William Rubano never fails to deliver something good to the Cohort. While struggling with what to say about a different Buick, I found a set of Buicks that neatly show the extremes in which one could acquire a new Regal back around 1985 to 1987.
This first one is the high-performance Grand National. There was sizzle to go with this steak, as it packed a turbocharged 3.8 liter V6.
Yet all Grand Nationals started off as a Buick like this more pedestrian Regal. These are the same car with executions that were worlds apart. Well, perhaps both shared engine displacement of 3.8 liters and a brand name.
So which wears its look better? And has the same car ever offered as vastly a different presentation as these two? This could be the softball question of the month but let’s hear what you think.
Why not both?
Seriously, the Grand National is the Goth girl you take to parties, while the Regal is the girl you can introduce to mother.
The Grand National to me is more like a grandma wearing goth she borrowed from her granddaughter.
I agree both are good looking in different ways, though the Regal would look better with a set of Buick Rally Wheels instead of the wire wheel covers.
The goth/rocker/pinup girl is the ONLY one for me! Mama’s just gonna have to be along for the ride!
I’ve always loved the Grand Nats from this period.
I vote for it!
I wish car companies still approached exterior design like this. I would like to see a “Cordoba” or “Royale Monaco” version of the Dodge Challenger to contrast with the current design. They wouldn’t sell many but they would sell more than a few. Especially since Cadillac, Lincoln, and Buick gave up on the PLC long ago. Chevy held on to the Monte Carlo the latest but even the newest model year 2007 is now twelve years old.
Dodge offered the “SE” trim package on the early 70s Challenger, even Plymouth offered a brougham package on their Barracuda, but that is one niche none of the pony cars are filling. Heck, Chrysler doesn’t even offer a Challenger convertible unlike Chevy and Ford.
I guess it is considered to be “quaint” to have a vinyl covered roof on a car nowadays, but just this morning I saw a late model Cadillac SEDAN with a contrast color vinyl roof…and A rear decklid spoiler.
Florida, what you see on cars here.
I can do without the vinyl roof. I was thinking something along the lines of a modern 1990 Chrysler LeBaron Coupe or 1992 Cadillac El Dorado.
A bit different market than the Challenger but still not a relic of the 1970’s.
If a vinyl roof and convertible were offered as options, I wouldn’t mind though. Just not something I think would appeal to most folks under sixty year old. Doing either of the vinyl roof or the convertible in todays market would require subcontracting to ASC etc. and would dramatically raise the MSRP.
If there were a market for those roof options most Chrysler dealers would be doing pre-delivery vinyl roof treatments on the existing 300, Challenger, and Charger stock. That market is long-gone.
Some aftermarket specialists tried to fill the void. There’s even a older
gen Honda Accord with a vinyl roof then I saw on this link. https://blog.consumerguide.com/landau-madness-the-best-of-after-market-vinyl-tops/
This is exactly the direction Henry Ford II wanted to take the Mustang and, to a certain extent, he succeeded with trim packages like the ‘pony’ interior.
He really got his ‘mini-Thunderbird’ with the 1967 Cougar. The Mercury went through the end of the musclecar car era with stuff like the XR-7 GT and Eliminator, but when performance ceased to sell in the early seventies, the Cougar made the full transition to intermediate brougham personal luxury car in 1974 at the same time the Mustang dropped down to modified Pinto status.
The problem today is that domestic coupes no longer sell in the luxury segment, taken over completely by stylish sport sedans. A new Mustang Grande or Challenger SE just wouldn’t have many buyers. Well, as mentioned, except maybe in Florida.
As an example, consider the recently cancelled Buick Cascada, a vehicle that would seem to embody exactly the type of demographic described. It didn’t sell that well, even in Florida.
The Cascada was a segment below the Challenger and poorly positioned (over-priced) in the rapidly-shrinking market. The Cascada was a belated competitor to the discontinued Chrysler 200. The Challenger is based on the Chrysler 300 platform.
GM would have needed to give Buick the old Holden Commodore chassis or a Cadillac CT6 chassis to achieve similar dimensions of the Challenger. A two door Lacrosse would have been dimensionally similar but FWD biased AWD instead of true RWD.
I would rather want Grand National with the export taillights…
Those are very interesting – I’ve never seen those taillights before.
Unless this was the Buick Nationals, I am amazed that both of these Regals were parked at the same event. Grand Nationals are not so rare today, since they were considered really special from day one and have a high survival rate. But that base Regal is a bird not seen roosting much of anywhere these days, especially in such nice condition.
It is amazing how much difference trim makes on cars of this vintage. They have exactly the same sheetmetal and similar stance. With blacked out grille, headlight surrounds, bumpers, window moldings, and wide tires on bitchin’ 15in wheels, the GN has a completely different character from the base Regal with its vinyl roof, 14in wire wheel covers, wide chrome rocker panels and other chrome trim.
I’ve always been a fan of the Grand National, as one of the faster performance cars available in the mid 80’s and a really cool-looking latter-day version of a 60’s muscle car. One reason it was so good-looking was that the Regal was a really nice design already. I think the 81-87 is the best design of the GM intermediates of the period, so I like that base model.
Back in the day, I didn’t think about it much because Regal coupes were so common. Now, though, they are rare enough to be special just by surviving.
There’s no question I prefer the Grand National, but I can see why someone would have preferred the traditional Regal styling in the ‘80s.
I prefer the classy lines of the Regal Limited and don’t care for black cars. The base bench and bucket-seat interiors in these cars are uncomfortable & their complimentary consoles seem fragile and chintzy to me.
The 60/40 Limited velour seats feel more inviting and they came in burgundy, blue, and even jade (earlier years). What’s so cool is that the Limited could be ordered up with the turbocharged mill if one so desired.
While the GN/GNX is a sharp ride, they are always black outside and always black/grey inside. Just not my thing.
It is funny how the rare GN has now become the most commonly seen of these Regals.
While I normally like the stock kind of look, this car is from the era of chintz (plastic chrome, vinyl landau roofs and fake wires on the wheels. The GN is a little over the top, but it has the cattle to go with the hat.
It’s the GTO effect in action. The performance models are preserved while the base models are neglected, and some are made into clone cars.
GMs chrome of this time period was at its nadir. Regals look chintzy. I will say I think the Grand National/GNX aren’t my favorite in black. I prefer the T-type aesthetic, with more exterior colors but the GNs wheels and hood, chrome bumpers, low key details and black trim.
I’d agree with that. Except that I LOVE the chrome steel GN wheels for 86/87, while the non-GN turbo models continued with the aluminum wheels like in your picture. Those aluminum wheels were ok, but I much prefer the 86/87 GN ones.
I like both, those T-type ones remind me of the old Vector mag wheels
I was just thinking how fun it might be to put the GN guts into the Regal Limited. Ditch the wires, though, and go with some iconic Buick 5-spoke Road wheels. Talk about a sleeper.
Hi XR7 Matt,
That is a great looking car. Were regular Regals available with at least some kind of V8?
Pros: Sharp boxy styling. Aero is for Tempos.
Rear wheel drive. Fun as hell to drift in the snow.
Thin A-pillars for visibility.
Nice big doors, and long side windows to let the air pass
behind you.
Handled decently. Interior adequately quiet if all the
screws were tight.
Cons: Outdated boxy styling. Boxy is for Ladas.
Rear wheel drive. Awful in the snow and scary with a positraction.
Thin A-pillars werent very good in a crash.
Big heavy doors that eventually sagged and theft-friendly windows.
Body was kind of floppy over hard bumps. Dash was squeaky GM crap.
Those big saggy GM doors were a pain in the ass.
I think the deservedly unloved Mustang Grande and Mustang Ghia alongside Boss 351 or SVO models provide a similar contrast. As would the Regal’s G body stable mates in Brougham versus performance editions.
The final Regal carried the look the best of the final G-Special body, better than the Monte Carlo or shovel-nose Cutlass. And, with the excellent turbo V-6, was quite the runner. The other two, in SS or 442 guise, were dogs in comparison.
I recall a Car and Driver article which said that the Buick turbo 3.8L was a terrific engine in search of a decent car. To this day, you’ll still see a few modified Grand Nationals at the dragstrips on the weekends. Even though it was a V6, many consider it the last, true musclecar since it was a domestic coupe (the later bubble ’94-’96 Impala with its Corvette engine, although speedy, was a sedan).
I’d argue that the last GM muscle car was the 2004-2006 Pontiac GTO which is appropriate since it started the muscle car era at GM. If the turbo six was a decent engine in search of a decent car the 2004 GTO was a decent car in search of a decent fan-base.
I would also argue that the new Challenger SRT trims and the Mustang Shelbys are muscle cars as well. With the Challenger being the closest modern facsimile. The Camaro is too “transformer” inspired to be considered a Muscle Car. Although I wouldn’t argue with someone claiming that the 2010-2015 was a muscle car. Its borderline in my eyes.
Also I just remembered something I always wanted to say. Shame on GM for pulling Pontiac out of NASCAR Competition just as the 2004 Pontiac GTO was launching. Talk about a deadly sin!
From 1989-2002 Pontiac fielded Front Wheel Drive Grand Prix as its NASCAR. Pontiac FINALLY gets a Rear Wheel Drive V8 Coupe on the Street that at least somewhat mimics a NASCAR Experience and GM Pulls the Plug!?
If I ran GM, everyone except DEI (Earnhardt Jr.) and Hendrick (Jeff Gordon) would have been forced to use Pontiac GTO Templates in 2003 and 2004 at least.
Good point!
GM would have kept Pontiac in NASCAR but no good teams in NASCAR wanted to run Pontiacs. Gibbs switched from Chevy to Pontiac at GM’s request and won two championships, but NASCAR would handicap “Pontiac” whenever Gibbs was on a roll, so Gibbs changed back to Chevy.
And has the same car ever offered as vastly a different presentation as these two?
Probably the Ford Focus Mk3 and Honda Civic Mk9 – both offered both cheap, hubcapped stripper models for fleets and cheapskates, and mad-looking widebody spoilered sport versions, the RS and Type R.
1987 was the only year the high-performance turbo engine was available on any Regal, and I actually considered buying a Regal Limited like the one in the second photo with the “Grand National engine” which required the suspension upgrades to deal with the extra power. It would have been burgundy inside and out, with the vinyl roof, opera lamps, pillowy velour interior with split bench seat. Who’d expect this thing could shut down Corvettes and Porsches? Apparently over 1,000 such cars were built. If only I’d actually ordered one; it was a bit too expensive and impractical for me. I never would have dreamt it would become a collectable that was worth more that it cost new.
Joe Ligo drove one; the best of both worlds! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGTmwI1hSEI
I posted above before reading this. Exactly something I might have done if I was a buyer in that era.
Never understood the appeal of these cars.
GM was caught off guard with the popularity of the Ford Jellybean cars. The market suddenly wanted aerodynamic cars, not formal square cars like the GM brands were offering. Why get one of these instead of an AeroBird? or a new slick AeroCougar? Even the Lincoln Mark coupe was slicker than anything GM was offering.
These cars were Hail Mary passes – powerful engines in dated looking cars. The GN, along with those odd looking AeroMonte Carlo and the AeroGrand Prix were slap-dash attempts to push an auto design that the market turned from as being too dated to drive.
Time has been kind to these cars. Not being in fashion at the time, doesn’t mean much forty years later. What I thought was so odd at the time were their popularity and the shelving of them as though they were something once-in-a-lifetime. An honest Regal is more attractive because the GN looked too much like a senior citizen in Spandex jogging tights.
I had to drive the first and second gen Taurus for work and I never understood the appeal of them at all, especially the 2nd gen. I recently drove a rental Taurus and I liked it a lot better than the old ones, but it’s still pretty unappealing to me. If I wanted a four door car, I would be buying a Charger, not the Taurus, so many things wrong with it.
Funny that. What is perceived to be the old dog
in it’s day becomes much more coveted and revered than the so-called
modern and “superior” replacements. G-bodies fit that description. They are widely collected and sought after. Tauruses, Luminas, FWD Cutlasses et al not so much.
Don’t get me wrong. I have driven many types of cars in my time, US, Euro, Asian, and these pig-iron simple machines still tug my heart strings. When had a chance to get a near-new Buick in 1983 I chose the Skylark based on buff-book BS.
Big mistake, and I don’t think I have to elaborate.
Having said that, my ultimate G-body is a Monte Carlo SS
with GNX running gear.
VanillaDude, what I think that–and this is speaking personally–that I liked so much about these cars at the time and to this day, is that they are the last in line of the old, dated version of cars. Carbed, RWD, not overly modern, they still have their imprint mostly in the outdated way of doing things, and therein lies the appeal. They still have the lineage of muscle cars, even if the engines are not particularly powerful, and the brougham era–though a polarizing one–represents a bygone era of what was once popular.
And the average person–even non car enthusiasts–would generally be able to tell that it’s a classic from a bygone era that takes some work and dedication to still keep it on the road.
When I wondered why my ’91 Thunderbird SC, for some reason, just did not have much value as a classic car, I wondered if cars from the late 80’s with fuel injection, and with the modern aero look don’t get tossed away simply because they have no real dated stamp in time…….they get lost in all the other cars that are an improvement on that particular thing, and then typically don’t get saved because they don’t really represent anything that really is a throwback to an earlier era. A modern comparison might be why someone basically tosses away a cellphone that is several years old and why those phones don’t have much worth…..it is still new enough that it should have value, but not new enough to be desirable that want the newest example of it.
In my humble opinion, the Pontiac Grand Prix of this era outdoes both of these. Much better styled with the upright grille and the box shaped taillights instead of the horizontals on these Buicks. Absent the Pontiac, then the stock version Buick is OK.
An ex-GF of mine had a license plate starting in DAJ, like in the photo. It was on her Chevette. She and I did not last too long, I don’t believe the Chevy did either.
Another cool topic Jason. I’d pick the Regal in its natural state, if equipped with Buick road wheels. Elegant and sporty at once.
Black cars look better in the shade.
While I’m indifferent, I think Buick was onto something back then with its blacked-out treatment… it’s clearly what sells today.
The GN looked then and still does, vastly better than a plain old Regal. I’ve never been a chrome fan. I would have liked a GN in an actual color like bright red with matching trim and blacked out grill, etc. Zero chrome. But the black has aged very well.
Saw a GN way ahead of me on the road two days ago. I was coming back home from taking my son to school and driving my wife’s car (2016 Charger SXT). I never got close enough to find out, but it hit me that the 3.6 V6 in the Charger would probably dust that Grand National. I wept a bit, as I, too, recall these when they were new and fast (my friend’s brother had a black Regal T-Type that was essentially a GN without the badges back in the day).
“ And has the same car ever offered as vastly a different presentation as these two?”
Oh absolutely. Take a look at the different variations of pickup trim levels. The muted colors, big blingy luxury car looking rims, overblown chrome clad grilles, excessive badging and posh interiors found on Laramie Longhorns, King Ranches, etc have the exact geriatric and cheesy visual impact as the vinyl roofs, whitewalls/basket hubcaps, standup hood ornaments of broughams. Contrast that to the GNX/T-type Regal, Cutlass 442, Monte Carlo SS etc. A close approximation would be the Rebel , or Trail Boss. A very real comparison to the GNX would be the Ram SRT-10, Ford Raptor, Lightning. Tremendously different executions on the same basic bones.
Chrysler 300 is VASTLY Damn different in Limited or C trim vs the S model. Any Jeep offered in TrailHawk trim is a much more aggressive and athletic interpretation vs lesser or more luxury oriented versions, that seems to mirror the differences in pickup flavors.
I probably dont have to point it out, but my tastes are firmly on the offroad/sport/muscle package side. You couldn’t pay me to own the luxo/bling models.
No question for me, the GN handsdown. I think the GN was the best looking of all the ’78-88 A/G-body cars. I love the blacked out mean performance look and the lack of chrome. I also liked the Monte Carlo SS too, but its excessive front overhang spoiled the looks a bit. The T-Type that XR7Matt posted above is another looker too, but I still prefer the black GN.
For me, the regular Regal with all the chrome and Brougham accents, just screams Grandma car. The Cutlass Supreme and Monte Carlo (pre composite lights) looked a little less old person IMO than these Regals.
As a G-body fan in particular (owned an ’84 Cutlass at one point), what I like about these cars is that they looked great in various forms and are one of the most (and maybe last) cars that I can think of that could have a variety of different hubcaps, wheels, colours and any level of mild to wild that could appease a broad spectrum of buyers.
Darker colours, rims (turbines on the Regals, rally rims on the Cutlasses, honeycombs on the Grand Prix’s, rally rims on the Montes), wider tires with raised white lettering, T-tops, lack of a vinyl roof or lower chrome trim could really make these things look mean. Throw in bucket seats, a console shift, and the rally gauge package and you’ve got yourself a muscle car (80’s version, of course). Put a dual exhaust on it, and that 305/ 307 sure at least sounds mean.
Add a vinyl roof, a softer/ lighter/ pastel colour, some wire wheels, bench seat with velour, keep the sweep speedometer and it could be an old person’s car, or a respectable family car (though I remember that it being a two door wasn’t too kind to us kids in the back, ha ha).
And then you add some small wire wheels and hydraulics, and you’re a gangsta!!
I dunno. There are numerous models that offered one extreme to the other.
1970 Malibu coupe. Offered with a straight six with three-on-the-tree all the way up to the snarling LS6-454 SS incarnation. Even Chrysler’s mid-size Belvedere went from bargain-basement and poverty-capped to the winged warrior of NASCAR fame.
FWIW, I recall the Grand National was the fastest production car of it’s time. And I gotta admit, I don’t think anyone went the opposite extremes in the same car…with the same displacement engine. Buick’s got that trophy.