(first posted 7/20/2016) It’s fun to see Mike Burns’ post on this 1969 Dodge Coronet 440 survivor, imagining how it started life in Oklahoma and then served its duty in Eastern Colorado. Cars like this Coronet, along with its rivals from the U.S. Big Four, were popular workhorses from coast to coast. Not-too-big and not-too-small, these cars were a good, practical solution for many buyers, even if they were somewhat boring. That fact did not deter Motor Trend, as they set out to compare “average” mid-market cars in the June 1969 issue.
While the cars tested represented mid sized nameplates from AMC, Chevrolet, Dodge and Ford, they were pretty fully loaded for the times (actually the Chevelle Malibu Concours 4-door hardtop was positively dripping with options). To more accurately reflect the real “mid-market” at the time, the test would have needed to feature cars with smaller engines and fewer extra cost options–but of course that’s not what the manufacturers would have wanted to showcase in their press fleets…
It’s clearly the 1960s: it is entertaining to see MT’s editors extolling the virtues of vinyl seats. Even Ford’s famed “panty cloth” upholstery couldn’t dethrone the 100% real plastic seat coverings. Another feature receiving a lot of praise was the reclining seat option in the Rebel–it is almost unbelievable that Detroit resisted adding this feature, either as standard or optional, for so many years on so many cars. Small functional benefits can mean a lot, as the Japanese gleefully proved when they effectively launched their assault on the U.S. market with high-value, feature-laden little cars.
As was typical for the times, the Mopar responded and rode the best with its stock suspension set-up. In spite of better handling as offered by the extra-cost suspension package, the Chevy was dinged for a more harsh ride. After all, in the late 1960s, many buyers wanted a cloud-like coddling ride to compliment their genuine vinyl seats…
Fuel mileage and braking performance were nothing to brag about, though that likely didn’t matter too much to the target audience at the time. Gas was cheap, and as long as the car could stop hard one time without fade, most buyers in the segment probably thought that they were covered. Automatic transmissions, decent AM radios, ashtrays and cigarette lighters likely factored higher in the purchase consideration…
Motor Trend wound up giving the nod to the Rebel, though the shout-out was so subtle that it could almost be missed. I imagine MT’s editors were hopeful none of those big advertisers at Chrysler, Ford and GM would notice… To be fair, the AMC did offer a nice blend of features and performance wrapped in a very unassuming package–so rightly an excellent example of boring mid-market goodness.
For me, however, the choice would have been different. I am a sucker for a strong brand, sexy styling, lots of options and fancy trim, so the Chevy would have been my first pick. From there, I would have taken the Dodge and then the Ford, with the AMC placing last in my mind–the brand just seemed too dowdy in spite of the product merits. The 1969 “mid market” seemingly agreed with my picks, as Chevrolet sold 455,000 Chevelles, Dodge sold 197,003 Coronets, Ford retailed 366,911 mid sizers, while poor AMC only turned out 60,106 Rebels. Which one would you have taken home in 1969?
Well, I did take a ’69 Fairlane like this home. A 302 powered version what I came home in after being born.
But, if I were to have the choice, there is simply something elegant yet no-nonsense about the Dodge with the AMC coming in second. The Chevelle is last place for me.
Coronet, and I’m an AMC guy too!
I owned a Rebel years ago and it was a real nice car, comfortable and handled better than you’d expect. (I remember Tom McCahill’s road test of the Rebel was very positive.) The 2-door and convertible models are much better looking than the sedan. Unfortunately styling and build quality deteriorated going into the 1970s.
The 1969 model tested here still had the old Rambler upper-trunnion suspension, which would go to full ball joints the next year. The car also would have come standard with vacuum windshield wipers, though it looks like the test car in this article had the optional electrics. (Electric windshield wipers were not standard on AMC cars until 1972.)
That photograph of the Rebel convertible highlights a goofy AMC styling quirk that I’ve never been able to figure out, i.e., that strange, triangular shape, black quarter panel molding directly in front of the rear wheel well. What, exactly, is that supposed to be? Is it a simulated side-exhaust port? If so, it’s about as looking like coming from a JC Whitney catalog as is possible. Whatever it is, it’s quite out of place on an otherwise nice looking car.
It’s supposed to be a side scoop. It was only used on the convertibles and top-of-the-line hardtop coupes.
I’m again a little skeptical of the accuracy of the listed axle ratios, particularly the Malibu’s. The high-compression 350 was a strong engine, sure, and having Turbo Hydra-Matic rather than Powerglide helped, but the acceleration times don’t jibe with a 2.56 axle ratio. (Was a 2.56 even available with Positraction in 1969?) I’m also surprised that the 350 Malibu is listed as 180 lb heavier than the 383 Coronet — I think the 383 is close to 100 lb heavier than a Chevrolet 350 and since both say they have air conditioning, that wouldn’t account for it.
I’m wondering if some of the figures are in the wrong columns (that seemed to happen fairly often in Motor Trend during this period) and if the Malibu’s specified axle ratio was wrong. Getting a different axle ratio than the one intended (not always with the correct speedometer gears) seems to have been a fairly common issue as well.
The Malibu was equipped with power windows and door locks. I assume that they would have added weight to the car.
It’s also a four-door hardtop, and weren’t hardtops heavier than sedans, because they needed extra reinforcement to compensate for the loss of the B pillar?
Somewhat, yeah, although I think in this case the Dodge, Ford, and AMC figures are catalog numbers that don’t reflect the installed equipment.
Interestingly, Road Test tested a ’69 Fairlane 500 in their May 1969 issue that I’m reasonably sure was the same press car — white two-door hardtop with black vinyl roof, 351/2V, automatic, front discs, air conditioning. They listed it at 3,535 lb, for whatever that’s worth.
I think you are correct about the axle ratio of the Chevelle. Notice it somehow had the shortest top gear.
Also think the Ford base price a miss print. I bet they meant $2700 instead of $2100.
If the Fairlane is indeed the same one in Road Test (it sure looks the same, but their photos obscure the license plate), then all the Ford prices in this article look to have accidentally quoted dealer invoice rather than list. Road Test cites $2,845 base and all their option prices are about 30% higher as well.
Holy !!!!!,,, Get out of my head !
You saved me the trouble,,, maybe the testers believed what GM told them but NONE of those numbers add up especially the axle ratio.
Positraction was available will all axle ratios (see GM Heritage). F70x14 tires were not standard, however, with a 3.08 axle ratio, the listed MPH per 1000 RPM’s is about 25 MPH per 1000 RPM’s with F70 tires. So I would guess that the optional 3.08 axle ratio makes more sense than the listed axle ratio.
I think that the Rebel had the 3.15:1 axle ratio. Having published a number of papers I know that getting the printed version right requires a good editorial staff who can spot mistakes. In those days the original was typewritten on paper and then someone set up the type. No computers.
I agree with SomeOneInTheWildWest , according to the numbers MT posted, it likely has a 3.08 axle. This also makes the 90 mph at 3500 RPM correct. The 2.56 ratio was the standard ratio with this drivetrain, but a 3.08 or 3.36 were optional. The 3.08 gears are the only ones that seem to work correctly. Who knows, maybe MT put the incorrect ratio in the chart, or GM said it was a 2.56 when it was actually a 3.08. In either case MT editors should have caught the mistake. Also keep in mind the Chevy is using F70-14 tires which are inly 26.2″ tall vs the 7.75-14 tires on the Mopar and ford which are 27″ tall. Tires play a big roll on the effective final drive ratio.
I don’t think any of the specifications were swapped. I have seen MT do this before, but typically its just the wrong heading over the chart, None of the other numbers in the Coronet column work for the Chevelle. I don’t put much worth in the weights listed here. I always thought the Mopar B-body were lighter than the GM A-bodies anyway. Who knows how MT got them but unless they put the car on a scale, they are worthless to me. Even using GM’s factory curb weight plus options I got 3667 lbs, and these numbers tend to be on the low side. With the options on that Malibu, I wouldn’t be surprised if it were closer to 3800lbs in the real world.
The Malibu’s listed curb weight seems plausible enough for the specified equipment, but I have doubts about the Coronet. Even with unit construction, the Coronet is noticeably larger than the Malibu and had the big 383 and air. I couldn’t find another Coronet/383 test from 1969, but Motor Trend‘s own tests of contemporary 383 Satellites and Road Runners (which were a bit smaller than the B-body Coronet) were more in the 3,700–3,800 lb range.
My guess is that these are all manufacturer’s curb weights. The Malibu figure may just be more accurate because Chevrolet published standardized weight figures for optional equipment whereas the Coronet and Fairlane figures are likely for base V-8 cars. (Motor Trend did sometimes weigh their test cars, but for group tests, it might have been too much of a logistical issue.)
“My guess is that these are all manufacturer’s curb weights.” I agree. I also think that you are correct that the Coronet is too light too. If you ever look at something like Pure Stock Drag racing where they drag almost exactly stock cars from this era, it’s surprising what some of them actually weight on a scale compared to their so called curb weight.
Ha. None of these cars will do 100.
The text says the Rebel has the shortest stopping distance from 60 at 98 ft, then in the column it says 139.1 ft., 3rd longest only behind the Coronet at 150 ft. Text says at 62 or 63 MPH after 3 stops the overheated brakes 4th stop distance was 139.1 ft.
It does say at 90 Malibu is 3500 RPM, while the others show their RPM’s at 95. Poor editing.
Does seem like there is inaccurate information in some of the column’s.
I’ll take the Malibu home, but in the 2 door hardtop Chevelle version, please.
The braking distance is at least explained — see the note in the top right column of p. 90.
Unlike the car models, Irwindale Raceway is still around, though now called Irwindale Event Center, AKA “House of Drift.” Just to be clear, it’s not in Pasadena, it’s more than a few miles east in an area no one would confuse with it.
That Irwindale Raceway was torn down decades ago , there’s a brewery there now .
.
The new Irwindale Raceway is a few miles away off the I-605 Freeway .
.
I miss the old ‘ run whatcha brung ‘ Irwindale races .
.
-Nate
Thanks, I forgot what preceded the brewery (Miller’s, right?).
You don’t remember the very popular T-shirts:
MILLER BEER SUCKS!!
A friend of mine still has one in mint condition.
I suspect the powerglide, high weight and small interior would rule out the Chevelle for me. I would probably go for the Coronet and then forever debate between whether I could get by with a slant six and manual steering and brakes to create a simple machine or the ease of use of a 318 with full power. The engine choices seem a little much in this test for a family sedan. They were affordable options though.
It had the Turbo Hydramatic.
Yup! 1969 was the first year Turbo Hydra-Matic (either TH350 or TH400) was available across the board on the A-body. You could still get Powerglide with some engines, but the brochure says you could now get TH350 with a six if you felt like it.
The four-door versions of these bodystyles seem very ordinary, so I might go with the Fairlane because it’s a two-door, but I’d probably go Coronet because it’s got a bit of an Adam-12 vibe and I like the way 383s sound.
Coronet all the way for me. Torsion bars, Torqueflite and a 383 is a winning combination.
AMC was probably at its most competitive ever in this segment in 1969. The Rebel was attractive and acquitted itself well. I wonder if AMC was still using coil springs in their seat upholstery? This might explain the great seating comfort, as everyone else had long since quit using that expensive method.
This test shows why AMC had difficulty gaining traction in the late 1960s and early 1970s. One of the cornerstones of AMC’s reputation had been economy of operation, but the Rebel, as tested, didn’t offer superior fuel economy to the competition. Nor did it offer better performance.
AMC had lost one of its selling points. At the same time, potential customers familiar with the Big Three offerings looked over AMC cars and saw quirks like standard vacuum-powered windshield wipers.
Our neighbors purchased a 1969 Dodge Coronet 440 sedan brand new, and kept it well into the 1970s. I remember thinking that it had a tough, no-nonsense air about it.
For me, it would be a toss-up between the Dodge Coronet and the Ford Fairlane/Torino. One advantage of the Ford is that the available top-of-the-line interior was much nicer than the interior of its Mopar competitors.
The Coronet would probably get the nod, but the Rebel would be a contender. I like the ’69 grille styling, and it sounds like the best interior of the bunch. The Chevelle looks good, but there are a lot of compromises involved, and the Fairlane sounds like kind of an also-ran in most areas other than build quality. Plus I’ve never cared for the formal roofline on the ’68-’69 Fairlane/Torino. Make it a GT fastback (or even better a Torino Cobra or Talladega) and things change very quickly.
The prices jumped out at me–base price of $2787 on the Coronet versus $2104 on the Fairlane? That’s a relatively huge gap! In 2016 dollars that’s $13,818 versus $18,173. Also noteworthy that those were the base prices on intermediates at the time, whereas today $13,818 will get you absolutely nothing brand new, and $18,173 will get you a nicely trimmed subcompact or a low/middle trim compact.
The Rebel as a “contender”?
Not in the time period of this article.
Only nerds, dweebs and/or die hard disciples of “Consumer Reports” magazine purchased any AMC product in the late 1960’s.
I’ve been accused of being a nerd more than a few times. Maybe it would have fit. Of course in 1969 my parents were just starting college, so I wasn’t exactly around to know the perception of the time.
Did Consumer Reports even like AMC Rebel during this period? I seem to recall that the magazine was quite enamored with the Mopar intermediates during the late 1960s.
The Coronet w/ a 318 2 bbl because of the handling, interior room and styling.
Agree. The 318/Torqueflite, often equipped with the 3.23 axle ratio, was a most “Real World” pleasant driver that gave better than expected gas mileage.
It’s upright sitting and space efficient interior was what 4 door intermediate buyers of this era wanted and needed.
I recall the Chevelle Malibu having seats close to the floor and the rear seats and door giving tight, restricted entry.
I also recall the 4 door Fairlane being tight inside, with a protruding transmission tunnel and tiny back seat.
I question the unusual level of equipment on these test cars.
Most Malibu’s of this era that I rode in were 307/PowerGlides; the Fords were 302/Cruise-o-matics.
Equipped as described above, as most people purchased, the 318/TorqueFlite Dodge would had been the clear winner in acceleration, gas mileage and interior space/comfort.
“Motor Trend” was known for, even then, tailoring their road tests for which auto maker spent the most advertising dollars with their magazine.
If I recall correctly, the two-door hardtop intermediates easily outsold their sedan siblings during this era.
I’d be curious to compare sales of the sedan version of each model.
Customers who wanted an upright and space-efficient intermediate must have been in the minority, as I’m pretty sure that Chevrolet Chevelle/Malibu line-up outsold the Dodge and Plymouth intermediates combined during this era.
I like the late 1960s Mopar intermediates today, but GM completely dominated this segment at the time.
Interesting questions–and your hunches are correct. Here’s a quick breakdown on 2-door versus 4-door sales (I did include convertibles in the 2-door totals and wagons in the 4-door totals) for all the 1969 Big 4 intermediates where available (Chevy and Dodge numbers don’t break out by body style for ’69):
– Buick: 188,013 total, 2-doors 108,582 (58%)
– Olds: 252,989 total, 2-doors 155,918 (62%)
– Pontiac: 287,915 total, 2-doors 240,171 (83%!!!)
– Ford: 366,911 total, 2-doors 248,533 (68%)
– Mercury: 115,944 total, 2-doors 65,666 (57%)
– Plymouth: 241,194 total, 2-doors 163,170 (68%)
AMC was the outlier: of the total production of 60,106 Rebels, only 10,801 were 2-doors (18%), likely reflecting AMC’s practical and frumpy imagery at the time.
You are also right that the Chevelle/Malibu alone outsold Dodge and Plymouth intermediates combined (excluding Charger), 455,000 Chevrolets versus 438,198 for the Dodge and Plymouth intermediates. The Charger sold 89,704 units for ’69, so if you count that in the Mopar total, then ChryCo would come out on top.
The clincher was that GM sold 1,183,917 A-bodies for 1969–over 200,000 units more than all other mid-sized competitors combined.
This “MT” article is ANOTHER reason why “Car & Driver” and “Road & Track” were the preferred magazines in my Father’s household in the 1960’s thru 1980’s
In retrospect the Dodge seems like the better choice in value, performance and reliability. But back in 1970, the Malibu name had magic. Malibus connoted excitement and desire while a Coronet 440 had all the cachet of dishwater. In 1970 Chevrolet was still very much the king and I’m not surprised the Chevelle trounced the Coronet by better than 2 to 1 this year.
It didn’t help that the Malibu sedans and hardtop sedans looked sleek and low-slung, while the Coronet sedans looked like taxi cabs and police cars. The Coronet hardtop coupes and convertibles were very handsome, but the sedans looked much more stodgy. The GM intermediate sedans avoided that problem.
MT liked the vinyl because it was appropriate in family cars, which was the point of the article. It stood up to dirt, messes, kids and was easily cleaned and durable. Makes perfect sense in cars of this type. Ever tried to get a kid’s vomit off of panty cloth seats ?
I was a kid in those years, and the only cars I EVER saw with cloth upholstery were owned by old people or skinflints. Vinyl was considered the good stuff. Sure, it would sear your legs in the summer, but it would stand up to wear. At least until those cheaper vinyls started showing up in the late 60s that led to splits in every sewn seam.
Cloth only started to gain favor in the velour era, and that stuff was very durable too.
Right you are. I recall my parents bragging about the optional vinyl seats in their 1963 Olds 88. Wasn’t until the brougham era that cloth made a comeback. Then leather took over and cloth has faded back into obscurity in anything except an entry level model.
Good quality vinyl needs to make a comeback. It’s by far the best interior material available. Sure it may not feel luxurious but when done right it’s practically indestructible. See: MB-Tex.
Today’s cloth interiors are quite durable, and a simple application of Scotchgard makes them easy to keep clean.
Agree! TODAY’S cloth interiors are durable.
Not so in the 1960’s.
The cloth seats on my unmolested, 54K, ’65 Galaxie are showing wear on the edges, from sliding in and out of the seat. The rest of the interior is perfect.
Cloth seats were “entry level” in the 1960’s, Vinyl was “where it’s at” for most buyers. Vinyl seats, as mentioned above, wore like iron and easily cleaned up with Fantastic/409 and an old cotton cloth diaper (remember those?)
I don’t recall when Scotchguard was invented; but surely not in the late 1960’s?
My Parents (4 kids) always had vinyl interiors, until they bought their first “luxury” car” with “crushed velour” seating, a 1976 Chrysler. By then the kids were all out on their own.
Haha very true! My parents SWORE by vinyl seats for durability and easy clean-up. The black vinyl seats in my mother’s ’71 Oldsmobile were like a cast iron skillet–scorching hot and incredibly tough.
As JPC points out, most all the family cars I remember from the 1970s had some form of vinyl seats. In my family, the only person who got cloth seats in the early ’70s was my Great Aunt Roberta, who loved the brocade interiors in her Chrysler New Yorkers.
Cloth was relatively short lived in those days. After 8 years, the front driver seat of our ’68 Impala was almost threadbare. The top of the backseat dry rotted in the sun. My parents traded the car probably 8 seconds before the top of the back seat split.
My dad’s ’72 Olds 88 Royale company car had off white / ivory colored cloth. Something got spilled on the rear seat by another company employee, and even steam cleaning left behind a sort of water stain.
I will say the last brocade type upholstery in my dad’s ’76 Ford LTD actually held up pretty well.
As JPC said, a lot of those velours held up surprisingly well. And, they stood up to cleaning if needed. The ’74 Olds 88 Royale, ’77 Olds 88 Royale, ’78 Caprice, 79 Olds 88 Royale etc. all shifted though our house and the seats looked great no longer how long we had the cars – the Caprice was around 15 years.
Agreed, Dave. My 84 Ninety Eight Regency had dark brown velour that looked showroom when I got the car at 13 years old. Four years of daily use and it still looked great, even after kids and my then-habit of eating lunch behind the wheel. Run over it with a vacuum cleaner hose and it looked as good as it ever did.
We had a 70 Impala with cloth seats. At 6 years old they were in ribbons and we had home made seat covers so that it didn’t look so awful.
My ’70 C10 with cloth inserts fell apart at about 6 years, but the velour seats in my 30 year old ’86 Jetta are still in great shape.
I have actually owned two of the cars tested.
The first was a ’69 Chevelle 307/glide and a ’68 Rebel 290/auto.
Both were competent for what I asked of them. The build quality of the Rebel was better – the Chevelle was plagued with constant water leakage into the interior. (I understand that this was a common problem for GM’s of the time). I also hated the Powerglide – really-only two forward gears here in the mighty USA??
I also thought that the Rebel was better looking. I imagine that Chrysler thought so too, as they stole the Rebel’s ’67 profile outright for their restyle of the ’68 B bodies (Check it out!)
This article (and our responses) shows how much our priorities have changed over the years!
The world was so GM centric in those days, I’d probably have gone with the Chevy. (Preferably, from GM, an Olds Cutlass.)
Reading from today’s vantage point, and assuming you were buying a mid-size four door to accommodate a family, there is an excellent case to be made for the Coronet.
Doing some rough math, I took GN’s sales figures to represent all conventional mid-size Chevy, Ford and Dodge branded products.
While Chevy and GM dominated the world in those days, the race between Ford and Chrysler mid-size was surprisingly close.
Rough math in thousands:
Ford: 367
Mercury: 115
FoMoCo: 482
Plymouth: 244
Dodge: 197
Mopar: 441
Relatively speaking, Chrysler was a fairly strong mid-size player in the late ’60s. You did see those cars everywhere, and they seemed to be on the road well into the 1980s.
Coronet. Roomiest, good handling and the torquey 383. What’s not to like? The styling, but you can’t see that from the driver’s seat. 🙂
For me, the Dodge Coronet but with the 318, which was remarkably peppy beyond its CID and lighter on the front wheels, for even better handling.
There was a factory rear anti-roll bar for this chassis, too; but it was a Los Angeles PD-only item on the order sheet. I don’t know if it and its brackets were in the parts book. ADDCO sold an aftermarket one but its hardware was not as sturdy and it hung down under the rear axle, reducing ground clearance…though it DID work as designed.
As much as it pains me to out myself as the sheep that this choice makes me appear to be, I’d probably have bought the Chevy. The Coronet is basically a better package, all things considered, but the 350/THM combo in the Chevy was a damn good powertrain, I’d surely prefer the hardtop Chevy over the 4 door sedan configuration of the Coronet, and let’s face it, the styling was what sold the GM mid-sizers at the time. The low, sleek lines, the plusher *looking* interiors, the hidden wipers….The GM’s just looked like they were ahead of the curve. Call me shallow, but I’m a sucker for a pretty face, and the Chevelle just had it going on over the rest of the pack. None of these were ever really proven to be bad cars, even in hindsight, so it just really comes down to what I’d rather look at every day.
Agree about GM and Ford’s mid sizers being lookers then. The Mopar B body sedans look like ‘granny’ 1964 models in swinging 1968-9. [Not counting the Charger and Road Runner coupes]
If you were only going to keep the car for two or three years, the Chevy would have made economic sense, too. Equipped like this, its resale value would probably have been excellent — some buyers might have been turned off by the heavy-duty suspension, but I doubt it would have been hard to find somebody who considered it a plus. So, of all of these, the Malibu would probably have gotten you more of your money back.
AMC mid sized cars only sold fair in Chicago-Kenosha area. They really were also ran in segment above compact.
The Malibu Concours here is previewing the ’70 Monte Carlo, and 74 Malibu Classic, with lux trims. Torino here is previewing Gran Torinos. Having a Dodge featured instead of a Plymouth showed how the latter make was starting to fade from market.
While the ‘muscle car’ versions of these lines get all the attention, most Mid Size buyers got nicely trimmed commuters/daily drivers with “small blocks”* and automatics.
* commonly misused term for small CI V8’s
How was the term ‘small-block’ misused? The term originated with the 1955 Chevolet 265 V8 which did, in fact, employ a different type of manufacturing process, known as thin-wall casting, that resulted in a smaller, lighter engine markedly different from the traditional, larger, heavier ‘big-block’ V8..
Ford and Chrysler also eventually used similar thin-wall casting for their ‘small-block’ V8s, initially in 260 and 273 sizes, respectively.
While the term might have been misapplied to the small displacement V8s of lower volume GM divisions, in general, its usage is correct. The only real confusion might be with the 1966 and earlier Mopar 318 which ‘was’ a big-block variant, but became a small-block from 1967 forward, being then based on the 273 Chrysler V8.
Nobody ever called the Chevrolet V8 a “small block” until the 348 “Big block” came along in 1958. It arose out of necessity to distinguish the two.
The term “small block” is only relevant on relative terms; no one has ever defined the external physical measurements for a cut-off point. Hence it cannot be applied consistently except in obvious relative cases within a manufacturer.
Case in point: is the ford FE family small or big block? Actually neither, as it rather splits the difference between the Ford Windsor small blocks and the big MEL/385 engines.
The Mopar 318 actually used the essentially exact same block in both A (pre 1967 version) and LA (1967-up). The only significant difference were the new heads, which were much more compact, rendering the LA engine more compact (in terms of width only) and somewhat lighter. But the LA’s block dates back to the 1950s, and is clearly not quite as compact and light as the SBC or Ford Windsor block.
But the A V8 was never a “big block”; it was just the only one (like the Chevy) until the big block B/RB came along.
I suspect most would agree that the Ford FE-series V8 is a big-block.
That wasn’t a serious question, was it?
Very serious. I used to off-handedly call it a big block, but no longer. It’s clearly smaller (bore spacing/block size) than the true big block Fords (385 series).
We’ve discussed this FE thing here a number of times, and it was the large number of commenters that pointed out that the FE is not a true big block that made me realize that the only accurate answer is to call it a midi-block. It’s in between the Ford small and big blocks.
As I said, these names are purely relative, to identify the different engine families by a maker, so “midi-block” is the only correct answer.
Like there’s no big-block or small block Pontiac (except for the later 265/301), since all the Pontiac V8s from 1955 had the same block.
“Like there’s no big-block or small block Pontiac (except for the later 265/301), since all the Pontiac V8s from 1955 had the same block.”
Which begs the question: what was the big deal with the GTO, “big engine in compact car”? The 389 was really the same block as the 326 AND the ’64 Tempest was no compact car by then.
I wouldn’t say the term was “misused.” Even where its definition was mostly relative, it had a reasonably consistent, well-understood meaning from the sixties into the eighties. It doesn’t translate well to the ’50s or to non-U.S. cars, but the same is true of terms like “compact” and “midsize” and we use those all the time.
A so called small block engine should be lighter weight than a so call big block. Finding useful/reliable statistics on engine weight is not easy. However I think that the following information is about right.
The early 50’s V8 from GM (Cadillac, Olds, Buick) weighed about 700 lbs when they were about 400 CID. Pontiac’s 389 is about 650 (and so to the 326). The Chevy 283 (aluminum intake 1959) is 535 lbs. Buick’s 350 was 450 lbs. Newer engine designs in the later 60’s generally reduced the weight by 100 lbs – the 500 CID Cadillac was about 600 lbs.
The Cadillac 472/500 was more like 675–680 — it was about 80 lb heavier than the last 429, which was a bit under 600 lb.
Engine weight is not solely a function of displacement or block size. The valve gear and head design make a big difference as well. Overhead cams or rocker shafts weigh more than studs, hemispherical combustion chambers make the heads heavier than a wedge. That’s why an early 331 cid Chrysler FirePower weighs a good 150 lb more than a 327 Chevrolet.
My Cadillac history books, presumably well researched?, claims that the 331 CID 1949 engine was 612 lbs. The 390 CID vision was about 40 lbs heavier. The revised 390 for the 1963 model year was 600 lbs. The 472 was supposed to weight 600 lbs too.
The weights I found above were on one or more websites, so they are less reliable. Casting technology clearly improved from the early 50’s to the mid 60’s.
The eternal problem with engine weights is knowing whether a given figure is bare or with accessories, with or without flywheel, etc. For the 1949 Cadillac 331, 612 lb sounds like a stripped engine without accessories — not necessarily wrong, but not necessarily directly comparable to figures for a fully dressed engine.
I had personal experience with a 1970 relative of one of these cars: a 4-door Torino Brougham that I bought in 1978, with about 60,000 miles. It had the base 302 2-barrel V-8, automatic, power steering & brakes, AM radio, and air conditioning. The black vinyl top was starting to deteriorate visibly and there were some holes in the original upholstery. There were a couple of cracks in the padded dash. I had new seat covers put in, a nice brocade-type fabric that matched the factory color, and I had the vinyl top replaced with white vinyl. That made a big difference in the interior temperature!
The 302 gave me about 14 mpg in city driving, 18-19 on the highway, and no trouble whatsoever. I had to replace the vacuum modulator on the transmission; that was the only trouble it ever gave. The A/C always worked well, but the compressor had a rumbling vibration at low speeds. The heater core, though, developed a leak late in the car’s time with me, I think.
It was reasonably quiet, except for wind noise; it was reasonably smooth; and it was pretty reliable. Things I didn’t like: The front seat back was too erect; the back seat was a bit cramped; the fuel vapor recovery system would never let me completely fill the gas tank–it was supposed to be 20 gallons, but I could get only about 16-17 gallons into it.
I had the car for nearly 5 years–not bad for something that had 60,000 miles when I bought it.
I would have gone for the 1969 Chevelle, I’ve always thought the 4 door hardtop GM immediate’s were just as great as the 2 door hardtops, I’ve always been a big fan of the Chevy 350ci V8 prior to the Malaise era, I’ve never imagined it weighing over 3600 lbs though, as much as I love the Mopac immediate coupes the sedans did nothing for me.
I grew up next door to Kenosha, so I’m gonna have to go with the Rebel… I’ve always liked these better than the “big 3” stuff.
Do the reclining seats make up for the trunnions and vacuum wipers?
Not really, and the reason is the non-ergonomic pivot of the reclining mechanism of Nash seats. They don’t recline at the base of someone’s spine, but a few inches higher. A really boneheaded engineering effort.
To this day, I still like the 1969 Coronet. A family on my paper route had a blue one with a vinyl top, rather like the one in the magazine article. That would be my choice. Second choice would be the AMC Rebel. What a not conservative model name from very conservative American Motors.
The discrepancy between the price of the Fairlane vs the others led me to my copy of American Cars 1960-1972. The Fairlane’s actual price according to my source was $2626. The MT article also undervalued the cost of A/C. My book says it cost $389. Automatic was $396.00, too.
The Fairlane prices are incorrect as listed (I think somebody used dealer invoice rather than list), but automatic was definitely not $396 in the U.S. Road Test, which evaluated what I’m pretty sure was the exact same car, listed Cruiseomatic at $200 retail — that sounds about right.
I owned a 1969 Torino. It was my older brother’s first car, and afterwards, my first car. He drove the crap out of it. By the time I traded my French racing 10 speed for it, it had over 260K miles on it. Not bad for an 11 year old car. But I only drove it two years before everything broke on it. The brake master cylinder, the electrical system, heater core and a few other things I’m sure I’ve forgotten in the intervening 36 years.
The car was not a bad design. I felt it was relatively roomy, could easily accommodate five adults, six in a pinch. The trunk was big enough to move a kid to and from college, moving everything but his big reclining easy chair (that took a second trip). Fuel mileage was nothing great, but I don’t think it was any worse than any other V8 car of the time, either. But, in 1980 gas was not cheap, so I drove the old beast as little as I could.
WRT to the magazine article, I was surprised to see the Chevy dressed up with the white lettered tires and SS wheels on it; all of the other cars had their regular civilian wheel covers and standard for the times whitewall tires. I sense that GM sent a ringer into this test. Not that I can remember 1969 with any kind of clarity (I was six at the time), but I can’t imagine too many Mr & Mrs. Americas ordering their Malibu sedan with the tires and wheels from a Corvette on them.
It’s hard to say what I would choose from this menu; I’ve been in all of these cars over the years, but none recently. But lately, I’ve had a fetish for cars with wheel covers and standard equipment. I’m guessing that the Coronet or the Rebel would be my pick at this point in time. I think the Dodge would be a good performer in all aspects and that the Rebel would be the most comfortable to live with.
How did the sales agree with your picks, when the Ford outsold the Dodge by a huge margin?
Sales don’t have to agree with “picks”. Sales are not always indicative of intrinsic superiority, plus different folks have different priorities.
As someone who drove fairly few RWD domestic cars compared to imports in this era (well, strictly speaking starting in 1972 when I got my license) I was always pleasantly impressed with the several ‘69-75 Chrysler Corporation intermediates I drove. Can’t say the same for Ford or GM before the 1978 GM downsizing. And the only AMC non-Jeep vehicles I’ve driven were compacts, American, Hornet and Pacer … none of them very impressive. And BTW, what’s the reference to Pasadena? As a SoCal publication, MT should know the connotation of that reference, but were these cars for “little old ladies” or for JPL rocket scientists? Maybe both, but that seems very subtle.
A decade later, and all four of these were regular freeway crash fodder on the TV show CHiPs. As these were a generation before my youth, CHiPs was how many teens and young adults my age, were exposed weekly to this generation of domestic mid-sized and full-sized cars. At least they were still on the roads of Southern California. They had already pretty much started to disappear years earlier from roads in Ontario, Canada.
I have always admired the B body Mopar coupes of the 60s, mostly just from pictures as I live on the other side of the world.
But what a difference that tall sedan windshield makes, compared to the sleek and muscular shape of the coupes.
I think I would have chosen the Dodge in this test though, especially with the 383.
Though I like the looks of the Chevrolet, very handsome with those wheels.
Are you you in Australia? I grew up in Israel and we did get all of them but each would have represented a luxury only the wealthy could afford. The merely well-off bought compacts like Valiants/Darts, Novas, Mavericks or Americans. There was really nothing else in this segment – European cars like MBs and BMWs were only starting to access the market and the few Jaguars we got during that period were bought by those with masochistic tendencies.
Yes, Australia, we didn’t get these, only Valiants and some full size Dodges based on the Plymouth Fury.
Quite a few 2 doors have been privately imported, but I have never seen a 4 door in the metal.