We’ve been a bit hard on poor old GM today, so how about we end the day on an upbeat note? William Rubano keeps posting some mighty fine finds at the Cohort almost daily, so maybe we should start a new category: “Rubano Classic of the Day”? This big ’74 Caprice Classic convertible is from the second to last year it was made.
The specter of draconian roll-over standards killed any chance of a rag-top for the all-new ’77 B-bodies. In fact, convertible production ended one year early, after the 1975 model year. That undoubtedly explains why sales of the last big Chevy ragtop increased by almost 100%, from 4,670 in 1974 to 8,349 in 1975.
The standard engine was the 150 hp 400 CID small block, with the 454 as an option. This was a rare car in its day, and a needle in a haystack now. Or is it the haystack?
150 horsepower from 400 cubic inches? Jeez, no wonder it’s known as the malaise era.
So thats 150 horses from 7 ltrs. Christ.did these things move?. All torque and no action…
Sign of the times, true enough. Insane compared to today’s technology… but my 1979 Cadillac Seville (170HP 5.7L EFI V8) STILL burns the tires, if/when I want it to 🙂 disclaimer: yes, I own one of Paul’s ‘Deadly sins’ and after 23 cars, it is still my favorite. BTW… from the reactions it gets, it is obviously loved by others as well.
Anyhow, regarding the Chevy convertible… I just had a smile for a Brady Bunch moment when Greg & Marsha used Dad’s for a driving test competition
Enjoy!! >> http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=brady+bunch+greg+marsha+drivers+seat&FORM=VIRE4#view=detail&mid=ADC7C328EA31BC99043CADC7C328EA31BC99043C
You are not alone with your ’79 “Deadly sin”
It’s all about the torque ladies and germs. These engines may have made poor horsepower but they made whopping torque. A 400 in these cars didn’t feel slow at all with the THM350. Mind you they hoovered gasoline at a rate that would be totally unacceptable today.
They move pretty ok.
Friend had a 74 Caprice wagon that had a knocking 400. we swapped it out and slammed in the slightly warmed up 305 we had as a surplus engine. (the 305 started out as a 76 Chevelle engine and 140hp, new heads bumped it up to around 180-200hp to make it comparable to the 400) 0-60 was a lesurely 12-13 seconds in a 5,000 pound wagon. That same engine in my 76 Chevelle was 7-8 seconds in a 4,000 pound sedan.
Even my 77 Chevelle with its box-stock 145hp 305 is adequate. It’s no stop-light drag racer but it moves along at a good clip, and will handily exceed 100mph if given the chance.
I love the FU parking job.
You almost need two parking places to have room to open those doors. This is a peeve of mine – when cars downsized in the 80s, parking places got narrower than they had been in the 60s and 70s. But with cars (well, I mean pickups and SUVs) getting wider again, parking places stayed sized to accommodate K cars.
There’s a parking garage around here that’s like that and I don’t even take my cars in there for fear of hitting something or getting curb rash. There’s also a loop to the second story of it that is incredibly narrow even for a small car. As far as the doors go, I don’t know if they’re the same size on this as the 77+ B-bodies but yes, in tight parking spots, you really have to maneuver yourself around to wriggle out in small spots.
Parking garages in a really big car makes you feel like a Great White in a minnow pond, you’re going to go around that blind corner and the hope that there isn’t a car there.
On one occasion about 5 years ago, a parking attendant allowed me to park my ’87 Cadillac Brougham in the garage only if I parked it and retrieved it myself.
On many other occasions, I was refused because the car was “oversized”. I really wanted to direct their attention to a ’76 if we were going to be discussing “oversize”.
Well, what are you gonna do? You hit that thing with the door of any of today’s cars and you’ll have a long expensive dogeared crease down the edge of that thin, thin sheetmetal.
Anyone want to venture a guess as to which one of the strip mall places the owner was in?
Probably in the Sprint place replacing his “brick”.
What a barge. If the Titanic had a prowl like the one on this car, the iceberg would have been the thing that sunk 😉
Now while that car is very nice looking and I do love BAC(Big Ass Cars) the horsepowerage to engine size on this car is very sad indeed
I have to wonder just how rare these things are, due to the fact that these 71-76 Impala / Caprice ragtops are the most popular and prevalent vehicles of the Donk movement. I’ve seen more of these particular cars donked than I can even count.
Anyways, I own this car’s cousin:
Damn the internet gremlin.. I wanted to see this pic…
If it wasn’t for the Donk movement, a lot of these cars would have went directly to the scrapyards, so there’s that.
Is there really a difference? Is a racehorse with its legs amputated still a racehorse? The scrapyard/euthanasia are merciful in that situation.
My wife inherited a lightly-used ’74 Chevy Impala two door coupe and we drove it for several years. What a brontosaurus. Overlong and overwide, yet the internal space was about the same as a midsize car or space-efficient compact. GM must have been getting secret rebates from the steel and gasoline industries for boosting their sales. Our car had the 350, and have no doubt, it was underpowered. Gas mileage on the road was about 12 or 13 at best. The air conditioning worked well, which was good because the tumble-home shape admitted more solar heat load, and along with the non-opening rear windows, meant you needed A/C even on cool days. This bloated, wasteful machine was another major step on GM’s road to perdition.
The constant bitching about interior room on the ’71-’76 big cars amazes me. Are you people morbidly obese or do you have five kids? Un-freaking-believable.
Those POS 455 Buicks get bad gas mileage too..and no cupholders.. Send them to the crusher!
Amen.
Having owned a big ’72 B-Body, and ridden in many, I can tell you the interiors and trunks were huge compared to the mid-size, compact, and subcompact cars of the day. They may not have been terribly space efficient, but heck, they didn’t have to be!
These cars were exceptionally wide inside, no later downsized car ever matched the ability to seat three across like these cars could. Check Wikipedia. The one dimension that GM conveniently didn’t discuss when touting the ’77 Bs was interior width.
These were great family cars, I sure as heck am glad I was doing childhood road trips in cars like these, and not in the back seat of a Nova, Maverick, Datsun, Toyota. My dad’s LTD towed our boat and camper with ease with a full load in the car. His occasional business cars, ’72 and ’74 Delta 88 Royales were handsome comfortable cars that our neighbors noticed and respected.
Don’t lose sight of the fact that the full size Chevy was America’s most popular car during the ’71 – ’75 model years – right through the gas crunch. Popular for their comfort and capability. A lot like the Silverados and F-150s of today!
Yes but they were poorly screwed together and the miles of vacuum lines and makeshift smog controls combined with their massive weight and size ensured the driving experience would be less than stellar. Far less.
Sorry. This was the era in which I came of age and got my license, so I remember first-hand. There were so many great full-size Chevies prior to this generation and having owned and enjoyed two downsized Caprices over the last 20 years, I’ll always think of the 71-76 B-bodies as the all time low for GM full-size cars.
The vacuum lines got MUCH worse in the 1980’s. These 1970’s cars were pretty simple and basic compared to what followed and at least they didn’t have the terrible electronic carbs. Sure 1973+ American V8’s were not powerhouses, but most I have had experience with were relatively easy to tune and keep running well.
Oh no vacuum lines!!!!!
Wait till you have to replace the automatic Bluetooth power asswiper on your new car, then vacuum lines will seem like a day at the beach….
Every larger car suffered in the early smog years. GM probably did the best job. Chrysler had probably the most issues. AMC? who knows.
They didn’t compete with small cars for handling. That wasn’t their mission.
I’d agree that the typical ’60s car had some better bits, and some awesome style, but cheaper interiors were an industry wide issue in the ’70s. Import cars tended to be cheap and Spartan.
+1 Bill Mitchell.
My ’87 Brougham had exponentially more vaccum lines than my ’77 Electra has. The Olds 307 was a veritable rat’s nest of lines and cannisters, plus a bunch of sensors. The Buick 350 is a blank canvas in comparison. You may not be able to change all 8 plugs from the top like on a 50s car (at least I can’t, I get to the right side by taking off the wheel and going through there) but I can point out most of the parts just by opening the hood, which I definitely could not do on the Cadillac.
It was 180 HP with a 4-barrel. I’ve driven a few 400SBCs and they have plenty torque, so the HP figure isn’t relevant.
Thank you.
I liked the front end of this version less than the ’73 but way more than the ’75 model. Make mine green/white/white and 454-powered. Ahh.
But that 180 hp 400-4 was only available in CA. It does seem a wee bit odd that the standard 350 was rated at 160 hp,and the 400-2 at 150. Oh wait; that 350 was a 4 barrel. That is a bit odd…making the 400-2 optional with the 350-4 std.
And you’re right, the 400 was torquey.
I’ve never been a fan of the ’71-’76 GM dreadnaughts in convertible or coupe form.
Now a ’74 Impala sedan or wagon, I’d give a second look to.
When Chevy moved the convertible from the Impala line to the Caprice line, it effectively made fender skirts standard. I always thought this did a lot to make a really sleek looking convertible in the traditional American sense of a sleek large car.
I’d have to look, but I think the Chevy’s are getting to be the most desired (expensive) convertibles of the early ’70’s B bodies. I see these cars several times every summer on the road, almost always in amazing condition.
A peculiar point about these Caprice convertibles, they retained the Impala interior except for some dash trim. The same approach Chevy took to the Caprice level wagons. Considering they did Caprices in all vinyl interiors, the material in virtually all convertibles at the time, bumping over to the Caprice trim on the door panels and seats would have been very easy – especially considering the modular way the door cards were built – the plastic lower door card was sometimes shared between several cars, and the upper card on cardboard was upholstered differently to provide varying looks.
These cars move along okay. If you think these were slow, try a Mustang II with an automatic and AC. Top speed on a hill was probably 55 mph with the engine laboring hard. These big cars kept up with traffic very well at highway speeds. I drove them in mountains without carb adjustment, and they did fine.
Still a waste of metal.
I just don’t understand how some people can let nostalgia cloud their judgment, especially regarding these inefficient iron beasts.
That’s exactly what folks said in the fifties about the big cars from the classic era. And they cut them up, junked them, used them as tractors or tow trucks….until they were mostly gone, except the ones that had been saved by those that saw them for what they really were: relics of another era long gone, and something to be treasured and saved. How many European or Asian collectors would love to get their hands on this “inefficient iron beast”?
These are the Packards and Locomobiles of the future, and that future has mostly arrived.
I’ll admit, I like the downsized versions that came ’77-afterward.
Though Carmine didn’t have to troll there. Being an 80s child, I appreciate rides to the apple orchards with my grandparents in their ’80 Fairmont. I’m just not into the extravagance of the 1970s in general.
LOL: Clueless. You obviously never owned one. Probably never drove one. Maybe never ridden in one. What experience is your judgment based on? I think it’s raining at your house.
@Junqueboi- Nor would I ever dreaming of owning such a piece of garbage.
@Carmine- If the auto industry had continued to push out malaise garbage past the 1980s, they’d need SEVERAL bailouts to keep going.
They may have had quality control issues, and typically terrible rust resistance, but every malaise era car I have owned have been very cheap and easy to keep running for a long time. They are easy and cheap to fix, generally reliable (if you know how to tune a car), and have given many years of trouble free service. My father drove his malaise era ’76 Malibu as his daily driver until 2007 (it’s still in service as a weekend driver).
Then again, why the f**k are you here?
I mean there are cars I like more than others, but I really like ALL CARS. I don’t sit there and call something “garbage” because its not to my taste, so what do you like?
Do us a favor and STFU and wait for a nice MG, or Toyota or NSU article, or whatever it is you like to come along, and let the adults talk.
You can’t cure STUPID.
Sir, consumer reports.com is thata way ==================>
I’m sure there is a nice silver Prius vs Kenmore side by side washer dryer comparo waiting for you.
Good Day to You Sir!
“I just don’t understand how some people can let nostalgia cloud their judgment…”
LOL!
After this, are you heading over to a barbecue fan page to convert them to veganism?
To each his own taste. To me this looks like a sweet ride; I’m just not willing to buy the gas to feed a beast like this.
Now if it had the Spirit Of America package, that would be another thing entirely (was the Spirit Of American package available on the drop top?).
I don’t think the SOA package was available on anything but an Impala Sport Coupe.
I think there was a Nova SOA on CC at some point. It seemed like that article referenced a third car.
The Impala is the only one I recall seeing in the metal.
I saw a Spirit Of America Impala at a show recently, I need to write it up. First one I’ve ever seen in the metal. It was sharp!
I believe the Vega was the third SOA.
I think Carmine’s comment was meant as “the Impala Sport Coupe was the only full-size Chevy model available as an SOA”.
EDIT: Here’s the SOA CC that Dave referred to:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/1974-chevy-nova-spirit-of-america/
I mean more as an SOA on any other car in the Impala line, I know they were available on other Chevrolets.
The demise of the full-size Chevy convertible in 1974 was truly the end of an era, even more so than the final 1976 ‘real’ full-size car where a big-block V8 was still available. When the downsizing came for 1977, even as good as that car might have been, there was still a large group of Americans that would always want a big car with a big engine. To many, a big domestic convertible, with a big domestic engine, was simply the American dream, regardless of the price of gas or lack of quality.
That never ending lust for size would eventually lead to the big SUV boom when, suddenly, Chevy Suburbans and Tahoes would replace big-engine traditional full-sized cars. It’s hard to find fault with GM for hanging onto the way that Americans had always bought cars for generations, particularly with the profits that were realized from such sales.
And, yet, GM finally did go belly-up for hanging on to that old school sales ethos far longer than they should have. But it sure took a long time (over a quarter century) and a lot of Deadly Sins for it happen.
It is a nice car but given the choice between owning this 1974 or that 1966 Lincoln Continental Convertible that was posted on Oct 9th, I would rather own the Conti. I think Ford set the bar very high with the stylish 1961-1967 Continental convertible and car makers have not been able to truly duplicate the style and elegance of the 4th gen Conti convertible
Who says there was no ’76 Caprice covertible ; )
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Chevrolet-Caprice-CAPRICE-1975-chevrolet-carpice-classic-convertible-rare-options-donk-raghouse-/200971724428?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2ecad9268c&vxp=mtr
Time, of course, alters one’s perspective. When this car was new, I drove a VW and gobbled up road tests of Porsches and Jaguars. Nowadays I view these cars through a different lens. As Paul pointed out, these are the vintage Locomobiles of our time, and as such, deserve to be kept and cherished. Now that I’m more of a cruiser than a back road carver, the idea of driving a big, cheery convert like this one has appeal. Yes, I like it.
I agree, when this car was new I would not have wanted it if it had been given to me. I had a Vega then and that was plenty big enough for one or two people. I’m sad to say that I looked down my nose at people who owned and operated these “road hogs”; just have to mark that down as youthful folly or something. In any case I would love to have one of these huge old convertibles as a summer cruiser, unfortunately my garage is not big enough and my wife doesn’t want her daily driver out in the weather. The 10 MPG is not really an issue when you only drive the car a thousand miles a year.
And where are the ’74 Jaguars or even Corollas now? Gone to fridge’s, meanwhile these soldier on.
This article is a reminder of how much restyling was done from year to year back then. The 73, 74 and 75 all have a substantially different look to the front and rear clips. The ’74 is nice but the front side marler lights look clunky and ruin those bladed fenders. And white doesn’t do this car (or any other) any favours.
Is this car for sale?