(first posted 1/7/2015) Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t describe the styling elements of this 1984 Buick Electra Limited, or any other upscale/luxury American car from this era, as subtle. With waterfall grille, hood ornament, chrome rocker panels, wire wheels, vinyl roof, landau bar, and opera lights, this Electra exhibits all the requisite gingerbread of the Great Brougham Epoch. But while some cars slathered the bling on to the point of looking like a vehicular Liberace, these final RWD C-body Buicks applied these elements in a somewhat tasteful, uncluttered manner.
This generation Electra first appeared in 1977, when GM concurrently downsized all of its full-size B- and C-body cars. The 1977 Electra lost almost a foot in length, over two inches in width, and several hundred pounds of weight over the 1976 model. These new Electras were still big cars however, and continued to offer the space and presence that Buick’s flagship was known for. They proved to be quite popular too, with first year sales totaling over 160,000 units.
Over the course of its eight-year run, the Electra went through three distinct styling periods. 1977-1978 models were characterized by their vertical grilles (12-section in ’77, finer egg crate-style in ’78), reverse-slanting headlights with lower wraparound turn signals, ventiports, and sharp vestigial tail fins. Coupes sported large opera windows and a rakish roofline similar to that of the LeSabre coupe. 1979 Electras were treated to a new, more vertical front end clip that made them look very similar to the ’79 Chrysler Newport.
In 1980, Buick reverted to the 1977-78 style front clip, but with new slimmer headlights with integral side turn signals. Rear corners were blunter, and the rooflines of both the coupe and sedan were more vertical. These small changes gave the Electra a more formal and cleaner appearance than in preceding years.
Formality was only enhanced in the following years. By 1984, exterior colors were more subdued (no more baby blue, pea green, or banana yellow) and interiors were less, well…brothel-like. There was still plenty of soft cushiony velour and oh-so obviously fake wood trim galore, but its execution was simpler and less gaudy than before.
Despite its downsizing, the Electra was still very much a full-size car. Wheelbase was a lengthy 118.9 inches, and overall length was 221.3 inches. For comparison, a 2015 Buick LaCrosse rides on a 111.7-inch wheelbase, and overall it is 196.9 inches long. Even with modern cars’ space efficiency, this ’83 Electra naturally boasts more rear leg, hip, and shoulder room. Buick’s use of lighter-tone bird’s eye maple-like plastiwood gave its interiors an airier feel than many competitors. This was especially evident in the rear, where many large coupe’s interiors were downright claustrophobic.
Even after 30 years, the face on this Buick still looks proud and majestic. Its simple, elegant lines convey the understated elegance that Buick has long been known for. To some, luxury will never be anything less than a Cadillac, but to others, cars like this unpretentious Electra better fit their definition of luxury.
Much like today’s luxury and fully-loaded non-luxury cars (for example, Cadillac XTS and Buick LaCrosse), there really wasn’t a huge difference in the content of the 1984 Buick Electra and Cadillac Coupe deVille. Sure, the Cadillac displayed more distinctive, bolder exterior and interior styling. But beyond the Caddy’s special paint options, interior finishes, and exclusive, albeit less reliable engines, the Buick could be equipped with nearly every comfort and convenience luxury in which its Cadillac platform mate could. To many people, the biggest difference in luxury was the greater prestige the Cadillac name exuded. As the slogan stated, “Best of all… it’s a Cadillac”.
So for those who preferred a regal rendezvous with a little less flash, this Electra was their kind of luxury car. To them, best of all… it wasn’t a Cadillac.
Lose the half vinyl roof.It looks like Joe Dirt’s haircut,not a bad looking car otherwise.When these were new the only GM cars that interested me were the F bodies and I paid Buicks no attention
My dad had one and this is the thing I will always remember – the steering wheel wasn’t centered in front of you. If you had the luxury interior, the driver sat to the right of the steering wheel. Instead, the steering wheel was about two inches to the left.
I told my dad that it looked like the committee that designed the seats didn’t meet with the committee that designed the instrument panel that didn’t meet with the committee designing the steering wheel, that didn’t meet with the engineers. It is possible that the entry level bench seat in the LeSabre was able to have the driver sit centered in front of the steering wheel, but the soft crushed velour seats in his Park Avenue sat the driver too far to the right.
It was one of the strangest problems I ever encountered in any car.
That’s the opposite of the usual problem, the controls being closer to the center line than the driver’s seating position seems to have been a fairly common ergonomic problem in some cars like GM’s own T-car (Chevette).
I remember that offset. The base front seats were oddly shaped and too close to the floor if not power adjustable. The rear seats turned you toward the center of the car because of the wheelwells.
Thank you for confirming this.
So then, how could someone pay top dollar for a car that has a non-centered steering wheel? Amazing!
“Wheelbase was a lengthy 118.9 inches, and overall length was 221.3 inches. For comparison, a 2015 Buick LaCrosse rides on a 111.7-inch wheelbase, and overall it is 196.9 inches long. Even with modern cars’ space efficiency, this ’83 Electra naturally boasts more rear leg, hip, and shoulder room.”
Good point, but even though it’s currently the largest Buick sedan, I’ve always thought of the LaCrosse as more of a successor to the Regal, not the Electra and LeSabre.
The hip and shoulder room difference is largely due to overall width: Depending on the model year, the Electra is six to seven inches wider than the LaCrosse. Add in the structure required to meet today’s side impact standards, and it’s not surprising that interiors are getting narrower (and alas, we Baby Boomers are getting wider).
The LaCrosse is a mid-size car introduced for 2006 that was originally the linear successor to the Century / Regal that had been combined to one basic car for 1997-2005.
The LaCrosse became the defacto flagship sedan as GM slashed model production during its bankruptcy. The death of the Lucerne elevated the LaCrosse.
Buick is seriously lacking a credible flagship car.
The current Lacrosse is actually full-size, and in size at least is just fine for the Buick division’s flagship. It’s a platform twin to the XTS and Impala. I think the equipment/trim/engines are what make it lack credibility as a flagship. If GM had anything bigger lying around, I’d say to give Buick a version of it, but for the time being this is it.
Also these Electras were only three inches wider than the current Lacrosse – 75.9 versus 72.9. Almost 2.5 feet longer though at 222″ vs. 197″.
I’m a bit less than clear about the definition of full-size and mid-size. It seems like there was at one time an EPA interior volume number that classified cars, but the manufacturers tend to use the term that best suits their marketing plans.
FWIW, Buick markets the car as a mid-size:
http://www.buick.com/lacrosse-luxury-mid-size-sedan.html
The LaCrosse has enjoyed some upgrades since defaulting into the flagship position. But, for me, the name’s history as a Buick Century replacement, being a rather cramped vehicle, and its status as a 111.7″ wheelbase vehicle that replaced the 115.6″ wheelbase Lucerne as the flagship leaves it rather lacking.
For what its worth, the EPA classifies the LaCrosse as midsize, along with the CTS sedan (2014 model). They (EPA) class the XTS and Impala as full size. The LaCrosse interior volume is about 100 cubic feet plus 11 for cargo. XTS is 104 + 18; Impala is 105 + 19. I think the LaCrosse is still an older and smaller version of the platform it is on.
The CTS sedan is 97 + 14.
Isn’t that color “Dusk Rose?” My parents’ ’83 LeSabre Coupe was that color. I wasn’t a big fan of the car at the time, but the styling has aged pretty well. The Electra, if anything, looks better.
This one is Code 62 “Light Brown”. I had an ’84 Cutlass Supreme in an identical color scheme to this Electra.
It seemed like every other mid-80s B-body was this light brown color, at least in my neighborhood. We, however, had our baby blue ’78 Estate Wagon.
Be still my heart…for I will always have a soft spot within you for the RWD B/C Body Buicks
May favorite Buick B body of this era would be the 1985 Buick Le Sabre sedan. It looks very much like the Electra but I prefer the tail light treatment on the Le Sabre. A picture of which can be found here:
http://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2012/02/06/22/42/1985_buick_lesabre-pic-2558822216640419134.jpeg
84s had the same Electra front and rear styling, but the 85 Limiteds were all Collector’s Editions that came with the Electra Park Avenue interior in velour or (very rare) leather. Definitely one of my favorite B’s as well.
Nice catch by Brendan on this one, though. Around here, the Electra Limiteds were always less common than the plusher Park Avenues, and the 80+ Coupes were exceedingly rare in any trim level.
These were actually C bodies, although this generation was fairly closely related to the slightly smaller B.
Are you suggesting that earlier C Bodies weren’t? Seems to me the C has just been a slightly stretched (in length) B since 1959. They’re all the same width (not counting variations on exterior sheetmetal), aren’t they?
The 1963-1964 Cadillac Coupe deVille uses the same roof structure as the Impala four door hardtop, etc, etc…
Before 1959, the C Body was totally distinct in every way, but not ever since.
If we take a peek at 1955 for body width:
Cadillac – series 62 is not quite 80 inches
Roadmaster is 80
Super is 80
Century is 76.2
Special is 76.2
Olds 98 is 77.8
super 88 is 77.8
Olds 88 is 77.8
Chevy is 73.8
Pontiac is 75.4 all variations.
So I do see that Chevrolet is an A body with a width of under 75 inches. The C bodies seem to be over 78 if the Olds 98 is really a B body. Otherwise I do not see a definitive difference between B and C.
That being said, my understanding of the basic difference between the bodies has more to do with positioning of the A, B and C pillars and the door sizes to fit into that space than any thing. My perception is that the basic styling of the A, B and C bodies is similar.
Prior to 1959, there were no significant shared components/dimensions between the C/B Bodies and the A Bodies. The B/Cs were bigger in every dimension than the A, and their design was significantly different. The Cs were lengthened Bs.
That all ended in 1959, when everyone shared the same basic body, and the A Body designation disappeared, only difference between the B and C was length. And that’s how it stayed until the end of the RWD era.
One can bolt on front B Body clips right to C Body Cars. Here’s a C Body Electra sporting a B-Body front clip:
I think that you have just said that the B and C bodies are basically the same. I’m not sure that is true. The 1959 Electra 225 has more rear seat leg room than the Invicta. I don’t know if this means there is a difference in the bodies or not, but I think there is.
Chevrolets were clearly a smaller body than the lower end Buick and Oldsmobiles, I don’t know much about Pontiac. At the end of the 50’s Chevrolets were moved to the so called B body. The compact car era was beginning and I think GM wanted to reduce the number of bodies for larger sized cars.
Being able to bolt a B front end onto a C does not mean much to me. Can you interchange all of the doors?
My understanding of B-body versus C-body, at least from the ’59 onward, was that the architecture was the same but the C-body rode a longer wheelbase.
To Chris M
If you look at a 1951 Bel Air 2 door hardtop or 4 door sedan and compare with a RoadMaster 2 door hardtop or the 4door sedan, I see that the C-pillars are very similar, which to my way of thinking suggests that the A bodies and C bodies have similar architecture, both of which may be based on the basic B architecture.
The ’59 and later B / C cars mainly varied by wheelbase. Beginning in ’71, the typical wheelbase stretch was an additional 3 inches for the C cars over the B. This became especially uniform after the 1977 downsizing and the general move away from large cars being the primary volume sellers.
For most GM four door cars, the B and C was essentially identical from the B pillar forward, except for some trim differences. In other words, a front door from a Buick LeSabre would usually fit a Buick Electra. Front clips would easily swap between cars.
The rear doors, rear quarters, and rear portions of the roof lines on the C cars normally carried different styling from the B cars, partially to accommodate the longer wheelbase, partially to expand trunk interior volume, and also to justify the rather vast mark-up on Cs, considered luxury cars, vs. Bs, considered family cars.
Just for fun and confusion, there was also the D body, which was generally just a further stretched B/C car. During the ’77-’84 era, the Cadillac DeVille rode a 121.5 inch C body (vs. 118.9 for the Buick and Old C body), and the Fleetwood rode a 121.5 inch D body. You didn’t even get a wheelbase stretch in your D body in those years! The D got you a slightly modified B pillar where pillar sheet metal was flush with the main roof panel.
The end game is that after 1958 the B, C, D bodies were endless permutations of the same basic platform. Umm, that is before the body designations began to get jumbled up again after 1984.
But from what I see is that the C bodies do have more rear seat leg room in the 50’s and 60’s and even the down sized late 70’s, early 80’s. This implies that there is some difference in the basic body between the B and C.
@ SomeOneInTheWildWest: Absolutely, the C almost always had more rear legroom than the B. The wheelbase stretch implies a longer car. In the case of the GM B / C, this stretch was almost always aft of the B pillar, and the rear seat floor pan was stretched out.
Now, there are the weird cases of B’s that had wheelbases as long as C’s. And C’s as long as D’s, so you got no legroom bonus on those cars.
The general pattern was that you got a longer wheelbase with each successive letter designation, but not always.
@Dave B
The real question is not the wheelbase, but where is the C-pillar relative to the B-pillar. Note that there is a chopped off B-pillar on hardtops to hang the rear door on or to latch the front door. Interior dimensions are determined by how the body is designed. With a body on frame, the front wheels can be moved forward or back relative to the front bumper without changing the body. Also the rear wheels can move forward or back relative to the rear bumper. There are limits obviously, but the wheelbase does not directly determine the interior space. Once you have the body designed, the wheels have to fit in somewhere. Chevy Impalas were always shorter wheelbases than the LeSabre, but leg room is the same.
Yes, From 1959 until 1984 The “B/Cs” were highly related Mostly involving length, minor roof and rear door differences. After 1984 It gets typical GM confusing, The RWD “C” Cadillac became a “D” (Formerly “D” was just for LWB Series 75s) The “C” became FWD, the “lesser” versions to be released in ’86 had to be called “H” as there was still an RWD “B” (1 more year RWD LeSabre,88s ETC even longer for Caprice & some wagons). I call all standard full size ’59-’84 GMs “B/Cs” just to avoid arguments! Not nearly as easy as “Fox” or “Panther”!
It seems like up until 1985, if GM introduced a new design that was intended as a direct replacement for an earlier one, the new design got the existing body designation, and if any models remained in production using the old design, they had to get a new body designation. So when the FWD replacement for the A-body arrived in 1982, it got the A-body designation, and the RWD ex-A-bodies that remained in production were redesignated as G-bodies. And when the FWD replacement for the C-body arrived in 1985, it got the C-body designation, and the RWD ex-C-bodies that remained in production were redesignated as D-bodies.
With the introduction of the FWD replacement for the B-body in 1986, this apparently changed. The RWD models that remained in production kept the B-body designation, and the FWDs got a new one (H-body).
For the sedans, I’ve always preferred those late LeSabres as well for its slightly simpler grille and that clean taillamp treatment. However, on the coupe, I like the Electra better as I think the semi-skirted rear wheels work better with the 2-door’s lines. The LeSabre coupes of the era just look slightly off somehow.
Also, nice find–B- and C- body coupes are uncommon in general these days, but the Electra coupes seem to be perhaps the rarest of the bunch.
I agree. The rear of the 1977-1979 series were “all Buick” The 1980 facelift was nice, But the rear end on the “C” Body Buick looked like a Chrysler New Yorker. For all of the “unpopularity” of the Mopar “R” Body, GM must have liked it Not only was it emulated here, 4 years later offered the “Preimere Roof” on the Cadillac Brougham. (“Hey…now your 1988 Caddy can look like a 1980 NYer 5th Ave!)
Meanwhile the 1985 LeSabre’s backside was “all Buick”. Overall though I personally think that Buick’s dash was the best of any of the “B/C” cars of this generation, and I’m including Cadillac!
’85 was the last year of this body. In ’86 the LeSabre went to the much smaller front-wheel drive H-body, which would continue through 1991. The Electra became the Park Avenue and would share the H-body platform of the LeSabre.
this is exactly the sort of car they should still be making. the only thing wrong with these was the low powered engines and now they could have twice the power AND better mileage. but instead we get cushy trucks and European sport sedans.
Or cramped space inefficient sedans that are hard to see out of with tiny trunks and just as much weight as this larger real full sized sedan. Yes Buick I am speaking of your current Lacrosse!
The bodies on these tanks were not designed to keep you alive in the event of a crash like new cars do. My CTS’s ride is every bit as good as the 78 Olds Regency that I once owned.
Something must have been terribly wrong with the shocks or suspension on your 98, then.
Yea, they were not computer controlled magnetic shocks.
Nope. Shorter wheelbase. Might handle better but won’t have a softer, balanced ride.
I’ve always preferred this generation of Electra to the Deville of that era. The styling is elegant, dignified and less ostentatious. To me they look classier than the 80s Town Cars and the interiors are much nicer than the panther’s. Sadly, where I live these Electras have all been used up and have disappeared.
My grandparents had a 1981 4 door Electra, grey inside and out. I remember it constantly having problems (this would have been around 1989-1990), even breaking down several times while riding in it, my grandfather very frustrated as he tried to get it running. Those experiences led me to think of the Electra as a bad car as an impressionable child. As an adult, I now realize that it probably was actually better than most other comparable cars of that era and I feel a strong sense of nostalgia when I think about them or see one. Although this isn’t at all the size or type of car I’ve ever owned (or probably will ever own), I have a particularly high amount of respect for someone who keeps something like this in nice shape.
The C body Buick of this generation is the one I have not owned. I came close with a B body LeSabre that I owned for 3 weeks. These were nice cars, let down by being underpowered. The 307 was OK, but a larger engine would have made these so much more pleasant.
My Olds 98 had this same interior color. I always liked the classic look of the Buick dash.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that they needed a larger engine. It’s just that GM was supposed to incorporate more technology into the Olds 307 and Chevy 305 starting with the 1982 model year with fuel injection and higher compression etc but decided to let these engines go untouched up until 1985. But it was only the 305 that got a power bump with higher 9.5:1 compression and a knock sensor. It went up to 165 Hp and 245 torque. The 307 was retuned for better mileage but also less top end air flow and power but it did add greater running behavior and more low end torque for quicker throttle response. Hp remained at a rather low 140 but torque went up to 255 at a low 2000 rpm’s.
Because of impending Cafe mileage requirements, the second 1979/80 gas scare and upcoming emissions laws GM had plans to fuel inject all the 5.0 liter V8’s in there arsenal on the full size cars and that would have added much needed power and mileage as timeworn on. But as we know gas never went up again or became short and cafe relaxed it’s 22.5 rating and it never strayed from there so GM kept most of these engines carbureted in the older car lines such as the E, G, B and C body cars. Fuel injection and distributor-less ignition were saved for pet projects at Buick for there upcoming 3.8 SFI turbo V6 and Chevy eventually treated the small block 305 to Tuned port injection.
GM could have saved so much money, time and aggravation and had far more happier customers if they spent the money on fuel injection and overdrive transmissions instead of woefully underpowered carbureted V6’s, diesels, 8-6-4 multi displacement engines etc. A 307 olds with roller lifters, throttle body injection, higher compression and better head design tied to a 200R-4 or 700R-4 and decent 2.73 or 3.08 rear gears would have been just what the doctor ordered during this time era with a nice 170-180 Hp figure. Mileage would probably have been the same or better to what the underpowered 140 HP carbureted engine put out because the engine would not have needed to work so hard.
This is totally accurate; I was only six when my parents bought their LeSabre, but I remember it being really lethargic with its 307, three-speed automatic, and (almost certainly) tall gearing. Dad always said that the car really needed around a 350-cubic inch engine.
In 1980 Dad was shopping for a Buick Century Sedan with the 3.8L V-6, which we eventually bought. Remember the dealer trying to upsell him into a LeSabre with the same V6, claiming that one could get pretty much the same fuel economy but with more room (remember, this was at the time of the Iran hostage crisis and fuel prices zoomed up).
If you’re saying the LeSabre was sluggish with even the 307 V8, it’s a really good thing we didn’t get the V6 powered LeSabre, as tempting as it was.
I don’t disagree with all that you say. CAFE was the big issue, and this platform was aging, thus a lack of enthusiasm for more investment.
In a perfect world though, there has never been a simpler, less expensive torque booster than in increase in cubic inches. With a good runing 307, these weren’t horrible (like a B/C body with the V6). However, while the 307 was serviceable, something like the Olds/Buick 350 would have been a treat.
I can attest to the 350 being really nice, having owned a 307-200R4 and 350-350 car in succession.
It’s not like the 350-350 powered car is a rocket but you can always keep up with traffic, even up hills. The difference is so noticeable, because the same could not be said for the 307-200R4; it was fine around town but entering the highway on a short exit ramp or climbing a steep hill at turnpike speeds was iffy at best, scary at worst. I remember trying to launch my ’87 Brougham onto the Wilbur Cross parkway from the stupid exits they have with stop signs. An F250 bore down on me doing about 80 in the 55 as I prayed that sluggish old crate would get up to 60 in time to avoid getting pate’d. He merged left just in time as another car in the left lane saw my predicament and held back. The 350 powered car has never had that happen. Floor it and it will kick down and move. Floor the 307 car and it kicks down and roars but doesn’t go any faster.
I think the ideal solution would have been to develop a good 700R4 sooner, as well as an overdrive 400 (roughly an earlier 4L80), so those could be hooked up with the 350 and 425 engines and kicked up the highway mileage. If they had done that, they might have been able to meet the standards and still give the cars decent power, even without EFI (which obviously they should have pursued too in hindsight). They finally figured out how to do that in the ’90-’92 Broughams but it was 10 years too late then.
FWIW, GM did put overdrive transmissions in these cars, probably starting in 1981. They were kind of fragile, the tranny in my ’82 Delta 88 blew up. The independent shop I went to recommend that I install a rebuilt THM 350 transmission, and so it was done. City driving was about the same, but the gear “hunting” problem on the highway was eliminated. The selector points on the dash were a bit off due to the lack of overdrive.
I drove my Olds 350 V-8 equipped ’76 Cutlass and my 307 equipped ’82 Delta 88 back to back. The newer car experience did not feel like progress!
Typical of GM, this overdrive transmission was introduced too early and consumers became the product testers. That didn’t turn out too well. The later versions were much better, after 1983.
Even my One-owner 84 Olds 98 required a tranny rebuild at 57K miles.
On the other hand, the 200R4 in my ’87 Cadillac Brougham had 175K on it and was still butter smooth with only fluid and filter changes every 30K as per the manual (no flushes, ever). I think eventually they were okay, but by then…
Never experienced a 200R-4 go bad in any of my GM sleds from 1982-1990. The early build 700R-4’s however had known issues until about 1986. But then I was religious about fluid changes and even installed auxiliary tranny coolers on some of the higher mileage examples.
Irony. This coming from the guy with “12 oil changes and tires on my used Acura, nothing else!!!” except the replaced fuckin transmission he omits every time! Big talk there!
What are you talking about?
First, if you need to use such language, I really shouldn’t bother replying, but…..
The transmission on my Acura was replaced in 2005, six years before I bought it. If you look at my COAL on it, or the recent bit I posted about my road trip, I mentioned it both times.
The early GM overdrive automatics failed early. We never replaced them; we swapped in rebuilt THM 350 ‘ s.
Now, why are you trolling here?
L.L.Lips, aka: Yanns Mohrtenssen
So why are you hiding behind an alias now? That’s a classic troll maneuver.
You can’t fool Paul. Lol
🙂
As my late friend Mike from Arizona said so often, “You could making being stupid illegal, but they’d be too dumb to understand the law.”
Sheesh, it’s old cars, man. It doesn’t mean a pinch of anything if one transmission in a 30 year old car was as bad as another. It’s supposed to be fun. Stop being so darned silly. Be nice, like they talk about in those church places Angry White Men go to a lot.
I suggest you get a pet. They have to get out.
Buicks had just the right number of round dials to imply performance. When I was shopping for an X-Car, I counted the Skylark’s dash as my favorite. I ended up buying a Phoenix because the upright grill on the Buick was to geriatric for my tastes, but the Pontiac’s Dash was their typical riot of round gauges in square tiles with a torx screw every 2 inches or so. It said “performance”, or rather, yelled it.
Here’s that Skylark dash.
This reminds me how I was amazed that GM was able to get a very different look out of the greenhouse of the 2 door Olds 98, even though they undoubtedly shared roof stampings and glass. The Olds managed to get a little curve where the beltline meets the C pillar, while the Buick is quite angular. Not sure which I like better. Both are attractive.
Both are attractive, but I have to give the Olds the nod.
I wish the Buick had come with fender skirts like the Olds. And I’ll never understand why the Cadillac didn’t, given its predecessors. Of course, now that they’re all part of the past I’m glad of the variety but surprised it didn’t shake out differently among the models in the design studio.
Though it probably goes without saying, I’d give this one a BIG thumbs-up! Clean, straight, just the right amount of doors, tastefully chosen colors/options (though I’d want to lose the opera lights and spoke covers), and the bumper fills are even mostly intact.
Is it possible that this one is a little newer than ’83, though? I thought the digital ETR stereos didn’t come until ’84 or ’85.
Swap those common spoke covers for some of the dished alloys that were available on the late-run Electra Estate wagons and you’d be in business!
This stereo looks correct for the car to me. It has the early style cassette player and probably the early digital display also. They were commonly found in Cadillacs of this era, and I seem to recall them lasting longer in Cadillacs before being changed over to the “modern” 84+ style.
yep, the ETR 2000 series
Keith, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I photographed this car last year, including the VIN number, which I decoded when I got home. The 10th digit is “E” which would make it a 1984. For some reason I have had these images saved on my computer in a folder “1983 Buick Electra Limited”, and didn’t bother to re-check the VIN numbers. I’ve corrected all mention of 1983 in the post. Thanks again!
Speaking of engines this featured car came std with Buick’s 4.1 liter 4 BBL V6 with 125 HP and 205 torque tied exclusively to the 200R-4 overdrive transmission with the options of the Olds 307 4BBL 140 Hp and 240 torque and same transmission or the 5.7 diesel with 105 HP and 200 torque. These engines were adequate in the lighter G-body cars and tolerable in the B’s but the heavier 4000 plus LB C-body range deserved more power.
The C body Buicks from 1977 up are beautiful, elegant cars. The over the top Park Avenue with it’s acres of gathered velour and faux wood still holds a spot in my heart.
Even though I prefer the 1977 to 1979 body style, the 1980 redesign did come out looking very nice. The 1980 and up Park Avenue coupes with the full “toupee style” vinyl roofs looked better than the Limited coupes roof treatment. I always felt that a true Landau style roof had to have real opera windows, totally surrounding the windows.
The color of the feature car is beautiful, and was very popular on a lot of the B and C body cars offered from Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and Cadillac. Cadillac called it “Woodland Haze”. If I recall correctly, Oldsmobile paired this color with a deep reddish color interior, which looked amazing. Not sure if that combination was available on the others.
Let’s not forget one other fabulous design feature of the 1977 and up Buick B and C body cars… The dashboard !!! It’s beautiful round gauges with silver faces were so simple but elegant. Could you imagine how it would have looked with real wood? This dash board was, IMHO, the best out of all the full sized GM cars.
There were other similar colors that Cadillac offered for 1983 and 1984, the lighter version was called Briar Firemist and the darker version was Briar Brown. Very popular colors indeed!
The Buick B & C bodies did have those silver faced-gauges intitially, but later switched to white on black gauges. As did the 1978 era A bodies and later X body (Citation series).
Wonder why? Granted, the silver gauges were prone to glare and reflections, but I’m guessing the change could have been due to cost considerations.
I can’t help think of my Great Aunt when I see this car. She and her husband had a condo in Del Ray Beach, and their Florida car was a 83-84 burgundy, 4 door version of this Buick Electra.
This memory would have been in Feb of 1986, my first trip south from Central Mass, at 8 years old. Back home, she was driving 1978 Cutlass 2 door, and he had a brand new 1986 Fleetwood Caddy with some gold chrome and all.
Unfortunately, he died in the fall of 86 at 61 years young. The Caddy was sold immediately, one of my degenerate uncles got Olds, and my Aunt got a new 1986 Buick Regal 2 door, white with blue roof.
She kept the Electra in FL for a few more years, then she must have sold it, and just started shipping the Regal back and forth for the winter. She drove the Regal for 11 years before getting a 1997 Camry, then 2011 Camry, and now has a 2014 Camry…which will be getting shipped down in January. Not bad for an 87 year old lady.
I think these GM late 70s through mid 80s big coupes and sedans are some of the nicest looking cars ever built.
What makes this car a little cleaner than some broughams is that the Limited trim was the base Electra for 1983. The Park Avenue was the top dog, and it’s seat pillows were less subtle. It is actually nice to see some of these base trims, they really were sometimes “enough.” Kind of like big Ford trucks today – beyond the Lariat trim, Ford trowels on trim and features that nobody needs for a comfortable driving experience.
A buddy’s dad had a 1978 Park Avenue for a company car. He was about 40, and found the interior to be “coffin like.” I never heard the bordello reference when these cars were new, that seems to be a phenomenon of the twenty teens.
The ’83 Park Avenue interior………
If we look at this vehicle holistically, we can see some things we don’t appreciate. However, it is better to look at this vehicle contemporarily, because that would be a better way to judge it.
These were affordable large cars made by an American car company. Consequently, each sale was good for the US economy. So, not only did we benefit from the financial support, these cars gave their buyers a level of affordable comfort which is an admirable attribute coming and going.
GM succeeded in giving us cars that were reliable and better than the vehicles they replaced. Body on frame, rear drive and V8 was expected by American consumers at this time and GM met and exceeded those expectations, driving their share of the auto market into dominating half of it by 1980.
Tasteful, good cars that we should indeed celebrate as a part of our vehicular heritage.
This however presages that buyers were willing to plunk their cash on the hoods of these cars. By 1980, sales of big body on frame sleds were diving fast, as the market changed. High fuel prices were part of it, but the real reason was that their buyers were simply dying off in droves. I entered the new car market about the time this car was made, and there is no way I would have bought a big sled. There were simply too many other choices out there. In addition these cars were NOT cheap.
GM axed these cars because the market was changing into SUV’s and trucks, even at this point. The basic product went back to the 1964 Chevelle and by 1985, it was due to be replaced. Just how GM replaced it was the issue. They didn’t have to go FWD, and they didn’t have to have such poor quality. An RWD car with OHC V-6, until body and all independent suspension would have made a great car, but it was not going to happen.
In this era GM lost the customer base they had so carefully built from its inception. There simply wasn’t an good entry level car in their lineup for a very, very long time.
RWD BOF drivers were dying off by 1980? Not here. Nor were they buying SUVs or transporting their families in pickups. Heck, the term “SUV” didn’t even come about until about 1990. I’d say you’re about 10 years off, sorry.
Have a look at their sales figures. They peaked in 1977, held steady in ’78 and 1979 and dived due to high fuel prices in 1980. Perhaps they were popular in the fly over states, but in the coast, they were dead ducks by 1982.
IS THERE A REASON THIS DEROGATORY TERM HAS REMAINED YET MY RESPONSE TO IT WAS DELETED? I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO CENSOR B.S. LIKE THIS??? OR ONLY WHEN IT MATCHES YOUR VIEWS AND AGENDA???! RIDICULOUS!!!! NICE TO SEE HYPOCRISY IN FULL SWING THERE, PAUL.
The term “fly over states” is not generally considered derogatory. Until just now, I never knew it was considered so by some. I just thought it meant “Mid West” or so.
Doing some googling on the subject shows that it is considered mildly pejorative by some, mostly depending on usage. Clearly, it wasn’t being used in a pejorative way here.
I don’t see see it being considered “derogatory” in the context of that comment. How is it derogatory?
But if you don’t agree, you’re free to to do what you said you were going to do.
GM made these cars up to 1996 with a new body in 1990.
Ford made Panthers from 1979 up to 2011 – 32 years.
I don’t know what was happening in Canada at that time, but in the US millions were sold after 1980.
You might have been in the market in 1980, but you probably didn’t need a car that seated six. So naturally you wouldn’t have considered one of these very fine, capable and celebrated cars. Have you ever had one? You comment could also lead a reader to believing you are rather biased against these vehicles, regardless, and wouldn’t give them a fair shake anyway.
Finally, GM didn’t lose market share because of these cars. Within five years after they rolled off the assembly lines, GM had 60% of the US auto market, thanks to these cars. Don’t confuse an X-car with these fine road vehicles.
I drove body on frame cars all the time in our taxi business, and I have owned several B and C bodies, and driven them at length. The fact is, by 1985, there were simply other cars that attracted my attention.
“Have you ever had one?”
In fact, I have had scores of them, and probably hundreds. The best was a 1985 Olds Delta Royale and the worst was a 1980 Caprice with 267 V-8. My 1978 LeSabre was a close second. I don’t see a bias here, I have written on GM sleds extensively here, extolling my love for them.
It is just time marches on, and body on frame, drum brakes in rear, iron pushrod engines and recirculating ball steering were pretty long in the tooth by 1985.
Within five years after they rolled off the assembly lines, GM had 60% of the US auto market, thanks to these cars.
OMG, now what are you smoking, VD? 🙂
GM’s all-time highest US market share was 50.7% in 1962. GM’s last market share “high” was 1978, with 46%. It dropped steadily thereafter. GM’s market share dropped all through the 80s. By 1990, it was 35%.
Five years after the downsized B-Bodies arrived (1977) would be 1982, by which time GM’s market share was under 40%.
Let’s not make up “facts” to support our feelings.
Hey, when someone does not confirm my bias, my emotions become facts!
“The General Motors market share in the US fell from 62.6% to 19.8% between 1980 and 2009, noticed Susan Helper and Rebecca Henderson. Helper is now the chief economist at the US commerce department, and Henderson is a management professor at Harvard.”
theguardian.com
You both are wrong, yet again. How you gonna choke that one down?
The real story on market share is here:
http://www.economist.com/node/13724698
Easy; she’s dead wrong. Won’t be the first time an academic or so-called “expert” got the numbers wrong. I googled for her report: it’s hysterical/sad: she totally bungled her numbers (1980 market share), and no one called her on it. I intend to write her an e-mail if I can find her address. Truly pathetic.
Google “GM US market share 1980. You’ll get a lot of different sources, except for that one, all of which will confirm that it wasn’t “62.6%”.
That number is utterly ridiculous; GM never had a 62.6% share of the market, ever.. And anyone with a bit of actual command of history would know that. You not included, obviously.
I sent an email to Henderson at Harvard.
It’s actually correct. You have CAR stats. Does not include trucks. So yeah, 60% of the market is correct.
Get a grip. Car sales/market share by company are always for “light vehicles” which includes passenger cars and light trucks. Only medium and heavy-duty trucks are excluded, which are not significant, especially in GM’s case.
Please stop wasting my time….it’s getting tedious. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
And, at the end of the day, does it really matter?
I’ve pledged to all around me that I steadfastly refuse to become an Angry Old White Guy. Life’s simply too much fun to be otherwise.
here is a link to the actual paper: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/14-062_29ad7901-c306-44fa-88df-31e97a17cbbf.pdf
Their graph of GM’s market share is at the end. Note that it does not reach much more than 55%, I think in 1954 GM had 54%. Their executive summary is rubbish.
Yes, I found that too. Amazing that they would have the right info from Wards, which is the premium source of these stats, and then blow it in the opening.
I snipped the graph for our doubting Yanns.
I think I have sorted out the mysterious 62.6% number. If one only considers the domestic automobile manufacturers, then GM has 62.6% of the production. This does not include the 26.5% of the market that the imports have. So the 62.6% is not of the total market but is a meaningless number showing that GM is producing more than either Ford or Chrysler or even Ford plus Chrysler.
Yes, I suspected that too. But then she used the whole market share number (19%) for 2009. A classic apple and oranges comparison.
Many middle aged buyers dumped their 1980 X cars, bought thinking it was the end of time, and went back to B/C bodies in 83-85. GM should have kept a B body at Buick/Olds, along with Caprice until ’96. Pontiac was fine with the H body Bonneville in ’87.
Indeed they did, and I picked them up for taxi use for peanuts. In 1983, I could, and did, pick up a 1978 Impala for less than $1500. Loaded 88 ‘ s were $2500. My mint ’78 LeSabre was top dollar at $3200, but only had 60,000 km on it.
The formal and buttoned down styling cues of these cars (along with their Olds and Poncho sisters) applied to a 2 door is just completely stupefying to me. The first B body Caprice coupes with the hotwire fastback rear glass capture the swoopy flair with some of the athletic style of 2-door, but these look completely confused as a coupe. There isn’t one line that looks right on them in my eyes. The 4 doors while not to my taste at least make sense since mid-luxury sedans SHOULD be conservative, formal…stodgy, even.
Today we have the exact opposite, in cars like the LX based Charger, the SRT-4 Neon, Subaru STi, Mitsu Evo, etc. There is no reason on earth for any of these NOT to be 2 doors exclusively, and yet theyre sedans. It makes my brain hurt either way.
Its funny how one version of this mis-match is the ying to the other’s yang. Here’s what I see in this Buick: Imagine the late Lawrence Tierny on a skateboard wearing an Airwalk beanie and a pair of Vans. That’s what I see here. Brain…..hurting.
That is because you are looking at it as if a coupe needs to be a sports car so of course, does not compute.
I see it as another level of Broughamy goodness, a dash of impractibility. Making an Electra or Fleetwood coupe says this isn’t a people hauler. I still like the sedans better, because it makes them bigger, but I really like these top level coupes too.
Not quite, but youre on the right track.
My philosophy would read “A performance car needs to be a coupe.” Which means at the core, form follows function.
Im more of a muscle car, hotrod, 4×4 and custom car kind of guy but also dig sportscars. When you boil those things down to the elements that make them pure and focused, you’ll inevitably arrive at a 2 door. Simpler is always a stronger approach. If you want to go fast, stop fast, go around curves consistently and reliably then you want as little unnecessary fluff as possible and you want the structure of the car as light and tight as practical. Extra doors, chrome, pillowed seats and blah blah blah remove the focus away from raw performance in a compromise to accomplish something else. Obviously a F1 car is completely impractical for a DD so there has to be some concessions. And of course hotrods and customs are more a reflection of the builders vision.
Im not a brougham kind of guy…in fact Im pretty anti-brougham. That said, reading others’ posts here at least allow me to appreciate other points of view. Example: That white Lincoln Mark IV below this thread is just as much of an overinflated gingerbread barge and not my kind of car either. BUT, while I don’t care for the look of it, the lines DO make sense for a coupe in that they convey some vestiges of the long, sleek and swoopy look of 30s era classics. That car is FAR from a sportscar or any kind of performance car, much like the late 70s Caprice coupe I mentioned. But both have some shred of the lineage that makes the coupe bodystyle make sense. I can see where the designers were going with them. This Buick literally looks like someone is trying to hammer a square sedan peg into a round coupe hole no matter how contrived the outcome. Outside of the number of doors, this seems to accomplish none of what a 2 door is aiming for.
Just my opinion of course and we all know the relationship of opinions to A-holes!
I think that the doors are larger than the front doors on the 4 door sedans, which is something that some people liked. I think you have a valid point of view on the Olds 98 and Electra 2 doors for overall style.
What BMW did was to make 4 door sedans into performance cars in terms of handling (not straight line acceleration). GM’s sedans had mushy bodies (the coupes were less mushy) so handling is compromised. Now that bodies are designed like bank vaults, even 4 door bodies do not flex much, so handling is better.
But that is precisely the issue. Does a 2 door “aim” at anything? Is there something inherent in the nature of a coupe that says it has a particular end? I would say no, there is no Platonic form of “2 door” that gives it any sort of sporty or performance oriented nature. What a 2 door does is at the mercy of the capriciousness of the designers.
For this one, like I said, the impractibility just adds a bit to its Broughaminess. It has absolutely no pretenses at being a people hauler or sporty either. It can haul more people in a pinch, but it says that you really don’t have any intention of doing so. Its also a good way to cut out some length of an otherwise full size GM luxury car while keeping the big car styling cues.
Well again, I think when you ‘aim’ at performance and an enthusiast buyer, you inevitably wind up with a 2door. The way I worded that came off the other way around, so I get why youre asking. My point is, back when you could design a car from the ground up to meet performance parameters (dedicated sports cars) or just get the most power to weight ratio (muscle cars) you end up with a 2 door. So on some level, that ‘calibrates’ a lot of gear heads to think of ALL 4 doors as everyday family cars for Elmer McAveragejoe, luxury cars for yuppies and old rich guys, or basic bottom feeder appliances for cheapskates. Not a stigma I would want following me…even if said 4 door had the balls to deliver performance (SRT-4, LX Charger).
4 doors just look frumpy, clunky and stodgy. That’s my point of view, my personal taste and my opinion and its something I cant get past even in spite of whatever redeeming qualities it has. Its like dating an ugly girl with a great personality. OTOH, I can back up said opinion with facts that support it: 2 doors are generally far superior (to an enthusiast) due to things like lighter weight, simplicity, less moving parts, cleaner style, better aerodynamics and so on and so forth. Again, its a matter of priorities and personal taste. If you have a family, you probably need at least ONE family friendly ride. Any ‘fun’ car will be for weekends or for whoever isn’t playing taxi at the time.
I would totally agree that a sports car makes sense to have 2 doors. I always cringe when I see those 4 door Porsches.
All I was saying is that it makes sense to have a 2 door Brougham in a way it doesn’t really make sense to have a 4 door sports car. Of course, point taken and agreed with when it comes to opinions. For me, a car like an Electra would be my “fun car”.
I know what you mean, Dom. I think youre missing some of what Im getting at though. I wouldn’t say 2 door Broughams ‘shouldnt’ exist. Hell, anything that people will pay money for that can be sold at profit most definitely SHOULD be made.
My point was that this car as a coupe just doesn’t look right. The lines just scream 4 door sedan, it happens to have less doors so looks wonky. The first few Chysler Cordobas are brougham’d up pretty good, but the lines as a 2 door totally work. You can see a little bit of muscle car DNA in it. Again, different people see/think different things.
@MoparRocker74
The current ATS coupe weighs more than the ATS sedan. So in terms of performance and handling I would not expect much difference. The old CTS sedan and coupe were the reverse, but the difference in weight is about 30 lbs, so again I would not expect much difference in performance. I like the access to the rear seat area that 4 doors give you.
I would agree with your last post, that the down sized Electra/olds98 did not look better as a 2 door. The 1971+ 2 door hardtops are a different matter.
ATS coupe is heavier? WTF? GM had to have really put their minds to it in order to engineer a screwup like that.
And youre right about 2 doors having longer doors…as a 6’1 250 dude, that’s just one reason I prefer them, but its down on the priority list. Still…huge benefit.
The ATS coupe is wider and longer than the sedan, so not a surprise that it is 30 to 40 lbs heavier.
Whatever happened to comfort?
Drivers realized that roads aren’t always level or straight! I now find these old sleds taxing to drive compared to more modern stuff, and yes, I’ve driven both a modern car and an old sled back to back, in the Rockies.
The vast majority of roads are straight followed by more straight. Sure some of them have hills but I’m not sure what that has to do with anything.
Flint’s finest! These used to be everywhere when I was growing up; Well-heeled GM retirees and U of M professors would often be behind the wheel of these big Electras. When I last toured the Buick City factory in the summer of 1991, they were no longer building these Electras, but were manufacturing the FWD H-body LeSabres. I always thought Buick had the most tastefully restrained styling of the near-luxury makes. And it’s been said by others on CC before: the “Electra” name should come back.
Great find!
One day, I’m going to do a feature on cars named after aircraft, and this example would have to be there
Bristol Beaufighter is my fave.
I loved both of these generations of Electra’s. They did not scream, “Look at me!” like other cars. Just goes to show sometimes less is more.
Nice car but the luxury effect is ruined by the cheap K mart hubcaps and retarded half roof treatment,
Those wire hubcaps are OEM. I’d say at least 80% of the Electras and Olds 98s of that era had them.
Same for the vinyl roof. They could be ordered without one, but they’re very rare.
when i was 17 my brother in law traded his 73 tbird for a silver 77 elektra limited or park avenue sedan. its easy for me to see why now, as opposed to then, when i wondered why not get the cadillac. that 20 percent difference in price was clearly a factor, a premium for status factor, as opposed to even a better engine, cadillacs were often troublesome in that dept; 4.1s and northstar engines are legendary 4 breakdowns.
anyway, that brown interior does look crisp with the blonde wood and chrome door trim. i’d gladly pilot this survivor.
As you know from an earlier profile I own the 1977 version, a Linden, N.J.-built Electra 225. But I really like these slightly formalized 1980-84s as well. In fact, I like the interiors after 1980 much, much better as they were far more tasteful and fit in with that conservative, understated, yet still luxe Buick appeal. I love a “broughamy” interior (hello, 98 Regency) and am certainly no fan of minimalism, but the 1974-79 mattress, tiger, and crushed velour jazz took it too far; why not a nice subdued leather like the Cadillacs had?
Like all the full-sizers, the real letdown was the loss of the bigger engines and the TH350 after 1980 for less durable, weaker drivetrains. Still, these were better than most, which is why Consumer Reports’ 1982 review of the Sedan DeVille steered buyers towards the Park Avenue and 98 Regency as the same thing for a better price with a better engine.
By this time, they weren’t all that different from the Cadillacs anyway…the Cadillacs had a slightly more distinctive hood, a smaller trunk, and slightly more rear legroom,and those were about the only differences by 1982…well, and a boat anchor of an engine.
Whereas you might have chosen a Cadillac even in 1977 due to its exclusive and more powerful engine (425 vs, 403 or 350) bigger transmission (THM 400 vs 350), and cool stuff like fold down rear footrests, those reasons had just disappeared by the second cycle in 1980. Which, no doubt, is another reason only the Caddy was carried over in 1985. Might as well keep the one that costs the most on the market…
I miss these cars because they (and their sister 98s) convey a solid, unshowy, upper-middle classiness that is still purely American in perspective. Doing well, but not boasting about it. While there are still cars that convey that same messaging, they are not American cars.
You mean interiors like this:
Does any car today offer such a range of upholstery textures? There are four distinctly different surface designs – nicest being top right. Today car seating is so bland. I miss this kind of variation. I wonder how many of them were sold with the square-section pattern. It´s incredibly lush and almost sells the car on its own.
That design, with the squares with buttons in the middle, was used on the mid-level Limited models. The simpler stitching design, with pull straps rather than hinged metal door pulls, was used on the Electra 225 (which was originally the top level Buick but thanks to standard GM name debasement became the entry level Buick C body by this time. The high-end model was the Park Avenue which sported the over-the-top loosely draped cushioning in 1977-78, the bottom right in blue in the brochure shot above. I’m not sure offhand which of these were available in vinyl and/or leather, but the vast majority of late-’70s Electras had velour.
Reminds me of a dog
Not an interior you would want young kids fighting in!
Thanks for that. The dramatic reduction in styles of upholstery is remarkable but also in seat shapes. At some point in the late 70s car seats could like like domestic furniture or be more like racing car chairs. In Italy modern furniture inspired shapes at Lancia and Fiat. The Americans seemed to be inspired by Victorian carriages and furniture. And I think that´s quite okay. Today the profile and silhouette of seats are tending towards uniformity. You´d imagine that this might encourage some variation in colour and fabric. But no, it´s mostly grey and black. LIncoln had a lovely blue for the Continental (last iteration) and I imagine it was not much of a success. If firms do try they don´t get rewarded. Opel offered some striking materials on the Meriva, Zafira and Insignia, options which I imagine were picked in tiny numbers. But a Meriva with the creamy red leather finish is a completely different-feeling car from the standard one (nice as it is). It carries a sense of occasion without the owner needing the pomp or scale of a saloon.
This artlcle has had me nosing around the cars of the period and I found the Olds 88 and also 98. They also had plush interiors. I can´t see any difference in style or quality with the Buicks though. Was there? The late 70s Olds 98s are rather special.
I’ve been binge-watching the second season of The Americans on Amazon this week and am noting that I am really starting to more than just appreciate the big boxy school of last 70’s and early 80’s american iron – I’m actually beginning to really like it. That brown plush velour in the subject car looks very comfortable and I’ll bet the ride is great.
I really have come to like the ’75-’80 stuff from GM…you have 2 years of HEI humongous big block cars to choose from, or you can take the ’77-’80 downsized models that still have big engines and good transmissions AND no computer parts. And in all of them you can at least get into the teens in highway driving…sometimes the 20s on the downsized. It all looks good, there are lots of parts and aftermarket supplies if needed, if you want you can do the work on them, if not, your mechanic cannot rip you off as much as on other cars. They run smoothly and ride great. Sure, dashboards crack and seats tear but none of it is beyond repair, none of it is absurdly expensive to remedy. I love the Series III Jaguars, too, but given the choice I bet my wallet would rather maintain 4 of these than try to keep just one of those on the road.
(Like the looks of the big Ford and Chrysler products from those days, too, but no experience living with them)
The Americans is one of my top 3 favorite shows right now (the others being Mad Men and Orange Is The New Black). It’s a great show! Plenty of period cars that are usually accurate. I really hope Netflix makes it available to stream soon so I don’t have to buy the season 2 dvd to re-watch before season 3 airs.
As for the comparison to a Cadillac… I do think GM put some sort of extra bracing and sound deadening into the structure versus the big Olds/Chevy/Buick, because the ’86 Fleetwood I owned had a significantly tighter body structure than the ’85 Delta 88 and (especially) the ’85 Caprice I have now. The Cadillac didn’t flex over bumps as anywhere near as much, the doors closed a lot tighter and more gracefully, it was much quieter, etc. All were $800 beaters with similar mileage, but that only made the discrepancies in construction more obvious as the cars were already well worn.
I’ve driven a lot of these B/C bodies and the Cadillacs do seem a noticeable step up even in advanced age, although it’s painfully obvious the basic hard points and engines are the same as the cheap Chevy version. Oddly, never experienced a Buick version, so I can’t comment on whether it’s closer to a Chevy or a Cadillac.
The Grand Lady has lots of extra bracing and was amazingly rattle free when I piloted her last year.
Did Cadillac use a heavier-gauge chassis? They probably would have once.
My 1990 Brougham did for sure have extra bracing underneath, came with a std rear sway bar and the front sway bar was larger than other lesser B-body cars I have worked on. Lifting the hood also reveals more bracing and I would bet that the frame has more mounts in a Cadillac than any of the other B or C body cars. That Brougham felt like an unbreakable tank and I remember a distant relative that had a 1986 with the same 307 with over 300K miles that still purred like a kitten at a family reunion. The 1986-1990 Broughams should have at least came with the HO 170-180 HP vin “9” 307 as std equipment given there greater weight and higher price point before the 350 came back on board.
For the 1977-84 C-body coupes I thought the Electra/Park Avenue’s were the best looking of the 1980-84 models and the Oldsmobile Ninety Eight’s were the best looking of the 1977-79 models, I thought Buick pulled off the 1980-84 restyle better than Cadillac and Oldsmobile did in the C body cars whether in coupe or sedan style.
My first car when I was 18, passed to me by my grandmother, was a ’79 Chevy Caprice Classic. All through the process of being hit in the “side rear-end”(?) by a guy who couldn’t be bothered to slow his extraordinary rate or switch lanes to avoid the accident when there was nobody else in sight (wanted the insurance money. *sigh* and my new infant was in the car!), then 6 months later rear-ended while I was stopped at the bottom of a hill waiting to turn left by a teenager who was on her way to school and didn’t see me cuz she had decided to turn and wave at some friends totalling the brand new car her dad just bought her and mine too, and also going through a long lead-foot phase in my last 2 teen yrs and first couple of 20’s yrs, I ran that car into the ground. On my way to a college exam, the engine died on me. Poor Caprice. It deserved better than me. =(
My grandparents always take PRISTINE care of their cars. Well, they decided since I was in a very needy spot to pass down their car and get themselves another. They gave me their 1984 Buick Park Avenue. I’m almost positive it was an 84 due to the SOME of the images I’ve found of the new agey temperature controls that it had that the 83 didn’t. However, I distinctly recall the control for the wipers and cruise control being on the RIGHT side of the steering column! But I can’t find any images that back me up on that. Hrm.
Anyway, this was the first in my grandmother’s LONG love affair with Buicks and especially Park Avenues. She said one day she was going to get herself a Cad but she’d test driven a few in the late 90’s and … she never liked the way they handled on the road to her, the way they felt, as much as the Buick. — Sorry, I ramble.
SO, this is what I’m looking for! I -*LOVED*- the color of that car!! It was like metallic creamy coffee color but I swear it had a purplish undertone to it. I call it a taupe mocha sort of color. So I’ve been digging everywhere and haven’t been able to FIND the list of colors. But I suck at searching the ‘net so I thought I’d come here and ask once I found this page…
WAIT, I FOUND IT!!! ***FINALLY***
Holy crap that was a lot of work! But I love that color so much and I’ve wanted to know for SO many years!!! That makes me SO happy! *dancedance*
>>>>>> Light Briar Brown! <<<<<<
http://paintref.com/cgi-bin/colorcodedisplay.cgi?manuf=GM&model=Buick&con=mo&year=1984&rows=50
If you're looking for body paint colors by year, make, model, etc… apparently that's the site to go to! Or I'm sure there are others. I dunno. But that's the one I found.
Anyway, I found two more example pics of my old car online to try to show the color better since the pic I uploaded, the color is faded from the bright light. I went to bitly.com to shorten these links so don't freak out by the weird link domains.
This first pic shows the true creamy coffee brown color of the car:
-=- http://bit.ly/2iRcX0Z
The second pic, due to the way the light is hitting it, grabbing the metallic paint just right, is able to show you that kinda purplish undertone I was talking about. That's what makes the color quite unique in my opinion!:
-=- http://bit.ly/2iRiNiR
I wish very much I still had this car but moving from Georgia to Maine, the poor rear wheel drive car didn't like the Maine winters very much. And the 1998 ice storm completely did her in!! =(
I remember the first day I got her, though! You can see in the pic below that my hair is flying all over the place because it's windy… because it was about to rain "cats and dogs". I barely made it home at all because I wasn't used to the absolute luxury QUIET of this car! The Caprice Classic had had window tint taped over the two windows because they'd broken so I was used to it being LOUD in the car! The ride home in the Park Avenue was absolutely SILENT. And once I turned on the wipers when it started to rain, the soft yet quiet, regular beat of them literally put me to sleep over and over again! And I had an hour's drive to get home. It was a dangerous ride that day in that amazingly gorgeous vehicle! Heh.
Sorry for the very long message. But I hope I've shared some fun and interesting stories and information too. Hope everyone has a great New Year 2017!! Take care!
Heres mine I’ve owned since 1996. this is the second build on it and I’ll let you all try to put it all together of what it is exactly.
I drove one of these as a cab. It was one of the most comfortable best riding cars I ever drove. Only thing I hated was the 4.1 v 6 that could barely accelerate the car and got horrible gas mileage, the miserable and weak overdrive that was always shifting and the weak rear with tall gears. Was glad to see it go and get replaced with an 85 crown Vic which was like a rocket in comparison with it’s CFI 302. The Vic was way more reliable, better handling and got way better economy. I did miss the beautiful Buick dash and incredible soft leather Park Ave seats.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a Fi 302 in a lighter Panther body was much quicker than a C-body with a 4.1 liter V6. But the fact it was as bad as your saying and terrible on gas strikes me that something was very wrong with it and probably out of tune. We had 3 years of experience with a black 4 door 1982 Deville with the 4.1 4BBL V6 obtained from the dealership that ran okay but was sluggish, started hard and seemed to drink gas. The choke pull off was not working causing the hard stumbling starts and also keeping the secondaries from opening so that was a 5 dollar junkyard fix. A full tuneup and new catalytic converter made a huge difference and this large sled would easily pull down 25 MPG on a trip which was only 1-2 less than a CFI Panther. By today’s standards it would be pretty slow buy when finished cleaning up the issues this car would easily keep up with traffic and felt quite peppy down low. Full on highway passing power was where it fell flat as 3850 LBS of mass was too much for the 125 horses. As with the 307 these engines were better in the lighter A/G and B body vehicles.
We had a ’77 sedan, so I’m biased, but the 80 restyle made it look too much like the Olds 98. It was a nice riding car and fast enough in a straight line, but the springs gave out after a few years. First it sagged in the back, then the front.
I think this was my dad’s favorite car. The rest of us however, didn’t really see the appeal. It was still a big floating tank of a car. His was the Park Avenue and it looked nice, but on summer days, sitting on tufted velour cushioned seats is kind of gross and sweaty. My dad drove it until the engine threw a rod. The vinyl roof split over the years and rain leaked across the top of the windshield and back window.
So, the car smelled moldy by the time he had it carted off to the dump. I will never forget the final year he had that car. He would start the engine and up from behind it rose a huge nasty cloud of death. The engine sounded like it was going to explode.
Once, my mom, who was sitting in the rear seat behind my dad, closed the rear door on his finger – caught it in the window frame. Dad froze in shock and my mom screamed for me to do something. He didn’t hurt his finger because the gap in the window frame was wide enough to not harm him. He said he thought he lost his finger, but that was partly because he couldn’t feel anything. LOL.
I think my dad had that car about 8 years. He loved it. He loved his next car as well. A 1985 Crown Victoria. But I know he always loved that Buick Park Avenue.
Well written Brendan.
I was pulling into a Staples store parking lot about about 5 years ago as an ’84 C body Buick 2 dr. was leaving. The car was in like new condition and wore typical colors of the period..a light shade of brown body with a dark brown vinyl landau roof. I guess a long enough period of time had passed since I had seen a really nice example of one of these cars to be able to incorporate the perspective of time in my visual assessment. I was just blown away by the extraordinary styling and just right amount of elegance of this car.