(First posted 7/24/2013) In response to JPC’s (1976 Buick Electra) find and Paul’s (1976 Buick Skyhawk) Cohort post, I present you a third option with this 1975 Buick LeSabre convertible. As most of you know, 1975 was the very last year for all GM B-body convertibles. Production numbers for all 1971-75 B-body convertibles were very low across all divisions. Once word spread that 1975 would be its swansong, production of this LeSabre Custom convertible actually shot up to around 5,300 units.
Now this car may look familiar to you, as I included one shot of it in my (CCs of San Francisco) post last month. Nonetheless, this “Golden Tan” beauty is quite the rare bird. Thankfully, the majority of them were purchased new with the intent of becoming collector’s cars.
This car appears to be mostly original. The only obvious aftermarket touches were the cartoonish donkey hood ornament and the ’90s-looking radio. Thankfully the steering wheel has not been replaced.
I was surprised to see manual-crank windows. By 1975, most B-body convertibles were equipped better than their coupe and sedan counterparts. Even most Delta 88 convertibles I’ve seen have power windows.
The thing I like most about these cars is the rear-end styling. Simple and classy. I wonder if low deck lids will ever make a comeback?
Photographed in Yountville, California – June 2013
Even though this is the wrong generation and wrong model it still makes me think of Jane Mansfield. Especially with that title that could have multiple meanings. Fortunately I have a macabre sense of humor.
I’m happy to find out that I’m not the only one with that thought.
Poor Jayne . . . “chopped and channeled” took on a whole new meaning . .
It looks like the owner should trade in the hood ornament on a set of curb feelers. 🙂
By the 1970s, the idea of a full size convertible was not attractive to most buyers. Two reasons – one, air conditioning was available to a point where the necessity of a convertible became nil, and two, cars became so large that seeing a covertible version of them was like seeing whale in a bikini.
The styling language of the full size vehicle also changed from any sporty pretentions to luxury pretentions. With cars this large, the idea that whale-sized cars weighing 4800 pounds being sporty seemed ludicrous. Luxury was for full size cars and sporty was for pony cars by this time. Apeing luxury in a full size convertible worked only for the Eldorado, not for traditional full sizers like these.
Convertibles as sporty cars with sporty aspirations worked best in real sporty cars sized as compacts, which were considered full size until 1960. It took a decade with the shift to giant full size cars for manufacturers to see the light and drop convertibles from their line-ups.
These cars still look too big and ridiculous as convertibles, even today.
Another factor was the increasing concern of the safety of convertibles in the event of a rollover.
That is the true reason these and other convertibles went away, the threat of the proposed roll over standards that the gov’t threatened to implement for a number of years before backing down at the last minute. That meant that penning convertible versions of any proposed new car was quickly stopped. Once it became clear that the regulation was canceled it took awhile before any new convertibles could make it to market, since the next crop of designs were too far along.
Certainly their heyday was over but there were still a few drop top faithful that would pony up the extra cash. Once they returned my dad hasn’t driven anything else and if there were say a convertible Chrysler 300 he would be driving one. If there was a modern Ford convertible larger than a Mustang there would be one in my driveway.
I am not aware of a rollover concern coming from the market, but from the Federal government. These vehicles had 99% of their weight distributed proportionally so low, being BOF and all, that rollovers in the real world with these topless tanks were probably far fewer than the nightmare scenarios the bureaucrats with nothing to do but write auto regulations imagined.
We repeatedly read how convertibles were doomed due to rollover regulations, yet convertibles were right back in the market within the decade. We also see convertibles never really leaving the market completely, so if there was a Federal government regulations against convertibles how was it possible to buy any new convertible after 1976?
GM has a history of BS regarding their vehicles and I’m becoming more suspicious about this rollover story.
AMC peddled that story regarding the Pacer design too, but if one considered how wide the car was in proportion to it’s length, you have to imagine something remarkable causing a Pacer to rollover.
The more rollover protection placed above a car’s beltline, the greater chance the vehicle will become too topheavy to not rollover.
Whats next? GM claiming that their engines were engineered to knock in order to become more fuel efficient? – Oh wait, they did say that.
The government did propose the regulations and were supposedly going to implement them. However those proposals were not signed into law. There were no new OE factory built convertibles back in the market “in the decade”, just those from the mfgs that had nothing else to sell than their existing models like MG and Triumph. GM could have brought the Eldo back for it’s final years however I’m betting they were way to worried about the backlash since many people had payed way more than sticker price in the “last convertible frenzy”. Because of the lead times involved the cars that were already set to come to market in the next few years did not have a convertible version on the drawing board. Once the threat was good and passed they did get to work and in the case of Ford and Chrysler that didn’t risk a backlash added them to their existing lines.
This “rollover” story was repeated in old Motor Trend articles too. Hence the huge B pillars on Colonnades. And Chrysler/Ford/AMC killing their softops, sooner.
But, in general, buyers wanted hardtops, and droptops were a novelty. Sales didnt go down becasue they didnt like “seeing whale in a bikini.” Small ragtops died off sooner, as a matter of fact. Only the Pony Cars by 1970, and only Stang for 72-3.
Even now, they are not huge sellers. Most go to rental fleets in sunny tourist sites.
I’ve always found it intersting that at Ford and Chrysler, the ponycars were the last convertibles to go, while at GM, they were pretty much the first. When GM was developing the new 1970 F-bodies, they must have decided that ponycar convertibles had no future beyond the next couple of years, and there was no point in investing in convertible versions of a new design. In hindsight, they called that right. But the Camaro had been among GM’s best-selling convertibles in 1969 (albeit in a shrinking convertible market), and Ford and Chrysler would both not only keep making ponycar convertibles for a few more years, but actually go to the trouble of offering convertibles in new ponycar designs that debuted in 1970 or later.
I think also that there were stylistic/esthetic concerns, I have seen 2nd gens turned into convertibles….no thanks…….It doesn’t work.
The governmental rollover standards (threatened) are what gave us such gem-like layouts like the Triumph Stag and TR-7. After a 5-7(?) year absence, I remember the mild surprise when Dodge brought back the convertible. Obviously, it never happened, but for some reason a lot of car makers (especially foreign) we’re expecting it, and did their long term product planning accordingly.
Yeah, some convertibles never disappeared. Alfa Romeo’s for one. Then again, that’s about all they had left to sell.
The reason that they were expecting it was that the gov’t had announced when FMVSS #216 was set to take effect but then at the last minute they granted an exemption for convertibles. As Chicagoland indicated the mfgs knew it was coming for some time hence the design of the Colonnade cars that started development before the standards were finalized so they went with the worst possible scenario.
Standard No. 216 – Roof Crush Resistance – Passenger Cars (except convertibles) (Effective 9-1-75) and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses (except school buses) with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 2722 kg (6,000 lbs.) or less (Effective 9-1-94)
This standard specifies requirements for roof crush resistance over the passenger compartment.
Alfas, Fiats, Jeeps, Mercedes-Benz SL’s, MG’s and all BL what not all were still available through the 70’s.
The tbar roof thing in the stag was structural, necessitated by the floppy unibody which was a cutnshut triumph 2000.
Volkswagen is another brand that never stopped selling convertibles in the U.S. Beetle convertibles were sold through 1979, Rabbit (Golf)-based convertibles starting in 1980. If those rollover standards had come to pass, they might have been dropped from the U.S. market, but VW was presumably making them for other countries regardless of whether they could be sold in the U.S.
The Rabbit convertible had its’ rather stout basket-handle rollbar so it might’ve met the standards anyway.
Once owned a Pacer. Not much of a car. Originally designed for a Wankel engine which AMC was unable to come up with.
The goofy way it looked always made me smile. It still does.
Maybe you’re looking at a different car as you write this, as I think this convertible looks pretty good (except it would look better in a different color). Why does a convertible need to look “sporty”? We don’t all want Mustangs.
I’m not sure about your air conditioning argument either. Convertibles purchased in the southern states often had A/C as well, because it was too hot in the middle of the day to drive with the top down. My ’66 Newport convertible was retrofitted by the dealer with a Mopar under-dash A/C unit when it was fairly new, probably when the first owner moved to California.
+1
Another beautiful car, it is a shame that they relegated the convertible to only the LeSabre in the end. I’d rather have a C body rag top of this era. I guess with the lower sales they needed a one size fits all, so the lesser brands could share in the drop top goodness. Still I’d prefer some fins no matter how small they are.
Well, you could go back to 73 and at least get a Centurion convertible if the LeSabe is to plebian.
And loose the 3 portholes that the LeSabre earned, plus the Centurion didn’t even get gills instead of portholes like the Wildcat did. The Centurion was still a B with those droopy quarters instead of finlets standing proud.
A ’73 or smaller bumpered ’72 Centurion would be MY choice for a Big Buick convertible.
True, the same basic car underneath-the-skin; but i like the front & rear ends, as well as the carried over 1971 dashboard better than this pictured article car
s.
Not being handicapped by the suddenly taller (numerically lower) final drive/axle ratios; the 1971-73 models were much much peppy cars than the 1974-75 models were.
LeSabre Luxus and Custom trim levels replaced Centurion. And had no problem finding upper middle class buyers. Centurion name never caught on, same with Invicta.
Wildcat was the best of all those names, but there really wasn’t a reason to have a “middle child” in your big car line up in the 1970’s like you used to have in the 50’s.
The Luxus trim level wasn’t offered on the LeSabre that was used on the Century of the early 70’s
Sorry, there is not enough here to fire up my right brain on this one, and the left side remains firmly in control. First, I could never stand that “melted milk chocolate” interior color. There are less appetizing descriptions of that color. Second, by the time you hit this generation, I have to go C body or go home. The 75-76 LeSabre is just deadly dull, with none of the panache of the bigger Electra.
Also, these convertibles had all of the structural rigidity of a rope ladder. Earlier big GM convertibles were much stiffer cars, as I recall. Sorry, Left Brain wins this round and I will sit this one out.
I agree that this is not a desirable color combo, I’d much prefer it with white interior and blue or red exterior. I’d also much rather it be a C, as you note this era LeSabre lacks the panache of the Electra. Still I’d drive this in a hart beat.
I can’t speak to the structural integrity of these vs their predecessors since I’ve not driven or ridden in one of these but the predecessor does have a lot of cowl shake.
I once watched an Oldsmobile version of this car go over some railroad tracks. The doors and the quarter panels did two different dances. I was spoiled by my 67 Galaxie convertible that was fairly rigid for a convertible.
my friends ’71 Chevelle convertible shakes like a junkie in detox over anything not resembling a glass smooth road.
Jump in my ’77 Chevelle sedan and its comparatively bank-vault solid.
I don’t think chassis rigidity was a high concern in the market of the times.
+1 on the lack of right-brain stimulus.
These were just not my kind of car…too big and bloated; seats too low. Drop-top or not, they didn’t seem to offer anything to my testosterone-enhanced teenage brain. They were for aging beauty queens to pose in; or for local parade marshalls to borrow from cooperative dealers to sit dignitaries and Miss Dog-Days 1975! in, as they wound down Main Street.
In those days…I was all for open-air motoring, but my ideal was the Jeep CJ. Barring that, the Rabbit drop-top came a lot closer…never mind that it was truly a chic car; and even the Beetle Convertible was a lot more on the mark than this thing.
It’s interesting that you couldn’t get a Electra convertible or a Ninety Eight convertible for these last years, but you could get a top of the line Pontiac Gran Ville convertible.
With the right donor vehicles you could likely make one pretty easily.
You could also get the top of the line Chevy, the Caprice Convertible. This was because the most expensive Chevys and Pontiacs were B-bodies. The C-body was exclusive to Olds, Buick, and Cadillac. B-bodies were the entry-level full size Oldsmobiles and Buicks.
The Gran Ville hardtops were like a B-C ‘hybrid’. Had a shorter wheelbase than the 225 and 98, but the upright rear windows. But I don’t think the convertible was a C body.
There was a B body Catalina conv, for 1971-72, and I bet that the GV is same body with different trim.
There were no convertible C-bodies after 1970, that was the last year for the 98, Electra and deVille convertibles.
The Grand Ville was always a B-body, but I understand that it had some attributes of the C-body grafted on (the roofline, at least on certain body styles).
In 1971-72, the Catalina and Grand Ville were on different wheelbases, so they wouldn’t have literally been the same body with different trim. Both wheelbases were unique to Pontiac, with the shorter one (122″?) falling in between the one used by Chevrolet and the one used for Olds/Buick B-bodies, and the longer one (126″?) falling in between the Olds/Buick B-bodies and the Olds/Buick C-bodies.
For 1973, the practices of Pontiac using multiple wheelbases for its fullsize cars, and of those wheelbases being unique to Pontiac, came to an end. All fullsize Pontiacs except wagons were now on the same wheelbase as the Olds/Buick B-bodies (124″?).
As I understand it, the Grand Ville was a big C body, but it had a B body roof, which accounted for its comparatively sporty looks compared to the usual C bodies.
And there was a Grand Ville convertible, so yes, there was a B body convertible post 1970. I know, it had its own body designation, but the Eldorado was basically a B body.
I wonder if it had to do with those awful cardboard fiber based lower door panels that the more expensive C-vehicles got in ’71-’76. These are the ones that always crack, exposing the foam layer underneath. Getting those panels wet one time is enough to warp them up & start a mold spore factory…
The highest model Chevrolet & Pontiac still kept the chalk-o-rama plastic lower panels. These were impervious to water (but not fingernails!).
Of course the Cadillac example blows my theory out of the water.. Oh well, I already typed this crap so I may as well post it.
I’ve never had much love for this era LeSabre.
Whew! Ending Disco-era Byooie Day on a high note. I much prefer this grille to the ’76 and I think toplessness suits this style just fine.
I have nice childhood memories of a neighbor’s spotless red/white/white one, with the same dual pipes as the feature car. This was in Maine in the early 80s. Every other car on the street was deadly dull by comparison.
I see this LeSabre as one of the last pre-disco cars and the song I can’t get out of my head is Rhinestone Cowboy by Glen Campbell.
The load of compromisin’ wouldn’t start for another couple of years.
I know the ’75 LeSabre all too well, as my father got a Custom Sedan that year as a company car. When he went to pick up his car at Crown Buick, there was a dark blue LeSabre convertible with the white interior as the centerpiece on the showroom floor. I spent a lot of time checking that one out. Sooooo big, kind of a marvel with the open top, would have been a great cruiser. As for Pop’s LeSabre, it was nice and competent, if a bit dull (I remember wishing he’d gotten an Electra instead). That said, it was a handsome car, and I agree with Brendan on the clean rear styling. Some of the huge rumps on cars today are truly alarming–I parked next to a BMW X6 the other day, and the rear (deck? hatch top? monster ass?) was up to my chest.
Just found this shot from the 1975 Buick catalog (thank you Old Car Manual Project). The dark blue convertible in the background is exactly like the one on the showroom floor at Crown Buick in March 1975. The far frumpier 4-door is much like my father’s car, except his was a Custom in maroon with a white top and maroon vinyl inside (I wish I was kidding about the color/trim combo, but I’m not…). Funnily enough, like the pictured car, his had cornering lights and the standard wheel covers. Go figure on the option mix.
The ala carte option availability is one reason I’m such a fan of these type vehicles. You can’t say “you see one, you’ve seen them all” because there are lots of rolling surprises out there.
I must say though, this is about the ugliest color combo and option mix I’ve ever seen on one of these convertibles. Yuck! Cornering lamps and manual windows on a 4-window convertible? Been there, done that!
Reaching back to crank the RR quarter window whenever I moved the top was not fun, even with my go-go-gadget arms.
You could get the cornering lights on any of the big Buicks, and lots of people ordered them, even on low option cars. I’ve seen lots of 75-76 Buicks with them for some reason. Those are the optional full wheelcovers, I’m pretty sure that there were steelies and dog dishes for base LeSabres still.
“There are only six convertibles built in America. The LeSabre Custom is undoubtedly one of them. In the foreground, another car.”
That was good.
Yes! Thank you Old Car Brochure Project!
We should all contribute regularly.
Ah yes, the indulgent, mental joy of sitting in a spotless, brand new convertible and admiring the image (you and the car) in the showroom’s carefully placed mirrored walls!
A joy that any car guy (or gal) under the age of 60 just cannot comprehend.
A joy for those young….and young at heart.
Was the Eldorado the only GM convertible to offer color-coordinating tops? Seems like every Buick/Olds/Chevy/Ponti has white or black. Actually, I think I’ve never seen a black top on the non-Cadillac models.
The ’73 Pontiacs also offered tan. Not yummy. I’ve seen a white ’73 Olds before with a darker red top and it was very very sharp!
What did the 350 and 455 motors put out in 1975?
Freight train torque…
With that many cubes, nothing else matters.
+1
Two words to make you reconsider ownership of one of these: scissor top.
Tell me about it! It’s incredibly hard to find anyone willing to put a top on these cars…
From my perspective in the early-mid 70s, most people in Detroit felt that convertibles had just run their course by then. True, the proposed rollover standards probably did crimp development of convertibles in future models but they were more a “final nail in the coffin” thing. Convertible sales peaked in 1966. It would be hard to say one particular thing precipitated the decline in popularity of that body style, the popularity of a/c may have contributed marginally, but the fact is, by then, most people did not put the top down on a car just to “let fresh air in.” Mostly, it was just a case of changing tastes in the marketplace. Convertibles were “fun cars,” by the late 1960s, technology had advanced that there were other appealing options to a buyer than just putting the top down. Eventually sunroofs and T-tops became a simpler, easier solution for a little exposure the sunroof option, especially nowadays, is much cheaper than a full convertible model. Nowadays, most convertibles are versions of small cars, as opposed to back then when small cars lost their drop tops first followed by the big cars ending with the luxury Eldorado as the last model standing.
Even in 1982, when Chrysler reintroduced the factory convertible to the marketplace, convertible remained on a tiny segment of the model mix, never reached anywhere near the level in % of sales as they did even by the early 1970s.
So no nefarious undermining by the government or insider dealings but largely just a simple case as the market moving on to a different trend.
Societal changes probably helped push the convertible out as well, convertibles just weren’t that secure, top got slashed, and the manufacturers were working on emissions, mpg, bumpers, crash regs, downsizing, foreign competition, and all sorts of obstacles, that made devoting time to developing “whimsical” open cars seem like a frivolous waste of resources at the time. Which explains why when convertibles returned, most of them where hacked coupes made my CC and ASC.
After owning a ’72 LeSabre convertible for several years, I always liked the cars (and the Olds too but not the Chevy or Pontiac). My ’72 was red with black vinyl interior and black top. Very plain car: no air; crank windows; AM radio only; 350. Mine had steel wheels and wheel covers – a situation I quickly corrected when I bought the car in 1980 by substituting Buick sport wheels sourced at a junk yard and reversing the white walls to black side out.
Always had my eyes open for a white ’75 with red interior – the ideal combination in my style book. Made an offer on one that was 1,000+ miles away but the deal never went through. Also fell for a butterscotch yellow ’73 Centurion with that tan vinyl interior that was only about 200 miles away but my offer on that one was also not accepted.
My scissor top worked well but I know others have bad history with them. My ’72 was likely to collect water in the trunk and I tried to keep that situation at bay but living then in the midwest it was hard to avoid rain or snow. I miss owning a LeSabre convertible but now have an ’82 Riviera convertible. My LeSabre lived a couple of years after I sold it before burning up on a I-4 in Florida.
That ’82 Riviera convertible is a real beauty and a real Classic.
For some reason I don’t mind most of the Buicks from this era, and either a hardtop sedan or a convertible would be the way to have one. Seeing the side-on shot with such meagre rear seat room is a disappointment though – you want to have lounging room with such a big car otherwise why bother? They should have built it on a longer wheelbase & shortened the rear deck a bit if necessary (pushed back the convertible top well). Also disappointing to read about the poor structural rigidity – even if the convertibles were an afterthought how hard would it have been to put in enough bracing?
These convertibles had full boxed frames instead of the normal “C” channel frames the closed models had. I doubt these were any less rigid than most other convertibles out there. Cowl shake is typical.
So low, so wide, so BIG. Clean lines and a pleasant face. I wouldn’t kick it out of the driveway. Even with the baby poo color interior.
I once saw an ’87 Tempo coupe made very crudely into a convertible. The roof was just sawed off, the pillar holes filled with Bondo, and a had a shorter windscreen made from plexiglas. Like a REALLY poor man’s Porsche Speedster. Imagine the flex of that! I would have loved to drive it though. It was in a Wal Mart parking lot, as stereotype would have it.
Theres a pale metallic green example of these cruising locally the driver wears a big grin, its a nice looking car.
Love it! You can rerun cars like this anytime as far as I’m concerned.
The article poses the question if cars ever have low decklids again. I would have said no, due to aerodynamics. I thought a high decklid was engineering dogma. However, lower decklids seem to be making a little bit of a comeback with cars like the Lincoln Continental and some newer Mercedes, for example.
Not a comment on the Buick (although it is a great car), but I followed the link to the “CCs of San Francisco” article you linked to, and I realized something — I am 99% sure I photographed that exact same Merkur Scorpio last year. I mean, how many white Scorpios with yellow stickers on the rear bumper can there possibly be in San Francisco?