(first posted 7/30/2017) We all know that cars are inanimate objects, but if they were capable of feeling emotions, I would nominate this 1979 Buick Skyhawk Road Hawk that I spotted at a recent car show as the saddest car of all time.
Paul has already gone on record calling the Buick Skyhawk “The Saddest H-Body. ” I will go a step further, and call the Road Hawk special edition of the Skyhawk one of the saddest cars ever. Here’s what I see when I look at this car:
William Stopford has already covered this limited (presumably by demand and not supply) edition Skyhawk here, but it is worth briefly recounting this car’s tortured lineage. The Road Hawk was a special trim package of the Buick Skyhawk for the 1979 and 1980 model years. The Buick Skyhawk shared its 2+2 bodywork with fellow H-Body stablemates Chevrolet Monza and Oldsmobile Starfire. The H-Body, in turn, traces its origins back to the 1971 Chevrolet Vega, so sadness is deeply imbued in the Road Hawk’s DNA.
While the Road Hawk included genuinely useful upgrades such as better tires and wheels, as well as improved front and rear suspension, the package is unfortunately overshadowed by the crudely integrated rear spoiler and bodywork. Pay particular attention to the panels affixed to the rear fender meant to widen the rear, but only widen the top half of the body and partially cover the tail lights. A Ruf 935 this is not.
50 Shades of Sad
The Road Hawk also had the added burden of carrying Buick’s performance banner during a relative low point in Buick’s performance offerings. The Wildcat, GS, and GSX (and their associated Stage 1 and 2 455 V8s) were distant memories by 1979. Yet the Grand National, GNX, and various T-Type models of the ’80s renaissance were still over the horizon. So Buick was left with an H-Body in drag to carry Buick’s performance mantel.
I’m not sure what Buick was really aiming for here: They missed so badly that it is hard to tell what their original target actually was. In any case, I am genuinely embarrassed for this car.
The buying public apparently agreed with my assessment and stayed away in droves. In the two model years the Skyhawk Road Hawk was available just over 2,000 were sold.
Related Reading
Automotive History: Shockingly Low Volume Production Cars – The Buick Edition
Top 10 Obscure Special Editions and Forgotten Limited-Run Models: Buick Edition, Part I
Sad and embarrassing as these were, this example is in remarkable condition given the biodegradable nature of the various plastic compounds GM used for body panels and interior pieces at the time. Someone must have loved it.
I don’t recall ever seeing one in the wild, but here is Canada most Buick dealers were paired up with Pontiac who had the phony spoiler and loud graphic market pretty well covered already. Hard to see a dealer ordering one of these for stock….
Noooo, whats sad and embarrassing is having a posted comment deleted, as I did, because..it is “offensive” to the article poster?
Would not be surprised to find a 2×4 in the trunk to hold up the hatch. The struts were already overburdened on the standard model, all the extra weight of the spoiler and window louvers could not have helped. And how does one actually see out of back?
One doesn’t see out the back. That’s all part of the fun of driving it. Since only 2000 people over 2 model years took the Road Hawk challenge not many folks had to deal with that lack of visibility.
I like those ‘Historic Vehicle’ plates; even a car as poorly received as this one deserves some sort of recognition for just existing 38 years.
There’s nothing to see out the back. It’s so slow, donkey carts and tricycles pass right by.
The “wide body” panel is just so weird. I can’t believe that was green lighted by management. Looks like a great place for rust to form. Still though, what a well preserved example.
None of the people here seem to have owned one. As a 21 year old car junkie in Alberta Canada, I actually chose this as my very first car. I wanted a new turbo Trans Am or the turbo mustang but sadly they wouldn’t fit my budget. So I grabbed the Roadhawk. I immediately upgraded the tires and put a shift kit in the automatic. I always thought it was tasteful upgrade to the regular Skyhawk. It did not rust in the side panels even after 15 years, the hatch struts had to be replaced soon. The tach quit but was replaced by warranty. I maintained the car very well. Nothing ever “broke” on the car except the giant single drive belt. I kept a spare in the car. When I sold the car in 1996 it still had the original engine, water pump, radiator, carb, transmission, diff, u joints, and everything still worked except the inside hood release which I by-passed. Sad maybe, but dependable and started at -40 a few times. I kind of miss it seeing the photos.
Billy, i am calling you out as a liar . I owned one of the Roadhawks, they did NOT have a singular serpentine belt dude, WRONG!
I’ve seen pictures of Road Hawks before but never realized one “feature” was those wide rear fender panels.
The striped seat coverings make the inside of the car look like some kind of albino skunk. With the choice of grey, black, and red to harmonize with the exterior the stylists did a very poor job.
BTW, I seem to remember that there were “companion” Buick models with paint and decals just like this Road Hawk. The Century and/or Regal as well as the 2 door LeSabre…or was it the Riviera, also had this decal package.
I went and googled images of Buicks and found a VERY similar package offered on Regals in 1976-77 (?) as Pace Car replicas. It may be a faulty memory that recalls a similar paint/decal package on 2 door LeSabres and Rivieras.
When I see the graphics, I’m reminded of the 1976 Buick Century Pace Car. The rear top half of the fenders striped, and having the “Hawk” graphic are all reminiscent of that Buick pace car decal package.
It’s not too bad/sad, certainly not from the angle in the first picture. From the B-pillar to the rear bumper I’d say it’s a bit “overwrought”…
Personally I would like to nominate all -as in without any exceptions- B-segment (sub-compact) sedans of the past decades.
Agreed. Small standard cars are even worse/sadder nowadays.
Thankfully, these ‘paint and tape’ packages many manufacturers offered in the late 70s were not that common on the road. In spite of any misconceptions today of how people perceived these packages at the time, many considered them gaudy and over the top then. Even in regions that were not considered leading edge in car culture, poser cars like this could (and would) draw laughs.
When I look at this Road Hawk, I see something with the potential to be a pro-touring vehicle similar to the Chevy Vega built for Mike Coughlin, Jr. by Woody’s Hot Rodz, perhaps with a Roadster Shop chassis as opposed to an Art Morrison chassis.
However, since this Road Hawk was made in 1979, it would have to be given an E-Rod crate motor from GM Performance to make it emissions legal, and some body modifications at the rear are definitely in order.
Exactly. Those H-Bodies still go for a song so that your initial outlay will be minimal. And when you do them right they are actually good looking, the basic proportions are not bad.
Emissions legal? Not here in Ohio 🙂 . In the counties that require emissions inspections once a vehicle’s 25 years old it’s exempt.
Sad indeed. I once wrote up another really sad car, the final AMC Barcelona edition Matador. But the fact that one was built by a company with no money trying to do what it could with what it had while this one was built by the mighty General Motors at the peak of its power makes this Buick the undisputed winner in the “sad car” contest.
If we’re going to talk sad cars from a sad company, I have to submit the 1987 Eagle (no mention of AMC) as the saddest car brochure of all time. Just one lonely Eagle slugging through the hills by itself. I don’t think the end had come by the time the brochure went to print but I suspect everyone knew what was coming.
Given they were about to be owned by Chrysler, AMC asked The Eagles if they could use their ‘alternate’ rejected album cover for ‘The Long Run’ for their brochure cover.
Maybe they should have used “Already Gone” instead…..
I actually really like AMC cars, having grown up in a family that bought Rambler wagons, a lot. But this is just fugly! What a stupid looking front end. AmIright?
Not completely in the sad car category but a sad ending for a nice car, the 1973 Volvo brochure showing the 1800ES from the rear as if it was going away.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/32109282@N00/7678272000
One of these (( same color combo)) used to make appearances in “Arlington/Falls Church VA , area..
Can recall seeing it , into the late “90’s”.
Come to think of it…”Arlington Blvd/Carlin Springs Rd” vicinity..
H’mm.
Has there ever been a car line in history offered with more ‘tape and decal’ packages than the GM H-bodies? Including the Mustang II. I know Jeep and International Harvester went vinyl graphics crazy at the same time. But the sheer variety of decals GM stuck on the Monza line is stunning.
I prepared this collage in 10 minutes, but I know there were various other factory graphics packages offered.
I think the most audacious factory vinyl graphics package I recall from this era was the ‘Eagle Brougham’ offered by International on their Transtar 4300. As a kid, I will admit, I would stop and stare whenever one of these drove by.
So very much ‘of an era’ – I love it!
Life in the crawler lane – surely gonna lose your mind…
Only car I can think of getting in the ballpark would be the Aspen/Volare, but you’re right, I don’t think anything comes close to those. I love the montage btw, it really puts it in perspective!
“Pathetic” is what comes to my mind. The H Body endured endless debasing, starting out with the reasonably attractive Monza fastback.
This from the same division that bestowed the ’63 Riviera on us. What a long fall.
What a long fall in a short amount of time.
The H-bodies were the Kia Rio’s and Chevy Sparks of their day.
They were rwd, light, semi sporty looking, reasonably fun to drive (for the time) and most importantly cheap.
There were few cars built during the 1970s that are worth half a turd anyway. People do not wax poetic about the vast majority of cars built during that decade.
Did I mention they were cheap?
c h e a p
h
e
a
p
The Skyhawk wasn’t intended to be cheap. Buicks weren’t intended to be cheap. That wasn’t Buick’s mission. Buick was intended to be better than cheap cars. The problem was that GM couldn’t figure out how to build a better car than a Chevy for a reasonable amount of money. In the Fifties, a Buick Special was nearly the same price as a Bel Air V8 and felt like more car. This was significantly more expensive than a Chevy and don’t feel like more car.
Yes they could but not in the US in other countries numerous smaller cars wer on the market and some of them were quite good its the NIH syndrome that kept the off the US market, I didnt realise theres a Vega underneath all that extra trim the pics dont really show the size.
GM was in the middle of a radical replacement of its US product lines when this sad little toad hopped off the assembly line. The new FWD compacts and subcompacts were coming. The compacts were smash hits when they came on.the market but turned out to be terrible cars to live with and became unsalable . The subcompacts were uncompetitive and expensive.
I rather liked the H-body – it was only a bit bombastic around the lights in certain versions.
Our own Monza (Opel) seemed very inspired by it.
You expect dealer-installed, aftermarket bolt-ons to look this bad, but I’m having hard time thinking of other OEM packages that look as slapped-on as this.
It brings to mind my experience shopping for my 2001 Cougar. After all the negotiating was done and it was time to sign the documents, the salesman said, “Let me show you another car before we finalize the sale.” It as another Cougar, only with all kinds of unnecessary snouts and skirts from an aftermarket “ground-effects package” they added to the car. The salesman (who was a pretty agreeable fellow, considering he was a car salesman), said they’d be willing to “let me have” the pimped-up ride for the same price I negotiated on an unadulterated Cougar.
I did my best not to laugh too hard and asked about the backstory. Well, someone had special ordered a Cougar with the exact same bolt-ons. While it was sitting on the lot waiting for the customer to pick it up, they got a lot of questions about it that they mistook for interest. So at their own expense, they cobbled together a twin. All of this had happened many months prior, and they were desperate to unload the monstrosity they had built.
Sorry, guys, no sale.
Body kits and other aftermarket add ons are grotesque. Your good taste stopped you from buying a clown car.
That “New Edge” generation of Cougar had enough going on as it was. Very interesting design.
Adding body kits and other junk would have been akin to adding a vinyl top, whitewalls and wire wheels.
Google “Razzi body kits” and then ask yourself how said company has been around to produce body kits for cars as far back as the downsized 1985 Cadillac Seville. And they have uglified every GM front drive sedan since, along with many other cars.
Fitting name, though.
I did. You are 100% correct.
I’ll pass on Googling “Razzi body kits”… I just ate.
1979 was the first year of the FWD Riviera, which was not an all bad car. The Skyhawk does become one of the J-cars and then Buick gets out of this size class, which they probably should not have been in anyway.
Buick needed to be in this size class with a product that was competitive with the Accord. Never really were
The N body Somerset that replaced the J body Skyhawk in Buick showrooms was *exactly* the same size. Buick and GM made an effort to make it look and feel like a better car than the J body, so it would be worth a higher transaction price and would appeal to people who want a better car. Their success in that goal is debatable, but Buick knew it needed better cars that were a cut above straight economy cars, not necessarily bigger cars.
The Somerset was an okay product for traditional Buick buyers who wanted to move with the times, but there’s no way a younger buyer would choose a Somerset or a Grand Am instead of an Acura Integra for the same money.
Quite a find — I had forgotten that this car existed, which is hardly surprising.
After looking at these pictures, I looked through my magazine collection and found a Car & Driver review of the Road Hawk from 1979. They appreciated the performance upgrades, but were annoyed that they only way to get those upgrades on the Skyhawk was to spring for the somewhat grotesque Road Hawk package.
Regarding the rear styling “enhancements,” here’s what C&D said:
“Those fiberglass pieces that give the tail that upswept look are glued right on the fenders, as if one day at the styling studio they broke for lunch and forgot to come back.”
That’s as good an analysis as one can make about this car’s styling.
I remember that one – they were great reading for those edgy comments, often so devastatingly true.
I seem to be younger than most of you all. I was 9 when this car was built and I always loved the H-bodies – complete with the fender flares, tape stripes, spoilers, mags and hatch louvers. I didn’t know or care that they weren’t fast.
I am glad this owner proudly displays this car. It’s a welcome break from the tri-fives, Camaros, Mustangs, ‘vettes and imports at most cruise ins and car shows.
The most interesting things (to me) at last nights show in my area was the 1977 Ford Ranchero and the 1971 Coupe DeVille.
A special round of applause for those into the “sad” and less popular vehicles.
When the 75 Monza fastback 1st appeared, ALL the car magazines thought it looked great, inside and out. The biggest criticism centered around the small wheels (thank you, Vega underpinnings), and the (necessarily) small brakes.
THEN….to compete with the Mustang II 2 door (which Ford decided to put into production almost at the last minute), Chevy introduced the Monza Town Coupe. To me, that’s when the H-bodies started their steep downhill slide. The Monza fastback looked like it was inspired by Ferrari, the Town Coupe looked like a smaller Malibu 2 door. And the Town Coupe’s ugly instrument cluster was adopted by ALL the h-body versions. It’s like GM was doing a Ford. That is, introduce a fairly decent car…then de-content endlessly.
That GM thought they needed to give the H-body to 4 different divisions with minimal difference between each version….pathetic, very bad idea.
And to make matters worse, they did the saddest act of product differentiation we’d yet seen from GM. Little did we know what was to come.
I’m convinced (without ever having seen official proof) that the H-bodies were meant for Chevrolet and Pontiac only, and the Buick/Olds versions were last-minute additions in response to the ’73-4 gas crisis which is why they were so minimally differentiated, especially in the early years.
Plenty of circuimstantial evidence to support that assumption. The fact that the Pontiac Sunbird had unique sheetmetal for the hood, quarters, taillight panel, as well as having totally different taillights themselves pretty much proves the Skyhawk and Starfire, all Chevrolet in every area but chintzy trim, were rush jobs to get subcompacts under the Buick and Olds umbrellas. Surely had those divisions had intent to use them they would have come up with designs differentiated at least as well as the Sunbird was.
The Buick and Oldsmobile also were distinguished in 1975 by exclusive use of the Buick V6, which was the only engine. The actual Monza had either the 4 or the V8.
When the Sunbird coupe was released, it had standard 4 and optional V6.
Eventually, the engines were a hodgepodge at all dealers.
Agree on this being a welcome respite from the hoards of Mustangs, Camaros, Tri-Fives, and the rest of the typical car show fare.
I suspect the Road Hawk was a last-ditch effort by Buick to scarf-up any leftover Cobra II buyers. I wonder if they’d have used a Road Hawk on Charlie’s Angels if it was still on the air. In fact, I wonder how many Cobra IIs were traded in on a Road Hawk.
I know of Mustangs. I know of Camaros. But what’s a ‘Tri-Five’? Inquiring minds want to know! (Mine).
Tri-Five refers to the ’55, ’56 and ’57 Chevies- Three model years sharing the same body, with a “5” in the model year.
Thank you for the info, PVDave. 🙂
Yes, definitely agreed. It’s not only car shows, but both Mecum and Barrett-Jackson auctions have become endless parades of 69 Camaros et al. Sometimes kitsch can be fun and continually beating on these cars after they’ve been long dead and buried seems pointless. I bet the owner of this car doesn’t think it’s sad and I’d wager it gets lots of looks and positive comments because it’s rare AND different.
Watch the auctions on thursdays or fridays when they start, or sundays when they end. They seem to save the “good” cars (endless parade of Hemi Cudas, 69 Camaros) for the Saturday auctions and you get a lot more diversity on the previous/following days.
Although the programmers seem to have gotten wise to that the last year or so, as they seem to order the cars on the block around commercial breaks, as I’ll often see something weird like this pull up right beforehand. For some reason they think people are interested in seeing silver late model Mercedes SLs at the bottom of their depreciation curves on those days.
Velocity is too focused on promoting their latest trashy shows and moronic personalities to actually stay with the B-J auction and interesting cars. It’s a shame they lost Mecum. Much more fun.
Yeah I agree, the commentators are a lot more fun on Mecum than B-J, who may as well be on CNBC with all the investment talk. I still watch Mecum since they moved to NBC sports but the commercials are unbearably long and frequent, it’s often delayed or not aired at all because of sports delays and overtimes, and more often than not it’s prerecorded when I do finally stumble on it. It always was live on Velocity, now I can’t even watch that network since the move.
I agree wholeheartedly! I may not necessarily like this particular car but I do appreciate its continued existence. I get bored easily and I find Tr-Five Chevies, Camaros (ESPECIALLY ’69s!!!) , and first gen Mustangs to be quite boring. Love showing off my ’78 Fairmont and someday showing off my ’85 Marquis LTS. Boring? Never 🙂 !
I’m with you. Every “show” has the same hand full of models….YAHN! I love 50s cars but the tri-fives are so common as to become Camrys. If I see a ’58 Ford or even a ’78 LeBaron I’d notice! Not every “classic” needs to be a “tri-five” or muscle car (real or fake). I like to see some others that are also (and actually more so.) representative of an era at shows. Bring on the ’49 Plymouths, ’78 Fairmonts, ’62 Mercuries and ’54 Buicks! Variety for me!
One of the cooler things I saw at a show recently was two brothers…one had built a phantom: a Boss 302…Maverick Grabber. it had a rip-roaring stroker (347ci 302), T5 trans, vintage Cragars, chassis tweaks as used by the GT350 Mustangs, 4-wheel discs (from a Versailles), and AC.
The other had an 80s Regal, done up as a NASCAR racer (Waltrip, I think)…LS engine, T56 conversion, 4-wheel discs, wide black steelies with white-letter Goodyears…for the show, he even put in a window net.
The purest incantation of “sad Droopy” in a car for me is the 1953 Buick front treatment.
Foe me it was always the Citroen Visa. Nothing like a worn-out Visa sagging at the side of the curb to bring your day down… Here’s one I snapped a few years ago.
Different angle
Road Hawk? Dead Duck is more like it.
Shades of packardbaker fins
I though the same thing when I saw it…
I actually think it looks pretty cool! The integrated spoiler helps to minimize the otherwise droopy rear end of the car, and I’m kind of a fan of the paint scheme and interior complete with Skyhawk logos.
The idea is good; it’s the execution of it….
I’m all for its execution… 😉
Here’s a closeup of the “wide” bodywork on the rear fender.
*Edit* Not sure why it keeps getting posted upside down, but if you view the full-size image, it is right side up.
I have EXACTLY same problem when uploading the photos from my iPad or iPhone but not from my iMac. I thought I was only one with this ‘Down Under’ issue.
Me thinks it’s the server-side issue…
It’s because it’s an Ipad/Iphone. It uses a proprietary “tag” in the image file to handle when the operator holds their Iwhatever left-handed in landscape mode (i.e. up-side down). It only displays correctly on your Iwhatever.
Typical Apple “Exclusivity”??
Not at all proprietary, or Apple exclusive, it’s used by basically every camera. Proof being the picture looks fine if you open it.
The blog thumbnail software here just doesn’t understand it.
Also on Blackberry. Very stupid computer geek logic.
I did not like the 1979-80 grille on the Buick Skyhawk’s/Oldsmobile Starfire’s at all and thought they’ve ruined the looks of the car, I always found the 1979-80 grilles to be bland compared to the 1975-78 models.
It does look lower end than the original Chev Monza derived grille. In fact, it looks more like what a Vega or Chevette grille may have evolved into by 1979.
Great call on the last Skyhawk’s front end looking like it was copied from the first Chevette.
It may have been a matter of actual decontenting, since the H-bodies to that point had had a more expensive starting price than the X-bodies, Buick/Olds didn’t have a T-body and the coming FWD X-bodies would be more expensive so the Buick and Olds H-bodies were being repositioned as the divisions’ entry-level models. There was also an attempt to square them up at a time when the VW Rabbit was the style setter.
One reason for de-contenting was “sticker shock” of 1975 recession. MSRP’s went up $500-1000 in one year, a ton of cash for the time. So, “make them cheaper.”
That’s the worst part. Granted, it was a bit of differentiation from the Monza-clone nose on the pre ’79 Skyhawk, but the problem is that it was just so much less attractive. The best front clip of the whole H-body bunch is that used on the ’78-’80 Monza Spyder and Sport–quad lamps with a low, wide single-slot grille. A classy update of the original ’75 nose.
Overall did one car line have any more of an odd hash of nose treatments? Between the original fastback’s quad rectangles, the oddly upgright Towne Coupe, the Camaro-minime of the lower line ’78-’80 Monzas, this sad effort and its similarly sad Olds near-twin, and then the various and diverse Sunbird treatments–it can make one’s head spin.
Then again I guess the Colonnades were just as bad, especially when given the wider range of body styles they were attached too. At least most of them were more attractive than this.
Ugh. Just Ugh. The only saving grace is that since it’s an H body, there is plenty of room up front for a V-8. Would a 215, 300 or 340 fit inside that engine bay?
I can’t believe they issued Historic Vehicle plates for…….that. Hardly worthy, even if it still does have that new car smell. Or was that stench in ’79??
I’ve seen some awfully ‘unworthy’ cars on historic plates. Even the old Suzuki qualifies for historic plates in my state now!
All these cars need to do is simply exist long enough to be eligible for ‘Historic Vehicle’ plates, do they not? There is no other standard I’ve heard of. If I had an ’85 Yugo it would qualify in 2017.
Cute lil’ Suzuki. Looks ready to rumble! 😀
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
25 years and older vehicles are eligible for historic plates here in Ohio and it makes no distinction about collectability. One man’s trash and all that…
As you know, one man’s love can be whatever he likes. Compare this Buick to all the car nuts who think a VW bug is wonderful. I’d take the Buick 1000 times over a bug
I’d prefer a Yugo to a VW.
Sunday started off so promisingly… and then I made the mistake of reading about the saddest example of 70s-era malaisemobiles. And now I has a sad ?.
Is the roll of cellotape in the console part of the original toolkit?
Uuuugly with a capital U.
And plenty of them.
Now I’m sad too. The lack of effort here is staggering. I can just imaging the design review:
Hmm, the spoiler thingy seems to cover part of the taillights. Ah nuts, nobody will notice that.
And how can we make the front more distinctive, something different than the clean Ferrari inspired design we used 5 years ago? Oh, lets take the Chevette front and remove all the interesting details, it’ll be fine…
Now that this is over and we’re all sad, has anyone ever done a CC on the Bugeye Sprite, the happiest car ever made???
+1 on happiest.
I dunno the Nissan Figaro looks pretty cheerful 🙂
I’ll agree with Doug D. on the smiley Sprite.
But there’s a catch …..
The Axolotl salamander is suing for royalties …..
From ‘Heavy Metal’ (1981)
Was always soo sad this one didn’t “come to the “USA”!! So wanted one.
This car didn’t have to carry the Buick performance banner alone. The Lesabre Sport Coupe was still around, a much more worthy successor to the Riviera GS. The optional carbureted turbo 3.8 was not quite ready for prime time (not until fuel injection debuted later in the ’80’s) but the Olds 403 made the Sport Coupe legitimately quick for its time. Hope the picture works.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4b/ed/32/4bed32d0b07b544b66d3a08e90299125–cute-pictures-bad-azz.jpg
I agree with Tom about this being the “saddest” H-body. As highly flawed as the H platform was, at least the “lesser” models ( Monza, Sunbird, Starfire, base Skyhawk ) didn’t try to pretend to be anything other than what they were.
This poor thing just looks like the automotive version of wealthy crossdressing fugitive / murder suspect Robert Durst during his stay in Texas.
I don’t know if I can agree with that. The Towne Coupe tried to be a downsized Personal Luxury Coupe. Hard to say that with a straight face…
Likely inspired by the Monza Mirage. More of a, hay we got small cars too,, Buick. Side view more Plymouth Arrow? looking. If they cut the body back at bit, for the wrap around tail lights, wouldn’t have needed the extra side marker lights. cheers.
I believe you’re onto something about the Road Hawk being inspired by the Monza Mirage. It simply wasn’t a very good attempt, not to mention that the whole seventies’ mylar GT fad (which seems to have begun and ended with the Cobra II) was pretty much spent. It certainly didn’t help matters any that the Road Hawk wasn’t executed very well, either. Even with all the decals, it was pretty obvious that the quarter panels were just glued on. If they had done it correctly with replacement quarter panels that blended in better, combined with leaving the better looking stock, quad headlight front end alone, it might have had a chance.
Of course, it really would have looked like an ersatz Monza Mirage, and that wouldn’t have been so great, either.
Wow! I agree it is hard to believe this was approved by GM. They must have been smoking the drapes in the late 70’s. It looks like something you could buy aftermarket, maybe, but not factory.
I’ve never actually seen a Buick H-body in the wild either, this was a nice treat!
This poor Buick is pretty awful, but even sadder to me are the cars that are introduced then essentially left to die in the marketplace. No marketing, essentially no recognition from the parent company. The Renault/Eagle Medallion springs to mind, though there must be plenty of others.
The Renault/Eagle Medallion springs to mind,
AMC did put some of Renault’s money behind the Medallion. I remember the TV ads with George C Scott. Of course, the product supply agreement between Chrysler and Renault had a limited span and Chrysler wanted Eagle dealers selling Chrysler products. so the Medallion and Premier were doomed to a short life.
George C. Scott was also hawking the Alliance GTA, as well. The story is he’d personally financed a movie that bombed, and needed the money. It was a shame that a once great actor had been reduced to such things and I don’t think his last years were so good.
While I agree the Road Hawk looks pretty sad, I do have a candidate worth at least honorable mention.
Although, perhaps the face has an expression that’s more stupid than sad.
I think that car’s ugly, too. Think it’s a Studebaker circa 1957. Looks like the face of Kermit the Frog with his guts drooling out the front. There was a picture of one of those recently on that ‘700-Car Auction’ thread.
Actually, that is a Packard, not a Studebaker, which is even more sad.
One could be mistaken for thinking it is a Studebaker Golden Hawk, but it is Packard version of the same car. Bonus sadness points for not even changing the name, as it was called the Packard Golden Hawk.
Must be something with the word “Hawk” and sad cars.
When I was in college in the 70s, my ambition was to get into product planning with one of the automakers. Every time the corporate recruiters were on campus I would zero in on the Ford rep and try to start a conversation about that career path. I always got the same rote answer “that requires a bachelor’s in engineering and an MBA”, recited with an inflection that said “if you don’t have both those degrees in your pocket this moment, I’ll not spend a minute talking with you about it”. I have the MBA, but, after three years of banging my head against the math, I gave up on the engineering degree.
Knowing what it takes to get into product planning, I can’t imagine anything more crushing for someone who made it, to be handed a project like this. The boss says “make a compelling, exciting product, and what you have to work with is a universally reviled car and no money.”
I was at a lecture given by some of the guys who developed the Vega engine. More crushed spirits. They talked with pride about the innovations they incorporated in the engine, then the quick and dirty tactics they had to resort to to make it work. Of course, by then the engine, their baby, that they worked so hard on. had earned a wretched reputation.
It’s probably well that I did not realize my original objective, and it’s easier to understand how companies usually end up being run by an accountant. Compared to engineering, accounting is a snap, and you never have to be associated with embarrassing projects like the Road Hawk. The biggest challenge in accounting is avoiding being bored to death.
I’m with you on that Steve, I’d hoped to get into the auto industry, and armed with my engineering degree (no MBA) I tried it twice. It was indeed spirit crushing, the industry seemed to reward unethical behavior and every time the phone rang my heart sank, who would it be to yell at me this time?
Mining and minerals processing worked out much better. Generally, our deadlines are feasible, our customers are sane and they pay their bills.
I can do automotive stuff on my own time..
…every time the phone rang my heart sank, who would it be to yell at me this time?
During the runup to my retirement, the girls at work (an office furniture installation company) kept saying “won’t you miss this?” My response was always “miss getting up before dawn and slogging through a snowstorm so people can yip at me all day?”
the industry seemed to reward unethical behavior
I came to the conclusion a number of years ago that the world is designed for sociopaths, because scum always rises to the top.
This rear quarter treatment would hardly be worthy of the tack-on, tacky body kits that owners (derisively called “riceboys”) would hang onto poor, unsuspecting Japanese compact sporty coupes. The only thing missing is an exhaust pipe tip that looks like an opened-up coffee can.
Not sure any were actually built…but the Road Hawk was supposed to get the turbocharged 3.8 V6.
This one needs a Grand National engine…
Cute girl notwithstanding, the ’54 Olds face is the original sad sack.
What WERE they thinking?!
Much improved in ’55 …. but then came the awful catfish- mouthed ’56…..
I have been scratching my head trying to think of what car/trim package is the contemporary descendant to this sad car. Any nominations?
“So Buick was left with an H-Body in drag to carry Buick’s performance mantel.”
?
Uh, no, the Turbo Regal was introduced in 1978, and there was also a 1979 Turbo Riviera.
Yet another ‘malaise era’ story, and “how could people live back then” trope.
True enough! IIRC, Porsche and Buick were the only mainstream Turbo makes in that era. As much as the 70s are “dissed”, A lot good was going on: Personal computers, Video games and VCRs became mainstream and affordable for example. It wasn’t all a big “bummer” Although watching any random Jimmy Carter speech is indeed depressing, LOL..
The V6 that went on to the GN is in this car. Sure, wasn’t as developed, but was a good idea. And no, Buick was not known as “elderly fare” since there were plenty of young adult Boomer buyers for RWD Regals and Centurys.
While Buick division pushed V6, their dealers wanted to sell V8 bigger cars during 76-78 before Oil Crisis 2. So, the Hawk was put in the back row.
And yeah, H body and Pintos had low quality, but a current 70’s Japanese car rusted away quick in snow belt. Why California got attached sooner. Once Japan Inc learned to combat rust, then they got the ‘flyovers’
Not really a Buick, (Buick should have had nothing below Century.) But it’s not really the saddest thing IMHO, It didn’t damage the heritage of any prior model. it’s just another late ’70s “Meh…” car. To me the “saddest” thing GM did was calling the Daewoo built Pontiac T-1000 replacement “LeMans”.
Very nice find and article – from my good ‘ole home state of Ohio.
I was a Ford guy but I remember when these came out in the mid-70’s and thought the early Chevy models with clean bodies looked pretty sharp. Went to the dealer and test drove one with the small 262 V8 – it was pretty quick for the day but I remember thinking these must have been built at Lordstown and after a quick check to see how well it was screwed together, found a plethora of misaligned panels and other problems – sprinted out of the dealership before the salesmen could reach for his 4-square….
I may just be sleep-deprived, but I’m weirdly charmed by this. The fit and finish is crude (through no fault of what I can only assume is a uniquely dedicated owner — its alignment deficiencies appear to be OEM), but I would have loved the look when I was about 10 and the rear fender panels would immediately elevated it above other cars with just the wing spoiler.
(That I was not 10 years old in 1979 and that this demographic in no way overlaps with people of driving age who might actually buy a Buick is of course not lost on me.)
That rear spoiler, seems to me like McLeod Horn XB Falcons
Due to competing against the Ford Mustand II Cobra, this is what you get…
It sort of made sense back then…sort of.
I purchased 1 new in 1979 as a 18 year old kid and loved this car just wish I would have taken better care of it no matter what you think if you did not personally drive or ride in 1 you have no idea what they were capable of I out ran firebirds and many other cars in it just throw a couple of curves in the road and it ran away from them I loved this car and wish I still owned it mine was a 5 speed
Quite a quick fall from grace, these seemed to be the buzz in 1975 when they came out.
My co-worker bought a used (probably also ’79) Sunbird about 1982 or so…even more sad was our same model name but different car ’84 Sunbird bought new that went through 2 engines and was junked after 5 years (despite dealer maintenance per schedule). Another sad thing…my friend paid 24% interest on the note (interest rates were extreme back then, especially on used cars). Don’t think he kept it long, he got married the next year and after they had kids, predictably they traded it for a Celebrity or similar family car. Interesting situation, his family owned a potato farm in Maine that pre-dated the border, some of the land was in Canada, guess his residence was in the US though.
We had a Olds Starfire, and the only good thing about it was the torquey Buick V6 and 5 spd manual (rare option). Otherwise the words that come to mind: abysmal assembly quality, horrible crappy interior materials, saggy doors, rattly body, and overall: a gen-u-wine POS. Cars like this were big reasons for murdering GM’s once decent reputation. A mint one nowadays would be interesting, and just about impossible to find. Too bad, as the styling had potential and the V6 wasn’t a bad engine, just vibrate-y (is that even a word? that’s what it was.) Just a major loser. I really wanted to like this car, but had absolutely no reason to. Horrible.
The Skyhawk is the epitome of the saddest case of badge engineering ever. A friend of mine had one and the interior was absolutely cheap. The entire car had a cheap look about it. You would never guess it was sold as a Buick which was supposed to be the number two division in the GM hierarchy. How the mighty had fallen.
Does that sign in the windshield say one of 1,729? What a poor excuse for uniqueness. Nobody wanted them. I never laid eyes on one of these, not one mind you.
The front does look like a Vega as was mentioned above.
That big yellow Buick beside it wants nothing to do with this Road Hawk- Toad Hawk.
Of course I meant to say the front end looked like a Chevette.
As I’ve said here before, Chevrolet/GM could have presented a very masculine IMSA/Dekon-inspired Monza, with a graphic and bold body kit. Tamer rear spoiler, of course. 350 V-8 equipped, as a great halo example, for all the H-Bodies. Bolder, than the Aspen/Volare Super Coupes. But it would have encroached into the Corvette/Camaro market. Milquetoast packages, like the Mirage, did little for the image of the Monza. And its derivatives.
Would have been as great-looking as the Porsche 935 Turbo Martini.
The street H body would be a terrible idea with a 200 hp engine. It wasn’t made for that type of speed.
GM wasn’t in Ford’s position. The Mustang II was a hit, but Ford also had to persuade some buyers that its Pinto based coupe was a perfectly adequate replacement for the traditional Mustang and Camaro. Chevrolet didn’t need to persuade some buyers that a Monza was as good as a Camaro; Chevrolet sold those buyers actual Camaros, same as before.
Road Hawk? WTF is a Road Hawk? Hawk sees mouse. Hawk launches for mouse. Hawk doesn’t see Semi truck just as he is pouncing on mouse. That is a Road Hawk. As someone said in a previous post, dead duck. The worst part of this is that some over educated meatball came up with this dead duck and was well paid for his efforts. The wrap around tail lights that aren’t wrap around anymore because of tack on body panels which make separate side marker lights necessary is especially stupid on a monumental level.
What a GM “piece of crap” jitney. This POC has the name of Roger Bonham Smith all over it, whether or not Smith had anything to do with it. Alfred P. Sloan could probably generate a goodly amount of NYC’s electric power if Con Edison attached a generator to his casket as he spins in his grave, pondering what to the colossus that was once General Motors Corporation.
Smith and those who thought like Smith were not car men; they were bean counters. Bean counters are hacks and butchers by nature and this vehicle is exemplary of the what happens when the bean counters have any say in the design or manufacturing of an automobile.
The Cimarron is the ultimate example of GM’s plunge into the world of road apples in the 1970’s, coincidental with the rise of Smith at GM. Putting garbage like this rickshaw exemplifies why GM died. I can’t say enough bad about bean counters who tried to pass this garbage off on the motoring public. They thought they knew better but did not understand the buyer.
GM produced some very dishonest cars, and these Monza-based sporty cars are among the most dishonest. These cars are like junk mail – there’s more on the outside telling you that it is not junk, than there is on the inside. Or – a ’58 Packard.
I actually remember seeing some of these “back in the day” ( I can’t believe I’m old enough to talk that way now )
Even as a car-crazy late teen ( and a liker of GM cars ) I thought it was super hokey. Ironically, I wasn’t bothered as much by the tacky and tacked on cladding as much as by the sleekness of that fastback look was ruined by the rear quarter window’s pointy aft section was “cut off” by the louver panel. UGH.
My fav was the “Oldsmobile , cousin, ride. (Firenza)
It’s the Cadillac of H bodies!
I’m reminded of the Beavis and Butthead episode from this most recent season where Beavis will be getting into a fight after school and those two geniuses strap everything they can find in the gym to Beavis as “protective armor”.