Our minds are often drawn to extremes. When thinking of 1970s cars, we tend to think of either tinny econoboxes or bulbous broughams. This car was neither – and it was Buick’s best seller in 1978. Few cars have shared the Regal’s good fortune of finding itself at the confluence of several helpful trends. Downsized for 1978 (when downsizing was still welcome), offered only as a two-door (when the personal luxury coupe market was hitting its peak), and priced competitively (crucial in an era of economic insecurity), Regal possessed what was needed to succeed. And succeed it did – with nearly a quarter million examples having been sold in its introductory year alone. It was neither big or small, flashy or bland, cheap or expensive. Sometimes, moderation sells.
Buick’s Regal first debuted for 1973 as part of the intermediate Century line, with somewhat undefined marching orders. At first it was called the Century Regal, then became its own model… initially it was only offered as a coupe, then a year later Buick added a sedan version. But Regal delivered where it mattered – just by being a slightly more upscale variety of Century. In the mid-1970s, a fashionable coupe was exactly what the car market hankered for. Details about whether it was badged a Century or not hardly mattered; the Regal coupe sold 91,000 units in its first year, increasing to 174,000 by 1977.
Regal’s success wasn’t an isolated phenomenon. During the 1970s, North American roads teemed with new Monte Carlos, Thunderbirds, Cutlass Supremes, Cordobas, and other personal luxury coupes that populated this hottest of market segments. Today, awash in our current automotive trend of crossovers, it’s hard to fathom that large two-door cars with exaggerated styling and loose-pillow upholstery were once the industry’s biggest fad, but in fact they were. Given how the 1973-77 Regal raked in customers, it’s little wonder that Buick concocted a similar formula when General Motors redesigned its A-body cars for 1978.
Because the 1977 full-size B-bodies, such as the LeSabre above, successfully broke the ice with consumers regarding downsized cars, GM was sanguine about its next round of downsizing: The A-cars. Though not as groundbreaking as the pioneering B-body, this still represented a significant risk for GM, since the A-car family included high-volume intermediates from four divisions, including a quartet of popular coupes: Regal, Olds Cutlass Supreme, Pontiac Grand Prix and Chevrolet Monte Carlo.
GM’s confidence was well placed, because by using similar weight- and space-saving techniques as used with the B-bodies’ diet, the new A-cars managed to provide similar interior space as their predecessors despite smaller exterior dimensions. Shaving off 550 lbs. and roughly a foot of length, the ’78 Regal still carried 4 people in comfort (5 or 6 in a pinch) and provided a generously-sized trunk. Unlike earlier A-bodies, which featured shorter wheelbases for the coupe models, these new A-special coupes rode on the same 108.1” wheelbase as the sedans and wagons. Interestingly, with this latest round of downsizing, GM’s intermediates such as Regal were about the same size as its now-dated compacts (such as Skylark), which were to be replaced the following year.
In addition to a smaller size, the A-body cars were designed to drive more responsively, with less wallow than their larger predecessors. As befitting a Buick, Regal still bestowed its passengers a smooth, quiet ride… just a bit more controllable than its ancestors’, and the standard suspension could be upgraded to the more stiffly-sprung FE2 package for just $38.
Importantly, Regal provided this downsized package with a modern appearance and at a reasonable price. Buick must have employed some creative ad copy writers in 1978 – a “down-to-earth dream car” may be overstating its virtues, as was calling Regal’s combination of qualities “romance and realism.” But the point is well taken. Consumers wanted a safe bet and were tiring of gaudiness. This Regal delivered everything that people wanted… not to excess, but rather in moderation. On second thought, maybe that is a down-to-earth dream.
Regal’s design presented a clean break from the ornate gingerbread that had come to dominate Detroit’s larger cars. This was a squarish, unfussy design, epitomized by our featured car due to its lack of optional decoration such as a vinyl roof or two-tone paint. But even examples with some extra glamour projected a sensibility that was rare just a few years earlier. The two rectangular headlamps (only recently okayed by US regulators) formed the car’s most prominent feature, and these were flanked by a mildly-slanted grille seemingly inspired by Buick’s 1977-78 Riviera.
Regal’s rear end was simplicity itself, with a minimum of ornamentation and a design focused on the long, rectangular tail lights. This particular car is missing its small Buick badge and the even smaller trunk lock surround that featured the tiny text of “Regal” – though the presence of these badges hardly cluttered up the trunklid.
Just about the only extraneous glamour on this car can be found on the hood ornament. Buick was evidently reluctant to part with heraldic-inspired imagery, variations of which the division had used for decades.
How many Curbside Classics can fit into one picture? Our featured Regal is accompanied here by an Olds Bravada and a Vega wagon.
1978 Regals were offered in three trim levels, starting with the base model like our featured car, which carried a starting price of $4,852 – or 11% higher than the base 2-door Century. From there, buyers could spend $381 more for a Limited, which offered a split bench seat and some additional trim pieces, or splurge for the top-of-the-line turbocharged Sport Coupe, starting at $5,853.
Base and Limited Regals came standard with an anemic 3.2-liter V-6 that cranked out only 90 hp, and could be loved by only the most miserly of fuel-crisis-era buyers. For just $40 extra, Buick offered a 105-hp 3.8-liter V-6, which provided the 3,000-lb. Regal with more acceptable performance for its day (a 5.0-liter V-8 was also available, as a $190 option). Our featured car came equipped with the 3.8, as well as an automatic transmission (manuals were standard in ’78, but rarely ordered). So equipped, a Regal could reach 60 mph in about 14 seconds.
Buick likely realized that the bulk of Regal’s market lie between the model’s price extremes. The above ad was one of a series highlighting the value offered by moderately-equipped Regals, with a 3.8 V-6, automatic transmission, power steering and other popular options – all for a price that undercut Ford’s Thunderbird and Chrysler’s Cordoba, which lacked Regal’s sensible size and clean, contemporary styling.
When I first noticed this car, I was amazed by its apparently original condition, down to the standard “Deluxe wheel covers.” Elaborate C-pillar pinstriping was the only detail that seemed unoriginal. Then I looked inside. In marked contrast to the bone-stock exterior, this Regal’s interior had been, well… modified. Most of the car’s upholstered or plastic surfaces were covered by what looked like shag carpeting, velour and quilted padding – some evidence of this can be seen by enlarging the above picture, but I didn’t photograph the inside.
To discuss Regal’s interior, we can look at images of similar cars. Most noticeable is the instrument panel and dash, which were clearly designed by enthusiasts of quadrilaterals. Square and rectangles abound, as if Buick intentionally offered a counterpoint to corporate rival Grand Prix’s 13 round dashboard apertures. Three square bezels directly in front of the driver contained a speedometer, fuel gauge and clock (unless a buyer didn’t order the $22 clock, in which case the driver stared at a blank space with sixty little lines, indicating a clock should go there, but with no numerals or clock hands). A separate, squarish center module held the radio and HVAC controls.
Aside from the driveshaft tunnel intrusion, Regal’s rear seat was satisfactorily comfortable. The high roofline provided good headroom, although the small side windows didn’t lend themselves to back seat sightseeing.
Like many cars of its era, Regal could be equipped anywhere on the continuum from stripped down to lavish. This brochure image shows a fully-equipped Limited interior, and its custom cloth upholstery. With coupes like these Regals a hot item in the late 1970s, GM wanted its A-specials to appeal to a wide spectrum of buyers. Interiors could be spartan, with a vinyl single-bench seat and no power controls, or they could seem as plush as a Cadillac. Prices varied too… fully-equipped Regals could approach $10,000 – double the car’s base price.
Without seeing our featured car’s interior, it’s hard to figure out just how well- or sparsely-equipped it is, but the exterior holds some insights. Befitting an era when carbuyers could choose from dozens of individual options, this car reveals some interesting choices. For example, the original owner eschewed the $33 protective body side moldings but spent $52 for sport mirrors. Such were the choices folks could make in 1978; in fact, the Regal option list was mindboggling. Customers could pick from three different steering wheels, three types of floor mats, seven different radios, four types of antennas, and so on. You could have a Buick your way…
…which was the slogan of Western Motor (“One Way / Your Way”), as seen on the period front booster plate. Incidentally, Western Buick’s showroom is just three blocks from where this Regal was photographed, and the dealership still uses the slogan, even though carbuying has changed greatly from the days of being able to customize your own car.
A great deal of Buick’s hopes were placed on the Regal’s shoulders. Sales of the outgoing 2-dr. Regal peaked in its final year, at over 174,000 units, or one-fifth of Buick’s total output. Though certainly impressive, even that high-water mark was eclipsed by sales of the downsized ’78 model. Over 236,000 of these cars found homes during their first year of production alone, and Regal’s share of Buick output increased to 30 percent. Interestingly, the 1978 Regal outsold the Century on which it was based by about three-to-one.
Carbuyers in the late 1970s loved this car, and its popularity was widespread. Like other personal coupes of its day, Regal found popularity among a wide range of age groups — these cars were often used as family haulers, retirement cars, bachelormobiles, and others.
Source: Standard Catalog of Buick, 1903-2004.
Regal sales remained at over 200,000 through 1984, though between 1982 and ’84 the Regal lineup included four-doors and wagons (wagons for ’82 and ’83 only) as well as the coupe. In a move aimed at confusing future generations, GM changed these cars’ body designation from A to G for 1982 when the front-drive Century et al. inherited the A-body moniker. Afterwards, Regal and its cohort were known as the G-specials, rather than the A-specials.
The coupe soldiered on through 1987, though in later years its marketplace appeal became more limited as the number of customers who wanted large, two-door coupes dwindled.
Source: Standard Catalog of Buick, 1903-2004.
By the late 1980s, coupe sales were in rapid decline, a trend well illustrated by looking at Regal’s proportion of total Buick production. When our featured car debuted for 1978, two-door Regals accounted for 30 percent new Buicks, but during the last three model years of the A/G-specials, Regal’s share of Buick production hovered between just 10 and 12 percent, and most other two-doors in Buick’s lineup were likewise entering their twilight years as well.
Buick’s personal luxury coupe wasn’t quite dead after 1987, since the next generation’s Regal two-door was briefly a strong seller in 1988, but that was the species’ last gasp. Though the Regal coupe survived through 1996, the model’s seven final years yielded fewer cars than were produced for 1978 alone.
The late 1970s offered up a great variety of cars – some extravagant, some flimsy, some enormous and some minuscule. But in many cases, the sweet spot lay in between. For Buick, that sweet spot was occupied by a cleanly-designed, value-priced, average-performing mid-size two-door car. Moderation in its extreme can sometimes be mighty popular.
Photographed in Garden City, Kansas in June 2019.
Related Reading:
1986 Buick Regal Limited: Rhapsody In Black Jason Shafer
Nice find Eric, the early G-body Regals are a rare find anymore. I always liked Regals, theyre my second favorite G-body behind the Malibus, I always liked their clean lines.
The ’88 W-body Regal was a turd.
But funny how the most ‘moderate’ G-Body was also the most outrageous car of the ’80s…
You see “clean” while I see “stripper” on this car. I remember lots of GM cars back in that era and there would be lots and lots of plain vanilla versions with an option or two added on. This car probably got air and a stereo radio in addition to the upgraded mirrors, and probably whitewall tires too. And it was all ready for the retired english teacher who was ready to upgrade from the basic 69 Special DeLuxe.
I remember accompanying my mother and a friend of hers who was looking for a car in 1978. The V8 may have been optional in these, but they were not stocked where we were looking. At the Olds dealer every Cutlass Supreme I saw had the 260 V8. She ended up in a six cylinder 78 Granada coupe, which shows how the class/price/size structure was all screwed up during that period.
I debated whether to diagnose this car as having Stripperitis or not, and ultimately decided not to. It was hard for me to make such a grave diagnosis without seeing the interior and (lack of) options, but I figured that it was probably equipped similarly to the Regals advertised in those ads with a handful of “popular options.” Frugal, yes, but as a frugal person myself I set the bar for being a stripper pretty high (or low, I suppose).
But I see your point — it’s awfully plain… and the lack of the bodyside molding sort of shouts cheapness.
And I can definitely see this car being the Official Vehicle of Retired English Teachers. Come to think of it, a soon-to-retire high school teacher of mine owned a Regal in this same shade of green.
Hey now, we English teachers sometimes drive cool stuff! 🙂
Point well taken — thanks for setting the record straight!
Incidentally, my college English professor (who was an outstanding instructor) drove a Firebird. His car was a “’78 black Firebird with a dented right fender” — a phrase I can’t forget because he used it repeatedly in class to urge students to write with descriptive language. He never got the fender fixed; I guess it would have messed up his classroom example too much.
Ha ha, I was just busting your chops, Eric. Years ago, a stylist told me my haircut made me look like an English teacher. I told her she was very perceptive.
I think the blackwall tires contribute greatly to the stripper look of this one. Though optional, this car was born to have whitewalls and just looks naked without them.
Picture the car in your mind with WW’s and it doesn’t look nearly so spartan.
A most pleasing, logical, informative and educational posting, Eric!
Excellent use of graphs and photographs.
+1
Love Eric’s graphs. Love Eric’s articles, period.
Mark & William — thank you both very much!
Especially when compared to the graceful, lithe, stylish, pleasing-to-the-eyes 1976-77 Regal coupe bodies; this downsized, squared off, plain-Jane ’78 body reeked of automotive offal.
Just MY opinion. Like your gas mileage; yours may vary.
My mother had a new ’77 Electra 225 sedan and I remember being at the Buick dealership when the new ’78 Regal came out.
For some strange reason, she test drove the Regal (light blue, “Limited” model) and I remember the window sticker was the same price as our Electra ($8500).
I just thought it was odd that this little Regal cost as much as an Electra sedan.
I love this generation Regal! They (30 years later) were also loved by the amateur dirt track racers, too. My home town in NE Iowa had a track and every Saturday night the town would be humming from 8-10 of these cars, each with a redlining 350.
Seeing the single headlight iteration here, with that grille, I really see where the K-car stylists got some inspiration from.
To see one of these without a half vinyl roof, and whitewall tires, is rare indeed. Very nice find.
I don’t like the wood grain trim on the passenger side of the dash. However, the seats are still in very good condition.
Great photos and story!
The interior shots here are from a later model year; the 1978 Regals had a smaller woodgrain applique (and a different upholstery sew style) as shown below. I recall the Century sticking with the smaller applique for a few years after the Regal adopted the large one. The last-year 1987 models went with a solid dark color instead of woodgrain, with an illuminated Regal logo on the Limited.
Yes — the interior shots and the brochure image are both of ’79 models. Good call on spotting the enlarged applique strip!
The advert you posted with the red car shows the ’78 dash with the small woodgrain strip as well. I was 13 at the time these were new and at my best noticing these trifling details. Nowadays I can’t even remember what the last Regal looked like and would probably confuse it with the previous generation…
Was anyone at the time asking, “Why am I paying the same or more for so much less car?”
I understand the zeitgeist may have dictated that smaller is better, efficient, responsible, and that fuel prices were unstable, but these cars really don’t have it where it counts. The older I get, the more I realize how cynical GM (and the majority of car buyers) really were/are.
I had 12 uncles when I was growing up and 1 would “treat” himself to a new Chevy wagon every other year. With 5 children, that was both his indulgence and a necessity. But when the kids were grown he switched to a Regal coupe. His first one was a 75 or 76 in that….interesting(?) orange metallic that was offered for a short time. About 3 years later it was traded for the newer downsized model, in the same green as the subject car. Both were heavily optioned, though I can’t say if either have a V8. But both of those cars were quite attractive looking.
It would be 25-30 years later when I found out that Uncle Don had been a jazz musician before he settled down and got married.
I’m sure some of the Regal’s ’78-’79 sales spike was due to the unpopularity of the Century aeroback coupes and sedans from those years. Sales of the sedans (both Buick and Olds) took off after the fastback was replaced with a notchback similar to the A-special coupes for 1980.
Though not as groundbreaking as the pioneering B-body, this still represented a significant risk for GM, since the A-car family included high-volume intermediates from four divisions, including a quartet of coupes (Regal, Olds Cutlass Supreme, Pontiac Grand Prix and Chevrolet Monte Carlo) known as the A-specials.
I may be mistaken, but I don’t think the Cutlass Supreme and Regal were considered A-special coupes until 1978. The 1977 and earlier models were just standard A bodies shared with lesser Cutlasses and Centurys save for the roofline; the Monte and GP were distinguished by longer hoods and sat on the longer sedan wheelbase.
I think you’re right about the A-special name being specific to the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix prior to ’78. Thanks… I’ve changed the text.
I’d agree with that, people who owned a ’73-77 Century and went to buy another and saw the Aeroback might’ve been inclined to stay in a Buick showroom but just gravitate to the Regal.
Ditto over at Olds.
I always liked these and considered one back then, but as a late teen starting out after high school in his first engineering job, it was a little out of my price range.
Little know fact: That waterfall grille is spring loaded! It was always fun to push on one when you saw it in a parking lot to amaze your friends….
…ok, I was a weird kid. ;o)
I had forgotten about that grille feature. It was part of the five mph bumper system; if the bumper was pushed in the grille would give instead of break. I started my collision repair career at an Oldsmobile/Cadillac dealer in 1983, and we repaired may Buicks as well as our own products.
There was a big difference between the plain and loaded versions of these cars. Even with a loaded model I still preferred the colonnade body style because they were larger and heavier. I have owned several and driven many, many more.
I believe the featured model could have came with the body side moldings as they were the plastic glued on variety that did not stand the test of time.
Very good feature, thanks for the memories.
One reason for the popularity of these downsized cars was the 79 oil crisis. Funny I was just reading the Wikipedia article about this yesterday! The previous oil crisis was still fresh in most people’s memory and the conventional wisdom was that this was the new normal (peak oil, etc.). Even if these cars weren’t that fuel efficient than a larger car, like an Electra, car buyers wanted to be on the safe side and not get caught (perhaps again) with a big V8. Austerity was the new norm.
Bonus that all of the brochures show white wall tires! These cars just look better with them, black walls screamed fleet sales or cop car. Unlikely that many cops drove Buicks though, except on TV.
The square headlamps were seen as modern, any car with round headlamps in this period look old-fashioned.
Does anyone have easy access to sales figures for the Cutlass version of this car? I seem to recall that it was the best selling A coupé, but between the two of them it seemed like they made up half the late-model domestic cars on the roads by 1980 or so. Along with Pintos, perhaps.
So equipped, a Regal could reach 60 mph in about 14 seconds.
Awfully likely that this is a 3.8 V6 version, as most of production was.
For reference the soon to be departed Regal with turbo 4 does the 0-60 boogie in 6.4 sec.
So I guess the 2019 Regal can go from 0 to 60 and back to 0 in less time than it took this ’78 model to reach 60 in the first place. Wow.
Well the brakes are really good in the current one but then the Germans and their autobahns are generally known for having pretty good standard brakes.
(I’ve only got 10,000 miles on mine and those brakes have saved my bacon a few times.)
A neighbor two doors down bought one of these in this same color in the late ’70s.
He seemed happy with it and kept it for 8yrs. or so. He then sold to my buddy across the street who wanted it for his daughters first car. A couple of months later he knocked on my door and said he needed some help. The back brakes were acting up and he had removed the rear drum. The wheel cylinder was loose and was just hanging there.
GM had used a circular clip to retain the cylinder instead of bolts. Road salt had eaten the retainer up allowing the cylinder to detach itself.
In those pre-internet days the knowledgeable parts store guy says “Yeah, happens all the time”. He sold us a bolt on retro fit kit and said this was known problem and there some lawsuits. So please check the wheel cylinders if you have A/G body.
Anything to save pennies!
I really liked these cars, which were everywhere in Flint when I was a young kid. The featured car is a near-twin to the same-color ’79 owned by my First Grade teacher and her husband (who also lived a block over from my family).
I liked your angle that these were sensible choices among the entry-level PLCs. Great piece, Eric!
(Did you notice in your shot of the rear of the car that the taillamp lenses don’t match? The one on the left appears to be from a ’78, and the one on the right has the vertical divider of the ’79.)
I actually didn’t notice the mismatched tail lights until just now!
Great find and very well done article! I hope we might see that Vega in a future posting, that is sure a rare sight.
I never liked the looks of the 78-80 Regal all that much. I think the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix came off better. However, the refreshed 81 was much more handsome IMO and was perhaps the best looking of the GM coupes for the rest of that generation.
The one thing specifically I don’t like is the front overhang looks too long. I think it is partly to do with the front axle-to-cowl distance looks really short. This may be due to the front door line sitting very far forward in relation to the A-pillar, making the space between the wheel well and front edge of the door very short, while the space ahead of the wheel well is relatively long. It just always looked a bit awkward to me. Not unique to the Regal, though, as all A cars had the same thing except perhaps the Malibu had a little less front overhang or at least looked like it.
Thanks! Unfortunately, I have no more pictures of the Vega… it was a little bit too far off the street to go taking pictures of it.
This might be a controversial opinion, but square single single sealed beam headlights in most applications above compacts looked as bad or worse than the universally panned stacked rectangles. I like these Regals apart from their front end, the body and rear end styling is elegant (I see hints of 67 Eldorado in it) but the angled back singles make it look like a Pinto with a more upright grille. The 80 update to quads was a welcome change and the 81 sheetmetal update was even better.
It’s weird to me how GM started the Collonade As with single per side headlights, adapted all of them to quads by the end, then released all the 78 As (minus the Grand Prix) with all singles again, then facelifted them again to use quads.
While this class of car never appealed to me it’s clear that it was important because every GM division except Cadillac had one (Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, Cutlass Supreme, Regal). Also in the 80s these were the most popular Guido-mobile.
This one really shows the shape of the basic car as compared to the more common landau roof, pinstripes and faux wire wheels. It would be interesting to see an early base trim car against one of the Monte Carlo or Grand Prix aero specials.
I love the way these look. While the ’81-87 look more substantial and more timeless, these ’78-79 models look clean and elegant (I don’t care for the in-between ’80).
The ’73-75 Century and Regal coupes looked fantastic with their dashing feature lines and, while the ’76-77 were handsome, they were less original — they looked like Cutlass coupes with blander front and rear-end styling. So the ’78 was a nice change, IMO, as it definitely looked different to the Cutlass.
My grandparents had a ’78 Cutlass Supreme that they bought new. It was rather handsome, cream over metallic orange, with the Olds rally wheels.
As much as these cars were an improvement in packaging over their predecessors, the notion that they could seat more than four is a joke from today’s perspective.
I was just a little kid, but perched over the transmission tunnel was no fun front or back. And I remember my knees bashing into the buttons on that AC Delco radio many times.
A well done article on a late 1970s fixture of the U.S. landscape. I agree with the sentiments expressed above that the exterior of the 1981-87 revised versions looked cleaner and more substantial. Full disclosure: my first car was a 1984 base Regal coupe bought new and in a light green/silver that so many of the 1978-87 Regals came in (such as the one Eric captured above). And, it very much looked like the retired teacher’s car (in fact, my sister claimed my father looked better driving it than I did). While the ‘84 Regal was a good car that I respected, it was not what I wanted, which would have been something more like that red 1977 coupe in the second picture, with Buick road wheels and a 455 V8.
“Regal’s design presented a clean break from the ornate gingerbread that had come to dominate Detroit’s larger cars.”
I actually thought the 76 and 77 models personified that description in a car whose proportions were so much nicer. I really hated the upright back light of virtually every new GM model in the late 70’s and into the 80’s. While the the 76-77 Regal was somewhat rakish the new 78’s just looked awkward…I thought the same about the B-bodies…The 77-79 LeSabre sport coupe looked just right…sporty, mature, confident, then came the 80 coupe with the a raked windshield and abrupt rear window….Awkward!
bufguy: Agree 100% with your accurate observations and opinins.
I wish I had pics of the ’84 I had in the 90s. Silver/pewter two-tone, no vinyl roof, black Rallye wheels with chrome trim rings and upgraded chrome lug nuts. Also had Hoosier GT white-lettered tires, a nice Kenwood stereo and Kenwood speakers. Factory rear air shocks. Upgraded front gas shocks. Mint interior. Unfortunately it had the 231 V6 and was quite slow, though very quiet and smooth. Got decent mileage at least. I did advance the timing so it could benefit a little from higher octane fuel. Made it more responsive, but I had to retard it back at emissions time. Most of the primitive emissions equipment including the air pump was removed and the cat was hollow but it passed the old-school emissions tests somehow anyway. (Still had the EGR I think.) Under the hood was immaculate as well. It was all show and no go but it really showed great.
Just finally having the time to read this now, and I must say a very excellent article as usual Eric! The similar-vintage Cutlass Supreme tends to get a lot more exposure around here, but the Regal was every bit as an important car for Buick as the Cutlass Supreme was for Olds during this era.
You very supremely (or should I say “regally”) describe why the Regal struck such a broad scope of appeal and thus a high level of success. There are very few vehicles which can accomplish this feat today, as with automakers offering so many models to fill all nooks and crannies these days, there isn’t much space for one single model to span such a wide market and thus wide appeal. Full-size pickups are probably the only vehicles that come to mind.
I splurged for the top-of-the-line turbocharged Sport Coupe in 1978 and – unfortunately – it turned out to be the worst new car I ever purchased. Not put together well, clear-coat failure and had to have the top end of the motor rebuilt and the turbo replaced before trading it in with 79k miles on a new ‘81 Honda Accord. Other than that, it was a reasonably comfortable car.
Amazing the car sold so well when the Ford and Chrysler competition was so much nicer with v8 power. The regal is plain and narrow looking.and those Buick v6 engines were awful back then. The only attractive versions of this was the montecarlo and Cutlass supreme. I do imagine the aerobacks in the showroom made them more attractive by default.
This was among the cars I drove when I was a transporter for Hertz in 1977-1978…they didn’t often have GM cars, and I never drove a colonnade Regal (but did drive a colonnade Gran Prix, probably a ’77). Never drove the turbo, it was a pretty big deal back then, I think only Saab also had a turbo back then, funny it has become so common in cars nowdays (but with much smaller engines).
My departed Uncle had a later (’88) Regal on the FWD platform, with the electronic dash, but otherwise a base model with bench velour seat (think it was bench, though it seems odd for a 2 door…can’t recall) in medium blue. I think it was the last car he actually bought for himself, afterwards he drove “hand me ups” that either his wife or kids stopped driving for some reason, a minivan, and then when his son died at a young age, he took over his Chrysler Sebring. Mostly he had MOPARs, all bought used from the same dealership (whose owner seemed to specialize in them)….other than a Celebrity wagon, I don’t remember him owning any other GM cars (except as a bachelor he had a flashy red ’64 Impala 2 door before he met my Aunt).
The sales figures of Buicks thru 1987, says the Skyhawk was the 2nd best seller of ALL Buicks back then.
Really, so why do you see more G Body Regals still around and being driven, but NO Skyhawks?
Funny, how a “best seller” back then is now virtually extinct. Have not seen a daily driven Skyhawk since the late 90s.