(EXPANDED ON 8/25/2022)
Collectible Automobile has offered an unusually critical take on the 1978-80 Pontiac Grand Prix. A subhead summed up its case by stating, “There was no getting around the need for cars to get smaller and lighter as the Seventies ended. It’s just that it wasn’t optimal for Pontiac’s personal luxury coupe” (Keefe, 2021; p. 8).
Why? After reading through the article I few times I am still unclear as to what exactly is the magazine’s beef. So let’s walk through the story and add some context along the way.
Did the Grand Prix give up more of its individuality?
The first criticism presented by writer Don Keefe was that the 1978 Grand Prix “gave up even more of its individuality” even though it “had a lot to offer in the way of comfort, fuel efficiency , and handling.” He added that, “Trying to retain brand image in a platform shared with other divisions is always a challenge, but in this case it proved especially difficult” (2021, p. 10).
Keefe backed up his claim by arguing that “the increased commonality of body parts and a much boxier look made the GP appear more generic” than ever before (2021, p. 10).
I am perplexed by this argument. Like its predecessors, the 1978 model continued to have unique sheetmetal. It’s true that the greenhouse looked just like the rest of General Motors’ so-called G-Body mid-sized personal coupes, but that was nothing new. This had been the case for the last two generations.
And why did Keefe think that the boxier shape contributed to a more generic look? GM’s 1970s pony cars had curvaceous styling, yet the Pontiac Firebird and Chevrolet Camaro looked fairly similar. If anything, the 1978 Grand Prix and Chevrolet Monte Carlo had more distinctive personas, particularly in their side sculpting.
Perhaps Keefe was trying to create guilt by association. GM’s new mid-sized cars did share more body parts. As a case in point, the Pontiac LeMans used the same door sheetmetal as the Chevrolet Malibu. Those cars did look “more alike than ever” (Keefe, 2021, p. 10). But the Grand Prix?
Meanwhile, the Buick Regal and the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme coupes had door sheetmetal that looked so similar — and nondescript — that if they weren’t interchangeable they might has well have been. Yet these cars did better sales-wise in 1978 compared to the previous year than the Grand Prix or the Monte Carlo.
The least distinctive part of the Grand Prix was arguably its rear end. The slope and vertical shape of the taillights were in the same ballpark as the Cutlass Supreme’s, but this was hardly an exercise in badge engineering along the lines of the Chrysler Cordoba/Dodge Charger.
Were the Grand Prix’s proportions unbalanced?
Keefe went on to critique the Grand Prix’s proportions. “The combination of the blunt-edged fender design and the height of the front header panel, combined with the federally mandated five-mph-impact-attenuating bumper left the front end with too much visual overhang — the car look (sic) like it needed a longer wheelbase for a balanced appearance” (Keefe, 2021; p. 11).
I would agree that the fascia was rather tall and boxy. That, combined with the smaller wheels, gave the Grand Prix a toy-car quality compared to the previous generation. The 1981 reskinning was an improvement because the new front was lower and wider, while the rear was better distinguished from other G-Body coupes.
Also see ‘1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme: Monument to a fading dream’
That said, I don’t find the front overhang problematic. In downsizing the Grand Prix, designers managed to maintain a decent semblance of the long-hood, short-deck look. The cowl doesn’t strike me as any closer to the front wheels than other smaller “new-school” rear-wheel drive cars of that period, such as the Fox-bodied Ford Thunderbird and Mercury Cougar XR-7.
Styling is subjective, so if Keefe prefers a longer wheelbase ahead of the cowl, so be it. However, I would gather that the auto industry began to move away from this styling approach in order to cut weight. So it was arguably inevitable.
Was the downsized Grand Prix less well received?
Keefe’s punchline seemed to be that the “new-generation Grand Prix may have been a better fit for the times in terms of fuel economy and space utilization but it was not nearly as well-received as its larger, thirstier predecessors” (2021, p. 14).
Among the evidence he presented was that 1978 production fell almost 60,000 units from the previous year. Yes, this amounted to an almost 21-percent drop, which was the greatest of GM’s mid-sized personal coupes. On the other hand, production reached 228,444 units, which was the second highest the Grand Prix would ever achieve. Then, in 1979, roughly 210,000 Grand Prixs left the factory, which was the fourth highest output. Finally, in 1980, production fell to under 115,000 units, but even that was meaningfully better than the last down years of 1974-75.
To put these numbers in better perspective, the output for the 1978-80 Grand Prix averaged roughly 184,000 units per year. This was around 13,000 units higher than the 1973-77 models and more than twice as high as the 1969-72 models.
Also see ‘Ford did better than Chrysler in differentiating its 1970s mid-sized coupes’
The only black mark against the downsized Grand Prix was that it didn’t top the peak production of the 1977 models, which surpassed 288,000 units. However, the Grand Prix was not alone in seeing output drop off by double digits in 1978 — that also happened to the Monte Carlo and Chrysler Cordoba.
So why then did Keefe insist that the downsized Grand Prix was “not living up to the reputation of its predecessors” and that “there was a major problem” (2021, p. 16)?
Let’s take a deeper look at the numbers
The first thing to keep in mind about the Grand Prix was that it never sold as well as either the Monte Carlo or the Cutlass Supreme coupe. As we will discuss further below, one reason why was probably because the Grand Prix was initially GM’s highest-priced mid-sized personal coupe.
The graph below shows how the Monte Carlo sold significantly better than the Grand Prix up until 1980. At that point the Chevy’s production plunged 53 percent to under 150,000 units. Thereafter, the Monte Carlo’s output was only modestly higher than the Grand Prix’s. If Keefe thought the downsized Pontiac was problematic, presumably he considered the Chevy to be even more so.
That raises the obvious question: Did the downsizing hurt sales for GM’s entire line of mid-sized personal coupes? In 1978 the answer is yes, but only modestly. GM’s output fell by 5.8 percent whereas the mid-sized personal coupe field as a whole declined by 2.1 percent.
Also see ‘General Motors trumped Ford’s 1962 foray into mid-sized cars’
This was not a clear rejection of smaller cars. For 1978-79 Ford and Chrysler carried over their old-school mid-sized personal coupes. Ford’s output went up 17 percent in 1978, but Chrysler’s fell by almost 19 percent. Perhaps even more tellingly, in 1979 GM production increased whereas both Ford and Chrysler saw declines.
The downsized A-body personal coupes actually saw output increase by almost 11 percent in 1978-80 versus 1975-77. That was very slightly higher than the overall mid-sized personal coupe market.
By 1980 GM’s share of this market market niche increased 2.4 points to 71.4 percent. This was just shy of the automaker’s record of 72.4 percent in 1976. The public apparently preferred GM’s downsized personal coupes over those introduced by Ford and Chrysler in 1980.
Why didn’t the Grand Prix do as well as its GM siblings?
If GM’s downsized personal coupes performed reasonably well, then was there something substandard about the Grand Prix compared to its corporate siblings?
In a way Keefe had a point by arguing that the Grand Prix did not live up to the reputation of its predecessors. During the first half of the 1970s, the car’s base model was priced well above those of the Monte Carlo and Cutlass Supreme.
However, beginning in 1976 the base price was dropped to slightly above the Chevy. Then, in 1978, the base prices for all four GM personal coupes converged. That didn’t begin to change until 1981, when you could start to see at least a little price variance between the brands.
(Of course, the most striking aspect of the graph below is the price inflation of the late-70s and early-80s — a topic that deserves its own article.)
The Grand Prix’s price drop would appear to have helped sales in 1976-77. The car’s market share among GM’s mid-sized personal coupes peaked in 1976 at 16 percent. By 1978 the Grand Prix slipped to almost 12 percent and bottomed out at just under 11 percent in 1980. The reskinned 1981 model bounced back to 14.5 percent.
Prior to 1976 the Grand Prix wasn’t very competitive as a high-volume entry. It functioned as a lower-volume halo car. Between 1976 and 1983, the Grand Prix’s market share among GM mid-sized personal coupes varied within a fairly small band — only 5.1 points.
That was in contrast to the Monte Carlo, which went down 16 percent during that same time period while the Regal went up 17 points. The Cutlass Supreme was the steadiest, going up 4 percent.
Also see ‘Was the 1973-77 Chevrolet Monte Carlo’s styling ‘honest?’
The most significant shift that occurred during 1978-80 was that the Cutlass and Regal became GM’s most popular mid-sized personal coupes. Perhaps the more conservative persona of the Olds and Buick was a better fit with the times. And perhaps the cachet of a premium-priced brand was a plus, particularly when base prices were so similar to the traditionally lower-priced Pontiac and Chevrolet.
What’s behind the negativity toward the Grand Prix?
What I have tried to show is that Keefe gave an overly negative assessment of the 1978-80 Grand Prix. Although the car’s sales were undercut by a punishing recession and a shifting market, the Pontiac did reasonably well compared to the rest of the mid-sized personal coupe field.
Also see ‘1971-78 Cadillac Eldorado: Collectible Automobile tells only part of the story’
This leads me to wonder whether the article was influenced by nostalgic yearnings for the bloatmobile that was the 1973-77 Grand Prix. If so, Keefe — and Collectible Automobile magazine — might wish to consider that the mid-sized personal coupes of the mid-70s represented an evolutionary wrong turn. Although they had grown as large as the “standard-sized” cars of the 1960s, their interior room was more akin to compacts. This was no more sustainable than the tail-finned monsters of the late-50s.
The 1978 Grand Prix was 17 inches shorter, four inches narrower and more than 700 pounds lighter than a comparable 1977 model. That made the downsized Pontiac strikingly similar in specifications to the brand’s first mid-sized cars, which were introduced in 1964. These cars, in turn, were roughly similar in size to the big cars of the mid-50s.
Instead of lamenting the Grand Prix’s downsizing, Keefe could have asked: Why did GM stray so far from what was a good size for a rear-wheel-drive family car? And did the automaker’s fixation with ever bigger, glitzier and more powerful cars undercut its competitiveness with a rising tide of imports in the 1970s?
The 1978-80 Grand Prix was a competent car for the times. It showed that GM could build a personal coupe which maintained the qualities of the brougham era in a more efficient and roadworthy package. This was just a better all-around car. The 1981 reskinning improved the Grand Prix’s styling, but at least in my book the 1978-80 models were still workmanly and reasonably distinctive designs.
I am glad to see that Collectible Automobile is giving its historical profiles a more analytical edge. However, Keefe’s take on the 1978-80 Grand Prix serves to paper over why Detroit suffered one of the biggest industrial collapses of the last century.
NOTES:
This article was originally posted on May 28, 2021 and slightly expanded on Aug. 25, 2022. Specifications are from the Classic Car Database (2021) and Automobile Catalog (2021). Production and market share figures are calculated from data by the Auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006), Gunnell (2002), and Flammang and Kowalke (1999).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Automobile Catalog; 2021. “Full detailed specifications listing and photo gallery.” Accessed May 26.
- Classic Car Database; 2021. “Search for specifications.” Accessed May 26.
- Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Keefe, Don; 2021. “Days of Reckoning: Pontiac’s Downsized 1978-80 Grand Prix.” Collectible Automobile. Published Aug.: pp. 9-17.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- wildaboutcarsonline.com (Automotive History Preservation Society): Chevrolet Malibu (1978); Mercury Cougar (1980); Pontiac Grand Prix (1969, 1977, 1978, 1982, 1984); Pontiac LeMans (1978)
- oldcaradvertising.com: Pontiac (1955, 1964); Pontiac Grand Prix (1979)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Buick Regal (1978); Chevrolet Monte Carlo (1977, 1978); Chrysler Cordoba (1980); Oldsmobile Cutlass (1978); Pontiac Grand Prix (1972, 1974, 1977, 1978, 1980)
Interesting article. Regarding the 1973-77 GM personal luxury coupes – they seem big and bloated to our eyes, but buyers at that time were comparing them to contemporary full-size cars (which, until the 1977 GM cars, were even more bloated and oversized). I remember plenty of people in our Pennsylvania town trading a full-size car for one of the 1973-77 GM personal luxury coupes. At the time, they were actually in the forefront of the swing to smaller vehicles. Not everyone was going to immediately switch from a Chevrolet Caprice to a Honda Civic or a VW Rabbit. That was a bridge too far for many buyers in more conservative areas.
With the downsized 1978 versions, Chevrolet and Pontiac seemed to get the short end of the styling stick. The 1973-77 Monte Carlo and Grand Prix were the most “florid” of the GM intermediates. Their overall size, however, enabled them to pull off that look. (I know that many 21st-century critics hate the 1973-77 Monte Carlo, but the sales figures show that plenty of customers loved it.) For 1978, Chevrolet stuck with that styling theme, while Pontiac toned down its styling. Neither approach really worked, although the Pontiac comes across better than the Chevrolet does. But Buick and Oldsmobile simply did a better job of capturing the essence of the 1973-77 models in a smaller overall package. The Cutlass Supreme and Regal were some of the last all-new GM vehicles that managed to simultaneously look “traditional” and “fresh.”
GM’s uptick in market share for 1980 is because the downsized Ford twins were simply ugly, while Chrysler Corporation had the stench of death about it by the fall of 1979 (hindering the sales appeal of the new Dodge Mirada which was, in my view, the best looking of all of them). Note that GM’s market share falls in 1983, when the Thunderbird and Cougar debuted with an all-new “aero” look that was very handsome.
For 1978 Buick and Olds did indeed do a better job of coming up with styling that matched the tone of the times. One additional factor I didn’t mention in the story: To what degree did the controversial fastback styling on the regular Century and Cutlass boost notchback coupe sales? That would be an interesting little number-crunching exercise.
The 1973-77 G-Body coupes were certainly quite popular — and apparently played a meaningful role in boosting GM’s total domestic market share. However, the marketplace was rather volatile during those years. As a case in point, foreign automakers saw their total market share gyrate from a low of 11.7 percent in 1976 to 14.2 percent in 1977. And despite GM’s downsizing efforts, imports captured 18.1 percent of the market in 1979, 23.4 percent in 1980 and a whopping 25 percent in 1981.
John Z. DeLorean stated that in the early-70s he argued for GM’s mid-sized cars to be given more efficient packaging (go here for further discussion). If that’s true and his idea had been embraced, would the resulting cars have sold better or worse than what they came out with in 1973?
The challenge with historical analysis is that we can’t run another lab experiment; all we can really do is make some guesses based upon the bits of data available to us. Toward that end, I’d like to take a look at how the luxury compacts might have impacted output for mid-sized cars, particularly between 1975 and 1977, after the immediate shock of the first oil crisis subsided.
You make a good point about how GM’s mid-sized personal coupe market share fell in 1983. The success of the Thunderbird/Cougar was pretty impressive when you consider what a juggernaut GM’s mid-sized personal coupes had been in the 1970s. Perhaps one reason Ford did so well was because the GM cars were in their third year of production, so getting a little old hat styling-wise. But even so, by 1986 Ford had achieved a remarkable turnaround.
https://www.indieauto.org/2021/05/28/whats-collectible-automobiles-beef-with-the-1978-80-pontiac-grand-prix/#:~:text=To%20what%20degree%20did%20the%20controversial%20fastback%20styling%20on%20the%20regular%20Century%20and%20Cutlass%20boost%20notchback%20coupe%20sales%3F
Great point, Steve. Was Mitchell losing it?
http://oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Buick/1978_Buick/1978%20Buick%20Century%20Regal%20Brochure-Cdn/image1.html
http://oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Oldsmobile/1978%20Oldsmobile/1978_Oldsmobile_Mid-size_and_Compact_Brochure/1978%20Oldsmobile%20Mid-size%20and%20Compact-02-03.html
Didn’t help then Dodge have an identity crisis with their mid-side personnal coupe, first by calling Charger, then Magnum and Mirada. Doubful if sticking to the Magnum would be different.
Too bad then Pontiac didn’t revived the GTO nameplate as a counterpart of the Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS, Buick Regal Grand National and Oldsmobile Cutlass 442. It would have been in good company in the July 1985 issue on the cover of the magazine Car & Driver.
The 78 Grand Prix was a ghastly looking car that was poorly styled along with its downsizing, not because of it. The massive stack-up above the diminished front wheel house was only the beginning of its awkwardness, as nothing, other than perhaps it’s unique interpretation of the bumper/grille combination, was well conceived for its new packaging. Had styling management done their job and worked along with the reduced dimensions, track and wheel/tire package rather than simply use the 1976 Seville as a “formula” for downsizing with “simplicity” and “restraint” (without getting the striking dash-to-axle proportions of that platform) then it might have opened new doors. As it was, it truly joins the 1980 Thunderbird as amongst the worst ever examples of ‘styling for downsizing’.
The Cutlass and Regal do share door skins, repeating the pattern first set with the ’75 restyle of the colonnades. That became general GM policy for at least a decade (one set of skins shared between Chevrolet and Pontiac and another shared between Oldmobile and Buick), until Irv Rybici finally convinced the Corporation to end the policy because it was slowing down styling.
The Monte and GP got unique sheetmetal as compensation for their divisions not having E bodies. That’s why they cost more than the Cutlass and Regal until the late ’70s. They were supposed to be more premium products.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I personally rate the ’78 GP 2nd behind the Regal for A special styling. Assuming no vinyl roofs on either that is.
The last Grand Prix my wife’s aunt and uncle owned (He had a G.M. employee purchase discount because he worked for then Detroit Diesel Allison Division.) was a metallic green T-top 1977 fully decked out. It turned heads wherever they went. It screamed PONTIAC ! They never drove another G.P. again, trading it in on a black Toronado Trofeo in 1988.
I believe that G.M. was by 1978, rearranging the divisional deck chairs on the Titanic, although they were not in the horrible position that Chrysler, A.M.C. and Ford were heading. Of course, under Roger Smith, they would not break the pickle dish until 1991-1992. Too many underdeveloped cars, too many overlapping models, too much divisional “me-too”-isms and too little quality. I wonder what Alfred Sloan would have thought about the Oldsmobile Cutlass being the nation’s best-selling car in 1986 ? Then it all came undone.
I may be an outlier. I love the 78 to 80 GP. I love the 77 78 79 Bonneville too. Considering I was ten in 1978 I was not in a position to help Pontiac with a sale. The black t top Grand Prix SJ with brown leather in the 78 or 79 sales brochure would have been high on my list were I old enough and in the market for a personal luxury coupe. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The market spoke and it said “Cutlass Supreme” and “Thunderbird”. At least Pontiac bounced back until it didn’t.
Good article Steve and the data is very helpful. Was in 8th grade when these cars came out and I remember liking the Grand Prix the best, though now see the Regal as the better design once it got quads in 1980. I thought then and think now that the ’78-79 Monte Carlo was ugly, the Cutlass sedate and rather boring.
Agree with CA that the proportions were problematic but not for the reasons stated. The long front overhang, or appearance thereof had nothing to do with GP’s styling or the 5 MPH regs. A quick glance at the Malibu in the picture provided above, or a modern RWD car like the ’81 S-Class demonstrates how short a front overhang was possible in these years. Compare the cut-a-ways of ’78 Malibu and Monte Carlo in the links below and it is easy to understand what GM did. They didn’t want to invest in a longer axle-dash for these coupes as they did the previous generation because it would add cost and complexity, so they moved Malibu’s fan forward relative to engine, the difference taken up by dead space and a longer fan shroud. They also appear to have increased the rear overhang a bit through inexpensive changes.
http://oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/Chevrolet/1978-Chevrolet/1978-Chevrolet-Malibu-Brochure/slides/1978_Chevrolet_Malibu-12-13.html
http://oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/Chevrolet/1978-Chevrolet/1978-Chevrolet-Monte-Carlo-Brochure-Rev/slides/1978_Chevrolet_Monte_Carlo_Rev-10-11.html
I worked up images of a ’78 GP and ’80 Regal to create a 4-inch longer axle-dash while keeping hood length the same, and concluded that it makes a big difference. This downgrading of previous gen GP and MC, together with the dopey rear suspension and unsupportive rear seats (I sat in the rear of a ’78 MC back in the day and bottomed over a bump) were some of the cars’ problems. They also weren’t as tight and carefully designed as the imports.
Perhaps an alternative strategy for GP and MC would have been to use the ’79 Toro/Riv/Eldo body, were the previous gen GP/MC able to remain in production for one more year. Then they would have gotten a much better rear suspension and better proportions, but also a higher sticker price.
At the very least GM should have sprung for a longer axle-dash.
Here’s the GP 4-inch longer axle-dash study (Old Car Brochures, AACA Forum):
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_08/2071584067_1978GPStdand4LongerAxle-Dash.jpg.e5b68e8c28e10bb6aa8a6e7da348dcec.jpg
Can test the exercise by moving the ’73 GP’s front wheels rearward by 4 inches and asking the question: would it have had any effect on sales or pricing?
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_08/1517393853_1973PontiacGPStdand4shorterAxle-Dash.jpg.460132b2469c830155f55a47001d01f8.jpg
I just saw a nice ’78-’80 Grand prix on I-96 yesterday, and I thought it still looked pretty good. On the other hand, my favorite A/G-Body in this string of model years is the Monte Carlo, which a lot of people don’t like. Therefore, maybe I’m not a good judge of cars looking “pretty good.” 🙂
Coincidentally, I saw a late 70’s GP last weekend. Studied it as it slowly drove past the front of my car and concluded that the rearward location of its front wheel relative to everything around it stunted the car’s visual flow. The wheel looked scrunched too close to the windshield and left too much front overhang. Wonder what Mitchell thought.