The debut of the downsized B-Body full size cars in 1977 was a complete success for General Motors, redefining the full size class and introducing a fundamentally sound basic design that would endure for two decades. The cars won immediate critical acclaim and high sales, proving the correctness of the General’s strategy of downsizing and the abilities of its design and manufacturing processes. In retrospect, this success seems like a foregone conclusion. At the time GM saw the need to reassure the buying public that it had the right stuff to change successfully, however, and its concern was justified given the many problems that afflicted it and the entire American automobile industry during the 1970s. This long advertisement from November 1976, occupying four full pages, is a reminder of that time.
The 1973 oil shock. Smog controls that robbed power and ruined drivability. Federal safety and bumper requirements. Rampant rust. A wave of problems assailed the American automobile industry during the 1970s. Malaise Era has become the commonly accepted term for the period from 1973 to 1983, and it created a crisis of confidence in Detroit and in the American public’s relationship to its auto industry. For GM, the Vega with its self-destructing engine and premature rust became the most glaring example of how not to develop a new type of car and how to lose the trust of the public.
A radical change to GM’s bread and butter product, its full size cars, had much higher stakes, and the General had to convince the public that it was on top of its game and about to introduce a fundamentally sound product. Hence the emphasis on the solidity of the new cars’ frames and bodies, complete with a long explanation of the then-revolutionary but now-familiar use of computer-aided design (CAD), before a discussion of the new automotive religion of aerodynamics and efficiency.
“At a time when the world is running out of natural resources” is a gloomy opening line that speaks volumes about the pessimism that existed during the decade that began with the first Earth Day. It seems somewhat quaint almost four decades later, when metals are in abundant supply and have become a recycled, renewable resource. Not quaint at all is the concern about rust that follows that opening line, written during a decade when the public had become increasingly concerned with rust problems, and the Vega had gained a reputation for rusting when new and in the showroom. New rustproofing techniques such as using galvanized steel were a big deal back then. Highly quaint is the emphasis on the “greenhouse,” which this ad treats as an industry insider term. The concept of “perceived openness” from large window areas has completely disappeared from car design since then.
The throwback features continue on the final page, which begins by touting the undiminished trunk space of the downsized full size cars and its utility for traveling salesmen, a strange concept in the age of e-commerce. Also anachronistic at multiple levels is the lengthy and detailed discussion of fuel economy numbers. Five different engine designs on one platform from one car company is unthinkable today, and the table understates GM’s engine variety by listing only standard engines, which left out the small block Chevy V-8. Equally unthinkable today is the lengthy discussion of fuel economy without a single reference to horsepower and performance. Automotive engineering and technology were far from being able to achieve both power and economy in 1977. Progress has been so radical since then that muscle car levels of acceleration combined with high fuel efficiency became routine by a quarter century later, and today are expected in the most humble family sedan.
This four page ad, which intentionally says and shows nothing about the styling or performance of the class of cars that it introduces, speaks volumes about public attitudes and what GM saw itself as doing. In a gloomy decade filled with national problems and automobile industry problems, GM knew that it was taking a calculated risk. GM was certain that its downsized and more efficient cars were right for the times, and it had some degree of proof of concept in the successful 1975 introduction of the compact Cadillac Seville, but it could not be certain that the public would accept the change. They believed that they had to prepare the public for what they were doing, at considerable expense — both the advertising agency and the advertising space for this large ad must have cost top dollar. Almost 40 years later, this ad largely rings true despite its many anachronisms, since the success of the downsized B-Bodies in the marketplace and their enduring appeal to many people (including here) has backed the claims that GM made in this unusually technically focused ad. It is a reminder that GM still had the ability to succeed in 1977, despite the failures that preceded and followed.
I’ve always been amazed by GMs ability to roughly 50% of the time hit a home run when its ass was on the line. The other 50% of the time that their life depended on it they would fail so spectacularly that it would become part of lore and legend.
Authors on this site have written about Chrysler’s Bi-polar History, I would argue the same could be said of GM.
And if you’ve ever noticed, the smaller the car got, the better the odds of a complete whiff.
The B-bodies were brilliant because: a. They had to be. They were the ‘real’ cars in GM-parlance, and, b. Due to ‘a’ GM took the time to worry about what the customer wanted, instead of telling them what they wanted with the smaller stuff.
Wonderful cars, ruined only by the availability of vinyl roofs.
Absolutely. GM was so focused on BIG AMERICAN CARS that when the Celebrity was introduced in 1982 it was advertised as “the small car with the big car ride” because that was what GMs core customer wanted. There wasn’t even an attempt to win back anyone who had switched to imports during the 70s.
Can you even imagine that now, GM trying to tout the Cruze or Sonic as the “small car with the big car ride”? The automotive press would piss themselves laughing.
It’s telling that they even referred to an A-Body as a “small car”!
In 1982, they WERE small cars.
In earlier post on Celeb’s, there is a pic of one next to a 2008 Focus, and the Focus is bigger!
@tomcatt630, The 1982-89 Chevrolet Celebrity both coupe and sedan measured at 188.3″. The 2008 Ford Focus was still significantly shorter at 175.0″ so the 1982-89 Chevrolet Celebrity was still a little over a foot longer than the 2008 Ford Focus.
Yeah, it just looked bigger, but A bodies are near same size as today’s Compacts, like Chevy Cruze.
Sure did like my 77 Impala wagon. As you say, the 350 sure was thirsty compared to the 250 they cite. By the time it had run it’s course I think it was a fuel sipping 305. Wish mine had been. Might have kept it through the $4 gas.
Breaking down this intro ad made for a good story. Good job.
My family’s ’83 Caprice wagon was a 305, consistantly got 26 on the highway. Of course those were the days of 55 MPH limits everywhere and I don’t think my dad ever exceeded 58.
Throughout the mid-late 70s, if you adhered strictly to the 55 limit, and measured mileage on a rural freeway run, you could exceed the EPA highway rating by a bit. My 75 Monarch 302 (rated 12/16), got 18 once on I-90 in MN/SD with a friend driving and doing 55 exactly. Here in MI, where 55 was merely a suggestion and the state cops outside the Detroit area didn’t even think about giving you a ticket on the freeways til you were doing more than 70, the EPA highway rating was a pretty good proxy for what you might get in freeway driving. Of course on the two-lanes, where you couldn’t maintain a constant speed, mileage was worse.
I do concur about the fuel consumption of identical cars with different motors.
My family used to make holidays in Galveston every year in the late 1970. We would make six-hour road trip from Dallas: yes, six hours at 55 mph.
Our family car was 1979 Chevrolet Impala station wagon with 350 cid V8 motor. We always made the fuel stop somehwere north of Houston. Always!
Once we had to peruse the Impala station wagon owned by our Danish colleague at my father’s company. This one had smaller 305 cid V8 motor and was done in different colours. To my amazement (at ripe old age of 12), we actually made it to the beach house in Jamaica Beach (west of Galveston) on a single tank!
That day I made a connection between the motor displacement and fuel consumption…
To this day, we still held our 1979 Chevrolet in high esteem. The best fleet car my father had, and he regretted his decision to accept smaller Buick Skylark and Chevrolet Celebrity rather continue with same Impala.
This was a direct respsone to Gas Crisis #1. The 77’s are to the 76’s, as the 61’s are to the 58’s.
Some bemoan lack of ‘style’, but the huge 71-76’s were meant for 25 cent gas. B and C bodies were success, but too bad the X and J were subject to penny pincing, and we know the what happened.
This isn’t quite true. GM had already decided to scale back the replacement for the ’71 B-body before the gas crisis. The ’71s had been criticized for being too large as soon as they were introduced.
Yes there was criticism of the 71s for having grown too large, however I don’t believe for an instant that these cars were not a direct response to gas crisis #1.
Take a look back in the history of GM’s full size cars and you’ll find that they usually came out with a new body shell every 2-4 years in the absence of a crisis. 55-7, 58 was unique due to them feeling caught off guard by the Forward Look Chrysler products which resulted in the rush 59 project where they abandoned their typical A/B/C/D body shells. That got toned down for 1960. 61-2, 63-4, 65-8 (with a minor refresh for 67-8), 69-70, and then they went from 71-76 with the same basic car. Yes in a lot of those cases the chassis or most of the chassis was carried through multiple body shells.
So I don’t believe that when the 1971 went on sale that they intended it to run largely unchanged until 1976. I suspect that in 1971 they working on a new car intended to be introduced no later than 1975 and when the gas crisis hit they went back to the drawing board much like they did when the Forward look Chryslers hit the showrooms.
I would love for some of the people who keep claiming that the 1977 Bs were planned since 1971 to come up with some sort of proof, other than that some of the management felt that they had jumped the shark with the increase in size for the 1971s. If the down sizing planned was going to be as radical as it ended up being and was in the planning stages as early as 71-2 why did it take so long to get it to market, especially since they now had the most sophisticated CAD capabilities of the time?
Transitioning into CAD must have been difficult. They probably had to do everything twice, old way / new way to make sure.
Not only that, but there were several big projects going on at the same time, from 1975-1979, GM launched the Seville in 1975, the Chevette for 1976, which was an all new car for the US, revamped the entire B,C and D body range for 1977, revamped the entire A-body range for 1978 and launched all new E-bodies for 1979, plus the 1980 FWD X-car program was ongoing at this time too, the X-car program moved from the Advanced Studio to production development in 1974. Not to mention playing with Rotary engines and mid engine Corvettes at the same time.
From my understanding they cut their CAD teeth on the Colonnades to some extent. So by the time they did the 77 Bs they were likely feeling more comfortable with it. But I suspect they were still double checking things the old fashioned way just to be sure.
They used a fair amount of the frame design from the 73-77 Colonnades, as they are virtually identical all the way to rear axle hump, as all the HD B/D/C car suspension bits bolt into the 73-77 cars without any modifications.
Mr. Kim’s post may be the post of the year for material, and Mr. Van Buran’s response may be the best. When the cigars and scotch came out in Sept. ’70 there is no way the ’77 B’s were in the mix. Nobody even knew they were too big and sales were strong.
The CA pics in this thread are awesome. There is a ton of ’73 LeSabre in some of those Chevy coupes (with a blend of that goofy Toro rear glass and the ’77 Chevy two door rear glass). Damn, hardtops were in the mix and got axed.
What was in mind in the smoke and scotch during ’70 – ’72?
I’ve read varying stories about the downsizing efforts. Some people have claimed that GM wanted to take the “fat” out of its big cars even before the first fuel crunch, which began in late 1973. But I’ve never seen any concrete proof of this.
Other insiders have claimed that, before the gas crisis, GM was planning V-8s with displacements in the 550-600 cid range for its big cars to maintain performance, which hardly squares with any downsizing plans.
If there were plans to reduce the size of its big cars before the first gas crisis, they were probably on the order of the effort that GM made with its 1961 full-size cars – a nip-and-tuck job, not a full-blown downsizing.
GM probably felt that any demand for much “smaller” cars would be handled by the Colonnade intermediates, which were hardly lightweights when they debuted in the fall of 1972. It’s worth noting how closely the exterior dimensions of the downsized 1977 full-size cars matched those of the 1973-77 GM intermediates.
The Arab Oil Embargo hit in December 1973, or three years AFTER the 1971 models debuted. GM would have been well along with plans for its next generation of full-size cars by that point. The first downsized models didn’t hit the showrooms until late 1976, or three years after the Arab Oil Embargo. That timing suggests GM quickly changed plans in response to that event.
The fact that the exterior dimensions and wheel base of the down sized B’s were so close to the Colonnades that were supposed to be introduced for 1972 makes me think that any initial planed downsizing of the full size cars would not have been as significant as what eventually came to market.
I think GM beginned to work on it a bit before the first oil crisis from what I read on an article of Collectible Automobile, April 2008.
One would think that as soon as the ’71s hit the showroom in the fall of ’70, someone was thinking about the next major generational change. It’s hard to believe the ’77 B’s were what was in mind until sometime in early 1974. The idea expressed in this thread that the ’77 B’s were likely a diversion of plans for successors to the ’73 A’s seems a reasonable theory.
As far as I know, one of the greatest unknowns in auto history is what GM was thinking for its large cars after the ’71 roll out. If the ’77 B was not on the table in 1972, what was? It would be very interesting to know the design and engineering studies that were in place before OPEC and CAFE came on the scene.
The ultimate CC research project?
Well, its about a 4 year time frame from the Advanced Studio, where the most far fetched “out there” concepts are refined to a finished ready to release design. The 1971 full size cars were in the advanced studio in 1967, now this was before several regulations started to kick in, so I could see a little longer development time for the new big cars, but if the next gen cars were in the Advanced Studio in 1971, they were probably finished and ready for release to the production engineers by 1975-1976.
From what I have read in the past it seems that GM wanted to downsize the cars, so that they could run smaller engines and improve overall fleet average. Further, the 1970’s was trending towards smaller vehicles so GM believed a smaller fullsize car was the appropriate action. I think the timing of the fuel crisis was just coincidental.
According to the Collectible Automobile Article I have on the ’77 Downsized cars, the cars were planned before the 1973 fuel crisis. The article doesn’t suggest when exactly, only that planning had begun “several months” before the crisis, or “perhaps more.”
Bill Mitchell stated the following in an interview:
“We knew it [downsizing] was coming. We could see what was happening in Europe. Before the Crisis came, the [fuel] mileage story was already coming out. We knew the days of big engines were numbered, and it was obvious to get acceptable performance out of smaller engines, we would have to take a lot of weight out of the cars. And there was already a trend at GM to get future models as efficient as possible.”
Lloyd Reuss said the following:
“You could see this coming. When I went to Chevrolet Product Planning in 1973 we were already working on that [downsizing] and resizing our engines as well. We were getting a lot of negative reaction on the shear size [of our cars] because the market was shifting to smaller vehicles.”
That’s interesting, but I’ve never seen any photos of prototypes or styling studies that GM had in the works before the Arab Oil Embargo. As I noted above, the Arab Oil Embargo occurred in late 1973, or three years after the 1971 models debuted. There should have been clay mockups of the next generation of full-size cars by that point. But I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen one.
And I’ve seen quotes from GM people that they were working on V-8s in the 550-600 cid range before the Oil Embargo, which doesn’t really square with any downsizing effort.
The Oil crisis got them to fully commit to downsizing at least. Maybe were originally planned to go down to 119″ wb, and then got incentive to go to 116″
There were alot of naysayers, including Henry Ford II, who thought GM would flop at this effort.
The C-body Buick Electra, Cadillac DeVille/Fleetwood and Oldsmobile 98 1977 was on a 118.9″ wb close to 119″ wb. I guess they put the others to 116″ to be more distinct?
Of the RWD C Bodies, the 1977 Cadillac Coupe/Sedan De Ville and Fleetwood actually had the longest wheelbase at 121.5″ which ironically had the same wheelbase as the previous 1971-76 versions of the Impala and Caprice models and just about almost the same body length as well.
1976 Impala/Caprice Classic 222.9″
1977 Cadillac Full Size 221.2″
I take any quotes made after the point with a grain of salt. You just don’t hear executives or others high up in a organization admitting that they got caught with their pants down very frequently. More often they will spin it that they correctly predicted the future, whether they did or not.
The article also has some clays from 1973, one Caddy from May 1973. Several from the fall of 1973, around the time of the fuel crisis. This suggests to me that if clays existed in 1973, that the cars probably started development before the fuel crisis.
Lets see those pictures of the clays then and we can judge how much resemblance they have to what hit the showroom for 1977. Note styling clays often predate the actual engineering of the vehicle.
Wow, you are really adamant that there is no way that GM could have even been slightly ahead of the curve…..is your anti-GM bias that strong?
Why is it anti GM bias when asking to see the pictures of the clays from that time? As far as GM being ahead of the game that is something that they hadn’t been since the 60’s as Ford caught them with their pants down all through the 60’s, Falcon, Fairlaine, Mustang, LTD, Thunderbird.
The fact that they are listed as being from the fall of 73 and early 74 only supports the idea that they were in response to the energy crisis. In the past they would have had styling clays done about the time the new model hit the showroom not 3 years after since they had been running a 2-4 year design cycle. The downsized B broke from the traditional GM design process eerily similar to what happened in 1959. For 59 all 4drs had to share the same front doors, and in 77 all 4drs shared the same front doors for the first time since 1959. They also split particular design areas between the different divisions taking away much of their autonomy. Pretty much sounds like they were in crisis mode rather than being ahead of the game as some propose.
I’m not saying the GM wasn’t planning on scaling back the size of the B but looking at the pictures that are credited to the fall of 1973 and those credited to Mar 1974 and later do show some rather significant changes.
Then there is the question of what exactly the designers did between the Fall 1970 and Fall 1973? The full size cars were GM’s bread and butter, particularly the Chevy that they cranked out a million copies of per year. Do you really think that GM was either that enamored of itself or so lame that they were planning on letting them rot on the vine for 6 years when they had been putting out fresh body shells as frequently as every 2 years or at worse 4 years with a 2 year refresh?
I don’t think the 2-4 year body cycle argument is entirely accurate. Look at Chevrolet. 1961-64 was a four year cycle, but then there is 1965-70. Sure there were some significant sheet metal changes, but it was the same basic body shell and platform over 6 model years. Then 1971-76 is was also a 6 year cycle, with the same basic body shell and platform over the same number of years. Like the previous generation it saw mid cycle roofline refreshes. Unlike the previous generation it had to also contend with new bumper laws and other regulations that probably reduced GM’s desire to changing the sheet metal as much as previous years. Other companies were also reducing the annual sheet metal changes at this time too.
Look (photo 2, and 3) at the earliest clay and compare it to the newest one (photo 16 and 17). There isn’t a huge difference overall as far as styling clays go. The early clay is from the fall 0f 1973, and I am sure there were many sketches that preceded it too.
It’s hard to scan my magazine without ruining the spine, but I was able to get the two Chevrolet Pages in decent enough that you can see the clays. Yes, I am aware that engineering changes often come after then clays, however, I believe from these photos that it’s pretty clear the direction GM was going, and the evolution to the 1977 Chevrolet is fairly seamless. The first page has clays from the fall of 1973, the second page is many from early 1974. The 1974 clays already seem to have the coupe roofline down pate and the size difference is already apparent.
Personally, I trust a credible source like CA magazine over most of what’s been posted here. Most of their articles are well researched and often have only minor errors.
Here is the second page:
Was this article on all of the B-bodies or just the Chevrolet? What month? I may back order it.
This article is covers the 1977 downsize for all 5 divisions . It’s a good read, it’s April 2008 edition.
@Bill Mitchell, very interesting and thanks for sharing both photo illustrations with us regarding those B-Body Chevrolet Mock Ups.
Thanks for posting these. The big surprise is the hatchback, very reminiscent of the Aeroback A. The first pair on the first page remind me of the whales somewhat.
There does seem to be some significant changes between those pictures that are from the fall of 1973 and those credited from being from Mar 1974 and later. The fall of 1973 cars seem to be on a longer wheel base judging by the minimal rear wheel cut out on the 4drs compared to the later cars and what made it to market. There also seems to be a greater distance between the door and wheel well on the 2dr version.
I have no doubt the oil crisis had influence on the designs, but I still tend to believe that GM was going to downsize the cars regardless. At minimum they knew CAFE was coming and they need to lose weight and get smaller engine. Saying that the early 1974 designs are smaller and that it was the oil crisis that caused that smaller design is pure speculation.
Looking at what the CA article says, the quotes by the GM execs, and these photos, to me the evidence suggests that GM had plans to make the cars smaller. I mean, GM can do things right sometimes?
CAFE was not passed by the federal government until well after the Arab Oil Embargo ended (I believe it was passed in 1975), so it wouldn’t have factored in GM’s plans in late 1973. Does the article include any dimensions for the proposed vehicles?
Interesting to see those mockup photos. Would never have guessed a European styling lineage for what is in some ways the quintessential American car, but from the photos of the coupe prototypes (particularly those on the bottom of the first page), the influence of the Pininfarina designed Fiat 130 coupe is pretty apparent. In the final product, some of the most evocative traits of those mock ups were softened (diluted?).
Perhaps this lineage shouldn’t be entirely a surprise though, given the similarities between the Ferrari 250 Lusso and the 1970 Camaro RS.
I’ve never said that GM didn’t plan to make the cars smaller, I just don’t believe that they intended to make them as small as they did. No one has yet to give any response as to what GM did between the introduction of the 71’s and fall of 73. I find it impossible to believe that they weren’t working on something for their full size cars in that time period as it was their bread and butter at the time.
You are really reaching saying that they knew CAFE was coming and that they would have to do something about it. CAFE was enacted in 1975 and did not take effect until the 1978 model year for cars. CAFE was a direct response to the energy crisis so unless they had a crystal ball GM had no way to know it was coming, the only hint would have been the run up in gas prices that preceded the oil embargo and it still would have taken a crystal ball or at least a good guess to think that the gov’t would enact fuel economy standards because of it until late 73. Which again makes me wonder what was GM doing between the intro of the 71s and the fall of 73 when those first pictures were taken.
There is no size mentioned of the clay mock ups in the article. So the sizing is purely a guessing game.
Yes, I will conceded that perhaps I was reaching with the CAFE prediction in 1973. That said, I don’t think it was entirely out of line for GM to predict fuel economy regulation in the future. The EPA began to test fuel economy in 1971, the same year that Nixon also began to talk about energy conservation and reducing Americas energy consumption. Fuel economy was taking a nose dive due to new emissions standards of the early 1970s. With all the other regulations going in place in the 1970’s for cars, I don’t think it would take much of a crystal ball to predict fuel economy regulation might be next. Further, during the early 1970’s car manufacturers already knew that the market was trending towards smaller vehicles and that fullsize vehicles were becoming less popular.
If the GM downsized cars was purely a reaction to the Oil Embargo, than why was GM the only one to have smaller cars for 1977? Why did it take Ford and Chrysler until 1979 before they had something? Ford’s first reaction was the LTD II when they tried to decrease the weight of their intermediates and reduce the base engine size, which they couldn’t get out until 1977. But it took until 1979 for Ford to have a fully new fullsize car with the space efficiency and size comparable to the 1977 B/C cars.
The question is whether the those initial styling studies cars were truly “downsized,” or a nip-and-tuck job – much like GM’s 1961 full-size cars, or even the current Honda Accord. The latter two were smaller and tidier than their predecessors, but not really THAT much smaller. Some of the styling studies in the first set of Collectible Automobile photographs still look pretty big.
Why didn’t Ford and Chrysler move as quickly as GM to downsize their full-size cars?
From what I’ve read, there were two things going on at Ford during this time period. One, Henry Ford II was extremely uncomfortable with the idea of smaller big cars. Two, Ford felt that the better way to meet CAFE regulations was to first introduce a lighter, more modern compact platform. Hence, the debut of the Fox-based Ford Fairmont and Mercury Zephyr in the fall of 1977, or one year ahead of the Panther-based Ford LTD and Mercury Marquis. (The Fox-based Mustang also debuted in the fall of 1978, and it was lighter than the Mustang II, even though it was physically larger.)
As for Chrysler – the company was fast running out of money for any new products. Lynn Townsend had laid off the entire engineering department for several weeks during the 1974-75 recession, which was why the Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare were initially riddled with problems. The company decided to spend its money on the Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon, which debuted in early 1978, and the K-platform, which debuted in the fall of 1980.
The company’s big cars were almost afterthoughts. Sales of the full-size Dodge and Plymouth basically collapsed in 1975, and never really recovered.
There was initially no downsized Plymouth Fury, and the Dodge St. Regis and Chrysler Newport/New Yorker were only available as four-door sedans – no coupes or wagons. Full-size cars simply were not a priority at Chrysler.
There were a couple of reasons that Ford didn’t rush into a new full size car at the time. Some of it was pure luck. After the energy crisis the Pinto became the best selling car for 1974. They also got lucky in that when people criticized the Clydesdale Mustang (#7 for 1974) for its Clydesdale proportions they immediately had a hit with it too, fueled no doubt in large part by the energy crisis. They were also lucky in that compact sales also grew during that time and they had the Granada (#2 for 1975) waiting in the wings with big car styling in a compact size. So my guess is that they thought they had a pretty good foothold in cars that were the new hot segments.
Since the hot segments immediately following the energy crisis were everything but the full size car and many people were calling the traditional full size segment not long for this world, Ford decided to put its focus elsewhere and develop a new platform from the ground up that fit into the current meat of the market, the Fox.
Meanwhile by 76 the market started to turn and the Impala #2 and LTD #4 started selling pretty well again so with that knowledge Ford probably finally felt that investing in a new full size line wasn’t a bad idea and thus started work on the Panther. By that time I’m sure that they had caught wind of the fact that GM was bringing a downsized full size to market as well.
For 77 while the B was a solid hit LTD sales also climbed (#3) and Lincoln picked up a few former Caddy customers. I still remember my Uncle’s response to the downsized Caddy, he had been buying a new Caddy every year for years. “Ain’t no way I’m buying one of those sawed off excuses for a Cadillac”. His next purchase was a Lincoln and when they too were downsized in 1980 he did something unheard of and kept his 79 Lincoln. It is important to note that my Aunt was the book keeper for the local Olds Cad dealer and there wasn’t even a Lincoln dealer in their town so it was pretty surprising that he made that move. The funny thing however was that he didn’t have a problem replacing his C10 with a LUV in 76 or 77.
Keep in mind that, by 1976, Ford had to do something with its full-size cars. The basic platform dated to 1965, and the car itself was a heavily restyled version of the 1971 car.
Between CAFE and the success of the 1977 GM full-size cars, the Fords ultimately had to shrink, too, no matter what the ads were saying in 1977.
Geeber, you are correct in 1976 it was clear that CAFE was here to stay and that the full size segment still had a few more good years coming. So it was a choice of either abandon that segment or do a new car.
Right now, the majority of this conversation has been nothing but speculation. Beyond the quotes from the GM execs, the styling clays, no one else has presented any reasonable facts that of how or when GM started the “Project 77” cars. Sure it’s possible that the original clays were a minor trimming, and that the oil embargo of CAFE influenced the design to be smaller. But there are no facts to suggest this. It’s also possible that Reuss and Mitchell lied in their interviews, but how much would that really gain by lying? And would it be worth the cost of some GM insider exposing the lie?
When you look at the early 1974 photos, GM is already comparing the clay to the old large B-body Chevrolet, and you can even see a Colonnade in the background. This suggests that size was always in the forefront. The late 1973 car doesn’t look significantly different than the late 1974 (almost finalized) design. To me this suggests no major last minute change took place. The 1959 cars were a last minute revision, and GM was the first to note such. Why would they hide this years later? Further the “original 1959’s” looked drastically different than the actual 1959s, it was apparent it was a new clean sheet design.
With the Panther cars released in the fall of 1978, I bet they came to inception not too long after the Oil Embargo, and probably pretty close to when CAFE passed in 1975 (this is assuming Ford had similar development times that GM did for the ’77 B-body). The LTD II was Ford’s stop gap for better fuel efficiency in a large car, while they had there resources concentrated on the 1978 Fox platform and the 1979 Panther. The fox was only one year ahead of the Panther, so I think you’d pretty naïve to think it was well along in development during the mid 1970’s. I realize Henry II was conservative, if I remember correctly, he opposed FWD, not small cars specifically (although I know he preferred large cars).
In the end until I see some reliable evidence that the ’77 B-bodies were started after the Oil Embargo, I will stick with the reputable sources that state otherwise. And we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I’d say the Fox was a direct response to the energy crisis and they didn’t start on it until then. Ditto with the Panther as Ford took a wait and see approach as to whether or not the full size segment was worth the investment. Chrysler obviously decided that it wasn’t worth the investment.
The only thing that has dates attached are the clays that are all after the run up of gas prices that started in spring 1973 or the embargo in fall 1973. So if GM really intended to down size them all along why did they wait 3 years to start the project? If you look closely at one of those pictures of a clay you’ll see that it is a mirrored/flopped image and signs of it being unfinished on the other side suggesting that it was pretty fresh.
The Fox Mustangs were started at least in 1975, as I have a CA article on them that show clays from 1975. So yes, I would agree that it and the Panther was more of a direct response to the Energy Crisis and CAFE, than the b-body which I believe started Before the crisis. It took Ford until the fall of 1978 to actually have these released cars to the public.
There is only one of the Chevrolet’s that has the “mirror”, photo 4 and 5. These types of clays are called “clown suits” and are used to save time and money when they are looking for a theme or direction. I don’t know why or exactly when GM decided to downsize the cars, but from the evidence it appears that it was before the major price spike that occurred in the fall of 1973. And from the comments that Bill Mitchell and Lloyd Reuss are quoted, it does appear they had the idea before the oil crisis, but not a huge amount of time before the crisis. Maybe it was the slow rise in fuel prices and the decline in large car sales? GM didn’t want to lose there large car sales, as the profit margins on their small cars were no where near what they made on the large cars.
What were they doing before that from 1970-72? Maybe they had other plans for the fullsize cars and scrapped those ideas? Maybe they were tied up working on the mid seventies cars like the Monza, Camaro restyles, Chevette, the Riviera restyle, and finishing up the Colonnades etc… I don’t know, but it appears neither do you.
The decision to move ahead with what became the Panther cars was not made by Ford until 1976, according to the book The Reckoning.
Development of the Fox platform was well underway by that point.
Interesting that Ford started the project so late and was able to have a car released to the public by the fall of 1978. I haven’t read that book, but it’s on my list. I knew the Fox was started at least in 1975, it was only my assumption that the Panther was around the same time.
I love the ’77-’96 B bodies so much, but they were literally all the same exact car.
The 2 door ’77-’81 Impala/Caprices being my favorite (and most rare)
The ’77-’79 two doors actually sold in pretty good numbers. Market dynamics fell hard against large two-door cars after the ’79 episode of OPEC II. People that still wanted large cars needed them for practical reasons, and two doors are more a style statement than practical. It did seem like the luxury two doors from Buick, Olds and Cadillac did okay in the early ’80s as they played to a demographic with more disposable income and more kids grown and out of the house.
I was excited about the debut of the 1977 models because the current crop of similar models by that time had gotten so ridiculously large and inefficient, any relief was overdue!
When the new models debuted, aside from the bent-glass Impala coupe, I was less than enthusiastic. “Wind tunnel tested”? really? Looking at the cars now, a barn door would glide through the air just as easily!
The fuel economy, however, was certainly much better, due more to weight loss than styling. A friend’s dad had a 1975 Caprice sports sedan that netted only 13.5 mpg on the highway. He wasn’t pleased with that. Just about anything would be an improvement.
All things considered, for the full-sized cars, I like the box panthers much better in the styling department, and most of Ford’s offerings in those days, for that matter.
I’m glad those trunk seals withstand the “high-pressure drenchings at the car wash.” Gotta keep that saleman’s literature dry! Love it. Thanks for sharing this throwback.
I remember being initially disappointed by the 1977 GM offerings. I considered them compromise cars that might make a good (though unattractive) Chevrolet, but a poor Buick or Cadillac. For another 2 or three years, Lincoln and Chrysler sold some genuinely big, genuinely beautiful competitors and did quite well, but then they downsized – and did it nowhere near as successfully as GM had in 1977.
Having experienced these, though, I would say that they are indescribably better than the 1971-76 big GM cars in terms of quality, in almost every way. How much better shows up in how many of these are still on the road all these years later.
My parents went and drove a new 77 Cadillac Coupe Deville when they first came out. Dad said it would make a nice Pontiac Grand Prix but he just didn’t think it was large enough for a Cadillac. He liked his 74 Sedan Deville better.
My dad was ecstatic when the downsized ’77s arrived, he had always wanted a Cadillac, just could never justify the gargantuan models that preceded them. He was thoroughly tired of the leviathan ’71 Lincoln Continental coupe that they had driven for the previous six years (normal life span for their cars was four years), and was ready to pull the plug when the ’77 Cadillac made its appearance. He was so enamored of the new downsized Coupe de Ville, he special ordered their new model, and I remember he was like the little kid awaiting the arrival of Christmas morning, he couldn’t wait to take delivery of the new Cadillac. It was yellow with a matching yellow cabriolet roof and yellow plaid flannel-like fabric upholstery. He loved that car, and I’m glad he did, as it turned out, it was his last ride, as he passed away suddenly three years later. But Mom loved it too, and soldiered on with the Cad for another fourteen years. I could not get her to turn loose of that car until 1994, when she finally really needed to downsize into something more easily drivable. It wound up being their daily driver for all those seventeen years, well maintained and in pretty good condition, far, far longer than they had ever kept any one car.
I really like the 77-79 standard Cadillacs, I will always remember riding in a triple silver 1979 Coupe deVille that belong to a friend of my parents, it was the first car I had ever seen with a glass moonroof, or “Astroroof” in the GM parlance, it made a big impression.
Cadillac sales shot up in 77-79, and Ford/Mopar’s tanks were “suddenly it’s 1970″. Sure, if they are your favorite brand, the big yachts are ‘beauties”, but with gas lines fresh in buyers memories, GM hit the jackpot.
And maybe some die hards went to big New Yorkers or Lincolns, but not enough to keep them in production. That and CAFE.
The die-hards get some big New Yorkers(and Newport) for 1977 and sales for the New Yorker and the Newport was higher for 1977 (and it helped then the New Yorker inherited the 1974-75 Imperial “waterfall” front end), however Dodge and Plymouth wasn’t so lucky. Then in 1978 sales of full-size Chrysler dropped, since the C-body was 4 years old and begin to be old hat).
My dad had a 1977 Olds 98 Regency… was the only ‘trouble free’ GM car he ever had. The rest being Cadillacs which had odd problems most of the time.
OK, is it true that the frame on these is the actual A-body (Colonnade) frame? Perhaps stretched in certain models…. Or does that idea get tossed around because the design philosophy is similar, on what was a distinctly new, computer-designed frame?
No they are not on a Colonnade frame. Yes they use the same basic architecture but so did the B/C/D cars that these replaced. Unequal length A-arms with coils between the arms, recirculating ball steering up front and a triangulated 4 link with coils out back. That basic layout goes way back.
@Martin66 ….I’m not sure But I do know this. The frames were delivered by rail. We run the 77 “B”, and the the other half of the plant ran 77 “A”. I was too low on seniority to get near material handling. The old timers could tell the difference between the two frames visually. They looked the same to me???
It was nearly 20 years later until I got near material handling. The “B” bodys were long gone by then.
I have always believed the 77 “B” frame was a reworked “A”…I could be wrong
It was my understanding that the B/C bodied cars originally started development as the A-body replacement and that midway through the plan is when the gas crunch hit, causing GM to rethink strategies. So, if the chassis were similar, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit. Actually seems plausible.
But the A chassis was basically a 3/4 or 7/8 version of the B/C/D chassis.
They are similar but not the same. Just crawling under the car the difference in the side rails is immediately noticed. The B-body frame did not have a rear cross member (other than wagons), probably to save weight. Some of the suspension parts are shared, but that’s about it.
I liked em so much I’m still driving one.
I have never had a better combo than the 403 mated to the TH400.
I was working in the pit when the first production {non pilot} Impala came down the line. Oshawa “B” August 1976. We were located maybe 10 jobs ahead of body drop.
I had never seen such a crowd , ever, on the plant floor. The main offices had emptied. Even the pretty office girls. They NEVER came on to the floor. I was a 22 year old male .You don’t forget things like that.
It took awhile but when the car got to us the pit was some crowded with engineers and the like.We were sorta hoping that the girls would get closer. We were in the pit, the skirts were short?? Do the math.
There was a whole lot of excitement , The line sputtered, and stopped. I don’t think we got more than three cars off the line that day. The next day things were moving a little faster.
The first Pontiacs were about 50 cars up the line, So we didn’t see them for a couple of days. I think the first one I saw was an American Bonneville. I remember the struggle, trying to get all the pieces of chrome, on the lower doors, and the rockers to line up. Then they would put the fenders on. Us guys in the pit were called on, to help the guys up top get things screwed down..
Trying to secure the lower fender to, the forward pillar, was impossible to do unless you undid the pal nuts holding the chrome onto the lower door.
38 years ago…wow! I can remember some of it like it was yesterday. I can see the faces, and remember the voices. A lot of those folks are long gone now.
I better quit now before I get teary eyed.
Thanks for sharing, you guys put together my 1980 Caprice Classic, still around 34 years later, good job!
I love reading your posts about your past experiences at the plant, Mikey. I just bought the Echoes of Norwood Book and it’s a fascinating read.
Thanks guys….The down sized B was a big part of my life. I made it to production group leader by the 1980 model year. Carmine I believe the 1980 was the first year of the” scissor jack” mounted at the back of the trunk, with one long wing bolt securing it. Part of my job was to chase repairs, down the line. I cursed the engineer that designed that thing. I’d be willing to bet, the original “J” nut, and the wing bolt has been replaced by now on your 80.
It does have the scissor jack in the little box in the trunk, I’ll take a look next time I have her out and see, it doesn’t look like its been tampered with.
Thank you for this article. Everyone remembers then 1977 downsizing fondly. I liked when they were given more aero looks for 1980 and refined. I like the 1980-1985 B and 1980-1984 C bodies. I liked how the technology changed and improved in the models during that time. It was interesting how it ran from 1977 to 1996. At the end they lost out to suv’s. It is funny that in 1991-1993 bodies got bigger in size( wider and longer) compared to the 1977-1985 models. I thought it was always interesting the wagons ran as long as they did too. One has to wonder what would have happened if they had not been downsized in 1985 and 1986. One has to wonder if GM had kept them rear drive and updated them and made them the size the C and H bodies were 1989-1999. The second downsizing era of 1985-1986 was a disaster.
My favorites are:
1980-1981 Pontiac Bonneville/Parisienne
1985-1986 Pontiac Parisienne
1980-1989 Pontiac Safari
1980-1984 Oldsmobile Ninety Eight
1980- 1985 Oldsmobile Eighty Eight
1980-1990 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser
1983-1984 Buick Park Avenue
1984-1985 Buick LeSabre
1987-1990 Chevrolet Caprice Classic Brougham LS
1993-1996 Cadillac Fleetwood
I remember those brand names. It’s a shame that two of the names are dead and the other three simply aren’t producing cars here in the USA anymore.
There were a few faux pas with the new Bs and the As (that became Gs) that followed…
– The 267 small block that was supposed to have “the power of a V8 and the economy of a 6″…but it was the other way around. Never understood why they didn’t just use the 262, a destroked 350, from the 1975 Monza.
– The “metric” transmissions, most of which were swapped out for the vastly superior and indestructible TH350.
– And of course the diesel versions.
IOW, with the RIGHT powertrain you had a winner. From handling to space utilization to fuel economy, there was NOTHING a ’71-’76 did that the 77’s couldn’t do better.
And yes, they had to get the big cars right. They were the profit center. The franchise. Trucks and SUVs wouldn’t play that role for another few years…
The 267 wasn’t available until 1980 on the b-body, and was last available in 1982. The 267 actually made more power than the 262. The 262 had a unique bore and stroke not shared with any other small block Chev while the 267 shared it’s stroke with a 305 and 350.
Here are the specs:
262 CID (1975)
3.671″ x 3.10″
110hp @ 3600 RPM
200 ft-lbs @ 200 RPM
267 Chevrolet (1980)
3.50″ x 3.48″
115 hp @ 4000 RPM
200 ft-lbs @ 2400 RPM
(note the 1979 267 actually made 125 hp and 215 ft-lbs)
The “metric” trans that was problematic was the TH200 transmission. Later OD transmissions were better after some initial growing pains (TH200-4R and Th700-R4).
Impressive ad. GM went out of their way to justify what they were doing as both appropriate and “hi-tech” in the face of the continued production of the old school Fords and, to a lesser extent, Chryslers.
There seems to be a general consensus that the quality of assembly improved and there was less corrosion as well starting with the ’77 models over the prior generation.
There has been another, smaller camp in the past that says that although this may be true, the ’71-’76 models had far better interior quality and were actually roomier in “real life” than the ’77+ because the interior space increase in the ’77 doesn’t really translate to more useable room, and that they also rode better than the downsized version as a result of the longer wheelbase.
Having only driven ’77+ versions, it’s hard for me to say; they haven’t been too rusty and they certainly ride well, although I am very disappointed indeed with the cloth interior on my ’77 Electra which hasn’t held up well at all, nor have many of the interior plastics. Frankly, the Electra just seems like a big, reasonably well optioned Caprice, a role seemingly more appropriate to an 88 or LeSabre. Conversely, my ’87 Brougham, except for the powerplant, was eons better, even though there are plenty of people on here who would say it is the same car as the Electra with more jewelry. Yet I would swear there was more sound dampening and less brittle plastic, plus metals were sometimes used where plastic was used on the Buick and other lesser marks (coat hooks and sun visor bolts, for example). Maybe it’s that the Buick is a 225 and not a Limited or Park Avenue. The Cadillac never felt like a big Caprice to me.
My parents went from a 1976 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale Holiday sedan to a 1982 Delta 88 Royale sedan.
The 1982 model was definitely built better and felt much more solid, although the 1976 was a hardtop sedan, which undoubtedly made it feel much more flexible.
I remember driving the 1976 Olds over (paved) country roads and watching the front fenders and hood flap like the wings of a commercial jet. That did not happen on the 1982 Olds. Both cars were traded when they were six years old, and the 1976 Olds was starting to rust around the rear wheel openings. There was no rust on the 1982 Olds when my parents traded it. Both cars were regularly driven in Pennsylvania winters.
The interior of the 1976 Olds was not that roomy. The back seat didn’t offer that much legroom, and any extra space in the width department was largely wasted. Entry and exit were more difficult, too, as the car was very low and had severely curved side glass and body sides. The 1982 Olds was a much more “livable” car, with more practical, usable space. The trunk of the 1982 Olds was also more practical. Even if the 1976 model had more cubic space, the 1982 model had more usable space. Its trunk was better shaped and deeper.
Regarding the quality of interior materials – the 1982 model was actually better in that regard. The velour upholstery was not wearing away, as it did on the 1976 model by the time my parents traded it.
Performance? Both were dogs by today’s standards. The 1976 Oldsmobile had the Olds 350 V-8, while the 1982 model had the Olds 307 V-8. Neither was remotely a “sparkling” performer. But the 1982 got better gas mileage, which was what mattered in those days.
Overall, the 1982 model was a better car in every way than its 1976 counterpart. Even my parents, who were initially skeptical of the downsizing effort, did not hesitate to say that the 1982 model was an all-around great car after they had the chance to drive it and live with it. (Both cars were very reliable for the time.) Switching from the 1976 Olds to the 1982 model was one trade they did not regret making.
I agree, the 71-76 cars don’t feel any roomier, they do drive “bigger” since of course, they are, the places where the 71-76’s feel a little bigger are in odd points, sitting in the normal drivers position, you can slide all the way over to lean on the door panel, and you almost aren’t in front of the steering wheel anymore.
This is interesting. I really want to drive one to compare. So does the, uh, “looser” construction of the 71-76 models ruin any advantage in ride quality that might result from the longer wheelbase over the ’77-96 models?
I don’t remember the 1982 Olds as riding particularly “rough,” and I know that my parents never complained about the ride. If anything, the improvements made to the 1977-and-later generation resulted in a better ride over two-lane country roads, of which there were plenty where we lived.
That car handled so much better, and felt so much more solid, than their 1976 Olds, that any trade-off in ride quality was well worth it.
No doubt the GM B-bodies were a Greatest Hit. They represented the beginning of the end for the Malaise Era, with their efficient design and superior handling. The engines would take a while to catch up, but these cars were the goods and just about everyone knew it, including folks at Ford and Chrysler who got caught two years behind.
Note well that both gave their mid-size cars full-size names in response. Plymouth had already introduced the “Small Fury” in ’75, but the Dodge Coronet became a Monaco in ’77 and the Torino/Elite became the LTD II, though strangely, Mercury Montegos transformed into Cougars in either coupe or sedan form. The biggies? Gran Furies, Royal Monacos and plain-old LTD’s. Galaxies were long gone. And the Thunderbird went with the Monte Carlo formula of specialty mid-size coupe about $2000 cheaper than its Mark IV-based predecessor.
Ford tried hard to counteract the downsizing by presenting the GM products as less car for the money, but the Chevys in particular set sales records. Even the snobby magazines slathered on the praise and defended them any time GM threatened to end production.
Even when GM finally did in 1996, nearly 20 years after their intro, the press lamented their passing. So did a lot of cabbies and cops who considered them superior to the Ford Panthers.
Just for the sake of their close kinship even though the 1977-96 Downsized RWD B/C/D Bodied Cars were otherwise fundamentally different cars from the 1973-77 RWD A-Bodies, there is no denying that those Downsized RWD Full Size Cars were still based from a modified Chevelle Malibu/El Camino/Monte Carlo chassis much in the same manner the 1975-79 RWD K-Bodied Cadillac Seville were to the 1975-79 RWD X-Bodied NOVA Group and 1970-81 RWD F-Bodied Camaro. I noticed that some people may be hostile in debating these that it even leads to personal insults and attacks on some Seville and Nova formats here on Curbside Classics but I am entitled to my own opinions and I respect the opinions of others just as I respect theirs and expect the same from others as well. Anyway here are the 2 Door versions of the RWD A/B/C/D Bodies and I created this as a sort of their own “Family Tree”.
I agree with you. Look at the front tread of the 75-79 Nova, 1/8 inch less that the 77 on B . I think the a arms , axles spindles, brakes were the same.
I looked forward to the new 77s. I was disappointed because the cars were still too big. I owned my ’63 LeSabre then and the ’77 LeSabre still 2 1/2 inches longer . I also would have liked to see a 4 speed manual. None ever was available.
Now here are the Four Door Models of those same cars as well.
One thing missing from your premise is the fact that the B-bodies were much more spacious than the A-bodies. So there might be similarities, but I’m willing to bet you can’t slide a B-Body frame under an A-body shell and simply bolt them together. Which I have done with two A-bodies
Very rarely if ever does GM or anyone else design a car completely off a clean sheet of paper. Some parts will carry over.
The 1970-81 Camaros and Firebirds used the same platform but were only 25 percent interchangeable. Different engines, different body parts save maybe for doors, etc.The third-generation F-body was 75 percent, different in mostly body and interior.
Very interesting, I believe it depends whether the 1973-77 RWD A-Body Coupe which came with 112″ wheelbase or the Sedan or Monte Carlo versions with 116″ wheelbase. Have you tried this experiment with the Malibu Coupe or Sedan? Since the wheel and axle spacings from the coupe was several inches shorter than the 4 Door Models, there is no doubt that the RWD B-Bodied Chassis would not fit the RWD A-Bodied Chassis let alone the coupe’s chassis would fit the 4 Door Model Chassis even though both versions utilized the same chassis which I meant the Malibu Coupe and 4 Door versions.
I agreed with you that the only rare occurrences GM designed a car completely of clean slate would be the ill-fated1980-85 FWD X-Bodied Chevrolet Citation which replaced the Nova after a short 1979 model year run.
The 1970-81 Camaros and Firebirds also had width differences 74.4″ for the former and 73.0″ for the latter which may not be much but the way their distinct bodies were designed would preclude both cars in sharing nose, bumpers and hood. The trunk for both cars? Maybe.
We had a 77 Impala wagon with a 305 (307?). Despite being a first-year car, it was the best car my parents ever had (with the possible exception of a Volvo 544 that went away when I was 4).
The only things that I recall going wrong that probably shouldn’t have were that the rear springs started sagging after a cross-country camping road trip when the car was little more than a year old.(IIRC our mechanic added some helper springs), and the A/C compressor failed and locked up as we were on the Cross Bronx Expressway. The screeching noise scared the dickens out of my dad, as in the late 70s the Cross Bronx was not a place you wanted to be stranded late at night.
Come to think of it, the A/C must have been a weak point, as I recall a few years later having it belch a cloud of something (Freon?) into my face one hot afternoon
My dad traded in a ’71 Catalina for a ’77 Bonneville. The build quality was so much better, and so was the styling. The doors thunked, and it was an honest to G#d Bonneville, although they were decontented vs. previous years. He kept that car for 10 years and i don’t recall many problems even though it had the 301 motor. one funny thing was the rear aluminum bumper fell off around 1985, i think the attachment brackets were aluminum as well and they ended up looking like laminated cardboard from corrosion. Again GM could do rear wheel drive really well so let’s go front wheel drive across the board fellas!
During the late 1990s I believe that it was around 1997, I have read one of the Pontiac Books (I don’t remember the exact title nor the author of that book which was well written BTW) at the defunct Borders Bookstore located at the original 1 WTC branch and there was an interesting proposal mentioned that one of the planned Downsized GM B-Bodied RWD Full Size Car was supposed to utilize a stretched Unitized Body Construction with Front Subframes borrowed from the RWD X-Bodied (aka the NOVA group) chassis. The other of course was using a MODIFIED RWD A-Bodied (aka the Chevelle Malibu/El Camino/Monte Carlo) chassis. GM utilized the latter instead so both the RWD A-Bodied and RWD B/C/D-Bodied now used similar chassis to keep up with their traditional heritage of preferred construction instead of being another spinoff of the Nova model. The 1978 Downsized RWD A and later G Bodied (through 1988) had a newer, lighter and shorter chassis not based from the similar sized Nova nor the larger Impala/Caprice Classic platforms. The Downsized RWD A/G Bodied Chassis (which will be an interesting topic of another day) were still of full perimeter ladder type construction which probably was a little “similar”? to the ones used by 1979-85 FWD E-Bodies and FWD K-Body (1980-85 Seville) even though the 1978-88 Monte Carlo was a RWD since both cars were almost within the similar size range as well.
Interesting that it doesn’t show any cars, they still wanted to get you to a dealer to see the styling. Probably very early in the launch. Or maybe the divisions ran their own ads in the same publications that showed whole cars?
What did this ad it run in? If it was the November issue of a monthly magazine then it would’ve shipped out to subscribers in early September and hit newsstands a few weeks later.
These were GM at its best, before Roger Smith, bean counters, and phoning in designs. Too bad people like Bill Mitchell couldn’t have stuck around longer. Then, products like the X cars, with poor safety and recalls would have been better engineered.
I had a ’78 Impala as a beater in ’88 when going to school. It was still solid as a tank, unlike some 71-76 big cars in my extended family. After a few years, they rattled like spray paint cans!
One other point, Henry Ford II was watching to see if GM’s effort would fail, and then once they were a hit, then the Panthers were green lit. I’d like to know more about that story. When did they finally say “OK, shrink the LTD!”
I loved the 77-79 Buick’s, Cadillac’s, Pontiac’s, etc. I think that was the best of GM in my lifetime.
Great post.
I was 12 when these B’s hit the road, and I was a bit disappointed in what seemed like boxy look alike cars and the loss of convertibles and any frameless door glass / hardtops.
Unlike me, the people actually going into the showrooms after a period of uncertainty about what to buy in the wake of high fuel costs and economic uncertainty probably appreciated this ad. It provides a logical set of reasons for buying these cars and provides a promise of product that satisfies old desires for space and comfort while addressing what was perceived as modern reality. The cars delivered and the economy was in recovery – GM hit a home run with the bases loaded.
The fact that the styling seemed just slightly radical at the time probably enhanced these car’s street cred as the wave of the future. There was no confusing a new GM full-size with the full-size product in Ford and Chrysler Corp. showrooms in the fall of ’76.
In the design department, this was how close the 1992 Chevrolet Caprice Classic 4 Door Sedan resembled the 1976 Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu 4 Door Colonnade Sedan. Even though they were almost two decades apart, the styling was somewhat similar.
I remember the fall of ’76 very well. As I have mentioned before, my Dad worked at the local Chev-Olds emporium in those days. When the ’77s were unveiled the dealership had a big promotion complete with coverage from the local radio station, barbeque, balloons, and lots of good old fashioned huckstering. Half the town must have been there. Most of the dealership personnel had their families there, kids and all, and the place was pandemonium all day.
The rest of GM’s lineup for ’77 was pretty lacklustre, but the full sizers were hot property and the salesmen were busy all day taking orders and deposits. This was the last time GM really hit one out of the park, and it’s hard to imagine just how big a deal it was at the time if you weren’t around then. Thanks for posting this, it brought back some happy memories!
You aren’t kidding. I remember as a kid these cars being such a hit that not a moment went by that you didn’t either see one drive by, see one parked in a driveway, hear a commercial about them, read about them in a magazine or hear folks talking about them. These cars caused a stir like I have never sen before to this day.
One man’s opinion for folks that may not have experienced ’71 – ’96 B and C cars:
As a rider, driver, owner these played a big part in my life: ’72 88 Royale, ’72 Grand Ville, ’74 88 Royale, ’74 98 Regency, ’75 Electra Park Avenue, ’75 Caprice Classic, ’77 88 Royale, ’78 Caprice Classic, ’78 Park Avenue, ’79 88 Royale, ’82 88 Royale Brougham, ’93 Caprice Classic. The ’71 – ’76 cars had their faults compared to ’77 and up, but they were far from failures. The higher end versions sold in RECORD numbers through ’73, and were an impressive experience in many ways.
The videos contain GM commercials from 1984. GM sponsored a program in 1984, and they showcased their brands through these commercials. I thought it was appropriate with the article and the discussion here. I am sure you all will enjoy and have things to say.
Wow, that’s a lot to absorb, I do like the Christopher Plummer Olds 98 ads!
I only had time to watch the first one for now, I remember this George Washington mini series, what a GM fest! Wow, thanks for the time warp, Dukes of Hazzard, Dallas, Kate & Alley, Airwolf! all that and Dick Van Patten pitching Oldsmobile Delta 88’s, awesome!
The Chevy I6 had a 1bbl carb?! That’s just sad and would have driven me over to Buick’s and the 231 V6 for sure.
These cars were so much better than Ford’s downsized offerings that followed. Check out the ungainly greenhouse on the LTD, particularly the clunky B pillars.
The UAW strike in fall 1970 caused GM to delay many projects. So they may not have started working on the new cars until 1971
My guess is they were going to ‘square off’ the cars at first, as a ‘style cycle’. Maybe looking to bring back a 1964-ish look? Possible that the 119-122 wb C bodies were maybe intended to be B’s? Then OPEC pushed for shorter Chevys?
HF II loved his yank tanks, and had to give them up per CAFE. The Panthers were just reverse engineered GM B’s. Ford let GM be the ‘beta testers’. Motor Trend even had a small story in summer 1977 issue, saying ‘Ford will have it easier in downsizing the LTD, since GM spent more R&D’.
Mopar bet the farm on the “GM look alike” 1974 ‘Bluesmobiles’, and get hurt badly by gas prices. I’m guessing that whatever plans for succesors were too far ahead, so in reaction, they just used B bodies to create the R on a tight budget.
People forget that we are looking at these cars with the benefit of hindsight. They were considered to be a huge risk in the fall of 1976. That was a big reason that GM took ads such as this out in the first place. This was not a normal new-car introduction. These cars flew right in the face of the “longer-lower-wider” styling ethos, and the “bigger is better” mentality, that had guided Detroit for decades.
Henry Ford II was increasingly tired and conservative by the mid-1970s. By 1975 he was as concerned about getting rid of Lee Iacocca as he was about GM downsizing its full-size cars.
Henry Ford II was happy to let GM take the risk, while Ford focused on a new, modern-day compact platform. Remember that the Maverick and Granada were based on the old Falcon platform, which dated back to 1960! The full-size cars were an evolution of the 1965 Ford. So it probably made sense to focus on a new compact (which would also serve as the basis for an all-new Mustang) while allowing a profitable and popular vehicle to continue on for another 2-3 years.
It initially made sense, as the Fairmont/Zephyr and Mustang were big hits in their first year. If I recall correctly, LTD sales actually held firm in 1977-78, while the Mercury Marquis and “standard” Lincoln Continental were setting sales records during those years.
I remember Ford ads touting the LTD as “the full-size car that kept its size.” There were other ads that compared the 1977 LTD to the 1977 Cadillac Sedan DeVille, noting that the Ford was about the same size as the Cadillac. And who can forget the Ford ads of this vintage that touted the virtues of “road-hugging weight”?
As for Chrysler – the company didn’t have enough money to downsize its full-size cars on an all-new platform. The full-size Dodge and Plymouth weren’t that popular after 1974. Sales collapsed during the recession that followed the Arab Oil Embargo, and never recovered.
Plus, at Chrysler, the word “downsizing” probably brought back memories of the 1962 debacle, so I’d imagine there wasn’t much enthusiasm for smaller big cars at Chrysler prior to 1977.
At the time focusing on the mid size and smaller cars was a logical thing to do since for 74 the top sellers were subcompacts and then in 75 they were mid-size. Many people were speculating that the full size car was dead. The Bs were unquestionable successful but as you mentioned the traditional full size Ford products were got a big boost that year too. As I noted elsewhere the downsized Bs pushed some people from GM to Ford and at least in the Chevy camp a big chunk of the success came from the Chevelle/Malibu buyers.
Good article and one that I vaguely remember as a kid. The fact that GM had so darn many engines in these cars of course led to the now famous law suites where customers with Oldsmobile’s had mere Chevy engines etc. I am surprised that Chevy kept using the old 250 six considering that fact that the Pontiac 301 got better highway mileage and the Buick V6 did noticeably better and every other division save Cadillac was using this mill as std. If only GM spent the money on the 231 and refined it right from the get go with the even fire mill introduced in 1978. It inconceivable to think they had so many engines in the downsized 1977 onward C/B-body line.
1)3.8 229 V6 Chevy
2)3.8 231 V6 Buick
3)4.1 250 L6 Chevy
4)4.1 249 V8 Cadillac
5)4.1 252 V6 Buick
6)4.3 260 V8 Olds
7)4.3 265 V8 Pontiac
8)4.4 267 V8 Chevy
9)4.9 301 V8 Pontiac
10)5.0 305 V8 Chevy
11)5.0 307 V8 Olds
12)5.7 350 V8 Pontiac
13)5.7 350 V8 Chevy
14)5.7 350 V8 Olds
15)5.7 350 V8 Buick
16)5.7 350 V8D Olds
17)6.0 368 V8 Cadillac
18)6.6 400 V8 Pontiac
19)6.6 403 V8 Olds
20)7.0 425 V8 Cadillac
Did I forget any?
Technically, the Buick 3.8 Turbo is missing, I would regard as different enough from the basic 3.8 to deserve a mention.
You have to keep in mind a lot of it had to do with capacity. The Cheerios’ fiasco was all due to the fact that the public started buying a lot more Olds Cutlasses and the Olds 350 line couldn’t keep up. Meanwhile they had excess capacity for the Chev 350 since their sales were down. It didn’t make sense to increase capacity for one engine family when they had all of those production lines. So it was shift some things around to meet demand with existing tooling and production lines rather than spend money to up capacity on one while mothballing another.
“..excess capacity for the Chev 350 since their sales were down..”
Sale of Impala/Caprice rebounded in 1977, taking back #1 spot from Cutlass, not “down”. Chevy small blocks were built in greater numbers, since they were used in pickups, then Olds, so more stock available. Still was a mistake to not inform buyers.
5.7 350 V8 OLDS DIESEL –
which while many people hated them got 35 – 40 mpg in full size GM
sedans and wagons, which I owned many of and did diesel work
for others on. While they may have had head gasket issues, etc.
and the buying public was not properly educated in maintainence
and use of correct oils, the engines were very smooth. I hold the
belief, though I have no concrete proof, that a large corporation like
GM, with years of diesel engine building under its belt, designed this
engine ONLY to get it through survival of the CAFE mileage stats, until
it got its smaller platform FWD cars sorted out. GM did make some
improvements, such as moving the vacuum pump to belt drive, off
the oil pump, to prevent shaft failures, but it could have redesigned
the head bolt block issues and kept building an engine that got great
fuel mileage for its displacement and applications; perhaps even turbo
charging it with a lower compression ratio.
I was hugely impressed with these cars when they were introduced. I thought they were smart and stylish, with enough differentiation between divisions that each brand still felt unique (though clearly closely related). These were incredibly popular in New Orleans when I was a kid (and popular within my family as well, with my parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles driving a variety of B and C bodies of this generation–and all were good cars). At the time, I just assumed that one day I’d be buying a nice GM sedan for myself someday, while pondering which of the 5 brands would most suit my style, as they were all just so “right.” Well that never happened, and it’s a shame that this was probably the last real “high point” of sweeping, unequivocal GM product successes.
One thing I’ve never liked about GM cars is the use of warning lights for gauges. Except for trucks and perhaps the Corvette, which used proper needle gauges.
My grandmother had a 1978 Chevrolet Impala when she was still alive. It was quite a reliable car for something that came out of the 70s.
It was often almost overlooked and completely forgotten that the Downsized 1977-78 Buick Riviera was a heavily reworked Buick Le Sabre body hence “B” Special Bodied RWD and used the same exact chassis as the 1977 Le Sabre. Even though the Buick Riviera during the first two years of Downsizing was a RWD and still a “B” Special, it was supposed to be a companion cousin to the 1977-78 E-Bodied and significantly larger Oldsmobile Toronado and Cadillac Eldorado (which were still an inch to a few inches larger than the 1976 Chevrolet Impala/Caprice Classic 2 & 4 Door Sedans) both of which were FWD. But in terms of large Personal Luxury Cars, same can be said about the 1977 Chevrolet Monte Carlo and 1977 Pontiac Grand Prix which were more closer in size to the 1977 Buick Riviera than the Oldsmobile Toronado and Cadillac Eldorado would ever be during that era. I have posted a photo of that 1977 Buick Riviera along with its distant chassis/platform ancestor 1977 Buick Regal 2 Door Coupe which ironically still used the Chevelle Malibu Coupe’s 112″ wheelbase instead of the Monte Carlo’s 116″ wheelbase.
The Regal is a better looking car by far.