Hot off of Perry’s presses is this Motor Trend write-up of the ’79 Grand Prix SJ. At MT, everyone’s a winner, so don’t expect any real sign in this review that this car is one of GM’s Deadly Sins, but given this week’s earlier articles detailing Pontiac’s 1970s trajectory, I figured this would make a relevant addition.
It’s interesting when you consider how many rounds of downsizing the Grand Prix went through, going from a B-based design to two generations as an A-special/G-body; then to this downsized A-special/G, which shared the same wheelbase as its less glamorous LeMans sibling before finally ending life on the W-body. I remember my babysitter drove one of these when I was very young; her car’s three spoke wheel and instrument panel were highly memorable, but can’t remember ever seeing one of these cars–or any 1980s G-body–equipped with a four-speed as the test subject seen here. By the mid-80s, it made a very declasse impression and it wasn’t long before it was traded in on a five-speed GTI (whose upshift light fascinated me).
To get the most out of the optional 301 (oops, I mean 4.9), the four-speed might have been marginally helpful and if nothing else, its selection resulted in a $200 credit. The 11.8 second 0-60 time represented the car’s limited performance, as well as the standards of the era, but given the nature of the powerplant, I doubt the Turbohydramatic would’ve slowed the car down much more. The editors complained that the heavy clutch and loose driveline mountings made for snatchy progress in traffic, but it’s hard to imagine that a torquey V8 of that size in a 3,600 pound car would pose a genuine challenge in that regard.
Their praise of the car’s dynamics is more believable on the other hand. Downsizing or not, GM was getting it act together when it came to handling and with Pontiac’s $116 Rts suspension package, the on-paper stats look promising, with fast, constant-ratio 14:1 steering, a 32mm stabilizer bar in front and a 22mm piece in back. With that thick of a front-stabilizer bar in front, this wasn’t a tail-happy BMW, but compared to the likes of the contemporary T-bird, it had to have been much more composed.
And that, along with efficiency and a degree of glamor, was what these cars were now about. I doubt anyone expected old fashioned speed any real giggles behind the wheel. In compensation, drivers recorded a 20-mpg average; nothing to sneeze at considering what’s involved in testing, to say nothing of the large-displacement 4-bbl V8.
As a car which did its job as promised, maybe it could be hard for some of the more sympathetic among us to see it as a Deadly Sin. Perhaps it calling it a canary in a coal mine might be more appropriate, but ultimately, for $9130 in 1979, there was much greater fun, exclusivity and sophistication to be found elsewhere.
Related reading: Curbside Classic: 1978 Pontiac Grand Prix – GM’s Deadly Sin #14
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, GM and other auto makers were scrambling to meet ever-tightening emissions standards and CAFE regulations, which sapped performance. In 1979, an 11.8 second 0-60 time was actually good, or at least acceptable to most buyers. I’m guessing that the automatic transmission sapped even more performance. But I’ve never seen a Grand Prix of this vintage equipped with a stick shift, so most buyers didn’t care. (I’ve read about a 1979 or 1980 Cutlass Supreme with a five-speed manual, but that was in an old-car magazine. I’ve never seen one in real life.)
Things would get worse before they would get better when it came to performance figures. Effective on-board computer controls that would allow zestier performance, improved fuel economy and cleaner emissions really didn’t arrive until about 1984-86.
The manuals were still available across all of the downsized 1978 A-bodies, but it was seldom seen, the 5 speed was Cutlass exclusive if I recall, it was rare, it was more of a number/spec option that allowed Oldsmobile to brag about “30MPG!!!” in their ads.
I saw a test of a Cutlass with a 5-speed, but it had the diesel V6. I don’t think I ever saw one tested with a 5-speed and a gas engine, and I read car magazines religiously at the time.
Could you get a Cutlass diesel 5 speed as a station wagon?
Probably. And in brown, no less… 🙂
Doubtful. We didn’t have that mindset back then.
Maybe? I dunno, the A-body wagons were odd, they were one of the only downsized A’s that still had a 350 available in them.
Diesel V8 you mean, the 5 speed could be combined with the short lived(in more ways than one) 1979-80 Oldsmobile 260 Diesel V8, which was a 4.3, like the Olds diesel V6 that came out later in 1983. The neat thing about that is that when the 260 diesel V8 eventually self destructed they would probably end up replacing it with a diesel 350 V8 under warranty, so now you would get a bigger motor at no extra charge! Free displacement bump!! Woo-Hoo!
I know the article you’re talking about too, its from a 1979 C&D, its a road test of a Cutlass Calais with the diesel and the 5 speed, it was SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW from what I recall, let me see if I can find it in “the archives”.
Nice catch. I didn’t mean to mislead anyone, I just remembered that it was a smaller-than-350 CI Olds diesel. I forgot all about the 260 V8.
No prob, I found the article, it was from a March 1979 Car and Driver, the photos were in b&w, but the car looked like a black on black Cutlass Calais with the 260 diesel and 5 speed manual, it had T-tops too, fairly loaded up, with a 3600lb curb weight.
The 260 diesel provided….ahem….90hp and 160lb ft of torque, running the Gutlass Calais to 60mph in 16.2 seconds, Oldsmobile said automatic equipped cars would be about 2 seconds slower. Quarter miles times were in the 21 second range at about 80mph, interestingly, still faster than a 300D, 504D and Seville Diesel included in the “bar graph” comparison that C&D used to love to provide. Top speed….after a lengthy wait was….89mph.
They did note that the drivability of the 260 diesel was top notch, the glow plugs lit the engine off in record time, even in 0 degree temps, there was no smoke and they found the 260 diesel to be very quiet overall.
Wow, these had to be scarce as manuals (in 1979)…I would guess that even most compact cars by that time were mostly automatic, let alone mid-sized cars.
Having never had a manual transmission car with the foot operated parking brake, I know it was common with bench-seat cars at that time, but gee, were people much more coordinated than me? Maybe they sold special right shoes that let you blip the throttle (maybe some of them had a hand throttle?) while keeping the foot on the brake and releasing the clutch stopped on a steep hill? Or did they reach down and release the (cable) operated parking brake release on the dash?
The odd thing about this car is that with bucket seats, it still has foot operated parking brake (I know this was normal at the time for automatics, which was probably more than 99 percent of the sales)…but with the demise of bench seats on cars nowdays,
it seems pretty long ago that we still had foot operated parking brakes.
I owned manual transmission vehicles exclusively from 1973 thru 1988 and I can’t remember once needing to use the parking brake when taking off from a start. How far back do you think the car is going to roll in the split second it takes to move your foot from the brake, give it some gas and ease out the clutch? If you were on a steep hill it might be necessary to use the parking brake but, honestly, anyone with enough coordination to shift gears should be able to take off uphill without drama. Actually, at one time, Studebaker (& maybe others) offered a “hill holder” option that would keep the service brakes applied even if you took your foot off the brake. The brakes would then release as you let out the clutch and accelerated. Many drag racers use a similar product today (Line Lock) that accomplishes the same thing, applying the brakes without touching the brake pedal.
The ’09 Highlander that my wife drives has a foot operated parking brake. I suspect they are more common than you think; I’m pretty sure that most of the larger SUV’s have them.
I know. The editors’ criticism of the manual transmission’s function on this car struck me as a bit pathetic, esp given how much torque the car has, along with RWD, which helps reallly tricky uphill starts.
“If you were on a steep hill it might be necessary to use the parking brake…”
This is exactly the point. And it’s not just a question of whether one is coordinated (or manly) enough to start on an uphill, but whether he wants to subject his clutch to the additional wear. My family lived next a San Francisco-type hill when I was a teen, and there was a traffic light at the top of it. My father refused to use the hand brake, and consequently put three clutches in his Chevy Monza by 30,000 miles. I, on the other hand, use the hand brake on extreme hills and have never had to replace a clutch on any car, even at 150,000+ miles.
Huge +1 – I taught myself how to drive a stick shift and had many cars without functional parking brakes in my early days, so I originally just learned to time it right… but once I realized there was a “proper” method, I never went back! I don’t care how good anyone claims they are – it isn’t humanly possible to be as smooth and gentle as taking off with the brakes engaged on a steep hill.
I’ve only had one car with a manual transmission and foot-operated brake, and at the time I hadn’t yet been enlightened, so I can’t say if it’s any more difficult or annoying than using a handbrake, but I can’t imagine there would be much difference. Some GM cars had foot-operated brakes where you’d push it once to set it, then again to release, so maybe that’s what the article means to say? That would be nearly impossible… but I also had a G-body Cutlass and it had a regular brake release handle under the dash, so it’s very unlikely that the Grand Prix was any different.
Same with my Dad. A generational thing? I only saw him use the handbrake for starting off once that I recall, and that was a freakishly steep hill.
When I went for my licence in a manual (’75), using the handbrake was the accepted method for any hill start in a manual, and it’s what the examiner expected. Same thing when my two got their licences. (Australia)
One that hasn’t been considered: A lever parking brake under the dash in the foot parking brake position.
This was common of pre-WWII cars. My ’37 Buick had it, and it wasn’t too hard to start out on hills, other than until you started moving you weren’t looking out the windshield. So you aimed the car in advance, grabbed the handbrake with your hand making sure it was unlocked, did the usual gas/clutch operation, and slowly let out the handbrake.
It could be made a bit easier by using what passed for cruise control back then: A mechanical linkage to the carburetor from a pull knob on the dash that could be mistaken for a manual choke (the Buick had an automatic choke). That way, you could rev the engine from the knob, keeping both feet on the brake and clutch pedals, and still look out the windshield because you were sitting up.
The hand on the parking brake, foot on the accelerator method was smoother, however.
Oh yes, the (in)famous “slope test”. A crucial part of the driving lessons and the practical driving test. Drive off from a standstill while on a steep slope, feet and hand-coordination required, as two pedals and the handbrake were involved.
In the low countries that mostly meant you had to climb a dyke. Or levee if that makes you feel better. Not too many other steep slopes around here, so that was the most common location to practise.
Here’s one in the “Ready for Liftoff” position.
My ATS has something similar in that I have an electronic parking brake which holds until you step on the gas in drive or reverse. I have an automatic, but I think this works the same way for manuals.
My guess is you don’t live in Seattle. The city is built on 7 hills. 18 percent grades on city streets are not unheard of, and many major intersections require drivers to stop and start on these hills.
Using the parking brake on hills was essentially a European thing. American cars with their under-dash hand brakes and/or foot brakes were never really practical for that purpose, although I suppose one could use them for that. No wonder folks took to automatics so readily.
But yes, generations of Americans used manuals and learned how to coordinate their feet to get started on hills.
You are so right. When I came to the UK from the USA, I had to retake my driving test. One of the things the inspector caught me out on was NOT using the handbrake (footbrake, as it was a Citroen XM) when starting out. Apparently this is so ‘your brakelights don’t dazzle the driver behind’. Right. Brake lights are so much more of a distraction than blue xenon Audi headlamps on highbeam.
I think it has more to do with the fact that until recently, most European cars had very bad power/weight ratios and high-revving buzzy engines. These had to be wound up before they would take off on a steep hill start, so it made sense to use the handbrake to do this.
Of course, said inspector did get his back when he asked me to do the emergency stop. Citroen Brakes are very good indeed.
Maybe, although most European cars had an appropriate first gear ratio. I never used the handbrake on my VW Beetles (1200, with 34 net hp), even when starting on the steepest hills, including off-road.And that goes for any car I’ve ever driven; I’m just not used to using the handbrake. Maybe it’s just coordination, or being truly familiar with a clutch engagement point?
I did learn to drive on a tractor at age nine, and had to learn exactly where the clutch would engage, for backing it up to an implement or such.
But then my father was the exact opposite; he had no feeling for it, and revved the engine way too high, and had poor coordination. Painful to witness.
With the right coordination, any car can be gotten off to a smooth start on a hill without the handbrake, or too much revving and slipping.
I used the parking brake a couple of times when towing my 30ft 5th wheel on my 70 C10. I would try to time the light so I didn’t have to stop on a steep hill and slip the clutch to get the vastly overloaded truck moving. One time a last minute lane change (by the car ahead of me) into a left turn lane forced me to stop, and the car behind me was almost kissing the trailer bumper. Lots of revs, let out the clutch and pulling the parking brake handle was the only way to be sure I wouldn’t roll back a few inches. It was a good thing I upgraded to the biggest clutch (11″) that would fit the flat flywheel. I still would hold my breath from the frying clutch smell. Luckily I only had to do that once or twice, that’s probably about all the clutch could take.
I had a number of stick shift cars, all european, and while I never needed the parking brake to start, I can see why some did. Both my 1988 Saab 900 and 2007 VW Passat 2.0t were very short on torque at low revs and required significant and quick revving to avoid stalling on a step hill. Especially with the air conditioning on. The Saab had a hand brake, but the Passat had an electronic parking brake and a hill holding device that worked well but for me was an extra step. All this is to say that a lot of european cars had far less power than either of those two cars and may have been quite difficult to launch on a hill without the hand brake.
That’s odd, I had an ’88 900 16-valve, and I felt like it had a very flat, even power band, especially given its short stroke engine. If anything, it was lacking at the very top end of the power band, and seemed the most unflustered when short shifted. It also had a very nicely damped, well-weighted clutch (and recalcitrant gearbox), making starting off very easy.
The Saab 900 (the real one) had perhaps the best feeling shifter and clutch ever. I’ll never forget going to test drive one and commenting on this to the owner – an older black guy from somewhere down south – who responded “yeaaaaaaahhh, that’s why you see so many womens been had ’em. They easy to drive!”
I have a GM 900 now and it’s comparatively awful in this respect!! I have to give the “self-adjusting” clutch cable a firm yank every few months just to get it feeling halfway decent again.
Yeah maybe I was over stating my case on the Saab, in fact when I taught people to drive on it, I would teach them to drive the car with the clutch only as the engine has sufficient power at idle. On the other hand, it was a slow engine to rev up so on a hill I would quickly get the clutch to the engagement point while revving the engine. My sister’s VW Jetta (86) had a much quicker to rev engine and was requisitely easier to launch on a hill in my recollection.
My ’83 Subaru GL Wagon ( sold as the Leone elsewhere ) five speed had a hill holder that would keep the brakes engaged until you released the clutch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill-holder
Studebaker used to do that in the 40s and 50s as well.
It’s too bad other car makers didn’t use this “Hill-Holder” or even improve on it. I would think it’d be easier to start a manual shifting car on an incline.
They do. Ford has the hill holder on its Focus and Fiesta. On my 2012 Fiesta, on an incline the brakes would hold the car for about 5 seconds before releasing after you you foot off the brake pedal giving you time to let up the clurch and push the gas. provided you were in first when stopped. It did the same for reverse s oyou could reverse up an incline.
My ’13 Beetle (6 sp. manual) has the hill-holder, too. Wish it didn’t.
Manual transmission Subies (including the WRX and STi) still have the hill holder. It can be turned off on the STi.
Damn! That lime green dashboard/interior with the fake wood accent has to be the nastiest color combination ever! YUK!
I like it!
I guess tastes are subjective, but that Grand Prix in the ad is sharp, loaded, buckets, real wires, which were an option, but hardly ever seen on this vintage Grand Prix, full gauges, all that’s missing are T-tops. You could get full leather buckets on this vintage Grand Prix too.
I disagree with the author, I would rather have a nice loaded Grand Prix SJ over a Saab any day.
Ditto here. I have surprisingly seen quite a few 1978-1981 GP’s over the years with the optional leather bucket seats. These cars were typically ordered with more equipment than there cheaper Lemans coupe and sedan brothers.
Make mine a 1980 white SJ with that sweet blue leather bucket interior with the snow flake alloy wheels, limited slip and tach with T-tops!
An enduring memory of my parents’ quest for a new car in 1978 (I was 9) was the Pontiac dealer that had a few Grand Prixs so loaded up with options they required two Monroney stickers to list them all. I don’t recall seeing that on any of the Regals or Cutlasses they looked at, and certainly not on any of the Malibus.
They eventually settled on a Malibu Classic coupe with a 305 which years later became my first car.
I’d take that interior exactly as is over today’s ubiquitous gray/beige Tonka grade plastic car-cubicle that seems to be everywhere.
Ditto.
I actually think it’s pretty cool.
This article is most interesting as an example of the car mag special: a review of a car equipped in a way that’s virtually non-existent in the real world. I suspect that with a four speed, LSD, upgraded bucket seats, and the handling package a G-body would make a genuine sporty car even with the lo-po engine. Too bad approximately 0.1% of production cars were so equipped.
Agreed. It’s an annoying tendency that became ever-more common during this era,to make their cars look better in the magazines, and puff up the fan boys. Tests used to be mostly on real-world cars; this is not.
In the ’80s into the mid-’90s, Car and Driver would test the top-performing model in their cover story article and then a few issues later run a test of a cheaper model as a Short Take. (Still usually with manual transmission, though.) I thought that was something closer to a reasonable compromise.
A lot of enthusiasts love to hate on the consumer-oriented magazines and the people who read them, but the truth is that those publications are often the only ones that have anything to say about the models people actually buy.
I wonder if Pontiac had either ordered several manual transmissions, or GM had the tooling to build the units itself, and now the division needed to actually sell some.
Having a major “buff book” test a Grand Prix so equipped would have been a good, cheap way to publicize this option. Perhaps Pontiac specifically asked Motor Trend editors to test a Grand Prix equipped with a manual transmission. I can’t imagine many buyers ordering a manual transmission in any of the GM personal luxury coupes by 1979.
you could get a manual Monte in 1978 and 1979 but it was killed off at the end of 79 model year due to really no interest.
I think the Malibu (being, of course, identical to the Monte under the skin) also offered a 3-speed manual in ’78 and ’79 but not afterward.
I have an old magazine, I believe a Car & Driver, with a road test of the ’79 Malibu with the F-41 suspenson option. Much as here, they give it very high praise. Maybe it’s in comparison to the starting point–having owned two Malibus with standard suspension, handling was more of a vague idea than a defined feature!
The V6 could be had with a 3-speed, while a 4-speed was available with the 305 or 350. (the latter only available on the El Camino)
AFAIK, all of them – even the Buicks – were available with a 3-speed behind the V6. 3.8l in the B-O-P cars, 200/229 in the Chevies. I think manual transmissions may have even lasted into 1980 or ’81 on the Malibu. There was a Malibu wagon with a 267/4-speed on eBay a few years ago, and I remember it being an ’80 model. I have all this information in a book somewhere, but I’m too lazy to go dig it up at the moment!!
The holy grail of stick shift, downsized A-body cars is the Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon (Aeroback) with the 260 V8 Diesel and 5-speed.
Although the 4-speed was extremely rare in these cars, the handling suspension is not, many 1978-88 A/G-bodies had the F41 suspension option. This was what really transformed these cars from riding like a barge to having decent driving manners. The 4-speed would have made it a bit more sporty, but I doubt the overall performance would have suffered much with a Turbo-Hydramatic in place. The LSD is a somewhat rare option, but it has little effect on everyday driving (excluding winter driving).
I had an 83 GTI new, and maybe I’m a gearhead but I’d have traded it for this SJ with a stick and Rts. Cool…
I was only 6 yrs old at the time, but I remember seeing these “downsized” Pontiac Grand Prix. At the time, I found them more attractive than the luxo barges Pontiac and other GM was offering before then.
I have always liked that generation of GP. Though I would rather a 85-87 with the 4.3l fuel injection.
I love the Buick 3.8l (Had the 3800 v6 in my old Lesabre) it is easy to work on and parts are cheap and the engine is very reliable. However it was very slow in the carb guise.
I remember these cars; my neighbor had a s**t-brown one. I also remember the ads that tried to sell this GP as a major upgrade from the previous generation. Of course, put this next to a ’63…
I always liked the Pontiac dashboards from this time, with what looked to be scads of round gauges–of course, abut half were actually A/C vents.
But pit it up against the one from two generations back, and no contest! Guess they hope you won’t think of that.
The funny thing is that C&D also did a test of the very same year Grand Prix but in LJ trim with the same 301 4BBl V8 and came up with a much more representative 9.9 second 0-60 time with automatic transmission and highway 2.29 rear gears. Either there was something seriously wrong with the tested car or the way he drove it or the balky shift linkage or maybe a combo of the three. I have seen several 4 speed 301 4BBL GP’s at Pontiac shows in SJ trim and apparently this was only offered in 1979. Also every know and then a 5 speed 260 Cutlass Calais from the same year shows up on Ebay and Craigslist but the production numbers are indeed very low. The fact that GM offered these cars in sporty SJ/Calais etc trim levels with stick shift shows that GM was far more serious about taking away the boaty soft riding stigma away from these cars and an emphasis instead on lightweight, efficient more fun to drive persona luxury cars. These were much better riding, driving and handling cars than the same era T-birds and Cordoba’s which were still on larger more cumbersome chassis designs.
I had a 1980 white Grand Prix SJ with maroon bucket seat interior back in 2000 bought for a mere 1500 bucks. It was a one owner original car with 99K miles on the clock. The interesting thing for the 1980 model year was the drive train and suspension changes made to this car to make it one of the better handling and performing cars of it’s day before the stupid second oil crisis severely clipped it’s wings a mere year later. It got a dual exhaust 170 Horse 301 W72 301 4BBL V8 lifted right from the Trans AM tied to a firmer shifting THM 350 trans and 2.93 rear gears replacing the former 2.41 gears of the 1979 SJ. If anything I consider this to be the for-bearer of the 1983 Monte SS and Old Hurst. The suspension was also firmed up and this car sure could handle for it’s time. With a little under hood tweaking to the secondaries, a low restriction catalytic converter and removing the spark delay in the timing advance I got this car down to an honest 0-60 in 8.5 seconds which back in 1980 was nearly as quick as a Vette.
In today’s world that is a rather slow time but back in the day this car was quite a lot of fun actually and not at all worthy of it’s Deadly Sin title! That car lived up until 4 years ago when it succumbed to a bad house fire and was badly burned in the process. The ironic this was it still started up and ran. I really should have kept that drivetrain but alas it wasn’t meant to be.
These 1978-80 Pontiac Grand Prix were only 2″ shorter than the Nova based 1977-79 Pontiac Phoenix all body styles, 201.4″ for the former and 203.4″ for the latter. Unless this Grand Prix was specially equipped and fully loaded, at more than 3,500 pounds, they were even much heavier than the Pontiac Phoenix by at least 200 pounds. The posted photo here would be considered a 4 Door Version of the Pontiac Grand Prix which was called the Bonneville formerly the LeMans on the left and next to it was the Nova based formerly called Ventura Phoenix on the right.
All I see is the font of ROAD TEST DATA, bleep blorp, we are the car magazine of the future, brought to you by the Texas Instruments TI99/4A.
Yes, that and, “Ship will self-destruct in T-minus ten minutes. Option to override automatically expires in T-minus five minutes.”
Ensure return of the Grand Prix SJ….
All other orders rescinded.
Crew expendable.
I know that many modern eyes would look at that two-tone green (LJ, I believe) loaded up car in the ad as an abomination. Neighbors had one, it seemed oh so ’70s glamorous. The model behind the car makes me think of Farrah from the shoulders down. Couldn’t you just see her pulling up in one of these and flashing that smile? I might be caught looking just a bit lower, but WOW, ’70s glam all over! I was 15 at the time, and tended to see everything with eyes like that.
The two-tone option on these cars really did set off the body curves well. If only the quarter window (or would that be an opera window?) was less awkwardly placed…
It is a sharp two-tone set up – as you said, really brought out some positives in this body. My dad had a ’79 Olds 88 Royale company car with the same green colors except it did not have the two-tone exterior (but it was optional, I’ve seen it in ads). His had the darker green for pin stripes. These may have been new colors for ’79. I wasn’t sure what to make of the colors at first, but grew to really like them.
Mopar in particular had so many awkward opera/quarter windows in the immediate preceding years, along with some very awkward attempts by foreign makes, that most GM A and B cars were design genius by comparison.
IMO there’s actually quite a lot to like about this car’s styling. Other than the awkward quarter window, the only thing that really bothers me is the front end styling–the narrow grille and wide lamp clusters look to me out of proportion, like the lamp clusters were borrowed off a larger car and they had to make the grille oddly narrow for them to fit. They were probably aiming for the narrow grille to be a throwback to the 1st gen model, but it just didn’t work. The available area was too small for the styling elements to work. Hence one of the most successful parts of the ’81 restyle being the move of the indicators out from between the headlamps.
The parking lights between the headlights always made me think “Cadillac” when I saw these because of the 1972-1973 Caddies with the same feature, Pontiac then later re-used it again for the Colonnade GP in the mid 70’s.
I thought about the Colonnade GP as well, but that was actually only for one year (’77). So it was a continuation of what was a very recent trend. ’76 had quad rectangular lamps but the indicators were elsewhere and before that was dual round. Does remind me of Caddy too but it worked so much better on those cars because they were so big the grille could still be proportionally wide.
Funny, my 2011 lexus IS has a foot operated parking brake, it’s an automatic though.
I found this generation of Grand Prix too formal looking. Whereas the previous generation was a better combination of sportiness and luxury, in my view. Kind of a continuing prelude to the GM formal roof design motif of the next 8 years.
“It’s interesting when you consider how many rounds of downsizing the Grand Prix went through, going from a B-based design to two generations as an A-special/G-body; then to this downsized A-special/G, which shared the same wheelbase as its less glamorous LeMans sibling before finally ending life on the W-body.”
I’d say the LeMans got the shorter end of the downsizing-stick.
We’re all supposed to forget that one. It was the old GM did that, you know! 🙂
Come on guys, this one isn’t too bad. An Opel Kadett E 2.0 GSi 16v, 150 hp.
(LeMans = Kadett E)
Yes, but we never got that version. The US-market LeMans of the compact era was, unless I’m mistaken, strictly an economy car without any sporting variant, and is widely remembered as a major POS. Pretty impossible to find anymore. Plus, even if it was remembered as a better car, it’s a rather glaring example of nameplate debasement to end up as a bargain-basement subcompact after serving as the basis of the iconic GTO as recently as 15 years prior.
(Canada did get about 65 different versions of the car badged as Asuna, Passport, and lord knows what else, but by that time the design was very long in the tooth.)
The production of the Opel Kadett E in Germany ended in 1993. And then, a few years later, it made a comeback in Europe as a Daewoo Nexia made in Korea. And later Daewoo suddenly became Chevrolet in Europe. Nobody bought that of course, quite literally I must say.
I don’t have loads of G-body knowledge, but why is it that this generation Grand Prix seems to get ripped on a bit while the 2-door Cutlass is on its way to being a beloved classic?
Briefly–somewhat awkward styling compared to the rather more cohesive Cutlass (though there are a lot of folks who prefer the ’81-up Cutlass to the ’78-’80 cars), plus Pontiac’s 301 is seen as an inferior engine (you could still get a 350 in some Cutlass models like the W-30).
Interesting article. You really do not hear about the cars with manual transmissions from this era. It is interesting they tried again in 1988 with Grand Prix and Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, and it did not work that time either. It is always interesting learning about rare options and trims too.
Thanks for putting up the article! I’d like to see a CC on a Hurst/Olds of this vintage.
As lame as the ‘Big Prize’ was in ’79, I would have had no hesitation buying one over a SAAB at the time. No question the updated 99 had better driving dynamics, but any high school auto shop student could keep that Poncho rolling indefinitely. Good luck with that SAAB….
The 301 deserves comment- it was an attempt by the Pontiac people to keep their V-8 in production as GM started to consolidate engine programs and reduce (considerable) overlap between the various divisions. Basically it was a short deck version of the Pontiac V-8 with some poor flowing ’emission’ cylinder heads. There were turbo equipped and naturally aspirated H.O. versions that offered performance of a sort in the Firebirds. The effort was unsuccessful and the 3rd. gen. Firebird succumbed to Chevy Small Block power.
I’d much rather have the Saab 99 myself, but this Deadly Sin equipped as such makes for a pretty sweet car. The later G-body version was one of the few cars that got better looking and “more Brougham” at the same time, but they didn’t have a lot of the cool options that were available on the early ones. I like that the downsized A-bodies still had division-specific engines available for a few years, too (Chevy, Olds and Pontiac V8s, Buick’s V6 Turbo). The Grand Prix SJ should have come with all of this stuff standard and left the only options as T-tops and a choice between 4-speed/automatic.
If you liked all the stuff inside but just couldn’t stomach the downsized Grand Prix’ looks, Pontiac still had the nearly identical (but much better looking) Grand Am available in 1979. One of those with the 301/4-speed, which was available from the factory but rarely ordered, would make it a much tougher call for me between Pontiac and Saab.
Wow, that’s a new one on me. I was aware of the Colonnade Grand Am but had no idea it survived the downsizing. I like it.
It did and it didn’t, the first generation ran from 1973-1975, discontinued, brought back again for 1978-1980, discontinued again and then resurrected for the third time for the FWD N-body Grand Am in 1985.
The Grand Am made it until 1980 in A/G body form but only in coupe body style. Both it and the Grand Prix SJ were upgraded for 1980 with handling /suspension upgrades, dual exhaust exiting out of the side rear on both driver and passenger side, the Trans Am spec HO W72 170 horse 301 instead of the former 150 horse from 1978 /79 a switch to 2.93 rear gears instead of 2.41 and the THM 350 trans was firmed up for swifter shifting making that year the most desirable of this series.
Regarding the GP SJ it was the top model in that line and came std with bucket seats/floor shifter, gauge package, silver replacing wood tone dash applique, rally wheels, suspension upgrade with larger front stabilizer and rear stabilizer bars 301 W72 4BBL V8 tied to THM 350 automatic transmission, dual exhaust outlets and sport dual outside mirrors. Comparing this to the top trim Cutlass Calais of the same period saw no dual exhaust on the Olds, a 231 V6 instead of the HO 301, buckets with no floor shifter and a softer riding non rear sway bar suspension making the SJ Grand Prix more desirable in my eyes.
C’mon now let’s not look back too fondly on that SAAB. the long shift rod (to the front end of the car where the trans was) was balky getting into first or reverse. but let me tell you about the output shaft bearing housing that was a light casting that was a built-in fuse! They were a failure point from at least ’78 and my ’83 still had the problem. Everyone i knew had at least one trans rebuild to go thru and you weren’t getting the high school shop class to do it. sophisticated fleecing I would say.
My parents had (and I learned how to drive in) a ’78 Malibu CLassic wagon, 305/4-speed. A friend of my Dad’s had a Grand Prix with a 4-speed about the same time, but those were the only 2 manual trans cars like this I remember seeing at the time. A neighbor had some kind of Datsun (B210 maybe? It was yellow and had bee decals on it, anyway) That was the only other manual trans car in the neighborhood I grew up in.
Anyway the Malibu actually shifted nicely (as long as the bench seat wasn’t all the way forward) and we never had a problem towing a pop-up camper along with 4 people and their gear piled in it. It even kept it’s original clutch until I started learning how to drive… (I got better!)
I had a 1979 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale sedan with the the ( for 1979 ONLY !) 301 Pontiac V8, and a Rochester Duojunk carburetor. It was the most GUTLESS V8 I have ever driven. Want to go up a hill ? best to drop it in Second and hold the pedal to the floor because it would eventually kickdown anyway. My buddies 79′ Cutlass witht the 2oo-something cubic inch V8 has more snot than my Delta.
Even with the anemic powerplant, that Delta is probably still my favorite car that I have ever owned.
Chances are that 301 was not in proper tune on your Delta as that mill is 35 horses stronger than the gutless Olds 260 V8 that my 1979 Calais currently has. Before doing the mods to the 260 to wake it up I also had a 1979 Buick LeSabre, which is the same basic B-body, sedan with the exact same 301 2BBL V8 and it would easily out power the 260. The 301 2BBl is surely no powerhouse but it was quicker than any 260 A/G/B body car I have driven in proper tune of course.
I tell ya what, Joe . . . if I knew then what I know now about engine tuning, it would be a fair bet that it would have been less gutless. An equally fair bet would that it would have some bigger and Rocket-powered transplanted under the hood !
Maybe they look better in real life, but the styling of this car and proportional size of the wheels, with an almost comical wheelbase to overhang ratio, gives me the impression of a US take on the Triumph Mayflower.
Good call on the magazine special, something that still happens today too with things like a brown E63 wagon doing the testing rounds a couple of years ago.
I have had my 1980 Grand Prix SJ for 19 years, it has always been in the family. I enjoy pulling the car out each summer and driving it after winter in a truck. I am starting to get everything arranged to begin a restoration. All the parts in the car are original including the 301 and carb. I am keeping everything in the car original, against the wishes of the mechanic that will be working on it. For all the faults of the car it was a product of the times and generally everything was neutered at the time. I am still driving the car and enjoying it.
I have over the past year obtained a 1979 Grand Prix SJ 4 speed 301 4bl single exhaust.
The car came out of British Columbia Canada, with 160,000 kilometers on it( 100,000) miles. The car is original and drives nicely and was stored (due to the untimely loss of the owners life) for over 17 years.
Yes the 301 is less than peppy (overwhelmingly now with mileage) this is the reason I’m removing the 301/saginaw combo and storing it for car value. In its place I am in the process of rebuilding a 1969 428 HO removed from a wrotted big brother ’69 Grand Prix SJ out of a farmers field in Winnipeg Manitoba, backed by a Munsie M22 just for the pure tribute to the car I had the glory to drive in my teen years. Easy third gear rubber at over 85 mph with twin carter 650 cfm afb’s. That was muscle! Engine code on my 428 is XG (automatic) but who can be picky, unfortunately the engine will require to be bored due to a spiders den in cylinder #4 entered through exhaust system. She came from the factory with a power sunroof and all other options that all work without issue.
Here’s the car in transport coming home.
It’s beautiful. You should be proud.
My daily summer driver is a 1978 Grand Prix 301 auto with 60,000 miles. This one was stored in a heated shop covered since 1993 under a cloth cover till I answered the ad. All original still not restored, I plan on having them till they get passed down to the kids! This ones getting a 1970 GTO 400 with 4bolt mains done up with scat 4340 4″ stroke scat H beams #13 cnc ported Ram air 3’s and a modified rear clip to hang a 2013 Camaro ZL 1 independent rear differential. Grand Prix’s rock!!!!
Just gorgeous. I love the chrome “Body By Fisher” sill-plate. I wish car interiors still looked like this.
Completion time on this one should be later this summer, cant wait to get her done!!!
I purchased a new 79 Grand Prix SJ from Sun Pontiac in Mesa Arizona in late 78. White witb red cloth interior and evey option excluding leather. I added a Pioneer cassette deck. I thought the 301 V8 had plenty of power, i towed a jet ski boat with it, no problems at all. Being an AZ car it had heavy duty cooling along with Automatic Climate Control AC. The car stayed in the family until 1994 when my mother quit driving. I always liked the car, size luxury and reasonably good handling and comfort. I’ve owned many, many cars and, even with the struggles the auto industry was facing at the time, it was one of my favorites. I now own a 2012 Cadillac SRX, 3.6L V6, now its one great car and very powerful for such a small engine.
Thanks for the kind words Joseph and Charlie I agree very much that the 79 GP didn’t get a great shake out from Pontiac die hards. It had big shoes to fill after the likes of 69,70,71 powerhouses of the 400s, 428s and finally the 455. So when they built the tribute 79 with a Saginaw and the 301 under 200 horse, well amazing breakstands and tire sqwaucks at 85 were unimaginable. I love to drive my 79 with the 4spd but with single exhaust and a 301 needing rebuild I’m going to put the 428 in to drive while I rebuild the 301 which could be a bit arduous to find all the parts. Anyone know what a fully original 79 301 GP SJ 4sp could be worth unrestored.
Just took the winter cover off the old car. I have had this car since 1994 and still runs great. I am starting a restoration with frame and suspension this year, drive train rebuild in the two years after that, body and interior within the couple years after the drive train.
My brother had a 78 Grand Am 301, so I was shopping the fall of 1979. The gas crunch drove prices down. Lots of V6 Grand Prixs advertised around $5000 (plus etc, etc). But a V8 meat at least $2200 more. More than I had to spend. Ordered an 1980 Civic (top line? whatever called) about 8months later no civic in sight dealer offered me an 80 Accord (one of three unsold to arrive!). Seriously enjoyed the little Accord though I grownup in a Pontiac family. I was commuting and small 5sd felt like a sports car. My cousins drove English sports cars for a while, lol.
But. Spent a lot of time and miles driving Pontiacs, but the 455 Bonneville wagon had to go.. 20 gal tank, 8-10 mpg in traffic, worse in stop and go.
Did well enough on the highway at 18 or so.
They did look well.
I have owned a 79 Grand prix 4 speed for the last ten years. Other than the 301 being replaced with a rebuilt 400 it is totaly stock. It is a lot of fun to drive and plenty fast for me.
Had the car been offered with the 400 as an option the car would have lived up to the pontiac being the GM sporty division. I have never needed to use the parking brake on hills, but the clutch does take some getting used too.