(first posted 1/12/2017) Why, this 1983 Malibu! We have run the full gamut GM Deadly Sins, and I figured this would make for a nice break from the topic of failures bearing “the mark of excellence.” Many A/G body cars have run on these pages, from hallowed models in the pantheon of GM greatness, to those which we’d prefer to forget. This true blue ’83 wagon definitely slots in closer to the former category, as it’s made of the most evolved classic midsize architecture. While it’s unremarkable insofar as it doesn’t show what the platform is capable of, it’s one of the final example of what led to the company’s dominance. At some point, this was the least you could expect from a GM family car, so let’s take a closer look.
The ’78 A body is fondly remembered by some, not so fondly remembered by others. It birthed the incomparable Buick Grand National, the final, all-American El Camino and the last real Monte Carlo. At the same time, the unloved aeroback sedans by Olds and Buick were cut from the same cloth, and seeing as this A/G generation spanned the height of the malaise era, there’s ample room for diversity of opinion.
The late production Chevrolet wagon is something of a rarity as far as I’m concerned, because I don’t often see this updated front-end on a wagon body. I also rarely see these cars quite this stripped. Other than air conditioning which the owner says still functions and a one-speaker AM radio, this car has zero in the way of add-ons.
With a 229 Chevy V6, it’s probably not the most enjoyable car to run as a daily, but as a rolling tribute to the most basic American family car of yesteryear, it’s hard to out-do. Not everyone had the loaded Country Squires or Vista Cruisers more popularly remembered today. If you are of a certain age and your parents took frugality seriously, cars like this hold a special place in your heart (even if it’s just nostalgia). And while said B-body and Panther wagons kept on keeping on for a while longer, cars like the were logically replaced by the likes of the Celebrity.
Mechanically, there aren’t many standout features to explore or critique, but the ’78 A-bodies were shrewdly conceived, losing hundreds of pounds while still maintaining space, safety and a perimeter frame. The only major flaw was the fixed rear door glass. In a big, glassy box like this car, you need the A/C this car’s shrewd first buyer ordered.
One thing the buyer didn’t order, as mentioned, is anything in the way of powertrain upgrades. Restomods are, by and large, unpopular here at CC, where preservation is king. 45,332 Malibu wagons sold in 1983. When it came to sedans, the Celeb outsold the four-door, 120,000 to 60,000. When the Celebrity wagon finally did come along, it sold 71,000 units. That means that this wagon was relatively uncommon when new, and there can’t be many so-equipped on the road today.
Still, the options for a resto-mod are endless and very tempting. All sorts of small block Chevy engines can be made to fit easily, with the major obstacle being engine management. All this can be done while staying true to the car’s appearance, even if including an F41 suspension package.
Instead of removing the Chevy 229, and plopping in a 305, the most exciting power train swap prospect for me would be to ditch the Chevy 229 out and swap in an old even-fire Buick 231 (California cars came with that block to begin with) with 3800 series II heads. Those in the know will tell me if a Franken-Buick V6 of such a variety is possible. I know various changes have been made to the Buick 231 to change it into the GM 3800. But if it’s possible, a supercharged 3800 marks the engine of choice for me. A manic buyer might elect to stuff a turbocharged 4.3 Vortec a la GMC Typhoon. And now that I’m digressing, that GMC Typoon 4.3 would be perfect in my ultimate B body, the Electra/LeSabre estate.
The owner of the car was nice enough to let me get in and take pictures. Having no first-hand experience with these cars, a few items stood out. One, the rear seat is quite snug. Paul has remarked about the poor space utilization of the ’73 A-body; I now believe him, since this much-touted car’s packing efficiency still results in a small space by today’s expectations. The second thing was the slight heft in the steering. I’ve been in a number of Lexuses and Hondas which are easier to turn at low speed. Finally, the windshield was much closer than expected.
While the X-cars which followed have been labelled a deadly sin, the front-drive A bodies which replaced this car haven’t. Not because of substantial difference, but because they weren’t expected to be breakthroughs. Having extensive experience with those models, I have to say they made excellent replacements for cars like this Malibu, as well. While there were no fire-breathing Grand National or Monte Carlo replacements, the likes of the Celebrity carried the virtues of this Malibu forward, with greater comfort and efficiency, once the Malaise-era powertrains were sufficiently overhauled. A Celebrity wagon with a multi-port 2.8 really was an effective family transportation device in much the same way a Malibu with a 305 was, even if enthusiast credentials are lacking. And between you and me, I might choose an ’86 Cutlass Cruiser with 3800 over an equivalent Taurus with its wheezy Vulcan 6 and fragile transmission.
Cars like the Cruze and Malibu show that Chevy is doing an excellent job making high-quality, low-key passenger cars these days. Of course, that has a lot to do with the fact that Chevy isn’t really building their own cars, when you consider how much engineering is imported from Russelheim and Incheon. Detroit is free to take care of Cadillac, and full-size trucks, well-funded by selling cars that carry forth the virtues of this blue station wagon. But we’re unlikely to see a real Chevy like this Malibu ever again.
The Chevies which succeeded this one, rightfully called Deadly Sins, hold a place in my heart as offering virtues my parents’ ’80s imports never could. That’s why I often find myself defensive in the comment section of GM DSs.
But I’m losing sight of my main argument. This true blue Chevy is one of the last truly American middle class station wagons, along with the Volare and Fairmont. Once an institution, they were replaced by minivans or cars with a more continental influence. I am glad its owner keeps it alive with frequent warm weather drives from his farm to downtown Bloomington.
Was this the late 70s/early 80s era GM V6 that had the severe vibration issues? I worked for a big new and used car dealer for a year while waiting for my real career choice to open up in the mid 80s (it did, thank goodness), and much like the GM diesels, we had customers trying to trade in V6 Malibus for something else, ANYthing else, and our used car manager wouldn’t touch them with a ten foot pole. He didnt even want them on the lot. V8 Malibus, yes, but not the V6s. I remember at some point GM corrected their penny pinching oversight with the addition of a balance shaft (I think), but as was par for the course for GM back then, not until they had alienated millions of customers by sticking them with cars that almost couldn’t be given away. The fact that this example escaped the crusher makes me suspect the correction had taken place by MY83.
My 78 malibu classic had the 3.3 l v6 and was smooth as butter ,not much power but no vibration . My beef was the valve train started making a lot of noise at about 40.000 miles . My first new car 2 door black with red interior .The car in the photo does have options for one it has sport mirrors and chrome wheel lip mouldings
I had a ’81 229 Malibu. Absolutely no vibration. To this day, I still wonder what odd-firing means…
Very smooth engine and transmission. Not very powerful but torquey enough.
Good handling and braking too. Great car for cities and highways.
And it seems to me the turning radius was quite small. Got parked in places I thought it wouldn’t fit.
(Statutory warning : stunt was performed by an experienced parisian driver. Do not try this at home)
Found on the interwebs:
http://archive.is/mS6ch
I dunno, that doesn’t help me much but it’s fun to look at.
What this is illustrating is that because the 90 degree V6 with single pin cranks has uneven power pulses, the spacing is 90 degrees – 150 degrees – 90 degrees. BTW this is the same cause as the famous Harley Davidson potato-potato idle sound.
Later the engine was designed to have offset pins for opposite cylinders which split the difference so that a power pulse happened every 120 degrees (see photo)
And finally, yes I approve of this car. Transportation that gets the job done and looks pretty clean.
And here’s an odd fire V6 crank. Each pair of opposite cylinders have the rod connected to the same bearing journal.
It wasn’t the 229 in this car. My ’82 had the 229, and while lacking in anything resembling power, smooth operation was indeed one of its virtues. The Buick 231, used in CA cars instead of the 229 for (presumably) arcane emissions reasons, was even more widely seen in A/G bodies and was also drama-free. Unless the early base 200 ci V6 was the one you’re talking about–that one disappeared after either ’79 or ’80.
I used to drive a 1980 Cutlass Cruiser (same body as this Malibu wagon) and it had the California emissions Buick 231. It was indeed a pretty nice motor but what a dog it was! I figured it was because of the high mileage, so we put a nice re-man long block in it and fixed all the vacuum sensors and other emissions components and it was still a dog! Always passed the California smog checks.
IMO, this was one of the cleanest looking, right-sized wagons to come out of Detroit.
I drove a 78 Malibu Classic with a 200 and automatic, it was perfectly adequate to about 40-50mph in town. outclassed on the highway though, as even my 76 Malibu Classic’s wheezy 305 could walk away from the 200 despite the 1,000 pound weight penalty.
Well CA’s emissions were stricter and in most cases the consolidation was not due to the fact that the omited engines weren’t able to be made clean enough it was just cheaper to have fewer power trains to certify that only had to go to one state.
Such a clean car. With all the side sculpting, wavy beltlines, and crazy headlight treatments of modern cars these B-bodies really do stand out. With this being a wagon and not having the full-width taillights it really shows you evenly proportioned the car is vertically. The slight heft leading up the hood to the A-pillar is enough to break up blocky proportions, but works in complementing the car rather than disrupting it. Really interesting design to study.
While in college, my roommate brought back a three year old Malibu from Grand Rapids Michigan where his parents lived. The car seemed perfect. Not a flaw in the paint, nor dent in the body. The engine purred and the tranny did its job flawlessly. Since we were both practically pennyless, I assumed his parents had taken pity on him and given him a car. Nope, bought it for three hundred dollars. WHAT??!! How is this possible, I asked. He told me to lift the floor mat in the back seat. All I saw was pavement. He said the salt used on the roads back home was a car killer (in Arizona, we don’t have this problem). I can’t imagine salt doing this much damage in three short years. Rust protection must have been non existent back then. What a waste.
Really like the houndstouth cloth. Great choice for a base upholstery. Wasn’t the three speed floor shift still standard on these, as witnessed by the famous Iraqi taxis?
My understanding is that the manual trans was ‘base’ but very few were made. Dealers didn’t want them for stock because they were very difficult to sell to the general public. Fleet buyers didn’t want them because the resale value was low, and manual trans driving skills were lacking.
Years ago a friend’s dealership ended up with a 4 spd Malibu wagon. Someone special-ordered it, which was the only way the dealer would accept one. The deal fell through and it took forever to find another buyer .
I grew up in one of these (but a 78) It was a 305/4-speed car, even. Man I wish I could have kept it, but my dad gave it away (truly!) when I got my drivers license. He was an Olds man, but got the Chevy because the local Olds place wouldn’t order him a 3-pedal wagon, for any $. I remember him saying it took a pretty big deposit to get it. Ours had vinyl seats, so these cloth seats would have been nice. Oh yeah, the shifter hit the seat in 2/4 gear when my mom was driving, with it pulled all the way forward. We pulled a camper, a small boat and various trailers all over with ours, it had well over 100K when I got my license in 88 (I learned to shift in this, and killed the clutch, I don’t remember any other problems we had with it.
Same thing with my 75 Comet. It was customer ordered and then sat for over a year. It was a 3-speed manual also.
Checked the brochure online and I think vinyl was the base, with this cloth the “first-level” option. it’s not a bad look, agreed.
Also by ’83 the manual option had been dropped. I can’t recall whether the Iraqi Taxi cars were ’81 or ’82.
I am pretty sure they were ’81’s. They had the single headlights.
Indeed, why can’t we get durable cloth interior options anymore. Much nicer (and warmer) than leather/leatherette!
I saw a three speed manual in Luxembourg of all places c1986. Floor shift.
My parents rented a coup (v6) and sedan (small v8) on trips to the USA. Compare to the BL Princess, these were wonderful cars.
My Dad’s first brand-new car was a 1978 Malibu wagon very similar to this one…his was a slightly darker blue with blue vinyl upholstery. It was optioned simply as well, but did have the 305 V-8. He loved the car and it made many road trips from Wisconsin back to New York where our family was from. As mentioned above, too, he traded it for a brand-new 1986 Celebrity when he retired, but the Malibu stayed in the family until 1993, when it was just plain worn out.
“Restomods are, by and large, unpopular here at CC, where preservation is king. ” – nope. Needs a V8 transplant. 🙂
SBC FTW!
Yup, the resto-mod is nothing to scorn. Sometimes its the only way some older cars will survive. Functional improvements have saved many older cars from the scrapyard.
I’m not a fan of restomods but I’m all for making an old car better. In a lot of cases it’s easier and cheaper getting your hands on performance upgrade parts than it is matching originals to keep something from this era going. Take on the good old days weren’t so great meme head on I say.
Now if you throw in 21st century high back racing seats, Autometer gauges(especially those blue digital ones), custom graphics containing red pinstripes and carbon fiber(the ugliest texture man has artificially created), heavily dished gloss black 20″ wheels, 16″ 10 piston brakes, and an engine with an intricate fabricated cover resembling some sort of movie prop? Yeah, No. I dislike that aesthetic as much as I do Donks
Hear here! A 5.3 or 6.0, stock, is all ya need. Late model 4L60E or let’s slam a clutch and T56 in it. Nice set of wheels and don’t change one thing about the body.
Parked at Bloomingfoods no less. I should park my ’86 Vanagon next to it the next time I drive in to town.
Nice find, Perry!
A few years ago, when I was hanging around at the local machine shop, a guy came in with an early to mid-’80s S10 that someone had, for some reason, swapped a 229 into. They aren’t too common, and the owner had no idea why someone would do it, but he said it ran well.
A 4.3 or a small-block should both swap easily into the Malibu; after all, the 229 was basically a 305 with the back two cylinders chopped off. Apparently, many parts interchange between the two, but swapping in a 4.3 would perhaps be even easier than a small-block. The 229 would have likely had the computer controlled Dualjet carb, but they make carbureted intakes for 4.3s if you wanted to go that route. I’m not sure if the 229 and the 262 intakes are interchangeable.
I’d stick with the 229, however, just for its oddness.
The 229 and 262 are the same basic architecture, so yes, intake manifolds interchange. Even the lowly 200 V6 is the same 90 degree family. Chevy (according to Pat Ganahls 1982 book “V6 Performance) tried several different engineering prototype mules for balance and the “democratic” consensus was a 18 degree splay angle between rod journals was the smoothest running one. I’m sure though that just like the Buick Series II V6, the Chevy 90 degree V6 was rengineered sometime later to a 30 degree split crankpin.
I figured they would, but you never know when engineering changed a water passage or a bolt pattern. My only personal Chevy V6 experience is with my 2000 Blazer, which I liked but sold because it averaged about 17-18 MPG, and that didn’t make much sense for my commute.
The 18 degree offset pins were used on the 200, and 229 V6. The 262 had a new crankshaft with 30 degree offset pins when introduced in 1985. It also had larger 2.25″ rod journals versus the standard 2.10″ journals used in the other engines
Also, their were carbureted 4.3L’s (262s) from the factory, equipped with 4-bbl Q-jets. They were only offered in vans and trucks though. I remember working on an ’85 Astro with a carbed 4.3L but I think that was probably the only one I ever saw.
Aren’t these also the sealed carbs? No spares, only expensive replacements.
No carbs were sealed, the idle mixture screws were.
The idle mixture screws were sealed, but when the carb was rebuild you removed the sealing caps so that you could adjust them. The idea behind it was to prevent people form “tweeking” the carb and causing more harm than good. Sealed mixture screws had been around since the mid 1970s.
My brother had a lot of problems with his. Finally replaced it with an after maket carb and manifold.
I love the obvious missing clock on the instrument panel. I believe Detroit did this intentionally to “shame” the customer with a constant reminder of their cheapskate behavior.
Not to mention the three, big idiot lights. And the speedometer looks like half of the needle has broken off. Sheesh, nothing like being constantly reminded of what a cheap-ass car you bought every time you look at the instrument cluster when you’re driving. Reminds me of the three, huge, round gauge binnacles in the 1967 Impala. No, the Malibu wagon is not a Deadly Sin, but it sure doesn’t look like much fun to drive.
FWIW, I think Jessica Savitch drowned in the Oldsmobile version of this.
Chevy made a fortune shaming people into buying an Impala over a Biscayne or Bel Air. Those extra 2 taillights told the world that you weren’t a cheapskate. The lack of them told everyone that you were.
In earlier Malibus that was the Monte Carlo binnacle, without the extra gauges. The regular Malibus got a long horizontal speedo with fuel gauge and (optional) clock on either side. Maybe GM decided to cut costs and install the Monte binnacle in the Malibus too.
Half of the speedometer needle has, in fact, broken off. This is what it’s supposed to look like, in my old ’82:
I used to work in a shop that did speedometer repairs and calibrations, lots of folks broke their needles “cleaning the gauges”. Cops would come in and ask the Tech about suspicious mileage claims too.
How did you manage to achieve almost 50 miles per hour in less than a tenth of a mile in a brand new car? I call Shenanigans! 🙂
The Choke light is unusual to me. Nowadays even the Japanese have dumped the Temperature gauge (e.g. Fit, Mazda3), which used to be standard with them, & otherwise appear to be rigged so as not to be linearly proportional to operating temperature anymore.
I noticed this in the Mazda 6 as well. No engine temp at all, but it has the outside temperature in the instrument cluster lol. Inevitable answer to this is how reliable engines are now a days, this temperature gauge is an obsolete anachronism…right… so how about that Tachometer that is standard in most cars with automatics?
The tach is free entertainment these days, courtesy of the ECU.
Temp and oil pressure gauges are a nuisance to the factory, because people fret over their cars being 162 degrees or 157 degrees.
Well the reality is that the gauges in many cars are nothing more than glorified idiot lights. The temp gauge may look like it works and it does to an extent but since it is fed from the CAN bus they give it a totally non linear response with a big dead zone around the normal operating temp. All Ford oil pressure gauges for the last couple of decades are just connected to a switch that makes the gauge read where they want it to read if the oil pressure is above 5-7 psi.
The automakers did it because there are people who will fret if the think it isn’t “working right” that don’t know what working right really is. Which is of course why many mfgs got rid of numbers and went to low-high.
The Bosch CANBus™ has nothing to do with it, that’s just an industry-standard serial interface protocol which passes data back & forth like that USB port on your PC; instead, it’s likely a software function which fudges the CANBus input to produce a nonlinear response, a form of misrepresentation as VW has done.
It seems that car companies, like many other large organizations, treat the public like they can’t handle the truth, so they must be lied to. Maybe dumbed-down public-school Driver Ed courses are to blame for not teaching students how cars work.
The good part about the Ford oil pressure gauges, prior to them going to canbus, making them functional is as easy as changing the sending unit and bridging a resistor on the back of the cluster. I did that on my Cougar
It would be easy for solid-state displays to do full instrumentation in a small space, approximated here with ASCII:
Fuel ====―
Temp ===――
Oil ====――
Batt ===――
etc.
Our Prius displays lots of surplus info like Fuel Savings in $; why don’t makers do the above too?
Which is of course why many mfgs got rid of numbers and went to low-high.
That’s not nearly as recent a phenomenon, even in the Chrysler products of the 60s/70s, generally lauded for having full instrumentation standard over Ford and GM, their gauges often used L_______H instead of numbers, as did Ford, GM, and AMC when equipped usually. The models and/or years numbers were actually used by the factory were likely decorative guesstimations, added simply to fill space on the gauge itself or go with the overall theme of the car. Really, just accurate fluctuations within high and low are all you need as an educated but not necessarily expert driver to interpret whether the engine is healthy or not. Numbers are most useful if you’re striving to be acutely aware of the specific behavior of your engine on a mechanical level, or in a racing environment and need specifics to communicate between driver to crew.
I agree Niel, you’d think with the digitalization and LCD instrumentation very common on cars lately there’d be more opportunity than ever to equip every last engine related monitor in real time within, and to your choosing whether to keep it displayed or not
Thank you for giving this car the respect it deserves. I grew up knowing this car. My aunt had a dark blue ’83 Malibu Classic wagon that looks exactly like this but with a 305. I drove this car a lot in my teenage years as I used to help out on her family farm. Never ever drove my own family’s fleet of M & F bodies, but from what I can begrudgingly admit, the Chevrolet Malibu was a far superior car to our two Plymouth Caravelles and one Volare with 318s.
For one thing the transmissions. Our Mopars clunked going into any gear (but then again so do Allison automatics — which are known as robust commercial autoboxes). Meanwhile the Malibu had a nice little subtle whump. Especially for reverse — the Chryslers really clanged and banged there. Ugh. Somewhat embarrassing around friends.
Engines. Again, I never drove the M/Fs but have driven a 1973 Dodge truck club cab with a 360. Smooth but sluggish, but that’s a heavier vehicle with a stroker 318. Not a fair comparison. Nevertheless, the Malibu was perky. Granted tip-in throttle was at play there. I’ve later discovered that GM did this for effect. At least Chrysler was honest with its linear throttle like Mercedes currently is with their’s. Further pressing of the throttle in the Malibu produced diminishing returns of mid-range power and that was around the time I investigated and discovered this thing called throttle tip-in. Cheaters!
Ride and handling. The Malibu was tossible and nimble-like even with a flaccid rear suspension in need of new shocks. It even had decent turn-in with good directional change and cohesive front end movement to the side simultaneous to steering wheel movement. No drama, just confident compliance. Now I’m wondering if the Chevy had variable rate steering like my old Impala had. Quick on-centre but slow the rest of the way. Or is it the other way around? Nope, no. I explicitly remember the exploded demonstrator steering box having pinched gear teeth at the centre denoting quicker movement. But that was a rack and pinion example…..now I’m confused. Apparently my old Chevy had it so if it did with recirculating ball, I’m guessing the rack and pinion set followed suit, ergo quick in the middle.
Again cheating on GMs part if this is true, but I digress; mostly because of non-confidence of knowledge in the matter and too lazy to look it up. My guess is that the Chrysler steering was linear compounded with sagging alignment issues that was also common leading to crap handling.
Dang I wish I could have driven a Diplomat or something. I got nothing with the Mopars. However, I often read “boulevard crusier”, numb steering, and clumsy handling. Maybe I can pretend my old 1989 3/4 ton Ford Club Wagon with 80 series tires was similar to the Chrycos for comparisons sake.
The ride of the Malibu seemed more refined and isolated. I attribute this to its BOF and all coil suspensions to Chryslers unibodies, transverse torsion bars, and leaves. All of the Chryslers had this buzzing exhaust drone when third gear and lockup took hold which was especially annoying as a passenger in the back seat. The Malibu was svelte and Lexus like in that regard. Just a seamless woosh with a buttery muted thrum from its 5 litre and that trademark first gear howl. The 318s were obtrusively chuggy.
Anyway, as an insecure little boy at the time, I really wanted our cars to be better than both sets of relatives with their Chevrolet Malibus. In hindsight they plainly weren’t. About the only bragging rights the F/Ms had were larger exterior dimensions and longer wheelbases, but not by much, and funky signal indicators perched on the front clips. The M bodies were odd because they were nearly the size of the Caprice and panther cars, but with interiors the size of K cars (which we’ve owned too) and their Malibu and Fairmont counterparts. Kind of like a 1977 LTD II to a ’77 LTD which I suppose is a redundancy of definition. Both seem large.
Oh wait, our rear windows rolled down! Boom! Yep now I remember that working. Cousins couldn’t argue with that. To add insult to injury, our green Caravelle had a/c. Neither of the Malibus did. Suckers.
Ok time to come back to my inner 39 year old again.
Thanks again for the article. I love Curbside Classics for this. It really brings out fond memories of family, friends and experiences with our cars.
Our family owned 1978 Buick Century Wagon, can’t say I remember it fondly. Design problems included, so called “sport” mirrors that where too far back, rear brake lights positioned in the rear bumper, so no one can see them, fixed back bench seats with no recline, a vacuum strained V8 that you had to mash the gas petal to get moving in reverse, falling felt headliners, chrome covered plastic knobs and instruments that wore out and cut your hands. These are the type of cars that drove me and millions to the imports.
Concur. I learned to drive in a ’78 century wagon equipped similarly to the feature car. In addition to the issues you listed, let’s add the weak sauce THM-200 transmission, an engine (the 231) that stalled at stops when cold, and an interior that disintegrated when exposed to sunlight. About the only good thing I can say about it was that it handled reasonably well compared to its contemporaries.
Sometimes, after researching a car for a CC article, I come to a greater appreciation of the car, while in other cases, the car impresses me less after writing about it. The ’81 Malibu that I wrote up a few years ago falls into the former category. These were under-appreciated cars, even during their own time, let alone a few decades later. Like an employee who shows up to work on time for years, does good work, is reliable, and then retires, the Malibu wasn’t splashy, exciting, or attention-seeking. But it got its job done well. GM needed more cars like this.
Regarding the wagon, while Celebrity sedans were introduced for 1982, I think the wagon version didn’t come out until 1984, so in 82-83, the Malibu, while dated, was Chevy’s only mid-size wagon offering. For the final 82-83 years, Malibu sedan sales dropped by over half, but the wagon still held its own. The 82-83 total was about 76% of the 80-81 total.
This was a great find, and congratulations to this wagon’s owner for keeping it in such good shape for so long!
Sorry – fixed rear door glass DOES make it a deadly sin. For me it sure did, and I left GM at that point, not to return until 2004.
My first thought – every single time I see a reference to the fixed rear door windows in these – is you, Zackman. 🙂
Then, my next thought is what would happen if such a thing were done today. My guesses are that a) few would notice because air conditioning is standard on all but a handful of new US vehicles, OR b) someone on an enthusiast board would engineer a mechanism, manufacture it in China, and sell it online for $99 bucks, OR c) the social media $#!t storm would be so fierce that GM would revise the design to include them in a model year…or two…or three.
Elsewhere folks have explained that the fixed rear glass was supposed to allow more hip room, but still, it’s ironic that the cheaper & lighter Fairmont retained the roll-down rear windows (though they didn’t go down all the way, either because of the rear wheel well or child safety).
My sole experience with these sedans is being trapped in the back seat on a hot summer day with two other kids after a sporting event. Maybe they even had air conditioning, but I was still shoving my face out that vent window. So count me in the DS category too.
Yes, Thank You!! Need to lock the bean counters into that back seat with fixed windows and no leg room for a couple of hours on a sunny day. Deadly Sin indeed!
Or perhaps “The penalty box for the entire family to enjoy!”
Z-man
Another Gm cost cutting Fugup, sealed rear widows. Un-Believable !!
GM, the same co. that used Throttle Body Carburation for years after most auto makers used fuel injection..
Our family had a couple of 4 door A-bodys back in the day and although someone would always comment the rear windows didn’t roll down, nobody really cared.
My best friend’s Grandma had the Pontiac sedan version of these I rode in a few times. Here in Texas we sure as hell complained about the fixed rear windows. Geez it was miserable back there the first 15 minutes.
That’s precisely why GM gave it a shot; I’m sure focus group data told them no one would care or that, while there might be a few lost sales, they’d eventually get used to it and the cost-savings (i.e., profit) would be worth it.
It reminds me of how GM was on the forefront of the elimination of front vent windows in the late sixties when they introduced flow-thru, Astro-Ventilation. The switch to more sharply curved side windows (like the 1970 Duster) was also a factor. Oddly, though, it was mainly Chrysler who stopped offering roll-down rear quarter windows on hardtops. GM avoided the issue by just eliminating the hardtop body style.
Then, about the same time as GM A-bodies, there were the first Chrysler K-car sedans that didn’t have roll-down rear windows, either. Obviously, someone at Chrysler (probably Iacocca himself) saw what GM was doing with the rear windows and figured it was going to be adopted industry-wide.
Similarly, first generation Neon 4-doors, although the rear windows always rolled down, if you ordered power windows, it was only the front windows that were power; the rears had manual winders, regardless of how the front windows went down.
The only domestic manufacturer who stayed on the straight and narrow when it came to all this rear window, cost-cutting chicanery was Ford. Although, if auto consumers had tolerated it, Ford would most certainly have joined in with the others. But they were smart enough to wait and see how it panned out.
But Ford has had their share of silly cost-cutting in other areas. The one that springs immediately to mind was the elimination of the ‘cancel’ button on the cruise control switches. For a long time, the only way to temporarily cancel a cruise control setting to be resumed later on a Ford was by tapping the brake pedal. It was inconvenient (and a traffic hazard), to say the least.
What about the horn on thr turn signal stalk, not in the center of the wheel!
I wouldn’t blame cost-cutting, considering the expense of design & retooling. I understood that it was in anticipation of Federally-mandated driver airbags, premature as it turned out. By the time they were required, industry solved the problem of the switch coexisting with the airbag, which I assume was Ford’s motive.
The ’81 Escort also had that “feature.”
God, my 09 F150 doesn’t have a Cancel button and it irritates me.
My 79 Thunderbird doesn’t have a resume button either. But it does have a off button.
I would so much like to have simple crank windows instead of electric windows in the back of my Rav4. I like to sleep there and the electric windows in the back are just a nuisance forcing the operator to stretch his arm , turn the key and then press the rear window button … but no i wouldn’t own and sleep in the back of a Neon, unless you just want reliability nightmares.
The thing that stuck in my mind about the A/G wagons that friends’ parents had was that the back seat’s fixed angle was so reclined that it made you strain your neck muscles to hold your head up.
A/G and FWD A wagons didn’t overlap at all, the FWD A wagons didn’t appear until ’84 and took over completely, across all divisions, when they did. That’s saying something since some of the A/Gs continued into the late ’80s.
The retirement of the A/G models was all over the board and didn’t make a lot of sense. I get the impression all the sedans were supposed to go after ’83 along with the wagons once the FWD A-bodies were up and running, but the Malibu was the only one who actually did so. The Regal sedan stuck around until ’84, the Bonneville (Model G) until ’86 and somehow the Cutlass Supreme sedan survived intact in RWD form all the way until ’87. And the coupes stayed alive until ’87 (Regal/GP) or ’88 (Cutlass Supreme/Monte Carlo).
However GM did not change the interior at all in the cutlass. If you bought a 1978 Cutlass Supreme sedan and a 1987 Cutlass Supreme sedan you could swap out interior parts since they were exact same. I had a 1985 Cutlass Supreme sedan and 1987 one. The only 2 things that changed from 78 to 88 in the dash was radio (went to digital in 1984) and that from 78-83 there was a clock offered in the center of the dash. When the digital radio arrived the clock option on the dash was killed off and the place the clock sat in was covered by a panel with the Oldsmobile symbol on it. BUT if you removed that panel the wire for the clock was still there and powered so if you got the clock out of a 78-83 Oldsmobile Cutlass, the trim plate that went over the clock and the mounting screws then you could add the clock to your 84-88 Cutlass with only a screw driver and 5 minutes of your time(it was plug and play)
And that is a huge reason those G bodies kept selling long past when they should have. Traditional body and drivetrain, old school GM interior with the heavy switches. The “they don’t make them like they used to” crowd loved those cars.
For a quick second I was thinking the Malibu is not a deadly Sin.
Then I re-read the title and was look ok good. The Celebrity that followed would have been a huge success if it only had a more entertaining dashboard, and the V6 engine as the base engine.
Instead of Celebrity, why didn’t they name it Celerity? Isn’t speed more important than fame? Not in America, I suppose.
Perry, heads are not interchangable between early and Series II Buick V6’s. The series II was a major redesign. And even in the early days head gasket changes were so frequent that again according to Pat Ganahl 79 heads won’t fit a 80 block and 80 heads won’t fit a 81 because of water passage changes. Even though it ends in 82, if you want to know all about the different V6 designs and performance mods up till then, I highly recomend you get Pat Ganahl’s book.
I figured as much, but without knowing for sure, it was a nice thing to hope.
Here are three different pics of passages in said book.
2nd one
3rd.
There’s one at Gallup High School (in that exact color scheme) that belongs to one of the students. It has dual exhausts so I’m hoping that at a minimum it has the 305 V8.
These were relatively good cars, pretty roomy and well-designed in the old-fashioned body-on-frame style, which was what GM was mostly good at.
I like the lines of the wagons but one thing I really did not like was how the tail lights were mounted so low on the bumper making them hard to see. I know it was done to increase the width of the tailgate but IMO it was a bad choice.
The neighbor around the corner from me has one of these wagons, with a transplanted Buick Grand National V6 in it. One sweet ride. He also has a ’66 or ’67 Skylark lurking in his shop; I can only see the rear as I drive by. Maybe I should get to know him a little better…. 🙂
Perry, thanks for a good writeup giving this car a fair assessment. As a known Malibu Lover around here, having owned 2 of them, I’ll say you did a thorough job of identifying the virtues of these later Malibus. My ’82 was configured in a similar fashion–it wasn’t a wagon, and it was the “Classic” trim (which had disappeared by ’83) but it was a 229, automatic, A/C car with minimal other options. It was even the same color blue, though the interior was done in nicer blue velour as part of the Classic trim. Pre-repaint photo attached. While I liked my V8 ’79 better, the V6 ’82 was a good, honest car that offered a lot of traditional GM virtues if not a lot of excitement and flash.
Also you’ve taught me something new about these cars, or at least something I’d forgotten a while back. I had long thought the only way to tell an ’82 from an ’83 was that the font and position of the model badges changed, since there were no sheetmetal updates. However I’d missed one further “tell”. The ’82 had a stand-up hood ornament, while these ’83 models had it faired into the top of the header panel. Learn something new every day around here!
Well yes and no about the hood ornament. I am not sure about 1983 but I do know that the stand up hood ornament denoted the Malibu classic and the flat one denoted base Malibu for at least some years. My 1980 base model Malibu had the flat header panel ornament while that same year Malibu Classic had the stand up one
here is a link to the GM heritage center which has build sheets with options for many cars
https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/gm-heritage-archive/vehicle-information-kits.html
Right you are–sort of. It did vary over the years, as some further photographic evidence has taught me:
1978, 1979 – Mailbu base & Malibu Classic both have ornaments integrated into the top of the grille shell, which matched the peak of the hood both years.
1980, 1981 – Malibu Classic has stand-up ornament, Malibu base has flat ornament on header panel.
1982 – Malibu Classic has stand-up ornament. Base model discontinued.
1983 – Malibu Classic discontinued. Base model returns with flat ornament. A stand-up hood ornament is available, but I’m not sure if it’s a standalone option or part of the “Custom CL” package.
Also, the 1981 brochure reveals something interesting–a vinyl roof was available on the sedan. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one after the revised roofline and I think that option disappeared for ’82.
Yes I have seen a couple of the vinyl topped versions out there but not many folks ponied up the dollars for that option. The vinyl roofs on those A/G body cars did not really look too attractive compared the bigger B Body cars.
Here is a pic of my 1985 Cutlass Supreme at my work. I bought that car in 2013 for $1000 and it runs pretty well for what it is. It was very loaded for the era with power windows, locks, power rear door vent windows, power seats
Nice-looking Cutlass. Sounds like a good investment–I’d gladly pay $1k for that if it’s not rusty.
Great car…fantastic deal…looks like you got a keeper.
This Malibu wagon is exactly like one that I have seen in the Washington area — faded blue with the updated four-headlight front end, and a thoroughly bare-bones look. I saw it when I was driving my Olds Custom Cruiser, of course, and the Malibu’s driver and I each swiveled our heads around at the other’s wagon as we drove toward and then passed each other. If the Malibu that you found had a Virginia license plate, I would suspect that it was the same car.
Interesting write up. We had a couple of Chevrolet 229 V-6’s at various times. They sounded awful, but were not that rough. Maybe it is because they were so gutless.
The rear seat is small due to the wasteful body on frame design, and the solid axle bouncing around back there.
I have often wondered what would have been the result had GM engineered a proper unitbody A Body, with modern engines.
Unit construction is why the Fairmont weighs several hundred pounds less despite being about the same size. Yes, it was a cheaper, down-market car, but it showed what GM could’ve done.
That’s a little surprising that the last generation, RWD A/G cars were BOF. I would have sworn they were unibody. No wonder they weighed more than the competition.
I’ve always assumed the Fairmont was the smaller of the two. Nope–3″ shorter wheelbase, and weighs about 300 lbs less, but it’s actually 3″ longer end to end. I don’t know why but they always struck me as being a class smaller.
That shows Ford’s longstanding love of overhang. The Fairmont’s wheelbase is shorter than all of its domestic competitors; even the Falcon’s was longer!
Well the Fairmont was the replacement for the Maverick and Ford considered it their “Compact” car on introduction but in the real world many shoppers probably did cross shop the Foxes and A’s and then of course the Tempaz took over the Compact role and it morphed into the LTD which Ford then considered their Intermediate offering.
Probably would have been about like a Celebrity if it were RWD. More and more I’m becoming convinced GM plain didn’t favor unibody construction. Until the 80s their efforts were either unloved, half cocked or short lived and usually succeeded by a frame chassis. Had weight not been such a concurrent concern during the X car development I have no doubt their FWD 80s fleet would be heavily BOF too.
There wasn’t really a space advantage in the Fox wagon’s rear seat. We had three different ones in our family, so I know those cars well. One thing I do remember about the was that the Fox wagons had a lower load floor in the cargo area compared to the Malibu.
Here is the specs to compare a Zephyr, Malibu and Volare wagon in a Popular Science test. You’ll see the exterior and interior dimensions are pretty close overall for the Merc and Chev. My dad’s old Fairmont wagon had the same driveline as this Zephyr, but it turned out to be his worst car he ever owned.
Its not like they dont know how to do unitary cars they own the company that did the first one and the first mass produced unitary cars, its very old technology now though may be theyve forgotten.
I see a lot more old Malibu’s and Malibu wagons than I do Fairmonts – I was in LA last week and spotted this nice looking one so snapped a picture quick…
As for the engine, everyone in the world is in love with the Chevy 350 and puts it into everything imaginable. For once, not only could I see living with one of these, I would drop one of the hallowed 350s into it for the full Chevrolet experience. 🙂
A friend (who was a diehard FoMoCo guy) bought one of these from his Dad. It was older but still sound, and was a 305/auto. He liked it quite a lot, and said that it was a very good car for him.
I was not kidding when I said above that I would kind of like one. Having owned the Fox Marquis wagon (as nice as it is possible to make a Fairmont wagon) I would like to try one of these for contrast. I suspect that it would drive relatively “heavy” but would handle well, like most GM rwd cars of this era I have tried. A 350, a transmission stronger than the THM 200 and strong a/c should cure about everything that was ever wrong with these.
I agree that this is a nice car, but I’d definitely want at minimum a 305, but I’d prefer a 350. Couple that with a TH200-4R OD transmission and this would be a nice driving car. My brother’s old Olds Cutlass Sedan had a 305 Chev and TH200-4R transmission and F41 suspension. It was a surprisingly peppy car for it’s day and it handled very well.
Nice find. A rock solid, unpretentious Chevrolet. Relied on clean lines and simplicity to convey its honest utilitarian attributes. Not the fastest or the fanciest, but a well-done workhorse that quietly went about its business.
Another deadly sin in addition to the fixed rear door windows is the non-inertia reel lap belts in the rear seat. Unlike inertia reel seat belts which reels out more of the belt to allow the passenger some movement in the seat, the ratchets in the lap belt reels of these GM A/G series cars would simply cinch down on the passenger without any give whatsoever. These lap belts literally strapped you down in your seat; they didn’t even have any give to allow contraction and expansion of your stomach from breathing.
I’ll bet we had two dozen friends with these. Great cars for raising babies. Many had vinyl seats, A/C, and not much else. They were plenty reliable and functional. Of course the mini van killed them pretty quickly when it arrived. “Salesman Blue” was what we called this color because it was so common in company cars – but very attractive.
This reminds me that a Malibu wagon of this vintage made a brief appearance in one of my favorite Robin Williams movies, the somewhat cult-classic The Survivors with Walter Matthau. Early on, Williams is some sort of executive who loses his job (he’s fired by a parrot) and drives off in what is obviously a corporate-fleet edition Malibu wagon.
Looks like it has a few more options than just AM radio and A/C – auto, tinted glass, roof rack, sports mirrors, white walls, wheel covers.
When I grew up in southern Cal, my Dad bought a new ’78 Malibu Classic wagon that was even more of a stripper than this one. While it did have the 231 V6, it didn’t have a single option. No A/C and vinyl seats! Talk about a stripper! I ended up learning to drive in it and in 1987, I inherited it! It was quite the car I must say..
Speaking of potential 3800 swaps, my go-to imaginary repowered drivetrain for cars like this is similar. Find a late 90’s Camaro/Firebird 3.8L V6 with 4L60E, swap everything, done,
I guess they added more features in the stripper Malibu after 1980. My 1980 Malibu had vinyl seats, AM radio, vinyl/plastic door panels and the speedometer that had the needle that went left to right (and not the round gauge in that one) It also had a “mind that you stay at 55mph or under” buzzer. I found this unhooked yellow box under the dash and plugged it in and when I got to the highway and passed 55 the damn thing buzzed like a fire alarm.
My grandfather bought it as a spare/2nd car for my grandmother (who never drove it) and it remained in the garage most of the time. My grand dad had a 1979 Buick Lesabre (with velour red interior and all the options) My father got the Malibu when my grandfather bought a new Lesabre.
I am surprised that the headliner is still perfect on this long roof as most sag down with in 10 years.
I have had 3 A/G body cars, that 1980 Malibu, a 1987 Cutlass Supreme sedan and a 1985 Cutlass Supreme sedan (which I still have)
Here is a pic of the 1985 Cutlass
My grandparents had the ’79 version of this car into the early ’90s when it was replaced with a Lumina sedan. It was a slightly lighter shade of blue with blue vinyl seats with a V8, and had non-functioning air conditioning. The back seat was snug, but usually I rode up front between my grandparents anyway where I could listen to the “oldies” on the AM radio (otherwise my grandma preferred the radio off) – still love those bench seats! The headliner fell in 1988 on a trip to Niagara Falls, and was remedied for a few years with push pins until they finally tore it out altogether . Theirs had the optional luggage rack as shown here, and the air deflector on the rear window, but no passenger side rear view mirror. Not one you see much these days, and not really all that common back then either.
My closest experiences to the Malibu wagon would be (1) taking driving lessons in a 1978 Malibu with the 3.3L V6 and (2) using a family friend’s 1979 Buick Century wagon with the 3.8L V6 for the driving test (my father had a 1970 Fairlane 500 wagon with a 3 speed manual that I never mastered, and he had neither the time nor patience to deal with a stupid and slow son). The 3.3 could barely climb a hill, which there were plenty of in Asheville, NC where we lived when I was 8 until 17. The 3.8 was a little more adequate and seemed quite smooth and quiet.
Looking for a chevy malibu wagon to do up really nice.