When one discusses American cars of the 1970s, good handling is not typically something that pops into one’s thoughts. If anything, most American cars of the 1970s have a reputation of being softly sprung wallowing beasts devoid of any semblance of road manners. That said, every time the GM Colonnade cars come up in discussion on Curbside Classic, inevitably its good chassis dynamics are mentioned. So, what was it that made these GM intermediates good handlers? Was their chassis design really that different from past designs? Quite frankly, more often than not there is a fair amount of misinformation about these cars that gets repeated. So, let’s set the record straight and explore the GM Colonnade sedans chassis design in depth.
This is how the 1972 Chevelle may have looked had there not been the 100-day strike.
The GM intermediate A-body began its gestation in the late 1960s, with a planned released date for the 1972 model year. This was delayed by the 100-day UAW strike in the fall of 1970, pushing the launch date up to the fall of 1972 for the 1973 model year. Since the A-body was shared by the four divisions, they each shared in the development of the car. The frame was designed by GM research, Chevrolet was tasked with the front suspension, Pontiac the rear suspension, Oldsmobile designed the steering and Buick the brakes. The development at Chevrolet was overseen by John Z. DeLorean. He and Chevrolet’s chief engineer Alex Mair were advocates for good handling vehicles. Their influence helped ensure that the handling of the A-body chassis was improved over its 1964-72 predecessors.
Although similar in appearance to the 1970 Chevelle chassis shown in the top photo, there were many improvements made to the A-body chassis for 1973 as shown in the bottom photo.
The 1973 A-body chassis was seemingly the same design as the previous generation. Both were perimeter frame with short-long control arm front suspension and 4-link rear suspension with coil springs. However, there was far more than meets the eye as the chassis was heavily revised. The frame itself was more robust compared to its predecessor, while the suspension geometry was significantly improved. No parts interchanged with the older generation’s chassis.
This is the 1967 F-body suspension, which had similar geometry to early Chevelles. Although very similar in appearance to the 1970 F-body suspension, the 1970 suspension was significantly improved design.
The revised suspension, in particular the front suspension, was the most influential change that lead to the good chassis dynamics. Let’s rewind a bit to 1970 model year. Chevrolet and Pontiac introduced the all-new F-body in early 1970. The new F-body was much loved by the enthusiasts for its modern euro styling, its good performance and its great road manners. Much of the road manners in the 1970 F-body came from its new front suspension design. This suspension was the product of GM engineer Herb Adams. Compared to the 1967 to 1969 F-bodies, the 1970 front suspension had a new control arm design with improved geometry. It used taller spindles, had improved camber curves and had reduced bump steer. This new geometry helped keep the wheel planted correctly as it moved through its range of motion.
This is the improved 1970-81 F-Body front suspension which was later adapted by the 1973 A-body cars and the 1975-79 X/K body cars.
When Chevrolet was designing the 1973 A-body front suspension, rather than reinvent the wheel, the front suspension from the F-body was utilized as the basis for the A-body suspension. Since the F-body used a bolt on sub frame, the chassis was very similar to the perimeter frame of the A-body car from the firewall forward. So, it was a bolt on affair to use the F-Body control arms, and spindles on the A-body chassis. The 1964-72 A-body suffered from the same poor suspension geometry as the 1967-69 F-body, so these new A-body cars saw a similar improvement in handling. The rear suspension was also revised, but to a less significant degree. The 1973 A-body chassis used longer rear control arms, which improved the geometry by way of less acute convergence angles, and the rear shock absorbers were relocated. The new rear geometry helped improved cornering stability with strong roll understeer. The four-link control-arm system was designed to steer the axle to the right when the body leans left and vice versa.
Part of the success of the Nova 9C1 Police car was due to its excellent road manners. It utilized the same basic front suspension as the GM Colonnade cars.
GM got its money’s worth out of Herb Adams’ front suspension design as it was also used on numerous other GM vehicles. These include the 1975-79 GM X/K-body cars and the 1977-96 B/C/D-body cars and the 2WD Astro/Safari 2WD vans. While the basic suspension design was shared between these car lines, each used slightly different executions. This resulted in minor differences in the suspension geometry and each had slightly different suspension travel despite the fact that they used the same basic design.
This chart shows that despite these cars using the same short-long control arm suspension, once mounted on each respective chassis there were minor differences that resulted in slightly different wheel to spring ratios and suspension travel.
This road test shows clearly shows Cutlass’ superior handling to the Cougar. Many Fords of this era utilized excessively soft springs and it was noted by the testers that this Cougar’s springs were too soft . The Cougar was also noted to understeer, which was exacerbated by the very heavy 460 engine and the lack of an rear anti-roll bar; it was a poorly executed suspension. The Cutlass on the other hand was very well executed, and utilized stiffer springs and a rear anti-roll bar.
Much of the Colonnade’s good handling reputation was due to the good suspension design but it also had to do with GM’s good execution of design. Compared to Ford, GM used components that promoted better handling at a slight sacrifice to ride quality. On average GM cars used stiffer springs, larger front anti-roll bars and more of its suspension configurations used rear anti-roll bars. However, that doesn’t mean all Colonnades were great cornering machines. It should be noted GM probably had hundreds of variations in the suspension configurations on this platform. Not only did each car line have numerous coil spring choices, but there were differences in anti-roll bars, tires, steering systems and even alignment settings. This resulted in a significant variation in handling prowess across the platform.
A good example of the variation in handling comes when comparing the Chevelle to the Monte Carlo. As I have written about in the past, the 1973 Monte Carlo was lauded for its Mercedes influences handling and steering. What exactly was so different about the Monte Carlo, was it not just a Chevelle with a longer nose? If so why did no one fawn over the handling of the 1973 Chevelle? While it is true that the smaller and lighter Chevelle had the same chassis as the Monte Carlo, the Monte Carlo had significantly different execution. Articles of that time discussed the Monte Carlo’s unique geometry, but the reality was that this was really just different alignment settings. Many cars of this era, including the Chevelle, used very little positive caster and sometimes a negative caster setting, to reduce steering effort. More caster results in more steering effort. This was why cars equipped with manual steering often had different caster settings than those with power steering. The 1973-77 Monte Carlo used 5-degrees of positive caster, compared to the 1973 Chevelle which used 1-degree of positive caster with power steering and 1-degree of negative caster with manual steering. The additional caster used on the Monte Carlo improved road feel and high-speed tracking, but also increased steering effort. Since all Monte Carlos had power steering, this wasn’t really an issue for parking, but it gave the car a more “Mercedes-like” steering feel. There were other differences in the Monte Carlo too. In addition to the extra positive caster, Monte Carlos typically used a faster ratio steering box tuned for more road feel, stiffer springs, and larger front and rear anti-roll bars. This made a night and day difference in handling compared to Grandma’s 307 powered Chevelle, despite them both having the same basic suspension and chassis design. Other GM divisions followed suite and had different suspension, steering and alignments used for different model Colonnade cars. Each division had autonomy to tune the chassis for their intermediate models. At Oldsmobile, the Cutlass Salons and Supremes had better suspension setups than the Cutlass S, and at Pontiac the Grand Am had better a suspension setup than a LeMans.
Handling tests were not overly common during the 1970s, but Popular Science ran all of the cars it tested through a high-speed handling test. I gathered results for numerous Colonnade cars along with a few of its competitors to show the wide variation in handling prowess. Most, if not all of the cars tested by Popular Science were fairly run-of-the mill models, and not specially equipped high-performance models with uncommon suspension packages. Looking at the results, we see our gross generalizations are correct. The GM Colonnade sedans on average obtain the highest speeds in the handling tests, the Chryslers are in the middle and the Fords are on average the lowest. What these results also clearly demonstrates is that each of GM, Ford and Chryslers had a large variation in the handling of their cars with the same chassis design. This means that the suspension configuration had as big of an influence on the vehicles handling ability as the actual suspension design.
The 1973-77 GM A-body was clearly a good chassis design for its time, so much so that some believe it outlived that platform. A common fallacy I often see repeated is that the 1977-90 B-body was just a new body on the old 1973-77 A-body chassis. This is not true. Despite the fact that the 1973-77 A-body and 1977-96 B-Body had similar suspension components, the same 116” wheelbase and were similar in size, they were not the same frames. In fact, even though both chassis use the same basic suspension design, the suspension components do not directly interchange. While the control arms are very similar, they were slightly revised for the downsized B-body car. Furthermore, compared to the 1977 B-body, the 1973 A-Body chassis has an extra crossmember at the rear, it has significantly wider and beefier side rails, the frame ends are shaped differently and the steering linkage is different. Although I have never had the opportunity to weight either of the frames, I am willing to bet that the 1977 B-Body chassis is significantly lighter than the 1973 A-body chassis. A big part of the 1977 B-body program was weight savings and improved space efficiency. The modern and more space efficient body of the 1977 B-body sat on a modern lighter frame to create a car that was about the same size as the Colonnade sedans, but significantly lighter and more space efficient. There is a reason the 1977 B-body was and is still considered a revolutionary car; it was not a rehash of an old car like Chrysler’s R-Body.
A 1977 Monte Carlo going through a slalom course during a Popular Science road test.
Without a doubt the 1973-77 A-bodies had a good chassis design for its time. It arguably had the best overall suspension design of any of the 70s American intermediate sedans. Road test results show that on average the GM cars out-handled the competition. These A-bodies clearly established that GM had moved on from the “jet smooth” rides of the 1960s which had little consideration for good handling. And while not the same chassis as the much-loved 1977-96 B-body cars, undoubtedly the 1973-77 A-body chassis was an important evolutionary step in GM developing their vastly improved full-size chassis.
Excellent analysis! I’m glad you mentioned the similarities and the differences between the Colonnade’s and the ’77 full-sizers. Agree, the ’77 full-sizers are truly revolutionary cars that owe some of their goodness to the slightly older Colonnade’s.
As the former owner of a ’74 Malibu Classic, I don’t disagree. I wound up adding an ADDCO rear anti-sway bar. It helped a LOT with the wallow, at very little cost to ride quality. An RASB should have been stock (not optional) from the factory, but I’m sure that was a beancounter issue. Maybe the Monte had one as standard equipment, I’m not sure.
Over the course of time, however, I came to believe that everything on the suspension and steering was under-spec’d for the ~4000lb. curb weight. I spent a lot of time and money replacing pretty much the entire suspension and steering linkage. I kind of suspect GM didn’t much care if anything lasted past 60k back then.
All Monte Carlos, other than the base models, had the rear sway bar as standard equipment. I referenced my article above on the 1973 Monte Carlo, which also gives the production stats which show that only 1.7% of 1973 Monte Carlos were base models.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-for-sale/cc-for-sale-1973-chevrolet-monte-carlo-a-curbside-classic-for-christmas/
As the owner of a ’76 Malibu that had base suspension, I had the same experience. Mine has since been upgraded to have stiffer springs and modern monotube Bilstein shocks, along with a 1 1/4″ front and 1″ rear sway bars. With those upgrades it handles very well for a car of the era, and better than any factory setup GM offered.
I never experienced premature wear in the steering or suspension components though and other than the aforementioned upgraded parts, they are still non-worn original GM parts.
This article was brilliant. A future article comparing the Panther platform to the 72-79 Torino/Thunderbird/LTD II platform to the 69-78 full-size Ford platform would be wonderful. I also wonder if the 78-87 A/G platform had anything in common with the previous A body or the 77-96 B/C/D platform.
I know one thing they didn’t have in common. Roll down rear windows 🤣🤣🤣
What was GM thinking with those fixed rear windows on A/G body sedans and wagons?
Another factor that bears mentioning is tires, including wider availability of radial tires and their accompanying “Radial Tuned Suspension.” For example, all but base ’73 Monte Carlos had GR70-15 tires (equivalent to about 205/70R15), which became standard in 1974 and were optional on the Chevelle. That’s not huge by today’s standards, obviously, but a ’64 Chevelle came with 6.50-14 tires, and there weren’t many American cars that offered radials at all until the late sixties. A ’74 Coronet V-8 came with F78-14 tires on 14×5.0 wheels, and it doesn’t look like 15-inch tires were even optional on the Torino (although you could get H70-14s on 14×7.0 wheels).
Better tires, wider wheels, and suspensions tuned to take advantage of them were steps in the right direction, at least.
What were those alphanumeric codes used on ’70s American tires intended to accomplish? They’re even weirder than the current setup where one dimension is in centimeters, one is in inches, and one is the ratio of sidewall height to width.
I believe the alphanumeric codes which first appeared about 1970 were a classification for how much weight a tire could carry but I could be wrong. The alpha codes were A, (A70-13 for example) B, D, E, F, G, H, J, L and N. N (N50-15 for example) was a 50 series tire which was considered obscenely wide in 1970. R anywhere in the tire size of course means radial,
P metric tires first appeared in the late 1970’s and by 1980 had completely superseded the alphanumeric codes.
The first number on a P metric tire is in millimeters and not centimeters and refers to the tread’s nominal width. The aspect ratio (sidewall height to tread width) is just like the old alphanumeric codes with the rim diameter given in inches,
The letters had a direct relationship to the millimeter width. I remember our 72 Buick had L78-15 tires that were replaced with 235’s and our 78 Buick with H78-15 was equal to 225’s
Oops millimeters – 200 or so centimeters would be a reallywide tire…
It seems the alphanumeric codes represented both width and sidewall size as well as load rating, but speed ratings didn’t seem to figure in at all.
I figured there’s probably a Tire Rack page explaining this, and there is:
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=45
The alphanumeric load ratings arrived for 1967. Here’s an interesting Car Life feature explaining why they came about and what they were supposed to mean:
http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990392639442/1967-07_CL_Tire_Sizes_1-4.pdf
Good point about the tires. I didn’t mention them in the article but they were definitely a factor. All of the handling specs in the charts are from comparison tests, and most of the cars were mostly evenly matched within the tests, including the tires. You are correct that Ford didn’t offer anything but 14″ tires on it’s intermediates. The H70-14’s were reserved used by very few models, most had considerably smaller tires. 15″ wheels were only used on Police and Taxi spec models. It should also be noted that radial tires weren’t always better for handling. When Corvette switched to Radials in 1973, is roadholding numbers were reduced compared to the bais plys it used in 1972. That said, the other benefits of radials still came into play. In addition, a GR70-15 closest modern equivalent is 225/70R15.
“The frame was designed by GM research, Chevrolet was tasked with the front suspension, Pontiac the rear suspension, Oldsmobile designed the steering and Buick the brakes. The development at Chevrolet was overseen by John Z. DeLorean.”
That’s quite a sentence. Maybe the relatively deft hand of Mr. DeLorean made this the cohesive package that it was?
I regularly drove a ’76 Cutlass Supreme and a ’78 Caprice back to back. The Caprice felt a bit lighter in the rear, but otherwise the driving and handling experience was very similar, and became a “normal” experience for me as I was learning to drive.
The ’76 LTD in the house at the same time was a wallowing mess by comparison.
Kudos to GM for a world class effort, as was mostly their habit for decades. And, apparently, it avoided any major shortcuts that spoiled the package.
Would it be fair to say the 1977 B body chassis was a fresh look at and a full update of the 1973 A body chassis?
“Would it be fair to say the 1977 B body chassis was a fresh look at and a full update of the 1973 A body chassis?”
I’d say the 1977 B-body chassis was more of a clean slate design, but it obviously evolved from past designs like the A-body. The B-bodies made further increases in the handling performance over the Colonnade cars. Popular Science tests shows that the B-bodies handling test results were on average better than the Colonnades.
Probably not, except in a kind of “wave the hand and say ‘Make it so'” sense. DeLorean’s own account of his time at Chevrolet said that he (and Pete Estes before him) really had culture shock coming from Pontiac, which was a much smaller organization. At Pontiac, the chief engineer or general manager could learn most everyone’s names, come around periodically to see what they were up to, and offer some suggestions or feedback. At Chevrolet, DeLorean said, it was like running a medium-size city or large federal agency — thousands and thousands of people and a zillion little fiefdoms, so even getting top-level status reports from senior managers was like pulling teeth.
When he was at Pontiac, there were various things that definitely had his personal stamp on them, but at Chevrolet, it seems like he had a hard enough time getting big things done.
Thanks for this very welcome clarification of what has been an area of common confusion and misinformation. GM really led the way with suspension design (and larger wheels/tires) for American cars, a long-overdue development.
As to the side beams of the perimeter frames of the ’77-up B/C bodies being less beefy than those on the Colonnade, it was probably due to increased stiffness of the new B/C bodies. It’s important to note that perimeter frames, by their very design, rely very substantially on the body for the necessary combined stiffness/rigidity. They’re not like the old ladder frames of yore; one could almost say that the side rails are largely there to tie the front and rear subframes together, more than being the primary structural member.
“As to the side beams of the perimeter frames of the ’77-up B/C bodies being less beefy than those on the Colonnade, it was probably due to increased stiffness of the new B/C bodies. “
I agree this is absolutely the case. The ’73-77 A-bodies weren’t the stiffest body structures, and the ’77 B-body definitively seemed to be in improvement in that regard. Not only were the side beams less substantial, but the removal of the rear cross member also reduced the frame rigidity significantly. In fact, Buick actually put a small brace across the rear frame section on the 90’s Roadmaster to help reduce unwanted harmonics due to the lack of rear frame stiffness. Stationwagons all used a rear cross member and boxed frame rails to help increase chassis stiffness.
“Thanks for this very welcome clarification of what has been an area of common confusion and misinformation. GM really led the way with suspension design (and larger wheels/tires) for American cars, a long-overdue development.”
I knew that GM was a leader with radial tires with the RTS available on the Colonnades… but didn’t think much about the larger wheels being available. Which brings me to the late 80s, when most were just starting to get 15″ wheels a lot of GM cars were available with 16″ wheels, which was massive at the time for a mid sizer like the GM10 cars.
Great article, I assumed that the 73 and up chassis was the same as that of the previous year. Looks like I was very wrong!
I remember thinking about my 1974 Chevelle that it had really good handling for such a heavy car and that if other American cars of the era drive the same way they don’t deserve the bad handling reputation at all. I feel like it handled better than my Fairmont Futura, but with the aftermarket support for the foxbody that can be changed rather easily of course.
My general understanding has long been:
– Ford Panther – all-new
– GM B/C body – new, but an evolution of the basic colonade design
– Mopar R body – pretty much a rehashed 1962-vintage B body in all-new duds
This piece has me realizing the ’77 B/C should really be considered truly new platforms, not merely an evolution of the Colonade design, thank you.
(now maybe someone can school me on how far back the ’70s AMC Matador/Ambassador platforms go, and whether the 1953-66 Studebaker platform is derived from the 1947 design, and if not, why on earth did they leave no room for footwells in the ’53 frame?)
Applause! Great analysis—I learned a bunch.
Thank you kind sir!
Great article. Still we wonder why the 1973 up A bodies have a fraction of the value of the 1972 and earlier models. I know the 5mph bumpers enter into it as a big negative. All in all many people agree that the 1973 Cutlass S is a stunning design.
Stunningly ugly, yes. The Colonade cars in general are amazingly ugly and have not aged well at all. I remember the first time I saw pictures of the ’73 Olds Cutlass in a magazine. I thought, and still think, the designers and whoever approved them had lost their minds. It wasn’t soon after I saw them that my sister and mother both bought ’73 Cutlasses. Yikes. My mom’s higher end car was pretty decent, reliabilty wise, but my sister’s car was a nightmare that never seemed to get 100% “fixed” in the 6 years she had it. I drove them many times and was not impressed at all with them at all. My ’72 Cutlass wasn’t a great car mechanically, but it sure looked better than mom and sis’s cars did.
A ’79 Cutlass replaced it, and that turd pushed her away from domestic cars forever. She’s 72 now, and on her second Prius. Her past Nissan disasters killed her love of them just as Olds killed her Cutlass love.
Since the American public made the Cutlass Supreme the number one selling car for several years, they didn’t agree with you that the car was ugly.
All subjective. Mainly it is that the ’68-’72 were in the ‘muscle car era’ and smaller for making into hot rods, street machines, or drag racers. So, lots of ‘memories’ of tinkering.
Although, many Boomers bought the A-Special formal roof PLC’s at the time, just now, moved on to SUV’s and trucks.
The 1978-88 G bodies have gotten a cult following and far from the “turd”.
I have vivid memories of the excellent suspension of my mom’s 74 Luxury LeMans. I know that it had front and rear roll bars and did not have radial tires. It would not surprise me that the Pontiac people included some engineering holdovers from Pontiac’s performance heyday that ended with DeLorean leaving in 1969. It the magazine test results, all of the Pontiacs were consistently near the top of the pack.
I think another reason GM took weight out of the frame for the 77 B body was that CAFE was on the horizon. IIRC it was passed in 1975 but would not take effect until the 1979 model year. A new design would have been a great time to incorporate some weight loss – which was handled very adroitly on the 1977-79 cars (and a little less so on the 1980+ versions)
No doubt fuel economy was the big reason for weight reduction, but quite frankly there was a lot of fat to cut. The Colonnades are porky cars, and despite them being similar in size to the 77 B-bodies, they are substantially heavier on average. IMO, the weight reductions weren’t a problem, even on the 1980 and newer cars.
It was junk mechanical components that were the problem, such as the TH200 transmission, which were used extensively on the 1977-79 models. While CAFE may have been the reason for trying to improve transmission efficiency, the half-assed execution was GM’s choice. They had the money and skilled engineering team to have redesigned power train components to be more efficient and durable, but they chose to cut costs. Take a look at the TH200-4R and the TH700-R4. Both were designed for fuel economy, both were junk when first released. With improvements both were good transmissions by the end of the decade. They had the know-how to make them properly in the early 80s, but didn’t. Then again that was the theme of GM throughout the 80s.
Can you or anyone explain this nomenclature difference? Why is the one a -4R and the other is an -R4?
Getting customers to pay to be R&D guinea pigs is…odious and yucky.
I don’t know why one is R4 and the other is 4R either and would be curious to find out the reason as well. The only thing I can think of is maybe the nomenclature difference had to do with the difference in design – TH2004R was a Simpson gearset based transmission with an OD and the TH700R4 was a Simpson split compound gearset.
I mean, because from here it smells like “Whatever, who cares?” from GM.
The ‘would’ve been’ 1972 Colonnades would have evenly matched the ’72 BOF Torino/Montego. The Monte Carlo had similar grille/bumper to the Malibu/SS prototype, above, seen in Collectible Automobile.
Even though collector cars, the ’72 left over GM A bodies were considered “outdated” by the buff books, and Chevelle was outsold by Ford.
Great video comparison between the 74 Cougar and Cutlass.
On the Olds, he describes the Salon as the top trim model. I always believed the Supreme to be the top trim, and that only on the Supreme could you get the rectangular shaped passenger rear side windows. The Salon always came with the larger triangular shaped ones that I recall. Usually the Salon had the plainer grille also. However, I couldn’t read the script on the side fender to tell if what he said was true.
I remember my best friends Dad bought a 76 Cutlass Salon. It was a step above the Supreme and had the cool international flags badge on the fenders. His also had the top of the line 455…..A fast car
Where I grew up in small town Midwest US Colonnade Cutlass Salons were very rare, the Supreme was a much more popular car. As I recall for 3 reasons:
1. It was expensive for a Cutlass and more than people here wanted to pay. They could “step up” to a Delta 88 for that price.
2. To them it had a harsh ride, see my comments below on Torinos.
3. At that time in small town Midwest US, no one understood the logic of a 4 door (and for that matter many 2 doors) with bucket seats and a console shifter. Proper cars, especially 4 door cars had a column shifter and a bench seat for 3 across seating.
Cutlass Supremes came with a bench seat/column shifter. The vast majority were sold that way around here even though buckets and a console/floor shifter were available on the Supreme 2 door models.
The Cutlass Salon was the top of the line Cutlass during the Colonnade years. Both the 2 door and 4 door models of that and the Supreme shared their same respective bodies.
When the A Bodies in 1978 were downsized for some reason the Salon became more mainstream and below the Supreme. That might be what you are thinking. At the beginning of the years of the downsized A Bodies the top Cutlass (above the Supreme) was the Cutlass Calais. After that I’m not sure.
Kind of reminds me of the variations of Olds 88 in the ’60’s.
I should have added that the Salon was sedan only in ’73. The formal coupe version came out in ’74.
“Salon always came with the larger triangular shaped ones [windows]” ?
That was the Cutlass S and the base 2 door “fastbacks”, which was why they brought out the lamented Aero backs in ’78.
Salon was formal roof coupe and sedan for 1973-75 as ‘top trim’. For ’76, the CS Brougham was the top, going into the G bodies.
Salon became the Aeros for 1978-80, then returned as formal roof in 1985{?} as sporty Supreme.
The 1973 Monte Carlo also had a steering damper, It was essentially a shock absorber which was bolted to the center link on the driver side and to a point on the frame just to the right of the idler arm on the passenger side. Its function was to reduce vibration transmitted to the steering wheel.
Yes, it did have the steering damper, but that doesn’t really have any affect on the handling. I do mention the damper in my article on the1973 Monte Carlo.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-for-sale/cc-for-sale-1973-chevrolet-monte-carlo-a-curbside-classic-for-christmas/
That steering assembly and suspension migrated down under but was cheapened by fitting biasply tyres with predictable results understeer but called a safety feature by GMH, fitting radial tyres helped lots but didnt entirely cure the problem.
Didn’t Holden make a big selling point of its Radial Tuned Suspension? (U.S. GM cars used that phrase, but they weren’t trumpeting it quite so loudly — it didn’t even necessarily get capital letters.)
They certainly did, complete with Radial Tuned Suspension badges said to have come with Pontiac part numbers.
Holden got the point across with TV ads showing the new HZ being driven through a slalom, and looking to do a tidier job of it than their Ford and Mopar competitors.
Ford responded by showing a Falcon driven at speed through a slalom not of cones but of their racing drivers! Holden never did respond to that. And Chrysler was pretty much moribund at that point anyway.
I think it was only Pontiac that used it as a selling point.
The only Oldsmobile to offer radial tires in 1973 was the Cutlass Salon (and as standard equipment). Olds waited until GM introduced the GM Spec Tire I believe in 1974.
I just watched that Bud Lindemann back-to-back road test comparison of the Cougar and the Cutlass. Got seesick from seeing the Cougar wallow, roll, dive, squat, galumph, slew, stagger, and waddle around. Ugh. On the other hand, it looks like both cars had pathetic braking.
Also noticed at 4:03 (appropriately, given the topic), he refers to Oldsmobile in the plural (“Oldsmobile have excelled”)—a usage convention we’ve discussed on here before.
The Cougar was particularly bad in this test. The heavy 460 up front didn’t help, but even with a lighter engine, it would have still been subpar to the Cutlass. Had Ford equipped this car with stiffer spring rates, a decent set of front a rear anti-roll bars and shocks, and selected these components so that the car was more balanced, it would have been comparable to the Cutlass. I know from my own experience with the Ford chassis that it will handle pretty much on par with the GM Colonnade chassis with the right components. As seen in the test results above, some of the Fords were had pretty decent handling speeds, and others were horrible. Ford chose to favour ultra soft rides and significantly compromise the handling on many of the suspension configurations of it’s intermediates, in particular the 4-door models.
I also agree the braking was not that great, but it was an improvement over the previous all drum systems, which is kind of scary.
I’ve always reserved my opinions here on Torinos because I know there are fans here. My driver’s ed car back in the day was a 1975 Gran Torino 4 door. It was truly awful to drive. But Ford sold a lot of them, and folks (like my driver ed instructor who would always choose this car from the fleet) really liked the way they rode.
The issue is people paint all of the Torinos with one brush. Undoubtedly many were sofly sprung under-dampened, understeering beasts, but not all were. There was a huge variation depending on year, model and options. Look at the results of the Fords and they have by far the biggest spread in results. The ’76 Torino 4 door has the worst on the chart, which was probably similar to the 75 you drove. But the 73 Sport, has one of the highest handling speeds and that car was not equipped with the optional competition suspension, which was fairly common on the sport models.
Thank you Vince
I have learned that here on CC in the past as well. I’ll admit to being guilty as charged up until then. I grew up in the Midwest US and here the vast majority of customers of these cars preferred the softly sprung standard suspensions. Dealer lot cars were also equipped that way, and that was considered a selling point. Any other suspension packages were so rare around here I had no idea they existed.
Also as mentioned here on CC on other subjects, where I grew up folks considered a good handling car was one that was easy to park.
Agreed. “Oldsmobile has excelled”, or “the people at Oldsmobile have excelled”. Or even, “Oldsmobile cars have excelled”.
But not this form.
Er…yes, this form; it’s perfectly cromulent. Take a look at the ‘discussed on here’ link in my comment a few comments above yours.
A year late but this comment embiggened my spirit.
I always think of Frankie Goes To Hollywood… the UK shirts said “Frankie Say Relax” and the US said “Frankie Says Relax.”
Since childhood, of the domestics I’ve always been a “Ford guy”, but I have to say if I time-traveled back with today’s knowledge I guess I’d have to go GM….
Had quite a few of these Colonnade Chevelles as Military Police vehicles. They were great handlers when new – better than our Plymouth Satellites and far better than the Matadors.
This advantage didn’t last though. Once the cars got up to around 80-100k miles, handling on the Chevelles deteriorated. The Chevelles didn’t handle worse than Satellites, but their edge was long gone.
What did become worse was ground clearance. As miles got racked up, the Chevelle springs seemed to sag more than Satellites. Satellites could get their front torsion bars adjusted and the rear leafs seemed more resistant to sag.
A spring change probably might have restored Chevelle handling. Trouble was government maintenance guidance didn’t permit our base shop to make spring changes unless the old ones were broken or unsafe. The springs deteriorated far enough to degrade handling, but not enough to become unsafe.
Chevelles were the pride of the MP fleet – until they started aging. After they were a few years old, Satellites were the preferred unit.
Regarding the ’72-up Ford mid-size cars, I always wondered about the rear suspension found on those cars. It almost seemed to be an inverted ’64-up GM A body rear suspension with the diagonal (lateral control) control arms mounted on the bottom and the straight arms located on top of the axle. It looked to me like the placement of the upper control arms required the coil springs to be located pretty far inboard which couldn’t have been very good for roll stiffness.
The 1972-79 Ford Intermediate chassis did use a triangulated 4-link like the GM cars, but as you said the links were reversed. I once read this was done to decrease the amount of space the suspension intruded in the rear passenger compartment, but cannot find that source anymore. That said, the coil spring placement was not narrower than the traditional setup nor did the upper arms interfere with the spring placement. It also utilized a wider shock placement than the GM setup. I have included a picture of the suspension below which shows all of this.
This rear suspension did not have poor roll stiffness, if anything it was the opposite. Ford claimed this design gave strong directional stability, resisted side to side body shake, resisted braking an acceleration motions, stabilized the vehicle in roll and resisted acceleration and deceleration forces.
It was the front suspension on these cars that had poor roll stiffness. This was the same basic suspension introduced on the 1965 Ford. The design utilized a very low roll center which in turn cause the lack of roll stiffness. Combine this with Ford using very soft springs, and small sway bars made these cars prone to body roll. However, with stiffer springs and appropriately sized sway bars, it is a competent front suspension design, and was utilized by NASCAR for the mid 1960s to the late 1970s.
Here is the frame which shows the coil spring placement. If you compare to the A-body above, you will see the coil springs are nor more narrowly mounted.
Thanks for the clarification.
I would not have associated the Ford Elite with a decent slalom speed. I guess it had the secret optional suspension.
Did the MC’s larger caster ever migrate to other vehicles, maybe in the 80s when light steering was less fashionable?
I vaguely recall our ’73 Century wagon with HD suspension had intentional toe-in front alignment. It was quite a bit firmer than our other cars, causing body noises, and always died at least once after a cold start, a common problem. The ’77 Electra that replaced it rode like a cloud, but the springs gave out after a few years.
The caster on the RWD GM cars of the 80s was generally higher than earlier cars, but not as high as the Colonnade Monte Carlos. By this time GM had improved its Saginaw steering box for improved toad feel. Cars like 9C1 Caprices, Iroc Camaros and Monte Carlo SS used quick ratio, higher effort steering boxes that had superior road feel to those of the Colonnade Monte Carlos.
As for the Elite, yes it likely had the optional heavy duty suspension. Further, it had a 400 engine, which was considered lighter than a 460. The Big Block cars were the worst handlers (see the Cougar video). The suspension was still criticized for having too soft springs but the bigger front and rear sway bar helped to make it have decent handling test results. It wasn’t a super secret option, the Ford Elite brochure lists it in plain site. I am sure the take rate wasn’t high, but Ford wouldn’t have offered it throughout the model years if nobody bought it.
A friend of mine around ’80 really had a thing where he wanted the Grand Am version, which from being a disciple at the time of R&T and C+D I knew handled well for what it was. Oddly, I don’t recall at all the Monte Carlos having a similar reputation.
Anyway, Bill, Wild Bill as he was oft known, finally got one. With a cracked block from freezing in snow country. He limped it along for a while with god knows how man cans of block sealer before they didn’t even sort of work anymore. Finally put an engine in it.
Not the best sample of the breed he none the less made money off it. Seems he had an odd penchant for getting hit in parking lots, while parked. Often by pickup snow plows. So he got a few hundred here and a few hundred there, perhaps profiting twice off original damage by subsequent damage, who knows. Not a get rich quick, but a few hundred here and there. He was a frugal guy, known to remove a screw from a tire that was leaking and put a different, larger one in it’s place. He really did like the car even though it wasn’t much to look at. I’m not sure which went first, him, drinking himself to death in the late 80s or the car.
Great article, and thank you for it.
Boomer car fans whine about the Colonnades, but they were hits overall when new. Sure, no more roll-down coupe rear windows, and not the ‘muscle car’ generation, but sold well and hit records. Especially “A Special” bodies: Cutlass Supreme, Grand Prix, Regal and Monte Carlo.
The 1972 Torino outsold the “classic era” ’72 Chevelle, wich was considered “outdated”. What if there were 1972 Colonnades, with smaller bumpers? Would they be “collectable”? And would ‘muscle’ Chevelle SS or 442 be desirable as the Gran Torino Sport or 71-74 Chargers?
Boomers as children and teenagers dreamed of the muscle cars but by the mid ’70’s the market had changed. Then it was about personal luxury coupes and broughams. Then energy crisis 1 and the disappearance of premium gas. Muscle cars had motor home gas mileage and insane insurance rates as well.
When boomers grew up and had money they bought and restored their dream cars. It wouldn’t surprise me if muscle cars start going down in value as those boomers start passing on. By the way, I speak as a boomer.
Late era Boomer, here, and used late 60’s A bodies were prime used cars when i was in HS, late 70’s, until gas crisis II.
But agree that the “B-J big money” 60’s cars will peak or decline, since younger car fans dislike their braking and handling. Modifying to modern specs in costly, too. Gen-X is already paying big $ for later model performance cars on Bring a Trailer. Especially unmodified Acuras.
curious what year frames are the same? I have a 74 Laguna that needs a frame. Will all 73-77 A-body vehicles fit a 74 Laguna?
Curious what year and body style frames are similar? I have a 74 Chev. Laguna that is in need of a frame. Are all 73-77 A-body GM the same? Appreciate any info..