I saw this Buick Colonnade out of the corner of my eye, and immediately made a U-turn to take a set of pictures. This time the universe gave us a really clean example. Even more exciting, it’s the relatively rare four door model instead of the typical ’70’s GM mid-sized coupe; only 10,725 of these Regal sedans were built in 1975, so they were rare to start with, never mind now. As to just how regal it is, I’ll leave that to you.
Regarding its name: There’s no “Century” badge on it, but the Regal was the the top tier trim in the Buick mid-size Century line. A different grille, some badges and nicer interior to justify the higher price. The standard engine was the “new” 90 degree V6, having come back home to Buick after visiting the folks in Toledo for a few years. It now had 231 cubic inches and was rated at 110 net hp. A rather modest beginning of what would turn out to be a very long and productive life back in the GM mothership.
Since about 75% of the 1975 production were built with the optional Buick 350 (5.7 L) V8 the odds are good this car packs a 2 bbl (145 hp) or 4 bbl (165 hp). But there’s no way to tell from the exterior, unlike the rare and exceptionally underpowered 1976 LeSabre V6, which proudly wore a V6 badge on its front fender.
Buick built this car during my freshman year in high school, and at the time I wouldn’t have given it a second look. Taking a close look today, I’m shocked that GM allowed that huge gap between the base of the B-pillar and the door skins. I understand the pillar is fixed in place, while the doors need to move, but surely that was a better solution than the lateral chasm the builders settled on- It looks like the B-pillar has broken free of the body and is just hovering there.
GM made actual changes to the Colonnades from year to year, allowing us to nail down the year and model even without that big “Regal” badge in the grille. While the ’73, ’74, and ’75 Regals all used round headlamps and similar grilles, this squarer front fascia is unique to 1975. The Regal four door then switched to square headlights in ’76, so this is clearly a ’75.
There were three trim levels in the Century line, beginning with just plain “Century.”
The mid-level Century Custom, also available in the notchback coupe version.
And of course the Regal, also available in the much more popular notchback formal coupe.
While the driver side of this Regal looks pretty good, the rear shows a bit of age. In typical GM fashion, the Los Angeles UV and ozone have busted up the bumper fill panel. Somewhere along the line, the trunk has also picked up a solid whack, which reshaped the lid and messed up the fit.
The interior looks very nice, but somehow not as plush as it appears in the brochure. But that was a common reality. The rather cheap hard plastic lower door panel GM had started using widely in the ’70s did nothing for the ambiance, especially a car that had aspirations to being regal.
Thanks to the front seat being positioned fairly far forward, the rear seat and leg room look rather roomy. It would be interesting to do a detailed comparison of the interior dimensions of these colonnade sedans with a ’77 B-Body, as both utilized a quite similar 116″ wheelbase frame and chassis.
In 1976, Buick updated the sheet metal on their coupes, and squared off the body lines. The lower volume sedans would carry this curvier sheet metal through 1977. I mention this because all ’73-’75 models used unique door and fender sheet metal from brand to brand, but the ’77 and ’78 Cutlass and Century/Regal coupes shared the same doors and fenders (loosing that big sweeping character line), an early cost cutting measure and another step towards badge engineering.
Sadly, the passenger’s side is as rough as the rear view. Still, for such an old car, the overall condition is pretty good.
Every car has a story, and often times the story is etched into the body. Here on the passenger’s side, there’s a series of nicks on the front door, and a different series on the rear door. Speaking as an amateur automotive archaeologist, I believe those marks tell us this car was typically parked on the left side of a garage. Furthermore, over the past 44 years the doors of two different vehicles have left their unique imprints. What I can’t explain is why the door ding trim is missing/beat to hell.
To close out, I’ll show this close up of the left rear fender and discuss a few points on GM quality. As has been said many times, GM assembly and material quality started to slide through the seventies, which this image mostly reinforces. Still, automotive archaeology is an inexact science, and I’m sure I’ve missed a few observations- feel free to use the comments box to weigh in with your own thoughts.
(this is a substantially revised version of an older post)
Related CC Reading
Curbside Classic: 1976 Buick Regal Sedan – The End-Stage Beater By J.P. Cavanaugh
My artist cousin had a maroon ’77 Regal 4 dr in the early ’90s as his driver, I riveted sheet metal to the lower rear quarters so it would pass MD inspection. The interior was near mint and it was a very comfortable car for the driver and front passenger. The 350 2 bbl ran well but did suck gas prodigiously and wasn’t all that fast, rather typical for the era. The trunk was shallow but did carry his artwork ok. GM quality really sucked at this time, but the ’77-79 B & C bodies didn’t reflect it as badly as some of the other models.
To be honest this series of cars just gets a “meh” from me. Nothing more and nothing less. I will give it marks for the fact that it has it’s original 6 figure blue/yellow CA plate which I rarely see outside my two.
Something about the whole roof and windows doesn’t match the lower car. Like AMC was responsible for designing the glass line up part.
The straight angle up on the rear bumper side of the rear doors is also odd.
That interior gave me low trim GM flashbacks. I can smell that weird petrochem odor they all had. But I’d still love to borrow it for an afternoon, and go tour LA a little. At least with a more than the 3.8 and my AAA up to date. Great find!
While we’re on doors, look at the position of the front door handle compared to the rear – the front door handle looks scarcely an inch from the trailing edge of the door. Now look at the rear door handle: two, possibly three inches in from the door’s trailing edge, and the handle’s sitting higher too. I can’t remember; were the other GM intermediates similarly afflicted, or was this a Buick thing?
The staggered vertical placement is unique to Buick because of the character lines. But they all have the different gap from the door edge to the handle front and rear.
My grandpa rocked a Regal sedan like this in silver with a burgundy vinyl top and interior. His was a 1977 and was his first and only intermediate. I didn’t realize that these had such low production numbers. They seemed fairly common when I was a kid.
It will forever be a mystery to me how the 2-door colonnade cars looked so good while the 4-doors were so very ugly. I know that’s my subjective judgement, but I stand by it.
Not sure why Buick claimed it a “hardtop” & “sedan” in the same sentence. I thought they were separate being hardtop had no pillar. Anyway cool it has PW & locks!
Because it’s a Hardtop Sedan of course .
Never forget Chevrolet’s 1949 “Hardtop Convertible”, an impossible thing but they said it anyways .
-Nate
Not impossible if it had a folding steel top like a Peugeot 402 Eclipse, (or a later Ford Skyliner) but I get your point.
Naming was generally weird back then. Every feature had to have a revoltingly cutesy name, and nobody seemed to care whether claims were true or not – like the use of the word ‘new’.
Nice survivor, So. Cal. I’m betting as I see this sort of vehicle daily in every corner of Los Angeles County .
-Nate
Who loves ya, koochie koo? Stavros!
So whose first thought wasn’t ‘Kojack’?
Kojack’s had a 455!
As they all should!
I always liked the Colonnade 4 doors. Something a bit European about them. Far better than the Century, Malibu, LeMans and Cutlass coupes. (Not the formal roofline Regal or Cutlass Supreme, which were attractive). Good visibility and the perfect size. GM cheapness was abundant however, and in base trim they were taxi like. But opt for the Regal sedan and it was a pretty nice ride.
Yeah! Looking at that car, my inner tape recorder is playing this:
The original theme was a little different, as I heared.
GM was competing against the rest of the big 3 and maybe AMC if they were still around. The Japanese had better quality at the expense of all the luxury items in American cars. The big 3 were leaders in cars until they weren’t. All the car magazines were trashing American cars, they just didn’t measure up.
And yet, how many Japanese cars of this age does one see on the road now? Yes the Japanese cars were carefully assembled for the most part but they simply turned to rusty dust after about 20 years. The early Honda CVCC engines ran like crap, especially when cold. Read the mid 70s reviews on here for the Corolla etc and they all ran poorly. So “quality” has a lot of different meanings. The plastic filler panels my be gone on this Buick but it still runs and drives and is not a rustbucket.
Well, out here in SoCal, the combination of Japanese cars becoming popular sooner here, and the lack of conditions that cause rust, means I see quite a few. The insanity of still needing to smog cars all the way back to the 1975 model year means that the failure of those systems tends to take out more cars than rust here.
Japan was early to require emissions testing (in line with the USA, much earlier than Europe) and so they seemed to mostly still pass smog, while not suffering as many drivability problems with said equipment as others.
Of course there’s lots of classic American cars on the road here, but they tend to be ‘74s and earlier.
Friends had a 75 base model Century with the V6 and it was GUTLESS. My mom got a 76 Cutlass S sedan that at least had a 350 in it, but proclaimed to the whole world that they were too cheap to spring for a proper Cutlass Supreme because of that 76-only sloped front header panel on the base models.
“but proclaimed to the whole world that they were too cheap to spring for a proper Cutlass Supreme”
Really? Was it your money? Did you know their budget?
Wow, just wow.
Rob, I’m going to ask you nicely to please dial back the hostility and perhaps have another look at the CC comment policy. Everyone has opinions; expressing them civilly is a virtue.
Ok, how about this:
“but proclaimed to the whole world that they were too cheap to spring for a proper Cutlass Supreme”
I think that the above is a rather unfortunate thing to say about someone else’s spending. Some people prefer to spend their money on other things other than automobiles.
More in line with the standards?
I truly loved my 77 Cutlass Supreme Brougham sedan. I was 17 and my dad explained that the insurance was cheaper on a four door than a coupe? I never questioned him after he also said that it was the same 350!
Only a fan clutch ever failed on my car that I bought at only 3 years old with 98,000 miles! (A traveling salesman owned it)
I drove it to 134,000 if I recall and it was fine for me.
Great find!