Joseph Dennis has found a fairly rare 1973 Chevelle Laguna. The Laguna was a rather odd attempt to create a new higher trim level version of the Chevelle above the Malibu. It featured a body-colored urethane nose, and nicer interior, but buyers mostly couldn’t be bothered, despite the front end. That front end was a mixed bag; clearly it was intended to give buyers something more interesting than the rather utilitarian big-bumper front end of the Malibu; perhaps it even suggested what the ’73 Malibu would have looked like if the 5 mile bumper rule hadn’t existed. But it just didn’t work all that well, stylistically. Those big google-eyed headlights don’t exactly help either. Oh well; must have seemed like a good idea at the time.
At least the later (1975-up) versions of the Laguna had a shovel nose that was put to good use in NASCAR, until the final version (’77 was banned for being such a low seller. Clearly, the Laguna was supposed to be an analogue to the more dramatic and successful Pontiac Grand Am. But it didn’t catch on, especially in the sedan and wagon versions, which were quickly canned for 1974. The Laguna coupe soldiered on through the rest of the Colonnade era, a minor footnote to Malibu history.
I don’t find the headlights particularly google-eyed, in the context of the era. The contemporary Camaro, Pinto and Vega wore a similar look.
Lagunas were available as 2 doors, 4 doors, and as wagons. I think a wagon would be THE model to own, nowadays.
Perhaps Chevrolet should have done what they did every other time they moved up-market? Going back to the 50s and the introduction of the Bel Air, Chevy rolled out new, higher trim lines with a 2 door model for the 1st year….then as popularity built, other body styles were added. But then again, the Caprice started in late 65 as a 4 door….so I guess that idea is just in my head?
Couldn’t one get that nose on an El Camino too?
I don’t think so, but I’m sure a Laguna nose would fit on an El Camino.
I like it. Looks very cool to me.
In 1973 you could get a SS station wagon–I seen one years ago
The SS package was available on wagons (not sedans) just that one year, for some unknown reason. That was the last year for the Chevelle SS.
The Laguna S-3 was dropped after 1976, – no ’77 model.
This is correct. IINM, all 1974-76 Lagunas (the period when it was only available as a coupe) were branded as S-3s, with the 1975-76 models featuring the more aerodynamic shovel nose.
I don’t think the Grand Am was really any more successful than the Laguna was. The Grand Am didn’t even last as long as the Laguna did, being dropped at the end of the 1975 model year, although Pontiac would inexplicably bring it back in 1978 when the next generation of A-body appeared. IIRC, the 1973-75 Grand Am was available as a coupe or sedan in all three years. It never came as a wagon.
When I look at this car all I see is another bulging vehicle from Detroit that I might have seen on its last legs back in the 1990s or rotting away by the early 2000s when I was a wee lad. Still see a few of these in the Pacific Northwest, but most of them just look like their last legs arrived 20 years later.
I’ve never been a fan of GM intermediate cars of the 70s. I find them to be quite ugly next to the 1960s GM intermediates.
Blah. Just a tarted up 2 door malibu with a new face. I tell you the period of time between 1972 and 1977 must have been a horrible time for the car lover with bland looks, styling and performance.
Holy smokes! My heart skipped when I saw that first pic.
That’s almost identical to my old car. If it had a roll cage and a better finished edge at the rear of the Cowl scoop I’d say it was my old beast.
Ill try to find a pic when I get home.
It took forever to find it but here’s my old “Laguna”.
“…period of time between 1972 and 1977 must have been a horrible time for the car lover…”
Well, there were other cars to like, such as F bodies, if one didn’t like the A’s.
Anyway, there were oodles of used 60’s muscle cars for the taking, too.
Very true. If like me you didn’t like the new offerings in those days, the mid ’70s were a target-rich environment for ’60s muscle. I bought a ’69 L78 Camaro SS in 1976 for $1600, and sold it in 1980 for $2500. That was a good illustration of how the prices had bottomed out in the mid ’70s when ’60s muscle was still plentiful and considered by many as “just” used cars. By the ’80s the prices were on the way back up. On my list of vehicles I wish I still had out of the 40-ish I’ve owned since then, that car is at the top.
Laguna was supposed to be a new ‘Chevelle Caprice’, and also to match the Pontiac Grand Am. But, average mid size car buyers still wanted chrome, and vinyl tops, so the Monte Carlo was a huge seller.
My grandfather bought a new Malibu coupe in 1974 when he retired……and hated it. Born in 1905, he habitually wore a hat which always got knocked off when he entered or exited. As his was a base model, it had no drip molding over the door window….opening the door in rainy weather immediately wetted his pants in an embarrassing area.
Operationally, the emission-constricted 305 barely would run properly and lacked any power, returned the car repeatedly to the dealer for adjustment….none of which took care of the problem. It handled lousy, was thrown together in terms of build quality, all around a real disappointment to a man who was a die-hard ‘Chevy Man” Worst of all, traded-in for this disaster was a ’67 Bel Air sedan, 327 PowerGlide, metallic turquoise with matching interior, easily the nicest, most satisfactory Chevrolet they ever had.
Finally, the ’74 ‘Malady-bu’ was traded for a 1980 Malibu Classic two door V6….his last car. Not a great one either but something they could live with and did through my grandmother’s passing.
I’m a tad biased, but yes, the 1967 Bel Air would be a significantly more satisfying car. They were a dime a dozen at the time. Now, not so much. It would be interesting to compare the survival rate of once common cars (destined for the crusher) verses the odd ball models.
Oh yes, those were the years of the low compression smog motors and the tacked on emissions controls rendered many new cars barely drivable.
I can remember my folks’ 1974 Mercury Montego with the 302 2 bbl as a cranky beast that really didn’t like cold, damp weather. Our one neighbor had a brand new 1975 Pontiac Grand Prix that had constant stalling issues throughout their ownership period. Friends owned late 70’s Datsuns and VWs (some with fuel injection, even!) that were poor runners.
Not uncommon at all…
That should have been a 350 2BBL as the 305 didn’t come out until a year later. My dad bought a 1974 brown Malibu sedan with the same drivetrain and the most common that year apparently and it too had some drivability issues after about 3 months of ownership and 60K miles. A tuneup and carb rebuild by my mechanic uncle completely solved those issues and the car ran perfect thereafter well over 100k. His was a classic with A/C and cloth seats and we didn’t have any other issues of note other than rust later in it’s life. Assembly quality was comparable to most anything ales of that time era and nothing ever fell off or broke.
I definitely preferred the ’73 Chevelle SS front clip. It looked factory, yet still distinctive. And suited the overall shape. I always found that Laguna nose looked like a homemade paint job by the owner. Even with the unique bumper.
I prefer the standard nose too. I think it was the best looking “face” of the 73-77 Malibus.
Agreed, that’s the ONLY Collonade Chevy nose that looks halfway decent to me.
I like the Laguna front better. Actually, the clip of this car is all the same, Hood and Fenders, it’s only the face panel and grill/bumper that’s different. It all bolts on and off. Any one with a wrench can change or swap it out.
Tomcat630 pretty much nailed it. The Laguna was introduced as a 73 in all Chevelle body styles. Yet in 74 the Laguna S-3 2 door was all that remained. Chevy “switched gears” and went for a faux-Mercedes in the Malibu Classic.
BTW, I think the SS was mostly a “trim package” and not a separate model.
The SS was an option package from 1969 on, through its last year in 1973. After Chevy switched gears, the 1974-76 Laguna S-3 (I believe that all 1974-76 Lagunas were called S-3s; the Laguna was dropped after ’76) served as kind of a replacement for the SS.
I once owned a 1975 El Camino SS, so they must have either continued it or brought it back for that model. Anyone know?
The El Camino SS was not dropped when the Chevelle SS was — it was available continuously all the way through the end of El Camino production in 1987. After 1973, its engine lineup was no different from other El Caminos; it was more of a graphics/trim package than anything else (maybe some handling features as well?). Later models came with a nose similar to the 1983-88 Monte Carlo SS.
Am I the only one that immediately pictured this in white, and thought of Drive? Great film!
I have mixed feelings on this car, I like the rear and profile alot more than the front.
Cale Yarborough’s 73 was cool looking though 🙂
They mustn’t have sold well, because I was a car-struck kid in those days and I don’t really remember them.
Does anyone else see a hint of Matador in that nose?
I do find the nose reminds me quite a bit of the Mustang II.
I don’t mind that front clip at all. Its a helluva lot better looking than the walls of chrome and I beams of the time. That said, the shovel-nose is a better looking piece yet.
I know this is totally subjective but these deep metallicy dark blues just ruin old cars for me, screams 1990s repaint.
Ding ding ding! I see that color on hack repaints all over my area; it’s the electric blue syndrome, a psychological phenomenon that I haven’t yet been able to get a handle on. Whew! I’m glad it’s not just me who hates that terrible, blatantly non-factory color.
That seems to be a favorite cheap looking repaint color for ex cop cars here in Indiana.
I was an adolescent when these cars were popular, so they’re part of the landscape for me. I didn’t think the Laguna was that unsightly, but the later versions with the shovel nose were better looking.
As time rolls on, I find the Colonnade GMs more enchanting, although how much of that is just nostalgia is hard to say.
The car accounted for 10% of all Chevelle sales in this generation of Chevelles. Meaning about 170,000 cars, that a very big number. It was created for use in NASCAR races. Even the name, “Laguna” denotes racing. This is typical of the 70’s where cars were designed to be a bit more aerodynamic so that they could be used in NASCAR. I love this style car and have always thought it was significantly better than the regular Chevelle.
The ’73 Laguna wasn’t created for Nascar. In fact the ’73 and ’74 front end is no more aerodynamic than the regular Malibu front end, which is why some racers used the regular Malibu.
The 1975 “shovelnose” Laguna clearly did have Nascar in mind.
Oh, of course…that makes perfect sense….why in the world would John DeLorean ever think to coordinate the design of a car with racing? I’m sure that the guys at Chevy Designed merely did this in a vacuum. That’s right, there no connection at all with the name of the car, “Laguna” being associated with a race course, “Laguna SECA” and that automotive concept of “racing” just pure coincidence. The GM guys simply had an epiphany in 1974 when they decided to improve the slant to make it even better for NASCAR for the 75 model year. They were all very random indeed in how they designed and named and race and promoted cars back then. I can’t imagine why Cal Yarborough and Benny Parson’s and Bobby Allison would ever drive one of these.
Whenever I see these cars I think of the show “Car and Track” with Bud Lindemann…great show that they’d rerun on the old Speedvision. I think the ’70s were NASCAR’s golden era. The Allisons, Yarborough, Petty, Pearson, Isaac, Baker, etc. were all real racing heroes, and the cars were pretty cool too. You knew they weren’t stock, but they looked it anyway.
“Laguna” being associated with a race course, “Laguna SECA”
Yes, that really makes perfect sense. Why didn’t I think of that? And here all these decades everyone has been thinking that the Laguna was named after Laguna Beach, another famous SoCal Beach,along with Malibu Beach. I rather see the beach connection as being very obvious and logical, but it turns out we’ve all been very wrong. 🙂
BTW, Laguna Seca has never hosted a NASCAR race; it’s oriented to sports cars and motorcycles. If they wanted to name it after a racetrack, they couldn’t have picked a worse one in that regard.
My original point is this: the front end of the ’73-’74 Laguna has NO aerodynamic advantage over the Malibu front end. That’s why I say it wasn’t designed as a “Nascar Special”, like some of the other cars that were. There is no slant to the ’73-’74 Laguna front end; that came in 1975. That was designed for the aerodynamic benefits.
The ’73 Laguna got a different front end to justify its price premium over the Malibu, not NASCAR. That didn’t work, so the the rest of the Laguna line was canned, and it became the Laguna S3, in coupe form only.
“Why didn’t I think of that?”, possibly because you don’t know what you’re speaking about. Yes, all those Chevys named after beaches. Impala, Camaro, Nova, Vega, Corvette, Corvair, the list is endless. I never understand people you promoting myths on the internet….Why is there a desire to be wrong? The car first off was a success, unless you call 170,000 cars sold a failure. The front was designed purposely for NASCAR…..not only the 75 version only, the front end doesn’t have a bumper…of course its more aerodynamically designed. That’s the whole point of the front end. The “Logic” as you say that the 75 model was for NASCAR but the 73 was an accident is astonishingly wrong.
Pontiac named the Grand Prix for an auto race, but I don’t recall ever seeing a Pontiac in the Grand Prix. The same year as the Laguna is created, GM also introduced the Pontiac Grand Am….yep another race inspired name,oh and it was a colonnade car too…. Geee, Don’t they also run the Grand Prix in Monte Carlo???? Ford had the Ford Torino Talledaga in 1969 and Dodge had the Charger Daytona……….yep, I’m sure they never realized that Laguna was a race track. A car that had an aerodynamic front end that happens to be in NASCAR races was clearly inspired by a beach. Makes perfect sense to me.
Hemmings Motor News, September 2004 “……Unlike the Chevelle, which used a wide-open, egg-crate grille that extended all the way under the headlamps, the Laguna’s grille featured horizontal chromed slats and turn signal/marker lights that resembled a small, European-style foglamp. The entire front end of the Laguna was made of urethane plastic, and the car’s name was inspired by California’s Laguna Seca race course. For 1973 only, the Laguna could be ordered as a station wagon and fitted with a 454, making it one of the most rare of an exceedingly rare breed. “
Per”Garrett on the Road” – “Drive”, 9/11/11 by Jerry Garrett, “…..Indeed, many racing historians contend the Laguna was designed specifically to give Chevrolet a contender in NASCAR. Benny Parsons won the 1973 Winston Cup Championship with it; Bobby Allison and his brother Donnie, Cale Yarborough and Darrell Waltrip ruled stock car racing 1973-1977 driving Chevelles.”
If you remember, the 1973 Colonnade cars were originally scheduled to debut in 1972 but the UAW strike delayed them.
There are pictures available of what the cars would have looked like had they come out a year earlier before bumper regulations kicked in. I forget which magazine had them (Collectible Automobile?) but I recall all of them looking a lot more integrated with the Colonnade designs. I’d love to find those again.
I like it – together with the Pontiac Grand-Am it was the least offensive of the colonnades, cleaner and almost European. As a teenager, I remember seeing one at a shady used car dealer’s yard near Tel Aviv, all white and with wide wheels and fat tires, I scrutinized it for a long while, it was so different from anything else of that ilk back then. A perfect candidate for a subtle up-rate for today’s roads and – if I am not greatly mistaken – still can picked up for reasonable money.
My sister’s first car was a short lived with her ’73 Laguna coupe. A bit browner than a traditional maroon, and the interior and vinyl top seemed to be purposely off-white. It had the Strato swivel buckets and floor mounted automatic in the console, 350, AC, and a few more options.
I helped her find it at a Lincoln Mercury dealer in 1983. It had been the car of a pair of elderly sisters, and was in super condition.
In general, I liked it, the interior was all vinyl, and seemed pretty nice compared to the lower Chevelles. The front Endura bumper was not particularly well styled, and my pet peeve was the standard style steel rear bumper made the car feel like it had unmatched junkyard parts on it. At least the rear bumper was body colored, I recall some cars having composite front bumpers and chrome rears – not a good look.
My sister made the kind of move in traffic that a teenager remembers for life, and the car was totaled about 8 weeks after she bought it. She very much preferred the ’74 Mustang II that replaced it, but it was on its last legs and was a maintenance headache.
Now that I let my mind wander back to the imprints TV made on a young child, I remember Grandma watching her game shows (Lets Make a Deal, Price is Right) and the Laguna being a popular giveaway behind Door #3.
In 1994 I had a cop package Camaro, basically a Z28 without the badges and a few extra things. Anyway I was out driving around in it one day and a Laguna pulled up next to me revving his engine. I had never seen one before and had no idea what it was. It was a very rusty POS however so I didn’t bite, I just looked at it, after a few seconds he hammered it and went by me, I just remember the Laguna giving a mighty backfire and that there were clothes hanging out of a rust hole in the trunk lol.
I’ve seen a few more driving around over the years but they are rare, and uuuuuugly IMO (which probably has a lot to do with their rarity).
My grandparents had a 1973 Chevelle Laguna 4 door sedan in light blue. To this day I have been unable to find a photo of any other Laguna sedan except for a photo showing little more than the right taillights at my grandmother’s home. Theirs, at least, was quick enough; when my grandparents sold it in the 1980s to their nephew who took it to Southern California, he reported that it could “pass everything except the gas station.” Perhaps as a Canadian-spec model the emissions equipment didn’t strangle the engine quite so badly.
I had a 1975 GMC Sprint, drilled a stop sign in the middle of winter and bent the original bumper up good. Found a 1973 Laguna nose that bolted right on. Looked great and could spot my car/truck a mile away. I really miss that car. Had to sell it when my first born came along.
1973 and 74 were tough years for emissions and mileage on many makes of autos. The engines had lower compression and cams with a lot of overlap. EGR valves were commonly used. And high energy ignition was still not yet widely being used. Added to that finicky carburetors and some engines even had smog pumps. Still getting a small block Chevy from this time era running right was pretty easy. Dialing in a little more timing advance on the vacuum distributor made a big difference and if it had a Quadrajet carb more power could be made on the secondary side. If anything the GM’s of this time era always seemed to run better for us than the Chrysler and Fords, especially when the former went over to the miserable lean Burn system.
I get so tired of the slagging on Lean Burn, first, it wasn’t even offered on a Chrysler car until 1976 and only then, on the Midsized car with a 400 cubic inch engine. Chrysler and AMC cars performed better in 73 and 74 vs Ford or AMC, they weren’t drastically de-tuned like Ford of GM in 73 and were able to meet emission requirements. Lean burn was expanded at Chrysler the following year in 77 to all V8 only. (it wasn’t offered on 4 or 6 cylinder cars) It wasn’t until 1978 that it was expanded to the smaller engines (at the end of the 70’s). The idea was the right Idea. It was just training and mechanics not understanding how the system worked. That is indeed a fault of Chrysler in rolling it out properly, so the bad reputation is deserved, but it was definitely not effecting all Chrysler Products in the 70’s. Lean Burn was used well into the 80’s on the slant six on Dodge Trucks Overall, the concept worked and is still in practice today by different car manufacturing companies on either gas or diesel engines. It provided better fuel economy and more power to a car. the issues with Lean Burn at Chrysler initially was stalling which can be very dangerous indeed and again deserving of the bad reputation. But again, it worked, it just wasn’t understood by mechanics that had to work on the system.