not our actual car; found this at autotraders
Between the Mercury Tracer, which was gone by this time, and the Sable which was leaving, Cindy and I decided it was ok to buy an inexpensive car to fill the void. The year was 1991 and our son had just turned one year old. One day Cindy came home to tell me about a 1982 Caprice Classic coupe that her store manager Manny at Publix was looking to sell. I gave her some questions to ask, and we would make time to look it over. Let’s not rush into things…
The very next evening she drove it home.
The story was that Manny bought it off the showroom floor. It was a special order with all the options except cruise control. And, strangely enough, it had both the heavy duty and F41 sport suspension upgrades. Supposedly. The down fall? Someone forgot to check the “V8” box; it came with the infamous 229 V6 engine, referred to as the 3.8 liter, making many customers believe they were getting the better Buick engine. The key word about this engine is slow. I mean molasses in the dead of winter slow. It might have had 110 horses when new on a good day, but someone left the barn door open.
Cindy was very pleased with herself, finding a car that we’d had so much experience with already, having owned a ’75, ’74, and a ’79 – all great cars with the exception of the ’74; that one ran strong, but at night we could hear it rusting away in the garage. Everything, it seemed, was told to us in detail about this ’82. Except for one minor detail: the front end was entirely rebuilt using an ’82 Impala (making this a Capala? or an Imprice?). Manny failed to tell the “rest of the story”. Where is Paul Harvey when we need him? Manny had simply fallen asleep behind the wheel one day and cleared out 10’ (or more ) of wooden fence and topped it off by slamming into a large palm tree. That alone evidently slowed him down from the apparent 50mph he was doing.
He had told Cindy everything about the car other than the fact that it had been totaled. That seems fine! And she was so very excited, but I tried to reason with her — I have moments of stupid and this was one of them. Me, trying to get her to understand that the whole front end and passengers door had been replaced. In fact, Manny admitted that he’d had the work done by some, uh, shady characters.
So, she agreed to listen to whatever a gear head friend of ours told us, no matter what. So a call was placed to Larry….
“Cindy, I wouldn’t have it for free”, Larry told my wife. “I saw how badly damaged that car was and I know it wasn’t put together well at all. Plus, Chip, are you aware of how gutless those V6 engines are? The GM 4.3 liter diesel is faster! Nope, run away you two. I’ll help you find a better car.”
So, my wife did the right thing and bought the car🤦. She was so proud that she got him down from $2800 to only $1800.
In the flat area where we lived, and with Cindy using it for a couple miles daily, just how weak the engine really was did not show up right away.
It needed a paint job, so we took it to the cheapest place I could find. It was the famous GM two tone light silver blue over a darker blue with a gold dual pin strip. She wanted to reverse the color scheme. So we told him that for our $375 we’d like the dark blue on top, light blue on the bottom. We got a call in a few days to pick it up. So we got there and Cindy told him that it looked nice; now redo it the way we asked! Hey, at least we knew it had some sandpaper used on it, not a normal practice.
We got it back — correctly done — and decided to have Sears install a cruise control unit. We were getting ready to go to Ohio to celebrate my parents’ 50th anniversary and decided to drive the Chevy for its comfort.
Now, my parents were going to stay two extra weeks, so it was decided that dad would drive his 1985 Camry. We also decided to drive to Charlotte where we would then caravan with my younger sister and her family. They had just bought a new Buick Roadblaster Estate wagon. So we had the oldest and slowest car!
By the way, I called Manny to ask how the car did on the open road and what kind of fuel economy to expect. He said he’d never, ever driven the car any further than in town, and never faster than about 50-60. Great….but I guess it may well be that’s what saved his life the time he fell asleep.
The first part of the trip, up I95 and not very hilly, went really well. I kept it at 60 and we got an average of just under 20mpg. However, leaving Charlotte, the decision was made to to take I77 on up. This roadway, for those not familiar with, has some very steep driving, with truck lanes and even truck runaway ramps for those rare times when a truck’s brakes may fail.
I had to learn how to “drive with so little power” up and down this part of our trip. I found that by turning of the air conditioning going up hill and flooring the accelerator resulted in a top speed of 34 miles per hour!! We had loaded trucks whizzing by us!
Then, cresting up and over, I’d just let the old gal roll — we could do 70, even 80! Doing this dance over and over, Cindy finally started to get frustrated. She thought I was doing this intentionally! So we pulled over at a rest area. My dad and sister questioned my “poor driving” as my dad put it. I had to explain that his 1973 Caprice had a 400 engine; this one did not! More like half the size. When we left, Cindy wanted to drive, so she did. That lasted…until the next rest area, where she apologized for pushing this Chevy Capricala on me.
Other than that minor issue of being dead slow, the car itself was very comfortable, handled really well for its size, and it was a two-door, which was great for having a baby in the back seat. Manny had even had the windows tinted very dark, so it made for a somewhat cozy place inside.
On the way home, we ran into three issues: first the transmission was really having a hard time locking up the torque converter because it was slow going into third gear. Second, it began to burn lots of oil. It started with one quart on the trip up, but on the way home, it was a quart low with every fill up.
And finally, coming through West Palm Beach on 95 at about 3 in the morning, we got pulled over. Folks, there were many patrol cars in that area that night, I5 north bound and I5 south bound. Jacob was asleep in his car seat in the back and Cindy was awake keeping me company.
I pulled over and looked in the outside mirror. I could see the officer was very nervous and even had his side arm unbuckled. I called out the our hands were on the steering wheel and that I would turn on the interior lights. When he got to the side of the car and saw us he was clearly more at ease, especially seeing Jacob in the backseat.
After Cindy slowly and carefully got the needed paperwork from the glove box and handed it to him, he announced he’d be right back.
When he came returned he handed me back all the stuff and asked me how fast I driving. I told him that according to my speedometer I was doing 60. He said that it needed to be recalibrated as I was doing 66 in a 55. I apologized. He asked why we were out so late, and I explained that we were driving through from Ohio. He said he would only give me a warning. Then, clearly embarrassed, he said “There has been a big increase in drug trafficking through the area and that our car fit the profile for such an activity!”
We talked the next day about what the next step should be with the Imprice. I spoke to a mechanic who had a 350 with a transmission from a wrecked 1977 Cadillac Seville that he would sell and install for $1000. But after looking into it a bit deeper, everything under the hood (ac compressor, power steering pump, etc.) were on the opposite side of those with a V8. So it was decided to trade it in for the 1992 Chevy Blazer I wrote about here.
A week or so after the trade, I saw the Capala being put onto a flat bed truck. Was it going to end up in the hands of drug dealers?
I met an older gentleman who had a white four door like this. It had a V6 emblem proudly attached to the front fender in front of the wheels.
He said he had worked for the Federal Government and when he retired he was allowed to buy his assigned vehicle.
110 hp from 3.8 liter displacement almost sounds like a guarantee to the eternal life. The high consuption of motor oil is a bit surprising.
Was this engine also available for the wagon?
To the best of my knowledge the wagon came standard with a V8, maybe the 267 or 305. Someone else might know for sure
Yes, from 1980-82 the 267 was standard on 49 state wagons (CA wagons had the 305 as standard). From 1983-86 it was the 305, and from 1986 1/2 to 1990 the 307 Oldsmobile.
In those days, the Buick 231 was not the better V6. At least, not for long-term durability. It did have more torque than the 229, at least in the Chevy engine’s early years. Something like 190 ft-lb, vs 175. However, at some point they did get the 229 up to the same 190 ft-lb. Another advantage was that it was fairly lightweight. I remember seeing some of those online engine charts (so take it with a grain of salt) that put the Buick 231 around 375 lb, vs 425 for the Chevy 229.
Anyway, the 231 had a pretty weak, “soft” block. It was a “deep skirt” block design, which normally makes for a stronger block. But in this case, I think it was deep skirt out of necessity, to help shore up a weak block, rather than make a strong block even stronger.
It also had a lot of narrow, right-angle oil passages that were easily clogged.
In 1985, the engine was totally redesigned. They started by using the beefier turbo block as the basis for all versions of the 231, and with other improvements, the 231 went from being one of GM’s worst engines, to one of its best.
My first car was a 1980 Malibu with the 229, and a few years later I had an ’82 Cutlass Supreme coupe with the 231. The 231 definitely felt quicker in a lot of respects. It probably wasn’t much quicker from 0-60, but for passing, like when you stomp on it and it shifted down to second, it felt stronger. And at higher speeds, such as burying the 85 mph speedometer needle, the 231 didn’t feel quite as winded. And in these lighter midsized cars, neither engine was bad.
I’ve always wanted to try out a Caprice or Impala with a 229, though. Mostly out of curiosity, to see if it’s as slow as my mind makes it out to be?
It was really underpowered. We took it out on a flat straightaway (75 in Broward county) and ran it all the way to the top. It stopped accelerating at 75 MPH!
I had an ’85 Monte Carlo with the 231 Buick V6, and I was glad about that when I heard some stories about the 229. Every car magazine I’ve read that mentioned these two engines basically said that the 231 was the superior engine, and referred to the 229 as “unloved.”
I bought my Monte as a used car in the spring of ’89 with 100,000 km (62,000 miles) on it, and paid too much for it, because I had fallen for it. I had always wanted an ’81 or newer Monte, and this one was beautiful, with two-tone grey paint, Rally wheels and whitewall tires. It was a good-looking car!
But it turned out its looks were all that was good about this Monte, and I began to miss my ’77 Ford LTD II that I had traded in on it. It turned out that the old Ford that I had bought in the fall of ’85 for $500, with 177,000 miles on it, was a far better car, except when it came to fuel economy. The only bad thing I could ever say about the old Ford was that the gas mileage, at about 14 mpg, was terrible. That car still still stands out as one of the best cars I’ve ever owned. Some nay sayers would respond that I must have really had some bad cars, but the only bad car I have ever owned was that Monte Carlo. The other Ford product that I had a few years later, that I bought in ’98, was a ’92 Mercury Topaz (Ford Tempo line mate) That was also far superior to that Monte Carlo.
A month after I bought the Monte, I had to replace the radiator. A month after that, the alternator. In the next 5 years, the radiator again, the alternator again, the starter twice, and the transmission, and the list goes on…
But that 231 Buick V6 never gave me a day’s trouble.
All you had to do to wake that 229 up was go to your local Chevy dealer and order the marine camshaft for it. Yes, the car versions were weezers. And the marine versions were available with a four barrel manifold and Quadrajet carb.
That 110hp is EXTRA pathetic when you consider the little FWD 2.8L in stuff like Skylark and Celebrity ALSO made 110hp, which ITSELF was pathetic. Man those were dark days.
I have no understanding of the thought process of whoever ordered that car, because a V8 and cruise control are literally the only two options I would consider absolutely mandatory.
That Seville 5.7L would have been a cool swap, pretty sure those were fuel injected.
It really was an option for us as the car was otherwise nice. But i did not know that the plumbing (my mechanics term) was reversed. So the cost and extra labor just didn’t justify doing it.
A tragic if funny tale .
At least it looked nice .
I bet there are many stories here of ‘significant others’ forcing the purchase of some old crappy lump that then began to suck the wallet dry whilst not being any fun to drive .
-Nate
According to the brochure, no ’85 Monte Carlos came with the Buick 231. I know California did its own thing, emissions-wise, for a number of years back then, but in the 49 states, I’m not aware that a single Monte Carlo built in the 1980-88 model years came with a Buick 231, other than the Turbo of ’80 and ’81.
My parents bought a new ’80 Monte Carlo 229, first year for that engine. I seem to remember it was 115 hp that year vs. 110 for the Buick 231. It sounded and felt agricultural IMHO, so when I shopped for my own ’81 Monte, I had my dealer locate a 267 V8 with no air, rather hard-to-find at the time. It, like the 229, was slow, but at least it idled and sounded like a V8.
My parents’ ’80 was the last year all Montes came with the 70-series tires and sport suspension standard. They traded on a new ’84 Monte 305 4-barrel which at the time felt like a total hotrod in comparison.
I always wanted to drive a 4.3 FI V6 they started putting in Montes and full-size Chevys in ’85, but never did. Seemed like it would have suited those cars better than either of the earlier V6’s. Buick, Olds, and Pontiac never got that 4.3 engine. I loathed how Chevy put a foot-long emblem on the sides and rear, advertising that engine, LOL. The V8’s were blank in those places.
My Encyclopedia of American cars says that the 231 V6 was standard in a number CA Chevys including the MC from 1980 – 1984. The bigger Chevy 262 V6 replaced it in 1985-up.
Not true. Another error in the “Encyclopedia of American Cars”.
May have been available from 1980-84 in California cars. Why would Chevy use both a 229 and a 231 V6 at the same time, in the same cars, other than to meet emissions rules in a particular state or states? I trust manufacturer’s own brochures from the time of sales much more than generic books put out decades later. Brochures are easily available online. Revisions in the middle of a model year usually, at Chevy anyway, resulted in a revised brochure.
You really need me to prove it? Here’s the brochure powertrain charts for 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984. Now are you convinced?
BTW, I’m interested in your ’82 coming with both the Heavy Duty and F41 suspensions. Might you have any documentation showing that? I always wondered about that. A friend, rather anal like me, worked at a Chevy-Buick parts department back in the ’80’s and he claimed that the Monte Carlo through ’80 had the F40, which was the “Heavy Duty” suspension. Those cars had the rear stabilizer bar, but I’ve seen Malibus with F40 on the window stickers that did not have a rear stabilizer bar. If both F40 and F41 were available, that would’ve been the way to go IMHO. Thanks.
I wondered about that two. The brochure seems to imply that it was one or the other. It doesn’t really make sense to have both, as undoubtedly many key elements were either the same, or overlapped. You can’t have two sets of stiffer springs, shocks or bushings.
I was taking that info from a tire shop? Evidentially he was wrong. I will say that this car handled very well.
I briefly had an ’83? ’84? base Impala V-6 as a company car. That had the 4.3 (3/4 of a 350) V-6. That car had zero options because the company was cheap. And even with the 262 it was awfully slow. I can’t imagine what the 229 would have been like.
Are you sure it was a 4.3L? The 4.3L V6 was introduced to the Chevrolet B-body in 1985, and it was considerably better performing than the 229 (which was 3/4 of a 305). It was rated at 130 hp and had EFI. It was increased to 140 hp in 1986 and remained available until 1990 but was fleet only for 1989-90.
I have an old road test of a 1985 Caprice 305 and 4.3L. The 4.3L car performs almost as well as the 305, in particular at lower speeds. The 305 pulls away by the 1/4 mile. Both ran 0-60 in the 10 second range. I also have an old road test of a 229 powered Caprice from the early 80s. It ran 0-60 in 18.5 secs. It is also posted here on Curbside:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/1980s-vintage-reviews/gm-brands-1980s-vintage-reviews/vintage-review-1980-chevrolet-caprice-the-times-they-are-a-changin/
Paul, I apologize. I just now saw that you included “CA” (California) in your post about 231 Chevys.
OK, but just for the record, no one ever said anything about the Buick 231 being available in 49 state cars, right?
Paul is right, during these years the 229 couldn’t pass CA emissions standards, so most GM A and B bodies got the Buick 231 here. A friend of mine had an ’80 Malibu that was originally from MN so it had the 229. Not powerful but quite reliable. The Chevy V-6’s output and the cars wieght didn’t even tax the Turbo 200 transmission. Incidentally, the 229 V-6 shares a bore and stroke with the 305 V-8, the 262 with the 350. There was also a 200 V-6 that was the base engine in the Malibu for a few years.
Few things were more grim than the powertrains of big American cars in the very early 1980’s. Even V8 versions would be shouting loudly in third gear going up any decent grade on the interstate.
Much to my surprise, someone showed me that the V6’s actually got the THM350 instead of the THM200–at least in the early ’80’s. I certainly wouldn’t have thought that beforehand.
Certainly not all of them, by a long shot. The THM200 was used primarily on V6s and other low-torque engines. There was also a THM-250, and the later version of it, the THM-250C was used as an alternative to the THM-200 when its weaknesses became apparent. And the THM-350 was available for HD use.
I’m not going to spend any more time on this, but your comment is incomplete at best.
Sadly, unlike engine choices, the manufacturer’s brochures do not indicate which engine got which transmission.
Along this line, in the full-size Chevys in ’77-79, I remember hearing dealership personnel saying, then, that the 350 engine got you the THM350. I have never seen anything online, though, confirming that.
That’s correct. The THM-200 was not designed to be used with the the 350; the 305 was the biggest engine it was used with, IIRC.
The THM-250 was really just a light duty THM-350, not much difference aside from the number of discs in some of the clutch packs and has a band for second gear instead of a clutch. The THM 250 appeared in the mid-70’s in cars like 6 cylinder Novas and Camaros, and was used up through the mid-80’s in cars where the THM-200 would be challenged. Used to see them in A-body wagons for one. The ‘C’ suffix denoted a lock-up torque converter.
Paul, some 350 powered cars ended up with TH200 transmissions. Our family’s ’79 Delta 88 was powered by a 350 backed up by a TH200 and I saw other examples of other 350 powered cars with the TH200. Our ’79 was purchased used and the TH200 had been rebuilt by the prior owner. Our ’78 Delta 88 had a 350 and a TH350 transmission that never gave any issues.
I bought Chevys in that time period. I would still like to go back, especially knowing what I know now (LOL), and order something new. Today’s stuff just bores me.
Nice if short tale, and that’s probably for the best.
I’ll see your 229V6 and raise you a 267V8. I don’t know what the 262 was like, but our 1981 Impala with the base 267V8 drove exactly as you describe.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1981-chevrolet-impala-b-is-for-broomhandle/
We were looking at a 79 Malibu once. A really nice example, it was the Malibu Classic with maybe 10,000 miles. It was kind of unique in the the color scheme was a white body with a black vinyl top and a red vinyl interior.
We were looking at it in 1985 and everything was a go until I lifted the hood and saw the 4.4! We drove it but walked away.
I had a ’83 Cutlass Supreme Coupe with the 231 V6. Very slow, but it kept running and running and running. No, it didn’t burn oil. However, it did leak (gush) oil later in life. I think it was the rear seal. Kept a carton of oil in the trunk and would top off every 400-500 miles. Only gave up on it because the A/C went kaput and 12a freon was no longer available.
One of the better cars I have owned.
I think generally, people confuse the Buick 3.8 with the Chevy 3.8. My original post was to show that poster that there were no ’85 Monte Carlos with the Buick 3.8. If he was simply mistaken on the model year, chances are, other than his having a California car (one state out of 50), even his earlier Monte most likely would not have had a Buick 3.8.
I about lived at a Chevy dealer in the mid-and-late ’70’s. Most Colonnade cars from ’76 and ’77 were 305’s–at least in our local dealer’s stock. Most every one I see advertised for sale these days says “350”. I think people open the hood, see a SBC, and automatically think “350”. I feel pretty sure there have been 305’s sold as 350’s, sigh.
The inexcusably bad performance of many of this eras American cars with base engines was so off putting to me. In my brief stint in the industry I was exposed to so many of these otherwise nice cars that were absolute dogs. Excusable barely in a Chevette or Escort. But in a Caprice? Offended the senses.
I hope there are no 2.8 V6 Camaros in your next chapters.
Agreed on all points. And I’ll at least take a 2.8 V-6 Camaro over an Iron Duke 2.5 anyday…not that that is saying much!
To add to the confusion, the Caprice returned to a 4.3 Chevy V6 engine before the whale body came out. And it wasn’t the GMC/Chevy pick-up truck 4.3 V6 as it was based on another GM engineering rabbit hole, the Chevy 3.0 V6 (? I think lol.) I did spend 20 plus thinking they were the same, though.
Ford made life easier, I know the first gen Panther Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car never had a six. Just three Windsors 4.4 (? though I only heard of it as a 252, they were rare nor likely even installed in Lincolns,) the famous 5.0, and 5.8. Then that was quickly reduced to just the 5.0.
I had an ‘81 Monte Carlo with the 229. Gorgeous car in all black with tan interior, but it was dangerously underpowered. I shudder to think what that motor would be like in a much larger and heavier Caprice.
43 mph uphill on an interstate is diesel Vanagon level. My recollection is that a 305 or 350 V8 car performed OK but a 6 was taxi cab material.
I’m glad I bypassed those cars never had anything that underpowered. Our 95 Escort with a thundering 88 ponies, 4 speed automatic and a roof rack full of bicycles was still reasonably quick up the Santiam Pass, albeit noisy.
Is it no wonder GM went babkrupt after offering these anemic and unreliable pieces of crap to their customers, GM gave their business away to the japanese and Koreans. Any one who has purchasdd a Toyota or Honda have never lamented the fact that they miss their old unreliable rusty GM clunker from the 1980’s
Guess it took 27 years for bankruptcy to occur after these “clunkers”. In MHO neither Toyota nor Honda built anything of the size and style of these cars especially in that time period. I always wondered how many hands touched Toyota cars during assembly in the seventies and early eighties, whose job it had been one thin decade before I was born, to kill Americans. Do the math, it’s possible and I say no thanks. But for me, it’s mostly that their products were unappealing to me.