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

explorerx4 · February 2022

At first I thought you meant if you crash it, but of course it means if you appraise it as totaled.

andre1969 · February 2022

While 2-doors were still popular in the larger cars, 4-doors tended to take a larger portion of sales. Going back to Chevy, again, in '74, here's how the big cars broke down...

4-doors: ~325,000 (Bel Air, Impala, Caprice...keepin mind Impala/Caprice had both pillared and hardtop 4-doors)
2-door: ~208,000 (Impala Custom/Sport and Caprice), plus another 4670 Caprice convertibles.

As for back seat legroom, off the top of my head, I think the big '71-76 B-body coupes were something like 35-36", versus around 39" for the sedans. The hardtop sedan didn't suffer any loss in legroom, but probably lost a bit of headroom. The Grand Ville coupe, however, with that formal roofline, had the same amount of legroom in back as the sedan. I imagine this also held true in '75-76, when they went to the fixed rear-window style for the Grand Ville and Bonneville?

Again, just off the top of my head, but I think the '73-77 Colonades were around 32.9" for the coupes, 37.0 for the sedans when it came to back seat legroom.

andre1969 · February 2022

kyfdx said:
@andre1969 Man, 1974? Talk about snail mail....

LOL...and I don't think some of today's kids could handle this, either. Just thumbing through it, there's an article on how to check yourself for breast cancer, complete with illustrations. Some people would probably call for a book burning, nowadays!

uplanderguy · February 2022

The Colonnade coupes were 32.9" of leg room in the back seat; I remember that distinctly from Chevelle brochures. Our '74 Impala Sport Coupe was in the 35's for rear seat legroom, I also remember that although can't remember the decimal after that. But even with my short legs (26.5 inseam!), that difference between 32.9 and 35 felt major to me at the time.

'77 Cutlass instrument panel--I think it was a minor improvement. The round vents did seem a bit goofy IMHO on the earlier ones. Looks like a ridge was also added to the top of the panel portion in front of the driver, which looks nicer in my opinion.

uplanderguy · February 2022

RE.: CR and Colonnade Chevelles--I think it was '75 where they tested a bottom-line Malibu four-door sedan. I distinctly remember them writing, "The Chevelle inspires driver confidence". I largely learned to drive on my sister's '73 Chevelle Deluxe six-cylinder wagon (!), and it was actually a pleasure to ride in, steer, and go around corners in...just not to stomp the gas on. A friend's Dad's Deluxe V8 4-door company car, was the same way per my friend's Dad. 'Dad' said it 'handled nicely'.

andre1969 · February 2022

explorerx4 said:
So andre, which one are you leaning towards, the Satellite?

From that whole '71-79 generation of Mopar intermediates, for the most part they don't really excite me. My favorite is the '78-79 Magnum, and then probably the Cordoba and Charger SE. But the rest of them are just kind of "meh". I do kinda like the '73-74 Satellite/Sebring coupes, though. I think the '71-72 models are more desirable to most people, thanks to the more powerful engines, but I just never cared for those loop bumper-grilles on them. But I don't mind the '73-74.

As the years went by, the 225 slant six became less and less competitive, as it didn't adapt that well to emissions controls, and the cars just got too heavy. But, it looks like it was still holding its own in '74, being a bit quicker than the Chevy 250 and AMC 258, AND a bit more economical.

Ford's 250 6-cyl was down to 91 hp that year. According to my Consumer Guide auto encyclopedia it was offered in the Torino, But Consumer Reports said no. I just checked the 1974 Ford brochure online and they said a 302 was standard as well, so I'm gonna go with that, and say Consumer Guide was wrong.

Heck, one year later, even the 302 wasn't enough, and Ford made the 351 standard in the Torino!

british_rover · February 2022

@explorerx4 said:
At first I thought you meant if you crash it, but of course it means if you appraise it as totaled.

Yeah if if I do the estimate and mark it as totaled is can't buy it and neither can any associates of mine.

Not a car but I really want to buy this bus. I just have no where to put it.

https://rsymonds53.wixsite.com/mci-5c

andre1969 · February 2022

Here's an interesting tidbit from that Consumer Reports road test. They mentioned that cars with a wheelbase of 115" or less, and with no B-pillar were exempt from the strict 1974 bumper standard. The intent of this exemption was to avoid burdening smaller, sporty-type cars with heavy, complex energy-absorbing bumpers. Chrysler took advantage of this loophole on the intermediate Satellite and Charger, which were hardtops, and were on a 115" wheelbase. So that's how they were able to get by with just using those rigid bumpers with the rubber blocks on them that year. The sedan versions, which were pillared, and on a 117.5" wheelbase, adopted the energy absorbing bumpers, however. Consumer Reports complained that, despite being able to cheap out on the bumpers, they raised the prices on the coupe versions of the intermediates just as much as they did the sedan version.

In contrast, Ford could have done the same thing, as the Torino/Montego coupes were on a 114" wheelbase and pillarless. But, they chose to adopt the heavy bumpers across the lineup. However, it probably made more sense for Ford to do so, because the coupe and sedan versions of the Torino and Montego were much more similar. Same front-end clips, and the rear ends were about as similar as a 2- and 4-door version can be. But with the Mopars, they had gone through greater lengths to distinguish the coupes from the sedans and wagons starting in '71, so it may have been more expensive for them to come up with two different bumper systems, one for the sedan and one for the coupe. GM had no choice, because the Colonades had a B-pillar.

Interestingly, Mopar didn't appear to have taken advantage of that loophole with the Dart and Valiant, either. But again, maybe because the hardtop and sedan shared so much of their structure, it didn't make sense to just do one and not the other. I guess the Duster and the Dart Sport would be considered "pillarless?" They weren't true hardtops in the sense that the rear windows didn't roll down, but they didn't have a full B-pillar, either. They just had that narrow little trim piece there for the back window to hinge to. While the Duster/Dart Sport used the same front end as the rest of the Valiants and Darts, the rear was different. But, for '74 it looks like the back bumper juts out more than in '73, so I'm guessing they at least put some effort into crash protection.

I wonder if that loophole went away for '75? Mopar restyled their intermediates that year, bringing the look of the coupe and sedan models much more in alignment with each other.

It's interesting, the little historical tidbits like that you can pick up from these old car tests. I had never heard of this loophole before.

uplanderguy · February 2022

You gotta wonder why the government would be sympathetic at all to that no-B-pillar-and-under-115 -wheelbase exception. I do believe stuff written at the time more than stuff brought up for the first time 40 or 50 years later though so I definitely believe it!

I wonder where that rule would have left cars like Corvette, Firebird, and Camaro?

I'm pretty sure every GM and Ford car had energy-absorbing bumpers then.

Oh, I should've told you this before, but remember when you had posted about V6 downsized RWD GM midsizes having the 350 trans? I didn't say that was wrong but I did express some doubt that GM would've used a 350 on sixes but a 200 on V8's.

Some guy on the 'All Original Cars' FB page posted some time back his 'broadcast sheet'. It was a GM midsize specialty coupe in the downsized era. I'm nearly-certain it was a 229 so would've been a Monte Carlo to the best of my memory at this point. The sheet didn't actually say "THM 350" but it did say something like "TRANS 350" and had some other code on the same line which meant nothing to me (those broadcast sheets list not only options but things like 'wheel opening trim' and such that every single of that model had, apparently for the benefit of guys on the line).

Anyway, that tells me that you were right, so there you go!

Always wanting the 350 engine back then to get the 350 trans, and apparently it came with the V6's.

Figuring GM out, even then, who could do it.

Our '80 Monte Carlo V6 had the lockup torque converter, I distinctly remember that feeling at about 35 mph. Annoying and GM had a TSB about it, calling the effects 'chuggle' and 'bump'. The cute names didn't make them any less annoying, LOL.

Still, when I see on Facebook pages about RWD G-bodies, guys saying "305 with original 350 trans", I don't believe it. They say they've owned the car ten years or something. I'm old enough to remember that a 350 was the regular choice to replace THM200's in V8 cars as early as the early or mid-'80's in some cars and owners I remember.

Despite all that, I'd still love an original or at least authentic, '78 Malibu Classic coupe, plastic scooped-out 'Sport' wheelcovers, F41, optional gauge package and optional 50/50 split bench front seats with individual center armrests.

andre1969 · February 2022

I was wondering that, too, about cars like the Corvette and Firebird/Camaro. They have a central roof pillar, as in, one right behind the front door, but they don't have the typical "A/B/C" pillar type of structure. And a Corvette convertible certainly didn't have a B-pillar.

But, as I recall, GM did have to design an energy absorbing bumper system for these cars. While the Camaro/Firebird were revised for '74, with those sloping front-ends, I believe even the '73's, while they don't look like they'd have it, had some kind of system designed behind the fascia as a stopgap, that was just enough to please the Feds?

The only domestic cars I can think of for '74 that would have benefited by this loophole would have been the Satellite/Charger coupes, the Barracuda/Challenger, the Dart Swinger/Valiant Scamp, Dart Sport/Duster, and the Torino/Montego coupes and the Cougar/Elite.

I'm wondering if this loophole was written more with small European and Japanese cars in mind? Although, if that's the case, a 115" wheelbase seems awfully generous.

Oh, and thanks for the info on the THM350 used with the V6 engines. I actually never had any real proof, just things I'd read, or been told over the years. Although, when I had the transmission in my '82 Cutlass Supreme rebuilt, I do remember asking the mechanic which transmission it had, and he said it was the 350.

Automobile-Catalog.com has tons of information, but it depends on data that was entered, after the fact, by human beings. And, human beings do make mistakes. With entering data it's common to simply copy and paste, and then edit whatever bits and pieces need changing, so that leaves room for error.

Whenever a transmission is not mentioned, but they do list gear ratios, the one thing that always sticks in my mind is that a THM400 has a 2.48:1 first gear, the THM350 has a 2.52:1, and the THM200 has a 2.74:1, so I'd use that, to decipher what transmission the car had. I know the 700R-4, or whatever it's called was based on the THM350, so I always thought it used the same ratios for the first three gears, and then they just tacked on an overdrive, but I just googled it, and looks like it's actually a 3.06:1

andre1969 · February 2022

Oh, speaking of Malibus, the other night I was watching a Columbo episode, one of the newer ones. There was a college professor who gets shot while getting into his '79 Malibu Classic coupe.

Here's imcdb's entry, if anyone wants to see. http://imcdb.org/vehicle_99289-Chevrolet-Malibu-1979.html
Warning for the squeamish...one of the pics has the professor lying dead beside it.

It's funny, to think that nowadays, these things are pretty rare, especially in nice condition. But back then it was just an old car. Now that I think about it, 1990 was when I sold my '80. Heck, if I'd known they'd be somewhat desirable these days, I would've held onto it. But, Lord knows what 32 years would have done to it, not to mention the costs of storage, upkeep, and insurance, if I wanted to keep it legit.

fintail · February 2022

Thinking of what an absolutely beautiful one would be worth today, you could have sold yours in 90, invested the proceeds in the right way (hindsight works best here), and had enough to buy the perfect one today.

andre1969 said:
Oh, speaking of Malibus, the other night I was watching a Columbo episode, one of the newer ones. There was a college professor who gets shot while getting into his '79 Malibu Classic coupe.

Here's imcdb's entry, if anyone wants to see. http://imcdb.org/vehicle_99289-Chevrolet-Malibu-1979.html
Warning for the squeamish...one of the pics has the professor lying dead beside it.

It's funny, to think that nowadays, these things are pretty rare, especially in nice condition. But back then it was just an old car. Now that I think about it, 1990 was when I sold my '80. Heck, if I'd known they'd be somewhat desirable these days, I would've held onto it. But, Lord knows what 32 years would have done to it, not to mention the costs of storage, upkeep, and insurance, if I wanted to keep it legit.

andre1969 · February 2022

I got $500 for that Malibu when I sold it. Admittedly, it was a bit on the rough side, at the time. Adjusting for inflation, that's about $1066 in today's dollars.

However, I tried to google how the SP500 did over that timeframe. Looks like for every $100 invested in an SP500 fund back in 1990, you'd have about $2700 today. So that $500 would be worth about $13,500 today. Of course, there are investments that do far better than the SP500. But, also some that did a lot worse!

Good luck finding a stock 1980 Malibu for sale these days, though! I just googled "1980 Malib for sale" and this popped up... https://www.autozin.com/for-sale/1980-malibu-for-sale

Looks like just about every one in there has been modified in some way, and some of them are pushing $30,000!

But, looking at it another way, I think Mom said that car was about $7,000 with tax, tags and everything, when she bought it new in 1980. Adjusting for inflation, that'd be around $23,700 today. So looking at it that way, I could go and get one that's been fixed up, and hot-rodded, and it wouldn't be much more than what Mom paid for one, with just a weak little 229 V6, back when it was new!

sda · February 2022

I had forgotten about the Chevy 229 V6 until recently reading previous posts. When I think of GM's V6 I think of the Buick derived 231 (3.8) V6. Was the 229 V6 offered in other GM makes or just Chevy?

uplanderguy · February 2022

The 229 was available on in Chevys; Malibu, Monte Carlo, Impala and Caprice Classic.

Ours was a dog and noisy, but I think at introduction time was five more horses than the Buick, but I think that soon changed.

Because of my parents' 229 in their '80 Monte Carlo, I decided on a 267 V8 when I began to shop for a new '81 Monte Carlo. At least it was smooth and sounded like a V8, LOL.

uplanderguy · February 2022

RE.: Malibus from '78-81--it seems like most of them have been 'rodded'. For some reason, they are enjoyed by those guys.

At Hershey or Carlisle maybe 15 years ago, can't remember which, there was a guy selling six or eight of them, all pretty original-looking coupes.

I seem to remember my Dad not being that enamored with them.

His '80 Monte Carlo was a one-year military-like dark green metallic, beautiful paint job, with gold painted pinstripe. It had some optional moldings like full-length rocker/sill moldings and belt moldings (bottom of side windows) which dressed it up. With the standard 205-70 tires I thought it looked substantial for a car that size.

The Malibu's styling has definitely aged better. I thought the '78 Malibu Classic looked best inside and out, especially with the diagonally-cut wrap-around taillights, although the '79 could be had with a 305 4-barrel and improved F-41. I didn't really like the '80's double-decker taillights and hood ornament, and when you got the optional instruments then, they were in the instrument panel that had acres of the worst fake wood grain you ever saw.

EDIT: It was the '81 that had 'acres' of fake woodgrain; the '80 had enough but luckily didn't have that about 30-inch long piece of it on the right 2/3! That basic panel, IMHO, looked newish and adding woodgrain to the '78/'79 panel just gummed it up.

andre1969 · February 2022

I've seen listings that put both the 229 and the 231 at 115 hp, for 1980 specifically, but then both dropped to 110 afterwards. However, initially the 229 was a bit weak on torque. It had something like 175 ft-lb, compared to 190 for the 231. Also, in 1980, the LeMans also got the 229 in 49-state areas. But in California it used the 231, as did the Malibu and Monte Carlo. For whatever reason though, the Grand Prix used the 231 in all instances.

In '81, the LeMans started using the Buick 231 in all instances. And in '78-79 it also used the 231, so I dunno what the rationale was for using the Chevy 229 that one year? Perhaps they needed to even out engine production a bit? In '78-79, there was a tiny Chevy 200 V6 (which the 229 replaced) and a small Buick 196 V6.

The '78-79 Century and Regal used the 196 standard and 231 optional, so maybe they figured going to a 231 standard for '80 would increase demand for it too much, so they spread the 229 around a bit by giving it to the LeMans?

The 229 was also used in the 1980-81 Camaro, where it also replaced the old 250-inline. And again, in California, a 231 was substituted.

At some point, I believe Chevy did something to the 229 to get a bit more torque out of it, and I think later versions had 190 ft-lb, same as the Buick 231.

And yeah, they were a bit of a dog. While the 229 had more hp and torque than the 200 it replaced, in the Malibu I don't think it was really much quicker. Chevy took advantage of that extra power by slipping a taller axle ratio behind it, so that it didn't have to rev as high as the 200 did. It got slightly better economy with the automatic (19 city for the 229, 18 for the 200, but worse for the manual (20 for the 229, 22 for the 200). I'd imagine the manual was extremely rare by this time though, so that was probably irrelevant for GM's fuel economy concerns.

Just to show what a muddled mess it was getting to be with engine choices, here's a screen shot of the LeMans engine choices for 1980...

One reason those tiny V8s were so slow, is that they hobbled them with axle ratios that were even worse than the V6es! They were heavier than the V6es, but didn't put out much more hp or torque (sometimes less hp, in the case of the Olds 260), and then they go and make the axle ratio even taller than the V6.

andre1969 · February 2022

I always thought it was a bit of a shame that the Malibu coupe was dropped after '81. I kind wonder if the quad headlights with the eggcrate grille would have worked on it. Maybe it would have been a bit too formal for a coupe...but it worked on the El Camino! In contrast though, if the coupe had stuck around for Pontiac's transition to the Bonneville G, I don't think that front-end would have worked at all with the coupe. It just seemed a bit TOO formal.

uplanderguy · February 2022

I never liked the squared-off front on the '82 Malibus. Plus, you could see the seam in the corners, on the sides, where the old grille used to wrap around! Stuff like that makes me crazy.

I guess it sounds better if I say I have a sensitivity to aesthetics, instead of 'I'm a fussbutt', LOL, but the littlest appearance thing will make me want one particular model year over another, or reject one particular model year of a car over another.

I did like the taillights on the '81 Malibu Classic better than the '80, and I liked the base instrument panel better as where the Monte had the huge woodgrain panel on the right 2/3, the Malibu Classic had a gloss black panel there.

One thing I did like about the '80 was that there was a color interior that in cloth looked very rich IMHO. It was a wine color which I think Chevy called 'Claret'. Too lazy to look at a brochure to confirm.

andre1969 · February 2022

uplanderguy said:
I guess it sounds better if I say I have a sensitivity to aesthetics, instead of 'I'm a fussbutt', LOL, but the littlest appearance thing will make me want one particular model year over another, or reject one particular model year of a car over another.

I'm that way to, and I suspect we all are, to a degree. Personally, if I was going to rank the Malibus according to preference, first I'd have to break out between coupes and sedans. With coupes, I'd probably rank them as 1979 > 1978 > 1980 > 1981. With the '79, I like the grille better. For taillights, it's sort of a wash. I like the way the wraparound part of the taillights angle on the '78, but prefer the backup light in the center of the cluster, rather than all the way inboard. I actually like the '80 taillight cluster best of all, BUT, I don't think it would work well with the '78 or '79. I tend to think of the '78-79 as being just a bit more sporty (for this type of car) while the '80 is a bit more formal, with its vertical grille. And while they went to a horizontal for '81, it still has a heavy, somewhat formal look to me. And for '81, the taillights seem a bit plain to me. The '81 also comes up last for me because of another aspect...engines. That was the year they dropped the 305 in 49-state cars, with the exception of wagons.

For sedans, it would be harder for me to rank them. I actually like the front with the quad headlights and eggcrate grille. And I like the more formal roofline of the '81-83. But, once you factor in engines, I'd probably rank them 1983 > 1979 > 1978 > 1980 > 1982 > 1981. I'd really only want one with a 305 though, so even though that engine made a comeback for '82, I imagine it would be a lot easier to find a '78-80 with a 305. They made a lot more of them in general during those years, but a larger percentage of them probably had the 305.

And honestly, I never cared for that angled seam where the header panel and front fender joined, either, on the '82-83. If you got woodgrain on the station wagon, like my grandparents had on their '82, it was a bit of a mixed bag. The front edge of the woodgrain followed that seam. So on one hand, it took your attention away from that seam. But on the other, it drew your attention to it, for being a bit of an odd angle, in its own right!

fintail · February 2022

I wonder how many of those wagons have survived - one sees plain examples now and then (also a favorite with rodders), but a woody, I can't recall the last time I saw one.

When I was a little kid, the family of a girl down the street had a Malibu coupe. Her dad was a LEO, so those cars still make me think "police". When I was a little older, a family friend had a formal roof Malibu sedan that was actually an ex-police car - I assume those got a tuned 305.

andre1969 · February 2022

According to my police car book, a 350 was actually used in the Malibu police car for '82! For '83 it was a 305, though. At least, according to the Michigan State Police tests that this book quotes, and those are supposedly the "Bible" for police car testing.

Despite the 350 though, the '82 wasn't all that impressive. here's the rundown for that year. And don't laugh...they tested a few cars that you wouldn't think of as police cars, but were probably still sold for local patrols, meter maids, serving summonses and so forth...

Car Model / Engine / 0-60 / 0-100 / top speed
Plymouth Gran Fury / 318-4bbl / 12.24 sec / 39.36 / 116.3 mph
Dodge Diplomat / 318-4bbl / 12.19 sec / 39.95 / 115.4 mph
Ford LTD / 351-2bbl / 12.59 sec / 42.54 / 115.8 mph
Chevy Impala / 350-4bbl / 12.74 sec / 45.79 / 107.8 mph
Chevy Malibu / 350-4bbl / 13.29 sec / 49.73 / 110.1 mph
Ford Fairmont / 255-2bbl (I said don't laugh) / 13.8 sec / 57.04 / 107.0 mph
Dodge Aries / 135-2bbl / 17.58 sec / Nope / 97.5 mph
Ford Fairmont / 140-2bbl / 17.26 sec / n/a / 103.4 mph
Chevy Malibu / 229-2bbl / 17.99 sec / n/a / 100.6 mph
Ford Fairmont / 200-1bbl / 18.72 sec/ Nope / 97.3 mph
Gran Fury / 225-1bbl / 20.36 sec / Nope / 96.2 mph

Oh, and MT tested a 1982 Mustang CHP interceptor, with a "High Output" 302-2bbl V8. They got:
0-60 in 6.9 seconds, 0-100 in 21.1, and a top speed of 128.

I think it's a bit odd that the Malibu with the 350 was slower than the Impala with the 350. Maybe they stuck a taller axle ratio in it or something?

Anyway, for '83 the Malibu with the 305 did noticeably better than the '82 350 did...
0-60 in 11.71 seconds, 0-100 in 40.73, and a top speed of 116.3.

andre1969 · February 2022

As for the '82-83 Malibu wagons, I was noticing that too, when I googled pics of them, the vast majority of them did not have the woodgrain. My grandparents' '82 might have been a bit of a rarity, in that sense.

sda · February 2022

With the exception of the Mustang none were quick. It is odd that the Ford Fairmont with the 4cyl was quicker than the 200 six.

andre1969 · February 2022

Yeah, I noticed that as well. I wonder if it was because the 4-cyl was OHC, and probably revved a bit more readily? And maybe the 2-bbl carb helped it breathe a bit better at higher speeds than the 1-bbl on the 200 6-cyl? I looked up specs on automobile-catalog, and it looks like the 2.3 used a 3.08:1 axle, with a 3.45:1 being optional, while the 200 used a 2.73:1

Weight-wise, there wasn't much difference, 2802 lb for the 2.3, 2853 for the 200. HP was close...86 for the 2.3 and 88 for the 200, but the 6-cyl obviously had a torque advantage: 154 ft-lb vs 117.

I'd mildly impressed with the Fairmont 255 V-8's performance. 0-60, it's not TOO far off from the bigger V8s, although those are also in heavier cars. In 0-100, it starts to fall pretty far behind, but then its top speed was close to that of the Impala, so it could get there. Eventually.

texases · February 2022

No wonder my '83 GTI felt fast for the day. All of 90 hp, 0-60 in 10.5 or so, so a real racer in comparison.

Edit-make that 9.7 seconds according to a C and D test.

fintail · February 2022

Fun seeing a K-car on a police car list (I assume a meter maid car), and that it was faster than some larger cars, as it probably weighed 2200 lbs.

I don't recall that ex-police Malibu having any big issues, but I recall the person eventually ditched it for a used Stanza that was very finicky.

sda · February 2022

I saw a very clean medium metallic red Pontiac G6 and a fairly clean silver Hyundai XG 350.

uplanderguy · February 2022

There was a G6 in my photo at the red light several posts back, next to that '76-77 Cutlass Supreme Brougham.

RE.: V6 horsepower--I'm skeptical of almost any non-factory website, but the first two things I googled now, about "1980 Monte Carlo 229 V6 horsepower" and "1980 Cutlass Supreme 231 V6 horsepower" came up with 115 and 110, respectively. And that's what I seem to remember from looking way-back then too.

'82-83 Malibu woody wagons--I saw very few of these, too. The '82 was still called the Malibu Classic Estate. The 'Classic' went away totally for '83, which is too bad because I even like the way "Malibu Classic" looks in print, LOL.

The 'Classic' interior became 'CL' in '83. Too lazy to check, but I wonder if you had to get the CL to get the 'Estate' exterior. It'd been odd with the cheapie interior and woodgrain outside.

I'm pretty sure I remember that the 350 was available in Malibu wagons in '78 and '79 (and probably the B-O-P's too). That would've been somewhat interesting I think.

ab348 · February 2022

uplanderguy said:

The 'Classic' interior became 'CL' in '83. Too lazy to check, but I wonder if you had to get the CL to get the 'Estate' exterior. It'd been odd with the cheapie interior and woodgrain outside.

The '83 Malibu brochure lists an option for wagons called "Estate Equipment" but offers no other details nor a pic, but I suspect that means woodgrain and maybe a roof rack. If it was only available on the CL that came with a front seat having a folding center armrest, so the interior wouldn't be too cheap-looking.

stickguy · February 2022

all this cutlass talk sparked a sighting. Last night out driving around was a 75ish Cutlass 4 door. Not a common thing to see on the roads.

sda · February 2022

stickguy said:
all this cutlass talk sparked a sighting. Last night out driving around was a 75ish Cutlass 4 door. Not a common thing to see on the roads.

Especially the 4drs, which were not popular. I wouldn’t mind having a Cutlass Salon or GrandAm 4dr. I really liked the 73 GrandAm 4dr that dad bought for my sisters to drive. That was around 1980.

andre1969 · February 2022

Back in my old town, about a mile from the old house, one of the neighbors has this...

It's either a '76 or 77 Cutlass. I remember seeing it parked out on the street, years ago, so I could see the front. This pic is from 2012.

And, it looks like they still have it, at least according to the Google street view from 2021...

stickguy · February 2022

I did a quick google. the one I saw was either a 73 or 74 model, based on the grill.

fintail · February 2022

90s day again on the road here, which seems to be every day. Suzuki Swift, 1st gen RAV4 2 door with side graphics, first gen Intrepid, first gen Chrysler LHS, Ford Probe, skirted 90s Caprice, BMW E36 cabrio.

stickguy · February 2022

for you, an 80's vintage small MB. I assume a diesel but did not get close enough to see. 2 door (I think?). In that tan that they all seemed to be back then. out driving around town. Looked clean.

roadburner · February 2022

I loved the 1973 Cutlass Salon- the thin front bumper was so much better looking than the massive 1974 and later battering rams..

uplanderguy · February 2022

One would wonder, other than for styling change, why the '74 and later front bumper would be any different. It does appear that Oldsmobile changed it. The 5mph standard didn't change in those years. Of course, the rear bumper standard went from 2.5 in '73 to 5 in '74.

fintail · February 2022

Sounds like a 300CD, latest year 1985. There were several tan kind of colors then - a beige tan, gold tan, brown tan:

stickguy said:
for you, an 80's vintage small MB. I assume a diesel but did not get close enough to see. 2 door (I think?). In that tan that they all seemed to be back then. out driving around town. Looked clean.

sda · February 2022

fintail said:
Sounds like a 300CD, latest year 1985. There were several tan kind of colors then - a beige tan, gold tan, brown tan:

stickguy said:
for you, an 80's vintage small MB. I assume a diesel but did not get close enough to see. 2 door (I think?). In that tan that they all seemed to be back then. out driving around town. Looked clean.

Did your friend manage to get his repaired? I felt for him.

stickguy · February 2022

yeah, something of that series.

andre1969 · February 2022

I wonder if the '73 bumper on the Cutlass Supreme was strong enough to do its job (protect the lights, radiator, and so on) but still ended up taking some damage in low-end hits, so they bulked it up for '74?

GM did a similar thing in the larger cars with the Buicks, Oldsmobiles, and Pontiacs. While the '73's did have jutting bumpers, they were still somewhat thin. For '74, they were bulked up.

That was also the era where they'd still change things from year to year, just for the hell of it, although as time went by, the changes would become fewer and more subtle. But I'd think something like a bumper, especially once it became more of an integral part of the car rather than just a chrome trim piece, wouldn't get redesigned quite as often.

uplanderguy · February 2022

Off-subject, but saw this on the 'All Original Cars' FB page. This is my favorite of the '75 GM convertibles--including Cadillac. I like the subdued color and particularly the wheels and lack of the optional body side moldings.

May be an image of car and outdoors

andre1969 · February 2022

Funny you'd post that, Uplander...the '75 LeSabre is my favorite, among the B-body convertibles of that generation. I'd love one in that powder blue color with a white interior, white top, and the rally wheels. I still remember seeing one for sale at one of the swap meets in Carlisle back in 2002, for something like $7,000. Seemed like a ton of money at the time, but at a quick glance, it was in nice shape.

I think on some of these cars, the blockier bumpers actually work fairly well. On this LeSabre, for example, I don't mind it. The front is a bit more bulked-up and imposing, compared to earlier models anyway, so I think it helps balance it out.

sda · February 2022

I thought Olds was clever by hinging the grille to move out of the way should the bumper compress by being hit. On the full size Olds the grille was curved and met the bumper which minimized the battering ram look.

uplanderguy · February 2022

The only thing I'm not crazy about on the LeSabre convert that year is the grained vinyl inside always reminds me of a naugahyde recliner chair. But, the styling of the seat is nice.

I like the '74 instrument panel better, but my hunch is that those straight-across panels used in the Buick, Olds, and Cadillac in some way faciliated the use of the optional airbags.

Those Olds pics--you know me and fake vents down on the body.

Plus, I'm not sure about this, but I think that wide body side molding that goes the whole length of the side was standard on Royales in '73 and later.

That LeSabre I think has the optional wide rocker trim, which looks great IMHO. I believe it has the optional cornering lights too.

Funny how only Pontiac used the square headlights on their convertible that year, of the C-P-O-B makes.

andre, did you tell me once that Pontiac had the lowest production of converts that year?

uplanderguy · February 2022

RE.: Mid-'70's Cutlass Colonnades--

Someone posted on All Original Cars FB page, pics of his family's one-owner '73 Cutlass Salon sedan. Needs work but he plans to do it. Hats off.

I never liked the roofline of Colonnade sedans, but a Salon or Grand Am sedan is pretty unusual I think. I always liked the row of international flags used on the Salon nameplate/emblem.

He included a pic of the instrument panel and I didn't remember a horizontal piece of woodgrain trim below the glovebox on those cars.

andre1969 · February 2022

Yeah, the Grand Ville was the lowest production of the four convertibles in 1975, but not by much:

Grand Ville: 4519
LeSabre: 5300
Caprice: 4670
Delta 88: 21038

I think we've had this discussion before, and I can't remember what the outcome of it was, but I always wondered why the Delta 88 sold so well, compared to the other three?

The Grand Ville was priced considerably higher than the others, but I believe it also had a few standard features like power windows, door locks, etc, that the others lacked. I'd imagine that the other three tended to be sold just about fully-equipped, themselves though, so out the door prices probably weren't that different. And since the Grand Ville was sort of a B-body with C-body aspirations, I think it was trimmed a bit better, too. And that's probably why it got the rectangular headlights, since all the proper C-bodies got them that year.

With the Colonades, I actually like that 4-door roof. To me it looks open and airy, and almost futuristic. And just the opposite of the way most 4-doors were going by that time. But, I always had a fascination with Sherriff Justice's '77 LeMans on "Smokey and the Bandit", so that might be why I like the 4-doors.

texases · February 2022

Interesting stats, the 88 outsold the rest combined...wow.

How did total sales (all body styles) for those 4 compare?

uplanderguy · February 2022

I questioned those Delta 88 numbers. Didn't pass the 'smell test'.

Three sources I looked at said 7,181.

Honestly, that seemed high to me, too....but I buy it since I saw the number repeated, online.

Styling-wise, I only like the Chevy less than the Olds, among the C-P-O-B converts that year. I don't like the clipped front corners on the Chevy (same with the '73 Buick), and I don't like the Caprice's truly-Impala interior unless it's the saddle herringbone cloth.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles