With so many Mustangs this week (and a few more to come), I figured that you, dear CC reader, might appreciate a little change of scenery. So how about something with a bowtie… and more doors?
This Chevelle was found lurking outside the facility of a wholesale auto auction in southern Minnesota. Its latest owner (the third, from what I could tell) had planned to get it roadworthy and give it to his wife. But instead, the wife ended up with a Firebird, and the Malibu ended up rotting under a tree.
Save for the Olds wheels, it was surprisingly original – right down to the seized 307 under the hood. It had been a Minnesota car all its life, spending the first couple of decades in the hands of a older couple, then eventually going to their (son? grandson? I forget) who drove it to work at Valleyfair every day. After 15 years of that, it was sold to the well-intentioned husband from whom I bought it.
Being a Minnesota car, it did have some rust… but it was surprisingly minimal. The interior was in great, almost too-good-to-be-true, condition. And for the low, low price of $700, it could be mine. After realizing that no amount of dickering was going to change that figure, I coughed up the seven Benjamins and took it home.
Upon finding that the original 307 was more of a basket case than it first appeared, we decided to give it the old heave-ho. In its place went a ’72 Chevy 350 with a Quadrajet on top… an engine which itself had quite a history.
According to the numbers, it had started life in a Monte Carlo. We found it under the hood of a late ’70s Chevy pickup back in 2000. It was then transplanted it into the family van, an ’89 G20 with a tired 4.3, where it gave us ten more years of reliable service. When that van finally succumbed to cancer, the motor went on the shelf.
Despite its extended slumber, we had no problem getting it back in fighting shape. (A/C purists, please note that all the absent components were cleanly removed and saved for possible future use.)
As I said before, this one’s interior was in amazing shape. I would have suspected it to be made up of reproduction parts, but who buys (much less makes and sells) repop sedan door panels? Guess it just didn’t see much hard use.
The only other change made to the car (which I never did photograph) was the switch from Oldsmobile sport wheels to Nova-style rally wheels with proper caps and rings – a valid choice for that year and model, and a much more appropriate one to my eye.
The plan had been for Dad to make this his daily driver. But then, along came Trouble.
This is Trouble, our aptly-named Labrador retriever. He arrived at the shop rather unexpectedly, all of a week old and in need of a home. Though we weren’t in the market for a dog at the time, we couldn’t bear to turn him away – so Dad and I agreed to adopt the pup.
But puppies like to chew. And though we couldn’t stand to turn him away, we also couldn’t bear the thought of his little teeth ripping through such a pristine interior. So after only a few days of use, it was already time to sell this car. A craigslist ad was created, and a price of $2000 set to encourage a quick sale.
Within hours we had a buyer on the hook. He and his wife drove all the way from North Dakota to see it. They liked it (he more than she), and handed over the cash just as the sun was setting. But as they went to leave, he suddenly decided to back out of the deal because… wait for it… the dash lights weren’t working! I went out and twisted the dimmer switch a few times, at which point the dash lit up like Times Square.
That should have been the end of it. But the wife’s whispering in the buyer’s ear had apparently had an effect, as he still decided to walk away. That after driving for hours to see it, wasting nearly two hours of my time, and taking an extended test drive that probably cost me $10 worth of gas. Thanks a lot, buddy!
After that, it was dead silence. No one called about the car. Days turned into weeks. The snow was coming, and I didn’t want to keep it through the winter – so I reluctantly began dropping the price. When it finally sold (to a nice young couple who lived near where I’d originally found it, oddly enough), there was a thin layer of snow on the ground – and a likewise thin stack of bills in my pocket. The final price? $1800.
Given the cars I’d end up finding in the months that followed, I don’t regret selling it. But I do regret not sticking to my guns on the price. (The people who bought it actually told me they would have payed more. D’oh!)
Project XJ6, normally seen at this time each Wednesday, will be included as part of this Friday’s Junkyard Outtake – entitled “The Biggest Junkyard Yet”… aka “Don’t Cry For Me, I’m Already Saabing.”
The Chevelle still looked good in 1970 while most of General Motors cars were starting to bloat and looks their nice looks. GM exhumes and comes up with new names all the time (kind of annoying) so how does the Chevelle relate to the Nova? Nice looking car and I cannot believe that couple. At least have a productive discussion with your significant other and a plan before buying a vehicle so peoples’ time are not wasted. I know of some couples who have agreed that each other can buy a vehicle without involving the other partner and they have the details ironed out between them. I like being able to buy items cheaper than I should be able to, but I try to scamper away as soon as possible and not tell the seller I would have paid more.
Cute Labrador Retriever I hope trouble is not as much trouble these days.
The Nova (X body) was a size down from these, slotted in with a Valiant or Maverick. The A body Chevelle (Malibu in upper trim levels) competed with the Torino or Satellite.
Ahhh, thanks.
I know this to be true, but it always startles me to think it, because the Torino and Satellite always seemed bigger than the Chevelle.
I think 1970 was a banner year for GM cars as far as looks go. 1970 1/2 Z28 is one of the most beautiful cars GM ever made IMO. 1970 Novas are sharp, Firebirds, Monte Carlos, the Vega (which I think is a sharp little car even if they were junk), The Cadillacs were sharp from that year too.
Were they really junk? As with any car, if you take care of it, give it the proper maintenance, and drive it carefully, it’ll last indefinitely. I’m not a fan of the early 70s Camaros and Firebirds, but I do like the Cadillac Fleetwood and Chevy Monte Carlos of the early 70s. 🙂
Yes, the Vega was junk.
I’m sure the Vega was crap, and so was the Ford Pinto.
Dude, yes Vegas were really junk. You could “take care of it” all you wanted, they still were junk. If you listened closely you could hear them rusting. They most certainly wouldn’t last anywhere near “indefinitely” unless by “indefinitely” you mean a few years (at best).
And you’re obviously entitled to your opinion but those early 70’s Camaros and Firebirds are considered by many to be among the best looking cars ever built, myself included.
I had a 72 Z28 and it’s the only car I regret getting rid of. It was a beautiful car.
I’m more for the Firebird than the Camaro.
Thank you, Keith. You have filled my “350 and rallye wheels” quota for the week, and here it is only Tuesday! 🙂
The body was certainly nice for Minnesota. About 20 years ago, I had some elderly neighbors who had a bright metallic blue one of these, only with those Chevy baby moon-style base hubcaps. I had forgotten that you could still get a 307 in 1972.
I have just never been able to work up any enthusiasm over the sedans of this series. The two doors and the four door hardtops I found attractive, but these were one of the rare styling duds to come out of the GM studios of that era.
I’m pretty sure you could get the 307 in ’73 as well.
Yep, 73 was the last year for the 307 I think, and it was a true dog at that point, only making 100hp. The 305 that came out in 76 was a screamer in comparison at 140hp.
I’m pretty sure it went away in 1973.
Really trivial trivia: Look closely at the engines on the shelf in my last post, and you’ll see the very same 307 sitting in the background, middle one on the shelf. After getting it unstuck, I set it aside for possible future use.
Even more trivial trivia: The other two engines are a ’73 350 from a Camaro (left, blue) and a ’70 low-compression Buick 350 from a Skylark (right, red).
The Jaguar and, before that, this. You have very good taste. The 68-72 A-body is a favorite of mine, in all its forms, and I happen to really like the way the pillared sedan, with its swept up belt line and chunky rear quarters, looks (though I think I’m in the minority). That interior is also very nice. Was there no way to keep that adorable puppy from getting inside the car?
You did a charitable deed by giving the car away so cheap. Were there any emissions controls on that 350? Any idea what kind of power it was making?
I don’t think 72 would have had much emissions controls, maybe an EGR? Catalytic converters didn’t show up until 73 as I recall.
According to Standard Catalog of Chevrolet the optional four barrel 350 had all of 175 hp net at 4000 rpm in 1972. 280 ftlbs of torque at 2400 rpm.
“Were there any emissions controls on that 350?”
There once were, but none by the time we owned it. (One of the few good things about the Minnesota DMV is the lack of emissions testing.)
“Any idea what kind of power it was making?”
It was rated for 255 (net) when new, but was probably approaching 200,000 miles by the time it was sold. Still, it was merely ‘broken in’ at that point – not ‘tired out’.
If it came from a ’72 MC, that 350 was rated at 175 hp. The 255 hp HO 350 was available only on the Z28. Now that would have been a find…and a car. Chevelle Z28.
Sure there were emission controls on these originally. Not cats, but all sorts of nasty stuff like devices to keep the throttle from closing too quickly, etc… All cars had emission controls starting in 1968; CA in 1966 (or sooner).
Whipped out the Chilton’s manual a few minutes ago to look that up… on second look, I surely did have the wrong table.
Once looking at the correct page, I see this:
’72 350, 2bbl: 165hp @ 4000rpm, 280lb/ft @ 2400rpm
’72 350, 4bbl: 200hp @ 4400rpm, 300lb/ft @ 2800rpm
Both had an 8.5:1 compression ratio.
The motor in question had a 4-barrel, so it looks like I was only off by about 55 horses. Oops!
Turning back a few pages, I see the HO 350 for ’72 advertised 255hp @ 5600rpm, and 280lb/ft of torque at 4000rpm. It had a 9:1 compression ratio.
For comparison’s sake, those same three motors are listed in ’71 (last year of gross HP ratings) as having 245, 270, and 330hp, respectively.
The 200hp 350 was not offered on the MC. Sorry. And those 175 hp 350s had 4 barrel carbs. If it came from a MC, that’s what it was. Only off by 80 hp 🙂
Here’s the engine line-up from the ’72 MC brochure:
Huh. Guess I’m a little surprised – the hardcover Chilton’s manuals have always been my reference for such things, and it’s been a long time since I’ve caught them showing incorrect figures. But it’s hard to argue with literature from the General itself.
This table comes from Chilton’s Auto Repair 1973, which shows all three motors together.
What the Chilton’s doesn’t tell you is which engines were available in which cars (I consulted the Standard Encyclopedia of American cars for that). The 200 fp 350 was available only on the Camaro SS, and has a low restriction air cleaner and dual exhausts, which probably account for the additional 25 hp, unless it had some other mods.
And the Chilton doesn’t even mention the 175 hp 350. FWIW, it was only available (optional) on the MC and…..the Chevelle!
I’ve encountered this 175 vs. 200 discrepancy before, but have never been able to figure it out — I think Paul’s post right above this one has the answer.
In 1972, the 350 4bbl is usually listed listed at 200 hp in the Corvette, Camaro SS, and Nova SS (it was not available in non-SS Camaros and Novas, only the 2bbl version of the 350 was), but at 175 hp in the A-bodies. Based on Paul’s post, it looks like there was an equipment difference between the two applications that accounts for the horsepower difference. Chilton’s must have gotten the two mixed up.
I think the 350 4bbl was also available in full-size trucks but I don’t know what its horsepower rating was there. I’d expect it to be the same or similar to the A-bodies. There was also a high-output 350 4bbl available in the Corvette and Camaro Z28; IIRC, there were slightly different horsepower ratings (possibly reflecting slightly different equipment) between the two. A 2bbl version of the 350 was available in several different Chevrolet models, rated at 165 hp.
To add to the confusion around the 4bbl versions, I’ve seen the 175 figure quoted for the ’72 Camaro SS and Nova SS. I’m not sure if that’s simply an error, or if it was available both ways, or if this changed during the model year, or what.
Most of the ’71 Chevrolet brochures on oldcarbrochures.com quote both gross and net horespower ratings. The ’71 Nova brochure quotes the 2bbl 350 at 245 gross, 165 net and the 4bbl 350 as 270 gross, 210 net. The ’71 Corvette brochure quotes the same figures as the Nova brochure for the 4bbl 350 that was standard in ‘Vettes; the higher-output version is 330 gross, 275 net. Incidentally, the ’71 fullsize pickup brochure shows 260 gross, 190 net, while the ’71 Blazer and ’71 Suburban brochures show 250 gross, 170 net.
The ’71 Monte Carlo brochure shows the 2bbl as 245 gross, 165 net (same as the ’71 Nova brochure), but shows the 4bbl version as 270 gross, 175 net. This would seem to be the same as the 4bbl that was offered in the A-bodies in ’72, since its net horsepower matches, but the gross rating doesn’t really make sense compared to the others’ gross/net differential — you’d expect it to be around 255 gross horepower. Maybe the gross horsepower quoted is for the wrong version of the 4bbl 350?
That 255 net hp 350 was the LT-1 solid lifter version, available only in Corvettes and Z-28s. It was an expensive engine for Chevy to build, with premium hardware throughout, and this was reflected in the price. Very few were built, but back in the ’70s and early ’80s it seemed like everyone who had a Holley 4 barrel on their 350 claimed it was an “LT-1”. The 175/200 hp engine was identical as far as I recall, as noted above the rating depended on which single or dual exhaust. Either would be plenty for your average Chevelle sedan.
That one is in surprisingly nice shape, I hope the new owners take care of it.
You guys pretty much figured it out. For 1972, there were three different hp ratings for the 350 4bbl.
The 350 4bbl single exhaust – 175 hp for the Monte Carlo, Chevelle.
The 350 4bbl dual exhaust – 200 hp – Camaro, Nova SS, Corvette
The 350 LT1 – 255 hp – Camaro and Corvette
Remember 1972 was the first year for net HP so exhaust made a difference in the ratings. 1971 Chevrolet listed gross and net hp figures. The 350 4bbl was rated at 270 hp regardless of the exhaust or platform. However, the net hp rating was 175 hp in the Monte Carlo/Chevelle (single exhaust) and 210hp for the Nova SS/Camaro (dual exhaust).
Emissions in 1972 were pretty basic. It amounted to lean carb settings, transmission controlled spark (limiting spark advance depending on gear) and evaporative emissions controls. Systems such as the TCS killed driveability and made the cars feel sluggish but were easy to bypass. The EGR valve came in 1973, the catalytic convertor in 1975.
“Was there no way to keep that adorable puppy from getting inside the car?”
No, not really. He spends most nights at home with Dad, but comes to the shop with him every day. We had seriously considered an alternate plan, though:
– remove the back seat and door panels, tuck them away
– install anti-slip rubber flooring (ex-truck bed mat) on the floor and where the seat bottom had been
– cut wood paneling, attach in place of the seat back and door panels
– install a police-style partition directly behind the front bench
…all of which was to be done in a manner which could easily be reversed. That way, the dog could spend all the time he needed/wanted to in the car and damage nothing.
But, for a variety of reasons, we decided not to do it.
A few months later, we ended up building a far more puppy-friendly vehicle anyways: a ’77 Chevy G10 with dual power sunroofs, rubber flooring, dark tinted pop-out windows, and a partition behind the second row seat (with a gate, so the dog can enter/exit through the barn doors or the slider).
I’ve been saving that one for a future occasion. Until then, here’s a picture from early in the project.
Nice car,when I was young I’d ignore a brown 4 door sedan,I like it a lot.I’m getting an undercover TV detective feel to this car
A neat car despite the brown paint. Even with the extra doors is still looks quite muscle car-ish. Your buyer got themselves a good deal.
anyone scared off by non working dash lights in a clean 72 has no business buying an old car anyway, lol.
No kidding; I had a ’73 Nova with the optional gauge package (the ones in front of the shifter) and the lights for these didn’t work, and this was circa 1976 so it was a reasonably new car. It certainly wasn’t an issue for me, I just kept a small flashlight handy if I really needed to see the fuel gauge in the dark.
…anyone scared off by non working dash lights in a clean 72 has no business buying an old car anyway, lol.
The guy was probably looking for an excuse to back out of the deal in the name of domestic peace. When the objection regarding the lights was overcome, he backed out anyway.
I used to buy these & just part `um out, ‘It`s a 4door who cares ,Right?’ The older I get the more I appreciate the 4 doors sedan & hardtops (and non SS 2 doors) and find myself drawn to them because they are becoming the ‘rare’ models. Especially now that it seems every 2 door Chevelle has magically become a numbers matching big block SS.
The curbsiding rule I learned from a real estate agent was “Never turn down the first good offer because you’ll never know when the next one will come.” With that in mind, $1800 was a good price.
This car reminds me a lot of my grandmother’s ’72 Lemans 4-dr. It had the 350 V-8 which could easily burn rubber (hint hint) and because it was a 4-dr., I always liked the rarity of it. It made for a true sleeper – especially to a new 16 year old driver! She owned that car for almost 15 years and had hardly any mileage on it when she donated it to a local convent. The nuns beat that car into the ground – I remember once seeing it at a local hospital, probably around 1990 or so. All I can say is that Grandma’s Lemans went from a low mileage beauty to a real beast in no time. At least the nuns got good use out of it!
Looks ok like a US Kingswood, no dash lights wouldnt be a deal breaker for me what did he expect? a new 71 Chevelle for that money.
A little crud builds up on the coiled resistance wire and the little wiper that slides across it — this can be corrected sometimes by flipping the knob back and forth…or at worst case…buying a new (gasp!) headlight switch…likely the same exact switch as an ’89 Camaro, ’82 Estate Wagon, ’83 G10 van, ’83 Citation, ’78 Seville, ’75 Grand Prix LJ, etc. etc.
People are funny.
The 307 also came with a Powerglide. The 350 had a Turbo Hydra-matic. Did you keep the old tranny or upgrade?
Note that the six and the small V8 had the same bore at 3 7/8″ so they could use the same pistons. The 327 and 350 both had 4″ bores so used essentially the same block. The 302 used in the original Z28 was created by putting the 3″ crankshaft from the 283 in the 327/350 block and the 307 came from putting the 327 crank (3 1/4″) in the 283 block.
Later, the 305 and 267 used the 350’s 3.48″ crank with different bores. Go figure, as I would think switching cranks on the same block would be cheaper.
This one originally came with a TH350, near as I could tell (unless someone did a very thorough job of converting it in the past). Since there was nothing wrong with the original tranny, we left it in.
I believe the motor that went in had also spent its whole life hooked to a Turbo 350. That tranny is still on my shelf, waiting to be used for something, someday.
Seem to recall seeing in a sales brochure that the 307 was available with your choice of 3-speed manual, Powerglide, or Hydramatic in a ’71 Chevelle. The only auto option for the six was a Powerglide, IIRC (had a ’71 Ventura that was optioned as such).
Hot damn, that’s a a handsome sedan!
Four door models at usually just as appealing to me as coupes. And this is a fine looking one. Moe practical than a wobbly pillarless coupe as well!
Just like he one the little old lady next door owned from new, same color, engine,(307) AC, except it was a 2 door. I told her I would buy it when she was ready to sell, but I moved away and she was not ready yet. She kept it like new. In 1986 it had barely 30k on it. If the rust was minimal, sounds like the buyers got a good deal. I just looked at the owners book for my 70 C10, it states the 307 was 157 net 200 gross hp.
My mother owned a ’71 or ’72 (she doesn’t remember which) Chevelle 4-door much like this one, except navy blue. 307 or 350 (again doesn’t remember which, only that it was a V8). Despite her being obviously not a car person, she remembers it as one of her favorite cars that she’s ever owned. Unfortunately a mishap on an icy road cut its life short sometime around 1976 or 77, but both she and my father walked away from what was evidently a pretty bad wreck. So it held up when it was important.
Who could turn away an animal as cute as Trouble? I am glad he found the right home.
The 1970 and 1971 Chevelle have always been my favourites.
so….why is the blonde in the passenger seat in the first pic….umm…gesturing at you?
Little sis was making peace signs… trying to make the whole thing historically correct, I suppose 🙂
Around the same time, she took to calling my ’69 Chevy panel van a “hippiemobile”. Guess they’d just arrived at that era in history class.
Little sis was making peace signs…Guess they’d just arrived at that era in history class.
Oh….she needs to hold her hand the other way around.
….I’m an old bugger, was in High School in the late 60s
Peace signs ? I thought she ordered 8 beer for the sawmill guys.
I thought she ordered 8 beer for the sawmill guys.
A Roman ordering five beers?
Perfect ! For Roman sawmill guys it would still be 5 beers (at each hand)….See how smart these Romans were ?
Some of my good friends growing up had this same car, same color, but in the wagon version. It did family-hauling duty all throughout the 1970s, to be replaced by a 1980 Fairmont wagon (which was a worse car in about every way).
I’ve always liked the 1970 and 71 Chevelle and Malibu, both the sedan and the wagon. The only thing I’d give it to make it perfect are proper gauges. Warning lights don’t tell you anything about what’s going on with the engine, except that it’s cold and that it’s hot. They don’t tell you how warm or how cold the engine is.
Great story – and car – Keith. I know where there exists a near-identical hardtop four-door to this car. It has a vinyl top, but with the exception of the missing B-pillar, the two are quite similar. I should have bought it five years ago, when it was a $1500.00 car . . .
Does anyone out there remember the CEC solenoid used on the 1971 Chevelles? It was called the Combination Emissions Control. You used it to set the curb idle speed. If you did not follow the setting procedure correctly, once the transmission shifted into high gear the car would not slow down. This was the only year Chevrolet used this as it was gone in 1972.