Sometimes choosing cars for this column is hard; I’ll have a bunch of tabs open, searching frantically for something else that goes with any one of them. And sometimes, I find two things that go together perfectly, but are outside our normal price range. In those cases, I just save ’em for Friday, when we relax the price rules a little bit. And such is the case with today’s malaise-era Chevrolets.
Yesterday we looked at two cheapies from the ’80s, one that was about as exciting as plain Cheerios, and one that was about as structurally sound as the box they come in. You were all good sports about them, though, and the one thing I love about cars like those is that everyone has a story about them. I do too; I’ve owned a number of J- and K-based cars over the years, and I know their strengths and weaknesses well.
By an overwhelming margin, you all chose the soft-top Pontiac Sunbird over the grandma-spec Plymouth Reliant, and I think that’s the right choice. It’s definitely the better car to drive. Sure, it’ll shake like a leaf over rough roads, and just about every piece of trim will be misaligned, but it’s a convertible with a turbocharger, for fifteen hundred bucks. Who cares how poorly it’s built? Just enjoy the ride.
All right. I have here a couple old Chevies I think you might enjoy. They’re not cheap, but they’re just about the cleanest examples of their breeds I’ve seen in a long time.
1976 Chevrolet Camaro LT – $7,950
Engine/drivetrain: 305 cubic inch OHV V8, three-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Vancouver, WA
Odometer reading: 143,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives, but has been sitting
This car’s chief competitor, the Ford Mustang II, has become a poster child for the worst of the malaise era: slow, gawky, badly built, and just generally sad. The Chevy Camaro generally avoids such criticisms, despite being every bit as malaise-y as the Mustang II, and I think most of it has to do with the fact that the Camaro looks like this. Even 5 MPH bumpers couldn’t do much to ruin the looks of the second-generation Camaro; it’s still a handsome car to this day. No wonder Camaros sold like hotcakes during the Mustang II years.
It has to be said, though, that by 1976 the second-generation Camaro didn’t have the moves to back up its good looks. The small-bore 305 cubic inch V8 was introduced for 1976, producing a measly 140 horsepower, a far cry from the thunderous V8s of a few years earlier, even accounting for the change from gross to net ratings. But it made the right noises, and that counts for a lot. This one has been sitting for many years; it starts and runs just fine, but the seller says (rightly) that it should be gone over carefully before hitting the open road. It probably needs new tires, too.
I had a few friends who had Camaros of this vintage in high school and college, and just seeing this interior photo brings back a lot of memories. I can practically hear Billy Idol blasting out of its Kraco stereo, and smell a combination of Burger King onion rings and Marlboro Reds. But I think even back then, none of the interiors of those cars were this nice. This thing is a time capsule. I have no doubt that the window glass still rattles back and forth, and that the tilt steering column has a little play in it, but that’s all just part of the Camaro charm.
One of my favorite things about the LT and later Berlinetta Camaros is the lack of a rear spoiler. The car looks better without it, and those damn three-piece spoilers were always misaligned on one side or the other. This just looks so much less cluttered. It does look like there’s a little bit of rust forming around the base of the rear window, but it’s still cleaner – and closer to stock – than any ’70s Camaro I’ve seen in years.
1977 Chevrolet Suburban C20 Custom Deluxe – $7,450
Engine/drivetrain: 454 cubic inch OHV V8, three-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Morgan Hill, CA
Odometer reading: 77,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives “amazing”
There is no car quite like the Chevy Suburban. Many have tried over the years to emulate it, but none have quite gotten the formula right. It’s just a big, friendly, comfortable way to move a lot of people and/or stuff, and it has been for – believe it or not – ninety years now. It feels like the “squarebody” Suburban, introduced in 1973, is when this beast of burden really hit its stride, though, and became part of the landscape of, well, suburbia. This 2WD, three-quarter-ton Suburban looks like it might have once been a fleet vehicle, but it looks just like the ones I saw in my neighborhood growing up.
Believe it or not, you could get a Suburban with an engine as small as a 250 cubic inch inline six, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen one. Most of them had small-block V8s of various sizes, but this one goes right to the top of the engine range with a 454 cubic inch big-block. It probably gets nine miles to the gallon going downhill with a tailwind, but if you need something this burly, there simply is no substitute. It has had a lot of recent work done, and the seller says it runs and drives great.
The Rounded-Line trucks (as the squarebodies are officially named) were a step up in comfort over the earlier Action-Line, and that’s part of what made the Suburban an attractive family vehicle. That, and seating for as many as nine people. This one has bucket seats in the front, so subtract one from that, and I can’t tell if it has the third row of seats or not. It’s in good condition, and the presence of an aftermarket tach and a towing brake controller means that somebody put it to work.
You could get Suburbans with two different rear door styles: either barn doors with a split down the middle, or a pickup-style tailgate with a roll-down rear window, which is what this one has. It also, for some reason, has a bunch of grab handles attached to the outside. I really wonder what this truck might have been used for originally, and if anyone has any ideas, please share them in the comments. It looks great outside, if you ignore a few dents and scrapes, which, when you’re looking at a nearly fifty-year-old truck, you should.
Nobody is denying that the malaise era was a terrible time for cars, but I think GM weathered it with more grace than the other two members of the Big Three, and these two vehicles show that. They’re among the best of a bad generation, and it’s really cool to see such well-preserved examples. In fact, I think this would make an amazing, if thirsty, two-car garage, so I’m going to give you a “both” option today.
They’re both fantastic. Thanks for giving us the option to buy both. TBI for both, 4WD for the ‘burban.
I’d drive that Camaro to the Bahamas. IYKYK.
2.56 ratio! Damn that’s a lazy rear gear. Great start point for a 6L & 4L80 swap from an old Express van or 2500 truck. And maybe an upgrade to a 3.55 ring gear
Surburban story time. My aunt and uncle had a similar year one they used to tow their home-built catamaran. They beefed it up for towing with a transmission cooler and other bits.They visited us in south Sacramento (withourt a trailer) and parked the Surburban in our driveway. My aunt is a light sleeper and heard a sound out on the driveway. Uncle went out to check and the Surburban was gone. Stolen. Called the police. They basically said it would be impossible to get it back as the thieves hire underage kids to drive the vehicles after getting them started and the kids would drive them to Mexico. This era had those wonderful, but unsecure, wing windows. That was the likely entry point.
Anyway the police got the word out and against all odds, it was spotted on the highway heading south and sure enough it was youngn’s driving, so they couldn’t charge them, but they got the Surburban back!
When I was a kid, we had an 86 version of that Suburban 454 and THM 400. It was a high level trim so super comfortable, great road trip vehicle. We towed with it, and even with a heavy trailer, it went up mountains with ease. It would pass anything except a gas station.
We calculated that it got about 8 MPG without the trailer. And only a bit less with it. So it was a great tow vehicle, but a terrible daily driver.
My first car was a 84 Camaro with the next gen 305 and the 700R4. I wish I hadn’t sold it. Great car, but didn’t play well with infant seats.
I like both in this case. Good honest cars with indestructible power trains. Both in decent shape, and a little patina.
The Suburban looks great under the hood.
The interior is superb as well.
The damn grab handles all overtake me think this was not your average family hauler in a past life.
Almost looks like a security vehicle for some banana republic or half finished drug cartel project car.
The Camaro just reminds me of Chris Farley, and Connie Conehead.
I like the Camaro. From the rubber baby buggy bumpers to the interior with its awesome crotch cooler vents. I owned a ’78 which was my favorite year. It was the first year with the soft front and rear ends but it still had the organic flow dashboard. In ’79 they switched to a hard angle dash.
Heck gas is cheaper than it’s been in over 4 years and likely to stay low for another 4 which is about as long as the Suburban will last. Or sell it.
A tough choice! The Suburban is elite, but I can’t justify something that enormous.
Which leaves the Camaro.
I rise in support of all second-generation F-bodies, and even though the Firebirds are better looking, the Camaros are still handsome, and I can’t think of a better candidate for an LS swap.
Of course, if I were to buy it, I’d also probably need a double-knee transplant to get in and out without pulleys and wires. Still, what the h*ck. Camaro it is!
Have you ever been in one? It’s quite a large car.
It is quite a large car, but also quite a low car. Not quite like getting in and out of a Lotus Elise but when you get to joint replacement age you’ll understand.
Seems like you could just rig up some contraption from Adam&Eve or Land Rover.
They used the same suppliers.