Back in September 1977, R&T had an early glimpse of GM’s new downsized A-bodies by briefly testing a 1978 Pontiac LeMans. That article focused mostly on the background and engineering behind the new models, with little road testing time. A proper review of the new platform remained pending. It came in April of ’78, with a road test of the new Malibu coupe. “Good News” was the catchphrase behind the model’s launch. As R&T was to find out, there was truth to those words.
At this point in time, GM’s execution still achieved most of the intentions behind its plans. The new downsized B-bodies had arrived in 1977, and were well received by pundits and buyers. Now the downsized A-Bodies were arriving for 1978, ready to replace the previous Colonnades. Much had changed in the world since the outgoing platform appeared back in 1973; new emissions and safety regulations, an energy crisis, inflation, and a new national speed limit. It was a much-changed landscape, and the new vehicles were part of GM’s plans to adapt and succeed.
In that earlier 1977 issue, R&T had also tested Ford’s new Fox platform. Of the two downsizing efforts, R&T considered Ford’s more modern and forward-thinking. A feeling that permeates the Malibu’s review. “Fans of American cars will be pleased to know that despite the trimming and weight reduction, the Malibu is still very much a product of Detroit and, more specifically, is unmistakably a GM car.”
Still, the reduced A-bodies not only met GM’s objectives, they were warmly received and welcomed. Exterior dimensions had been reduced without loss of interior space, and actually had more head and leg room. The resulting models were about 700 lb. lighter, while still meeting structural integrity expectations. Finally, ride and handling were either the equal, or an improvement over the outgoing models.
Styling for the new A-bodies was sober and rational, with a bit of flair taken from Cadillac’s ‘sheer look.’ Of the corporate siblings, the new Malibu had the cleanest styling, with careful attention to detailing. Depending on trim and accessories, the Malibu could be a crisp and attractive object or a plain generic one. A topic that came up for discussion within R&T’s staff, with opinions divided on the matter.
Mechanically speaking, R&T optioned the Malibu in accordance with the needs of an enthusiast publication. The coupe arrived with Chevrolet’s 305 CID V-8, a Turbo Hydra-Matic, and the F41 Sport Suspension. The latter a favorite of enthusiast circles; it improved on the standard suspension by adding stiffened springs and shocks, a larger anti-roll bar up front, and added an anti-roll bar at the rear.
On testing, the 305 was the “typical low-revving, quiet and smooth American V-8 engine.” In 49-state trim, it developed 108 145 bhp at 3800 rpm, with 245 lb-ft torque at 2400 rpm. For California, the numbers dropped to 101 135 bhp at 3800 rpm, and 240 lb-ft at 2000 rpm. Straight-line acceleration was 0-60 in 11.4 secs. Rather adequate for the times.
As usual, the F41 Sport Suspension got praise; “for $38 the Malibu buyer can convert the standard soft and mushy Detroit ride… to a slightly stiffer ride with much improved cornering capability and road feedback.” Thus, the F41-equipped Malibu cornered flatly, offering controllable understeer. Steering was light and quick, if lacking in road feel. Only the brakes came for criticism.
There were remnants of the malaise ’70s on the Malibu, however. It stalled on cold starts and it exhibited a light-throttle lean surge between 55-60 mph. Also, while the interior got positive marks for its rational and clean layout, there were signs of GM’s cost-cutting present throughout.
Not that the Malibu was cheap. R&T’s well-optioned test car came at $8100; the result of options like electric windows and locks, wire wheel covers, A/C, two-tone paint, and more. It all added $3,000 over the base price.
At that cost, imports like the Volvo 244 and the Toyota Cressida were attractive options as well, and yet “… none of them can match the Malibu’s acceleration performance, automatic transmission or availability of parts and service throughout the U.S.”
All things considered, the new Malibu was a lighter car, with a roomier interior, adequate performance, and with the Sport Suspension, a car that could provide “many miles of pleasurable driving.”
Much was to change in the near future for GM, but the arrival of the downsized A-bodies was, for the most part, good news indeed.
Further reading:
Classic Curbside Classic: 1979 Chevrolet Malibu Coupe – Good News, Mostly
Vintage Review: 1978 Chevrolet Malibu Classic – Car And Driver Goes Crazy For F41
Cohort Pic(k) Of The Day: 1981 Malibu Classic Coupe – Paolo Martin Sends His Regards
To be thought of as The Last Thing GM Did Right for Quite a While?
Always like those cars for their styling and size, at one point during my first marriage seriously considered one (went with a Dodge Omni instead).
Article makes mention of the handling package. These were sooo cheap ($40 to $50) and made a big difference in how the car handled.
Had a ’83 Cutlass with the similar handling package. Thats what made the car so enjoyable.
Agree! The F-41 handling package option should had been included on every one of these cars.
It has always bemused me how GM hit a home run with the “downsized” big cars in 1977…..but bunted a year later with the “downsized” intermediates?
Well, they weren’t horrible. My pick would have been the Cutlass Supreme coupe,, solely based on popularity and projected resale value.
For some reason, the cars introduced in 1978 (A Body) had that awful fastback aero look on the Olds & Buick sedans and some of the two door models. What a way to shoot yourself in the foot. This was corrected in 1981 (or 1982, not sure).
Also, the rear windows on the 4 door sedans and wagons for all brands did not roll down from 1978 thru 1988. Not sure what the mind think for that was. Maybe bragging rights for hip room in the rear seat?
Yup, they made more hip room in the rear by replacing protruding arm rests with a recessed alcove in the door trim, but that intruded into the space where a window would otherwise roll down, so they made the main rear glass fixed and (on the sedans and wagons) added flip-out rear vent windows instead.
I’d hardly call them a bunt. They were good cars and the platform lasted until 1988 with a good strong sales run. Maybe the Aerobacks were a flop, but the A-Body Specials, like the Cutlass Supreme Coupe, really took off, even well into the 80s. Today they have a huge following, and Malibu coupes like this one being tested are quite desirable.
The biggest let down for me with these cars were the interiors were very spartan, and not as nicely finished as the Colonnades. GM did not invest much in the interior, and it certainly wasn’t as plush as say a Ford Granada (albeit those were overdone). Then again, in comparison to the Fairmont, it was pretty comparable.
They may have not been the immediate hit the B-bodies were, but they did all right.
They were let down by a couple of things. First, those stationary rear windows on the sedans. They were soon corrected on the formal-roof sedas a couple of years later.
Another letdown was the fastback Buick Century and Olds Cutlass. While the Regal and Cutlass Supreme were normal coupes, both divisions 2- and 4-door sedans had fastback styling that went over like a lead balloon. The aforementioned formal-roof sedan was quickly brought on line to correct the mistake.
But they gradually became a mainstay in the GM lineup and continued until the front-drive W bodies came out.
In the editorial, they claim 101 and 108 HP figures, yet the spec sheet clearly shows 135.
The smaller numbers are the kilowatt figures, a short lived attempt at metrification in Detroit. The torque figures were also given in Newton/meters, where the numerical figure was larger than foot/pounds. Made for some funny looking HP and Torque figures unless you realized the mistake.
I remember Motor Trend making the same mistake with a Monte Carlo they tested.
I know it was the malaise era, but cripes, the outputs weren’t that low!
I remember Canadian Chrysler brochures of the era giving engine outputs in both SAE-net and Metric.
Thanks for noticing that. I was thinking that 0-60 in 11 seconds was damn good for 108 hp, let alone 101hp. I really liked these cars when they came out, though they seemed more conventional than the Fox Fairmont. Within a few years the brougham Cutlass Salon was so ubiquitous that for me, it tainted the whole line with stigma that wasn’t really deserved. Ironically, the only one of the GM intermediates I’ve driven was a loaner Cutlass in full Brougham trim. I enjoyed it in an odd way. My own car at the time was a 2nd gen Civic 5 speed hatchback.
That’s the 2 bbl. I believe the 4 bbl had 145 hp, but it could have been 155.
The 1978 Malibu 305 engines were all equipped with a 2bbl carburetor. The 305 was rated at 135 hp with CA emissions and 145 hp with federal emissions. In 1979, there was a 305-4bbl rated at 160 hp available in the Malibu.
My Dad was the Fleet and Lease manager at the local Chev-Olds emporium. In ’79 they had a customer order one of these with the 305-4V, a 4 speed and whatever the optional rear end ratio was. Buckets too. Between the time it was ordered (with a large deposit I’m sure) and the time it arrived the guy changed his mind for whatever reason, so Dad ended up with it for a demo for awhile. White with a blue interior and a black vinyl roof.
I don’t know what the performance figures would have been but it felt about as strong as the ’78 Z-28 4 speed he had been driving the previous year. I’d love to have that car today!
BTW, you could get a 350 4 speed in an El Camino in ’79, at least here in Canada. The dealership sold a couple that year, usually with the “Black Knight” package. 17 year old me wanted one bad!
The Buick Century/Regal had the Chevrolet 305 4 bbl as an option in ’78–why didn’t the Malibu? 160 hp was more than I remembered my dad’s ’78 Aeroback having. It felt zippy, despite the speedo being 5 mph under at 60.
https://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Buick/1978_Buick/1978%20Buick%20Full%20Line%20Prestige%20Brochure/image40.html
The ower and torque figures make them seem like sub 2.0 turbo diesels not 5.0 V8 gas engines
Many considered these the second coming of the 55 Chevy at the time. Odd how the photo of the driver’s home shows the steering wheel upside down.Drove many of these in the day. My girlfriend’s 78 Monte with the 305 was quite spirited off the line and very comfortable. Full instrumentation was a nice touch.
Considering how often you see A & G body hot rods/restos/restomod/donks/etc,
they almost were the new incarnation of the 55 Chevy. Re-comparisons to the Fox Fairmonts, and the implied technological lag of the GM products, I can say is, what is more popular today? Case closed.
Funny that we’ve again reached the point where a 700lb weight reduction in GM’s fleet is overdue.
Between the Fairmont, Volare, Malibu, and Concord, I would have highly likely chosen a Malibu. Even if they were the highest priced of the four, at dealers in my nearby city. Volare competing mostly on its big car feel, and price. Concord competing on price, and luxury appointments. I’ve mentioned it previously, I always found the circa 1975-’79 Nova coupe, more attractive/stylish, than this era Malibu coupe.
Given the big investments Ford and GM made in their new downsized cars, the GM FWD X-Cars made them seem obsolete very quickly. In terms of packaging and efficiency.
In the interior pic on page 51, a bit surprised they didn’t make sure they had any photos with the steering wheel in the correct position. Given these reviews double as marketing pieces.
I, too, thought the 4G Malibu coupe was okay, and actually much prefer it to the formal roof, PLC versions of the A-body. Equipping one with the F41 suspension package, along with other, practical options like the V8 and A/C, would have made for one of the more decent rides coming out of Detroit in the late seventies.
Not a screaming big-block SS396 but, all things considered, good enough for the times.
I’m on team “well-styled” and even the wire wheel covers aren’t that bad. At least the test car’s Fiat 130-influenced roofline isn’t marred by a vinyl top like the brochure cover car, and the Malibu coupe is a fair bit better looking than the Monte Carlo.
For years I’ve wondered why Chevy didn’t really promote the F41 suspension upgrade more heavily. It seems to me as though, if properly marketed, it could have won back – or caused not to lose in the first place – the folks who abandoned GM for foreign cars because they hated the mushy handling.
But this might be the first time I’ve seen the price tag of a mere $38, and now I’m betting that F41 wasn’t promoted is because it wasn’t very profitable. I’d guess most of the bits were straight out of the 9C1 Police Package, so there wasn’t much R&D money involved, but nonetheless those parts aren’t free.
For years since those days, I always looked under every A, B and G-body I ever saw to see if had that rear bar.
I think the rationale behind GM not promoting it too much was that they believed it was too rough riding for the average citizen. While C/D, R&T, MT etc all loved the suspension, they were seen as a small percentage of enthusiasts. GM figured it knew better than it’s customers and that most would like the pillow soft ride they have been accustomed to. These are much smaller cars than the previous A-bodies and GM was probably worried that they’d lose the “big car ride” its core customers were used to. While by today’s standards the F41 cars are not rough riding, they were significantly firmer than the base suspension and you definitely felt more of the road imperfections.
The F41 definitely made these cars excellent drivers. There really wasn’t much too it beyond stiffer springs, better shocks and larger front bar and rear sway bar. I am sure the cost was very small for these upgrades. I put a lot of miles on my brother’s ’86 Cutlass Supreme with a 305 Chevy engine and F41 suspension. It was a pretty quick car for the time and had excellent handling. It significantly more agile than a B-body sedan.
Weren’t the bushings different too?
They may have been a bit stiffer rubber, but I know for certain there were not sized any differently. I’d have to check a GM parts catalog to be sure. For aftermarket replacement, there is only one listing shown for the control arm bushings.
I see your point, but I think that if they could add another 5-10% to the sales figures by selling cars to potential Volvo 240 (& plenty of other cars that handled well) buyers, they would want those extra sales.
Around 1980, I installed an ADDCO anti-sway bar to my ’74 A-body. It alone was a vast improvement, and I thought money well-spent, even at the $130 price.
I feel like part of it probably came down to dealer disinterest. I think in general, dealers were reluctant to get cars with heavy-duty suspension except for special-order customers, since the assumption was that soft suspension was much easier to show off on a test drive, and prospects might be scared off if they thought the car rode harshly. So, I don’t think most Chevrolet dealers were probably very keen to have cars with the F40 or F41 suspension or trailer towing packages as part of their regular inventories, even if they appreciated that that stuff was available for the customers who actually wanted it.
My FIL had a ’79 and boy it was a piece of junk. he bought it used, low mileage from the original dealer.
16 times to the dealer for a transmission that would never shift right, under the dealer said no more, you’re on your own.
My MIL, one tough depression-era lady indeed, wrote a letter to the site manager of the local, huge GM parts plant. Once he got involved, things got done pretty quickly.
Surprisingly, the trans case was a porous casting, which would not allow consistent pressures, which resulted in crazy shifting. Trans was replaced on GM’s dime.
They never bought another GM car after that.
Wonder how they got the steering wheel completely upside down in the interior picture of the dashboard. The wheel should be pointing straight downward not upward.
This very article, which I came across while waiting in a doctor’s office is the reason I ordered my ’79 Malibu equipped like it is. Mine has the 267 V8 which has delivered pretty much trouble free service since new, and a four speed manual. I have the F41 suspension also. It has been a great car and I still enjoy it to this day.
Great looking car! And a great story–special ordered and you still have it!
And this is definitely a unique special order. I didn’t realize there was a 267 V8 option in 1979. It’s not unlikely that this may have been the only 267/manual 4-speed ever built. It is definitely extremely likely this is the only surviving 267/manual 4-speed.
I suspect this was your weekend, “nice car”, given the condition.
If you ever choose to sell it, it’s a definitely a MOST BAT-worthy car. But I hope you keep it and continue to enjoy it for a good long time.
Originally it was intended to be the “good car” for my late first wife to drive. We still had a ’67 Mustang and a pickup. After she passed away I used if for a time in my job that required daily travel. I dated my present wife in it and after I bought a newer car it became the weekend and vacation car. It currently has 168,000 miles on it. I have thought for a long time that it might be one of one. If there are any other 267/ four speed Malibus out there I would be willing to bet that none of them also have the power sunroof.
I hope to write a COAL on it at some time.
The “as delivered price” on this seems a fortune for that time period.
Some distributor recurving, and a rejet would go a long way to improve driveability.
I’d retrofit a 4bbl & duals.
The 305 and “Turbo Hydra-matic” were likely carry-overs from ’77; in which case the transmission was the horrible, weak-kneed TH200. This was a severely cost-cut unit, omitting “non-essential” parts like the second one-way clutch, and using a band for second gear instead of a clutch pack. It’s nearly guaranteed to fail around 50K miles (sometimes sooner.) It infamously had “METRIC” stamped into the oil pan. Mom’s ’77 died right on schedule at ~48K miles, replaced with a TH350 which is almost but not quite a direct swap.
The two not-really-redeeming features of the TH200 were that first gear was “lower” than that of the famous and wonderful TH400-series, and also lower than what came in the common and reasonable TH350-series transmissions. Combined with weak, cost-cut internal parts, there was not much rotating weight. The deep first gear plus light weight internals make for snappier acceleration at least until the trans hits second gear. The TH200 made something of a comeback in low-level circle-track racing.
https://motorstate.com/th-200-transmission-court-room-to-race-track/
Eventually, this transmission was revamped and re-developed into the TH200 4R, an overdrive unit with a torque converter clutch for efficiency. (The 200 did not get a torque converter clutch until ’79.) The 200 R4 is also weak-kneed and liable to early failure; but as usual the aftermarket has useful if expensive upgrades available for both 200 versions.
The “light-throttle lean surge”? On my Mother’s ’77 Nova with 305 2-bbl and TH200, the “lean surge” was the A/C compressor cycling. The engine had little power. The drag from the A/C compressor would drop the power delivered to the wheels so much that the cruise control couldn’t moderate the speed change very well. Compressor engages, speed plummets, cruise control opens the throttle to regain speed. Then the compressor disengages, and the vehicle speeds up (a little) before the cruise could release the throttle again. The change was more noticeable when the compressor engaged than when it disengaged, owing to the overall lack of power. No doubt some illegal tuning would rectify any driveability issues, while illegal parts-replacement–more compression, more cam, and replacing everything above the head gaskets would add a modest amount of power. Nothing short of supercharging or Nitrous can generate real power from a 305.
The 305 is in no way “adequate” except as a place-holder for a 350, “383” or 400 small-block, and you’d have to be mildly insane to consider the TH200 a “standard by which all other automatic transmissions should be measured”. The TH400-series is world-class, the TH350-series is totally adequate for most uses behind “small block” V8s or smaller engines, the TH200 is a failure waiting to happen.
Wasn’t the THM200 developed for Chevettes and similarly lightweight and low-powered cars? It and the later, even lighter THM180 were adequately durable in that platform but still a distant second choice since (as RCR said of the K-Car) a torque converter of the time behind a 4-cylinder ate so much power it came back for seconds, and you really wanted the 4- or (rare) 5-speed manual.
I believe the THM200 transmission was developed for the Chevette and other small, rear-wheel-drive GM cars. In those applications, it was a perfectly good transmission. The problems began when GM installed it in larger cars – even some B-body Chevrolets, if I recall correctly.
Wikipedia and other sources say that the early Chevette got a 200 trans, later replaced by the 180. In fact, the 200 was used in vehicles from Chevette to Caprice, and in the captive-import LUV pickup.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2022/05/abandoned-history-general-motors-turbo-hydramatic-transmissions-part-ii/
I’d have said that the TH200 was intended for use behind wimpy V8s, which is the only place I remember seeing them. Even the Buick V6s tended to get a TH350-series transmission, which surprised me. An actual TH350 is three times the transmission that the 200 is, and even the 250 (a cut-rate version of the 350, minus a clutchpack and with a manually-adjustable band) is better than the 200.
The later Chevette got the TH180; which I thought was originally the French Trimatic, but all the search-engine hits I’m getting today say “Australian–Holden”. I’d have expected North American T-cars to have gotten a North American-made transmission.
My ’87 Oldsmobile Cutlass with the 307 V8 had the overdrive TH-200-R4 transmission and that car never gave me any trouble. Of course, I drive carefully and took care of the car so that may be one reason. Just sold it back in 2018 with an original 65,000 miles on the clock. Always garaged.
Why is the steering wheel upside down? My friends dad bought a 78 Malibu Classic coupe and quickly had a 4bbl and dual exhaust installed, the crossmember didn’t have 2 humps so one side snaked over. The converter was pulled as was the restrictor for leaded gas in the filler tube, we could still get leaded gas then and it was cheaper. Black with red interior it was a nice car
My 4.3 Caprice had a TH-200C in it. No complaints, though it’s obviously a light duty piece.
The TH-200-4R could be built to handle tremendous power. (I had one behind a 550lb-ft stroker.)
JT: it looks like they ladles the entire option list on the test car. (It’s the first Malibu of that era I’ve ever seen with power windows.)