(first posted 7/30/2018) Recently Paul posted an article where Road and Track road tested a 1976 Plymouth Volare wagon. This led to several commenters comparing the Volare to the Ford Fairmont and the downsized Chevrolet Malibus. There were some that rebutted that the prices among these cars were not equal, and others who said they weren’t comparable because they were from different size classes. All that said, Popular Science agreed with some of the commenters and claimed that these cars were relatively equal despite the size labels that the manufacturers put on each.
I tend to agree that these cars were competitors. There were drastic changes occurring in the auto industry at this time and this is likely what led to confusion on the sizing of these cars. The fact is despite the Fairmont and the Volare being listed as “compacts” and the Malibu being called an intermediate by Chevrolet, each of these cars were classed as “mid-size” by the EPA in terms of passenger and cargo volume. It takes a quick look at the spec sheets to see how close the dimensions on these cars actually were. The Malibu and Fairmont are somewhat smaller than the “compact” Volare, but all three are relatively similar in size and interior room.
Popular Science was amazed at how these new midsized wagons were just as roomy on the inside as the previous generation but was so much smaller on the outside. The handling and roadability of these modern wagons had drastically improved with more modern chassis and lighter weights. Of course this also meant a significant improvement in fuel mileage while performance could be maintained with smaller engines. Below is a comparison of 1975 “Intermediate” wagons compared to these 1978 wagons in terms of dimensions.
| 1975 Chevelle | 1975 Torino | 1975 Fury | 1978 Malibu | 1978 Zephyr | 1978 Volare | |
| F leg room | 42.1 | 42.5 | 41.9 | 42.8 | 41.8 | 42.5 |
| R leg room | 36.8 | 37.3 | 36.3 | 35.9 | 35.4 | 36.6 |
| R knee room | 0 | 4 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 1.6 | 1.2 |
| F head room | 38.8 | 38.4 | 39.7 | 38.5 | 39.2 | 39.2 |
| R head room | 39.4 | 38.4 | 39.9 | 38.5 | 39.2 | 38.7 |
| F hip room | 54.7 | 59.4 | 59.2 | 52.2 | 56.2 | 57.2 |
| R hip room | 55.1 | 59.3 | 59.2 | 55.6 | 48.7 | 57 |
| Cargo Volume | 72.4 | 79.5 | 73.1 |
| 1975 Chevelle | 1975 Torino | 1975 Fury | 1978 Malibu | 1978 Zephyr | 1978 Volare | |
| Length | 215.2 | 222.6 | 224.1 | 193.4 | 193.8 | 201.2 |
| Wheelbase | 116 | 118 | 117 | 108.1 | 105.5 | 112.7 |
| Width | 76.6 | 79 | 79.2 | 71.2 | 70.2 | 73.3 |
| Height | 55.6 | 54.8 | 56.5 | 54.5 | 54.7 | 55.7 |
| Weight | 4696 | 5009 | 4456 | 3260 | 2898 | 3581 |
All Data obtained from Popular Science
The interior dimensions are pretty close to the behemoth wagons that preceded these cars. In comparing the exterior dimensions it’s astonishing how much longer, wider and heavier the mid-70s wagons were compared to the new generation. The Ford had the most significant exterior size difference, going from largest to smallest in the class. All that said, everything comes at a cost. The new generation wagons were a marvel of packaging compared to the previous cars, but they do fall short when in a few areas. Unfortunately the cargo volumes for the mid-1970’s wagons weren’t listed, but I know that they are all are over 80 cubic feet and were larger than the small wagons that replaced them. These older wagons also had a wider cargo area, allowing them to carry 4 x 8 sheets in some cases (Torino and Fury).
The hip room was also reduced on the new smaller wagons. Chevrolet was the closest at achieving the dimensions of the old Malibu, albeit, the older Malibu was significantly narrower than the Torino and Fury competition. And while you might say, who cares about hip room!? I can attest as someone who grew up with station wagons and a family of six, we cared! Driving all day next to your annoying sibling on a family trip, it sure is nice to have those extra inches. From personal experience, I can tell you a Fairmont didn’t leave much space for three in the back seat. The last point of compromise for the newer wagons was the lack of a third seat option, previously offered on all of the older wagons. These compromises were part of the reason why my family upgraded from a Fairmont wagon to a larger GM B-body station wagon.
All three manufacturers switch the tailgates used from one generation to the next as well. The Mercury and Plymouth went from the old 3-way tailgate to the now almost ubiquitous lift gate hatch. While Chevrolet, for some strange reason, reverted back from a lift gate to a two piece tailgate, circa the 1950’s. This was likely a big drawback for station wagon customers, and in my opinion a poor choice by General Motors.
Another point of interest is just how astonishingly close the Mercury and Chevrolet wagons are in overall dimensions. It’s almost as if each car was using the other as the baseline. The one point where the Mercury wagon differs significantly is the larger cargo area. This is no doubt from Ford’s more efficient packaging from modern unitized construction. Ford even boasted that the Fox wagons had 85% of the capacity of the new downsize Chevy B-Body wagons. Nevertheless, the Malibu does have significantly more rear seat hip room compared to the Merc. While many trash the 1978 A-bodies for the fixed rear windows, this larger dimension is the end result.
The wagons in this particular test were all equipped with small displacement V8 engines. While during this time the 6 cylinder engines were becoming more popular, V8 engines were still relatively popular in the late 1970’s. Chevrolet actually sold far more V8 equipped Malibus than it did six cylinder in 1978. Many customers who stepped up to larger heavier wagons often felt the need to also upgrade the more powerful V8. All three engines produced about the same power, and the lightest Fairmont had the best performance, while the heaviest Volare was the slowest. All three performed very comparably to the larger heavier 1975 wagons that PS tested, with significantly improved mileage.
When it came to base prices, the Zephyr and the Volare were pretty spot on, while the Malibu was about $500 more expensive. All wagons were well optioned for the times, and it increased the prices significantly. In the end the Malibu was about $1000 more than the Zephyr wagon. The Volare was a couple hundred dollars more than the Mercury. That said, the Malibu was the most optioned up of the three cars. And of course this doesn’t take into account the discounts at the dealership, in all likelihood the biggest ones probably were at the Mopar store.
These are the production numbers for the “midsized” wagons over their entire production run. Figures include all models/variations, ie Dodge Diplomat and Dodge Aspen, or Ford Fairmont, Granada and LTD
Here is the production of midsize wagons by platform for each manufacturer. The numbers are the total for all makes using the platform.
Here is the total output for each of the wagons by platform, over all production years.
Based on the commentary in the Popular Sciences road test, it appears that they favoured the Malibu and Zephyr over the Volare wagon. They note that despite the only two year difference in release time, the Ford and GM products had moved a notch above that of the Mopar. The Zephyr is definitely the most advanced design of the three, and the Fox wagon remained on the market until 1986 compared to 1983 for Chevrolet, 1981 for Mopar. However, the light weight and the more spartan accommodations were definitely noticeable compared to the competition. The Volare was definitely the most traditional when it came to driving dynamics and still had a bit of that 70’s era brougham vibe. Perhaps the Malibu was the best compromise of old school plushness with new school nimble handling. Undoubtedly, as Popular Science noted, the body on frame construction allowed it to have the best isolation and lowest road noise of the bunch.
After looking at these wagons more in-depth, I think it’s pretty clear that they were competitors despite the manufacturers size confusion. Based solely on this test and specs on paper, the Zephyr wagon appears to be the best bargain of the bunch, with a great price, space efficiency, performance and handling. That said, looking back with 40 years of hindsight, I’d choose the Malibu over the other two wagons. We owned a ’79 Fairmont wagon with a 302, and while I really liked the car, it was hands down the worst car anyone in our immediate family owned. Having driven all of these platforms, the Malibu is my favourite to drive and they have a proven suspension and drivetrain. In the late 70’s it was hard to beat a Chevy V8 with a good ol’ mechanical Rochester carb for simplicity and reliability. So now it’s your turn, what is your 1978 midsize wagon of choice?
I’m torn on the split tailgate vs. liftgate argument. As PS points out, the split gate is more useful for carrying long loads. The liftgate is nicer for loading cargo if it’s raining.
I was a Chevy fan, and a BOF fan in the ’70s, so I’d probably have picked the Malibu, despite being irked by the non-opening rear door windows. The Ford would have been my next choice. The MoPars were a non-starter – by 1978 everybody knew what a pile the F-bodies were.
But in hindsight, I would have skipped all of these and headed to the Volvo dealer for a 245DL.
GM continued the split tailgate for many years after on some of its its SUVs. The larger Tahoe/Yukon/Suburbans got this horizontal-split tailgate or split barn doors, and the S Blazer/Jimmy just the horizontal-split.
I remember from when I was a kid back in the summer of ’98, my mother’s Grand Cherokee was rear-ended and while at the body shop, she had a GMC Jimmy rental for the week. In addition to her not liking the narrower pass-through space between the front seats, she hated the split tailgate as it made for more difficult access to the trunk when loading and unloading heavier and bulky items like beach chairs.
I thought that at some point the S-Blazer/Jimmy had the one piece lift hatch?
I believe 1998 saw the first year of the lift gate
The split gate on the Malibu may also have been related to the need for a gate on the El Camino. I suspect that a fair amount of engineering was shared between the two.
A Volvo 245 station wagon was indeed HUGE inside, compared to it’s exterior size, comfortable seats with a reputation for “safety”.
But:
Not all that much more reliable/trouble free as anything from Detroit in this time period; not nearly as reliable as a Toyota.
The closest Toyota would have been a Cressida wagon, if they sold them in your country. As the biggest Toyota, I suspect it would have come at quite a premium price, so probably out of contention here.
A Volvo 240 wagon had a cargo capacity of 76 cubic feet. Larger than the Chevrolet and the Plymouth, but smaller than the Ford/Mercury.
I had a ’75 164E and trust me, these three wagons were world’s more reliable than that steaming pile of Swedish crap.
I think GM was going for maximum width of the tailgate opening. By putting the taillights in the bumper, GM was able to make the tailgate the full width of the vehicle. That meant the window had to hinge up because in order to roll down into the tailgate, it would have to be narrower than the tailgate, which would make the upper half of the rear opening narrower.
I actually bought a 1980 Pontiac LeMans wagon (same design as the 78 Malibu) back in the day, with a small V8, it was a nice enough car. At that time, the GM products were consistently “smoother” than the others and even though the non roll-down rear windows were annoying it really didn’t matter that much (Good AC).
Having driven a Zephyr sedan with a V8 and owned a Pontiac Le Mans sedan with a V6, I would say to drive it is a toss-up between those two. Unfortunately, at least for Ford/Mercury, the fox body cars had mediocre interior quality (both design and assembly) compared to the GM cars. I could easily live with either car, provided the correct combination of options was chosen.
I had no idea how much narrower the GM colonnade wagons were than their domestic competition.
This makes for an interesting choice. In 1978 I would have picked the Plymouth without even looking at the others. Today it is a much harder choice.
My 86 Marquis wagon was a really nice car and a V8 would have made it nicer. But that platform got a whole lotta refinement between the first Zephyr and the Fox Marquis. And GM built a nice wagon in the Malibu. In truth that Torqueflite with the lockup converter was not that pleasant to drive. As much as my heart says Volare (which was much improved by 1978) my head says Malibu.
Any competent dealer’s service department could (and did) deal with the lock up torque converter issue.
Chevy’s first 4 speed automatic overdrive automatic transmission also had this issue, only more pronounced.
And I will admit that my choice may be colored by the fact that I have never driven a Malibu of this generation. Perhaps if I did I would hightail it back to the Volare. 🙂
I am reminded of something else. We have seen two or three reviews now of late 70s magazines ragging on Chrysler’s vague steering. Chrysler steering had always been vague (even if a very fast ratio for the time) but this shows how everyone else really improved their steering game by the end of the 70s. Ford had been no better than Chryser here through most of the 70s but with the Fox and Panther cars their steering systems became quite good.
1. I have driven several 305 V8 Malibus. A Dull D O G of an engine! The 350 4-BBL engine would had been a huge leap in desirability. A Mopar 318 was a much more lively, “Real World Peppy” engine, IMO.
2. I recall the power steering “road feel” of my ’77 Volare to be quite firm, accurate and with a fast (for the time period) ratio. (To me) the power steering on a Fairmont was slower and mushier.
“Opinions, like your gas mileage, may vary.”
Yet the 305 Malibu spanked the 318 Volare in this and other tests.
And having driven a Malibu of this generation, I can assure you the steering and handling were a big notch above the Volare’s. Chrysler power steering and handling by this time was woefully behind. GM had mad huge strides in these areas of their cars, already earlier in the 70s, and the new ’77 B Bodies and ’78 A Bodies took it to a new level. The Volare felt like it was from another decade earlier.
And yes, these 318 and 360 V8s of the 70s were absolutely determined to kill you, trying to pull into a street or highway when anything other than completely warmed up. I can’t tell you how many times the 360 in my ’77 Chinook has just instantly died under some really precarious situations. Driveablilty was a serious issue with Mopars at the time.
Mark, Your Chrysler-tinted glasses may look handsome, but they are seriously impacting your ability to see things as they really were. 🙂
Paul: “Opinions, like your gas mileage, may vary”.
🙂
I found the 305 Malibu, in sedan or wagon form, to be Dull Drivers.
There were several variations of the 305 over the years. The 1979 models switched from the big ol’ Rochester 2GC to the cleaner but tiny Rochester Dualjet. This tiny carb cost 10 hp due to the 305 and performance suffered. In 1980, the 305 went to a 4-bbl which improved performance considerably. Through the 80’s the performance was improved with higher compression. When tuned right, a 305 in a A/G-body was a decent runner.
My brother’s Canadian emission Cutlass Supreme with a 305-4bbl was a dog when we got it. However, that was because it was way out of tune. All it took was a decent tune up and it ran strong for a car of that era. True dual exhaust and some ignition modifications made that car pretty fast for a malaise mobile.
I can assure you any properly tuned 305 will spank a 318 Mopar with that garbage Lean Burn setup. I have owned and tuned hundreds of these cars over the course of 35 years and never came across a 305 in good tune that wasn’t responsive and that didn’t pull strong. Even the weaker 1979 only 2BBL Dualjet 130 HP version ran well with but a few simple free tweaks
The F- and M-body Chryslers had soft bushings locating their front suspensions longitudinally because they also served as isolators for the transverse torsion bars. Their design was refined quite a bit over the thirteen years this design was in production.
The power steering box on the Chryslers was a GM Saginaw unit. Two factors could alter the steering feel: an adjustment of the “lash” (closeness of mesh) between the gears inside, easily tweaked with a box wrench and a hex key or screwdriver, depending on what GM put in there on that production run; and the valve that controlled the point at which the hydraulics would apply power assist, and how much assist. That would be more work to change but still not that difficult. As contractor, GM built them how Chrysler wanted. In fact on the ” firm-feel” steering option, the differently-calibrated valve was included.
Tuning out the tendency of the Chrysler 318 and 360 of those years to bog and stall durung warmup took patience and skill; documenting how to put it all back if your car had to be smog-checked was a necessity. Slowing down the opening of the electric-assist choke, and lengthening the time the intake heater around the exhaust manifold would be active, were both important. Basic timing needed advancing and also made the engine significantly more responsive and easier on fuel consumption. Luckily, in the part of California where I live, annual smog checks were, and are, not required.
The basic timing change alone would significantly decrease 0-60 time.
Ford also used the Saginaw steering boxes on there full-size and intermediate cars in he 1970’s interchangeably with the Ford built boxes. You couldn’t tell the difference though, because the Saginaw boxes were tuned to with the same ultra slow 20:1 internals and lots of boost.
The Saginaw boxes have two major series over the years, the 600 series and 800 series. They can be pretty much built to spec these days. While many liked the variable ratio boxes, the best Sagniaw boxes were the 12.7:1 ratio boxes with high road feel. These were used in 80’s performance cars, police cars and even Jeep Grand Cherokees. With the right torsion bar, these boxes can be dialed in to have lots of road feel and very quick response. My Saginaw box that I had custom built has the 12.7:1 ratio and is high effort. It is one of the best recirculating steering boxes I have used.
My memories are obviously a bit past sell-by, but I took driver training in 1972 in a ‘72 Galaxie and a ‘73 Satellite. I also had the opportunity to put a few miles on a State of California fleet Satellite of the same generation as the driver training car, and a ‘76 Caprice owned by employer. The Mopar steering was far and away superior in feel and precision, especially the State owned car; maybe it had some police spec parts? though nothing like the rack and pinion of the various Fox cars I’ve driven. I’ve only driven two G Bodies of that gen and they were OK too. Anyway, these wagons look very appealing from today’s perspective; old enough to be interesting, clean styling that has aged well (at least the overall shape, of not some of the detailing), useful packaging (if not quite minivan practical), and potential for decent power and handling with some subtle upgrades. Thanks for posting.
I have often wondered if some of the magazine testers (and folks who talk about these) are confusing two aspects of Chrysler’s steering systems. From their beginnings in the 50s they were known for absolute zero road feel (due to the pump providing boost all the time) but coupled with a much faster steering ratio than the others. The result was precise steering that didn’t feel like precise steering. If you were used to GM cars the Mopar system felt horribly sloppy, at least until you tried some real driving with it. But once you got a feel for it (a feel for the lack of feel?) it became endearing. I certainly liked the ones I had.
Except for the one in my 77 New Yorker – I think it must have had the “firm feel” gear. To me it sort of numbed the system that I had grown very fond of. It did not feel like the earlier cars at all.
Yes, many don’t realize the Colonnades were more narrow. The wagons only had about 44″ between the wheel wells as compared to the 48″ on the bigger (wider) competition. The downsized Chevrolet B-bodies were roughly the same size as the Chevelle Colonnade wagons, but were much wider, at approx. 79″. This allowed for the 48″ space between the wheel wells.
Ill take the Malibu, ive always liked the front end of the 1st gen Malibu’s. Idealy i would prefer either a sedan or coupe as i felt the tailights of the first Malibu’s look great as well. and that dashboard at that time to me was very futuristic and simple. The coupes and wagons seem to find their way to guys who love to hot rod them. I’ll take any one in original condition.
It seems to me, the Malibu was the best wagon. It was also the most expensive.
And that’s how it used to be in the 1960s and 1970s. GM products cost a little more than the competition, but were considered better all-around
Somehow I suspect many FoMoCo and Mopar buyers would beg to differ with you?
They could disagree–in many instances, they would have valid points. My statement was a generalization, not an absolute.
I think, that if lowest price was the overriding criterion, GM’s market share in the 70s would have been less.
MY perception was that GM cost slightly more, but was perceived as being better, and that’s one reason why GM sold many more cars than Ford and Chrysler.
Unfortunately for GM, times change. The 1980s were disastrous (generally) for the General.
Chrysler’s K-Car never had the reputation of the X-cars–with competent small cars and the MINIVAN, Chrysler moved forward.
Ford nurtured the F-series, then came out with the Taurus (and 5 years later, the EXPLORE)–they moved forward.
The both closed plants (aka performed self-amputations).
Proving that success can sow the seeds of future failure, GM gave us the X-car, and (finally) 3 years later ‘correct’ X-car (the overpriced A-car—my dad shopped them, too much $$$), and worse, the front-wheel drive lookalike large cars, that were pricey and launched just as fuel prices and mpg were no longer concerns. GM’s “vaunted” (to people like my family) quality went to crap. For my first car, I didn’t even consider a Camaro–it was a lot pricier AND slower than a Mustang, and even my dad abandoned GM to buy a Ford.
It was as if GM’s leaders were blind or arrogant or both. They spent $40 BILLION retooling plants to make these mediocre cars, because Americans would buy them, because…that’s how the world was! Or so they thought.
But before the 1980s, I stand by my generalization that the best American cars in the 1970s, and the best cars in the 1960s anywhere, generally came from General Motors.
The 1980’s, for Detroit automakers, reminded me of the fortune cookie message/warning: “May you live in interesting times”.
FWIW: In my own personal driving experiences I have mentally praised and trashed (often at the same time!) all three of Detroit automaker’s products of the 1970’s and 1980’s.
Perhaps why there appeared a long string of Toyotas and Hondas in our extended family’s driveway.
“… worse, the front-wheel drive lookalike large cars, that were pricey and launched just as fuel prices and mpg were no longer concerns…”
True, but who knew gas prices would stabilize in 1983-85, in 1980? Euro prices were predicted to be “permanent”.
Just looking at the torque figures for all three cars and I noticed something interesting. The Zephyr’s 302 V8 managed 250 lb-ft @ at low 1600 rpm, whereas the Malibu’s 305 V8 reached its peak of 245 at a much higher 2400 rpm. I’m wondering what kind of difference would be felt from the driver’s seat — maybe the 305 would feel “peakier” while the 302 felt like it had a bit more initial grunt, perhaps?
Either one would be sweet now to slap the fuel injection equipment from a decade later on.
My sense is that the torque on the both V8s was fairly flat from 1500 rpm to 2500 rpm, and fairly similar. Their peak hp, 140 @ 3600 for the Ford, vs 145 @ 3800 for the Chevy, seems to bear this out.
The difference would be felt because the Fairmont was several hundred pounds lighter.
If anything, the emissions controls probably strangled the 302 earlier than the 305, which meant that if anything, at higher rpm, the Chevy might have noticeably more power
I’m a bit intrigued they didn’t throw in the test instead of the Volare, the related M-body wagons like the Dodge Diplomat and the Chrysler LeBaron Town & Country.
I’m going to guess that the reason why the “up market” Diplomat and/or Le Baron were only mentioned but not tested was to keep prices and relative images about equal. Being more expensive the Diplomat and Le Baron would have competed more directly with upper tier Buick Century wagons.
BTW, I was surprised to find that the Aspen/Volare are the same size as the Diplomat/Le Baron.
The Diplomat/LeBaron wagons were just fancier Aspen/Volare wagons with a restyled front clip. Same sheet metal, glass, platform, major dimensions.
And I’m intrigued that the Mercury wasn’t better equipped inside. I’d have thought the interior would have been better than a Chevy or a Plymouth. Seems it was just a Ford with ‘upmarket’ badges and alternative styling treatment, not actually a premium product. Of course we know how this played out…
Out of everything, the thing that caught my eye was that they called the Volare’s ride firm.
On what planet?
I’ve ridden in a Fifth Avenue and there’s a lot of things I would call it but definitely not “firm”.
I suspect that a Volare would have been firmer than the tuned-for-boulevard-cruising 5th Ave, and that the wagon, with its load carrying requirements, would have been firmer still.
Spec out a well equipped Volare wagon and a Chevy Malibu wagon and you will notice a HUGE price difference.
In the “Real World”, where you could “Dicker On The Sticker”; the Volare price difference would be even more pronounced.
So, as a person who was there, and remembers these cars.
1. The Aspen/Volare equipped with a 318 was virtually undriveable until the motor warmed up. When warm, it still wasn’t great… just not life threatening when you pulled out into traffic.
2. The Ford 302 was an absolute gas hog back in those days. The VV carb wouldn’t adjust out, and mileage suffered. How badly? You generally couldn’t get 200 miles out of a tank with the 302. The 200 was the motor of choice.
3. The Malibu (and it’s GM siblings) were all things to all people. It was limited only by your budget. The Pontiac 301 presented an interesting alternative in the Buick Lineup. For some reason, this motor produced better power and gas mileage than Chevy’s 305.
Yes, the Mopar’s carburetor needed multiple, minute adjustments and “finessing” to get it right. It could be done, but not all than many owners and mechanics had the patience to put up with adjusting it.
Drive-ability issues was hardly a Mopar exclusive in this time period?
FoMoCo’s six cylinder engine indeed might have been a better compromise, smooth and pleasant, however gutless it was….until the valve guide seals fell apart and required you to “fill up the oil and check the gas” at each fill up.
My next door neighbor’s 70K old 200 six Fairmont “killed every mosquito” within a 4 house radius when started up each morning.
I’ll never understand why Ford US didn’t pick up on Ford Australia’s crossflow heads for the sixes. Okay, our anti-pollution requirements were different, but a more efficient head that was already in production could only have helped.
I too remember these cars but did not pay a lot of attention to them. The Malibu was far and away the best seller among the people we knew. Baby/medium blue or tan were the colors of choice. A lot of people simply conformed and did what others with young kids were doing but it must be said that Malibu was a low risk purchase. While almost all cars had issues related to emissions controls in the 1970s it seems that GM had less problems. And, a family with young kids, pets, etc. simply needed to have as few hassles from the car as possible.
A lot of our friends moved on to S-10 Blazers and when the minivan came out the rush was on. But, many moved on to Suburbans fairly quickly.
I seems to me that GM built up a loyal customer base with the 1978 Malibu and etc. and those customers stayed with them for a long time.
You make a great point – Providing the low risk option sort of became GM’s specialty for many decades. When that low-risk option was beautiful besides, it was a winning strategy. That was the way I remember GM cars from the 70s – they were not perfect and had some isolated issues from one to another, but on the whole a buyer was not as likely to suffer as someone buying elsewhere. As a Mopar guy, I thought the reward was higher (if you got a good one) but the risk of getting a bad car was much, much higher as well. Ford seemed to find a middle ground.
Your recollection of the Ford 302 is spot on to our experience. That Fairmont we owned would never stay in tune, it had constant driveability problems, and sucked gas like no tomorrow. That engine was plain worn out with less than 100K miles and it leaked like a seize. Compared to the LG4 305 in the Pontiac Parisienne wagon we got afterwards it was night and day difference.
Funny you mention the 200 in the Fairmont. My aunt and uncle bought a 1980 Zephyr wagon with a 200 six brand new. It was a total opposite experience from our ’79 Fairmont. The Zephyr was reasonably reliable (for the era) and provided 16 years of service. It however only accumulated about 90,000 miles in that time (proverbial old lady/man car), and my cousin was a tip top mechanic that maintained it for free. It was also very slow, but reasonable on gas and a decent car overall.
The VV was never available on 255 or 302 powered 49 state F/Z cars, they used a Motorcraft 2150 bbl carb. California emissions cars used them starting in ’80, as did the Panthers.
The Malibu is just one of those exterior designs that simply “works” – it seems to me the most timeless of the three (at least minus the fake wood.)
There was a well preserved early 80s Malibu wagon in light blue that I would see burning up the back roads on the way to Gallup High School a few years back. Someone had given it a dual exhaust at some point and there was a very happy teenager behind the wheel.
In the 1990s I had a lot of experience of travelling in a Ford Granda estate in the UK (helping a friend out at model railway exhibitions). That made a good, commodius workhorse and, as he had the GhiaX, a comfortable beast too. The dimensions aren’t that much different, save for being shorter on the outside, ‘just’ 188.9 inches long, though with a wheelbase of 109″ and width of 71.3″ it’s otherwise very similar to these three. Inside it had a load length of 81.2″, up to 58″ wide (though 45.5″ between the rear arches) and up to 29″ over the loading deck, a total of 77 cubic feet by the Ford brochure. It didn’t skimp on interior width either 56.7″ front and rear. The fuel injected 2.8 V6 kept it moving pretty well too. There was a general perception, certainly in the UK, that the big Volvo estates were the biggest load carriers but the old ‘Grandad’ had more useable space on the inside than the 700 or 900 wagon.
It long ago seemed to me the Malibu and Fairmont were frequently cross-shopped despite the Malibu being pitched as a larger car (which it wasn’t). Also interesting that Chrysler started referring to the Volare and Aspen as “mid-sized” rather than “compact” starting around 1979 when they only had one rather than two larger-sized cars to sell, and eventually the similar M-body cars (which were just slightly facelifted Volares/Aspens) were sold as *full-sized*, even though they were no roomier.
What’s with the “0” scores for braking and quietness on the Mercury even though the rest of the story doesn’t criticize them too much?
Was the quietness of the Malibu really simply because the BOF construction or skimpy sound insulation on the Zephyr to save costs? Was the ’82 Lincoln Continental (also on the unibody Fox platform) noisier than its GM competition?
My pick would have been the Malibu, or rather the Pontiac LeMans wagon which had a much nicer dashboard, one of my all-time favorites. I can’t recall without looking whether the LeMans got the new-for-’77 Pontiac 301 V8 or the Chevy 305; GM seems to change the drivetrains on these annually. I don’t like the fixed rear windows, or the lack of front vent windows available in the Ford products, but GM’s A/C makes that a moot point most of the time. Everyone I know who had an early Fairmont/Zephyr had reliability problems; the GM cars seemed more sorted. Most of the Volare’s quality-control issues had been dealt with by its third year but it’s rep was shot by then; anyway the new Ford and GM entries made it look and feel old (and the not-tested AMC Concord positively antiquated, especially the high-liftover tailgate).
The Pontiac and the Buick were available with the 301 (49 state emissions), everyone else rolled with the 305 as the biggest V8 choice. In 78-79, the 350 was available in the Malibu’s under the guise of “High Altitude Emissions.” It was a powerful, but not very fuel efficient option.
Oddly, the B-Body Wagon was not very much more money, and not much less on the fuel economy scale. Added to that, the 350 V8 (Chevy, Buick, or Oldsmobile version) had virtually no driveability issues, hot or cold.
Subject to terms and conditions, yeah, I agree—GM’s V8s seemed to have fewer driveability flaws than Ford’s or Chrysler’s of that era. Probably GM’s excellent High Energy Ignition system was largely to credit; it was technically and functionally far ahead of the Mopar or FoMoCo systems.
Terms and conditions:
If you got one of the Chev 350s with factory-installed soft camshafts. Then they, ah, developed some driveability issues. 305s might also have been affected; I don’t remember.
And while catalytic converters and nonfeedback carburetors as found on American cars of that timeframe were a poor match no matter what, GM’s bead-type converters seemed to make more and earlier problems than the monolithic ones Ford and Chrysler used.
If you got one of the Chev 350s with factory-installed soft camshafts. Then they, ah, developed some driveability issues. 305s might also have been affected; I don’t remember.
I was in the biz for over 30 years, and never heard or or saw a GM 350 fail for anything other than high miles. Transmissions, catalysts, and paint… another story entirely. And the 305 seemed inherently less durable than the 350, even though they shared many common pieces.
Yeah; I’ve only ever heard of soft camshafts in certain 305s, not 350s.
I thought you might well be right, so I dug a little and found this UPI report of GM screw-the-buyer problems that got them in dutch with the FTC, including “premature wear with camshafts used in about 15 million 305-cubic and 350-cubic inch V-8 engines produced by GM’s Chevrolet division and used in several models since 1974”.
I’m also recalling my visit to Dr. Don Stedman’s emissions lab at DU in the early ’90s. At that time he was working on drive-by emissions monitoring, and two things stand out in my memory. One was virtually watching cars go by on the I-25 offramp to Speer Boulevard; they appeared as line items scrolling on a green monitor attached to a PC—license plate number, year-make-model-fuel-engine displacement, emissions readings.
The other was a funny-lookin’ camshaft on the shelf above Dr. Stedman’s desk. When I asked about it, he swivelled in his chair, opened a file drawer, pulled a folder and tossed it in front of me before explaining: in the earlier developmental stages of the driveby emissions monitoring system, his team had sent notices to owners whose cars had registered as extra-dirty: bring your car in and we’ll fix it at no charge. One such car was a ’77 350 Impala wagon that looked like new and had very low miles but very dirty exhaust and barely had enough power to pull into the repair bay. Elderly original owner said as far as he was concerned it ran fine, but humored them. Valves were barely opening; camshaft barely had lobes. They put in new cam and lifters, car ran great and exhaust got a lot cleaner. The file Stedman had tossed on the desk contained before/after emissions readings, photo of the VECI label showing the car had a 350, etc.
(Another one from the files: a ’79 Olds Delta 88 with off-the-charts emissions caused by a gasoline 350 having been dropped in place of the original diesel unit, without a catalyst.)
Didn’t the 305 engines have issues with valve guide seals?
https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/tech-general-engine/513949-smokey-305-valve-seal.html
That was a problem with 305s and 350s and maybe other Chev small-block V8s. Puff of blue smoke on startup after sitting grew to be pretty characteristic. I think it’s stuff like this that created the perception the Chev engine was a cheaper, chintzier, inferior design compared to (say) an Olds engine of similar displacement, which in turn sparked buyer backlash when GM started putting Chev engines in other-brand cars—without telling, and only in one direction (Oldsmobiles with Chev 350s, but never the other way round).
That makes sense, as the 305 and 350 most likely had the same shaft, or at least manufactured on the same line. Perhaps that perception arose because there were proportionately more 305s built in this era.
Daniel is correct about the 305/350 camshafts. As I recall the worst years were roughly 1977-82. Old Consumer Reports and other used car guides used to mention these camshaft problems. That said, not all of them had issues. The reason that so many think it was just a 305 problem was because they were pretty popular and by 1980, the 350 Chevy was gone from mainstream cars.
The Chevy small block valve seal failure is nothing new. The this caused the proverbial puff of blue smoke on start-up. It isn’t a hard or expensive job to replace the valve seals, but many owners just lived with it.
When I was working in the GM service department, I actually acquired a 350 4-bolt main engine block from a low mileage 1977 Chevrolet 3/4 ton truck due to a camshaft failure. The engine was replaced and my friend who did the job kept the block, and squirreled it away. He didn’t end up using it so gave it to me years later. FWIW, at our dealership, when it came to V8’s, we did occasionally replaced 305/350 Chevrolets, but I recall more 4.3L V6 failures. By far the most common were the 6.5 diesels. I remember one truck getting three engines under warranty. On the other hand, the 350TBI engines were excellent for long life, and would often accumulate diesel like high mileages.
One reason for the puff of blue smoke on start on sbc was a tendency to plug up the drain holes in the head/block interface & cause oil to remain in the rocker chamber & ooze past the valve guide overnight. Of course, dirtier oil = more chance of blocking the passage.
In spite of what some here may call my “Mopar tinted glasses” alleged bias; I am enjoying the divergent and differing opinions on this thread.
Where else can I argue my strong automotive opinions and not get a pair of vice grips applied to me?
🙂
I never drove a Zephyr-Fairmont; I imagine their rack/pinion steering was probably vastly better than the vague, no-feel steering power steering box Chrysler put on everything but cop cars. I know GM had variable-ratio boxes at least a couple years before these ’78s were made, but I don’t know if they put ’em in these particular cars.
But I don’t think relatively sharp steering would’ve been enough to win me over. The Ford foxes were common rentcars, and my folks rented enough of them for me to remember they all ran very poorly until about the ’83-’84 models.
I’d almost like to think that plaid-and-electric-red interior shown in the Volaré ad would be enough to make me put up with the rest of the F-body experience. There was a TSB to do exactly as the magazine writers wished: raise the torque converter lockup speed to about 50 mph by putting a stiffer lockup control spring in the transmission valve body. Waste not/want not; when Chrysler’s ’85-’89 M-bodies had a very prominent lean surge under steady-state cruise, savvy techs found they could fix it by replacing a counterspring in the EGR control with the same-size, same-shape spring removed from the early M-body lockup transmission.
Speaking of the magazine writers: Rich Ceppos?! I didn’t remember him pairing up with Jim Dunne in Popular Science; I thought Dunne was always stuck with that dillweed Jan Norbye, and I associate Rich Ceppos with Car & Driver.
As for the GM cars’ fixed rear windows: all the A/C in the world doesn’t make this anything but an incredibly, remarkably dumb idea.
I also recall the Dynamic Duo (!) of Norbye and Dunne stinking up “Popular Science” road tests, for a couple of decades.
I never noticed Rich Ceppos until he started writing for my beloved “Car & Driver” magazine. C&D must have been a major step up for Ceppos; after being associated with “PS” and Dunne.
As a 17 year old driver in the early 80s with access to a 75 Ventura (aka Chevy Nova)and an 80 Fairmont, I liked the Pontiac’s steering more. It had to be similar to the Malibu’s (recirc ball).
The rear window were done to save money, and rationalized as ‘allowing more space’ since you could scoop out the door panel for mre hip/shoulder room. Stupid idea, and illustrative of the arrogance of GM, as it was beginning it’s big decline….
Stupid idea indeed, as nobody put their hips or shoulders into those scooped-out spaces! It provided no real extra usable interior space whatsoever. GM cost-cutting.
Good point, Frank. But it gave them better figures on paper. So much of what was done in this era seemed to be to look good on paper.
I’ll step up to GM’s defense on that, sort of. In most cars I’ve experienced , the side-to-side space was limited by elbow room, not by hip or shoulder room, and those indentations did a lot to improve it, though the A-bodies also had contours in the rear seat (from the wheel housings and differential hump) itself that were hostile to anything more than 2 passengers. But GM should have made the whole window tilt out at the back and slide back a little, to let air in at the front and out the back. The little vent windows were useless unless the front windows were also open.
I noticed Rich Ceppos too. This must have been where he got his feet wet before C/D. I think Jan Norbye was only around until about 1975 or so before he left PS.
Back in the day I disliked all three of these and wouldn’t have wanted any of them. Now though, I find all three to be very handsome designs and could spend a lot of time with each of the brochures spec’ing one of each out to my liking. The plaid interior on the Volare does give it a commanding lead in the “style points” section of the final tally but otherwise I find things to like about each of them.
Am I the only one that sees that Volare’s plaid interior, and think “GTI”? 🙂
Also first generation VW Socorro.
No you aren’t, I was thinking that immediately as well!
You could’ve gotten the early Foxbody wagons with plaid seats as well. That was the way to go with the 2.3/4 and 4 speed manual which required bucket front seats, as the only other option was all-vinyl with tooled-effect inserts.
I WISH my family picked any one of these cars instead of the Mazda RX4 wagon my parents chose as a used car in 1981. Boy did we screw up with that one. The Malibu would have been my choice at the time, though today I’d probably pick the Ford.
“Was the ’82 Lincoln Continental (also on the unibody Fox platform) noisier than its GM competition?”
In my experience it was not necessarily noisier, although the AOD transmission in mine made some “whooshing” noises that I have never heard a THM make. I will concede that a Fox-body Conti drives a lot smaller than a full size GM car, even a Seville or Eldorado. I also thought that 80s era Town Cars felt smaller than comparable GM big cars, from a driver’s perspective.
“I also thought that 80s era Town Cars felt smaller than comparable GM big cars, from a driver’s perspective.”
I would second your observations. My father had a Fox Continental and it felt quite tidy, as did my own Fox Marquis wagon. The GM B and C body cars always drove “heavy” – meaning that they felt heavier than their sub-4000 pound weight would suggest. The Panther Ford products, despite weighing in the same neighborhood, always felt really light and nimble (although with a lot of body pitch and roll unless you had one of the stiff suspension setups).
Popular Science was lacking a little editorial backbone in that they didn’t choose a winner. Can’t piss off the advertisers, can we?
I disliked all the GM A-body wagons of this vintage simply because they had the tail lights mounted so low on the bumpers, which IMO was a very poor and dangerous design. I have been behind a few of these cars in the ’90s when there were still some on the roads and those small rear lights are a hazard to see at night, esp. in southern Ontario in the winters when they are often caked with slush and snow.
I liked the styling of the Volare more than the Merc but would probably have gone with the Merc and a 200 six since it was the more compact of the two. In fact, if I’d been cross-shopping these cars in 1978 I would have also test driven an AMC Concord and might simply have gone for one of those instead.
“While many trash the 1978 A-bodies for the fixed rear windows…” they sold a boatload of them!
Now, they are part of the RWD G body family, and collectable. Also, have many fan groups on social media.
When I see someone go on yet again about the windows, I just skip the post.
I just don’t get the hate for the fixed rear door windows. Didn’t every VW Beetle ever made have fixed rear windows? Never a word of complaint there, yet every time a downsized Malibu article appears, so does the window ‘issue’
Let it go….
Despite accepting the loss of roll-down rear window in 2 door cars starting in the early 1970, customers drew the line with 4 doors and wagons. The early K-cars also had fixed rear windows but Chrysler switched them to ultra-thin (and unreliable) window lifts by ’84. I think tilt-out rear windows would be fine in the slid back an inch or so when opened, but GM’s little vent flaps didn’t do much unless the front windows were open.
Excellent article and research Vince. I always appreciate, and thoroughly enjoy, the high level of supporting info and stats you regularly include. Plus your additional personal expertise of course. Paul awarding you high accolades for the quality and depth of knowledge you bring to his site is well warranted.
My dad three way shopped these wagons in June 1978. And he came home with an Aspen wagon, mainly because it was so much more affordably priced in Ottawa at the time. I don’t know if it was because the Malibu wagon was in high demand and could command such a high price, but my dad was quoted $2,000 more for a similarly equipped Malibu wagon, to the Aspen he bought. He went to two Chev dealers that June, one of which was Jim Tubman Chevrolet on Bank Street. Who remain in business today. I somewhat hoped he would come home with a Malibu wagon, but given he was retired, he simply couldn’t rationalize the significant additional cost of the Fairmont and Malibu wagons. I wish I had asked him why the quotes for the Fairmont and Malibu seemed so high. Perhaps, as you say, the Aspen was significantly marked down. Though the Ford and GM did seem priced quite high. The story ended well though, as his Aspen served him very well for 14 years. It stranded him once, when the ballast resistor went in 1979. I drove it a few times, and it felt like a big car. I think this ‘big car’ feel was sold as an asset when the Aspen and Volare were brand new.
One quirk I remember about riding in his Aspen was the rear seat back release never seemed to lock from new. One had to push back very firmly to lock the seat back. I don’t think it was unique to our wagon. It was such an effort I doubt most owners would bother ensuring it was locked. I’m surprised there never appeared to be a recall for this.
My dad always put in seats covers from Canadian Tire when he bought a new car. Not surprising, that Aspen had immaculate seats when he sent it to the wrecking yard in 1992. 🙂
Having rode in his Aspen often as a child, I would say one significant nuisance of the Aspen/Volare was the transverse torsion bar suspension. Though simple in design, the front end produced a lot of rattles and over road noise as the bushings wore out. As a pedestrian, I’d hear many passing F bodies rattling noticeably from their front suspensions.
Thank you very much for the kind words Daniel. I think the reality is that GM could charge a premium at this time, while Mopars needed to be discounted to move iron. Of course the Canadian dollar factors into the price difference too.
Your dad’s Volare did far better than our Fairmont. We ended up selling it around 1985 when the mechanic told my dad the engine was toast. My uncle bought it for cheap thinking he could swap an engine in for cheap. Long story short, the car was so bad, it ended up on the scrap yard by about 1986. Coincidentally we were actually in the Ottawa (Kanata) in the late 70’s too, although the family car was a ’67 Chevy II with 250 six, which was replaced by the dreaded Fairmont.
My mom had just that decision to make and chose a 1978 Datsun 810 4 speed manual. Probably smaller than those 3 wagons but super reliable and a gas to drive with the 2.8 liter straight six from the Z. We loved it when she stomped on the gas.
Vince, thanks for including the sales graphs. I always thought the wagon sales decline was precipitated by the introduction of Chrysler’s minivans but I was wrong. The market was moving on from wagons well before then.
Thank you sir! I appreciate the feedback. I think the trend away from wagons had to do with moving to toward smaller more efficient cars. Wagons were seen as gas guzzlers, even in these new trim sizes.
I drove all three as taxi cabs. The worst was the awful malibu with it’s fixed glass and weak drive train. It also had the worst and most bland styling. A box square but not good. The car was always on the shop. It pitched and rolled down the road. The dash had numerous places for guages blanked off with plastic. Gm might as well have put a sign saying this is a cheap car. They smoked due to valve stem seals. They had gutless 305 or dog slow 229 v6. Weak transmissions. Gm feed back carbs we’re awful
The Fairmont cars were reliable most had the 200. The 302 one had great power and both drove well. Roomy and comfortable for the size and pleasant styling. They were reliable. They all went way over 300k miles. These were best on gas
The volare cars were reliable and ran well. The car had best instrumentation and rode well and steered the best. They were extremely reliable and easy to repair. They had the best seats. Not best looking seats but held up best and most comfortable. They had the best drive train but went through brake pads. I drove a slant 6 super 6. Plain car it had a headliner made out of particle board? But it ran and ran and lasted over 500 k miles.
All these cars were poorly maintained, but had the emmisions bypassed, feedback carbs and vv carbs and leanburn done away with. No Cats on most.
Ford was best on gas, Plymouth was none to good on gas and the gm cars were thirsty.
I got to make the choice. I drove the volare. More comfortable than the Ford with it’s hard uncomfortable seats, wierd horn control, flesh flesh interior. Before it was a blue cab it was a flesh colored Fairmont. The most popular color. Jeffery Dalhmer flesh. The Chevy was a poor runner and would barely go up a hill. It had a 6. It burned oil like crazy. The seat had an ass shaped depression in all if them.it burned alot of gas. It was unreliabe and had the worst dash and people bitched about the non opening windows or wanted me to floor it since it must have been an ex police car due to having non opening windows..
The Plymouth was the best it was fastest and most reliable and easiest to work on. It’s windows open and went down. It had a temp and alternator guage. A plus. So I would take the Plymouth. I did take the Plymouth. However it was in some ways flawed. It was a plain car to the point it looked like someone on purpose designed it that way as in it looked like someone somehow took.a nice car and gave it an Amish or monk style makeover. Like cloth headliner no way let’s use particle board with holes. Rugs are bad plastic is better. I think the doors were metal with plain plastic on the upper part. It was a good car but got around 15 mpg. That made it hard to justify over the much nicer and bigger crown vics of the time. The Vic’s were faster, slightly better on gas and way more comfortable and as reliable.
Warren: Thanks for your “Real World” impressions. I agree with you on almost every point you have made!
The upscale Volare/Aspen models had a much more plush, attractive and pleasing-to-the-eyes interior options. My favorite was the high grade, soft vinyl front bench seat with the fold down arm rests.
So which is worse? Chevy not allowing the back door windows be rolled up and down or the Mercury’s idea of putting the horn button on the turn signal stalk instead of the steering wheel? LOL
These cars were interesting for their demonstration of 3 different approaches to downsizing. Chrysler just stretched their old Dart/Valiant line and reworked the suspension a bit, offering mid-sized leg room in an otherwise antiquated package. GM got daring with the fixed rear windows for extra elbow room, pulled in the front wheels (OK with no more big blocks to support) , but left the catalytic converter where the passenger’s feet belonged and let the wheel housings and differential intrude into the rear seat, making 3 feel like a crowd. Ford managed the packaging the best with its catalytic converter literally under the transmission (for a HUGE hump) making the (hopefully rare) front 3rd passenger feel unwelcome, but giving 2 passengers far more legroom than in the Malibu. Too bad Ford tainted that broth with cheapo seats and the same rear intrusions that plagued the Malibu. FWD and smaller , cooler converters soon made a lot of the compromises in these cars unnecessary.
No, the Aspen-Volaré was a clean-sheet design. It was not a stretched or otherwise reworked Dart-Valiant.
Hands down my choice would have been a Malibu wagon with the 305. But I would have waited a little bit longer and got a 1979 version where the 305 in these cars switched over to a 4BBL Quadrajet and power was bumped up to 160 horses.
On the options chart I would have upgraded to the optional 2.73 rear gear in place of the 2.41’s, gauge package, F-40 hd suspension, A/C of course and Chevy’s cheap but nice looking rally wheels that cost a measly 50.00 on the Classic trim level Malibu’s. We had something almost just like this in our used cars lot back in the 1990s but it had the optional woodgrain, power everything and was a clean Virginia car. I played around with the Quadrajet carb after rebuilding it and dialed in the vacuum advance and that little wagon would do easy burnouts and was pretty fun to drive at the time!
I know I’m really late to this party, but I must say that it would have been a Malibu for me. In fact, my wife and I looked seriously at a four year Malibu Classic sedan, loaded up. But it had the 267 and I couldn’t handle that.
I drove a friend’s 78 Malibu Classic sedan with the 305 and found it ok. Then I drove my sister’s Grand Lemans with the 301 and found it very satisfying.
But then, my dad had a 78 Buick Electra with a Chevrolet 350…
I was surprised, but should not have been, that the AspenAre’s were actually longer than the other 2.
Having been designed to replace the Darts and Valiant/Dusters, these should have been more restrained in size, and in keeping with the times.
If anything, they should have been smaller. Perhaps Chryco thought they needed to still try to capture full size wagon customers.
Had The volarepens competed with compacts from the competition, it would have been the Nova family on the GM side, and the Fairmont from Ford. AMCs were not mentioned here, but the 1977 Hornet would have been the closest had it not been discontinued. Had they gone a size below those, they might have been on to something. Perhaps a 105 inch WB not 112, and about 185 inches long.
AMC’s entry for 1978 in this class was the Concord, which was a Hornet with a restyled front end, new taillights and plusher interior. The Sportabout body style was continued with the Concord.
Thanks for a great article, and great commentary! An interesting look into the decision my Dad faced in 78, procuring what would be the family’s first new car. He went with the GM entry, as did a couple of other family members. It was perhaps the default safe option of the era, perhaps not unlike buying a Toyota today. All 3 of the family’s examples provided excellent service for the era, still running well in use around Y2K when rust took them off the road. I’d love one of these, or a fox wagon, in my garage to this day.
With the current series on the Volvo 240 as well, I wonder, were those cross shopped with these? Given they were said to be the first wagon above 10K I suspect they must’ve been in a whole price class above what many could afford for a new car at the time & may not have been cross shopped as often as you’d think for what must’ve been a similar size.
The part I found interesting was comparing the size specs of these to a modern 7 passenger crossover, say that safe Toyota choice of a highlander. A few inches wider sure, and obviously taller, but not vastly different given the general size class creep seen in the last 30 years of cars. Especially not considering space efficiency needed for 7 passengers.
Perhaps even more surprising, that $6,500 cost of the Chevy comes out to nearly $30K today. Yeah try finding a midsize crossover new for that. Although come to think of it a new RAV4 starts at about $30K & that highlander is about $40k. Both having equipment that even in a base spec would embarrass the loaded Chevy of its era. Either one may as well be a Jetsons car if they could’ve been seen by a buyer in 1978 with unimaginable features.