(first posted 5/1/2014) To a certain degree, every new car purchase is a bit of a gamble. You put down your money and you make your choice. Sometimes you pick a real winner, and sometimes not.
My parents’ new 1964 Cutlass hardtop turned out to be one of the best cars ever in our family. Or, sometimes you pick a stinker, like my father’s 1970 Continental Mark III that in the space of two years suffered all manner of problems and finally ended life with its first owner on the wrong end of a tow truck.
Sometimes these bets take longer to go either well or badly. A new Honda Odyssey certainly seemed like a sure bet in 1999, but for the many owners who eventually experienced virtually unfixable transmission woes, things did not turn out so well. Or, for the real gamblers who braved the long odds and bought a 1970s Chrysler product that resided in the high end of the bell curve, they could be richly rewarded.
Then there is this car. In the fall of 1972, there were probably few safer bets than a Buick. Buicks had developed a good reputation over many years, and there was no better way than to identify yourself as a card-carrying member of President Nixon’s “Silent Majority” than to be a Buick owner. In truth, after the new 1971 B body was introduced, the first owner of this car may have been a little disappointed in the quality of the interior trim or in the way the doors sounded as they slammed shut. However, the car retained all of Buick’s now-traditional pieces like the 350 V8 and Turbo-Hydramatic transmission, making it a fairly low-maintenance proposition.
I was in my early teens when these came out, and from that time on, this car has topped my list of most boring automotive experiences known to mankind. Just what was interesting about this car? Egads, even that dreary beige exterior (Bamboo Cream, if you must know) or that awful blah brown vinyl that is neither light nor dark (a color that Buick called “Saddle”) take an uninteresting car into new dimensions of dull. Had I known anything about insomnia at the age of thirteen, I would have told all who would listen that a sure cure was at their neighborhood Buick dealer.
Even now, I experience residual pangs of anxiety in response to tedium which attacks me each time I look at this LeSabre. An Electra or a Centurion is at least a little interesting. But a LeSabre? By 1972, that blade was in dire need of a sharpening. I wondered how its makers had been able to resist trim level names like Insipid or Vanilla instead of Custom. Just how many cars had I been in by then with those same boring keys that slid into that same ignition collar, or rolled down windows with that same window crank or pushed down on that same door lock post? Oh, just in every stupid GM-built car after about 1968 (which was seemingly every car owned in my circle of family and friends), that’s how many. I guess the fender-mounted lamp monitors make this one at least a little interesting. Must have slipped past Buick quality control.
I have been holding out on my fellow CC editors. The day before we got together for our Midwest Meetup last spring in Iowa City, Mrs. JPC and I did a little sightseeing in the area. Because the Mrs. always likes an occasional visit to a casino, we had to go visit one when she learned that one was in the area. I’m not exactly sure why, because it seems to me that once you have seen one big windowless, smoky building where sad-looking people gamble away their monthly disability checks, you have seen them all. But Mrs. JPC would not be dissuaded from the chance to blow twenty dollars in fifteen cent-at-a-time increments. Wait, did I just say blow? I meant spend twenty dollars for enjoyment which lasted for the rest of the trip.
How many people can boast of tire sidewalls that are color keyed to their car?
I suppose that the Mrs. knew something that I didn’t, which was that a casino parking lot can be a prime spot for Curbside Classics such as this old LeSabre. This car has all of the earmarks of a long-term, elderly owner. I mean, who else would have stuck with this behemoth through at least three fuel price spikes over its four decades that made it an unaffordable luxury for anyone who drove any annual distance at all? Luxury, you say? I had no idea how much luxury until I looked at a ’73 Buick brochure online. Who would have guessed that Buick would give the lucky LeSabre buyer both Oxen grain and Madrid grain vinyl, all in the same bench seat? Certainly not me.
So, why have I been sitting on this gem for nearly a year after spotting it? Perhaps because it has taken this long for me to bring my interest level up to the place where I can squeeze 1,000 words out of a soul that has been dried out by staring at pictures of this lifeless sedan over the past year. Or maybe because spring is the season for cleaning, and I felt the need to move this out of my burgeoning photo collection. So anyhow, here we are.
Speaking of lifeless sedans, has anyone else here ever been bothered by the look of the four door sedan version of this bodystyle? For years, upper level GM sedans had these nice, cleanly styled door uppers that were clad with bright metal and which neatly covered the sedan’s center pillar. But starting in 1971, it was as though GM stylists began an internal competition to see who could create a sedan greenhouse cluttered with the most seams and lines. If there were ever a reason to pop for a four door hardtop, the sedan version of the GM B body of these years would have been it. Another question – is the brown paint on the upper doors a factory treatment? If so, I don’t believe I have ever seen another like it. Perhaps its owner agreed with me on the door uppers and had them painted to blend in with the dark vinyl roof.
Honestly, I keep trying to like this car but repeatedly find myself slipping into one rant after another, so I suppose the adult thing to do is to make a positive observation about the car, and to bring this piece to a close. So, here goes. This generation of Buick may have lacked some of the stature of its predecessor of twenty years earlier, (OK, damn near all of it) but it would have given its first buyer a first-rate piece of automotive hardware. In that way, this Buick was certainly a much better bet than any wager that its owner could be placing in that casino last spring. This LeSabre may not have been not the most exciting thing on four wheels, but it has done its job for over forty years. In this Buick, and over its many decades, some careful buyer most certainly hit the jackpot.
Related reading: 1974 Buick Estate, 1976 Buick Electra 225
I’ve got such a soft spot for these bodies. I’m feeling your love for this, JP, but to this faraway set of eyes this is as exotic and appealing as a coachbuilt euro. Time and distance does that; one man’s compromised barge is this boy’s object of desire. 71 wagon with woodness for me. Thanks for the pics and the lucid prose. I don’t need to agree with you to appreciate your writing.
“A safe bet,” indeed…obviously the folks at Highland Park agreed, because the front- and rear-end treatments of the 1975 Dodge appear to have been heavily influenced by these Buicks.
Okay, I’m being charitable: Some say it was an outright copy.
It was a year earlier in 1974 when the full-size Mopars went for the Buick look. But it was the first thing I thought of when I saw the photo, as well.
At least Chrysler tried to mix things up a little by putting the Buick’s taillights on the Fury and the front end on the Monaco.
I get it, JP…I’m as much a Buick guy as anything else, but the ’70s seem like a Buick dead period to me, aside from the odd Skylark/GS.
Lots of people in the Buick world love these though…my dad had a ’74 Electra as a 10 year old loaner from the dealer when our lemon ’83 LeSabre was in the shop for the umpteenth time. Even back then, I wasn’t a huge fan of it…it just seemed massive in a way that I wasn’t used to.
I was single-digit aged when these were new, and for the life of me I couldn’t figure out then why you’d buy this versus a Chevy or an Olds or a Pontiac, all of which had the exact. same. roof. I didn’t understand the GM hierarchy yet — but I clearly understood that GM was starting to phone it in.
It’s a pillared sedan – no sale!
Just goes to show that the vast majority of cars from this era from the late 1950s to early-mid 70s were originally designed to be pillarless hardtops, whether in 2- or 4-door guise.
However, with the B pillar, it probably rattled and shuddered a lot less, as the full-sized 4 door hardtops in that time were notorious for that. In any event, pillarless or not, I wouldn’t touch either with a 10-foot pole!
+1. That B-pillar might be the reason why that old Buick is still being enjoyed.
Note 1) the sales brochure shows the door frames painted, but dissimilar to the turret on the feature car
Note 2) the shields on the front of this car are inverted too!
Love it – great wheels
The looseness of four door hardtops is famous enough, and I can recall the no fun folks at Consumer Reports recommending sedans. But, my years with my ’72 Pontiac GrandVille four door hardtop were, well, tops! It was plenty tight by my experience, and I never had wind or water leaks, even when it was 20 years old. I had the car for about 5 years, and even after my wife to be beat a VW Rabbit to death with it, damaging the passenger fender and front door on the Pontiac, it was still tight and rattle free.
I can recall adjusting a window in my ’65 Riviera to solve some water seal problems. It was pretty easy, and worked like a charm after the fix. I suspect that the biggest challenge with hardops were with damaged weather stripping and owner mishaps with windows and doors that generated most complaints with hardtops.
GM’s pillared sedans usually had an inch or two more rear legroom than the hardtops. My dad got a ’68 Electra sedan because it had lots of legroom (more than the De Ville) for his soon to be tall kids. Before ’71, the glass was usually frameless.
It’s funny how one’s view of a car can differ so much due to the decade they were born in. This car is exactly 20 years older than me. While I would agree that this is one of the more boring ’73s in my opinion, I do find some of its styling interesting – mainly its trapezoidal power bulge and sweeping body lines that curve at the rear.
I like the 6th picture because it exemplifies this observation. The way I feel about that early-00s silver Taurus (which is nicely at the same angle as the LeSabre) is exactly how you’ve described your feelings for this LeSabre.
+1000
I was thinking the EXACT same thing when I saw the picture with the silver Taurus in the background. He probably didn’t even plan that, but I thought “They could change the title of this piece to 2003 Ford Taurus, and it would be a lot more fitting” There’s also a brown one on the other side of the Buick in the first picture. I can only image this Buick was as frequently seen back then as those Taurii are now.
When I was a kid, my grandparents had a metallic green version of that car (no vinyl top)
The only things I really remember are that it would easily swallow 4 adults and two kids, and some complaining about the seatbelt buzzer that didn’t like packages on the passenger seat. (at least it didn’t have the ’74 interlock system!)
It was the second in a series of LeSabres bought about every 5 years from the late 60s to the late 80s so I’d guess they were pretty satisified. 🙂
Is it just me, or is there just a hint of the ’58s in that shot straight from the front?
This is a 40 year old version of oh, say, a Corolla. Great mechanicals, flimsy interior and as exciting as a dental appointment. Yet time tempers all and I love it.
It is emitting those wonderful pheromones that only old body on frame cars can produce.
Exactly. Many people then and now just want “Old Reliable” – no hassles, no worries, just get me where I am going in reasonable comfort. Buick sure delivered on that. Maybe comparison is more Camry/Accord/Malibu/etc. than Corolla.
People buy Camry/Accord because they’re (supposedly) reliable. People buy and have bought Buick because it’s reliable and has subdued class. Malibu existed the same time LeSabre did. Not exactly the same league.
Considering Corollas existed 40 years ago, I disagree. LeSabre’s existed until 2005, not too ancient. A LeSabre is a LeSabre and a Corolla is a Corolla. It’s a 40-year old version of a LeSabre.
What was the market share of a Corolla vs a LeSabre in 1973? Which was considered more mainstream in 1973? The statement was a nod to the comments of the Corolla from yesterday in which many took issue with the inferior quality of the Toyota interior.
More like a 40 year old version of an Avalon, if you want to use the Toyota comparison…..or maybe an ES300, a 40 year old version of a Corolla would be something more like a Nova or Chevelle.
While I agree that this particular sedan is on the boring side, mainly due to color and options, that doesn’t condemn the whole generation. The coupes, in particular, had a lighter-looking greenhouse with a graceful line to the pillars, and the sweep of that character line down the side of the car worked quite well. I submit to you as evidence the following–with a more interesing (though still 70’s) paint color and the evergreen Buick rally wheels, it cuts a nice figure:
Now that is more like it.
OK, that’s a LeSabre Custom. What then is a LeSabre standard?
Rubber floor mats, three-on-the-tree, plain steel roof, no sunvisors, and even cheaper vinyl on the seats?
Buick’s B bodies were all Turbo-Hydo after 1971, but the base LeSabre did have 350 2bbl, with plain carpets. Saw quite a few mature adults with plain ones in my part of Chicago. Also a big Buick dealer down the street had them in stock.
Most big cars didn’t have rubber mats by the 70’s, except maybe Biscayne taxicabs.
Great write up – I think you really captured the essence of this car well. I always thought this generation of GM B/C cars varied widely in terms of being really good looking and really dull (never ugly though). It was almost as though GM really reserved the best styling for the higher end models in the line, the C bodies, and then dumbed down the design for the mainstream, lower end models. The C bodies had flair, great proportions, usually great details.
I also never liked the pillared versions of these, and never understood why they offered it along with the hardtop (did people really think about the likely better structure of the pillared models?).
I do like how they offered basic accommodations in a full size car though, and didn’t force you to pay for the, um, fancy trimmings and extra equipment of the Electra, de Villes, etc.
For the 1963 model year the basic LeSabre sold more pillared sedans than the the hardtops – 29649 vs 13413 hardtop sedans and 14061 coupes. The Custom series went big for hardtop sedans (55879) and coupes (41425) with only 42854 pillared sedans. Pillared sedans amount to something more than 72,000 while the hardtop sedans are less than 70,000. So there is a market. Hardtops tend to have a certain amount of wind noise.
Hardtops seemed to sell particularly well among larger GM cars. Chrysler buyers, on the other hand, were dedicated sedan buyers. Their 4 door hardtops always sold in relatively low numbers, at least through the 60s and 70s.
The hardtop sedans were more stylish than their regular sedan counterparts, even in the early 1970s. They were also more expensive.
GM buyers in those days tended to be more affluent than Ford or Chrysler buyers, so they could spring for the more expensive version. They were also more style conscious – particularly compared to Chrysler buyers – so the sleeker look of the hardtop sedan was also incentive to choose it over the regular sedan.
Hardtops were all about style. I liked the look, but my 1971 Buick Riviera did have wind noise around the windows. I had the rear window seals replaced which made some difference. When I bought a 1978 Olds I noticed the quiet.
(did people really think about the likely better structure of the pillared models?).
They did in Australia. My Uncle Ted bought a ’66 Bel Air sedan rather than the Impala four-door hardtop he could have got. He felt the sedan was safer for his young family.
I see that this is the answer to the CC Clue but I cannot figure out what part of the car the clue shows. Maybe someone can post a photo with a little box outlining where the clue fits.
The clue shot was a close-up of the right front fender of the car looking forward from the wheel. The circled area here highlights the general area of the clue shot. The actual photo is on a different computer. Note the clue shot shows a slight reflection in the paint of the lamp monitor atop the fender. I was afraid that showing any more of that front bumper would give the whole thing away.
I was writing my reply below before yours got posted.
Thanks The camera angle threw me. I was looking for a much shorter distance between the chrome trim pieces.
I will confess looking at the close up of the fender from the odd angle and wondering “what the hell did I take that picture for.” It made for a tougher clue than I thought it would be. Guesses were all over the map.
The clue is a photo of the front fender. The lower right side of the photo shows the front bumper. At the top of the photo there is a reflection of the head light monitoring system (the chrome do-dad on the top of the front fender). At least this is my guess. I think the clue photo has to be the passenger side too.
As driven by many bad guys on ‘The Rockford Files’….
I knew where I’d seen them before,thanks Dave.I was 16 when this car came out,despite a 59 Buick Electra coupe being the car that got me interested in American cars I’d come to assosciate Buicks with old people.My interest in American cars in 1973 was Fbodies and the Mopar A bodies.
Funny how tastes change and I quite like it now,even the colour..
I just turned the page of my CC wall calendar to find May’s picture of a beige 1973 Gremlin. This Buick is suddenly a bit more interesting to me. 🙂
Too harsh an ssessment IMHO, but then I;m biased as a former ’74 Buick owner. What makes the green ’71 Ford rhapsodized about in these pages any better? The colour? The choice of brocade upholstery over vinyl?
With the right options and colours these could be lookers, with that sweepspear starting from the leading edge of the hood and sweeping down the body like the wake of a speedboat. Sure I’d rather thave the hardtop but at least there was a choice. And the script spelling out LeSabre? Classsic, we should have a CC on whatever happened to details like that.
And no remarks on what amazing condition this Buick is in for a midwest vehicle?
You raise some good points. It is kind of amazing, when you think about it, how the prejudices formed in youth can be hard to shake later in life. I was raised in a sea of GM cars of several kinds, and found them to be pure conformity. A similar sedan from Ford or Chrysler was interesting if only because personal encounters with them were so unusual in my own life. I suspect that most of us have a car that we found repellent at around age 12 or 13 that can still strike us the same way, silly as that emotion may seem now. We kid Paul Niedermeyer about his “thing” against the 71-72 LTD. My “thing” was these, so I guess I serve as some sort of (im)balance. 🙂
Remind me, is dope legal up north?
My grandparents on my mother’s side had a ’72 or ’73 Lesabre coupe in dark blue that they bought new…I absolutely have no memory of this car as it was before my time (I was born in 1977). I remember my grandmother telling me once that the Buick drove and rode really nice, but that it rusted something awful. My grandparents, having grown up during the depression, were the type of people to really look after whatever they owned. They eventually sold the Buick for a new ’78 Impala coupe (also in dark blue).
Great story – you’ve not only captured the essence of this particular car, but also of the casino! You’ve also described our local casino, which I found to be a depressing place when I last visited it a few years ago.
GM’s big cars were definitely the “safe bets” in the 1970s, and the Buick and Oldsmobile versions were probably the safest bets of all. The LeSabre was usually driven by retirees, but by the retirees who didn’t necessarily have to pinch pennies (those people bought Darts and Valiants). They enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle, and a new or fairly new full-size Buick was an important part of that lifestyle. The hardtop sedans, however, did look sleeker and more upscale than the sedans.
I don’t know if you can blame the cheap-looking upper door frames on the stylists. They were probably laboring under increasingly stringent cost-reduction guidelines. This generation of GM full-size car was impressive in both size and style, but a close look at both the interior and exterior reveals lots of cost-cutting mischief. They were also lacking in body rigidity, particularly the four-door hardtops.
Speaking of Buick hardtops has anyone ever spotted a ’58 Buick Century Caballero? (Or any other hardtop wagon, for that matter.) The pillarless station wagon was a rather short-lived body style, but an interesting footnote in our American automotive history.
Olds had one in ’58 as well, and I think Mercury did for ’59 and perhaps Chrysler in ’60. Rare (never seen one in person) but definitely cool-looking rides.
I’ve seen only one. At a small regional car show in Australia, complete with a matching coloured caravan.
And, as noted else where here, it wears the 5MPH bumper well.
Anybody notice that the drivers’ door panel says “Century”?
It actually says “Custom”. I have to admit, though, that you made me look.
Our next door neighbor in Towson, who weighed 350-400 lbs, traded in his Checker Marathon for one of these. What else? It was an impressive sight watching him plop himself into the front seat and seeing the Buick’s soft suspension react. Much more so than the Checker!
The front-end Tri-Shield emblem is upside down.
Wow.
(Leads me to believe it’s had a paint job. I don’t know how any Iowa [Midwest] car that old could stay that nice that long.)
The side mirrors are mismatched also.
That’s a little surreal. Reminds me for some reason of all the subtly wrong details of the car in Stephen King’s “From a Buick 8”.
If I’m not mistaken cars were never larger than this generation of GM full-size. They looked a lot better as hardtops but then the door closing sound got even worse. The pillared models like this LeSabre were dull by comparison but did have presence.
The downsized ’77 B and C bodies kept all the good and fixed the bad. With the sheer look they could make sedans with framed windows and pillars that looked attractive and had plenty of room.
So much was compromised with the ’71-76s for the sake of style which only really looked great on the wagon. I’ve never driven one of these but imagine the width dimension made them feel like barges around town. I bet they got loose feeling very quickly.
I will say that this LeSabre wears its front 5mph bumper very well.
Nailed it!
I knew right away when you said this car was in the Iowa City area it would have a set of Hercules tires.
A tad harsh, perhaps.
That paint on the door frames is very unlikely to be factory – I’ve never seen that before.
Last fall I saw one of these in sedan form, no vinyl, Buick rally wheels with white walls, dark metallic red with a dark red interior. 350 with AC. It was surprisingly handsome!
Equipped right and not clapped out, these can be a nice ride.
You can still equip cars today to be as dull as a near stripper ’73 GM B. We had a rental Sieanna minivan a few years ago. Super spacious and very competant, even rather powerful. I looked it up and it was the next to bottom line trim, which made a couple of extra features standard (maybe back-up cam and something). Monotone white or silver (how could I forget?) outside, monotone grey inside. My family of five all marveled that something so good on paper was really awful in person.
But, I’ll agree with your assessment of the typical midwest casino. I just can’t get excited about them at all.
The 73 LeSabre was built for people wanting a conservative,comfortable, roomy 4 door. It was the Toyota Avalon of it’s era, soft riding with a bulletproof drivetrain. If you wanted luxury there was the Riviera and Electra, if you wanted sporty you could get a 2 door Century with a 455. My father bought a 75 LeSabre 4 door hardtop when he was approaching 50 with 3 teenage kids. Yes, it looked good with all the windows down but I hated how the short center pillar shuddered over bumps and how the windows whistled at highway speeds. In car washes we had to be ready with towels to catch the water that got inside. Still, in the 10 years he had the LeSabre it was the most reliable car he or I have ever owned. Nothing but oil changes twice a year, that’s it. He sold it to a guy in his early 20s who looked like the sterotypical surfer dude.
I’m not a big fan of the beltline kick-up on the pillared sedan. With the four-door hardtop, the kick-up works because it creates continuity between the beltline and the sail panel, but the combination of the kick-up and the B pillar looks cluttered. This body style might have benefited from concealed pillars: putting the pillar behind the glass so it’s less obtrusive.
They did a surprisingly good job integrating the side sweep, but I would agree that it looks like the hardtop was designed first…
If you want to see a great collection of Buick’s and Camrey’s, the handicap parking at a Casino is the place to visit. I thought you loved all Brougham’s, JP.
Tom Klockau is our full-on Brougham-guy. I like ’em big, but either in conservative luxury or a little sporty. My sweet spot is pre-malaise era.
I see. 70-72 Monte Carlo’s have always appealed to me. 72 and older is the era that I like, also.
Kind words for a ’71 – ’76 era Buick B body.
I’ll take one!
http://youtu.be/OVo9U89liic
Ah, the sweet soothing Kent III sounds of Bud Lindeman….
This brings back memories! Mom smoked Kent 100’s until they were too hard to find, and back in my High School days, I took endless enjoyment from my lady friends when they would come over and realize my Mom was a smoker. “Could I sneak one of your Mom’s cigarettes?” was always followed with a yes and a sly grin. I don’t think anyone made it past drag three before I’d get the inevitable “What the hell is this?” thrown at me, haha! Used to Capris, perhaps? Good times 🙂
I miss the days of Speedvision! That Centurion is a sharp car, and since these are before my time, the LeSabre is pretty nice too. That said, from the footage, how does that beast hit 50mph in 5.2 seconds, but 60mph takes 9.4? And stopping from 60 takes 204 feet?!? Scary! As an aside, did I hear Bud correctly when he said “motated”? Alright then…
While they do look similar, I think the 1972 Centurion is much more interesting than that 1973 LeSabre. 1973 was one of the best selling years for Buick, but in my opinion, it was the low point of the 1970’s for styling of the full size models (except for the 1973 Riviera which I like better than any other 1970 or later versions of this model).
I don’t like the full size 1973 Buick grilles and I hate their rear bumper design.
While my favorite full size Buick models for styling are those from 1965-68, I also like the 1971-72 and the 1974-76 models as well as some 1978-79 LeSabre Sport Coupes. The LeSabre line became more interesting in 1974 when the Centurion was discontinued. That year, you could get a LeSabre Luxus with the “Ride and Performance package” as well as the 455 Stage1 engine. A first (and last!) for this model. The interior of the LeSabre Luxus model had also been upgraded to look like interior of the previous Centurion. Later in the 1970s, the LeSabre was available with blackout trim, turbo V6 motors, bucket seats and consoles as well as 4 wheel disc brakes and they were the best-looking and most interesting cars in the Buick lineup. Here’s a Turbocharged 1979 LeSabre Sport Coupe.
I found a ’66 Electra convertible waiting for a restoration along side a Pontiac Grand Ville. I agree those 65-68 Buicks were beautiful. I also share your appreciation of the 77-79 LeSabres coupes before they got that boxy roofline like in Keith’s post from the other day.
A 200R4 transmission will bolt right in place of the TH350 and give you overdrive. That’s a beautiful car you put up and I would love to own one.
We had a 79 LeSabre Limited coupe in that same color, at the same time there was a family at church that had a silver blue Sport Coupe, I always liked that Sport Coupe compared to our more conservative Limited, the blacked out trim and the “Turbo 3.8” gills instead of the 3 ventiports.
I think this is a bit harsh of an assessment, personally. I mean, I get it, but I think the same criticism could be leveled at any base-level sedan at the time. The color also has to be considered; I don’t think I’d call a better optioned version in dark blue boring.
The complaints about the dull corporate switchgear are understandable, but to me, they’re a kind of comforting touch. I guess GM’s cars of that era feel like “home” to me, and those locks have a solid feel to them, though I only know the 77+ B-body.
Hardtop sedans almost always look better, but I think the 71-74 B-bodies wear the look better than the 69-73 Fuseys (my favorite). After the ’75 redo, though, the hardtop was mandatory, IMO.
By most objective measures (certainly all the mechanical ones) this was an excellent car. As mentioned elsewhere, it is truly a time capsule in beautiful condition. Any harshness was in my purely subjective opinion, substantially colored by the lingering bias of an opinionated thirteen year old me.
I didn’t mean to unload on the poor thing, it just sort of happened. I just can’t resist grabbing the CC “third rail” by criticizing GM cars from the 1970s and beyond. 🙂
Having a ’77 Electra 225 I feel the same conflicted relationship. It is roomier but is no better appointed than a loaded cloth Caprice. The cloth seats are meh, the bench seat while power is not dual, the ignition, door locks, and switches are all parts bin. Except for the very Buick exterior of ventiports, fins, and toothy grill, it’s a “Caprice L”. The Park Avenue is, I’m sure, a cut above.
And yet the car is so solid. Less is broken/has broken on it than any car I’ve owned. The a/c is still working, even though it sat for years outside in a field down south. It seems so much more robust than the ’93 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham I’ve recently come into from a relative. The door locks have that solid “clack”. All of the power windows work.
The Buick feels like a boring but solid car. The Cadillac is more impressive, but compared to the Buick, even compared to my former ’87 Brougham, feels flimsier in comparison.
1973 I was 15 with a newly minted drivers license I sure wasnt looking at Buicks It was virtually impossible to get one anyway in NZ had I wanted one our GM lineup began at Chevy and worked rapidly downward in interest to Vauxhall Vivas at the bottom, Holden Monaros being the lust object of choice that could be obtained had I overseas funds.
When my grandmother was looking to trade in her ’69 Electra for a new one in 1972, at first balked at new prices. In getting a cheaper car, to her, the LeSabre was ‘not as well dressed’ as an Impala, and almost got a Chevy. This after 20 years of Buicks.
But, held off getting new for a few months and then got a ’73 Electra in October ’72. Was last Buick, and few year later, got a 75 Impala, then final car was a ’79 Malibu.
My uncles were teenagers at the time and they drove the Electra into the ground, living in rural Wisconsin. Car was also borrowed often by other relatives. Rolled 100K miles by 1976, and traded in for year old Impala.
I had a great aunt who drove a ’62 Chevy II for years and years, but at a family reunion in 1977, Aunt Buzz was driving a ’71 LeSabre 4-door hardtop. Aunt Buzz was a tiny woman, and my 11-year-old self wondered how she could even see over the steering wheel of that enormous Buick, much less park it. She must have reached the same conclusion, because she didn’t keep the LeSabre for long, trading it for a ’74 Oldsmobile Omega that was much more her size.
There must be some correlation between tiny women and large cars. My 5’1″ mother, all 100 lbs. of her, currently drives a 2010 Mercury Grand Marquis–the biggest non-SUV left on the market. Her previous cars include a ’97 Crown Vic, an ’86 Parisienne, and ’69 and ’68 Impalas. There were a couple of outliers but I see a pattern here.
Not always. My mother is small (5’1″) and when Cutlasses were in short supply late in the 1974 model year, took one brief test drive in an 88 sedan before crossing Oldsmobile off her list that year (and, as it turns out, forever). Not that the A body Colonnades were small cars, but that was as big as she would go.
This car, and a typical, boring LeSabre, reminds me of a story from my childhood.
The year was 1975 and I was being watched by my grandmother. Grandma had a 1974 Buick Electra Limited sedan, black/black, and probably the most expenisve car in the neighborhood, maybe for blocks.
One of my aunts came over to take us out to lunch. Well, even though I was just a little tyke, I knew that I wanted to be seen riding in/stepping out of Grandma’s Electra Limited. When it was time to go, my aunt started walking towards HER car, a 1975 LeSabre coupe, light green/light green…UGH!!! I said to Grandma, “I thought we were taking YOUR car?”, hoping she would want to drive. She said, “So did I.” But nooooo, we had to take my aunt’s new LeSabre…YAWN!! Light green/light green…???? I’d rather walk.
I was sooo disappointed!! I never wanted to miss an opportunity to ride in Grandma’s Electra Limited, black/black ( the ONLY color combo to EVER get!!) with those ubiquitous “styled road wheels”, the ones available on all seventies and eighties Buicks.
*sigh* Well, at least I got a hot fudge sundae out of it. But even hot fudge and ice cream didn’t heal my broken heart…
Buick was selling over 500,000 cars a year and they basically had only 4 models and 2 engines.
Skylark, LeSabre/Centurion, Electra and Riviera….the Sportwagon and Estate Wagon were just wagon versions of the Skylark and Electra.
Only 2 V-8s were offered…350 in both 2 bbl and 4 bbl…and the 455 4bbl and 4bbl Stage 1. Only automatics were offered…Turbo Hydramatic 350 in the Skylark, 375B in the LeSabre with the 350 and the awesome THM 400 with the 455.
The Buick 350 is an interesting engine with very narrow bore centers due to its being based on the old 215 aluminum V8 of 1961, as I understand things. The compact bore required a longer stroke to get to 350 cid. It has been years since I have driven one, but i understand that it is quite a torquer due to the long stroke.
Even in the 155 HP version available in the ’77, it produces I think 275 lb ft of torque. It totally blows away the Olds 307. It’s in my ’77 and I love it.
One nice thing about it is that it never seems to have to downshift. Just smooth and reasonably responsive. I won’t win any races but I always keep up with traffic.
I believe the 350 had the longest stroke of any of the small block engines and is virtually a “perfect square”.
Mine averages 14-17 mpg but I think it can do better.
The Buick 350 is also a very light engine: around 450 lbs: between 75-100lbs LESS than a small block Chevy! These are definitely torquey engines and are well suited to even the Big Buicks such as the feature car.
The LeSabre with a 350 cu-in engine was available with both the 375B transmission which was a heavy duty version of the 350 transmission and the 375 transmission which was a light duty version of the 400 transmission.
My 1974 LeSabre with a 350-4barrel had the 375B which needed to be rebuilt when I got it. The car had decent fuel economy and good performance too. The transmission probably helped as the THM-400 based THM-375 was supposed to be “eating” more power. I still prefer the THM 400 for it’s sturdier design!
I miss that car!
Actually in 1973, it was 7, Apollo, Century, LeSabre, Centurion, Electra, Riviera and Estate Wagon. With umpteen combinations of body styles and trim in between.
And sales were well over 500,000 that year. It was 821,165 units. The best selling of the twenty-six 1973 models available was the Electra 225 Custom 4 door hardtop (model 4CT39) at 107,031 units (the Electra 225 Custom 4 door hardtop accounted for more than 1/8th of the total production that year). That included the Limited version which was still an option package on the Electra 225 Custom that year (in 1974, it became a separate model).
Huh, all these people talking about how reliable these cars were. Dad was a Buick man and he bought a ’74 in 1977 to replace the family’s rusted-out ’66 Wildcat. Five years later that stupid 350 pitched a rod while Mom was driving me somewhere in it. Dad didn’t bother to get it fixed; it was replaced by a ’77 LeSabre with the Pontiac 301, which was a much nicer car that was still running great until it was cashed out by a pickup truck in 1991.
I was born in 1971 and became aware of cars in the mid-’80s, which means that my memory of this generation of cars is that they were all rusted-out heaps. I have no love at all for these cars.
Any Buick motor with the distributor mounted in the front (or anything made after your parent’s 1966 Wildcat) is likely to have similar problems! The owner’s manuals also stated that it’s normal for the oil pressure light to come on at idle when the engine is hot!
I wouldn’t say they are unreliable, but they aren’t the most durable either!
I still have a 1965 Wildcat with a 401 which never had a problem with it’s engine but the 430 in my former 1968 Wildcat and my current 1967 Riviera and the 455 in my 1975 Electra all needed an engine rebuild between 74K and 102K… When I sold my 1974 LeSabre at 95K, it’s engine still had good oil pressure (it had an aftermarket Stewart Warner oil pressure gauge) but something was telling me it might need repairs soon… A few months after I sold it (for cheap), I saw it dead on the side of the highway. There was no traces of oil or anything under it but I was still wondering what happened. I never saw it again.
correct.
Buick V8’s have a major design flaw with the oiling system. The oil pump is integrated with aluminum timing cover and the dang thing wears out pretty fast. In addition to this having the gigantic mains on the crankshaft requires a superior oiling system because the rear bearings get starved of oil above 5000 rpms. Buick guys with built motors always have to modify the oiling system to keep them alive. Once the oiling issue is sorted the engines become pretty darn reliable and are already pretty powerful. The 430 in my dd 68′ Electra propels its mass nicely even with its 2.78 gearing. With carb/ ignition tuning and dual exhaust my car can run 14’s
I ran a 1978 Buick as a taxi and the 350 failed at only about 200,000 km, which was peanuts compared to any Small Block we’d ever had. Even the 305’s with the cast camshafts and fiber timing gears went longer.
I drove that Buick for a year as my personal driver and it was excellent but it couldn’t handle taxi duty. I cost me a lot to keep it running and when the motor went, I replaced it with a Plain Jane Caprice with a 305.
The problem I had with the front-mounted distributor is the upper radiator hose is routed right next to/above it. Guess where that hose will choose to burst. This resulted, for me, in the world’s most expensive burst hose. First I replaced the hose. Engine won’t start. Oh, the distributor got sprayed with coolant. Better try to dry that sucker out. Well, I didn’t get it dry enough. It misfired on starting, maybe was trying to run backward, the starter hung up and it broke the flywheel. (’74 Electra)
When I was a kid, my parents had a Mark III Lincoln that broke down a lot. Therefore, Ford sux. Right, genius?
Wow, this one brings back memories! My Pop got a LeSabre Custom very much like this as a company car in 1973. His was a hardtop version, but also finished in Bamboo Cream with the Brown vinyl top. His interior was different though–it was the “Oxen and Madrid” vinyl notchback seat, which was basically the same as the one in the next-level-up Centurion. His was a well equipped “business” car with A/C, power windows, AM/FM, tilt wheel, cruise. Nice automotive vanilla. I do remember liking it, but not loving it. No where near as interesting as his 1972 Grand Prix (which he actually kept even after he got the company car).
This generic “nice car” approach in the 1970s, particularly from the more “premium” GM divisions, was indicative of the trouble brewing around product/brand differentiation. Why pick a LeSabre over the other B-bodies? Other than residual Buick brand values (which ran strong in my family), really not much. My Pop replaced this ’73 with a ’75 LeSabre (I didn’t like that one as much). Then the Buicks were broomed in ’77 for a new downsized Caprice. That one was a clear favorite, and frankly the loaded Caprice seemed just as nice as a LeSabre. But GM brand equities and premium pricing ability were blown right out the window.
“Why pick a LeSabre over the other B-bodies?”
Well, FWIW, the LeSabre outlived nearly all the other GM big cars. Was last sold in 2005, and replaced by Lucerne due to Buick’s image change, rather than slow sales.
It really became Buick’s Grand Marquis. They are still all over the road, mostly driven by elderly people or their high school and college aged grandchildren.
When I was in high school I had this unrequited mega crush on a girl whose mom had one of these post sedans, but a pretty one in light metallic blue with a cloth interior. I actually got to ride in it once to a school event; I still didn’t get anywhere with the young lady in question but the car was as good looking as one of these can get. So my memory of them is more pleasant.
The only thing I can think of that justifies the cost to tool up two entirely different sedans is that much of it was shared with the wagons.
I understand this thread is six months old and maybe no one is paying attention, but I was apparently doing something else until now and just found the site by Goggle. What I can add to the great article and reviews above is the observation that this particular shade of pukey beige was not a factory offering in ’73, based on the Buick Color and Trim book that dealers used to sell these cars, a copy of which I bought on ebay several years ago. it’s not surprising that a forty-year-old car was repainted, though it looks like a colorblind disciple of Jack Benny more recently accepted Maaco’s mix-bank mistake from another job offered at half-price, plus two-tone to help kill the aftertaste. Buick had nineteen colors in their book book, including three blues, three greens, and many “unusual” earth-tone colors in vogue at the time, but not this ugly one. So don’t blame GM for that bit of folly, by golly!
I just saw your comment, and believe that you are right. A little looking at 1973s Bamboo Cream online shows it as more yellow than this. Which may explain those brown upper doors. It looks like someone picked a beige from another year or car to cover the original brown when it was time for some rust and dent repairs. I guess I remembered a similar color on 71 models, which is why this didn’t look wrong to me. Good eye!
Interesting historical footnote on this model: a yellow one was used by the infamous San Francisco murderer Dan “Twinkie Defense” White to commit suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning. I guess that one was made before catalytic converters!
Buick Le Sabre four door yep definitely escaped my attention I’m not sure Ive ever seen one, theres a convertible that model cruising locally nice car too, and I looked over a used two door in Richmond NSW and thats all I remember, they never were common out here not since the early 50s when new imports dried up.
My Greatest Generation-era Grandparents on my Mom’s side were dairy farmers in South Carolina. Grandpa always drove Chevy trucks and Granny always drove blue Buick LeSabres, and she got a new one every 4 years like clockwork. A blue with a white top ’73 LeSabre is the first car I remember her having and she loved it. It could have had a 350 or a 455, who knows, but it looked sharp, and she always made me and my brothers wash the Carolina red clay out of the wheelwells. That car was replaced with a blue ’76, then she loved the size of the ’81 she had, which was replaced by an ’85, which was replaced by an ’89 when she lamented “look what they did to my car!” when referring to the downsizing and the FWD V6. That was her last car anyway. Buick broke her heart and she would probably be disgusted at what they are selling today.
It’s amazing that gasoline doesn’t spill back out of such a low-mounted behind-license- plate fuel filler.
Great to see this article again. My take on this car:
Rational side of brain: “shitty oversized GM. 2-slam doors. Buick doesn’t mean anything anymore because the Chevy is just as nice.”
Other side: “BIG PRETTY BUICK OOOOOH”
“Bamboo Cream.” Those are not words that should go together.
We had one of these, a hardtop, in that oily green and cream vinyl top in 1986/1987 through 1989, I was about 13. It amazes me today that at that time, a 14 year old car was such a dinosaur compared with the Celebrities and Centuries and Sunbirds that were common in 1989. Today a 14 year old, or even a 25 year old car, doesn’t seem that different from a newer car (or I’m just ancient.) The car was a good car and the hardtop was very snazzy but it constantly had transmission trouble. Other than that, it was a good car. To my now eternal regret, I urged Dad to trade it in on a gently used 1985 Sunbird, which constantly overheated and very quickly and expensively got dumped for a new Sundance which was a very good car. Here’s something most people have forgotten; These cars had separate shoulder and lap belts for the front passengers which had to be connected at the buckle. We used the lap belts but not the shoulder belts. My brother, who would have been 5 ish at the time, rode in the middle on the center armrest as a booster seat. This car was big enough that when we went on long trips, we could ride on the parcel shelf behind the back seat under the rear window. The rear window leaked and despite multiple applications of silicone bathtub sealer, kept leaking. It seemed like an awful, ancient jalopy then, but now I’m addicted to awful, ancient jalopies, so please forgive me for my automotive sins.
There were reasons to choose a Buick over a Caprice. The Buick for little or no extra money felt a little more luxurious, with slightly better materials, it looked a little more upscale, they weren’t being used as commercial vehicles, it seemed marginally fancier and you didn’t see the wrong sort of people driving them. Additionally, there were no super stripper Buicks and if you wanted a fancier car with more options, you could go to the Buick dealer and have a variety to choose from.
@ orrin, I never liked the materials in the whale Caprice/Brougham. They also have air bags v. the previous boxy generation. GM really cheaped out on the materials in those cars and I much prefer the box Brougham with the TBI engine over the 93-96.
I can understand why someone would keep this around for this long. There’s not much to go wrong with these cars and when something does go wrong, it’s cheap and easy to fix it. It’s certainly much less expensive than buying a new car, and unlike a lot of newer cars, it doesn’t really have a “useful life,” nearing the end of which a lot of different things start to go wrong which get very expensive to repair. Each component has a useful life, but a lot of the car is made out of cast iron and will go on forever.
“We used the lap belts but not the shoulder belts.”
I remember when the separate shoulder belts came out in 1968, a design that stuck around until replaced by the one piece belts for 1974. I was in my peak car-fanatic years when those separate belts were out, and cannot recall one single instance of anyone ever actually using them. Every car I ever saw kept them tucked securely in their little chrome or plastic clips along the edge of the headliner, even with people who habitually used lap belts. My mother was one of these. I don’t think she touched the shoulder belt once in the time she owned her 72 Cutlass Supreme.
However, when I bought my 68 Newport in the 1990s I used them religiously and was happy that they were there (after experiencing an accident a few years earlier when a shoulder harness kept my face out of a steering wheel).
I too remember riding two-abreast in a package shelf. My experience with that was in a 68 Mercury Montclair with that two door fastback body style. that package shelf was as wide as a twin bed!
I also recall the separate lap and shoulder belts. I tried them on my folks ’73 Custom Cruiser and my own ’73 Pinto I got in ’78. The problem was they did not have any kind of inertia reel like later cars. When you were “properly belted in” you couldn’t reach the switch gear on the instrument panel. From then on I only wore the lap belts in them.
Bob
Put a set of spoked rims on it and watch it transform!!