After a banner 1977 model year, the downsized Caprice/Impala entered its sophomore year with minor tweaks. The same basic package was as good as ever, and follow-up road tests reiterated why the Caprice/Impala was such a smash hit.
Motor Trend revisited their 1977 Car of the Year champion in the November 1978 issue. They flogged the car on Sunset Boulevard in Beverly Hills and Westwood, where the Caprice held its own with far more exotic cars. Then writer Leon Mandel took the Chevy up through Central California and over the Donner Pass, where bad weather unexpectedly put the car’s capabilities to the test. Throughout it all, the love affair continued.
One gripe centered on the high price tag of the fully loaded Caprice, which had climbed painfully in the days of stagflation. That said, GM was praised for the great value offered by the full size Chevrolet. The test car, equipped with the 350 V8 and a comprehensive load of options, stickered for around $9,500 ($34,723 adjusted to 2015 prices). Today’s equivalent family sedan sells for pretty much the same money. A quick spin on Toyota’s website to configure a fully loaded Camry XLE V6 delivers an MSRP of $34,765. Right there!!
Real world experience with the downsized Caprice had been great. Customers loved it, no odd quality gremlins reared their ugly heads. The car was well done on every level. It was definitely one of Motor Trend’s best picks for their Car of the Year award.
Another critical publication for car buyers in the late 1970s was Consumer Guide with their Auto Test Series. Targeting average buyers more than enthusiasts, they offered a very pragmatic assessment of all the cars they tested. Not the easiest editors to please, they were nonetheless smitten with the Caprice.
The Consumer Guide editors also pointed out how Chevrolet’s competitors were either dropping out of the full size segment (Plymouth) or breathing their last gasps with the supersized biggies (Ford). CG noted that government regulations were rapidly changing the game for everyone, GM included, and future products would shrink still further. But for the time, nothing could beat the 1978 Caprice.
That was certainly my Pop’s experience with his ’77 Caprice Classic. He adored the car, and it served him well for both business and pleasure. It was a trouble free, comfortable and attractive machine. Sadly, though, that car had the misfortune to be very short lived.
In May 1978, my father was returning to down town New Orleans early one Thursday afternoon after some morning meetings in the suburbs. Since he had another meeting at the Pere Marquette Building (then offices, today a Marriott), he decided to look for street parking rather than returning to his regular garage off St. Charles Avenue. He thought it was his lucky day, as he found a spot at the corner of Baronne Street and Common Street right by the building where he needed to be. He parked the Caprice and went to his meeting.
A short time after Pop had parked, a Coca-Cola delivery truck driver was hustling to get down Baronne Street and into the French Quarter. The truck driver misjudged the bend in the road and veered too far to the right as he was traveling at about 30-35 miles per hour, and slammed right into a line of parked cars. The left rear of Pop’s ’77 Caprice took the impact first, then the truck careened down the side of the car, knocking it into the car parked in front as well as into a street lamppost on the right. A total of five parked cars were badly damaged or destroyed before the truck ground to a halt.
Luckily no one was seriously hurt, though it scared the living daylights out of the many pedestrians on Baronne, including one man who needed oxygen because he was so upset he had trouble breathing. The poor Caprice, however, was completely totaled. Other than the right rear door and right rear fender, every piece of sheet metal, including the roof, was mangled.
On the following Monday, my father brought home a new 1978 Caprice, once again with the 350 4V. This one was Silver Metallic with a matching vinyl roof and sport wheel covers. It was even more loaded than the 1977 Caprice, including the “Special Custom” interior option, in the same light blue velour as this catalog picture. It was our first car without vinyl seats, which I thought was great (what can I say, I was 11). As Consumer Guide noted, however, the risk with the light-colored cloth seats was that they soiled easily. And they were right.
Other than easily stained seats, however, our 1978 model was every bit as good as the ’77. The Caprice’s winning ways continued, and served as a real testament to the quality and capability of one of Chevrolet’s best desgns ever. The praise heaped on the car by the automotive press was well earned.
Cloth seats were a revelation for me…I was 14 when my parents got an 82 Cutlass Supreme with corduroyish velour seats…for the first time in my young life my legs wouldn’t stick to the vinyl seats. My dad wasn’t, and still isn’t a big fan of A/C in cars, says it gives him a sinus headache…so we would take trips from Ohio to Sanibel Island FL with no A/C…hated every second of those trips.
The downsized GM cars in 1977 were amazing…GM hit it out of the park with that redesign. They eventually squeezed Pontiac and Oldsmobile out of existence by letting the Chevy get too nicely equipped, but I guess that was inevitable anyway.
Poor little boy had to endure vinyl seats until 14 year old, that’s sad.
I think when those boys grew up, they quietly revenged on vinyl seats by eliminating that option save for cop cars.
But was it different back in Europe? I was surprised to find vinyl seats on many European models, and those black sporty seats were just as hot as vinyl seats should be until holes drilled in recent years.
GM’s Greatest Hit, after the 55-57’s
Should say best “standard” Chevy, after the Tri-5’s, 😉
Another enjoyable read. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I would be OK with both a $9500 Chevrolet (especially one with a 4 barrel 350 and air) and $1.50/pound hamburger. Actually, I recall having that same reaction when I saw the $14K sticker on the 1985 Crown Victoria that my mother had just bought. $14K for a friggin Ford?
These B bodies from 1977-79 were really well done cars. Other than the Buicks that had far too many V6s, you got a very capable car with tough, powerful drivetrains. I knew many people who had very satisfying relationships with Oldsmobiles and Cadillacs of these years. Sadly, CAFE would force a lot of compromises onto these cars that would hurt their appeal as drivers’ cars.
Slightly off topic, my brother had a nice, low mileage ’74 Ford F-250 4X4, back in ’76. It got totaled. We went to the dealer to look at new ones. $8200 for a loaded ’76 F-250 4×4. Brother went into sticker shock, surprised he didn’t faint. Bought a ’71 instead, and had the 360 rebuilt into a 390. Killer truck
Ugh, what horrible writing. Too bad CC wasn’t around in 1977 to show the MT author how to write. This New Journalism schtick wore thin after the first page and by the second page, the author satisfied word count with meaningless interviews. Few real facts, little analysis, no competition comparisons, ridiculous editorialising “minimal corporate greed,” etc., . . That sentence on the first page starting with “The Monza banking” deserves to be taken out and shot.
Apparently, C/D had a positive influence on Mr. Mandel as his writing became lucid and enjoyable when he was at C/D.
CincyDavid, you mentioned the misery of a car with vinyl seats and no A/C. I suffered through a succession of Hair shirt cars as a child . . . I could never again live with vinyl and no A/C, or crank windows and no cruise.
What modern day option is an absolute must for you? Would the CC readership today buy a car with vinyl seats and no A/C?
SavageATL, A/C (preferably manual A/C, not set a temp and forget it climate control) and a seat that doesn’t make my back hurt and legs go numb are all I really NEED. I prefer cloth that breathes well, power locks are handy. I almost never turn on the radio, never open the sunroof, don’t mind cranking windows myself. For that matter, I’ve had two cars and one truck with rubber floor mats…I’d almost prefer that over the felt-like carpet in some new cars.
And I don’t like metallic paint…solid dark colors are my preference…3 of my household’s cars are black.
I like my regular cab GMC Sierra for these reasons. I like the crank windows because on a hot day I can open the window BEFORE I get in. The manual cloth seat with manual seatback tilt is the most comfortable seat I’ve had. Better than any leather 20-way power lumbar BS “luxury car” seat. Manual AC and no sunroof for me.
“I like the crank windows because on a hot day I can open the window BEFORE I get in.”
In the fall of 2013, I went from a ’99 XJ Cherokee base model with crank windows to a ’14 Ford Escape, marking the first time I had ever had a daily driver with power windows. I have the opposite problem from you — I’m constantly shutting off the car without putting the windows up, then having to put the key back in the ignition and turn it to the accessory position to roll them up. (IIRC, if they keys have been removed from the ignition and a door has been opened, the window buttons won’t work.)
I drive a 9-year old VW Rabbit (a.k.a. Golf) with A/C and heated cloth seats. All the current non-GTI or R Golfs sold in the US now have vinyl seats save for the stripper 2-door which retains cloth. It really is one hangup I have with trading in for a new one. It does have A/C of course – I’d never buy a car without it, including vintage cars.
My Dad was 45 when he bought a new 78 Caprice Classic, two tone burgundy just like the first few pictures above, he’s 82 now and that’s still his favorite car of all he’s owned in his lifetime and he’s had a few really nice rides over the years.
The box Chevrolets of ’77-’90 were great, reliable rock-solid vehicles.
The only problem is, GM let them get stale. By 1985, these things were pretty much old-news. After 1985, the Impala was discontinued (because the difference between an Impala & Caprice was pretty much nothing spectacular) and the coupe was axed.
In hindsight, the ’77-’85 Impala, instead of being the cheaper alternative to a Caprice or a fleet-queen, should have been the sporty model, perhaps. An ’80s SS would have been great.
The thing is, GM was going to FWD. The Chevrolet Celebrity was more or less the mainstream Chevrolet by 1985. Both the Chevrolet Caprice and the Cadillac Fleetwood or Brougham were left overs from the RWD era and both were probably supposed to fade out gracefully by the late 80’s.
GM’s downsized 77’s, not just the Caprice, were a good move for GM. The second downsizing to FWD in the early to mid 80’s was less of a good move. I think GM had some doubts by the late 80’s and hence the RWD Caprice and Cadillac survive a bit longer than planned for.
Yes, they were definitely going to be gone. I’m fairly sure ALL of the big Cadillacs were supposed to be gone after ’83 originally, and then ’84. Then fuel prices went down and GM didn’t want to risk losing sales to FoMoCos carryover Panthers so they kept them. It was already paid for, so they spent little. That, I think, was the mistake. Roundabout ’86 they could’ve upgraded the engines and some other aspects. I think big cars still wouldn’t have lasted as such but would have been less perceived as dying on the vine.
Agreed, although these Caprices were like that rare man that grows more attractive as he ages. By the time they got to 1990, the composite headlights and some of the other exterior tweaks really made these cars sharp.
I think it’s worth remembering how GM went in the ’80s and ’90s, too. Remember Roger Smith’s disasterous reorg in 1984 that destroyed the company’s ability to get anything done. They were pissing away billions on automation and robots that painted each other, only to have the plant managers junk the things so they could actually get some cars built. GM-10 was supposed to be in showrooms by ’86 but didn’t arrive until ’88, and GM’d pissed away billions more on those cars.
When a car company goes into crisis mode, they start carrying old designs forward. Ford did it in the late ’70s and early ’80s with the Thunderbird and Mark VI (they basically tried to take the same design and shrink it to one of the only two modern platforms they had, to the detriment of both products). GM carried the A-Body Century and Olds to ’96 because they were nearly bankrupt in ’91 and those cars were still selling. And GM did it with Caprice. It was still selling, so why mess with it? Hell, they had to fight to kill Cimerron because it was good for 20,000 units per year, despite its being an absolute affront to what Cadillac was meant to represent.
I wonder what would have happened to Caprice had the GM-10/W cars actually launched on time and on budget?
The snow test rings true. A few winters ago we had more ice than snow. This generation of Caprices, and concurrent Crown Vics, were driving normally. The only thing that stopped them was all those modern FWD cars going weeni-weeni-weeni-weeni-weeni, NOT all the way home.
Agreed, these were very well balanced which helped with traction in slick conditions. Interestingly, the 1973-77 Colonnade A bodies were awful in slick weather, way too light in their tail ends which led to bad traction. These behaved like big rwd cars always had – balanced and decent in snow.
Although I’ve owned FWD cars for years (caveat: not driving in snow), I now believe that the “superior traction” claim in early advertising is a myth. They are just as likely to break loose on wet pavement as RWD, only without fishtailing.
FWD is mostly an improvement in packaging, nothing more. BTW, only now do I have a Honda with a flat floor (and only in the rear).
For people who had been used to Mustangs, GM A bodies from 68-77 and others that had awful rear wheel traction in snow, FWD was a boon. All of that weight over those drive wheels is good for traction in those conditions.
Myself, I always figured that what you gained in traction was lost with poorer steering and braking with FWD over a decently balanced RWD car. Every American full sized RWD car I ever drove was decent in snow. It tended to be the smaller ones that had trouble.
>>FWD is mostly an improvement in packaging, nothing more. BTW, only now do I have a Honda with a flat floor (and only in the rear).<<
Wide tires are terrible in snow. Go to TireRack, when you get dedicated SNOW&ICE tires they usually rec that you select skinnier tires that dig through snow – more lbs per sq in. There's a reason Model T's had those tires.
Seems most cars have very wide tires these days – mainly for looks. A front drive car w/ dedicated SKINNIER winter tires is better all around that an awd w/ all season in most cases – they can go around corners and stop better.
My CTS has 255/35 with 19 inch wheels. They are not all that bad in snow, although slush is tricky.
How well any car does in snow depends mostly on how good your tires are. I found that with FWD and all weather tires I could do very well. My 1978 Olds had a limited slip axle, which was not great on ice as both rear wheel would spin and then the rear would start to slide. My 2007 SRX, with limited slip also could slide, but the stability control system usually would take care of that.
“By 1983 the big Chevrolets and GM models will be cut in size and weight once again. Though the program will not be as drastic as the one that created the 1977 Caprice,” Little did they know.
Originally Chevrolet should have entered the FWD H-Body sweepstakes like its other GM Cousins: Pontiac Bonneville in 1987, Oldsmobile Delta Eighty Eight and Buick LeSabre in 1986, but quietly it had decided not to. If Chevrolet had he wherewithal to fill in the intermediate size segment after the Nova left in 1979 and the Malibu left in 1983, the new FWD H-Body Chevrolet Impala in both coupe and sedan form could have come into fruition while at the same time, it could retain the older RWD BOF B-Body Chevrolet Caprice indefinitely. The Celebrity which was in essence a larger version of the Citation was a bit too small to fill in the intermediate range. The RWD A/G-Body BOF Monte Carlo was only available as a two door coupe even though it fits in that size range plus it would not really compete directly with lets say a 1986 FWD H-Bodied Impala Coupe. So Chevrolet lose out on this one and the FWD W-Bodied Lumina was actually the FWD A-Body Celebrity and the unrelated RWD A/G-Bodied BOF Monte Carlo’s replacement in 1990 and its more a Cousin model to the Pontiac Grand Prix, Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme and Buick Regal which also replaced their previous RWD A/G-Bodied BOF Coupes and Sedans.
It’s right but very complicated. It took me forever to explain why there were so many models in similar size during that era.
I recall reading this as late as 1981 or so. All of the GM full-sizers were to get a second round of downsizing in ’83, probably moving to FWD, which seemed to make sense given that GM going 7 or more years without a new generation of big cars seemed unthinkable back when yearly model changes were still expected, at least for GM’s full-size cars. Instead, the downsized-again C-bodies got pushed back to ’85 (with Cadillac retaining the old BOF RWD Fleetwood Brougham), and the B-body replacements with the H-body LeSabre, 88, and (eventually) Bonneville waiting even longer. And Chevy soldered on with the old Caprice size and platform through 1996 which wasn’t what anyone predicted in 1981.
So does anyone know why Chevrolet opted out of the H-car program?
Maybe to avoid overlapping with W-Body and B-Body.
For H-Body, there were Oldsmobile 88, Buick LeSabre and Pontiac Bonneville, while relating C-Body had Oldsmobile 98 and Buick Park Avenue ( highly successful too ) and all those divisions only had Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser and Buick Roadmaster on B-Body, while Chevrolet had successful B-Body sedan and wagons, and B-Body Chevy was pretty successful in fleet market. Maybe it would hurt retail sales on B-Body if they had an H-Body version.
I’m guessing it probably started with the wagons, if H-body wagons had ever been seriously considered it would’ve been hard to get them usefully roomier than the FWD A’s (themselves a massive leap ahead of the A/Gs, reintroducing third-row seating) without both an overhang and a wheelbase stretch. Getting the towing capacity within shouting distance of the old cars would’ve been even harder.
I suspect that it had a lot to do with what they expected Ford to do with the LTD (Crown Victoria). Oil and gasoline prices had stabilized by the mid 80’s.
Because Chevrolet was fearful that a FWD H-Body Chevrolet Impala would steal sales away from the RWD B-Body BOF Chevrolet Caprice Classic. I highly doubt that it would since Chevrolet needed a “Nova (the 1975-79)” or “Malibu (the 1978-83)” genuine replacement in terms of size niche’. The Citation was more subcompact in size while the Celebrity was only a bit larger compact but NOT intermediate size. Such “Nova or Malibu” sized Chevrolet did not appeared until the compact sized FWD A-Body Celebrity and the presonal RWD A/G BOF intermediate sized Monte Carlo were replaced by the FWD W-Body Chevrolet Lumina which was Chevrolet’s entry to the FWD W-Body (to join its another GM Cousins there) and NOT an Impala FWD H-Body replacement. The FWD H-Bodies were still in production while the similar sized FWD W-Bodies albeit new were as well.
” “By 1983 the big Chevrolets and GM models will be cut in size and weight once again. Though the program will not be as drastic as the one that created the 1977 Caprice,” Little did they know. ”
I was actually thinking about this the other day when I was reading the post on the ’77s. Based on how long recent intermediate and fullsize designs had lasted, you’d think GM would have expected this generation to last five/six years or so. At that point, was the next generation expected to be similar in size or concept, or smaller, or FWD? The above quote makes it sound like GM was envisioning a slightly smaller RWD car.
“I recall reading this as late as 1981 or so. All of the GM full-sizers were to get a second round of downsizing in ’83, probably moving to FWD, which seemed to make sense given that GM going 7 or more years without a new generation of big cars seemed unthinkable back when yearly model changes were still expected, at least for GM’s full-size cars. Instead, the downsized-again C-bodies got pushed back to ’85 (with Cadillac retaining the old BOF RWD Fleetwood Brougham), and the B-body replacements with the H-body LeSabre, 88, and (eventually) Bonneville waiting even longer.”
This makes it sound like the FWD replacements for the B-body (what we came to know as the H-body) and C-body were both originally expected to be introduced in 1983, before dropping gas prices dramatically changed the direction of the market, prompting GM to hold off. I wonder when it was decided that the proposed next generation would be FWD and not RWD. Maybe that was something GM was always on the fence about, and it was never a foregone conclusion that it would be RWD.
“So does anyone know why Chevrolet opted out of the H-car program?”
It’s my understanding that Chevrolet and Pontiac weren’t to be a part of it, because in a world with $5-a-gallon gas, the customers in their price brackets weren’t expected to be buying anything that large. These brands’ largest sedans would be the FWD A-body Celebrity and 6000. This is why Pontiac didn’t have an H-body the first year out, and Chevrolet never got one at all. This would also have the benefit of reducing overlap between the various GM divisions, leaving the lower-tier ones to concentrate on smaller cars while the more upscale ones would cover the market for (what a $5-a-gallon gas world would consider to be) large cars. Along similar lines, the N-bodies that would replace the RWD A-/G-body personal luxury coupes wouldn’t have a Chevrolet version, although Pontiac would get one.
One of the reasons GM kept the RWD A-/G-body sedans in production after the FWD A-bodies appeared — not the only reason, but one of the reasons — was supposedly to keep a somewhat large sedan around in the event that a spike in gas prices suddenly killed off B-body sales before the new FWD fullsize models were ready. In that case, the G-bodies could take on the large sedan role for a year or two. Pontiac actually jumped the gun and went ahead and did that in ’82, and outside of GM Chrysler did essentially the same thing with its M-bodies the same year.
Interesting comparison to a modern Camry’s cost. I was wondering if maybe the Caprice was — are you kidding me? — lighter. No, but not by much; a quick Google on the Camry and : 3,240 to 3,480 lbs.
The Toyota Avalon, admittedly less popular than the Camry, makes a better comparison in terms of size & weight; it has filled the B-body/Panther role. They have great rear legroom.
Modern equivalent should be Impala, and it makes sense. And it’s actually a product from 2009 financial crisis downsize ( DTS to XTS, Lucerne to LaCrosse, while Chevrolet at the time didn’t have a traditional full-size model ) but it took few more years for the refinement. It is far better proportioned than XTS too. Avalon on another hand, they never have a pleasant proportion and it looks like a stretched mid-size car, highly similar to biggest Chrysler K-car derivatives.
But modern mainstream vehicle is no longer affordable full-size sedan however, it’s more of the size similar to Ford Fusion. And Fusion is more or less the successor to mid-size Taurus, and mid-size Taurus in turn replaced smaller Ford LTD.
After reading all these vintage articles about the Caprice, i’m now kicking myself in the ass. When I graduated high school, my girlfriend’s dad offered to sell me his 1977 Caprice coupe (with the big back window). At the time, I turned him down. Now I wish I had so I could have experienced all that I’ve read about here.
I bought new a 1987 Caprice coupe (last year for the coupe)…and drove it for 13 years. Best car I have owned to this day.
Though I didn’t own a 77-79 B body, I drove tons of them new when I worked for Avis. I can attest to the fact that they were far superior in all ways to the 71-76 generation. To me, the Chevy in general was more of a throwback to the 65-70’s with better handling and braking. I did own an 84 Caprice Classic Landau coupe back in the mid 90’s. My only complaint was that the overdrive automatic seemed to constantly hunt for the right gear. Placing it in drive rather than overdrive cured this. Wish I still had the car. It may not have been as distinctive as the 77-79 bent window but, was still a very classy looking car.
I don’t know if 84 caprice had the th2004r or the th700r4 in that year, but my 84 vette’s tranny (700r4) does that. All the vintage magazines complained about that too. It locks up in 2nd-4th, at low speed it hunts with any throttle movement, I’m going to wire it so it locks up only in 4th.
I can’t remember which it had. I found that if I used drive for in town and city driving, and used overdrive only for highway driving, it was much better to live with. My sister bought a brand new 85 Camaro that had the same problem. She did the same to eliminate the constant hunting. Interestingly, a former co-worker had an 08 Camry that did the same thing. It couldn’t pull the hill in front of my house with less than an inch of snow on it. Constantly hunted for gears and spun tires and slid sideways. Even my old 83 Chevette could go up that hill with no problem in snow.
Always like this Chevy back in the days compared to it’s competition. Ironic since I am Ford blue through and through. Impossible to find one nowadays as I have looked. Unfortunately all have run into owners who have adulterated them and that is being kind.
A ’78 Caprice was dad’s last car, it took him all they way to 1992 without much trouble. In retrospect I wish it had the 350 instead of 305 but it served just fine. I prefere the bolder ’78 grille over the fussier ’77 and ’79.
The overhead shot in Motor Trend shows why the Chevy outclassed the downsized LTD. Look at the elegant tapered trunk: just a simple centre crease in place of the Ford’s overwrought sculpting.
I like this generation and the preceding gigantic generation a lot and own one of each from Buick and Olds. I remain impressed by the downsized model’s excellent handling and am glad to see the validation by this article that it does well in snow. I will not forget being stuck in a sudden heavy snowstorm on the nearly-deserted Palisades Parkway last winter. I expected to be slip sliding everywhere and the Electra stayed straight and true. I always felt in control.
But Consumer Guide does tell it like it is about room aand ride. Wheelbase matters and when it comes to ride, I have never seen any evidence to show that it is the single most important factor. The prior, bigger, generation may have been less efficient packaging but it rode better and provided more room. So, I appreciate that acknowledgment by CG in light of the claims of more room and better ride in the downsized models. Maybe on paper but doesn’t reflect my experience. CG does.
I am amazed at the praise the caprice got. Yes the 77-79 were good and reliable cars. But they were not that perfect. The ones I drove were awful in snow. And there were many I have driven. They didn’t handle well in the rain. Some had lame engines v6 and tiny v8s and diesels. Also in them with out power seats you sat to low. The cruise control was dangerous. Easy to hit resume when signaling and have the car accelerate through a turn. The seats often sagged. They also got worse after 80.
Personally I find the Ltd a far better car. Better looks and better in snow. Even awesome in snow. Cruise us in the wheel and easier and safer. All the Ford’s had a v8, and better seats. Also Ford’s had vent Windows. It also handled better. The Ford’s were better on gas too.
I also prefer the barge Ford’s to the b bodies.
The best, b bbody as the old’s 88 with 403.w
No RWD car really handled well in the rain unless one opted for aggressive tread tires or the limited slip differential option. My buddies 1994, 99 and current 2004 Panthers are lousy in the snow and spin tires easily in the rain so that is a moot point. The Caprice/Impala didn’t get the 5.7 diesel option until 1980 and then it was only offered on the wagon with 1981 seeing the coupe and sedan getting it. By then it was a much improved but by no means perfect engine but did offer a huge improvement over the Fords for mileage and cruising range. Very very few Caprice/Impalas were ordered wit the oil burner and even fewer had V6 engines until 1985 when the big 4.3 injected V6 was offered with close to the same power output as the 1984 4BBL 305. It also offered the buyer superior mileage than any of the V8 only Fords and gave a lower base price for those not wanting or needing a V8. The Fords had there issues too. One was the stalling out with there overdrive transmission in 1980 models that sparked a huge recall to fix this very dangerous problem. it is written about in great detail in my 1980 Consumer Guide and Consumer Reports test drive issues. The other issue at Ford was there horrid Variable venturi carburetor on many 1980-1982 models. These cars along with many other Fords also had the slip out of park issue with worn shift linkeage the culprit. I experienced this first hand and it nearly tore my leg off!
Looks are subjective but most every publication preffered the cleaner crsiper looks of the Chevy over the more clunky Ford design. Vent windows were not on all the Fords. It was a rather rare option that died out as the 80’s wore on.
As for handling and gas mileage every report i have rated the Caprice higher for both average fuel economy and handling than the more ponderous Fords. In fairness each could be upgraded to a better suspension but the Fords had to make due with smaller 14′ tires up until the later 80’s and far more Chevies had the rear sway bar equipped F41 option than Ford with there HD suspension option.
I have sat in and driven loads of examples of both cars and have encountered plenty of each with sunk down seats so that is more a function of care and the weight of the person that owned the car before than anything else. The later run LX Crown Vics did have very nice seats but so did the Brougham and LS Caprice Classics.
I agree with you Warren. I think the Fords were far superior as my Dad had an ’82 Country Squire that was bulletproof and built very well. Our ’77 Caprice was honestly built like a piece of crap. True, five years may have lapsed but by now the Caprice should have been made better but instead the quality was getting worse. Our Country Squire handled great and rode great, too.
My first-year college roommate, in 2000, had a ’78 Caprice Classic. Blue with blue cloth interior and a 305. At the time, I had an ’89 Bonneville. He let me use the Caprice after my Bonneville was… borrowed without my permission. I was really quite impressed. It still felt strong, and it was much more nimble than its size suggested to me (The Bonneville was recovered, happily with very little damage! I drove it for three more years.).
The real story, though, was Roommate and the snow. That damned car was unstoppable! During winter break, he left it parked off the back alley of his buddy’s place off campus. About a month and a half later, he decided he wanted to use the car and had asked me to come help him in case it was stuck. By this point, there had been a couple feet of snow, and the city had plowed the alley and left a huge mound of snow.
Unbelievably, after well over a month of sitting in freezing temperatures, the battery still had enough juice to turn the thing over! About 10 seconds of cranking and it started right up. He let it run about five minutes, then threw it in Reverse and planted the gas. Three or four goes back and forward to get a few feet of packed snow for a runway, then he throws it in Reverse once more and plants the gas. The car plowed through two feet of snow for about 20 feet, smashed through the icy snowbank the city had left, and then, he was in the alley and good.
To this day, I can’t believe that car did it! To be fair, he did hit the icy bank hard enough to dent in the rear bumper, but still, that car just took it and went back for more.