(first posted 5/27/2014) The big B-bodies of 1971 to 1976 are certainly a love or hate type of automobile. With Perry’s recent e-bay find of a ’75 Chevrolet Bel-Air wagon (here), and my subsequent discovery of one in the flesh ninety minutes after the article appeared, the various rarities of B-body prompted my curiosity about power train combinations.
Large and thirsty, these were the pinnacle of big car extravagance. Yet despite their girth, there were some that simply didn’t fit into the stereotypical V8 with automatic transmission description.
Many might be surprised to learn Chevrolet still offered a six-cylinder engine until model year 1974. Those bumpers were getting heavier and engines were more smog compliant, so loading down a six-banger could have been a recipe for disaster. However, it is the availability and build rate up until 1974 that is the surprise and the focus.
The table above breaks down six-cylinder production by model for 1971 and 1972; there is no production information for the 1973 model year but the six was limited to the Bel-Air sedans for its final year. Seeing a B-body of this generation having a six-cylinder is about as frequent as hen’s teeth and a full lunar eclipse. Unfortunately, I could not find any information for production of three-speed manual transmissions for any of the three years.
However, Chevrolet did have a three-speed on the standard equipment list through 1973, hooked only to the six-cylinder engine.
If you think these Chevrolet’s are rare, let’s talk about Pontiac.
Pontiac made automatic transmissions standard equipment in March 1971. Looking at this, it is easy to understand why. On the other hand, GM deserves a lot of credit for engineering all the mechanisms needed for a transmission that was hardly purchased.
Finding one of the two Grand Villes with a three-on-the-tree would be quite a holy grail. Click on any of these pictures to better read the verbiage.
Taking the next rung of the Sloan Ladder delivers us to Oldsmobile. Quoting from page 613 of the Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946 – 1975, Revised 4th Edition, says about Olds: “Three-speed manual transmission was standard on all but 98s and Toronados”.
One could have had a dandy ’71 Olds Delta 88 with a three-speed. If available with a 455 (7.5 liter) V8, that would have been quite a fun ride, indeed. For 1972, the automatic transmission was standard fare on the full-sizers.
Oldcarbrochures corroborates my other source. Something makes me think there is a three-speed ’71 Delta 88 lingering in a barn, waiting for rescue.
Let’s not overlook Buick. Again looking at the same source, and confirmed by oldcarbrochures, a three-speed manual transmission was standard fare in the LeSabre, LeSabre Custom, and Centurion series in 1971. Like Pontiac and Oldsmobile, Buick only offered an automatic transmission for 1972.
In 1976, Buick made the 231 cubic inch (3.8 liter) V6 available for the LeSabre.
Do any of these still exist? Undoubtedly one does somewhere.
“One could have had a dandy ’71 Olds Delta 88 with a three-speed. If available with a 455 (7.5 liter) V8, that would have been quite a fun ride, indeed.”
Not 3 on the tree. 4 on the floor perhaps but for the love of god not a bulky shifting 3 on the tree.
Spec sheet says 3 on the tree only. But yes, Delta 88 with 455 4bbl, Strato bucket seats, full length console with a 4 speed shifter as a centerpiece…one can only dream, or build their own vision of what Olds could have built.
Nah, by that time Oldsmobile had in regards to their version of the B Body went back to catering to a clientele who could remember where they were and what they were doing when news of the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping first came over the wire. Nothing more exciting or chance taking in regards to Oldsmobile and the B Body would happen.
Would it even have been theoretically possible to order a 455 with the three-speed? I haven’t looked through the spec sheets, but I know Chevrolet in this era offered certain engines that did not actually come with any transmission as standard equipment — that is, all of the transmissions that could be mated with that engine were technically extra-cost options, although obviously that didn’t mean a few cars were built without transmissions!
IIRC, circa 1972 the largest engine that Chevy offered with the 3-speed manual was the big block 400 (402), which could be ordered so equipped in Chevelle and El Caminos. It even came with a heavy-duty Muncie version of the 3-speed, different from the Saginaw 3-speed available in other cars (the other transmissions offered with the big block V8s were also heavy-duty units). 454s came only with 4-speed or automatics. Comments elsewhere in this thread suggest that other GM divisions may have made their 455 V8s available with 3-speeds, however.
The brochures in the article show 3-speed column shift being standard with a 455 on some Buick, Olds and Pontiac models. I never would’ve guessed that was still available as late as 1971, but there it is in black & white! I’m sure the Olds and Buicks equipped this way were even rarer than the 156 Pontiacs that got a column-shift 3-speed in ’71.
All I was really trying to say is, if you are going to fantasize about big block cars with manual trans, at least make it a decent manual trans, not an awful one.
I still own a ’79 Malibu V8 four speed coupe that I bought new. When I ordered it there was no standard transmission. With the V8 you had to pay for either a four speed or automatic. The V6 had a standard 3 speed on the floor.
Easy swap!!! Thee speed to four!!!
The blue Bel Air wagon you found might not be a total stripper. Check out the remote control outside mirror and the tinted glass could be and indication of A/C.
Had an old girlfriend whose mom had a ’72 Biscayne 4 dr. 6 cyl with Powerglide, AM radio, tinted windshield only. She wanted a cheap big car (said they’re safer, u know) and got one.
Or those could have replaced the original items at some point during the 4 decades of its life. It is not uncommon that a car has its door replaced over that time period and the same with its windshield.
when I was growing up in the 70s my retired next door neighbor had a 73 Bel Air 4dr sedan with a six…it stood out in my kid mind because I couldn’t figure out why it looked plain but was a Bel Air… I hadn’t grasped the idea of model names moving down the prestige ladder yet. 🙂
Wow! The 72 BelAir 6 my Uncle had approaches the rarity of an Eldorado Brougham from the 50s. His had the powerglide though. It replaced a 63 Belair six. He promptly traded the 72 with in a year for a 73 Impala Sport Sedan with the 8 which he kept well into the 80’s. The 6 must have been awful since as you can see he was not one to trade cars regularly. Both the 72 or 73 had no Air which was the only ones I had seen that way. Of course we lived in Mobile, AL at the time and he in Harrisburg, PA.
Would certainly love to see one of the Big Pontiacs, Buicks or Olds with the 3 speed. A friend of mines Dad had a 71 or 72 Buick Sylark Custom 2 Door Hardtop with the 3 speed. Thought it was a very strange car at the time. His Dad was a traveling salesman and it was his road car.
“Both the 72 or 73 had no Air…..”
They were just Bels?
“His had the powerglide though”
I think 1973 was the last year Powerglides were built. Until pretty near the end, IINM, all Chevy six-cylinder automatics had Powerglides.
’72 was the swansong year for P R N D L Powerglide. The sixes by this time were available with ‘Glide or THM 350’s . . . .
Nice write-up. However, rarity does not always mean desirabilily…Often a car is rare for a reason.
That is exactly how I described the Bel-Air wagon to someone the other day. The only degree of desirability springs from the oddball factor.
More to the point, I would love someone to drive that huge sled wagon with its Stovelbolt 6 and Three on the Tree and report back what the experience was like.
Cannot tell of driving that particular big sled but drove plenty others. Biggest, IIRC was a 62 or 63 full size (Biscayne I suppose-maybe not). This is what I remember about that. Speed was reasonable because I lived in Panama. That size body was not adequately motivated by 235 cubic inches for US or Canada. Guess a 235 actually made it a 62 as IIRC the 230 replaced it in 63. Three speeds probably was enough for transportation. It needed to be faster a little later.
What never seemed to hold up was the linkage. By the time I owned most of them the linkage was sloppy and always hung up. You could buy floor conversion kits from almost everywhere. I only had two problems with those. In a couple of them it wiped out the backup lights. Moving the switch too fixed that, or – you could just ignore it. On my 73 F100 the kit I bought ran things exactly backwards. I know there must have been a simple reason for that but I don’t know what it was. Couple mechanics didn’t either. Good theft prevention afaiic. Floor shift conversions were otherwise an adequate response.
In 1981 when I retired, the v6 had seemingly taken over as the engine for full size american cars although the definition for full size had changed.
Driving one now would be, I believe, unthinkable on the freeway. Not enough power, gears, or speed. I could get along with it where I live just like I could a little kei truck. Interstates are made for the 90%. 10%ers need to stay in the boondocks or off road. This wagon with a six and three speed is certainly a 10%er.
And of course, Lee, the 1974 had plenty more Road Hugging Weight than the ’63 you describe, in the order of about 1000 lbs.
Absolutely agree. Mine wasn’t even a wagon so the difference might be even more.
Back in 1981, there was a guy in Wahiawa (Hawaii) you was selling a clean. 1960 Chevy Bel Air 2-door sedan. Powerglide and the 235 Blue Flame Six. Not a barnstormer, but would get up to speed adequately, but that speed would be 45-60 mph. Leisurely, yes . . . . horribly slow, not really. The sixes were popular in the islands when new for obvious reasons.
Hah! Turns out I wasn’t the only one with column-to-floor shifter issues in a Ford truck. I had a ’72 F100 that I installed a Sparkomatic (remember them?) and never could figure out how to correct the shift pattern.
Mine was a 73 F100. Could it be that a trend is developing.
I think there are a few F100 owners here, Sir Paul for one and I have a 78 with a 3OTT and the 300 I6.
I have a 1980 F-100 300-3 in the tree with a Hurst Indy floor shift kit. I had to replace the bench seat with buckets from an early Bronco as it was near impossible to get in 1st. The nice thing about the six is that you are only using 2-3 around town and it has such long legs there isn’t a whole lot of shifting involved.
In a way, it seems sort of in character. Three-speed column shifts tend to require slow, deliberate action, which is about all the six would allow in a car this heavy anyway.
@AAWM If you had to shift fast there was a little trick that helped. Go from 1st to 3rd then slam into second before you pop the clutch. I don’t know why this worked but it did. Taught to me by my Dad who probably wished later that he hadn’t. I liked to drag race. That avoided a bunch of shifter linkage hangups.
In his old Falcons, Dad always used to slam from first to second gear with horrible loud crashing and clanking noises coming from the column, and had to get the linkage fixed every other year. I always regarded that as normal until I had proper driving lessons and was taught how to manage a column gearshift properly. There was no need to hurry the shift, and pause it slightly in neutral. Of course the (ex-police) instructor didn’t actually SAY Dad was doing it wrong, but… 🙂
When I was in the Air Force, I used to see a lot of these stripper vehicles, used by military personnel in their daily duty. The same color also, makes me wonder if it is by chance an ex-military vehicle.
i drove plenty of pickups in that era that were six cylinder 3 on the tree….complete strippers. my brand new 1981 C10 was so equipped! loved them…..and they were of comparable weight as full size sedans. i loved them. they weren’t sports cars, but they made sense. american v8’s were overated….give me a big straight six anytime.
When I was in high school in the mid/late ’80s, I had a friend whose parents had a ’78 Chevy Van with a 3-on-the-tree. It sticks out in my mind because I don’t know if I knew of any others like it. I don’t remember what it had for an engine, but it was probably a six.
That looks like an ex-USAF spec vehicle to me.
I spent quite a bit of time behind the wheel of both a ’71 and ’70 Biscayne taxi in San Diego in 1976. They had the six and PG.The ’71 had PS; the ’70 didn’t. The ’71 was a real dog; the ’70 felt almost spritely compared to it. And the ’70, although a year older felt much more solid; the ’71 shook like a bucket of loose bolts. By then, these taxis were 5-7 years old and undoubtedly had well over a half million miles on them.
This was one of the old-school big Yellow Cab operations that had a monopoly, and they had their own large garage and even rebuilt their own engines there.
The newest cabs were some ’73 Biscaynes with the 350/350 power-train; the were like rockets compared to the sixes. As low man on the totem pole, I only got behind the wheel of one of them once or twice.
The oddest thing was that GM sent them a Pontiac RWD (Nova-clone) Phoenix with a pre-production iron Duke for real-world high-mileage testing . Whoa! I had no idea that engine was even coming until this little Phoenix shows up and everyone is staring into its engine bay. A four banger!! We all thought that was history, since the Chevy II four went away some years earlier.
The Phoenix was a slug, but it sure did handle fantastic; a great platform with almost no weight up front. The Iron Duke went into production a few months later.
I know someone that had a chance to drive a 77-78 or so 4 banger RWD Phoenix in 80’s and he shared the same expression, it was a dog.
“’73 Biscaynes”
They must have been Bel Airs (or they were older than ’73s) — there were no ’73 Biscaynes, at least not in the U.S.
You’re right. It just seemed like a Biscayne 🙂
Might be a Canadian Biscayne who had found a way to go to San Diego. 😉
The Biscayne lasted up to 1975 in Canada and perhaps some export markets
Ford did a similar thing when developing the XR6 Turbo Falcon – think you would have liked a 360hp taxi?
So which was faster (in a straight line), the ’71 Biscayne or the Iron Duke Phoenix? I’m guessing the Pontiac was automatic-equipped as well, which must have made it extra painful. If I’m remembering correctly, the standard transmission on those was the Borg-Warner T50 5-speed that was also available behind the Buick V6 and Olds 260 (gas or diesel) some years. That would’ve made it at least a little more livable. I’d love to drive one of those just to see what it’s like, and of course a “Super Duty” Iron Duke Phoenix would be way cool.
I don’t know. probably the Phoenix 🙂 At least it had a three-speed THM. They wouldn’t have sent a stick to a taxi company.
Comparing apples with oranges as since the 70’s went on, more stuff was hung onto/added into the engines with the primitive fuel delivery/emission control systems, which for these OHV carb’d fours and sixes, sapped what little performance there was. Paul hit the nail on the head with the driveability of a 1970 Biscayne Six/PG with a ’71 . . . . also remember, ’71 California emissions were getting stricter – more so – compared with the other 49 + territories. . . . .
Compare 1971 cars against ’73 or ’74 models . . . .
Looks like power steering was optional on the Catalina Brougham with the 400 V8 and the Catalina with the 350. So you could get a 400 V8 3 on the tree no PS Brougham. But with the 6 in the other models PS was standard. It even looks like you could get a 455 4 Barrel in either model with 3 tree no PS. That would be a parallel parking nightmare.
The straight 6 did briefly return to the Chevrolet B from 1977-1979, I’ve seen one of those before, in a cheapo Impala. I wonder what kind of MPG a stripper 6 banger 3 speed Biscayne would get with the steepest 2.50 something rear. Only 4000 6’s even in the cheapest big Chevy indicates that there really wasn’t much demand for one, the 6 cylinder does look lost in the big B-body engine compartment.
My grandparents purchased a new ’77 Impala with a 250 – 6. It was midrange with options. It returned about 20 mpg, maybe less; I was 4 when they bought it and 12 when it went away.
In all my years, I never once saw a 1977-79 B Body with a Stovebolt.
The later V-6’s used as much or more fuel as the V-8’s as you had to put to the rug half the time to get the thing to move at any rate that wasn’t suicidal. Using this metric, I can’t see the Stovie being a lot better. In a stripper BelAir the 195 lb/ft would make the 3600 lb car at least able to keep up with traffic but in heavier versions, no way.
V-6 B Bodies were Dogimus Maximus, a stain on a great line of cars.
That straight 6 Impala was the only one I’ve ever seen, it was at a car show, it didn’t even have air, but it was super clean. The stovebolt looks so odd in the engine compartment of a newer car. I’ve never driven a V6 B, but once I did drive a 4.1 V6 1981 Sedan deVille, it was pretty slow.
Back on 03/06/10 I cataloged a 77 Impala 2dr at the impound auction that had the 250. The VIN was 1L47D7J289747. It went for $525. When I get home I’ll post the photos. Back in High School one of my friends girlfriends had a 78 4dr Impala with one also. Those are the only two I’ve seen myself.
I didn’t realize the straight-6 ’77-’79s were so uncommon; would’ve thought that if they were popular anywhere, it’d be Canada.
I’ve driven a few “big” American cars with sixes from the feedback carb era and they’re all completely gutless, but I still think the last of the straight six Chevys are pretty cool. Just need about 50 more horsepower and a 200R-4 + quicker rear axle ratio to be enjoyable. Much easier to accomplish with even a fairly lame V8, but who would care? A twin-carb or EFI Stovebolt under the hood of a ’77 Impala coupe would draw a crowd every time.
I don’t have any seat time in one, but the later 4.3l V6 Caprice looks respectable on paper. The power:weight ratio is similar to wimpier 305 and 307-powered B-bodies and they reportedly got decent mileage. I remember seeing lots of them as taxis when I was a wee lad and I still spot them somewhat regularly even now.
The 4.3 V6 in these cars was pretty gutless; very different from their Vortec guise in the trucks of the ’90s. A Blazer or Bravada with the 4.3 felt swift, so borrowing my friend’s ’86ish Caprice with the V6 was a surprise. A lot of foot-to-the-floor driving in that, too.
From 1970 onward, I think the six is best thought of as a credit option. There was no longer any engine offered in between the six and the 350; the six was only available in a limited number of body styles; and it was only produced in very small numbers.
Technically, neither the six nor the V8 was an option over the other, and never had been, because Chevrolet regarded the six and V8 versions as distinct models.
These early 70s Chevs were available in NZ new, Aussie assembled but special order only NO 6 cylinder engines though, it was V8 auto or buy a Holden with 6 so the chance of me seeing a poverty pack version is remote.
Don’t know where you guys got them from, but Holden stopped assembling Chevys here in 1968. I believe they may have been available on special order from a large dealer in the capital cities, (then maybe some hopped the trench?) but no proof, and despite living in Melbourne back then I never saw any ’69-’73s. I remember seeing an ad in the paper in ’74 IIRC from a Melbourne dealer offering big Chevys, and that kinda stuck in my mind, as we hadn’t seen them here for a while. I’ve only seen one of them, and that was about five years ago.
I’ve seen a 73 Chevy B Kingswood wagon in Adelaide that was brought in for hearse duties, and a 75 more recently in Just Auto. Both RHD, most probably Chappel conversions. Also saw a RHD 69 chev wagon in Adelaide. I figure these were brought in back in the day because people rarely bother with the conversions these days. I’d say your large dealer call is the right one.
Saw several in Sydney in the late 80s they were well worn dungas and some for sale cheap all RHD.
No. The lastAustralian assembled Chevrolets & Pontiacs came out in 1968.
So no way did any early ’70s imports of them to NZ pass through Australia.
Unless it was to convert them to RHD. And that was done by independent
converters.
The last big Chev (new in NZ) that I ever saw was the 1968 Impala, I never saw any brand new ’69 to ’74 large American cars here at all after that (until a local person who won a lot of money somehow managed to import a new fire engine red Torino V8 and became something of an Auckland celeb due the ‘Starsky & Hutch’ hype at the time.
The Glen Murray farmer whose daughters I liked so much who had the beige NZ-new ’67 Impala 283 (which had replaced a dark green Rambler Classic V8) eventually replaced it with a couple of Holdens ..a beige 3OTT ’68 186 Kingswood ute for the lambs ..and a ’69 Monaro 308 (dark green with beige racing stripes) for the girls ..3 of ..all blue-i’d blonde amazons, close genetic copies of their friendly mother (whom i also liked) ..actually after the Impala went they used to travel in two cars (the Holdens) ..whereas they had looked amazingly cute when all packed together into the Impala sadly ..i still have this clear vision of the Impala wafting past me on the road up a slight hill at the end of Flaxmill Bay, the girls waving out the back window, it’s engine thudding in V8 syncopation due the loading, and my heart doing the same in appreciation as the not unattractive ‘woofling’ rear end of the Impala disappeared off into the distance in the direction of Cook’s Beach..
OK I could be wrong on where they came from, however new pickups and some sedans were available in NZ cars were on special order no remittance imports but pickup sales were still going in 84 when I left, My old man was company sec of a Chevrolet,Vauxhall,Bedford,Holden dealership, Ive a pretty good knowledge on what was available/edit 68 was the last year of CKD assembly
Did they have any advantage over the home grown V8s or just ask prestige purchase?.
Well they were certainly bigger, if you wanted bigger. Holden’s biggest was a 114″ wheelbase and seemed to have as much room as anyone could want. I don’t know that ‘American’ would have carried any prestige factor by then, most folk would have seen them as over the top. Uncle Ted had a ’65 Bel Air, and that seemed almost cartoonishly big for the five of them – and these were even bigger yet.
I respectfully do not get how these cars appeal to anybody when there are so many superior B- body choices around…
The ’71-76’s had the poorest space utilization, were overweight, rusted quickly, and had shoddy build quality. They handled well for a big car, but a ’69-’70 with an F-41 swaybar package handled well too. The ’77-up B’s handled even better with just as much space, better build quality and 700 lbs less weight.
Because some of them are good looking.
Because they had the biggest engines.
Because cars were never bigger, before or since. The Fleetwood was 234 in long. That’s almost 2 feet on the ’77-’92. Over 3 feet, I think, on a present day XTS. Enormous. We will never see cars like that again.
I have to agree with Orrin. Practicality has little bearing on the desirability of these bodies. They are the largest thing on earth that still works to human scale. What was important to contemporaneous buyers is now moot, really. Less internal space than a full size 70? Maybe, but I’m not looking at one of these to move the family around. It’s now at cruiser status, more often than not with a single occupant.
Modern cars are leagues ahead in practicality stakes, but these Bs are soooooo good looking. These are excess in excelsis. I keep saying it, but to these Australian eyes these are as exotic as any two door European.
Right. I’m paraphrasing someone else on CC here but they are the last GM cars not to apologize for themselves in any way. Not to say “I am downsized for a world worried about gas prices”. Not to say “I have a grey interior so that I can be competitive and comparable with European and Japanese tastes”. Not to say “I am front wheel drive for handling”. Not to say “my length has been deemed unreasonable by the cognoscenti, I should be smaller”.
They were designed in the late 60s/early 70s, the last years America thought it had nowhere to go but up. The end years of postwar exuberance. We may have been deluded, but we will never have that kind of confidence again and I love how these cars reflect it.
Nailed it! Thats what I thought, but never was able to articulate that well.
very, very well said.
It’s true! Look at the design sensibilities of any nation during the height of their confidence and you’ll see a similar trend. The 71-76 cars married the Fuselage look with a crisp linearity and they remind me of torpedos, submarines and jumbo jets.
It’s interesting to contrast that era with what I consider “peak Japanese” confidence, between the mid 80’s through the 90’s, when they went all out, in their own Japanese way, and they came out with all sorts of interesting cars, 4 wheel steering Preludes and 626’s, turbo everything, adjustable suspensions, the NSX, digital dashes, the move up market to Infiniti, Acura and Lexus, twin turbo’ed all wheel drive, all wheel steering Stealth/3000GT’s with electronic spoilers that moved on their own. The Diamond-Star AWD turbo cars, the Miata, etc etc.
Today, its mostly very bland and sameness all around with homogenous designs and trends throughout the industry.
True, Carmine. Japan’s economic stagflation began in the early 90s and hasn’t really recovered.
Yep, as jon7190 said; nailed it. Couldn’t have said it any better.
Carmine, a good example of what you are referring to (ie: jap hi techo whizz) was the ’85 Subaru Alycone, sometimes called the ‘Vortex’ ..this cool AWD coupe would automatically lower it’s air suspension height at 80kms and had an aircraft style full digital cockpit ..and a very pretty upswept rear profile with a wedge front end ..cd of 0.29 ..a high top speed for 1781cc ..and very good acceleration from the boosted boxer engine ..but a very expensive motorcar to buy new ..depreciation was shocking so these were great bargains to obtain after just a few years on..
I had two of them at different times..one an AWD in metallic aquamarine and the other a white FWD version ..they were both really eye catching vehicles at the time ..nothing else around like them, so quite unique in their fun quirkiness
Rust issues… whoo boy did they! I had a ’73 Impala 4dr hardtop that the previous owner had slathered roof cement all over the vinyl top, found out why one day when just messing around I slammed my hand on the roof and it went through…
All I can say is of the 16 cars I own, I get more inquiries on whether or not my 74 Impala is for sale than I do in any of the other ones. By a factor of a 100! When I’m not home, my wife says at least once a week someone stops by wanting to know the same.
While on the topic of rare full-sized 70s wagons, when was the last time anyone saw a mid 70s Dodge Royal Monaco wagon or Plymouth Gran Fury wagon? I’ve seen maybe a handful in my lifetime. Even when new, they were not popular. And rusted like anything, from the ones I saw. The Gran Fury wagons I recall, seemed to be mostly fleet vehicles. I do recall the similar vintage Town and Country wagons being somewhat more common.
I find it hard to imagine a slant six powering one of these.
Which is why the 400 was standard. I think the Plymouth is the best looking ’70 full-size wagon.
The mid 70s Town and Country always appealed to me. Especially when they acquired the Imperial grille.
That’s been cobbled together – the T&C never got the Imperial front clip. This is a final-year ’77…
I actually saw one of these the other day on the road, it was burgundy and all the wood had been painted over, but it looked pretty clean.
..a bit like driving a single storied building on wheels
One Sunday afternoon in 1988 or 1989, when I was in my late teens, I took a walk to a used-car dealer near my house, to see what they had sitting on their lot. I wanted to get a sense of what I might be able to afford if I bought a car. I distinctly remember that they had a ’77 Royal Monaco station wagon. Probably the last time I’ve ever seen one. The only other car I remember was a ’65 Dodge Coronet four-door sedan, which had to be by far the oldest car there (this was in Massachusetts, where daily drivers from the ’60s, even the late ’60s, were already getting scarce).
The slant six would had been pushed so hard to work in these cars. I wonder if the Aussie Hemi 6 would had been better under the hood of these C-bodies wagon?
The 245 was plenty good in my VG hardtop, but I’d hate to have it pull a full size wagon up a hill.
The Hemi 6 came in a 265ci version that had 162hp and 225lb-ft in final ELB form, which was a slight increase on the earlier emissioned form but down on the earlier 203hp/262lb-ft output before any emission controls were in place. All of these are with a 2-bbl Carter, the only alternative intake was the triple Webers on the hot Charger R/T E37/38/48/49 versions, peaking at 302hp/325lb-ft.
Alternative versions of the engine were 215 and 245ci, but I remember reading they had planned to build a larger size for use in US trucks (presumably pickups, but these engines were used in light/medium duty trucks in Australia)
The 198″ 6-cyl station wagon weighed 3540lb, a 318/360 V8 was 170lb more, so quite a bit lighter than the full-size US cars.
E49 was an option throughout the range Chrysler admit to assembling at least one ute so optioned, the R/T Charger had the E49 option as standard but it was available on anything if you had the coin.
I love the hidden headlights on the Monaco wagon. What other wagons came with them? Country Squire, Colony Park/Marquis, Town & Country, and I think that’s it. Am I missing one?
The T&C never had hidden headlamps, but I believe the Plymouth Sport Suburban did from 1970-’72.
That’s right, I confused it with the New Yorker Brougham. Odd that the Dodge and Plymouth wagons had them at times, but never the Chrysler!
Yes you’re missing ’68 and ’69 (I think those 2 years) TOL Chevy wagons… Kingswood Estate?
I thought those were some great looking wagons too. Our family had a 1972 Plymouth Sport Suburban when I was young and that has always been a favorite, but I havn`t seen another in years
Way back when I had a ’73 Monaco wagon with the hidden headlights. Thought it was a cool feature for a wagon.
Hello Jeff, for your pleasure, a few pictures of my 1972 Plymouth Fury Suburban Sport, Top Hat Edition
Picture 2
Picture 3
The rarest in this generation is the ’72 Impala sport coupe six with production of 289 units.
In the summer of 1976 I drove cab. The owner would buy two- or three-year old cars, mostly full size Chevrolets at auction, put in an meter, and away we’d go. I kind of had the reputation of having a lead foot and I was given a 1971 full size Chev with the six cylinder. That was fine by me, except for the brakes. Four wheel drum brakes that pulled left. Hard. Finally, after arguing with the owner and telling him I’d drive it if he fixed the brakes, he took it for a test drive.
The car never came back.
I guess it cost too much for a brake job as far as he was concerned. I wound up with a ’74 Polara with a 318 and a working AM radio after that. 🙂
I’m enjoying this GM B+6 coverage. When I discovered the 71 Buick Estate Wagon came standard with a 455, my heart sank. Too big for me. At the other end of the scale is the six package. Way too small for a car of this heft. As Jim put it above, rarity does not desirability make, although the much-knowledged CC commentariat seems to love these curios.
Too big? I think it was necessary for the detached, relaxing experience these cars–especially in Buick Estate guise–were aiming for. I understand that 7.5 liters is too big, but then, the point of these cars is that they’re likewise too big.
Maybe we’re a nation of size-queens 🙂 .
No, just too big for me. More than adequate for a wagon of that size, I must acknowledge. I experience the same thing with my w116. The 2.8 is enough for city driving but it doesn’t really like hills. I tested a 4.5 and that engine fit the car like a glove. I just never found the right one when I was looking.
I could handle a 350 in a 71 or 73 Chevy B Wagon, maybe even a 327 if it was still an option, but nothing smaller. Bigger? If a RHD 71 Buick Estate Wagon turned up in Australia I’d have to move out of my comfort zone and buy it toot sweet.
455 too big? Anything smaller than a 454 is a “small block” too me….ha!
You forgot to look at the wagons when researching these articles. In 1971 the Pontiac (Safari and Grand Safari), Olds (Custom Cruiser) and Buick (Estate Wagon) full sized wagons had 3 speed manual transmissions (heavy duty) available. Notable was that the Pontiac Grand Safari had the MT with the standard 455, while the Safari only had the MT (as well as the Powerglide) available with the 350, while all 3 engines (350, 400, 455) could be had with the THM.
Also what made these transmissions heavy duty?
I bet a few were ordered by mistake by dealers forgetting to check a box, leading to a white elephant sold below cost.
I’ve read figures on the ’71 Pontiac wagons… 4 base Safaris and 2 Grand Safaris were built with the manual!
My first car was an 81 Chrysler Newport slant six auto. Total smog carb, 90 hp in a car originally equipped with the 360. Incredibly slow off the line, 45mph on hills on the freeway, and a flat out top speed of 72 or so. Once rolling it was reasonable on the 55mph highways of the time.
I had a 63 Impla with the 230 six and the three on the tree. It would cruise at 90 all day until I had to stop to add oil. The “Stove Bolt ” ended with the 62 model year. This morning I saw a 85 Caprice across the alley for sale. Automatic with the 4.3 V-6 throttle body fule injection.
There was some sort of Airport transport service in Las Vegas that used a couple of Chevy wagons in the early ’70’s. These apparently all had sixes with 3 speeds in them. I rode in one to the airport in 1974. With 4 of us and a bunch of luggage, it was a dog and rattled and shook like crazy even though it was only about 3 or 4 years old. A few years later, I ended up doing smog tests on 2 of them, both had the 250 six in them and they both somehow passed. To be honest, if a motor didn’t have a major carb problem and had all the cylinders firing, it would pass. If it didn’t, usually a carb rebuild would resolve it. A lot of carbs had leaky floats or some kind of foam floats that fell apart over time. And if that didn’t take care of passing the test, there was always the MSD ignition solution. Installing one of those would make an amazing difference, but the motor you put one on had to have good plug wires..
“Many might be surprised to learn Chevrolet still offered a six-cylinder engine until model year 1974…The table above breaks down six-cylinder production by model for 1971 and 1972; there is no production information for the 1973 model year but the six was limited to the Bel-Air sedans for its final year.”
From what I understand, the six was listed as being available in Bel Air sedans at the start of the 1974 model year, but was quickly deleted, and it is believed that no ’74 Bel Air sixes were actually built.
These might look like oddities to anyone growing up in the US or Canada when they were new, but not to me: way back then in Israel most US-made cars were ordered with the smaller engines (which in many cases meant the sixes) due to taxation grounds as well as – hard to believe in today’s tacky, reality show-following, bling infatuated Israel – not to look too ostentatious (!). I can easily conceive a successful orange plantation owner ordering a large station wagon like this. My father (a reasonably successful small town lawyer) _never_ had a V8 in any of his US-made cars (and he had 5 through the years) – an American car, any American car was respectable enough (yes, even a Rambler) for a lawyer, but you did not want to be seen as too flashy, so Chevy Stovebolts, Iron Duke 4s, Ford 144s, Chrysler flatheads and later slant sixes were our lot (to my great frustration). The flashy construction contractor up the road had a 1962 Lincoln with a 430, but he was a flashy construction contractor and could get away with it:)
Did any of the GM B body coupes offer the option of console & buckets from ’71 to ’76?
No, as far as I recall, only the Riviera had buckets available in a big car in the 70’s, maybe the Toronado, but I’m not sure. Buick had buckets available in the Wildcat in 1970, but that’s it, buckets didn’t return until the 1978-1979 “sporty” B’s.
I heard of some rumors/urban legends then 1971-76 Impala sold in Mexico had bucket seats and automatic transmission shifter on the floor. I spotted that 1972 model on Youtube, the seats and console might be aftermarket https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bi_gsebX-4
I saw on Ebay, this brochure cover of the 1975 Impala sold in Mexico with high-back seats. Maybe they might still have a console there.
Interesting, did not know about that.
These cars always fascinated me. A few years ago a factory 3 speed column shift 71 Impala Sport coupe showed up on craigslist not for from me. The pictures were poor & the car was junk but I saved the pictures. Here’s the interior shot that shows the original pedals& shifter still in the car although it had been converted to a floor shift.
Those are late 1980’s Trans Am seats, definitely not original.
Always loved my Moms Estate Wagon and will never forget it. No, it didn’t have a six/stick! 455/ 4bbl baby!
I’ll never forget test driving a 1976 blue Buick LeSabre with the 105 HP 231 V6 engine back in high school. It had to be the slowest car I have ever driven to date. The engine looked quite comical in the massive bay under hood with the seemingly 10 feet long radiator shroud. Buick was so into putting there recently re-acquired 3.8 V6 into many of there cars but this was taking things way too far!
They even boasted in an ad that it was the only full-size car equipped with a V6 in the whole…wide…world. Like we’ve seen with the sixes elsewhere, rare for a reason.
On the high end, some of those options like 454 Chevelles and Chrysler Hemis were rare because of the relatively high purchase price relative to the extra performance. Hemis were faster than 440’s but not a quarter the price of the whole car faster. Goes back to my theory that the best overall performance options were hot small-blocks and not the big blocks. Give me an LT-1 350, 340 Mopar or a 351 Cleveland Ford any time.
Those seem like ideal candidates for a modern diesel implant + some H/D 6-sp manual transmission. Replace the marshmallow suspension with up-rated springs and shock absorbers, fit a faster steering and have a vehicle possessing all the qualities of the late, great, American station wagon usable every day.
Earlier today I saw a listing for a ’76 Buick LeSabre with a 350 rated at 165 horsepower, and I thought what an underpowered disaster. I can’t even imagine a six in one of these boats.
I’ve never seen one of these big cars with a manual.
The best thing about the big boats was the comfort and power. With a V8 they might be cool. I don’t know how much fun those old manuals were though. My ’79 Grand Prix SJ 301/4bbl had a 4-speed with a very heavy clutch. It felt truckish or industrial. It wasn’t much fun compared to all the Hondas and hydraulic-assisted-clutched Chevies I had previously. The GP had a limited-slip diff too, so though It was not a quick car it could do a great burnout. It was kind of neat having a bit of a unicorn but when I had it I wished it was an automatic. Just not very fun.
The manual transmission on V8-equipped cars, meaning everything but 6-cylinder Chevrolets was discontinued halfway through the 1971 model year; the manual was available through 1973 with the six. Does anyone know if full-size Canadian Pontiacs also offered manual transmissions through 1973 with the Chevy six?
Only thru 1972; both the stick and the six were gone for ‘73.
’71 Oldsmobile ad:
‘Axle Ratios’
‘2.56, 2.73, 2.93, 3.08, 3.23, 3.42, 3.73, 4.10, 4.56, 5.00’
No 6.00 available like the 50’s Chrysler 300 CC last week but still, 5.00 would be pretty short with any of the 455 engines, or even the 350. Maybe it was for customers that bought a 442 to drag race.
I’m amused at all the axle ratio choices Detroit used to offer. Was it really cheaper to build cars with any of four axle ratios than to just put another stinkin’ gear or two in the transmission?
The old school of thought was that overdrive is dumb. If you need taller gearing you adjust the axle ratio. I tend to agree with that philosophy. Top gear should be exactly 1:1. More efficient that way. But i also believe more gears are better. Just make sure top gear is 1:1 and the axle ratio is looong legged and first gear is sufficiently low to compensate for the long legged axle ratio. So if i was ordering a large new olds Dragon wagon from the above options i would choose the 2.56 axle ratio with an extremely wide ratio 5sp(i know none existed) with 5th being 1:1, the tallest tires i could fit in the wheel wells, and the largest engine with the lowest RPM peak torque.
But nobody does it this way anymore.
I believe the reason nobody does is drive shaft and differential strength. The hypothetical combination I described has extremely high torsional forces in the drive shaft and differential. Which leads to such wild and crazy options as truck sized drive shafts and a dana 60 rear end in a chrysler imperial.
But i still prefer it.
I had a 72 LeSabre 4 door sedan as my first car. It was classically “as big as a whale”…and perfect for college. I had people dancing on the hood once and aside from a few scuffs, it was none the worse for wear. I rebuilt the top end of the engine in a DIY garage (after having blown the radiator and warped the heads). Stood in the engine bay – ’cause there was definitely enough room – to lift the heads out. Replaced the front seats with a 6 way power seat from a junkyard Caddy. Never put in a proper fuse, so I’d periodically blow the fuse and have to drive home with the seat smashed up against the wheel after loaning it to a short driver. Eventually, the floors rotted out sufficiently (Massachusetts…..) so that it was referred to as the Fred Flintstone mobile. Traded it in and got a diesel Rabbit. (but that’s a different story altogether)
Point is, it was one of the greatest cars ever.
Friend of mine – also ’round about that time in the early/mid 80s – had a 71 Olds 98 that was even bigger than my Buick (or at least it seemed so). Loved that tufted bordello interior. Then he got rid of that and got a 73 Centurion convertible. That was probably peak-B-body. Driving around in that thing with the top down in DC in the summer time was like riding in an empty in-ground pool. Pure bliss.
I don’t know what the appeal of a straight six in a big American car is. I guess it just brings out the contrarian in us. Here’s a ’67 Bel Air two door sedan listed on SFbay Area Craig’s List. Kind of rough but straight with three on the tree! That motor looks lost under that hood. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/d/newark-1967-chevy-belair-bel-air-parts/7136103023.html.
Coming from an Aussie, it’s hard to imagine a six in a car of this size and undoubted weight. for the few people who bought a big Chevy, it was V8-automatic only since the ’60 model year. A six in one of these – ouch!
I co-drove a ’79 Econoline van with the 300 six cross country (in 1980) equipped with 3 on the tree. It was surprisingly easy to shift and a comfortable ride. I was nearly new so this may have helped a lot….
I always found three speeds, especially the ones with synchronized low gears, to be quite satisfactory for passenger car use. Pickups that worked for a living needed the low-low of the truck type four speed transmission. Three speeds behind a big engine didn’t require much downshifting, and moved away from a standstill fairly easily. The in-line six cylinder engines, especially the longer stroke ones, made up for their lower horsepower by having more low end torque and their inherent balance made them “luggable” perhaps beyond what a V8 would do. I’d take a three speed over an automatic any day. As far as linkage, the old, “primitive” external linkage seemed to work better longer, I think, than the newer concentric style. The white metal “bowl” at the top of the column of the newer style was fairly fragile if abused, but realistically, either was OK if the linkage was lubricated periodically, and the transmission wasn’t forced into gear or speed shifted. My 2 cents worth from much personal experience: ’60 and ’63 Galaxies with 6 and 3 speed, ’65 Falcon 170 6 and 3 speed, ’71 G10 Chevy van and ’73 F100 pickups both with small V8’s (307 and 302, respectively), 66 F250 240 6 and 3 speed, and an International Metro-Mite with a 4 cylinder and 3 speed !
I test-drove a 1971 Pontiac Laurentian 2-door hardtop that was for sale in my neighbourhood in Toronto about five years ago. I don’t recall at this point what was under the hood, but I believe it was a six—and it was definitely a three-on-the-tree, because I drove the thing. I would have loved to have bought it, but the car was a disaster, quite rusty (it being eastern Canada) and with lots of mechanical issues to boot and was barely drivable. Plus, the idiot original owner at some point had had it repainted from its original dark blue colour to beige, which looked utterly ridiculous with the blue interior. It was for sale for a long time, then was finally gone—I suspect was towed to the crusher and not driven away by a new owner.