(first posted at CC on 11/7/2016. It’s an iffy DS pick, reflecting quite a bit of personal bias)
You want to know one of the reasons why the Honda Accord took the country by storm in 1976? You’re looking at its ugly face. That grille looks positively unreal, like something cobbled up by a high school shop class with some leftover extruded sheetmetal. And then those stacked rectangular headlights to really set it off. Where were you, Bill Mitchell, when this abomination was approved? Under a drafting table with one of the secretaries? In the Accord CC I said Detroit didn’t just open the portcullis with its obese “mid-sized cars” of the seventies. It actively invited the invasion, and Honda led the charge. Well, here are GM’s gates swung wide open. And the problem wasn’t just the front end, but a face does reveal much of what’s behind it. And this mug wasn’t lying.
The 1976 Malibu Classic Coupe was about the same price ($3926 for the six) as the Accord. Given that it weighed almost twice as much, on a price per pound basis, it was a hell of a bargain. In other respects, not so much so. GM’s mega-mid-sized cars of the seventies were the perfect embodiment of why cars like the Accord started take the country by storm. The Colonnades were longer, wider and heavier than full-sized Chevys not that many years earlier. Their arrival in 1973 on the eve of the energy crisis didn’t help, but it’s not completely fair to say that GM didn’t have any idea which way the wind was blowing. Small cars were already booming, and GM launched its own Vega just two years earlier.
GM was just following the path of least resistance; to obesity. And boy, did they time it badly. Not only because of the spiraling cost of gas, but also emissions. Tightening standards and lower compression sent performance running off to the hills. The solution? Bigger engines to push fatter cars. The 454 (7.4 liter) big block made all of 235 hp, and was optional in Malibus through the 1975 model. Not that this was an SS or performance model; just something to keep from getting left in the dust. By 1976, the 11 mpg big block was gone; and the biggest gun in the arsenal was the 175hp 400 CI (6.6 liter) that managed maybe 12 mpg. I’ve never seen a six in one of these, and given its 105 hp rating, that was probably a good thing.
The real shocker was space utilization. These two-ton coupes had little if any advantage over the tiny Accord, save for width. The rear seat was a veritable cave, lacking visibility, light or adequate leg room. And the front seat gave a chance to gaze lovingly on GM’s new-found love of cheap and hard plastics as well as the fauxest wood hydrocarbons ever gave their lives for. And that trunk was as misleading as the opera windows: a remarkably shallow and pathetic affair, given the real estate it occupied.
Any redeeming qualities? Of the Big Three, only GM really applied itself to the black magic science of handling. Yes, Chrysler products were generally the best handling of the three in the sixties, but for the most part Chrysler thought it best to try to chase GM and Ford in the quest of a quieter and softer ride in the seventies, at the expense of precision. Not that Mopar power steering ever had any. But GM actually decided that what the Europeans had been perfecting for many decades was not really impossible: a compliant ride as well as a modicum of handling control. It started with the new 1970 Camaro; and new front suspension geometry in these intermediates resulted in some perceptible degree of improvement, especially in comparison to the terminally wallowing Fords of the era.
In the standard suspension, the benefits were mostly obliterated by the sheer size and poor structural rigidity of these cars. But with the optional HD or sport package, they could be hustled, if one was so inspired. I know this from first hand experience, from a GM aficionado at the time who ordered his Malibu wagon with every trick in the option book. But how many buyers were so inclined or inspired? Especially so when brisk driving dropped mileage in the single digits. GM’s steering was also the best of Detroit, and the disc brakes inspired a type of confidence that wasn’t there a few years earlier. It was the usual GM personality-disorder issue: engineers capable of almost anything, hamstrung by lousy product planning and the bean counters.
I realize that GM’s stylists were a bit hampered by the dreadful 5 mph bumper law, but it did go in effect the same year the new Malibu arrived in 1973. So it’s not like that is an excuse for the Malibu’s pathetic mug. In the first couple of years, if you wanted to fork over some extras bucks, you could get the Laguna, a high-end Malibu with a body-colored Endura nose job. But that wasn’t all too hot either, and faded away in a couple of years.
This won’t be our last look at these big-boy intermediates. Strangely enough, I sort of found the sedan roof line to be of some visual interest. It at least was a change from the typical sedan lines of the times, and I suspect it looked great when it was first conceived on the drawing board. The Colonnade Coupe? Well, everyone who really would have rather bought a Camaro probably loved it.
In 1973, it was a bit of fresh air, but it quickly lost its appeal, especially when the side panels were closed up in later years like this one, except for those ridiculous gun slits. And some of the Malibu’s corporate cousins at least tried to make their front ends a bit interesting. No effort went into this one, though. And when the enemy is at the door, it’s a good idea to put your best face forward.
Postscript: Undoubtedly this a somewhat questionable/iffy choice for a GM Deadly Sin, as these cars sold well enough and had no egregious faults. But they were disappointments in many ways, most of all the very iffy-to-poor quality (other than the basic drivetrain), had terrible space utilization, and were of course unnecessarily big and heavy. As such, they were the wrong car for the times, although once the first energy crisis abated, they sold well enough. But GM showed it was once again out of step with the times, and the next generation was a drastic change and step in the right direction. Although many undoubtedly gave decent service to their owners, it was a dinosaur from the day it arrived, and likely turned many potential buyers to start considering alternatives. And it’s just so sad looking…
Isn’t the Malibu much better than the civic? It all depends on the point of view. Every time when the economy goes down, cars like civic appears better ( during cash for clunkers, even mediocre Ford Focus had great sales) and when economy is good, Malibu at this size ( or Dodge Durango, Ford Explorer) is great.
Going back to 2010, there is no surprise why people thought so. But no one on Grand Blvd in the late ’60s and early ’70s could predict how it would be in 1976, and it takes time for the new product to reach the market. By 1978, there was the right car right for the time.
If management can’t forecast what’s coming down the road, they’re stealing their paychecks. It’s their job to get that stuff right.
’70s was a dynamic and challenging decade and it’s very hard to filter through overwhelming information and make the right move. Even with their friends in the congress, and all kinds of connections, they still can’t prevent their executives from being kidnapped and murdered in a foreign country. It’s very hard to predict what would happen, and it’s even harder when it’s far and away.
Foreigners like myself often have difficulty telling whether American cars of this era are intermediate or full size because they all seem just so big! Like some of you guys have trouble seeing the size/class differences among smaller cars, we’re accustomed to what we’re surrounded with. But when I first saw these intermediates I thought they would have made a feasible replacement for the full-sizers.
On the matter of comparison with a Honda (!), it seems to me the main advantage these would have would be in terms of prestige – which is purely subjective. But as you said the seventies were a time of major change in society’s perceptions, and when you’re in the middle of such a time it’s hard to tell which way things are going to go.
That being said, there’s absolutely no excuse for lousy build quality, or a cramped interior and trunk in a car this size, or a grille that looks like a chain-link fence on anything!
“But when I first saw these intermediates I thought they would have made a feasible replacement for the full-sizers.”
In a way, you’re right–the ’77 downsized full-size B-bodies had the same 116″ WB as the ’73-77 mid-size A-body sedan/wagons and A-special LWB coupes (Monte Carlo and Grand Prix), and were only slightly longer.
It fools even us domesticated types. There was this humungous 1970s plastiwoody wagon with its ass hanging way out of parking spot. Then I noticed it was a Ford Grand Torino, not even the “big one”.
When these cars were common, they were normalized, but now they just seem ridiculously over the top. Midsized cars from before and after this period are pretty similar in size to modern middle-american midsizers.
Apples and oranges. The Civic ought to be compared not with the Malibu but with the Vega. But, developing this a bit further, from my PoV and if you are faced with the choice, in 2016 the Malibu provides a far better canvass if you are after ultimate performance but financially cannot stretch to the real deal (any late 60s Chev muscle car). Again, the person who would be interested in modifying a Civic would probably not even register a Malibu of that vintage (or any vintage) on his radar screen.
I agree. If you’re going to compare the Civic to any American car, I would think the Vega would be the best vehicle to compare to. They’re both similar in dimensions. The Vega may have more powertrain options, but its base engine is closer in size to that of the Civic.
I have to agree. I’ve never been a fan of the Honda Accord of this generation, but I also found the 1976 Chevy Chevelle Malibu even more hideous. Overall, it’s not bad looking, but its front end simply ruins it for the rest of the car. It’s fugly!
When I look at all the Colonnade cars, the Malibu always strikes me as the car stylists were FORCED to make as anonymous-looking and inoffensive as possible…..after all, it’s a Chevy: the “everyman” brand. They’ll still buy it, no matter what.
I’ve never understood that kind of thinking. I’ve never owned a Chevrolet, so I don’t know what they were like to own or drive.
I owned a 72 Vega I “special ordered” and a 77 Nova with a 6 cylinder and automatic transmission. I’ve also driven a few more Chevys (a 65 Corvair, a 66 Impala wagon, a 67 Corvette and a 70 Impala 4 door sedan come to mind), and the best Chevys SEEM to be the ones that opened a new market segment or took a new direction on a worn path. When Chevy (and the other GM divisions) downsized their full-sized and intermediate cars in the late 70s they hit “home runs”, but whenever the change in a model was evolutionary….it’s like they didn’t care/just “phoned it in”. They never seemed to ever want to “shut down” the competition….just closely match it.
The Malibu was far too heavy. Even the giant current generation is lighter than the colonnade. The current Malibu L weighs 3086 pounds. The current Accord LX weighs 3170 pounds. Bet Honda nor Chevy ever thought that would happen.
It’s a strange world now indeed. It would be interesting to see a rough breakdown of where all the extra weight has come from, & in what proportion. Of course luxury features demanded by consumers, & safety features demanded by regulators, would account for much.
Remember also that early Hondas were torture for rear passengers, so to the extent that modern models have grown on this account, it’s nothing to complain about.
We always said they were designed for Japanese people, who tend to be smaller.
My maternal Grandmother’s 2nd husband had a 1977 Malibu Classic sedan that he purchased at an auction. Cream white, red vinyl top, red interior – pretty base model. Fixed bench seat and 305 V8. I loved it for being a big old barge and it was pretty reliable mechanically but given that he didn’t buy it until it was roughly 20 years old it was pretty rusty and worn.
Yeah. That’ll happen. Rustproofing wasn’t very good in those days.
I’m fairly certain the only reason he bought it was that his other car was a Tempo and his love for big old land yachts ran deep. The smallest RWD car he ever owned was a Valiant and he was driving a 1975 Thunderbird when he met my Grandmother.
Rustproof is good if it’s driven in winter and stays in one piece at the time. Civic of that vintage would fall apart in one winter, and some AMC cars came with undercoating from the factory. Material technology came a long way.
I agree.
Honestly…I have no problem with the front of that Malibu. Aside from the 5mph bumper, it is clean and simple, with much-improved headlights.
And note: Chrysler was leaps and bounds better than GM from the early 60s, with steering AND brakes.
The grille pattern looks homemade…like something the high-school auto-body class would use because it’s handy and cheap.
In my hometown in south-central Pennsylvania, these Malibus didn’t sell Accords. They were still too small (on the outside) for the typical Malibu buyer. They did sell lots of Monte Carlos and Cutlass Supremes.
Like I said: clean and simple. I like clean and simple. Make mine a base Chevelle with dog-dish hubcaps, six, 3 speed, cruise control, A/C, and that’s it.
I think way too much is being made on the ugliness of the front end to try and make a point. I never found it any uglier than most other cars at the time. Stacked headlights and busy chrome grilles were in at the time.
I recall a magazine ad for Mercedes Benz back in the mid 70s. MB was pointing out how other manufacturers copy their design and technology. One of the comparisons they drew was the copying of their grille design on the 73 Chevelle.
For some odd reason I’ve thought the stacked headlights on the Chevelle/Malibu’s looked horrible on these cars yet they looked great on the Monte Carlo, the only Colonnade era Chevelle/Malibu I liked was the 1973 model due to the taillights.
I know. I remember the Chevy Monte Carlo of that generation. My aunt had a Monte Carlo that had the vertical headlamps. While I liked the vertical headlamps, I didn’t care for the three story grille. I found it hideous.
Looked better on the “downsized” Plymouth Fury as well. Which could have been mistaken for a Malibu from the front.
Funny about those lights. When the automakers argued for rectangular lights despite their lower light output, they claimed that lower hood heights would be so much safer, they would more than make up for weaker lights. After approval, they stacked them, one above the other!
I will agree that this is a tough call for a Deadly Sin. It is not as though any of the domestic competition offered anything better, either in concept or execution. The sad truth is that these were the best of the bunch if a car of this class was desired in the 70s. They are indeed too big, just like the B and C body cars were too big when they came out in 1971.
I grew up as a sort of expert on the GM A body (and Y body before that). My family grew along with these, from a 61 F-85 wagon to a 64 Cutlass hardtop to 68 and 72 Cutlass Supremes and finally to a pair of 74s – a Luxury LeMans sedan and a Cutlass Supreme coupe. Every one was a step bigger than the last until GM had just gone too far. At least these made a credible alternative for folks who would otherwise have bought a Caprice but were put off by its size. And I will vouch for what good handlers these were. Mom’s LeMans (with its sway bars front and rear and variable ratio steering) was a huge jump from anything near its size from the 60s.
Ford hit the sweet spot in size with the Granada, and GM got pretty close to that concept (at least dimensionally) in the 1978 A body.
I agree. None of the cars that were sold in the USA during the 70s, overall, were anything to write home about.
Yeah, this one’s a little iffy for a DS. Consider that when it was on the drawing board (in, what, 1970?), gas was plentiful and cheap, and the biggest concerns GM had were meeting 5 mph bumper and emissions regulations. Quality sucked by today’s standards, but for the time, these were as good as anything else built by Ford or Chrysler. And when compared to what, say, the bloated whale the Gran Torino had become, some might even consider the Malibu ‘svelte’ (particularly in rubber bumper Laguna S-3 guise).
OTOH, it did take them a whole five years to get around to downsizing the Malibu. In fact, it’s kind of funny that for one year, 1977, the Malibu might have been as big (or larger) than the freshly downsized Impala.
That’s probably why the colonnade Malibu gets DS status: it just took too long for GM to get around to downsizing it to a more efficient size while the Japanese were making big inroads. Of the Big 3, GM was the most able to quickly devote the funds it would take for such a massive undertaking. I mean, they managed to get it done with the successful Impala, didn’t they?
My question would be, were these cars better than those they replaced in any way? Paul has noted the front suspension was improved, but was that all?
The other thing is the response to the emissions requirements. The industry had years of notice they were coming, but it seems they concentrated on “band-aid” responses rather than addressing the fundamentals of improving combustion. It may seem like hindsight, but given the unsatisfactory nature of what was served up, if a manufacturer came up with something that avoided the poor running issues it is reasonable to assume that the market would have noticed.
In Australia Holden did the typical retard timing etc changes and went backwards while Ford developed a new cylinder head and did not lose horsepower.
I would say yes, in many ways…standard disc brakes, the stuck-in-1955 Powerglide finally got dumped across the board, improved frame, I think improved rear suspensions, replacing the mish-mash of different axles with the corporate 8.5″ 10-bolt (which was used for nearly thirty years), I recall standard 3-point belts in front. The roofs were MUCH stronger…one reason for the “Collonade” design and the dropping of all pillarless hardtops was the cars were engineered to meet expected (IIRC, not-enacted) roof strength standards.
I think in terms of handling, they were improved. Previous A-bodies really didn’t do well in that regard, and even the heavy-duty stuff and big tires were sort of a Band-Aid. Obviously, the H-D suspension and optional wheels/tires still made a difference, but they were more wieldy. In their original form, they weren’t bad-looking and while I don’t love the Colonnade cars, GM made a pretty concerted effort to establish a new styling idiom for a post-hardtop market.
As for the emissions, it’s important to remember that the U.S. requirements in this period were a moving target. (Some of the effective dates were several years later than originally mandated because of Detroit lobbying.) The nitrogen oxide standards were a technical challenge and the switch from a percentage-of-volume to a total emissions (g/mile or g/km) also raised the bar. This is not to say there wasn’t a lot of foot-dragging, but it was a complicated situation. Given the lead times involved, automakers were rushing to meet interim standards as newer and tougher ones were enacted. Before the first OPEC embargo, there was semi-serious discussion about whether the rotary engine would need to completely replace the reciprocating engine in order to meet the NOx standards.
The same kind of early-adopter headaches happened in Japan and Australia for most of the same reasons, so it wasn’t exclusively a Detroit problem.
The Granada. talk about a car that was cramped and not space efficient. The Malibu felt spacious in comparison, at least in sedan form.
My first car was a 1974. I think I gave it a balanced review of it in my COAL post here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1974-chevrolet-malibu-classic-the-beginning-and-the-end/
Related: I had an aunt who bought a 1975 base Malibu sedan with the 250 c.i. Six, so there was at least one of them! I’m guessing it had a 3.5:1 or so rear axle, because it wasn’t significantly worse off the line than my 350 V-8 with the 2.73:1 gears.
Were they underpowered? Heck yes! But let’s be fair, Paul…
All 4 American manufacturers were in the same boat. They had no idea of how to make their big 6 and V-8 cars both fuel efficient and clean, and (unlike the Japanese, or to a lesser extent, the Europeans) they had little-to-no experience with small displacement, 4 cylinder engines.
Chrysler, for all intents and purposes, had *never* designed and built a 4-cylinder.
Ford had the Kent and Lima fours, owing to European operations.
GM had… what? Pontiac and Chevy had fours cut down from V-8s, and the Vega engines. That’s it.
So to single out Chevrolet for poor engines used in these cars is really unfair, Paul.
We had lots of sixes in Israel back then, but our gas was a lot more expensive than in the US even before OPEC discovered blackmail went unpunished in a PC world. Slow but steady is how you could describe them, but for us a US-made car – any US-made car – was the epitome of luxury before the Germans became the standard in that segment.
Chrysler Europe had plenty of fours in production at the time. So did Opel and Vauxhall (Gm Europe). Anything from 900cc to over 2 litres was available for both Chrysler and GM if they wanted it.
But they did not, it had to be V8s, V8s, V8s and the odd 6. Only 120hp net? Never mind, it’s gotta be a V8. 10 mpg when the price of gas hits new highs? I’ll still take that V8.
Who’s to blame? Chrysler and GM for not putting smaller fours they already had or US consumers for having a terminal V8 fetish against all rational reason?
Eventually, an increasing portion of US consumers figured that they didn’t need massively thirsty engines for massively heavy cars. Particularly if they were styled like that Chevy, badly built and cramped inside.
And the rest of the world also pretty much stopped buying Amercian cars (with a few exceptions) in the ’70s. Even through the worst styling excesses of the late ’50s, America exported cars. A decade and a half later, they just didn’t make sense any longer (and wider).
It’s weird for me to be defending Detroit here, but keep in mind that there were tooling and manufacturing limitations for using U.S. engines, not to mention emissions restrictions. The European arms of the U.S. automakers didn’t necessarily have the capacity to supply both North American and European needs — that became an issue with the Ford Cologne V-6, for example. Even where they potentially did, there were substantial political and economic barriers (for example, the weakening of the dollar relative to the German mark and the British pound) to doing so.
And engines that were reasonably spry in relatively unrestricted European trim lost a lot of that muscle once federalized. Look at the Ford 1,993cc Pinto engine, which lost 14–17 hp in the translation, forcing Ford to come up with the bigger 2.3-liter Lima instead even to handle the Pinto. Opel’s carbureted 1.9-liter CIH engine lost 14 hp. The 2.8-liter Cologne V-6 lost even more. The engines weren’t designed for U.S. emissions compliance and were marginal for all but the smallest U.S.-market cars and trucks. That remained true even when Detroit started downsizing; the Fox-body Fairmont was much less oversized, but was a pretty miserable slug with the 2.3-liter Lima.
Another issue, especially with a 4 banger: Americans’ preference for automatic transmissions, unlike in Europe. An engine with acceptable power with a 4-speed quickly becomes a slug with an automatic.
To put the tooling considerations into perspective, consider: In the early ’70s, Opel’s TOTAL volume was in the 750,000-unit range annually, all models. Chevrolet was selling 400,000 or so Vegas and close to that many Novas a year in the U.S., which isn’t even counting the X-body clones from other divisions, or the Chevelle/Malibu. Obviously, Opel could not realistically supply more than a fraction of that.
Why not just build Opel engines in the U.S.? Problem one: The way GM worked, Chevrolet would have had to buy or license the design from Opel, which would have added per-engine cost. Problem two: Chevrolet would have had to set up a separate engine line for those engines, which is expensive and makes finance people jumpy if it can be avoided. Problem three: If Chevrolet was going to tool up to produce the engines, they would first want to revamp it for non-metric dimensions. (In the ’70s, America treated the idea of going metric about the way we’d react to everyone being asked to donate a kidney.)
After that, there would have been the call for tinkering with the design to make it better suited to American buyers. Not enough torque? Longer stroke, new crank. Then perhaps a new cam to bring the power curve lower to better mate with automatic. And maybe the guys in Chevrolet advanced engineering have some exciting new ideas to try out. But if you’re going to all that trouble, why not just develop an in-house engine? And if you’re going to do that, wouldn’t it be cheaper to stick with existing engines, where a lot of the compliance work has already been done? Etc. etc. etc.
It sounds like Detroit was trying to destroy its own car companies.
More like “the finance guys nickel-and-dime their own companies half to death.” But the other issues I described were real and I don’t think there was anything especially malicious or even short-sighted about them. The last tendency is stupid and short-sighted, although it’s since spread to every corporation of any size that makes any kind of tangible product.
It’s true, though, that Detroit automakers were dealing with some really substantial problems in this problem, and even if they’d wanted to, they weren’t in a position to redesign all their cars and all their engines. The European subsidiaries were only a fairly limited answer — even if they had unlimited production capacity, what was Chevrolet going to do? Power Impalas with federalized versions of the Opel 2.8-liter six?
GM actually had the reliable Opel 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder Cam-in-Head family of engines in Germany and had the Vauxhall engines in Britain to draw upon for experience. A good part of the engineering for the Opel engines was actually done in the US. The real shame and another deadly sin was not to apply that technology to the development of the Vega 2300cc overhead cam (iron head weak open deck alloy block engine) and other subsequent engine designs, as well as a failure to learn from GM’s disasters. As an example, subsequently developing the Cadillac 4100 V8 with a weak alloy block and with aluminum cylinder heads seemingly failing to learn the lessons of the Vega engine. This was corporate schizophrenia with the Not Invented Here syndrome at it worst. The schizophrenia was the inability to grasp that adequate solutions were developed in house (Opel engines), and then to proceed again down the rabbit hole of a proven disaster and replicate that disaster yet again (HT 4100). As PN has said it so well before, internal managerial failures, poor decisions based on questionable cost analyses, and the seeming inability to learn from prior disasters lead to the terminal rot of GM.
Correction: HT engine had an alloy block and cast iron heads, similar to the unusual configuration of the Vega 2300 also with alloy block and a cast iron head. Sorry for my error and nonexistent proof reading.
Some Vauxhall’s patents were used on the chevy vega’s engine:
http://vauxpedia.net/vauxhall—the-slant-four-engine-story
The reason for stacked rectangular headlights on big 3 cars in the 70s? Bean counters. When rectangular lights got federal approval. the idea was to make the front aspect of cars lowere to improve aerodynamics. That was the theory. Unfortunately, in Lab, cost came into consideration. To use these new lights would require new stampings for fenders and hoods at least…..But the boys in accounting said no. new headers were approved, but current fenders and hoods had to be utilized….the answer? stack the lights. uses the newly approved lights and refreshes the look, not always for the better. GM, Ford and Chrysler did this fix. and that is why we have the abominable look of these cars.
The rectangular lights may have been sought after for aerodynamics in the long run, but in the short run they were a styling tool as much as anything. GM put them on their huge old school top end 1975 C bodies and the new for 1975 Seville.
The stacked light look had a popular run in the 1960s, and somebody apparently noticed that their compact size would allow for a quick and dirty return to the look on a handful of late refreshes on cars that were all canceled by the end of the ’79 model year. Accounting was never going to approve big bucks on most of those cars, however Ford’s commitment did come with a major sheet metal overhaul.
I actually sort of liked it.
This was not the Accord’s competition. GM really didn’t have a very good attempt to answer the Accord for several more years.
Outside of the Malibu not being the style queen of the ’73-’77 GM intermediates, I struggle to not find this a greatest hit. It was playing in the sweet spot of the size range for American cars in these years. It simply trounced the majority of its competition from Chrysler and Ford, the ’73 chassis underpinned the best- selling car of 1976, and probably the second best-selling car of 1977. These cars usually did well in Consumer Report’s analysis, especially against their domestic competition. They offered a good ride, decent handling, and generally good reliability. The discussion of the engines bigger than the 350 4 bbl borders on the absurd as they were not the volume seller, the real story was the GM 350 / 350 THM drivetrain combo that was the darling of the ‘70s in anything below a pre-1977 full-size car.
The basic engineering and design of the chassis underpinned the acclaimed 1977 GM full size cars, and was still popular with police departments through 1996. It even went out with a little bang in the consumer market in the form of the ’94-’96 Impala SS. Not a bad 24 year run for the General’s basic concept for a car in the 1970s.
Where GM fell apart was after refining this car in 1977, they progressively botched probably all but two new car launches through 1986 (the ’79 E bodies and the ’82 A bodies being the exceptions). If they had kept up with the promise of the new 1973 and 1977 cars, GM would have been seen in an entirely different light in the 1980s.
GM has had its share of Deadly Sins, but this one feels like GM bashing. If their most successful efforts can’t be celebrated for what they were, they evidently never did anything right.
GM has had its share of Deadly Sins, but this one feels like GM bashing. If their most successful efforts can’t be celebrated for what they were, they evidently never did anything right.
Agree. While this may be a Deadly Sin for what it represented in terms of GM’s brain dead marketing and lack of engineering innovation, the cars themselves had their merits.
They were rugged, had good AC for the times, of decent size and, given the near ubiquity of SBC power in them, lent themselves well to sleeper status via mods.
GM could have done – and ultimately would do – far worse.
“given the near ubiquity of SBC power in them, lent themselves well to sleeper status via mods.”
Indeed, and they still do, as they are worth a fraction of real muscle cars, which leaves one with cash reserves to spend on the go faster stuff. Basic suspension design is sound and there are quite a few aftermarket firms which offer products to make those go very fast even when the road turns left and right. It would not be my first choice but I can see the attraction of one done as a pro-tourer like the below (pic from the internet).
Picture below now…
These cars were very popular among my peers when I started driving in the mid-80s. Most had the 305, some the 350s – as smog-choked as they were, the simple headers/intake/4V (with a cam and some head work if you were ambitious) livened them up nicely. And the THM they came with could be trusted to handle upgrades.
Even now finding a rust-free example would make a nice (read: cheap and driveable) resto-mod sleeper.
Yep, I started driving in ’81 and the various ’73-’77 A body coupes were easily the dominant car in my high school parking lot. For as common as they were, it was a challenge to find a good one at a reasonable price as there was a lot of competition looking for these on the used market.
If you weren’t too picky about condition, you could easily find just about any model, trim, color or option combination you wanted. Engines seemed dominated by the 350, but I made a habit of looking at the Olds versions.
“This was not the Accord’s competition. GM really didn’t have a very good attempt to answer the Accord for several more years. ”
Nor did they need to, to some degree.
My father, who was 48 when he bought “my” ’74 Malibu brand-new, would *never* have considered a Japanese car.
Perhaps because he simply subscribed to “bigger is better”.
Perhaps because he was holding a grudge against the Japanese from WWII.
Perhaps because he was stuck on Japan’s post-war reputation for building tinny pieces of crap.
I’ll never know, but I can tell you he never would have considered a Honda.
I think there were a lot of people like your father, especially in the Midwest. Because these sold really, really, really well (if you count the Pontiac, Olds and Buick flavors too). I think it was during the Colonnade years that the A body became the “standard” size for a lot of people. The GM B body of 1977 and the Ford Panther of 1979 were pretty similar in dimensions to these (but made much better use of the space). Japanese imports didn’t take hold for “adults” until after 1979-80 when fuel went through the roof.
I hated these at the time because they were so common, but have come to respect them. If I had to choose a sedan of this size and class to drive everyday, it would be one of these GM A body sleds.
Your father not. And a whole lot of other folks. But in certain parts of the country, it was a different story. The Accord’s meteoric rise to become the best selling car started right here. For a good reason, as it was ten years ahead in almost every metric.
So yes, the Malibu sold fine, except in the demographic that is so critical in that car market: young, educated urban buyers. GM could have your dad; Honda was chasing a different demo, and within a decade or so, even buyers in your dad’s demo was buying Accords.
That’s what this CC is all about. To the demo buying Accords then, a Malibu looked like an ugly old beached whale.
You have to reach to come up with 30 Deadly Sins and this is one of many reaches.
I agree, this wasn’t a bad car, and was in line with what the market wanted.
This Malibu, the 84 Bonneville and the 75 Seville were indeed a reach for DS status. The 1980 Seville, the Cimarron and the E-bodies were spot on.
This was not the Accord’s competition.
Sure it was, among some buyers in some parts of the country. Like LA, where I lived at the time.
If you were in the market for something more than basic transportation, something with a bit of flair or style, both of these cars would/could be under consideration.
The parking lot at the tv station I worked at went through a steady but rapid transformation from 1976 through 1981. There were a lot of American cars to start with, but as they were replaced, it was inevitably with a Japanese or European car. In fact, I can only think of one person who bought a Celebrity because he got such a good deal on it through our fleet plan. Other than that, it was all imports.
Well, actually, I was the other primary exception, buying a ’83 TBird Turbo Coupe. But then that was not the typical American car, and it showed why Ford came to do quite well in CA during the 80s.
My point is this: cars like the Accord didn’t just become a huge hit overnight for no reason. It was because in comparison to the Malibu, it looked, felt and drove like it was a decade (or two) more advanced. Which it was.
So yes, I understand that in many parts of the country, an Accord was not a consideration. But it was in those key large metro markets that set the trends for the future.
That’s the gist of my point here. The Malibu wasn’t a bad car in comparison to its domestic competitors, but for younger folks interested in advanced design, features and other aspects, the Malibu looked like a living dinosaur compared to the Accord. Which explains a lot. There’s a reason the Accord was the best selling car some ten years later. It all started here, with cars like the Malibu.
But this was never intended to be an import fighter. You don’t just abandon a huge and profitable market because of demographic trends.
They started of course with the Vega, and by the time the Accord started to take off GM did indeed have what initially looked to be a credible answer with the X-bodies. Yes they failed, but that failure has little to nothing to do with this car.
Especially a trend of 18,000 Accords vs. 2 million GM A bodies 😉
But, weren’t those cars in your professional parking lot frequently a price class or two above the Accord? And, the Accord cheated and used one name to morph itself into a more mainstream vehicle. And, those early ’80s parking lots were distorted by a recent oil price shock, which tends to briefly shift buying patterns.
In ’76, the Accord compared itself to the Chevy Monza in advertising, and was a nicely equipped $3995 compact economy car. That buyer is from a sea of compacts today. The typical ’76 A body was north of $6,000 and was the mainstream vehicle of the ’70s, and that buyer is buying an amalgamation of minivans, CUVs, SUVs and trucks today.
The Accord brought valid issues regarding quality and value to the table, especially in low priced vehicles. And, it became a popular mid-size car. But, over the long haul, it’s literally never been the mainstream American passenger vehicle.
This was not the typical tv station. It was a small, start-up UHF station owned by a non-profit, and wages were well below industry standards. The new cars folks bought were Civics, Accords, Corollas, Datsuns, etc.. The domestic alternatives would have spanned from the low end to mid-size range, price-wise.
Come on Dave, the Accord has been the best-selling car in America! If that is not mainstream, what is?
I’m calling mainstream the average car. In the ’70s, the GM A body was a pretty good representative for the average car in a diverse field.
Today’s field is much more diverse, and trucks, minivans, CUVs and SUVs have 60% of the market, and that is growing fast. Mid-size cars have about 10% of the market, and the Accord has a bit under 2% of the total market. Today’s mainstream passenger vehicle, if you average the diverse offerings, probably looks like a Toyota Highlander or Ford Edge.
Cars like the ’76 A-Body morphed into full-size cars (at GM in ’77) and became today’s blend of vans, trucks CUVS and SUVS starting in earnest around 1983 – in no small part because CAFE rules dictated that vehicles configured like the ’76 A-body would be subject to tax penalties, while other categories would not.
With respect Paul, it is not that there was no Chevrolet to compare the Accord with, but that should have been the Vega (or maybe the Monza, as was mentioned above), not the Malibu. Had Honda something akin to the Legend back then, I’d have said yes.
But maybe what you were getting at was Chevrolet’s v Honda’s attitude to gauging where the market was going, in which case you are spot on.
I digress, these were the right car for the era, they could be well optioned and I like that grill. Japanese cars at the time were made of tin and overall felt cheap and americans wanted detroit iron, jap cars were disposable, you don’t see people collecting old accords but ur likely to find a couple A body’s at cars and coffee, and for good reason, accords aren’t collected because there’s none left, the thin steel ensured they all rusted away…at least our cars could handle potholes without falling to pieces unlike japanese tin…
“It was the usual GM personality-disorder issue: engineers capable of almost anything, hamstrung by lousy product planning and the bean counters.” Too true. I will second this about almost every deadly sin.
GM did a LOT right back-in-the-day.
They do a LOT right TODAY.
But Paul, I respectfully think you’re second-guessing yourself here. The 1973-77 A-bodies were poorly assembled rustbuckets that also just happened to handle and stop well, and on most models, contained the best drivetrains an ordinary person’s money could buy.
Yes, this chassis was adapted to the new, outstanding, downsized B-bodies…but I’ll take a ’68-’72 A-body any day of the week over its ’73-’77 counterpart, especially if I can get that ’70 Chevelle with disc brakes and an F41 suspension.
I know most everyone’s workmanship sucked in the mid-70s. Most anything with a Blue Oval on it was all but undriveable and AMC/ChryCo was a touch-and-go affair. That the ’73-’77 A-bodies were better still reeks of “damned by faint praise” to me.
As I’ve said many times here on CC, GM once made the finest vehicles money could buy. A few missteps here and there, of course, but the General used to lead the way in innovation and development. They were the rising tide that lifted all the boats of the North American car business…until the bean counters took over, starting in 1958 when money man Frederic Donner succeeded engineer Alfred Sloan as GM chairman.
If current – or pre-1958 – GM mentality had been applied to these ’73-’77s, then yes, I believe they would have had a Greatest Hit. But it wasn’t just Honda’s space utilization that drove Accord sales…they were just plain better built.
I wish Mary Barra could have this entire series as a giant “never again”, lest the cost-cutting temptation take hold again.
Chas, I wonder how much of that is due to the “failure” of the Corvair, Tempest, etc where their engineering innovations were their downfall or at best were met with disinterest?
Another trend GM led was styling that set the layout of the cars, never mind the need to accommodate human beings and their luggage.
I’ll start by saying that I like the Colonnades, to varying degrees, depending on the GM division. They were popular to be sure, and some were quite stylish.
This one was not. To my eyes, it was a bad facelift on a car that started out in 1973 as a handsome Chevy design. By 1974, the poor imitation of the Mercedes grille and generic rectangular tail lights ruined what had been a handsome Chevrolet-style front and rear (with quad round tail lights). The ’76 era stacked headlamps made things even worse. GM took the cheap route for most of the A-Bodies when it came time for the mid-cycle refresh–only the Cutlass Coupes and Century/Regal Coupes got a significant freshening for ’76. All others pretty much stayed the same (especially sedans) so it seemed like GM wasn’t trying any more (they weren’t).
The other big sin that this Malibu represents is bloat, especially for a product from the Chevrolet division. It was very clear when this car was being developed that buyers really liked intermediate sized cars (of the ’67 – ’70 timeframe), which were reasonably sized and selling better than ever. Why did GM feel the need to grow the mid-size car so much? Was it because the B/C/E-Bodies had porked-up so the A-Bodies had to grow too? Imagine if these cars had stayed closer size-wise to the ’68-’72 Chevelle/Malibu? Let the Olds and Buick mid-size cars get bigger/plusher (and sell for more to different customers)–keep Chevy and Pontiac intermediates a bit leaner and meaner. That would have reinforced unique divisional missions and would have been consistent with how GM’s full-size cars were marketed. Applying that logic to the mid-size category could have created a real market advantage for GM.
So, yeah, this car shows GM being fat (too large/heavy) and lazy (weak updates). I think gluttony just about nails it!
With the benefit of hindsight we know what GM was working on, and they just had to keep cranking these out until the new intermediates were ready. But I bet it seemed like ages to the guys in the showroom trying to sell these.
Why did GM feel the need to grow the mid-size car so much? Was it because the B/C/E-Bodies had porked-up so the A-Bodies had to grow too? Imagine if these cars had stayed closer size-wise to the ’68-’72 Chevelle/Malibu?
If the 1973-77 Chevelle stayed closer size-wise to the 1968-72 versions then they would be similar and closer in size with the 1974-77 Nova and almost a duplication in size as well. Ironically though when the Malibu was downsized for 1978, its exterior size were nearly similar to the slightly larger but heavier Novas of the same era and yes by the virtues of cargo and passenger size volume ie. interior space efficiency the Malibu remained on the intermediate size range even though the Nova remained a compact due to the interior and trunk cargo space volume. By exterior size comparison, the 1973-77 Chevelle Malibu coupe measuring at around a little over 205 1/2″ wasn’t even that far larger than the Nova at almost 197″. The 1978 Malibu at close to 193″ was almost even closer to the Nova’s size in terms of bumper to bumper measurements.
I don’t know how prone these were to rust; in southern Arizona, cars die from other causes. The sun destroyed the paint on these, usually within about five years. The weatherstripping around the windows disintegrated even sooner. Adhesive oozed out from behind the side rub strips and the rear window. Body plastics disintegrated quickly. Dashboards cracked within just a few years. I know; GM was the only company having these problems, and Toyotas seemed to have a lot of cosmetic deterioration in the short term. GM, though, seemed to have it the worst, despite having a test and proving ground in Arizona.
They didn’t spend enough time in proving ground!
Same in Israel. They did grow old very quickly.
The Honda’s, Toyota’s, Subaru’s and Datsun’s of this time era were far worse in the rusting department in Upstate, NY Winters and growing up as a kid thought these cars were junk because they all looked like rot boxes often times with fenders falling off and holes in the bodies. You didn’t see many 1976 Accords or Toyota’s left by the time I was driving in the 80’s.
Yep, their heaters usually sucked too. And they had poor crash-worthiness. Sometimes people like to gloss over that.
Lloyd Dobler to the white courtesy phone. Don’t forget your boombox!
^^^ Awesome! 😉
If anyone has any complaints about ANY engine in the 73-77 GM colonnades, go drive a 78-79 Malibu with the 200CI V6 (if you can find one.) My dad bought a ’78 Malibu with one of these engines in it. Whatever GM commitee of big wigs decided that this engine was acceptable was nuts!
I also owned a ’73 Lemans coupe with a Pontiac 350 2 bbl. It moved that barge very well. I also owned a ’76 Malibu Classic sedan with a 305 2 bbl. Another barge, but quite reliable.
There was a “Mileage Maker” option for the 77 Lesabre (B-body)… that must have been terribly glacial in acceleration.
http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1977/182960/buick_le_sabre_sedan_3_8l_v-6_highway_economy_pkg_.html
105 hp, quarter mile 21.3 sec.
My sister had a V6 Malibu. I don’t know what V6, it wasn’t great by any means but it was smooth and adequate for its day.
For those griping about styling, the Accord was certainly no looker to my eyes. It had essentially zero style. It started rather slowly and then gained popularity because of its mechanical and packaging virtues.
Love, hate, or indifference, the Malibu had a lot more style, something that is missing from today’s CamCord clones. I don’t love the Colonnades, but I do like them better than much of what was being built at the time. And much of what’s being built today, for that matter. Purely from a style standpoint that is.
I seem to remember plenty of head gasket issues and bent valves with these cars during the 80’s probably because the average American consumer wasn’t used to having to replace timing belts. The typical OHV V8 of the time would go a long time before needing a new timing gear set. The carburetors were expensive nightmares when they went wrong with miles of vacuum lines and the automatic transmissions were miles behind the big 3 in shift quality and refinement. We had to change out the automatic in a 1982 and 1985 Civic when we first opened our dealership back in the early 90’s. The amount of room to work under hood was quite comical and it took us several days of bloody knuckles and sore wrists to complete both jobs. Because of these two cars we soon after hired out a mechanic for these types of things and have been through 5 different ones since.
If anything ever deserved a universal DS it’s those stacked quad headlights.
Few commenters seem to like the ’76 Malibu, but I liked my 15-year old ’76 Malibu Classic coupe when I had it – stacked quad headlights and all. It wasn’t my dream car and certainly wasn’t the great beauty of all time, but it was a reasonably attractive, solid, reliable car for a teenager who wanted a car from the 70’s versus a well-worn 80’s econosedan.
The grille texture was was terrible – very shop-class. And the area in the back of the passenger compartment was dark – but I liked that! The darkness of the interior reminded me a bit of a 70’s family room, complete with fake wood, that smell of “GM polyester”, and overstuffed seat cushions.
No, it was not roomy – especially given its size. And it was thirsty, with its 305 2-bbl. But it seemed to have a certain, mid-70’s vintage store charm and seemed way more stylish than, say, any mid-70’s Torino or Fury. Kids like me who liked American cars of the 70’s couldn’t afford Camaros or Firebirds from that decade, so we bought cars like this ’76 Malibu. My ‘Bu was a solid, reliable tank that never left me stranded. A shame about it disintegrating into rust in short order in the Michigan winter.
My dad’s last American Car was a 78 Malibu Classic; purchased for my mom whose 74 Plymouth was dissolving into to a 70’s fashionably-brown pile of rust. Specific problems with the Malibu? Not too many if you discount the rear axle misaligned from the factory. The car was roomy enough and decent looking in that beautiful Chevy light-blue. So individual factors which make it easy to identify as a deadly sin? None, really.
However, the whole car reeked of indifference, from the styling, to the Rubbermaid dash, to the hard starting in cold weather, and of course, the fact that people assembling it obviously didn’t give a damn about the cheap components they were slapping together. I think the people looking back now and saying that these weren’t bad cars for the times have forgotten just how good the GM cars of the mid-60’s were, and what a big letdown from those the cars of the late 70’s were. However, my dad was well aware of what GM used to be able to do, and his feelings were that apparently, GM just couldn’t be bothered any more. So when his own commuter car needed to be replaced later that year, he was one of those who bought an Accord with a 5 speed; he didn’t even look at an American car. He had never liked Fords; he did like Chryslers until the debacle of the 74, and Chevy was not a very appealing choice after the 78.
He loved that Accord. Yeah, it rusted like hell, but that was nothing new; certainly not after that Chrysler. The Accord started every morning, was fun to drive, and nothing broke, or fell off, or failed. I remember visiting him somewhere in the early 80’s and having him say with amazement in his voice, “90,000 miles and all I’ve had to do is change the oil!”
So perhaps these Malibus weren’t a deadly sin, but it didn’t do GM any favors at our house.
Following the 1973 gas crisis, sales of lower-priced full-sized cars (especially the Chevy Impala and Ford Galaxie) never really recovered (although sales of Caprices and LTDs did). It seems that the people who used to buy them moved down to slightly smaller mid-sized Chevelles and Gran Torinos, as well as to “compact” cars like the Chevy Nova and Ford Granada.
The most popular car in 1976 was the Oldsmobile Cutlass, and the most popular Cutlass was the Cutlass Supreme. I’ve always heard that the Cutlass Supreme became the most popular because it has an attractive interior and people were tired of the cheap-looking interiors in the Chevelles.
In 1976 the Accord was more comparable to the Chevy Nova, Ford Granada and Plymouth Volare (but definitely a step above them). They were cars of their time.
Harsh but hilarious. I always though of these as anonymous. Bland cars with no style but reasonably ok like a Granada or an aspen. It really isn’t an inspired looking design like an Ltd ‘ll or a Cordoba. Just a boring old Chevy. My friend had one and it was kind of slow and thirsty. It was small inside and I think the grill was worse. May have been a 77. Back then it was better to get an Ltd.. much nicer and faster and better on gas and bigger and fancier inside too. It always amazed me they had this and nova both similar cars. Not a deadly sin by any means. Its typical gm average car. Its not a bad car but it does bad things.
The Nova was only slightly shorter than a regular Chevelle/Malibu coupe (1″ shorter WB and 6″ shorter overall), but it was the “compact” in Chevy’s lineup.
I seriously doubt a proper running Colonnade Malibu with the popular 350 V8 was slower than the larger, heavier bulkier LTD unless it had the 460 maybe. And I know for certain the Ford was not better on gas with any available engine until they downsized this car in 1979. Dads 1974 350 4BBL V8 Malibu Classic sedan would lay rubber for a block and got 17-18 on the highway. Most sources have the larger heavier LTD in the single digits for city and 12-14 highway with either the 400 or 460. The 351 2BBL was a dog in these pre-downsized cars and not much better on fuel.
The bloat of these cars became painfully obvious when the 77 Caprice/Impala debuted.
Interesting when we speak of bloat to see how the first sprightly hatchback Accords have morphed into the large rather pudgy of today. As an aside, I rarely see new Accords here in Vancouver. Lots of Civics, but the Accord is largely missing from the road here.
It’s a different kind of bloat, because at least the Accord jumped up a size segment (compact to midsize) when it gained length and width, and nearly all the gains were made in one generation. A modern mid-size Accord sedan is only 9 inches longer than the first mid-size Accord (1990), and 2″ of that is in the wheelbase (the coupe has gained only 7″, with no wheelbase stretch).
Calling this a deadly sin is a bit of a stretch. The ’76 Malibu is easy to pick on because of its homely front end, but it wasn’t as bad as the article implies. I never cared for the stack headlights on these cars either, but the base model cars still had single round headlights in 1976 and 1977, nor did they have the “shop class” grille. The Laguna also didn’t fade away in a few years; it was available for 1973-76, every year but the last. In my opinion the Colonnade Chevrolets always had bland boring front ends but the side profile was clean and attractive for the era. The best front in my opinion was the 1974 Laguna S-3 front end.
Comparing this care to the Accord is a bit unfair. Sure they were both on the market at the same time and similarly priced (although I doubt many cross shopped), but the Malibu was designed in the early 1970s, originally intended being a 1972 release. A lot changed in the market from 1972 to 1976 and the Malibu was at the end of its design cycle. If GM continued with the same type of car to replace it, then I could see this being a deadly sin. However, the 1978 Malibu was drastically downsized, lightened and made to be more fuel and space efficient. Chevrolet continued to sell lots of 1978 Malibus and even the next midsizer the Celebrity remained popular until they left it on the market far too long without change. Comparing this first generation Accord to a 1978 Malibu would have been more appropriate.
These cars weren’t really that bad as the article implies. They weren’t even that fundamentally different from the much revered downsized B-bodies. At least the Colonnade cars did get saddled with the half-baked “fuel efficient” parts the B-bodies did, like the TH200 metric transmissions, the 7.5” rear axles, a flimsier frame with less cross members, or the dualjet carbs and undersized engines. The engines in these cars weren’t strong, but they certainly were better performers than what was to come in the early 1980’s. There were very simple mechanics on these cars. With the advent of the catalytic converters in 1975, the carbs were no longer ultra-lean improving driveability, they had the bullet proof GM HEI ignitions, and there were generally few engine emission controls (for instance a 1976 Malibu 350 only has a EGR valve).
I grew up with a 1976 Malibu 2-door like the one in this article and it’s still in the family today. This car was used as my dad’s family vehicle and is now my one of my brother’s weekend cars. I remember family trips with six people in the car (it has a bench up front), the trunk full and boat in tow going to the cottage for summer vacation. And this was with both my brother and I being being well over 6 foot tall teenagers in the back seat, with our shorter brother or sister between us. The back seat isn’t as claustrophobic as it appears, as the rear back light lets in tons of light and the front door windows extend well past the front seat. I know, I spent many hours there as a teenager. Our car was equipped with a 350 engine/350 trans and a 2.73 rear axle. My dad, who kept all his gas records, had no issues getting 21-22 mpg highway (imperial).
The car has been pretty much bullet proof with the only failures in its entire life span being a radiator (salt corrosion replaced after 30+ years), a vacuum advance unit and an alternator (replaced twice as one was a bad rebuilt unit). Other than that the car has gone through consumables only. My father was meticulous about maintaining so rust was never a problem (rust is the biggest issue these cars have). He regularly washed and waxed, garaged the car during winter, and oil spray rust proofed it. It wears all original sheet metal. While the quality of the car wasn’t top notch, most things held up fair well. The dash pad did eventually crack, some of the interior plastics have faded, and the carpet wore. That said, the quality of the plastics and interior was limited by the technology of the time and was no worse than other domestics of that era. And certainly was on par with a downsized B-body interior.
I included a pic of my family’s Malibu shortly after it retired from daily driver status.
Good points, and nice car!
I have to agree. It may not be the best car in the world, but it’s not the worst either.
That looks very close to our 1974 Malibu Classic sedan color. I spent many an hour in this car and it too was very reliable, pretty quick for the time with the 350 4BBL and got around the same adjusted highway economy as yours did on trips. Dad used to tow his 28′ foot motorboat with this car for years and it could easily seat 6 people. Nothing ever fell apart inside and the A/C kept going right until he sold the car during the 80’s when some rust was starting to creep in. Just try seating 6 or towing anything in that 76 Accord.
Six years later, I still don’t agree with calling these cars deadly sins. Ugly mugs…yes, but they were good cars that did not contribute to the downfall of GM. IMO the 71-76 full size Chevrolets were more of a deadly sin than these Chevelles. The car I wrote about above became mine about 4 years ago. The full story on that car can be read if you click here.
I had a 74 Monte Carlo back in the day. For the time I thought the handling was good, though I had to do shocks and rear spring up grade by 40,000 miles. Mine had the performance 350 4 barrel with dual exhaust option; whiplash was never a problem!
I would hesitate to call the car very reliable. I drove it from 36,000 miles to 90,000 miles. During that time I had a couple of carb jobs and then a new carb..
On a separate note, the choke started to stay on indefinitely. The cause was the cross over tube in intake manifold was plugged by carbon because the factory intake gaskets had a small round port into the intake chamber which caused the issue. This problem was corrected with new gaskets having the corrected style opening.
Fuel pumps, The first one died right after I bought the car at 36,000 miles, the next one at 60, and the third one 90,000 miles.
Ignition. Until I replaced the complete ignition system, wires, cap, coil, plugs with an Accel system, I virtually could not drive the car in the rain. It would just die. Often.
But on sunny days it handled well and given long enough open highway could even pass most semi trucks. The a/c worked well if I had it filled annually with freon. No leaks were found but freon was cheap at the time.
I liked the car for the time actually, but reliability was a fail.
My personal conspiracy theory is they came up that that derpy front cilp in order to sell more Monte Carlos.
The Accord has indeed become a large car…. here in Dallas, they’re pretty common though both in sedan and coupe versions. In addition to the Accord getting larger so has the Civic which has now more-or-less become the old Accord. Honda now offers the Fit which is really the old Civic. I suppose when the Fit grows up it will be replaced with another new small car.
Even the ’80s Accord has been overtaken in size & weight by the Civic. In Honda’s defense their latest models have much more useful space aft of the driver than before. Take it from someone who had to sit in back of a ’75 Civic.
Think the Mini or Fiat 500 are cute? Try riding in back of those!
I think you are looking at two different things from the same foxhole, paul.
maybe things were a bit different here in small town Canada but as a car conscious teenager during this time I remember the “imports” coming in two different waves.
I don’t remember anyone cross shopping a Malibu/Accord. what I do remember is people(especially young people) buying a Toyota or Datsun to replace their 60’s beater.
they did this because they were cheaper in both cost and fuel economy than comparable domestics(Vega,Pinto etc.)
the second round was their parents looking at these ‘funny furring cars” and realizing how well put together they were and instead of having an Impala and a Malibu in the drive, downsizing to an Accord or something of the same ilk.
as you said, it took time, but I look around my home town today and see people who 40 years ago were driving their Fords and Chevys, who now are on their second,third or fourth Honda or Hyundai.
That grille on the Malibu looks like a rabbit cage .IMHO, the front end -grille treatment on the Laguna comes off much nicer. Still, not a car that I would have lusted for back in the day
In my opinion……
Thought the Honda front end had a better look, I don’t like the look of the stacked headlights.
In my opinion, the Malibu was by far the ugliest of all the Colonnades, which were really oversized outside compared with the svelte previous generation A Cars. The Regal, Cutlass, and LeMans had nicely sculpted sides and some lines to break up the blobbiness, this just looks bloated and unfinished. The Olds and Buick had nice, trim detailing in taillights and ornamentation, this has some placeholder parts that somehow made it into production. It looks like the unfinished clay model that they started with before they sculpted the Buick/Olds/Pontiac. The grille is unfortunate and cheap and odd looking. I do like the stacked headlights but Buick did them better on the Century. Actually, the only attractive thing about this car is the script used on the emblems.
On the other hand, as mentioned, the competition outside GM wasn’t any better. These Didn’t rust as badly as the GM Full sizers, although I wonder how much more comfortable inside they were than the Nova compacts. I do remember a family friend had a Colonnade Regal in the late ’80’s and it was wide inside, but being children, it didn’t seem too cramped. I suppose these were really designed for mom, dad, and 2.3 kids. They surpassed the Fords in space utilisation and durability and weren’t as ugly, and certainly surpassed the Chryslers in durability. Still pretty common up into the early to mid ’90’s, although most of them were the Olds/Buick.
No, this wasn’t an Accord, but this wasn’t aimed at the Accord. The Deadly Sins aimed at the Accord were the J and X cars.
They
Re: Brian’s comment regarding ’74 Monte Carlo, in those days, that WAS reliable. Carb jobs, timing chains, ignition points and distributors had to be replaced, radiators, water pumps, fuel pumps, mufflers, shocks . .. . the good things about these cars was that a semi literate person with a set of tools could do a lot at home with them. The bad thing is that what we would consider today fairly major work had to be done every 3-6 months. Things wore out or constantly needed adjustment. I vividly remember the horrible age of Carbureted cars where in Georgia- we had to let the car warm up 10 minutes before we drove it or it would stall and die. The carbs were never adjusted completely right and if it rained, the car wouldn’t start. If it were cold, it wouldn’t start. The parts were cheap and easy but they needed a lot more than a modern fuel injected car.
Yours had something wrong…I have owned many carbuerated vehicles, and every one of them was “start it and go.” In extreme cold, I might idle 1-2 minutes, tops…but honestly it wasn’t necessary.
John, contradicting someone else’s experiences with their car is not cool.
Seriously, driveability issues were rampant in the pre-fuel injection era. read any of the vintage reviews we’ve done; it’s almost ubiquitous. Except for you, of course.
Your persistent efforts at trying to whitewash real issues with the cars of the past are futile. You’re only eroding what little credibility you have left. Actually, with me, it’s down to zero already. So why don’t you slow down and take a deep breath and ponder a bit before you decide to make comments like this.
I contradicted nothing.
I do apologize….I suppose I should not have brought attention to the fact you don’t know how to tune a carbuerator. It’s ok…not everyone does.
Again: 1983 360 J-truck with an 1850 Holley, 5 below zero…pump it once, crack the throttle, crank it, it started. 200ci Fairmont…pump it once, crank it, half-pump while it cranked, it started. 78 440 Trailduster with a TQ…crank it, give it a pump while cranking, starts easily down to at least 15 below. I drove carbuerated vehicles until quite recently…and if they did anything but start instantly when cold, they got fixed!
“I do apologize….I suppose I should not have brought attention to the fact you don’t know how to tune a carbuerator [sic]. It’s ok…not everyone does.”
A backhanded apology is no apology at all.
Re savageATL: LOL! You are pretty accurate about that being normal. I was a tech in those days, front end alignments being my main bread and butter. In general, I found the handling of the GM’s being better than most, turning radius not with standing. But even at the time we used to joke amungst us techs; if a GM came in and had to replace ball joints idler arms and shocks the owners would think it normal. If a Ford came in and had to replace any part at similar mileage the client would be surprised. Different expectations I guess. Not that Ford had no issues either… green blocks wearing out by 25,000 miles, variable venturi carbs which Ford forgot to train anyone in how to set up being just 2 examples.
In spite of being a GM’s huge fan, I find that yours issues are very interesting and shed a new light on some GM’s vehicles. Neverthless, I have found that you exaggerated for some of yours deadly sins: I wouldn’t set the Chevy Blazer and the Saturn in this category. The Malibu is an american archetype: Waste of space and energy but a beautiful car (except for the restyled face). It is a retrograde step from the 1961 Olds F-85 or Pontiac Tempest. Nowadays, Some environmentalists complain with the 2016 Chevy Suburban but finally, it carries confortably 8 peoples and their luggages with a better economy! On other hand, you are too very hard on the GM’s X-cars. The basic idea (a fwd compact car) was good and it showed the skill of GM’s engineers ans designers. It was a better car in space utilization and economy, just opposite of the chevy malibu.
The “73-78 GM intermediates were Deadly Sins-as has been mentioned before, terrible space utilization, poor build quality and bloat. The first GM intermediates in 1964 were really nice cars, reasonably sized, but the bloat started in the late ’60s with the 2nd generation intermediate-my mother drove a ’71 LeMans for several years. It was well built, but the space utilization was not great and the rear seat was small-headroom was limited and realistically two people were all the rear seat could handle. The ’73 intermediates simply added more bloat and they were dangerously close in size to the GM full sized cars of the mid-60s.
Much of this could be blamed on GM’s design philosophy-put the money where the customer can see it-namely styling and push everything else to the back burner. Going back to the 2nd Gen intermediates, the two doors were built on a 112 inch wheelbase and the four doors a 116” wheelbase simply because to the GM designers the porportions on the 1st Gen intermediates didn’t look quite right. Styling above all else.
“I’ve never seen a six in one of these, and given its 105 hp rating, that was probably a good thing.” – I have first hand experience with a four door version of these with a six banger. Four of us guys got in what we called, the “Company Slug” to go and visit a customer about an hour away. It was this red too. It wretched and huffed and puffed its way along the highway, barely gaining enough momentum to surmount the Burlington Bridge. We dared not turn on the A/C even with the pedal to the metal. We got there late, and everyone blamed the car for it. That 250 six earned its keep that day, but given future opportunities, we found other transportation lest the Malibu cut out on us for good.
I guess the single large rectangular headlight used in the ’78 downsized A bodies wasn’t in production in ’76-7. This looks like the wagon from the National Lampoon Vacation movies.
I don’t think government regulations allowed single square headlights until 1978, when the Fairmont and downsized A bodies debuted. Government regulations did not allow dual square headlights prior to 1975.
Bill Mitchell got overruled on many occasions by the been-counters usually… Like when he wanted the boat-tailed Riviera on the A-Special platform instead of the E-body which was too large for the design…
https://www.shannons.com.au/club/news/retroautos/boat-tail-riviera-bill-mitchell-creates-controversy-design-to-driveway-photos/
What’s interesting is now, a ’76 Accord would be looked at by average drivers as “too small”. Imagine getting T-Boned in one?
Also, Honda’s current #1 seller is the CR-V, far from its mission of “economy cars”. The Fit is long gone and new HR-V dwarfs an old Accord.
Can go on about “Japan making good small cars” all day, but what really got them to higher sales was giving Americans what they want, higher quality larger, more luxurious, vehicles.
When my brother got an ’88 CRX, I told him he’d be Spam in a can after an accident.
We blame the bean-counters (gosh, that’s a nicely-derogatory term!) a lot. And rightly so. The attitude of profit-before-all-else seems to have been the downfall of a lot of American industry. And not just American.
But I have to wonder – what car did the General’s legions of bean-counters drive back then? I’d assume they drove a GM something; in a way it would be hypocritical not to. Were they happy with it? Did they have the quality and service ‘issues’ we’re all too familiar with, or did the General’s beanies get preferential treatment? Were they able to experience first-hand the result of all their cost-cutting, or were they insulated from it?
If they experienced it, they didn’t seem to learn.
This comment is so awesome. I would love to know.
I think what GM execs drove was addressed in DeLorean’s book. Obviously, they were GM cars, but the difference was they were serviced (for free) by trained GM techs. So, AFAIK, they were primo vehicles which were cycled through frequently.
IOW, the execs didn’t have them for very long, certainly not long enough for the myriad problems that average Joes had to deal with. And when they did crop up, all the execs had to do was trade in whatever problem-laden car they had for something else. And I’m sure the execs had connections with the factory to get cars that got preferential attention to assembly, as well. I’m going to guess that, while they had their choice of vehicles, the vast majority took top-of-the-line Cadillacs.
The bottom line is the GM cars the GM execs got were most definitely not the same as the ones on GM dealership lots.
How things change. Fast forward to 2022 and both Chevrolet’s and Honda’s offerings in this (?) class possess (to my eyes in a place where neither is imported) almost identical looks and have a similar MRSP. A good demonstration of how homogenous cars are now – everywhere.
When I was 15 years old, my parents took me to McClain, Va, just outside DC. They were house sitting for our former neighbors in Philly who had moved there. The family was visiting Europe. My parents would go to DC to visit the museums and local attractions. I stayed behind, playing the three or four chords I knew on guitar and trying to woo the neighborhood girls. There was a 1976 Malibu Classic in the carport. It was three on the tree! I’d driven an automatic with dad since age 14, and a farm tractor once with a clutch. With no idea where reverse was, I decided to invite the cute neighbor chick for a joyride. I lurched forward, knocked over some plants, then found reverse and backed out. Stalled twice, and that was it! The only other misadventure was rolling back in a parking lot. I panicked, have it too much hassle and jumped a parking stop. Only way out was forward or back, so I went forward. There was a cop watching the whole event unfold, but I guess he saw me struggling with the clutch while trying to impress the young lady, and he didn’t intervene. Good thing, because I had no license, and the car was technically “stolen”. I prefer to say “borrowed without permission”. Fun time, crappy car!