It’s clear by my fairly consistent COAL updates that I have no problem buying cars and figuring out storage later, but I think all of us have a list of cars we might have in that pleasant land where space and logistics were no longer obstacles to our unchecked impulses. Lately, I’ve added another “B-Team” car to my list, the ’74 Chevy Laguna. (By the way, Laguna fans, I’m not saying that the car itself is “B-Team,” only that it’s not a primary car on my personal list.) It combines my love of ’70s Chevrolets with my love of dealer sales filmstrips on YouTube and collecting diecast cars. Let’s just say it’s a good thing I don’t have to write a dating profile, because that would be a tough match.
My Laguna appreciation began innocently enough; I bought this diecast representation of one that is currently produced by Greenlight Collectibles. I have a fairly out-of-control collection of toy cars (big surprise), and although I try to limit my purchases for the sake of not being a crazy person, that’s a relative concept.
Needless to say, I’ve been smitten by the Laguna for a few weeks now, and considering the environment (both corporate and legislative) that engendered it, I’d say that the outcome was lovely. It’s probably my favorite example of the Colonnade, a car that many, sadly, like to malign.
My toy Laguna sent me back to YouTube to find a video that I’ve previously watched: Selling the Chevelle. There are several YouTube channels (this one is “The Emulsion Alchemist,” probably a carburetor lover) devoted to posting restored dealer videos and filmstrips, and I can say without regret that much of my life is wasted spent listening to some hired actor pretend that he knows about Quadrajets (actually, most of these actors do a pretty good job).
Of course, the ’70s was a wild decade in fashion and taste, but this guy’s suit is probably a one out of ten in that decadent decade.
What strikes me about the Laguna is how clean the front end is for a 1974 model; I’ve long thought that the Firebird and the Corvette had the best combination of looks and barrier-whacking capability, but the Laguna might have pulled off the government directive with the most grace. I find this treatment preferable to the NASCAR-approved shovel nose of later Lagunas.
The tail was mostly standard Chevelle, but the complementary vinyl top and stripes were surprisingly tasteful for a 1974 offering.
The vinyl top with a form of opera window does send mixed messages for a car with a performance flair, but it was the ’70s, a time where a car without an opera window was almost scandalous.
Mechanically, the Laguna came standard with radial tires and Chevy’s classic rally wheels and trim rings, along with “radial-tuned” suspension and a 350 V8. The 400 and the 454 were optional (a four-speed was available with the 454 if one knew the secret handshake at the Chevy dealer, according to the brochure). Oddly, the brochure also mentions that the vinyl top was only available at the beginning of the model year. Too bad – I think it looks nice on this car.
Look at all that red. My wife often bemoans the sea of red in the interior of our ’74 Firebird, and this Laguna is much the same. A weird and probably-not-all-that-necessary feature of the Laguna was the “swivel bucket” front seats that swung 90 degrees toward the door when you exited the vehicle. This is a feature that is explained in the video, should you choose to watch it.
I would buy hundreds of cars if I had the space and money, along with the budget and time for tires and batteries every 10 years, in addition to regular oil changes and brake and cooling system flushes. I’m getting stressed out just thinking about it. Regardless, as of today, a 1974 Laguna would be somewhere in that garage. It’s a great-looking example of ’70s not-so excess, and I’d like to see how well that seat works.
Additional Reading: 1975 Chevrolet Laguna S-3 by JohnH875
I had and COAL’d a ’74 Malibu Classic Coupe, so I kinda geeked out on the S-3. Early-build ’74 coupes, regardless of trim, required a vinyl roof (and a goofy interior filler panel) to get the look of the smaller opera window than the base coupe got. I think the roof stampings for the smaller window didn’t exist until mid-74. (if you look at the interior shot of an opera window coupe in the brochure at oldcarbrochures.com you can see the goofy filler panel.) My later build car didn’t have this.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Chevrolet/1974_Chevrolet/1974_Chevrolet_Chevelle_Brochure/1974%20Chevrolet%20Chevelle-05.html
Edit: I don’t think I made my point clearly. The reason the S-3 *required* a vinyl roof was because (initially in the ’74 production) there was no way to build the smaller quarter window *without* a vinyl roof.
Thanks for pointing that out, Evan. It’s hard to believe that Chevy did something so obviously half-assed right out in the open (OK, maybe it’s not so hard to believe).
As a one-time Vega owner I usually defend it here at CC, but your comment about Chevy doing things “half-assed right out the open” is just asking for someone to point out that by 1974 they’d had some practice with the Vega.
It wasn’t just Chevy.
I’ve always preferred the original Colonnade coupe’s big triangular quarter windows and slim C-pillars to the opera window version. To get that from Chevy you had to buy the base trim level after ’73. I’m surprised they didn’t go the same route they did with the Nova and Monza, big windows with a sporty tintop/opera windows as part of the “elegant” vinyl top options.
The ’74 Laguna S-3 largely carried over its’ urethane nose from the ’73 when there had been a full line of Lagunas – sedan and two wagons (with and without woodgrain) as well as the coupe, Those had flopped and a chromier, more traditional-looking (and that year, embarrassingly Mercedes-like-grilled) Malibu Classic replaced it as the mainstream top series. The S-3 wasn’t yet a NASCAR homologation special but it was transitioning to one.
That goes to show how different a time the ’70s was; here I am thinking that the Laguna nose is the obvious choice over the Malibu Classic, but that’s not what most people back then seemed to think.
A base slick top with a 454 4 speed would be quite the rig. Make mine green on green.
I never noticed before, but the Laguna hides its 5mph bumpers very effectively, perhaps even better than the Corvette, which like you, I always took to be the gold standard of 5mph bumpers.
More proof that the 5mph standard could have been met without hanging bettering rams on the front of the car. Most automakers and designers were just lazy and cheap.
I re(re)peat myself: I think they complied with the bumper regs the same grudging, scornful way they did with seatbelts and head restraints and emission controls and a large proportion of other newly-regulated aspects of vehicle design, construction, and equipment, and then only after spending mountains of money, effort, and time fighting the regulations. Which is a pity, because they had massive engineering talent in their employ. If they had put even a fraction of those resources into meeting the goddamn regs instead of making war on them, it would have been to everyone’s benefit.
All of which to say there’s a sturdy case to be made that the US auto industry deliberately treated vehicle regulation as a passing fad to be snuffed out by whatever means necessary, and one of their oftenest-used tools in that war was to comply with the regulations in the nastiest possible ways in an effort to spark popular and congressional backlash against the regulation of vehicles. Oh, your brand-new car is hard to start; stalls; knocks; hesitates; gets lousy gas mileage; buzzes at you if you don’t fasten the complicated and uncomfortable seat belts, and has ugly bumpers? Gee, »tsk« what an awful shame. Not our fault; the government made us do it. Guess you should run go write to your congressman or something.
The problem with your theory, and I am not saying it’s wrong, is that no matter where the cars were built in the mid 70s they all looked and ran pitifully. Foreign manufacturers put just as big of a bumper on cars they sold in America and not all foreign cars ran better than their Detroit built counterparts.
Donno that I completely agree with you there. Cars with Bosch D-Jetronic fuel injection ran a whole hell of a lot better and cleaner than cars with carburetors. And my ’71 Volvo had unitised, self-retracting, auto-locking 3-point seatbelts while the American makers were still foisting off unusable, uncomfortable 2-piece non-retracting junk.
’73 Laguna and Grand Am were met with buyer indifference. Middle America wanted chrome bumpers. And Coastal car fans wanted smaller. ’74 was beginning of Malibu name taking over Chevy mid size line.
I donno that we can conclude middle America wanted chrome bumpers from paltry sales of the Laguna and Grand Am. I surmise middle America didn’t care one way or the other and the 4-doors and wagons would’ve sold just fine with body-coloured elastomer bumpers like these. Five years later, sales of the new ’78 Monte Carlo (w/body colour elastomer front bumper) weighed in favour of this conjecture of mine.
The ’73 Laguna was available as a sedan and wagons too. They sold in minute quantities, which is why they were dropped in ’74.
Cool, lookit there. Did people stay away because they didn’t want that package and that price, or because they found the body-colour bumpers repugnant?
I was only 8 back when the GM Colonnades came out but I can remember liking the Laguna version of the Chevelle. It was sportier looking with the roofline and front end. Did not like the standard Chevelle’s much at all. Also liked the Cutlass models (Supreme and fast back) and the Buick and Pontiac Colonnades.
Aaron65, have you visited the http://www.hobbytalk.com website? It’s a great place where guy can post pictures of their little scale model cars. I love the Laguna model you pictured here. I haven’t seen the red one yet. I have a black with gold stripes Laguna with the sloped front end scale model from Greenlight. Check out this site and you’ll really find guys who have big model car collections.
I’ve never been over there…oh jeez, that sounds like a whole new way to not use time well. 🙂 I’ve seen the black and gold Laguna, and I would have bought that one if I didn’t see that the ’74 was coming out; I figured one Laguna diecast was enough (although there is a green ’73 that’s pretty cool, too).
With the Laguna, Chevy showed that they can graph a Mustang II front end on a Chevelle.
I did not like the colonnade opera window option, it wasn’t a fit on that design as compared to the triangular window standard on the coupes.
I agree these are good cars if you can find one that was assembled well. You are going to get 1970s plastics, which we probably all suffered from over the decades, but that goes with the era. Mechanically, it is a solid car.
With the Laguna, Chevy showed that they can graph a Mustang II front end on a Chevelle.
Given that the Laguna came out for MY 1973 and the MII in MY 1974, it appears that it was the other way around, no?
Dopey me, I thought the Laguna came out in 1974.
That comparison hadn’t occurred to me. It’s obvious now you point it out, but Ford’s copycat version is very much uglier than the Chev original because of the grille shape: a bullnosed oblong on the Chev…a random-ass melted-bar-of-soap thing on the Ford.
Actually, there was no copy-catting, as Ford had been working on their MII styling for a while, and the front end was locked in by or before January ’72, well before the Laguna saw the light of day. The Laguna’s front end was clearly intended to be in the same family as the Vega and Camaro’s front end.
Alright—but I still find the Ford rendition ugly AF on account of the misshapen grille.
You seem to be forgetting that the Laguna soft front end was introduced on production cars in late summer ’72 (’73 model year), and surely would’ve been locked in even before Jan. ’72. And of course, manufacturers knew what the guys across town were doing.
I’m not getting your point.
The real issue is that this style of front end is anything but original, it’s been done forever on both side of the pond since Pininfarina’s 1946 Cisitalia, and then came to be known as “the Ferrari Face”.
Here’s a version as used on the 1962 Ford 12M (former Cardinal) and styled in Dearborn. Look familiar?
Paul–for some reason, “Reply” is not available to me about your reply. All I can say is, “If you say so”. I’m sure not seeing it.
One other quick question, after looking at the ad? How can they get away with calling these hardtops, especially the four-door?
The same way they got away with a whole lot of other things. Who was going to call them out? The Federal Commission on Automotive Body Style Nomenclature? 🙂
The top is steel. It’s HARD.
Aaron, You’re the real thing. The rest of us endlessly MM about all the old cars we’d like to have (but never act on), meanwhile you’re doing it. We should do a fundraiser to help you buy a warehouse, and to retire and build up and maintain your collection. The official CC Museum! I’d be happy to make the first donation. And a Laguna should be one of the first new additions.
Maybe it can work like a library, where those who get an appropriate credential can check one out for a month at a time. 🙂
JP, I know of a certain Thunderbird I might lend you permanently. 🙂
Thanks Paul…I will post my PayPal address directly. 🙂
Oh, I may use some of the proceeds for machine work. The Riviera project has gone a little sideways, and these are some Nailhead cylinder heads in the trunk of a Focus.
Ouch! Sorry to hear that.
One last comment (There’s a lot here). Watching the video, it is clear that GM wasted much internal video competing with itself. Chevrolet was as concerned about beating their “BOP” platform mates as they were Ford Grand Torino. No wonder the imports were able to sneak in virtually unnoticed in the ’70s.
I remember reading somewhere that one of Oldsmobile’s general managers in the ’70s had a sign in his office reading “Beat Buick,” and it wasn’t until much later that it changed to “Beat Honda.” No idea where I picked up that little piece of perhaps apocryphal knowledge, but it summarizes how the divisions thought of their competition.
It’s no wonder GM sold so many vehicles back in the day. Just look at how many different models/trims there alone. I recall when I first started in sales back in 1988 with a Buick, Cadillca, GMC and Honda store. If memory serves correctly, Buick had 8 models with several body styles for each. Take the Skyhawk for example: You could get it in custom or limited or T-type. You had choices of 2 dr., 4 dr, hatch and wagon.
What do we get today? Plain and boring SUV/CUV’s. Look at Buick specifically with now just 3 models to “choose” from. Encore GX, Envision or Enclave. No wonder Buick sales are in the tank. GM needs to get back to offering cars and more models with more trims.
I wonder how long Buick will hang on here in the US. They don’t sell a lot of cars, and there’s no reason it couldn’t be an “only in Asia” brand. Maybe it’s something to do with the dealers.
Obviously, I say this as a Buick fan, but they haven’t offered much that I’d be interested since I was maybe 15 years old…or even 10.
Aaron65: Having sold the Buick brand for 12+ years and having owned many of them (myself and my family) and being a Buick guy, I can say that it makes me sad to see Buick in it’s current form. Nothing to sell unless you absolutely must have a S/M/L SUV and there’s just nothing to bring customers into the showrooms. At least for me who prefers cars over the boxes they are pushing now. So yes, sadly I agree with you. Either Buick (GM) needs to give the brand more vehicles NOW (and sedans) or just kill them off already. Watching Buick at this time is like watching that beloved pet you’ve had for so long just laying there dying.
A common theory is that GM is afraid of the repercussions that discontinuing Buick in North America will have on the Chinese market. Buicks remain hugely popular in China, bolstered by the perception there is of Buick being an upscale American brand. Learning that Buicks have been dropped in the US due to low sales would hurt that perception.
If that’s the case, you’d think Buick would try harder to sell a product that people in America would aspire to!
I always did like the look of the Chevy Laguna. I owned a ’73 Olds 442. Great looking car that handled great, but the turn offs for me were the aircraft carrier sized hood that the factory hinges would barley support and the huge doors that would crush your leg while getting in on a windy day. Or the huge unsupported window glass that would break loose from the rollers on the track and fall down inside the door. I swore I would never own a Colonade model again.
Oh, gosh – I have always loved the Laguna. Aaron, you’ve made me take a second look at the ’74s. I loved the round taillights on the ’73 and was sorry they were ditched after only one Colonnade year. However, the ’74 lights look good to me now. Nissan seemed to have been inspired by the ’74 Chevelle rear view when designing the ’77 Laurel.
I have always liked the 1975 – ’76 shovel-nose. With that said, though, the ’74 front is definitely more elegant and befitting of a halo Chevelle. The subtle tweaks from the ’73 look (i.e. rectangular turn signals, etc.) look nice.
And don’t feel a certain way about collecting your scale models! Keep doing what you enjoy (within reason LOL). I’m the same way with my music collection, and I still buy CDs. There are so many worse things we could be spending money on, bad habits, etc.
Thanks for this food for thought.
You’re welcome, Joseph. I like that I’m not the only one who still buys CDs, and I’m going to be a little sad when I eventually sell the Focus and can’t get a new car with a CD player. 🙂
I will go against the grain (when does that ever happen?) and say that it has only been in recent years that I have been able to improve my attitude about these cars to lukewarm. I always found the styling on the Chevrolet colonnade to be bland. I will grant you that the nose was nicely done, but the rest of the car lacked the kind of character found at the BOP showrooms.
Now, I at least appreciate the car’s mechanical attributes. I generally prefer the Grand Am, except for the over-the-top snout on them.
If it will help your wife any, I can testify that the red interiors in these A body cars were a far more subdued maroon than that found in your Firebird. My mother’s 74 Luxury LeMans had that maroon interior, but with white seats to go with the same color paint as is shown on your model. It was an attractive combination.
Maroon sounds lovely compared to the six shades of red that sun fade that is the Firebird’s interior. I’ve also been liking the LeMans lately – a ’73 or ’74 LeMans GT would be pretty cool.
I like the soft front end–the ’73 SS should’ve been available with it–but I just don’t like the opera windows on a sporty model. Wish they’d have made the triangular quarter windows available.
The earlier poster is right–all Malibu Classic and Laguna coupes at the beginning of the ’74 model year required the vinyl top. The ’74 sales brochure showing the Malibu Classic interior shows why–inside you could see a big filler piece put inside the triangular window to make the opera window. That interior piece went away after about January.
I don’t like a combination of stripes and whitewall tires. I’d have to pick blackwalls or white-lettered on this car.
When I lived in Atlanta in 1983-85, there was one of these in maroon with white top and stripes, 454 with 4-speed, bone-stock, in my apartment complex. I spoke to the owner one day and sat in the cloth swivel seat. When I got out I saw that somehow I had sat on a piece of chewed gum, probably while working on my own car in the parking lot. It stuck to his driver’s seat. He was calm. How he didn’t kill me, I’ll never know.
I totally agree with you on these cars Aaron. These are my all time favorite of the GM Colonnade cars, for many of the reasons you list. I thought the Chevrolets had the cleanest styling of the Colonnades, but the front ends were often unattractive. This nose gets it just right, and combined with the stripe package, it’s a sharp car. I also agree the the Shovel nose ’75 and ’76’s were not as nice looking, despite being better on the high speed circuit. I also tend to buy a too many little toy cars. I recently bought a Greenlight 1973 Malibu Laguna in green. Being the owner of a Colannade Malibu I had to have it. But now that I know there is a ’74 Laguna, I will have to get a companion for it.
Chevrolet revamped the Chevelle line-up in 1974. For 1973 there was the Deluxe, Malibu, Super Sport and Laguna. The SS was the sporty model while the Laguna was more luxury oriented. In 1974 the model line-up was revamp to be Malibu, Malibu Classic and Laguna S-3. The Malibu Classic filled in as the more luxury oriented model, while the Laguna S-3 was now the sportier model, which is why the S-3 designation was given. The Laguna S-3 was really probably more of an appearance package, but did include upgraded suspension so at least it was more sporty to drive.
The vinyl top was a mandatory option on all early Malibus with the opera or coach windows, because as mentioned GM hadn’t tooled the new sheetmetal and glass, so they were using patch panels. The vinyl roof ensure the less than Body by Fisher workmanship wasn’t seen. I attached a photo below that shows this panel. That said, the later ’74s could still be equipped with vinyl tops. In fact, I don’t know if I have ever seen a ’74 Laguna S-3 without a vinyl top.
That window is crazy! Did they just have someone on the line welding in that patch?
Whaaaaat? No! No-no-no! No, it was, um, it was, uh…hang on, lemme go replay that part of the movie…oh, that’s right, it was to provide further marketplace impact for the first sixty to ninety days after announcement and stuff.
The thing that offputs me about the Laguna is for as much the front end improved from the standard version it still has a big ol battering ram hanging off the rear, and that sort of thing wreaks havoc with my sense of symmetry/OCD. I didn’t like that on pre-73 endura nosed Pontiacs either(to me the Firebird got better looking in 74).
Speaking of the rear, I way preferred the original 73 design with round taillights to these, the generic rectangles that take up a smaller footprint really messed with the trunklid seams, the seam looks so random and haphazard on the 74s, it looks like it has Uncle Leo eyebrows
I do like the ’73 taillights a little better, but only a little. A Firebird-like tail treatment would have put the Laguna over the top.
On a side note, we may be the only two people who prefer the ’74 Firebird to the ’73. 🙂
Same here, Matt. Rather than being designed for the purpose, it looks like they picked up an off-the-shelf taillight for the ’74, and just put it on any old how. But I guess it saved them the cost of tooling a new trunklid and surround to match.
Totally agree about the taillights. These cars look right from the back only with the quad rounds. The rounded-rectangles look thoughtless and dowdy and yecchk.
Another vote here for the quad round taillights. I never liked the ’74 taillights.
Same here on the ‘74 taillights. Look more closely, and you’ll see they have a ‘74 LTD vibe to them. That center backup light screams FORD.
The ‘73 Laguna may be my favorite Colonnade as well… ok that, and its Pontiac sister car of the same era, the Grand Am.
The former, because I saw them being assembled here in Baltimore when I was 12 or 13, and the latter, because we rented one in 1974 while out in California. My Dad was really impressed with the Grand Am’s handling on the curvy roads noth of San Francisco.
Damn, the edit function’s not working tonight!
I meant ITS not IT’S… I hate it when Apple’s Autocorrect thinks it knows grammar better than me. It does not!
And yes, Chevelle’s taillights should be two round ones on each side, not look like a Ford’s taillights.
I even feel that way with the previous generation. If I owned a ‘70 Chevelle, I’d swap out the back bumper for a ‘72 with its four taillights.
I’d even do that with a ‘72 Impala, and swap the back bumper for a ‘73’s.
Yes, the edit function on this board often doesn’t work, and that’s annoying. But there are people keeping eyes open behind the scenes.
Autocorrupt just plain sucks. First thing I do when I get a device or upgrade an OS is disable it—all the way switched off. It does more harm than good; it’s a faulty concept. It’s been dmoenstrtaed taht as lnog as the fisrt and lsat leettrs of a wrod are corerct, the word can esaily be raed as itnedned. On the other hand, when Autocarrot swaps in wrong words and messes with grammar, the intended meaning can get lost at best, or changed in ways that can be badly consequential.
User-specified text-replacement provides all what we might want from autoconniption without the drawbacks. I have a long list of text replacements so I can tap out common apostrophised words on my phone without losing time shifting the keyboard to get the apostrophe, and nullify the most common fingerfumble misspellings. All I have to do is tap itss for it’s, therell for there’ll, theres for there’s, welll for we’ll, arent for aren’t, bame for name, abd for and, doen for down, dont for don’t, andor for and/or, couldnt for couldn’t; idd for I’d, iie for i.e., illl for I’ll, imm for I’m, ine for one, letss for let’s, realky for really, shedd for she’d; tgere for there. Oh, and a really important one: booby for Bobby. Because even if I never, ever have to communicate with or about someone by that name…well…think of it like a seatbelt.
It works for capitalising, too. I type monday for Monday, tuesday for Tuesday, january for January.
There’s some shorthand built into my text-replacement list, too: cudna for couldn’t have, spozda for supposed to, whorre for who are.
My thoughts exactly on the 1970 Chevelle wearing a 1971-72 rear bumper…
I far prefer the four headlamp treatment on the 1970, but the rear bumper/tail lamp treatment on the ’70 looks so chintz compared to the rounds used for the next two years.
I, too, prefer the rear treatment and taillights of the ’73 Chevelle. I didn’t like the Laguna’s body-colored rear bumper for ’73 though.
That area about ’73 Chevelle’s taillights rusted out on cars where I lived (NW PA), and not very long down the road. The plastic material used on ’74’s in the back precluded that.
Maybe I missed it here, but one reason the rear of the ’74 looks not great is it was the first year for a 5 mph rear bumper, up from 2.5 in ’73.
That’s quite the movie. I especially like the parts where they make out like they had these great new ideas for features that make better cars because first and foremost they wuv their customers so vewwy vewwy much, when in fact those features were the result of federal safety standards GM were spending enormous money to fight and dilute.
(I also dig the pile-of-dropped-scrap-metal sound FX when they close the doors on even these brand-new cars…)
The “guy in the tan suit” is actor Lee Marvin. 1965 Academy Award for best actor in the movie “Cat Ballou.”
It looks a little like him in that still shot if you squint, but that’s not Mr. Marvin in the video. He was great in “Point Blank” though.
I don’t really remember paying too much attention to the year-over-year changes after the 1973 intro, but as high school senior that year, I remember liking the Malibu and Laguna more than any other American car that wasn’t an F Body … or a Vega GT Kammback. In fact I wrote a short story for my creative writing class that featured a Colonnade and a Porsche 911 (my favorite car of any nationality then).
A friend of mine had a 1976 Monte Carlo when we were in high school, and we all thought the swivel seats were just a gimmick-y curiosity from that weird decade before our time. A quarter century later, I can see those seats possibly being a very useful option for elderly or other mobility limited people.
The big thing was they made it much easier to get into the back seat.
I’m not so convinced that people rejected the ’73 Laguna line totally. I do know that in general the ’73 Chevelle line was a sales disappointment and was behind Ford and even Olds in the mid-size line sales (although ‘Cutlass’ included their car like the Monte Carlo).
I think it’s due to these things, mostly:
1) Chevelle’s chrome front bumper (Malibu and Deluxe) looked like a railroad tie, and was made visibly worse by the filler panel being painted silver no matter the color of the car (this panel was painted body-color mid-year which helped). I did like the simple grille.
2) Lots of black plastic in the instrument panel, even on the Laguna which was top-of-the-line.
3) The ’73 Laguna’s seats may have been thickly-padded and of high quality (they did wear well compared to lesser Chevelles), but the seats were plain, as evidenced here:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/225349279490?hash=item3477dd1f02:g:nkIAAOSw-rhjcVfn&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAoDS7jVFUSnuAnsfs2Uyyg8g4x5TobKjvkUAkMrddBKE4VFl55mI4Ubr%2FhG2vPiGRd7cnvvAgHyaLk6tkkf%2Fp7eS5UhFTCc4OUdDzCIGxecGAquT4sHRVnH%2B13ggJkynut2ipFzm%2FeyX2%2F3rxXClRPx2dzF273aoFz1laZcap877oGOIsNcc3bvd4d6u36JVCmEhBqyiZpGEo76QXukZbKCg%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR8Kmh8O8YQ
The ’74 Malibu Classic had luxurious seat trim and door panels, way more so than the ’73 Laguna, and the instrument panel’s black plastic was replaced with color-keyed and chrome outlining, which helped a lot. Also, the chrome front bumper and grille were revised to get rid of the railroad-tie look.
I don’t like the ’74’s taillights or reverting to the ’70-72 “Chevelle” script in back. The ’74 rear end required a new decklid. To my eyes, the ’75 was even worse–looks like an amateur hack-job with big visible seams.
I could still like a clean, original ’73 Malibu or SS coupe, and also a Laguna coupe. Like the big triangular windows.
Lastly, for a mass-market car–I think the “Laguna” name isn’t very attractive (think ‘goon’ in the middle of it). “Malibu” was established as the ‘nice’ Chevelle, sounded good, and looked good in print.
I had a 74 Laguna back in the 80’s it Needed an off frame resto sorry I got rid Of it,It looked just like the one at the top Of the story but with no red vinyl red top.