State Street in downtown Chicago’s Loop District has been a treasure trove of rolling, CC-worthy Detroit iron in the ten-plus years I’ve lived here. When winter’s thaw is fully underway (by April), a lot of cool cars come out of hiding. This ’78 Malibu Classic caught me off guard as it passed me as I was walking northbound, but heavy traffic and my quick reflexes allowed me a few, usable frames of it. Its condition may not have been even close to pristine, but my gosh – it just looked so good for a car that was once such a familiar sight.
I’m using the term “coupe” loosely instead of “two-door sedan” in following with GM’s own terminology (all two-door Malibus were “Sport Coupes”). Both the two- and four-door models also shared the same 108.1″ wheelbase, and there wasn’t a whole lot of differentiation between the basic outline of the rooflines of those two bodystyles. I’m calling this one a “coupe” simply because it looked much sportier than most proper two-door sedans I can think of, and also because it just looked so darned fine. This is one coupe that, in a perfect world, should have been a hardtop. In my mind, aesthetically, it was a completely modernized-for-the-late-70’s update of the original, linear, 1964 – ’65 Chevelle, emulating the earlier car’s clean, purposeful lines. That the ’78 Malibu’s basic styling was unadorned was one of its strengths and not a liability.
This newly-downsized Malibu coupe was “Sarah, plain and tall”, with a trim figure, decent face (even if it wasn’t the most memorable), pleasingly smooth sides, a nice rear, and a simple, honest, wholesome, down-to-Earth style. She may not have turned as many heads as some other cars of her era when new, but she certainly did right by her “Malibu” moniker. And also, like the ad copy stated, she was as American as “apple pie”. Instant likeability.
Across from the Malibu coupe in Chevrolet’s new-car showrooms sat her cosmetically-enhanced, A-Body sister, the ’78 Monte Carlo. With her voluptuous hips (thank you, Paul Niedermeyer, for that unforgettable imagery), exaggerated pucker (the neoclassic grille up front), and more-upright rear backlight, “Ms. Carlo” was just putting it all out there, screaming for attention, next to her quieter sister. And the boys (all of America, actually) came in droves and took Ms. Carlo home, to the tune of about 358,000 units for 1978. I found it interesting that the Malibu also sold about 358,000 units for ’78, though it did so with two additional body styles (sedan, wagon) contributing to that volume. The coupe accounted for about one-third of total Malibu production that year, with just 117,000 units finding homes.
Nonetheless, I found the most unappealing aspect of the Monte Carlo versus its Malibu platform-mate to be its droopy rear end, especially when viewed in profile. It always looked like it could have benefit from going to the gym and doing lunges. Or by pulling its pants up. Or something. Remember those derrière-flattening, completely unflattering Chic jeans that were so popular with the fairer sex in the late 70’s and early 80’s? The entire rear third of the third-generation Monte Carlo is the automotive embodiment of that look. Wasn’t the car that was more expensive also supposed to be better-looking? (I also found it interesting that the relationship between the attractiveness of this Monte compared with that of the Malibu was inversely proportional to that between the hideous, A-Body Cutlass Salon and the tasteful Cutlass Supreme over at Oldsmobile.)
The two-door version of the 1978 – ’81 Malibu had a somewhat abbreviated run of four, measly model years. However, in its visual simplicity, it succeeded in a way the 1978 – ’80 Monte Carlo (and its successor, the ’82 Celebrity two-door) failed in the Looks Department. The Malibu had the appearance of being healthily American, as if fed on meat and potatoes. It was neither too aggressive nor too weak, with an understated charm and just a touch of sex appeal without being ostentatious. Its style is such that I’ve found myself unwittingly staring at one, realizing it, and confounded as to why I liked it so much. Ultimately, no deep analysis is necessary – its looks just work for me.
Granted, some of the two-tone paint schemes on some models may have been a bit over the top and subsequently haven’t aged well, but this Bu’s bones were good. The market for proper coupes and two-doors in general has all but evaporated, with current offerings being more niche-type vehicles. But as for this dark-red Malibu, it represented – and continues to represent – for all of us introverts, everywhere. Carry on, Sarah.
The ’78 Malibu Classic was photographed by the author on Wednesday, March 2, 2011, with the ’79 Monte Carlo photographed by the author in the Lakeview neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois on Thursday, April 7, 2014.
I especially like the ’80 and ’81 grills on these. Plus they look good whether stock or rodded – a hallmark of the first two generations of ‘Bu’s.
Truth. To that, Id add that looking good stock, modded or anything in between is the mark of a strong design. Clean and simple lines can carry different tastes if the owner has an eye for it, and if the end result is cohesive.
As a matter of fact, the grilles for the 1980 and 1981 Malibus resembled those of the almost identical sized 1977 Nova Concours/1978 Nova Custom and the 1979 Nova as shown on this photo montage compilation.
I’m not a fan of the vertical-bar ’80. Just doesn’t work all that well in my opinion. The horizontal-bar ’81 is nice, though the heavier trim molding they added around the grille/lamps seems a bit superfluous.
In your last pic, the Malibu reminds me of a border collie working a herd of fat high-tailed sheep.
One of the things that I disliked about this car (lack of roll down rear windows was another), was the fact that you couldn’t get the upscale model with console and buckets, without the awful half vinyl top (due to GM’s option packaging!) Other than that, this was a worthy sucessor to the ’65 Malibu that I had! 🙂
Sure you could. There were 2 Classic 2-doors, the standard and the Landau. Either was offered with buckets. Another was to get them was order a 9C1 on the plain Malibu.
The delamination of those horrid plastic vinyl bumper strips as they aged, and subsequent falling out aged the looks of “Ms Carlo” quickly! 🙂
Not a Chevy guy, but this generation of Malibu coupe is a very attractive car. There is just something so “right” about the lines. As you note, whatever it is, there is neither too little nor too much of it. So many 2 doors of this era got things wrong, even if just a little. The Fords were too angular and “thin” looking. The Mopar M body coupe was too fat and a little awkward. In the right color with the right wheels and tires, I could happily rock one of these now.
Right there with you. One thing you could say for GM, Chevy in particular is that they could make an everyday car that despite being fairly simple in its overall look, had enough appeal and potential that it lent itself well to customizing and hotrodding. You cant beat a trim, nicely proportioned 2 door for that. This ‘Bu is a lot like an evolution of the ’55 Bel Air in that respect.
Great point – Ford went angular in Europe in the mid 70s, but it came off as crisp; all too often here, from the Fairmont through the first gen Panthers, it came off as thin and tinny. And the M body coupe was a disaster, especially compared to the relatively sophisticated sculpting of its LeBaron/Diplomat predecessors.
I used to work above that Sears in the background of the last picture and I have actually seen that Bu! Thanks, Joseph.
That’s awesome! I do miss that Sears…
These are very sharp cars. The styling has stood the test of time – particularly the coupes. The main problem was that, when GM shrunk the size of its cars, it also cut costs whenever possible. It was much more apparent on these intermediates than it was on the downsized full-size cars of the prior year.
They always looked good on the outside, but I rather hated the interior: everything you’d touch as the driver felt chintzy, the instrument cluster looked like a Tupperware trash bucket grafted on there, and the pedals and gear selector felt terrible. Also the V6 sounded insufferably wheezy. That said, if I had one I’d just customize the interior and probably drop in a smallblock or something and a standard. 🙂
I agree it could be really cool to resto-mod one to look just the way one would’ve wanted it from the factory, and make it look “stock”. I’m sure it would confuse more than a few people! I wonder if anyone has ever tried to hardtop-ify one of these Malibu coupes, or if that would even be possible.
I’ve not seen a hardtop, but once at Super Chevy Show in Indy there was one made into a convertible. It looked pretty nice as the guy didn’t go crazy with a bunch of other mods. I don’t remember if it had a folding top or not. I just remember it was black like mine.
Never a fan of the ’78 Monte Carlo. I always thought it tried too hard to look like its predecessor; that its styling was a bit ridiculous. As beautiful as the ’77 was the ’78 was somewhat over-the-top and unattractive.
On the other hand, the Malibu was a great downsized version of its former self, IMO. No crazy lines, well-proportioned and overall just a good-looking, mid-sized GM offering. Seeing one today is refreshing and brings me back to being a teenager again.
I actually really liked that the ’78 Malibu took a “clean slate” approach and shared no obvious visual similarities with its predecessor. It was the “un-Colonnade”.
I saw one of these Malibu 2 doors just this week, somewhere, maybe even online. It was “done-up” to look like a quarter mile drag racer complete with skinny wheels/tires up front and wide wheels/tires in back (Pro Street?). Unfortunately, the “sponsor” decals were placed randomly and the off-white paint job was accented with a blue and red stripe that ran front to back just under the window line. Poor car.
A buddy of mine had the el Camino version of this generation Malibu and I always thought it was quite attractive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_El_Camino#Fifth_generation_.281978.E2.80.931987.29
His was two-tone black and silver with a red interior – a color package that was also popular in that era with the Impala and Caprice two-doors.
Being a Ford guy, I had an ’83 T-Bird at the time that he did not like. As a Chevy guy, he hated the coming ‘aero’ trend, preferring the classical look of cars. We agreed to disagree, but I too like the Malibu of this era in retrospect. His opinion may have been slightly biased though, as his father owned a Chevy dealership.
Hi Retro
It’s interesting that we have a common connection with yet another car. Several of my friends had those El Caminos. Also, my brother had one of those T Birds and a couple of later Birds and Cougars.
Yeah, maybe my handle should’ve been “T-Bird Rick”, as I have had FIVE of those over the years, but only ONE Mustang. (so far ;o)
Nice to hear from you again.
My little brother really liked the ones he had and put 300+K on his last Cougar. Now he drives Honda Accords. Of course he has also owned a couple of Mustangs. My other two sibs each have owned a Mustang also. It must be some family thing. I am the only one that has stayed true to the cause, though. But, then , again I have owned the Malibu longer than any Mustang. It started my long trend of black vehicles.
Good to hear from you too.
As I have stated here before, I ordered one of these new and still have it. I don’t drive it a lot but it is still very capable. Mine has the 267 with a 4 speed, buckets, F41 suspension, ralley wheels, and sunroof. We took it on a lot of trips with 3 girls, all about the same size in the back. They always complained that we didn’t have a minivan. I told them they could buy one when they grew up. Only one has, so far and she now has an SUV.
I ordered the Malibu Classic because the Landau had that half vinyl roof and side rub mouldings that I didn’t like. So far only one door ding, but then I am still careful where I park it.
Mine still looks pretty good, but the interior hard plastic parts are getting brittle. Some of these are now being reproduced and I have a few junkyard pieces I picked up a long time ago. So, this summer I am going to do a little refurbishing on it.
I’m am obviously a Ford guy, but these are one Chevy I really love and especially this particular car. It is one that has served me well since new. I have a lot of memories both good and bad associated with it. Most of the bad ones were not the car’s fault.
Yep, I love these Malibus, even the many turned into drag cars.
Interesting parallel yet again. When I met my second wife, she was driving a 1981 Camaro with that very 267 engine. It was a t-top version that looked very much like a Berlinetta of the same year… (it had same blue exterior with tan interior) even though it wasn’t a Berlinetta. Nice car, and I liked driving it, but I much preferred the 305 in my Dad’s ’77 Nova Concours 2 door… an engine that later showed up in a friend’s ’86 IROC-Z in a MUCH better state of tune.
It’s funny, but my lowly 4.0L-V6 2007 “S-197” Mustang would blow away all of these cars in a sprint from 0 to 60 miles per hour.
Interesting. My wife had a Camaro, an ’86 Z28 when we married. It had the 305 and was pretty fast. She later had an ’88 Iroc with the 350. Pretty quick, but could be a real hand full in the winter.
I have been very surprised at how good my ’09 V6 runs. I think it could beat the Malibu pretty easily. I ordered the F41 suspension on the Malibu and it handles real well for a car of it’s time. However, the Mustang is much better for corner carving.
Which is amazing as our Mustangs have that Live Rear Axle. As I said, I’ve had several Thunderbirds, and they all had independent rear suspension, and I am really curious to see how the 2015/16 ‘stang compares, as it finally has this instead of the live rear axle. My Dad’s 2014 V6 with the Pony Package is about as good as it gets for a live rear axle, but much like airplanes only got so much performance out of piston engines before moving on*, it was time to move on with the ‘stang’s suspension. Oh sure, purists will complain, but in this case, it was truly time to move on.
* Oh, wait, didn’t a V16 P51 Mustang make like 450 in a dive? That’s not too shabby for tired old technology ;o)
My ’09 has the Pony package and I think that really helps the handling . Sometimes, though, I think my former ’03 liked me better. It seems that I could sometimes do things with it that the later one finds more difficult. I have always believed that some cars like you better than others. In fact, I once had a ’64 Galaxie that I am convinced hated me.
That P51 must have been the version with the Rolls Royce Merlin engine. Those things were absolute screamers.
Joseph,
Like CC above, I believe that have seen this very Malibu in Chicago. While visiting Chicago in December, I saw a dark red Malibu’s tail end sticking out of the entrance to the garage of an upscale apartment building in River North, and this Malibu could be it. I remember the example that I spotted being a four door with bright colored aftermarket wheels, but I may have been mistaken about the four doors since the front half of the car was hidden, and the dark colored wheels in your photo could be the same wheels with a layer of winter dirt on them.
We had a few of these that we sold back in the 90’s. One of particular note was a beautiful cherry 1981 Classic coupe that was fairly loaded for it’s time with bucket seats, floor shift/console, rally wheels, 267 V8/tied to a 350 THM transmission, A/C, Power windows and several other goodies. It was a dealer trade for a new Cutlass Ciera SL and only had 49K little old lady miles on her. We got the car wholesale packaged with 5 other cars and didn’t have much into it. It sold the same week for 4900 bucks! The Olds/Saab dealer we got it from had a policy of not selling cars over 10 years old retail so many good deals like this came along frequently. Wish I still had that car today. Would probably fetch close to 8 grand on Ebay because of it’s original condition, low miles and desired V8/bucket seat options.
Wow, Joe – that car does sound like a honey. And it was an example of the last year of the Malibu 2-doors. I hope it found a great home.
My love for this generation Malibu is probably quite well known by now (especially having written COAL articles on the two I’ve owned recently). And this is another nice one, and another great capture of a car on the move. One feature of the ’78 that I particularly like is how the portions of the taillights that wrap around the rear corners of the car are cut off at an angle, rather than the squared-off opening of the ’79 to ’82 models. Not sure why they changed it, but it does make at-a-glance identification of a ’78 quite easy.
Nice write-up as well. I’m of the same opinion–the cleanly tailored Malibu presented quite the contrast to the overstyled (IMO) Monte Carlo. And while the Malibu didn’t last beyond ’83 due to the introduction of the Celebrity, the toned-down ’81 refresh of the Monte told the tale of which look was the winner in the long run.
Chris, I loved both of your Malibu COAL pieces, and I wondered if it was “too soon” for me to post this one. I especially liked that your first one was your grandpa’s.
As for the one-year, ’78 taillight design, I agree – it worked well and probably deserved a reappearance. As for the ’81 – ’88 Monte, I still like ’em…Mulligans done right!
Nice find, Joseph…and yet another good read. While i agree on how overwrought and wonky the contemporary Monte’s look compared to these Malibus…that one you showed actually plays that point down. That car’s solid paintjob and always look just right Rallye wheels wrapped in meaty RWL’s almost make me forget about that horrible fenderline thats dumped onto 2/3 of the upper door. The ‘Bu in that color and wearing those wheels/tires would look just right. With a healthy SBC under the hood backed up by a modern 5spd manual and dual flowmasters…i could rock it. Of course, WITHOUT that tacky chrome lower trim….
I really like this generation Malibu, especially the coupe. I only liked the 78 and 79 sedan, as when Chevy changed the roof to the formal Seville look, I think it took away from the clean flowing lines of the car. The formal roof just looked awkward.
I also liked the Nova, but hated the coupe with those large back side windows. I think the sedan was much better looking, with its very tailored roof line.
My mom brought a brand new 1980 Monte Carlo, as she “loved the flowing lines and the way the truck dipped” (go figure). It was beige with camel bucket seats. It wasn’t the landau model, but it had the wider chrome windowsill moldings and nicer body side moldings. I never forget, when the car was about 5 years old, the faux chrome bumper inserts started looking like crap (clear plastic coating coming off, lots of dings on them, brown faded spots, etc.). So to spruce up the look, I took a razor knife to them and cut the clear plastic and the chrome looking plastic off. When I did this, it revealed a grey color plastic that actually looked better than the fake chrome. Mom was so happy I fixed her bumpers LOL
Actually Chevy Malibu didn’t go the Cadillac Seville route until 1981.
Speaking of the Cadillac Seville “route”, the 1982-83 version of the Chevrolet Malibu 4 Door Sedan actually looked like a scaled down 1975 1/2-76 Cadillac Seville and just check the grille of both unrelated cars. Uncanny resemblance.
I agree with you that the Malibu was better looking than a similar vintage Monte. I bought a ’79 Monte Carlo used because I figured when I drove the thing it was one less ugly ’79 Monte Carlo I had to look at. Can’t say anything nice about that thing either. Lots of stuff broke on it that never broke on anything else I ever owned, and the paint failed too. It’s the car that made me swear off GM vehicles, permanently.
A nice neighbor of mine treated himself to a brand new 78 Malibu when he retired at 65 years old. It was a coupe, but a total stripper with only an automatic and an am radio. Not even air !!
The dealer tried to dress it up by installing a landau roof, which really looked bad. It was just some glued on vinyl on the rear portion of the roof. Similar to the roof treatment of the Landau model.
He loved that car but I think he could have kicked himself for not getting air !
Hated the look of these clunky, blocky, no-styling products with four wheels. If these were viewed from their roomy interiors, this was okay, but the blandness that radiated from the results of the roomy interior was horrifying. It is difficult to believe that these cars could look so small yet be on a 108 inch wheelbase. Somehow the coupes were less troublesome on the eyes and the Monte was far better looking even if its butt dragged the ground like Gramma’s bossums.