(photo: AGuyinVancouver)
To many, the name “Pontiac Grand Am” stirs up rather dizzying thoughts of the over-styled, over-cladded N-body compact, that Pontiac peddled upon rental fleets and the general population from the second half of the 1980s through the first half of the 2000s. But, as is often the situation, automotive nameplates have a way of being recycled; twice in the Grand Am’s case.
The first Grand Am was the 1973-1975 A-body “Colonnade” coupe and sedan. Combining the luxury of the “Grand” Prix and the performance of the Trans “Am,” it was marketed as an alternative to European imports, and featured a special radial-tuned suspension, front and rear stabilizers, and steel-belted radial tires as standard equipment. To go along with its performance image, only the A-body’s largest V8s were available: a 400 cubic-inch (6.6L) and a 455 cubic-inch (7.4L).
Complementing its sweeping lines, its front was highlighted by the most dramatic interpretation yet of Pontiac’s “beak nose” grille. Made from a special urethane foam bonded to a steel frame, this squeezable “Endura bumper” had the ability to return to its proper shape following minor impact. Inside, a genuine African crossfire mahogany-trimmed console and instrument panel and reclining buckets with adjustable lumbar support helped distinguish the Grand Am from other Pontiacs.
But after a brief three-year run, the Colonnade Grand Am was discontinued, owing its death to falling sales and stricter safety regulations that would have required costly front-end design modifications. However, the Grand Am’s death was short-lived, for the name would return in 1978. Once again riding on the A-body (a.k.a. “G-body” after 1981), the second generation Grand Am was about ten inches shorter, five inches narrower, and 700 pounds lighter than its predecessor. Losing its curvaceous styling, special interior, and a significant amount of performance, this Grand Am was way more “Grand LeMans plus” and far less European import fighter.
Visually, just a Grand LeMans with a different grille, the Grand Am was wrapped in the straighter-edged, boxy sheet metal that dominated American automobile styling from the late ’70s through mid ’80s. In other words, it looked rather dull and cookie-cutter. At least its front fascia (which wasn’t particularly attractive) and hint of shoulders (which were rather two-dimensional due to slab-sided sheet metal) lent it some distinction over A-bodies from Chevrolet, Buick, and Oldsmobile.
Inside, Grand Am interiors looked very similar to other Pontiacs. Round “rally gauges” with full instrumentation and bucket seats with a floor console were both available. Gone was the special African mahogany, replaced with a cheaper simulated walnut appliqué. Found in other A/G-body Pontiacs, this woodgrain pattern, combined with the full array of round gauges, made for one of the more interesting dash designs of the period.
Standard power came from Pontiac’s 301 cubic-inch V8, making 140 horsepower with a two-barrel carburetor, or 155 in optional four-barrel form. In California only, a Chevrolet 305 cubic-inch V8, making 135 and 145 horsepower, respectably, was substituted due to stricter emissions regulations.
With nothing truly special to offer over a cheaper Grand LeMans, this car from GM’s “We Build Excitement” division was a flop, selling only about 16,000 units over the course of three years. Not many seemed to notice it then, and even fewer remember this brief second run of the Grand Am. Especially to younger generations, the below picture is the Pontiac Grand Am that will forever be ingrained into our memories.
I always thought the “Grand” “Am” was the dumbest possible name for a car.
Well, they could have chosen the other half of the contributory names, and made it a Trans Prix. That would’ve been even dumber.
I think that was a version of the Trans Sport minivan.
I had no idea the colonnade Grand Am was so spiffy.
Obscure trivia question: Can anyone name all the non-Cadillac GM products that had real wood trim post-1972?
I can only come up with the Olds 98 Touring Sedan and Aurora, but I’m sure I’m missing some…
Buicks did have trim on the Park Avenues that were at least fake wood. The 95 Riviera had no wood like trim, but the 96’s did add either fake or real wood trim.
The 1973-75 Grand Prix (which shared the dashboard of the Grand Am) also came with the “crossfire mahogany” appliqués as standard on the dash, door panels, and console. Pretty sure they switched to plastic in ’76.
The original Envoy/Denali luxo SUV’s that GMC started comig out with in the late 1990’s had some limited wood trim here and there. I think that the wood that was added to the Rivieras in 1996 was real, there was a real wood option for the 1983-1985 Rivieras too, that covered the dash with a huge slab of wood.
The 1985 Buick Riviera had an option for a real wood dash.
Post-1997 Park Avenue Ultras had thin slivers of real wood in the doors, though the dash applique was from plastic trees.
Supposedly there is now a luxury package on the Lacrosse that offers real wood trim.
Was it for 1985 only? I know that it came on the Indy Pace car replica coupes, which were from 1983, so I assumed that it became a regular option sometime after that, its pretty rare, and, at least to me, not that good looking of an option, it sort of looks like a plank that was glued to the dash, I remember seeing one with the pigskin suede and leather interior combination, it was pretty swank.
There was a Riviera XX special edition over at Hemmings with the real wood trim that looked pretty sweet.
1994 Cadillacs. Especially the Seville STS. On the dash and both front and rear doors. Had one.
Nice write-up! A couple of buddies acquired one of these circa 2000 when I lived in Iowa City. It was the proverbial “$100 car” and was treated as such. After some truly amateur brake work, it was roadworthy. The last I saw it, it was partially submerged in the pond across from the art building after having been intentionally rammed into a tree during some exuberant Hawkeye tailgating. To this day, I think it was the only 2nd gen Grand Am I’ve ever seen in the flesh.
Check out those bizzare side steps!
This is the first coupe I have ever seen with running boards!
+1. these cheesy running boards are a deadly sin on pretty much anything.
Running boards on cars from the Canadian prairie provinces are a common sight…wasn’t surprised to see Saskatchewan plates on this one!
When I saw the running boards, I knew the car was from Saskatchewan as they help reduce stone hits and resultant rust. Plenty of gravel roads and Arctic winters are hard on cars.
Makes sense. You know some of us Californians would’ve never imagined that. Good to know.
Holy carp! A Chevrolet 305 V-8 making 135 horsepower? Wow! makes me feel better now driving the Saturn L-100 SE with the 2.2 liter engine I got brand new in 2002. Well, not really, Just this morning I was reading about modern turbocharged 3 bangers that make 140+ horsepower.
The 1970’s were really a sorry state to be in, especially CA!
Yeah, but an I3 or an I4 doesn’t have ~250 or so lb.-ft. of torque like that 305 Chevy did. Plus a small V8 outputs its power more smoothly than a 3- or 4-cylinder engine.
Sure, these cars were primitive by today’s standards, but some of them were pretty nice driving cars, including this Grand Am. I don’t share the author’s disdain for it.
That modern fours don’t produce that much torque as simply or as cheaply as the 305 I will give you, but the combination of turbocharging, direct injection, and variable valve timing is a wondrous thing. Example: the current Golf GTI: 1,984cc, 220 hp, 258 lb-ft of torque from 1,500 rpm. Of course, if you want to point out that all the technology is an expensive and complicated way to get the sort of grunt a 5-liter V-8 can make with a carburetor, I won’t argue that, either…
My 2 liter 4 has 260 lb-ft from 1700 to 5500. Next years is upgraded to 295 lb-ft from 3000 to 4500 with 260 at 1700 and 5500. It does not idle as smoothly as the Northstars, even after the software upgrade to fix idle smoothness.
The 2.0 Turbo motor from VW is a thing of wondrous torque, especially when paired with the DSG. Brilliant power train. Smooth as silk, too.
I don’t disagree about the new, small turbo-GDI engines. They’re marvels of engineering with plenty of power & torque starting at low RPMs despite their surprisingly small engine displacements. They’re economical when driven gently but have lots more power on tap when you need it. They’re part of the reason that cars are better than they every have been (and why I don’t drive a Curbside Classic as a daily driver).
Maybe I’m being a grumpy old man, but peak horsepower ratings from the 70s don’t really tell the story about what these cars were like to drive, and as the years march on, there are fewer of us around who remember driving these cars every day.
We all know peak horsepower only tells a small part of the story. The 240 peak bhp of a Honda S2000, for example, with it’s motorcycle-like redline and only 162 lb-ft of torque is going to drive a lot differently from a V6 Altima that has similar horsepower at lower revs, plus nearly twice as much torque.
So I cringe when I see comments here comparing the power output Olds 260 or a Chevy 267 with a 2.2L Saturn or something. Sure, they were primitive by today’s standards. And sure, our Olds 260 needed to downshift to second to make it up hills in the Blue Ridge. But for everyday around town driving, they didn’t struggle to keep up with traffic. Torque is what you feel when the light turns green, and small, iron-block, carbureted, vacuum-hose strangled V8s of the 70s had more than enough torque for that.
In red two-door form with a white vinyl top, that Pontiac seems to work well enough. Your analysis of it as not-particularly-special seems spot on, but the Pontiac and Buick A-bodies of the mid ’70s-early ’80s were never particularly popular. I imagine that had to do with the public’s perception of both brands more than anything, but for someone who wanted one more fancy than a Chevy, this Pontiac beat the aerobacks.
Actually I really did not see any purpose of a 1978-1981 Grand Am/Lemans at all. It was nothing but a 78-80 era Malibu with a restyled front end and a mild restyled rear. If you looked at the side profile it looked exactly like the Malibu(unlike the Olds or Buick A/G body)
I think they did a better job in 1982 with the downsized Bonneville in the looks dept.
Yeah! The front end fascia…restyled…
Have to disagree here. The LeMans/Grand Am may not have been super distinctive–but you can tell the difference from the side. Malibus had a subtle reverse cant to the nose, LeMans was straight up, and the Grand Am had a gentle rearward slope.
And personally I dislike the Bonneville! It’s too literal–looks like a 1981 B-body Bonneville that was shrunken in the wash, with a thicker C-pillar. Never worked that well for me.
Not much love here! I really like the roof- but not with a vinyl cover. The color choice featured in ads, usually red, white, or silver with a contrasting accent color gave the car a more modern less fussy appearance. The Malibu had a sharper fender line and a squared off blunt looking front and rear ends. I thought that the slantback sedans were more interesting looking than the coupes though I am probably the only one. My dad had a couple of Malibu wagons of this vintage which shared the fixed rear windows. Probably the most hated feature.
I had forgotten that these were ever made. Not that I was really paying attention at the time.
Sometimes I feel like I was the only high schooler who didn’t own a Grand Am, Grand Prix, Bonneville, Monte Carlo, G6, or jacked-up pickup truck.
In high school I owned a Yamaha RD350. My first car was a 63 Valiant Signet coupe (which had previously been my sister’s first car). Never owned a Pontiac anything, and my pickup is standard ride height. Long after high school I did have a 70 Malibu two-door as my second car (which had previously been my sister’s second car… I’m sensing a pattern).
Not just you.
I should have clarified–in a small MN town with 100 people per class, and the average new young driver prefers a little flash and decent reliability over “quirkiness” or anything that’s just a little bit different.
Either we are callin’ it Grand Am or Grand Le Mans, this IS/was a great car! No doubt about it! As I had been a very satisfied owner of a Grand Le Mans (Safari) model assembled in GM’s former Bienne /Biel/ Switzerland factory. It served very well my family for several years without major errors. I suppose only the front end fascia and some decorative panels inside the passenger compartment were the difference between the Grand Am and Grand Le Mans…
Mark me as one of the 16,000 who bought one of these. Went car shopping in 1978 looking for a new Grand Prix, but was put off by the new formal and downsized look. The Grand Am was more unique, looked somewhat sportier and had the same great dash layout as the GP. Was also a few hundred cheaper. Mine was black with the constrasting gold below the molding. Very similar to the one shown above, although I did not have a vinyl roof (thank God). Gold Rally wheels completed the exterior look, which I thought attractive.
Performance was OK with the 301 4-bbl, due to the fact these were 700 pounds lighter than the Colonnades. Handling quite good as these had 70 series tires and the upgraded suspension. The best feature was the interior, with buckets, console, sport steering wheel and that great dash with aluminum faced gages (yes, that’s how Ponitac spelled it).
Fit and finish were awful, but I kept it 10 years and 110,000 miles without too much trouble, although it was just about shot at the end.
I suspect the Grand Prix was the biggest reason these didn’t sell. Saving a few hundred dollars helped motivate you to choose the Grand Am. Most people probably looked at it the other way: For a few more dollars a month, they could have the more stylish/prestigious Grand Prix.
Grand Ams were rare even when they were new, but Grand Prix (Prixes?) were everywhere in those days.
GM killed the Gran Prix brand with this generation of car. Instead of being a really special, limited production car with excellent performance, the cars often went out the door as strippers. There were loads of them on the road and then they all just disappeared.
Glad to find your reply after reading a number of negative comments, including the characterization of the car as a “deadly sin.” I know these Grand Ams pretty well as two friends bought them new in 1978. They were both CA cars so had the 305, and both were four-door sedans, the version I think favors this styling. The factory-ordered car is below. The other car was white with blue trim and interior. Both had the very attractive and durable cloth bench seat interiors and were fully loaded.
As you note, handling was very good with the touring suspension yet the ride was supple. These cars were exactly right-sized for the time, were easy to park. and outward visibility was excellent. They were roomy, quiet and comfortable and reasonably well built for the time. The dash with the round, aluminum faced gauges was quite handsome and functional. The car below was driven for 14 years before being traded in for a new Chrysler.
Perhaps the styling was a little glitzy but these were the disco years. Was a production of 16,000 that small for a limited-edition model? You certainly saw far more of the familiar LeMans models in SoCal at the time but that made owning the Grand Am all the more fun. I don’t recall Pontiac pushing the sale of the this car (the car below took quite some time to be delivered and unfortunately Pontiac neglected to include the power rear vent windows specified on the order sheet and included on the other car mentioned above). Perhaps the sales folks thought the softer ride of the LeMans would better satisfy the average customer.
Cool picture, I really liked these with the small snowflakes from the Trans Am, I agree these were specialty midsizers that were almost a parts bin freebie from what was available off the shelf, even if they didn’t sell that many, so what? It was still an interesting piece.
GM has its faults for sure, but you have to hand it to them for having the absolute HUGEST selection of really badass looking factory wheels of any mfg. Even now, you see GM cars/trucks wearing sweet factory rollers pilfered off of other cars. IROC wheels on lowered S-10s was the ticket when I was in H.S.
It is not that I hated the 78-81 Grand Am/LeMans as i like all A/G bodies but Pontiac could have taken better effort to style the car to hide its Malibuian looks. Buick and Oldsmobile did with different roof lines.
Here is a pic of my 1985 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme and is roofline
I had forgotten you could get a four-door Grand Am of this generation. Of the 16,000 sold, the coupes must have handily outsold the sedans–though I agree that the 4-door version looks a bit better balanced. Wonder how many of the four door versions might be left?
The LeMans / Grand Am was the weakest of the ’78 A bodies. I’d probably take a Grand Am sedan over an aeroback Olds or Buick, but, that would be about the best I could do with it, and I’d be back at Olds and Buick with their ’80 sedan roofline.
The trim details are just weak, and the low line LeMans with its abrubtly terminated bumper trim was just awful (neighbors had one in baby blue). The more gussied up versions in Grand Am trim look too much like Ford’s inspiration for the ’80 Thunderbird and Cougar XR-7.
Low praise indeed, the Grand Am is better than the ’80 Thunderbird and Cougar XR-7.
The Malibu Classic was a simpler and much better looking version of this car.
To my eye the contemporary Malibu always looked like a car someone’s Aunt Mabel would buy. Dull, the late Seventies equivalent of a Studebaker Lark.
Thanks for the history lesson. I knew there were Grand Ams (Grands Am?) before the 80s-90s ones that became roaches of the road, but I could never sort them all out.
I vote ‘Deadly Sin’ on this one. Maybe not for GM as a whole, but certainly for Pontiac. Everyone knew that the seventies meant the death of performance with ‘brougham’ now the name of the game, but nowhere did it seem to start more than with this car from GM’s performance division. It was the antithesis of ‘We Build Excitement’ and a whole lot more like ‘We Build Mediocrity’. Even Pontiac’s brougham-mobile of the day, the Grand Prix, was pretty damn bland.
Seems like the main thing that kept Pontiac alive for the next 32 years after the ’78 Grand Am was just the Firebird. It’s telling that when it succumbed to low sales in 2002 (a year after the last-nail-in-the-coffin Aztek arrived), the division only lasted for another eight years before GM mercifully pulled the plug.
I strongly disagree, though this era was a tough spot for all manufacturers, Pontiac still offered what were arguably the best cars of their respective mid priced makers, their downsized B-bodies were some of the cleanest of all the 1977 big cars, they worked on improving the handling on their cars, they still had some performance spirit in an era when performance became a dirty word.
After what could be called a relatively dull period that lasted between 1977-1982 or so, Pontiac found their mojo again and started producing some very interesting cars, probably some of the most exciting withing the GM monolith, the Fiero, 6000STE, later the Bonneville SSE and GTP Grand Prixs, by the mid 1990’s when I sold Pontiac we had a damn good performance oriented line up that had some very pretty cars that weren’t just Firebirds.
I think I’m with you here, Carmine. As a twenty-something Australian who read Car and Driver each month, it seemed to me that Pontiac was the GM division that seemed closest to my understanding of what a car should be.
History seems to show that buyers weren’t ready for the Grand Am concept of a car. Was the Grand Am ahead of its time?
Yes the Grand Am should have sat out until 1985 when it returned as an N body and offered things like a manual transmission, fuel injection and a optional 2.0l turbo engine that put out 165 hp. It was also better looking. I always liked the early N body Grand Ams (85-88) which had the sealed beam headlights and the flat front end verses the 89-91 with the euro lights and the pointy front end.
I will agree about Pontiac’s downsized B body being one of the best of the General’s B Bodies and will agree they did regain performance division title in GM by 1984 BUT they kneecapped themselves in 1982 by dropping the full size Bonneville and Catalina and moving the Bonneville name to what was a gussied up version of the 1981 LeMans and chasing folks away from Pontiac that were looking for a large car.
Pontiac realized their error and brought the Parisianne down from Canada but it was too late the folks that wanted the large car went to the other GM divisions who were happy to sell them a large B body automobile.
Youre leaving out the GTO, which at the time seemed like Poncho was alive and angry. Im still sore that we didn’t get a Holden ute as the G8 ST
From what we heard here, you were going to – if Pontiac had survived.
Uncharacteristically harsh assessment overlooks quite a bit.
Stying is subjective–I personally thought it was tied with the 78-80 Malibu. That aside, the Pontiac had well-laid out, round gauges, and offered a tach. If you wanted a sports sedan in the depths of the malaise era, and could not afford a BMW 5-series, this car was as good as it got.
It’s ride and handling were quite good. Of course, a similar vintage Malibu with F41 option ($40 or $50) was also quite good–and the GM products mid-size cars were arguably better than the Volvos, Fairmonts, Peugeots, Cressidas, and 810s of that era–only a BMW 5 was better–and it cost over 2x as much.
The original Grand Am was amusing (a Cutlass Sedan looked better and was better), but the 78-80 was a great car for that era–some years, it was even available with a manual trans (though I think the auto was the better choice in this case). I disagree with Mr. Saur’s assessment.
Thanks, I was thinking the same thing, this car gets an undeserved “slam o rama” that’s commonly given to 70’s GM cars here, a shtick, that frankly, is getting a little old and tired, as if every other car in the world was some sort of atomic powered space ship.
12 year old comments like:
OMG 135hp V8??……WTFBBQ…FAIL….
OMG you have to crank a Model T to start it…..how stupid is that, why couldn’t you just use an app?
Are also kinda stale too.
I don’t think the ’78 Grand Am would get so much vitriol except, as someone else pointed out, the Malibu Classic of the same year came off a whole lot better.
Forgive me, but I don’t think I was too harsh on this car, other than saying it wasn’t that unique or notable compared to the LeMans or the Colonnade Grand Am. In fact, I even complimented its instrument panel.
That said, the overall tone of the article is objective, and not a strongly opinionated piece. I offered no personal feelings on the V8’s power, other than stating its actual horsepower. I’d hardly call myself GM’s biggest fan, but I’m not a hop on the bandwagon GM hater either.
Carmine, where exactly is Brendan’s “slam-o-rama”? What did he harpoon? Stating sales of a model were slow and the engines made modest power relative to their displacement is factual. If he has some nuanced string of insults, please enlighten us all.
Every engine from that era made low hp compared to displacement, thats the way it was, I don’t understand, but the tone comes across as if it was some sort of deliberate plot by the manufacturers to make 120hp V8’s, cars need to be looked at in relation to their time, also, saying that the front end is unattractive and that the looks are cookie cutter, when it was way more distinctive than a comparable Fairmont/Zephyr or LTD/Cougarrey, is more opinion than fact.
I don’t know, its a sort of damned if you do and damned if you don’t at the start of the article he’s waxing about the Colonnades as if they were some sort of halcyon product from a better era and that these downsized, trim and crisp cars were some sort of insult to the grand Colonnades that came before.
Maybe “slam-o-rama” was a bit harsh, but overall, to me the article seems to be a bit negative.
Carmine, I very much agree with you; see my comments above. I really like these cars and thought they were a huge improvement over the Colonnades. I frequently rode in and on occasion drove the two Grand Ams mentioned above and agree that they were very competitive with cars of the era. I also had friends who had 78 and 79 Cutlasses that were terrific cars. GM did a good job of downsizing the Colonnades into more svelte but roomy and practical cars for the time and you could get them equipped in large variety of styles and with a wide array of options.
I actually like the Colonnades too, mainly in the early, performance oriented versions, like the Grand Am, Century GranSport and 442’s. These cars were very trim, airy and crisp.
The basic LeMans models missed the mark, but the LeMans had been going downhill since the Colonnade redesign in 1973, so was the Chevellibu. What seems to have happened during the Colonnade era, is that the specialty coupe versions like the Monte Carlo, Grand Prix and Cutlass Supreme flourished, while the basic versions faded into the background.
IIRC the trade-in for the white Grand Am mentioned above was a 1975 Cutlass Salon, a very nice car if a bit big for my taste. I just never developed a liking for the Colonnades – preferred the previous and subsequent iterations of these cars. To each his own. My general recollection is that downsized Grand Am with the 305 produced significantly better gas mileage than the 75 Cutlass and given the second gas crisis, rationing, and long lines here in SoCal in 1979, timing of the trade was good.
Actually, the ’78 LeMans seems to come off better and less, for lack of a better word, pretentious, than the Grand Am. Given the choice, I think I’d go with a well-equipped LeMans than a Grand Am, particularly if you could get the 301-4v in it. But that bolt-upright, egg-crate grill on the Pontiac still doesn’t look right, so the Malibu is still better looking than either and, to me, a better choice with the 305.
The question, “What would you buy in 1978?” is really a pretty good one, considering the dearth of interesting cars there were in that particular model year. I’d probably get what I bought as my first new car in 1980: a Ford Fiesta (although a 1978 Dodge Lil Red Express would be fun).
“but the tone comes across as if it was some sort of deliberate plot by the manufacturers to make 120hp V8′s, ”
Agreed. Those numbers are pathetic, yes. But at the end of the day, you can continue to piss, moan and whine about it, or you have two options: Either do an engine swap and/or build, or look at the culprit of those 120 hp V8s–federal regulations, EPA, and insurance companies. Hammer your congressman about reeling in the feds, light up your insurance agent and realize that you’re either for ridiculous emissions controls or high hp…you cant be for both and expect no compromise. Left to their own devices, the big 3 will duke it out in an all out HP war…Hellcat, anyone?
You won’t hear any disparaging remarks about these cars from me. The basic DNA was excellent, especially the relationship of the driver to the controls. This was much higher than in a B body and the visibility was better. Even the base cars had good handling and build was as good or better than anything of the era, that meaning kind of hit and miss. They were light so they were even acceptably safe to drive with the gutless V-6, which was NOT the case with a B body. These were kind of the culmination of the 1964 concept, front V-8 and RWD with a smooth-riding full frame, the last for a GM car if I recall correctly.
GM sold loads of them. They were so popular many A body customers bought the 1980 X bodies. We know how that turned out.
+1
Styling is a matter of taste, but these were very nice handling cars wrapped in a pretty practical package and, compared to contemporary offerings, both the Pontiac 301 and the Chevy 305 had a decent amount of oomph starting a low RPMs.
This has always been my favorite of the downsized A-bodies, all of which were pretty good cars, despite the fixed rear windows and other quirks.
Maybe I’m not seeing the vitriol here. It’s not like Brendan was saying this is the biggest pile of garbage on the road or anything; he just stated that the Grand Am was not very special compared to similar offerings from other divisions, and even Pontiac itself…hence the low production numbers.
It seemed like a pretty even-handed treatment to me, but maybe I’m not smart enough to infer that Brendan is a GM hater who frowns on the Luddites among us (and I am certainly one).
+1
Carmine’s inevitable reactions to anything less than a GM love-in are predictable. But we’re used to them by now, and still love him 🙂
It’s not that everything has to be a “love in”, but not everything is a disaster of Hindentanic proportions either, I know that the article doesn’t claim that either, I’m just saying. These were a specialty version of the bread and butter sedan, besides making the unique nose, everything else was off the shelf parts bin stuff.
Tell you what, between a Grand Am, an LTD II and a Volare, tell me which one you would rather drive home?
They were an interesting semi-specialty car that missed the mark with buyers that were still high on the Broughmance from the mid-70’s.
At least mention that there was a 301 HO available and a 4 speed for those that were still interested.
Carmine. Good question. But before I answer it, please note that this article wasn’t written by me, and I never read it until just now. There is no “CC party line” on any car, as you well know. And FWIW, I have been generally favorable on these cars. I direct you to my 1979 Malibu CC “Mostly Good News” : https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1979-chevrolet-malibu-coupe-cheerful-news-mostly/
I do think that the downsized A-Bodies didn’t fulfill their potential quite as well as the downsized Bs. And weak transmissions, non-opening windows and a rep for rather mediocre build quality hurt them somewhat. But there’s no question that a properly specced A-Body in 1978 could be a pretty satisfying car. And I don’t have any particularly negative feelings to the Grand Am, except that some of the styling choices are bit suspect, but that’s pretty subjective.
Now to your question: You failed to give me the option of a Fairmont, as that would likely have been my first choice, as I rather liked them and the Fox platform. An ES model with the 302 (available in 1978) and four-speed stick (not sure that was available). Black-out trim, alloy wheels, buckets, sports suspension and very clean (as I tend to like my cars).
The 1978 Volare with the 360 is also rather tempting, especially the wagon, which I have always rather liked. Maybe even with the 225 2-barrel Super Six and four speed stick.
The LTD II? You know the answer already, and that dreadful barge doesn’t really fit in this group.
But the Pontiac would have been a decent choice out of the three. If I went GM, I would have gone with a Malibu coupe and the 305 four barrel. Ideally, with a four speed stick. F41 suspension. I’m just not a big fan of the GA’s overly-dramatic front end and other details. Although its dash is nice.
Note that the Volare and Fairmont are compact cars. While the A bodies were classified as intermediates. So, it’s not a direct comparison. Plus the A bodies started at significantly higher prices, at least in Canada. My dad was quoted $6,300 for an Aspen wagon in 1978, and $8,300 for a similarly optioned Malibu wagon. While the Fairmont wagon was in the middle at $7,300.
Daniel: What’s your point? He asked me what I’d buy in 1978, and included the LTD II, which was longer than any full-size cars of the times.
During this period of downsizing, the traditional terms “compact” “mid-size” and “full-size” became very hazy and somewhat irrelevant. The Fairmont had 90% of the interior space of the 1978 Impala. And the Fairmont morphed into the very mid-sized Granada and Fox-LTD. The Volare morphed into the mid-full size M Body cars. I don’t think anyone really considered the Aspen and Volare as true compacts, even if they did technically replace the Valiant-Dart.
The Fairmont had pretty much the same interior size as the GM A Bodies, and offered similar equipment (V8, etc..) so for the sake of this utterly irrelevant mental exercise of what I would have bought in 1978, I get to say the Fairmont is very much is an appropriate alternative. 🙂
I’m pointing out that the original comparison between a Volare and a Grand Am is not an accurate or fair comparison. One is a compact, the other is an intermediate. The Pontiac competitor for the Volare coupe would have been the Nova-based Phoenix. Plus the A bodies cost quite a bit more. The $2,000 difference between an Aspen wagon and a Malibu wagon for example, would be a factor for some buyers. I expect a better car, if I am paying that extra cost.
But the LTD II was Ford’s intermediate option of the time. In the same vein the behemoth LTD competed with the Caprice, even though it was Cadillac size in ’77-’79.
I know you didn’t write it Paul, I left out the Fairmonts because I view them more as compacts, though everyone has their own tastes, I always view the Fairmonts as kinda frail looking with their little 4 lug wheels, though if you ask me what I would have bought in 1978, I would of course answer with a 1978 Cadillac Fleetwood Eldorado Biarritz Custom Classic, of course……but what else would you expect.
If I had to pick an A-body, I was always partial to the turbocharged Regal Sport Coupe, in black, with some T-tops.
The Volare comparison isn’t that fair either, but I really couldn’t think of a Mopar midsizer, I guess the Magnum/Cordoba or Plodge Grand Monofury?
Daniel; I give up. you’re being pedantic.
Buyers were’n restricted to any specific arbitrary “class” of car, especially during this time of rapidly changing standards of what the traditional nomenclature actually meant.
In the case of Ford, when the Fairmont and downsized Panther-LTDcame out, the LTD II ceased to be a genuine “mid-sized” car; it was a rolling dinosaur from another era, when that name might have had some marginal relevance for a car so huge. But not in 1978.
During the 1977-1980 period, everything shifted. The Omni/Horizon and Escort became the new compacts. And the Aspen/Volare and Fairmonts/etc became the new mid-sizers.
What exactly were the X-Bodies? The might have been “compacts” in length, but the A-Bodies that took over their platform were mid-sizers. And the J-cars the new compacts. Etc; etc..
The real point is this: these are arbitrary names and definitions, which were in a state of great flux. As a buyer in 1978 looking for a reasonable-sized sedan, the Fairmont/Zephyr would very much have competed against the Chevelle and such, and the Aspen/Volare too. They were all in roughly the same size class.
I can assure you that you’re a lot more hung up on these arbitrary designations than the buyers were at the time.
There’s no question that a GA, GP, or the other GM coupes were more expensive, and had more prestige, such as it was, than a Fairmont. So yes, folks looking for an upscale coupe probably weren’t cross-shopping with a Fairmont. Which helps explain the Fairmont coupe that soon came out.
But even that was a bit more modest in its “Brougham” ambitions. Which explains why soon enough, the Fairmont morphed into the Granada and Cougar: to better compete with the GM B-O-P coupes. But the size was the same.
Paul, I wasn’t addressing your comments specially. It appears that way because of the way replies get stacked underneath each other.
The only reason I mentioned the Fairmont was because Carmine made sense to me, not mentioning the Fairmont in a comparison with the Grand Am.
I was commenting primarily on the original comparison between the Grand Am and Volare not being the best comparison. On refinement alone, I think many buyers would consider the A bodies better cars. Besides being in a higher price class.
We can agree, that I couldn’t be bothered arguing either.
The ultimate buyer’s test is not “what class is this car in? but “Will it fit my garage?”. Surely this would have been a major concern in 1978, when the various “size classes” were overlapping so much. It must have been a very confusing time for the buyer.
Carmine/Paul: The Dodge Diplomat coupe would be a closer comparison IMO. That’s why I said the Volare/Aspen was not the proper comparison. It may be the same car under the exterior as the F bodies, but the Diplomat coupe is more in the upscale vein of the Grand Am coupe than the Volare coupe. At least IMO, just on exterior style alone. Even if the Volare/Aspen could be optioned close to the Diplomat. The more formal roofline alone, looked more a match in a comparison to the A bodies. The Volare coupe roofline looked reminiscent of the Duster. It didn’t look as modern.
I’ll give you that those first Diplomat/LeBarons were pretty nice, I had read that the original development spawn off an aborted plant to create an Imperial “Seville”, the LeBaron still had little pseudo Imperial Eagles and an Imperial name, if Chrysler hadn’t already been on the skids, they probably could have sold more of them.
I thought the first Diplomat/LeBaron coupes were, in many ways, the natural downsized evolution of what the Cordoba should have become. Maybe they should have replaced the original Cordoba with these. I think they would have sold better as mini Cordobas, than Diplomat coupes. But they would have had to develop a more elegant front clip, like the first Cordoba.
The diplomat/LeBaron/Fury (M bodies) are based on the Aspen/Volare. Im pretty sure any size difference was negligible. FWIW, you could get an Aspen R/T or Volare Roadrunner in those days with a 360 and IIRC even a 4spd. Again, its 1978 not 1968 and the numbers reflect that, but any of those with the 360 were competitive.
My .02 is that the 1980 Mirada, Cordoba LS and 2nd Dippy coupe were worth waiting for…just based on pure looks. That was the last year for the 360 in those, even though it was tied to a slusher….
To chime in, I find the price comparison interesting; Chevrolet cars have always been marketed as a good car for a cheap price. They still do it and in many ways have returned to their roots with cars like the Cruze. The rest of their car line is a slow selling flop, however.
Which cars are slow selling flops? They sell tons of Sparks and Sonics, which are some of the better if not the best subcompacts, lots of Cruzes, the Malibu has been a bit of a miss, but its still one of the 10 best selling cars in the US and a damn nice car in spite of what people believe are perceived “flaws”. The Camaro outsells the Challenger and the Mustang since its debut in 2009, and the Impala is best selling full size car in the US. The Volt? Still sells in spite of it being a niche product that’s basically believed to be a hateful “Obamamobile Govt. Motors satan spawn” by half the country and the Corvette is selling like hot cakes, so let me know what I missed?
Now I see where Jeep got the fascia for the Cherokee from…
Introducing Jeep’s first midsize car – The Jeep Grand…. Am.
The Cherokee got its front end back in 1974.
I meant the XJ Cherokee, unless you’re pulling my leg.
I figured that’s what you meant. My point being that the XJ’s grille is just a natural evolution of the Sj’s, and not a copy of the GA’s.
the ’80-up SJs had square lites and a plastic grille that influenced the XJs. My hopeless Jeepitis means that even though I know the grille on this ‘Am looks a bit wonky….I still kinda like it. Its that shin cracker on the front bumper that looks like an ass sandwich.
Mary Kay gave out these cars to their consultants before they qualified for pink Cadillacs nice cars !!
I had forgotten about these too. I remember a commercial for the original one where someone was squeezing the soft beak with their hand.
I thought the ’85 N-body Grand Am was a great looking car inside and out. It had a lot of new design themes like the cladding and A/C vent design which were tastefully done. Things got out of control on later models and Pontiac developed a reputation for tacky that they could never shake.
You said “cladding” and “tasteful” in the same sentence. 😛 The early versions were like oversize rubber rub strip, that eventually grew to take over the lower half of the car.
I will say that the 1st generation of the N-body Grand Am was pretty decent looking, especially compared to the stiff-looking Buick and Olds N-bodies. And the restrained amount of cladding did give it a sporty, modern look. I know that’s what Pontiac was initially going for with the body cladding, but they just got carried away by the ’90s. The 1992-2005 Grand Ams looked too ugly.
Does that Grand Am have Fiero wheels on it or was that an option for the grand Am also?
I just google it, and it appears that those wheels were offered on the Grand Am. Here’s a brochure/advertising photo with them.
You could also get them on the Sunbird and low end Firebirds too.
Yep, those “Pontiac wheels” were super popular back in the day. I always liked them.
I also agree the 85 Grand Am was a styling success, it really pulled off the BMW-ish euro-sporty look. Along with the 6-light 6000, it really set the tone for the We Build Excitement era. It was the later Pontiac models that went way overboard with “ribbed for her pleasure” and got away from the clean styling.
I remember those wheels vividly when I was a kid, they were on EVERY Pontiac, it was the rally II of the late 80s. I thought they looked pretty neat but I remember my Dad HATED them. I see his point though, it seems like they were a popular, albiet brief “upgrade” people would put on older Pontiacs at the time, which a 60s GTO or 70s Firebird does not look good with.
I agree, the 85 Grand Am to me was the ultimate N-body. And Pontiac didn’t get the idea for that large ribbed cladding from nowhere…
Is it me, or does the top photo almost look like a cardboard cutout?
I liked the Malibu versions of these – an honest design in 2 door trim only. Fixed glass in rear doors? Are you kidding me? No sale – especially for us, and we looked very seriously at one until I sat in back… ‘Nuff said!
In Pontiac guise, these look bad – that front end does no favors.
Spent my entire childhood in a 4-door Malibu. It had air conditioning, and once the car started to age and an a/c component went out here or there, it was always repaired. So the non-functional rear windows didn’t bother me, really. On very rare occasions I used the flip-out vent windows, but those mostly stayed closed too.
For cars ordered without A/C, or people who love to drive with open windows and refuse to use the air, then I can see it would be rather unpleasant…
Compared to Dad’s Escort, which did not have A/C and the rear windows only rolled down halfway…I knew where my preference was!
I’m surprised at the hate for this car. If you were looking for a sporty coupe in the late Seventies where else would you go? Not the grannywagon Malibu. The bloated LTD II coupe? A delightful Aspen two door?
The Grand Am had the nicest interior, and probably the best handling of all it contemporaries. Nothing in the late Seventies was ever going to burn up the drag strip!
As I commented up above, I don’t think I was too harsh on this car, other than stating it wasn’t that exciting or unique (after all, it was one of 12 G-body variants). The tone of the piece is otherwise objective.
Thanks for the pictures, btw.
Hi Brendan, no I wasn’t referring to the article as much as the comments that followed! As I’ve said before, snapping pics is the easy part, putting an article together is hardwork!
Oh okay. Thanks for clarifying!
The selection for a sporty coupe in ’78 and ’79 was phenomenal, and were peak years for sales of such cars, that’s why the LeMans / Grand Am was left in the dust.
Cutlass Supreme, Regal, Grand Prix, Monte Carlo, Cordoba, Magnum, LeBaron, Diplomat, Thunderbird, Cougar XR-7 and Malibu all work for me, and most of this list handily outsold the LeMans / Grand Am.
Those were more personal style coupes, with the long hood-short deck look, also using the term “sporty coupe” on cars like the basic Cutlass, Cordoba or Thunderbird is stretching the definition of the term. I’ll agree that that segment was red hot in the 70’s and that lots of those cars outsold the Grand Am, but again, they weren’t primary competitors to the Grand Am.
The Grand Am was different from that concept, you could outfit a personal luxury coupe with the right options to make it sporty, but most of them weren’t, the Grand Am was more of an American interpretation of a midsized sport coupe/sedan.
The main issue, as someone else pointed out, was Pontiacs own Grand Prix sitting across the showroom, which could be had with the same engines and same suspension packages, but in a car styled more in line with the tastes of the buyers from that era.
The Grand Am offered a few unique points, they just were’t enough to over come the fact that it was also a heavily decorated LeMans underneath it all. I recall thinking that the base LeMans was, well, kinda ugly. Tough to get excited about that with so many other popular entries to pick from. The GM As offered too many solid alternatives and a properly equipped Cutlass Supreme would have been a fine alternative to the Grand Am. Admittedly, I was an Olds addict in those years.
The Ford and Chrysler products were all bloated and poor handlers. Out of the GM stablemates, the Monte and Cutlass were arguably overstyled, the Grand Prix just plain dull. That leaves the Regal which is great if you liked the formal look. My pics didn’t capture it to best advantage, but the Grand Am (and base LeMans coupe) had a much airier, more flowing greenhouse than the other downsized intermediates.
Properly optioned, the Grand Am probably came closest to a European personal luxury car in ’78.
I agree, the 1978 A bodies were a nice balance of style and luxury. I also felt the ’78/’79 Diplomat/LeBaron coupes were another option. Almost what the Cordoba should have become. I didn’t like the Diplomat formal roof treatment so much after 1979.
They really nailed the “Seville” front, the LeBarons was a Seville front headlight upside down.
Yes, the front clip was a complete purge from the Seville. What made the Diplomat coupe uniquely stylish was the rear roofline/quarter window, the trunk lid treatment, and the rear quarter panels. Unfortunately, they made the GM mistake in 1980, going with the formal roof IMO.
These Lebaron and Diplomat coupes aren’t bad, but the 2nd gen versions are REALLY slick, with the right paint/trim. In Mexico, they were the Dodge Magnum and its a lot like a Mopar version of a Regal T-type. A badass with class
…… Which is exactly why I bought one.
It’s fascinating that something as seemingly innocuous as the ’78 Grand Am would have such a polarizing effect. But maybe that’s the whole problem; it was a bland car that Pontiac’s stylists simply tried way too hard to make ‘exciting’. For example, those ten front grille slats are simply way too long and too many.
As others have pointed out, it might even be said they could be considered the inspiration for the brand-new, ‘urinal-face’ Jeep Cherokee’s front end.
Radial tuned suspension, GMH got some of those badges and glued them to their offerings. and while being an improvement on previous suspension tuning efforts are really suited to straight roads, My UC Torana had those badges fitted but having been an Opel/Vayxhall before it came down under likely accounted for its cornering ability though it wasnt very good.
We must remmember that the ’78-80 Grand Am was conceived during the Dark Ages of the American Automobile. Back then, EVERYTHING was awful. As a kid in 1978, with a brand new driver’s license in hand, I scanned the automotive landscape for a new car worthy of my desire. The pickings were thin. It was truly sad that a 155hp, 301-4bbl equiped Grand Am was about the best thing Detroit had to offer. Sure, lusting after this car was kinda like lusting after Miss Kazakstan, but if you’re living in Kazakstan, she’s the best you got.
I seem to remmember a turbo 301 offered in the 1980 G-A but I don’t think any of the 1600 or so built that year actually had one installed. Can anyone educate me on this?
They never offered the turbo 301 in anything other than the Formula and Trans Am in 1980-1981, they did make a prototype turbo 301 Grand Am that they showed to a couple of magazines, the turbo 301 was also scheduled for the new 1982 Firebird, explaining why the 3rd gen Trans Am still had the scoop in the hood where the turbo lights would have gone, but the Pontiac V8’s were discontinued.
They did offer a turbo Monte Carlo from 1980-1981, but it was the Buick 3.8 V6.
However the Trans Am did get turbo in 1989 but it was a limited anniversary edition that had less then 2000 produced and it was the Buick 3.8l. It was a very fast car with a 0-60 mph run of under 5 seconds.
Everything was not “awful” back then. Gas was 60 cents!
This GA and other G bodies were good handling rides compared to the big whales previously.
There were still lots of cool things in the 70’s, stewardesses were still pretty, you could get on a plane without a rectal exam, and when you got on it, you would get food and you could even smoke too!
Well, in 1977–78, the average retail price of gasoline was about 65 cents a gallon ($2.38 adjusted for inflation), but it jumped to 88 cents a gallon in 1979 ($2.89) and $1.221 in 1980 ($3.53 adjusted, which is pretty close to the 2014 average) due to the oil crisis — in short, the price nearly doubled in the course of about two years. They call it the Malaise Era for a reason…
Oh and it was pretty much predicted that we were going to be F’ed hard for the next decade or so, and in turn, the 80’s were easier on the pump than a lot thought they would be, we were back to well under a $1.00 a gallon gas.
You should try googling “Miss Kazakhstan” and taking a look through the years, I think you might retract the intent of your statement above!
This was the era when Pontiac styled a number of their models with protruding grilles and front bumpers, necessitating licence plate positioning to the left hand side of the bumper. Aesthetically, I found it somewhat destroyed the symmetry they were going for by having the overt extruded grille. Certainly, not a problem of course, in states or provinces that didn’t require front plates.
I don’t know if it has been legislated that new cars must have centrally located plates?
I certainly don’t recall this look since the late 70s/early 80s when a number of models (notably Pontiac), required left hand plates. I’m thinking a licence plate in the middle might help create better aerodynamics.
Pontiac dealers were pushing the Firebirds as performance and excitement, and they were not interested in the G body G. Am. The Grand Prix sold in record #’s for 76-77, so they were worried about losing sales. So, they pushed the new GP more feverishly, and ingored even the plain LeMans series.
So much so that the car was renamed ‘Bonneville G’ in 1982 to compete with Olds.
With torque, those low HP V8’s in G bodies did fine with driving in curves and Interstates.
But if you really need more HP, then do as many do and drop in a 400 CI Pontiac motor, using same mounts as the 301s.
I thought there was quite a bit of model overlap between this vintage 2 door Grand Am and the Grand Prix. Having been around when these were new, I would have to agree with the opinions that these were not at all bad cars. Certainly not without faults, but very competitive with their contemporaries.
I’m surprised that no one made mention of the leather/suede interior only available on the 78-80 Grand Am’s. My sister had the 1980 model, which had a three section grille only used that year, in dark gray with a black lower two tone. The same contrasting treatment for the interior, gray with black inserts, that was understated classy, something not appreciated during that era. The car handled and drove very well. Of course the 350 4bbl transplant helped in the power department, but overall I would not be ashamed to have that car then and/or now.
I know that the similar era Grand Prix was available with a leather interior too, I didn’t even know that they offered it on the Grand Am as well.
Saw one for sale on my local Craigslist a while back, think it was a 78
I’m curious which ones the ’73 ad copy writer thought were the UNdesirable imports. “The Pontiac Grand Am — Unlike Any Renault You Have Ever Seen”?
those cars would have made really good novas… and yes, 140 Hp out of a v8 feels much stronger than 140 Hp out of a 4 or 6.
It’s worth noting when mentioning performace that this car only weighed about 3,100 lbs. Not bad for a midsized car.
I wouldn’t call Brendan’s review ‘harsh’. From where I sit, he isn’t using his imagination. Yes, the styling on this car is a bit over-wrought. The bones on these coupes are very clean and simple, adding extra angles, beaks, etc really does that a disservice.
What I see in this car is what I saw in Car Craft, Hot rod, etc in the mid 80s thru the mid 90s. G body Malibus were platforms for all sorts of sleepers, dragsters, pro streeters, etc. These have a ton of upgrades ready to swap right in. If you take this car for what it is bone stock, yea the performance is lacking just like anything else during the malaise era. For my money, give me a clean coupe like this and a budget. Rather than complain about the measly 140 hp, Id rather direct my efforts into an engine swap, a little bodywork, suspension upgrades and getting the right wheels on it. Improving on a car like this and fleshing out its full potential is a lot more feasible than taking todays cammacords and trying to make them less boring.
If talking mods is your thing, I’m glad to have you here. It’s not a common point of discussion.
My favorite thing when discussing cars like this is the sheer potential one has to make bigger numbers by removing some emissions equipment (not necessarily even the cat), fitting a bigger carb, etc, etc, etc.
It’s esp fun when you consider that the malaise era cars have superior handling than their ’60s forebears.
Having grown up in the 80s and graduating in ’93, I barely remember these. I just bunched them up with all the other small, square GM cars from that era. I do remember the 80’s Grand Am’s, but I can’t remember the last time I saw one on the road.
I like the styling on the 78! And the original Grand Am design is simply awesome.
Re: Paul N. “…I’d take a Fairmont 302 4-spd”
For 1979 only, Ford the standard trans on the 302 was a 4-speed (3 + OD). In terms of performance, the lighter Fairmont (probably under, or close to, 3000 lbs with V8) was quicker than the GM cars. It certainly cost a lot less.
In 1980, Ford offered only auto with the 255 V8–no 302.
On paper, the Fairmont seems the best. ALso, if you wanted a manual trans, the odds are the Ford probably shifted better.
So, as middle-school back then, I’d buy the Ford.
But, having access to a Fairmont and a Nova/Ventura in high school, and now as an adult, I can see that the 10-15% cost premium for the GM cars may have been money well spent. The GM bodies flexed and creaked less, they had better steering, nicer interiors, and better engines (at least the 305 Chevy variant was better), and with automatic, probably the same performance and mileage.
The Aspen/Volare 360 auto may have been quickest, but it was heavy, thirsty, and handled more sloppily, and fell apart faster.
Nicer interiors is the truth. When I was a youngster (ages 3 to 7), before Dad got the Escort, he had a ’79 Fairmont. Compared to the Malibu, the Fairmont was definitely the lesser car. Interiors were no contest–the stark, leg-burning black vinyl of the Fairmont compared very unfavorably to even the base cloth in the Malibu. I also remember the dash looking cheaper.
It’s also telling that the Fairmont was sold with pretty severe engine problems when it was 9 years old. Mileage must have been well under 100K. The Malibu was on the road until 2001 and made it to almost 175K. Granted, our Fairmont was the I4 version–if it had the 302, could easily have been a different story. Maybe it would have survived to see the new millenium too.
I had some experience with the mid 90’s Grand Ams (more like Grand Ain’t). I knew someone who had inherited a ’95 Grand Am from his brother. It was a nice handling car when it was new but it constantly needed work as it aged. Although parts from the junkyard and local stores were readily available, it was getting harder to pass the emissions test so it had to be scrapped eventually.
My own experience with Grand Ams started when my dad purchased a used ’97 Grand Am in 2004. It was a sporty looking black SE sedan with a spoiler and a V6 engine (much like this picture that I found). It was the last GM/American car our family has owned. I managed to pass my last and final (Canadian) road test using it.
It had held up quite well after all the Canadian Winters but in a short while the paint had started to peel on the front passenger fender near the plastic trim behind the front wheel where dirt would collect inside. It turned out to be a used car that needed a lot of fixing in the few years we had it (March 2004 to Nov 2007). Some issues I remember were that the engine light flickered on and off once and we couldn’t duplicate it for the mechanic to diagnose, it left me stranded on a cold Winter day, the key would sometimes get stuck in the ignition, the drive belt snapped once while reversing out of the garage, the steering fluid started to slowly leak and later on the radiator had cracked. It was almost bitter sweet when the car had to be written off due to a hit and run collision.
My brother had a black over tan ’78 with the 4-bbl 301. For the time, it was decent performer and the color combo looked good. He drove it for a few years until the transmission started acting up.
He traded it for a Volvo 242 Turbo and never owned an American car again. The 242 (he may have owned a couple of those) was followed by a 740 Turbo Wagon, then he switched to Mercedes-Benz.