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.
I’m already set with a V8 RWD GM Coupe, so Suburban it is.
Easy one: that Camaro is more or less my big sister’s first car, even in the same color. And this one is actually better, since hers was the V6.
The Suburban looks great, but what the holy hell would I do with that beast? I barely use my AllTrack to its full capabilities.
I’m more interested in the Camaro. I feel like a Suburban should be 4×4. On the positive side a C20 with a big block is a fantastic tow vehicle, and will get 7mpg even with a big trailer while 350 powered trucks burn a lot more towing than solo.
The Camaro is probably rust free and can easily be made hotter either by tuning the 305 or swapping in a 350, 383 or LS, and a better transmission.
Further to that I have an F150 and can borrow a K1500 Suburban so I have no real use for the truck. That’s also how I know about gas mileage and towing
I don’t know about the Camaro, but parts are still cheap and plentiful for this era of GM trucks.
I’m not all over the Camaro’s powertrain/options, and I really appreciate the options and big block of the Suburban, but I have no real use for it. So I’m picking up both in the meantime…
I want nothing to do with that vintage of Camaro. The c20 suburban in that good of condition and low mileage now that’s something not sure it’s worth the 6 or 7 mpg but it will probably do most things you ask it to.
At that mileage, the Camaro is all used up, but the Suburban still has life left in it. I don’t really need either car, but I voted Suburban so I can indulge in the fantasy of having a second home where I need a big burly truck to do things.
I have zero use for a big truck, I’ll take the Camaro. (My 84 Camaro was my 2nd car, mostly due to my friend in HS with his 70 Camaro. I wish I had discovered imports back then, an MR2 in the late 80s would have changed my world.)
I don’t think ancient truck 454s are worth enough to rip it out and sell it then scrap the rest of that gas-eating monstrosity and the Camaro has a red interior (in shockingly great shape if it hasn’t been restored—most didn’t look that good by the time the payments were finished), so I’ll go with looking like a different kind of dirt bag and pick the Camaro.
I had just got to the picture of the back of the Camaro and was thinking, “Damn, it really needs the rear spoiler – looks terrible without it”. Then I saw your comment….
You’re not wrong. Maybe misaligned but tolerances for this era were “close enough”
Burb! I always liked the ‘bouncy’ formatting they were using for the back door/tailgate logo during this era.
(By the way, that’s a 1990 Suburban behind the Jeep in my avatar.)
I’ve driven Suburbans of the vintage. They’re not particularly pleasant, but they do haul a lot of $hit, so they’re useful, albeit at single-digit MPGs. But I’d rather have the Camaro, even with just 140 HP. So I voted ‘both.’
I might have gone both had the Camaro been a 1978 with the less ugly bumper treatment.
The Burb is definitely the more desirable thing here. it was a C20, so it also lacks a catalytic converter and likely the majority of the engine retardation found in lesser passenger vehicles of the time
I’m old. I’d rock the Rockford Camaro at car shows, using the Suburban as the tow vehicle. Sounds like a fun life after (if?) I ever get to retire.
That was a Fireturd wasn’t it?
It was
Normally I’d want the Camaro over the Suburban.
But that particular Camaro is the worst model year with the worst or close to the worst powertrain.
And for that amount of money, I’d rather have the Suburban as an occasional tow/haul vehicle.
I don’t think I can ever vote for a 2nd-gen Camaro. They are far too closely-linked to trailer parks and mullets in my memories of the ’80s and early ’90s.
That’s the cleanest old Suburban I’ve seen in a long time. I don’t need one, but it’s very nice. I’m pretty sure that those aren’t grab handles – they’re cleats for tying down something large on the roof rack, like a canoe. I’d guess this was somebody’s camping rig – pulling a camper, with a canoe or boat tied to the roof.
Here is a similar Camaro displaying bigger,….bumpers.
1977 Chevrolet Camaro | Classic Cars & Muscle Cars For Sale in Knoxville TN
(Nostalgia for $kaycog’s contributions to the old enthusiast site.)
We gotta get pictures in comments working here!
The ‘Burb. Extra points for the tailgate and not ambulance doors.
I want one to swap an Isuzu NPR box truck turbodiesel into.
The barn doors are fucking awesome. Stop that hate 😀
The Suburban does have plenty of space to store many jugs of Haterade tho 😛
But you can’t sit on barn doors.
The Camaro needs to lose the bumper blocks and possibly upgrade to the body-colored urethane bumpers. Otherwise, the shape is nice-enough, and that red interior looks fun.
The Suburban,…..It’s just a Suburban. Iconic, but not interesting.
Ah yes, two cars that belonged to friends when I was in HS. I have had many rides in each (though the Camaro was a ’79) and the Suburban was a barn door model with a lot of rust.
At this point in my life, I would have a lot more fun with the Suburban. Haul all the kids sports gear in style.
I grew up in a succession of Suburbans, even took my license test in the diesel one my folks had (the last one). Suburban all the way for me. No interest at all in a slow Bitchin’ Camaro.
Suburban. No question. It has no pretenses to be anything more than what it is.
Whenever I drove a Gen2 Camero, it always felt like there was a hinge in the body right in front of the fire wall. It was never very quick and never inspired me on twisting roads. In a sense, it’s failings opened the door for Datsun Z cars.
The Camaro is in amazing shape, and would be kinda fun to own. Problem would be that driving a dead slow Camaro would be infinitely frustrating. Voting Suburban, even though I have absolutely no use for something like that. But at least I could sleep comfortably in it after my wife kicked me out of the house for bringing it home.
im sure there are plenty of go fast bits, starting with removing the smog could wake it up a bit!
Bitchin’ Camaro!
Bitchin’ Camaro!
Bitchin’ Camaro!
Someone’s been listening to The Dead Milkmen!LMAO
That Suburban was somebody’s tow rig for their RV. The towing brake, the roof rack, the trailer mirrors, the hitch, and the Thousand Trails bumper sticker all point to that. That thing’s probably been to more campgrounds than that Camaro has had car washes.