventilation system. They had water leak issues in the trunk, and mid-way through the year, the number of the vents decreased. In '72, they were gone completely.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Even way back in ancient times, auto makers pulled those kinds of stunts. For instance, I read once that 99.6% of all 1956 DeSotos were built equipped with an automatic transmission. For 1957, ostensibly, the cheap Dodge-based Firesweep and mid-line Firedome had a 3-on-the-tree standard, while the top-line Fireflite had a 2-speed Powerflite. I think the Adventurer, which was DeSoto's 300C, had a standard Torqueflite.
However, I heard that every single Firedome and Fireflite ended up being built with the 3-speed Torqueflite. And I've never seen one with anything less, at car shows, although I guess it's possible they were out there.
I have seen Firesweeps with a 3-on-the tree. And, I don't think I've ever seen a '57 Firesweep with a Torqueflite...just the Powerflite.
Comments
http://blog.caranddriver.com/now-thats-cheap-transportation-75-pickup-got-minnesota-man-back-and-forth-to-work-for-38-years/
Even in 77, 75 bucks couldn't have been much money
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Would a '73 Chevelle still have had drum brakes, if you got the cheapest model with a 6-cyl? I tried looking for brochures, but the closest I could find was for the '73 Cutlass. It mentions front disc brakes are standard, but I think the Cutlass also came standard with a 350 V-8...I don't think they started putting 6-cyl engines in them until 1975, but I could be wrong. Anyway, if the Chevelle did have all-drum brakes in the base model, I think they were 9.5" drums, which were probably a bit over-matched in something this size.
I think I prefer the '73 Chevelle style the best, of the '73-77 generation. I like the way the grille extended outward under the headlights...sort of like a '60 DeSoto! Or an '80-89 Diplomat. And I always liked the round taillights on the '73. In the later years, they just didn't seem right. The '74 seemed too small for the space back there, and don't seem to fit quite right in the space. My guess is they used the '73 trunk lid, and that's part of the problem. Then, for '75, it seems kind of generic. '76-77 seem like they're trying to mimic something like a '74 Impala, perhaps, but the whole '75-77 stretch seems like they're a bit ill-fitting. I'm sure the workmanship of the times didn't help.
One detail I was sad to see go with the '73 redesign, is roll-down rear windows in the coupes. With the '72 models, even the cheap post models still had roll-down rear windows, although I don't know if they went down all the way or not. I guess with more common availability of air conditioning though, it was becoming a moot point. Plus, the door extends further back on the '73 model than the '72, so even without air conditioning, maybe that still helped air flow?
I thought it was a nice touch that the Nova stuck with roll-down windows on the 2-door models through '74. I guess though, being a cheaper car, it was less likely to be ordered with a/c, so that's why they kept roll-down windows around longer?
The 307 was standard on the '73 Chevelle, but I remember few of them and I about lived at our Chevy dealer in '73. Most were 350 2-barrels where I lived...and I want to say that was only a $26 option over the 307 and included front-fender emblems. I'm not certain of the dollar amount, but it was next-to-nil.
My best high-school friend, in '78, bought a bright green (factory color) '73 Chevelle SS, 350 4-barrel, black bench seats, silver striping. I loved it, but at five years in our winters, it had already been patched around those pretty round taillights. It was sold new in our town per paperwork in the glovebox, although I didn't remember ever seeing it before my friend bought it.
I just hated the '75 Chevelle. The wheelcovers looked like moons with trim rings, and the rear end panel looked like it was done in an auto shop class! A real 'hack job'! I hated too, how the '75 Impala Custom had an "Impala" nameplates in two places on the side--front fender and "B" pillar.
Oh, have you ever noticed on some of the '73 ads, factory photos, and sales brochures, they show the sedan and wagon models with the back windows down, but it gives the illusion they roll all the way down? I guess they simply just took the window glass out. Wonder if that would be considered false advertising? Oh well, at least it's better than what came with the '78 downsizing!
I've also seen old factory photos of the 1970 Duster 340, and the 1975 Coronet/Fury coupe, in poses that make them look like hardtops with the back windows down. But in reality, the Duster's back windows simply flipped out, and the post was just a bolted-in piece that was there for the window to hinge to. And while I've seen '71-74 Satellite/Chargers that were true hardtops, I've never seen a '75-78 Fury/Coronet/Monaco coupe with roll-down back windows, other than the factory photos. They still lack a B-pillar, but the rear glass is stationary, just like it was in other fake-me-out hardtops like the '79-85 Eldo/Toro/Riv.
I could see that '73 fetching a high price if it was in pristine condition, and fully optioned up with a big block engine. Or even a 350. But as it is, it's just an old 4-door sedan with a slow engine, and very little in the way of options. I can't even imagine how slow something like that would be, with the 250. CR tested a '77 Cutlass Supreme sedan with a 260 V-8 and got 0-60 in about 21.6 seconds. I imagine this '73 would be almost as painful. I could probably remove two spark plug wires from my '85 Silverado, and it would still be faster!
My main rationale is that I get tired of seeing rodded and customized cars at the shows...they all start looking the same after awhile. And suddenly, the pristine, original, old-lady car stands out from the crowd, and ends up being the unique one.
As for that '73 Chevelle, it's probably the type of car that, if it had been my grandmother's, and she gave up driving, and it got passed down to me, I might appreciate it more. Or, if I just wanted a cheap, nice old car, and perhaps had some fond childhood memory of cars of that era, and found one at a good price.
But, even then, I'd probably just end up holding out for a nicer example. In fact, I actually did. Back in 2001, a local park and sell lot had a '76 LeMans coupe for sale that they wanted $1200 for. It was brown with a buckskin interior, pretty basic, with crank windows and such. I think it had a/c, but can't remember for sure. It also had a little rust here and there, including some holes all the way through in the trunk floor. I was tempted, until I popped the hood, to reveal a Chevy 250-6cyl. That put the car out of my mind, completely.
Probably a good thing, too, because that fall, I found the '79 New Yorker 5th Ave that I ended up buying, for $900. It's a much nicer car, and equipped a LOT better than that LeMans was. At that time, if I had bought the LeMans, I wouldn't have had the resources to buy the 5th Ave, as well, so I would have missed out on it. Or, sold the LeMans and bought it, I guess!
And, a few years later, a much nicer '76 LeMans did come along, and I bought it for $3000. It's not perfect, but is in much nicer shape, much better optioned (350-4bbl, power windows/seat, tilt wheel, the upgraded Grand LeMans trim package, Rally wheels, nicer color, etc). It was $1800 more than that first LeMans, but IMO represented much more than $1800 in added value.
And, I guess that's the problem with a lot of these old base level 70's cars. Unless you really have the urge for an underpowered stripper, you might as well just go buy a nicer one, for not much more money.
I'll have to look around online, but I saw a pic a couple years back of a light blue '73 Malibu coupe, very clean,, six-cylinder, and there was a lady a couple doors down from my grandparents' house in my hometown, that had a car just like that. She wore bright red lipstick and those flat, round earrings that looked like after-dinner mints.
The pic online I'd seen a few years back sure looked nicer than the Deluxe being discussed here. The six in '73 was only 100 hp...a bit scary-low.
Oh, on the subject of under-sized engines in big cars, I'd say the one that has to take the cake must be the big LeSabre that got the 231 V-6. I think they only did that for '76, and on the 4-door sedan and 2/4-door hardtops. That must have been a serious dog. I remember seeing one for sale years ago at the car show in Macungie, PA, a 4-door hardtop IIRC.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Cadillac went through some miserable times as they struggled to meet the tighter emission requirements while boosting their gas mileage numbers.
The one year only disaster 4-6-8 engines in 1981 followed by the piece of junk HT 4100 engines that were junk from 1982-1987. They got much better in 1988.
Then the came out with the Northstar that had numerous EXPENSIVE to fit problems.
Amazing they have survived and prospered as so many loyal customers ran from them.
The '73 six-cylinder Bel Air was available only with the 3-speed manual trans, per the brochure:
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Chevrolet/1973_Chevrolet/1973_Chevrolet_Brochure/1973 Chevrolet-16.html
http://r18.imgfast.net/users/1813/58/83/10/album/73_ss_12.jpg
Here's a coupe, with 454:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/1973_Chevelle_Malibu_SS.jpg
The four-doors I remember having very stiff detents holding the doors open. They were actually somewhat hard to close, and closed with a sound unlike any other I'd heard before then.
The cars really had no visible rocker panels from the outside (unless the door was opened). Rocker trim was applied to the lower doors.
The capping (for lack of a better word) below the side windows, separating the windows from the metal doors, used to separate rather easily; i.e., the black vinyl or rubber top layer would come off, exposing metal underneath. My friend replaced that on his Chevelle. Also, if you didn't keep the lower door drains cleared/open, you could hear water sloshing around inside the doors!
I still liked the way the cars looked and drove. In fact, any Chevelle or Monte Carlo of that era I drove, felt more sophisticated (for lack of a better word) than our '74 Impala. I never drove any B-O-P versions but would assume results would be similar.
What are the wheels on that coupe called? I have had a set of those in 14" size in my garage for 20 years, bought in error (don't ask). No caps, and I don't know if they are available. I wouldn't mind selling them locally if I knew what to call them.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
The exterior window sweepers were an unfortunate design. They were a substantial metal strip covered in rubber with the sweeper for the glass attacked. The rubber covering over the metal would often crack and fail, letting water rust the metal strip. On my '77 LeMans I had that problem, tried to fix it with black silicone but that really didn't help. Eventually I got a set from the local Pontiac dealer parts counter and replaced them. These seemed a bit different than what my car originally had and looked better - I think they changed the rubber coating to more of a plastic.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
One dirty little secret that Cadillac would rather have you forget, is that the Buick 4.1 V-6 actually put out more torque than their 4.1 V-8! It wasn't a huge amount...205 versus 195 ft-lb. They both put out the same 125 hp. So, in a drag race, the Buick V-6 might have actually been a bit quicker. I wonder if the V-6 would have been lighter as well? Normally, that would be a no-brainer, V-6 versus V-8, but in this case it was an iron-block V-6 versus an aluminum V-8.
Cadillac stopped offering that Buick 4.1 after 1982, and at some point the aluminum V-8 got boosted to 135 hp, although I forget the torque. My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a Brougham with one, and they got 0-60 in 14.9 seconds. They called performance "Dignified, at best". And, that tiny engine needed to have the snot revved out of it to get even that performance...GM put a musclecar-like 3.42:1 axle ratio in it to get that. When Caddy finally wised up and started putting Olds 307's in for 1986, they went to a more leisurely 2.73:1 axle, as the Olds unit had the torque and didn't need to rev like that. I don't know what 0-60 was on the 307 models, but fuel economy actually improved, as the engine didn't have to strain as much.
Supposedly, the 4.5 and 4.9 versions of that engine were pretty rugged. My grandmother's 90 year old cousin has an '89 Coupe DeVille that she got in 1992, and that thing still purrs like a kitten. Considering the neglect and abuse it takes (neglect from her, abuse when her son uses it), I'd say that's a testament to its strength.
In retrospect, it's a shame that Cadillac didn't just keep offering the 368 V-8, minus the cylinder deactivation, pay the CAFE fines, and build it into the price of the car. The 368 stayed around through 1984 anyway, as they used it in limo and commercial package. It would've made the cars a bit more expensive, but I'm sure buyers would have paid the premium, for the quality. Or, simply gone with the Olds 307, as they would eventually do anyway, for '86.
I suspect that was more a political decision than an engineering one.
Regarding an earlier comment about the 71-74 Satellite, most models had an operating rear coupe window, but the base Satellite had fixed glass, like I suspect many other models of that era.
A lot of shops simply snipped the wire so they ran in 8 cylinder mode all of the time.
I wonder too, how much fuel they really save going from 8 to 6 or 4 cylinders? My 2012 Ram has cylinder deactivation, but to get it to go into 4-cyl mode, the pedal pressure has to be so light, that it's hardly using any gasoline, anyway. It's probably one of those little tricks that doesn't really benefit the typical consumer all that much, but helps them eke by on the EPA tests, and over enough volume helps them avoid paying fines.
As for the 368, I think it's essentially a continuation of the old 472/500 block, which became the 425 for '77, and then 368 for '80. So overall I'd guess it would be pretty rugged. Although I think they did some kind of cheapening with the 425...something to do with rocker arms that weren't as rugged, or something like that?
I'd imagine the Biscayne was even rarer, and it only lasted through 1972. I've seen a few Bel Airs from that timeframe, and even though the Impala wasn't all that ritzy of a car, you can see where they found ways to make it cheaper...for instance, the door panels, which actually look pretty nice as illustrations in the sale brochures, definitely look downscale in real life. And the seat materials seem a bit cheaper. But, it makes me wonder...what could they really do to make it even cheaper, for the Biscayne version?!
Sometimes too, I wonder if the manufacturers really saved any money by offering cheaper trim levels like that. While the Bel Air door panels and seat materials may have been cheaper, it still would be an added expense, to offer the extra variety. By the time the 1976 Impala S came along, I believe it actually used the same interior as the regular Impala, although they saved a few bucks by deleting some exterior trim pieces and, IIRC, some sound insulation.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1972-Pontiac-Catalina-Base-Convertible-2-Door-6-6L-/131392541865?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&forcerrptr=true&hash=item1e979b14a9&item=131392541865&nma=true&si=kU0A%2BgQiXqR3f4PwCAeaXLngeKQ%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
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
http://www.fastcoolcars.com/Classif/classifieds-113.htm
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1971-Chevrolet-10.jpg
As for dashboards, I do think the Pontiac has a nicer dash. I like how it has more of a sporty, cockpit, driver-oriented feel. IIRC, Buick and Olds did this as well. I know Buick and Olds changed their dashboards a few years later, with the Buick going for a flashier, chromier affair that had sort of a 70's futuristic look to it, where the Olds made me think of a nice, antique desk, somehow. I can't remember if Chevy or Pontiac changed their dashboards during that run or not...I don't think they did, other than maybe minor accents here and there.
The outside of that Catalina convertible is sure pretty. That was definitely before the 'badge engineering' period. The Impala looks nothing like the Pontiac IMHO, for example. Did you see the original double-white-stripe spare in the trunk of the Catalina?
A big-time Studebaker friend of mine owns a '72 Buick LeSabre Custom Convertible. He says he loves it more and more over time and considers that GM was at the top of their game on full-size cars then. Maybe hard to argue.
However, I heard that every single Firedome and Fireflite ended up being built with the 3-speed Torqueflite. And I've never seen one with anything less, at car shows, although I guess it's possible they were out there.
I have seen Firesweeps with a 3-on-the tree. And, I don't think I've ever seen a '57 Firesweep with a Torqueflite...just the Powerflite.