(first posted 8/20/2014) With Robert’s post about the Toronado and his parents’ Omega fiasco, I couldn’t help but post this comparison between the Omega and another of GM’s downsizing-round-one cars, the ’78-’81 A-body Malibu. For those with a keen awareness of the era, the results won’t be surprising; for import-happy Perry, whose awareness of these cars is largely second hand, the editors’ conclusions were surprising, though perfectly rational. But whether you are an A/G-body hold-out, or a front-drive GM partisan, read on for some interesting perspective.
Car and Driver were somewhat generous in the cars they chose to compare, with a 2-bbl 4.4/267 Malibu with F41 suspension facing off against a 2-bbl 2.8 V6 Omega equipped with the ES sport package. Yes, Olds was moving away from such names as Holiday and Caliente with designations like ES2800, but one look inside and it was obvious the Western European flag badges slapped on the fender meant traditional buyers could be alienated only so much.
Okay, so it is a face-off which includes putting one of the worst Chevy V8s against what would eventually be one of the better V6s to come out of Detroit during that time (but who knew that yet). In that sense, you might call it less than perfectly valid but otherwise, the cars compare well in terms of capacity and price, starting around $7,000 and optioned out for the test at about $10,000. In terms of performance, though, the Olds is notably better than the wheezy Chevy, and not just in terms of acceleration.
By both objective and subjective measures, handling was decisively better on the X-body, despite the Chevy’s uprated suspension (with the notable exception of braking). The Olds’s combination of springs and dampers is praised as “one of the best” around, while the Chevy is considered to be “surly and dull-witted” when pressed. Both are criticized for sloppy steering and at about 55 miles per hour through the slalom, neither is as especially nimble device (and it should be said that the Olds should have a more decisive lead in that test, since measured time through the cones usually favors front-drivers) and the measurably quieter Chevy is praised as the nicer daily cruiser.
I’ll concede it would’ve been a much more fair test if C&D were to have tested a Chevy with the 305 or (wagon-only) 350, but as the 267 netted only 14 observed mpg (to the 2.8’s 21, a good number given performance testing) a bigger engine might have only underscored the conclusion that the X-body was the way to the future for the average Detroiter. The more interesting implications, however, pertain to GM’s Deadly Sins (or if you prefer, “Deadly Sins”) in the coming two decades. Specifically, we remember the initial round of downsized cars with great fondness while disparaging the products which followed. But as this test shows, despite our personal admiration, cars like the A/G-body were primarily competitive compared to the domestic competition of the 1970s and weren’t going to help GM as a world-class automaker in the coming years (I’m not saying the X-body was the answer, mind you). Now what would be really interesting is if one of us could find a back-to-back test of a 1987 G-body and a 1988 GM10 coupe, if any magazine was even interested in such comparisons by that point.
Related reading:
Cohort Classic: 1981 Oldsmobile Omega – X Marks The Spot
Curbside Classic: 1986 Toyota Camry – Toyota Builds A Better Citation; Forever
Cars Of A Lifetime: 1980 Chevrolet Citation – GM’s Immortal Sin
Curbside Classic: 1983 Chevrolet Malibu – Claustrophobics Best Ride Up-Front
The first year GM-10 tests were heavily loaded cars with FE3 suspensions and deep options lists, which actually made the cars look better and more high tech. With the big Eagle GT+4 tires, they almost always would pull .85+G on the skidpad in tests back when that was A Big Deal. They were quite dapper with their two-tone trim, alloys, ground effects, digital dashes, and bolstered 2+2 seats. History has been less kind to the cheaper and better selling column-shifted and stripped models that were more commonly sold. They would maul anything but a Grand National in any performance measure that you cared to do, there’s just a bit less potential to the GM-10 in the Jeg’s catalog.
The mind set of 1981 car buyers was despiration after a second oil price shock and a nasty recession. As a high schooler that didn’t have to pay real bills at the pump, I was unimpressed with offerings that promised efficiency at the expense of boxy styling and FWD. But, as we know, a lot of people looked to the X cars after reading reviews like this and hoped for the best.
The X car’s reliability problems became legend, and today it’s a lot easier to be charitable to the A bodies as anybody that wasn’t a Japanese auto executive in the mid ’80s has few positive memories of the X cars.
You guys know which one I’m impartial to… love my 81 Malibu Classic coupe. lol 😉
I will have to +1 that too. I am a Ford guy, but I also have and love my ’79 Malibu coupe. Yep it has the 267 and F41 suspension. It also has a 4 speed. I ordered it new and flogged it pretty good when new. It has taken me all over the eastern half of the US and was our family car for years. The 267 returns 19 mpg on the highway and has been trouble free except for initial carb adjustments and a leaking rear main seal. I crashed the trans about 20 years ago but was able to fix it myself. Up until recently it was the best vehicle I have ever owned. Now it is the second best. It still looks pretty good and people are always trying to buy it from me. No dice.
So, the magazine article is interesting, but is also written from the point of view of auto writers that fell in love with anything new that GM would put out. They can keep their X cars.
Sorry for the rant, but it kind of hit a nerve.
Great story. Thanks. These cars will go enormous distances with even the most basic maintenance.
Some interesting similarities between your car and mine–’79 with the 267 (though mine is a sedan, auto, non F41). Also been in the family since new (grandfather ordered it). Also was the family car for years (it became mine when I turned 16). Lots of travel in the eastern half of the US? check. Leaking rear main seal at one point? Check. Trans rebuilt? Check. Fondly thought of as one of the best cars we’ve ever owned? Check.
Of course, mine hasn’t gone anywhere under its own power since 2001 when the timing chain snapped–but it waits, patiently, for a revival. Refuse to let go of that car.
Mine doesn’t get much use anymore either. Mostly it waits patiently in the garage while I play with my other toys. It is always ready to go. Always a great and fun car.
The Malibu should’ve had a 305 V8. I bet the fuel mileage would have been identical–maybe the 305 might have done better under C/D’s ‘heavy feet’, since it wouldn’t have to work as hard. T
The 267, like the Olds 260, was a very tacky gimmick–maybe 1 EPA mpg, AND the opportunity to charge customers more for the better motor (305 Chevy, 307 Olds–and 305 Chevy was quite good for that era). Part of GM’s ‘coasting on it’s past reputation’ phase. In 1980, GM still had about HALF the TOTAL market, including imports.
Also, GM took the handsome roofline of the 78-80 Malibu and replaced it with the faux luxury ‘formal’ look at the C-pillars–yuk!
The Malibu’s instrument panel and interior were more cohesive than the mini-Buick/Olds 98 treatment in the Omega.
C&D did a long-term test of the Buick Skylark X-car around then–the emblems on the LH and RH rear were different.
The fruits of the malaise era bloomed in the 80s for GM, when….gasp—FORD became the best American car. For a while, anyway.
I much prefer the earlier six-window roofline, but the formal look wasn’t all bad. Works best on dark-colored cars like the test subject, and on the ’82 I had, the roof treatment worked better in black than the original light blue.
I think they should’ve scotched the formal roof and spent the money on wind-down rear windows instead, with Buick and Olds allowed to choose between adapting the six-window Chevy/Pontiac roofline or toughing it out with the fastbacks until the FWD A’s were available for ’82.
I always liked the six-window roofline better, but I think it could have looked a bit odd on the Olds in particular. Less odd in any case than the fastback… Real wind-down windows definitely would have been an improvement!
In any case, what they intended to do with these cars and what they actually did diverged significantly. Here, they imply that the new downsized A-bodies would take over for these larger cars, and even keep their names. Of course we all know that didn’t happen in reality though the G-body cancellations were staggered from ’83 all the way to ’88 depending on the model. So perhaps wind-down rear windows weren’t considered to be worth the tooling for “a year or two”. I’m sure no one thought the G-body Cutlass Sedan would last all the way until ’87!
Could be nice to see some photoshops renderings of a A/G-body Cutlass with the six-window roofline of the Malibu. 😉
I think GM could had gived more aerodynamic tweaks to the G-body but not drastic as the 1991 Caprice sedan (the Roadmaster was more tasteful).
If they had put roll-down windows in the back, the back seat passengers would have had less hip-room. GM 86’d rolldown windows because the regulators required that the interior door panels would intrude too much.
I think the 267 and bigger V8s might’ve gotten the same mileage in daily use, but I bet the bigger engines would do worse in performance testing. It’s still pedal-to-the-metal driving with a 3,500 sled, and the extra displacement would presumably make a difference.
In 1981, if the smaller V-8 got even slightly better mileage than the 305 V-8, and was cheaper, that is what many people would have bought.
Remember that the nation had been through actual fuel shortages just two years earlier in 1979, and gasoline prices hit an inflation-adjusted peak in early 1981 that was only surpassed in the past decade. We were also in the middle of a very nasty recession, and interest rates on car loans were near or in the double digits even if you had GOOD credit.
Today we may say, “Spend the extra money and use a little more gas,” but that is not how many buyers were thinking in 1981 – particularly buyers looking for daily transportation.
The Malibu probably appealed to more conservative buyers, but I doubt that many of them would have ordered the F41 suspension option. If they did, they may not have liked the stiffer ride.
The X-cars were still seen as the wave of the future in 1981, even though we were already hearing disturbing reports of quality problems.
That combination of “cheaper”, “better gas mileage on paper” and “still a V8” was probably pretty attractive. My grandfather ordered his Malibu with the 267 in ’79, probably along those lines of thinking, though I never asked.
While not strong by any standards, and still with a lot of car to haul around, by my own “seat of the pants” measure the 267 had quite a bit more pep than did the 3.8 V6. So there was a difference there that was bigger, in everyday driving, than the 15 horsepower paper differential might suggest.
And may I suggest that curb weight might be a bit high? The ’82 base curb wieght is listed as 3190. (’79 was 3081.) Was there really 400 lbs.of optional equipment on board? It’s possible, sure, but seems high.
Good question. In this era, pretty much everything was still optional. I could see options adding weight quickly, although whether they would add 400 pounds is another question.
As for performance – between the recent fuel crunch, higher gas prices and the national 55 mph speed limit, people weren’t placing a high priority on blazing acceleration. In Pennsylvania during this era, 70 mph on a freeway was considered to be “fast,” and if you drove at that speed all the time on interstate highways, you were virtually guaranteed to receive a ticket.
They curb weights manufacturers state are shipping weights, or “dry weight,” which does not include any fluids. 80 litres of fuel is going to weigh 59 kg. Add a/c? Ca-ching, 50 kg. Power windows and seats? Well, another 20 kg….
Plus I’ve discovered the 4.4 was 140 lbs. heavier than the base 3.3, so there’s that too. 400 lbs. is probably about right for a well-optioned car, given those figures..
All very valid points.
It just occured to me that I rode to school my sophomore year in a rather nice 1982 Malibu Classic sedan. It had the blockier front with the quad headlights, so I’m guessing ’82.
Dark metallic blue with dark blue cloth interior, PS, PB, automatic, AM/FM stereo, standard full wheel covers, whitewalls, and that was about it. I have no idea what engine it had, but it went where my friend drove it without any histronics from the engine bay.
My friend was an only child, so his mom let him drive her brand new car to school and I was just down the street, so I was his carpool. His dad was driving a ’75 Caprice sedan, and wasn’t a big fan of the smaller Malibu.
But, in ’82, they made the same kind of decision to downsize / downgrade that many people did to match the dismal economy and high interest rates that you mention. The Malibu replaced a ’66 Olds 98 (the base Town Sedan with AC as its only option). The Omega would have been too extreme a reduction in size for them.
As pointed out, this isn’t the fairest of tests, engine-wise. The biggest engine available in the 700 lb. lighter Olds versus the smaller of the V8 options in the heavier Malibu (which had somehow managed to lose 10 horsepower in two years; the 267 was rated at 125 for ’79) is going to result in predictable acceleration differences. The 305 was a better choice. And I’ve never been able to find evidence of the gas 350 being fitted to an A/G Malibu – I think that option is something of an urban legend. The *diesel* 350 may have been available in the wagon at some point but we know how that one turned out.
It’s really an apples to oranges comparison, overall, and maybe that’s the point. Still an entertaining read though. And, to my eyes, that Malibu is still a good-looking car, especially without the whitewalls, and interesting due to the one-year-only marriage of the more formal 4-window roofline and the older dual-lamp nose design. That poor Omega, try as it might to achieve an air of sportiness, just looks sort of awkward. Not bad, but it won’t win any beauty contests.
The Malibu definitely had the last laugh, though. Just try to find an Omega still on the road, and then try to find a Malibu. I think you’ll have a significantly harder time tracking down the Omega.
Also, as an interesting footnote–when was it that carmakers stopped changing things on cars, be it trim or more substantial differences, yearly? For this generation of Malibu, you can tell every year apart at a glance, if you know what to look for. Over 6 years of production, there were 5 distinct grilles and 4 distinct styles of taillight. Even for the final two years, when neither grille nor taillight changed, the font and location of the badges changed. Now a car can go for any number of years without changing–it makes spotting much harder!
The 350 in a A/G is not an ‘urban legand’, it was listed in the brochures as “CA only” for wagons. But, the CA market wasn’t too friendly to US made station wagons.
The 350 was available in the El Camino and Conquistador as well.
There was a 9C1 package in Canada with the no smog control 350 and dual exhaust produced from 1978 to 1983. The cars went like snot, which means the cars got the bark beaten off them pretty fast. The rear seat was a bit small too, so the Caprice was more popular. Still the 350 Malibu was stuff of legend around here.
Actually in my case, it is the exact opposite as I have seen an Olds Omega recently but have not seen a 78-83 Bu for years. A guy at my work has a 1982 Olds Omega sedan that is brown and is a daily driver.(I need to take a pic of it) but I have not seen a Malibu of that vintage since 1999 when I still had my 1980 Malibu.
The Omega and Pontiac Phoenix were always thinner on the ground when it came to X-Bodies. Their sales dropped when the J’s came out and were discontinued and replaced by the N’s.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/new/021110/1981%20Chevrolet%20Malibu/1981%20Chevrolet%20Malibu-13.html
According to the 1981 brochure, the 267 was the only V8 other than wagons.
They did some interesting engine lineup shuffling in those years. ’82 was the same in that the 5.0 was only available in the wagon, not the sedan. But you *could* get a 350 diesel in the sedans or wagons.
And there was a 4.3 V6 diesel that was available in the sedans but not the wagons? That’s an engine I don’t recall hearying *anything* about.
One of my assigned cars back in my Treasury Dept. days was an ’81 Mailibu 4 door (not a Classic) with F-41, full gages and the 4 bbl 305. Accelerated and handled pretty well, especially considering it was the early ’80’s, perhaps the nadir for American performance cars.
For some reason all of our govt. cars were always California spec’d, with engines often a bit different from the norm. IIRC the 305 4 bbl was available in sedans amd coupes in California.
We had a similar comparison in our driveway: A 1979 Cutlass Salon with the 260 cid V8 and a 1981 Pontiac Phoenix with the iron duke 2.5L I4.
The Phoenix was smaller but surprisingly roomy, with much better packaging than the Cutlass. With buckets up front instead of a split bench it only seated 5 (vs. 6 in the Cutlass), but rear seat room wasn’t vastly different. The Pontiac also had nearly a flat floor (remember those?) and the practicality of a hatch. The Phoenix had far less sloppy handling, and while the Olds V8 was smoother, neither car was exactly capable of lighting up the tires when the light turned green. The Pontiac also got far better gas mileage.
Where the old-tech Cutlass excelled was durability. The Pontiac was plagued with electrical gremins from the day we brought it home, and within two years it had been traded in for a Toyota. The Olds stayed in the family for nearly a full decade, providing mostly trouble-free service.
The FWD X bodies arrived on a massive wave of hype and sold very well for the first year or two. They did have their virtues, and they could have been one of GM’s biggest successes if it weren’t for their many reliability problems.
After reading the road test, I would choose the Omega. Knowing the durability issues they became famous for, I would choose the Malibu. But with a 305 or maybe a 350. I doubt the MPG would be a whole lot lower. I had a 305 4 barrel in my 79 GMC Caballero, it got decent MPG though it was a little sluggish. The 650 lb weight difference is huge, considering the cars don’t look that much different in size. This road test is a great find, interesting read.
Problem being, the 350 was only available on the wagon. (Just checked the literature…) And I’m not sure which years–it was on the option list for ’79 but gone by ’82.
And a lot of the weight difference is undoubtedly due to the Malibu being full-frame, but that also made it a good base for the El Camino…
I assumed the 350 was wagon-only. Now I want one.
I think the last year for the 350 was ’81. The 305 would have helped the Malibu Classic’s plight, but it was only rated at 140 hp in 1981, so it might have still been slower than the Omega. I believe power was upped to 150 hp for the next two years.
FWIW, Mexican Malibus were available with 350’s devoid of emissions equipment that produced well north of 200hp. Those must have made some nice runners!
In at least some years, the Chevy 305 could be had with a 4 bbl carb. My grandfather’s Le Mans was so equipped, and I remember it being fun to hustle around in in-town traffic. People often fixate on the horsepower ratings of that era instead of the still-reasonably-generous torque that was on tap from many of the small block V8s.
The 305 was the 4bbl version starting in ’79.
The Mexican Malibu with a 350 is possible for all I know, but in the big picture most central and south American cars were smaller vehicles with an emphasis on small displacement engines. Mass market Mexican Malibus would seem more likely to be 6’s with manual transmissions. The number of people that could afford to drive a large displacement car was limited.
It’s hard to read but it’s there. This one is for the Mexi-Monte.
I’m amazed. As far as I recall, the 350 was pretty much done in GM’s U.S. passenger car production by 1981 – a victim of CAFE, the recession, and the second oil price shock.
It raises a lot of questions. Was the Monte effectively a Buick Riviera class luxury car in 1981 Mexico? Was GM left hanging with a ton of 350 production capacity, and Mexico was a convenient dumping ground? Was the Mexican economy and fuel market sufficiently disconnected from the U.S. that they weren’t in recession and fuel was cheap?
I come to CC for the obscure stuff. I’m sure one day it will be covered here!
I think the Mexican cars with a 350 cars were equipped with a 350 that was made in Mexico, but I’m not sure. Mexico did have cheaper gas and virtually no pollution rules for a long time too. The 350 was still available in 9C1 Chevrolets, Camaro and Corvette and it became an engine option again on the big cars by the 90’s, once the 307 was out of production.
Mexico with its low gas prices and also its reasonably well off population compared to most of Latin America allowed the Malibu to be a very popular car in Mexico at that time period. Both Mexico and Venezuela seems to be the places outside of the USA and Canada where these cars thrived. it could due to cheap gas or prices were not as high for the car as we suspect.
Also The Bu was not really competing with the rest of the GM A/G bodies due to regulations in Mexico about car making/selling around that time period. A lot of GM products were sold under the chevy name plate due to this. Such as the Buick Century being sold as a Chevy Century
Here is a old commercial for the Malibu in Mexico
Re: Geeber “In 1981, if the smaller V-8 got even slightly better mileage than the 305 V-8, and was cheaper, that is what many people would have bought”
After returning to the US, my dad bought a 75 Ventura (aka Pontiac Nova) with the Olds 260 V8. The car was slow, and he got 15 mpg in suburban driving–same as our cousin’s 76 Omega (Olds Nova) with a 350.
To its credit, the 260 may have been thirsty, but it was smooth, always started and drove flawlessly (none of that hesitating and surging that was not uncommon then) regardless of weather, and we had not engine problems–in fact, other than a electronic igntion module, I don’t think anything went wrong with that car.
But the 350 Olds would’ve offered all the above AND a little oomph.
I do agree that in 80-81, many people were looking to save gas–including my folks, andt thus we got a new 4-cyl, 4-spd Ford Fairmont, which averaged 22 mpg. It probably had better objective handling (no C/D Comparo) than the Ventura, but the Ventura steered felt better to this 16 yr old road tester, and Ventura felt more solid and less cheap.
I had a ’76 Omega with the 260 and 5-speed and once saw 29 MPG Imperial on a trip.
Great find, they sure did tests better back then. Fantastic photography, on real film!
One of my step mothers had a Malibu wagon 4.4 V8. Aside from intake hoot at full throttle, the engine never strained. It was much better than the 3.8 Buick of the era, in terms of refinement, if not speed. It was fine around town; however,on a trip to Colorado it turned into a turtle. Overall, it was such a handsome decent car. Smooth and refined.
That Malibu did have a stupidly tall rear drive ratio…like a four speed without first. Likely this example above had likewise, 200 lbs of torque would probably be decent with a 3.23 or such. It may have reached top speed in second. Her’s would go past 80 in second,and the wagon wouldn’t reach 90 in D nor L2 ( teens know these things.)
Slightly off topic, remember those Mercedes that would start in second gear, unless floored or first was preselected? That was plain wretched.
Yes, unless you had one with the 5.6, then it was lovely.
And yes, I loved when they featured REAL, everyday cars. If I were born in 2003 and not 1983, I don’t know if I’d have turned into a car buff reading today’s super hip testing of (almost) exclusively super fast cars. And comparos are always wonderful (when done honestly).
I used to think modern cars were boring, until I started reading the reports on here. Journalism that makes an appealing subject seem boring is poor journalism.
According to the literature I have, the automatic/4.4 combo would give you the lovely final drive ratio of 2.29. The manual (I wonder how rare *those* are) got all of 2.73. So that explains a lot.
You mention that hers would go past 80 in second…yep. Firsthand experience. One summer the transmission in my ’79 decided it just wouldn’t shift into third gear, so I essentially had a powerglide. Still would keep up with 70+ MPH traffic just fine, though the engine was complaining a bit more loudly than usual. Third gear came back of its own volition later on…very strange. But the fact that a 20 year old 160K+ mile Chevy could take that kind of abuse does speak well to its virtues of rugged reliability. (Just don’t mention the interior trim pieces that sort of crumbled to dust…)
2.29!? Wow, I think my LS 430’s final ratio in sixth wouldn’t be that tall. I see 2000 rpm just over 70, but I got 4000 more to redline, and 1500 or so to peak torque. Very rarely needs to downshift. Thanks for my further education, Chris.
Here comes my transmission rant: I drove an auto 88 Accord that only had 2nd and Forth for months, it was a work jalopy. It decided to be a Hondamatic, and those two remaining gears had to be selected. I think early Hondamatics were semis, later one fully auto with lockup mode they called third. Finally got a junkyard transmission, that lost all gears several months later. To this day, I would only drive a manual Honda, unless they would use Aisins. They’ve had issues with slush boxes for decades. My mom got burned twice by her 91 Legend. Odyssey, all I’ll say. No offense to Honda fans, I loved my stick shift Integra. Most auto Aisins are bulletproof, even abused and neglected, and do better than ZF and GM’s. I hate replacing autos,cheap used ones are a crap shop at best, then rebuilt and new cost way more than the cars may be worth. I’m perplexed tranie issues still exist today, when THM400’s, hydramatics, power glides, 737’s and Dynaflows were prone to be fine when the engines would need rebuilds. The 400/425 even found it’s way into Rolls, Jags and Ferrari, and a large RV.Funny some co.’s make bullet proof high capacity cvts, Ls600 h, while some are disasters, and I like newer CVTs. Automated manuals could be ok if done right, yet to be proven.
This is from a former Nigel Shiftwright, but in South Fl gridlock and hill less roads, I’m auto lazy. unless I find a 914,328, Miata or such. My six speed Aisin Lexus shifts far better and faster than I could, even with clutch drops and shynchro killing speed shifting.Maybe some wise sage could write about this matter, and educate us armchair mechanics/engineers.
This is interesting to me, since I had the Buick equivalent of the Omega: a Skylark with all the performance/HD options checked off. It was pretty brisk, much more so than almost any of the larger/heavier RWD cars then available, handled quite well, was surprisingly roomy, and in my case, was quite reliable: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classicauto-biography-1980-1981-buick-skylark-x-marks-the-spot/
Except for the reliability issues, the X Body was the single greatest leap forward Detroit ever took in a mass-market car. Too bad they screwed themselves with its issues.
And the comparison with the Malibu is apt, as the A-Body Celebrity et al were just X-Bodies with more front and rear overhang, but essentially the same otherwise.
Pa Capn had an ’80 Skylark company car, and no problems with it. I still think the X was better looking than the A. Funny how the New Normal can become a sort of dead end. Plenty of music and fashion from that year that “should have” survived, but, oh well.
Paul, I’ve always wondered – How come the FWD A-cars seem to get such glowing praise when the X-cars were such rubbish – when, as you say, they were basically the same thing but with more overhang? I’d guess there must have been substantial mechanical upgrades – then how come they weren’t applied to the X-cars once their deficiencies became known?
Or was that just GM being GM, and thinking they could get away with it?
The A-Cars were X cars that had finally been put together right.
I’m not sure that the X-Cars didn’t receive A-car upgrades, but there was only a 3 year overlap between the 2 (and in the last, only the Citation and Skylark were offered), and the sales were very low, so nobody would have noticed. A neighbor lady of my parents bought an 84 Skylark, and was kept immaculate for 20-plus years until she passed.
Actually the Skylark remained a strong seller for Buick all the way through its run, even outselling the Citation II for the last 2 years of production as I recall.
It’s a rather typical GM thing: keep building it for years (decades, in the case of the A-Body), and it gets better and better, reliability-wise. I’d say that generally speaking, the early A-Bodies weren’t yet paragons in that department. But folks swear by the later ones.
The later X-Bodies already addressed many of the initial issues; the “Citation II” was re-named specifically for that reason, not that it helped its rep by then. Kind of like the last two years of the Vega, after they improved the 2300 engine in a number of ways.
As noted, the Buick Skylark seemed to survive the X-Body debacle better than the rest. It still had the brake-balance issue in the rear, and a few other shortcomings, but it seemed a bit better put together. Which explains why it kept selling pretty well too.
I actually saw a Citation today, dark blue 3 door, I believe it’s the first one I’ve seen this decade.
CC effect hit me, too. On my morning commute today, I saw an early ’80s Buick A-body. It was a 4-door with the formal/notchback roofline, and it was badged as a Regal, not a Century, which probably narrows down what year it could have been. It had a blacked out front grill, so maybe it was a T-Type of some sort, or maybe that was aftermarket.
No pictures, sorry. The Buick was on the road, not a the curb.
Although the family car was always a full-size RWD, my father, who was a Buick man, recognized the FWD midsizers as the future and wanted to push me toward getting an X Skylark as my first car (I was 8 when they hit the market, and they were still popular used cars in the late ’80s.) The Skylarks were probably the best of the X’s, but I still complained because I knew of their poor reputation and didn’t really want one.
Just after New Year’s 1990 a local dealer ran an ad for an ’82 Century Limited for $1000. This was absurdly cheap, but the ad noted an issue with the transmission. But he took me to look at it anyway, and it drove fine. Turns out that it had the TH125C transmission, with its unreliable torque converter, and somebody in the shop disconnected the TC before we drove it. Of course we bought the car, and I kept it for almost four years. Only trouble was that it had the 3L V6, which threw a rod while I owned it, and had it replaced with a junkyard motor. The Iron Duke was probably actually the more durable engine in those cars…..
I haven’t seen an ’82 Century in years. I’d know one instantly if I saw it, because the ’82 and ’83 models had specific styling cues that differentiate them from ’84-’88 models. It would be nice to see one again someday. All I have is a dealer brochure and my own photos. It was a nice car.
So I did a little sleuthing on oldcarbrochures.com, and apparently, the 305 was only available on sedans in California for ’81, and not available on any sedan in ’82 (just wagons). So that would explain why the 267 was chosen as the weapon of choice.
“Bean Soakers”-I’ve used that term in a descriptive sentence or two…..
You know I have always thought of the 1981 Malibu as being a bit confused looking. On the one hand it kept the front and rear ends of the 78-80 but on the other hand it added the formal roofline that the Bu would have until it was killed off in 1983. I actually like the formal type roof line on my 85 and 87 Cutlass Supremes but like the sloping roof line of the 78-80 on the malibu. Perhaps I am biased as I had a 1980 Malibu sedan and thought it looked very good.
The 267 was a total dog in more ways than one. The quality of the internals just wasn’t there and 200,000 km was about it for them. The 4 bbl 305 offered after 1979 was much better in terms of durability and power and really didn’t use any more fuel.
I’ve driven a few 267 Maibu’s and most post 1981 had the 267. In a lightly optioned car it was fine as the motor made decent torque. The Chevy 229 V-6 was a horrid, rough device that should have never been produced.
Did they use that wretched metric THM tranny behind the small V8?what was it called THM 300 or 250? A light duty cheapened thm 350. The 350 was good and cheap to rebuild, but kinda light duty initself: nothing like the 400. 350’s never saw past 100k in trucks and vans, but I remember shops that would rebuild /swap them for cheap. They always had ads in the back of the TV guide. Others would do Mopars or Ford trans. Similar firms would do 1 day engine swaps, usually specializing in one or two GM divisions. Pontiac/Chevrolet, Buick/ Cadie
When the 4100 came out, they actually put up billboards, promising the rebuild had the problems addressed, for at least 12 months or 12,000! The dealers were selling the improved 4.5 as a swap, but no one believed them better most likely.
GM must have really cheapened the 4.4 internals and parts. I assumed it was a small bored 5.0, only smaller pistons and heavier block. Gm is Gm….Let’s save a nickel on them connecting rods.
They all used the THM200, which is more of an “upgraded” THM125, used in the Chevette. In fact, the case was the same, or appeared so to me.
The THM350 was a fine unit but you are correct, good for about 200,000 km. We would swap them out in two hours for $1000.
GM cheapened out all the low power V-8’s with cast camshafts, fibre timing gears, etc.
The thing about the Malibu (or any other rwd chev) is you can stick almost any engine you want in it. Good mileage? Try a inline six. Want to burn tires? Find a small block 400. Go to the junk yard, pull what you want, buy a case of beer and get your gear head buddy’s to shove it in there. No shortage of parts or potential. That is why they are still around.
Mine will in all likelihood get a 350 when I bring it back to life. No reason to repair the 267 unless one is going for concours originality, which is certainly not my aim!
And if you get a 350 block, why not a 383 crank for a few hundred dollars more? The Chevy small block really is just about the most adaptable engine out there.
A nice 350 crate motor with a Holley intake, carb, dual exhaust and a slightly more radical cam would make all the power you’d need in a car like this.
These TWO had been quite good sellers in Europe as well during those times! GM did a better MARKETING job THEN than NOW in general. The fuel was always sold on higher prices in Europe than in the North-Americas. Nowadays the situation is the same. But even they’ve tried themselves with different models in the ’70’s, ’80’s, ’90’s and also in the ’00’s somehow they’ve always failed. Why? The late models of Chevrolet are fine and budget (fuel) consumers. Till 2015 the Chevrolet brand shall be withdrawn from the market. Only with Opel and Vauxhall shall continue the GM’s appearance. Personal opinion is that marketing job is the alpha and omega of the success of a brand. Employ stout hearted personnel and the sales shall be better! So therefore one day maybe Oldsmobile and Pontiac should be brought back to the market. And not only in the Nort-Americas. But worldwide…
I didn’t realize the A-car was so much better, quality-wise, than the X-car.
I do recall reading, way back when, that the X-car would benefit from the relocated steering rack of the A-car.
I also recall, my friend’s dad, buying a nice, new (and pricey for the day) Pontiac 6000 in 1983 or 84. It replaced his 1973 Pontiac Catalina 2-dr 400, which was as reliable as it was thirsty.
The 6000 had several issues, and was replaced with a Nissan after only 3 years.
It wasn’t just GM’s new FWD cars that were spotty in the early 80s. My dad commented on giving colleagues with a nice up-level GM cars like a RWD Electra and Cutlass rides to/from dealer
Maybe they were the odd ‘bad’ ones, because my sense is lots of 80s RWD cars made it well into the 90s, and some are still around. I never see an X-car or a Tempo, or Omnirizon, but I do see Escorts and Shadows.
As I noted above, the X and A Cars benefited from continuous improvements, which in the case of the A Car went on for a very long time (decades). Give GM enough time, and they can make a quite reliable car.
Whoa. Those fit and finish results should have given an easy recommendation: buy a Japanese car. Maybe GM should have gone bankrupt in the early 90’s, as I think it was close to.
0-60 in 14 seconds…and today we think 0-60 in 9 seconds is slow!
What is interesting and significant is how history has treated both of these cars. When reviewed new, the Olds (X-Car) was significantly better. However, history has been particularly unkind to X-Cars both in longetivity and remembrance. The Malibu (and its G-body cousins) have almost become collectible and are now remembered fondly some of the last signs of the “old guard” of the car business and therefore is now “cool old-school” and “hip” after being regarded stodgy and old-fashioned when new. Also, the X-car would now be considered “small” where the Malibu is often thought of as a “large” car…even though other than overall length, a brand-new Honda Accord is larger in every other dimension.
How history changes things…..
A couple of things come to mind reading this post. I had that copy of C/D, I had a bunch of them from the 1980’s up until my move to Michigan in the late 1990’s. I think they were mistaken as trash and dumped, if I’d managed to keep all of them, I’d have CC post material for a long time!
I was a big Oldsmobile fan when these cars were new, my (now) wife and I considered getting an Omega ES back in the day, but we were in our early 20’s then and our credit score was non-existent. There was no way we were going to swing a new car loan. For all of the squared off angles on these cars, the ES models in particular had a very Bauhaus-like appearance to them. However, knowing now what I couldn’t have known then, I’m sure we would have been one of the masses disappointed by the X-cars. But they sure were appealing back then…
I was never much of a fan of these “formal” roofed A/G bodies, they never looked right to me. As flawed as the 78-80 models were, even the fastbacks looked good. But, 30 years later these would have been the cars to buy and keep.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane.
“Now what would be really interesting is if one of us could find a back-to-back test of a 1987 G-body and a 1988 GM10 coupe, if any magazine was even interested in such comparisons by that point”
There are several restoration catalogs devoted to 1978-88 GM G-Bodies, they are ubiquitous at car shows and racetracks all over the country, and the X-Bodies and GM-10s have all but disappeared from todays automotive landscape with virtually no fan base, so 30+ years later, the market has spoken on which car has won the comparison test.
The 267…what a disaster.
Advertised as having the power of a V8 and the economy of a 6…it was the other way around and then some.
IDK what the problem was with the 262 they’d come up with for the 1975 Monza. I’d owned one of those with a 4-on-the-floor and regularly knocked down 20 mpg with decent power. Would the extra weight of the Malibu have yielded THAT much of a penalty? As I recall the 262 – 4.3L – was a destroked 350. I forget how the 267 was configured…but there was something WRONG with that mill.
The X-bodies came down to having Bart Simpson in charge of executing what should’ve been a game-changer.
Well, it DID change the game alright, making millions of angry customers head for Toyota/Honda/Nissan.
The story I remember was the 262 was too far oversquare and had poor emission characteristics. Bore was around 3.7″ with a 3″ stroke. The 267 was almost square, 3.5: bore x 3.48″ stroke (same stroke as a 305 or 350). The 267 was cleaner and supposedly could tolerate more timing advance. I don’t remember either the 262 or 267 that fondly, both were replaced by the 305 which had decent power and about the same fuel economy.
When GM downsized their intermediates, I never understood why they kept the old body-on-frame construction instead of going for unitary construction on what amounted to such a relatively small car. I’m guessing there was some perceived benefit to isolation from road noise and such. Basically Nova-sized – I’m thinking the only other similar-sized cars still using BOF construction then would have been the Toyota Crown.
You nailed it Peter. It was all about isolation from road noise. I remember technical articles about these cars from the day.
Chevy and Pontiac switched to the “formal roof” for the rear window because the Cutlass and Buick Century did. The 78 and 79 Olds Cutlass and Buick Century lines two and 4 doors were sold as fastbacks. The sales were poor so they switched to the formal back window with a trunk. The eight cylinder engines of 1981 were dogs. Ford went from the 302 down to the 255 V-8. CAFE rules were supposed 27.5 MPG in 1985. Would be interesting to see a road test of one of the GM V-8 cars with an Automatic Overdrive (4 Speed Automatic) that came out a few years later. Ford I think had one in the LTD in 1981 and it greatly improved highway mileage. That and fuel injection greatly improved the cars of the later 1980s.
I started reading this post and was surprised to find that I had commented. Well, it’s 6 years later and I still own and love my ’79 Malibu coupe. The difference now is that I am driving it a lot and enjoying it. Finally there are some reproduction trim pieces available for these cars, so I have been replacing or reconditioning some of the age worn pieces.
My much maligned 267 keeps going and going. It now has 168,000 miles and still has had only a rear main seal, carburetor work ( when new), 2 distributor modules and a couple of valve cover gasket changes due to the usual small block Chevy leaks.
People are still trying to buy it from me, too, but it isn’t going anywhere.
It’s surprising that Detroit was so slow to add that fourth gear when it was greatly needed. Now they have too many.
This might have been mentioned earlier, but the only way you were getting a 350 in a 1981 Malibu is if you got a police car. Or I guess if you were some high-level executive who had a LOT of pull, and could get one custom built! Also, availability of the 305 was severely curtailed in 1981. In the 49 states it was only offered in the wagon. In California/high altitude areas, where I imagine the extra emissions strangled the 267 to the point it was useless, you could get a 305-4bbl in the sedans and coupes, but not the 267.
I’d imagine one of the biggest things that hindered the 267 in this car was the axle ratio. I can’t find mention of it in the C&D article, but I’m pretty sure they stuck a tall 2.29:1 axle ratio with the 267 V8. According to automobile-catalog’s entry (which could be wrong, admittedly), they also used the THM350 with the 267…a beefier transmission than the THM200, to be sure, but one with taller first and second gear ratios, and I’m sure more of a sap on HP than the 200 transmission. It’s like they weren’t even trying to get any performance out of this setup…they were trying to eke out as good of an EPA rating as they could for CAFE averages. But all that usually does is mean in the real world you’re going to stomp on it more to get it to move, and waste more fuel, most likely, than if they had simply given it better gearing to begin with.
And, while I normally wouldn’t lobby for a THM200 over a THM350 transmission in this case, I say go ahead…it’s not like the 267 had enough torque to hurt it!
I remember reading this article well over 30 years ago when my local library still had previous editions of Motor Trend and C&D. I have two comparison test reviews of 267 equipped G-body cars, one of a 1981 Monte Carlo and the other a 1982 Malibu Classic both from Consumer Guide Auto series. Both cars had the 2.29 rear gears. The Monte ran a 0-60 in 12.4 seconds and the Malibu ran it in 12.9. Both tests averaged 20 mpg in combined driving and stated though very close in power ratings the 267 felt much peppier than the std 229 V6 which needed 16 seconds to reach 60 in the same magazine for 1981!
This supports my belief that not all cars that left the factory were created equal and some may have been out of tune or in the case of this test were very low mileage green engines that needed more break in. If given the choice between these two cars I would have picked the Malibu with the 267 as it was the only gas V8 offered everywhere but California for both 1981 and 1982 for coupes (1981) and sedans. Note that V6 cars could not be optioned up to the 70 series tires and F-41 suspension making the V8 mandatory in my eyes. Making sure these cars were in proper tune was vital! By that I mean carburetor adjustments and base timing which are almost always not in spec on 80% of the cars I have twisted wrenches on during this time era. The newer 85-88 305 equipped Montes and Caminos seemed much better in this regard with better attention to detail and quality control.
I also never really saw any difference between the 267 and 305 as far as longevity or internal issues and both of these small blocks suffered the usual rear main seal leaks and valve covers seeping. I have seen plenty of well cared for examples of both engines with well over 150K still running strong but keeping these in tune and well maintained was critical for longevity. I can also verify with great certainty that 79 and 80 267/305 engines ran better and stronger than the 81 CCC equipped cars which used leaner carb settings and camshafts with greater overlap for stricter emissions which would explain the drop of 10 hp going from 1979 to 1981 on the 267 and 305 engines.