1977 Chevrolet
To those Car Lust regulars who have read many of my posts and comments, this may seem an odd choice of lust for me. While many denigrate the styling excesses (and overexcesses ) of 1970s American cars, I revel in them. Not the performance, obviously, but the look: the long hoods with their intricately curved quarter panels, huge grills, curves sweeping back to often shortened rear decks, humongous doors and
wheels, all promising a smooth, powerful, luxurious ride. . .well, two out of three isn't bad.
Is it genetic? Well, my dad certainly loved these things, and even though as a teenager I would have abhorred the idea of actually agreeing with him on anything, I discovered later we had very similar thought processes regarding proper automotive design. Cultural, perhaps? We all tend to romanticize most things in vogue during our formative (i.e., mid-late teenage) years, and I am no exception to that rule.
Whatever the reason, I love those highly -- one might say obscenely -- stylized cars with their advertising as over the top as many of the designs and will defend them to my last dying breath. So why on earth would I lust after the quintessential American car that, more than anything, signaled the end of excess and a return to simplicity of at least exterior design? Three words: Change is good.
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there are very few of us beholding many of these cars and finding them attractive. There has been endless discussion of the whys and wherefores of the source of the design cues that so many American cars from this period embraced. Some posit that, with the reduction in performance (mostly horsepower) that came about with rising insurance rates and mileage and
emissions controls instituted at the time, manufacturers had to do something to stand out from the crowd. Rather than rely on performance, they made the ride smoother and quieter, and chose to hark back to the 1920s and '30s for styling cues to imbue their creations with panache-by-association if not substance.
This is probably far too simplistic since automotive designs take several years to work their way to market and few could have foreseen the various factors that came into effect in the mid-1970s. And the genesis of some of these design cues can already be seen in earlier models.
Whatever the reason car designs from the period are anything but subdued. Loud? Yes. Over the top? Indeed. Demonstrate the high intelligence and refined good taste of those who appreciate them? Well, duh.
As I say, I liked them then and I like them now. But, you know, man does not live by excessive sheetmetal alone, and in 1977 the game changed for American design with the introduction of the New Chevrolet:
The new B-body design was shared by the 1977 Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles, but the Chevrolet Impala and Caprice had the highest profile during the introduction. Though in earlier years these weren't quite as heavily stylized as other models such as the Monte Carlo, Buick Century, and Olds Cutlass, these two signaled a fairly radical change in direction for GM and a bellwether for future trends throughout the industry.
The 1977s were rather dramatically downsized. Weight was cut by almost 500 pounds, the wheelbase went from 121.5 to 116 inches, and total length shrank from almost 19 feet to 16.5. Despite this, interior room was actually enlarged. Engines were similarly downsized, with V-6s standard and the largest V-8 available a 350 as opposed to the venerable 454 on earlier models.
Obviously, however, the main distinction was the clean, simple lines of the 1977s. Basically a slightly
curved box, I think its appeal comes from the overall proportions. The 4-door especially is nicely balanced front-to-back with the passenger compartment sitting comfortably in between. A simple
form-following-function design with no mistaking what it's supposed to be: straightforward comfortable transportation for several adults. Sales reflected the popularity of the redesign; including wagons, the Impala and Caprice sold more tha 660,000 as opposed to almost 424,000 in 1976.
It still holds up pretty well, I think. The basic design lasted for 14 years, and they still look fresh and clean today. Many are still soldiering on as taxi cabs and, in the relatively salt-free environs of the Pacific Northwest, many are still driven today by private owners.
The top photo is of a 1976 Grand Prix, which is perhaps my favorite car from that era. The second is a 1975 Thunderbird, one of my dad's favorites. The ad is for 1978 but retains the "New Chevrolet" phrase.
--Anthony Cagle
MikeinAppalachia on November 14, 2008 at 02:25 PM
seguin-Exactly! I have an '83 Sedan DeVille with 33,xxx miles, about perfect EXCEPT-those POS bumper spacers. Even the 8-6-4 works. Infuriating.
Fred on November 16, 2008 at 07:06 PM
I owned a black '73 Caprice Classic with a burgundy top and a 400 cubic inch engine from 1985-1990. I still miss it to this day.
RacerS3 on November 18, 2008 at 09:45 AM
I always liked the 77 and later Impala and Caprice. Especially the two door model with the “aero coupe” style rear window glass. You just don’t see many of those around any more. I saw just such a car for sale locally about 4 months ago, with $500 written on the window. I stopped several times and never found anyone home. It was gone a couple days later. It’s to bad; it looked like a decent car that just needed a little TLC.
Not to change the subject, but I just want to mention how tired I am of people ripping on 70’s and 80’s era cars. It’s just getting old, really old. Its one thing to relate experiences about a car you had, good or bad. But it is just stupid to come on and say all cars from a certain era are crap or junk and cars from another era, mainly the 60’s are so much better. I like 60’s era cars as much as the next guy, and I have driven, owned and had family members that owned them when they were new. I like a lot of 60’s era cars. But can we PLEASE stop giving cars that were built in the 60’s this “Mythical Status” that so many people adorn them with. Like they were so much better than anything before or after. It is just ridiculous. Lets get one thing straight, styling is subjective and mainly influenced buy the time period the cars were made in. So it really just depends on what you personally like. For example, I personally like 1965 Impalas more than 1964 Impalas. Personally I think that 1964 Impalas are unattractive, with flat sides, flat front, flat back just plain old flat all around with allot of stainless and aluminum trim tacked on. Personally I would rather have a 1977 Impala two door with the “aero coupe” rear window. But that is just “My Personal” opinion. If you are someone who likes 64 Impalas and owns and loves them, great, I am glad you have something you like, and will be happy to see you and your car at the local Cruise-In/Car Show.
I also never understood the logic of some people that seem to think that all 60’s era automobiles were better performers than other era cars. Like a 60’s era model with lets say a 283 two barrel is some how “Greased Lighting” and a equivalent 70’s era model automobile with a 307 two barrel V8 is a “Greased Pig”. I have news for you; they both were not that fast. Not even in “Super Sport” trim. The fact is unless you had one of the few, and allot of times “rare” high performance optioned cars with a solid-lifter cam and manual transmission and low ratio rear axle gears, you would most likely get spanked buy a run of the mill 93-02 Z28 or TransAm.
Besides, nowadays with the amount of Engine, Transmission, Brake and Suspension upgrades available through the aftermarket you can make almost anything on wheels a performer. So it really doesn’t matter what era it came from. The only thing that matters is what “YOU” like. So if you like something great lets hear it, but if you don’t, can we at least try to keep the stupid talk to a minimum. You may just keep yourself from looking like an idiot.
Chris Hafner on November 18, 2008 at 09:55 AM
Well, I'm not sure anybody is an idiot - they just haven't yet had their eyes opened to the beauty and glory of 1970s and 1980s cars! Hopefully this blog is making a small mark in favor of those forgotten cars.
I agree with your larger point, RacerS3, that bashing 1970s and 1980s cars is a bit pointless. The 1960s cars are famous for a tiny handful of performance specials - the vast majority of 1960s cars were less-developed versions of what we saw in the 1970s.
The major caveat, of course, is the early emissions hardware that hit in the 1970s that really hurt driveability.
RacerS3 on November 18, 2008 at 09:59 AM
Buy the way, it was nice to see so many positive comments from people about the 70's era cars they owned and loved. It was refreshing.
RacerS3 on November 18, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Hey Chris,
I really like reading and commenting on Car Lust. Allot of the cars you feature I am familiar with, but some I have never seen or heard of before. The variety keeps me coming back. I also like that Car Lust is kind of a refuge for the odd, strange, and sometimes forgotten.
Sorry about the Idiot comment, I wasn’t trying to single anyone out, so I hope I didn’t offend someone, if I did it was unintentional.
It is just that automobiles are way to subjective of a topic to throw around blanket statements about Era, Make, Model, Style, Engineering etc. etc.
Great site, keep it up.
Troy,
Rob the SVX guy on November 21, 2008 at 06:43 AM
Racer, the reason people hate 70s cars is the sheer ridiculous amount of unreliable hoses and contraptions bolted on to engines in order to meet emissions. These made the cars even slower, and even more unreliable than most of the cars from the 1960s.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on November 21, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Build quality and reliability had a little bit to do with it, too. To a degree which would be utterly shocking today, 1970s cars had serious deficiencies in these departments.
tanya on November 22, 2008 at 01:03 PM
im selling my 77 pontiac grand prix...email me angellove0429@hotmail.com in orl. florida
OldCarGuy on November 25, 2008 at 09:08 AM
I certainly understand the attraction. The fourth car I owned was a 1978 Olds Delta 88 Royale coupe, with two-tone beige and brown paint and sport wheels. My parents bought it new off the showroom floor, and I bought it from them some 7-8 years later. That car was such a sleeper! Weighing in at around 3500 lbs, and equipped with the Olds "Rocket" 350 V-8 4-barrel and a 3-speed automatic, if I floored it from a dead stop it would shift from first into second at around 45-50 mph, and from second into third at 75-80. I surprised many a late-60s/early-70s muscle car driver with Big Brown, as long as I didn't have to make any sharp turns. With its freeway suspension, it was a really comfortable ride but not quite up to a slalom challenge. But the engine and drivetrain was seemingly bulletproof. For me that Olds definitely falls into the never-should-have-sold-it catagory. The shame is that I can't find any good photos of the old girl, and have searched the internet one with the same paint and wheels, to no avail.
Distiller on December 02, 2008 at 10:20 AM
I'm always amazed how much better these old cars fit into the American landscape than what is built today, or what comes from overseas. Real character!
O.J. on December 03, 2008 at 08:49 AM
If you lookin for a 77 areo coup hard top. i have one for sale , runs ,drives good . body in good shape too ,if interested get back at me.
DBX on December 07, 2008 at 08:28 AM
The '77 Caprice was a rare bright spot for the American car industry of that era. They're very good cars for their time, it's not surprising that they smashed sales records. The stats say it all, two feet shorter, 500 pounds lighter, more interior room and far better gas mileage than its 1976 predecessor. My grandparents had one which eventually got handed down to me; by the time I let it go in '93 it had a quarter of a million miles on it. Highway gas even in its elderly state was in the low to mid 20s.
My grandparents also bought a 1981 of the same model and owned the two together for many years. Frankly, the '77 beat the pants off the '81 -- more dependable, nicer to drive, better put together (of course this particular '81 was also hobbled by GM's wretchedly down-tuned 4.3 liter V8 in contrast to the 5.0 liter unit in the '77). The '81 just went to show that even when they got a good thing going, the Detroit bean-counters couldn't resist ruining it for short-term profit.
chris on January 31, 2009 at 10:35 PM
i mainly like the '72 through '90 caprice and impala wagons and i'm hoping to find one to turn into a demo car this year
tomm on June 23, 2010 at 01:15 PM
"The '81 just went to show that even when they got a good thing going, the Detroit bean-counters couldn't resist ruining it for short-term profit."
Actually, CAFE is to blame, GM had to by law get better MPG from the big cars. So, they dropped tiny gas or diesel motors in them. And then the FWD boxy big cars in mid 80's. Ford found a loophole by classifying their big cars as Canadian/Import.