The 1976 Buick LeSabre V6 has become something of an automotive unicorn. The only images that Google can find are two, posted by the the sleuths at imcdb.org, This one is from an Italian tv series 07 Zglos Sie; the V6 badge is clearly visible on the front fender. The 3.8 L (231 CID) V6 was not initially going to be offered on the ’76 LeSabre, in the last year of its corpulent ’71-’76 body, which is why it’s not mentioned in the 1976 Buick brochures. But it was made the standard engine on the base LeSabre Custom sometime after the start of the model year, and given that it made all of 110 (net) hp, in a car that weighed 4,300 lbs, the result is a very feeble 39 lbs per hp. That’s worse than a 1934 Chevrolet. So is this the all-time low water mark for any American “Malaise Era”cars? Or am I missing someone even more sluggish?
The only other (Google)known shot of a ’76 LeSabre V6 is this other one also found by the imcdb.org tv/movie watchers, from the 1984 movie Black Devil Doll From Hell. And you think you spend too much time looking at old cars on tv?
Since those two don’t do it much justice, here’s what the four door hardtop looked like when new (minus the V6 badge). The reason why there’s probably no V6 version left in the world is that production was low: 2,312 of these four door hardtops; 3,861 of the coupes; and 4,315 of the four door sedans.
I do remember seeing one of these V6 LeSabres occasionally back in their day, and was pretty shocked that Buick would have done this. 0-60 in over 20 seconds? So does the Buick get the crown of shame?
Did it at least deliver decent fuel economy?
I doubt it. A small engine pushing a lot of weight works harder than a larger engine that isn’t laboring as much. Usually that means that fuel mileage isn’t any better (Some cases it’s worse)- for example, my F150 with the 300 I6 doesn’t do any better than my Dodge D250 with the 360 V8.
Let’s face it, the 70’s were horrible and all those other cars are slow, too, but the big Buick was traditionally a V-8 powered car and to saddle such a car with a V-6 was ludicrous. I’ve actually driven two of them just to laugh at them back when they were available as used cars. One was on a used car lot in Waco in about 1981. It was a coupe and the engine was cold–I couldn’t even get it to pull out of the slight indentation in the soft earth its tires had settled. The dealer got in it and revved the hell out of it and got it over its congestion. Got it out on Hwy. 6 and you virtually kept it floored all the time just to keep it moving. On a slight incline I floorboarded it and made it downshift, but it couldn’t get above 60 when it upshifted and that was all she wrote. The engine looked hilarious under the hood, must have had the longest radiator hose in history. Buick was on a tear that year because they equipped some 4,700 lb. Electras with 350’s because of shortages and it was almost as bad as a V-6. The ’80’s Cadillacs with the 4.1 V-8 run the ’76 LeSabre V-6s a close but slow race as the worst full size cars ever produced in America.
As an owner of a 76 Lesabre I must say the fuel mileage ride and comfort is great. It’s more a highway car and a city sled.
Not sure I ever cared enough to look for these, but now I wish I had.
I worked at a place that had a 77 LeSabre with the V6. Everybody there hated driving it, it was so horribly slow. The other choices were a 76 base Electra, a 76 Fleetwood and a 77 Fleetwood. Truly a time when the world as we knew it was ending, when the new Buick would be such a pig in comparison to the older cars.
I don’t know how it did on power to weight, but a friend of my mother bought a 76-ish Mustang II with the 2.3 four and an automatic. It was excruciatingly slow, but probably faster than a V6 76 Buick.
Closest domestic I can think of is the AMC Pacer. With the standard 232 six-cylinder engine, the car weighed in at about 3000 pounds and had 90 horsepower, 33.3 pounds per hp. Zero-to-sixty with automatic transmission took 21 seconds. (Source: July 1975 Popular Science magazine.)
For imports, the Subaru 360 sedan weighed about 990 pounds and had 25 horsepower, for 39.6 pounds per horsepower. Zero-to-fifty took 37.5 seconds. (Zero-to-sixty test not performed – probably not enough road! Source: Consumer Reports, April 1969.)
I nominate the Chevette Diesel.
https://books.google.com/books?id=HVhlMMQLVhcC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=chevette+diesel+specs&source=bl&ots=m99EJHBjTq&sig=xgiIDinz0mKg-f8aV-UeUZsX8nU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBmoVChMI9-jV6Y_6yAIVVv5jCh09wADO#v=onepage&q=chevette%20diesel%20specs&f=false
2050 lbs, 51hp. 40.2 pounds per hp. 0-60 in 28.5 seconds. And that was with a manual. You don’t even want to THINK about what an automatic did.
I drove a late-80s Escort with the Mazda diesel that was glacially slow. I wouldn’t consider any of the econobox NA diesels of that era to be part of the category being discussed here though.
Ford had some ridiculously high Final Drive ratios back then. I’d look for the biggest car where the 250CI I6 was available (LTD II? Montego?) and start from there.
The question being…
“Did The 1976 Buick LeSabre V6 Have The Worst Power-To-Weight Ratio Of Any “Malaise Era” American Car?”
The specs I quoted were for a 1982 model. That’s within the “Malaise Era” by most standards.
The Chevette was most certainly an American car, even with a Japanese engine and transmission.
So what about the Chevette doesn’t fit the category?
But if you want big, body-on-frame cars, how about the fleet-spec 1973 Bel Air? 4034 lbs, 100 hp (with the 250 c.i I-6) 40.34 lbs/hp. That’s even worse than the Chevette!
Diesels from that era are a bit of a world unto their own. But since I didn’t specifically exempt them, they’re fair game.
Yeah, I didn’t mean it to be a contentious point, I simply stated that, to me, the diesel econoboxes aren’t what immediately spring to mind when one thinks of the stereotypical American car of that era.
As already mentioned, they’re kind of a sub-set unto themselves.
The 351 was standard by that point. I think the 6 left in 73.
So the Granada/Monarch was about the biggest Ford product with the I6? Seems odd but Ford’s V8s were all strangled dogs by that era anyway.
I recall reading that the 390 they used in their trucks in the late-70s put out something like 150 HP, ridiculous number.
’73 was the last year sixes were offered to the general public in Ford intermediates. IINM, for ’74 the sixes were fleet model only, then gone completely after that. The 351 was the smallest engine available in 1975-76, then Ford went back to the 302 as base engine in 1977.
By contrast, GM and Chrysler offered sixes in their intermediates (at least in the lower-end models) all along. The oddity of Ford going to the 351 when their competitors offered sixes and/or smaller V8s, especially in the wake of the energy crisis, was noted here a while back. The leading theory was that Ford did this because their V8s were such poor performers. You really needed a 351 to adequately move the bulk of a mid ’70s FoMoCo intermediate, and there was little or no gas mileage penalty compared to a 302. Ford may have also been trying to create some separation between the Granada and Torino.
Was there an automatic option for the diesel Chevette?
Not only was there an automatic diesel T-body, there’s a vintage Motorweek review of the Pontiac 1000 diesel automatic on YouTube. They couldn’t perform their usual braking tests on the car because they couldn’t get the car up to speed in the space available! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMsXLYFU0pU
I hope A/C wasn’t available on the diesel Chevette. Hated it on my dad’s Chevette back in the day. I made sure the two, yes two, Chevettes I purchased did NOT have A/C or automatics (or a Diesel engine.)
Even as a life long Buick fan, I have to admit that I have never seen one in real life. I always thought they ONLY existed in the catalog. I’m actually suprised that they even bothered building it knowing the new trimmer “B” body was coming in the next M.Y.
The ’80 to 85 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham weighed up to 4500 lbs and could be ordered with a 105 HP Olds 350 Diesel.
If we’re including Diesels, you win!
4431 lbs., 105 HP, making 42.2 lbs per HP.
A friend’s mother had a 75? Century sedan with the V6 and their whole family hated IT for being so slow…I can’t imagine a LeSabre with that lump in it. At least a diesel has some torque…
I think that last pic of the blue 4-dr shows how elegant these cars could look with the right paint colour and trim options – really like those rims too! It’s too bad they were so overweight and underpowered, even with some of the V8s. The woman closing the trunk looks pretty elegant too.
The Pacer was woefully underpowered when introduced but I believe AMC made a 2-barrel carb. available in Jan. ’76 to address this issue. It did help, a little bit anyways. Didn’t the Malaise era run from about 1971-83 or thereabouts?
I agree. I think this 4 door hard top in this blue is a beautiful car. I would love to have one, but with the biggest available V8 please.
I am shocked Buick actually sold as many V6 LeSabres as they did. Over 10,000 of these boat anchors is phenomenal–it’s got to be close to 10% of total LeSabre production for 1976. Unbelievably good sales results for a horrible, CAFE compromised powertrain combination that was in no way befitting of a Buick. Must have been quite a number of very dissatisfied owners…
What is even stranger, was that this was 2 or 3 years before CAFE. Other than trying to keep an engine plant busy, there was no reason for this car.
This was a reaction to the first oil shocks,EPA, inflation and the price of gas. Some of the reasons GM bought the V6 back from AMC.
You’re right, I’d forgotten CAFE didn’t hit until ’78. Truly strange then, and so yes, it must have really been to hit production targets for the V6, perhaps with some marketing BS about “economy” as a secondary consideration. Dreadful car which couldn’t have delivered good mileage the way it would have needed to be driven, with full throttle acceleration required just to get it rolling…
Other than trying to keep an engine plant busy, there was no reason for this car.
Reason: advertise a high gas mileage number “with base engine” to suck people into the showroom. Adverts in the mid 70s were all about gas mileage. Automakers were conducting their own “gas mileage” tests, and touting ridiculous numbers that no real world driver would ever see, so the FTC stepped in and required the EPA estimate be the only mileage number they could advertise.
Before the FTC stepped in, the mileage claims were so absurd that VW lampooned them in this ad.
The narration missing due to a splice in this film is “modified the body and engine”
Of course, the soundtrack of that ad, Scott Joplin’s “The Entertainer” dates the ad: same year as “The Sting” with it’s Scott Joplin score, including “The Entertainer” walked off with an armload of Oscars, including the Oscar for the best score, 1974
How could this thing gets 84, I just can’t believe it.
Probably something to consider for the super mileage SAE team in the universities.
How could this thing gets 84, I just can’t believe it.
Most of the automaker “mileage demonstrations” used normal hypermiling tactics, like driving at a steady 45mph on the freeway (this was in the era of the 55mph speed limit so not the kamikaze move that would be today), shutting off the engine at traffic lights (now standard on some cars), coasting a lot.
With the engine and body mods, the VW is pushing into Shell economy run territory, but in that competition, 84mpg was terrible.
A heavily modified Fiat 600 hit 244mpg in the Shell competition in 68. This is that Fiat. I remember a Shell TV ad from the time featuring this car, and showed it charging down the road at full chat to break the paper banner that had “244mpg” on it.
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/04/08/shell-eco-marathon-1959-fiat-600-brings-hypermiling-history/
Wasn’t this around the time Oldsmobile got into trouble for substituting Chevy V8s for their own? Maybe Buick was playing it safe by making sure every LeSabre had a “Buick” engine even if they were using one that was woefully inadequate for the car it’s in.
That wasn’t until a year later.
I’ve seen a few ’76 LeSabres with the V6 badge, but it’s been a while. Underpowered cars have always frustrated me as they get driven so hard they don’t get gas mileage any better than a more properly engineered product.
I’d sort of understand this car if GM had some CAFE pressures, but I don’t believe that was the case in ’76. It seems like too much risk of giving the V6 a bad reputation, just two years before they would become very dependent upon them in the down-sized 1978 A bodies.
A few years ago I saw a slick top (no vinyl) LeSabre from this vintage, with the Buick wheels. It probably also had the body colored sport mirrors. It was a four door sedan and still looked incredibly good.
Channeling my inner nerd, this is one great looking car!!!
Oooh! I just figured it out. Buick planned on putting the V6 in lots of 77 models, so the more of these it got out on the streets, the faster the 77 would feel by comparison. 🙂
Perhaps Buick felt they were somehow legitimizing the V6 by offering it in their “bread & butter” car. They certainly promoted the hell out of it during the ’75-’76 period as some sort of “engine of the future”, even if it did date back to the early ’60s.
GM really messed up the 4 door hardtops with those hideous windows on the C-pillars. The 4 door sedans looked much better.
Couldn’t agree more.
Couldn’t disagree more. Those opera windows made the GM B & C bodies look very elegant.
I liked both the sedan rooflines, but was not a fan of the B-body coupe rooflines at all (Chevy was the worst with the extra thick B-pillar and the huge fixed glass rear windows).
I agree. The pre-opera-window ’71-’74 hardtop sedans look ponderous to me. The extra windows gave them an airy look.
I’m OK with the LeSabre sedan, but I do think the six-window style looked a bit better on the C-bodies (Electra, 98, DeVille). The post sedans always seemed a bit frumpy to me. I suspect that the reason GM could offer both post and hardtop sedans was that the post sedan tooling was shared in great measure with the wagons.
Yep, same here. The more upright formal look that followed was much nicer. The big windows look dopey, though I suppose they gave better visibility.
I diagree, the hardtop has a sporty look teh frump sedan can’t match. It was rare to see one with a out a vinyl roof, I’m surprised Buick put the blue example in the brochure.
My ’75 Ford Torino Elite, with it’s 400, was not far off this base either. Reliable, but could not pull the skin off a rotten banana.
Any Chrysler R-Body with slant six.
It has 90hp for standard version ( CA has lower output ) and it’s 4530lbs in 1979. It almost equals to driving a slant six Volare with 5 people, and it’s indeed slow.
But St Regis does look prestigious and this one has a European plate, most likely for collection purposes.
You win. Actually, the Newport weighed 3635 lbs, but in 1981, the slant six was rated at 85 hp, so that makes 42.6 lbs/hp.
The blue car in the brochure photo shows 3 “Venti-Ports” on the fender. A subtle “V6” badge.
No, 3 ventiports mean it was a LeSabre, no matter what engine it had. The Electra had 4 ventiports.
Actually, “07 zglos sie” was a Polish TV series, not Italian.
I wondered about that.
I didn’t know that a V6 Le Sabre ever existed in that production year. They probably weren’t available in Canada. I’ve also never seen a 1960 and up senior Buick, Oldsmobile, any Cadillac, or Chrysler New Yorker without power windows in Canada. I had always assumed they were standard equipment.
I think I would actually have preferred the 4 door hardtop over the 2 door hardtop, but only with a contrasting colored vinyl roof.
A friend had a new 73 or 74 Regal coupe, and that is THE biggest 70s Buick I’d want to own. And at that it would have to have that nice Buick V8.
My father had a 75 LeSabre 4 door hardtop with the 160 HP 350 V8 and it felt very sluggish compared with his 66 LeSabre 340 4 bbl (260 HP gross). I drove both cars quite a bit and the 66 was much faster, felt more nimble, light on it’s feet and much more fun to drive. I can’t even imagine how slow a LeSabre with a V6 would be. I hated the way the 75 hardtop would shake and judder over bumps. You could actually see those stunted center pillars shake and on the highway the frameless windows allowed constant wind noise into the car. When we went through a car wash we all had to be ready with towels and rags to catch the water that would be forced in. I’d never want a hardtop ever again. However, that 75 LeSabre was the most reliable car that either my father or myself ever owned. In 10 years of ownership all it needed was oil changes and tires, that’s it, nothing ever broke, the interior was still perfect when he sold it.
A V6 engine in a behemoth like that doesn’t seem right. For anything larger than a Skylark, I would think a 5.0 litre or larger V8 engine would’ve been the best engine. That being said, Buick did produce the best looking cars of the 70s,
In 1976 I was upset about the 350 becoming a mid-year credit option on the Catalina. The 1973 Lemans Safari with the 100 hp 250 6 gives the V-6 Lesabre a good run for the power to weight title, as does the 1973 Bel Air sedan equipped with the 100 hp 250 and the three speed hand-shaker.
My dad had a 1981 Chevy C10 (full-size) pickup with a 6 (not sure exactly which one, but I assume it was a V6). I wonder how that compared? I guess the pickup was lighter than the older LeSabre. I took my drivers test in that pickup. I don’t remember it being all THAT slow, but of course, it was a different era.
There is something spectacular about the V-6 that was designed to power a Y-body Special of 2800-3000 pounds trying to drag one of these great whales around town. The smaller Oldsmobile diesel engine managed to produce 85-90 hp, so that wouldn’t be any slower, given that it only had to pull around a 3200-3500 pound RWD A-body.
Perhaps the funniest thing about the malaise era, then, is that the absolute slowest car sold in the USA was probably the Mercedes 240D, with something like 65 hp lugging 3500 pounds. I always think of Mercedes as a big winner of the malaise era, because their cars stayed about the same or got better while so many cars in the USA got slower or more like a rolling La-Z-Boy. But there’s only one slowest (and stinkiest) car, and they sold it…
I had the Chrysler Newport r body with slant six. Full throttle on any incline to hold 55mph. Often full speed was less than 70. With people along for ride, incredible. Also I think the 81 Chevy c10 had the 4.1 straight six. Really weak. Had one with 3 on tree. Awful
No car ever suffered more from a too-small-6 than my 1981 Monte Carlo with a 2.8-litre V6.
Yep. That’s not a typo, 2.8 litres of you-better-not-point-me-up-hill. I bought it cheap because nobody else wanted it, and immediately set forth to put a .040-over 350 in her. Problem solved!
The smallest engine in these was the 229 CID (3.8 L) V6, although it was rated at only 110 hp.
That, as stated, would have been the 3.8 liter 229 Chevy made V6 with 110 Hp and 190 torque. This engine provided reasonable performance for the time in this rather lightweight body of under 3200 LBS. Note that the 1978-79 Monte Carlo had an even smaller engine than this, the 3.3 liter 200 V6 which was the 229’s predecessor. These made all of 95 hp and 160 torque and were quite sluggish in these cars. The 229 was actually a reasonable and badly needed upgrade compared to the 200. These were good for around 13-14 seconds in the 0-60 run and were far from being the slowest of the time.
Worst in my experience was a Fairmont (or maybe it was a Zephyr, I forget) rental with the base little six. It just kind of sat there groaning painfully until it’d slowly deign to creep across the intersection. I think the 2.3 OHC four was available in those cars and that probably would have been better than the ancient pushrod emissions-strangled Falcon six.
The automatic Chevettes (gas, not diesel) my high school used for driver training were better but not by much. By the time we crammed four kids and the 400lb football coach who moonlighted as the driving instructor into one, my grandmother could out-accellerate one on foot.
Oh and one of my high-school bud’s grandparents bought a 1979 Cutlass Supreme with the little 260 V8 that felt about as sprightly as the tiny L16 in the shitty old Datsun pickup I had at the time.
84 Suburban 3/4 ton Diesel 4×4? 130 hp, 5500 lb would be pretty slow.
We’re not going to include trucks, especially diesels.
I know we’re not including trucks, but my ’84 GMC suburban with the 6.6 diesel struggled to go above 65. It would start to overheat. Any incline while using the a/c resulted in a downshift from o/d to 2nd and it would sound like a bucket of bolts. But…at a steady 60 during the national 65 mph speed limit, I’d get 23mpg on trips with a 40 gallon tank.
I’m too lazy to research this at the moment, but when Road & Track tested the then-new Ford Granada, they said it was theoretically available with a 4-cylinder engine—I’d assume the Pinto 4. IIRC, they quoted 72 hp for it. Of course, their test car wan’t anything so pathetic—it had a 6 or a V8.
The 2.3 was never offered in that car, although it was pretty feeble with the 200 six.
My Grandmother had a ’76 Granada with three on the floor (yes!) and a 302 (49 state car). It was OK on the highway, but it certainly was not a track burner.
The 2.3 was actually available in the 1981-82 Fox-platform Granada, but not in the original 1975-80 generation. The Fox Granada was heavily based on the Fairmont, and the Fairmont was available with the 2.3, so the Granada was as well. I’d be surprised if Ford ever considered putting the four in the first generation.
moms first car 71 pinto automatic i had a 63 stick nova that felt like an ss 396 by
comparison
The first picture of a yellow two door shows an option that is lost to history without much notice. That car is equipped with bumperettes. The vertical tusk like attachment on the bumper that was supposed to prevent the bumpers of two cars from locking up in a crash. I never had a car with them so I can’t say how effective they were but they were the kind of option that the radio delete crowd usually went for.
It seems like the worst that Australian cars got at the time was a 200 ci 6-cyl making 107-109 bhp that you could get in a 3300-ish lb car if you went for the highest trim level wagon, or possibly the Chrysler Sigma 1.6L; 74 hp for 2450 lb and 0-60 in around 15 seconds. I drove a 2.0 automatic 20 years ago and remember thinking it had a volume pedal rather than an accelerator.
173 cube Holdens were certainly no rocket ship, make it wagon with traumatic trans and they are tediously slow.
I had a 1982 Buick Regal Custom 4-door sedan equipped with 3.8L V-6, 3-speed auto transmission and (I think) 2.91:1 rear axle. No doubt it was geared for economy. Car was gutless and accelerated leisurely (even with gas pedal floored) onto freeway and took its time. Also took its time crossing intersections.
But it was a comfortable riding car and got good gas mileage.
I think CAFE started in 1976 although I’m not positive, the auto manufacturers-at least the domestic ones were trying everything to get their mileage numbers up. the V-6 engine may have suggested (at least to some people) the performance of a V-8 and the fuel economy of a V-8. I can’t imagine the acceleration of one of these cars being anything but glacially slow, however the 55 mph speed limit was the law of the land then. I recall seeing a few of these Buicks-but not many. My guess is they were used to get people into the showroom where they could-hopefully-get moved up to something else. My mother bought a 1977 Skylark with the 135 hp. Chevy 305 V-8; it had a 2.29:1 rear axle ratio; acceleration was adequate but laying rubber was certainly out of the question.
It was enacted in 1975, but first took effect in 1978.
GM finally developed the potential of the 3.8 engine….The mid 80’s Buick Grand National and GNX had horsepower ratings well over 200 hp…..and when the engine was renamed the 3800 and became the standard engine across much of the GM front wheel drive models, with horsepower averaging and exceeding 200hp as well, its reputation became almost legendary. I have a mid 2000’s Impala with the 3800 and with frequent oil changes and preventative maintenance, the engine is still running strong with nearly 160,000 miles on the clock.
Loved the 3800 engines I had in my Bonnevilles (’94 and ’99 both SSE) but how GM managed to not have to recall the Series II 3800 with its guaranteed to fail intake manifold is a mystery to me, right up there with who thought it would be a good idea to route hot exhaust gases for the EGR system through said plastic manifold? Don’t care that it was sleeved with a metal insert, it was still too hot for the plastic….but it generally lasted past warranty and the cynic in me believes that is all they cared about.
This car deserves deadly sin status for gm starting the trend to v6 engines in full sized cars. They were slow. I have driven v6 b body cars and they were glacially slow . I always thought Ford’s and mercury were better cars. All had adequate v 8 engines. Those v6 cars burned more gas than a v8. They failed at early mileage. Also agree the giant window coupes were hideous. The 73 model year looked way better. The baby engine in big cars lost gm many repeat customers. In this era Ford became the design leader.
I remember being at a Buick dealer with my Father in 1976 and seeing a brown 76 Lesabre V-6 proudly displayed in the show room. Even as a 13 year old I remember thinking how odd that was and it always stuck in the back of my mind.In the years since I`ve been to thousands of car shows & swap meets, collecting vintage cars (mostly Pontiacs) & worked in the car business most my life. I have never run across another 76 Lesabre V-6, I can`t help but think most of these either met an early death and/or were converted to V-8s after a few years.
Our neighbors up the street had one – 1976 four-door sedan in light metallic blue that they bought brand-new. That is the only V-6 LeSabre (pre-downsized version) that I’ve ever seen. The engine clattered almost as much as a diesel as he drove it down the street.
He was a 60-something college professor, and I’m not sure that his wife drove. They obviously didn’t mind the lackluster performance, but the sound of the engine would have been enough to make me choose a V-8.
It probably doesn’t count since it is technically a van and not a passenger car, but the VW Bus has perhaps the worst hp to weight ratio. A quick check of a VW site shows a 1966 Kombi van is about 2,500lbs. and came with a 51hp engine. That is about 49 lbs. /hp.
After they got there V6 back from AMC Buick went a little overboard and wanted to put it in everything save the huge station wagons. They probably would have stuck it in the Park Ave if it wasn’t so heavy and thankfully they didn’t. Making it available in this LeSabre was basically there proud reaction to there creation and to prepare customers for this mill going viral in the upcoming years from 1977 on up. The change over to the even fire version during 1977 made a big difference in smoothness and quietness and the 1979 free breathing 115 hp version made it a perfect size mill for the compact Monza/Skyhawk, Skylark/Omega cars and the mid size Regals and Cutlasses.
We took a 1979 Pontiac Lemans sedan in trade and it had the original 231 V6 engine with very low 50K miles. We were quite surprised how well it moved that car around. Dad bought a near new 40k mile 1982 Cutlass with the 231 and never complained about the performance once. By today’s standards these are really slow but a 13 second 0-60 car during the 70’s and early 80’s was considered reasonable.
A low-powered engine in a car that size is just ludicrous. We had a ’78 Cutlass with the same engine, and it was pathetic in a downsized car (though to give it credit, it was quite durable and survived three teenagers). A V8 would be the only logical choice – anything else is pure masochism. The later 3800 was a much better engine.
The logic behind this car and so many others like it is what doomed gm. No v6 mercury marquis.
A friend drove a ’76 Regal Landau w/ the V6. Merging required foot to the floor w/ a lot of noise and crossed fingers. Another thing I didn’t like was the shaky idle. Pretty car though.
Gm just kept on for decades with under !cars. No wonder everyone stopped buying them. I drove a 4100 Fleetwood that was slow as cold molasses once and I remember driving a park avenue v6 that was glacially slow and they guzzled gas and neither car held up mechanically. They should have known better
When I was in high school, my aunt had a ’76 Lesabre with the 231 V6. I remember several times driving it and was so slow. I was a quarterback on the football team and had 2 other friends of mine get in front of the car, brace our selves against a curb with our legs and 3 of us against the car to see if we could hold it back. With another guy behind the wheel. He slowly floored it—The car did not move at all. No wheel spin, just sat there pinging as it struggled to move against us 3 strong guys. We kept it stalled wide open for like 30 seconds!
Just came across this post and the various replies concerning the ’76 Buick LeSabre V6. I wholeheartedly agree with everyone who thinks that the 231 V6 was out of place in a big, pre-downsizing, B-body car like the otherwise beautiful LeSabre.
The V6, however, was a great engine, especially, later versions. I’ve been driving a ’95 Buick Park Avenue with the 3800 for 15 years now. The 205-horsepower V6 has 147,000 miles on the clock and keeps going strong. The ’95 Park Avenue is much smaller than a ’76 LeSabre, but only on the outside. Interior accommodations are at least as good, if not better. I know because I’ve driven mid-Seventies GM, Ford, and Chrysler full-size cars again and again AND used to own a ’73 Impala Custom Coupe.
The ’95 is a much more efficient and sophisticated car and, thanks to the 3800 V6, also a powerful and economical one. The Buick easily tops 125 mph on the autobahn (I live in Germany) if one cares to drive that fast, which I normally do not. With its auxiliary engine and transmission oil coolers (standard on export models), it won’t even overheat, a common problem for American car lovers in Germany.
As for fuel economy, I’ve been getting 25 mpg steadily in real-life driving ever since I took possession of my Buick, which is fine for a car in this size/weight category, especially in light of German fuel prices that are twice as high as in the U.S.
In summation: The V6 had no business in the ’76 LeSabre, but in a 90s-vintage Park Avenue, it really shines. Praise Buick for this outstanding engine, a masterpiece of simplicity, reliability, and durability. Too bad GM canned it in ’09. I’ll keep mine running for as long as possible.
6 cylinder engines in big full-size cars has been going on in the American Automobile manufacturing process for generations. GM probably did it more than anyone that I can remember. for instance my family had a 1964 Chevrolet Impala with a 230 inline 6 coupled to a Powerglide transmission. I remember my parents complaining about it being slow but you know it was what it was. A bulletproof engine based on economy with the ability to hold a family. its sole purpose. Then of course I remember my aunt having a 1981 Pontiac Bonneville with the 231 V6. again quite a luxurious vehicle to ride in but didn’t pull the mountains in central Pennsylvania much above 45 miles an hour. but those were different times. There weren’t near as many cars on the American roads back then is there are today. you know what’s funny? as I drive a 2015 Jeep Compass nowadays… I read the awful reviews a vehicle like this gets about it being so slow. With a 2.4 liter engine and 6-speed automatic everyone complains about it going 0 to 60 in 9.4 seconds. well back in the nineteen sixties a muscle car would get praised for that kind of acceleration! making cars that Americans want to buy has always been the mission. it’s all economics. Other than the Great Depression, the nineteen-seventies offered the worst economy the American public had ever known. I do see the idea behind the Buick V6. We As Americans didn’t want to give up our luxurious vehicles and size meant status. the V6 place in a Buick that size was a dinosaur attempt to see what would happen if…yep, it was slow but it worked nonetheless. and it gave the American public what it wanted. full-size luxury at an economical price. today it doesn’t seem to matter what you buy. most of all cars produced American or foreign seem to be very reliable with plenty of power to spare. It’s more of a choice Factor than anything else. but in those yesteryears everything was trial and error. owning a Buick V6 in a car like that would be a pretty cool Nostalgia collector in my opinion remembering what it was like all those years ago and how far we have come today.
Ok, I found this (pretty old) thread online randomly, and am not sure if anyone will see this but I HAVE to comment!!
I am familiar with the 1976 V6 LeSabre…because our family had TWO of them!! I was young at the time, but my grandfather purchased one for himself and one for my father from Justus Buick in New Jersey.
My grandfather’s was the nicer of the two as it had the options of: A/C, AM/FM and the speed warning indicator (you set a max speed on the dash and if you exceed the speed it makes a buzzing noise). My dad’s was more basic, with no A/C and an AM only radio. Both cars had manual windows and door locks.
As a child my dad drove the car into the ground, probably got over 100K miles out of it and about 6-7 years of use before it died. My grandfather traded his in on a 1982 regal, so he probably had about 70-80K on his and it was still running.
Some memories are:
My father would come home from work and his car would keep stumbling after he turned it off (dieseling). I remember him getting out of the car tired from working all day and having a long driving commute (with no A/C, AM radio, manual windows and a very slow car mind you) walk a few steps towards the house, his shoulders would slouch and he’s turn around to get back into the car to push the gas pedal to get the car to finally stop running.
My father has always been a fairly slow driver, and driving a V6 full sized Buick in the 1970’s meant he was in his element. What I remember is going 56 MPH down the garden state parkway to get to the shore area with the windows down for the weekend/vacation, listening to 1050 WHN (AM radio- country/rock crossover that was popular in the 70’s-80’s), and if it was raining out hearing the static each time the windshield wipers passed over the embedded windshield antenna. I’m not into country music, but at least with the “crossover” they played the Eagles, and some other decent music (Kenny Rogers, Johnny Cash…70’s Elvis!)
Anyway, we’d be driving on the highway at 56-57 mph the whole way and even in those dark energy crisis/jimmy carter/55 mph national speed limit days, cars were going past us at probably 65 mph (nowadays if traffic isn’t bad people are all going 80-90 on that same highway)- but going that slow highway speed and with traffic constantly passing, and just wanting to get to the shore/beach frustrated me as a child. Hills were also a challenge to get moving at a decent speed in that car. As a result I love fast cars and have had/and have several. My need/desire to speed/drive briskly is from the pent up frustration of riding in that V6 all those years!!
It wasn’t until years later that I learned my grandfather purchased the car as a gift for him- he probably worked “a deal” with the Buick dealer to purchase 2 of these at once, meanwhile the salesmen were probably having a laugh that they were able to unload two of these things and get them off the lot!!
Now some info from what I have seen/heard:
People are correct that the 1976 Buick brochure doesn’t mention the availability of a V6 in the LeSabre- I believe it is likely correct that Buick decided to add it for that model year after the brochures were already printed up. Clearly it was offered during the 1976 model year as we had two in my family!
The actual power of the 3.8 in 1976 I believe was 105 net HP (vs 110 of the later 3.8), with 185 lb/ft of torque. Awful for a car of this size/weight!
They improved the 3.8 the following year, making the motor an “even-firing” V6, which period road tests of buicks with this motor noted as being significantly improved (and as we know, the 3.8 went on to be one of GM’s finest motors several years later, like the ’87 Park Ave my grandfather bought after his ’82 regal- a very smooth motor with ample torque for the time and excellent highway mileage to boot). You can almost think of the ’76 application of this motor in cars like the LeSabre as being the real world beta testing of what was a crappy motor to make it a little better for ’77 and continue refining it in subsequent years, in the face of the fuel economy and emissions challenges of the period.
I remember reading an interview with a GM engineer who was talking about the 3.8. He said the focus of their buyers was to have easy power to get through an intersection, which even in the ’76 guise the 3.8 likely had as peak torque is probably around 2,000 rpm. It’s what happens after that where there is an issue (i.e. when you are trying to accelerate with traffic after 15 mph 🙂 )
Anyway, if anyone has a survivor V6 Buick LeSabre I’d love the see pictures of it! A rare car (but rare for a reason- ha!!)
I enjoyed reading your story, Andrew. Cheers for posting it.
I hope there’s at least 1 of these still extant in 2018. Don’t think I’d want to bet on that possibility, however . . .
Thanks for the comment Carter.
One more really granular tid bit- I was at my parent’s today and found an old pic of the car taken on Easter in the 70’s. I confirmed a small detail I thought I remembered: My father’s car had hubcaps that were more plain and had the Buick symbol in black vs. my Grandfather’s car that had hubcaps with the Buick symbol in tri-color. My father’s V6 LeSabre really was a stipped down low-buck version of the car…how much extra could it possibly be to have the full Red White and Blue symbol on the hubcaps? 🙂
His car was probably on the lot advertised at the lowest price- you see the advertised price, go in to take a look and the salesmen takes you for a test drive in a 350 or 455 LeSabre with A/C and AM/FM, then when you ask about the car you saw advertised you’re sweating on the test drive on a hot day with no acceleration, static-ey AM radio and hubcaps with black Buick symbols- ha!
I do remember my dad saying when they got the car since it was a gift from my Grandfather my dad didn’t want anything on the car to keep the cost down…but my dad isn’t a car guy so I could see him buying the car for a low price on his own too. The other car we had was a ’72 Opel 1900 wagon automatic, which ironically was also sold through Buick dealers. Also a slow car, but I digress… We got the LeSabre when my sister was born- fourth kid and my Grandparents probably wanted to help out as they were great people.
I actually saw a 4-door hardtop LeSabre with the 231 for sale, in the car corral at a classic car show in Macungie, PA. This was a good 12-13 years ago, or more.
As for 0-60 times? Well, Consumer Reports tested a ’77 Cutlass Supreme sedan with the 260 V-8, and got a 0-60 time of around 21.6 seconds. Using that as a rough guide, I’d imagine the V-6 mastodon-class LeSabre was more like 26 or so? It probably did get somewhat respectable mileage, as long as you kept your foot out of it. But, I’d hate to have to merge into high-speed traffic with something like that.
That’s crazy Andre- I wonder if the car ever sold? My guess is either way, it’s dead by now, 12-13 years on- just not any collector value in something like that (outside of people who like oddball cars and are willing to spend money to keep/maintain them)
Given the speeds my dad drove on the highway (i.e. he didn’t push it), he may have actually received whatever highway mileage was rated on the window sticker! The only (and I mean only) positive thing about the V6 in the high inflation 70’s was the fuel mileage, which if you drove 55 mph was probably untouchable by any similar sized car with a V8 that year. My father is not a car guy so he probably doesn’t know, but just for the heck of it I’m going to ask him if he remembers what sort of mileage he’d get commuting on the highway back then.
If I had a license back in the 70’s and were driving one I would not be getting the relatively good highway fuel economy advertised since I’d be going 70+ on the highway back then. Because that motor would be working so hard, it would likely get worse highway fuel mileage at that speed than the 350 or even 455 Lesabres, which wouldn’t have to work as hard to go that speed…
I’m not sure if it’s accurate, but I did a quick search and came up with this picture from a book about Buicks- says 16 city/21 highway for the coupe… At 70+ MPH on the highway (and using most of the acceleration avaiable to get to that speed relatively quickly), my guess is real world fuel mileage would probably be closer to the low teens!
There’s one for sale on ebay
https://www.ebay.com/itm/364316212388