(first posted 11/20/2015) In their comparison test of the 1979 Ford LTD sedan versus the 1979 Chevrolet Caprice sedan, Motor Trend gave the victory to the Blue Oval. To say the least, it was a controversial call. So when the 1980 model year rolled around, Motor Trend revisited the topic by performing another head-to-head test in their February 1980 issue. Who would take the crown this time?
The article started out by addressing the controversy directly, citing the tremendous amount of mail, much of it negative, that they received on their 1979 LTD versus Caprice test. Motor Trend did print a number of the Letters to the Editor reacting to the comparison in their April 1979 issue. However, not one letter praised the decision, the quality of the article, or the Ford LTD itself.
For the retest, Motor Trend evaluated the LTD and Caprice coupes. Neither one was a big seller: for the 1980 model year Ford sold 23,058 LTD coupes (16% of total LTD sales) while Chevrolet sold 33,532 Caprice/Impala coupes (14% of total Caprice/Impala sales). Hardly the meat of the full size market, but testing coupes instead of sedans enabled Motor Trend to claim at least a smidge of a legitimate rationale for conducting another Ford versus Chevy test so soon after the ’79 shootout.
The 1980 LTD coupe was not as lavishly equipped as the 1979 LTD tested. It did not feature the extra cost Interior Luxury Group, which had given the ’79 car much of its upscale ambiance. The 1980 looked far more utilitarian, with striped cloth seats and crank windows. The highly praised full-length door armrests in the ’79 test car were nowhere to be found, replaced by the basic and cheap looking standard LTD armrests.
Looking at the test results data, the Caprice once again topped the LTD. The Chevy was faster, more fuel efficient, with a larger driving range than the Ford. In addition, the LTD’s braking performance was still subpar, suffering from rear wheel lock-up and notably longer 60 – 0 stopping distances (34 feet more than the Caprice).
It is interesting to note that the highly subjective MT Staff Rating data tables, which were biased in favor of Ford for 1979, had disappeared entirely for the 1980 test. Perhaps the tremendously negative fallout from the 1979 rankings made the editors reconsider the wisdom of including these tables. After all, why add fuel to the fire?
Motor Trend finally pointed out the lunacy of the Ford horn control mounted on the end of the turn signal lever, noting that American drivers would have trouble getting used to the location. I would argue drivers anywhere in the world would prefer the horn mounted in the center of the steering wheel hub.
One bit of erroneous reporting concerned the control placement for the optional power windows. Motor Trend stating that when power windows were ordered, the control switches were mounted the full-length door armrest. Not true, as this 1980 LTD catalog shot shows—power windows controls were flush mounted on the door, just like Chevy, unless the buyer spent extra for the Luxury Interior Group. Oops…
Motor Trend attempted to reclaim some semblance of credibility by focusing on the actual vehicle performance results. By that measure the Caprice was the easy winner, as it arguably should have been for 1979. However, Motor Trend went on about how the Caprice was a better, more integrated package overall—quite the about face from the 1979 article. It smacked of flip flopping, just like a politician. So, rather than restoring any bit of their reputation for journalistic integrity, to me this test simply looked like nervous editors caving to pressure.
I will say that for an adolescent boy (me), the striking contrast between the 1979 and 1980 test did provide some useful insights. First, it taught me to maintain a skeptical eye about the media, which is a good life lesson to learn. Secondly, it clearly proved that Ford’s Interior Luxury Group was the package to have, since that element seems to have been the deciding factor in the differing test verdicts. So the ultimate victor in all of this was velour!
You can never have too much velour!
As I recall, Fords from this era had exposed screwheads on the a-pillar interior trim, which seemed cheesy to me. My impression was that GMs had nicer plastic on hard parts like a and b pillar trim, but I haven’t been inside a Ford or GM from that era in decades…
You’re right about the exposed screws on the A and B pillars to fasten the trim. And, the trim was made from seriously nasty plastic bucket material.
You’re right about the exposed screws on the A and B pillars to fasten the trim. And, the trim was made from seriously nasty plastic bucket material.
Hang aesthetics: exposed screw heads are just fine with me. I’ve had my fill of failed plastic fasteners.
Absolutely. I hate snap-together interiors. They are often never the same if they are ever taken apart.
I have to agree with you all. Lately cars use “one time fasteners”. Components that have to be broken apart to fix and somehow glued together. Or you replace the whole component.
Agree with the last two commenters. Those screw heads are small, black and hardly noticeable. In contrast, the interior roof rail mouldings on the Ford are metal attached with spring loaded metal clips. Once those clips are loose might as well allocate a Saturday and a bucket load of your favorite expletives to get them back on. Probably be easier to drill holes and reattach them with exposed screws.
you can thank Consumer Reports for that; they used to mark a car down if it had exposed screws in the interior.
Nice article
If I had been reading this back when it came out i might have skipped it since I have never liked the B body coupes or the Panther coupe. In fact I think they are downright ugly looking
Looks are always subjective. I personally loved the clean style of the Chevy Coupe but then I am probably biased as I owned the 84 in the photo below, back in the 90’s…which I’d love to have back. I wouldn’t call the Ford ugly by any means but, the greenhouse is definitely too tall for the body. On the coupe, the forward slanting B pillar not only looks awkward, it makes what is already a limited access to the rear seat even tougher to get to. The slight rear slant on the Chevy makes more sense both visually as well as for rear seat accessibility. I’ve always been a 2 door fan but in this case, the Ford was definitely better as a four door.
It’s interesting you mentioned the swept back b-pillar. Today on many vehicles they sweep back too far, to the point of the door frame hitting you in the face if you’re not paying attention. I remember there was a recall on my parent’s Lumina APV that put a yellow warning sticker on the door.
The 1979 Ford had been equipped in a way that made it several hundred dollars more expensive than the Chevy. That was not repeated this year, with the Ford being a few hundred cheaper. And it showed in that low-end LTD interior.
And did they say “unfortunately” the car did not come with the new Ford AOD automatic overdrive tranny? I think they meant “fortunately”. I remember how disappointed I was when I first drove one. I expected it to drive like a good old C-6 but with a lockup torque converter and an overdrive gear. That hard lockup the moment it shifted into third gear made for a miserable day-to-day experience, especially with the really tall axles that they paired with it. Throw in the variable venturi carb, and this would have been a car to avoid.
Ford apparently “dumbed down” their automatics in the quest for reduced weight. The C-3 Bordeaux automatic (so-called because Made in France), introduced for the Pinto, was less durable than its predecessor, the C-4.
There was either a lawsuit or recall over that first year 1980 Ford AOD where it stalled out going into overdrive and lockup. Consumer Guide 1980 put this and other 4 speed AOD Ford products on the do not recommend list because of it.
Wasn’t the problem that the car stalled if the driver hit the brakes in a panic stop?
That is what I remember also. It sticks with me because in 1993 my father had purchased a 1980 dual headlight LTD from an old lady’s estate auction. It was low mileage, had a 302, VV carb, and a four-speed automatic – just what JPC said he would avoid.
Despite my best efforts, I could not get the car to die in a panic stop. Perhaps it had been addressed or perhaps not.
Unfortunately because they wanted to try it and report back on initial impressions. Whether they would’ve had the guts to say something like “the torque converter lockup reminds us less of a C-6 or any other auto than of a manual driven by a 15-year-old in the first highway session of Driver’s Ed” is another matter…
My best friend had a ’90 Bronco with a 302/AOD (E?) and it worked exactly as you describe – in overdrive at 55 KM/H, really doggy. I guess it was common.
An “old school” Ford mechanic told me that the adjustment of the “T-V” throttle linkage was essential for the early AOD tranny to shift decently.
I played around with the tiny set screw adjustment on my ’83 Thunderbird several times; trying to find the “sweet spot” of OD engagement and kick down. It was amazing what half a turn of the adjustment screw could do for engagement speed and shift smoothness.
“An “old school” Ford mechanic told me that the adjustment of the “T-V” throttle linkage was essential ”
I completely believe this – In the pre-internet era, I actually went to the public library to dive into some shop manuals for these cars, and was just certain that there had to be an adjustment I could fiddle with. I must have looked at the wrong books or in the wrong places, because I could not find it.
I later learned about those T-V cables and how if the hard, brittle bushing cracked and fell apart, you would smoke the transmission in short order if you were not careful. That AOD was the least pleasant part of the ownership experience of both of these cars that were in our family.
They parked both cars close enough that their mirrors were almost in physical contact with one another. You can not do those in today’s cars because they have large side mirrors even if they can fold.
I don’t know if they fold in on all vehicles, but when it comes to mirrors, my motto is “bigger is better” (within reason, of course). The Ford doesn’t even have a passenger-side mirror.
Yeah, large mirrors are one of my favorite features on my F-150.
If I had a pickup, you can bet I would get the biggest mirrors possible. My only beef with the “jellybean” F-150 bodystyle was that it didn’t have any available towing mirrors, although I’ve seen some with Chevy mirrors that look half-decent.
The passenger-side mirror was optional.
Both cars got taller axle ratios, going from matching 3.08 to 2.26 on the Ford and 2.41 on the Chevy. Ford’s 302 engine lost only 2 HP form the ’79’s 351 engine, now at 130. Chevy went from 350 to 305 engine and lost 14 HP, from 170 to 156. Chevy’s 0-60 went from 10.6 to 10.9. Ford went from 12.3 to 12.5. And Chevy got almost 4 MPG better then the Ford to boot. Chevy did get a lock up converter on it’s 3 speed auto. GM was doing a better job at emission control effecting performance. I also think the GM coupe is better looking by far, although the larger glass area in the Ford is a plus for visibility. For a while I had a ’79 GMC Cabarillo and it did get mid 20’s on the highway with it’s 305 auto drivetrain. But the tall axle made it really sluggish around town.
I have driven every iteration of every Panther and B body ever made, and the difference in acceleration between the 1979 and the 1980 Caprice was negligible, just like you point out, 0.3 seconds to 60. That is a measurement error. The reduced weight made up for the loss of power and the taller rear axle.
That said, that smaller rear axle, and the smaller brakes attached to it, were a major headache on these cars. The brakes wore quickly and the axles themselves rarely went more than 150,000 km.
The difference showed up between the ’79 and ’80 Caprices when you loaded them up with people. The 305 with its tall gearing and reliance on low curb weight could no longer get out of its own way. I don’t know about the Fords, as I didn’t drive them when they were fresh enough to reflect their initial specification.
I do remember in California the 350 in many models was 49 state only and the 305 was all that was available. I would have probably kept the ’79GMC Cabarillo if it had a 350 instead of 305, it was a dog around town even unloaded. But it was quite good on MPG for the times.
We replaced axle seals more than had rear ends actually fail. The Gm 7.5 10 bolt was hardly stressed with a 305 and was a stout enough unit overall. We actually saw more Ford rear end failures in the Fairmont/Granada series cars during this time era. My rear end blew apart on my 1979 Fairmont with only 66K miles. My grandfather lost his in his Granada a year later with a little higher mileage. The repair shop that did the rear end swap said he did on average 5 Fords a week. He also said the GM 7.5 limited slip was a pain too with a rather high failure rate
Was 1980 one of the years for a weak cam on the 305? People rag on them but they seemed to be OK for the time.
A very embarrassing about face. He basically had to retract almost everything he said in the previous comparison.
I don’t remember this writer, but he obviously didn’t make a proper career out of automotive journalism. Good riddance.
Motor Trend’s various ‘OTY’ awards this year are as comical as they’ve usually been. This one guy may have seemed to lack integrity, but I’m sure the results in 1979 were a consensus decision based on advertising, or SWAG, or a couple of beautiful product reps.
The 1979 comparison was done by MT staff. This comparison does not indicate other staff making much input.
Yup. He was an automotive hack.
Wow… What a shit article from MT. “Some people bitched at us, so we’ve completely changed our minds!” I mean, I’m sure they had different reviewers from ’79 to ’80, so that explains some of it (although Fred Stafford is credited with both articles), but come on! “The Ford’s seating position is superlatively wonderful, no wait, the Ford’s seating positing is just ok,” for instance. Spec’ing the cars pretty much opposite what they were before, and spec’ing them differently in the first place for a “comparison?” Ridiculous. Give both the top spec or the low spec. At least they tried to give both comparable powertrains.
I will say, though, the 1980 refresh on the Caprice was desperately needed and made the car look so much better. Losing the super-small waffle grille in favor of the larger openings, lifting up that sagging ass so it matched the rest of the car, and cleaning up that roofline made the Caprice a much nicer looking car and finally gave it a coherent look. Gone was the “left in the sun too long and started to melt” faux-fastback stupidity, and happily so.
But really, the ’79 and ’80 articles really show us what a matter of preference and how option-dependent – and how close in reality – these cars actually were. From one year to the next, one reviewer to the next, with only minor changes between them, the option packages completely changed the outcome. So, I suppose in the end, they were both good and competitive cars.
I agree this review is far worse. Start off by saying that some people didn’t agree with our previous result (even though some did) so now we are changing our methods and story to make those people happy.
The only redeeming part of it is where they state that for many (if not most) buyers of family sedans the 0-60 times are not a significant concern. MPG of course at the time certainly was.
Motor Trend always had the worst and least detaile reviews of the big three. Car & Driver was humorous and thorough, while Road & Track was very technical but biased towards smaller efficient and sporty European style cars. The “technical art” that Road and Track included in their spec section with the section drawing of the tested car was always superb and the technical writing from John Dinkel was the best.
MT picked Ford the previous year simply because it was the newest car and couldn’t possibly give any more accolades to GM for their superior B-body cars.
Growing up I subscribed to R&T and C&D but not MT
Options did indeed make a huge difference with both these cars, from bare-bones basic to full-on luxe. The Chevy coupe was better looking this year, but I think I actually like the Ford a little bit more (only in 2-dr config though, still prefer the Chevy as a 4-dr).
The reviews on these 2 cars from the major auto mags at the time was so back and forth, it’s really a wonder anyone believed anything they had to say. Best to test drive them both and buy the one that “felt” right for you.
The gap between the front fender and door on the LTD are only matched by the horribly attached side trim.
Sorry: the 80 Chevrolet took away all the interesting details of the original downsized Caprice and Impala and made them look extraordinarily pedestrian. The LTD was no beauty either.
Am kinda missing the cool bent glass rear window of the previous Caprice coupes. 🙁
I agree. The flat rear window makes a huge difference in the looks of the Caprice. The bent glass of the 1977-79 models gave them a sporty flair that recalled the sleek two-door hardtops of the 1960s.
The 1980 coupe looks more like a 1960s two-door sedan – the type of car that tightwads bought because it was the least expensive one in the line-up.
If you wanna get technical, that’s almost what the full-sized “coupes” had become by the end of their run.
I still get a free subscription to this rag every year, because my Dad and I always attend their International Auto Show at the Baltimore convention center. There is almost ALWAYS a bias in their head to head comps between the Mustang and Camaro, and it always seems to be in favor of the Chevy, no matter how well the Ford performers in the test, or how much better the ‘stang’s ergonomics are in comparison. I just read it and take it all with a grain of salt. When I was growing up, my Dad almost always had the big Chevy, but in ’73, the LTD was a much better car for the money, luxury wise. He bought one, and it eventually became my first car, giving me a Ford bias for most of my life. But bringing me back to my Dad for a minute – he always wanted a sporty car, and at 75, he bought one. He fell in love with the Camaro’s looks, but ended up with a 2014 Mustang… The main reason: ergonomics. So basically, it all comes down to what you ultimately prefer at time of purchase.
Oh, and to the “horn on the turn signal stalk” nay-sayers…. Yeah, it was a stupid place to put the horn, but after driving a 79 Futura and an 83 T-Bird for a couple hundred thousand miles, you really got used to it… It was no big deal. In fact, when I got my 88 T-Birds, and the horn was back to where it was supposed to be, I had a harder time getting used to THAT! (lol)
If it took a couple hundred thousand miles to get used to Ford’s horn-on-a-stick, that would seem to be a problem right there…
I cant find the centre push or rim push horn on my Hillman ever, end of stalk is so more conenient.
Well, it only really took a couple of thousand miles to get used to the “horn-on-a-stick” (I like that name, BTW ;o), but after a few hundred thou of getting used to it on two different cars, it took a couple of thousand miles to get used to it when it went back to normal on the ’88 Bird(s). I recall the salesman pointing out to me when I got into my 5.0 T-Bird for the first time saying, “Look, the horn is back to normal!”
Not just horns: Honda & Toyota don’t agree on high-beam & wiper controls, so driving both creates confusion.
This is the reason aircraft manufacturers from Boeing to MiG have standardized cockpit layouts between models. In their case, safety & training costs is a powerful motivation. Never gonna happen in the car biz unless we get a gov’t auto monopoly.
Japanese trucks have the same disease everything is back wards to my daily driven car which is French but ten minutes in the truck and I’m familiar with all its controls, most people only drive one vehicle on a regular basis so controls being different is not an issue.
Ford can’t keep it straight on the F150s from year to year – in an 09 you push the signal lever away for high beams, and for 2011 you pull it towards you to toggle them back and forth…
Odd. I just went out and double checked to make sure: the controls on my F-250 are right where they’ve been since assembled in 1969: horn in the center of the steering wheel, dimmer switch on the floor. You’re saying Ford goblins sneak in at night and change the newer ones around? ;P
I tend to disagree. Auto manufacturers absolutely have converged toward similar interior ergonomics/layouts, even if in a few aspects there remain some differences. Headlight, high beam, ventilation, wiper, etc. controls are far more similar than they used to be. This is one among a number of reasons there are so many complaints from CCers that there is not enough characterin today’s cars, that they are mere appliances.
Motor Trend had a history of matching up two direct rivals from GM and Ford on a yearly basis. It did this with its “King of the Hill” tests, which compared the Lincoln Continental Mark III and IV with the Cadillac Eldorado from 1970 through 1974.
In the 1971 match-up, the writers even noted that the results of the previous year’s test – which, if I recall correctly, resulted in the Lincoln Continental Mark III being declared the winner – generated a storm of protest letters. So the protest letters over the results of the 1979 comparison of the LTD and Caprice were nothing new. Perhaps Mr. Stafford was leafing through some old issues and came upon the 1971 “King of the Hill” test article before he wrote the introduction to this article.
The magazine also compared the full-size Ford with the full-size Chevrolet. It did this from 1972 through 1974 (with the full-size Plymouth thrown in for good measure for 1974). If I recall correctly, the magazine didn’t like either one much for 1972, but chose the Ford for 1973 and 1974.
Motor Trend was definitely off its stride in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was seriously outclassed in its writing and overall judgment by Car and Driver.
Plus, Car and Driver featured three or four columns by regular writers in the front of the magazine that were as interesting to read as the actual road tests. You may not have agreed with David E. Davis, Jr., Brock Yates or Patrick Bedard, but each one of them knew how to stake out a definite position on a subject and state it in a clear and entertaining manner.
I thought I was the only one who preferred C&D until I started reading this forum.
MT was good in 72-74 when Eric Dahlquist was editor. That’s when I started reading them and learning about car industry.
One good thing they did was their MPG test loop in LA over various streets/freeways. Also before Oil Crisis 1, they had “Flat Out American Classic”, driving new cars to top speed and how they handled.
In ’75, then they dumbed down somewhat. The ’75 COTY was Chevy Monza, and they didn’t really quantify the choice. Seemed like it was “GM’s turn” after the Mustang II in ’74, and then guess who’s turn it was for ’76? Ma Mopar! Volare/Aspen
David E. Davis was my automotive God in this time period.
After he suddenly passed away my interest in car magazines tanked.
My recollection is that almost every time they ran a head-to-head comparison, no matter who won, they would then get piles of vitriolic letters full of insults and rage. It didn’t seem to matter whether the tests were highly technical or mostly frivolous — people would get mad either way.
In the first test there were more than one person evaluating the cars, as shown in the ratings (7.6 for Ford, 7.2 for Chevy). In this write up I don’t see any obvious input from other Motor Trend Staff.
1. “The Caprice doesn’t appear to have changed.”
Obviously this is from the same blind fellow who asserted that the sedans looked alike one year earlier. An ’80 Caprice versus a 79 looks *very* different–flatter hood, different and larger grille, taller tail, different bodyside contouring, and most of all, the dramatic bent-glass window and compound-curve C-pillar which had almost a “hofmester kink” in the 79 versus the flat rear glass and formal, razor edge C-pillar of the ’80. To claim that all those aren’t noticeable is lunacy.
2. Where the heck did the alloy wheels on the Caprice come from? I’ve never seen ones like those on a B-body before. If they were planned for production, wonder why they were never offered? I rather like them.
As far as I know they were a 1980 only option that was retracted thereafter. I know they existed because I have seen them on a few loaded 1980 examples but never a coupe like in this test. The ones I saw were on loaded sedans with two tone paint and CL up level interiors. My 1980 Consumer Guide auto test confirms them as an option above the deluxe covers.
They were custom wheel covers, not wheels. The back wheel shows them in the 1980 brochure.
This Coupe features the Custom Wheel Covers, which I think were very rare. They were offered for ’80 and ’81 (the ’81 brochure features an Impala sedan with these wheel covers). They were no longer listed as an option for ’82.
Yes they were very rare – maybe a little too radical for the conservative Chevy full-size customer! I like them personally!
They sure look like rims to me, not just wheel covers, but the brochure says otherwise. I really like those, and if ordering an Impala, would’ve gone for them in a heartbeat.
That “Caprice doesn’t appear to have changed” comment also struck me as just plain dumb. And I also immediately thought of his inability to tell the ’79 Ford and Chevy apart in the prior review.
There are so many dumb comments, inaccuracies and general lack of effort, that I can only conclude the writer is not a “car guy.” It’s like he needed a job in journalism, and this is the one he landed. We get better reviews on CC by volunteer writers!
And, for the love of Pete, the Chevy horn is on the wheel spokes, not the hub. That was the GM way for decades – the major exception was the infernal “rim blow” wheel that drove owners crazy when they accidently set it off in the act of normal driving. That was mostly an early ’70s feature on higher end cars.
The whole debate of Ford vs. Chevy will always be going on!
I can definitely attest to the fact that the Ford LTD equipped with the Interior Luxury Group feels like a totally different car, more on par with what a Lincoln might feel like. Thicker carpeting, luxury door panels with pull straps and full armrests, luxury steering wheel, plusher seats and more sound insulation – well worth the extra bucks it cost for the package. Dad’s ’82 Country Squire had it and even though his seats were vinyl they were very thick and comfortable – overall the interior of that wagon was very luxurious and felt rich. The base LTD interior had a cheaper “Fairmont” look to it – cheaper armrests, steering wheel and carpeting, overall cheap looking IMHO…
So this time around the Caprice gets the Special Custom Interior but the LTD has the base interior. And this time the Caprice wins…..hmmmmmmmm….
My brother purchased a used LTD, the last year of the 2 door, a 1981-82-83? model?
It was graphite gray on the outside, with a deep red/burgundy crushed velour interior, power everything. A very quiet, smooth riding, “upscale” car, bordering on “Lincoln Luxury” inside, IMO.
The fuel injected 302 V8 and AOD ransmission made for a peppy powertrain.
It must have had he Interior Luxury Group mentioned above?
Last year of the coupe wasn’t until ’87, which was also the final year before the facelift that rounded off the sharp corners. The red crushed velour interior sounds kind of like what I had on my ’91, though I’m not sure what options it had (need to find my ’91 brochure and see if I can decipher that car’s option set).
The way the Caprice and the Crown Victoria are parked so close together in the first photo reminded me of the chase scene between two similar cop cars in Striking Distance.
When I think of these cars, I always think of the WWII set. It is probably no wonder that the rise and fall of the sales of these cars marked the demographic expansion and contraction of that age group.
I don’t know how many LTDs they went through in that chase since the damage on the car kept shifting, but I’d say at least three considering how they beat the snot out of that thing.
The rest of the movie was meh, but that was one of the best car chases since The Seven-Ups.
Ah yes, these cars feature components from the Malaise Era Hall of Shame. A Caprice with a soft camshaft 305, 40K mile torque converter clutch, possibly a 200C transmission and weak rear axle; and a Ford that should of had the AOD transmission but didn’t, probably because they were already experiencing problems. I don’t miss these cars at all.
I must have lucked out on the AOD issue.
I bought a used ’81 Town Car in 2006, with 21K (121K, I’m sure) on the odometer. It shifted smooth and sure for the next 6 years of ownership. The much-maligned 3rd to 4th OD shift was a non-event.
(Perhaps the AOD had been overhauled before I purchases it?)
Maybe you did. I had a close friend at that time with a new F150 with a 302 V8. It was a regular cab short bed which wasn’t used for serious hauling. I seem to remember that truck going back to the dealer for major transmission work at least a couple of times in the first year or two. Then it settled down until needing a rebuild with around 100K miles. Before he stuck a camper shell on it and jacking it up like a 4X4, it was really a handsome truck, it looked like it drove right out of a Ford brochure.
I wish they would’ve tested the Caprice sedan instead of the coupe because I’ve never liked the 1980+ Caprice/Impala coupe’s, it lacked the style and the sporty appearance that the 1977-79 coupe’s had, I’m really surprised how fast the 305ci 4bbl V8 on the Caprice was considering it was 1980 and most cars of that era had weak powertrains.
Yes, weird wheels. Never seen those before. Side note, I see they (GM) tricked out the test car with the F41 suspension package, and the G80 positraction diff.
In the second Magazine pic it looks like the Ford lost it’s rear wheel cover.
I much preferred the first generation downsized Chevy, the 1980 looks like bloat was setting in once again. I never drove either of that vintage, but did occasionally drive my inlaws 85 Crown Vic 2 door. It was OK, I didn’t care much for the rapid upshift on the trans, it steered nicely and was very quiet in the cabin. There was no way I ever would have owned one, and I sure preferred my 78 Olds Cutlass Calais to that big Ford.
Motor Trend? I always thought it was a waste of time, any rag that would make the Vega a Car of the Year has some serious credibility issues. Maybe GM was willing to write the biggest check.
Interesting. I guess that bloat is in the eye of the beholder, because in my opinion the aerodynamic tweaks for 1980 made all of the GM B/C bodies look sleeker, and as pointed out in the article, the judicious use of aluminum, plastic and smaller steel components resulted in them weighing slightly LESS than the ’77 to ’79s.
But this Caprice still outweighed the Ford by 89 pounds, possibly due to being a few inches longer, and being more loaded with optional equipment.
This article is why I used “Car & Driver” for my automotive information and opinions in this time period.
I’ve always been suspect of any car reviews in magazines that accept ad revenues from the same manufacturers they review. Although MT, CD and their ilk can be informative, I always check out Consumer Reports for an independent and balanced view.
These two cars were so similar, that when you saw the lights in your rearview mirror, you knew you were probably being followed by a cop.
I drove a ’79 LTD for work occasionally, and vastly preferred the Impala/Caprice my mom and a couple of her friends drove. The just drove better, and looked better too, IMHO. The 305 and 2.41 rear gears were a major step backwards too. The slight mileage increase wasn’t worth the performance hit. I had absolutely no problems getting gas back in that era, other than people I’ve known that lived in the NYC/NJ area had any problems either.
Noticed the praise for the GM power antenna: while I can’t question the convenience…it was a recipe for problems later when the motor in the fender would die. The Ford antenna could be unscrewed easily if you needed to take it off.
Interestingly, I notice some decontenting here…my ’75 has a distance/local switch for the power antenna, while these, and even the downsized Cadillacs, don’t.
The lack of a distance/local switch may be due to decontenting, or it could also have been due to the move toward FM, versus AM. I’m no radio technician, but isn’t any FM station received well with an antenna of around 27 inches or so?
That FM mast length is an accurate guess (unless my memory from then is failing). As a radio geek, I can also add that a useful wavelength fraction sized antenna for the AM band is not something that fits on a car. (That auto-based AM radios work at all is a bit of great engineering.)
I can’t say I’ve played around with any GM or Ford head units with the local/DX switch.
The Dist/Local switch was removed due to improvements in the radio front end design – if you were near a powerful FM station, it could “overload” the front end of the radio and cause distortion. Switching it to “local” would reduce the sensitivity of the receiver, and remove the distortion.
Delco in that era had the best radios hands down.
Back in the day, OEM radios were pricey, but they were also high quality and rarely (if ever) failed.
The same cannot be said of today’s sophisticated units which are prone to glitches.
My first car was this vintage of Caprice, but mine bought as used at 66k was a 1983 Classic sedan with overdrive 4-speed transmission (at 78k mile, the overdrive gear gone, transmission was replaced) and the same 5.0 liter engine. It felt very large then and now. but reading the data sheet Caprice is under 4,000 lbs (lighter than 2021 Avalon), gas mileage is not that bad, stop distance is impressive (1979 model is even better, 146 feet from 60mph), the weight distribution is very good too. So not wonder that model of Caprice has such long production time.
I have to say my ownership of Caprice was not bad, except I needed to replace transmission. In 1992 after getting a stable I replaced that car with a 1987 Accord LX sedan, a significant down size. But by then Accord was the 1977 Caprice.
It is interesting to see this article come up again and its conclusions were much the same as mine. Having driven both cars at length, I have to say the Caprice was a nicer car. The Ford felt all numb and disconnected from the road. The 302 was not as powerful as the 305 4bbl and the 302 is famous for using fuel like a 351 or even a 400.
While the Chevy looks better and runs a bit better, I’d rather have a comfortable Ford than a Chevy with an interior that looks like it came out of a White Castle. Why would I want a large cruiser if not for comfort?
The best way to enjoy a Ford Aod is to never used overdrive unless you are cruising along on a highway. Not using it makes the car far more enjoyable to drive and all that shifting you avoid makes it last way longer. In my experience the aod lasted better than the gm 4 speed.
I would rather have a Ford 302 any day over a 305 chevy with its cracking blocks and soft came. And ford came with a v8. The chevy had a standard v6.
I have driven many panthers and gm b bodies and the typical Ford handles way better and in rain or snow the Ford is far superior.
As for looks the ford is superior in my subjective opinion.
Interior wise the Ford is better. At least in a Ford you could see over the dashboard with out power seats and Ford seats did not collapse under normal sized people. And the Fords had smoker windows and better power window mechanisms. No plastic tape regulators in a Ford.
Fords lasted longer than gm cars in fleet service and on the street. i drove a 1985 crown vic ltd as a cab and it lasted 580,000 miles on the original engine and rear end. No chevy ever did that.
The Gm b body was ok if you got a bigger v 8 and turbo 350 transmission but they were a Step below the Fords in just about every measure.
“The Gm b body was ok if you got a bigger v 8 and turbo 350 transmission but they were a Step below the Fords in just about every measure.”…… In your opinion.