(first posted 6/19/2015) In the long, strange and sometime tortured evolution of the classic large American sedan since WWII, there are exactly two moments when that species really hit the mark: The 1955 and 1977 Chevrolets. Everything else was fun to look at, fantasize about, ridicule, look back on with rose-colored glasses, or endlessly debate about. Yes, the fins of the late fifties were amusing, as was the build quality. And the endless bloat of the late sixties through the mid seventies may have generated some memorable childhood impressions, but unchecked cancer isn’t exactly a sustainable model upon which to base the family sedan. Just as the whole segment was about to metastasize into utter irrelevance, GM gulped the chemo, and built the finest and final expression of the genre.
The problem with peaks is that they inevitably require valleys. We’ve given the ’55 Chevy our accolades here, but lets just say that it was the final expression of the immediate post-war ideal; a delayed fulfillment of GM’s 1939 Futurama. A modern, powerful and stylish car, yes; but still practical, comfortable, and efficient. Unfortunately, that ideal soon got replaced with this:
The industry’s mid -fifties fascination with ever-more flamboyant and less practical modes of transportation soon overtook any serious consideration of what a mere sedan entails. And it was that preoccupation/ADD that largely contributed to the domestic industry’s downfall and near-demise. While the Europeans (and later the Japanese) took the matter of developing family sedans seriously, the Americans simply got lost, or caught in Sputnik fever. The results speak for themselves.
The 1955 Chevy sat six in comfort on its tall sofas, and had lively performance from its all-new small-block V8, despite it having only 162 (gross) hp. Tipping the scales at just over 3100 lbs, fuel economy was very decent, given the technology of the times. Its size and weight lent the ’55s a high degree of handling and maneuverability, and its build quality was excellent. By 1959, that was all a distant memory. And by the early seventies, the big Chevies weighed over 4500 lbs, with fuel economy in the low teens. The price for a bit more hip and shoulder room was…huge.
In 1973-1974, the Obese Three got caught in a nasty trap of their own making. The energy crisis made the big barges more irrelevant than they were already on their way to becoming. Even the “intermediates” had swollen to well over 4000 lbs. and relied on big blocks to motivate them, and the compacts no longer were that. The cancer had metastasized, and was now deadly. The problem was in affording the cure.
Only GM had the resources to initiate a drastic downsizing across the board, involving essentially every vehicle in their vast lineup. It was to be the most ambitious undertaking and restructuring in the automobile industry since Henry Ford idled all his factories for months to retool them for the Model A. More specifically, GM’s downsizing of the 1977-1980 eras was the single largest industrial investment since WW2. GM was about to reinvent itself, starting with its big cars.
The result was nothing less than shocking, if you were around in the fall of 1976. The new Chevrolet, and all the other GM B-Bodies, were the biggest single model year change since the crazy ’58-’59 one-two punch. Its wheelbase lost half a foot, and overall length was down almost a full foot. The tightly chiseled new body also lost 4″ in width, and actually gained 3″ in height; heresy! The literal decline of the American sedan over.
But not at the expense of interior room: unlike any American big sedan for decades, the new B-Bodies were designed from the inside out; what a revelation! Interior dimensions equaled or exceeded those of its bloated predecessors, and the seating position was now distinctly more upright.
Starting with a seating buck doesn’t mean that the exterior has to be homely. GM rediscovered that it was possible to make a shorter and taller sedan beautiful, inspired by no small part by the big Opel sedans that arrived in Europe eight years earlier, back in 1969. And of course, there was the Seville, which preceded the Caprice by two years. GM was adopting wholesale a new styling language that started with the Opel in ’69, and made last into the early nineties.
The new 116″ wheelbase was almost exactly the same as the ’55, and weight was also down by almost a thousand pounds from the ’76s, to as little as 3500 lbs. Sitting on a well-proven and revised perimeter frame and suspension evolved from (not the same as) the Colonnade cars, the new Chevy felt remarkably handy as well as competent, especially if optioned properly.
I’ve mentioned him before, but one of our engineers at the tv station at the time was an ultra-GM nerd, and he used the fleet arrangement we’d set up to buy lots of carefully-optioned GM cars for the station, employees and friends. One of the most memorable was the ’77 Caprice.
He was desperate to put one of them together from the brochure, and talked one of his well-heeled buddies into letting him order one up. We pored over the option book, and the result was pretty impressive: a white sedan (no vinyl roof) with the 170 hp four-barrel 350, and every HD option number that could be checked off, including of course the F41 suspension package.
When it arrived, we test drove it extensively before delivering it to its happy new owner. For the times, that F-41 Caprice was simply amazing; a mega-jump forward from the flaccid lumbering barges Chevy was selling the year before, and everyone else was still peddling. For the first time in ages, GM gave me a ray of hope about its capabilities and its future.
And it wasn’t just us: the buff-books raved about the F-41 equipped big Chevies, and not just because GM had slipped them a ringer or a dose of GM Kool-Aid. During the B-Bodies’ long reign until 1990, an F-41 suspended big Chevy was simply the best handling big domestic sedan there was in the land.
When Ford finally cranked out its new downsized LTD in 1979, it was all-too obviously a poor imitation of the handsome Caprice. The Ford had an even shorter 114″ wb, which hurt its proportions, and it rode on tiny little wheels and tires, all-too often adorned with the cheapest and tinniest fake wire wheel covers this side of the Pep Boys. To un-discerning eyes, the Ford may have been just the helping of mashed potatoes and gravy its Midwest buyers were looking for, but for someone cross-shopping (at least mentally) European sedans in LA in 1979, the Ford just came off as half-baked. (We did a detailed analysis of the two here.)
As were its dynamic qualities: the Panther’s suspension hadn’t been given the police car treatment yet; the 302 of the times was totally anemic, and Ford’s AOD transmission was a jerky-herky affair. Truth is, I wasn’t the only one; the buyers recognized it too. Ford’ new downsized LTD got off to a slow start in the sales stats.
The new B-Bodies propelled GM to a final huge upsurge in market share and sales, culminating in that grand blowout year of 1978: 9.66 million cars sold, and a 46% US market share. Heady times. And it was coming right out of Ford and Chrysler’s hide, pushing both of them into the verge of bankruptcy. GM’s bold and expensive gamble paid off, for the time being. Too bad it couldn’t maintain its momentum.
The downsized intermediate RWD A/G Bodies that arrived just one year after the full-size sedans was never quite as all-round competent, and plagued with GM’s ever-tightening purse: non-opening rear windows, self-destructing downsized transmissions, etc. The early B-Body was the high water mark, sadly it was all pretty much was downhill from there. It seems that GM was simply stretched too far in its massive program, and the subsequent cars all showed it; the X-Bodies most of all.
Did the B-Body have its flaws? Undoubtedly, and like all GM cars, generally the result of some cheap components or inconsistent assembly quality. Well, the interior wasn’t exactly much to look at either, if one had become spoiled by European standards. Whatever; those were the times when GM could still wow the Europeans with a good exterior styling job, but just don’t even open the door. It least it was comfortable and roomy.
For you young-uns who can only see (or imagine) a sea of yellow CVs as NY taxi cabs, it was once a very different story. The B’s utterly dominated the taxi and police market in their day, for plenty of good reasons. The Panthers only were embraced wholesale after GM pulled the plug on the B’s; well, or morphed into the that Moby Dickmobile, the 1991 Caprice. GM totally lost (shocked) me with that. But the fleets were not happy: GM could still be building the ’77-’90 version today, as it frankly should be, like the Tokyo cabs Toyota still builds in Japan.
Why not? GM could’a/should’a have kept the 77-90 Caprice in production, and owned the fleet business all of these past thirty years, like Toyota’s Crown Comforts in Japan. Just imagine ordering up one of them now with the latest in GM V8 power under the hood.
It wasn’t to be, and perhaps just as well. 1977 was a long time ago, but for those of us who were there, it was a pivotal year in the evolution of the classic American sedan.
(originally published in 2010 at TTAC)
Related:
CC 1955 Chevrolet: GM’s Greatest Hit – The iCar
The 77 Chevy’s were stunning cars, probably the best looking of all the GM B and C bodys. They were everywhere, and mostly in Caprice Classic trim. The redesign of 1980 didn’t come out looking as sharp as the 77 version.
I always found it interesting how all the GM wagons from 77 on share the Chevy body, and just changed the front fenders /hood / grilles to make them look more like their sedan counterparts. Just park a 77 LeSabre sedan face to face with a 77 Estate Wagon and you will see that the body’s are totally different. The designers actually tried to hide the fact that the Estate Wagon used the Chevy doors by using this metal filler panel under the outside rearview mirrors that hid the body line so it would match up with the design of the front fenders. This little filler panel is clearly noticeable on the passangers side door if the rear view mirror wasn’t ordered. The optional wood grain did a good job of hiding it with the use of a molding that ran across the top of the faux wood grain.
This was simply to reduce costs. It made a lot more sense to have one body for all wagons. GM did a better job of adapting the sheetmetal to the Olds and Buick wagons in the 1980-90 models. The wagons also used unique rear doors, frames and rear axles.
Yes it did. All the wagons ended up looking good, and I bet most people never realized this.
Also it’s interesting to note that doors for the coupes and sedans were shared! Chevy and Pontiac doors are exactly the same on the Impala, Caprice, Catalina, and Bonneville. Doors on the Delta, 98, LeSabre, and Electra are all the same. Only the Caddy’s had unique doors.
That was another way to save money. It’s also good now when your looking for replacement doors some 35 + years later !!!
The wagons used the same sheetmetal on its doors as the Chev/Pontiacs. The front doors from any wagon will interchange with a Chev/Pontiac as a result (1977-79 and 1980-1990 are unique though). The rear doors appear to be identical on wagons, but are not The wagon doors are specific to the wagons, as they taper wider to accommodate the wider rear body.
Ford did the same with full sized and mid sized wagons from 1973-78
Motorhead1 wrote: “The redesign of 1980 didn’t come out looking as sharp
as the 77 version.”
Hmmm. I must be really dyslexic, but I find the 1980 and
subsequent refreshes of the Caprice to be more “together”.
To me, they seem to tighten up, crisp up the exterior
appearance. That acreage of body-color trim atop the
front grille(on ’77-79) makes the nose look somehow too
tall compared to having the hood curve down just a couple
degrees more to within a few inches of the top of the grille
and headlights through the ’80s.
On the other hand, the 1991 total makeover left me un-
impressed. Sure, it was aerodynamic, fresh and modern,
but with inches added to the body in every direction(longer, wider,
and (taller) on the same wheelbase that carried A-bodies back
to 1964, it looked positively bloated and unwieldy!
Agreed. The 1980 refresh with the more vertical rear window was much more ’80s and less reminiscent of the ’70s forebears. Meanwhile, Ford Panther had the dated sloped rear window right out of the gate in 1979, and amazingly this design soldiered on through 1991. You could order the optional Brougham roof cap treatment on the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis, but most were sold with the ugly standard roof.
I remember it like yesterday, driving home with our new 78 Caprice Classic. To this day, my Dad’s favorite car of all. He drove Fords from about 1965 until 1978. I was a revolution for a guy like him…lol
Not quite the same, my Dad had a ’65 Olds F85 until he picked up a ’69 Ford Country Squire, then another (’73) Country Sedan, until his final wagon, a ’78 Caprice Classic.
He got burned on the subsequent GM car, an ’84 Pontiac Sunbird, which went through 2 engines in less than 80k miles despite being dealer maintained per schedule. Abandoned GM for Dodge (’86 600) then Mercury (3 Sables in a row, an ’89, a ’94, and a ’96) but returned to GM for his final 2 Impalas in a row (’01 and ’06).
He never owned a luxury car, the ’78 Caprice Classic wagon was probably the peak, it was bought out of the showroom at Shearer Chevrolet, and was a beauty, burgundy color (wish it didn’t have the wood trim but it did) with red vinyl interior and upgraded instrument panel with the fuel economy gauge. Only had the 305, but first car with power windows (the ’73 Country Sedan had A/C, power locks, and AM/FM stereo as firsts). Even though those options pretty much became standard after awhile; all 3 of his Mercuries and the last 2 Impalas were so equipped, it was special in its time. The ’06 Impala was a base (LS) model and even came with all that standard (just didn’t have the fold-down backseat I would have preferred). Only reason he got rid of the Caprice Classic was an accident when taking relatives from out of town on sightseeing trip; he decided to trade it rather than get it fixed…would have been better to keep it in retrospect.
Maybe it’s a bit of a stretch, but for me these were a large Volvo. Though I have always leaned towards the European end of the spectrum, I did like these.
I’l take mine in dark forest green, and if possible with Volvo seats.
I remember Consumer Reports assessment of the 77 Caprice’s disadvantages: “None important enough to mention”. It was their top-rated car, on par with a Mercedes–pretty heady stuff for a middle school kid!
GM’s high-water mark, during Detroit’s Indian Summer…
Good memories, thanks.
BTW, the downsized redesigned A-bodies came out ONE year later, not two.
Of course; fixed.
“Consumer Reports” does gives accurate advice on vacuum cleaners, home air conditioners and other house related items.
I have found their automotive related opinions somewhat suspect over the years.
Their all time favorite, highly recommended car was the Rambler American 4 door.
Let’s just say their automotive tastes and values were often different than mine.
Lest we forget: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/vintage-reviews/vintage-review-1972-dodge-colt-and-toyota-corolla-1600-wagons/
Actually CU’s advice on home appliances omits an important issue: durability. Not all are created equal here; some are expensive for a good reason.
“The new B-Bodies propelled GM to a final huge upsurge in market share and sales, culminating in that grand blowout year of 1978: 9.66 million cars sold, and a 46% US market share … coming right out of Ford and Chrysler’s hide, pushing both of them into the verge of bankruptcy.”
There are some who claim that buyers “flocked” to Ford and Mopar big cars and that the B’s “flopped”. But good to see stats to show otherwise.
Sure some old timers wanted “big”, but the sales numbers showed that families wanted better gas mileage, not just “exterior size to show off”.
By the 1983, Ford and GM’s full size cars were finally accepted by the “bigger is best” crowd, and sales went up. But, when Boomers came into their middle ages, they went for either Asian mis size cars, or US trucks, and then the big cars declined.
I think there’s a kernel of truth to the notion that FoMoCo attracted some buyers in 1977-78 (-79 in the case of Lincoln) who still wanted a traditionally-sized big car. But to say buyers “flocked” to Ford or that the GM B’s “flopped” would be ridiculous.
Production of full-size cars at all three FoMoCo brands was up from 1976 to 1977 — Ford from 402K to 445K, Mercury from 115K to 156K, Lincoln from 68K to 95K — but Chevrolet went from 423K to 661K. The B’s gained far more customers than the un-downsized FoMoCos did.
As for Chrysler, I don’t have any figures in front of me, but the only Mopar brand that was even moderately competitive with its full-size cars by 1977 was Chrysler. No one was flocking to Plymouth and Dodge.
Getting to 1983 was a long road. The second energy crisis and its attendant recession caused full-size sales to crater in 1980, and around 1981 or 1982 many people expected that full-size cars as they were then known would soon be gone, with cars the size of the GM A/G-bodies being the largest sedans available. By 1983 or 1984, with gas prices falling and the economy doing better, sales of big cars came back a bit — never back to 1979 levels, but high enough that a decent-sized market for them had clearly survived — and any talk of dropping them went away for the time being.
No one was exactly flocking to the Mopar big cars prior to the GM B-Body debut. Chrysler was heading down the tubes due to missteps from the early 1970s, all of their own making. When they did start to run around, it was the small cars that led the way, the Omni/Horizon and Aries/Reliant. Of course, the latter two beat out GM’s own X-Bodies.
Ford did, of course, market the 1977-78 LTD as “the big car that hasn’t lost its’ size” but that was clearly a stopgap until the Panthers were ready, as was the LTD II and its’ cohort of 1972-era midsize cars from Ford and Mopar rebranded with fullsize nameplates in their final facelift.
Notice that Ford put no resources at all into the pre-Panther LTD after 1975, not even the token changes of grille texture and molding location that the annual model change was devolving into.
“By 1959, that was all a distant memory.”
Well, GM was reacting to Mopar’s “Forward Look” care of Exner. Imagine if these never came out?
You should have seen what GM was in pretty advanced stages of developing for 1959: they were even more bloated than the final product. Maybe not with such huge wings, but very massive. An evolution of the ’58s.
Having never seen many, and even fewer nice-condition 1977-1979s, it’s easy to forget how attractive these early Caprices could be with the right trim. Most of this was lost with the 1980 facelift, as the elegantly tapering trunk was done away with, and grilles and other trim somehow didn’t look as expensive. The later composite headlight LS Broughams are the possible exception to this.
By the time I was born (1993) ’80s Caprices were still plentiful, but most were fleet or former-fleet beaters, which is what I’ll always remember these cars as, not the significance and better looks of the 1977 car.
Agreed. I never warmed up to the 1980 restyle. And they soon started sporting lots of Brougham roofs and such. It’s interesting how the ’77-’79 was mostly shown in ads without a vinyl roof, and it really looks better that way without one. These were decidedly un-broughams.
In contrast, the Ford Panthers were usually shown with CV padded tops, and actually look rather naked without one.
Agree on all of Paul’s above comments.
And the vinyl roofs certainly did away with any hint of European-ness.
The 1980 restyle was more primarily done to reduce drag. The higher trunk and shorter more upright rear window, and more sloping front end supposedly made a significant reduction in drag. GM also incorporated more weight saving techniques in the 1980 and new models, including a full redesign of the doors and the internal hardware.
While I agree the 1977-79’s are probably the best looking of the lot, I really like the 1986-90 styling when it’s a none brougham car in a single tone paint job. They always looked very clean to me.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/comment-image/102894.jpg
I like the “aerodynamic” redesign of the 1980 car, though agree that some of the purity of the original design was lost. In particular, it was sad to see the coupes lose their unique “bent glass” rear window design. Across the other GM divisions, I go back and forth on whether I prefer the ’77 -’79 or the ’80 redo.
The big deal for me, though, is the fact that GM did such an extensive facelift after just three years. It demonstrated a confident company working hard to significantly update its top selling products. Other than the 1981 redo of the A-Special coupes, I can’t think of another time since then that GM has done such a major, meaningful mid-cycle refresh in a timely manner. I think GM deserves big kudos for really hustling to keep these cars leading edge during a tough time for big cars.
Then they fell asleep. For years. The Caprice became ancient. And when Chevy stirred partially awake and finally bothered to do another redesign, we got Shamu. Almost tragic.
The big reason for the restyle in 1980 was to reduce weight, improve aerodynamics and increase fuel efficiency. GM originally planned to phase out the B-body by about 1983, and planned to temporary replace it with a A/G-body rebadged (like the 1982 Bonneville). They would eventually phase in fullsize FWD sedans. This only occurred with Buick, Olds in 1985 and eventually Pontiac in 1987. Once fuel prices dropped, and the governments relaxed on the CAFE requirements, sales for these cars increase. GM kept them around since they were great money makers and helped fund their money losing FWD platforms.
In the early 1980’s GM was making all attempts to improve efficiency, often times going to far. Examples include the TH200, a transmission made to reduce rotation losses, which it did, but so much so that it was horribly weak and failure prone. In 1980, GM started used plastic tape drives for the window mechanisms, aluminum bumper reinforcements, and lighter duty axles (7.5″). The 1980-90 B-bodies as a result were far more fuel efficient than the late 1970’s counterparts, especially when equipped with the 305-4bbl with the 4 speed overdrive.
“The downsized intermediate RWD A/G Bodies that arrived two years after the full-size sedans…”
I don’t believe that is correct. The B-bodies were introduced in ’76 for MY77. The A-bodies were introduced in 77 for MY78,
It does boggle my mind that Chevrolet sold any ’77 Malibus at all. The Impala/Caprice was, by every measure, a better car. Why would anybody select the piggy Colonnade over the Caprice/Impala??
In about 1958/9 Dad bought a 55 Chevy four door with the 265/glide/ and power pack. Loved it but thought at the time it had too many doors. Would love to have that again.
Fast forward to 98/99 and I bought a 77 B body Impala wagon.350/350 equipped. Heavy duty everything and the running gear from engine to wheel bearings were for a truck. I loved it and loved the four door arrangement as well. I commuted 100 miles per day and with it I could be fearless in traffic. With the seats down it was the perfect rolling tool box.There were no real down sides and I committed a blunder when I sold it. I had messed with the paint to put my students in an art car parade but should have hit it with a wire brush grinder and got a paint job.
We need to fast forward again and put either of those styles back into operation with a modern power train. I have no doubt the new 4.3 would be adequate but there is so much more available. Probably makes far too much sense. Oh, I guess I neglected to say so but IMO you are spot on in your assertions about sweet spots.
Great article Paul. These particular B-bodies have always been and remain one of my all time favourite cars. I always said if I had to be given one car to drive for the rest of my life it would be an F-41 Caprice. All-round best daily drivers, easy to fix, durable and reliable. I haven’t had a B-body since my last one was destroyed in 2009, but maybe one day if I come across a nice original I might have to jump on it.
Just one minor point, the transmissions that failed in the downsized A-bodies was the TH200. This transmission also made it into many B-bodies too and was just as failure prone.
One of my favorite cars from GM… simply elegant.
As an indication of how good these cars were, a very popular color the 1st year these appeared was ORANGE !!! (Well, a sort of bright copper color…usually with a tan vinyl roof.) A co-worker bought one of these with all the HD options, too. He was very pleased but I imagine Chevy/GM “lost” him as a customer when it came time to replace that Caprice. Unlike the Japanese or Europeans, American car manufacturers never seemed eager to stick with a design and “refine” it. Oddly, they do okay with their trucks, but when it comes to cars they just take 1 huge leap….coast for years (decades?), then take another huge leap.
I embraced these, especially the bent-window coupes of the early years.
The one thing – okay, two – things that really irritated me about these and the vast majority of cars of that era and well into the 1990s was the clunky-looking, squared-off door glass frames that looked like an after thought. Even though the bodies embraced a more angular styling, more could have been done with the door styling, but I suppose this fall-back glass frame was the off-the-shelf design on hand and had worked very well.
The other thing? What I call the “GM half-way down” mentality of the rear door glass. Child safety excuse? I don’t think so.
The glass-halfway-down thing has less to do with child safety and more with the physical incapability of the door to fit the whole window–not lengthwise, but the curvature.
Here’s something for you! A photo of a red 1977 Caprice Classic “bent-window” coupe, and a green Impala Sport coupe – with available sliding roof!
Probably my favorite road trip car ever. A friend of mine in college had a nice one, a hand me down from her grandparents. The AC still worked in 1995. It leaked oil like a GM but we’d just dump in some SuperTech 10w-40 and off the 5 of us would go, to the lake or the country.
One big factor in the success of these cars was that although very different from what they replaced, they still looked like Chevrolet’s. Far too many of Chevy’s efforts in later years looked like Toyota’s. Too often in the 80s and 90s, instead of swinging the bat G M was content to keep bunting.
“One big factor in the success of these cars was that although very different from what they replaced, they still looked like Chevrolet’s.”
Yes. Very, very true. A revolutionary car with evolutionary styling. My favorite “big car” of all time.
When the boxy X,A,H,J,E, N bodies, and I am forgetting a few letters I am sure came out and didn’t do as well as hoped, the real deadly GM sin happened. They stopped trusting their vision of the future. After that Pontiacs copied BMW, Buick copied Jaguar and even a Saturn was born because the didn’t want to saddle it with a bowtie emblem.
I wouldn’t want GM to be still building this car. I would hope GM design and engineering was still a magical place where the future was drawn up. Paul N. or John C. may not like every model they come up with, or think they should have zigged when they zagged, but we would have watched excitedly, like we did when we were young. The best and brightest of America, at their desks in Detroit, making the future happen. The mark of excellence.
Thanks for the writeup, we can never talk too much about this car.
Dad’s special ordered ’77 Caprice Estate with the 350 V-8 was reliable, but built like a piece of junk. Moldings and emblems fell off that car, his “sport wheel covers” liked flying off regularly, so much so that he replaced the remaining two with a set of the base hubcaps. And after 4 years there was body rot below the rear windows on both sides (luckily the car was brown so it wasn’t too noticeable) There were electrical glitches with the power windows and the digital clock never worked right. Overall it wasn’t a bad car, but Dad wasn’t buying another GM product after that Caprice for a long time.
After reading all the positive posts about the ’77 Caprice, I feel like my negative comments are few and far between. In all honesty, the car itself was great – it was roomy, rode nicely, handled well and was years ahead of the behemoth it replaced (1971 Grand Safari). But it truly was not built with quality as the top priority. The 350 V-8 engine was a bear and never gave Dad any trouble, but the overall fit and finish of that car was horrible. I even remember the digital clock being crooked in the dashboard! And it stopped working after a couple of years, too. That car was also plagued with electrical issues, the worst being the power windows and door locks working when they felt like it. And the day the cruise control stuck and the car accelerated uncontrollably was the day that Dad decided it was time to get rid of that car. I know everyone hated the early Panthers, but comparing the quality of the Chevy to the Ford was night and day. Our ’82 Country Squire was built like a tank and never gave an ounce of trouble in all the years we had it. You could tell that it was screwed together with care and was light years ahead of the Chevy in many ways.
What you experienced is the Detroit QC crapshoot; you might get a lemon, or you might get a keeper, depending on a host of unknown, uncontrollable variables, maybe even including what day of the week it was built on (per folk wisdom).
It is this & not other issues which still keeps me away from Western makes. Will it be very, very good, middling, or horrid? Japanese brands so far haven’t disappointed yet, though our sample space is small because we keep them well past 100kmi.
Your experience was probably the norm. But at the time we were used to cars falling apart because all we had was the big three and AMC. That is all we ever had, so that is what we accepted. I learned to work on cars because I had to work on mine all the time just to keep it reliable. Reliable then and reliable now are two completely different things. Reliable now is my Honda with 167000 miles and nothing ever having gone wrong. Reliable then was replacing a water pump at 30000, transmission at 50000 and oil leaking at 15000 and saying it’s been a good car. But that was all we knew.
The mark of excrement. Always. And now.
I remember when these cars debuted well. Like the earlier poster, I thought it a little strange that the new Caprice/Impala was just about the same size as the older Malibu, though the new B body was without question a more efficient and modern design. GM rectified that situation in 1978, but created another: The new-for-’78 A bodies were actually a little smaller than the X body Nova. That situation lasted until (sadly) the good old Nova was replaced with the Citation in the spring of 1979, thus completing GM’s stair-step downsizing of their North American model lineup.
The great tragedy of the Citation was that had the car been launched without all the issues it had, it would have very likely been categorized as an epic American car, just like the 1955 and these 1977 full size Chevys.
Prior to the release of the X-cars, I remember reading articles in CAR magazine (UK) stating that GM had the potential with these cars to push a lot of the European and Japanese imports right out of the US marketplace. I imagine that VW, Toyota, Datsun, and other brands were heaving a sigh of relief when the X-cars received underwhelming reviews and developed problems.
I think that is true. The X-body was, as a small car, much better than any European or Asian car at the time when it comes to power, quietness, comfort and it could fit 4 adult. Try that in a VW Golf from 1980.
Sadly, the reliability issues and the reputation destroyed a great car. I’ve owned one, used as a daily driver for some years. Never had any trouble, guess I was lucky. It was a Buick Skylark 2,8.
They didn’t “develop” problems. The problems were manufactured into the cars.
You have spoken the truth. If the X cars had been fully developed before sale, they would have completely changed the game. I have always liked the look of the first Chevy Citation. Unfortunately, the very last time that I have seen one was in a Costco parking lot, brush painted a drab mid blue. Rust Oliem I hope.
I, too, agree on the X-bodies. I always thought that what killed GM (that is, GM before the administration bail-out) was the fall in build/reliability standards. I grew up in Israel in the 60s and 70s and American (and Canadian) vehicles were a byword for reliability as well as luxury. The small European cars were more economical but the common view was that an American made car “only needed checking its water and oil”. Bigger European cars were more expensive and heaven help an owner when things went wrong. In the 70s, however, things were changing; the Europeans (and obviously the few Japanese braving the Arab boycott) were becoming more reliable. Things the Citation ruined the reputation and ensured that US cars lost their market share of the middle to high end segments (my father, a small town lawyer who has bought nothing but American cars for 20 years, moved to Peugeots, Mitsubishis and lastly Toyotas after we had the Citation. He never seriously considered another American car again). BMW sells more cars nowadays than all of the American manufacturers combined. In 1970, this would have been unthinkable.
I don’t think the problem was so much the troubles of the X when they debuted. All USA GM sedans looked the same the next few years. This was no accident, This is what the best minds at a still dominant GM thought a modern sedan should be. They were ridiculed for it and paid for it in the marketplace. In my opinion, they never recovered their confidence, which is a necessary ingredient of a leader.
Bob B.:
That’s because the 1977-later B-class rode on a modified version of the same frame as the 19??-77 A-class.
My dad’s last American car was a B-body diesel Olds. (Two, actually: sedan and wagon at the same time.) Much as he hated those cars for their build quality, he still has a lot of respect for what those cars were on the rare days when everything worked right.
More the pity that this brilliant and exceptional car was allowed to languish, rest on it’s laurels and wither-on-the-vine; while the Ford Panthers (Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, Town Car) were gradually worked over/messaged/improved into a car that was the equal (and eventually the better) car of the two.
I love these cars. My Pop had three different ones as company cars:
The first was a 1977 Caprice Classic in dark green, no vinyl top, 50/50 tan vinyl bench, 350 V8, loaded with power options, lacy “sport wheel covers” and sport mirrors. It was an awesome car, and a revelation compared to the 1975 LeSabre Custom it replaced. I spent hours and hours in that car, poring over every detail. My Pop loved it too, and especially liked its performance and mileage (both notably better than the preceding LeSabre and a tribute to the new design). The car unfortunately had a short life: it was totaled by an out-of-control truck when it was parked on Baronne Street in downtown New Orleans. Luckily no one was hurt, but the entire left side of the Caprice was brutally smashed.
The replacement was another Caprice, this time a ’78, finished in Silver with a silver vinyl top (agree that the design looked better without this option). Also had a 350, sport wheel covers, sport mirrors, power everything… and, as a first ever with my parents, cloth seats! The car had the “special custom” interior with light blue velour. It was the 70s and I was a kid, so I can’t vouch for my taste, but I thought the interior was awesome.
After 2 years, which was the cycle for Pop’s company cars, he got a 1980 Caprice Classic, two tone with dark blue over light blue. It was back to vinyl seats inside, with a dark blue 50/50 split bench. All the power gizmos were there, as were the sport mirrors, but no sport wheel covers this time–just the standard covers, and very sadly no more 350 V8. This car had the 305 V8, which was “Okay” but not as good as the older, bigger motors. Pop griped that it had “less go” but used the same amount of gas, which I think was the sad reality of GM’s push to the smaller engines in the big cars. Also, it was nowhere near as well built as the preceding Caprices. The right rear door didn’t fit properly, it had rattles and wind leaks, trim was misaligned and fell off. The first signs of the developing decline of The General…
Still, all were best-of-breed cars and I remember them fondly (when I got my learner’s permit I had the opportunity to drive the 1980, so perhaps it was good that it had less power…). One of the reasons I’m so disappointed with GM is that they were capable of greatness and it is sad that they can’t seem to rekindle the magic.
Growing up in Brooklyn New York, I was 13 years old when these new GM cars arrived in the fall of 1976. Even as a youngster, I was very impressed with the way these cars turned out. They were on every street. Of course the most popular were the Caprice Classic’s. By time the 1978 models arrived, the dealers in the Tri State area of NY, NJ, and CT were selling “Blue Cloud” editions of the Caprice Classic Sedan. They were pained in a two tone light silvery blue over a darker blue, no vinyl top, special pin stripes which I recall were silver, and they came with a host of options. The interior was a bit upgraded with nicer velour seats in a medium blue color. They had the “Blue Cloud Edition” emblems on the front fenders, as well as faux spoke wheel covers and I believe opera lamps on the c pillars.
Now I’m not sure if these were actually from the factory, or if the dealers put the embellishments on them.They actually looked really nifty. But back in the day, cars came in beautiful colors and these cars looked really good with two tone paint.
They were advertised in the NY Daily News car section every Sunday.
One thing is for sure, they were a hit because you saw plenty of them on the streets of Brooklyn !!
I often wonder if any are still around ???????
I also grew up in brooklyn and the blue cloud was avalabile on impala ,malibu and nova I know this because I bought my 78 malibu classic from kinney chevy in brooklyn. I could never find any info on these on the web.glad to see someone else remembers them
Hello Fordfan,
I’m glad you remember the Blue Clouds also. I didn’t remember that the package was also available on the Impala, Malibu, and Nova. Was your 78 Malibu Classic a Blue Cloud?
I also remember Kinney Chevy in Brooklyn. The Chevy dealer that was close to my house was “Benson Chevrolet” on the corner of 86th Street and 16th Avenue, which later on became “BK Chevrolet”. I don’t know what it is now, as I haven’t lived in Brooklyn in over 28 years.
Try saying Malibu Blue 5 time very fast. It was an original tongue twister when they first came out.
I like the 77-90 Caprice a lot. I think the coupe version offered in the early days was an attractive looking car.
I do think(in my own mind) the only issue I have with the car is that they waited till 1989 to offer a fuel injected V8. While Ford offered one starting in 1983
The 77-79 Chevy B 4 door sedans were great looking cars, especially in the much more popular Caprice Classic versions. But, the 2 door sedans with the “Landau” package made them even more attractive. The forward vinyl roof with the window frames painted the same color gave the car a very unique and stylish look. I do agree that the 4 door sedans looked way better with the painted metal roof.
A neighbor of mine brought a brand new 78 (or maybe 79) Impala Landau coupe. It was a beautiful car but couldn’t figure out why he didn’t go for the Caprice Landau coupe. Anyway, back in the day, one would actually order their car, so he ordered his very uniquely. It had AC, AM/FM 8 track / tilt wheel, cruise, gauge package, big engine,power trunk release, delay wipers, and strangely enough no power windows or door locks. What made it unique was it had 50/50 splits cloth seats with power drivers side.
He drove the car for 10 years and then sold it to another neighbor who also enjoyed it for another 10 years. The car held up great and never had any major issues…
And they promoted the new models with perhaps my favorite TV commercial ever:
I agree with Scott. This is a great automobile commercial.
I remember Fall 1976 when these commercials started to appear and boy was the public buzzing about these new Chevys. This message generated uncommon, genuine enthusiasm. It was a new beginning and after more than 10 years of bad news and the country going to heck it really felt like a breath of fresh air.
I like the 70’s hair on the really cute girl.
As you will all see here, the 1979 Chrysler Newport 4 Door Sedan (the same exact model as the 1980 Plymouth Gran Fury 4 Door Sedan including the front end and grille) still became the largest “downsized” car in which these 1979-81 RWD R-Bodies were exactly identical in size with GM’s 1977-79 RWD C-Bodies and Ford’s 1979-90 RWD Lincoln Stretched Panther Bodies like the Town Car from those eras. These “Supposed Downsized” Chrysler RWD R-Bodies at 221.5″ were even nearly as large or even slightly larger than the 1974-77 RWD C-Bodied Plymouth Fury/Gran Fury at 219.9″ and the 1971-78 RWD B-Bodied Plymouth Satellite/Fury at 218.1″. So in truth they were really not the downsized versions of the 1974-77 RWD C-Bodied Full Sized Cars but just a replacement with modern redesign which were still based from the same chassis/platform from the ancient 1971-78 RWD B-Bodied Mid Sized Cars and as such replaced as well by these same RWD R-Bodies. This is why these Chrysler R-Bodies were still much larger than the 1977-79 RWD B-Bodied Chevrolet Impala/Caprice Classic at 212.1″ and the 1979-90 Panther Platform Ford LTD/Crown Victoria at 209.0″-212.0″ depending upon which year these Panther were produced and most common on later models. Chrysler’s 1979-81 RWD R-Bodies were even a little over a foot longer than its chief competitor the Ford LTD and 9″ longer than the Chevrolet Impala and Caprice Classic twins.
This is a great looking car that is looking better as time goes by.
It is not often you can say that about a full size American car from the 1970s.
If I lived there and needed a CC daily driver, I could be tempted
Great article! Been raised in Germany in the backseat of several 3-Series BMWs, this was the first American car I bought in 2008. A black and silver 1979 Caprice Sedan with the 350 engine, red velour interior and F41 suspension. What a great ride! Nowadays I have a 1978 Caprice Coupe with the wraparound rear glass. For me, this generation of B-Bodies stands for everything what American big sedans were once all about. Lots of space, comfort, reliability, a smooth and quiet ride, and that wonderful effortlessness when you put it into Drive and just ride on the wave of low rpm V8 torque. These kind of cars make me arrive much more relaxed than anything else I ever rode in.
How were these as police cars? Whenever I think of the LAPD I always think of one of these in black and white, thick rimmed tires and the shotgun. They proliferated like the crown vic now but are almost all but extinct now.
They were head & shoulders above anything else , even better than the late 1960’s Dodges they replaced .
.
All the Old Timers still talk about them , we had them in our Fleet (L.A.P.D.) well into the 1990’s a rare thing in Police cars .
.
CC effect ~ I have been thinking of these lately and just last week an Old Hispanic Man drove past me in one , Ex L.A.P.D. ,then yellow cab and still neat & clean as a pin , handled well and zoomed off down the street with it’s 350 CID V8 purring silently .
.
I rarely see these anymore , that’s a sad thing .
.
Panthers are good cars yes but never anywhere as good as these .
.
In the 1990’s several companies would buy these up out West and rebuild them to re sell as Police cars to Municipal Departments , they asked me to float them to our buyers who just laughed .
.
Anyone who claims these were not better than Panthers never drove both .
.
We’re salvaging out the Panthers now as fast as we can , another very sad thing .
.
-Nate
I remember when pretty much every NYC cab was a Caprice with a few Checkers around. Actually, there is one in my garage that hasn’t moved in at least seven years. Someone has to be paying for it because it sits there, but it is covered in grime.
@ max z. ;
.
Someone should do a big writeup on the thousands of nice old cars sitting in dusty garages all over NYC some day .
.
-Nate
The Taxi versions littered on the streets during my childhood so that kind of always diluted the beauty of these B bodies in my eyes, even though these selected role were endearing to the inner strength of them. Plus the 77-79s in the Chicago area at that time I remember being really rough with chalky paint, never washed(IE still covered in salt in July) and the more pronounced arch those have compared to the squared off 80+ models made them look really tired on top of it all. Now a days of course I see the beauty they were, and much prefer them. I share all of your points with the box Panthers, although I find the quality(or at least long term quality) far superior in the Fords though
My preferred year and model is the 79 Impala. The front end was more Caprice like but the stand alone marker lights compliment the rear ones better than the Caprice’s wraparound fronts, and they used the Caprice’s wide full width taillights, but with the reverse lenses integrated into the middle light, which looks way cleaner than the Caprice’s valence mounted reverse lights below the center taillight, which look added on(my fantasy would be the all red Caprice lights on the Impala and the reverse lights somewhere indiscreetly mounted in the bumper). Coupe or sedan is a toughie though, part of me actually prefers the sedan and isn’t all that smitten by the wire bent glass, although I quite like the quarter window shape with the hofmeister kink. The B pillar drives me nuts though, wish these were true hardtops like the renderings I’ve seen here.
For some reason I associated these particular Impalas/Caprices with Santa Claus when I was a young child. I remember seeing one when I was really young (five years old?). It was around Christmas and I saw an older, rotund guy with a white beard get out of an older but well-kept maroon-red Caprice (or Impala, I was too young to know) and thought it was for sure he was Santa Claus. For most of my (earlier) childhood, I said that Santa didn’t have a sleigh, he had a Chevy, that is until I stopped believing.
I really enjoyed reading this article. It is interesting to look at the photo of that ’69 Opel, and see the inspiration in the downsized Chevy – and even more interesting to see how it fizzled into the copycat Ford LTD. Gotta admit after owning a lot of different cars from the 70’s, the B’s were definitely the most rugged, drive-it-into-the-ground till-the-tires-fall-off kind of cars. One most memorable one for me was this 1977 Olds Custom Cruiser. Bear in mind, I had this after being used to the clamshell models of prior years. The ’77 endured some abuse, such as following a co-worker in his Bronco at 50 MPH though the night over deeply potholed, washboard roads somewhere outside of North Bend. At one point, slamming down hard on a large flat rock in the road, but that was barely a scratch for the mechanicals of this tough gal. Truthfully, it wasn’t until Dad took the car for a drive about a year later and noticed a strange lump in the back seat floor area, that I realized where that thump had actually impacted the body! Oh well. . . her 350 Rocket V-8 had a lot of punch, and loved bombing down the interstate. Only thing was, for the artist in me, she just wasn’t as wide-haunched and curvaceous as the behemoth predecessors 71-76. They had that hopeless romantic feel to them, despite inferior build quality. And that is why I ended up going back to those cars. . .Water under the bridge, but in retrospect, maybe that was not such a good idea, after all :-p
I’va owned three B-bodys as daily drivers. A 77 Riviera, a 79 Caprice and a 89 Caprice. The Riviera was the best, but all 3 had excellent reliability.
The 77 Riviera had a Buick 350 (lazy, but very smooth, 155 hp) and a lot of options. It was painted gold with blue cloth interior. Very nice seats.
The 79 Caprice (sedan)was an all option car I think, F41, Moonroof, everything but one of the most important options you will need in Norway, delay wipers. Red and gray, red cloth interiør. Rode nice, but not as quiet as the Riviera, but the 350/350 (170 hp) drivetrain was a lot faster than the Riv.
The 89 Caprice Brougham LS (Sedan) was painted grey and grey brougham interior. Fully equiped with power everything and 305 TBi (170 hp). Very reliable, and rode nice, but I think the F41 is somewhat harsh compared to the Riv. In fact the Riv may be the nicest riding car that I’ve ever owned.
As much as I like the B-body, I think the C-body may be a better package. Cadillac Sedan DeVille or Buick Electra.
I think the B/C -body from 77-90(92) is one of the best cars in terms of reliability, comfort and quietness still today. Another plus side is that they are easy to fix if it’s needed, and they are extremely rugged compared to European or Asian cars of the same time. The parts are cheap too.
My mom’s last car was a ’77 Impala, pretty much a stripper, just A/C, 350 4 barrel, and an AM/FM radio. She bought it in 1980 at a dealer who had like a dozen of them, in different colors, all with about 50K miles on them. It was clean and cheap, so she bought it. I put better speakers into it and a new cassette player/radio after the factory radio went bad after a thunderstorm (No idea if the storm had anything to do with it.). She had it for about 3 years and only sold it so we wouldn’t have to drive or ship it back to Toledo. The only single issue of any importance it had was the transmission went in 1982, at almost exactly 70K miles. A rebuilt unit went in and the Impala drove on. A friend of mine had a dark blue almost identical twin to it and it lasted almost 16 years, the rust finally killed it.
After reading all the positive posts about the ’77 Caprice, I feel like my negative comments are few and far between. In all honesty, the car itself was great – it was roomy, rode nicely, handled well and was years ahead of the behemoth it replaced (1971 Grand Safari). But it truly was not built with quality as the top priority. The 350 V-8 engine was a bear and never gave Dad any trouble, but the overall fit and finish of that car was horrible. I even remember the digital clock being crooked in the dashboard! And it stopped working after a couple of years, too. That car was also plagued with electrical issues, the worst being the power windows and door locks working when they felt like it. And the day the cruise control stuck and the car accelerated uncontrollably was the day that Dad decided it was time to get rid of that car. I know everyone hated the early Panthers, but comparing the quality of the Chevy to the Ford was night and day. Our ’82 Country Squire was built like a tank and never gave an ounce of trouble in all the years we had it. You could tell that it was screwed together with care and was light years ahead of the Chevy in many ways.
By 1976, I was an avowed non-fan of Chevrolet. The 1971-76 cars had finally taken my previously irrational dislike of GM and made it rational. When these came out, they took the few good things of the older cars (decent handling for their size and good running gear) and improved the rest. These cars were head and shoulders above their predecessors in quality, in the tightness of their structure, and in their subjective feel.
My only gripes were minor, such as the unimaginative styling at the rear, and a sedan C pillar I always considered a bit awkward. The 2 doors were really sharp.
In contrast, the 1979 LTD was a step down in almost every metric from the 78 LTD. What the 78 did well (quiet and the feeling of solidity) the 79 lost, and what the 78 did not do well, neither did the 79.
The GM full size cars had the better overall design, tis true. But Ford had better quality interiors. You could push in the door panels of a Caprice/Impala, they were so cheap. The LTD/Marquis may have been tackier in some eyes, but the interior materials had more heft to them.
I own a ’90 Caprice Classic Brougham LS. I am the second owner(5 years). It has to be in the top 1% of remaining B Bodies..condition, appearance, no ultra-violet damage because in garage when not driven(true for previous owner as well as me. Never primary transportation (true for previous owner as well as me) so no winters on the road. documented service history. For Sale. blvdsteve@aol.com
And still has its first major patented GM breakdown right around the corner, I imagine.
Kev,
That comment seems uncalled for.
Steve,
you should post a picture of the car. I am sure many would enjoy seeing it. Good luck with the sale.
Classy.
I like that…”ray of hope” and “momentum” were the words you used…then the Citation and the Cavalier happened. These 1977 downsized cars were just as bad, quality-wise, as their predecessors. Then the X- and J-cars sealed their fate. I just don’t see how you can put these downsized cars on a pedestal. They were still GM cars, and yes, back then I was a GM fanboi and I loved them. I quickly learned that GM was sinking and moved over to Toyota in 1985 (Nissan and Honda later) and have NEVER looked back.
I own a big GM of these years and of the preceding generation. Aside from some dashboard cracking, I guess I just don’t see what’s so woeful about the quality. Neither of my cars was a collector special, one was left out in a field down south for a number of years, another sat in an old lady’s garage. 40 years later all the accessories work, the power windows and door locks are flawless, the original R-12 a/c still works on one car and the other runs well following the conversion to 134a (the compressor itself never stopped working). The engines run smoothly, the cars return good mileage for 3 speed automatics mated to carbureted V8s. I’ve ridden in X and J cars and surely, many of them were junk but they may as well have been made by another company. These are solid as heck.
But there’s more than my anecdotal evidence. They were rated highly when new, and many are still on the road now. I still see these downsized B and C bodies every week. I don’t recall the last mid 80s Honda Civic or Toyota Camry I’ve seen. Doesn’t mean they weren’t great cars either, my dad loved his ’84 Civic. But hard to trash these convincingly when you still see so many around.
B and C -body bad quality? Sorry, but with the right drivetrain they was and still are some of the best cars ever built in terms of long lasting quality.
It seems very strange to me, as a European, to see an American person rave about driving a boring Japanese car. No matter how good it may be. Though, the Toyotas today are far away from beeing anything special in terms of quality compared to other car makers.
@ Buick430 :
.
You have to understand that at that time , the same car rolling off the same assembly line in America , could be pretty much junk .
.
Friday & Monday cars were the worst , often it was a total crap shoot if your shiny new car was in fact , any good .
.
That was the single most important thing the Japanese did in the 1960s : RIDGED QUALITY CONTROL .
.
Yes a ’67 Toyota was a tinny little box that had little power and rusted to junk in three years _BUT_ for those three years it always started and ran the same , used very little in fuel or repairs .
.
At that time I thought them 100 % junk because they were so light and flimsy but they were the right car for the time .
.
Same with VW’s , cheap but really well put to – gether , hard to kill and cheap to fix .
.
Volvos & Mercedes too yes but boy howdy BIG $$ ! .
.
-Nate
Well, it may be truth, but from the old days(60/70s) I remember that a Volvo, Mercedes, and pretty much any american car with V8, auto, and live rear axle was the best in terms of reliability. Toyota was good, but the rest of the japanese cars did not play in the same league.
Show me an European car with the long time durability like the Chevrolet smallblock, TH350/400 and a 10 or 12 bolts rear end. It may be some Mercedes models, that’s it, and what do they cost?
Why did american taxis drove 300.000 miles with these as taxis if they where so bad?
There where some drawbacks with the american cars here in Norway in terms of gas mileage and the fact that the fit and finish was not the best to say at least, in the 70s.
I still drive these fullsize american cars, as daily drivers, and they are very good. Never had any problems with them, not even with the 89 Caprice with the unfamous TH2004R trans gave up. It passed well over 250.000 miles with the original drivetrain before I sold it.
In Europe the Mercedes E-class taxis run for 4 years and we brag about how good they are, with 250.000 miles on the odometer. My former daily driver was a 77 Cadillac Coupe DeVille, original drivetrain, passed 400.000 miles when I sold it, and is still running today.
My problematic cars have been European. When an European car gets passed 10 years old, it seems the problems will never end. Mercedes may be the exception, but how about 2000 USD for a new alternator? Unlike the american, the parts are very costly. I had some problems with a 89 Blazer S-10 and a 88 Thunderbird (trans). But with the B/C -body, none problems, but I have not owned a C-body with the Cadillac infamous 4.1 HT.
Understood and agreed .
.
I grew up long ago so I’m quite familiar with the foibles of American car build quality .
.
I choose to like GM in general and Chevrolet in particular as my favorites .
.
In the 1950’s and 1950’s we got lots of different Foreign cars most were unsuitable to American roads & needs , the parts & service left much to be desired too .
.
FWIW , the Bosch alternators , much like the American ones , rarely wear out anything but the brushes , Bosch wisely made them replaceable on the car unlike any other alternator I can think of ~ as a Mechanic I always laugh when folks ask me why I tell them to replace a $30 part instead of the whole $100 + alternator that comes with a warrantee ..
.
In the 1950’s & 1960’s , European car parts were dead cheap in America , the local sellers took much advantage of this .
.
I’ve owned many high mileage American vehicles , because I take proper care of them , I always coax years more service out of some old rig another sent to the scrap yard .
.
I have several old Mercedes W-123’s , all but one has closing in on 400,000 miles , nothing special there , the bodies are tight , no floppy door hinges etc. because you get what you pay for when you buy top drawer ~ my 1980 Cadillac Fleetwood Hearse looks scruffy but everything is still rock solid and works as it should , no squeaks / rattles because they’re designed with more care than the similar Chevies from the same Generous Motors Corporation .
.
-Nate
Have a ’77 and ’75 C Body from Buick and Olds, respectively. Each have their virtues, but these ’77 Bs and Cs are structurally tight, don’t rust, have smooth 350 transmissions, and ride nicely. They don’t have quite the same in your face brash styling of their bigger predecessors, but do have a unique, more subdued and sleek look that is classic in its own way. I do see these downsized big GM cars, especially in ’77-’79 guise, as the American Volvo someone suggested above. My Buick has always been just a fundamentally sound car. All the power stuff works still, and works well. The whole lot of them were durable as heck.
The real downfall was some of the cheapening that happened after ’80 (even though some of the restyles came off welll) and the gutless engines. There are a number of reasons for all of those things, some GM’s doing, some not. The sum and substance is they made a great design and then left it to wither on the vine until it was too late to keep it current with anyone but elderly buyers. The Bubble cars that finally brought back some power never quite hit the same note and frankly came about 10 years too late to revive the genre.
I have owned three of these over the years. The first was a ’77 that I had checked out for my SIL 8 years earlier. It had been in Montana all of the time she owned it and I bought it when she moved back to Portland and bought a Crown Vic that my son eventually ended up with. About 1\3 of the cars I have owned were purchased from family or close friends and have never bought one from a dealer or bought a car new. Had a 350\350 and got decent mileage. When it got up to around 150,000 miles I bought an ’82. It was a 305\OD auto. This one got unbelievable gas mileage. One trip I took right after buying it filled up in Portland, drove to Manzanita for the weekend, drove around all weekend and back to Portland. The gas gauge showed 3\4 full when I returned. I wasn’t into checking gas mileage so I don’t know what it was, just seemed very good to me. The third one was the one and only car that I had not seen or driven before buying. The ’82 had gotten wrecked and we needed another car for my wife to drive. At the time I was working 60-70 hours a week and had no time to look for a car. She found an ’86, went and bought it all by herself. It was a good car and I was proud of her. I still wish they made them. The next generation blimpmobile is what finally killed them.
Funny thing, the black and grey car pictured here is in my driveway. I even have those plates still in the trunk. I was hoping to use it as a parts car for my 79 impala, but most of what I needed didn’t fit. My impala is a 2 door, so not much if the interior will work. Since the caprice was mostly whole, I decided to get the few parts I needed to get it back on the road. Hopefully it will hit the highways this summer.
Were these big Chevrolets really successful when they failed to produce the money and volume needed to develop an all-new successor? The 1977 Chevrolet Caprice is the Gorbachev of cars: Popular and well-remembered in surrender.
GM could have easily replaced the Caprice with a version of the 1986 H body (Delta 88 and LeSabre, Bonneville for 1987) but didn’t. Also, I believe the W body Lumina was originally planned to replace both the Caprice and Celebrity. However, the 1985 C, 1986 H, and 1988 W bodies sold far less than their RWD predecessors.
Troy:
The CUSTOMER drove the choice to keep Caprice on the 1977 B-platform, not the General.
The same as how the Voter ultimately decides the current state of the nation, and why certain individuals still remain in Congress.
We as people have more power over outcomes in life than we think we do.
GM did design a replacement for the Caprice – the 1986 H body and later the 1988 W body.
Your comment is nonsensical. Yes, these big Chevrolets were really successful by any and every well-documented genuine measure.
If that parts seller’s tabulations are accurate there were 1,862,696 full-size Chevrolets sold in the three model years 1977-’79.
In the previous three model years, 1974-’76, there were 1,419,464 full-size Chevrolets sold.
That means the new cars sold over 31.2% better than the previous cars, so I’m not seeing this abject failure you’re on about.
My first car when I was 19 years old was a used 1979 Caprice Classic 4 door in the same black/silver two tone as the featured car in this post.
I bought it in early 1985 with 58,000 miles on it, and I washed it weekly and waxed it twice a month…..The paint was sparkling shiny clean on it under my care right up until I sold it.
I traded it in early 1990 with 89,000 miles on it for an S10 Blazer which I came to detest due to poor power and poor gas mileage from its 2.8 V6.
In hindsight, I should have kept that Caprice longer than I did.
The 1977 model was as great as the 1976 models were Blahhhhhhhhhh.
Because the WORLD – and America to a lesser extent – were changing with regards to demand for sedans big enough to have their own zipcodes.
The 1977 GM B & C redesigns were the writing on the wall, just a sign of things to come. The mid-80s round of downsizing further underscored that point.
Even my 2010 Honda Accord, the largest generation of that model in the U.S., is considered ‘huge’ by others who drive one or have been in mine, even though it would barely have classified as mid-size in the 1970s.
HAH, brilliant how the guy was able to custom order a 1977 Caprice to his tastes, and then he and the author get to test drive it prior to delivery. “Don’t worry about breaking it in. We wanted to make sure it was all set for you so you didn’t have to keep under 50 miles per hour.”
Yeah, the F41 suspension with the other heavy duty aspects was killer, and with the Chevy 350, probably the best antidote to the malaise era of American motoring. A rare beast indeed. Myself, these cars were exceptionally tasteful, and two-tones or a vinyl roof never looked gaudy. Too bad that GM didn’t consider a true performance version along these lines. I doubt it would have mattered to their fleet business (law enforcement) because in this era, the cop market was still a bone left to Chrysler to sustain itself. iI’m guessing that the constant shifting of leadership in the GM hierarchy meant that a good thing wouldn’t last long. It’s quite astonishing how GM had this huge hit that once the redesign occurred three years on, began to look obsolete. Could have, should have, would have. The wholesale switch to the new frontier of front-wheel drive, with the continued engineering focus on emissions and safety had engineers challenged enough without the cost cutting of hatchet man Roger Smith solely interest in stock prices than product. I’d love one of these, and wish I had considered one before they evaporated and the prices increased.
Ask any cop who ever drove on of these with the RPO police package and they’ll tell you it was the very best cop car they ever drove .
The L.A.P.D. one all came with the four bolt main bearing 350CID V8 and overdrive tranny and were good looking and good handling cars that took serious beatings and kept on going .
I missed out by not buying one when they were sold as salvage cheaply, maybe $500 each some with zero collision damage and all with working A/C .
-Nate