GM’s 1973-77 intermediate cars, known as Colonnades, get much love from us at CC. While the collector market hasn’t warmed to most of these models, we here at CC recognize that during an era when Detroit wasn’t exactly at its peak, these cars had a lot of inherent goodness. I think it’s also recognized that the dominance of the Colonnade car line in the personal luxury car field means they hold a significant place in history.
That said, we here tend to give a lot of love to the Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiacs but the Chevrolets, at least the Malibus and Chevelles, seem to be the bottom of the barrel. Clearly, the 1964-72 Chevelles are well-loved and accepted by the collector community, but even die-hard bowtie lovers offer little love to the Colonnade Chevrolets.
I have made the argument that the Chevrolet Malibus from this era are probably one of the cleanest Colonnade GM’s of the era. Buick, Olds, Pontiac and even Chevrolet’s Monte Carlo had swoops and curves but the Chevrolet Malibu wore rather basic lines. Not until the revised Cutlass Supremes and Buick Regals was any other Colonnade cars adorned with such clean sheet metal. While the Chevrolet Malibu had clean styling, unfortunately Chevrolet stylists chose rather bland or unattractive front and rear styling on these cars. In my eyes this takes away from the remainder of the car, which I’d argue is relatively handsome.
I have to admit though, while I have come to this conclusion, as a former ’68-72 Chevelle enthusiast, there was a time I turned my nose up at these cars. Only after spending many years with Dad’s Malibu did I come to the realization that it is actually a nice clean design. Furthermore, they are relatively well-engineered, reliable, comfortable cars that are easy to maintain.
This ’77 Malibu Classic I found on Craigslist is one that demonstrates Chevrolet Malibu’s clean styling in spades. Having very little trim and no vinyl top it shows off its rather attractive lines, which I think are especially noticeable from the side profile. I know many here have the preference of the more formal roofline of the Cutlass Supreme, but I have always thought the semi-fastback Colonnade roofline was far more attractive, having an air of sportiness during the drudgery of Broughams.
That said, I still haven’t warmed up to the stacked headlights that were adopted in 1976. Clearly, it was a quick patch job by Chevrolet Styling to bring the old body style in line with modern trends with minimal investment. Only the Malibu Classics received the stack rectangular headlights though, and base models continued to use the dual round headlights with a unique grille for 1976-77. Also new for 1976-77 were larger and squarer bumpers, which spoiled the side profile somewhat. At least the rear styling was inoffensive and consistent with the 1975-76 Chevrolet Impala.
This particular Malibu appears to be quit the time capsule, a wonderfully preserved original car in fantastic condition. The seller claims 31,000 original miles and based on the condition, I have no doubts this is true. Not only that, it is somewhat of an unusually equipped car.
This being Malibu Classic, it is a step above the bare bones Malibu. However, beyond the upgraded Malibu Classic trim and interior, it seems to have few other options. While over 90% of 1977 Chevrolet’s Chevelle/Malibu line had V8 engines, of those equipped with a six, the majority were the base model Malibus. Only 7,765 Malibu Classic were equipped with the 250 six compared to 24,076 base model Malibus.
Although the 250 six was once Chevrolet’s most powerful six cylinder option, by 1977 this was the sole inline six being used in cars. With ever tightening emission standards, the six was rated at 110 hp and 185 lb-ft of torque (SAE net). Not exactly a pavement shredder, but a powerhouse compared to the Ford 250 six and a 5 hp increase from 1976. However, I do question the seller’s claim that the car is “peppy.”
The original purchaser of this car did spring for the $282 3-speed Turbo-Hydramatic 350, which no doubt would help improve performance over the older 250’s equipped with the 2-speed Powerglide. By 1977 automatic transmissions were becoming pretty ubiquitous in this class, and Malibu was no different with 98.7% being equipped as such. The original purchaser also selected power steering ($146) and power brakes ($61), which were in 99.3% and 97.4% of 1977 Malibus respectively.
The original purchaser, however, kept the base hub caps on body coloured wheels. Air conditioning, a passenger mirror and even a clock were also not selected. By this time the majority of the Malibu line-up was equipped with air-conditioning, in fact 80.6 % were so equipped in 1977. However, many northern state and Canadian cars still were built without A/C. I also noticed it had the optional (and not very effective) rear window blower defroster and that it’s being sold in Rochester. So it likely was a northern car from new. Despite that, its undercarriage is very clean and unmolested, suggesting it was never exposed to harsh weather.
This Malibu is a true unique rolling piece of history that hopefully finds a good home. The owner is asking $9000 for the car, which may be somewhat optimistic. But considering how few are left in this condition, and how few are equipped like this, it is probably a reasonable price. It will just take the right buyer to come along and scoop it up. Let’s hope it finds a new care taker, perhaps a fellow CCer might be interested?
We have debated this question, you and I. I continue to put the Chevy at the bottom of the colonnade hierarchy in terms of looks. If there were such a thing as a generic car in 1976-77, the Malibu would have been it as it just completely lacks personality.
That said, this may be the most attractive of these I have ever seen. The lack of extraneous trim highlights the clean lines that you have tried on multiple occasions to point out to me. This car makes me see your point. This color helps too. But I still think both the front and the rear are pretty much devoid of ideas.
The undercarriage looks to have been recently painted. I don’t remember the bottom of Mom’s 74 LeMans as that uniformly black, even when the car was new. But you can’t blame someone for trying to preserve it from the elements.
Painted or sprayed with a thinner undercoating. Either way, a good move to help keep rust at bay. I had a friend who bought new a well optioned 1976 Malibu Classic Landau. It may have had air and I think swivel buckets. He didn’t have it for many years as it proved to be unreliable.
While These cars were everywhere at the time, they slowly disappeared up here because of mechanical ills or severe body rust from salty roads during the winter. Edmonton Police had a fleet of 73 Malibu sedans and unlike some other makes used for police duty, the Malibu’s disappeared after a couple of years.
A 73 or 74 Laguna would be a more desirable model if you could find one. Although smogged up, they looked good.
You’re right JPC, we have discussed this in the past and we have differing opinions. And while this example is a clean car, it’s not my favorite Malibu. I just thought it was a really cool find and a really basic clean car from an era of excess. I really am not a fan of the stacked lights or the bigger bumpers on the 76-77s. I would probably say the best Malibu was the 74 Laguna. It had the nice endura front end without the big front bumper and I also prefer the smaller quarter windows over the big ones. That said, I still like the BOP cars too, but Colonnades as a whole are far from my favorite body style.
As for the undercarriage, I believe Garry is correct. It has like been touched up with some undercoat. A lot of northern cars were undercoated from new and I wouldn’t be surprised if this was too, but it was recently touched up for preservation. Dad’s old Malibu looked similar to this when it was a low mile car (it was undercoated). What I didn’t notice was any rust and scale in the photos. One usual give away of a formerly rust frame is looking inside the frame rails through body mount holes. Here you will usually see rust on a former rusted frame. I see it often on old cars I have inspected more closely.
Garry also make a good point about the rust on these cars. They were horrible. Not as bad as the Fords, but far from good. A family friend cut his teeth on these cars in the body shop trade. He hates Colonnade cars to this day specifically because he had so many rust repairs he used to do on them.
“He hates Colonnade cars to this day specifically because he had so many rust repairs he used to do on them.”
If he was billing people for his work, you’d think he’d love them. 🙂
Most body men I have met over the years hate rust repair. And most shops around here today, seem to only want collision/insurance work and will turn away rust repair. This particular friend is a painter, and hates rusty cars. 35+ years ago when he was starting out, he was making hourly wages, so it didn’t matter what type of repair he was doing.
Like the Camaro of the same era, these are somewhat of a surprise when you find a base model and how good looking they are. I hope it stays the way it is. When I see these cars (and other Malaise coupes) I see a NASCAR type of musclecar rather than a quarter miler from the ’60’s.
I agree, this car does have an odd mix of options, but I’ve seen this before. In 1977, my father purchased a 50,000 mile 1974 Malibu Classic V8 coupe from a friend for $2,000, intending to keep it only a year or so. While it was the more upscale Classic, it had a manual drivers side mirror, an AM radio and no clock. It did have the extra cost swiveling bucket seats, but they were vinyl, not cloth. The buckets, while very sporty, made a cramped interior even more cramped. Well, the one year turned into 10 years and an additional 100k miles. Never a stellar performer, it soldiered on as my fathers commuter car into NYC and survived the teenage years of 2 boys. Eventually, it was sold to someone in the neighborhood for $500. By that time, it got maybe 12mpg, a true gas hog. The people who bought it called to ask if the gas gauge worked since it was always on empty. “Yes!” my father replied, that was the Malibu!
In New York State, a rear window defogger was mandatory, and all new cars sold there, certainly by 1979, had them.
The basest new cars would have at least one option: rear window defogger/defroster. Even Pintos and Chevettes
The law may have been in effect when this Malibu was sold. Very nice car, but I’d prefer the sedan
NY’s mandate for a rear defogger—NY traffic code § 375(10-b)—took effect with the 1974-model cars. Blower-type units like the one on this car were just about useless; it’s difficult to imagine them meeting even the vague performance requirement in the code.
Interesting. I wonder what happened when people moved to the State of New York from another state, and their car was a 1974 or later model sans rear window defogger?
Did they have to turn to the aftermarket? I know that J.C. Whitney catalog used to include the blower type, as well as a grid type that adhered to the rear glass.
One had to be installed. There were blower-type kits from the automakers and from aftermarket suppliers, as well as grid-type kits (and still are).
Maybe you can shed some light on another obscure NY mandate.
The owners manual I had for a ’74 Maverick described a switch on the left side of the column for “City-Country” Horn. I’ve not been able to find much on it, other than it was NY only. I certainly could see automakers loathe to
tool up new steering columns or an additional machining operation to accommodate this.
Documentation on that requirement doesn’t survive well; there’s no readily-accessible archive I’ve found of past editions of NYC’s noise control code. From what I understand, and clues I’ve been able to pick up, for a time ending sometime in 1974 NYC had a requirement that car horns (amongst other noise sources like air compressors) could not exceed 75 dB(A) @ 25 feet within city limits at speeds below 35 mph. That’s not very loud at all—adequate for stopped-up city traffic where honking isn’t going to do anything productive anyhow (and in those days of cars not nearly so well sound-insulated and stereo-equipped as today’s), but not adequate at higher speeds.
The Federal requirement for horns is that they produce an “adequate and reliable warning signal” (yes, that’s really all!), so cars sold in the greater NYC area had one or another arrangement of city/country horn selector switch—and it wasn’t their original idea; such selectable horns came on the Renault Dauphine in the late ’50s, guessably because of a noise ordinance in Paris.
Automakers sold retrofit kits for cars not originally equipped—take a close look at the hangtag in the linked kit; its text is explanatory.
Eventually the requirement was dropped in favour of more stringent bylaws against unnecessary honking (enforcement? lol). Probably because, as you say, automakers and everyone else hate this kind of local-reg stuff that drives up costs and headaches (though it wouldn’t’ve required tooling up for new steering columns or anything so drastic as that—typically a switch was installed on the side of the regular steering column, or on or under the dash). A 1974 Checker service bulletin describes the discontinuation of the city/country horn setup in (poorly-worded) accord with with cancellation of that part of NYC’s noise ordinance. And by 2006, the New York City Administrative Code had been amended very substantially with regard to car horns; it allowed up to 98 dB(A) at 50 feet. That’s a whole hell of a lot louder than 75 dB(A) at 25 feet! Sound level attenuates by roughly 5dB with doubled distance, so the previous limit was about 70 dB at 50 feet—and remember, decibels aren’t linear; they’re logarithmic. 70 dB sounds twice as loud as 60 dB. Good explanation here.
As of 2011, US vehicle horns tended to range from 87 to 104 dB at 23 feet (roughly 80 to 98 dB at 50 feet).
I still have little love for the colonnade models. Having been born in 1960 and a car fanatic even when I was young, I saw these cars replace what I thought were very attractive A-body cars…especially 1970-1972. The colonnade cars didn’t improve on the previous generation’s mechanicals…chassis, engines etc., they were basically carry overs, albeit even more strangled by emission standards. I found the styling overwrought, I hated the fixed rear windows and unfortunately the cars were never designed for the new bumper standards. Basically the cars were heavier, engines were emasculated, styling was compromised by bumper standards, and aesthetically I never liked the heavy “colonnaded roof pillars.
The chassis was heavily revised between 1972 and 1973. The suspension geometry was significantly improved over the 1964-72 models. Also, it seems most 1968-72 Chevelles had four wheel drums versus the disc/drums on all 73-77 models. Yes, the power was down, but compare typical 1968 Chevelle 307 with a PG to a 1974 Malibu with a 350 and a TH350. The early car doesn’t really have a performance advantage when looking at more average versions rather than jus the hi-po versions. The later cars were also safer, and obviously cleaner.
So yes, you make some valid points, but there was still some progress with these cars, just not a huge amount. We call this area malaise for a reason.
The myth that “all Chevelles were muscle cars” is propagated by cable TV auto restore shows. And, car fans who were not even born before 1972. So, yes, I too remind them of the 307 PG and sedan/wagon versions.
One kid said in a message board, “I saw this custom Chevelle, it was made into a station wagon! Wow must have been a lot of work”. Yeah, at the GM factory, kiddo!
Very good article Vince. Yes, you are correct about the front drum brakes being standard on the ’68 to ’72’s. On the Chevelle, however, with front drums, the drum and hub were made separately making the drum easy to remove without taking out the wheel bearings. I can’t remember where I read this but I once read that the F body front suspension was used on the Colonades. Is there any truth to this?
Thanks Glenn. You remembered correct on both counts. The ’73-77 Chevelles used the same control arms as the 70-81 Camaros. There were slight differences between the two, but essentially the same basic setup.
I thought they were designed for 5mph bumpers.
The outgoing 1972, with the tail lamps in the bumper, would not have fared well with the new bumpers
My understanding is that these cars were not designed with 5mph bumpers which were mandatory for front bumpers starting 1973. These cars were supposed to be introduced MY 1972 but were delayed by a strike at GM.
Collectible Automobile has pic of “1972 Colonnade” prototypes of Chevelles and Monte Carlos. Bumpers were tiny, with large grilles.
And, I agree that handling was improved.
Something forgotten was in ’72, Ford Torino outsold Chevelle, which was considered “outdated” and “old”. Check 1972 Motor Trend mags for this opinion.
BTW: The “fans” who claim “all pre ’73 Chevelles were muscle cars” are seeing clones of SS’s or resto modded former base 307 models at local cruise ins.
Not my fave, but I must agree this is quite attractive in its simplicity.
I was fully expecting a 305 under the hood, the six was a surprise!
perhaps a fellow CCer might be interested? I’ll pass, as I wouldn’t want to deprive another fellow CCer.
In California in 1977, these stuck out like a very sore, bruised and crudely bandaged thumb. A Honda Accord coupe was the in car at the time, and the streets were flooded with Japanese cars already. Now a ’77 350 Impala/Caprice could still get some Californians interested (including this one).
Another analogy: this Malibu looks like its wearing bell bottoms, platform shoes, a very wide tie and a jacket with ultra-wide lapels five years too late. But this example wears them quite well, having eschewed the poufy wig and and gold chains.
I would like to go on a road trip in this car wearing bell bottoms etc.
All I need is a suitable destination. 😛
I agree with you that by 1976-77 these were out of date and long need for overdue for an overhaul, although so was the competition in this class. And while the Accord was the way of the future, these were still decent buys for the time if you didn’t care about the latest and greatest. But what stood out to me on this car was the unusual options, the excellent condition, and it’s pretty clean styling from a relatively overwrought family of cars.
I understand you passing on the car, but at least it was a ’71 LTD!
Stylish yes, practical no. The interior was indeed cramped and the gas mileage was very poor. I had a 76 Olds Cutlass that with a 350 V8 couldn’t pass a gas station very often.
Noticed in the CL ad that the door strikers were replaced. Was it them or the dreaded door hinge bushings?
Well…..
The stylists did their job; I always found these nice looking and graceful if a bit generic.
But…the rest of the car- ugh. Perhaps one could like these if they had never known the GM cars of the mid 60’s and had never driven one more than a few miles, but otherwise- no.
So much swoopy sheetmetal over so much nothing. The materials and padding in the interior remind me of ‘rent-to-own’ furniture which looks okay in photos home to mom but is oddly uncomfortable when you sit on it. The dash is made of some kind of rubbery plastic that is creepy to touch (my parents had a Malibu Classic sedan of the era, so I know). Add the malaise era lack of power and poor drivability (Cold starts? Hah! – the reason that this was never driven in winter is that it was so hard to start!).
The short version is that somewhere between the drawings and the showroom floor, the accountants sucked out all the potential goodness like Formosa termites.
Setting aside everything, you’re right… this car makes no sense. If you want a stripped-out, barebones car, why would you get a Classic vs. a base Malibu? Near as I can remember, the main differences were the header panel/headlights/grille, different quarter windows, and the Classic had better upholstery.
If you want my guess, this was an end-of-the-line car, built late in the model year. The plants were winding down production, using whatever parts were left, and then foisting them upon dealers. Maybe they ran out of base Malibu parts but still had sixes left, so that’s why this one came out this way? It’s my only guess.
I’ve never really objected to the Colonnade Chevy’s styling (apart from the ’74’s shameless-Mercedes-ripoff grille). t’s an amazing survivor and the baby-blue cloth interior fairly screams mid-70s in a good way. But the opera-window fastback is still my least favorite Colonnade roofline – if it were a base Malibu with the original big triangular windows, or better yet a sedan…
In retrospect it’s amazing that a wheel upgrade wasn’t included in the Classic trim level.
If I had the space I’d be tempted to buy it, put on some original full wheelcovers and try to resist the temptation to convert it to the big quarter windows the Colonnade coupe was meant to have.
The most astonishing thing about this car from a 2019 perspective, when manufacturers want to limit “build combinations” until no option configuration doesn’t have at least 10,000 buyers, is that Chevy retained power steering, power brakes, and automatic transmissions as a la carte options despite each of them having about a 99% take rate.
Well, the take rate for power steering and brakes was 99%. So why not make them standard? The Detroit game of “lowest sticker price”.
What I found amazing is that 32,000 of these were sold with six-cylinder motors! That’s a lot! And that means another 280,000 or so had V8s.
So, in 1977, the following CHEVROLET CAR models sold over 250-300k copies:
Malibu
Monte Carlo
Nova
Caprice/Impala
How many car models in the US today sell over 300k?
I liked the ’74 version of the Malibus of this era. This one has me wondering though. It was bought at a dealer in Niagara Falls, ergo a northern climate. How did someone only accumulate 31,000 miles in over 40 years of this car’s life? Just an occasional grocery getter? More mile accumulated in its early life then parked? Only 750 miles or so per year shows someone hardly needed this car at all.
I like the colour of this one, and among the Colonades, I preferred the Malibu and the Cutlass the most. By 1977 however, the Malibus were past their best before date.
The side profile of this one is its best side. The grille looks like very much an afterthought, designed at the 11th hour before these went into production. The taillights were too busy and did not fit in on the back of these. Very nice shots of this vehicle, I hope it finds its way to a loving owner.
This appears to be the exact same car made famous by Lloyd Dobler in “Say Anything”.
First thing I thought of.
When I was a kid, I didn’t like any of the colonnades. Thought them all to be bloated and inefficient looking. It wasn’t until around ’91 when my friend got a beater ’73-ish Cutlass (with the catfish-looking face) and I rode in it that I found it to be a comfortable car with some pep and a nice sound.
I even had a ’77 Monte Carlo for awhile. Dark green, rally wheels with Eagle STs. It was sharp. Still bloated and inefficient, but felt like a “man’s car” in a big way.
My first cars were an ’82 Mustang hatch, a ’90 S10 stripper, an ’85 SR5 Corolla, and a ’79 Honda LX hatch. So efficient/boxy/small was sorta my taste. Turns out I liked a different kind of car than I thought. Kind of like when you think you want a skinny girl but eventially realize you like them with some curves.
There is a Malibu Classic in this video if you want a good laugh.
https://youtu.be/2tcD_dVcXE4
If original, would the engine in this car be painted Chevy Orange or GM Corporate Blue?
Good point on that one, 1977 was the year GM switch to Corporate Blue. There are few explanations I can think of. One. is that the owner repainted the engine and did so in Chevy Orange. The paint does look almost too perfect to be original, and clearly this car has had some detailing done to it. Second, that perhaps it was an early build and used a left over orange engine. Third, it could be that the engine was replaced, but anyone who truly cared about originality could confirm that pretty quickly by checking the numbers, so I am not sure why someone would lie about that. It would definitely be worth investigation further if one was interested in buying it.
I took a look and a test drive in a low-miles, very original ’77 Caprice Classic some years ago (Metric 200 trashmission—pass!). Its 350 wore what surely looked like its original coat of Chev Orange paint. Perhaps the corporate-blue engine paint came after the start of the ’77 model year; the Caprice I looked at was a 9/76 or 10/76 build.
I suspect this is likely the case about switch over being partially through the model year. I’d guess this is Malibu is an early build car. I am sure if there was a surplus of “old” engines at the beginning of the year, they’d have to get used up before the started with the new corporate blue engines.
I would have loved to see that original ’77 Caprice. A TH200 transmission just means it’d be an easy swap to a TH350 or better yet a TH200-4R OD.
The rest of the Caprice was in okeh but not super condition, and it was a low-equipment model without A/C or anything. Had it been more interestingly equipped and/or in Ziploc condition, I’d’ve gone for a TH350 swap or maybe a 700R4.
Ah, too bad it wasn’t a really nice one. A TH700-R4 would be fine too, but a bit more work than a TH2004R swap. Despite their spotty reputation, all the TH200-4R’s and TH700-R4’s I owned were good transmissions and lasted well into high mileage without any problems. I am pretty religious about changing ATF and filters though.
Just beautiful, exactly as-is! I am loving the dog dishes on the painted steel wheels and hope the new owner keeps it intact.
Though the stacked quad headlamps aren’t my favorite, the new, vertical grille pattern for ’77 was an improvement. The “simple” aspects of this car show off what were the Colonnade Malibu coupe’s good, basic lines.
I really liked my ’76. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-capsule/cc-capsule-1976-77-chevrolet-chevelle-malibu-classics-bringing-the-heat/
Of ALL the 1973-’77 ‘collonade’ A-bodies, the 1973 Grand Am is my favorite, followed by the 1973 Laguna. Both have a proper front mask that take away from the ugly 5-mph bumpers the rest of the A-body line got stuck with. And I prefer the four round taillights the 1973 Chevelle models had over Pontiac’s plain rectangles which was a year before rear 5-mph bumpers became mandatory. What lets the Chevelle down for me is the interior, but that’s what made it a cheaper Chevrolet Laguna over a more upscale Pontiac Grand Am.
I owned a 4 door 77 and it was one of the most reliable cars i ever had. it was comfortable and looked great. I like both front and rear of these cars(prefer the round tailights of the 73 and the square 74’s) My dad had a 74 landau coupe and a 73 SS. All collonades look great to me with the 73-77 Monte Carlo’s in the lead. The blue one is one beautiful and well kept specimen, i think it’s worth the $9000.
The fastback Colonnade Malibu, LeMans, etc were first drawn up around 1968, the height of ‘supercars’. {What muscle cars were actually called then}. Meant to be swoopy and speedy looking, to compete with Torino GT and Charger.
But, taste changed, and the formal roof “A-Special” bodies, Cutlass Supreme coupe, Monte, GP, Regal, ended up taking the market by storm. Resulting in Charger copying the look, and Torinos being renamed LTD-II.
While this looks better than some (and that rear shot is quite nice), the Chevelle – excluding the Laguna and Laguna Type S-3 models – remain my least favourite Colonnades by far, and I love Colonnades.
Also I prefer the larger rear quarter windows of the base Chevelle/Cutlass S/etc. The smaller windows look strange without a vinyl roof.
Does this car seem like it’s sitting awfully high? I owned a few colonnades and don’t recall any of them with a suspension like this one.
FSDusk,
I thought that too. Could it be some replacement springs that are multi-application and a little stiffer/taller than original? The heavy duty suspension may have been slightly taller, but not that much and unlikely to be on a six-cylinder car. I like the slightly taller looks. I used to see Hollywood stunt cars with beefier springs and I used to want one like that when I was younger. The yellow Chevy Caprice/Impala taxi from Die Hard With A Vengeance comes to mind. Or Hunter’s green Monaco before that. I had spacers in the rear springs of my ’78 Zephyr way back when to hide the saggy-butt look of the early fox-bodies. They sorta just fell out eventually.
I noticed the high-riding suspension, as well. It looks good, reminding me of how cops could tell vehicles that were speeding as they would “catch air” on the highway. In fact, although I generally detest the look, this would be a good candidate for double-dub wheels and tires.
As to the reason for it, I’m going to guess this was picked up on the cheap at an estate sale of some elderly dowager who passed on and hadn’t driven the car in decades. In addition to detailing the undercarriage, someone put on generic springs (most likely for a V8) to shore up the sagging suspension and is now planning on making a killing. Although a very nice car, it’s a tad salty at $9k (especially considered the 250 six and very low option count).
OTOH, the high price would do a good job of keeping away the hot-rodders who would quickly yank the six and stuff a modded SBC in the engine compartment (along with the aforementioned double-dubs).
I noticed the higher stance too. I suspect it is because it has the lighter six in the front end, or it has had it’s springs replaced at some point. While Chevrolet may have had something like 12 different front springs for these cars from the factory, the aftermarket has far less choices. This is done to reduce part cost, but this typically results in poorer fit/stance depending on the application. It wouldn’t be hard to adjust the stance on this car if you wanted it lower.
In suburban Rochester, N.Y., my next-door neighbors had a pair of Chevrolets of this vintage. A sedan in beige for him, and a wagon in chocolate brown for her. Even at age seven, and with an 1977 Impala in our own driveway I didn’t think these warranted a BOGO purchase. They also didn’t like kids, so there’s no accounting for taste.
I like a clean, original ’70s car (or any car, really). In fact, I’ve liked all the colonnade Malibus on here over the last few weeks; count me among the few who like the Malibu best among the divisions (with the LeMans perhaps being close enough to count as a tie).
Awesome! I would sell it at Barrett-Jackson.
Sigh, I finally reach a stage in my life when I can buy a brand new car, (probably a once off) and there is nothing in the reasonably priced market that remotely appeals.
This would have been perfect. From its color matched interior, to its solid BOF construction, I would have loved this, would have liked a V8 with it though.
Question,
Are those diagonal braces from the firewall to the front corners to stop any front panel shake on a rough road ?
The braces seem to help reduce unwanted vibrations more than anything else. They are very lightweight and don’t add a huge amount of stiffness to the body. The passenger side brace must be removed to remove the battery.
Excepting the PLCs, the ‘Bu is on the bottom rung of the colennade hierarchy for me, followed by the Cutlass, Lemans, and the Regal being the best of the bunch. I suspect this was all intentional, too, since Chevrolet and Pontiac had the more profitable Monte Carlo and Grand Prix, so they didn’t want better looking intermediate coupes to cannibalize sales.
Oldsmobile and Buick had no intermediate-sized PLCs, so they had no such cannibalization worries as Toronado and Riviera buyers were unlikely to cross-shop the intermediates.
The great selling GM intermediates of 73-77 were nice in some ways, and disappointing in others. GM could have done a much better job with interior room and trunk space. Front seating? No problem. Rear? Not very good.
Though the 78’s were downsized (and cheapened) considerably, they pretty much matched the interior and trunk space of the 73-77 cars.
Our family had one of these, a 1977, which he bought in 1989. I remember it being extremely comfortable and powerful, and I learned how to drive in it.
While learning to drive, I would determine whether I was driving in the center of my lane by using the left edge of the hood and the hood ornament as indexes (my lane needed to be between these two points).
I wondered why the front end design was blocky and vertical, while the rear end was streamlined and aerodynamic. It never looked right to me, and I imagined how it would look with swapped ends.
When possible, we avoided driving it as the gas mileage was pretty awful — friends and family called it “the big pig”.
At the time, cars like this were almost worthless on the market and would generally sell for about five hundred dollars. My dad’s friend was a used car salesman who had offered him the car for $800. My dad, wanting to help him out, paid him the full price. Later, his friend mocked him for paying that much (“you paid $800 for that thing? Har Har”) My dad was not happy.
This is the first one of these that I have encountered with a six cylinder engine. I had two different versions of this model as company cars, one with a 350 engine which moved along pretty well and one with a 305 engine that was adequate. I imagine this six cylinder powered version has to be a stone.
Based on my experience with these ’73-’77 versions, I’m not a fan.
That’s a great car! Those were everywhere in the late 70s through about the mid ’80s and I think most of them were that light metallic blue. I don’t think Ive seen one with a six though.
We had a 1974 brown Chevelle sedan with a tan vinyl interior from 1976-1984 that dad bought as a mildly used 2 year old trade in with around 40K miles. Dad got a “good” deal on it according to him. I was very young when they got that car but remember it vividly. Compared to the neighbors green 1974 AMC 304 Matador it was a paragon of reliability always starting up reliably even in frigid 20 below zero Winter mornings. In contrast their AMC was a cold blooded cantankerous beast that often flooded out or stalled and it had oodles of electrical gremlins that ultimately made them trade it for a 1983 Caprice Classic which they kept for 12 years. Our Malibu had the 350 2BBL V8 that was only rated for 145 HP but in the real world felt much stronger than that and it never ever struggled up even the steepest grades. Dad always admired how well that car ran in fact. In the end it was rust that started creeping in and eating up the lower body panels so he sold it to a guy that lived on base for 1500 bucks and bought a 1982 Cutlass coupe that mom fell in love with.
I hated the Colonade cars, just hated them. The Malibu was the best looking of a hideous family of terrible looking cars. I found it just bizarre and sad that GM went from great looking midsized cars in ’72 to the awful looking Colonade messes in one shot.
I’ve owned 2 cars with the Chevy 6 banger, and never seen one with the ‘snorkel’ or ‘clothes dryer hose’ from the from the grille to the air filter. Would this count as an early version of cold air induction? I’ve seen this starting around 74 on gm full size cars. Maybe this squeezes out an extra hp or two, or a fraction of a MPG.
Btw, the Chevy 6 didn’t breathe very well, head bolts ran right through the intake ports. Ironic this compromised design was introduced after the classic SBC. This type of 6 was used from roughly 1960 Through the late 70s.
One poster above mentioned the Accord coupe being so much, essentially, cooler. I’d take this car over the Accord then, or now, any day of the week. Six-passenger seating if needed, and American-style width and luxury inside.
Any car, 50th anniversary old, is a collectable machine today.
Sure, it takes time to find one, investigate if original, try to take it back from time and make it “new” again, but it deserves what it takes.
Half a century of life on the road…. and going ^!
What’s lowest offer
I’ll thank you to text me the price and generally where the car is. 918 613 7238 I won’t answer calls unless I recognize numbers and/or names.