(first posted 7/28/2015. I still see it regularly) I shot this Caprice wagon at Jerry’s, our local home-town anti-Home Depot, where I’ve been a frequent visitor the past few weeks. I hadn’t planned to post it, but then yesterday’s LTD CV wagon forced my hand. I know….I’ve been on this pro-GM B-Body, anti-box Panther jihad way too long. But looking at that Ford wagon yesterday, I just have to show it off and rub it in the LTD’s face wire wheel covers a bit.
Panther lovers, no offense intended, and I love these cars as the survivors that they are. But Ford’s attempt to clone the ’77 Chevrolet came off amateurish, at best. From the too-short wheelbase, the overly-large wheel openings not filled enough with too-small of wheels and tires, to the fact that Ford cheaped out and used the sedan rear doors, which made the transition at the C Pillar to the wider rear cargo area on the outside very crude, and then there’s the weird double trim around the side windows, which look they were designed to have storm windows attached. And then of course there’s those Pep Boy grade wire wheel covers…I’ve said plenty on that subject already, but they are the all-time worst factory wheel covers.
I know this is all nit-picking, but for someone who cares about design, these are just a bit painful to look at. I try to appreciate them for what they are, but I have to not look too closely. There is a reason it was chosen to play this role.
Whew; that’s better. It’s one thing to favor a boxier approach to styling, for the obvious packaging benefits. It’s another thing to actually build a…box.
It’s carrying some long pieces there.
This is a very well-kept car.
Its owner arrived just then, with more goods to slide into the back of his beloved wagon, which not surprisingly, he’s owned since day one. And there’s no doubt it’s the last car he’ll ever own. It still hauls; the goods as well as the looks.
More:
Design Shoot-Out: 1977 Chevrolet vs. 1979 Ford LTD – The Boxing Match
Great read Paul, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I used my wagon in a similar fashion when I had it. Young guys at lumber yards were always amazed how much it could Gaul
I can remember some frightening trips back from the lumberyard on twisty Pittsburgh-area back roads hauling 1x4s loaded up to the windshield of my folk’s ’88 LeSabre Estate Wagon, just like this. Being young = driving too fast and not securing your loads.
Have to agree 100% with Paul. Never liked the 1st gen panther – it definitely aged better. The B-pillar is the clincher for me, especially the crude way it meets the door tops. It’s so heavy, I almost wonder if the original plan was to continue the use of frameless door glass, as Chrysler would do with the R-bodies.
“… how much it could Gaul”
So it was a Peugeot then?
Six years late but the question “… how much it could Gaul” deserves an answer:
It could carry all Gaul if you divided it into three parts.
Room for Asterix, Obelix, and the whole crew!
That’s a nice 1986 Caprice wagon.
Yes indeed…that’s the only year for this particular “face” with the new-style grille, old-style quad headlights, solid amber side markers, and no hood ornament. I prefer this look to the 80-85 and 87-90 just because it seems more special.
And tying it in with the other box Panther article, 1986 was the first year all Chevy B-bodies were Caprices (the no-suffix Caprice replaced the Impala, the Caprice Classic carried on), finally abandoning the concept of “The Chevrolet” after having kept it up longer than anyone else, to the point of having removed “Chevrolet” scripts from the Vega, Nova and Chevelle and gone to model name ones with a tiny “by Chevrolet” underneath.
The beauty of these last-of-the-carburetor cars is that they can be infinitely rebuilt, tinworm aside. In places where cars don’t rust, you could keep a car like this essentially forever.
Contrast that to folks with early Bosch D-Jet EFI, where the ECU are NLA and they aren’t rebuildable.
Or you could do a LS engine swap.
The Chevy small block is immortal. Will never be NLA.
Or compare it to the slightly later Bosch LH jetronic systems that are much more simple and reliable than a carb and besides injector cleanings the only thing that would need to be replaced would be the o2 sensor (available very cheaply) or the MAF sensor which last forever and are still available.
Back in the day I owned a 1977 Impala wagon, which was the low end trim of the Caprice. First year was 350 v8 with t-350 hydromatic. Over the years they were decontented a bunch iirc. Only complaint was the paint, which turned to a powder you could just rub away. Probably had something to do with air quality regulations. About 5 yrs in we took it to Earl Schieb. That actually was an improvement.
Mme too. Paint was brown like rust but there was no rust on the car. Also a 350/350 four door. Chevy done good. Agree about the paint. Mine became a krylon rattle can job early in our time together.
For all the pro chevy or pro ford rhetoric that one hears, I would be happy with either one again except I have found that perhaps the most important thing I need is 4wd. But for that the 77 Impala did everything better than the incumbent 95 4Runner.
The late 70s and much of the 80s were a dark time for automotive paint. Lots of fading. if anything, Detroit fixed that problem ahead of the Japanese – most of the late 80s Japanese cars you still see running around Brooklyn have seriously faded paint.
Automotive paint problems lasted well into the ’90s for some brands and colors such as silvers, grays, and greens. It wasn’t unusual back then to see relatively new cars with most of the paint stripped off them, especially on the horizontal surfaces. I had a Celebrity as a work car for several years that was very basic, cheap to insure and maintain, and ran well, but without seeing the underside of the trunk lid or hood you couldn’t even tell what color it was originally meant to be. Within a few years it had almost no paint at all. I paid only $800 for it at 70k miles however, so as long as it continued to be a reliable work car I didn’t care what it looked like.
The 1977-1990 B-body wagons are better-proportioned compared with the Panthers, and especially when compared to the bloated whale 1991-1996 B-body wagons. It’s a shame GM had to disgrace them with that awful 1991 redesign, and then choose to discontinue them on that note. I’d almost rather they had just pulled the plug after 1990, and sent the B-body wagon to greener pastures on a high note.
While reading the earlier CC on the well-kept, non-Di-Noc Ford wagon, I thought, “Gee, it sure would be nice to see a CC on the better Chevy original they copied so miserably” and, voilá, here is it! It’s hard to pinpoint exactly why Ford’s version came off so much worse when it’s so similar, but Paul has done a masterful job of pointing out the minor, but many, styling faux pas in his analysis. The devil is, indeed, in the details. Taken as a whole, it actually explains quite well why the makers of Vacation chose the Ford to caricature, and not the Chevy. The styling errors of the Ford are really brought out by the WQFT, and I doubt if it would have worked nearly as well if they’d have used a Caprice.
Ironically, in the movie’s sequel, it’s said that Chevy Chase held up production until the new-for-1991 ‘bubble’ Chevy wagon came out so they could use it as the basis for a new WQFT. While odd, the bubble Caprice is still a much more cohesive design (which, ironically, seems to apply more to the wagon than the sedan) and I dare say that Vacation should have stuck with the Panther wagon.
Which Vacation sequel are you referring to? I don’t recall any of them featuring a 1991-1996 Caprice wagon. European Vacation came out in 1985, Christmas Vacation in 1989, and in 1997’s Vegas Vacation he drives a Ford Expedition.
My mistake. The timeline of the Vacation movie sequels (1989, 1997) sure doesn’t fit the bubble production years.
It was a long time ago when I read it, so it might have been something like after the bubble Caprice appeared, Chase ‘wished’ he’d waited to make the second movie so he could have used that car for the WQFT. Or maybe he drove one in another, non-Vacation movie, tv show, or commercial. I swear I’ve seen some movie or tv show with a christmas tree lashed to the top of a bubble wagon (and I thought Chase was driving), so that’s probably where I made the error.
Gotcha.
Christmas Vacation had the Griswolds in an 89 Taurus wagon with the tree on top.
He drove an ’89 Taurus wagon in Christmas Vacation… bubbly enough!
The Griswolds also rented a Windstar in Vegas Vacation. Must have had some deal with Ford.
Rudiger.
Regarding Chevy Chase’s potential new Caprice wagon.
The movie sequel you are referring to would be “Vacation to the Carlsbad Caverns” which ended up being a non-starter.
I remember reading this in Car and Driver magazine, at that time.
Thanks. For a moment, I thought I was losing (what’s left of) my mind. I wonder if Chase’s insistence on waiting for the bubble Caprice to use as the new WQFT played a major part in why the movie never got made.
I hadn’t seen Christmas Vacation until many years after it came out, either. Combined with what was said in C&D, and the appearance modifications they made to the ’89 Taurus, my only excuse is that I put two and two together and thought the Taurus was a bubble Caprice.
The new Vacation has Rusty Griswold driving a heavily modified Toyota Previa…a 20 year old car. Make of that what you will.
A poor choice for a modern WQFT, and says a lot about how the makers of the latest movie didn’t quite ‘get it’. Although I liked the original movie (which was based on a John Hughes story written for the National Lampoon in which the car was a 1958 Plymouth Sport Suburban with a six-cylinder engine), I didn’t much care for any of the later ‘Vacation’ movies. And, evidently from the reviews of this most recent one, it’s not much good, either.
In fact, how about a CC about what would be a good basis for a new WQFT from the current vehicles available today? Seems like a Di-Noc clad Ford Flex would work just fine (at least better than a 20 year old Previa).
I think the Chevy wagon is more appealing.
However, the Ford 2door coupe is, by far, more appealing than the Chevy 2door coupe.
We could argue aesthetics all day long, but the first few years of the Chevy 2-door had that “folded glass” rear window that I absolutely find beautiful.
Very true about the ’77 to ’79 2-door. But the ’80 restyle just came off looking odd in the coupe version. I actually think the ’80 to ’90 Caprice/Impala look best in wagon form.
This is a terrific wagon .
Nice to see it well cared for and still working .
-Nate
Is the new Vacation van a Previa? Seems like the greenhouse is familiar
Yep, in the tradition of taking a decent vehicle and turning into something beautifully atrocious, what began as a Previa becomes the Tartan Prancer–aka “the Honda of Albania.”
I have to agree. Every nit that you pick at on the Panther wagon is indeed a failing. The 114 inch wheelbase was always too short on the Panther Ford/Mercury, and I have long been mystified as to why they chose that size. Also, the wheels always looked undersized even though they were 15 inch wheels! Why did the wheel wells have to be so big?
I have never found these Chevy wagons all that attractive, either. Too much box, not enough styling of it. The earlier clamshell wagons were *much* more attractive. But at least the proportions and basic lines were right. A Chrysler R body wagon would have been fascinating – it could have been the best looking of them all. But we will never know.
Dammit! I just noticed the mismatch in wheelwell shapes on this Chevy wagon. Of course, the wagon shell had to serve 4 different divisions. It looks like Oldsmobile won the toss with that big round rear wheel opening. The racy swept-back front wheelwell shape of the Chevy does not match it at all.
After you have so kindly pointed out all of the flaws in the Ford (several of which I had never actually noticed) I suppose I am now returning the favor. 🙂
When it comes to matters of personal taste, I think both wagons have their flaws. The Chevy also has the roof bump and droopy butt. And the shape of the tailgate/rear window doesn’t fit with the rest of the car.
My parents had a B-wagon when I was growing up, and I had a Panther wagon in college. There weren’t a whole lot of differences in form or function IMO. They each had their pros and cons. The nitpicking is just that…nitpicking.
Here’s another Panther vs. B-body trait I have noticed.
In nearly every B-body in which I have ridden, you sat very low to the ground. Way low, like looking between the dash and steering wheel low. These all had seats that were crazy low and the cars weren’t that old at the time.
Conversely, I have not experienced this phenomenon in any Panther. Hell, I’ve been in a few Panthers where I could have my head rub the headliner, making it seem like I was a good 6″ higher than in a B-body.
While I do prefer Panther’s, I do acknowledge the small wheels in huge wheel well issue as well as the horrendous wire wheel covers (I much prefer the turbine wheels on these) and Ford never geared cars as well as what GM did / does.
Now Paul has you spewing his stretch or should I say shrinking of the truth. The Panther does not have a 114″ wheel base. It has a 114.3″ wheel base. The thing that Paul always seems to overlook is that the Panther is 1.8″ shorter overall. So 1.7″ less wheelbase and 1.8″ shorter in overall length.
It’s amazing how such small differences in measurements can be either diminished or accentuated by styling and proportion.
Really, I don’t consider either one an attractive car in the way a 71 Custom Cruiser or a 64 Ford Country Squire is. I guess these overly utilitarian 1970s designs are all compromised in looks.
Making a car with full-size interior space on an intermediate-sized wheelbase was bound to create stylistic challenges/compromises. As much as I like some of the older designs, these were a lot more practical and much easier to drive in tight traffic or park. Never mind the efficiency factor.
But then it’s just a matter of taste too. I find the original ’77 Chevy to be an exceptional handsome car, tight, without the flab the ’71-’76s had in excess.
Yeah the chevy is better looking than the Ford and oddly enough the wire wheel hubcaps actually resemble wire wheels I’d still remove them though, Theres one of these Chev wagons doing hearse duty in Hastings nearby and a clamshell working in a similar capacity locally.
The Chevy wire hubcaps at least take advantage of the zero/negative offset of traditional RWD steel wheels, so they look relatively flush. The Ford’s, on the other hand, look hideous and “tacked on” because they stick out as if they were cheap aftermarket covers designed to fit FWD high-positive steel wheels.
Great article Paul. It so reminds me of my native Finland in the mid-eighties when the Caprice Classic wagons were roaming the streets… without their back seats! You see, Finland has always had massive import tax on cars, while vans, pickups and light trucks were largely tax exempt. And, people have always been creative to find ways to have good cars with less tax.
In the early 80’s, one of those creatives in Finland figured out that if an estate wagon weights more than 1800 kg (4000 lbs), without back seats they are tax exempt. Hey ho, suddenly new and used B-body and Panther wagons started floating in from US by the boatful. They literally were everywhere.
All that fun came to an end when legistlation was changed by the taxman, making importing big wagons worthless, and when the wagons started to get older, they did not feel that special anymore, especially without the back seat (or with just a crude hardboard temporary rear bench which was allowed). Also, all the van-wagons were subject to 50 mph speed limit, marked by a giant yellow sticker on the tailgate. Oh, the energy of taxman 🙂
I have the best of both worlds… two 98 up Panthers and a 86 Lesabre wagon. my first car was a 79 Oldsmobile 88 coupe, so it was very nostalgic to be back in a b body after 25 years….
Not a fan of the Ford at all, and agree there was a good reason it was lampooned in Vacation.
Paul, you note that Ford cheaped out and used the sedan rear doors, but didn’t GM do that as well? Looks like the rear door on this wagon would be identical to the one used on the Caprice sedan…
One area of “cost savings” that The General did deploy was the common rear wheel openings for the wagons. Probably not noticed by most people (I think I learned about it on this blog), but indicative of the degradation of unique brand styling elements in the name of financial and manufacturing efficiency. How much could it have cost to actually stamp out wheel openings that matched the fronts for Chevy and Buick? Little details mean a lot.
Although I never had a SW, I owned a ’77, ’83 & ’85 Caprice\Impala 4dr sedans. But I have driven my FIL’s Caprice, Pontiac & Oldsmobile versions SW’s of the ’77-’90 bodied cars. He used them for hauling & delivering clocks especially grandfather clocks in his clock business of sales & repairs. The SW’s wouldn’t beat the delicate clock movements like trucks or vans would. Grandfather clocks movements are especially sensitive to shock and after some experience with other vehicles settled on full size SW’s as the best for him for 25 years. Of the ones I owned the ’77 had a 350\auto, it got ok mileage. The ’83 had a 305\auto OD which got great mileage about 26-28 on the road. The ’85 had had the same engine\trans combo but not as good mileage as the ’83. Could never figure that one out. I really wish I could buy one today as they were great cars and I have never been a fan of GM cars to own. Love a lot of them when they belong to a friend. My current 1993 Taurus SW which is a smaller car and engine got about 2 mpg overall less than the ’83 Caprice going over the same road to the beach 24 years earlier. I still think my ’77, ’83 & ’85 Caprice\Impala 4dr sedans or any ’77-’90 Caprice\Impala is better car than what is offered today.
I love this era of B-Body (yes, I STRONGLY prefer it to the Ford), and I too try to avoid Home Depot in favor of local hardware stores. Not always possible, but I feel better if I can.
Forgot about the rear window – a much more practical solution than the complex ’71-’76 approach.
My Dad bought a 78 Buick Estate wagon with the Olds 403…Burgundy with red notchback seats and chrome trim on the sides…Car also had the wide rocker panel chrome…Very attractive car….It replace a 72 Estate Wagon with a 455…The 78 was heads and shoulders the better car…Quiet, smooth and powerful just as a Buick should be.
From the front doors back, the sheetmetal was from the Chevy…Round wheel wells in back and a slall plate was tack welded on the indented Buick front fender so it would be flush with the Chevy doors…
Don’t forget that the front doors of the 77 thru 79 Buick Estate Wagons had the filler panel on the front doors, right where the review mirror were mounted. This was to cover the crease in the Chevy doors to make them blend in with the front fenders that were made to look like the front fenders of the LeSabre
I always thought that Buick cut corners with the design of the front of the Estate Wagon, from 1977 on. Since the B wagon body was shared by 4 divisions, each division tacked their own front clip to the car, as from the A pillar back, the body was exactly the same.
When I say Buick cut corners, I mean from 1977 to 1979, how “tacky” was it for Buick to cover up the design of the front doors with a piece of sheet metal to make it look more like a Buick door, and to make front fenders that kind of resembled the LeSabre fender. The tacked on sheet metal was very prominent on cars without the wood grain panels and passenger side rear view mirror.
Oids kept the doors as they were (Chevy doors) on their Custom Cruiser, and actually used totally different front fenders then were on their Delta, or any other B body car. This design looked more cohesive than the Buick.
Park an Estate Wagon nose to nose with a LeSabre, and a Custom Cruiser nose to nose with a Delta 88, and you will see the difference.
Sounds like they took lessons from the ’58 Studebaker!
You are correct, Paul. You have been on the anti-Panther binge far too long. I will be leaving CC now.
Leaving in a huff? 🙁
As I said in the post Panther lovers, no offense intended, and I love these cars as the survivors that they are. But if you really take our collective opinion-BSing so seriously, I guess this isn’t the place for you. I’m guessing you’ll join a few others who left because I was so hard on their favorite GM cars.
As long as you don’t bash the 82-89 Plymouth/Dodge/Chrysler M-body station wagon! Then I will leave in a huff! just kidding.
Gimme a plain M-body wagon sans roof rack and a 360 engine and I will run circles around your precious Chevy. AND it has a wheelbase even shorter than the Ford!
Took me a minute to realize what you were saying.
But Mopar did outsell both Ford and GM in the kid-hauler market from ’84-89 and beyond!
If you start ragging on Fox body wagons then I’m done here 😉 !!!
Never!
Now if there had been a Fox body Continental wagon, that might be a different story. 🙂
Here’s to ya, Larry!
I think I have B-bodies in my DNA.
One of my earliest memories is of going to the Chevy dealer with my dad to “help” him (wink wink) place an order for a new ’65 Bel Air coupe. I remember he asked me what color I though it should be. When I said “Red!” (my favorite color), he and the salesman chuckled for some reason, and my dad tactfully said “How about black with red interior?” I said ok, and that’s what he ordered. He then asked the salesman out of curiosity if any color combination could be ordered, no matter how bizarre (that being before the days of locked-in option and color “groups”). The salesman said yes, the factory may call the dealer and double-check if the order was for a particularly strange color combo just to make sure there hadn’t been a mistake, but they would build it.
I also remember going with my dad some weeks later to pick up the new Bel Air. The salesman walked us back to the service department to see it, and there she sat under the lights in all her glory, plastic still on the seats and floor mats and wheel covers still in the trunk. It was soon prepped however and we were on our way. That was a very sharp car.
He didn’t take me with him a few years later to buy the new ’68 Bel Air coupe, but the color of that one was pretty much locked in (white over blue interior) because he wanted it to match the boat and trailer he had recently purchased.
Later, I owned ’71 and ’74 Impala 350s, and my second-ever brand new car was a nicely loaded ’81 Caprice 305. In the ’80s and ’90s I spent more hours than I can count in B-body company cars.
I’d still like to have a box Chevy B-body V8, and some evenings I find myself cruising the online listings looking for one that hasn’t been used up, abused, misused, and/or horribly molested over the years. There are still some sweet survivors out there.
These Caprices are nicer looking cars than the Crown Vic and I am glad I bought an 87 Caprice Estate back in 2007. When looking on Ebay and Craigslist I could not find any Crown Vics in or near the Southern Tier, but when one would pop up it would have power accessories which I figured would break if they had not already. So, I ended up with a fun, but tired $510 Caprice off of Ebay. I do agree that I sat lower than the passenger on the front bench, but I could still see over the steering wheel nearly as much as my 95 Voyager. My hair would occasionally rub the headliner, but that is because it was drooping and my hair was spiky. Still debating if I want a late 80s Caprice Estate or a 94-96 Caprice or a 94-96 Caprice Estate one of these days.
Nice to see an original owner still taking good care of this car. It brings back vivid memories of riding in one of our Catholic school mom chapparone’s wagons (a brown ’84 Caprice Classic). As a nine year old, I thought it was great facing backwards in the third row seat – so much fun to watch other motorists from that vantage point and be a brat. Another classmate’s parents had the Country Squire addition, but even as a child, it seemed a bit boxier to me than the Chevy wagons at our school. I will say that while the twin facing third seats may not have been as nice of a place to ride in on a Ford, from an adult perspective, there is a lot more room back there for hauling 55 gallon garbage cans to the recycling center. A large can of that size can stand upright in that rear seat foot well, whereas in the GM box wagons, the rear seat floor area is not large enough to accommodate the base of such a can. This only matters if you live out in the country where no one will pick up glass bottles.
I should post this in the Ford wagon feature, but I’ve been meaning to say this for some time .
Back in the summer of ’76, the car magazines ran features of the upcoming downsized 1977 LTD-Marquis, which, of course, never materialized. The cars looked longer and lower than what later became the Panther, and the windshield looked nothing like the Torino’s, which was a dead giveaway of the LTD-II/Cougar’s parentage. I even had pics of clay models of these, which I lost due a hard drive crash. Then, in the fall, the smaller LTD-Cougar debuted and it was clearly nothing like the preview pictures, being obvious Gran Torino reskins. Also, the large Ford-Merc continued unchanged. I often wonder what the story was on these aborted, non-Panther, non-Torino cars.
First, I have to admin that I love both Panther & B-Body sedans.
But When it comes to Wagons, GM did it way better.
In fact before buying my 84 Caprice Wagon, 2 months ago, I did not care about that Panther VS B-Body war.
Then I got the Caprice and visit a friend of mine who own a LTD Wagon. Nearly the same color as my Caprice. When I saw the two car parked side to side, I realize why so many people prefers B-Body.
It’s just a design related fact, nothing more. I really appreciate Panther sedans and if I find a nice one, I would not hesitate to buy it.
This must be bizarro day for me because the Ford pictured above is a much more cohesive design than the featured Caprice. I see semi-awkward B pillars on both, as well as rear sedan door so as well. The bump in the Chevy roof is awkward. The Ford design appeals to the minimalist in me. I do agree about the small Ford tire size.
Did Chevy wagons ever outsell Ford? I’d be surprised.
Well Dave, someone that actually agrees with me on this one. A lot of praise for the GM wagons, which is fine – everyone is entitled to their opinions, heck that’s why this forum exists, right? Our family having owned a brand new special-ordered ’77 Caprice Estate that literally fell apart in 5 years makes me feel cold toward these cars. Our ’82 Country Squire was a beautiful car and well-built, too. It was the brochure color, Medium Fawn Glow – and with the so-called “ugly” wire wheel hubcaps that it had we used to get compliments on how beautiful that wagon was all the time.
I don’t find this wagon ugly at all. In fact, the look is cleaner to me than GM’s “weird” roofline with the raised bubble and window that looks like it was added on to the sedan. Just my opinion.
Another picture of our color and year. It really does need whitewalls, though!
This, uh, “cohesiveness” thing… I don’t get it. I look at the door frames of the Panther and the B body and see the exact same thing. Maybe the B body’s window frames are ever-so-slightly thinner than the Panthers but it sure ain’t by much. And the B pillar? Totally interchangeable aside from the fact that the drip rail continues across the top on the B body but doesn’t on the Panther. Whatever.
I don’t see any real sour notes on the Ford other than the straight-down rear rocker panels. I also don’t see the faintest glimmer of originality to it either – they straight-up copied the Chevy. There was some real effort to distinguish the Ford sedans’ tails from GM’s offerings but that didn’t really apply to the wagons. At least the taillights are somewhat different, and FoMoCo made a real effort to make the Mercury’s taillights different from the Ford’s…albeit just like GM’s.
Probably the nicest car my departed Father ever bought was the ’78 Caprice Classic Wagon he bought new at Shearer Chevrolet in South Burlington; it was the only car he bought out of the showroom. Though it had the 305 and woodgrain trim, it had all the options including trailer towing package (we only had a pop-top but it didn’t hurt). My Dad was coming off of a ’73 Ford Ranch Wagon, which was also pretty plush but no power windows, he did look at the new downsized Ford wagon (it was late in ’78 and they’d just come out) and wasn’t impressed for some reason…he knew I liked cars and usually went with him looking when he was in the market, and I did go with him to look at the Ford, but he bought the Chevy without me. I know he liked the “Ford style” 3 way tailgate that was now also on the Chevy, didn’t care for the previous clamshell one. Guess there wasn’t a full sized MOPAR wagon that year, he owned other MOPARS but never another wagon. His last 2 cars were also Chevy’s (both Impalas, the last one passed onto my mother, and when she stopped driving this year, my middle sister took it over, but kept her ’97 240SX.
The ’78 served him well until it was totalled in an accident when he was escorting relatives on sightseeing trip (they came 1600 miles one way to visit)…and was replaced by the worst car he was to own, a new ’84 Pontiac Sunbird. The Chevy was the last wagon he was to own, partly because our family was growing up and space was no longer needed, and partly because wagons themselves became a thing of the past once minivans came on the scene.