Chevelle Deluxe images posted at the Cohort by William Rubano
(first posted 10/10/2017) We’ve covered a lot of Colonnades over the years here, but never a low trim sedan like this Chevelle Deluxe. Deluxe? Isn’t that an oxymoron, for the lowest trim version of a car? And wasn’t it a rather severely out-of-date expression by 1973? Name debasement never ended, until it did. Even the Malibu’s name got a severe debasement in 1973, as Chevrolet tried to install a new higher-trim line Laguna above it, creating three distinct Chevelles. That was a flop. As was the Deluxe; in 1974, it was just Malibu Classic.
Not only was the Chevelle going through an identity crisis, but also a facial crisis. It started out with a mediocre one, and it kept trying on new ones each year, all to no success.
The 1973 Laguna was an ill-fated attempt to push the Chevelle upwards. The basic Chevelle face certainly wasn’t going to work for that, given how “poor” it was. Chevrolet General Manager John DeLorean used a familiar trick: creating a new Endura front end, as he had done for the ’68 Pontiac GTO. Just two problems with that.
Unlike the GTO, the Laguna was a full line, with sedan and station wagon along with the coupe. And unlike the GTO, the Laguna’s face was just plain ugly. Dorky, with a hint of anteater.
Bonus points to anyone who can find a Laguna sedan or wagon; they were mighty rare back in the day. Some 13k sedans and a hair more wagons (of all types) managed to find forgiving owners. Needless to say, the Laguna was discontinued as a full line for 1974.
The Laguna coupe, which sold a bit better in ’73, was carried over into 1974, now re-positioned as an overtly sporty coupe. The popularity of the Monte Carlo and the other GM formal-roof coupes made it essentially impossible to sell a luxurious version of the semi-fastback coupe body. But its faux-sporty make-over was a bomb, as the ’74 Laguna S3 sold half the rate of the ’73 Laguna coupe.
The Laguna S3 got a new shovelnose front end for 1975, and Jim Cavanaugh’s Laguna CC takes up the story from there. But it’s not a happy one either: its sales continued to swoon, never to break out of the four digit realm the rest of its (numbered) days. But it found its calling on the banks of NASCAR speedways.
I’ve always been more than a bit perplexed by the front end of the ’73 Chevelle; it’s so dull, generic and unappealing. Admittedly, that was something of a Chevelle trait from day one. It’s in its DNA, as was the popular saying some years back.
Here’s a look backwards at the last of the previous generation, which also was not exactly known for its interesting face.
Well, the new Chevelle, scheduled to arrive for MY 1972, was intended to improve on that. Here’s a sketch by Allan Flowers from 1969; needless to say, it’s a variation of the face that the ’71 Camaro introduced and the Vega perpetuated. Frankly, as much as I like those, another member of the family wearing almost the same face might have been a bit too much.
Which explains these clays or prototypes that sport the face that presumably the new ’72 Chevelle was supposed to wear. Aha! A chrome version of the Laguna nose. So when the 5 mile bumpers interfered with this plan, it was recreated in Endura and bestowed upon the Laguna, presumably because it would have been too expensive for the Malibu/Deluxe. Which in turn explains the generic face those two arrived with in 1973.
The solution is easy: just walk back some. It gets more interesting, especially the sedan. This came as a big surprise to me and undoubtedly a whole lot of other folks in the fall of 1972. Its airy greenhouse clearly evoked the classic six-window big GM sedans from ten years earlier, now updated with more flowing lines. And a center pillar, due to expected federal roll-over standards. That is of course where the Colonnade name came from, as in a row of pillars.
The Colonnade sedan design turned out to be rather polarizing, as it flew directly into the massive wave of ever-larger C-pillar sail panels, and a quest for privacy. The country’s mood had switched drastically since the Vietnam war and the other happenings in the late 60s, and many Americans wanted to be as sealed off from what now seemed an uglier world, rather than look at it or engage with its populace when driving down the street. Yet GM persisted in the airy sedan roof, bringing back glassy C-Pillars on the full sized cars in 1975. It may well have contributed to the dramatic loss of the sedan’s market share to the much more enclosed coupes of the era, a mega trend that continued well into the 80s.
And then of course the sloping, airy six-window sedan body came roaring back, on the success of the Audi 100/5000 and of course the Taurus. GM was either ahead or behind the times.
The Chevelle’s rear end is certainly more interesting than its front end. All the Colonnades had rather bold, sloping tails in ’73, especially the Pontiac’s. That didn’t last either, as all of them got decidedly more squared-up in 1974. And the Chevelle lost its one-year flirtation with twin round tail lights. Shades of FWD Impalas to come.
This Chevelle Deluxe may not scream “stripper” on the outside, but its interior can’t hide its place on the roster. As on the police or taxi cab company roster. By this time, stripper sedans were becoming increasingly rare in the retail segment of the market. If you were so cheap, just buy a damn Vega! Or a Datsun 1200. Dealers weren’t stocking them like this in 1973, except maybe in a few select small Midwest towns that still had a high Calvinist streak in their adults.
This immaculately-preserved Deluxe screams “granny-mobile”, and undoubtedly granny didn’t put many miles on it before she stopped driving it.
I’m going to place a pretty safe bet that this Deluxe has the 100 (net) hp Non-Turbo-Thrift 250 six. At least the venerable Powerglide was not around anymore to make the six even more sluggish.
The 307 V8 was in its last year, making all of 115 hp. For some reason, the 307 didn’t take well to the de-smogged era. In 1974, the smallest V8 would be the 145 hp 350. Of course the energy crisis changed that quickly, and in 1975, the forgettable 262 pigmy-mouse V8 made its premiere. Fortunately, by 1976 the 305, a much better compromise in the new era, finally arrived, and the 262 was sent packing after just two years. Good riddance, although it undoubtedly did the job for some with modest expectations. The 454 would be gone after 1976 too; it’s surprising that it stayed around that long.
The 1974 Chevelle got the first of its yearly face implants, or more like face-plants. It was new, but hardly original. And it was the first blatant Mercedes grille rip-off,; I’ve commemorated that Design Milepost here, but not without a bit of controversy. Given that GM Design VP Bill Mitchell used to make snide remarks about Mercedes styling back then, this is more than a bit disingenuous.
Maybe Bill was a bit too tied up under a drafting table with one of his secretaries, and the ’74 grille somehow slipped by him. But he had that fixed for 1975, with a decidedly more generic version of a very dull grille. Must have taken all of ten minutes.
But Bill was indisposed again when the ’76 grille was being “created”. Does this look pathetic, or what? My theory is that its design was outsourced to a high school shop class to save a few bucks.
The high school kids found a piece of steel extrusion laying out in the junk pile and cut to fit the grille surround. Bingo! I gave the ’76 Malibu Classic a Deadly Sin, in part inspired by its atrocious front end. So much for GM’s design leadership.
Bill decided to bring the work for the ’77 front end back in-house, and the results are…a wee bit better. But as far as I’m concerned, the Colonnade Chevelle was a car that kept looking for a good front end, but never found it.
So let’s end this CC with this end, the better end, that is. And let’s just say that the Colonnade Chevelle played its part in making the Olds Cutlass America’s best-selling car.
I had never seen these Chevelles before, but those front ends are a turn off. I’m one of those people who believes the front end of a car can either enhance the design, or ruin it severely. To me, there have been plenty of mediocre looking cars redeemed by great looking front ends, and plenty of really great designs muddled by front ends that just look off. This Chevelle is a great example, I don’t think the design of the body in and of itself is bad per se, but the generic looking and (in the case of the 76/77) ugly front ends of the car just conspire to ruin the design. The 76 and 77s are the worst, I’ve never like those square double stacked headlight designs, and combined with the grilles it just looks ungainly. The Oldsmobile Cutlass line looked better because of the more refined front ends (Well, for me anyways), and the Pontiac Grand Prix as well (Which I know is on a different platform from these Chevelles, but they share some similarities in design cues that a comparison isn’t entirely out of the equation)
Also, maybe it’s just me, but looking at the pictures of the Laguna. Am I the only one who thinks that front end looks awfully similar to the Mustang II?
You’re definitely not alone in thinking the ’73 Laguna front end looks like a Mustang II.
A nice design in search of a front end. Still looking by the time the last of the ’77s rolled off the line….
It’ll never be a B-body, but I’m starting to warm to (some, ok a few) colonnades. This one’s interesting in that it got the bigger front bumper; the Olds and Buick got a nice slim number for 73, and the Pontiac LeMans got a half and half. Its almost as if the stylist’s derision for the cowcatchers was reflected in how it was applied to the lower castes (while they still sort of had a choice). This one being a sedan is not completely unattractive. Except for that face.
I remember Dad’s Volvo was a 145 DL (Deluxe). What I never saw around that time was a GL (Grand Luxe), but there was the odd L (Luxe?) strippo around when the 2 series was brought in.
In 1977 the frame would eventually become a B-body, or the basis for it…
hehehe… eating my words. Like me some of those 77Bs.
The early coupes, with the broken rear glass, is a beauty. The sedans look far better with the 89 aero lamps and tail lamps… with an early interior and none of the broughameness.
Dad had a couple of 81 Caprices. The last one was a US spec one with the 305, great car.
Some friends had a yellow square lamp Malibu Classic. That was HUGE compared to our downsized Malibu. But boy it was cool… of course, when I was a little kid.
No, it’s not the same frame. This is a common misconception. While the B-body chassis shares some components, and they are similar in design and dimensions, but GM didn’t cheap out and reuse the old A-body chassis. The newer B-body chassis has a different frame rail shape, less cross members, and I’d take an educated guess that it’s an overall lighter design.
Well, happy to stand corrected.
The B-body from this era, featured somewhere else in this site, is a true land yatch. And these are already big cars
The Colonnade Chevelle I like are the ’73. Cleanest style of all and those round tail lamps look classy. Some wagons also got round tail lights, but dunno which year it was.
I remember the RCMP in town had a couple of these as unmarked Narc or GIS cars. One this color, one in cream. You could spot them by aftermarket broadcast-band looking but too-short (18″) antennas on the passenger rear quarter. It was actually a “disguise antenna”.
Most people wouldn’t give it a second look, but car people (as well as of other …ahem… interests knew that any external antenna on a Chevy or other stripper GM in those days was cause for caution.
They were eventually replaced by 2-door hardtop B-Body Furies (really getting sneaky)
and 2-door 9C1 Malibus. Those were a real giveaway since they had an antenna on the front fender that shouldn’t have been there, plus the dual exhaust, which was not available retail.
Next time I’m on the run, I’m bringing you with me.
The double square lights looked OK, but only in the monty.
Am I the only one who likes collinades of all types more than the 77 square box look? They have more character and personality to me.
+1. They’re individual, unlike anything else on the road (except another colonnade), and all the better for it. Space efficiency and weight, however…..
I love Colonnades but I’ve never loved the Chevelles. They all look so unfinished, like those ads where they’ve photoshopped the logos off of a car and put on a generic grille.
I’m not a fan of the ’73 LeMans front end or the ’76-77 Century sedan and wagon front, but at least they look like they’ve had some effort put into their design.
Considering how creative GM designers were with the other Colonnades (the bulges on the Cutlass and the dramatic ’73 grille; the figure-eight body sides of the LeMans), the Chevelle just plain looks like the designers went, “Oh, Chevy’s the budget brand. Make it look worse than the others.”
It’s perplexing because other Chevy designs of the 70s were so clean, elegant and simply… right! The ’75 Nova. The ’78 Malibu. The ’71 Caprice.
The only Chevelles I like are the Laguna S-3s. Maybe the ’73 Laguna too.
Unfinished, yes. I really can’t think what the designers had in mind, for the ’73s in particular. And as for the chain-link fence look of the ’76 – designed to keep the home mechanic at a distance?
Here’s another example of GM cluelessness with the Malibu. As mentioned in the article, the nice dual round taillights of the ’73 model were gone for ’74 – replaced with single oblongs. Did the Chevy stylists attempt to match the shape of the lights with the trunk opening cutline? Nahh – too much bother. The results looked awful.
Agreed about the shape of the lights relative to the trunk opening.
But, my gosh – is your example a great-looking car, or what?? And I don’t recall ever having seen that particular roof treatment before.
I’m not a big fan of the GM Colonnades. The only one i really like is the ’76-’77 Pontiac Grand Prix.
My guess is that with so few of these cars sold, GM decided to use the same trunk lids for as long as possible. I believe the other GM intermediates used the same trunk lid for more than 1 year.
Look at the rear bumpers of the wagons… they all seem to use the same design after the 1st year.
“I believe the other GM intermediates used the same trunk lid for more than 1 year.”
Pontiac did not. The 73 LeMans trunk lid that sloped so steeply down to the back bumper was replaced for 1974 with a lid that had less slope to it. I believe the entire rear end of the car was new, and from the look of the license plate placement, it looks like they probably even messed with some of the inner stampings on the rear end..
I recall hearing at the time that customer complaints about the trunk capacity of the 1973 LeMans/Grand Am/GTO were the reason for this change.
This was still the era of “annual style changes”, and they would throw on any concept hanging around the studios.
Not “keep what works”
The ’73 dual round tail lights were pretty good looking. I wish they’d stuck with them for a couple three years.
Agreed. Our family had a 1974 Malibu Classic 4 door, and it had the worse tail lights the Chevelle’s 5 year run of that body style. Chevy could have gone for the 3 light Impala style for 74, though I do like the 2 light Bel-Air style on the 73s, which was a way to transition from the old body 72 to the new body 73.
And these duel round tail lights continued the round tail lights theme used for the 1971-72 Chevelle. Could had been a nod to the round tail lights used for the 1965 full-size Biscayne/Bel Air/Impala?
Their ad pictures incorrectly show the rear side glass rolling all the way down. These were one of the worst examples of lol whatevz when it came to rolling down. I doubt they even made it halfway.
The ad is incorrect, but the sedan rear windows roll almost all the way down, they stop with about two inches of glass showing.
(just measured my 77 Sedan parked outside my office)
You’re thinking of the 78-87 A/G body sedans with the worthless rear windows.
“Bonus points to anyone who can find a Laguna sedan or wagon; they were mighty rare back in the day”
Challenge accepted, challenge met:
https://southjersey.craigslist.org/cto/d/1973-laguna-454-big-block/6329548123.html
That’s cheating. 🙂
There’s was an issue of Collectible Automobile from 1999 showing earlier proposed 1972 Chevelle drafts along with a photo showing a mock-up clay of a front-end of the 1972 Chevelle that should had been.
Here it is Stephane. August 1999 issue. It really looks like when they became aware of the impending bumper standards, they took the wraparound part away from the grille, enlarged the grille a bit and put the little grille extensions under the headlights to fill in where the bumper would have been. I actually think I like the production version better…the original proposal looks too much like a Vega.
Thanks. I just updated the post, and included these shots.
In think you’re right, production is better. Despite maybe being a bit more tidy the bulging thick rounded almost loop like grille shape really clashes with the design.
I actually see Volvo P1800 more than I do Vega
The Monza snout is what came to mind for me…
I posted in another thread, but if the Colonnades were around in ’72, which is considered “the last year of muscle car era”, would there have been more sales of SS models or fastbacks to Boomers?
The ’72 Gran Torino GT is part of the ‘muscle car club’, wondering if almost 72 GM’s performance cars would also?
We could imagine what if GM had decided to launch the Colonnades originally planned for 1972? How the public would had reacted against a restyled Ford Torino/Mercury Montego and a one-year old Mopar B-body Charger/Coronet/Satellite design?
I’d say the ’72 Torino was only very recently allowed in the “muscle car club” and grudgingly so but the old timers. Many probably still don’t accept it. I’d argue that the Chevelle would be in the same boat if it were redesigned as scheduled in 1972. The 1973 Chevelle SS454 was still a strong performer but it too is looked down up the snobbish muscle car crowd.
You’re right, 72s were my favorite as a kid, there was a blue Ranchero on Nash bridges that introduced that generation to me, but 72s were NEVER featured in the books and magazines I had back then, and any reference tended to treat Gran Torino with the same dismissive scorn as Mustang II. I honestly feel like the turn around to them being accepted Muscle cars happened as recently as the movie Gran Torino and whichever Fast & Furious movie featured the restomodded one.
You’ve brought back an old memory for me. Back in high school, a friend of mine’s parents had a very similar car. It was probably a 1976, and about the same shade of blue. I was riding my bike when I saw this kid in his parent’s new Chevelle do a cop show 180° turn on loose gravel. I was simply amazed I had never seen any such thing in real life. On TV, it was an every day thing but to see this admittedly spoiled brat friend of mine do such a thing inspired awe. Unfortunately for my friend, I wasn’t the only witness to his audition for the Dukes of Hazzard. A neighborhood busybody told on him to his parents. I forget how long he was grounded but it wasn’t very long. As I said, he was a bit spoiled.
“Laguna-face” as an insult… ??
I actually have always liked the frontal styling of all Lagunas – especially the shovel-nose. Looking at our featured car, it occurred to me that without those little grille-extensions under the headlamps, the front of the base Chevelle would have looked a lot like the ’71 Monte. Just my opinion.
Great Tuesday morning read.
I’m with you Joe. I’ve always very much liked the Laguna. Never really been a Chevy guy, but that’s one I’d have gotten new. Or, would still love to find an affordable one today.
Me too.
Seeing these photos of the old Colonnades reminds me of how I thought the greenhouses of the 4 doors were too hollow appearing – maybe from the thin C-pillars, but they looked like they did not have a sturdy enough roof for their size. By contrast, the 2 doors as in tonyola’s photo above were much better looking with their formal roofline. Of all the collonnades, I would take a Malibu or a Cutlass Supreme from 1973.
The Colonnade Chevelle sedan is an early, now sentimental favorite of mine – it’s one of those cars that imprinted at an early age despite the fact nobody in my family or parents’ friends owned one. Colonnade coupes only “work” for me if they have the largest, triangular quarter window that Bill clearly meant for them to have before the market demanded less visibility.
Speaking of Mitchell, his criticism of Mercedes design is on point with the ’74 Chevelle; Mercedes grilles in the ’70s were far too barrel-shaped and looked like a tacked-on afterthought which this manages not to even though it literally is exactly that. It’s not the best integrated of the Detroit Brougham Benz-Grille Clones – that’s still the early Volare – but it’s still better than anything M-B themselves had done with it postwar up until then (or indeed until the W202 C-Class, which ironically now looks like a ’90s car with a ’70s Brougham grille).
I had forgotten that the “DeLuxe” even existed by 1973. I was taken by surprise when I saw a 72 version back in the 70s. It belonged to a cook/housekeeper who had worked for my east coast grandparents for decades. It was just like that picture above, right down to the dog dish caps. It was either black or dark brown. It suited Sylvia who would have valued new-car reliability over the status of a higher trimmed used car.
The Colonnade Chevelle was never attractive. At the time I did not like the tail end treatment on this one (and those housings for the round taillights used to rust out something fierce) but I like it better now. These were as close to “generic car” as anything from GM since maybe the 20s. Simply no character at all. At least the basic shapes are nice.
It is unfortunate that even on something as well preserved as this the “Magic Mirror” acrylic lacquer finish will eventually lose its shine on the horizontal surfaces.
The family of a childhood friend had this car & I spent some time in it during my grade & high school years. It was yellow w/a black vinyl top. I remember how cheap the interior was.
My take on the ’73 Chevelle was that they went with a generic-looking face and a traditional 2 round light rear end to provide continuity since they knew the rest of the car was a dramatic departure from the previous A body. Plus, these cars were still prominently marketed as CHEVELLEs, as opposed to CHEVROLETS (the full-size cars, which could have any of four names depending on trim level, common practice in Detroit in the ’50s through ’70s); by 1977, you had to look closely to find the tiny “Chevelle” nameplate in back of your Malibu or Malibu Classic (the only remaining Chevelles by ’77; the Laguna was finally dropped that year. By 1978, “Chevelle” would be no more; eventually, Chevy (and the rest of the industry) would give up on multiple names for the same basic car in the Biscayne/Bel Air/Impala/Caprice mold; Deluxe/Malibu/Laguna was one of the last attempts to hold on to that fading marketing strategy.
Muscle cars were obviously on the way out by 1973, and the Laguna, along with the Grand Am and Cutlass Salon were good-faith efforts by GM to replace muscle cars with more well-rounded sporty cars reflecting a more European approach that balanced straight-line power with handling, comfort, luxury, supportive seats, and a more worldly, subdued appearance. They got heavy marketing support in ’73, but didn’t sell and were largely ignored after none of them caught fire.
I do recall someone who drove me a few places having a brown (inside and out) ’73 Laguna sedan. And I spent a year being carpooled to middle school some days in a ’73 Deluxe sedan – spartan black interior, can’t remember outside color. “Deluxe” seemed an old-fashioned name for a ’73 model.
The beginning of the end for the cool factor with Chevelle.
It’s hard to pinpoint exactly where GM began losing their mojo, but a strong case could be made it was with the colonnades, especially the Chevrolet version. It started out dumpy, then just got progressively worse, with the final, stacked rectangulars being the pits. It’s like GM was really trying to make sure there was no doubt that you were driving the bottom rung of the Sloan ladder. And that plastic-fantastic interior by Mattel. I can hear the squeaks and rattles just looking at it.
BTW, I think there’s an error in the power team listing. It shows the six being ‘Available’ with the Turbo Hydramatic, but ‘Not Available’ with the 307? You could only get the 307 with a column-shift manual 3-speed? That has to be a typo.
during the 1970s what maker still had “it”. Nearly all cars were poop tier and are forgotten,
With the exception of a few European cars the entire decade was joke
Of all these “mid-sized” cars, the Chevelle strikes me as being the most dull looking car produced by GM.
Pretty much the automotive equivalent of a Mr Potato Head…Chevy/GM stuck several different grilles on this car in a feeble attempt to glamorize a car that all but shouted CHEAP.
And yet, the model that followed this one set a standard, for at least a year or two, of tasteful styling….before Chevy/GM fell back on it’s old method of adding any grille that fit.
See 1938 Cadillac Sixty Special on this thread, for origin of the Collonade B-pillar ? Mitchell revives one of his own early devices . . .
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1941-cadillac-with-a-bit-of-updating-500-cubic-inches-worth/
That B pillar previously showed up on the 1971-76 Cadillac Fleetwood Sixty Special. At the time that B pillar treatment made the Sixty stand out from “normal” Cadillacs. After six years of equating that B pillar treatment with high end cars I thought it was the best part of the Colonnade’s styling. Still do. I thought it was so much more attractive than the standard sedan treatment as practiced by Chrysler’s B bodies and ditto for the “pillared hardtop” treatment on the Gran Torino. The Colonnade greenhouse was the cleanest and least cluttered of all of the midsized American sedans. I found subsequent greenhouse treatments on both the 1977+ B body and the 1978+ A body sedans to be a step backwards. The framed glass and exposed pillar seemed so retrograde.
The Laguna S-3’s nose in the third picture instantly reminded me of the front of the Mustang II that came out the same year. Was that look a fad like the stacked headlights in 1977?
Thank God the Mustang never got stacked rectangular quads!
The right color could make a little difference. I have attached a GM photo of a ’73 Malibu 2 door in the cream over pumpkin color our 4 door Colonnade came in (couldn’t find a 4 door picture). The rear view of the ’73 was the best of the series, although those recessed tail lights could collect a lot of dust on rural roads. We can attest to the mediocre use of space in these cars. On a family trip to California we thought we would be smart by switching out the compact spare from the family Nova for the full size one in the Malibu, giving us much more trunk space (the space saver spare fit neatly in the space in back of the wheel well). This worked well until the return trip, when we blew a tire somewhere in I think the Dakotas, no one would honor the warranty, and those of us confined to the back seat got to share the rest of the trip with the carcass of the blown tire.
Count me in as one that likes Colonnade 4 doors as I happen to be a fan of airy greenhouses. I so hate driving modern cars where I feel like in driving a damn tank. I also have a bit of a soft spot for this car. Yea, it’s more than a bit bland, but hey, bland cars need lovin’ too 🙂 .
I don’t know why all the bashing for these cars, i grew up around them and my dad owned a 74 Malibu classic and a 73 ss coupe. I myself had a 77 Malibu sedan and i loved it. A deluxe model back then meant bottom line vehicle. As for the front end,,, I don’t find anything wrong with it. People are quick to say American cars copy euro’s and Japanese cars, but aren’t quick to say how American auto’s have influenced darn near the whole world. (BMW’s rip off of the corvair still lives on today)infinity copied the 92 Seville and so on. In a world where all but a handful of cars look alike, I appreciate the cars from the 1970’s as they are the last of American cars with any kind of individuality and personality. I looked forward to September back in those days just to see the new models and even a new grille and taillight was exciting to me. All cars look the same and are boring except for the technology they bring to the table. I myself am prepping for the ownership of a 76 to 79 Cadillac Seville. My 2001 bmw 330xi may be an excellent handling car,,,,,,but there’s nothing like an old school Cadillac.
I’ll be today’s contrarian, as I actually rather like the ’73 Chevelle. It’s an honest design. Exciting? No. But it is straightforward, and I really like the recessed round taillights with body-colored surrounds–a subtle nod to Corvette as well as the preceding ’72 Chevelle. The facelifts, on the other hand, were atrocious, ruining both the front and rear of the car–along with the LeMans, I’d give the Chevelle the worst butt-lift award for ’74… And the worst facelift award for ’76, with the awful grille and stacked headlamps.
I think the challenge for Chevy was in relation to its corporate siblings. Sometimes, Chevrolet’s clean and simple styling was the best of the bunch, like the ’55 and ’65 standard sized cars, and the ’78 Malibu A-Body. Other times, like 1973, the good looking corporate sister cars overshadowed the Chevy–the Cutlass certainly was an out-of-park hit, both style-wise and in sales.
I agree on all points.
Agree on the 73 Chevelle
GN, I’m also a fan of the styling of the ’73 – and its simplicity was its strength, even for its not-gorgeous but still attractive front end. Out back, I thought the four round taillamps looked great, and the rear three-quarter view of the ’73 is probably my favorite of this car.
You comment about “worst butt-lift for ’74” made me laugh… Apparently, Nissan liked the shape and placement of the restyled ’74 Chevelle taillights enough to use them on their new-for-’77 Laurel Coupe (C230).
Wow!!! Great find!!! Well, I guess someone liked the look….
As I look at these, I again find myself wondering if GM had anything that looked good during the early 1970s. I see no angle from which I like the looks of any of the featured cars here. The front ends are terrible, unequivocally. The side profile shares the unfortunate family resemblance to the morbidly-obese fat-roll laden full-sizers. The rear is… less bad. No, let’s be fair-the rear isn’t terrible. Not great, but could work on something less offensive to the eye.
Yikes. Just… yikes.
The rear is the only part I find an improvement from the 72s. The taillight in bumper look is something I really struggle with on the 68-72 A-bodies, and ironically Chevy’s had them above the bumper in 68 & 69, so for me it’s too bad the 70 didn’t have this 73 Collonade treatment, to match it’s bold quad headlights up front
These cars always perplexed me from new. The basic design was actually the cleanest of the colonnade cars, but yet, the details were never quite right. I always hated the triangular side window on the Coupe, they addressed that in 74 with the smaller quarter window on the Malibu Classic and Landau models. The front bumper on the 73 looked too blocky, it was addressed in 74 by canting the lower sections where the parking lights resided back and downward. This reduced the bulk and continued for 75. But then for 76-77, they made it look even blockier than the original 73 was. The taillights got progressively plainer with each year as well. Despite the similarities to a Mercedes grille, I’d have to say the 74 looked the best from the front. I never minded the stacked rectangular headlights, and have never figured out why so many people hate them, but love the same treatment, with round lights on 60’s Pontiacs, Cadillacs, Fords, and Plymouths. My problem with the 76-77 is the grille meshes didn’t seem to go well with the overall look. For me, the 74 Coupe with the small opera windows, coupled with the 73 rear end would have looked best, had it been produced that way. And as for the 76 grille mesh looking like cheap plastic thrown together in shop class, well it’s not my favorite but, I’d rather look at it all day long, instead of this plastic chain link horror show Camry…
picture didn’t come through..
Oh boy, I ain’t touching that final sentence, you’re on your own!
To elaborate on the hate of stacked headlights though, the issue isn’t the mere stacking vertically compared to side by side, if it were people wouldn’t like the 60s execution either. Round lights are perfect circles, no wider than they are tall individually, so when stacked the assembly looks tall and narrow(just as side by side looks short and wide), which happened to perfectly compliment the bladed look of fenders popular at the time.
Rectangular lights don’t have that effect, they’re about as wide but much shorter than the small rounds, so when stacked they only occupy about the same amount of space as large round lights do. Which is the other problem, that’e exactly how automakers used them, directly in place of rounds in a carried over design. They were only ever were used in cynical a way to freshen up these aging models, across the board – no “all new” car or truck used stacked rectangles – leading edge designs(sheer look) went for the lower profile side by side allowed and more basic/utilitarian designs went with large singles.
The Collonade design clearly favored Oldsmobile, Buick and Pontiac(in that order) as all of their entries looked thuroughly styled in 1973(if not overstyled). Chevy had a nice butt on an otherwise average body and face, and subsequent updates managed to lose that. Of the front ends, dull as it is, the 73 one(non-laguna) is the best because at least it’s the least neoclassical of the bunch. My biggest dislike of the Collonades is exactly that, the move to two headlights across the board, but of all of them the Chevelle should have used quads, there were no neoclassical hints in the bodysides like there were in the B-O-P brands, and without those throwback elements to support them they just came off as cheap.
Deluxe = De-luxe. They forgot to put the dash in the emblem 😉
I liked the Colonnade when it was launched and the Chevy versions the best. The overall form was pretty innovative, and while then and now some of the details (bumpers, grills, lights) look a little awkward, just wait. In 2055 we’ll be reading CC posts and comments about the Lexus, Audi and Acura grills of the 2010 decade, and longing for those clean front ends of the mid-70’s.
GN… you aren’t the only contrarian here. I’m clearly in that bucket, especially regarding the 73 Chevrolet 2-doors. These are my second favorite Colonnade cars. Starting at the front, I love the little grille extensions that extend below the headlights. It gave it a little bit of interest to a somewhat plain front end. It does give the front end a little bit of a surprised-face look, but I’m OK with that.
It looks cheery and friendly. To me the 74 looks so generic without that. At the rear, those beautifully sculpted inset taillights are fantastic. Again, when you move to the 74 those plain old oval units are just boring. To me, the 74 is the most generic/boring of the Colonnades. When you dress up the 73 with the 2-tone SS treatment, I’m definitely on board!!
But this… this is my favorite Colonnade by far. The 1977 Pontiac Can Am. Everything about this car is just right. I love the rectangular headlights. Much better side by side than stacked as on the Chevys. The two tone paint, the stripes (oh so 70s), the side window louvers, that beautiful ducktail spoiler. Oh yes, oh yes.
yup a 4spd with the 455 from the SD Firebird would be a pretty sweet looking and driving car imo
Part of the reason that front works so well is the layout of the lights. The eye likes to move horizontally, and moves from one side of the front to the other, instead of stopping for the ‘vertical blips’ of stacked headlights.
This was always a dream car of mine. The 76 LeMans as one for of those rare md-cycle refreshes that was an improvement over the original design(the 77 Firebird pulled off this feat as well). The front end actually previewed the 77 B bodies pretty well. The Can Am made it even better with that great looking Grand Prix dashboard, shaker hood and ductail spoiler.
I agree, Brian. That 1977 Pontiac Can Am got everything just right. I liked them when they first debuted, and I still like them today. They unfortunately didn’t seem to sell very well, and they seem to be rather rare today. I consider it to be very collectible.
For the CanAm specifically (not all 77 LeMans Sport Coupes), it was supposed to be a production run of 2500, but over 5000 orders were received. But, the molds for the ducktail spoiler broke midway through production. Instead of spending the money to repair the molds, Pontiac cancelled the rest. 1,377 were built.
#1 reason they get ragged on is they coincided with drop in HP #’s and EGR pollution controls. But also, some purists think the ’68 body should have continued, forgetting that the ’72 Gran Torino outsold Chevelle, since it was out dated to contemporary customers.
Not everyone back then was buying cars for drag racing. Chrysler went all in on muscle car looks for ’71, one of the causes of their near collapse.
Big fat tires on rally wheels help it big time!
I beg to differ, so does my car !!
I think my 454, Posi Traction, 10 Inch Rear Rims, with a Repaint in it’s original Code # 64 Silver Iridescent, complete with swivel Buckets & a Floor Shift, changes peoples mind real quick. But, I respect your opinion.
Mario – Damn that’s a beautiful car. Back in those days, silver cars weren’t as popular of a color as they are now…. and it looks really good on your Chevy.
Thanks. I appreciate it. At car cruises and car shows, it’s the only one, and I’ve been to many shows. People are always happy to see her !!
Extremely harsh words for a car that sold pretty well and has many and a growing fan base!
Everything i wanted to say in one sentence!!!
Selling well and having a growing fan base doesn’t equal good design, never ever does in fact(look at movies, music and television). They were cheap appliance cars in the 70s and they’re cheap now because collectors ignored them, making them bargains if you want an old car.
They are not being as ignored as you might think,these cars along with the other gm intermidiates of the era are starting to go up in price. Granted they are not as attractive as the 78’s but they do have their charm. As for the looks,,,,,that’s an individual opinion some like……….some don’t.
They’re starting to go up in price because there aren’t many left and they have an intrinsic value just by virtue of being old cars, rising tides lift all boats.
I never said they were being ignored in present tense, I said they WERE ignored when everyone was grabbing up 64-72s to restore/restomod/use as parts cars. In recent years nobody can get their hands on a 72 and earlier for reasonable money, but Collonades you sure can, and, letting go of what’s most collectible, they’re still old cars that positively stand out today, and with such a depleted supply it should be no surprise to see values steadily climb. But make no mistake, they’re still the poor man’s(myself included) classic A-bodies
And I’m not bashing people’s individual opinions on looks, but the sales = good looks rationale is a false equivalency I always question when posited.
Wow – One man’s opinion is somehow fact. Ok, then.
One doesn’t speak for “all” car fans. Most of the 60’s ‘classics’ were once “cheap appliances” too. Sure, can point to huge prices at auctions, but beauty is in eye of beholder.
I didn’t think I was, hence my rejecting of the idea that initial sales and growing fan base 40 years later is a measure of beauty for a car.
These were the cheapest of the Collonades from the largest brand in the country, of course they sold well. They didn’t have a high performance variant to get nastalgic over to increase their collective survival rate 20 years later, so the values remained low.
Joe, this article is purely about the styling of the Chevelle. Everyone has a different opinion on what looks good and what doesn’t. The fact that it sold well or is popular with a group of enthusiasts doesn’t change the fact that a lot of people – Paul and myself included – simply don’t find it as attractive as other cars of the era. I’m not seeing any Colonnade criticism (other than styling critiques) in this article or in the comments. Considering how many enthusiasts used to excoriate the Colonnades for years, this is a positive sign that people are warming to them.
But no, I still don’t think the Chevelle looks good. I’ll happily take a Century, Regal, Monte Carlo, Cutlass, LeMans or Grand Am though!
I guess I am in the minority then. I think the Colonnade Chevelle met a better fate than its Buick Century sedan/wagon counterpart, esp 76-77 and the pregnant looking rear end of the Le Mans Luxury series.
The Cutlass fared best off all the GM Collonades.
Butt and ugly. Right from the gate. I was so disappointed when they came out.
And in retrospect, the ’72 nose wasn’t much better – but by using a single center split with fully-defined bezels, its highly-similar ’71 counterpart was MUCH more attractive to my eyes.
I found the ’74 to be the best looking of the Colonnade Chevelles. But it was still homely compared to the sporty ’66-’67, the sexy ’69 or the bold ’70. And although the Colonnades were known for better handling, an F-41 sway bar package did wonders for the earlier models, plus there was better attention to detail and overall better quality, both in perception and reality.
With all this said, I must believe the ’73 – whose butt-ugliness is only exceeded by the 2004-5 Malibus – was a “screw it, we give up” design from a GM Design department frustrated at having to scrap whatever nose was in the works when the federal 1973my bumper mandate came about. Although it’s difficult to believe Bill Mitchell would have ever allowed that attitude in his department.
(While posting the above, the design pics for the ’73 were posted as well. This confirms to me what I’d long suspected: that they were quite far along in the process when the new standards were mandated. I’d have liked to have seen that bumper/grille for ’73. )
The UAW strike against GM was in fall ’70, and affected plans for 72 MY retooling, which was less than a year away, so carry overs were ordered for fall ’71.
Although, it did provide another year of “classic muscle car” 1968 designed bodies for collectors later.
1973 was the only year I liked the Colonnade era Chevelle/Malibu’s due to the rounded taillights, I believe the 454 was dropped after the 1975 model year for Chevelle/Monte Carlo but stayed for another year on the big Chevy’s, I agree the 1976-77 stacked headlights did not look right on the Chevelle/Malibu’s yet I actually thought they looked great on the Monte Carlo’s, there is a 1976-77 Chevelle Malibu 2 door down the road that appears to be in great shape.
These shots of the proposed front ends are very interesting. Not as interesting as the 72 Gran Torino, but interesting nonetheless.
I do not see why the original concept could not have withstood the 5 mph bumper. A slight dip in the center section of the bumper (a la 1974 big Chevy) or a bit of a Vee/prow (a la the 73 big Chevy) would have gone a long way to giving the car a little personality.
For everyone hung up on the loss of the round taillights for 1974, remember that the Chevelle had *never* used round or multiple taillights during its entire run until 1972/73. As much as that was a “Chevy thing”, the Chevelle had been exempt all along from the beginning.
The 1971-72 Chevelles had round tail lights in the rear bumpers. 2 on each side, so they were offered for 2 years prior to ’73.
Thanks, I had forgotten that they were in the 1971 also. I have always lumped the 70-71 together in my mind, incorrectly I now see.
“Chevrolet tried to install a new higher-trim line Laguna above it, creating three distinct Chevelles. That was a flop. As was the Deluxe; in 1974, it was just Malibu Classic.”
The base model was simply called Malibu from 1974-77, not “just Malibu Classic”. Laguna plastic front end didn’t cut it with Mr and Mrs Middle Class Chevy buyers, they wanted chrome bumpers.
Same reason the same era Grand Am didn’t sell well. [Only when it was the only model choice did name finally catch in ’85.]
I agree with the general sentiments expressed above regarding the homeliness of the Colonnade Chevelle. Putting myself in the shoes of a 1973 new car buyer, however, the Chevelle, especially in its Laguna iterations, is far more attractive and appealing than the the Ford Gran Torino (well past its sell-by date with its overstyled bulges and curves and an ugly new face one year after its 1972 introduction), the Plymouth Satellite (showed up late and out of date with the 1971-78 fuselage body) and the AMC Matador (stuck in the minor leagues).
Don’t forget that the Colonnades were a huge sales success and captured perfectly the spirit of the times. GM tapped into the zeitgeist (and growing spending power) of the Baby Boom generation by offering a step up to a more luxurious (if not Deluxe) and sporty package from the very Spartan compacts and subcompacts of the time (the strippers described by Paul) without going all the way to a full-size behometh (surely viewed as the old man’s car).
And, perhaps, the Colonnades perpetuated the Sloan ladder for another decade. I can see a buyer asking himself, “if I’m going to shell out for a Laguna to avoid the Chevelle face, I might as well go up one more step to the more attractive Cutlass or sporty Grand Am.”
FWIW, the ’73 Colonnade Chevelles sold less than the very out of date ’72 Chevelles.
” well past its sell-by date “? Gran Torino was only a year old in ’73, was still a big seller. Can argue all day about the 5 mph bumpers, but they sold to chrome loving middle America.
Most “shelled out” for a Monte Carlo in ’73-’77, also.
Good point!!!! If you were going for a Laguna, you might as well spend a little more and go for the king of the personal luxo coupes. I myself was and am a huge fan of the 73 to 77 Monte Carlo. And they outsold all personal luxo coupes(not sure if the cutlass supremes sales figure include the sedans and wagons).
The whole Cutlass line was ranked #1 in ’76, included all coupes, sedans, wagons, and trims. Just as the full size/standard Chevy included Impala and it’s trim mates.
Great story of the ‘73 Chevelle. When these were new I always thought the 4 door Colonnade’s greenhouse had a slightly futuristic look to it, elevating it above Ford & Chrysler intermediates, and as you mentioned this was unusual considering the time period the design work was being finalized, around 1969.
It’s too bad the public didn’t embrace the sport/handling of Laguna & Pontiac Gran Am, as they were steps in a better direction than Cutlas Supreme or a Buick Regal.
My older brother had a ‘73 Chevelle 4 door in medium green. I Really like the back end of the ‘73s, hated the ‘74 update. The ‘76 & ‘77 were awful – if you didn’t like the stacked rectangle headlights there was an entry level Malibu available with two round headlights to prove your thriftiness to the neighbors.
One thing I never understood about the Colonnades and the latter generation was how the Feds allowed them to have the taillights on wagons and El Camino in the bumpers were no one could see them in traffic.
This article makes me wonder – Are the Fords, like the 1977 Thunderbird, considered Colonnades? While I like the Olds colonnades (1976,1977) and the Pontiac GP ()1973- 1977), I have always preferred the Thunderbirds. Maybe more of a Colonnade Lite design, and maybe not as plush. Mine is the standard model.
Oldsmobile Toronado XSR bent glass rear window? Sort of blends in with the design – maybe better than than the XSR!
Just like the ’68-’72 era, the ’73-’77 A bodies emphasizes the coupes, with sedan and wagons as afterthoughts. Coupes were style kings/queens/leaders. Wasn’t until import car sales increases that sedans started overtaking leader boards.
FWIW, in Chicagoland, 74-77 Malibu Classic coupes sold fairly well. Laguna just didn’t win buyers, with chrome still in vogue. With the opera windows, hood ornament, and nice cloth seats, they were on the streets along with Montes. May not have sold in top 10, but did well.
I’d say the A body sedans and wagons didn’t bring in buyers, and could be called a flop. Enough probably sold for GM’s balance sheet, but not enough to remember.
The coupes were indeed the dominant A-Body for ’73:
Century/Regal: 219,423 coupes, 60,640 sedans, 18,405 wagons
Chevelle/Malibu: 233,102 coupes, 94,529 sedans, 52,489 wagons
Monte Carlo: 290,693 coupes
Cutlass/Supreme: 319,437 coupes, 61,677 sedans, 24,425 wagons
LeMans/Grand Am: 187,590 coupes, 44,622 sedans, 16,573 wagons
Grand Prix: 153,899 coupes
So of the 1,777,864 A-Bodies that GM cranked out for 1973, 79% were coupes, 15% were sedans, and 6% were wagons. I imagine the ratio was pretty similar for all the Colonnade years.
Interesting,the Chevelle Malibu line came close to olds cutlass line at 380,120 to 405,539 and if you add the Monte Carlo……chevys intermediate line up obliterated the competition at 670.813. Not bad for what some consider a homely,cheap vehicle.
Graft the ’77 Fury grille on that ’76 Chevelle. Bam!
They really sucked the power out of the 307 by ’73, the old ’70 C10’s 307 had 157 Net.
And 3 speed manual trans only with the 307 that year, no automatic available.
I always thought these cars were such a let down to the previous ’68-’72 gen. Nice to see this granny stripper survivor being preserved.
Can anyone confirm that the 307 was only available with the 3-on-the-tree for 1973? That’s what the specs say but it still seems very strange, especially since you could get a THM with the six. The only explanation might be that GM was playing games, making someone pay extra for the bigger 350 to get an auto behind a V8.
Turbo 350 was available, I have driven several.
On the 1973 coupes & sedans you could get the 3-speed or TH350 with the 307, but for wagons the 307 was 3-speed only, the 350 2-barrel was TH350 only.
The Dark Blue 1973 sedan featured is the base series, called “Deluxe”. It was the last series to carry rubber floor covering instead of carpet. I notice wheel opening moldings & bright drip rails on the car, so it has Exterior Decor (a little bright trim on the tail lights as well).
As was noted, single left-hand tailpipe indicates inline six (at least before 1975+ catalytic converter)
I suppose the transmission choices with the 307 depended on the make and model; in 1973 I was overseas in SEA and a friend of mine (I would see him at the local USO) ordered a 1973 Nova with the 307 and a four speed manual.
I’ve never owned one, but I’ve heard bad things about the 307s. They’re made of cheaper iron, they’re gutless, they’re not as durable as other small blocks. The later 305 with a smaller bore and a longer stroke was a better variation of the 5 liter small block V8.
Guess I’m the oddball here, Iike both the ’73 and ’77 faces. The others don’t do much for me at all.
I love the Deluxe and Laguna faces. My first car (second technically) was a 1973 Chevelle Deluxe. Base as base could get except for the 350 2bbl and the same vinyl/nylon interior.
I eventually put a fiberglass replica Laguna nose (and other ‘Glass parts) on it. I still regret selling it off.
In 1977 we went shopping with my Dad to trade his ’68 Nova. A diplomat -car dealer had two stripper blue Chevrolets. One was a 75 Brazilian Opala, 151 CID, three on the tree. The other was a Malibu, 250 CID, automatic, PS, PB. Just like the car shown but ’74. Both had less than 10.000 miles. Both cost 11K in 1977. After looking at a US embassy 75 Nova, six automatic, for sale by tender, base 10K, he had the ’68s engine rebuilt and traded it for a brand new 78 Brazilian Chevette. I longed for that Malibu at 12 years old
I agree with much of the consensus here that the colonnade Chevrolet’s never got the front end styling right. The thing that gets me about the front end styling on the Chevy’s is that the grille seems lower than the lights. It just makes the whole front end look “off” to me, regardless of the variation. The 1975 Nova front end was similarly generic, but the fact that the grille and lights appeared inline made it look more attractive to my eyes. Of course, adding the stacked rectangular lights in 1976 only made the look on the Chevelles less attractive in my eyes.
I never cared for the 1973 front end, but I do like the tail lights. If I had to pick, I’d say the ’74 Laguna front end was probably my favourite of the Chevrolet Even without the Laguna’s, I preferred the ’74 Chevelle. For what it’s worth, you could still get a round headlight Chevelle in 1976 and 1977 in the base models. It too came with a more attractive egg crate style grille.
While it may have not had the prettiest face among the colonnade cars, I’d argue that it may have had the nicest body. While the Cutlasses, Buicks and Pontiacs had their curves and swoops, Chevrolet stuck with simply clean styling that I think held up well over the model run. Olds and Buick refreshed their bodies to make them more contemporary while the Chevrolet still looked okay for 1977, other than perhaps its outdated roofline. But in my eyes today, I think the side profile of the Colonnade Chevelle’s is probably the cleanest of the Colonnade cars, and I think looks pretty decent. It’s just too bad that it didn’t have a more attractive mug to go along with it.
I think this shot shows the side profile of the Chevrolet well:
Here is a base model ’76:
I had not noticed this before and think that it is simple and clean and probably the best of all the Malibu grills; closest to the pre-big-bumper design. I never understood what that added filigree under the headlights of the ’73 design was about. I liked the look from the front of the Laguna, but the perceived added front overhang gave it an anteater dimension not present in the Malibus. All of the manufacturers were struggling to adopt the new bumper standards, and some adapted better than others. As with the simplicity of the ’64 Chevelle, this one works for me.
The Laguna design is not perfect but it’s the only one that works with the bumper standard rather than fighting it.
At the end of day,some of us like the way the front looks and some don’t. The laguna to me looks the best. I like all 3 iterations of the laguna front end. I was there when these cars came out and can honestly say that at the time it was an exciting time for me to go to car dealers to see the new models(i got into cars in the summer of 73) my mothers then boyfriend had a 1973 Malibu coupe that was well optioned in blue. The 70’s gave the people what they wanted big,chromed out, luxurious land yachts. And weather you liked it or not,the yearly changes be it grill,taillights,dashboard etc, it let people know your car was the latest(not like today where your 2017 whatever looks like the whatever of 2010. The laguna will definitely be a collector car and so will the Malibu. Because people will remember them from their youth. A time where ther were little if any computers on your car or an engine compartment that you have a hard time actually seeing the engine. So there you have it the Malibu was right for the times and to be honest,,,,,i like the Mercedes looking grill!!!!
I like the Laguna S-3 coupes, preferably the ’73 or ’74.
This is definitely a 250 CI six cylinder engine as the single tailpipe exits the driver’s side. Single exhaust V8 models exited the passenger side. The 350 – 4 barrel carb. option and all 454 equipped cars came with dual exhaust. Speaking of the 454 CI motor, it was dropped in late March of ’75 for this, the El Camino and the Monte Carlo. It shouldered on in the B- body (big car) until the end of the 1976 model year.
I have driven many of these with all matters of different engines when I worked at a Chevrolet dealership between 1972 & 1974. One of these with a six cylinder is a real boat anchor, actually less than minimally acceptable in my estimate. The 307 V8 models aren’t much better either, as the 307 CI motor, never a typical small block workhorse, strangled itself with its EGR valve, under profiled cam grind and A.I.R. pump.
Of all of the colonnades (1973-1977), I thought the ’73 had the best looking rear end but the ugliest front.
Very rare 1973 Chevelle Deluxe 4 door. Especially when it has a 250 cu. in. Or a 307 cu. in. engine. Very impressed with the shape of the car. My dad had a 1974 Chevelle Malibu 4 door, with an 350 cu. in. engine, which I really miss. So I had my buddy build me a scale model of my dad’s 74 Chevelle. I wish I still had my dad’s Chevelle. After my parents divorce, my mom didn’t take care of the Chevelle and it ended up in the wrecking yard. Man this 1973 Chevelle Deluxe is an Awsome looking car, I ever seen.
“Hardtop sedan”? Who did they think they were fooling?
I look at these cars and think that these are the cars that GM had to build, not the ones they wanted to build. If not for the perfect storm of draconian government regulations and rising gas prices, these cars would have been a lot different.
Did the Colonnade ever come with a V6? My dad bought a yellow sedan and pulled the engine out of it and sold the body for scrap. I could have sworn the engine was a V6 but I might be wrong. The car had the ’75 style round headlights but I read that the cheapest Chevelle still had round headlights for at least ’76. If so, was it a 229 or a 231?
Wasn’t it that “Buick V6” that showed up around “1975”? Remember it in “Skylarks, Skyhawks’s, Century’s, Regal’s.
“Olds” used the motor as well, I think. Possibly “Chevy” did too?
Typical Niedermeyer cyncism, sarcasm and scorn toward GM, but regardless, it begins the discussion! I was quite surprised how damning this profile of the Chevelle was. I actually quite liked the original, and the Laguna as a kid, much moreso than the second generation. I thought the’73 looked best, especially in Laguna form and with the four round rear taillights on the sculpted rear, although the model got progressively more bland starting with the rectangle taillights and flatted rear of the ’74. Although I do see the grille pattern of a Mercedes-Benz around front on that model year freshening, it has never suggested Mercedes to me whatsoever. These were minimal facelifts compared to the 1960s when significantly revised sheetmetal changes were implemented to create a fresher “new” design and try to entice owners to trade for the newest model. But with engineers at the car companies scrambling to address all the upcoming safety and emissions regulations, coupled with the need to increase fuel economy to keep buyers within the GM fold, along with the GM focus on cost cutting particularly since the late 1960s, General Motors simply had the engineering shift from a focus on appearance to substance. That being said, and interesting observation that the Colonade design was ahead of or behind the times. Just like the 1970s when people wanted to be enclosed and shut off from the world with convertibles severly declining in popularity, a similar trend seems to be repeating this in the present.
What was the point of the Chevelle? Basic transportation that wasn’t Baroque Monte Carlo? In 1973, buyers wanted the overstyled fenders and prestige of the MC. It shouldn’t have been a surprise since the MC grew exponentially in the intermendiate market and at the expense of the Chevelle. So, with the MC getting all the attention, what’s the point of the Chevelle/Malibu? It was for the four door and the wagon. You want style? Well, that is what the MC was for. Enough style for four cars.
With the Chevelle, you got a car that gets you from Point A to B. Cheap wheels. It only had to be visually as palletable as oatmeal. That’s what you have here. In 1973, you see a “sporty” Laguna, a milquetoast Chevelle, and a chintzy Monte Carlo. Who knows that the market would go with? Chevy covered all the bases. Sporty was losing favor after a decade of muscle cars, and you always needed the fleet Chevelle. Laguna dies off after a couple of years, and the public embraces Brougham personal luxury cars. OH – and there’s that Chevelle for grandma and for government service.
Does the Chevelle have a nice face in 1973 – NO. But with the booming popularity of the MC, Chevy saw the light and started adding Brougham trim to the Chevelle, hence the stand-up 1974 grille. Looking good really isn’t the point of a Chevelle. Getting to the grocery store, rolling to the punch-clock job, and just getting around is the point of that car.
Honestly, if you wanted a good looking GM Colonade, you best look at the other divisions. A Chevelle is just a Chevelle – an honest cheap ride.
I had a 74 Chevelle 4-door with a 350. We called them Flexible Flyers because of the lack of rigidity in the body & frame. Handling was adequate for the time, but the engine was gutless (as was about everything in that era). A cousin had a 76 Malibu Classic 2-door and was proud of it. But he admitted his dad’s 77 Caprice handled vastly better.
These Chevy Colonnades just never got a decent front end style. That smooth body style just cries out for a nice simple full-width grille. Or even a reprise of the ’71 front. Forget the formal stuff, the body’s style just isn’t right for two separate lights and a separate grille with forward-facing body-colour sheetmetal in between. Two round lights just don’t look right on these, not to mention those awkward ‘wings’ at the bottom of the grille that tuck under the headlamps of the ’73. They just don’t make sense. I was going to say it’s the ugliest front ever put on an American automobile, but Ford, Mopar and AMC all committed some monumental blunders to tool steel in that decade.
And as for the ‘corrugated hood’ with all the separate levels for the headlights and the grille with the troughs in between, I wonder how many got polished through to the primer?
I appreciate your comment, provides a lead in for me. I owned the twin to this Deluxe, even the same blue. My car lacked the exterior decor, so was especially stripped. My car was the 250 six with automatic. Unfortunately, my car was in terrible condition, so ended up a parts car. I’m happy to see a nice 73 Deluxe survivor, I wonder if it’s the only one left?
I guess it all in how you put the car together. I like mine as is, albeit a far cry from how she was born.