(first posted 8/26/2015) I recently took a couple of days off work for some much needed rest, relaxation, and a quick trip to the Cape with some of my friends and former track teammates from high school. Despite all of our shenanigans, I still kept an eye out for any interesting cars. Indeed, when we stopped at JoMama’s coffeehouse (which I highly recommend) in the morning, I spotted this 1977 Buick Regal “Colonnade” coupe.
The 1973-1977 GM A-body is a car that often garners very love-it-or-hate-it opinions. On the one hand there’s the cheapened-out interiors (relative to predecessors), shrinking engines and output, fixed rear windows (on coupes), and an increasing amount of parts shared between various brands.
Yet, the 1973-1977 A-body was not without its merits. For starters, there was its distinctive styling. Referred to as “Colonnade” by GM (and what the ’73-’77 A-bodies are more commonly known as), these frameless window, fixed B-pillar vehicles exhibited sleek, flowing body lines with long hoods and low trunks. Their appearance is naturally subjective, but arguably better looking than anything similarly-sized over at Ford.
The Colonnades also sold in astronomical numbers, with the Oldsmobile Cutlass becoming the best-selling car in America in 1976. Buick A-body sales were not quite so high, but still nothing to scoff at. 175,560 Regal coupes were produced in 1977 alone, the Colonnade Regal’s most successful year.
This final-year Colonnade is a 1977 Buick Regal coupe. Appearing for the Colonnade’s introductory year in 1973, the “Century Regal” was positioned as Buick’s premier intermediate model, and to some extent, a budget Riviera personal luxury coupe. Initially available only as a 2-door notchback coupe, the Century Regal primarily differed in its unique fascias, upgraded interiors, and some minor equipment and trim variations.
For 1974, a 4-door model was added, sharing most of its bodywork with the regular Century. Changes were largely limited to the annual new grille for 1975, although there was a bit of reshuffling in the engine department. Now standard on Regal coupes was the Buick 3.8L V6, making a mere 110 horsepower. The Buick V6 was first introduced on the 1962 Buick Special, making it the first V6 in an American production car. Buick dropped it after 1967 in favor of a Chevrolet inline-6, with the tooling sold to Kaiser-Jeep.
In light of the 1973 energy crisis and impending U.S. Congress-enacted Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), GM actually bought back the tooling and put the Buick V6 back into production at Buick’s engine assembly plant in Flint, Michigan in 1974 for use in 1975 models. In light of this, the thirsty 7.5L V8 that had been optional on the Regal and Century was dropped, as it would not comply with new emissions standards, despite ever decreasing output.
The following year saw the “Century” prefix disappear, although the Regal was still considered part of the Century series for the remainder of this generation. 1976 also brought a significant exterior refresh as part of the Colonnades’ mid-cycle update. The higher-volume Regal coupes benefitted from a more extensive transformation, gaining a new hood, front clip, and more slab-sided fenders and doors, all for a more squared-off appearance.
A new flat front fascia featured a larger full-height grille, flanked by quad rectilinear-oriented headlights and turn signals. Interestingly, the stopgap LeSabre-based Riviera would largely emulate this look for 1977; something unusual for a flagship vehicle. Regardless, the coupe’s new appearance was very upscale and stately. Some might even describe it as “regal”.
Sedans meanwhile, gained vertically-stacked quad headlights, although they retained their position at the end of pontoon-like fenders, which were carried over from the original design. Likewise, the ’76 Regal sedan’s front end largely carried over, apart from a new grille pattern. New grille patterns yet again graced the faces of both the Regal coupe and sedan for 1977, but overall, changes were limited for the Colonnades’ final year.
GM’s massive effort of across-the-board downsizing was already well underway, with the new 1977 B- and C-bodies the first platforms receiving this treatment. Riding on an identical length (to A-body sedans) 116-inch wheelbase, in some cases, a 1977 “full-size” B-body was actually externally smaller than a 1977 “mid-size” A-body. This depended on model, as each vehicle’s styling altered exterior dimensions slightly; Buicks always tended to be a bit longer than their corporate siblings.
Interiors were not the strongest point of the Colonnades, and even the premium-positioned Regal was no exception. This Regal features the standard notchback bench seat in all-vinyl. Upgraded seating choices included a greater-contoured bench in cloth or vinyl, 60/40 split bench in cloth or vinyl, vinyl buckets with console, and Regal S/R-only cloth buckets with console. Regals also added simulated woodgrain appliqué to the dash and door panels.
A-bodies received their own downsizing for 1978, with the Regal once again becoming a coupe-only model. Following the Century’s transfer to the new front-wheel drive A-body, a sedan and wagon briefly joined the Regal lineup in the early-1980s. It was the Regal coupe, however, that was most successful and memorable, and it was one of the first cars that brought back serious performance, with the Regal Grand National and GNX models.
An interesting note about this ’77 Regal is that it was built only about 110 miles away from where I found it in Orleans, MA. GM used to have an assembly plant in the town of Framingham, MA, that manufactured various Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Buick models from its opening in 1948 until its closure in 1989. The dealer badge on its trunk indicates that this Regal was sold, presumably when new, in Yonkers, NY. At some point in its 38 years it made its way to Cape Cod, where the milder climate appears to be treating it well.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1973 Pontiac LeMans
CC Capsule: 1974 Buick Century Regal
CC Outtake: 1975 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme
Curbside Classic: 1976 Pontiac Grand Prix
Curbside Classic: 1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Brougham
Not a fan of the super-square front and rear ends grafted of to the still-curvy body centre section. I can see why they did it – I remember the seventies, and how passé curviness was by 1975 even – but it still looks weird. Square-peg-in-a-round-hole weird.
Score points for finding one in this condition though!
With the cheaper Century coupe, you got a mild slantback to the front end and a little less chrome to go along with it.
Not to mention a swoopier roofline with more glass if you got the base Century.
I like the formal rooflines of the Regal, Cutlass Supreme etc but I prefer the bigger glasshouse of the base Colonnades.
I also really like the slanted, body-colored nose section on the Centuries. Squinting, it almost has a Chevy Laguna–lite quality about it.
Wasn’t one major reason for the ’76 coupe restyle, so the Cutlass and Regal would share the same doors?
Its funny seeing the same steering column ignition key setup from the common Holdens of the era with the the shifter poking out the wrong side, that ignition switch was used here from 71 until it was mildly modified for the first Commodores.
I had a aqua blue 74 Buick Regal 4 door.
I think I’m in love! Beautiful Regal and great write-up, Brendan. This is maybe the first time I’ve seen a Regal that I like better than a same-year Cutlass Supreme. I have always liked the taillight arrangement on the ’76 & ’77 Buick A-body coupes.
We seem to be opposites about this design. The rear end treatment of this car was always a huge disappointment to me, as was the copycat Ford LTDII of 1977-79. They couldn’t decide whether they wanted vertical taillights or horizontal taillights, so they did a half-assed version of each.
+1
I think the stylists were looking back to the 1949 Buick when they came up with the horiz/vert taillights. I like the combo lamps myself.
Yeah, but what if…
Interesting idea in a ’67 Eldorado sort of way, but ultimately kind
of bare looking.
Just call it “the shear look”. It would work better if the bumper wasn’t half cockeyed. Actually it would look better if the bumper was a nice, slim chrome slab like they had before the 5 mph regulations. Hmm, should I photoshop up a ’77 Buick Regal with old style bumpers? What would the Colonnades have looked like unfettered by Government standards?
On the coupes, I actually really preferred the ’76-’77 rear to all but the original ’73 arrangement. There was something really grimace-y about the full-width lights on the ’74-’75 cars. I think that without the lower, horizontal lights, the rear would have looked too Cut-lesque, and conversely, too blocky without the vertical elements.
I don’t think the dual-component light arrangement on the LTD II was anywhere nearly as graceful as on the ’76-’77 Regal coupes – perhaps because it was so obviously the K-Mart knockoff version of the Regal’s rear.
I hadn’t even thought of the LTD II, I always thought the Lincoln Mark VII taillight arrangement was similar too, although with the vertical and horizontal sections connected
I just realized this one is missing the filler panel between the rear bumper and the body. What’d they use for those things, paper mache? Seems like they all rotted out after a few years. Here a good shot of an intact one.
This was mines 76 Regal took the 350 out & dropped a bomb 1970 455 Kenne Bell motor in it
Now that you mention that about the LTD II resemblance I can see it but back then the Regal taillights reminded me of the 67-70 Eldorado.
Great article Brendan. These Regals were almost as popular as the Cutlass Supreme out here.
Interesting how on the downsized ’78 Regal, they took the inner section with the horizontal lights and expanded it to fit the entire width of the car.
The 73 looked much nicer with its Monte Carlo looking fenders. Also putting that horrible v6 in there made for a slow car and a thirsty unreliable car. I would like a 74 with a 455. The 77 coupe was bland looking just a little better than the cutlass. But not as nice as lemans.
I never knew a Colonnade could look so good. I like it. Thanks for posting it.
With it’s white vinyl interior and sport wheels, this car shows that not all mid seventies landaus were adherents at the church of brougham. Many Cutasses were trimmed kind of like this and it signifigently broadened their appeal. The restyle of the 2dr was the work of Gerry Hershberg, who later went on to Nissan’s California studio where he did the 90s Altima and I believe the hardbody pickup/Pathfinder. In the Car and Driver article on this Buick, Hershberg said he felt limited in the restyle by having to use Cutlass doors.
Buick has to be credited for getting the V6 out fast when the need for more economy hit. Eventually with steady development, it would become a great engine. It is to bad that the collonades, despite being mid size, were just too heavy for an emission controlled 6. Being American, at least there was torque. Ultimately this car was best served by the legendary 350/350 engine/transmission option.
The 77s being by some measures bigger than the trim new full size, probably attracted a few extra traditional customers. Perhaps due to that, and Brendan taking time out of his vacation, we are able to enjoy this car today. Thanks Brendan.
I knew about (and have seen) those early Buick V6s. I did not know they had been sold away like the 215 V8. It was nice to learn it was bought back. I always wondered why it disappeared and reappeared in the 70’s. That explains the similarity!
The interior and door panels appear to be from a Century Custom rather than a Regal.
Check out the interior offerings for the ’77 Regal and other Centuries. The Regal also got upgraded door panels with pull straps – not found on lesser Century models. http://oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Buick/1977-Buick/1977-Buick-Full-Line-Brochure/1977-Buick-Full-Line-34-35
I used to not care for these 76-77 Regals: they are much plainer than the 73-75 and the 76-77 Century and of course, the 76-77 Cutlass had much more interesting front ends. However, this example is absolutely gorgeous and the Buick styling has grown on me. I love almost all Colonnades though!
That interior is a real demerit in my books. It just looks as cheap and nasty as the Cutlass interior. The real problem was the downsized ’77 LeSabre and Electra had more consistent styling – all angles – and much, much nicer interiors. I’m sure the Regal would have been cheaper but if I was shopping in 1977, I would have gone for a LeSabre or Electra. And not the 77-78 Riviera, which was not worth the premium in my books.
Not all Colonnade interiors were bad: look at the Grand Am. This one, though….
The 77 Lesabre was often oufited with surprisingly youth oriented trim in it’s sport coupes. Interesting as the closely related Riviera was leaning elegant. The first years even still offered big blocks, now gone in the colonades, in a package that was lighter.
White vinyl wasn’t for everyone, but back then there were a lot of color keyed choices. This should be celebrated, as such choices are too complicated for modern factories to pull off.
While I would agree the interior on this car might not be overly upscale for a Buick, I always though the interior on these Colonnades were much nicer than the 1978-88 A/G bodies that followed. It was the next generation where GM really started to cheap out on the interiors in my experience.
In some cases. The funny thing is I keep going back and wanting a GP or Cutlass with the bucket seat, gauge package interior in a nice blue or maroon color with wood grain dash- something that is impossible to get today.
Nice find! I was always partial to these Buicks, I think in large part due to the fact that my Grandmother drove them. She had a 1973 Century Luxus in Willow Green with dark green vinyl interior, and then she got a 1976 Century Custom in Continental Blue with a white top and white vinyl interior. So the feature car had a very similar interior to my grandmother’s car–same white vinyl seats, though hers had blue carpet and a blue dashboard. The white seats with contrasting carpet was huge in the mid-70s at GM. My mother’s ’75 Olds had “Compaticolor” trim as well. I always liked the fact that my Grandmother’s ’76 looked very much like a car pictured in the brochure. Hers was a mashup of the two cars on this catalog page: the exterior and trim level of the bottom car, with the wheel covers and bodyside molding of the car in the top picture. Her Buicks were always V8s though, she had no interest in being a fuel efficiency pioneer.
Brendan, I thought you might appreciate the Buick color names for 1976–they went with a huge Bicentennial theme. Gotta love that Boston Red!
By 1977, when this car was made, Buick had switched back to very functional color names, so this car would have been painted a much less evocative “Red-Code 72.”
That’s cool! Concord and Revere (after Paul Revere) are also historical Massachusetts towns.
All of the color names are obviously bicentennial-themed, but Revere has to be after the man, not the Massachusetts city. The city was itself named after the man, and didn’t get that name until 1871.
What great color names. Makes you proud to be an American. I wonder if they came up with Canadian patriotic names for the same colors in Loyalist Canada.
“Eggs Benedict Arnold Yellow”?
Ha!
At some point in its 38 years it made its way to Cape Cod, where the milder climate appears to be treating it well.
Having grown up on Cape Cod, and watched several family vehicles rust away before my eyes, I have to quibble here. The Cape’s environment is brutal on cars. The winters are often very harsh, and like the rest of New England, the roads are salted like a pretzel in the name of safety. You’re also in close proximity to salt water, salt laden sand, and high winds. After 2 or 3 years, you are likely to have a windshield so sand blasted it requires replacement. The landscape is dotted with pitch pines that can ruin your paint finish in an afternoon. As a car guy, I was often in agony watching my freshly washed/waxed car get trashed in a matter of minutes. I tried a car cover once for my Acura Integra, but it wasn’t worth the hassle. If you don’t own a garage on the Cape, your car will probably be junk, cosmetically speaking, in a few months.
It is remarkable that a nearly 40 year old GM product looks this good in that environment. It must have lived elsewhere most of its life, or been extremely coddled. My family had a ’75 GMC truck that was a total eyesore by ’86. We traded it for an ’86 Nissan Not-So-Hardbody that I swear you could hear rusting on a quiet evening. My first car was a 6 year old ’80 Datsun 200SX, that I mercifully totaled after a few months thus spared it a slow, painful death from the dreaded tinworm. Even my ’94 Integra, that I bought new, had significant rust behind the rear wheelwells after just 4 years, where every Honda of this vintage seems designed to succumb to the powers of oxidation.
But that was the past. Cars have finally become so rust resistant today, that even my parents ’01 Tacoma that sees regular trips out to Sandy Neck (which is like dipping your car in a salt bath), has no significant body rust. Anyway, may this fine ’77 Cape Cod Colonnade remain Regally Rust Free for many more years.
Greg, you did have a way of picking some notorious rusters.
Well, back in the 70s and 80s most cars were a lot more prone to rust. As a family, we tended to favor Japanese cars over the years. While they were more mechanically reliable, they appeared to have no natural resistance to oxidation. Our first Japanese car that made great strides in that department was an ’84 Mazda 626. It was the first family car I washed and waxed with regularity, so I’m sure that helped, but the body and paint were inherently much better than anything we’d had before.
I am actually surprised that your 2001 Tacoma is fairing well against rust. Toyota had big recalls on the 2001-2004 Tacoma for rusty frames. A lot were bought back and crushed.
Great point, I did forget to mention that my father had a full frame replacement done gratis by Toyota. This was on a 10 year old truck that he bought used with 100K! Now THAT’S customer service. The body and paint have held up remarkably well, especially for a real work truck. That thing is not babied, by any stretch.
My father was able to keep his Colonnade rust free after the very long and salty winters we have here. It did take him looking after the car, much better than the average person, which included garaging it, regular washing and waxing, oil spray rustproofing and meticulous care to any minor damage on the body. The car is still on 100% factory sheetmetal but has ben repainted (the original lacquer started checking after about 27 years) but hasn’t seen a winter since 2007 when my brother took ownership.
Here in Ontario, really the only way to keep a car rust free into old age is oil spray rustproofing. It makes a mess, but it does keep the body and chassis in excellent condition even in our very salted conditions.
It warms my heart to read such a tale of car care. Especially for an elderly model like a Colonnade. Cars really can last much, much longer than people realize if they would only treat them well from day one. Of course today, cars are far more durable right out of the factory, so I fear that the rewards of meticulous maintenance are lost on this generation. People treat cars like a disposable smart phone. In 4 or 5 years whatever you have is going to be technologically obsolete, so why bother playing the long game of automotive ownership?
Greg, I wholeheartedly agree with you sentiments about meticulous maintenance being lost today. Cars are much better built today, especially the paint and rust resistance of the bodies, and because of this I think people no longer think they have to do as much maintenance. On top of that, modern cars are also much more likely to have repairs that exceed the value of the car as they age. How many cars today end up in the junk yard because the repair costs to fix one part of the car were too expensive while the rest remains in decent condition? I think this also adds to people treating cars like disposable items. At least on a car like my Dad’s old Malibu even today there is really nothing on that car that is overly expensive to repair or replace.
> Here in Ontario, really the only way to keep a car rust free into old age is oil spray rustproofing. It makes a mess, but it does keep the body and chassis in excellent condition even in our very salted conditions.
+1
Christ .. and I thought things were bad in the UK!.
Most on here know how I feel about the loss of the pillarless hardtops with the advent of the 1973 model GM mid-sizers, but as time has passed, one got used to them for better or for worse. Yes – they were much nicer than anything Ford or Chrysler offered in comparison.
Out of all the Colonnade models, the worst-looking cars of the whole bunch were generally the Chevy models, and I say that with a dampness in my eye!
My favorite Colonnade has always been the 1973 almost-boat-tail Pontiac Grand Am, however the Buicks and Oldsmobiles were very nice, and this Regal is no exception.
Almost every time there is a post about a Colonnade, the misinformation about the 1977-90 B-body chassis being the same as the 1973-77 A-body constantly arises. I have posted pictures here in the past to show that the two frames are distinctly different. They have different sized and shaped side rails, different front and rear frame sections and different number of cross members. Sure they share the same wheel base, but that’s about it. Although the chassis do share some suspension components, the frames are not the same.
100% correct.
To drive the point home even more all 77-96 B-Bodies are actually built on a 115.9 inch wheelbase. They just rounded up in 77 to keep people who studied the specifications too closely from scoffing. Once they got people inside where they could see how much roomier it was over the A-Bodies, any notion of the cars similarities quickly evaporated.
I don’t see the point of the LeSabre coupe in this article either. It does not look anything like the Regal. It is true that the full sized cars are on a shorter wheelbase for 1977. Then the C-bodies move to FWD for 1985 on a 111 inch wheelbase which is shorter than the A bodied coupes in 1977. So What?
The LeSabre is only in this article to highlight the size comparison of two Buick coupes sold for the same model year. One was marketed as “full-size” the other as “mid-size” when in reality by external dimensions they were basically the same size. I’m sorry you don’t feel this is an interesting fact to make note of.
While the bodies might be similar in size the interior is not:
Front leg room is 42+ inches for both
Rear leg room is 33 for the Regal, about 39 for the Lesabre
Headroom, shoulder room, hip room more in the Lesabre
truck capacity is 15 vs 21 with the LeSabre biggest.
For a family car the Lesabre is bigger. I don’t see a comparison here. A Monte Carlo or Grand Prix would be a good comparison.
Yep, Having seen the ’77 “A”s and “B”s in the showroom at the same time, It would be almost be impossible not to include the “B” in this article. No one else at the time had their “full sized” and “mid sized cars share such similar dimensions. No one is saying they WERE the same, just remarkably similar sized externally.
+1
I think there are a couple of things that are interesting about the 77 full sized cars. There is still a C-body, but the B-body wheelbases are now all the same, where before Chevrolets were shortest. Also the Chevrolet wheelbase before World War Two was 116 inches and then was 115 in the 50’s up to 1958. So the downsized cars are now on a wheelbase that is close to what Chevrolet had 20 years before. The bodies on the 77 models are taller, probably closer to the mid-50’s heights.
True, Remember untill 1959 all Chevrolets were classed as “A” bodies, as such the “A”s of the ’70s were close to ’50s “A”s Chevrolets gained bloat when the “standard” models became “B”s Only when GM revived the “A” did they come up with the concept of midsize, A 55 Chevy is midsized compared to say a “B” or “C” 55 Buick, So technically the “B” and “C” were downsized from the 59-76 selves, the 77 “A” bodies were just good old “Chevy” sized!
But they weren’t that similar in size. Not only did the LeSabre have a 3.9 inch longer wheelbase than the Regal coupe, it was 8.4 inches longer overall.
For comparison, the LTD II coupe was 8.6 inches shorter than the full size LTD the same year.
During the 50’s cars were “longer, lower and wider”. GM for the 1977 models reversed this by making them “shorter, narrower and taller”. But they did not go all the way back to a 50’s Chevrolet size.
Even the 4 door midsize Buicks are shorter bodies by about 5 inches.
> True, Remember untill 1959 all Chevrolets were classed as “A” bodies, as such the “A”s of the ’70s were close to ’50s “A”s Chevrolets gained bloat when the “standard” models became “B”s Only when GM revived the “A” did they come up with the concept of midsize, A 55 Chevy is midsized compared to say a “B” or “C” 55 Buick, So technically the “B” and “C” were downsized from the 59-76 selves, the 77 “A” bodies were just good old “Chevy” sized!
Paul noted elsewhere how both the original ’64 Chevelle and the downsized ’77 full-sizers both returned to the classic ’55-’57 Chevy dimensions
I get it. I’ve always thought must have made for an interesting challenge on the showroom floor. In the fall of ’76, most American car buyers had been conditioned to expect a bigger version of the new models every year. Not only was GM shocking everyone by radically downsizing their ‘full-sized’ line, they introduced chaos into the system by leaving their old ‘intermediate’ the same size for one year, and thus two similarly sized coupes.
I wonder if there was a sales strategy in place, whereby they figured the more traditional buyer still in love with long hoods and swoopy greenhouses was steered towards the Regal. If they didn’t care about who sat in the backseat, they could still roll in style in their long, low, lovely Landau. But the more pragmatic Buick man interested in the latest automotive design would be intrigued by the new, trimmer, and much more space efficient LeSabre.
If the prospect got huffy he couldn’t buy a ‘real’ full-size American car from Buick, he’d just have to go Ford (or Chrysler if he was a gamblin’ man). I know Ford cashed in on the last pent up demand for people who refused to try the B/C body diet. They wanted a full-flavor All-American beefsteak of a car. Whipped cream ride and kitchen of your dreams styling inside. The Grand Marquis, LTD, and Town Car filled that bill for 2-3 more years.
What I remember is that the salespeople were more concerned about no 455 CID V8s. While the wheelbase of the downsized cars were the same as the midsized sedan, the body length was not. Midsize Buick sedans were 5 inches shorter than the Lesabre.
I think it was also a sedan versus coupe issue as well. If you look at the Century line, in 1977 sedans only represented 18.5% of total output (60,656 units, down 16%) while LeSabre output was 65% sedans (123,682 units, up 31%). The pragmatic sedan buyers were snapping up the newly downsized B-body offerings (which beat the A-body sedans against every practical measure), while the more traditional, personal luxury oriented buyer couldn’t get enough of the A-body coupes.
Plus, the B-body coupes really felt like “big” cars compared to the A-body coupes, at least inside. One of my Grandmother’s close friends had a ’77 Delta 88 coupe, while one of our neighbors had a ’77 Cutlass Supreme coupe–and based on my personal experience in each one (as a kid, not a driver) the cars really felt very different. The Delta felt big and airy, handsome but not at all sporty, while the Cutlass felt much more cocooning inside, with more old-school American styling flair.
I think there was a definite strategy in place, including the fact that by ’76 the popular Regal was taking on something of the ’77 B “shear” look. if you look at the final big body ’76 Caprice, they gave it a face that was pretty directly transferred to the front of the ’77. I understand that GM was very worried about downsizing, and they did a remarkable job succeeding with the transition.
The fact that GM’s mid and full size cars shared very similar market space for a year and that most all of them sold well was a quite unique moment in the General’s history. The fact that the new B and the old A shared concepts in architecture and some actual components is testimony to the inflation of vehicle size in the early ’70s, and a commentary to how the General nearly got the architecture for the modern large car correct in ’73. The shift of GM’s best selling car moving from the B to the A in ’76, and back to the B in ’77 is testimony to their fine work in fine tuning the large car to a fast changing market space, and ’77 was a very interesting year when some mid size cars had some dimensions exceeding those of full size cars. Comment regarding the LeSabre is very relevant to this story. The fact that the LeSabre was a 116″ wheelbase car and the Regal 112″ is irrelevant in light of the fact that the A and B cars historically came in a variety of wheelbases, and sometimes crossed or nearly crossed lines.
This is true, the frames between the ’73-’77 A body and ’77-’90 B body look very similar, but are not actually the same. Being that both are box-section perimeter design supporting SLA front and 4 link coil spring rear suspension no doubt contributes to the similarities. Remember that G.M. had more money than anyone back in the late ’70’s and did not have to resort to renaming mid-size cars with full size names to give the appearance of ‘all new’ downsized big cars. G.M. actually did redesign their full size offerings for ’77. Also consider the basic ’73-’77 A body chassis design dated to ’64.
In a sordid sort of way I would love to drive one of these now, back to back with a modern car just to see how different it is. My second car was a 1974 Monte Carlo Landau and I almost bought a Cutlass Supreme but for some reason, along with a bit of help from the Chevrolet – Oldsmobile dealer I opted for the Chevy which seemed at the time like a better deal. It had the “handling package” and seemed sort of sporty to me, back then. Wonder how it would feel these days?
If in good condition and at factory spec, the most comparable modern ride would tend to be a body-on-frame SUV or truck or a late Ford Panther car. You’d find the car to have a good ride, good isolation from NVH factors and competent (not sloppy) handling. These cars had a feel that was very comparable to the GM B/C/D cars that followed and were built until 1996, and Ford built the same basic concept until 2011 – just four years ago! The ’73 A body set a standard for the modern large American car that lasted almost 40 years.
Source of Opinion: Lots of ownership experience with all of the cars mentioned.
I daily drive a Monte during the summer, and It’s so comfortable. In comparison to my Roadmaster its steering is sharper, corners flatter, tracks really well, and has great high speed stability. The RMW is so much faster, tighter and takes bumps without as much drama.
I am surprised at the love that the styling gets of the late colonnade Regal. Where I found the early versions of the cars very attractive, by 1976, this Buick had been made into a total generic version. It was as though all of the personality got sucked out of the car, with the sides smoothed out and the use of the generic GM front end that seemed to grace almost everything. I described my distaste for the tail end above.
To me, the only thing these cars had going for them was their style. Other than that familiar greenhouse, all of the style had been shaved off of these by the end. I will admit, however, that I like the red and white treatment on this one, and find the car more appealing than I ever have in the past.
I am also reminded of how common that V6 was in Buicks in the second half of the 70s. In those years, it was an awful experience – not smooth, and not powerful. For those of us who spent time with the 350-powered versions from the first half of the 70s, the V6 cars were just painful.
While it is more generic than the original ’73, it is also clean and elegant. The only thing I wish they did is make the rear light treatment more coherent. Love that red/white interior.
I am not among the haters of these cars, in fact, I think the Regal coupes were the best looking of all the colonnade models from 1973-77. Really like the square front end with quad headlights and I also like the rear end. To my eye it’s really attractive styling and just works better than it’s intramural cousins, particularly the florid Monte Carlo.
As always another great write-up Brendan! This is probably one of the nicest Colonnade Regals I have ever seen. I would not normally think this color combination would be attractive but it really works on this car. The whole setup works – the right wheels, vinyl top color and white interior – awesome! My brother-in-law was a Buick salesman back in the day, and he said because of the tremendous popularity of the Cutlass Supremes, they would often times be scarce or even unavailable on dealer’s lots. If you didn’t want to wait to order one or needed a car right away, he often got the GM cross-shoppers that came in to the Buick showroom and bought a Regal instead – perhaps the reason 1977 was such a great year for the Regal as well.
Whenever I see one of these cars, there is one in particular that comes to mind.There was an older gentleman in my neighborhood that had an Orange (Yes, that was a factory Buick color) 1977 Regal Coupe, with a Buckskin vinyl top and velour interior. I’m pretty sure he must have special ordered that car, as he had the rare Moire wheel covers on it, plus it was a loaded one with all the luxury options you could possibly get. You could tell he loved that car, as it always looked shiny and proud. I remember one year I went to the beach with my parents, about a 35 minute ride from my house. We went to eat at George’s Seafood restaurant, and when my Dad went to park, guess what car was right next to us? That man’s Orange Regal! I looked in it and saw how nice it was – it had the upgraded interior and that’s when I saw how loaded it was. I remember my Mom yelling at me to stop looking in people’s cars, that it was rude!! LOL So funny that I can remember that day so vividly, as well as that Regal! Thanks again Brendan for the memories!
That’s a great story Tom. In the late ’70s when I was 13-15 ys old and car crazy, I would always sneak a peak into someone’s new car, esp if it was parked right next to us somewhere. Remember being at a family-owned flooring store in 1977 and waiting outside for my folks, and peeking inside the new ’77 Caprice the store owner had just bought!
Hey Frank, I’m glad I’m not alone in the automobile peeping Tom craze! LOL! Plus, the way cars were optioned back then made them all so different. You instantly knew if a car was equipped “differently than most” by a few rare options, or lack thereof. We had a neighbor with a funky green 1979 Catalina coupe. It had a white vinyl top, and the Pontiac Rallye wheels. Now, those wheels on a Grand Prix? Not so rare. But on a funky green Catalina coupe? Hmmm….made me look twice. And then I saw it – a power sunroof???!?? Can’t be…NO ONE ever orders a power sunroof on a Catalina! I wish I had the statistics for how many Catalinas were sold with power sunroofs – I’m sure it’s not many at all!
The opposite holds true for a car that normally has options. The one car I vivdly remember from my childhood was a great uncle that was CHEAP as could be. He special ordered a black 1980 Ninety-Eight LS sedan. I honestly don’t think it had more than five options in total! I know it had an AM radio, air conditioning, and tinted glass. He also ordered the 350 V-8 and whitewall tires. I was shocked when I rode in it for the first time. I also remember him complaining about not having power door locks – he thought they were standard and they weren’t so it wasn’t equipped with them. It had no vinyl top and the interior was the LS cloth bench seat which actually wasn’t all that bad, but a Regency it wasn’t. And the sad part is that he was very well off. He just didn’t feel it was worth spending money for useless options that were just going to break anyway LOL!
Add me to the list of automotive peeping Toms. Like you, I loved checking out cars and how they were equipped. Back in the day, there really was so much variety, so I routinely looked in windows. Few cars were exactly alike, though as you mention it was pretty common to see certain options on certain cars. I also really enjoyed the outliers, whether it was a low trim car loaded with expensive options (like the Catalina) or a bare bones high trim car. Whenever I see (or saw, most are gone) cars like this, I always wondered if they were ordered on purpose that way (like your Great Uncle’s Olds) or if they were the result of some mistake. I imagine that it was easy to make a glitch at the dealer level when ordering inventory and leaving something off by accident. A lot of the real oddballs, though, seem like they would have been something the factory built and then had to force on a dealer.
So true GN! I can tell you that having a few relatives in car sales back in the 70’s, there were many stories of making errors in ordering, and when they did, the cars would sit on the lots forever. My Uncle at the Pontiac store told me that one time the manager ordered 5 1972 Lemans sedans and forgot to check off the power steering box on the option list. Those cars sat there FOREVER, as no one wanted one of those cars with manual steering! They ended up using them as a price leader in the newspaper, but when everyone realized that driving them without power steering would be brutal, they didn’t sell. It took almost 2 years for them to move those cars off the lot!
Growing up in the 50’s and 60’s, I also received maternal admonishment for looking into other folks’ new cars. But it was clear to me from an early age that most people were happy when their cars received attention from a car-crazed kid. When the owner came out and found your face nearly pressed against the side glass, s/he often opened the door and encouraged you to get a closer look. I found this to be particularly true of elderly Cadillac owners when my folks took me to Florida on vacations. Even got to run the power windows up and down in a few cars in those days, an option I could only dream about at home. Good times.
The ridiculous thing is that I still behave pretty much the same way when I encounter a new (or old) car of interest, to the embarrassment/confusion of some friends who care little about cars! But that’s why we’re here at CC, after all.
True CA guy – when I was visiting my grandparents in Florida the older folks down there always seemed to be so willing to let me look in their cars. And to my amazement, most Florida cars were not ordered with rear defrosters – unheard of in Rhode Island!
I still love to look in the older cars to see how they are equipped. Love the old car shows for that!
And Florida cars were equipped with A/C well before those in my native Midwest. I well remember noting the plastic tubes inside and rear fender mounted vents, etc. To me as a five-year old, exciting stuff! So right about noting options – those details were thrilling to me as a kid.
My grandma’s ’87 FWD Fleetwood d’Elegance was originally from California. The original owner drove it out here to visit family and died while he was here. That car had no rear defroster, the vinyl top was deleted and it had the cloth d’Elegance interior, yet it had the Bose stereo system and every other option offered by Cadillac. Very weirdly equipped, indeed!
If it is 1977 (the year of my birth) and I’m sold on my local Buick dealer, I’m choosing either the Regal or the Riviera.
Uncle Tim (my Dad’s brother) always liked to have something old, used, and not worth a whole lot to drive to his factory job. During my teen years he had a 1977 Lesabre coupe that was originally the same shade of red as the featured Regal but had faded to chalk by the time he got it. The Lesabre wore black wall tires and baby moon hubcaps. When Tim hit a deer with it he was able to drive it another 10 miles home the car was that tough.
JPC beat me too it. While this is a lovely old car at this point, it was among the weaker GM offerings.
A high school friend had access to his mom’s ’76 – ’77 era Regal coupe that we spent a lot of time in. It was a decent car as most GM A bodies were, but the styling on it was generic and dull compared to the others. The rear seems to be an amateurish reproduction of the rear of the ’77 Ford LTD II – made even worse if that is possible. This was reflected in the sales charts – the Regal was Buick’s best selling A, but fell way behind the Cutlass, Monte Carlo and Grand Prix. The worst best selling A, if that makes any sense.
I will credit the Regal with being better than the Chevy Malibu, which had terrible styling details that were poorly assembled with way too many misaligned pieces of plastic.
The ’76 – ’77 era Regal sedan and wagon are better looking than the coupe in my mind.
Having owned ’73 and ’76 A bodies, I’ll say that their rust resistance was noticeably improved on the later cars. They still rusted, but for owners that bought them new, rust was not a problem for the 5 or 6 years they had them. For the second owner, it was still game on for rust prevention and repair.
I’m in some disagreement with the interiors on these cars not being up to par, or somehow worse than the interiors of the ’72 car that it replaced. The ’72 was a relative low compared to the ’65 – ’67 era cars, just simple vinyl on cardboard with a tacked on armrest – a clean look but very cheap to produce. Look at the subject car – that isn’t bad for a 40 year old WHITE interior, the dash has no cracks, the door upper is soft touch vinyl and the lower is carpeted. Frankly, a bit softer than my modern cars which are considered fairly high trim levels. If you had a Malibu, or worse yet a base Chevelle, you had a crap interior with a Crack-O-Matic dash top, but these higher level cars were generally decent. For the anti-Brougham among you, this interior is actually fairly straightforward.
I didn’t notice JPC’s first comment on the Regal. I Guess I’m not the only one that that connected this to the LTD II.
Remember though the LTD II came out after this. Think 74 Riviera.
I’ve always liked those red and white interiors. Hard to keep the white seats clean unless you go vinyl or leather though.
I was the detail man for my mom’s 74 LuxLeMans with white vinyl seats and for my stepmom’s 74 Cutlass Supreme with full white vinyl interior. A big spray bottle of Formula 409 was my best friend. I think vinyl was the only choice. I am sure that white interior was not offered in cloth, and I don’t believe that leather was available at all.
It’s so funny you mentioned this. When I was a kid, I had a car washing “business,” and I also swore by Formula 409. As you can imagine in New Orleans with the heat, a lot of people went for light colored interiors, and the white vinyl seats were a popular choice. Two of my best customers, my mom with her ’75 Olds Ninety-Eight LS and my grandmother with the aforementioned ’76 Century Custom, both had white vinyl and I cleaned them a lot. The Formula 409 could get almost anything off those seats…
My first “decent” car was a beautiful silver 76 Regal Landau, bought used with about 40K on the odometer. It was everything my 69 Cougar was not, except fast. It was smooth, quiet, very reliable and so comfortable to drive on long trips. Gas mileage was lousy with the 350 engine, but power was OK.
The only repeating problem on the car was a radiator that frequently leaked near the top hose, likely due to the weight of the very long hose they used.
I sold it in 1981 to buy my very first brand new car, a 1982 Honda Accord hatchback.
While some scoff at the squared front end, it sold like hot cakes. The Cutlass Supreme went to #1 in ’76, the same year it went to square headlights. It’s what middle class buyers wanted, and single round headlights were ‘old looks’.
Also, so many compare the 73-77 A’s to the classic muscle car era being so much more popular with collectors now, but when new they sold well.
Love-or-hate? Definitely hate. I came of age at a time when square was in and these cars were all over a decade old, and they were all clapped-out rusty beat-to-crap oversized heaps being held together with wire and bubble gum. I still think they’re ugly oversized heaps, worse than what came before them and what came after.
I love this color combination but it strikes me as more 60’s than 70’s, especially the white vinyl interior which was so popular in GM cars in the 60’s. In 67 I had a chance to buy a 64 Olds convertible, white on red with white vinyl interior but my teen budget just could not stretch that far, even at the favorable price being offered by friends. Still think about that one that got away…
The exuberance of this color combo was needed during the dismal times of the late 70’s. I’ve never been a fan of the Colonnades but this one really stands out – incredible find in that condition on the East Coast.
The two door coupe of this Regal (same as the Century) had a shorter 112″ wheelbase unlike the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix which were already at 116″ wheelbase but it was just the hood elongations of the MC & GP made those distinctions. Anyway these RWD 1973-77 A-Bodied Coupes were just as cramped on the inside and trunk capacity if not worst than the RWD 1975-79 X-Bodied Coupes like the Chevy Nova and the Buick Skylark which were a size category below than the Regal.
My uncle used to work at the Framingham plant. Someone was selling a century coupe like this in my local craigslist.
I think the sedan was utterly hideous with the stacked headlights, The coupe at worst is bland in it’s squared off lines, but the Cutlass took the squared lines and managed to remain distinctive, the Regal looks like “a car”. The Regal really didn’t come into it’s own until the G body years IMO, but the Grand National may be clouding my judgement.
My 1976 Buick Century coupe served me well for 190,000 miles. I ordered it and bought it new. After twelve years, I sold it after it was broadsided by a pickup truck. 350 Buick V8. T375B transmission. Factory styled steel wheels. Upgraded interior. It liked to drink gasoline, but it was a comfortable cruiser. In my opinion, the slant nose and semi-fastback roof of the base Century worked better stylistically than the square nose and formal roof line of the Regal. My Buick was about ten years old when these photos were taken.
Such a sharp-looking car, Allan! A shame about its demise.
Another grainy photo of my 1976 Buick Century coupe!
The popularity of the last-year colonnades always baffled me. ’77 was the best selling year for the Cutlass and the Regal IIRC, despite internal competition from the downsized B-body which, especially for Buick, had vastly better interiors.
I did plenty of time in colonnade A’s, ’71-’76 B/Cs, and ’77-’90 B/Cs, and have to say despite the claims that the downsized B had all the interior space of the pre-shrunken ’71-’76 version, that the interior of the same-sized Colonnade sedans felt at least as big, and maybe larger, than the ’77 B body. Alot of this was due to the Colonnades’ frameless door glass and thinner pillars, especially around the C-pillar where the Colonnade 6-window body styling really opened up the rear-seat sightlines. But the Colonnade also felt wider; the rear wheels didn’t intrude as much on edge of the rear seatback, the footwells were wider, and the cowl a bit lower. Only in the trunk was the B substantially roomier. Now on the coupes it was a whole ‘nother story, what with the colonnades being on a shorter wheelbase and often featuring tiny opera windows, a sloped near-fastback rear window, or both.
The ’71-’76 definitely had more usable space inside. Even GM’s measurement showed they had about 3″ more shoulder and hip room than the downsized replacements. Seat width was up 1″, but that was because they eliminated most of the gap between the doors and the seat cushion. In actuality, the closeby doors and windows, the substantial tumblehome, the intrusion of the frame on the footwells, the larger driveshaft hump, intrusive rear wheels, cut-off rear seat cushion edges so you could fit your legs through the narrower doors, all meant that the last 6″ of rear seat width on either end was unusable. The ’77 B-body was really a 4-passenger car except for emergencies whereas the ’76 could easily fit six.
I saw this exact car driving down US 6 on the Cape about a month ago. Aside from the groovy color scheme, I remember the bumper stickers the missing bumper filler panels (I always check to see the condition of those panels on these old GMs)
Thought to myself, now THERE’S a Curbside Classic!
Awesome find!
CC effect, in effect!
every time I see stacked rectangular headlamps, I die a little inside.
Great write up Brendan! I’ve always been a diehard Ford man, but your statement “arguably better looking than anything similarly-sized over at Ford” is wholly false – the Collonades seemed light years ahead of the their Ford counterpart(s) in design, powertrains, and comfort.
This was Grandma’s last new car, dark green topped with white roof and interior, every option but power windows since “if I have a heart attack and drive off the bridge into the river, I want to be able to escape”. Seriosuly. Not that the heart attack or her soaked perpetual fur coat would have any bearing on her Houdini plan.
I ultimately inherited Gram’s Buick, where it sat unused 1800 miles away with my every intention of eventually restoring it. Once the reality of that not happening came into focus, I donated it to a local Buick enthusiast.
Both Gram and the Collonade Regal rocked.
The reason for the fixed rear quarter glass on the Collonades wasn’t that the automakers thought the public was demanding it. It was expected that the U.S. Government was going to pass stringent new rollover safety legislation in ’73, so the automakers designed their cars to be able to meet the proposed new regulations. Once those regulations failed to appear, the design cycle carried them through, and of course the public still bought them.
Once the fixed rear quarter glass was established, it was cheaper to produce, allowed for a bit more styling leeway as bodies didn’t have to be designed to fit the retracting glass and its gear, and it encouraged the addition of air conditioning to the invoice, which increased the price of the car and the profit margin.
I grew up in Flint, Michigan. My foster mom briefly had an almost identical Regal coupe (briefly because her husband kept buying new cars, not because she disliked it. In fact, as I recall, she liked it quite well.) I wound-up driving a ’75 Malibu sedan for a year or so, later on. The mid-’70s A bodies were good cars, albeit prone to rust in Michigan (all the salt on the roads.)
GM used to have a sort of cycle, where they’d expand their model, trim, and color options and then pare them back, viciously, only to have them expand out again. The reason they gave for standardizing upon a few generic color options and not restyling at least the front and rear clip every year was that they were following European design philosophies. In reality, it was simply cheaper and they were terrified of the competition from the new, cheaper, Japanese imports. None of the so-called ‘Big Three’ could understand why said imports were selling so well and making such inroads into their market share.
Back in the ’70s, a two-door car was considered far more youthful and sleek, while a four-door vehicle was a sign that one had settled-down, gotten stodgy, and started a family. The lines of the coupes were also considered to be much better and more attractive. (In many two-car families, you’d see Dad driving a coupe and Mom stuck with either a sedan or a wagon.) Rectangular headlamps were newly possible, and allowed the hood line to be lowered, significantly. Stacked rectangular headlamps were an attempt to harken back to the stacked round ‘lamps of the mid-sixties. That had…mixed results. And, of course, the flowing lines of the ’60s and early ’70s had become too familiar and dated. The public was liking more formal, edged styling, which progressed to the ‘three-box’ styles of the ’80s, as typified by the next generation Regal, which Buick touted as its “Little Limousine.” Those sold like hotcakes, initially.
Think I’d rather have this Ford offering over that granny Regal…
Ford LTD II Sport
Power Nation TV Muscle Car did a restoMod on an A body Buick, calling it Blue Collar-
https://www.powernationtv.com/episode/MC2011-02/blue-collar-buick-upgrades-part-1
I was 12 when these came out and my Dad took my brother to the Auto show that year and, as then, boo to the square headlights.
I am certainly sure that internal competitions between cars in the same divisions became more apparent especially when the GM RWD B & C-Bodied cars were downsized for 1977 which competed against the “lame duck” RWD A-Bodies. Same can be said when the GM RWD A (later G) Bodies were downsized in 1978 competing against the RWD X-Bodies through 1979. Although no mentions about the time when the RWD X-Bodies were downsized and converted to FWD in mid-1979 competing against the GM RWD H-Bodies which also carried on for two more years even though the late-1980 leftover Chevy Monza and the like were unofficially considered “1981” because the GM FWD J-Bodies Chevy Cavalier and its divisional cousins didn’t became available late Spring 1981 as 1982 models as their replacements.
The Buick Regal and Oldsmobile Cutlass were redesigned for 1976. They then used the same body with only a different front grill and taillights. They were much more similar than they had been for 73-75. They were built in Framingham MA. They switched to Lumina et al production. GM wanted to put an addition onto the factory to build the “Dustbuster” vans. The town of Framingham said NO. So GM shifted production to Canada and closed the entire factory. Framingham lost their number one employer. It has never really recovered.