(first posted 4/26/2013) Americans like things big. The country’s big, the meals are big, people are big, the roads are big, and the distances are far. Families used to be big. And big station wagons were the vehicle of choice for many of them. And America likes growth, so the wagons kept getting bigger and bigger, until certain externalities imposed themselves, in particular starting very shortly after GM started building the biggest ones ever, in 1971. This 1975 Buick Estate Wagon, the last year it was built, is 231.8 inches (5887mm) long, longer than even that standard bearer of bigness, the 1976 Cadillac DeVille. By that criterion alone, as well as a few others for good measure, it truly is the ultimate American station wagon.
Although Ford lagged behind GM, especially in full-sized cars, it was consistently strong in the full-sized wagon segment. As proudly proclaimed in the ad, Ford outsold every other brand of station wagons. And the new 1965 version featured innovative twin facing rear seats, and the ’66 upped the ante further with the clever Magic Doorgate that could open either as a door or fold down as a tailgate. Ford was The Wagon Master.
Ford’s Country Squire, which proudly retained its fake wood planking when everyone else had moved on to sleek steel sides in the early-mid 50s, cultivated and enjoyed an upscale image, which probably helps explain why Buick’s and Oldsmobile’s big wagons just never sold well: the Country Squire was able to transcend the typical class structure, and was just as much at home at the country club as at the public pool.
Why pay quite a bit more for a decidedly un-Dynamic Olds or dull LeSabre? Ford had nurtured a better idea, and it was paying off handsomely. In fact, these boxy wagons were calling out for some improvement.
Ford’s continued dominance with its wagons was obviously an embarrassment to GM, which meant that something had to be done about it. Dozens of committee meetings on the 14th floor over a period of years resulted in leaning towers of memos and ultimately in some bold and brilliant decisions: Chevrolet would finally start applying Di-Noc fake wood to its upscale Caprice wagon in 1966. But it was still saddled with rather old-school rear-facing third seats. It didn’t make much of a dent in Ford’s lead.
An unusual and more innovative approach was taken by Oldsmobile and Buick, which dropped their poorly-selling B-Body wagons after the 1964 model year, in part because the outside supplier that built the bodies (Ionia), was sold off, and Olds and Buick couldn’t justify the expense of tooling up a wagon version for the new 1965 bodies to build on their own lines.
So they created the extended-wheelbase A-Body Vista Cruiser and Sport Wagon, which we covered here. They were unique in that they used their lengthened wheelbase specifically to make a forward-facing third seat possible, and raised the roof for the extra headroom, as that third seat had to seat directly above the rear axle differential housing. This configuration also allowed for a reasonable cargo space behind the third seat, unlike in the Ford twin seats or the Chevy (and Chrysler’s) rear-facing third seats.
For its all-new 1971 full-sized wagons, GM was determined to take Ford on, and in the usual GM way when it set its mind to something: out-gun them, in every way possible, especially in engineering. Unlike anything to date, the new GM wagons were designed from the frame up specifically to have three forward facing seats, and the roomiest ones ever, as well as have a considerable cargo area behind them.
It’s not hard to see where the inspiration came from. The Vista Cruiser was the warm-up act to the ultimate wagon, or in other words, the penultimate wagon.
These new wagons would be unlike any other ever built, with an extended wheelbase (125″ Chevy; 127″ Olds (shown above), Buick and Pontiac), and the frame was exclusive to the wagons as it had a totally different rear suspension, with semi-elliptic leaf springs in order to maximize interior space. And of course, they were big; the biggest wagons ever built.
This shot of a ’73 Chevy wagon still hauling kids shows off its capabilities. These mega-wagons were the Suburbans or the (not-so mini)vans of their time; the best way to haul up to eight passengers and still have some room for secure and easy-to-load storage behind the third seat. Take that, Ford!
But that’s not all; to take on Ford’s Magic Doorgate, GM engineering prowess came up with the ultimate wagon tailgate solution: the Glide-Away tailgate, more commonly known as the clam shell tailgate. And take this, Ford!
Seeing it in action is the best way to describe it. But like so many (all?) other GM over-kill engineering solutions, it was not without its faults too.
This one is the most common one: the electrically-operated glass won’t come down the whole way and leaves an inch or so open. This was shot on a cold and drizzly day, and I assure you that it was not open intentionally as I caught up with its owner heading to the recycling center with a load of cans and intercepted him.
There were other gremlins too, especially with dirt and grit getting into the rollers for the drop-down lower section. If it failed, it was expensive to repair.
The Glide-Away tailgate dictated the styling and structure of the whole rear end, which made these wagons very distinctive. The lower tailgate rolled down manually, but electric assist was available optionally.
The wrap-around rear side glass hid the large inner structure for the C-Pillar that had the tracks for the window, which of course slid up into the roof. When it was willing and able.
As in the Vista Cruiser, the roof was raised in the rear, both to provide the extra headroom for the third seat as well as to contain the tailgate window in the rear-most area. But no glass this time around, sadly. Very sadly.
Unfortunately, this Estate Wagon—the very first clam shell wagon I’ve encountered in Eugene—was a two-seat version.
But then that second row seat is wide enough to seat four, in a pinch. These cars had exceptionally generous hip and shoulder room thanks to the ‘fuselage’ styling with very convex exteriors.
And here’s the helm. The earlier versions had a rather ’69 Ford-ish wrap-around instrument cluster, but that gave way after a few years to this rather unambitious and uninspired design. GM’s cost cutting had been evident for some years.
It’s about time we took a look at the front end of this battle ship. As roomy as these were on the inside, they were still far from a paragon space efficiency, most of all because of that enormous front end. That adjective doesn’t quite do justice to it either.
The GM clam shell wagons may have been the ultimate of their kind in the US, but in France, Citroen was building what was truly the ultimate wagon, the CX Break, in terms of its technical ambitions. Although only 194″ long—three and a half feet shorter than the Estate Wagon—the FWD cab-forward CX Break had drastically better space utilization.
Even with three rows of quite roomy seats, the rear cargo area was about as big as many smaller station wagons with two rows, thanks to its long wheelbase, shorter hood, and very low load floor. And of course, there was no space-robbing trick clam shell tailgate to eat up a bunch of space in the back. Or to go on the blink. And then there was the CX’s hydropneumatic suspension. And its efficient four cylinder turbo-diesel engines, which yielded 30+ mpg.
And if one needed even more room, there was the Loadrunner six-wheeled version (by Tissier), often used as a high-speed express delivery vehicle.
Still not big enough? How’s this for the ultimate station wagon? Enough; let’s head back to good old America…
Raising the Buick’s Louisiana Territory-sized hood reveals a vast engine storage facility, big enough for one of GM’s EMD locomotive V16s. Never has a 7.4 liter engine looked so lost. Now imagine Buick’s 3.8 L V6 in there; no, thankfully it wasn’t actually available on the big wagons, but Buick did put some in the ’76 LeSabre sedans and coupes.
Appropriately enough—despite the energy crisis which came along and spoiled the fun—the 7.4 was the standard and only engine installed in the Estate Wagon. It was rated at 205 net hp, and had enough torque to move these well-over 5,000 lb freight trains adequately down the road, as well as enough thirst to move the gas gauge needle equally fast from F to E. It takes hypermiling to break into the double digits, mpg-wise.
I hear that this generation of Buick V8s has some endemic oiling weaknesses that makes them susceptible to shortened lifespans. The Olds Custom Cruiser, although 0.8″ shorter and thus a bit less ultimate, was probably the better choice, engine-wise.
Now if GM had used the Toronado’s Unitized-Power FWD system in these wagons, where it actually made sense, instead of in a sporty luxury coupe, and had ditched all of that dead space under the hood, lowered the rear floor and increased passenger and cargo space, it would have truly built the ultimate station wagon.
It was contemplated, and at least one or more Toronado station wagons were built as test mules. The resulting low floor in the back and the lack of a center tunnel was quite a revelation, I hear. Still way more front overhang than needed, but this is America.
Imagine a slightly shorter version of this. Now that would have been the ultimate wagon.
As it turned out, GM’s mega-wagons sailed right into the gales of the energy crisis, and were essentially DOA. In 1977, GM’s downsized cars arrived, and the wagons had shed almost a full foot in wheelbase, a foot and a half in overall length, and over a thousand pounds. In fact they were now smaller than the Vista Cruiser had been, and GM’s ambitious forward-facing third rear seat was jettisoned; well, actually turned around in the old standby rear-facing direction. The ultimate wagons were now modest wagons for a new era.
But not to worry; GM had another superlative wagon for America, the Suburban, dubbed the Super Wagon. There is absolutely no coincidence that Suburban sales really took off in the late seventies. Most of all in big-loving Texas, where the Suburban became the default Mommie mobile.
I vividly remember a business trip to Houston in the early eighties, and there was a soccer field next to my hotel. In the afternoon, there was a parade of Suburbans lined up to pick up the kids from practice. And why not?
It was much roomier inside than the clam shell wagons, and yet two feet over a foot shorter! Gas mileage couldn’t get worse than horrible. Maybe not quite a Citroen CX in terms of space utilization, but this was just what America was looking for, a genuine Superwagon. And from 1977 forward, the conventional wagons never again played the top-dog role they had for so long. Their image soon foundered, especially as the SUV boom expanded beyond just Suburbans, and was quickly followed by the minivan boom. GM’s clam shell wagons were the end of the road for the big American wagon, in more ways than one.
These wagons are now like living dinosaurs, and almost as rare. This Estate Wagon makes for an impressive sight as it rumbles down the street. And it’s still hard at work, putting its prodigious size, weight, power and carrying capacity to work hauling about a pound and a half of empty aluminum cans to be recycled for five cents apiece. It probably guzzled more gas on that trip than the cans are worth, even if it was a short trip. But then sheer economics were never what these wagons were all about. Being the ultimate at anything almost inevitably doesn’t come cheap. Or without a few compromises. But it does assure that it will be noticed or not readily forgotten.
A 71 Buick clamshell is my first or second favourite wagon ever depending on the time of day, but I draw a line in the sand at 1972 (except for the 73 Chev). Its not about the tailgate technology, its just that the shape is so well rendered. It is the ultimate wagon, despite or because of its elephantine dimensions.
Very glad you featured the CX is all its glories, talk about other-worldly. On the other hand, that Oldsiac prototype may have a low floor, but it looks like a dog.
This is a fantastic piece to top-up a fantastic week of fantastic automotive shapes. As ever, the story sits beyond the actual car and it is told so well. Thanks Paul.
Magnificent; never will the like be seen again. Thanks for putting this up Paul.
Never say never…about the stawags… 🙂
I’d say the last big Chrysler T&C’s easily trump this Buick monstrosity. I remember GM’s “clamshell” tailgate was considered a major fail/waste of space at the time.
If you adjusted for the Buick’s huge fugly bumpers, the T&C ,with its much better integrated bumpers, is probably at least as long and certainly much better looking:
http://www.allpar.com/photos/chrysler/C-bodies/1977-town-country.jpg
I had compared a ’76 Catalina Safari with my former ’81 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser trunkspace. What I’ve found in practice…the downsized full-sized newer GM station wagon has a bit more rationally configurated (or a bit more practical) trunkspace than its upsized predecessor. If the size of the car matters than the ’76 model rules. If the cargo capability prefers than the newer downsized full-size station wagon could be a choice. V8 Diesel? Slow but “sparsam” [thrifty] 🙂 Both of THESE are highend epitomes of the estate/station wagons!
Actually, those fugly bumpers are the Government’s bumpers.
True, but you guys had to have ’em.
Very nice find! I honestly don’t think I’ve ever seen a clamshell wagon in person, as I’m sure it would’ve been a sight to remember.
Despite cost-cutting, GM still used a lot of unique sheet metal on these wagons to differentiate them from one another. It’s been a great wagon week!
Agree. With lots of very interesting station wagon articles. Greatful for all of the posts…
Paul,
Thanks soooo much for wagon week. Brought back memories of me ridding in the back of a ’64 Impala wagon for many, many miles. My two all time favorite for wagons are:
– late 60′ thru early 70’s Olds Vista Cruiser. The neighbor had one in blue.
– mid to late ’60 Ford Country Squire, the iconic family hauler. Many of these were in the school parking lot in the afternoon waiting for the kids.
Again, thanks for the memories.
Station Wagons…what I like about North-Americas! 🙂
Paul, this sure looks to be a 1975 model to me.
These GM clamshells really are the ultimate wagons. My favorite is the 1976 Chevrolet version. But the 1976 Buick version is my 2nd fav.
I like the dash on this a lot. I think it’s the best dash of all the 71-76 GM fullsize wagons.
Didn’t know about the Toronado mule. Going to front drive on these would have been brilliant. Oh well. And they never made a wagon version of the fantastic front-wheel-drive 1986-91 H-body cars which would have been brilliant as well.
Agreed. I don’t think the featured wagon is a 1976 because of the round headlights. Did square headlights come along in 1975 as well or only 1976?
The Electra got rectangular lights in ’75, the LeSabre and Estate Wagon in ’76. So this is a ’75.
When the owner told me it was a ’76, I just stopped thinking about the year. Normally, I’ll go home and figure out the exact year, but not this time. But then given the owner’s condition, I probably shouldn’t have made any assumptions.
Did that condition have anything to do with the empty Bud tall boys he was lugging around?
I strongly suspect so. 🙂
Oops; I just happened to be looking in my notebook, and it says “1975 Estate Wagon”. My bad…I don’t want to blame the owner in case he finds his way here.
Absolutely horrible wagon and one of the ultimate examples of GM’s poorly thought out, “because we can”, engineering overkill. Given the love my parents had for station wagons, starting with a 1959 Chevrolet Brookwood and ending with a 1986 Buick Century Estate Wagon, they owned an example of every large station wagon style GM made – except for this one. It was never under consideration and our 1970 Caprice Estate Wagon served this entire stretch – a record for the Paczolt family, who otherwise never kept a car more than three years.
Even my ex-dealer and terminal GM loyalist father saw these for what they were: abominations. And, his favorite Chevrolet dealer, who he helped get the franchise once out of the business, talked him out of considering one, deeming them a complete pain in the ass.
I knew some hard core GM families who would not buy one of these. One in particular bought a very nice Mercury Colony Park purely because they hated the GM tailgate. The only FoMoCo vehicle they ever owned.
Looking back, most people distrusted power windows, figuring that one or more of them would fail at some point. The clamshell probably struck most folks as a very costly gimmick, just waiting to break.
What happened to common sense? I grew up with people that looked at such why-tech with an eye on failure rates. These days, there are people that will buy a car where the shift knob needs to power itself out of a recess before the car can be put in neutral and towed to the shop.
Wasn’t it the husband’s job to worry about failure rates. Remember these meant mainly to upscale women with large families. The large tailgates must have been a struggle for them. God knows what most of them weighed, and the often poor fir meant you might have to slam it more than once.
Husbands used to be far more manly about major purchases.
I totally agree, I thought they were just ugly behemoths. I think GM’s finest looking wagon was the 69 Chevrolet, the 70 was almost as nice. After 71, no thanks!
Not just ‘because we can’, but in this era designers dared to dream. In a way, they were like big kids. And if what they dreamt up would give the company a leg up over the competition, management would push that dream through to production. Service wasn’t their problem; that was another division entirely. And they probably figured on selling the customer another wagon before the tailgate started to give problems.
Since a car represented such a major purchase, and would typically remain the the family for much longer, I know we Aussies looked at things with a far more pragmatic eye. Like your father obviously did, Syke.
When new those clamshells must have been great. Imagine the looks on the neighborhood kids and their mother’s faces as the door does it’s thing. And then the bitching the next time they struggle with the tailgate on their Town and Country, Colony Park or even the hatch on the Volvo 145. Buick for the win.
That Citroen looks great, especially the space age velour. That iron duke like engine must have been a buzz kill though, and I bet the clamshell out lasted the hydrolics. You still have to raise the hatch, I wonder why Citroen never thought to tie that in. The hydrolics on that thing could even jack up a wheel, lifting a hatch should be child’s play. I guess only GM sweated the details, in the housewife olympics.
I wonder if the different dash on the later ones had to due with the dual airbags that some of these had.
The excess of the Buick is an easy shot to take. But I miss the optimism and the can do attitude that led to it. Maybe you could still find such a mentality at Apple or Tesla, but from most places here and abroad, it is long gone.
GM seemed to go on obsessions, targeting a certain car, determined to put it down and out of GM’s misery. Invariably with less than stellar results. What immediately comes to mind is: Volkswagen Beetle – 1960 Corvair/then Vega, Ford station wagons – clamshell wagons, Honda Accord – J-car, K-minivan – dustbuster minivans.
Its like once management got it in its collective head to smash the opposition, all rational thought went out the window in favor of “we’ll show ’em!”
It seems to me it is better then benchmarking. GM was going after Ford’s lead by building a better wagon. Much better than the Jcar where they benchmark a 78 Accord only to face a much better one in the market of 1982. Also the Corvair, a board member of VW might well have questioned management why GM built it and not VW.
I had a Citroen CX – the engine was uninspiring, but civilised, and the hydropneumatic suspension was reliable as long as it was maintained correctly.
My favourite years for the Buick wagon are the 1970 and 71 years. I also like the 1964 Buick Sport Wagon.
I hated these at the time, but rather like them now purely because they are so outlandish. The same reason I like 61 Plymouths, I guess.
I rode in a 72 Estate wagon once and a friend’s father bought a 75 Custom Cruiser in about 1977. What horrible gas mileage. I have always preferred the looks of the Olds, which picked up all of the design cues of the Nineth Eight. The Buick was neither LeSabre nor Electra.
It’s true that the Suburban became the next big thing. We have relatives who spent time in Texas and came to own not one, but two Suburbans at the same time. Perfectly normal in Texas, but boy did they stand out when they got transferred to Philadelphia.
If those Suburbans were from this era, they probably rusted out soon enough after getting to Philly.
The ultimate station wagon? Its close .Theres just something about these high end wagons that seperates them from their more mundane version. Di-Noc or not, it almost seems like a throwback to the custom made “woodie” wagons of the late 30s and 40s.BTW, I just love that Toronado eight door Vista Cruiser. If that were ever produced, that would be the ultimate wagon, but you`re probably talking about gallons per mile fuel economy!
The Jetway 707 was produced. I remember seeing one or two near LAX in the mid 70s still being used as an airport shuttle.
It’s more than fantasy for a Station Wagon/Oldsmobile fan! An early Toronado converted to an 8 door StaWag… Ahhh…Uhhh… 🙂 Thanks for posting this pic…
I always wondered, do these have two tailgate motors, once for the glass and one for the actual gate? Where would a motor for the glass be located?
Yes. The lower tailgate was manual, unless the optional electric version was specified. The upper glass window was always electric. I assume the motor for the window was in that giant D pillar.
Mr. Niedermeyer, thank you for this wonderful write-up. You perfectly capture the context in which to appreciate the marvel/abomination these GM wagons are.
FWIW, the clamshell window motor is located at the lower rear quarter panel behind the spare tire on the passenger side. The motor for the tailgate sits just below the wrap-around rear glass on the driver’s side, underneath the vinyl-covered interior panels. These motors are nearly bullet-proof. I know because both were thought to be bad on the ’71 Olds Custom Cruiser I rescued from a derby guy. But after repairing some rodent-chewed wiring, the original 44-year-old motors for the glass and gate work fine. And when a child’s lost plastic toy giraffe was fished out of the tailgate tracks, the gate went up and down without hesitation.
Thank you again for this article. It’s been a great week for circling the wagons to consider this unique exhibit of Americana.
Saving one from a derbier is appreciated. Those turkeys are paying over $2,000 for these things for the sole purpose of destroying them. The ’71-’73 Oldsmobile rear styling is certainly striking — the sleek roofline with the pointy baroque finned taillights somehow “works”.
After years of searching for a 1973 Pontiac or Buick Clamshell, this rather faded Mayan Gold 1973 Custom Cruiser joined the collection about a month ago after a fifteen year slumber under a lean-to. It was too long to fit in one photo 🙂 Finding its fender skirts and third seat is going to be nearly impossible though.
Great write-up on a group of cars that I am irrationally attracted to. I guess they were such a part of my childhood/college years that the memories just got seared into my brain.
Starting with the Estate Wagon. My college roommate’s girlfriend had one of these in the mid ’80s. It had been their family car (4 girls!!) and had just been passed on to any of the kids that needed something to bomb around in. So, the car had seen hard use, a number of minor fender benders, and had about 100K miles on the clock as it approached its 10th birthday. That said, the uniquely American approach to hauling, with it’s “get outta my way” swagger, was still very much intact. She had nicknamed the car “the moose” and it was white, with woodgrain and red 3-row interior, equipped similarly to the pictured car with power windows, locks, etc. She hated driving it, so whenever we went out as a group, I wound up behind the wheel. It could haul 8 or 9 college kids, which was very convenient, and the torquey 455 had enough guts to keep things moving even fully loaded (thankfully I never had to fill the tank). Of course, my favorite thing was the clamshell tailgate. The one on this Estate Wagon still worked well, and it was a marvel. Just so unnecessary, and so cool!
I think those tailgates are what really attracted me to the big GM wagons. I desperately wanted my mother to get one; she steadfastly refused. My absolute favorites were the Custom Cruisers, which were outfitted as Ninety-Eights in wagon form. The Ninety-Eights we had when I was growing up all had the base or LS trim, so the Custom Cruiser interiors were actually very comparable. Plus you had the fender skirts, all that woodgrain trim, and the Ninety-Eight-style taillights to complete the package. Posh!! I remember thinking my best friend’s Sean’s family were the luckiest people, as they enjoyed Olds wagon nirvana. Mrs. T had a ’74 Custom Cruiser in dark blue, and Mr. T. drove a ’72 Vista Cruiser, also in blue. We’d spend hours playing in the cars and bombing around in the back. When his parents drove, we’d ride in the “way back” naturally with no seatbelt, just jumping around. Free spirited, pre-safety fun. I suppose Sean and I should be thankful to still be alive since we weren’t strapped in tightly and wired to headphones, but I think the memories are worth it…
Speaking of Sean’s family, their choice in vehicles mirrored the huge success and subsequent stupendous decline of the Oldsmobile division. The T’s had nothing but Olds for years, with a ’72 and ’76 Vista Cruiser, ’80 Cutlass Cruiser and ’84 Ciera wagon for him, while she had ’74, ’78 and ’82 Customer Cruisers. Mr. T. was a general contractor, who did light duty hauling with his own car, and he did not like the Ciera at all, switching to Chrysler for a Dodge Caravan, before moving on to a series of Ford Explorers (which he loved). Mrs. T. couldn’t wait to get out of wagons as her kids got older, so the ’82 Custom Cruiser was replaced with an ’86 Buick Electra sedan. That in turned got traded in for a Lexus in 1990. Even though hers was an ES250, it was still a revelation and she loved it, and has owned nothing besides Lexus products since then. So in just 10 short years Olds had just fallen off the radar for most of its core target demographic.
But I digress–back to the wagons. These full-size beasts represent something that we’ll never see again, and to me represent the finale of the ’50’s era American optimism taken to its ultimate point. I’m sure it’s my rose-colored glasses from childhood, but these cars just represent freedom, fun and families with the added dash of “cool” technology “look, a disappearing tailgate!!” designed for an era before actual logic and practicality got in the way of American’s automotive buying decisions.
There was also the problem people discovered in 71 that these couldn’t be fitted with a trailer hitch because of the clamshell design. I don’t know if that was ever addressed in later models but initially it cost GM some sales and pissed off early owners when they discovered they couldn’t tow with them.
There were trailer hitches available for the Clamshell wagons, but they were a unique piece. The frame design on these car resulted in shorted rear rails due to the clamshell tailgate. The trailer hitches may not have been available initially in 1971, but they did become available and many cars had them.
Indeed there was hitches for these. A friend of mine, in the early ’90s ‘inherited’ a 73 Olds Clamshell his parents bought new. They used it to tow their travel trailer. Phil got it when it lost a radiator hose and overheated so bad it literally burned all the paint off the 455. Was still rebuildable, however. Try that with an engine made today.
People who towed boats loved these, when launching them, the fully open rear allowed the driver so see what what was going on.
Great article, and I especially like the comparison with the Citroen CX. I had the pleasure of riding in a CX in the 1980s (one of those quasi-gray market cars sold in the US under the name “CX” instead of Citroen), and it really impressed me. The comfort and luxury of that car’s ride, with its pneumatic suspension, was beyond comparison. A speed bump, for instance, was almost imperceptible.
I love big American wagons, but even at the time I thought that Citroen out-wagoned the Americans with that car. If they were less quirky and more reliable, Citroen could have sold tons of cars (both wagons and otherwise) is the US, if it had wanted to. The quirks were part of the charm, of course, but still, the Citroen was the most American-feeling European car I’ve ever been in. And I mean that in a very complimentary way!
I am shocked that the Suburban was 2 feet shorter than the LeSabre Estate. Shocked I tell ya! In that light, it may be considered a space efficiency champ.
You should be, since I bungled that number. It was actually only 13″ shorter.
I prefer the Pontiac and Olds versions, especially the Pontiac. The Olds 455 is I believe more efficient than the Buick, the one in my ’75 98 has certainly broken 12 mpg without too much of a problem. I think the Buick is a bit quicker off the line and has more hp though.
I love the lines in these, and the finlets in back with wrap around windows. What great visibility. And the clamshells, like the 8-6-4 V8 a good idea that in execution just didn’t really work.
I like the other brands’ big wagons too and they’re arguably somewhat easier to live with but man oh man the style on these!
Now I never had the wagon version but my 1975 Limited with the 455 got 12 mpg and that didn’t really change whether you were driving around town or on the freeway.
I believe it. I’m pretty sure they would all operate in the 10-15 range. They were bad, but not 8 mpg bad. Especially in ’75 and ’76.
Good write up Paul.
I don’t think these wagons were designed as a front facing seat initially though. I attached an early engineering drawing for the tailgate and it shows a rear facing seat design. This photo was in Collectible Automobile on the 1971-76 Chevrolets. My guess is they went to a front facing seat for improved foot room due to the tailgate design.
Even though these wagons represent the excesses of the 1970’s, they really were the ultimate American Station wagon. Although the Ford wagons of the same era were arguably more space efficient (in the cargo area), the sloping rear end styling and raised roof on the clamshells really looks sharp. I especially like the styling on the earlier models without the oversized bumpers. I tended to favour the 1971-72 Buicks and the 1971-1973 Chevrolets. I think that the gimmicky tailgate on these monsters hurt sales though. Realistically the Ford and Mopar wagons were nearly the same size and drank pretty much the same amount of gas. Even to this day my father still curses how bad of design that tailgate was, and he avoided those wagons like the plague (plus he knew they also rusted like crazy and drank gas).
In my opinion, the ultimate in clean and practical American wagon design went to the 1977-90 GM B-body wagons. They were excellent clean styling, were a reasonably size, relatively space efficient, durable, and not overly thirsty. Even though it went to a rear facing seat, it was much more practical for the rear passengers entry and exit. Further, even with third seat up, you did have a little bit of storage between the third and second seat (we used that spot many times on our wagons). The rear facing seat was still far superior to the dual side facing seats Ford used (which was due to the fuel tank location). Once GM adapted to Ford’s more practical squared up rear with a three-way tailgate, it stole the wagon market from the Wagon Master. Going by memory, I believe the 1977-90 B-body Chevrolets out sold the fullsize Ford every year.
The Buick V-8 of the era was indeed less durable than any other GM powerplant. I had a 1978 LeSabre with a Buick 350 under the hood, and it only went 200,000 km before it developed a serious bottom end knock. I retired it and used it for parts, since at the time B Bodies were so cheap, replacing an engine wasn’t worth it.
The gee-whiz rear gate was also a mixed bag. For one thing, it is guaranteed to fail, just like the one in the picture, or worse. Getting at the motor for the window is not easy. If the car was driving exclusively on paved roads, the bottom part of the gate would hold up pretty well, but if it was in dirty conditions, the gate would jam and getting it out again is a nightmare. The downsized wagons went back to a much simpler, space efficient design.
These cars were really the limit if what size could reasonably be put on public roads. They were kind of sad in a way, when the only thing anybody seemed to be able to think was, “bigger is better.” The energy crunch in 1973 sealed the fate of these cars so prodigious was their thirst they became a caricature of themselves.
My Grandmother’s 1950 Buick Special was not a paragon of fuel efficiency either.
It is not like lots of small and big block Chevy engines of the era didn’t develop rod knocks at 125,000 miles. With proper care a Buick engine of the era will last 200,000 miles. Because the oil pump body is the aluminum timing cover they are more susceptable to damage if they are neglected or a low quality oil filter is used. On the other hand since the small block Chevy was not originally designed to have an oil filter they are also susceptible to problems with low quality filters or extended oil change intervals. The big block followed the same oil path where the oil goes directly to the rear main bearing before heading to the filter so they tend to wear out prematurely if ran with dirty oil.
The real problem with the Buick engine’s oiling system is that it just wasn’t designed for frequent or extended high rpm operation but with proper care is just fine for standard usage.
There is absolutely no justification for these, but I don’t care. I want one.
The picture by ‘Junqueboi’ of his newly-acquired (in 2015) Olds station wagon/land barge makes me drool. I wish I had Jay Leno-like funding to buy myself a fleet of old cars. I’d get a couple of big bad station wagons to drive around in and watch people’s reactions. Practicality be damned. It’s a BIG beastie!
IN THE YEAR 2017: 14-year-old asks: “What’s that?” I reply: “It’s a land yacht”. 14-year-old replies: “No, really, what is it?” Me: “It’s really a 1973 Oldsmobile station wagon”. Teenager then says: “I still don’t know what that is? A station wagon? Huh? Never heard of it. And an Oldsmovile?” → Me: “It’s Oldsmobile with a “b” not a “v”! 😀
Super article bringing a cap to wagon week – which has been very enjoyable.
I was around many of the GM ’71 – ’76 full size cars, particularly Oldsmobile through my dad’s work and I owned a ’72 Pontiac for several years. My observation on the dash:
The ’74 through ’76 dash was not a product of cost cutting. It was a mid cycle refresh that brought functional improvement to the cars as well as a new look. The cock pit style dash in the ’71 – ’73 Buick and Oldsmobiles was sort of a pain – the passenger didn’t have much access to the radio controls, and it wasn’t the prettiest view if you were the passenger. The GM cock pit was better than what Ford did in ’69 (not quite as radical as Ford’s) but it still wasn’t a great design. The ’74 and up dash also felt more space efficient, and was more in character with the ’77 and up dash that followed these cars.
I recall the clam shells were being questioned by people even when these were still in production. IIRC, if the lower door section power unit failed, you could still lift it manually, but it was plenty heavy – not something a petite soccer mom or your grandmother would want to deal with.
The clam shell had plenty of cool factor, but was probably more trouble than it was worth – adding weight and mechanical complexity while reducing cargo space a bit. I’ll bet that rear end collisions that damaged the door were also a lot more expensive and difficult to repair.
Kudos to GM though for building a forward facing rear seat and providing some cargo space behind the third row – really the proper design for both safety and function. Now, if they had just used a three way tailgate, cut 6 inches of length and 500 pounds out if it without sacrificing interior space (very doable), they would have had the ultimate ’70s wagon.
Very interesting history behind GM wagons, Paul. I love the light green vinyl top on this example! I forgot that old GM wagons were not bodies by Fisher; the lack of Olds and Buick full size wagons in the mid 60’s as a result of GM selling off Ionia makes more sense now. Too bad they didn’t make that Toronado wagon a production car. I would have liked to see how that looked inside with the extra legroom in the way back.
The Buick clamshells are sure tanks. Recalling past encounters, I remember being impressed by one thing about them: Unlike the Oldsmobiles, that front extension beyond the hood surrounding the grille is steel rather than fiberglass. Likewise with the wheel well liners in the engine bay being made of steel rather than plastic. Pontiac was the same with their Grand Safari, but that car somehow was more graceful and svelte looking. The Buick’s blockier styling made them the tankliest looking of clamshells, that’s for sure. The park shelf bumpers from 1974 on only enhance this car’s appeal IMHO- why not go all out with the theme of excess? Plus, they really did make nice benches for tailgate parties : )
When it comes to classics I’m primarily a GM guy, but my first choice of a vintage wagon would be a ’69-’70 Mercury Colony Park. Make mine Highland Green with a matching green interior, the fake wood down the sides, and 429 power under the hood!
Paul- the main oiling system issue with those old Buicks is the oil pump housing. The original stock one was made from brittle cast aluminum and had the tendency to crack, warp, or even shatter under heavy load. The quality of the casting was also very poor, leading to poor fit and even seepage through the main body. A very poor design. Nowadays, aftermarket Buick performance specialists like Kenne Bell and T/A Performance sell an upgraded oil pump housing made from billet steel.
Great article Paul. Thank you.
I don’t remember seeing many that many Estate Wagons or Olds Custom Cruisers from this generation of B Body, on the road at that time. They seemed especially exclusive, compared to the Chev and Ford wagons, that were plentiful. After the 1977 downsizing, I recall seeing many more full sized Buick and Olds wagons. They seemed less ostentatious as these, and more in tune with the times. I didn’t mind that they were less exclusive from the Chevs and Pontiacs.
So many overstyled and bloated intermediate and full sized wagons were offered domestically at the time. Meanwhile, the compact wagon market was left to AMC for years. No wonder the Aspen/Volare wagons sold so well at first.
I think a Granada station wagon would have made sense at the time, from a sales point of view. Even if it was a thoroughly dated platform. I suspect it likely would have outsold the coupe.
Great article, Paul—thanks for posting it.
IMO, it’s too bad GM didn’t build a Toronado wagon. The low load floor and lack of a driveshaft tunnel would’ve been great selling points against Ford’s wagons.
I hate to be pedantic, but the Suburban is 218.8 inches long, which makes it only 13 inches shorter than the 1975 Estate Wagon, not two feet. However, having learned to drive on a ’72 Monterey sedan and later putting tens of thousands of miles on mid-80s vintage Suburbans, I can authoritatively say that that the cavernous Suburban surely felt like it was way shorter than the 224 inch Mercury just by dint of its superior visibility. So, I think the overall point of the Suburban’s superior efficiency is definitely true.
I’ve really enjoyed Wagon Week. This post brought back memories of riding in my aunt’s avocado green with beige interior 1973 Pontiac Safari Wagon. She didn’t keep it long, though, as she purchased it just prior to Energy Crisis I and struggled to get double-digit mileage even on long highway trips. It got replaced with a ’74 Honda Civic, which must have been about the most polar opposite vehicle you could buy in the US at the time.
Oddly, the Suburban was not ever on my family’s vehicular radar in those days. My aunt continued her trailblazing (no pun intended) ways by getting a snazzy two-tone ’77 F-100 pickup as an adjunct to the Civic, which had been demoted to being flogged by my teen-aged cousins. The F-100 was the first “lifestyle” truck I ever encountered, although I recall it drove like the steering shaft was made of particularly wet rope, which is saying something given that my frame of reference at the time was a ’78 LeBaron. I suspect the reason the Suburban was not considered was that “truck” carried a rather downscale image for many back in the 1970s. At the time, my mother thought the F-100 was definitely tacky and probably would have rejected even a loaded, top o’ the line Suburban back then. I was just contemplating this irony a week or two ago when I happened to ride in a new, leather-lined, incredibly overpriced $60,000 2015 Suburban.
You’re right; I got a bit carried away on the Estate Wagon’s length…. fixed now.
The Clamshell Rear Hatch sounds similar to the Power Sliding Doors GM put in the U-Vans in the sense that if they broke, it typically isn’t worth the value of the vehicle to fix it.
Great article in great wagon week.
Ever since I saw a YT video of a clamshell tailgate, I want one… Alas, they are hard to come by in Europe, and even more ludicrous over here than in the US. Still, I think they are very cool.
Regarding the clamshell tailgate and its failing over time – could that be mitigated, at least to some extent, by regularly checking the inner mechanisms and cleaning/lubricating the parts?
In Europe? Where would one drive one of these? They are pretty big for European roads and I’ve put my share of miles on a Custom Cruiser.
They did work well for North America until the 1st gas crisis.
I don’t doubt some folks may have had problems with the tailgate but we never did and I don’t recall anyone else having problems with theirs, either the manual tailgate (like ours) or a power tailgate.
Bob
Yes, they are big, but if people can drive big vans and campers around in Europe, I don’t see why a fullsize US car would be impossible to drive here. Of course, not as easy to maneuver as a Golf, but still doable.
I gotta say, I’ve always thought the ’71-’76 GM fullsize cars were absurd, but through CC I’ve come to really love the style of the clamshell wagons. I think it was Perry who described them as something like the “Tomorrowland of cars” – a design for a completely imaginary future – and in that way they have the same sort of appeal as a ’57 Mercury Turnpike Cruiser or one of those other sci-fi influenced late ’50s cars.
You know what would make a great engine swap into one of these? The 2-Mode Hybrid drivetrain from the Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade. A 2WD Tahoe Hybrid weighs about 500lbs. more than a ’75 Buick Estate Wagon. The modern, alloy V8 and battery pack is probably only slightly heavier than the iron 455, and it makes way more power. The clamshell has a higher Cd but less frontal area, so I’m sure it could match or beat the Tahoe Hybrid’s 21city/23hwy rating. Imagine one of these gliding silently through traffic… and also having 370HP on tap? It would also need a ’70s-vintage “ECON” gauge hacked in place of the AutoStop tach, of course.
I’m fairly sure that I used to own the blue Custom Cruiser in the video clip of the tailgate operating. I remember the dent in the rear bumper. The fellow I sold it to is a very serious clamshell collector who has quite a fleet of them. I think that is him speaking in the video.
I emjoyed the Custom Cruiser for the time I had it, but I do not feel a great urgency to find another one. I was sort of hoping that it would be like having a 98 or a Sedan deVille with a really big trunk. Not really. The leaf spring rear gives very different and more trucklike ride and handling qualities. The cavernous rear and huge tailgate opening tends to pull road noise into the cabin. And the clamshells were not offered with the plush cloth or velour interiors found on 98s and Electras. The 1977-90 Olds and Buick box wagons could be ordered with interiors similar to their luxury sedan counterparts.
In college I had a 76 estate wagon, which I bought from the original owners in 1989. It was in Vermont, so the car was rusty but otherwise clean. I really liked that car and drove it to school in Ohio and out to Arizona when my family moved there. MPG 10-14 on the highway as I recall. What I didn’t care for was the tailgate. The window was frozen in the closed position. The power gate worked, but didn’t have the strength to lift itself well. You had to give it a hand with one hand while twisting the key switch with the other.
The one feature no one has mentioned, which I hated most on the car, was the exhaust pipe was routed UNDER the rear axle. To maximize the space for the third seat, there wasn’t enough room to run the pipe over the axle in the conventional way. The pipe would scrape the ground when the rear bottomed out or went over irregular pavement just right. When the rear was lifted for service, the axle would push down on the exhaust. It was the most awkward design ever. Sometimes on survivor cars, you’ll see people solve this problem by routing the tailpipe to end just ahead of the rear tire and thus not have to pass the axle at all. Inelegant but functional!
Here is an, ehem, unbiased wagonfilm….
I vividly remember the scramble to get in the rear seat of a friend’s mom’s clamshell – it wasn’t easy, even for a 10 year-old.
The funny thing is, forward-facing 3rd seats with a pivoting 2nd seat access was the standard for station wagons until Chrysler introduced the rear-facing third seat across its ’57 wagons, and it was considered a big advantage then.
But today, forward facing with pivoting access is the standard for minivans and 3-seat SUVs….
We had a couple of Mopar wagons growing up, a ’68 Sport Suburban, and a ’72 Coronet Crestwood. Both Sherwood Green Metallic with fake wood and green vinyl interiors. Only 2 seats, though. There was room for 3 kids in the back seat, and my parents liked to carry a lot of stuff!
In the film – “The rear air deflector moves air over the back window to keep it clean”… hardly – in a rainstorm, it would move every speck of dirt it can over the back window and get it real dirty. Further, without a rear window wiper, all that dirt is there for the duration of the ride.
Great film, in hindsight we have the benefit of seeing its deficiencies.
Nice write-up Paul. These obviously are my favorite wagons but I can see why the competing Country Squires sold so much better — the practical side of me wants a loaded ’73-’79 Country Squire in green or blue like this example.
For styling, I really like the 1965/66 Chrysler station wagons, and the 1965/66 Mercury station wagons. Also, the 1960 Ford station wagon, and the 1964 Buick Sport Wagon.
Chrysler
I dunno, Bill . . . The 1960-64 series always spoke to me a little more in terms of pure styling.
Yes, they are very nice as well.
Mercury
Ford
Chevy
I’m with you up to the last one, Bill Prince.
Great color combo & bright ww’s & wheel covers, but the vertical C-pillars on full size GM wagons seemed very stodgy to me…… even on the upscale & relatively rare Olds wagons.
Running from ’61-’64, they seemed go on forever …… in my adolescence.
GM’s spectacular ’65-restyling brought out a terrific Chevy wagon, shown in a photo in the article.
Imagine parking one of these Iowa class autoships on a Portland street, or in a parking lot! Would it even fit inside the garage of a recently built home? I never had the station wagon experience with my folks growing up, the closest thing we had was a VW westfalia weekender van. I don’t even think my friends or my cousins ever gave me a ride in one.
I would have taken one look at the clamshell doors. thought ‘cool!” and bought one. And checked every option I could. Or bought a small house, the payment would have been the same!
I almost hate to admit it, but for some reason I have started to like the Virgil Exner early 1960s space age Dodge Lancer and Plymouth Valiant station wagons. The rear roof overhang wing/s are sort of cool looking in combination with the reverse C pillar. I could not find a nice photo that shows the roof overhang with it’s center recess. Normally, I seem to like linear lines on a wagon. I like the dressed up and stately look – but it just depends on the overall effect. Fins combined with hardtop styling is very cool as well, such as the 1960 Polara wagon.
Polara – WOOOO!
Don’t forget that little old AMC put a good number of wagons on the road from the late 50’s through the 60’s, and gave some of them the Crosscountry nameplate that Volvo borrowed later on.
AMC built very useful 2 seat and 3 seat wagons, and while they didn’t build any behemoths, the ’70 Rebel wagon, for example, had more space inside than any other mid-size wagon. (And yes, you could get a 390 in it with a towing package, too!)
What a great selection of comments and information! Thank you all, gents. I love it. Just a note on SUBURBAN’s: Do you remember the 6.2 Liter Diesel for the GMC and Chevy Suburbans? When that engine came out, the over 5000-pound Suburban in two-wheel drive with Diesel power attained 30 MPG highway mileage. So, what did GM do? They stopped installing Diesel power in the big wagons and only offered it for the pickups. Downright shame.
Bulgemobile!
Clamshells are cool never mind it goes wrong now and then, theres a 75 Chev in a local funeral parlour fleet with the clamshell set up I’d take it off their hands any day.
In October of 1972, Mom, Dad and I visited the local suburban Olds dealer; looking at a possible 1973 replacement for Mom’s “Suburban Status Symbol” AKA her 1966 Ford Country Sedan wagon. (The other 3 kids were banned from the outing because “they were too noisy” and Dad couldn’t concentrate with them all yapping in the back).
It took three tries for the salesman to get the rear window to retract/appear flawlessly up into the roof. The clam shell tailgate stuck on the second try. This on a brand new car with 6 miles on it.
With my reluctant Father sitting in the shotgun seat (and their smirking son in the back seat) Mom cautiously pulled this behemoth out of the parking lot, into the thick oncoming Saturday afternoon traffic on Veterans Highway. The 455 V8 bogged and died, with the first 4 feet of the wagon stuck out in traffic. A small cry of fear escaped from Mom’s lips. (“Smog controls”, the salesman sighed.)
Pulling back into the dealer’s lot, Dad lightly scraped the right front bumper rub strip of the 5 mph bumper on a light pole, misjudging the width and length of this monster. (And he thought that “Mom’s wagon” was huge!!)
As we all climbed out and stared at the 3/4 view of this …disappointing….station wagon, the salesman said “Shall we go inside and write it up?”
Dad stared at me, Mom and finally the salesman, silently shook his head back and forth twice no, and quietly walked away, sitting in the driver’s seat of the Ford and imperiously motioning to Mom and me to get in. Mom made her polite “June Cleaver” farewell to the salesman and we all quietly drove home, all lost in our own individual thoughts.
Dad and I spent the next weekend washing, waxing and tuning up the Ford. It never looked or drove so good!
Minor rear end collisions rendered the clam-shell tailgates inoperable…and hideously costly to repair. More than one of these GM wagons was ‘totalled’ by the insurance company when it sustained major damage when nearly new.
These wagons used a “transmission” to control the simultaneous movement of the glass and tailgate and that was generally the culprit that caused operational issues. The window track and rollers were a problem too – sometimes silicone spray on the window track would help the glass to move more freely.
As an aside, in 1974 Chevrolet started using a dual exhaust system on 454 C.I. equipped models (the dual system had existed on the 454 equipped sedans & hardtops but not the station wagons). This set-up continued in 1975 & 1976 but now with a single catalytic converter cut into the dual system. What a nightmare of “Y” pipes, mufflers,extension pipes,resonators, transverse tailpipes and hangers. The exhaust system must have cost as much to produce as the larger engine choice.
Thanks for re-posting this article. I just spent a lovely ten minutes showing my 8-year-old son how many people could fit in station wagons (his face was a picture!). We then moved on to the miracle of Citroen CX hydropneumatic suspension, and even further down the rabbit hole when we ended up at the 1980s CX ad with Grace Jones’ head rising out the ground and vomiting a CX onto the road 😀 I’m hoping it inspires him to love cars as much as I do.
I grew up in the 1960s and my Dad embraced the station wagon as the family vehicle of choice. Like many parents of the 1950’s my folks feared that their young offspring might fall out of the rear doors of a sedan, so they chose two door ’55 then ’59 Chevies. My Dad saw a used Corvair Greenbrier van with a little table in the second row and decided that would be a good choice for our family trip to Mexico. Although it was pretty roomy it was underpowered and threw fan belts like a demon. Next choice was a new ’64 Pontiac Tempest wagon. This seemed to fill his needs perfectly. He had a side business repairing televisions and he needed something to haul them home to his shop. The fold down tail gate was important as it allowed a longer load to be carried. Also some things could be carried upright on the tailgate itself. That would be a failing of the later clamshells.
We did not routinely ride in the back of the wagon. There was only three kids in the family so there was no need. Another popular option of the time was the pick up with camper shell. Many families stuffed their kids in the cargo bed, hopefully with some added carpeting. I think that my parents also realized that it was potentially more dangerous to ride back there. Like many families at the time, we only had one car, so a truck wouldn’t have been a good vehicle if my folks needed to haul the in laws around.
Once the kids were grown and gone my Dad did buy himself a new ’75 Chevy stepside pick up. He usually also kept a wagon around. When he passed away he had an ’81 Chevy Malibu wagon and that step side. My Dad had quite a few different wagons over the years and I got to drive them all. My favorite was a ’68 Pontiac LeMans wagon. Like the ’64, it reminded me of the GTO of the era.
When I had my own family we went the mini van route for twenty years. I felt that the minivans were much more convenient for third row passengers. The down side is that it was chore to remove and store my ’90 Dodge Caravan and ’96 Town and Country second and third row seats when I needed more cargo space. This problem wasn’t addressed for quite awhile until “Stow and Go” was adopted.
The picture below shows how the complete GTO look could be applied to these wagons.
As a cargo hauler – at the time, a buyer would have a full size wagon to choose from, a Suburban-like truck, or a Van of some kind. The wagon would have won most family debates over which car to buy as a family hauler. That is, until the minivan was invented/introduced to the market. The minivan was obviously the death of the large station wagon. Minivans were/are superior to station wagons in capacity, ergonomics of storing actual cargo, and passenger capacity unless matched against a 9 passenger wagon of days gone by. I wonder if wagons had been taller, if they would have staved off the minivan revolution.
Turns out this post evokes Lee Iacocca once again.
Happy Independence Day to my U.S. friends.
The mini-van was the death of the full sized wagon for reasons that most don’t understand. The full sized wagon was designed around hauling 4×8 sheets of plywood that most people would never haul anyway, and towing, which most people didn’t, and hauling passengers, which some actually did. The mini-van gave up on the idea of hauling plywood that no one was hauling and towing potential things that they usually didn’t and focused on passengers in a much more efficient package.
Correct. I never expected to haul 4X8 sheets of anything with my minivan, but I did when the need arose. I bought it to conveniently drive my family around, and the occasional friend or two, or my kids’ grandparents. It deported itself magnificently in all those occasions. On the other hand, had minivans not ever been available to me, I doubt I could have afforded a nice big wagon, so would have had to settle for an intermediate 4 door such as a Malibu or Satellite.
This makes me think of this:
My son’s a heavy diesel fitter working in locomotive maintenance. While an EMD V16 won’t fit, he reckons there’s space in that ‘engine storage facility’ for one of the boilermakers to cobble up an all-Buick V16 block. Take that, Ford! 🙂
Why is it that GM never copied the hidden, rear window, 90 degree ram airflow deflectors that Ford had since 1965?
These subtle, hidden air deflectors scooped fresh air from the dual facing seat side windows and pushed it across the often open rear tailgate window, eliminating any gasoline/engine fumes from the exhaust system entering the rear seat/cargo area.
Perhaps GM was counting on everyone using the air conditioner in their big wagon?
The ’59 Ford ad was irresponsible even by ’59 standards. You’re supposed to stop for a fire engine, not race with it!
You are right but, this ad made me pause. I remember the old hook and ladder trucks, but one day I stopped seeing them and I can only guess when it was.
Great write up on the ultimate wagon! I’m a fan of station wagons, but a clam shell does not appeal to me, perhaps it’s because I owned a GM with horrific gas mileage- a ‘68 Toronado (without the extra doors). A 1965 Buick Sport Wagon and ‘77-‘90 Buick Estate are my favorite GM station wagons.
I wonder if Ford’s inspiration for the 1965 twin facing rear seats (which aren’t that comfortable) came from the Citroen DS Break which introduced them in 1958?
One of our neighbors growing up in Wisconsin in the 1970’s traded in a 1967 full-sized Dodge Wagon for a new ‘73 Suburban (they were only a family of four). As a kid I really liked the restyled ‘73 Chevy big trucks, it’s probably the only Suburban I ever liked too.
Looking at that rear roof line shows a missed opportunity to install Vista Cruiser style windows, even if it meant raising the roof slightly.
I actually rode in one of those as a kid, a family we carpooled with bought one that that had been a dealership owner’s demo with every possible option and that same green interior. The detail I remember most was a dinky little extra dome light on the roof where a rear view mirror base would have been if the mirror hadn’t been glued to the windshield. Naturally this rig also had power everything and cigarette lighters in the rear door ashtrays like any good 70s luxo-barge.
That weird option is a “map light” and only has power when the ignition switch is in “run”. It was also offered on the Buick Colonnades although the housing differs between the two car lines. AFAIK*, it was not offered on the other GM marques even though the mounting holes are there.
I may have seen one of these on a Monte Carlo but it’s been a long time & my memory is fuzzy.
Took my wife to the hospital to have our first kid in a VW Bug. Picked them up in a ’72 Estate Wagon. Kind of a mistake, because instead of taking everything we needed when we traveled with kidlet, the Buick allowed us to take everything we had.
It was the three-seat model, dark green with a tan interior. Looked good and was comfortable. However, the registration said it weighed 5,300 pounds. It ran on ambulance tires. The best over-the-highway mileage I ever attained was 13. When driven on short trips around town in winter, it could achieve 2 mpg. Driving it twice a day to work, a mile away, the 26 gallon tank was a little less than half-full in a week.
Seeing a leather biker jacket in the rear seat reminded me these wagons, especially the Custom Cruiser and Estate were popular with Harley bikers in the 1980’s as they hit the used car market. With the seats folded down or maybe removed, they could transport a Harley inside. Being big, over-the-top cruisers appealed to those guys, with glass-pack mufflers, the 455 did sound bad-ass too. Never folks to shy away from excess, bet GM never considered bikers as a demographic for these behemoths.
Was this the first car to use glass that covered/masked body structure? I’d forgotten how thick those D pillars actually were, and how odd the rear of these wagons would look if the cargo area windows actually filled in the space.
We never had a clamshell growing up, but relatives and friends did, and what I remember is how thin the 2nd row seat seemed, and the contortions required of even a pack of Cub Scouts to make it back to the third seat.
We had a 1973 Buick Estate Wagon when I was in high school and I loved that thing. It was my own land yacht and it made the best car for trips to the drive in movies. I know some like to have a tailgate but I am short as heck and reaching over that thing to grab something that had slid all the way forward was a pain. The technology for that era was pure imagination and inspired. If I ever find a 73 Buick Estate Wagon for sale, even if it needs fully restored, I would buy it in a heartbeat. I would also settle for a 71 through 75 but 73 is my target year. In the mid 90s I drove that thing to school unapologetically and if I ever find another one I will drive it every where I can without a care in the world. Best car of my childhood right there.
Ultimate enough, but my gawd, man, why are there are only 3 “portholes” on the side? A quick Google image search indicates the ’71 – 74s all had the full 4-hole treatment.
I do not understand. There’s room for a 4th hole in that fender. I mean, this is a freakin’ Estate Wagon! Sportswagons have 3. What the….?
(Out of sequence, apologies. Rich’s ’73 “non-vista” Cruiser article dragged me here)