By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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.