(first posted 7/17/2015) So many of the cars I find prompt some degree of daydreaming about possessing them in their as-found condition. Not this one; it had me thinking about car shopping back in 1975 and what my reaction would have been. Given I turned three in late 1975, I can only view it from a rather removed position. But it’s worth speculating as this is the size of car I would have been looking at were I car shopping back in the day.
Times have changed immensely since 1975; Gerald Ford was in the White House, Space Mountain opened at Walt Disney World, and this Chevelle was classified as a mid-sized car. The definition of “mid-sized” has been pretty fluid, accumulating about as much mileage as a five-year old Chicago taxi.
A form of automotive puberty began in the 1960s, as cars bulked up mightily and sprouted all kinds of new growths. This Chevelle is nestled on a 116″ wheelbase, which was nearly a half-foot shorter than the full sized Impala / Caprice.
The venerable 1955 Chevrolet, the standard Chevrolet of the time and a car I’m using as a reference, sat on a wheelbase merely one inch shorter than our mint green Chevelle. Times do change.
Despite there being little doubt the Chevelle has a big bone structure under that green and white dress, I will submit it was the most sane mid-sized car available for budget conscious customers of the Big 3.
Had I darkened the doorstep of the Ford dealer, odds are I would have been confronted with this conglomeration of sheet metal and vinyl Ford called a Torino.
While a step ahead of Chevrolet and Plymouth by having a V8 engine (5.8 liters) and an automatic transmission as standard equipment, it would still be insufficient for me to overcome the appearance of this sad Ford. Yes, I’m biased against Torino’s in general, especially one this ungainly. It has so much pork, I might get grease stains on my pants from driving it.
Besides, vinyl works much better on bathroom floors than on car roofs.
Even with the more sedate Torino, it’s still too easy to envision it with those hideous fender skirts. And the tag line of “solid mid-size” is evidence of truth in advertising.
Plymouth, that third leg of the quaint “Low Priced Three”, doesn’t look too bad in a crew-cut-and-bell-bottoms sort of way. Chrysler deserves credit for a noble effort in squaring off a rounded body shell and to these eyes they did rather well given their constraints. I can see myself having test driven one of these.
As an aside, I’ve seen enough of these over time to conclude this example is quite hunkered down on its suspension.
The Fury’s downside was quality. While quality was a relative term throughout the 1970s, purchasing a Chrysler product was like taking a trip to Las Vegas – you could win big or lose your shirt with equal splendor. Lots of folks shared that sentiment as Fury sales volumes were a mere fraction of the Chevelle. It wasn’t the contender Ford was.
Let’s not overlook the AMC Matador. While everything behind the radiator support looks great, the area preceding the radiator is a little unfortunate. AMC was even more tormented than Chrysler with trying to keep an old body looking fresh but they put their heart into it. In a sense, this was the Studebaker of the 1970s.
The sanity of the Chevelle isn’t a matter of it being the last one standing; it was a matter of its demeanor and how GM went about executing the overall package. GM was still king in 1975 despite their mojo nearing a plateau.
This brochure is proof good advertising still works years later – or at least it inspires revelations. In talking about the Chevelle interior, it states the Chevelle has interiors that are stylish but not gaudy. In my mind this translates to tasteful and timeless in contrast to trendy. Trendy has such a short shelf life.
It also made me wonder…
Was the brochure a pot-shot at the optional Plymouth interior?
Or were they insinuating the interior of the Torino?
Odds are this girl is simply upset due to the ugliness on the exterior of her parent’s new Torino. Children are such wonderfully observant creatures.
The only trendy thing on this Chevelle interior is the color. The overall content is simple, straightforward, and user-friendly.
User friendly was the key element to the success of the Chevelle. At 209″ in length, the battering ram bumpers help the Chevelle exceed the length of our benchmark 1955 Chevrolet by sixteen inches (or roughly one-half meter). The Chevelle wasn’t diminutive, but it was the least lengthy of the mid-sizers and not by a small margin.
If I were to have purchased one of these four mid-sizers, I would have had to park it somewhere. While garage depths vary greatly, typical depths are 20′ and 22′. With a 20′ garage depth, a new Impala would leave less than 18″ of free space front to back; the Chevelle would give a total of 30″ for opening any door accessing your house, the ability to walk completely around the car, and a splash of storage space. The mid-sized Chevelle was simply friendlier than the competition about fitting into a garage all while providing as much – if not more – interior room.
That’s only for those with a garage. This same situation was faced by others, many of whom likely had only a street, an alley, a parking garage, or a hint of a driveway. The relatively shorter length of the Chevelle was a boon not only for parking, but maneuvering and driving.
Parking a car in a garage no longer raises the same considerations, but the Chevelle is the most user friendly. Parking may seem like an ancillary item, but one must do it every time a car is driven.
As I sit here and think about our Chevelle, it would be hard for me to seriously entertain the thought of any of the Chevelle’s competitors for 1975. From having power plants ranging from a lowly six-cylinder to a honking 454 cubic inch (7.4 liter) V8, these cars hit a sweet spot in the automotive market place – particularly when equipped with the 5.7 liter V8. That this car has struck a chord with somebody who was a toddler during the 1975 model year, that is quite the accomplishment.
Related reading:
1975 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme
Those full-size cars from ’59 to ’76 not only forced garages to be remodeled, they forced driveways to be regraded. Any driveway with a bit of a slope was guaranteed to scrape the rear bumper and sometimes remove the rear bumper.
You can see Chevy was focusing on this point, with the reasonably short and noticeably raised rear overhang. Smart marketing.
I am probably one of the few people that comment on here that have had the experience of growing up with both a Colonnade Chev and a Torino, although in my case they were both coupes. In fact, as recently as a couple of weeks ago I drove those same cars back to back. I had the two parked in my garage side by side for a couple of weeks while my brother who owns the Chevy was away on business. Although the Torino in question predates the 5 MPH bumpers, opera windows and fender skirts, it certainly didn’t have a bigger footprint in my garage than the Chevy did. My father had a small single garage for a number of years and both cars had no issues fitting within (although the long doors usually only allowed entry to one side). It’s interesting to see that many think that the Colonnade Chevs were more space efficient than the Torino’s of this era. Regardless of what the measurements sat, in the coupes there isn’t much difference. Those of us who are tall have learned the interior measurements and real world space can be quite different. If anything the Torino seems to have a slight edge in leg room, but the Chev might in headroom (the Ford’s fastback roofline is low) . It’s actually quite surprising how similar these cars are, but also how there are many minor details that differ. Personally I like both cars a lot, and both have proven to be good enough that they have stayed in the family all these years.
You have a very solid point on interior dimensions. In researching this, I found interior dimensions for the Chevelle, Torino, Fury, and Matador. Using information for the four-door sedans, there was no clear cut “winner” for interior dimensions, as one would exceed the others in one area and fall short in another. Where it came together for me is the overall length of each of these in conjunction with the interior dimensions, where the Chevelle is a minimum of 9″ (going from memory here) less lengthy than the other three. In my mind, the lesser length with comparable interior space helps the Chevelle bubble to the top.
Having both a Torino and a Chevelle is quite the combination, one not likely to be seen often. It sounds like both are terrific cars.
Looking at specs for the competition really reinforces how absurdly big mid-sizers had gotten by this time. That the 209″ Chevelle Malibu was the smallest of the three is kind of mind-boggling. The Torino and Fury both checked in at 218″ in length–that’s a half-foot longer, for example, than a 1992-2011 Ford Panther-platform full-sizer. Not a small car itself. The Fury, in fact, was a mere 4″ shorter than the full-size Gran Fury of the same year. I hope there was a significant difference in interior space, otherwise why offer both??
It also emphasizes the radical diet these cars were put on for their ’78 downsizing. Length dropped all the way down to 193″, a 16″ difference. Wheelbase only dropped by 5″ to 108″ so a lot of the trimming went to the overhangs. Curb weight dropped by 650 lbs., from ~3950. to ~3300 (using a 305-powered Classic Sedan in both cases).
What’s kind of funny is how close the 2015 Malibu is, dimesionally, to the 1978. Same wheelbase and a mere inch shorter overall. Weight is up to 3600 for a mid-range model, but that’s still not too far off. What goes around comes around? Though hopefully it won’t swell all the way back up to 209″!
I owned a ’77 T-Bird (basically a Torino with a fancy roof) and a ’77 Cadillac Sedan deVille back to back. That’s a quick way to realize how horribly space inefficient the 1972-79 Ford intermediate platform is. The Bird and the Caddy have basically the same exterior dimensions, but the back seat of the Ford is all but useless, and the trunk is about half as capacious as the Cadillac’s. Also, the Ford with the base 5 liter V8 is sloooow but does not give any better MPG than the 7 liter Cadillac.
The 2016 to current Malibu though were a bit larger than the 1978-83 versions. 193.8″ for the 2016-current model vs. 192.7″ for the 1978-83 versions. Its also ironic that a weight of a 2016-current Malibu can also even surpass the weight of a 1974-77 version as well. Around 3550 for the 1974-77 Chevelle Malibu coupe vs. 3600+ for the current Malibu and much even heavier than a standard 1975-79 Nova with a 250 cu in I6 or L6 engine in both the coupe and sedan versions at around 3350 pounds.
As much as I really like the 1972 Torino (in it’s sportier form), I do agree that by the mid 1970’s it’s size had become excessive. It’s amazing how much length the Torino gained from 1972 -1975 when it really didn’t have any major redesign. That said, Ford for whatever reason always seemed to make their intermediates larger than Chevrolet, who typically was the smallest. Even in the late 1960’s the Fairlane/Torino was considerably larger than the Chevelle. In 1970, a Torino 2-door was 9″ longer than a comparable Chevelle.
In comparison of the two cars in my family, both are about 207″ long, which by todays standards is obviously quite large. However, as large as they may seem compared to the average car out their today, when parked next to my late model pick-up, they don’t look so big anymore! Since you mentioned these big intermediates and garages, I did manage to get a shot of the two cars in my garage when both were in there a couple of weeks ago. Lots of room in my garage even for these big coupes, but my garage is considerably larger than a typical garage.
All of the extra length in the ’75 Torino versus the ’72 is in the bumpers. Ford did the worst job of all the US manufacturers in designing bumpers to meet the 5 mph crash requirements. They really didn’t make any attempt to integrate them into the body; they just stick out there and are almost wide enough to sit on.
I agree Ford did a terrible job with the bumpers and that they were the primary reason for the length increase. That said, the 1973 Torino with it’s massive front bumper only grew 1″ longer than the 1972 (at least for the Gran Torinos). The 1975 Torinos were over 6″ longer than the 1972s plus they gained about 500 lbs in that time span. A lot of the length in the 1972 Gran Torinos was in it’s pointed prow. In fact, a 1972 Torino was 4″ shorter than the Gran Torino, simply due to the flatter front end design.
FWIW, even though both cars are nearly identical in length and size, the Ford was weighted at 4070 lbs (with the second heaviest drivetrain) vs the Chevy at 4150 lbs (with second heaviest drivetrain). Both were weighted on a certified scale.
I drove one of these back in the day. Not to ignore the horrible space utilization that was the norm back then, but the Malibu window tumblehome was intrusive and I remember the bench seat starting what seemed like four inches from the door. Not a fan.
Very nice find of a well-preserved time capsule Chevelle, and an excellent comparison of it’s competition. I often daydream about what kind of car I’d be driving if I was the age I am now at various points in past decades.
You raise a very important and interesting subject of garages and their varying sizes. That’s one thing that has bugged me about our house since we moved into it 4 years ago. It has a 2-car garage, but for a 2-car garage, it is very tight for two average size vehicles. Depth is adequate, with several feet to spare, but width is where there’s problems. Parked side-by-side, there’s plenty of room for the outboard car doors, but the inside get’s rather tight.
My mom parks on the left, me on the right. She must pull all the way up, or else the stairs into the house block her door from opening. My biggest complaint is that the garage door isn’t wide enough. She must pull straight in because of the stairs, but I have to swing over to the right as I’m pulling in, and conversely to the left backing out. I’ve almost taken my mirror off on many occasions. Needless to say, vehicle width has become a huge consideration for new car purchases.
For some reason in this picture we switched parking spaces.
What I do, which my dad taught me early on, is to back the left car in so both driver’s doors are in the middle. This way each passenger side can be closer to the side giving the drivers more space to get in and out, plus it’s easier to bring the left car in at a bit of an angle and then swing the nose over to straighten out as you clear the door. It takes a bit of practice, but if my wife can do it with my F-150 anyone can.
At one point I was backing in, but just that little extra amount of time it takes isn’t worth it. For some reason backing out quicker and easier. Hopefully my next car will have a backup cam which will make things much easier. That is one technology I would greatly appreciate, as I’ve used it before on a ML350 loaner my mom had and was amazed at how easy and precise it makes backing up, even for such a large SUV.
I once derided backup cameras as a crutch to overcome the terrible visibility in modern cars. But now that I have one I have found it would be quite useful even in cars with good visibility. They are relatively cheap and easy to install as well.
Get a hatchback, keep the back seat folded down unless carrying passengers, and open the hatch if more visibility is needed.
The torment of Boston-area garages! It’s a real handicap for those of us who like full-size cars. Our former ’67 Monaco completely maxed out our garage, and there was no hope for the subsequent Imperial.
I was very surprised on a recent visit to some friends in Oklahoma City, where I expected all parking space to easily accommodate Suburban-sized vehicles. But it turns out that their garage is less than 18 ft long. (To be fair, their house was built in the early 1920s, so the design brief was probably for a Model T or something.)
It’s not much better for some newer houses in areas of the country where room isn’t an issue.
Fold your mirror in before parking. The Japanese have power folding mirrors for this very purpose to keep them from getting knocked off while parked on their tiny streets.
Thanks Jason for the writeup. I agree that the Malibu’s slightly smaller size makes it seem more sensible than Torino, and Fury. I wonder in terms of people’s thoughts at the time was that bigger was still better. The compact Nova or Valiant would have sat six with a decent trunk in an even more compact and cheaper package to those with those values. I doubt many buyers were really saying to themselves I am glad that Chevy made it smaller than the Torino.
What I think they would have liked is the smoothness of the 250/350 and 350/350 powertrain combination. The THM350 was worlds better than a 283/PG or 230/PG in say a 65 Chevelle that the customer might be trading. The car was way quieter also and maintenance intervals were much longer thanks partly to HEI. This car also passed much higher safety and smog standards.
To our eyes the styling was much worse than a 65. But just as Mad Men clothes look way better than Brady Bunch clothes today I doubt it was the case then. Think of Mike Brady the father on the Brady Bunch. He started with short hair and dark suits in 69. By 74, he had sideburns, a perm, and dressed like a pimp. Today the transformation seems crazy. In 74 it probably was thought of as breaking out of a shell of conformity. I doubt Robert Ried thought he looked worse in 75 and I doubt Chevy thought the 75 Malibu looked worse than the 65. It was just the times.
I remember these cars from the Hertz fleet in Denver.
The “midsize” class “C” four door sedan was the most common car in the fleet. The Torino was the most common “C” car.
There were plenty of all the others too. The Malibu was in the fleet in this green and also in a light blue, white and a tan. I remember that Hertz’ Malibus all seemed to have a durable cloth interior and that the switchgear seemed to be very high quality (as opposed to the flimsy switchgear I remember from the Dodge/Plymouth “C” class cars).
In the Hertz fleet the Oldsmobile Cutlass version outnumbered the Malibu and the Cutlass was a popular resale car on the Hertz retail lot. I do not remember the Hertz fleet having any Pontiac or Buick versions of the car.
It seems as if the Torino almost always had vinyl interior as opposed to the cloth on the Malibu. And I believe the Torino trunk (a consideration on a rental car) was more useful/had a larger capacity/more depth than the GM cars. Hertz also had some Montegos – not many – equipped just like the Torinos.
I worked for Hertz in the mid-70’s as a transporter (the guy who brought back one-way rentals to their “home” location). Every location is a bit different in terms of stock, but I remember mostly Ford cars in our location, with some GM and MOPAR mixed in, even an AMC (Pacer)…the foreign cars hadn’t made much inroads yet, but I remember a Datsun and a Toyota, but not much else. The funny thing I remember about GM was we mostly had mid-sized Buicks, or compact (Novas), whereas almost all of the Ford car line was there (but no Pinto nor Maverick). There were a few Mercuries, but not many. Back then, I think most all of them had vinyl upholstery on the lower end cars, but cloth was coming out on higher level cars. Now VW is going back to Vinyl (which though tougher, I wish they’d stick with cloth, which admittedly isn’t as durable, but is a lot more comfortable to sit on for a long trip.
IIRC, Ford had a piece of Hertz even back in the 1970’s. By 1999, Hertz was a Ford subsidiary. Therefore, you would see the entire Ford line-up and the Premium collection (Jaguar-Land Rover-Volvo) at most locations. I used to get Hertz discount coupons and FOMOCO stockholder-only specials from Hertz. Then I sold my Ford stock.
Lovely piece on the sort of car that always draws me into CC.
I must say, for 106 inch wheelbase, the rear seat legroom, in the advert, looks remarkably limited.
And the girl on the front seat with no seat belt or child seat in sight?
Thank you. I was rather taken by this car, and I’m not sure if it was condition, color, or simply what it was.
The girl in the ad is about the same age I was at the time, give or take a year.
I do not remember ever sitting in a car seat, although I vividly remember once standing in the middle of the front seat while going down the road. And it was only with the advent of seat belt laws in the early to mid-1980s that people really started to wear them. At least from my experience for where I was living at the time.
Different times back then.
They taught us about seat belts in school, I can recall some adults being peeved (but couldn’t really get mad at us…) for digging out the rear lap-only ones that had been carefully stuffed away in the “crack” between cushion and backrest.
Yes, when I was young I was the only “PITA” who was digging out the seat belts in the vehicles at work. My coworkers didn’t like it, but they couldn’t say anything about it.
Here in Massachusetts, we didn’t have a seatbelt law (at least not one that stuck; I’ll explain what I mean by that in a minute) until the early 1990s. Before that law took effect, I knew almost no one who used their seatbelts.
Rhode Island had a seatbelt law before Massachusetts did. On a couple of occasions in the period in between, I took road trips from one point in Massachusetts to another in Massachusetts that involved a route that went through Rhode Island. We would put our seatbelts on when we reached the Rhode Island border, and then take them off again when we re-entered Massachusetts.
Massachusetts actually did have a seatbelt law at one point before the early 1990s. Around 1986, the state legislature passed one, but public reaction was overwhelmingly negative. A petition drive was launched to put a referendum question on the ballot to repeal the law. The effort succeeded, and voters approved the ballot question. The law came and went within a matter of months. My family began using seatbelts when the law was passed, then stopped as soon as it was repealed.
I remember lying on the package shelf UNDER the rear glass of our ’70 Fury watching the stars at night as mom drove to the base to pick up dad after work. I would have become a 50 pound projectile if we were ever in a wreck.
I very fondly remember sitting on my grandma’s lap in the front seat of Pop’s ’68 Buick LaSabre. My grandparents hated seatbelts so much that Pop unbolted and removed them the day the cars came home from the dealership.
“I must say, for 106 inch wheelbase”
That should be 116 inch, if you’re referring to car that is the subject of this post.
Roger, the interior picture you refer to is of a Colonnade coupe, which is 4″ shorter in wheelbase than the featured sedan, all of it taken from the back seat area as I recall. Most coupes of the day had much less legroom than their sedan counterparts, but far outsold them nonetheless.
I think all she has is a front seat with a door panel with armrest and handle propped up against it. Like the picture above her with the blue seat and door panel.
Folks talk about today’s cars looking like melted blobs, but to me this Chevelle is a very anonymous blob of a car. Admittedly, the Torino is just as big a blob….but with all the decorations on it the Torino is not anonymous. These mid 70s Chevelles look like they were styled, then the designers kept “erasing” details until they got a very in – offensive car. The 73 Laguna is the only version I’d want to own.
If I was car shopping for a “mid sized” car in 1975, and it had to be a domestic, I would try to stretch to a Pontiac Grand Am or Buick Regal coupe. Even the interior of these Chevys look dismal.
“Melted blobs” is perfectly apt description for a lot of today’s cars, especially the compacts. Fiat 500, Honda Fit, the Prius, the Smart Car – they all look like someone cauterized them with a torch.
Today – and for the past 10 years – the common denominator is aerodynamics.
Used to be I could distinguish makes & models at night by headlight configurations. Nowadays I can’t tell a Fusion from a Mazda 6(cousins) from a Hyundai Sonata! lol
Having shopped and driven both the Chevy and the Ford here, and ultimately buying ’73 and ’76 Cutlass Supremes, I’d have to completely agree.
What bothers me about the Chevelle is its roofline; Colonnade sedans (and their GM truck counterparts) never agreed with me. Here, it looks even more like a tacked-on afterthought with the different color. And Torinos looked generally awful with all that body fat, worse than the pre-bumper-std. ’72.
I agree about the sedan roofline. However, I always though the 2-door roofline, especially without a vinyl top, had one of the nicest rooflines of any car of the mid 1970’s.
Stole my thunder, The Colonnade 4-doors were the ugliest cars of any make…EVER.
Wow, even uglier than a 1991 Caprice? That statement covers a lot of ground.
Ever? It’s not even the ugliest car mentioned in the writeup–to me at least the obnoxious snout of the Matador is far more offensive to the eyes.
Only lately did I figure out that the Fury and the Torino were meant to be mid-sizers. Yeah, yeah, super late to the party. But they never felt like mid-sizers to me. They felt like big cars. During my 1970s kidhood, I hated the Colonnades, but I honestly thought they were a car in their own field. Well, maybe the Matador was in the same field, but AMC just wasn’t on the same scale as Ford, Chrysler, and GM.
My feelings about the Colonnades have softened considerably. They were good enough cars for their time. And if I time-machined back to 1976 and had to buy a mid-sized car, I’d go Colonnade over anything Ford and Chrysler was offering.
To my young eye, it seemed Nova’s and Chevelles were in the same size class to.
The 1974-77 Chevelle depending upon the body style have overall lengths between 205.3″ for the coupes and 209.3″ for the sedans weren’t really that much larger than the Nova which measured in at 196.7″. If you compared the length of a 1977-79 Ford LTD II (formerly Gran Torino) at 219.5″ and the 1974-77 Chevelle Sedan at 209.3″, that’s merely a little more than 10″ in overall length difference which was very significant for cars of the same class even though both were direct competitors. In addition, the interior room capacity were not much different between both body styles of the Chevelle and the Nova. Cargo Trunk Space, the Nova’s cargo trunk capacity was a bit more than both body styles of the Chevelle. The 1974-77 Chevelle depending upon the body style. The curb weight difference between the Chevelle and the Nova can be debatable depending upon the options added and engine options chosen since the Chevelle coupe and sedan can weigh between 3600-3800 pounds while the Nova normally can have a wide range between 3200-3700 pounds. For instance, a 1975 Chevrolet Nova Custom Hatchback can weigh in as much as 3530 pounds fully loaded with a 350 cu in V8 engine. A stripped down standard 1974-77 Chevelle Malibu coupe with a 250 cu in. I6 can weigh in as light as 3550 pounds. That’s only a 20 pound difference between those two cars.
Nice find, Jason. I was a young teen when all of these cars were on the streets, so I have pretty vivid impressions of them. My father had a string of Mercury Montegos going back to the late 1960’s, and by 1975 we had a year-old Montego (again!). A couple of things come back to mind here…
I don’t know how Chevy did it, but that particular four door model of Malibu looked like a dowdy, frumpy old car, even when it was new. Just about any other GM Colonnade from that time looks better, even in poverty spec. Maybe if it had the nearly ubiquitous Rally wheels it might look better to me.
Also, 1975 was *not* a bellwether year for the domestic auto industry. Almost all cars had to run on unleaded fuel, the catalytic converters were a mystery to almost all non-factory mechanics (and a lot of them, too!) and as a result many of the cars ran poorly. I mean this across all brands, too. Even the foreign cars had little warning lights on the dash when the cat got too hot. What a great time to be motoring! Not!
Since I grew up in a Ford family, I can tell you the poverty spec Ford Torino came with a 302 V8, not a 351. Maybe on the Gran Torino, but the ghosts of 1973 were already playing heavily on the car companies and the big motors were being eliminated slowly.
From what I remember of these cars, none of them had really great interior space optimization, the next generation of cars (i.e., the Fox bodies, X cars, K cars) were much more roomy for their size. One of my cousins from Germany visited back then and was amazed at how little space was available in our Montego as compared to his BMW 5 Series. Considering the BMW was slightly smaller on the outside, it was roomier on the inside. But the Fords weren’t the only guilty parties in this “crime”.
Times change and so do people. If I were in my 20’s in the mid 1970’s, I’d probably pop for a Firebird Formula with the 400/TH400. If I were in my 40’s back then, maybe a bigger car, like a full sized one. None of these cars particularly motivate me, but since I like older cars that are sorted out, I might go for a 360/727 Matador. But then, I probably could swing a 400 or 440 powered Fury for the same money as the 350/350 Malibu.
I’ll take my chances with Chrysler assembly (and pray that the Lean Burn is removable!)…
Agree, the Chevelle seemed designed to make you consider at least a Monte Carlo, or move on to Pontiac, Olds or Buick.
Comparing Chevelle and Monte Carlo sales in this era, it looks like a lot of Chevrolet buyers reached similar conclusions.
Here we go. Something like this…
Ahh, my type of car. Thanks, Geo. My parents had the same year but it was better dressed. I’ll take the stripper for the win, please !
The 1978 version of this Fury, with a 440, had a top speed of 133 mph, the highest top speed of any car manufactured in the United States that year.
Yeah, I’m doing research today.
Slow day at work for you, too? 😉
I worked 4-10’s. A perk of my job. Next week it will likely be 3-12’s!
Research beats cutting brush in 93 degree weather.
Yes, that was for from the Michigan State Police tests of a E86 equipped Police Fury. The E86 440 was not available in the civilian model and was rated at a very impressive (for 1978) 240 hp.
That stripper/fleet Fury gets my vote☑ for the best-looking midsize of that model year.
Yes, I wanted to “clean up” my ’77 Fury Salon to look like this, but it never happened ($$$). It was a clean, straight car though, in this beautiful Cadet Blue metallic.
BTW, I thought 1974 model cars were the absolute worst for driveability. IIRC, the use of catalytic converters allowed automakers to retune engines for improved driveability and better gas mileage in spite of tougher emission standards.
From reference sources I’ve seen, a 351 2bbl was standard in Torinos in both 1975 and 1976 (just those two years, not in earlier years or in the post-1976 LTD II). That sticks in my mind because it seems counterintuitive. The GM and Chrysler competition offered smaller V8s and/or sixes. And as geozinger noted, you’d think that the first energy crisis would have prompted a move to place more emphasis on smaller engines. The only rationales I can come up for Ford making this move are:
1) Trying to create some room/differentiation between the Torino and the new Granada, which was attempting to capture traditional midsize buyers who wanted a car with smaller exterior dimensions.
2) Most buyers in this class probably bought a 351/350/360, with the lesser engines selling in smaller numbers, even in the wake of the energy crisis. If most people are going to buy an engine this size anyway, why not make it standard.
At the other end of the spectrum, the big 460 remained available in Torinos through 1976, and the 400 continued through 1977 in the LTD II. They may not have sold in large numbers, but they were available.
I guess I stand corrected about the 75 mid sizers from Ford.
While I like your rationales, I think it was probably more a drivability issue. These cars gained considerable amounts of weight, the engines now ran on unleaded fuel, with lower compression too. Less compression in the smaller of the small blocks meant less torque. These fatties couldn’t get out of their own way back then. At least our 1974 Montego (w/302) couldn’t.
The 351 would just be a way of restoring some facsimile of drivability lost when the cats and unleaded fuel became mandated. None of these beasts were going to challenge a Honda Civic for fuel economy, so why not enjoy the torque?
I guess I was influenced by my buddy’s 1975 Elite that had the 351 standard. I thought the 302’s continued on as standard for the lower-echelon Torinos.
Even a 1972 small bumper Torino-Montego could barely move with a 302. By ’74, they were dangerously slow with this engine.
Another thing, in terms of real world fuel economy, there was a very small spread between the smallest and largest engines. Choosing a 302 over a 351 netted no MPG gain due to the extra straining of the engine, and a 351 gave you no more than a 3-4 MPG advantage over the 460. If it’s a mid-70s V8 Ford product, the mileage is going to suck.Moral of the story, get the big engine and enjoy it.
Roger,
I have a “Road Test Magazine” article for a 1972 Torino coupe, with a 302 V8. It ran 0-60 in 11.5 secs and the quarter mile in 17.4 secs. Not a rocket by any means, but for that era certainly decent performance. Keep in mind though this was a base Torino coupe with few options, so pretty much the lightest variation. Road test did give the car a 91/100 for performance. I am sure a much heavier Gran Torino wagon with a 302 would have been considerably slower. And compared to the 1972-1975 the Torino probably gained close to 500 lbs.
I don’t have any numbers to prove it, but generally the Mopar products seemed to be 318 equipped. The buyer demographic for the basic mid-size Mopars tended to be more focused on price.
Geo: I think you’re referring to 74 model year. Catalytic converters allowed the manufacturers to improve emissions, fuel economy, simplified emissions equipment and drivability. Not all manufacturers had them in 75 and I believe GM was the first to the party.
We’re about the same age, and even my Dad, never a car guy, knew that 74 was the worst model year for most of the makes because of the Rube Goldberg style emissions plumbing.
Many early seventies cars would stall out in hard left or right turns because of the manufacturers answer to mandated smog reduction targets. The catalytic converter helped tuning and eliminated that problem among others.
The car rags were filled with comments on drivability of the 74s and of course it was pointed out in Consumer Reports as well as a low year for used cars in their subsequent used car editions.
We’re about the same age, I think. The folks had a 78 Fury in the early 80s. Spinnaker White and maroon vinyl top. Nice car. Didn’t feel too big. 318. Had stacked rectangle quad headlights and looked a lot like a Chevelle after their facelift with a similar combination of stacked lights and ornate grille.
What I would have preferred in the mid 70s out of the mid-sizers would have been the Matador as I was an AMC nut [and still am], but the 71 Gremlin and the 72 Ambassador my parents had were so shoddily built and the Plymouth or Dodge would have been the choice because of that heinous grille and questionable workmanship. The 75 was an improvement on the 74, though. That one looked like a moustache. A bad one.
I’ve overall been a small car enthusiast and gas mileage has always been a priority. These were guzzlers in the mid 70s: 12-13 mpg or worse. 15-16 was a good highway number.
Here are some mileage #s for the featured cars. Courtesy of Consumer Guide’s Used Car Rating Guide July 1977:
73-75 Chevelle: 14.5 Avg
76-77 Chevelle: 15
72-76 Torino: 12-14
77 LTD II: 16
74-77 Fury:15-17
Even then I would have opted for the smallest engine available in a Hornet, Maverick, Monarch/Granada, or a new for 75 Nova [ all still about 190-200″ long].
The Colonades also had frameless door glass, which sealed to a rubber gasket in the door frame. I always thought this was a dumb idea as the rubber always rots and the seal is broken resulting in wind and road noise and water ingress as well. And some manufacturers are still using this dubious design. Bad idea back then, bad on the Neon, and bad on the late model Mustang and whatever else is using this construct in a few years.
Would love to see interior color choices like that of the Chevelle offered in cars today.
I’ve never driven a car without wearing a belt and ironically, the largest percentage of vehicle deaths today is still from unbelted occupants. [Source: AAA. I am sure there are others.]
Dweezil, It’s hard for me to remember with complete clarity what was going on 40 years ago. I do seem to remember lots of cat-equipped cars with myriad drivability problems, although that seems endemic to all of the 1970’s cars, both before and after mid decade.
Again, impressions from 12-year old me, that this awareness of these problems shot up when catalytic converter cars with unleaded fuel requirements became more common on the streets. I knew plenty of people at the time who were not happy about the new requirements *and* the higher price of fuel, too. It was not a good combination.
I’m learning (or maybe re-learning) a whole bunch of things today!
It was the Catalytic converter that helped greatly improve driveability. 1974 was a terrible year for driveability. This was because as the emissions levels cars were allowed to emit kept decreasing, the manufactures had no choice but to lean out carburetors to meet the standards. This is also why after 1972 there weren’t many performance carbs left on the market, they couldn’t pass the emission standards. This resulted in carburetors so lean that they often stalled when cold, hesitated and generally felt completely non-responsive under normal acceleration. It’s my contention that this more than anything else help “smog” era cars feel even more sluggish than their pre-emission counterparts regardless of the horsepower ratings.
Once the Catalytic converters were installed this allowed the manufactures to richen up fuel mixtures since the converters lowered the emissions levels from the engine. Further many Band-Aid emission devices could be removed, such as devices that limited spark advance under many conditions. So, although these early cats lowered horsepower due to their very restrictive nature, they certainly made vast improvements in the everyday operating characteristics of the car. It really was really the first time light was seen at the end of the tunnel in the dark mid 1970s.
Owning ’74 Chevrolet Chevelle I can relate to the driveability problems you mention. Granted it was not a new car at the time in which I owned it (mid 80’s and it probably could’ve used a tuneup) but it was prone to stalling particularly in very humid conditions before the engine fully warmed up. Chevrolet literature in 1975 touted it’s new Efficiency System which promised better engine performance due to not only catalytic converters but also high energy ignitions and early fuel evaporation. Apparently the ignitions’ hotter spark reduced problems in humid conditions and EFE used exhaust gases to more quickly warm the vehicle up. They were decent cars nevertheless as far I was concerned. The Malibu Classic coupes (like I owned) were stylish, interiors were well appointed, and blended good handling and ride. Unfortunately those early models were also hampered by the early emissions control systems which hurt their reputations to a degree.
Below is a ’74 coupe in Bright Blue Metallic
I didn’t research this, but those mid-sized 1970s Chevelles seemed larger than my 2012 Impala!
Looking at these now, it’s unbelievable just how large these truly were. That’s the main reason we went to smaller cars back then after I married.
The 2000-2010 Impala had a 110.5″ wheelbase – almost a compact compared to Colonnades with 115″ w/b and full-sizers 120″ or longer!
Interesting about the length. Shorter than the competition, but still longer than a current Camry, or even a mini(?)van. Yet at the smaller end of the spectrum, cars have gotten rather larger over the same time. (I recall a number of CC Outtakes to this effect.)
It would be interesting to see a graph of average size (length and/or wheelbase) over time by car class. Anyone else a numbers geek, with more free time than I have?
Jason, l don’t think it’s strange to like the cars of your toddler-hood. I’d love to have a rope-drive Tempest (I was turning 2), or a 67 Ford pickup (I was 4)…
I have a soft spot for the Gran Torino, bloated as it is. As far as interiors go, the best Malibu interior (Classic) can’t hold a candle to the Gran Torino Brougham interior, what with it’s nicer cloth, and split seat with dual armrests. FWIW, the Gran Torino Brougham must be one of the rarest cars that isn’t worth anything.
Check out these production numbers.
http://www.torinocobra.com/production_numbers.htm
Wow, if I’d known my 1969 Torino GT hardtop had only ~13,000 copies, I’d done more to keep it alive…
When my Aunt came home with a new 1974 Malibu Classic coupe, I always wondered why she didn’t spring for a Monte Carlo instead. Maybe it was price? Availability? Not sure, and I never asked why as I was only a young lad when she bought that car. But she owned it for over 10 years and never complained about that car. It always looked “nice” but never quite as sharp as a Monte Carlo, Grand Prix or Cutlass Supreme would have been. Hers even had the Rallye wheels and was nicely equipped too. I truly think the older demographic was the target for the Chevelle/Malibu Classic. The featured sedan, in my eyes, has a nice front grille but hideous rear end. It’s almost as if the designers didn’t care about the back of the car when it was designed. It must have been to lure buyers to the more expensive models.
Agree, after ’73, the rear of Chevelle just screamed cheap. The subject car is not the worst of them. The rear always seemed to be comprised of way more parts than necessary, and usually poorly aligned.
One serious problem with the Mopar intermediates of this period, especially the plain-jane 4-doors, was resale value, or lack of it. A 5 or 6 year old low option Coronet-Monaco-Fury was essentially worthless. You’d almost have to pay someone to take it. A Chevelle, and to a lesser extent the Gran Torino, still had some value at this point.
I always loathed the fad of single round headlights in the 70s, these were all among the last true longer/lower/wider designed cars, and quad headlights were a key element to that design paradigm. If I were buying just for style I’d pick the Torino for it’s quads alone, and it’s pretty easy to not check off the tacked on fender skirt option considering I’ve never actually seen one with them equipped. The Chevelle and Fury look pretty much exactly alike save for the airier greenhouse on the Chevy. The Matador is just… horrible that is easily the most legitimately ugly front end ever created for an automobile, and the body (which itself is awkward and dopey looking itself) doesn’t match it at all
There’s a Gran Torino Brougham in Richmond that has the skirts (and, from what I can tell, every other conceivable option). But you’re definitely correct that they didn’t ever seem common (though considering I was born in 1980, the newest Torinos were pushing 10 years old by the time I was old enough to notice…)
Not a lot of love for these Colonnades here. Maybe I was more of a GM fan (I also was in the minority that liked the GTO a few days ago) but being (barely) of driving age when these were introduced, I recall them as being pretty advanced for the times. The sleek overall shape, though often obscured by baroque trim and of course large bumpers, and the superior driving dynamics when optioned correctly, really set them apart from the Fords and AMC, and even the Mopars. In those days, Car and Driver and especially Road & Track allocated much less space to American cars, but the GM mid-size cars, especially the Cutlass Salon and GrandAm versions, got great reviews. Styling-wise, they were a worthy successor to the equally innovative ’68’s with their faired-in C pillars. As for size, well, even though my family owned an “import”, this is the size car we used in high school driver training, including parallel parking on San Francisco hills. My kids’ driving instructor, in the suburbs, used a Civic … they had it easy.
DMan: Cali DMV no longer has requirements that a driver be able to parallel park or enter/exit a freeway to get a license. You were lucky yo got the knowledge when you did.
I don’t recall DMV requiring either of those, but our high school driver training teacher certainly made us parallel park. On a very steep San Francisco hill, no less, in the brand new ’73 Satellite we got for the last day of class, replacing a 2 year old Galaxy. When my kids got trained 35 years later (private lessons, high school driver’s Ed was long gone by then), they did go on the freeway but I’m not sure about parallel parking. DMV did require a straight line backup plus diagonal parking exit and entry.
I never cared much for the Colonnade Malibus, but this one in this color does seem qutie agreeable if not beautiful. There was one in a similar shade of green with a black vinyl roof parked in the back lot of a repair shop near my old apartment. Looked complete and in relatively good shape, but it was parked in by several other oldies. Should ask about it sometime…
at the time, the collonades seemed like a big step back from the “classic 68-72s and were despised…now, especially as two doors, they really appeal to me to the point where I’d rather have a mildly hottted up 75 Chevelle than a 70….
I like this particular car – it’s a really nice survivor in a distinctive period color, and still practical to own today. But I remember when these were late-model used cars in the early 1980s, and nobody, just nobody cared for them. They were totally uncool.
When the new downsized Impala/Caprice came out, it was light years more modern. At that point, you couldn’t give away a 5 or 6 year old 4-door Colonnade Malibu, every one I ever saw was a beater driven by some Mexican handyman with paint cans in the back seat, or a recently arrived Russian family proud of their first American car. This was THE default generic cheap used car when I was a teenager. At 17, I chose to continue saving my pennies to afford a used Monte Carlo rather than settle for something like this.
As to the Ford and the Plymouth, those wouldn’t even have been on my radar back then. A used 4-door Colonnade Chevy could be justified by reliability and a $500 price, if you were willing to completely surrender your sense of cool. The others were just completely beyond the pale for a young single guy, unless it was a free hand-me-down.
That aftermarket plastic console/drink holder/ cassette tape organizer is a real period piece.
Even though the Chevelle Malibu 4 Doors measured at around 209.(give or take a couple or several millimeter depending on the model year) inches, it was only around 3″ shorter than the Downsized 1977-79 RWD Impala/Caprice Classic 4 Door Sedan from which their platforms were the heavily modified versions from the Chevelle and similarly based on architecture but not identical like lets say the 1975-79 Nova were to the 1975-79 Seville or even a 1970 1/2 – 81 Camaro/Firebird. In addition even though the Chevelle Malibu 4 Doors was measured at around 209. inches, it was still about half a foot shorter than the identical 1974-77 Cutlass Supreme 4 Doors which measured at around close to 216.0″.
Loved this great write-up and comparo – I found it way more interesting from a 2015 perspective than from an original MT / R&T article from ’75 archives, given what we know now. The Torino wouldn’t even have been a contender (yes, I rhapsodized about the ’77 Thunderbird which was built on the same platform yesterday, but at least it was pretty). I like the spartan nature of the Fury, but as you pointed out in your article, quality would have been a craps shoot.
As an adult in ’75 in the market for a low-price midsizer, I probably would have gone for the Malibu… wait. I’m the guy who would have come home with a Matador coupe on slotted AMC mags. Yep. I’ll take the Matador coupe. Limited to sedans, I’d have chosen the ‘Bu. And I dig that celery green color. I’m pretty sure my grandparents’ 1975 microwave (that probably gave off tons of radiation) was the same color.
I always liked the Colonnade sedan roofline; my first impression was of the cars I saw on the street as a toddler (b.’74), so it was a pure visual impression quite apart from any image considerations and remained so since all the ’70s iron had rusted out by the time I got my license.
That being said, I would choose a 350 Nova – 4 speed if they had gone B-W by then, but TH350 if the stick was still the old Muncie – with F41 and the Broughamiest available interior but no vinyl top.
My great aunt had a square headlight version of these, so it must have been a ’76 or ’77. She was still driving it in Michigan in ’87 or ’88, and although I was only 10 at the time, it seemed like it was in great shape.
Even though I was a little car nut even back then, I didn’t think much of it at the time; it was simply another 10 year old GM sedan running around a GM town. I certainly wouldn’t mind checking it out now.
Wow, what a downer it would have been to be buying a new car for 1975. That was a big off-year in my family, that got new cars in 74 and again in 76. I think that this “big 4” of mid-sizers in 1975 was one of the reasons that the new Granada was flying out of dealer lots that year.
I never liked the 75 Malibu sedan. Everything about the car was dull, and with those moon-ish wheelcovers, everything about the car said 1954 to me. This color fits right into that analysis. The Mopar screamed cheap when you got into it and slammed the door, and the AMC just looked stupid. The Torino might have been the most appealing of that bunch to me then, but even then, I didn’t really like it.
1975 was a recession year, and car sales were not that great. I’m not really thinking of a single 1975 car that I really love. What a depressing time.
JP: I bet your observation on the Granada is probably correct. Those and the upmarket RWD X bodies and Mopar J bodies were probably fighting for the same customer. Witness the success of the AMC Concord several years later. A plush Hornet with a long warranty. It worked well (for a while).
I’m thinking mid 50’s Buick when I look at that car, but there was probably a demographic back then that found that appealing. But as for the rest of the 1975 lineups, there were plenty of cars I could have gone for. As I mentioned earlier, a 400 Firebird Formula would be great. Or a nice Grand Am. A Plymouth Road Runner. A Mercury Cougar XR-7. A Hornet Sportabout. Or…
In ’75 The Seville, Granada, and Rabbit would have been on my consideration list of newly introduced cars.
I have to say if it was 1975 and I was in the market for a new car I would have been in the dealerships checking out the models in this order: Monte Carlo, Cutlass Supreme, Pontiac Grand Prix, and then finally the Ford Grand Torino Elite.
Don’t be too amazed at the size of these boats.
Americans seem to like boats. Maybe cars shrunk in the 80s, but begin to grow again in the 1990s. Now, we’ve just gone through an 8 year downsizing, so you may have forgotten, but from the late ’90s to the mid-2000s, size was again king.
Preferences changed — to SUVs, so that size and length rebounded
there, while sedan sizes perhaps remained smaller.
Lets look at the sizes of some ‘mid-sized’ SUVs popular in 2005 —
2005 Chevrolet Tahoe 116 in wheelbase, total length 198.8 in.
2005 Ford Explorer 113.8 in wheelbase, total length 189.5 in.
2005 Lincoln Navigator 118.8 in wheelbase, total length 207.5 in
Plus these things were w i d e, too!
Then there were the ‘compact’ highlanders, escapes, Jimmies, etc., but
there not really svelte things at all, either.
Not to mention, EdN, but regular sedans heights have gone up nearly half a FOOT since the mid-1960s.
My wife’s 2005 Corolla stands 4″ taller than a ’65 Impala, even though two feet shorter and nearly one foot narrower beam. Same for current Impalas.
I just wonder what’s driving this taller sedan/coupe trend. Are people really that much taller now?
No, it’s a matter of getting more human room into a shorter car. Higher seats mean lower legs are more vertical. Same legroom in less length. There’s a very nice second generation Intrepid parking on my block now in 2021. Between the style and its height (besides that most of the other cars are SUV style so ae even taller) it looks like a concept car.
When I sat in the driver’s seat of the first year of the Focus I remember thinking it was like sitting in a minivan front seat. It was that much taller than the previous Escort.
Loved these cars when new–we had a 74 Malibu Classic and a 77 LeMans Safari in the family back then–wish I had the Safari now
I’d be interested in a few 1975 cars, just not this Malibu. I’d love to have a ’75 Porsche 914 2.0, a Datsun 280Z, a fuel injected ’75 VW Beetle. even ’75 Toyota Celica. If it has to be a Chevrolet, and cost no object, how about a 1975 Cosworth Vega?
Where the devil did all of these go? I was born in ’77, and I barely remember seeing these or any of the colonnades at all growing up…
I always thought that these were about the dullest looking cars around. At the Fremont plant we were building the Monte Carlo, Buick Regal and four door Buick Special. Any of these were much better looking. The Laguna was about the only half way decent looking car. Make mine the Torino.
Growing up in the 70’s, our family had a ’74 Malibu Classic 4 door. It was a decent car, but had the worst looking tail lights of the ’73 thru ’77 body style, as seen in the sample photo below. A modified Impala, Bel-Air or dual Vega tail lights would have looked better.
The ’75 taillights were my favorite – like those Chevy logos subtlely engraved into the red lens.
Is that an Interracial couple in this Chevelle ad? Seeing diverse advertising is a nice change.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/1975-Chevrolet-Chevelle-04-05.jpg
I doubt advertisers back then were this bold. The Arthur Ashe lookalike’s companion might still be African-American, but of fairer complexion. From what I can tell, female models/actresses tend to be fairer than males. It was considered newsworthy recently that Lupita Nyong’o, a Mexican/Kenyan model, was successful despite being very dark-skinned.
Labeling brown people “black,” & fair people “white,” makes no rational sense.
“Labeling brown people “black,” & fair people “white,” makes no rational sense.”
True. Recently I was reading a crime novel by a “black” author, and I was at first amused, then taken aback, by the number of times his police officer character narrating the story described a person of interest as “white”. Really brought it home to me like nothing before.
Agree with you on the A-body being the best of the Big 3 mid-sizes, and Ford being the worst. In addition to everything mentioned above, those Fords had dangerously numb steering.
Wish I could love the Mopar’s more, but my dad had a ’76 Fury Salon sedan that was a boatload of trouble. Also, they would have been in a much better place if they’d found the money to update the sedan and wagon bodies in line with the changes made in ’75 to the standard B-Body 2-doors.
While the Chevy might be the best of the three cars discussed; to me it’s like asking a 12 year old if he prefers broccoli, brussel sprouts or spinach. I was 19 in 1975 and this generation Malibu left me cold, after the previous one’s high-water mark. I did not realize how long they were! I had a 2002 Tahoe that maxed out at 196 inches, and I thought that was long!
I think the 209.7 inch length for a Colonnade sedan only applies to the 1972 models. I have a 1973 R&T review of a 1973, the year when they had a battering ram front but a cosmetic rear bumper, and the length was up to 212.9 inches. For 1974, they probably gained four more inches of length to a total of 217 inches for the rear impact bumper requirement. A 1972 Dodge Coronet 4-door sedan was 207 inches long before gaining impact bumpers, so the central argument of this article may haver been influenced by some incomplete information.
The trouble with that idea is that there weren’t any 1972 Colonnades; the first year for the Colonnade cars was 1973. 🤓
210.3″, so there was a half-inch discrepancy between this and my original source. That isn’t exactly a dramatic difference. It certainly isn’t 217″ as that assertion would be erroneous information.
http://classiccardatabase.com/specs.php?series=6912&year=1975&model=31073
The half inch difference could be the rub strips on the bumper. They weren’t standard on most base Chevy trims, nor were the bumper guards on this green car. A false economy of GM to send out their cars looking unfinished.
I would guess the specs as originally provided by the automaker would not include optional equipment such as bumper guards or rub strips.
Speaking thereof, when my brother and I helped special-order a 1973 Monte Carlo for our mother, we requested bumper guards but not rub strips (because the brochure called them “deluxe bumpers”). So when the car arrived with the exposed carriage bolts, we realized our mistake — the bumpers do look unfinished.
My bad. The R&T test was an Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon, and I’m not sure why it had a cosmetic rear bumper. The 1973 Chevrolet Chevelles/Malibus that I can find online all have front and rear impact bumpers. I guess the bodies had more differences than I thought.
I went and looked at a ’73 almost the same as the ’75 shown here—same colour and all—at a wrecking yard somewhere in Michigan. It wasn’t there to be parted out; it was a whole car for sale. 350/350, almost no options, highly original, no rust, no apparent problems, low miles. Looked very much like grandma or grandpa died, the kids didn’t want the car and didn’t want to be bothered selling it, so they called the yard and had it taken away. I skipped it because high price, no air conditioning and pain-in-the-everything ’73-type seatbelts. I think this was when I was shopping for a replacement for my ’85 Volvo.
The featured car and Jason’s case for sanity make a nice counterpoint to Joseph Dennis’ story the the other day about the overwrought 1977 Thunderbird.
I know which car I’d buy!
One of my neighbors growing up had this exact car and color scheme, down to the painted white roof. Was that a common option outside the sunbelt? Didn’t really have much heat to deal with in suburban Pittsburgh.
I do remember the seats in these, as well as friend’s parents’ full-size GM cars being less firm than those in my family’s endless parade of Mopars, including the ’76 Fury Salon I mentioned above when this was originally posted.
Happy to share I’m the current owner of this mint green beauty now! Bought it back in 2017, I’ve had it for 6 years! She’s doing great and absolutely getting the love she needs.
Thank you for showing us your car! When I found your car in Dixon all those years ago, I really did take a liking to it and it still remains one of my favorite finds. May you keep enjoying it for years to come!
Plus, if you ever want to give this group a virtual tour of your Chevelle and your experiences with it, there is no doubt something could be arranged.
Hi Layla. It’s a Beautyfull machine. I had the same one in 1974.