tbm3fan posted a couple of shots of this survivor, which is showing the ravages of time. Looks like some red tape or plastic wrap is being employed on the roof, and some duct tape to keep the vinyl half-roof from flapping in the wind to badly. But here it, still chugging along. And no obvious rust. It was shot at the former NAS Alameda, in the Bay Area.
Here’s another view. I have a hard time pinning the exact year of these down, so please help yourself.
Reminds me of my buddy’s ’82 LeSabre that he had in high school in the late ’90s. His parents had owned it since new, and by the time it got to him, it had been progressively beat on and then flogged by a newly minted teen driver.
Inside, it looked like it was from another world. With the brougham accoutrements, the car felt 40 or 50 years old then when it was only 15 years old. Now that it really is that old, it probably feels 100 years old!
This may be a ’78 or ’79. I had one of these, a Canadian-made Parisienne, but otherwise the same car. It was pristine, low mileage and perfect, purchased for $500 when it was 9 years old. But I was an idiot and let it go because it wasn’t fast or sporty enough for my fool self.
I recall when these were new, they gave the impression of excessive plasti-chrome decoration that made them look cheap and tasteless. A car for conservative blue collar older men, which isn’t fair as it strikes close to home these days. . Too bad, they have a classic look now, and I’d love to have my Parisienne back.
Passenger headlight and turn signal are from a ‘79, driver’s side from a ‘78, grille is a ‘78.
Looks like a ’78 Bonneville to me
Yeah that beautiful roofline dates from the 1977-1979 models so 1978 could be right
Though I am not a fan of fender skirts on modern cars, large Pontiacs from that era looked best with them.
My brother had the exact same car. It was a real beauty, too.
NASA/NASCAR approved silver duct tape started appearing around post-1965 GM windshields and vinyl top equipped rear windows here in New Orleans around 1968.
A stroll thru a larger parking lot revealed many artful uses of the stuff to (temporarily) stop water leaks from the several times a day summer thundershowers here.
That car is savable and the possibilities are endless 🙂
https://bangshift.com/bangshiftapex/hauling-style-three-pedals-shaken-stirred-1989-pontiac-safari-rules/
It may be savable but that doesn’t mean that it is worth saving. There has to be a better starting point out there.
I dunno, it might not be a survivor and it just expired there..
Looks like motorcycle training school in the background of the last photo
Nope, I can attest that at the end of the day when I left the Hornet, it was gone.
I dont know which exact model it is but a similar grille adorned a lawn ornament on my street a couple of years ago, it ran but wasnt in use and its gone now, the rest of the local one looked in better condition which is understandable given the drama getting imports passed compliance can be coupled with shipping costs very few beater class cars come in.
This is a 1979 model. Here’s a ’78.
Pretty sure it’s a 78. I bought a brand new one on 4/10/78 for $6250.00. I was 32 years old with 2 kids, so in hindsight I don’t know what I was thinking! Nice car but with a 301 with what felt like 50 hp, it was a dog. Sold it in a panic 2 years later in the “Big Gas Shortage” and bought a new 1980 Datsun 510 wagon, for $6258(!)
It’s interesting how people keep saying the 301 felt like a dog in these B-body cars but my experience with them was different and in fact they felt livelier than most of the other cars I drove at the time including a 351 1977 LTD, any 6 cylinder compact or mid size from the 70’s or early 80’s.
One of the magazines C&D or Motor Trend did a writeup of the then new 1977 301 and said it felt nearly as peppy around town as a 350 in the new B-body cars and Consumer Guide did a write up test evaluation of a 1979 301 2BBL loaded Bonneville as said the engine pulled the car through every situation with better than average power and was the best choice for this car.
My buddy owned a 1979 LeSabre with the 301 2BBl engine and it would easily keep up with fast moving traffic at the time and would easily blow away my 231 or 260 V8 Cutlass Supremes. I test drove a 1979 red low mileage Bonneville Brougham that had the 301 4BBL and it would easily squeal the tires and felt like a 10 second 0-60 car.
If people are comparing this engines performance to today’s vehicles then yes it is slow. But for the time a properly running 301 B-body of the time ran quite well and was quicker than the larger LTD’s and Mopar cars with 302’s, 318’s and 351’s of the 1970’s time era. My 1979 edition of Consumer Guide backs that statement up in full force.
Old cars are simple and easy to keep them on the road I wonder how many 2018 vehicles can we still see on the road in the year 2060?
If they’re so simple and easy, why aren’t there more old cars on the road?
Rust, accidents and fuel economy.
Cash for clunkers killed a lot decent cheap rolling cars.
XR7Matt is right. Now instead of 42 years let’s use 30 years. Could a non-computer, low electronics 1970 car stay on the road for 30 years not withstanding rust, accidents and economy? I’d say yes.
Now could a 2018 model with god knows how many ECUs are in the car and all the other electronic goodies stay on the road 30 years not withstanding rust, accidents and economy? Given some stories I have already heard about 5-10 year old cars, and their ECUs I’d say no.
Uh accidents. Uh road salt. Uh cash for clunkers. uh consumer ignorance of service that killed engines and transmissions well before there time. The list could go on and on.
I’m a sucker for those Pontiac front ends from those days. In fact I like all the angular Pontiacs from this era. The quad lights and the angles just work for me, duct tape notwithstanding.
Having said that, I must also say that this particular car is, um, not the prettiest. Around here, they rusted away long before the springs sagged so much and doors got replaced. I wonder if it has deflated air shocks in the back. I had three old GM cars that had them (factory!) and I was unaware until I looked closely. They all leaked but initially leveled out the car when I put an air nozzle to them.
Take a look and see the relentlessly upward trend of the average age of a car on American roads. In 1977 when these were new, the figure was 5.5 years. In 1983 when they were 4 to 6 years old, it was 7.2 years. In 1990 when they were 11 to 13 years old, it was 7.6 years. In 2014 it was 11.4 years. And the current figure is within a spark plug gap of 12 years. So much for the baseless canard about how much more durable old cars are, and easier to keep on the road.
Simple and easy =/= durable.
Simple and easy means bubble gum and duct tape can fix broken and worn out parts when they inevitably wear out and break. Leaf springs for example may be archaic but there are 4 simple bushings in it so wear out, not 20 like a modern multilink independent suspension. Even if you can’t get direct replacements you could improvise pretty easily. This is exactly why *people* don’t keep them on the road though, most people don’t derive pleasure and pride in problem solving a transportation appliance on a frequent and unpredictable schedule. But for that puny fraction of us who do, old cars are absolutely unmatched – still wouldn’t count on one daily though.
None
I’ve wondered from time to time over the years how many pieces of the ’77-’79 Pontiac B-body front face are interchangeable with those of the ’77-’79 Chev B-body. By casual glance, it looks like a fair bit of mix-matching might be possible.
The 77-79 Pontiac front ends resemble the 80-86 Caprice more to me, the 77-79 Chevy front clips looked a bit more shark nosed than these, but the 80 refresh made them upright like the Pontiac
Look closer: there might be some cosmetic resemblance between the ’77-’79 Pontiac face and the ’80-’85 (not ’86) Caprice face, but there’s almost no commonality to the lines and angles and shapes and corners and junctions. Look at the ridge of body-coloured header panel above the grille and headlamps (present on ’77-’79, absent on ’80+). Look at the prow effect clearly visible on the ’77-’78 Chev and ’77-’79 Pontiac (inboard wall of headlamp nacelle several inches deep) and absent from the ’80+ (maybe a fraction of an inch deep). Look at the size and shape of the ’77-’79 Chev and Pontiac grille vs. the ’80+ item with rounded bottom corners and downward extension into a matching offset central portion of the bumper bar. Look at the sidemarker lights: they extend farther back into the side face of the fender on the ’77-’79 Caprice and Pontiac than they do on the ’80+ models.
The ultimate hooptie.
Take out all the window glass & I’d say it’s ready of the demolition derby.
California smog records say 1979 Bonneville.
This is bugging me and I now believe the passenger side headlight bucket is original ’79 but the driver’s headlights appear to be ’78 and blue like the left fender and right door. And yes, great hooptie
This brings me to think about a conundrum from this site.
Most of us here think back on the old cars and trucks and reminisce about owning or driving one. We even think how much fun it might be to be behind the wheel of one of these again. But I really think that this car, and ones similar, are simply the last option available to the driver before they have to walk. They aren’t fun, they aren’t nostalgic, they aren’t retro-chic. They don’t own it because it is so simple to fix, or it lacks the modern nanny-state controls. These cars are what they have to get them to work, to pick up kids in an overpriced daycare, to get them to the grocery store and back. We look at it and it brings up positive memories, for the most part. While this may be a project car for the current driver, chances are it is not. Chances are, if you talked to the driver of this car and offered them something newer and a bit more reliable, they would take you up on your offer in a hot minute. This is most likely not a car that brings the owner joy, it simply “is”.
You make an interesting point. But – compare this one to the “newer and better” choices for someone in that spot. Here in the midwest it would be a mid-late 90s sedan or minivan, and good ones are rare. Even the best Taurus or Chrysler minivan has an appetite for underbuilt transmissions, and everything that needs fixed is harder to get to. Maybe you can go for an old LeSabre or Impala that would be better, maybe. But in the SF Bay area I’ll bet the options in that price range are hard to find. Nobody bought LeSabres and Impalas out there so they are few and far between. What’s left? Japanese cars are expensive except for maybe an old Mitsubish. The old Korean cars are not really durability champs. I could see a guy doing a lot worse than one of these, which were at least the last of the tough old American sleds.
You are correct that “newer and better” (my wording was “a bit more reliable”) is subjective, but to the driver of such a car, they really don’t care if that transmission ‘may’ go out on a newer minivan, or that parts may be harder to get to in another, newer car. They just care that the car in question currently works. They have no budget to buy anything else, and repairs are often done as cheaply as possible to get the thing to run. They don’t worry about things working optimally, just that the car starts, goes, and stops with some degree of certainty. Their standards are not what we as enthusiasts require. Bad brakes? As long as they are not “no brakes”, we can deal with it. Three balding tires and one ‘new’ used one that replaced the blowout? Ok, if it works. We look back at our youth and lovingly tell stories about surviving cars like this as we were teens. The current owners do not have that luxury. While we can look down from our current status and say that the owner could be doing worse than owning one of these, they really never considered that they had a choice in buying the thing to begin with. Perhaps it was just good luck that fate provided them something that was a smidgen better than another one.
I think our two positions show up in my area as “urban poor” and “rural poor”. Urban poor need to get to work and get home and get the rent paid and some food bought. They don’t do cars other than to visit the BHPH lots for an older Hyundai, Mitsubishi or a Buick Century with rusty rocker panels.
Rural poor tend to have some mechanical skills. Go out into the more stressed areas in rural counties and you see nothing but Ford/Chevy/Dodge pickups and old GM cars (and the occasional Mustang or Panther). These folks know what are cheap and easy to keep going and either do the repair work themselves or buy beer for their neighbor who will.