JK_YYC posted this poster at the Cohort, to make sure I saw it. Thanks! I will plan to go. Maybe some of the cars I’ve shot will be in it; this one assume will be for sure.
But about those years (1972 -1995). Seems to me the Malaise Era ended well before then. Just when is subject to debate, so go for it.
According to the “Malaise Era” page at Wikipedia it is between 1973 to 1983, although one could certainly argue that some cars were still stuck in the malaise past that date for some time yet. And some cars never had a malaise.
These were the worst years for performance, due to tightening emission regulations that the car makers struggled to meet. I may not have coined the term, but I have identified “The Most Malaise Car Ever”. I did coin “The Great Brougham Epoch”, but that covers a somewhat different era, overlapping the malaise era but starting sooner and ending later.
The end of the Malaise Era happened–thankfully–due to the wider adoption of fuel injection and other measures to improve performance despite the emission regulations, which continued to tighten. Ford’s EEC IV, a fully integrated electronic fuel injection and engine management system is a prime example of the new technology that arrived in around 1983 or so.
But 1995? The Malaise Era was a distant memory. But who am I to argue with what undoubtedly should be a fun event. And it’s not like some of the cars from that era didn’t still have an aura of malaise attached to them. I can think of a few…
Sounds like a great show… too bad I live so far away (Austin, Texas). If I was closer l’d bring my 75 Eldorado convertible and my 77 GMC Transmode… good luck with the show, looks like it will be a great time…
The beginning is easy to place since it was emissions regulations and later fuel economy regulations that drove the lowering of specific outputs, across all brands and models.
The end is much harder to call and not every brand and model exited it at the same time.
I think the beginning of the end was the 1982 Mustang GT which was one of the first cars to see its power increase. But not every car saw that at the same point.
From the regulation focused side I can see a case that 1995 was the last year for any malaise car because the OBD-II regulations required much more computing power and overall more sophisticated engine management systems. Sure you had the EEC-IV as one of the first “high tech” management system. However other brands and models continued with pretty crude systems where you only had 10-12 codes and few if any things you could monitor in real time. The more powerful engine management systems required for 1996 did see a lot of cars get a boost in output since they now had the computing power to increase power and simultaneously lower emissions in the test cycles.
So I’d say the end is definitely between 1982 and 1995 and really depends on the specific brand or model.
No right answer but the mustang one works for me. I remember reading the 81 article at my friends house..he got Motor Trend. HP increased, it sounded good, did not have bad decals, seemed a bit serious about handling, even looked ~~~cool with fog lights/air dam.
I’d submit no later than the late 1980s. or perhaps it was the intro of the full size fwd GMs and the Ford Taurus in the mid-80s that indicated the start of a new direction away from the Malaise era?
The difficulties in keeping Malaise Era cars on the road might be a factor on the choice of model years here. True Malaise Era cars could be very fussy to keep running even when new, and the little bits and pieces that are needed to keep the things functioning as intended are often either devilishly expensive to buy, or are now completely unobtainable in the first place. Opening up the show to newer models, which might reflect the Malaise Era automotive ethos without actually dealing with the Malaise Era problems and the rarity of true ME cars on the road, assures a large field of entries.
I have the greatest respect for Malaise Era car owners. They endure the complexity and fussiness of keeping their cars going, and they then must deal with the casual put-downs and disrespect of both other car enthusiasts and much of the general public. They obviously do it for their own personal satisfaction and to respect their own car histories and experiences, which should be primary drivers of our own old car choices, rather than simply what looks good and gets all the acclaim at the car shows.
“I have the greatest respect for Malaise Era car owners. They endure the complexity and fussiness of keeping their cars going…”
On that note, a guy in my neighborhood had his 1979 Buick Skylark out last weekend. Not only does he manage to keep it running, since it’s not quite old enough to be exempt from California’s smog test he has to keep all the emissions equipment in working order in order to register it. I have always wondered how he manages to get it to pass the smog test every other year, even if is grandfathered under whatever emissions rules were in place in 1979.
This is one of the best comments on this entire article and about the discussion of the era. Thank you
It’s possible the malaise era did end before the time noted… but the car manufactures didn’t care to take notice and continued producing malaise models. 😉
Someone online claims that OBD II in 1996 ended “malaise era”, cant remember who, are where I saw it. But they are way off.
Murlee Martin coined the term for cars, on TTAC. He says 1983ish, {?}
That seems about right, plenty of decent performers debuting around that time – GTI, new Celica/Corolla/Supra, MR2 a year or two later, Mustang 5.0, C4 Corvette, affordable-ish turbocharged engines in all manner of things, Quattro, etc.
But lots of the old guard was still running around without significant upgrades for much of the rest of the 80’s. Still, ’95 seems at least about one generation too long at the outside. With that being 27 years ago now I suppose it does help to increase the amount of cars shown here and most would be considered “survivors” by most people.
Actually Murlee coined that term while working at Jalopnik and he says that 1983 is the beginning of the end, not the end, since many cars continued without power increases.
However 1981 could also be considered the beginning of the end as that was when the increased emissions standards drove the adoption of the O2 sensor which gave the ability to more precisely control fuel mixture and ability to burn very clean on test cycles and normal driving, but still provide the enrichment needed for more power.
One more thing, the whole ‘malaise’ term refers to low HP and performance, not “engine mgmt.”. Murlee will go on and on about “low malaise HP” in examples like the Cobra II.
My example: I refuse to accept that the 1987-93 Fox Mustang 5.0/302 v8 cars are ‘malaise. They have a huge aftermarket, and many ran just as well or better then ‘pre-72’.
It is pure opinion, though, not “standard”.
Yes, but it was the improvements in engine management that allowed the HP to start increasing while meeting increasingly stringent emissions regulations.
I don’t think the Malaise Era ended suddenly, in one fell swoop. Good cars started coming out in the early-mid 80s – but some models kept going in all their Malaise glory.
So while there are plenty of non-Malaise cars from 1985-1996, I would mark the official end cars as being things like the 1995 Chrysler AA-bodies and the 1996 GM A-bodies as the last of the Malaise cars you could buy.
I would find a 1995 Mustang out of place at a Malaise car show, but a 1995 Cutlass Ciera would fit right in.
Agree. Good cars showed that the technology was there. Some manufacturers just chose not to use it.
1982.
1982 marks the end of the malaise era–and the dawn of era of best motoring ever.
The malaise era, to me, is characterized by cars that ran either ran poorly (some pre-catalyst cars, as well as several cars equipped with catalytic converters), or were slow, or both.
By 1980, most cars were anemic, the few performance cars were underwhelming (compared to…earlier editions for F-car and Corvette, and euro editions for German cars).
It’s darkest before the dawn. Car prices had been increasing rapidly throughout the 1970s, and increased even more between 1978-82. But starting in 1982/83, the increases slowed down. By the mid/late 80s, car prices increased little.
Malaise cars are from America’s inflationary era.
The opening shots signaling the end of the long night of crappy cars and the dawn of better cars were the 1982 Toyota Celica SUPRA, and more importantly, the 157 hp (lame, but less lame than 1979’s 139 hp, not to mention the execrable 255 V8, auto only, in between) Mustang GT.
The Supra was a harbinger of things to come from Toyota and Japan. The Mustang GT could actually reach 100mph in under 25 seconds (around 21 per C/D.)
The Rabbit GTI was the third shot, a 1983 launched in fall 1982.
The Supra and GTI featured fuel injection.
By 1985, with computers and fuel injection, ANY manufacturer that wanted could offer a car that
1) Ran well
2) Was not slow (didn’t have to be fast, just not slow).
My father bought a new Fox LTD with the 3.8 V6 with “fuel injection” (it was not multi-port, but still) and 3-speed auto. That car ran well and could chirp the tires.
By 1985, for car enthusiasts–and non-enthusiasts, the US market had plenty of good cars–at all price ranges. My father bought a new Fox LTD, 3.8 V6, 3-speed auto (not the “fancy overdrive”). The engine ran flawlessly, and while not a pavement ripper, it moved well. It was better than ANY mainstream sedan in 1980. The Japanese cars came in good or great–even weird Subarus were good cars.
And since then, the US market has always had good cars. Not all cars available are “good”–but it’s been a good run.
The past few years have seen increased complexity with marginal increases in utility (direct injection, 8,9,10-speed auto vs 6, stop-start, turbos) or cheapness masquerading as value (CVT), so I think we are past peak.
Motorists will become increasing harassed, to discourage ICE vehicles and go electric. No one was forced to get a smart phone or flat screen TV, but people paid more and got them. If electric is so great, why can’t it compete on its own merits?
Indeed, Tesla seems to prove my point. If the subsidy vanished, people would still get them. But Tesla is a luxury car.
Also, we have entered an inflationary era, where automakers will try to find short cuts–and they will–at the expense of quality.
So 1982 marked the end of malaise I. 2020 marks the start of Malaise 2.
If you like your car, you better take care of it and keep it, because the new replacement will cost a lot more and offer less.
And that is what the Malaise Era was ultimately about–pay more, get less.
An enjoyable and informative posting, Paul.
I’d argue that 1974, not 1973, should be the proper starting point. Pollution controls strangled engines substantially worse than those of the ’73s (remedied somewhat by the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975). There was no gasoline shortage when the ’73s were being sold, and they included the Pontiac Grand Am and other interesting cars. And if a Mustang II was a malaise car, then a ’73 Mustang surely wasn’t; similarly for a ’74 Cougar vs. a ’73 (convertible) Cougar.
I’ll go with 1973 because, to me, malaise isn’t just about performance, it’s also about looks. And 1973 was the first year that the efffect of increased bumper regulations started to be felt.
Agree, as ’73 started those crazy bouncy bumper laws that made the rest of the world say “They legislated WHAT?” 😉
I say that in fun, but it was a weird aberration while it lasted.
I believe that the seat belt buzzer started in ’72, with ignition interlock in ’74. Our ’73 Century ran so poorly, we kept it only 4 years, the shortest my family has had any car.
1975. There were still cars with good power in 74…Chrysler still offered a 440 GTX and Charger, the Duster and Cuda 360 was respectable.
And, of course, Pontiac still had the rip-roaring Super Duty 455.
None of these large engines had the same output after 1971 – change in compression ratios, etc. In any case, there was no GTX (with standard 440) after the 1971 model year.
There ABSOLUTELY WAS a GTX to 1974. 275 net HP 440, probably 325 gross.
https://barnfinds.com/original-440-1974-plymouth-road-runner-gtx/
And, again…the fastest Firebird until the LS1 showed up was the 73-74 Super Duty.
I agree with Wikipedia.
1973-1983
A malaise automobile is not purposefully designed for maximum space utilization, but was designed for style deliberately limiting space as an image of exclusivity. The first generation of personal luxury cars epitomized wasted space. A Lincoln Mark V could barely fit four, and didn’t even give rear passengers a freaking window to view through.
We all know that the Malaise Era auto interior benefitted from the widespread availability of air conditioning. Windows were no longer required for cooling. Interior fabrics no longer needed to fight heat or sweat. This permitted over-tufted pillow seating no car a decade before would have ever offered. Malaise Era rides couldn’t have happened without air conditioning. The frivolity of vinyl auto tops, padded vinyl half-roofs, opera light, opera windows, and halo vinyl roof designs signaled to buyers Malaise-style interiors.
Engines were suffocated to meet EPA standards. Performance was not emphasized. “Sporty” exterior packaging did not come with performance or sporty handling. Luxury, exclusivity and isolation from outside was emphasized over performance.
GM offered the downsized full sized cars beginning in 1977 and stayed with that body style until 1987. Even those cars were far superior to the 1970-1976 GM full sized Malaise vehicles in space utilization, even though they offered Bordello interiors and rides.
Chrysler released the Omnirizon in 1978. Not a malaise ride.
Ford released the Fairmont. Nope.
GM released the X-Body in 1980. No.
Certainly not the Taurus in 1985.
Definitely not the C-body GM intermediates.
I suggest that the last of the Malaise Era dinosaurs be the Fifth Avenue/Diplomat, which was an updated Aspen/Volare filled with Malaise Era goodness. Its success in the market was due to being the last of the Brougham vehicles, and actually caught Chrysler off guard.
Certainly not past 1988.
I’m sorry but the Farimont was pure Malaise, not saying it wasn’t a step in the right direction but they were still saddled with anemic power trains.
I had a Fairmont and it was not a Malaise ride. It had a completely different body style, was purposefully designed with outstanding visibility, and never appealed to those looking for a personal luxury car. The base Fairmont was a weak performer, but the car had a completely different feel than what is a true Malaise mobile – the 1970-1979 Torino.
Finally, the Fairmont was the first Ford designed in CAD/CAM. It signaled an entirely new way to build at Ford.
Not being a PLC doesn’t mean it isn’t a Malaise vehicle, the weak power trains are what make it so. But if you insist on using that as part of the criteria the Futura certainly was for PLC buyers that weren’t willing to spend T-bird money.
+1: That’s why I had one. Same basket handle idea too! 😉
At 19, the Futura was an affordable PLC. It was replaced with an ’83 Aero-Bird. (At 23, I could then afford a T-Bird.)
I’ll argue that today’s rear spoilers, monster-sized grilles, bizarro headlamp shapes (we have tiny LEDs and we’re going to use them!), 22″ rims, and rubber-band tires are just as frivolous and tasteless as the padded vinyl landau roofs, opera windows, opera lights, pillowy velour seats, and wire wheel covers of the malaise era were, and someday people will look back and wonder “what were they thinking?” As for mechanical issues, I wonder how good the early EVs like the Leaf and Bolt will look like a decade from now if the fast-charging long-range electrics become a reality. Then there are the slow-selling, easy to forget “compliance cars”; electric versions of the Fiat 500 or Mini or Focus or RAV4 or Chevy Spark with about an 85-mile range. These are reminiscent of forgotten low-volume diesel cars of the early- to mid-1980s that were nearly unsellable by 1989. Most used-car buyers of the ’90s were unaware diesel engines were ever offered in mainstream cars like the Tempo, Maxima, 626, Continental, Celebrity, Monte Carlo, Regal, or Camry until they wanted to know why one of these cars was offered on the market at half their usual asking price. The 2020s equivalent will be “really, the Golf was sold as an EV?” (a very pleasant one actually, if you can live with the 125 mile range).
Agreed that the Brougham Epoch couldn’t have happened without air-conditioning, as huge C-pillars and unopenable opera windows wouldn’t have been appealing if rolled-down windows were needed to keep cool. I had forgotten about how being seen riding around on a hot summer day with your windows rolled up was something of a status symbol in the ’60s and early ’70s when most cars weren’t yet air-conditioned. Not having much window to roll down (at least in back) made those un-opened windows more obvious to onlookers.
Very good observations here. Friends of ours briefly owned both a manual transmission Civic Hybrid and a first-gen Leaf. Troublesome cars (really, just the short and rapidly diminishing range with the Leaf) that they (not car people) didn’t keep very long. Definitely analogous to diesel Tempo’s or even 4 cylinder Chevy II’s.
It’s a tough call when the Malaise Era ended, 1995 is a good milestone. But if you go back to the mid ’80’s, you see peaks of light….for design, how about the jelly bean, Ford Taurus, the Audi 5000s.
On the tech side, Chrysler turbo cars. Had several H, L P, J bodies, fuel injected, PCM controlled, even had the 3 key cycle test to read your fault codes without having a reader. Lotus inspired Turbo 4 systems with 4 valve heads. The crappy but durable 3 speed autos til the late ’80’s with the underwhelming 4 speed UltraDrive. All driven by OBD & emission standards.
Styling, well, thats a different story…for design, how about the jelly bean, Ford Taurus, the Audi 5000s, Chryslers LH cars…..definitely took off in the ’90’s Swoopy lines, flush doors & glass, panel reverses, deeper panel draws, roller cams in die sets, lots of push to improve.
If you cannot imagine seeing a female model, playing peek-a-boo through an opera window, or an enclosed rear seat, while wearing an evening gown – it ain’t Malaise. This commonly seen image conveys the attraction of this era’s automobiles.
The “personal luxury” aspect of the era is what sold nearly all cars during this time. Even the Nissan Z went from a proper sports car to a boulevard cruiser to attract buyers during this age. As engines detuned – they lost their performance attributes and manufacturers turned to selling exclusivity, seclusion and elegance in the same vehicles.
The Mercury ads with the tall lean woman in an evening gown, tethered to a full grown mountain lion, will always be “Maximum Malaise” to me. I loved those ads, both on TV and in print.
Now that is an interesting definition…..
Yeah, I saw an ad for one of these shows and thought 1995 was way too new, I’d go with 1983.
Although 1983 is a good year to mark the end of the Malaise Era, I would argue that it ended sooner, like 1978. There were still plenty of malaisy cars being produced well into the 80’s, but the late 70’s represented the beginning of a shift in mentality, much like when a person first realizes they need to at least start walking more and eat healthier. Automakers went from leaning into punishing car length to interior size ratios to trimming hundreds of pounds, length, and width from vehicles, all while increasing interior space. For example the downsized B-bodies and Panthers, and even Rivieras and Eldorados like the one pictured in the poster. By this definition, none of the cars in the poster are true malaise cars, even if they are from that era, but it still looks like a fun event.
1995 is absurd, for all the stragglers of the malaise era that may have lingered into the 90s there were also cars that were arguably harbingers of the malaise era before 1973 as well. Even if I indulged 1995, why 1995 and not 1993 or 1997? OBD II? So many people define malaise era by government regulations in the car industry so it’s real rich that the arbitrary end point they’d pick is when all automobiles standardized their powertrain control interfaces by law.
And let’s talk about cars, early 90s sports cars were abundant and arguably at a pinnacle loaded with technology that was reserved only for race cars and dreams in the 60s and 70s, but by the late 90s and into the 2000s they were dieing off like flies in favor of gas hog truck based SUVs with hard plastic interiors.
Also I feel like a lot of people define malaise era by horsepower ratings and don’t bother to take into account gross vs net ratings.
Cool show, surely fun, I’d go and enjoy it, but…well…throw a tarp over the Wheaties: I consider the whole damn thing absurd. A pseudonymous schlub leverages a misattributed, misremembered word to describe a vaguely-grouped year range of cars; stinks up an already-smelly website in milkin’ it; it spreads to other venues; someone throws up a credulous, factually-bogus Wikipedia article full of nonsensical babble and libertarian axe-grinding, and »poof« the Malaise Era™ of automobiles has always been a real thing, complete with clickbait listicles on Buzzfeed (№ 7 will shock you!). Pfft, I’m not playing. Now get the hell offa my lawn.
Like any of these lists, what is/is not “Malaise” is going to be specific to every model/manufacturer. Malaise lasted far longer in the bigger American stuff than it did at the smaller end of the scale. The Mustang GT with its 5.0 was pumping out some pretty serious power in 1985, but the Panther platform cars made do with a low-output version of that engine mated to an unfavorable axle and the AOD automatic that exacerbated the problems inherent to the tall axle ratios.
My 1985 VW GTI was absolutely not a MalaiseMobile, but my 1985 Crown Victoria was.
My 1993 Crown Victoria, in contrast, did not drive like a MalaiseMobile at all – the new 4.6 and AOD-E (plus its aero capabilities) resulted in a car that was no racer, but was very pleasant to drive.
Interesting. I would think the downsized 85 Crown Vic was NOT malaise. But the 1979-83 yes. Personal opinion.
It was all about the combination of power and gearing. Within the period of about 6 or 8 months my mother bought the 85 Crown Vic that I bought from her several years later and a good friend’s father bought the first 1986 Mercury Sable I had seen up close.
That Sable was a revelation, and I distinctly recall thinking that Mom should have waited a bit and bought one of these. Both started and ran fine, but where the Vic felt like you were throwing an anchor over the side every time it shifted into 3/lockup at 25 mph (and I mean every, single, effing time) the Sable just unobtrusively ran through its gears like pre-malaise cars had done.
I get in trouble every time I use the term CAFE here, but a heavy brick like the Panther cars got saddled with horrible gearing in order to keep the average up as high as possible. Ford knew its buyers for that kind of car would swallow it without complaint and they could keep their costs down by keeping mileage numbers up as high as possible. The Sable, by virtue of being a much more modern setup, allowed more favorable gearing and the car was a delight in comparison.
I wish I had time to research the difference between gear ratios in the two cars, but all I can say is that the difference on the street was night and day. The 1993 Crown Vic with the electronic AOD (that did not do a hard lockup immediately upon shifting into 3rd) and probably a more relaxed axle ratio drove a lot like I remembered the Sable.
Also Ford was moving the big car nameplates down a segment with the Fox based LTD, Marquis and Continental as replacements. Panthers only stuck around because the next gas crisis never came and prices stabilized, so they got a stay of execution, but didn’t have much money put into them as a result until the aero revamp.
Same thing was happening at General Motors with cars like the G body Bonneville and with the new full size H bodies running concurrently with legacy B/C bodies. Same with G bodies and N bodies for that matter. Chrysler was the only company who committed and dumped their R bodies and the biggest cars were the F bodies using big car names like Gran Fury and New Yorker
I’ve been a member of the Malaise Motors Facebook group going on a few years now. Within that group (and I believe that the show mentioned is tangentially related to that group, maybe directly), the definition that they apply for the end of the Malaise Era is 1995. This was chosen due to 1996 being the year that all cars had to have OBDII diagnostics. I tend to like this cutoff year.
That does not mean to say that every car until 1996 was Malaise, far from it. As noted above, there are lots of examples of cars in the 80s and early 90s that were showing the way out. The 1982 Mustang GT. The Ford Taurus. The VW GTI. The bubble era sports cars that came from Japan. The 92 Camry. The Chrysler LH cars. Clearly these were not the malaise cars of the beginning of the era.
But also during this time there were still holdouts from the Malaise Era still found in showrooms (mainly domestics). Next to that fire breathing 5.0L Mustang was a Ford Tempo that most commonly was making due with a low-tech 4cyl (based off of an engine that debuted in 1960) with a 3-speed automatic.
1994 was the last year of the Tempo.
1994 was the last year of the Cavalier & Sunbird.
1995 was the last year of the Dodge Spirit/Plymouth Acclaim & Chrysler Lebaron convertible. These were the last examples of K-car derivatives being sold.
This inclusion of later 80s early 90s cars was meant to be inclusive, because at the time of the founding of Malaise Motors on FB, most of those late 80s/early 90s cars didn’t really have a following. The “Radwood” era hadn’t yet come into existence yet, and so this was a place to talk about those cars as well.
One could look at the Japanese Malaise Era as the post bubble era. The loss of all the sports cars (Supra, 300ZX, 3000GT, NSX, etc) and the decontented Camry/Accord etc was definitely a bit of a malaise compared to the early 90s cars.
This was chosen due to 1996 being the year that all cars had to have OBDII diagnostics. I tend to like this cutoff year.
But, why? There are benefits to OBD II but they mostly fall into the category of things an owner wouldn’t realize, eg diagnosis on the mechanic end. And OBD II in 1996 still predated BCMs and networked electronics that took computer diagnostic capabilities even further, but became more prevalent at the turn of the millennium.
The transition from OBD-I with sequential EFI was imperceptible from OBD-II from the driver’s point of view, it wasn’t revolutionary technology like EFI was in the 80s that allowed power to climb whilst keeping emissions low, OBD-II wasn’t the catalyst for powertrain revolution to come, the progression in power and efficiency remained the same steady climb it had been before and since.
Before OBD-II the computers/interfaces were simply not standardized, just as the mechanical components were not standardized in the pre-malaise era. A regulatory marker ignoring the actual vehicles is a poor way to define an era. “Far from it” as a clarification is an understatement, instead *most* vehicles were not malaise for at least a decade before OBD-II. I’d even make the argument the reason OBD II came to exist is because all manufacturers had their shit so well together with powertrain control that it was feasible to standardize without hiccups, compromises and bandaids, the polar opposite of the effect Malaise era mandates had on cars.
My needless opinion of the year spread was changed a bit by these observations. Cars like the Tempo have to be considered in the greater Malaise group well into the 90’s. Based mostly on drivability, I believe there were a lot of models that were past Malaise by 1987. As to the entry year I say that nearly all 1973 models still had good drivability even if HP had taken some decline. Not so much for anything US/Euro/Japan (in the US) by 1974. The new 1980? Corona that my former MIL had was very much a Malaise club member, even with a manual trans.
The rip-roaring Super Dutt 455ran to 74.
Sure wish I could make that show! The late eighties seems about right to me as a kill date
for the era, although I would posit that the year of the last factory vinyl roof option would
be equally valid. This would be more in line with the 1995 date.
A nice graph of Mustang horsepower over the years.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/infographic-shows-ford-mustang-horsepower-through-the-years/
Malaise ended in 1985 if you set the cut-off point at 200hp. 1995 if you set it at 250hp.
1986 seems like the absolute latest date for the Malaise Era. I chose that year as that’s when the Taurus/Sable came out representing a non-Malaise option for mainstream family cars.
but the Tempo/Topaz and other current Fords kept the malaise flag still held high, Also Nissan’s late-’80s and ’90s Sentra and Stanza.
Taking it to 1995 will include some interesting cars that might not otherwise be shown. But to me that’s more like “Malaise and friends”. The worst was long over, though as MagnumSRT8Brian shows, there were some shockers still being built that late.
Sounds a fun show!
Malaise and friends sounds like “so bad it’s good movie night, featuring critically acclaimed award winning movies!”
Mind you I’d absolutely attend this show if I were in the area, and I have a car that fits the year range. A 1994 Cougar that came from the factory two years early with the apparently malaise era ending OBD-II ironically 🙂
Wow, thank you so much for writing about the show my club and I will be hosting. I see many people commenting on when and why the era ended when they think it did. I certainly enjoy the discussion but I’ll just say this, yes of course some cars weren’t really “malaise” by the early 90s, however I like to look at that cut off for inclusion purposes. So many of these cars have little following and appreciation. I can get behind the idea of having a place that they can consider their own welcoming community.
Yes there are also technical reasons for 1995 and things that led up to that year, but there’s no reason for me to repeat what’s been said many times already.
Anyway, unfortunately my 1985 Oldsmobile Calais that was mentioned in this article will not be making it to the event. I sold it to a collector in Wisconsin in October of last year.
If all goes well however, my 1980 Pontiac Phoenix and 1990 Cadillac Fleetwood Coupe will be making it.
All I could ask if for anyone who is interested to please spread the good word as we are hoping this will be a fantastic turn out.
For me, “Have you driven a Ford lately” declared the end of Malaise era with a bullhorn. V8 Mustangs and T-birds, more or less.
Intro of the Taurus/Sable a few years later makes sense, though. Surely that was the nail in the coffin.
’95 is way too late for me – by then there were things like LH-body Chryslers. Not malaisey.
Hi there! Member of the club who designed that poster here! We go by Malaise Motors of Facebook’s rules, which count the Malaise era as between the adaption of net horsepower (1972) and the final year before the universal adaption of OBDII (1996).
Personally, I divide the epoch into two eras:
Classical Malaise: 1972-1983 (in part because that was Murilee Martin’s spec and in part because of all the Greek temple grilles)
RAD: 1984-1995 (While yes, Radwood includes ’80-’99, all the radest cars of the late-90s began in 1995 or earlier and the early 80s was a stylistic death-struggle between radtastic Cyan/Magenta vapourwave and a severe case of BROWN)
Another measurement I go by is interior quality. Interiors across the board but especially in American cars took a nose-dive round about 1997, especially in their luxury makes. (Yes, they weren’t that great to begin with, but there is no comparing my friend’s [our President’s] ex-1985 Calais [which you’ve featured twice] with my ex-1997 Achieva. More cloth in the former, more milk-carton Fisher-Price plastic in the latter)
I used to be firmly in the old school camp (no later than ’83 and the beginning of adopting aerodynamics again) when I came to the Malaise Motors Facebook group but have since realized the idea of Malaise has grown beyond number crunching precious few horsepower, goofy pollution equipment, Pink Floyd’s Animals, and Jimmy Carter’s face. All sorts of people lived through the 70s, 80s, and 90s and they had all sorts of tastes in cars. Some people fought the emissions laws (tear down the wal–pollution stuff!), some people found a way around them (toward the end: McLaren F1, Dodge Viper), some people embraced them (because they liked couch-on-wheels more than getting somewhere with all speed) and we embrace all those attitudes. Sticking ’em next to each other in a show makes for an interesting debate, no?
We’ll be honored to have you, man! You’ve been an inspiration to me! I can’t wait to show you my 1980 Mazda 626/Capella (which I’ve ripped the pollution junk out of) and my 1989 Buick Electra Park Avenue Ultra (which is my couch on wheels, but with fuel injection, good mileage, and maybe a supercharger in its future).
1982.
1982 is the end of malaise. Three cars heralded the beginning of something better: the 1982 Mustang GT, with 157hp 302 and 4-speed, hitting 100mph in 21 seconds per C/D; the 1982 Toyota Celica Supra, a superlative car that showcased the enhancements that Toyota and Japan would be bringing out, and the 1983 Rabbit GTI, introduced in fall 1982.
Malaise cars ran poorly and were slow, and they cost markedly more than their predecessors.
There would be “legacy” malaise mobiles till the late 1980s.
But by 1985, any discerning American new car buyer had a huge selection of good cars, unlike 1980, the depths of malaise.
Even a non-exciting Fox LTD was a decent car. My dad bought a new one to replace the “tin can” (1980 Fairmont–a decent malaise car), and the LTD started and ran well and may not have been a pavement ripper, but not slow.
2020 was a bad year in general. I would say it also will heralded (or cursed) as the start of Malaise II.
Diminishing returns on technology (direct injection, 8,9,10 speed vs 6-speed auto, stop-start, turbos), increased cheapness (CVTs, 3-cyl vs 4-cyl), and the government’s overt meddling to push electric, plus massive inflation (inflation and malaise go like PBJ) add up to a huge “not good” future.
If you like your current ride, take good care of it. The replacement will cost a lot more, and you make like it less.
Agree completely regarding the time and car that heralded better times.
These are quotes from the Wiki page on the Mustang:
“1982 marked the return of the Mustang GT (replacing the Cobra) which used a specially-modified high-output 302 cu in (4.9 L) engine.”
“1983 saw the return of the Mustang convertible after a nine-year absence. The front fascias of all Mustangs were restyled, featuring new grilles, sporting “blue oval” Ford emblems for the first time.”
These quotes are pretty much what the headlines said in Motor Trend in those years. For me, these were the first rays of sunshine to be seen in a long time.
And, Malaise did persist for awhile, and arguably GM in particular introduced more cars that perpetuated it, but things generally did get consistently better and more interesting.
I would argue Malaise ended after 1991 when Chrysler introduced the LH platform for 1992, finally heralding the end of their “K” car era.
Oops..sorry folks. I thought my comment got dropped, and I wanted my two cents in this very interesting discussion, so I retyped a more succinct version.
The thing is.will Paul be able to find a Granada six cylinder in time for the show?7.
Great discussion going on here! The definition one can use for malaise is really a subjective view, as we can see from all the input. The association with strangled power output is one I’ve related to myself, and regulations make sense to me for a starting point, but I guess I’ve never really thought of that as an end point since the regulations didn’t go away with the “malaise”. I can understand some reasoning for a 1995 cutoff point for such an event because that is about the time passenger vehicles without at least one airbag went extinct (1996?) along with the carburetor (1995).
I’ve always associated malaise with a cynical attitude towards the consumer, the “Our product is exactly what people want because we make it!” attitude with no real regard to other options consumers had and why they resonated. I can think of many examples of new debuts with that going on well into the 1980’s. With this in mind, I’d peg my final year 1988 so as to include the first year GM W-body cars. Tons and tons of money thrown at developing those cars to achieve… extreme mediocrity? I’ll also use another example to justify 1988; that following year, a car that couldn’t be farther from malaise debuted, one that aimed directly at some of the arguably least affected cars from the malaise era that at the time were considered some of the best cars in the world. That car rattled the established players to the core, and singlehandedly changed the way they approached their segment of the market. It challenged the public’s preconceived ideas of what precision, prestige, and luxury meant. That car was the Lexus LS.
1995 or even 1999 makes sense for car-show purposes because it’s the newest a car can possibly be and be considered a classic car at this writing.
For general purposes I mostly agree with VanillaDude; the *most* malaise cars were those that had been percolating through the design departments of Detroit at the late ’60s peak of the musclecar era and meant to have firebreathing big-block engines, bumpers as nominal decorative elements, and above all l-o-n-g hoods and short, pert decks. They were born into a world where all those things were either passe or legislated into abeyance so they had smallblocks choked back with crude first-generation analog emissions controls and a chromed railroad tie at each end.
The long hoods and short decks stayed, along with the poor space utilization they dictated. To distract from this, Brougham add-ons were piled on.
Malaise (lack of) driveability was mostly gone from the showrooms after ’83 or so, but the Brougham aesthetic lingered a lot longer, I’d draw a line really right after the Mopar LH-bodies replaced the very square Dynasty/New Yorker/Imperial which were an intentional sop to those who found post-malaise looks too challenging and thus were 10 years out of date when Job One rolled off the line.
I think I’ll be there and hope to meet some of you. Unfortunately, I won’t be bringing my one true malaise car, the ‘81 TransAm I bought and sold in 1981. Although the cars I owned before my 150HP carbureted Firebird were well within the malaise date range (‘77, ‘78) and had woefully low power and economy by modern standards, I would not characterize either my ‘77 Scirocco nor my ‘78 Fiesta as having any malaise. In fact they both had quite a bit of élan.
I would say the “Malaise Era” ended in 1990 with the retirement of the 307 Olds/Quadrajet combo – but I can see why it was extended to 1995 given that is when GM & ChryCo quit selling the A & K derivatives.
Why the 307 Olds/Quadrajet cutoff? Because GM kept putting a 140 HP V8 in large luxury vehicles far past the sell by date of that motor/carb configuration – by 82 they had figured out throttle body EFI, but the Roger Smith era GM in their cynicism (and desire to be a FWD company aside from the Corvette and trucks) kept on just shoving that lo po combo under the hood of Broughams & Olds/Buick/Pontiac/Chevy wagons because they could. Chrysler was just as bad with the M-Body being powered by a carbed 318 until the very end – even in the “luxury” Fifth Avenue.
Yeah, the 307 has lots of torque down low to get the Brougham d’Elegance and all the tufted leather moving…but it runs out of breath quickly.
I love my 88 Brougham, but the fact that GM was fine with a 20k luxury car being carbureted makes me wonder who the hell was in charge.
However I bought a Holley Sniper EFI kit so my Electronic QuadraJet woes will be over soon…
I’m going to split some hairs here (and we all know painful that can be) and say there were two malaise eras: the ‘full malaise’ of 1973-1982, then ‘half-malaise’ from 1983-1990.
While there were a few cars that weren’t ‘too’ bad (Trans-Am, Mopar A-body 360), just about every domestic from ’73-’82 sucked, and sucked badly. Even the vaunted return of the 302 in the Mustang wasn’t all that since it initially came with a 2-Bbl carb, single exhaust, and a 4-speed trans that acted like a 5-speed with a missing third gear.
But the next year, as stated, Ford’s EEC IV made reliable EFI available to the masses. Some might even say it was a game-changer. But that’s offset by Roger Smith’s continued bungling over at GM. So, it’s kind of a wash up until Smith left in 1990.
I too will agree with Wikipedia’s 1973 to 1983 assessment.
Up to 1972, cars performed decently, but ’73 things really started to go downhill with the arrival of the big bumpers and the stringent emissions regulations.
The BIGGEST engine I’ve ever owned was a 351 Windsor. In a ’73 LTD. That thing couldn’t even break the tires loose. It had glacier like acceleration.
My 1979 Futura was equally sluggish, with its really lame (albeit smooth) 200 straight 6 and 1 barrel carburetor!
My ’83 T-Bird, with its 3.8L V6 wasn’t much better, but things were looking up by then, with more than a few better performing cars available.
Everything I’ve owned since was much better than these first three cars of a lifetime.
But I’ll give this festival a pass for including things up through ’95, as it a) will be more inclusive, and thus more cars to see, and b) there was still plenty of Malaise to go around, even in the nineties. (I’m looking at you Lido and all of your latter day K-car variants – GM had its share too.) Heck, my ’97 T-Bird was kinda lame too, as it had a 3.8L as well, but it was much better than the same engine in the ’83.
But my 1988 5.0L V8 Thunderbird is where I felt that the Malaise Era had ended. You all cite the ’85 Mustang GT, but I managed to take one of them off the line once with my heavier T-Bird with the same engine. At the next light the driver of the Mustang and I pulled into a McDonald’s for lunch and discussed it. We concluded that my ’88 5.0L with its Sequential Port Fuel Injection, was much better suited to the stoplight drag than his an old fashioned carburetor (although it was likely electronic controlled by then).
So perhaps the Malaise Era ended with the carburetor, although I think those guys in NASCAR continued to use them. Why they would? I do not know.
Carbs were mandated by NASCAR, to keep an even playing field. It’s easy to specify a carb with a specific CFM flow to keep power levels very similar, which was their goal to keep races tight.
Gotcha! You think I would know that being a former* fan.
* My favorite driver, Mark Martin, retired and I lost interest.
Thanks Paul.
NASCAR is also a very violent environment, with intense high speed crashes. Low pressure fuel systems, driven by a mechanical pump that only operates when the engine is running, are a sort of fail-safe to prevent high-volume, high-pressure spewing of fuel in a crash. Not the only reason NASCAR stayed with carburetors, but an additional one.
A big part was actually gearing. My 77 Cougar had a 351…but 2.50 gears. My brother in laws 5th Avenue had 2.21(!) gears. I had a 4600lb Olds wagon with a 307, overdrive, and 2.73s. My Caddy came with 2.28 gears.
In contrast, most pre-73 cars had deeper axle gears.
I think that extending the Era to 1994 is well past the real end of the period. However this cutoff will allow more owners to participate. There is more likely to be cars from the late 80’s and early 90’s than the late 70’s. My ’96 Mustang would not strictly qualify but couldn’t it squeak in because the body style debuted in 1994? I think that the organizers kind of want a “Radwood’ type of event which I think is cut off in the mid 1980’s. Either way it sounds like a fun event.
Devils advocate here. I detest the term “malaise era” and refuse to use it (this post excepted). It’s a pejorative term and, in my opinion, not in keeping with car enthusiasts who actually like cars and the car hobby.
The era in question had much going for it in terms of advancing auto safety,value, luxury, quality, and materials in automotive construction. The era included many significant standout cars that attract great interest for hobbyists. And, unlike older cars, these are affordable and attainable.
The complaints of the “malaise era” focus on a relatively narrow criteria, namely engine performance while seemingly ignoring these other advancements and benefits.
So it pains me to see people condemn the products of this era with that narrow minded criteria. I’d remind people that even before the “malaise era” performance was already losing market popularity as “muscle cars” and their ilk were losing market share.
Of course cars of this era could have been better. But the same could be said of cars of ANY era. If one enjoys maligning cars of any particular era (as the use of the term “malaise era” demonstrates) instead of enjoying and celebrating them, one is probably in the wrong hobby.
I’m guilty of using the term but I pretty much agree, I don’t like how it paints a broad stroke over a segment of older cars as lesser or inferior, and the never ending feedback loop it generates.
Really it seems like it’s a talking point to either A. inflate value of pre 1974 collector cars whose one time performance advantage is wasted sitting in a climate controlled garage and gingerly driven to 2-3 summer car shows. Or B. used as a “look how far we come” punching bag to rationalize modern automotive trends. Kinda like how people look back at old hairdos, “look how silly they looked!” they say, as they currently sport a trendy faux Hawk and twirly mustache beard – oh yeah, soooo much better, real progress!
For me I can come up with far more “malaise era” dream cars of mine (especially using the 1995 endpoint) than I can cars produced since, at least there was a lot of variety to choose from and 0-60 isn’t everything. Even cars before, I generally am interested in most old cars but I’d take a malaise era PLC over any 50s fin car any day
I’m not a fan either, actually, as it’s too broad. There were lots of brilliant cars during that time, mostly imported. The VW Rabbit/Golf was anything but “malaise”.
It’s why I prefer “The Brougham Epoch” to describe a significant design/taste trend that took hold during the 70s in particular, and even influenced some European cars.
But then there was plenty of genuine malaise in the worst of them during this period, many of which were broughams or brougham-influenced, like the Granada.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-vintage-review-1975-ford-granada-250-six-wins-the-most-malaise-car-ever-award-a-triumph-of-imitative-style-over-substance/
It reflects the worst of both.
The Rabbit and Golf were so popular back in the day, and really well thought of, and one sees so few of them today. The GTI, in particular, was a fantastic car, comfortable, good handling, peppy, and very well trimmed out for the day.
I agree with this too, and I own a “Malaise” car. And it seems people only ever focus on horsepower ratings and nothing else, like if luxury and style didn’t matter at the time.
The big drop in gas prices happened in 1985. It took a couple years for the manufacturers to get more power to the people.
I don’t subscribe to any one set of dates; I just know that the brown ’72 Plymouth Satellite my dad got as a company car (and bought when the company retired it) was malaise on four wheels. Lucky us! We kids inherited it (one foisted it on to the next, and there were seven of us). It would just QUIT! You’d start it, it would die, you’d try again and finally get it to move a few yards, and it would just QUIT! I don’t know exactly when it went to the junkyard, but it was mourned by none. We still refer to it as “that brown POS”.
Finally, a car show for me! They nailed the proper font for “Malaise” – that cursive script was everywhere in 1976 – as well as the paint color palette. May be the first car show where most cars that are trailered in aren’t to prevent damage or running up miles, but because they won’t start in the morning (or because someone didn’t know about the seatbelt-ignition interlock). Great times!
Agree that the Malaise Era ended with the adoption of fuel injection. Throttle body vastly improved drivabliity (no knocking, hesitation, stalling, etc) compared to a carburetor. Multipoint injection allowed an in increase of compression ratios translating into increased horse power. However, several vehicles lingered on with carburetors into the late 80’s. Therefore, the end of the Malaise era varied from car to car.
One final comment:
The poster for the car show is not really well done. And it’s not that, as many of us here agree, the malaise era ended in the 1980s.
The selection of those five cars leaves quite a bit to be desired, because they are not what I associate with malaise.
Take the Volvo off–replace with an AMC Pacer. That car was conceived, born, and died in the malaise era.
Caddy Eldorado–was there even a factory convertible offered? Replace it with GM collonade–Cutlass Supreme ideally, it was a best seller.
The Mazda 626? It was slow, but nicely done otherwise, among the better cars. Not a big player. Replace with a Datsun B210 to represent Japan.
Take the Buick off, replace with an Aspen or Volare. Another car conceived, born, died during malaise. To add insult to injury, it’s predecessor enjoyed a good reputation as a reliable car–“the Camry of the 1970s” some one here wrote. These looked more modern, had nicer interiors, but had a reputation of being lemons.
Actually, scratch that. Replace the Buick with a Granada. A truly awful car, ersatz luxury, a wannabe Buick or Benz. The Granada embodied so much of what was wrong…
Leave the X-car
For Europe…how about a Mercedes diesel–a W123. 1977-83
And they could add
6. Vega
7. Aspen/Volare
8. Mustang II
9. Rabbit
10. Subaru (for weirdness)
maybe a Fairmont
Maybe I’ll email the organizers, lol.
I’m sure it will be an interesting, fun event. I hope our host covers it!
The intent may have been to show cars that people would actually want to see again.
This video by Adam Wadecki comparing pre-malaise and malaise-era Oldsmobiles is very illustrative of their differences. Watch especially the driving experience of the 1967 around 25.00. I remember the 1967 well as one of my high school job bosses had a new 1967 identical to this one except for its red body color and my recollections are identical to Adam’s reactions. An amazingly high quality car even though a base Delta 88. Smooth, quiet, powerful, and the interior bits so impressive.
Well taking their range from 1972 to 1995, and thrown out the few outliers as in throw out the high and low scores in diving, I get 1973-1985 at best.
You just know someone might show up with 1993 Lexus.
At first blush, I reckon 1972 to about 1984 is about right, as it reflects the awful crash in performance in the face of ULP and emissions requirements (and yes, JPC, CAFE did have a role in terms of silly axle ratios, etc). Mind you, malaise means a feeling of unwellness whose source is hard to identify, which it isn’t here: the source was a fat, lazy industry that thought it could lobby its strong-armed way past this blip in over-regulation rather than spending the money on tech that they knew would cure it.
But on closer thought, I’d give it 30 years or more past ’72, on another basis: design.
The US had previously never made many dynamically-advanced cars, but they were universally tough and frequently beautiful. The genuinely puzzling thing, the real malaise, is the sudden evaporation of the American genius that had made it great (not a political reference, btw). To outsiders from the US, there was just year upon year of ugly, malformed crap, and not just by dint of absurdist fake wires and such, I mean deep in the look of things. Take even the better ones like the US-acclaimed Taurus of ’85 – compared to the Audi 100 from which it came, it’s a bitty mess. US cars just looked amatuerish, an effect especially magnified when they aped some Euro design. Even familiar cars like the neat and competent J-car went across the Atlantic and got ugly and over-detailed. I say this without even touching upon the generally inferior dynamics (and build quality) noted on any US car when sold in other markets, a further puzzle.
Meanwhile, Europe and then Japan turned out decades of good-looking, properly-proportioned, innovative and artful stuff. (Whether or not they were all better as dependable year-round transport is entirely another debate!)
I just used to shrug, wrinkle the nose a little, and assume inward-looking Americans liked their cars this way, but the slow sinking of the domestics beneath the tide of normal cars from overseas belies that.
The malaise of this type is over now, but only by maybe 10 years.
ULP, for those who don’t know, is an Australian abreviation for “unleaded petrol”.
There was no awful crash in performance in the face of ULP. Many ’75 models running on unleaded ran better and gave better performance and economy than their ’74 counterparts, because with the catalytic converter cleaning up the exhaust, the engine didn’t have to be strangulation-tuned to squeak past the emissions type-approval tests.
I should have just said “emissions requirements”, as I’d wrongly assumed the big drop in compression ratios (and power output and performance) in late ’71 was for unleaded then.
You’re quite right: the drop in compression ratios for 1971 was to meet the requirement that all engines be able to run on regular unleaded, even if they didn’t have to yet, since the catalytic converters weren’t yet in use. That affected hp for the high performance engines, but not for those that were already running on regular gas.
In 1972, advertised hp ratings were switched from gross to net, which suddenly made all the engines appear much less powerful, even if they weren’t changed at all.
Take even the better ones like the US-acclaimed Taurus of ’85 – compared to the Audi 100 from which it came, it’s a bitty mess.
The Taurus didn’t exactly “come from” the Audi; it was substantially influenced by it. And I disagree about it being a “bitty mess”; it’s quite well designed. Since it sold for considerably less than the Audi, some compromises were inevitable, as well as some on the interior to appeal to the mainstream American buyer. But it was a vast improvement over what it replaced, and what it competed against.
As to the rest of the factors you mention, they cannot be denied. There is one very significant extenuating factor: All these smaller and FWD cars were completely out of the competency set of existing American car planners, engineers and designers. They were forced to create things that were essentially foreign to them, and cars that they personally didn’t relate to or were inspired by. This is a huge difference compared to European and Japanese makers. It’s not an excuse, but it explains largely what happened.
American manufacturers had become complacent building essentially the same car in a variety of shapes and some variation in size, but fundamentally the same, with little evolution, for decades. They were not culturally equipped to deal with the profound and very rapid changes inflicted on them by the government and the competition from the imports.
And once they lost their mojo, and started going downhill, it’s very hard to turn something like that around. They became defensive and increasingly had a defeatist attitude, at least with those segment of the market where they were losing share.
So they increasingly put their efforts where they weren’t: trucks and SUVs. Which is what saved them and is still what is generating record profits for them today.
Yes, 71 was the start of low compression (just GM, initially), but there were still plenty of cars making good power. Note that Pontiac’s best, the Super Duty 455, has 8.4 compression.