Owning a 70's GM, and being a huge mopar muscle fan. I contend GM's and pretty much any american cars made in the 60-70's were junk by today's standards. Look at the fit and finish of my Cadillac. There is no way they gave anymore thought to this car than in 5 years it someone Else's problem. The american auto industry believed they could never lose their customers to imports, so why bother. I love old cars, and will always be working on something, but the quality and longevity on small things, like electronics, wiring, etc. just weren't on their radar.

~HJ

 

HJ, while the "fit and finish" of 1970's American cars may not be up to the standards of today, I would also say that is irrelevant because the "bones" of these cars are far more robust than any cars we can purchase today, with the only possible exception being full size American trucks. There is no stopping my 79 Cadillac - its simplicity and reliability are superior to any modern car I can think of.

 

Look at the used car market now, especially on Ebay or something. You still see tons of '70s vintage GM's, whether it be Cadillacs, Buicks, Oldsmobiles, full sized trucks, F-Bodys, Corvettes, etc etc. They stood up well over time. A friend of mine has a mint condition 37k mile, two owner 1975 Dodge Royal Monaco Hardtop Sedan, and I can't think of the last time I saw a Monaco, aside from Blues Brothers, and I know they sold a fair amount in '75, but there's none left. Were they just built that bad, where they disintegrated from rust after a few years? I still see a fair amount of '70s era Ford products, but then again it's mainly the bigger ones or the trucks, most of the midsize & compact stuff is gone and never to be seen again.

I haven't been around too many pre '77 Cadillacs, but the few I have seen have definitely had some build quality issues. Big, wide panel gaps, misaligned panels, cheap & flimsy materials, etc etc. But it seemed to vastly improve on the 1977+ models.

 

Lol "outhandle"

To each their own, but I consider a few 1/10ths of a second...or even a full second through the slalom to be moot when talking about 1970's luxo-liner handling.

 

^It's a relative thing. The Imperial does do better than the contemporary Cadillac or Lincoln, but by modern standards, all three have all the poise and finesse of a pack of hungry puppies on well-waxed marble flooring when the food arrives.

 

I myself really like how the Imperial looks, it's as over the top and as baroque as the Lincolns, but a little lower and more aerodynamic looking. I also like the 440 V8 and Torqueflite transmission and the impenetrable strength of that unibody design (atleast I think it was unibody, I know it was some sort of goofy setup for something so big and old), and there's a reason they're so desired in the demolition derby circuits. Come to think of it, that might be the reason they're so hard to come by....

 

They are unibodies. That's why rust is their mortal enemy.

 

How come more so than the standard body on frame setup?

 

I'm not entirely certain why, but I seem to recall body work on unibody cars being more involved and much more expensive.

 

Makes sense. I suppose it's so much harder to replace part of the unibody when you can't simply unbolt it from the body like on most other cars from that era.

 

I don't think the construction of the car itself has anything to do with that, but rather the primitive, or rather non-existant rust-proofing technology of the day. It's not like the steel of today is somehow magically better than the steel of back then and, if anything, it is probably thinner. However, I think HJ's argument still stands for the simple reason that when you are the only game in town (big three), there's no real motivation to even ATTEMPT to rust proof in the first place. So in that sense he's got a point.

 

What car was so perfect in the 70's that it did not rust out?

I learned how to drive in 1984 in our family hand-me-down 77 Olds 98 Regency and it survived to that point with a couple of minor surface rust spots when I got it, it had mileage only in the upper 50k range, but still a very presentable car, and it was extremely well cared for. My parents drove their 77 Sedan deVille to just under 140k miles, and 78 Coupe deVille to about 120k miles before trading them in 1985 and 1988, the Sedan had typical rust under the doors visible when they were open and the Coupe was rust proofed and never got cancer at all.

Of course I remember rust bombs back when I was a kiddo, but that was before the era of treated metals and improved corrosion protection designed at the factory. But to say GM, or any American cars had this problem exclusively is ridiculous.

My parents bought a new 78 Honda Accord LX Hatch which they gave to my brother and the paper thin sheetmetal rusted all over the place, the front fenders were recalled by Honda on all 77-81 Accords so we had the car repaired and then it had shiny new fenders which highlighted the fact that the rest of the car looked pretty rusty.

Same for my Sister's 81 Prelude which completely rusted out in 3 years and when she traded it in on a new 84 Accord, she still loved her Honda, that once sexy and sporty (for the day) Prelude should have been sent to the junkyard because the whole lower body was rusted. Her 84 Accord survived better but also rusted out, but it lasted longer.

I'll also never forget back in 1991, when I first got in the car business, a customer had a 1982 or 83 Accord that was, of course, a rust bucket, and, amazingly, one of the shock towers rusted out and collapsed, luckily not when he was driving it.

Honda, the supposed paragon of automotive engineering excellence, didn't get the rust problem licked until the late 1990's, every one of them used on the salted roads had rust on the rear wheelwells. Acuras too.

One more story from my automotive memory archives; the neighbors below us bought a new 1976 Mercedes 240D, it did manage to last them about 2 decades, but about every 5 years or so they had it repainted because, you may not believe it, but it rusted out repeatedly.

Clean cars from the 70's could survive in the salty and frosty north with some effort and rust proofing. Today's cars go to the crusher and may not be as rusty but they are still quite junky in their own ways.

 

^ I also think that the way inner fenders, rockers, quarters, vinyl roofs, rear window mouldings/channels, etc were designed on old cars just plain suck. I mean its fairly obvious to anybody with a brain that some of these designs are going to trap water, debris, muck, and salt up under the body and rust it out even faster.

 

Honda's wheel well rust was heavily attributable to those absolutely stupid plastic wheel-well liner lips they used to install on every car. I swear those things were the perfect catch all for water, debris and salt.

 

Cadillac, according to the 1977 deVille/Fleetwood brochure, recognized the need for "more protection for your investment" by using new "extensive measures to fight corrosion [to] include widespread use of Zincrometal and Bi-Metal (stainless steel on aluminum). New anti-corrosion inner front fender panels. And further elimination of water and dirt entrapment areas." Preventing rust was an evolution for car makers and they were certainly aware of it.

Mercedes also started to perfect corrosion perfection by the early 1980's and advertised the fact heavily because they had their rust gremlins too.

 

'80s Mercs are notoriously good at "inconspicuous" rust. This is why you have to be extremely careful with W126s as they can look fantastic, almost new, on the surface (Merc's materials were far ahead of what was being used by most others at the time) yet as you begin to pull up carpets, trunk liners etc. you can have extensive hidden rot. My 1987 560SEC was a beautiful car from afar, but man was that thing a rustbucket.

 

I did get sidetracked on the "cars rusted quicker" but my point was a 5 year old car back then was an old car. The cars were not designed to last more than a decade or 100K miles. It wasn't a concern. Back then if they could get past a few years without having major breakdowns the big three thought they were in the clear. Their reputation couldn't be hurt because that used to be a feat for a car. They held onto that attitude for about 20-30 years to long.

 

HJ,

I think you're trying to creatively reinterpret history here. The car market was as competitive 30 years ago as it is now, there are just more players now than there were 30 years ago. No new cars 30 years ago were that much more remarkable than any others. The Asian carmakers got a foothold in the market back then because they had small, cheap, and economical cars when the US car market was geared towards big comfortable cars (as they should have been and we still should be) when then Arabs messed with our fuel supplies and gas prices skyrocketed.

The US car makers back in the 1970's were making what American buyers wanted, sales were as HUGE as the cars, and the Asian and European car brands were still in the market back then but weren't moving. External realities changed the emphasis of the car market to small cars led by carter administration incompetence which created economic malaise, recession, inflation, and high fuel prices. Same thing is happening today with obama. The Asian cars, and also many European cars, were in the right place at the right time with model lines that were already small, economical, and priced according to their quality.

HJ, the myth you are attempting to foist on us here doesn't hold much water because after the second 1970's gas crisis, in 1979, the US car makers didn't waste time and quickly brought to market small and economical cars for what they believed to be the new world: first, it should be pointed out that the 1977 GM full size cars were designed to counter the gas crisis of 1974 when buyers wished for (relatively) better fuel economy; then came the 1980 GM X-cars (Citation, Phoenix, Skylark, Omega); the 1981 Chrysler K-cars (Reliant, Aries, LeBaron); the 1981 Ford Escort/Mercury Lynx; the 1982 GM J-cars (Cavalier, J2000, Skyhawk, Firenza, Cimarron); the 1982 GM A-cars (Celebrity, 6000, Cutlass Ciera, Century), 1984 Ford Tempo/Mercury Topaz, and the tiny, by 1970's standards, 1985 GM C-cars (Electra, 98, deVille/Fleetwood); do we need to list more?

The big cars of the 1970's were simple, reliable, and not burdened by anywhere near as much political correctness, government mandated safety and emissions gargage, and, most importantly, the cars were not trying to be clones of German cars or even acknowledge the Asian cars - they were proudly all American, with all the imperfections that mirror the reality of the melting pot of people we are in this great country.

With that said, I appreciate my 70's car, and all cars of the era, for being automotive statements like no others in the world with impressive and unique over-the-top fine furniture-like interior decor touches, the land yacht-ish size, and BIG strongly made engines that never seemed to quit nor annoy with check engine lights or electronic failures.

 

HJ,
BIG strongly made engines that never seemed to quit nor annoy with check engine lights or electronic failures.

I think you're trying to creatively reinterpret history here.

Never seemed to quit? No check engine lights? MORE RELIABLE???

The difference is that engines now are more carefully monitored and tuned. The extra check engine lights and diagnostics are a GOOD thing, as engines now run better than they ever did in the '70's. They didn't exist before because earlier systems just plain weren't as capable. Just because there weren't as many cehck engine lights back then doesn't mean they were more reliable. It just means more engines probably weren't running 100% all the time.

Just about any engine now can run 250k (at least) miles like it's nothing, granted the rest of the car holds up and doesn't get wrecked in an accident first. Back in the '70's with lower quality oil and lesser engine design, carbs that were rarely tuned properly, points and condenser ignition, manually (usually incorrectly) adjusted V-belts that trashed the accessory system... 100k miles on an unopened engine was a miracle and to keep a '70's era engine running perfectly sweet over time would easily take more work than any modern engine..



And as far as the chassis...I agree with the above. No way the old '70's cars were more reliable. Front end components are of better quality than ever and rust protection such as galvanizing, use of stainless aluminum and composites, and epoxy coating makes replacing fuel lines, brake lines, gas tanks, exhaust pipes, oil pans, etc. a thing of the past. Manufacturers paint jobs on modern cars is damn near excellent straight from the factory.

I replaced the original stainless exhaust on my old '89 Eldo for the first time at 180k miles...if you mentioned that back in the '70's, you'd never hear the end of it.

Cars of the '70's were definitely different and made a statement, but in NO way were they of better quality than what we have today.

I'd trust a 2005 Ford Taurus 3.0 as daily transportation over a 1977 Ford LTD 351...

 

So cars of the 70’s are built better because why? The economy was in the toilet. They unions were striking, they were ignoring the market trends and waited until they were forced to keep up with the new emissions regulations that they had 20 years to prepare for. So basically 70’s cars were underpowered, under engineered, and used shotty materials so that makes them quality? (Rust proofing well in its infancy, did exist back then, A lot of European cars were implementing it at the time. The fact was GM, Ford Chrysler, didn’t care about longevity they wanted their cars off the road in 10 years so you’d have to buy a new one) You’re right, that this was the norm for the 70’s, but it is also what lead the big three to ruins. They rested on their laurels for too long. The majority of the cars from the 70’s didn’t even look good. This is the reason that there are Americans out there who will never buy an American car. I know plenty and it is a shame. Basically the big three ran unchecked for 10 years as there was no other choice for the consumer. My parents had a Toyota Corona in the 70’s, it was cheap and went forever, got good gas mileage for the time, but back then you couldn’t even go to the local parts store and get a oil filter. That made it inconvenient to own so they traded it in on a far substandard 1978 Nova. As far as the cars you used to describe how the big three reacted to the market (albeit about 5 years too late and only to catch the market share they were losing to the imports), these cars are well known engineering disasters. The Citation had to be renamed the Citation II cause of its bad reputation. The Cavalier was garbage compared to imports of the time; I know my Parents bought a cavalier wagon in 1982 brand new. It went to the scrap yard 5 years later with a knocking engine and a rusted out body with 60K miles. GM wouldn’t honor their warranty and after it went out of warranty it became the worst vehicle my family has ever owned. I thought maybe this was an anomoly, but over the years I have ran into several others who had similar circumstances with their early 80's cavaliers. This is because the big three waited too long and pushed things through design. They had no R&D money, they had huge contracts with the unions that they had to pay and their stock was in the toilet. This is why the 70’s and 80’s were a dark time in the automotive industry. Especially for Chrysler.

Look I love old cars, I love my Cadillac but to ignore the fact that GM could have done better if they weren’t a bunch of arrogant over confident business men that believed that you can forever sell crap to the public in a pretty box and they will love the taste is ignorant of history of these companies. I agree I would rather have old cars in my garage because new cars in general don’t appeal to me, but for the first time in my life time quality is actually being implemented into the products that they are selling. The worst built Chevy, lets say for argument sake the cobalt, is a quality machine that you should be able to rely on for years to come and hundreds of thousands of miles without more than standard maintenance. This was not the case in the 70’s. You bought a new car you hoped it would last 5 years or 70K miles.

Imports were the best thing to happen to GM and Ford (maybe Chrysler) IMO. They forced them to innovate, implement quality, make good cars. Now all we have to b***** about is how boring they look. No one would argue that a 2010 impala is an excellent automobile; it’s just getting the butts into the seats that is the problem now.

~HJ

 

I think there is a bit of truth in all that is being said in the above comments. HJ, Bro-Ham and Play4 all have good points.

Let's face it the cars produced back in the sixties, seventies and eighties all required a great deal more maintenance than our cars today, regardless of country of origin. By and large, American cars were more tolerant of shoddy maintenance. American cars were mechanically less stressed in American use (Freeways, interstates, extended stop and go and and back roads) than the imports available in the this country. Early import's reputation suffered greatly compared to domestic brands because Americans were used to cars that were less critically vulnerable to hap-hazard maintenance. Volkswagen, due to its' spartan simplicity and rugged basics was the first to win acceptance in the American market in the 1960's. The Japanese, by the early '70's, began selling economical imports that came fully equipped (by the standard of the day) for the price of a VW and that also were equal to American cars in reliability and their maintenance requirements. Of course the proliferation of dealerships and independent garages specializing in foreign cars and their maintenance helped make foreign car ownership less of a hassle.

Let's face it, as has been pointed out, all cars were very vulnerable to the rust as a result of the salting of roads in snow belt states. Many of the European cars such as Jaguars, Mercedes, BMWs, Alfas etc. were all especially susceptible to rust, even without salt being used on the roads. My 1972 XJ6 had begun to rust on the door and trunk lid edges after my first two years of ownership in Southern California! (Even my Chrysler Cordoba showed no signs of rust during my two years of ownership and my '76 Seville never did show any rust signs after nine years of ownership).

I have always maintained that if you gave a Cadillac the same amount of maintenance as "required" by a Mercedes the Cadillac would stand up at least as well (and still have been a lot cheaper over all).

I think the appeal of foreign cars really had to do with their handling characteristics and their seeming higher quality of assembly. This had more to do with the environments they were designed to be driven in and their relative simplicity (remember many of the accessories that were available on American cars were not available on European and Japanese cars) and the fact that the cars seemed to be higher quality due to better standards of assembly. There was the "snob" appeal of foreign car ownership for the higher priced brands, and the "hippy chique" of the cheap brands. And at the time exchange rates made foreign cars much more price competitive then they are today (when I lived in Japan the rate was 360 yen to the dollar, today it is closer to 200 yen to the dollar and the Deutsch Mark had a similar favorable rate). All these factors had a significant effect on the rise and continued competitiveness of foreign cars in the American market.

To counter all this American car makers added a lot of innovations in basics and accessories that further complicated assembly difficulty and build quality suffered. By the 1980's American cars were still supplying good value as far as content was concerned, but the cars had fallen way short in the area of assembly quality. American cars began to get a well deserved reputation for poor quality, this was further added to by the problems created by the necessity of meeting higher emissions standards, safety and increased gas mileage.

The nineties saw a great improvement in the quality of American cars, the nineties also brought the prices of foreign cars to equal or exceed those of American products (in the fifties and sixties Jaguars and Mercedes cost about the equivalent of senior Buicks and Chryslers and VWs were about $500. less than a moderately priced Chev or Ford which were around $2400.) Today the prestige European makes sell at a premium to our highest priced American cars and the entry level European and Japanese cars also sell at a premium.

I also think it is important to remember that the "auto business" is a "nickle and dime" business where each cost must be measured against its contribution to selling more cars. Hence decisions as to how to build and what features to include must stand the test of "will it make me more competitive in the marketplace" or just less profitable. In the last twenty years American automakers have been forced to substantially make better cars, but then so have foreign car companies, all to remain competitive in the American marketplace.

 

HJ, No one held a gun to consumers to make them buy all those ugly and crappy 1970's American rear drive luxury cars. They sold in HUGE numbers all on their own because when gas is cheap Americans prefer large, safe, and comfortable vehicles.

Foreign cars in the 70's weren't anything special, and buyers ignored them until gas prices escalated. Most of today's cars, both domestic and foreign, are boring facsimiles of each other. This is far different from the height of the days of domestic car maker dominance when luxury car admirers dreamed about, worked hard, and aspired to own a 1970's Cadillac. They were great cars in their day and symbolic of our national confidence and prestige.

Asking the question of what GM could have done better in the 1970's is something you'll have to wrestle with because the proof to the contrary of your statement is the huge sales and total control of the market Cadillac and the entire family of GM divisions enjoyed. Your frustration may be better directed toward our government which stifled the market by getting in the way with unreasonable regulations and standards, and, all these years later the government is intending to force the people to accept the "green" myth rather than the other way around. I reject this, which is why I embrace my big Cadillac which satisfies my needs and pleasures and remains a symbol of all-American greatness!

 

Orr, my 1979 Cadillac has required less maintenace than any car I've owned. When it has needed repairs the parts have been head shakingly cheap and anyone can work on the car easily. It has no check engine light, no computers, and no characteristic engine problems. I love the freedom of having so little $$$ in a car that I enjoy so much.

 

Let's not forget that with the introduction of it's (actually started with the 1976 model Seville) GM made a great stride forward in materials and assembly quality over the cars previously produced in the '70s. There was also a dramatic price increase across the board for cars at the end of the decade. The price increase was not only due this periods "stagflation" but was also reflected in GM's ability to recoup additional production cost.

While I realize that many here dote on the American leviathans of the sixties and particularly the seventies, these cars had come to represent (even in their own time) zenith of conspicuous consumption. Perhaps the oil cartel did us a favor by cluing the American people into the fact that there economy and lifestyle was not without its' vulnerabilities. The forced reconsideration of our transportation needs brought about much better designed cars whose better handling and more efficient operation was more in line with what the American mass market needed.

 

Perhaps the oil cartel did us a favor by cluing the American people into the fact that there economy and lifestyle was not without its' vulnerabilities. The forced reconsideration of our transportation needs brought about much better designed cars whose better handling and more efficient operation was more in line with what the American mass market needed.

Well said.

 

^^^ I have no problem with that!

 

I'm amazed the big Chryslers were unibodies. I did some reading on them and they were pretty advanced for the day. I keep daydreaming of the 80 New Yorker Special Edition with the stainless roof!

 

Now you have your very own "Golden Fleece!"

 

Is your golden fleece any car with a "tobac" interior?