CC Contributor Stanislav Alexeyev posted this single shot at the Cohort, titled “My Chevy”. The subtitle is “’87 Caprice 9C1”. Nothing more. But that pretty much says it all, as the 9C1 Chevy is hardly a stranger to CC. Quite few of seconded my vote for it as the big car to take one through the difficult eighties. And beyond, as is obviously the case with this one. A 9C1 Of A Lifetime.
Sharp car, I know I would slow down if I saw it approaching an intersection just like I did back in the day…
Wow is that clean, right down to the original wheel covers! I know most seem to feel the 77-79s had the best aesthetics but I think when you take the coupes out of the equation and compare 4-door to 4-door, these later ones look nicer.
What do you like better about them? I have some specific objections: the way the leading edge of the front door beltline rises to meet the cowl is somewhere in the range of pleasant-graceful-unobtrusive on the ’77-’79 cars, but on the ’80-’90 cars it strikes me as awkward and sloppy, like a “just make it fit!” afterthought. The greater difference between the angles of the leading and trailing edges of the C-pillar/sail panel on the ’77-’79 cars, resulting in a faster backlight angle, I find more attractive than the more nearly parallel angles and more upright backlight on the later cars. The acute angle of the decklid’s trailing edge on the earlier cars, with the rest of the elements of the matching bit of concavity to the rear of the car and the counterangles of the taillights (especially apparent on the ’79s) is relatively interesting and elegant; the later cars’ plain 90° chopoff looks careless and indifferent again, like “Whatever, don’t care, just end the car”. I like how the earlier cars’ front sidemarker lights are carried further back into the front fender (okeh, header panel since we’re talking about ’70s-’80s construction techniques), and I like the ’77-’79s’ greater prow effect up front and the shape and duality of their upper/lower grilles versus the closed-face bumper. Speaking of which, its randomly dropped centre section reads as “I still don’t care; quit pestering me and just go change something about the front bumper”. Together with the rounded lower corners of the ’80-’85 grilles, this gives the car look bucktoothed and as though it has an underbite, at the same time—guess Rybicki didn’t have an orthodontist on staff. Then things got yuckier for ’86 when they gave the car a clumsy facelift, screwing up the proportions by keeping the dropped-centre bumper but chopping down the grille height so it looked like some silly miniature version of itself.
The ’77 B and C Bodies were the last cars designed under Bill Mitchell.He was unfortunately replaced by Irv Rybicki, under whose direction GM went to the anyodyne look-alike mode that favored upright rear windows and many of the other elements you’ve noted. He lacked the subtlety and sculptural qualities that Mitchell had. These would not have been approved by him.
Having said that, although inferior to the originals, there’s still enough goodness that wasn’t hacked away to make me be able to find a bit of liking for them, as long as they’re clean like this one. The later ones, especially with the horrendous brougham padded roof that covered part of the rear door glass, were atrocious. Typical GM: start out with something really fine and slowly destroy it.
I like your well-thought-out critique, and your no-nonsense way of expressing it. Classic Daniel Stern!
Seriously, great comments.
I’m going to split the difference here and say the Chevy suffered from the redesign, but I think the Buick and Olds models benefited, even with the more formal backlight. Those models lost a lot of the more fussy styling touches of the 77-79s, especially the Buick’s rear deck– it had a weird curve towards the trunk lid that was corrected in the restyle.
As for GM, only if Chuck Jordan got to take the reins instead of Irv… as has been said here before, Irv was undoubtedly a very pleasant and very talented guy, but didn’t have the cojones to take on the 14th floor when they needed it the most.
I’ll split the split-difference with you: that melted-bar-of-soap curve at the back of the Buick’s deck was really unfortunate and had to go; no debate there. But I can’t get onside with the ’80+ Oldses, which to me look like cheap imitations of the ’77-’79s.
I agree with you and Daniel about the decklid curve on the Buick, I actually like the 80 nose a little better too, but the formal roofline was a dealbreaking downgrade to me in a way that never bothered me on the Caprice, especially the coupe. Olds I’m rather indifferent about, I don’t really care for the styling of the 77 or the 80.
Thanks kindly, Pete!
To me I feel many of the elements you mentioned make the 77-79s look visually heavy, while the 80 and up looks more aethletic. It’s more boxy, sure but still beauty queens compared to the Ford Panther cars. Detail wise I vastly favor the nose of the Impala to the Caprice from 80-85, but quite like the segmented 6 separate taillight assembly of the Caprice, as well as the taillights on the 86 up. I might like the 77-79 bodys more than the 80+ if they had these designs, but I just never loved any of the versions offered, which all look rather non descript to me. The thick header panel above the grille/headlights on the 77-79 Caprice reminds me of Frankenstein’s brow.
I don’t like the brougham versions with the puffy vinyl tops and wire wheel covers mind you, but in no frills 9C1 form with these handsome wheel covers and aerodynamic headlights I find them among the best of the breed.
There’s some eye-of-beholder stuff going on here, of course. I have an opposite opinion to yours: I’m not 100% sure I’m right, but I think there’s more bulge—”more fuselage”, if you will—to the ’80+ cars’s sides, and to me this makes them look ungainly. And the ’77-’85 Impala faces all look very conspicuously cheaper and uglier than the Caprice faces, as though to deliberately and loudly advertise to the world that you didn’t spend the money for the nicer car.
The ’86-’90 taillights are a kid’s Video Art rendition of the ’78 taillights, though I’ll concede the export version looks okeh.
The ’86 nose is just full of fail: Gosh, we were gonna put on composite headlamps, but the dog ate our homework/we missed the bus/Irv Rybicki was afraid of getting yelled at/other excuses so we crammed sealed beams in the holes (actually, the 9005-9006 bulbs and associated headlamp designs GM developed weren’t approved by NHTSA in time for 1986 production, but there was no chance they would have been, so the schlock ’86 nose is still GM’s fault).
About the Ford panthers, we agree.
I do think the 77-78 Impala noses look cheap and ugly, but the 79s were at least as good or better than the Caprice and I feel the 80-85s were vastly superior to the Caprice, which looked almost indistinguishable from the older Pontiac noses, but more generic. I’m not fond of the wraparound side markers in particular, the Impala look with the separated side markers was more traditional and appealing to my senses. I can’t say I ever noticed the fuselage bulge but that’s not a dealbreaker for me, I tend to like designs referred to as such, and that might be a subconscious factor as to why I like the 80s
I completely agree that the stopgap 86 front end is kind of awful, but when it did get the intended flush headlights for 87 the results were much improved IMO. The video art taillights made me laugh though, I don’t still dont mind them but that’s an astute reference lol
One other thing I prefer about the 80+(sedan) that the picture below reminded me is that the C pillar follows the shape of the rear door frame. The 77-79s the C pillar forms a right triangle due to faster backlight and blocky rear door frame.
Great review of the design….I’m an architect and totally agree with you. I was in high school when the B bodies came out and the “new Chevrolet”. I thought it was gorgeous especially with the two tone paint. Their advertising was excellent, showcasing the car in expansive “american” landscapes…They depicted the car as a revolutionary and GM was obviously proud of their results….Sales confirmed this.
Thanks kindly! I’m not an architect or designer, so I don’t formally know what I’m talking about.
They really pulled out all the stops advertising The New Chevrolet. I wrote about my favourite version of the ad here.
I am with you on this, Daniel. The 80 redesign of every big GM car except Cadillac was a visual downgrade. My biggest gripe was the downslope of the hood and deck from their levels close to the glass. This was most pronounced on the Oldsmobile but a problem with all of them. But I guess the aero benefit was a cheap way so score valuable CAFE points in that era. And, as PN pointed out, the aero changes were not handled with all of the skill that should have been applied.
Daniel Makes a lot of great points, but I can also see things from Matt’s perspective as well. I agree the 1980 Chevrolet restyle wasn’t perfect, but it did make the cars look much lighter and more agile. Some of the points Daniel brings up aren’t bothersome to me. The side profile of the ’77-79 cars is more aesthetically pleasing, but I always found the trunk looked a little droopy compared to the 1980-90 models. I also thought that the front end of the Caprice looked heavy with the large amount of space on the header panel above the grille and deeply inset lights. Overall though the ’77-79 models seem to have less styling faux pas than the later cars.
For the later cars, the 1980-85 Caprice grille was the least attractive of the bunch, but the 1980-85 Impala was always a nice looking car in my eyes. I particularly like them because they rarely had much trim. The 1986 restyle cleaned up the front end quite a bit, and the 1987 composite lights were great looking in my eyes, improving the looks further. I still think the book ends are the best looking overall, the 77-79 cars, and the 87-90 cars. The later cars may have some styling flaws, but I don’t care, I can like imperfect.
I used to know the man who had the Chevrolet franchise for Moscow. Said they sold a lot of Caprices to cops and criminals.
The Russian word for the mafia is pronounced ‘blatnoy’ (it means ‘connected’). This car definitely looks like something one of them would drive.
Popularity of American sedans among this certain type of public only lasted up until early 90s. Once W140 and E38 were out, it was game over for the US team.
After that only Grand Cherokees and Suburbans managed to catch their fancy. But they too eventually succumbed to the Germano-Japanese wave: G-Wagens, Land Cruisers and such like.
Militia/Police only bought a very small number of Caprices and only in Moscow. In the mid 90s there was a publicity stint involving a large fleet of Crown Victorias presented to the Moscow police force. They survived for some years but eventually all succumbed to rust and terrible neglect.
That is essentially how I remember it. I visited Moscow in 1993 and remember being surprised to see an American-style used car lot with some American cars. There were at least a couple of Lincoln Town Cars, a Cadillac, some others – including a Lumina “dustbuster” minivan. But the cars all looked like they had been there a while and the business was obviously slow. The general public didn’t have money for such cars, and those who had the money didn’t want them. All the mafia types I saw were already driving Mercedes and Jeeps. In those years, the Cherokee was nicknamed “shirokii” – a Russian word meaning “wide”, as in large, living large.
For some reason these 1977-1991 Caprice classic cars are very popular in middle East and Russia
There’s a photo in an ’80s(?) National Geographic magazine, of cars parked in the middle of the vast sand while their owners attend a nearby market or something. No neat rows and spaces like a paved and painted parking lot, just many, many, many cars, and a huge number of them are Caprices.
I found an export model Caprice in a junkyard here in Pennsylvania a few years back that had spent time in the Middle East. Lots of Arabic factory stickers on it, some info that pointed to US armed forces involvement, and a tan/tan color scheme. Always wondered how it ended up back in PA.
Thanks for the great photo! And happy Easter to you, if you’re into that sort of thing.
I have to agree with Daniel in that I liked the ‘77-‘79 GM full-size cars better than the successors. I recall when they redesigned them in 1980, I was disappointed, particularly in the rear window’s more upright angle. I can’t place specifics like Daniel, but the totality of the redesign was inferior. However, like many auto designs I didn’t care for, it tended to grow on me. The ‘88 (or was it ‘87?) introduction of composite headlights on the Caprice was a winner with me.
Very nice! Where the pre-80 cars look better as high-trim civilian models, these later ones look better in plain fleet trim. The one exception – although I applaud keeping those original wheelcovers on the car, I never liked the look of them. I always found that cover design as jarringly ugly.
Which makes me wonder – did Chevrolet even offer a small hubcap on the police cars? Every Police Caprice I ever remember seeing from that time period used these wheelcovers. The Fords’ looks were improved by the plain hubcap and black tires but the Chevy almost looked better in the fake wires (and I usually hate fake wires).
I also prefer the styling of ’77-79 B and C bodies greatly to the later versions, but my biggest gripe was the reduction of metal gauge and general flimsiness of the 80+ models. My Dad was a sales division manager for Bethlehem Steel 1947 to 1987, and his division sold sheet steel to the Detroit Big 3 and smaller players in the ’70s and 80s years that he ran that division. He told me at the time about how the fuel crisis jump started the weight saving programs that resulted in more use of thinner gauge “high strength” steel and car design reflecting the “Weight is the Enemy” signs he saw in GM car factories and offices. The 1980+ GM cars further reduced steel panel gauge and weight an additional 300 or more lbs over 77-79 models, and when he traded his ’77 Electra for an ’85 LeSabre Collectors Edition he lamented how much cheesier the body panels felt, and it actually bit him in the butt one time when he closed the trunk lid too firmly on an overfilled trunk and the lid actually bent over a suitcase that stuck up a bit too high! Having owned several 77-79 B & C bodies then later an ’85 Pontiac
Parisienne Safari Wagon it was hard to believe how cheap and flimsy feeling the latter car was in comparison to pre ’80 models we’d had.
Yup. My folks had an ’84 Caprice that was just dramatically tinnier and flimsier than the ’78 Caprice they had immediately before.
No to discount anyone experience, but I can’t say I have the same reverence for the 77-79 cars over the 80’s cars. I owned 5 of these cars and our family had several more that I used to drive often and work on. I also stripped numerous ones before I sent them off to the junk yard, so I know these cars well.
While the later cars had some cost cutting, and were lighter duty in some areas, from my experience with these cars, the older cars were heavier built, but the build quality was more spotty and long term reliability wasn’t as good as the later cars. Don’t forget it was the ’77-79 cars that had the soft cammed SBC’s and fairly common use of the TH200 transmission. The mid-80’s cars had a reputation of being bullet proof around here and were known to rack up very high mileage. Keep in mind though we had non-computer controlled Canadian emissions cars which were less problematic than the US market CCC cars. The 305 powered B-bodies had a reputation of last forever, and cab companies around here bought them in droves because of their long term durability.
As for the lighter feeling of the newer cars, I’d suggest much of that was from the redesigned doors. The newer cars had the doors redesigned in 1980 to be much lighter. This made them feel less substantial, but the older cars weighted a ton. There were really not too many other major differences. I remember often driving back to back my ’85 Olds Delta 88 and a ’78 Olds Delta 88 and there was very little difference in them. The older car did feel heavier (and it was), but it also had doors that weighted much more. The newer cars were also far better on fuel when equipped with an OD transmission.
At the risk of beating a thoroughly dead horse here, I disagree. Doors, yes, for sure, but the floors were also very obviously thinner and tinnier. Hood and trunk, too. Glovebox. Dashboard finish panel. Fuel cap access door/rear licence plate bracket. Air cleaner. On and on and on went the list of items cheesier on the ’84 than on the ’78. You’re right about the pathetic TH-200 transmissions—that was a negligent underspecification on GM’s part. Soft cams on the Chev engines were a production foulup, though, limited in scope, that got fixed. It could’ve happened in any year; it just happened to happen when it happened.
I don’t think its beating a dead horse, we just had different experiences. I noticed plant of manufacturer had a big impact on the quality, with Lansing Olds’ and Oshawa Chev/Pontiacs being the best IMO. Of course even though I had owned 5 of these cars and probably had around we had close to 10 in the family (including mine), it’s all anecdotal anyway.
I used the Olds comparison for me since i regularly used a family members ’78 when I had my ’85 so I did do back to back driving often. For the hood, the ’78 Olds actually had an aluminum hood, which was quite flimsy in comparison to the ’85’s steel hood. I can’t say I noticed any major difference in the floor thickness, although insulation levels certainly played a role on how tinny the interior’s were on the cars I owned. There may have been a minor difference in the sheet metal thickness, but for 1984 i think you’d be hard pressed to find another car on the market that had thicker sheet metal than a GM B-body. In salt laden Ontario, the 80’s B-bodies sure seemed to hold up significantly better than the 70’s cars when it came to rust. Also the 80’s cars I owned had better interiors over the plainer late 70’s versions (especially the Chevrolet). The soft cams was a problem that plague many model years, but roughly ’77-82 were the worst.
I don’t want to discount your experience of the ’77 vs ’84 your family had, but all I can say is it wasn’t what my experience. I just think hindsight sometimes puts the ’77-79 cars on a bit more of a pedestal that it deserves. And this is coming from a guy who is probably one of its all time biggest fans.
What is a soft cam?
I think you’re probably right that we’re neither of us wrong (right?).
In the Motor Trend Car of the Year feature GM were crowing about 10-year body integrity with no perforation, but even if that was defensibly true—consider where it was printed—one would hope (and reasonably assume) rustproofing materials and techniques would improve over time so later-production cars would be better in this regard.
It’s interesting how different cars can be remembered, eh? The Aspen/Volaré are almost universally remembered as pathetic junk, with a few defenders (NB the Vega and Pinto also have a few defenders), though surely some of those cars, the ones accidentally built well, gave good and dependable service. The ’77-’79 GM B-bodies, on the other hand, are widely remembered with great fondness and admiration even though plenty of them had problems that can’t be called excusable—such as the TH-200 ProbleMatic transmission failures.
GM had a problem with improperly-hardened (i.e., soft) camshaft lobes that wore very quickly in certain engines. See here and click the link it contains.
Now that was somewhat unexpected, Paul ))
I posted this photo at the Cohort the day I purchased it; the previous owner had it repainted black (factory color; at some point it had been painted white – with a roller, I’ve been said) and sorted out some mechanical issues, but there’s still much to do. No rust, which is quite, quite surprising for a Moscow car. Not the best year, but “square” Caprices are in short supply these days, not to mention 9C1 police package cars.
Drove it from Moscow to my place (~400 km / 250 miles) the next day.
Has the original 350 & TH-700, 3.08 rear end. Runs good but the breaks are somewhat soft.
Only today I officially registered it (it had some issues with paperwork and the color in the papers didn’t match, so it was some paint in the… but better than it could’ve been).
Maybe one day I’ll make a proper COAL on it… just have to get used to being an owner of an American full-size car ))
Pic
Hey, interesting; it’s got a stand-up hood ornament! I thought those went away after 1985 on the Caprice.
Your left headlamp’s reflector appears to be dead. There are some German (natch…) specialists who can restore it; http://www.reflektorklinik.de .
Interior (original and in decent condition)
I found out that as of 09-24-1990 it was registered in California as a police vehicle (it is still in some database).