Photo from the CC Cohort by Michael Baker. Found in Maple Rich, British Columbia.
What was your generation’s desirable Chevy? And what was your generation’s junky Chevy? Those questions have been floating around my head after a recent post I made on a ’62 Impala. A model that when new was the brand’s top offering; but that as some commented, became the type of Chevy that was just a beat-up car when they were growing up. A “shorthand for generic, boring old car.”
Naturally, that statement also rang true to me… but when a different kind of Chevy entered the picture. Basically, any mid-’70s one before the great downsizing of ’77 occurred. Especially, one in rundown condition, with broken endura bits, and rust showing up. And if a 4-door with peeling vinyl top? Bingo! The Chevy beater easily found around my old high school!
So while I generally chalk myself to be in the Chevy fan column, I just can’t disagree much with the comment left on my Impala post. After all, overexposure to a model in a less-than-ideal state is not a way to win one’s heart.
And in my case, just about any everyday 4-door Chevy of the ’70s fits the “… generic, boring old car” mold. And during those high school days of the late ’80s, nothing was more generic than a mid-70s Chevelle. With minus points if a 4-door. Enter negative numbers if with a vinyl top.
So, does every generation have a junky Chevy they had been conditioned to dislike?
Now, if you happen to have owned one and loved it, I understand you. After all, this was the desirable Chevy of my Mom’s coworkers in those 1970s. (Actually, accessible-desirable, as the full-sizers were what they truly wanted).
So if you grew up considering trim options and maybe even purchased one of these set up as wished, your memories gotta be a hell of a lot different from mine.
Or what if you just owned a truly malaise-era underpowered one, and their sight brings nothing if not some kind of automotive PTSD?
In the end, these old Chevys just bring a thousand reactions. After all, those who experienced those days know that they were everywhere, and naturally, we all have some kind of opinion about them.
But even if now rare, distance hasn’t grown fondness and I still have to warm to these after all these years. But at least I have feelings about them, which is more than I can say about Chevys of the late ’90s and on.
Related CC reading:
Design Mileposts: 1974 Chevelle – First Mass Production Car With Blatant Mercedes Grille Ripoff
Curbside Classic: 1973 Chevrolet Chevelle Sedan Deluxe – In Search Of A Better Face
Curbside Classic: 1975 Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu Classic – A Dollop Of Sanity
CC TV: 1974 Chevrolet Laguna Type S-3 – “Selling The Chevelle”
What I remember most about the colonnades is how small they were inside. My nextdoor neighbor had a Malibu coupe, and used to drive several of us kids up the street to school on cold or rainy mornings. It was tight climbing into the back seat, over the seat belt and the folded front seat, and piling in there with 2-4 other kids–even for a 3rd grader. But then the car was gigantic on the outside. And while I noticed that disconnect even at my young age, I mostly thought of these just as the typical grownup car.
One thing the 4-doors had was an extra four inches of wheelbase, all in the back seat.
I can’t say I’m fond of these but I do appreciate how long old GM’s keep running .
I too am a “Bow Tie Guy” .
-Nate
These were indeed everywhere, and they were probably as good as anything else domestic at the time. My brother lives in Maple Ridge, a bedroom community of greater Vancouver, and I think I’ve seen this car in traffic. It stands out in a sea of CR-Vs, Jeeps, Ram trucks and Hyundias. All of which likely give it a wide berth…..
Looks like this one came from Dueck Chev Olds, which still exists (without the Olds) as part of the “Dueck Group”, so its reasonably local.
These cars did not age well in BC’s climate, and by the mid ’80s most of them were roached rust buckets. This one looks like its been rescued from a local farmers field after a decade or 3, but at least its still running!
For better or worse, perhaps the definitive typical domestic car of the mid to late 1970s. Along with the LTD. Equally, as popular with rural middle class buyers, as those in cities. As a kid, I liked the entire GM mid-sized lineup for 1973. As their unique styling, made a clean break from the dated long hood, and short deck, themes of their main competitors. I found the wagons particularly attractive. They didn’t age well at all, unfortunately. From a pop culture POV, a ’70’s icon.
I had one of these for driver training, but it was a 75 model, white top with a maroon bottom. It had the 6 cylinder and was a plain Jane. The other student in the car was named Janice and she was a fox.
In the years prior to me turning 16 I collected Motor Trends every model year summary and knew ALL the cars up till I turned 16. Then I got my Cougar. From that point on certain makes just disappeared to me while I still paid attention to Fords. Yet by 1974 I wasn’t paying attention to hardly any American make at all but would notice the Japanese and German makes showing up. Of course my father’s 911E helped as Orinda CA had lots of German cars driving around. While down at SDSU one saw Datsuns, Toyotas, and VW.
This particular Chevy does nothing for me and I was pretty blind to all Chevy’s from 73 onward. This 74 is just plain blah. I was aware of their competition in the 74 Torino but that had to do with Starsky & Hutch. I was also aware of the Duster and Nova because I had them as company cars. I spent the next decades paying more attention to repairing cars on my own and in particular restoring a Mustang in 1984.
Rust! (we had one).
While I liked the ’73 Chevelle better, where the new-for-’74 Malibu Classic beat it was in the interior. Fold-down center armrest, tuck-and-roll seat back padding, color-keyed instrument cluster with plastichrome outlines, lots of buttons on the seats, upholstery on the door panels, etc. I loathed the ’74 taillights and pseudo-MB grille, but these Chevelles were quieter and steered better than the much-beloved ’72 and older models.
It never struck me before, but in the front end pic I’m seeing design references to the 1955 Chevrolet (the old-car-patina probably helps).
In a similar vein, I thought both generation Lumina sedans, paid homage to this generation Malibu, in their flattened and flared wheel arches. An unusual, almost dated look for the 1990’s. Twenty years later as well, recalling earlier populist Chevrolets.
Used by various law enforcement agencies, south of the border. Off the top of my head, I don’t recall police departments that used this gen Malibu, in Southern/Eastern Ontario. This generation Fury/Monaco, being most well-represented, among domestic mid-sized sedans.
These were not small cars. Pretty large for an intermediate, actually. But I look at the lead photo next to a Dodge Durango, a modern intermediate SUV, and it looks quite small!
I was in high school in the late 80s, too. It seemed then like these would always be there as older used cars to kick around and disrespect. Now they are a very rare sight, yet I still think “worthless old beater” looking at the pictures. Old feelings die hard.
The other Collonades all had more character and appeal to me. I actually owned a 76 LeMans coupe and mostly liked it.
These rolled off of the assembly line where I worked. I always thought that they were the most boring design… ever! Even the four door Kojack-mobiles were more interesting. Of course, we had lots of Monte Carlos, Buick Regals, Centurys, El Caminos, GMC Sprints, and a few Lagunas that were much much nicer to look at.
I was working at the dealership that sold this particular gem, new. I agree, they were boring and easy to ignore, even at the time.
Don’t forget the Cutlass, who beginned his climb to the top of the charts with the 1968-72 models and menaged to get higher with the 1973-77 model.
Since this does not display the 350 engine symbol above the front side marker lights, I assume this one came with the 250 six cylinder engine. Those seemed underpowered to me at the time.
I really liked the pre-Colonade mid sized GM cars, then the ’73’s came out, and my sister and mom both wound up with Cutlasses. Blech. This is the turning point in GM styling, to me, when things went wrong and in most ways, they never recovered. It’s almost like they were trying to lose market share. Same went for all the US automakers, and if I was totally honest, an awful lot of very ugly cars came out from the early ’70’s onward, no matter who made them.
Great write-up Rich. A neighbor of mine had one of these with a 250 inline 6 in the same color and condition as the one in your article. What I remember most about it was the tendency to diesel after being shut off, sometimes for as long as 2 to 3 minutes. This was in the early days of emission controls when GM thought the easiest way to lower exhaust emissions was to run the engine hot with lean fuel mixtures. I also remember the curb idle being extremely high to keep the engine from stalling which probably led to the dieseling.
I bought my first house in 1987 from an elderly couple who built the bungalow in 1930. They had twin 1977 Malibus in the garage, both bright blue, one a sedan and the other a coupe. Both cars were showroom, and later handed down to their grandkids.
If I was in the market for a mid-size sedan in ’74 I probably would have paid a little more for the flair of the Lemans….
Never liked them at the time, such a meh follow-up to the very attractive ’68-72 A bodies. Now I like them, particularly sedans with this kind of patina that suits it so well, and a 6 automatic would make it a perfect daily beater, the kind we used to find back in the ’80s and ’90s for well under a thousand bucks and serve as cheap-to-maintain transport for a few years. I really miss those days. Now the few that are left are considered to be “classics”, even beat up rust buckets, and subsequently overpriced by their clueless sellers.
I always thought these were plain. All 3 of its BOP siblings’ sedans had far more character. At least it was more attractive than the sedan competition in Ford and Plymouth dealers.
I can’t get over the visual disconnect between the attractive body sides and the ‘phoned-it-in’ look of the front and rear. The front looks generic at best, and those taillights really don’t fit.
I’ll play devils advocate here and say I both liked and hated these cars.
I’ll explain:
My dad owned a new 1973 Caprice. That car had many carb issues (400-2) and the Chevy dealer always provided a loaner. Normally it was another Caprice. But several times it was this, as pictured, in dark blue with a white top.
I remember it had the drivers headlight being aimed way up and to the left. Why? The man who bought it new was a coon hunter! Nice car for the time.
Then I drove, extensively, a 1978 Malibu. Man, that made me want to throw rocks at that old model. As much power from the 305 with better mpg. Much better room. Bad job with the roll down rear windows.
So there- love and hate!