(first posted 12/12/2013) While it may be expected that the rearmost windows in a coupe, SUV, or minivan won’t roll down, is it too much to ask for windows that roll down in a sedan? Apparently, because rear windows of all 4-door 1978-83 Chevrolet Malibus (and its A-/G-body siblings) were fixed. Microscopic vent windows were the only way rear passengers could get fresh air in an A-/G-body Malibu – much to the dismay of many tail-wagging dogs I imagine.
I have no official information from General Motors, but fixed rear windows were no doubt a cost-saving measure. Visually, no other design elements would interfere with the functionality of roll-down rear windows. And considering the relatively low amount of safety features by today’s standards on early-’80s American cars, I doubt this move was for safety reasons. That said, I can’t imagine eliminating window roll-down mechanisms saved that much money per vehicle, especially considering that the majority were sold without power windows in the first place.
So maybe it didn’t save GM many pennies per car, but it’s very possible that the decision to eliminate an inexpensive feature prompted buyers to purchase a much more expensive option – air conditioning. It was an evil trick to get customers to buy more, but no less a clever one, and automakers are still using similar packaging tactics today.
Malibus originally came in base and up-level Custom trims. However by the time ’83 rolled around, this Malibu’s final year, choice was reduced to just the base model with a number of available options. Judging from the interior, this one was pretty sparsely optioned. This flat, non-split cloth bench would appear to be the standard seat choice.
Here’s a lovely view of the rear seat confines; at least there’s plenty of glass to see out. I guess a lack of opening rear windows made the Malibu a good choice for police departments. Thankfully GM thought of its smoking patrons when it provided rear seat occupants with an ashtray. If not they’d have to sit with their arm over their shoulder to flick ashes from their cigarettes out those tiny vent windows.
The look of our featured car first appeared in 1978, replacing the Colonnade Malibus. In the process, they lost 8 inches in wheelbase and nearly a foot in overall length, as well as 4 inches of width, and depending on the model, as much as 1,000 lbs. The “Chevelle” prefix was also lost in the redesign.
Malibu sedans originally had a more steeply-raked roofline design. Thankfully, the Malibu wasn’t cursed with the nightmarish fastback roofline its Buick and Oldsmobile cousins were infected with. In 1981, the Malibu sedan did adopt these cars’ more upright notchback roofline, which first appeared one year earlier.
I much prefer the redesigned roofline. It provided a dose more of formality that was right in step with the onward and upward culture of the eighties. Equally welcomed updates in your author’s opinion, included 1982’s redesigned front clip with quad headlights and egg-crate grille. With these new styling features, the Malibu was starting to look like a mini Impala – certainly not a bad thing though.
It could just be because this one’s in white, but this car aches for a vinyl Landau roof. It just looks so plain. This is why out of all the flavors of the A-/G-body, my favorite is the Pontiac Bonneville. I think it’s styling elements best accentuated the simple three-box design.
Now I should probably address something I’ve eluded to several times earlier, that this generation Malibu was both an A-body and G-body. When it debuted as a 1978, it rode on the RWD A-body, as it had in the past. GM having to confuse things of course, decided to name its new FWD midsize platform “A-body”, requiring the former’s name change to “G” in 1982. Our ’83 Malibu here is thus a G-body.
As mentioned, 1983 was the last year for this generation Malibu. Chevrolet put the nameplate on hiatus until it graced another very plain car, the 1997 N-body Malibu. At least its rear windows rolled down.
G-bodies of this vintage are getting pretty thin on the ground here in New England, but a few months ago I found a daily driver Pontiac Le Mans in suburban Boston. I chatted with the owner and I remember he said it was a 1979, but I might be off by a year.
I think this Pontiac was the best looking of the 4-doors, with its light, airy greenhouse. In correcting their mistake with the hunchback Buick and Oldsmobile, GM overdid it by putting the “sheer look” formal roof line on all the 4-doors. They also messed up an important detail: the shape of the vent pane has never looked right and should been narrower at the top than the bottom. I can’t think of any engineering reason why they could not have done it the correct way. This always catches my eye.
For the “formal” roof, GM used the rear doors of the 1978 A wagons without any real changes. It was something of a panic move after the sales failure of the aero sedans.
We could wonder what if Chevrolet and Pontiac also had made aero sedans for the Malibu and the LeMans? Would that disaster could had been as big as the 1962 Dodge and Plymouth “plucked chicken”?
Read, you’ve hit the nail on the head with this: I’ve always thought too that the rear part of the roof area on these is just a bit too formal and too upright, and the shape of the ventpane is indeed a big part of the problem. It all just looks a little dorky, especially from the rear quarter view. It’s a shame because here in Canada, I’ve been tempted in the past to pick up one of the “Iraqi Taxi” Malibus that still come up for sale here every once in a while—these are 1981 Malibus that were special-ordered by the government of Iraq, with some very unique features like heavy duty cooling systems and (best of all) 3-speed floor shift manual transmissions. But the deal with Iraq fell through for some reason, so GM Canada dumped them on the market here instead, at greatly reduced prices—and every skinflint in the country immediately made his or her way down to their local Chevy dealer to snap one up. It would be such a fun car to own and drive today—but I’ve never been able to get past that awkward roofline design.
I’ve always wondered if someone was able to use doors from a 75-79 Seville on an A/G body with the formal roof. They appear to share the same rear half as the Cadillac. [All visual I’m sure. GM would never dilute Cadillac’s image like that.sarc/]
Easy to confuse a Cutlass or Regal with one when it’s tarted up with vinyl, bright work and fancy wheels.
Helluva an effort just to get roll down rear windows on a 1981 Malibu, I’d thin.
I’ve drive 2 doors with fixed rear windows, no problem, though it bugs me. A four door with the same produces much anxiety. Having one would always irritate.
Don’t try to analyze it, it’s irrational and makes no sense.
Of course I’d trade that for the visibility of a 78 Malibu any day over currently available sedans, if given a choice.
No. No I wouldn’t. The idea suffocates me. Shouldn’t be an either/or choice in the first place.
The rear window on GM’s 1964-1965 A Body midsize 4doors did not have rear vent windows like Mopars and Fords. The rear window on these GMs didn’t roll down all the way, leaving about 4”-5” of window due to design, it was probably sold as a safety idea too. The ‘66-‘67 A Bodies had a 4dr hardtop, but I imagine the sedan’s window still did not roll down all the way.
When the A Body was downsized in ‘78 GM should of had the rear window on 4dr go down over half way. The fixed window was a bad idea – how I hated riding in the backseat of the Driver’s Ed ‘79 Le Mans. I remember this design was explained as weight saving idea. GM had a history of 2 door fixed windows starting with the flagship 1971 Cadillac Eldorado’s Opera Window, by the eighties it was assumed a new design would not have operational windows on two doors. Maybe the bustle-back Seville should of started the fixed 4dr window trend?!
This facelift has the same exact problem the 1973 Nova had, the reuse of the fenders from the original forward angled nose and the resulting arbitrary cutlines for the new upright header panel. It looks cheap and lazy.
The fixed rear windows thing really stinks in an car where A/C was still optional equipment. Talk about a legitimate penalty box if you don’t check that option off, the turbulence generated from having the front windows down and the rear glass up in a 4 door sedan is intolerable. Though at least those pop out vent windows were added to the new roofline as a partial fix
You’d think they’d change that since they added the side marker light cutout.
1982-87 El Camino fans don’t care about the “arbitrary cutlines for the new upright header panel”.
Also, many buyers didn’t think the car’s windows were “intolerable”. The sedans were meant to be killed off in ’82, but Olds version lasted until ’87 from continued sales.
It’s a subtle indicator of how much care went into the design of the car, I don’t care if El Camino fans didn’t mind it – they also didn’t seem to mind that there was no 1988 El Camino either…
The Olds by nature of being upper trim was more likely to be equipped with A/C, on a Malibu maybe not so much.
Eliminating roll down rear windows was NOT a cost saving measure. It was done to preserve the hip and shoulder room in these downsized 1978 era A body sedans & wagons. It met with quite a bit of resistance at first but was no where near as controversial as the original fastback roof design of the Buick and Olds sedans. That miscalculation was remedied with a Seville-style roofline for the 1980 models.
Despite the non-opening rear windows, I have always liked the G-Body Malibus. G-Bodys were everywhere when I was growing up and I thought the Malibus were best looking out of the bunch; they just have a clean, attractive look to them. They were perfectly sized, good-looking, well-built, and easy to work on; along with the B-bodys, they are truly the last of the great cars from GM. I rode in a lot of back seats of a lot of G-bodys back then and don’t ever remember the windows being an issue as all of the ones I knew of had air conditioning. There are still a handful of G-bodys around here that are still driven daily by their owners, mainly Cutlasses and Regals.
History has also been kind to these cars, there are entire restoration catalogs devoted to them and they are still very popular as hot rods, restored classics, racecars and low riders; cant really say that about their FWD replacements. Anybody seen an ’82 Celebrity lately?
I have a 9C1 (police package) Malibu that is one of the most fun cars Ive ever built. It has a mild 383 with a TH700 and handles as well as any late model sedan. Its the not the fastest or best looking car out there but it does a little bit of everything well and its a blast to drive, truly a testament to the basic design of these cars
LTDan, I’d rock that car in a heartbeat. I’m still a little sore that my parents traded in their 81 Century (a fellow G sedan) right before I got to driving age because I wanted to buy it from them. The Gs are solid vehicles and I still like the styling.
(I’ll get over it eventually, it was only 28 years ago)
G bodies have a huge cult following, and there are many fan sites online and Facebook.
Who wants an to tinker with an old Celeb or Ciera? Those were the ultimate “Granny cars” of the past 30 years. Most are in “FWD only” demo derbies.
Since the vast majority of comments are complaints about the elimination (for whatever reason) of roll-down rear windows in the A/G, it seems almost Chrysler-like in shooting oneself in the foot and could have been avoided, the one negative feature everyone remembers about the car. Otherwise, it was a relatively benign, decent car for the times which, for a late seventies’ GM product, is high praise, particularly considering that the abysmal X-body was just around the corner.
Yeah, we had a ’78 Malibu four door did we get rid of it because of the windows? No. That wasn’t really the problem it was that the rest of the car was half – baked: Three times in four years we had to have the speedometer replaced. Four times we had to have clicking hydraulic lifters replaced. Something continually weren’t wrong with the front suspension, what if was escapes me.
The automatic transmission went bad. There were just a host of malaise -era issues that drive us from the car, into a 1982 Subaru sedan, never to look back at an American car again oh, wait, that’s not true. We just never looked at GM again. My father went out and bought a new, first gen Taurus in 1987? I was wholly into Studebakers by then, driving my first ’66 Commander.
See, people buy whatever crap is for sale. It takes a lot of effort, as GM certainly made, to drive folks from their stable.
I couldn’t believe it when I first found out these had non-functioning rear windows, what a dumb idea.
By speaking about windows theories , what think about a window were you could not even stick your head through just like the one on last gen Camaro ? Glass are too costly ? Lol … and urge you to buy the rearview cam option .
I am not sure why the 81-83 Malibus had fixed rear door windows. However on the 78-80 there was no way that those windows were going to roll down due to the shape of the door and the length of the window. The hump of the rear wheels was too close to the door.
The 81-83 had a smaller window so it should have been able to go halfway down. Perhaps GM knew they were going to kill off the Bu in favor of the Celebrity so they did not waste the extra money on this?
I agree was a dumb idea, and the claim was for “more elbow room”.
But, doesn’t stop them from being popular project cars 30-40 years after production. Many online sites for fans, and more collectable than any Celebrity/etc.
You wanna roll down the rear windows?
This is how you do it.
I even saw one in Kyoto last april.
Malibu Wagon.
Could be worse, could of had the dreadful 267 C.I. small block (mercifully discontinued in 1982). Broken crankshaft, broken camshaft, prematurely worn out block, take your pick of engine ills.
BTW, subjective of course, but I think the original 1978 version was better looking; this thing looks like a horizontal kitchen freezer IMHO.
” [78-82] Malibus originally came in base and up-level Custom trims.”
No, no, no, it was Malibu and Malibu Classic, for 1978-82. For 83, there was a CL trim package.
Here is why Aerobacks is still my favorite: because of this very beautiful lever on the floor without console .
With a *5 speed* offered in 1978 only – or was it 1979? – on the Olds. But I’ve seen a late ’70s Grand Prix with a stick and no console too, so it wasn’t just the aerobacks that offered them. Could you get the manual and center console in the same car? How about with a bench seat?
Even my long-gone ’79 Fairmont wagon had roll-down rear door windows, just sayin’…
Fairmonts were a triple-threat when it came to fresh air ventilation through the side glass area. In addition to standard roll-down rear door windows the Malibu lacked, there were also optional swinging front vent windows. The really unique option though was one that replaced the usual fixed glass in the C pillars with functional louvers that could be opened by rear-seat passengers with a lever, bringing fresh air (but no rain) into the car through the vents visible in this photo. The downside to this approach (vs. GM’s opening rear vent window) was that it reduced outward visibility with the glass panel replaced with the vent louvers. These were optional on two-door sedans as well (but not on the basket-handle Futura coupes), where the fixed rear side windows were slightly reduced in size to make way for the outside louvers and inside vent.
I realize this story is a few years old, but I fixed GM’s mistake. You’re welcome. I used gutted rear doors and regulators from the next-gen A-body (86 Celebrity) and VW window lift channels. Goes down 7″ or so.
That’s awesome! Since my experience with my Grandpa’s Malibu, I’ve always wondered if there was a way to convert them to a regular window that can open.
My Grandpa had a plain Jane 1983 Malibu wagon with those awful rear vent windows. It had air conditioning but unfortunately, my Grandpa never used it because he believed rolling down the front windows was far more economical! That was fine if you were in the front seat but not in the back on a hot summer day. Those vents did provide a little relief but my Grandpa didn’t drive fast enough to create a breeze in the car. Then one hot day, I opened the vent before we left and the entire vent fell out! I managed to keep it from totally falling off.
My Dad got so angry at me for “breaking” Grandpa’s car even though Grandpa said it wasn’t my fault! It turned out it had rusted whatever kept the vent window in place and Grandpa had someone weld it permanently in place. Shortly afterwards, Grandpa bought a Crown Victoria and the Malibu became his basic second car. Looking back, it pisses me off that I got blamed for a major design flaw when I was just a kid who was sweltering in the back and wanted some ventilation! That was the only thing I hated about those cars otherwise they decent vehicles. I actually thought the LeMans/Bonneville versions looked good!
Interesting the fuss over the fixed rear windows.
The Austin A30 similarly had fixed windows in the rear doors, with an opening vent window. I hated riding in the back and not being able to open the window. How do you wave goodbye through a quarter vent?
But it was a British economy car from the austerity era. This was an American family car, from an era of prosperity.
How strange that GM never saw the error of their ways. Throughout the production run, they never modified the design to fix this. The Chevy got a packing-crate roofline, but still without opening windows. They could have made the windows open, surely. And even the Buick and Olds soldiered on with fixed glass.
Weird.
There’s a lot of poo being flung at GM for this, but we had a 1978 Delta 88 and the rear windows only went down a short way. By no means fixed and immovable as these, but not that their other cars windows were fully-opening.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the 1978-81 Buick Century(I owned two 81s) was an A-body. Late-70s A-bodies became Gs ONLY AFTER the new 1982 front wheel drive As were launched.
It frustrates me when people generalize all 1978-and later GM A bodies as Gs out of convenience or just laziness. There is a distinction, folks.
GM touted the fixed rear windows for increasing elbow room by allowing recessed armrests, as well as a slight weight savings. In actuality, the recessed armrests were awful. The recessed section was too far forward to use comfortably; the doorjamb got in the way of your elbow so you had to scoot your whole arm forward from where it would naturally rest, and awkwardly push your arm into the available space. A conventional armrest that juts inward would have been much more comfortable to use, despite technically having less width.
Cars with optional power windows got power rear vents too, controllable by the driver or rear passenger.
Chevrolet made the rear seating even more claustrophobic in 1981-83 Malibus that they already were in 1978-80 by adopting the new squared-off roofline without the windows behind the rear doors (which previously was the openable part), leading to thick C pillars this generation of Malibu didn’t previously have.
The recessed section was too far forward to use comfortably
Yeah, I remember that from my dad’s ’78 Century. It was only useful as a grab handle. He really liked the looks of the Regal but thought he’d need the extra doors. The back seat was used a handful of times in the 8 years he drove it.
I guess GM thought the massive success of the formal Colonnade coupes and the ’74+ B&C coupes meant they could get away with small vents on sedans and wagons.
I’m of two minds here. First, truth be told I very rarely even open the front windows in a car, even without A/C if it has halfway decent ventilation. And the rears, ha ha ha ha ha… But… I do know people who regardless of the weather will open the drivers window before they even start it.
But. There are certain things that are just expected, like say, two windshield wipers. And windows that at least roll partway down in a 4 door car. Even if I’d never use them. So it comes across to me as just another GM **** you. If there wasn’t room in the door, and I bet there was for at least part way, at least put in hinged pop out windows like many 2 doors have. It’s but one of a million reasons GM went bankrupt a couple of decades later. People who do use them remember stuff like this.
You want your product to EXCEED expectations – so doing this to the rear door windows is FAILING to exceed, or even MEET expectations. GM products were built to be “good enough”, which isn’t good enough.
I like the Lemans/Bonneville best out of these. The Malibus always seemed very plain. All of these As/Gs were still a big part of the Carscape well into the 90s.
But GM did make some odd decisions in these years. Why keep the Malibu after the Celebrity was out for 2 more years? It made sense at the depths of the 1981-82 recession to kill off some of the largest cars. The prior 10 years had seen an underperforming economy combined with high inflation and two gas shocks. Even after Reagan won in 1980 the malaise had its final act with the aforementioned recession. Still you would think the H and C body FWDs (which should have been out for 83-84) would have been far enough along that warming over a too small 6 year old design as the flagship would not have been serious. Also it was odd Chevy never got an H body to sell considering how GM was then.
This is all very relevant now. Mary Barra’s GM has bet hard on electric but now she has a situation where the modern version of this class (the CUV) is being neglected by GM, the torch carried by outdated, underpowered products (Equinox/Terrain) Meanwhile EVs keep getting delayed and or selling poorly and Barra admitted GM needs more hybrids. This comes as demand booms for the RAV4/CRV hybrids which blow GMs entrants away. Another time where product decisions at GM don’t make muvj sen