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, the big 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 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 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.
Paul, an accurate and insightful account. When I walked into Chevy dealers as a kid to build my collection of brochures, the newly delivered Malibu struck me as very plain looking parked next to the left over Collonades in the back lot. The passage of time has highlighted their clean design in my eyes though, just leave off the dreaded vinyl roof. As to the Monte, compared to the outgoing model, it was a cartoon. I never understood how they sold so many when the Cutlass and the Regal offered such cleaner designs. My GF had a 78 with the 4 bbl, it really had some scoot. Purchased only because it had new transmission and her Dad was a diehard Chevy guy.
I didn’t care for the styling of the ’78-79 Monte Carlo, but went for ’86-88 Euro front ended Monte Carlo LS and got an ’86.
Newly married in early 1970s I considered a Chevy wagon for the family lifestyle I was planning, but wife wanted a Monte, so we ordered a ’75. It was a wonderful car and eye catching at red with white interior and white vinyl top and rally wheels. The 350″ engine seemed to move the car effortlessly and the TH350 transmission’s shifts were imperceptively smooth. Of course, still an emissions slug engine so semi-country driving yielded a max of 13 MPG… HEI ignition and unleaded gas meant the car, even sparkplugs were trouble free until rust put it into the junk yard with 200K+ miles after our use, Mom owning it, my brother owning it. However, I never cared for the body styling of it, seemed like a hodge podged of shapes put together to have something to go between front and rear bumpers and cover the four wheels/tires. I noticed the front wheels leaned a lot in camber when turned, so it had handling tricks… maybe part of its appeal to some buyers…
Some engines started getting good MPG again in ’76-77… some didn’t…
The Colonnade Monte Carlo was already a cartoon.
I think the 350 was only offered in the Malibu wagon in 1979, and not at all in California. Gone for good in 1980.
I had the similar 1978 Pontiac Grand Am. Fairly quick with the 301 4 bbl. Handled well with the handling suspension. Had the typical GM build quality issues of the time, but gave 100,000 miles of decent service. Then, everything started to fail in quick order.
Worse than that, IIRC the 350 was only offered in wagons with a California emissions package, even if it wasn’t available in California specifically, and that choked it down a bit to 160 hp. It also had the beefier THM350 transmission, which was more durable than the THM200, but sapped a bit more power, plus the 350 had a taller first and second gear ratio.
So I’m wondering if a wagon, with the 305-4bbl and THM200, might have been a bit quicker off the line than the 350-4 and THM350?
Yes, Paul, simple, inexpensive to maintain, attractive cars appealing to college students and retirees.
Compared to dealers having no qualms about quoting $2K – 10K for what seems like small repairs to newer cars.
I’ve got my eyes out for a ’64-65 Malibu convertible… I’ll add my choices of colors and drivetrain…
Did I read you’ve been under the weather lately?
Nope. Just got in from a long hike.
It was/is fair to complain about the non-opening rear windows on the 78+ A-body sedans and wagons, but the A-body coupes hadn’t had opening rear windows since 1972, so it’s fine with me that the 78+ coupes’ windows didn’t lower.
As a Certified Volvo Nut™, the 1978 GM A-bodies – along with similar designs in the same-year FoMoCo Fox-bodies – both feel like they paid homage to the brilliance of design of the 1967 140-series (and the derivative 240). Simple shapes, upright cabin, and glassy greenhouse.
I think the 350 was only available in wagons in 1979, and not at all in California. In 1980 it was gone forever.
At the time and now, I preferred the sloped rear windows of the ’78 era A-body coupes and sedans, from Chevrolet and Pontiac. As opposed to the formal roof treatment, all four divisions adopted for 1980. Same applies, to the M-body Dodge Diplomat, and Chrysler LeBaron. And the Fairmont/Zephyr, relative to the more formal roof on the 1981 Granada.
I liked the more casual and traditional look, of each of these sedans, and coupes. I felt the formal roof styles were going to be a fad, and soon dated. It was fresh on the Seville. Tired, thereafter. AS GM flogged the look in the ’80’s. Chrysler becoming the near lone outlier by the late 80’s, with the long-running Fifth Avenue, the Dynasty/Imperial, and the Acclaim/Spirit. Though of course, Chrysler design was widely considered, well behind the times.
Don’t recall too many street versions of the ’78 era Malibu coupes. Colonnade Malibus, and ’75 era Novas, appearing more popular here in Central Canada, for street modifications. I’ve mentioned here before, I preferred the design of the ’75 era three-door Nova hatchback, to this Malibu notchback. Found the ’78 Malibu coupe and sedan, a touch too conservative-appearing, for my tastes.
I think the criticism of the Malibu to the “hips and tits” Monte Carlo misses the mark. Look at the profile picture of the ’64 Chevelle and you see what? Hips.
In 1978 if you wanted plain flat lines you got a Malibu. If you wanted curves and style – the Monte Carlo was the way to go.
It may seem trite now, but circa July/August 1979, this tune would have been a definitive summertime small town main street America/Canada cruising song for this Malibu. lol
In many ways, this Malibu coupe appears like a fuller, more heavily-built, robust, and red-blooded version of Fairmont two-door sedan styling. I don’t find the design comparison, flattering to the Ford.
“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’ve used the junkyard to keep my ’87 El Camino going for about ten years now, and the supply is definitely dwindling. In the five main yards in Denver, about 6 or 7 A/G bodies have passed through in the last year. Ten years ago, you could count on one or two cars being “in stock” out there on any given day.
In contrast, Autozone still reliably provides maintenance parts, but fewer and fewer are stocked in store.
The ’78 A/G body was an attractive, clean design I immediately liked when they were introduced (save for the aerobacks and the overwrought Grand Prix. Even the Monte Carlo was a bit refreshing showing that space-efficient cars needn’t be boxy. The interiors were a mixed bag – the Chevrolets too sparse, but the Pontiacs looked stunning and the other two not bad. These also were the last GM cars that were simple (mostly)V8/RWD/BOF canvases for your ideas, with loads of mix-and match parts available from the different divisions and model years these were available. The Fox platform was somewhat analogous at Ford (though in unibody form), but most Fox parts were Mustang-oriented whereas GM A/G parts had no main recipient. The Malibu is a canvas for whatever you want your car to be, and modifying it is easier than in any subsequent GM car.
Very true about the 200 V-6, it had few takers anyway. Most of these cars came with the Chevy-built 229 V-6 (derived from the 305 V-8) or if sold in California the Buick-built 231 V-6. As for the transmission many of these were equipped with the notorious Turbo 200, but in a light car with a low power V-6 the Turbo 200 was probably (barely) adequate. The Turbo 250C was in some GM A bodies of that era, that was actually a Turbo 350 derivative and as such a pretty good transmission.
The A/G bodies seem like the last of a GM era for me, a V8 (sometimes)/RWD/BOF simply-engineered car with a huge smorgasbord of mix-and-match parts that would fit from the various divisions that offered them and years they were made. Most of these were pretty to look at too, the exceptions being the Monte, Grand Prix, and the Aerobacks, I didn’t care for the late formal-roof Malibu or Lemans either. Too bad GM seemed to given up on these early, thinking the FWD A bodies or something else would take their place. The Malibu coupe was amongst my favorites, along with the Pontiac Grand LeMans relative. Later renditions of the G-body Monte Carlo looked better. Chevy A/G body interiors were unfortunately cheap-looking; the Pontiacs looked best. One could argue the Fox platform served the same function at Ford (though in unibody form), but most Fox parts are Mustang-oriented whereas there was no definitive GM A/G body that most of the relevant parts are designed for.
A close friend ordered a likely Malibu coupe unicorn (either a ’78 or ’79, I can’t recall which). It was a 305 with a 4-speed manual and the handling suspension (F41?). A good handler and pretty quick for those days.
The take rate on a manual was so low that there was an obviously painted-over PRNDL at the bottom of the speedometer, where the automatic quadrant would have been.
Thanks for a nice write up on these cars. As the original and still owner of a ’79 coupe I have 46 years of living with one of these to reflect on. I ordered mine to suit my taste. It has the F41 suspension, power sunroof, bucket seats, rally wheels, four speed manual transmission and the much maligned 267 V8. I ordered the engine because I thought it would get better gas mileage having traded in a 4 cylinder Mustang II. That engine has been relatively trouble free with only a rear main seal replacement 20 years ago. Not bad since it got a lot of abuse when it was new. I broke the 4 speed once right before taking it on vacation, but fixed it myself. My car is dead stock except having the carburetor rejetted early on and a change of the springs in the distributor to help the advance.
I fell in love with the styling of these the first time I saw one. I’m a Ford guy but also thinks the early Fairmonts look cheap. I also don’t care for the ’78-’80 Monte Carlo, even though I have had to correct many people when they have referred to my car as a Monte.
When I bought my car I never thought I would own it over a couple of years. I have lost count of the number of people who have tried to buy it from me. It has been with me through good times and some really bad ones, but it is still here. I try to drive it at least once a week in all but winter.
I am working on a COAL for this car, but haven’t had the time to finish it. Yep, that old Chevy sitting out in the garage with my ’66 Mustang is the most significant vehicle of my life.
Beautiful car, sounds like it is just about the perfect spec for one of these
While living in British Columbia in the late 90’s I came very close to buying a 1979 Chevrolet Malibu wagon with the 350 V8 and the three speed auto, I bought a 1975 Olds Delta 88 with a 455, stoked I got the Olds but always wondered what that Malibu would’ve been like (a little more practical for starters). I always supposed there would’ve been some similarities with the Holdens from ‘72 through ‘80, dang it sucks to die wondering.
That’s a nice survivor and fun to find today. I wouldn’t turn one down, either. But in 1979, the only reason to get a Malibu coupe over a Monte Carlo was either to save $246 bucks (the difference in base price) or to get the 350 and F41, which were not available on the Monte, in a slightly lighter car.
There’s a reason why the Malibu was a mediocre seller. It fell between two chairs, the Nova and the Monte Carlo. The Nova, still available in ’79, was over $1000 cheaper, even lighter and also available with the 350, if one was terminally thrifty or a hot rodder or both.
And for just a little more than the Malibu, the Monte came with some nice (if non-essential) standard upgrades, such as better sound insulation, dual speed wipers, full wheel covers, electric clock and a few others. Put all those options on the Malibu and the price would have been almost the same. But of course, the main thing that the extra money bought was STYLE. The Monte was a very stylish car in 1979. The Malibu, unless it got equipped strictly for power and handling, was just meh.
Sorry, but I like hips and tits (of course I’m biased, I own a ’79 Monte).
To each his own. I wanted one of those Malibus from the first time I saw one, and as I said, I am a Ford guy. Then I saw in a magazine where you could get a handling suspension and a four speed and that sealed the deal. Comfort and convenience and a soft ride have never been big selling points for me. I like something that is fun to drive and handles well. Price also wasn’t an issue when ordering this car as it probably cost a little more than a base Monte Carlo. Don’t get me wrong, I like Monte Carlos too and have come close to owning one a time or two, but the Malibu is a better fit for me. When I ordered it I was kind of trying to create a G body Chevelle Super Sport for myself.
As I said, the Malibu was the better choice for performance, and that’s exactly the reason you chose it. You made the right decision that fit your style. But most Malibus weren’t equipped like yours. Your comment about the Chevelle made me smile. We all wanted a 1960s Chevelle in the early 1980s, while making do with what was available. But I remember seeing Malibu coupes treated as substitute Chevelles long before people began to see Monte Carlos in that light, too.
Before I ordered mine I test drove a V6 automatic sedan. What a pig! It also handled like a brick. I have only seen one other four speed Malibu and one with the sunroof, which still doesn’t leak. I like vinyl roofs but avoided the top of the line Landau because I didn’t like the half roof on the Malibu although I think it looks good on the Monte Carlo. You are right, I got just what I wanted, but if I had it to do over again I might have ordered the 350. Also, cruise control would be nice for all those long trips with the family over the years, but it was not available with a manual transmission.
By the way, that F41 suspension has gotten me out of some real close calls a few times.