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

andre1969 · May 2018

My grandparents bought their 1982 Malibu Classic wagon in February of 1982, when it was cold. Grandmom started calling it "the most expensive cheap car we ever owned", mainly because of those stationary rear door windows. It was a pretty nice looking car; I'll give it that much. It was midnight blue metallic with fake woodgrain. But anyway, I was 12 in 1982, so my driving days were still a few years off.

ab348 · May 2018

In '82 I was driving my '77 LeMans 2-door Colonnade coupe.Nice enough car though very space-inefficient for its size. Not sure why I ignored the early '80s Cutlass 2-doors as I liked the looks of the '81-up redesign.

@omarman, in '97 when I bought the house I still live in I needed a beater vehicle. I was moving from downtown where I was able to walk most places during that time and could use my '68 Cutlass in good weather. Not the case here so I ended up buying a '78 Delta 88 sedan for $2000. Had it 5 years, served me very well despite 100K miles.

fintail · May 2018

I know I've posted this before, but this was my parents' fleet around that time (pic taken by a Polaroid instant camera, something which fascinated me when I was little):

I am not sure what is in the driveway, but I remember the house and cars out front vividly. The T-Bird was still going strong, but its days were numbered, off the road by 1985. I know my grandpa had a Chrysler at the time, perhaps that's it in the driveway. This was in eastern WA, and the house was on the edge of the subdivision, across the street was a tumbleweed and brush-filled lot and a view of surrounding hills.

laurasdada · May 2018

'82 began my car buying career. first a '78 VW Scirocco followed by 17 years of imports. A string broken by a '99 Chrysler 300M, a large car I rather enjoyed. But, it was a one and done for the domestics; I was raised on imports.

stickguy · May 2018

82 was IIRC the year I sold my gremlin and bought the evil 1975 opel. Worst car I ever had. But fun to drive. When it ran.

andre1969 · May 2018

ab348 said:
In '82 I was driving my '77 LeMans 2-door Colonnade coupe.Nice enough car though very space-inefficient for its size. Not sure why I ignored the early '80s Cutlass 2-doors as I liked the looks of the '81-up redesign.

I had an '82 Cutlass Supreme coupe (as well as an '86 Monte Carlo, and an '80 Malibu coupe) and still have my '76 Grand LeMans, so I've actually gone through a similar experience.

Anyway, I wonder if the LeMans (and similar GM A-bodies) might have actually been the most space-efficient of their peers, at least? By "peers", I'm thinking cars like the '72-79 Ford intermediate coupes, or '71-79 Mopar B-body intermediate coupes. My LeMans is on a 112" wheelbase, and I think is 208" long overall. The Fords were on a 114" wb and the Mopars on a 115", and in some years I think the coupes got as bloated as 215-216"! Just from a driver's seat perspective, they all seem adequate to me, but in different ways. The Fords had good front legroom but sat really low. The Mopars sat a bit higher, seats didn't seem to go back quite as far. And the seat cushions seemed a touch small The GM cars seemed like they had the least legroom of all, but the seat was at least at a good height. My LeMans has a tilt wheel and power seat, so it pretty much negates that problem. And the seats are pretty well padded. I've heard that Pontiac actually put more effort into their seats than other GM cars of the era, but dunno if that's true or not. I would think the seats in my LeMans are the same as a comparable trim level Chevelle, Century, or Cutlass...just with a different pattern, and different grain of vinyl?

I think among downsized cars, the GM coupes were definitely the most space efficient. I think Chrysler did a pretty good job of making a compact car "feel" like an intermediate, but something like an Aspen/Volare, or even a Diplomat/LeBaron in the '77-79 years were pretty tight in the back seat. And all of those Mopar F/J/M bodies had a shallow, oddly shaped trunk. And anything Ford tried to pass off as "midsized" in that era was actually based on the compact Fairmont, and as hard as they tried, I never thought they were able to shake that "compact car" vibe. Unless you went all the way to the top and got something like a Mark VII.

I actually liked my '82 Cutlass Supreme alot. Well, except for it needing a rebuilt transmission and then the 231 V-6 going bad. But, it was 11 years old when I bought it, and $800.

roadburner · May 2018

In 1982 I had my 1974 Monte Carlo Landau, my 1979 Arrow 2.6 GT, and my 1969 Datsun roadster.
In 1983 my girlfriend(now wife) found a 1973 Bavaria for me in Cincinnati. I sold the Arrow, bought the Bavaria, and the rest is history...

andre1969 · May 2018

roadburner said:
In 1982 I had my 1974 Monte Carlo Landau, my 1979 Arrow 2.6 GT, and my 1969 Datsun roadster.
In 1983 my girlfriend(now wife) found a 1973 Bavaria for me in Cincinnati. I sold the Arrow, bought the Bavaria, and the rest is history...

Just curious...what was that Arrow like? I'd imagine a small car like that, with the 2.6, was almost muscular for the era. Back in high school, I worked in the evenings at a veterinary clinic. The veterinarian who owned the place had an Arrow, although she soon traded it in for a Subaru hatchback. That was around 1987 I think.

andre1969 · May 2018

Something else I just thought of, with regards to space inefficiency of older cars...for my needs at least, and this is kinda sad to say, but my '76 Grand LeMans coupe probably would serve better as a "family" car than the 2003 Regal I inherited from my Dad. They're both great up front with regards to legroom, thanks to the power seat. However, even at 6'3", I can still get into the back seat of the LeMans. Not so with the Regal. Part of the problem is that there's no foot room under the front seat, but my head also hits the ceiling. Also, I don't know how GM calculated interior room, but somehow the LeMans's advertised 32.9" or whatever manages to feel more comfortable than the Regal's advertised 36.9". Gotta love that new math! I think one reason the Regal comes up so bad in the back seat is that it's positioned a bit further ahead of the rear axle than most cars. As a result, the rear cushion is almost flat across the back, with almost no rear wheel well intrusion. That might make it a bit easier to get in the back, and, if the front seat occupants are short enough, the seat might be better for 3 across seating because it won't force the outboard occupants to lean inward like most cars these days do. Still, I'd rather have a comfy 4-seater, than something that pretty much ends up being a 2+1 (with the +1 sitting sideways in back) if you have two tall occupants up front.

The Regal definitely has a bigger trunk than the LeMans. The Regal's trunk is advertised at 16.7 cubic feet, versus I think 15.0 for the LeMans. I always wondered, with cars that have the tire actually in the trunk, do they account for that, in measurements? For instance, do you have to take the spare tire out of the LeMans, to actually get that 15 cubic feet?

GM probably could have pushed the Regal's back seat back another 4 inches, with little sacrifice to trunk space, and wheel well intrusion about on par with other cars. Of course then, they'd have to redesign the roof/C-pillar area, and that might make the styling look awkward. And I guess that's one downfall of having cars designed for style, first. Now yeah, a 2003 Regal is hardly the cutting edge in fashion, but I think the proportioning is just about correct...just the right amount of hood, passenger cabin, and trunk, and enough C-pillar/rear window slope that it seems to all work together. Try to make it more comfortable in the back seat, and style-wise, it might not look right.

sda · May 2018

I thought the 97.5-2004 Regal was a handsome car. I drove the GS several times with the thought of buying one. I did buy a lightly used 2000 Olds Intrigue GL with sunroof in 2001, which has the same interior dimensions as the Regal. That was an enjoyable car. The 3.5 shortstar would move out with gusto and had a refined sound to it.

andre1969 · May 2018

I'd imagine a GS would be pretty sweet, with the supercharged 3800! I still have my old 2000 Park Ave Ultra, so I guess if I really had the time, money, and lack of common sense, I could try to "convert" my Dad's Regal, which is just the regular LS... But then, if I really wanted one, I'm sure I could just go find one.

I think the Olds Intrigue was my favorite, of that generation of W-body. It had good looks, and was reasonably sporty looking, but was a bit more mature than the "boy racer" attitude that the Grand Prix was pushing. I thought the Intrigue had a nice interior, too...it just seemed more high-quality than what the Century/Regal, Grand Prix, and Lumina/Impala/Monte Carlo were offering.

berri · May 2018

I liked the looks of the Intrigue even more than the Aurora. Sad that as Olds brought out some interesting stuff it was shut down. Probably inevitable, but I always wonder if Rock ran it starting a few years earlier ...

ab348 · May 2018

I had an '02 Intrigue. It may have been higher-quality than its corporate cousins but that is tempered with the reality that these were produced at the nadir of GM's cost-cutting culture. That unfortunately came through in the experience of owning the car. Having said that the Intrigue drove really well, was a fine handler, and had a sweet engine. Certainly preferable to me than a Grand Prix which rode rough and had a gimmicky dash. It wasn't a Chevy either which seemed lower-quality to me. No experience with that generation of Regal.

tjc78 · May 2018

I had a rental Regal GS in the early 2000s in Montana of all places. I was able to open it up quite a few times. Not a bad car for what it was. Saw some highly illegal speeds that trip.

fintail · May 2018

Thinking of Andre's grandparents' cheap expensive Malibu Classic makes me think how some people during the malaise/gas crunch era might have experienced some shocking new realities in terms of size and style. My mom had a Tempo after the T-Bird, and my dad had a 1970 Mustang before the Horizon.

roadburner · May 2018

andre1969 said:

roadburner said:
In 1982 I had my 1974 Monte Carlo Landau, my 1979 Arrow 2.6 GT, and my 1969 Datsun roadster.
In 1983 my girlfriend(now wife) found a 1973 Bavaria for me in Cincinnati. I sold the Arrow, bought the Bavaria, and the rest is history...
Just curious...what was that Arrow like? I'd imagine a small car like that, with the 2.6, was almost muscular for the era. Back in high school, I worked in the evenings at a veterinary clinic. The veterinarian who owned the place had an Arrow, although she soon traded it in for a Subaru hatchback. That was around 1987 I think.

It was quick for the time- 0-60 in a blistering 10 seconds. It was a really nice car- pretty advanced for its day with four wheel disc brakes and a five speed overdrive transmission.

andre1969 · May 2018

fintail said:
Thinking of Andre's grandparents' cheap expensive Malibu Classic makes me think how some people during the malaise/gas crunch era might have experienced some shocking new realities in terms of size and style. My mom had a Tempo after the T-Bird, and my dad had a 1970 Mustang before the Horizon.

One other incident I can remember, from 1985, was when my grandparents bought their '85 Silverado. At the time, they had a '76 GMC 3/4 ton crew cab pickup. Well, Grandmom got out the tape measure and took a few measurements inside the '76. She said that the way they GM was shrinking everything else, she wanted to make sure they weren't doing it to the trucks, too! This was mainly in reaction to GM's second wave of car downsizing. Once they decided they were getting fed up with that Malibu they wanted to get a Buick Electra. There was a guy at their church who had one, a coupe. However, once they found out the Electra was getting shrunk, they said well we'd better get a LeSabre before they screw that one , too!

Anyway, Grandmom measured the seat cushion on the '85 at the dealership, and somehow, she actually DID come up with a number that was smaller than the '76. So, she started getting convinced that GM was pulling a "fast one" on them. Now, I don't know how GM could have done anything from 1973-87 to reduce the shoulder room or any other critical points on these trucks. I know at some point they changed the dash slightly, and in the early 80's, I think, they did make the hood slightly more rakish. But nothing that should have changed the cab. However, I wonder if, with the '76 being a crew cab and the '85 being a regular cab, the seat design might have been different, and for some reason, they reduced the width of the cushion?

Now that I think about it, I think the '85's cushion might have tapered in a bit, probably to account for the fact that the backrest folded forward, while the '76 had a fixed backrest.

Other than that '82 Malibu though, I don't think my family downgraded, too much, during that Malaise era. Mom had gone from a '68 Impala 4-door hardtop and a 327 to a '75 LeMans coupe with a 350...I guess that was a bit of a downgrade. But by the time she got her 1980 Malibu coupe, with its 229, as a kid I actually preferred it. One problem with the LeMans though, is that Dad wrecked it in 1977, and even though it got fixed, it never ran right after that.

On my Dad's side of the family, they went from a '71 Tempest with a 350 to a '75 Dart Swinger with the 225. I guess that would be a bit of a downgrade, especially in the engine department. The Dart gave way to a '77 Granada, then an '81, and then an '85 small LTD.

After the divorce, my Dad moved to Florida, and drove a '71 Torino 4-door with a 302 that he had inherited when his grandfather passed away. After it threw a rod and he junked it, he went through a series of beaters. I think his last car, before he got busted for drinking and driving, was a '66 Catalina 4-door hardtop. I've never seen any pictures of it, and don't know what kind of condition it was in. I think it was dark blue. Oh well, I guess if nothing else, his driving career ended with a bit of a bang! He finally got his license back in the late 90's, and bought the Regal in the fall of '03. I remember him saying something like "you know, if I had bought a car like this at a younger age, it would have kept me out of a lot of trouble!"

Oh, I did just think of one tragedy. My stepdad's first car was a 1969 Chevelle SS396. His second car, by the time my Mom met him? A 1981 Escort!

omarman · May 2018

Wow. That's like a friend of mine from the 70s. His first car: 1968 Super Bee. Then married. Kids. His second car: Mercury Lynx ('82ish).

roadburner · May 2018

omarman said:
Wow. That's like a friend of mine from the 70s. His first car: 1968 Super Bee. Then married. Kids. His second car: Mercury Lynx ('82ish).

I have a LOT of friends who had SS Chevelles, Z28s, Corvettes, Cudas, etc., and now drive appliances. Only a few of us have kept the enthusiast flame burning.

explorerx4 · May 2018

When we had our first child, I traded my F150(reg cab, 8 foot bed, v8, 4 speed), for a nice family sedan.
89 SHO.

omarman · May 2018

explorerx4 said:
When we had our first child, I traded my F150(reg cab, 8 foot bed, v8, 4 speed), for a nice family sedan.
89 SHO.

And after all these years that is still a good recipe for a nice family sedan

tjc78 · May 2018

Saw this today. Right up my alley. Shame the headlight doors are leaking and not staying closed.

Mr_Shiftright · May 2018

Yank tank!

sda · May 2018

tjc78 said:
Saw this today. Right up my alley. Shame the headlight doors are leaking and not staying closed.

It needs the 460, not the 400. Dad bought a used '77 Grand Marquis with the 460 in '79. It felt pretty lethargic unless you really pressed deeply on the accelerator. I guess vacuum leaks were very common as the headlights rarely stayed closed overnight. One night mom came in from the garage and was amused, saying the Marquis winked at her. She just happened to be coming in as the headlights, right led by the left opened with a squeak. I know I shared this picture before, in typical '70s brown. I liked the deep dish wheels and the combination leather and corduroy interior.

laurasdada · May 2018

xNot obscure, but I'm seeing a lot of original gen Lexus RX300 here in LA.

tjc78 · May 2018

Yes, that’s the problem with 79s.. only the 400 (351M) was available. My 79 Town Coupe was pretty slow. I woke it up with dual exhaust, but still no race car

andre1969 · May 2018

I remember back in the day, it was a common sight to see a '77-79 T-bird "winking" at you. I guess that would make sense, since they were probably about the most common sight, among Ford's hidden-headlight cars.

On those vacuum-powered systems, how did you keep the covers open, if you had to change a headlight, for example? On my '79 5th Avenue, they're motor-operated, and all you have to do is turn the car off with the headlights on, and they stay open (or, if they're in the process of closing, they stop in whatever position they're in when the power gets killed).

Were the vacuum-powered headlight covers similar?

uplanderguy · May 2018

The '77 Impala coupe we discussed here last week or so was bid to $7,700 but apparently did not sell:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1977-Chevrolet-Impala-Sport-Coupe/282962211091?hash=item41e1dcb113:g:X2MAAOSwB4ha9Izt&vxp=mtr

Thinking about it, I could enjoy a '77 Impala coupe ONLY if had the wheelcovers that car does, but the bigger 15" wheels and tires and F41 (those 14's look so small in those big wheel openings although that is the way they were), digital clock, optional instrumentation, and 50/50 front seat with dual center armrests.

Or....I'd just want a loaded Caprice Classic coupe.

RE.: That big Marquis sedan above--my first "real job" boss had a navy blue one of those. He was a big drinker and a lech (sp?) so whenever I see one of those, I think of him, sadly.

berri · May 2018

Well, that car goes with a cocktail doesn't it

ab348 · May 2018

uplanderguy said:

RE.: That big Marquis sedan above--my first "real job" boss had a navy blue one of those. He was a big drinker and a lech (sp?) so whenever I see one of those, I think of him, sadly.

Heh. At my first job the owner/manager was not a drinker, but a lunatic of a big man who constantly smoked big cigars (even at 7AM) and yelled and ranted and raved and ran through the office whenever a crisis was looming. Just a terrible guy to start your working career with. He had bought a new 1979 Olds 98 sedan the year before I joined because (I was told) he broke his right leg skiing that winter and was in a hip-to-ankle cast. The 98 let him sit behind the wheel semi-sideways and drive using his left leg while the cast was in the passenger footwell/transmission hump area. Just crazy.

uplanderguy · May 2018

Next to me in traffic yesterday, a 1980 Monte Carlo with original light beige paint

One nice thing about Montes through 1980 (well, '73-80) is that they came standard--I mean every one--came with the bigger tires, rear stabilizer bar, and stiffer suspension than the Grand Prix, Regal, or Cutlass Supreme came standard with. My parents' '80 rode hard around town but I still liked that it came with 205-70 tires. My new '81 did not have those items; they were optional then.

andre1969 · May 2018

uplanderguy said:

Thinking about it, I could enjoy a '77 Impala coupe ONLY if had the wheelcovers that car does, but the bigger 15" wheels and tires and F41 (those 14's look so small in those big wheel openings although that is the way they were), digital clock, optional instrumentation, and 50/50 front seat with dual center armrests.

Those actually are 15" rims...according to the add it has 205/75/R15 tires on it. I'm pretty sure that was the stock size, at the time. My grandmother's '85 LeSabre had the same size, although at some point I put slightly larger 215/75/R15s on it.

GM actually did comparatively well, in my opinion, with what they put as standard tires on these cars. When the Panthers downsized for '79, a 14" rim was standard, and the tire was rated using that old fashioned system...FR78-14 or something like that. I think that equates to a 195/75/R14 in metric. Mopar's R-bodies were pretty bad as well...they used a 15" rim, at least, but it was a skinny 195/75-R15 tire. I don't think I've ever seen an R-body with that size tire on it. My '79 Newport had the "Open Road" package that gave you an extra-wide 7" rim and 225/70/R15 tires that filled out the wheel well pretty nicely. My '79 5th Ave had something like 205 or 215/75's on it, when I bought it, so a bit bigger, at least. For awhile I had 15x7 copcar wheels with 235/70/R15s, and currently have 15x7 Mirada road wheels with 225/70/R15s. My other '79 NYer, the midnight blue base model, only has the stock wheels and, I think, 215/75/R15s on it. But it also has hubcaps that are a bit extra-wide, and cover the whole rim, and at a quick glance give the illusion of a larger wheel.

uplanderguy · May 2018

You are right, andre. The standard tire was an FR78-15, and the optional tire was a GR70-15. The difference was visible 100 feet away...well, almost.

It's largely that I was weaned on Chevys, but I just never thought the '79 LTD Crown Victoria was near-as-pretty inside or out, as similar Chevys. It was on a slightly-shorter wheelbase too.

roadburner · May 2018

andre1969 said:
I remember back in the day, it was a common sight to see a '77-79 T-bird "winking" at you. I guess that would make sense, since they were probably about the most common sight, among Ford's hidden-headlight cars.

On those vacuum-powered systems, how did you keep the covers open, if you had to change a headlight, for example? On my '79 5th Avenue, they're motor-operated, and all you have to do is turn the car off with the headlights on, and they stay open (or, if they're in the process of closing, they stop in whatever position they're in when the power gets killed).

Were the vacuum-powered headlight covers similar?

Our 1970 Torino GT had hidden headlamps. There was a vacuum switch under the hood that you could flip to open the covers without turning on the lights.

andre1969 · May 2018

I think one area where Ford goofed a bit, for '79 at least, was giving the base LTD that 2-headlight treatment. I thought that made them look kind of cheap. On the plus side though, I think if you went fully-optioned-out, the Crown Vic might have been a little bit nicer than a Caprice. Something about the seats just seem a bit more plush, and thickly padded. Plus, you could get leather in a Crown Vic. I don't think the Caprice offered that until 1986, by which time it had to pretty much fill the shoes of everything from the old Impala on up to the Electra/Ninety-Eight.

I do find the 4-headlight models of the LTD/Crown Vic attractive, especially in earlier years before they got the bolder eggcrate grille. I think the shape of GM's B-bodies was more attractive, though...sleeker, and angular, but without being so boxy. Even when they squared them up a bit for 1980. Plus, I think the 2-door Panther is actually considered a sedan, rather than a coupe. I believe it shares the same windshield/rear window as the sedan, probably the same roof top, too. That's going to make it a bit roomier inside than a GM B-body, which was actually a "true" coupe, with a more rakish windshield, lower roof, slightly more closely-coupled passenger cabin...but less attractive to my eye.

ab348 · May 2018

The 1979 Panther models were the last designed under the leadership of Gene Bordinat and you can see in them his penchant for using blunt noses and sharp, almost right angles on panel transitions and overall design themes. IMO the original Panthers were nowhere near as nicely designed as GM's downsized B/C bodies despite spotting them 2 years. And I agree with Andre about the lower-end models with the single rectangular headlight being unattractive - fortunately they were only produced for a few years.

sda · May 2018

After dad's bad experience with his '79 Eldorado Diesel, he bought a used '85 Grand Marquis in '87. It had about 20k. Meanwhile mom still had her '78 Olds Regency 2dr with the 403 and

had around 110k. Before mom finally got rid of her 98 in '91, the Mercury's dash had multiple cracks and the headliner was drooping, and the a/c needed major repair. The '98s dash was not cracked, the headliner intact and the ac worked fine. By then it had around 160k, the Mercury around 70k. He resisted buying another car and did without ac for years. Finally in Sept '94 he bought a new '95 Olds Cutlass Ciera SL II, which end up being his last car as eye issues prevent him from driving.

sda · May 2018

roadburner said:

andre1969 said:
I remember back in the day, it was a common sight to see a '77-79 T-bird "winking" at you. I guess that would make sense, since they were probably about the most common sight, among Ford's hidden-headlight cars.

On those vacuum-powered systems, how did you keep the covers open, if you had to change a headlight, for example? On my '79 5th Avenue, they're motor-operated, and all you have to do is turn the car off with the headlights on, and they stay open (or, if they're in the process of closing, they stop in whatever position they're in when the power gets killed).

Were the vacuum-powered headlight covers similar?
Our 1970 Torino GT had hidden headlamps. There was a vacuum switch under the hood that you could flip to open the covers without turning on the lights.

I remember the Mercury had the same set up, though I don't think that switch that looked like a black rotary knob was ever utilized.

fintail · May 2018

I think I've maybe only seen or noticed a couple single light LTDs in person.

andre1969 · May 2018

fintail said:
I think I've maybe only seen or noticed a couple single light LTDs in person.

Lemko had a single-headlight model, once upon a time. And even though it was a basic car, it had the optional 351-2bbl. I imagine for that era, it was decently quick. I can't remember the last time I saw one, though.

Mr_Shiftright · May 2018

uplanderguy said:
The '77 Impala coupe we discussed here last week or so was bid to $7,700 but apparently did not sell:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1977-Chevrolet-Impala-Sport-Coupe/282962211091?hash=item41e1dcb113:g:X2MAAOSwB4ha9Izt&vxp=mtr

Thinking about it, I could enjoy a '77 Impala coupe ONLY if had the wheelcovers that car does, but the bigger 15" wheels and tires and F41 (those 14's look so small in those big wheel openings although that is the way they were), digital clock, optional instrumentation, and 50/50 front seat with dual center armrests.

Or....I'd just want a loaded Caprice Classic coupe.

RE.: That big Marquis sedan above--my first "real job" boss had a navy blue one of those. He was a big drinker and a lech (sp?) so whenever I see one of those, I think of him, sadly.

That bid was spot on--seller should have taken it.

uplanderguy · May 2018

I always thought our '77 had a very spacious rear seat, for a coupe. I always remember this ad they ran, called "The Long-Legged Coupe""

http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/chevy/77cap.html

I think I might have posted this before--but I might be remembering a review of the '78 Malibu Classic coupe--but if you weren't around then, or weren't particularly into cars, it's hard to imagine now what an enormous car story the downsized big GM's were for '77. They really were considered revolutionary. The car mags were talking about them for months before. I plainly remember seeing my first two new Caprices behind a dealer 15 miles away--a coupe, and an Estate wagon. They had a crowd of people around them. Complete strangers would tell me our Impala (bought Nov. '76) "looks like a Seville".

This article tells how even after the contest was complete, most staffers wanted to use the Caprice Classic, even sports-car types. Overall, I think the downsized GM full-sizes were a huge hit.

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/vintage-review-1977-chevrolet-caprice-motor-trend-car-of-the-year/

andre1969 · May 2018

I remember reading that 1977 car of the year article back in college, in the late 80's I guess. The campus library had a ton of old Motortrends, Car & Drivers, Consumer Reports, etc. The only thing that bugged me about the article was that they didn't give the specs on any of the other cars in the running. One of them was a '77 Catalina with the 400, as I recall, and I was always curious as to how it would have performed. I guess though, that even though it had more power/torque, if they tested it with the stock 2.41:1 ratio that GM tended to put behind those, the Caprice might still have been faster, with its 3:08:1

Years ago, I drove a '79 Bonneville with the Buick 350, that was for sale locally. That was the only 350 you could get in a big Pontiac anymore, unless you went to California where they would substitute the Olds 350. By that time I think the Buick engine was down to around 155 hp, and with that tall axle ratio, it was a bit of a dog.

ab348 · May 2018

The Buick 350 did not respond well to catalysts and emissions control for some reason. Or maybe they went with really low numerically axle ratios for fuel economy. I drove a '76 Regal coupe with one and could not believe how gutless it was.

I remember an article in C&D in the late '70s by David E. Davis talking about driving a downsized Caprice with the F41 suspension in Europe and him saying how good it was on their roads.

andre1969 · May 2018

Yeah, seems like Buick V-8's, Pontiac V-8's, the Mopar slant six and a lot of 2-bbl engines in that era didn't do so great when it came to emissions controls. I'd always heard that the problem with the slant six and the Pontiac V-8's was that they normally ran cool. However, the emissions controls and tightening standards forced them to run hotter, and apparently that caused some of the issues.

On the plus side, I think the Buick 350 was torquier than the other 350's...so while it might not win a drag race, I guess it could theoretically pull a bit more weight, so maybe it was better suited to fully-loaded cars, and trailer towing. Then again, maybe the added torque wasn't enough to really make that much difference?

sda · May 2018

Between the emission strangled engines and the use of super low rear axle ratios (2.41, 2.56) for GMs in pursuit of good mpg, that really took the edge off the ability to accelerate quickly. I forget what rear axle our '76 Cutlass wagon had though it was the Olds 350 4bbl. It would give a 4bbl moan and struggle with 1st gear to 55 and then shift to 2nd and the process would continue. Don't ask me how I know...I was in HS, dad would not have been pleased. With my parents driving it conservatively it might get 16mpg in the best of circumstances, generally around 12-13 mpg.

andre1969 · May 2018

I found this link, which has some stats on the 1976 Cutlass Cruiser.

Looks like with the 350-4bbl, which, wisely, was the standard engine, a 2.73:1 was standard, 3.08:1 optional. If you sprung for the 455, you got a 2.56:1 standard and 3.08:1 optional.

With the added weight of those wagon bodies, at least GM saw fit to put slightly quicker axles as standard equipment. My '76 Grand LeMans, '67 Catalina, and '79 5th Avenue all do that same thing where they'll hold first gear until around 55 or so, and then if that's all the stomping you need, they stay in second for just a split second and then go into Direct Drive. That Catalina, obviously, does it with a bit more zest. And will usually chirp a tire...

All three of them sound good doing it, too, and oddly, the 5th Ave, despite having a 360-2bbl, seems to take off a bit better than the LeMans with its 350-4bbl. You can tell though, that those engines are begging for a quicker axle.

berri · May 2018

I think the downsized 79 Ford products initially fell far short of the earlier downsized big GM cars. Over time though they seemed to improve the cars quite a bit. But the Ford's never seemed as space efficient as GM models.

andre1969 · May 2018

I have a Consumer Guide from 1985 where they had rating scales of 1-5 for various categories. They tested a 4-door Caprice, Parisienne, Delta 88, and a Fleetwood Brougham, and rated them all "5". They also tested a LeSabre, but it was a coupe. Still, I think they may have given it a "5" as well. But, the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis both got a "4".

If you look at published specs, the Ford Panthers actually seem like they should be about the same size inside as GM's B-bodies...even a bit larger, in some respects. However, those published specs don't take things into account such as wheel well intrusion, the dash jutting out, how much space the transmission and driveshaft hump take up, how badly the sides curve in, etc. I think the doors on GM's cars were a bit larger as well, so entry/exit was better.

Also, interestingly, the Delta 88 got marked down seriously for build quality/workmanship. They remarked that it was unusual for an Olds, but should still not be happening, as they had been building the car for eight years. That final year, the Delta 88 (and to a lesser degree LeSabre) were pretty popular, as word of their impending downsizing got out, and buyers rushed to get the last of the big ones. I wonder if that caused them to speed up production, and throw them together a bit more sloppy?

Chevy and Pontiac didn't have that problem, as the Caprice and Parisienne were set to return for '86. And even though that would prove to be the Parisienne's last year (and it saw improved sales over '85), it still wasn't a really strong seller.

That Consumer Guide gave the Panthers very high marks in build quality...better than GM's B-bodies. The Fleetwood Brougham was also highly rated. And the Crown Vic they tested had the optional package that gave you the dual exhaust, traction lock, bigger wheels/tires, and a 3.55:1 axle. I think it managed 0-60 in about 10.5 seconds. The Grand Marquis just had the regular setup with a 2.73:1 axle. They didn't list its 0-60 time but oddly, it got slightly worse gas mileage!

sda · May 2018

andre1969 said:
I found this link, which has some stats on the 1976 Cutlass Cruiser.

Looks like with the 350-4bbl, which, wisely, was the standard engine, a 2.73:1 was standard, 3.08:1 optional. If you sprung for the 455, you got a 2.56:1 standard and 3.08:1 optional.

With the added weight of those wagon bodies, at least GM saw fit to put slightly quicker axles as standard equipment. My '76 Grand LeMans, '67 Catalina, and '79 5th Avenue all do that same thing where they'll hold first gear until around 55 or so, and then if that's all the stomping you need, they stay in second for just a split second and then go into Direct Drive. That Catalina, obviously, does it with a bit more zest. And will usually chirp a tire...

All three of them sound good doing it, too, and oddly, the 5th Ave, despite having a 360-2bbl, seems to take off a bit better than the LeMans with its 350-4bbl. You can tell though, that those engines are begging for a quicker axle.

That's it, and yes it was the 2.73. The interior color in the brochure was the same as ours, though we had the 60/40 split bench. The seats were soft to the touch yet nicely firm and comfortable. Thanks for finding this!

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy