There is a lot of love given to the 1977-90 GM B-Body on Curbside, but most of the attention goes to the 2-doors and 4-doors. As someone who has owned a fairly high number of GM B-bodies and has had experience with most variants, I contest that the wagons are the unsung heroes. During the golden era of station wagons, Chevrolet typically outsold Ford in overall sales. However, when it came to station wagons, Ford beat Chevrolet by significant margins time and time again. The Chevrolet sedans of the 1950s, 60s and 70s were often more stylish and trendy than the more conservative Fords, which undoubtedly helped increase Chevrolet sales. Ford’s station wagons were also typically more conservatively styled than Chevrolet’s, but in the station wagon market this was a good thing. Station wagon buyers were more concerned about practicality than stylish looks, and a boxy Ford with a magic tailgate just worked better than a Chevy with a stylish clamshell tailgate. There were even some station wagon customers that wanted some cachet to go with their wagon. Ford had that covered too with its luxurious Country Squire wagons, which often sold to customers well outside of the typical Ford price class. Ford really was the wagon master.
All that changed in 1977 with the new downsized Chevrolet. Chevrolet finally relented and copied Ford; if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. No more trick tailgates and fast rear windows. The Chevrolet wagon was a boxy practical station wagon which even used Ford’s 3-way magic tailgate for the first time. Ford was still selling its enormous full-size wagons in 1977, but by 1979 it would follow Chevrolet with a smaller downsized package that was far more space efficient. The downsized Fords and Chevrolets were surprisingly similar in all practical metrics, from exterior and interior dimensions, to drivetrains and chassis design. However, Chevrolet still had a leg up on the Ford wagons when it came to styling. I know this is a subjective topic and I am sure there will be some diehard blue oval lovers who will cry foul, but I think the general consensus is that the Chevrolet is simply a better looking car.
There are a number of styling differences that improve the looks on the Chevrolet. As has been discussed with the sedans, the two inch longer wheelbase on the Chevrolet combined with less front overhang significantly improves the styling. It just has better proportions. Ford station wagons used a flat roof, but Chevrolet improved the styling with a subtle raise in the roof sheet metal just before the front of the roof rack. Perhaps it was a tribute to the late great Vista Cruisers or maybe even the Scenic Cruisers. Regardless, this little feature was significant.
At the time of their design, any full-size wagon worth its salt had to be capable of carrying a 4×8 sheet of plywood. This meant the wagons had to be about 79-80 inches wide. Since the sedans of both Chevrolet and Ford had been slimmed down, the wagons needed to have a wider rear-end to accommodate this metric. This is where Chevrolet went the extra mile. The rear doors on the wagon subtly flare outwards to the wider cargo area. This was combined with a wider rear chassis and wider rear axle to make the extra width almost imperceptible. Ford, on the other hand, had a somewhat more crude execution. It just plunked the wider wagon body atop the same sedan axle, resulting in a much less organic package.
Perhaps you are still not convinced? While let the sales do the talking then. For the first time, Chevrolet outsold Ford station wagons in 1977. And once its new stylish wagons took the lead, it never gave it up. Chevrolet full-size wagons outsold Ford wagons every year from 1977-91, when Ford finally pulled the pin on the full-size wagon market.
Most enthusiasts swooned over the Chevrolet Caprice with the lauded F-41 suspension package. Simply put, it was an outstanding performer in 1977, especially in comparison to the other American full-size cars of the times. Ordering a station wagon meant that there was no F-41 option, but that didn’t mean that these cars were entirely devoid of chassis development. GM did its homework and instead of offering a handling suspension that almost no one would order, wagons got the F-40 heavy duty suspension. This was designed to carry heavy loads, rather than carve corners. The wagons also got a beefed up chassis which was fully boxed, unlike the C-channel chassis used on the sedans. Furthermore, all the extra sheet metal from the huge cargo area meant that wagons weighed quite a bit more than the sedans. Again, the engineers stepped up to plate by making sure all wagons were equipped with 12” front disc brakes and large 11” rear drum brakes. They were essentially the biggest brakes that could fit inside the 15” wheels the cars were equipped with and were the same brakes used on the 9C1 police package.
1980 was a rough year for the large car market and sales took a big nose dive. With the sky high fuel prices, even the much more space and fuel efficient downsize cars seemed far too large and thirsty for the 1980 model year. So it was good timing for the Chevrolet B-body, along with its BOP cousins, to undergo a restyle and a diet. General Motors performed some minor tweaks to the styling which resulted in almost all new sheet metal and significant improvement in aerodynamics. There were also a number of changes made to save weight, such lighter doors, use of lighter driveline components, lock-up torque converters and smaller engines. All the little changes did result in significant weight savings and improved fuel economy, but sometimes at the expense of durability. For example, most Chevrolet B-body sedans used the smaller 7.5” 10 bolt rear axle instead of the larger and much stronger 8.5” 10 bolt axle.
The station wagons didn’t undergo such extensive changes. They did receive the lighter and more aerodynamic sheet metal, which was limited to a new front clip and doors; the reminder of the body was mostly unchanged. Further, the lighter weight and weaker mechanical parts that sedans got were not changed on the station wagons. They continued to use the same basic setup as the 1977 models. So that meant the beefiest brakes, frames, axles and suspension components.
Chevrolet did offer a smaller base engine briefly in the B-body wagon, offering the anemic 120 hp 267 2-bbl V8 as the base engine for 1980-82. However, most wagons seem to have been equipped with the much better, but still hardly neck snapping 155 hp LG4 305 4-bbl. For improve fuel efficiency, the station wagons got added an overdrive transmission option in 1982 which became standard equipment for station wagons in 1983. Although not as peppy as the 170 hp 350-4bbl LM1 that was available in the 1977-79 Chevrolet wagons, the LG4 305 and the overdrive transmission made for a significantly more fuel efficient car, capable of fuel economy in the mid-20 mpgs on the highway. I know that many on Curbside berate the 1980s B-bodies as being inferior to the 1977-79 models, but the 80s cars with the right drivetrain setup was a big step up in fuel efficiency and still offered decent real world performance for the era.
We owned quite a few 1977-90 B-bodies between my immediate family and me. Most were sedans, but few of them were station wagons, which were my favourites and the ones we owned the longest. These station wagons were one of the most versatile cars that I have every owned – they really were a do-it-all vehicle. They had comfortable interiors with seating for 8 people, a huge cargo area, they were maneuverable despite their large size, had excellent visibility, made good tow vehicles, were generally well made with few design flaws and were mechanically bulletproof. They were the Swiss Army Knife of cars – there were few jobs that a B-body wagon couldn’t tackle.
It was on this past Mother’s Day weekend that I was browsing the internet classifieds and I came across this 1981 Caprice wagon. It was quite appropriate that it was Mother’s Day I found this wagon. Of all the cars that my mom owned over the years, the B-body wagon, in particular our 1984 Pontiac Parisienne wagon, was the car that defined her. She owned this car for about a decade and a half, which was the longest of any of her cars. Like the versatile wagon, my mom could tackle anything and do it well. There were so many great memories wrapped up in that big boxy wagon. There were numerous epic family vacations, some of which may even have been Griswold worthy. It also was one of the first cars I took sole control of the maintenance and repairs, and one of the cars I learned to drive on.
This Caprice wagon may not have been exactly like our Parisienne, but it was close enough to tug at the heart strings. It has the same interior with the same dash and fake woodgrain (although Pontiacs had round gauges), the same clock, the same one piece bench seat with the fold down armrest, and this one was also not equipped with air conditioning. Watching the video, the sound of that smooth running LG4 is oh so familiar. The difference with this Caprice is that it has the woodgrain exterior, it is only a 6-passenger (ours was an 8-passenger) and it doesn’t have the overdrive transmission (likely a TH350C). On the plus side, someone did swap on dual exhaust in place which means maybe the highly restrictive bead style catalytic converter has been replaced too.
The car is hardly in perfect condition, but it does have a level of patina that I could live with – maybe even I can evolved to like patina. I’d probably just leave it as is and drive it. Then again, while the LG4 was adequate for the 80s, being accustomed to a daily driver with over 380 hp would probably make me long for an upgrade. Maybe a mild 350 and a TH700-R4 with some 3.23 gears would be just about right for this old girl.
I thought the price on this wagon was a bit high; nevertheless, it sold shortly after I found it. So I guess someone else though it was worth it. Anyone who has followed my story knows that my old cars are essentially rolling artifacts of my family’s history. While our 1984 Parisienne wagon has long ago been sent to the scrap yard in the sky, just maybe the right B-body wagon like this Chevy could invoke those memories. Then again maybe it’s true what they say; you can’t go home again.
Although I am usually more of a Ford guy, I agree that there is a lot to like in these wagons. GM clearly spent a lot more money and effort on the wagon and it showed in the product and in how it sold. Ford did the 79 program (and the wagon in particular) on the cheap in many ways. I really wanted to love the Ford wagons and came close to buying one once, but there were a lot of compromises there that kept me from becoming a big fan.
That these wagons were so nicely done shows in how credibly they adapted to some very pricey Buick Estate Wagons that sold pretty well all through the 80s.
The worst thing about them was CAFE – it hit vehicles in this class harder than it hit anything else. Had these wagons offered a 350 V8 and a stouter 4 speed automatic once the market for these recovered around 1984-85, that would have solved pretty much everything wrong with the later ones.
I know you owned a Olds 98 with a 307, but not sure if you had any experience with a Chevrolet powered by a 305 with a OD transmission. The performance on them was quite a bit better than the 307, and really was adequate for the times. I drove our Parsienne wagon many times, and it was fine for a family car, better than our 307 powered Olds Custom Cruisier. Once Chevrolet bumped the compression on the 305 in 1985, contemporary road tests showed the Caprice sedans could hit 0-60 in the 10 second range. But in the end I do agree a 350 with a 4-speed would have been the best setup. Ultimately the next generation wagons did get a 350 TBI with the 4L60. This drivetrain could have been released in the mid 1980s and met CAFE standards.
I was under the impression that somewhere during the 1980’s and onward through 1990, B body wagons, including the Chevy were now powered with the Olds 307 4bbl V8 rated at 140 HP while the Chevy Caprice Sedan used the Chevy 305 4 bbl until switching to fuel injection in ’88 or ’89…..
Partway through the 1986 model year Chevrolet and Pontiac wagons switched from Chevrolet 305 engines to Oldsmobile 307 engines. All wagons from that point forward used 307s until 1990. In 1991, all wagons switched to the L03 305 Chevrolet engine.
Caprice sedans got fuel injection in 1985 when equipped with the 4.3L V6. In 1989, the 305 for Caprice sedans got fuel injection.
I agree that the gm b bodies drove better and generally had better body and chassis parts than the Panthers. Fords didn’t seem as connected or as coordinated. Ford did beat gm in two areas: the loaded up versions of the Panthers had some incredibly sumptuous interiors, surpassing the loaded up b bodies, and ford put fuel injection on the Panthers early and it worked.
These Caprice wagons were popular in Germany, too. I remember seeing them occassionally. I was mad about the Oldsmobile version then. Oldsmobile Vista cruiser station wagon, the longest name for a car I had heard in my very young age back in the day. Still like the b bodys.
Diehard Ford Guy learned more than a little this morning! I wouldn’t have guessed about the sales graph, and it pretty cool to hear all the data about the beefier specifications for Chevy’s wagons (vis-a-vis the sedans). Nice writeup!
I find it humorous that these are always referenced as the “downsized” generation, while of course true they are still massive and there was a time between the great extinction of the truly large older cars and the new, taller, behemoths (around the early ’90s), that these seemed the gargantuans of the road along with their Ford equivalents. The minivan I guess delivered the first of the two knock-out punches, then the new more civilized SUVs (as compared to the originals) the second.
I took a look at a slightly newer one that had reached the end of the line a while back:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/junkyard/junkyard-classic-1983-chevrolet-caprice-classic-wagon-goodbye-jumbo/
Nice write-up and recollections, Vince!
Looking at the speedometer, I’m guessing it’s marked in km/h – because the numbers go up to about 140 – and thus a Canadian car. Vehicles of this era had the 85mph speedo in the US.
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen one of the downsized B’s that didn’t have AC. Kind of makes the engine look small.
Up in Canada, A/C was still less common even in the late 70s and early 80s. We had numerous 77-90 B-bodies without A/C, including several Oldsmobiles.
There were loads Canadian cars with no a/c, especially the Impala. Most of the Caprices we bought had it. In the 1977-1979 cars I bought for taxi use, and that had to be like 100 cars, my Dad’s Impala was the only one I ever saw with a/c.
In the 1977-1979 B bodies, I specifically looked for 305 Impalas with no air or power toys. They were the ones which gave the best service for us. I didn’t care if it had a soft cam or a THM200, since it was so easy to swap these out at a reasonable price.
The main downside of this was not chilled air, because in Victoria BC the number of days you need it each year could be counted on your fingers. The horrid part was there were no outboard vents, or even fan forced ventilation. In those days, taxi passengers smoked like chimneys the lack of forced air made getting the smoke out hard. There was a floor vent and two centre dash vents controlled by levers buried under the steering column. How much air you got out of them depended on how fast the car was moving!
Even my 1974 Corolla had integrated, fan forced ventilation. I wonder if GM cheapened this out to sell a/c or to just plain cut costs.
How did one get heat into the cabin on a cold day without a fan to push the air into it when stationary? No defroster for the windshield either? I realize that Vancouver stays a steady 66 degrees Fahrenheit 24/7/365 so no need for any of that modern nonsense but presumably they sold cars without AC even further north where it gets cold, no? 🙂
The heat system went down to the floor or the defrost.
The vents were as I described. They were not integrated into the heating system. I owned many of these cars.
It rarely goes above 25’C in Vancouver. Central parts of the province often exceed 35’C.
Jim, my post was describing the vent system in the 1977 Chevrolet with no a/c.
I made no mention of heaters, defrosters or blowers.
You jumped to that conclusion.
Gimme a break and reread your own post. Here is your direct quote that I was responding to. “The horrid part was there were no outboard vents, or even fan forced ventilation”.
Note the last three words of yours, you certainly did mention a blower, or the lack thereof. I didn’t jump to any conclusion, you seemed to indicate there was no way to mechanically move air into the cabin. I was wondering if there was no fan how would you heat the cabin.
Your whole point was something about there being no way to move smoke out of the cabin except to drive faster. I asked why couldn’t you just turn up the fan and move the temperature slider to the non-heat position to get more air in and hence out of the cabin to clear the smoke. Does turning the fan only recirculate the existing air inside the cabin, is that what you mean? It is not clear. At all. Or does turning the blower on mean that you get hot air by default?
You’re being awfully defensive for something that seems perfectly logical to have in a vehicle, my assumption is you are/were mistaken in your recollection.
On an non-A/C car, there were two independent airflow systems. First was the standard heater system, which has a 3-speed fan and draws fresh air from outside. This could blow heat from the defrost vents or the floor heater vents (or blended between the two). It could also blow unheated outside air through either location when the temperature was set to cold.
Second there were the fresh air vents, which were essentially cowl vents that were completely independent of the heater system. There were three vents; driver side floor, center (dash vents by the clock) and the passenger side floor. These vents had no fan, and operated purely by ram air and could be opened or closed individually. The faster you drove the more airflow you got.
As someone who owns a vintage GM car without A/C I can attest that fresh air vents are pretty effective at high speed but not so much in city traffic. However, I can get more airflow at low speed by setting the temperature to cold and have the fan blowing some air through the defrost vents. Regardless of the vents, we had to drive our old non A/C cars with the windows down during summer to survive the heat.
Er-ruhh…hold the phone. You’ve seen more B-bodies without A/C (probably more B-bodies at all) than I have, but I think you’re wrong about that no-fan thing. For one thing, the ’77 Caprice-for-sale I went looking at off a Kijiji ad some years ago had the heat-vent-defog control in the middle of the dash, just like the cars with aircon—the difference was the available positions were Off, Heat (floor air), and Defog (dash air) instead of Off, Max A/C, A/C, Vent, Heat, and Defog. Both kinds of car had the blower speed switch to the left of the position and temperature sliders. The non-aircon cars did have the vent levers as you describe, but.
For another thing, US and Canadian safety standards in effect at the time required all cars to have a defogger capable of performing to a prescribed level that was not possible to meet without a blower.
The blower does not affect the fresh-air vents. They are by air flow only.
The heater control has positions for heater, defroster and off on the top slider. The bottom slider is for temperature. The fan has three speeds.
I have never seen a Canadian B body without the rear defogger, although it was an option.
“The horrid part was there were no outboard vents, or even fan forced ventilation.”
I was not describing the heat or defrost in my original post. There is no mention of it. I was describing the fresh air ventilation system.
Still not seein’ it. The heater/defogger brought fresh air into the car from outside; there was no recirc option unless you had A/C. So okeh, no, you couldn’t get panel-level airflow via the blower, but you could have outside air blown into the car at the floor or atop the dashboard.
No mention of the Pacer X in the video?
141K KM would only be about 85K miles on this wagon in the video, barely broken in…
The 1969-70 full-size Chevy wagons were available with a dual-action tailgate.
Yes, a dual action or 2-way tailgate. The 1977 Chevrolets went to a 3-way tailgate like Ford had since 1966. The 1969-70 tailgate required the window to be down to open the gate, a much less convenient option. 95% of the time, I opened the tailgate as a door with the window up.
I have had a few goes with the clamshell door. Any dirt in there and it is nightmare to fix.
My family bought a brand new 1978 Buick Estate Wagon to replace our 72 Estate Wagon. It had the optional 403 Olds engine, optional interior with notch back front seat and A/C. The difference between the 72 and 78 was incredible. The sound isolation, ride, handling and acceleration were far superior. From a complete stop the 78 would chirp its tire, something the 72 could never do.
Interesting fact is that all GM B body wagons were Chevy’s from the A pillar back. Our Estate Wagon had LeSabre front fenders, but Chevy doors, rear fender and tail gate. The front fender on the LeSabre had a concave piece at the top by the A pillar. The Chevy was flat. In order for the LeSabre fender to line up with the Chevy door a small triangular piece of metal was tack welded on to the fender.
There was also a plastic piece tacked into the Chevy/Pontiac door right under the rear view mirror which made the Buick style fender line up with the Chevy/Pontiac door. This plastic piece wasn’t too noticeable on Buick wagons with wood grain, but very obvious on cars without the wood grain. If the Buick wagon and no woodgrain and no rear view mirror on the passenger door it was really visible and looked horrible.
As equipped elsewhere:
I had an ’81 Bel Air 4 door sedan for a few years. I liked the car but not its reliability. It was two years old when I got it, and I would have liked it to have lasted a bit longer.
A friend had a 1980 Impala wagon. After a few years it rusted out all along the bottom of the big back window. It fell into further disrepair and was traded in prematurely for a Mazda MPV. He kept that MPV for perhaps 15 years.
I spent some time in my aunt and uncle’s ’77 Caprice wagon back in my youth. It was orange with woodgrain trim. I remember that it had a 350, because my uncle bought a family friend’s ’76 Caprice for its drivetrain when something broke on the wagon. From what I recall, he had to have the driveshaft shortened to make everything fit. I didn’t think much about the wagon because they were EVERYWHERE back then, even in salty Michigan in the mid-’80s. Then, as with everything else, they just disappeared, and now I can appreciate them for how cool they were (in a relative sense).
It’s a graphic example of how a better engineered product will hopefully find a larger audience.
Your chart shows how the sales of these fell off a cliff after 1984. Hello Chrysler minivans! And so many other alternatives. It’s consistent with the overall decline of big RWD cars at this time too.
There’s still a guy in my neighborhood with a DD Caprice wagon. I’ve posted once or twice and I still see him out and about. Otherwise the number of B Bodies in normal use has really plummeted these past years.
They also had some fairly stiff internal competition from the new-for-’84 FWD A-body wagons which were a much more efficient choice unless you planned for heavy towing.
The other day Roger Carr posted a photo of a Rolls Royce Camargue and talked turned to the Caprice which it faintly resembles. That yellow-beige two door in the advert could easily be a 70s Rolls Royce. All it needs is different wheels and perhaps a wee bit more roundness (and to be built by hand at fabulous cost, of course).
Nice article. I tend to like the last Caprice wagons more than the second last but the penultimate one is of course a perfectly fine and charming vehicle
I was just looking at ’77-8 LeSabres and noticed the coupe’s greenhouse is very similar to the Camargue’s, but the whole car is much better looking, even with the battering rams front and rear.
Semi CC effect I saw an El Camino yesterday similar style and grille I;d rather have the ute than the wagon I have a wagon already,
Anyone have memories of GM’s early 4 speed Automatic Overdrive transmission repeatedly hunting back and forth…back and forth…back and forth between third gear and forth gear overdrive?
As someone who put thousands of miles on this drivetrain as well as serviced many other cars with it, no it wasn’t a problem for a properly setup car. Often times though if the TV cable wasn’t adjusted correctly this could cause the issue. Further in very hilly areas, those with a heavy foot might experience this problem due to the very steep overall gear ratio. However, the simple solution was to lock it in drive.
FWIW, the GM transmissions generally behaved better than the Ford AOD of the same era, which could also suffer from hunting under the conditions described above. Both improved with time. I have owned and services both brands.
My Dad put a station wagon rear axle on a 1977 Pontiac Catalina four door. Made for a pretty weird looking ride.
This was our family’s last wagon, a ’78 that we had through 1984. My Dad was looking in late ’78 for a replacement to our ’73 Ford Country Sedan, 2nd of 2 Ford Wagons in a row, he looked at the ’79 Ford wagon, don’t remember exactly why, but he wasn’t impressed with the Ford, and instead bought a late-year Chevy Caprice Classic wagon out of the showroom at Shearer Chevrolet in South Burlington, Vt. It was probably the plushest vehicle he was ever to own, it had power windows/locks, Air Conditioning, AM/FM Stereo (no tape nor CB), and trailer towing package, with the 305. The previous Ranch Wagon had most of the options (first car with A/C and power locks) but no power windows. I think he was looking for something with better fuel economy than the Ford, which with the 400 2bbl, wasn’t too good. He also preferred the 3 way “Ford style” tailgate, instead of the GM clamshell, probably why we had Fords before the Chevy. He got it before the 2nd fuel shortage in ’79, and along with his ’76 Subaru DL, was in OK shape once it hit ….the Chevy got better mileage than the Ford, of course it was substantially smaller, but our family was shrinking, just had my 2 younger sisters at home, as my twin sister and I graduated from college in ’80.
He brought the Chevy when he moved to Texas in early 80’s; good thing it had air conditioning as the newer ’80 Dodge Omni didn’t. Still, he kept the Omni until ’86 suffering without A/C as it was his commuter car and traffic in our city was much less than now (with about 10x fewer people back then), so you didn’t have many traffic jams where windows down didn’t allow for air circulation. He was in a minor accident in ’84 when escorting relatives from (way) out-of-town on sightseeing; rather than get it fixed up he traded it for a new ’84 Pontiac Sunbird, easily the worst car he was ever to own. They didn’t need the space of the Chevy nor a wagon, as they stopped camping when I left the fold, but it seemed like a big downsizing. Of course the Pontiac got better fuel economy but by mid 80’s fuel wasn’t in short supply so it wasn’t as big a deal, would have been better to fix up and keep the Chevy a bit longer than go through 2 engines in 80k miles that the Pontiac took and it was scrapped by ’89, not just disposable but throw away car.
Took 20 years, but my Dad went back to GM for his last 2 cars, an ’01 and an ’06 Impala, the last of which was handed down to (another) sister since my Dad passed away, and this year my Mother who took it over stopped driving. I’m glad large wagons were still available when my family needed them, though I’m a minivan admirer from afar, by the time they became available in ’84, my family moved on to sedans, and never got a chance to own one.
My mother bought a 1978 Caprice Estate Wagon. My sisters and I drove that wonderful car on Cherry Street in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, the local drag. We nicknamed it, The Draggin’ Wagon. It was a great car that we filled with friends and had a great time. Thanks for the fantastic memories.