(first posted 8/23/2013) Walking around certain blocks of the student neighborhood near the University of Oregon on a gray drizzly day can be as depressing as recalling much of GM’s decline and fall products from the seventies on. It’s a sea of dull and cheap apartments already looking shabby and run-down rental houses, fronted by waves of drab colored hand-me-down Toyotas, Nissans, and the like.
But every so often, a cheery sight appears, like this cherry-red 1979 Malibu coupe. It’s there to remind me that GM was still able to hit a few high notes while cranking out Vegas, Monzas and Citations; and that it hadn’t yet totally forgotten the magic formula that it first hit upon in 1955 and reprised with the ’64 Chevelle: a trim and tidy RWD coupe weighing about 3,000 pounds and powered by the SBC V8. Quite the mood elevator indeed, especially if one avoids thinking about some of its less perky realities.
One of the key aspects of the story of GM (and the rest of Detroit) can be summed up by this: the lure of the “bigger is better” is followed to an extreme, and a crash diet follows. This has led to a sea of monstrosities as well as a few genuine moments of clarity and even a hint of brilliance, which this Malibu is a prime example of. It’s far from perfect, marred by a number GM’s typical quality shortcuts of the times. But as a design, or even an ideal, it hits a note of near-perfection. Smack dab in a sea of bulbous and obscene landau-roofed “mid-sized” barges from Ford and Chrysler, GM dropped this clean, compact, elegant, handsome coupe in our midst like manna from heaven in 1978.
Of course, it was the second punch of the combination Chevrolet set up with the prior year’s new ’77 downsized/full sized Caprice and Impala. But as terrific of a design the four door version of the big Chevy was, thebig Impala and Caprice coupes were a flop, stylistically and sales-wise. Not downright bad, but it just didn’t click, and utterly failed to recapture the magic (and sales) of Impala coupes of yore. Curiously, the stylistically similar but smaller Malibu turned out just the opposite. The coupe hit it just right, and the sedan very much didn’t. Whereas the Impala and Caprice Coupe were outsold by the sedans 5 to 1, the Malibu coupe held its own against the slightly awkward sedan.
It’s not just in comparison to its bigger brother where the Malibu shone; after the bloated ’73-’77 Malibu Colonnade monsters that weighed almost 4,000 lbs, this anorexic 3100 lb Malibu was an even more drastic downsizing than the big Chevys. And it put it square into the same weight class as the legendary ’55 and the lithe ’64 Chevelle.
It doesn’t take a genius to see what was up on the wall when the designers penned this Malibu. The Colonnades were a stylistic dead end, and the ’78 Malibu coupe was a deliberate attempt to recapture the simple and clean pleasures of the ’64-’65 Malibu coupe, which was already well on its way to becoming a classic at the time.
You can’t fault Chevy for trying with this gem, but it was wasted on Americans’ fickle and questionable taste. Because the irony of this Malibu is that it was a mediocre seller, completely overshadowed by its baroque platform-mate, the downsized Monte Carlo. That stylistic disaster with its pretend hips and tits outsold the Malibu coupe by a four to one ratio in 1978. I’m sure some of you loved it…to each their own. Meanwhile, the clean Malibu coupe could well have been an Opel from the era, except for the somewhat overdone grille.
Enough waxing on this bright spot in a notoriously dull decade. What about beneath the skin? Let’s start under the hood, the most important part for a classic American RWD car anyway. The late seventies were of course notoriously bad engine-wise. The Malibu’s palette started off with a whimper: the 200 CID (3.3 liter) V6 that wheezed out all of 94 hp. This was Chevy’s first shot at lopping off two cylinders from the venerable small-block V8, but they started with the worst SBC ever made: the 267 CID V8 that managed all of 125 hp. Both of these mutations were soon chucked on the ash heap of GM engine blunders, but a lot of these A-bodies suffered their indignities. The Buick 3.8 V6 with 115 hp was also available, as a better V6 alternative.
But there’s possibly a good reason this particular Malibu is a 1979. That was the one relatively bright spot year in the engine option list; not only was the 160 hp four-barrel 305 available for a couple of years, but in 1979 only, the 170 hp four-barrel 350 was also at hand. Not quite as rev-happy as its smaller forerunners in the good old days, the 350 chuffed out a spadeful of torque. In the lightweight Malibu, the combination may well have been one of the fastest in that year, especially from a price/performance equation perspective.
The real beauty of these cars is of course the easiness of swapping in anything ever to have the bow-tie stamped on it. And for a compact box to wrap a junkyard or crate engine of choice with, the Malibu was the way to go. As for the rest of the car? With the right boxes checked (F 41), GM offered as good a handling and steering RWD car made in the land at the times.
Perhaps it’s best to leave it there, as the depressing aspects are…just that: notoriously weak THM 250 transmissions, non-opening rear Zackman™ windows, cheap interior materials, and a general lackadaisical attitude to quality; GM quality control had already taken an early retirement. But the junk yards and Auto-Zone are still (hopefully) plentiful with whatever it takes to keep these on the road, and bring some cheer to a dull and dreary day.
I had the wagon version of one of these, bought new in ’78, green/saddle with the 305/auto combo, and although it’s true that the build quality (and rust resistance) left much to be desired, it was solid, tough and a pleasant driver. Two musician friends liked it so much they bought Malibu wagons of their own.
Always though these were just the right size of car myself, and kind of like mid-’60s Falcon vs. Mustang, today I would prefer the Malibu coupe over the Monte Carlo of the same era and platform.
It took me a good long time to realize it, but I do see the intelligence these possess from a size and stylistic standpoint. Perhaps when I think of this time period, my mind turns to porky and corn-fed.
Looking at these pictures, I can also see where this car influenced a few others, such as the original, two head lighted Cavalier and the front of the Citation. Imitation is the truest form of flattery, I suppose.
I agree. I was a kid in the 60’s and graduated college the year this ’79 was built, and actually went to the local Chevy dealer to look at one as a grad present to myself. To my eyes then, the square grill and headlights looked like something from the USSR, because in my mind’s eye all I could see were the gorgeous ’65 to ’69 iterations.
This looks ok to me now; perhaps with age comes the ability to look past the outside, which in this case includes the ability to now make it whatever you’d like it to be.
I ignored these when they were new, but sometime during the 90s realized that these were attractive in their clean, simple lines. I have short list of cars I might like to own as a fun older car, and this gen Malibu coupe is on it. But just not in this red, with that black top. Yuck.
Dad had 2 sedan versions of this model, a white and a sky blue one, some years later also a 83 he bought brand new (all the family went to the stealership to pick it up). Grandma had a white 78, which replaced a Dodge Dart.
I drove the later when it was a (very) tired POS. I LOVED it, relaxed smooth cruising. I can only guess how it would feel with proper power and a good working suspension.
This Malibu generation was a massive hit for GM in Venezuela. Until ’84 it was the car to have. Over there they sold them with the 3.2 lt V6 and very basic until ’81, when the new rear style kicked in and they added the Classic version. At some point they also offered the 3.8 V6.
And I read the CarCraft article where the green coupe appeared. I had to leave my CC and HR stack behind :'(
I WAS 21 1N 1978 WHEN I WENT WITH MY DAD TO LOOK AT NEW CARS. I ORDERED A BLACK TWO DOOR MALIBU CLASSIC WITH THE 200 CI AND AUTOMATIC. I CHANGED THE OIL MYSELF EVERY 2500 MILES AND AT ABOUT 30,000 THE LIFTERS STARTES MAKING ALOT OF NOISE .I ALSO WASHED AND WAXED IT BY HAND AND THE BLACK PAINT GOT DULL VERY FAST.WHEN I WOULD USE THE WIPER/WASH THE WASH WOULD NEVER STOP UNTIL I PULLED THE FUSE OUT ,THEN IT WOULD RESET ITSELF. OF CORSE THE HEADLINER CAME LOOSE AND HUNG ON TOP OF MY HEAD.I LOVED THE LOOK OF THIS CAR BUT THIS WAS THE LAST G M CAR I WILL BUY. JUST TRADED MY 97 FORD ESCORT WAGON FOR A FORD FOCUS. THE WAGON HAD 167,000 MILES .
Yeah, Fords of that era set the standard when it came to quality. And they never manufacture a turkey.
-Former Mustang and Explorer owner
Was the permanent CAPS LOCK key standard on your Focus, or an extra-cost option?
Seriously, fordfan – none of the cars you mention are worth shouting about.
Wow, a Ford slappie who is arguing which 30 year old car is better. That made my day!
I’ve owned a few Fords but I’d honestly take one of the Malibus from this era over a Focus (and I like the Focus).
I’m not sure if you’re trying to troll or honestly just sharing your experience?
What about the M80 coupe? That was a sweet ride.
These cars had their limitations (live rear axle, fixed rear windows come to mind) and their shortcomings (THM250, primitive emissions controls, sagging headliner, etc.), but they also had a lot of simple virtues.
What would you say if today someone offered a rear-wheel drive car in sedan, coupe and wagon bodies that were light and trim on the outside but offered seating for six on the inside. This car would have a small but torquey V8 engine like the 4 bbl. 305 (which made these cars hustle pretty well) and available upgraded suspensions that made it handle more than decently. It would get good gas mileage by contemporary standards and could be had for less than $25,000. This car would be a bit like a Pontiac G8, except it wouldn’t be too big, too heavy, too expensive and too overstyled. Your checkbook would be out wouldn’t it?
Remember, you’re talking to auto bloggers. They’d claim they’d buy one, demand it, but when it finally came out the response would be, “I’ll pick it up as a four year old used car. Let somebody else take the depreciation.”
Maybe so, but I still hold onto the hope that there will be an affordable sedan built off the new Mustang platform that’s debuting next year (something with a blue oval on it, not the rumored Lincoln sedan).
Mustang platform + rear doors + 3-4″ extra wheelbase + 2.3L Ecoboost + boxy styling = pretty sweet ride
You’re describing the Fairmont, & that’s fine by me. Just up the trim quality a bit this time.
One thing that is for sure is we can’t go back in time. My favourite one is any time a Civic is reviewed, loads of old guys start screaming CRX!! Of course, the CRX was a little tin can and if anything like it were ever offered again, it would languish on the showroom.
And of course, the best example is manual transmissions. Guys scream for them but don’t buy them.
In this case, the G8 is the example and it was a total turkey. Seems GM listened to the repeated bleats for a RWD sedan and then couldn’t sell them.
Doesn’t help that the G8 looked dated, had no identity, came out when fuel prices skyrocketed and the economy tanked. I think it’s unrealistic to expect anything new that’s niche oriented to be successful in this climate, since nobody in the market for something like that could afford it.
The only way any of the good stuff could come back is if major parts could be shared throughout model lineups, which is difficult when the volume cars are all cheaper to build FWD transverse engined layouts with automatics. Anything deviating from that formula is automatically a burden for the automaker. Just assembly alone is more expensive with RWD since transverse engines can be assembled as a package with the front suspension and lifted right into the basic chassis. Conversly RWD, especially with IRS that every blogger thinks is so important, basically doubles the assembly process now that a rear suspension/differential package needs to be plopped into place as well.
Sadly, good cars are dead. They’re just unwanted appliances to most people now and about as far as you can get for fun options is a dock for your smartphone. Even if an automaker miraculously did reintroduce manual transmissions, RWD, wagons or real hardtops(two or four door) with roll down rear windows, they’d just look like ungainly blobs tainted by EU ped safety standards and/or aerodynamics, weighed down by eleventeen airbags and be about as affordable as a private jet. I’ll stick to the classics thank you, the only thing I’m missing out on is the new car smell.
I wouldn’t agree that good cars are dead. As much as a smallish, basic RWD sedan would appeal to me, I also really like the ’13 Focus I bought last fall. It has better handling than any car from the ’70s, decent pickup, the practicality of a hatchback, and I’m averaging 29.5 MPG with a stop & go commute. Oh, and I’m one of the 10% or so of Focus drivers who opted for the standard tranny, so I get some exercise for my left foot.
Matt RWD doesn’t mean that you can’t assemble the engine, trans, and front suspension and then put it in the car see the Ford Fox cars that were assembled that way starting in the 70’s. Many driving IRS also use subframes and go in intact and quicker than many non driving IRS set ups that are a piece by piece affair. See the MN/FN cars.
Ah yes, as evident by the separated K frames. The MN12 though did cost Ford more money per unit to build than the Fox cars. That was one part of the reason the development team got reprimanded upon it’s debut and the platform was left to flounder. Even as a sub-assembly, the additional components necessary for it, as well as the RWD differential, CV shafts and driveshaft, all add to the total cost of production, in both time and tooling. In terms of a typical SRA vs. a MN12 cradle style IRS setup, there’s about the same amount of physical mount points: For IRS, the driveshaft, 4 mount points for each corner of the IRS cradle. For SRA, the driveshaft and 4 points for the control arm(or watts link, ect) mounts. Non-cradled and/or non-RWD independent suspensions aren’t much different than that SRA setup. They’re not a neat subframe assembly like the MN12 setup but they’re still usually put together as their own assembly before reaching the chassis, then they’re simply bolted to the few chassis mounting points, but with a lot less parts.
@c5karl, I shouldn’t have said good cars since there’s quite a few good cars currently in production. “Good cars” was more of a Freudian slip regarding my own personal biases of a car I’d want, which would be RWD V8s stick shift two doors, hardtops and wagons in the full size, or even midsize segments. The only way you can get a modern car like that today is to shell out big bucks for a BMW or Mercedes.
“Mustang platform + rear doors + 3-4″ extra wheelbase + 2.3L Ecoboost + boxy styling = pretty sweet ride”
That car already exists, only better. It’s called Ford Falcon. You have up to ’16 to get one.
I’m not so sure you’d want to build a sedan off the Mustang platform, it would end up more of a Torino than a Fairmont.
If this refers to the Fox based Mustang, there was a Fox based sedan which would be good enough to be considered “Torino” in its own right than a Fairmont and that being the 2G Granada in which both the sedan and the coupe was designed to be upscale compared to the Fairmont. It had a different body style except the Station Wagon version which still screamed “Fairmont”!. The Fox based identical sized LTD (the Granada’s replacement) went back to nothing more than Fairmont in design for both the Sedan and Station Wagon especially since the identical bodied Fairmont was discontinued in the Summer of 1983 and replaced by a completely different FWD Ford Tempo (which had carried over the smaller Ford Escort’s chassis) to compete with the likes of the Chevrolet Citation and Plymouth Reliant. The Granada then the LTD were replaced by an all new Ford Taurus after 1986.
My father bought a white base ’79 Malibu sedan new with the 305 and F-41. It was a pretty good car that lasted into the early 90’s. It was the fastest car I had driven at that time (my teen-age years). As I remember, the brochure did not list an available 350. I asked the salesman, and he said it was only available in the police model, and no, we were not allowed to order one.
A friend of mine ended up owning one of these police cars, a black/black 2-door 350 car ordered new by the Mountain Brook, AL Chief-o-Police for undercover work. I saw the build sheet and it sure enough spelled out RPO LM1 on it. I remember it having black vinyl bucket seats, column-shift, A/C, and 120mph cluster with clock and gauges.
As unique of a car as it is/was, it still did nothing for me. These cars were some of the most characterless generic vehicles Chevy built in the late 70’s and early 80’s IMO. I owned a maroon 1980 4-speed car with 305 and was surprised how much I hated driving it. Citations, Chevettes, & early Cavaliers were more fun to drive and own.
Like several here, I like these better now than I did then. These always felt more substantial than the Fairmonts did. I suspect that these are a bit larger, though I never actually compared stats. Don’t forget that these came in pickup form as well, with the El Camino.
A friend bought a wagon version (83-ish) from his Dad. It was a 305/Auto car. He bought it as an appliance, but came to like it quite a bit.
At the time, I never really paid attention to how these 2 doors tried to avoid the dreaded “opera window plague” that was sweeping the nation in the late 70s. A very clean design that has aged quite well.
While these cars were roughly the same size as the Ford Fairmont, the two cars didn’t compete directly with each other. GM and Ford were downsizing their respective offerings at different rates, so their offerings didn’t line up as neatly as they did through the mid-1970s.
These cars were designed and promoted as smaller, more sensible intermediates, while the Fairmont was the successor to the compact Falcon/Maverick/Granada. The Malibu was supposed to feel more “upscale” than the Fairmont (body-on-frame construction and its superior noise control, as opposed to unit-body construction, also helps in this regard). Although I believe that the rear side windows of the Fairmont four-door sedan can be rolled down.
The base price of a 1978 Malibu four-door sedan was $4,469, while the base price of a 1978 Ford Fairmont four-door sedan was $3,830. In 1978, a $639 difference in the base price wasn’t insignificant.
The Fairmont would have competed directly with the old Nova (base price of $3,962 for the four-door sedan), and then the front-wheel-drive Citation.
I did know that, but at some point the Fox platform sort of went upscale and became the Granada, then the LTD. However, it still remained the same size, which I figured was somewhere in the neighborhood of this car (probably just a bit smaller than the Malibu, just based on the station in life where each started out).
I believe that Ford steadily upgraded the original Fox platform as it was pressed into duty as the second-generation Granada and then the “downsized” LTD.
Always liked these a lot more than the B-body downsizes a year earlier. Clean, simple, light, probably the best American car design at the time. At the time I was looking at a Pontiac Grand Prix and the Pontiac intermediate equivalent in this style (LeMans?). For the same money, you got a much cheaper interior on the Grand Prix, which killed that car completely in my eyes.
I always liked the Malibu coupes of that era better than the sedans…much better than the 4 door fastback Gutless Cutlass we ended up with in ’78. Make mine a red or black one with a nice set of rims and a 350/THM 350 tranny…or even better, a 4 speed stick. I drove an ’81 4-door for my Driver’s Ed classes, and I liked the way it drove and handled. It was a great car to learn on, but with the V6 it was gutless to the point of being scary on the highway.
Nice cars but Malibus were always rare compared to the Cutlass Supreme sedans/coupes where I grew up in Ohio. If you wanted a Chevy branded family hauler, the Celebrity ruled the roost.
Yes, I had a burgundy 305 ’79 with the saggy “Taj Mahal” headliner. And those damn windows, especially because the AC was long gone and I lived in TN.
I’ve never forgotten the starting procedure…two taps on the accelerator and turn the key as quickly as possible. This was 1996 and that car had seen some hard use around the family.
Still, it was entertaining to drive and I always liked the styling of the front end.
Was that starting procedure unique to GM cars? As I remember it, depressing the accelerator to the floor served two purposes: It closed the choke and also primed the carburetor with a bit of fuel.
GM at least had the same starting procedure for all its cars: floor it once and then crank with foot of accelerator when cold, half accelerator when warm. Cold starts then produced a crazy fast idle to light off the cat.
Fords were all different.
My ’74 Dart uses the same procedure. Crazy fast idle as well, but not cat…
As future car thieves come of age, carburetion will be an effective theft-deterrent.
I valet-ed my ’77 Chevelle at a hotel one night a couple weeks ago in Atlanta on my way back from the PowerTour. The guy said he could get it started in the morning no sweat.
yeah, I had to remind him how to start it.
I always liked that coupe. But in 79 while still driving my 71 Nova coupe 307 3 spd I test drove a 79 wagon. Now with a couple of kids it was time for a family wagon. During the test drive I asked the salesman if I could get a V-8 in this. He said the car I was driving WAS a V-8. That and rear door windows that didn’t roll down and I was gone. Haven’t bought a new chevy since.
My sister had a silver one almost identical to the one pictured above in the early 90’s. It was a nice comfortable car with good space for its size. It had a V6 and was a bit gutless, but no worse than the 2.3 Mustang I had at the time. Or a lot of cars from that era. If I remember right the gas mileage wasn’t all that great either, I don’t know if it was any better than our 305 Caprice wagon. But I liked it.
I can see the appeal in these, but to my eye the styling is more simpleton than simplistic. No creativity whatsoever was exerted in coming up with this design.
Completely subjective for sure. Today’s cars go overboard the other way, so many put creases and lines and swoops on them inside and out with little to no design cohesiveness.
You’re right about that, definitely. I can’t name a cohesive, genuinely attractive midsize car design out there right now; the new Mazda6 probably comes closest, though it too is saddled with too much surface frippery and a poorly-executed greenhouse.
Rob – I gotta disagree. I think the new Accord is a huge improvement over the last gen, and nek-in-neck with the Passat for most elegant designs….
The Accord is indeed a huge improvement over the prior model, but IMHO is still saddled with overly-fussy styling and a clunky beltline. None of that would necessarily stop me from owning one, but count me among those who miss the simple elegance of earlier models.
(Actually – and don’t laugh – I think the current 2013+ Civic sedan is much more attractive than the Accord, except for the damn plastic triangle that replaced the front quarter window.)
I always forget about the Passat. Agreed, that is a very clean and classy design.
The Passat is a pretty clean design by today’s standards. The Accord, not so much, with the side creases that swoop up at odd angles and the droopy snout on the hybrid. And its interior is extremely busy with more planes and buttons than I can count.
These have always struck me as a very clean and very well-proportioned design. They looked good when new, and the design has held up over the years. With the factory styled wheels, and no vinyl roof, they are quite handsome. The big letdown was the interior – it looked cheap and spartan when new, and the plastics aged very poorly.
“The Buick 3.8 V6 with 115 hp was also available, as a better V6 alternative….in 1979 only, the 170 hp four-barrel 350 was also at hand.”
In this era, trying to figure out which engines were available where can leave your head spinning. Looking at the brochures posted on oldcarbrochures.com, though, I don’t think the 3.8 and 350 were actually available across the board. This is how I’m understanding things:
–The 200 CID/3.3L 2bbl V6 was the base engine. This engine was not available in California and high-altitude areas; cars sold in those areas were required to get an optional engine, at extra cost.
–The 231 CID/3.8L 2bbl Buick V6 was optional only in California and high-altitude areas. This engine seems to have been offered solely to provide an alternate six for California and high-altitude areas (due to the lack of availability of the 200/3.3 in those areas), and was not available in Malibus elsewhere. From the brochures, it appears to me that wagons in high-altitude areas (just wagons in high-altitude areas, not other high-altitude models, not California wagons) were required to get the 350 V8, and were not available with a six.
–The 267 CID/4.4 L 2bbl V8 was optional, but was not available in California and high-altitude areas.
–The 305 CID/5.0 L 4bbl V8 was optional, and was available everywhere. From the brochures, it appears to me that wagons in high-altitude areas (just wagons in high-altitude areas, not other high-altitude models, not California wagons) were required to get the 350 V8, and were not available with the 305.
–The 350 CID/5.7 L 4bbl V8 was optional — in fact, it appears to me to have been a mandatory option — only in wagons in high-altitude areas (just wagons in high-altitude areas, not other high-altitude models, not California wagons). It was not otherwise available.
Note the following:
–Availability of sixes was not the same in the Malibu and Monte Carlo. According to the 1979 Monte Carlo brochure, the 231/3.8 was available as an option everywhere, not just in California and high-altitude areas. In ’78, the 200/3.3 hadn’t been available in Monte Carlos at all; all sixes everywhere were the 231/3.8. I’m guessing that when the A-bodies were downsized in 1978, the 200/3.3 was felt to be underpowered for a vehicle of the Monte Carlo’s station in life, so Chevy went with the 231/3.8 instead. Then for ’79, the 200/3.3 was added in the name of fuel economy (except in California and high-altitude areas, where it apparently couldn’t pass emissions). But only in addition to the 231/3.8, not in place of it, so six-cylinder Monte buyers wouldn’t be forced to settle for the lowly 200/3.3.
–According to the 1979 Nova brochure, the 350 was available in Novas in both California and high-altitude areas, but the Malibu brochure shows it in high-altitude areas only. Similarly, the Nova brochure shows the 350 available in all body styles in high-altitude areas, but the Malibu brochure shows it limited to wagons in those areas. The brochure for the Monte Carlo, which didn’t come as a wagon, doesn’t mention the 350 at all. (The 350 was available everywhere in all body styles in Camaros and fullsize Chevrolets.)
–The 1979 El Camino brochure shows the same engine lineup as Malibu wagons, including the availability of the 350 only in high-altitude areas (although it isn’t clear to me from the brochure whether high-altitude El Caminos came only with the 350, or if they could be ordered with the other engines). Incidentally, the ’78 El Camino brochure leaves me with the impression that the 350 was available as an across the board option that year, while the ’78 Malibu brochure limits it to high-altitude wagons (and the ’78 Monte brochure doesn’t mention it at all), just like in ’79.
You’re right, my head hurts after that. Interesting though.
I guess the short version is (for 1979):
“Regular” availability: 200, 267, 305
California: 231, 305
High-altitude except wagons: 231, 305
High-altitude wagons: 350 only
Monte Carlo: same as Malibu except include 231 in “regular” availability
El Camino: same as Malibu wagons, including the availability of the 350 in high-altitude areas (although it’s not clear from the brochure if high-altitude wagons were restricted to the 350 only, or if they could get also the other engines available in other high-altitude models).
Ordering GM at that time was a nightmare. I’d designed up a Monza Kammback wagon for myself as a sportwagen. All the proper goodies: V-6, five speed, heavy suspension, wide tyres, etc.
When the car comes in, I discover that the full instrumentation is available only on the 4 cylinder and V-8 models. And, it was touch and go for the five speed – turns out the plan was to have any V-6’s as automatic only. And (supposedly) shortly after mine was built the manual was removed from the V-6 options.
Not a hopeful beginning to what turned out to be the worst car I ever owned.
For the ’79 Malibu, according to the brochure:
3-speed manual floor shift: standard, but only available with 200/3.3 V6.
4-speed manual floor shift: optional, only available with V8s.
Automatic: column shift, available with any engine.
All high-altitude and California cars had to have automatic.
El Camino appears to have been exactly the same as the Malibu. Monte Carlo was also the same except that the 4-speed wasn’t offered, and automatic was standard on Landaus.
Power steering and power brakes were required with V8s on models where they weren’t already standard.
The 350 was available in 1978-79 (and maybe 1980, I’m not sure) El Caminos. El Caminos are legally trucks and not subject to the same emissions/fuel mileage standards as passenger cars. This made it easier to slide in the 350 as an option for those who wanted it. My brother bought a leftover 1979 El Camino new, after the 1980’s came out. His was a pretty basic vehicle with the 3.3 V6 and three speed manual transmission; I don’t think it had A/C. The thing I remember most about it was how cheap and flimsy the interior was, that and that acceleration was sluggish at best. He didn’t keep the El Camino more than a couple of years, they had a couple of young children and needed to be able to transport them properly.
Before I went through the brochures and wrote up the post above, I was under the impression that the 350 had been offered across the board in 1978-79 Malibu wagons and El Caminos. The ’79 brochures are clear that it was only offered in these models in high-altitude areas, though (as noted, the ’78 Malibu brochure indicates that this was the case that year, too, while the ’78 El Camino brochure suggests that the 350 may have still been an across the board option for El Caminos). I think I picked that up from a reference book — possibly the Standard Catalog series — that showed these engines having been “available” in those models with specifying that it was only in high-altitude areas.
IINM, the 350 was dropped from all Chevrolet passenger cars after 1979 except for the Corvette (which kept it indefinitely) and Z28 (through 1981). In also continued indefinitely in fullsize trucks and vans. Beginning with the late ’80s, its availability began to expand again (Camaro, Caprice, other GM B- F-, and D- bodies).
I’d have to disagree with the negative comparison to the B body coupes. The Caprice/Impala two-doors had a far more interesting B pillar and rear window design that offset the austerity of the clean lines. In contrast the Malibu was too plain jane.
The best of the ’78 intermediate coupes was Pontiac’s Grand Am.
I’d agree the B coupes were more interesting, however I don’t think the overall porportions were as pleasing to the eye. At least not to my eyes.
Oops. I meant C pillar.
Knowing the way GM operates, I would surmise that the final intermediate Malibu RWD coupe was intentionally designed to be plain-Jane in order to get people into the more stylish (and profitable) Monte Carlo. As evidenced by the 4-to-1 sales ratio, I’d say they succeeded.
Really, the Malibu coupe was a leftover from a bygone era before the Monte Carlo even existed. While more practical (check out those huge quarter windows and small C-pillars), as the inevitable downsizing continued, the Monte Carlo would assume the position by morphing into nothing more than the sole coupe version of the largest Chevy 4-door.
Still, one wonders how things might have turned out if GM had went with a better styled Malibu coupe that had a roofline that stuck with the traditional rear window rake, rather than devoting all their styling effort to the personal luxury coupes that had the upright, formal roof that was all the rage at the time.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there was at least a 4-1 sales ratio between the Monte Carlo and Malibu/Chevelle coupe throughout the run of the Colonnade generation.
If I recall correctly, the 1978 and later Monte Carlos weren’t quite as successful as the 1973-77 generation.
Fortunately the downsized Montes were not as bad as Ford’s malformed ’80 T-Birds and Cougars, but they weren’t the best of the downsized GM personal luxury cars. That honour has to go the Regal or Cutlass Supreme. The Chevy was too baroque and the Grand Prix too plain, the Olds and Buick sturck a nice balance.
I was surpised to see there’s been no CC on the shrunken Monte Carlo or Regal.
Very nearly bought one, but had such a bad experience with my American car at the time that I jumped ship and bought a Toyota instead.
Genuine Torque thrusts and RWLs certainly make that ‘Bu look good. The coupe does have an attractive side profile, that pic with the 64 shows it, but the front and rear styling is just so dull, and the interior! Now there’s a case where a gutted race car interior would be a visual improvement!
Oh and I’m convinced the 2014 Camaro Z/28 recycled the 78 taillight molds!
You can’t go by what the sales brochures say,as far as engines go. Forget the LM1 350. It was a 78-79 Malibu 9C1 CopCar only option. I’ve searched far and wide for a LM1 Wagon. Aint never seen one so I’m assuming it aint never was available. Somewhere I have a bulletin that says so. For 78 you could have had a LM1 ElCamino with either automatic or a Saginaw 4-speed. For 79 the LM1 was only available in CA and only with the automatic. For 78-81 you could have had any V-8 with the 4-speed. For Chevrolet you could have had any V-6, except the Buick 3.8 with a 3 by the knee. After 82 it was all automatics.The only real freak of a G-Body that stands out today, as far as a factory installed LM1 goes is the 85-86 Mexican built,Mexican market MonteCarloSS. All were built with the Saginaw 4-speed on the Ramos Arizpe Mexico assembly plant with their ElCamino brothers.
I was lucky enough to buy a brand new ElCamino in 1978. Its was the Black Knight disco-decaled version with the 350 and automatic. I wanted a 4 speed so bad. I tried several times to order one but I guess the transmissions were in short supply. By the time my order finally went through and was built they were into the 79 model year and I didn’t want the 305 or so I thought. I ended up trading the 78 in on a fully loaded 79 SuperSport with the 305 and auto. Go figure? I consider myself a pioneer as far as GM G-Bodies go. Yes I know. I’m also a legend in my own mind too.LOL. I was probably the very first person on the planet to successfully autocross one(G-Body) back in 78 with my ElCamino. To all you dudes who today, think that all you need is a credit card and the www to build a ProTouring G-Body, you have nothing on me. I had to build and engineer my own stuff because nobody thought that this new design chassis was going to amount to anything. It was a good 10 years before I ever saw anything in the line of high performance suspension parts show up for the G-Body. And even than a G-Body was a rare sight on anything but the drag strip. Today those same type of parts are available months before the damn cars hit the showrooms.
Here’s a pdf copy of the 1979 Malibu dealer order guide and other documents. Great reading if you’re into these cars. http://www.gmheritagecenter.com/docs/gm-heritage-archive/vehicle-information-kits/Malibu/1979-Chevrolet-Malibu.pdf
Wow, I’ve never seen so many “terrific” and “elegant” in a GM post by Paul before 🙂
You must be fairly new here. I have a whole number of posts titled “GM’s Greatest Hits” starting with this one: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1970-camaro-gms-greatest-hit-1-even-pininfarina-praised-it/
You’ll find them in the American Brands Portal on the right.
I had a 1980 Malibu Sedan from 1996-1999. It was originally my Grandfather’s second car(He drove a 1980 Lesabre) in 1990 My grandfather gave the Bu to my folks(in 1988 he had bought a 86 Park Ave and never really drove the Bu) This was the entry level malibu with AM radio and vinyl seats. It was puke green. My brothers and I hated that damned car because sitting in the back seat in the summer with vinyl seats AND windows that did not roll down by design made life hell.
I got it in 96 when the folks bought a 1996 Century(the last year of the good Centurys). While I feel nostalgic when I think about it because it was my first car and passport to freedom, it really was a piece of crap. I named it Sir Issac Newton because gravity would make random crap fall off it. My folks always took care of it and i did also but it still was a total POS. It ate 3 speed THM-200C transmissions like nothing else (Not that the THM200C was a quality trans by any means at all)
Though it did start my love for A/G Body RWD cars(A body till 82 and G body from 82-88)
Below is my 1985 Cutlass Supreme sedan I bought last July for $1000
GM’s little Limosene, very nice buy on a very sweet ride. in california this qualifies now as an antique car, for insurance, smog purposes. temptarion on gm’s classic hits.
there is a white 86-87 delta 88 2 door with leather for sale near me. looks clean
I never had a Malibu but some years ago seeing one up close in traffic made me really want to get one. I already had my Caprice and wanted to see what the mid-size GM’s were like of the era, I figured they had to be just as good, just smaller.
I came across an ’83 Bonneville that I sunk some time and money into as a daily for about three years, sold it last June. My only gripes were that the ride was harsh and the footwells were cramped compared to what I was used to. I don’t know if it was a Pontiac thing with the stiff suspension or the smaller size tires (205/75/14 was what the door tag called for, it wore 195’s)caused it. The ride was the main reason I sold it. Power really wasn’t too bad with the 3.8 and MPG’s were good. Was mostly reliable other than age problems, the rear main seal was shot and expensive to have repaired and it needed a cat. Great handling car though and pleasant to drive, but made me long for a roomy, floaty full size again.
Sure, would have been cool to see a Malibu SS version, as there was a MC SS in the 80’s, but personal lux body won out. Olds tried a fastback 442 that tanked.
—–
“It was a good 10 years before I ever saw anything in the line of high performance suspension parts show up for the G-Body”
Agreed, i was hoping to see hot rodded Malibus, etc, in early 80’s, but there were still plenty of 60’s cars around to ‘hop up’ then. Wasn’t until late 80s/90s that G bodies got ‘street cred’. Younger Gen X’ers are not as baised against the G’s, as “Pre 72 only” Boomers. Buick Grand National was a halo car that gave some cred to G line.
“Buick Grand National was a halo car that gave some cred to G line.”
I might mention that I traded my 79 ElCamino(Malibu truck) in for a 85 MonteCarloSS, than traded the MCSS in on a barely used 86 GN in 1987. I campaigned my GN for almost 20 years in SCCA Solo2 and an ocassional open track event.I was the only G-Body for a very long time. I was the first(and only,to my knowledge) person to run a G-Body in the SCCA Solo2 National Championship, in 1997. I hate to say mechanical gremlins placed me in the bottom 50% of the standings. I was a regional champion for most of the late 90’s with my GN. In 2000 I left the cold midwest for warmer climates and more money by moving to FL. I never had much time for racing but I did manage to build a 82 Regal for the Grassroots Motorsports $2005 Challenge. Again mechanical gremlins caused me to place poorly there too. In a way I feel responsable for giving the G-Body some of it’s creed. I never was one to go with the flow.Leave the import sport cars,Camaros,Mustangs and Corvettes to lesser drivers. My mantra was always “it’s the driver,not the car”. I often wonder if the 3rd generation F-Body hadn’t come onto the scene, would the G-Body be as popular today as a viable alternative to these pony cars. What I mean is the F-Body shares some of its suspension with the G-Body.
The downsized GM intermediates had some of the worst bench seats I’ve ever sat on. And over the years, they would sag toward the middle like nobody’s business. Cheap.
Monte Carlos, Cutlasses, Regals, Grand Prix’s, Camaros and Firebirds were the hot cars to have when I was in high school in the 80s. I had a 77 GP and then an 86 Cutlass but I was always more partial to the cleaner look of the Malibus.
It may seem coincidental as the result of mandatory downsizing but when the Malibus were Downsized in 1978 with the 2 Door Coupes through 1981 and the redesign of their 4 Door Sedans in 1981 that besides their sizes, the end design always mimic the ones used by the 1975-79 Chevrolet Nova. I only used the photos of certain models like the 1977 Chevrolet Nova Concours (in 1978 the Nova Custom name was resurrected which used the same grilles as the 1977 Nova Concours) 2 Door Coupe (Top Left), next to the 1980 Chevrolet Malibu Classic 2 Door Landau Coupe (Top Right) and beneath those a 1979 Chevrolet Nova 4 Door Sedan (Bottom Left), next to the 1981 Chevrolet Malibu 4 Door Sedan (Bottom Right). Both cars may have parallel themselves almost semi mirror image of one another. Same can be said with their Pontiac, Oldsmobile & Buick cousins as well of certain years within their production lives.
This car is currently on craigslist for 5800 it’s a nice car.http://eugene.craigslist.org/cto/4498184737.html
I prefer the appearance of the Malibu over the Monte Carlo for 1978; it’s much cleaner. Too bad these cars were so handicapped otherwise, it’s just a great clean design.
They should have made an SS package sport coupe with console shift, full gauge package, sport rims, raised white letter bigger tires, leather wrapped Trans Am type steering wheel, and a decent engine with dual exhaust. It should have a much improved suspension package.
Make mine black & silver two tone
When the 4 Door Sedan versions of the 1982-83 Malibu received a new grille, they were somehow mimic that of the 1975 1/2-76 Seville as you can see from this photo posting. The Malibu and Seville may look similar especially after the 4 Door Sedans were redesigned in 1981 but the Seville was still a larger and heavier car. The 1G Seville measured in at 204.0″ and weighs in on the average at 4300 pounds. The Malibu 4 Door Sedan meanwhile measured in at 192.7″ and weighs in at least 3100. This makes the Seville at least almost 11.3″ or less than a foot longer than the Malibu and at least 1200 pounds heavier than the Malibu.
I rented a 1978 Malibu for a week down east, when it was a new car. I drove it several hundred miles without problem, and being a new design at the time, it got lots of looks. I’m not sure if they were “What a nice car” looks, or more “What is that young kid with long hair doing out here on the Trans Canada with Dad’s new car” looks.
I quite liked the car in any event, and drove it through a variety of weather which it handled well. I believe it would have had the V6 in it.
Later, a relative got a gray ’81 or ’83 Malibu which I found much more unpleasantly stiffer to drive and ride in. Not that it was a bad car or anything, she never had any problem with it, but traded it early for an LTD. That’s when her car problems started.
I thought the ’75-’79 Nova Custom/Concours was a better looking car. In either coupe or four door versions. Especially when fitted with the rally wheels and trim rings. I generally found the design of the downsized Malibu blasé. Though I did like the wagons. Obviously, the Nova was a cheaper car, and had a strong working class image. But the Nova was a more stylish design IMO. Then and now. I particularly liked the forward located front wheel arches, and general proportions they shared with the Seville. Based purely on styling, I thought the Nova was a more elegant design.
At the time I thought GM should have adopted more modern pull up door handles on the second generation X bodies, for a fresher look. And to distance the refreshed design from the earlier Novas. But today, I find I prefer the traditional push button handles. Like used on the Seville.
I have to agree, although the Malibu may’ve had better space utilization than the Nova.
In the fall of ‘76 right after I got my license, my Dad was in the market for a smaller car, and we got a ‘77 Concours 2-Door Coupe, his first small car after years of full sizers, and it was beautiful, Firethorn Red with a “That 70’s” red crushed velour interior. He bought it right off the showroom floor, a first for him. Like the pictured car, it had no vinyl top and was quite a stunner.
Had the downsized Malibu been out at the time, we may’ve ended up with one of those. While I too don’t like the Malibu as much as the Nova, I thought these made for the best looking el Caminos ever. Something about the shape of these worked well in that application, with the only downside being the use of the wagon bumper and taillights on them. That was a bit of a letdown, but IMO, these were the best looking of all the el Caminos.
A friend of mine in high school had a 78 Malibu coupe. It was tan and pretty sedate looking until he started it up and rattled the schools windows and did a burnout pulling out haha. Sadly he took his own life a few months after we graduated. Seeing one of these always makes me think of him.
This generation of Malibu was still fairly common on the road when I was in high school in the mid 1990s. Back then I just thought of them as boring old Chevies. The fact that by then most of them were old beaters probably didn’t help my opinion of them either. But looking at this one now I can appreciate the handsome styling, and it’s just nice to see a car that you really hardly ever see anymore.
I must not have b e en around when this was first posted. As you can see by my avatar I own a’79 coupe and have since it was new. In fact I ordered it to suit my taste. It has the 267 engine which has given me very little trouble over the years. It also has the four speed manual transmission and the F41 suspension. It may be the only one equiped that way. You are right, the F41 really made it handle great when new. The suspension is a little tired now after 40 years and 167,000 miles,some of which were a little hard.
Rick, do you have better pic of your car? You’ve mentioned many times over the years, I would love to see a better pic (the avatar is tiny!) The 267 has a bad reputation (the 262 was worse and had less power), but other than being weak and offering no significant fuel savings over a 305, they were still a SBC and fine in other respects. So I am not surprised your’s served you well.
I would like to do that, however in all honesty I have never been able to figure out how to post a picture. That’s even after reading the instructions. I have a lot of shots of this car and would like to post a COAL about it sometime. The avatar was shot about 3 years ago for a calander my car club was putting out. The Malibu was witness to most of the really good and really bad things that have occurred in my life in the last 40 years
Right now my computer is in the shop and I am using my old iPad. I should get it back the first of the week. Maybe then I can try again.
My first car was a 1978 Monte Carlo that I bought when I was 16 in 1986. It was black on black, and pretty much a stripper except for having air conditioning and 8 track. It had the 302 and I think around 90,000 miles on it when I bought it for $1200. I could not seem to keep that car in the road no matter what, wrecking it at least four times. It did not like curves at all.
These are what poor families in our neighborhood drove in the nineties, especially the wagons. They seemed to be everywhere, not particularly cared for or respected, but used and relied on.
I’ve heard someone say that the seating position in the a-bodies was one of the best ever, the height, wheel reach, etc. It’s been too long since I’ve been in one so I can’t remember. I do remember the weird stretchy-looking plastic throughout the interior that looked ready to leak stuffing or something.
Good write-up,I must have missed this article when it was originally posted. As much as I like the ’77-79 B-body Chevrolet two doors, I have to agree stylistically the Malibu was a cleaner design. They were sized pretty closely to that of a ’55 Chevy and a ’64 Malibu, but of course the ’78 Malibu had a considerably shorter wheelbase (108″). Yet, despite that, it’s proportions looked decent for the times. I agree with other’s though that the interiors were a big let down, even cheaper than the Colonnade Chevy’s that preceded it.
One thing that should be mentioned is the transmissions. A TH 250 was just a lighter duty TH 350 transmission. It had an intermediate band in place of an intermediate clutch pack. It was typically used on base model engines, like the 250 six, once the PG left the line-up. The really problematic transmission was the TH200, which had “metric” stamped on it’s pan as it was one of GM’s first metric transmission. This transmission used a TV cable rather than a vacuum modulator of the TH350/250. It also used different gear ratios, with a 2.74:1 first gear vs the 2:52 of the TH350/250. The TH200 was designed to be light weight to help increase fuel economy and had serious durability issues. The best thing to do with one is replace it with something else.
I always really liked these Malibu coupes. My brother and I hunted for one for many years, but they were hard to find. And most around here were hot rodded at a young age and sold for a good chunk of change. The handling dynamics on these cars were excellent with the F41 suspension, better than the B-bodies IMO.
My friend had one of these in the early 90s. It was two-tone blue, with rally wheels and the small V8. No muscle car, but a very nice comfortable cruiser. It drove much nicer than I had expected it to. I wish it had been my car.
How cool is this? The author used a picture of MY ’78, in this side shot comparison. I seriously feel honored. Lol.