1976 Chevrolet Caprice (two-door) - Where Did the Hardtops Go?

I know my appreciation for full-size, two-door, 1971-1973 GM hard tops defies reason, logic even. They're too long, wide and heavy. They don't handle particularly well, they're not especially powerful, inhale gas, shudder and shimmy, even the most expensive of them have interiors with the soul of a Tupperware bowl and they're sloppily assembled. Through my foggy goggles, though, the big brutes have a larger-than-life quality to them; there's an elan or "Hollywood" about them that's transcendental, cool and mysterious; were these really created by a team of mere mortals? Same goes for their "family-sized" convertibles. Above is a 1971 Chevrolet Impala Sport Coupe, looking magnificent even trimmed with a damn vinyl top.  

Sadly, during my wretched wonder years, whether it was looming government roll-over regulations, that never came to fruition, '70's fashion trends or a combination of both, hard tops started disappearing, replaced by clumsy "colonnades" like this 1976 Chevrolet Caprice. Along with the five-MPH "safety bumpers", all that was alluring about hard tops of yore went out the proverbial opera window. 

The term "hardtop" is oxymoronic since not all cars that aren't convertibles are "hardtops", technically anyway. In automobile vernacular, by definition, a hardtop is a vehicle with a fixed roof that lacks a center-post or pillar that emulates the look of a convertible with its top up.  While somewhat stiffer than a convertible, "hard tops" are sheer fashion statements; the lack of a center post doing the vehicle's structural rigidity no favors. I liken my father's 1972 Cadillac Sedan deVille to having the backbone of a cardboard box. A soggy one too. 

Hardtop styling dates as far back and the mid-nineteen-teens but General Motors spurred its popularity after World War II with their 1949 Buick Roadmaster Riviera (above), Oldsmobile 98 Holiday and Cadillac Coupe deVille. The motif that combined the open, airiness of a convertible with the "performance" of a fixed roof car trickled down to Pontiac and Chevrolet for 1950 and hard tops, pun not intended, took off. 

Hard tops became so popular that by the mid-Fifties, every manufacturer not only had two-door hard tops, but four-door and even station wagon hard tops. The wagons, though, fell out of favor by the mid-Sixties, above is a 1961 Dodge Polara. Knowing how much a two-door hardtop can shimmy-shimmy, I can't imagine what a rattling soda can these things must have been. If not fresh out of the showroom, then eventually. 

Although for years cars with center posts or pillars were sold alongside their hard top brethren, and were typically lower priced, for model-year 1974, the GM "C-body" Cadillac Coupe deVille, Buick Electra and Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight two-door hard tops were replaced by two-door sedans with a fixed, center post. Above, left is a frumpy and dumpy "colonnade" 1975 Oldsmobile Ninety Eight, to the right a 1973 Ninety Eight resplendent in hard top glory. The B-body, or shorter wheelbase version of the C-body, Pontiac Bonneville and Chevrolet Caprice (like our red '76 here) got a similar post "look"; perhaps a (misguided) notion to convey the exclusive new aesthetic of the tonier C-body's? 

Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac offered a hybrid post\hardtop design on their 1974-1976 B-body LeSabre, 88 and Catalina, respectively; above is a 1975 Pontiac Catalina. While I applaud the effort, through my bifocals, the look doesn't work. It's far too fussy, there's too much going on especially dressed with a vinyl roof. Leave it to GM to even try such a thing and partially succeed in doing so. Ford tried something similar during this time and fell flat on their five-mile-per-hour safety bumpers. 

Giving credit where credit is due, the funky dog legged roof on the B-O-P's (subjective) is most certainly more handsome than our dowdy Caprice here. Curiously, Chevrolet sold an "Impala Sport Coupe" in 1974 and 1975 that was a true "hard top". For 1976, the "Sport Coupe" was gone, buyers stuck with the only the box-on-box "Custom Coupe" or one of these if they opted for a full-size, Chevrolet two-door. These cars do have their fans, though. For more, read my soliloquy on "Glass House Donks". 

There was never any clear-cut data gleamed that definitively found two- or four "post" sedans were safer in roll over than a hard top was. Again, "post" sedans were less expensive than hard tops, buyers literally paying more for less, and the same is true today. I found this "triple-red" Caprice on Facebook Marketplace recently for sale down in Nashville with a reasonable (I guess) $7,500 asking price. Just 76,000-miles on it too. If it was a 1971 or 1972 hardtop like the car featured in the video at the top, seeing the shape this is in, it would command two- to three-times as much. That makes me believe I'm not alone in my sentiments. 

 

1982 Chevrolet Corvette - All Corvettes Are Red

Years ago, it seemed Chevrolet kept rehashing the same old, same old Corvette they had going back to 1968. Oh, they claimed such and such year was different, and that the car was significantly updated but outward appearances being everything, c'mon, who was kidding who; it was the same car. That would all eventually change, of course, be careful what you wish for too, and the last of the third-generation or what are now known (annoyingly) as "C3's" rolled out of Bowling Green, Kentucky at the end of model year 1982. 

I found this 60,000-mile 1982 Corvette on Facebook Marketplace recently with "lots of new parts" and an asking price of $7,000. Wow, such a deal as seven-grand might not buy a 1968 "roller". Best is she's red. As the saying goes, "all Corvettes are red, the rest are mistakes". 

I break third-generation Corvette's into three subgroups: the 1968-1973 chrome bumper models, the 1974-1977 rubber bumpers and the 1978-1982 "fastbacks". Thank me later under the auspice of "too much of a good thing" as I spare you the minute details of cataloging the subtle and not so subtle year-by-by changes or subdividing the subdivisions. 1982, however, was not an insignificant year for Corvette changes and updates and for more reasons than they were the last of the, ahem, C3's. 

That table set, and numbers don't lie, '82 Corvettes are the least desirable and consequently least valuable of the C3's and are a close second in terms of undesirability to 1984 and 1985 models. Hence this one's more than fair asking price. By the way, the third generation sliding scale of Corvette values is 1968-1973's are the most valuable followed by the 1974-1977's and then the 1978-1982's. Inside those bubbles or brackets, the less old the car, the less valuable. Why? Again, I'll spare you the details. Just assume for now that it is what it is. For certain there are reasons but they're akin to splitting grains of sand. 

With regards to '82's being the least valuable of the third gens, there are several reasons for their poor showing on the auction block. First of all, they're part of the "fastbacks", they only came with automatic transmissions, albeit a four-speed, 700R4, and most importantly, they're saddled with the infamous "Crossfire-Injection", 350 cubic-inch Chevrolet V-8 engines, without question the worst engine Chevrolet ever put in a Corvette regardless of generation or model year. 

It ain't all bad, though. For 1982, the glass fastback actually opened begging the question, "why didn't it open going back to 1978 in the first place?" 1982 Corvettes were the first Corvette's to have a power adjustable driver's seat standard and the '82's benefited wholesale from the reengineered independent "bat wing" rear suspension first introduced on Corvette in 1980. It'll still handle like a motorhome compared to most any car today, but it stays glued to the road in ways no 1968-1979 Corvette would or could. Shoot, make that going back to 1953 while we're at it. 

The biggest problem with the '82's, however, again, was its engine. With ever stricter government mandated fuel economy and emissions standards, Chevrolet had no choice but to add fuel injection to their largest engine; computer-controlled carburetors could only do so much. Problem was, GM didn't have a throttle body fuel injection system large enough to adequately feed an engine as large as the Corvette's. So, they improvised putting two throttle body units similar to the ones found on Pontiac's 2.5-liter, inline four-cylinder engine on the good old 350. The catchy "Crossfire" phrase stemming from the units feeding the opposite banks of the engine they're on top of. Chevrolet claimed a flow of 750 CFM, about what a good performance four-barrel carburetor would provide. So far, so good. 

Things got dicey because the intake manifold, a flat "Trans Am" (racing) manifold that gave poor cylinder-to-cylinder air flow at low RPM. To compensate, they added extra fuel negating any fuel economy gains. The flat intake manifold slowed intake charge, not a problem at high RPM's where race car engines thrive, but around town, the charge got choked up. To reduce the bunching, they made the manifold intake ports almost 2/3 smaller than the intakes on the heads, restricting flow to just 475 CFM. While that increased air flow at low RPM, think of it as the head of garden hose constricting water flow, torque peaked at just 2,800 RPM but was toast north of 4,000. Quite the conundrum as the engine's rated 200-horsepowered tapped out at 4,200 RPM. Just as well as early 700R4's weren't able to rev very high. 

Reliability wise, the Crossfires were fine until they wore out, hopefully within warranty or when parts for them were still aplenty. These days, good luck finding parts not to mention a mechanic or tech who can work on them. Tough enough to find someone who's at least willing to work on a carburetor. 

So, what to do? Cost effectively, ask yourself, "how fast do I want to go?". Compression on Crossfires was an admirable 9.0:1, they're four-bolt main blocks too so the bones are good. I'd go with a Holley Sniper FI set up, parts and labor couldn't be more than $2,000 and that's estimating high. Heck of a lot cheaper and simpler than an LS swap or dropping in a crate engine. 

There are some who claim their Crossfire Corvette runs great but I've yet to run into anyone who claims that. Chevrolet also used the Crossfire on 1984 and early 1985's, 1982 and 1983 Camaro Z28's and Pontiac Firebird Trans Am's have a 5-liter version of it. 

I thought this more than fairly priced at $7,000 and someone knew a bargain too as this pretty thang is gone. I'd want the "Crossfire" plumbing yanked already, but someone's got a blank canvas to make this into whatever they want. 

 

1979 Chevrolet 3.3-Liter V-6 - But Wait There's More

Newsflash - people try to sell the craziest things on Facebook Marketplace. Take this 3.3-liter, Chevrolet V-6 for instance. While its $275 asking price is fair, what would someone do with it? Maybe I could swap it onto my 38-inch, Craftsman tractor. I would if I could. Some people do nuttier stuff than that. 

Chevrolet came out with these little engines in 1978 and stuffed them in their newly downsized, intermediate Malibu and El Camino; this came out of a 1979 El Camino. Making just 95-horsepower and 160-foot pounds of torque for 1978, 94 and 154 respectively for 1979, Chevrolet boasted it made more horsepower and torque per cubic inch or liter than the inline six it replaced. How's that for spinmeistering. What's more, they claimed it shared many "design efficiencies" with the seminal Chevrolet small block. 

Based on the seminal Chevrolet "small block" V-8, this 90-degree V-6 shared the SBC's stroke but had a teeny-tiny bore. To that extent it's a unique engine. With regards to "design efficiency", many SBC  parts bolt onto and into it. For 1979, Chevrolet added two-cylinders to the block creating the almost equally unknown or forgotten, Chevrolet 267-cubic inch V-8. 

Right into the teeth of the second gas crunch, Chevrolet pulled the plug on this for 1980; the 267 V-8 slogged on through 1982. They replaced this with a bored out version displacing 229-cubic inches (3.8-liter). Making all of ten more horsepower, its calling card was its significant increase in torque although anything with that mill would hardly be considered "powerful". Then again, my little tractor most certainly would be. 

But wait, there's more. Many believe the late, great Chevrolet 4.3-liter V-6 is a Chevy 350-cubic inch V-8 with less two cylinders. That might be mathematically correct, but in reality, the 4.3 is a larger bore 229 V-6. 

1989 Chevrolet Corvette and Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z - A Tale of Two Chevy's

 

On the clear coat surface, that the 1989 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z on the left has an asking price some twenty-two-thousand dollars more than the 1989 Chevrolet Corvette on the right is a mind-bender. More like a fender-bender, actually. Both are in similarly stellar condition although, honestly, the IROC is in better shape overall. Lower mileage too, just twenty-four thousand or so on its thirty-four-year-old analog ticker compared to some forty-three thousand on the Corvette. That enough to warrant the  $33,000 asking price for the IROC compared to the relatively scant $12,000 for the Corvette? Oh, hell no. Well, not in my book anyway. 

I'd be hard pressed to find anyone, an automobile enthusiast or not, who'd find the IROC superior to the Corvette. The Corvette is more comfortable, has a better ride, handles better, accelerates faster and has a higher top speed. In general, it's tons more fun to drive. I didn't mention anything about appearances either. 

Subjectively, through my foggy goggles, any fourth-generation Corvette in convertible guise is vastly more handsome than any Camaro too, even a top-dog IROC-Z. If the Corvette wasn't a convertible, I'd say they were dead-even in styling; both double battered and deep-fried in 1980's day-glow, fastback\hatchback cheese. If the Corvette was a coupe, tip of the chin spoiler would go to the IROC-Z but not enough to out weigh the superior driving dynamics of the plastic-fantastic. 

But the proof is in the actual numbers - third generation Camaro Z28's and IROC's are worth more and, in many cases significantly more than C4 Corvettes. This IROC here doesn't even have an L98 engine; it's has the 5.0-liter, LB9, Tuned-Port-Injection engine. Again, my opinion, this is akin to sacrilege. How in the name of Madonna, Wham! and Michael Jackson is this remotely possible?  

Well, it's not unusual for cars that were less expensive when new to appreciate more than more expensive ones. For example, a 1970 Cadillac Coupe deVille convertible in good condition has an average retail value of $16,500 and a Chevelle SS in just "fair" shape is worth around $55,000. Chevelles in "concours" or pristine condition, especially if they're original and unrestored, can go for well north of a hundred-grand, you'd be hard pressed to fine a museum quality Cadillac worth $50,000. Meanwhile, the typical Chevelle SS probably went out the door when new for under five-thousand and the Cadillac for more than sixty-five-hundred. 

Meanwhile, our '89 IROC here stickered for a tad under $25,000 and the Corvette for around $40,000; that's roughly the same cost differential between the 1970 Cadillac and Chevelle. In any event, again, what in the name of leg warmers is going on here? 

Much in the same way the '70 Chevelle shreds the '70 at the 2023 box office, it's the market that drives these values regardless of what your opinion of the vehicles is. The bottom line is "Gen-X", or those born between 1965 and 1981, value third-generation Camaros more than they do fourth-gen or "C4" Corvettes. Don't take my word for it, either. According to Haggerty Insurance, Gen-X'ers make up thirty-two percent of Haggerty's customers, and they have more than half of the third generation Camaros they insure. Meanwhile, more than half of the C4's they insure belong to "Boomers" or those born between 1946 and 1964.  

Makes sense, on paper, especially if we look at this technically if not clinically. The Camaro IROC-Z was the aspirational car of Gen X they could, at least in theory, afford. And back-in-the-day. many a "kid" drove one plowing every penny they made into paying for them, the gas they inhaled and insuring them. Unless they were lucky enough to have parents who footed the bill. Never discount how powerful a part nostalgia plays in this as well. Meanwhile fourth-gen Corvettes were not only way more expensive, they were driven by older folks as well. 

In the end, while I find third-generation Camaros, especially IROC-Z', flinty, crude and cheap, not that C4's are by any means bastions of refinement, I'm fixing to get me the performance buy of a lifetime, one of these days when I trade up to a C4 convertible. For my money, it's a whole lot more car than an IROC for not much money. 

1963 Chevrolet Corvair 500 - Father of the Year

When I was in high school, my friend Kelly's father bought her a 1963 Chevrolet Corvair just like this one. I thought it cute as a button, like she was, but she hated it. Although it was in very good if not mint condition, she thought it an "old person's car" and not something she wanted to be seen in or associated with. I thought it quaint and older than it was, it wasn't twenty-years old at the time, but that didn't stop me from begging her to let me drive it. She acquiesced for no other reason than to shut me up. 

Despite the lack of power steering, I found it handled amply. If not quite well. Better than my stinking Comet did. The brakes were so-so, but the air-cooled and very noisy flat six out back felt responsive enough. The whole thing was so different from anything else I had driven up to that time; not that by the age of 18 I had driven that many cars, but I knew enough by then that the Corvair was different.   

The Chevrolet Corvair and its corporate brethren at Pontiac (Tempest), Buick (Special) and Oldsmobile (F85) were General Motors' salvo at the growing popularity of imports in this country in the late 1950's. And with the Corvair, it was their direct shot at the original Volkswagen Beetle. That being a reasonably space efficient, compact, air-cooled, rear-engined transportation conveyance. The BOP offerings were certainly odd in their own ways but nothing like the Corvair was. 

With the Corvair in particular, GM attempted to out-Volkswagen Volkswagen. That being putting the engine in the rear of the car where it "belongs on a compact car". Putting the engine "out there" gave the Corvair a remarkably spacious interior, given its size or otherwise, and enabled designers to make it very, very low. In fact, the lowest car sold in the U.S. at that time. Giving credit where it's due, GM styling was at its Zenith in those early days after Harley Earl retired so at least they were interesting looking. What could possibly go wrong? 

Well, everything. Actually. The tip of the spear of "Unsafe at Any Speed", Ralph Nadar's scalding 1965 tome on the state of automobile safety at the time, or lack thereof, because of the deliberate omission of a front stabilizer bar, to save $4 per car, when the swing axle on early Corvair's "tucked in", the lack of something to stop or at least inhibit the front of the car from bottoming out meant Corvairs could flip over when turned aggressively at speed.  

Kelly wouldn't let me drive her Corvair over thirty miles per hour nor on the highway because her dad said it would be too dangerous. But he bought her the car anyway? Father of the Year. 

I found this Corvair on Facebook Marketplace for sale down in New Philadelphia which is a lovely community 85 miles southeast of Cleveland and roughly 90 minutes west of Pittsburgh. A nice Sunday afternoon jaunt for my wife and I if we were interested in this. Which, despite the mild nostalgia, trip, I for one am most certainly not. 

Price has been reduced from a heady $8,500 to a more reasonable but still wishful $3,500. Body appears pretty solid, no visible rust. Which is remarkable on a car this old up here. Its decent shape is why it was bought by the father of the poster of the FB ad in the first place. He bought it, stuffed it in this garage to work on it and that was that. He passed away shortly after he bought it apparently. I guess he loved Corvair's, they do have their positive attributes. They have no idea if it runs or not. Bonus, it comes with a full set of matching Chevrolet Citation wheel covers. 

I doubt all it needs is a good cleaning and a headliner. What folks say they "don't know" about a vehicle is a blaring siren to assume and prepare for the worst. This isn't my cup of tea but perhaps it's yours. Comment below if you want more information on it. 

I'll look up Kelly and see if she remembers her Corvair too. I bet she says she doesn't.  

 

1968 Chevrolet Impala - Shut Up and Take My Money

A family on the block I grew up on back on Long Island had a gold one of these 1968 Impala Sport Coupes. I thought its oh-so-bulky, form-over-function, over-the-top styling cool as all hell. Especially compared to the rental-grade Ford station wagon my father had. Of all the now "classic" cars I literally grew up with, that big old gold Chevy was the one I probably ogled the most. 

Poster of this ad is apparently confused or mistaken as to what they're attempting sell. Not that it really matters but if god's in the details, this is an Impala Sports Coupe, not a Custom Coupe "Fastback". It's as if they're threatening perspective buyers too. "Buy now! Or else!" Please! Take my money!

I love on these Sport Coupes how the trunk lid and rear fenders flow into the bumper. And who doesn't love taillights in the bumper.  Pointless, fabulous and highly impractical. Does it get any better? Impala Custom Coupes of this vintage were the semi-formal, notch back coupes.

Chevrolet offered these cars in various models that were essentially trim packages. If you wanted all the fluffy glitz of a Cadillac at a discount, you could order a Caprice. If an Impala was too rich for you, order down and pick up a Bel Air. For real bargain hunters, there was the Biscayne. The Bel Air coupe was available in hardtop or pillard'd, Biscayne two-door models came only as "pillar'd" coupes. Yuck. However, the fastback styling was only available on the Impala.  It's definitely a look that not for everyone. Ford tried this as well in the mid-to-late-sixties with a varying degree of success or failure depending on your point of view. Most know how clumsy 1966 and 1967 Dodge Chargers are. 

Poster of the ad claims the seats are new. But not only are the front seats a different color from the rear...

The upholstery pattern is different too. Saving grace, at least the seats are period correct. Judging from what I can make out from that rear inside panel and what can be made out of the steering wheel in the photo above this one, seems this car came with the light green interior originally. Someone's got some 'splainin' to do. 

Poster claims this is the car's original Chevrolet 327 cubic inch V-8 but what's with the headers? Original Powerglide comes with the package as well. This is a fifty-five-year-old car - who knows how many owners it's had and how many shade tree hacks (like me) have their greasy, grimy fingerprints all over it. 

Lots to unpack here. That person's not going to me, of course. Well, if I could get this for like $2,500, maybe. More like closer to a $1,000. Even at $500 the wife would kill me. I know getting this for as little money as I would deem worthy is unreasonable but considering this needs perhaps $25,000 to make it presentable, I don't want to the starting point to put me in the red either. Bombers like this when I was in high school in the early '80's were $500 cars; when and how did they appreciate to the point where one now as an asking price of $11,500? 

And then what would you have if you bought this for eleven or twelve grand and then plowed twenty-five into it? A 1968 Impala Sports Coupe that might be worth, if you're lucky and this crazy Post-Covid-ish used car market stays as hot as it is, what you put into it. 

If you're into flipping cars, that's just a good, old fashioned waste of time.  Something tells me someone bought this to flip and came to the conclusion that it's just not worth it. In more ways than one. At least it appears fairly rust free. 

Shut up and take my money!