(first posted 10/16/2015) Though the downsized Caprice/Impala had been an enormous success since being introduced in 1977, market conditions were changing quickly as the 1970s came to a close. In the span of a few short years, the smaller full size cars began to feel too inefficient once again. Luckily, Chevrolet had decided that a significant mid-cycle refresh was in order for the Caprice/Impala to maintain sales momentum.
GM should be given a lot of credit for undertaking such a comprehensive program after just three years. The sheet metal on all B- and C-body cars was reshaped for improved aerodynamic efficiency. Additional weight savings were implemented, and the larger engines were dropped across the board. These were the moves of a confident market leader, aimed at retaining or increasing their commanding lead in the lucrative large car segment.
The difference in appearance between the 1979 and 1980 Caprice/Impala was really quite striking, especially when compared side-by-side. One of the biggest changes was to the roofline and rear window on the coupes. While the 1980 coupe was surely cheaper to produce, given the shared rear window with the sedans, I for one was sorry to see the unique bent-glass treatment disappear. The new look was still handsome, but the distinctiveness of the earlier design was gone.
In spite of their best efforts with the B- and C-bodies, the sands were shifting right under The General’s feet. The combination of another gasoline shock in 1979, along with aggressive government fuel economy standards, made even the freshly reworked big cars seem suddenly obsolete.
Segment sales certainly reflected this harsh new reality, with all the full size players dropping anywhere from 34% (Buick LeSabre) to 82% (Chrysler Newport), in an overall new car market that had decreased 17%. Even with the extensive modifications for 1980, the top-selling Caprice/Impala was not immune from the carnage, with sales declining to 236,815 for the model year, a 60% plunge from the strong 1979 numbers! The only comfort for the bow tie division was that its 1980 big cars outsold Ford’s by 95,801 units.
Clearly 1980 was a milestone year in which many new car buyers dramatically shifted their preferences. Smaller cars took a larger share of the market. Smaller engines in the big cars were another attempt to extract more mileage, but the trade-offs were significant.
In an unusual test scenario concocted by Chevrolet’s PR team, Motor Trend compared a 1980 Chevette to a 1980 Caprice with the standard V6. The goal was to show how close the big car could come to matching the efficiency of the small car, especially under American cross-country driving conditions.
As you would imagine, undersized power plants made both these cars painfully slow. The Chevette crawled zero-to-60 in 16.5 seconds, while the V6 Caprice only managed a glacial 18.5 seconds zero-to-60. Ironically, mileage was not spectacular either, with both cars falling well short of their EPA mileage estimates. Especially embarrassing was the fact that the painfully slow Caprice V6 only scored 1 MPG better on the EPA cycle than the 305V8 had the previous year! The logical conclusion from the test was that neither the V6 Caprice or the Chevette were the best choices—rather it made the new Citation seem like the real winner. Too bad that one turned out so badly…
In January 1980, my father’s 1978 Caprice company car came due for replacement, and he decided to stick with a full size Chevy. I had loved the ’77 and ’78 Caprice Classics that Pop had enjoyed, and I was excited to see the modifications made for 1980. To me, the changes made the car seem fresh and up-to-date, and I was happy to get first hand exposure to the new one.
Pop’s 1980 Caprice was two-tone dark blue over light blue like the Impala featured in the sales catalog. Other than the fancier trim on the Caprice, this is roughly what his car looked like. However, rather than the unusual looking geometric Custom Wheel Covers shown on the catalog car, Pop’s had the standard Caprice wheel covers.
Pop’s 1978 Caprice came equipped with the “special custom” interior, but he wasn’t a huge fan of the velour seats. So for 1980 he ditched the cloth, and got a 50/50 split bench in dark blue vinyl. The Impala interior featured in the catalog was finished in the same dark blue color as our Caprice. It was handsome, though very hot in the New Orleans climate, especially the vinyl seats!
Unfortunately, there were two major issues with Pop’s 1980 Caprice that were an ominous preview of what was to come from GM as the decade progressed. First, the build quality had declined dramatically compared to the ’78 Caprice. Trim was misaligned both inside and out. The right rear door never fit right or closed properly. Squeaks and rattles were noticeable and annoying.
The other big problem was under the hood. The largest engine available to consumers in the 1980 Caprice/Impala was the 305 V8. According to the EPA, the 1980 Caprice/Impala 305 was one MPG more efficient than the 1979’s top engine, the 350 V8. However, in real world driving my father found that it used roughly the same amount of gas as had his previous 350-powered ’78 Caprice. Granted he drove with a lead foot and pushed the 305 hard, but still…
So while mileage seemed unchanged, there was a noticeable decrease in performance. The 305 felt more sluggish than the 350, and it also had an annoying hesitation when accelerating from a stop. I drove the 1980 Caprice as a newly licensed driver in the early 1980s, and I had to learn to adapt to the sluggish take-offs (surge, choke, surge) when proceeding across intersections after a stop sign. Compared to the Caprice, my mother’s ’79 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight with the 403 V8 was truly a rocket!
Part of the magic of the downsized GM big cars from 1977 was that they proved to American buyers that “less is more.” Smaller, nimbler and more efficient designs were actually as quick, if not quicker than the cars they replaced, while being just as comfortable. No wonder they were a smashing success. Unfortunately, throughout the 1980s, succeeding generations of newly shrunken and/or reputedly more efficient GM cars seemed to offer less than before, including this Caprice with its smaller optional engines. “Less is less,” especially when it costs more money, never makes for a compelling sale, and thus started what would be a dismal decade for The General. While the 1980 Caprice refresh was a CAFE-compromised swan song for a great design, who would have dreamed that it would be one of the best products to come from GM for the entire decade?
I thought that “Squaring up” the rooflines on the “C” Body sedans made sense as it made the near luxury and luxury sedans look rightfully formal, but I missed the “sportier” coupe rooflines. It was most noticeable on the Caprice and LeSabre. IMHO the ’77-’79 B/C Coupes were the nicest looking large coupes built by anyone since the ’65-’67 GM B bodies. But as large 2 doors were declining in sales, going with glass shared with the sedans was one way to at least keep the 2 door versions in production. And GM did make 2 door versions of the FWD full sizers, We might give some thanks for that.
Not all that much earlier, GM used to offer two coupe roofs on the big Chevy, one sportier (relatively speaking) and the other formal, for those who were welded to the pretend-Caddy look. You’d think they could have offered a choice here too.
Circling the aesthetic plughole…..
I’ve really enjoyed these downsizing articles, GN… Perhaps you’d care to tackle the GM mid-size models when they shrunk for ’78?
The 3 speed automatic, especially in the Chevette really kills the fuel mileage. I had a ’80 Jetta 3 speed auto (no AC) and drove from LA to Washington and got 26 mpg going 65-70 mph. The same trip in the ’86 5 speed Jetta at around the same speed, but also running the AC during the day got 36 mpg. And the ’86 is a heavier car as well. Amazingly low mileage running 55 mph. Interesting test. Really shows how inefficient early emission cars, especially without fuel injection really were in this time period.
Auto didn’t help, but maybe more. The 86 was fuel-injected.
Also, I owned a Rabbit GTI and a Golf GTI. Both fuel-injected, both 1.8 liter. In mixed driving, the lighter Rabbit should’ve used less fuel; it used more (24-26 mpg, vs 25-29). On the highway, the heavier, but more aero, and Golf got about 3-4 mpg more in similar driving.
I just think the 85 motors were less thirsty.
The ’80 Jetta was also fuel injection. Smaller motor. 1.6 vs 1.8 on the ’86. The automatic was probably turning over at least 1000 rpm faster at freeway speeds. Had a fuel injection ’77 1.6 Rabbit that would also get high 30’s on freeway, but I did replace the 4 speed with a wide ratio 5 speed shortly after I got it. The GTI’s both had the close ratio 5 speed which revved higher in 5th gear than the non GTI transmissions.
Just curious about something:
RPMs vs cubic displacement vs sheer weight, and
which plays more of a role in ultimate fuel economy?
I had a 66 Dart that weighed around 2800 pounds advertised. Stock it got 17, when i went from the 273 to a 360 I could up the gearing from a 3.55 to a 2.76. Although not as quick off the line, the gas mileage went from 17 to 24. Aerodynamics of a brick doesn’t help. Now, my TC-3 got 30 mpg from the 1.7 liter 4 banger and when I went to a 360 V8 , the mileage went to 26 mpg. I guess increasing the engine size more than 3 times does have a gas mileage lowering effect, but the performance difference was huge. The weight also went from 2300 to 2600 pounds.
Yes, you’re right, the 1980 Jetta had the (preferred IMO) 1588 cc engine.
1000 rpm is a lot more–and a torque convertor.
My Rabbit GTI had a fuel-injected 1781 cc. I don’t think I would ever get high 30s. I had 2 Golf GTIs, 8V. They did get mid-30s on highway. Doing 55 might, THEY might get hi 30s.
I did like the new sheetmetal refresh for ’80, and the weight-paring made a lot of sense without compromising the ride/comfort. Unfortunately performance suffered with the smaller engines and cost-cutting could start to be seen. This along with the disastrous X-cars that come out in April ’79 were the start of GM’s long decline into bankruptcy.
When the Impala and Caprice were slightly redesigned for 1980, they became the lightest a large Chevrolet (still slightly larger than the 1973-77 Chevelle Malibu 4 Door Colonnade Sedan but now about 300 pounds on the average heavier than the comparable 1980 Caprice Classic/Impala) weighing in between 3,350-3,599 pounds or about the same as a one size smaller 1975-79 Chevrolet Nova.
Same thoughts here. While people bark about the lack of roll-down rear windows (certainly a let-down), it was the quality of their early-80s cars that set the course. Sure, the 1980 Citation sold 800k copies or so. But that was 800k witnesses to the decline. The rest of the ’80s, as GM missed target after target between quality, design and leading the market, made their mission fait accompli.
Not that they didn’t ultimately produce a decent model or 10. But this was the height of their customer = beta years, and it cost them dearly especially after the GM lifers strayed or died off.
If the 77-79 full-size cars mark the 2nd high point of GM (the first being the mid-60s), then the 80 full-size cars mark the beginning of the “cheapening” and hollowing out of GM’s reputation.
They were cheaper, didn’t look as good, went slower, and really didn’t use less gas, all for more money.
And over time, just going from anecdotal evidence (friends & family), they were not as well assembled, more problems.
Roger Smith era!
I see the Caprice has a 2.73:1 final drive which is why the acceleration is so miserable. Spanked by an automatic Chevette, can it get any worse?
Oh right, yes it can, our family’s 4.4l Impala with 2.41:1 final drive. Zzzzz.
Yup. Most malaise-era cars had insanely-tall final drive ratios. The 9″ third member that I plucked out of a 1979 T-Bird had 2.49 gearing (threw that into the scrap pile a few years back as I couldn’t even give it away for free on Craigslist).
There was a fanaticism to “get more mileage”, due to the Oil Crisis 2.
Car and Driver was saying “as soon as all cars are FWD and small, we will be better off…”
Buyers were panicing and trading in Cordobas for Chevettes*. Gas was supposed to be $5 a gallon “any day now”.
*Relatives of mine did that.
But, Caprice made a huge comeback when gas prices stayed at $1.20 a gallon in 1983, and Pontiac dealers demanded big cars and got Canadian Parisiennes.
Hope there is a CC article of that era.
Same as the Toronado featured today.
I never understood why they didn’t tool up for overdrives and overdrive automatics as soon as the first fuel crisis hit, instead of using these ridiculous rear end gears with consequently miserable acceleration. It’s not like they had no previous experience of overdrives, but somehow they seemed set in a ‘keep cranking out what we’ve got’ rut – which, as we know, didn’t end well. Production guys and Homo Economicus overruling the engineers, I guess.
To my mind, this is what happens when engineers let numbers/formulas/computers figure out what is THEORETICALLY a better solution….without actually driving the resulting car. A small (er) engine uses less gas, we will go with that. A “smaller” final drive ratio uses less gas….we will go with that. Put just those 2 together, you have a stone that pretty much forces any driver to drive with their foot to the floor.
BTW, sales of these “new and improved” 2 doors dropped significantly from 1979 to 1980 and pretty much fell off a cliff by 1982. In 1979 they were nearly 89,000 for Caprice and Impala combined. In 1980 they were down to approximately 40,000….by 1982 under 13,000. And Chevy wasn’t the only make to see sales of it’s 2 door drop between 1979 and 1980 as Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and crosstown rivals Ford and Mercury saw sales half almost overnight.
And what do you know, Ford sold about the same number of LTD 2 doors in 1979….perhaps a few more (?), than Chevy did.
Actually gasoline engines are most efficient at near wide open throttle.
That’s theoretically true, at peak torque rpm. However, virtually all passenger car engines are tuned to fuel rich under high load conditions, and when driving foot to floor, most cars will be revved well past peak torque rpm. This causes efficiency to drop off rapidly.
That is why I qualified my comment to say “NEAR wide ….”.
How do the 1989-90 Caprices, with fuel injection, compare to the early 80’s?
Better drivability?
I often heard that the LT1 – engined cars were phenomenally good on fuel.
Yes. Sadly typical of GM that at the very end of the line for RWD big sedans (1990-96), they finally got a drivetrain that both performed well and returned good mileage.
I had a ’93 Fleetwood with the L05. It never returned less than 19 mpg and typically got between 22-25 mpg in most highway driving. With a 23 gallon tank it had a 500+ mile cruising range.
Shame they didn’t come out with the LT1 ten years earlier. Aside from advances in computer control, was there anything there they couldn’t have done ten years earlier?
The ’80 Caprice in the MT Caprice vs Chevette test was still sporting a 2 barrel carburetor, and also a 3 speed automatic without overdrive. A 1994-95 Caprice or Roadmaster has an overdrive transmission and fuel injection. GM had fuel injection in the late 70’s, available mostly in some Cadillacs, but the computerized engine management was minimal and they weren’t all that more efficient that similar carbureted engines. Putting an extra gear in the transmission isn’t much of a big deal, but engine technology jumped a lot in those 15-ish years.
This was pretty much it for Chevrolet as a respected builder of sedans. These big cars were the franchise, and the seriousness of the ’77 B bodies showed what GM could still do. The big Chevrolets sold in big numbers, and that justified new platforms every five or six years. Unfortunately, after the ’77 there was never another all new big Chevrolet. What was good in ’77 soldiered on for twenty model years, at which point it and GM were the punchlines of jokes. The 1980 and later cars were awful, from Impala to Fleetwood. Even without GM’s disastrous small cars, they covered themselves in ignominy by decontenting and underpowering the cars that defined them.
Never was a fan of the ’80 restyle. Gone was the lean athletic look, replaced by a pudgy formal style. A friend’s dad had the same experience as yours, but with a Parisienne. He loved his ’78, but hated the ’80 that his company replaced it with.
What was 1979’s best selling car anyway?
1979’s best selling car was the full-sized Chevy at nearly 590,000. The most popular model being the Caprice Classic 4 door sedan. The full-sized Ford only sold about 390,000. Again, the 4 door sedan was the most popular body style.
Interesting to see that big Chevy sales were so far down from what they had been ten years earlier.
I mostly preferred the styling of the facelifted ’80s GM B/C bodies to the ’77-79 versions, though the Chevy coupes were an exception. What I like on the ’80s were the lower, more sloped hoodlines (which improved visibility and made the cars look wider when viewed from the front), the taller, longer rear trunklids which improved space inside, and the better-intergrated bumpers. All three of these changes also improved aerodynamics. I also liked that they eliminated (or at least toned down) that weird slant in the beltline just behind the A-pillar which always irked me. More effort was also expended on making the five GM brands look more different from each other. The Caprice had triple taillights for the first time since 1976.
But there’s no doubt the changes intended to reduce weight and improve MPG made the car feel cheaper. The 4-speed automatics hunted around between gears unlike the 3-speeds they replaced. Doors didn’t slam home with the authoritative thunk they used to. The smaller engines felt wheezier. Trim didn’t fit as well.
Like everything I read around this time, this was supposed to be a mid-cycle refresh and a new Caprice would debut in 1983. Instead they were still selling this car in 1990.
On the Capri
Was this “new 1983 Caprice” the delayed FWD H bodies? Or the W body Lumina? Supposedly the W was to replace the big Chevy, but got delayed 5 years.
The C-bodies were first to become FWD. They were delayed from a 1984 introduction due to problems with the transaxle transmissions. This probably delayed the FWD H bodies too. I don’t know anything about a RWD Caprice although 1983 would have been 6 years since the new 1977’s came out. I think that around 1983 GM was thinking FWD for most everything, but the Caprice remained RWD. The Caprice was a fleet car too, so that may have kept it going.
I’m not sure it was yet apparent that fleets wouldn’t take a liking to FWD as the ’80s dawned. Evidence: there were plans to replace the Checker Marathon taxicab with a FWD car, with prototypes based on a stretched Chevy Citation (!)
I was thinking more of police vehicles for one thing.
I’ve never heard of anything but the Lumina being a mid-sized car intended primarily to replace the A and G bodies. Certainly the other GM brands all gave them names long associated with their mid-size cars, and didn’t discontinue their full-size entries to clear the way for them.
Neither one of those since the Caprice was redesigned in 1991 with an enlarged “Ford Taurus” look and continued onto 1996. Indeed the Caprice grown about 2″ length and weigh around 650 pounds more than the 1980 version weighing in at least around 4,000 pounds even though it still used the same RWD BOF B-Body chassis from 1977.
If I could go back in time, I’d love to unravel the mystery of what happened at GM with the next round of downsizing for the big cars. All the buff books and car preview guides noted that the GM biggies would shrink again for the 1983 model year, likely appearing in the fall of 1982. The very square H-bodies certainly look like they were designed in the late 1970s. Chevrolet should have gotten one of these cars–perhaps the styling cues that showed up on the W-body Lumina were originally envisioned for a Caprice on the H-body.
Also, keep in mind that in the early 1980s there was still a lot of fear around the energy crisis–those concerns did not start to ease until ’83/’84. For the start of the ’83 model year, gas prices were still high, big car sales were in decline (’82 was a terrible year for traditional full size sales)–it would have been a great time for downsized fwd big cars. Plus, while the designs seemed dated and uncompetitive when they did appear in 1985/1986–they would have seemed relatively fresh in 1982/1983. What happened? Engineering snafus? Bureaucrats run amok? I’d love to know, as the lack of a timely redesign on these cars was an enormous miss for The General.
There was a problem with the transmissions which delayed introduction about 6 months, making them early 1985 models.
I’m especially curious about the even longer delay for the H-bodies (Bonneville, 88, LeSabre) given the latter two were just decontented 98s and Electras with a slightly different roofline.
About 1980-81 there was an Iran-Iraq war which caused a big jump in fuel prices. GM then planned a new round of downsizing, which could not have been much earlier than sometime in 1984. My guess would be that GM may have planned on redesigning the RWD B-C bodies for 1983, but this was replaced by the plan to go FWD. So the first FWD’s are the C-bodies which get delayed to early 1984 as 1985 models.
As far as I can tell, the RWD B-bodies (Buick Lesabre and Olds 88) were then planned as 1986 FWD H-bodies. By 1985 fuel prices have decreased from the peak in 1982, so GM has really responded too fast. My guess is that what they might have been thinking about the Caprice changed. But it would not do for the Lesabre and 88 to continue as bigger cars than the Electra and 98.
That ‘weird slant in the beltline’ was one of those subtle stylistic tricks which led to deeper side windows. It’s still there on the ’80 coupe pictured, just that the chrome accent strip below the windows runs straight forward to line up with the fender trim rather than following the curve (or slant as you call it). The deep-windowed look was de rigueur at the time, as was the high trunk and this was a neater way of achieving it rather than having hood line, trunk line and window sills all at different levels.
Peter Wilding:
“deeper” side windows – as in, taller?
I know in my 1981 Buick Century, I could reverse in that thing without even looking out my back window! Just used the rear view mirror and side views.
Try backing up in ANYTHING after model year 2000, what with low-nose, high rear deck NASCAR inspired down-force aerodynamics, plus side window beltlines up to my shoulders! WTH? No wonder backup cameras are becoming standard on nearly all but base trim levels of everything!
The late 1970s GM full and midsized sedans actually sloped down a couple inches from front to rear, making it easy to back into a parking space, or up a narrow driveway. Today it’s the complete opposite, with noses down to a parking-lot barrier grabbing 3-4 inches from the pavement, and rear bumpers higher than the decklid of a ’78 Monte Carlo!
In ’83 we got a ’78 Impala wagon, red with tan vinyl. It was beat up and funky (and had an 8-track!), but boy, did it ever run. I used to wash it all the time, and get under the hood and take off the air cleaner and check the oil, pretending to work on the car (I’m assuming it was the 305 but I have no idea). But it was a second car, and my parents decided we needed something newer and “more reliable”. In ’86 we got a demo Caprice off the showroom floor with a hundred miles on it, gold, no wood, cloth interior, but an AM RADIO?!. As kids we hated that, especially on long trips, and the wagon was a complete lemon from day one (taking delivery, the brakes locked up and we had to bring her back, constant running and trans problems), and I still remember my mom opening the hood and noticing the Olds engine and getting angry! We kept it for a year and put up with its foibles and terrible build quality until we got it returned under the lemon law. My parents bought an ’88 Camry, and since my dad sucked at driving stick, he took the ’78 wagon as his commuter. The ol’ gal soldiered on til about ’90, when my dad cracked it up one night, hitting a deer half a mile from our house. That was a sad, sad day…we all really loved that wagon and it was still in fine shape.
Dad took the pithy insurance payout and bought himself an 82-83 LeSabre sedan, red over red velour. My mom hated and refused to drive it unless we were hauling dirty stuff…she took such good care of that Camry! I loved that Buick, though…it was the first car I ever drove (illegally at age 14!).
I have never driven any B-bodies except an ’87 Caprice with the 4.3, and it was just about the worst-handling car I ever have had the displeasure of piloting. I wonder how I would feel about the ’78 had we kept it til I was a teen. Seems like it was a whole different beast than the B-bodies that followed. A weird progression…unlike GM’s standard 1980-2010 approach of “Let’s push this to market and let the buyers work out the bugs then take it off the market once it’s finally a good car” logic, judging from these articles GM did exactly the reverse with the Caprice/Impala…launched a perfect car then nickel-and-dimed it to death. What a shame.
Love reading these old road tests.Thank you.
One other reason for decline in Caprice sales was buyers switching to mid size or compacts.
Olds and Buick fixed the Aeroback sedans and they sold like hotcakes, considering it was a recession and oil crisis. Many older Impalas were traded in for Cutlasses. Get an Olds for less than a Chevy.
But also, Chevette and the infamous Citation took sales. X Car was #1 for 1980, and downhill from there.
“…GM did exactly the reverse with the Caprice/Impala…launched a perfect car then nickel-and-dimed it to death.”
Maybe that’s why Ford’s RWD Panther cars took off in sales in mid-late 80’s? With the FI 5.0 motors, the Ford’s ran way better. IMHO
Also, the Lincoln Town Car also took off in sales during the same period as well. I suspect then the downsized FWD Fleetwood/Deville had helped Lincoln.
Back to the 1980 Chevy, I like the new front end. And it was also the last laspe for the Bel Air nameplate in Canada for 1980-81. http://www.productioncars.com/gallery.php?car=15730&make=Chevrolet&model=Bel
I too like the new front end, but I prefer the old coupe body. It had style – the new one was just a box.
“Maybe that’s why Ford’s RWD Panther cars took off in sales in mid-late 80’s? With the FI 5.0 motors, the Ford’s ran way better. IMHO
I know this is an old comment, but I have seen this posted numerous times over the years in the comments. Panther sales did not “take off” in the late 1980s, if anything they declined somewhat. Chevrolet B-Body sales remained fairly consistent at approximately 175K -200K during this time, and outsold the Ford by a wide margin each year. During this time Chevrolet was very strong in fleet sales, in particular Police and Taxi. It wasn’t until Aero Vics that Ford increased its market share and surpassed Chevrolet.
Our ’77 Caprice Estate ran flawlessly – that tried and true GM 350 V-8 was as strong as an ox – but the rest of the car was plagued with cheapness. Possibly we had a bad one, or the Canadian built cars were not as of good quality as the American built ones? I’m not sure, but all I can say is that my father cursed that car all the time. After five years and loads of body rot he sold it and bought an ’82 Country Squire which was built much better than the Chevy.
The 1980 restyle took me by surprise. I wasn’t expecting the Caprice to change after only three years. Dad was almost going to trade the Caprice in 1980 for a Buick Estate wagon as he really hated the Caprice, but he decided to hold on to it for a few more years.
So, cheapening the Chevrolet and introducing the Citation. 1980, the definitive year of GM’s suicide?
I wonder if the “runaway success” of the Taurus had anything to do with Chevy keeping the Impala/Caprice as-is from 1980 to 1989? I mean, there was quite a bit of “buzz” (I would think) leading up to the Taurus’s intro and that had to give GM biggies pause. Then, when sales took off, especially considering how unusual the car looked….it had to have an effect.
Also, GM’s boxy look was out of style and the A bodies were plain as plywood.
I remember we were shopping for a car in 1980 and were looking at the A-body GM cars. Went into a Buick dealer and were looking at the Century, and noticed that there was a LeSabre sedan in the showroom, equipped with the 3.8L V6. Salesperson tried to upset Dad into the LeSabre – more room, and the fuel economy was pretty close to the Century, but Dad demurred thinking of the LeSabre’s extra bulk in parking, and that the car would be severely underpowered.
We did end up getting a Century sedan – and while it wasn’t particularly fast, the LeSabre would have been a slug with the six.
I read something that for 1983 in the full size Chevrolet lineup, the Impala wagon and all of the 2 doors were dropped. As gasoline prices dropped during 1983-84, many people are buying full size cars again, including the big Chevy. The 2 door Caprice returned in 1984. Several changes took place on the big Chevy starting in 1985. That year, a new dashboard replaced the one used since 1977 and the V6 switched to the Chevy based 4.3 with TBI. And the V8 got a higher compression ratio, boosting the horsepower to 165. 1986 brought a facelift of the front and rear along with the retirement of the Impala name. The lineup now consists of the base Caprice, Caprice Classic 2 and 4 door sedans, Caprice Classic wagon and the new Caprice Classic Brougham. During 1986 the Caprice Wagon switched to the Olds 307. 1987 brought composite headlights, roller lifters on the V8s and a luxurious Caprice Classic Brougham LS with leather interior. 1988 saw added standard features and 1989 saw TBI added to the Chevy 305 and 350 (police only) V8s. The Olds 307 used in the Caprice Wagon stuck with the carb all the way into 1990. In the late 80s, the Chevrolet Caprice became the the cop car to have.
The ’85 didn’t have a new dashboard. Some minor trim was changed, like silvery stuff replacing the woodgrain, less chrome outlining, a paddle switch replacing the pull knob for the headlights, and new graphics on the gauges. In later years, woodgrain would return to the dash. But the same basic dashboard was used from 1977 to 1990. The ’91 to ’96 generation did get two distinct dashboards, the second one to accommodate a passenger airbag.
My mom bought a ’77 Impala in 1980 (It was one of like 50 a local dealer had, most had 350/5.7L V8’s, but some of the cheaper ones had V6’s in them), she test drove both, and I was sort of shocked when she totally rejected the V6 car for being “Gutless”. The color choices were all bad, IMHO, and the light blue car she bought was probably the best of the bad choices (White, an amazingly bad tan/gold, light blue, and a horrible brown) available. All the V6 cars were maroon, the best color of any of them, by far. In 1981, we went on a trip, and rented a new 1981 Caprice, and it had the V6, not sure which one, but it was like it was a totally different car, power wise from her car. It was annoyingly slow, and I remember complaining about it the entire week we had it. I even called the rental place to see if we could swap it for a V8 car, but none were available. I don’t remember the mileage being any better than mom’s car, probably because of the amount of time it was at full throttle or close to it. The only trouble we had with the Impala in the 3 years she had it was the trans failed soon after it was serviced, like a week after. I guess it was just a coincidence, but I always wondered. The rebuild was only about $400.
1980 was the year gm ruined the big cars. They looked good but the tiny engines and weak transmissions made them inferior. And as they got worse the Panthers got better. The Panthers beat these in reliability and comfort and fuel economy and in looks. And they lasted years longer. There was no panther v6 either. I worked for a cab company and the best cabs were crown Vic, marquis and town car. Along with volare diplomat and fury. The v8 Chevy was ok but more costly to keep on he road and the worst was gm full sized v6 cars. They were the slowest and thirties and lived in the repair shop. The Vic and the co late 6 I drove lasted 500000 miles. The v6 Oldsmobile and Buicks didn’t make 200000 and that with the gm cars was with multiple engine and transmission swaps.
Warren, I have to agree with you that GM made things worse as time went on in the 80’s for their large cars. They may have rebounded somewhat towards the late 80’s, but the Panthers far surpassed them in build quality and reliability. Once again I think that GM always excelled at making a large comfortable RWD car with a great big V-8. (Just look at the Cadillac Fleetwood) Once they had to make their large cars and engines become more fuel efficient they had issues. The only exception is the 3.8 SFI V-6 that made its way into their downsized larger cars – 98, Electra, LeSabre, Delta 88 etc. They lucked out with a durable, powerful, fuel-efficient engine. Too bad they didn’t work on that in the 70’s instead of a simple downsizing of their cars.
I’ve really enjoyed re-reading these old articles–funny how they call the Chevette an old car–what if we could have told them the things would last another 7 years on the market?
1980 saw the front bumper much better integrated than the earlier 5 MPH bumpers. When was this requirement deleted? Was the requirement dropped to 2.5 MPH?
Many cars today don’t have any sort of front bumper, at least not a classic chrome one that protrudes from the fascia.
I think for the Impala coupe, the 1977 – 1979 was more stylish; I especially liked the bent glass in back. For Cadillac, the 1980 Coupe de Ville looks better; it’s more formal and luxurious looking.
My family had a 78 Caprice and in 1979 or 80 bought a Chevette as a second car. My Mom mostly drove the Chevette back and forth to work, about a thirty minute drive one way and she got better mileage with the Caprice, they sold the Chevette and the Caprice in 81, bought a Olds Omega. Yuck…
CR tested a 80 Impala with the 3.8 V6 with slightly different results. 0-60 came in 15.9 sec, which they said was only .5 sec slower than the 79 V8 they tested and CR’s 80 Impala got 12mpg vs 10mpg in the city driving test, while the highway mileage jumped from 20 in 79 to 26 in 80 (although that was at 55 mph).
Thanks so much for this very enjoyable article! A fascinating read between the MT comparison of a Chevette and Caprice, but also actual experience with these cars. Today I prefer the look of the ’77-’79 models, but the 1980 update was very attractive at the time. I guess it wore on me after being in production so long without significant updates.
I wonder if the build quality differed between assembly plants rather than models. I say that because those vehicles were built in such large numbers that several plants were turning them out. I think back to a 1982 Cutlass that my parents owned that was durable and reliable, but had hardware and finishing touches that were absolutely unacceptable and appalling.
One day I looked at the door jamb and noticed it was built in Canada, and I assumed at the time it was built in Oshawa, Ontario, which actually was one of the best plants in the GM firmament to build cars, at least in the 1990s / 2000s. But no, these Canadian-built Cutlass cars were built in Ste Therese, Quebec, a plant that was the worst of GMs plants due to worker issues. If I were buying a replacement of that car back in the day, but had use of the Internet, I’d have no hesitation buying a G-Body like that but only from a plant other than that Quebec GM factory.
For the record, the 1980-87 Caprice coupe does not share rear window glass with the sedan. The coupe glass has a slight bow, an outward curve at the bottom edge that the sedan does not.
I remember an article from Collectible Automobile who showed some various proposed styling illustrated and clay models suggered for the 1977 Caprice and one of them showed a proposed coupe who have a more or less similar roofline and C-pillar to the 1980 Caprice/Impala/Canadian Bel Air 2-door coupe.
These V6 powered B-bodies only existed to boost CAFE numbers. In the real world, as this test demonstrates, these cars were horrible performers and fuel economy wasn’t much better than a V8.
GN also posted a test of a 1980 V8 powered Caprice, which shows the massive performance difference that the 305 provided:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/vintage-review-1980-caprice-versus-1980-ltd-rematch/
While the 1980-90 B-bodies constantly get looked down on by the commenters on this site compared to the 1977-79s, they were good cars. By the mid-1980s GM had most of the quality issues sorted, such as the soft cam 305s and weak TH200s, and they were good cars. Good enough that C/D sang it’s praises when selecting the 1983 Caprice on it’s 10 best list. They selected a 305 powered F41 sedan with an OD transmission and claimed it was the closet a US automaker had gotten to a Mercedes Benz driving experience. They biggest gripes were the poor seating and the poor instrumentation.
It seems the best compromise between the Chevette and the Caprice was the V-6 Malibu…with a manual transmission. It would hold 5, 6 people with a bench seat, and have enough power for the conditions of the test.
In 1980, GM took a very good car, and cheapened it. 77-79 = yes, after = no.
Ford was reinvesting in the Panther, but GM was cheapening their full-sizer. It was like the Tortoise and the Hare. GM’s Hare was the immediate winner, while Ford’s Tortoise took five years to catch up and then pass GM with the Panther. Right up to 2003, Ford kept making the Panther better. Then for the next eight years, they did to it what GM did to this car, milked it.
” Unfortunately after ’77 there was never another all new big Chevrolet.”
The H body certainly would have been the perfect candidate to become the new ” real Chevrolet”- the new full sizer. That car could have competed- at least indirectly- with the ever larger Accord and Camry. In the meantime, GM could have given itself time to develop a truly competitive mid- size entry to go directly against the. dominant Japanese offerings.
I have 92 caprice classic V8 5.0
I own a 1984 Chevrolet Caprice, with less than 50,000 miles. It’s a great ride and a good conversation piece.
This was also my Father’s car (well, my Mother actually drove it more except on trips/vacations) in 1980, though his was a 1978…and his was a wagon, rather than a sedan.
He traded in his ’73 Ford Country Sedan for it, and it was probably the nicest car he ever bought (time adjusted, since many of the optional features on it at the time are now standard and then some on cars). He never bought a real “luxury” car, but the Chevy was pretty loaded, and was the only car he bought out of a showroom (at Shearer Cheverolet in South Burlington, Vt.). He also looked at the newly downsized Ford Wagon (for ’79, he bought the ’78 at end of season so the new Ford was available too) but went with the Chevy instead, I think partly because the Chevy now had a “Ford-like” 3 way tailgate instead of the clamshell tailgates they had through ’76 (he bought a new car in ’76, but it was his second car, it was a Subaru DL with front wheel drive). It was the first car to have the “full” complement of “luxury” features (now standard, but back then options) like power windows (he had power locks on the ’73 Ranch wagon but not power windows…the Ranch wagon also had AM/FM stereo and trailer towing package, so it was no stripper..but the Caprice Classic wagon was a bit better equipped than the Ranch wagon, with full instrumentation (including fuel economy vacuum gauge, which was pretty popular at that time). It also had the 305.
Of course I drove it many times, though I’d moved out on my own midway through as I finished my undergraduate studies and started my first job, in another city maybe 200 miles away. As I had the time between finishing my studies and starting my job, I was tasked with driving to pick up my Grandparents to take them to our city for the graduation (it wasn’t just mine, my sister and Mother also graduated, my Mother having gone back to school but graduating from a different school) and taking them back home afterward…they lived about 350 miles away. It was a nice car to drive, probably would have preferred the 350, especially for towing (he still had our pop-top camper, which didn’t really need too large an engine for towing, but it was nice to have the trailer towing package, though he was soon to sell the camper). Lots of other changes were soon to happen, he took a job 2000 miles away in the sunbelt, fortunately the Chevy had air conditioning, which was kind of still not too common for non-luxury cars in the Northeast where he lived when he bought the Chevy….I don’t even know if it was an option for the Subaru at that time. He kept the Chevy about 6 years until it was in an accident, and instead of getting it fixed, he traded it for the worst car he ever bought (’84 Pontiac Sunbird) which kept him away from GM for about 20 years, though he returned for his last 2 cars, both Chevy Impalas.
Though at the time, this would probably be one of the last cars I was considering for myself , now 41 years later I find myself wishing they still sold these. They were kind of abandoned for minivans (and eventually SUVs) but in my current age (older than my Father was when he bought the ’78, by quite a margin) if they were still available new, I’d really like one..a comfortable car with a nice ride, a bit taller than most cars nowdays (but shorter than truck/SUVs). They were considered dinosaurs at that time, probably due to fuel economy, but with today’s more efficient engines, they’d probably not be bad (kind of like a 2010 Crown Victoria?). I’m willing to trade off some fuel economy for a bit of comfort now, something that would have amused me in 1980, of course when you’re still young you have a hard time imagining yourself much older than your current age, but now that I am that age, cars like this are no longer available. I actually want my father’s car, though he owned an Oldsmobile earlier, was a Chevrolet in the end.