CC used to be crawling with post’77 B-Bodies, Broughams, and both together. Not so much anymore. Has Brougham Fever abated? Are B-Bodies passé? Well, they’re getting to be a bit scarce on the ground, and now I make a point to document each one. Like this ’82 Delta 88 Royale Brougham, which is actually something of an imposter since it’s missing both the requisite padded vinyl top and the fake wire wheel covers. Brougham? In name only. Is the Great Brougham Era at CC coming to an end?
We can only guess what’s under its long hood. Coming right off the nasty second energy crisis, 1982 was not exactly a high water mark for the brand that once was brimming with powerful Rocket V8s. The 231 Buick V6 (110 hp) was standard. The first step up option was the baby 260 V8, which according to my Almanac was rated at 100hp, although that doesn’t make much sense. The most powerful engine on tap was the 140hp Olds 307 V8, an engine that has inspired epic comment battles here about its legendary lethargy or prowess. The 105 hp 350 diesel V8 was also available, and in 1982, that was still fairly common, although word was definitely getting out. It’s days were numbered.
If the exterior is not exactly Broughamtastic, the interior is at least trying. The loose pillow look though is only on the seat back, unlike the Buicks, which had them on the seat bottom too. The Sloan Ladder is still alive!
The back seats in these B Bodies was actually quite roomy; probably every bit as much so as in the sedans. Only ingress/egress suffered, but as the upholstery shows, these back seats generally didn’t see much use. That’s the whole point of these coupes anyway.
It may be missing some of the key external attributes of a proper brougham, but the proof is in the badging.
I found these “aero” B Bodies to be significantly less appealing and graceful than the original 1977-1979 versions, especially these coupes with their vertical rear windows. It makes for ungainly proportions and that little upright rear window on every damn GM car for seemingly forever got so old.
I admit to very little attraction to this car other than the fact that it’s part of a vanishing breed on the streets. The Great Brougham Extinction seems to be well underway.
What epoch are we in now?
Fake sport package? (Malibu RS as a prime example)
Chase thee Germans? (Cadillac’s entire lineup along with Genesis)
TRUCK and faux trucky vehicles?
The “chase thee Germans” strategy has flopped terribly for Cadillac.
Their “Chase the Hipster” phase hasn’t really been working either.
Agree, MT.
Not everyone wants a back-pocket-dragging on the ground, snarling exhaust, rough riding, hard to get out of “Luxury Car” that makes you consult the owner’s manual in order to turn on the A/C or change radio stations.
The CUV All The Things era.
The Seem Prepared for All Things era? AWD, increased ride height, etc, even for those who will never go off-road or see snow and all the other trimmings popular these days.
I think we’re in the SUV (and variants) epoch. I believe that the only reason people buy these is because of supposed “image” instead any actual utility. Can we say lemmings over the cliff? How many of us out there really need/have any use for a vehicle that can haul oodles of crap around for whatever reason? To me, the SUV fad (and SUVs in general) is very annoying and can’t die fast enough.
You could call people lemmings for any previous fad though. Personal luxury coupes in the 70s. SUVs in the 90s. Etc. I’m frankly not bothered that people are seeking out such practical vehicles. Not sure why it bothers others so much.
How many of us out there really “need” a vehicle larger or more powerful than a Trabant? The popularity of CUVs is hardly a fad if it’s been going on for 20+ years now. Consumers have rediscovered that long, low, and wide isn’t where it’s at for packaging efficiency.
Agree. In modern overcrowded cities it is so much more convenient to have the interior and cargo space you need in a vehicle with a smaller footprint.
When you’re 6’5″ (1.96m) tall and 300 lbs (196kg), a Trabant isn’t going to cut it.
Ah, the “I’m tall and big, so I don’t fit” argument. Not picking on you personally, but I am going to challenge you on it. It grates on me like arguments over calling a car a “chick car” or saying you could never be seen in such and such a vehicle.
I am 6’2″ and while I weigh about 220 now, I used to weigh 400. Even at that point, I fit into damned near anything on the road. From sub-compacts to Corvettes to Escalades, I fit into them and actually drove them. Was it comfortable in every case? Hell no. But then, neither were plane seats, yet I was able to fly anywhere and everywhere. Was the seat cramped? Yep. Was there any legroom? Not really. But it did not justify me buying a private plane to better fit my needs, now did it? I get that people are not happy being cramped and uncomfortable, but I don’t know that you need a huge car just because you are larger.
My 6’5″ mechanic fits into both my Miata and my Fiat 500, and was surprised by the fact. I don’t think his head sticking up over the windscreen would cut it, safety wise, in the Miata, but the Fiat would easily serve his commuting needs, and I would assume yours as well. Are you going to be as comfortable in a 500 as in an Escalade? No, but don’t use the “I don’t fit” argument when you really mean “I am not comfortable” instead. I don’t begrudge your decision on owning a larger vehicle, but you don’t “need” a CUV, which was Drshivago’s point.
Thank you!
What it really is is that consumers have discovered the buzzphraze “packaging efficiency” and want to feel they made the right rational choice in car for everyone they know to see. People absolutely are lemmings, no different in the past than today, only difference now from then is “my tailfins are bigger, so my car is better” shifted to “my CUV has .03 cubic feet of extra interior volume, so my car is better”. Using practicality and efficiency in marketing is just the 2010s way of shaming people to keep up with the Joneses.
Exactly.
Like JFrank, I can fit in a good many cars from a huge SUV to a Miata.
However, I drive larger vehicles not because I have to due to weight and height but because I want to. I drive a truck or a minivan depending upon the week. I don’t need a van as it is just me but I want it.
The way I look at it is a large vehicle allows me to stretch out in the drive to and from the train station(10 miles from my home) After all I take a train to work where the seats are cramped and there are too many folks. Or I take the Metro where there are too many folks and the seats are cramped. I work at a small desk in a small room that is cramped in a small building with too many folks. On the way home I need to stretch out and relax. There is no way I would drive a small car daily. When I was in school, I drove small cars because i needed all the money I saved from not having to fill up. I gave up comfort. Now that I have a good job that pays well, there is no way I would drive a small shitbox again to save on gas.
Correct, not shaming anyone for their choice, rather just pointing out that saying one does not fit is a lame excuse at best.
If you want to drive anything, from the smallest Peel 60 to a F550 dually, more power to you. We all choose based on what we want to drive and can afford, but rare is the choice based on whether one can physically fit into a car or not.
How is your taste in cars superior or more original than that of a CUV owner?
Please tell me you only drive cars at full throttle, heel-toeing every shift, with the back seats occupied, and the trunk full, at all times.
As much as I did (and still do) admire the styling cues of the big Detroit 2 door models; this one never looked “Quite Right” to me.
Something about the roof line just irritates me.
Anyone else?
Yes. See below.
+1. A coupe is supposed to be about style. What is the point in a coupe that looks even gawkier than the sedan it’s derived from?
It’s like somebody in GM Styling was really an avid fan of some extreme modern art school, and was trying to sell their style to the masses.
Here’s a turnabout: I like these post-1979 Olds 88 coupes even less than Paul does! From the day I first saw one it looked like one of those plastic promos from the 50s that had melted a little and drooped at both ends. I didn’t like the rooflines, I didn’t like the new taillights, I didn’t like the smooshed down grille.
I am a fan of the 77-79 version and would happily drive one. But these? I do not like them, Sam-I-Am.
I’d like to see the production split between coupes and sedans from this era. Because the general feeling at the time was that full-size, non-personal luxury coupes such as this didn’t make much sense.
If you wanted a coupe, buy a Cutlass Supreme or a Toronado.
My parents had the four-door sedan version of this car with the 307 V-8. It was a very competent, reliable and comfortable family sedan that was still viewed as a cut above a Chevrolet or Pontiac (at least in our small town).
In many ways it was a nice improvement over their 1976 Delta 88 Royale hardtop sedan. It wasn’t a sparkling performer, but then, neither was the 1976 model. And the 1982 Olds got better gas mileage.
Basically, the 4 door Royale sold at almost 2 +1/2 times the 2 door Royale, and that was about the same for all models of the 88. But the really interesting thing is that the split was MUCH NARROWER before the 77 downsized models. In 74,for instance, slightly more 2 doors were sold than 4 doors.
And the really interesting thing? Full sized Olds 2 doors were more popular than the full sized wagons.
Would you prefer a Fox? Would you prefer a speedy Box…ster?
I would not like it equipped with air, I would not like it anywhere! 🙂
Me, either. Chevrolet had such a great thing with the bent-glass rear window on the ’77 Impala and Caprice, only to be replaced by the generic, upright and boring formal roofline. The ’77-’79 DeVille and Fleetwood had a lean, sleek look in front that was utterly destroyed the the overstuff and more Brougham-like design in 1980.
Agreed 100%, gdwriter. Although even though I like the bent-glass coupes, I still preferred the sedans.
Chevy is the only one of the B/Cs where I found the 80 refresh an improvement, or at least indifferent. I liked the revised front and rear styling much better than what I felt were droopy looking 77-79s. But I too prefer the sedan in this generation, so the 80 update wasnt as drastic as the coupe.
I feel the 77 Buick and Pontiac rooflines were substantially more attractive to the Chevy bent glass.
Generic. Exactly. They went from “Wow – that’s a Chevy! That one’s a Buick” to “That’s some kinda GM coupe – meh, who cares?”
The ’77-’79’s were quite fine, especially the Delta 88 Holiday Coupe and the LeSabre Sport Coupe, both sans vinyl. never quite warmed to the Chevy with its folded back light.
The loose-cushion seats in the Delta 88 Royale Brougham were so halfhearted compared to those in the 98 Regency (the 98 also had those huge armrest on the doors, an essential element of Broughamness). The outside of the 98 looked better too, with better proportions, fender skirts, and a much nicer tail treatment than the bug-eyed look the 88 had.
The coupe rear seat may well have been even more comfortable than the sedan’s, as the edges of the sedan’s seat cushion were cut away substantially to allow your legs to swing into and out of the car.
Pop had the big brother to this car, an ’81 98 Regency Coupe. Black over maroon. I can personally attest that the back seat was every bit as roomy as the sedan. At 15, ingress/egress to the back seat didn’t bother me.
Man, that was one big coupe.
I was never much of one for the B and C coupes, but I’d buy one now if I could. I’m probably the target buyer now, I’m just 30+ years too late: 50ish, professional, kids grown and out of the house or almost so. It’s usually just me anyway, but I want to look nice arriving somewhere. And, I do need to carry other adults from time to time for work purposes, so a Regal or a Cutlass might be a little tight. My assistant probably has a Monte Carlo/Regal/Cutlass, so I need to be up the Sloan ladder from that size anyways.
Geez, I loved the B and C sedans when I as a kid. My high school geometry teacher had a new Electra Park Ave., so this was 1985 or so. One of the last of the big ones. Triple navy (paint, vinyl top and the loose pillow velour seats). I was walking home one day because I missed my bus. She pulled over and gave me a ride the rest of the way. Good Lord I remember that car to this day.
Count me as one who likes the drooped nose, but not the revised rear profile. Four door or wagon only, no “formal” two door rooflines for me. And yes, here in my part of California, these B Bodies are getting scarce. The ones I notice are frequently wagons.
I agree! I like both the original 77-79 and the 80+. Never like the 77-79 88 coupe as well as others because of its upright rear window, but at least it’s the only one whose roof didn’t change much for 1980.
There’s a fella on Craigslist selling a 1977 Buick Electra that everyone in our car club swears is stolen. In runs and drives, but the man doesn’t have the key for the trunk and driver’s side door handle is drilled out. Super sketchy, and the price keeps getting lower!
Also, I contend we are in the Plastic Epoch! Or prehaps the “Lets all try and look like Tesla” Epoch.
The Plastic Epoch was over and done before the turn of the century.
This is the beginning of the epoch of aluminum, if anything.
The right rear wheel has the mounting adaptor for the wire wheel covers, I’d say they’ve gone missing or are in the trunk.
I noticed that, too. This car would great if it had its hubcaps. Maybe old fashioned hubcap crime has survived along with this car?
I like the 2 tone. We had a 2 tone burgundy ’82 coupe that my Mom bought new, it was a really sharp car with Olds Rallyes and a 307. Looks like that one had wire wheel covers and has the somewhat rare ‘rallye’ gauges.
The coupes have gotten hard to find but theres still quite a few B-Body sedans running around in my area
Is the great brougham era at CC coming to an end?
Please God, yes!!!!!!!
As long as there are Broughams extant, CC will cover them. I take it you’re more of a mid-size or compact car fan, Syke?
I’m am an obnoxious, complete, absolute, livid brougham hater. As in, I consider them the absolute bottom of the barrel in the history of the American car industry.
Given the choice between a 70’s Regency 98 and a Yugo, I’ll take the Yugo any day. Same choice between that Regency and an SUV/CUV, I’ll prefer a bicycle, but would take the latter gagging all the way.
I had an 84 88 with the same upholstery once. It was a 58k mile creampuff in 2001, but it still had the lower seat fabric just starting to tear like this one is doing. Not very durable cloth! The cheesy steering wheel cover hides whether the thin plastic steering wheel has survived without major cracking. If it’s a local car I would predict it did. If it’s a car from drier, sunnier climes, as the paint and upholstery suggest, it is probably wearing the cover because it is so cracked.
This car looks like it has survived in pretty darn nice condition. If it had its wire wheel hubcaps in place and a good polishing, it might look immaculate from 20 feet away.
The B-body nerd in me comes out when I point out that it has the optional auxiliary gauge package. Oldsmobile was the only division to offer that nice touch (which should be standard or at least on all GM cars!)
Pontiac also offered an optional gauge package through the last “real” ones with Pontiac-specific dashboards in 1981; it included temperature, oil pressure, and voltage (my dad’s Bonneville had the gauges). There was an optional gauge package on Chevrolets too; it replaced the rectangular speedometer with round gauges and added a combined temperature and oil pressure readout plus one of those silly fuel economy meters.
That’s right, I remember the Chevy one. Everything but a voltmeter. I didnt know about the Pontiac one. Cool!
I’m starting to see freshly painted steel wheels with whitewalls on older American cars more often, as the finished style rather than waiting for the hubcaps. Not really my thing, but I like it better than wheels and even plastic wheelcovers painted flat black. I’ve seen enough of that for one lifetime. Nice clean car. I sure hate those steering wheel covers that just look like a giant rubber band. Especially wood-insert style. As always, enjoyed the article.
Judging from the bright metal wheel “center” on the RR wheel, this car probably did have the locking wire wheel cover option.
I have to say…to me, these 2-door B-bodies always looked like relics of days gone by, even when new. The design was just so lacking in any sort of “coupe” pizzaz that even a larger car should have had.
In Brazil we are definitely living the faux SUV/truck era. Every manufacturer have options to all pocket depths. Take a look at this Renault Kwid, marketed as the “SUV of the compacts”…..Is it a joke or what????
A-segment CUVs would be a joke in the US (B-segments kind of are already), but for other countries where space is more of a luxury than a given, they make more sense.
It’s all about combining a tall stance for an easy step-in height with a design that says, however softly and vaguely, “adventure” rather than “accessibility”.
What’s a little odd is that the ’77-’79 Olds B-body two-doors didn’t have the nice Fiat-130-like roofline of its Pontiac and Buick cousins. Instead, the Olds got an awkward and blocky window treatment. I think the 1980 restyle was actually an improvement for the Olds coupe (but not for Pontiac and Buick).
I totally agree. Olds was the weakest styled of the 77-79s, I don’t see the 80 as much of a downgrade as compared to Buick.
That looks like a compromise. While not quite as dissonant as a square peg in a round hole, that rectangular window doesn’t go with the slope of the rear window – like Fisher insisted Olds use this body when they really wanted something more formal.
Good point, the 80 roofline is very similar to the 79 Toronado , maybe that’s what the stylists intended for all along.
It does make me wonder why they bothered with new rooflines for the coupes in a dwindling segment, rather than applying the ’77-79 Buick-Pontiac one across the board and giving Olds a new look (more refined!) along with Chevy (no more expensive lost-wire-bent rear window!) and maybe even Cadillac.
The Oldsmobiles were always my least favourite of the Bs. I prefer the details of the ’80-85s but the rooflines of the ’77-79. The C-Bodies though? I love the 80+ 98s, a lot!
I prefer the styling of the 1977-79 B/C bodies myself with the exception of the Pontiac sedan, I wish they didn’t stop making them with the 350ci after 1979 for Chevrolet & Pontiac and 1980 for Oldsmobile & Buick, I’ve felt that the B/C body cars had a sportier, big car look to them during the 1977-79 era.
My dream vehicles of the Malaise era is either a 1977-79 Oldsmobile Ninety Eight, Buick Electra or a Chevrolet Caprice Classic (the latter w/sport mirrors and a 350 V8).
I feel like the less frequent Brougham posts lately are no doubt due to the substantial amount of them in CC’s early years. One car can only be written about several times, even if it’s by different writers with different opinions, before there really isn’t much left to say.
Keep in mind too that apart from our core group of stalwarts, the regular writers and contributors has also changed over the years, with the featured cars generally reflecting the vehicle interests of the writer who is writing about it. We’re very lucky that our writing staff is so diverse in backgrounds, interests, and experiences, which undoubtably contributes to the wide range of cars covered here.
I for one, enjoy a wide variety of cars. So while CC isn’t quite as Brougham-heavy as it might have been years ago, I don’t think Broughams will every truly go away here. There are a lot of cars that haven’t yet had such a spotlight as so many cars from the Brougham era, so it’s their time to shine now.
I truly never knew these were made without vinyl tops, and with that and the absence of GM’s universally terrible wire wheel covers I dont find myself near as grossed out as I normally would when viewing a B body Olds(these were the most common rusty dilapidated cars you’d see in scary blighted neighborhoods in rust belt cities when i was a kid). it actually looks kind of good at certain angles like the last pic.
I wont miss brougham, they’re too predictable and polarizing of a topic, and the surviving cars themselves have dwindled down to only a few of the most robust models(as these B bodies certainly were), and what more can be said about those? But then I say that and am pleasantly surprised to see this Olds in this configuration, so maybe I’m not over it!
I want. This is almost my dream B-body. The “sporty“ Holiday 88 would be even better, but this is darn close.
IMO: the next generation (1986) Oldsmobile Delta 88 and Buick LeSabre 2 door coupes were MUCH better looking cars.