1982 Chevrolet Caprice (Coupe!) - Blue Bonnet

General Motors "Class-of-1977", downsized full cars get an inordinate amount of praise from automobile cognoscenti that are of my age group and roughly ten-years older and younger. Not to be contrarian, but while I agree they were better transportation conveyances than what they replaced, aesthetically, there's not much of an argument they were nowhere near anything GM had come out with in the thirty-or-so-years prior. The dawn of the dutiful, disposable automotive appliance was upon us and for better, worse or indifference, with some exceptions, the automobile industry hasn't looked back. One of those most pleasant of exceptions was, my blog, my opinion, of all things, Chevrolet's 1980-1986 Chevrolet Caprice coupes. I found this 1982 for sale on Marketplace with a, "I guess the Pandemic is really, really over" asking price of $4,250. 

Two-door sedans were quite fashionable after World War II and GM came with a full-range of them for the "Great Downsizing Epoch". While I'm partial to the 1977-1979 "D-body" Cadillac and Buick two-door sedans, giving credit where it's due, though, I have to applaud the efforts Chevrolet's design team for what they did on their B-body Caprice coupe. Doesn't mean I liked it, though. Above is a 1977 Impala. 

The unique roof line of these cars has its fans, I'm not one of them. I don't get it and I think it looks out of place. My initial reaction to it was I thought it off-putting; they might as well have put tailfins on these cars. That far-out rear windshield was made by placing glass over hot-wires and slowly, literally, bending the glass over them. The process was time consuming, expensive and the failure rate was absurdly high. 

Not surprisingly, come 1980 and GM's mid-cycle reboot of all of their full-size cars, the ambitious and pricy rear window or "backlight" was gone and was replaced with an all but bolt-straight roof treatment straight off the 1976-1979 Cadillac Seville. It also helped create my third favorite General Motors "1977" behind the aforementioned Cadillac deVille and Buick Electra coupes. Sometimes less really is more. 

I actually like this bluebonnet so much that I know if I didn't have two "classics" already, I might lobby the wife for it. I mean, look at this interior! There's so much to work with here although there's much to be done, apparently. 

Kudos to the poster of the ad who made the effort to photograph it so it looks, apparently, better than it is. Although the frame and pans are solid, there's rust issues. The driver's door has the tin worm, and the passenger door is so bad, they say it could or should be replaced. Well, again, snaps to the poster of the ad, you'd never be able to tell. Thanks for being so forthcoming. 

It's got a busted brake line and although it runs and moves under its own power, it's sat since 1999 so it's going to need a good going over or two or three. Bring a trailer, literally and figuratively. 

Under hood, the poster of the ad claims that's a "4.3 V6" but unless someone swapped in that engine, it can't be that. Chevrolet didn't offer the 4.3-liter V-6 on the Caprice until 1985, again, this is an '82, so if it is a V-6, that's Chevrolet's own 3.8-liter V-6 that's not to be confused with the Buick 3.8-liter chuffer of the era. The 4.3-liter V-6 replaced the 3.8-liter Chevrolet V-6. 

It looks a tad long to be a V-6, though, sorry, that was the only picture of the engine in the ad, and since the poster said it was a "4.3", perhaps they're mistaking that for, "4.4"? In that case, and this makes sense, it would be Chevrolet's "L39", 4.4-liter V-8. Chevrolet made that boat anchor from 1979-1982. Also known as the "267-cubic inch V-8", it made 120-horsepower and 215-foot pounds of torque and it's most "powerful". Even in a "downsized" Caprice, you ain't going anywhere fast with it under the hood. Chevrolet also offered the 267 in the Monte Carlo and Malibu. 

The reasonable asking price is also, I take it, reflective of the fact that this car doesn't have at least Chevrolet's vastly superior "LG4", 5.0-liter (305-cubic inch) V-8 which, for 1982 (engine choices above), made a fairly respectable 145-horspower and 245-foot pounds. The LG4 is also vastly tunable, the L39 is not, and there's an entire cottage industry devoted to making it more powerful. 

Another Achilles heel this car has is its transmission. This probably has GM's infamous THM-200 which is a lightweight version of their venerable THM-350. I'd use the rust, the engine and the transmission as bargaining points. Given the interior and the frame being solid, this is very well bought closer to two-grand. 

Take the savings and get the doors fixed and plop in a proper powertrain. Keep in mind, you don't have to "LS-swap" it. There's plenty of engine and transmissions out there that for very little money could transform this handsome blue bonnet into the sleeper of your dreams. Or nightmares. 

1982 Chevrolet Caprice Classic 2dr Coupe, 4.3 v6 auto. The car runs and moves under its own power but currently has a bad brake line. The car has sat since 1999 and could use a good going over before putting on the road. Car is not perfect, it has some rust spots around the car, all rather small. The worst rust on the car is in the doors. Passenger should be replaced, drivers could be fixed but its not great. Aside from that, the frame is 100% rot free, no cracks or holes. Trailing arm pockets are very solid. Floor pans, trunk pan, rockers, hood and deck lid are all very nice. Best part of the car in my opinion is the interior, front and back seat are very nice, headliner is solid and the carpet is intact. With minimal cleaning it would be pretty darn nice.

 

1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass - Three On a Tree On a 1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass??

The new mid-sized Oldsmobile's were not in early for 1973 as a labor strike delayed them long enough that models slated for 1972 came as 1973's. All GM intermediates were new for '73 and were referred to as "Colonnades" denoting their center-posts, columns or pillars; there were no hard tops. What makes this '73 Oldsmobile Cutlass unique and different enough that it deserves a minute or two of our time is that it has a manual transmission. Please accept my apologies, the poster of the Facebook Marketplace ad for this only put up four pictures. 

 

What we have here is a column mounted, three speed manual shifter. I know, it looks like an automatic in PARK, but that's what was known as a column-mounted manual shifter that's locked up in in REVERSE. First gear is down and out, second up and away towards the dash, third below that. There are three pedals down there too - I know they're hard to make out but they're there: clutch on the left, brake in the middle and the gas on the right. 

I was perplexed by it too then I checked a brochure for 1973 Cutlass' and, sure enough, the standard transmission on the 1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass is a fully synchronized, 3-speed manual with column shift. A synchronized manual means that the gears are spinning at the same speed so when you shift, you won't grind the gears.  

Manual transmissions are one thing, a three-on-three is something else altogether. These things were an anomaly even when I was a kid growing up in the '70's. My only "experience" with one was seeing my friend Andy's mom rowing one in their 1967 Buick Special station wagon. I was slack-jawed at the amount of work the poor woman had to do to keep the car moving. It seemed quaint and old-timey at the time, and we are talking, gulp, fifty-years ago. Good grief. 

Chrysler is given credit for pioneering the steering-column mounted three-speed shifter when they introduced it on their 1939 Plymouth's; shifters were always floor-mounted up until then. GM, Ford and other manufacturers quickly followed suit with their own "three-on-a-tree".  Incidentally, automatic transmissions wouldn't appear en masse in cars until 1948 with, ironically enough, Oldsmobile and their "Hydra-Matic" two-speed that was also available on Cadillac's. I know, just like the internet, you thought automatic transmissions were always around but that's simply not the case. Even Cadillac owners had to row-their-own. 

It's open for debate what the actual benefits of a column mounted shifter were. Their linkage was more complicated than a floor-mounted shifter that connected directly to the transmission and with the driver constantly rowing the "tree", if there was a middle passenger, they'd have to sit far enough away from the driver to enable them to swing their arm wide enough to make the shifts. Not unlike with a floor mounted shifter. Again, what was the benefit aside from, perhaps, in theory, the middle front seat passenger having more leg room. 

Seems odd now but steering column mounted manual shifters were quite common in the 1940's, '50's and '60's, they began to wane, though, in the '70's. Fun facts, kids, the last GM car to feature one was the 1979, rear-wheel-drive, "X-body" Chevrolet Nova (the above diagram is from a 1979 Nova owner's manual). 

Chrysler's last models to have one was the 1978 Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare, Dodge Monaco and Plymouth Fury; good luck finding one of those. Ford offered it on their all-new-for 1978, "Fox-body" Fairmont but discontinued it afterwards. 

Not only was 1973 the last year for a three-on-tree for the Cutlass, but it was also the last year a four-speed manual was available on the performance oriented 4-4-2 model. Oldsmobile would offer a three-speed manual again on the Cutlass starting in 1975, but it was floor-mounted backing either a Chevrolet built, inline-six or Oldsmobile's new 260-cubic inch V-8; both power trains were for customers looking for improved fuel economy.  

Along with these scant photos and even fewer details, the poster of the ad for this very rare '73 Cutlass is asking $8,900 for it. Along with the requisite, "will not respond to 'is this available'", they say it runs great although they don't say why they didn't back it out of this garage or storage facility to take more photos. That $8,900 ask seems like a lot, frankly I think it's insane, but, believe it or not, this is priced below market. This is screaming to be resto-modded but the cost of admission, in my opinion, is almost as absurdly high as a three-on-a-tree was in the early 1970's.