(first posted 5/16/2017) Welcome to a new series about routine production cars that realized relatively scant production volumes. For this inaugural journey, we start with Chevrolet, examining the time period from 1946 to 1995, and look at cars with production volumes of less than 1,000.
1946 Chevrolet Fleetmaster 8 passenger wagon
Production: 804
In the immediate post-war period, cars were hot commodities but the eight passenger Fleetmaster wagon wasn’t one of them. Part of this failure to hit the mark is due to the intense amount of work required to fabricate the wood sides; part of it was the price dictated by the amount of work that went into it; part of it was the shortened model year for Chevrolet combined with an autoworkers strike. With a base price of $1,712, by far the highest of any 1946 Chevrolet, this wagon was $614 more expensive than the Stylemaster Business Coupe.
In fact, the wagon was $250 more than the Fleetmaster convertible. For the $1,712 price to obtain this wagon, one could have instead purchased a new Buick Series 40 and had nearly $200 left in their pocket.
For 1947, Fleetmaster wagon production was just under 5,000 units.
1967 Chevrolet Impala SS six-cylinder
Production: 400
Chevrolet built approximately 74,000 Impala SS coupes and convertibles for 1967. As had been the case all along, one could equip their Impala SS with a six-cylinder, with 1967 seeing the 155 gross horsepower, 250 cubic inch six-banger as standard motivation.
Only 400 were so equipped, translating to just 0.5% of Impala SS buyers that year who opted to save $115. With the base price of an Impala SS coupe being $3,500, opting for a V8 was only a 3.3% price penalty.
Finding one today would be quite a feat, though likely not impossible.
1971 Chevrolet Impala hardtop coupe six-cylinder
Production: 939
For a company whose products were exclusively six-cylinder powered from 1929 to 1954, the popularity of this engine faded almost as fast as an ice cream cone at the state fair.
When Chevrolet (and GM, for that matter) introduced their new B-bodies for 1971, they were bigger in every way, with dry curb weight for the Impala hardtop coupe being 3,742 pounds. A lightweight it was not.
Being powered by a 145 gross horsepower, 250 cubic inch straight-six was likely an exercise in frustration for the new owner. It’s easy to see why the V8 powered hardtop coupe sold nearly 53,000 copies.
Don’t think the base Impala sedan was setting the sales charts ablaze when powered by the six-banger – it sold all of 1,606 copies, making both of these the most rare Chevrolets for 1971.
1972 Chevrolet Impala hardtop coupe six-cylinder
Production: 289
As in 1971, these six-banger coupes just weren’t hitting the sweet spot of the market. Power was now advertised as being 110 net horsepower and weight was up 122 pounds. None of the six-cylinder cars were popular, but this one was the least popular of the unpopular six-cylinder big B-bodies.
Having a 350 or 454 in your Impala was a much better, and less tedious, way to see the U.S.A.
1975 Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu Classic six-cylinder
Production: 1
The Colonnade cars from GM were the most sane mid-sizers built by an American manufacturer during this period. Sales reflected the sanity, but most buyers had their limits. While six-cylinder engines were available in these, the vast majority were not so equipped, as a 100 net horsepower engine to propel a nearly 3,800 pound car would have made for a painful experience.
This finding was the impetus for the series, but contradictory information has been found. Page 217 of The Encyclopedia of American Cars (copyright 1996) is where this number originated; conversely, while the Standard Catalog Of American Cars, 1946 – 1975, Revised Fourth Edition does not have the level of specificity found in The Encyclopedia, it says a total of 3,844 Malibu Classics of all body styles were equipped with a six-cylinder in 1975. This number deviates from what can be derived from The Encyclopedia.
Suffice it to say a six-cylinder Malibu Classic wasn’t exactly a car that was setting any sales charts afire. Base model Malibus with a six were much more common but were still outsold by their V8 brethren by a factor of two.
Since we are still on 1975 Malibus, the six-cylinder Malibu Classic Landau coupe is reported as having sold 378 copies.
1986 Chevrolet Chevette diesel three-door sedan
Production: 124
With 51 throbbing horsepower, the Chevette diesel earns the dubious distinction of having the lowest power-to-weight ratio of anything seen here, with each pony having to lug around forty-five pounds. However, its EPA rating (by 1983 methods) of 60 highway miles per gallon easily earns it the honor of being the most fuel efficient.
The diesel Chevette came about for 1981 in the United States, selling over 14,000 copies. By 1983, diesel sedan production had tumbled to 439 for the four-door and 1,501 for the two-door. This number continued to spiral downward until its last year of being offered in 1986, when a total of 324 diesel Chevette’s were offered in both two- and four-door body styles.
As was evident, these low production numbers were generally a combination of engine and trim. What will be found when looking at other manufacturers? Stay tuned.
The third gen inline six which came out in 1962 (first as a Chevy II option and later went viral with the rest of the bowtie fleet including its tall deck cousin (292) which retained the stovebolt’s dimensions – a majority of the six came with a one barrel carburetor (from a Carter YF, Rochester Monojet, and lastly, the Varajet when used in a truck/van); when the small block displaced the six as the entry level motor, this was why it gets no respect even if some speed parts were available (as of 2017 the pricing range is 3X higher than building a big block or obscure motor which is not a SBC); unlike AMC which had a rival six introduced in 1964 with a deck height a 1/2 inch taller than the Chevrolet third gen it found a home in several non-AMC vehicles e.g. Jeep, International Harvester (including its final iteration as a 4.0L; GM did add MPI to the third gen six but only in Brasil and Argentina right after it was phased out throughout the mid-1980s (last use of the Chevy II six was in 1984 with the light duty truck/van when it was replaced by the 4.3L although the 292 lasted until 1990 with some commercial applications eg P-series box vans and some R/V square bodies to 1988…
As close as Chevrolet and Ford were in sales, it is interesting how Chevy struggled when it came to station wagons. I also have The Encyclopedia of American Cars, though a (slightly) more recent edition, but I don’t know what the prices for comparable Chevy and Ford models was in 46-47, but from the write-up I imagine the Chevy 8 passenger woody wagon was quite a bit more expensive than it’s Ford counterpart.
I wasn’t aware that a 6 cylinder engine was available in a full-sized Chevy into the early-mid 70s. A teacher that substituted at several schools in my small town had a 65 Impala SS coupe with the 6 cylinder and Powerglide. It was black, with a red interior (IIRC), the perfect little old lady/spinster car. I can’t imagine driving a 71 or 72 Impala with a 6 cylinder engine.
The less said about the Chevelle, the better. The Colonnades were THE most dull looking cars of the 70s….a real comedown from their predecessors.
The Chevette diesel? I’ve seen maybe 2 or 3 of these rare cars, none were 2 door sedans, though. Ford had a decent competitor with the Escort diesel that was available in more body styles. Still, I think I’d rather have the car that was a mechanical “twin” to the Chevette, the Isuzu I-Mark, with it’s classier looking trunked 2 or 4 door sedans. There’s even one for sale near me for just under $3,000.
“…it is interesting how Chevy struggled when it came to station wagons.”
True, and Ford’s “Magic Doorgate,” introduced in 1966, likely didn’t help matters.
I’ve read before that Chevy’s production mix tended to weigh heavier on sedans. Possibly a focus on fleet sales (even back then), or the fact that buyers of higher-priced body styles tended to step up a rung or two on GM’s Sloanian ladder.
Ouch! I loved the Colonnade when it come out, though I will agree that even then, and more so now, the ’68-72 Chevelle was a high point in domestic styling. Thanks for a fascinating look at the rarities, Jason. I’m not surprised that Chevy persevered with the sixes on full-size cars as long as they did, but didn’t realize they were offered in higher trim levels. A six cylinder SS? Just doesn’t sound right! And would that standard 3 speed on the SS; would that have been column shift or on the floor? The photo of the SS convertible is clearly a 4 speed.
Ford still had their I6 standard on the base Custom full size model, until 1972. My Great Uncle had one.
Was the Chevette diesel engine sourced from Isuzu?
yes and would likely go for an easy 300k if well maintained, but it’s a Chevette.
🙁
I would like to see other brands too. Here is a rare Ford a that is like a unicorn. Try to find a 1965 Ford Falcon Sprint V8 Convertible only 150 were made half of the total production of 300 convertibles that year. I would bet that was due to Mustang Sales that took over its market share.
Stay tuned. Ford and Plymouth are coming yet this week.
Don’t forget the Marquis LTS 😉 !
How about the independents? Or are low production figures assumed for them? Still, I can think of a ’60s car that was offered with two engines for a year and a half which anyone could have ordered during that time, yet exactly ZERO were built. Anyone know what it is?
I will not guess any AMC/Rambler product, since people who were already in the Nash/Hudson/Rambler/AMC heritage knew that any engine could be ordered with any transmission, in any model…for a price. Rumor has it there is a six-banger 1968 AMX out there. Probably ordered by the Abominable Snowman in the Cascades, somewhere.
I’d have to guess the Studebaker full-size model (Commander, was it?) that briefly was offered with a Mercedes 4-cylinder diesel as one of those vehicles. I know some Larks hit the road with a diesel, but none of the full-sized models.
Rumors do not equal facts. Let’s try to stick to them (the latter)
And no, the Studebaker was not “offered with a MBZ diesel”. Two or so were built as prototypes, but never offered for sale.
It’s the ’63-’64 Hawk which offered the bored-out R3 and R4 engines but none were built that way. Only 10 cars were built with the supercharged R3, nine of which were Avantis, but one person who was in early on the muscle-car ethos ordered a two door pillared Lark coupe (cheapest and lightest bodystyle) with the R3 and four speed. Only one R4 was built, also a Lark. I think both Larks still are around, one that had to be reunited with its original engine. Same thing as AMC re: any drivetrain being available in any model, except I think that Avantis had at least an R1. Sometimes higher trims would have an uprated engine standard, or as with the early Hawks have a powerful engine reserved for the top-line Golden Hawk model.
I’m working my way to the independents. Olds, Dodge, Pontiac, and Mercury are in the making now.
I wonder what the ’85-only, base-model-only Colt 5 door hatchback’s numbers were – would you group it with Dodge or do imports separately?
Good question as to what sales were.
The two books mentioned in the 1975 Chevelle section are what I used. Looking at it again as I type this, there is no reference to the Colt.
So with numbers for the Omni, Charger, Daytona, Aries, Lancer, 600, and Diplomat, it looks like they are sticking with North American built cars.
As references I possess for non-North American built cars being scant, this series will likely (for now, anyway) revolve around The Big Three and the various independents. Two more to come this week.
We had a 86 or 7 Lebaron GTS. I always liked that body style, shared with the Lancer. Apparently, a front bench seat with automatic on the column was theoretically offered, but I’ve never seen one. I’d be curious how many were made. K-based Mopars were so ubiquitous and interchangeable, I’m convinced there is probably at least one extended K (“EEK”) New Yorker Turbo with stick shift out there, still with ultra-brougham tufted velour interior. The J-body Lebaron coupe and convertible could be had with the mitsu 3.0 V-6 and a 5-speed manual, which was a bit of myth, but I think 1k or so were actually built.
Modern cars/international brands would be interesting too. I was surprised to find my 2006 BMW 525i touring is one of 134 imported to the UK that year with a manual transmission; for a real rarity they brought over about 3 550i manual wagons.
Sadly more stringent emissions regs seem to have driven a move to auto transmissions and fewer engine options from the Germans – no longer can you get a 520i, 523i, 525i, 530i, 535i and 550i all with an auto or manual box…
I’ll bet the v6 Buick Century for 75 out sold the i6 Malibu. I seem to recall considerable marketing at the time for the reintroduced v6. Certainly won’t make the rare list ,I’d just like to compare them for fun.
The big Lesabre could be had with the 231 V-6. Oy that must have been miserable.
We’ll know if the CC Effect is real if someone sees the one 1975 Malibu Classic Six driving around today.
I like this series! It’s interesting how with the various unloved 6-cylinders, and with the Chevette Diesel, the unpopular engines were offered years after it became apparent that they were largely unwanted. I suppose the rationale was that Chevy could advertise a lower base price (or high mileage with the Chevette), and it was thought that that benefit alone probably brought enough customers through the door that it was worth keeping these cars in the lineup.
Aside from the mentioned benefit of CAFE, I would imagine a reason why some of these powertrain combinations lasted longer than the demand for them lasted is down to the fact that you can’t really turn off or turn on an engine option all that easily and/or cheaply. (In the case of the diesel powered Chevette did Chevy have to commit to a certain number of engines, perhaps?) Plus, I suspect that Chevy/GM produced 6 cylinder powered large and medium-sized cars because Ford did, too. (Though that is mostly speculation as I am “mobile” and can’t easily check the facts that might confirm my theory.)
I drove my 1977 Malibu Classic V8 sedan to work today. It’s powered by the 145hp 305, with the A/C blasting and lame-o 2.56 axle ratio, it’s a slug taking off from intersections.
The sixes at least had a 2.73 or 3.08 ratio to compensate.
CAFE. The more of these grossly underpowered cars they sold, the better their average fuel economy was.
No, CAFE didn’t kick in until MY 1978 so it would not have mattered one whit how many 6-cyl ’73-’77 Malibus were sold. By 1978 GM had downsized the entire A-body fleet so at that point selling more of these cars with a six would have counted.
“…it says a total of 3,844 Malibu Classics of all body styles were equipped with a six-cylinder in 1975. This number deviates from what can be derived from The Encyclopedia…”
I’ve seen the production figure of “1” for the 6-cyl. Malibu Classic sedan before, and always thought it was fishy. If there were indeed 3,844 sixes built across all body styles, it’s difficult to believe there was only one sedan.
Caution is required with production and sales figures after about 1967 – the regular sources don’t necessarily include cars imported from Canada after the inception of the the 1965 “Auto Pact”. U.S. production may not equal domestic U.S. sales.
I love the way they touted MPG figures by advertising models with powertrains nobody ever bought.
lol true. At least when they advertised FWD 2.5 Iron Duke A-bodies or V6 G-bodies a solid percentage of overall production was so equipped.
That Chevelle ad looks like 1976 to me, 18/26.
What’s interesting is that (I’m 99% sure) the 1976 Nova was advertised as 18/24, or 2 less mpg highway, with the 250 and standard trans.
I remember this because the Aspen/Volare had just come out that year, and they were advertised as 19/27 mpg for the Coupe/Sedan, but 18/30 for the wagon.
I liked the Wagon, and thought it was really “neat” that the more versatile wagon was bigger thriftier–why would anyone stay with the sedan?
The descendant of my favorite car, the 76 Mustang II was 24/34. A 76 Rabbit, a car I liked, was 25/39. Most big (aka “full-size”), with 350 and auto were 13/18-19
I was 11 and thought I knew something, as I had just discovered Car & Driver, Motor Trend, and Road Test.
Within a few years, I would realize the EPA figures were really “comparison only”, if that… And also that the ‘base’ 3 on the tree cars were non-existent.
1975 was a deep recession year, with huge ‘sticker shock’. So, makers were promoting their ‘stripped’ models. Ford brought back the Custom 500 mid year, for example. Also, there was still hangover of OPEC I.
I echo that sentiment about the manufacturers having gas economy advertising for 1975-1976. I once owned a 1976 low content slant six w/ automatic trans equipped 2 door Dodge Charger (formerly the 1975 Plymouth Fury). The slant six was advertised as the fuel economy option for that year versus the V-8s. The only other option the car had was rear window defrost grid- no A/C, no FM radio- AM only; dog dish hubcaps on black steel wheels. But it still had a 25 gallon fuel tank…
The 1976 base charger was also formerly the 1975 Dodge Coronet…
Four cylinder Nova… now they’re often mentioned as if they were common, but I only recall ever seeing just a couple few and had always figured they were about with hen’s teeth in numbers.
Anybody ever seen a figure?
Look up my other series of “the little engines that could”. One whole article
About four banger Novas.
Didn’t those four-banger Chevy IIs borrow the 195 half-V8 from Pontiac?
No, it was Chevy’s own 153 cid engine. I believe it was effectively a cut-down 230 six (230 x 4/6 = 153).
The six cylinder engined cars might have looked absurd to US consumers, but abroad, where fuel prices were far higher, speeds lower and ostentatiousness was seen as a bad thing, they in some cases outsold their V8 brethren. I am fairly certain most Malibus and El-Caminos sold in Israel came fitted with the 250, and there were Impalas like this too.
Looked like the kid in the yellow coat was going to barf all over Dad’s embarrassingly wimpy choice of wheels.
Thanks for the treatise. In the “rare production car department,” I worked with a man who had a 1976 Mercury Montego Station wagon with a manual transmission. When the clutch failed, the dealer had to wait at least two weeks until a clutch was found or manufactured for the vehicle. By that year, the equivalent Dodge and Plymouth intermediates did not even offer a manual transmission, No one wanted one, Another rare one is one of which I cannot even find a picture on the internet. It is the 1973 Dodge Polara Brougham. At the time, it was the last year of the fuselage body full-size Chrysler products. As such, it was also the last year for the unique Chestnut interior available only in the imperial. I guess that Chrysler did a quick count of what would happen if at model build-out time they would be left with these interiors. So, they offered a car called the Polara Brougham. This four-door hardtop was available with either a light cream vinyl interior or the chestnut. So, interior panels from the Imperial were used up on these cars. The problem was model proliferation. There was ther Dodge Polara, Polara Custom and Monaco. The Polara Brougham was one step below the Monaco. Hardly anyone offered one. What happened is that the factory building the Dodge had an allotment for these vehicles that had to be met. So, we at the distribution offices in the Zone Offices had to build them for what was known as sales bank. Cars that would be sold to dealers later on but in the meantime the factories were kept in production. Working in the distribution office in The New York Zone Office, I specced out these Polara Broughams.
As for the ’71-2 Impala 6 coupes, this was just a remnant of the “a la carte” ordering system. They pushed out lots and lots of I-6 sedans, mostly for the fleet & taxi cars. Since the 6 was offered in the sedans, it was no big deal to offer it in the coupes.
Same thing with stick-shift Impalas. Theoretically available in ’71-2, but I’m certain very few were sold.
To a certain extent, I feel the premise of the article is weak, when examples come down to the splitting of hairs. I have a tough time accepting that a Malibu Classic is a significantly different “model” than a base Malibu. Sure, that’s what Chevrolet said, but I’m sorry – a Malibu Classic is really no more than a trim level.
I’m going off how production models are reported. Ford and Plymouth reported theirs somewhat differently as we shall see.
As for being a weak premise, we would enjoy seeing what you are able to find and offer to build upon what is seen here.
My apologies, Jason. I now see your point. Having studied the “Standard Catalogs” for many years, there certainly are some interesting production figures worth reporting on.
As for how manufacturers choose to break down production figures, that’s entirely up to them.
I know we mostly talk about cars here, but trucks can be interesting, too.
Up until ’70, or maybe ’71, Chevrolet offered a Panel Delivery body in their truck line. Ford and Chrysler had abandoned the style in the mid-60’s, owing to the increased popularity of the van models.
Chevrolet could adapt to the shrinking number of sales because the Panel Delivery was a lot like a Suburban with some glass and interior deletes. Neither Ford nor Chrysler had anything like the Suburban, so they dropped the Panel Delivery models.
The Panel Delivery was offered in 1/2 and 3/4 ton variants, in both 2wd and 4wd models. The 3/4 ton version wasn’t very popular; “Standard Catalog” lists 2-digit (or smaller) figures for some of these models.
There was also an incredibly rare Jeep Wagoneer panel delivery in the ’60s that wasn’t discontinued until AMC took over. Later they revived the basic style, but punched out a hole for a window and added a rear seat to became the two-door Cherokee. The Cherokee was not merely a revival of the earlier two-door passenger Wagoneer.
I love uncommonly equipped vehicles like this. Really makes me miss the days that one could actually equip a car to their tastes. Anymore, you can hardly even choose the color on most cars (would you like white, silver or black to go with your gray interior?).
Thanks Jason, looking forward to the rest of the series!
The ’72 Impala 4-door sedan with 6-cylinder engine (and standard 3-speed manual transmission or optional Powerglide) was actually offered only at the beginning of the model year in the fall of 1971 and dropped by the end of the calendar year – from then-on all 1972 Impalas were V8-powered and came standard with Turbo-Hydramatic transmission as did all Caprices, station wagons and other Impala models since mid-1971. The revised 1972 full-sized Chevy brochure (issued January, 1972) which now included the new mid-year-intro Caprice 4-door pillared sedan deleted all references to 6-cylinder models and manual transmissions – even left an impression that the Bel Air came standard with the 350 V8 and Turbo-Hydro (the Biscayne had not been included in regular U.S. brochures since 1969) even though the six and 3-speed stick or Powerglide were still offered on the Bel Air and Biscayne sedans. When the 1973 full-sized Chevrolet brochures were released the Bel Air 6 with 3-speed manual transmission (and no other tranny available) was again mentioned with the V8 version again coming standard with Turbo-Hydramatic as did all Impalas, Caprices and station wagons.
That was the first ridiculously low-production Chevy I thought of. GM ended manual transmission availability through their full-size line halfway into the 1971 model year. The only production figures I know by heart are for the manual Pontiac Safari wagons – only 6 built, two of which were the upscale Grand Safari. As of five years ago, one of those two was still around.
Manual transmissions were dropped from all B-body (full-sized) Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles and Buicks – along with Chevrolets with V8 engines – in April, 1971, when Turbo-Hydramatic became standard equipment. After that time, only full-sized Chevrolets with 6-cylinder engines could be had with 3-speed manual transmissions through the 1973 model year including the early 1972 Impala 4-door sedans (other Impala models were strictly V8/automatic by this point along with Caprices and station wagons), 1972 Biscayne and Bel Air 4-door sedans, and the 1973 Bel Air 4-door sedan. The Biscayne was dropped after ’72 leaving the Bel Air as the low-line big Chevrolet through 1975 (74-75 Bel Air sedans came standard with 350 V8 engine and Turbo-Hydramatic)
I meant to mention I was referring to V8s only but somehow left that out. I knew from your earlier post the 6 cylinder Chevrolets with manuals persisted a bit longer but not with the level of detail you just provided… thanks.
My Dad had an unmarked Chicago PD ’72 Biscayne 4 door, and I am certain it had a 6 with Powerglide. Remember getting a ride in it and had the distinct I6 motor sounds.
A `67 Impala SS with a six?? That`s a real head scratcher.
Sometimes rare won’t mean desirable. But a lot of muscle/pony cars that are born with sixes end up modded beyond belief and on the auction shows on tv or in the magazines like HotRod. I’d love an old 4 door, six cylinder car just cause they should be cheaper. Not going to be my DD, so why not cruise around on weekends in it?
And one aside – I worked on a local race car in an I6 class. The hot setup in our “street stock” class was the 238 ci block and 194 ci head to get the compression ratio higher. Fairly “stock” class – not P&P, no pop top pistons, 1 bbl carb. Single disc clutch. But any cam you could grind to go with those other specs. Some guys had been doing it long enough that they had their own special cams. Sixes can make the power if you want to put in the $$$ and effort.
True enough. Look at the early 1950s Hudson 308s with dual carburetion. The engine wasn’t that big just to have a big bore…but to have oversized intake and exhaust valves for insanely good breathing. With enough fuel intake available, those sixes were screamers and more torquey than any V8 on the road at the time.
No, again. The Hudson Twin-H power 308 made 260 lb.ft. of torque. The Cadillac 331 V8 made 312 lb.ft of torque. Both made that at 1800 rpm. And I’m guessing the Olds 303 made more too.
Yes and no Paul ;
.
Remember : those Hudsons simply tore up the race tracks at the time, they ran away from pretty much evevy thing else .
.
Dyno numbers don’t entirely match real world performance .
.
-Nate
Road Test Magazine way back in the day did a test of a colonnade Chevelle with a six (not the single solitary high-trim-level 4-door, unfortunately. It was a 2-door. ). I remember it as a sort of ode to the virtues of torque.
Yes, I was going to mention that as well, Mike. I wonder if GN has a copy of the review to scan and share.
Motor Trend tested a ’74 2-door base Malibu that they ordered with a 6 & 3-on-the-tree. They actually optioned it a bit, with PolyCast wheels, Power Steering, AM-FM,and some other low-cost things. They then modded the engine with some aftermarket things, I forget exactly, possible an Edelbrock intake and a header.
A retest showed increased power and mileage with these mods.
This was early ’74, at the height of the gas crisis.
That’s the one, Roger. Not Road Test at all. I was fascinated by that article.
I am used to seeing some pretty low production figures, but with my sandbox being Mopars and Studebakers, that is understandable. Such low production models coming out of Chevrolet is a curiosity indeed.
As much as i dislike the 1971-76 GM B body cars, I would abso-freaking-lutely buy a 71-73 Chevy with the six and a three speed. Just because.
The diesel Chevette was probably a pretty decent car. It would not surprise me if GM’s horrid reputation from the V8 diesels is what actually killed the diesel ‘Vette.
I drove my uncle’s diesel Rabbit a few times (had about the same advertised horsepower as the Chevette diesl) but never considered trading in my Ford Fiesta for one. Those small, NON turbo diesels were IMHO pretty gutless and the disadvantages of driving them FAR outweighed the mileage advantage.
If you were trading in a Chevelle or an Impala that was a “commuter” car, well, yes, it made sense. But compared to other “sub-compact” cars, by 1982 the Chevette was pretty “old hat”, and it didn’t help that nearly every other car company that sold small cars also had diesel powered models. Off the top of my head, Mitsu, Mazda, and Honda were the only companies NOT offering a diesel.
BTW, both Mazda and Honda, as well as Subaru offer diesel cars in other markets today.
Oh but these cars are like having your own private Zen guru in the way they teach you about cosmic patience (ask me how I know).
Mazda offered a diesel in the 1984 626 (LX sedan only IIRC). I’ve seen exactly one, on a dealer lot.
One popped on a FB for sale page recently very rare but some are still out there this one was ex JDM.
The Chevette diesel was not available with A/C… I’d guess that limited it’s appeal to about half of the US as this option became the norm.
I think people ascribe way too much to the Oldsmobile Diesel Debacle (© geozinger). By 1986, everyone was high on cheap gas and horsepower at least in the US. I know I was…
Also, GM alone had better alternatives starting with the J bodies on down to the Spectrums and Sprints. Not to mention this was probably near-peak Japanese car era. They got rather good fuel mileage and didn’t use a sundial to time 0-60 mph runs. You had to be a true Automotive Ascetic (© geozinger) to want a Chevette diesel when a Chevy Sprint or any other of a number of equally small and economic cars were available.
Apparently the 67 Impala front suspension wasn’t modified for the weight of the six. That thing looks like it’s about to take flight!
Uh, the big block emblem is clearly visible on the fender. This is just a brochure pic, don’t forget.
Uh, that it is…
For me, I’d love to have that 6 cylinder 1972 Impala hardtop coupe!
Having driven a ’71 Biscayne six taxi cab in San Diego (with Powerglide), I can tell you it was a leisurely ride, although I still managed to get it up to 85 or so in the freeway up to LaJolla. The ’70 version I also drove was clearly a bit perkier, and it had manual steering too. Fun times! 🙂
Wow ;
.
So much great info here ! .
.
It’s not terribly difficult to un cork and wake up those emissions strangled 250 CID’s, the first thing i do is crap the EGR manifold and carby complete .
.
Using lower final drive ratios makes them O.K. for around town .
.
I find the Diesel Chevette fascinating, would love to look at and test drive one .
.
-Nate
In 1968 AMC sold 377 Rebel “550” convertibles. (Sales of the higher-trim “SST” version were higher, at a whopping 823 units sold.)
Forgot to attach a pic!
Just the sort of car I would like: 6 Cyl Impalas and Malibus. Such a minority of buyers out there.
Ironic to read all the claims of “I’d buy that if GM would offer it” [or Ford or FCA] on the internet, and then when they actually do [Chevrolet SS for example] offer what the armchair “enthusiasts” want, it sits gathering dust. Odd, as the internet is full of dental floss millionaires and their heirs, apparently.
Like the brown turbo diesel manual shift station wagon. It would sell in the same sort of numbers seen here. [Being optimistic, here].
More of those cars would probably sell if special-ordering was at all normal. Dealers tend to order cookie-cutter spec since they’d rather have a car that’s “meh,well, ok then…” to a very wide segment of the population than “exactly just right” for maybe one person just beyond the fringe of their sales area.
That makes sense too. Well said.
But I still think the market for those is as small as for the basic transportation demographic I belong in. My own unicorn is just as difficult to find.
The dealers will always stock the middle ground with enough profit margin built in to sell to the widest number of people with the least amount of hassle.
They don’t like all cash buyers either.
Those ’72 Impalas weighed 4049 pounds according to my American Cars 60-72. Now imagine that poor 250 flailing away under the hood trying to move two tons plus driver, passengers luggage and a full tank of 20 gallons of fuel weighing 6.5 pounds each. At least the 55 mph speed limit kept these from being deathtraps on the highway. I can see them having VW autostick performance with the Powerglide 🙂
Did these really save any gas? My ’68 el Camino with the 250 had to be babied to get 19, while 16-17 was the usual return, so it wasn’t any better than a friend’s 307 Chevelle.
In my experience (not with these specifically) underpowered heavy cars can get the advertised optimistic mileage or better. If you actually try to keep up with traffic around you however you’ll be doing as bad or worse than the V8 option.
I’m curious whose nomenclature you used, since Chevrolet always referred to the 3-door Chevette as a “Hatchback Coupe” and the 5-door as a “Hatchback Sedan” (which sounds odd today since “hatchback” and “sedan” are the usual two body styles on offer, both 4/5 doors).
One reason some elderly folk bought a base 6 in a big car was low purchase price, not necessarily to save gas. In the era before CAFE/Gas Crisis, these buyers had vivid memories of the Great Depression.
That’s a salient point that could very well explain the market for these final, big, ultra-strippo cars with ridiculously small engines in the late sixties/early seventies. There were still plenty of adults who had suffered through the depression as children and they not only knew the value of a dollar, but the value of a penny, and the memories of hunger were vivid enough that they’d buy the absolute cheapest car, yet still full-size in the manner they’d remember, that they possibly could, even if the level of performance could be described as glacial.
The flip side of that was what killed the diesel Chevette, people wanting a brand-new 10-year-old subcompact at a time of cheap gas wanted a low purchase price first of all (“small but nice” shoppers looked elsewhere) and the diesel came at a solid premium.
Does anyone know how much more the Chevette diesel might have been over the gas version? It’s ironic that the diesel Chevette probably approached the price of a stripper full-size with a six. Imagine a drag race between those two stones.
On the other end of the Chevelle/Malibu spectrum, how about the one year oddity ’73 SS wagon? I don’t know of any official production numbers since it was basically a trim package, but the speculation is a few hundred total and less than 50 powered by the 454.
Interesting read, thanks. As a collector of (often soon to be forgotten) arcane facts, I’m looking forward to future editions in this series.
The entirely theoretical optioning of my favourite old cars is why I can waste hours at a time in car brochures. That’d be the paper things they issued before the directive to download some file and view on screen
On a tangent, do any Curbivores(TM – Don A) have experiences or stories where ordering the unicorn was purposely made difficult by the dealer? I’ve read that for some of the homologation models or hero muscle cars buyers were vetted, availability was kept quiet, advertising was nil or the production run was already allocated prior to commencement.
I do get the part where no warranties were given, but the rest of it?
Nope, I believe ‘Curbivore’ is a Roger Carr CC (Creative Common).
A fascinating article, and of course it’s by Jason.
I have to wonder why Chevrolet even made their big cars available with a six, especially once the bloat set in. Even more amazing is that they found that many buyers. To a foreigner, the idea of a car this size with a six just does not compute.
It’s old, but if we’re talking ridiculously low-production Chevys some mention must be made of the 1923 Series C with the “copper cooled” engine that made the Vega engine look like a paragon of reliability by comparison. At one point considered *the* engine for future Chevrolets (and maybe Oaklands too), only 100 were sold. Several hundred were built, but nearly all of them were recalled and destroyed.
If I recall correctly, legend has it that the recalled cars were unceremoniously dumped in one of the Great Lakes.
One of the few that escaped the cull was the one in the Henry Ford museum (bought by Ford for evaluation?)
A roommate of mine in the late ’80’s had a Diesel Chevette – the only one I’ve ever encountered. I can imagine that it wasn’t much fun on the highway – even the ’81 Datsun 310 I had at the time would have left it in the dust.
Anyone have the numbers for the ’84 diesel El Camino? I think ’84 was the last year for the Olds 5.7L option, and I believe less than 100 were built.
I can almost believe that number for the 1975 Malibu Classic. The 307 was dead after 74 and the 305 didn’t bow until 76. That left the 350 2bbl as the cheapest V8 for 1975.
I wonder if the GM Heritage Center has deeper info.
Sean is correct, the 305 didn’t bow until 1976 (the year I started digging into car magazines).
In 1975, between the 250 I-6 and the 350 Chevy V8, GM offered a 262 cid V8 in the Nova.
I suspect it was available in the Malibu/Chevelle also. Can anyone confirm?
Also, GM offered a 260 cid version of the 350 Olds engine. This was optional in Cutlasses, as well as the non-Chevy Nova variants (Omega-Ventura-Apollo/Sklylar)
Per GM Heritage Website, you are correct, 350-2bbl was cheapest V8 available on Chevelle in 1975.
My sense is that GM did not offer sub-350 V8s in midsize cars in 1975, but did (Olds) starting in 1976.
Chevy had the good sense to replace the 262 with the 305, and that WAS avail in mid-size starting in 1976
Olds began offering its small 260 V8 on Cutlass and Omega models in 1975. The Chevy 262 was a 1975 and early-1976 option on the Monza and Nova. The 305 replaced the smaller V8 on the Nova and became the base Malibu/Monte Carlo V8 for 1976, it was initially the only V8 offered for Monzas in California, replacing the ’75’s 350. The 305 replaced the 262 as the Monza V8 option in the other 49 states in mid-76. Either Monza V8 was a PITA for routine maintenance as you had to jack up the engine to change the spark plugs.
1973 was the final year for the 307 and it wasn’t even offered at all in California the last two years, it was replaced for 1974 by the 350-2 as the base V8 for Malibu, Camaro and Nova. In this very last year, the 307 was only offered with a 3-speed manual transmission in the 1973 Malibu (just like that year’s swan song Bel Air 6 4-door sedan) but could still be had with Turbo-Hydramatic in Nova and Camaro.
This post reminds me (as so many of them here do) of 2 automotive-related things in my past…
My dad tried to persuade the local Chevy dealer to sell him a ’68 or ’69 Nova with a FOUR-cylinder engine (the one that was half a small block V-8). For whatever reason, they couldn’t or wouldn’t do it.
How many Novas with fours were ever made?
Sometime in the mid-’70’s, I MAY have ridden in one of the Impala coupes with the 6-cylinder engine. At the time, I was amazed that it had a 3-speed column shift. If the owner ever told me what engine was in it, I don’t recall now.
I remember reading a book on business mis-steps back in the late 80s. Apparently Chevy’s marketing people released a “4-cylinder Nova” special sale in 1970, just as engineering pulled the plug on it. Evidently, the different departments weren’t communicating. In DeLorean’s book, he claimed that he was told “Chevy is in a mess” by the 12th floor just before they sent him there. Stories like this tend to re-enforce that perception.
I’m adding a comment to a 5 year old article, but that’s because I just stumbled upon an ad showing a 1973 Malibu Wagon with a running factory 6 cylinder and manual transmission! It’s on FB marketplace in Queens NY for $4,500. Says it runs good, has some repairable rust, and that the steering column could use some bushings (a complaint I’ve seen with 3 on the tree cars).
I couldn’t believe my eyes. There is even a pic showing the 3 pedals. Must be so slow, but what a car show head scratcher you’d have!
Even though I regularly see production figures of about 2,500, I remain unconvinced that the 1978 Chevrolet Monza S ever existed except in some brochures. This was basically a Vega hatchback with a Monza wagon front clip, powered by the Iron Duke four and possibly an optional V8. Googling it yields nothing except that one brochure photo and references to production figures. The usual story is that there were leftover 1977 Vega bodies that had to be used up, but this seems unlikely. Curiously, there was a model kit version made by MPC that is also very rare but there seems to be at least 15 or so accounted for; these included both an Iron Duke and a 305 V8 and you could build it either way. Oddly the box made no mention of either the Vega or Monza; it was just called a Chevy Sportback (or in the instructions, Chevy Hatchback).
The model kit was reissued in recent years. I bought a couple, one to convert into a wagon and the other to kitbash with a Monza 2+2 kit to make a Monza 2+2 with the base front.
My aunt had a 1975 Chevelle sedan with the six. She bought it to replace her ’66 Bel Air 2-door sedan, also equipped with a six, thinking the new car would perform at least as well as the old one. She called the Chevelle the “gutless wonder.” We all blamed the catalytic converter, first year for those, as they sapped performance from every car on the market. The 455 in the Pontiac Trans Am lost 50 horsepower (250 to 200) in ’75 and the Caddy 500 dropped to 190 hp.
Rare as these cars may be, they’ll never be particularly valuable because rarity means nothing unless combined with desirability.
The most popular combo in most mid and full size GM cars in the early 1970’s was the “350/350,” as in a 350 V8 (Chevy, Pontiac, Buick or Olds) and a Turbo Hydra-matic 350 tranny. Any smaller was a complete waste as the fuel savings wasn’t worth the performance penalty.
When the downsizing wave started in ’77, the 305 took over as the most popular V8 size, as Pontiac introduced the 301 and Oldsmobile the 307. Buick was too busy promoting its V6’s and didn’t offer a V8 in the 5-liter range despite having a 300 V8 when that generation was introduced in the mid-1960’s.
And then there was that time GM allegedly asked for the rights to the 215 aluminum V8 back from British Leyland. Leyland apparently replied they’d be perfectly happy to supply the engines themselves for an absurdly high price.
This is a fable. For one, Rover (and subsequently British Leyland) was manufacturing the aluminum engines under license, using their own tooling, so there was nothing stopping GM from putting the engine back into production if they wanted to. They didn’t NEED to buy anything back if they had wanted to resume production.
To the extent this story isn’t just malarkey, it may have been conflating the aluminum V-8 with the Fireball V-6, since GM and AMC did discuss the possibility of AMC putting the engine back into production and selling complete engines to GM. In that case, GM didn’t still have the tooling, which had been sold to Kaiser Jeep in 1967. However, since AMC had no plans to use the V-6 in-house, putting it back into production to supply GM didn’t make any financial sense for anyone, so GM eventually just bought the tooling back.
According to British Leyland engineers of the ’70s, GM was always incredulous that BL was still bothering with the aluminum engine, which had been a costly disaster for Buick and Oldsmobile. From GM’s perspective, the 90-degree V-6 did basically everything the aluminum 3.5-liter V-8 did for a lot less money. By the late ’70s, the V-6 was needed in much greater numbers than the Buick V-8 to which it was related, which is probably why the latter expired by 1981.
Olds’ 307 didn’t appear until the 80’s. 260 was around in ’77-’79. Mother had a ’78 Cutlass Supreme with the 260. Was slow, but smoother than the Buick v6 we also had in an ’80 Regal.
Dad had a 1988, final year, RWD Cutlass Supreme with 307, and was only a bit quicker than the 260.
I hope the people who ordered a big Chevy with the six test drove one first.
I’m willing to bet that single Malibu Classic I6 was ordered by folks wanting to save money, since it was a recession, but wanted the “nicer interior” of the Classic. The base Malibu trim was plain as plain could be.
One thing I’d learned about diesel Chevettes is that apparently you could get one with a 3-speed automatic, for those keen on being outdragged by a ’60s VW bus with a misfire!
I had a ’74 Chevelle Malibu Classic sedan with a six and three on the tree, I think that most of those cars were made for export. It was very slow but I liked the way it drove. It was really worn out, used up and it ran on propane due to high gas prices here. I wouldn’t be suprised if 70 hp remained.
Before that I had another unusual car. A pretty 1980 Fairmont Futura coupe in red with a vinyl roof, seperate front seats, 4 speed and a 2.3!
Must have been very rare, I don’t think that more than 1000 Futura coupes had that drivetrain in 1980. I disliked driving it, the N/A 2.3 was much too slow for me. The Chevelle wasn’t any faster but it did have more torque and I prefer the feel of a larger car.