After the Honda handoff, I found myself looking for another car in the fall of 2002. I had graduated college a few months earlier, but the job market for Information Technology wasn’t in very good shape, the tech bubble having recently burst. So I was working on campus in the same part-time job I’d had as an undergrad, putting in full-time hours but at a part-time pay rate. In other words, I was in no position to buy new, or anything that required financing.
Thankfully I lived within an easy walk of work. But I still needed a car, among other reasons because my girlfriend at the time lived a half hour’s drive away. So the budget was $1000 or less, and the criteria were “runs and drives, passes inspection.” I wasn’t going to be picky. And, again, the right car proved to be back in my hometown of Greensboro. While perusing the few cars available with three digit prices, one caught my eye–a 1982 Malibu. I knew those cars quite well, a ’79 being my “first love”. The $800 price tag was well within my budget. The ad was vague, with no pictures, but a call to the seller was promising. Again recruited Dad to go check it out, again it checked out well, and for the third consecutive time, I purchased a car sight unseen.
Probably the best photo of the car in its original color. The paint looks a lot better than it actually was.
It was an ’82 Malibu Classic sedan, light blue over dark blue cloth interior, with the 3.8 (229) Chevy V6. Only 89K miles, which was a definite plus in a 20 year old car. It had some flaws, I was told–neither the A/C nor the radio worked, and there was “some surface rust” on the hood, roof, and trunk. That worried me, but I was hoping I hadn’t forked over $800 on a rustbucket. Once I got home to pick the car up, my fears were relieved. There was most certainly surface rust, in large swathes that made the car look worse than it actually was. But it was clearly not structural; there was no rust-through on the car anywhere. And the interior was in excellent shape. The back seat, in particular, looked brand ndw. The Malibu had belonged to an older lady originally, and then her son drove it for a few years, but kids were clearly not frequent travelers.
This is what the paint actually looked like. Pretty terrible.
The ’82 versus the ’79 used the same basic shell but had a somewhat different look, having adopted a more formal C-pillar in ’81 (rationalization with Olds and Buick, the Chevy/Pontiac six-window roofline was phased out) and a new quad-lamp front clip for ’82. 1982 was a year of high gas price hysteria in which Pontiac completely discontinued the B-body Bonneville, moving the nameplate to the G-body formerly known as the LeMans. There were rumblings that Chevy might do the same, fueled by the fact that the Malibu’s new nose styling was similar to the Caprice. Turned out to be very wrong when gas prices rebounded the next year, but who knows what they might have been thinking in Detroit. The box Caprice ended up outlasting the Malibu by seven model years, as it turned out. Personally I liked the styling of the ’79 much better, but the ’82 certainly wasn’t a bad-looking car. Handsome, but in a more generic way.
As to driving impresions, it felt like my Other Malibu…if somebody had stolen half the engine. This thing was S-L-O-W. If I remember correctly the torque difference between the ’82 229 and the ’79 267 wasn’t vast, maybe 50 lb-ft, but the two cars clearly fell on opposite sides of the “acceptable acceleration” dividing line. The roof had an odd reverberation over bumps, like the sound deadening had been removed. Considering the headliner was immaculate, which meant it was a replacement (the original headliners invariably started falling down after about 7 or 8 years), they could have forgotten the insulation when putting it back together. It had a slight oil leak on the driver’s side somewhere, resulting in a slight oil smell in the cabin when driving with the windows down, resulting in my smelling slightly like oil after drives of any length. My girlfriend was none too pleased (though the car rather significantly outlasted that relationship). And, like any A/G body with a lot of miles and worn springs, handling was not a priority. But all together it was a predictable and familar driving experience for me, if a little disappointing after a year with my previous ’91 Accord.
Sadly, the best interior photo I have. It does show the car having just passed 100K miles, turning over the 5-digit odometer.
Job number one was appearance improvement. Even though I was driving a cheap car, I didn’t want it to look like total crap, and my parents graciously agreed to contribute to a paint job seeing as how they were now driving my former Accord. So off to the good folks at Econo Paint (that’s actually what it was called), and $200 later, what was once blue and rusty was now black and shiny. Mostly shiny, anyway–it was a $200 respray after all. But it looked quite good enough, if you ignored the orange peel. In retrospect black didn’t go all that well with the dark blue interior, but I’d wanted a black car. Now I had one, and discovered how hard it was to keep clean…
My ownership of this car coincided with a somewhat difficult part of my life. I was a graduate with a lousy job, which meant no money, and continuing to share a house with three other people. I went through a breakup, and then a short period of working two jobs to make ends meet and pay off some debt. I thought about moving out of state to try to make a new start, decided not to, thought about it again, decided not to. Having an old beater with no radio and no A/C as my transportation through all this did not necessarily help, but the car was what I needed it to be. It started when I needed it to start on cold mornings and nights and got me where I needed to go. Plus, it helped me to learn some DIY skills.
My work on previous cars had been generally limited to radio installation. Embarrasingly, I hadn’t ever even changed my own oil, as that wasn’t a skill anyone ever taught me (my Dad is *not* mechanically inclined and just takes the car in for all types of service). But on this car, I bought a Haynes manual and a set of ramps, and set about getting my hands dirty. Nothing huge–oil changes, plugs and wires, replacement of an alternator, another stereo install, but it was a start. The biggest thing to fail while I had the ’82 was the carburetor, which went out to lunch while I was in Greensboro one weekend. That was $450 I didn’t want to spend, but I had a plan.
I had another Malibu sitting a few feet away that wasn’t going anywhere under its own power, and both carburetors said “Rochester DualJet” on the side, so I decided to swap them. And, lo and behold, everything bolted right up, though there were a few places where the ’82 carb had spots to plug in vacuum lines that didn’t have corresponding ports on the ’79 edition. It started though! I drove it around the block, once, stumbling and running like crap the whole time, and then refused to even start again. That was the day I learned that the early computer control on the ’82 engine made it a whole different animal than the computerless ’79, with vasty different vacuum plumbing. I had the carb replaced with a new, correct one the next day.
The “mini Caprice” styling for ’82 is most evident up front.
Things looked up eventually, as usually happens. In April of ’04 I applied for and was hired for a far better job than I had–still not a fat salary but legitimately full-time with benefits and a nice raise from what I had been making. Around the same time I finally got my own place, as I was able to find one not far from campus that was affordable. And, of course, after I’d been in my new spot for a few months, someone put a good-sized dent in the back door of the Malibu, leaving no trace and no note. I accepted that, but it set thoughts moving in my head, and the dent turned out to be the last straw. I had a pretty good job now, living on my own, feeling better about myself overall than I had in some time, yet I was still driving a 22 year old Chevy with no A/C and an asmthatic V6, now with a large dent in the rear door, plus it needed brake work. I just didn’t feel like dealing with it anymore. So what’s the next step in Modern American Adulthood? Getting a car loan, of course.
So in October of ’04, after a touch over two years with the ’82 Malibu, I purchased the car that will be the next installment in this series. Listed the Malibu for sale shortly afterward, and got an inquiry after a few days from a student at the university where I worked. He showed up in a very nice ’78 Buick Century wagon in two-tone blue. An A/G-body kindred spirit? Turns out he also owned an ’82 Malibu, a wagon thatI had seen around campus a couple of times. Nice car, the same color blue as mine before the repaint, in better shape with Rally wheels. He’d been in a collision and had originally planned to use mine for parts to repair his, but after driving it, he said he was also considering fixing what needed to be fixed and giving it to his younger brother, who was soon to receive a driver’s license. So he bought the car, left with the keys, and when I got home from work the next day, it was gone. Maybe it had more driving left to do, or maybe its parts allowed another ’82 to get back on the road. Either way, not a bad run.
Did this car have any “performance ” at all?.Drove a 80 Cutlass 302 V8 that was gutless
you probably meant a 305 – unless your Cutty had an engine swap
Yes sorry Im a Brit so we think in cc/litres. We buy our gas in litres and tell folks ” my cars does 60 miles to the gallon”. Only in the UK!.
Nope, not a bit. My other Malibu (a ’79) had the 267 V8 and didn’t have much pep, and power outputs tended to go down for ’80, ’81, and ’82 (which I think was the nadir).
302 was never an Olds engine–probably had either the 260 or the 307.
For reference the 267 made 125 hp and 215 torque for 1979, 120/210 for 1980, 115/200 for 1981 and 115/205 for 1982 making 1981 the worst year overall. Consumer Guide did a test on both a 1981 and 1982 Malibu Classic sedan. The 1981 had the 229 V6 and the 1982 was running the 267. They stated that despite being barely more powerful on paper the 267 provided much more pep than did the 229 and that was supported by a 3 second quicker 0-60 time. Note that the 229 made but 170 LBS feet of torque vs the 267’s 205 which is a full 35 more and torque is what gets the car moving so the V8 was the better choice in these years.
I had a 83 Cutlass Supreme with the Buick 231 V6. Not fast, but no issues except the rear seal @ 85,000 miles. Sold it for $1,500. I warned the new owner about the oil seal and included a case of motor oil in the trunk as part of the deal.
He was the type to not get his hands dirty and burnt the engine. He sold it for more than he paid for it. Seems A/G body Cutlasses were still in demand!!
The right woman would have liked you smelling a bit of grease and oil. 😉
+1
My mate’s wife included in her wedding vows “to hold the torch and pass the spanner”
Agree 100% with PrincipalDan. I could never quite fathom the mindset of a woman who prefers a guy who’s more ladylike than she is.
Indeed, she definitely was not the right one in retrospect. Felt a little bit differently at the time though!
My Dad had an 83 Bonneville; same engine as the featured Malibu. I concour…SLOW. Had to floor it many times to keep up with traffic. I did find it to be very smooth though…no matter how many times or how hard I pushed that engine, there was little or no noise, vibration, harshness (NVH). But it was SLOW!
One more thing, I prefer the 82-83 Malibus over the previous one headlight versions. My favorite A/G body would be the Buick Regal sedans.
We had an ’83 Malibu Classic that was very similar to this, tan inside and out with the 3.8 V6 as well. I thought it was a nice enough car at the time, apart from the rear windows that didn’t roll down. Bought it in ’91 with maybe 40,000 miles from an old guy for $2000. Wasn’t quick but I’ve driven much slower cars – a friends slant 6 ’75 Dart comes to mind. The biggest annoyance was the Malibu wouldn’t start if the gas tank went below half full, a trait that has imprinted itself in my wife’s mind to the point where even now she insists our cars always have more than a half tank of gas at all times.
I had a car like that. I finally found that fuel line and the fuel return line were reversed. Swapped the hoses around and never had that problem again.
For 1983 Chevy discontinued the 267 and fortified the 229 with a revised cam that gave it an extra 20 LBS FT of torque up to 190 so that helped pep it up some. In proper tune they are adequate and will keep up with traffic just fine. If they aren’t in tune they are akin to a large paper weight or slug.
I guess in fairness mine wasn’t totally a slug, but it’s still the least powerful car I’ve ever driven by a good bit. Took its time getting to highway speeds, but it was perfectly happy up to about 70 MPH. 75 and higher were quite squirrely but that probably had more to do with worn original suspension components than with anything going on in the drivetrain.
I can tell you that with both of my Grand Prix A/G body cars new cargo coil HD springs, shocks and a tire upgrade to P205/70R14 made a huge difference in high speed feel and stability. Cars with the F-41 upgrade that includes the rear sway bar and larger front bar are better yet and the way to go.
Glad the Malibu worked out for you. A ’79 Monte Carlo is the car that made me swear off GM permanently. Haven’t owned, or even driven, a GM car since.
Fun to read ! In 1986 when I turned 16, my grandmother had the Pontiac G body version, a 1984 Bonneville with a 5.0 liter 4 barrel…..and I loved it! That thing could fly, relatively speaking. No handling to speak of, but fast, comfortable and silent…..those were good cars when new.
When the Chevrolet Malibu had a redesigned front end for 1982 in which it carried over unchanged through the 1983 (the last production year of the Malibu Sedan and Wagon since the 2 Door Coupe was discontinued after 1981 and with the exception the El Camino through 1987), it now had taken an pseudo appearance of a foot larger 1975 1/2-76 Chevrolet Nova based Cadillac Seville especially with the Malibu 4 Door Sedan’s 1981 redesign and 1982 grille. Both can almost pass as a “dead ringer” of one another.
Wow! What an interesting comparison here! Yes, they could be confused for each other!
I kinda like the looks of these, like a mini Caprice.
That was the whole point, methinks. Across all 4 brands, the compact, mid-size, and full-size cars were all designed with a similar “sheer” look.
I really enjoyed reading your write-up Chris! These cars always seemed like they were built for non-car people that just wanted decent transportation to get from point A to point B. I somehow feel like they were never appreciated enough. Gladly you gave yours a few more years of renewed life with some paint and extra care.
Your car made me think of one in particular. My Dad had a client that had a brand new 1982 Malibu Classic in the same light blue as yours for his company car. Pretty basic – A/C, stereo, V-6. He had it maybe a week and was traveling north on Route 95 to Maine when a tractor trailer lost control and jack-knifed in front of him. The Malibu struck the side of the truck and was totaled. His client had a bad neck injury but lived through the crash. I remember him showing my Dad and me pictures of the Malibu. The top was sheared right off and it was almost unrecognizable. He swore that car saved his life and got another one when he returned to work!
I never thought about the Caprice possibly being moved to the smaller Malibu platform in the same fashion as the Bonneville did with the LeMans. I think that strong taxi/police sales of the Caprice plus the gas situation turning around allowed the Caprice to remain on the larger platform.
Great article! Just to remind us all, here is a pic of the first “generation” of this G-body Malibu, with a less formal roofline, and windows in the C-pillar that swing out. I read that, the windows in the rear doors did not roll down, for silly reasons of space efficiency. This photo is of a 1979 Malibu Classic from a brochure.
Fixed rear windows is a well-known foible of the GM A-bodies (remember, they weren’t G-bodies until 1982) here on CC. It’s been postulated that it was also part of a scheme to get people to buy air-conditioning.
Actually the 78-81 Malibu was an A Body and only the 82-83 Malibu was a G Body.
I had a 1980 Malibu in puke green.
The reasons for the rear windows not being able to roll down was not due to GM being cheap or trying for more space but the fact that the rear seat was almost exactly over the rear wheels and the latch side of the rear doors was against the wheel well for the rear wheels, thus the rear doors had to be shaped in a manner that would not allow a winder regulator to go in and allow the window to go down.
Bit of a pig on a hot day before a/c was standard. My daughters Toyota Aygo
has hinged rear windows as the doors are to fin to house a window regulator but has a/c.
My first Malibu was a ’79, actually; this ’82 was my second. I still have that first one, though it hasn’t run in ages.
The original:
Front clip reminds me of the downsized B-bodies, but not a fan of that roofline profile. Still, there is an inordinate pleasure in beater-class cars, attractive or otherwise.
The style of the car as a whole works surprisingly well. But you would need to see it in person. GM didn’t do the switch in one MY.
Two tone paint also do wonders, specially in blue as my uncle had it.
Dad had one like this when I was a kid. I remember when we all went to the dealer to pick it up. It was marine blue with blue interior, V6, I think 3.8 and the seats were covered in vynil… which he changed after some months of ownership.
One of the things I remember fondly about these cars is the amount of interior space within a reasonable footprint. The suspension is also comfy, without the floatiness of a B-body. Of course, I hated that the rear windows didn’t go down.
My current VT has more interior space and the footprint is around the same as the Malibu. Suspension calibration is more European-like but still comfortable. I see what the Australians created and can only think of them as the modern equivalents of the cars I grew up into.
When these were new every other 20 year old dreamed of a TA or a Z-28. I wanted a 2-door Malibu with the 9C-1 package, in silver.
Dad and I test drove a 1983 Malibu sedan in brown with the 305 4 BBL, THM 350 transmission, A/C and the optional 50/50 split seats. That was a really nice car at the time and it was on sale at the year end closeout when the 84’s were coming in. The 305 answered my dad’s chief complaint and the A/C answered mine after several years with his Fairmont that was later handed down to me. Alas it wasn’t meant to be as mom put the nails to buying that car because it was still too expensive even on sale. He ended up getting a mint elderly owned light green Cutlass Supreme coupe with the Buick 231 instead a year later with only 40K miles that mom loved and kept right into the 1990’s.
Nice story, thanks for sharing!
Loved both your story, and your car. Yours is one of the cleanest I have ever seen, and I love the jade blue paint. Even your guage cluster was clean, and free of scratches.
I had an 82, with the 229 V6. Carb went out around 33k (original); a couple of P/S pumps, generator or two, and the tranny went out around 72k. My Dad hated the car (it was his before it was mine). The car was extremely scary to drive when acceleration was necessary; the 229 was smooth, quiet, and reasonably efficient…there was no way it was pushing 110hp; accelerated much too slow.
In spite of all of this, the car had incredible front legroom; incredibly comfortable seats, was extremely quiet. After having the front springs done, the car handled very nicely, while the ride was still smooth. Loved the weighting of the steering. Because it had a full frame, it took a beating from NYC potholes. I really miss my car. Had to junk it, after a girl ran into it with her mustang.