(first posted 1/23/2015) What a difference five years makes. In 2010, I found and wrote up an almost identical red Malibu Classic Coupe, and called it a Deadly Sin. Not today. What’s changed? Quite a bit; but for starters, I was homeless once, like this Malibu.
Given the out-of-state plates and last autumn’s leaves piled under it like a soft nest and out of reach of the street sweeper, it was obvious to me as soon as I first saw it the other day that this Malibu is homeless. And all I felt was love. It’s not everyday one sees a sad old Colonnade coupe down on its luck on the streets anymore.
And it’s not just the car, but its owner too.
Not a pretty picture. I tried to get a shot of the “bed” in the back seat, but it didn’t work. Just as well. Let’s just say that a Colonnade coupe, a car that has been endlessly criticized for its poor space utilization and cramped back seat is not the ideal rolling home. But it beats the ditches, abandoned buildings and dirt-floored basements I called home some nights after I left home with a pack on my back and my thumb outstretched. And even the back seat of my VW, which I slept in a few times, in the fetal position, out of necessity.
During the Colonnade’s time, I didn’t exactly think highly of it, given its porkiness and rather atrocious front end design that still looks to me like it was remodeled for a movie role, like the Family Truckster. The Family Coupster. Where was Bill Mitchell when this was approved? Under a drafting room table with one of the secretaries?
This front end came out of the same studios that designed the 1963 Riviera? Or did the grille come from the J.C. Whitney catalog? Give Your Malibu That Prestigious Continental Mark IV Look! OK; the old standard excuse is that these cars were originally designed before the five mile bumper regs took effect. But that’s the best the vaunted GM Design Center could do? Maybe it was just a cynical exercise to whip up consumer backlash to get those regs rolled back. If so, it rather worked; by 1982, it was down to 2.5 mph.
Oops; I’m starting to get negative. Where’s the love? Well, I’d have been happy enough to call a Malibu Classic my home at certain times, regardless of whether it ran or not. Preferably the former, if I could have rustled up some gas money to feed the perpetually hungry 350 V8. Back then, it would have been me or it, come feeding time. Back in the early 70s, finding enough food to keep an eighteen year-old’s metabolism was no joke; today there’s free food everywhere; there’s even a free sit-down dining room for the hungry downtown. Not that I begrudge them in the slightest; nobody should be hungry in this country. But it could be quite hard at times back then; don’t ask how I fed myself sometimes.
So even with cheap gas again, feeding this Malibu may be beyond the capacity of its owner. When I did have cars back in the day, they had to be easy on gas; I could make the 1000 mile run between Iowa and Baltimore for ten bucks in my VW 1200. Well, that 35 cent gas comes out to $1.95 in inflation adjusted dollars; same as today, thanks to this latest plunge in prices. But the Malibu would have taken almost three times as much gas; ten bucks I could scare up, thirty not so easily.
These Malibu coupes lived in the Daliesque-shadow of the Monte Carlo, which outsold it three to one. They had started out in 1973 as a sporty semi-fastback, with a large tapered rear side window. But Broughamification soon made “sporty” a dirty word, and the side window turned into an opera window. For $700 bucks more, a genuine Monte Carlo was way more compelling. And by 1977, the economy was hot again.
Of course the Monte was also at the end of its run, like the Malibu, and both looked mighty tired and from another era compared to the all-new 1977 Chevrolet. Or more like from an era that never happened; the Colonnades were designed for a time where there was no energy crisis. But then, that didn’t hurt them all that badly, because folks just moved down from the ridiculously huge full-sized cars and squeezed into these instead.
The new downsized big Chevy rode on the same 116″ wheelbase as the Colonnades (112″ for Colonnade coupes), and their front and rear tracks are essentially identical. But our experts have confirmed that the frame and chassis aren’t the same, just mighty close. But when it came to what sat on top of it, there was no comparison. The new “big” Chevy was a bit shorter than the Monte Carlo, and almost the same length as the Malibu sedan. Inside it was like moving up from a studio apartment to a townhouse, with real views. Yes, this would make a better home, fixed or mobile.
But this, a Deadly Sin? Hell, it sure beats a cardboard box.
I thought at first it was a scene from a detective show and expected the Malibu to burn rubber followed by Sam Elliott in a sedan and his partner shooting at the bad guys Malibu with a huge handgun
I wish I could wash the brake dust off the front wheels.
Yup. Not the car I would have chosen for a bed. But in the words of a ’70s song, “Love the one you’re with.”
Must admit I hadn’t noticed the awful front end when those cars were new. GM was famous for “factory hot-rods”. Maybe this was meant as a “factory pimpmobile.”
One thing CC has been good for has been helping me sort out my feelings about the Colonnades. Because when they came out, my six-year-old self was all, “Are you KIDDING me, GM? Is THAT the best you can do?”
But as more and more Colonnades appear here — heck, I’ve written about one or two here — my haterage is finally subsiding, my heart is softening, and I’m seeing these cars in the context of their time.
Sure, Chevy totally phoned in the front-end styling in the later years of these. For that matter, the tail-light panel is ultimate generica too. And these are cramped inside. I probably have more room in my first-gen Ford Focus.
But people liked them. And who knows what they could have been, styling-wise, if 5-mph bumpers, Broughamification, and the gas crisis had never happened?
Nice!! Jim, I had the same “GM, is that the best you can do?” reaction the first time I saw the new 2004 Malibu. (In that generation’s defense, I remember our family renting a Malibu Maxx and thinking how all the extra space inside, especially rear legroom, was actually worth the hideous styling).
Between the 1977 pictured and the ’76 I owned, I do like some details of the ’77 slightly better. The homemade / shop-class looking crosshatch grille on my ’76 was the only real sore styling point for me (besides the park-bench bumpers). The vertical slats in the ’77 grille and the squares in the taillights are nice flourishes in what I also consider a slightly generic, but pleasing, design.
“Where was Bill Mitchell when this was approved? Under a drafting room table with one of the secretaries?”
Given his reputation, that is a likely scenario.
Not much room under a drafting table, there’s that big treadle thing so you can adjust the table angle.
Could be embarassing to have the board spring to vertical attention during your soiree..
I spent the night in the back of an 83 Regal once, it was pretty awful so I don’t feel so good about someone who has to do that every night..
Tried sleeping in the front bucket seat of my ’78 Cordoba with no luck when I was much younger. Finally gave up and slept on the hood. Now that I think of it, never even considered the back seat.
If the bucket seats can lie flat or nearly so, it can work. I slept in the front passenger seat of a ’93 Accord once, after a camping trip was ruined by winds so high our tent kept collapsing. After the third collapse, we declared failure and made the short hike back to the car in the dark. The seat did not make a bad bed.
Also I can *almost* stretch out in the back seat of a Panther, and I’m average height (5’10”). So if you have to sleep in a car and aren’t super tall, that’s a good choice.
I’ve twice slept in a car – once in a friend’s ’74 Toyota Corona, and once in my ’74 Cortina. not the most comfortable, but it worked – sorta. Where’s that Nash when you need one?
I was thinking the same thing Dan.
What’s with the photo-shopped 1977 Impala “hardtop”? I like it…
As for the Chevelle, I thought seriously about buying one before I got married in September of that year. My 1976 ¾ ton Custom Deluxe C-20 was eating me alive in gas, so I went to a nearby Chevy dealer and checked out the cheapest Chevelle on the lot. I came across a 300 coupe – a tan stripper model. The grind marks above the (ugh) fixed rear glass underlined just how bad the workmanship appeared to be, so I hopped back in my truck and slowly sped off.
That fall, I sold the truck and bought the Gremlin. That was a fun car, the story of which I have told more than once.
Sharp eye, and even without the trick, the Impala was a breeze of fresh air. I thought the rear glass was beyond cool…Overnight, they were everywhere. It was hot in the back in Florida, but as kids we did not mind. It was fun to lay on the hat rack and stare at the sky.
Their handling was pretty decent, and their ride was still smooth. The 350 4BBL actually had some giddy-up for losing a couple of Sumo wrestlers in mass. Took driver’s ed in a four door police decomissioned sedan with nearly 200k miles, running good.
Mr. Neil was infinitely calm, funny and patient- a fine driver’s ed teacher. It took me years later to understand why his ever present coffee thermos smelled like the juniper bush in the yard…I had my first martini.
Wow, deep piece- personally I feel homelessness is the most shameful social problem of our splendidly wealthy country. I had such a phase, I’ll leave it at that; but, it is easy to forget that a roof and bed and three squares a day are blessings. I do what I can to help with my extra time and money.
This would be so verboten here in Florida, where some LEO’s seem to enjoy harrasing such unfortunates. Off to impound! I respect the tolerance of this region.
On a lighter note, the Lady and I are going to St. Pete’s Dali museum tomorrow- it never occurred to me that the Monte Carlo does look like his mischief…
“They new downsized bid Chevy rode on the same 116 wheelbase (112″ coupes), and their front and rear tracks are identical. But our experts have confirmed that the frame and chassis isn’t totally the same, just mighty close.”
I am assuming this was a minor typo above about the wheelbases. The 1977 Chevy B-body rode on a 116″ wheelbase only, it was the Chevelle that used the 112″ for the coupe, 116″ for 4-doors, wagons and El Camino. Further the front and rear tracks aren’t identical. They are very close though:
1977 Impala
Front: 61.8″
Rear: 60.8″
1977 Chevelle
Front: 61.5″
Rear: 60.7″
Back to the frames, the only thing in common is the overall design, perimeter, with boxed front and rear sections, and the same suspension types. The overall execution is quite different. The Chevelle frame has a rear cross member, the B-Body does not. The Chevelle has 7 body mounts per side, the B-Body 8 per side. The front frame is shaped differently, the side rails are very different in shape as are the rear rails. Lets just say, a frame swap between the two cars wouldn’t be a bolt on affair.
Here is a 1974-77 Colonnade Frame:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/74-75-76-77-Malibu-Cutlass-Lemans-Nice-Solid-Frame-/290493663652
Here is a 1977 Impala Frame:
http://badass-of-ne.forumotion.com/t3742-1977-impala-project-car
I will say that I do agree with your assessment that the stacked light front end on the 1976-77 Malibu was not a great design overall. However, I do think that the rest of the body lines on these Chevelles (2 doors) were very clean and well done for a car of this era. My father’s 1976 Malibu Classic 2-door, now owned by my brother, also proved to be one the most dependable cars in our family. Since 1997, the only part that has failed has been an alternator.. Other than that the car has only required regular maintenance.
Bill, you are “our experts” that I referred to in the article. You have previously clarified the differences, and that was important information.
FWIW, the source that I have give the exact same track for both the ’77 Malibu and ’77 Caprice (61.5″/60.7″). When track numbers are so close, it may have to do with minor differences like different wheel widths/offsets, or? But it would seem that the tracks are essentially identical, and that the rear axle is most likely the exact same one in both.
The rear axles are the same on the 350 cars, as we used to swap Colonnade rear ends into B bodies all the time. Brakes and all suspension parts are also the same, as are the alignment specs.
Suspension parts are not the same. In fact the Colonnades share many of the front end components with The 70’s F-bodies, but not the later B-bodies (according to the Hollander). They were close in design, but I doubt the geometry would have been identical. Alignment specs I have from the factory are also different.
Here is some info on the front end parts that interchange:
Upper Arms:
http://www.leverfamilysite.com/F_Body_Two_types_of_Uppers.htm
Lower Arms:
http://www.leverfamilysite.com/F_Body_Two_Types_of%20Lower.htm
Also AC/Delco makes a replacement arm for the 1977+ B-bodies. They are listed to only work with the B-body cars, not the older Colonnades (check RockAuto).
I think Chevy did a better job with this than Ford at the time – the Torino’s and LTD II’s with stacked lights weren’t nearly as handsome in my mind
Paul,
I was only pointing out the chassis differences again because I know this always comes up with other posters that they are the same. It’s a bit of a pet peeve. I have owned both and when you’re under the cars they are clearly different chassis. I figured those pictures would clearly show even to the casual observer they are different. I wasn’t being critical of your article, it was a good read.
As for the track specs, those came from original GM engineering specs that I have. They are probably the most accurate. You made a good point on the wheels, but both came listed with 15×6″ wheels with 0.50 offset in the same document. The rear axles are virtually identical in width, only 0.1″ difference. However, starting in 1977, B-bodies started using the smaller weaker 7.5″ rear end (larger engines and wagons got 8.5″), while the Chevelles used 8.5″ rear axles exclusively.
Again, I wasn’t trying to be critical, just trying to share information. I enjoyed your article, especially since you were easier on these Chevelles this time.
I understand, and very much appreciate all the insight and knowledge you have brought here over the years in your comments. The whole point of CC (for me anyway) is to use it as a tool to learn, and commenters like you, who inevitably bring objective facts to the process,are always appreciated.
In fact, a major point of this article, and the first line ‘What a difference five years makes” is in recognition of that fact. I’ve never pretended to know all that much, and the amount I’ve learned the past five years has been staggering.
Thanks for being part of my on-going education! 🙂
Thanks for the kind words. Although I know I don’t always agree with your opinions, I always appreciate reading things from a different perspective. Further, I really enjoy your site and the articles. I sometimes may get a bit passionate (you know I have a thing for Torinos), but I too come hear to learn and discuss all things cars.
These cars are the bottom of the list if I am ranking the Colonade coupes. It’s unfortunate that GM insisted on styling Chevrolets of all sizes as THE blandest car possible and these Malibus took bland to new lows.
In certain colors, the darker or brighter hues, they almost look appealing. This car in white, with a red full length vinyl roof could be a looker…or even white (or this red) without the vinyl roof would look okay.
Well, since Chevy is the cheapest brand, it gets the most bland styling and interior. It’s still the same, too.
But they used to look good, a few decades back. And with so much more competition now, who’s gonna buy bland?
After three years of owning a very unreliable Fiat, I turned 180 degrees and bought myself a piece of American iron – this 1976 Buick Century Colonnade coupe. Aside from the usual wear-and-tear items, it gave me 190,000 miles of trouble-free service until it was hit broadside by a truck. Aside from the super-size bumpers, it’s a handsome car in my opinion.
And here is the nose of my old 1976 Buick Century Colonnade coupe. Requisite rectangular headlights. No fake Rolls Royce grill.
These (the Colonades) were bearable with the duraplast front ends on the Pontiac Grand Am and the Chevy Laguna, but not otherwise. However, if you can stomach the looks, they seem to offer a cheap entry into Americana anywhere from NY to Tel Aviv. And if one has no emissions inspections or rules against modification, they can be modified to do anything a “real” muscle car can do.
Bring the bumpers closer to the body and lose all the heavy machinery behind them for a start. That’s just got to be worth an mpg or two!
Although I am quite resistant to Disco Era styling, I don’t find the front end of the Malibu any more ostentatious or offensive or tacky than anything else about the car or from this era. It does look vaguely like a decaffeinated Monte Carlo, but I’ve seen worse.
used to hate this body, now it looks pretty good.
They might look odd to many younger viewers who are used to today’s short stubby front and rear deck lids and the little opera windows are unlike anything today but I find the styling representative of the era and a bit less baroque and over done like the Monte or most any of the weird Asian offerings from the 70’s. IMO the 1973 Chevelle looked best with it’s circular taillights and front end treatment.
I agree with the latter point as well. The Monte Carlo also was clearly designed for circular headlights and really didn’t look right with the stacked rectangular quads.
I’m going to be the dissenting voice here on the Monte Carlo. To me, with the circular lamps, it had something of a “perpetually surprised” look to it. I think the stacked quads actually worked better. On the Malibu, not so much.
The Monte with round lamps looked weird – yeah, maybe surprised; I’ll buy that. The Monte with stacked rectangles would have looked generic, except for the clumsy three-slot grille. Would Harley Earl ever have settled for “distinctive but not pretty?”
Oh, and which was the one with a diamond-shaped mesh in the grille? Was that a Malibu Classic? Made me think of a chain-link fence.
that was the 76 Malibu Classic grill.
i like that grill over the 77’s plain verticle lines.
I’m happy to see some more charitable tone for this generation A body this morning. What gets lost so often is that these could be good handling cars for their time, were quite popular, were generally the most reliable of the American offerings in this category and in the early going were even more reliable than most foreign offerings. And, most certainly offered more competent highway cruising ability, automatics, air conditioning, stereo systems and options that simply weren’t available on foreign makes.
And, while this chassis is not a direct transfer to the ’77 B body, its basic design concept and many components were transferred to the ’77 B and that chassis was worthy of production for another 20 years.
Not all was perfection, one of my gripes was the way Chevy just gave up on any pretense on design for the nose and tail of this car. The nose has an almost Ford worthy park bench bumper and shows little imagination. The rear of these became a mess of seams and parts that usually showed poor alignment, and in the case of this ’75 I’m posting, they must have put $0.02 into the Chevy badge that was always glued on crooked. The Monte and other divisional offerings were usually much better in this respect. This picture actually looks better than average, it was likely repainted and reassembled with more care than the factory did.
What was really the point of the Malibu Classic Coupe? Between this car and the Monte Carlo, there couldn’t have been much space for a different demographic? It’s basically the same car? I can understand the need for basic transportation, like the Malibu sedan and coupe. But an upscale Malibu coupe slotted underneath the Monte? I don’t get it…
It’s like the case of the Escalade stealing GMC:s thunder. What was the point of the Yukon between the Tahoe and the Escalade?
My analogy for why GM typically built several designs of the same basic car is the drinking glass. If you didn’t like the style or price of one A body, you had 5 more basic models to look at before going outside to look at the offerings at Ford, Chrysler and AMC.
Kind of like the way Libbey makes drinking glasses in several styles. All of their glasses hold beverages competently, but if you don’t like the style of one, you have more options before going to the competition.
As per my comment above, the Malibu tended to show a lot of penny pinching and was built to a price point – which was perfect for some buyers. Folks wanting a little more quality and style flocked to the Monte Carlo, Grand Prix and Cutlass during these years.
The business model worked very well for GM, even their slow sellers were generally excellent sellers compared to any other car company, and GM made a ton of money.
That and $700 more for the Monte was still a piece of change, for the times. That’s $2700 in today’s money; not insignificant for some folks, especially since these were very popular with working class folks.
There was no way Chevy was not going to make a Malibu coupe; too much tradition. And they still sold over 140k of the coupes alone; hardly an insignificant number.
On the other hand, the US is a pretty big market. There’s always room for differentation. I didn’t mean the sales were insignificant, I just meant that sometimes, I just don’t understand the American market. As a foreigner, keeping track on the entire market, economy, demographic, and “sense of the times” can be very hard and very difficult to understand. Or rather, get a sense of the “whole” of it all. For somebody that has not grown up with it, it’s simply a world we will not fully understand. And questions like these are just a gap in my understanding of American car culture.
I can see the need for market differentiation, but there’s also the question of brand dilution and brand cachet. I get that the Monte Carlo could be seen as something like todays “near luxury” premiums. A notch above the mainstream, but not fully up with the real premiums. It’s the question we have discussed many times before on the difference between “real” and “perceived” luxury.
And the Monte Carlo could be seen as “perceived” luxury real enough for it to be attainable to the blue collar crowd. And that’s what its main selling point was, an affordable “aspiring” choice of car. The point is, with the Malibu Classic slotted underneath, it would dilute that sense of perceived luxury. Or at least it would to me, standing outside of all of this. It’s a question of suspension of disbelief, where the Malibu Classic simply shows the Emperor Monte Carlo standing there with its naked Malibu undergarments revealed. To me, it would just be a reminder that the Monte simply wasn’t that special.
Things really haven’t changed. The Toyota Echo and Yaris get little love and aren’t very good cars, but that doesn’t stop people from paying $80,000 to $100,000 USD for Toyota Land Cruisers.
Mercedes is moving progressively down market in the U.S. with new and proposed A and B segment cars.
Or it could be seen a simply a matter of style. We’ve had discussions here before of folks who bought an Oldsmobile or a Buick C-body because a Cadillac seemed too ostentatious, but they wanted similar size, presence, and options. It could be the same way with this pair. Granted, the colonnade Malibu was kind of “phoned in” by this point, but it’s more instructive if you look at the downsized ’78 models. The Monte Carlo and the Malibu were identical under the skin, the engine choices were the same, and I have to imagine the driving experience would have been no different. But the Monte was the exhibitionist of the pair–swoopy “look at me” styling, with the voluptuous swell of those fenders, available T-tops, the car for those who want to be seen. The Malibu coupe, on the other hand, wore its crisply creased sheetmetal like a well-tailored suit. Some people preferred that look, and some wanted to stand out. Chevy had both bases covered.
All good points. And GM has always tried to be everything for everybody. And I’m not saying that with irony, though sometimes it’s for good and sometimes it’s for bad. But thanks for extending this discussion. It’s a very interesting topic.
It was a lot, but I suspect the Monte was a classic example of cars being sold on the monthly payment rather than the list price — an extra $20 or so (~$80ish today) a month for flashier styling. Not an inconsequential expense for a blue-collar buyer, but something one could talk one’s self into (or be “upsold”).
Besides the points about style, the Malibu was shorter than the Monte Carlo, while offering basically the same interior space. As mentioned above, it had the 112″ wheelbase rather than the Monte’s 116″, which presumably helped it turn and maneuver a little better.
Didn`t I see this car on “Hoarders”?
I was never a big fan of the Chevelle’s of this era but I really like red cars with a white top a lot, I agree that the Colonnade era Chevelle’s/Malibu’s looked at its best in 1973 with the rear dual taillights and a more aggressive front end, I didn’t think the stacked headlights looked right on this car yet thought they’ve improved greatly on the Monte Carlo.
I have always thought these last colonnade Malibus were nice looking. I was 13 in 1977 and remember quite a lot of these on the roads. I also remember when the downsized B bodies came out and how popular they were. They were shorter and narrower than their predecessors, but quite tall compared to almost any other car the road at the time, this is how GM managed to keep them feeling quite spacious inside because instead of slumping, you sat upright on chair-height seats. A clever idea that was at least 20 years ahead of its time. Now, most vehicles are quite tall.
I like the quad headlights on this Malibu, it’s no worse in deign than any other car with stacked quads at the time.
“A clever idea that was at least 20 years ahead of its time. Now, most vehicles are quite tall.”
Or revisiting 20 years earlier design of substance over style (the longer, lower and wider mantra that kicked off in earnest at Chrysler and Ford in 1957). There are good discussions on this site that the ’77 B brought back many of the proportions of the 1955-1957 Chevrolet.
Whomever owns that car is *very* lucky the street sweeper didn’t clip it as it passed…=8-) .
I too hated these when new but they were cheap and sturdy , easy and cheap to modify so many Americans loved them .
If you think this had a small back seat , in 1972 I slept in my ’55 VW Beetle a few times , it’s tricky to say the least and easier if I left the passenger window open and stuck my legs out (I was 6’1″ back then) .
I also agree that hunger is not right in America , we throw away so much food , I never leave anything on my plate after growing op cold wet and hungry .
Hopefully they’ll get a job and this car will go on to an Owner who’ll take good care of it – it appears to be quite solid .
More of to – day’s kids should hit the road and try life on their own , it teaches valuable life lessons if you survive .
I’m loving that ’77 Hard Top and would buy it in a heartbeat (get it ?) .
-Nate
Did that too a few times, and I’m 6’4″. It took a bit of unfolding and stretching in the morning to get back to full height 🙂
Every time I see one of these old Chevelles it brings back memories of the dark days of 70’s automobiles. Which is not very often, but there are a few of them still out there.
Paul your comment on the five mile bumper regs remind me of how poorly not only GM but Ford designed their bumpers for these regs. Chrysler on the other hand, did a great job of integrating into the design of the car during the same time period
All I can say is that I wish I had a Malibu like that instead of the POS ’01 I have to herd around. I would not be in such a hurry to get rid of it. In fact, I might never get rid of it. That car is old enough to be kept going forever. Small Block Chevys and THM 350 transmissions are a dime a dozen. No electronics to fail, and it would never rust here. Some nice 15×8 rally wheels, RWL tires, and a custom exhaust with glasspacks, and that car would be a whole lot of fun to drive.
+1….and you wouldn’t have to pay $15k for it to start like you would for a 72 or back….
The only way I would have got that close to that car was with a HAZMAT suit on.
“The only way I would have got that close to that car was with a HAZMAT suit on.”
THIS ~ until you’ve worked in a Junk Yard you don’t understand how nasty & filthy some people choose to be .
I’ve never allowed my self to get stinky filthy , when I used to cross the U.S.A. in a raggedy Beetle when gas was .32 CENTS the gallon , I’d take my daily bath in the tiny corner sink in a Gas Station rest room and leave it cleaner than when I arrived 1/2 the time…
Being poor/broke/down on your luck is NO EXCUSE for being unclean .
-Nate
Nate- you are so right every person should have “hit the road” once in their lives. We would be much more copmassionate. H…, just working at a junk yard has serious creed with me. Real work.
And Paul, that was bold of you to even admit to the world you were homeless. Such an experience can turn a soul towards enlightment. You will always bless that roof over your head and bed on your back. I’m puzzled that more readers have not picked up on this.
Shalom to both of you.
Gas was .32 cents? So it cost a penny for 3 gallons of gas? 😛
I jest, I jest.
=8-) .
-Nate
I agree with most of the sentiments here…yet here’s a thought: Im about 90% sure these are the same basic thing as the Colonnade Chevelles, right? So the ‘shovel nosed’ Lagunas came out years prior. With the rubberized nosecones (much like the contemporary F bodies) those seem like they would have come after these with the wonky stacked square headlites, fireplace grate for a grille and chromed girder bumpers. What a step backwards….
The shovel nose Laguna debuted in 1975 and ended in 76, the flat nose Laguna was 73-74.
They are 99% identical to a Malibu Classic save for the nose, and badging, along with using the base Malibu rear tail panel that lacked the chrome taillight surrounds that the Classics used.
It’s just a trim line, nothing more, nothing less when you get down to it. you could option up a wagon to Laguna specs and not get the rubber nose.
Personally I prefer the 73 Laguna nose over the rest of the line.
Better than sleeping in the back of my old 66 Beetle, as Paul and Nate and others have experienced. My 73 Sport Bug had fully reclining Recaro like seats, 2 of us slept in it and that was a lot better than the back seat. I once drove my 70 C10 back from Denver to LA on $50.00 in 1977. I started out with a full tank, slept in the cab with a sleeping bag, ate once at McDonald’s in 2 days. Kept it at 55, followed big rigs closely to block the wind, and turned off the engine going downhill whenever I could. Not having power steering or brakes and having a manual trans made coasting a lot safer since it drove the same engine on or off. I ran out of gas 12 miles from home at 2:30am in the pouring rain, had a dime for a phone call and was luckily near a phone when it ran out. A friend brought a gallon of gas, and I made it home. Don’t ever want to go through that again!
“What was really the point of the Malibu Classic Coupe?”
And many agreed, since the Malibu coupes were dropped for 1982, leaving only the MC. By then, plain two doors were nearly gone, with the ‘personal lux’ bodies being the only coupes.
The FWD Celebrity/Lumina 2 doors didn’t sell well, for example, but the 1995 Monte did, for a short time. Til even Camaro was dropped, [to come back, yes]
As I’ve posted here many times before, my first car was the 1974 version of this, in Medium Metallic Green, with a black half-vinyl roof and green interior. It was a hand-me-down; Pop bought it brand new in ’74 for $4k out the door vs. a sticker price of ~$4200.
I slept in the back once. ONCE. Needless to say, my next car was a station wagon!.
I’ve always liked these Chevy Colonnades. My first car purchase was a 1976 Malibu Classic, fall 1991. It had a 350 2bbl., bench seats in Buckskin Tan, and a column shifter. It was slow and thirsty, but smooth, quiet and comfortable. It was Bondo’d six ways from Sunday, and had Dodge Diplomat hubcaps, but I was thrilled with my purchase – $1,500 in teenage money. And as is the point of Paul’s post, the rear seat was really tight for a car this large.
I had never driven a car this “old” up until I bought my ’76 Malibu Classic, but I remember several things about operation with fondness:
* The controls. I loved the floor mounted high-beam switch, the knobs for wipers and radio, the column-shift for the Turbo Hydramatic, and the rear seat release latch;
* The heater wasted no time in the Michigan winter;
* The feel (and 70’s GM smell) of that nobby, fabric interior.
My mom liked driving it so much, for a brief time she used my car (and not our tinny ’88 Nova) to run errands, remarking how smooth and easy to drive it was. She hung up the spare keys when she realized how quickly the gas gauge went from F to E.
I sold the car when my parents announced we were moving to Florida, with the hope of finding a rust-free southern car.
The comfy interior felt like the den of your best friend’s parents’ family room which hadn’t been remodeled since 1978.
SO funny to read about these old 70’s GM cars as I grew up around a huge family that owned so many different versions of them. My Uncle Joe had a 1977 Malibu Classic Coupe that he bought brand new. It was white with a white vinyl top and tan vinyl bench seat. He said he wanted a Monte Carlo but there was a big price difference so he bought the Malibu instead. I distinctly remember him saying it was like getting the air conditioning for free! He bragged how his dashboard and interior was basically the same as the Monte Carlo for so much less money. He had that car for 10 years and traded it for a 1987 Delta 88 Royale Brougham Coupe that was basically a stripper with a/c, stereo, tilt wheel and power door locks. He special ordered it and waited for weeks until it arrived, and sadly he died shortly after he got it.
This takes me back. In 1977, my dad’s company issued him a two door, metallic orange and tan vinyl top Malibu Classic “Landau” to conduct his sales calls throughout California’s Central Valley. Next to his usual drive, a 1973 brown and white vinyl top Oldsmobile Toronado, I remember the awkwardness watching my dad drive off in a car whose dimensions and egregious interior space utilization had seriously cramped his salesman’s persona. But I liked the Malibu, and remember particular details well–like the feel of the soft, deep foam seats, that new car smell, the surprisingly smooth ride, and my fascination (as with his Oldsmobile) with the driver’s side windshield wiper arm action as the arc of the wiper blade extended out to the A-pillar.
One morning as I left the house for school and dad drove off to his appointed rounds, I noticed something had caught under the Malibu, flopping faster and faster as the car gained speed. By the time he was well into his travels, the plastic sheeting that had hooked underneath had somehow wound its way into the transmission and destroyed it. After that, he was given a completely stripped and utterly forgettable 1978 Ford LTD sedan, complete with blackwall tires. But he kept the Toronado, which eventually became my daily driver.
I’ve spent a lot of time prowling around in junkyards, looking for parts for vintage cars. And I’ve found some real messes.
I find the discussion about the headlights interesting. I am not a fan of the stacked headlights, but that does not stop me from liking the entire generation of Chevelle coupes, from ’73-’77. These were solid cars, with body on frame construction. I preferred the first roof style to this one, but like them both. I also love the El Camino from ’78-’87. So many wonderful cars. Every single one of them gone now.
I can’t help but wonder what happened to our culture that made people not care about their cars anymore. They no longer care what they look like, the winner is the one with the most electronic gadgets and safety features. Style is a thing of the past, and it looks as if it is going to stay there. Most of the car owners and lookers at our local Saturday night car show Scottsdale Pavilions) are my age or older. And even most of them are carrying smart phones.
“Every single one” of those cars is not gone. This very website proves that.
What happened was people developed different interests and the cars got reliable enough that they didn’t require the constant wrenching it takes to make a gearhead. You imply that that’s a bad thing. A hobby won’t get any younger if all the young blood feels alienated and unappreciated by the old guard.
Yesterday’s cars had just as high a percentage of electronic gadgets and safety features as today’s are: as many as were available. If the Internet was around “back then,” it would’ve been in a car.
Style is completely subjective. Just as many ugly cars are made today as in 1975.
And what’s wrong with smartphones?
Of the ones that were made back then, some are still around. I own a couple. I meant no more were likely to ever be made. I’m not just talking about ’70s cars, I mean cars that were built from the Model T well into the ’80s. Not all these were great cars, and everybody had their opinions. Many were poorly built, but had beautiful styling. I’ll use the mid ’80s Monte Carlo as an example of one of the last non sports/muscle cars that I thought was really cool.
Today, most of the private vehicles on the road are small FWD four door sedans, 4 door pickups, and 4 door SUVs. Anything else is considered a “specialty” car, that ranges from the 700hp Challenger to the VW Beetle.
For almost 8 decades well styled coupes ruled the road. This ’77 Malibu is a good example of a “common” car from the ’70s. It definitely has style, whether you love it or hate it. It is instantly recognizable by any car enthusiast. Today, even I can’t tell cars apart, and I have no interest in any of the “ordinary” cars being made today. Nobody else seems to either, beyond putting huge rims on them. They do not turn up at car shows. Last time I went to the local car show, there were several examples of the new Corvette, and quite a few Italian cars. There were a couple of mid ’80s SS Monte Carlos, but no regular ones.
Interest in cars as a hobby was not a fad, it has existed for almost as long as cars have been around, and is only now starting to disappear. Some young people are still interested in vintage cars, most of them still drive newer cars and don’t actually own an older car. I don’t see any of today’s ordinary cars ever turning up at any car show. In fact I thing car shows will eventually start to disappear. I certainly hope not, but it is beginning to look that way.
As far as smartphones, IMO there is plenty wrong with them, and the whole concept. But this is a car forum, not the appropriate place to discuss that.
Paul,
Were you homeless because you were off on a youthful adventure or was it because you did not have a choice in the matter?
– Colonade coupes, had a 1976 Buick Century shovel nose, Regal formal roof. Hated it. Last car I purchased new.
– Bumpers on that Chevelle look like they were sourced from Checker.
-Sleeping in cars – done it many times but not recently . In my youth I had a 1965 VW Type 3 wagon. If I folded the rear seat there was enough room for me and a companion to strech out. Off course back then I was more resilient and limber.
I left home when I turned 18 for several reasons. It took me a little while to figure out how to make that work.
GM stuck with the collonnade look for far too long. They were a success in 73, by 77 they looked aged and tired. I drove a 77 Malibu as a company car – it had a 250 CID 6 banger in it and it was a total disaster. We all called it the company slug. At my previous company I had a 75 le mans with a 350 in it to drive, so I knew the difference between acceleration and I just can’t do this. Thankfully the collonnades rusted out to put us out of their misery.
That ’79 Caprice hardtop looks nice. Too bad it never existed…
Or maybe under a drafting room table by himself, sucking his thumb and rocking back and forth and muttering “no ouch…bad touch…no ouch…bad touch”.
Absent the 350 badge above the side turn signal indicators, I believe this has a 250 C.I.D. six in it. That places it firmly in the “slug” category.
For whatever reason (probably the looming discontinuation of big engines), displacement callouts disappeared from American cars around 1975. Looking online using Google image search or online brochures, it appears 1974 was the last year Chevelles had those badges.
they did away with the engine callouts after 74. it could have a 250, but more than likely a 305.
My dad came home with one of these in the late eighties. A friend of the family (and my “uncle” of sorts) was a used-car salesman named “Dick” who convinced my dad to pay $800 for a ’77 Malibu Classic.
My mom showed me her new car and took me for a spin. The interior and exterior were a tan color, and the car was exceedingly comfortable compared to the Rabbit Diesel our family had been subjected to for years.
I wondered why the back end was designed so sleekly and aerodynamically, while the front end stood bolt upright. Even stylistically, this didn’t make sense to me as it made the design uneven.
Around this time, I learned how to drive. My sister counseled me to view the road between the driver’s edge of the hood and the hood ornament to ensure that I was correctly centered. The car was quite powerful, and others that drove the vehicle agreed. (“This car really goes!” a driver remarked). It must have had the torquey 350.
Of course, gas mileage became an issue for our family. My mother worked 30 minutes away, and the daily gas bill represented a good chunk of her minimum-wage earnings.
Dick, who had by now dubbed the car “the Big Pig”, later kidded to my dad “You paid $800 for that?” a jab my father was NOT impressed with, as he felt he had overpaid to help him out with his used car business.