There’s some cars that were so ubiquitous when I was a kid, they ended up just blending into the landscape. In my earlier childhood, these GM A-bodies, made between 1973 and 1977 and known as the “Colonnade” style because they had a lot of prominent pillars (no pillarless designs here, because everyone was sure the feds were going to mandate roll bars) were absolutely everywhere. They were huge sellers in America, and I realized I never really appreciated the strange and exuberant styling of some of these things until my eye was seized by that picture of a 1974 Pontiac LeMans Safari wagon up there. I mean, look at it!
Incredibly, these were considered “intermediate” sized cars, even though they were huge. I suppose they were still somewhat less huge than the full-size cars of the era, but even in today’s era of massive trucks and SUVs, these things still felt pretty massive.
These Colonnade cars tended to weigh at least around 4500 pounds, and they were powered by the malise-iest of malaise engines, huge V8s making numbers that we can generously call “modest.” Think a 6.6-liter V8 making around 170 hp or so. Good times.
But I’m not here to get into a whole thing about malaise-era engines and emission controls and sadness; I’m here to celebrate a station wagon design I don’t think I ever really looked at until now! So let’s look some more.
I don’t think I ever really appreciated just how, um, swoopy these things were! Look at that front fender, the whole thing tapers into a huge sort of gracefully curving arrowhead shape, and then the rear fender echoes it again, kicking up its graceful arch all the way to the window line.
Glass area on these things was pretty vast, and the pillars – as many of them as there are – are really quite slim and graceful. I also like how the woodgrain, if so optioned, was constrained to the lower third of the car.
The front ends had that prominent Pontiac beak and split grille, and was overall really quite a simple design, with round headlights in chrome squared-off bezels and simple rectangular grille slots, trimmed in chrome, of course.
Of course, there were grille variations, but all kept it commendably restrained. I think I’m most taken by the rear view, though. Let’s look at it again:
There’s something about that huge curvy-pointy fender line and then the massive fishbowl of the rear wagon area with all its glass that I find strangely appealing. I like that there were those tiny vent windows on the rear side glass, too, to keep dogs and kids alive on hot summer days.
I’m not sure what’s going on with those vertical doohickeys on the rear liftgate; the brochure just calls them “rear vertical molding treatment” and they look like they should serve some practical purpose, but I have no idea what that would be. The taillights inset into the bumper are also a little questionable; they do allow the hatch to be full-width and are still usable if you drive with the hatch open, but they’re not great for close visibility or not getting smashed when you back into a hydrant.
I hardly ever see these around anymore, but the next time I do, I’m going to make sure I appreciate it. The overall design of these are so unrestrained and dramatic, especially for a mainstream family car. It’s just nice to see.
Here’s a sort of odd commercial for the LeMans of this era; a coupé, though, not a wagon, even though this dude’s situation does sort of suggest wagonhood:
Also, he’s delusional about the handling thing.
Oh, and that “Wide Track” thing was a bit of Pontiac marketing since around 1959. They had a bit wider track than their other GM siblings, so they crowed about that as a handling advantage. Did their customers feel the extra inch or so of track as they rambled around without seatbelts, driving buzzed and smoking and sliding all over vinyl bench seats? I’m skeptical.
Still, I love 1970s Pontiac’s mildly unhinged tone and willinngess to set cars on fire in their commericals:
You either run with the herd – or you don’t!
Is it just me, or does the rear end seem to be missing about half its height? Like everything below the bumper is… gone.
I think the rub strips on the tailgate are cosmetic, mimicking the ones on the big wagons with the roll-under tailgates.
There are a ton of malaise cars I’ve never ever seen in my life, like this one, and I’m no spring chicken. What happened to them? Did literally all of them get crushed or turn to dust? It’s not just age, as there are quite a few older vehicles still in circulation.
I always thought that the “Pontiac beak,” as you called it, was one of the best styling cues on an American car from a decade not known for great styling cues on American cars.
Curbside Classics just posted a Popular Science review of ’78 midsized wagons, the Chevy Malibu, Ford Fairmont, and Plymouth Volare, and compared them to the dimensions of the ’75 Colonnade Malibu, Ford Torino, and the B-Body Plymouth Fury – just like the ’72 Coronet Crestwood we had when I was a kid.
The interior dimensions, aside from hip room, were embarrassingly close and even better in some cases than the old ‘intermediates’. And although the Volare was pitched as a compact replacement for the Valiant, some Chrysler product planners saw it as a logical replacement for both the compact A and intermediate B bodies. (They also wanted to bring the Simca 1307/ Chrysler Alpine to the US but that idea also went nowhere fast.)
I would argue if Chrysler had applied the trimmer mindset they put into the ’74 C bodies to a truly redesigned B body for ’75 they would have been in a much better place, since they had a much higher share of the intermediate market.
“ The taillights inset into the bumper are also a little questionable; they do allow the hatch to be full-width and are still usable if you drive with the hatch open, but they’re not great for close visibility or not getting smashed when you back into a hydrant.”
The ’78-87 El Camino would like to join the discussion.