I am here to decry the formalization of American automobile styling that began sometime in the 1970s and had pervaded the lines of all US manufacturers by the early 1980s. Even the lowliest Chevrolet roofline came to stand bolt-upright and was often shrouded in padded vinyl. It’s not that it was a bad look: it’s just that this look all but did away with the sportier, less-formal look that so many American cars wore so well. This 1981 LeSabre is a good example of the formal look.
GM brought the squared-off coupe roofline to the entire B-body lineup in 1980. I think the big Buick wore it better than its sisters, especially the Olds.
Buick had the problem of protecting its C-body Electra as the most formal of Buicks. Electras wore fine-toothed, bolt-upright sparkly chrome grilles. Since too much formalization of the LeSabre wouldn’t do, its grille was kept a little downmarket.
The LeSabre’s tail lights remained pretty plebeian, too.
Buick’s tarting up of its bread-and-butter big car was confined entirely to the roof, with a padded vinyl landau top, a vertical backlight, and nearly rectangular side windows. This one styling trick neatly transformed the car’s look.
Which is a shame, because the 1977-79 angular C-pillar was so much more attractive and versatile. It looked good in any guise, whether dressed casually, formally or sportily.
Yes, sportily: These LeSabres could be powerful and good-handling cars befitting a sporty look. A college buddy of mine had a ’78 LeSabre coupe with the big, short-lived Olds 403 engine. Our long-haired, heavy-metal phase was well underway in 1987 when he got us tickets to a triple headbanging bill up in Chicago. (Armored Saint, Grim Reaper, and power-metal pioneers Helloween, in case you’re curious.) The show was supposed to be at the Aragon Theater, but when we got there we learned that the show had been moved to a bar in some other part of town. I thought we were sunk, but my friend was undaunted. Following some sketchy directions, he threaded his leviathan automobile, at extralegal speeds, through narrow streets in seedy parts of town. The car felt solid and planted at all times. We made it to the show just in time; it rocked.
But let’s be real. A serious metalmobile in those days would have been something like a ’71 Satellite Sebring coupe with glasspacks–or, for the wealthier headbanger, maybe a new 5.0 Mustang. We were really risking our street cred driving a Buick, and we got away with it because of that less formal roofline. If we had rolled up in a square, padded-roof Buick, no matter how fast it went or how well it handled, we would have been called dorks. And that just wouldn’t do for a couple of 20-year-old men working hard on advanced hearing damage.
I’m sure the mature Americans who snapped up these new formal-roofed Buicks felt like they were motoring in high style. But at some point, the youth of America either inherited these cars or bought them as cheap used transportation. They wanted youthful-looking cars. American car manufacturers let them down big time.
The only thing that makes me sad is the missing hood ornament, miss matched wheel covers and tires. That makes me sad. I wonder what’s under the hood of this one, even the vinyl top looks pretty good.
I don’t mind the styling of these especially in four door. The two doors look a little awkward. They look like were designed at the last minute having to use the hard points of the four door.
I think the two door looks better than the four door on these models. I like the formal styling treatment on most cars of this era. It was to the 70s and early 80s what fins and chrome were to the 50s and early 60s.
I agree wholeheartedly. The 1977-79 LeSabres were MUCH more attractive and sporty(ish), especially the two door version with the mag-style wheels.
As for the Olds, I think the 1977-79 Delta 88s were attractive enough. And they wore the 1980 formal look restyle very well. Way better than the Buicks IMO.
One of these (an 85 model) set my record for the shortest period of ownership ever – 3 weeks. You know you have owned a Buick for a really short time when you never even have to put gas in it.
I have traditionally been a fan of big 2 door cars, but these were always sort of “meh”. However, the Buick probably wore this roof better than any of the other B body cars. The bigger C/D body looked better as a 2 door.
In 1981, there is probably a pretty good chance of a V6 under the hood. I drove an earlier LeSabre V6 (a 78) and it remains one of the slowest cars I can ever remember driving. And that was before CAFE-induced lockup OD and tall axles. This was probably Buick’s saving grace, as all of the customers trading in V6 cars were no doubt thrilled with the sparkling performance of the lusty 307 V8. (In comparison with Olds buyers getting out of their 350s surely wondered what happened to their Oldsmobile Rocket.
How in heaven’s name do you own a big Buick for three weeks and never gas it up? You must never have pulled it out of your driveway!
I agree 110%. Buick tended to have the best styling of GM full size lines in the 70’s and 80’s, and the 1977-79 LeSabre coupes are at the top of the heap.
Cadillac’s Coupe de Ville greenhouse was squared up in 1980 too, but somehow it works better there than it does on the Buicks. I guess it’s OK for big Cadillacs to have the formal look. In fact, I prefer the 1980-84 Coupe de Ville roofline to the 1977-79, which seems to lack a certain presence one expects in a Caddy. The Sedan de Ville was also improved by the formal treatment. The 1977-79 SDV looks a bit too Caprice-ish.
I disagree with just about everything here. While I’ll agree that luxury cars pulled off the somewhat more casual rooflines in the 1970s (back in the days of the big hardtops), the smaller chiseled full-sizers from 1977 looked really awkward. When I look at that 1977 Buick picture all I see is a hastily done stopgap solution until they could figure out how to make a smaller, non-hardtop full-size car look good. The formal redesign of 1980 drastically improved the look of these cars. Also, I think these Buicks were by far the ugliest of the GM full-size line, and while the 88 didn’t look as good as my Ninety-Eight, it certainly looked better than the LeSabre.
The formal roofline worked fine for the 4-doors, but I didn’t like the 1980 and newer B-body coupes at all regardless of the make. I always thought it was strange that GM tried to improve the aerodynamics of the b-body in 1980 with the new sleek noses, but then stuck a more upright back window. Seems counter-productive! I have never been a fan of the formal upright rear window. Even back when GM introduced in the in 1960s, I always preferred the faster rooflines. To me, the 1977-79 B-Body coupes were far more attractive, in all car lines. My favorite is the 1977-79 Caprice/Impala 2-door, mainly because I thought this was the sprotiest of the 77-90 b-bodies.
I really like the 77-90 B-body, it is one of my all time favourite car lines, but I have always favoured the plain less dressed models. Vinyl tops, velour pillow-top seats, stock soft-suspension – yuk! As far as the 2-doors go, I kind of prefered the 1980+ Olds over the Buick, they were always a little more restrained than the Buicks, expecially the interiors. Then again I might be biased as I have had a few Olds b-bodies that always treated me well.
That’s one ugly brute of a car,that stepped down rear side window looks wrong to me.
The whole roof treatment makes it look to me like a cut and shut job. As though they welded the halves of two totally different cars together at the B-pillar.
My first “real” car was an ’83 LeSabre Limited sedan…broughamy goodness unfortunately mated to a 4.1 V6…seemed like Buick V6s were disproportionately installed in Buicks. I rarely (if ever) see V6s in ’77-’85 vintage Oldsmobile 88s, for example. The ’83 Buick belonged first to my seventy-something year old grandma, who commented that “it didn’t seem to have as much power as my [’74] Dodge [Monaco with a 360 4-barrel].” The 4.1 was sluggish, but I absolutely couldn’t imagine the old carbureted 3.8 V6 moving around a 3500+-pound car! I guess they actually installed carbureted 3.8s in base-model 1976 LeSabres, pre-downsizing. Yikes! Don’t plan on passing anyone on a two-lane road without *a lot* of room.
As for the rooflines, my ’83 LeSabre Limited sedan’s rear window had considerably more slope than the coupe’s. Looked better, too, in my opinion. My take on the straight-up-and-down rear window is that less slope was one way of improving space utilization. I’d imagine it’s quite a challenge to get decent space utilization with severe slopes on windshields and rear windows. How, for example, do you avoid the tremendous amount of wasted space as evidenced in the enormous rear package trays of a fastback 1967-68 Chev/B/O/P B-body two-door hardtop or the enormous dashboard of a first-gen Pontiac Trans Sport, Oldsmobile Silhouette, or Chevrolet Lumina MPV? Severely sloped glass creates these problems, where more upright glass does not…
The B-Bodies with the 3.8 V-6 were total dogs, complete slugs. I have never driven a 4.1 and have heard they were somewhat better but these cars were designed for V-8 engines and are not pleasant to drive if not so equipped.
The Buick Turbo V-6 was also an oddball in its early iterations. The boost didn’t come one until at least 2000 rpm and was furious at 3500, at which point the power peaked. It was a really strange feeling.
I have heard that B-body Lesabres in the 77-78 time frame were available with the Buick (carburated) Turbo V6. That must have been a strange beast to drive. Almost makes me think of the base 2013 Ford Taurus available with a turbo 4 standard. Big cars with tiny turbo motors seem somehow un-natural. Like having your dog neutered and then having little rubber replacements installed.
Road & Track did a comparison between Turbo V6 and Buick 350 powered LeSabre Sport Coupes in 1978 and got better performance and fuel economy from the V6. Although like Canucknucklehead says, all the carbed Buick turbos are supposed to be horribly laggy and a nightmare to keep running properly. They did make tons of torque, though. No problem moving a car this size, as long as you don’t mind a second-or-so gap between putting your foot to the floor and waiting for the car to move.
For any daily driving scenario, the Buick block 350 was way better than the turbo. It made that classic GM velveteen-torque right off the line to its 65 mph cruise, and then would climb any mountain without downshifting.
The turbo was a really odd thing. First of all there were no premium fuels for them available at the time of design, so they were designed for like 85 octane. When you stood on it, the motor would bog, then as it hit 2000 rpm it would whooosh, then at 3500 or so spark knock would start and the neolithic knock sensor would radically retard the timing, thus ending the Turbo Show in a spectacular hesitation. Really, it was inexcusable not to have FI on these cars.
Sounds like a modern turbo diesel.
It’s like you read my mind. I prefer just about all the ’77-’79 B/C cars to their more formal ’80+ counterparts. I understand the rational for using the same coupe roofline on all models, as the market for that body style was starting to dwindle, but it’s just too upright and looks wrong on all the B-cars.
Otherwise, I like the look of these LeSabres. They were less formal than Electras – wearing variations of this grille most years from ’77-’89 – and that’s a good thing. Buick was not yet an old fart car in the early ’80s (although that roof sure doesn’t help). They were simply nice cars and carried a bit of prestige. My dad always picked Buicks when he got company cars during the late ’70s/early ’80s…and he wasn’t even 30 yet. Why? Because to everybody who didn’t live on the West Coast, Buicks (and Oldsmobiles) were still desirable cars for executives and middle class families.
Ten years later…not so much.
I think Chrysler did a much better job redesigning their full size line in 1979 (in terms of styling, not necessarily quality). The 77-79 GM full-size cars always looked awkward to me, except for the Cadillacs, which were tasteful. I also liked the 2-door Pontiac Catalinas and Bonnevilles of these years. The 4-doors always looked too boxy for my taste. I don’t have a problem with straight lines on a car, but I like some curves, too.
Jonathon, I 2nd your remark on Cadillacs of the day. My father got the Cadillac bug & purchased a ’77 Coupé DeVille, then a 1980 Sedan DeVille. Their styling just seemed right, & way better than the aggressively boxy Town Car he replaced them with. BTW I once reckoned the Sedan got 18mpg on a trip, not bad for a 6L Lead Sled. But it was a little scary driving on the ca. 1940 Pasadena Freeway; it felt like I was taking up another lane. That route does wonders for a driver’s concentration; it’s a hoot in a compact car, with those sporty curves designed for 45mph.
I was more of a Ford fan back then (for no good reason), but even then I thought GM’s big cars were better, even after Ford’s ’79 downsize.
Oh man, oh man, this transported me back to my childhood. My grandmother drove an almost identical ’83 LeSabre. Two door, white, maroon vinyl roof, but her’s had the wire hubcaps. She got it around 1989 or 90 after my aunt took her Dodge Diplomat.
We used to call it the 1,000 pound doors car. My 5 year old self didn’t have the strength to close the door while sitting in the seat. I would have to get the door almost closed while I was still standing between the door and the car before getting in and pulling it closed.
I don’t know what engine it had but I do know she did get a few speeding tickets, yes my grandmother has a bit of a lead foot, one a 90mph in a 55 zone.
She kept it until about 1996 or so before getting a used Cutlass Ciera.
I’m siding with those who think the squared-off roofline improved the look of the 4 door Bs and Cs, but was an awkward look on the coupes. The trunks ended up looking way too long on them.
I think we need to put it to a vote.
Here is a shot of my ’82 Limited Sedan with the 307 4bbl, but with the 350 THM and lock up torque converter. I got in from a college friend in 1996 ( a Grandma special), and have had it ever since. Very comfy highway cruiser.
Very similar to my ’83; I had the Turbo 350 transmission, too, even though the owner’s manual said that the 4.1 V6 and 307 V8 were mated to the 200-4R overdrive transmission. I honestly don’t think the 4.1 would have been worth crap with overdrive…with the slightest hint of a headwind, I bet she would’ve *really* been bogged down. I say this because later on I owned another ’83 LeSabre Limited with a 307 and a 200-4R, and it really struggled in strong headwinds. Probably a tall-geared rear end with overdrive *wasn’t* the best idea, especially if you didn’t have the cubes (and hence, the torque) to make that work!
Nice car Dean. The parents of my brother’s friend had an ’80 LeSabre sedan in that same color combo, but with no vinyl roof and the base “disc” full wheel covers like the ’82 below. It had been his dad’s parents’ car, and they gave it to them when they got a new car. I remember going with them to the junkyard sometime in the early ’90s, when the Buick needed some part or another. It was a very nice-riding car. Jim drove it for several years, until the mileage caught up with it.
That is a beautiful car. My compliments to you!
Thanks! The loudest noise heard at 60mph is the ticking of it’s huge analog clock!
I hate to sound like a broken record, but once again, I think the Pontiac wore it better.
1981 Pontiac Bonneville Brougham coupe:
I have to agree. The 1980-81 Pontiacs looked really good, especially the coupes. It’s a shame they didn’t last as long as their corporate cousins.
Yes. Between 1979 and 1980, the full-size Pontiacs went from being (in my opinion) the least attractive GM B-bodies to the most attractive.
I can see the appeal in both generations on all these cars, though. I usually prefer the first design iteration of a car, and I would probably prefer a 1977-79 on any C- or B-body, BUT, I have to admit that they do tend to look “fatter” and more awkward in many cases than the 1980 restyle. The formal rooflines went really well with crisp styling on the B-bodies. It was a risky move because it made them look more like the Cs, but it worked. An Electra coupe still looked just different enough from a LeSabre coupe, even in 1980 and beyond. Sadly, though, coupes were becoming less and less common at this point.
I’m going with Mike – I think the ’80-’81 Pontiacs (and Caddies) wore that look best.
Attached are a couple of pictures taken in PEI about 5 years ago. Asking price was $1500, and it was a fairly basic vehicle. No air and wind up windows, but a V-8. Nearly followed me home!
It always amazed me so many GM cars had cranker windows, even so called “Luxury” models like the Buick.
My old Volvo 240 had them, and that was an ’88! Maybe GM and Volvo figured there was nothing luxurious about missing out on fresh air because yet another window regulator had crapped out on you. I’ve never owned a vehicle that didn’t eventually have problems with its pwr windows.
Well, was a LeSabre Custom really a “luxury” model? Power windows were standard on the real luxury models by this vintage, the Electras and Rivieras but the LeSabre was just the big regular Buick. I dont think LeSabre got standard power windows until well into the FWD H-body series.
I have seen 1985 Collector’s Edition LeSabres with crank windows…
I’ve seen the same for Regal Limiteds and Cutlass Broughams, along with Delta 88 Grand Royale Deluxe Broughams with manny windows.
Some elders prefered manual windows back then. “One less thing to break”!
Buicks and Chryslers from God-know-when through the early 80’s were what we’d call “near luxury” . . . hence options such as power windows, door locks, a/c and all that were not standard until much later on. In fact, even the luxury cars, a/c wasn’t a standard item until the early seventies as I distinctly remember seeing a ’68 Fleetwood at a Firestone shop in Santa Roas (in 1978) that was sans a/c (common in the Bay Area where when it DOES get real hot, fog finds its way into the coastal valleys).
As far as crank windows, my Grandmother did NOT want power windows or locks (trouble waiting to happen). As a result, her first “nice’ cars, beginning with the ’64 Dodge Custom 880 through a ’69 Chrysler New Yorker, ’74 Ford Country Squire, ’76 Ford Granada, all had crankers. When she bought her final car, an ’86 Mercury Grand Marquis Brougham, it had power windows and door locks standard, so by then for her, it was a moot point.
Being she was in humid summertime Missouri, she DID get a/c with every car beginning with the ’64 Dodge Custom 880 and, in those cars (’66 Monaco, ’69 Chrysler), the hottest V-8’s available (413’s and 440’s).
Anterior shot
Regardless of roofline these cars always cut a nice rear profile. Reminds me of my ’87. I would’ve been very tempted to buy that Buick for that price if it’s as nice as it looks.
I liked this Caprice coupe bodystyle so much more than its B-O-P competition and the awkward ’77-’79 Chevies.
My favorite post-’80 coupe is the Cadillac though.
I am here to decry the formalization of American automobile styling that began sometime in the 1970s and had pervaded the lines of all US manufacturers by the early 1980s.
With you a million percent. The ’77-’79 Buick coupe roof looked excellent. The one pictured here, I would have hated when it was new… and I think the Buick sedans looked much better than their 2-door counterparts from 1980 onward. I’m not the biggest fan of this style grille/front end either. It’s “OK” but it’s also my least favorite look on a B-Body.
IMO, the only B-coupe that looked really good with the formal roofline was the Delta 88, all the others ruined what were once very attractive cars. I don’t get the “formal roof” thing at all and it’s really weird to me that at one point this look said “class” and “expensive” to certain people. Why? Obviously it’s not a Cadillac, and it’s not like Cadillac was building anything interesting (or good) at the time either.
Those tailights look like they came from a Mercury parts bin.
It’s not fair to look at the feature car and conclude the B-body looked better before the squared-off roofline. The whole car is ugly.
I don’t know about you but when I think 77-79 LeSabre Coupe it’s a Sport with Rally wheels, sport mirrors, portholes and a tall, upright grille.
The feature car has…
* a shorter, weaker front end
* no portholes
* odd parting line for the vinyl top
* boring taillamps
* boring wheelcovers
* rental car color combo
* discolored side moldings
… and a boxier profile.
There are too many variables (including a low spec on the feature car) to blame the downgraded appearance on the roofline. Anything would look better than this car.
A fairer test would be to look at the D-body Cadillac, where specs were high before and after the facelift. Surely everyone would agree the SDV/Fleetwood became better looking with the more formal roof. I think most would agree the CDV did as well.
When Cadillac squared off the roof they made the front end taller, not shorter.
All B/C/D bodies would have looked better with the formal roof if each was treated as carefully as the Cadillac (OK not the Caprice Coupe). The fact is GM didn’t care much about full-size in 1980.
There was no D after 1976. The Fleetwood moved to the C body in 77.
I know I’m splitting hairs here, but…that’s what we do here at CCs. 🙂
Stainsey the longer wheelbase for the Fleetwood (over the SDV) ended when they downsized the car in 77 but the D-body nomenclature continued until FWB production ended in 96.
I like the taillights and the wheelcovers (on one side, at least). The differences in the front end are barely perceptible, although the older version is definitely better looking – if you look close enough. The other stuff is really neither here nor there. I could take or leave the portholes… they looked cool on the early Sport Coupe, but I wouldn’t miss them much.
I don’t agree at all on the Cadillacs. I like everything about the ’77-’79 Caddy’s better than what came after.
Growing up in the late 80s in the old Yugoslavia, there was a Cadillac owned by an older person who lived a few blocks away from our house, probably someone who lived abroad and then returned home in the old age.
Contrary to what most people might think there were lot of western Euro cars in YU at that time interspersed with many many Zastavas and Golfs made in Sarajevo. However no American cars so that Cadillac was unique in my experience. Most Euro cars at least tried to look sporty and had mostly clean lines and were somewhat rounded except a few blocky Volvos around. But Volvos were nowhere near as decorated as this cadillac and that coupled with the extremely severe roof made it in my eyes not only 100% out of place there but out of time as well. It was like anti modern though I now realize there were simply different tastes on the opposites sides of the pond.
Who was the GM’s lead designer at the time these came out, was it Irv Rybicki? I know Bill Mitchell was credited for the ’77 Caprice but retired soon after. I’ve always been curious who or what group was responsible for the revised 80+ models. Did each division have their own stylists or was it consolidated like many other things GM was doing at the time?
I agree the earlier look was a lot sportier and more could be done with the car’s look overall. At this point I’d take either one however for a daily driver, it’s a b-body and it’s a coupe. If it has a V8 that’s enough for me. The doors on these are hard to close for many and a little awkward to get out of in a tight parking lot. The airy feel when the windows are down makes up for it though IMO.
Well Mitchell didn’t style the 77’s, he was head of styling, it probably had been a while since he actually took a pen to paper at this point, he had people under him for that, Irv Rybicki did have a hand in the 1977 through 1986 cars at GM, he replaced Mitchell and Chuck Jordan replaced Rybicki.
I think an 80 LeSabre sport coupe with the turbo 3.8 would be a fun car to have now. Formal roof and the turbo would be a conversation starter at cruise nights.
I prefer the Electra coupes of this vintage, and the 77-78 B-body Rivieras over all of them. The Riv seemed to take all the best of the body style and put it together in one cohesive package…plus you could get the 403 in the Riv.
In 1980, I was shopping for my first new car. I was at Schumann Carriage on Beretania Street, downtown Honolulu sitting in a Subary DL hatchback (one I could afford – got a Toyota Tercel instead – another story). Anyway, on that same showroom floor was a car I really lusted after – a 1980 Buick LeSabre sport coupe. Had the squared off roof; landau vinyl top. A midnight blue with matching midnight blue (velour) interior. Buick Rallye wheels; black in the center, chrome outers and chrome lugs. Whitewall Uniroyal Radials. The 3.8L Turbo V-6. Really REALLY sharp. Of course, I was a young, almost 21 year old Coast Guardsman and could finance the MSRP of $5200.00 for the (well equipped no air) Subaru; not the MSRP’d $16,500 plus delivery of the Buick. Add another $300.00 for the then mandatory Ziebart or Quaker State rustproofing you HAD to have in Hawaii in those days . . . . otherwise, your car (more so if Japanese) would start showing bubbles and pinholes 12-18 months into the purchase . . .
I think our CC, had it been a different paint scheme or without the vinyl landau top on it, this car might have been a little more attractive and palatable to our readers . . . .
I think the 80-85 roofline was a winner, especially the coupes. I almost bought an 80 Coupe deVille new, back then $ 12,118 drive out, no trade. I’m sorry I didn’t. Prices skyrocketed after that. The Cadillac wore that roofline much better than its siblings.
I missed out on a mint 84 Coupe back in 1993. The guy wanted $ 5,500 for it, 39K miles, and beautiful. My lawyer has an 85 Fleetwood Brougham (the big one, bought new) coupe, 19K, same color as the one I missed, the brown metallic that kinda changes color depending on the angle. It’s superb. He’s had it in long term storage for years, if not decades.
Too bad he never drives it.
IMHO the ’77-’79 were truly good looking cars, svelte and classy…this uptight post 1980 restyling completely ruined the car, I can’t think of an uglier downsized big GM…
The ’86 Cougar I drove in high school had the same geezer-esque look about the roofline. It was pretty sporty in every other way (aerodynamic styling, digital dash readout, bucket seats, 5.0 under the hood), but the roof left something to be desired for a 17 year-old kid. I don’t think the roof made it uncool though–I never had any complaints from the two or three friends I’d sneak past the school parking lot attendant in that huge, cushy trunk.
How funny. I was in high school when the ’86 Cougar was new and I thought it was so much better looking than the T-bird because of its roofline. I found the profile to be quite unique. Same with the LHS/New Yorker when it came out in 1994.
GM went overboard with formal look in the early 80’s. They still figrued they were style leader and since the Aerobacks were a flop, they played it safe. Too safe. making all the rooflines similar killed sales in long run.
Ford was readying the ’83 T-Bird and Taurus, while GM still had this roof on the ’85 Grand Am and twins. Finally had slanted rears for 86 LeSabre and 88, but who cared? Ford and imports were taking sales. Even Mopar had nice looking Lancer.
I don’t know…I kinda like it.